ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR PILOT STUDY: FORT KAMEHAMEHA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,

PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII

Gordon L. Dugan

Dean K. Takiguchi

Special Report 9:19:86

September 1986

PREPARED FOR

Rotating Biological Contactor Pilot Study, Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant

Contract N62742-84-C-0152

Navy Public Works Center, U.S. Department of the Navy Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860

Project Period: 31 January 1985-26 August 1986

Principll Investigator: Gordon L. Dugan

WATER RESClJRCES ~EARCB CEN'IER University of Hawaii at Manoa

2540 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

iii

A self-contained pilot unit (including primary and secondary sedi­

mentation) complete with electric motor driven plastic discs (surface area

awroximately 500 ft Z), located at the u.s. Navy's 7.5 ngd Fort Kamehameha

Wastewater Treatment Plant (VMl'P) at Pearl Harbor, oahu, Hawaii, was operated fran July 1985 to July 1986 at four different op:rating mcx:1es:

hydraulic loadings of 1.5, 3.0, and 5.0 gpd/ftZ (flat disc area) with discs

exposed; and 5.0 gpd/ft Z with discs COV'ered. '!he influent for the RBC unit

was primary clarifier effluent, which was very brackish for wastewater

(4000-5000 rrg/l chloride). In addition, wastewater fran industrial-type

op:rations that use and disdlarge controlled/treated concentrations of

heavy netals were received at the~. '!he median effluent BCDs concerr­

trations for the first two hydraulic loading rates <1.5 and 3.0 gpd/ftZ)

were respectively 2.0 and 8.0 rrg/l, with corresponding respective median

suspended solids values of 8.0 and 7.5 ngil. 'lnese values were CXJIlparable

with the present ~ operation utilizing the activated sludge process.

Hydraulic loadings at 5.0 gpd/ft Z prCNided median effluent BCD5 concentra­

tions in the 30 to 35 ng/l range. Heavy metal concentrations in the waste­

water flows of the ~ and RBC unit were considerably belav the level of

concern, while sane accumulation of heavy metals was noted for the higher

concentrations of suspended am settled solids-the mixed liquor suspended

solids and the rCM and digested sludge. Replacing the existing activated

sludge canponent with an RBC canponent being hydraulically loaded at

3.0 gpd/ft2 would require an estimated capital cost of approximately

$2,500,000, which would require nearly 20 years to repay in electrical cost

savings, based on a 10¢/kWh electrical cost, that increases in cost at an

annual rate of 5%, and an interest rate of 8% compounded annually.

Kgywords: rCM wastewater, biochanical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, wastewater treatment, secondary wastewater, primary wastewater treatment, suspended solids; rotating biological contactor, wastewater treatment efficiency, Fort Kamehameha ~, oahu

ABSIRACT • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !N'IRaXJCFION • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~IVES AND SCDPE • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FORT KAMEHAMEHA ww.rP • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ME'lHcror..a;y • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DISQJSSION • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heavy Metal Determinations. . . . . . . . . . . • • · . · . . . . me CDSTS: CAPITAL,

capi tal Costs •

OPERATION AND MAIN'IENANCE • . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . .

~ration and Maintenance Costs • • . . . . . . . OONCLUSIONSe e e e ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AO<NClVLE:[X;MENTS • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . APPENDICES • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .

Figures

1. Location Map of Fort Kameharneha Wastewater Treatment Plant, Pearl Harbor, Oahu • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . .

2. Fort Kameharneha Wastewater Treatment Plant Process FlCM Schematic • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Fort Kameharneha Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan • . . . .

Tables

v

iii

1

3

4

7

11

20

23

24

26

29

31

31

35

5

6

8

1. Wavelengths and Slit Widths for Heavy Metal Analysis. 11

2. Operation Schedule for Pilot RBC Unit for Fort Karneharneha WWTP. 11

3. Median Constituent Concentrations of WWTP and Pilot RBC Unit, Fort Kamehameha WWl'P. . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Comparison of RBC Operation in Northwest United States. 18

vi

5. Median Heavy Metal Concentratioo Samples fran Fort KaInehaIIleha mrP. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 21

6. Capital Cost Canparisons for Proposed 7.5 ngd RBC Canponent for Fort KamehaIneha WWI'P. • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 25

7. Present Worth of Electrical Cost savings, mc vs. Activated Sludge, Fort KamehaIneha WWI'P. • • • • • • • • • • • • 28

The rotating biological contact or (RBC) has had several names asso­

ciated with the process, such as bio-disc, rotating biological surface, and

biological fixed-film rotating diSCI however, the presently roost po};W.ar

name is RBC. The RaC treatment process consists of an attached (fixed)

gr<Mth biological treatment unit followed ~ a clarifier, which is similar

to the trickling filter process. As such the RBC treatment process has a

much greater capacity to withstand shock loads in can};arison to the acti­

vated sludge process, a suspended gr<Mth process, which itself has ntmlerous

processes and mode of operation variations. '!be RBC unit can be installed

in series or };arallel, in sizes that range in suitability for single-family

residential use to capacities up to several million gallons per day.

The mc basic treatJnent uni t consists of closely sp:1ced, shaft­

mounted, rotating discs that generally have awroximately 40% of their sur­

faces subnerged in wastewater. Numerous surface configurations for the

discs have been developed ~ various manufacturers. '!be discs are usually

exclusively constructed of sane type of plastic with a generally irregular

surface that increases the surface area. '!he shaft-IOOllIlted, closely sp:1ced

discs revolve at a slow speed ~ a low-energy consuming electric motor

equiH;led with a gear reducer and a chain-and-spocket assembly or by an air

drive unit. The air-driven units introduce canpressed air to the bottan of

the discs which have inverted vanes. This variation with disc motion in­

duced ~ canpressed air is more energy intensive than the low energy re­

quired for the electric motors used to rotate the shafts. However,

air-driven units have resulted in less shaft maintenance and repairs.

Bianass (biological slime) grows on the surface of the discs which

are slowly rotated in the wastewater and then exposed to the air where

oxygen that is areorbed pranotes the metabolism of the attached micro­

organisms. In addition, the shearing force exerted on the biomass sloughs

off excess gr<Mth in the clarifier/sedimentation basin where it is gener­

ally rEmOlJed mechanically and recirculated to the primary clarifier c:aIr

ponent for further treatment, or transferred to the solids handling section of the treatment plant.

The concept of treating wastewater ~ the RBC principle was first con­

ceived in Germany in 1900 by Weigland and was described in his patent as

2

consisting of a cylinder constructed of wooden slats. But it was not until

the 1930s that this particular design was built am tested, and eventually

prCNed unsuccessful because of severe clogging problems. Further investi­

gation of the RBe concept did not take place in Europe until the mid-1950s

(Tsuji 1982) •

Research re-canmenced on the RBe process in 1955 by Hans Hartman am Franz Popel at the Technical University of Stuttgart, West Germany am by

1960 the first commercial facility, using the RBe process was placed on

line in Europe (Autotrol Corp. 1983; Tsuji 1982). In 1965 independent

developnent of the RBe system was begun in the United States by Allis­

Chalmers, who were testing rotating discs for chemical proceSSing a~ica­

tions. After learning of the European develcpnents of the RBe process

Allis-Chalmers arranged a licensing agreement with the German manufacturer

for manufacture and sale of the system, which was marketed in the United

States and in Europe under the trade name, Bio-Disc (Autotrol Corp. 1983).

'!he first cxmnercial installation in the United States was put in

operation in 1969 at the Eiler Cheese canpany in DePere, Wisconsin (Birks

and Hynek 1971). By the latter part of the 1970s over 3000 RBe systems

were installed worldwide (Bio-Shafts, Inc. 1977).

Studies involving Rae units in Hawaii were initiated at the laboratory

bench-scale level in a Master of Science thesis project in 1974 (Victor

197 4) • 'Ibis was followed in 1977 by a Water Resources Research Center

(WRRC) project (Griffith, Young, and Chun 1978) in which a pilot plant

size, first generation Rae unit was tested at a local wastewater treatment

plant CNer a 5-mo period. A Master of Science thesis (Griffith 1977) was

produced fran this project. Because the major portion of oahu's treated

municipal wastewater effluent total flow bas a high salinity () 1000 ngll

chloride) concentration, the WRRC sponsored a project (Dugan 1984) involv­

ing the treatment of primary effluent fran the Sand Island Wastewater

Treatment Plant (l\W.rP) at ~e laboratory bench-scale level. The chloride

content of the Sand Island WWTP effluent ranged from approximately 1200 to

2000 ngll (Dugan 1983). '!he RBC treatment of the higher salinity Sand

Island WWTP primary effluent proved to meet secondary treatment in terms of

carbonaceous 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BCDs ) am suspended solids

(SS), based on the WI'P's average raw and primary wastewater concentra­

tions. Prior to this time only Pescod and Nair (1972) aIParently had

3

reported RBe treatment of wastewater in tropical and subtropical climates,

and none of the RBe studies in the tropical type climates awarently dealt

with high saline (> 1000 mg/l chloride) municipal wastewater.

'!he u.s. Navy's 7.5 IIgd deSign flow capacity Fort Kamehameha rMIP,

which will be described in a subsequent section, receives a very high

salinity wastewater that includes inputs fran heavy retals process opera­

tions. The wastewater presently receives secondary treatment I:¥ the acti­

vated sludge process; however, because of the increased cost of electrical

power Q1. Oahu and the RBC's reIXltation to withstand shock loading, the u.s. Navy sponsored this pilot research project through funding to the water

Resources Research Genter.

'!he success of the laboratory bP.Jlch-sc.ale RBe treatment of t.he high

salinity (1200-2000 mg/l chloride) Sand Island WWTP primary effluent

pranpted the u.s. Navy to sponsor further study at the pilot-scale level

(-1000 gpd) by using the high saline (-4000-5000 mg/l chloride) Fort

Kamehameha WWTP effluent which also receives wastewater fran heavy netal

process operations. Thus, the general cbjective was to determine the per­

formance of a pilot RBC unit at the u.s. Navy's Fort Kamehameha ~ at the

south inlet of Pearl Harbor, oahu. QUy the efficiency of the RBC opera­

tion lIlder various conditions was studied.

Specific research cbjectives included the following:

1. To operate, maintain, and monitor the RBC unit for a 12-mo perioo

at the Fort Kamehameha WWTP at loading parameters specific to the

influent wastewater characteristics

2. To obtain sufficient data to Ck>cument the ability of the RBC unit

to consistently achieve 85% BOOs and total suspended solids re­

lIlO\Tal and to produce a nitrified effluent

3. To identify limitations of the RBe process to handle shock load­

ings of organics and inorganics.

The monitoring parameters for the RBe's influent and effluent included

BOOs, suspended solids (SS), heavy netals, chemical oxygen demand (CCD),

nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, grease and oil, temperature, and pH.

4

krJ other analysis CNer and above the routine sanitary analysis was also

conducted, as deemed necessary, for the evaluation of the RBC unit.

Aesthetic aspects, such as odors and fly breeding, were documented in

records of naintenance performed during the course of the study period.

The performance of the pilot RBC was canpared with the ~'s operat­

ing activated sludge unit, based on records prCNided to WRRC. Monthly

status refX)rts were prepared and sul::mitted to the U. S. Navy by WRRC. A

cost estimate is included for converting the Fort Kamehameha v.wIP to RBC

treatment, as well as an operation and maintenance comparison between RBC

treatment and the present activated sludge process.

The gCNernment was resfX)nsible for the following sUR?Ort for the

project:

1. PrCNide the site and utilities for the rxototype (pilot) RBC unit

and assist in the initial setup and any relocation to other areas

of the plant as required for e\7aluatioo J;X.IrPOses

2. PrCNide autanatic wastewater collection samplers and wastewater to

the RBC uni t ~ neans of a plIIlp

3. Collect and temporarily store the wastewater samples that are

collected ~ the automatic wastewater samplers for pickup ~ proj­ect (WRRC) personnel

4. Conduct the routine (same as normally conducted at the ~)

laboratory analysis on the influent and effluent of the RBC unit

and prCNide the results to WRRC.

The Fort Karneharneha \ttWl'P, a secondary wastewater treatment plant that

has a design flow of 7.5 mgd and presently treats approximately 5 to 6 rngd,

is located adjacent to the entrance to Pearl Harbor, southern oahu, as

sham in Figure 1. '!he general area around the Fort Kameharneha wrrI'P,

which is considered fairly dry by Oahu standards, receives a median annual

rainfall of awroximately 21 in. (525-530 mn) (Giambelluca, Nullet, and

Schroeder 1986).

A schematic flow diagram for the v.wIP is presented in Figure 2

while the general site layout of the treatment COfI\IX>nents is outlined in

Moonoluo Hwy.

SClJRCE: Engineering Science Inc. (lfJ77, Fig. 1-1>.

J,;3 V

Figure 1. Location map of Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant, Pearl Harbor, oahu

5

Pr imary Clarifier Effluent Sample pt.

---Plant Influent

Grit Disposal

Digester Sludge Sample

pt.

Supernatant

Centr ifuge Stmp

Effluent Recirculation

foLSS Sample

pt.

AERATIOO TANKS

Centrate

Polymer

P

CEN'lRIFOOES

SOORCE: Engineering Science Inc. (En7, Fig. I-3 IOOdified).

Dewatered Sludge to Disposal

Effluent

Purrp3 ~'-'l ~r-'~ !

r---------~~',t !

<m.auNE CDNT1C1'

TANK

! --...1-

Ocean ~fall

Plant Effluent Simple pt.

Primary flCM

_._.- Alternative flCM

0Punp

Figure 2. Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant process flow schanatic

0\

7

Figure 3. The design treatment criteria for the various treatment canpo­

nents are listed in Appendix Table A.I.

'Ibe secondary treabnent at the Fort Kamehameha WWI'P is achieved ~ a

conventional activated sludge process that also includes shredding, grit

remOl7al, primary sedimentation, aeration, secondary clarification, dis­

infection of effluent, and solids handling by anaerobic digestioo and

centrifuge dewatering. 'Ibe WWI'P receives wastewater from the Pearl Harbor

Naval Facilities and Hickam Air Force Base as well as wastewater fran an

Arn\Y source which enters the wastewater flow fran Hickam Air Force Base.

Incoming wastewater is primarily danestic with snall anounts of industrial

wastewater, and ship wastewater that is pumped fran the unloading dock to

the WWTP (Engineering Science Inc. lm7). 'Ibere is concern Oller ~tential

heavy netals input to the wastewater stream fran the industrial sources and

its ~ssible effect 00 the biological treatment process, particularly since

the Fort Kamehameha WWI'P is well known for its high salinity, typically

4000 to 5000 mg/l chloride.

The pilot RBC unit utilized for the project was obtained through the

cooperation of Michael Croston, a representative for QlS Rotordisk Inc.,

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, on a oo-cost basis. 'Ibe RBC unit, designed

for a canplete household or relatively small volume wastewater flCM, is

rated ~ the manufacturer to have a treatment capacity of 750 gpd. 'Ibe RBC

unit has sludge storage capacity on the influent and effluent sides so as

to simulate primary clarification (if oot already prCNided) and also pro­

vide secondary (or final) clarification to collect the sloughed-off bianass

fran the discs; thus a separate sedimentation unit following the pilot RBC

unit was not necessary. A manufacturer's brochure, describing the features

of the pilot RBC unit (the Rotorobic System) is presented in Appendix B.

The pilot RBC unit consists of 42 separate 34 in. diam discs rotated

on a shaft that is chain driven ~ a 1/4 hp single Fhase electric motor.

The resulting flat effective surface area of the discs is slightly roore

than 500 ft2. The mit's shell is constructed of fiberglass and the discs

are a piastic mesh, which prCNides a higher actual disc surface area. How-

~

I ~ ~

l_----, PAvm~

1,l:}

CEN'IRIFUiE BUILDIH:;

AERATIOO TANKS

SClJRCE: Engineering Science Inc. (lf517, Fig. 1-2 IOOdif.ied).

SLtI:GE mY.[H:;

BED)

CI~ION I PUMP

I EFFLUENT L_

== 00N'l'1ICI' TMI<

<lfLCIUNA'roR BUILDIH:;

Figure 3. Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treabnent Plant site plan

co

9

ever, this could be a moot p>int as the bianass tends to cover the mesh

openings, thus, for this study the 500- ft l (46 .45 ml) flat surface area

value was used for calculation plrp>ses. A fiberglass cover for the discs

was also prOlJided for optional use.

The pilot RBC unit was delivered to the Fort Kamehameha WWTP l¥ WRRC

project members. The personnel at the WWTP, under the direction of SUper­

intendent Joe Hanna, set up the unit, and prOlJided am installed an influ­

ent plIIlp, plumbing, and the electrical facilities and {XMer necessary to

operate the RBC unit under the scheduled designed loading conditions. For

convenience the RBC unit was set up adjacent to the primary clarifier Tank

No. I near the iWll'P1 s Mninistration Building (Fig. 3).

The personnel at Fort Kamehameha WWl'P were scheduled to install the

~site sang;>lers for the RBC unit, to collect and teJrlX>rarily store an

aliquot of the wastewater samples collected l¥ the autanatic sang;>ler for

biweekly pickup l¥ WRRC personnel, and to analyze the collected canposite

RBe influent and effluent sang;>les for the routine constituents parameters,

which are presently being used to monitor the operating efficiency of the

WWl'P. The projected monitoring parameters which the WWl'P personnel were

scheduled to perform, if they were also being conducted for their normal

treabnent efficiency roonitoring schedule, included: BCD. (total and

soluble), SS, 000, nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, terrq:lerature, and

pH. Analysis for grease and oil would also be coOOucted if the analysis

was also being performed for other locations of the wastewater stream. But

because grease and oil samples have a well-knCMIl reputation for being

difficult to conduct on a reliable and consistant basis, analysis for this

test is not usually considered routine. It was mutually agreed that if

grease and oil analyses were being conducted l¥ WRRC in a related project,

the Fort Kamehameha samples would also be tested.

The constituent analysis results for the influent and effluent RBC

sarrples as well as the other related routine laboratory analysis performed

l¥ and/or arranged l¥ Fort Kamehameha personnel were to be prOlJided to WRRC

so that the performance of the RBC unit could be canpared to the efficiency

of the present treabnent USing the conventional activated sludge process.

Aliquots of canposited samples, reM wastewater, primary effluent, and final

WWl'P effluent, were also prOlJided to WRRC for heavy metals analysis even

though this aspect was not specified in the original contract.

10

WRRC personnel made biweekly pickups of the oomposited samples

collected and stored at the WWTP for heavy metals analysis. nIring the

biweekly canposite sample pick-up grab samples fran other sampling points

(RBC effluent, secondary clarifier effluent, aeration tank MLSS, raw

sludge, and digested sludge) were also collected to canplanent the heavy

metal analysis for the WWTP in general. Also during the biweekly visit,

the operating conditions of the RBC were checked, for exanple, t:wdraulic

flow rate, relative buildup and pattern of the growth of the attached bio­

mass on the discs, the general operating conditions of the RBC unit, and

any observed aesthetic concerns, such as odors and fly breeding.

The heavy metal analysis performed by WRRC was conducted in the

Department of Civil EngineeringIWRRC water Quality Laboratory, located

in Holmes Hall, University of Hawaii at Manoa, approximately 10 miles fran

the Fort Kamehameha WWTP.

All glassware and plasticware used in the project for heavy metal

analysis were washed by soaking in 50% (1:1) nitric acid at roan teIrQ?era­

ture for at least 24 hr and then rinsed five times with distilled deionized

water. '!be samples for heavy metal analysis were collected, preserved, and

stored at 4°C in high density polyethylene plastiC containers. Preserva­

tion consisted of adding reagent grade nitric acid (BOO3) at a rate of

1.5 ml. HID3/l of sample except for the sludge samples which were preserved

at twice this concentration. With the exception of the RBC and aeration

tank MLSS samples, all other samples were performed by the nitric acid

digestion methcd (302 D) in Standard Methods, (AmA, RilWA, and WPCF 1985).

