v>EPA
           ••I States
           inmental Protf
          Agency

          Rese;
-------
                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-600/2-78-116
                                          July 1978
THE COUPLED TRICKLING FILTER-ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS:
               DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE
                           by
                   Richard J.  Stenquist
                     Denny S. Parker
         Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers
              Walnut Creek, California 94596

               William E. Loftin, Consultant
                    City of Livermore
                LLvermore, California 94550
                Contract No. 68-03-2175
                     Project Officer

                    Richard C. Brenner
              Wastewater Research Division
        Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
    MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
          OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268

-------
                            DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S . Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                ii

-------
                              FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water,  and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
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 municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic,  social, health,  and aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publica-
tion is one of the products  of that research; a most vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.

This  case history report illustrates the combined use of careful long-range
planning and technical ingenuity in upgrading an existing conventional
trickling filter plant to increase capacity and meet more stringent effluent
discharge requirements.  No existing facilities were abandoned in the
upgrading process. The procedures described herein are recommended  for
consideration by other engineers faced with similar upgrading situations.
                                        Francis T. Mayo, Director
                                        Municipal Environmental Research
                                        Laboratory
                                  iii

-------
                               ABSTRACT
A case history report was prepared on the upgrading of the Livermore,
California, Water Reclamation Plant from a conventional trickling filter
plant with tertiary oxidation ponds to a coupled trickling filter-activated
sludge plant producing a nitrified effluent low in BOD$, suspended solids,
and coliform organisms.

The report covers planning, design, construction, startup, and operation
and performance of the upgraded Livermore plant.  Capital costs and opera-
tion and maintenance expenses are also given.  Data and information from
Livermore were used in conjunction with data from other coupled trickling
filter-activated sludge plants  to develop general design considerations for
carrying out similar upgradings elsewhere.

Over 7 yr of operating records from Livermore show that the coupled trickling
filter-activated sludge process is extremely stable and reliable.  Effluent
BODs and suspended solids concentrations of 10 to 20 mg/1 can be obtained,
along with ammonia nitrogen concentrations less than 1 mg/1.   Monthly
median total coliform concentrations of 2.1 MPN/100 ml were consistently
achieved at  Livermore using high chlorine dosages and a chlorine contact
tank with good hydraulic characteristics.

The coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process is particularly
adaptable to existing conventional trickling filter plants where  stringent,
new discharge requirements have been imposed and where  existing structures
and equipment are in good condition and can be used in an upgraded facility.
Principal design considerations are aeration tank size, aeration air supply,
flexibility, reliability, and efficient use of existing facilities.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.  68-03-2175 by
Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers, under the  sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Plant operating and performance
data are included in this case history report for the period of January 1968
through December 1974.
                                  iv

-------
                              CONTENTS

Foreword	     iii
Abstract	     iv
Figures	     vii
Tables	     xi
Acknowledgments	    xiii

     1.   Introduction	      1
             Objectives and Scope	      4
             Outline of Report	      4
     2.   Conclusions	      6
     3.   Recommendations	      9
     4.   Background	     10
     5.   Design	     16
             Process Design	     16
             Physical Design . .  . /	     22
     6.   Construction	     33
             Preconstruction Activities	     33
             Construction Activities	     34
             Construction Sequence	     40
             Progress Payments	     50
             Accidents	     52
             Completion	     52
     7.   Plant Startup and Initial Operating Period	     54
             Preparation for Startup	     54
             Startup of Activated Sludge System	     55
             Initial Operational Period	     58
     8.   Plant Operation and Performance	     62
             Sampling Methods and Locations	     64
             Plant Performance Summary	     67
             Operation of Plant Components	     69
             Operation and  Performance  Evaluation Summary ...    108
     9.   Treatment Costs	    114
             Capital Costs	    114
             Operation and  Maintenance Costs	    115
             Total Annual Cost	    117
                                  v

-------
                        CONTENTS (continued)
   10.   General Design Considerations	   119
             Additional Trickling Filter-Activated Sludge
                Plants	   119
             Nitrification Kinetics in the Coupled Trickling
                Filter-Activated Sludge Process	   133
             Design Considerations	   139

References	   158
Appendices
                                  vi

-------
                                FIGURES

Number                                                            Page

   1     Location of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant	     2

   2     Aerial view of Livermore - Amador Valley	     3

   3     Aerial view of upgraded Livermore Water Reclamation
            Plant	     7
   4     Flow diagram for original Livermore plant	    12

   5     Layout of original Livermore plant	    12

   6     Flow diagram for upgraded Livermore Water Reclamation
            Plant	'	    17

   7     Layout of upgraded Livermore plant	    23

   8     Filter circulation sump in original plant	    24

   9     Filter circulation sump in upgraded plant	    26

  10     Schematic diagram for filter circulation sump
            modification	    28

  11     Possible  modifications for activated sludge feed	    29

  12     Mixed liquor wasting tank	    30

  13     Piping diagram for original plant	    31

  14     Piping diagram for upgraded plant	    32

  15     Aeration diffusers	    38

  16     Construction activity	    42
                                   vii

-------
                          FIGURES (continued)




Number                                                         Page
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

29
30
31
32

33

34

Aeration blower equipment 	
Aeration tank reinforcing steel placement in progress . . .
Secondary clarifier structure and mechanical equipment . .
Chlorine storage area 	
Progress payment rates for major construction items . . .
Cumulative progress payments 	
Startup sequence for activated sludge process 	
Activated sludge aeration tank in operation 	
Ammonia nitrogen removal and blower operation 	
Photoelectric probe for sensing sludge blanket height . . .
Photoelectric probe being lowered into secondary
clarifier . . 	 	
Operations building, Livermore Water Reclamation
Plant 	

Demonstration of manual sampling technique 	
Plant analytical laboratory 	
Probability curves for secondary and final effluent
BOD5 	
Probability curves for secondary effluent ammonia
nitrogen 	
Probability curve for final effluent total coliform
organisms 	
44
45
46
47
51
52
56
57
59
60

60

63
63
66
66

70

71

72
                                 viii

-------
                          FIGURES (continued)

Number                                                           Page

  35     Monthly average, peak-day, and minimum-day flows . .       74

  36     Probability curve for peak-to-average flow ratio   ....       75

  37     Typical diurnal flow variation	       76

  38     Primary sedimentation tanks	       77

  39     Primary clarifier performance	       78

  40     Effect of settling on trickling filter effluent BOD5 ....       81

  41     Flow and loading to aeration tank	       85

  42     Aeration tank dissolved oxygen levels	       86

  43     Mixed liquor leaving aeration tank over a circular
            weir	-	       88

  44     Constant-head tank in the mixed liquor  line for
            wasting activated sludge	       89

  45     Secondary clarifier	       93

  46     Secondary clarifier performance versus hydraulic
            loading	       94

  47     Secondary clarifier performance versus solids
            loading	       94

  48     Original chlorination control system	       95

  49     Relative amounts of HOC1 and OCl at various pH
            levels	       97

  50     Disinfection performance	       98

  51     Chlorine contact tank	       99

  52     Residence time distribution for chlorine contact tank  . .      100
                                    ix

-------
                          FIGURES  (continued)

Number                                                          Page

  53     Digester gas production	      104

  54     Sludge lagoons	      105

  55     Typical annual reclamation pattern	      107

  56     Flow and annual operating parameters	      118

  57     Lompoc, California, Regional Waste water
           Reclamation Plant flow diagram	      122

  58 ~     Corvallis, Oregon, wastewater treatment plant flow
           diagram	      125

  59    El Lago, Texas, wastewater treatment plant flow
           diagram	      126

  60    San Pablo, California, wastewater treatment plant
           flow diagram	      129

  61     Effect of solids retention time on effluent ammonia
           concentration and nitrification efficiency	      139

  62     Relation between ammonia nitrogen peaking and
           hydraulic peaking  for treatment plants with no in-
           process flow equalization	      148

  63     Air requirements for oxidation of carbonaceous and
           nitrogenous oxygen demand	      152

-------
                              TABLES




Number                                                      Page
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15

16
Design Data for Original Livermore Plant 	
Performance of Original Plant, 1964 	
Design Data for Upgraded Livermore Water
Reclamation Plant 	
Bid Tabulation 	

Contract Price Breakdown . . .„ 	
Rainfall and Evaporation During Construction Period . . .
Total Construction Cost 	
Plant Performance: April- December 1967 	
Principal Sampling Methods and Locations 	
Wastewater Characteristics Analyzed at Principal
Sampling Points 	
Performance Summary 	
Trickling Filter Performance Summary, 1971 	
Trickling Filter BOD5 Removal 	
Trickling Filter Performance — Effect of Removing One
Filter from Service 	
Activated Sludge Performance Summary, 1971 	
13
15

18
34
35
36
41
53
58
65

67
68
79
82

83
84
                                xi

-------
                           TABLES (continued)

Number                                                          Page

  17     Summary of pH Chlorination Control Studies	      99

  18     Disinfection  Summary	    101

  19     Solids Handling and Treatment Summary	    102

  20     Design and Performance	    109

  21     Estimated Cost for Expansion of Original Livermore
            Plant to 5.0 mgd (0.22 m /sec)  Without Upgrading  . .    115

  22     Operation and Maintenance Costs, Livermore Water
           Reclamation Plant	    116

  23    Work Load Distribution	    116

  24    Initial Performance of El Lago Treatment Plant — June 4
           Through July 6, 1973	    127

  25    Subsequent Performance of El Lago Treatment Plant
           — October 1  Through October 31, 1974	    128

  26    Performance Data for San Pablo Wastewater Treatment
           Plant — July 1973 Through June 1974	    130

  27    Design Criteria for Upgraded Plants	    131
                                  xii

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was undertaken for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-03-2175 by Brown and Caldwell, Consulting
Engineers, Walnut Creek, California.  Richard J. Stenquist and Denny S.
Parker are project engineer and vice president, respectively, for  Brown
and Caldwell.  William E.  Loftin is  Superintendent of the Livermore Water
Reclamation Plant and acted as special consultant for the study.  Richard
C. Brenner was EPA Project Officer.

Other individuals at Brown and Caldwell who participated in design and
construction of the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant and who contributed
to this study are  David  H.  Caldwell, David L. Eisenhauer, Nestor D.
Vivado, and Warren R. Uhte.  We are particularly indebted to the City of
Livermore and the staff  of the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant  for
information and assistance provided during the course of the  study.
                                 xlii

-------
                               SECTION 1

                             INTRODUCTION
    Current emphasis in the United States on reducing the level of contam-
inants in wastewater effluents has resulted in many communities finding that
their wastewater treatment facilities, although well designed, constructed,
and operated, cannot meet the stringent, new discharge requirements imposed
by regulatory agencies.  It is sometimes more economical to abandon recently
constructed facilities  in favor of completely new plants designed to provide
better treatment, but often it is  possible to incorporate all or part of existing
plants into upgraded facilities capable of producing the high quality effluent
required today.

     Trickling filters using rock media have long been a common form of
biological treatment in the United States.  Used mostly in small and moderate
size communities, they are capable of providing good removal of organic con-
taminants and are noted as being stable, reliable, and economical. By them-
selves, however, rock trickling filters (preceded by primary treatment) cannot
provide the high effluent quality often required today.  Discharge requirements
often specify much lower levels of 6005, suspended solids, and coliform
organisms than in the  past, and ammonia, nutrient, and toxicity removal may
also be required.

    For a community utilizing trickling filtration, the most economical way to
meet more stringent discharge requirements  may be to incorporate the existing
filters in an upgraded  facility.   The reliability, resistance to upsets, and
efficient organic removal provided by trickling filters can be used to advan-
tage in developing a treatment scheme to consistently and economically pro-
duce a high quality effluent.

    The City of Livermore, California (Figures 1  and 2), followed such a
course in upgrading its wastewater treatment facility to meet new disinfection
requirements imposed  in 1965 by the California Regional Water Pollution Con-
trol Board, San Francisco Bay Region.  Livermore is located approximately  70
km (45 mi) east of San Francisco in an area  where rapid urbanization over the
last 30 yr has led to serious water and wastewater management problems.
The Livermore-Amador Valley contains the city of Livermore, the nearby Uni-
versity of California Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the city of Pleasanton,

-------
                                           02468
                                           nsa
                                           SCALE IN MILES
     SAN
  FRANCISCO
                                                         WATERSHED
                                                         BOUNDARY,
                                                       ALAMEDA CREEK
                                                        ABOVE MILES
                                                      SANTA CLARA COUNTY
           Figure 1.  Location of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant.
and the unincorporated communities of Dublin and San Ramon.  The valley is
part of the Alameda Creek watershed above the Niles  district of the City of
Fremont, California, and has an area of approximately 1,700 km2 (660 mi2).
Although Alameda Creek is tributary to San Francisco  Bay, much of the concern
over water quality centers on the creek itself and on the Niles  cone, a ground-
water basin which is recharged by waters flowing from Alameda Creek.  In-
creased use of local surface water and groundwaters in the Livermore-Amador
Valley, coupled with increased wastewater flows, has resulted in salinity
increases in downstream waters and concern for possible health problems
resulting from recreational use of local streams.

     As part of a multifaceted effort to improve water quality in the area, the
Regional Water Pollution Control Board adopted on July  15, 1965,  stringent
new discharge requirements  for the City of Livermore's  wastewater treatment

-------
               Figure 2.  Aerial view of Livermore - Amador
                         Valley.  Rapid urbanization in
                         recent years has led to serious
                         water quality problems.
plant (Resolution No. 683, see Appendix B).  These discharge requirements
included a provision that the 5-day median total coliform concentration not
exceed 5.0 MPN/100 ml.  To meet this requirement, the existing Livermore
plant, during expansion from an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of
0.11 m3/sec (2.5 mgd)  to 0.22 m3/sec (5.0 mgd),  was upgraded from a con-
ventional trickling filter system to a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge
plant capable of producing a nitrified effluent which can be economically dis-
infected  to the  required level.

     This report has been prepared to describe the upgrading of the Livermore
plant, including planning, design, construction, startup, and operation and
performance over a 7-yr period from January 1968 through December 1974.

-------
Construction and operating costs are also presented, along with general
design considerations for upgrading trickling filter plants to the coupled
trickling filter-activated sludge mode.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

     This review of the Livermore plant upgrading has been undertaken to
make available information which may be useful to communities and engineer-
ing consultants  who are faced with situations similar to that which occurred
at Livermore. Because the upgraded Livermore Water Reclamation Plant has
been in operation since 1967, a substantial quantity of operating data are
available for study so that a detailed evaluation of plant performance can be
developed.

     Specific objectives are identified as follows:

     1.   Present information on conversion to the  upgraded facility.  This
         includes preliminary planning,  detailed design, construction, and
         capital costs.  Special emphasis is given to incorporation of nitri-
         fication in the  process flow sheet and the relationship between the
         added activated sludge unit and other unit processes.

     2.   Review operation of the upgraded plant.  Difficulties encountered  in
         startup and operation are discussed, along with operational tech-
         niques  developed to counter such problems.  Performance data for
         the startup period and the 7-yr operational period that followed are
         presented.  Particular attention is  given to comparing performance
         with design objectives.  Operation and maintenance costs are also
         documented.

     3.   Develop general design considerations for upgrading conventional
         trickling filter plants to the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge
         operational mode.  Experience from the Livermore plant is empha-
         sized,  but information from other planned or constructed  plants with
         similar flow sheets is also utilized. Special emphasis is given to
         process design for nitrification in the activated sludge unit.
OUTLINE OF REPORT

    This report has been organized to present first a chronological history of
the Livermore plant and then to discuss specific aspects of plant operation
and performance before setting out general design considerations.  Sections 4
through 8 review the background, design, construction, startup, and operation
of the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant.  The specific task of comparing

-------
performance with design objectives is also covered in Section 8.  Section 9
reviews in detail both capital and operating costs for the Livermore plant.
Information developed in Sections 4 through 9 is then augmented by informa-
tion from other sources  for presentation in Section 10, General Design Con-
siderations.

-------
                               SECTION 2

                             CONCLUSIONS
     Use of the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process for biologi-
cal waste water treatment at Livermore, California, has resulted in reliable,
consistent production of a wastewater effluent low in BOD5, suspended sol-
ids, ammonia nitrogen, and coliform organisms.  Constructed on the site of
a conventional rock media trickling filter plant, the upgraded plant (Figure 3)
utilized many portions of the original facility. The excellent performance of
the plant since it was placed in operation in 1967 suggests that the coupled
trickling filter-activated sludge process should be considered by communities
which operate existing trickling filter plants that cannot meet new,  more
stringent discharge requirements imposed by regulatory agencies.

     The trickling filter acts as a roughing filter ahead of the activated sludge
process to  remove carbonaceous oxygen demand.  Nitrification  in the aeration
tank removes ammonia nitrogen from the waste stream and further reduces  the
carbonaceous  BOD.  The principal advantage of the roughing filter is the pro-
tection it provides for the more easily upset activated sludge process and for
the nitrifying organisms which are susceptible to toxic materials.  Acting as
a buffer, it ensures a stability of operation that is not associated with the
activated sludge process alone.  Where existing facilities are in good condi-
tion and space is available, upgrading to the coupled trickling  filter-acti-
vated sludge process can be undertaken to provide nitrification, either where
ammonia nitrogen removal is desired or ahead of subsequent denitrification
for nitrogen removal.

     Specific conclusions can be drawn from the operation of the Livermore
Water Reclamation Plant, from recent designs of other coupled trickling filter-
activated sludge plants, and from the nitrification  process kinetics of the
trickling filter-activated sludge process:

     1.  Secondary effluent BOD^ and suspended solids concentrations
        of 10 to 20 mg/1 can be obtained with the coupled trickling
        filter-activated sludge process, along with ammonia nitrogen
        concentrations of less than 1 mg/1  (nitrification at Livermore
        may have been limited by an inadequate air supply).  Monthly
        median total coliform organism concentrations of 2.1 MPN/100 ml

-------
Aerial view of upgraded Livermore Water
Reclamation  Plant.  Plant was upgraded
by placing an activated sludge unit
between rock media trickling filters and
secondary clarifier in flow diagram.

-------
    and 7-day medians of 5.0 MPN/100 ml can also be consistently
    obtained if the coupled process is combined with efficient disin-
    fection.

2.  In designing solids handling facilities for an upgraded plant, account
    must be taken of the increased solids production associated with in-
    creased BOD removal and the associated difficulty in dewatering the
    waste activated sludge produced.

3.  Use of emergency holding basins can ensure that discharge of in-
    adequately treated effluent will not occur during periods when
    process units are shut down. Existing oxidation ponds can often
    be  modified for use as holding basins.

4.  As  existing secondary clarifiers will normally need to be modified
    substantially to accommodate the activated sludge process, it may
    be  economical to convert them to other uses in the upgraded plant
    and to construct new  secondary clarifiers.  Possible conversions
    include primary sedimentation,  sludge thickening, and chlorine
    contact.

5.  The most efficient use of existing facilities will differ for each
    individual case,  and  considerable ingenuity may be required to
    determine the best approach.

6,  The characteristics of unsettled trickling filter effluent have not
    been studied extensively; this  hinders the application of rational
    design methods to the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge
    process.
                                8

-------
                               SECTION 3

                          RECOMMENDATIONS
    This study has shown that the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge
process as used at Livermore, California, is an extremely stable wastewater
treatment process  capable of producing a nitrified effluent low in BOD5 and
suspended solids.  Principal recommendations for future study pertain to the
necessity of developing information for use in process design of the coupled
trickling filter-activated sludge system.  Specifically, the characteristics of
unsettled trickling filter effluent must be better defined in order to fully de-
velop a rational design procedure for the  process.

    Measurements of biochemical oxygen demand on unsettled  trickling filter
effluent will reflect both unoxidized waste material passing through the trick-
ling filter and biological solids sloughed from the filter media.   Data from
Livermore indicate that a reasonable estimate  is that 50 percent of the BODs
measured on an unsettled sample is due to sloughed material, but further
evaluation is needed.

    Further work is also needed to predict the quantity of organisms entering
the aeration tank from the trickling filter  and whether they can be treated in
the same manner as organisms which grow in the aeration tank.  In  this report
a net yield coefficient is applied to the BOD5  removed in the roughing filter to
obtain a value for cell concentration entering the aeration tank. Values for
this net yield coefficient should be determined as well as decay rate  coeffi-
cients for cells in the aeration tank.

-------
                               SECTION 4

                             BACKGROUND
     The City of Livermore, California, was first settled in 1869 when the
Southern Pacific Railroad constructed a depot in the area.  Named after one
of its early settlers, Robert Livermore, the City was incorporated 7 yr later
in 1876.  The City was mostly a farming community in its early days  with
grain and cattle its main commodities, and even today agricultural activity
remains an important part of the area's economy.  Prior to  1927 sewage treat-
ment was effected in a community septic tank with discharge to land. In that
year an Imhoff tank and percolation beds were constructed west of the City
The plant was expanded in 1942 by the addition of a comminutor and a primary
clarifier* operating in parallel with the Imhoff tank.

     After World War II, the City and the Livermore-Amador Valley experienced
the rapid growth associated with the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole.  This
resulted in overloading of the treatment plant with consequent  odor problems,
principally from sludge disposal.  Additionally, wells near the disposal area
were found to contain 40 to 60 mg/1 of nitrate,  posing a possible public
health hazard. Nominal capacity of the treatment plant was 0.025 mVsec
(0.58 mgd), and development in the Livermore area was being hindered by
lack of adequate wastewater treatment and disposal facilities.

     In 1956,the City began development of a plan for construction of new
treatment and disposal facilities and improvements to the existing sewerage
system.  The resulting facility, designed by Brown and Caldwell, Consulting
Engineers, was a O.ll-m^/sec (2.5-mgd) plant located approximately 3 km
(2 mi) west of the city center on existing farmlands.  Plant units consisted of
preliminary treatment, primary clarification, trickling filtration, secondary
clarification (in clarifiers intended for conversion to primary sedimentation
tanks during future expansion), and tertiary oxidation ponds.   The layout of
the plant as well as the sizing of many units was based on expected ultimate
expansion to an average dry weather flow of 0.44 m^/sec (10 mgd) with
*The terms "clarifier" and "sedimentation tank" are used synonymously in
 this report.


                                    10

-------
hydraulic capacity for 1.6 mVsec (36 mgd).  The flow diagram and layout for
the original plant are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.  Design data
are presented in Table 1.

    Design 6005 and suspended solids removals were 85 percent for primary
plus secondary treatment; these removals corresponded to secondary effluent
concentrations  of 50 mg/1 for BODs and 35 mg/1 for suspended solids.  Plant
performance data for  1964 are showi in Table 2.  Discharge requirements for
the original plant are presented in Appendix A (Regional Water Pollution Con-
trol Board Resolution  No. 239, adopted March 21, 1957).

    The  plant was put into operation in 1957.  Although under design condi-
tions  effluent was to  be discharged from the ponds to Arroyo Las Positas
(which is tributary to Alameda Creek), high percolation and evaporation rates
from the  oxidation ponds prevented any surface discharge for several years.
In late 1962 and in 1963  increased flows coupled with clogging of the infiltra-
tive surfaces in the ponds resulted in periodic discharges to the sometimes
dry stream. Complaints  about color and detergent foaming in the receiving
waters occurred immediately.   At this time a chlorine contact tank was added
to the flow diagram ahead of the oxidation ponds to provide disinfection.

    A fortuitous coincidence was the cessation of nonbiodegradable detergent
(alkylbenzenesulfonate or ABS) manufacturing in the United States. Substitu-
tion of linear alkylate sulfonate (LAS) in home laundry detergents resulted in
elimination of the foaming problem within a few months.

     In the period 1963-65,  the City's population grew rapidly at an annual rate
of 15-20 percent.  In April 1964,a feasibility study prepared for the City by
Brown and Caldwell recommended expansion of the existing plant to 0.22 m3/
sec (5.0 mgd) capacity utilizing essentially the same treatment scheme.

    However, because of the  surface water quality problems which had re-
cently occurred, subsequent discharge requirements  issued in July  1965 by
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Pollution Control Board (Appendix B)
called for effluent BOD^  and suspended solids concentrations  of 20 mg/1;
grease, 5 mg/1; settleable solids, 0.5 ml/1;  and total coliforms, 5.0 MPN/
100 ml, based on a 5-day median.  (The  disinfection requirement was subse-
quently changed in 1971  to 2.2 MPN/100 ml, based on a 7-day median.)

    The  disinfection  requirement was unusually stringent and  for effluent
from a conventional secondary  treatment  plant would have required the addi-
tion of sufficient chlorine to react with all the ammonia present in the waste-
water in  order to produce free  chlorine residuals.  The result would have been
high operating costs and possible  adverse side effects such as odors and toxic
effects in receiving waters.
                                      11

-------
EAST
TRUNK 39'


METERING
	 TV<2'x1
Tw*(
i |
i
!L
i .
T^


PREAERATION
TANKS



SECONDARY
SEDIMENTATION TANK
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION TANK


—
1



$ •
I 1


SECONDARY I
RETURN 1
CONTROL VALVE 1
^ 	 •
— *u

.-- — --^

I TRICKLING

                                                                                     DIVERSON STRUCTURE FOR
                                                                                     FUTURE CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
              BAR SCREENS    INFLUENT
                           PUMPS  SBIT _
                            (3)  WASHER
     SOUTH
     TRUNK
      2«*
      if
J RAW SLUDSE SUMP             """"
               SLUDGE CIRCULATION
T SLUDGE PUMPS ,	^PUMPSIZ)
    (2)
                        WASTE GAS
                      f~| BURNER
                                                                                                  EFFLUENT TO
                                                                                               ARROYO LAS POSITAS
                                                      GAS CIRCULATION PUMPS (Z)
FUTURE SLUDGE
 DRYING BEOS
                 Figure 4,   Flow diagram for original  Livermore plant.
                 OXIDATION POND NO.]
                                                                      SO    0 _    5O	\OO
                                                                        OXIDATION  POND NO 2
                                                            POND INLET
                                                            STRUCTURE
          SLU06E
          ORYIMO
           teas
 /         ^   /         \    	~I~_	

/   FUTURE    I  •    FUTURE    \       \
    FILTER       [    FILTER    I       I
\            I  \             It   FUTURE  SEDIMENTATION
 \           /  \           /       !        TANKS
                                                                                                      \
                                          I   FUTURE DIGESTERS  i
                                          \      >  \
                                                                                   WELL SLAB-)	1
                   Figure  5.   Layout of original Livermore plant.
                                                   12

-------
                TABLE  1.   DESIGN DATA FOR ORIGINAL LIVERMORE PLANT
Design Factor
                                                    Value
                                                                   Design Factor
                                                                                                                       Value
   Initial design, average dry weather
   Initial design, maximum dry weather
   Initial design, peak storm rate
   Future design, average dry weather
   Future design, maximum dry weather
   Future design, peak storm rate

Design Loadings
   Initial design, population equivalent
   Future design, population equivalent
   Suspended solids, Ib/day*5
     Per capita
     Initial design
     Future design
   BOD 5, lb/dayb
     Per capita
     Initial design
     Future design

Incoming Sewer
   Diameter, ln.cg
   Capacity, mgda

Bar Screens
   Number
     Initial design
     Future design
   Width, f^'1
   Water depth, (maximum) ft
   Water area, ft2 e
   Velocity through bar screen, ft/sec"
     Present minimum (one channel)
     Initial design, ADWF (one channel)
     Initial peak storm rate (one channel)
     Future design, ADWF (two channels)
     Future peak storm rate (two channels)

Parshall Flumes
   Number
   Throat width, ln.c
   Discharge head, ft4
     Present minimum (one channel)
     Initial design, ADWF (one channel)
     Initial peak storm rate (one channel)
     Future design, ADWF (two channels)
     Future peak storm rate (two channels)

Raw Sewage Pumps
   Number
   Capacity each, mgda
   Static lift, ftd
Preaeratlon Tanks
   Number
     Initial design '
     Future design
   Width,  ft?
   Length, ftd
   Average water depth, ft"1
   Detention time, hr (one tank)
   Air supplied per tank, ft3/mlnf-3
   Air supplied. ftVga!9
   Maximum hydraulic capacity,  mgda
    2.5
    4.5
   10.0
   10.0
   19.5
   36.0
 28,900
129,000

   0.15
  4,300
 19,000

   0.20
  5,800
 26,000
     42
     38
      1
      2
      4
    3.5
     14

    0.9
    1.5
    2.5
    1.3
    2.0
      2
     15

   0.25
   0.84
    2.1
    1.3
    3.1
      3
     12
     11
      2
      4
     19
     38
   11.7
    0.6
    200
   0.12
     10
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
   Number
     Initial design 4
     Future design
   Width, ftd
   Length, ft"1
   Average water depth, ft
   Effluent weir length per tank, ft'
   Detention time, hr
   Mean forward velocity, ft/mind
   Overflow rate at ADWF, gpd/ft2h
   Maximum hydraulic capacity, mgda
   Assumed removals, percent
     Suspended solids
     BOD5

Secondary Sedimentation Tanks
   Number
     Initial design 4
     Future design
   Width, ftd
   Length, ftd
   Average water depth, ft
   Detention time, hr

Trickling Filter Circulation Pumps
   Number
     Initial design
     Future design
   Maximum capacity per unit, mgda
     No. 1 (No's 3, 4, 6 future)
     No. 2 (No. 5 future)
   Average static lift, ft

Trickling Filters
   Number
     Initial design
     Future design
   Inside diameter, ft
   Average depth of filter media, ft
   Size of filter media,  ln.c
   Net area of filter surface,  ft26
   Volume, 1,000 ft3/filter£
   Circulation ratio to ADWF
   Loading
     Rate per filter, mgda
     Rate per unit surface area, gpd/ft
     BGDr,  lb/1,000 ftVday1
   Assumed removal, filter plus secondary
    sedimentation, percent
     Suspended solids
     BOD 5

Oxidation Ponds
   Total area, acres'
     Initial design
     Future design
   Average water depth, ft
   Detention time, days (neglecting evaporation
    and seepage)
     At design ADWF (2.5 mgda)
     At future ADWF (10.0 mgda)
   BOD5 loading, Ib/acre/day*
     Initial design
     Future design
        2
        4
       19
      124
        9
      164
      1.5
      1.4
    1,050
       10

       60
       35
        0
        4
       19
      160
        9
      2.0
        2
        6

      7.6
      3.8
     12.5
        1
        4
      110
     4.25
    2 to 4
    0.218
     0.92
1.5 to 3.0

      7.5
     34.5
      110
       60
       75
       37
      150
        6
       30
       30
                                                                       28
                                                                       28
                                           (continued on next page)
                                                             13

-------
                                   TABLE 1.   (continued)
  Design Factor
                                         Value
                                                    Design Factor
                                                                                           Value
  Digestion Tanks
    Number
      Initial design                              2
      Future design                              4
    Inside diameter, ft
      Initial two tanks                           35
      Future two tanks                           55
    Side water depth 5, ftd                       27.5
    Volume, 1,000 ft3£
      Initial tanks                              S3
      Future tanks                             157
      Total future volume, four tanks                210
    Loading, 1,000 Ib dry solids/day15
      Initial design                            3.8
      Future design                             16
    Unit loading, Ib dry sollds/ft3/day1
      Initial design                           0.07
      Future design                           0.08
    Assumed solids reduction, percent                 45
    Assumed gas production at 6.0 ft3/lb
     settleable  solids™
      Initial design, 1,000 ft3/da/                  23
      Future design, 1,000 ft3/day*                  96
    Dry sludge produced, 1,000 Ib/dayb
      Initial design                            2.1
      Future design                            8.8
    Assumed moisture of digested sludge, percent         95
    Volume of digested sludge produced. 1,000 ftVday*
      Initial design                            0.7
      Future design                            2.8
         Sludge Drying Area. ft2 e
           Drained beds
             Initial design                          22,400
             Future design                          112,000
           Undralned area
             Initial design                          62,000
             Future design                              0
         NOTES:

         1.  Channel width of three feet used for initial installation.
            For future use, both bar screen channels will be increased
            to four feetd width.

         2.  One preaeratlon tank will be used Initially to aerate trickling
            filter effluent prior to secondary sedimentation.

         3.  For initial design conditions, 200 ft3/minf will be supplied
            to primary aeration tank and 100 ft3/minf will be supplied
            to secondary aeration tank.

         4.  One primary sedimentation tank will be used initially for
            secondary sedimentation.

         5.  Future tanks may be constructed with side water depths of
            33 ftd. Volume of future tanks computed with 33-ft" side
            water depth.
     amgd x 0.0438 = m3/sec

     blbx 0.4S3 =kg

     Cin. x 2.54 - cm

     dftx 0.305 = m

     eft2 x 0.093 = m2

     fft3 x 0.028 = m3

     9ft3/galx7.4S = m3/m3
hgpd/ft2 x 0.0407 • m3/day/m2

'lb/1,000 ft3/day x 0.016 = kg/m3/day
 acres x 0.415 = hectares

 Ib/acre/day x 1.12 = kg/hectare/day
'ib/ftVday x 16.2 = kg/m3/day

raft3/lb x 0.0624 - m3Ag
      By incorporating nitrification  (conversion of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate
nitrogen) in the treatment process, free chlorine residuals can be obtained
with  much  lower chlorine dosages.  Rock trickling filters, as  were used at
Livermore,  cannot be depended upon to produce a nitrified effluent of  the
required quality.   Used in advance of the activated  sludge process, however,
trickling  filters can reduce the BOD5 loading sufficiently  to  allow nitrifica-
tion to proceed in the activated sludge  aeration tank.  Utilizing a coupled
trickling  filtration-activated sludge process at Livermore  allowed upgrading
of the plant without abandoning any of the existing facilities, which were
less  than 10 yr old.   Using roughing filters also resulted in a more  stable
overall biological process,  with the filters acting as a  buffer to protect
the  more easily upset  activated sludge  process, an important  aspect when  high
quality effluent must  be consistently produced.
                                               14

-------
TABLE 2.  PERFORMANCE OF ORIGINAL
          PLANT, 1964
Parameter
Influent
Flow, mgd
BOD,, mg/1
Suspended solids , mg/1
Primary Treatment
f) L.
Overflow rate, gpd/ft
Effluent BOD5 , mg/1
Effluent suspended solids, mg/1
Reduction, percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Secondary Treatment
Organic loading, lb/1 , 000 ft /day°
Effluent BOD_, mg/1
o
Effluent suspended solids, mg/1
Reduction, percent
BOD,
J
Suspended solids
Overall Reduction, Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Value

2.4
260
350
1,000
ISO
110
42
69
74
51
44
66
60
80
87
amgd x 0.044 = m /sec

bgpd/ft2 x 0.041 = m3/m2/day

Clb/l,000 ftVday x 0.016 = kg/m /day
    At the time that plans were under-
way to expand and modify the treat-
ment plant,  consideration was being
given to utilizing plant effluent for
irrigation  purposes. As noted previ-
ously, rapid population growth had
depleted local water spplies, and im-
portation of water from other areas
had become necessary.  Farmlands
existed near the treatment plant, and
the City was carrying out plans to
construct  an airport and golf course in
the area.  Because of these circum-
stances and because of possible prob-
lems with surface discharge of effluent
even though highly treated, the City
began at that time development of a
water reclamation program which has
continued and expanded over the
years.

     Imposition of a "no-discharge"
order by the Regional Board required
that the plant be designed and con-
structed as rapidly as possible.   A
discussion of plant design,  with
emphasis on utilization of existing
facilities, is presented in Section 5.
                                     15

-------
                               SECTION 5

                                DESIGN
     When the Regional Board issued new, more stringent discharge require-
ments in 1965, the original Livermore plant was only 7 yr old.  Further,
piping and pumping facilities had been constructed to allow exapnsion from
0.11 m3/sec (2.5  mgd) to 0.22 m3/sec (5.0 mgd) for the Stage 2 facility and
ultimately to 0.44 m^/sec (10 mgd).  These factors encouraged retention of
as much of the original facility as possible and allowed inclusion of a previ-
ously planned additional trickling filter in the revised expansion.

     Discussion of plant design can be divided into two aspects:  process
design and physical design.  Although these aspects cannot be totally di-
vorced from each other, the differentiation is useful in describing the design
of the Livermore plant upgrading.  Process design includes the interrelation-
ship among projected influent loadings, required  effluent characteristics,
anticipated removals in each unit process, and sizing of added unit pro-
cesses.  Physical design is intended to include such factors as general lay-
out, site piping, bypassing procedures, and flexibility for present operation
and future expansion.  The flow diagram for the expanded plant is shown in
Figure  6, and design data are given in Table 3.
PROCESS DESIGN

    The principal component of interest at the Livermore Water Reclamation
Plant is the biological treatment unit, which uses trickling filtration in series
with the activated sludge process followed by secondary clarification.  Other
important units of the Livermore plant are the primary sedimentation tanks,
whose performance determines the loading to the secondary treatment process;
the chlorination unit and the chlorine contact tank, which must reduce coli-
form concentrations to levels meeting disinfection requirements; and solids
handling facilities, which at Livermore consist of two mixed digesters fol-
lowed by sludge lagoons.  The design of each of these elements, particularly
as they relate to the secondary treatment  process, is discussed below.
                                   16

-------
        	BYPASS AND RET
              Figure 6.  Flow diagram for upgraded Livermore
                        Water Reclamation Plant.
Coupled Trickling Filter-Activated Sludge Process

    As  noted in Section 4, the controlling factor in process design was the
discharge requirement mandating a 5-day median total coliform concentration
of 5.0 MPN/100 ml.  To prevent excessive chlorine demand,  it was essential
to oxidize ammonia nitrogen  in the wastewater to the nitrate form.  Free
rather than combined chlorine residuals would then be formed which could
provide the required wastewater disinfection at much lower chlorine dosage
levels.

    In the mid-19601 s,nitrification was not commonly used in wastewater
treatment plants in the United States  and thus  nitrification kinetics and
proper design criteria  were not well documented.  The approach taken in de-
sign was to use a low organic loading in the biological treatment process to
attain nitrification.  In developing this approach, it was assumed that trick-
ling filter volume was equally as effective as aeration tank volume in bio-
logically treating wastewater.
                                    17

-------
                    TABLE 3.  DESIGN  DATA  FOR UPGRADED LIVERMORE
                                     WATER  RECLAMATION PLANT
 Design Factor
                                                   Value
                                                                  Design Factor
                                                                                                                     Value
    Second stage design, average dry weather              5.0
    Second stage design, maximum dry weather            10.0
    Second stage design, peak storm rete                 18.0
    Future design, average dry weather                   10.0
    Future design, maximum dry weather                  19.5
    Future design, peak storm rate                       36.0

 Design Loadings
    Second stage design, population equivalent          62,500
    Future design, population equivalent               129,000
    Suspended solids, Ib/day"
      Per capita                                      0.20
      Second stage design                            12,500
      Future design                                  25.600
    BOD 5. Ib/daj*
      Per capita                                       0.2
      Second stage design                            12,500
      Future design                                  25,600

 Screening Equipment
    Barminutor
      Number                                            1
      Capacity, mgda                                  14.5
    Comminutor
      Number                                            1
      Capacity, mgda                                    11

 Parshall Flumes
   Number                                               2
   Throat width, ln.c                                    15
   Discharge head, ft*
      Two channels,  ADWF                              0.84
      One channel, ADWF                               1.3

Raw Sewage Pumps
   Number                                               2
   Capacity each, mgda                                12  5
   Static lift. 11?                                        11

Preaeratlon Tanks
   Number                                               2
   Width, ft*                                            19
   Length, ftd                                           38
   Average water depth,  ft                              11.7
   Detention time. hr                                    0.6
   Air supplied per tank, ft3/mine                         150
   Hydraulic capacity, mgda                               10

Primary Sedimentation Tanks
   Number                                               2
   Width, ftd                                           19
   Length, ft                                           124
   Average water depth,  ft                                 9
   Effluent weir length per tank, it?                        164
   Detention time, hr                                    1.5
   Mean forward velocity, fpm£                           1.4
   Overflow rate at ADWF, gpd/ft29                     1,050
   Hydraulic capacity, mgda                              10
 Primary Treatment
   Assumed suspended solids reduction
      Percent
      lb/dayb
   Assumed BOD^ reduction
      Percent
      lb/dayb

 Trickling Filters
   Number
   Inside diameter, ftd
   Average filter media depth, ft
   Filter media size,  in.c
   Net area of filter,  ft2 h
   Volume,  1.000 ft3/fliter1
   Circulation ratio to ADWF
   Load ing
      Hydraulic loading,  gpm/ft2'
      Organic loading, Ib BOD5/1,000 ft3/day
   Assumed BOD5 reduction
      Percent
      Ib/day13

 Trickling Filter Circulation  Pumps
   Number
   Capacity each, mgda
      No.'s 1 and 3
      No. 2
   Average static lift, ft

 Activated Sludge Aeration Tanks
   Number
   Passes per tank
   Length per pass, ftd '
   Width, ftd
   Average water depth, ftd
   Detention time based on raw sewage flow, hr
   Air supplied. ft3/lb BOD5 removedl
   Volume, ft31
   Volumetric loading, Ib BODj/1,000 ft3/dayk
   Return sludge,  percent
Aeration Blowers
   Number
   Capacity each, ft /mine
                           60
                       7,500
                          35
                       4.400
                           2
                          110
                        4.25
                       2 to 4
                       9,500
                      40,000
                   1.5 to  3.0

                        0.55
                          100

                           50
                       4,000
                         7.6
                         3.8
                        12.5
                           1
                           2
                         160
                          30
                          15
                         5.2
                       1,200
                     144,000
                          28
                    10 to 100
                           3
                       2,000
Activated Sludge Influent Pumps
   Number
   Capacity each, mgda
     No.  1
     No.  2
   Average static lift, ftd

Secondary  Sedimentation  Tanks
   Number
   Diameter, ft
   Detention time at ADWF, hr
   Overflow rate at ADWF, gpd/£t
.29
                        13.5
                         6.2
                        12.5
   1
  90
2.75
 787
                                           (continued  on next page)
                                                           18

-------
                            TABLE 3.  (continued)
Design Factor
                                Value
                                         Design Factor
                                                                        Value
Activated Sludge Treatment
Assumed suspended solids reduction
Percent
lb/dayt>
Assumed BOD5 reduction
Percent
lb/dayb

Overall Plant Performance
Assumed suspended solids reduction, percent
Assumed BODj reduction, percent
Effluent suspended solids, mg/1
Effluent BOD 5, mg/1

Chlorine Contact Tank
Volume . ft3 l
Detention time at ADWT. hr

Effluent Cipolletti Weir
Range , mgda
Size, ftd
Head at maximum flow , ft

Emergency Holding Basins
Storage volume, 1 ,000 ft3 '
Detention time at ADWT, hr


86
4,400

86
3,500


96
96
15
15


28,000
1.0


0 to 15
3
1.75


4,140
150
Digestion Tanks
Number
Inside diameter, ft
Side water depth , ftd
Volume, 1,000 ft3 *
Unit loading, ib dry solids/ft3/day
Assumed volatile matter, percent
Volatile matter, 1,000 Ib/day*
Assumed volatile matter reduction, percent
Volatile matter destroyed , 1,000 Ib/day
Assumed gas production, ft3/lb volatile matter
destroyed
Gas produced, 1,000 ftVday*
Assumed solids reduction, percent
Digested sludge, 1,000 Ib dry solids/dayb

Digested Sludge Lagoons
Number
Volume each, 1,000 ft3'

Sludge Drying Beds
Number ,
Total area , f t^




2
35
27.5
53
0.22
75
8.8
60
5.3

15
79
40
7.0


2
320


2
22,400



amgd x 0.0438 = mVsec

blb/day x 0.453 = kg/day

cin. x 2.54 = cm

dftx 0.305 = m

eftVmin x 0.028 = m3/min

 fpm x 0.305 = m/min

9gpd/ft2 x 0.0407 = m3/day/m2

hft2 x 0.093 = m2
'ft3 x 0.028 = m3

'gpm/ft2 x 0.679 = l/sec/m2

klb/l, 000 ft3/day,x 0.016 = kg/m3/day

'ftVlbx 0.0624 = mVkg
"Wft3 x 16.2 = kg/m3
     An overall loading of 0.56 kg BOD5/m3/day (35 lb/1,000 ftVday) of
aeration tank and/or trickling filter volume was used for design purposes.
On this basis, a biological treatment volume of 6,340  m3 (224,000 ft3) was
required, assuming a plant influent BODs loading of 5,670 kg/day (12,500
Ib/day) and a 35 percent BOD5 removal in the primary sedimentation  tanks.
Adding the previously  planned second trickling filter would provide a total
filter volume of about  2,260 m3 (80,000 ft3). This  meant that an aeration
tank volume of 4,080 m3 (144,000 ft3) was required to provide the total
biological treatment volume of 6,340 m3 (224,000 ft3).

     Such an approach was  simplistic because it assumed an unproven equiv-
alency between filter volume and aeration tank volume and did not recognize
that nitrification would occur only in the aeration tank following the  trickling
                                     19

-------
 filters.  It was believed  however  that the approach was conservative be-
cause the series arrangement would provide treatment better than that pre-
dicted by considering the volume as a whole.

      This approach also eliminated questions concerning feeding an  activated
 sludge unit with trickling filter effluent.  The absence of a clarifier  between
the trickling filters and the activated sludge process presented difficulty  in
 predicting the characteristics of the activated sludge influent (trickling filter
 effluent).  An estimate of 50 percent BOD5 removal in the filters was employed
 in the design data shown in Table 3, but there was little documentation to
 support this value.  Further, there was concern that the filter effluent might
be less degradable than primary effluent with the same BOD5 value.  Con-
 versely, it was believed that trickling filter effluent BODs would in part reflect
biological solids sloughed from the filter media.  By considering the trickling
filter and activated sludge units as one biological treatment plant, these
questions could be effectively ignored.

     Since the mid-19601 s, the kinetics of nitrification and the criteria for
 occurence of nitrification in the activated sludge process have become better
 understood.  Operation of the  Livermore plant in terms of these considera-
tions, as well as problems caused by  lack of adequate knowledge at the time
of design, will be discussed more fully in Sections 8 and 10. In particular,
it has been  found that the air diffusion system capacity was underdesigned,
requiring the third blower (origianlly intended to be-a standby unit) to be used
to attain nitrification.

     It is important to note that the flow diagram for the biological treatment
unit  at Livermore differs  from the Activated Bio-Filter, which also combines
the trickling filter and activated sludge processes.   The Activated Bio-Filter
is a  proprietary process which is distinguished by return of activated sludge
to the trickling filter influent line rather than the head of the aeration tank.
The filter thus acts as a  reaeration chamber for the activated sludge.

Primary Sedimentation Tanks

     The primary clarifiers  at Livermore are rectangular and follow preaeration-
grit removal tanks in the treatment scheme.  Both tanks were constructed  with
the original plant, and one was used to provide secondary sedimentation
following the trickling filter.  With the expansion from 0.11 to 0.22  m3/sec
(2.5 to  5.0  mgd), the secondary tank was converted to primary sedimentation
as planned, and a new secondary clarifier was constructed.  Design removals
for the primary clarifiers are 60 percent for suspended solids and 35  percent
for BOD5 at an overflow rate of 42.8 m3/day/m2 (1,050 gpd/ft2) and a deten-
tion  time of 1.5 hr.
                                    20

-------
 Secondary Clarifier

      During plant expansion a 27-m (90-ft)  diameter secondary clarifier
 was constructed to provide separation of the activated sludge from the1
 wastewater.  The design overflow rate was 32 m3/day/m2 (787  gpd/ft2) at
 ADWF, which corresponds to 114 m3/day/m2 (2,800 gpd/ft2)  at  peak wet
 weather design flows.  It was anticipated that such high  rates could be
 avoided by diverting peak flows to the abandoned oxidation ponds, and in
 fact wet weather flows have been much lower than indicated in Table 3
 Nonetheless, it appear that the high loading rates  imposed on the secondary
 clarifier have been the limiting factor in effluent BOD5  and suspended
 solids levels achieved by the upgraded Livermore plant.   A lower overflow
 rate would probably be used today.   Secondary clarifier performance will be
 discussed further in later sections.
Disinfection Facilities

     Although not part of the original plant,  chlorination equipment and a
60-min detention chlorine contact tank were added to the 0.11-m-Vsec (2.5-mgd)
facility in 1965 after discharge from the oxidation ponds to Arroyo Las
Positas became necessary.  During expansion, chlorine feed capacity was in-
creased from 0.11 to 0.22 m^/sec (2.5 to 5.0 mgd).   Although chlorination
control by residual measurement through amperometric titration was used at
first, this method was abandoned after difficulties were encountered  princi-
pally with maintenance of the amperometric titration units.  Dosage control
by pH measurment has been used since.  This is possible because  the free
chlorine residuals which are obtained in a nitrified effluent cause a de-
crease in pH as chlorine dosage is increased.   Although difficulties can
occur with this method of chlorination control (other factors may cause the
pH to decrease  giving a false signal to the chlorination system and halting
disinfection), it has been employed with success at Livermore.   Further dis-
cussion of chlorination control is presented in Section 8.
Solids Handling and Treatment Facilities

    The two digesters constructed with the initial facility were retained, and
no additional capacity was provided for in the expansion to 0.22  m3/sec
(5.0 mgd).  The flow increase, coupled with the addition of the activated
sludge process, increased the design unit loadings  of the digesters from  1.1
kg dry solids/m3/day (0.07 Ib/ft3/day) to 3.5 kg/m3/day (0.22 Ib/ft3/day).
To maintain adequate digestion capacity, operation  was changed frorA a pri-
mary-secondary mode to primary digestion in  both digesters with newly con-
structed sludge lagoons acting as secondary digesters.  The  sludge drying
beds in the original plant  were retained but have rarely been  used. Super-
natant is periodically withdrawn from the lagoons and returned to the plant
                                     21

-------
headworks. Occasionally the lagoons will have to be dried out and the
residual solids removed to landfill.  After 8 yr of operation, they have
reached their capacity.

Summary

     The modifications incorporated in the expansion actually involved rela-
tively minor changes in the flow diagram.  The only significant change was
the placement of an activated sludge unit between the trickling filters and
the secondary clarifier, thereby substantially increasing the biological treat-
ment capacity and (through nitrification) disinfection efficiency of the plant.
PHYSICAL DESIGN

     In the same way that the flow diagram was altered relatively little by
incorporation of the activated sludge process into the plant, most of the
construction involved expansion from 0.11 to 0.22 m3/sec (2.5 to 5.0 mgd)
as previously planned.  Influent and primary effluent pumping capacities
were increased, the second trickling filter was added, the secondary sedi-
mentation tank  was constructed, disinfection capacity was doubled, and
sludge lagoons (rather than a planned third digester)  were added to increase
solids handling capacity.  Principal changes from the previously planned ex-
pansion involved construction of the aeration tanks,- modification of the filter
circulation sump to allow its use as both a trickling filter circulation sump
and an activated sludge feed sump,  construction of a secondary clarifier suit-
able for settling activated sludge mixed liquor, and abandonment of the oxi-
dation ponds with portions of them being used as emergency holding basins.

     Layout of the expanded plant is presented in Figure 7.  Comparison with
Figure 5 shows little deviation from the previously planned facility.  The
second trickling filter was constructed as planned to the west of the existing
filter.  The circular secondary clarifier was placed in the area originally in-
tended for rectangular clarlfiers. Space limitations caused by underground
piping were a factor in selection of clarifier diameter and, hence, overflow
rate.

     A two-pass aeration tank was constructed in the area originally intended
for the third and fourth trickling filters.  Provision was made for future con-
struction of an  additional aeration tank to the north and for expansion of the
initial tank to the west.   Such expansion was anticipated because the two
rock filters would not have adequate capacity to receive the ultimate design
flow of 0.44 m3/sec (10.0 mgd). It was expected that biological treatment
for future flow increases would be provided by activated sludge only.  Recent
widespread use of plastic media in trickling filtration, however, indicates
                                   22

-------
                   I  I STAGE I

                   E3 STAGE 2

                   L~Ij FUTURE
                                     EMERGENCY HOLDING BASIN
     -~1 '  /  -PONO INLET
EFFLUENT  I \f—|/  STRUCTURE

    -X-LL.
                                                              ^BYPASS OUTLET STRUCTURE  i
               Figure 7.  Layout of upgraded Livermore plant.
that it may be possible to increase the capacity of the existing rock media
filters by replacing the rock with plastic media and increasing the filter depth
(such expansion has not yet been carried out, however).

    Most of the individual units are of standard design.  The following sub-
sections present discussions on three aspects of physical design:  (1) the
filter circulation sump, (2) the activated sludge unit, including the aeration
tank and secondary clarifier, and (3) plant piping, with particular emphasis
on bypass procedures.

Filter Circulation Sump

    Plan and section views of the original filter circulation sump are shown
in Figure 8.  Constructed to eventually serve four primary clarifiers and four
trickling filters at a design flow of 0.44 m3/sec (10 mgd),  it was desired to
retain the unit for use in the coupled trickling filter-activated  sludge plant.
In the original configuration, primary effluent entered the sump from the
channel to the south.  Trickling filter effluent to be  recirculated entered the

-------
 6" DIGESTER
 SUPERNATANT
 LINE     x

2" CHLORINE
SOLUTION
LINE —
        30" DIAPHRAGM
        OPERATED BUTTERFLY
        VALVE

         BLIND FLANGE
                                                  r 42" SECONDARY
                                                    EFFLUENT AND
                                                    BYPASS LINE
                                                                FUTURE TRICKLING
                                                                FILTER PUMPS NO'S
                                                                4. 5, AND 6
                                                                 -TEMPORARY
                                                                   PLUGS
                                                                   FOR FUTURE
27" TRICKLING
FILTER EFFLUENT/
LINES	<
                         36" TRICKLING
                         FILTER
                         INFLUENT
                         LINE
                            24" SECONDARY
                            EFFLUENT LINE
                                                   30" RECYCLED
                                                   TRICKLING FILTER
                                                   EFFLUENT LINE
                                                                   FUTURE PUMP
                                                                   NO. 3
                TRICKLING FILTER
                PUMP NO. 1	
                                                           30" RECYCLED
                                                           TRICKLING FILTER
                                                           EFFLUENT LINE
                                                              r— SUMP BLOCKED OFF
                                                                 FOR FUTURE USE
                                                                      DIGESTER
                                                                    SUPERNATANT
                                                                    LINE
                                                       42" SECONDARY  /
                                                       EFFLUENT AND '
                                                       BYPASS LINE —•>
     Figure 8.   Filter circulation sump in original  plant.
                                      24

-------
sump from the west through a 0.76-m (30-in.) diaphragm-operated butterfly
valve which was controlled by the sump level. Flow to the trickling filter
was  provided by two fixed-speed pumps of 0.33- and 0.17-mVsec (7.6- and
3.8-mgd) capacities.  Operation of the pumps was controlled manually from
a field station at the sump.

