TECHNICAL SUPPORT  DOCUMENT
                    FOR

PROPOSED REGULATIONS UNDER  SECTION 304(d)(4)

     OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT,  AS AMENDED
       Facility Requirements Division
               Office of Water
    U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
           Washington,  D.C.   20460
                August,  1934

-------
                                    ABSTRACT


    This document has been prepared to  provide  technical  support for the
^egulatory amendments to the secondary  treatment  regulation  to  imolement
Sections 301 and 304 of the Clean Water Act (the  Federal  Water  Pollution
Control Act of 1972, 33 USC 1251  et seq.,  as  amended  by  the  Clean Water Act of
1977, P.L. 95-217, and the MunicipaTTJastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981, P.L. 97-117,  referred  to  hereafter as CWA or the Act).
This document specifically addresses Section  304(d)(4) of the Act,  33 U.S.C.
1314(d)(4), which deemed certain biological treatment facilities as equivalent
to secondary treatment.

    The information presented supports  final  regulations that would establish
criteria for facilities eligible for treatment  equivalent to secondary
treatment, a minimum level of effluent  quality  attainable by such facilities,
and criteria for adjusting the permit effluent  limitations for  eligible
facilities.  This report presents and discusses data  gathering  efforts, review
of biological treatment technologies, classification  of  certain facilities
using such treatment processes, the performance capabilities of biological
treatment processes, and other considerations used  by the Agency in
development of regulatory options and effluent  requirements.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Summary and Conclusions 1
B. Final Regulatory Amendments 3
C. Impact of Regulation 4
II INTRODUCTION 5
A. Purpose and Legal Authority 5
B. Prior EPA Regulations 6
C. Scope of This Rulemaking 7
0. Summary of Data Collection and Sampling Efforts 7
III OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREAT €NT 20
A. Biological Treatment Systems for 20
Achieving Secondary Treatment 20
B. Design, Performance, and Reliability 23
C. Types of Biolo;ical Treatment Systems in Use 21
IV PERF0R AUCE CAPABILITIES OF BIOLOGICAL TREAT 1ENT SYSTE 1S 30
A. Characterization of Effluent Data 30
B. Analysis of Variance and Covariance in Data Base 32
C. Cescription of Performance Capabilities 34
V CLASSIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL TREAThENT FACILITIES 47
A. Summary 47
3. Definition of Process Type Criteria for 48
Facilities Eligible for Treatment Equivalent
to Secondary Treatment
VI 1INI iW1 LEVEL OF EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE 51
A. Summary 51
B. Description of Data 51
C. Analyses used in Determining Minimum Attainable 52
Levels of Effluent Quality
0. Discussion of Variability for 7—Day Averages 53
E. Percent Removal 54
VII GUIDANCE FOR I1 ’ LEMENTING ALTERNATIVE STATE REQUIREMENTS (ASRs) 56
A. Introduction 56
B. Methodologies Considered by EPA for 57
Developing ASRs
C. Criteria for Establishing ASRs 57
0. Issues for Consideration in Developing ASRs 58
ii

-------
Section Page
VIII GUIDANCE FOR IF PLEMENTING NPDES PERMIT ADJUSTMENTS 63
A. Introduction 63
B. Analyses for Existing Facilities 63
C. Analyses for New Facilities 65
IX REFERENCES 66
X ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 68
XI APPENDICES 69
A. Glossary
B. Legislative History
C. Summary Fact Sheets for Selected
Biological Treatment Systems
D. Summary of Compliance Frequency
by Treatment Process Type
E. Technical Data Summary Tables,
by Treatment Process Type
F. Technical Data Summaries for Processes and
Facilities in the Treatment Equivalent
to Secondary Treatment Category
111

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 1—1 Facilities Selected for the Secondary Treatment 13—14
Plant Performance Study
11—2 Elimination of Outliers from Data Base: 15
Summary by Process Category
11—3 Distribution of Selected Facilities by State 16
11—4 Distt ibution of Selected Facilities by Design Flow 17
11—5 Distribution of Selected Facilities 18
by Hydraulic Loading Rate
11—6 Distribution of Selected Facilities 19
by Organic (BaD) Loading Rate
11—7 Distribution of Selected Facilities 21
by Solids (TSS) Loading Rate
111—1 Estimated Distribution of Publicly Owned Treatment 2
Works As of October 1975
111-2 Estimated ‘iumber of Secondary Treatment Facilities
Constructed Under P.L. 92—500
111—3 Estimated Number of Trickling Filters 26
and Pond—Type Facilities Mow in Use
111-4 Year 2000 Estimate of Distribution of Treatment 27
Processes, by Design Capacity and EPA Region
IV-l Comparison of Standard Errors of 30—day 36
Calendar and Moving Averages
IV-2 Percentage of Facilities Meeting a Given BOO Effluent 37
Concentration for a Given Percent of Time:
Trickling Filter-Rock Media, 30-day Calendar Averages
IV—3 Percentage of Facilities Meeting a Given BOO Effluent 38
Concentration for a Given Percent of Time:
Trickling Filter — Rock Media, 30—Day Moving Averages
iv

-------
IV-4 Summary of Results - Secondary Treatment Plants 39
P 1-5 Runs Test Results for Trickling Filter-Rock t 1edia Facilities 40
IV-6 Serial Correlation Coefficients for Select 41
Trickling Filter-Rock Media Facilities
IV—7 Plant Size vs. Effluent Quality: Pearson Correlation 42
Coefficients for Mean Annual Flow vs. Mean Annual
3005 and ISS Effluent
VI-l Efficiencies of Sewage Treatment Methods 55
VII—l Suspended Solids Limitations for Wastewater Treatment Ponds 61-62
V

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
flumber Page
IV—l Standard Deviations of Daily Effluent BOO Versus Standard 43
Error of 30—day Means for Trickling Filter Plants
IV-2 Standard Deviation of Daily Effluent BOD Versus Standard 44
Error of 30-day Means for Activated Sludge—Conventional Plants
IV-3 Standard Deviation of Daily Effluent BOD Versus Standard 45
Error of 30-day Means for Oxidation Di ch Plants
IV—4 Standard Deviation of Daily Effluent BOO Versus Standard 46
Error of 30—day Means for Activated Sludge - Extended
Aeration Plants
vi

-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUI*IARY
A. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This document presents the technical data to support the minimum levels of
effluent quality attainable by municipal wastewater treatment facilities deemed
equivalent to secondary treatment under provisions of Section 304(d) (4) of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 33 USC 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217, and the Municipal
I tewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981, P.L. 97—117, referred
to hereafter as CWA or the Act). It also describes the basis for the Agency’s
classification of certain facilities as eligible for treatment equivalent to
secondary treatment.
The focus in developing these regulatory amendments was a data collection
effort aimed at characterizing the performance levels and performance variability
of various existing technologies used to provide biological treatment of
municipal wastewater. Such treatment is characterized by a aiversity of
treatment process types, design, plant size and age, influent characteristics and
effluent characteristics. Classes of facilities based on process type and age
were defined for the purpose of the technical evaluation. Each class was
characterized in terms of a typical performance level consistently achieved. The
technical evaluation assessed the ability of a class to reliably achieve current
secondary treatment requirements in terms of the defined performance level.
Those classes that provide treatment equivalent to secondary treatment, i.e,
could not consistently achieve current requirements (see legislative his 6 y,
Appendix B), formed the basis for establishing eligibilities and minimum levels
of effluent quality.
Sections II, Iii, IV and V of this document describe the technical data and
other analyses used to develop the class of facilities eligible for treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment. Long—term data analyses used to support the
proposed minimum level of effluent quality attainable by such facilities is
described in Sections IV and VI of this document.
B. FINAL REGULATORY AMENDMENTS
1. Eligibilities
The final rule uses the following criteria ( 133.101(g)) to define a
category of existing facilities that provide treatment equivalent to secondary
treatment: (a) the facilities cannot consistently achieve secondary treatment as
currently defined, (b) the facilities employ either a trickflng filter or a waste
stabilization pond as the principal biolo 9 ical treatment process, and (c) the
facilities provide for significant biological treatment of raw wastewater (at
least 65 percent removal of BOD5).
I

-------
a. Inability of Facility to Consistently Achieve Secondary Treatment .
Under the final provisions ( 133.lOUg)(l)), only those trickling filter and
waste stabilization pond facilities that cannot consistently meet secondary
treatment requirements are eligible for a modification of the secondary
treatment requirements. This provision is based on the legislative history
for Section 304(d)(4) of the Act which indicates that “equivalent t ’ facilities
cannot consistently achieve current secondary treatment requirements (see
Section II of this document).
The effluent quality achievable by a facility is defined in terms of the
30-day average BOD5 and SS values achieved 95 percent of the time, based on
at least two years of data, excluding upsets, bypasses, instances of operator
error and other unusual conditions.
b. Use of Trickling Filter or Waste StabiTizatThn Pond as Principal
Process . An eligible facility must use a trickling filter or waste
stabilization pond as the principal process for providing significant
biological treatment ( ‘ 133.lOl(g)(2)). The statute specifically lists
trickling filters and waste stabilization ponds as examples of biological
treatment processes that an eligible facility may use to provide treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment.
The term “principal process” is used to suggest the major biological
treatment components that are directly in the treatment process train, rather
than ancillary components. By focusing on “principal” processes, the final
regulation would not exclude those facilities that incorporate minor
components for improved treatment, e.g. , the addition of covers, chemical
feeds, solids contact processes for trickling filter, or the additiot 1 of sand
filters or aeration for waste stabilization ponds, provided that the trickling
filter or waste stabilization pond unit is the principal process that results
in significant removal of B005.
c. Significant Biological Treatment . Equivalent treatment works must
provide significant biological treatment of wastewater. These provisions are
based on the legislative history that Congress intended for certain facilities
to be deemed the equivalent of secondary treatment if they achieve significant
pollutant reductions, even though they cannot consistently meet PA’s existing
secondary treatment requirements.
The Agency has determined that when a trickling filter or waste
stabilization pond process is used as a biological treatment process the
overall facility of which they are a part can be expected to remove between 60
and 90 percent of BOD5 (see Section III of this document). It is also noted
that the legislative history for the 1972 Clean Water Act described primary
treatment as removing from 30 to 50 percent of organic matter, i.e. , BOD 5 ,
while secondary treatment was described as removing from 50 to 0 percent
removal of B0D ES. Rep. 92-414, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1972)]. In
§ 133.101(k) and 133.l01(g)(3), the Agency requires that a treatment facility
deemed equivalent to secondary treatment provide an overall facility B0D
removal of at least 65 percent on a 30—day average basis.
2

-------
This provision ensures that the facilities applying for permit adjustments
provide a level of treatment significantly beyond that achieved through
primary treatment, i.e. , physical separation and removal of grit, coarse
sands, settlable, and floatable materials. Thus, the use of a trickling
filter or waste stabilization pond as a preliminary treatment process, e.g .
roughing filters or equalization basins, would not meet the definition of
significant biological treatment ( 133.101(k)).
2. Minimum Level of Effluent Quality Attainable
The minimum level of effluent quality generally attainable is summarized
below
Parameter 30—Day Average 7—Day Average Percent Removal
8005 (mg/L) 45 65 65
155 (rng/L) * 45 65 65
* Except where alternative TSS requirements have been estabTished for waste
stabilization ponds under existing secondary treatment provisions
( 133.103 (c)). The existing 2 ?IGD flow limitation on the eligibility of
waste stabilization ponds for this existing provision is removed.
3. Case—by Case Effluent Limitations
Specific numeric effluent limitations for an eligible facility are
established on a case—by—case basis by the NPDES permitting authority
C 133.105(e)); in no case, however, could the minimum levels of effluent
quality established at the national (or State) level be exceeded. in
implementing a case—by—case approach. Permit adjustments are based upon the
performance capabilities of a treatment works. These requirements reflect the
direction of Congress that the Administrator issue regulations that consider
the design of the facilities. Since the legislative history does not indicate
any intent on the part of Congress to sanction poor operation and maintenance,
or the abandonment of treatment processes [ cf. S. 1274, 97th Cong., 1st Sess.
§ 16 (1981), 127 Cong. Rec. S5527 (May 21, 1981); H.R. Rep. No. 97—30,
97th Cong., 1st Sess. 34—35 (1981)), effluent limitations must be based on
proper operation and maintenance of facilities within their design capacity.
Permit writer guidance on issues to consider in setting case-by-case
effluent limitations is contained in Section Viii of this document, in each
case a permit must reflect effluent limitations that will assure that water
quality will not be adversely affected by deening facilities as the equivalent
of secondary treatment (see 40 CFR 122.44 at 48 FR 14169, and 40 CFR 124.53.)
3

-------
4. Alternative State Requirements
Th’e final rule allows States to recommend (subject to public comment and
EPA approval) alternative requirements for the 30—day and 7—day effluent
B0D and SS concentrations based on effluent concentrations consistently
achieved through proper operation and maintenance of the “median” facility in
a statistically representative sample of facilities within a State or
appropriate contiguous geographical area meeting the definition of “facilities
eligible for treatment equivalent to secondary treatment” ( 133.105(d)). The
rationale is the Congressional intent that the Administrator should take into
account geographic, seasonal and climatic conditions affecting plant
performance. Guidance for implementing these provisions is contained in
Section VII of this document.
C. IM ACT OF REGULATION
1. Number of Facilities Eligible
It is estimated that there are between 1700 and 2570 existing rock ard
plastic media trickling filters, and between 4050 and 6650 waste stabilization
ponds that provide biological treatment of municipal wastewater. Cf these
facilities, it is further estimated that a maximum of 3900 facilities would be
potentially eligible for permit adjustments.
2. Cost Impacts
In order for the estiiiated 3900 facilities to meet current secondary
treatment requirrnents it s further estimated that capital costs of between
$1 billion and $3 billion would be required for trickling filter facilities,
with approximately 2 billion needed for waste stabilization ponds. Under
this rule implementing Section 304(d)(4) of the Act, these costs would be
deferred, reduced or eliminated. The total cost savings over a 20-year
planning period is conservatively estimated at $1.6 billion.
3. Pollutant Loadings
It is estimated that the pollutant loading from trickling filter
facilities is currently 994,000 pounds B005 per day or approximately 181,400
tons BUD 5 per year. If all trickling filter facilities were to attain
secondary treatment standards, it is estimated that that load would be reduced
to approximately 750,000 pounds BODE per day, or approximately 137,000 tons
BOD 5 per year. Under this rule, moderate reductions in BOD5 would occur,
with the pollutant load estimated at 927,000 pounds BOD5 per day, or
approximately 169,200 tons BOD5 per year.
4

-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
Section 301(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C.
Section 1311(b)(l)(B), requires that publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
achieve effluent limitations based upon secondary treatment as defined by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (E PA) pursuant to Sect on
304(d) (1) of the Act. Section 402(a)(l) of the Act authorized the setting of
requirements for direct dischargers on a case—by—case basis; however, Congress
intended that, for the most part, control requirements would be based on
regulations promulgated by the Administrator. Section 304(d)(l), 33 U.S.C.
Section 1314(d) (1), requires that the Administrator publish information on the
degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of secondary
treatment within sixty days of enactment and from time to time thereafter.
Section 304(d) (4) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 13l4(d)(4), as amended by section 23
of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of l98l
(P.L. 97-117), deems biological treatment facilities such as oxidation ponds,
lagoons, and ditches and trickling filters as the equivalent of secondary
treatment, and further directs the Administrator to provide guidance under
secti’n 304(d)(1) on— esign criteria for such facilities, taking into account
pollutant removal efficiencies. Section 304(d) (4) further requires that water
quality not be adversely affected by deeming such facilities as the equivalent
of secondary treatment.
The legislative history for section 23 shows that Congress was concerned
that EPA had not “sanctioned” the use of certain biological treatment
techniques that are effective in achieving significant reductions of SOD and
SS for secondary treatment. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public
‘orks reported that methods such as oxidation ponds and trickling filters are
generally cheaper and more energy—efficient than “standard” methods, and that
such technologies are particularly useful in smaller communities. The Senate
Committee noted that “methods of achieving secondary treatment are also at the
discretion of the Administrator,” but concluded that EPA has not “sanctioned”
the use of these methods ( i.e. , oxidation ponds and trickling filters) for
secondary treatment. Therefore, Section 304(d)(4) would permit “the use of
certain biological treatment facilities to meet the secondary requirement
provided that water quality and particularly the objective of the Act is not
adversely affected, in spite of the fact that they may not consistently meet
85 percent removal.” {s. Rep, No. 97—Z04, 97th Cong., ‘1st Sess. 18 (1981),
emphasis added. ]
5

-------
The legislative history further suggests that the amendment would apply
primarily to smaller communities, which could use trickling filters and waste
stabilization ponds that are not capable of consistently meeting effluent
limitations based on current secondary treatment requirements.
The enacted provisions contain language that requires the Administrator to
provide criteria on the design and pollutant removal efficiencies of such
biological treatment facilities, in accordance with the Administrator’s
existing authority to define the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through secondary treatment [ 304(d)(l) of the Act]. In implementing these
provisions, the Administrator is directed to
take into account not only pollutant removal efficiencies, but also
differing geographical/climatic conditions which affect treatnient
plant performance. The”Administrator should also address the
seasonal and geographical variability of biological treatment plant
performance in the regulations issued to carry out this section.
S. Rep. No. 97—204, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1981)]
In addressing water quality issues, the legislative history clearly
rejects the use of receiving water quality as a factor in setting effluent
limitations when using the technology—based standard. The report of the House
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight stated that “prior to enactrient
of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, which set out a
technology based requirement that all communities have, as a minimum,
secondary treatment, municipal (and industrial) treatment requirements were
generaUy established on the basis of assessing a streams assimilative
capacity. Unf. rtunate1y, this water quality-based approach was, and still is,
too vague and subject to analytical weaknesses” EH.R. Rep. No. 97-30,
97th Cong., 1st Sess. 35 (1981)].
The Senate Report stated that “although water quality impact is not a
consideration in defining technology—based regulations, a technology would not
be acceptable for any category of dischargers if it is found that the
technology is inadequate in terms of necessary water quality protection’
Es. Rep. Uo. 97-204, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1931)].
In response to these requirements, the secondary treatment regulation has
been reviewed and amended. This document provides the technical basis for
amendments to the regulation. Appendix B of this document contains relevant
sections of the legislative history for Section 304(d)(4) of the Act.
B. PRIOR EPA REGULATIONS
The secondary treatment regulation was originally promulgated on
August 17, 1973 [ 38 FR 222981]. Generally, it established levels of effluent
quality for the parameters biochemical oxygen demand (five day), (BOD ),
suspended solids (SS), fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. Special consideration
was provided for facilities subject to wet weather flows from combined
sanitary and storm sewers, and facilities receiving high strength
6

-------
industrial wastes. The technical support for those regulations was contained
in “Effluent Limitations by the Application of Secondary Treatment,” Contract
No. 68-01-0346, November 1972.
The regulation did not require the use of any given treatment technology
to meet the requirements; however, guidance was provided by the Administrator
under Section 304(d) (2) and 304(d) (3) of the Act. Those documents,
“Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment”
(Ref. 13) and “Innovative arid Alternative Technology Assessment Manual”
(Ref. 14), indicated a range of treatment processes which had been proven
capable of achieving secondary treatnient.
Two subsequent amendments promulgated on July 26, 1976 [ 41 FR 307881] and
October 7, 1977 [ 42 FR 5665] provided for: (1) deletion of the fecal coliform
bacteria lirnitations and clarification of the pH requirement, and (2) special
consideration for the suspended solids effluent limitations applicable to
waste stabilization ponds with wastewater flows of less than 2 million gallons
per day (P130).
The current secondary treatment regulation defines “secondary treatment”
(Section 133.102) as attaining an average effluent quality for both BO0 and
SS of 30 milligrams per liter (nig/L) in a period of 30 consecutive days, an
average effluent quaTity of 45 rng/L for the same pollutants in a period of 7
consecutive days, and 85 percent removal of the same pollutants in a period of
30 consecutive days. The effluent values for pH must be maintained bet een
6.0 and 9.0 unless certain demonstrations are made.
The regulation provides special consideration in three instances:
(1) where secondary treatment works are affected by wet weather flows aue
to combined sewers, the percentage removal requirements may be
adjusted (Section 133.103(a)),
(2) where industrial contributions exceed 10 percent of the design flow,
and the discharge of BOD5 and SS by the industrial contributor
permitted under sections 30l(b)(l)(A)(i) or 306 of the Act would be
less stringent than secondary treatrent requirements, the 30-day and
7—day requirements for BOD5 and SS may be adjusted ( 133.103(b)),
and
(3) where waste stabilization ponds are the sole process used for
secondary treatment and wastewater flows are less than 2 MGD,
Regional Administrators and State Directors are authorized to adjust
the SS effluent limitations to reflect the effluent quality achieved
90 percent of the time within a specific geographic area
( 133.103(c)).
The regulation ( 133.104(a)) requires the use of sampling and testing
procedures for BOD 5 and SS specified in guidelines promulqated pursuant to
§ 304(h) arid 402 of the Act (40 CFR Part 136). The reguTation also allows
use of chemical oxygen demand (COD) or total organic carbon (TOC) testing as a
substitute for 3005 when a long-term BOD:COD or BOD:TOC correlation can be
made ( 133.104(b)).
7

-------
C. SCOPE OF THIS RULEMAKING
In this rulemaking, EPA’s efforts have been directed towards amending the
secondary treatment regulation in accordance with provisions of Section
304(d) (4) of the Act. That latest amendment to the secondary treatment
requirements of the Act, Section 23 of P.L. 97—117, deems such biological
treatment facilities as oxidation ponds, lagoons, and ditches and trickling
filters as the equivalent of secondary treatment, and further directs the
Administrator to provide guidance under § 304(d)(l) on design criteria for
such facilities, taking into account pollutant removal efficiencies.
§ 304(d) (4) further requires that water quality not be adversely affected by
deeming such facilities the equivalent of secondary treatment.
D. SUM iARY OF DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING EFFORTS
The data collection and sampling efforts summarized in this document were
carried out, in part, under Contract No. 68-01-6275 with Hazen & Sawyer, P.C.,
New York, New York. Copies of the contractor’s task reports are available for
public inspection at: Central Docket Section, Gallery 1, West Tower Lobby,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., tlashington, D. C. between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., business days.
1. Introduction
The data and analyses contained in this document were based on actual
performance data from 416 representative treatment plants in eight process
categories. The eight processes included in the study were:
o Trickling filter — rock media
o Trickling filter - plastic media
o Conventional activated sludge
o Contact stabilization—activated sludge
o Extended aeration—activated sludge
o Rotating biological contactors
o Oxidation ditch
o Stabilization pond
Data for this study were acquired from a wide range of secondary
wastewater treatment facilities located throughout the United States. A
sample population of forty (40) plants per process category was adopted as the
optimum goal for statistical analysis and reliability. Daily operating data
for the representative plants were compiled in a computerized data management
system to permit rapid calculations and statistical analysis.
8

-------
2. Identification of Treatment Facilities
Identification of potential treatment plants to be surveyed was based on
the 1982 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Municipal Needs Survey (Ref. 18)
computer printout of all municipal wastewater treatment plants in the nation.
This listing contains information on the nature and location of each facility,
process type, actual and design flows, organic loadings, NPDES criteria, and
extent of industrial contributions. The Needs Survey listed approximately
23,000 plants for consideration.
The following criteria were used in screening the Needs Survey data to
identify potential members of the sample population:
o Flow — Operating flow between 30 and 120 percent of design flow, with
industrial flow less than 15 percent of design flow to eliminate
plants that are severely underloaded or overloaded or have high
industrial contributions.
o Organic Loading — Organic loading data in the Ueeds data base was
inconclusive. In some instances facilities having atypically high
organic loadings were selectively eliminated.
o Process - Only facilities with a single secondary process were
included. Those facilities that were designed to provide
nitrification as part of the same or add-on processes were excluded
because such processes provide an advanced level of treatment beyond
secondary treatment.
o Temoerature - Facilities ‘acre chosen ecuallv frcm states , iith iarri
and cold winters.
o ionitoring — Availability and quality of the general operating data
was considered.
3. Initial and Final St3te Surveys
Following the inital screening of Needs Survey data, five states
(tlichigan, New York, Texas, Florida and Virginia) were selected for
preliminarily identifying treatment facilities based upon the quality of the
operating data and climatic distribution. This process produced a total of
1,193 plants for consideration. Approximately 75 or 900 plants had flows of
less than 1 MCD (minor facilities). The remaining 293 plants were 1 MGD or
larger (major facilities).
After this identification, plant operating data were obtained from each of
the five States. Those plants were screened for poor performance and
noncontinuous data at the State offices and copies of the plant performance
data were obtained for the remaining selected plants. Only 22% or 262 plants
out of the identified 1,193 were considered suitable for inclusion in the
sanple population.
9

-------
The Needs Survey screening criteria were then applied to Needs Survey data
for the remaining 43 states (except I awaii and Alaska) to identify sufficient
plants to complete the eight process categories and two plant size classes.
Telephone discussions were used to narrow down the number of states to be
contacted on the second and final round of data gathering. Seven additional
states (Wisconsin, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana and
Iowa) were contacted by telephone and agreed to forward operating data
together with design information.
Information from a total of 416 plants was received and utilized in the
study. Table 11-1 lists the facilities by state, process category, and size.
The targeted number of plants with adequate data were not found for:
(1) plastic media trickling filters and extended aeration, (2) the category of
activated sludge for minor facilities, a process seldom used in small plants,
and (3) the category of rotating biological contractors and t aste
stabilization ponds for major facilities, processes seldom used in large
plants.
4. Data Coaing, Checking, and Forrnating
Computerization of treatment facility data involved transfer of the plant
operating data into a universal computer input format suitable for statistical
analysis. The sequential steps followed in creating the computer data base
included I) coding the plant operating logs and keypunching, 2) checking and
editing, and 3) computer manipulation of the data into a single universal
forriat.
The plar operating logs included tw years of operating data originally
si. pplied by the lant operator. Each plant was coded by state, process type,
facility, identification number, and plant size. A “header” card contain ng
the facility code number, facility name, State, process code, had design flaw,
design biochemical oxygen demand (BOD ) and suspended solids (SS)
concentrations, process volume, stabLization pond volume and clarifier
surface area was prepared for each set of plant data. Daily data from
facility operating logs were then entered for each facility, and a computer
listing 0 f daily observations generated. Discrepancies between the conouter
listing and the operating legs were edited by hand on the cor puter listing and
corrected on the active computer file.
The active computer file was transformed into a universal data format
acceptable to the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) package for
inconsistencies in the data and edited on line.
5. Screening Criteria for Outlier Identification and Elimination
Because the objective in this study was to determine what performance can
be expected from a well operated wastewater treatment plant, an important part
of the data collection and sampling effort was to exclude plants where poor
performance could be traced to unacceptable design or operating deficiencies,
and plants where exceptionally good performance resulted from atypical
loadings or extra unit processes, especially since these would not always be
noted in the Needs classification. Causes for outlying values showing poor or
10

-------
exceptional overall plant performance were identified on a plant-by-plant
basis to determine whether or not such performance should be reasonably
considered in establishing technology-based effluent limitations. Outliers
were not eliminated from the data simply because their values were different
than expected, but only if the value resulted from such causes as poor design,
over or underloadings, accidents, sampling errors, or additional treatment
process. Otherwise the screening may result in discarding true values of
process performance and effluent characteristics.
a. Poor Performers . The outlier identification screening attempted to
identify two types of poor performing outliers: 1) those plants with
consistently poor performance, i.e. , monthly average effluent concentrations
that frequently exceed the monthly secondary treatment standard, which were
caused by inadequate design or operation; and 2) those plants with short term,
high effluent values, which may resul in a violation of the monthly standard,
which could be attributed to mechanical failures, inadequate process control,
errors in sampling or other unexpected causes. In both cases, such outliers
could strongly affect the statistical results and give misleading conclusions
about process performance. A plant was excluded based on the reasons
presented below, if the problems were consistently apparent.
o Poor operator application of concepts and testing to process control
o Inadequate sewage treatment understanding
o Improper technical guidance design engineer, State and Federal
personnel)
o Hydraulically underloaded/overloaded
o Inadequate sludge wasting capability
o Inadequate process flexibility (includes equipment failures)
c Thadequate process controllability
o Secondary clarifier problems
o Inadequate sludge treatment
o Inadequate aerator capability
o rnfiTtration/rnflow (I/I)
o Inadequate process control testing procedures
o Inadequacy of O&M Manual
o High uidustrial loading
o inadequate training of plant personnel
b. Exceptional Performers . The outlier identification screening also
attempted to identify plants that reflect exceptional performance, due to
special loadings or extra processes. Since such performance cannot be
considered typical of a process category, such plants were removed from the
data base.
c. Elimination Screening Procedure . The Steps used to identify which
plants would be excluded from the data base were as follows:
o llonthly average BOD and SS effluent concentration from each plant
were computed for the full 2 years of records.
o Plants identified for follow—up investigation were those plants
having a nuaT average effluents greater than 30 rnglL and the five
plants showing the consistently best effluent quality values.
11

-------
o Original operating logs and in-house design data and permit
information were reviewed for recorded comments that would explain
the unusual performance or identify any unusual or design/process
limitations.
o A list was compiled of “reasons” for unusual plant performance.
o t1 Reasons ” for unusual performance were verified with the plant
operator. It was also determined whether short—term, abnormal
conditions existed and if the bulk 0 f the effluent data could be
retained.
The results for each process category were tabulated and specific
recommendations made toward the final choice of outliers. Table 11-2 lists
the number of dutiiers identified in each process category.
The distribution of the final facilities selected by state is shown in
Table 11—3. The distribution of the final facilities by design flow, percent
hydraulic loading, percent BOD5 and SS organic loading is given in
Tables 11-4 through 11-7, respectively.
12

-------
TAI3I,h: If—i
FAUTLITI I:S St :1.I:c11 i.
FOli T1II SECONDARY TREAIMEN1 Pl.A ’1T PERI?ORMANCE STUDY
Activated Sludge
Contact Rotating Stohili-
Process Trickling Fillers Conven- Slabili- Extended Biological Oxidation zalioii Stole
State/Source Size Rock Pkislic tional zation Aeration Contactors Ditch Pouds Total
Florido Minor 3 3 4 ‘4 I 15
Major 3 II 1 — I 22
Michigan Minor 8 5 9 - 3 21i 50
Major 2 7 20 3 I 8 - L u
New York Minor 7 - I 6 6 2 2 24
Major 9 I 7 3 1 I I 23
Texas Minor I - I - 2
Major 4 3 5 13
Virginia Minor ‘ 4 I - 5 - 8 22
Major 8 - 12 - I - 22
Wisconsin Minor 6 - 12 12 4 4 39
Major - I 2 2 - I 6
Norlh Carolina Minor I 6 7
Major 7 I - 2 10
Oklahoma Minor - - - - I 1 2
Major I I 2 I - - 9
Tennessee Minor 3 2 2 - I 6 14
Major 6 2 I I I - Ii i
Kansas Minor L i - -/ 3 I 4 19
Major 2 2 2 — - I 7
Indiana Minor 2 I 2 3 - 3 I I
Major 2 - 2

-------
TAI 1d : IT—i__(Cont.)
FACILITIES SELECTED
FOR TIlE SECONDARY TRE1 IMJ:NT PLANT PERFOflMANCE STUDY
Act ivcited Sludge
Conitici Rotating Stabili-
Process Trickling Filters Conven — Stabili- Extended Biological Oxidation zution State
State/Source Size Rock Plastic Ijonal zition Aeration Contactors Ditch Ponds Total
Ohio Minor 2 2
Major
Washington Minor I 9 10
Major - I 5
Oregon Minor 3 3
Major -
Pennsylvania Minor -
Major I I
Missouri Minor -
Major 2 2
Minnesota Minor I - I
Major -
Iowa Minor 7 - 3 2 3 15
_________ Major 3 I I - I 6
Subtotal Minor 146 tO 27 42 27 18 21 45 236
Subtotal Major 148 23 6 U) 1)
Process Totals 914 23 88 65 33 37 31 145 416

-------
TABLE 11-2
ELIMINATION OF OUTLIERS FROM DATABASE:
SUMMARY BY PROCESS CATEGORY
Outliers
Original (2) Number of
Number of (I) Special Facilities
Facilities Poor Per- Unit Remaining Percent
Process Category In Data Base forrnance Process in Database Retained
Trickling Filter-Rock 94 12 18
Trickling Filter-Plastic 23 4 17 73.9
Activated Sludge
Conventional 88 15 7 66
Activated Sludge
Contract Stabilization 65 4 4 57 87.7
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration 33 4 28
Rotating Biological
Contactors 37 4 27 73.0
Oxidation Ditch 31 2 1 28 90.3
Stabilization Pond 8 37
TOTAL 416 53 39 324
(I) Plants having primary treatment only or identified design/operation problems
(2) Chemical addition, final effluent polishing ponds, effluent filters, or two-
stage operation
(3) Oily 61 h d usable 155 data.
(4) Because of a small number of plants in these categories, plants using chemical
addition n primary clarifiers for P removal were left in the data base (i.e.,
were not token as outliers).
15

-------
TAl: LE 11-3
DISTRIBUTION OF SELE(:TE [ ) FACILITIES 13? STATE
Trickling Filters Act.Sludge RBC Oxid. Stab. All
State Rock Pins lic Cony. Cont. Stnb. Ext. Aer. Ditch Pond Processes
Florida I II 8 4 - 2 - 26
Indiana I - 2 3 2 2 - 10
Iowa 10 3 2 3 - - 18
Kansas 6 - I 9 I - 5 - 22
Michigan I 9 2 1 - 9 - 22 66
Minnesota - I - I
Missouri 2 2
NewYork 7 8 7 I 2 39
North Carolina 7 2 - - 13
Ohio - 2 - - 2
Oklahoma 2 I I I I 6
Oregon 2 - 2
Pennsylvania I - - I
Tennessee 8 - 2 3 I - 2 5 21
Texas 2 - 3 2 - - 5 -
Virgin ia 9 I 10 5 5 I - 5 36
Washington - - - - - 4 10 - 14
Wisconsin 3 I 12 2 4 - I 33
17 57 28 27 28 37 32 ’ .

-------
TAULE JT-4
DISTRIBUTION OF SELEC FED FACILITIES BY DESIGN FLOW
Design Flow (nigd)
Minor V I .0) Major (>1.0) All
Process Category < 0.25 0.25-1.0 Subtotal 1.0-5.0 5.0-20.0 > 20.0 Subtotul Facilities
Trickling Filter -
Rock II 18 29 26 9 0 35 64
Trickling Filter -
Plastic 6 7 8 2 0 10 Ii
Activated Sludge -
Conventional 5 12 17 21i 20 5 49 66
Activated Sludge -
Contact Stabilization 13 26 39 13 3 2 18 51
Activated Sludge -
Extended Aeration Ii 7 24 2 2 0 4 28
RBC 3 8 II 13 2 I 16 27
Oxidation Ditch 13 5 lB 10 0 0 10 28
Stabilization Pond 28 9 37 0 0 0 0 37
All Colegories 91 91 182 96 38 8 142 324

-------
TABLE 11-5
DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED FACILITIES DY HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE
Number of Facilities Within
Process Avg. Range of Actual Influent Values as a Percenloge of Design Loading All Missing Total
Category Flow c5OX 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-lOU 100-110 110-120 > I20 Plants In Plants
Trickling 7 9 9 II 7 5 2 Li 8 62 2 61i
Filler-Rock
Trickling 2 2 2 5 2 () 0 0 4 (7 0 17
Filter-Plastic
Act. Sludge 12 5 9 8 12 7 L i 5 4 66 0 66
Conventional
Act. Sludge 12 8 8 1 7 5 2 3 5 51 0 57
° Cont. Stab.
Act 5ludge 10 3 1 2 3 6 2 I 28 0 28
Ext. Aeration
R.B.C. 6 9 I 2 3 3 I I I 27 0 27
Oxidation I I 4 2 5 2 0 0 2 2 28 0 28
Ditch
Stabilization 3 I I 2 I 0 I 1 20 30 7 37
Pond
TOTALS 63 41 33 42 37 26 12 U 1111 315 9 324

-------
TABLE IT-6
DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED FACILITIES I3Y ORGANIC (BOD) LOADING RATE
Nuriiber of Facilities Within
Process Avg. Range of Actual Influent Values as a _ Perc age of Design Loading All Missing Total
Category Load <50X 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 > I20 Plants lnf Plants
Trickling 21 6 7 It 0 6 I 2 2 1i9 IS 6hi
Filter -Rock
Trickling II I I I I 0 0 0 I 16 I 17
Filter-Plastic
Act. Sludge 28 7 I s 1 4 4 8 2 0 64 2 66
Canveptional
Act. Sludge 16 Il 7 6 5 3 0 3 I 52 5 57
Cont. Stab.
Act. Sludge 16 3 3 3 I 2 0 0 0 28 0 28
Ext. Aeration
R.B.C. 18 3 I I 2 I I 0 0 27 0 27
Oxidation 15 2 3 3 I 0 I I 2 28 0 28
Ditch
St’ihi lizotion 3 0 I 0 I ‘I 0 0 0 6 31 37
Pond
TOTALS 128 33 27 25 IS 17 II 8 6 270 5 i 32 1i

-------
TABLE rr-7
DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED FACILITIES BY SOLIDS (TSS) LOADING RATE
Number of Facilities Within
Process Avg. Ran9e of Actual Influent Values as a Percentage ol Design Loading All Missing Total
Category Load <50X 50-60 60-10 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 > 12 1X Plants Info. Plants
Trickling 16 3 2 14 1 I I 0 0 28 36 614
Filter-Rock
Trickling 9 2 I 0 1 I 0 I 16 I I ]
Filter - P1 as Ii c
Act. Sludge 26 5 3 1 6 3 2 I 3 56 10 66
Conventional
Act. Sludge 19 8 7 5 6 I 2 0 3 51 6 57
Coni. Stab.
Act. Sludge IS 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 27 I 28
Ext. Aeration
R.B.C. IS 3 2 1 2 I I I I 27 0 27
Oxidation 12 5 It I 3 0 I 0 2 28 0 28
Ditch
Stabilization 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 3 314 37
Pond
TOTALS 114 30 22 22 21 7 8 2 tO 236 1H3 3214

-------
SECTION III
OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
A. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTE 1S FOR ACHIEVING SECONDARY TREATMENT
In 1975 EPA published “Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best
Practicable Waste Treatment” (Ref. 13), which identified three types of
biological treatment systems for achieving secondary treatment: activated
sludge, trickling filters, 3nd ponds. All three types of biological treatment
were in general use in 1975 and prior to the passage of P.L. 92-500 either as
sole processes or in combination; however, the activated sludge process is by
far the most typical or “standard” method in use [ Cf. S. Rep, No. 97-204, 97th
Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1981)].
Suspended growth type systems, including activated sTudge, generally
consist of an aerator and clarifier and are usually preceded by primary
sedimentation. The aerator, utilizing air (either diffused or mechanical) or
pure oxygen, provides conditions for a suspended microbial growth that
metabolizes the biodegradable wastes. The microbial gro\dth is clarified and a
portion recycled to maintain metabolism in the aeration tankage. The other
portion (the build—up of microbial growth) and the primary solids go to an
appropriate solids—handling facility. There are many variant3 of activated
sludge or suspended growth systems, including oxidation ditches.
Attached growth type systems, e.g. , trickling filters, generally consist
of a filter bed of rock or synthetic media and clarifier and are usually
preceded by primary sedimentation. Biological treatment occurs in a manner
similar to a suspended growth system, except the microbial growth is attached
to a fixed medium over which wastewater is repeatedly recycled. The excessive
iiicrobial growth is sloughed off the media and captured in a clarifier. In
addition to rock and plastic media trickling filters, attached growth type
systems include variations such as rotating biological contactors.
Ponds, or waste stabilization pond type systems, consist of basins within
which natural stabilization processes occur with any necessary oxygen provided
by photosynthetic and/or mechnical sources. Waste stabilization ponds are
commonly referred to as oxidation ponds or lagoons, and may stabilize wastes
through aerobic metabolism, anaerobic metabolism, or both (facultative).
B. DESIGN, PERFORt4NCE, AflD RELIABILITY
In Dece mber 1980, the Agency published “Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual” (Ref. 14). The manual contains two-page fact
sheets on various municipal treatment technologies, including biological
troatment technologies. The fact sheets describe the treatment processes,
process applicability, cormiion process modifications,
21

-------
process limitations, performance and design criteria, construction and
operation arid maintenance cost curves, and process reliability. The fact
sheets for selected biological treatment processes are reprinted in Appendix C
of this document.
1. Activated Sludge
The manual fact sheets describe several activatea sludge type technologies
and their general design criteria. When the technology is applied to provide
secondary treatment (as opposed to advanced treatment), the manual indicates
that an effluent quality for BODE and SS on the order of 20 mg/L , can be
achieved. The percentage removal of BOD5 and SS achieved by such facilities
is characterized as between 85 percent and 90 percent. The manual describes
the limitations for such systems in terms of operational complexity, high
operating costs, and high energy consumption.
For oxidation ditches, the manual indicates that the process is highly
reliable in achieving an effluent quality of 20 to 30 mg/L for 3005 and SS.
Oxidation ditches are characterized as offering an added measure of reliability
and performance over other biological treatment processes, but are subject to
some of the same limitations that other activated sludge treatment processes
face. The process cost of treatment is generally lower than other biological
treatment processes in the range of wastewater flows between 0.1 and 10 mgd.
2. Trickling Filters
The manual fact sheets for trickling filter technologies provide general
design criteria and describe the effluent quality attainable by such
facilities ir a range of 25 to 45 mgJL BOC5 and 20 to 45 mg/L SS, depending
of the type of trickling filter and operating conditions. For various
trickling filter technologies, the manual indicates the following ranges of
percentage removal of BOD and SS: 80 to 90 percent, 60 to 80 percent, and
75 to 90 percent. In moderate climates, the processes are characterized as
highly reliable; however, where wastewater temperatures fall below 13°C for
prolonged periods, the process may experience reduced efficiency. The
processes are consistently noted as mechanically reliable and simple to
operate.
3. Waste Stabilization Ponds
The manual fact sheets for waste stabilization pond technologies indicate
design criteria for ponds and describe the effluent quality attainable by
various pond technologies in domestic waste applications as 25 to 30 mg/L
B0D and 20 to 150 mg/L SS. [ flote: § 133.103(c) allows SS values less
stringent than 30 nig/L.] Algae growth in the ponds is noted as affecting
performance for SS removal. The manual notes that BOD5 removal efficiencies
of 75 to 95 percent have been reported for some waste stabilization ponds.
The processes are described as highly reliable and require little operator
expertise.
C. TYPES OF BIOLOGICAL TREAflIENT SYSTEMS IN USE
Prior to the passage of the Act in 1972, the trickling filter and waste
stabilization pond processes were extensively used for the treatment of
22

-------
municipal wastewater. As reflected in Table 111—1, it was estimated that 4723
pond facilities and 4338 trickling filter facilities were in use in 1975,
compared to only 2488 activated sludge and 1856 extended aeration facilities.
Since then, the suspended growth—activated sludge systems have been widely
used as the “typical” or “standard” biological treatment method for achieving
secondary treatment. Only an estimated 281 trickling filter facilities were
constructed after 1973, while approximately 1100 of the waste stabilization
ponds were constructed. As shown in Table 111—2, when pond facilities are
excluded, nearly 90 percent of the secondary treatment facilities put in place
since 1973 have used some form of suspended growth system.
EPA believes that the limited number of trickling filter facilities
constructed following the passage of P.L. 92-500 and EPA’s promulgation of the
secondary treatment requirements can be attributed in part to a general
awareness that the level of effluent quality consistently achieved by
trickling filter facilities is poorer than that consistently achieved by
activated sludge type facilities. Although the cited biological treatnent
techniques were identified in the October 1975 BPWTT document as being capable
of meeting current secondary treatment requirements, the ranges of design
loadings (or other design criteria) for trickling filters would often result
in more costly facilities than facilities constructed in accordance iith
designs for trickling filters that typically existed prior to passage of
P.L. 92—500.
The 1932 leeds Survey indicates that approximately 2570 trickling filters
and approximately 6650 pond facilities are now in use. •s indicated in TaD1C
111-3, 1480 trickling Filters and 2435 ponds are projected to require changes
in treatment process by the Year 2000. As further indicated in Table 111-4,
the 1982 Needs Survey projects that the overall number of trickling filter
facilities in use in the Year 2000 will decline from 2670 to approximately
1900 facilities. This decline can be attributed primarily to abandonnent and
replacement of existing trickling filter facilities in favor or other
treatment process types.
In conclusion, the changes in use patterns since 1973, and the projected
use patterns, would indicate that the current secondary treatment ;tandard has
discouraged the use of trickling filters.
23

-------
TABLE Ill— I
ESTThIATE) DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICLY—OWN
TREATMENT ‘X)RKS AS OF OCTO3 . 1975
Ma;or Plants
(1 MCD or more)
Minor Plants
(1 MGD or less)
Total
WQL 3
ELD
EL.OOC
WQL EL
None
Pnmary
Pond
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
Secondary-Other
Land Disposal
Tertiary
Total
29
549
87
574
235
42
112
5
42
1,676
32
366
50
382
219
29
77
3
30
1,188
3
62
7
57
35
4
13
—
4
185
944
828
1,800
1,357
872
686
518
58
169
7,242
1,462
1,278
2,791
2.015
1,162
1,071
879
91
263
11,012
2,467
3.022
4,728
4,338
2,488
1,828
1,586
157
504
21.118
aplants located on water-quality limited segments.
bpiantz located on effluent-limited segments.
Cplants located on effluent-limited segments with ocean outfalls.
SOURCE: A—43O/9—75—O13, October 1975
24

-------
Process Type
Trickling Filter
Pond
Activated Sludge
Oxidation Ditch
R Cs
Other
TOTALS
SOURCE:
3555
Number (1980 )
47
114
347
(3)
20
Number (1983)
(2)
431
526
154
69
TABLE 111—2—A
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
FAC ILITIES CONSTRUCTED UNDER P.L. 92—500
% of Total excluding
Process Type Wumoer t of Total Waste Stabilization Ponds )
Trickling Filter 281 8% 11%
Waste Stabilization Pond 1104 31%
Activated Sludge 1483 42% 61%
Other 687 19% 28%
Total
SOURCE: Grants information Control System, as of April 29, 1983.
___________ _____ of Total
TABLE 111—2—B
DISTRIBUTION OF \4ASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS
8Y TREAT 1EflT PROCESS 1
_____________ of Total _____
1 C : , ’
11.0
3%
, ‘C
330
‘0
1 flW
I V i
239 3 28% 405 2 26
737 100% 1585 l0O
Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants:
1973-1978, EPA-43O/9-80—003, April 1980, Table 2.2;
1973-1982, EPA-430/9-83—O04, June 1983, Table 2.2
Cl) 198s report represents data from 30% of P.L. 92—500 funded facilities
included in $8.5 billion of Federal grants.
1980 report represents data from over half of P.L. 92-500 funded
facilities at that time.
(2) Included in “Otner,” separate break—out not available. Estimate
number of trickling filters as of 1983 as 7% of total.
(3) Include d in “Other,” separate break-out not available. Estimate
number of oxidation ditches in 1978 as 8% of total.
25

-------
TABLE 111-3
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TRICKLING FILTERS
AND POND-TYPE FACILITIES NOW IN USE
BY PROPOSED CHAI GE
Proposed Change Trickling Filters Ponds
No Change 1 1 19U 4215
Change 1480 2435
— Upgrade ( 275) ( 630)
— UpgradelErilarge C 200) ( 450)
- Rep lace/Aoandon (1005) (1355)
TOTALS 2670 6650
SOURCE: 1982 Needs Survey: Conveyance, Treatment, and Control of Ilunicipal
Wastewater, Combined Sewer Overflows, and Stormwater Runoff, Surnaries of
Technical Data. IJSEPA, Wasninyton, D.C. EPA-433/19-83-0U2, June 1983. TaDles
42—10, 42-11, 42—12, 42-13, 42—57, 42-58.
26

-------
TABLE 111—4
YEAR 2000 ESTIMATE OF DISI’RTBUTION
OF 1RE NENT PROCESSES, BY DESIGN
C OPACITi AND A R ION
EPA ALL PLANTS
‘ 6 5 10$
£
FLOW tINGE I OF TOTAL
*0950) PLANTS cLaw
LAND ACTIVATED
TIEAT.4INT SLUDGE
I OF TOTAL I OF TOTAL • OF TOTAL I OF TOTAL S OF TOTAL
PLANTS FLOW PLANTS FLOM PLANTS FLOW PLANTS FLOW PLA4TS UOM
SOURCE: EPA—430/19—83—002 , June, 1983. Ta 1a 4€.
LAGOONS
• OF TOTAL I OF TOTAL
PLANTS FLOW PLANTS FLOW
OXIDATION TOICOLONG
DITCH
F I LI ED
SDC
0.00— 0.10
107 10.2
5 5.1
Z
1.2
55 3.3
6
0.4
1
0.1
7
0.4
04
2
0.11— 0.30
200 05.1
S 35.0
10
2.0
04 24
I
4.0
3
1.2
4
1.8
37
3
0.31— 1.00
71 50.5
12 7.4
3
0.1
42 30.7
4.0
3
2.3
6
0
1
I 6
1.01—10.00
210 401
3* 50 3
2
3.0
056 531.6
2
0.4
20
4 5
20
08.0
2
0
10.01 •
50 1070 7
0 0.0
0
0.0
68 0054.8
0
0.0
5
44.0
3
004.0
0
0 0
ORION I
72 24b .0
057 77.)
41
6.4
397 2240 5
28
03.8
37
043.0
44
100.6
63
II 5
0.00— 0.10
o ii— 0.00
207 14.6
024 61.1
*06 8,7
*24 20.)
0
3
0.0
1.0
‘74 4 7
ISO 62.2
3
02
0.3
2.6
3
43
0.2
02.0
2
1
0 0
6 0
32
7
I 3
I
0.51— I 00
018 6 .A
00 06.3
3
2 3
70 02.3
8
4.6
24
20 6
4
4 9
2
1 7
1.00—20 00
243 0O.2
34 033.1
2
I I 5
177 476 3
09.2
67
230.5
19
44 1
2
6 I
I I 0* •
82 6)44.7
5 000.0
0
0.0
74 4005 9
2
36 0
7
13 7
3
5 . I
6
0
RIGID. 11
1.054 5484 8
345 581.3
8
14.7
547 4003 2
30
AA 4
041
404.0
40
130.8
42
6 4
V 00— 0.10
803 46.0
470 24.2
11
0.5
283 15 0
00
0.8
10
0 7
6
0 1
35
I
V II— 0.50
601 228.7
314 60.3
03
3 3
‘67 137.7
26
1.1
31
12 )
23
7.6
18
0 7
O I I— 0.00
211 170.4
10 *3.7
6
2 6
102 *40.5
Ii
6.3
24
10.4
04
01.0
1
0 0
O 00—00.00
351 0031 1
13 2 .1
5
*0.2
25 601.6
6
02.1
77
216 0
31
8 1
2
22.3
IV 31 •
12 2810 0
4 206.2
0
0 0
30 2530.5
0
3 0
S
328 S
3
570
0
0
ORION 111
2.301 4373.9
621 331.3
11
14.4
0.280 364Z.
55
30.5
IS O
518.3
77
420.5
08
22 8
0 00— 0.00
0.077 50.2
512 38 4
21
I 4
548 70 0
*0
0 1
5
0 4
4
0 5
•
C
O Il— 0 50
1.006 21.8 C
440 133.0
12
*4.7
31.2 034.4
44
1 . 4
34
01
21
4 5
2
0 0
0 31— 0 00
308 229
000 73.1
01
00 7
0)4 *66 0
22
05.6
SI
28
20
14 3
8
C
* 01—00 00
455 2217 6
135 42 I
41
240 2
468 *402.6
36
Ill 6
175
0’6 4
44
252.5
4
23 3
0 00 •
121 3 17 2
23 584 7
7
:50.1
io 3500 0
I
12 0
27
120 0
0
171
I
I’
06010W I V
3.160 4773 1
1.210 *211 4
172
423.0
1.832 3570 I
020
040.1
282
0301.1
*03
346 7
*4
31 4
0 00— 0 10
0,416 73 1
001 5l.
73
4 3
444 26 0
34
2 4
4*
3 0
I I
1 3
1
I
II— 0 50
1.34) 333 8
122 014 3
71
16 6
510 *32 5
004
25 0
041
69 7
64
24 3
5
2 3
O 51— I 00
351 031 4
00 ) 71 3
16
10 7
012 042 1
10
02 4
80
50 0
47
16 6
0 6
2 01—00 06
364 1027 3
10 220 5
.2
21 6
‘30 0401 7
17
35 I
123
347.6
81
243 2
2
0 0
XI •
*1.0 77224
IC 23*8
1
120
2277 ’S4
2
275
25
0361
7
0743
1
.7
00ION V
3.614 00103.0
1,847 733.3
031
104
0.4)0 8940.7
175
*01 3
636
1304 1
235
‘12 0
‘6
72
0 00— 0 10
1.717 06 7
0.374 43 5
044
7 I
042 13 2
160
00 4
4
0 3
I
0 I
2
0 1
0 10— 0 33
0,100 201 7
44) *45 0.
190
37 4
374 10.1
*36
52.1
44
14.5
2
0 7
2
0 7
0 50— I 03
350 345 1
*00 73 4
53
23.3
030 016 6
005
76.1
50
‘0.1
7
5 5
0
C 0
* 61—10 02
‘75 14L1 7
112 310 0
38
97.3
206 8’.0 0
48
*72 2
167
374 0
II
51 2
I
4 C
:00* —
IECION VI
17 2l ’01
3.693 4222.7
1 1735
2.244 745.4
3
370
30.1
200.8
3*02234
1.120 2 11 I
9
058
15,7
184 5
*0
233
4766
1005 2
5
24
641
020 I
0
5
XC
1 6
0.00— 0 00
1.445 40 8
1,278 35.3
*5
0.1
007 4 0
21
2.0
SB
3.4
3
0 3
0
C 0
0 II— 0 50
487 040 8
375 50 0
31
5.5
*03 23.7
008
28 4
122
51.3
40
04 I
2
6 5
0.81— 1 00
It ’S 1C2.3
50 35.0
4
2.8
5 21 5
32
22.1
37
25 I
14
16 3
0
3
O 02—10 00
181 590.5
50 02.2
3
6.1
39 230 3
20
42 S
79
237 5
30
74 4
•
I
‘0 01 •
32 0034,5
5 176.7
0
0 0
24 165.5
0
0.0
04
367 2
1
52 0
0
C 0
005001 VI I
2.603 202 ).8
1.762 611.I
43
67.4
314 1281.9
040
40.4
310
185.4
14
001.1
1
1
O 00— 0.00
771 30.0
760 20.7
20
0.7
*0 1.6
5
0.4
2
0.2
1
0 I
2
C 0
0 II— 0 50
336 74.8
300 67 5
20
4.3
I I 6 6
IA
4.0
11
2 8
2
0 4
1
0 1
0.51— 1 00
49 0 .7
44 34.6
3
.1
12 1.4
8
4 C
5
3.6
2
1.2
0
0 1
* 01—10,00
017 411 2
42 049.0
10
34.3
61 168.4
15
63.0
34
136 0
12
35 5
0
0 8
00 0* •
19 444.0
3 56.6
3
26.7
10 164.3
0
0 0
*0
300 8
I
08 5
2
0 C
lEGION VIOl
0.314 *212.5
1.155 155.0
55
5.0
010 552.3
42
53.3
44
444.1
16
35 6
2
0 1
0.00— 0.10
420 22.4
3 4 21.1
02
4.2
4? 1.9
0
0.0
5
0.4
5
0.4
4
0 3
0.11— 0.50
171 40,5
3l 73.1
113
30.1
74 21.6
10
3.4
18
5.4
4
0.0
0
0 0
0.50— 0.00
027 44.8
2 47.7
56
40,1
50 17.3
ID
0.0
15
Ill
3
3.2
0
6 0
1.0 ,—I0.00
243 6S 0
134 600.0
000
‘07.0
054 540.5
02
22.4
56
202.0
20
57.6
1
3
*0.00 •
49 1333.4
*8 471.0
67
463.3
46 2227 4
I
13.1
67
520.8
2
3) 8
A
131 2
0 ( 000W IX
1.21) 4100.7
937 1125.6
570
904.1
048 2828.6
03
47.2
101
7)4.4
30
000.0
1’
43?
0.00— 0.10
0.11— 0.50
0.50— 0.00
1.00—10.00
0.61 •
364 l7.
216 76.8
78 50.4
152 008.3
27 867.0
28 14.8
*45 12.)
36 20.7
40 064.2
1 83.0
78
II
12
16
2
4.6
12.6
10.2
54.4
30.)
40 2.5
115 30.8
25 20.3
82 216.6
20 504.3
5
01
ID
8
0
0.1
6.0
7.0
04.4
0.0
4
23
10
35
4
0.4
7 3
*3 4
146.0
1 )4 0
3
6
3
17
I
0 2
2 0
2 5
47 4
11.7
I
1
C
I
0
0 2
0
0 0
6 0
075 0
0 ( 610W 1
64 l54 .1
515 275.8
101
011.5
266 9)0.1
57
50.5
81
305.3
52
43.5
4
060 I
0 00— 0.10
0.1*— 0.50
V Si— 0.00
1.01—10.00
00 01 •
ALL IIC IOUS
8,530 420.1
4,70) l )8.8
1.810 0)72.3
3.240 *0509,9
474 20716,6
21.027 427*7.5
4.1)4 3 )7.4
5,65) 770.4
564 478.8
073 2020.8
60 2300.6
00.913 5 08.0
482
522
IS)
24)
32
1,658
24,4
026.7
*06.2
650.7
772.2
0867 0
l.0) 000.1
3.660 457.1
973 724.1
2.013 7*0*. ,
172 35504
t.013 36*74
256
570
250
003
II
0.166
*8.0
*52.5
044.1
663.6
064.0
387.2
033
300
300
7)0
132
1.845
4.1
044 3
223.7
2172 6
1 ?21.S
4975.0
60
221
*24
300
54
700
3.2
4 4
45 0
637 A
118 A
2323 9
.01

l
I
. ‘
7 S
1,
4 3
40 I
233 4
ITO C
27

-------
SECTION IV
PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
A. CHARACTERIZATIOTI OF EFFLUENT DATA
To characterize the effluent BOO 5 and SS data for the treatment plants
in this study (excluding outliers), summary statistics such as the mean,
stabndard deviation, and skew coefficient were computed for daily and various
average effluent concentrations from each plant. Also, several probability
distribution functions were chosen as possible models of daily effluent data
distributions and were tested using the Kolniogorov-Sriiirnov goodness-of-fit
test. Details of these procedures are explained below.
1. Averaging Methods .
Several alternative averaging methods were considered: (1) running ( i.e. ,
moving) versus calendar averaging, anc (2) geometric versus arithmetic
averaging. Use of moving averages increases the number of data points in tne
statistical analyses and hence the overall confidence in the results. A
comparison of results obtained from calendar averages and moving averages was
performed for various process categories. This comparison indicated that the
ifferences in results using the tdo averaging periods were negligible in the
majority of cases (see Table I’/—l). A further comparison for the roc! media
trickling filter category indicated that the differences in results ranged
from zero to a rnaxi ium of 11 percent, in terms of percentage of the facilities
achieving a given effluent value (Tables IV-2 and Table IV—3). Thus moving
averages were used in subsequent analyses. Arithmetic averaging as chosen
over geometric averaging because the assumptions that must be made to justify
the latter are not satisifed.
2. Basic Descriptive Statistics .
Descriptive statistics are useful in representing the essential features
of the data in easily interpreted terms and for guiding later statistical
analysis. The follo iing summary statistics iere used in this study to
evaluate sample data:
o Arithmetic mean
o Median
o Mode
o Variance
o Standard deviation
o Coefficient of variation
o Skewness
o 1inimun arid 1aximum values
28