The heavy metal analysis consisted of testing for an array of typical

heavy metals by utilizing the recently a~red Perkin-Elmer Model 2380

Atanic Absorption spectrqilotaneter. '!be test involves direct aspiration

atanic absorption into an air-acethylene flame, following the procedure

described in Standard Methods (APHA, WiWA, and WPCF 1985). A separate

hollow cathcde lamp is required for one or more (depending on the individ­

ual constituent being analyzed for) specific constituents. The wavelengths

and slit width used for the various heavy metal analyses are presented in

Table 1.

'!be RBC lUli t was scheduled to operate ClVer a l2-mo pericd, which

included the time required for installation, check out of the mechanical

and hydraulic flUlctions, and the establishment of bianass on the discs.

TABLE 1. WAVELEN;'lHS AND SLIT W1DIHS FOR HEAVY METAL RlALYSIS

Heavy wavelength Slit Width Metal (nm) (nm)

Silver Cacinium Chranium Coa:>er Iron Nickel Lead Zinc

328.1 228.8 359.4 324.8 248.8 232.0 217.0 213.9

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7

11

Because of the 1.mcertainties of the foregoing the projected operating

schedule for the project (Table 2) was established after the RBC unit was

installed and operating properly.

TMLE 2. OPERATION s:HmJLE FOR PILar RBC 'UNIT FOR FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWI'P

TIME PERICD

(100)

3.5

1.3

1.2

1.0

*Flat disc area.

Hydraulic Loading (gpdlftz*)

1.5

3.0

5.0

5.0

DISCS

RESULTS AND DIsaJSSION

Cover Conditions

exposed discs

exposed discs

exposed discs

covered discs

'!he chanical analytical results of the IOOnitoring parameters for the

operation of the pilot RBC unit and corresponding parameters for the Fort

Kameharneha WWI'P rEM wastewater and final discharge efflUent for the four

sepa.rate operation schedules (Table 2) are tabulated in Aa:>endix Table e.l.

As can be noted the daily WWl'P (effluent) flCM rate was generally in the

5 to 6 ngd range, although flCMS above and belCM this range occurred

fra;{uently.

'!he pilot me unit, placed on line on 31 May 1985, received a rela-

12

tively 1CM l'¥draulic loading rate (-1.0 gpd/ft Z of disc area) until 1 July

1985 to pranote and acclimate bianass grorth on the discs. '!be first Ihase

of the project was initiated on 2 July. After the initial Ihase of the

project camnenced, the operation of the RBC unit was relatively continuous

for (Her 7 IOOnths (July 1985 to mid-February 1986), which covered the final

two Ihases (Table 2) of l'¥draulic loading <1.5 am 3.0 gpdIftZ of disc sur­

face area, respectively). HCMever, major periods of operational stqpage

occurred during the final two l'¥draulic loading phases (5.0 gpd/ftZ, with­

out and with the discs covered, respectively).

'!be stq.pages were mainly the result of malfunctioning of the influent

pumFS, not having a standby punp (furnished am installed l:¥ Fort Kameha­

meha lWn'P) with a sufficient pumping capacity range, and not having enough

electrical circuit capacity (which necessitated re-wiring) for the higher

pumping rates. A relatively 1Gi-f1CM pump that could handle the suspended

matter in the primary effluent (influent to the RBC unit) was necessary for

the first operational phase and over three-fold increased flCMS were re­

quired for the succeeding phase.

In addition the Fort Kamehameha personnel were under time constraints,

which understandably dictated that the operation of the l\Wl'P receive high

priority. Ne\Tertheless, the first two Ihases, which were considered the

most likely full-scale RBC operational rCIDJes, functioned essentially as

scheduled in Table 2, except that the second phase (3.0 gpdIftZ) was oper­

ated approximately twice as long as scheduled because an influent pump

and/or electrical capacity restricted operation at the next higher rate

(5.0 gpd/ft Z).

'!he median values (derived fran AW. Table C.I) of the major IOOnitor­

ing chemical constituents and their reJnOllal rates via treatment are pre­

sented in Table 3. Median values are considered desirable for canparative

purposes, inasnuch as individual constituent values, for one reason or

another, can be quite high or ICM for a limited period of time, and thus

could significantly distort average values (Her a given period of time.

The BOOs median values for the influent rEM wastewater rCIDJed fran

72 to 92 ng/l, which is on the ICM side for predaninately rrunicipal type

wastewater, whereas, the unusually high chloride level (4000-5000 ngll)

tabulated in lq:penclix Table C.1 indicates significant dilution. '!he

respective BOOs loading rates based on median BCDs values for the four

13

operating phases were 1.00, 1.80, 3.75, and 3.83 lb/lOOO ftl of disc area

for the hydraulic loading rates (Table 1) of 1.5, 3.0, 5.0 gpd/ft l with

discs exposed and 5.0 gpd/ftl with cover in place. '!hese canpare to sug­

gested maximum BCDs loadings of 15 to 20 lb/lOOO ft l with nitrification

(U.S. Environnental Protection Al:jency 1985), and far below the maximum

loading of 6.4 lbIlOOO ftl recommended ~ the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (1985) fran a review of the operating characteristics of 23 me facilities throughout the United States. The latter recommended maximum

loading was the result of the excessive growth of nuisance organisms which

inhibited dissolved oxygen concentrations in the first stage (discs) load­

ing.

The median pH values of Table 3 were near the neutral level, but the

pH values of the RBC unit effluent were awroximately one-half of a pH unit

higher than the Wl'P final effluent which received activated sludge second­

ary treatment. The attached algal growth 00 the discs could have contrib­

uted to the increased pH through the uptake of HCOJ/(»z.

'!he median BOO, concentration values (Table 3) of the primary clari­

fier effluent experienced during the four RBe operational phases were lower

than typically expected for municip:il. operations, with the first opera­

tional Ibase being the highest at 102 ng/l. However, during the first

phase quite high (> 365 ng/!) BCD, concentrations occurred 17 times, but

out of the 55 total BCD 15 values they did not significantly influence the

median value. Q1ly one BCD, value was recorded in the second operational

phase (3.0 gpd/ft J ). '!be BOO, concentration values for the primary

clarifier effluent carq:are to "text book" values of 130 ng/l (200 ng/l raw

wastewater and 35% primary clarifier BCD, removal efficiency), which is

essentially the same as the l24-ngll value reported ~ the U.S. Fnviron­

nental Protection Agency's (1985) review of 16 me facilities in the United

States.

The BOO, median concentration values of the presently operated Fort

Kameharneha WWTP utilizing activated sludge secondary treatment were very

low (2.0-3.0 ngll) and the corresponding BOO, renOllal efficiencies were

very high (96 to 98% based on raw wastewater) during the four RBe opera­

tional Ibases as shOtm in Table 3.

'lhe median BOOs concentrations of the RBC effluent were similarly

very low (2.0 ngI!) and relatively low (8.3 ng/!) during the first two

TABLE 3. MEDIAN CDNSTITUmI' CDNCEN'lRATIONS CF WWTP AND PILGl' mc UNIT, FORT I<AMEHAMEHA WWl'P, PEARL HARBCR ..... os:..

AVEru'-ill: BCDs <nD SUSPENDED SCLIDS

SAMPLE LOCATIONS HYDRAULIC pH concerr RemOlJal

COncerr RemOIlal

COncerr Removal LOADlliG tration tration tration

(gpd/ftZ)* (m¥l) (') (m¥1> (') (m¥l) (')

Raw WAste\oliatert 1.5 6.9 (71) 80 (58) · ....... 279 (63) · ...... 123 (71) · ...... 3.0 6.9 (58) 72 (26) · ....... 295 (48) · ...... 101 (57) · ...... 5.0 7.0 (13) 90 (13) .. . . . . .. 195 (13) ....... 107 (12) · ...... 5.0t 7.2 (14) 92 (12) ........ 165 (6) · ...... 129 (14) · ......

Primary Clarifier 1.5 . .. . .. . . 102 (55) . ....... 418 (67) . ...... 146 (71) · ...... Eff1uentt (pilot RBC 3.0 65 (1) 371 (47) 105 (57) uni t influent) ........ · ....... . ...... · ......

5.0 . .. .. ... 81 (13) • ••••• fI 203 (12) · ...... 104 (12) · ...... 5.0 t .. .. . .. . 64 (5) ......... 111 (4) · ...... 100 (6) .......

WWTP Final Eff1uentl 1.5 6.9 (58) 3.0 (57) 96 (57) 143 (59) 46 (55) 10.4 (70) 93 (70) (discharge to ocean 3.0 6.9 (43) 2.0 (26) g] (25) 266 (46) 34 (44) 9.3 (56) 96 (52) outfall; efficierr cies based on raw 5.0 6.6 (10) 2.3 (13) g] (13) 45 (12) 73 (12) 9.7 (12) 90 (12) waste\oliater)

5.0t 6.9 (11) 2.2 (12) 98 (12) 69 (5) 72 (3) 10.6 (14) 91 (14)

Pilot RBC Unit 1.5 7.8 (66) 2.0 (54) 98 (49) 146 (56) 73 (SO) 8.0 (68) 97 (65) EffluentS (effi-

3.0 7.3 (SO) 8.3 (54) 85 (1) 302 (47) 24 (36) 7.5 (53) 93 (51) ciencies based on primary clarifier 5.0 7.2 (13) 30.7 (12) 64 (12) 151 (13) 56 (11) 26.5 (13) 67 (12) effluent) 5.0 t 7.4 (13) 35.0 (13) 61 (2) 211 (13) (0) 28.0 (13) 63 (5)

tUm: Values determined fran data presented in AW. Table C.1. IDl'E: Numbers within p:lrentheses denote nunber of samples; refer to Fig. 2 for sanp1e locations. *F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted .. tDiscs oovered. l24 hr canposite samples, except for a few grab sanp1es. SGrab sanp1e.

15

testing phases (1.5 gpd/ft Z and 3.0 gpd/ft l ), respectively. HCMever, at

the 5.0 gpd/ft Z hydraulic loading rates the ~fluent median BOOs concentra­

tion increased significantly, 30.7 and 35.5 ngll, for without and with a

cover wer the discs, respectively; with the corresponding BCD, rEmwal

efficiency of 64% and 61% (based on primary effluent). '!he constituent

ranwal rates for the RBC effluent were based on inputs fran the primary

clarifier rather than raw wastewater· as was used for the M'7l'P constituent

remcNal efficiencies. '!his is a typical practice utilized ~ RBC manufac­

turers (Autotrol Corporation 1974, 1983); thus the treatment efficiency,

based on constituent remcNal up through the primary clarifier, is not in­

cluded for the indicated RBC constituent remCNal efficiencies.

The median BOO, ranoval rate for the RBC unit of 98% for the initial

hydraulic loading phase of 1.5 gpd/ft Z canpares to a predicted remwal rate

of approximately 92.5% for the same hydraulic loading according to graphi­

cal information published ~ the Alltotrol Corporation (1974). '!he secooo

operational testing phase (3.0 gpd/ftl) only had one BCD, rEm0\7al value

(85%) because the BCD, values for the primary clarifier were not included

in the ww.rpl s analytical results; thus, it is not considered actually catr

parable although it was quite close to the Alltotrol Corporation1s (1974)

predicted value of approximately 87.5%. '!he BCD, remwal efficiencies for

the last two operational testing phases (5.0 gpd/ft') of 64% and 61%, for

without and with discs covered, respectively, were significantly lower than

the predicted approximately 82.5% remwal by the Alltotrol Corporation

(197 4) information for the same hydraulic loading rate and influent BCD,.

However, as previously indicated, the influent flow to the RBC unit was

frequently discontinuous Wring the last two operational testing phases.

'!he median BCD, remwal rates of 64% and 61% and effluent concentra­

tions of 30.7 and 35.0 ngll for the last two operational testing phases

(5.0 gpd/ftl) , without and with the discs covered, respectively, would

be considered marginal for secondary treatment, even though the treat­

ment efficiency rendered up through the primary clarifier was not con­

sidered. H<Mever, the concentrations are belCM the recently adopted limit

of 45 ngll (with certain stipulations) by the U. S. Enviromnental Protection

Agency (1984) for trickling filter secondary treatment, an attached growth

system. Thus, it is assumed that the 45-ngll limit would be awlicable in

most situations to RBC secondary treatment systems.

16

The soluble median BCDs values of Appendix Table C.2 for the RBC

effluent prcxluced median values of <2, 4.1, and 10 ng/l for the operational

phases one to three, respectively. No soluble BCDs values were d:>tained

during the final };base. In canparison to the median mc effluent BOOs

concentrations (Table 3) the soluble BOOs values were less than one-half

of the total BOOs values, although the first phase involved a < 2 vs. a

2.0 value. Sane equipnent manufacturers rely IOOre on soluble BCDs than

total BCDs for monitoring purposes since it is assumed that the biological

treatment system is more effective in renoving the soluble portion of the

BOOs. Although this assumption is prcbably valid to a significant degree,

suspended and colloidal BOOs materials W1doubtedly adhere to biological

grarth material and are consequently ranOV'ed, and/or metabolized to a

varying degree, when the biological material is renoved fran the treatment

system.

The median roD values for the various testing phases appeared to be

generally inconsistent. Wess biological inhibition is present, a typical

and reasonable correlation should be ev ident between BCDs and roD. The Q)D

value is nearly always higher than the BCDs value W1less unusual high rates

of nitrification occur that could utilize significant quantities of

dissolved oxygen. '!be general practice IlOVl, hcMever, is to use a

nitrification inhibitor in the BOOs test and thus have only carbonaceous

BOOs, which tends to normalize the test. As is particularly E!Ilident for

the WWl'P final effluent and the first two operational testing phases for

the RBC unit (determined fran Table 3), a very low BCDs to roD ratio would

typically indicate BCDs inhibition. But the aforanentioned inconsistency

of the roD data, and the relatively close agreement between total organic

carbon ('lQC) and BOOs for the RBC unit's effluent (AW. Table C.l), lends

credence to the reliability of the BCDs data OV'er the OOD values. Olloride

concentrations of > 2000 ng/l are known to inhibit the reliability of the

roD test (APHA, NtMA, and WPCF 1985). '!hus, the high dlloride content of

the samples (4000 to 5000 JIg/I range) may have altered the accuracy of the

roD test.

'!he median suspended solids (SS) concentration pattern (Table 3) for

the WWl'P final effluent and the RBC effluent appeared to follow the same

general pattern as encoW1tered for BCDs , which again lends credence to the

BOOs concentration values. While the median BOOs for the \W1I'P effluent

17

varied fran 2.0 to 3.0 ugll for the four qlerational test Iilases, the

median ss of the WWI'P effluent had a similar very tight range of 9.3 to

10.6 ng/l. The median effluent BCDs for the RBe's first operation! test

Plase u.s gpd/ft2) had a corresponding SS value of 8.0 ugll, which is

essentially that produced in the WWI'P effluent, but surprisingly, during

the second operation Iilase (3.0 gpd/ftZ) when the RBe effluent BCDs iIr

creased to 8.3 ngll, the corresponding SS value (7.5 ngll> remained essen­

tially the same. The notable increase of the RBe effluent's median BOOs

concentrations during the final two operation test Plases (5.0 gpd/ftZ)

without and with the discs covered of 30.7 and 35.0 ng/l, respectively, did

not show the same proportional increases for the SS concentration values of

26.5 and 28.0, but the range differences between BCDs and SS were quite

close. It should be noted that the WWI'P final effluent values were d:r

tained fran 24-br oamposite samples, whereas the RBe effluent constituent

concentrations were based on grab samples.

A canparison is shown of the longer term operation of me systems

treating municipal strength wastewater in the northwest (U.S.) in terms of

hydraulic loading (gpd/ftZ); total BCDs ; soluble BCDs ; and suspended solids

(Table 4). Interestingly, the lowest reported total and soluble BCDs

average concentrations were for Tillamook, Oregon, which had the highest

(average) hydraulic loading 2.71 gpd/ft Z <125% of design capacity). The

eleven RBe systems reported in Table 4 are in the temperate zone, which

experiences wide annual temperature differences (well below freezing to

> 100°F, whereas the average ambient temperature at the Fort Kamehameha

WWI'P was in the mid-70's, with rare extremes fran slightly below 60°F to

slightly above 90°F.

The treatment efficiency of the RBe unit decreases when the waste­

water temperatures are below 55°F, but no apparent awreciable increase

is evident in temperatures above 55°F. Inhibition of the biological

process occurs generally when wastewater temperatures exceed 86°F (Autotrol

Corporation 1978; u.S. Erwironmental Protection Agency 1980; Davies and

Pretorius 1975). '!he typical average wastewater temperature on oahu is

near the mean ambient temperature. Considering the temperature differ­

ences, the first two operation testing phases of the pilot RBe unit

(Table 3), respectively, were quite canparable with the results of the

various RBe systems tabulated in Table 4, which would have had inhibited

.... <Xl

TABLE 4. Q)MPARISOO CF RBC OPERATION IN N:R'IHWEST UNITED STATES

HYDRAULIC BCDs TSS SCLtBLE BCD, (ngll> % DESIGN UX'ATION LOADIt-l; III out In out In OUt OfrVe ESt. SCLtBLE Ba>,

(gpd/ftZ) * (ng/l) (ngll> Predicts carbon (lbII000 ft Z )

Wapato, WA 1.37 199 16 148 9 86 8 5 84

Woodland, WA 1.64 184 20 230 16 69 10 5 5 (3) 43

Wilsonville, CR 0.44 244 9 241 6 112 6 5 5 (3) 21

Union, CR 1.60 206 13 158 6 III 6.5 9 123

Tq:.penish, WA 2.20 132 9 125 6 57 5 6 63

Tillamook, CR 2.71 169 4 236 20 51 2 6 125

Enumclaw,WA 1.67 177 19 215 15 71 9.5 9.5 117

Herminston, CR 0.87 175 21 204 14 53 10 5 5 (3) 37

Battle Ground, WA 0.94 224 10 244 10 90 5 5 113

Blaine, WA 1.00 154 18 139 13 72 9 5 5 (3) 38

Woodburn, CR Canning 0.81 324 16 357 6 137 (2) 10 9.5 70 Non-Canning 1.92 26 (2) 8.5 5 5 (2)

saJRCE: Interoffice correspondence (25 Jan. 1984) to Albert TSllji, M.C. Nottingham, Honolulu, HI, fran Ray Ankaitis, Envirex, 49 ()Jail Court-RID. 216, walnut Creek, CA 94596.

ID.I'E: All WWl'P data are l-yr averages, except Woodburn, Oregon and Battle Ground, Washington; Soluble and carbon soluble BCD, data for WocxJ:>urn, Oregon are actual plant data; At 50% of design (BCD, ) or less, all data available indicate that effluent soluble Ba>, is 50% carbon and 50% nitrogenous.

*Hydraulic loading per surface area of discs.

19

biological growth when wastewater temperatures were less than 55°F.

'Ihrough misunderstanding or miscamllmication, nitrogen and phosphorus

values were not performed for the RBC effluent samples. The reporting of

nitrogen and phOSJ:ilorus values is typically required ~ the National

Pollutant Disdlarge El.imination System (NPDFS) permit for fresh waters.

For ocean disdlarges values of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are

generally only of minor concern, and not required for the case of ocean

discharge of effluent fran Fort Kamehameha WWrP (Engineering-SCience Inc.

19]7) •

'!he pr mary concerns of nitrogen in wastewater treatment and dis­

charge is that (1) the nitrification of 1.0 ngll of aImlarla (the most

prevalent nitrogen form in wastewater> to nitrate stoichianetrically re­

quires approximately 4.5 ngll of O2 (dissolved oxygen); (2) amnonia inter­

feres with the effectiveness of the chlorination process; (3) ammonia is

toxic to given aquatic organisms at various concentrations; (4) ammonia is

corrosive to sane metallic surfaces; (5) nitrogen is a nutrient which can

potentially create undesirable eutrophic conditions in receiving waters;

and (6) higher concentrations of nitrates (~10 ngll as N> is a health

concern (methehemoglobinemia in infants) in drinking waters (for situations

where wastewater effluents are discharged to bodies of fresh water later

used for drinking water supply). '!hese concerns are not particularly

applicable for the ocean discharge of Fort Kamehameha WWTP effluent because

dissolved oxygen l:imitation is not a problem for the effluent quantities

being disdlarged in the ocean outfall, which terminates at the mouth of

Pearl Harbor (Engineering-SCience Inc. 19]7). However, the Fort Kamehameha

WWTP effluent is chlorinated prior to discharge through ocean outfall.