     Filter effluent not recirculated was delivered to the secondary clarifier
(intended eventually for conversion to primary sedimentation).  Effluent from
the secondary clarifier was delivered from a blocked-off portion of the primary
effluent channel through a temporary 0.61-m (24-in.) line to a concrete box
below the filter circulation sump. From there the secondary effluent flowed
through a 1.1-m (42-in.)  pipe, originally to the oxidation ponds and later to
the chlorine contact tank. The concrete box below the filter circulation  sump
also received primary effluent which overflowed into the box upon shutdown
of the trickling filter pumps, thus serving as an automatic bypass unit.

     The 0.76-m (30-in.)  butterfly valve responded to sump level to maintain
a constant flow to the trickling filter by automatically closing as the primary
effluent flow increased (causing  a sump level increase) and opening as it
decreased.  It,therefore, allowed  use of fixed-speed pumps rather than vari-
able-speed pumps for feeding the trickling filter.

     Modifications made to the trickling filter circulation sump during plant
expansion are depicted in plan and section in Figure 9.  The existing second-
ary clarifier was converted to a primary clarifier as planned, and the old
secondary influent and effluent lines were blocked off.  The temporary ma-
sonry plug blocking off the north portion of the sump was  removed, and two
aeration tank feed pumps  were installed there. A third trickling filter feed
pump with a capacity of 0.33 m^/sec (7.6 mgd) was also installed.

     To permit use of fixed-speed pumps  for feeding both the trickling filters
and aeration tank, the 0.76-m (30-in.) butterfly valve was relocated on  the
discharge side of the aeration tank feed pumps as  shown.  Automatic control
is provided by a float switch which causes the valve to close as the level in
the sump increases. Normal operation calls for the smaller aeration tank
feed pump, with a capacity of 0.27 m^/sec (6.2 mgd), to run continuously.
If the sump level rises above a specified set-point elevation, the larger
pump (0.59-mvsec or 13.5-mgd capacity) starts and the  smaller pump stops.
This operation is reversed by a falling sump level.

     Shutdown of the trickling filter circulating pumps under this mode of
operation results in primary effluent being fed directly to the activated sludge
aeration tanks.  Shutdown of the aeration tank feed pumps results in overflow
to the chlorine contact tank of a  mixture  of primary effluent and trickling
filter effluent.
                                   25

-------
                         r
                           48" ACTIVATED
         EXISTING
         30" BUTTERFLY
         VALVE RELOCATED
     27" TRICKLING
     FILTER EFFLUENT
     LINES
                                                                  ACTIVATED SLUDGE
                                                                  FEED PUMPS
                                                                  NO'S 1 & 2
                                                                      - 30" TRICKLING
                                                                       FILTER EFFLUENT
                                                                       LINE
                                  •TRICKLING FILTER
                                  PUMPS NO'S 1, 2, & 3
PRIMARY -
EFFLUENT
CHANNEL
                                    •TRICKLING
                                    FILTER
                                    PUMP
                                    NO. 3
TRICKLING
FILTER INFLUENT
LINE	
                          MA <.( LEV
                               LEV
BYPASS —
OVERFLOW
                     -ACTIVATED SLUDGE
                      FEED PUMP NO. 2
          EXISTING 24" LINE
          ABANDONED
                                         30" TRICKLING
                                         FILTER EFFLUENT
                                         LINE
         Figure 9.  Filter circulation sump  in upgraded plant.
                                          26

-------
    Schematic drawings of the circulation pumping schemes before and after
modification are given in Figure 10. Retention of the existing structure in
this manner allowed significant cost savings and avoided abandonment of a
facility less than 10 yr old.

Activated Sludge Unit

    The activated sludge unit which receives trickling filter effluent con-
sists of, in addition to the aeration tank influent pumps,  a two-pass aeration
tank, an air diffusion system,  a secondary clarifier,  and a sludge return
system. The aeration tank was constructed to allow feed of trickling filter
effluent and return activated sludge (RAS) at  seven points to permit the unit
to be operated in plug flow (conventional), sludge reaeration, or step aera-
tion modes as shown in Figure 11.

    Generally, the plant has been  operated in the plug flow mode (although
significant back-mixing apparently does occur as discussed in Section 8)
with sludge reaeration used for a short period in 1971. Trickling filter efflu-
ent and return activated sludge are introduced to the tank at the east end of
the south pass.  Mixed liquor  flows from the south to the north pass through
a 4.9-m (16-ft) wide space in  the dividing wall at the west end of the tank.
Mixed liquor leaves the aeration tank  over' a 2.7-m (9.0-ft) diameter circular
weir at the end of the  second pass  and flows by gravity to the secondary
distribution box. There, an air-lift pump and a constant-head tank combine
to waste excess activated sludge mixed liquor to the plant headworks.  The
rate of mixed liquor wasting is measured by  a V-notch weir and is changed by
raising or lowering a circular overflow weir (Figure 12).   Wasting of excess
activated sludge is normally accomplished in this manner although provision
has been made for wasting from the RAS line.

    From the secondary distribution box,mixed liquor flows to the circular,
center-feed secondary clarifier.  Clarified effluent flows to the chlorine
contact tank,  and settled activated sludge is returned to the aeration tank.
The RAS pumps are two independent, variable-speed, self-priming pumps
which  are manually controlled  such that the  RAS flow is a fixed percentage of
the influent wastewater flow.  Automatic control could be implemented by
using a signal from the influent flowmeter to control pump speed.

    Chlorine addition is provided by a diffuser and a flash mixer at the  point
where  clarified effluent enters a 1.4-m (54-in.) reinforced concrete pipe
connecting the secondary clarifier with the chlorine contact tank.  This  line
was built as part of the original plant  and was used for bypassing from the
headworks to the oxidation ponds as discussed below.
                                   27

-------
                 (CONST.)
     FROM PRIMARY
     SEDIMENTATION
     TANK

       0, (VAR.)
FILTER
CIRCULATION
SUMP
                                                TO SECONDARY
                                                SEDIMENTATION
                                                TANK
BUTTERFLY VALVE
CONTROLLED BY
SUMP LEVEL
            (CONST)
FROM PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
   *1 (VAR.)
                       (a)  BEFORE MODIFICATION
                 FILTER CIRCULATION SUMP
                                            BUTTERFLY VALVE
                                            CONTROLLED BY
                                            SUMP LEVEL
                             4 (VAR.)    jo ACTIVATED
                                     ^SLUDGE UNIT
                                                  (CONST.)
                                              NOTE:  SHORT CIRCUITING OF
                                                    PRIMARY EFFLUENT TO
                                                    ACTIVATED SLUDGE UNIT
                                                    WILL NOT OCCUR IF
                                                    °> Q
                                                         1
                        (b) AFTER MODIFICATION
     Figure 10.  Schematic diagram for filter circulation sump modification.
                                    28

-------
               ML
               ML
                                 RAS
                        WW
 (a) CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE

r
LML


ML (J -
RAS
1 — ww

«—


                                 RAS
                         WW
       (b) SLUDGE REAERATION
I 	 WW
r
L
1 — ww
rww

o_
ML °^
ML
t
1 	 WW

4-
WW

	 RAS
         (c) STEP AERATION
NOTE: ML  = MIXED LIQUOR
     RAS = RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
     WW  = INFLUENT WASTEWATER
 Figure 11.  Possible modifications for
            activated sludge feed.
Plant Piping

    A schematic piping diagram for
the original plant, including antici-
pated expansions to 0.22 and 0.44
m3/sec (5.0 and 10.0 mgd) is shown
in Figure 13.  When the decision was
made to incorporate the activated
sludge process into the upgraded treat-
ment  scheme, it was  desired to retain
as much of the existing piping as
possible to  reduce costs.  In addition,
the stringent discharge requirements
dictated that in the event of a system
upset or unit shutdown, some means
must  be available to prevent discharge
of inadequately treated effluent.  To
accomplish  this, emergency holding
basins were constructed from a portion
of the original oxidation ponds  and
flows were diverted from the plant
when necessary.

     The piping diagram for the up-
graded plant is presented in Figure 14.
(In Figures  13 and 14, only the main
flow and bypass lines are  shown;
solids transfer piping and  various
other lines  such as chlorine lines and
drains are not indicated.)  Principal
modifications are the addition of lines
from the filter circulation sump to the
aeration tank,  from the aeration tank
to the secondary clarifier, from the
filter circulation sump to the second
trickling filter and back, and from the
existing bypass line to the emergency
holding ponds.  The existing 1.4-m
(54-in.) bypass line was used to
carry secondary effluent from the
secondary clarifier to the chlorine
contact tank and the newly construc-
ted outfall to Arroyo Las  Positas.
                                   29

-------
                                                              OVERFLOW
                                                              WEIR

                                                              V-NOTCH
                                                              WEIR
                          AIR-LIFT PUMP

                                  ADJUSTING RINGS
      MIXED LIQUOR
      INFLUENT LINE
      FROM SECONDARY
      DISTRIBUTION BOX
     MIXED LIQUOR
     RETURN LINE
     TO SECONDARY
     DISTRIBUTION BOX
                              WASTE MIXED
                              LIQUOR LINE
                              TO PLANT
                              HEADWORKS
                   Figure 12.  Mixed liquor wasting tank.
    Bypassing procedures in the upgraded plant differ from those used in the
original configuration.  In the trickling filter-oxidation pond mode, raw
sewage or primary effluent could be directed to the oxidation ponds for a
substantial  period without overloading them.  Further, because the ponds
would themselves provide adequate treatment, bypassed sewage did not need
to be returned to the plant.
                                    30

-------
                               CHLORINE
                               CONTACT
                                TANK
               Figure 13. Piping diagram for original plant.


    In the upgraded mode, bypassing of the treatment units to Arroyo Las
Positas cannot be allowed if discharge requirements are to be met.  There-
fore, when bypassing is necessary, flow is directed to the emergency holding
basins; when plant operation is restored, waste water is returned by gravity
to the headworks and passes through all the process units.   From the head-
works (raw sewage) or secondary clarifier (secondary effluent), wastewater
flows to the holding basins through the existing 1.4-m (54-in.) bypass line
and a newly constructed 1.1-m (42-in.)  line.  From the filter circulation
sump (primary effluent or trickling filter effluent), bypass flow passes through
the old  1.1-m (42-in.) and 1.4-m (54-in.) lines connecting the sump with the
original pond inlet structure.  An important operational aspect of the latter
case is that the poorly treated wastewater must pass through the chlorine
contact tank.  It has been found that this contaminates the tank and creates
subsequent difficulties in meeting disinfection requirements unless the tank
is cleaned prior to being restored to service.
                                   31

-------
               Figure 14. Piping diagram for upgraded plant.
    The emergency holding ponds at Livermore are required in part because
the activated sludge  process consists of one unit rather than two parallel
units.  While shutdown of one of the two primary sedimentation tanks or
trickling filters can be accomplished without a complete plant shutdown, this
cannot be done with the aeration tank or the secondary clarifier; maintenance
on or repair of either unit requires bypassing of plant flow to the holding
basins.  Because it is  less expensive to construct one unit at a given capac-
ity than two parallel  units, each at half capacity, existing ponds or sludge
lagoons should always be  considered for emergency holding basins  in up-
grading an existing plant.

    The  flow received  by the Livermore plant is presently nearing its 0.22-
m /sec (5.0-mgd) capacity.  One of the alternatives being considered for
expansion is to incorporate flow equalization into plant operation through the
use of existing bypass lines and holding ponds, one of which has been lined.
It is anticipated that a flow of perhaps 0.26 m3/sec  (6.0 mgd)  could be
accommodated in this manner.
                                   32

-------
                               SECTION 6

                            CONSTRUCTION
    Construction as well as design of a sewage treatment facility is much
simpler and more straightforward when dealing with a completely new treat-
ment plant than when upgrading an existing plant.  Construction schedules
in the latter case are tied to and in some instances controlled by treatment
plant operating procedures.  This was less of a problem at Livermore than it
often is, but there was the additional operating constraint of the Regional
Board order which prohibited discharge of inadequately treated effluent to
surface waters.  Thus, it was imperative that construction be completed as
quickly as possible and that there be close cooperation between the Con-
tractor and plant personnel.
PRECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

    At the completion of the design phase, construction drawings and speci-
fications were prepared.  These contract documents were approved by the
City of Livermore and by the San Francisco office of the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).  The City had obtained a federal
grant, No. WPC-CAL-258, to partially finance construction of the upgraded
facilities, and HEW's consent was necessary prior to advertising for bids.

    The City Council authorized the construction of the trickling filter-acti-
vated sludge facility, and the contract documents, labeled "Treatment Plant
Enlargement - 1965" , were advertised for bid on January 24,  1966.  Copies
were made available to prospective bidders and were distributed to builder's
exchanges in the San Francisco Bay Area.

    The requested construction bid was to include the furnishing of all labor,
materials, and equipment for construction of the  second trickling filter, aera-
tion tank,  secondary sedimentation tank, distribution structure, bypass  sys-
tem, effluent discharge facilities, chlorination  additions, outfall sewer, and
sludge lagoons; modifications and alterations to existing headworks, primary
sedimentation tanks, filter circulation sump,  and pond distribution structure;
paving, grading, painting, piping, and fencing; and all other related work
necessary to provide a complete and operable treatment plant.


                                   33

-------
    Normal prebidding activity was experienced  as reflected by the number
of plan holders,'a typical situation in California for a project of  tnis size.
Two addenda to the documents were issued during this period.  One. was
related to revised prevailing wages as determined by the U. S. Department of
Labor; the other was related to technical clarifications in the plans and spec-
ifications .

    The contract documents requested bids on two alternatives:  Bid  Item I
included the improvements  as  shown; Bid Item II included the improvements
as shown with the omission of the airport effluent disposal irrigation system.
Included in each item was the sum of $20,000 for  contingencies encountered
during construction.  Bids were opened on February 24, 1966, and the results
are summarized in Table 4.
     TABLE H.  BID TABULATION
Name of Bidder
Pacific Mechanical Corp.
Monterey Mechanical Co.
Fred J. Early Ir. Co.
C. Norman Peterson Co.
S. & Q. Construction
Bid Item I
$1,057,800
1,099,000
1,126,800
1,130,500
1,134,399
Bid Item II
$ 985,400
1,032,000
1,049,800
1,059,399
1,085,000
    The low bid submitted by Pacific
Mechanical Corporation was found to
be in order, and the contract was
awarded to that company. Approval
from HEW to sign the contract with
the Contractor was obtained by the
City on February 28, 1966, and the
notice to proceed was issued by the
City Engineer on March 16,  1966.  The
allowable construction period was  300
days, and the designated completion
date was January 10, 1967.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
     Policies on construction management were finalized soon after the notice
to proceed was issued to the Contractor. The City's consultant,  Brown and
Caldwell, was asked to assist in the review of shop drawings submitted by
the Contractor and to provide periodic field support services as required by
the City.  The City was to provide all required inspection services and be
responsible for all change orders, progress payments, interpretation of con-
tract documents, and contact with HEW officials.  Whenever required, Brown
and Caldwell engineers  would also be available for clarification of contractual
matters, especially the  technical provisions.

     The contract documents made provisions for listing the major pieces of
equipment in the proposal,  both by name and installed cost. Pacific Mechan-
ical Corporation submitted the equipment listed in Table 5.

     The low bid had been based on the lowest installed price for each item
of major equipment.  The City made its equipment choices known to the
Contractor on March 14, 1966.  The selected items  were:  1)  Armco,

                                   34

-------
             TABLE 5. MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS BREAKDOWN
Item Article in Specifications Manufacturer
1 Sluice gates Armco
Rodney Hunt
2 Trickling filter circulating pump Fairbanks-Morse
Johnston Pump
Worth ington
3 Aeration pumps Fairbanks-Morse
Johnston Pump
Worth ington
4 Air diffusion equipment Chicago Pump
Walker Process
5 Air blowers Roots-Connersville
Sutorbilt
Installed Price,
dollars
22,500
25,000
3,750
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
13,000
35,000
40,000
40,000
45,000
             Secondary sedimentation tank
              equipment
Alternate A
Alternate B
Alternate C
7 Trickling filter distributor

8 Chlorination equipment

Chain Belt
Walker Process
Walker Process
Dorr-Oliver
Walker Process
Wallace 6 Tiernan
Fischer & Porter
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
19,000
19,000
20,000
2) Johnston Pump,  3) Johnston Pump, 4) Chicago Pump, 5) Roots-Connersville,
6) Alternate B:  Walker Process, 7) Walker Process, and 8) Wallace & Tiernan.
Alternate B of item 6 was not the lowest installed price, but it was chosen
because it provided a sight well which was considered of prime importance
for proper plant operation.  The choice of Alternate B added an extra $10,000
to the low bid, and the revised construction cost became $1,067,800.  Ap-
proval from HEW for this revised cost was obtained on March 18, 1966.

    The Contractor's low bid was a lump sum figure.  For cash flow analysis
the Contractor submitted, as required in the contract documents, a breakdown
of his total bid together with his estimated progress schedule.  The bid break-
down, summarized in Table 6, was used to determine the monthly progress
payment estimates.

    Before describing the sequence of events during construction, it is
worthwhile to briefly review the items constructed, with emphasis on the
mechanical equipment and construction details.
                                   35

-------
                   TABLE 6.   CONTRACT  PRICE BREAKDOWN
             Description
            Amount, dollars
lob Mobilization
   (Purchasing, Engineering, Move On)

Earthwork
   Site grading
   Structure excavation
   Sludge lagoons
   Outfall excavation
   Piping and miscellaneous excavations
   Oxidation pond
   Backfill fine grading
   Paving
   Total

Forming
   Secondary sedimentation tank
   Aeration tank
   Trickling filter
   Chlorine contact tank
   Miscellaneous structures
   Total

Reinforcing Steel
   Delivered to job site
   In place
   Total

Concrete
   Secondary sedimentation tank
   Aeration tank
   Trickling filter
   Chlorine contact tank
   Miscellaneous structure
   Total

Miscellaneous Metal Work
   Embedded work
   Other items
   Total

Equipment
   Delivery on site
   Installation
   Total

Piping
   Material at job site
   Outfall sewer
   Bypass and Interconnecting sewer
   Miscellaneous yard piping
   Total

Trickling Filter Block and Rock

Other Subcontracts
   Electrical
   Sprinklers
   Boring
   Fencing
   Painting
   Total

Move Off and Clean Up

Contingency

TOTAL
                               12,000.00
  5,000.00
 34,100.00
 27,500.00
 17,600.00
 27,500.00
 36,500.00
  9,100.00
  6,900.00
 16,000.00
 36,100.00
 26,300.00
 14,100.00
 16,500.00
 21,500.00
 26,500.00
 18,200.00
 42,000.00
 16,500.00
  7,600.00
 12,700.00
 13,000.00
 36,000.00
200,000.00
 11,800.00
152,000.00
 14,700.00
  3,400.00
 23,500.00
 52,000.00
 63,000.00
 14,700.00
  2,500.00
  7,300.00
                              164,200.00
                              109,000.00
                               48,000.00
                               97.000.00
                               49,000.00
                              211,800.00
                              193,600.00

                               22,000.00
                              139,500.00

                                1,700.00

                               20,000.00

                           Si,067,800.00
                                              36

-------
Trickling Filter

    The added second filter is of reinforced concrete construction and equiv-
alent to filter No. 1,  34 m (110 ft) in diameter with a 1.2-m (4.0-ft) deep
rock media layer.  The maximum rock size is 10 cm (4 in.), and the media
rests on Process Engineers' "Air In"  underdrain concrete blocks. The filter
floor slab slopes towards a central collecting channel which also slopes
towards an effluent collecting pipe.   The filter walls have rectangular open-
ings at floor slab elevation for air circulation purposes.  Four reaction type
distribution arms, "Rotoseal" models manufactured by Walker Process Com-
pany, distribute the flow through 5-cm (2-in.) orifices to the filter media.
Spread deflectors at each orifice provide for even distribution.

Filter Circulation Pump

    The No. 3 pumping unit added to the filter recirculation system is a
mixed flow, Model 16 LS pump provided by Johnston Pump Company with a
capacity of 0.33 m3/sec (7.6 mgd) at 5.3 m (17.5 ft) total dynamic head
(TDH).  The overall pumping capacity is as follows:  pumps Nos. 1 and 3,
0.33 m3/sec (7.6 mgd) each; pump No. 2,  0.17 m3/sec (3.8 mgd).

Aeration Tank

    The reinforced concrete aeration tank is  49 m (160  ft) long and includes
two passes,  each 9.1m (30 ft) wide.  Flow distribution channels along the
outside edge of each  pass  include openings for removable slide gates.  This
arrangement provides  for three modes of activated sludge operation as dis-
cussed in Section 5:  conventional,  step aeration,  and  sludge reaeration.
Coarse-bubble air diffusers, located along each side of the central wall,
are Chicago Pump's Type Bl Swingfuser Aerators.  The air manifold feeds
eight diffuser assemblies in each pass, and each assembly contains 20 syn-
thetic resin "deflectofusers" with four 0.79-cm (5/16-in.) diameter jet open-
ings.  Each diffuser includes a 1.35-cm (17/32-in.) control orifice for equal
air distribution.  The diffuser manifolds are located 0.61 m (2.0 ft) above the
floor slab and 0.81 m (2.67 ft) from  the central wall. The diffusers are
placed onto  the central-wall side of the manifolds in a staggered arrange-
ment (Figure 15).  The diffuser assemblies can be lifted out of the tank by
using a 1-ton portable manual winch and hoist.  The distribution channels
are also equipped with air diffusers.

    Aeration air supply units are installed adjacent to the tanks on a concrete
slab at ground elevation and include three rotary lobe, positive displacement,
Model 1021 RAS Roots-Conner sville  blowers, complete with inlet silencers
with filters and outlet silencers.   Each blower has  a capacity of 56.6 m3/min
                                   37

-------
    Figure 15.  Aeration diffusers.
Secondary Sedimentation Tank
(2,000 ft3/min) at 48 kN/m2 (7 psi).
Discharge from the blowers is  mani-
folded into a header pipe which sup-
plies  the air header atop the central
wall of the aeration tank.

Aeration Tank Feed Pumps

    Aeration pumps, to lift trickling
filter  effluent from the  filter circula-
tion sump to the aeration tank, are
located in the  filter distribution struc-
ture opposite the trickling filter circu-
lation pumps and are manufactured by
Johnston Pump Company.  Pump No. 1
is a propeller type, Model 20 PO, and
has a capacity of 0.59 m3/sec  (13.5
mgd) at 3.2 m (10.5 ft) TDK. Pump
No. 2 is  a mixed flow, Model  16 LS
pump  and has a capacity of 0.27 m3/
min (6.2  mgd)  at  3.2 m (10.5 ft) TDK.
    The reinforced concrete secondary sedimentation tank is 27 m (90 ft) in
diameter with a 3.7-m (12-ft) side water depth (SWD).  It is of the center-
feed type and is equipped with a Type SWP multidraw collector by Walker
Process Equipment Company, complete with "Clariflow" inlet, sight well,
and truss arms.  Suction pipes in the revolving truss arms are connected to
a water-level sight well and are provided with telescopic valves for flexi-
bility in sludge draw-off. The revolving arms are also equipped with adjust-
able brass squeegees for sweeping the sludge on the floor slab to the with-
drawal pipes.  Secondary effluent flows over a weir plate to a collection
channel inside the tank perimeter. A skimmer assembly, mounted on the
rotating truss, sweeps surface scum to a scum box.

Return Activated Sludge Pumps

    Return activated sludge units are pad-mounted next to the secondary
sedimentation tank and include two variable-speed, motor-driven pumps and
a magnetic flowmeter.  The pumps are Gorman-Rupp Model T8A-3,  each with
a capacity of 0.1 m3/sec (2.3 mgd) at 9.1  m (30 ft) TDH.  Electric Machine-
ry's "Ampli-Speed" magnetic drives, Model MDM-13, provide speed varia-
tion.  Pump suction is taken from the bottom center of the secondary  sedi-
                                   38

-------
mentation tank.  The pump discharge lines are manifolded to a common header
(containing the flowmeter) which ends at the inlet to pass No. 1 in the aera-
tion tank.

Chlorination System

    New facilities were added and the existing chlorine contact tank modi-
fied to increase plant effluent disinfection capability.  New facilities include
a chlorine storage area, an evaporator, and chlorine residual analyzers. The
chlorine contact tank capacity was doubled.

    An open steel structure,  with  a Robertson Q-Type deck (supported by
structural steel members) serving as a roof, and a concrete floor slab provide
storage for  eighteen  907-kg (2,000-lb) chlorine cylinders.  For cylinder hand-
ling and weighing,an 1,814-kg (4,000-lb) electric hoist mounted on an over-
head monorail and two load cells were furnished.

    A Wallace &  Tiernan Series A-785 evaporator with a capacity of 1,8 14kg/
day (4,000  Ib/day) was installed in the existing  chlorinator room in the opera-
tions building. The  existing Wallace & Tiernan Series A-711 chlorinators
were modified to accept a signal from the chlorine residual analyzer controller
in addition  to  the flow signal.

    Wallace  & Tiernan chlorine analyzers, complete with Moyno Model
IL6CDQ sampling pumps,  were installed at the effluent discharge structure,
downstream of the chlorine contact tank,and downstream from the bypass man-
hole in the  secondary effluent pipeline just outside the secondary sedimenta-
tion tank.  The postchlorination application point is at the bypass manhole,
which is  equipped with a turbine type mixer made by Cleveland Mixer Com-
pany .

    The existing  4.6-m (15-ft) deep, 3.2-m (10.5-ft) wide, two-pass,con-
crete chlorine contact tank was lengthened by 15.6 m (51 ft). Hinde Engi-
neering's Air-Aqua Oxidation System 2542 air tubing was installed in a
serpentine  pattern on the floor slab of both the old and new tank sections.

Effluent Disposal Lines

    A 1.1-m  (42-in.) concrete sewer line 70 1 m  (2,300 ft) long was installed
from the effluent discharge structure to the Arroyo Las Positas Creek bed for
effluent disposal. Diversion of plant effluent is  provided for at two manholes,
either for airport spray irrigation or for golf course irrigation and storage.  The
airport system includes a pumping station with two  four-stage  Model 12  AC
turbine pumps manufactured by Johnston Pump Company, each with a capacity
of .1. 9 m3/min (500 gpm)  at 67 m (220 ft) TDK; sprinkler controllers; pop-up
                                   39

-------
type sprinkler heads; and approximately 20 ha (50 ac) of land.  The land is
located mostly south of the Livermore Municipal Airport runway, which is
about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west of the treatment plant.

     A 0.36-m (14-in) diameter, 1,158-m (3,800-ft)  long pipeline was con-
structed for effluent diversion to the Las Positas Golf Course adjacent to and
northwest of the airport.  A motor-operated butterfly valve in the upstream
end of the pipeline is responsive to water surface elevation in four inter-
connecting storage lakes which supply the golf course irrigation system.

Miscellaneous Facilities

    Miscellaneous items constructed under this contract included pipelines
interconnecting different process units, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm
drains, chain  link fence,  and landscaping, including a sprinkler system.
Miscellaneous equipment added during plant enlargement included a Worth-
ington Model 25-C-5 comminutor located in the inlet works channel just up-
stream of the raw sewage pumps; a Chicago Pump Tru-Test effluent sampler
complete with a Gorman-Rupp Model 81-1/2-B2-B sampler pump, both located
on the effluent discharge structure top slab; two No. 3 spray water pumps by
Johnston Pump Company, Model 7BC,  each with a capacity of 1.1  m^/min
(280 gpm) at 15 m (50 ft) TDK, also located on the effluent discharge  struc-
ture slab and used to control  foaming in the aeration tank; a 0.9-m (36-in.)
sluice gate with a hydraulic operator at the pond inlet structure for plant ef-
fluent bypass; and other small items.  Electrical and instrumentation work
and painting services were also provided by the Contractor under the terms
of the contract.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

    Construction management was directed by the Livermore City Engineer.
At the, job site he was represented by a City inspector who devoted his full
time to construction supervision.  In the absence of the inspector (illness,
etc.), the treatment plant superintendent divided his duties between construc-
tion inspection and operation.  Change orders and requests for progress pay-
ments originated with the inspector and were submitted to the City Engineer
for  approval.  Change orders, in turn, were  submitted by the City to HEW for
approval. Shop drawings, reviewed by Brown and Caldwell, were handled
and distributed by the City.  Brown and Caldwell engineers were also avail-
able for direct consultation with the City inspector and made periodic visits
to the job site to assist in the inspection procedures.  On request,  Brown and
Caldwell assisted the City Engineer in his dealings with the Contractor.
                                   40

-------
    Record keeping, in addition to correspondence between the Contractor
and the City, included the preparation of a daily report by the inspector from
March 16 to December 15, 1966; construction progress photographs taken
once a month from March 1966 through November 1966; soil and concrete test
reports; field trip reports prepared by the consulting engineering firm; and
general correspondence between the  City and its consultant.

    Weather had little effect on construction progress as the climate of the
Livermore area is semiarid,  with hot, dry summers and cool,  moist winters.
Average summer  temperatures are above 21  C (70 F) and winter temperatures
are above 7  C (45 F).  Rainfall during the period of intensive  construction,
March to December 1966, was below average.  Total yearly rainfall for 1966
was 25.98 cm (10.23 in.), whereas the long-term average based on the
1931-1960 period is  36.58 cm (14.40 in.) per year.  Construction  activities
were not seriously curtailed during the rainfall  period; there were no job  shut-
downs because of inclement weather. There was, however, substantial
                                     reduction of the labor force occasion-
         RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION
         DURING CONSTRUCTION
         PERIOD
TABLE 7.  RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION ally because of wet ground. Monthly
                                      precipitation and evaporation values
                                      for January 1966 through April 1967
                                      are shown in Table 7.

                                          The Contractor's activities
                                      started  on March 16, 1966, when his
                                      construction quarters were moved to
                                      the job  site. Ground alignment, both
                                      vertical and horizontal, was estab-
                                      lished by the City the next day. Four
                                      days later, the Contractor's earth-
                                      moving  equipment was  at work.

                                          Although the entire construction
                                      period is not included in the inspec-
                                      tor1 s daily reports (as they cover only
                                      the period from March 16 to December
                                      15, 1966),  his reports  do include
                                      information on the bulk of construction
 activities.  This diary along with other field information has been used to
 establish the Contractor's activities as summarized in Figure 16. The approx-
 imate period covered by each activity, excluding the minor breaks or pauses
 which exist normally in any construction  project, is shown graphically.
 Figure 16 cannot be used, however, to explain  why some activities took
 longer than expected to complete. To help visualize the construction prog-
 ress and its many ramifications, each activity is briefly discussed.  The

Month
January 1966
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1967
February
March
April

Rainfall, in
1.63
0.97
0.20
0.36
0.15
0.10
0.18
0
0.11
0
3.75
2.78
7.44
0.28
5.12
4.31
Recorded at Livermore Water
b
in. x 2.54 = cm


a b a b
. ' Evaporation, in.
1.61
2.26
3.82
7.76
9.55
10.31
10.88
11.93
8.0
6.5
3.0
1.18
2.25
2.18
3.22
3.19
Reclamation Plant.


                                   41

-------
                                                         MAR
                                                        21  21
  APR
II  1«  29
    MAY
2 9 It 23
   JUN
6 11 20  27
    JUL
« 11 II
AUC
 15  22
   SEPT
5 12  19  2«
    OCT
3 10  17  24  31
  NOV
14 21  21
 DEC
12  19
  1967
  JAN
2 9  16
                        ..-
                   EXCAVATION
                   CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB
                   CONCRETE WALLS
                   EQUIPMENT INSIDE STRUCTURE
                   EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE STRUCTURE
                TRICKLING FILTER
                   EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
                   CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB
                   CONCRETE WALLS
                   EQUIPMENT INSIDE STRUCTURE

                           EDIMENTAT10N TANK
                    CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB
                    CONCRETE WALLS
                    EQUIPMENT INSIDE STRUCTURE
                    EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE STRUCTURE
                CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
                    EXCAVATION
                    CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB
                    CONCRETE WALLS
                    EQUIPMENT
                CHLORINE STORAGE  .
                    CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB
                    STRUCTURE
                    EQUIPMENT
to
                 EFFLUENT DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
                    EXCAVATION
                    CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB AND WALLS
                    EQUIPMENT
                 SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION BOX

                 FILTER CIRCULATION SUMP

                 AIRPORT IRRIGATION PUMP STATION

                 SLUDGE LAGOONS

                 HOLDING BASINS
                 PIPING
                    W-ln. OUTFALL
                    AIRPORT IRRIGATION SYSTEM
                    IS-ln. GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION LINE
                    16-In. MIXED LIQUOR LINES
                    U-ln. RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE LINE
                    «e-ln. SETTLED SEWAGE FORCE MAIN
                    30-ln. TRICKLING FILTER SUPPLY LINE
                    27-ln. TRICKLING FILTER RETURN LINE
                    12-In. BYPASS LINE AND MANHOLE
                    10-ln. TANK DRAIN AND 6-ln. SCUM LINE
                 LANDSCAPING
                 NOTE:  (1) In. X 0.015 * in
                       (2) Datt IndlciUi Mondly
                          of Meh wMk,
                                                                           Figure 16.   Construction  activity.

-------
relationship of the different units to each other and the location of the piping
systems serving those units were presented previously in Figures  7 and 14
(Section 5), respectively.

Aeration Tank

    The proximity of the trickling filter and sludge lagoons to the aeration
tank helped coordination of earthwork activities at these three sites.  Ma-
terial excavated from the aeration tank site was used for engineered fill at
the trickling filter structure and for dikes at the sludge lagoons.  Embankment
compaction values ranged from 97 to 99 percent relative density.

    The quantity of  concrete poured in this structure totaled nearly  1,150 m^
(1,500 yd'5); the largest single pour was the floor slab at 516 m^ (675 yd3).
The maximum size of the aggregate for this large pour was 3.8 cm (1.5  in.),
and a bucket-conveyor belt combination was used to pour the entire floor
area.  For the remainder of the tank, the aggregate size was reduced to 1.9
cm (0.75 in.)/and the concrete was pumped using a Thompson Ready-Mix
pump. During concrete form construction and rebar placing, the walls were
divided into  12-m (40-ft) sections for each pour and alternate sections  were
cast simultaneously, starting at the south wall and ending at the west wall.
Probably because of problems with the concrete pump and mix (three truck-
loads were rejected), large rock-pockets developed at the east end of the
center wall.  All loose material was removed in the affected area, and an
epoxy compound was used  to bond the new concrete to the existing surfaces.

    Equipment delivery problems adversely affected the installation of the air
blowers.  Blowers were air-freighted and installed early in 1967.  Because
blower motor delivery could not be made until March 1967,  the blowers were
temporarily fitted with rented motors.  A photograph of the blower equipment
is shown in Figure 17.

    The proximity of the aeration tank structure to the existing trickling filter
required close watch of the embankment between these two structures (Figure
18).  At one time when the embankment's stability was in question,  shoring
and backfill operations were started immediately along the south aeration tank
wall.  Backfilling activities were closely inspected, and on two occasions,
the Contractor recompacted those areas where compaction test results were
below the minimum acceptable 95 percent relative density.

Trickling Filter

    The new trickling filter was the only structure constructed on engineered
fill.  Relative density compaction tests at this fill always resulted in values
higher than the 95 percent  required.
                                   43

-------
            Figure 17.  Aeration blower equipment.  Installation
                       proceeded behind schedule because of
                       delivery delays.
    The concrete volume in this structure was over  265 m3 (350 yd3).  The
maximum size of the aggregate for the central collection trough and pier was
3.8 cm (1.5 in.); for other portions it was  1.9 cm (0.75  in.). The floor slab
was poured in two sections.  The outside wall was divided into  six sections
based on 60-degree central angles.  Alternate pie-shape sections were then
poured.  The inner wall holding the filter media  was also divided in  six sec-
tions, and alternate pie-shape sections  were poured concurrently.

    Underdrain installation was completed by the end of 1966, and filter
media placement by the middle of January  1967.  Delivery of the trickling
filter distributor was behind schedule, but since this unit was not as essen-
tial to the overall process  as the aeration blowers,  it  was believed unneces-
sary to air-freight the distributor arms to expedite delivery.

Secondary Sedimentation Tank

    Maximum aggregate size for the concrete in which the return activated
sludge pipe was embedded and for the central pier casting was 3.8 cm  (1.5
in.); for the remainder of the tank, it was  1.9 cm (0. 75  in.). The total quan-
tity of concrete poured at this tank approached 420 m3 (550 yd3),  and half of

                                   44

-------
       Figure 18.  Aeration tank reinforcing steel placement in progress.
                  Proximity of aeration tank excavation to the trickling
                  filter structures caused concern over bank stability.
this total was in the floor slab.  The slab was poured in four sections, and
because they were not cast to final grade,  a 5-cm (2-in.) grout topping was
required on the structural slab.

    The grout topping was placed after the mechanical equipment was instal-
led inside the tank, and the structural steel rotating arms were utilized to
spread and surface-finish the topping.  Difficulties with the mechanical
equipment resulted in an uneven and rough surface finish.  Months later, it
was noted that the grout was not bonded to the structural floor slab; addi-
tionally,  several larger-than-hairline-size cracks appeared on the  surface.
Several meetings were held between the Contractor, the City/ and Brown and
Caldwell to resolve the question of responsibility for the required corrective
                                    45

-------
work..  The operation of this tank was essential to the activated sludge
process and was necessary to meet effluent discharge requirements. Accord-
ingly,  the City directed the Contractor to replace the grout topping.  On
January 27,  1967,  the Contractor agreed, under duress, to replace it.  The
City's  nonacceptance of the Contractor's claim that the grout replacement
constituted extra work resulted in the Contractor's action  for legal redress.
The suit by the Contractor against the City and its consultant was decided,
years later, in favor of the City.

    Equipment deliveries for this structure were not  delayed, and the equip-
ment inside  the tank was assembled, welded,  painted, and tested by the
middle of November 1966. This equipment  is shown  in Figure 19.  The return
activated sludge pumping equipment, located outside the tank,  was installed
by the  end of December  1966.
      Figure 19.  Secondary clarifier structure and mechanical equipment
                                  46

-------
Chlorine Contact Tank

    Expansion of the chlorine contact tank, was started and completed early.
An aggregate base was placed on a compacted  subgrade, and the concrete was
placed in two pours, one for the floor slab and the other for the walls and
cross beams. Over 160  m^ (210 yd^) of concrete were used with a maximum
aggregate size of 3.8 cm (1.5 in.).  The air piping was installed by the end
of September 1966,  and 2 mo  later  the tank was placed in service.

Chlorine Storage Area

    Construction activity  extended from April through October 1966.   Column
footings and floor slabs  were in place by June, but because of a delivery
error, the structural frame  was not available until July.  The structure was
erected, roofed, and drained in 1  mo and the piping and equipment were
installed and painted during October (Figure 20).
                      Figure 20.  Chlorine storage area.

 Effluent Discharge Structure

     Construction activity at the effluent discharge structure was divided into
 two noncontinuous periods. The earlier period corresponded to the concrete
 work ; the latter period, the installation of the water pump units and related
 piping and effluent sampling equipment.
                                    47

-------
Secondary Distribution Box

     The construction of the secondary distribution box also result in two non-
continuous periods of activity similar to those for the effluent discharge
structure. In this case,the latter period involved mostly the installation  of
the air-lift piping. The sluice gates inside the box were installed soon after
the completion of the concrete work during the earlier period.

Filter Circulation jump

     In addition to the structural modifications to the existing filter circula-
tion sump, construction activity involved the installation of pumping equip-
ment for the trickling filters and aeration tanks.  These pumps were in place
by the end of  November 1966.  However,  the electric motors for the aeration
tank feed pumps were missing because of late deliveries.  The Contractor was
asked, and he agreed, to  air-freight them for a mid-January 1967 delivery.
Installation was accomplished soon after delivery.

Airport Irrigation Pump Station

     Completion of the airport irrigation system was scheduled for June 30,
1966.  Construction activities at the pump station took place during May and
June, and by the end of June the pumps were installed. Electric motors had
to be rented, however, to meet the deadline.  The pump'station was initially
manually operated because the float control and panel were not installed  until
July.  One of the motors failed in late July because of improper wiring connec-
tions.  This same motor failed again 5 mo later when it shorted due to im-
proper insulation.

Sludge Lagoons

    Sludge lagoons were started and completed early during the construction
period.  Material excavated from the aeration tank area was used for con-
struction of the dikes.  Compaction test results averaged 95 percent relative
density.   The  dikes were shaped and finished by early May 1966,  and diges-
ted sludge was hauled in immediately.  Supernatant structures and walkways
were installed by December of the same year.

Holding Basins

     Water and sludge had to be removed from each oxidation pond prior to
conversion to  holding basins. Basin 1 (oxidation pond 2) was completed  first
in June 1966.  Later activities included demolition of the  abandoned dikes
                                   48

-------
and surface grading at basin 1.  Dike location in basin 2 was revised during
construction with new dikes being shortened and dikes scheduled to be
abandoned left in service.

Outfall

    The 1.1-m (42-in.) outfall from the effluent discharge structure to Arroyo
Las Positas was also completed before  the June 30, 1966, deadline.  Changes
in horizontal alignment were required to clear private property.  A temporary
equipment access way through private property was necessary, and negotia-
tions were handled directly between the Contractor and the individual land-
owner.  This pipeline also feeds the irrigation systems at the airport and golf
course.

Airport Irrigation Piping

    The installation of the piping and sprinklers at the airport was started in
April 1966,  and the equipment ready for testing by the end of June.  Leaks
were discovered in the pipeline, and four additional tests were required to
discover and repair all the leaks and pipeline breaks.  Thereafter, the sprink-
lers required periodic checking.  Also, the controllers for the irrigation
valves were erratic in their operation   and it was October before  all the com-
ponents were working properly.

Golf Course Irrigation Line

    The 0.36-m (14-in.)  line feeding the golf course irrigation storage lakes
was installed during May 1966, and water to the lakes was delivered early in
June.  Controls for the butterfly valve were installed later.

Mixed Liquor Line

    The new  0.91-m (36-in.) mixed liquor line runs from the aeration tank to
the secondary distribution box and then to the secondary sedimentation tank.
Two lines were installed,  one for future use as shown previously in Figure 14.
The lines were installed in August 1966; in December, a section next to a flex-
ible coupling   just outside the sedimentation tank structure  failed.  Appar-
ently, the steel plate thickness was less than that  shown in the shop drawings.

Return Activated Sludge Line

    A 0.30-m  (12-in.) return activated sludge line connects the aeration
tank to the return  activated sludge pumps.  This line was installed in a
common trench concurrently with the two 0.91-m (36-in.) mixed liquor lines.
                                   49

-------
Bypass Line and Manhole

     The new 1.1-m (42-in.) bypass pipeline extends from the existing 1.4-m
(54-in.) bypass to the new holding basin (see Figure 14 in Section 5).  The
bypass manhole is in the 1.4-m (54-in.) line and connects it to the secondary
sedimentation tank effluent line.  The new bypass line was installed between
September 19 and October 25,  1966. The concrete manhole was completed a
few days later.  Since the 1.4-m (54-in.) line was in use (it was connected
with the secondary effluent line), it was difficult to make any connection
without affecting plant operation.  Thus, a plant shutdown from midnight to
7:00 a.m. was scheduled.  However, three such shutdowns were required
before the connections were successfully made.

Aeration Tank  Drain and Scum Line

    A 25-cm (10-in.) tank drain and 15-cm (6-in.) scum line extended from
the aeration tank to the inlet works. In the vicinity of the inlet works, the
new lines ran  alongside an existing supernatant line which had been leaking
for some time; consequently, the ground was  moist.

    A vitrified clay pipeline for raw sludge was also broken during excavation
in this area.  The broken line was  repaired,  but a leak developed in the re-
paired area at  a later date. Because of the nature of the affected pipelines,
it was necessary to shut down the  plant to effect the repairs.  The excessive
water from the leaks and breaks also affected the size of the  excavation, and
the hole grew bigger and bigger.  Pea gravel fill  material was imported to
protect the inlet works. All this activity was considered extra work by the
Contractor, and it took several meetings to reach a compromise on the amount
of the extra cost.
PROGRESS PAYMENTS

    In addition to the daily reports and related information mentioned previ-
ously, the requests for monthly progress payments and extra work also out-
line the Contractor's progress throughout the construction period.  The rate
of progress payments, based on the Contractor's bid breakdown, is shown
graphically in Figure 21 for major construction items.  The payment percent-
age is related to the total cost of the item. Examination of Figure  21 reveals
that the payments went beyond the time originally allowed for completion.
The cumulative  progress payments are shown in Figure 22.  Most of the work
had been accomplished by May 1967 when the City partially accepted the
improvements.  The big jump in payments during 1967 was the release of
money withheld by the City for uncompleted construction items.  Although the
construction work was substantially complete, some of the finishing touches
                                   50

-------
 c
 0>
CO

UJ
5

<
a.
IU
CC
o
O
cc
a.
    100
    90
    80
    70
    60
    50
    30
    20
    10
•               MOBILIZATION

                   PIPING

            SPRINKLER
            IRRIGATION /"
            SYSTEM -H
       EARTHWORK
                                                     PAINTING
                                      MECHANICAL
                                      EQUIPMENT
                          MISCELLANEOUS
                          METALWORK
TRICKLING FILTER
MEDIA
                                                            FENCING
         MAMJ   JASONDJFMAMJJA

                       1966                                 1967
        Figure 21.  Progress payment rates for major construction items.
had not been completed and this affected the amount of money retained by the
City.  Progress payments extend throughout 1967 because of the difficulty in
reaching an agreement on the extent of the extra work orders.

     Extra work orders 1 through 33, in the amount of $8,101.40, were finally
paid for on December 29, 1967. The overall cost of the change orders is a
small percentage of the construction cost.  A summary of the total  construc-
tion cost is shown in Table 8.
                                    51

-------
   1.200
 o
 •o
 •o
 C
 CO
 w»
 o

i
UJ

1
Ul
oc
13
O

-------
TABLE 8.  TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
       Item
Cost, dollars
 Bid price
 Add for equipment charge
 Deduct contingency fund
 Change Orders 1-33
 Total payment
1,057,800.00
  10.000.00
1,067,800.00

  20.000.00
1,047,800.00

   8,101.40
1,055,901.40
1,055,901.40
Section 7). As mentioned previously,
the City opted for no liquidated dam-
ages if the new facilities were in
operation in time to meet the regula-
tory agency requirements.  Although
the Contractor's time was not offici-
ally extended, the position adopted
by both parties was that the project
would  be finished as soon as possible.
Inability to agree on change orders
and the extent of unfinished work
appears to have affected completion
and acceptance of the project. The
City Council agreed on  May 9, 1967,
to partially accept the improvements,
and the notice of completion was
is.sued by the City Engineer on August
14, 1967.
                                      53

-------
                               SECTION 7

             PLANT STARTUP AND INITIAL OPERATING PERIOD
     During construction of the upgraded Livermore Water Reclamation Plant,
the City was prohibited by the Regional Water Quality Control Board from dis-
charging inadequately treated effluent to the surface waters of Arroyo Las
Positas.  To  meet the discharge prohibition, the City utilized portable alum-
inum piping and a temporary pumping system to spray irrigate effluent onto
60 ha (150 ac) of leased lands and the  nearby  municipal golf course.  Because
of the expense and limited capacity of  this interim disposal method, it was
imperative that, once completed,  the plant be fully operational and producing
a satisfactory effluent as  soon as possible.

     This section describes the startup and initial operating period of the
plant.  Procedures used in bringing the activated sludge system on line,
initial operational problems, and  performance  data from March through De-
cember 1967 are the main topics discussed.

    A principal problem discussed below was  the inability to consistently
nitrify in the  activated sludge unit. After several months  of attempting vari-
ous solutions, it was determined  that an inadequate air supply was the cause.
Utilizing the  third (standby) blower for portions of the day resulted in signi-
ficant improvement, but as discussed in Section 8, the problem has recurred
over the years each time a blower has been shut down for repairs.
PREPARATION FOR STARTUP

    In December 1966, approximately 3 mo before the estimated project com-
pletion date, the City increased the plant staff from five to nine by hiring
two more operators, a laboratory technician,  and a maintenance mechanic.
A training program was begun which included familiarizing  all personnel with
the operation of existing  portions of the plant.  One-hour-per-day training
sessions on the new portions of the plant lasted approximately 2 mo until the
construction was completed. The existing employees trained the new person-
nel in general operation, preventive maintenance, and laboratory procedures
for the original plant.
                                   54

-------
    Materials used for training included the preliminary Operation and Main-
tenance Manual prepared by Brown and Caldwell,  an operator training manual
prepared by the California Water Pollution Control Association, and manuals
prepared by various state agencies and universities. A special effort was
made to find training guides oriented toward nitrification in the activated
sludge process, but the only information found was  in Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation articles.  This again indicates the lack of widespread
knowledge on nitrification which existed at the time.

    In addition to utilizing available literature, discussions were held be-
tween the plant staff and design engineers from Brown and Caldwell.  These
meetings yielded information and suggestions which were instrumental in
developing an understanding of the plant's capabilities.

    Before startup all  pumps ,  valves, blowers, collectors, flowmeters, air
diffusers, and piping were inspected by City inspectors and plant personnel
and were thoroughly tested.  All dirt, rocks, and  trash were removed from
lines,  pumps, valves,  and tanks,  and systematic testing was made of all
electrical controls.  The Contractor confirmed the startup date 10 days before-
hand.  After the activated sludge unit was ready for use, a final check was
made of all equipment.
STARTUP OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM

     In conjunction with the design engineering firm, a plan was formulated
for making the activated sludge system operational (Figure 23).  The first step
consisted of filling the aeration tank one-quarter full with raw sewage and
starting one of the blowers.  After a 24-hr period, 45 m^ (12,000 gal) of an-
aerobically digested sludge were added to the aeration tank. The tank was
half filled with raw  sewage and kept under aeration for 2 days.  At that time,
additional wastewater from the trickling filter was added periodically at a
rate which filled the tank in 5  more days.

      Dissolved oxygen (DO), mixed liquor suspended  solids  (MLSS),  and
 sludge settleability  (sludge  volume index or SVT) were analyzed at 4-hr
 intervals and DO maintained at  2.5-3.5 mg/1.  The MLSS level averaged 1,300
 mg/1 during the 5-day period, and the 30-min settled volume decreased from
 600 ml/1 to 250 ml/1  by the fifth day.  A well-defined floe was noted on
 the second day.

     The total flow from the trickling filter was added to the aeration tank on
the tenth day, and operation of the secondary clarifier was begun.  The sug-
gested loading rate  was 15-20 kg BODs/kg MLSS/day;  using an  estimated
filter effluent BOD5 of 120 mg/1, an MLSS level of 1,400 mg/1 was  required.
                                    55

-------




MARCH
1967













APRIL
1967









23 ^
- 24 «« 	
- 25 -« 	
- 26
- 27 	 	 >
- 28 -« 	
- 29 - 	
- 30 •« 	
- 31 	 	 '
_ .j _^ 	

- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5 •* 	
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17 •* 	
- 18
FILL AERATION TANK TO ONE-QUARTER MARK WITH RAW SEWAGE;
START BLOWERS
ADD 12.000 gal DIGESTED SLUDGE
FILL AERATION TANK TO HALF-FULL LEVEL WITH PRIMARY EFFLUENT



ADD 100.000 gal OF TRICKLING FILTER EFFLUENT PER DAY


PUT AERATION TANK. SECONDARY CLARIFIER,
AND CHLORINE CONTACT TANK ON LINE



INCREASE CHLORINE DOSAGE FROM 10 TO 25-30 mg/l





NOTE: gal x 3.8= 1





DISCHARGE TO ARROYO LAS POSITAS (ALLOWED BY REGIONAL BOARD)

           Figure 23. Startup sequence for activated sludge process.
    Effluent from the secondary clarifier contained 20-30 mg/l suspended
solids.  Suspended solids levels in the return activated sludge were 0.4-0.5
percent.  Secondary effluent was chlorinated at a dosage of 10 mg/l.  Com-
bined chlorine residuals of 2-3 mg/l were measured at a contact time of
120-150 min.  On the second day of full aeration tank operation, a clear
effluent was monitored with suspended solids concentrations ranging from
15-20 mg/l.  A BODs value from a settled aeration tank mixed liquor sample
taken 5 days  previously measured 20 mg/l.
                                   56

-------
    Total coliform organism MPN's, however, ranged from 50 to 250/100 ml,
far greater than the 5-day median discharge requirement of 5.0/100 ml.  To
correct this, the chlorine dosage was increased to 25-30 mg/1, resulting in
residuals  of 10-20 mg/1.  On the third day of operation, coliform counts were
ranging from 2.2 to 5.0 MPN/100 ml, and after 5 consecutive days with
counts of  5.0 MPN/100 ml or less, the Regional Board allowed surface dis-
charge of  effluent, permitting an end to the temporary land irrigation system.
The operating aeration tank is shown in Figure 24.
    Figure 24.  Activated sludge aeration tank in operation.  Tank was
               placed on-line on April 1, 1967. Surface discharge was
               allowed  17 days later. Roughing trickling filters are in
               background.
                                   57

-------
INITIAL OPERATIONAL PERIOD

     The performance of the Livermore plant from April through December 1967,
when the new activated sludge unit was operating,  is summarized in Table 9.
Although excellent BOD,- and suspended solids removals were obtained,  anal-
ysis of final  effluent ammonia  nitrogen  concentrations indicated that complete
nitrification was not occurring.  This persisted until early 1968 while several
remedies were tried,  none of them successful.
   TABLE 9.  PLANT PERFORMANCE:
             APRIL-DECEMBER 1967
      Parameter
Flow, mgda

BOD5
  Influent, mg/1
  Effluent, mg/1
  Removal, percent

Suspended solids
  Influent, mg/1
  Effluent, mg/1
  Removal, percent

PH
  Influent
  Effluent

Effluent analyses
  Grease, mg/1
  MBAS, mg/1
  Ammonia-nitrogen, mg/1
    LWRPb
    EQAC
  Nitrite-nitrogen, mg/1
    LWRPb
    EQAC
  Nitrate-nitrogen, mg/1
    LWRPb
    EQAC
  Chlorine residual,  mg/1
  Coltform concentration,
   MPN/100 ml
    Median
    90th percent!le
                               Value
 3.0(est.)
 190
  15
  93
 220
  11
  95
 7.6
 7.6
 5.4
0.52

 4.4
  11

0.35
0.23

 7.9
 4.7
 7.5
 2.1
 25
 mgd x 0.044 = m-Vsec

 Measured by plant staff.
 £
 Measured by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc.
     During this period,  difficulties
were encountered in maintaining a
uniform DO level in the aeration tank.
The  level sought was 2.5-3.5 mg/1 at
the effluent overflow weir.  Use of
fixed-speed blowers required that ad-
justments be  made by turning a blower
on or off.  This resulted in constant
checking and adjusting, with DO
levels fluctuating greatly.  An addi-
tional problem was  the necessity of
making DO analyses in the laboratory,
a time-consuming operation since
measurements were being taken along
the length of  the tank.  Installation of
a DO analyzer-recorder near the aera-
tion tank overflow weir in July 1968
allowed more immediate  monitoring of
DO levels.