-------
Examination of these statistics provides information on the central
tendencies, ranges and shaoes of the effluent B0D and SS concentration
distributions for data from each plant. The statistics were computed for
various averaging periods including daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal yearly
and for the overall period of record. In addition, 7—day moving and 30-day
moving average statistics were computed. Table IV—4 summarizes by process
category the statistical parameters of the effluent BOD and TSS and ot the
plant flow.
3. Probability Distribution .
Several probability distribution functions were tested to determine which
would best describe daily effluent data distributions. Knowing the
probability distribution of the daily treatment facility effluent data allows
one to perform statistical analyses to predict plant performance at various
confidence levels.
(a) Theoretical Distribution Models . Virtually an unlimited number of
theoretical distribution functions couTd be tested for fit with the effluent
data. Practical limitations prevent testing more than a few. The normal and
Tog—normal distributions are very good candidates because of their simplicity,
widespread use, and demonstrated usefulness in previous studies of wastewater
treatment process performance.
(b) Empirical Distribution 1odels . Strong linear relationships between
annual mean and percentile concentration values have been shown to exist in
previous studies (Ref. 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 24). Far example, if one year’s
effluen BCD data for a group of plants is placed in ascending order, the
5th percentile value will be approxirnatel i proportional to the plant’s annual
mean value. This model involving only the mean is called a one—parameter
model. Where a model describes a linear relationship between mean effluent
concentration and two parameters, the mean and the standard deviation it is
called a two-parameter model.
The set of linear regression equations developed for the percentile values
do not, by themselves, define a continuca j babi1ity distribution. However,
given the mean value from a set of data, a finite number of predicted
percentile values can be determined. A continous distribution can then be
constructed by linearly interpolating between each of the predicted percentile
values.
(C) Kolnogorov—Smirnov Goodness—of-Fit Test . The usefulness of each of
the four (proposed) distribution functions for modeling 3005 and SS data
from each plant was examined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness—of—fit
test. The null hypothesis for this test is:
“The observed data were sampled from an underlying population which
is distributed according to the hypothesized distribution function.”
It is assumed that if the test hypothesis is true, any differences between
th observed distribution and the hypothesized distribution are due to the
effects of random sampling.
29

-------
(d) Comparison of Distribution Models . It has been shown in previous
studies that no single probabi lity distribution fits all plants well, i.e.,
the best form of the probability distribution varies from plant to plant. In
this study, the Kolmogorov—Smirnov test determined that for rock media
trickling filters, although no single distribution clearly fits the 8005 and
SS data best in all cases, the log—normal distribution appears to fit more
often than the normal distribution. The two-parameter empirical models also
appear to fit the entire process category well on an overall basis and nay be
more useful than the log—normal distribution.
B. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND COVARIANCE IN DATA BASE
I. Randomness of Effluent Data .
It is important to determine if effluent 80D 5 and 155 concentration data
are random. Probability distribution models are based on the assumption that
the data are independent and random. If this is not the case, the effect of
nonrandom factors must be removed before calculating statistical parameters to
be used in such models, and then allowed for separately when applying the
models to predict performance. Because of the uncertainty as to the effect of
nonrandomness on results using fitted probability distributions, actual data
instead of probability distributions would be used in analyses if data prove
to be nonrandon.
Randomness of treatment plant effluent data was investigated in detail for
the trickling filter—rock media process category using both the runs test and
serial correlation. The randomness of other process categories was
investigated using less specific statistical tests.
The runs test is a general purpose test of randomness of a data series.
Trend, grouping, and many types of cyclical movement in the data can be
detected. In some cases, the runs test fails to detect dependence between
successive values of a data series. It is therefore prudent to perform a test
for correlation between consecutive data pairs (serial correlation) in
addition to the runs test when examining data randomness.
The test for serial correlation is performed by treating the original data
series as one variable, x , and treating the data series shifted forward one
observation as the other variable, The Pearson correlation
coefficient, a measure of association of the strength of the linear
relationship between two variables, is then computed to test for correlation
between xt and xt_l. If the data are random, the correlation coefficient
will tend towards zero.
The results of the runs test on selected trickling filter plants are shown
in Table IV—5, and the serial correlations for selected plants having daily
data are shown in Table IV-6. These analyses show that 8005 and TSS data
are highly nonrandom. Therefore, because the necessary assumptions for a
probability iiiodel are not valid, actual effluent data were utilized in
subsequent analyses.
30

-------
2. Effects of Various Process Parameters
Correlation analysis was used to determine the effects of various process
parameters on effluent quality, and thus on plant performance. The
correlation coefficient between two sets of data (e.g., flow and effluent
8005) , indicates the degree to which the variation in one variable is
linearly related to the variation in another variable. Correlations were
computed by facility for each process category to determine how strongly
effluent concentration (i.e., daily values) was related to the plant operating
factors given below:
o Flow
o Uastewater temperature
o Influent B0D
o Influent SS
o Primary effluent 30U
o Primary effluent 55
o 0D 5 loading
o 55 loading
o 1ixed liquor suspended solids (IILSS)
o Volatile ILSS
o Sludge age
o Hydraulic detention time
Both the Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearnian rank order
correlation coefficient were computed for al possible pairs of the above
parameters. The Pearson correlation coefficient assures that the underlying
distribution of data is normal, while the Spearrr?n correlation coefficient
makes no such assumption. The results of these analyses can be summarized as
follows: Cl) the correlations of effluent data to other process variables
were consistently aeak and varied both in strength and sign from plant to
plant, (2) correlations of B0O effluent concentration with plant flow
ranged, in most cases, from near zero to +0.4 and varied both in strength and
sign from plant to plant, i.e., in some plants 8005 effluent concentration
was inversely proportional to flow, (3) the correlations between 55 effluent
ctmd tiow were consistently lower than those of B0D , (4) correlations of
effluent with temperature varied inversely and was strong in some cases and
very weak in others and (5) correlations with operating parameters t,ere
generally weak even though theory predicts that significant relationships
should exist. In conclusion, no single group of parameters was found to
significantly account for effluent behavior for all plants. It is likely that
the relationships were confounded or masked by other measured factors which
need to be quantified first before the relationships can be determined.
Plant effluent quality was also correlated to plant size for each process
category, using plant mean annual flow as the size measure and its mean annual
B00 and total SS (TSS) effluent concentration as the measure of quality.
The results, presented in Table P 1-7, indicate only a very weak relation
(correlation close to zero) between process size and overall effluent
performance, confirming the close agreement of effluent mean values and
standard deviatiois between minor or major facilities. Thus the size of a
plant has no statistical bearing on process performance, and effluent data for
minor/major facilities can be grouped in later analyses.
31

-------
C. DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES
1. Averaging Periods
The characterization of the performance capabilities of facilities and
process type classes was directed towards describing long-term average
effluent quality, reliably achieved 30—day average effluent quality, and
reliably achieved 7-day average effluent quality. The long-term average and
30-day average effluent quality values were investigated because these two
factors are among the most important considerations in the design and
performance of municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Since attainment of
a 7—day average effluent value, as well as a 30—day average effluent value, is
required under the existing secondary treatment definition, 7—day average
effluent quality values vere also investigated.
2. Expressions of Reliability
The reliability of a wastewater treatment facility in achieving a given
effluent concentration for a given averaging period can be determined based on
knowledge of process behavior and variations in facility performance. Because
of variations in process performance, a treatment facility should be designed
and operated to produce an average effluent concentration that is less than
the discharge standard that facility must meet. Given an average effluert
concentration and a factor that accurately expresses variability in the
process, predictions can be made as to the percentage of time that a given
facility can be expected to attain a given standard.
Similar analyses are a so useful in treatment plant design. Designers
must consider the degree of variabilit,’ to be expected, as well as the avera e
performance, if discharge requirements are to be met. Currently, most design
techniques are based on steady state assumptions and average constituent
values are used for design parameters. One method of accomodating process
variability is to determine the expected effluent variation based on data from
existing treatment plants. Linear regression models can be developed to
predict the distribution percentiles of the BOD 5 and SS concentrations,
based on the annual mean value of eath parameter. .torking backwards,
designers can use the effluent concentration not to be exceeded, a prescribed
percentage—of-the-time reliability factor, and then calculate the required
average values. Using these computed average values as design criteria,
traditional design methods can then be used to size the treatment units. If
the design averages are achieved, treatment variability should be within the
expected limits.
A commonly accepted level of reliability in wastewater engineering and
design of wastewater treatment facilities is a 95th percentile for a 30—day
average effluent value. Designing for a higher level, e.g. , 99th percentile,
or 100th percentile 1 involves increasingly higher capital and operating costs
that are, in most cases, considered to less cost-effective in terms of
pollutant removal achieved. Given an appropriate long-term average effluent
value and an appropriate variability factor, the 95th percentile 30-day
average value would reflect a value that the faciiitg would be expected to
attain at least 95 percent of the time, or 19 months out of every 20 months.
In a typical 5-year period period, design value would predict that the 95th
32

-------
percentile effluent concentration would be exceeded only 3 times on a monthly
average basis when design conditions are achieved. Throughout the useful life
of the facility, especially when the facility was operated below design
conditions, the frequency occurrence of exceedances would of course be less.
The 7—day average effluent concentration has typically not been used in
the design of municipal wastewater treatment facilities that are needed to
meet secondary treatment standards. Thus, there is no typical design
reTiability factor that is commonly in use. However, i -f the sane estimated
frequency occurrence of exceedance (3 times in 5 years) is used for a 7-day
avera 9 e, the appropriate expression of reliability would be 98.85 percent of
the time, i.e . 3 weeks out of 5 years (260 weeks).
3. Alternative Approaches to Characterization of Variability
Given a certain level of reliability, a number of alternative approaches
can be used to account for variability in facility performance. These
approaches are discussed below.
(a) Actual data . As noted above, in the absence of a statistical
distribution that represents a good fit of the data, actual data can be
analyzed for the purposes of estimating plant capabilities. Expected 30-day
average and 7-day average effluent values can be estimated from the actual
data by calculating a set of 30—day moving averages and 7-day moving averages
for each facility, and then determinina a 95th percentile value for the
complete set of 30-day c loying averages, and a 99th percentile value for the
complete set of 7-day moving averages. The estimated values will implicitly
accour t for variability in plant p.±rforir.ance; however, a separate variability
factor will not be directly calculated in estimating the 30—day and 7-day
average values.
(b) iornal Distributions . A normal approximation of the 95th percentile
of the 30-day average effluent values and 99th percentile of.the 7-day average
effluent values can be statistically estimated in accordance with the Central
Limit Theorem on the basis of the following expression:
x ( IF), where VF 1 = Cl + (Z (ox /mx))).
mx Long-term average effluent value.
Z For a 95th percentile approximation, Z = 1.645; for
a 99th percentile approximation Z = 2.33.
N The averaging period, e.g. , N = 30 for 30—day
average.
The standard deviation of the n-day average values
N from the overall facility mean (mx).
Coefficient of variation for averaging period (N);
also expressed as VXN.
The term, 0 xN’ can usually be expressed in terms of o/NU’2, where o is
the standard deviation from the distribution of the individual data points, if
it can be assumed that the individual measurements on successive days are
33

-------
statistically independent. Thus, °x30 , the standard deviation of the 30-day
averages from the overall facility mean, would be 0/5.48, or the standard
deviation of the daily data divided by the square—root of 30. However, as
noted above, the data for effluent quality can be shown to be non-random. A
correction for the exhibited non-randomness can be made by calculating the
value of °xU directly from the 30-day averages. As shown in Figures I’/-l
through IV—4, the corrected standard deviations of the 30-day averages result
in a considerably higher degree of variability for the 30-day average period
than would be expected if the data were nonrandom.
Using the corrected standard deviations of the 30—day averages,
coefficients of variation, and variability factors can then be calculated.
While the goodness-of-fit tests indicate that a normal approximation is not
representative of the distribution of the data (see above), the calculated
values are useful as a check on the alternative statistical approaches. The
following presents the range of coefficients of variation and variability
factors derived from the analyses:
Category
Trickling Fflter (Rock)
Contact Stabilization
Others
Range of
X3p
0.1 - 0.6
0.1 - 1.0
0.2 - 0.7
Range of
‘ X3 p
1.15 — 1.99
1.16 - 2.65
1.33 — 2.15
‘ 1 x30 Coefficient of variation
as Ox3e/my3o, where °x30 is the
30—day moving averages from the
(mx3O).
VFx 3 o is the variability factor
mx3O * (VFX3O), which estimates
average, ehere VFx 3 c (1 + Z *
percentile approximation.
Cc) Lognormal Distributions .
for 30-day moving averages, defined
standard deviation of the
niean of the 30—day moving averages
in the expression,
a 95th percentile, 30—day moving
(Vx30)), and Z = 1.645 for a 95th
Similar analyses to those performed for normal distributions are conducted
by considering logarithmic transforms of the daily data, and adjusting t e
standard deviations of the 30—day averages to account for non—randomness. A
more detailed discussion is presented in Section V of this document.
4. Compliance Frequency .
Compliance tables were generated for effluent BOD and ISS from each
34

-------
process category showing the percentage of plants fri or below each given
effluent concentration range with a given frequency or percentage of time.
The standard range interval was 5 mg/L, with each interval identified by its
midpoint. The frequency levels included iere 50, 75, 90, 95, 99 and 100
percent of the time, as determined from the percentiles of the actual effluent
data (30-day moving average) for individual plants. Finally, the cumulative
percentage of plants in or below each concentration range was determined at
each frequency (percent of time) level. Tables fl—I through D—l2 in Appendix C
of this document present the tables generated for given process type classes.
Also, compliance tables based on fitted probability distributions (the
log-normal and two—parameter empirical) were compared to those based on actual
data. Except for extreme values (100th and 99th percentiles), the tables
based on the fitted probability distributions were in good agreement with each
other and with those obtained from actual data. Because data were not random,
the performance analysis was based on actual data.
35

-------
TABLE W-l
COMPARISON OF STANDARD
OF 30 DAY CALENDAR AND
ERRORS (c;. 3 )
MOVING AVE GES
No.
‘<3 0
‘ (33
of
Calendar
Moving
FACILITY
Obs.
7 Da ly
Avgs
Avgs
Trickling Filter —
303
751
5.3673
3 .3559
3.264°
Rock
56
309
651
724
696
6:8
20.5028
7.3482
17.5 85
S
9.5593
3 ,9474
10.3746
9.7620
4.04o3
9.9208
Trickling Filter
Plastic
162
114
913
716
9.3822
7.8930
4.7624
4.o957
5.0879
5.3072
435
711
12.5137
v.0841
6.9301
322
761
13.47t3
.5944
5.4307
Act Ivated Sludge
Conventional
31°
312
321
150
35
3:0
161
315
109
141
159
t:a
139
‘
107
225
324
433
432
40
160
759
75 6
7 8
730
725
714
709
707
706
701
679
697
697
695
692
68E
682
677
661
650
37
29.8790
7. 6 979
4.6038
6.3331
21.808:
5. 697
34,3133
7, 2S
18.o004
3 .1315
12.0596
12.5973
2.3944
6.8573
4.0665
20.2792
4. 4036
8 .3944
13.8357
5.372?
9.6170
16.V67
3.301?
3.3718
.91S9
tO.33i5
1.3994
1?.22°3
2.6532
10.o21
6.2313
5.6 1o6
6.2545
1.0202
4 ,6101
2.4101
9 ,5020
1.72 75
6.31B2
5.5275
3 .7171
5.6195
‘ C
. _.
3 .a : s
3,4 74
4 . 32 99
9.00:7
r nr
- - —
13.0160
2.7515
9.8037
6 .0 i c
5. 0271
5. 1377
1 .50 :5
4.8296
2 ,3659
8.1826
1 ,735 9
o.9553
6 .102S
4 .0133
5.8602
1 5
731
12.0708
4 .2731
4.258
Activated Sludge —
177
723
7.7929
3 ,3854
3,Q949
Contact
425
696
15.6570
6.4179
9.0186
Stabilization
415
129
662
670
644
623
28.7442
2.1565
29.9471
15.5215
4 .3333
15.8685
15.2997
4.3127
14.5897
184
918
4 .5367
3. 1769
3. 133 9
Rotating Biological
445
992
8.2183
6.4673
6,2SS
Contactors
335
913
731
71
10.1901
9.2493
7.7449
5.3332
7,7749
5 .2050
36

-------
TABLE IV-2
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIE3 IIEETING
A GI’.’EN 3CC FLUENT CUNCENTRATOH
TRICKLING
FOR A VEN P RCZNT CF
FILTER — ROCK —
z or rni
:
30—DAY C LE}4DAR AVC .
90% 50%
100%
98.44 98.44
98.44 100.00 100.00
100.00
96.38 96.89
98.44 98.44 100.00
100.00
95.31 95.31
98.44 98.44 100.00
100.00
92.19 92.19
92.19 96.38 130.00
100.00
92.19 92.19
92.19 95.31 100.00
100.00
87.50 87.50
81.25 81.25
99.06 95.31 98.44
84.38 92.19 98.44
100.00
100.30
i3.13 73.13
78.13 90.64 96.38
100.00
6,. 19 67.19
71.88 84.38 9 .i5
96.o8
64,06 64.06
64.06 75.00 92.1?
95.31
48.44 48.44
65.A3 84.38
9 .75
42.1? 42.1?
4 .75 54.o9 71.38
92.19
23 ,44 3. 4
29.69 42.19 60.94
76.56
ñ 04 1 OA
. . I av.Ir
It i —, A
..v .J4 . , . v
I
3.13 3.13
3.13 3.13 21.38
39.06
1.56 1.56
1.56 1.56 6.25
0.31
1.56 1.56
1.56 1.56 1.56
7.31
PERCZNT CZ
OF FACILITIES EETThG
A GIVEN 1S8
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
£FF.
CONC.
(NG/L)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
40
—
4.
1 5
10
c. r
CONC.
(MG/U
90
C.
90
75
70
60
5:
50
. .C.
40
35
30
25
20
15
1’
T I CKLING
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF
FILTER — ROCK —
• na *
k ur IME
100% 99 95% 901
92.19
92.19
92.19
90.63
89.06
89.06
87.50
e . —
75.00
59.38
50.00
, .
.J. .
23.44
10.94
4.69
TINE
30—DAY
98.44
98.44
98.44
98.44
98.44
98.44
98.44
98.44
96.88
96.38
97.50
70.31
50.00
34.38
18.75
9. 43
0
7 .
92.19
92.19
90.63
89.06
89.06
J, .
31.25
75.00
59.33
50.00
42.19
23.44
15.63
10.94
4.6,
0.,
1 4.
92.19
92.19
90.63
90.63
89.06
89.06
32.31
‘V
1w•
L F
U — • —
50.30
a V
3. (
. — .
I C
10.94
4.69
CAUNDAR AVG3.
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.44
98.44
96.88
• 19
79.69
C 1 C
.
31.25
iF
•
96.88
96.88
96.86
96.88
Ow
7J.
! 7V
T . ( .J
93.7:
92.19
39.06
79.69
63.75
C..,
43.75
34.38
18.75
10.94
4,6?

-------
TABLE V-3
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN 30D EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
TR ICXLING
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF
FILTER — ROCX -
Z OF TIME
TIME
30—DAY MOVING AVOS.
100%
99%
95%
90%
75%
50%
95.31.
96.88
96.88
100.00
100.00
100.00
93.75
93.75
96.88
98.44
100.00
100.00
92.19
93.75
96.88
98.44
100.00
100.00
92.19
92.19
96.88
98.44
100.00
100.00
87.50
90.6 .
95.31.
98.44
100.00
100.00
85.94
85.94
93.75
95.31
98.44
100.00
76.56
79.69
99,06
93.75
98.44
100.00
73.44
75.00
84.33
92.19
96.38
100.00
62.50
65.63
75.00
82.81.
93.75
96.83
Z9.. 3
59. . 3
65.63
78.13
90.63
95.31
46.38
48.44
57.81
68.75
84.38
93.75
32.31
37.50
50.00
56.25
70.31
90.63
17.19
21.88
35.94
45.31
60.94
78.13
6. 5
9. 3
14.06
2. .44
3,.50
62.50
0,00
0.00
i.1 3
9.38
25.00
40.03
0.00
0.00
1.56
1.56
6.25
18.iS
C.00
0.00
1.56
1.56
1.56
6.25
EFF.
CONC.
(MG/L)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
40
35
30
-
20
15
10
EFF.
CONC.
(MG/L)
90
as
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN TSS EFTL NT CONCENTRATION
TRICXLING
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF
FILTER — RCC —
Z OF TINE
TIME
30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
. ,c.
99% 95: 90
I AI
I V
92.19
92.19
90.63
89.06
84.30
01 ‘
a
81.25
76 • 56
70.31.
56.25
48.44
39.06
au S
18.75
. a
4.69
3.13
92. 19
92. 19
90.63
89.06
87.50
84.33
84.38
79.69
73.44
57.81
0.00
42.19
a,.
20.31
9.18
4.69
1.13
96.88
96.88
96.38
95.31
95 • 31
93.75
0-,
I a S
87.50
0l I
U a
71.38
39. 38
— £
-, . .
28 • 13
14.06
A.
U. a
3.13
100.00
100.00
98.44
98,44
96.88
96.88
96.88
96.88
93.75
97.50
75.00
64.vó
51.56
34.38
21.88
7.81
4.69
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
98.44
96.88
87.50
70.31
51.56
71
.1 a
15.63
7.81
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1.00. 00
98.44
93. ‘ 5
75.00
50.00
r i
.I S
14.06
38

-------
TABLE 1V-4
StIMMAIIY OF flE5t )LTS - S1C jHi)AItY 1UfEAIMCNt PLANTS
—
Overnil fucullly means
Overall Icxlti$y sinmidurd devIauiui
( verolI 1 x:liIIy coellicknis of viurculion
Overull laUIIIy sl(uI(iurd dev aImon, of JO-tiny m,iovlicq nver.uJes
I4ander
P,nce,s of Mean
-
1 !’X !i! fl. I x
EllIcient 00!) (mug/I)
Coeti.
Ski. Dcv. of Vor.

Lill uenI TSS (rug/I) Flow (mn.gd)
C i eff.
Menu Stul. Dcv. of Var. Mean Ski. Dev.
— I— 0—
Ii i x x
Coeff.
ol Vpr.
0
1(
TiicIcI ng 6’i
Fl iirt
- l1wk
8.119-57.50
26.03
2.4 1-30.12 0.11-1.02 1.11-14.58
10.06 O.ti O 5.80
2.02-23.22
1.61
9.18-101.3 3.2’m-i2i.I 0.11-1.65 2.12-21.00 2.91-51.09 0.03-9.’ml 0.004-2.36
25.25 10.11 0.50 6.78 1. 1u 6 0.65 0.23
0.06-0.97
0.71
TuiuklubmJ I !
IuiI’ r
- I >in I Ic
7.10-55.41
18.98
3.62-27.45 0.15-0.90 3.0 1-IJ.71
9.38 0.49 5.118
1.40-19.46
1.01
5.16-112.83 5.1i0 I9.I) 0.22-1.40 1.36-12.1? 3,38-14.76 0.13-8.60 0.01-2.36
19.36 0.29 0.65 5.11 7.05 0.92 0.110
0.16-0.68
0.38
ALilvIuiCd 66
SIinIujc
-to v i lanai
3.92 4 1.149
(4.19
2.39-34.82 0.19-1.99 1.59-11.29
6.18 0.66 5.08
1.51-27.39
6.65
5.06-52.25 2.11-18.20 0.18-2.21 1.22-39.03 1.60-511.31 0.05-82.7 0.02-10.79
111.11) 11.3] 0.!) ] 6.89 6.15 (.87 0.53
0.04-1.04
0.211
AcI)vuiteJ 51
SI c. uhcje
—(iuj fncI Stub.
3.67-45.43
12.63
1.05-43.66 0.07-1.13 1.00-12.44
8.16 0.60 5.54
0.98-30.95
6.88
3 ,66-’u6.5 I.5?-7 .I4 0.23-2.0? .67-39.53 2.22-50.120.002-56.23 0.002-16.22
13 81) 9.30 0.11 6.24 6. 0.36 0.13
0.06-1.35
0.34
Artiviuteul 28
5I u i uI je
- uc ieiided Aec -
2.67-27.89
1.20
0.96-19.81 0.21-2.0] 0.67-11.15
tm.6 0 0.71 3.03
0.95-19.6
3 89
2.46-33.35 0.’i6-38.I0 0.18-1.95 0. 19-35.’lS 0.25-36.97 0.01.5.80 0.006.0.89
9.10 7.11 0.66 3.42 4.11 0.10 0.06
0.11-132
0.34
It.i3.C. 21
4.79-32.2 7
16.99
4.119-41.4] 0.29-1.47 ?.1S-20. 1
10.19 0.58 6.26
3.39-31.60
1.89
665-22.06 4.41-22.11 0.39-I. ?? 1.10-15.26 3.22-11.17 0.06-31.60 0.03-1.96
15.15 0.46 0.69 4.50 6.40 0.71 0.23
0.12-1.19
0.31
Oxluluulon 28
I)ilth
2.93-29 20
8.’iO
1.13-11.95 0. 14-1.59 1.0 1-Il. ??
5.88 0.57 ). 8
1.23-17.86
5.58
3.77 3I.S5t.08.Li1.65 0.21-1.06 1.46-U2. 12 1.92-389.8 0.01—6.31 0.004-1.15
(2.26 8.61 0.68 5.98 9.08 0.16 0.01
0.09-1.16
0.31
SluuillIza-. 31 8.59-70.96
2 1.11
5.19-46.5 0.25-1.08 4.59- ’J3 70 5.38-46.39
9.78 0.51 6.011 8.61
17.60-1.13.00 5.19-156.97 0.30-1.18 3. 18-128.17 4.45-135.98 0.03-2.1) 0.0001.57 0.00-0.83
1 m .5i 22.56 0.61 11.10 19.44 0.31 0.09 0.31
I lu
I . ic ii
Uvricuil llmilIi) slcu.icIuuu.I tcvI llon cii /—uI.y iiu.ilixj civ

-------
TABLE IV-5
RUNS TEST RESULTS FOR TRICKLING FILTER - ROCK MEDIA FACILITIES
Fccflity
No.
BOD 5
Z
Prob.
SS
Z
Prob.
051
-10.70
0
- .96
.05
052
- 9.69
0
- 7.08
0
053
- 6.42
0
- 2.67
0
054
- 9.10
0
- 5.66
0
055
- 8.04
0
- 8.26
0
056
- 8.93
0
-(0.35
0
303
-14.35
0
-18.73
0
304
- 9•9L&
0
- 6.42
0
309
-13.94
0
- 3.60
0
345
- 5.86
0
-10.06
0
418
- 4.07
0
- 5.47
0
524
11.63
0
-12.2
C
653
- 5.70
0
-11.80
0
655
- 7.79
0
- 7.58
0
665
- 5.68
0
-14.68
0
963
- 6.96
0
- 5.79
0
971
- 8.10
0
- 8.74
0
40

-------
TABLE I’I-6
SERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICiENTS
FOR SELECT TRICKLING FILTER - ROCK MEDIA FACILITiES
Faci lity
Number BOD 5 S gn ficQnce SS Significance
50 0.59 0.01 0.32 0.01
56 0.36 0.01 0.47 0.01
301 0.85 0.01 0.32 0.01
302 0.50 0.01 0.37 0.01
303 0.56 0.01 0.81 0.01
522 0.77 0.01 0.55 0.01
41

-------
TABLE IV-7
PLANT SIZE VS EFFLUENT QUALITY
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR MEAN ANNUAL
FLOW VS MEAN ANNUAL BOD 5 AND T5S EFFLUENT
Process Category Mean BOD 5 Mean TSS
Trickling Filter - r -0.1236 -0.0358
Rock Media No. of Obs 138 133
Tricling Filter - r -0.0784 -0. 1085
Plcstic Media No. of Obs 36 36
Activated Sludge - r -0.0240 -0.0911
Conventional No. of Obs 48 48
Activated Sludge - r -0.2895 -0.3006
Contact Stabilization No. of Obs 128 28
Activated Sludge - r -0.2225 -0.1608
Extended Aeration No. of Obs 61 59
R.B.C. r -0.1351 -0.0307
No. of Obs 59 59
Ox dat on Ditch r -0.1787 0.3 68
No.ofObs 57 57
Stabilization Pond r -0.2222 0.2224
No. of Obs 61 61
42

-------
L’IGIJRE TV-i
STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DAILY EFFl uENT BO l l VERSUS STANDARD ERROR OF 30-DAY MEANS
FOR Till CKLI NC FILTER PLANTS
I
4
FITTED LINE SLOPE - 1.443 - JET
S
S
I ,
S
16 I
L I I
30 I
fl. 4 I
Is.
0 \
T hEORETICAL LINE
SLOPE =
$
I
z
0]! I
‘-4
H
t. i: ‘
LI 4
a is
n
PI
I — I
La
a
I
$
I
$
I
I
I
‘4 %
‘4
‘ 4
£2 I
4 %
‘4
‘4
9 ,
4%
4%
‘ I
‘I
4%
II
‘4
4%
I
$
$
C
S
I
S
1$ S
S.
II
“I
I
S
I
I S
IS S
$
I
UI
0
---1” I - -- I----I----I----e----I----t I---- ,- --I-__-I-_--I-_--I_---1- 1--I--I--I - ” I--- I-- - I- -I - -
1 2 4 . S 1 8’ ‘1 IC. I I I : I i I I a It 1? Ill It 0 21 -H J4
4.. I III i% l)fl I II Iii I? fl ! ((I—I)A\’ 1uV i n(; AVFItAGItS

-------
ErcuRE TV.-2
STANDARD DEV IATiON OF DAILY EFFLUEN1 ROD VERSUS STANDARD ERROR OF 30—DAY H! A
FOR ACTIVATLI) SLUDGE - CONVENTIONAl. PLANTS
I
IU OF IQIiJO
JiT
TI enret lc;jJ_j.ine
Slope 4i 0
4
$
I
6
I I
a
I
I
a
I t
I
I
I
41
£4
to
n
•rI
t o
4 - 1
-4- 0
0
•r I
‘4
to
Qi
0
1- 4
to
C
to
1- I
U )
Fitted Line
Slope a 1.6599
a
II I
4.
.13 I
30 I
4.
4.
2! I
4.
4.
4.
21 I
4.
10 4
4.
4.
4.
IS I
4.
4.
44
I? I
4.
4 4
4.
4.
4.
4.
‘ I
4.
I i
4.
I
S
I
I
S
S
S
I
S
I
S
S
$
S
$
S IS
$ S
C l
0 I 2 .1 4 S A . 1 S 9 14 II I ? I i IS IS I L I ? I i I I 20 29 22 23 24
S ri\ IUJARI) L’UW fl (IF JO— flAY ?U)V A tE AVER, C ES

-------
FIGURE IV--3
10 I
16 I
$4 I
( j
4.J
(0
S
I—I I U I
..-I ,
( 0
‘
II
I-4 p
0
IJ1 $0 I
I.
0
r U
4’ I,
CO
;;. 1 SI
w
I - .
CO
6$
CO
IJ
4’
2$
0
a
Iftied line
Slope 1.2583
STANDARD IThVIATIOI1 OF DAILY EFFLUENT BO!) VERSUS STANDARD ERROR OF 30—DAY AH
FOR OX 1)ItTIOU DITCH PLANTS
Theoretlcnl Line
Slope = Si?)
S
I
II
I
S
0 I 2 3 4 1 I I (0 II $2 $3 II IS I L U II 19 20 21 22 23 24
8 11 ( (I ItiUi0
Strlllddrd I,.: It I ol iU. -I iy iiov I hg Avt. rages

-------
FIGURE IV—4
STANDARD DEVIATION OF DATLY EFFIMENT liOn VERSUS STANDARD ERROR OF 30-DAY HEANS
FOR ACTIVATE!) S1.UDCE — EXThUUED AEUAIION PLANTS
Theoretical Line
Slope • -
I
Li
‘0
r4
(0
‘4-4
0
4- I
c0
r 1
‘ l )
n
1.,
I- I
(0
V
C
‘0
4 - I
U )
• 1
‘ I
fl.3 I
‘¼
‘ ¼
‘¼
:0.0 I
¾
‘ ¼
‘ ¼
U.S I
‘ ¼
‘ ¼
S ‘ ¼
n.o I
‘¼
‘¼
o
‘¼
I?. I
‘¼
o
‘¼
‘¼
10.01
‘ ¼
‘ ¼
‘¼
‘ ¼
1.5 I
‘ ¼
‘ ¼
‘ ¼
‘ I
5.0 1
‘ ¼
‘ I
‘ ¼
‘¼
2.5 I
S.
S.
S.
S.
0.0 I
I
ritted Line
Slope 1.3027
I
S
II
I
I ,
I
0 I 7 1 4 3 6 1 I P I C II I i 13 n g I L I i #8 IS 28 21 7? 13 44
uro ui suofo
S1AflIAltfl IURt)It ( 11 3(1- 1 i ’ ’ n OV i tic; AVERAGES

-------
SECTION V
A. SUMMARY
The legislative history for Section 304(d)(4) of the Act suggests that
certain treatment facilities employing biological treatment processes may be
deemed equivalent to secondary treatment, and their use sanctioned, in spite
of the fact that their current level of effluent quality may exceed secondary
treatment standards. The Agency has interpreted Section 304(d) (4) of the Act
as requiring classification of certain biologicaLtreatment processes as
either secondary treatment or as treatment equivalent to secondary treatment,
based on the general performance of a given treatment process type with
respect to secondary treatment standards. The legislative history indicates
that inability to meet current requirements is a condition for eligibility for
treatment equivalent to secondary treatment. However, the legislative historj
does not suggest that “non-compliance” alone is sufficient grounds for
modification of a permit. The legislative history directs the Administrator
to consider processes that provide significant reductions of BOD5 and SS,
and consider their variations in performance and design under various
conditions. The Agency has interpreted the legislative history as requiring a
showing that a process type cannot be expected to consistently achieve
secondary treatment, and allowing NPDES pernit adjustnents for facilities
using such processes, where the given facility cannot consistently meet
secondary treatment.
The following section describes the technical considerations that EPA made
in assessing the performance of given process types. For the purposes of the
technical evaluation, the following classes of biological treatment facilities
were examined:
Filter,
Filter,
Filter,
Filter,
Filter,
Filter,
Si udge,
Sludge,
Sludge,
Sludge,
Sludge,
o Rotating Biological Contactor
o Oxidation Ditch
o Waste Stabilization Pond
CLASSIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
o Trickling
Trickling
Trickling
o Trickling
Trickling
Trickling
o Activated
Activated
Activated
o Activated
o Activated
Rock Media, Year Round Data
Rock Media, Winter Data Only
Rock Media, Sumer Data Only
Plastic Media, Year Round Data
Plastic Media, Winter Data Only
Plastic Media, Summer Data Only
Conventional, All Facilities
Conventional, Pre—P.L. 92—500 Facilities
Conventional, Post—P.L. 92—500 Facilities
Contact Stabilization
Extended Aeration
47

-------
B. DEFINITION OF PROCESS TYPE CRITERIA FOR FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT
EQUIVALENT TO SECONDARY TREATMENT
1. Methodology
The following section discusses the design of the study used by the Agency
to characterize process type classes as secondary treatment or treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment. Using estimates of the 95th percentile
from the empirical data and approximations from statistical distributions of
the data (Jognormal and normal distributions), the performance level of a
given proces type class was characterized in terms of a typical or central
value. Such values were obtained by determining the median 95th percentile
30—day average, an average of the 95th percentile 30-day averages weighted by
number of observations for each facility, and an unweightedaverage of the
95th percentile 30—day averages. The goal of the analysis was to determine
whether a given biological treatment process could be expected to reliably
achieve current technology—based requirements.
(a) Averaging Periods . For the purposes of characterizing the
performance capabilities of process type classes identified for technical
evaluation, the Agency considered both the 30-day average and 7-day averages
for BOD5 and SS for a given facility, and the ability of the facility to
meet current secondary treatment standards. Analyses of the data indicated
that the 7—day values (99th percentile) were greater than the 30—day average
values (95th percentile) by a factor within a range of 1.2 to 1.8; however, a
substantial number of the facilities exhibited a relationship of less than
1.5. Since the existing secondary treatment regulations reflect a 1.5 factor
(7—day:30-day::46 g/L:3Omg/L), t e data indicated that the 7-day average
value was not lii iting. Therefore, the analyses focused only on the 30—day
average values.
(b) Analyses Based on Empirical Data . As noted in Section IV of this
document, the actual data were found to be more representative of plant
performance than predicted values using statistical parameters describing the
distribution of the data. As discussed earlier, the 30-day average effluent
values for each facility were computed on a moving average basis. For each
facility, a 95th percentile value was estimated from the complete set of
30-day moving averages for that facility. Summary presentations of these
analyses can be found in the compliance frequency tables found in Appendix D
of this document (Tables D-l through D-12). Actual facility-by-facility data
summaries for the trickling filter, oxidation ditch, and waste stabilization
pond process type classes are presented in Appendix E (Tables E—l through E-8).
(c) Analyses Based on Lognormal Distributions Although the lognormal
distribution was not found to be representative of the data for all
facilities, analyses were conducted assuming a lognormal distribution of the
data for the rock media trickling filter, conventional activated sludge, and
waste stabilization pond categories. Parameters that characterize the
lognormal distribution of the data for each facility were estimated. These
parameters were the mean and the standard deviation of the 30-day averages as
deriving from the logarithms of the original data.
48

-------
The maximum liklihood estimates of these parameters are given by the
formulae:
N
U3 J = E in (X )/N (1)
1=1
°X30 = (ln(Xj) - u 30 ) 2 /N) 1 / 2 (2)
where X is the i—th 30D5 or SS 30—day average value at a plant
and N is the total number of 30—day averages.
By knowing ii and 0 x30’ it is poss.ible to compute the mean, m , and
standard deviation, s, of the distribution proper:
mx = exp (u30 + .5 a 2 ) (3)
S 30 = mx (exp C Ox3Q 2 ) - 1)1/2 (4)
For each facility the estimated mean and standard deviation of the 30—day
averages were used to predict a 95th percentile effluent value for B0D and
SS as follows:
E95 mx (1 + (Z ( 5x3 0 /mx) (5)
where 95 is equal to the 30-day average effluent value that is
expected to be achieved 95 percent of the time, and where Z L345.
The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix E of this document
(Tables E—9 through E—14).
(d) Normal Distribution . Although a normal distribution was found to be
not representative of the effluent data for most studied facilities (see
Section IV of this document), further analyses were conducted to determine
whether a normal approximation yielded equivalent values. The central
tendency of various process type classes was determined by using the median
value of the overall facility means for a given process type class and the
median value for the overall facility standard deviation of the 30-day moving
averages (see Table P1-4). The performance capabilities were estimated for
each process class in terms of the following:
1 ’med = Uxmed + (1.645 Ox30med) (6)
where rned is the expected performance level for a process type
class, based on the median values for the overall facility means
(Ux), the standard deviation of the 30—day moving averages
(°x3Omed), and an approximation of the 95th percentile in a normal
distribution using a Z—factor of 1.645.
The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix E (Table E -15).
49

-------
2. Conclusions
As reflected in the results presented in the compliance frequency tables
(Appendix 0, Tables 0-1 through D-12), and summary tables (Appendix E), the
analysis of effluent data for the rock media trickling filter category and
waste stabilization pond category indicates that those two categories
experience the greatest difficulty in achieving secondary treatment
requirements. The trickling filter, plastic media category can be
characterized as marginal in terms of providing a level of treatment that
would consistently meet secondary treatment standards, especially during cold
weather periods. Therefore, the use of one of these process type classes
would be indicated as a criterion for treatment equivalent to secondary
treatment.
For the other process type classes, the analyses indicated that secondary
treatment requirements were achievable with a high degree of reliability by
most facilities within the process category; however, within each of these
“secondary treatment” process type classes, there were instances of facilities
that exceeded secondary treatment standards. The number of the observed
facility exceedances for the process types classified as ‘secondary treat ient”
ranged from 18 to 40 percent of the facilities, depending on process type and
pollutant parameter. However, given the long—term average effluent
concentrations for these categories, which were typically less than 15 mg/L
for both B0D and SS, and 30-day average variability factors (see Section
I’/.C.3. of this document) that were typically below 2.0, the Agency has
detcrmined that secondary treatment standards are attainable through the use
of the activated sludge, oxidation ditch, and rotating biological contactor
process types.
50

-------
SECTION VI
MINIMUM LEVEL OF EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE
A. SUMMARY
This section summarizes the technical evaluations of performance data that
were carried out to define the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by
the class of facilities that meet the following criteria:
(1) the facilities provide a significant reduction of BODE and 55,
(2) the facilities use either a trickling filter or waste stabilization
pond as the principal treatment process, and
(3) the facilities cannot consistently achieve (at least 95 percent of
the tine or better) an effluent quality of 30 rng/L BOD5 and SS on a
30—day average basis.
B. DESCRIPTIO OF DATA
The trickling filter arid waste stabilization pond process type classes
were examined to determine those facilities that could not achieve 30 ng/L
30D 5 and SS on a 30—day average basis, using a 95th percentile value. As
described in Section II of this document, in order to maintain an adequate
sample size for tne plastic media trickling filter category, analyses induced
facilities that used chemical additional as an adjunct to the trickling
filter. In screening the plastic media trickling filter category in terms of
the criteria described in Section VI.A. above, it was further determined that
the resulting sample of plastic media trickling filters was too small to stand
by itself and still support valid conclusions. Therefore, for purposes of the
analyses described in this section, the plastic media and rock media trickling
filters were grouped together.
For the waste stabilization pond process, analyses were conducted using
(1) a sample composed of ponds without additional processes and outliers, and
(2) a sample that included selected facilities using additional processes or
selected facilities that were previously designated as outliers. The basis
for identification of certain pond facilities as ‘outliers 0 is described in
Task Report of the contractor’s summary reports, Contract No. 68—01-6755, Work
Assignment 2, Action Number 2. Unselected outlier facilities are designated
in Tables E—7 and E-8 in Appendix E of this document.
51

-------
C. ANALYSES USED IN DETERMINING MINIMUM ATTAINABLE LEVELS OF EFFLUENT QUALITY
1. Actual Data
As with the analyses described in Section V of this document, actual data
for selected facilities were used to estimate a 95th percentile 30—day moving
average value. For the category of facilities eligible for treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment (see criteria in Section VI. A), the typical
or central value of the category was determined by calculating average values
for the class, average values for the class weighted by the number of
observations for each facility, and the median value of all facilities in the
class. Summary tables (F-i through F-16) presented the results of those
analyses are found in Appendix F of this document. For the regulatory
purposes, the median BOD5 and SS effluent values were chosen as expressing a
representative level of effluent quality for the class. The average values
and weighted average values were essentially the same, or slightly higher, for
most categories, and for the purposes of this analysis could be considered as
methodologies equivalent to the use of the median.
The various analyses provided 30—day average BOD5 and SS values of 40 to
45 nig/L.
2. Long-term Averages and Variability Factors
As described in Section IV of this document, long—term averages and 30-day
average variability factors were calaculated for various process types. For
tricklings, the long-term average B0D and SS values for the category of
facilities eligible ranged from approximately 20 mg/L to 40 mg!L (range
defined by 10th and 90th percentiles of all facilities sampled) with average
or median values of approximately 28 to 30 mg/L (see Tables F-i and F-3,
Appendix F). As noted in Section I’!, the 30-day average variability factors
for trickling filters ranged from 1.16 to 1.99, with 1.5 as the typical
value. For waste stabilization ponds, the long-term average B0D values for
the category of facilities eligible ranged from 17 mg/L to 44 rng/L (range
defined by 10th and 90th percentiles of all facilities sampled) with average
or median values of approximately 20 to 25 mg/L (see Table F—13, Appendix F).
The 30—day average variability factors for BOO 5 for ponds ranged from 1.16
to 2.65, with a factor of 1.8 as a typical value.
Based on the typical long-term averages and 30-day variability factors, a
value of 40 to 45 mg/L would be expected for BODE and SS.
3. Lognormal Distribution
As a check on the analysis performed with actual data, analyses based on
an assumed lognornial distribution of the data (see Section V.B.l.c of this
document) were also conducted for those rock media trickling filter and waste
stabilization pond facilities that met the criteria specified in Section VI.A
of this document. As with the actual data, average values, weighted average
values, and median values for the estimated 95th percentile 30-day average
were calculated for the overall category. The results of these analyses are
presented in Tables F—17 through F—20 of Appendix F to this document.
52

-------
Based on the lognorrnal analyses, the average and median values for the
30-day average B005 and SS for trickling filters and BOD5 for waste
stabilization ponds were between 40 and 45 mg/L. The SS value for ponds was
estimated to be approximately 95 mg/L at the median, and from 135 to 180 mg/L
using unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. 1hen analyses were
conducted excluding facilities in which the coeficient of variation exceeded
1.0, the SS values for ponds were estimated at 66 mg/L (median 30-day), and
approximately 69 mg/L for both the weighted and unweighted 30—day averages.
3. Conclusions
Using the variety of approaches to the data described above, the minimum
level of effluent quality attainable for the category of facilities eligible
for treatment equivalent to secondary treatment can be characterized in terms
of B005 30—day average values of approximately 45 mg/L for both trickling
filters and waste stabilization ponds, and 30-day average SS values of
approximately 45 mg/L for trickling filters. For waste stabilization ponds,
the 30-day average SS values exhibited a high degree of variability. An
appropriate characterization iould describe 30—day average SS values for ponds
as typically greater than 65 rng/L at a 95th percentile frequency.
For regulatory purposes, the following were determined to be appropriate:
- a 30-day average B0D value of 45 mg/L for both trickling filters
and • aste stabilization ponds,
- a 30-day average SS value of 45 rnglL for trickling fiTters,
- the existing regulatory scheme specified in 40 CFR 133.103(c) for SS
values for waste stabilization pcfflds.
4. Verification
The Agency reviewed other studies on tne performance of trickling filters
to verify the conclusions reached above. The PA Region VII Trickling Filter
Performance Analysis (Ref. 20) examined the performance of 72 trickling filter
facilities in the States of Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. Based on lognornal
representations of the data, the Region VII analysis would suggest that 30—day
average BOD 5 and SS effluent limits of 45 would be consistently
achieved by 75 to 100 percent of the trickling filter facilities in those
States on a year-round basis.
A report by the USEPA 1unicipal Environmental Research Laboratory ( 1ERL),
entitled uperformance of Trickling Filter Plants: Reliability, Stability and
VariabiIityH (Ref. 5), would suggest that a long—term average 8005 and SS
effluent value of 30 mg/L and a 1.5 30—day average variability factor are
characteristic values expressing typical performance by trickling filters that
cannot consistently achieve secondary treatment requirements.
0. DISCUSSION OF VARIABILITY FOR 7-DAY AVERAGES
For the category of eligible facilities, i.e. , trickling filters and waste
stabilization ponds that cannot consistently achieve 30 rng/L BODE and SS
(see crite ia in Section VI.A. of this document), the relationship of the 95th
percentile 30-day average values to the 99th percentile 7-day average values

-------
was examined. Table F-21 presents the ratios of 7-day averages to 30-day
averages for the trickling filter and pond categories, based on 8005 and SS
effluent data for the median 30—day (95th percentile) and median 7-day (99th
percentile) values, the average of the 30—day (95th percentile) and the
average of the 7—day (99th percentile) values, and the weighted average of the
30-day (95th percentile) and the weighted average of the 7-day (99th
percentile) values.
For the parameters, processes, and facilities examined, the analyses
support a 7-day to 30-day ratio of 1.3 to 1.7. For regulatory purposes, the
Agency used a factor of 1.5 to express the 7—day to 30—day ratio, which is
consistent with the current secondary treatment regulation.
E. PERCENT RE 10VAL
The legislative history notes that trickling filter and pond facilities
achieve significant reductions of BOD5 and SS, but may not be capable of
achieving the secondary treatment standard of 35 percent remova
consistently. The fact sheets referenced in Section III of this document (see
Appendix C of this document) indicate that a facility using a trickling filter
or pond as a biological treatment process can be expected to remove between 60
and 90 percent of B005, based on the raw wastewater infTuent to the plant.
As indicated in Table VI—1, engineering practice for trickling filters before
the Clean Water Act (circa 1960) suggested a design criterion of 65 to 90
percent removal for B0D . It is also noted that the legislative history for
the 1972 Clean Water Act described primary treatment as removing from 30 to 50
percent of organic m cter, i.e., 8005, while secondary treatment was
described as removing from 50 to 90 percent removal of 3005 [ S. Rep. 92-414,
92d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1972)].
Based on these considerations of removal efficiency, and the intent of the
Act to encourage the use of trickling filters and ponds, the Agency believes
that 65 percent removal on a 30-day average basis for B005 is an aopropriate
minimum level of pollutant removal efficiencies to be expected fro n trickling
filters and waste stabilization ponds. A 65 percent removal criterion is also
considered appropriate for 55 for trickling filters; however, for waste
stabilization ponds, the provisions of the existing secondary treatment
regulation with respect to SS values achievable by ponds are considered
appropriate, i.e. , no percent removal value is specified.
54

-------
TABLE VI—1
TICI CI OF
SEWAGE TREA Th1 T METh ODS
]‘er i.I riductiun
i—J” ii,h ii
i () 0 l3ncterIB
I iii t(r
Fine screens
Pinin scdimentntion
Chemical precipitation
Low -rate trickling filter. indudiiig prc .cdirririifri-
tinn and final sedimentation
High-rate trickling filter, including prcndiitieiita-
Lion and fi a1 sedinientation
Conventional acti\ ated sludge, including prr icii-
mcntation and final sedimentation
High-rate activated sludge. including prc. .e i:IIiti-
tation arid final sedimentation
Contact aeration, including pre cdimcntitiiuii and
final sedimentation
Intermittent sand Gltratiori. including prr—aJinuii-
tation .
Chlorination.
Settled sewage
fliolo irall treated sewage
i IItluction is depcriucnt ulinhi tliisigi
SOURCE: Ernest W. Steel, Water Supply and Sewerage
(N q York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1960)
Type of treatiiicnt
10—20
50—60
hO -S5 70—90
i ±
70 I I) l . , . ’ 70-95
S0- ’)5 I &)-O5 ‘ 10—45 +
7( 1-05 80—03
811-95 90-95+
r -o5 95+
55