Research involving the application of the RBC process has shCMIl that

nitrification begins when the wastewater BOOs concentration approaches

30 ngll, at which time the nitrifying bacteria (autotrophic) are canpeti­

tive with the more rapid grCMing carbon oxidizing organisms, that pre­

daninate at the higher BOOs concentration levels. cnce established, nitri­

fication usually proceeds rapidly until the BOOs concentration is approxi­

mately 10 no/l, at which time nitrification is generally canplete CAntonie,

Kluge, and Mielke 19]4). '!his observation generally conforms with the data

presented ~ the Autotrol Corporation (lg]4, 1983), in which hydraulic

loading of 1.5 and 3.0 gpd!ft2 results in anmonia removal of awroximately

20

98% and 80%, respectively, when the influent BCD, is 100 lD3Il. AWarently at the hydraulic loading rate utilized for the last two

operatiooal test ~s (5.0 gpd/ft2) , the progression of nitrification was

limited as armnonia goes off scale when the influent armnonia nitrogen ex­

ceeds 13 ngll. When the influent amnonia is 13 ngll, the effluent amnonia

nitrogen is projected to be awroximately 6 ngll (Autotrol Corporation

1983). HcMever, a temperature correction factor increases the nitrifica­

tion rate CNer the base rate scale value Of 1.0 by 1.4 at 65°F, which is

the highest value listed on the scale (Autotrol Corporation 1983). '!be

Water Pollution Control Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers

(1974) deSign manual recaranends a hydraulic loading for RBC systems of 0.75

to 2.0 gpd/ft2--dependent on influent BOO, and anmonia concentrations-when

nitrification is a primary consideration.

Heavy Metal Determinations

The results of the heavy metal determinations for the six sanpling

locations throughout the Fort Kamehameha l\WI'P, including the influent

(primary clarifier effluent), plus the effluent RBC unit, for the four

operational test P1ases (Table 2) are presented in ~ndix Table 0.1. '!be

median concentrations of the heavy netal concentrations for the various

sanpling locations and operational test Ihases in AFPendix Table 0.1 are

tabulated in Table 5. Also shown in Table 5 are the applicable heavy metal

concentration limits for the primary {Public Health Regulations 1981> and

Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (0. S. Enviromnental Protection Agency

1979), the City and County of Honolulu's regulations for industrial waste­

water discharges (Division of Wastewater Management 1982), and the Federal

Guidelines for State and Local Pretreabnent Programs (1977). '!hese heavy

metal concentration limits do not apply to the sanples collected and re­

ported in Appendix Table 0.1 and Table 5. '!bey are presented only for can­

parisons of magnitude p..1I'poses of the liquid samples (excluding rCM and

digested sludge, and the aeration tank's mixed liquor suspended solids).

Primary drinking water regulations are set for J;Xlblic health, and adherence

to the limits must be met, whereas, secondary regulations are for public

welfare, with limits being recaunended.

N:>ne of the individual liquid samples of ~ndix Table 0.1 exceeded

"i"'

TABLE 5. MEDIAN HEAVY METAL CONCEN'IRATION SAMPLES FROM FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWTP, PEARL HARBCR, HllWAII

SAMR.E LOCATIOO HYmJ\lJLIC LQADDG Silver Cadnium Olranium Cower Ircn Nickel Lead Zinc

(gpdltt') * (ng/lJ

Raw Wastewater t 1.5 0.03 (33) 0.02 (33) 0.0 (33) 0.1 (33) 1.2 (33) 0.1 (33) 0.1 (33) 0.18 (33) 3.0 0.03 (20) 0.01 (20) 0.0 (20) 0.1 (20) 0.8 (20) 0.1 (20) 0.1 (20) 0.15 (20) 5.0 0.03 (2) 0.02 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.7 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.17 (2)

Primary Effluentt 1.5 0.05 (35) 0.02 (35) 0.0 (35) 0.1 (35) 1.9 (35) 0.1 (35) 0.1 (35) 0.35 (35) 3.0 0.04 (22) 0.00 (22) 0.0 (22) 0.2 (22) 1.1 (22) 0.1 (22) 0.1 (22) 0.19 (22) 5.0 0.05 (12) 0.02 (12) 0.0 (12) 0.2 (12) 1.1 (12) 0.1 (12) 0.1 (12) 0.15 (12)

RBe Effluent' 1.5 0.02 (34) 0.02 (34) 0.0 (34) 0.0 (34) 0.1 (32) 0.1 (34) 0.1 (32) 0.06 (34) 3.0 0.01 (25) 0.01 (25) 0.0 (25) 0.0 (25) 0.1 (24) 0.1 (25) 0.1 (25) 0.01 (25) 5.0 0.02 (4) 0.02 (4) 0.1 (4) 0.1 (4) 0.3 (4) 0.0 (4) 0.1 (4) 0.02 (4) 5.0S 0.02 (6) 0.01 (6) 0.1 (6) 0.0 (6) 0.4 (6) 0.1 (6) 0.0 (6) 0.05 (6)

Aeraticn Tank MLsst 1.5 0.21 (24) 0.04 (24) 0.2 (24) 1.1 (24) 8.7 (24) 0.2 (24) 0.4 (24) 0.92 (24) 3.0 0.16 (6) 0.04 (6) 0.3 (6) 1.3 (6) 9.3 (6) 0.2 (6) 0.4 (6) 0.86 (6)

Secondary Effluent' 1.5 0.02 (32) 0.01 (33) 0.0 (33) 0.0 (33) 0.2 (33) 0.1 (32) 0.0 (33) 0.04 (33) 3.0 0.01 (23) 0.01 (23) 0.0 (23) 0.0 (23) 0.1 (22) 0.0 (23) 0.0 (23) 0.05 (23) 5.0 0.02 (2) 0.01 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.3 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.07 (2)

Final Effluentt 1.5 0.01 (2) 0.02 (2) 0.0 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.1 (2) 0.0 (2) 0.0 (2) 0.04 (2) 3.0 0.02 (l) 0.00 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.2 (l) 0.2 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.02 (l)

5.0 0.03 (l) 0.01 (l) 0.1 (l) 0.1 (l) 0.6 (l) 0.1 (l) 0.0 (l) O.ll (l)

5.0S 0.01 (l) 0.01 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.9 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.0 (l) 0.04 (l)

Raw Sludge' 1.5 0.05 (4) 0.38 (4) 5.2 (4) 29.1 (4) 226 (4) 4.0 (4) 1.4 (4) 27.2 (4)

Digested Sludge' 1.5 0.18 (5) 0.42 (5) 8.3 (5) 46.9 (5) 378 (5) 1.1 (5) 3.0 (5) 35.1 (5) 3.0 0.21 (l) 0.38 (l) 8.4 (l) 46.3 (l) 475 (l) 1.1 (l) 2.6 (l) 35.5 (l)

Drinking water Regulations: Primaryl 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 Secondary' 1.0 0.3 5.0

City & Colmty of Honolulu Industrial Wastewater 0.43 0.69 2.77 3.38 3.98 0.6 2.61 Discharge Provisions: I

Federal Guidelines' for Inhibitory 'Ihreshold Limit:

l-lRa/5-SOb 1.0 Activated Sludge 5.0 10-100 1000 1.0-2.5 0.1 0.0~10 lInaerobic Digestion 0.2 5-50 1'50-500b 1.0-10 5 ....... 5-10

KJlE: Values determined fran data presented in AW. Table D.l. SDiscs oovered. KJlE: Nultlers within puentheses denote nunber of sanples taken, lDepartment of Health (1981).

see Figure 2 for sanple locations. 'U.S. Envirmnental. Protection l\gency (1979). ~Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. IDivision of wastewater Management (1982). 24 hr canposi te sanple. 'U.S. Envirmnental. Protection 1V:Jeooy (1977). ~ fGrab sanple. ClBexavalent. brrivalent.

22

the City and County of Honolulu's industrial wastewater discharge (1982)

regulations (not awlicable to Fort Kamehameha VMrP) and, as noted in

Table 5, the median values of all the liquid sanples, except iron, were

at or belCM the drinking water regulations. 'Ibere is no drinking water

regulation for nickel, but the liquid median values are quite lCM (maximum

0.2 nw'l). None of the individual sanples (App. Table A.l) for cower and

zinc, and only two forcacinium exceeded the drinking water regulations.

'!he concentration limit established for iron was set because of color

staining of laundered goods and plumbing fixtures, and undesirable tastes

in beverages (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1979) • In terms of the

reported potential inhibitory effect on the activated sludge &y'stem, only

cower, lead, and possibly the lCMer threshold range for zinc (a wide band)

exceeded the median respective heavy netal values of Table 5. Neverth&­

less, individual slug loads did exceed the threshold limits (see AW. Table D.l) • HCM€'Iler, the high treatment efficiency resulting fran the

activated sludge treatment &y'stem strongly indicates that if heavy metal

inhibition did occur, it was very negligible.

'!he aCClDllulation of heavy netals in the sanples containing higher

suspended and settleable solids concentrations, mixed liquor suspended

solids, and rEM and digested sludge is expectedly awa,rent in Table 5.

'!he median concentration of silver in the mixed liquor suspended solids

is awroximately the same as the digested sludge samples and the median

caanium concentration for rEM and digested sludge is awroximately the

same. But with the exception of nickel, the remaining median heavy netal

concentrations were higher in the digested sludge sanples. '!he nedian con­

centration of nickel in the rEM sludge was approximately four times higher

than the digested sludge sanples, the reason for which is not known except

possibly that the concentration of nickel had recently increased in the

rEM sludge, and sufficient time had not elapsed for introduction into the

digested sludge. Further sanpling and analysis would be required to con­

finn this hypothesis. Nevertheless, the median concentration of nickel is

still quite lCM. Of the potential heavy metal inhibition to anaerobic

digestion based on the Federal Guidelines (Table 5), only cower, zinc, and

especially iron, exceeded the threshold limit. '!he operation efficiency

of the anaerobic digestor was not within the scope of the project, thus,

anaerobic monitoring parameters were not provided to WRRC for €'Ilaluation.

23

CNerall, hcMever, it is obvious that the introduction of heavy netals into

the wastewater stream leading to the Fort Kamehameha WWTP is being carmend­

ably controlled and not of ~rent present concern to the lower concentra­

tion wastewater flow stream. It is notable that the median raw wastewater

heavy netal concentration values are very canp:irable (both above and below)

to the values reported ~ Nanura and Young (1974) for an 11-100 study of the

City and County of Honolulu's Wahiawa WWTP which received an average flCM

of 4.54 rna/day (L2 JI9l) fran the tCMn of Wahiawa in central oahu.

me 0lSTS: CAPITAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

When considering various engineering alternatives, a key element is

the total cost CNer the given deSign period or, expressed differently, the

time value of money. For the present situation a financial estimate is a

necessary aspect that must be e-valuated, among others (e.g., treatment

efficiency, dependability, and aesthetic considerations) when considering

the potential replacement of the present Fort Kamehameha ~ conventional

activated sludge canponent (aeration tank, air blowers, and awurtenances)

with an RBC system.

As previously presented, the pilot RBC unit could uniformally produce,

with hydraulic loadings up to 3.0 gpd/ftZ, an effluent (fran brackish

wastewater) well within the BCDs and SS remCNal and final effluent con­

centration range that is considered to be secondary treatment (85% and

30 ngll, respectively). As mentioned earlier in this report, roost

municip:il-sized RBC systems with hydraulic loadings up to 3.0 gpd/ftZ

function quite well in the temperate zone. 'lhus, RBC operations on Oahu,

with daily Dean temperatures always> 55°C (below which the bianass on mc units are inhibited), are expected to perform satisfactorily. For evalua­

tion purposes the 3.0 gpd/ftZ hydraulic loading rate will be used for

siz ing purposes.

Final evaluations, in addition to capital cost, can be highly influ­

enced ~ projected assumptions, such as interest rate, life of the can­

ponent, operation and maintenance cost, and future cost of utilities and

materials. 'lhus, for meaningful projections, assumptions have to be as

reasonable as possible, based on presently available information. Informa-

24

tion obtained for a different time period, at locations other than oahu,

and for different design p:lrameters will have to be normalized to a carmon

technical and econanic base to expedite the evaluation of the alternatives

under consideration. HQtlever, as in any engineering conceptual econanic

evaluation, the presented results have to be considered ~s being aWlicable

CNer a somewhat undefined range (in a p:lrticular magnitude) since a refined

cost analysis, without detailed plans, is not feasible or even possible at

this stage. The results of such an econanic evaluation, hQtlever, should

have a major effect on whether or not further consideration is warranted.

Capi tal Costs

Capital costs for installing a 7.5 ngd RBC treatment canponent at the

Fort Karnehameha iW1.l'P, obtained fran four different sources, are presented

in Table 6. The cost data were updated to August 1986 by using the Engi­

neering News-Record Construction Cost Index <1985, 1986) 1 where awlicable@

'!he design flow values were cbtained for or adjusted to 7.5 ngd average

wastewater flow. No scaling factor was used because an estimated 80% of

the RBC canponent cost (less freight) consisted of relatively canplete

manufactured items. A freight allowance fran the u.s. west Coast to oahu

of $285 ,000 was added to the final figures after each hydraulic loading

rate was adjusted to 3.0 gpdIft2• No credit was allotted for potential

salvage of the existing activated sludge treatment canponent (such as air

blowers, piping) and, in turn, no expenses were assigned for its demoli­

tion.

As can be noted, the first two sources (Table 6) of cost data are fran

the Envirex Compa~ (controllers/owners of Aerotrol Corporation); the last

two are fran u.s. Enviromnental Protection Agency (l980a, 1 980b) publi­

cations, based on a collection of anpirical data fran operating WWTP plants

up to the mid-1970s. '!he u.s. Envirormental Protection Agency (l980a;

third cost source of Table 6) did not include a hydraulic loading rate,

thus, a prorated value was not determined. '!he fourth cost data source

(U.S. Envirormental Protection Agency 1980b) was based on a conservative

hydraulic loading of 1.0 gpd/ft2 with several additional cost items added

lConstruction costs obtained fran u.s. Engineering News-Record 214(l2) : 98-101 (1985); Engineering market trends, Engineering News-Record 217 (7) : 37 (1986) •

TABLE 6. CAPITAL <n)T CDMPARISCNS FOR mo:rosm 7.5 KiD RBC CDMPONENT FOR FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWI'P, PEARL HARBOR, HNiAII

25

HYDRAULIC LOADINi RATE ~anically Air-Driven

Driven Discs Discs (gp:l/ft') ($1000) ($1000)

Envirex Co. design for Hcnouliuli lttWl'P adjusted fran 25-7.5 ngd (see AW. Table E.l for details) 2.4

PRCRATED 3.0 2,0656

Autotrol Design Manual 3,300a ,f Example <Autotrol 1983) 2.0

(see AW. Table E.2, examples 4 & 17 for details) 2.1 2,562a ,f

PRrnATED 3.0 2,53ab,f

EPA Construction Cost Unspecified; 5,341a ,c-e Manual (U. S. EPA 1980a) assumed <3.0

NO!' mORATED (unknown hydraulic loading)

EPA C'.anponent Costs l3,893a ,d (0. S. EPA 1980b) 1.0

PRrnATED 3.0 4,916b

IDlE: Potential salvage value for existing activated sludge treatment can­ponent and costs for demolition were excluded. mc costs are for Wlcovered Wli ts.

~cludeS freight costs to oahu. clncludes $285,000 freight dlarges fran u.s. west coast to oahu. ,;Assumed to be mechanically driven discs. ~O% added to estimated 20% of nOl'lIlanufactured canponents for construction and assent>ly on Oahu. ~O% added for nonconstruction costs recatmended by EPA <1980b).

Includes present worth of p:YNer costs; no additional cost assigned for gconstruction on Oahu. Adjusted by Engineering News:-Record <1985, 1986) to August 1986 where aw1icab1e.

26

(as reccmnended) for piping, electricity, instrlJIlelltation, site prepara­

tim, engineering, and contingencies.

'nle first cost source (Envirex~) is for air driven disc W'lits,

the second cost source <Autotrol Corporation) includes both air driven and

mechanically driven discs. '!be third arx1 fourth cost sources (EPA publica­

tions) were based on mechanical W'lits, although an assumption was made for

the third cost data source. It is interesting to note that the Envirexl

Autotrol projected cost range is in the neighborhood of $2 to 2.5 million,

whereas EPA data values are twice as high. Considering the cost data

presented in Table 6, the first data source (Envirex ~), which is

based on a scaled-down version (25-7.5 ngd) of the estimate for an air

driven disc RBe treatment canponent for the Honouliuli WWl'P on oahu, can be

assumed as the roost appl icable, although the labor and material costs (App.

Table E.l) may be lCM for construction on oahu and no estimates were given

for enJineering and inspection. Thus, conceptual capital cost projections

of up to. $2,500,000 would seem reasonable for either mechanical or air

driven disc units. Manufacturers' bids and/or contractors' estimates,

after design drawings arx1 speCifications have been prepared, are necessary

for further refinement of the RBe installation cost data at this time.

cperation and Maintenance Costs

Because the present situation invol ves the potential replacement of

one treatment canponent (activated sludge) for another in an existing sys­

tem, only the projected electrical costs will be considered, although it is

generally accepted that the activated sludge system requires more intense

arx1 sophisticated technical attention than the RBe system. Also, deprecia­

tim is assumed to be already built into the present activated sludge can­

ponent, and the RBe canponent is assigned its depreciation sdledule.

A 1985 report by the u.s. EnviroIJIIental Protection Agency, which re­

ViEWed 23 operating RBe facilities, me manufacturers' power studies, and

the results of the WES'lON field power measurements, revealed that the power

consumed by a mechanically driven RBe unit was directly proportional to the

surface area; the power consumed by the manufacturers' clean media tests

were significantly lCMer than the pc7tler consumed under field conditions,

with bianass grCMth on the disc; and initial me stages have thicker bier

27

mass which consumes more power and can lead to septic conditions (particu­

larly in the initial stages of a multi-stage system) for mechanically

driven units (SUWlanental air may be required).

Mechanically driven disc unit's power consumption py standard­

(l00 ,000 ft I) and high-densi ty roodia shafts (ISO ,000 ft I) at rotational

speeds of 1.6 rpn were ct>served in the field to be 2.3 and 3.4 kWh/shaft,

respectively; whereas air driven discs, with canbined standard- and high­

density media shafts, rotating at 1.2 rpn, required 3.6 kWh/lOO,OOO ft Z

shaft. It should be noted that the <1Verall power consumption for mechani­

cal driven units are essentially the same as their respective areas and

power consumption (100,000 ftl:lSO,OOO ft l .., 2.3 kWh:3.4 kWh).

Based on the foregoing a mechanically driven RBC disc facility, loaded

hydraulically at 3.0 gpd/ft Z and treating 7.5 ngd of primary treated waste­

water, would consume $SO ,000 worth of electricity if the electrical cost

were 10¢/kWh, whereas, an air-driven unit would require $79,000 of electri­

city under the same given conditions, (rounded off to the nearest $1000)

(0. s. Env irormental Protection Agency 1985). Interestingly, the $7 9 ,000

electrical costs for an air driven RBC facility is nearly identical (well

within $1000) to the electrical cost projected py the Envirex CQIlpal¥ (AW. Table E.l) for the 25 ngd Honouliuli ww.rP on oahu, if adjusted to a 7.5-ngd

facility at a 3.0 gpd/ft Z hydraulic loading.