     Although adequate disinfection
was  obtained by utilizing high chlorine
dosages, complete  nitrification was
not attained until an increase in air
flow to the aeration tank was tried in
early 1968 (Figure 25).  This was ac-
complished by using the third blower
on a regular basis for a portion of the
day. The target DO level near the
effluent weir was increased from  about
2.5-3.5 mg/1 to 4.5-5.5 mg/1.
    An important aspect of Figure 25 is whether partial nitrification was ocur-
ring continuously from June  1967 through January 1968 or whether nitrification
took place only during low loading periods of the day with major ammonia
                                     58

-------
                                     bleedthrough occurring during peak
                                     loading periods.  The values shown
                                     in Figure 25 are based on monthly
                                     averages of 24-hr composites taken
                                     once a week.  From the occurrence of
                                     some nitrate in the effluent, it can be
                                     assumed that some nitrification was
                                     taking place.  It is probable that this
                                     was during low loading periods of the
                                     day when the quantity of air supplied
                                     was sufficient to keep the DO level
                                     high enough for the nitrifying reac-
                                     tions to occur.
Figure 25.  Ammonia nitrogen removal
           and blower operation.
                                           The oxygen demand imposed by
                                       ammonia nitrogen in a nitrifying sys-
                                       tem is quite rapid,  and a loading
increase can cause rapid DO depletion  with subsequent loss of nitrification.
As the DO level increases, nitrification will start again.  When nitrogen
analyses  are made on 24-hr composite samples, it often appears that low-
level or partial nitrification is occurring continuously when, in fact, the
nitrification level has varied greatly over the 24-hr period.

     The reason for the difficulty in solving the problem was the scarcity of
available information on nitrification in full-scale plant operation.  The lack
of adequate knowledge for design was discussed in Section 5, and the  diffi-
culties encountered in obtaining operator training information were noted
above. More widespread use of nitrification in wastewater treatment since
1967 has  resulted in better designs and the availability of better training
materials.  Factors pertinent to nitrification in coupled trickling filter-acti-
vated sludge systems  will be discussed in Section 10.

     Another operational problem which  developed early was the occurrence
of denitrification in  the  secondary clarifier.  It was found  that  the  sludge
blanket has to be maintained at  a depth of less than 1/3  m (1 ft)  after the
collector  has  passed by; depths  greater than this result  in denitrification
with clumps of sludge  being buoyed to the surface by nitrogen gas.  A
photoelectric  cell to  detect sludge blanket height was built  by the plant
staff (Figure  26).   It is  operated by lowering in into the clarifier until
a decrease in  light transmission is detected by the cell  (Figure 27).  The
length of  line under water indicates the depth to the beginning of the con-
centrated  sludge blanket.

     The unusually high chlorine dosages of 20-30 mg/1 also created problems
in adding  chlorine and measuring residuals because the equipment was  de-
signed for normal,  lower dosages.  The problems eventually necessitated
                                  59

-------
Figure 26.  Photoelectric probe (on left) for sensing sludge
           blanket height.  Reading is taken on meter  (on right)
                   Figure 27.  Photoelectric probe being lowered into
                              secondary clarifier. This measurement
                              is made after sludge withdrawal arms have
                              passed.  Sludge blanket is kept at 1/3 m  (1 ft)
                                    60

-------
abandonment of the chlorine residual analyzers and resulted in development
of a control method utilizing pH as the control parameter.  This method will
be discussed further in Section 8.

    Increased solids production also caused immediate problems.  Difficul-
ties were encountered in maintaining a high solids content in the raw sludge
pumped to the anaerobic digesters.  This adversely affected volatile matter
reduction in the two mixed digesters and caused subsequent sludge lagoon
odor problems about 2 mo after startup  of the activated sludge unit.  These
problems have never been fully solved, although water depth in the lagoons
is now maintained at the 3-m (10-ft) maximum depth, instead of  the 1-m
(3-ft)  depth originally used, and chemical odor control equipment has been
installed.  Solids handling data and associated problems are discussed more
fully in the following section.
                                   61

-------
                               SECTION 8

                  PLANT OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE
     Since its completion in early 1967, the Livermore Water Reclamation
Plant (Figures 28 and 29) has been able to consistently  produce a high quality
effluent from the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process.   Because
of the advanced nature of the treatment process and the stringency of the dis-
charge requirements, operation and performance records for the 0.22-m3/sec
(5-mgd) plant are unusually complete.  They allow a complete discussion of
operating procedures and plant performance  for a full  7 yr of record from 1968
through 1974.

    Although the overall performance record is good,  some operational  prob-
lems have occurred.  In most cases, procedural changes or equipment modi-
fications have resulted in improvement.  Problems which have occurred and
their possible remedies  are important in the present context in order to  give
guidance to designers of plants which might be constructed in the future.
Additionally, an evaluation of plant performance, coupled with recently de-
veloped knowledge of nitrification kinetics, can allow more precise, rational
design of future plants with less reliance placed on empirical approaches.

    The purpose of this section is to discuss  and evaluate the operation and
performance of the Livermore plant since its initial period of operation in
1967.  Operational problems have included removal of solids from the primary
sedimentation tanks, a long-term breakdown of one of the two trickling filters
in 1968 and 1969, difficulties  with the automatic control system for the filter
circulation sump, an undersized aeration air supply to the aeration tank, a
high secondary clarifier overflow rate, accumulation of  solids in the chlorine
contact tank, and sludge lagoon odors. Performance of the plant has been
extraordinarily  good  because of lower than expected loadings, a well-trained
staff, and the existence of emergency holding ponds which allow shutdown of
portions of the  plant without bypassing of inadequately  treated wastewater to
the receiving waters.

    As an introduction to this  section,  a description of sampling methods and
locations is given below.   Following this and  preceding detailed discussions
of individual plant components is a brief summary of overall plant perfor-
mance . Finally, a critical evaluation of plant performance compares operating

                                   62

-------
Figure 28.  Operations building, Livermore Water
           Reclamation Plant.
                         Figure 29.  Livermore plant control room.
                                 63

-------
data with predicted values and summarizes the weaknesses and strengths of
the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant.  Information from this section is
drawn on extensively in the discussion of general design considerations pre-
sented in Section 10.
SAMPLING METHODS AND LOCATIONS

     Sampling of the wastewater stream is undertaken at five locations: raw
wastewater,  primary effluent, trickling filter effluent, secondary effluent,
and final (or chlorine contact tank) effluent.  Two major changes in the sam-
pling program during the period of interest require mention.  During 1969 and
earlier,no samples were taken of effluent from the secondary clarifier. Final
effluent samples reflected settling of particulate  matter in the chlorine tank
and possible changes induced by the high doses of chlorine required for dis-
infection.  Beginning in 1970, sampling of secondary clarifier effluent was
incorporated  in the regular sampling program.

    The second change involved raw wastewater  sampling.  During 1969 and
earlier^raw wastewater was sampled by hand from the raw wastewater sump
following the metering flumes.  An automatic sampler was installed in 1970,
but the high level of turbulence  in the sump occasionally allowed air to
enter the sample line and  created sampling difficulties.  The raw wastewater
sampling point was then moved to the preaeration and primary sedimentation
tank influent channel following the raw sewage pumps. This resulted in im-
proved operation of the automatic sampler but has had an adverse effect on
measured raw wastewater  characteristics because the activated sludge waste
mixed liquor  and sludge lagoon supernatant are recycled to  the headwords
ahead of the new sampling point. Review of operating records  indicates that
an increase in raw wastewater 8005 and suspended solids concentrations of
30 to 50 mg/1 has resulted from this change in sampling point location. This
should be kept in mind when evaluating primary treatment removals and over-
all plant performance during and after 1970.

    Sampling methods and main-stream sampling  locations are  presented in
Table 10.   The constituents analyzed by the plant staff (Figures 30 and 31)
at these locations,along with the frequency of analysis, are listed in Table 11.
In addition to the constituents shown in Table 11, additional analyses of
plant effluent characteristics are made by an outside laboratory and include
measurement of a wide range of chemical constituents, including heavy met-
als.   The full list of these constituents is given in Appendix D.

    In addition to analyses of the main waste stream, plant records are
maintained for other operating parameters, principally aeration tank mixed
liquor characteristics and solids handling and treatment data.  A list of these
data is also given in Appendix D.

                                   64

-------
           TABLE 10.  PRINCIPAL SAMPLING METHODS AND LOCATIONS
      Point in
     flow stream
     Location of
    sampling point
   Sampling method3
 Raw waste-water
  1969 and earlier
  1970 and later
 Primary effluent
 Trickling filter effluent
 Secondary effluent
  (during and after
   1970)

 Final effluent
Raw wastewater sump
                                  Preaeration tank influent
                                  channel
Primary clarifier effluent
troughs
Aeration tank influent
over flow channel
(after 1973: at spigot
tap installed on discharge
side of one of the aera-
tion tank feed pumps)

Secondary clarifier
effluent channel
Chlorine contact tank
effluent line
24-hour, flow-proportional
composite; hand-sampled
hourly

24-hour, flow-proportional
composite; automatic
sampler with refrigerated
compartment; sampled
hourly

24-hour, flow-proportional
composite; hand-sampled
hourly

24-hour, flow-proportional
composite; hand-sampled
hourly
24-hour, flow-proportional
composite; hand-sampled
hourly

24-hour, flow-proportional
composite; automatic
sampler with refrigerated
compartment; sampled
hourly
 aFor once-a-week composites. Some parameters may be monitored on a daily
  basis.
     An important limitation of the Livermore  data is the absence of organic
nitrogen measurements ahead of the final effluent.   In plants  designed for
nitrification,  organic nitrogen can be transformed to ammonia during  biologi-
cal treatment and subsequently nitrified.  Thus, the sum of the ammonia
nitrogen and organic nitrogen (total  Kjeldahl  nitrogen  or TKN)  is often used
to compute nitrification efficiencies.  Raw domestic wastewater organic
nitrogen concentrations will usually  be 40 to 70 percent of the ammonia ni-
trogen concentration.
                                          65

-------
Figure 30.  Demonstration of manual sampling technique.
           Primary effluent is hand-sampled at the
           primary clarifier effluent troughs.
                     Figure 31.  Plant analytical  laboratory. Wastewater and
                                sludge analyses are performed here.
                                   66

-------
         TABLE 11. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ANALYZED AT
                    PRINCIPAL SAMPLING POINTS
Parameter
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids, mg/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
pH
Grease, mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
Temperature, C
Total dissolved solids, mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids, mg/1
Specific conductivity, um
Chlorides, mg/1
Raw
sewage3
Wc
w
w

w
w
w







w
w
w
w
Primary
effluent
W
W
W

W
W
W


W(P)








Trickling
filter
effluent
W
W
Wd(P)

Wd(P)
Wd(P)



W(P)




W^P)
Wd(P)


Secondary
effluent^
W
W
W
D
W

W


W(P)
W(P)
W(P)






Plant
effluent
W
W
w
D
W
W
W
W
w
W(P)
W(P)
W(P)
D(P)
D(P)
W
W
W
W
 Lluring and after 1970, raw sewage samples contain waste mixed liquor and sludge lagoon supernatant
 returned to headwords.

 bOnly for 1970 and later.
 °W = weekly, D = daily, (P) = partial record
 Not recorded on monthly logs.
PLANT PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

    A brief summary of plant performance over the 7-yr period from 1968
through 1974 is presented in Table 12,which provides an overview of plant
performance prior to detailed discussions of specific plant components.
Wastewater flowing to the Livermore plant is primarily domestic and com-
mercial in origin   as  little industrial activity  exists in the area.  This results
in a consistent influent quality which has aided in the production of a high
quality effluent.

    Flows  have remained fairly constant over the period,  ranging from 0.16
m3/sec (3.7 mgd) in  1968 to 0.20 m3/sec (4.6 mgd) in 1972.  It has been
postulated  exfiltration problems are in part responsible for the flow decreases
in 1973 and 1974, but this has not been substantiated.

    The effect of recycled waste mixed liquor and sludge  lagoon supernatant
is reflected by the increase in raw wastewater BOD5 and suspended solids

                                    67

-------
                       TABLE 12.  PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Parameter
Flow, mgda
Raw Influent
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Primary Effluent
BOD5
Concentration, mg/1
Removal, percent
Suspended solids
Concentration, mg/1
Removal, percent
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Secondary Effluent
BOD s
Concentration, mg/1
Removal, percent0
Suspended solids
Concentration, mg/1
Removal, percent0
Ammonia nitrogen
Concentration, mg/1
Removal, percent0
Final Effluent
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Organic nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Total nitrogen, mg/1
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids , mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids, mg/1
Grease, mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
PH
Alkalinity, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Total coliforms, MPN/100 mle
Overall Removals, percent
BOD5d
Suspended solids**
Ammonia nitrogen0
1968
3.7

180
210


140
22

95
55
-


-
-

-
-

-
-

9.6
9.5
7
4.9
1.8
14
21
1,090
1,050
800
4.0
0.39
7.5
110
280
2.1

95
95
—
1969
4.0

180
180


130
28

76
58
-


-
-

-
-

-
-

6.6
12
8
0.51
1.3
22
24
800
770
510
2.6
0.15
7.3
85
210
2.1

96
93
—
1970
3.8

240
230


140
42

83
64
43


14
90

19
77

0.95
98

8.1
12
9
<0.11
1.0
22
23
780
760
490
2.5
0.07
7.0
74
200
2.1

97
95
>99
1971
3.9

210
230


130
38

79
66
41


10
92

22
72

1.7
96

7.3
13
4
<0.2
2.2
22
24
780
770
530
2.3
0.04
6.7
68
200
2.1

97
94
>99
1972
4.6

230
260


130
43

110
58
36


15
88

40
64

1.0
97

8.1
22
14
0.3
2.7
22
25
760
740
480
5.1
0.08
6.9
52
190
2.1

96
92
99
1973
4.1

220
240


120
45

80
67
52


16
87

28
65

1.5
97

9.4
28
18
1.2
2.6
23
27
860
840
540
5.2
0.06
6.9
58
210
2.1

96
88
98
1974 Overall
average
4.1

210
250


130
38

79
68
41


19
85

24
70

1.7
96

11
18
16
0.73
1.5
25
27
800
780
540
7.1
0.17
6.7
32
190
<2.1

95
93
98
4.0

210
230


130
38

86
63
43


15
88

27
69

1.4
97

8.6
16
11
1.1
1.9
21
24
840
820
560
4.1
0.14
7.0
68
210
2.1

96
93
99
amgd x 0.044 = m3/sec
 Includes waste mixed liquor and lagoon super-
 natant recycled to headworks during and after 1970
 Based on primary effluent
 Based on raw influent
BMedian
                                           68

-------
values after the change in sampling points at the beginning of 1970.  This
effect does not appear to extend beyond the raw wastewater values, however;
the data indicate that all of the recycled solids are removed by primary sedi-
mentation .

    Removal of suspended solids and BOD5 in the chlorine contact tank is
indicated in Table 12. Although this provides a slightly better quality ef-
fluent,  it also necessitates periodic cleaning of the tank, which requires
plant shutdown.  This  problem will be discussed in more detail later.

    An  informative method of illustrating the consistency of plant performance
involves plotting effluent quality in probability form; effluent concentration
(of BOD5, for example) is compared with the percentage oi time during which
that value is exceeded.  Probability curves for secondary and final effluent
BOD5 concentrations in 1973 are plotted in Figure 32.  Median values are 14
and 9 mg/1, respectively.  Ninetieth (90th) percentile values, those con-
centrations which are exceeded only 10 percent of the time, are 26 and 15
mg/1, respectively. Similar results were achieved in other years.

    High secondary effluent ammonia nitrogen concentrations affect the dis-
infection efficiency of the plant by preventing formation of free chlorine
residuals.  Ammonia nitrogen probability curves for three years,  1970 through
1972, are plotted in Figure 33.  Median values range from 0.82 to 0.99  mg/1,
and 90th percentile values fall between 1.3 and 1.9 mg/1.  One value over
10 mg/1 was recorded during the 3-yr period and resulted from temporary
shutdown of one of the three blowers and consequent loss of full nitrification.

    Final effluent coliform concentration (MPN/100  ml) probability curves
are shown for the same 3-yr period in Figure 34. The median, 90th percen-
tile, and 95th percentile values are approximately 2, 15, and 40 MPN/100 ml,
respectively.

    Data presented above and in subsequent discussions have been chosen
for their illustrative value and, except where otherwise noted, are represen-
tative of general plant operation.  Often,  to reduce the amount of material
presented in the text,  data from only a portion of the full 7-yr period are used
in graphs or tables. In addition, some data are completely omitted from the
text on  the basis that their general interest is  minimal.  Appendix E comprises
monthly and yearly averages of most of the operating and performance para-
meters normally monitored at Livermore. The reader is referred to that appen1-
dix for more complete information on plant operation and performance.

OPERATION OF PLANT COMPONENTS

    To  provide a more detailed discussion of plant operations  and performance,
it is convenient to divide the facility into several units or components and

                                   69

-------
0
O
03
   40
   30
   20
10
 9
 8
 7
 6
 5
    3  -
    2  -
                                I    I    I   I    I     I
          I
                                                 SECONDARY EFFLUENT, 1973
                                               FINAL EFFLUENT. 1973
                        I
I    I
I
I
I
I
      12     5     10     20  30  40  50  60   70   80     90    95    98   99
        PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES FOR WHICH CONCENTRATION WAS EXCEEDED

      Figure 32. Probability curves for secondary and final effluent BOD,..

 cover them individually.  For purposes of this presentation, the Livermore
 plant has been divided into eight components:  (1) flows and flow metering,
 (2) preliminary and primary treatment, (3) trickling filtration, (4) activated
                                    70

-------
   0.01 0.050.1 0.2 0.5 1   2    5   10   20  30  40 50 60 70 80   90  95  98 99

                PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES FOR WHICH GIVEN CONCENTRATION WAS EXCEEDED
99.8 99.9  99.99
     Figure 33.  Probability curves for secondary effluent ammonia nitrogen.


sludge, (5) secondary clarification, (6) chlorination, (7)  solids handling,
and (8) reclamation. For each component,  a discussion is  presented cover-
ing its operational characteristics and any changes in operating procedures
developed by the plant staff in response to problems encountered.  Perfor-
mance data are graphically or tabularly presented, and, where relevant,
actual performance is compared with predicted performance.  Subsequent to
                                     71

-------
  1,000
   800

   600
   500
   400

_ 300
 E
8 2°°
\
Q.
5 100
Z 80
I-
   50
   40

   30
   20
cc
O
O
O
   10
    8

    6
    5
    4

    3 -

    2 -
    1
    0.01   0.050.1  0.2  0.5  1   2     5    10    20   30  40  50  60   70

           PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES IN WHICH GIVEN MPN IS EXCEEDED
                                                                        80
    Figure 34. Probability curve for final effluent total coliform organisms.
the discussions on individual plant components, an overall evaluation of
plant performance is presented, focusing on the relations among design load-
ings, experienced loadings, unit sizes, predicted plant performance, and
actual performance.
                                    72

-------
Flows and Flow Metering

    Influent flows to the Livermore plant are measured with two Parshall
flumes, each with a throat width of 0.38 m (15 in.).  These are located in
the inlet works downstream from the comminutor and barminutor.  Provision
has been made in the influent structure to allow addition of a third flume in
subsequent construction stages.  Depth information from the meter is trans-
formed to a flow rate and is recorded and totalized at the control panel in the
operations building. All wastewater entering the plant must pass through the
flumes.  In addition, any  flow subsequently diverted to the holding ponds
from any point downstream of the inlet works must eventually be returned
through the flumes and will thus be measured a second time. This error is
insignificant on a long-term basis but may result in a discernible measured
flow increase over a several-day period when the ponds are being emptied.

    Wastewater flow leaving the plant is  measured by a Cipolletti weir lo-
cated downstream of the chlorine contact tank.  The metered information is
recorded and totalized  at a nearby instrument panelboard.  This flow meter
has experienced erratic operation since its installation and has a long history
of equipment malfunction and consequent repairs by factory personnel.

    Monthly average,  peak-day,  and minimum-day raw wastewater flows (in
mgd) recorded at the plant during the period of study are presented in Figure
35.  The record shows an overall increase in flow from 1971 through 1972
with a subsequent decrease in 1973 and 1974.   The precipitous decrease in
early 1973 prompted a  field check of the influent and effluent flow meters in
July and August of that year.  The results of those tests (discussed in more
detail below) indicated no reason for the sudden decrease;  possible exfiltra-
tion from the sewer system remains the principal hypothesis.

    It was noted in Section 5 that the design peak wet weather flow/average
dry weather flow ratio  was 0.79 m3/sec £ 0.22 mVsec (18.0 mgd/5.0 mgd) =
3.6.  In Figure 36,the  probability curve for the ratio of daily peak flows to the
average long-term flow is plotted for the period September 1973 through
November 1974.  This  curve indicates that infiltration/inflow problems are
much less severe than anticipated, which has been attributed to quality con-
struction of new sewers and improved storm drainage systems.  This has un-
doubtedly benefited plant operation, particularly with regard to secondary
clarifier loadings,  which will be discussed below. A typical diurnal flow
curve for the plant influent is reproduced  in Figure 37.

     As noted  above, the  sudden flow decrease  in early 1973  caused the
City to undertake a program to evaluate the influent and effluent flow meters.
The influent flow meter was checked two  ways: (1) temporarily installing a
rectangular weir and flow recorder upstream from the comminutor and bar-
minutor and (2)  operating the permanent recorder in conjunction with both the

                                   73

-------
  8.0
  7.0 —
  6.0 —
  5.0 -
*
  4.0 -
  3.0 -
  2.0 -
  1.0
                                                                           J
                                               AVERAGE

                                               MAXIMUM DAY
                                               MINIMUM DAY
                                        NOTE: mgd x 0.044 = m^day
        1968
                  1969
                            1970
                                       1971
                                                 1972
                                                           1973
                                                                     1974
        Figure 35.  Monthly average, peak-day, and minimum-day flows.
permanently installed Parshall flumes and the temporary weir.  The results of
the study indicated that while the plant recorder was operating correctly, the
Parshall flumes were incorrectly calibrated, resulting in a reading approxi-
mately 15  percent below the  actual flow.

     Flows recorded since September 1973 have been adjusted to account for
the error,  and all flow values prior to that date have been increased  by 15
percent for use in this report.  A dye tracer study undertaken in 1971 (and
                                     74

-------
   2.6
   2.4
   2.2
   2.0
O

cf  1.8
   1.6
   1.4
   1.2
   1.0
                                       NOTE:
(1) PERIOD OF RECORD: SEPTEMBER 1973
  THROUGH NOVEMBER 1974
(2) AVERAGE FLOW FOR PERIOD
  = 4.2 mgd (0.18 m3/sec)
                        _L
                             _L
                                               _L
                                                     _L
                                                         JL
                                                                       _L
     0.01  0.05 0.1 0.2  0.5 1   2    5    10    20  30  40 50 60 70  80    90

                  PERCENTAGE OF DAYS DURING WHICH GIVEN FLOW RATIO WAS EXCEEDED
                       95
                            98  99
         Figure 36.  Probability curve for peak-to-average flow ratio.

discussed later in the subsection on disinfection) tends to confirm the 15-
percent correction factor.  Mean chlorine contact tank residence times mea-
sured in the tracer study were essentially equal to the calculated contact
time adjusted for the 15-percent increase above the recorded flow.

     The Cipolletti weir effluent meter was checked by installing a temporary
recorder at the weir and comparing  its results with those obtained through use
of the permanent recorder. Over a  6-day period, daily flows measured utiliz-
ing the  temporary recorder ranged from 11 to 53 percent greater than those
indicated by the permanent recorder. It should be noted that effluent  flows
were low during this period (less than 0.066 mvsec or 1.5 mgd) because of
diversions to the holding ponds, and that the greatest discrepancy, 53 per-
cent, was associated with the lowest flow, 0.032  m3/sec (0.72 mgd). Com-
parison of influent and effluent flows indicated that the Cipolletti weir was
properly calibrated.

     As  a result of the metering studies, influent flow values were subse-
quently adjusted  and plans were made to improve  metering performance
during the next plant modifications (undertaken in  1975).
                                    75

-------
I
  4.0
3J>
  2JJ
     MONDAY. JULY 30.1973
        I	I	I
                  NOTE: mgd x .0438 • m °/sec
                        I	I	[_
       0300
           0600
               0800
                   1200
                       1500
                           1800
                                2100
                                    2400
      Figure 37.
               Typical diurnal
               flow variation.
Preliminary and Primary Treatment

    Preliminary treatment at the Liver-
more plant consists of prechlorlnation,
comminution, and preaeration-grit
removal.  Wastewater entering the
plant passes through the comminutor
or barminutor placed upstream from
each of the two Parshall flumes.  Pre-
chlorination for odor control is prac-
ticed with a dosage of 2-8  mg/1.  The
chlorine addition point is the influent
manhole upstream from the  headworks.
                                           Raw sewage pumps lift the waste-
                                      water into the influent channel ahead
                                      of the preaeration-grit removal tanks.
 Detention time at design flow is 36 min.  A water-operated ejector,which dis-
 charges to a grit washer*removes grit from the hopper in the tank bottom.

     Problems associated with the preaeration-grit removal tanks are occa-
 sional plugging of the grit ejector and formation of greaseballs which remain
 in the preaeration tank.  Greaseballs must be removed by hand, which is
 unpleasant and at times hazardous.  The average  quantity of grit removed has
 ranged from 0.04 m3/day (1.4 ft3/day) in 1969  and 1970 to 0.15 m3/day (5.3
 ftVday) in 1974.

     The primary sedimentation tanks (Figure 38) are  located downstream from
 the preaeration-grit removal tanks in the same structure.  These are conven-
 tional rectangular tanks 37.8 m (124 ft) long and 5.8 m (19 ft) wide with an
 average water depth of 2.7 m (9 ft).

     Primary clarifier BODg and suspended solids  removals for 1968 and 1969
 are plotted as a function of overflow rate in Figure 39.  As indicated previ-
 ously, the inclusion of waste  mixed liquor in the  sampled raw wastewater
 after 1969 makes calculated removals for those years erroneously high. The
 removals shown for 1968 and 1969 are somewhat lower than anticipated.
 Reasons for this are uncertain as the design overflow rate, detention time,
 and weir loading rate are within values which would  be expected to provide
 better performance. A possible explanation is that the waste mixed liquor
 added at the headworks does, in fact, affect primary effluent quality.

     Performance has not been of concern, partly because flows have been
 below the design value, but principally because influent BOD5 and sus-
 pended solids concentrations have been far less than the design concentra-
                                    76

-------
          Figure 38.  Primary sedimentation tanks. These tanks
                     performed more poorly than predicted, but
                     low hydraulic and suspended solids loadings
                     have minimized this effect.
tions of 300 mg/1, which corresponds to loadings of 5,670 kg/day (12,500
Ib/day) at a flow of 0.22 m3/day (5.0 mgd).  Concentrations in 1968 and
1969 were in the 180-220  mg/1 range, and from estimates of the effect of
waste mixed liquor in more recent years, the influent values  appear to have
remained low.  Thus, even though primary sedimentation removals have been
less than predicted,  loadings to the biological treatment units have not ex-
ceeded design levels.  The reason for the difference between predicted and
actual influent loadings is that the design concentrations were based on
measurements using  8- or 16-hr composite samples, which resulted in higher
measured concentrations.  A  comparison of predicted and actual removals  for
all the plant units is presented in the summary evaluation later in this sec-
tion.

     The principal operational problem associated with primary treatment has
involved sludge  removal using the air-lift pumps.  Removal is controlled
manually by the  plant operator who adjusts the removal rate on the basis of
visual observation of sludge  entering the raw sludge sump. This has proved
to be a poor method of control with underpumping or overpumping  often
occurring.  Poor sludge removal control is an important problem at Livermore
because of limited solids treatment capacity.  A reduction in raw sludge
solids content decreases the hydraulic and solids retention times  in the mixed
digesters,which  in turn will reduce  digestion efficiency.   This aspect is dis-
                                   77

-------
   too
                1	1	1	1	1	1

          NOTE: (1) POINTS REPRESENT MONTHLY AVERAGES
               (2) gpd/ft2 x 0.041 = m3/day/m2
                                                  O 1968
                                                  Q 1969
                                            SUSPENDED
                                            SOLIDS
                                                         DESIGN VALUE FOR
                                                         SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                   SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                                                              DESIGN
                                                              VALUE
     400
500
600        700        800

     OVERFLOW RATE, gpd/ft2
                                                      900
1000
                                                            1100
                  Figure 39. Primary clarifier performance.

cussed further in the subsection on solids handling and treatment.  Improve-
ment in sludge removal could be accomplished either by installing automati-
cally controlled, positive displacement sludge pumps or by combining a more
accurate determination of sludge solids  content with the existing manual con-
trol.

Trickling Fitters

     The two rock-media trickling filters are used ahead of the activated
sludge unit to enhance removal of organic material and allow nitrification to
occur in the aeration tank.  There are no clarifiers between the trickling filters
and the aeration tank; thus, the measured BODg  loading to the activated
sludge unit reflects sloughing of biological solids from the filter media  sur-
face.  While this  sloughed biological material will undergo endogenous res-
piration in the aeration tank and may thus affect air requirements, it does not
constitute  substrate for the activated sludge  organisms in the usual sense.
                                    78

-------
Calculation of a food-to-microorganism ratio (F/M) should be modified to
reflect this.  Similarly, in calculating activated sludge solids retention times,
the significance of including or excluding the effect of entering sloughed bio-
logical solids must be understood.  These points will be discussed further in
conjunction with the activated sludge unit and in Section 10, General Design
Considerations.

    Trickling filter performance for  1971 is summarized in Table 13. At a flow
equal to about 80 percent of design, the average BODc loading on the filters
was 0.85  kg/m3/day  (53 lb/1,000 ftVday), or about one-half the design
value. This again reflects the lower-than-expected raw wastewater
concentrations experienced at Livermore.
        TABLE 13.  TRICKLING FILTER PERFORMANCE SUMMARY, 1971
Parameter
Flow, mgda
Filter Influent BOD 5 loading ,
lb/1,000 ft^day13
Filter influent concentrations, mg/1
BOD5
Suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Filter effluent concentrations , mg/lc
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Reductions (increases), percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
High
month
4.1

62

160
98
88
51

130
140
117
44

19
(43)
(33)
18
Low
month
3.7

45

110
60
33
34

46
74
63
22

58
(19)
(91)
35
Annual
average
3.9

52

130
79
61
41

93
110
92
33

28
(39)
(51)
20
   amgd x 0.044 = m /sec

   blb/l,000 ft3/day x 0.016 = kg/m3/day

    Analyses made on unsettled effluent

    Average BOD5 removal across the filters for 1971 (based on unsettled
effluent) was 28  percent.  As shown in Appendix E, removals for other years
in the operating period range from 15 percent in 1972 to 42 percent in 1969.
Although a design removal of 50 percent was previously indicated in Table  3,
there was little basis  for this number,  and it was in fact not relevant to the
process  design.  It was noted in Section 5 that design of the activated sludge

                                    79

-------
system was based on the assumption that equal filter and aeration tank vol-
umes are equivalent in providing biological wastewater treatment.

     Sloughing of biological solids from the filter rock is reflected in Table 13
by the increases in suspended solids (39 percent) and volatile suspended
solids (51 percent).  Some solids entering the trickling filter can be expected
to be oxidized by the filter slime; thus,  the numerical increase in solids con-
centration across the filter (110-79 = 31 mg/1 in 1971) may be less than the
actual solids yield of the filter biological process.  Use of a trickling filter
without a secondary clarifier has been so rare that little work has been done
on the characteristics of the unsettled effluent.

     Average ammonia nitrogen removal for 1971 was 8 mg/1, or 20 percent.
This is largely due to incorporation of nitrogen into the biological cells  pro-
duced. Approximately 1 kg of nitrogen is required for every 20 kg of BODc
removed by biological treatment.

Settling of Trickling Filter Effluent—

     While  precise analysis is difficult,  it is useful to attempt to estimate the
actual removal of BODc across the filters along with the quantity of biological
solids produced. To this end, Figure 40 was prepared which relates unsettled
trickling filter effluent BOD5 to the value obtained after allowing the sample
to settle 1  hr (data available only for 1974).  From the figure, the settled
BODc, concentration is approximately one-half the unsettled value.  A useful
assumption is that the settleable material is sloughed biological  solids.  Re-
lating Figure 40 with Table 13 indicates  that the actual BOD5 removal in 1971
was  approximately  Q.30-(93/2JQ /130 = 64 percent rather than the 28 percent
shown in Table 13.  For  comparison, as  indicated previously in Table 2
(Section 4), an average BODc removal of 66 percent was achieved across the
trickling filter-secondary clarifier combination in  1964 at an average organic
loading of 1.2 kg BOD5/m3/day (75  lb/1,000 ft3/day).

     Trickling filter BODc, removals  (based on estimates of settled effluent
concentrations) for the 7 yr of record are compared with trickling filter am-
monia nitrogen removals in Table 14.  The average estimated BODc removal
for the full period was 84 mg/1.  Using the value referred to above of 1 kg
nitrogen utilized per 20 kg BODc  removed, the expected ammonia nitrogen
removal associated with this BOD,, removal is 4.2 mg/1.  This is very close
to the measured average removal, 5  mg/1, implying that settling the trickling
filter effluent for 1  hr provides a good estimate of actual BOD5 removal.

Operation with One Trickling Filter—

     Breakdown of the recently installed trickling filter distributor in  1968 and
1969 required that the plant be operated with only one filter for three separate

                                    80

-------
   80
   60
 in
Q
O
co  40
Q
LU
   20
        NOTE: (1) TIME PERIOD--FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER 1974

            (2) SETTLED BODg VALUES BASED
              ON ONE - HOUR SETTLING
(3) AVERAGE VALUES, mgfi:
  INFLUENT ( PRIM. EFFL. )M30
  UNSETTLED EFFLUENT : 68
  SETTLED EFFLUENT- 35
(4) POINTS REPRESENT    O
  DAILY VALUES     O
                       BOD5  = 0.5 BOD5
                           SET.        UNSET.
              20
          40
60        80       100

  UNSETTLED BODg, mg/l
                                                           120
140
160
           Figure 40.  Effect of settling on trickling filter effluent
periods totaling 10 mo.  During this time,the total flow was put through one
filter,  resulting in a substantially increased loading.  The data summarized
in Table 15 shows that while the average BODs loading increased from 0.72
kg/m3/day (45 lb/1,000  ft3/day) with both filters in operation to  1.92 kg/m3/
day (120 lb/1,000 ft3/day) with one filter out of service, BOD5 removal de-
creased only slightly irom 40 to 32 percent (based on unsettled effluent).  The
slightly higher suspended solids increase for one filter is probably due to
initial  sloughing under the higher hydraulic  loadings.
  Filter Circulation Sump--

       It was noted in Section 5 that the use of fixed-speed pumps for
  delivering wastewater from the filter circulation  sump to the activated
  sludge aeration tank is made possible by the use of an automatically con-
  trolled butterfly valve in a return line to modulate the flow.   Difficulties
  have occurred with this approach; during peak  and  low  flows, the control
  system tends to "hunt" and causes fluctuations in  the  flow to the aeration
  tank.   Because of the inadequate air supply in the aeration tank, high
  loadings can adversely affect nitrification there.  Continual checking by
  the  plant operators is necessary to ensure that problems do not occur.
                                      81

-------
    TABLE 14.  TRICKLING FILTER
               BOD,  REMOVAL
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Average
BODs
removed ,
mg/la
93
92
90
84
75
71
- 86
84
Ammonia
removed
Measured
-
-
6
8
2
6
5
5
nitrogen
, mg/1
Estimated b
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.2
3.8
3.6
4.3
4.2
                                     Activated Sludge Aeration Tank

                                          As discussed in Section 5, the
                                     activated sludge aeration unit is  a
                                     single, two-pass tank utilizing dif-
                                     fused air aeration for oxygen supply.
                                     Three fixed-speed blowers supply the
                                     system, and underdesign of these
                                     units has been one of the principal
                                     operational problems faced at the
                                     plant.

                                          Despite this problem, the acti-
                                     vated sludge system has been able to
                                     consistently provide excellent results.
                                     This has been due to the lower-than-
                                     expected loadings received at the
                                     plant, the consistency of influent
                                     flows and loadings, and the buffering
                                     effects of the roughing filter. A  sum-
                                     mary of activated sludge system  per-
                                     formance for 1971 is presented in
                                     Table 16.  The average and maximum-
                                     month secondary effluent BOD5 con-
centrations of 10 and 17 mg/1, respectively, attest to the quality and consis-
tency of performance.  Secondary effluent ammonia nitrogen concentrations
ranged from monthly values of 0.46 to 6.7 mg/1 and averaged 1.7 mg/1 for the
year.  The high value occurred in March and resulted from shutdown of one
of the three blowers for repairs.  The low value for air supplied,  45 m^/kg
(720 ftVlb)  BODg + NOD (nitrogen oxygen demand)* removed, also occurred
during March.

     The overall average of 1.7 mg/1 is somewhat higher than should be ex-
pected from nitrification in an activated sludge system; it may be due to
bleed-through of ammonia at peak loading periods, which will be discussed
further below.  Solids retention times varied from 4.2 to 8.6 days during the
year.  As  will be discussed below,  these values are retention times for the
nitrifying  organisms and ignore the  effect of biological solids entering the
aeration tank from the trickling filter.
3BOD
5  - 0.5 x unsettled BOD
                     5out
 3Based on 0.05 Ib NH4 - N removed/lb BODs removed
*kg TKN x 4.56 = kg NOD. For this report,  NH^ - N concentrations are sub-
 stituted for TKN in calculating NOD since TKN concentrations were not
 routinely determined.
                                   82

-------
          TABLE 15. TRICKLING FILTER PERFORMANCE—EFFECT OF
                     REMOVING ONE FILTER FROM SERVICE
           Parameter                       Two filters3         One fliterb
Flow, mgd
BOD5. , mg/1
BOD5out, mg/1
BOD5 loading, lb/1,000 ft3/day
Suspended solids increase, percent
BOD 5 reduction percent
3.3
130
78
45
21
40
4.1
140
95
120
29
32
  aTwo filters operating:  Jan-Sept '68; Jan, Feb, Aug-Oct '69

   One filter operating:  Oct-Dec '68; Mar-July, Nov, Dec '69

  °mgd x 0.044 = m3/sec

  dlb/l,000 ftVday x 0.016 = kg/m3/day
Air Supply—

    Air for the activated sludge system at Livermore is supplied by three
rotary-lobe, positive displacement blowers and air diffusion spargers.  The
blowers operate  at a fixed speed and deliver  57 mVmin (2,000 ft3/min) each
to the aeration tank and waste mixed liquor air-lift pumps.  Originally de-
signed to be operated with one blower as a standby unit, the high oxygen
demand imposed by the nitrification process has dictated that all three blow-
ers often be used simultaneously. The  result has  been that any lengthy
shutdown for repairs causes a partial loss of nitrification.  The most common
maintenance problem has been bearing failure in the blowers.  With replace-
ment bearings  kept on hand, repair usually requires 20 to 40 hr;  longer
shutdowns  have  occurred, however.  In September 1974, for example, major
repairs to one  blower required 10 days to complete.

    In addition to supplying the aeration tank, the three fixed-speed blowers
also supply the air-lift pumps utilized for wasting mixed liquor from the sys-
tem.  Increasing or decreasing the number of operating blowers causes the


                                   83

-------
         TABLE 16.  ACTIVATED SLUDGE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY,  1971
    Parameter
 High
month
Low
month
Annual
average
 Plant influent flow, mgda
 Aeration tank influent concentrations, mg/1
   BOD5
   Suspended solids
   Ammonia nitrogen

 Secondary effluent concentrations, mg/1
   Suspended solids
   Ammonia nitrogen
   Nitrate nitrogen

 Reductions, percent
   BOD$
   Suspended solids
   Ammonia nitrogen

 Volumetric loading, lb/1,000
  ft3/dayc'
  4.1

  130
  140
  44


  17
  31
  6.7
  20


  93
  86
  99
 3.7

  46
  74
  22


 5.2
  15
 0.46
  17


  85
  65
  84
 3.9

  93
 110
  33


  10
  22
 1.7
  18


  89
  80
  95
BOD
BODj +NOD
Food: microorganism ratio, Ib BODg applied
/lb MLVSS/dayb'd
Mixed liquor suspended solids, mg/1
Mixed liquor wasted, mgd
Solids retention time, autotrophic
nitriflers, days6
Return activated sludge suspended
solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge flow , percent
of influent flow
Air supplied, ftVftb BODs + lb NOD removed)f
28
67

0.27
2,320
0.226

8.6

8,800

38
1,470
10
36

0.12
1,700
0.083

4.2

6,650

30
720
21
55

0.21
2,010
0.159

5.6

7,890

34
99,0
  mgd x 0.044 = m /sec

 bBased on unsettled trickling filter effluent

 Clb/l,000 ftVday x 0.016 = kg/m3/day

  Based on a VSS/SS ratio of 0.79 measured in 1973-74
        Calculated as combined mass VSS lost per day
        in waste sludge and secondary effluent divided
        by mass MLVSS in aeration tank

       fft3/Ibx 0.0624 =m3/kg
waste mixed liquor flow rate to decrease or increase, meaning that the flow
rate must be checked and adjusted each time a blower is turned on or off.

     The  immediacy of nitrogenous  oxygen demand in nitrification systems
requires  the use of peak rather than average ammonia loadings for design
purposes.  A typical daily BOD5 +  NOD loading to the activated sludge aera-
tion tank is shown graphically in Figure 41.  Although the  average BOD5  +
NOD loading for the day was 5,070 kg/day (11,200  Ib/day), the peak mea-
sured rate was 9,450 kg/day (21,000 Ib/day),  almost 90 percent above the
average.  For design, either instantaneous peak rates or short-term averages
such as the maximum 3-hr average should be used.
                                        84

-------
  •&
            AVERAGE FLOW
            = 3.9 mod
                                 AVERAGE BOD5 + NOD
                                 LOAD ING = 11,200 Ib/day
                                DATE: JANUARYS, 1970
                                NOTE: (1) mgd x 0.044 = m-/sec
                                     (2) Ib/day x 0.45 = kg/day
                  500
1000         1500

  TIME, hours
2000
                                                                         to
                                                                         •o
                                                                        Q
                                                                        O
                                                                         LO
                                                                        Q
                                                                        O
                                                                        m
2400
                Figure 41.  Flow and loading to aeration tank.
    DO levels in the aeration tank are an important parameter in operating a
nitrification system and, of course, directly reflect the quantity of air sup-
plied  and the  loading of oxygen demanding substances.  DO measurements at
Livermore were initially taken near the effluent end of the two-pass aeration
                                     85

-------
 tank.  Readings were taken hourly, and the number of operating blowers was
 increased or decreased according to the values obtained.  In early 1972,in-
 vestigations were undertaken by the plant staff to determine the desirability
 of taking DO measurements nearer the head of the aeration tank.  The results
 of the several-week test indicated that the same level of performance could
 be obtained with an overall reduction of air usage of approximately 10 percent.
 A further advantage was the reduction in frequency of blower adjustments re-
 quired.  Previously,  the number of blowers being used had to be changed
 three to six times per day. Subsequent to the modification in operating pro-
 cedure, two or three adjustments  have usually been adequate.
     With plug flow operation of the aeration tank (as at Livermore), the low-
 est and thus limiting DO level occurs at the head end of the tank because the
 oxygen demand is greatest at that point.  By taking DO measurements at this
 point, more precise and efficient control can be maintained.  Figure 42 shows
 DO concentrations for the two ends of the tank over a 1-day period after use
 of influent-end DO levels for control was begun.  The influent-end DO in-
 creased during the night when the loadings were low and started to decrease
 around 7 a.m. as the loadings became higher.  At noon,the  third blower was
 put into operation, and the influent-end DO level remained  at a nearly con-
 stant level for the remainder of the day.  Although the hourly loading fluctua-
 tions are not  available for that date, the pattern is probably similar to that
                                      manifested in Figure 41. Records of
                                      monthly average DO concentrations
  4.0
  3J)
X
o
a
ui
  IX)
FEB. 28. 1972:
AIR USAGE =
740 ft 3 AlR/(lb
 BOD6 + Ib NOO)
 REMOVED

NOTE: ft3/lb x 0.062 •
    m3/kj
        TWO BLOWERS
                         THREE BLOWERS
                          I
                            1
                                       are given in Appendix E.
                                   Residence Time Distribution—
                                        In the conventional activated
                                   sludge process, primary effluent and
                                   return activated sludge are added to
                                   the aeration tank at the head end and
                                   leave the tank at the downstream end.
                                   The Livermore plant is normally opera-
                                   ted in this manner, although it can be
                                   operated in the sludge reaeration or
                                   step aeration modes (see Section 5).
                                   To evaluate the effect of hydraulic
                                   load patterns, the plant was operated
                                   in the sludge reaeration mode for a
                  1400 i«x) i8oo 2000 »»«"short period in 1971.  Return activated
                                   sludge was added to the head end of the
Figure 42.  Aeration tank dissolved   aeration tank, and trickling filter ef-
    0200 0400 0600 0800
                1000 1200

                  TIME
              oxygen levels.
                fluent was added at the quarter point.
                                    86

-------
Nitrification was immediately adversely affected,  and a return to the conven-
tional mode was made after several days.  It was concluded that the reduced
contact time in the sludge reaeration mode of operation caused bleed-through
of ammonia which was not oxidized during the shorter aeration period.

    Measurements of MLSS levels during the period when sludge reaeration
was utilized indicated little change in MLSS concentrations along the tank
length. This indicates that considerable back-mixing occurs in the tank and
suggests that under conventional operation the residence time distribution
differs significantly from ideal plug flow, a condition in which all water parti-
cles are in the  tank for approximately the same length of time.  If back-mixing
occurs, a significant fraction of the flow  may leave the tank before ammonia
oxidation has been completed. Ammonia bleed-through will be exaggerated by
operation in the sludge reaeration mode because the aeration contact period
will be significantly reduced.

    Calculation of an "axial dispersion number" also indicates that the resi-
dence time distribution in the Livermore aeration tank is quite different from
plug flow.  This parameter is  defined by D/uL, where D is the axial disper-
sion coefficient in mvhr,  u is the  mean displacement velocity  along the tank
length (including recycle) in m/hr,  and L  is the tank  length in m.  A valid
empirical relation for D for both fine and coarse bubble diffused air systems
is:1

                        D=  0.290 W2 (A)°*346*                        (1)

where:  W = tank width, m,  and

        A = air flow per unit tank volume,  standard m3/min/l,000 m^.

    The"axial dispersion number"is zero for true plug flow tanks and infinite
for true complete-mix tanks.  Tanks with  D/uL < 0.2  are usually classified
as plug flow reactors, while for complete-mix reactors, values are generally
greater than 4.0.

    For the Livermore plant,the'axial dispersion number"at Q = 0.18 mVsec
(4.0 mgd)  with  40 percent recycle is equal to 0.46.  Because this is larger
than 0.2,  it indicates that plug flow is not well approximated in the aeration
tanks.
*D = 3.122  W2 (A) °'346, D in ft2/hr, W in ft, A in standard ft3/min/l ,000 ft3.
                                   87

-------
Sludge Wasting—

     The mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) level in an activated sludge
aeration tank is  controlled by wasting excess activated sludge from the sys-
tem.  At Li vermore/wasting is accomplished from the mixed liquor line between
the aeration tank and secondary clarifier (Figures 43 and 44).  An air-lift pump
delivers a portion of the mixed liquor to a constant-head tank consisting of a
circular overflow weir and line (leading back to the mixed liquor line)  with
adjustable rings to control liquid head  and a V-notch weir to measure and con-
trol waste activated sludge flow (refer  to Figure  12 in Section 5).  Waste
mixed liquor is returned to the headworks,  where essentially all the solids
are removed during primary treatment so that there is little effect on subse-
quent units.
                  Figure 43. Mixed liquor leaving aeration tank
                            over a circular weir.
                                    88

-------
    In practice, flow over the constant-head tank, circular weir is affected by
flow from the air-lift pump, which in turn is dependent on the number of blow-
ers operating.  This has necessitated adjustment of the overflow weir each
time a blower is started or stopped.

    The more conventional method of wasting sludge  is from the  return  acti-
vated sludge line.  This can be done at Livermore, although metering is not
available.  Generally,  wasting of return activated sludge has been confined
to 1-hr periods, three or four times per month, in order to quickly reduce the
aeration tank MLSS level when it has become  too high.

Solids Retention Time—

    A parameter often used in operating activated sludge systems is the
solids retention time (often termed  "mean cell residence time" or "sludge
              Figure 44.  Constant-head tank in the mixed liquor
                         line for wasting activated sludge.
                                    89

-------
age"), or 9     ec is defined as the inverse of the growth rate, u-K,, of the
organisms wnich oxidize the  waste matter.  In the conventional activated
sludge process where oxidation of carbonaceous matter is the principal objec-
tive,  the volatile suspended  solids levels of the pertinent flow streams are
usually taken as representing the heterotrophic organism concentrations of
those streams.

    The solids retention time can  be computed for this situation by developing
a mass balance around an activated sludge system as follows:

Rate of change         Organisms         Net organism         Organisms
of organism       =    entering      +    growth  rate      -    leaving
mass  in system         system            in system            system

             dX
          Q-T7S=QX     +(u-K)VX      -(QX
             dt        R           d
where:     Q = aeration tank influent flow rate, excluding sludge recycle,
          r
          ^H = heterotrophic organism concentration rate of change in system,
         dt
             = heterotrophic organism concentration entering aeration tank
           1   in influent flow,

       X     = heterotrophic organism concentration in aeration tank,
        HML
        X__  - heterotrophic organism concentration in secondary effluent,
          H2
        XTT  = heterotrophic organism concentration in waste sludge stream,
         Q   = sludge wasting flow rate,
          y  = heterotrophic organism growth rate,
          K, = organism decay rate, and
           V = aeration tank volume .
At steady state conditions, — rr-  = O,  and Equation 2 becomes:
                                   90

-------
                          Q _ y    .    QW
                               X
                            ML             ML
          H                 ML             ML              ML

                                                VX
                                                    MT
         which further reduces to:   6   = •— - — — - - — —         (4)
                                   CH  QXH2 + QWXHW " QXH1


where:   6    =  heterotrophic organism solids retention time.
          CH
     In the usual situation where primary effluent enters the system, X^  is
                                                                   11 1
taken as zero since it is  assumed that very few organisms are entering the
reactor.  Where a roughing filter precedes the activated sludge unit,  however,
some significant fraction of the aeration tank influent volatile suspended
solids are  biological cells  sloughed from the filter media, and XH  cannot be
taken as zero.                                                 1


     The above derivation considers only aeration tank volatile suspended
solids inventory in determining solids retention time.  Some investigators
prefer to calculate activated sludge solids retention time based on total sec-
ondary system volatile suspended  solids inventory.  In this case, the numer-
ator of Equation 4 represents volatile suspended solids held in the secondary
clarifier as well as in the aeration tank. Solids retention times calculated
using the total system inventory will be larger than those calculated using aera-
tion tank inventory only,  substantially so if a deep sludge blanket is main-
tained in the secondary clarifier.   The difficulty encountered in employing the
total system inventory method  is obtaining an accurate estimate of the average
volatile suspended solids mass in  the secondary clarifier over a 1-day or
several-day period.

     Because nitrifying organisms are not produced in a roughing filter appli-
cation, the concentration of nitrifiers in the filter effluent is negligible, and
the equation for the nitrifier solids retention time, 9    , will be as follows:
                                                  CN
                        e     = _
                          CN    QXN  +
                           IN       IN 2

where:   XM     =  nitrifying organism concentration in aeration tank,
           ML
                                    91

-------
         X      = nitrifying organism concentration in secondary effluent,
            2      and

                = nitrifying organism concentration in waste sludge stream.
            W
 Because the nitrifying organism concentrations can be taken as  a constant
 fraction, f, of the respective heterotroph concentrations, Equation 5 becomes:
                          VfXR

                                                                        »  '
                CN    QKH. + VH...    QXH. + QWX
with the volatile suspended solids levels used for X.

    Comparison of Equations 4 and 6 shows that the nitrifier solids retention
time will be shorter than that for the heterotrophs.  9    should be used when

designing and operating coupled trickling filter-activated sludge systems for
nitrification.  Further discussions of this concept will be presented in Sec-
tion 10.

     As shown previously in Table  16,  the monthly average solids retention
times at Livermore in 1971 ranged  from 4.2  to  8.6 days and averaged 5.6 days;
these values were computed for the autotrophic nitrifiers (Equation 6)  and
are based upon use of the aeration tank volume as V.

    The biological solids  entering the activated sludge unit from the trickling
filter cannot be ignored in process design.  Although they do not directly
affect the nitrifier solids retention time and although (as noted previously)
settled BODij values  should be used in determining waste loadings to the
activated sludge unit, the sloughed biological  solids will affect aeration tank
size. This will also be discussed further in Section 10.

Secondary Clarifier

    The diameter of the secondary clarlfier  (Figure 45) at Livermore was
limited by physical constraints at the site as noted in  Section 5.  Addition-
ally, higher design overflow rates were generally used at that time.  The
result was a 27-m (90-ft) diameter clarifier  with an ADWF overflow rate of
32.1 m3/day/m2  (787 gpd/ft2). Average annual secondary effluent suspended
solids concentrations are plotted against hydraulic overflow rate and solids
loading rate, respectively, in Figures 46 and 47.  The excellent correlations
between these loading rates and clarifier performance suggest that clarifier
size strongly affects performance at Livermore.
                                    92

-------
                       Figure 45.  Secondary clarifier.
    It should be pointed out that when the above parameters are plotted using
daily  or monthly averages, the scatter is significantly greater than found in
Figures 46 and  47.  Further,  there is no  strong correlation between secondary
effluent BODr concentrations and these loading rates or between BOD5 and
suspended solids levels. In fact, it has not been possible to correlate ef-
fluent BODc values with any single loading parameter.   This is  probably due
to the fairly narrow range of  loadings experienced, the  number of different
parameters which can affect  performance, and normal scatter.  Nonetheless,
the 5-yr average (1970-74) secondary effluent BOD5 and suspended solids
concentrations  of 15 and 27 mg/1, respectively, are testimony to the excellent
performance that the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge system is cap-
able of providing.