-------
SECTION VII
GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE STATE REQUIREMENTS (ASR5)
A. INTRODUCTION
The legislative history (see Section II and Appendix B of this document)
directed the Administrator to:
take into account not only pollutant removal efficiencies, but also
differing geographical/climatic conditions which affect treatment
plant performance. The Administrator should also address the
seasonal and geographical variability of biological treatment plant
performance in the regulations issued to carry out this section.
[ S. Rep. No. 97-204, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1981)]
bJhere wide variations in the performance of a treatment process occur due
to such conditions, the establishment of a single performance standard viil
result in either: (1) an overly stringent value that will be difficult for
facilities operating under the most adverse conditions to attain, or (2) an
overly lenient value that would implicitly sanction lass than optimum
performance by facilities operating under the most favorable conditions, ln
such cases, procedures for adjusting individual facility values from a
nationally established standard are warranted, if effluent limitations are to
reflect accurately the variety of local conditions (cf. recommendations of the
House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, [ 1-CR. Rep. No. 97-30,
97th Cong., 1st Sess. 73 (1981)], Appendix B of this document)
As described in Section VI of this document, the minimum level of effluent
quality attainable by eligible trickling filters and waste stabilization ponds
is based on single values characterizing typical performance on a nation-wide
basis. Although the national scope of the sampled facilities and the analysis
encompasses a wide range of geographical, seasonal and climatic conditions,
variations in such factors at the local level are likely to result in
disparate performance capabilities of facilities. The Agency addresses
performance variability by: (1) allowing the establishment of alternative
state requirements where local conditions affect the ability of eligible
facilities to meet the proposed national standard, and (2) requiring that
permit effluent limitations for individual facilities be based on the past
performance of a facility, where the facility has achieved a level of effluent
quality more stringent than the national standard.
This section describes criteria for establishing alternative state
requirements (ASRs), while guidance for implementing individual permit
adjustments is discussed in Section VIII of this document.
56

-------
B. METHODOLOGIES CONSIDERED BY EPA FOR DEVELOPING ASRs
The waste stabilizatIon pond permit adjustment for SS concentrations
(existing § 133.103(c)) provides a precedent for allowing States to
participate in setting alternative effluent requirements by assessing the
performance of local treatment works. In order to implement a similar process
in an expedited manner, a Regional Administrator or State determines the
effluent concentrations consistently achieved by IF and WSP facilities in
accordance with criteria set forth in the final rule (see Section VII. C.
below). EPA retains responsibility for approving any alternative requirements
suggested by a State, and may veto any non-conforming permit (40 CFR
(123.44 (c)).
Since the implementation of the ASR provision would involves application
of the regulatory criteria set forth in § 133.105(d) during the NPDES permit
process EPA will not be proposing or promulgating the approved alternative
effluent requirements. However, the permitting authority is required to
provide notice and opportunity for public comment on the ASR, and the Agency
intends to publish the values in the Federal Register as was done for ponds
suspended solids [ 43 FR 55279J.
C. CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING ASRs
As an alternative to the national values established for BOD5 and SS
concentrations, individual States nay recommend alternative effluent
requirements that will more accurately reflect the performance of trickling
filter and waste stabilization pond facilities within their State than tTe
national limits. ifl order to establish an ASR, a State must demonstrate that
certain criteria \ il1 be met. The criteria, which would result jr a State
using a methodology equivalent to that described in Section VI of this
document, are as follows:
57

-------
1. The analysis includes only those facilities that are eligible for
consideration under treatment equivalent to secondary treatment,
i.e. , the 3OD and $5 effluent concentrations consistently achieved
through proper operation and maintenance (5 133.101(f)) of the
treatment works indicate that the current standards of secondary
treatment cannot be consistently achieved, a trickling filter or
waste stabilization pond is used as the principal process, and the
treatment orks provide significant biological treatment of municipal
wastewater.
2. For each facility and given pollutant parameter, the effluent quality
is characterized in terms of the following: (a) the 95th percentile
value for the 30—day average effluent quality achieved by a treatment
works in a period of at least two years, excluding values
attributable to upsets, bypasses, operational errors, or other
unusual conditions, and (b) a 7-day average value equal to 1.5 tines
the 30-day value.
3. The ASR is based on the level of effluent quality achieved by the
median (50th percentile) facility in the sample.
A representative sample of the complete universe of eligible facilities
within a State or appropriate contiguous geographical area may be used, where
appropriate, to facilitate the analysis. Issues involved with the use of a
sample are discussed in Section VU. C. below. Section i i of this document
describes general procedures that may be followed in identifying and screening
facilities for analysis.
In all cases, the resulting data base must be analyzed in accordanco ntfl
criteria (2) and (3) as described above. Alternative approaches for
characterizing the 95th percentile 30—day average effluent quality are
described in Sections V and VI of this document. The minimum level of
effluent quality far the ASR is determined by calculating the effluent values
for the median (50th percentile) facility in the universe or sample. ASR
values developed by States must be submitted to EPA for approval. A summary
of the statistical analysis used by the State to develop the ASR values must
also be submitted and, if consistent with the ASR development criteria above,
will serve as the basis for EPA approval.
0. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN DEVELOPING ASRs
The purpose of the A$R provisions is to allow States flexibility in
tailoring effluent requirements that take into account variations in plant
performance attributable to differences in climatic or seasonal conditions.
in order to preserve the intended flexibility, the criteria have been written
to allow States to address issues that may arise because of a number of
factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: climatic or seasonal
differences with a State, similarities in climatic or seasonal conditions
among contiguous States, and variations in the performance of different forms
of trickling filters and ponds. All of these factors were considered to some
extent in developing the adjusted SS values for ponds. As can be seen in
Table VU-I, Some States established different SS values for ponds in
different geographical areas of their States; contiguous States with similar
58

-------
climatic conditions frequently adopted the sane SS value; sore States
established seasonal values; some States differentiated between different
forms of ponds. Some of the issues involved in implementing ASRs are
discussed below.
1. Sample Size
A major issue in considering disaggregation of the data within a State (or
in aggregating the data for facilities in contiguous States of geographical
areas), is whether the size of universe (or sample) of eligible facilities
with adequate data is large enough to enable the analyst to draw relevant
conclusions about the performance of trickling filters and pond facilities.
Where a limited number of facilities exist within a given single State, the
EPA Regions should coordinate the efforts of contiguous States in developing
ASRs based on the all facilities operating within a geographical area of
siniiliar seasonal and climatic conditions. Care should be taken in
disaggregating a sample within a State (based on climatic or process
differences) to ensure that the basis of such differentiation can be shown to
be significant. Disaggregation should not be used if it would result in a
limited sample size.
2. Differences in Process Types
Under the final rule, a State could recommend any of the following:
— A single ASP for both trickling filters and waste stabilization
ponds, including all variants of those processes.
- An ASP for trickling filters and a separate ASP for waste
stabilization ponds, or variants of those processes.
- An ASP for only one process (or variant of a process), with
acceptance of the national requirements for the remaining process (or
process variants).
The decision to establish different requirements based on the process used
will involve consideration of observed differences in the performance of
various processes or process variants. Ease of administration suggests that a
sin 9 le ASR for all eligible facilities, trickling filters, ponds and all their
variants, should be developed, unless the data indicate a significant and
compelling basis for setting separate values. It should be noted that the
establishment of separate values for different processes or process variants
will tend to result in limited sample sizes that may not be representative.
3. Seasonal Requirements
Simply put, the need for an ASR will be based primarily on the inability
of facilities within a State or appropriate contiguous geographical area to
meet consistently the national performance standard. The use of a 95th
percentile 30—day average value will tend to result in characterizing a
plant’s effluent quality on the basis of its performance under the most
adverse operating conditions. Since these conditions may be seasonal in

-------
nature, e.g. , limited to winter months of November through March, it may be
approprfate to develop ASRs that apply only during certain seasons of the
year. Particularly in northern climates, States should consider analyses of
data that would identify and account for any seasonal differences in
erformance. Where such differences are significant, e.g. , the summer time
3O-day average 30D values are less than 45 nig/L, but . inter time 30-day
average 3005 values are 50 nig/L or greater, a seasonal ASR may be
appropriate.
60

-------
TABLE VII-l
Suspended Solids Limitations for Wastewater Treatment
Ponds ** [ SOURCE: 43 FR 55279, November 27, 1978]
Location Suspended Solids Limit *
(mg/L)
Alabama 90
Alaska 70
Arizona 90
Arkansas go
California 95
Colorado
Aerated Ponds 75
All Others 105
Connecticut N.C.
Delaware l.C.
District of Columbia N.C.
Florida N.C.
Georgia 90
Guam N.C.
Hawaii NC.
Idaho N.C.
Illinois 37
Indiana 70
Iowa
Controlled Discharge, 3 cell case-by—case but not
greater than 80
MI Others 30
Kansas 80
Kentucky N.C.
Louisiana 90
1aine 45
Maryland 90
Massachusetts N.C.
t ichigan
Controlled Seasonal Discharge
Summer 70
Winter 40
Minnesota N.C.
1ississippi 90
Missouri 80
Montana 100
Nebraska 80
North Carolina 90
North Dakota
North and East of Missouri River 60
South and West of Missouri River 100
Nevada 90
New Hampshire 45
New Jersey N.C.
New Mexico 90
New York 70
61

-------
(TABLE VII—] Continued)
Suspended Solids Liniitations for Wastewater Treatment Ponds**
Location Suspended Solids Limit *
( mg/L)
Ohio 65
Oklahoma 90
Oregon
East of Cascade Rts. 85
West of Cascade t1ts. 60
Pennsylvania N.C.
Puerto Rico N.C.
Rhode Island 45
South Carolina go
South Dakota 120
Tennessee 100
Texas go
Utah N.C.
Vermont
V i rg i n i a
East of Blue Ridge fits. 60
West of Blue Ridge Mts. 73
East slope counties case by case
Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, application of 60/73
?iadison, Green, Albeniarle, flelson limits
Amherst, Bedford, Franklin, Patrick
Virgin Islands H.C.
Washington 75
West Virginia 80
Wisconsin 60
Wyoming 100
Trust Territories and U. Marianas N.C.
NOTES:
f CC. - no change from existing criteria
* Thirty consecutive day average or average over the period of discharge
when the duration of the discharge is less than 30 days.
** The values set for Iowa and Virginia incorporate a specific case-by—case
provision; however, in accordance with 40 CER 133.103(c), adjustments of
suspended solids limitations for individual ponds in all States are to
be authorized on a case—by—case basis.
62

-------
SECTION VIII
GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING NPDES PERMIT ADJUSTMENTS
A. INTRODUCTION
As noted in Section VII of this document, in order to account for
differing geographical and climatic conditions which affect treatment plant
performance, permit effluent limitations for eli 9 ible trickling filters and
ponds may be based on the level of effluent quality attainable by a given
facility. (In all cases, NPDES permit effluent limitations are not allowed to
exceed either the nationally established B005 and SS values or alternative
State requirements as described in Section VII.) For existing facilities, the
permit values are based on the facility’s past performance record. For new
facilities, the permit values reflect the design capabilities of a treatment
process taking into account geographical and climatic conditions. The
implementation of this “anti—backsliding” provision requires the permit writer
to establish the NPDES permit effluent limitations for specific POTWs based on
the performance capability of the individual facilities. This section
provides guidance for permit writers to ensure that effluent limitations
properly characterize the performance capabilities of the affected facility.
B. AHALYSES FOR EXISTING FACILITIES
1. Eligibility Requirements
The eligibility of a POTW for permit adjustments under this proposal is
contingent upon the use of trickling filter or waste stabilization pond as the
principal process, the achievement of significant biological treatment
(65 percent removal of BODE), and a demonstration that the effluent quality
consistently achieved through proper operation and maintenance of the
treatment works exceeds the current secondary treatment requirements. The
regulations would require that the characterization of the effluent quality
consistently achieved by the facility based on a 95th percentile of the 30—daj
average BOD 5 and SS in a two—year period, excluding values attributable to
upsets, bypasses, operational errors, or other unusual conditions. These
determinations can be based on operating data for a facility, which is
available through Discharge Monitoring Reports, Compliance Inspection Reports,
or Operation and Maintenance Inspection Reports.
63

-------
2. Determination of Effluent Values in Adjusted Permit
(a) Properly Operated and Maintained Facilities . If the two—year data
base does not include any values attributable to upsets, bypasses, operat onal
errors, or other unusual conditions and the facility is at design flow and
loacing, then the performance of the facility can be characterized in terms of
the 30—day average (95th percentile), 7-day average (1.5 times the 30—day
average), and percentage removal. If the derived values are consistent with
current secondary treatment requirements, then the facility is not eligible
for a permit adjustment. If the derived values exceed the current
requirements, then the permit may be adjusted to those values, provided that
they do not exceed the national standard or any applicable alternative State
requirements.
(b) Improperly Operated and Maintained Facilities , if the two—year data
base includes values attributable to upsets, bypasses, operational errors, or
other unusual conditions, the permit should be written based on the effluent
quality the facility should be capable of producing. Similar facilities can
serve as the basis for a decision. If computer evaluation programs are
available such as CAPOET or the Dia nostic Operational friodeling Program they
can also be used to formulate a decision.
In reviewing the composite data for such facilities, all factors specific
to the POTI•J being permitted should be examined. P0Th! design and influent
differences that should be considered include:
o any unusual organic and hydraulic influent loading;
o any industrial waste contr butions of greater than lO0 of the total
organic or hydraulic capacity of the facility;
o any unusual design criteria such as -— high or low process loading
rates, recycle rates, detention times, etc.
The following factors should also be considered in determining whether
poor O& 4 that is limiting plant performance:
o out-of-service equipment;
o excessive solids concentration in clarifiers;
o a lack of operational control testing or records including flow
records, sludge depth in clarifiers, recycle rates;
o excessive bank erosion or growth around lagoons;
o improper operating depth or discharge procedures for lagoons.
Cc) Underloaded Facilities
If a plant is currently underloaded in terms of its design conditions, it
is appropriate for the permit effluent limitations to reflect performance
capabilities of the plant at design loading and flow conditions . One
approach to permitting th&Ecan be utilized is the establishment of two sets
of limitations for two different flow values, i.e., the existing flow and the
design flow. Once again computer evaluation programs can be valuable in
establishing limits for the design flow situation. When utilizing computer
programs, however, any limitations presented in the program’s user manual must
be considered. The effluent quality data that is provided by these programs

-------
should never be used as the sole source of a decision on permit effluent
limits. The experience of 0&M and enforcement personnel should be utilized to
assess the level of effluent quality that the POTW is capable of producing.
(d) Seasonal Effluent Limitations . As in considering seasonal effects in
establishing ASRs see Section VII), permit writers may also consider seasonal
effluent limitations if the composite data indicate that seasonal trends in
effluent quality are ocurring.
C. ANALYSES FOR NEW FACILITIES
The permitting of new facilities requires greater reliance on permitting
authorities’ experience because of the lack of performance data. The
performance of recently .constructed facilities within a State nay provide a
better basis for establishing appropriate effluent limitations. However,
where such effluent data are not available in an individual State, plant data
from recently constructed facilities in surrounding States with similar
conditions may be appropriate. The determination 0 f effluent limitations for
new facilities should follow the statistical approach for other equivalent
treatment standards, described in Section VI. Additionally, States should
perform this analysis upon promulgation of the regulation and disseminate the
results to municipal officials and consulting engineers within the State.
As noted in Section III of this document, the EPA “Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual” (Ref. 14) provides a general
reference for effluent quality attainable by trickling filters and ponds,
together with accepted values for loading rates and other design criteria for
most facility tyoes. As a further general indication, data used in the
analysis of tric <1ing filter and pond process (see Sections V and VI of this
document) suggest that, on a national basis, new trickling filters can be
expected to achieve a 30-day average BOO 5 and SS effluent of approximately
35 mg/L; however, it should be noted that varying temperature conditions,
especially when minimum influent wastewater temperatures fall within the range
of 13°C or less, may result in higher values.
In evaluating the effluent limitations for new facilities, the permit
writer should address the seasonal effects on the performance of the proposed
process, and any other factors that may result in effects on the expected
performance of the facility. For example, process innovations or additions,
such as chemical addition, covers on trickling filters, the trickling
filter-solids contact process, will frequently be proposed where they enable
the facility to achieve a significant improvement in effluent at relatively
moderate cost.
65

-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. Biodisc Breakdown Surface , Engineering News Record, June 4, 1981, p. 23 .
2. Callaway, 0. and Young, J.C., Impact of Nitrification in BOD Tests on
Treatment Plant Performance . Paper submitted to the Journal, Water
Pollution ontroI 1-ederation, August 1981.
3. Gray, Jr., Albert C., P.E. Paul, and M.D. Roberts. Evaluation of
Operation and Maintenance Factors Limiting 3iological Wastewater Treatment
PTant Performance . EPA-600/2—79-073. USEP , 1979.
4. Mann, R.W. , et al., “ Evaluation of Factors Effecting Discharge Quality
Variation. ” Final Report for the Texas tlater Quality board.
Environmental Engineering Division, Civil Engineering Department, Texas
A & M University, Austin, Texas 1972.
5. }1augh, R., ‘Hku, S., Schroeder. E.D. and Tchobanoglous G., Performance of
Trickling Filter Plants: Reliability, Stability and Variability.” ’ USEPA,
MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA— OU/5Z-81—Z , December 1981.
6. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., E.D. ljriscoll and Associates, inc., and Mancini
and Di Toro Consultants, Inc. Report on Overall Level of Protection and
Margin of Safety Related to Development of Wasteload Allocations .
November 1982.
7. Mazen and Sawyer, P.C. Review of Performance of Municipal Se’oidary
Treatment Plants. Draft report prepared under EPj contract o. -
b6-Ol-6275. Washington, D.C. May 1983.
8. Me g, 13. A., K.L. Rakness, and J.R. Schultz. Evaluation of Operation and
Maintenance Factors Limiting ?lunicipal Wastewater Treatment Plant
P rformance. keport prepared In partial flilfiflnient of EMtontrdct No.
6& uJ- z 4 . USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio 1978.
9. Niku, S., et al., Performance of Biological Wastewater Treatment Plants:
Reliability, Stability, and Variability . USEPA, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio.
10. Niku, S., E.D. Schroeder and F.J. Samaniego. Performance of Activated
Sludge Processes and Reliability Based Design . Jour., Water Poll. Control
Fed., V0T. 51. No. 12.
66

-------
13. Office of Water Program Operations. Alternative
Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment .
EPA-43Of9—75—UI , MCD—14. October 19/b.
14. Office of Water Program Operations. Innovative and Alternative Technology
Assessment Manual . USEPA, Washington, D.C. EPA—4 Of9-/S-OU9, MCD—bi.
1-ebruary 1980.
15. Office of Water Program Operations. Construction Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1978 . USEPA, Washington, IJ.C.
EPA-430/9-BO-003. April 1980.
17. Office of Water Program Operation. Construction Costs for r’tunici3al
Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1982 . USEPA, Washington, .C.
hPA-4.iO/9- 3-UO4. June 1983.
18. Office of Water Program Operations.
Treatment, and Control of lunicipal
and Stormwater Runoff, Summaries of
D.C. EPA-4 U/I9—8i-UU . June
The 1982 Needs Survey: Conveyance ,
Wastewater, Conioined Sewer Overt lows,
Technical Data. USEPA, Washington,
19. Office of Water Regulations and StarLdards. Simplified Analytical Method
for Determining PDES Effluent Limitation for POTWs Discharging nto
Low—How Streams: iNational Guidance . US PA, Washington, D.C.
September b, 193U.
20. Rossnian, L.A. Region ‘III Tricklina Filter performance Analysis . USEPA,
MERL Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1 (Part I) and March 30 (Part II), 1982.
21. Rossnian, Lewis A., Statistical Analysis of Plant Performance Surveys .
Draft Report. USEPA, Wastewater Research Division, MERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio. 1982.
22. Steele, E.W. Water Supply and Sewerage .
Co. 1960.
New York, New York, McGraw Hill
23. Torpey, W.N., Personal Communication.
24. Townshend. A.R., hStati tica1 Analysis of the Effluent Quality of
Biological Sewage Treatment Processes.°Proceedings, the Third Canadian
Symposium on Water Pollution Research . Toronto, Canada. 19b5.
11. Niku, S.,
Geometric
471—473.
F.J. Sarnaniego. E.D. Schroeder. Discharge Standards Based on
Mean. Jour., Water Poll. Control Fed., Vol. 53 No. 4. Pp.
April 1981.
12. Niku, S., E.D. Schroeder, G. Tchobanoglous, F.J. Samaniego. Performance
of Activated Sludge Process: Reliability, Stability and Variability.
USEPA, MEKL, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/52-81—227. December 1981 .
Waste Management
USEPA, Washington, D.C.
16. Office of Water Program
Amendments and Required
Information Regulation
USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Operations. Analysis of the 1981 Clean Water Act
Regulatory Changes: Secondary Treatment
(40 CFR Part 133): Preliminary Concept Paper.
July 19 3 .
67

-------
SECTION X
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
BOD 5 Biochemical oxygen demand, five day
COD Chemical oxygen demand
exp Exponential
in Natural logarithm
MGD Million gallons per day
mx Long-term mean of effluent value Cx)
rng/L Milligrams per liter
Total number of sample values
NPDES ationa1 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Standard deviation calculated from lognormal distribution
SS Suspended Solids
Coefficient of variation of effluent value Cx) for n-day average
N values
YE Va jj y_Factor
VFN Variability Factor for time period, N
Z Standardized normaT variate at a given degree of probability
(Xi) the i—th value -in a total of N values, see N
u mean
E Sumation
Standard deviation of the n—day average values from the overall
N mean (mx)
o2 Variance
63

-------
SECTION XI
APPENDICES
A. Glossary
B. Legislative History
C. Summary Fact Sheets for Selected
Biological Treatment Systems
0. Summary of Compliance Frequency
by Treatment Process Type
E. Technical Data Summary Tables, by Treatment Process Type
F. Technical Data Summary for Processes and Facilities In Treatment
Equivalent to Secondary Treatment Category
69

-------
APPE IDIX A
GLOSSARY

-------
GLOSSARY
1. U7 _ y average. The arithmetic mean of pollutant parameter values for
samples collected in a period of 7 consecutive days.
2. IL3O day averag . ” The arithmetic mean of pollutant parameter values for
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive days.
3. “ Act. ” The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 as amended).
4. “ Arithmetic average. ” The sum of all the data values divided by the
number of data points.
5. “BOD 5 .” Tne five day measure of the pollutant parameter biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD).
6. “ Calendar average ” me arithmetic mean of pollutant parameter values
collected over a specified period (e.g., 7 or 30 consecutive days).
7. “COD. Chemical oxygen demand.
8. “ Coefficient. ” A numerical measure of a physical or chemical property
that is constant for a system under specified conditions.
9. “ Correlation coefficient. ” A measure of the interdependence of two random
variables; ranges in value from -l to +1, indicating perfect negative
correlation at —1, absence of correlation at 0, and perfect positive
correlation at +1.
10. “ Design flow. ” Influent flow rate at which wastewater treatment facility
was designed to operate.
11. “ Effluent. ” Discharge from a wastewater treatment facility into receiving
waters.
12. “ Effluent concentrations consistently achieved througn proper operation
and maintenance. ” For a given pollutant parameter, the 95th percentile
value for the 30-day average effluent quality achieved by a treatment
works in a period of at least two years, excluding values attributable to
upsets, bypasses, operational errors, and periods of unusually high
strength wastewater.
13. “ Facilities eligible for treatment equivalent to secondary treatment. ”
Treatment works shall be eligible for consideration for effluent
limitations described for treatment equivalent to secondary treatment
(5133.105), if:
(1) the BOD 5 and SS effluent concentrations consistently achieved
through proper operation and maintenance (5133.101(f)) of the treatment
works exceeds the minimum level of effluent quality set forth in
S 133.102(a) 5133.102(b)).
A-i

-------
a trickling filter of waste stabilization pond is used as the
principal process, and
(3) the treatment works provide significant biological treatment of
municipal wastewater.
14. Flaw. The amount astweater moving in a given period of time.
15. “ Geometric average. ” The positive nth root of a product of n factors.
lb. “ Hydraulic detention time. ” In biological wastewater treatment processes,
the time that the mixed liquor suspended solids (MISS) spend in the
reactor basin (i.e., where the microorganisms are brougnt into contact
with the organic components of wastewater).
17. “ Hydraulic loading rate. ” Wastewater flow rate treated by a wastewater
treatment process system.
18. “ Infiltration/Inflow (I/I). 1 4ater other than wastewater entering a sewer
system; includes sucn sources as groundwater and stormiwater.
19. “ Influent. ” Untreated wastewater entering a wastewater treatment facility.
20. “ Kolrrogorov—Smirncv goodness—of—fit test. ” A method for determining tne
capaoi1 ty of a probability distr out on model to describe a ,iven set of
data.
21. “ Major facility. ” Wastewater treatment plant witn flow of equal to or
greater than 1 MGD.
22. “Mean.” Average value of a series of data. Usually the arithmetic mean.
.23. “Median.” The middle value when the data are arranged in ascending or
descenaing order.
24. “MGE . ’ Million gallons per day.
25. “mg/I.” Milligrams per liter.
26. “ Minor facility. ” Wastewater treatment plant with a flow of less than
1 MGD.
27. “ Mixed liquor. ” Mixture of activated sludge, primary effluent or raw
wastewater, and return sludge in the aeration tank of an activated sludge
process.
28. “ Mixed liquor suspended solids. ” The suspended solids in the mixed liquor
or an aeration tank.
A-2

-------
29. “Mode.” The most frequently occurring value in a data set.
30. “NPDES.” National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
31. “ Organic loading rate. ” me rate at which organics measured by BUD, are
added to the mixed liquor in the aeration tank in a biological waste iater
treatment process.
32. “ Pearson correlation coefficient. ” Measures the relationship between two
sets of data; the closer the coefficient is to 1, tne more linear the
relationship between tne data sets.
33. “ Percent removal. ” A percentage expression of the removal efficiency of a
treatment works for a given pollutant parameter, as determined from the
30-day average values of the influent pollutant concentrations to the
facility and the 30—day average values of the effluent pollutant
concentrations for a given time period.
34. “ Probability distribution. ” The probability pattern that gives the
relative likelihood associated with all possible values of a variable.
35. “ Process parameters. ” The variables associated with the operation of a
wastewater treatment facility.
36. “ Process volume. ” The capacity of a biological treatment unit of a
wastewater treatment facility.
37. “ Randomness. ” Cnaracteristics of a date. set that does not exhibit cjcles
or patterns or that is generated such that each data point has an equal
chance of being sampled.
38. “Reliability. The percent of the time that effluent concentrations are
acnieved.
39. “ Runs test. ” General purpose test of the randomness of a data series.
40. “ Serial correlation test. ” A test for the correlation between consecutive
data pairs used to test for randomness of a data series.
41. “ Significant biological treatment. ” The use of an aerooic or anaerobic
biological treatment process in a treatment works to consistently achieve
a 30—day average of at least 65 percent removal of 8005.
42. uSkewness.u A measure of the symetry of the data about the mean. When
the skewness is approximately equal to zero, the distribution of the data
about the mean is symetric. For positive values of skewness, the
distribution of the data is clustered more to the left of the mean and has
a longer tail to the right. For negative skewness, the data more
clustered to the right of the mean with a longer tail to the left.
43. “ Sludge age. ” A measure of the length of time a particle of suspended
solids h s been undergoing aeration in the activated sludge process.
A-3

-------
44. SoHds loading rate. ” The rate at which suspended solids are added to
the mixed liquor of an aeration tank in a bio1ogical wastewater treatment
process.
45. “ Spearrnan rank order correlation coefficient. ” Measures the relationship
between the rankings of two sets of data. Indicates nonlinear
relationships between the data sets.
46. uStandard deviation. ” A measure of the degree of dispersion or spread of
the data about the mean value; expressed in the same 1 units as the data;
tne square root of the variance.
47• U II Trickling filter.
48. “T0C.’ Total organic carbon.
49. “ Variance. ” A measure of the degree of dispersion or the data about the
mean value. The smaller the variance the more closely the individual data
points are clustered aDout the mean; expressed in terms of the squared
units of the sample data values.
50. “ Volatile MLSS. ” The organic or volatile suspended solids in the mixed
liquor of an aeration tank of a biological wastewater treatment process.
51. “WSP.” \4aste stabilization pond.
A-4

-------
APPENDIX B
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

-------
PUBLIC LAW 9 7 — 117 —DEC 29, lOS] 9 SFAT l 2:
Public Law 97-U7
97th Congress
An Act
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authonz.e funds for fiscal year lb . 2’ 1 ’ I
19S2, and for other purposes I I I I .1 U IJ
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatwes of (he
United States of .4 nzeriea in Congress assembled,
\
Tr, tinint
SHORT T ITLE Cun truct ,un
Grint
Sccnori 1. This Act may be cited as the “Municipal Wastewater Ar ” ‘dments of
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of]981”. ‘L 1 SC 1231
no , C
SECOSDAI 1Y TREATMENT DEFINITION
21 USC 1314 SEC 23 Section 3041d}ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding the followrng new paragraph:
“(4) For the purposes of t’ru.s suhsect on. such biological treatment
facilities as oxidation ponds, lagoons. and ditches and trickling filters
shall be d emed the eqt..i alent OISCCODdaI-V treatment The .Admm:s-
trator shall provide gwdance under parazrnpn (1) of this subsection
on design cnt.eria for such IacJitzes, takin into account pollutant
removal efficiencies and, consistent with the objective of the Act,
assunng that water quality will not be adtersely affected by deernmg
such facilities as the equivalent of secondary treatment”.
Approved December 29. 1981.
LEGISLATIVE_HISTORY—HR 4503 (S 17 161
HOLSE REPORTS No r-270 (Comm on Public Worki and Transportiil iun’ .ind No
7-4o (Comm of Conference )
SE\ATE 1 F.PORT No 97-204 uccompanpng S 1710 Comm on En irrntnitnt tii,d
l’uhlir Works)
CONGRF.SSlONA1.RFA ORD Vol 127 11961)
Oct 27. conc,d n’d and passed Houce , $ 1716 cnncder,d .tnd ptr.- d Sn.iit
Oct 2’P. con .id,red and passed Senate amended in lieu of S i i I I ’
Der I ’ Hou.r iind Senate air n -ed to conference report
EE) L nn If’iLvPlON CF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS. V 0 1 17. N. .$ ti*ii
IM 2’). Prvodi ni,a1 statement
s - i

-------
9 7 rH CONGRESS hOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES R i .lOHT
1st Session No 97-408
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRU T1ON
GRANT AMENDMENTS OF 1981
DECFM ER 14, 1981 —Ordcred to be printed
Mr ROE, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
(To arcompany H R 4303]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H R 4503) to
amend trie Federal Water Pollution control Act to authorize funds
for fiscal year 1982, and for other purposes, having met, after full
arid free conference, ha e agreed to recommend and do recommend
to their respective Houses as follo s.
That the House recede from its dls3Creernerit to the arne-drnent
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
DEFINITION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senote amendment
Section 304(d) of the basic Act is amended by adding a new para-
graph permitting the use of biological treatment facilities such as
oxidation ponds, lagoons and ditches, trickling filters, and devices
to treat waste waters from combined storm and sanitar sewers, as
the equivalent of secondary treatment if it can be proven that
water quality will not be adversely affected b such methods.
Con fercace substitute
Same as Senate amendment, except that the reference to com-
bined storm and sanitary sewers is deleted.
B—2

-------
Calendar No. 296
97r Co n a ) SE2 AT c R o r
1 tSes8ion J No. 97-204
CLEAN WATER ACT AM ND IjENTS OF 1981
OcToa z 7, 1t 8L—Ordrrtd ic t e prthtad
Mr. Ca&m, from the Committee on Environment a d
Public ‘,Vorlca, submitt .od the following
REPORT
[ To aecompan B. 1716 ]
(17]
BECTION 20.—DEFINETION OP BtccNDAay T 1I T
Section 304(d) of the Clean Water Act is amended by adding a
new paragrapi erinittiii the usc of bio1o irul trerunient facilities
such as oxidation l)on(ls, laizoons and d tclie.s, trickling filters, and
devices to treat waste waters from combined storm und sanitary sc eii,
as the equivalent of secondary treatment if it can be proven that wa.L.er
quality will not be adversely afTected by such methods.
Under authority of existing law, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has•dr’fined the term “secondary treatment”
ns the removal of 85 p re nt of bioln icnl oxygrn cl nii nd (r3OD)
and the attainment of an effluent contaniing not inoi than 30 mifli-
grams per liter of suspended solids over a 30 day period. ?i!ethods
of achieving secondary treatment are also at the discretion of the
Administrator.
3—3

-------
* * * *
[ 18]
Certain biological ticatment techniques such as oxidation ponds
trickling ]tcrs. and tli’vites to Ucat combined stoim and sanitary
wIL tes have provi’n efrective in ncliirvin significant reductions in
BOD and TSS. These inelliiids for the most part aie chenper and
more encrgy-efliciciit than s indaril nietliods, and ate pnrticitln i)
useful in smaller communities. Yet the Environmental Protection
A ency_]ias not —auctioned th ir_uce for secondary treatment,
This section thei efora permits the use of certain biological treat-
nient facilities to meet the sc’coinlnry treat rnent r qnirement PrO ’i
thut water qua iii v and Jnirt icli mi I 3 the objective of the Act is not
adver ely affected, in spite of the fact that they may not consistently
meet S5 percent removal. In developing the guidelinus necessary to
cnrry out this pio kiori the Administrator should luke into account
not only pollutant iemo al efficicncie’t, but uiso differing geographicmd/
cliniatic condit irJn lilcht a liect triatinent iilaiit i)erf oriiiuilcr. The
.\diuinistrator should also ndh LsS the seasonal and geot.rraphicid van-
thilitv of biolo rical real inent plant rerformance in the re iulut ions
is.siied to carr out this section.
Tho Cornrnittue us niso concerned with tho waJer quality inipacta
of any re i’ion to die ceco’udur treatment deRnit ions Altl,oui. h watcr
quality impact is not a con i(l ’ruLtlon in defining techno!og-ha.ccd
re uiluutiotis. ii lrcimnolot v wmrlrl not be ncrc;itab!e for any cu1e orv
of di hiur e.rs if it u- found tluit t lie technology is inadcr 1 uate in terms
of necessary cer quality n oluct ion. This ccctior is not inLcnd d to
‘anction the introduct on of ra I ’ vRr e into the Nation’s waterxavs.
Tie basic water qualu tesL s that tound in section 101 (a) of the
Chuin Water Act.
‘rhe Committee eco ni7es that serious water quality problems in
marine hivs and e’twtrues Cflfl 1 esult from wet weather discharges of
wastewater from cnmhined ctnnn sanitary sower systems. Because of
this. cost-effecti e devices to treat arid store such dLscharges may be
con idorcd the equivalent of seccinchuui v treatment and be eligible for
Federal grant a sictance. The Adininistramor should prepare guuidonce
on the types of devices to ho concidcre(l in the cost effectiveness analysis
of combined sewer over ow correction and the performnaruce criteria
for such farilitirs.
During Suix ninniittee hearings it was brought out that some corn-
murtities have niciiccessfuhlv sought EPA’s assistance in orocee ling
directly to S stcmc which treat and recycle wastewater for potable
5UPPly The City of San Diego in particular is attempt ing to meet its
water supply needs in this manner. Clearly the oa1 of PJ . 92— 0O
is to encoiurne ’ reevslin and ren nf wastewafer. In 1977 the Congress
re.ni1lrine l this pr it inn liv indiuling a special incentive progrium for
inn v tivo anti :ultcruntt, wastew ater systems. This legislation carries
that incentive program forward.
‘rhue fart t)u it r u’iu,iumnitius uure tuii ijnr tO recvclinr systems i u’rnti-
fviutt . Iluithic-r that, refuucmn ,’ tim ; ‘nvide ascictazuce for such systems
F1’.\. should h’ nrouira 1n more communities to investi rate them.
For that i-t a’on EPA c}moiihl r’rnnsbler it.s ocition in this matter.
Mou-e and more ronimnnitir’c will l x ’ attcmnting to meet potable sun-
nlv needs in thb manner. Xuioiving that EPA. will a ist them will
f- er encoira.; thi!.
B—4

-------
.thiy 21, 1981
[ S 5525 j
By Mr. (for hmself. Mr.
Smrroaa. and Ai. R.’ oz.Pn):
S. 1274. A b to amend tft2e 11 of the
C1.enn.. Water Act. and for other pur-
poses: to the Committee on vironmeflt
and Public Wcrka.
G.WC &C? a mTS 0? 5&
• Mr. Mt.’ President.. ‘
AP tI L I 1auoduc , by request, the
Ren an niona amen oinents tO
the Clean Water ActS coi ’tst CtiCfl
grants program. Those amendments. as I
pointed ou at e.1me. take a signifl-
unt step in ah.api g this year’s debate
about the Zutuxe of th i troubled pro-
Recent news articles have pointed out’
many of the Ills that have plagued the
coastrucUon grants over the last 10
ycara. This has been the second largest
Federal public Torks program in histCz7.
Cvnress has appropriated more than
530 bilLion for this program. and more
than 529 bUilon has been spent.
Where are we today
‘We have had some successes. There 1.5
no doubt that the rivera of this country
are being cleaned up as a result of both
Luclustrial and m m1cipai e orts to clean
up waste d.tsc.harg .
But becaw.e of the ..seaJ tuaUon of
this country. dearly the time has come
In ren . c the csustruction grams
effort.
As XsaL oa Aprfl2. this c ort is at
the croano,.iit. in the past, the program
has not been clearly de ned as public
works or en 1rvcmentai improvement. if
It Is to omunue. that uncertainty mUst
be cleared away.
The amendments I am proposing today
are simple and stralght-Joz-ward. and
provide the program with the its bUlly
It needs. Yet It trims the program so It
‘wflJ run szaoother. allow Staten to be able
to spend th money In a more orderly
!a.thion. and amwe that pro eets wlsith
will t.nzb bendt water quality wili be
funded
The Clean Water Act ArT d ts of
1281 cill for on extension of this program
through fiscal year 1985 at the level equal
of the admlnLttrntlon—42.4 bIllion per
year. I am pleased to say that three-
quarters cC the administrations request
have been Lncorporated Into my legisli.
tion.
rider ray ctn endmcnts. the Federal
Government would gradually reduce its
coounltmcnt to this program by lowering
the Federal share from Its current 75
percent on trad.lUcnal waste freatment
faculties down to 55 percent by the end
of this authorlr.aUon. I do not en.joy
doing this but the fact is that we have
les.s money to deal with and we have to
spread It just as far.
The impact of this will be great.
First, It will lower Federal exposure In
terms of future funding of this program.
In addItion. t will require the States
and muruc palltles t take a harder look
at the plans tbe are developing to meet
their wastewater treatment needs.
The large P’ederal share has been La
some cases, a vllllan. It has pushed seine
com.zaurn ties to bypass d1 cu1t decIsIons
and to build expensive, oversized plants
that now do not meet the apec catIOr$
for which they r ere designed and have
operation and maintenance costs which
are stresstng local budgets to the limit.
These arnendm:nts should begin to cure
that problem.
Another amendment that will assist
that e crt is the proposed termination of
the Federal funding for the plannft,g
phases of waste-water trea ent Inch-
Itles.
Presently. grantees apply and receive
funding quiclily and rapidly for facillUes
that may or may not ever be built, but
because the large Federal share—75 per-
cent—Is arailabic. plans and studies are
done.
In the future, LI these asrtendñ,ent.s are
enacted, only communities which receive
a construction grant will be reimbursed
for the Federal share of the planning
phase of their project. As a result the
F 1ronni nta1 Protection Agency must
In turn, back 0! from the Interference IL
makes In the local dedslonm.akInz
process.
TI ‘will be required to approve only the
finished product. At the pret t time.
there an too many steps In the process
of building these 1aciflU that slow It
to the pc zt that Irum IncepticO to
completion. constructton averages
lull years. 1.1 these amendment! are en-
acted. I would expect to see that time cut
La talL
Other provisions of thIs legislation will
also give tis a better handle on where this
program Is going. Many communities
used this program riot to clean uo
pollution but Instead to build for future
growth and eco:omlc develooment.
While these are important goals. I
question whether a Federal pollution
control program should be p1c ng up the
Lab for them.
‘These an endxnc’nts provide Prdcre.l re-
imbursement naLy to the extent th.at the
fitcIlities meet the needs of the 1280 pop.
ulatlon as de ned In our recent census,
‘This r tr1ct1an w P!t tt te costly
arwerlines that itretch out Into open
arron for l o are subdivttlans and shop-
ping malls. Agata. This provision Is one
uhich wIll have airnificant wlronrnerr.
tal benefits and ttl’o atil reduce the fu-
ture Federal bud jrtary cxposwe.
Another provision of these u.mend-
merits requires that projects which ‘will
receive funding In the future shall be
placed on a State’s funding priority list
based on their Impact on ‘water quality.
At the present time, priority lists are i
function more of construction schedules
than water quality.
if this program is to continue and the
Federal share Is to be reduced, those
project., vh lch will have the greatest
slg-ntllca .nt benefit on water quality
should move to the top of the priority
list In order to reccive the largest Fed-
cm i share possible.
CONGRESSIONAL RE OR — S 4ATE

-------
May I, 1 1
In keeping 1th pLst tzadJUo s of the
1.ront tent and r ubflc Works Commit-
tee. tbese Lme drnr. Ls seek to en uragt
State and local governments to flnd In-
uorative and aiter at e sOlutlOAS to n2 t-
niclpel pollution probles.
The5e amendments prvv de & signifi-
cant Incentive by nllow ng the Federal
Government to pay for ortlonal1y
20 percent more than a taiiJt ona1 Thdl-
Ity ii communJti seek innovative and
alternat.ire 1ution.L
As I stated on Aprtl 9. we mu. t not lose
sight oi the fact that this program w’iU
renialn & water qualIty lmprcv ent pm-
gram. and in ma.ny parts of the country
trathtionsi w ast aI.er treatment faclil.
ti simply will not pronde enou
cleanup.
P or that aesson. I have Included
these amendments dLscreUon .ry author-
hi for the EP A ad trator to deal
‘alt.h the problem of combined storm and
sanitary sev. er 0% er ows into c cc log oslly
critical bays and estuaries that will not
otherwise be cleaned up by tradlt.onal
t re3tzflent .
1 tee.l very stronc y that these ba & and
estuaries should rece . ve ft priority. I
iow in our post Of the country—New
ngland—Narra;an ett 2ay and Boston
Barbor. s.ipport th ivin.g .thLn.g and rcc-
re.i on industries. Without some aeten.
t4cn being paid to L’ie probt ., of com-
bined sewer overflo z. these great bays.
whic. are %rLrocnental and econo .le
resources to their States. will ;xmply t
receive the attention they thoutd.
‘o provide ju.,t traditional waste treat.-
m t wnuld be tirc,wlxig good mau at
projects that will not show demonstrahie
gains in water guality. ‘Ibis Is poor pol-
icy for the e trenment and poor poll
for the budget. Ii e are going to spend
limited Federal dollars. we should make
sure we 5pcnd than correctLy.
A new pmvi.slon reqinres the engbaeen
responsible for the design and constru&
tion of the treatment facilities to remain
on the job alter the end of coastruct.IOn
and be liable for the pla.nts meeting the
speJflcatlons ice which they were de-
slgned This will protect co mun1t1e3
having facilities hlch are costly to build,
yet taIl to use tip to their promIse.
Last. these amendments conten,plata
something I am not so sure anyone before
has eves cons plated—completing the
proge. The snrndxnent$ requIre the
EPA Administrator to report to the Con-
greas EthJn 9 months on the impact oi
these amendments on eomr”ettng this
progvi.m. As 1 staled on April 9, when I
S5526 I
introduced the . dmIntatzatScm bill, the
I Is two poriged— cai LeidnesS
and environmental Improvement.
I share President Rea an’. goal that
the Federal exposure In this pro am
s.houid be reduced gradually over time.
These a codments do that by anticipat-
Ing the ccmplet! of this program and
reducing Fedesal share.
States that have operated tmder the
1]luzlon that oil projects will eventually
be completed i.11L have to make di cult
choices about which projects will re 1ve
pr1orl . It may not be easy, bul & will
be necessa. 7.
What we accomplish this year will set
the tone br the next decade. My goal is
to trim the program, but at the same time
mate certain that hatever budget trim-
mL g is done also Improves our Nations
water quality. These amcidments, If en-
acted. will greatly add-ess both those
lr.sueL
Hcarlngs are scheduled in .Tune. and
we expect to Complete acUan on tnLc
pro g:a.m by the end of this fiscal year n
ot er to have appropriaticr.s Ice ftscal
> ear 19d2 In place so that StaLes and local
goernments can pta.n accardingL ,y.
At this point I would ask unar..irnou.
cor. ent l .a print the bill in the Rzcoan.
There bei. g no objection, the bU.1 was
erred to be printed in the RtcoxD , as
foLows:
5. 5214
Be 1 5 cv mste4 by the Scnole end Xou.sc of
Rep ea.tattoes of 1St Vi’iutd 3’ic!eJ of
ATi ert * Cc grus a.ucvibkd. That thi.s &
‘aia b te4 — the e&a Water A

S . 10. 8.cti (4) e Cei.n Water
Is L .md.4 by “ 4dthg thi following new
z agrapt:
Foe tb. purpoacs a t th subsecUon.
eb fidlitles as o daUon cnd.s. Iag on3.
and z’ ”g 5.tl.ua ibau b desme the
equivalent at ae000dtry eatmenI when the
Owner Operator of a puhileLy OWDCO T.rtIt .
wvr males a a&a W; satisfactory to
the Administrator that. taSiag Into aecouAt
l 1 drmse.. the la zt population served.
S auran a. to thi opersUon and main-
stica ra .ury. Vita? Q%L&IItI wtil
idv.ra.Iy aCactad by de i.c .g
t*cili usa a. the ç m t at itecEAIJ7
-,
CONGRE5Sr0NAL flECORD— S !NATE
S5527 I
8 —6

-------
H7776 I
• Mr. OOLIDWATTB. Mr. Chairman.
I s in pleased to rise In support of US.
4503. the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1981, as a
worthwhile bill In its own right, as &
prerequisite for continued funding of
the construction gnats program, and
as a forerunner of further reforms
when the Clean Water Act undergoes
further modification nest year.
As to funding, Its construction
grants authorization of $2.4 billion for
fiscal year 1982 is modest Indeed in
comparison with the $4 billion, $5 bil
lion and even $8 billion in annual au-
thorizations during the early years of
the program under Public Law 92-500.
The Committee on Public Works and
transportation has been responsive to
legitimate budgetary concerns In this
regard.
ES. 4503 Is not, however, a mere
simple extension of existing law, much
lem a pared-down version of business
as usua l . In fact, it contains a number
of prov isions to improve the perform-
ance of the construction grants pro-
gram a -nd the wastewater treatment
works which it produces.
1 would cite In particular the provl
slons dealing with the foUowlng
Innovative and alternative technol-
ogy, strengthening the incentives for
processes and equ ipment that. are
cheaper, simpler and more energy effi-
cleat; continued eligibility for projects
to correct sewer system Infiltration
and Inflow as a cost-effective alterna.-
tive to construction of larger treat-
ment work& procurement of treat-
ment processes and equipment, by the
removal of a statutory restriction
which serves to discourage Innovation
on the part of equipment manufactur ’
era and to undercut responsibility of
municipalities sad their engineering
consultants for the performance of
treatment works constructed under
the program. strengthening of the role
of the States In-managing the con-
struction gnats program, achieved by
providing greater stability In funding.
These provisions In particular are
supported by the record of hearings of
the Subcommittee on Investigations
and Oversight, on which I serve as
ranking minority member. Under the
leadership of my friend from Georgia,
Mr. Lrvuas, we have just concluded
the most thorough Investigation ever
undertaken Into the performance c i
wastewater treatment works con.
structed with Federal assistance. The
record of those hearings, conducted In
a completely bipartisan manner,
strongly supporth the provisions of
ES. 4503 whIch I have cited. Thus,
from an oversight perspective, It sup.
ports the wwt of Chairman Boa Ros
of the Water Resources Subcommittee
and his minority counterpart, Jom
PAUL Rnncr*SrnMTT!r
With particular respect to Innovative
and alternative technology. I apprect-
ate the full committee’s acceptance of
a modest amendment which I offered
to help overcome reluctance Ofl the
part of grantees and their design engi-
neers to consider innovative and alter-
native processes and compoflents In
recognition of the fact that many
promising ideas have had the benefit
of only laboratory simulation or limit-
S pilot testing, this provision makes
more extensive field testing grant eli-
gible to provide the missing element of
verification as to performance capabil-
ity.
All these aside, however, the bill
would be justified if only by Its
amendments dealing with the issue of
wu-ñerz from secondary treatment re-
qwrements for communities discharg-
ing their treated wastewater into
marine waters throt gh ocean outfaits.
If it makes sense from an environmen-
tal and economic standpoint for corn-
munities with existing ocean dis-
charges to treat to a degree lesser
than full secondary, there is absolute-
ly no rationale for denying this option
to others provided they meet the same
stringent water quality requirements.
The provisions of an. 4503 dealln.g
with ocean waivers In fact closely par-
allel those of my own bill, ES. 4466,
which I introduced following an over-
sight hearing focused principally on
the ocean discharge issue, held at my
request In Los Azz°les on September
a.
Mr. Chairman, none of as would
argue that MS. 4503 Ia a comprehen-
sive b i ll providing aT needed changes
in the Clean Wat° Act It does not
even purport to deal with all the prob-
lems we have identified In the con-
stz-uction grants program,
But the committee has chosen to
move In a more limited rn2nner at this
time, responding to concerns ex-
pre ed by the administration and the
other body, while properly preserving
the constructl#e policy positions which
the House has asserted for the past
decade and more.
I urge my colleagues to support US.
4503 In its present form at this time,
so we can move Into oonferenct with
the Senate and seek to fashion a bill
that will provide a ‘-‘asia br funding of
the construction grants program
through fiscal year bdZ Then we can
turn our tfforts to the task of crafting
longer term azne&’nents to both the
regulatory and the cjnstruct.lon grants
aspects of the law which ultimat.’,
will be necessary if It Is to do the job
we all lntend.•
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
October 27, 1.981
3—7

-------
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSS
H 828 I
Mr. GOLD WAItE. Mr. Speaker, I
rise In strong support of the confer-
ence report on HR.. 4503. the Munici-
pal Waat ,cwater Treatment Conatruc-
tion Grant Amendments of 1981, and
cornend it to my colleagues as a mea
ure deserving adoption by an over-
whelmtng vote and prompt signature
by the President.
HR. 4503. as reported by the Corn.
inlttee on Public Work.s and Transpor-
tation, was a sound piece of legislation.
as I indicated Lu my comments on the
occasion of Its passage by the House
on October 27. Now I would observe,
on the basis of my work as rs.nklng mi-
nority member of the Subcorxuniuee
on Lnvestigatlona and Review, that the
conference report contains a number
of improvements.
This is absolutely no reflection on
the ork of the Water Resources Sub-
committee or the lull com.mlttee. It re-
flects. ln.stead, the tact that the con’
ferer.ce took up some Issues which the
House side had originally regarded as
best deterred u.ntIl e’t year. This as
in the overricing interest of pa.ssin.g
out an authorization bill to serve as
the basis for a fIscal year 1982 appro-
priatlon for the construction grants
program.
Indeed, the majority and minority
leadership of both the subcommittee
and full committee are to -be com-
mended for their contributions to this
legislatIo as are all of the House con.
ferees lot their able a.ssertlon of the
House position in negotiations with
the Senate.
During the 1st sessIon of the 97th
Congress, the Public Works Investigat-
ing Subcommittee has conducted the
most. comprehensive Investigation
every undertaken Lnto the perform-
ance of the wastewater treatment
works constructed with Federal Assist-
ance under the Clean Water Act.
A subcommittee report now being
issued lend.s strong support to mn y of
the provisions of the measure now
before us, including changes rsult.ln&
from the conference deUberstlonz
XVLTIY&&* r W 5INO
Our hearings over a number of years
have demonstrated that meny of the
ills plaguing the program can rightly
be attributed to a lack of continuity.
st.ability, and predictability. The 4-
year authorIzation is most appropriate
In this regard.
I 5 ?W AL PA&U
We concluded that, In addlUon to
the need f or this program o share in
overall reductions In Federal spending.
that a reduction of the Federal share
to 55 percent from 75 percent—over an
adequate transition period—should
result In selection of less costly and
more reliable tzeatznent processes. and
Improved operation and maintenance
by grant.ees..
vwsaP I. 1UAR
There Is universal recognition that
municipalities cannot meet the sec-
ondary treatment deadline of 1983
now in the law, what. ‘with reduced
funding in recent. years and other face
tori delaying Initiation of project ’.
The shift of the out.side deadline for
compliance to 1988 from 1983 I a abso-
lutely criticaL Members aho recall the
unsuccessful attempt by the House to
make some adjustment in last year’s
amendments will applaud the Senate’s
new receptivity to reality.
5 5CC A3Y T zAfl& ’T azOOl R 1I .—
Many problems of cost. overdesign.
and construction of treatment plants
that are difficult to operate Justify the
conference report’s authorlzatloQ of
less sophisticated treatment technol.
ogles such as oxidation ponds. lagoons.
arid ditches, and trickling filters, pro-
vided no harm to water quality results.
crxL.Z CAr oa m
Retention of grant cilgibUity for
project.s to eliminate excessive over-
loading of sewer systems by storm
water will make It possible to continue
repair projects that protect the func-
tioning of treatment works arid avoid
the need for additional plant capacity.
I particularly want to express my ap-
preciation to the House conferees for
essentially preserving the House posi-
tion on the granting of waivers from
secondary treatment requirements to
coastal communities discharging treat-
ed wastes into marine waters under
strict environmental safeguards.
It also L i gratifying that the confer-
ence retained my provision to make
grant eligible the field testing of inno-
vative and alternative processes and
equipment where necessary to pro-
mote acceptance of promising develop-
ments. -
Also of merit in the conference
report are provisions to modify pro-
curement requirements affecting
wastewater treatment equipment, su.s-
tam a strong State role In manage-
ment of the constructiOn grant.5 pro-
gram, and further strengthen incen-
tives for development of Innovative
and alternative technology.
Dec’embcr J 128J
B—B