'!he present aeration ba.sin at the Fort Kamehameha WWTP is sUfPlied air

fran three air blCMers, each driven by a 125-hp motor, operating 24 hr/day.

At an electrical cost of 10¢/kWh, the annual power cost for the three

blCMers (375 hp) is equal to $245,000. Again, this value is the same as

was projected for a CCJ'I'IP=irison activated sludge system (sul:merged turbines)

by Envirex Canpany (App. Table E.l) for the 25 ngd Honouliuli ww.rP if the

flow rate were adjusted to 7.5 ngd.

As previously stated, only the electrical cost differential between

the present activated sludge system at Fort Kamehameha WWTP and the re­

placement of the aeration basin by a mc component will be considered.

Because of the uncertainties of future electrical costs, its ba.se cost will

be assumed to be 10¢/kWh with increases of 5% per year for a 15 yr canpo­

nent life which should be a conservative projection. However, the close

proximity of the ocean tends to deteriorate products made of metal; thus, a

15 yr projected life may not be out of line, although plastics are heavily

28

used in the manufacture of RBC units. '!he annual interest rate is assumed

to be 8%, as this should be near the present (August 1986) interest paid

for oontaxable bonds.

The annual projected electrical cost difference between the present

activated sludge canponent ($245,000) and its potential replacement by a

RBC mechanical disc drive ($50 ,000) or air driven discs ($79,000) is

respectively $195,000 and $166,000. Based on the foregoing conditions and

assumptions and utilizing the geometric-gradient-series formula of '!huesen

and Fabrycky (1984) with interest canpounded annually, the present worth

values U5 yr at 8% interest) for the mechanically driven disc unit is

$2,287 ,000, and $1,947,000 for the air driven unit. '!hus, the present

expendi ture of the present worth sum will be paid off in electrical savings

at the end of the 15 yr project life. If the project-life were increased

to 20 years at 8% interest, the respective present worth values would be

$2,858,000 and $2,433,000. A tabulation of the present worth cost

projections is presented in Table 7.

From the RBe canparative capital cost values in Table 6 and its subse­

quent discussion, an RBe facility could conceptually replace the existing

activated sludge canponent at the Fort Kamehameha WWTP for a present peo­jected cost of up to $2,500,000, which would be near the break-even point,

based on the foregoing projected electrical cost and savings, and a RBe

canponent life of nearly 20 years.

TPBLE 7. !'RESENT rtami CF ELECl'RICAL (l)ST SAVDl1S, RBe VS. ACl'IVATED SLtJOOE, FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWTP, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII

TYPE OF ANNUAL ELECrRICAL Q)ST mESENT ~ CF RBC SAvm;s OF RBe VS. ELOCTRICAL c:osr SAVIN:iS*

DISC DRIVE ACl'IVATED SLUOOE 'lREATMENI' l5-yr 20-yr

Mechanical

Air

$195,000

166,000

$2,287,000 $2,858,000

1,947,000 2,433,000

*Present worth cost projections as of August 1986, an electrical cost of 10¢/kWh with increases of 5% per year and annual interest rate of 8%.

29

<DNCLUSIONS

'!he pilot RBe unit, located at the Fort Kamehameha WW1'P am operated

with sane shutdowns for influent p.!Ilp malfunctioning fran July 1985 to July

1986, was prograrrmed to receive four different hydraulic loadings and/or

exposed and covered disc modes, namely 1.5, 3.0, am 5.0 gpd/ft Z (flat disc

area) with discs exposed, and 5.0 gpd/ft Z with discs covered. '!he analyti­

cal results for BOOs and suspended solids (SS) at the initial loading of

1.5 gpd/ftZ shCMed very high treatment efficiency, with respective median

BOOs and SS effluent concentrations of 2.0 and 8.0 mgll am corresponding

median removal efficiencies of 98 am 97% (Table 3). The efficiencies for

this loading rate were quite similar to the efficiencies of the present

WWTP operation which uses activated sludge treatment. The treatment effi­

ciency of the second hydraulic loading rate (3.0 gpd/ftZ) was not as high

as the initial loading, but still quite high for secondary treatment, with

respective median effluent values of 8.3 am 7.5 for BOOs and SSe

'!he treatment efficiencies of the third and fourth operational test

modes decreased significantly for the 5.0 gpd/ftZ hydraulic loading rates

for exposed and covered discs, respectively. '!he median BOOs values

were 30.7 and 35.0 mgll while the corresponding SS values were 26.5 and

28.0 mgll. Such efficiencies may be accepted for secondary treatment since

the RBe system is an attached grCMth system, hCMever, efficiencies in this

range fran a pilot unit would have to be considered marginal when project­

ing to a full-scale treatment operation.

'!he operation of the pilot RBe unit at Fort Kamehameha ~ (utilizing

primary clarifier effluent as its input) proved that aR;>arently no par­

ticular inhibiting grCMth factors occurred during its operation and no

aesthetic proolems (such as odors am flybreeding) were observed or

reported. The unit appeared to function at awroximately the same effi­

ciency range as reported in the literature and/or by manufacturers' deSign

manuals. Indications are that a REC canponent could function at the Fort

Kamehameha WWTP, in replacement of the present activated sludge oamponent,

at a hydraulic loading rate of 3.0 gpd/ftz. Ambient tetr{)eratures belaY

55°F tend to inhibit the REC's biological grCMth on the discs, but since

oahu's average daily tenq?erature is always above this value, concern for

this aspect is eliminated.

30

'lWo cautions should be noted when evaluating the data. One, the sur­

face area of the discs were considered flat, thus, areas around the 0pen­

ings in the disc were not considered since the bianass on the discs tends

to grow aver these openings and to thereby approximate a flat surface.

Nevertheless, if sane additional area around the openings were considered

(e.g., an additional 10 to 15%), the indicated hydraulic loading would

reduce accordingly. 'lWo, as the flow rate decreases, the difficulty of

holding it at a constant low flCM rate increases due to plugging aOO/or

throttling down the flCM. Thus, the scheduled flCM rate for the initial

hydraulic flCM rate (1.5 gpd/ft2) may have actually averaged slightly lCMer

and tended to make it aR?ear to have a higher treatment efficiency. HeM­

ever, this latter aspect is only speculation.

The 7.5 ngd Fort Kamehameha ~ which uses activated sludge secondary

treatment and presently handles an average flCM of 5 to 6 ngd, a~rs to

be extremely efficient in terms of BCD 5 and SS reJIlOllal and lCM effluent

concentrations, based on analytical data cbserved fran July 1985 to July

1986. Wastewater entering the m7.rP is highly brackish (4,000-5,000 rrgll

chloride) and is re};X>rted to include industrial discharges that contain

concentrations of heavy netals, although such wastewaters are sUtp:>sed to

be controlled aOO/or treated before discharging into the ra!tl wastewater

flow.

'!he monitoring of an array of heavy netals (Table 5) over the pre­

viously nentioned 12-100 period fran sarcples of ra!tl wastewater, primary

clarifier effluent, secondary clarifier effluent, and final effluent,

revealed very lCM concentrations of heavy netals. sane heavy netals,

notably cower and zinc, were even belCM drinking water regulations.

Sanples with higher suspended and settleable solids (activated sludge

mixed liquor suspended solids, and the ra!tl and digested sludge) had higher

aca.unulated concentrations, as expected, but they should be of no particu­

lar concern if dis};X>sed properly in a landfill.

Based on the results of the pilot RBC unit and cost data rotained fran

various sources and reasonable assumptions, it is projected that an RBC

canponent could replace the present activated sludge unit at the Fort

Kamehameha WWl'P for a capital cost approaching $2,500 ,000, if the loading

for the RBC facility were approximately 3.0 gpd/ft 2. Since this is a can­

};X>nent replacement in a presently operating system, only the differential

31

projected electrical cost savings will be considered, which are calculated

to be $195,000 and $166,000, respectively, for RBC mechanically driven disc

units and air driven lD'lits. utilizing an electrical cost of 10¢/kWh with

5% increases per year and an 8% interest rate canpOlmded annually, the pro­

jected present worth for a l5-yr period would be $2,287 ,000 and $1,947,000

for mechanically driven discs and air driven discs, respectively, while

for a 20-yr period these respective values increase to $2,858,000 and

$2,433,000. Fran these projections it a~ars that the potential repla~

ment of an RBC canponent for the existing activated sludge canponent could

be considered near the break-even point in terms of electrical savings for

the given assumptions.

Special awreciation is extended to Joe Hanna, Superintendent, Fort

Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant and his persormel for their coopera­

tion, technical assistance, installation of e:;{uipnent, collection of waste­

water samples, and arrangements for the performance of chemical analyses.

We wish to thank Michael Croston, representative for OIS Rotordisk Inc.,

Mississauga, Ontario, canada, for arranging the no-cost use of the pilot

RBC unit (the Rotorooic System). '!he projected RBC capital costs and oper­

ation and maintenance costs provided t¥ Albert Tsuji, with M.C. Nottingham

of Hawaii, Ltd., were very useful and deeply awreciated.

REFEREtU.S CITED

American Public Health Association, American water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1985. standard nethods for the examination of water and wastewater. 16th ed. Washington, D. C. : AmA, MiMA, and WPCF.

Antonie, R.L.; Kluge, D.L.; and Mielke, J.H. rotating disk wastewater treatment plant. 46(3):498-511.

1974. Evaluation of a water Pollut. Control Fed.

Autotrol Corporation. 1974. BIo-SURF process package plants for secondary wastewater treatment. Brochure No. 974-1.1.2, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

32

Autotro1 Corporation. 1983. waste treatment systems design manual. Bi<rSystems Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Bi<rShafts, Incorporated. lfJ77. Rotating biological discs. (Broc:hure)

Birks, C.W., and Hynek, R.J. 1971. Treatment of cheese processing wastes by bio-disc process. In PrOCH 26th Purdue Wustrial waste Conf. at Purdue University, 26:89-105.

Davies, T.R., and Pretorius, W.A. 1975. Denitrification with a bacterial disk unit. water Res. 9:459.

Department of Health. 1981. Potable water systems. In Title II, Adminis­trative Rules, chap. 20, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Division of Wastewater Management. 1982. Revised ordinances of Honolulu, 1978, as amended, relating to sewers. In Industrial wastewater Discharge Provisions, chap. 11 (1969), Department of Public Works, City and County of Honolulu.

Dugan, G.L. 1983. "Upgrading municipal effluent by pulsed-bed filtration: Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, oahu, Hawaii." Special Rep. 6:13:83, water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

Dugan, G.L. 1984. "Rotating biological contactor for brackish wastewater effluent treatment." Special Rep. 3:12:84, water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

Engineering-Science, Inc. 1977. ~ration and maintenance manual, Fort Kameharneha Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Report prepared for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific Division, PNFEC Library, Bldg. 258, Makalapa, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860.

Giambelluca, T.W.; Nullet, M.A.; and Schroeder, T.A. 1986. Rainfall atlas of Hawaii. Rep. IG6, Division of Water and Land Developnent, Depart­ment of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii (prepared by Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu). 267 W.

Griffith, G.T. 1978. "Rotating disc treatment systems for suburban developnents and high density resorts in Hawaii." Master's thesis (Civil Engineering), University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

Griffith, G.T.; Young, R.H.F.; and Chun, M.J. 1978. Rotating disc sewage treatment systems for suburban developnent and high-densi ty resorts of Hawaii. Tech. Rep. No. 116, Water Resources Research Center, Univer­sity of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

Nanur a, M. M., and Young, R. H. F • 197 4. Fate of heavy metals in the sewage treatment process. Tech. Rep. No. 82, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 26 W.

33

Pescod, M.B., and Nair, J. V. 1972. Biological disc filtration for tropi­cal waste treatment. water Resour. Res. 6: ISO 9-23.

Tsuj i, Audrey. 1982. "A mWlicip:U. wastewater treatment process - Rotating biological conductors CRBC). " Directed Research Report (CE 699), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hcnolulu.

u.s. Environnental Protection Agency. 1977. Federal guidelines state and local pretreabnent prOCJress. Tech. Rep. M<D-43, EPA:-43 01 9-7 0-017 a, Construction Grants Program, Municipal Construction Division, washing­ton, D.C. 20460.

u.s. Enviromnental Protection Agency. 1978. Analysis of o~ration and maintenance costs for municip:U. wastewater treabnent systems. Tech. Rep. MOr-39, EPAl430 9-77-015, Office of Program Operations, washing­too, D.C. 20460.

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. National secondary drinking water regulations. EPA-570/9-76-o00, Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C. 20460. 37 pp.

U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency. 1 980a. Construction costs for muni­cipal wastewater treabnent plants: 1973-1978. Tech. Rep. FRD-l1, EPA 430/9-80-003, Facility Re;;{uiranents Division, Washington, D.C. 20460.

u.s. Envirol'JIlental Protection Agency. 1980b. Innovative and alternative technology assessment manual. CD-53, Office of Water Program Opera­tions (WH-547), Washington, D.C. 20460.

u.s. Enviromnental Protection Agency. 1981. Operation and maintenance costs for municip:U. wastewater facilities. Tech. Rep. FRD-22, EPA 430/9-81-004, Facility Re;;{uirements Division, Washington, D.C. 20460.

u.s. Environnental Protection Agency. 1984. T.F. (fixed media) plants now only r8:'Iuired to meet <45 ng/l BCDs/SS unless they are presently meet­ing lCMer values. Fed. Reg., pt. 11,40 CFR, pt. 122, NPDES, vol. 49, 00. 49, p. 37708 (20 Sept. 1984).

u.s. Envirormental Protection Agency. 1985. Review of current mc per­formance and design procedures. EPA/600/S2-85/033, water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.

Victor, D.H. 1975. "Evaluation of a rotating disc unit for the treabnent of municip:U. wastewater." Master's thesis (Civil Engineering), University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

water Pollution Control Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers. 1977. Wastewater treatment plant design. Landcaster, Pennsylvania: Landcaster Press.

Wells Corporation. 1980. "The rotorroic system, total on-site sewage treatment" (brochure) • 653 Manhatten Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Manhatten Beach, Cal ifornia 90266.

APPENDIX <DNl'ENTS

. . . . . . ~ WWTP DeSign Criteria. •

B. Pilot mc Brochure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Chemical Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Heavy Metal Analyses. • . . . . . . . . . . .

E.l. Capital Costs and Operation and Maintenance Expense. . . E.2. Examples of mc Sizing, Capital and Operation Costs

35

37

• • 41

• • •• 47

• • •• 59

69

for a Design Flow of 7.5 ngd, by Autotrol. Corporation. • • • • • 81

Appendix Tables

A.l. Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant.

C.l. O1emical Analyses and Performance Characteristics of Pilot RBC Unit and Overall Treatment Plant,

• • • • • • • • 39

Fort Kamehameha M'lI'P. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48

D.l. Heavy Metal Concentration at Various Locations Throughout Fort Kamehameha M'lI'P • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61

37

APPENDIX A. \tM.l'P DESIGN OUTERIA

39

APPENDIX TlIBLE !rl. FORT KAMEHAMEHA WASTEWATER 'IREATMENl' PLAN!' DESIGN CRITERIA

Influent Characteristics

Average Design Dry Weather Flai, rrgd Average Peak Wet Weather Flai, rrgd Instantaneous Peak Flai, rrgd Total Dissolved Solids, ng/l Suspended Sol ids, rIg/I BCDs Concentration, ng/l

HeaCiworks

NJmber of Barminutors Capaci ty of Each Barminutor, rrgd Barminutor Size, in.

Aerated Grit Chambers

N.Jnber of Units Length x Width x Depth per Basin, ft Total Volume, gal Detention Time, min Air SUWly Capacity, ftl/min

Prirna(y Settling Tanks

NJmber of Units Diameter x Depth, ft Total Volume, gal Surface Loading Ar1IlF, gpd/ft2 Weir Overflai Rate Ar1IlF, gpd/ft Detention Time All'JF, hr

Aeration Tanks

Number of Tanks Total Volume, gal Hydraulic Detention Time, hr BOOs Loading, Present Conditions, lb/day MLSS, ng/l Organic Loading, lb BOOs/lb MLVSS • day Air ReqUirement, cfm

saJRCE: Engineering Science Inc. (lfJ77). *Assumed to be one magnitude too high.

7.5 16.0 23.0

75,000* 240 240

2 15 36

2 16.5 x 10 x 8.6 SWD

21,300 4.1

350

2 80 x 9 SWD

679,000 747

14,960 2.2

6 2,6fJ7 ,000

8.6 4,400

700-1,500 0.25

6,960

40

APPENDIX TiWLE h-l.-COntinued

Secondary Clarifiers

~r of Units Diameter x Depth, ft Total VolllI1e, gal Surface Loading at AIl'lF, gpd/ft2 Weir CNerlflQri Rate at ArklF, gpd/ft Detention Time, hr

Chlorine Contact Tank

Number of Chlorinators Capacity of Each Chlorinator, lb/day Estimated Ollorine Feed Rate at

AIl'lF, lb/ day Basin Volume, gal Detention Time at :EWWF, min Detention Time at AIl'JF, min

Anaerobic Digesters

N.Jnber of Units Diameter x Depth, ft Total Volume, ft 3

Organic Loading, lb VMlft3/day Volatile Solids, lb/day Detention Time at 2% Solids, day

Centrifuges

NlInber of Units Bowl Length x Diameter, in. Solids Feed Cap:tcity of Each Unit, lbIhr Capacity of Each Feed Plm1p, gpn Dewatered Sludge Cake Moisture Content, %

Sludge DrYing Beds

a.md:ler of Beds Total Area, ftl

Effluent Punping System

NJmber of Pump:; Capacity of Each Pump, gpn

3 80 x 9

1,018,000 500

9,970 3.26

2 2,000

625 182,400

16.5 35

2 75 x 18

155,300 0.10

7,500 22

2 72 x 36

1,000 100

25

3 6,000

3 8,000

41

APPENDIX B. PILOl' me BKXEJRE

43

THE ROTOROBIC SYSTEM TOTAL ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT

. EFFICIENT AEROBIC PROCESSING THROUGH THE SIMPLICITY OF RBC TECHNOLOGY RELIABLE PERFORMANCE UNMATCHED BY ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL SEPTIC OR MECHANICAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. .

NO PUMPS. NO FILTERS. NO COMPRESSORS.

Y#elles CORPORATION ... in lhe Hycor tradillon 01 englOeiJring ellcellenCB.

44

THE ROTOROBle SYSTEM:

EFFECTIVE, RELIABLE WASTEWATER PROCESSING SPECIFICALLY ENGINEERED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE. The Rotoroble system Is a compact, mechanical sewage treatment process specifically engineered for Individual homesltes and light commercial duty. When sewer service is not practical, or a septic tank Is not feasible, the Rotoroblc system Is a proven and reliable alternative.

The Rotorobic system uses the patented Rotordlsk™process developed by CMS Equipment, Ltd., Canada. The Rotoroblc processor is the only CMS/Rotordlsk'"unlt available In the United States for residential and small business use.

The Rotorobic process is a major departure from other approaches to on-site wastewater treatment. The Rotorobic system Is an unusually reliable and powerful aerobic sewage treatment unit used in conjunction with an ordinary filter bed or leach field.

The aerobic unit Itself is built around a simple and highly dependable sewage processor known to engineers as an RBC, or Rotating Biological Contactor. RBC units have long been used In central municipal sewage plants. Now, this proven, lime­tested technology Is available for home and small business applications. The Rotoroblc processor is the only RBC system currently available that Is specifically designed for residential applications up to 1000 gallons per day.

Unlike complicated extended aeration devices, the Rotorobic processor employs no pumps, filters, or compressors that can leak, clog, Or fail. The Rotoroblc RBC mechanism has few moving parts, making it Inherently simple and trouble·free. Output from the unit meets or exceeds EPA standards for secondary quality effluent. Equally important, the Rotorobic processor will continue to meet these standards under sudden overload or persistent underflow conditions.