    An equipment breakdown in late 1974 necessitated  shutdown of the sec-
ondary clarifier while repairs were made. During this period, trickling filter
effluent was  diverted to the holding ponds.  The retaining bolts and brackets
holding the sludge withdrawal lines in place over the circular trough on the
                                    93

-------
   40
CO
a

8
o
Ul
a
IU
8s
3

IU
   20
   10
              NOTE: (1) PLOTTED POINTS REPRESENT
                    ANNUAL AVERAGES. 1970-74
                  (2) gpd/ftzx 0.041
                    • m3/d»y/m2
                                     clarifier bottom had failed due to cor-
                                     rosion,  allowing water from the higher
                                     levels of the tank to be withdrawn
                                     through  the return activated sludge
                                     (RAS) lines.  The problem was mani-
                                     fested by a low RAS solids  content and
                                     high effluent suspended solids concen-
                                     tration.  The cause of the problem was
                                     discovered when a portion of the me-
                                     chanism extending above the waterline
                                     was noticed to be out of alignment.
                                     Clarifier dewatering and repair using
                                     stainless steel bolts and nuts followed.

                                     Disinfection
    560      600       650       700
             OVERFLOW RATE, gpd/ft2

     Figure 46.  Secondary clarifier
                performance  versus
                hydraulic loading.
I
8
S
a
Ul
o
Ul
   SO
   40
30
   20
   10
            NOTE: (1) PLOTTED POINTS REPRESENT
                 ANNUAL AVERAGES, 1970-74
                (2) to/*t2/d*y x 4.88 - kg/mZ/
-------
(see Appendix C) by the Regional Board to 2.2 MPN/100 ml based on a 7-day
median.  Sampling frequency was changed from 5 days/wk to 7 days/wk,
and as before, sampling was done at the period of peak flow, approximately
1:00 p.m.

Chlorination Control—

     In the initial design, chlorination control was accomplished by utilizing
a compound-loop system comprising a flow vacuum control unit and two am-
perometric chlorine residual analyzer-controllers (Figure 48).  The  flow vac-
uum control unit measured the wastewater flow rate upstream of the chlorine
injection point to regulate chlorine dosage proportional to hydraulic flow.
Immediately following chlorine injection, a  wastewater sidestream  was con-
tinuously  pumped to the first residual analyzer-controller, which measured
chlorine concentration and transmitted a signal to the chlorinator.  This  re-
sulted in adjustment of chlorine dosage based on initial chlorine demand.  At
the end of the chlorine contact tank, another wastewater sidestream was con-
tinuously  pumped to the  second residual analyzer-controller (to measure chlo-
rine residual prior to discharge) from which an override set-point signal was
transmitted to the first residual analyzer-controller.
            CHLORINATOR
 CONTROL
ANALYZER
                                                            MONITOR
                                                           ANALYZER
    CHLORINE
    METERING
    ORIFICE
                     VACUUM
                     REGULATING
                     VALVE
 ELECTRIC
 SIGNAL
                Figure 48. Original chlorination control system.
                                    95

-------
    During the first full year of operation, 1968, man/ problems were en-
countered with this control system.  Both sampling pumps required a complete
overhaul, and the analyzers were a constant source of trouble, principally due
to leaks  and plugged tubing.

    In the following year/an attempt was made by the plant staff to develop a
new method of chlorination control based on the concept of using wastewater
pH instead of chlorine residual as the control parameter.  Addition of suffi-
cient chlorine to  water containing ammonia (approximately 10 parts  by weight
of chlorine is  required for each part ammonia nitrogen) results in the produc-
tion of hydrogen ions and a lowering of pH according to the following break-
point reaction:

               1.5Cl0+NHt	»-0.5N0'  +4H++3C1~             (7)
    Chlorine added to wastewater after the breakpoint is reached reacts ac-
cording to the following equation:
                                                                       (8)
This further lowers the wastewater pH.  The product of this reaction, hypo-
chlorous acid (HOC1), exists in equilibrium with its dissociation product,
hypochlorite ion (OC1~), according to the equation.

                         HOC1 ^   ^ OCl" + H+                         (9)

     The sum of the hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite  ion existing in solu-
tion is known as "free available chlorine", which is a significantly better
disinfecting agent than the combined chlorine compounds  (principally mono-
chloramine, NH2C1) that are the disinfecting agents occurring in non-nitrified
wastewater effluents .

     Of the two free available chlorine compounds , hypochlorous acid is a
much stronger disinfectant than hypochlorite . Equation 9 indicates that hypo-
chlorous acid is formed by a hydrogen ion concentration increase (pH de-
crease) which drives the reaction to the left.  The effect of pH on HOC1 and
OCl" distribution is shown in Figure 49 .2 It can be seen  that if the pH is
lowered to about 6.5, a significant fraction of the free chlorine will be in the
hypochlorous form.

     This principle forms the basis for the control system  developed at Liver-
more in 1969 and used continuously  since that time.  Chlorine is  added to
the nitrified effluent at a rate which causes the  pH to drop to about 6.5 in
the chlorine contact tank.  Although this control method could be automated,
funds have not been available to purchase the required equipment  and  manual
control has proven to be satisfactory.

                                   96

-------
   100


   90


   80


   70


   60
 S.
 o
 O 40
   30


   20


   10
        20 C
                    OC
                   0


                   10


                   20


                   30


                   40


                   50


                   «>


                   70


                   80


                   90
                8   9
                  pH
           10
              11
                               12
                                .100
     Disinfection performance obtained
during initial experimental studies
conducted with the pH control system
is summarized in Figure 50.  Total
coliform survival ratio, y/y  , is
plotted against the product of chlorine
residual, R  and the chlorine contact
time , t.  Although values of y   the
unchlorinated secondary effluent coli-
form MPN, were not measured during
the study period, tests made at other
times indicated  values  around 106
MPN/100 ml; this value was taken as
yQ in preparing Figure 50.
                       3
     Selleck and Collins  in  laboratory
studies of primary effluent chlorine
disinfection, found the kill of coliform
organisms followed the empirical rela-
tion:
  Figure H9.
Relative amounts of HOCI
and OCI at various pH
levels (Ref.  2).
                                                     = A (RT)
                                                             -3
                                 (10)
                                      where R is the total chlorine residual
                                      in mg/1 and T is contact time in min-
utes.  Selleck and Collins found that A =  64 for primary effluent, and this re-
lation is shown in Figure 50 for comparison.  Plant-scale disinfection studies
at Rancho Cordova,  California,4 with non-nitrified secondary effluent yielded
a similar relation with A = 4.0; this is also shown in Figure 50.

     Although there are insufficient data available from Livermore to completely
confirm the minus-three slope, this value has been assumed for the line drawn
through the plotted points in Figure  50.   The  Livermore data indicate that for
free chlorine disinfection of nitrified secondary effluent,  A = 0.65.

     Livermore  has utilized pH control of chlorine addition since 1969 with
excellent results, but difficulties can occur with this method.  A principal
problem  stems  from the fact that it is a very indirect control method and de-
pends on a wastewater consistency,which does not always occur. Factors
other than chlorine addition can cause a  pH drop and an accompanying dosage
decrease (although this can be compensated for by monitoring pH prior to
chlorination).
                                    97

-------
   1.0
  10'1
  ID'
1C
(0

-------
   TABLE 17.
SUMMARY OF pH
CHLORINATION
CONTROL STUDIES
        Parameter
                                Value
                                       8.6 MPN/100 ml.  These are very
                                       close to the mean and 90th percentile
                                       values shown previously in Figure 34,
                                       which is based on the full contact
                                       time provided by the pipe and the con-
                                       tact tank.

                                       Chlorine Contact—

                                           After chlorine is added at the by-
                                       pass  manhole, the wastewater flows
                                       through the 76-m (250-ft) long, 1.4-
                                       m (54-in.) diameter pipe and into the
                                      : two-pass chlorine contact tank (Fig-
                                       ure 51). Each pass is 30.5 m  (100 ft)
                                       long, 3.2 m (10.5 ft)  wide,  with a
water depth of about 4 m (13 ft).   Mean detention time in the  contact tank at
design flow is 1 hr.  The 1.4-m (54-in.)  pipe adds another 8  min to the design
contact time, and because flow in the pipe is very  close to plug flow, the
overall residence time distribution is very favorable for disinfection.

     In the original design, plastic tubing was laid on the bottom of the con-
tact tank to provide mixing through air addition.  Mixing prevents settling  of
particulate matter and  improves residence time distribution by helping to
Chlorine dose, mg/1

Chlorine residual, mg/1
Contact time, min
Secondary clarifier pH
Contact tank Influent pH

Coliform concentration, MPN/100 ml
  Median

  90th percentile
                  22.5
                   6.8
                   9.9
                   7.4

                   6.6


                   2.1
                   8.6
               Figure 51.  Chlorine contact tank. Air mixing
                          takes place in pass on right.
                                    99

-------
eliminate dead space. Air addition also increases the DO concentration and
raises pH.  The high chlorine residual concentrations had an adverse effect
on the tubing,and the air diffusion holes soon became plugged.  Without air
addition, the chlorine contact tank had to be cleaned at 1- to 2-mo intervals
to remove settled matter; if it were not cleaned, disinfection performance was
adversely affected.

    In 1969,air diffusion spargers were added to the second pass to improve
mixing.  Surface spray heads were installed in the first pass  to aid removal
of floating material, principally filter flies, entering the contact tank.  Peri-
odic shutdown is still required for cleaning the first pass.

    In 1971,a study was undertaken by the California State Department of
Public Health to determine the residence time distribution of the chlorine con-
tact unit, including  both the 1.4-m (54-in.) pipe and the tank.5  A slug of
dye tracer was added at the bypass manhole where chlorine injection takes
place.  Fluorescence was then measured over time at the chlorine contact
tank exit.  The results are shown in Figure 52.  Fluorescence, in arbitrary
units, is plotted against t/Tcaic,  where t is time  and Tcajc is the calculated
detention time, V/Q.  Curves are shown for experiments with and without air
added to the second pass. Each curve is based on two tests.

    Performance is reflected by how closely the residence time distribution
matches  plug flow.  In an ideal plug-flow system, all the tracer would leave
the tank  at t/T  ,  =1.0.  Two useful measures of performance are the time
required  for tracer to be first detected, or t^t and  the time at which effluent
tracer concentration is a maximum; the latter is termed the modal time, or tm.

                                          Figure 52 shows that dye first
                                      appeared in the contact tank effluent
                                      at t /T caic = 0.4 to 0.5.  Addition of
                                      air to  the second pass inproved the
                                      flow characteristics by increasing t_/
WITH AIR ADDED

                                      Tcalc from 0.72 to 0.83.
                                                                       m'
                                       m
                   CALC
 Figure 52. Residence time distribution
           for chlorine contact tank.
                  The values for both ti/Tcalc and
                /Tcalc indicate excellent flow char-
              acteristics , far better than could be
              expected with the contact tank alone.
              The improvement  is apparently due to
              the presence of the 1.4-m (54-in.)
              pipe ahead of the tank which provides
              flow characteristics  very close to
              plug flow.
                                   100

-------
    The mean residence time can be measured from the residence time distri-
bution curve and theoretically should be equal to the calculated detention
time,  T  i  =  V/Q.  Because some tracer may remain in dead spaces of the
tank for times much longer than tm, measured mean residence times, Tmeas
are usually lower than calculated values.  Tmeas/Tcaic values were 0.88
without air added and 0.97 with air; these  indicate reasonable agreement be-
tween the flow measurement (corrected as discussed earlier) and dye tracer
measurement studies.

    The probability distribution for effluent total coliform MPN's was shown
previously in Figure 34 and demonstrates the excellent performance of the
Livermore Water Reclamation Plant in meeting the stringent  disinfection re-
quirements.  Disinfection performance, including dosage, total chlorine
residual, contact time, and median and 90th percentile coliform concentrations,
is summarized in Table 18  for the 7-yr study period.  Because samples for
coliform determination are  taken at the period of peak flow, the contact times
shown  represent  the minimum for the day.
                     TABLE 18.  DISINFECTION SUMMARY
Parameter
Flow, mgda
Chlorine dose, mg/1
Chlorine residual, mg/1
Contact time, min
Coliform concentration, MPN/100 ml
Median
90th percentile
1968
3.7
20
>7.2b
99

2.1
32
1969
4.0
20
>8.5b
64

2.1
IS
1970
3.8
25
>8.8b
72

2.1
19
1971
<• 3.9
32
14
75

2.1
15
1972
4.6
29
16
54

2.1
15
1973
4.1
34
17
60

2.1
15
1974
4.1
39
18
62

<2.l
—
Average
4.0
28
16C
69

2.1e
15e
  amgd x 0.044 = m3/sec

  Affected by maximum meter reading

  CBased on 1971-74

  Based on maximum flow during day

  SMedian
Solids Handling and Treatment
     In the plant expansion from a 0.11- to a 0.22-m /sec (2.5- to 5.0-mgd)
flow capacity, no increase in anaerobic digester capacity was included.  The
two existing digesters were retained, and their operational mode was changed
from the conventional primary-secondary operation to dual primary (or mixed)
digesters.  In order to treat the increased solids loading resulting from the
                                   101

-------
increased plant flow and from incorporation of the activated sludge process in
the plant flow diagram,  two anaerobic sludge lagoons were constructed, each
with a volume of 9,062 m3  (320,000 ft3).  The original sludge drying beds
were retained but have been rarely used because of long drying time's and
difficulties in cleaning the beds.

    A  summary of solids handling and treatment data for 1968-1974 is  pre-
sented in Table 19.  A more complete compilation is presented in Appendix E.
The average hydraulic and solids retention time  was 20 days.  At a solids
loading of  1.8 kg dry solids/m3/day (0.11 Ib/ft3/day), approximately  one-
half the design value, volatile solids reduction  in the digesters has averaged
about 53 percent, slightly less than the assumed value of 60 percent shown
previously in Table 3.

    Solids handling ability has been a problem for the plant staff over the
years, and odors from the sludge lagoons have often been noted.  Because
          TABLE 19.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT SUMMARY
Parameter
Sewage flow, mgda
Sludge flow to digesters , gpdb
Sludge flow to lagoons , gpd*3
Solids retention time , daysc
Raw sludge total solids, percent
1968
3.7
17,100
18,400
23
3.8
1969
4.0
18.000
17.500
22
3.8
1970
3.8
18,800
18,700
21
3.5
1971
3.9
20,600
20,300
19
3.5
1972
4.6
22,300
21,900
18
3.7
1973
4.1
22,800
22,600
• 17
3.3
1974
4.1
21,400
21,200
19
3.3
Overall
average
4.1
20,100
20,100
20
3.6
Raw sludge volatile solids, percent
 of total                       80     82     84    84     83     83     84     83
Digested sludge total solids , percent
Digester No. 1
Digester No. 2
Digested sludge volatile solids ,
percent of total
Digester No. 1
Digester No. 2
Volatile matter reduction , percent
Digester No. 1
Digester No. 2
Gas produced, 1,000 ft3/dayd
Digester No. 1
Digester No. 2
1.8
2.3


67
68

49
46

21.7
6.9
2.2
2.1


67
68

56
54

15.3
11.4
1.7
1.5


71
71

53
54

14.1
12.6
1.6
1.6


71
71

54
54

12.7
18.4
2.0
1.7


70
71

52
51

14.2
16.4
1.7
1.4


69
68

54
55

9.4
32.7
1.6
2.3


71
72

53
52

11.1
16.8
1.8
1.8


69
70

53
52

14.0
16.5
amgd x 0.044 = m3/sec
 gpd x 0.0038 = m3/day

 Nominal value. Grit and scum accumulation reduced usable volume by about one-third by 1974.
dl,000 ft3/day x 28.3 = mVday
                                    102

-------
the solids retention time is equal to the hydraulic retention time for mixed
digesters,  a low solids concentration in the raw sludge will adversely affect
performance.  This situation has occurred occasionally due to the difficulty
in determining the solids content of sludge being withdrawn from the primary
sedimentation tanks.

    As was noted  in the discussion of primary clarifier performance, solids
withdrawn from the clarifiers are discharged into an open sump with an invert
approximately 3 m (10 ft) below a grated opening.  This sump is checked by
the plant operator  on an hourly basis, and the sludge withdrawal is  increased
or decreased accordingly.  Because of the difficulty in judging the solids con-
tent in this  manner, sludge underpumping or overpumping often occurs.  In
particular, the beginning of each operator shift seems to be associated with
the occurrence of such problems.

    The system was part of the original trickling filter plant and seems to
have operated well under those circumstances.  Operating data from 1964
shows an average  raw sludge solids concentration of 5.9 percent.  With acti-
vated sludge added to the plant flow diagram, average yearly values dropped
to a range of 3.3 to 3.8 percent (Table 19), slightly lower than the values of
4 to 5 percent often cited as typical for combined primary and settled acti-
vated sludge.^f7

    Digester operation has generally been satisfactory over the years,  al-
though upsets have occasionally occurred.  When upsets have occurred, the
digester has been  emptied and the digestion process started again.

    Digester heating is provided by burning gas produced in the process,
although provision has been made for use of natural gas  when required.  In
1970,the sludge circulation lines were insulated to improve digester heating.

    Although Livermore's  digesters are operated in a completely mixed mode,
mixing has apparently been insufficient to prevent some stratification from
occurring.   In 1973,both digesters were checked and it was found  that un-
digestible solids and grease had accumulated in each tank, reducing usable
volumes by  one-third and making calculated detention times erroneously high.
One was cleaned in 1974,  and the other is scheduled for cleaning soon.

    Digester gas production is summarized in Figure 53.  Monthly average
gas production is plotted against volatile matter destroyed. The design value
of 0.94 m3/kg (15  ft3/lb)  is indicated as a straight line.  Problems with gas
flow meters have plagued  the plant over the years, usually resulting in low
readings.   In developing Figure 53,  readings taken during  a period when prob-
lems were occurring were  not used.
                                   103

-------
         50
      I
    40
2
o,
Q
O
oc
a.
         30
         20
          10
               NOTE:
               (1 )ftjx 0.028 = m3
               (2)  Ib x 0.45 = kg
               (3)  PLOTTED POINTS
                  REPRESENT
                  MONTHLY AVER AGES
                               DESIGN:                  Q 1968

                               15ft3/lb                 * 1969
                               VOLATILE MATTER
                               DESTROYED (0.93 m3/kg)
                                                       • 1971
                                                       X 1972
                                                       + 1973
                                                       
-------
         Figure 54.  Sludge lagoons {left foreground). These lagoons
                    have a history of odor problems.  Piping for odor
                    masking chemicals is located on bank. Little-
                    used sludge drying beds are in right background
    To minimize the odor problem, the maximum water depth of 3 m (10 ft) is
maintained in the lagoons.  In addition, odor masking equipment was installed
in 1969 adjacent to the downwind side of the ponds and consists of a diffuser
system to spray deodorant chemicals into the air.  At first, various masking
agents were tried but without much success. At present, a patented deodor-
ant chemical is being used which has effected an improvement, although odor
complaints have not been entirely eliminated.

    Studies with other sludge lagoons, principally at Auckland, New Zealand,
indicate that to prevent odor nuisances, the lagoon volatile solids loading
should be less than about 100 kg/1,000 m2/day  (20 lb/1,000 ft2/day).  In
recent years,the loadings at Livermore have approached 300 kg/1,000 m^/day
(60 lb/1,000 ft2/day).

    Lagoon supernatant returned to the headworks  is not regularly monitored
for BOD5 and suspended  solids,  but limited testing in 1969 indicated a BOD5
level of 1,000 to 1,500 mg/1 and a suspended solids concentration of 300 to
                                   105

-------
400 mg/1.  During the first year of operation, fairly large amounts of lagoon
supernatant were returned in short time periods, causing problems from slug
loading. Since that time, however,  the return procedure has been modified
and problems have not recurred.

    The four sludge drying beds were part of the original plant and were re-
tained in the expansion to 0.22 m3/sec (5.0 mgd). They are conventional
sand drying beds with 0.6-m (2.0-ft) vertical concrete walls around the sides,
0.3 m  (12 in.) of sand in the bottom, and perforated metal pipe designed to
collect filtrate from gravel drains and return it to the headworks.  Even during
Stage 1 operations, some difficulties occurred because of inadequate capacity.
The drains  became plugged immediately, and evaporation and subsurface per-
colation were relied on to remove the water.  After expansion,they have rarely
been used because of the difficulties in cleaning the sand and because 3- to
4-mo drying times are required for 0.5 m (20 in.) of sludge.  About 99  percent
of the digested sludge has been treated in the lagoons.   The dried sludge re-
moved from the beds has been used as a soil conditioner by the City.

Reclamation Program

    Reclamation of wastewater effluent for irrigation purposes has provided
the City with an important supplemental water source in an area where impor-
tation has become necessary. Presently, about  162 ha  (400 ac) are avail-
able to receive effluent, including 61 ha (150 ac) at the golf course, 20 ha
(50 ac)  at the municipal airport, and about 81 ha (200 ac) of privately owned
farmland.  Crops grown include sugar beets, cucumbers,  squash, Sudan, and
oats.

    Wastewater effluent used for reclamation purposes in California must
meet quality requirements set by the State Department of Public Health.  For
landscape irrigation of the golf course and airport, the applicable requirement
states  that the effluent must be "an adequately disinfected,oxidized waste-
water" .  Adequate disinfection is assumed if the effluent total coliform MPN
does not exceed 23/100 ml as a  7-day median.8

    For surface irrigation of food crops which are  to be processed in such a
manner that pathogenic organisms are destroyed, a quality equivalent to
primary effluent was required during  the period covered by this  report.   This
has recently been modified.  Now, surface irrigation of any food  crop requires
the equivalent of secondary treatment and disinfection to  a total coliform
MPN of 2.2/100 ml as a 7-day median.  The  requirements now state that
exceptions  to the above requirements may be made where  the food crop will
undergo extensive commercial processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic
agents.
                                   106

-------
    The requirements for spray irrigation of food crops has been similarly-
modified.  Previously, the requirement considered only food crops which would
be processed to destroy  pathogenic organisms and stipulated a disinfected,
oxidized waste water with a 7-day median coliform MPN not exceeding 23/100
ml.  The requirement now applies to all food crops and stipulates that the
waste water be "adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, (and)
filtered".  Disinfection requirements now stipulate that the 7-day median
total coliform MPN not exceed 2.2/100 ml  with a maximum of 23/100 ml
allowed in no more than  one sample per month. Exceptions may again be al-
lowed for processed food crops.

    Livermore Water Reclamation Plant effluent can meet any of the require-
ments except the coagulation and filtration requirements for spray irrigation of
unprocessed food crops, and plant modifications recently completed will allow
this requirement to be met.

     The wastewater reclamation pattern shown for 1972 in  Figure 55 is typical
of irrigation demand in California. Little or no water is used in the wet months
of October through March, but the demand is fairly constant from April through
September.
     6.0
     5.0
     4.0
     3.0
     2.0
     1.0
      0"—'
                                                   NOTE^mgd x .044 = m3/day
              PLANT INFLUENT
                      RECLAMATION
17 PERCENT OF
WASTEWATER
FLOW RECLAIMED
FOR IRRIGATION
                Figure 55.  Typical annual reclamation pattern.
                                    107

-------
OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SUMMARY

     The information presented in this section indicates that, while some diffi-
culties have been encountered in operating the upgraded Livermore Water
Reclamation Plant, overall operation has  been stable and has resulted in an
effluent which is consistently low in contaminants.

     Selected plant design parameters are listed in Table 20 along with corres-
ponding performance data for  1968 and 1972, the years of lowest and highest
measured influent flows, respectively.  Many of the operational aspects dis-
cussed in this section are reflected in Table 20: low influent loadings, low
primary treatment BOD5 and suspended solids reductions, the influence of
overflow rate on secondary clarifier performance, and the excellent final ef-
fluent quality. Because of the problem referred to previously of determining
the significance of unsettled  trickling filter effluent, loadings and removals
for the combined biological treatment process are also  shown in Table 20.

     The discussion below summarizes major points  made in this section with
emphasis on problems which have been encountered.  Items include (1) over-
all stability and performance, (2) influent loadings, (3) trickling filter effluent
characteristics, (4) aeration capacity, (5) secondary clarifier performance,
(7) disinfection, (8) bypassing, and (9) solids handling and treatment.  The
reader is referred to previous  portions of this section where appropriate.

Overall Stability and Performance

     More than 7 yr of operating experience have shown the coupled trickling
filter-activated sludge system to be a highly stable and reliable biological
treatment process  configuration, capable of producing a nitrified effluent low
in BOD5 and suspended solids and amenable to disinfection to a very low total
coliform MPN. The plant superintendent  has expressed confidence in the
process and has indicated that his experience with it has been  very favorable.
Summary plant performance data have been presented in Table 12  and Figures
32-34. Detailed monthly operating and performance data are presented in
Appendix E.  Operational difficulties discussed below have been due primarily
to lack of adequate knowledge during design of the unique characteristics of
this  process configuration.
Influent Loadings

     Reliance on previous 8- and 16-hr composite samples for determination
of influent BOD5 and suspended solids concentrations led to greatly over-
estimated projected BODs and suspended solids  loadings.  While the design
loading for both parameters was 5,670 kg/day (12,500 lb/day)f annual
average values have not exceeded about 3,400 kg/day (7,500 Ib) excluding
the effects of waste mixed liquor and lagoon supernatant in the influent.

                                    108

-------
                       TABLE 20.  DESIGN  AND PERFORMANCE
                Parameter
                                                          Design
                          1968
                 1972
Influent
   Flow, mgda
   BOD5,
   Suspended solids, lb/dayb

Primary Treatment
   Overflow rate, gpd/ft2
   BOD5 reduction, percent
   Suspended solids reduction, percent

Trickling Filter - Activated Sludge Process
   Organic loading, Ib BODS/1,000 ft3
    trickling filter plus aeration tank volume/day6
   BODS reduction, percent
   Suspended solids reduction, percent
   Ammonia nitrogen reduction, percent

Trickling Filters
   Organic loading, Ib BOD5/1,000 ft3/day6
   BODg reduction, percent

Activated Sludge Aeration Tank
   Volumetric loading, Ib BODs/1,000 ft3/daye
   Air supplied,  ft3/(lb BOD5 + Ib NOD removed)11

Secondary Clarifier
   Overflow rate, gpd/ft2
   Effluent BOD 5, mg/1
   Effluent suspended solids, mg/1
   BODg reduction, percent
    Based  on activated sludge influent
    Based  on raw wastewater
   Suspended solids reduction, percent
    Based  on activated sludge influent
    Based  on raw wastewater

Final Effluent
   BOD5, mg/1
   Suspended solids, mg/1
   Median  total coliform organism concentration,
    MPN/100 ml

Solids Handling
   Digester loading, Ib dry solids/ftVdayl
   Volatile matter reduction, percent
   Gas production, ftVlb volatile matter destroyed
          5.0
       12,500
       12,500
        1,050
           35
           60
           35
           92
           87
          100
           509
           289
        1,200'
          787
           15
           15

           869
           96

           869
           96
           20 3
           20 1
         0.22
           60
           15
 3.7
,000
,700
 780
  22
  55
  19
   _ f
   _ f
     f
  50
  339
  209
 582

   If

    f
    f
   _f
   _f
 9.6
 9.5
0.10
  48
  14
  4.6
8,700C
9,900°
  970
   43C
   58°
   21
   88
   75
   97
   62
   159
   329
  821
  725
   15
   40

   86g
   93C

   67g
   90C
  8.1
   22

  2.1*
 0.13
   52
   10
 mgd x 0.044 = mvsec
blb/day x 0.454 = kg/day

 Affected by waste mixed liquor and sludge lagoon
 supernatant recycled to headworks

dgpd/ft2 x 0.041 = m3/mz/day

elb/l .000 ft3/day x 0.016 = kg/m3/day

 Secondary effluent quality not measured in 1968

9Based on unsettled trickling filter effluent
 ft3/lb x 0.0624 = mVkg

 Based on BODs only, two of three blowers operating
 Requirements set by California Regional Water
 Pollution Control Board, see Appendices B and C

 Monthly median

hb/ft3 x 16 = kg/m3
                                              109

-------
These low loadings have greatly aided plant performance.   In particular/
removals in the primary sedimentation tanks have been slightly lower than
anticipated, and the air supply for the activated sludge  aeration tanks
was significantly underdesigned.  Serious operational problems would have
developed if loadings had been as high as anticipated.  In addition, the
inadequacies in the solids handling and treatment portion of the plant would
have been even more apparent.

Trickling Filter Effluent Characteristics

     One of the most perplexing problems facing the designers of the upgraded
plant was prediction of the relationship between the trickling filters and the
activated sludge process.  Very little information was available about the
characteristics of the unsettled filter effluent that was to  enter the aeration
tank.

     The design engineers avoided this problem by designing the biological
treatment portion of the plant on the basis of total trickling filter plus aeration
tank volume.  The operating  record of the plant has contributed to a greater
understanding of the trickling filter-activated sludge  interrelationship,  but
complete answers to some questions are still missing.

     It is clear that much of the BODg measured in unsettled trickling filter
effluent is not waste material from the plant influent stream but rather bio-
logical solids sloughed from the filter media.  Allowing filter effluent to
settle 1 hr reduces the measured BOD,- concentration  by about 50 percent.
Although this probably underestimates slightly the aeration tank influent
BOD5 concentration, it is a more accurate value than that based upon un-
settled trickling filter effluent. The  sloughed biological solids must be
accounted for, however, in design of the activated sludge unit.

Aeration Capacity

     The most serious operational problem has been a lack of adequate air
supply for the activated sludge aeration tanks.  The three fixed-speed blowers,
which are capable of providing 57 m3/min (2,000 ft3/min) of air each, must
all be used simultaneously during a portion of the day, eliminating the  use  of
one blower for standby purposes.   Blower shutdowns, usually resulting from
bearing failures which require  20 to 40 hr to repair, cause a temporary loss of
nitrification due to low DO concentrations.  The resulting high effluent am-
monia nitrogen levels make adequate disinfection more difficult to attain
because of combined chlorine residual formation.

     Because ammonia nitrogen is not sorbed by cell material to undergo oxi-
dation later, it must be oxidized during the period that the waste water is in
the aeration tank.  As the ammonia loading can vary greatly over a 24-hr
                                    110

-------
 period, the oxygen demand at peak periods can be quite high.  It is possible
 that even with all three blowers operating at Livermore, ammonia bleed-
 through occurs at times. The bleed-through would not be apparent because
 measurements made on 24-hr composite samples would tend to mask this
 effect.

 Secondary Clarifier Performance

     Underdesign of the secondary clarifier  has resulted in a secondary ef-
 fluent suspended solids level somewhat higher than expected.  The design
 ADWF overflow rate of 32.1 m3/day/m2 (787 gpd/ft2) reflects the higher val-
 ues often used at that time and the necessity of restricting the  size to allow
 plant piping  to be installed.  The effects of hydraulic  and solids loadings on
effluent  suspended solids levels were  indicated preciously in Figures 46 and
 47, respectively.  Higher loadings have resulted in deterioration of effluent
 quality.

 Disinfection

     The restrictive, 7-day median, effluent coliform requirement of 2.2  MPN/
 100 ml (5.0 MPN/100 ml during the first portion of the study period) makes
 proper operation of the disinfection step extremely important. After experienc-
 ing much difficulty during the first 2 yr of operation using a conventional com-
 pound loop chlorination control system with amperometric residual chlorine
 analyzers, the plant staff developed a chlorination control method which in-
 volves adding chlorine until a specified pH, usually around 6.5, is reached.
 If the wastewater is low in ammonia nitrogen, free chlorine residuals  will be
 formed  and, at the low pH,hypochlorous acid (HOCl) will be predominant over
 hypochlorite ion (OC1 ). The former compound is a much stronger disinfecting
 agent, and the objective of this control method is the production of a high
 percentage of HOCl.

     It was noted that there are inherent problems with this  control method,
 specifically that a change in wastewater characteristics  such as ammonia
 nitrogen concentration, pH, or alkalinity  can affect the performance.  The
 consistency of the raw wastewater quality at Livermore has allowed the plant
 staff to use this control method with singular success for more  than 6 yr.
 However,  caution should be used in considering this control method for other
 plants.

     Chlorine contact is provided by a conventional chlorine contact tank with
 a 60-min detention time at design ADWF.  Preceding the open tank is a 76-m
 (250-ft) long, 1.4-m (54-in.) diameter, full-flowing pipe from the secondary
 clarifier.  Studies undertaken during initial experiments with pH chlorination
 control in 1969 indicated that adequate disinfection  was  being attained at the
                                    111

-------
point where the 1.4-m (54-in.) pipe enters the contact tank.  The advantage
of additional contact time in the open tank is therefore uncertain, although it
certainly provides an extra measure of protection in ensuring  that the dis-
charge requirements will be met.

     Presently, air mixing is undertaken in the second pass of the contact
tank to reduce dead space,  raise the DO level, and raise the pH.  No mixing
occurs in the first tank with the result that contamination from solids deposi-
tion requires cleaning at 4- to 6-wk intervals to ensure that disinfection re-
quirements can be met.

Bypassing

     Conversion of portions of existing oxidation ponds to emergency holding
basins during plant upgrading has greatly aided plant operation by allowing
temporary discharge of raw or partially treated wastewater during periods of
process unit shutdown.  This is particularly valuable at Livermore because  of
the stringent discharge requirements  and the absence of parallel units for the
aeration tank and secondary clarifier. Wastewater stored in the basins is
returned to the plant headworks during low flow periods after  the plant is re-
turned to service.

     The principal problem occurring in bypassing is that primary or trickling
filter effluent must pass through the chlorine contact tank to  reach the holding
basins.  This contaminates the tank through deposition of solids, and it must
be cleaned prior to returning it to service.

Solids Handling and Treatment

     Plant expansion and the addition of the  activated sludge process greatly
increased solids production at the Livermore plant.  Although sludge lagoons
were added during expansion,  sludge handling difficulties have occurred and
have been manifested principally by odors  from the lagoons.

     The problem begins with the air-lift pumps which withdraw primary sludge
and waste activated sludge from the primary sedimentation tanks.  Installed
originally to withdraw primary and trickling filter sludge from the clarifiers,
the air lifts now pump a raw sludge with a solids content generally less than
4 percent.  The two digesters, constructed with the original plant,  are opera-
ted as parallel, mixed digesters whose effluent is discharged to the sludge
lagoons.  The low solids content and deposition of sand in a large fraction of
the digester volume has reduced the solids retention time for the mixed diges-
ters, resulting in a volatile solids reduction of around 50 percent in compari-
son with the design value of 60 percent. The lagoons receive nearly all
                                    112

-------
this less than completely digested sludge as the sludge drying beds con-
structed with the original plant can accept less than 1 percent of the total.
Continued digestion thus takes place in the lagoons, thereby precipitating
periodic odor complaints from nearby residents.

Conclusions

     The Livermore Water Reclamation Plant has provided excellent wastewater
treatment through use of a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge bio-
logical treatment unit.  The problems which have occurred are ones which can
be eliminated in future plants of this type.  Specific design suggestions
for upgrading existing trickling filter plants to coupled trickling filter-
activated sludge plants will be discussed in Section 10, General Design
Considerations.
                                     113

-------
                               SECTION 9

                           TREATMENT COSTS
     Presented in this section are summaries of capital and operating ex-
penses for the upgraded Liver-more Water Reclamation Plant.  Capital costs
cover detailed design,  construction, and construction inspection; operating
expenses include salaries,  power and  chemicals,  operating supplies, direct
maintenance, and administrative overhead.  Costs are categorized where pos-
sible to aid evaluation.
CAPITAL COSTS

     Because the upgrading of the Livermore plant involved both an  expansion
in flow capacity as well as modifications to the treatment flow daigram,
it is useful to attempt to differentiate between these two categories in
documenting capital costs.  Although it is difficult to provide a complete
breakdown of costs into the two categories of expansion and upgrading, this
has been done to the extent possible.

    Bids for construction were received on February 24, 1966, and the con-
tract was awarded on February 28, 1966.  The contract price was $1,067,000
(including $20,000 for contingencies) and corresponded to a San Francisco
area ENR Construction Cost Index of 1150.  Work was begun in March 1966
and completed  in mid-1967.  A breakdown of the bid was shown previously in
Table 6 (Section 6). An installed cost breakdown for major equipment items
was given in Table 5.  The final total construction cost was $1,056,000
(rounded off) as summarized previously in Table 8.

    Detailed engineering design work for the project totaled approximately
$62,000, or 5.9 percent of the construction cost.  This included periodic
assistance during construction; full-time resident engineering services were
not provided by the consultant.  Also, preliminary planning costs are not in-
cluded in the above figure.  Costs borne by the City during construction for
resident engineering and inspection  were approximately $12,000, or 1.1 per-
cent of the contract price. This includes only direct salary and fringe bene-
fits for the single inspector employed by the City.  Other costs, such as
                                   114

-------
administrative overhead and direct expenses associated with inspection by
the City,are not available.  Adding these figures together yields a total proj-
ect capital cost of $1,130,000.

     Because the costs given above are for both upgrading and expansion,  it
is useful to present a previously developed estimate for expansion only,
maintaining the original trickling filter-oxidation pond treatment scheme.
These costs are given in Table 21  and are taken from a  feasibility study pre-
pared for the City by Brown and Caldwell in April 1964.  Over half the total
is for additional land for ponds.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

    Costs for operating the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant have been
tabulated for the years 1968 through 1974 in Table 22.  Salary costs include
direct salaries plus fringe benefits for plant personnel.  Power and chemicals
                                      comprise electric power, natural gas
   TABLE 21.  ESTIMATED COST FOR
              EXPANSION OF ORIGINAL
              LIVERMORE PLANT TO
              5.0 MCD (0.22 M3/SEC)
              WITHOUT UPGRADING
Plant Unit
Pretreatment and raw
sewage pumping
Trickling filter
Secondary clarifier
Digested sludge lagoons
Chlorine contact tank
Oxidation ponds
Percolation beds for golf
course irrigation water
Subtotal
Engineering and
contingencies, 23 percent
Total
Purchase of 120 acres for
oxidation ponds
Total project cost
Construction Cost,
dollars3
12,100
148,000
182,000
18,100
30,200
113,000
12,100
515,500
119,600
635,100
725,000
1,360,100
for augmenting digester heating,  and
chlorine.  Operating expenses are
normal supplies and direct expenses
attributable to plant operation. Main-
tenance  includes direct costs for re-
pairs and contractual maintenance for
specific items. Administrative over-
head consists of the costs allocated
to the administrative and clerical
staffs of the City Department of Public
Works.

     Total labor time at the Livermore
plant is  divided into five categories:
operation, maintenance, repair, labo-
ratory and monitoring, and yard work.
A summary of the work load distribution
for the 7-yr period from 1968 through
11974 is presented in Table 23. After
19 69, the total number of man-hours
worked increased very little,  only 4
percent from 1969 through 1973.  The
final column shows the average per-
centage  of the total allocated to each
classification:  45 percent of the total
  ENR Construction Cost Index =1150
                                   115

-------
       TABLE 22.  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS,  LIVERMORE
                  WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
Category
Salaries
Power and chemicals
Operating expenses
Maintenance and repair
Administrative overhead
Total
Percent Increase

1968
101
30
36
12
17
196
-

1969
126
33
39
12
22
232
18
Annual
1970
134
39
30
14
34
251
8
cost, thousand
1971
150
43
32
15
25
265
6
dollars
1972
155
48
32
15
27
277
5

1973
160
63
34
17
33
307
11

1974
178
84
43
36
40
381
24
                   TABLE 23.  WORK LOAD DISTRIBUTION


Item
Time, man-hours
Cperation
Maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and
monitoring
Yard
Part-time ,
unclassified3
Total
Annual increase.
percent
Average salary cost.
dollars per man-hour
Annual increase.

percent


1968 1969

7,210 7,805
2,506 2,160
2,450 2,855

2,801 3,214
1,844 1,585

1,182
16,811 18,801

12

6.01 6.70


11


1970

8,605
2,923
2,800

3,272
1,916

-
19,516

4

6.87


3


1971

8,820
2,567
2,630

2,913
1,600

-
18,530

-5

8.09


18


1972

9,062
2,748
2,695

2,570
1,762

-
18,837

2

8.23


2


1973

9,150
2,997
2,963

2,895
1,544

-
19,549

4

8.18


-1


1974

8,714
3,795
3,714

3,004
1,632

-
20,859

7

8.53


4
Average ,
percent
of total

45
15
15

15
10

-
100

4b

-


6
 Summertime student employees.
3
 Average annual increase.
                                   116

-------
man-hr under operation; 15 percent each under maintenance, repair,  and
laboratory and monitoring; and 10 percent under yard work.

     Normal staffing at the Livermore plant consists of a superintendent,
seven operators, a laboratory technician, and a maintenance mechanic. Yard
work is provided through the Department of Public Works as a direct cost.
Clerical work is provided as an overhead item.  The plant is staffed on a 24-
hr, 7-day basis.

     Annual quantities of labor, chlorine, and electric power are plotted along
with average annual flow for the years 1968 through 1974 in Figure 56.  Labor
required for plant operation has been fairly stable over the years, as is to be
expected.   Power costs have been related to flow/ also  as  expected.  Chlorine
usage rose sharply, however, increasing from just over 100,000 kg/yr
(220,000 Ib/yr) in 1969 to almost 215,000 kg/yr (470,000 Ib/yr) in  1972,
a 215 percent increase in 4  yr.  This was due principally to an  increase in
chlorine dosage necessitated by the changing of the disinfection requirement
from 5.0 to 2.2 total coliform MPN/100 ml in late 1971  and to the changeover
to pH control of chlorine addition.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST

    Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs can be combined to
give a total annual cost or total treatment cost for any particular treatment
plant. Common methods of expressing such costs are dollars/yr or cents/m^
(cents/1,000 gal)  of wastewater treated.

    To determine total annual cost, the capital costs must be amortized at a
specific interest rate over a period of time. An interest rate and payment
period often used for planning purposes are 7 percent and 20 yr, respectively.
Based on these values, the capital cost of $1,130,000 is equivalent to
$107,000/yr.

    The operation and maintenance cost for 1968 was $196,000 at a flow of
0.16 mVsec (3.6  mgd).  Adding this figure to the annual cost of capital
yields a total annual cost of $303,000/yr.

    It is useful to attempt to adjust this figure by expressing  capital and
operating costs on the same basis. The capital costs are associated with an
ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area of 1150 in early  1966.
By mid-1968,the Index had risen to 1250,  resulting in an adjusted capital cost
of $1,228,000.  The equivalent annual cost at 7 percent and 20 yr is$115,000/
yr. Combining the 1968 operation and maintenance cost with the amortized
cost results in  a total annual cost of $311,000/yr in 1?^8 dollars.
                                   117

-------
   eo r  60°
   50
   40
o.
S
o
c
•
E
o
o
o
        500
       •400
       •
       a
   30
 ac
 o
 m
   20
    VO
    0 "-
       §
in
3
IU
z

o
X200
        100
        o L-
               6.0
               5.0 -
               4.0
               3.0
               2.0
               1.0
                     NOTE: (1) mdg x 0.044 - m3/iec
                         (2) Ib x 0.45 - kg
                          FLOW
                                                                     6.000
                                                                     5.000
                                                                    4.000 ;
                                                                        a
                                                                     3,000
                                                                     2,000 0
                                                                         _>
                                                                         in
                                                                     1.000
                  1968
                          1969
                                  1970
                                          1971
                                                  1972
                                                          1973
                                                                  1974
                                      YEAR
               Figure 56.   Flow and annual operating parameters.

     Another often-used parameter for expressing total treatment cost is the
cost in cents  per unit volume of wastewater treated.  In 1968, the average
daily flow in the 0.22-m3/sec (5.0-mgd) plant was 0.16 m3/sec (3.6 mgd).
Except for power and chemicals, most operating costs can be reasonably
assumed to be independent of flow.  Adjusting the 1968  operating cost to
reflect the increase in power and chemical costs which would be expected at
design flow yields an annual operation and maintenance cost of $208,000.
The total annual cost in 1968 dollars is then $323,000/yr,or 4.7 cents/m3
(17.7 cents/1,000 gal) based on design flow.

     Although  construction costs can be adjusted to reflect changes which
occur over time by utilizing one of the several available construction cost
'indices, no similar simple  adjustment can be made for operating costs. Thus,
to estimate future total treatment costs,  separate estimates  must be made for
construction and operation.
                                    118

-------
                               SECTION 10

                   GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
     Experience gained from operation of the Livermore, California,  Water
Reclamation Plant can be of benefit  in carrying out similar treatment plant
modifications at other locations.  Two coupled trickling filter-activated
sludge plants are presently being constructed at Lompoc, California, and
Corvallis, Oregon.  Other operating  plants include those at El Lago, Texas,
and San Pablo, California.  Except for San Pablo, these plants previously
utilized conventional trickling filtration for secondary treatment and were
upgraded after imposition of discharge requirements necessitating nitrifi-
cation.  The coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process is an alter-
native that should be considered by  cities facing more stringent discharge
requirements for their trickling filter plants.

    The purpose of this section is to present design information on the com-
bined trickling filter-activated sludge process developed from operation of
the Livermore plant, design and operation of other plants, and  information
which has become available in recent years on design for nitrification in the
activated sludge process.  This is not intended to be a comprehensive design
manual, but rather a brief outline of pertinent information with an indication of
those areas where further data are needed. For a complete discussion of nit-
rification kinetics and process design, the reader is referred to the EPA Tech-
nology Transfer publication, Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control.9

    Presented in the following subsection are descriptions of the  plants at
Lompoc,  Corvallis,  El Lago, and San Pablo.  Following these discussions is
a brief review of nitrification process chemistry and biochemistry  presented to
provide a better understanding of the complexities encountered in  design.
Finally, the subsection on design considerations  covers several aspects of
plant design, including process design, aeration  requirements, flexibility,
reliability, use of existing facilities, and expected effluent quality.

ADDITIONAL TRICKLING FILTER-ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS

    Although this report deals primarily with the Livermore plant, data from
other coupled trickling filter-activated sludge plants  can be used  to supple-
ment the information developed at Livermore.  The Corvallis and Lompoc

                                    119

-------
upgraded plants were designed by Brown and Caldwell subsequent to the
earlier Livermore upgrading.  Certain changes in design parameters were
adopted for these later plants. Other full-scale plants for which operating
data are available include El Lago, Texas, and San Pablo, California.  In
addition to the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process, the El Lago
plant provides denitrification, phosphorus removal, and tertiary filtration.

Lompoc. California

     The Lompoc Valley in Santa Barbara County, California, is the  site of a
coupled trickling filtration-activated sludge plant, presently under  construc-
tion, which will provide consolidated waste water treatment for four sewerage
systems in the region. As at Livermore, the upgraded plant is being construc-
ted on the site of an existing trickling filter plant and will utilize many of the
available structures. Because of predicted flow increases, the anticipated
loadings on the rock media filters would have been very high,  possibly caus-
ing odors.  Thus, the rock media filters are being converted to deep plastic
media filters during the upgrading.

     Lompoc is located approximately 16 km (10 mi) from the Pacific Ocean in
a valley which is  19km (12  mi) long and 5 km (3 mi) wide.  In addition to the
City of Lompoc, sewage treatment and disposal will be provided for the Fed-
eral Correctional Institution and two residential developments, Mission Hills
and Vandenberg Village.  In  1972,Brown  and Caldwell undertook development
of a regional wastewater management program for the Lompoc Valley.  Because
of long-term depletion of the local groundwater reservoir and deterioration of
groundwater quality, a prime consideration in plan development was possible
groundwater recharge using reclaimed wastewater.  Recharge can be imple-
mented either in special spreading basins  or in the bed of the Santa Ynez
River, which receives effluent from the treatment plant.  Design effluent con-
centrations, whether intentional reclamation is practiced  or not,  are 15 mg/1
BODg and suspended solids, 0.1 mg/1 ammonia nitrogen,  and 2.2 MPN total
coliform organisms/100 ml.

Previous Plant—

     The Lompoc Water Pollution Control Plant provided secondary treatment
by trickling filtration for a design flow of  0.077 m3/sec (1.75  mgd), although
measured flows had reached 0.092 m-Vsec (2.1 mgd) by 1972, resulting in
noncompliance with discharge requirements.  The plant was constructed in
1959 and replaced oxidation ponds which had previously provided treatment.

     The plant was initially designed and constructed to operate as  a two-
stage trickling filter system with discharge to the Santa Ynez River. Between
1961 and 1966, however, a number of modifications to the plant were  under-
taken,  including incorporation of the previously abandoned 43,000-m^

                                   120

-------
(35 acre-ft) oxidation pond into the system to provide tertiary treatment, and
rerouting of digester supernatant from the first-stage trickling filter to the
primary sedimentation tank.

Upgraded Plant—

     The Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant will provide treat-
ment for 0.26 m-Vsec (6 mgd) ADWF and is planned for ultimate expansion to
0.53 m /sec (12 mgd).   The  flow diagram is  shown in Figure 57.  The plant
will provide secondary treatment with nitrification and can be upgraded to
include nutrient removal, filtration, and demineralization if future circum-
stances require such  steps.

     As at Livermore,  emphasis has been placed on retaining existing facili-
ties.  The existing secondary clarifier will be converted to a sludge  thickener,
which  will eliminate the need for increasing  digestion capacity.  Sludge la-
goons  will be placed on  the site of previously existing drying beds,  and the
oxidation pond will be converted to an emergency holding basin, providing
a detention time of about 2 days at design flow.


     The total biological treatment volume is based on a unit loading of 0.53
kg BODs/mVday (33.2  lb/1,000 ft3/day)  of trickling filter plus aeration
tank volume.   Any  two of the three blowers will  provide  99 nP air/kg  (1,580
ft3/lb) BODs + NOD entering  the aeration tank (on a. daily average basis).
During the peak  3-hr  loading period, the air supply rate with two blowers
operating will drop to  82 m-Ykg  (1,320 ft3/lb).

     The low bid for  the Lorapoc plant upgrading  was $14.2 million, including
$250,000 for contingencies.  Construction was started in December 1974 and
completion scheduled  for mid-1977.

Corvallis. Oregon

     The City of Corvallis is presently expanding and upgrading its municipal
wastewater treatment plant from a 0.26-m3/sec (5.9-mgd) trickling filter plant
to a 0.42 -m3/sec  (9.7-mgd) coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process
with design effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 BODj- and suspended solids
and  1.0 mg/1 ammonia nitrogen.  Provisions  are being made for ultimate ex-
pansion to 0.76  m^/sec  (17.3 mgd), which is expected to serve the community
beyond the year 2000.10

     The principal  objectives of the Corvallis plant and the problems  found
there are somewhat different from those at Livermore.  Corvallis is situated
on the Willamette  River in western Oregon.  For more than half a century, the
Willamette has been the disposal site for liquid wastes from Corvallis and
                                   121

-------
        INFLUENT
        PUMPING
TRICKLING
FILTER
DISTRIBUTION
STRUCTURE
                                                               TRICKLING
                                                               FILTERS
                             THICKENER r MIXED
                                        LIQUOR
                              BYPASS
EMERGENCY
HOLDING
BASIN

1
. +

CHLORINE
CONTACT
i
.!, '

!
                                              SECONDARY
                                              CLARIFIERS
                             DISCHARGE
                              TO SANTA
                                YNEZ
                               RIVER
                                        CHLORINE
             Figure 57. Lompoc, California, Regional Wastewater
                        Reclamation Plant flow diagram.
other cities and industries along its route.  As recently as 30 yr ago, sub-
stantially all wastes were discharged to the river without treatment.  This
practice resulted in gross pollution of certain stretches of the river, and
during periods of low river flow, portions  of the river were robbed of oxygen
by the pollutants to a point where the river could no longer sustain fish and
other desirable aquatic life.
                                    122

-------
    Through diligent action by local, state,  and federal agencies, the trend
has been reversed in the last 20 yr  and the quality of the river has improved
to the point where it has once again taken its rightful place as a  major aes-
thetic and recreational asset.  To provide continued water quality improvement
in the Willamette in the face of increasing wastewater discharges, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is planning to impose stiff limits
on the oxygen-demanding constituents in wastewater effluents.  Summer dis-
charge requirements for Corvallis include mean BODc and suspended solids
concentrations of 10 mg/1.  Although there is presently no requirement for
ammonia removal, the plant is designed to achieve complete nitrification.

Previous Plant—

    The first units of the existing sewage treatment plant were constructed in
1952 and consisted of an influent pumping station, an aerated grit chamber,
a comminutor, a primary sedimentation tank, two floating-cover sludge diges-
ters, and a control building.  Primary effluent was discharged to  the river
after chlorination.  In 1965,the plant was modified to provide secondary  treat-
ment by biological filtration.  Principal components of the 1965 construction
program included two trickling filters with a filter circulation pumping station,
a secondary clarifier, and a third digester with a fixed cover.

    During the peak of the food processing season in September, the 8005
load applied to the trickling filters has been up  to three times the amount
which the filters  can treat effectively. As a result, the filters release odors
which at times have reached serious nuisance proportions.  Odor nuisance
has not been a problem when the cannery is not  operating.

Upgraded Plant—

    In 1973,the City hired Brown and Caldwell to  prepare a  wastewater man-
agement program to allow the City to meet predicted future discharge  require-
ments.  The plan involved three principal elements: (1) construction  of a
stormwater overflow treatment and holding pond  to reduce wet weather dis-
charges from the City's combined sewers, (2) diversion of food processing
wastes, which had periodically overloaded the municipal plant, to land treat-
ment and disposal sites, and (3) conversion of the existing  municipal plant to
a coupled trickling filtration-activated sludge system for treatment of the
community's municipal wastes.*"

    Experience obtained at the Livermore plant has allowed several important
design improvements to be incorporated into the Corvallis facility. The
design BOD5 loading rate, in kg BOD5/m3 (lb/1,000 ft3) of  biological treat-
ment capacity (trickling filter plus aeration tank)/day, will  be decreased from
about 0.55 to 0.32 kg BOD5/m3/day (35 to 20 lb/1,000 ft3/day), a value
                                   123

-------
which has been obtained in practice at Livermore. The design air supply
will be increased to 86 m3 air/kg (1,370 ft3/lb) peak BODc + NOD  and sized
to account not only for average nitrogenous oxygen demand, but for peak load-
ing periods as well.

    Secondary clarifier overflow rates will be reduced from those at Livermore
to 21.2  m3/day/m2 (520 gpd/ft2)  at ADWF and will be based on a limiting wet
weather rate of 61 m3/day/m2 (1,500  gpd/ft2).  To improve the settling char-
acteristics of the mixed liquor, flocculation wells will be constructed at the
center of each clarifier, providing 20-30 min of flocculation time at ADWF.
Provision will be made for alum addition ahead of the clarifiers.

    The existing secondary  clarifier,  which is unsuitable for settling acti-
vated sludge, will be used as a chlorine contact tank.  Sludge removal equip-
ment will be retained to periodically remove material escaping the secondary
clarifier.