-------
Decern7kr 16, 7981
Specific provisions aside,! just want
to say a.word about the approach to
the changes In thLs bill, whether relat-
ed to Federal share or categories of
project eligibility. The word is gradual.
There is a phased-tn transition pro-
vicied that should make It much easier
for localities to adjust to these
changes In the Law.
Recently our subcommittee held a
bea.rmg In Austin. TeL, on the practi-
cal Implications of a number of pro-
posed changes In the act And If any
message caine through loud and clear
it was that the urncipa.llLies subject
to the law’s requirements need time to
adjust to changes. I am encouraged l
believe that the phasing In of this leg-
Ltiation, plus the easing of compliance
deadlines. should go far in helping
them do so.
To be sure, there are many areas of
the aet.—Includlng the construction
grants program La titi. Il—that wilt
need further attention La the next ses-
sion of the 97th Congress. With reP-
spect. to- tb. coaMrucLlon grants pro-
I H982 ]
i-ram alone. - our subcommittee has
proposed a inunber of changes which
hare yet to be put forth in legts atfve
form They include:
Consideration of alternative aour s
of funding.
Additional measures to increase the
responsibility of gi-antees, such as
withholding of a grant until the appli-
cant operates any existing facillUes
with maximum efficiency, and with-
holding 20 per xnt c( gi-a.nt funding
tintil a new faculty performs as Intend-
ed.
A strengthened role for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency’s Office of
Inspector Oenei-al In rooting out
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Clearer and tighter lines of responsi-
bility and accountability In the per-
formance of design engineers, through
such ipproaches as turnkey projects
and reduced Federal interference In
the design of fadlltiea.
As I said, many of our oversight eec-
ommendatiooa have yet to be formally
offered on the assurupUon that the
entire act will be reviewed again next
year. But the extent to which our
findings parallel the position taken by
the conferees on the issues we both
addres.sec suggests that our remaining
recommendations—and earlier ones
arising from our examthsUon of the
regulation of toxic poilutant&—shou.ld
find a receptive audience.
Meanwhile. I uric adoption of the
conference report.
** *
CONGRESSIONAL .ECORD — HOUSE
I ff9830 I
Mr. LXVTrAS. Mr. Speaker. I rise to
support of thi., legislation and com-
mend the chairman of the subcommit-
tee and r nklng member of the sub-
committee for the outstanding work
they did in putting together the bill
that originally passed the Bouse and
this conference report. It has been a
real example of cooperation between a
legislative committee, and oversight
committee. because this bill Incorpo-
rates subst.antially all of the recom-
mendations which our oversight coin.
mittee of the Public Works and Traris-
port.ation Committee has made follow-
log a very and thorough comprehen-
sive review of the entire construction
grant-s program during the last year._
The water pollution control program
Is a program that i.s so vital to tie
quality of UIe in this country and to
the econoin.y of this Nation that it
could not be left to founder because It
was not working well. That L a the
reason an oversight review was vital
and the need for the types of ref ox-ms
and changes I A ,the pro am wbi .ch
H983l i
this conference report reflects I think
will go a long Way to caj-r ’ing out the
types of reforms which our oversight
committee has recommended. The two
subcommittees worked closely. bot”
among the members and the ‘we
t&f Is, in seeing this reform come
about.
There are some additional admninis-
t.ratlve Improvemeflt S that need to be
made and we will continue our over-
sight of the Environment-al Protection
Agency to see that Improved manage-
ment In these operations Is going to be
seen.
But I think we have got to focus on
both the quality of life and the eco-
nomic Impact of this program. Clean
wateris essentIal to a good and a full
and a healthy ills. It is also essential
to ow economY.
* **
B— 9

-------
VS } C( MITTEE PRINT
(97—30)
IMPLEMENTATION OF TIlE FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTiON CONTROL ACT
CONCERNING ‘I’ll li PERFORMAN CE
OF TiLE
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTiON G1L NTS PROGRAM
REPORT
BY TILE
SUBCOMMiTTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT
OF TILE
COMMITTEE ON PUI3LI C \V ORKS
AND TRANSPORTATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOIiLIt ]9S1
Printed for I he usc’ of Ilie C’immltt e on Polite Vorks
n iid Tro llsI )rI ti Lion
U S CO\ II NMVNT 1’ I1 .TI\( OFYICE
8 -8G2 0 W SII1\C ro I9SI
- 10

-------
CO TTZ PRfl
(9740)
( 27 3
TBZ INCENTIVE TO rERFOR t
1 34 1
Effluent Umttatioris and jwrrrul requ rrments
The 1972 Act prc- ribcd secondary treatment as the national
minimum required for nil municiisilites, but left to the di cieuon
of EPA the dcñnition of ‘ econdnry and thus, the degree of treatment.
to be provdcd. While the law gave EPA some latitude in .ct
secondary treatment requirements, the agency chose not to u e
it, issuing instend one narrow and uniform set of requirements mnitin
discharges to a maximum of 30 parts per million each of biochetna ii
oxygen demand and total su’ .pendNl .olids, and requiring tnnt -c ond-
ary treatment technolo. ie remove 85 percent of the poiliiLint
entenng the plant, on a monthly avcriu.rc basis.
The uniform effluent Iunitimtion for secondary treatment in corn-
binat on with EPA relntn o on them as a regulatory stand: rd, has
contnbuted to the de i n and con triiction of sophisticated and
plants. This in turn li.is git an n c to complaints of over-de-itrrt md
the need to upgradt or replace plants employing simpler procc ec
that could not meet the r ew performance relwrement;, e’cr. thoi ’ 6 ’h
these plants were oper.itin well in icrms of achieving thei. oriiruirtl
desi performance level - Further, the lack of time and atieqmiiitt
personnel during tht’ early years of the program did liule to help
avoid this problem.
The 1972 law gave the ErA 2G months to develop :t’ ridard- for
secondary treatment and issue more than 20,000 municipal di’.eharge
permits containing tho .e stnndnrd. imnd schedules for meet:n them.
‘Unfortunately, it took tue EP. O months just to develop the —eroud-
arv treatment definition. lrvin both federal and State rc uhiiorv
officials in a mud cc:tiinbl to issue the required permits and to bc.in
revie v1D and nppiovIn .t inunicipuil applications for consti action
grants.
As a result, n nny if not most of the first round of mimnicmp:iI permuit
were c implY pmcce — of luiI er in crihcd with the EPA ilcfiui:tion of
secondary trefitment , t he Iui v’s .hilv 1, 1977 compliance deuIhiu
substituting for a reahi —Ime - .cheduie of coinplia ince. Elrorts I a iii .peet
1 35 1
and t valuute a 1 )hmint”— cii jia bihit v I ‘ iiit1 I li e new —eruull hi r\ ii ca I—
inent requirement or to (let ermuuulur ui i lua luui. ,. ii uiu Id lake to
eon LT ict !iCcC — ’ uirs’ fmurilit ie w ri Ihr c ripI inn ;it)ier I hiiii time
rule. . nd in tlmo e few in i :ilui r— iuu•it riruri u•,r iulalli t.” ci e
often perfunctory in n:u(uut .ini’ ii ’ thy hick u i imu liii _i ’ un
1 iurt of EPA or Stale i er onmni .ihuiul Iii ii iiuc’nL j . n 1 ir .IuiiuIu V
or con truetion. The coininriul— iii i .e \\ iter l’ullui ii . (‘onuol
Federn lion’s President, C.miimieu ( ii i i i ’ i hr—. iii ui.l tt hat wa- be1icv d
typical at the time:
B—il

-------
CO T PBThT
(97—30)
in the came hc ’n we ire rs • iuz t r it ii ’iii , I vt—it “d lie rietil Itlir
tv.ii citieeriied iitti ‘ ,t ttiric liii’ tlltut iii it it lit • Ii , t iiihi i tn iLiiielU pi.int
lit’ .iid to niC, ‘‘C.in,iien, hii lug i ii iz ’ ’u ,t .. I iii t’ I,iitld tint Lr(tIu ,ilt
jil..itit?’ I ‘tad. “It i’ goitic iii t aki’ at ii i—i ts . i ‘‘ ili• — ,iil. ‘‘(Iii, r ,ttii titi. ii.
ilt flit tii..e ii t t ‘.ar I fl i I .1 frti’ii,i iii ii ,. ,t ui—iu,iCtl,’Il lIla—lilt’’, I tin C’ ’tIIl
t.i call hiuut .tiid zick bun li’it ii ,iii it ‘ iS ,.Iilll I iht 1.. t.aauIii In .I%Ul ,flt pt Lilt’’
lie 1 ,ickt ’d p t tie jihiiui in oar pru ’ .iuii i usi a liii tIii , ,.,tur it tir ili .&ud, ‘‘lit ’,
Joe, lu ’t Iuiii di’ “‘U I tutu, it ‘.ujltj it.. I.. litulil c.ii. taf 1 ii.. ’t. p1 0110 Iii
dii ,lia:I I ttiiiik it iuid uiki’ ty.i’ %i ’.Ii— I] . ,,ii er ’ ’’’ tilt Ii a ,, ‘‘‘ ‘j’tue ( ihitt•
—aid, “Ye!, I thitik it t ’uiuld t.tki’ i— ‘ I ii tail, ‘‘(.iniliu ’aa, I,U havu’ gut.
t%v’i rears I C , ‘ujild th:it. ireilliallat )il I I I Iii it IIIIPLI 11 . iI ’CiItiIl COSt j’luil .
d iphi.i lu al1 a ititilitita daulians iii i,ti —uiia ’, a..,—. it ,iecr. i— tiud ev ’r thing ei’ ,u...
The EPA uieñnition of —ceotitiuu r atl —o fi u .uluu’ntly imposed h i ber
capitol and operating cost .s on gr:inla’i ’-, itintly of 1 ic ’rn -mnll corn—
mum LieS iind cflflita LiOfl di -t nct ’ , i t ’—u ‘Ii in .r Ii nm I he more
ticated technoIog es needed to int ’rt iliti new “t.inditrd itnd a ticed
for hi rhcr plant operating kilI ’. intl i.u:uaa.r ’ttacnl cuap:a bilmi t c.
Generally, these ‘ ituation —. .t t ’iii Ii ont the fun that. bile the
definition of secondary trcntnirnt i— hurl O%V tuiti uniform, w:ttcr
qtinlity conditionc . ad I lue niutinant u i tt’ t C ’— till m peci into i ny
given body of wet er are not. N tat tii : Li v ut ruin int ii Ifet ciice in it
i re:irn flo , mineral con I ciii, nInhuast .11 ii IC, :1 11 ii itt hcr (uctors ii (feci .
tc “n irniIniive capacity,’’ iL . :aljIl ltV tia tlu ..orb wiu Ii’ - ,. Con ’. .equently,
while secondn ’ treatment, n alnliuit’il, iltilY be npproprintc for omc
cutunuons, it is inevitably cmtlwr tot ’ mania or too little for many
others.
The Act and EPA give rccn mnitnn to tlie e fainIor , i umt. only in
term— of ii pwnrd ad us ment If —t ’(tutuu rv u u t I nail t i - . iniuilec.i ii at e to
protect ‘ . ter quality, higher lt ’ i’i... of i i’ itrna’nt. IIIC recturcu But in
‘there secondary is e ce - -i ’ an I virhi. rio hcnctit, there can
be no ndju tment do nwnrd.° ‘l’lui— iii u’fii’ct, iuui nul to en.tlv Lrc it—
rnen for treatment’s sake, nb uiriuitu fuututi tt hiu could be ii eal
elc.cwhere to gr atcr eatvlronnlen aal btIU ’JU
.\ccorciing to ur.pubiishcd E A uhitit, inure tItan SI billion (in
i ISO dollars) could be saved in ilut’ future uiiipiv by broaticn in the
e tisi ing denrution of secondary treat tiuntil to allow I lie u o of alter—
an tive, lc- .s—costly fv ns of trc.it 1110111 v i liu ’h, while utitaible to meet. the
current definition’s perlornuitntc requaretuleut, cull prot ide enoiim.rh
irentmcntso as not to tax a strc:uln’— .u—-uttiulailivC c ii):Lcity. 1 .‘Jthough
F IA ‘ ,r ’cuII ,Dtt mIl ’ f r •nuid,rt ’ tr , .au ,,,, ,,l T’”’i’ I i i I.. f ir .’ 1. ii I C ti I t ui r r n
ilTflilCd ‘uIU3tiOflt SUCh ,lbCfl latCh roiu,,u’. .1 ‘lii i.. :. . • ..I.— I ,, , , , . a au . huh,,, p,i ‘, ut ia
ii. . *, •flpg u ’uijls t,Tht iuf.i,i, ,tn%l ’ ‘irAhh . ..’r I ii , , . . ,..L.,..’.. — .s.’ 11n..s , r uitp strut 1,.c
mali rpvrin is . in I LI tt. ICTC?IL r auiao 01 r?- ,—’uhi, • a,,t ,,. . ,,, . , .l a —. ‘ ‘ . ‘ i r LI I .. u ,u to any
r,It u nI in’ y ruI ’Ict
traM 10 lhp nuuiCImifli it thi’ t9 ’2 Fu ,I, ’ra’ ‘ii iti , I . 1 1 , ‘i i ‘onIr ’l Art ,u.h ,n. “ I ’ ‘ Ii,ct, .r , n.h
11,. t, ’h,iif ,Io( ’ Uis d tpnuur,vneni Lh 1 ill eu,,,,, I,,. , • I ii’ its 1 0 h , ,u ti u i iI —. ‘ 0’II Ii’ It ’ll heft anutuit
i , ,,duut Full I tr t uTi.n I Ti’ lUarPmi ’Iil ‘ . ‘e. Ci’, ,— .11. • si , ,i.I i,od h , iuit ,, ,5 ill l s.— , .,I,l , 0( 1 . ‘ , m 0
,sun,lit,s. Iu Itt Li,ioutunii.4v tub s, $1. •, ‘hr,I .I , i. .t ,si’i”.w ‘ I ,i ’ ., i.I ‘till it tuo iseun •iad
‘ul..’et to &,, is ,caI • eskrt u’P4 Tiiit 1flIk ii ,I ,aI i ,il a’ ‘ ‘I aiui ,,, . ’ li.ll I,, • .I ,,I,h,.la 1 11 5 eOvr.IDu toil I ,. .
tsi ,f.fl I M fe Sill i tuat sir, qu iuts cond,tin, ’ ’ ,s,,,i I h ’u’ . — ... —i.1 • .1,—, lu,u , As r.suIh ii, ’ , , , enn,u,,a
lir SihU uuaGuIttarS lound it rI$ to hi.i (ISO,., . •,,,u Ii . . . . — . oiui. ,rts., ‘sIte. ,jU,4iLi
ioLa1e iI . hid Infisoy ivoi4ed iii. c 1a ch tarot udoal 0t1 .* hr ht. ’st Hrnl
c )
ui i’r atuinlily aunnlytieiul 10 1dM lire ‘.1 ill iTllultuqtlluio uI ’a thu —.oI.u ‘leteruat—
Hull I of t rt.•u t mr.ent requirements, many believe thttt the sit ring- 5 thu I
ciiii be renli2e(l by allowing om.ne judgment to be used in determining
tt Inch type or level of secondary treatment is necess iry 3ti tiIy lilly
ri k intolved. And, notild a lea er level of treatment prove
adequate, more can always be added.
3—12

-------
COM) TTT . PRENT
(97-30)
(66]
X—REc0MMENDAnoNs
* **
1 73 1
19. THE LMV HOULU lIE t\IENDED TO ALLOW A L’ NGE OF EFFLUENT
hiMITATiOr 4 APPL1C I’l E TO \IINICIPtL TREAT\IENT WORK RATHER
THAN A 1NGLE, RIGID ET OF tJ\UJER. APPLICABLE ON A NATIOMYWE
BASIS
It ould be cOit LrucUve to permit a range of effluent limitations
which permit the ‘ here npproprlate, of such forms oi treat-
ment a trickliug likeN, lIttroon and poud , Con iderution should
be given to ba Lng the duti rmImLtion of Lppropnale econdary mun-
icipni technology on the gener d chariiterbtics of the receivinir
stre im , the n it ire oi the wa ie uvoR d Lind the niford bthtv of
vnnou econdarv tretirnenc. proce e Itvudt ole to toe com ijrutv.
.\. to reLelving w iiter ., it hoiitd not be nece ury to make rreclse
determinution . Of ‘ . t-ie!oiid llOL.Lt1Ofl.. :t. done with gre . t rnur —
ebton) in the e tLIb1i hrnent of v . Ler quuliy based e iuent
Ifl Leu ’, it huu1tt suifi’ e to caLtegol i e generally the volume anti i
of how of the water body, and nuture and se iLivity of the aquatic ! Ie
i.nhitbiting it. In other words, it houId not take a 10-year tudy
aind err L .T’ . i_ ornu: ter run to di tulguL h between a fishing str m
arid ti’, i.o..’er \I -.ippi Jtivpr. ‘lhir’re I’ a larg ’ rnng i ol tail It
cunventiuiaitl a iul ul tern a Live t clinulugy avail able arovidiog levi k
of trcutrnenL bet” een prunary und econdury (or thi. 1)urpo e.
ELLIOrT H. LEVZTAS, Chairman.
No1tm N Y. MINETA,
ROBERT A. ROE,
GERALDINE A. FERRARO,
DONALD JOsEPH ALBOSTA,
WILLIAM HILL BONER,
Gus SAVAGE,
BUDDY ROEMER,
Joi G. FART,
RONNIE G. FLIPI’o,
JAMES J. HOWARD, Ex Officio.
BARRY M. 301.D”ATER, Jr.,
R’inknag Mrnor-ity ifember.
Aiu.’.ri STANOEL.AND,
NE”T GINGRiCH,
GE LD B H. SoLo\IoN,
H ’ oi.o C. HOI.LENBECK,
GUT MOI.INARI,
Bce McEV.EN,
Do H. CLAUSEN, Ex Officw
B—13

-------
APPENDIX C
SUMI ARY FACTS SHEETS FOR
SELECTED BIOLOGICAL T EAThENT SYST&S

-------
LISTING OF APPENDIX C FACT SHEETS *
Activiated Sludge, Conventional,
Diffused Aeration
Activated Sludge, Conventional
Mechanical Aeration
Activated Sludge, High-Rate
Diffused Aeration
Activated Sludge, Pure Gxygen
Coy ered
Activated Sludge, Pure Oxygen
Uncov ered
Contact Stabilization, Diffused
Aeration
Extended Aeration
Lagoons, Aerated
Lagoons, Anaerobic
Lagoons, Facultative
Oxidation Ditch
Biological Contactor
Rotating
Tri kling Filter, Plastic
iledia
Trickling Filter, High—Rate, Rock
Med i a
Trickling Filter, Low-Rate, Rock
Media C-30
Fact Sheet
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.8
2.1.10
2.1.11
2.1.12
2.1.13
2.1.15
2.2.1
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
*Drafted by
Cincinnati,
copies will
Page
C -2
C -4
C —6
C -8
C-iC
C—12
C-iA
C— 13
C-13
C -20
C -22
C-24
C -26
C-28
EPA, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratnry,
Ohio; currently undergoing peer review. When approved, final
be inserted in this document.
C—i

-------
DRAF’
ACTIVATED SLUDGE COrWEN11ONAL DIFFUSED AERATION FACT SHEET 2.1.1
— ttvat.d aludqe ii a cont3nt Ja flaw. oqieaL tce.t nt pr .as acact.ttZsd y a su flhiOfl
of •erooic uiczoorqaniaaa. us taias in a r.Lat ve . y n enuo i . etits Dy the • tI and DUIS4CV Lj UCtd Y
seratios. ie .i oo q.naa •gs g$ad tø o .id z solth.L* and c L1Oid.il organica to and 970 in toe
of .euLi: yq.n. The p .ua ia q.n.r ._Uy. it , t a. w1 s. preceded Dy pciaarf indt.enr.ation. The
•ixtiue of •i cor .ni . and va.ti .tsr foreed in the a.gal Deltas. called .tzsd liquor. La uaadst!ad to
qra,*ty clarifier. fog o -.. Lids separation. The 5170f paCIiOO of I A. .rcrOorqal las a tJ irnq Out to
ciarift.ra La recycled to the aeration Daaia. to be sued vit O ts on sq wa1tr.at . v9i3i tOe sacs... .Di
coOstitutes I A. vast. sJ .udq.. ta suit to t b. sliids bandlinq facilitisa. Thu rat. and cOl sfl atiOI% Of activated
•ludq. ru n.d to tOe aeration bae na doteruth.. Oe cued liquor .u. .ad.d solid& (*.SS ) 1.e.l d lopad and
uaintainsd in the D4ains. D.ir r t Oe id.sttori pr sas. a certain aonuat of the orq.i’iC iatarisl is ayflu)ssiSSd
into a .. tells, u of vbi then inderqoee auth—oxidation (..Lf —oxidatioii. or .ndoqenoum rC za 1 500) In the
aeration basins. to. s aind.t ocsiuq ..t qrosth or eacees .iudq.. yq.u is r.q ired to the pruousa to lI. POrt
tOe oxidation and synto.aia reactions.. YO1at (..1.e con uM .e art driv.n off to a certiu extefit LA the aerstion
Mtais vi.. . 1. 50 0 . partialLy c..ovsd, vitO ac iaulaClon in 9 s a1. dqe. crivatOd sludge ,yeteea are
c aa.tf Led a. ii rate. exaivestticn.a4 .. Ot sutunded aeration (low rate) bs.o.d on tOe organic 1.Oedir . Zn the
conventional act vatad sludge plant. the vaatevlter ii c n .Ly aerated lot e petiod of foi r to ei.qwt OouZC Oiled
on a .r.qe d aly fio.i b a pLug flow Dy au1.ic cone. Ei er i sfec . or su qed aeration cyst... ma l i DC
es 1.oy.d to tia.n.f.r onyç.o re. air o vaatevatet. pr.saof a ire u d tO supply a t: to the suonerged IystsaS.
ncrsa..1.y thrOu a netri of diffu i.era, aleoouql n sr ,ucu.gq.d demo.. wai don’t con. undsi the general
category of 4iffi a.:a (e.g. , static cerebra and 3 5t aerators) at. oemnq dev.Loped and wp 1 .i.d. ffussd air
c Ct.na say Oe elaastft.d as fins Bionic or conra. bubo.i.s. Otfftas.ra c rtly used n ac:ivatsd sludge service
irtli . lAs following: poron. ceranmc p1st.. Laid in the O.sun bec . fine BuOO.ie) porous cersaic doses or
cetanic Or plastic tUOSI oan.ctsd to s pmps header and Lateral cyst.. !mii. BuOole • tuoee cowered vit O
synthetic fsoric or vowad f las.nts tfuii. or coarse buOclal , and cma.Lly designed epargef I vitn tipie
openings Iccerse uoD1.s)
PQ (CW O r t? Ns 5t.p aeration: contact .t*bt.lization, and cosolete mu flow .qi.es. Alto Ot 0.r iC
oi.iocid. is eonetiowa .dd.d o tO. aeration tans for sgnorus ronc’ai.
Ct T S 3 vatsd ai.idge s toe most ,ersati.j. and videiv •js.d mioloqical process Lii wesitweter
t.stonnt.
PTCAX. !Voi t rZ/No. 0? o’ .° - 23, 97) • Equipsent norsiLly ..s iat.d vi diffused air, ac ivat,d al .udqe
gyatths i l .l e t e fo.owuiiq: ii : diff s*r./ .9
— oonsti; veatevatur and otodagradsols industrial veatesetar. The main advantaq. of As :aiiwe,
tiortal aC iv t.4 sludge avetsu a ii. low.: nit:a1 cdt of ii. C . t C• . particglaclr wnere a Amqn qu.ae...ty affluent
ma required. :ndustr: . wast.vater ircl di—q son. prieri ty p0L ut.a.nta ’ wni I a,enis li to :io oqic.sJ .
trsa nt and degradation may Be cunt .ly tt..t.d vito doseetic .aat,vst.g in a nveflt iOiiai activated aluoqe
aye I s a .
• oit.d B bonding c acity; poor orqani: oad distrlOutioAi required aeration :ia. of fair to
eignt iiour,; plant upset vito ax r.one vagtati ms in nydraulu:, orqsnic • cad toxic loadings, operational
eonp1.exity : operating co.ta erurgy consuming s.c iaaicaL con eea0ra, and diffms.s.r aaintei ai ..
PF0P 5 ..)Ct (26. 39) - .onvai icaiv.ntiwsa.L act.tveced sludge) 05—95 perosfit
eacva. non—nittl .d syst.ms, .3 —20 percent
SThVA1.$ I!Mr - The following table t11.uatz.tea the unticOpitud unc:vase Lii excess sludge, vOlat l.
su erided so.ids (VSS) producc.Loa from lAs conventional sctivaced sludge process a. s.tfl.d vas:evatsr fond—to..
microorganuat ?1M) Loadings macreal.:
?‘W (3.0 I /d/l0 .‘75S) Deess S (..condary effluent plu.s vast. aludq.I
0.3 0.3 10/1.0 re ed
0.5 0.7 3.0/10 B r.Wved
O! 0W — Q6. 31. 301 — A pmctiai listing f design criteria for toe coneuntienal activated •ludqe
process is eu .arized as follows:
Volusetric losding. lb Bon 5 ,/d/1000 ft 3 25-SO
Aerstion detention ti.. o Daa.d on s . daily flow 4.4
a.ss. sqL 1300—3000
P/N. lb Bon /d/1b . FSS 0.25—0.5
Air required. stf. ft 3 11D 5 reenvod 500—1500
33. .jdqe retention time. days 5—10
X 5 ABI ?Y (31) - G ood.
W7 OIP I TM. !pOAC — - Sludge dm os l. odcr potential and energy eonsusiptmon.
i ZS • 23. 26. 26. 30. 31.. 39. 97.
C —2

-------
DRAFT
ACThATED SLUDGE. CONVENTIONAL D!FFUS AE AT ON
FACT SHEET 2.1.1
nrwy Emusni
Ritum S1ud .
A.r,tjon Tint
To nId clatil,.r
t, 1 i.or — Aaau iptics a:
1.30
100
Ex u ShadQs
S Piy sue.L c .ad loss throuqo to. aeration tint
is n.q ig bL.. S qs recyc. .. ., siudq. ast 4
pa inq .nsrqy at, a part ol c.1artfisz oç.cat. on.
.1ti I
l t’r . aJ . . .tv I? u.nt g/1) f1& .nt agJ’J
9 .a ,nd.d o1 da
3x .n an ,I .r nate wi.r. to wit ) in waat . at
fer:
?tris buool. ! uaion • 2. 1.0
acsq aDo L. • .3 1.0
Av.rsq. xy .n rec :s ent • 1.300 2b,d .4Sqa.L/d
- Aaauaptians:
Servict . e • 40 vests. £) :r d.x • 35 t30St 13S
natruct o :ost ir 1ud.s a rat on air
su pJy and S$OiUt Ofl •quip nt av p.ptr ar
. ..±. q. .4:.fie: and :ecvc. .... p. pa are
• .. 1.0 03 $ uppJ .4/10 3 5
re!Icv.d. - ss • :_oo ?/M • O. 5 b
/1 .t w .LV tenticn t s. • eurs baosd on
av.rag. .‘. f ov, . Vo1.u .a . ic 1.oadi • 3 1.0
ft . costs are for an
averaqe e-e:- y r isent of •0 lo 0 ,ibpn
at $.05/tW’.
oris ucfloe Cast
0
0
3. 1
0.1
20
20
Shaøg. from Ftnai anfi.r
.
C
.
C
0
0
.3
0
0
U
a
C
10 $
1 0
Op.r*ion & Maaifeq an Cosf
T 8 ° 0Ifluz cn > /
//
‘
______________ FIn. 8uoo s 0tfli. on
7
0.1
0.01
0.001
100 3.1
5a ?)A.LSA—2.
C—3
1.0 10
WUtswalsr FIøw.
100
l. a
Op.rouon 4 M t.nanos Cost
1.0
WS .$tSssISf FIOw. MgaIId
— 3. 4.
?e convert constzuction coats to eapita. cost
1.74
13 10 100
Wa*Zswatsc ow Mg$vC

-------
DKAFT
ACT1VAT D SLUDGE. CONVENTiONAL MEC 1ANICAL AE A11ON FACT S-{E 2.12
- . activ.r.d .iudq. ,y ,t.. in q.n.r*j. and to. eonvantionai aeti ae,d s u4q . pLant in artic iiar.
at, d..c Did .n ?act .,t 2. t.L. anJcsj. a.c.at.on Stooda g uds to. uu s.c .d uroitt. itto u r.a..d si
lpsrq.ga sq .atOr/lp.tq.t fyuta. sod tos .ucfaC.—ry’p, .. anjca.L •ntaut nt s.cators. s iucf.cr—cyp. sat—
at a S ctSu I st o.c c i z D ’ pcoduc nq a ol ii t .ns. turouj. . at to. aurfac. ar0 o d tOsLZ it. Sr7.
at. d.uiqn.4 to p arq. q ot La. of liquid. thus dtspsrsinq t o. .ntzs sI.d aLt and .q&t.at nq and • i nq
tos boa .n ntanta. . aqitacoz/spacqer y.t.s cor.stati of a radiaL-flos t b Jts .ocat.d 0.1G. to. .id—d.pto ot
tos balm. vtto c rs...d air avppii.d to to. tozoin. tor jq a , arqu. VOistils c0 WIdl ate d v .h off to a
a tsio satant to toe s.r.rJ. pocs.a. lWtaLa vL •L a. pacti ai1y t. v,d. vi . Ia 1ati UI to. lLadq..
c ,.Qk 0Z c 09 - 0 . i-ion to to. ificati . istad 7act .,t 2... for con,ention.. ctivstod
.ludq. plants. to. 3 &i.o.tnq . .nie&L a.aae oo Utostians IAOu.Ld also ba toantdat.d. . su .,q.d turOthu
s.cat y.iw a.f2 rds & ton’.niant and reativey cuo icaL sotnnd for upqredJJ Iq o,atin.dsd act vstad iiodq.
pLants. ?o attain opti f1 ibt1iCy of iyq i ti uC. tb• iatfSCv a•tatac Can Di C &l%Sd vito 0. .ussot s4
torbin. a.astor. 1 .v.tai asnut&ctutars supply to .qui nt. vttO boto a.rstor. ant.d so tos . ..rt&ca1
sAaf 5. an ag:a sot • t Os advantaq.oua if spec. 1.iaitatisoa :.qr t o. us. of deap aat&ti ’ bai.Oa.
La additina, soanscaL aerators say be • tOat a £iastinq Cr and instalLation type.
S?* to - ti Ly deveA .d sad v3dsiy us.d. par cuJ .ariy in to. industrial va.tssarsr .a snc 3 ILUI.
SLon. .350 • to. auaso.r9.d turbin. (wtd.iy us.d in toe toss iczi induac.ry Is. con. t aco us. 1 or sctiv.c.d .J .. dq.
aeration.
!? L 0? oU . C2 - !qut sot oors..Uy associated vito satosn&csL aeration con,.ntiona .L
sctiv.t.d IJ.udq. Jystons lsd. tos Dilowtnqa s.zntors/30i p. aqs _..tosnr plains/L I.
— .s Pact e t 2... ta. bonn usad pcLosr y in Lndustrte2. ‘sa.t. act..,.t.d iludge trucn.nc
plants and a con.id.rsd so ‘ttscti , a.ratin aver.. for v.ry d..p masoa vi tO OCcw . .ia.rs or •perq.rs plus
su.r’ac. sarsr.I • for aCt. ..at.d .Judq.. a.ti ez en u;tas. stea. and o ti concuncsrions of US as
L antonio diqessars.
- Li .Lt.d aon o.dtr capecity? r orqso&c 1 .oad dtatrthutiont required s.rtt.on tin. of font to
. qnt IOutlt plant u .t vito .rtsae vs st on. .ydrauiic and r .nic inadinos, o.tst..tota.L on aniy and.
to. o ratii costa, •fl•t97 consusu q .s an cs .L aerators, aerator sa jit.na, ., and potant sJ. f c .ca
f rn.ttcn .cound •urf , asrators.
1 P.so .aJ, eonv,nt ofiai sot ,at.d sludge sv,tsap IS to 95 p.ccent
sl tnor-iL .fL.d syersn.i 10 to 20 p.rcr c
R ! t.S Jt X?!O - 5.. Fact isat 2.1.1.
D 1 — A partial 1Lstioq of 4.sip oritscia for to. s.Cianic —.atat,d conv.n ions act ..vs ted iiudg.
pt .sa ta Iu tissd as f0U. wsa
V 1u t .oadiiq. 10 3oc .1d/l000 ft :3—SO
.rntion detention tins. 0 (based on a.eraqs daly f.ovi 4-4
.S2. aq/1 .fOO —300O
F/N. in 3 /df1o VU 3. 2 —0.3
4i reqvir.d. ltd. ! rionved 100—1.500 aqitator—eparq.r syerea onlyl
5.ludq. retention t on. day.
te: . suiz .quipnsnt lot a.rstian or oxygen ..anaf.c a 5t D siz.d to Lisp to. solids in unt r zusp.n—
lion at .1 t3.a. baperiding on basin soap, and d.pto. £000 .q/’. of LSS r.qulre about 0.75 to 1.0 op/l00 ft
(0. 2 to 0 ,03 iW/u of isain v Lu to prev.nr littLi id satoanica. aerators ace .oplcy.d. loonc.r. toe
at raquired to tvtsi,x to. toceas. oxyq.n vU.. uaua .L .y .qval or ear s .d this value.
PC S MT2 - 5.. ftcc i.er 2.1.2. batiacUity of setoanitsi .‘raticn equipnc is d.o,nd.nt on toe
quality of sanutsccur. and a ?Va .d sau tena,c. progges.
! D5(E t. AC ? — SLudq. disposal. aerosol and odøt pot.ntiai. end energy con.uspcion.
__________ — 23. 21 2!. 30. 31. 3 .
C-4

-------
W.t.r jaJ tv
a . nd.d 4a
0. 1
p
AC11VATED SLUDGE. OCNV flCNAL MECHANICAL A AT CN FACT SHEET 2.1.2
r . 3XAC*AM - S.. ?ac: Shest . - for yp ca ..k f
! 3I T I4Ot’ -
e y auL e biad as. thr ig s ..rat 0n ta & La
‘%.qi qih.Ls. S. .adq. r.cyc .L. az s1 . dq.
.a.rqy at , a part of :J ar .fi.r o scatto5.
i ..xt i
______________ : z f1 .nt /iI : f unt
Aasi d ‘v ’os i ‘an.f.r *at. • .1 0 /bpet far bi —
ap..d su.c ac. isricor and . .h 0 , tpa at turau •
ip.rq.r wits to w.ts Lu vs.rsw.tsr. nv,nr a.L .c
tivatad . dq. xyq.n • 1.. 2 . 0 /
900 r. w.d.
-
3ss aii 3aaig : e3m :rd.z • 3S75 t osr U12).
n .truct on it a.rat on basii s as ai z—
tic. a. s rs. 1r. ar mM csC)’ I p i Us tot
r iudd.
. VoJ.ua.c,.c .d ’ .rq • 2 5c /d/ .300
3. suppJ . .d/ 3C rs v.d: y sn
?ranag. sat. • . 3 .h/h (h qo speed suct e
4. P .VSS • 0O ag/ i ..
S. ?/ I • .23 3 r /d/1 .VSS.
6. t.n ton tie • 6 ..d . a..cmq. 3 .aQ.y flowb.
C s on
100
• 10
S
.3
3
0.1
.,.
‘

i .III

:
‘3 ‘C 100
W pwsui r ow. Ugau/c
3.1
! z? ZPC3 — 3. 4.
‘a
0
.
.
S
5
10
‘C’
I.0
.7
 .
//
-_ ‘rw ’Dffi. S .oarq.v -
= çr S 41eas A. i1o’
4 ’
/
3.1 1.0 10
W Iiw*t 1ow. h4qawd
Masm.nsvias Cast
7’
4;
//
/ - .P
.‘_/

,
S
0
• ,r dA . .. . 4 ( M.t.al.ts —
-.,.. ,_.P.-
3.01
“To convert con.truc:.on coat to caput.a cost a.. aDL. A—2.
‘JLr I
Q ; J)
$4mn vg.4 TurDtne A.rmav
10’
Waslawati? rnow. 4qiiiC
C—5

-------
DRAFT s - ‘ 3
ACT IATED SLUDGE. H(GH PAT .DIFFUSED AER&110N FACT SHEET 2..t3
_________ A 4ictipt .øn of . cti..tad aiuoq. pc se. in q.nttal. a presented in !tCt 2i CSt 2.1.3.. CtiVCt
.0 SJ.ttO9C •YI I hey . t . itionally been c aaified as oiqi gate. ivent onal. g extended a ati i (l rate
on oran c loadii . e t ire if . d a at ion via a been edog tad to w p 1 ) ’ to oee i i grl a t. a i r act vs ted
sludge eyst with deet P/R losdu.ge in the tang. of 0.75 to 1.5 lb B00 /d/l.b C.VSS. IWdtliid 4SfItQfl 1Y
ta axe ax giSed by lax U.53 i,sc s. sbott •erat .ort detentiOn eee . 2iiqO ‘e3.& .t3C loathnqs. low
sir usage ratea. and intera.diat. l,,.i.a f I arid suW,nded solids re a1 eif1Cief ieU. PTi tO •fl 5Ct Sflt
of nati iwi.de ee ridazy tg.ec. nt reqiiiatia’is. UL.d aexatiOn was gti a2sd as an ijidependelit tZS* Snt •Yt1
t plants ,n . te sJa of SO to 70 p ceet v id a ifice. *.a,ntday tt..&aent t.quit essnt*.
iliad asaat cn no iosiqef qoalilise as a .tand.1 e scti.aISd iiadqe opt3.Oa.
diZied iessti i basias at. n eaJ1y deeige.d to op at. in .j ex c lets sos or pJ ,uq flow y aU C aiLiqua
t* s. cut fan. swds.rqsd aexat On ayeteel n be ..ployed to cransi.r olygell fzo. air to waItesltit.
althou suO.exg.d .qui nt is specified s e frequently foc toia ocsa. CD .a. e ace used to supply sat to
au .rq.d aeration ay.ts. A d .a ipcudn of diffuaer a srnatlv’ e and other auba.rgsd s stion de’i 5 is
sented in Pict eet 2.1.1. 3.ati1. cowpeeu da ax. dxiv . , , off to a c raUi extent in the aeration OC 5$ 5. DWt
ala will a.LaC be partially geeownd, vi a i aJ stiOD U i the Slud S.
P ON NO ? A C)6 Recently. dii. pvirily to tepidly ..C aring po t ta. ii ttiS 5t i Iz been ex esed in
e de,e.t.o nt of oign c.ts, diffused aeration ay.tasa .ni .ould prodt e a bign quality secondary .i vettt. As
w codified aeration. aeration detanticn t ti would resein low arid vclueeic loedinga pti . 3.0 concraat to
Ui.d aeration lyitass. bige 142.5$ oui nwatione ecu2d flavi tO DC utilised to p.reit F/H loading, to be 1 51ri
tain.d at ressoviabl. us ia. . *.y to d.a.iopeent of .fttc ent ii rat. sir syitsee s the eweja_lity of
suri..ri.4 aeration equi r it teat onu.Ld eatatfy the bigo oxygen dasa d rates at scoonpefly Ugn pILlS leseis and
SflCTt a scion i S. t Sv i TiOva t iOu IT S inc DI 0L, d i.Zfu a arid et a er at..on . no.2 oq7 offer peten tial fog
uniting bigo .fficies y olygen aviet.r viii hiqn rate air scti,ated sludge flew reqise s to eaii.x. ac .pta S
secondary treatsent as independent itard •lon. prooxasea. a.acn eva.Luat:ons stud field stud3sJ currently un
derusy anould provide p.rSoresi e and cow r data on this iu ect in e next several .sra.
70 a QG’f S A - see sore widely used in tie 19 50 5 and 1960 5 than it is today becauSe ef tie tie scringefle
effluent standagda in effect during ieee p .er3.ode.
7YPI ).L : !r7Nc. or MFRS . — Lqui vit r i.1ly associated vi dif uaed sir, act satId slizdq . syeteex .rt g.r
ersi. include tie f Jlowinq: air d iffaer,/s.3 cc.pc.aJori/44.
- See Fact ieet 2.1.1. Sires to. .stly 1970’ .. ew2o ,d gena.Uy a. a pr. eaT.aefit or rQu irc
process n a two—stag. activated sludge tylte.. vner. the gec vid scene is used for biological trifitattoii. A.lus
at Qne f the l:cr salts is s tI edGed to .dGtli.C aeration :aairus pr.cediT i.C nd-tta9S iSitic on unitS
for puospuorua rseova l.
- 9i v tare activuted slog. alone Goal net produce an effluent with 8O sz,d suspended solids c u —
cancracione suir.snle i g disaiarqe into ecu surface waters it tee COuited Statas. (CsjrOt assure that 20 og,’.
arid SO ii tie final effluent will D i a iev.dv
— S O D 5 ,ec,a.1 far xodifs.d aeration - 50 to 70 percent: fog vii solids. ti u rare air cyst.. — 80
to 95 percent (t.ntati.eI
I —H Reecval - S to 10 percent.
8 7DCASS C f A — ue edified air aeration syer.ee fed with degrittad raw wastewataf produced on the iverage
ovet a t 1’eat pecid 1.11 lb e taa VSS secondary effluent plus waste aludgel/lO 8OO c.wved at. an average
F/H ratio leading of ‘..17 ii acG /d/li
7 iA (39) — A p.re ial listing of deuigo criteria fer the t viigo care air activated sludge process op—
tiona axe uuarix.d as follows
P d1f:.d ASrstlon fl. Ou SolIds. thai t. Mrat On
Itent LTd
1uee ic loading. lb 300 /d/l000 ft3 SC - 100 50 — 125
HiSS. sq/i .00 — 2000 3000 — 5000
ASt scion detention ci . ., noun based on influent flowI 2 — 3 2 — 4
F/H. lb S /d/1b u .vsz 0.75 — 1.5 0.1 — 0.8
ltd ft 3 air/ID 5 r,ecv.d 400 — 800 100 — 1200
Lb 0 2 /lb 80O geenved 0.4 — 0.7 0.9 — 1.2
udqe r.centio% time. da a 0 .75 — 2 2 — S
cycle ratio (89 0.25 — 1.0 0.25 — 0.5
Volatile acr .ieri of HiSS 0.7 — 7.35 0.7 — 0.3
!!S LT13I 7 - 8.quir.a close operator actentiOri.
f Wv O145 r1A L - See P lc t Seet 2 .1 • 1.
— 23. 26. 31. 29. 262.
c—6

-------
ACTiVATED SLUDGE HIGH TE DIFFUSED AESAT1ON
Scr..n.ø and c.grrn.C
Raw Wsstrwsar
EflI .i.rn F : -
ft ‘t t ft
MSz
4 4
4 4 4 4 4
MratiOn rsr
4,4,4,
Return £4u09 5
S
0
S
U
S
S
0
2
0
U
- Aasuept a* . ‘ su .LC e.d 1 .a
rouqo .n. • at oa taos La rwqJ. q a. £ u s recycLe
and s .uôq. vaot nq .risrqy irs a pert 0 g c .*tifi-
•t op.cat an. yg.n ana1az ti 1th atae buOb s
dif ua.ga • .5 -/ vu. to vat ) La 5StSvS
tsr. Ot sr p.za.a.t a ..n a ordarc. vtth c t u. ap—
t
- Mauapt . nai !3 ndu • 3175 ( to0 13 1)
n. uct on o.t a st on aa i a , su a p. .y
.qu nt and and a bua . .du . ac fi
and rrc- ’c . p.iaps at. ot r ud.d. sued v&
SC .rcw t r.c’ , f.ow. tent ov t .ao • 3 . b aa.d
on av aq. da .y ows . Pfl • ..3 b 3 /dJ
S. 0.7 c. appL..d p o 3 :, .4.
ML’.SS • LOSe .g,’. 3 ’to. . . . f. • 40 y.ara. C tJ all
t .cdLii d ama— t on.
1005 ..3C 40
Consb eIon C t
10
a 1.0
01
0.01
1.____
I
:
I I II
.1
10
10
100
Wssiraatr Flow .4qawC
Fvon F nsI carwsr
4,
.
/—
___
,//
/
/
/
/
/
0.1
1.0 10
Wulewalsv rnow. U;L/C
O s ovi Mau ii an C.ast
I C 4
0.’
0.01
/


2 V
2#’•_


Laoer —
i- ’ _________
‘ ‘ , Power
0.1 1.0 10 100
W$.sIawatef .4ç LLI
- 3. 4.
‘TD c iv t ni uCt on c t to cap t..L c t saw i2.
DRAFT
44
To nai C1ar fIse
waste S uaqe
C-7

-------
DRAFT
SEP I 2
ACTTVAT SLUDGE PURE OX’ ’G2’ , CCV D FACT SHET Z
.tum Shadgs
(4) — Aaa c oni, oz datiGo.
3ç.rat. nq ?ua ti, & ‘j.n .ct vatad s.L. ouy ss
• ..2 L O /1.b I r. d.
tr 3 a L.tv Ir fiu.nt ________________
ans Sr **ta ( ) i c &d.a y ss ;r14 t .ics
and a*y .s 4iaaaLct.t .
With y .nic wy .n qaa qen. at3. and .uz aca
• :.s vita to vs t) .o
s..tavat.t.
2. Wj pr.s.*az. ,v:.: ed. t A) az an qaa qss—
.ratL and •gzti.ca s.rat s ?1 • 2.3
(vtre to va s ) .n sato tf.
3. 4q td 33 suppLy and s artae. s.c.t rs. •
2 0 2 /bp@ V i .O v$ ) A vaSta $t*t.
— .iqn sia. OSt 342 .U.a.rsi W iz
• 3475. Aasu t3. gs ar ac,o a zi4at .
t or q.nat aEas. iii —
sq%z snt. ,sI •cat r, . .nO
‘iedfstotaq. .tr .otati
CV Sfi app3. . .cao ..a • sad ir *3 .ziq ties.
• auua.d a e 4s .i rsd as q1ai.4 y an
fat p aata f:a. 3... to a .L.,’d ILlS. ?5r p masa
fr . .,0 to .00 qs .LJ , ie. ssau d to as
q i.rat.d Oaeita.
3 auppL .d pat 1.b t. .4.
4. .VSS • 3130 qJ2.. rf • 0.5 3 /d/ .VU.
S. ?o . u e o14L • b 3 /d/1300 ft.
4. tsnt i tias • 2 f assd svsrsqe 4a ..3.y
7. !3..c rici y at 3.3Sfk 1.i t it &.3.4.40/ , q d
2 It &144/t.
H
I ! l . . :1,
0.1
H
1
100
Wwpwumr 1ow. dqsUd
___________ — 3. 4. :55.
?a c nvact 0nstruetton east to ca tai east. a.. ?*o3.. A2.
L30
. 5
.5
.
S
S
S
3
.3
0
0
0.01•
IC
c—
3.001
/
/
:
t?!H
.
7
7 l.J
Or p.n
/ .
-
0.1 1.0 10
Wast stsj Rae. Mçswc
Ou tau n .& C
U d Oz gs PSA - oç. c
- 1L
?
- L:
/7—
).r t
/t
2iz
H
• ,

,
.
3. 1 10
WW 5 .iti 1ew. MqawC
L.sbOf
— — — — — 4Ic•nsIs — —
Oxy.n F..ø s
Mqvton S4Jr?scs Asrolor
.r.. c
or Pnm y aflusm F
I4izsø LLauor
to arthat
If f3 .u.nt Iss/ti
S m?IOr9SG P,ops(ar (C on )
10
a
a
.3
.3
I
10
1.3
3.1

-------
DRAF s p
ACTIVATED SLUDGE. PURE QXYG 4, COVERED FACT SH T 2.1.4
- a w a o pi . y n .1 dq. tr.. .nt baa b . vLtb a. og tx this
to tOS 1 . o zy’q i a.cJ . i cai .uyi t. . c _ ad a zyqan •yat La a bi cata •Ct v. tad
iL iO . sy.ca . . sm .&o D.n.fia ct d , S ti Jud. t.duC .d .t .q JLc . nt3 f x d3.i.cLv nq axp n
in s vat t . t. c.d * *c a t & r.q’SU.fltJ. •I 3J,.tZ o .0 . aCt e .ad ii d u
syat,... o tbu .yat . ya.natjon ta pst d ia a .taq.4 grurad rtSCtot La 9S$ 9 1 1 LI
vi l Lbs STat.. int.il Lt t.a . . a O P t7 l I 4 .1IId Jt IlO.lS 5d • I t V3L
it o no 1av .r 3s .ad La ...t .d to . .t l StS. çb’91zit7 y91n 911 C90 to .00 p.rc.itt ‘oJ.i .i so—
t $ tb. f z t sioqs at s $yst ag f nvs CØ C’ t.n t.Ly v L Lbs a4*t t b.uq Li .sted Lb rOg . 0 1 5 - 9 . 1 w .
Lion basIn. Pt.a.ot. i ar . tt e * La .ls.at4AJ . 7 s u91 .tIC • bs nq b.id at 3 to 4 l* .s v.tst
•iaLfiCi.nt to $bnta fl 01Y910 9U ssd I 5S C $U1 0* 5t119 5 tO t$9S . U IiI5t i.&ad i %
.1 &.pszstad Lo IVIty clagL l ., aad Lbs Lb .i*d aaa . a X YC.I*d to . tInt ataq. 4
t t uLLb iaflii..t
4 5SS tx.asf si .izt vLLbtft . .taq. ax. • rP’labad sLLb .lLb aicLsc. & st a ox vi a
baa. ocacIoq— .p..rq . ay .taâ n Lbs tat taa.. a... ws •g c a LO Lb. 91 1 a cii to Lb. Lattox. qen LI
LnLb Lb. q .o . a.., a ai t1w LbS 9SI% bb I to Lbs b iJ.X L .qotd. m
CaM Lbs .a—nz a . .nOa d by Lbs b A aiaz . aataaa .4 .od4r Lbu t t co- a
1.0 • Ptaq..
Lbiac . .l. c aida lie thjy.o oti to a o tsao extent La . a y9oxiatI o as 1J n Lb. . t aa.
tM. y 1.1.0 . .Zps Lbd to bs p .a’y w Lb a i .LIt 0n .o Lbs sLLIG9.. aiqn 1L1Cy y9sn y 3*
ed 0o-.LL* y fcquo&G 00 P A ?T.III S 5eL a pt 0O 9as . 1aL $. 00 iZLb*aad Ii L44 d 0Zy .e Co
au a g—iit. &od st .d at Lb. trasc...nt p44 it. t • uct ,eoasa t ox5q.n wi x , deps 4s a n pLai t a i x. Lad
0 am 1 51.0.
- .‘1.x &l4ty La clai to p.nit o9 atl i La any 0 g the eiOru&J.iy isad f o- r.—
9L S. a. • ii9 . . 0 5 . p.t.t. •i.L. •ta i a .t.aail . iod Lbit L gt aOL . 11atIaO, Lb. aeLbod of 0159s0 Lbnt . 0L C s—
pIa .d Lbs p119 Io- . .. tOCv$I say 01 to ept .aa. caz . .acsoaa Ox only,
bui*d cax .aja and aitaq.nai. idat ao. o x o L.aaa t troq.x . 4.taao I• a 1.pexacs 1059• I tsc $aa.ry
o cr - Pl . ct ,i sc.LLs plaot mt idit$ s s 49t ssent . 1y o- X uc a ead L .adiaa &1
1Q.L I ItYT/ ’40. 0? ‘ ?9S . l3 ) • y9.o ,ctivstad .1.dq. ayat /5, y -gen qei a x.I1, t .lquk4 or qso st-
S .l(l ‘ 0t $tI000? lad pass osd ta c1ty / and a at i/3O.
- .fld oaoloqioa .U.y d 591 14a01 5 Ladua a.L waao,ast3 jpgrld1.nq a .Ct ?It .d
.4.uoq. p . .an xi s w 4C tt1sg CC eas.c. I uC iCn at woaft i ,C ., . 0C LI t ULzad. .0.0.
.f .u .nt Olvad oa5-9•n L a ta Load. w0 s .CuCeO OCLtY nd b 91.0 CS en Iti0n of VI lL a a1. i idq. LI
ço .r ud • and .oax . :.aai a ataa n detent an ti. L l U
- LsxLLy of opuraLicO.
44 • Cntaj.a pilot tt p g c an0 . d t* sos ii .ntzsd bases
. CCICtOn . t.0cat or 9 .ocat ci ’ _________
Caxocr.aa. da LiOsu
0, peocr t r. s.L 7,
3O percent rp ,.1 a9
up.nded icUd.. p.rvsnt tasra.l, II 64 75 76
1 t ogen .sa x .atL s1 —s parcent r.wwalai
SInq.k. elaq. aLto oagoaaac . .ia oxadatzon 20% 90%
S.peraca •saqs a *t LcO a tas cu nec is az s.ticO S O S — 91 5
R 70aaLS Dd A? (46k — pilot Cast .y.Le aYs ;enasat.d b.ts..n 0.42 es L.3 Lb pox Lb 5 cienwed.
D I 9 1 1A (0000Ciacucul S0ø i4.stocni
‘ Lu 1.C loading. Ix. acO /d/LOO0 ft 130 to tOO
rn . zo a /d/lb .V3 0.3 to ..0
£ .çu ix easot • 1. . 43 0 e d 3 • 4 to a • a
*L • aqf 3.300 to 6.300
McsLicn ds1snt cO tirs. bOLOS I to 3
qucz d .aaoX,,o oxyqen. sq/’ L a to a
yqan r. sp i.c.d. b c. /i0 B re d 3.9 -
t:A$L ?0 — CcOpLea operatLon. biqa .r S L Ot C sc.tarrnaLnc.naase 1CtSbt .Ofl required.
! W 0i Z?VtX . tPA - $1 .idq, dta .al. .nerqy
— 23. 26. 29. 46.
C- 9

-------
D2. r SEP i i
ACTWAT SLUDGE. PURE OXYC-aN. ‘JNCOVER FACT SHET al.5
— The Of e yqSn for acttva d a udq. tZcc ent si .C e patitive vtth e e of ai due
.0 tDe f if Cient 0179•0 .Luri ayscaee. The opan tana ozy en .yit is a bi ct. actt,ar.ad
sLudq. syste. . The ssin am.fiiz :t d for e aa :edt sd er c atreneflta for dt.a.oivtnq xyqen
in c.. vasteeller. serat4an tent ,oJ.u a ugeccncs. and t Q’ .d b oa Meti of the .ctavat.d i i.adqe
.yst. . Zn the ur c,e d lyitee. oxyq.nmtian is pegfo d in an opan resctor in vtith .ztz iy in. ia dif-
users are c.iL1zsd to d .icp eas.Li oay en qaa ba bLas that are c p .ate.k)’ dcJ ,vd b.f e btea&iS’q surfac. in
nor sAdeptA rena.. The basic prir ipi*a v ith $y in e ao.ter of ory en La c ,ast iai dLLfas.d air sy .
also appLy to the open tens paz. aryq.n .ysee .
The pure ozyqen open tena sycten pro ac. . a1 af in. bt bi.I vith a corr. ottdtiiqiy hipa gas surfac, area. Thees
gtr.—fin. D1as are of •ioi size. vn.cccs itne nuaoi.e no J.3y uc.d in dtUus.d sir lystena are in
. icar e Lzea. The c i era oiyqeisatzori sycten ts c pea.d of an oayqen 4 i..eo.kution eyet e teed of to.
tat .tnq dirfuaer ut a source of hiqa-puzity oxyq.o es or.a.Uy, en on—sit. oayqeo q.oerst3t ; sod an y9en fl
I 571 ten we i cc osyqen a uppi y vi o.yqen 4 nd tbroupe on. of bsji.n-loaat.d 4 3.aso.tYed a syqen Obee
sad valves. Siqa purity uryq.tt —y b. ndu d by yOq.nic or PSA Pressure iaq &orptzanI gencca
t i. at pur saed as liquid oxygen produced off—cit. and s e at the tzea C plant. 6.3..ctien of cost affec-
tue orygsrs source 4ape.da itpen plant sue ao4 .s et ain.
The influ.nt to the sycten enters e oxygenation tanS end is sized with ret n act.tvat .d sludq.. The sued liq-
uor a nwiianua.Ly and ou L y si d using low energy cc th ica 1 sq i ration deep in . sized I iquor • n.z inq
is produced ny adial tur Dine i ie1.ler $ 1 a ted o bo a utta nee t and bott I of the otattng 4 jaton 4
Pure yq.n pea in the for. of aion—eiz. Duooi•s is iiailwt.cualy introduced ito . ens to acconqlua seas
oxygen u sister. The :0 caring 411 Aiaer La a g .e.c—* i..n 4 Lan—s Itaped 4 if f aaion 4 ee ice squ t pp.4 vi th a purous s.d t—
ua to eaaia r in the 4 if !u&inn ccees • )J the dif 1asZ rats a at tstan t speed in the sued l.quoc • 3y s iuLj.c
abeag vipes nu o1sa fro. th. sudius betate they baYs 5fl OppQCtUALtY to coalesce sod enlarge.
u ll - ierac.or in any of the no a .Uy-na .d C cv reqene. I.... plug Ccv. çiLate zu. step
aeration. nd ttact .taoi1 ratioo. can be as.d as c3Cittoas dictate s3Jgs tArn a.thoC of oxygen conract e Layed
does not fa, one pac tcular operating code. Syvtu say be 8cci ted to optuaz. caroonacaoua (DC j oxidation.
c ii.d c*g n.e soua OCi e lid t nq.roua ( I CC oxide t on as a $ nql. a tag. • ox ii = ogelous oxidation aa a
separate stags af sz se n@ary ree nt.
acc S A - t.cwnUy 4 .,elnped suppi .d under o ietsry s tatia.
- e,t c and o logicaLly de a4aaL. nduat .ai ssatsvsterl, plant C vs ;re.tsz than 1 Nqal/d up-
qcadLrtQ •xiac:rto a..: ac .ivstid 31 .Juge ?lant. n .. ctl.itas — O :sGuce co s uC iOfl Coat where tic
dissolved vqsn is :squi:,o. coats rsCucad quantity and bi er orcvn stton of cast. slung. is : ut.z .d. and
wrier. reduced sarat on d.c r,t. .cn . ix :,qug.d.
- .plax ity of operation.
- 5.so,a 1 .fiici.rci.s of vact a pu.Llut.anta its aiaiL&.z to thale of activated aLudg. and very with
. of operation. aeration detention ti.e. and azact.g of tn .usDt v 5atsvatet. a.pLes of operational and pi-
lot test data tave d ase.ad the 10 owing re a.L*
43.45%
55 40— 40%
i a trcq.n ae idacton,
Siriq&. stag. naificatiofl. P1fl 4 — ( 20 —40%
G.parats stags ri fdcatton after
cacannacucus oxidat..on, ?IE —H 40—44%
R DIJALS C D Th.A . _ - a. eween 0. 2 md 1.30 Lb VS S per lb &00 :e ’d.
- VcLuae ic Loading 100 to 230 ID B /d/LO00 ft
rI 1 0.5 to 1.0 lb B ,4/lb .‘JSS
ygsn regu irseent.
lb 0 5 /1b 0 re sId 0.9-1.3
Lb 0 7 /lb D ri .O 0.6 to 3.6
Aeration tantion tse 1 to 3 saed on sq. daily ! oc
naxed liquor 0.0. 1 to 4 50 /1
3.000 to 6.0Cc sq/i
ffiO S A 5 - l ot ,t fully .itanlian.d.
wt C ME rAt ‘MPIC - Slung. disposal: odor potentta.L. cr4 energy consuention.
— 26. .35. 136.
C— 0