WHEN A SEPTIC SYSTEM CAN'T DO THE JOB, THE ROTOROBIC PROCESSOR MEETS THE CHAUENGE: • Improper soil conditions. • High groundwater tables. • little or no soil over the bedrock. • An older leach field has become clogged. • Geological condillons cause polluted

effluent to be returned to tht! local groundwater.

• Site too close to lakes and streams. • Space limitations do not allow for an

adequate leach field.

EVEN IN AREAS WITH SEWER SERVICE, THE ROTOROBIC SYSTEM IS AN ECONOMICAL ALTERNATIVE WHEN: • Construction of a connector line to the

sewer main Is too expensive. • Sewer connection charges are prohibitive. • Effluent Is subject to expensive sewer

surcharges. • Pre-treatment of effluent Is needed to

meet minimum standards for discharge to the local sewers.

The Rotoroblc processor removes more than 90% of the organle pollutants from the wastewater, leaving less than 10% of the job to be done In the leach field. Because so much of the sewage breakdown occurs within the unit Itself, even under extreme condilions, an effective, reliable treatment system can be designed.

The output of the Rotoroblc unit is so clean, many applications require only a sub-surface or above-ground filter bed of properly selected sand. Poor soil conditions, high groundwater, or shallow soill<iyers are no problem for the Rotoroblc system.

The Ideal alternative to septic tank technology In new construction, the Rotoroblc processor is also an economical long-term repair for old or failing septic systems. In addition to slgnlfleantly relieving the load on an aging leach field, Rotoroblc ou tfIow actually reverses tile field deterioration and Improves the porosity of the soil. If used to pre-treat wastewater before discharge to the local sewer system, the Rotoroblc unit pays for itself In reduced municipal surcharges.

POWERFUL RBC PROCESSING In organic waste treatment, aerobic biological reactions (those that take place In the presence of oxygen) are far more vigorous and efficient than anaerobic or septic reactions (those that take place In the absence of oxygen.) Thus, aerobic sewage treatment proceeds much more rapidly and purifies far more completely than septic treatment.

The superiority of aerobic processing and the mechanical simplicity of Rotorobic RBC technology make the Rotorobic system dramatically different from any other residential septic or mechanical sewage treatment process.

Within the self-contained Rotoroble processor colonies of microorganisms (naturally present In domestic wastes) grow on Rotoroble's BloMesh TM media discs. A small electric motor slowly rotates the half· submerged discs through the wastewater. This alternately exposes the biomass to the sewage and to the air, continually aerating the microorganisms to sustain the aerobic process and promote the efficient breakdown of the organic pollutants. This simple, yet effective mechanism Is the key to the Rotoroble processor's trouble-free record of reliable service proven In hundreds of Installations.

QUALITY COMPARISON OF ON·SlTE WASTE TREATMENT UNITS

oum.ow CtiARACTEfMTIC

IOOt"",}1

S5rno}1 DOInG}I

ANAEAOBtC UNITS'

TYPICAl SEPHCTANK

100

"'" AEROIIC UNITS'

,,. .. OUTflOW NSF ClASS tl'[ NSF Cl.A6S" [!2!~C; CHARACTEmsTlC rno.n..~

8O~~JI eo 20 20 SSIflQJI lOO 40 26

Noo.e.,ClIT~_ .... IfOOII_.t .. ., ... 1lI~s--t.,_~_c ... I>4 ____ ._c ..... ~. 1lI_"' ___ lO __

CONSISTENT, DEPENDABLE PERFORMANCE Rotoroblc's RBC technology is remarkably dependable. The process Is self­compensating over a wide range of fluctuating demands. Rotorobic Is a particularly tough performer under "shock loading," a sudden sharp Increase In the organic workload. Unlike some systems, Rotoroblc wiU continue to perform properly despite repeated cycles of underflow or overload (25-400% of design flow) with little or no adverse effect on effluent quality.

ROTOR ZONE

PRtMARY SETTUNG CHAMBER One-plecB molded fiberglass outer shell.

Mokted fiberglass Inner tank. Exclusive Splro·How'·wairlng assures maximum flow contact with the bkHnass

ROTOR BEARINGS Aircraft·quallty, heavy·duly. Sealed against moisture.

CHAIN COUPLtNG

FINAL SETTLING CHAMBER

TYPICAL INSTALLATION

CROWN TO DIVERT SURFACE WATER 1·2%. TOPSOIL, PLANT WITH GRASS

018'

4' ASS OR PVC PERF. DlST. PIPE

'SLOPE OF FEED PIPE TO FACILITATE MIN. FLOW VELOCITY OF APPROX. 2 F.P'S. WITH GRAVITY DISCHARGE

ENERGY EFFICIENT. EASY TO MAINTAIN Designed to run continuously, Rotoroblc's low rpm and steady surge·free operation assures extremely long life and low energy costs, typically less than IOC per day. Many years of trouble·free performance are engineered Into each Rotoroblc unit. All components are selected for extra·long life and heavy-duty service.

There are no pump., compressors, valve., micro·computers, or electronic control. to fall. Rotorobic has no screens, diffusers, or filters to clog-or clean. There are no exposed gears or submerged parts to corrode; all components are above the waterline. In addition, the unit produces NO flammable gasses, and NO odor.

MEDIA PANELS Polyethylene Bio"'~shT"'panel& provide optimum biomass retention and flow-through

DRIVESHAFT ASSEMBLY AII·steel construction. All metal parts cadmium plated for couosion protection.

SCUM BAFFLE

Unit Illustrated: Rotoroble 750

POWER CONSUMPTION COMPARISON

TREATMENT WAnS/PERSON/DAY TECHNOLOGY Oillused Air 166

Mechanical Aeralion 93 Ditch Lagoon Aeration ., ROTOROBICTtI Processor 20

Totally enclosed and vibration-free, the Rotorobic processor Is Virtually noiseless. The lightweight fiberglass top Is completely removable for easy servicing. In the rare Instance that replacement parts are needed, all Items are standard off·the-shelf Industrial components always available from your local Rotoroblc dealer. But with no pumps to prime, no required "dosing" with bacteria, and no "mixed liquor/suspended solids" ratios to worry about, the Rotoroblc processor Is practically maintenance free. Twice a year, • your Rotorobic dealer will perform a routine service check, and when necessary, pump out the accumulated sludge. • (Recommended service Interval. Local regulations may differ.'

This Is all the servicing normally needed to Insure trouble-free, reliable performance unmatched by any other mechanical sewage treatment system.

35 years of successful RBC technology and the Welles Corporation commitment to products of unparalled excellence In engineering and design make the Rotorobic system the sensible choice over other waste treatment methods. Solid warranties and a dedication to local alter-sales service further guarantee dependable, worry-free operation year after year.

ROTOROBIC FEATURES

• A TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS

• HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

• DEPENDABLE RBC TECHNOLOGY

• SIMPLE, TROUBLE-FREE DESIGN

• PROVEN IN THE COLD

• EXTREMELY LOW MAINTENANCE

• ENERGY-EFFICIENT, ECONOMICAL OPERATION

• EASILY HANDLES SUDDEN OVERLOAD OR UNDERFLOW

• WIDE RANGE OF APPLICATIONS

• WORKS WHERE OTHER SYSTEMS CAN'T DO THE JOB

• IDEAL FOR LONG TERM REPAIR OR RETROFIT

• READILY INSTALLED AND SERVICED BY YOUR LOCAL DEALER

• ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE

• HEAVY-DUTY, LONG LIFE COMPONENTS

• NO SUBMERGED PARTS

• NO COMPLICATED COMPRESSORS, COMPONENTS, OR ELECTRONIC CONTROLS

• NO FILTERS TO CLOG OR CLEAN

• SELF-CONTAINED, TOTALLY ENCLOSED

• NOISELESS, ODORLESS, AND VIBRATION-FREE

• CAPACITIES TO 1000 GALLONS PER DAY

• PRODUCES NO FLAMMABLE GASSES

45

46

ROTOROBIC/ROTORDISK SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED AND OPERATING IN THESE VARIED APPLICATIONS:

• Residential Housing • Commercial Establishments • Condominiums • Shopping Malls • Cluster Housing • Restaurants • Apartments • Parks and Campgrounds • Nursing homes • Golf Courses • Vacation homes • Sports Cen"ters • Hotels and Motels • Rest Stops • Mobile Homes • Logging and Construction Camps

Units with capacities over 1000 gal./day are available under the name Rotordisk™from CMS Equipment, Ltd., Canada. Consult your dealer.

,. f .,

TREATMENT DRY Model No. CAPACITY WEIGHT

(giJ.IJday) llbs .)

ROTOROBtC 500 500 400

ROTOROBtC 750 750 700

ROTOROBtC 1000 1000 BOO EXTERNAL CONNECTIONS: 4 - d,am. ASS ELECTRIC MOTOR; Slngl. PIl ... 110.. 60 eyel.

UNIT HEIGHT

• 68

59

59

·unlt wldlh (g) moasured al shoulder helghl (e)

TECHNICAL DATA UNIT DIMENSIONS ~nch .. )

BURIAl. SHOULDER EFFLUENT INFL.UENT DEPTH HEIGHT WATERLINE WATERLINE

b c d . 60.5 43.5 33 35

47 40 30 32.5

47 40 30 32.5

Available Options • Lightweight concrete outer shell • Solar power package • Trouble alarm • Chlorinator for treating final effluent • Extended warranty • Financing

SLUDGE STORAGE

UNIT UNIT PRIMARY FINAL L.ENGTH WIDTH 4(:u. It ,) (CU . II .) I g'

59 69 16.9 2.9

71 88 23.4 4.0

71 88 23.4 4.0

Rotoroblc™ is a trademark of Welles Corporation, exclusive U.S . distributors of Rotordisk™ residential-sized waste treatment systems. Rotordisk™ is a patented product of CMS Equipment, Ltd., Toronto, Canada . '

¥lelles CORPORATION ... In Itle Hycor tradillon 01 engineering excellence.

653 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite I Manhattan Beach, California 90266 (213) 470·1292 (213) 545·1921 TELEX: 804294 - SPEEDEX ATL

Your local Rotoroblc dealer 15 :

~' 1981 Wellea Cotpotalion. Prlnled In U.S,A. WR·1829 2.5M

47

APPENDIX C. OIEMICAL ANALYSES

48

APPENDIX TABLE C.l. CliEMICAL ANALYSES AND PERFORMANCE 0lARACl'ERIS­TICS OF PILOl' RBC UNIT AND ~ '.IREATMENI' PLAN!', FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWI'P, PEARL HARBOR, HNVAII

Raw Wastewatera Final Effluenta,b,c

~

Flow Effl.

(ugd)

~ BCD. em ss

--(Irg/l)-

07/02 6.50 6.7 93 177 156 07/04 5.90 6.7 88 395 130

07/07 4.86 6.8 82 390 83

07/09 6.20 6.7 80 300 132

07/10 5.50 6.8 117 390 155

07/11 6.20 6.9 III 313 155

07/14 5.00 6.7 91 618 100

07/15 5.10 7.1 75 276 103

07/16 5.58 7.6 71 185 134

07/28 5.72 6.8 32 151 58

07/29 6.30 6.9 70 197 103

07/31 6.65 7.0 107 299 123

08101 5.77 6.9 51 707 132

08104 5.17 7.0 40 200 78

08105 5.29 7.0 367 220

08106 6.45 7.0 64 304 287

08107 5.06 6.9 98 94 86

08108 5.67 8.0 72 108 75

08111 4.84 7.0 104 363 208

08112 5.44 6.8 305 217

08113 5.07 6.9 96 181 135

08114 5.55 6.9 75 105 97

08115 5.67 6.8 34 79

08118 5.14 6.9 74 478 102

08120 5.60 7.8 630 594 504

08121 5.56 7.0 118 50 169

08122 6.13 7.0 120 279 79

08125 5.56 6.9 89 132

08126 6.25 6.8 55 74

08127 5.40 6.9 100 121 448

08128 5.74 6.8 84 109

08129 5.46 6.9 78 213 ill

09102 4.98 6.8 80 94 100

pH Cone.

(ng/l)

6.9 3.6

6.9 <2.0

7.0 2.6

6.8 <2.0

7.4 4.5

7.4 3.7

3.6

7.5 3.5

7.2 <2.0

7.0 2.0

7.1 2.2

6.9 4.0

7.3 2.0 2.0

7.0

6.9 2.0

7.1 5.2

6.9 5.6

2.1

6.6

7.0 2.0

7.1 3.0

6.9 2.0

3.9

6.7 <2.0

7.0 6.3

7.0 6.6

2.0

6.8 4.0

6.9 3.0

6.9 2.1

6.8 2.0

6.7 2.0

BCDs em ss R&­

lOO'Val (\)

96

97

97

98

96

97

96

95

97

94

97

96

96

95

97

95

92

98

98

96

94

95

99

95

95

98

93

97

98

97

98

R&­Cone. lOO'Val

R&­Cone. lOO'Val

(ng/l) (\) (ng/l) (\)

169 "5 10.4

368 7 10.8

224 43 14.4

158 47 6.2

93 76 8.2

152 51 11.0

445 28 13.8

175 37 12.8

11.6

97 36 10.6

66 66 10.6

91 70 9.1

o 100 11.0 44 78 7.6 83 77 8.6

7 98 7.6

58 38 9.6

72 33 10.0

142 61 10.0

146 52 9.3

112 38 7.4

39 63 13.4

11.0

111 77 14.3

6 99 6.6

o 100 13.8

11.4

6.8

11.4

64 47 12.2

5.5

72 66 7.8

4 96 8.0

93

92

69

95

95

93

86

88

91

82

92

93

92 90

96

97

89

87

95

96

95

86

86

86

99

92

86

95

85

97

95

93

92

IDre: Constituent values obtained fran analysis performed (or arranged to be analyzed) by Fort Kamehameha hWl'P.

tpffi: "X" means effluent greater than influent. ~4-hr canposite sanple. l:£iSd'larged to ocean outfall. ':Efficiencies for final effluent based on raw wastewater inputs. '71at surface area of discs.

APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-COntinued

ROl'ATIro BICL03ICAL <DNrJ\CroR

Influenta ,e Effluentf , 9

BCD, aD SS pH

--ng/l--

~

64 252 85 8.0 68 375 100 8.0

79 394 95 8.2

212 285 301 8.1

125 969 290 8.1 112 403 231 8.0

52 175 139 8.1

64 1!1l 85 7.9

63 210 46 7.4

55 203 86 8.0

50 283 81 8.1

255 318 550 8.1

108 1596 1126 8.0

258 1096 1510 8.2

435 293 7.5

159 836 1278 7.7

460 910 1208 7.5

388 943 1106 7.4

370 865 1386 7.7

944 1078 7.8 490 1172 1388 8.0

620 1085 2044 7.5

388 766 1545 8.0

580 1555 1610 7.8

990 1374 1490 7.7

1140 1118 1670 7.7

1350 1086 1819 7.7

525 1088 1935 7.6

393 1278 1450 7.7

538 1069 1535 7.6

365 1082 1420 7.8

315 1101 1565 7.8

255 1016 1227 7.9

?ww primary effluent.

Cl.

(ng/U

4196

4313

4313

3963

3846

3788

3963

4371

4021

3903

4021

4371

4429

4079

4487

4138

3788

3846

2739

4371 4254

4313

4313

3374

5285

5566

5679

5791

5623

5622

5904

5791

5679

Sol. Re= Cone. lOOVal BCD.

(ng/l) (%) (IIJ3/U

37.8

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

<2.0

2.0

<2.0

6.6

4.8

3.5

8.6

2.0

<2.0

2.0

10.3

9.0

11.4

2.0 3.9

3.0

3.9

6.0

8.3

17.6

16.3

<2.0

<3.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

41 !1l

97

99

98

98

96

97

90

91

93

97

98

99

99

98

98

97

99

99

99

99

99

98

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

<6.0

<2.0

2.6

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

12.4

2.0

<2.0

<2.0

7.6

5.7

4.6 2.0

<2.0

<3.0

<2.0

<2.0

3.9 6.9

25.0

<2.0

<2.5

<3.6

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Grab sanp1es. ~fficiencies based on inputs fram primary clarifier. -'"Discs exposed, unless otherwise noted. ~iscs a:wered. JEPA determined values.

Re= Cone. lOO\I'al

(ng/U (%)

354

220

217

132

162

153

47

187

86

145

132

30

185

72

88

35

171 182

112

12

55

260

121

X

41

45

54

83

62

73

5

59

29

53

98

83

83

89

96

80

81 90

99

93

83

89

'roC

(ng/U

31.1

9.3

7.8

7.9

8.6

9.3

6.2

3.1

9.7

2.3

6.5

7.4

7.3

8.2

7.0

6.2

6.2

8.0

12.3

4.5 10.0

10.9

4.2

6.5

7.9 13.6

8.9

8.2

7.8

8.8

7.1

9.1

3.9

Cone.

(ng/l>

286.4 30.8

3.6

15.8

13.0 12.1

16.4

4.2

18.8

32.6

4.8

8.6

17.3

14.0

9.2

3.4

2.0

3.1

31.0

2.7 4.5

3.8

3.7

6.3

5.8 23.3

15.3

3.9

6.2

5.4

3.4

3.8

4.8

SS Re=

lOO\I'al (%)

X

69

96

95

96

95

88

95

87

62

94

98

98

99

97

99

99

99

98

99 99

99

99

99

99 99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

49

Average Hydaulic lDading (~ ft,)d,h

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5 1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

50

APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued

~

FICM Effl.

Raw wastewatera

pH BCD. OOD SS

--(ng/l>-

pH

09103 5.59 6.9

09104 5.86 7.0

09105 5.55 6.9

09108 5.03 7.0

09109 5.38 6.6

09110 5.67 6.8

09lli 6.16 6.7 106

477 176 6.7

319 220 7.1

87 135

71 112

265 159

107 148 155 196

09112 5.93 6.9 44 92 66

71

126 09115 6.94

09116 6.13

09117 5.58

09118 5.21

09119 5.32

09122 4.93

09123 6.78

09124 5.78

09125 5.80

09126 5.40

09129 4.78

09130 5.30

10/01 5.63

10102 5.50

10103 5.82

10/06 5.38

10107 5.44

10/08 5.24

10/09 5.68

10110 5.72

10114 4.97

10/15 6.30

10116 6.44

10/17 6.30

10120 9.35

10/21 7.12

10/22 7.04

10/24 6.34

10/27 5.75

10128 5.86

6.8 52 120

6.8 li8 357

6.9 38 267

7.0 89 340

6.6 109 257

6.9 79 315

7.0 64 332

6.9 75 271

6.8 80 322

6.8 44 303

6.7 liO

6.8 162 422

6.8 48 216

6.6 122 341

6.6 90 410

7.0 70 246

6.8 200 301

7.7 136 360

7.6 120 158

6.7 100 365

6.9 33 181

6.7 595

7.0 191

6.8 103 381

6.9 7.5 41 j

6.9 <46 j

7.0 52 j

6.9 34 281

5.8 254

84

164

ll3

107

108

159

154

106

70

204

69

139

101

82

250

309

230

174

95

194

184

181

45

lli

85

109

70

95

6.8

7.0

6.7

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.9

7.0

6.8

6.6

6.9

7.3

6.8

6.5

6.9

6.5

6.7

6.7

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.8

6.2

6.7

Cone.