    Solids handling and treatment will be unchanged at the new plant.  One
digester will be operated in  the primary (or mixed) mode, and two will be
operated as  secondary digesters.  Digested sludge will continue to be dis-
posed of on land, and secondary digester supernatant will be returned to the
plant headworks.  Digester design loadings will be much lower than at Liver-
more, 1.8 kg dry solids/m3/day (0.11 Ib/ft3/day) for the primary digester
and 1.3 kg/m3/day (0.08  Ib/ft3/day)  for the secondary digesters, with an
assumed volatile solids reduction of 55 percent.

    The flow diagram for the upgraded Corvallis plant is shown in Figure 58.
Instead of relying on holding basins for emergency situations, the Corvallis
plant emphasizes multiple units,  allowing a brief shutdown of one aeration
tank,  for example,  with minimal effect on overall plant efficiency.  Further
reliability is provided by a separate facility for treatment of sewage overflows,
which occur routinely during wet weather.

    The low construction  bid for the Corvallis plant was $7.7 million.  Con-
struction  was started in November 1975 with completion scheduled in
November 1977.

El Lago. Texas

    El Lago is a small suburban community of 3,000 people located near the
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Texas.  The agency responsible for waste-
water treatment is the Harris County Water Control and Improvement District
No. 50, which currently operates a 0.013-m3/sec (0.3-mgd) treatment plant.
In 1969,the District received an order from the Texas Water Quality Control
Board that mandated protection of nearby Clear Lake  from excessive eutrophi-
cation.  Two means were available for compliance with the order at that time:

                                  124

-------
  CHLORINE
         RAW
         SEWAGE
         PUMPS*
                          PRELIMINARY
                         TREATMENT AND
                         FLOW METERING
                                          PRIMARY
                                        SEDIMENTATION
                                           TANK
                       PRELIMINARY
                      TREATMENT AND
                      FLOW METERING*
                                       r
NOTE: ASTERISK (*) DENOTES
     NEW FACILITY
              (PREVIOUS
               SECONDARY
               CLARIFIER)
                                  WASTE
                               ACTIVATED
                                 SLUDGE
                                              BYPASS
                                             PRIMARY
                                          SEDIMENTATION
                                              TANK*
                                             CHLORINE*
                                       RETURN    1
                                       ACTIVATED
                                       SLUDGE
                                                                 FINAL DISPOSAL
                                                                 TO LAND
                      CHLORINE
                                   ALUM
              Figure 58.  Cor vail is,  Oregon, wastewater treatment
                         plant flow diagram.
(1) export of wastewater from the basin or (2) providing nutrient removal prior
to discharge to Clear Lake.  The second option was chosen and the District
obtained  an EPA grant to demonstrate full-scale nitrogen and  phosphorus
removal. ^

     The original plant consisted of a rock trickling filter plant (actually two
plants in parallel) with anaerobic sludge digestion for solids processing.  The
modified  flow sheet incorporating nutrient removal  is shown in Figure 59.
Added facilities are identified by asterisks and include new aeration tanks for
nitrification, denitrification columns, tertiary filtration,  and facilities for
metal salt, polymer, and methanol addition.  All  existing structures were
incorporated into the upgraded plant.  Two separate types of  denitrification
                                     125

-------
  FeCI3 AND POLYMER
                                         RECIRCULATION
                                                               FINAL EFFLUENT TO
                                                               RECEIVING WATERS
         NOTE: ASTERISK**) DENOTES NEW FACILITY
      Figure 59.  El Lago, Texas, wastewater treatment plant flow diagram.
columns, with fine and with coarse media, were provided to allow comparison
of alternative designs. A minor operational difference from other coupled
trickling filter-activated sludge plants discussed in this report is recircula-
tion of clarifier effluent rather than trickling filter effluent to the trickling
filter influent line.  This results in a reduced organic loading to the filter
with a corresponding increase to the aeration tank.

     Tables 24 and 25 are tabular summaries of initial performance of the
plant and performance 1 yr later, respectively.  The improvements in all
parameters of effluent quality obtained after a year of operating experience
are evident.

     The capital costs for the modifications to the El Lago facility were incur-
red over a 2-yr period (1971-1973) and totaled $312,365, including change
orders.  This cost includes the provision of dual denitrification facilities;
had only one type of denitrification system been included,  it  is estimated  that
the total cost would have been about $75,000 less.  The only increase in
operating costs has been for chemicals and power,  which has totaled
                                     126

-------
         TABLE 24.  INITIAL PERFORMANCE OF EL LACO TREATMENT
                     PLANT—JUNE H THROUGH JULY 6, 1973 (REF.  11)
Constituent
Total phosphorus, mg/1
Soluble phosphorus, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
BOD 5, mg/1
COD, mg/1
Temperature, C
Raw
waste-water '
12.8
10.3
113
18.7
42.6
175
297
26.5
Primary
influent
15.4
4.7
289
21.7
38.6
222
488
-
Primary
effluent
8.4
4.1
72
21.5
30.2
181
-
Nitrified
effluent
7.3
3.4
37
0.9
3.7
15.2
65f
121f
-
Denitrified
effluent c'd
6.6
5.5
17
0.8
2.4
2.6
9
72
-
Final
effluent
4.8
3.6
3
0.6
3.3
2.3
9
51
-
  Average flow to plant: 0.307 mgd (0.013 m3/sec)

  Peak dally flow to plant:  1.0 mgd (0.044 m3/sec)

 °Average flow to denitrification columns: 0.254 (0.011 m3/sec)

  Peak daily flow to denitrification columns: 0.420 mgd (0.018 m^/sec)
 "Nitrite nitrogen always less than 0.2 mg/1
 f,
 Includes methanol
        f\
2.5£/nr (9.6£/l,000 gal).  It was found that the plant operators previously
employed could adapt to advanced waste treatment processes and that no in-
crease in staff was required.

San Pablo.  California

     The San Pablo Sanitary District operates  a 0.55-m3/sec (12.5-mgd)
coupled trickling filter-activated sludge plant designed for year-round nitri-
fication.  The original plant consisted of primary sedimentation with effluent
chlorination and digestion for solids processing. Additions completed in 1972
resulted in  the plant flow diagram shown in Figure 60. New facilities included
additional primary sedimentation tanks, a plastic media roughing trickling
filter, aeration-nitrification tanks, secondary clarifiers,  an additional chlo-
rine contact tank, dissolved air flotation sludge thickeners, and two addi-
tional digesters. The San Pablo plant differs from the other plants discussed
in this report in  that the previous plant did  not include a trickling filter.
                                     127

-------
       TABLE 25.  SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE OF EL LAGO TREATMENT
                   PLANT—OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 1974
                   (REF.  11)
Constituent
Total phosphorus, mg/le
Soluble phosphorus, mg/1
Suspended solids, mo/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
BOD5/ mg/1
COD, mg/1
Temperature , C
Primary
influent3 'D
12
1.8
295
-
-
-
-
Primary
effluent
3.6
1.0
51
18
24
-
-
Nitrified
effluent
3.1
0.41
81
0.4
2.6
15
62 f
113f
21
Denitrified
effluent0 'd
Column No. 1
_
-
51
-
-
1.9
16
44
-
Denitrified
effluent0 'd
Column No. 2
_
-
44
0.4
1.5
0.9
12
36
-
Final
effluent
0.41
0.40
1
0.3
0.9
0.6
3
19
-
   Average daily flow to plant: 0.301mgd (0.013 m /sec)

   Peak dally flow to plant: 0.47 mgd (0.021 m3/sec)

  °Average flow to denitrification columns: 0.282 mgd (0.012 m /sec)

   Peak daily flow to denitrification columns:  0.470 mgd (0.021 m /sec)

  eReduction of P due to ferric chloride addition to primary and nitrification step (37 mg/1 as Fe), Also
   polymer, DOW A-23, added to primary at 0.23 mg/1 and to tertiary filter at 0.17 mg/1

   Includes methanol
     Current discharge requirements are essentially those defined by EPA for
municipal secondary treatment plants with additional requirements set on
effluent toxicity.  In addition, the effluent pH is restricted to the range of
6.5 to 8.5.  The acid production from nitrification and subsequent chlorina-
tion normally forces the effluent pH below 6.5.  This has necessitated the
addition of caustic to the final effluent to raise the pH above 6.5.  Toxicity
requirements state that fish bioassays must be run on the undiluted effluent
and that 90 percent of a series of 10 consecutive tests must show 70 percent
fish survival for 96 hr.  Experience at this plant has indicated that the re-
quirements cannot be met without removal of ammonia through nitrification. ^

     A primary  design consideration in laying out the plant for nitrification
was  the presence of a significant volume fraction (11 to  13 percent) of poten-
tially toxic industrial wastes in the influent waste water.  Tank truck washing
residues and the waste from a manufacturer of organic peroxide and phenol
formaldehyde are the  major industrial waste sources.  The roughing filter is
used in the treatment plant to protect the nitrifying organisms from influent
wastewater toxicity.  Toxic dumps have caused severe sloughing and loss  of
growth on the media in the roughing filter, but nitrification remained un-
affected.12
                                    128

-------
 RAW
 WASTEWATER
                 PRELIMINARY
                 TREATMENT
                                      PRIMARY
                                   SEDIMENTATION
                                   TANKS (EXISTING)
                      FLOWS IN EXCESS OF 30 mgd
                                -*•
             SUPERNATANT
             TO HEADWORKS
            DIGESTED SLUDGE
            TO DRYING BEDS
             SUBNATANT
             TO HEADWORKS
          PRIMARY
       SEDIMENTATION
        TANKS (NEW)
                  TRICKLING
                    FILTER
        RAW
        SLUDGE
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTERS
DISSOLVED
   AIR
FLOTATION
THICKENER
                  SECONDARY
                   CLARIFIER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
                                                    ADDITION
                                                         EFFLUENT TO
                                                       RECEIVING WATERS
            Figure 60.  San Pablo, California, wastewater treatment
                       plant flow diagram.
    Consistent year-round nitrification is obtained in this plant as indicated
in Table 26. While only once-weekly and once-monthly analyses of nitrogen
are included in Table 26, the consistency of nitrification in the plant is con-
firmed by daily ammonia nitrogen analyses of grab samples,which normally
                                    129

-------
       TABLE 26.  PERFORMANCE DATA FOR SAN PABLO WASTEWATER
                   TREATMENT PLANT—JULY  1973 THROUGH JUNE 1974
Parameter
Flow. mgda
Return sludge ratio
Temperature, C
MLSS, mg/1
MLVSS, percent
SVI, ml/gm
Solids retention
time, days
Aeration time.
hr
Air use, million
ftVdayb
Roughing filter
effluent
BODs.mg/10
COD, mg/lc
SS, mg/lc
Secondary effluent
BOD5, mg/ld
COD, mg/ld
SS, mg/ld
Organic nitrogen
mg/le
Ammonia nitroger
mg/ld
Nitrate nitrogen.
mg/le
Nitrite nitrogen,
mg/ld





Year and
Month

1973
July
6.3
0.30
22.2
1,400
79
73

12.3

10.8
_


121
279
-
16
78
8

7.8
<0.2

18.6
0.05
Aug
5.6
0.34
23.6
1,500
80
68

13.9

12.1
_


125
306
97
4
56
7

3.8
<0.2

19.8
0.02
Sept
5.7
0.25
24.4
1,760
76
48

15.4

11.9
20.0


134
283
67
6
55
8

3.1
<0.2

18.2
0.02
Oct
5.9
0.31
23.2
1,770
76
66

11.8

11.5
19.4


131
281
95
6
62
6

3.4
<0.2

20.4
0.02
Nov
9.7
0.24
20.3
1,610
72
73

9.1

7.0
19.4


88
281
59
7
54
3

3.4
0.7

24.8
0.26
Dec
8.4
0.29
18.5
1,550
73
85

12.1

8.1
20.0


81
212
73
4
59
7

4.8
0.1

17.6
0.05
Jan
9.1
0.22
17.0
1,480
74
87

7.4

7.5
_


91
249
96
3
53
4

4.8
<0.2

17.0
0.22
Iteb
6.6
0.29
17.8
1,420
78
96

9.2

10.3
_


92
240
79
4
53
4

2.2
<0.2

15.8
0.02




1974
Mar
8.3
0.19
18.2
1,520
74
101

7.5

8.2
18.3


107
314
135
4
61
6

2.8

-------
Summary of Plant Design Data

    A summary of design data for the Livermore, Lompoc, Corvallis,  El Lago,
and San Pablo treatment plants is presented in Table 27.   The basis for
design in these cases are essentially empirical, with design changes made
to solve  problems encountered at previously constructed plants.  The next
subsection provides a review of nitrification kinetic theory, which can be
used as the basis for development of more rational design procedures.
           TABLE 27.  DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPGRADED PLANTS
Design parameter
Flow, mgda
Before upgrading
ADWF
After upgrading
ADWF
PDWF
PWWF
Future ultimate
ADWF
Influent Concentrations . mg/1
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Influent Loadings , lb/dayk
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Average
Peak
Primary Treatment
Assumed BODs removal, percent
Assumed suspended solids removal, percent
Trickling Filters
Number
Diameter, ftc
Filter media depth, ftc
Circulation ratio to ADWF ,
Loading, Ib BOD5/1 ,000 ft3/day
Assumed BOD 5 removal, percent
Livermore


2.5

5.0
10.0
18.0

10.0

300
300
- '

12,500
12,500

-
-

35
60

2
110
4.25
1.5 - 3.0
100
50f
Corvallis


4.0

9.7
13.4
28.0

17.3

135
140
-

10,000
11.500

-
-

30
65

2
160
8
1.2 - 2.4
24
47f
El Lago


0.5

0.5
-
-

-

160
195
25

670
810

105
-

25
70

2
-
6.5
1.6
12
-
Lompoc


1.8

5.0
9.1
16.0

-

300
300
25

15,500
17,000

2,100
3,300

35
65

2-
85
20e
1.5
71.7
43£
San Pablo


-

12.5
-
30.0

-

340
300
-

35,400
31,300

-
-

-
—

1
52
18e
1.0 - 2.4
350
-
                         (continued on next page)
                                  ',131

-------
                                 TABLE 27.   (continued)
Design parameter
Activated Sludge Aeration Tanks
Number
Length per tank, ft
Width, ftc
Water depth, ftc
Total volume , 1 , 000 ft3 9
Detention time, hr, based on ADWF and
raw sewage flow
MLSS
Volumetric loading, Ib BOD5/1,000 ftVday"
Aeration Blowers
Number
Capacity each, ft3/min:
Air supplied, ft3/(lb BODs + Ib peak NOD
removed)

Secondary Sedimentation Tanks
Number
Diameter, ftc
Side water depth, ftc
Overflow rate , gpd/ft2
ADWF
PWWF
Activated Sludge Treatment
Assumed BOD removal, percent
Assumed suspended solids removal, percent
Assumed ammonia nitrogen removal, percent
Overall Plant Performance
Assumed BODj removal, percent
Assumed suspended solids removal, percent
Assumed ammonia nitrogen removal , percent
Effluent BOD5 concentration, mg/1
Effluent suspended solids concentration.
mg/1
Effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration.
mg/1
Effluent coliform concentration, MPN/100 ml
Livermore

I1
160
30
15
144

5.2
-
26

3
2,000
1.2001
(BOD 5 only)

1
90
12

787
2,833

88
86
-

96
96
-
15

15

-
5.0°
Corvallis

2
156
40
15
187

3.4
2,000
22

4
5,900
1,3701

U
2h
115
18

520
1,500

80
80
-

93
93
-
10

10

1
<100
El Lago

2
-
-
-
101

6.1
-
-

2
450
_


2
_
-

320
1.060

-
-
92

97
95
92
5

10

2
~
Lompoc

21
290
30
15
261

4.7
3,050
35

3
5,200
1,580*


3
65
16

503
1,609

86
-
99.6

95
95
99.6
15

15

0.1
2.2
San Pablo

2
252
50
15
378

5.4
-
-

4
6,000
_


2
180x60m
-

580
1,390


-
—


-
-
-

-

-
™
amgd x 0.044 = m /sec
blb/day x 0.454 = kg/day
Cftx 0.305 =m
dlb/l,000 ft3/dayx 0.016 = kg/m3/day
g
 Plastic media
 Unsettled effluent
91,000 ft3 x28 = m3
 With center-well flocculators
 Two passes per tank
^ ft3/min x 0.028 = mVmin
kft3/lb x 0.0624 = m3/kg
 One blower for standby
 Rectangular sedimentation tanks
ngpd/ft2 x 0.041 = m3/m2/day
°5-day median discharge requirement;
 later changed to 2.2 MPN/100 ml a s a 7-day
 median
                                              132

-------
NITRIFICATION KINETICS IN THE COUPLED TRICKLING FILTER-
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS

     The term nitrification is applied to the conversion of ammonia nitrogen in
wastewater to nitrate nitrogen through biochemical reactions .  Nitrification is
often used as a method of ammonia removal, but it can also be used as the
first step in  a nitrogen removal process, preceding biological denitrification
which involves reduction of nitrate to  nitrogen gas which escapes to the at-
mosphere. Nitrate nitrogen can stimulate  aquatic growths, and for this reason,
removal of all nitrogen compounds may be  mandated by regulatory agencies .
Ammonia nitrogen,  in addition to being a growth stimulant, imposes an oxygen
demand on receiving waters, interferes with chlorine disinfection,  and is
toxic to fish life.  Its removal may be specifically required by regulatory
agencies, or it may be undertaken in order to meet disinfection or toxicity
requirements .

     The information presented below is intended to provide background infor-
mation prior  to development of design  procedures discussed later.  The ma-
terial is taken principally from the  EPA Technology Transfer publication,
Process Design Manual for  Nitrogen Control.9 The reader is referred to that
manual for a more complete  presentation of the concepts discussed briefly
here.

Oxidation and Synthesis Reactions

     The two principal genera involved in nitrification are Nitrosomonas and
Nitrobacter.  These groups  are classed as  autotrophic organisms and are dis-
tinguished from heterotrophic organisms in that they derive energy for growth
from oxidation of inorganic  nitrogen compounds rather than from oxidation of
organic waste matter.  Each group is limited to the oxidation of a specific
species of nitrogen compound.   Nitrosomonas can oxidize ammonia to nitrite,
and Nitrobacter can complete the reaction by oxidizing nitrite to nitrate.  The
stoichiometric reactions are as follows:

                 NH*  +  1.5 O2 - >-2H+ + H20 + N0~               (11)
                        N0+0.502 - **N03                       (12)

The overall oxidation of ammonia is obtained by adding the two equations:

                     *                ~       +H0                 (13)
    These reactions furnish energy required for growth of the nitrifying orga-
nisms.  Using representative measurements of yields and oxygen consumption
for Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter and assuming that the empirical formula for

                                    133

-------
bacterial cells is C5H_NO , the overall synthesis and oxidation reaction is:
                + 1.83 02 + 1.98 HCO~	^0.021 C5H

                 + 1.04 H_0+0.98 N0~+ 1.88 H_CO_                 (14)
                         /            o          Z    o

    Two important aspects of the oxidation reaction are oxygen and alkalinity
requirements.  From Equation 13, 4.57 kg CL/kg NH^-N are  theoretically
required for the oxidation of ammonia. From Equation 14,it is evident that
synthesis lowers actual oxygen requirements for nitrification to 4.18 kg O2/
kg NH.-N.  A value sufficiently accurate to be used in engineering calcula-
tions  for aeration requirements  is 4.6 kg O /kg  NH.-N.
                                        2'
    The oxygen demand for nitrification is significant. About 140 mg/1 of
oxygen are required to oxidize 30 mg/1 of ammonia nitrogen. It is this high
demand which has created difficulties over the years  in operating the Liver-
more plant.

    Destruction of alkalinity during the oxidation reaction can create prob-
lems by lowering the wastewater pH. Approximately 7.1 kg of  alkalinity as
CaCOo are destroyed per kg NH^-N oxidized.  Thus,  over 210  mg/1 of alka-
linity as  CaCOg will be destroyed during oxidation of 30 mg/1 of ammonia
nitrogen.  In many wastewaters /there is insufficient alkalinity  initially pres-
ent to leave a significant residual for buffering the wastewater during the
nitrification process.  The  significance of pH depression  is that nitrification
rates decrease as pH level drops.  For a full discussion of the effect of pH
on nitrification, see the Technology Transfer publication, Design Manual for
Nitrogen  Control. ^

Nitrification Kinetics

    A description of ammonia and nitrite, oxidation can be derived from an
examination of the growth kinetics of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter .  Nitro-
somonas' growth is limited by the concentration of ammonia , while Nitro-
bacter' s growth is limited by the concentration of nitrite .

    The kinetic equation proposed by Monod is used  to describe the biologi-
cal growth kinetics of either Nitrosomonas or  Nitrobacter.
where:  y =  microorganism growth rate, day   ,

        y =  maximum microorganism growth rate, day   ,
                                   134

-------
          S =  growth limiting substrate concentration, mg/1, and

               half velocity constant  = substr
               the maximum growth rate, mg/1.
K  = half velocity constant  =  substrate concentration at half
 S
Since the maximum growth rate of Nitrobacter is considerably larger than that
of Nitrosomonas. the latter representing conversion of ammonia to nitrite, the
Nitrosomonas reaction is the rate limiting step.

    The  ammonia oxidation rate,  q  , can be related to the Nitrosomonas
growth rate as follows:

                               UN    ^    N
                                 "
where:   ^N  =  Nitrosomonas growth rate, day   ,

         u,   =  peak Nitrosomonas growth rate, day   ,

         q   =  ammonia oxidation rate, kg NH -N oxidized/kg
                Nitrosomonas/day.

         q   =  ^N  = peak ammonia oxidation rate, kg NH .-N oxidized/kg
               Y      Nitrosomonas/day,

         Y   =  organism yield coefficient, kg Nitrosomonas grown/kg
                NH*-N removed,

          N  =  NH*-N concentration, mg/1, and

         K   =  half-saturation constant, mg/1 NH.-N.

     The nitrifier growth rate can be utilized in the design of activated sludge
systems by noting its inverse relationship to the system solids retention
time:
                                      1

                              CN     yN
where  9   = nitrifier solids retention time, days.  9   can be calculated

from system operating data by dividing the total amount (or  inventory)  of
microbial mass in the treatment system by the quantity wasted daily.

     The nitrifier growth rate, y^,,  is affected by factors other than ammonia
nitrogen concentration,  principally wastewater temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, and pH.  An expression relating UN to all these parameters can
be developed:
                                   135

-------
=  0.47 [>098 ][l- 0.833 (7.2 -PH)
^0.098 (T - 15)


      N
                                                                       (18)
                     N + 10
                           0.051 T- 1.158
                                                  DO
                                DO+ 1.3
where:   T  = temperature, C, and
       DO  = dissolved oxygen, mg/1.

The first term in brackets indicates that the nitrifier growth rate decreases
with a drop in temperature.  This is a well-known phenomenon and must be
taken into account when designing nitrification systems for cold weather
regions.   This relation is valid for tenperatures between 8 and 30 C.  The
second term in brackets describes the effect of pH on nitrifier growth rate.
The term is taken  as unity for pH values above 7.2. The third and fourth
terms are the Monod expressions relating ammonia nitrogen and dissolved
oxygen concentrations, respectively, to growth rate. The inhibiting effect
of low-DO levels at Livermore was discussed in Section 8.

    In a combined, single-stage, carbon oxidation-nitrification process, suf-
ficient organic carbon is normally available in the reactor influent to sustain
a flourishing growth of heterotrophic bacteria.  In a separate-stage nitrifica-
tion reactor, organic carbon availability is reduced but usually still adequate
to stimulate some heterotrophic organism growth. Since the yield coefficient
for heterotrophic baceterial growth is far greater than for autotrophic nitrifier
growth, it is possible for the growth rate of the heterotrophs to be established
at a level exceeding the maximum possible growth rate of the nitrifying orga-
nisms.  This may  occur in both combined carbon oxidation-nitrification pro-
cesses and in separate-stage nitrification and depends on  the relative substrate
concentrations of  organic carbon and ammonia and on the nitrifier solids re-
tention time.  When this occurs, the slower growing nitrifiers will gradually
diminish in proportion to the total population and be washed out of the system.

    Thus, for consistent nitrification to occur, the  following condition must
be  satisfied:

                                    ±  urT                             (19)
where:  y   = maximum possible nitrifier growth rate under environmental
              conditions of T, pH, DO, and N»KL,, and
            = net growth rate of the heterotrophic population .
 U.T is related to U.T in the following manner:
 N              N
                                     136

-------
                                                                      (20)
                              N+100.051T- 1.158
0.098 (T-15) ||  , _ n 000 /170	u\ | |  	*m	  (21)
                                   [l -0.833  (7.2 -pH)] [55^3.
where:  y  =  0.47


Equation 19 is usually expressed in reciprocal form in terms of solids retention
times:

                               9d   >  9m                              (22)
                                °N  ~   CN

where:  9   = design nitrifier solids retention time, days, and


        9   = minimum nitrifier solids retention time, days, for nitrification
          N    at given pH, temperature, and DO levels.

    Because 9C   is fixed by environmental conditions, Equation 22 is  satis-
               N  ,1
fied by modifying  9   .  The various ways of meeting this criterion  can  be
                  c
established by examining the following growth relationship for the hetero-
trophic population.
  "   = -- m       - K                         (23)
          H
                         H              H -  d
                              C
where:   9    =  design heterotroph solids retention time, days,
          °H

         Y   =  heterotroph yield coefficient, kg VSS grown/kg substrate
          -      (BOD  ) removed,

         q   =  substrate removal rate, kg  BOD  removed/kg VSS/day, and
          H                                  b

         K,   =  heterotroph decay coefficient, day
          d

    The  substrate removal rate is defined:
                                                                      <24>
                                     HML
                                   137

-------
where:   S   =  aeration tank influent total BOD_, mg/1,
          *                                   O
         S   =  aeration tank effluent soluble BODc, mg/1,
          L                                     b

         t   =  nominal hydraulic detention time  (or aeration time) based on
                Q, days, and

       X-.   =  MLVSS, mg/1.
        HML

Since both Y  and K, are assumed to be constant, 6    can only be altered by
            XI     ,Q                             CTT
                  d                               "•
manipulating q__; 9   will be increased by reducing q^.  One way of doing
              H   °H                               H
this is by reducing S. through placing  an  organic carbon removal step ahead of

the nitrification stage,  creating a separate-stage  nitrification process.  This
function is performed at Livermore by the  trickling filter ahead of the activated

sludge process.  Solids retention times, 9   , for separate-stage nitrification
                                        f*
processes can be 20 days or longer.       H

    Another procedure for reducing the substrate removal rate is to increase
the quantity of biological solids in the system. This can be done by increas-
ing the biological solids concentration (MLVSS) in the aeration tank or by
increasing the aeration tank volume.

    In most nitrification systems, the level  set for heterotroph solids reten-

tion time, 9   , establishes the nitrifier solids retention time, 9    .  The
           CH                                               CN
coupled trickling filter-activated sludge system is an important exception, as
noted in Section 8 and discussed further below.

    With specific values of 0   , T, pH, and DO, Equation 20 can be solved
                            CN
for the effluent ammonia level.  Figure 61 was developed through such a pro-
cedure, assuming T = 15 C, DO = 2 mg/1, and 7.2
-------
"5
O
O
cc
O
z
UJ
  25
  20
   15
   10
                 REMOVAL
                 EFFLUENT AMMONIA  _
                                100
                                 90
                                 80
                                 70
                                 60  £
                                    UJ
                                    O
                                 50  ul
                                 40  g

                                 30  Si
                                 20  t
                                 10
                                                  SF =
                                                         'N
                                                         m
                                                                        (25)
                                                        e,
                                                          'N
           5      10      15

       DESIGN SOLIDS RETENTION TIME, days
                               20
  Figure 61
A conservative safety factor was rec-
ommended to minimize process varia-
tions caused by pH extremes, low DO
concentrations, and toxicants.  The
safety factor can also be used to  en-
sure that ammonia breakthrough does
not occur during diurnal peaks in  load.
A normal range for safety factors is
2 .0 to 5.0.

     The relationships developed above
will be used to compute aeration tank
size requirements in  the following
subsection.
                                       DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
             Effect of solids retention
             time on effluent ammonia
             concentration and
             nitrification efficiency
             (Ref. 9).
                                         .  Principal factors to be considered
                                       in design of a coupled trickling filter-
                                       activated sludge plant are aeration
tank size and air requirements.  Other considerations include reliability,
flexibility,  use of existing facilities,  and expected effluent quality.  The
procedure developed  below for aeration tank sizing is based on the nitrifica-
tion process kinetics discussed above.  The information on air requirements
is adopted from the Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control.9 The dis-
cussions on physical design and expected effluent quality are based princi-
pally on the coupled  trickling filter-activated sludge plants  which have been
designed and constructed.

Aeration Tank Size

     Difficulties are encountered in computing the required aeration tank size
for a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process because little is known
about the characteristics of unsettled trickling filter effluent. In particular,
filter effluent contains both waste material which has passed through the
roughing filter unoxidized as well  as biological solids  sloughed from  the filter
media surface.  These solids will  be measured in a BOD,- test although they
do not represent substrate material for the activated sludge process in the
                                    139

-------
usual sense.  The lack of knowledge also creates problems in assigning
values to the coefficients in the equations developed through process kinetics.

     Because these sloughed solids will settle fairly rapidly, it is possible
that a more accurate characterization of aeration tank influent BOD,- can be
obtained by settling the roughing filter effluent for a period of time, say 1 hr.
In Section 8 it was noted  that at Livermore, the BOD5 of settled roughing filter
effluent was approximately one-half the value for unsettled effluent. Tests
conducted with plastic media filters at Stockton, California, tend to confirm
the 50 percent figure.

     One hour's settling under quiescent conditions may also be considered to
reasonably approximate the degree of solids separation achieved  in a trickling
filter secondary clarifier. Thus, where past performance of a trickling filter
plant is known,  the projected influent loading to the activated  sludge unit can
be based on historical trickling filter secondary effluent quality.   Where future
filter loadings will be greater because  of an increase in plant flow capacity,
estimates of the future BOD5 loading to the aeration tank will have to be made.

Design Procedure—

     Expressions for the heterotrophic organism and nitrifier solids retention
times were derived in Section 8 as Equations  4 and  6, respectively:

                                   VX
                                       ML, .
                                    Hn,rT
                                      ML
From Equation 23, the inverse of the heterotroph solids retention time is:


                           ~9~~ = YHqH " Kd                           (23)
                             CH

which, when combined with Equation 24, becomes:


                          _!_  _ YH (S1 - S2> _ ,.

                             H       HML

where Sn is the BOD,, of the settled trickling filter effluent.
       1           3
                                    140

-------
Combining Equations 4,6,  23,and 26yields:

                                QX
                                  Hl      YH (S1 " S2)
                  — =  —— -	 = —il	i	— - K             (97\
                 e       e      vxw          Y     t      Kd           (27)
                  CH     °N      H           *
                 v
Substituting t for— and rearranging terms gives:
                                 XH       Y  (S  - S )
                          K,  =-   1    +  H..  l    *                 (28)
                    6      "d   X     t     v
                     °N          H          ^
which solving for the nominal aeration time,  t, becomes:

                             Y   (S  - S ) +  XH
                         t =  *       '	±=-                     (29)
XH
HML
r i . ..~i
+ K ,
QC d
_ N
     The difficulties in applying Equation 29 are principally related to deter-
mining values for S. ,  K,, and X^ .  S, has been assumed to be defined by the
                   i   d       Hi     i
BOD5 of the trickling filter  effluent setted for 1 hr, but a more accurate de-
termination needs to be developed.  K, is,the heterotroph decay coefficient.
                                  -1
A value commonly cited is 0.05 day   , but organisms entering an aeration
tank from a trickling filter may have a higher decay rate.  X   is the concen-
                                                         Hl
tration of heterotrophic organisms entering  the aeration tank.  This is difficult
to measure because non-microbial volatile  suspended solids  are also present
in the trickling filter effluent and volatile suspended solids are normally taken
as representing the microorganisms.  The procedure used herein is to apply  a
yield coefficient, Y  , to the BOD,, removed in the trickling filter  as follows:
                   IF            b

                           X =  YTF (So - Sl>                        (30)


where:  S  =  trickling filter influent total  BOD,., mg/1.
         o                                   o

An estimate based on limited data indicates that Y    =0.5.   This is uncertain,
however, and a more accurate estimate is needed.   Because Y^F is a "net"
yield coefficient, i.e., it includes the effect of organism death, it can be
expected to be less than Y  ,  which does not include the effect of  organism
death.
                                    141

-------
    Substituting Equation 30 into Equation 29 provides an expression that can
be used to compute the required nominal aeration time for nitrification in an
activated sludge system preceded by a roughing filter without intermediate
clarification:

                        Y  (S - S  )  + Y   (S  - S )
                    t =   H   *x   2 r- , TF   -.                      (3D
                                HML


     For comparison, Equation 31 for an activated sludge process not
preceded by a roughing filter or one  preceded by a roughing filter and inter-
mediate clarification ( where x  =0  and 9   =6   ^ reduces to:9
                                        CN    CH
                                                                      (32)
     Equations 31 and 32 will be utilized in the following design examples
to determine aeration times for several hypothetical plant flow schemes.

Design Examples—

                      3
     Consider a  0.44-m /sec (10-mgd) conventional trickling filter plant
which is to be upgraded to a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge facility.
Assume that the primary effluent BOD5 concentration is 160 mg/1 and that the
two 46-m (150-ft)  dia, 1.8-m (6-ft) deep, rock media filters (total volume,
6,000 m3 or 212,000 ft3) produce  an effluent with an unsettled BOD5 of 120
mg/1 and a settled BOD,- of 60  mg/1.  Further assume that the ammonia
nitrogen concentration in the trickling filter effluent is 25 mg/1 and that the
portion of the organic nitrogen  not assimilated into biomass or associated
with refractory organics is 10 mg/1.

     Process kinetics design calculations are given below for three cases:
(1) a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process (i.e., without inter-
mediate clarification), (2)  an activated sludge process only, and (3)  a
trickling filter-activated sludge process with intermediate clarification.  In
addition, an empirical design calculation using loading factors such as em-
ployed for Livermore, Lompoc,  and Corvallis will be presented.

     Coupled trickling filter - activated sludge process—The design  procedure
utilized in the Process Design  Manual for Nitrogen Control9 for computing
aeration tank size is as follows:
                                    142

-------
1.  Establish the safety factor, SF. Assume SF  = 2.5 is required due to
    transient loading conditions at this particular plant.
                                               »
2 .  Calculate the maximum nitrifier growth rate, MN, at the relevant
    temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH.  Using Equation 21 and as-
    suming T = 15 C, DO = 2 mg/1, and pH  7.2, results in a value for
     {>  of 0.285 days"1.
                                                        m
3.  Calculate the minimum nitrifier solids retention time, 0n •
                                                          N
                                                                 (33)
                                                       d
4.  Calculate the design nitrifier solids retention time,  J9c

            fid  = SFxflm   = = 2.5 (3.51) = 8.78 days            (25)
            °c.T        °c.T
              N          N
5.  Calculate the design nitrifier growth rate,  y   ,
                                             N
                             878
6.  Calculate the ha If- saturation constant, K  , for ammonia oxidation
    at 15 C.  The proper expression is:

                    ^.,00.0511- 1.158                       (35)

    where T = temperature , C .  For this example ,

                   KN= 10"°<393= 0.40 mg/1

7.  Calculate the steady state ammonia nitrogen content of the effluent .
    For plug flow, the Monod substrate removal rate equation must be
    integrated over the period of time an element of liquid remains in
    the aeration tank.1"*

               i         %T(N^~NI)
               1           N   o    1 _  ,     .              ,_-»
                      --------------  for r < 1              (36)

    where  r  =  return sludge rate,
                               143

-------
            N   =  influent TKN (ammonia nitrogen plus organic
                   nitrogen), and
            N..  =  effluent ammonia nitrogen.
    Solving Equation 36 using 35 mg/1  for No produces a value for
    N, < 0.1 mg/1.  Transient loading  effects will increase this value   ~
    and are discussed in the Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control.
8.  Calculate the nominal aeration time, t.  From Equation 31:
   t =
                         !1 - V
                     fTF  (S0 - Sl>
                        H
                        H
                         ML
                                 N
    Substituting appropriate values into the equation:
       SQ     =160 mg/1,
       S.     -  60 mg/1,
       S2     =0 mg/1,
       Y__     =  0.60 kg VSS/kg BODC removed,
        TF
        H.
          ML
         'N
       K
          t
=  0.50 kg VSS/kg BOD  removed,
                      D
=  1,800 mg/1.
=  8.78 days, and

=  0.07 day"1:
   0.6 (60) + 0.5 (160 - 60)
     1,
          t   =  0.26 day  = 6.24 hr
       V      =  9,860 m5  (548,000 ft5)
                                                                  (31)
                               144

-------
    For the above example, a decay coefficient of 0.07 day"1 was used. This
is slightly higher than the normally cited value of 0.05 and was chosen be-
cause a higher decay rate is believed to be appropriate for those circum-
stances where sloughed organisms enter the aeration tank. Studies involving
the contact stabilization process,  which may be  considered somewhat similar
to the coupled trickling filtration-activated sludge process, have indicated
such a value for the  decay
    Activated sludge process only — The procedure for computing aeration tank
size for the activated sludge process alone is the same as for the coupled pro-
cess   through Step 7 above.  Nominal aeration time is then computed from
Equation 32:
                                                                     (32)
Yw (S. - SJ
rl l /
XH
HML
^ 1 j. tH
d +Kd
                                       N

For this example, K, will be reduced to 0.05 day
the same values as in the previous example.

                                                  Other parameters have
                        t=
                                0.6 (160)
                                       78
                                          +  0
                                              .05~|
                        t=  0.33 days =  7.92 hr

                       V =
                            12.500 m3 (441.000 ft3)
This is more than 25 percent greater than the nominal aeration time obtained
for the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process. The increase is
caused by Y  being greater than Y   and by the higher value of
for the former example .
                                                               chosen
     The same safety factor, 2.5, has been used for both examples.  The
presence of toxic wastes would favor the use of a higher safety factor, say
3.5, in the  absence of a roughing filter.  In this latter case, the difference
in nominal aeration times between the two  examples would be greater.  For
the activated sludge process without a roughing filter:

                   0d   =SFx©m   =  3.5  (3.51) = 12.3 days
                    "N

                     t =
                                 N

                              0.6 (160)
                          1,
                                   145

-------
                         t=  Q.41 day  = 9.84 hr

                        V  =  15/520 m5   (548,000 ft5)
 This is more than 55 percent larger than for a coupled trickling filter-activated
 sludge process with a safety factor of 2.5.

     Such differences in tank size will not be realized in all cases .  The pri-
 mary advantage of  a roughing filter ahead of the activated sludge process is
 the stability in overall performance which it provides .

     Trickling filter-activated sludge process with intermediate clarification —
 Equation 29 indicates that organisms entering the activated sludge process
 from the trickling filter influence the aeration time required.  If an intermediate
 clarifier is used to remove the sloughed material, aeration times  can be re-
 duced. Aeration time would then be calculated using Equation 28 with X   =
 0, as previously derived in Equation  32.                                 1
                               YH  (S1  - S2>
                                                                        (32)
                       t = 	0.6 (60)
                                         o.os)

                       t =   0.12 day  = JZ.88 hr
                      V =   4,660 m5  (161,000 ft5)
This is approximately 55 percent smaller than that calculated for the coupled
process without the intermediate clarifier.

     Empirical design—In discussions on the designs of the Livermore, Cor-
vallis, and Lompoc plants, it was noted that a loading parameter used in
these cases was kg BOD5/m3 (lb/1,000 ft3) trickling filter plus aeration tank
volume/day.  It is instructive to compare aeration tank sizes computed using
such an approach with those calculated using the procedures developed above.
                                        •j                   O
     Using an overall loading of 0.4 kg/m /day (25 lb/1,000 ft /day) requires
a total biological treatment volume of 15,120 m3 (534,000 ft3) for the 0.44-
m3/sec (10-mgd) flow and a primary effluent BOD- of 160 mg/1. Subtracting
                                    146

-------
the filter volume of 6.000 m3 (212,000 ft3) gives an aeration tank volume of
9,120 m3  (322,000 ft3),  which corresponds to an aeration time of 5.78 hr,
compared with 6.24 hr calculated using Equation 31.

Aeration Requirements

    Care  must be  exercised in designing aeration systems for activated sludge
nitrification.  Unlike BOD^, ammonia is not adsorbed to the biological floe for
later oxidation andjtherefore.must be oxidized during the relatively short
period it is in the  nitrification reactor.  Sufficient oxygen must be provided to
handle the load impressed on the nitrification process at all times.

    The diurnal variation in nitrogen loading is very significantly affected by
in-process flow equalization and by equalization in the wastewater collection
system. Large collection systems serving spread-out urban areas have high
built-in storage providing unintentional flow and loading equalization. This
relationship is indicated in Figure 62 where the nitrogen load peaking  (expres-
sed as the ratio of the maximum hourly load to average load) is plotted for
eight treatment plants having no significant in-process  equalization.  In large
plants, such as the Blue Plains plant at Washington, D.C., and Sacramento,
California, a spread-out collection system causes moderation of both  flow and
nitrogen load peaking.  In the smaller systems, however, without such flow
equalization,  ammonia load peaking can be substantial; for example, at the
Central Contra Costa (California) Sanitary District's (CCCSD) plant, an hourly
peaking factor of 2.4 has been measured.  The aeration system must accommo-
date these changes in loads to avoid ammonia bleed-through during the peak-
load period.  An early decision must be made during the design process as to
what level of peaking of oxygen-demanding substances  will be designed for.
In addition to peaking of ammonia or organic nitrogen, a concurrent peak may
also occur in the loading of organic  substances.   If very low levels of ammonia
nitrogen are required at all times, care must be used to develop a statistical
base whereby the frequency of peak  oxygen loads can be identified. Not only
should average daily peaks be identified, but possibly those occurring on
weekly or monthly bases.  The additional aeration capacity required for hand-
ling diurnal variations in nitrogen load, coupled  with the extra tankage and
equipment required,  may dictate in-plant flow equalization in many instances.
The reductions in capital and operating cost of aeration tankage and aeration
facilities  must be  compared with the cost of flow equalization to determine
applicability to specific cases.  Design procedures for flow equalization are
contained in Chapter 3 of the Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing
Wastewater Treatment Plants.15

Oxygen Transfer Requirements—

    Using diffused air aeration,  air rates can be easily modulated to closely
match the incoming oxygen-demanding load merely by turning down or shutting

                                   147

-------
      2.5
 O
 UJ
 tr
 UJ
 - -a
-Q  —
 3 <
 J o
 < -J
 z <
 i z
 i§
 < 2
oc
o
5
D
5
X
       1.0
                                              NOTE:  mgd x 0.044 = m 3/sec
                                       Y = 1.457 X-0.217
                    KEY
                  PLANT
 SAMPLE
              LEBANON, OHIO
              LIVERMORE, CA
              CCCSD. CA
              SACRAMENTO, CA
              BLUE PLAINS, DC
              CHAPEL HILL, NC
             CANBERRA. AUSTRALIA -
              WESTON CREEK    RAW
              BELCONNEN       RAW
             	L_
 PRIMARY
ROUGHING FILTER
 PRIMARY
 PRIMARY
 PRIMARY
 RAW
                                                                1.0
                                                                10
                                                                   (X)
           1.5                   2.0
MAXIMUM HOURLY FLOW, mgd/AVERAGE DAILY FLOW, mgd
                                                                       2.5
        Figure 62.  Relation between ammonia nitrogen peaking and
                   hydraulic peaking for treatment plants with no
                   in-process flow  equalization (Ref. 9).
                                  148

-------
off individual blowers.  Thus, the diurnal load variations can be matched with-
out the necessity of overaerating the mixed liquor and wasting power as is
the case with mechanical surface aerators.  Fine bubble diffusers can be
arranged across the tank floor, allowing fairly even distribution of energy
input. Also, gentler mixing is provided than with mechanical aeration plants,
providing less tendency for floe breakup.

     Oxygen requirements in all practical cases are compounded by the oxygen
required  for stabilization of organics.  Reasonably exact expressions for
oxygen requirements for heterotrophic organisms and nitrifiers have been
developed.1^ The approach, however, requires  pilot plant data to provide
COD balances and sludge yields.  In general, this information  is not available
and a simpler approach may be adopted.^

     In normal activated sludge treatment when nitrification is not required,
the amount of oxygen needed to oxidize the BOD5 can be calculated by the
following equation:

                             B =  X (BOD_)                            (37)
                                        o

where:   B   =  oxygen required for carbonaceous oxidation, mg/1, and
         X   =  a coefficient.

The coefficient X relates to the amount of  endogenous respiration taking place
and to the type of waste  being treated.  For normal municipal wastewater, the
X value would range from 0.5-0.7 for high-rate activated sludge systems to
1.5 for extended aeration. For conventional activated sludge systems,  X can
be taken as 1.0.

     For nitrification systems, the oxygen requirement for oxidizing ammonia
must be added to the requirement for BOD,- removal.  The coefficient for
ammonia oxidation can be conservatively taken as 4.6 times the TKN content
of the influent to obtain the nitrogen oxygen demand (NOD). (In actual fact,
some of the influent nitrogen will be assimilated into the biomass or is as-
sociated with refractory organics and will not be oxidized.)  Using a value of
1.0 for X in Equation 36, the total oxygen demand in a nitrification system can
be approximated as follows:

                          TOD =  BOD.  + NOD                         (38)
                                      0

where:   TOD =  the total oxygen demand,  mg/1, and

         NOD =  oxygen required to oxidize the TKN,  taken as 4.6 times
                 the influent TKN, mg/1.
                                   149

-------
    Since aeration devices are rated using tap water at standard conditions,
the rated performance of the aerator must be converted to actual process condi-
tions by the application of temperature corrections and by factors designated
a and 3 which relate wastewater characteristics to tap water characteristics.

    Temperature corrections are made by the relationship:

                             1.024(T-20'

where   T  =  process temperature, C.

The a factor is the ratio of oxygen transfer in wastewater to that in tap water
and is  represented by the  following:

                          KT a (process  conditions)

                          1C.  a (standard conditions)

Values of a can vary widely in industrial waste treatment applications,  but for
most municipal plants, it  will range from 0.40 to 0.90.

    The 3 factor is the ratio of oxygen saturation in wastewater to that  in tap
water at the same  temperature.  A value of 0.95 is commonly used.  Thus,  the
amount of oxygen that will actually be transferred under process conditions (W)
can be estimated from the amount transferred under test conditions (W ) by
the equation:

                                      T _ on   0C   ~ GI
                     W = WQa  (1.024)1   ™  	12  -1                (40)


where:  W  = oxygen transferred at process conditions, kg/day  (Ib/day),

        W  = oxygen transferred at standard conditions (T = 20 C,
               DO ~ 0, barometric pressure =  760 mm Hg,  tap water),
               kg/day (Ib/day),

        T    = process temperature, C,

        C    = oxygen saturation concentration in water at temperature T,
               mg/1, and

        C,  = process DO level, mg/1.


    The process DO level, C, ,  must be set high enough to  prevent inhibition
of nitrification rates. For this purpose, a minimum value of 2.0 mg/1 is rec-
ommended .  This value is also applicable under peak  diurnal load conditions,


                                   150

-------
and the practice of allowing the DO to drop below 2.0 mg/1 under peak load
is not recommended.  If mixed liquor DO is allowed to drop below the minimum
during  peak load conditions, excessive bleed-through of ammonia can be
expected.

    Using typical values for domestic sewage (<*= 0.9,3  = 0.95, C. = 2.0
mg/1, T = 20 C,and GS = 9.2 mg/1) in Equation 40, the relationship between
oxygen transfer capability under standard test conditions  and under actual
process conditions reduces to:

                            W =  0.67 W , or                          (41)

                            W  =  1.5 W                              (42)
                              o

    The value obtained for W  can then be used to project horsepower (hp)
requirements for mechanical aerators or required volumetric air flow rates for
diffused air plants.  The latter is accomplished by employing the equation:
                          3
where:   Q   =  air flow, m /min ,
          f\

         e   =  aerator rated oxygen transfer efficiency at standard
                conditions, percent,

         air composition  = 23 percent oxygen (weight basis), and
                                    3
         air density      = 1.2 kg/m

      Applying Equations 42 and 43  and the numbers in the previously stated
 example to diffusers of various efficiencies produces air rates  of from 90
 to 36 m3/(kg BOD5 + kg NOD)  (1,450 to 580 ft3/lb) corresponding  to standard-
 condition diffuser efficiencies of 6 to  15 percent as shown in Figure 63.


    Diffuser placement within the aeration tank has been shown in full-scale
tests  to have a large effect on oxygen transfer efficiency.^  For oxygen
transfer efficiencies, diffusion system design, and layout, the reader should
refer to the literature as well as to air diffusion equipment manufacturers.
             W          3
*Q   =  4.02 	, Q  in ft /min and W  in Ib/day
  t\         Q     ri                 O
              o

                                    151

-------
    M
    z
       li
  i|  16
  Q.
  . Q
 u  w  14
 LU  QC
 u.  <  12
       10
    Q
N
             TEMPERATURE 20C
               I     1     I
                                           ft3/lb x 0.0624 = m3/kg
500
                                   1000
                                               1500
1700
                           AIR REQUIRED, ft/(lb BODg + Ib NOD)
         Figure 63.  Air requirements for oxidation of carbonaceous and
                    nitrogenous oxygen demand (Ref. 9).
     In addition to determining the total air requirement, attention should also
be given to air distribution within the aeration tanks.  If the conventional
(or plug flow) mode of operation is  established  as the normal operating pro-
cedure, the air requirements  will be greatest at the head end of the aeration
tanks.

Design Examples—

     Air requirements for the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process
(or,  alternatively, the two-stage trickling filter-activated sludge process
with intermediate clarification) and the activated sludge process alone can  be
estimated.  The coupled and two-stage processes will have (for preliminary
estimating purposes) the same projected air supply requirements because it is
assumed that only the settled BOD^ (not including  the sloughed solids)  of the
trickling filter effluent will exert significant oxygen demand in the aeration
tank.  Employing the flows and concentrations used in calculation of aeration
tank size and assuming a BOD5 Peaking factor of 1.5 and a NOD peaking
factor of 2.5, the estimated TOD from Equation  38  for either the coupled pro-
cess  or the two-stage process with intermediate clarification is:
                                     152

-------
                         TOD =  BOD  + NOD                          (38)
                                     o
                              =  60 + 4.6  (25 + 10)

                              =  221 mg/1

            q
For a 0.44-m /sec (10-mgd)  flow, the average total oxygen-demand loading
is equal to:

               0.44
For peak conditions:

W= 0'4V8Q004QO)  [GO (1.5) + 4.6 (35) (2.5)] = 18, 725 kg/day (41 ,2 75 Ib/day)
     With a coarse bubble diffusion system  a 6-percent transfer efficiency
 can be expected.  From Figure 63, the unit air supply required is 90 m3/(kg
 BODj + kg NOD removed) (1,450 ft*/lb) .  Assuming essentially complete re-
 moval of influent BODs and NOD,  the air requirement for average conditions is:
                 8'4QO  <9Q)  =  525 mVmin (18,540 ft3/mln)
                   .X m 4 " \J
For peak conditions, the air requirement is:
              18'725^0)  = 1,170 mVmin (41,325 ftVmin)
                  X • Tl TX \J
For the activated sludge process alone:
                          TOD   =  BOD,. + NOD                         (38)
                                       o
                                =  160 + 4.6  (25 + 10)

                                =  321 mg/1
For average conditions:

         W=0.44(321H86,400) = 12
                    X • \J \J \J

For peak loads:


                              C160  (1-5) + 4'6 (35)
              = 24,425 kg/day (53, 850 Ib/day)
                                    153

-------
The air requirement for average conditions is :

                12.200 (90)     7AC  3, .   /97 mi-  . 3,  t  .
               - '        '  =  765 m /min (27,015  ft /mln)
For peak conditions , the air requirement is :

               74  42^ (<*n\            •}              i
               * '       ' =  1, 530 in /min (54,025  ftVmin)

     In comparison with the coupled trickling filter- activated sludge process
or the two- stage process with intermediate clarification, projected  air re-
quirements for an activated sludge process alone are 46 percent and 31 per-
cent higher for average and peak loads, respectively, under the assumed
conditions of the design examples.


Physical Design

     In addition to the process design information discussed above,  important
physical design considerations can be briefly outlined.  These include reli-
ability, flexibility, and use of existing structures. Each plant to be upgraded
will be different, and specific actions taken will vary in all cases.  Neverthe-
less, generalizations can  be presented and specific examples discussed.

Reliability—

     The increased stringency of discharge requirements will make treatment
plant reliability an important design consideration in  the future.  Discharge of
inadequately treated effluent,  either on a long-term basis or as the result of
short-term equipment breakdowns, will provoke increasingly frequent regulatory
agency action against the  discharger.   Data presented in this report indicate
that the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process is inherently stable
and can continuously produce an effluent low in BOD,- , suspended solids ,
ammonia nitrogen,  and coliform organisms.  Reliability in the face of equip-
ment breakdowns is best accomplished by providing duplicate units with suf-
ficiently low loading factors to permit shutdown of one process unit, or in
some cases a unit process, without overloading others.  Another means of
incorporating reliability into design is to provide emergency storage which
will allow bypassing of all or a portion of the plant flow  for several  days.

    Both of these may be difficult when dealing with  an existing plant.  Pro-
vision of duplicate units requires both adequate space and an existing plant
configuration amenable to such modifications.  Emergency holding basins re-
quire large areas of land and may be economically most attractive where exist-
ing oxidation ponds can be used. In regard to the plants discussed  in this
                                    154

-------
report, the Livermore and Lompoc plants rely on emergency storage to provide
reliability while the Corvallis plant utilizes duplicate units and unit process
bypassing to ensure a high degree of treatment at all times.

Flexibility--

    Flexibility has two principal aspects.  The first is related to reliability
and is manifested by the ease of bypassing individual plant components with-
out significantly degrading effluent  quality. As noted above,  incorporation of
such provisions may be hindered by the existing plant layout and can require
considerable ingenuity on  the part of the design engineer.

    Flexibility also means the ability to accommodate  future plant expansion
and upgrading at reasonable  cost and with minimum disruption of plant opera-
tions  during construction.  Future discharge requirements may necessitate
nitrogen removal, phosphorus removal, filtration, and/or activated carbon
sorption.

     If nitrification is effected in a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge
plant, nitrogen removal is best accomplished through biological denitrifica-
tion,  either with fixed-growth or suspended-growth reactors.  Denitrification
is the reduction of nitrate  nitrogen to nitrogen gas, usually accomplished
biologically under anoxic conditions.   Because the effluent from a trickling
filter-activated sludge plant will contain nitrogen in the nitrate form, denitri-
fication can generally be easily and economically implemented.