-------
D71 T s
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, P PE Ox’ ’GaN. UNCCV ED FACT S 1EET 2 5
LQX StoTaq• SlanO.by)
Con oi Pir u
r MOtOr/ Gw .cuc.c
Mtx*C L uor to rtfir
II
WO? (4) - M* t ti t i c. aa ex d ti
.t aq ,u t *z y en ct va d iqe y n
- L.2 .b 0 2 /Lb $ re ed.
t.r ifl .•flt *c, Lu.nt * J:i
$005 L30
ts (0 ) £J i a y,en t on
£r OXSf MOiot Oit.
Wt f11C QX 9Sn 9*J 91 $t 10’
• it i, Q - .3 Lb 0 /b V I tO V1t) O
Vj iWli% 1P5A) 3xy9s0 g. q
.rat . i as •& fa a at s. — .b
LtI tO ..t.r .at . emtat.
. . iuppj,y a sucfa •
b ,‘ p@ vizs to v1t) n vt t .
- sa j1 ooL aciv Z)I* x
• 3*73. M i t ie, Caz m ozadoc. . .
-. ns on it ‘ .n .at.on aLti. d i i —
.o . ut.t i eay .a ai
s.d/it sq. ac.t .s • .o• otat
vb e app .ae si • a, c.ns2.r1q a....
a asat. to be ds .v.r,d a. qu . d o.y en
f pL ta os 3.. to N .Wd s zs. g piista
.3 to LX s .id. . aaau d to
, .tata 3& ts.
3. .b 0 a ippL .d p . c Lb 100
4. a.vss • 31X .qJ .. F • 0.3 i D 1 ,’d/1b U.VI$.
5. • .b i ,d/L00O t.
. tsntioa t ae • 2 D ad on av . c s ow$.
-. ..c csty at 3.05/ . at Si4.10,t, Liq%&, 4
at fl44/t.
10
ryoq.nscrr
,
iI,l i
ryq. ’
Li int 0
t
w
0.1 ‘0 ‘0 I X
__________ - 3. 4. .5g.
‘?o t vert c . vct on to eapita.. cct. i.e o • A2.
3
.3
3
U
a
C
C
I C’
1.0
3.1
0.01
3.001
Y
,-
/P . .A
‘
H /
H
tff°’ Hr
0.1
1.0 10
C *i i Ma. tsr C. 4
a-.-—
iqu
,.
.d Oryg.n PSA
I
—
I
I i
3
10
3.,
WwewsIar lOw. 4gaW0
Labor — — —
3wer — — .4si sn*tZ —
Vapøn
0’
101
C
10’
S
3
0
3
.0
c—il

-------
DQAFT s H923
CONTACT STABILIZATION, D iFFUSED AERATION FACT SHEET 1L8
ocscnrw ’ — Usntact ataoil ssatwn is a aticactor of cDt act:vaced aluoqe process dsec:iae4 sore cawpjetaly
.n net Sent 2.1.11 . In i o ta ecoifscation. to. sdsxpt:ve c c ty of 2e floe a til;:ld in .fle contact tart
to idiot: sua.nd.d • colloidal, and son. dtasoind orqanics. The iydzau lsc detention tse in the ntsct tin s .a
only 30 to 40 saute. loseed on average daily flowl . Attn the osoloqscal sludge . 5 aep.ca:ac fret toe wa ateweter
in t nt ncond.ry clarifler, t nt concentrated aluóe La taparanly anat.d in the staoiliaation tans vita a detan—
tuon tin of 2 to 6 hOurs based on sludge recycle flowi The adaczoed organica indngc ondatioa in tat staoa,Li-
zatson tans, endogenoua n iratacn wsfl o iae. a long vita a corcawitant decreas, in excess biol ical aliidqe o-
diction. Fol lowing etsollasation. tne reaeratad sbsdqt is ussed vita arcne.sng vaateeatfl in tat contact tans at
t i cycle starts 4 mw. ‘alatil. c pownd. etc driven oft to a certasn eaten by aeration in the contact and atao
ilisation tans. Maca la eQS also at partially read. ei s talation in t oe sliSq..
This esa reqia ire. en l ist total aeration ‘oust tnan the c antSonal activated sludge ptocna. It also can
beadle qreatn organic a m a aS t ic Loadi’ts nacause of the biological buffering capac ity of tat atabilltatiOn
tant and at tact teat at any given ae tot aa,orsty of the activetad s ludge ia isolated froc toe asn stress of
the plant flow. Generally. tee total aeration basin volum contact plu. staoilisation baairiai is only 50—15 per-
cent 02 teat required in tat caIwnt,onel activat.d sludge ayer.e.. A deecrtpt on ot 4sf Aaed aacauon teonnsqine
is pcesented In Fect nt 2.1.1.
CVtrOw wCFtCAttOlC - Used in e paa . treatnt plant wito clanfication at ctiormnataon facil Ities In one
‘easel. Otet: sldi.icstzaia urtlude raw vastr.acer 2nd to aerat ion tans, flow eqalisatu.cn: inte’gral aeroot: d i-
p ester.
tr’ma.ocy rA’?rs - Contact etaoilia.ation baa •vciad a. an oucqrovt of mctilatad sluege tecnoloqy since 19W
and seen con ua e in paa a p lants and sac uama for on—ait. constructed plants.
nncn. r c t’rno. or ns . - Air di:fuaeratiS; con aaaorvsa; peceage traatsent p lants/a.
APPt ICAttON ! • Vaatr—aters tztat r ave an apçrecaazle amunt of ion.. in tn. fore of sucendad end colloidal soL-
ids, q:aoinç of an esisttn, ydrsulicaliy oeari.oaded con’..enticnal activated L.saqe plant; 1ev .nat.a.ilattons. tO
tate advantaqe of low aeration vOhuat req’uuemntsi inert th, plant sat be suo ect to a ma organic or toxic
loadings; —nate lafler, sore unifors flow condit;ona ice anttctated or if the ft to the plant tava ann
equs l uasda
- I ! us un.iinly mat effluent it.atards can at set sang contact stanil uxatien in plant.. sa.ilar
titan SO . 200 p .1/4 vi r.oout e prior flow eqiu .lintron. Other lait.stsats ircIuce operctional pu.aity. tsgn
operatung costs. i to , enurgy ca’suapcuon aM ts ttffuaer .aantenarce. As the !:actton of solubLe ! in tat
influent aastevate; .nc:seaes. tOe required tots, aeration voiae o tie contact staniluzatuon pr aaa wctoaots
teas of tat conventional proeeeu.
bOO 5 Rt el SO to 95 percent
P 1 —M aeaoeal 10 to 30 percent
scotatz 4t5ATtt • Sat Fact Sint 2.1.1.
: 7O t A (391 ‘ A penta.l stung of deeipi itnss for tae contact etaoiluzation process is z. arured as
201_owe,
m. It 3OO /d/1a IC.VSS 0.2 to 3.
VOla.cic loading, lb b /d/l..00O ft 3 30 to SO Caned on contact art. stacsi.tzataon eolusa
C.ZS.. agfl 1.2 00 to 2.500. ont5cttI.nS: 4.300 to .3.000, etseslusatton
tans
Aeratuan tat, Pi 0.5 to 1.0. contact tan. (based on average daily flow 2 to ...
et.sasltzat:on bas in band on suudg. recycle flow,
.udqe retention tae. daye S to 10
Pecycie ratio (E 0.25 to 1.0
Std. it 1 in fo 3 renend 500 to 2.100
Sb O 3 fun bOOs remnd 0.7 to 1.0
‘.blataje fraction of CS 0.5 to 0.6
P*C!SS kLM1 ?t - Requires close operator attention.
tnV ONPtiJtfl :nsct - Sat Fact test 2. ..L.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — 23. 25. 31. 29.
c—I 2

-------
CCWTACT STABLZXflON, :F SE: AE AT ON FACT SHEET 2. .2
Scrw..o an O.qntl.C
Raw *UZswstr
Pnmary E ’ftu.nt
! ! IO? - As tioftas A&.g r u s nt.s ar
ousø an X & 3 t. 2
1000 .a . /d) • sxt .,e ap a nt Dj w 3 V
00% standby ars pro.id.d. ! .1.c c ty .
:r .L s. enurgy r. v .r. nta far .nt rs ps . ant.
AsIUa9t O Sz St* ate I1 tOO J13 da.LLasss
• 317S.
rtsu ict on e t s for Jinr.a ae
e.L ø.s &n&aqe and uqu nt n for a a—
an cna sri. ar2nat gm .qv nt. nai l fica—
t .øn and sJ &dae .to .zac.an. StJ
ar va.r re. SI
cal and ns i ntan .on . and nnactor. c —
and rof t at 5% of CaSt.a But •
c, d. .and. •r .t e.c.zq or f nar r,q duglrq
c s
2. costs are aa.d on a rats of s$a .4c,t.
£r ludinq Dnef t*. v&t. 7 4, e riatfis
and el.c lc ty at $.05/tW?t. a.nnenarce aaI —
ala i Lud. lec .ne.
I lIt I
11 1 I I
I,
H
I
Ij
ll
0.1 10
Wsa*swaz claw. Mgai/0
10
.
V
S
.1
101
1.0
/
. ./
0.01 3.1 1.0
WulIwalu cow. Mgsi/0
Co.r. on £ Magv*sn s C
Tota’

/

I
1
I
0.001
0.01 3.1
W5.stewa ef cw 1 ,4g$s/0
—
Aitarnsts E c
Sluaqs
riw- fl Po,m
3
. 5
1.0
.3
.5
I
S
.5
=
0
S
0.1
3.01
0.01
c—la

-------
DrJ\Fi
(TENDE A Ai1CN, ME ANICAL AND DIFFUSED AE.RATICN FACT S -1E ai.1O
- D iei .d aeration 8 tOe oe rsc, if catioi of . a t v*tad 1 a40. t i&. k• 7/11 .o.4ttq
a in tO. t ., . of 0 0 to 0 • 3. 0 I /O/ 0 PC .V 5 , a r d ,nc; i t a a wut 24 Ooiaj. Pr eary ciac f
CItSDIi i r*r y O$S t. C at.no,d iStUtIOC ryat.. 09.VIt.S tO tOe •fl4Q aflOU& t,IPUaC n 4à i Of tO. ct .c aJ
qrOwtA 0.c*&a.. Of U 8 1o.djt . . or intW are .tar e4 ar r sd tc u, erqo ?.rr. .LL aut
4.ticn. .atzii C 3UI $ I C , roisi of to a Carea n atant o 0, er .cj.on p iI$. t& 4 Vi a ..SO 0 i
pert &Uy ra .4. V1 •CCU 52I. JI0O1i in tOe ULU49s.
In tOe C et. •i* e,rsaor of tO. .atsnd.d *stItiOti OCt-4 5 . aU p0Iti i* of tOe aexsc on Osata ac esa.iit
sis s. resLt nq Lo a uniform 79S1 d nd iou t . seriuoa taoa. a o lt nrt tan 0.
p *sa.d fa*.J.y aunp .y a a iy itM i MtU 0* c teU.La.fl D 11% v1 4 g Jui. s aiUcL.1 aeraC or y
aeration. e cay eaat,wac.t *ad c .t gn a udqs enter at a petni e.g. • uz .r a sa a .n1Cai a.tatoc VOef I
utor2y di eraa4 to out be oaain. r.etw u.La bsaina vt ae an caJ aeraca or dtffus.d a z. tO.
t *ziq east. m d return ad. are dia..d a2 .anq . zad. of tO. bea4a 404 tOe a 4 ior . v itAdra co
from t . pesot. side.
0W - Step aeration contact .taOLUzation. aM p1 .uq floe t.qtiss. bL or f ne cO] . iOa LB
on.to e added to to. aeraa cant føg peoa cg is r aL.
- t,r,d.d air. U pLant. osee .vo v.d .u a .Oe Latt pert of t o. 9 40’ a • P C i—arc th.vtsd.
pe aq. pLenc.a O l e . bisO vade y ut s*d or tO a procisi.
? ‘!‘Pt .L iI r?,’q0. OP R5 . - A.ric g/30 ps aq. tr.atnt Lasita/2l: £1! dt0!Uasei/L , o .a B/41.
____________ ft1y U_on, of is. than 50 000 er y or cperary tr s .nt .edi m d btc . tsdaALe
wait i saC sf.
t - Sc poeer conta • opera c.ictt c on ta. a r t i t.a.L tont. f or Lirq. per. mint i ont.s .U.. ciona cong. .0.
pt.—.rci.ne.red punts ou.Ld oc Os proptaat. .
O0 0i ciL IS — I s o
1 —M R..cva.a ll cat on)
:lmz.s ct - 3.caua. of tO , on P/k :ondLj s ard y aicLcc 4st,ntcon •oa . .Loy.d. .rcsaa i .iaq.
pronI toDfl oz to. .at•nd.d 151 1 con procisa md 0s tLo. ...ty r ,Lat.d oxidatton dttth ;rcc.aa cs t.c. 0s .ac Of
of fle actO,atrd luoqa procsas . :51r.it4,, .. paner.Uy un Ui. c.zq. of 0.15 to 0.3 .o ezc.ta cota. •i. .nd04
aoitda/ib BC
: c 39 - p .r .istcrc o 4..i i c,ria or toe •gtar d.d aeratton m if:carton of the et —
vatad 5*I .1 IL onart d aa fol .o.a,
‘ .on .wic L dLc . 2.0 !0O’ Jd/2. ,300 ft • 3 5 to 10
tOS. .q/2. 3.000 to 6,000
Fi ll. 10 a /dI1o ?C.V 3 0.5 to .2.S
Mr.tior durintien cc... hOurS coiled or 1,1 to 36
au.r.qu ds .y 2.oui
Standard au/b S( appJ.t.d 3.000 to 4.000
lA 0340 b applaid 2.0 to .S (baa.d on . .3 2.0 014°
• 4.6 10 0i40 0l -N r. e.d
udqa rninttOA tta.. dayu 0 to 40
.cyc1. ratco R
‘ 1arcl. rac:oon of 0S 0.1 to 0.7
P, tS3 R 3O! ’ — GoM.
£W CN L - 0.. T tt 9 iist 2 •
— 23. 26. 11. 39.
C -14

-------
I — —
DEl
XTEND A AflQN, M 1ANICALANL UI FU$ED AE JAT1CN
FACT SHEET Z o
r ’ r WP - Aaa t onzi . y*au.L e ..d los. 4
tv qo n e asrat on a i.qi g .b.La. .udq.
r.c e.L. as sIi óq. uti, pw a .i gy i rs i . .d.
S
t.c ity : ngi. .nt a/’) f1u•nt gu1
ICO 320 20
3a .n4.d Li4s 2.30 20
4_w 1
y sn sa .; st. to .n w..t t.g f :
.n c&L Mr t.on • .J .o o 2 tpo
P,gat or*
COsta. 5u001• aiøn • .
?t . IuaoL. 3i fus • ..5 . .o
yg ,it r nt.
..! lb 3 /lb 3 c. d pl .a 4. .b of
-W re vsd
S
a
.
10
I:
•
- Biao . lTh.ji oii
/ .cns.wc Aarv0
8 eO .r
.
-
0.1 10 100
Waslswelsr Flow. hgaua
- II tjOflg: ?%a vct 0m e t c nutoc, a.rat on aaa.n. e .Lar .r.
a.too e d q.st.r. feed c ..y, ua .24 r . fer nq for .atend.d aerat en sq. nL nta n.t .sn .3. and
0. Mqa.Ljd. tant on 24 houta bsad on aeeraq. dai y flowt • :nd.z • 3475 oo.z 382 •
eer DIt3 Seed on cotta. b .iøøi. diff .s*g.
C t ftos C
f.ztosø.s A.rsøos P%c aq. Plant
—Ii
I
Iii
0.01
0.1 10
Wulswsttr lGw ,q3Ilø
0.001
0.0001
0.01
Og.rsuan Ua .nanos C i
W 1w aieq 4çaIi0
— 3. 4.
?o con,,rt :onstuct on : sr to csoit.a , :st i.e A- I.
SGTW’ ar
D.çnr.c sw
Wu1a’*at
S
0
3
10
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.01
a
C
C
a
0.1
C—15

-------
DRAFT
LAGOONS, AERATED FACT SHET ai.i 1
• Aer•tSd .Qoala are sed us—depth baa&nl dea qnsd or tOe oqica.1 ttao nt of vaat ,v.t.r or a
cc rn ot a aaia. to c a.t to ItO i rst on pond.. oota n oxy .n ‘to. pootos ntIbesLa and aurfac. r .—
aerat on. th.y p Oy astation d..te,u vIi ch sL p.LeaerItB1. oryq.n to e .y.t... The •srItLOn d.vicel asy
e. an ca. ... pi g ac, a,rator • ot d fu..d et c ay$taoa. r ace g. ac s art divid,d i.,to t
c . a.tate and tOe sore c n tuzou e and tactical a att aexalors. a sany diffused .u sy.t a tt zsd in
e si .t of p a .ttc pipes ai pport,d r e a l tOS boct of the c.11..s vi reqi4arly apeced sparpef oJta
dr i1l.d ji tbe tops of tO, pipes. kcaiJ. •.gated Lsqo s at, no s11y d ..ip,ed to e i ..v. pert .a.. v iainq on.Ly,
ontc—eni.roezc • atificitian v .ll o uc and a arq. fractO of . c ir so.L 4a aid a Larpe tr.ctaon cf
. biOlc iea . itds to. vsats ,.r.ion ..rU. to th. eat s of s taq n caUa. La 90
beqLn to bui34 op. a porti t vi.L uiderqo % 1 o3 .atils can peisntial3 y D C c.anved ry
toe as(at on ses and £rci4a ool ro ,aL of otout t ica can • xp.ct.d to be a3ai..at to an ectiv.ted aludq.
.yst . S.asr&l •.ifl.r aarsttd 1aq I 0 . 131 in sari.. are s .ffsczi,. than on. larqe csl..L ?sp.ti esfatior
Intensity dn.nvard in toe directiDo 06 fl.ov pr t.s •et.inq GJt of anlid. U 0 , lit call. A n.n—aeCatsd
paiaszen c&L2 fo31viq .0• Last sefatad c.13 as an ptionaL, out c.e nd .d. d.*i to .n.az a
n. id.d soils rn.o, sL prior to di ar9e.
W - , 2aq ns say be 1 i .d vito cto teou or an i ervtons Cl.ILA1I linuq • d,p.nduq on sci..
condati a end .nvtr i ntsl reguLitt . . of tarial. type. of aslatbeti. en biqn—irit.nhit a.ratiOO pr
di ta c pLecaly s.&a.d a13 s.roO .cl c diiions. a final ..tt.LLiq tana is r.qu .r .d. Solids at. racyc. .d to
snort IC C aq/l C S in t9ia and..
? ,oIa T 9?*t03 — Wbjle not a. v id.Ly used vn.o c p.r.d with toe Lare oi er of Itoi..ization panda .i. c n
us. toOu ,ort to. . • it baa bean t% i14y ds 1I it.d a d ud for ‘ears.
- a.d for d .stic aid rdu .ts3 ,saCtaat of lor aid . .dii ua.d oata i .and
La inexpensive and tostl md .rstional . nt .roi arC tø i .inis.iad. it is ative .Ly siap . to pgs . asiatic
ozidation ponds. L.aqoona, aid natural Oidies of vstsl to Oil type of tc.. nt. i ration z eaaes .0 ,
capacity of the pond and ta &a .tiil in o’eilo.dsd ponds that pererat. idocs. t .fU1 voen .popl.n.nc. .L oryqen
r.quir.n.nt. a:. bi or vsen to. req rent . at. aithef sees ie3 or itaraittant.
- 1.n very cold t.Litatea sersted .aqoon. Lay .sper arcs reduced oi i.cal actIvity md t st nt
.ffici.rcy, aid toe atoon of t .
P! AI. - 0? S . - (2 3 • 14 nir ayst.an/6 set a tot .1 30: by aulic c txo u I 29
_______ %
200 — SOC •çil. 60 — 90
70 — 90
200 — SOC .gfl 70 — 90
— S.vt. .ed scLId.a on pond bcttoa say requizo eluan—out every 1.0 to 20 years. or oa . .o.ly sot. often if i
poL izo&n9 pond is u..d ishirad toe a.rs d ud.
C C 114. 67
Operati ore or sore aersted c.L .s Water vapecatugs :anq.u C to 40°
toUoeed oy a •.tt.1.in (unaerUt.d call Optia Waw IsQsfatzu I : 2
tentioO taasz 3 to 10 day. yq.n .quaz.eant: 0. to 1.4 tiant the eanunt of
Cap . it.. 6 to 20 Orparu.c toadinq: 10 to 300 lb Bto /I efd
p0: 6.5 to S.C
y lequu.n.ntst
Pot aeration 6 to 10. ap/*ü13on ea13cna c C ty
Th saintain a.Ll solids in •u enaLont 60 to 100 opmii.lion sflon . c.pecity
tO Lathtain s solids in suapension: 20 to 40 ip/sa.1JiOn gallons capacity
14A !.?T — The aervts ljt. of a 1.aqon ii .atianted at 30 yeats or sore. t e re1.iac&li:y of uipaent
aid tn. proc.a* is oi i. i .t:tl. operator expertise is requtced.
! WV 0tO NTht. T ACtS — There is cpportwitty for v 3 .iti.1. orçanie sacarial and patoquana in a.clt.d sqO0nI to
enter tO. ut is vito any aerated vaatavstef tzeatxent preca... This opportunity dapanda on au.ZIwater Contact
afforded ny tie aeration ayecan. Thete is potsntJ.a. for s.a e of va5ta.at t into qroundvac.c unless a aqonn
is lined. topoar.d to othet secondary tr0atn.flt prOcess. .. aerated isqoonti generate sea solid r.aidu.s.
- dl it4. t ics will a, r aved. -rid ircidenuts.. anovdl of etouc torics can oe expected to 0. ainilac to
en activated I udqe systan.
— 7. 11. 14. 19. 22. 17.
C-16

-------
,u’
It }‘
kis i .
LAGOONS,
FACT SHEE a
Iiifius 1
Z Y cr 4) —
To
Lagoon Cs) - _
Ponø
LQw spe,d .a snic surface a.zat s, ot
.tfic .ic • ,0% aerator •f c er j’ •
2 b 0 tpo rw z. to vat ; h..d os. nsq —
Type o .iqy r.quuedz eLactrics .
Pot additionaL ii or .t os on •. rqy rOqVLr.
nta and tz..n.f.r .ff ca.r y of s.).ct.d
a at om d ices. r.t to TsbLs L.
z-
I I
.
I
,
,-
‘!t (
,
‘ ‘
L_
/
-
/
7
10
Aa’ (3) - us t oni Mcvor.
2.. 5.rvjc, ii .. 30 .e.r.: t) Indu • 3175 2312)
Th.oret ca d•tsnt cn ae • d, .5—?t v.t.c dept : ..ostit q .s a..uc.ai . ae atora.
3. ors. e,c c.cta ..d • 34 npfMoa. of c c ty; .c at 30.;5/kW .
4. nst.r t on cost r udss ecavat ort. s en v t. and of 2..qoon,sL s Q ce a s.rv cs road md
f.r rq: r ap • ans .nt PfOt,C Ofl? hy *Lthc ea tro1. votes; a at on .qu .nt add
atrvster ara sr st 3:
1 . •W
=o. ag/
•:5S. .q/ .
DtaI—P. .g/
.q,1 .
:
2.2 .0
400 50
232 40
$
20 i i
•d uat cuis uct on cost f detsnt on t .a.
t on ?ta .
Q * 4 y
z.
-
‘‘I
•‘I i, I
II ) II
.
! I
0.1 1.0 10
WU*S 1( I w Ugai/c
100
___________ — 3. 4.
‘?o convert cona uc ion cost to cap t.a cost i.e cJ. 4—2.
than aoove. •nt curve at .ffecti e f2. (0
Ooor,00n & Misntrwmos C.os1
1.0 _______________________________________________
a
0
; 0.1 __________________________________________
Os ______________________________
aO ______________________________
0.2. ____________________
• _______________________________
00
, 0.01 _________________________________
C _____________________________________________________
0.001
0. 1
- : -
/
I
I
H
— Laser
77 ow
• - ‘i’ MaFst1s4a
- - - -
1 . -
vj-.
-
.
1.0 10
W*sttwater cloy. Mgai/c
I
10
10
IC
10
a
a
.3
0
I
1.0
0.1
0.01’
0.01
S
S
a
0.001
0.0001
100
C— 17

-------
r’ ’ s i 3
LAGOONS, ANAEROBIC FACT SHEET 2.1.12
- M .coO C .iq ia its r .J.at1es. y d..p up to 20 fti porda vito •t.sp 13óswi,Ui U% W Lto
Od Ia a t. %au%ta3.Md oy r..p1.. o.4toq So that e .Let. d.oryq.r at&On La pr..i .ov.. toouç • 0ww -
s po.ato . .n a surface s s. . gr.ia.a for . ., ap.r. cui sut .ac. 1.av.r. an4.r0O c
tondLg a d.w.J.cp. or at t.au. .ta t os th.r o ,1 ; a 1c001.e d q..t oc of orga.n c vucs..
. u .i snt proc.. it ina.Laqeua to toat occ arrinq i sL g1.. st.&q. mgr .at.d a .ertoic 8iqsitio of iludq. Lr
wfli .cid £orauiq b.craria b sa* óMn orq*n. . h. resultant acIds at. than con,eCtsd to torouri
toaj s. c.Ua and otAst and products.
Zn s eyp ca.1 anaerObic Laqo i, ra. waat r anger. near to. of to. pond (of tan •t to. center and sizes
with to. iCtl,. &tCrOoi&L ti La to. e1.udq. A3.ana.t. wLt Li uana.Uy i t ft Os ’sp. i distoar e Li located
near ens of to. asd .e of to. d. su&—q,d b.3. .. to. quid aurf it.. c ..a u di .it.d rsaa4 floets to to.
top. torwiq $ neat csca4fti2 q md rsiatie,ly airuqnt .r. aaraanta: f3 .qualiaition and .mt nq are
OeneraU? not practIced. oana 51 .049 5 La v bed out vLtA t n. if f .uent. cteeu.Lag.toa of wane. s.Ludq I.e act
requited.
to.erobtc laqoura age cipeAls of providirq tr.a ne of etrsiiqtb waitenegers and are .st.tast to i.acca
bids.
PcY1 tONn • to.erooie Laqou&s are cuatenarily contain.d within .artn.n dikes. bep.ndi iq en soil
enaract.c atzcs. 1. ninq vito vagious ispezv,.oua a .tscia.La •uto ii runoet. piaatic or r . Lay ily M Mciiiac7. Pond
zey very, but .u f ace are . to ,vli . . ratios ire ..inj.a.iz.d to .toarce sit tttaoeift.
? IOL 7 A? 5 — A.Lthouqn ana.rooic pruceene. are n for sludo. d q.ation. w%a.rooic itq . for
sacnr bay, t und only ia.it.d app4 .ic.ae cn. 7n. process La deannatrac.d for .taDI....1.zac on of ly
onnoentraged or9an c wankas.
!P eAL crp. w?7 .o. P !.5 . (33 - naj ystw/6, hydraulic xola12
— 7ypica.Uy used in series vitA .agooic or feruit.at v, aqcons. Ana.roo&c .aooons an effect ’r. a.
rou ii unite prior to .erooic u.ataent of niqo s enqtn wait...
— y generate odors. qoir.. rsi..at2.ie3.y .arqe ..and irsa. Fox .f iciant op.ratlon. water ts .ta—
toti a a u 750? inou1.d os aaiot.ai.ned.
- $OO re ws . . of tO to 70 percent irs . is,anL. 4.p . .4i on lo.4i, arid :sop.racur. CendItioct.
7Z a ocs say r p&es , e eia ..y . f to. LnL.iiant 3O a priaeri1 . dLaeoJ . ’,d. Csn,ral.3.y doss not
priduc. an .1 f..erit au .i.j .j . or d :ect d.srarge to c.ivio attrr.
At: z ;r &t - : .aeroo c aqoc ta excess s1u q. is usu.s y weaned out in to. •f 1j .rit. Since snasxooic
i.aqocna ace Of gun ija.d : pcsiia jiary t.acient ,cgrc stion or t . a1 of alndq. not gen .rLUy n.qu red.
_______________ .enta Ia naed d to sa le up dsl icjsnci,s in raw waatew.tsr. ) ,to.z ci.ftgca..Is r.quicsd.
DZ. ce *i- xiA -
station: Parallel or 8 1C1e 5
tantian f.ae: 20 to 5Q d
pto. f:z $ to 20
pm 6. 1 to 7.3
I Sa ear Fss eta tog. tar s 35 to 1200?
0pt a W.eur Tt..na ansz i f° ?
Organic l .dI.ti . 200 to 2200 b 5COr 5 Ja s/
re PR S 1:A3: . — Generally rsuieL_an: to upaev.a. iiç .ty nsllaol. if i in to. CsI.atlemly narrow opt
rang. ii aatne.airied.
! PNPCI5 !nTl1. C lC ? - sy e s odors. I a ’, r.Lst vsj.y nsi land reqin.r...iita. Th.rs La cj.ai f a..p.q.
of v.euenats; into gro uG.ater unluss ).aq i ii Ltaed.
. O!IS? A V7 r . AL - VaJ.&jSbis a. 5 prel nary u.atnent process for in.d Lduar.gial and sunicipel
wastes ontaining izgn r rations of organic wmter aia. Can be ua.d prec.d.i,ig sust .tarGatd o3.og ita .3.
ea nt proc.aa.a.
__________ 7. 16. 13. 30. 23. 17. 3.07. 3.1.0.
c—i 8

-------
I ..
r
_ —.1 ___ •
LJA GOONS. ANAE OB C FACT SHEET Z 2
Ouvst
- Meroo c ee ’t at. op.zat.d D7 xavzty f2. e ar t sf • bsve o req n3. nts o .r
any nq th*t y e ri.c.aaary tO .ft the Ln .u•nt vaatewat.r nto toe aqoans.
— Am..mpt oaaz ooer . $ doL. .Azs? ndez • 3*75.
Serv ce .. ...fs: 50 years
Aver.q. d.t.nt .on t . • 25 dav . d pt • 0 ft: ) oad r • a66 ‘a e/4. a uct coat i d.i . a—
v at r • gradinq and ot er .aro w t and i vace roads. sts do r t de .and and p .i . n.c sta riot
&o est aati. Opttst on arid •s nt-mer e coat.a cons at of and aar aa . .
600
C.i.nz sc ’
240
?D ad3 Iat co .ts fat o er BC osd rqs arid/or d,t.rtt a, t eea, ent e a at eff.c .i.. f .ow Qe):
— I
466 ‘sc?e/d1 fl*v d.tent ori t.a. ,
P0 L c aC .3 a vi)
S
1.0
I I iII I I I I
S
0
0
0
U
Wutewair F’ w. Mi’2 5L/C
!PZN l S - derived to. rtf.r.r . 3.
o e iver consuuetion :oat to capital coat see oJa A —2.
C-19
I I ;i I I I I II
I I
0.01
0.1
II
0.1
0 . 0 ’
0. 1
0.0001
I I_I I
-
,
, Ii
.•
•II Ii I
!:‘I
T
Wassewater 1 0w hlga IIC
Unit (If ary)
arac e’ St
ic
10
IT
1.0
10
II

-------
DRAFT
LkGOONS. FACU1 &T VE FACT SHEET 2.1.13
— F 5c itati,. aqoae. irs nt. diati depth C to I fs.t) rdi 11% vbicfl th . s ..ts..t. is
into toras sOfle s . 7 eie ZOflaS C %U at Of ItI as. oOiC DOtt ].iyst. an asgobic I itfiCP layst, arid an rittra.di.ats
tan.. S at1icatieri ii a r .auit of solids ..tt.i nq and rsapsratug,—aat. density var aticas. yg.n tri to.
surface eta i1 .is,st*on sane i. pr ,id.d oy ru..ratian arid peota.yno .sia. a i i tri eancra.t to a.rat.d .aqcana
U I snico snicaL aeration is u d to crests suracic aurfso. conditions. 1J, qaniril, to. a.rcoic surfacs )..ayet
to r,d .cs o rs chile providitq tr..tnt o .ol&o1. organic oy—preducu of to. ar .areaic procuss.. oper-
&nq it tae sotta..
£3idq. at the botr. of fscu.Lt.ativs laqoolns vill urid qo snaaro*ic djqoss4on producizç carOan diozids, ..tosrw and
culls. u motoeynto.cic act vny at to. iaqcan suziso. ptoduc .a oryqen diiwni.L.iy. Iacxea.tnq to. 4 asoi’ .d
oxygen durisq 4.yLi t h iri, v il. .ur ac. oxygen is d.p.1.tad at na t.
7acultat ,. aqoans are of tan and for opti&s p.rfo& rc. should D C Operatad in sari... Wien r .e or ear. ceLls
It, hina.d. to. at 3usnt fro. .ith.r to. s id or thud c L usy o. cwcit vuJat .d to to. first. cuculation
tat., of 0.3 to 2.0 tia to, plant 0w have Ds.n a .d to i.pro.. .taL. p.rioxesrca.
I W 500 ?T ?t - P .cuLtativs 1aq ta ire euatanagily cantairi.d vhtoin earthen duel. p.rrdi.m on soil
CaOtiti.atiCa. 4nirq vito .sri aa Lsp vi l st.nal. cn a, ruocug pl.aet.ic or c.1.iy say ha i.c.s.a.ry. *.
of supp.l...nt..l rcq layer • .Iioo can i OT, av’ aLt tg.a nt capacity. partia.aJ.aziy in riart3ierin t itus
veer. icing eg of f.acult. ,ti,e iaqoaia ii in tO. vint.r.
- FuLly dsson , at,d and in aad at. us. .w.ciaily for u.a nt of relatively v.sa suni pai
wascs.atar ft ar•aa sOars c.. estat. cast.. a t. r t a restricting fsct0c.
- Oa.d for tre.tizq ra e. .c.,n .4. or prisary settled d stic v.acus.ters slid v.a. b4. a4a.Dl.
nGu.tri.. vasts.atsts. cat pJ.ica.DL. vOen land costa at. 30. and op ation and sa jrtsriarc . costa c i . to 0.
eunzaiz .d.
- in very told ci aat.s. facu . .t.aii,. lagoons say .xpsri.ic. reduced olaqical .ctivt ry and t:.a .nt
.tfici.rcy. it, for atiorl car also hamper oo atioii ,. in o, loed&nq situations, odors can os a proo.ius.
yyPTCA . r P 1 /WC 0 ? S . C23) - iu ay*t ’6: ny au.1ic can oW29.
- B r.ductierna of 75 to 5 percent OcTC bs.n r. rted. Jent su .r,dad soJida corcentrstiona
of 20 to 030 eq/i. can na epact.d. o.p.fldiriq on to. d.qr.. of alga. separation acais.ed in t n . last csl .
a:. mt.:orgly reLat.d : oond depth. d.ts.tion ti.sa arid tusp atuzv.
C !! I 1 .3 R FZO - :f .aat.usc.r is nutrient deficient, a sourc, of suppls ntei nitrogen or os iorua us. ’ 2.
needed. JO otoer cnes&c.ais are required.
— £.tt.L.d solide cay require clean out and r. al arc. every 10 to 20 years.
D! K ?! A —
zItioni lit leaat hr., cell, in series. P.rsll.l tsina of ceLl s cay 0. used for larger lyltuss.
tenti.ori tia.: 20 to 30 days.
ft 3 to 9. aithow r a portion of to. anserohic son. of to. first call say 0• up to 12 ft deep to act
sodace Lug. initial salad. d.çossr..aon.
pSi 0.3 to 9.0
cater t urstur. rarqe: 35 900? for •t nicipsi. applications
0pti. catsr ts. sretiarel 0 ?
Organic 1o.dir : 10 tO 100 10 300 /s ./d
ss — . service lif, of toe laq i is e.tisst.d to o. 50 years. .Lt lu opagst expertise is
required. Oe,raiL. to, cyst.. is hi nLy relanI..
tp rr .x. r, ne • , ier, is potential far esepaqe of vasteester into grouridv.c arUss , leecan is
par.d to oto.r secondary pr ..aes. relatively s. i.L1 quantities of sludge are produced.
__________ — 3. 7. 10. 23. 97. 109. 110.
C-20

-------
SEP
_•_ * “
• At# I kt
—
I_____
1 . hSfQDiC Zon
tt
I in .im . iats ( sCuItsuve)
-
a icA
uU J ___
H let (typically nar 1/3 Dosnt)
Zone
Eflluint Qis nar, S jrn wirn
MulUp s rswrjtt Lavei Discnsrç.
C i ilaty to m,riimiz. dc c.
COflCantra$aore in disCnur .i
1ii1
Zone S
——‘ Ljrtir if risc.isary
\ Sl ao;e Storqs Zone (for
primary ca lls only witnoul
onor pnmary s0.mentctlon)
lransler øiDe tO
Sconoary :;.ii
Z)f ” 4C? — 7acuJ.cat ve leqoons ace operated y qcav ty ar thecefoce a e rio energy r.qu .re..nts other trier
any ap nq thit y oe *Ssary to the nL . .u.nt vastewacer into the aqoone.
— Aaa i. t on ss
wags c aate - .aqoen 1o.d .r • aO
: o1 caate noronern . .S. — aqoor .o.d rq • 20 b I a e/d.
2. Water iptj • 4 ft.
4. ne uct.tori east includes • avatir . qradirq. arid øth•t .arthwoc required for rorsa su rade prepare t on
arid servtce roads. stz do r t nc.l& d. .and and .ap rq.
5. Process p.rfocsa.nc.: wag-p .te— a’ae.r’ sc—s
a ,
D. •g/
s. •q/ .
?Dtli —P. sd :
1th 3 —#4 . •q/.
. )do ..n.: nc . d.d r cost estisec..
ENR ridex • 3175 tnDer 12’
10 ad .*t cast.s f r other than
40 !lX,/ae e/d.v
.ew as.qñ ‘_o.ci.rq
2 0
400
23C
33
100
‘C
S
:s c
vera c . .iaatei
ties. • e. enter curve at ef ective f.ow
1 .LSItCI
20 l 0scre dav
t ti. asi a irc
‘Co
10
10
Consv n Coat
?
-
,
,
—
Cooi CUrnata
/‘
N
7V
/

Warm C trriec
z
0.1
0
0 100
Wascewate? Qw Mg O
- 3.
convert ristruction cost to captca cost see ?ao .
C—21
10
O q,tion 4 Masri*nanca Coat
rww : wt -
H9 3
‘.ist.ent rae r:
Wars i.aates
•
S
.3
0
00’
‘0
WUtewater cio 4gsl’0
‘C

-------
I $ ‘‘
OX1DAT ON DITCH FACT SHEET 2.1.15
— An .4ac .Aon dtt Th La an .ctt.uad .Ljdq. binloqieij . tr.s nt pc .as - .1y oO.ratad in tos
ext,r .4 e.ratt t soda, ait Uqn nv,nt a.1. act8v.t,d sJ. d9I u..ta.ot a a.L.o po.sibls. ? &caJ . Oxidation
d ton tx.a .nt ry.t.ss con.s .zt of a st.NL. or c3.oo.d loop annt1 4 t I it d.,p. vi to 45° s3.opirq sió.ua.33.a.
s form of pr..U.LJ%ar? tz.I JIt sv as scrm.ninq • C inution or qrit ri ya.1 aoraa.Uy pr,c,d.s proc....
Aft.! pr.ttsat nt tpri.ar icsUa,i Is u.ua.3 . 1 .y not pr..ct e.d) to. vaatm..t.f is a.r ated in to. dit ua nq
as anic& ..ratocs v3.gfl at. souot,d acr s th. rmannui.. ;i*vnta3. bcc ab. naq. or 4Lac—ty , asratacs. ip.C a .Uy
4.a.d for oxidation dit app3.icat oita. s . c. oormai.3.y u.s.d. ? . a.rators pto id. miz nq and circulation i n As
disca. as v.3.1 as .uZfictsAt 9Un t1 IfI!. MA.x.it in tD r n.1s is uniform. ut tons. of low dia.cl,.d
oxy9.n cososntzst.ion cazi ds’.lcp. &.r$tOra o rst. in to. 90 to 3.30 9P 54 gsr . and provids sufficient .slocity to
msintsir soi 4s in au.p,nsanft. A iqn d.qrs. of niuiSicat.ton ma, ooc r in to. proc ... vitnout sp.CLLI. iii—
cation Oscaus. of tOs on Oat t on ti and 0 .ig .oL.i.4 r.tsfition tia.s (2 .0 to 50 d utIllaid. 5.condary set—
of to. a.cation ditto affluent is pro tdad in a saporsts clarifier.
O),.4O MOD7!1 ? WS — 0ir .s sly .n. tonucructed O aiCaU sats: 4...A. L 1 3.Iid1I toncr.te. qunit.a. 4rp a,3.t. 0Z
i*psvious m.motanss. toooc.t. ii to. soac c n. Ditto leaps za 5s oval or circular In sAepq. !.U and
torm.sbo. configurations ta ’ s Dsen ccnsczoct.d to maximiz, land usags. e,.nt3.onal acti.st.d sludge tr.s nt.
1* ooaezaat to sxtan .d a.ration. msy bs practiced. 4ati.out 4i SyIt a vito depths of 3.0 ft or soc. vitA
‘ srt ica.t sid, w&3.1a and V.Zt3.C*.L snaiL aersiors m.y also Du used.
• !0t S?A 5 - !iers at. r.sar2.y 630 sua1. 3 .ow oxid tien ditto iata3..1.ac4.on. in to. Dnttad Otacs. mM
jserOu. z0a3.3.ow and deep oxj.d.st.ien dit Py,tasa its in operation in coc... The ov.ral3. procesa s i.iL3.y Oi n
ltzat.d for earnon ..ova.3.. as a secondary 7z.a nt proc....
‘ ns . (14. 23) — i4.ation dit .qW . .nt (bruat asrators. .te.}J6, bydesialic
con ero4a/2 5.
APP - Ox d .; or i t !. inoJ.oqy La applicable Ira any situatiOn voer. aet vat.d siudq. trserm.rtt eon—
or sitondid ..ran.inn( a eppropr iAe .. Thu proc..x cost of tzesr.nt is gsn.ra.Lly use than oth.r
0ioi ic.al proc.sa.e ra to. tsr a of vaat.wacac flows D.tv..ra 2.1 and 3.0 Mqa.3.1d.
— idst cn dit,.. offer an added ‘staur. of r.iisnility and performance over ot .2sr ielxlca.1
pgoc.aa.a out at. .uo .ct to s . of to. a.ase .aic.ae.icns toac otuar activated . aaqe :.atosnc procssaea fac..
- ?i. a.etaqe perfnrmaac. 06 29 aba.Llow oxidation Oit p. IJ.Pta ia 54a Itil.d -bS.LOwI
!1u.rtt. xn.’ so’s1, P.reent
Winter $uso.t Annual AvG • Winter Su r Annual A’q .
5 0 0 92 94 93
i nd.d rLLde 93 94
40 to SO p,rcuot .nia nicq.n r. al t•.a b.on .toii,ed.
— moo ..
— ‘ Ic primary ilnde . is q.nsrat.d. 5 .2.i .dq. produced ii 1... vcl.atLl. du. to iiqn.r o.zid.stion
S i ci.acy and uacr.ased solids rstantion t4 .s.
D xto Z ’I.XA • ( tund.d Mrstion 4.I.
3C0 Loa4th : 5.1 to 2.3 I A 3C /2C00 ft c i aeration vola e/O, sludge ag.a 10 to 33 d;
Owanel DeptA a 4 to 6 ft
annal c.ox.crya 45 degree or eurtica3. aiduva.2.3.a
Aeration ianneL Detsnr.ion :im.a 1 4
cwr !t5 - Thu avuraqu re2.ianiliv7’ c i 1.2 mallow oxidation dit i plants ta •a.riz .d below’
.re.rat of Tim. !!f3.usnt Concentration ucJ3. as. Tb.r.
10 . /1 20 sq/ I 30 .qfl
Averag, of all plant.a 43 95 55 90
! Wt iP ?i .L AC ? — SoLid ya lta • odor aad aJJ po2..IAUOo t .Cts ass s’l to t .s uOtSC.d VitO standagd
activat.d aJ.adq. process . ..
XIto AMAC - Ths same poc.racial for s3.udq. contamination. ups.ta and pass throurn of toxic pcLl.utanta
exists for ozidation ditcn pianti as standard activated sludge processes.
— 7, 16. 20. 23. 1.2.0. 239.
—
C—2 2

-------
Lw.
SED i 23
OXiDM1CN ITC: FACT SH 2. . 5
? 4 DIAGUP
- DIergy •r for t . ota. pLant
fac L t .a flicA s .etr c dr ve. for a.rators. p
and ot .r a ane .s an: :.q raMOnts. tit .i. i nt
$0O aaaud to s : o g/ . ..
‘ .ø t.ga,t .r • I ..o wire to
water). MO apprcia.oL. r f .oi urs.
.rattr Psts.’uitwra
0 ryq.n • ..! IO0 e. d
frp. e bierqy q aic.d: £L.c.r ca ..L
— t I ndsz • 3$7 ( t t JI ..
s tL sz na tt on cost I rc .Lud.. id .at en
• :•ac. ..r. pu . rat.or ’,
O t oot s ..4o. dry . øa, .a.nd, .r ins.r—
• .qa .. and fjriarc dut o atruc: or 0&M sts
i L 4. Labor. at2.Lit .s, c.aJa, a .nten r e a.r.r aia.
• ) I!’
I

-------
DRAFT s i
B1OLOG CAL COr’4TACTORS, ROTA11NG (RBC) FACT S-i T 221
— ? u proe ... La a fiz.i ft .... 01 . eaJ . sactor c uast. raq of p1.ostir .dia nt.d on a tr0ntj.
I It lOd ?LaC . an a ton&. Co i d a for.. .rc. di ty sad, of i rofo.. said a dsrasat 1.tttc. ty .ao. of
SbUs VaUtrs atsf s tnr aqn to. tans. t asdia at. • 1 .o’siy r0t*tsd. z at 40% a.r*sd. for
c tact vito to. .a .t tsr for r.w .a of organic sattst ny to. bicAoq1.c..1 fi1.a toss d..s L s on to. ..dia.
tst raaiaita £1 sz uz. of to. fils to to. a c .fe a. a saaIl.s of asrac oIt. c.sa D& .as on toe sadis
i i tuappsd off oy rocasaonaL sneer force. arid toe s app.d scl.ids ass ,atsansd in .u sf.zIon 05’ tos sicM’q
ctaor of tha ro.zUaq sad a. .Ltip.Li •tM anq of PX • $ ancru .ss tr.s at sff1.c .a y and onua1.4 aid an
irat a ‘at ro and. A Jeta .ysse. o u 4 e.sais% of re. or . psga1.L.L r.zaina vito . .to
a n maaatan of Ut.t$. $t 5I L A .t s.
— PIaLtipJ.. utaqj,qr gas of d.oa. daa for ia.t it .s in traAni u .. of .o1.d.d Cs r
sat.q Of uoar.as ,ar1.oIaa tond. of pr.ta. s and af tar tr..trit of e..Ite.at.t as. in aft . .aa YttA
fit or aCtivacsd s3jadqs ..sap aai of au awt .ysseu in of zru.caL1.y drarin cy .te.,
sd4ts on of aaz to to. tan.., sdtt.$.on of s.arz.Ls for ntzo.L, &nd •L adq. sscycis to .nA.a, t njtzi2acat on.
r!A - oc.sz aa onLy nee. in as in tn. it.d Stat.. sai a 1349 and tnii. in not yst to vtd
c.sd u .s LA tA J 0on05Z7. 5 UI 5C, ai a. of ito art.raot c ondnLer natx acstcn. 3. ,ydraiaiic toad Lass
$ 1I s avataon. wn to sa.. &t ndcptabA. tO ass or sAUW trsa flt faCil..tta.a. is a u.s £ 5 grovuq.
— r,s nt of d stiC and pmtLnL. induatr aa.1. ua.s.vas.c nso . to asrocic oioLoqacaJ. :r.a ris
ao 3uz :Lan vito e.it.soL. s and st u.as.snt. Can to ua .d for natraftcat.lon. :ouqniaq. s.c idary treat-
and poU.aoi rag.
- Can to ,)ra.rsCie to casts toar .s and .as ta zatuz.. if not SQua.d or c e.c.d. P.rfx .aor,
ainain ua i tficantly at t. tataar.s beLa. 50y• D ic1.os.d ulittl CIn tS .U1. 5 an roe deraoi. va.ntertaa.
asdsaist.on Lf toeS a z not .46 .4 to toe •no.1o.ur.. !iqb or9asaic £asdina’s can tsaaaLt an first iraq. •.pt.an..ty
and .uppL.nta.L aazata a nay to rsqv .rsd. 0 .s of den.. na43 ..s for •orLy sr .. can ts.uJt in ..dL . c1. 93J•ç.
AlkaLinity 4sf clt can ssaa.it fras zzirmcavaonr supp.i .asrItzI a.iaa.Lin y SOitCCS say bs :.qvirsd.
tTP!A.L C S?”lO. S . (L0 - tasaja disc ryscsas/!.
- Pour ss . syitas vito fL a.i e..Lirtfi.r and ?c.c.d.d 05’ tasc7 tr sSU’nt (pircsnt
‘0—90% SS. 10—90% %oWbt ros. 1.0—30% ap to p5l
n t.p.ratos.. airaLinity, or anie i.oaidiriq, and jnoxadiz.d ruczoq.ri .asdin.
0ALS C At — S3aadq. ira to. .condary cLs.r f tar. 3000 to 4000 ;.1 iiajdqs/ 4ai ..ar.vae.r. 300 to 00 i
4t3’ soLids /n c . . wsatz.at.r.
gsoic a.4trq WitOGut ni f1.c.at .aoo - 30 to 60 10 0 /d/l0OO & ..dia. vito nittficatioo - to 20 lb
S /d/1.000 ft 3 nadia
Wy eu.LLc Lii — ttoout rat tfication — 0.73 to L .5 gaJ ./d/f5 2 of nadia •urface aria. with ni tfLeatton —
0.3 to 0.6 aUa3/ft of nadir surfac. ar.a
oar of iraq.. p.: train — i—e dap.ndaaaq u n trietasait 003.ctti .s
of paraLlai aan. — at Least t
tat ona1 Velocity - Pertpns:a1. ss,Locity • 60 fr/san for ..toanacaLly dr ,.n. 30-40 ftl .ari for air driven
¶ypaca.1 nadia suzfac. arsa — Odat t7pe — 20—25 ft 2 ffr 3 srand .c :ac. ype — 30—40 f/2t ; bi
de.zacy Lseties — 50—40 ft ftt 3
?sr .nt nadir iaaas.rg.d — 40%
?ana ‘oluas • 0. 2 gaL /ft 2 of disc aria
rant ion taas 0. 5.4 on 0 .L3 gaL/ft 2 — Vt tnout rat t fic.e t.ten — 40— 1.20 sinutsa • vi to nit: i £icaticri - 10—2S0
S. ’ -’y c3 .sraf tar oqegfl.o. rat. - 300-400 qa.i/d/0t 2
ftP — 3.0— .0 touasd/25 ft anaft: 3—7.5 anectad/25 ft snaf S
PR S AJ b ARTCAL 2 0I1?f - N d.rataiy relianlu in ao.snoe of bi a organic 1o.dttag and ts rator .i
Das 35°?. i.toan.acal c.L iaaa ivy a. genera.Uy bii a pzavid.d first Iraq. of systta ta 4..ign.d to boLd Larg.
bL .l.. Dana. nadir an first iraq. can rsauLt in cL qlnq and structuraL taiLors.
)(A ? - .ittts dac.i asauta tonoerni, re vaL of toxic’ ny toas proc.... As vito arw fae.d fiLa
proc.... toas prone.. a. pr..a. oLy cenaLti.e to ..giaoL. Lnpic.a of toxic.. ?r..caoalxty studies at. adcazaoI.
to detarn an. 4.qr.e of toxic’ toaL.
7R VtXL IIWnC ? - )wqattvs Ispeots Aa 5s not D.sia docasnsnd. Pr..uaaC.L • .4or can Os a proolea f
aditioraa d.ve Lop an to. f arcs st ..
— 3. 4. 22. 38. 04. 40. 1.. 62. 63. 233.
C—24