(ngll>

2.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

5.0

4.2

2.0

3.4

3.2

4.4

3.2

3.8

3.8

7.6

4.0

7.0

7.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

7.4

3.2

3.0 j

<2.7 j

<2.7 j

2.0

Final Efflueota ,b,c BCDs <XJ)

Re- Re-lOO'Jal Cone. lOO'Jal

(') (ng/l) (')

98

95

98

95

94

96

fJ7

95

96

95

93

98

92

94

96

90

fJ7

98

98

fJ7

78

93

94

95

94

68

26

104

100

143

92

li3

210

197

316

156

171

236

187

181

355

190

ISO 172

298

146

219

246

158

129

231

162

261

36

246

79

54

86

92

X

X

46

14

27

41

26

7

39

46

29

31

44

X

X

64

20

13

64

li

18

56

18

36

10

56

81

35

72

79

ss Re­

Cone. lOO'Jal

(ng/l) (')

6.8

7.5

8.0

7.8

11.0

8.6

18.2

16.4

li.2

9.5

10.4

6.9

9.5

6.0

li.9

6.3

11.4

5.9

10.4

li.5

12.0

17.0

18.2

12.9

7.1

7.6

9.0

15.7

9.4

10.7

8.6

12.4

14.2

li.8

12.8

15.4

9.0

96

97

94

93

93

94

91

75

91

89

94

94

91

94

93

96

89

92

95

83

91

83

78

95

98

fJ7

95

83

95

94

95

72

87

86

88

95

96

APPENDIX TABLE C.1.-continued

Effluentf ,9

Cl. BCD, Sol. BCD. aD SS pH Re= Cone. IOOI/'al BCD.

Re= Cone. IOOI/'al

'IOC Cone.

--ngll-- (ngiU (ngiU (\) (ngiU (ug/U (\) (ngiU (ngll)

661 1018 7.8 5570

1129 1052 7.6 5454 609 642 7.8 5342-

1045 1570 7.8 5117

1215 1810 7.8 6129 2.8

1166 1925 7.9 5623 <2.0

435 )2000 2090 7.7 5342 3.0

410 1242 1620 7.8 5566 9.0

85 222 91 7.8 4632 <2.0

84 409 134 7.8 4725 <2.0

57 282 79 7.8 4632 <2.0

58 397 88 7.8 4354 <2.0

72 147 99 7.8 4076 <2.0

116 515 266 8.0 4493 <2.0

67 439 198

53 298

63 312

44 389

241

89 296

90 265

115 S04

99 370

85 180

85 219

102 272

80 74

55 314

65 152

418

101

83 360

100 7.8

76 8.1

79 8.1

55 7.7

116 7.7

90 7.8

137 7.6

139 7.2

126 7.3

94 7.5

86 7.1

91 7.1

81 7.5

99 7.2

98 7.3

92 7.5

88 7.3

62

86

67

128

4076

3799

3799

4401

4540

4493

4586

5416

4632

4818

4493

4308

4215

5235

S012

4177

5347

67 339 102 7.5 4845

271 103 7.5 4845

2.0

2.0

2.0 2.0

2.0

14.6

4.6

46.2

20.1

43.0

7.6

5.5

96

11

71

96

34

70

99 <2.0 191

98 <2.0 129

98 <2.0 222

98 <2.0 171

96 <2.0 184

96 <2.0 175

97 <2.0 125

98 <2.0 287

96

97

93

98

84

96

53

69

48

92

2.0

2.0

5.4

2.0

29.4

::'2.3

23.4

<2.0

2.7

128

254

277

173

146

167

202

131

284

289

139

256

81

123

32

154

113

234

226

85 12.2

99 10.7

88 10.7

91 13.0

97 11.2

94 13.3 )90 5.0

90 10.4

X 7.2

73 10.6

35 11.6

56 10.7

15 11.2

44 9.7

57

19

29

28

51

37

60

65

X

X

49

X

74

19

92

X

69

31

17

11.3

11.3

12.4

11.4

11.3

15.4

13.5

22.0

16.5

20.0

17.4

15.1

16.1

15.7

25.2

13.8

19.5

8.3

12.7

4.1

3.9

6.2

3.8

3.0

6.4

16.3

55.1

12.1

4.6

5.9

4.3

3.1

4.7

19.0

6.0

7.0

10.9

23.9

106.2

4.1

34.3

9.9

15.4

13.1

10.5

7.6

11.2

9.6

17.0

36.8

81.0

7.2

8.4

10.8

SS Re=

lIlOITal (\)

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

97

87

97

93

95

96

98

81

92

91

80

79

X

97

75

92

84

85

88

91

88

88

82

58

X

92

87

92

51

Average Hydaulic

Loading (~ ftl)d,h

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

52

APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued

F1Qi Effl.

Raw wastewatera Final Effluenta,b,C BCD, OOD

BCD, aD SS pH Reo- Reo-Cone. lIICNal Cone. IOOVal

SS

Cone.

(1193) -(ngll>-- (ngll> (\) (ngll> (\) (ngll)

Reo­lIICNal

(\)

~ 10129 5.60 6.9 45 313

10/30 5.63 6.7 342

10/31 5.SO

11103 5.23

11104 5.06

11105 6.19

11106 5.42

11107 5.61

11111 4.98

11112 5.07

·11113 5.22

11114 5.62

11117 40SO

11118 5.90

11119 5.50

11120 5.22

11/21 5.31

11124 4.75

11125 5.43

11126 5.56

11128 4.51

12101 4.43

12102 4.21

12103 4.50

6.7 426

6.8 29 434

6.7 41

6.7 30

6.6 37 387

6.6 25

6.7 70 S03

7.7 <1.0 324

6.6 96 424

6.8 46 329

6.9 82 487

7.7 141 308

7.1 ISO 322

7.1 115 430

7.4 100 1142

7.1 56 404

7.4 59 379

7.0 68 S04

7.4 73 610

7.0 810

7.4 294

6.8 377

330

79 6.5

60 6.9

III

79

64

61

58

59

70

93

89

101

rn 123

125

94

112

87

rn 119

96

90

63

77

92

114

93

67

94

90

6.6

6.8

7.0

6.2

7.5

7.0

6.9

6.9

7.1

6.9

7.0

6.8

7.0

6.7

7.0

6.7

7.3

7.8

6.9

7.1

345 133 6.8

6.7 403 101

12104 3.99 7.1

12105 5.23 7.0

12108 5.32 7.0

12109 5.98 6.8

12110 5.58 6.8

12112 5.79 6.8

12119 5.20 6.9

12122 5.04 6.9

12123 5.83 7.4

12125 4.74 6.8

12126 5.51 6.8

12129 5.15 6.9

12130 5.49 6.8

324 1125 6.7

454 74

407 113

538

129

2.0

2.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

2.5

<1.0

2.1

2.0

2.0

2.3

2.2

3.2

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

96

93

98

rn rn 96

96

X

98

96

98

98

99

rn 98

96

rn rn rn

98

266

245

280

217

356

277

243

309

266

280

209

253

190

382

348

445

592

580

197

207

226

274

263

282

291

268

327

69 8.2

22 12.2

42

35

44

29

15

43

6

45

9

35

41

83

5

8

12

3

28

33

45

32

9.0

8.8

9.0

9.8

6.6

12.2

7.0

15.2

7.0

6.6

12.2 8.4

5.7

4.6

6.0

8.7

6.0

7.8

6.4

7.0

8.6

8.8

5.1

14.2

17.6

16.8

14.4

6.8

21 8.8

35 13.1

13 16.8

36 9.9

34 15.5

39

13.4

97

96

98

98

98

99

95

98

98

rn rn 98

99

99

98

98

98

99

92

86

89

94

88

81

75

85

92

93

87

99

87

86

90

APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued RC1l'ATIK; BICLcxaCAL <D~

Influenta,e

BCDs em ss pH Cl Re= Cone. lIIO'Ial

--110/1-- (110/1> (110/1> (\)

~

65 182 102 7.4 4901

354 118 7.4 4734

309 94 7.3 4511

320 96 7.3 5012

9.7

7.3

3.7 6.9

4.9

3.0

2.2

364

80 7.3

101

83 7.7 4678

93

451 101 7.4 5347 21.5

349 126 7.6 4511 219 91 7.7 4455 12.5

340 92 7.5 4901 >50.0

472 102 7.7 5068 5.9

414 113 7.6 4623 10.3

285 96 7.6 4233 5.6

499 133 7.2 4288 6.0

377 106 7.5 4455 19.0

472 105 7.5 4511 12.5

331 101 7.6 4814 5.8

664 .110 7.6 4338 10.0 456 128 7.6 4549 5.2

610 135 7.6 4814 4.5

386 106 7.7 4708 2.0

466 188 7.7 4761 8.1

294 108 7.6 4391 9.7

105

131

134

324

102

5.0

5.8

18.6

10.4

627 233 7.5 4179 >8.3 532 170 7.4 4285 5.8

1400 1532 7.4 4391 12.4

309 171 7.3 4761

389 85 7.4 4920 9.0

301 7.2 4920 7.6

88 10.2

85

Effluentf ,9

Sol. BCD.

em RE.=

Cone. lIIO'Ial (110/1) (110/1) (\)

'lOC

(110/1>

2.0 112 38 13.3

257 27 13.3

2.0 . 287 7 13.1

Cone.

(m;V1>

2.0 280 13 11.8 5.8 2.0 17

2.3 7.8

2.0

2.0

284 22 12.8 6.4

6.2

12.0 263 42 14.3 14.5

325 7 15.5 20.7

3.2 256 X 13.5 37.2

8.2 309 97 14.6 28.0

5.2 450 5 12.4 5.0

6.4 272 34 16.7 4.3

4.5 242 15 14.4 4.3

4.4 288 42 14.9 3.8

7.1 327 13 18.5 17.5

6.3 401 15 16.4 9.7

5.7 361 X 13.9 5.6

3.4 451 32 14.5 5.5

3.4 542 X 13.8 9.6

2.5 347 43 12.1 12.8

2.0 413 X 11.6 7.2

5.6 243 48 15.1 4.1

6.9 178 39 13.3 4.1

2.1

2.0

8.2

3.2

>5.4

6.2

4.5

3.0

4.3

4.1

444 29 22.2

480 10 16.0

302 78 14.7

297 4 7.0

14.4

293 3 13.8

9.0

15.6

400

13.6

15.6

5.6

9.3

6.8

7.5

7.7

ss RE.=

lIIO'Ial (\)

94 79

93

92

93

86

84

59

70

95

96

96

97

83

91

94

95

93

91

93

98

96

91

88

X

96

93

97

99

96

91

53

Average Bydaulic Loading (~ ftl)d,h

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

54

APPENDIX TABLE e.l.-continued

Raw wastewatera Final Eff1uenta ,b,c BCD. ClD F1a./

Effl. pH BCD. aD SS pH Re- Re-Cone. IWJal Cone. lIDVal

--(m;y'1)- (m;y'l> (\) (m;y'l> (\)

~

01101 5.02 6.9 62

01102 6.00 6.9 161 01105 5.53 6.9 99

01106 5.97 6.7 126

01107 5.82 6.8 123

01108 6.04 6.7 100

01109 6.17 7.0 84

01112 5.43 6.8

01113 5.67 6.9

01114 5.16 6.8

01115 5.08 6.8

01116 5.43 6.8

01120 4.68 6.9

01121

01122

01/23

01126

01127

01128

01129

01130

02105

02106

02109

02110

5.59 6.8 5.44 7.3

5.49 7.7

5.52 7.0

5.46 6.9

5.57 6.8

5.89 7.0

6.12 7.0

6.41 7.0

6.14 6.6

5.20 6.8

5.61 6.5

105

68

105

126

329 67

124

358 92

305 145

501 120

449 125

354 11l

558 91

6.8

6.7

6.6

6.8

6.9

6.6

6.8

205 485 6.7

302 ll4 221 144 6.5

418 174 6.4

395 105

363 175

447 169

354 102

101 90

410 152

468 185

508 133

326 133

493 ll9

566 ll3

153

702

6.6 6.4

6.8

7.0

6.6

6.5

6.7

6.7

7.0

7.0

7.2

4.3

2.4 12.8

<2.0

3.6

4.5

2.1

9.2

2.6

2.0

2.8

93

99

87

98

rn 96

98

91

96

98

98

254

232

328

172

308

308

329

199

155

228

300

219 266

222

353

256

357

255

457

450

586

(Pilot ROC W'lit not operating fran 11 Feb. to 31 Mar. 1986.)

23

24

35

62

13

45

X

34

30

45

24

40 40

37

X

38

30

22

7

20

17

04101 5.05 7.2 108 230 114 6.7 7.2 93 45 80

04102 4.82 6.9 99 205 109 6.5 <2.0 rn 45 78

04103 4.99 7.1 96 160 84 6.5 <2.0 98 40 75 04106 4.54 6.9 50 95 62 2.3 95 20 79

04107 5.06 7.0 63 170 71 6.8 2.7 96 50 71

04108 5.46 7.1 73 180 126 6.5 <2.0 rn 20 89

04109 5.48 7.4 90 160 140 6.3 <2.0 98 90 44

04110 4.67 7.3 90 195 105 6.52.9 97 45 77

04113 4.39 7.1 71 120 76 <2.0 rn 35 71

06/18 5.90 7.2 94 260 128 6.6 2.0 98

06/19 6.12 7.2 140 162 6.9 6.4 95

06/22 5.40 6.7 102 169 6.6 94

06/23 5.90 7.3 ll3 180 7.1 2.3 98

ss Cone.

(ng/l>

9.6

ll.2 45.8

11.2

14.6

13.0

13.7

29.8

8.6

23.6

53.8

5.6

5.4 16.4

11.8

9.7

18.1

7.5

5.4

7.7

40.9

11.2

8.6

6.6

7.4

9.3 8.4

10.1

10.1

15.4

20.4

3.9

18.6

31.9

25.3 15.2

87

96

rn rn

98

85

rn 89

87

99

99 90

88

89

88

96

96

94

66

90

94

94

93

89 86

86

92

89

81

95

85

80

85 92

APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued

Influenta ,e Effluentf,g

Cl BCD. Sol. BCD, roD SS pH Re= Cone. lOOVal B(]),

Re- 'lOC Cone. lOOVal Cone.

(ng/l> --ngll-- (ng/l> (ng/l> (%) (ng/l) (ng/l> (%) (ng/l)

847 572 7.2 5026 10.2 761 7.3 4655 10.1

115 7.2 4523 10.4

467 122 7.2 4920 10.4

478 100 7.2 4497 8.5

371 91 7.3 4481 8.2

326 86 7.0 4529 26.4

436 llO 7.3 4091 3.2

III 59 7.2 4140 3.8

304 102 7.1 3945 82.7

292 105 7.4 4140 82.0

380 ll3 7.1 3701 86.2

466 70 7.2 4286 5.1

351 127 7.1 4286 5.3 360 108 7.1 4334 6.6

304 95 7.0 4775 2.4

365 97 7.1 4821 12.3

338 104 7.3 4334 13.0

370 85 7.2 3896 5.2

405 93 7.3 3945 13.2 390 183 7.2 4627 5.4

100 658 III 7.1 4821 88.5

54 489 104 7.3 3765 19.8

81 126 7.5 4061 15.6

86 536 7.3 4145 29.3

61 190

83 160 179 355

75 ISO

82 240

72 140

71 205

78 200

100 195

ISO

78 7.1

130 7.1

238 6.9

78 7.2

98 7.2

91 7.3

85 7.2

103 7.4

191 7.3

6.7

7.4

7.3

7.4

3699

4254

3930

3468

3930

3930

3484

3457

3808

4361

4874

5387

5489

48.0

20.8

62.0

32.0

81.5

19.0

12.0

65.0

48.0

7.5

23.0

22.0

6.2 382

2.0 273

3.0

3.6 352

3.9 397

3.2 399

11.4 398

2.0 180

2.0 301

67.8 279

59.0 180

>35.0 287

2.0 316

5.0 291

4.8 286

325

5.1 324 3.7 399

5.5 351

5.7 581

3.0 298

13 56.5 488

63 10.0 381

81 7.1 544

66 9.9 556

21

75

65

57

1

74

83

35

70

70

151

65

155

70

70

160

140

225

128

373

219

55 11.9 5.5

10.5 10.9 9.3 3.5

25 11.8 7.3

17 12.6 5.6

X 14.5 6.8

X 16.3 46.0 59 10.5 7.2

X 14.1 4.9

8 23.5 12.9

38 35.7 19.3

24 25.4 24.8

32 15.1 4.6

17 17.7 5.6

21 19.5 7.5

X 22.3 24.5

11 16.5 16.5

X 17.3 9.2

5 18.5 8.3

X 17.9 6.6 24 16.0 5.8

II 29.6 33.3

22 21.0 17.3

17.1 18.4

X 21.1 28.0

63

56 57

57

35

SO

66

80

28

X

23.2

23.8

35.5

26.7

39.9

26.5

24.9

32.0

39.4

12.8

11.7

13.7

14.7

58.0

16.8

9.3

46.8

56.8

32.4

36.0

42.0

49.2

18.4

13.4

28.0

24.4

ss Re­

lOO\7al (%)

99

99

97

94

94

93

47

93

92

87

82

78

93

96

93

74

83

91

90

93

97

70

83

85

25

87

96

40

42

64

58

59

74

55

Average Hydaulic Loading (~ ft,)d,h

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0 i

5.0 i

5.0 i

5.0 i

56

APPENDIX TllBLE C.l.-continued

~ 'lRF.Ml£NT FLANT

Bmt Hmitewate,a final Effl~nta,5,c mTE Flow B(J). (XJ) SS

Effl. pH B(J). aD SS pH Roe- Roe- Roe-Cone. IOO\7al Cone. IOO\7al Cone. IOO\7al (ngel) --(ng/lJ- (ng/l) (%) (ng/lJ (%) (ng/l) (%)

~

06/24 5.75 7.2 125 191 7.1 2.6 98 11.9 94

06/26 5.19 7.1 88 136 7.1 <2.0 98 6.7 95

06129 4.42 6.6 105 10.1 90

06/30 4.50 7.2 129 6.5 6.1 95 07/01 4.50 7.3 85 ISO 125 6.5 <2.0 98 93 38 12.8 90

07/02 5.07 7.6 90 43 86 6.6 <2.0 98 69 X 6.1 93

07/06 5.20 7.1 83 95 3.8 95 147 7.3 92 07/07 5.60 7.1 68 341 129 6.6 2.4 96 73 79 8.3 94

07/14 5.70 7.4 48 42 39 6.9 <2.0 96 11.1 72

07/15 5.50 7.4 105 179 137 7.0 <2.0 98 50 72 18.4 87

57

APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued

0CIl'ATIlC BICLCGlCAL CDNTJl.CIOR InfluentA,e Effluentf,9 Average

BCD. aD SS Hydaulic BCD. CDD SS pH Cl k= Sol. Re= 'lOC Re= Loading

Cone. lOOITal BCD. Cone. lOOITal

Cone. lOOITal (~

--ng/l-- (ng/I) (ng/l) (%) (ng/I) (ng/I) (%) (ng/I) (ng/I) (%) ftl)d, i

12M. 7.0 57f51 54.0 111 20.0 56.0 5.0

7.4 4463 35.0 60 19.5 40.4 5.0

104 7.2 4514 52.0 271 24.8 38.0 63 5.0 82 7.5 4053 39.0 194 7.3 36.0 56 5.0

70 119 105 7.5 3488 30.0 57 211 X 12.0 27.6 74 5.0

84 22 103 7.5 4001 29.0 65 29 X 13.2 25.6 75 5.0

7.3 5079 35.0 223 9.0 75 5.0

64 359 96 7.7 4104 91.0 X 436 X 37.3 230 X 5.0

50 66 7.6 4599 30 6.2 16.2 50 5.0

38 103 78.0 X 5.0

59

APPENDIX D. HFAVY METAL ANALYSES

61

APPENDIX TJ\BLE 0.1. HFAVY METAL COOCENllOO.'ICNS AT VARIOOS IJX'ATIONS 'lBRC(X;1OJT FORT KAMEHAMEHA ~, PEARL HARBffi, HNiAII

AVERK;E HFAVY METALS

DATE HYDRAIJLIC Ag Cd Cr OJ Fe Ni Pb Zn LOADIN3 (gpd/ft2) * (ng/l)

RAW WASTE.WATERt

07/02185 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.4 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.18 07/05/85 1.5 0.00 0.02 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.14 07/09/85 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.11 07/12185 1.5 0.02 0.03 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.21 07/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.16 07/19/85 1.5 0.00 0.03 0.0 0.3 7.0 0.1 0.1 0.55 07/23/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.12 07/26/85 1.5 0.04 0.01 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.12 07/30/85 1.5 0.06 0.04 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.14 08102/85 1.5 0.06 0.01 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.20 08106/85 1.5 0.00 0.03 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.27 08/09/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.10 08113/85 1.5 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.23 08116/85 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.11 08120/85 1.5 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.13 08123/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.12 08127/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.07 08/30/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.18 09/03/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.37 09/10/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.17 09/13/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.36 09/17/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.19 09/20/85 1.5 0.04 0.03 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.18 09/24185 1.5 0.05 0.03 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.22 09/27/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.11 10/01/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.2 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.42 10/04185 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.14 10/08185 1.5 0.07 0.02 0.1 0.3 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.37 10/11/85 1.5 0.04 0.03 0.0 0.1 6.5 0.1 0.2 0.30 10/15/85 1.5 0.04 0.03 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.18 10/18185 1.5 0.02 0.04 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.3 0.4 0.26 10/22/85 1.5 0.11 0.01 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.26 10/25/85 1.5 0.01 0.06 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.15 10/29/85 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.09 11/01/85 3.0 0.05 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.11 11/05/85 3.0 0.05 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.46 11112185 3.0 0.04 0.02 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.10 11/lS/85t 3.0 0.02 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.18 11/15/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.09

NJlE: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. t24-hr composite sample except as noted. tGrab sample.