    Phosphorus removal is best accomplished by chemical precipitation,
utilizing aluminum or iron  salts or lime.  The point of application  may be  the
primary clarifiers, the secondary clarifiers, or a  separate tertiary unit.

    Because nitrification and addition of aluminum or iron  compounds both
result in the destruction of alkalinity,  care must  be taken when using the two
in combination to avoid adverse effects from a drop in pH.   If 10 mg/1 of phos-
phorus are removed by alum addition ahead of the primary clarifier, about 70
mg/1 of alkalinity will be destroyed and downstream chemical addition may be
required to prevent low pH values in the nitrification process.

    Lime addition to the primary clarifier may have an effect opposite from
alum.  The changes in alkalinity in this situation are dependent on  lime dose
(or desired pH) and raw wastewater quality.  Cases of both increases and de-
creases in alkalinity with  lime treatment may be found.

    Primary effluent after  lime treatment will typically have a pH  between
9.5 and 11.0.  This is higher than normally acceptable for discharge  or intro-
duction into downstream biological  processes.  To reduce the pH,  the  normal
practice  is to recarbonate the high pH primary effluent.  Conventionally, this

                                     155

-------
involves the introduction of gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2) into the primary
effluent in a reaction basin of at least 20 min detention time.  Typically,
carbon dioxide is either drawn from refrigerated storage, or furnace stack
gases containing carbon dioxide are used.  The recarbonation reaction can
be thought of  as the conversion of alkalinity in the hydroxide form (OH~)  to
that in the bicarbonate form (HCOZ)  as  follows:
                     Ca(OH)2 + 2 C02 -*• Ca(H2C03)2                   (43)

The important point to remember is that in combining nitrification with chemical
addition for phosphorus removal, alkalinity and pH relationships must be
carefully evaluated.

    Rapid sand or multi-media filtration and carbon sorption columns are used
to reduce residual suspended solids and organic compounds in treatment plant
effluents .  For most economical operation of these units , the influent concen-
trations of organics and suspended solids should be as low as possible.
Because the coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process is  capable of
producing high quality effluents , it is very compatible with filtration and
sorption .

Use of Existing Structures —

    Possible incorporation of structures which would otherwise be abandoned
into the flow diagram for the upgraded plant will necessarily have to be eval-
uated in each situation. The modification of the filter circulation sump at
Livermore to accommodate the activated sludge  process  is probably a unique
example which would not be duplicated elsewhere, but it does provide  an
excellent illustration of the way that existing structures can be used.

    Generalizations may be made, however, about two types of  facilities
which will often be available for use in a coupled- process upgrading situation:
the secondary clarifiers and the oxidation ponds which are often used to polish
trickling filter effluent.  Because trickling filter secondary clarifiers are
usually designed on the basis of higher overflow rates than used for activated
sludge secondary clarifiers  and because they cannot accommodate the high
MLSS levels and sludge removal rates required for the activated  sludge pro-
cess, additional secondary  sedimentation capacity will normally be included
in plant upgrading.  It may be more economical  to adapt the existing second-
ary clarifier to other uses than to modify it for use with  activated sludge.
At Livermore* it was converted to a primary sedimentation tank (as previously
planned);  at Corvallis,it was used as  a chlorine contact tank; and at Lompoc,
it was  converted to a sludge thickener.  The most appropriate use will be
different at  each plant.
                                    156

-------
    Existing oxidation ponds may be converted to emergency holding basins
as was done at Livermore and Lompoc. Another possibility is conversion to
sludge lagoons.  Often the entire existing pond area will not be required for
these purposes.  New feed and withdrawal lines will normally need to be con-
structed, and banks may need to be relocated.

Expected Effluent Quality

    While plant performance will depend on the design criteria used  at each
installation as well as such factors as operator competence, it is worthwhile
to project the  maximum performance which can be expected from the coupled
trickling filter-activated sludge process. With typical municipal wastewater,
effluent  BOD5 and suspended solids  concentrations of 10 mg/1 can possibly
be obtained, but 15 to 20 mg/1 would  be more conservative estimates.  An
effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration of 0.1 mg/1 is expected from the
Lompoc plant, and experience at Livermore indicates that 1.0 mg/1 is not
difficult to obtain.  With high chlorine dosages and a chlorine contact tank
which approximates plug flow,  monthly median total coliform organism con-
centrations of 2.2 MPN/100 ml should be obtainable. For 7-day medians,
5.0 MPN/100  ml may be  a more realistic value.
                                    157

-------
                               REFERENCES
 1.  Murphy, K.L., and P.L. Timpany, "Longitudinal Mixing in Sprial Flow
    Aeration Tanks," JSED, Proc.  ASCE, 96, No. SA2, pp.  211-221, 1970.

 2.  White, G .C., Handbook of Chlorination, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
    New York, 1972.

 3.  Collins, H .F., and R .E. Selleck, Process Kinetics of Wastewater Chlorina-
    tion, University of California at Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research
    Laboratory (SERL) Report No.  72-5, November  1972.

 4.  Stenquist, R.J., andW.J. Kaufman, Initial Mixing in Coagulation Processes,
    U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Environmental Protection Technology
    Series Report No. EPA-R2-72-053, November 1972.

 5.  Deaner, D.G., California Department of Public Health, Letter report on
    chlorine contact tank dye tracer studies, May 14,  1970.

 6.  Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering:  Collection,  Treatment,
    and Disposal, McGraw-Hill, 1972.

 7.  Fair and Geyer, Water  Supply  and Wastewater  Disposal, John Wiley and
    Sons, Inc.,  1967.

 8.  California Department of Health, "Wastewater Reclamation Criteria,"
    California Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 4,  1975.

 9.  Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agencyi  Office of Technology Transfer, 1975.

10.  Brown and Caldwell, "Project Report, Wastewater Treatment Program,"
    Prepared for the City of Corvallis,  Oregon, November 1973.

11.  Description  of the El Lago, Texas, Advanced  Wastewater  Treatment Plant,
    Harris County Water Control and Improvement District No. 50, March 1974.

12.  Kennedy, Bill, Personal communication with D.S. Parker, San  Pablo (Calif,)
    Sanitary District, November 1974.

13.  Lawrence, A.W., and P.L.  McCarty, "Unified Basis for Biological Treatment
    Design and Operation," JSED, Proc. ASCE, 96, No. SA3, pp. 757-778, 1970.
                                    158

-------
14.  Gujer, W., and D.I. Jenkins, The Contact Stabilization Process—Oxygen
    and Nitrogen Mass Balances, University of California at Berkeley, Sanitary
    Engineering Research Laboratory (SERL) Report No. 74-2, February 1974.

15.  Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
    Plants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology
    Transfer, 1974.

16.  Leary, R.D., L.A., Ernest, and WJ. Katz, "Full-Scale Oxygen Transfer
    Studies of Seven Diffuser Systems."JWPCF,  41.. No. 3, pp. 459-473, 1969.
                                    159

-------
                             APPENDICES
                                                             Page

A.  California Regional Water Pollution Control Board
    No. 2,  San  Francisco Bay Region, Resolution No.  239        161

B.  California Regional Water Pollution Control Board
    No. 2,  San  Francisco Bay Region, Resolution No.  683        167

C.  California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
    San Francisco Bay Region, Order No. 71-76                 177

D.  Performance and Operating Parameters Measured
    at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant                   185

E.  Monthly Operating and Performance Data                    189
                                160

-------
                                APPENDIX A

       CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO. 2
                        SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

                          RESOLUTION  NO.  239

   PRESCRIBING REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE NATURE OF WASTE DISCHARGE
    INTO ARROYO LAS POSIT AS NEAR THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF
     COLLIER CANYON ROAD AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
WHEREAS, the City of Livermore has filed with this Regional Water Pollution
Control Board a report on proposed waste discharge, dated November 13, 1956,
in accordance with Section 13054 of the Water Code of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, said report and  subsequently submitted  data provide the following
information:

    (a) The proposed waste discharge consists of mixed domestic sewage and
       industrial wastes;
                                      /

    (b) Change in manner of treatment and change in point of disposal are
       proposed;

    (c) Two plant sites,  designated as "Proposed Plant Site" and "Possible
        Alternate Plant Site", are proposed and their locations are shown
        on a map submitted as part of the report;

    (d) Subsequent to the filing of the report on proposed waste discharge the
       City purchased the "Proposed Plant Site" on Arroyo Las Positas and
       advised the Board's staff  that waste discharge requirements for the
       "Possible Alternate Plant Site" on Arroyo Mocho were no longer needed
       by the City;

    (e) Treatment plant effluent from the proposed plant site will be discharged
       to Arroyo Las Positas at a point about 1000 feet downstream from the
       southerly prolongation of Collier Canyon Road;

    (f) The present rate of flow is 0.70 mgd and the  design rate of flow is
       6.0 mgd;

    (g) There are no industrial wastes being discharged at present and  it is  not
       known what type  of industry will connect in the future;
                                   161

-------
    (h)  The City has asked that requirements be established for two conditions of
        discharge into Arroyo Las Positas as follows:

        (1)  Continuous  discharge  to the Arroyo after treatment in a plant
            consisting of the  following:   primary clarifier  with separate
            sludge digestion, high rate trickling filter, secondary clarifier,
            chlorinator  and chlorine contact tank, and oxidation ponds with
            a minimum of 30 days retention based on average dry weather flow;

        (2)  Intermittent discharge to the Arroyo after treatment in a plant
            consisting of the following:   primary clarifier  with separate
            sludge digestion; oxidation  ponds with a minimum of 30 days
            retention based on average dry weather flow; and chlorinator
            and chlorine contact tank;

    (i)  Under condition (2)  above, the City proposes:

        (1)  To dispose of all effluent from the oxidation ponds on land at its
            present sewage disposal site on Rincon Avenue or on land that
            is owned by, or  under the  control of, the City at the proposed
            plant site on Arroyo Las Positas whenever there  is sufficient land
            available for disposal:

        (2)  To have sufficient land disposal area available at all times so that
            there will never be any waste discharge to the Arroyo unless the
            sewage flow at the treatment plant exceeds three  times the average
            dry weather flow;

        (3)  To limit the rate of flow to the Arroyo to the actual flow at the sewage
            treatment plant minus three times the average dry weather sewage
            flow; and

WHEREAS, comments and recommendations relative to these proposals have been
received and considered by the Board as  follows:

    (a)  Memorandum from the State Department of Fish and  Game, dated
        January 3, 1957;

    (b)  Memorandum from the State Department of Water Resources,  dated
        February 7, 1957;

    (c)  Memorandum from the State Department of Public Health, dated
        February 7, 1957; and

WHEREAS, investigation by the staff of the Board discloses the following:

    (a)  The proposed plant site is at  present well isolated from residential or
        commercial development; and the adjacent lands are used for agriculture;

    (b)  The land adjacent to  Arroyo Las Positas below the  proposed point of
        waste discharge is entirely agricultural at present except for the
        Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center Annex of the County of Alameda;
                                    162

-------
    (c)  There is a dairy, located on the Arroyo about 1.5 miles downstream
        from the proposed point of discharge, at which there are four
        residences within 200 feet of the Arroyo and at which milk cows pass
        through the Arroyo in going from the milking barn to the pastures;

    (d)  The waters of Arroyo de la Laguna are readily accessible to persons
        using the golf course at Hacienda Road;

    (e)  The waters of Alameda Creek in Niles Canyon are used for bathing,
        wading, fish propagation and fishing;

    (f)  The San Francisco Water Department has certain water rights for the
        surface diversion of water at the confluence of Laguna and Alameda
        creeks near Sunol;

    (g)  Alameda Creek recharges the southern Alameda county groundwater
        basin which is an important source of supply for domestic, agricultural,
        and industrial use;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the waste of the City of Livermore  shall be
of the following  quality for  discharge to Arroyo Las Positas under conditions
(1) and  (2) as described above and  that all samples shall be collected and
analyzed in accordance with procedures given in the Tenth Edition of "Standard
Methods  for the Examination of Water, Sewage,  and Industrial Wastes," by the
American Public Health Association:

  Condition 1 - Continuous  Discharge

    (a)  The following requirements for  the influent to the oxidation ponds are
        based on the proposal by the City that this influent will be chlorinated
        and that  it will, at all times, be passed through properly designed
        operated and maintained oxidation ponds having a minimum retention
        time of 30 days based on average dry weather flow prior to discharge
        to the Arroyo;

    (b)  Any 24-hour conposite sample of the influent to the oxidation ponds shall
        not exceed the following limits:

                5-day BOD        - 55 ppm Maximum

                Suspended Solids - 75 ppm Maximum

    (c)  The waste shall be adequately disinfected at all times and adequate
        disinfection,  for the purpose of this  requirement, is any process
        equivalent to the maintenance of 0.5 ppm of chlorine residual in the
        influent to the oxidation ponds after a chlorine contact period of
        30 minutes;
                                    163

-------
  Condition  2 - Intermittent Discharge

    (a)  The following requirements for the effluent from the oxidation ponds are
        based on the proposal by the City that this effluent will be chlorinated
        and that the effluent from the primary clarifier will, at all times, be
        passed through properly designed, operated and maintained oxidation
        ponds having  a minimum retention time of 30 days,  based on average
        dry weather flow, prior to  chlorination and discharge to the Arroyo;

    (b)  The waste discharge to the Arroyo shall not contain more than 1 ml/liter/
        hour of settleable  solids at any time;

    (c)  The waste discharged  to the Arroyo shall not contain a most probable
        number of coliform organisms greater than 10 per milliliter at any time;

    (d)  The above coliform limit will be considered as being met if a chlorine
        residual of 2.0 ppm is maintained continuously after  a chlorine contact
        time of 30 minutes;

BE.IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that whenever there is any waste discharge by the
City of  Livermore to Arroyo Las Positas,  the City  shall make at least one
determination per day of the chlorine residual at the  end of the chlorine contact
time and that these data together with a  record of the corresponding sewage
flow,  at the time the chlorine residual is determined, shall be made available
to this Board upon request;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that none of the following conditions shall occur in
Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo de la Laguna, or Alameda Creek as a result of any
waste discharge by the City of Livermore:

        Floating materials recognizable by eye as being of waste origin at any
        point;

        Atmospheric odors recognizable as being of waste origin at any point;

        Depletion of dissolved oxygen below 4.0 ppm in Arroyo de la Laguna
        or below 5.0 ppm  in Alameda Creek;

        Toxic concentrations of substances deleterious to humans, livestock,
        fish, or aquatic life;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that treatment or disposal of these wastes shall not
cause atmospheric odors  recognizable as  being of waste origin at any point
beyond the boundaries of the treatment or disposal sites;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event that the City releases this waste
to another person for use and/or disposal,  it shall be necessary for the City to
so advise this Board;
                                   164

-------
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the intention of this Board to formulate, at
the earliest practicable date, a policy governing the mineral quality of all waste
discharges in the Alameda Creek watershed and that the above requirements may
at that time be modified to include limiting values of certain effluent constituents
in addition to those listed above;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in prescribing requirements for this discharge,
it is the intent of this Board:

    (a)  To protect the surface and g round waters, that may be affected by these
        proposed discharges, for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes;

    (b)  To protect the waters of Alameda Creek for fish propagation, fishing,
        wading and bathing;

    (c)  To prevent nuisance and  health  hazards as a result of the proposed
        waste discharges;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive  Officer is  directed to transmit to
the City of Livermore, copies of all the correspondence this Board has received
and considered relative to these discharges, and that this Board requests said
City  to take note of the comments and recommendations  contained  in said
correspondence;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that  these requirements do not authorize the com-
mission  of any  act causing injury to the property of another, nor protect the
discharger from his liabilities under Federal, State, or local laws;
                                         /
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if conditions should change materially at some
time in the future it may be necessary to revise these requirements,  and  in such
event this Board will take up the matter with the City of Livermore at that time;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the requirements prescribed herein for continuous
discharge to Arroyo Las Positas are based upon the present downstream develop-
ment and that changes in the character or amount of downstream development
along the Arroyo  will be cause  for this Board to review the adequacy of these
requirements.
                                             RALPH W. SHAFOR
                                             Acting Chairman

                                             March 21, 1957
                                     165

-------
I, John B. Harrison, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy
of Resolution No. 239, as adopted by the Regional Water Pollution Control Board
of Region No. 2, at its regular meeting on March 21,  1957.
                                             JOHN B . HARRISON
                                             Executive Officer
                                             Regional Water Pollution Control
                                             Board No. 2
                                   166

-------
                            APPENDIX B

     CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO. 2
                    SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

                        RESOLUTION NO. 683

   RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS NOS. 108 AND 239 AND THOSE PORTIONS OF
   RESOLUTION NO. 446 WHICH ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE
   CITY OF LIVERMORE,  AND PRESCRIBING  REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE
   NATURE OF WASTE  DISCHARGE INTO ARROYO LAS POSITAS BY THE
               CITY OF  LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY.


 I. WHEREAS, a Report  on Waste Discharge, dated June 23, 1952,was filed, in
   accordance with Section 13054 of the  State Water Code, with this Regional
   Water Pollution Control Board by the City of Livermore, hereinafter referred
   to as the discharger, on June 25, 1952,and requirements  as to the nature of
   waste discharge were prescribed in this Regional Board's Resolution No. 108
   adopted on August 21, 1952; and

 II. WHEREAS, a Report on Waste Discharge, dated November 13, 1956,was filed
   with the Regional Board by the City of Livermore on November 14, 1956,and
   requirements as to the nature of waste discharge by the City into Arroyo Las
   Positas were prescribed in this Regional Board's Resolution No. 239 adopted
   on March 21, 1957; and

III. WHEREAS, at its February  21, 1963,regular meeting, this Regional Board
   adopted its Resolution No. 446 "PRESCRIBING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
   AS  TO THE  NATURE OF ALL WASTE DISCHARGES TO ALAMEDA CREEK OR
   ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE  NILES,  INCLUDING THE CITY OF LIVERMORE,
   VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, CITY OF PLEASANTON,
   VETERANS  ADMINISTRATION  HOSPITAL AT LIVERMORE, CASTLEWOOD
   CORPORATION, CAMP  PARKS, AND THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY'S
   VALLECITOS ATOMIC LABORATORY, ALAMEDA COUNTY"; and

IV. WHEREAS,
   A.  The Livermore City Council, on November 18, 1963,adopted its Resolution
       No. 227-63 authorizing engineering studies and preparation of a report
       with recommendations for a program of sewage treatment and disposal
       to meet its  present and future needs;
                                 167

-------
     B. On April 22, 1964,the City's consultant submitted an engineering report
        which recommended certain treatment plant enlargements and improve-
        ments with continuous disposal of effluent into the Arroyo Las Positas;

     C. At its September 17, 1964,regular meeting this Board was informed by
        the City that plans were underway to enlarge the treatment works to a
        capacity of 5.0  mgd (million gallons per day) with continuous disposal
        of effluent to the Arroyo Las Positas, as  recommended in the aforemen-
        tioned report;

     D. On September 17, 1964,this Regional Board instructed its staff to prepare
        a report relative to the necessity for revision of the City's current
        requirements;

     E.  On October 21,  1964, the Executive  Officer requested comments and
        recommendations from interested agencies and individuals as to the
        necessity for revision of the City's waste discharge requirements; and

 V.  WHEREAS, at its November  19, 1964,regular meeting this Board, after
  -  considering a staff report and other pertinent information relative to this
     discharge, directed its staff to review the existing requirements for the City
     of Livermore  and to prepare a tentative Resolution containing revised
     requirements for this discharge; and

VI.  WHEREAS, the aforesaid consultant's report and other data submitted by the
     discharger provide the following information:

     A. The waste is sewage and industrial wastes;

     B . The waste flow is estimated as follows:

        1.  Average dry weather flow for

                August 1962                    1.7 mgd (million gallons per day)
                June, July and August 1963     1.8 mgd
                September 1964                2.3 mgd

        2.  Design flow (existing plant)        2.5 mgd

        3.  Design flow (enlarged plant)       5.0 mgd;

     C. The population served is estimated as follows:

        1.  Present                  -       23,000 persons

        2.  Design (existing plant)     -       approx. 29,000 persons

        3.  Design (enlarged plant)    -       approx. 58,000 persons;

     D. Treated wastes will be disposed by discharge to Arroyo Las Positas;  and
                                     168

-------
VII. WHEREAS, the Board has received and considered the following correspon-
    dence regarding this waste discharge:

    A.  Memorandum from State Department of Fish and Game, dated November 4,
        1964;

     B. Memoranda from State Department of Public Health, dated November 16,
         1964, February 16, 1965, June 28, 1965, and July 13, 1965;

     C. Memoranda from State Department of Water Resources, dated November 16,
         1964, April 14, 1965, and July 12, 1965;

     D. Letter from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors transmitting
        comments of:

         1.   The Alameda County Health Department (no date),  and

         2.   The Alameda County Director of Public Works, dated November 6,
             1964;

     E. Letters from Mr. G.  G. Jamieson,  owner of Rancho Del Charro,  dated
        October 27, 1964, and March 17, 1965;

     F. Letter from Alameda County Planning Commission, dated October 28,
         1964;

     G.  Letter from Mr. R. M. Wing, dated October 30, 1964;

     H.  Letter from Mr. Conrad Moldt, dated November 3, 1964;

     I.   Letter from Headquarters Camp Parks,  dated 3 November 1964;

     J.  Letter from City of Pleasanton, dated  November 6, 1964;

     K.  Letters from City  of Livermore, dated  November 12,  1964,  March 12,
         1965, May 20,  1965,  May 26, 1965, June 25, 1965, and  July 9, 1965;

     L.  Letters from Pleasanton Township County  Water District, dated
         November 13, 1964,  March 12, 1965, and May 18, 1965;

     M.  Letters from Alameda County  Water District, dated November 13, 1964,
         January 14, 1965,  March 15, 1965, July 15, 1965, and  July 15, 1965;

     N.  Letter from City of Union City, dated November 19, 1964;

     O.  Letters from the Alameda County Health Department,  dated March 9,
         1965, and May 19, 1965;

     P.  Letter from the Alameda County Flood  Control and Water Conservation
         District, Zone No. 7, dated May 18, 1965;
                                    169

-------
     Q.  Letters from the Pacific Water Conditioning Association and their
         consultants, dated May 10, 1965, May 20, 1965, and June 4, 1965;

     R.  Letter from the San Francisco Water Department, dated May 4, 1965;

     S.  Letter from Valley Community Services District, dated July 12, 1965
         together with Resolution No. 23-65; and

Vin. WHEREAS, investigation by the staff of the Board discloses that:

     A.  Beneficial uses of the waters of Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo de la Laguna
         and Alameda Creek downstream from the point of waste  discharge
         include:

         1.   Recharge of groundwater basins of the Santa Rita subbasin (near
             El Charro Road) and the Niles Cone (near Miles), both basins
             being sources of supply for domestic, agricultural and industrial
             use;

         2.   Bathing;

         3.   Wading;

         4.   Fish propagation;

         5.   Fishing;

     B.  Land near the waste discharge point is used for agricultural purposes
         at present;

     C.  The City of Livermore proposes to develop a municipal airport and golf
         course adjacent to the waste discharge point;

     D.  The San Francisco Water Department has rights for the surface diversion
         of  water  at the confluence  of Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek
         near Sunol and the Department also owns and uses the subsurface
         water rights to part of the Amador Valley south of Highway 50;

     E.  The City of Pleasanton owns and thePleasanton Township County Water
         District uses the subsurface water rights to part of the Amador Valley
         south of Highway 50;

     F.  The waters of Arroyo de la Laguna are readily accessible to persons
         using the golf course at Hacienda Road;

     G.  The channels of Altamont Creek,  Arroyo Las Positas,  Arroyo de la
         Laguna and Alameda Creek are presently used, by the Alameda County
         Water District for the conveyance  of water, imported from the
         Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, to the Niles Cone for recharge of the
         groundwater basin;
                                   170

-------
    H.  Present plans call for ultimate discharge of South Bay Aqueduct water to
        the Alameda Creek system near Sunol and conveyance thence to Niles
        through the natural channels of said creek system; now

IX.  THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the intention of this Regional Water
    Pollution Control Board to:

    A.  Prevent nuisance, as defined  in Water Code Section 13005, from being
        caused by this waste discharge or by treatment or conveyance of wastes
        tributary thereto;

    B.  Make or preserve the waters of Arroyo Las Positas and of Arroyo de la
        Laguna suitable for recharge of groundwaters that are a source of supply
        for domestic, agricultural and industrial use;

    C.  Make or preserve the waters of Alameda Creek suitable for the following
        beneficial uses:

        1.   Recharge of  groundwaters that are a source of supply for domestic,
            agricultural  and industrial use;

        2.   Bathing;

        3.   Wading;

        4.   Fish propagation;

        5.   Fishing;

        6.   Aesthetic enjoyment;

 X. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in order  to fulfill its intentions in the
    preceding paragraph, this Board prescribes the following requirements
    for this waste discharge:

    A.  FOR THE PREVENTION  OF NUISANCE

        1.   The discharge to any ponds  that may be used for treatment, shall
            not cause atmospheric odors  recognizable as being of waste origin
            at any point outside the property of the  discharger;

        2.   The discharge  of Arroyo Las Positas or any tributary of Alameda
            Creek shall  not cause:

            a.  Floating, suspended, or deposited  macroscopic paniculate
                 material of waste origin  at any place;

            b.   Atmospheric odors recognizable as being of waste origin at
                 any place outside the property of the discharger;
                                     171

-------
        c.   Dissolved sulfide concentration of more than 0.1 mg/1 at any
            place in the receiving water;

        d.   Foaming at any place;

        e.   Turbidity or discoloration in waters of the State at any place
            more than 100 feet from the point of discharge;

B.  FOR THE PROTECTION OF BENEFICIAL WATER USES

    1.   The discharge to  Arroyo Las Positas or any tributary of Alameda
        Creek shall not cause waters of the State to exceed the following
        limits of quality:
        a.   At any place in Arroyo Las Positas or Arroyo de la Laguna:

                                                  4.0 mg/1, minimum

                                                            None;
(1)  Dissolved oxygen
(2)  Toxic concentrations of substances
    deleterious to humans or livestock
        b.   At any place in Alameda Creek;

            (1)  Dissolved oxygen
            (2)  Substances or combination of
                substances in concentration
                adverse to fish or aquatic life

        c.   Any groundwater:

            (1)  Tastes or odors of waste origin
            (2)  Arsenic (As)
            (3)  Barium (Ba)
            (4)  Cadmium (Cd)
            (5)  Chromium (hexavalent)
            (6)  Cyanide (CN)
            (7)  Fluoride (F)
            (8)  Lead (Pb)
            (9)  Selenium (Se)
           (10)  Silver (Ag)
                                       5.0 mg/1, minimum
                                                None;
                                        .05 mg/1,
                                        .0 mg/1,
                                        .01 mg/1,
                                        .05 mg/1,
                                        .2 mg/1,
                                        .0 mg/1,
                                        . 05 mg/1,
                                        .01 mg/1,
                                       0.05 mg/1,
None
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum;
        The quality of the waste discharged to Arroyo Las Positas or any
        tributary of Alameda Creek shall be maintained within the following
        limits:
        a.
For 6-hour composite samples collected one day each week
throughout the year  and made up of portions collected at
                                172

-------
            hourly intervals in proportion to rate of flow at time of
            collection:

            (1)  5-day BOD       -       No more than 50 percent of the
                                         samples in any one month to
                                         exceed 20 mg/1, and no sample
                                         to exceed 40 mg/1,  maximum;
            (2)  Suspended solids -       20 mg/1,  maximum
            (3)  Grease           -        5 mg/1,  maximum
            (4)  Settleable solids  -       0.5 ml/l/hr, maximum;
            (5)  (a) Methylene Blue Active Substances or MBAS (as analyzed
                    by  the methylene blue method  in accordance with the
                    Eleventh Edition of "Standard Methods for the Examina-
                    tion of Water and Wastewater" by the American Public
                    Health Association)
                                         1.0 mg/1, maximum
                (b) The above requirement will be considered as being met
                    whenever the discharger and all other waste discharges
                    to Alameda Creek and its tributaries above Niles jointly
                    develop and implement a program to monitor and con-
                    trol their discharges in  such a manner that they can
                    continuously demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
                    Regional Board, that these  discharges do not cause
                    the MBAS concentration in the Arroyo de la Laguna at
                    Verona Road to exceed 0.5 mg/1 at any time, without
                    allowing for the dilution effect  of water imported by
                    users downstream from Verona Road;

        b.   Any grab sample:

            (1)  Dissolved sulfide         0.1 mg/1, maximum
            (2)  Settleable solids          1.0 ml/l/hr, maximum;

C.  FOR THE PREVENTION  OF HAZARDS TO PUBLIC HEALTH

    All  waste discharged to the Arroyo Las Positas or to any tributary  of
    Alameda Creek shall be adequately disinfected, and for the purpose of
    this Resolution, adequate disinfection shall mean any disinfection which
    produces a moving median coliform MPN value not exceeding 5.0 per
    100  milliliters  at some point in the treatment process/providing that
    moving median values shall be determined from:

    1.   Consecutive results obtained from samples collected on the previous
        five sampling days, and

    2.   Samples shall be collected at a frequency of at least five days each
        week, and
                                 173

-------
        3.  Samples shall be collected during those periods when the coliform
            MPN has been demonstrated to be at its daily maximum;

 XI. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is  the intention of this Board,  at the
    earliest practicable date to:

    A.  Adopt quality objectives for groundwaters in the Livermore groundwater
        basins;

    B.  Adopt a policy  relative  to making allowance for the dilution effect of
        water imported by users downstream from Verona Road;

    C.  Review the quality limits contained herein to assure their adequacy in
        achieving the objectives previously established by this Board in its
        Resolution No.  226, as amended by Paragraph XVI of Resolution No. 466,
        for groundwater in the Niles Cone;

XH. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that this  Board hereby adopts the  following
    objectives for mineral quality of wastes discharged by the City of Livermore
    to the Arroyo Las Positas or to any tributary of Alameda Creek:

    A. The monthly average concentration of constituents, as listed  below and
        as  determined  by 6-hour composite samples collected weekly at the
        points designated, shall not exceed the sum of the increment listed for
        each plus its  weighted average concentration in the water supply
        tributary to the discharge (as determined by monthly analyses  of each
        water source):

                                           Increment as measured in  -
                                      The influent to     The effluent from
                                      the treatment      the treatment
                    Constituent        facilities          facilities

                 Total diss. solids         325 mg/1*            **
                 Chloride                 75 mg/1*            **
                 Others                     **                **

                 *To be reviewed by the Board whenever data becomes
                  available which indicates to the  staff of the Board
                  and/or the City that review is necessary;
                 **To be established by the Board when sufficient data
                  is available;

    B. And, in furtherance of  said objectives the discharger is required to
        file technical  reports pursuant to Sections  13055 and 13055.1,
        California Water Code with this Regional Board as follows:

        1.   By September 1, 1965, a firm and detailed time schedule for actions
             which it proposes to take in order to regulate the mineral quality of
             wastes discharged into its sewerage system;
                                    174

-------
          2.  By January 1, May 1, and September 1, in each calendar year, a
              detailed report describing its progress in achieving such regula-
              tion;

          All the aforementioned reports shall be transmitted with a motion of the
          City Council showing that that body has approved and is forwarding
          same to the Regional Board;

      C.  This Board will adopt specific requirements for mineral quality of wastes
          discharged by the City of Livermore to the Arroyo Las Positas or to any
          tributary of Alameda Creek, to replace the above objectives, whenever
          it is not satisfied that discharger is making reasonable  progress
          toward meeting these objectives;

XIII.  BE  IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Sections 13055 and
      13055.1 of the  Water  Code, the discharger is required to file technical
      reports on self-monitoring work performed according to detailed specifi-
      cations developed pursuant to the Regional Board's Resolution No. 398,
      and that all sample collection and analysis for the purpose of determining
      compliance with the requirements prescribed in this Resolution shall be
      performed according to these detailed specifications;

XIV.  BE  IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the  Executive Officer is directed to
      transmit to the  discharger copies of all correspondence this Board has
      received and considered relative to this waste discharge, and that the
      Board requests the discharger to take note of the comments and recom-
      mendations contained in said correspondence;

XV.  BE  IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that these requirements do not authorize the
      commission of any act causing injury to the property of another nor protect
      the discharger from his liabilities  under  Federal, State,  or local laws;

XVI.  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that this Regional Water Pollution Control
      Board's Resolutions Nos. 108 and 239 and those portons of Resolution
      No. 446 which are directly applicable only to the City of Livermore are
      hereby rescinded;

XVII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that none of the requirements prescribed in
      this Resolution are a guarantee to the discharger of a capacity right in
      the receiving waters;

XVIII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that if conditions should change materially
      at some time in the future, it may be necessary to review these require-
      ments, and in such event this Board will take up the matter with the
       responsible persons at this time;

  XIX BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that pursuant to Section 13054, California
      Water Code this Regional Board requires the discharger to file a written
       report with  the Board when the effluent flow, averaged for a calendar
                                       175

-------
      month during which there is  no rainfall,  exceeds 85% of the design
      capacity of the treatment facilities provided at that time;  this report shall
      be accompanied by a duly adopted motion of the City Council approving
      said report and the report shall contain at least the following information:

      A. Average flow for the month and date, time and volume of instantaneous
         peak flow  during the month, as  well as total flow for the calendar
         day during which said peak occurred;

      B. Discharger's best estimate as to  when  the average dry weather
         effluent flow for the maximum month will reach design  capacity;

      C. Discharger's intentions with respect to  actions to be taken and the
         timing of such actions, including engineering  studies, etc.,  to
         expand existing facilities or to provide new or supplemental
         facilities before the waste  flow volume reaches design capacity;

 XX.  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is  the intent of this Board to under-
      take investigations to determine the need for establishment of ground-
      water monitoring wells in the vicinity of the  proposed waste discharges
      and the discharger will be required to establish and use such wells as
      a part of his monitoring program if such work is found by the Board
      to be necessary.

                      GRANT BURTON
                      Chairman

                      July 15, 1965

I, John B. Harrison, hereby  certify  that the foregoing is a true and correct
copy of Resolution No. 683, as adopted by the Regional Water Pollution Control
Board of region No. 2, at its regular meeting on July 15, 1965.

                      JOHN B. HARRISON, Executive Officer
                      REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO. 2
                                    176

-------
                              APPENDIX C

         CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
                      SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

                            ORDER NO. 71-76

                    WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
                                  FOR
                        THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
finds that:

1.  This Regional Board prescribed requirements  for the  City of Livermore,
    called the discharger below, as follows:
        Resolution         Date
         Number         Adopted                For Discharge To

          683       July 15, 1965       Arroyo Las Positas
          752       May 19, 1966       Land (Airport and Golf Course)
         67-21      April 28, 1966      Four Temporary Septic Tanks
         67-28      May 18, 1967       Land (Amends Resolution No. 752)
         68-19      April 30, 1968      Arroyo Las  Positas (Amends
                                         Resolution No. 683)
         68-20      April 30, 1968      Time Schedule for Compliance with
                                         Mineral Quality Requirements
         68-45      August 28, 1968     Amends Time Schedule of Resolution
                                         No. 67-21
         68-50      August 28, 1968     Land (Amends Resolution No. 752
                                         and 67-28)
2.  Information in the Regional Board's files and in the City's report of waste
    discharge dated February 8, 1971,describes the existing waste discharge as
    approximately 3.6 mgd  (million gallons  per day)  of sewage serving a
    population of 38,000.  The current plant capacity is 5.0 mgd.  Discharger
    proposes to increase plant capacity to 10.0 mgd and provide a higher degree
    of treatment.   Effluent from the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant is used
    seasonally for agricultural irrigation and horticulture on the municipal
    airport and golf course grounds.
                                    177

-------
 3.   These wastes may affect the following beneficial water  uses in Arroyo Las
     Positas, Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek:

     Recharge of groundwaters in the Santa Rita subbasin (near El Charro Road)
     and the Miles Cone  (Near Miles) that are sources of supply for domestic,
     agricultural and industrial use;


     Bathing in Alameda Creek;

     Wading;

     Fish propagation in Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek;

     Fishing in Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek.

 4.   Land near the waste  discharge point is used for residences, recreation,
     agriculture and commerce.

 5.   The San Francisco Water Department has rights for the surface diversion of
   -  water at  the  confluence of Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek near
     Sunol and the Department also owns  and uses the subsurface water rights to
     part of the Amador Valley south of Highway 50.  The Alameda County Water
     District has rights for surface water diversion to the Miles Cone ground-
     water basin from Alameda Creek between Mission Boulevard and Decoto
     Road for municipal, industrial and irrigation uses.

 6.   The City  of Pleasanton owns and the Pleasanton Township County Water
     District uses the subsurface water  rights to part of the Amador Valley
     south of Highway 50.

 7.   The waters of Arroyo de la Laguna are readily accessible to persons using
     the golf course at Hacienda Road.

 8.   The channel of Alameda Creek is and Arroyo de la Laguna may be used for
     the conveyance of water, imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
     to the Niles Cone for recharge of the groundwater basin.

 9.   A water quality management study for the Livermore Valley area is currently
     underway. The findings of  this study will influence the nature of future
     treatment and disposal.

10.   The Board adopted an Interim Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
     Bay Basin on June 17, 1971.

11.   The Board in a public meeting heard and considered all comments pertaining
     to this discharge.

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the discharger shall comply with the following:
                                    178

-------
A.  Waste Discharge Requirements

    1.   The treatment or disposal of waste shall not create a nuisance as defined
        in Section 13050(m) of the California Water Code.

    2.  The discharge shall not cause:

        a.  Floating, suspended, or deposited macroscopic particulate matter
            or foam, in waters of the State at any place;

        b.  Bottom deposits or aquatic growths at any place;

        c.  Alteration of temperature,  turbidity, or apparent color beyond
            present natural background levels in waters of the State at any
            place;

        d.  Visible, floating, suspended or deposited oil or other products of
            petroleum origin in waters of the State at any place;

        e.  Waters of the State to exceed the following limits of quality at any
            point:
                Dissolved oxygen in Arroyo
                  Las Positas, Arroyo Mocho,
                  or Arroyo de la Laguna

                Dissolved oxygen in
                  Alameda Creek
                PH



                Dissolved sulfide

                Other substances
Minimum 5.0 mg/1
Annual median 80% saturation.
Minimum 7.0 mg/1
Annual median 90% saturation.

When natural factors cause
lesser concentrations, then
this discharge shall not cause
further reduction.

No change in the natural
ambient pH  value by more
than 0.1 pH unit.

0.1 mg/1 maximum.

No toxic or other  substances
shall be  present  in concen-
trations or quantities which
will cause deleterious effects
on aquatic biota, wildlife or
waterfowl or which render
any of these unfit for human
consumption either  at levels
created in the receiving waters
or as a result of  biological
concentration.
                                    179

-------
    f.   Groundwater at any point to contain tastes or odors of waste origin.
3.
g.  Groundwaters to exceed the following limits of quality at any point:

        Arsenic (As)
        Barium (Ba)
        Cadmium (Cd)
        Chromium (hexavalent)
        Cyanide (Cn)
        Fluoride (F)
        Lead (Pb)
        Selenium (Se)
        Silver (Ag)

The waste as discharged to waters of the State shall meet these quality
limits at all times:
0.05 mg/1,
1.0 mg/1,
0.01 mg/1,
0.05 mg/1,
0.2 mg/1,
1.0 mg/1,
0.05 mg/1,
0.01 mg/1,
0.05 mg/1.
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
    a.   In any grab sample:

           pH
                                     7.0, minimum (6.5 when the
                                     natural ambient value is as
                                     low as 6.5)
                                     8.5, maximum
            Settleable matter

             The arithmetic average
             of any six or more
             samples collected on
             any day

             80% of all individual
             samples collected
             during maximum
             daily  flow over any
             30-day period

             Any sample

             Dissolved sulfide
                                     0.5 ml/l/hr, maximum
                                     0.4ml/l/hr, maximum

                                     1.0 ml/l/hr, maximum

                                     0.1 mg/1, maximum.
   b.  For 24-hour composite samples collected one day each week through-
       out the year and made up of portions collected at hourly intervals in
       proportion to rate of flow at time of collection:
           Turbidity

           5-day BOD and
           Suspended Solids
                                     10 units, maximum

                                     The waste as discharged, or at
                                     some point in the treatment
                                     process, shall meet quality
                                180

-------
                                  requirements  equivalent to
                                  those which would result from
                                  conformance with Section 8047
                                  of Title 17, California Admin-
                                  istrative Code.

The monthly average concentration of constituents, as listed below,
shall not exceed the sum of the increment listed for each, plus its
weighted average concentration in the water supply tributary to
the discharge {as  determined by monthly analyses of each water
source):

                                  Increment as  measured in
                                  the influent to the treatment
          Constituent              facilities

    Total dissolved solids                 325 mg/1*
    Chloride                              75 mg/1*
    Others                                **

   *To be reviewed by the Board whenever data becomes available
    which indicates to the staff of the Board and/or the discharger
    that review is necessary.

  **To be established  by the Board when sufficient  date are
    available.

Methylene Blue Active
Substances or MB AS               1.0 mg/1, maximum.

The waste as discharged,  or at some point in the treatment process,
shall be  adequately disinfected,  and for the purpose of this Order
adequate disinfection shall mean any disinfection which produces a
moving median coliform MPN value not exceeding 2.2 per 100 milli-
liters at some point  in the treatment  process, providing that moving
median values shall be  determined from:

    Consecutive results obtained from samples collected on the
    previous seven sampling days,  and

    Samples shall  be collected at a frequency of at least seven
    days each week, and

    Samples shall be collected during those periods when the
    coliform MPN has been demonstrated to be at its daily maximum.
                          181

-------
    4.  Wastes used for irrigation shall comply with all requirements above,
        and:

        a.  All equipment, including pumps, piping and valves, storage ponds,
           etc. which may at any time contain the waste shall be adequately
           and clearly identified with warning signs and discharger shall make
           all necessary provisions,  in addition, to inform the public that the
           liquid contained therein is sewage and is unfit for human consump-
           tion.

        b.  No wastes used for irrigation shall be allowed to escape from the
           property of discharger via surface flow.

    5.  This Regional Board hereby prohibits waste discharges by the City of
        Livermore to Arroyo Las Positas or any other tributary of Alameda
        Creek above Miles:

        a.  In excess of 5.0 million gallons per day average dry weather flow
           for any calendar month until the City has provided facilities capable
           of meeting the requirements above.

        b.  Subsequent to implementation of the program in "Provision 5" below,
           except in conformance with that program.

B.  Provisions

    1.  This  Order includes  items numbered  1,  2,  6 and 7 of the  attached
        "Reporting Requirements" dated August 28, 1970.

    2.  This Order includes items numbered 1, 2, 3,  4, 5 and 6 of the attached
        "Notifications", dated January 6,  1970.

    3.  The City of Livermore shall comply with the following time schedule and
        reporting  program to assure  compliance with the waste discharge
        requirements of this order except turbidity in receiving waters and
        effluent disinfection and suspended solids.
                                       COMPLETION      STATUS REPORT
                 TASK                    DATE               DATE

        Demonstrate compliance with
        disinfection requirements
        and assure continuing com-
        pliance therewith at all times   December 1, 1971   December 15, 1971

        Report on progress toward
        compliance with requirements
        for mineral increments                            January  31, 1972
                                    182

-------
    Complete Final Design         September 1,  1972    September 15, 1972

    Authorization of Funding       October 1, 1972      October 15, 1972

    Commence Construction        December 1,  1972    December 15, 1972

    Report on progress toward
    compliance with requirements
    for mineral increments                            January 31,  1973

    Compliance with Requirements  September 1,  1973    September 15, 1973

    The above compliance time schedule is subject to revision at the discre-
    tion of this Regional Board.

    If the  discharger  fails to comply with the above time schedule, the
    Executive Officer is instructed to bring  a recommendation on the
    initiation of formal enforcement proceedings to the Regional Board for
    its consideration.

4.  It is the intention of this Board, at the earliest practicable date to:

    a.  Adopt quality objectives for groundwaters in the Livermore ground-
        water basins.

    b.  Review the quality limits contained herein to ensure their adequacy
        in achieving the objectives previously established by this Board in
        its Resolution No. 226, as amended by Paragraph XVI of Resolution
        No. 446,  for groundwater in the Niles Cone.

5.  This Regional Board adopts the following time schedule for long-term
    compliance with the objectives of Resolution No. 226, and to assure
    adequate protection of Livermore-Amador Valley groundwaters:

        The Valley Community Services District, the Cities of Livermore
        and Pleasanton and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
        Conservation District - Zone 7, shall complete by April, 1972, a
        study which shall be the basis for a comprehensive water quality
        management program for the Alameda Creek System above Niles
        which is  necessary to achieve the above  and which is acceptable
        to this Board.  The  schedule,  description, and program shall
        include consideration of at least the following items:

            Facilities necessary.

            Definition of the agency or agencies  which will implement the
            program, operate facilities, etc.

            Means for securing a commitment by all agencies  involved to
            implement the selected program.
                                  183

-------
            In light of presently available information the agencies named above
            are required to complete necessary facilities and to implement this
            program no later than January  1975.  An earlier date may  be
            prescribed by this Regional Board after  review of additional
            information.

    6.  This Board's Resolutions Nos. 683, 752, 67-21, 67-28, 68-19,  68-20,
        68-45 and 68-50 are rescinded.
I, Fred H. Dierker, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full,
true, and correcto copy of an order adopted by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, on October 18, 1971.
                                                Executive Officer
                                    184

-------
                              APPENDIX D

          PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING PARAMETERS MEASURED
             AT THE LIVERMORE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT


The advanced nature of treatment and the stringency of the discharge require-
ments have resulted in unusually complete records of operation and performance
being maintained at Livermore.  Presented below are the parameters which are
recorded on the monthly logs.  Also listed are additional chemical analyses
made for the City by an outside laboratory.  Monthly averages for most of the
parameters are tabulated in Appendix E.

                                           Frequency of
        Item                                Measurement5

1.  Weather

   A.  Temperature, F
         i. Maximum                              D
        ii. Minimum                              D
                                     s
   B.  Precipitation, in.                          D

   C.  Evaporation, in.                           D

   D.  Wind direction                             D

2.  Sewage Flow

   A.  Influent
         i. Average                              D
        ii. Peak                                  D(P)

   B.  Effluent
         i. Average                              D
        ii. Maximum                              D
        iii. Minimum                              D
        iv. Airport use                            D
         v. Golf course use                       D
        vi. Farmland use                         D

3.  Grit Removed, ft                              D
   = Daily, W = Weekly, I = Intermittently, P = Partial Record.

                                  185

-------
4.   Chemical, Physical, and Biological Characteristics (for Sampling Techniques,
    see Table 11, Section 8.
                    Raw
                                      Trickling
                            Primary    Filter
Parameter

BOD5, mg/1
SS, mg/1
VSS, mg/1
DO, mg/1
Settl. Sol., ml/1
Total Sol., mg/1
PH
Grease,  mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
NH+ -N, mg/1

NO; -N, mg/1
   Lt
NO' -N, mg/1

Turbidity, JTU
Temperature, C
TDS, mg/1
Fixed DS, mg/1
Spec. Cond., mm
Cr, mg/1
                   Sewage   Effluent    Effluent
Secondary    Plant
 Effluent13  Effluent
w
w
w

w
w
w







w
w
w
w
w
w
w

w
w
w


w








w
w
W(P)C

W(P)C
W(P)C



w




W(P)C
W(P)C


W(P)
W(P)
W(P)
D(P)
W(P)

W(P)


W(P)
W(P)
W(P)






w
w
w
D
w
w
w
w
w
W(P)
W(P)
W(P)
D(P)
D(P)
W
w
w
w
aAfter 1970, raw sewage sample contains waste mixed liquor and lagoon super-
 natant recycled to headworks.
bFor 1970 and later only.
GNor recorded on monthly logs.

5.  Additional analytical work done by Brown and Caldwell  (Environmental
    Quality Analysts) on plant effluent.

    A.   Monthly composite of weekly 24-hr composites:

        NO~ -N, NO"  -N, NH* -N, organic nitrogen, Cl", HCO~, COg, HPO~, H2PO~,

        Na+K+, Ca"1"1", Mg**, alkalinity, CO2, hardness, dissolved residue,
        specific conductivity, pH, sodium percent, B (boron), F~ (fluoride),

        PO|,  and turbidity.

    B.   6-mo or quarterly composite:

        Barium (Ba),  Silver (Ag), Lead  (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Arsenic (As),
        Selenium (Se), Cyanide (CN) and Hexavalent Chromium (Cr).
                                    186

-------
6.   Disinfection


    A.  Lb chlorine for pre- and post-chlorination     D


    B.  Time of sampling                           D


    C.  Flow rate, mgd                             D


    D.  Contact time, min                           D


    E.  Chlorine residual, mg/1                     D


    F.  pH,  contact tank or effluent                  D (P)

    G.  Total coliform MPN's
        i.  For day                                D
        ii.  5- or 7-day median                      D


7.   Mixed Liquor

                         3
    A.  Air  used, million ft /day                    D

    B.  DO, mg/1                                  D


    C.  SS,  mg/1, ml/1                             D

    D.  SVI                                        D


    E.  Waste mixed liquor, 1,000 gpd               D

8.   Sludge Handling and Treatment


    A.  Secondary sludge pumped, mgd              D

    B.  Return sludge, percent of influent flow       D


    C.  Return sludge SS, mg/1                     D

    D.  Raw sludge, gpd                           D


    E.  Digested sludge to beds, gpd                D


    F.  Digested sludge to lagoons, gpd              D


    G.  Temperature of Digesters 1 and 2, F          D


    H.  Gas produced by Digesters 1 and 2           D
                                  187

-------
 9.  Sludge Characteristics

    A.  Total solids, percent
         i. Raw                                   I
         ii. Digesters 1 and 2                       I
        iii. Digested                               I

    B .  Volatile solids, percent
         i. Raw                                   I
         ii. Digesters 1 and 2                       I
        iii. Digested

    C.  Volatile acids. Digesters 1 and 2, mg/1        I

    D.  Alkalinity, Digesters 1 and 2, mg/1           I

    E.  pH, Digesters 1 and 2                       I

10.  Electric Power, KWH/day, and Natural Gas,
    I,000ft3/day                                   D

11.  Boiler Feed Water Hardness, mg/1; Specific
    Conductivity,  micromhos; and Phosphate, mg/1    I

12.  Equipment Operating Times, hours, monthly

    A.  Well pump
    B .  Drain pump (2)
    C.  Barminutor
    D.  Comminutor
    E.  Preaeration blower (2)
    F.  Primary sludge collector  (2)
    G.  Scum collector (2)
    H.  Sludge airlift (2)
    I .  Grit washer
    J .  Air compressor (2)
    K.  No. 3 HP water pump  (2)
    L.  No. 3 LP water pump (2)
    M.  Raw sewage pump (2)
    N.  Digester gas circulation pump (2)
    O.  Sludge circulation pump (2)
    P.  Raw sludge pump (2)
    Q.  Filter circulation pump (3)
    R.  Activated sludge influent pump  (2)
    S.  Aeration blower (3)
    T.  RAS pump (2)
    U.  Secondary sludge collection
    V.  Effluent irrigation pump (2)
                                   188

-------
                                   APPENDIX E

                  MONTHLY OPERATING AND PERFORMANCE DATA
Presented in this appendix are tabulations of monthly averages of operating and
performance data for the years 1968 through 1974.  Included are most of the items
listed in Appendix D.  The data are presented in seven table formats designated
Table E-l, Table E-2, etc. Seven tables are used for each format,  and each table
represents one year.  Thus, for example,  Table E-1A represents 1968, and
Table E-1G represents 1974.