-------
r . !
SEP
G83
OLCG C . C3N TACTORS. ROTATING (RBC FACT SHEET 2. .2
r Itsg.d IC gw.b.m
*Jtu nata Waft onsn 1aoti o .rsiI4 to
ir on of flow vt a common arr i cr all
O s stag in a ngi. u’ijf,..
Ai oz .aste ‘, energy for oparat the ccot tcrs an d.tar .n.d na e to .otuç
• I z ( f.eti’. snriac. area Of tn. LO1 .Oq1 .Ca. t tot)
ebers £ ii .3 for standard ia end 0.2 tot dense sedia.
- Aa a t ona: !.. Ind.s • 3* ( ( J$C.
.. ogr vc( oii coat jjd.s L snaft.p standasd a.di&. 00,000 f isoa.ftC setot dz..’es CS p/saa t
en 4ad fi.. erql sa co .ra. and r.ii.forc.d concreta s na.
Cost doss r t ic d. prserv and s.en a.ry cLirif tars.
rats — qa . ..IdJf: 2 .
4. reat t a for car c ia 4at n.
1.0 10
Wutiwitr sow. M aI/d
100
1.0
S
0.1
(30
— 0.01
5—
0
0.0010.1
•?o convert co atuct on coat to cap ta cost i.e ioi. A—2.
‘III I.
0.01
- . ,
‘- 5.0cr
;
!“
0.001
1.0
10
Wuluwatir Flaw, Mqa /C
S
S
S
0.0001
marv Ef u.m
to S100e.darf artfser
£ Uaa i Csei
a
.3
0
I
10
1.0
0.1
0.1
— 3. 4.
c—2 5

-------
r -4 r
I
T ICKUNG F1L1 P . P’_AST C M LA FACT S T 2 2.5
- e r .ei onsiata of a fixed d of $.ast C usdti owar vnici v..t.water La ap$ id for a.rooLc
bio.Lcqic.a.L tr.a sr:. Zocç .a.L aLias. fc oo tO. ..dia vO C ..siaa.at. arid oxidizs auo.t*I u. Lfl tOS
Wa%SC. e 0.4 ii ..d sy a fist isutor ayit. .rid e t..t.d vs.tseat.c La toU.et.d oy sri u .rdrain sy .tsm.
Puasgy tna nt Is rioz s y r.q a..d to epti.*iz. Lca1il !L .t psfo aics. v1 .s. po.t-tr.ac.asnt .
ra . y set requ ir,d to t ..cor ary tr.atnt.
. rotary dia i0.t baa b. e the stao szd because of its r.lLaOULty av em s. of sairitseases. t i, fixed
n z e• at. of tea used iri rouçunq ftit s. Plastic asd.L.s is pagst$,eJ.y L.iqat with a ci!ic igrit 10 to 30
ti. lila than coca sedLa. ta bi void apse. (sp ox1 .aars y P S p .r seti a c.a bqtt aayp. tran er diararq
psa.a . throuph tA. filter th.n roeS media with it.s prca2ast. 50 psre.nt void • *. caoIe Of itS
• plastic ..di. c ita .Lnnt a uctg.a SI. acaaa.1 .ly c a ue sd is .3.a,a;sd t s 20 to 30 f..t bi .
avat.d eOwts,i nt structures for IDea media can semetimes aar.. as a famdscaon for .l.’atad st 5 for n—
,srt J £0 sai5tiJ f.cf.Uty to $aatic media.
Pixetic media tricalir filter. Can bs . .Loy.d to prowid. i ep.n6.nt s.cond i tx.atasnt or rou ii abead of a
asCvad t4qs biQioqical pzoCmes. Ii us.d or a.c i4 .r tI.a rit • . media 0.d Li q.n .ra.Lly CitVU .LJ i i i p1. 5.0
aed dosed oy a rotary di. ibucOt. appLi ati a of tan utililu :eCtU u1.aZ 0.di a beds vita f .s .d n iJ.sS
for dtstributiori.
The ocqanic anteri.&3 present in tOe v.at.met is degraded sy a popu1.atioii of .i o qattLaas *tts .d to toe
fIlter ..dia. toe aicxoerqanis grow. tO. thicansla of . alias lay.: iricreasse. PeriodicaLly, to. La uid
vtU wagO . slime off to. media. •r a rise alias layer wiLl start to qrow. This poer rion of losing t .
lie. layer is c&lJad •3.ougoinq and Is prlaarf .Ly a fur ior ’r of toe organic and bydraulic l inqs on e
?tltac ef 1.uen: r.cirtulatiaa La vir .aJ. v ito plastic •edLa Ica1LZ fi. ter* to enSure prop.. vettiz of toe esdia
sitd to effective slouqoiriq nc.c I c p.rl . vi tO the iqO organic boding. .aplay.4.
- 2.cireulation flow stoemea. cats of c.ciz ial.atL , .u.Ltiateging. .3 .ec icsLly p ed
distz ..out a. fore. vent Lae on. tibtar cowers, and us. of variowa me oda of pIet.r,ataent xed et treatasat of
va.tvwat .r. c r ..r .so DC us.4 IS I Ing it flow rates a ,. 1400 qa.1.IdIft. tan te used as a
a.pazate st.ege rutnfic.stion pcocaaa. ivouasi.on of tois pLLcation is ro..ated ia ? t ast . ..14.
S ?A S • Ha. ban ueed is aodlficat& of ro a.dis filters f 10 to 20 7mera.
- 7 eseent of dwsatic arid c rati .0J.. nduatrial wastseat.rs aasnsol. to aerDOit bioingic..b treat-
sent. cria. . sod oi it asstwatsx t sate .nt facilIti.. may us. to. process •s a rou ir .er pt to
activstad sludge or other unit Haistinq roes ftbt.r facLlLt se can be op ad.d via diseation of ta.
ctatau rtt Structure sod c u,,rauon to plastic ..dia. n s. used fo t:ificatioo fo .Llowirq prior f..rac—
Iraq .) ical tz.a nt.
— Vuln e rabl, to below fr.esLng v.ataer. recieu.Lat inri say be rea Ict.d duziz cold vs. er due to
c. .Lir iq effects. .agqinsi capsoLLi:y in singi. stage operation. It is Isa. .f!sct..w . in ozeata.nt Cf
v.ateveter e tsining bi c crieratiorus of soeuOle orqanica. Saa hatted flax i eiCy sod cutrol in cos :ia0n
VitO e stiJIq prDeesaaa. and baa potential. for sector arid odor prool.s a.l. ouqti toey are set a. prrra.bant a.
vita Low cat. coca asdia tricabing .J,tecs. Long tba.s vIta upsets.
to . I OP . ( 3) - id.rdrairiu/3i diattoutors/lO, filter eo,ers/2r plastic ..dti/S .
- Hapl ying toe loading. Listed below fur secondary trea nt arid using a siaql.—.t.aq. configuration
vitO filter efilu.rit reclrctU.ariori arid pttaary and seonnosry clarification percent awa .L .
— so to 90 percent: Prio ncrua — O to 30 percent: ) 4 —W — 20 to IC pereent: So - 50 to 90 percent
- sen..
t At — S1i ga is withdrawn from toe ..coodar ’y clarifier at a rate of 3000 to 4000 qa3I1 p..i of
wastaweter. containing SOC to 700 10 fry acids.
0 1to CP.V! ZA —
Hy su.Lic loading Iwito cecirei4atio0 qauiic Load ing
a. Secondary tzea nr - 1.5 to PC iqa .1i.ore/d a. Secondary u.atasftt — 450 to 173.0 10 P /d/. . ft
350 to 2050 qalId/ft 7.0 to 40 10 $ /4/l00O f5
0. u iing — SO to 200 Mqa. .L/.ors/d b. — 4500 to 22.000 10 B /d/acae ft
1400 to 46CC qa2./d/f 100 to 500 10 0/4/1000 ft 1
circia3ation ratio — 0.3:7. to 5 d d tO — 20 tO 30 ft
0.1mg interval - set ears than 1 5 sec OontUluOusI POwer requirements — 10 to 50 bp/ qa.L
— 314.rdza< •inm a . slops • 1%
P S3 iWO ‘ (1P.lut. Rz As2L.: ! - The process can a. ssp.ctsd to ia ’. a ?li l d.qrse of rel.iaoml.ity f operat-
meg corditiona smruamze vacmaomblty and toe installation is in a ciieite wriere wast,w.tsr tsmpersturea do riot ta.Ll
0 5 . 10w L2°t for prolonged petiods. mec,aniea..L relmanmi.ity is rita. The proc... is ii2 le to opsZ .t..
! ‘OW J !? AC ! - Air: ac proolses if tagroperly operated.
__________ — 1. 10. 21. 26. 27. 25. 29. 30. 31. 209.
C — 6

-------
DRAF ’ s
H983
T CKUNG F1LTE PL SflC M L FACT SHE 2.2 6
? . .DW 1AG A -
.c iauorl
rN - .v rqy r.qaa . z. nta ssy . ap oz .nat.d v ths fo .Uowu .quat ovii Wb,’yr • 1. 0C z
qa . .jd a d a arge ft. a ua. nq a v r.—t at.r .ific sr y o 0 p.rt nt. ?or . p c.a ..d r i r nt
of 23 for tn a procs.*. at au w an a ave rs u . at :at e o an .r rqy r ze nt of
kwh/yr mqa 1 ./d can . zp,ct . . .a .. • ne.ia.et Flow • c xv üatcn Flow.
1. 4a
: t,t :,f.mr,t ‘.eJ
1.30
mnt rsgf
- &sa ot ona : owr ..j*. ri dsz • 3*75.
s t on costs a own at. for ea sa&e óat On and ars bad on: osd osp - . . ft; a jc
1o.dts ap oziosc.iy 0. 5 qa/ . f. at an a zage rsc re t on rac .e of 2:1.: at otqan : osdt
lb I ug40OG ft 3 : e .ta •c.0a4&rss an .caat ca r.tai tai dat cna a& .. ta ars .d-
v uct on c t c . . .g.s p.ist c a .d a. d .s i uts. a ra i nt
a and r :v iat on .qu .n t r t .liad.4.
3. ns uct on costs for aa..e Itaq. c .at ai :ai . 3-251 sr tha.rs thoos for oar r%ac a oz dar. on.
*. 0 cost.a abown are for .acoonac, a at on and do vt rc. e •n.rqy r u r nts &aa ated v th r .c :-
ci 3.at os. qne is no .i rqy qu zsot f ta. a. .at c s a f J .t s.s.1.f.
5. *oor .1 .udinq fr rsp.. • $14.10/b.
costs for n tr f cat.i.ob are ap oz .sat.Ly i— .3% than tsoos f car nacsoua aa. 4at .os.
10
1.0
0.’
1
,4/
•
jJ
I
•
I,
0.1 1.0 10
.0
0.1
0.01
0.x,
0.1
-
•/ 2- ’
Ma a
.i
i t
-
>—
1.0 10
Wwsat.c Ow. 4 aL’d Waslew$tSt ROW. Q5 IC
— 23g.
convert cons ct on cot to cap .a cost i.e ?ib.L. A2.
Raw S çs
L
O .oos4 wiwia C.os*
S
.5
0
I
S
S
0
.3
0
0
C
C—27

-------
p
SF t983
TPJCKLJNG F1LT HiGH RATE ROCK M Lk FACT SHET 2.2.7
— The proc. .. ts&sta of e Lzed bed of coot .edi. o’,r wn th v..te .at.C La eppLied for a.goCzc aic—
sa nt. q.L. e .. sJ . e. fore on the a u t h . . wo .sa& . .ac. a ozidaxe .uDatar .i i t t toe vaatSv•t.c.
The 0 54 .a oQ..C by S •ttiautoc cyst , .. end to. r.sat.d weat,..cer L.a to. .Cr.sd oy in utáe ta&n ivite..
Priasry u.stnc La not aJ . y ;.qui.d to 0pt3.a*3. iLi filter p. ora., s, and post—treats.nt Li Often
necessary to aust . .ry at.and.rda or s .e .c qoaUty U.sitationa.
Thu rotary dia i0Utat baa 0.cu— . to. sai ard because of L i. c i sOL3ty and seas of neanaac.. t consist..
of or . e us. r at. tad on a pi.et in to. center of to. 0 Utsc.. sstü.e diet uc, toe vaScesseeg
a. to. is .. rotat. due to to. dynu c ection of the i, i iiq priaary effluese. COnein aa recizc i1.at .t 01 !L. t.r
affluent La 05.4 to asincain $ tatane by au.L.Ic ioadtnq to to. auibucoc at ...
tdeedzaf.oa ax. saitufsctur.d fren rp.caa.Uy d. i.d vi t!L54ei.ay b1 a that u t to. !iitet au4t. and pee.
toe tr.acad s..ta.ae.r to a co..1.ct co a fat t.anafer to to. 0 inai t.La.rifiaz.
The 0 £3 .rar a.dia taiata of 3.— to 5—i th stone. The ba rat. caitrig fUtut s.4Ls bed qsnorc.3..3.y La cu.La
to pLan, vita a depto Of 3 to I f..t. Cont .inssnt .uiietiu.a at. rtoras.Uy cad, of reinforc.d roassag. cod
La to. qroi to support to. ve t of to. esdOc.
Ths or anie .aeeria.L pc..ent Lit to. vaac.w.c.r L.a d.qrsdsd by • popoJ .atLon of . .iat orpan w attitoed to to.
0 £.ltag audi.. . . to. aio qanis.e grce. to, toicane.. of to. iLLs. .aysc eaaus. As toe aLias Layer
L creaa.a n talotneas. the i.oros.O organ.ic caet.g 1$ autsocLized aefor. it can nato toe s czoorqaniw iS&X toe
taudja i . As a :..u.3.t. toe eieraorqsnuz.. tear the audi. 0 ace .n .r Lilto en endoqcneui %aae of grosto. to
toil 4ss. to. . czonrqani.w ice. to.t.r ..2 .ity to ciirtq to to. esdia •urfaCe. The q aid to.n esane. tOe
.LLse off to. ia. cod a Os. lies lavet v .tir to gr . This of Lneir to. si.ee iayag La
ccU.d iiou inq and La ptia.ari3.y a func-..ion of the organic and byd.cau .ic Locdirtqa on in. fL.3.t.r. ?tit.r .f uunt
c.citcar .ion La vita.L vito is tat. c ca ii filtats to proenc.. the 0 Lusniog action ri.e..aary for effecti,.
aiiqnizpq cootzvi. vi r vvito 4 i c.L 9iJ and ane.ronic ctotd itiote couLd deveLop du. to to. Di organ ic
1oadi, rat.. Loyed.
COPSqOW lO? O N3 — Vaticu . r.cizctt Jt:afl estoodi. rate of r.ctrcuiation. ,u.1:Laeeqijc. .Lec ica.LLy pce.ved
dto cz.Dutat a. 0 ar.d ventLiatino. and 0 Li tar or a.
S?X • La vtd, rs.d us. rij . L336. A Lfic .ac1on of t3s ice cat. iot ,jiiq .ii.r process.
- .a nt of ,.tic end J t.IO t . aat jai vaatev.tata naoL . to a.rwCic bio3. oqicaL treat—
sent .n n xrt vito suitati. r,— md .t —tr.e rt. :od .str a. cod oi.nt wasiveatce tres nt
cay is, to. proc... a. * ?0ugflLl 0 i..t.c prior to .ctL,ee.d sLudge Or Other . Lt proc.... .. The proc... La
.0 f,oti,, fat re e of eii .r .d at oLio ifai ietecta.Ls end Li s .. effective fat of .OLoOLe organito.
- VrLnseanie to Deice f:..ttrtq s..tO.r. r.cizcri.cion cay be restricted during acid auSther do. to
couLir effect.. s.cqina.1 tre. nt capsofiary in single i r aq. operation. It is ca. .1f.cti . in trestesrtt Of
s.etev.t,t acotaioinq oi ocr ,ntracicna of soLuoL. orvattics. Ma iiait.d fletiniiity ltd toritro.i in
vito c ti process.., and baa pot.neiai fa x ‘actor and c ptcoiw aitocuipi tovy ate riot ii prevalent a.
vito . r.t. triot.LLrq fLitera. Long r. ery eusea with peet.s. .iatt.d to .0—,0i 3 rs .i.
(23) — nd.cdgaL.naf3 dLatrLOtatats/3.0; fiLter ccver.f.
— Sir u-its.. tonfiguratLon vita !U.tar .ffissnt r.c.rrtuLati t end pri.asry and ...ar ’
cLsri0L atico (perc.nt resor ..L .
— 40 to *0 percent; peo .pnorua — 10 to 30 percent; ) —N - 20 to 30 percent OS - 60 to 00 percent a
AL.5 — te .
S C J _ 5 t r Ji - SLudgi is vitodrawn Ore to. •e ary cLarifier at a rats of 2500 to 3000 ga.3JMqa.i wear.—
s.tar raioioq 400 to 500 1. dry soLid..
y suJ .ic 3.o.4ir (with cecircuani — 3.0 to 50 (qai/acre/d Organic loading - 500 to 2600 10 3Co /d/s. ft
230 to USC ga.L ./d/ft 20 to 60 to 5 5 /d/L0O0
circuiati.on ratio • 0.5 ii to ii bed d.pth — 3 to 6 ft
onatnq irrt.*.al — t ears tOast .f s.c (contin oua) Poasg csquir..enta - 10 to 50 ip/aqa.L
SL oui ir iq — eos rt int i ia 0rid.rdZa rs *ssriaua eLope • I percent dia -
soot. 2 to s. (us ing squat. augn . .vn. soar
end & us euUa ca acendne.. ta.r
AXO : sI.:! - The proc... can be ero.etsd to baae a biq i dnçr.. of cilia iit
tinq tOnd itLona sistiaiz. v.ca. .aotLity end to. ututaiLation ta in a aiia.aeu criers waltuvater reoperattar.. do sot
fail O sLo . 13°C for proLonged pecieda. C1 .ftit*L C. oi3 ity .1 bigit. The proceas is a spi. to operate.
! wt tec’ryo. : i - Air .or pcoo ,.. if i ptop.riy cper.t.d.
— 7. 10, 23. 26. 27. 30. 25. 30. 3.1.
C—2 8

-------
r Pa:
, ‘- I
IRICKUNG HIGH RATE. ROCK MDLA
FACT SHE 2.2 . ’
sarc*j ianon
L WiatoStudgi J
rc uav o n
- P p nq en.rgy r.q .r..snt.s eay be ap oz ..at.d ‘ siz q to. fo1 3 .aivu .quat t
cWb,’r • .9OO * q.a /d a a- arq. o.4 ft. aaa a. nq a vtr.— .r.r .ic .? y e 0 percent. Pot to. p ca
bead r.qu s. nt at ft f toia ptoc,sa and aaai r an a’ecaq. rec r ratio at 4 ., an .n. qy
ru r nt of 5.O00 cWbf’ tf1 qa2 Jd an . expected. Plqa.1. • t jsn F • Flow.
t.tV Thf .uent sq!’ .
! f .uen- se /:.
130
*i d 1.00
- Asaiat ai 1 do. ..lars, . .ad.z • 31’5.
Cot acruct Oast asad ons Dad 4.pto • S ft: erq&nac .As4lj - :o ID O /dJI0O0 ft : c &.Lat xs
ratio • 4.0 (St wersqe 4a .ly flows to 0.4 (at pesa f.IDw. iaa d to .qu.s.i 3.3 t a a,ersq. sL1y flow
to a tatn s rsoe ra iic • .75 qa w !t.
oat ro ee a. .r zz s. dtat . . nswra, sad rsjrsior .d ncet. conta .nt s - ct rres.
and .t on .q nt act
3. cat and t.n.r * coat .a.cor at and smtsra. .s. oes t .rqy costs.
Meesn C.ed
40
;i1IIi
!
I
•‘
:
:
/
I
; $l
I
!
‘
0.1 1.0 10 100
Wutaw*lr F’aw. Mgsl/c
C
0
0
0
S
0
0.1
0.01
orni
0.0001
---/
-
- .-
•

liii I I I

- -.


I__#__ ,
-
I I
0.1
1.0 10
Wu?swstr h4qa
— 207. 2!c
.aw Ww wsto’
Pump Station
Effiu.m
aw S idg
a
.3
C
0
10
1.0
0.1
?o c ,,r: conaczuc t s cost to espir.a.i cost U e SOil ?i2.

-------
r r.
. ..4
1 ICK1JNG FILTE?, LOW RATE. ROCK M 1A FACT SHEET 2.2.8
— Th. pr uss cvr stats of a f d ovd of roct d .a over vn cn vasts atst is a pl .d for .qrooic oto—
c;.at nt. Loegiea.l s — a .s fore the sed.ia fl th sanisi-ar. and cstdtse siiost.arcea i to. waet...t,c.
e d i i do..@ oy a 4 suibutoz .yit . and the tze.t.d vaat,vat.r is coJ_l.cted oy an wi4ardra n avtaa c.r.
Cu ai is usually not .ed. n ry treatnt ta rior.a2.ly r .qu red to opt sass lar fl .tsr perforsarce.
The rotary dtflbutor baa D.C . the tznd ard because Cf its siao .2 ty and ease of aaant.narcs. In contract to
the ba its tt2 lieg filter vbaun uses 000ttAVOUS reca.rcuLa or of €U .t ef .uent to sa nta ri a OCsiitaftt
IIi’ auLtc loading to the diltributcr arus. either a auct on—1eesl contzoLl.d p or a dosing si n is eRpiOy.d
for tact puepo.. w a lv rat. 0 iJt . ,sctaeleae. progr .ed rest perloda say be necessary at t asa because
Of inadequate in.O.osnt v.
iderdzatns are aanufactur.d 0 ros . .cial .ly desi ed viuifi.d—clay mat si purt the filter esd a and peas
the tzsaced usatruerar to a collection aiap for ansf it to the final .l arifiez. T hu 0 lIter .dia consists of
to S-ii it ne. ntai. .nt I uCt azs$ ate 1tO %&L1y eade of retndarc.d e creta and ir ts .U.d in th• ground to
support the weiqbt of the ..dia.
The lv rams tri 1ing filter media bad gaily is circular in piso. vith a depth of S to 10 f.em. l ou
filt.t efflueot r.ctx ul.amion is generally v t utilized • it can o. provided as a *tahdby tOol tO leep filter d a
vet dur uiq lv Clv periode.
The organic ..terial pre..nt Sri to. vaat.water is degraded ny a pcp.il.ation of .& oorgac.i..a octaaied to to.
filter Au in, s cr anie grOv. the thican..s of the cli.. .. layer Lncteeses. Per2odi.ca . ..y. eastesater
c ubes the •1i off the eCi*. arid rise cli . . layer will .iaxt to qrou. Thi.a SIC fl0O of loei.ri to. al...
layer is mailed aioogniziq a 4 is pr.aarily a urctiari of e organic a 4 ulic losdinga en to. fL.t.r.
- addition of reccuistion. •uitistaqtrq • ei.c ica.liy oversd 0is SDut a. forced ,erp
tilatiori. fi....m.r covers, a d e of ‘aci .is vethada of petre. ea1m and m—teament of usatuvatit.
t?A — vid.ecread us.. this process S a bi ly 4 .e.nda.ole in soder ate elisamso. e of eft —
e at..nt or su.: a t.aq trig ta a .qt e ‘itly ii 0 oun c .c.saarl. o era u t e wit fbrs p. arc. with tO .uen t . . ..ai
attona in colder region... I.iz ai eZs.ded oy arq.a to plastic sedia eyut .
APPt.2CA? 7 1S - ?r.acsent of 4 .stic and conput ble industrial vaer,vat.rs sliable to aeroDic oidi tcsl t aat-
sent in cn w tion with suitsol. pc. eam nt. This process is q for re al of .uepend.d or col.Loida.L
ss:egia.ls and a wnac e.g effective for z .l of solu ble organic.. rr be used for nitrificatiort
foL1ovir prior ffirst—et.q .i oloqicaa treatsent or as a atario-.iorrs process in wa dl..eat,s if to. organic
.0ad trig is enouoh.
— VuijiersOle to cl.sat. coar .. and .ow :, eratire.. OUter fliec and odots are c o. per.Xe cO
uiso.quate soistur, O r iii.. can be co n. Lees effecti.. in treatsent of .eatevater containing hign corcen—
txatioris of ao1u i. orgunica, hatted fl.ziOi.Lity and process control in cv ccson with cvpeci processes. ri: ’
land and capital coat r.qusz nta. and recovery tie.. of sevetal veesa vito upu.ta.
P! Ai er 5 . (23) — Onderdrauia/3r dis i0utora/l3i filter : ra,2.
- Sinqi,—etaqe configuration vito prtaary and s.condary clarification and no r .c:rcv.Lat ion percent
t.so ,a iJ 0005 — 75 to 90 C r PDo.pootus — 10 to 30%i i —Il — 20 tO SOC, IS — 75 to 0%
_________________ — Sl.ur e is withdawri fro. the aeDridary clarifier am a rate of 3.000 to 4.000 gdlAaoa of
wastevatet. containing SOC to 700 Lb dry so.L id.i.
0Z 1 -
y auiic LOadu — 1 to 4 qalIa./dt 25 to 90 guild/ft carcuJ.ucion ratio - 0
qana.c Loading — 200 to 900 lb 0 /f/a . ft: — S to 10 ft
S to 20 lb 3 /df2 0O ft 2 SLouqn, — Interaittent
sinq interval — nci,ujons for aa3ortty of d 5ziy operating idegdrssn a.ni u. slop. • 18
ethedula • but say Decve nters i ttunt (not
sore n S .ini during 10. flow periods
Cl uenm ehasmeL ei.ni velocity • 2 ft /s at aver age d si ly floe
dia - roes. I in, to S ia., suat : aedlu. sulfate sowidnesa test
PR ss iN EAH7cA. Rn! ?Y - 5t tly reliable under conditions of soderste tiiaste. Pietharlica2 reioi..irv
Aiqo. PrOcus operation rsqvxrss little lull.
tWt ’ 9j !) r - cr proolesa, riqn land re uu.nm relative to sany alternative processes- arid f ...Lter
Z i as.
__________ • . 10. 2. 26. 2 . 28. 29 l • 3 1.
C—30

-------
TRICKUNG F1LTE LOW P ATE. RCCK M LA FACT SH T 22.E
I P.irr ary _____
______ F r ii
*wSwsa l- arni.r
aw 9S W*ats Skiags
t, ? IC’ • Aa.. t oass e pta sa r.quares * P i*i4 for OpatIt . a uq •r atqy r.qiaaz.nts say
D. proa tsd Dy asa q th q .at anz I /yr • 3O0 Giçi Id) 2 td a .r e d. ftj, £as rq a v x.—
t stat .ificiss y o C pste I. Par t . yp c&. •ad rqu .z.asnt of O ft foe ptDcess. s r i soasqy r.qv se—
•i .1.3X .Wt/yvm9a /d n be expected. • z C .et ow • ,aw a .oi qo r.c at oa
as .a rioie&L y aeca or ntat tt. . t;
tsr
rt:ter so
i ent sg/: )
.3o
3a snd.d d* .00
- . a pt na oat • 12 peicsi ! dex • 3175.
. .samd ens bed d.p • I ft, aeqsnic • .0 1 /d/ .X0 & Dy au . c
5 ss_ dJf— e at.on rs .ø • 3.
coat ss ge j f ced : ev.a : ta - .ser: ;t jc c i, :eta ç , Jta. ro s.d.s, sr
szsd.r su s. C .arLf. ats and r.c on r ed.
1. 0tat s sed sa nturiar e coat r .isass .a asc.a . es riot enat y coats.
52 57. V -
d v ,w•,’ .
.3
a
___________ —
1 ’o Cas Wrt s i c: coat to capita’ cost s a a A—i.
3osa & Mawn.n —
‘C
rww -
25
10
1. 0
0.1
7
,, T
-
Ilti I I
.
1 10 100
\ =
LLcE !f

10 100
, x.
/,,
WulrwsIr ow Mq*u
sk’
C-3 1

-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE FREQUENCY
BY TREATMENT PROCESS TYPE

-------
TABLE D-1
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES 1EETING
A GiVEN 30D E FL ’ENT C3NCZNTRATION
10 OZ
7 7m
90Z
/ 3
S OZ
FOR A
GIVEN PERCENT OF TINE
TRICXLING
FILTER — ROCK — 30—DAY
MOVING AVGS.
I
., . , ,.
? 5Z
a e
ear— eon e a
95.31 96.39
96.88 100.00 100.00
100.00
93.75 93.75
96.38 98.44 100.00
100.00
92.19 93.75
96.88 98.44 100.00
100.00
92.19 92.19
96.38 99.44 100.00
100.00
87.50 90.63
95.31 98.44 100.00
100.00
85.94 35.94
93.75 95.31 98.44
100.00
76.56 79.69
89.06 93.75 98.44
100.00
73.44 75.00
84.. 8 92.19 96.88
100.00
62.50 65.63
75.00 82.31 93.75
96.88
39.33 59.38
65.63 78.13 90.63
95.31
46.38 48.44
57.31 68.73 34.33
93.75
7 4 —
3s.Q 31. .JY
A AA I P . 1
V VV fV.4.L
A
YV•
17.19 21.88
35.94 45.31 60.94
78.13
6.25 9.. 8
14.06 23.44 37.50
62.50
0.00 0.00
3.13 9.38 23.00
40.63
0.00 0.00
1.36 1.56 6.25
19.7!
0.00 0.00
1.56 1.56 1. o
o.25
PERCZNTAGE
OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN 133
E FLUENT C3NCZNTRATI H
EFF.
COI4C.
(MG/U
— a _ - _ e
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
E F.
C2UC.
(MG/L)
——a—
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
23
20
15
10
TRICXLIHG
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF
FILTER — ROCX —
Z OF TIME
TI ME
30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
90 7
‘— ‘
VV
92.19
92 • 1?
90.63
39.06
84.38
U 4 5
81.25
76.56
70.31
56.25
48.44
39.06
Su
19.75
S
4.6?
3.13
ea
92.19
92.19
90.63
89.06
87.50
84,38
84.38
79.69
73 • 44
57 • 31
30.00
42.19
SI
20.31
9 • 38
4.69
3.13
96.88
96.88
9&. 88
95.31
95.31
‘3.75
1 S
87.50
01
•J4
71.38
59.38
51.56
42 • 19
28.13
14.06
6.25
3.13
100.00
100.00
98.44
99.44
96.88
96.88
•96.88
96.88
93 • 75
01
ije .
75.00
64.06
51 .56
34.38
21.88
7.31.
4.69
100.00
100.00
100 .00
100.00
100.00 -
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
98.44
96.88
UI •
70.31
51.56
11
.J .
15.63
7.81
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1.00.00
100.00
100.00
vv.
100.00
98.44
93.75
73.00
30.00
. 5
14.06
D—1

-------
TABLE D-2
SCT .G OF F . CLI Z5 EZTIIG
GIVEN ?CD EF LuENr ONCENTR TtQN
FOR GIVEN PERCENT OF TThE
TRICXLING FILTER — PLASTIC
WINTER DATA
Z OF TIME
— 30—DAT IiOVING AVG3.
0
77
qr 50%
95% 90%
EFF.
CONC. 100
1MG/ i..)
90
85
80
75
70
63
60
53
50
45
40
i v
—
30
20
15
10
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
94.12 94.12 94.12 100.00 100.00
100.00
94.12 94.12 74.12 94.12 100.00
100.00
23.24 88.24 38.24 94.12 94.12
100.00
88.24 88.24 88.24 88.24 94.12
94.12
0 — 01 i 0 T ac 0 . i
.j . ..4w 1!* .
1 .&
in ca in c in co o — a- —t

o. i

70.59 70.59 70.59 70.57 32.35
94.12
58.82 58.82 58.82 53.82 76.47
38.24
4 .13 41.18 47.06 52 ,94 76.47
8.3
5.29 35.29 41.18 47.06 52.74
64.71
17.45 17.65 2.5 29.41 33.29
47.06
5. 3 5.88 5.88 5.88 17.6!
23.5.
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.38 5.38
17.65
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITES MEZTHG
A GI’JEN TSS ETF4_UENT CONCENTRATION
FOR—A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
TRICXLING FILTER — PLASTIC — 30—DAT
MOVING AVOS.
WINTER DATA
OF TIME
100% 99% 952 90%
EFF.
CONC.
(MG/U
90
85
80
7!
70
65
60
50
45
40
I V
30
20
10
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
OA l
1 Iè
00
1 I • —
88.24
76.47
64.71
41. 18
23.53
17.65
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
94.12
—I— • •
88 • 24
76.47
64.71
41.18
C
__ . —
17.6!
5.89
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00.
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
94.12
94.12
88.24
00
u . —
—
— .
47.06
IT
—. . —
17.6!
5.88
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
94. 12
88 .24
39.24
64.71
29.41
q jr
4, .v_
U .76
. v4
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
94.12
94.12
88.24
38.24
70.59
58.92
29.41
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
04,12
$8.24
98.24
76.47
0 I
—I. •
29.41
11.76
D—2

-------
TABLE D- 3
? ::NT Ga UF FA : 7: nEETINu
A GIVEN DOD EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
TRICKLING FILTER — RuSt ! : — 30—DAY MOVING AVG3.
SUMMER DATA
% OF TIHE
EFF.
CONC. toot 99 % 7 : :
(MG/L)
90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
8! 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
80 £00.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
7! 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
70 94.12 94.12 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
6! 94.12 94.12 94.12 94.12 100.00 100.00
60 94.12 94,12 94.12 94.12 100 ,00 100.00
5! 94.12 ¶4.12 94.12 94.12 94.12 100.00
50 98.24 98.24 98.24 98.24 94.12 94.12
4 82.3! 82.35 82.2! 88.24 94.12 94.12
40 82.3! 92.3! 92.2! 82.3! 88.24 94.12
3! 70.59 70.!? 70.59 76.47 82.3! 82.24
0 64.71 64,il 64.71 64.71 70.59 82.3!
2 47.06 47.06 47.06 52.94 64.71 70.55
20 35.29 25.29 3t.29 41.18 41.12 64.71
—— t — — S A r ¶t Q r S 4
_. a. 3. a ..à.ss .s.. ws.l
10 11.76 11 ,76 17.6! 17.6! 17.6! 29.41
PE CZNTAGE CF FACIL iTIES MEETING
A GIVEN 133 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF T iME
TRCXLING FILTER - PLASTIC — 30—DAY MOVING AUO.
SUMMER DATA
: OF fINE
CONC. £00 : 99% . 95 1 901 -751 .5 0 2
(NG/L)
90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
3 ! 100.00 100 .00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
80 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
7! 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
70 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
6! 100,00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
60 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
5! 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
4! 22.2! 82.3! 82.3! 88.24 94.12 100.00
40 82.3! 82.3! 82.3! 82.3! 94.12 94.12
3! 8:.:! 82.35 32.3! 82.3! 82.3! 94.12
30 76.47 76.47 76.47 76.47 82.3! 82.35
2! 64.71 64.71 76.47 76.47 76.47 82.3!
20 47.06 47.06 52.94 58.82 38.82 64.7 :
1! 17.6! 17.6! 23.53 47.06 47.06 52.94
10 5.88 t18 5.88 5.88 29.41 35.29
D —3

-------
TABLE D—4
TRICKLING
PERCZNTiGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN BUD EFflUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TINE
— 300AY MOVING AVGS.
FILTER — PLASTIC
Z CF TINE
100Z 99 95Z 90 5 0Z

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
94.12 94.12 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
94.12 94.12 94.12 100.00 100.00
100.00
I A l OA OA I’ i
JTSO T,$O i•, .4 OVVVWW
1P
o ’j.
89.24 88. 4 94.12 94.12 94.12
100.00
89.24 89.24 . 94.12 94.12 94.12
100.00
76.47 76.47 88.24 94.12 94.12
94.12
64.71 64.71 70.59 88.24 94.12
94.12
58.32 64.71 70.59 76.47 94.12
94.12
47.06 47.06 58.32 64.71 - 82. . 3
94.12
35.29 41.10 47.06 58.82 64.71
82. Z
23.53 29.41 .. 5.29 47.06 52.94
70.59
0.00 0.00 23.53 35.29 47.06
52.94
0.00 0.00 5.88 11,76 23.53
47.06
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.76
29.41
PERCZNT . GE OF F . CILITIZS EZTING
A GIVEN 753 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TINE
TRICXLING FILTER — PLASTIC — 30—DAY
MOVING AVGS.
EFF.
CONC.
(MG/L)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
53
50
.45
40
35
30
20
ow
10
EFF .
CU NC.
(MU/L)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
5!
50
45
40
30
25
20
1
ow
10
1A
.LVVI.
77
— a
% OF TINE
_____ —__—— _____
7V
/ ——
50%
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1• •
88.24
70.59
70.59
58.82
47.06
.J .
3.88
5.88
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 00.
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
94.12
U
70.59
70.59
52.94
. w .
11.76
3.88
000
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
10.0 • 00
100.00
94.12
lJd. •
In
,, U
64.71
. .. .
23.53
11.76
5.88
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
QA
I S
94.12
76.47
76.47
64.71
41.18
17.65
S.
100.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.30
100.00
01 1-I
I —, • —
94.12
94.12
94.12
70.59
58.32
41.13
17.65
100.00
100.00
130.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
01
I A
94.12
94.12
00
U U
76.47
47.06
29.41
D—4

-------
TABLE D—5
Z OF TIME
99%
95%
90%
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN BOD EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
A.S. — CONVENTIONAL — 30—DAY MOVING
AVGS.
EF .
CONC.
100% 75%
50%
(MG/L)
e____
90
93.94 96.97 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
85
93.94 95.45 100.00 100.00 100.00
100 ,00
80
92,42 93.94 100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
75
90.91 92.42 98.48 100.00 100.00
100.00
70
89.39 89. 9 98.48 100.00 100.00
100.00
65
89.39 89.39 93.94 100.00 -100.00
100.00
60
86.36 86.36 92.42 98.48 100.00
100.00
55
81.82 84.85 90.91 95.45 100.00
100.00
50
78.79 80.30 87.88 93.94 100.00
100.00
45
75.76 78.79 84.85 92.42 98.48
100.00
40
69.70 74.24 81.82 87.28 96.97
100.00
33
65.15 68.18 78.79 83.43 92.42
99.48
30
60.61 62.12 72.73 80.40 87.88
96.97
25
43.94 45.45 59.09 68.18 84.85
93.94
20
33.3,, 3o .36 46.97 36.06 62.18
87.88
ic

t• T1 •TO —O A c
I , I J .3, ,.ww
,
10
1.52 1.52 4.55 19.70 40.30
45.45
PE CZNTI GZ OF F CILI7IE3 MEETING
A GIVEN TS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
A.S. — CONVENTIONAL — 30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
I Añ
VV
7 7
7.J
90%
ZQFTI?IE
-
EFF.
f’ 1I’
I_u 1;..
-
(MG/U
90
87.88
89.39
93.94
96.97
100.00
100.00
85
84.85
87.29
93.94
96.97
100.00
100.00
80
83.33
87.88
90.91
96.97
100.00
100.00
75
78.79
81.82-
90.91-
96.97
100.00
100.00
70
77.27
78.79
89.19
96.97
100.00
100.00
65
74.24
75.76
89.39
93.94
98.48
100.00
60
74.24
74.24
84.85
92.42
98.48
100.00
55
66.67
69.70
81.82
89.39
96.97
100.00
30
63.64
63.15
80.30
89.39
95.45
100.00
45
60.61
62.12
74.24
84.85
93.94
100.00
40
54.55
59 09
69.70
80.30
87.88
98.48
5
46.97
54.03
63.64
72.73
87.88
95.45
30
39.39
43.94
59,09
65.15
81.32
92.42
25
30.30
33.33
51.52
60.61
72.73
86.36
20
21.21
24.24
39.39
51.32
62.12
80.30
15
4.55
6.06
21.21
37.88
54.55
68.18
10
1.32
1.52
3.03
7.58
31.62
51.52
0—5

-------
TABLE D—6
PERCZNTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
GIVEN 83D EFFLUENT C NCENTRAT0N
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
ACT. SLUDGE — CONVENTIONAL — 30—DA’f MOVING AVGS.
PRE PL 92—500 FACILITIES
Z OF TIME
EFFI
CONC. 100Z 99 % 9!Z 90Z 7! : S OZ
(MG/I.)
90 93.7! 95.83 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
85 9 .7 ! 95.83 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
80 91.67 9 .75 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
7! 89.58 91.47 97.92 100.00 100.00 100.00
70 89.58 89.53 97.92 100.00 100.00 100.00
65 89.58 89.58 93.7! 100.00 100.00 100.00
60 87.50 87.50 91.47 97.92 100.00 100.00
55 83.33 85.42 91.67 95.93 100.00 100.00
50 79.17 81.25 87.50 93.7! 100.00 100.00
45 79.17 81.25 83.33 93.75 97.92 100.00
40 70.33 77.08 91.2 .5 8/.50 9i.?2 100.00
35 66.47 - 70.83 7 ?.t7 9 1.ø7 97.9
30 62.50 62.50 72.92 81.5! 89.53 97.92
2! 43.7! 43.75 53.33 66.67 85.42 95.a3
I — —— __ C — — C
..Q ..9.17 54.1, 64.58 89S,.,8
1’T In A I ‘ AO

10 0.00 0.00 4.17 13.7! 29.17 43.75
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN TES EFFLUENT CCHCZNT ATIDN
FOR GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
ACT. SLUDGE — CONVENTIONAL — 30—DAT MOVING AVGS.
PRE PL 92—500 FACILITIES
: OF TIME
Er-.
CI3NC. 100% 99: 95 90%
(MG/U
90 87.50 87.50 91.47 95.93 100.00 100.00
85 85.42 87.50 91.67 95.83 100.00 100.00
80 83.33 87.50 89.58 95.83 100.00 100.00
7! 79.17 91.25 99.58 95 .83 100.00 100.00
70 77.08 79.17 39.53 95.83 100.00 100.00
6! 75.00 77.08 89.58 93.75 97.92 100.00
60 75.00 75.00 8.4 93.75 97.92 100.00
5! 66.67 70.33 33.33 93.7! 95.83 100.00
50 62.50 64.58 81.25 93.75 93.75 100.00
4! 58.33 40.42 75.00 37.50 93.7! 100.00
40 52.08 56.25 68.7! 83.33 91,47 97.92
3! 41.47 50.00 60,42 72.92 91.67 95.33
30 37.50 43.75 56. : ! 62.50 85.42 91.67
2! 29.17 33.33 50.00 60.42 72.92 89.58
0 2.? 25.00 35.42 47.9 62.50 33.33
1! 2.08 4.17 16.ó7 35.42 52.08 68.75
10 0.00 0 00 2.06 6.25 29.17 50.00
D— 6

-------
TABLE D—7
____ ____ C e eeee e e
Enclosed areas
dicate where
the percentage
f plants meeting
the concentration
with the given re—
liabi.lity is greater
fo PL. 92- 500
pl ts than Pre PL
92—500 plants.
.r r
CONC.
90 88.3 ? 94.44 100.00
85 83. 88.89 100.00
80 98.89 94.44
— ,— 0
I.J 8 J... 4.44
70 77.78 ] 77.78188.89
65 72.22 72.2 1 88.99
7 I
,_.__ l_e
L’ L I L (
QO.Q, O ..Ji IF..
50 66.67 66.67 77.78
45 66.67 66.67 72.22
40 61.11 66.67 72.2k
35 ‘61.11 61.11 72.22,
30 44.44 44.44 66.67
25 33.33 j33.33 55.56
0 16.671 22.22 50.00
15 11.11 11.11 33.33
10 5.56 5.56 5.56
100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00
100.00 ._ 100.0O 00.00
94.44 100.00 1100.00
88.39 100.00 100.00
77.79 100.00 100.00
77.78 130.00 100.00
77.78 9 .44 ‘L00. ...00_
72.22 77.78 ‘ 100.001
72.22 77.78 94.44
72.22 7. I? .4 l
61.11 72.22 77.78
61.11 61.11 7.2
44.44 61.11 I 66.67
!1.U 55.56!
PE C NTAGZ OF FACILITIES MEETiNG
A GIVEN B D FFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
ACT. SLUDGE — CONVENTIONAL - 30—DAY
POST N. 92—500 FACILITIES
1 OF TIME
1001 95 1 90% 75
EFF.
CONC.
(MG/U
MOVING AVOS.
S
90 94.44 100.00 1100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
85 94.44 94.44 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
80 94.44 94.44 00.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
75 I 94.44 94..44100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
70 88.8? 88.39 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
65 88.39 88.89 94.44 100.00 100.00 100.00
60 8..3 . 83...3 04 44 1O0.00 100.00 100.00
55 77.78 83.33 88.39 94.44 100.00 100.00
50 77.78 77.78 B8.89 94.44 Ij_.Q9.00 100.00
45 66.67 72.22 88.89 l88.$iJ 100.00 ! 100.00
40 66.67 66.67 83.33 89.89 94,44 100.00
35 61.11 61,11 77.78 I 94. 4 100.00
30 55.56 61.11 72.22 77.7I
25 50.00 61.11 72.22 L 3 8s.
20 44.44 44.44 50.00 61.11 77,79 I_______
15 5.561 16.07 18.89 50.00 61.11 i:.:::
10 I 5.56 5.56 5.36 22.22 33.3 50.00
r CZNTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GiVEN TS3 EFFLUENT C2NCZNTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIM!
ACT. SLUDGE — CONVENTIONAL — 30—OAY MOVING AVGS.
POST Pt. 92—500 FACILITIES
Z OF TIME
100% 99 90..
D—7

-------
TABLE D-8
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GiVEN 30D EFFLUENT COI4CENTRAT ION
F OR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TINE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE — CZNT. STAB. — 30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
2 OF TIME
EFF.
CONC. 1001 991 95 % 90% 751 50%
(MG/L)
— — eaflee aafl eec_a e fl Oflee
90 94.74 94.74 96 ,49 98.25 100.00 100.00
85 94.74 94.74 96.49 98.25 100.00 100.00
80 91.23 92.98 96.49 98.25 100.00 100.00
75 85.96 89.47 96.49 98.25 100.00 100.00
70 85.96 87.72 94.74 98.25 100.00 100.00
65 84.21 85.96 91.23 98.25 100.00 100.00
10 78.95 78.95 97.72 96.49 100.00 100.00
55 75.44 77.19 82.46 94.74 98.25 100.00
50 73.68 73.68 92.46 91.23 98.25 100.00
45 71.93 73.68 77.19 87.72 98.25 100.00
40 64.47 68.42 75.44 85.96 96.4? 100.00
35 57.39 63.16 71.93 77.19 92.98 100.00
.0 47.. 7 54.39 64.67 73.68 82.44 98.25
25 40.35 43.86 54.49 64.67 77.19 91.23
20 23.07 31.58 43.34 4.49 70 .18 80.70
4W I ? CA 4 ti — fli l C W a —e in
hf Q 1 J./.3i g..QS 3Sn.O 3 .J7 lid.
10 3.51 3.51 8.77 17.54 29.82 52.63
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN 153 EFFLUENT CZNCENTRATIOH
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TINE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE — CONT. STA3. — 30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
Z OF TINE
EFF.
CDNC. 100% 9% 9 ! : 90%
(MG/I..)
90 85.97 85.97 96.49 98.25 100.00 100.00
85 84.21 34.21 94.74 98.23 100.00 100.00
80 84.21 84.21 92.98 98.25 100.00 100.00
75 84.21 34.21 71.23 96.49 100.00 100.00
70 32.44 82.46 89.47 96.49 100.00 100.00
65 78.95 82.46 87.72 96,49 100.00 100.00
60 77.19 77.19 94.21 92.98 98.25 100.00
35 73.68 75.44 78.95 39.47 96.49 100.00
50 71.93 7 1.93 78.95 87.72 96.49 100.00
45 70.18 71.93 77.19 97.72 94 .74 100.00
40 63.16 64.91 71.93 80.70 94.74 93.25
35 57.89 61.40 70.19 77.19 92.98 98.25
30 40.3! 4a.96 64.67 70.13 89.47 98.25
25 35.09 36.34 50.88 64.9.1 77.19 94.74
20 22.81 26.32 40.35 52.63 63.16 87.i2
15 12.28 15.7? 26. 2 36.34 50.38 64.91
tO 1.75 3.51 12.28 17.54 36.84 50.88

-------
T ABLE D-
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN SOD EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
ACTIVATED SLUDGE — EXT. AERATION
Z OF TIME
— 3ODAY MOVING VG3.
100%
99%
90;
752
96.43
96.4.3
96.43
96.43
96.43
96 • 43
96.43
96.4.3
96.43
7’.
85.71
78 • 57
,
I •
—
/ . 4..
60.71
‘I .
WV.
32 ,14
96.43
96.43
96.43
96.43
96.43
96.43
96.43
96.43
76.43
1 •
00
- / • t
78.57
73.00
I .’ ..
6, .36
WV.
‘0
— . —.
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
100.00
1.00 • 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
96.4.3
96.4 .3
96.43
82.14
/ g
I W
60 • 71
50 • 00
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1.00.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
96.43
39.29
82.14
71.43
37.14
1.00.00
100.00
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
92.86
00 ‘
U / •
82.14
67.86
1.00.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100 • 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
96.43
92.36
00
U I
EFF.
CONC.
(MG/ i..)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
53
30
43
40
33
30
. ,
‘
20
15
.-
10
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES MEETING
A GIVEN TSS EFFLUENT C3NCZNTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCZNT OF TIME
ACTIVATED SLUDGE — EXT. AERATION — 30—NAY
Z OF TIME
MOVING
A
‘33.
EFF
CONC.
(MG/i..)
90
96.43 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00
100.00
85
96.43 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00
100.00
80
96.43 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00
100.00
75
96.43 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.OC
100.00
70
96.43 96.43 96.42 100.00 100.00
100.00
65
96.43 96.43 96.43 96.43 100.00
100.00
60
92.36 92.86 96.43 96.43 100.00
100.00
55
92.86 92.86 96.43 96.43 100.00
100.00
30
89.2? 89.29 89.29 96.43 100.00
100.00
45
85.71 85.71 89.29 96.43 100.00
100.00
40
82.14 82.14 89.29 92.86 100.00
100.00
33
82.14 82.14 82.14 89.29 96.43
100.00
30
71.43 71.4.3 78.57 82.14 92.86
100.00
25
57.14 57.14 67.86 75.00 85.71
96.43
20
46.43 46.43 64.29 67.86 73.00
93.71
15
42.86 42.86 50.00 30.00 64.29
82.14
10
3.00 23.00 32.14 39.2? 7.t4
57.1.4
77
7 W
On,
7 V *
751
50Z
D-9

-------
TABLE 1)-. 1
PERCENTAGE OF FACIL1TI S MEZTING
A GI’JEN BOO EFfl..UE 4T CONCZNTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
R.B.C. — 30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
Z OF TIME
a
7.j 7v
EFF.
CONC.
100%
99%
thG/t_)
— —
eefl
- o n
e a
flee
cane
90
88.89
92.59
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
85
88.89
92.59
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
80
88.39
92.59
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75
98.89
92.59
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
70
85.19
92.39
96.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
65
85.1?
88.89
96.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
60
81.48
- 85.19
96.30
96.30
100.00
100.00
55
81.48
83.19
96.30
96.30
100.00
100.00
so
77.78
81.48
92.39
96.30
100.00
100.00
45
70.37
74.07
92.39
92.59
100.00
100.00
40
6o. 7
74.07
38.89
92.5?
100.00
100.00
35
59.26
39.26
77.78
85.19
100.00
100.00
. 0
44.44
44.44
59.26
74.07
38.39
100.00
25
25.93
25.93
44.44
51.85
70.37
96.30
20
18. 2
13.52
25.93
33.33
5 .5ó
74.07
15
,
,.41
4

11.11
,
13......
—

—
6.a,
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.41
14.81
13.52
PE CZNT . GE OF FACLITIZS MEETThG
A GIVEN 133 EFFLuENT C2NCZNTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
R.B.C. — 30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
Z OF TThE
99
931
a a —
EFF.
CONC.
100
75Z
50%
(NGIL)
90
100.00
100.00
00.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
85
100.00
100.00
.00.00
.00.00
100.00
100.00 -
80
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75
96.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
70
96.30
96.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
65
92.59
96.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
60
92.59
92.59
100.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
55
85.19
85.19
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
50
81,48
85.19
96.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
45
70.37
74.07
92.59
100.00
100.00
100.00
40
66.67
70.37
81.48
96.30
100.00
100.00
33
62.96
66.67
77.7w
92.39
100.00
100.00
30
59.26
59.26
70.37
93.19
100.00
100.00
25
37.04
40.74
62.96
74.07
100.00
100.00
20
18.52
22.22
40.74
35.36
74.07
100.00
15
7.41
11.11
22.22
33.33
51.35
*6.67
10
0.00
0.00
3 .?Q
14.81
33.33
44.44
D— ifl

-------
TABLE D-11
PERCZNT GZ OF FACiLITIES MEETING
A GIVEN 30D EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT CF TINE
OXIDATION DITCN — 30—DAY MOVING AUGS.
1 OF TThE
EFF.
CONC. 100Z 99 951 901 75 501
(MG/L)
____ _e_e - - es_ f l eee
90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
8! 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
80 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
75 96.43 96.43 100,00 100.00 100 .0O 100.00
70 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
65 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
60 96.43 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
55 96.43 96.43 96,43 100,00 100.00 100.00
50 89.29 89.29 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00
45 85.71. 89.29 96.43 100.00 100.00 1.00.00
40 82.14 32.14 85.71 96.43 1.00.00 100.00
3! 82.14 32.14 85.71 92.26 100.00 100.00
30 82.14 32.14 82.14 89.29 92.86 100.00
25 64.2? 64.29 78.57 82.14 89.29 100.00
20 50.00 53.57 67.36 79.57 85.71. 92.36
15 42.36 42.36 50.00 71.43 32.1A 35.71
I A 10 1
... ..vy .. .. .. ,...Jv
PERCZ: TAGZ OF FACiLITIES 1EETING
A GIVEN ISS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TINE
OXIDATION DITCH — 30—DAY MOVING AVG5.
1 OF TINE
EFF.
CONC. 1001 951 901
(MG/L)
90 82.14 82.1.4 92.86 96.43 1.00 .00 100.00
85 82.14 82.14 92.36 96.43 100.00 100.00
30 82.14 82.14 92.86 96.43 100.00 100.00
75 82.14 92.34 89.29 96.43 100.00 100.00
70 82.14 82.14 89.29 96.43 100.00 100.00
65 75.00 78.57 89.29 96.43 100.00 100.00
60 67.86 71.43 89.29 89.29 100.00 100.00
55 67.86 67.86 85.71 89.29 1.00.00 100.00
50 60.7:, 60.71 85.71 89.29 100.00 100.00
45 60.71 60.71 75.00 85.71 103.00 100.00
40 60.71 60.71. 67,36 82.14 100.00 10t .00
35 50.00 53.57 64.29 75.00 92.86 100.00
30 46.4 46.43 60.71 67.36 92.86 100.00
25 46.43 46.43 53.57 64.29 78.57 96.43
20 35.71 39.29 46.43 50.00 75.00 92.86
15 25.00 5.00 35.71. 42.36 57.1.4 39.29
10 10.71 10.71 21.43 29.57 39.2? 60.71.
D-]i