62

APPENDIX TABLE D.1.-COntinued

A\TERH3E HFAVY METALS HYDRAULIC Ag Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Pb Zn LOADIro (gpd/ft2) * (ng/1)

11/19/85 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.15 11/26/85 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.57 11129/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.10 12103/85 3.0 0.12 0.01 0.2 0.5 5.1 0.2 0.1 0.50 12106/85 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.17 12113/85 3.0 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.26 12120/85 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.18 12/24185 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.15 12131/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.45 01/06/86 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.15 01/10/86 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.11 01/17/86 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.10 01/24186 3.0 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 O.ll 01/28/86 3.0 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.14 02104186 5.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.16 02107/86 5.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.18

PRIMARY CIARIFIER EFFLtJEN.["t

06/14185 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.13 07/02185 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.13 07/05/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.10 07/09/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.34 07/12185 1.5 0.06 0.01 0.0 0.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.36 07/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.12 07/19185 1.5 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.3 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.42 07/23/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.17 07/26/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.30 07/30/85 1.5 0.12 0.04 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.11 08102185 1.5 0.20 0.02 0.2 1.2 10.8 0.4 0.2 1.18 08106/85 1.5 0.11 0.00 0.1 -0.5 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.40 08109/85 1.5 0.12 0.01 0.4 2.2 12.2 0.0 0.1 1.01 08113/85 1.5 0.20 0.02 0.2 1.5 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.84 08116/85 1.5 0.24 0.00 0.4 2.4 16.3 0.4 0.0 1.92 08120/85 1.5 0.22 0.04 0.0 1.8 10.6 0.2 0.2 1.38 08123/85 1.5 0.12 0.02 0.4 2.4 15.4 0.4 0.2 1.98 08/27/85 1.5 0.12 0.06 0.5 2.0 14.6 0.4 0.4 1.87 08130/85 1.5 0.24 0.02 0.4 2.2 13.0 0.4 0.4 1.84 09/03/85 1.5 0.18 0.06 0.5 1.4 12.8 0.4 0.2 1.21 09/06/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.09 09/10/85 1.5 0.26 0.04 0.3 2.2 13.0 0.2 0.2 1.78 09/12185 1.5 0.28 0.02 0.3 2.2 12.4 0.4 0.2 1.78 09/17/85 1.5 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.27 09/20/85 1.S 0.07 0.02 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.29

IDlE: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. t24-hr oamposite sample except as noted.

63

APPENDIX TABLE D.1.--COntinued

A~ HFAVY METALS

DATE HYDRADLIC

1Ig Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Pb Zn LQN)IR; (gpd/ft2) * (ng/1)

09/24/85 1.5 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.4 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.56 09/27/85 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.37 10/01/85 1.5 0.03 0.06 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.41 10/04185 1.5 0.09 0.04 0.1 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.20 10/08185 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.89 10/11/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.14 10/15/85 1.5 0.03 0.04 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.17 10/18185 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.22 10/22/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 O.ll 10/25/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.17 10/29/85 3.0 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.15 11101/85 3.0 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.14 11/05/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.10 11/08185 3.0 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.16 11/12/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.16 11115/85 3.0 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.23 11119/85 3.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.20 11/22/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.28 11/26/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.18 11/29/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.18 12106/85 3.0 0.06 0.04 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.20 12110/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.18 12113/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.20 12117/85 3.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.4 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.33

. 12124185 3.0 0.14 0.02 0.2 2.2 18.2 0.2 0.0 1.84 12127/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.05 12131/85 3.0 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.09 01/07/86 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.10 01/10/86 3.0 0.06 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.19 01117/86 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.19 01/24186 3.0 0.26 0.03 0.2 1.2 9.8 0.2 0.2 0.84 01128/86 3.0 0.07 0.02 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.58 02104186 5.0 0.04 0.01 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.14 02107/86 5.0 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.13 02l11/86t 5.0 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.95 02l14186f 5.0 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.14 02l18186f 5.0 0.07 0.02 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.21 02l25/86f 5.0 0.10 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.16 02/28186f 5.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.75 03/04l86f 5.0 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.19 03/11/86f 5.0 0.06 0.03 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 03/14186f 5.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.13 03/18186f 5.0 0.07 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.10 03/21/86t 5.0 0.06 0.03 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.17

IDlE: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. tGrab sample.

64

APPENDIX TABLE D.1.-continued

AVEEW;E HEAVY METALS

DATE HYDRAULIC Ag Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Pb Zn LOADIR;

<gpdlft')* <ugll>

ROl'ATIR; BIQImlCAL OONl'ACIDR EFFLUENIi

06/14/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.13 07/02185 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.07 07/05/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.05 07/09/85 1.5 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.07 07/12185 1.5 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.06 07/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 07/19/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.10 07/23/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.03 07/26/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.05 07/30/85 1.5 0.01 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.04 08102185 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.11 08106/85 1.5 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.07 08/09/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.12 08/13/85 1.5 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.05 08/16/85 1.5 0.00 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.36 08120/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.05 08123/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 08/27/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.32 08130/85 1.5 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.05 09/03/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.02 09/06/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.06 09/10/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.07 09/l3/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.05 09/17/85 1.5 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.36 09/20/85 1.5 0.08 0.10 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.27 09/24/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.03 09/27/85 1.5 0.07 0.07 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.45 10/01/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.06 10/08185 1.5 0.00 0.06 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.07 10/ll/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.03 10/15/85 1.5 0.04 0.08 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.01 10/18185 1.5 0.15 0.08 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.06 10/22/85 1.5 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.04 10/25/85 1.5 0.01 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.06 10/29/85 3.0 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.01 11/01/85 3.0 0.00 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.02 11/05/85 3.0 0.03 0.01 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.03 11/08/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.10 11/12185 3.0 0.00 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.00 11/15/85 3.0 0.00 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 11/19/85 3.0 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.01 11/22/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02

IDl'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. fGrab sample.

65

APPENDIX TABLE O.l.-continued

AVERlGE HEAVY METALS

DATE HYDRAULIC Ag Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Pb Zn LO.ZIDIN;

(gpd/ftZ)* (ng/1)

11126/85 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.00 11/29/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00 12103185 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.01 12109/85 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.02 12110/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 . 0.2 0.03 12/13/85 3.0 0.02 0.02 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.02 12120/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.01 12127/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.00 12131/85 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.01 01/03/86 3.0 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.01 01/07/86 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.00 01/10/86 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00 01/14186 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 01/17/86 3.0 0.12 0.02 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.06 01/24186 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00 01/28186 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.01 01/31/86 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.01 02107/86 5.0 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.02 02/21/86 5.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.02 04108186 5.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.11 04lW86 5.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.02 06/17/86 5.0S 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.05 06/20/86 5.0S 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.05 06/24186 5.0S 0.02 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.02 06/27/86 5.0S 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.04 07/01/86 5.0S 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.04 07/03/86 5.0S 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.05

MIXED LIQOOR SUSPEIDID SOLIDS {AERATION TAN<) t

07/02185 1.5 0.06 0.03 0.2 0.8 7.9 0.2 0.4 0.52 07/05/85 1.5 0.10 0.04 0.5 1.7 13.7 0.3 0.5 1.25 07/09/85 1.5 0.06 0.05 0.4 1.6 10.5 0.2 0.5 1.04 07/12185 1.5 0.20 0.04 0.6 1.8 12.4 0.3 0.6 1.38 07/16/85 1.5 0.20 0.05 0.3 1.5 10.0 0.2 0.5 1.08 07/19/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.4 1.2 9.1 0.2 0.4 0.91 07/23185 1.5 0.21 0.03 0.1 1.0 7.8 0.2 0.4 0.77 07/26/85 1.5 0.23 0.03 0.3 0.9 9.6 0.2 0.4 0.74 07/30/85 1.5 0.24 0.04 0.2 1.0 8.8 0.2 0.5 0.74 08/02/85 1.5 0.04 0.06 0.4 1.8 15.4 0.4 0.5 1.77 08106/85 1.5 0.22 0.04 0.2 1.1 7.0 0.2 0.4 0.81 08/09/85 1.5 0.23 0.03 0.2 1.4 8.3 0.2 0.4 0.70 08113/85 1.5 0.24 0.04 0.2 0.9 8.0 0.2 0.3 0.63

ID1'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *Flat surface area of discs, wi til discs exposed except as noted. tGrab sample. SOiscs covered.

66

APPENDIX TABLE D.1.--continued

AVElUIGE HEAVY METALS

DATE IDDRADLIC

1v;3 Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Ph Zn LO.lIDIK; (gpd/ft2) * (ng/!)

08116/85 1.5 0.27 0.05 0.3 1.3 9.7 0.3 0.4 1.21 08123/85 1.5 0.27 0.01 0.2 1.2 8.6 0.3 0.2 1.43 08/27/85 1.5 0.28 0.07 0.4 1.2 8.7 0.4 0.1 1.40 09/10/85 1.5 0.10 0.04 0.2 1.0 7.2 0.2 0.4 0.86 09/13/85 1.5 0.21 0.01 0.2 1.0 6.1 0.0 0.2 0.96 09/20/85 1.5 0.19 0.12 0.1 1.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.84 09/24/85 1.5 0.21 0.08 0.2 1.1 9.3 0.2 0.4 1.05 09/27/85 1.5 0.19 0.08 0.1 0.9 7.9 0.2 0.2 0.93 10/08185 1.5 0.20 0.04 0.0 0.9 6.6 0.2 0.3 0.64 10/11/85 1.5 0.19 0.04 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.1 0.4 0.69 10/22/85 1.5 0.24 0.04 0.2 0.9 12.0 0.3 0.0 1.01 11/22/85 3.0 0.22 0.04 0.2 1.2 10.0 0.2 0.5 0.93 11/26/85 3.0 0.22 0.03 0.3 1.2 8.0 0.2 0.3 0.78 11/29/85 3.0 0.02 0.03 0.5 1.3 10.2 0.3 0.3 0.83 12110/85 3.0 0.27 0.04 0.5 1.4 9.9 0.2 0.5 1.05 121l3/85 3.0 0 .. 03 0.04 0.1 1.2 7.9 0.2 0.4 0.84 12117/85 3.0 0.09 0.04 0.1 1.3 8.7 0.2 0.4 0.88

SEXX>IDARY CLARIFIER EFFLUENl.'f 07/02185 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.03 07/05/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.07 07/09/85 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.04 07/12185 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.01 07/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.08 07/19185 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.04 07/23/85 1.5 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 07/26/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.02 07/30/85 1.5 0.12 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.03 08/02185 1.5 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.04 08106/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 O.ll 08109/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.10 08113/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.04 08116/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.03 08120/85 1.5 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.01 08123/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.03 08127/85 1.5 0.05 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.04 08130/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.05 09/03/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.02 09/10/85 1.5 0.16 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.03 09/13/85 1.5 0.07 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.07 09/17/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 09/20/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.09 09/24/85 1.5 0.06 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.04

NJl'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. fGrab sample.

67

APPENDIX TABLE D.1.-continued

A~E HFAVY METALS

DATE HYDRAULIC

Ag Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Pb Zn LOADIOO (gpd/ft2) * (ng/I)

09/27/85 1.5 0.07 0.03 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.03 10/01/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.01 10/04185 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.02 10/08185 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.01 10/11/85 1.5 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.05 10/15/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.04 10/18185 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.06 10/22/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.03 10/25/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.06 10/29/85 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.02 11/01/85 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.05 11/05/85 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.03 11/08185 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.07 11112/85 3.0 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.03 11/15/85 3.0 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.08 11119/85 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.05 11/22/85 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 11/26/85 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.03 11129/85 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.43 12106/85 3.0 0.00 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.08 12110/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.05 121l3/85 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.10 12117/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.05 12124185 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.04 12127/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.05 12131/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.03 01/07/86 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.10 01/10/86 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 01/17/86 3.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.00 01/24186 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.04 01128/86 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.04 01/31/86 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 02104186 5.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.05 02107/86 5.0 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.09

FINAL Et'F'LUENl't

07/02185 1.5 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 07/05/85 1.5 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.05 12103/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.02 02l2l/86 5.0 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.11 07/01/86 5.0§ 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0 .• 04

Wl'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. t24-hr composite sample except as noted. §Discs covered.

68

APPENDIX TABLE D.1.-COntinued AVERlV3E HFAVY METALS

DATE HYDRAIJLIC

Ag Cd Cr CU Fe Ni Pb Zn I.(W)IN:;

(gpd/ftZ) * (ng/1)

RAW SLUDGET 09/17/85 1.5 0.02 0.53 5.9 58.0 264 4.6 2.1 32.1 09/20/85 1.5 0.13 0.46 6.7 33.8 260 5.0 2.0 34.7 09/24/85 1.5 0.02 0.18 4.1 24.1 191 2.9 0.6 22.2 09/27/85 1.5 0.07 0.29 4.5 24.4 192 3.4 0.8 2l.0

~IGFSl'ED SLUDGEt 09/20/85 1.5 0.13 0.35 6.0 40.5 288 0.9 2.1 28.9 10/04185 1.5 0.25 0.44 9.6 47.9 373 1.1 3.3 37.8 10/11185 1.5 0.05 0.45 9.4 46.9 380 1.1 3.2 35.1 10/15/85 1.5 0.18 0.42 7.3 48.2 378 1.2 2.9 35.6 10/25/85 1.5 0.20 0.37 8.3 45.2 405 1.1 3.0 34.6 11/01/85 3.0 0.21 0.38 8.4 46.3 475 1.1 2.6 35.5

N1I'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. *F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. tGrab sample.

69

APPENDIX E.l. CAPITAL COOTS AND OPERATION AND MAIN'lENAlO: EXPENSE

Material prcwided, with the ~rmission to utilize in this report, by Albert Tsuji, and M.e. Nottingham of Hawaii, Ltd., Honolulu, Hawaii

Dote

To

Subject

71

.Inter-Offi\;~ Envirex

January 25, 1984 --_._---_. --

Albert Tsuji

a Rexnord Company

cc: Dick Davie Ed Saffran

Process Design Proposal for the Honouliuli Wastewater Treatment Facility

Dear Albert:

Enclosed is a binder containing our Process Design Proposal for the subject project. Also included are data and technical papers dealing with the RBC process and the AERO-SURF RBC process.

As you will note, the attached design does not vary too much from the design presented to the City and County of Honolulu back in 1980. Due to the tight land requirements, the previous submitted layout works the best.

As we did in 1980, the following is the energy consumption comparison between the proposed RBC process in the Turbine Aerator Activated Sludge Process previously considered.

At~per KW the energy usage will be: $O.10x(375+125HP 0.745) x 24 x 3~= $326,310 per year for the Rotating Biological Contactor process and 10.10x{1,125+125HP 0.745) x 24 x 365 = $815,556 per year for the Submerged Turbine Activ~ted Sludge Process.

The difference works out to be $489,246 per year, or $9,784,940 savings over 20 year life of plant.

Please let me know if further data or help is required.

Very truly yours,

§tiS RAlsos

72

Flow, D~:I~ A"~r8ae

F=lo wJ N1~)Cjh1L1n'1 t40LJrI~

I=low 1 Pea k-

l=low M: n il')'0m ,

'BO.I>~

'BODS-

'BODs (Solu b Ie)

PS$

TSS

Wa~tewaie( T(rr'lftr.;tu re

'80'0,"

TsS

No+es

25.0N16D

~? 5" Nt G-P

GI.OMG-D

\'7. 9 MG-D

441000 Ib~/da'ts

2.1/ m~/e

(IDe WI~ Ie) 35'. iVO 'b~ /d" ~ 17~ I'na It G(fa-ter than 55 QF

I. E',.,,,ire,>c QS+imafe of v~lue~ are 'Shown ~~ ps,eVltht'si$.

2. Ihclv~+da I 'BODs load i~ assul't'~d -to be Ie~s fhal"'l 10'1.:> of the toT. I 80DS'

?>.£n,,:rex a~&)01e!> 1haT 4he abOol~ ".lIeU'S ind""cl.e BODS', fJH a-N6V'1d. TS'S re-lIJf'Y\ lroWi ~I""c:li~ Cond:f.iot"lj"'8 ~~5tems.

DE~I(;tJ CALCU\..ATIONS

Pri l'I"\a r,& Tre:lil-fl~ n-t

T'jpe: Grit Re,.,-.oval and Pt"irn8r~ cl~r"rfic_+io",

BODS R~/Ylolled! NoT arr/i~~ble a~ +he J2'Be d~:'a'" i-s based 0...,

SDI.., I:)le BODS

5ec..ond~r"~ Tre~tmenT

T'jpe ~ FlE:I2o-sv~F ~ot43-t;h~ Bjolo~ j ~;J' Coflta~tor~ (esc)

I .... f/..,ent Sol&Jble BODs

SoloJble BODs '= ToTal B01>, - (TS~7<O"")

losrYlS/e = ~11W\41e. -('?2Ma/e .,cO.,)

Ef'flue","'" Soluble BODs-

IC. 8' Sur-face Area e a I(!u/ a t:ons

FroM F1~120-SlJeF' CUNe" (C·IA)J the h~dra'.";e lo_d (~.LJr4i't"'i""cL to

,..~d\Jee SQI",ble Bobs frbh"l 108 r'r'3/..t. to 'S" WId lei ~ ~.403edh. ft.

No tQrnreratvre ~orree:fj"V\ is ... etu:rec£.jc9~ the fe""'~~e tefrlf~r-+&Jre

i~ area+~(" th~1"I 55"F

73

74

Med:a ~",.f .. ce Area i21tu;red..

$urf.ace At'''- t?e1oJ:r«cL = Avera~e 1>.l;'~ ~Icw -:- ~, L.

10, 41G, ", 51' k. = 2.5,oooJooo~pcL -+ e,4~fd/s~. ff.

£1v~rrnet'lf 6elec.T;Qn

T2~'''n'\mlllnJe.cJ. tVumber "f Sioaaes: TwJc (2.) or' Th('e~ (1)

Sice(~",,....f.ee _re.)c{ flr~t ~t.B8e: 4) ~oo, 000 ffL min.

Stand~r'd l>en:.;toa tJJ~d;;a \"(\u~+ be IJsed in ~:t'5t st-ae.

~iih 1>~,,~Hd I"led'. shoulJ be lJ~eJ i:s. $ubsc, ... ~",,+ sia"eS

E'11J:rrn"'~i : 4S'-F\1.I7ofR.:>L. l'<1oclel 703-2.51 S-f .... t:l. .. ,-c/. DI'I"~H'a AE.eo-su£~ I2SC

~s,eMblje~, esch w:th 110,000 s'i' ff, cf 'Surface .. rea fc!>r a

+ct:a.' cf 4)'350 ) 000 ~~ • .ft. of medl a '5urfa~~ :ii "ea.