The material in each table format is summarized below:

    E-l   Wastewater Flows,  Influent Characteristics, and Weather
          Characteristics

    E-2   Preliminary Treatment, Primary Treatment, and Trickling Filter
          Treatment

    E-3   Activated Sludge Aeration Tank and Secondary Treatment

    E-4   Disinfection,  Final Effluent Characteristics, and Overall Plant
          Performance

    E-5   Solids Handling and Treatment

    E-6   Power, Chemicals, and Labor

    E-7   Final Effluent Heavy Metals.
                                    189

-------
             TABLE E-1A.  WASTEWATER FLOWS, INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
                           AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS,  1968
Parameter
Influent Flow
Average, mgd8
Dally peak, mgd
Reclamation Use . Mil Gal
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics
BODj, rag/1
BODs, lb/dayc
Suspended solids, mg/l
Suspended solids, lb/d»yc
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/l
Settleable solids, ml/1
PH
Total solids, mg/l
Total dissolved solids ,
mj/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
ma/1
Specific conductivity,
mtcromhos •
Chlorides, mg/I
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature , F
Dally maximum
Daily minimum
Precipitation, In.
. Month
Jan

2.7
-

0
0
-
0

170
3,800
170
3,800

150
9.0
7.6
1,110

840

610

1,300
300


56
31
4.18
Feb
f
2.3f
-

0
0
.
0

160
3,100
180
3,500

160
7.3
7.6
1,120

940

780

1,530
340


63
44
0.91
Mar
f
2.4*
-

0
1.2
.
1.2

210
4,200
300
6,000

230
12.5
7.5
1,480

1,180

970

1,680
440


67
41
2.45
Apr May
£
2.4 3.0
-

0 1.0
9.1 11.6
5.9
9.1 18.5

190 180
3,800 4,800
260 230
5,200 6,100

220 200
11.0 7.3
7.5 7.6
1,480 1,400

1,220 1,170

950 1,000

2,040 1,890
430 450


73 74
39 45
0.58 0.11
June

3.3
-

4.3
18,0
13.8
36.1

180
5,000
230
6,400

190
7.0
7.6
1,300

1,080

900

1,930
420


85
52
0
July Aug

3.5 3.7
-

3.9 5.4
15.2 13.9
11.7 16.3
30.8 35.6

210 200
6,100 6,200
240 280
7,000 8,700

200 210
11.5 10.6
7.6 7.5
1,240 1,280

1,000 1,010

730 800

1,660 1,730
380 380


87 84
54 54
0 0.05
Sept

3.9
-

0
11.1
19.9
31.0

200
6,500
160
5,200

120
9.0
7.4
1,150

990

820

1,550
400


84
51
0
Oct Nov

4.0 4.3
-

0 0
5.2 0,9
0 0
5.2 0.9

180 160
6,000 5,700
150 170
5,000 6,000

130 140
8.5 7.1
7.4 7.4
930 860

700 710

540 530

1,200 1,120
210 200


59
43
0.10 2.27
Dec

3.9
-

0
1.1
0
1.1

160
5,200
160
5,200

140
6.9
7.4
930

780

610

1,150
230


55
34
3.08
High Low

4.3 2.3f
-

5.4 0
18.0 0
19.9 0
36,1 0

210 160
6,500 3,100
300 150
8,700 3,500

230 120
12.5 6.9
7.6 7.9
1,480 860

1,220 700

1 ,000 530

2,040 1,120
450 200


87 55
54 31
4.18 0
Average

3.7«
-

14. 68
87. 3e
67. 6°
169. 5e

180
5,000
210
5,700

170
8.9
7.5
1,180

970

770

1,560
350


72
44
13.736
amgd x 0.044 - mVsec
 mil aalx 3,800 • m3
Clb/dayx0.45 -kg/day
dln. X2.54 - cm
Total
Estimate
Excludes estimates

-------
                      TABLE E-1B.
   WASTEWATER FLOWS, INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
   AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS,  1969
Parameter
Influent Flow
/average, mgda
Dally peak, mgd
Reclamation Use. Mil Galb
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics
$005, mg/1
BOD5, lb/dayc
Suspended solids, mg/1
Suspended solids, lb/dayc
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
pH
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
micromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature , F
Dally maximum
Daily minimum ,
Precipitation, in.
Month
Ian

•3.9
-

0
0
0
0

150
4,900
200
6,500

160
9.0
7.6
920

720

550

1,080
210


54
36
5.64
Feb

4.9
-

0
0
0
0

160
6,500
280
11,400

200
8.4
7.5
960

640

400

1,020
150


56
38
5.25
Mar

4.5
-

0.2
1 .9
0
2.1

200
7,500
180
6,700

150
8.7
7.6
1,020

810

590

1,050
230


64
37
0.66
Apr May

4.1 3.1
-

0 0
6.6 14..1
0 0.5
6,6 14.6

190 140
6,800 4,700
180 140
6,400 4,700

150 120
9.0 7.1
7.5 7.5
940 890

840 760

540 460

1,350 1,290
230 200


66 78
41 48
1.23 0,05
June

3.5
-

3.4
14,0
15.2
32.6

200
5,800
130
3,800

70
7.3
7.5
KO^

720

510

1,040
210


74
54
0.01
fuly Aug

-
-

12.9 8.0
15.9 22.7
17,8 20.4
46.6 51.1

210 220
-
160 220
-

140 190
9.1 8.9
7.4 7.3
920 880

750 710

570 530

1,160 1,100
190 140


90 94
54 53
0 0
Sept Oct

3.7*
-

4.4 0.3
13.1 7.8
14.0 0
31.5 8.1

170 180
5,600
160 170
5,300

150 150
7.8 9.6
7.5 7.4
860 880

700 710

440 420

1,070 1,140
140 170


88 74
53 45
0.03 0.99
Nov

_
-

6
3.2
0
3.2

200
-
200
-

170
9.5
7.4
870

660

480

1,080
140


69
37
0.46
Dec

3,1


0
1.2
0
1.2

190
6,300
180
6,000

150
8.8
7.3
860

680

450

1,020
150


62
40
2.24
High

4.9


12,9
22.7
20.4
51.1

220
7,500
280
11,400

200
9.6
7.6
1,020

840

590

1,350
230


94
54
5.64
Low Average

3.1 4.09


0 29. 2e
0 100. 5e
0 67. 9e
0 197.6e

140 180
4,700 6,000
130 180
3,800 6,400

70 150
7.1 8.6
7.3 7.5
850 900

640 730

400 500

1,020 1,120
140 180


54 72
36 45
0 16.566
CO
         amgd x 0,044 = mVsec
         bmil gal x 3,800 • m3
         clb/day x 0.45 = kg/day
         dln. x 2.54 - cm
 Total
£ Estimate
 Excludes estimate

-------
                       TABLE E-1C. WASTEWATER FLOWS, INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
                                     AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS, 1970
Parameter
Influent Flow
Average, mgda
Dally peak, mgd
Reclamation Use. Mil Qalb
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics
BOD;, mo/1
BOD5, lb/dayc
Suspended solids, mg/1
Suspended solids, lb/day°
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
PH
Total solid*, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/t
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature, F
Dally maximum
Daily minimum
Precipitation, ln.d

Jan

3.8
-

0
0.4
0
0.4

230
7,300
Z90
9,200

200
11.2
7.4
940

650

360

1,040
ISO


60
41
5.79

Feb

3.3
-

0
1.1
0
1.1

240
6,600
300
8,200

280
10. 5
7.3
1,000

700

490

1,230
180


64
39
1.59

Mar

3.5
-

0
6.0
0
6.0

250
7,300
220
6,400

180
13.0
7.7
980

760

570

1,120
170


68
40
0.90

Apr May

3.9 3.8
-

0 4.5
11.3 16.3
0.1 7.9
11.4 28.7

250 240
8,100 7,600
230 230
7,500 7,300

170 200
10.7 11.7
7.4 7.3
960 910

730 680

470 530

1,150 1,170
180 160


68 79
37 48
0.41 0.70
•Month
June

3.4
-

6.6
16.5
16.9
40.0

220
7,300
200
6,600

150
10.9
7.5
910

710

470

1,060
150


80
51
0.28

July Aug

4.0 4.1
-

8.7 5.4
11.7 18.4
24.2 31.9
44.6 55.7

220 260
7,300 8,900
220 210
7,300 7,200

190 180
11.0 14.2
7.4 7.1
910 930

690 710

530 490

1,220 1,080
160 160


88 86
55 50
0 0

Sept Oct

3.7 3.8
-

13.9 0
15.6 7.9
27.6 7.9
57.1 15.8

200 250
6,200 7,900
220 210
6,800 6,600

200 180
12.3 10.6
7.4 7.5
910 900

690 690

420 500

1,070 1,030
170 ISO


87 74
49 44
0 0.38

Nov

3.9
-

0
2.5
0
2.5

260
8,500
270
8,800

230
12.6
7.3
930

670

470

950
130


66
44
5.52

Dec

3.8 4.1
-

0 13.9
0 18.4
0 31.9
0 57.1

250 260
7,900 8,900
210 300
6,600 9,200

160 280
11.5 14.2
7.2 7.7
1,010 1,010

800 800

550 570

1,150 1,230
160 180


56 88
37 55
4.76 5.79
Low

3.3
-

0
0
0
0

200
6,200
200
6,400

150
10.5
7.1
900

650

360

950
130


56
37
0
Average

3.8
-

39. le
107.7*
116. 5e
263. 3e

240
7,600
230
7,400

200
11.7
7.4
940

710

490

1,100
160


73
44
20.33e
CO
          amgd x 0.044 •* mVsec
          roll gal x 3,800 - m3
          clb/day x 0.45 = kg/day
          In. x 2.54 - cm
Total
Includes waste mixed liquor and lagoon supernatant for 1970 and later.

-------
                        TABLE E-1D.
    WASTEWATER FLOWS,  INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
    AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS, 1971
Parameter
Influent Flow
Average, mgda
Daily peak, mgd
Reclamation Use, Mil Galb
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics*
BOD5, mg/1
BOD5, lb/dayc
Suspended solids, mg/1
Suspended solids, lb/dayc
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/I
PH
Total solids , mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids.
mg/1
Specific conductivity,
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature, F
Dally maximum
Dally minimum
Precipitation, In.
Month
Jan

3.8
-

0
0.5
0
0.5

240
7,600
250
7,900

210
11.8
6.9
1,020

800

590

1,210
170


59
37
1.30
Feb

3.8
-

0
-
0
-

220
7,000
200
6,400

180
11.1
7.4
1,020

810

560

1,210
160


61
35
0.32
Mar

3.7
-

0,4
4.5
0
4.9

240
7,400
220
6,800

ISO
11.4
7.3
1,020

800

620

1,240
170


64
39
1.76
Apr May

3.7 3.9
-

3,2 0
8.1 13.5
3.9 0
15.2 13.5

240 230
7,400 7,500
240 240
7,400 7,800

200 180
11.6 11.1
7.3 7.3
940 1,010

700 770

480 540

1,120 1,030
150 160


67 71
40 45
0.97 0.44
June

4.0
-

6.2
16.6
18.4
41.2

190
6,300
260
8,600

210
16.1
7.2
94b

690

500

1,160
140


79
50
0
July Aug

3.8 3.9
-

1.4 6.7
21.6 20.4
32.4 33.0
55.4 60.1

200 170
6,300 5,500
220 260
6,900 8,400

180 220
12.5 14.3
7.4 6.8
920 900

710 670

540 450

1,080 1,000
160 130


87 87
53 55
0 0.05
Sept Oct

4.1 4.0
-

7.7 0
15.2 8.2
28.8 13.4
51.7 21.6

180 190
6,200 6,300
190 240
6,500 8,000

140 210
9.5 16.9
6.9 6.8
940 870

800 630

450 440

1,160 920
110 110


85 75
52 41
0.07 0.04
Nov

3.9
-

0
4.8
0
4.8

220
7,200
210
6,900

170
13.6
7.3
870

670

460

1,030
120


65
36
0.56
Dec

3.8
-

0
0.4
0
0.4

240
7,600
240
7,600

200
13.6
7.3
920

690

490

1,070
130


55
33
3.79
High

4.1
-

7.7
21.6
33.0
60.1

240
7,600
260
8,600

220
16.9
7.4
1,020

810

620

1 ,240
170


87
55
3.79
Lov* Average

3.7 3.9
-

0 2 5 . 6e
0.5 113.8s
0 129. 9e
0.5 269. 38

170 210
5,500 7,000
190 230
6,400 7,400

140 190
9.5 12.8
6.8 7.2
870 950

630 730

440 510

920 1,100
110 140


55 71
35 43
0 9.30e
CO
CO
          amgd x 0.044 = mVsec
          bmll gal x 3,800 = m3
          clb/day x 0.45 - kg/day
          dln. x 2.54 - cm
Total
Includes waste mixed liquor and lagoon supernatant for 1970 and later.

-------
                        TABLE E-1E.  WASTEWATER FLOWS, INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
                                       AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS, 1972
Parameter
Influent Flow
Average, mgda
Dally peak , mgd
Reclamation Use. Mil Galb
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics f
BOD5 , mg/1
BOD5, lb/dayc
Suipended solids, mg/1
Suipended solids, lb/dayc
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
PH
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
mlcromhog
Chlorides, mg/1
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature, F
Dally maximum
Dally minimum
Precipitation, ln.d
Month
Jan

3.9
-

0
0
0
0

230
7,500
340
11,100

220
14,8
7.4
1,070

730

470

970
140


55
31
0.75
Feb Mar

4.1 4.4
-

0 1.9
0 9.2
0 0
0 11.1

240 240
8,200 8,800
260 290
8,900 10,600

210 230
14.0 9.7
7.3 7.1
870 900

610 610

440 410

1,080 1,070
140 130


62 71
40 42
0.84 0.16
Apr May

4.5 4.6
-

5.3 10,4
15.2 21.5
10.2 19.4
30.7 51.3

300 180
11,000 6,800
230 210
8,400 7,900

190 120
15.1 12.5
7.3 7.1
910 880

680 700

450 390

1,100 980
120 120


71 78
41 48
0.54 0
June

4.6
-

12.6
21.8
11.0
45.4

280
10,700
240
9,200

160
11.2
7.6
920

680

450

990
120


85
51
0.06
July Aug

4.8 4.9
-

4.2 15.3
23.2 19.9
22.8 19.7
SO. 2 54.9

220 240
8,400 9,800
280 290
10,700 11,800

60 250
17.0 15.8
7.3 7.2
1,060 1,000

720 710

630 520

960 950
140 200


89 88
56 55
0 0
Sept Oct

4.8 4.0
-

11.8 0
10.9 2.9
13.1 4.8
35.8 7.7

230 200
9,200 6,700
250 250
10,000 8,400

180 190
13.4 14.0
7.4 7.2
890 790

640 540

460 280

1,060 1,030
150 130


81 71
SO SO
0.46 2.59
Nov

5.1
-

0
0
0
0

200
8,500
280
11,900

230
15.9
7.3
940

650

500

1.040
140


61
39
5.06
Dae

4.9
-

0
0
0
0

210
8,600
250
10,200

220
13.9
7.2
1,080

830

580

1,110
180


51
32
2.17
High

5.1


15.3
23.2
22.8
54.9

300
11,000
340
11,900

250
17.0
7.6
1,080

830

630

1,110
200


89
56
5.06
Low

3.9


0
0
0
0

180
6,700
210
7,900

60
9.7
7.1
790

540

280

950
120


51
31
0
Average

4.6


61. 5e
124.6*
101.0e
287.1s

230
8,700
260
9,900

190
13.9
7.3
940

680

460

1,030
140


72
45
12.63s

-------
                       TABLE E-1F.  WASTEWATER FLOWS, INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
                                      AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS, 1973
Parameter
Influent Flow
Average, mgda
Dally peak, mgd
Reclamation Use. Mil Galb
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics*
BODs, mg/1
BODs, lb/dayc
Suspended solids, mg/1
Suspended solids, lb/dayc
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
PH
Total -solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature, F
Dally maximum
Daily minimum ,
Precipitation, in.
Month
Jan

5.3
'-

0
0
0
0

210
9,300
210
9,300

180
11.1
7.5
1,100

890

520

1.300
200


55
34
5.05
Feb

5.4
-

0
0
0
0

220
9,900
230
10,400

160
13.6
7.3
1,120

890

530

1,280
220


-
-
4.26
Mar

5.S
-

0
0.8
0
0.8

240
11,000
230
10,500

190
13.8
7.4
1,160

930

700

1,380
230


-
-
2.54
Apr May

3.0 2.9
-

0 17.2
10.8 17.4
0 0
10.8 34,6

240 220
6,000 5,300
280 240
7,000 5,800

160 190
13.4 16.2
7.2 7.2
1,110 1,040

830 800

660 600

1,400 1,316
220 190


72 79
42 48
0.44 0.04
June

3.1
-

0
21.2
0
21.2

210
5,400
270
6,900

220
14.6
7.2
1,020

750

550

1,230
170


87
53
0
July Aug

3.8 3.8
-

7.7 5.0
16.4
10.0 20.3
34.1 25.3

210 220
6,700 7,000
230 260
7,300 8,300

190 200
14.3 13.9
7.2 7.3
980 1,020

750 760

570 510

1,100 1,260
200 210


86 85
54 54
0 0
Sept Oct

3.8 3.8
5.3 5.2

5.6 0
-
10.3 0.9
15.9 0.9

190 210
6,000 6,700
270 180
8,500 5,700

230 140
14.8 10.9
7.2 7.3
960 920

690 740

520 380

1,050 1,190
170 150


81 76
52 48
0.07 1.75
Nov

4.2
6.0

0
1.1
0
1.1

220
7,700
250
8,800

220
13.6
7.2
990

730

480

1 ,100
180


62
43
5.06
Dec

4.1
6.2

0
0
0
0

230
7,900
230
7,900

170
13.9
7.2
970

740

530

1,050
180


54
32
2.74
High

5.5
6.2

17.2
21.2
20.3
34.6

240
11,000
280
10,500

230
16.2
7.5
1,160

930

700

1,400
230


87
54
5.06
Low Average

2.9 4.1
5.2 5.7

0 35. 5e
0 67. 7e
0 41. 5e
0 144.7s

190 220
5,300 7,200
180 240
5,700 8,000

140 190
10.9 13,7
7.2 7.3
920 1,030

690 790

380 550

1,050 1,220
150 190


54 74
32 46
0 21.958
<£>
en
          amgd x 0.044 - mVsec

          bmll gal x 3,800 - m3

          Clb/dayx0.45 - kg/day

          dln. x 2.54 - cm
"Total
Includes waste mixed liquor and lagoon supernatant for 1970 and later.

-------
                          TABLE E-1G,
     WASTEWATER FLOWS, INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
     AND WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS,  1974
Parameter
Influent Flow
Average, mgda
Dally peak , mgd
Reclamation Use. Mil Galb
Airport
Golf course
Farmland
Total
Influent Characteristics
BOD 5, mg/1
BOD5, lb/dayc
Suspended solids, mg/1
Suspended solids, Ib/dayC
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
PH
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mgi/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity,
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Weather Characteristics
Air temperature, F
Dally maximum
Dally minimum
Precipitation, ln.d
1 Month
Ian

4.0
S.8

0
0
0
0

220
7,300
300
10,000

260
19.5
7.2
1,020

720

580

1,200
ISO


56
37
1.41
Feb

3.9
6.1

0
0
0
0

230
7,500
230
7,500

200
18.1
7.5
1,000

780

600

1,170
180


59
35
0.87
Mar Apr

4.0 4.2
5.8 6.3

0 0
0.3 2.8
0 0
0.3 2.8

250 200
8,300 7,000
230 300
7,700 10,500

190 240
15.0 15.8
7.4 7.1
1,060 1,060

830 750

620 570

1,160 1,260
190 180


63 67
43 42
2.26 1.43
May

4.0
6.4

5.2
13.4
10.4
29.0

240
8,000
200
6,700

160
11.8
7.4
970

780

560

1,110
190


73
46
0
June

3.5
6.4

0
11.9
13.3
25.2

220
6,400
220
6,400

180
13.3
7.1
880

650

520

1,100
150


81
52
0
July Aug

3,3 4.3
6.4 6.6

6.2 13.5
10.8 9.3
8.9 15.1
25.9 37.9

200 220
5,500 7,900
240 280
6,600 10,000

200 240
13.2 14.6
7.1 7.1
910 940

660 670

510 530

1,010 1,070
160 150


66 88
"54 54
0.17 0
Sept Oct

4.5 4.6
6.9 6.5

0 0.5
5.2 5.1
2.4 0
7.6 5.6

200 190
7,500 7,300
220 220
8.200 8,400

180 180
12.9 15.4
7.0 7.0
870 820

650 600

510 400

1,090 1,100
140 130


88 78
51 47
0 0.82
Nov Dec

4,6 4.6
6.8

0.2
0.4
0
0.6

170
6,500
280
10,700

250
14.5
7.1
990

530

540

1,160
140


63
40
0.56 1.31
High

4.6
6.9

13.5
13.4
15.1
37.9

250
8,300
300
10,700

260
19.5
7.5
1,060

830

620

1,260
190


88
54
2.26
Low

3.3
5.8

0
0
0
0

170
5,500
200
6,400

160
11.8
7.0
820

530

400

1,010
130


56
35
0
Average

4.1
6.3

25.6e
59.2s
50. le
134. 9e

210
7,200
250
8,400

210
14.9
7.2
960

700

540

1,130
160


73
45
8.83e
CD
           "mgd x 0.044 • mVsec
           bmll gal x 3,800 - m3
           Clb/dayx0.45 -kg/day
           dln. x 2.54 - cm
Total
Includes waste mixed liquor and lagoon supernatant for 1970 and later.

-------
                    TABLE E-2A. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
                                AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT,  1968
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, ft3/daya
Chlorine added, mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
PH
Primary Treatment Removals.
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Changes. Percent
BODs reduction
Suspended solids increase
Volatile suspended solids
Increase
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
1.8 1.7 2,2 2.3 2.6
- - 1.6


120 120 130 140 120
63 72 97 95 93

56 69 49 81 81
0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1
950 1,030 1,260 1,300 1,400
-
7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.6


29 25 38 26 33
63 60 68 63 60


88 76 70 93 79
100 110 92 120 97

95 110 39 89 87
-----


27 37 46 34 34
59 53 -5 26 4

70 59 -20 10 7
June July Aug
3.8 3.8 3.6
1.7 1.5 1.4


100 150 150
68 95 120

58 75 94
0.1 0.6 1.6
1,300 1,110 1,110
- -
7.6 7.6 7.5


44 29 25
83 60 57
\

61 97 100
97 100 120

82 84 90
- -


39 35 33
43 50

41 12 -4
Sept Oct
3.6 2.7
1.3 1.3


180 150
160 75

130 64
2.6 <0.1
1,070 780
-
7.4 7.4


10 17
0 50


110 140
190 140

130 120
-


39 7
19 87

0 88
Nov Dec
1,3 1.4
1.2


150 160
110 91

100 84
0.1 3.3
830 830
-
7.4 7.5


6 0
35 43


110 110
160 110

160 100
-


27 31
45 21

60 19
High
3.8
1.7


180
160

130
3.3
1,400
-
7.6


44
83


140
190

160
-


46
87

88
Low Average
1.3 2.5
1.2 1.4


100 140
63 95

49 78
<0.1 0.7
780 1,080
-
7.4 7.5


0 22
0 55


61 94
92 120

39 100
-


7 33
-5 26

-20 28
to
        a ,,3
         ftVday x 0.028 - mVday

-------
                      TABLE E-2B.  PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
                                   AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT, 1969
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, ftVday
Chlorine added , mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BOD 5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
PH
Primary Treatment Removals.
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BOD 5, rag/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Changes. Percent
BOD; reduction
Suspended solids Increase
Volatile suspended solids
Increase
Month
Ian

1.0
1.1


140
110

91
0.2
820

7.6


7
45


73
120

98
-


48
9

8
Feb

0.8
1.0


no
100

70
0.2
800

7.5


31
64


45
200

130
-


59
100

86
Mar

1.2
1.2


140
94

88
0.1
890

7.7


30
48


84
100

88
-


40
e

6
Apr

1.6
0


no
72

52
0.2
830

7.5


42
60


75
80

46
-


32
11

-12
May

1.2
0


110
62

60
<0.1
790

7.5


21
56


80
110

100
-


27
77

.67
June July

1.5 1.3
1.8


140 150
58 62

32 52
<0.1 <0.1
730 760

7.6 7.5


30 29
55 61


80 97
54 56

36 40
-


43 35
-7 -10

13 23
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1.9 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3
2,4 - 2.5


130 120 100 140 ISO
72 55 53 100 86

48 53 53 81 82
^O.l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
700 730 700 750 750

7.4 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.3


41 29 44 30 21
67 66 69 50 52


62 86 48 96 77
54 58 56 120 120

20 55 54 99 101
-----


52 28 52 31 49
-25 5 6 20 40

-58 4 2 22 23
High

1.9
2.5


150
110

91
0.2
890

7.7


44
69


96
200

130
-


59
100

86
Low

0.8
0


100
53

32
<0.1
700

7.3


7
45


45
54

20
-


28
-25

-58
Average

1.4
1.7b


130
76

64
<0.1
770

7.5


28
58


75
95

72
-


42
25

13
00
         aft3/day x 0.028 * m3/day
         Based on six months

-------
                          TABLE E-2C.  PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
                                         AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT, 1970
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, ftVday9
Chlorine added, mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BODS, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/I
Total soltds , mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
PH
Primary Treatment Removals.
Percent0
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BOD;, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids ,
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Chancres. Percent
BOD5 reduction
Suspended solids increase
Volatile suspended solids
Increase
Ammonia nitrogen reduction
Month
Ian

1.2
2.4


180
160

140
0.2
820
48
7.3


22
45


110
100

87
44


39
-37

-38
8
Feb Mar

2.3 1.3
2.7 2.6


180 130
110 89

100 72
0.6 0.1
870 820
55 40
7.4 7.7


25 48
63 60


140 130
90 81

90 68
44 38


22 0
-18 -9

-10 -6
20 5
Apr

1.6
0


140
96

71

<£>
         3 ftVday x 0.028 "= m3/day

          Based on seven months

          Affected by waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

-------
                          TABLE E-2D.  PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
                                         AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT, 1971
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, ftVday*
Chlorine added, mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen , mg/1
PH
Primary Treatment Removals.
Percent0
BODS
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BOD 5 , mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Changes. Percent
BOD; reduction
Suspended solids Increase
Volatile suspended solids
Increase
Ammonia nitrogen reduction
Month
Jan

1.6
0


140
80

65
<0.1
860
38
6.9


42
68


130
140

117
34


7
75

80
11
Feb

2.0
0


130
85

66
<0.1
840
51
7.4


41
57


79
120

92
41


39
41

39
20
Mar

1.6
2.5


160
84

69
<0.1
850
48
7.3


33
62


120
130

106
42


25
55

54
12
Apr May

1.9 1.9
2.5 2.5


120 120
74 98

53 71
<0.1 <0.1
760 790
42 39
7.4 7.3


50 48
69 59


110 110
96 120

89 94
33 31


8 8
30 22

.68 32
21 21
June

1.7
2.3


110
81

54
<0.1
740
34
7.3


42
69


74
110

89
27


33
36

65
21
July Aug

l.l 1.4
2.5 2.4


120 110
71 81

33 71
<0.1 <0.1
760 510
34 36
7.5 6.9


40 35
68 69


81 46
100 120

100 101
23 25


32 58
41 48

300 42
32 31
Sept

1.6
2.2


110
60

44
<0.1
740
34
6.9


39
68


82
120

80
22


25
100

82
35
Oct Nov

1.1 1.0
2.3 2.4


110 150
75 63

56 57
<0.1 <0.1
650 700
40 44
7.1 7.4


42 32
69 70


66 110
74 89

63 73
33 36


40 27
-1 41

13 28
17 18
Dec

1.2
4.1


150
94

88
<0.1
760
49
7.4


37
61


100
110

100
44


33
17

14
10
High

2.0
4.1


160
98

88
-
860
51
7.5


50
70


130
140

117
44


58
100

300
32
Low Average

1.0 1.5
0 2.6b


110 130
60 79

33 61
<0.1
510 740
34 41
6.9 7.2


32 38
57 66


46 93
74 110

63 92
22 33


7 28
-1 39

13 51
10 20
O
O
          8 ftVday x 0.028 - m3/d«y

          Based on ten months

          cAffected by waste mixed liquor recycled to headwords

-------
                TABLE E-2E.
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT, 1972
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, ft3/day*
Chlorine added, mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BODg , mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids ,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
PH
Primary Treatment Removals,
Percent D
BOD5
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5,mg/l
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids ,
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Changes. Percent
6005 reduction
Suspended solids Increase
Ammonia nitrogen reduction

Jan

1.1
4,9


170
130

100
<0.1
810
41
7.5


26
62


110
130

-
40


35
0
2

Feb Mar Apr

1.8 2.0 1.8
4.1 3.8 3.5


140 110 170
110 110 80

88 110 66
<0.1 0.4 0.1
800 780 710
44 - 42
7.4 7.3 7.6


42 54 43
58 62 65


110 100 130
140 120 160

_
40 - 38


21 9 24
27 9 100
9 - 10
Month
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1.4 1.1 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.6 2.7 1.1 1.8
3.6 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.4 4.2 3.4 5.4 3.4 4.3


100 130 90 100 120 140 120 140 170 90 130
100 140 130 120 120 100 100 80 130 80 110

81 110 36 88 62 80 78 65 110 36 81
<0.1 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.3 14.0 0.1 0.1 14.0 <0.1 1.8
690 760 820 800 730 610 720 850 850 610 760
40 24 20 30 35 40 38 44 44 20 36
7.2 8.6 8.3 7.9 7.8 7.3 7.5 7.3 8.6 7.2 7.6


44 54 59 58 48 30 40 33 59 26 43
52 42- 54 59 52 60 64 68 68 42 58


75 120 67 120 100 130 100 130 130 67 110
110 86 84 140 120 120 130 130 160 84 120

__ -- --
33 25 18 26 40 37 36 41 41 18 34


25 8 26 -20 17 7 17 7 35 -20 15
10 -39 -35 17 0 20 30 63 100 -39 9
17 -4 10 13 -14 7 5 7 17 -14 6
3 ft3/day x 0.028 - m3/day

Affected by waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

-------
                          TABLE E-2F. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
                                       AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT, 1973
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, fts/daya
Chlorine added, mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BODj, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Sattlaabla solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
PH
Primary Treatment Removals.
Percent0
BOD;
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BODj, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids ,
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Changes. Percent
BODs reduction
Suspended solids Increase
Ammonia nitrogen reduction
Month
Jan
3.1
2.9


120
100

88
0.1
920
-
7.5


43
52


86
99

-
-


28
-1

Feb Mar
3.2 3.5
2.7 2.6


140 120
88 81

32 70
<0.1 0.1
890 960
48
7.4 7.5


36 50
62 65


98 89
120 96

-
46


30 26
36 19
4
Apr
0.9
5.2


140
92

53
0.1
940
68
7.4


42
67


93
98

-
60


34
7
12
May
4.0
5.0


130
72

64
<0,1
820
64
7.3


41
70


130
100

-
54


0
39
'16
June July
2.7 9.0
4.2 4.1


130 130
80 95

66 77
<0.1 <0.1
790 800
74
7.3 7.3


38 38
70 59


98 91
100 120

-
60


25 30
25 26
19
Aug
8.5
4.1


110
73

37
0.1
790
29
7.3


50
72


81
90

-
21


Jib
23
28
Sept
4.0
4.1


110
80

39
<0. 1
740
27
7,4


42
70


94
110

-
22


15
38
19
Oct Nov Dec
4.9 3.8 2.7
4.1 3.7 3.5


130 120 130
53 74 69

41 63 46
0.2 0.2 <0.1
730 780 760
54
7,4 7.3 7.3


38 45 43
71 70 70


120 100 93
84 91 79

-
57


8 17 28
58 23 14
-6 - -
High
9.0
5.2


140
100

88
0.2
960
74
7.5


50
72


130
120

-
60


34
58
28
Low
0.9
2.6


110
53

32
<0. 1
730
27
7.3


36
52


86
79

_
21


0
-1
-6
Average
4.2
3.8


120
80

56
<0 . 1
830
52
7.3


45
67


98
100

_
46


18
25
12
tss
O
NJ
          8ft3/day x 0.28 - mVday

          Affected by waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

-------
                           TABLE E-2G.  PRELIMINARY TREATMENT, PRIMARY TREATMENT,
                                          AND TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT, 1974
Parameter
Preliminary Treatment
Grit removed, ft3/daya
Chlorine added, mg/1
Primary Treatment Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Total solids, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen , mg/1
pH
Primary Treatment Removals,
Percent0
BOD5
Suspended solids
Trickling Filter Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Trickling Filter Effluent
Changes , Percent
BOD5 reduction
Suspended solids increase
Ammonia nitrogen reducttor
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May fune July Aug

4.1 4.2 4.8 4.1 3.4 4.6 4.9 4.2
3.6 5.5 6.6 7.1 7.5 8.6 8.4 7.0


150 160 160 130 100 140 140 120
100 50 77 85 72 79 74 87

87 55 64 62 53 57 64 73
0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1
830 860 850 830 820 750 710 750
-- -21--
7.4 7.5 7.4 7.3 7,4 7.2 7.3 7.3


32 30 36 35 58 36. 30 45
67 78 67 72 64 64 69 69


160 56V160 92 26c/59 43c/85 42c/97 41c/69 23C/61
150 170 84 91 120 75 85 56

-- -- - -
19


-7 65C/0 43 60c/55 57C/15 70C/31 71C/51 81c/49
50 240 97 67-5 15 -36
-- - 10 - -
Sept

5.0
6.7


120
76

60
0.1
660
45
7.1


40
65


42C/70
68

-
35


65c/42
-11
22
Oct

3.8
6.5


120
79

76
<0.1
650
42
7.2


37
64


43c/62
100

-
39


64c/48
27
7
Nov Dec

3.8 5.0
6.5 6.5


120
86

66
0.2
590
57
7.1


29
69


28c/52
72

-
52


77C/57
16
9
High

5.0
8.6


160
100

87
0.4
860
57
7.5


58
78


56C/160
170

-
52


81c/57
240
22
Low

3.4
3.6


100
50

53
<0.1
590
21
7.1


29
64


23c/52
56

-
19


57c/-7
-36
7
Average

5.3
6.7


130
79

65
0.2
760
41
7.3


38
68


38c/88
97

-
36


71c/32
23
12
to
o
CO
          aft3/day x 0.28
          Vday

'Affected by waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

'Based on one-hour settling

-------
                     TABLE E-3A.  ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY

                                  TREATMENT, 1968
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ftVday"
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
solids, mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume Index (SVI)
Waste mixed liquor flow,
1,000 gpdb
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated gludge
flow, percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids , ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/l
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludaa- Secondary
Clarification Removals.
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen

Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June


2.9 3.4 4.7 4.4 4.9 5.2
3.9 3.3 2.3 4.2 4.6 4.9

2,150 1.880 1,900 1,690 1,500 1,450
207 206 203 162 134 113
97 109 107 96 90 77

223 191 194 186 120 1S8

7,630 5,450 6,450 7,150 7,880 8,250


45 57 43 35 31 27
-V








>• SECONDARY EFFLUENT NOT MONITORED IN 1968








J
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec


5.3 6.7 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.3
4.6 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.0

1,560 1,620 1,760 1,610 1,880 1.580
118 109 121 101 122 109
75 68 70 62 65 69

155 187 278 100 237 228

8,586 8,880 9,180 7,680 7,570 6,800


28 28 31 35 37 31



















High Low Average


8.6 2.9 5.9
4.7 2.3 4.0

2,150 1,450 1,720
207 101 142
109 62 82

278 100 188

9,180 5,450 7,620


57 27 36



















to
o
        "million ftVday x 28,000 • mVday

        bgpd x 0.0038 - m3/day

-------
                      TABLE E-3B.  ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY

                                   TREATMENT, 1969
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ftVday3
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
solids, mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume index (SV1)
Waste mixed liquor flow.
1 , 000 gpdb
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge
flow , percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
BODs, ma/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludge-Secondary
Clarification Removals.
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May


6.1 7.7 7.7 8.0 8.0
3.2 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.4

1,730 1,700 1,690 1,700 1,760 1
109 71 92 102 141
65 42 55 60 80

223 206 190 122 147

7,190 6,830 6,460 6,220 6,570 6


28 24 27 29 33
-








> SECONDARY EFFLUENT NOT MONITORED








June


8.1
3.5

,790
157
87

146

,370


33




\




IN 1969








July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec


6.7 6.1 6.9 6.4 6.4 6.8
2.5 2.5 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.2

1,800 1,740 1,740 1,680 1,790 1,880
152 140 142 157 144 119
85 81 82 94 80 62

146 141 178 129 132 178

5,990 5,660 5,490 5,590 6,180 5,640


32 33 35 36 32 41


















High Low Average


8.1 6.1 7.1
4.4 2.2 3.1

1,880 1,680 1,750
157 71 127
94 42 73

223 122 162

7,190 5,490 6,180


41 24 32


















to
o
en
         "million ft /day x 28,000 • mVday


         bgpd x 0.0038 = mVday

-------
                   TABLE E-3C. ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY
                                TREATMENT, 1970
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ftvday*
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
lolldi, mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume Index (SVI)
Waste mixed liquor flow,
1,000 gpd°
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge
flow , percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
BODs, mgA
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludge-Secondary
Clarification Removals.
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Ian


7.7
3.2

2,060
146
73

200

5,920


44


19
17

14
0.1
2.3
6.8
1.9
0.54
24



83
83
96
Teb


7.5
3.1

2,210
110
50

80

6,850


45


29
44

38
0.1
2.4
7.0
1.1
0.037
21



79
51
97
Mar Apr


7.9 7.4
3.2 2.9

2,660 2,380
156 179
59 74

96 66

8,780 7,750


38 38


17 18
14 23

10 12
0.4 <0.1
3.3 3.1
7.5 7.3
1.1 0.77
0.052 0.033
22 21



87 86
83 79
97 98
May


7.1
3.0

2,550
242
95

138

8,000


36


18
16

11
:0.1
3.6
7.2
I.I
0.064
21



81
82
97
June


7.1
3.0

2,550
256
100

89

8,380


39


12
18

6
<0.1
4.2
7.6
0.95
0.046
22



83
76
98
July Aug


7.2 7.4
2.9 3.1

2,620 2,650
217 260
83 98

84 100

9,160 8,820


37 36


12 7.0
9 15

4 9
<0.1 <0.1
3,3 4.4
7.3 7.3
0.43 1.3
0.005 0.010
21 17



89 90
84 78
98 99
Sept Oct


6.2 5.8
3.1 3.0

2,450 1,800
274 187
113 104

130 128

8,130 6,360


37 33


9.5 12
13 14

13 9
<0.1 <0.1
4.0 3.5
7.4 7.3
0.63 1.0
0.010 0.033
18 21



84 86
75 78
98 97
Nov


6.0
3.3

1,700
146
86

129

6,540


32


6.6
21

18
<0.1
3.0
7.5
0.76
0.057
20



94
78
98
Dec


6.3
3.2

1,870
147
79

175

7,670


30


10
20

16
<0.1
2.8
7.3
0.31
0.081
19



88
78
99
High


7.9
3.3

2,660
274
113

200

9,160


45


29
44

38
0.4
4.4
7.6
1.9
0.540
24



94
84
99
Low Average


5.8 7.0
2.9 3.1

1,700 2,290
110 193
50 85

66 118

5,920 7,700


30 37


6.6 14
3 19

4 13
«0.1 <0.1
2.3 3.3
6.8 7.3
0,31 0.95
0.005 0.081
17 21



79 86
51 77
96 97
to
o
CD
         "million ft3/day x 28,000 - m3/day

         bgpd x 0.0038 - mVday

-------
                       TABLE E-3D.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY

TREATMENT, 1971
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ftVday*
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
solids, mgA
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume Index (SVI)
Waste mixed liquor flow,
1,000 gpdb
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge
flow , percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludge" Secondary
Clarification Removals .
Percent
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen

Jan


6.4
3.1

1,800
185
99

217

7,470


30


8.9
20

15
<0.1
2.3
7.1
0.86
0.065
18



93
86
97

Feb


6.4
3.1

1,760
114
66

197

8,160


30


12
17

11
<0.1
2.3
7.5
1.1
0.32
18



85
86
97

Mar Apr


S.9 8.0
3.4 2.5

1,700 1,750
142 144
79 82

211 226

6,870 6,850


30 30


17 8.7
24 15

16 10
<0.1 <0.1
2.6 2.8
7.5 7.5
6.7 0.94
0.78 0.018
19 19



86 92
82 84
84 97

May


6.3
3.5

1,740
159
91

179

6,650


30


12
19

10
<0.1
3.7
7.4
0.76
0.046
20



89
84
98
Month
June


6.8
3.0

2,110
168
79

160

8,240


33


6.6
24

15
<0.1
3.5
7.6
0.48
0.017
18



91
78
98

July Aug


6.9 7.2
2.9 2.5

2,190 2,160
172 172
78 79

112 101

8,280 8,000


38 37


9.1 5.2
19 31

7 20
0.4 1.1
3.6 3.7
7.8 7.8
0.88 0.88
0.040 0.12
18 19



89 87
81 74
96 96

Sept Oct


7.3 7.3
2.5 2.7

2,120 2,160
156 140
74 64

103 83

8,280 8,380


38 37


5.4 11
19 18

9 14
0.6 0.2
3.3 2.9
7.3 7.3
1.75 1.03
0.17 0.030
18 18



93 83
84 76
92 97

Nov


7.1
3.1

2,280
133
58

141

8,270


37


11
31

20
1.3
3.1
7.7
0.46
0.10
19



90
65
99

Dec


6.5 8.0
3.0 3.5

2,320 2,320
121 185
52 99

176 226

8,800 8,800


38 38


13 17
27 31

24 24
<0.1 1.3
2.9 3.2
7.4 7.8
4.3 6.7
0.13 0.78
17 20



87 93
75 86
90 99
Low


5.9
2.5

1,700
121
52

83

6,650


30


5.2
15

7
<0.1
2.3
7.1
0.46
0.017
17



85
65
84
Average


6.8
2.9

2,010
151
75

159

7,890


34


10
22

14
<0.4
3.1
7.5
1.7
0.077
18



89
80
95
to
o
         "million ftVday x 28,000 = m3/day


         bgpd x 0.0038 = m3/day

-------
                     TABLE E-3E.  ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY
                                  TREATMENT, 1972
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ft /day8
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
lollds, mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume Index (SVI)
Waste mixed liquor flow.
1,000 gpdb
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge
flow , percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
8005, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
pH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludge-Secondary
Clarification Removals,
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Jan


6.7
2.3

2,240
193
83

172

8,540


37


17
39

21
0.2
2.0
7.3
1.2
0.23
19



as
70
97
Feb


7.8
2.S

2,460
232
94

196

8,500


39


15
50

29
0.5
2,3
7.2
1.1
0.17
21



86
64
97
Mar


7.5
2.4

2,340
156
66

107

8,010


38


14
77

57
0.2
2.5
7.4
-
-
-



87
36

Apr May


7.5 7.6
1.9 0.9

2,550 2,490
172 169
67 68

160 131

8,560 8,530


39 37


12 24
34 44

33 27
0.5 0.1
2.4 2.3
7.8 7.3
0.81 1.1
0.09 0.02
16 20



91 68
79 60
98 97
June


7.6
0.5

2,390
153
64

117

8,080


37


14
39

17
0.6
2.2
8.4
1.1
0.10
17



88
55
96
July Aug


7.6 7.6
0.6 0.4

2,500 2,550
197 211
79 83

122 171

8,120 8,780


36


3.6 7.1
30 20

26 9
1.9 0.9
2,9 2.7
8.1 8.0
0.77 1.1
0.03 0.09
15 17



95 94
64 86
96 96
Sept Oct


7.8 8.0
0.3 0.3

2,690 2,890
254 282
94 98

156 152

9.160 8,150


36 40


19 19
40 32

21 28
1.9 0.1
2.7 2.3
7.9 7.6
1.5 1.2
0.13 0.01
14 20



81 85
67 73
96 97
Nov


8.8
0.3

2,840
224
79

170

8,450


43


12
33

27
<0.1
2.4
7.4
0.48
0.01
20



88
75
99
Dec


8.9
0.2

3,010
238
99

176

9,390


42


22
38

28
0.1
2.5
7.3
1.1
0.22
18



83
71
97
High


8.9
2.5

3,010
282
98

196

9,390


43


24
77

57
1.9
2.9
8.4
1.2
0.23
21



95
86
99
Low Average


6.7 7.8
0.2 1.1

2,240 2,580
153 207
64 80

107 153

8,010 8,520


36 39


3.6 15
20 40

9 27
<0.1 0.6
2.0 2.4
7.2 7.6
0.77 1.0
0.01 0.10
14 18



68 86
36 67
96 97
CO
o
CD
         "million ftVday x 28,000 - m3/day

         bgpd x 0.0038 - mVday

-------
                     TABLE E-3F.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY
TREATMENT, 1973
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ftvday"
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
solids , mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume Index (SVI)
Waste mixed liquor flow,
1,000 gpdb
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge
flow , percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
BODg , mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludge-Secondary
Clarification Removals ,
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Jan


8.8
0.2

2,770
196
71

190

8,710


38


17
35

32
1.8
2.8
7.5
-
-
-



80
65

Feb


8.8
0.2

2,430
158
66

169

7,780


35


15
31

14
0.1
2.3
7.2
-
-
-



85
74

Mar


8.8
0.2

2,540
126
50

144

8,340


37


15
29

20
0.2
2.0
7.2
0.49
-
16



83
70
99
Apr May


8.7 8.7
0.4 0.9

2,260 2,360
105 133
46 57

128 125

7,580 8,060


36 37


22 15
29 27

18 23
0.1 <0.1
2.5 2.5
7.3 7.4
1.6 1.2
0.31 0.06
20 18



76 88
70 73
97 98
June


8.8
0.8

2,280
158
69

142

7,650


40


8,6
25

20
<0.1
3.0
7.3
1.1
0.04
18



91
75
98
July Aug


8.6 8.9
0.9 0.7

2,190 2,240
166 176
76 78

98 170

7,250 7,440


39 38


19 7.8
20 34

19 7
<0.1 0.2
2.6 2.7
7.2 7.2
1.1
0.05
14



79 90
83 62
95
Sept Oct


8.8 8.8
0.5 1.0

2,060 2,290
144 147
70 65

168 196

7,760 7,730


39 36


14 13
35 13

18 12
<0.1 0.2
2.3 2.9
7.3 7.3
1.8 3.8
0.06 0.40
14 12



85 89
68 85
92 93
Nov Dec


8.9 8.6
0.5 0.6

2,460 2,450
154 136
63 56

172 147

8,540 8,480


-


19 24
21 42

15 20
<0.1 <0.1
2.0 2.2
7.2 7.0
1.1
<0.01
13



81 74
77 47

High


8.9
1.0

2,770
196
78

196

8,710


40


24
42

32
1 .8
3.0
7.5
3.8
0.40
20



91
85
99
Low


8.6
0.2

2,060
105
46

98

7,250


35


7.8
13

7
<0.1
2.0
7.0
0.49
<0.01
12



74
47
92
Average


8.8
0.5

2,360
150
64

154

7,940


38


16
28

18
0.3
2.5
7.3
1.5
0.13
16



84
72
97
O
(£>
          amilllon ft3/day x 28,000 = mVday

          bgpd x 0.0038 - mVday

-------
                      TABLE E-3G.  ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANK AND SECONDARY

                                   TREATMENT, 1974
Parameter
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tank
Air used, million ft /day
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Mixed liquor suspended
solids , mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Sludge volume index (SVI)
Waste mixed liquor flow,
l,000gpdb
Settled activated sludge
suspended solids, mg/1
Return activated sludge
flow, percent of
Influent flow
Secondary Effluent
Characteristics
BODj, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1
Activated Sludge-Secondary
Clarification Removals .
Percent
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Ian


8.6
1.3

2,330
121
52

152

8,300


33


23
51

32
0.3
2.0
7.1
-
-
-



86
66

Feb


5.9
0.6

2,510
158
52

129

8,470


38


40
14

10
0.4
1.6
7.3
-
-
-



75
92

Mar Apr


8.8 8.9
1.6 1.5

2,450 2,260
176 129
72 57

144 170

7,530 7,520


45 39


21 24
21 31

18 18
<0.1 0.2
3.6 2.3
7.1 7.0
-
-
-



77 59
75 66

May


8.4
1.1

1,970
138
70

173

7,250


35


25
29

23
<0.1
3.1
7.2
-
_
-



71
76

June


8.2
0.6

2,030
132
65

173

7,550


40


16
25

17
<0.1
3.0
6.9
<0.1
1.0
17



84
67
99
July Aug


8.3 8.3
0.8 0.6

2,060 1,870
137 124
66 69

173 173

7,670 7,350


34 33


13 9.1
16 10

12 8
0.1 0.3
2.3 2.7
7.2 7.2
-
-
-



81 85
81 82

Sept Oct


8.8 8.7
0.4 0.8

1,820 1,970
117 143
65 73

173 173

7,160 6,280


32 41


12 11
13 27

9 27
0.1 0.1
2.1 2.0
7.0 7.0
2.5 2.5
0.12 0.03
16 20



83 82
81 73
93 94
Nov Dec


8.7 8.2
0.9 1.2

2,000 2,090
138 195
70 93

173 173

6,260 5,100


40 59


14
21

13
0.2
1.7 2.0
6.9
1.6
0.148
20



73
71
97
High


8.9
1.6

2,510
195
93

173

8,470


59


40
51

32
0.4
3.6
7.3
2.5
1.0
20



86
92
99
Low


5.9
0.4

1,820
117
52

129

5,100


32


9.1
10

8
<0.1
1.6
6.9
<0.1
0.03
16



59
66
93
Average


8.3
1.0

2,110
142
68

164

7,200


39


19
24

17
0.2
2.4
7.1
1.7
0.32
18



78
75
95
CO
I—I
o
         "million ftVday x 28,000 - mVday

         bgpd x 0.0038 - mVday

-------
                          TABLE E-4A.  DISINFECTION,  FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
                                          AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE, 1968
Parameter
Disinfection
Chlorine dose, mg/1
Contact time. mln.
Chlorine residual, mg/1
pH, contact tank effluent
Median conform organism
concentration, MPN/lOOml
rinaLEf fluent Characteristics
BODS, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
pH
Grease, ma/1
MBAS, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
Temperature, C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/la
Organic nitrogen, mg/la
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Dissolved residue (by
calculation), mg/la
Alkalinity, mg/la
Hardness, mg/la
Boron, mg/la
Percent sodium3
Overall Plant Removals .
Percent
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen

Tan

_
96
7.0
-

4.8

17
7.0

6.0
<0.1
1.1
7.9
8.0
0.50
-
-
16
0.06
7.1
0.8
1,110

640

610

1,550
390

1,030
170
320
1.0
60


90
96
-
Month
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

31 29 36 18 17 17 16 19 18 20 20 36 16 20
117 - 116 93 92. 89, 89, 88 95 122a 92 122 88 99
8.7 7.1 6.6 7.1 >8.7° >6.0d >6.3d >6.3d >5.4d >8.7d >8.8d 8.8d 6.00 77. 2<>
- - .- _- - - -- - -
c
2.1 4.8 <2.1 4.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 c2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 4.8 <2.1 2.1

15 10 9.0 18 15 16 0.9 0.1 3.1 8.1 3.1 18 0.1 9.6
8.6 10 13 12 8.0 5.8 9.5 7.0 11 14 8.0 14 5.8 9.5

8.2 4.0 8.0 11 7.0 3.8 7.1 5.3 10.3 9.3 7.8 10.8 4.0 7.3
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1
1.1 2.3 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.2 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.9 4.7 1.1 2.9
7.6 7.8 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.8 7.6 6.6 6.8 7.9 6.6 7.5
7.4 3.3 3.4 4.4 2.5 1.0 1.8 6.0 2.8 3.1 4.1 8.0 1.0 4.0
0.41 0.53 0.44 0.40 0/40 0.44 0.45 0.36 0.26 0.21 0.30 0.53 0.21 0.39
-- -- -- -- -- --
__ __ -- -- -- - -
7.5 <0.01 28 1.0 <0.01 0.48 0.54 0.33 0.12 - 0.23 28 <0.01 4.9
0.09 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 - 0.01 0.09 <0.01 0.02
7.6 15 8.0 14 IS 16 14 21 26 - 11 26 7.1 14
2.S 2.9 3.5 0.7 1.2 - - 2.1 1.7 - 0.63 3.5 0.63 1.8
1,140 1,300 1,470 1,270 1,120 1,090 1,080 1,020 850 800 760 1,470 760 1,090

1,140 1,290 1,460 1,260 1,110 1,090 1,050 1,010 840 790 760 1,460 760 1.050

930 1,010 1,140 1,020 860 870 880 610 600 560 550 1,140 550 800

1,630 1,660 2,180 1,920 1,700 1,720 1,720 1,220 1,160 1,000 1,150 2,180 1,000 1,550
330 450 440 470 360 350 360 350 240 230 250 470 230 350

1.150 1,200 - 1,080 1,050 1,020 300 - - - - 1,200 300 980
110 110 140 100 120 120 96 69 78 - - 170 69 110
280 350 320 300 270 250 240 240 220 - - 350 220 280
1.6 1.3 2.2 2.1 2.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.4 - - 2.5 1.0 1.6
62 63 60 64 64 64 63 65 64 - 65 54 52


91 95 95 90 92 92 >99 >99 98 95 98 >99 90 95
95 97 95 95 97 98 97 96 93 92 95 98 92 95
-- -- -- -- -- - _
to
            Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco
            Based on primary effluent characteristics
           cMedlan
            Value affected by maximum meter reading of 10 mg/1

-------
                           TABLE E-4B.  DISINFECTION, FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
                                           AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE,  1969
Parameter
Disinfection
Chlorine dose, mg/1
Contact time, mln.
Chlorine residual, mg/1
pH, contact tank effluent
Median conform organism
concentration, MPN/lOOm!
Final Effluent Characteristics
BOD;, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
pH
Grease, mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
Turbidity, ITU
Temperature, C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/la
Organic nitrogen, mg/18
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids.
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
ratcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Dissolved residue (by
calculation), mg/la
Alkalinity, mg/18
Hardness, mg/1*
Boron, mg/la
Percent sodium8
Overall Plant Removals .
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nltrogenb
Month
Jan

19
87
>7.9
-

<2.1

14
19

14
<0.1
2.5
7.3
5.5
0.25
-
-
4.1
0.13
12
2.9
800

780

530

1,010
230

740
83
230
1.6
57


91
90
~
Feb

16
56
>5.8
-

2.1

7.0
17

10
<0.1
2.8
7.4
3.5
0.09
-
-
0.78
0.01
19
2.6
790

770

480

960
180

700
82
200
1.5
58


96
94
~
Mar

20
67
>8.1
-

<2.1

5.5
12

7
<0.1
3.0
7.4
2.0
0.27
-
-
0.11
0.01
26
0.85
950

940

650

1,140
240

880
98
250
1.8
58


97
93
~
Apr May

20 25
62 61
>6.3 >10.0
-

2.1 <2.1

6.1 3.1
13 6

9 6
<0.1 <0.1
2.0 2 2
7.1 7.1
6.4 1.9
0.15 0.16
-
-
0.03 0.12
0.002 0.001
25 24
2.7 0.09
860 780

840 780

610 460

1,220 1,160
260 220

830 760
82 94
250 140
2.1 1.6
59 59


97 98
93 96
~
June

21
59
>9.5
-

4.8

5,0
6

2
<0.1
2.6
7.2
0.4
0.10
-
-
<0.02
0.01
28
0.02
750

710

502

980
210

750
62
190
1.4
69


97
95
"
July Aug

-
58 56
>8.1 >10.0
-

2.1 4.8

7.1 5.1
4 5

2 3
<0.1 <0.1
2.6 2.9
7.6 7.4
1.9 4.0
0.08 0.07
-
-
0.08 <0.02
<0.01 <0.01
19 19
0,02 0.02
760 740

760 730

540 540

1,020 1,000
200 160

740 700
88 110
210 210
1.4 1.3
60


97 98
97 98
-
Sept Oct

19
60 67
>10.0 >8.9
-

2.1 2.1

8.0 8.1
5 9

5 9
<0.1 <0.1
2.3 2.6
7.1 6.9
1.7 0.8
0.12 0.13
-
-
0.06 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
21 24
0.02 1.4
740 740

730 720

460 410

1,000 1,000
150 200

700 680
95 58
210 180
1.5 1.3
58 63


95 95
97 97
-
Nov

-
72
>9.6
-

3.4

4.8
21

14
<0.1
4.7
7.3
1.1
0.24
-
-
0.47
<0.01
27
1.7
760

740

470

900
150

750
78
200
1.5
58


98
89

Dec

19
68
>7.4
-

12

6.1
25

18
<0.1
4.8
7.3
2.0
0.10
-
-
0.33
0.02
25
3.8
790

770

480

920
160

760
87
200
1.3
65


97
86

High

25
87
>10.0
-

12

14
25

18
-
4.8
7.6
6.4
0.27
-
-
4.1
0.13
28
3.8
950

940

650

1,220
260

880
no
250
2.1
69


98
98

Low Average

18 20
56 64
>5.8 >8.5
-

<2 . 1 2 . f

3.1 6.6
4 12

2 8
<0.1
2.0 2.9
6.9 7.3
0.4 2.6
0.07 0.15
-
.
<0.01 0.51
<0.01 <0.02
12 22
0.02 1.3
740 800

710 770

410 510

900 1,030
150 200

680 /so
58 85
180 210
1.3 1.5
57 60


91 96
86 93

to
I—"
DO
            Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco
            Based on primary effluent characteristics
           cMedtan
            Values affected by maximum meter reading of 10 mg/1

-------
                          TABLE E-4C.
DISINFECTION, FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE, 1970