-------
T. ELE D-12
PERCZNTAGE OF FACZLITIZS MEZTING
A GIVEN BUD E7FLUENT C2NC NTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
STAaILIZATION POND — 30—DAY MOVING AVGS.
Z OF TIME
EFF.
CONC. 100% 99% 95% 90% 75%
(MG/I..)
90 91.39 91.89 97.30 97.30 97.30 100.00
85 91.89 91.89 94.5? 97.30 97.30 100.00
80 91.89 91.89 94.59 97.30 97,30 100.00
75 86.49 86.49 91.89 97.30 97.30 100.00
70 84.78 84.78 89.19 97.30 97.30 100.00
65 83.78 83.78 86.49 91.89 97.30 100.00
60 78.33 79.38 83.78 91.39 97.30 100.00
55 72.97 72.97 81.08 86.49 97.30 97. O
50 67.57 67.57 78.38 81.08 91.89 97.30
45 62.16 62.16 72.97 81.08 91.89 97.30
40 54.05 54.05 62.16 78.38 33.78 94.59
. S 40.54 4 .24 56.76 62.16 75.68 29.19
30 24.32 24.32 45.95 54.05 70.27 81.08
25 10.81 10.81 24.32 29.73 48.6 75.68
20 5.41 5.41 5.41 16.22 S.14 So.76
15 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.41 8.11 29.73
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.41 8.L .
PERCaNTAGE OF FACILITZS MEETING
A GIVEN 15$ EFFLUENT CUNCENTRATION
FOR A GIVEN PERCENT OF TIME
STABILIZATION POND — 30—DA’r MOVING AVGS.
Z OF TIME
EFF.
— e —
CCNC. 100g. 95o 904. 7 .jZ 50 ..
(MG/ I..)
90 56.76 56.76 62.16 72.98 89.19 97.30
85 56.76 56.76 62.t6 70.27 83.78 94 .5Q
80 51.35 51.35 59.46 67.57 81.08 94.59
75 43.24 43.24 56.76 64.86 81.08 94.59
70 37.84 40.54 56.76 59.46 75.68 94.59
65 29.73 29.73 54.05 56.76 70.27 89.1?
60 27.03 27.03 48.65 56.76 64.86 81.08
55 18.92 18.92 29.73 43.24 59.46 78. B
SC 18.92 12.92 19.92 40.54 56.76 72.97
45 13.51 13.51 1 .92 21.62 48.65 72.97
40 10.81 10.81 13.51 13.51 40.5.. 64.30
35 5.41 5.41 8.11 10.81 21.62 51. 5
30 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.41 10.31 45.’S
25 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.41 8.11 2?.i
20 2.70 2.70 2.70 5.41 5.41 10.3:
iS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 5.41 8.1:
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 2.70
D— I ‘

-------
APPENDIX E
TECHNICAL DATA SUM •1ARY TABLES

-------
TABLE E- 1
RANK ORDER OF ROCK MEDIA TRICXLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30-DAY MOVING AVERAGES
BOOS EFFLUENT VALUES
t OF
OUTLIER DAILY
FACILITY FACILITY OBS.
DAILY
$
OF 30—DAY
PIEAW OF
95TH ILE
MEAN
MOVING
AVGS
30-DAY AVGS
30—DAY AVOS
1
ADD.PRDCESS
115
7,13
216
6.93
8.71
55
505
8.49
591
8.46
10,93
523
ADD.PROCESS
110
9.43
191
9.45
12.70
17
ADD.PROCESS
190
8.96
312
9.10
13.00
525
4DD.PROCESS
112
8.72
205
8.56
15.25
130
ADD.PROCESS
105
12.10
122
12.19
15.92
21
ADD.PROCESS
120
13.14
187
-13.42
16.05
308
ADD.PROCESS
390
11.55
366
11.67
16.39
302
ADD.PROCESS
760
10.1?
732
10.03
17.40
215
9.
13.48
176
13.48
19.00
22
ADD .PROCESS
52
16.58
95
16.49
20.
905
OUTLIER
O3
15.83
39
15.50
21,54
221
ADD.PROCESS
105
12.24
191
11.89
670
OUTLIER
71
16.3?
124
17.20
23.67
60
23
13.96
42
19.32
3.E5
260
95
20.63
178
20.57
24.16
303
751
18.43
732
18.51
24.23
25
ADD.PROCESS
10
15.50
14
16.32
2 3
666
205
14.66
425
14.54
24.43
201
103
15.86
179
15.84
650
184
14.62
279
15.11
601
ADDIPROCESS
90
20.77
147
0 ,58
5.4
J_ _
1
h.1
A

7C
J
A
ST
J• ..I
554
4
14.42
45
14.27
i.10
138
ADI1IPROCESS
492
19.08
579
19.03
27.65
555
50
18.26
94
18.43
27.67
971
274
22.43
377
21.98
23.37
309
696
22.00
728
21.76
28.55
2
148
19.27
237
19.34
29.04
963
337
16.39
490
15.96
29.45
406
323
14.00
431
13.79
29.79
304
446
23.33
561
23.24
30.12
665
225
22.32
336
22.40
30.29
603
112
23.15
154
22.64
30.84
306
131
25.82
132
25.39
31.09
253
101
18.54
176
18.60
31.29
53
493
29.11
580
29.10
31.73
52
503
21.26
583
20 93
32.05
527
97
19.52
179
19.59
32.18
214
92
25.27
162
25.07
32.46
522
ADD.PROCESS
715
19.71
731
19.82
32.63
65?’
294
23.96
553
24.20
33.17
34
OUTLIER
308
19.68
403
19.32
33.53
202
204
27.67
380
27.33
34.56
655
268
29.08
366
29.22
34.73
970
164
26.23
295
26.28
35.67
524°
519
28.35
594
28.26
35 ,75
E-1

-------
‘I LE E-j. (Con’t)
RANK ORDER OF ROCK $EDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILiT iES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
8005 EFFLUENT VALUES
S OF
OUTLIER DAILY DAILY * OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 9 5TH ZILE
FACILITY FACILITY OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY AVGS 30-PAY 41)63
325 235 25.08 297 24.33 36.33
345 326 29.94 606 29.93 36 .67
604 260 29.12 289 28.83 38.13
50 ADD.PROCESS 729 22.37 703 22.33 38.57
602 #DD.PROCESS 204 29.81 149 29.54 39.14
216 104 27.68 190 27.82 40.20
55C 24 20.71 44 20.40 40.50
956 105 23.53 179 22.48 40.60
121 ADD.PROCESS 353 20.60 453 19.98 40.97
2 -44 26 25.19 45 25.27 41 ,10
119 ADD.PROCESS 240 27.98 342 27.78 42.18
255 49 19.98 91 20.86 43.00
653 282 40.08 31 4 0 ,v O
953 96 37.05 171 36.79 4 ,16
412 221 34.64 323 34.53 4 4 ,76
954 293 29.33 434 29.48 45.00
952 207 33.75 394 33.54 45,j4
191 OUTL IER 305 26.70 396 26.23 86,62
171 57 34.74 90 35.12 48.39 -
220 23 17.35 40 17.92
51 502 32.09 539 32.12
553 110 30.03 191 30.38 50.60
249 114 34.20 212 34.40 50.71
1C V1 CO 1 ‘fl L I
4QW &S* I , .J . t.Q
307 297 35.59 410 35.89 53.79
125 ADD.PROCESS 288 35.45 462 35.83 53.80
71 10 01 110 7h AZ C A
t ,&& o 1 v, . 1 ..j
305 310 39.34 421 39.35 54 .99
906 315 36.26 439 35.21 56.00
651 628 32.23 688 31.94 So.60
950 99 35.61 180 35.11 57.10
965 201 33.64 383 33.09 58.13
551 24 35.58 46 35.83 57.25
418 285 49.13 407 49.48 65.00
254 41 31.61 75 31.65 66.00
54 499 29.42 595 29.67 67.17
56 724 50.46 702 50.46 68.80
656 274 54.68 434 54.79 75.87
258 OUTLIER 47 51.74 88 51.41 90.12
1.49 OUTLIER 689 54.75 700 55.47 91.98
3 1i 262 57.58 344 58.46 98479
951 56 37.79 88 35.94 105.67
170 OUTLIER 89 85.78 163 85.65 110.32
411 DU lL ER 315 89.23 419 88.82 115.14
301 ADD.PROCESS 760 57.92 733 59.02 133 52
100 OUTLIER 244 86.38 469 86.50 134.69
409 OUTLIER 239 61.90 450 60.81 134.73
E—2

-------
TA E S-2
RANK ORDER OF ROCK MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
* (iF
OUTLIER tAlLY DAILY # OF 30-DAY J IEAN OF 95TH ZILE
FACILITY FACILITY 088. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30-DAY AVGS 30-DAY AVES
953 0 • 0
970 0 • 0 *
CC ’ ) A A
7 èS ¼ * V
523 ADD ,PROCESS 109 8.91 191 9.02 11.25
17 ADD.PROCESS 195 8.37 318 8.25 11.57
25 ADD.PROCES S 10 8.60 14 8.38 12.67
260 94 9.36 175 9.51 13.01
308 ADD.PROCESS 395 11.16 366 11.27 13.90
301 ADB.PROCESS 759 11.33 733 11.34 14.73
22 ADD.FROCESS 52 11.15 95 11.24 14.75
657 512 9.25 600 9.23 15.43
905 OUTLIER 304 9.13 393 8.82 15.71
55 106 10.26 188 10.36 17.20
527 94 14.53 170 14.47 17.20
21 ADD.PROCESS 120 12.51 187 12.65 17.71
I ADP.F’ROCESS 209 13.05 304 12.58 17.79
221 ADD.PROCESS 205 14.42 191 13.99 19.24
253 103 12.09 180 12.10 2O. 0
956 8 11.63 14 10.86 21.00
522 ADD.PROCESS 735 12.22 730 12.43 21.10
2 140 16.01 226 16.07 21.19
971 275 16.15 378 15.97
406 323 9.19 431 8.95 22.31
555 50 15.98 94 16.17 23.6
304 446 17.03 561 16.93 23.92
302 ADD+PROCESS 759 17.21 732 16.96 :4.25
525 ADD.PROCESS ii ? 12.59 213 12.62 24.75
215 93 16.68 176 16.44 24 ,80
130 ADD.PROCESS 105 15.33 122 15.67 25.11
325 233 19.49 295 19.51 25.44
554 24 15.83 45 16.28 26.00
216 69 20.03 128 19.96 26.00
552 21 12.48 38 12.42 27.17
214 84 21.96 148 21.69 27.59
121 ADD.PROCESS 355 16.88 455 16.57 27.82
409 OUTLIER 239 20.18 450 20.00 27.96
50 ADD.PROCESS 732 22.16 703 22.22 28.09
305 310 23.44 42 1 23.41 28.46
309 694 21.91 730 21.66 29.30
666 253 15.56 417 15.80 29.64
201 103 22.61 179 22.43 30.00
60 8 25.25 15 25.60 30.00
670 DUTUER 95 11.05 179 11.19 30.00
306 131 27.10 132 26.99 30.60
303 757 19.44 732 19.64 30.71
604 261 23.89 289 23.72 33.43
655 285 26.14 37? 26.24 33.60
E-3

-------
TABLE E-2 (Cent.)
RANK ORDER OF ROCK MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED OH 95Th PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
I OF
OIJTL1ER DAILY DAILY t OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 95TH ZILE
FACILITY FACILITY 085. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30-DAY AVGS 30—DAY .zVGS
553 117 20.08 205 20.76 33.83
52 503 27.79 583 27.59 34.53
345 326 28.87 606 28.80 36.29
665 417 20.27 535 20.20 36.96
602 ADD.PROCESS 64 28.45 108 23.77 37.56
252 312 2942 389 29.45 37.6 9
651 635 26.87 686 26.75 38.90
654 276 29.73 439 29.61 40.14
550 23 15.91 42 15.87 40.25
963 348 22.2? 434 21.67 40.77
653 491 40.38 534 40.33 43.63
249 105 27.30 201 23.37 43.83
412 83 27.19 127 29.13 45 . 03
255 49 19.06 92 19.94 45 ,33
906 315 27.70 440 27.31 45 .37
54 106 26.66 181 25.91 45.60
307 297 35.01 410 35.15 45.62
5 :4 519 26.94 594 26.69 46.76
601 ADD.PROCESS 93 27.28 138 27.46 42.07
191 OUTLIR 304 24.12 395 23.60 47.55
56 727 29.31 702 25.98 7 .72
551 24 27.17 46 27.43 47 ,77
244 27 21.60 47 22.24 48.00
418 303 30.22 420 30.57 48.07
202 187 33.26 346 33.59 49.78
222 37 36.62 64 37.43 51.25
311 262 34.66 344 35.02 52.93
650 182 26.63 281 26.54 55 ,53
125 ADD ,P 0CESS 288 44.59 462 4 3.3 ? 55.63
254 43 27.21 79 27.96 57.00
220 23 27.70 40 27.66 57.22
119 ADD.PROCESS 253 36.75 353 37.85 59.02
51 52 31.06 96 31.82 59.8e
954 13 28.23 22 28.18 60.20
171 75 32.95 118 32.55 62.49
170 0UTL1ER 89 47.57 163 47 .68 64.40
434 OUTLIER 313 41.46 407 41.63 66.54
603 114 28.84 158 28.62 66.91
138 ADD.PROCESS 507 32.83 590 32.95 69.18
965 24 21.46 47 21.60 72.00
950 18 ‘37.06 32 37.38 89.67
100 OUTLIER 252 76 ,12 485 76.18 95.30
149 OUTLIER 690 66.26 700 65.9 ? 96.58
411 OUTLIER 318 81.57 422 81.28 104.28
53 23 36 ,30 45 36.53 117.50
258 OUTLIER 48 79.17 91 79.3? 131.40
951 3 101.33 5 73.60 240.00
r
1

-------
TABLE B- 3
RANK ORDER OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILiTIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30-DAY MOVING AVERAGES
80D5 EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
OUTLIER DAILY DAILY I OF 30-DAY MEAN OF 95T lLE
FACILITY FACILITY 033. MEAN MOVING AUGS 30—DAY AVGS 30—DAY AVG5
354 292 7.18 416 6.97 14.40
102 ADD. PROCESS 517 10.17 693 10.23 14.56
350 200 11.18 363 11,29 21.33
323 285 16.38 536 16.64 21.60
114 ADD. PROCESS 716 16.67 702 16.55 2 .47
194 93 18.98 172 18. 5 23.69
‘ 7
.J_J . h. JV —.
435 711 16.23 700 16.53 29 , 79
115 ADD. PROCESS 479 13.30 579 13.56 31,36
101 ADD. PROCESS 419 25.31 579 25.49 33.25
967 ADD. PROCESS 279 20.46 526 20.47 37.39
162 ADD. PROCESS 913 31.22 913 31.28 39.53
353 193 16.36 283 16.34 40.09
907 OUTLIER 302 31.58 404 31.56 40.57
103 ADD. PROCESS 295 33.89 358 34.42 8.S8
120 OUTLIER 287 42.21 382 42.08 50.52
605 70 36.04 117 36.11 51.52
174 185 25.62 255 25.67 52.40
351 103 29.30 139 29.37 55.80
104 ADD. PROCESS 303 55.42 361 56.19 75.25
113 OUTLIER 218 74.74 314 77.45 150.34
223 OUTLIER 88 70.56 166 69.81 204.85
E—5

-------
TABLE E— 4
RANK ORDER OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30-DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
$ 0F
OUTLIER DAILY DAILY $ OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 95TH ZILE
FACILITY FACILITY 085. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY AVOS 30-DAY AVG3
102 ADD. PROCESS 503 6466 590 6.65 11.02
354 297 5.76 422 5.91 13.62
115 ADD, PROCESS 483 11.14 579 11.08 17.44
114 ADD, PROCESS 729 13.64 702 13.61 20.0?
967 ADD. PROCESS 279 10.47 526 10.30 21.67
323 285 19.36 536 19.50 23.84
351 108 13.63 196 13.60 2 .30
194 106 19.87 195 19.90 26.00
162 ADD, PROCESS 913 16.13 913 16.00 26 .63
, .,, . ‘,o
_I •
350 203 11.74 367 11.91 27.98
353 197 20.59 287 20.20 29.07
103 ADD. PROCESS 311 25.77 371 25.64 34 ,02
435 713 16.52 701 io.as 38.58
101 ADD. PROCESS 438 22.72 553 23.04 41,37
907 OUTLIER 304 32.01 399 31.98 46.31
05 204 27.47 267 28.91 46.44
174 256 22.49 328 22.52 47.59
104 ADD. PROCESS 329 42.83 383 43.29 51.78
120 OUTLIER 296 64.04 388 64.02 32.47
223 OUTLIER 45 48.90 84 47.01 90.35
113 OUTLIER 214 67.97 311 ?2.21 150.73
E-6

-------
TABLE B-- 5
RANK ORDER OF OXIDATION DITCH FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGE:
SODS EFFLUENT VALUES
t OF
OIJTLIER DAILY DAILY I OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 95TH ILE
FACILITY FACILITY OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY A ’GS 30-DP’r •.vG3
512 91 2.94 159 2,91 5.32
514 91 3.33 160 3.28 5.71
652 96 4.14 160 4.22 6.19
505 105 6.27 190 6.30 9.18
988 101 4.51 191 4,50 9. 6
990 48 8.02 84 7,99 9.86
912 ADD. P :OCESS 204 6.04 374 6.01 10.07
911 124 5.92 205 6.12 11.00
982 79 7.04 140 6.85 11.70
986 68 9.e2 129 9.44
985 93 6.77 173 6.,5 1 .44
571 24 7.75 45 i.o8 14.00
983 50 9.54 88 9.50 14,30
513 104 7.54 188 7.44
234 55 8.60 96 8.85 15.63
663 100 10.15 121 9.17 16.77
242 48 8.28 88 8.23 18.72
987 66 8.08 125 9.18 19.80
572 46 8.83 77 9.39 20 .1
23 36 9.06 65 8.92 21.83
575 23 8.52 43 9.65 2460
909 26? 17.81 516 17.85
984 69 9.89 121 9.69
506 105 8.00 139 8.15 29.22
993 82 15.98 148 16.50 32.99
573 9 22,00 16 23.63 44.00
980 54 26.00 88 27.12 46 ,19
574 20 29.25 3 30.21 40.95
34- 42 15.60 75 16.29
231 OUTLIER 47 42.55 86 42.33 66.97
611 OUTLIER 13 194.00 19 196.05 200.00
E—7

-------
T1\BLE E— 6
RANK ORDER OF OXIDATION DITCH FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY M0VI 4G AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
OUTLIER DAILY DAILY $ OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 95TH ZILE
FACILITY FACILITY OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY AUGS 30—DAY VGS
983 74 3.74 136 3.65 7.66
512 91 4.82 159 4.94 8.00
514 91 5.23 160 5.42 a .oq
912 ADD. PROCESS 144 7,29 255 7.38 8.78
505 104 7.63 186 7.66 10.60
611 OUTLIER 9 10.67 13 10.49 10.80
990 47 8.74 84 8.72 10.92
506 104 7.30 187 7.36 11.20
571 24 7.29 45 7.34 12.00
988 99 7.23 188 7,10 12.22
652 626 8.45 702 8.49 13.33
513 105 9.12 190 9.15 13.40
982 85 10.57 153 10.54 17.03
911 127 10.02 209 10.27 20.33
234 71 11.28 126 11,65 21.00
663 108 13.24 136 13.07 21.03
573 8 14.88 13 16.35 26.00
986 86 11.08 156 10.85 26.11
572 46 16.20 77 16.61 23.65
984 71 15.58 125 15.45 29.1
909 286 19.76 547 19.85 35.92
980 61 13.28 100 12.47 38.31
34 44 13.84 79 14.19 40.75
993 85 17.16 155 17.95 44.00
23 36 17.53 65 15.24 44.12
231 OUTLIER 48 28.75 85 28.75 46.90
242 48 20.34 89 19.65 51.47
985 89 31.55 165 31.88 52.58
574 20 26.10 33 27.45 71.00
987 71 25.63 135 25.90 79.64
575 23 23.74 43 24.79 97.00
E —8

-------
TABLE E-7
RANK ORDER OF WASTE STABILIZATION POND FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PE? CEHTILE OF 30-DAY MOVING AVERAGES
BOD5 EFFLUENT VALUES
* OF
OUTLIER DAILY DAILY $ OF 30—DAY IiEAN OF 95TH ILE
FACILITY FACILITY OBS. iEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY AVGS 30—DAY AV S
153 27 8.59 40 8.14 18.30
123. 40 13.18 59 11,97 20.00
176 20 12.95 30 12.78 22.27
342 294 15.38 393 15.44 22.81
165 54 16.35 78 14.85 22.38
192 OUTLIER 61 10.32 109 10.92
111 36 14.56 53 15.65 24.75
137 47 15.99 70 16.56 26.56
134 35 14.99 52 14.94 27.44
168 5 21.06 50 19.08 29.67
131 18 18.95 26 19.58 29.91
186 8 8.86 13 8.71 30.00
166 20 11.80 30 12.78 30.05
169 81 17.2 129 16.99 30.4
156 76 15.82 111 16.24
106 45 23.60 67 2 .16 1.60
659 40 19.97 74 19.20 32 ,30
133 51 21.63 74 22.50 33.16
l ’I A AA Al ‘ A L
VT ., . v i,) •
157 a 13.79 11 12,39 .00
654 46 24.13 85 24.07 3b. OC
112 63 24.70 83 24.11 36.95
674 OIJTLIER 46 29.76 86 29.95 38.50
63 8 30.50 14 31.50 40. OQ
62 OUTLIER 8 30.38 14 30.5? 42.00
65 OUTLIER 8 24.38 14 23.29 44.00
66C QUTLIER 44 25.80 82 26.52 45.33
132 43 26.81 63 29.79 6.i2
167 28 22.71 42 21.?2
124 44 23.16 68 24.58 52.72
1A O AO IA
. -, u .# ,
340 OUTLIER 7 40.57 12 42.46 56.00
59 23 24.61 43 25.05 58.60
344 OUTLIER 22 40.52 41 41.49 62.15
61 OUTLIER 4 45.75 6 46.50 63.00
339 OUTLIER 6 35.92 10 30.95 65.00
64 OUTLIER 7 39.43 12 37.67 21.00
402 50 21.08 90 21.92 72.42
664 OUTLIER 37 43.64 65 44.71 74.06
338 OUTLIER 24 42.33 45 42.92 75.20
341 OLJTLIER 7 45.86 12 48.17 78.OG
337 OUTLIER 104 41.12 197 42.05 92.60
157 OU LIER 21 49.94 35 53.63 127.20
658 DUTLIER 48 70.96 89 72.67 136.25
343 OUTLIER 345 49.29 453 48.48 142.35
E—9

-------
TABLE E— 3
RANK ORDER OF JASTE STABILIZATIOM FOND FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PEF CENT!LE OF 30—DAY MOVING AUERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
OUTLIER DAILY DAILY * OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 95TH ZILE
FACILIT? FACILITY 035. MEAN MOVI 1G AVGS 30—DAY AVGS 30-DAY VG3
192 OUTLIER 61 6.68 109 6.36 13.83
342 298 12.69 403 12.76 18.30
186 10 12,60 16 11.27 26.30
137 47 21.62 70 22.14
122 34 28.06 48 25.93
111 36 21.31 53 22.16
176 20 19.45 30 20.17 45.6?
63 2 26.00 4 26.00 46,00
64 OUTLIER 2 42.50 - 3 44.00 47.00
l6S 35 25.66 30 24.81 49.66
1 23 40 26.66 59 25.35 57.25
165 53 29.23 77 29.12 53.20
124 44 27.39 68 27.03 59.14
131 18 40.42 26 33.92 60,30
153 27 23.78 40 23.52 60.95
156 71 31.32 107 31.92 6 .46
402 32 27.32 93 27.24 61.50
136 31 39.51 46 45.00 62,26
61 OUTLIER 2 47.00 3 52,33 63,00
654 46 42, 5 83 44.07 65.00
343 DUILIER 34 45.93 431 45.98
134 . .Z 33.00 52 35.03 38.00
112 64 42.32 85 4.52 69.16
344 OUTLIER 22 42.72 41 43.97 69.70
106 45 38.04 67 43.21 7 .60
674 OUTLIER 46 43.83 86 45.37 72.16
337 OUTLIER 104 59.68 197 59.62 78.40
166 20 24.85 30 25,57 79.22
339 OIJTLIER 6 57.48 10 57.12
167 28 63.68 42 62.92 97.85
338 OUTLIER 24 47.58 45 48.57 98.50
132 43 47.41 63 53.26 102.o3
658 OUTLIER 48 65.61 89 64.93 105.33
340 OUTLIER 7 54.00 12 56.33 109.00
187 8 59,13 ii 72.12 111.00
‘157 OUTLIER 25 47.20 38 49.55 114.32
169 81 40,79 129 42.28 115.46
111 ‘ IA 1’ “
17
341 OUTLIER 7 66.29 12 69.33 133.00
59 18 37.78 34 37.24 140.00
659 40 51.82 74 53.72 156.50
62 OUTLIER 2 100.50 4 100.50 157.00
660 OUTLIER 44 77.09 82 78.87 215.00
65 OUTLIER 2 133.00 4 133.00 244.00
664 OUTLIER 36 115.11 64 118.82 414.00
1)

-------
Lfl Lfl..l._ h —
c2CE3S: -:_G _ -
Excluding facilities with v> C 99: 55O
L:..EIG tTE 63
:EIGIITEP
EDTAN 31 ,71
?C i LjE T
- - -
‘1)
(2 ’
±
33 -;
,_
-
S
...
—
:
-::_:

I ‘
C-
L0
—Z—’-
37E
E ’’.v -
LX
-
..i
— ‘.
a
-
-r
iZ—.3
-

— - “.
- - . ;.
- - -
- -
:T
5-
cE
5):
:
:
2. s;
::
c - . :
0 -Co
.
:..:
-
.
SS.Th
-
: - .:
:.:.
::
:.s:
-
2-.:
:E
-
-
5:
5 4
5!
t

r:
20:
0
:
A9°
50!
72
::
57
203
O 4
2.26!
3. 3
2.297
3.334
2.724
3.457
2.590
2 :73
0.2 :3
o.!V
0.25:
Q.433
0.2::
0.445
O.oo
0 6 17
20.::
2°.:3
3.51
50.30
:7.00
25.02
lo.60

37.::
at - n
1o.
i: .;e
2?.1
99. 0

101.06
.
.
l.?C
2.”
1.!;:
2.553
3.:4
3. 5:
2.3 :
3, 7
0.22
j;.;.
o. ! 0
s. ?
s. o
:3.02
2 . !
3 . : :
7. 32
:.c ,
:c.:o
! !. 2
:3.
54.37
: -


‘.r-
:
. —:
- 5
50.45
-
:-
-y:

:7
:
:
- ,
2 :
:v
‘
93
3.i8 0
2.539
O.3:°
‘o.:79
!.40
12.60
51.84
30.53
:.: t
2.: 9
:.—
I !
3:.:-
: 5. 3 :
,•4
i t .:
:
. 1 1 -
::
104
3.23a
0.262
7.oo
49.33
1,33
1 ,32
31.fl
220
‘
2”
23
72
26
2.c53
3.27
3.:is
0.61o
0.481
0.513
17.1
29.72
25.79
59.63
81.18
74.73
3. 4 75
2.721
2.899
. 5
7. bc
6.68
27 .
47.57
41.35
42 -2:
36.77
45.38
.
:.o 03
.47 :
249
252
:53
254
255
200
114
150
101
41
49
95
3.458
2.987
2.641
3.308
2.795
2.93
0.403
0.432
0.405
0.56!
0.67
0.297
34.43
21.76
19.61
32.06
20.32
20.70
81.16
54.25
4 .07
i0.0O
75.70
39.60
2.353
2. 93
3 .3
3.192
3. 7 2s
1.:3
o.96
3.34
2. Oc
12.90
7.43
1.3
50.65
29.3 2
2241
62.12
27.64
23.3
27.09
2 .00
53.29
32.!-
22.37
._4
.:

. -:
:
303
304
30!
‘06
307
309
751
446
310
:3 :
:
:9 :
2.875
3.104
3.62 °
3.198
3.50!
3.033
0.277
0.322
0.302
o.u:
0.372
0.340
:8.42
23.46
39.47
2.99
35.66
22.00
33.32
47.13
76.76
56.31
79.11
45.23
1.336
2.009
1.9 5
2.17!
2.219
2.09!
3 ,90-
2.00
5.08
3 , 12
6.26
1.° e
20.53
29.12
5 1 ,31
33.1
50.20
: 6. 62
2 5.75
7.93
4 1.22

n - n
.
:
:. .
.._: :
4.
.- -.-‘
2.57.
311
262
3.915
0.547
58.23
179.26
3,070
39.3 3
49 ,O
:23.2’.
flt
345
325
326
3.024
3.32
0.534
0.25 2
25.92
30.01
85.13
5: a2
3.2.37
1. 7
9 . 0
1.09
47,11
34.64
43.99
:3.23
.
40c
312
323
22 :
2.417
3.446
C. :o3
0. 402
14.01
34.10
53.1:
81.11
3.70
2 ,379
3. 7
7.00
:2.57
50.4:
23 3!
45. :
1 .
: . ‘-
413
285
3.32
0.37:
49.30
109.17
2.2i
11.93
27.11
3 9 , 03
5:
5:9
2,21:.
0-2:4
22.50
50.91
1.737
1.95
33.05
31.71
-
5 7
07
2,02.2
0.2,
: .C
: t
) 0
21 5!
:2
550
2
2.731
0.!2
2 . 15
141.12
5 3”
29 70
91.2:
7 :
I C
5!:
3.!:!
3-2:2
35.6
73.53
2.7°
5.1
47.8 :
4 .:
-
552
21
2.3!
C.:fl
12.32
45.fl
3 !7
2 *2
13.°
:7: 0
7 . E
553
110
3.335
0.3
30.09
s .a5
:.:::
u.5 :
.
55 4
24
2.522
0.469
14.61
38.99
2.o6
1.75
16.67
3t 5
50
. 8 l 4
0.371
18.42
40.32
2.21*
1.67
2.31
2.Y’
1.2-.
603
11
3.011
0.4°5
22.95
6 .Z3
2.803
4.97
34.30
30.9 :
304
260
3.332
0.279
29.1)
53.59
1.341
2.23
34.42
3.35
1.3::.
.650
13
2.45?
0.726
15.1?
63.39
4..7
5.35
27.64
23 .
ott
628
3.377
0.415
31.01
77.04
2.41
6.3 ?
4o. SO
42.C
.
:53
282
3.68!
0.103
40.07-
50.64
1.264
0.27
C.—0
at -..
655
656
268
274
3.355
3.922
0.160
0.394
29.01
54.56
41.55
126.53
1.432
2.319
0.72
lo.7O
30.70
93 ,47
0.20
22.C
1
1.’
657
294
3.107
0.378
24.00
53.95
2 ,244
2.94
30.9!
29.22
1.2 55
665
225
3.054
0.329
22.37
45.43
2.333
1.8 9
26.77
25.48
606
936
205
315
2.557
3.442
0.5c4
0.270
15-12
3o.75
47.98
117.87
3.274
3.207
2.1 )5
17 7
21.7 *
77 , ).
‘
19.31

2. 2 :5
950
951
9°
5:
3.394
3.404
0.596
0.6 ’
35.56
33.33
119.34
152.12
3.3t
3,073
3).47
77.
100.34
:2 :.
35. 3
I.
2.35:
952
207
3.486
0.253
33.73
5 9-fl
1-’47
2.51
39 ,54
37. 7
953
96
3.586
0.293
37.6*
71.39
1.996
4.23
47.fl
44.63
1 ::2
954
293
3.250
0.519
29.52
86.42
2.928
8.97
50.42
44C
I .7 )9
956
105
2.998
0.587
23.82
78.71
3.304
7.78
41.94
3o.6
963
337
2.575
0.710
16.89
68.70
4.066
6.24
31.44
27.16
49 -S o
1 S o:
965
201
3.404
0.479
33.75
91.9
2.722
07 0
56.56
1.23 :
970
164
3.212
0.331
26.23
53.68
3.04:
2.65
32.41
30.60
971
274
3.063
0.323
22.53
4t.39
:.ois
1.96
26.86
U$ EGHTEC ’
-
AVERAGE
64
3.140
0.433
27.46
69.56
2.533
6.59
42.82
1 1GHTED
AVZ AGE
14760
3.193
0.397
29.69
68.17
2.398
6.15
43.01
38.30
MEDLA
•
32•13
37,78
3$ •7!
t-:i.

-------
—
/Ihccluding facilities c.cith V>O.99: Y51, 550, 963
U .EIGE1ED !5
1 : ‘G IfTED 1208’
2 .36
21 .37
9l.2
41 .2 :
in. : 9
49 • i i
44.33
44 • 41
.97
91.! :
95. .08
05.57
45.24
3o .9o
140.33
o .0 !
3 6 • 1:
45.34
43.1?
42.75
42.06
Bo.34
52.17
34.2 !
5 9 • Ct
5: .23
47. S c
go. 78
I o.C
‘D.23
2! 4°
12: .75
a: • 3-
39 .39
75. C 7
51 .30
37.
111 .oI
5.3.9;
95.. 94
4 0
S0.c l
39.5.3
94.89
6.20
4° .3
38.63
St .24
75.07
20!.42
92 • 9!
,e C’
‘ac .0...
.
‘:
—
‘
3 ’
•
s 2
L32
— —
—
- • :
€:
:nz
-‘--
0 .
ME :I
3T2 ’.’
‘.: :
: —
L::
—s-..
2:
::
-E —i ::
—:
—
3
5.1 v
:c .
::
2.:—
3.25.7
3.55.2
3. IC
1:
::...5
:.- ‘:
:. . .
: ::
—3.7:
:: - r
. 33 :
-
— -
. 4
.....::
i , .
— , .
-
. . :
.
s:
::
3.43:
o.4:
33.;:
2- 22
!3.05
.
5. :
:c
3.: 3
0. 5:
3:.
4. :-
: s 3
0S.o6
5!
106
2.2c
O.43a
l0.2
2.513
3.74
13.02
S o
7:7
3.2o3
0.492
29.3
.TSc
7.37
©0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:7 1
75
3.345
0.502
32.:!
2.339
9.37
55. 1 4
-2.2 2
.
201
103
3.333
0.274
22.65
1.222
1.3 :
25. ?
: .e:
202
157
3.3o3
0.567
33.92
3 .j4
4.Z o
67.53
r.So
2.3C C
214
94
3.02
0.373
22.06
3,:: o
2. 43
fl.7t
22!
53
2.7:9
0.461
lo.8!
2. c3:
2.24
22 - O s
:3.53
1 .3 o Q
21
69
2.5 1
o.3o7
20.20
2.1 8
1.96
24.77
.43
220
23
3.227
O.26
27.59
2.4c3
5.05
39.3!
35.3 ?
: 42:
222
37
3.50 4
0.43!
30.5.4
2. 5 . 3 !
9. : !
5 3. 10
::. 7
244
2?
2.E°8
0.6o3
22.00
3.765
9.41
44,5.3
32.0 8
1. 57 1
249
105
3.309
0.375
29.30
2233
4.34
39.47
36.49
252
312
3.3fl
0. 197
29.15
1.552
1.12
31.76
30.99
1.090
253
103
2.35.9
0.537
12.22
3.026
1.66
16.09
14.95
1.3:7
25.4
43
3.032
0.321
29.04
4.933
27.01
91.97
73.4 7
3.
2!!
49
2.65.5
0.820
19.91
4. 325
12.65
49 ,3 9
0.72
:. a :
260
94
2.124
0.499
9, 32
3. 77 3
0.30
11.29
:0 . 7
.
303
757
2.5°4
0.2 :5
:0,5.3
2.3 :2
2.15.
24.5.3
:3.3 :
304
446
2.745.
0. 433
17.13
2.20
2.07
21.9 !
:053
1.221
305.
310
3.119
0.274
23.46
1.823
1.43
26.78
fl.30
306
131
3.291
0 ,197
27.12
1.52
0.97
29.37
: 9.71
I DE :
30?
297
3,470
0.4:0
35.
2.438
3. 38
54.24
2.7
:
309
694
3.005
0.406
23.01
2.371
2.95
33,74
:o ,Yc
311
:62
3.45 .4
0.421
34,54
2.439
7.70
52.45
4L20
32!
232
2.940
0.5.29
1°.90
2.92
4.22
29.6 4
25.74
34 !
326
3.330
0.266
26.04
1.793
2.04
32.00
:2.3 0
•...4
4 0
323
:. ; o
0,9 :2
2.0:
5.3 7
3.22
lc. 4:
.4.2 1
1.2 22
412
83
3.229
0.530
2°.0o
2.9 86
9.12
50.30
4 4. 0
4 18
303
3.201
0.ioo
33.94
4.445
28.29
100.26
5 . 4 o
3 . 4
524
510
3.134
0.587
27.29
3.30o
10.22
51.11
%.10
1.3fl
5.2?
43. 47
0.25.4
14.5.7
1 . ‘- .
0.47
1t.o7
.5.1 !
1 Ct
ssoj
23
2.2°2
1.081
17.74
o.921
22.27
71.9!
o. 3
•
5.!:
2-
3.:35.
0.5.3:
3’.?:
2. 0 c !
8.42
47,4 5 .
- ‘ :2
1.7 1!
ts:
2.35:
0.Sfl
12.42
2.213
i.9
17.03
.!.:7
1.37 :
fl3
117
2.204
o. 5S
33.4k
2 • 12
.4 9
:7.85
::.r
. 5 !:
55.4
24
2.630
0.5:1
16.23
3. 155
3.2!
23.63
2:60
1. 67
5!!
5.0
2.701
0.392
l aO S
2.309
1.43
19.42
43,44
1202
o03
114
2.951
0.75?
2!.48
4.331
10.74
64.48
53.01
3. 53:
604
261
3103
0.380
23.93
2.56
2.97
30.8 5
29 31
650
122
3.0 93
0.036
2 :67
3. 593
11.31
54.19
4 ,3 5
:231
6 51
635
3.201
0.C9
27.03
:.!2:
5.15
39.0:
35.45
- -
053
481
3. 03
0,090
40.37
1.254
0.5.4
i. .b2
..2 !
1.02.
655
295.
3.24!
0.165
:.11
1.5 :3
0.79
27. 56
2L :2
o;:
35.6
276
1.245
0.5.61
30.03
3.160
11.1 4
55.97
49.35
.9o
657
5.12
1.806
0.970
8.99
5.200
2.98
15.32
13.79
1.721
665
417
2.963
0.447
19.36
2.563
2.76
2!.7
33.90
1.332
606
253
2.o4o
0,433
15.43
2. 49e
1.64
19.31
:9.18
1.246
906
31!
3.1o4
0.553
27.5.2
3.09:
8.92
48.32
C.2 2
95.0
19
3.413
0.;!!
37.6
. .
25.24
96.43
9.13
951
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
O C•’
953
.
.
.
.
.
.
954
13
2.646
6.44
43.37
:529
956
.
.
.
.
.
963 /
348
7. o79
69.31
138.25
7.03 0
965
24
4.497
11.6?
47.9?
2.3 1o
973
,
.
.
.
.
971
275
2.370
1.59
20.00
1.227
UNW€IC #TED
AV ( AGE
se
2.464
0.472
21.84
66.52
2.301
7.94
40.33
1,010
WE 1 SHIED
AVERAGE
12507
2.991
0.486
24.34
66.17
2.909
7.43
41.66
1.o78
: I EDIAN
3.238 0.464
2:606 1.1 07
2.730 Q,774
2:709 0.406
26.37
26 7o
20.67
16.31
38 .96
140.77
39.97
19.92
38
36.56
3
1 5. S
13 ‘.3
?277
1 —12

-------
F — ’ ’
— -a: - :: —
ft .-- -
‘ ‘ —1 ._ •
1 ’
(2) (3 :
—
s: .
:: c: z -
‘ : ‘
::-:
:_ ‘:.E
5 ’— -
—-.:
.r,,,-, : -‘: -‘- --,,., :
-
- ‘- -
-
- -
:_
.: -
0 ...
:...-- c-..’
. ,.- ,.
:I’_;
,,; —
-•
:5 : :
1.237 .—.. :.—3
1.272
:S. —
. -
13 53
2.9:. 0.397 19.33 4o.
2.32.
:.:s
::..:
::
to 7
29 / 33°
:.o—. 0.4 3 :3 ::.—&
2.2fl 1 ,202 19.Oa is:.:;
:. 0 c
7,934
;.
39.22
9.95
1:C. 4o
:
!3.
2 ° 272
2 .o 0 ! 0.5— s:.n
3.
:.45
:5.: !
2:.
32 475
2.730 0.32! 13.22 22. —S
:.O&5
I.3
13.o S
S
33 17?
2. 49 0.359 lo.75 3555
S.:z
10.2
4 0.5
::. :
35 72 :
2.7: 1 o.oo: :8.23 o:.!°
:.3°:
4.35
29.5:
S
39 425
2.007 o.’4? s.:: 2:.:°
:.z —
o.::.
9.2 °
40 !C
o.zss o.n 3. o s.:c
Sn:
S.::
.S:
-
105 24?
3.011 0.454 3.23 21.!:
2.593
1.5 :
9.53
;.i-
:07 ofl
1.693 0.72° 7.39 25)
4.19°
1. 1
!
.2
108 5 17
3.552 0. 06 41.97 143. 34
3.417
2 .09
102.76
2 4. 69
109 706
2.149 0.575 27.51 89.08
3.238
9.90
50. 57
43.7
110 258
2.252 0.562 11.13 35.18
3.162
1.53
14.70
13.6!
117 462
2.387 0.387 11.73 :6. 31
2.296
0.74
13. 45
12.95
tie so:
:.s;c 0.905 2 .°5 127.15
4.710
22.0 *
78.35
63. 2k
128 697
2.644 0.697 17.95 71.42
3.990
6.72
33.60
29.00
139 697
1.72! 0.407 6.16 14. 4
2.7
0.23
o.o9
.fl
141 701
2.61? 0.72! 17.31 7 .12
4.162
7.30
34.32
°.2
144 36
2.27! 0.559 11.39 35.22
3.148
1.59
15.07
12 00
146 48o
2.26! 0.613 11.o2 40.14
3.4:!
2.0!
:6.39
14.
150 730
2.260 0.681 13.33 46.31
2.27!
2.87
18.7o
lo.5( .
1!! 600
2.o26 0.6 *8 17.27 65.58
35° ?
5.60
30.33
160 637
2.346 0.067 13.3! 49.40
3.730
3.18
20.4!
12 5’
:51 , ’ 709
2.974 0.263 22.52 147.34
5.124
30 ,47
99.51
73. 4
172 30!
3.410 0.661 37.6! 141.19
3.750
25.90
9 7.99
90.25
173 C!
1.°S3 0.773 ;,3 4_.4
4.2 1
. o E
lc. IC
1 4 . 2±
175 51!
. :23 :.2: 43.40
3.3 S
2.46
13.97
5.2. !
179 593
3. IC 0.3:: .76 155.22
454 ;
32. 03
l0°.82
27.5
192 419
l.53 0.540 5.39 16.34
3.3 3
.3
6.14
S 1
217 102
2.904 0.770 24.55 109.73
4.470
16.2!
62.40
t1 ’.27
2!! 14fl
2.16! 0.°01 13.0 71.20
5.440
7.:!
29.7 o
4.2o
22! 639
2.57° 0.94! 15.5! ° C
!.C1 ’Z
2.
47.57
5 1 :
227 6°!
1.°17 0533 3 5’ 37.2!
4.1
1.35
13.19
::. .
22 ° 1°!
.2: 0.°3! 1-. 1 35 10
5.702
:u.3o
29.0!
°t
233 92
2.220 0.350 -.7° 20 52
2 ,12!
3 ,4 3
10.76
11
23! 95
2.5— 3 0.757 17.02 -.22
—55
7. 4
3 4.40
2t . 2C
312 iS a
1.553 0.699 a.0? n
3,094
0.77
7.87
7.34
314 534
1.331 0.668 7.80 29.57
3.791
1.14
10.4!
9. 7
315 707
2.3 *8 0.670 13.36 50.22
3.904
3.37
21.20
13.°0
316 511
2.oo2 0.40° 15.57 27.11
2.3 24
1.47
18.99
17.53
35 5::
1.700 0.o54 .7! 25.12
3.704
3.32
9.o8
2.::
310 7!?
2.756 0.239 ::.r :: 3
5.193
19.34
s9.20
55. .
320 714
1.01! 0.709 3.65 14.32
4.057
0.2°
4.33
4.13
3’ l 748
1.890 0.55* 7.7’ ‘4.13
3.1
0.7
9.40
9.-I
322 761
2.741 0.610 18.67 64.22
3.439
5.24
30.88
27C
324 682
2.610 0.2°2 14.19 26.34
1.892
0.60
15.58
15.5
404 307
2.504 0.462 13.01 35.95
2.641
1.49
17.0!
1c.3-
421 327
3.0o3 0.431 23 ,49 56.C
2.433
3.75
32.23
2°. r
422 304
2.911 0.60° 22.11 5.?3
3.432
7.::
39.14
: 4.::
423 32:
1,714 0.742 ‘.21 3 24
4.25
150
10.3!
9.45
CS 322
2.240 0.539 10.8o 33 30
3.)3
1.33
13.9o
13.0!
432 661
3.131 0.486 25.78 71.13
2.759
5.91
3 9,55
35.50
433 677
1.780 0.900 8.89 48.33
5.434
3.30
16.57
14.32
436 303
2.671 0.631 17.64 62.34
3.5*2
5.06
29.44
25 ’
438 261
3.103 0.34! 23.63 49.73
2.105
2.35
29.11
2?.
440 311
2.821 0.19! 17.12 t.4o
1.54!
0.38
18.00
17 .7
518 430
2.854 0.478 19.4 3251
251°
3.25
27.02
24.33
519 276
1.905 0.503 7.62 21.70
2.847
0.5 *
8.93
9.54
520 178
1.958 0.959 11.22 ao.11
5.994
6.32
25.93
1.o O
55 ° 212
2.687 0.358 15.66 33.3!
2.162
15
.
18.27
17.50
607 144
2.740 0.725 21.08 0 ,44
4.575
12.61
50.46
41.fl
671 257
3.303 0.624 33.0! 116.43
3.523
17.34
73.44
61.56
72 252
2.853 0.604 20.31 73.39
3.407
6.3?
35.64
31.29
UN WEIGHTED
MJERAGE 66
2.416 0.628 15.84 53.6?
3.670
6.46
30.89
26. 4*
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE 2904!
2.37! 0.641 15.59 52.71
3.729
6.60
30.98
26. 4 *
AEDL\N
J J ExCLUDINc FACI1.::ES
UIT1 v> . : /
28 161
‘
1B
214 t
.
• ; :
61 .
UNL’EICflTED
“EIGHTED 2 ’
: IED LAN
0-t
4 ,———
.4.
3.43’
—
2 t_#
4,..
1 . o5
1 . P- 5
1.53-
30 3
I .oa
1Q12
3
2 ,31.
1.7
1. 4.
[ —13

-------
£flhiLi I.1t
: - -
C::, :
LS
- - -
:‘ 3 -:
—: C - ‘ —
. 7 . 9 :
— . — C ——
23.3:
7. ? :
95. 6 4
I a .:: :2 : 3
5. 72
: 9.
c . d
15.o
3 1 1. ! 3 °!
39.00
13.7:
B. 73
3.:.
,- c.
— —
C : ?
17. 13 2
30.oO : 5 12
10.c8 - :
15.. o
13.21
15.1:
2 3.14 : ,Ct
: Po.90 3 . 3 3 5
22.15
85.92
13.56
13.09 :
11.78 1 55:
0.8
34.38
19.89 1
26.56
17C 1 .05 0
11.44 1. 412
14.33 1 . - n:
4 4.96
14.74 1.24.
31.66 2. 151
76.14
34.18 :
2 69
‘ I 8_73
1 9 58
‘.tICKTED 56 25 ,16
‘::ccI:TEJ) 2’.E)I ,72
“CPIA’
L
‘3,
._:: ..: : .
:
:
.—L
c—::
;—:. .:;z,
:.-.
.,::
7 5
—E—’
37:Ev
L0034t4
::.s
:s
‘
‘.
‘CC
C
-—
59
3.2:—
v.771
33..3
t::.:: .-3:
2.
:S /
:
: c
.O’.
2.0::
3.5)4
i.2::
1.9
‘1S.93
40.42 2. 0
129.30 3.170
.. :
: 5.53
32.3o
29
273
2.94
3.o3
fl.3—
33.74 3.533
7.2:
44.22
3
477
2.6
0.500
15.2)
47 4 3.15 4
33
IS
2. 0&
0.224
1?.Oo
92.51 4. 3S-
. .75
46.C
3 3
72:
3.103
0.204
30.31
1.7 .730
.O0
39
c
i.7°:
-3.331
6.90
:0.63 2.990
..5
5.:)
40
ofl
1.88
0.907
9.93
54.49 3.967
4.20
19.72
1 )5
fl7
2.3:0
0.483
u.
31.39
.!
14. ::
:07
0
1.551
1.010
7.°9
30.30 :.3o5
2 .93
1Ia
517
3.397
O.o7
32..3
151.7: 3.932
::. 3:
. 36.77
10 9
7:6
3.25
o.o37
32.73
13.13 3.1 15
:: 54
1 10
58
:.a::
0.376
19.33
64.29 3.3 2
5. lc
31.a 4
1 17
46:
1.795
O,54o
6.99
21.50 3.077
0.57
9.31
118 /
.12 3- ”
307
702
2.832
5.202
0.677
0.814
21.36
34,4i’
92.22 3.950
164.95 4.786
9.83
37.20
41.94
ifl.ir
139
700
1.37o
0.670
9.17
31.10 3.30o
1.26
fl.11
141
702
1.521
0. 7
5.34
l:.77 3.137
0.35
6.15
14 4
366
2.239
0.79’,
.3.1
So.31 4.o20
4.31
22. :3
14o
496
1.633
0.748
6.79
29.32 4.321
1.15
9 .47
150
723
2.359
0.567
12.43
3.oS 3.190
1.93
lo.98
159
712
2.101
0.800
11.25
5,a7 4.660
3.78
20.0 6
160
J
17:
531
715
323
2.316
3.25
3.25!
0.336
1.075
0.63 w
14.27
47.10
31.75
72.12 4.943
3:2.33 m.2oo
114.dO 3.o13
6.97

16.97
30.62
321.68
71.31
1fl
482
2.231
0.736
. 3.20
51.oo 4.235
3.o
20.49
175
1 /
515
o32
2.235
3.400
0.578
0.SCS
11.05
42.52
35.98 3.256
1°o.87 4.741
1.62
. .9 !
14.82
14 .99
193
17 1
19
95
1.? 4
3.019
0.488
0. 639
7.37
29.11
22.77 2.767
144.60 4.967
3.55
5.So
9.26
96.33
219
2 :S V
n7
273
o3o
7:5
1.2fl
3.152
1.773
0.370
1.076
0.773
9.39
41.70
p.46
50.36 S.1°E
286.74 6.8g.-
!o.9 5.310
3.34
.3a.C
4.73
33m4T
:0.40
::
233
:oo
92
:.:.n
2.230
0.837
0.92°
21.91
1 3.oO
103.31 4.©fl
92.56 5.535
: 0
,77
59.33
37.26
:35
95
1.75.
0.770
7.79
34.33 4.472
1.6
1l.oC
312
7So
1.o38
0.819
7.17
34.o4 4.813
1.o4
11.0
314
33
2.172
0.697
11.19
44.54 3.97?
.5
. 9.29
3 :5
712
1.85t
0322
8.76
43.38 4.842
.‘3
14.99
316
304
2.451
0.463
12.92
34.14 2.642
1.33
16.02
317
31fl/
320
534
755
710
2.402
3.12°
2.042
0.778
1.107
0.925
14.93
4:2 17
.3.3 1
67.68 4.526
301,4? 7.149
oo.43 5.S3
6.20
i42.Y
5.
374.64
2o. 4 6
321 /
322w
761
731
1.903
2.792
0.712
0.974
G.o4
26.22
35.2o 4.390
157.79 6.313
1.6!
3o.23
110,o 4
3 ’
696
2.575
0.363
14.0’3
30.64 2.183
0.93
16.19
404
319
2.26o
0.519
11.03
32.29 2.928
1.25
13.95
421
422
327
333
2.869
2.468
0,694
0.382
22.41
17.40
88.73 3.959
92.10 5.393
10.35
:1.89
46.54
45.10
423
323
1.833
0.793
8.49
33.52 4.543
2.01
13. lo
428
328
1.258
0.370
5.19
27.00 5.302
1.0
7.’ S
43 3
661
2.906
0.622
22.17
77.73 3.508
7.73
40.18
433
643
2.129
0.7 5
1 1.2o
49,94 4 .434
2.3e
19.09
436
304
2.o70
0.441
15.91
40.31 2.534
1.3 2
20 -12
438
272
2.890
0.494
20.32
56.81 2.796
3.30
.10
440
311
2.79
0.194
16.05
25.69 1.542
0.35
17.48
518
519 /
520 V
556
445
286
166
214
1.947
2.256
1.317
2.423
0.685
0.615
1.409
0.470
8.8o
11.53
10.07
13.59
34.36 3.901
Q 97 3.466
YV 44 9.875
j3.63 2.675
1.57
2.03
21.21.
1.30
12.51
16.27
59.48
15.63
607 /
o71 ’ ’
672
339
319
311
2.553
2.708
3.007
0.784
0.980
0.549
17.46
:4.24
23.51
79.79 4.570
M47 QA 6.065
72.67 3.091
8.63
: 1.55
6.48
97 . 95
38.62
UNUE IGI4TED
AVERAGE
53.18
‘4EIGHTED
AVERAGE
29811
18.77
61.59
MEDIAN
66 2.416 0.737 17.30 79.94 4.375 15.32
2.399 0.752 17.84 85.08 4.467
FACILITIES WITH v> .99:
V3! 129 161 179 217 225
319 322 520 671 /
t-1L

-------
L EICETED -28
tTICHTED ltS7 33 22
1 a’
— —
TJ.E t— 13

- 4
(1 (2
100
-45
3.35.
O.2 3
24:09
oa.i
3.343
Z.So
3 7w ;
:3. : !
::.
112
:22
:o
a S
3
:.2::
3.0!9
3.25)
C’.!3
0.:
‘3.!!:
: .::
: :9
:o.oo
a:. o
32.2:
3...:
3. : c
3.3Q3
3. :0:
2.: ;
8. 9
10.o3
:; ::
4!.!2
£
1.
:9.5
a7 i
t::
1 4
43
4
3 .309
:.c::
Q.°3

:5.3°
::.a:
97. 37
39.2?
.o°1
3.’SY
1O- ;
:0.4 :
40

f l -C
31.30
n
:::
18
43
:.aoa
3.162
0 - n T
a.::;
19.02
: . :
37.27
80.!?
1.989
3. 9 o 9
1.:;
7.84
2:.::
4t. :
n.::-
40.0
:33
Z1
:a:c
o.::
.—
oS.3
,;
5.32
3’ 31
fl.7
134
I S o
137
153
1 56
165
16o
167
16 5
lo°
176
53
52
47
27
76
54
20
28
3
81
20
2.576
3129
2.56 8
1.578
2.563
2.616
23fl
2.969
2.896
2.c03
2.32?
0.fl3
0.32:
0.0°6
078o
0.664
0.672
O.23o
0.557
0.oli
o.’°:
0.7 9
::.::
34.17
16.61
8.91
16.49
1714
11.77
22.75
22.09
ie.zs
13 -St
4:.:o
49.?:
.96
40.83
62.13
65.46
35.56
71.39
78.73
ga_to
58.60
3.004
2.O t
397
4.523
L762
3.819
3.023
3. 136
3.2oS
47
4.323
2 -51
2-
5.73
2.26
5.0 2
5.59
1.2
6.29
7.°
:0.09
4. Q
21 v i
.7
°.9S
14.18
28.18
30.17
13.33
37.40
4 0 , 4 1
4 :02
34.22
:9 -fl
2
2a.03
12.03
24.7k
26.34
14.33
fl l )
3 !.U’
3!.:2
21;2
156
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
137
fl7
.
104
.
3,o24
.
0.423
,
40.78
.
100.34
,
2.449
.
10.°3
.
;3,49
.
:3.99
:39
-
.
,
340
.
.
.
.
,
341
342
402
65 1
653 /
5 o
, c0
cc ’
294
50
46
48
40
44