4S"-~uToTrec)L .. Mc::Id.e1 ?"-~51 t-li1'" Det'\':IH4 fJ£"~O- SuR.F RaG

~~5 ~M bl i~, e_~ wah 1'1-2.) aoe, Sf' Tt. CT- ~lJr.f~,~ st". for a

tota.l er tG,'30o} 000 s,,;4, cf W)edia 5vrface a rea.

lOTAL 5u,-f'ace .,e_ q'r'D\llded ...... :11 be " , .3L1-0, 000 '"1' #. ",.

1c>,'H~I~(.1 s1'(J., of tr'\ed:a svrf.c.1! .rea r,etp",;rcd. ..

E1U~PrY'lc?"..t l'ol'l.f~,",,.,;t:on and lcV'!t:l. l2e1'vi~mt't'\t:!>

See at1achecL s k.crfche-s and drZlwi"S s.

E'1"'~ rmet"'lt

HONCh/LIUJ..IJ

OAHIJ, H AWA II

9-5 -80 e4!";s~&.. 1-23-~1f

CA PI IA L- C O~. t::"S., NI A T e:~

If5-f'tlooel 70.3-251 FlEEo-:5ue.F .~~~mblip~ 4S"-Nl~~1 161-25"1 A£i!D-5tJR..F :a~seMbliE"~ 90- AE~o-Suel=' l=":be('~ l:as~ ~o"er~ 90 - A~(' head~(. witj;. d j';;u".-r.

75

1- Hem 0+ c::.~eclt.. Df it\~tall:atiD" fd"~("+-"'r 1- I+~r)\ 1>1 ~p;,.,.e fsn $

1- If.el"l"t of ;-rar'l~f()('t_"io ... to Wf"~i ~D~~t dod:! TOTAL- ~ "1,900/000

1- Hen'\ 0'; O~es 1"\ F'''~:ah-t ifd d

~bo,.. and Nl.,+erial E:dllYlaies

L3b()r-5~_?f :tI -st.lI_tiOh(ihCI. c.'_ne Hme) 45)000

L~bor-c:9:'" J..~iildf'r :h-:rf;d/~~ ;0.... /8)000

Labor-t:b~("3/a'5s ~over jl'o~tafl~t:ot'" 63)000

Mi!>l!. ~:r f:q>i"1 4~OOO

B/o..vers (inc/. elec...fr:c'ill) 150)Ol:>O

B'ol4l~r Bu 1/ d; "1 @ «so/si' fl. 2..00,000

COtJt~~TE @ .#1!Joo /t..u..., ~ d. ',080,000

Increase these prices by 10%:* 1.10 x $6,501,000 = $7,151,000

Ad:'! contractor's peofit* and contingencies: Assume 15% of non-equipment items (0.15 x 1,761,000) 264,000

$7,415,000

950,000 $8,365,000

Sub-Total

Ad:'! $950,000 for ocean freight:*

*As per reocmnendatim of Albert Tsuji, M.e. Nottingham of Hawaii, Ltd., Hcno1ulu, Hawaii, AugUst 1986.

76

E"!I T 1M ATE'£) A I ~ 1C.f'(lIJIe.e H\ c:; l.JT

At-JD

TOTAL .:,. r'1",\r .. d .p.~f" :;;,ve,.a8e CJrer.a+i"~ t!ond:t-;ottS t~ IS,OOO$CENI

;orAL e~t~ty\~+ed d;s~ha('ae. p,.~s'S..,,.t! • ~ '3.0 psIG-

U$e 3 blowers run" ' .... ~I each ra+ed for ~OOOSC~M @ ~,o PSfc:r

N~""H~f?late Motor f.lorS~fo""(I(" 12"",:r~mt"..,+~~ . Nat)l~r'~.fe

Q"'il1,J:i r f.lo~r '111~~

3

ToTAL. "'or~~eDj/jtr

375

l 2. 5'

Notei. Si .... ce l2ellJr" SIIJd1e ~~ s te'1'\o\ i ~ P"Io-t- ret 1)'1 recC. J no add :+ion .. (

po~er w;" b~ re; .... ired. for ihis par+io" (W~~~e sludg-e

fl)"'rit\a wUI be re' .... r~cI) e. r+ is rt?aDmmeViJetP t"t-t_-I is h'\" 11~~()h1 of 5o?>o .~&&~+ion8.

acr be frov'IJe& .£,- st~",tR- b(t Furposes

:3 .. 1he "a(Y1erliilt~ ~OrSerOcA4'r:~ 12.5', The adcJa/ bfak-

hl>r~~fotAJ~J for eDhti:+io",- 0.( ,6,000 st!fm @:3·l:>fs:Q

is iOO,o hh P (-fff"D)G 'l~ kw !b/ol.4l~r]

Maintenance Schedule

Air Drive System

Daily: 1. Inspect pillO\'I blocks. blowers. motors. drives. etc. for

operation. ChecK shafts for uniform rotation and proper

speed. Report any unusual noises or operation.

Weekly: 1. Inspect oil level on blowers and fill as needed.

Monthly:

2. Wipe down oil' and grease around unit.

1. Clean air intake filters.

2. Greas~ blower bearings.

2 Months:

3 Months:

6 Months:

3. ChecK blower v-belts, wear, tension alignment.

1.' Check oi 1 in blowers.

l.

1.

Lubricate main shaft bearings.

Lubricate electric motors. .' . .

.2.. Co~~ stub.en~s of.shaft and pillow blocks with grease.

Estimate'd times for the above maintenance are: .

Daily - 2 minut.s/blower

2 minuts/shaft

Weekly - 6 minutes/shaft

- 10 minutes/blower

Monthly - 3~ minutes/blower

2 'Months - 30 minutes/blower

3 Months - 10 minutes/shaft

6 ;~onths - 5 minutes/blo:ver

- 30 minutes/shaft Total Hours Estimates

Per .Shaft

12.17

5.20

0.67

1.00 19.04

Man/Hr/Yr Per Blower

12.17

8.67

7.00

3.00

0.17

31.01

77

r=I CJ

WA5Tlir:wATE2 T2eATtllce~T PLAt-lT

tfONOIJL.ULI, OAt.h),HAWA~'

now

1 Ilolo"f

Ii' '=" mt' '==" m :=t' '==" '==-" ......... 1'-f l'F-" "===', '==', '==" '==fIJ _ J I II y II.

~ To

CLAelC:IEra.

NoT E'5:

E~J:l.UE"..rr 1 at+"t.hJcL. T~

CLAR.I='ER

A 5, /I

IO,.,.OK. 25 -0 +

PLAN

or RoT~TI'" G Co..rrACTDe~

1. R~eornM Md fif tt"E"n (IS) ~o-b""il'\~ 'B io 'oa; c.a t Con"'~d-t:)r b~~ "~ . t :lch b;:sT" w;" "-'"e sf)( (') R.:e e "'''' iis.

e, F"o(" .f"'rf\..tor d€taa~ see C1fl,E't" dr"'...,:I"I~s.

5~ S.19Sa 'J;t~ - ....... - _.

..... CO

)

~.

o . o ....... -,

. --.... -.... .... .... .... , ...

; 0

Sl . i ... lOG

: .. , ..

1442 sERIIs 3200 BLOWER

TYPICAL PERfORMAKCE

I"LET COMOITIO"S - AIR • 1~.7 PSIA , 70PF

I PI,

• PI, • PI,

.... a ·0 .. =;: ~ .... .... .... .... =3 ..: ,. ..

.. .. ... .. . . ,. .. .... .. .... ,. "'0 .. . -..... .. ..... . z· ~S u .. ~

a a ..

... .. .. .. . .. ... .. ~. ,. .... .. .. -.....

u ..... - .. ..... _0 .... .. a ... .. .. ~

79

IILET ,til COIUeTiO. '01 nUl TUI

no. IILET COI'ITI~.' ... , . • IUIUII "I ., 2 " • 10 40 56 70 10 27 38 47 1i0 " 19 23 70 0 0 0 to 12 17 21

110 25 35 ., ISO }5 49 61

he. IIH. .IUSUIE .11

-I,. 2 • • 20 492 689 853 .. }92 548 679 .. }l0 .}5 538 n 247 H6 429 12 195 273 }}8 10 151 212 262

• I I} 158 196

• 79 III 1}7

" 49 69 85 2 22 }I 38

rr-•• SIL

0 0 0 0 I 23 32 40 Z 42 59 73 3 59 83 103

S, • .. ". .lEnulE .11 Ir. 2 " • .Ii 278 389 482

•• 196 27. 339 . 7 131 183 227

•• 19 III I}1

•• 35 49 61 1.0 0 0 0 1.1 32 45 56 1.2 59 93 103 I. , B3 116 14' I.' 104 146 IBI 1.1 124 174 215 I.' 141 199 245

.... ,00 110 .. ,ISO 100 ,,0 tOO I" 700 JlO tOO '10 toO

'''Le T (OND' liONS

GAl

sP. U.

T"'" .,

VACUUM "MO.

'USS. PI"

_.

SPUD •• r.M.

C E R T I f I CAT I 0 " or, •• TINe CUSTOM,a

'OINT 'NUT e,w

'vaCHASI oao[. NO.

0'''. 'Al IS. .,. SA"" S 0"0'. NO. .... DAT[

IN'

DISCH_ T[M'. . , ..

Th. corr.ctlon tabl •• If. UI.d to correct the Inl.t capac It, curv •• at a ,IYln RPM. Inhrpohh In the tabl •• a. requlr.d and wh.n .or. than on. corr.ctlon I. b.ln, •• d., add and/or subtract a, Indlcatad.

Brake hors.pow.r I. d.p.nd.nt onl, on IPe.d and pr •• ,ur. and II unaffected b, capaclt, correction ••

for diff.rentlal pr."ur. curv •• oth.r than shown. Int.rpolat. b.­tw •• n •• I.tlng curv •••

81

APPENDIX E.2. EXAMPLES OF RBC SIZm;, CAPITAL AND OPERATION CDS'IS FOR

A DESIGN FI..ClV OF 7.5 ngd, BY AIJ'lO'lROL CORroRATION (1983)

EXAMPLE NO.2 At a design flow of 7.5 MGD for the wastewater in Example No.1, it is required to produce an effluent of 30 mg/ltotal BOD (15 mg/I soluble BOD).

AERO-SURF PROCESS

1. Surface area calculation a. Influent soluble BOD = 75 mg/I

Effluent soluble BOD = 15 mg/I b. Hydraulic loading = 3.45 gpd/ ft2 fror:n Figure C-l A

c. Surface area = 7.5 x 1 ()6 gpd =2.17 x 1 ()6 IF 3.45 gpd/fF

2. Size of the first stage a. Effluent soluble BOD> 12 mg/I,therefore standard media

must be used. b. From Figure C-2A size of first stage = 43% c. Surface area = 2.17 x 10· x 0.43 = 0.93 x 10· fF

3. Media distribution Balance of surface area is Hi-Density media

4. Choice of configuration a. Standard media assemblies each have 100,000 It' b. Standard media assemblies (all in first stage)

0.93 x 1 ()O - 9.3 use 10 0.10 x 1 ()6

c. Hi-Density media area = 2.17 x 10· -1.0 xl ()6 = 1.17 x 10. fF

d. Hi-Density media assemblies each have 150,000 ft2 e. Hi-Density media assemblies =

1.1 7 x 10· = 7.8 use 8 0.15 x 10·

t. Two or three stage operation is recommended with second stage area ~ first stage

g. A possible configuration is: 2(SSSSS + HHHH) = 18

Where: Number preceding parentheses indicates the number of parallel flow paths or bays

"S" is a standard media assembly

"H" is a Hi-Density media assembly

S's or H's immediately inside parentheses indicate units in first stage

Balance of S's and H's separated by "plus" signs indicate the placement of units in subsequent stages

Number after "equal sign" is the total number of units

C 1879 AUTOTROL CORPORATION

83

CHAPTERC DOMESTIC WASTE DESIGN PROCEDURES

PAGE 26

5. Blower Selection a. & b.

Stage RPM profile and air requirements from Table C-3 and Figure C-7 (or Figure C-8)

NO. CFM STAGES RPM UNITS PER UNIT TOTAL ---

1 2

Total

1.3 1.0

10 8

18

160 115

1600 920

2520

c. At 54 CFM per kw power = 2520 -i- 54 = 47 kw(63 hpj d. Operating blower capacity = 2520 x 1.2 = 3024 CFM e. Minimum installed blower capacity = 18 units x 250

CFM/unit = 4500 CFM I. Blower recommendation:

Operating capacity is greater than 2000 CFM. Therefore, 3 blowers are to be used. Each blower is to provide a flow rate of 3024 -l- 2 = 1512 CFM ambient air at 3.0 psi. Total installed capacity is 1512 x 3 = 4536 CFM.

BIO-SURF PROCESS

1. Surface area calculation a. Influent soluble BOD = 75 mg/l

Effluent soluble BOD = 15 mg/l b. Hydraulic loading = 3.2 gpd/ft2 from Figure C-l B

c. Surface area = 7.5 x 106

gpd = 2.34 x 10. ft2 3.2 gpd/f\'

2. Size of first stage a. From Figure C-3 overall soluble BOD loading 2.0

Ib/day/l000 ft2 b. From Figure C-2B size of first stage = 50%

c. Surface area = 2.34 x 1 Q6 x 0.50 = 1.17 x 10· It'

3. Media distribution Figure C-2B indicates that no Hi-Density media can be used.

4. Choice of configuration a. Total number of standard media assemblies required =

2.34 x 10· = 234 24 0.1 x 10. . use

b. Media assemblies in first stage = 1.17 x 10· O~ = 11.7 use 12

c. From Table C-2, 2 or 3 slages are recommended with stage two ~ 50% stage one

d. Possible configurations are: 3 (SSSS + SS + SS) = 24

or 4 (SSS + SS + S) = 24

or 6 (SS + S + S) = 24

AUTOTROL CORPORATION - Bla-Systems Division

84

CHAPTEAC DOMESTIC WASTE DESIGN PROCEDURES

PAGE 28

EXAMPLE NO.4 For the same design conditions as Example No. 2, it is required to produce an effluent of 15 mg/I total BOD (7 .5 mg/ I soluble BOD).

AERO-SURF PROCESS

1. Surface area calculation a. tnfluent soluble BOD = 75 mg/I

Effluent soluble BOD = 7.5 mg/I b. HydrauliC loading = 2.1 gpd/ft2 from Figure C-1A

c . Surface area = 7.5 x 10; gpd = 3.57 x 1 ()6 II' 2.1 gpd IF

2. Size of first stage

a. Soluble BOD load = 1.3Ib/day/l000 II' from Figure C-3

b. Size of first stage from Figure C-2A =

26% for standard media 52% for Hi-Density media

3. Media distribution Because influent soluble BOD is $,90 mg/l and design effluent soluble BOD is < t2 mg/I, 1 00% Hi -Density media can be used

4. Choice of configuration a. Hi·Density media in first stage = 3.57 x 1 ()6 x 0.52 = 1.86 x

1 ()6 It' b. Hi-Density media assemblies in first stage =

1.86 x 10· = 12.4 use 15 0.15 x 10·

c . Totat Hi-Density assembties =

3.57 x 10· = 23.8 use 24 0.15xl0·

d. From Table C-2, 3 or 4-stage operation is recommended with stage two ~ 40% the size of first stage

e. A possible configuration is 3 (HHHHH + HH + H) = 24

5. Blower Selection a. & b.

STAGES RPM

1 1.2 2 1.0 3 1.0

TOlal

NO. UNITS

15 6 3

24

CFM PER UNIT TOTAL

175 2625 115 690 115 345

3660

c . Power Consumption = 3660 CFM = 68 kw (90 hpj 54 CFM/kw

d. Operating blower capacity = 1.2 x 3660 = 4392 CFM

e. Minimum installed blower capacity = 250 CFM x 24 units = 6000 CFM unit

t. Blower recommendation: Operating capacity is greater than 2000 CFM therefore 3 blowers are recommended. Each has a capacity of 4392 -;-2 = 2t96 CFM at 3.0 psi and ambient conditions for a total installed capacity of 3 x 2196 = 6588 CFM

BIO-SURF PROCESS

1. Surface area calculation a. Influent soluble BOD = 75 mg/l

Effluent soluble BOD = 7.5 mg/l b. Hydraulic loading = 2.0 gpd/IF from Figure C-l B

c. Surface area = 7.5 x 10· gpd = 3.75 x 1 ()6 IF 2.0 gpd/IF

2. Size of first stage a. From Figure C-3 overall soluble BOD load =

1.25 Ib/day/l000 fF b. From Figure C-2B size of first stage = 32% c. Surface area = 3.75 x 1 ()6 x 0.32 = 1.20 x 10· It'

3. Media distribution a. From Figure C-2B, Hi-Density media = 45% b. Hi-Density media surface area =

3.75 x 1()6 x 0.45 = 1.69 x 1()6 ft2

c. Standard media surface area = 3.75 x 10· x 0.55 = 2.06 x 10· IF

4. Choice of configuration a. Standard media assemblies =

2.06 x 10· = 206 20 0.1 x 10. . use

b. Standard media assemblies in lirst stage = 1.20 x 10· = 12.0 0.1 x 10'

c. Hi-Density media assemblies =

1.69 x 10' = 11 .3 use 12 0.15 x 10'

d. From Table C-2, 3 or 4-stage operation recommended with second stage ~ 50% the size of first stage

e. A possible configuration is: 4 (SSS + SS + HH + H) = 32 For other possible configurations consult Chapter E.

Note that 8 additional units are required compared to the Aero­Surf process. Power consumption is estimated at 2.5 kw per shaft x 32 shafts = 80 kw.

C> '979 AUTOTROL CORPORATiON AUTOTROL CORPORATION- Blo-Systems Division

85

PAGE 33

CHAPTER E CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

EXAMPLE NO. 17

To demonstrate the present worth procedure, a comparison of the Aero-Surf and Bio-Surf designs in Example NO.4 in Chapter C will be made.

AERO-SURF PROCESS

Capital Cost

Hi-Density media assembly total installed cost = $47,500(1)

Total capital cost = 24 units x $47,500/unit = $1,140,000

Power Cost

Present worth =68 kw x $008/kw-hr(2) x24hr/dx365d/yr x 11.47 present worth factor (3) = $546,600

Maintenance Cost

Blowers: Present worth 31.2 m-hr/blower-yr (4) x 2 operating blowers x $10/m-hr xll.47PWF=$7,157

Shafts: present worth = 2 m-hrlshaft-yr(4) x 24 shafts x $10 I m-hr x 11.47 PWF = $5,506

Totat Maintenance Present Worth = $12,660

Total Present Worth = $1,699,300

BIO-SURF PROCESS

Capital Cost

Standard media assembly total installed cost = $43,500 (1)

Hi-Density media assembly total installed cost = $47,500 (1)

Total Capital Cost: 20 standard units x $43,500/unit =$ 870,000 12 Hi-Density units x $47.500/unit = 570,000

$1.440,000

Power Cost

Power consumption = 32 units x 2.5 kw/unit (5) = 80 kw

Present worth = 80 kw x $0.08/kw-hr x 24 hr/d x 365 d/yr x 11.47 PWF = $643,000

Maintenance Cost

For shafts and drives

Present worth = 43.2 m-hrlshaft-yr x 32 shafts x $10/m-hr x 11.47 PWF = $158.560

Total Present Worth = $2,242,000

The total present worth for Ihe Aero-Surf process in this example is more Ihan 30% lower than for the Bio-Surf process.

'" 1979 AUTOTROL CORPORATION

(I) Includes media assembly, drive system, enclosure, tankage. freight and installation costs.

(2) Estimated average cost of power for 20-year period. This is an alternative to escalating power cost over the 20-year period.

(3) From Table E-Il (4) From Table E-12 (5) This value is for Autotrol mechanical drive Blo-Surf media.

The value for various competitive mechanical drive RBC systems is about 50% higher.

AUTOTROL CORPORATION - Bio Systems Division