Jan
Disinfection
Chlorine dose , mg/1 25
Contact time, mln. 68
Chlorine residual, mg/1" >8.0
pH, contact tank effluent
Median collform organism
concentration, MPN/1 00ml 2 . 1
Final Effluent Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1 4.9
Suspended solids, mg/1 9
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1 8
Settleable solids, ml/1 <0.1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1 4.6
pH 6.6
Grease, mg/1 5.8
MBAS, mg/1 0.06
Turbidity, JTO
Temperature, C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/la <0.02
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la 0.02
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/la 20
Organic nitrogen , mg/l° 1 . 1
Total solids, mg/1 770
Total dissolved solids.
mg/1 760
Fixed dissolved solids.
mg/1 370
Specific conductivity.
mlcromhos 900
Chlorides, mg/1 170
Dissolved residue (by
calculation), mg/la 680
Alkalinity, mg/la 47
Hardness, mg/la 180
Boron , mg/la 1 . 4
Percent sodluma 62
Overall Plant Removals.
Percent
BOD5 98
Suspended solids 97
Ammonia nitrogen > 99

Feb

28
77
>5.0
-

4.8

10
35

29
<0.1
4.7
7.3
4.0
0.11
-
-
<0.02
0.01
26
2.8
940

880

530

1,060
200

820
54
200
1.6
61


96
88
>99

Mar

28
78
>7.4
-

2.1

4.0
11

5
<0.1
5.7
7.2
1.9
0.07
-
-
0.44
<0.01
26
1.7
780

780

540

940
180

710
51
200
1.6
61


98
95
99

Apr May

24 24
69 72
>10.0 >10.0
-

2.1 3.4

7.0 13
11 7

6 5
<0.1 <0.1
5.1 5.9
7.0 6,8
1.3 1.4
0.08 0.17
-
-
<0.02 <0.02
<0.01 <0.01
19 23
0.02 0.8
790 740

780 740

550 510

1,060 1,030
190 180

730 690
100 72
240 190
1.4 1.3
54 62


97 95
95 97
>99 >99
Month
June

28
63
>10.0
-

4.8

7.6
8

3
<0.1
5.7
7.4
0.2'
0.03
-
-
0.2
<0.01
21
0.7
720

710

470

980
160

660
76
190
1.2
59


97
96
>99

July Aug

21 18
73 69
>10.0 >9.5
-

<2.1 2.1

12 5.7
4 9

2 7
<0.1 <0.1
4.5 5.7
7.5 7.0
3.2 2.9
0.09 0.06
-
-
<0.1 <0.1
0.02 0.18
18 18
0.8 1.4
750 720

750 720

560 510

1,090 1,010
180 170

660 660
91 89
210 180
0.9 1.4
56 61


95 98
98 96
>99 >99

Sept Oct

24 27
72 76
>7.8 >7.9
-

4.8 2.1

7.6 10
10 6

10 4
<0.1 <0.1
5.3 5.1
7.0 6.9
2.7 1.0
0.04 0.04
-
-
<0.1 <0.1
nil nil
20 24
0.1 1.6
700 730

700 720

400 480

960 920
180 160

640 630
75 60
190 180
1.4 0.8
59 56


96 96
95 97
>99 >99

Nov

25
73
>9.9
-

2.1

5.1
13

11
<0.1
4.9
7.1
1.8
0.04
-
-
nil
nil
24
0.7
760

740

480

810
150

_
84
210
0.1
55


98
95
>99

Dec

25
70
>9.7
-

2.1

10
17

13
<0.1
5.0
6.7
3.3
0.04
-
-
nil
nil
22
0.7
890

sea

520

1,060
180

710
89
230
1.3
54


96
92
>99
High

28
78
>10.0
-

4.B

13
35

29
-
5.9
7.5
5.8
0.17
-
-
0.44
0.18
26
2.8
940

880

560

1,090
200

820
100
240
1.6
62


98
98
>99
Low

18
63
>5.0
-

<2.1

4.0
4

2
-
4.5
6.6
0.2
0.03
-
-
<0.1
<0.01
18
0.02
700

700

370

810
150

630
47
180
0.1
54


95
88
99
Average

25
72
>8.8
-

2.1°

8.1
12

9
<0.1
5.2
7.0
2.5
0.07
-
.
<0.11
<0.03
22
1.0
780

760

490

980
170

690
74
200
1.2
58


97
95
>99
CO
          Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco

          Based on primary effluent characteristics

          Median

          Affected by maximum meter reading of 10 mg/1

-------
               TABLE E-4D.
DISINFECTION, FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE,  1971
Parameter
Disinfection
Chlorine dose, ma/1
Contact time, mln.
Chlorine residual, rag/1
pH , contact tank effluent
Median col If or m organism
concentration, MPN/lOOml
Final Effluent Characteristics
BOD5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids,
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Grease, mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
Temperature, C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/la
Organic nitrogen, mg/la
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity,
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Dissolved residue (by
calculation), mg/la
Alkalinity, mg/la
Hardness, mg/la
Boron, mg/la
Percent sodium9
Overall Plant Removals.
Percent
BOD 5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Jan

36
'••
9.5
-

-

9.3
19

6
<0.1
3.9
6.3
1.8
0.0$
-
-
<0.1
<0.01
23
2.0
890

870

610

1,110
200

720
72
220
1.4
55


96
92
>99
Feb

36
81
16
-

2.1

6.0
13

3
<0.1
3.6
7.0
2.5
0.04
-
-
<0.1
<0.01
14
3.1
860

850

570

1,050
190

730
65
220
2.1
58


97
93
>99
Mar

29
67
7.8
-

2.1

5.2
16

6
<0.1
4.2
6.8
2.3
0.04
-
-
1.3
<0.01
20
1.9
840

820

590

1,100
180

720
89
240
1.5
52


98
93
97
Apr May

25 30
64 67
8.7 16
-

2.1 2.1

3.1 8.5
8 12

3 5
<0.1 <0.1
3.9 5.1
6.8 6.6
2.3 1.8
0.05 0.05
-
-
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
19 30
2.0 0.1
780 780

770 780

520 540

980 940
160 161)

660 700
71 60
200 200
1.1
60 58


99 96
97 95
>99 >99
June

31
76
15
-

2.1

6.8
12

5
<0.1
5.0
6.9
3.3
0.05
-
-
<0.1
<0.01
22
7.8
920

910

700

1,030
150

670
84
200
1.2
58


96
95
>99
July Aug

34 32
74 76
20 18
-

<2.1 <2.1

7.3 8.1
9 17

6 5
<0.1 <0.1
5.0 4.8
6.9 6.6
1.8 2.2
0.03 0.03
-
-
<0.1 <0.1
<0.1 1.5
17 18
1.0 1.3
740 680

730 660

540 440

1,000 910
160 160

640 620
75 82
200 180
1.3 0.5
56 55


96 95
96 93
>99 >99
Sept Oct

26 29
77 82
13 14
-

2.1 2.1

6.1 7.8
11 15

5 2
<0.1 <0.1
4.6 4.1
6.7 6.5
2.2 2.3
0.04 0.03
-
-
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
24 21
0.4 1.7
720 660

710 650

540 440

1,020 770
130 120

620 570
69 31
170 150
0.8 0.5
59


97 96
94 94
>99 >99
Nov

36
80
13
-

2.1

12
12

3
<0.1
4.2
7.1
1.8
0.05
-
-
<0.1
<0.01
25
4.0
730

720

440

910
130

620
41
170
0.5
60


95
94
>99
Dec

36
78
16
-

2.1

7.0
17

2
<0.1
4.5
6.5
4.6
0.04
-
-
0.4
<0.01
25
1.3
760

740

480

940
150

650
52
190
0.9
57


97
93
>99
High Low

36 25
82 64
20 7.8
-

2.1 <2.1

12 3.1
19 8

6 2
-
5.1 3.6
7.1 6.3
4.6 1.5
0.05 0.03
-
-
1.3 <0.1
1.5 <0.01
30 14
7.8 0.1
920 660

910 650

700 440

1,110 770
200 120

730 570
89 31
240 150
2.1 0.5
60 52


99 95
97 92
>99 97
Average

32
75
14
-

2.1C

7.3
13

4
<0.1
4.4
6.7
2.3
0.04
-
-
<0.2
<0.14
22
2.2
780

770

530

980
160

660
68
200
1.1
57


97
94
>99
Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco
Based on primary effluent characteristics
Median

-------
                           TABLE E-4E
DISINFECTION, FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE,  1972
Parameter
Disinfection
Chlorine dose, mg/1
Contact time, mln.
Chlorine residual, mg/1
pH , contact tank effluent
Median collform organism
concentration, MPN/lOOm
Final Effluent Characteristics
BODj, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
pH
Grease, mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
Temperature, °C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/la
Organic nitrogen, mg/la
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids,
mg/1
Specific conductivity.
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Dissolved residue (by
calculation) , mg/la
Alkalinity, mg/la
Hardness, mg/1
Boron, mg/la
Percent sodium9
Overall Plant Removals,
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Jan

31
59
18
6.3

2.1

7.8
33

21
<0.l
4.0
6.5
7.8
0.05
_
_
0.9
0.02
25
3.7
800

770

470

910
140

640
27
180
1.1
58


97
90
98
Feb

32
66
20
6.3

3.4

9.6
23

18
<0.1
4.9
6.6
4.6
0.06
_
_
0.2
<0.01
22
3.6
800

780

440

920
160

640
46
190
1 .4
57


96
91
>99
Mar Apr

31 31
56 56
16 15
6.3 6.4

3.4 2.1

5.9 11
42 13

35 13
<0.1 <0.1
4.9 5.1
6.9 6.9
6.4 2.7
0.07 0.07
_
_
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
24 26
4.8 2.4
810 770

770 750

520 490

950 970
150 150

670 630
63 50
200 190
0.8 0.7
60 55


98 96
86 94
>99
May

32
53
16
6.5

'2.1

13
39

12
<0.1
4.9
6.7
7.9
0.30
_
_
<0.1
<0.01
22
1.7
680

650

350

920
130

_
44
180
1.0



93
81
>33
June

2fc
51
14
6.5

<2.1

11
16

11
<0.1
4.4X
7.0
5,5
0.07
_
_
.
_
_
_
720

700

480

910
140

_
_
_
_
-


96
93
-
July Aug

25 22
51 49
17 15
6.5 6.3

2.1 2.1

3.3 5.4
9 11

3 8
<0.1 <0.1
5.0 5.1
7.3 7.2
7.8 1.1
0.06 0.06
_
_
<0.1 0.5
<0.01 <0.01
20 21
1.7 1.7
810 760

830 740

570 550

850 880
150 200

660
80 77
200 190
1.1 1.4
58 62


98 98
97 96
99 98
Sept Oct

23 33
50 50
11 15
6.3 6.2

2.1 4.8

8.5 6.1
14 11

10 9
<0.1 <0.1
5.5 4.9
7.0 6.7
1.6 1.2
0.05 0.05
_
-
0.41 0
<0.01 <0.01
20 15
1.6 1.6
710 650

690 640

520 340

980 970
160 150

600 560
60 34
170 160
0.8 0.7
58 57


96 97
94 96
99 >99
Nov

29
58
J6
6.2

2.1

7.7
19

15
<0.1
5.0
6.9
2.9
0.04
_
_
0.43
<0.01
25
2.7
720

700

500

900
170

_
47
200
0.8
54


96
93
99
Dec

34
54
18
6.5

2.1

8.1
33

13
<0.1
4.9
6.7
12.0
0.05
_
_
0.44
<0.01
28
4.0
870

840

540

1,040
200

720
48
230
0,9
54


96
87
99
High

34
66
20
6.5

4.8

13
42

35
-
5.5
7.3
12.0
0.30
_
_
0.9
0.02
28
4.8
870

840

570

1 ,040
200

720
80
230
1.4
62


98
97
>99
Low Average

22 29
49 54
11 16
6.2 6.4

<2.1 2.1C

3.3 8.1
9 22

3 14
<0.1
4.0 4.9
6.5 6.9
1.1 5.1
0.04 0.08
_
_
<0.1 0.3
0.01 0.01
15 22
1.6 2.7
650 760

640 740

340 480

850 940
130 160

560 640
27 52
160 190
0.7 1.0
54 57


93 96
81 92
98 99
01
           Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco
           Based on primary effluent characteristics
          GMedian

-------
                         TABLE E-4F.
DISINFECTION, FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE, 1973
Parameter
Disinfection
Chlorine dose, mg/1
Contact time, mln.
Chlorine residual, mg/1
pH, contact tank effluent
Median conform organism
concentration, MPN/lOOml
Final Effluent Characteristics
BOD 5, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile suspended solids.
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Grease, mg/1
MB AS, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
Temperature, °C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrate nitrogen, rag/la
Organic nitrogen , mg/1
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids,
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids.
mg/1
Specific conductivity,
micromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Dissolved residue (by
calculation), mg/la
Alkalinity, mg/la
Hardness, mg/la
Boron, mg/la
Percent sodium3
Overall Plant Removals,
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Ian

27
51
15
6.6

2.1

7.2
34

28
<0.1
4.9
7.4
3.7
0.05
7.0
16
0.34
0.003
29
2.7
960

930

560

1,220
220

840
66
250
1.0
59


97
84
"
Fob

26
51
14
6.5

2.1

9.5
38

23
<0.1
4.2
6.8
1.1
0.04
12
17
0.32
0.002
24
5.2
950

920

520

1,200
250

820
51
230
1.1
60


96
83

Mar Apr

29 S2
51 60
19 18
6.S 6.5

<2.1 2.1

11 12
38 32

21 18
<0.1 <0.1
4.1 4.6
6.8 6.9
2.5 2.8
0.05 0.05
11 14
18 20
0.40 0.41
0.002 0.002
23 25
4.6 6.6
980 960

940 940

670 680

1,250 1,320
250 250

890 870
51 65
230 240
1.5 1.4
65 62


95 95
83 89
99 99
May

50
61
14
6.7

<2.1

9.0
10

8
<0.1
5.0
6.9
1.6
0.03
9.3
23
0.39
0.003
23
2.1
870

860

600

1,290'
210

760
61
230
1.0
57


96
96
99
June

37
59
17
6.5

2.1

8.5
17

13
<0.1
5.0
7.0
3.0
0.04
4.4
25
1.4
0.002
22
4.3
810

790

540

1,100
180

690
67
200
1.0
58


96
94
98
July Aug

30 31
63
12 13
6.8 6.8

2.1 6.7

11 5.3
16 37

12 8
<0.1 <0.1
4.6 5.3
6.7 7.1
3.5 3.8
0.30 0.04
6.2 5.7
25 25
6.4 0.73
0.009 0.003
17 22
2.4 1.0
870 840

860 800

590 510

1,080 1,130
170 210

720 740
80 68
180 190
1.1 1.0
64 66


95 98
93 86
97
Sept Oct

38 38
62 66
17 19
6.5 6.5

<2.1 2.1

7.5 12
26 33

22 15
<0.1 <0.1
5.1 5.3
7.0 7.2
6.7 7.2
0.03 0.03
5.6 6.5
24 22
0.51 1.9
0.002 0.003
23 23
1.1 0.1
760 750

740 720

480 350

960 1,020
180 170

660 650
50 61
180 190
0.8 0.5
61 58


96 94
90 82
98 96
Nov

35
63
20
6.5

2.1

9.6
16

13
cO.l
4.5
6.7
11
0.03
6.4
20
0.34
0.001
24
0.2
850

830

450

990
190

700
56
270
1.1
57


96
94
~
Dec

36
74
22
6.4

2.1

11
36

29
<0.1
4.7
6.5
14
0.07
11
17
1.8
0.002
23
0.7
770

730

540

1,120
180

690
17
170
1.0
65


95
84
-
High

52
74
22
6.7

6.7

11
37

29
_
5.3
7.4
14
0.30
14
25
6.4
0.009
29
6.6
980

940

680

1,320
250

890
80
250
1.5
66


98
96
99
Low Average

26 36
51 60
12 17
6.4 6.6

<2.1 2.1C

5.3 9.4
10 28

8 18
<0.1
4.1 4.8
6.5 6.9
1.6 5.2
0.03 0.06
4.4 8.3
16 21
0.32 1.2
0.001 0.002
17 23
0,1 2.6
750 860

720 840

350 540

960 1,230
170 210

650 750
17 58
170 210
0.5 I.I
57 61


94 96
82 88
96 98
to
           Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco

           Based on primary effluent characteristics

          cMedlan

-------
                             TABLE E-4G.
DISINFECTION,  FINAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS,
AND OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE, 1971
NJ
Parameter
Disinfection
Chlorine dose, mg/1
Contact time, ratn.
Chlorine residual, mg/1
pH , contact tank effluent
Median coLtform organism
concentration. MPN/lOOml
Final Effluent Characteristics
BODj, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Volatile, suspended solids
mg/1
Settleable solids, ml/1
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Grease, mg/1
MBAS, mg/1
Turbidity, JTO
Temperature, °C
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrite nitrogen, mg/la
Nitrate nitrogen, rog/la
Organic nitrogen, mg/la
Total solids, mg/1
Total dissolved solids.
mg/1
Fixed dissolved solids.
mg/1
Specific conductivity,
mlcromhos
Chlorides, mg/1
Dissolved residue (by
calculation) , mg/la
Alkalinity, mg/la
Hardness, mg/la
Boron, mg/la
Percent sodium3
Overall Plant Removals ,
Percent
BOD5
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Month
Jan

35
65
19
6.8

<2.1

20
38

34
<0.1
4.5
6.8
11
0.05
14
16
0.25
0.004
30
0.93
850

810

600

1,100
200

770
20
190
0.88
62


91
87

Feb

32
72
19
7.3

2.1

18
23

14
<0.1
4.8
7.3
13
0.04
15
16
5.2
0.011
21
2.9
870

860

600

1,090
210

770
62
200
1.1
60


92
90

Mar

34
73
20
6.6

2.1

13
23

18
<0.1
5.6
6.6
11
0.06
16
18
0.11
0.004
26
2.0
920

900

630

1,100
210

770
15
210
1.1
61


95
90

Apr May

39 42
69 60
17 17
6.4 6.5

2.1 <2.1

9.8 11
23 16

17 19
<0.1 <0.1
4.5 5.4
6.4 6.5
5.5 9.8
0.03 0.03
18 11
19 21
0.45 0.17
0.003 0.002
27 25
2.4 2.3
830 830

800 800

590 540

1,230 1,170
210 200

770 730
16 31
200 190
1.1 0.95
60 61


95 95
92 92
"
June

53
56
19
6.4

<2.1

14
15

11
<0.1
5.2
V.4
5.5
0.27
11
23
0.17
0.002 <
24
0.33
830

810

550

1 ,000
190

670
18
180
0.96
61


94
93
99
July Aug

52 33
56 57
16 16
6.5 6.7

<2.1 <2.1

9.4 5.1
16 11

12 11
<0.1 <0.1
4.8 5.3
6.5 6.7
4.2 3.8
0.30 0.35
8.8 5.6
25 25
1.7 <0.05
0.001 0.009
22 22
1.7 0.22
710 720

700 710

510 480

1,020 980
170 160

680 660
42 26
160 180
0.91 0.8
60 60


95 98
93 96
"
Sept Oct

34 34
58 60
14 18
6.4 7.0

<2.1 <2.1

11 7.8
10 10

5 20
<0.1 <0.1
4.8 4.8
6.4 7.0
3.3 4.4
0.28 0.23
5.7 5.1
25 23
0.73 0.90
0.001 0.002
23 26
0.05 0.60
700 730

690 720

500 450

960 1,030
170 160

620 620
38 29
170 180
0.6 0.9
59 56


95 96
95 95
98 98
Nov Dec

32 51
58
14 21
6.6

<2.1

5.9
15

10
<0.1 <0.1
4.7 4.9
6.6
6.7
0.25
9.0
21
0.39 0.28
0.009 0.005
26 27
2.3 1.9
840

820

540

9jO
160

_
62 29
230 220
0.9 0.8
53 56


97
95
99
High

53
73
21
7.3

2.1

20
38

34
-
5.6
7.3
13
0.35
16
25
5.2
0.011
30
2.9
920

900

630

1,230
210

770
62
230
1 .1
62


98
96
99
Low

32
56
14
6.4

<2.1

5.1
10

5
-
4.5
6.4
3.3
0.03
5,2
16
0.05
0.001
20
0.05
700

690

450

960
160

620
15
160
0.6
53


91
87
98
Average

39
62
18
6.7

<2.1C

11
18

16
<0.1
5.0
6.7
7.1
0,17
11
21
0.73
0.004
25
1.5
800

780

540

1,060
190

710
32
190
0.9
59


95
93
98
             Analyses performed by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., San Francisco

             Based on primary effluent characteristics
             Median

-------
                                     TABLE E-5A.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT, 1968
Parameter
Sludae Flow, and*
To dlgesteri0
To lagoons
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids, percent of
total
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids reduction.
percent
No. 1
No. 2
Digester temperature, F
No. 1
No. 2
Digester gas produced,
l,OOOItVdayc'd
No. 1
No. 2
Digested Sludge
Characteristics
Volatile acids, mg/1
No. 1
No, 2
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
PH
No. 1
No. 2

Jan

22,000
20,300


3.2

1.6
2.0


81

74
74


33
33

70
77

11.1
2.6



470
420

1,740
2,970

6.6
6.8
Month
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

17,200 16,800 17,400 17,100 16,400 14,900 15,100 18,500 17,100 16,000 16,800 22,000 14,900 17,100
17,600 18,000 20,000 24.400 23,000 18,500 14,200 18,300 15,900 13,300 17,100 24,400 13,300 18,400


3.7 4.1 3.7 3,8 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.6 4.3 4.1 4,2 4.3 3.2 3.8

1.4 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.6 1.0 l.B
1.9 2.7 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.7 3.7 1.9 2.3


80 78 80 80 82 80 83 80 82 73 79 83 73 80

67 68 66 66 64 67 68 64 64 63 68 74 63 67
69 67 65 67 69 63 70 68 68 64 70 74 63 68


49 40 51 51 59 49 56 54 61 37 44 61 33 49
44 43 54 49 51 57 52 47 53 34 38 57 33 46

81 88 93 93 97 97 96 96 95 95 88 97 70 91
80 85 89 90 91 97 97 93 95 92 87 97 77 89

22.9 25.2 25.4 26.1 26.3 23.8 22.9 19.8 18.1 17.4 20.9 26.3 11.1 21.7
9.1 10.2 8.6 9.S 8.1 7.0 6.0 3.2 2.3 7.6 8.9 10.2 2.3 6.9



260 340 150 130 ISO 420 180 140 280 140 560 560 130 270
320 270 200 180 400 240 250 200 1,280 510 350 1,280 180 390

1,910 2.020 1,840 1,880 1,880 1,680 1,550 1,480 1,840 1,900 1,850 2,020 1,480 1,800
2,430 2,660 2,620 2,740 2,480 2,710 2.400 2,380 2,320 2,900 2,850 2,900 2,070 2^550

6.8 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.0 6.6 6.8
6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.4 7.0 6.8 7.0 6.4 6.8
N)
t—'
00
            8gpd x 0.0038 - roVday
             From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks
            cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1,000 m3
             Digester gas contained an average of 36 percent CO2 In 1968.

-------
                                   TABLE E-5B.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT,  1969
Parameter
Sludge Flow, apd"
To digesters'1
To lagoons
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Raw0
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids, percent of
total
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids reduction.
percent
No. 1
No. 2
Digester temperature , F
No. 1
No. 2
Digester gas produced,
1,000 ftVdayc
No, 1
No. 2
Digested Sludge
Characteristics
Volatile acids, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
PH
No. 1
No. 2
Month
Ian

19,000
18,000


4.5

3.7
3.1


71

56
67


47
17

84
81


ie.i
8.0



ZOO
550

1,920
2,740

6.9
6.9
Feb

20,700
19,900


4.8

1.8
2.9


73

SB
57


49
51

80
81


16.8
10.3



380
310

1,810
2,740

6.7
6.9
Mar

18,200
18,100


4.6

4.1
2.9


83

61
60


68
71

83
84


10.6
16.3



220
260

2,060
3,040

6.7
7.1
Apr May

16,800 17,100
16,600 17,900


4.1 3.4

1.5 2.7
1.6 1.7


84 85

64 72
64 72


66 65
66 55

87 94
91 93


16,4 15.1
10.9 9.8



230 280
200 200

2,600 3,030
2,750 3,000

7.0 7.1
7.0 7.1
Tune

18,900
15,500


3.5

2.1
2.5


83

72
69


47
54

97
94


17.5
10.3



230
380

2,730
2,760

7.1
7.0
July Aug

16,700 15,900
16,200 16,600


3.2 3.0

1.7 2.1
2.0 1.9


84 80

70 61
71 63


56 61
53 57

98 91
92 93


-
9.6 11.4



200 220
240 240

2,600 2,420
2,470 2,360

7.1 7.0
7.0 7.0
Sept Oct

17,700 17,700
16,100 18,300


3.1 3.8

2.1 2.4
1.5 2.0


86 85

72 73
73 75


58 52
56 47

87 92
97 94


-
11.4 9.6



250 440
210 650

2,560 2,830
2,620 2,470

6.8 6.9
6.9 6.8
Nov Dec

17,700 19,600
17,100 20,100


3.6 3.9

1.6 1.7
1.6 1.4


85 86

70 72
71 71


59 58
57 60

97 92
96 90


-
15.4 13.3



280 240
310 280

3,000 2,840
2,590 2,400

7.1 6.9
7.0 6.9
High

20,700
20,100


4.8

4.1
3.1


86

73
75


68
71

98
97


18.1
16.3



440
650

3,030
3,040

7.1
7.1
Low

15,900
15,500


3.0

1.5
1.4


71

56
57


47
17

80
81


10.6
8.0



200
200

1,810
2,360

6.7
6.8
Average

18,000
17,500


3.8

2.2
2.1


82

67
68


56
54

90
91


15.3
11.4



260
320

2,540
2,660

6.9
7.0
NO
I—•
CO
           From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

          cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 = 1,000 m3

-------
                                      TABLE E-5C.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND  TREATMENT, 1970
Parameter
Sludae Flow, and8
To digesters'5
To lagoons
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Raw*>
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids, percent of
total
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids reduction.
percent
No. 1
No. 2
Digester temperature, F
No. 1
No. 2
Digester gas produced,
1 , 000 ft3/day°
No. 1
No. 2
Digested Sludge
Characteristics
Volatile acids , mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
PH
No. 1
No. 2
Month
Ian

19,500
19,500


3.4

2.0
1.6


83

75
72


39
47

84
84


-
9.7



320
690

2,550
2,240

7.0
6.8
Feb

19,300
18,800


2.8

1.5
0.9


88

69
69


70
70

85
85


10.9
13.7



240
220

2.440
1,710

7.0
6.8
Mar

19,500
19,600


3.5

1.4
1.2


83

70
69


52
54

91
95


14.2
16.3



300
200

2,740
2,020

7.0
6.9
Apr May

19,700 18,400
19,200 18,500


3.4 3.6

1.6 1.6
1.5 1.7


85 84

69 70
72 68


61 56
55 60

90 89
88 94


6.6 20.3
12.3 11.1



1,750 510
1,030 1,270

3,440 2,900
2,740 3,380

6.7 7.0
6.7 7.1
Tune

18,300
18,000


3.5

1.5
1.7


84

69
70


58
56

94
94


18.5
-



190
640

2,610
2,470

7.0
7.0
July Aug

18,900 18,300
18,400 18,600


3.5 3.9

1.7 1.7
1.4 1.8


84 85

71 71
71 72


53 57
53 55

98 97
97 96


13.7 13.2
-



600 730
700 1,020

2,500 2,460
2,270 2,400

7.0 6.8
6.9 6.8
Sept Oct

18,100 18,700
18,200 18,200


3.4 3.8

1.6 1.8
1.6 1.7


83 84

73 73
74 73


45 49
42 49

96 92
96 92


12.6 15.3
-



820 360
560 370

2,500 2,360
2,350 2,540

6.9 7.0
7.0 7.0
Nov

18,600
18,700


3.4

1.6
1.6


82

71
71


46
46

91
94


16.2
-



280
360

2,450
2,420

6.8
6.8
Dec

18,800
18,300


4.1

2.2
1.8


83

71
66


50
57

82
83


14.1
-



370
510

2,610
2,480

6.9
6.8
High Low

19,700 18,100
19,600 18,000


4.1 2.8

2.2 1.4
1.8 0.9


88 82

75 69
74 68


70 39
70 42

98 82
97 83


20.3 6.6
16.3 9.7



1,750 190
1,270 200

3,440 2,360
3,380 1,710

7.0 6.7
7.1 6.7
Average

18,800
18,700


3.5

1.7
1.5


84

71
71


53
54

91
92


14.1
12.6



540
630

2,630
2,420

6.9
6.9
to
to
o
            agpd x 0.0038 = mVday

             From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

            Cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1.000 m3

-------
                                         TABLE E-5D.  SOLIDS  HANDLING AND TREATMENT,  1971

Parameter 	
Jan
Sludge Flow. apda
To digesters'3 20,700
To lagoons 19,600
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Rawb 3 . 8
Digested
No. 1 Z.O
No. 2 2.1
Volatile solids, percent of
total
Rawb 87
Digested
No. 1 73
No. 2 73
Volatile solids reduction,
percent
No. 1 60
No. 2 60
Digester temperature, F
No. 1 78
No. Z 85
Digester gas produced,
1,000 ft3/dayc
No. 1 14.4
No. 2
Digested Sludae
Characteristics
Volatile acids, mg/1
No. 1 380
No. 2 370
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1 2,510
No. 2 2,440
PH
No. 1 6.8
No. 2 6.8

Feb

20,700
20,600


3.1

1.4
1.3


84

73
71


49
53

84
95


12.4
-



280
300

2,380
2,420

6.9
6.9

Mar

21 ,000
20,500


2.8

1.4
1.4


83

73
73


45
45

92
95


13.5
-



240
240

2,500
2,440

7.0
7.0

Apr May

20,700 20,700
20,800 20,300


3.6 3.2

1.5 '1.7
1.7 1.6


82 83

69 72
70 72


51 47
50 47

97 95
98 98


14.9 15.4
19.5 20.0



280 210
260 290

2,460 2,650
2,420 2,340

6.9 6.9
6.9 6.8
Month
June

21,600 21
21,600 21


3.5

1.4
1.5


85

70
71^


59
57

95
98


14.4
19.5



250
260

2,010 2
2,180 2

6.8
6.8

July Aug

,300 20,500
,000 20,200


3.4 3.6

1.6 1.8
1.7 1.5


84 83

68 71
70 70


60 50
56 52

99 98
99 100


15.0 18.5
18.0 16.3



310 1,260
250 800

,020 2,390
,300 2,350

6.9 6.5
6.9 6.6

Sept Oct

18,900 18,700
18,700 18,700


3.8 3.3

1.6 1.4
2.0 1.4


85 84

69 70
69 70


61 56
61 56

98 96
99 98


13.1 7.9
18,7 17.5



350 600
610 340

2,620 2,020
2,650 2,280

6.8 6.5
6.8 6.6

Nov

20,700
20,500


3.8

1.7
1.7


85

73
74


52
50

91
92


11.9
16,2



510
570

2,330
2,370

6.4
6.4

Dec

21,200
20,800


3.7

1.7
1.6


84

70
70


56
56

84
93


10.6
20.3



360
340

2,140
2,160

6.6
6.7
High

21,600
21,600


3.8

2.0
2.1


87

73
74


61
61

99
100


15.4
20.3



1,260
800

2,650
2,650

7.0
7.0
Low

18,700
18,700


2.8

1.4
1.3


82

68
69


45
45

78
85


7.9
16.2



210
240

2,010
2,160

6.4
6.4
Average

20,600
20,300


3.5

1.6
1.6


84

71
71


54
54

92
96


12.7
18.4



420
390

2,340
2,360

6.8
6.8
N>
to
             agpd x 0.0038 = m3/day

              From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

             Cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1,000 m3

-------
                                   TABLE E-5E.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT,  1972
Parameter
Sludoe Flow, and8
To digesters0
To lagoons
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids, percent of
total
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solid j reduction.
percent
No. 1
No. 2
Digester temperature, F
No. 1
No. 2
Digester gas produced,
l,OOOftVdayc
No. 1
No. 2
Digested Sludae
Characteristics
Volatile acids, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
PH
No. 1
No. 2

fan Feb

22,200 22.700
21,000 21.500


4.3

1.4
1.5


85

71
71


57
57

80 82
91 93


13.7 15.7
20.3 20.4



280 300
220 360

2,080 2,020
2,320 2,200

6.8 6.5
6.9 6.7
Month
Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

21,600 21,600 22,700 20,900 20,900 19,300 21,400 27,600 23,300 24,000 27,600 19,300 22.300
21,500 21,200 21,600 21,100 20,400 19,300 21,600 27,400 22,900 23,700 27,400 19,300 21,900


4.0 3.6 4.0 - 4.5 - 3.5 3.1 3.4 3.0 4.5 3,0 3,7

1.9 1.9 2.8 - 1.5 - 1.6 2.2 2.7 1.7 2.8 1.4 2.0
1.7 1.5 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.3 2.0 2.8 - 2.8 1.3 1.7


78 81 86 - 83 83 87 83 84 87 78 83

68 69 72 - 67 73 68 71 74 74 67 70
70 68 71 - 70 - 72 72 72 - 72 68 71


40 48 58 - 58 45 68 50 46 68 40 52
34 50 60 - 52 - 47 62 47 - 62 34 51

90 92 94 99 97 95 98 95 93 81 99 80 91
95 95 96 98 96 94 96 93 95 81 98 81 94


16,5 10,9 17.5 14,8 16.2 15.4 14.7 7.5 15.1 12.0 17.5 7.5 14 2
18.1 18.1 15.6 12.5 19.2 18.2 17.0 11.2 20.3 3.4 20.4 3.4 16J4



260 850 500 710 200 - 540 2,430 960 310 2,430 200 670
250 240 530 1,620 280 - 490 2,490 1,520 1,000 2,490 220 820

2,220 1,830 2,480 1,800 2,260 - 2,260 3,760 3,180 2,170 3,760 1,880 2,370
2,150 2,010 1,880 2,210 2,210 - 2,080 3,470 2,950 2,140 3,470 1,880 2,330

6.9 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.8 - 6.8 6.6 7.0 6.9 7.0 6.4 6.7
6.8 6.7 6.4 6.3 6.7 - 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.3 6.7
to
to
to
           agpd x 0.0038 - m3/day
            From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

           cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1,000 m3

-------
                                         TABLE E-5F.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT,  1973
Parameter
Sludge Flow. gpda
To digesters^
To lagoons
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids , percent of
total
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids reduction,
percent
No. 1
No. 2
Digester temperature, F
No. 1
No. 2
Digester gas produced,
1,000 ftVdayc
No. 1
No. 2
Digested Sludge
Characteristics
Volatile acids , mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
PH
No. 1
No. 2
Month
Ian

24,100
23,600


3.7

2.2
2.2


81

67
67


46
46

79
86


12.5
39.7



400
810

2,270
2,320

6.9
7.0
Feb

23,100
22,500


3.0

1.5
1.0


86

66
59


68
77

79
89


13.2
40.3



510
240

1,760
2,170

6.7
6.9
Mar Apr

23,700 22,500
23,800 22,500


2.9 3.1

1.5 1.4
1.3 1.2


83 83

69 68
67 68


54 56
58 56

83 86
92 94


13.3 7.7
41.0 23.0



370 230
180 180

2,120 2,130
2,260 2,120

6.9 6.9
7.0 6.9
May June

23,200 22,900
22,900 23,100


3.1 3.2

1.5 1.5
1 .2 1.7


81 81

67 68V
69 67


46 50
48 46

89 93
98 100


10.1 10.3
18.6 32.2



420 280
320 230

2,060 2,240
2,280 2,300

6.8 6.9
6.9 7.0
July Aug

21,000 22,800
20,700 23,000


2.7 4.1

1.3 1.5
0.8 1.2


84 83

69 69
70 69


58 54
56 54

95 91
100 95


10.6 10.2
34.8 33.5



280 280
200 310

2,400 2,240
2,180 1,980

7.0 6.8
7.0 6,8
Sept Oct

21,100 22,600
20,500 22,600


3.3 3.8

1.5 1.9
1 .2 1.8


83 84

70 71
70 69


52 53
52 58

94 92
99 99


9.8 7.8
34.6 33.5



260 240
300 250

2,410 2,490
2,340 2,470

6.9 6.9
6.8 6.9
Nov

23,300
23,300


3.5

2.3
1 .7


83

71
73


50
45

87
93


4.4
31.5



570
390

2,200
2,330

6.9
6.9
Dec

22,900
22,900


3.4

2.1
1.9


86

72
72


58
58

87
91


3.3
29.2



440
320

2,580
2,740

7.0
7.1
High

24,100
23,800


4.1

2.3
2.2


86

76
73


68
77

95
100


13.3
41.0



570
810

2,580
2,740

7.0
7.1
Low

21,000
20.500


2.7

1.3
0.8


81

66
59


46
45

79
86


3.3
18.6



230
180

1,760
1,900

6.7
6.8
Average

22,800
22,600


3.3

1.7
1.4


83

69
68


54
55

88
95


9.4
32.7



360
310

2,240
2,290

6.9
6.9
to
CO
            agpd x 0.0038 • mVday

             From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks

            Cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 = 1,000 m3

-------
                                   TABLE E-5G.  SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT,  1974
Parameter
Studae Flow, crpd*
To digesters'1
To lagoons
Digester Performance
Total solids, percent
Raw6
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids , percent of
total
Rawb
Digested
No. 1
No. 2
Volatile solids reduction,
percent
No. 1
No. 2
Digester temperature, F
No. 1
No. 2
Digester gas produced,
1,000 ftVdayC
No. 1
No. 2
Digested Sludge
Characteristics
Volatile acids, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
Alkalinity, mg/1
No. 1
No. 2
PH
No. 1
No, 2
Month
[an
23,300
21,200


3.1

1.5
1.5


86

70
73


62
56

90
85


2.1
28.9



490
850

2,500
2,630

6.9
6.7
Fob
22,600
22,500


3.2

1.4
1.1


86

72
67


56
67

87
85


0
25.5



580
500

2,320
2,440

6.9
7.0
Mar Apr
20,300 21,700
20,200 21,900


3.1 3.0

1.3
1.0


84

70
69


56
58

87 95
88 94


5.2 12.3
19.9 19.2



360 240
330 270

2,280 2,140
2,170 2,110

6.8 6.8
6.8 6.6
May
22,800
22,800


2.9

1.2
1.2


85

72
71


55
57

96
101


11.0
17.4



260
220

2,730
2,950

6.9
6.9
June July
21,200 21,000
20,800 21,500


3.1 3.1

2.0
4.0


82

68
75


53
34

99 99
102 107


15.5 19.2
10.1 10.3



400 260
2,160 2,940

4,020 3,810
5,260 4,340

6.9 6.9
6.0 5.4
Aug
21,400
21,500


3.9

2.1
4.8


84

72
75


51
43

100
103


18.3
10.6



280
3,180

3,440
3,250

6.9
5.4
Sept Oct
20,200 21,800
20,000 22,300


3.3 3.5

1.6
2.0


83

73
70


45
52

102 106
103 107


14.7 11.9
13.9 17.6



620 1,160
1,810 810

2,460 2,700
3,410 2,980

6.8 6.7
7.1 6.9
Nov Dec
21,400 19,600
20,300 19,400


3.4 3.4

1.8
3.1


83

72
72


47
47

104 92
96 90


13.4 10.0
13.5 14.1



580
1,930

2,500
2,490

6.9
6.3
High
23,300
22,800


3.9

2.1
4.8


86

73
75


62
67

106
107


19.2
28.9



1,160
3,180

4,020
5,260

6.9
7.1
Low
19,600
19,400


2.9

1.2
1.0


82

68
67


45
34

87
85


0
10.1



240
220

2,140
2,110

6.7
5.4
Average
21,400
21,200


3.3

1.6
2.3


84

71
72


53
52

96
97


11.1
16.8



480
1,360

2,810
3,090

6.9
6.5
to
to
           agpd x 0.0038 = m3/day


            From primary sedimentation tanks; Includes waste mixed liquor recycled to headworks


           Cl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1,000 m3

-------
                                    TABLE E-6A.  POWER, CHEMICALS.  AND LABOR,  1968
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 lba
Electric power , 1,000 fcwh
Natural gas, 1,000 ft3
Labor. Marihpurs
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Total
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

16.5 17.4 17.8 21.5 13.6 15.3
140 134 169 163 179 183
229 72.0 141 148 42.8 139

646 608 607 548 648 639
259 246 222 255 188 149
293 136 165 172 168 174
176 262 224 199 211 252
136 160 155 172 168 157
1,510 1,412 1,373 1,346 1,383 1,371
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

16.5 16.2 20.5 19.7 22.9 20.1
177 215 247 258 249 250
104 84.5 114 91.8 98.1 104

350 - 648 660 654
320 - 188 91 170
197 - 194 295 248
286 - 294 220 210
187 - 185 127 90
1,340 - 1,509 1,393 1,372
High Low Total

22.9 13.6 218
258 134 2,360
229 72.0 1,370

660 350 7,210=
320 91 2,506C
295 136 2,450C
294 176 2,801C
187 90 J,844C
1,510 1,340 16,811C
to
N5
cn
            1,000 Ib x 0.45 - 1,000 kg

           bl ,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1,000 m3

            Adjusted for a 12-month period

-------
                               TABLE E-6B.  POWER, CHEMICALS, AND LABOR, 1969
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 lba
Electric power, 1 ,000 kwh
Natural gas, 1,000 ft»b
Labor, Manhours
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair '
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Part-time, unclassified
Total
Month
Ian Feb Mar Apr May Jure

20.1 21.7 24.2 20.9 16.4 20.3
208 215 230 230 243 230
120 49. J 37.4 29.5 28.4 162

691 S88 651 630 651 592
208 213 174 200 264 103
242 136 120 231 368 236
28S 318 281 277 249 228
98 120 147 185 164 136
- 264
1,525 1,375 1,373 1,523 1,696 1,559
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

18.2 18.4 20.8 20.6 18.2 22.6
219 215 208 210 192 224
77.3 70.8 103 148* 39.1 87.7

651 651 667 651 645 737
250 118 40 277 192 121
195 212 266 259 219 371
251 305 236 269 232 282
16 168 158 188 124 81
538 380 -
1,901 1,834 1,367 1,644 1,412 1,592
High Low Total

24.2 16.4 222
243 192 2,620
162 28.4 952

737 588 7,805
277 40 2,160
368 120 2,855
318 232 3,214
188 16 1,585
538 264 1,182
1,834 1,367 18,801
to
NJ
cn
           1,000 Ibx 0.45 - 1,000 kg

          bl ,000 ft3 x 0.0283 • 1,000 m3

-------
                                TABLE E-6C.  POWER, CHEMICALS, AND LABOR,  1970
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 Ib"
Electric power, 1,000 kwh
Natural gas, 1,000 ft3 b
Labor. Manhours
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Total
Month
Jan Teb Mar Apr May June fuly Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

27.0 23,3 26.2 23.2 23.7 24,1 23.9 20.1 24.7 28.9 25.3 24.9
242 220 249 233 232 228 238 240 209 208 204 270
59.1 35.0 45.9 87.2 81.5 16.1 17.0 33.8 20.0 90.0 7.3 7.9

713 648 707 692 699 730 735 739 730 749 728 735
138 170 224 242 191 344 622 426 193 54 139 180
267 344 236 208 319 331 315 229 177 198 101 75
343 260 299 282 284 284 270 229 262 270 231 258
94 101 164 173 150 176 213 322 168 174 72 109
1,555 1,523 1,630 1,597 1,643 1,865 2,155 1,945 1,530 1,445 1,271 1,357
High Low Total

28.9 20,1 295
270 204 2,770
90.0 7.3 501

749 648 8,605
622 54 2,923
344 75 2,800
343 229 3,272
322 72 1,916
2,155 1,271 19,516
to
to
          1,000 Ibx 0.45 • 1,000 kg

         bl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 * 1,000 m3

-------
                                    TABLE E-6D.  POWER, CHEMICALS, AND  LABOR, 1971
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 lba
Electric power, 1 ,000 kwh
Natural aas, 1,000 ft3 b
Labor. Manhours
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Total
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Tune luly Aug

35.1 32.2 22.3 25.6 32.5 33.4 36.0 34.5
211 193 199 214 209 212 227 230
8.1 7.3 8.4 6,6 3.9 3.4 3.7 12.6

736 677 783 720 744 720 744 744
257 214 - 182 202 229 290 138
290 172 - 283 195 196 244 186
250 234 - 252 Z41 246 263 217
121 147 132 165 152 120 192 162
1,654 1,444 - 1,602 1,534 1,511 1,733 1,447
Sept Oct Nov Dec

29.0 32.9 37.7 39.1
230 234 230 230
13.3 14.1 13.4 13.9

720 744 744 744
369 135 193 144
162 183 248 252
239 240 237 251
142 144 71 52
1,632 1,446 1.493 1,443
High Low Total

39.1 22.3 390
234 193 2,620
14.1 3.4 109

783 677 8,820
369 135 2,567C
290 162 2,630C
263 217 2,913C
192 52 1,600
1,733 1,439 18,530C
DO
to
00
           1 ,000 lb x 0.45 = 1 ,000 kg
           bl,000 ft3 x 0,0283 = 1,000 m3
           Adjusted for a 12-month period

-------
                                   TABLE E-6E.  POWER, CHEMICALS, AND LABOR,  1972
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 lba
Electric power, 1 ,000 kwh
Natural gas, 1 ,000 ft3b
Labor. Manhoyrs
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Total
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

36.7 35.8 39.2 38.6 42.4 34.5 35.0 33.7 33.1 40.2 43.0 47.0
225 243 250 241 252 247 251 248 250 263 282 293
14.0 12.9 14.5 13.2 14.7 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.5 104 14.6 14.5

744 672 844 720 744 720 744 794 730 744 790 816
189 240 164 160 168 336 504 312 195 97 242 141
176 194 244 344 201 244 205 272 154 176 222 263
188 239 288 274 250 202 152 140 156 247 176 258
59 152 178 162 167 195 188 154 158 157 152 40
1,356 1,497 1,718 1,660 1,530 1,697 1,793 1,672 1,393 1,421 1,582 1,518
High Low Total

47.0 33.1 469
293 225 3,040
104 12.5 254

844 672 9,062
504 97 2,748
344 176 2,695
288 140 2,570
195 40 1,762
1,793 1,356 18,837
to
CNO
CO
           1,000 Ibx 0.45 = 1,000 kg

           1 ,000 ft3 x 0.0283 = 1 ,000 m3

-------
                                TABLE E-6F.  POWER, CHEMICALS, AND LABOR, 1973
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 lba
Electric power, 1 ,000 Icwh
Natural 9a«, 1,000 ft3 b
Labor, M,anhours
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Total
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July

41,3 36.3 45.5 42.8 41.7 31.7 33,9
294 262 289 27B 281 272 289
14.3 68.6 14.0 12.7 13.4 13.3 13.5

819 732 840 706 824 710 814
199 156 240 168 140 387 504
262 170 210 246 258 247 263
259 228 247 209 269 243 247
89 63 128 160 157 216 144
1,628 1.349 1,665 1,489 1,648 1,803 1,972
Aug

34.2
291
13.3

809
315
266
232
264
1,886
Sept Oct Nov Dec

39.9 42.0 40.3 41.9
266 274 272 285
12.7 14.2 13.8 1S.O

690 728 664 314
151 276 299 162
292 260 248 241
242 259 243 217
82 65 113 63
1,457 1,588 1,567 1,497
High Low Total

45.5 31.7 472
294 262 3,350
68.6 12.7 219

840 664 9,150
504 140 2,997
292 170 2,963
269 209 2,895
264 63 1.544
1,972 1,349 19,549
ro
CO
o
          1,000 Ib x 0.45 - 1,000 kg

          bl,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1,000 m3

-------
                                   TABLE E-6G.  POWER, CHEMICALS, AND LABOR, 1974
Parameter
Power and Chemicals
Chlorine, 1,000 lba
Electric power, 1,000 kwh
Natural gas, 1,000 ft3 b
Labor, Manhours
Operation
Routine maintenance
Repair
Laboratory and monitoring
Yard
Total
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

40.0 34.1 42.4 49.0 50.7 54.1 51.6 43.8 45.8 48.7 43.7
272 195 280 266 262 252 267 268 274 277 267
15.1 13.8 15.1 14.3 14.2 15.1 15.1 14.9 14.4 14.9 14.4

729 648 731 714 738 701 822 720 744 743 698
179 206 208 268 275 399 505 453 266 390 329
288 252 361 313 312 316 306 341 310 334 272
271 208 266 255 246 219 263 271 230 287 238
96 80 80 173 176 160 160 187 160 160 64
1,563 1,394 1,646 1,723 1,747 1,795 2,057 1,972 1,740 1,914 1,601
High Low Total

54.1 34.1 549
280 195 3,141
15.1 13.8 176

822 648 8,714°
506 179 3,795°
361 252 3,714C
287 208 3,004°
187 80 1,632°
2,057 1,394 20,859°
ISJ
CO
           al,000 Ibx 0.45 = 1,000 kg

           bl ,000 ft3 x 0.0283 - 1 ,000 m3

            Adjusted for a 12-morrth period

-------
         TABLE E-7A.  FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS, 1968

Constituent

Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration, mg/1

Mar
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
<0.003
<0.001
<0.03
0.006
0.013

June Sept Dec
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
<0.005
0.017
<0.03
<0.001
<0.02

Avg.
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
<0.004
0.0014
<0.03
0.0035
0.016
6-mo composites used in 1968-71
         TABLE E-7B.  FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS,  1969

Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration, mg/1
Mar
0.001
0.1
0.004
0.030
0.012
0.03
0.008
0.01
June Sept Dec
0.001
0.3
0.003
0.010
0.004
0.04
0.003
0.05
Avg.
0.001
0.20
0.0015
0.015
0.008
0.035
0.0055
0.030
6-mo composites used in 1968-71
                              232

-------
         TABLE E-7C.  FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS, 1970

Constituent

Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration, mg/la

Mar
0.002
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.019
0.013
<0.001
<0.01

June Sept Dec
0.001
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.016
<0.01
0.001
<0.05

Avg.
0.0015
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.018
0.07
<0.001
<0.03
6-mo composites used in 1968-71
         TABLE E-7D. FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS,  1971

Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration, mg/la
Mar
0.0013
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.13
0.0015
0.01
June Sept Dec
0.001
<0.1
0.002
<0.01
0.017
0.01
0.003
<0.02
Avg.
0.0012
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
0.044
0.06
0.0023
0.01
'6-rno composites used in 1968-71
                              233

-------
        TABLE E-7E. FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS, 1972

Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration,
Mar
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
0.025
0.025
0.001
<0.02
June
0.003
<0.1
<0.1
<0.01
0.009
0.011
0.006
0.01
Sept
0.001
<0.1
0.005
0.005
0.030
0.097
0.002
<0.01
mg/la
Dec
0.003
<0.1
0.005
0.005
0.024
0.037
<0.001
<0.002

Avg.
0.002
<0.075
0.008
0.008
0.022
0.043
0.003
0.011
3-mo composites used in 1972-74
        TABLE E-7F. FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS, 1973

Constituent

Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration,


Mar
0.001
<0.1
0.001
0.001
0.038
0.030
0.014
0.005


June
0.002
<0.1
0.002
0.002
0.074
0.015
0.004
0.007


Sept
0.001
<0.1
0.002
0.001
0.050
0.030
< 0.001
0.005
mg/1


Dec
0.002
<0.1
0.001
0.004
0.055
0.014
0.004
0.002



Avg.
0.001
<0.1
0.001
0.002
0.054
0.022
0.005
0.004
3-mo composites used in 1972-74
                             234

-------
         TABLE E-7G. FINAL EFFLUENT HEAVY METALS, 1974

Constituent

Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Hexavalent Cr
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Concentration,


Mar
0.002
<0.1
0.002
0.004
0.097
0.012
0.003
0.007


June
0.002
<0.1
0.002
0.004
0.070
0.010
0.001
0.005


Sept
<0.001
<0.1
0.001
0.015
0.029
0.003
<0.001
0.004
mg/1


Dec
0.004
<0.1
<0.001
0.004
0.003
0.004
<0.001
0.004



Avg.
0.002
<0.1
0.001
0.006
0.049
0.007
0.001
0.005
3-mo composites used in 1972-74
                              235

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-116
                                                          3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

 THE COUPLED TRICKLING FILTER-ACTIVATED  SLUDGE PROCESS:
 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE
             5. REPORT DATE
               July 1978  (Issuing  Date)
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)  Richard J. Stenquist
           Denny S. Parker
           William E. Loftin
                                                          8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

 Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers
 1501 North Broadway
 Walnut Creek,  California  94596
             1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
               1BC611 SOS#3, Task D-l/24
             11. CONTRACTJQBSHMT NO.

               68-03-2175
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Protection Agency—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati,  Ohio  45268
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Final, 1968-1974
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

               EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer:   Richard C. Brenner   513/684-7657
16. ABSTRACT
     A case history report was prepared on the upgrading of the Livermore,  California,
Water  Reclamation Plant from a conventional trickling filter plant with tertiary
oxidation  ponds to a coupled trickling filter-activated sludge plant producing a nitri-
fied effluent low in 6005, suspended  solids, and coliform organisms.
     The report covers planning, design, construction, startup, and  operation and per-
formance of the upgraded Livermore plant.  Capital costs and operation and  maintenance
expenses are also given.  Data and information from Livermore were used in  conjunction
with data  from other coupled trickling filter-activated sludge plants to develop gen-
eral design considerations for carrying out similar upgradings elsewhere.
     Over  7 yr of records from Livermore show that the coupled trickling filter-acti-
vated  sludge process is extremely stable and reliable.  Effluent  BODs and suspended
solids concentrations of 10 to 20 mg/1 can be obtained, along with ammonia  nitrogen
concentrations less than 1 mg/1.  Monthly median total coliform concentrations of 2.1
MPN/100 ml were consistently achieved at Livermore using high chlorine dosages and a
chlorine contact tank with good hydraulic characteristics.
     The coupled trickling filter-activated sludge process is particularly  adaptable
to  existing conventional trickling filter plants where stringent, new discharge
requirements have been imposed and where existing structures and  equipment  are in good
condition  and can be used in an upgraded facility.
17.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
 Sewage treatment, *Activated sludge
 process,  *Trickling filtration,
 *Nitrification,  Chlorination,
 Upgrading
 *Two-stage biological
 treatment, Coupled trick-
 ling filter—activated
 sludge process
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                                             19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                              Unclassified
                           21. NO. OF PAGES
                                  250
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
                                                                        22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                           236
                       ftU.S. GOVERSMOr PKWTIire OFFICE: 1978— 757-140/1443

-------