.
2.fl
.2 7
3.1 :
4.043
2.793
30E

0.;fl
o ::
0.409
0.ø
.25°
0.oo:
C. .
.
15.69
2:..4
44
‘2.4°
:9.C
27.15
C.—
.
07
:23.73
53.15
8 .5C
60.09
201.37
::z. .2
3.27
¶653
2.281
L 3
nl4r
3,743
3 . 22
.
4.0
22 C
3.60
108
4.4 c
. 2. 43
:t.:
,
2 :.o c
. 27
32.8:
334.04
:9. 45
25.58
—: :
.
22.23
¶7.4
302
23,39
26.43
-9.fl
:3
I 3r 7Et ’
4 vSMUC
1!
2.249
0.-TO
:s.::
61.44
2.700
3 4
‘a £ IC 4 T E l
4vEF ACE
is::
:.a:;
0.4:2
23.18
78.91
3.312
10.2!
47.13
0.09
: ILDIAN
33• lo
— ‘— —: — - —
-
1.1::
1 .;7
I . ,
1.303
1 • 7 )9
1 .
o”c
1.3 4 —
r cninzs W ITh v> .99: /6S8
E—15

-------
WEtCETED 859
NEDLA
cOCESS. i—r:_::—:: ;owr
SC •B7
62 • SO
39. 1 :
n, — e
40. Ji
— ,
29.
• 0 /
42.
49.70
t0.
32. ’ :
• oO
22.26
23.91
32.83
29.51
::.
63.8?
27.23
42.91
21 15?
oO. 31
3.49;
3.74:
4.24 5
4.96?
7. 31 4
7.021
3.6 3 5
4.016
S
3. :o o
4., 0.!
3.872
4 • 691
4 • 144
3.729
4. 62
2.263
5.292
6 • 094
5.946
13 e .20
9 .33
1 - S . ; ’
2 16.72
ISo. 94
199.
fl7 .44
104.32
151.44
96.20
112.17
136.05
110.02
120.75
1 4.5l
144.37
261 • 49
:26 • 09
:31.79
as
3. o O
C
.41
I ” •
73.03
31.86
• so
:43.5
13.47
32.27
9.72
17.15
24.58
15.70
1° .95
21.33
29.21
99.94
22 .91
17.17
lot.
109.!
:03.::
01 .0-
: 6. 92
172. I -
390.
64. 3
11o.-c
44.9
63.87
90 • 11
66.05
72 . It
113. So
95.33
275.fl
74 • So
100.31
LI)
2)
.ti
. .
2
t ,.
‘
:
..
::ufl
4 QF
LOG
LOG
AL.
‘‘S-
AT:c
97:. s ;OF
‘ -— ‘.:_:
ir .:_
:_::
uM 9 3R
013.
Ens
37:3.
— iA n
•. !
(j / )
.33 ri —
‘ 3 .
.23 is . .
:1,
— _,.
n
,.
s 1
:s
:.:::
o.a::
do.:
:‘—.3:
4.3t
5:. :
: 2t
.n
32
.
,
,
.
.
.
4
.
.
.
.
.
3
.
•
.
I
.
106
45
3.47 3
0. 1°
:
11: .
o
:.a :
0.ooO
I
1:2 1 /
122 1
123v,
124 y
6
34
40
44
3.553
3.092
:754
2.833
0.722
0.32°
1.1:
1.093
:.
3
:
5: :
131 ,
j3”)’
133
l B
43
51
3.540
3.69
LoG o
0.651
0.703
0.925
- :
134
3
3.237
0.563
-
13o
31
3.SOo
0. o7
:
137
47
2.372
0.630
2.0 1:
1S3
27
2.353
0.901
2 . 3 7.
156
7 1
3.231
0.722
2.7-t
165
53
3.166
0.659
2.2 ’O
166
20
2.937
0.797
2.72
167
168/
l o ? ,
176
29
35
81
20
4,094
2.917
3.276
2.618
0.382
0.322
0.093
0.953
.‘73
: 1 -9
.-:
3. .
186
.
.
.
.
.
187
..
.
.
.
.
337
104
4.033
0.364
.ec
39
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34 0
.
.
.
.
,
341
.
.
.
.
.
342,
298
2. 428
0.525
:.:n
4 G
52
2.789
1.12 :
;.c::
o 4 ,
46
3.oZZ
0.457
1
6 S 8 , ,
6S° ,
6601
49
40
44
3.94S
3.o4
4j3? 2
1.051
0.736
0.29 2
.t,0-
4. 4 5
9.0’.
3 ,4,
2:
4. CC
O. ’° :
2,tfl
U £16 HIS C
,zJ::ACE
29
2.:)?
0.c2
::.a2
:53.73
3.590
EGH7Eti
.,viSA33
150°
3.2:2
0.719
33.25
173.11
4 271
3
9 I ,69
auDINc FAC iLITIES
WITh >
.99: /
CQ
1’69
1’
:
1
fl8
1’
Uc
1 1

);p
‘ V
73.
6 6.
—:
‘C. ..
‘5.00
136.13
C .
. I. . -
94.
33.
52.12
73.27
55,34
56.
98 .95
75.33
20?. 31
E9. 2:
es. St
2 • 135
13.01
30.62
42.4
89.71
52. 16
94.29
33.51
223.
112.23
597.37
229.15
C . —
• 1
5.4 .53
2.961
7.303
2. 313
6.059
4.595
S • 407
.621
1.79
7°,
14.0
54Q • a
77.5?
292 .7
.7
17.13
21 .9
7312:
13492
232.90
766.30
949.3
I C
. 43
97! .9!
170.77
tot ‘BC
iC 3. 30
60.3°
1’.
174.12
154.
11 •
E—1 6

-------
Table E-15
EXPECTED MEDIAN BOD 5 AfJD SS EFFLUENT
VALUES Y TREAT ENT P 0CESS TYPE,
ASSUMED HORJIAL DISTRIdUTION
BODç (mg/I) SS (mg/I)
Median of
u (a)
Median of
c_ (b)
X 3
p (c)
MED
Median
of
p
)<
Median of
o —
X 3
p

TricKling Filter—RocK 26.03 5.88 35.70 25.25 .28 35.58
Trickling Filter—Plastic fl .98 5.43 28.00 1 .35 5.11 27.77
Activated Sludge
Conventional 14.79 5.08 23.15 14.30 6.8 25.G3
Activated Sludge
Contact Stao. 12.63 5.54 21.74 13.80 6.24 24.O
Activated Sludge
Extended Aer. 7.20 3.03 12.18 9.78 3.42 15.41
1 .99 6.26 27.29 15.15 4.50 22.55
8. 0 3.98 14.95 12.26 5.98 22.10
22.71 8.04 35. 4 39.51 17.10 57.54
(a) = Overall facility rreari
(b) c— = Standard deviation of the over2ll facility 30—day m. an
0
(c) = + (1.645
Process Category
R.’LC.
Oxidation Ditch
Staoi ii zati on Pond
E— 17

-------
APPENDIX F
TECHNICAL DATA SUMMARIES
FOR
PROCESSES AND FACIL iTIES
IN TREATMENT EQUIVALENT 10 SECONDARY TREATMENT CATEGORY

-------
TABLE F —i
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF ROC 1c MEDiA TR1ChLIHG FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
SODS EFFLUENT VALUES
* OF
DAILY DAILY $ OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 95TH %ZLE
OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY AVGS 30—DOY AVGS
TOTAL SAMPLE
94 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 24? 23.00 326 27.94 43.78
WEIGHTED AVG. 29.66 29.83 4S , 9
MEDIAN 205 24.52 313 24.26 36.0 —
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACItITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
24 FACILITiES
UNIJEIGHTED AVG. 235 30.44 321 30.36 47.28
UEi HTED AVG. 31.86 32.02
MEDIAN 206 27.18 :6.31 4Q .3
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES 4/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
64 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 231 27.25 313 27.18 42 ,13
WE iGHTED AVG. 28.56 28.37 42.01
MEDIAN 203 26.03 296 25 .84 37.42
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FAC iLITIES WI 95TH tILES <=30 MG/L
48 FACILITIES
L’NWEIGHTED AVG. 228 30.82 316 30.75 47.79
WEIGHTED AVG. 32 .62 32.17 47.60
MEDIAN 206 29+37 310 29.45 44.46
F—i

-------
TABLE F-2
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF ROCK MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE OF 7—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
3005 EFFLUENT VALUES
I OF
DAILY DAILY $ OF 7—DAY MEAN OF 99TH ZILE
OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 7—DAY AVGS 7-DAY AUGS
TOTAL SAMPLE
?4 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 247 28.00 27.96
WEIGHTED AVG. 29.66 29.82
MEDIAN 205 24.32 30 24.40
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES WI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
74 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTEI I AVG. 235 30.44 Q.39
WElGHTED AVG. 31.86 32.06 ,34
MEDIAN 206 27,19 320 27.11
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES WI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
64 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 231 27.25 324 27.19 59 94
WEIGHTED AVG. 28.56 28.41 949
MEDIAN 203 26.03 309 25.90 52.50
SAMPLE EXCLUDiNG OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES WI 95TH ZILES (30—DAY AVG.) <:30 MBJL
48 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 228 30.82 327 30 .74 69.18
WEIGHTED AVG. 32.62 32.18 67.85
MEDIAN 206 29.37 314 29.40 63.68

-------
T: .3LE r-2
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF ROCK MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILiTIES UI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
64 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 196 24.88
WEIGHTED AVG. 24.06
MEDIAN 106 25.25
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER
AND FACILITIES WI
39 FACILITIES
LJNUEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
$ OF
DAiLY
OBS.
TOTAL SAMPLE
94 FACILITIES
LJNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN
DAiLY
t
OF
30—DAY
MEAN
OF
95T
iLE
MEAN
MOVING
AVGS
30—DAY
AVOS
30—DAY
A GS
‘ C
25.62
126
22.61
209
SAMFLE E(CLUDING FACILITiES WI
74 FACILITIES
UNWE1GHTED AVG. 205
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN 116
27.81
29,29
0.
25.90
22.43
27 ,46
23.15
25.91
24 • 49
I C
274
195
181
42.49
33.90
i
4 .. .,
• 19
4 . 14
43.19
6. 47
54.18
43.02
45.62
AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
95TH ZILES (:30 MG/L
218 29.78 29.19
27.73 27.94
131 27.70 205 27.96
MEDIAN
F-3

-------
TABLE F-4
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF ROCK MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE OF 7—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
, ,
, ,
., ‘5C
.._I. .J
AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
95TH ZILES (30—DAY AVG.) <=30 MGIL
218 29.78 289
h./ •
131 27,70
t OF
DAILY
OBS.
TOTAL SAMPLE
94 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG 4
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN
DAILY
t
OF
7-DAY
MEAN
OF
99TH
ILE
MEAN
MOVING
AVGS
7—DAY
AVOS
7-DAY
AVGS
225
25,71
29 5
25.62
126
22.61
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES WI
74 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 205
WEIGHTED AVG.
MED I AN
‘-I,
.
.J, 7 )
22.51
27.87
28.20
——
‘U,
ADDITIONAL ROCESSES
27.31
29.29
116 26.14
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITiES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
64 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 196 24.88
WEIGHTED AVG. 24.08
MEDIAN 106 25,25
I
204
194
67.31
• -I .
• 37
‘S ‘S • —
59.72
50.00
90.37
_4 .,
6ó.30
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER
AND FACILITIES WI
39 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHIED AUG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN
27.98
27.93
F— 4

-------
TA E F-5
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 9 TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
BUDS EFFLUENT VALUES
t OF
DAILY DAILY I OF 30—DAY MEAN OF 1 T :IL
OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 30—DAY AVGS 30-DAY AVOS
TOTAL SAMPLE
22 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 316 28.47 410 28.63 49,
WEIGHTED AVG. 25.23 25.48 41.32
MEDIAN 286 24,13 24.35 33.71
SAMPLE EXCLUDING F4CXLITIES WI ADDITiONAL PROCESSES
14 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 217 29.95 308 30.11
WEIGHTED AVG. 26.38 27.06 43.42
MEDIAN 19? 24.29 24.44 40.33
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
10 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 214 20.02 305 20.07 33.96
WEIGHTED AVG. 16.80 17.07 30.19
MEDIAN 189 17.68 269 17.58 29.40
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTUER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITiES
AND FACILITIES W/ 95TH ZILES < 30 HG/L
4 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 138 26.83 211 26.87 49.95
WEIGHTED AVG. 24.39 24.82 48.91
MEDIAN 144 27.46 222 27.52 51.96
F—S

-------
TABLE F-6
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF PLASTIC MED1A TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE OF 7—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
BOOS EFFLUE?4T VALUES
t OF
DAILY DAILY $ OF 7—DAY MEAN OF 99TH ;::LE
OBS. MEAN MOVING AUGS 7—DAY AVGS 7-DAY AVOS
TOTAL SAMPLE
22 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 316 28.47 418 28.57
WE 6HTED AVG. 2 .23 2 .41
MEDIAN 286 24.13 4.26
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES W/ ADDiTIONAL PROCESSES
14 FACILITES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 17 2995 312 33.09
,. s —e —— —.
c uHT D ?lV , _6.. o _7.Oi. •
MEDIAN 197 24.29 305 24.39
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
10 FACiLITiES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 214 20.02 308 20.04 52.11
WEIGHTED AVG. 16,80 17.03 46.1 1
MEDIAN 189 17.68 17.73 ,O3
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES W/ 95TH ZILES (30—DAY AVG.) < 3O tlG/L
4 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 138 26.83 217 26.75 83.99
WEIGHTED AVG. 24.39 24.78 82.05
MEDIAN 144 27.46 226 27.57 68.77
F-6

-------
TABLE F-7
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
IS! EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
DAILY DAILY * OF 33—DAY MEAN OF 95T}1 ZILE
aBS. MEAN MOVING AVOS 30—DAY AVGS 30—DA? A’)63
TOTAL SAMPLE
22 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 328 24.59 414 24.84 4Q,95
WEIGHTED AVG. 21.38 21.91 36.18
MEDIAN 291 20.23 336 20.05 29.53
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES 4/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
14 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTEI I AVG. 231 27.97 322 28.34 48.33
WEIGHTED AVG. 26.57 26.89
)atfltAU IflC lfl 07 l i
I1LkSK1 V7 V*7J .)sV
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
10 FAC1LITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 238 17.87 332 19.16 3O. 4
WEIGHTED AVG. 17.07 17.18 30.99
MEDIAN 204 19.61 308 19.70 27.73
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES W/ 95TH ZILES < 30 MG/L
3 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED A16. 371 22.16 432 22.76 44.:o
WEIGHTED AVG. 19 ,73 20.77 42.48
MEDIAN 256 22.49 328 22.52 46.44
F—7

-------
TA3L F—8
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER FACILITIES
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE OF 7—DA’( MOVING A’JERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
328 24.59
21 39
291 20.23
LI •
‘L
— I If
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
10 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 239 17,87
WEIGHTED AVG. 17.07
MEDIAN 204 19,61
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITICNAL. PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES WI 95TH %ILES (30—DAY AVG.) 3O MG/L
3 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 391 22.16 439
WEIGHTED AVG. 19.73
MEDIAN 256 22.49 323
* OF
DAILY
aBS.
DAILY
MEAN
$ OF 7-DAY
MOVING AVGS
MEAN OF
‘—DAY AVGS
TOTAL SAMPLE
22 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEiGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN
99TH ILE
7-DAY A GS
ADDITIONAL F’SOCESSES
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES WI
14 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 231
WEIGNT D AVG.
MEDIAN 209
421
24.65
1 —‘
—
40
20.17
324
28.07
318
21.09
333
18.03
17.01
310
19.66
t.
4. .71
43.12
63.19
59,34
64.59
22.49
20.46
22.56
F-8

-------
TABLE F—9
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF OXIDATION DITCH FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
BODS EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
DAiLY DAILY $ OF 30-DAY MEAN OF 95TH ZL
CBS. MEAN MOVING AVOS 30—DAY AVOS 30-DAY AVG
TOTAL SAMPLE
31 FACILITIES
1JPIWEIGHTED AVG. 76 17.18 135 17.40 28.01
WEIGHTED AVG. 11.04 10.98
MEDIAN 68 8.52 121 8.65 1 . 77
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES UI ADDITIONAL FROCESSES
30 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 7 17.55 127 17.78 25.61
WEIGHTED AVG. 11. 52 11.47 20.72
MEDIAN 67 8.56 8.75 17.74
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
28 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 75 10 36 133 10,52 21.12
WEIGHTED AUG. 9.69 9.79 18.73
MEDIAN 69 8.40 123 8.44 16.20
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES / 95TH ZILES ( 30 MGIL
5 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 41 21.77 72 22.75 46.81
WEIGHTED AVG. 20.06 20.62 44.43
MEDIAN 42 22,00 75 23.63 46.19
F-9

-------
DM LU JL If I’ i.e.. ‘s v..
BOBS EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF 7—DAY MEAN OF 99TH tILE
MOVING AVGS 7—DAY AUGS 7—DAT AVOS
TOTAL SAMPLE
31 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 17.26
WEIGHTED AVG. 11.09
MEDIAN 3.o4
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES W /
30 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 72
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN 67
$ OF
DAILY
CBS.
DAILY
MEAN
76 17.18
11.04
68 127
U
ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
17.53 133
11 C’)
S . — Ic
8.56 127
I - , —
LI ‘Os
i i .59
8.70
10.40
9.71
Q r’,
S —
40 , QT
32.96
- - I.—. )
4C C ,
D..
- - ‘ -
‘ c
—I , i ‘ji -I
0 ,
- S.
32.76
25. 10
60.31
60 ,64
58.00
SAMPLE EXCLUD1NG OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
28 FACILITIES
UNWEIGI4TED AVG. 75 10.36 139
WEIGHTED AVG. 9.69
MEDIAN 69 8.40 128
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES WI 95TH tILES (30-DAY AVG.) (=30 MGIL
5 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 41 21.77 74 21.90
WEIGHTED AVG. 20.06 19.96
MEDIAN 42 22.00 76 22.82
F - b

-------
TPELE F — li
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF OXIDATiON DiTCH F4CIL ITIES
BASED OH 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TES EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
DAILY DAILY $ OF 30—DAY ME N OF P5TH
OBS. MEAN MOVIr4G AVGS 30—DAY AVGS 30—DAY . UGS
TOTAL SAMPLE
31 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 95 13.81 155 13.89 29.62
WEIGHTED AVG. £2.27 12.74 24.37
MEDIAN 74 11.28 136 11.65 21.03
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIES WI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
30 FACILITIES
‘JNUEIGHTEI’ AVG. 93 14.02 151 14.11 30.3:
WEIGHTED AVG. 12.53 13.04 25.76
MEDIAN 73 £2.26 136 12.06 23.51
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
22 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 98 13.62 159 13.72 30.43
WEIGHTED AVG. 12.25 12.75 25.42
MEDIAN 80 12.26 136 12.06 23.51
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES W/ 95TH ZILES C 30 MG/L
10 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHIED AVG. 76 20.89 141 20.94 55.53
WEIGHTED AVG. 20.75 20.89 47.46
MEDIAN 55 20.05 95 19.75 47.79
F—il

-------
TABLE F- U
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF OXIDATION DITCH FACILITIES
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE or 7—DAY MOVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUENT VALUES
* OF
DAILY DAILY $ OF 7—DAY MEAN OF 99TH ZILE
OBS. MEAN MOVING AVGS 7—DAY AVGS 7-DAY AUGS
TOTAL SAMPLE
31 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG 1 95 13.81 162 13.37 53.OZ
WEIGHTED AVG. 12.27 12 .71 th. 40
MEDIAN 74 11.28 144 11 ,46
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILiTIES UI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
30 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 93 14.02 1Z3 14.09
WEIGHTED AVG. 12.!3 13.03
MEDIAN 73 12.26 142 12.14
SAMPLE EXCLUDING DUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
28 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 98 13.62 165 13.69 57.39
WEIGHTED AVG. 12.25 12.72 48.01
MEDIAN 80 12.26 147 12.14 40.50
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OIJTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES WI 95TH tILES (30—DAY AVG.) <=30 MG/L
10 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 76 20.89 146 20.96 110.59
WEIGHTED AVG. 20.75 20.87 95.53
MEDIAN 55 20.05 101 19.83 105.50
F- 12

-------
TABLE F—13
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF WASTE STASILICATION POUt FACILITIES
BASED ON 95TH PERCENTILE OF 30—DAY MOVING AVES(iGES
BOD5 EFFLUENT VALUES
TOTAL SAMPLE
45 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
M ED LAN
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILITIE! W
45 FACILITIES
UUWEISHTE: A’)G. C
E HTED AVG.
ME:I N
SAMPLE EXCLUDING CURLER
AND FACILITIES Wi
I ? FACILITIES
LJNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN
1’ j

33.1?
I C
— S
t
OF
DAILY
DAILY
S
OF 30—DAY
MEAN
OF
;::LE
039.
MEAN
MOVING AVGS
30—DAY
AVGS
30—DAY
4)6?
47 26.69 72
27.77
3 24.04 52
AE’D1TIOJ4AL PROCESSES
26 ,69
.t l •
.7.
? e_
2 .1
— ‘J . •2 I
29. 10
4.OT
26.39
In q
_cI. a.
24.07
19.19
13.88
19.14
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES WI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
23 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 47 19.10
WEIGHTED AVG. 18.64
MEDIAN 33 19.96
C —
69
56
AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
95TH ZILES ç:3Q MGIL
41
22.01
63
22.33
41.21
21.65
21.96
40.71
43
23.16
67
23 .16
36.00
F— 13

-------
14°LE 1—14
SUMMARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF WASTE STA?ILUATIJN POND F CiL!TIES
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE OF 7—DAY OV:r1G A,ES GES
B at’ S EFFLUENT VALUES
TOTAL SAMPLE
C r*rti ?1•t—n
i.j rnL.LL. IJ.c.
UNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
11£ it I AN
SAMPLE EXCLUDING FACILI TIES W/
45 FACILITiES
uN EiGHiED AVG. 4 :
WEIGHTED A UG.
MEDIAN 35
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES ANtI
FACILITIES WI ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
28 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 47 19.10
WEIGHTED AVG. 13.64
MEDIAN 38 13.96
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER
AND FACILITIES WI
I ? FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
MEDIAN
AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
95TH ZILES (30—DAY AVG.) =30 MG/L
41 22.01 67
21.6$
43 23.16- 78
t
OF
DAILY
DAILY
4
OF
7—DAY
OBS.
MEAN
MOVING
AVGS
47 26.69 75
27.7 7
—r ,i “ 1
_ .J _4 tJ9 0
ADDITC )AL P OOE3SES
MEAN CF
7—DAY AVOS
0
— — 1
_, •1
19.13
13.88
19.31
- 1
:4.04
— —
‘ 1 . :
—DA’( ALE?
• ‘ I L )
— •
J’.
44 .34
53.23
40 O
97 • 70
C . .
•fl , I
45.67
74
00
:2 • 17
21.89
22 ,99
1 - 14

-------
T DL y 15
SUMMARY T BLE
RANK ORDER OF WASTE STABILIATON POND FACILITIES
ON 95TH PESCEHTILE OF 30—DAY MCVING AVERAGES
TSS EFFLUZ T V LUEE
TOTAL SAMPLE
45 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
ME DI A N
SAMPLE EXCLUOIHG FACILITIES WI
45 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHIED AVG. 46
WEIGHTED AVG.
HE.IAN 35
SAMFLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL PROCESSES
23 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 46 33.87
WEIGHTED AVG. 30.21
MEDIAN 38 30.30
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDtTI NAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES WI 95TH ZILES < 30 MG/L
26 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 33 35.50 58
WEIGHTED AVG. 35.66
MEDiAN 38 32.16 56
#
OF
DAILY
DAILY
$
OF 30-DAY
ME4N
OF
75TH
:::L:
0B3.
METh
iO iING AVG3
30—DAY
AVOS
30—DAY
4 33
4’ 44.4ó
.38.18
35 42.32 52
tiEiITIONAL .OCES E
33.13
4.32
45 •
40.09
4 . C’ o
4 i . 09
44 ,00
35.21
31.34
30.52
7T .50
?0,67
63.76
61 • 48
74 ,39
76.23
61.83
69
56
37.00
37.12
33.48
F- 15

-------
TABLE F—16
SUñdARY TABLE
RANK ORDER OF WASTE STABILI:ATICN POND FACILIT:E3
BASED ON 99TH PERCENTILE OF 7—DAY ñOVING ER.GE3
155 EFFLUENT VALUES
$ OF
DAILY
0 83.
DA iLY
MEAN
t OF 7-DAY
MOVING AVGS
hEAr4 OF
7—DAY AVGS
TH
1 trd
46 44 ,46 74
38.13
e in ‘r’
— — ,_ . a —
-0 4’
• s’j
in n
0
a c —
. 1_ i •
39.5?
C 4
• _• -
72 . C ü
On
7 1
0’ fln
ft c•
or e
7 _ I •
102.88
86.50
61
• • •
ADDITIONAL FRCCESSES
44.46 74
TOTAL SAMPLE
45 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG.
WEIGHTED AVG.
ME D I A N
3AIPLE EXCLULt ’G FAC1L1IES Ui
45 FACiLITIES
UNUEIG?iTED AVG. 46
WEIGWTEE 4 c c. 39.5 ’
MEDiAN 35 -2.34
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER FACILITIES AND
FACILITIES W/ ADDITIONAL FROCESSES
22 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 46 33.87 73 34.73
WEIGHTED AVG. 30.21 31.30
MEDIAN 33 30.30 66 31.02
SAMPLE EXCLUDING OUTLIER AND ADDITIONAL PROCESS FACILITIES
AND FACILITIES W/ 95TH ILES (30—DAY AVG.) @30 MG/L
26 FACILITIES
UNWEIGHTED AVG. 33 35.50 62 36.48
WEIGHTED AVG. 35.66 36.25
MEDIAN 38 32.16 66 33.37
F—16

-------
Table F-17
Trickling Filter BOO Log-Transform
Std 0ev
Fac # N Log Mean Exp. Val Log 1ean (30) 95th %ile
655 268 3.355 29.01 0.72 30.20
970 154 3.212 26.23 2.65 30.50
216 104 3.286 27.66 1.83 30.67
603 112 3.011 22.95 4.87 30.96
306 131 3.188 25.89 3.12 31.02
524 519 3.315 28.50 1.95 31.71
255 49 2.795 20.32 7.43 32.59
504 260 3.332 29.10 2.28 32.85
345 326 3.370 30.01 1.99 33.28
956 105 2.998 23.82 7.78 36.51
244 26 3.118 25.79 6.68 36.77
553 110 3.335 30.09 4.49 37.48
952 207 3.486 33.73 2.51 37.87
325 235 3.384 25.92 9.39 40.83
653 282 3.685 40.07 0.57 41.01
222 72 3.276 29.72 7.65 42.33
651 623 3.377 31.91 6.39 42.42
54 499 3.238 29.13 8.67 43.39
51 502 3.397 32.56 5.06 43.51
551 24 3.515 35.64 5.24 44.27
954 293 3.250 29.52 8.97 44.27
953 95 3.585 37.56 4.23 44.53
412 221 3.446 34.10 7.00 45.62
249 114 3.458 34.43 6.95 45.33
307 297 3.505 35.6 6.28 45.99
305 310 3.629 39.47 5.03 47.83
171 57 3.457 35.02 8.94 “p9.72
956 201 3.404 33.75 9.79 49.86
202 204 3.173 29.02 13.02 50.45
254 41 3.308 32.06 12.90 53.23
950 99 3.394 35.56 17.97 55.11
906 315 3.442 36.75 17.27 65.16
418 285 3.829 49.30 11.93 58.93
550 24 2.731 24.15 28.70 71.36
56 724 3.834 50.80 17.71 79.94
656 274 3.922 54.56 16.70 82.03
951 56 3.404 33.33 30.47 88.46
311 262 3.915 58.23 39.38 123.01
Summary: 38 Faci1it es
Average 224 33.33 9.32 48.74
Weighted average 35.33 8.88 50.10
Median 206 31.99 6.98 43.89
Excluding Facility #550: (37 Facilities remaining)
Average 229 33.58 8.80 48.13
Weighted average 35.36 8.84 50.04
Median 207 32.06 6.96 43.51
F- 17

-------
Table F-18
Trickling Filter TSS Log—Transform
Std 0ev
Fac 4 Log tean Exp. VaT Log Uean (30) 95th ile
252 312 3.353 29.15 1.12 30.99
345 326 3.330 28.94 2.04 32.30
553 117 2.804 20.46 7.48 32.77
52 503 3.268 27.92 3.38 33.48
651 635 3.201 27.01 5.15 35.48
220 23 3.227 27.59 5.05 35.89
249 105 3.309 29.36 4.34 .36.49
244 27 2.898 22.60 9.41 38.08
954 13 3.238 28.37 6.44 38.95
465 24 2.730 20.57 11.67 39.87
255 49 2.655 19.91 12.65 40.72
653 431 3.593 40.37 0.321 41.25
551 24 3.135 27.83 8.42 41.68
906 315 3.164 27.53 8.92 42.21
56 727 3.260 29.39 7.37 42.33
412 83 3.229 29.25 9.12 44.06
524 519 3.134 27.29 10.22 4 1.10
650 132 3.032 26.57 11.81 45.09
53 23 3.432 33.93 7.77 46.72
311 262 3.454 34.54 7.70 47.20
656 275 3. 45 30.03 M.14 48.35
171 75 3.345 32.15 9.37 i.3•33
307 297 3.479 35.42 3.08 48.71
222 37 3.504 35.54 9.25 51.76
603 114 2.951 25.48 15.74 53.0
550 23 2.292 17.74 23.27 56.01
202 187 3.333 33.91 14.56 57.86
254 43 3.032 29.34 27.01 73.47
54 105 3.160 31.97 23.53 79.07
950 18 3.413 37.61 25.24 79.13
418 303 3.201 32.94 28.89 80.46
51 52 3.057 32.08 43.71 103.99
963 348 2.605 25.76 69.31 140.77
Summary: 33 Facilities
Average 201 29.10 13.84 51.87
Weighted average 29.90 12.00 49.64
Median 114 29.04 9.41 44.10
Excluding Facility #51, 550, 963: (30 Facilitfes remaining)
Average 207 29.46 10.63 47.03
Weighted average 30.10 8.48 44.05
rIedian 114 29.10 9.19 43.20
F- 18

-------
Table F-19
BOD WSP Log-Transform
Std 0ev
Fac # Log iean Exp. ‘Jal Log Mean (30) 95th i1e
654 46 3.112 24.42 3.60 30.35
133 51 2.959 22.14 5.22 30.73
167 28 2.969 22.75 6.29 33.10
59 23 3.088 24.59 5.17 33.10
106 45 3.056 24.09 5.56 33.25
123 40 2.298 15.39 10.96 33.42
169 81 2.603 18.53 10.08 35.12
168 35 2.896 22.09 7.95 35.17
112 63 3.059 25.28 8.69 39.57
132 43 3.162 27.14 7.84 40.04
124 44 2.952 23.83 10.43 41.00
122 34 3.250 30.00 10.63 47.49
560 44 3.084 27.18 13.48 49.35
402 50 2.597 21.14 22.07 57.45
337 104 3.624 40.98 10.95 53.99
664 37 3.672 43.74 15.09 68.57
558 48 4.043 72.49 108.00 250.09
Summary: 17 facflities
Average 43 23.57 15.41 53.93
Weignted average 29.25 15.68 55.07
Median 44 24.42 10.08 3 .57
Excluding: 658 (16 facilities remaining)
Average 48 25.33 9.62 41.67
Weighted average 25.55 9.91 42.83
Median 44 24.26 9.39 37.37
F- 19

-------
Table F-20
WSP ISS Log-Transform
Std Dev
Fac # N Log Mean Exp. Val Log Mean (30) 95th %ile
111 36 2.362 21.75 8.60 35.89
137 47 2.872 22.26 9.72 38.26
153 27 2.853 23.91 17.15 52.12
134 35 3.337 32.95 13.47 55.11
165 53 3.168 29.51 15.70 55.34
166 20 2.937 25.90 19.85 58.55
176 20 2.618 21.57 22.91 59.26
654 46 3.6 5 42.94 14.29 66.45
156 71 3.231 32.83 24.58 73.27
168 35 2.917 27.28 29.21 75.33
106 45 3.476 39.16 23.88 78.44
122 34 3.092 31.32 33.41 86.27
337 104 4.033 60.31 17.17 38.55
136 31 3.506 41.60 32.27 94.69
131 18 3.540 42.59 31.86 95.00
167 28 4.084 63.87 21.33 93.95
59 18 3.352 40.12 52.14 125.39
112 64 3.553 45.07 51.17 130.24
132 43 3.659 49.70 52.56 136.15
124 44 2.333 30.87 73.03 151.01
123 40 2.754 29.61 74.63 152.38
02 52 2.789 30.62 79.55 161.45
659 40 3.345 52.16 77.57 179.77
169 31 3.276 42.91 99.94 207.31
133 51 3.505 56.46 143.50 292.57
560 44 4.032 84.29 292.70 565.80
664 36 4.400 111.40 359.70 703.00
658 48 3.945 89.71 540.60 978.98
Sunirnary: 28 facilities
Average 43 3.353 43.70 79.23 174.85
Weighted average 3.405 45.21 82.65 181.19
Median 44 3.407 39.64 32.07 94.85
Excluding Facilities #59, 112, 122—124, 132-133, 168—169, 176, 402,
658—660, 664: (13 facilities remaining)
Average 43 3.350 36.89 19.22 68.51
Weighted average 3.419 34.68 18.49 69.42
Median 44 3.337 32.95 17.17 66.45
F -20

-------
Table F-21
SUMMARY TABLE
RELATIONSHIP OF 30-DAY (95TH %ILE) VALUES
TO 7-DAY (99TH %ILE) VALUES
Ratios of 7—day : 30—day based on:
Sample Used Unweighted Average Weighted Average Median
Trickling Filter,
Rock Media, BOD5
1 1.39 1.38 1.43
2 1.40 1.39 1.36
1.42 1.42 1.41
4 1.45 1.43 1.43
Average of (4) for 8OD : 1.44
Trickling Filter,
Rock Media, SS
1 1.58 1.59 1.39
2 1.59 1.53 1.33
3 1.64 1.64 1.33
4 1.68 1.57 1.46
;\verage of (.1) for SS: 1.60
Average of (4) for BODE and SS: 1.52
Trickling Filter,
Plastic Media, 8005
1 1.64 1.43 1.25
2 1.76 1.62 1.33
3 1.53 1.53 1.19
4 1.68 1.58 L 2
Average of (4) for B0D : 1.56
Trickling Filter,
Plastic Media, SS
1 1.46 1.46 1.86
2 1.42 1.41 1.65
3 1.52 1.54 1.55
4 1.43 1.40 1.39
Average of (4) for SS: 1.41
Average of (4) BOD5 and SS: 1.48
1 = Total Sample
2 = Total Sample, excluding facilities using additional processes
3 = Total Sample, excluding outliers and additional processes
4 = Sample of facilities eligible under proposed rule.
F-21

-------
TABLE F-21 (continued)
Ratios of 7—day : 30—day based on:
Sample Used Unweighted Average Weighted Average tiedian
Waste Stabilization
Ponds, BOD5
1 1.20 1.36 1.22
2 1.21 1.36 1.22
3 1.27 1.60 1.29
4 1.21 1.26 1.27
Average of (4) for BOD5: 1.25
Waste Stabilization
Ponds, SS
1 1.35 1.48 1.33
2 1.35 1.43 1.33
3 1.28 1.35 1.39
4 1.23 1.35 1.40
Average of (4) for SS: 1.34
Average of (4) B0D and SS: 1.30
1 = Total Sample
2 = Total Sanple, excluding facilities using additional Droces3 s
3 = Total Sample, excluding outliers and additional processes
4 = Sample of facilities eligible under proposed rule.
F-2 2

-------
Technical Support Document for
Secondary Treatment (CBOD )
Introduction
This report summarizes the statistical analyses used to derive a CBOD5
effluent limitation that would be equivalent to the existing 30 rng/L B0D
requirement for secondary treatment facilities.
The analysis describes the rationale for screening B005 and CBOD5 data
submitted to the Agency and the types of statistical methodologies used to
process the data. The report confirms that measurements of CBOD5 and 8005
effluent values for secondary treatment are not equivalent. The report
suggests that a 30—day average CBOD5 value of 25 mg/L is comparable to a
30—day average BOD 5 value of 30 ng/L.
Background
In 1973, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required all secondary
treatment facilities to achieve 30 mg/L BUD 5 on a 30-day average basis.
There are two primary sources of oxygen demanding materials in municipal
wastewaters: carbonaceous and nitrogenous. The BUD 5 test is expected to
measure primarily the oxygen demand that may be exerted from carbonaceous
(organic) materials in the wastewater and is not expected to measure the
nitrogenous demand which usually is exerted after 5 days incubation. However,
when substantial nitrifying bacteria are present in the BOD5 test,
significant nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD) may be exerted and the 8005
parameter may not provide a good measure of plant efficiency and effluent
quality.
Significant nitrifying bacteria are more likely to be present in
underloaded or overdesigned secondary facilities that are providing for better
than secondary treatment. The additional oxygen demand exerted by the
nitrifying bacteria can erroneously lead one to believe that effluent quality
and plant performance have decreased, when in actuality plant effluent quality
and treatment efficiency have remained constant or improved. To correct this
problem, EPA has proposed an alternative oxygen demand test procedure, the
carbonaceous 8005 (CBOD5) test.
The CBOD5 test prevents the oxidation of nitrogenous material through
use of an ‘9nhibitor” that blocks the conversion of ammonia to nitrite by
Nitrosomonas bacteria. Thus, the inhibited test insures that only the organic
( carbonaceous ) material will exert an oxygen demand. For this reason, CBOD 5
is a more reliable parameter to determine treatment efficiency and effluent
quality. Where NOD is important to preserve water quality, measurement of
ammonia is the most appropriate test procedure.
Although the BOD5 test is intended to measure primarily the carbonaceous
oxygen demand of the effluent, a small population of nitrifying bacteria are
typically present in wastewater effluents even under cold weather conditions
in properly designed secondary facilities. These populations may exert a
small NOD in the test; thus, CBOD 5 and BOD5 results are not necessarily

-------
2
equivalent, and the secondary standard 30 mg/L BOD5 may require adjustment
when the oxygen demand parameter CBOD5 is used. Since it is not the
intention of the Agency to relax current secondary treatment requirements with
the introduction of the CBOD 5 parameter in lieu of BOD 5 , an evaluation of
the magnitude of difference between the two test results has been conducted.
Methodology/Screening Criteria
To ensure that a comparable level of effluent quality is required for
secondary treatment facilities under either BOD5 or CBOD 5 pollutant
parameters, the Agency has analyzed parallel BOD5 and CBOD5 data from
secondary treatment facilities achieving the existing 30 mgIL requirement for
BOD5 to determine the corresponding CBOD 5 effluent concentrations.
Screening criteria were developed based on the 1973 methodology used to
establish the existing 30 mg/L BOD5 standard. The criteria also reflect
design practice concerning the critical design period for a secondary facility.
The original study of secondary treatment plants conducted by EPA in 1973
included only facilities that were “well operated” and “operated at or near
design flow.” These criteria eliminated facilities that were significantly
underloaded or overdesigned. Our study similarly eliminates these facilities
since data from underloaded/overdesigned facilities would exhibit greater
differences between BOO 5 and CBOD5 than would be exhibited at design
conditions. The reasons for these differences are given later.
To insure that the BOD5 limitation does not result in more or less
stringent requirements than the current 30 mg/L B0D limitation, it is
necessary to evaluate the effluent data from the critical time period that
controls plant design. Since the 30 raglL BOD5 requirement is a year round
requirement, a facility must be designed to achieve 30 mg/L BOD5 under the
most critical annual condition. The critical design period for most secondary
facilities is the winter when biological activity is lowest. Thus, the data
set should include only winter operating effluent quality.
This requirement eliminates most summer operations data which tend to
exhibit a greater difference between CBOD5 and BOD5 due to increased
nitrifier growth rates in warmer temperatures. If this data were not
eliminated, the degree of NOD exerted under design conditions (winter) would
be overstated and CBOD 5 limits would be more restrictive than the 30 mgIL
BOD5 limits, (i.e., treatment more stringent than secondary would be
required).
Nitrifying bacteria populations are significantly influenced by the mean
cell residence time (MCRT) of the facility which is a function of detention
time and loading. Since hydraulically or organically underloaded facilities,
as well as overdesigned plants, have longer detention times than fully loaded
facilities, they will tend to have a longer 4CRT and thus increase a potential
for supporting significant nitrifying populations. Hydraulically underloaded
facilities were detected by comparing design flow with actual flow. Data from
those facilities operating at less than about 75% design flow were discarded.

-------
3
Overdesigned and organically underloaded plants are detected by
significant NOD in the BODE test. During cold weather periods, nitrifying
bacteria growth rates are drastically reduced and only small amounts of such
bacteria should be present in a typically designed secondary facility (MCRT
ranging 4-7 days). Since only small quantities of nitrifiers should be
present in the winter if the plant is properly designed, substantial NOD
exertion (over 10—15 mg/L) in the BOD5 test would be evidence of overdesign
or significant organic underloading. These facilities should not be included
since they are not Nat or near design conditions” or not properly designed.
For the reasons given above, the sampled facilities and data points were
selected according to the following criteria:
o facility is classified as secondary treatment facility
o facility discharge approximates design flow
o facility provides parallel BOD5/CBOD5 cold weather month
performance data.
Analyses of Effluent Data
The objective of the analyses was to identify an average amount of the
nitrogenous demand exerted in the BOD5 test under design conditions, which
could then be used to adjust effluent limitations for secondary treatment
facilities based on BOD5.
Table 1 contains the screened data used in the statistical analysis.
Twenty-six facilities are included in the sample with 82 months of parallel
CB0D and BOD 5 test samples. The data are primarily winter effluent data
( i.e. , sampled December through March) except for data from 7 facilities in
EPA Region IV (deep South) which were sampled in August. The Region IV data
were included in the analyses since little nitrification was occurring in the
test sample.
The majority of the data present were 30-day average values. The data
sho # that the difference between monthly BOD5 and CBOD5 ranged from —4
(Medina, MN - March) to 25 mg/ I. (Hastings, MN - February) with an average of
about 4 mg/I.. It should be noted that the facilities with several high NOD
measurements up to 25 mg/L such as Hastings, MN also had several months with a
more typical NOD ranging I to 2 mg/L. CBOD remained fairly constant
although BOD 5 fluctuated widely.
Analytical Procedures
Two types of statistical analyses were performed with the data. In the
first analysis, average effluent data from each facility were lumped and fit
with a log normal probability distribution.
These analyses are presented for BOD5, CBOD5 and NOD in Figures 1, 2
and 3, respectively.

-------
6
Figure 3 indicates that the median NOD exerted in wintertime BOD5 tests
is about 4 rng/L; approximately 30% of all facilities exhibited 1 niglL NOD or
less. Although the analyses indicate that the median NOD is about 4 mg/L, the
analyses cannot predict the likely NOD when BOD5 is 30 mg/L. To determine
this, linear reqressions were used.
For the linear regression analyses performed on the data, the best fit of
the data was expressed in terms of a linear equation in the form of Y A+bX,
where (A) accounts for a constant residual shift of the line upward or
downward. An index of a determination (R 2 for the regression provided a
measure of closeness of fit. A value of R = 1.0 is interpreted as a
perfect fit, whereas a value of R 2 = 0 shows that there is no fit.
Several ifferent re ression analyses (Figures 4, 5 and 6) of the data set
yielded an R’ value ranging from .89 to .93 for a linear function fit with
82 monthly average data points. The excellent fit was expected since BOD5
is primarily measuring CBOD 5 during the design condition.
The different regressions test the sensitivity of the regression to the
deletion of several data points. Both the Hastings and Metro data exhibited
unusually high NOD (Hastings up to 25 mg/L and Metro up to 21 mg/L). The
regressions were run with all Hastings and Metro data excluded (Figure 4),
only Hastings excluded (Figure 5), and only the NOD values above 15 mg/L
excluded (Figure 6).
The regressions show that exclusion of the data has little impact on
results with all regressions indicating about a 26 mg/L CBOD5 when 3005 is
30 mg/L. The 95% confidence interval for CBOD 5 at BOD5 = 30 mg/I, ranges
about 24 to 27 mg/L.
Conclusions
Based on the above, CBOD5 test results are not equivalent to BOO 5 test
results for most plants at design conditions. Based on the statistical
analyses, the average amount 0 f NOD exerted during winter months for properly
designed facilities near design flow is about 4 mg/I. Regression analyses
indicate that when BOO 5 is 30 mg/L , CBOD ranges 24 to 27 mg/I. It
appears that an effluent requirement of 25 mg/L CBOD5 is approximately equal
to the present 30 mg/L BOD5 requirement. For approximately 30 percent of
all facilities this will represent a slightly more stringent requirement than
the present 30 ing/L BOO 5 ; however, the difference is insignificant and
within the variation of the test procedure itself.

-------
S
T b1e 1
Winter Comparison of CBOD 5
and TBOD 5 for Secondary
Treatment Facilities
Plant
Year
nth lnf. Te ip.
TBOD
CBOD
NOD
ISS
GC
mg/i
(mg/i
)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
Minn.
Anoka
Bayport
81
82
82
AVG
81
81
82
82
82
82
AVG
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
April
16
14
14
15
19
17
18
18
17
17
18
20
18
14
17
12
13
17
14
9
10
13
17
13
12
14
8
8
12
11
g
9
10
3
5
2
3
4
5
5
3
0
1
3
12
8
6
9
8
8
8
13
9
10
9
*Chaska 81
Nov.
15
18
15
3
11
81
Dec
13
20
17
3
13
82
Jan.
11
21
15
6
13
82
Feb.
10
25
19
6
16
82
Mar.
9
18
14
4
11
82
April
10
14
14
0
7
AVG
11
19
16
4
12
*Cottage Grove 81
Nov.
17
12
9
3
5
81
Dec.
14
20
12
8
7
82
Jan.
11
22
18
4
9
82
Feb.
11
17
13
4
10
82
Mar.
11
11
11
0
9
82
April
11
13
12
1
10
AVG
13
16
13
3
9
*Hastjngs 81
Nov.
17
30
20
10
22
81
Dec
16
47
30
17
28
82
Jan.
13
42
31
11
36
82
Feb.
12
56
31
25
39
82
Mar.
12
36
34
2
50
82
April
12
25
24
1
36
AVG
14
39
28
11
35
*Maple Plain 81
Nov.
15
10
9
1
19
81
Dec
13
26
27
—1
11
82
Jan.
12
29
28
1
8
82
Feb.
11
9
9
0
2
82
Mar.
11
18
18
0
10
82
AVG
April
12
12
28
20
27
20
1
.3
8
10

-------
Table 1 (cort.)
Rockford
Iii. 80
Jan.
80
Plant Year Month Inf. Temp.
TBOD 5
CBODç
NOD S 1P TSS
c
mg/i
(mg/i)
(mg/fl
(mg/i
Feb.
30
30
30
24
29
27
6
1
4
11
8
8
AVG
Murrysville,
Franklin
PA
82
June
17
38
34
4
14
26
Twsp’wwTp
egion IV
81
Aug.
TFB
23
19
4
8
TFC
.
27
24
3
9
O.D.AS. 0
5
4
1
11
Lagoon E
31
27
4
33
Lagoc. F
39
41
—2
170
AS H
14
14
0
28
Delaware
80
Nov.
25
20
5
13
River Basin
80
81
81
AVG
Dec
Jan.
Mar.
57
43
27
38
45
38
23
32
12
5
4
7
31
30
17
Kearney, WEB
82
Mar.
28
24
4
22
21
Seward, WEB
82
Feb.
10
5
5
41
Grants Pass
80
Nov.
7
6
1
9
9
Oregon
80
81
81
81
AVG
Dec
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
8
8
19
11
11
7
8
18
9
10
1
0
1
2
1
9
10
10
7
17
9
10
45
11
80
80
Jan.
Feb.
9
7
8
8
7
8
1
0
1
10
8
9
8

Cold Springs
79
Dec.
10
10
0
(TF)
79
79
79
AVG
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
36
11
15
18
29
7
9
14
7
4
6
4
Kalamazoo,
82
Feb.
33
30
3
MI
82
AVG
Mar.
53
43
44
37
9
6

-------
7
T 1e 1 (cc nt.)
Plant
* dj na
Year
Month Inf. Temp.
TB0
CB
NOD AflP 1SS
-
C
mg/i
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
g/1
81
Dec
13
16
14
2
10
82
Jan.
12
19
16
3
19
82
Mar.
12
12
16
—4
11
82
April
12
20
19
1
19
AVG
12
17
16
1
15
*Rosemont
82
Jan.
12
18
18
0
3
* 5 neca
81
8)
82
82
82
82
AVG
Nov.
Dec
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
April
18
16
14
13
13
13
15
23
30
19
16
22
25
23
23
26
18
1-
21
25
22
0
4
1
0
1
0
1
18
23
19
17
18
21
19
Milwaukee, WI
79
Jan.
14
9
5
9
Jones Island
79
Feb.
16
12
4
9
Westside
79
AVC,
Mar.
20
17
18
13
2
4
9
Metro W TP 79
Dec
18
13
5
4
80
Jan.
42
21
21
4
80
Feb.
36
19
17
9
82
Mar.
41
36
5
5
AVG
34
22
12
Pittsfield
MA
81
81
AVG
Jan.
Mar.
16.2
7.4
11.8
7.4
5.0
6.2
8.8
2.4
5.6
* 30 samples/month

-------
riJUre . .
Analysis of BOD 5 Data by Plant
Log Horf3al
P’ot
TOTAL 5 AY BOD
x
too
tn
0
1
x
x
x
x
20 40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES LESS ThAN
0 Rt’ 0 Tririri c1: Lt= 0
9 3
C n ored; Lt=
Rt= 0

-------
F I §Ui c I .uuit /
Sirnp1 Statistics
H
Total
r•i a
I•i e ci i i. ii
LJcir i anc e
Stcl C v
1 1 i i s
r•i
R ar
Skewness
Kurtusi
3rd Mo s r t
4th Mori r t
Coeff of Uar
— .
—
— ‘b.
=22. 9538461533
C
—17. ,J
= 115. ?35 84615
=10. 758038139?
-
—U.
=43.
— lCD
— _.) ., a
=0.322635462679
=1.9890718897
—•7_ —
r ‘ . r Jr ..j r ..j ib
=24632. 9326662
=0. 46868128624?
C er ore ci:
L t=
0 Rt= U
T r i r•i i cci:
Lt=
0 Rt= 0
•0
TOTAL 5 DAY BUD

-------
Figure 2
Analysis of CBOD 5 Data by Plant
Log Hrsrnal Plot
20 40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITiES LESS THAN
0 Rt U TriliMed: Lt= 0
CARBONACEOUS 5 DAY BUD
0
U,
0
0
C)
100
ii)
1
x
x
XX
x
p .
S.
p.
I - ,
0
2
98
Cei sored Lt=
Rt C

-------
gu - I, -
Sif ple Stiitistic
N
Total
a T
Med i an
LJar i ar,c e
Std Dev
Mi n
1•1 a x
Rar e
Skew r e
)c. u r to 1
3rd Mor•ierit
4th MOi•i tit
Coeff of 1 Jar-
=26
=508.2
C. — ——
—19. .J 4 b1S384b.
—1C •
— A l •
=97. 0033846154
=9. 84902962811
=4.
=41.
—.Jf.
=0.384024636683
=2. 44175344715
=34 930942194
=21242.6604152
=0. 503885813323
C.! Ti or e c1
Lt=
0 Rf= 0
Trir• ied: Lt=
0 Rt=
U
CARBONACEOUS 5 DA’ ’ BUD

-------
Analysis of NOD Data
by Plant
Lo Norria1
10
I
(7 L1
0
0 01
I Ci ’...7
. II_ —
20 40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES LESS ThAN
0 Rt= 0 Tri u i d: Ltz
PI’i)t
NITROGENOUS 5 ()A? bUD
x x xx
x
) xxx
S.
4- ,
98
C risored Lt=
0 Rt 0

-------
ly—.-. 3
H
Total
H an
F1 dian
V a r i a n ce
Std De’,
ri i
ri
Par, j
Skew n £
Kur tos is
3rd PIor•ienk
4th Morient
Coeff of Liar
S i ri r e
Stat is tics
=26.
=94. 925
=3. 65096153846
=4.
=9. 11530803846
=3.01915684231
0. 005
1 1 .995
=1. 15817396249
=4. 40715662622
=30. 0525143041
—- - o ccqllllcio
— .J ‘ ¼ ) . ) sJ — A A A £ cj ¼ ?
=0. 8269484 1u851
Cer sored: Lt=
0 Rt= U
T r in ned:
Lt=
0 Rt= B
I .
4- . )
NITROGENOUS 5 DAY BUD

-------
A + B*X
0.552940905042
B
i1 01 O Q’ I • CiC q
..? 1 # .J J I —
R— .QUARE =
0.900072:314604
RE ; ERROR
9. 414 2276696
MAX(ABS RESIDUAL))
11 . E)2208053?4
Analysis of t onthly Data tIithout
Hastings and Hetro
E +1
+4.00
1-
0
‘N
0
N
+1.00
• 0.00
A
‘I
A
I
I I
10
ZO 30
B aD 5
x
x
‘1
xx
V
I,.
A
x
V
II
x
x
V
.1
I . ’
x
50
(MG/L)
E- +1
0.00 +1.00 +2.00 +3.00 +4.00

-------
e
Analysis of Monthly Data Near or
Below 30 mg/i (Hastings Omitted)
Y=A+ tX
+1
0 3.
—1.0569 964639
B=
0. 920754572098
R-SQL’ARE =
8. 89543 I 10632
RES ERRO
5. 17110g94191
MAX(ABS( kESIDUAL))
6. 67508 350?1?
00
0
If ,
‘ 1
(1
0
0.50 1.00 1.50 ‘2.00 2.50
0 5 JO 13 25
2.0U
c J
‘p
A
x
V
(-I
) I.,
A A
V
I,
x
V
.1
t, .)
A A
x
x
V
V
I,
V
r.
x
:1.00
x
x
x
x
isA
x
x
x
V
5 ’
V
. 1
x
x
xx
, E -‘
30
UOD 5 (MG/L)

-------
Figure 3
Y=A+ B*X
E+1
0. 092289 I87773 +4.00
8=
0.848030446351
R- SOIJA RE
0.919701220983
RES ERROR
7.60825522318
MAX(Aa;(R SrOIJALn +2.00
8.31 7445 8012
0
2.
Lfl
a
0
U
+1.00
0.00
‘+3.00
Analysis of Monthly Data With
NOD Be’ow I5 mg/i
x
I I I I I
!0
BOD 5 (MG/L)
/
/
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
0 ’
x
x
I r
30
0.00 i-1.00 ÷2,00 +3.00 +4.00
E+1

-------