rotating biological contactor pilot ... - university of hawaii · pearl harbor, hawaii gordon l....
TRANSCRIPT
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 Karnehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant
Contract N62742-84-c-0152
Navy Public Works center, u.S. Department of the NavyPacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860
Project Period: 31 January 1985-26 August 1986
Principal Investigator: Gordon L. Dugan
WATER RESOORCES RESEARQI CENTERUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa
2540 Dole StreetHonolulU, Hawaii 96822
IIIIIIIII~
I
iii
A self-contained pilot W'lit (including primary am secondary sedi
mentation) canplete with electric motor driven plastic discs (surface area
awraximately 500 ft 2), located at the u.s. Navy's 7.5 ngd Fort Kamehameha
Wastewater Treatment Plant (laM!'P) at Pearl Harbor, oahu, Hawaii, was
operated fran July 1985 to July 1986 at four different operating modes:
qydraulic loadings of 1.5, 3.0, and 5.0 gpd/ft 2 (flat disc area) with discs
exposed1 and 5.0 gpd/ft2 with discs covered. '!he influent for the RBC unit
was primary clarifier effluent, which was very brackish for wastewater
(4000-5000 mg/l chloride). In addition, wastewater fran industrial-type
operations that use and discharge controlled/treated concentrations of
heavy metals were received at the WWTP. '!he median effluent BCDs concen
trations for the first two qydraulic loading rates <1.5 and 3.0 gpd/ft2 )
were respectively 2.0 and 8.0 ng/l, with corresponding respective median
suspended solids values of 8.0 am 7.5 ng/l. '!hese values were canparable
with the present WWTP operation utilizing the activated sludge process.
Hydraulic loadings at 5.0 gpd/ft 2 provided median effluent BCDs concentra
tions in the 30 to 35 ng/l range. Heavy metal concentrations in the waste
water flows of the mrP and RBC unit were considerably below the level of
concern, while sane accumulation of heavy metals was noted for the higher
concentrations of suspended and settled solids-the mixed liquor suspended
solids and the raw and digested sludge. Replacing the existing activated
sludge canponent with an mc canponent being hydraulically loaded at
3.0 gpd/ft2 would r~uire an estimated capital cost of awroximately
$2,500,000, which would r~uire 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% catrflOlDlded annually.
Keywords: raw wastewater, biochanical oxygen demand, chanical oxygendemand, wastewater treatment, secondary wastewater, primary wastewatertreatment, suspended solids; rotating biological contactor , wastewatertreatment efficiency, Fort Kamehameha l\WrP, oahu
v
RBC <DSTS: CAPITAL, OPERATION AND MAIN'lENANCE •
Capital Costs • • • • • • • • • • • •
~ration and Maintenance Costs. • •
· . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS AND DISQJSSION • • • • •
Heavy Metal Determinations••••
. . . . . . . .
1
3
4
7
29
31
31
35
11
20
23
24
26
iii
· . .. . . .
· . .· . . . .
· . . . .· . . . .
· . . . .
· .
· .
· . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. .
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
· .
· .
· . . .
. .
. . . .
. .
. . . . . . . .
. .
. . . .
. .
. .
. . .
. . .
... .
· . .
· . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
IN'1RaXJcrION •
ABsmACl' ••
c:J3JECI'IVES AND S<DPE •
ME1HClX>LOOY. • • • •
REFERENCES CITED
APPENDICES •••
OONCLUSIONS•.•••
A<l<NClVLEroMENTS. •
FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWl'P •
.'
III
I Figures
1. Location Map of Fort Kamebameha Wastewater Treatment Plant,~rl IJa.rbor, Clell1u • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . 5
3. Fort Kamebameha Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan •
Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant Process2.Flow Schematic • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . · . .
· . .6
8
11
18
14. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Tables
Wavelengths and Slit Widths for Heavy Metal Analysis.
Operation Schedule for Pilot RBC Unit for Fort Karnehameha wwrP. • • 11
Median Constituent Concentrations of WWl'P andPilot RBC Unit, Fort Kamehameba WWl'P•••••
Canpuison of RBC Operation in Northwest United States.
1.
~2.
3.
~~ 4.
~r:
~~':i
?
vi
5. Median Heavy Metal Concentratim samples franFort KaInehameha WW'l'P. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 21
6. capital Cost Canparisons for Proposed 7.5 ngdRBC Canponent for Fort Kamehameha WW'l'P. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 25
7. Present Worth of Electrical Cost savings, mcvs. Activated Sludge, Fort Kamehameha WW'l'P. • • • • • •• • • • • • 28
INmCOOCl'ION
'!he rotating biological contactor CREC) has had several names ass<r
ciated with the process, such as bi<rdisc, rotating biological surface, and
biological fixed-film rotating disc; hCMever, the presently JOOSt popUar
name is mc. The mc treatment process consists of an attamed (fixed)
grCMth biological treatment unit follCMed by a clarifier, whim is similar
to the trickling filter process. As such the RBC treatment process has a
much greater capacity to withstand shock loads in canparison to the acti
vated slUdge process, a suspended grCMth process, which itself has numerous
processes and mode of operation variations. The RBC unit can be installed
in series or parallel, in sizes that range in suitability for singl~family
residential use to capacities up to several million gallons per day.
The mc basic treatment unit consists of closely spaced, shaft
mounted, rotating discs that generally have ag>roximately 40% of their sur
faces subnerged in wastewater. Numerous surface configurations for the
discs have been developed by various manufacturers. The discs are usually
exclusively constructed of sane type of plastic with a generally irregular
surface that increases the surface area. The shaft-mounted, closely spaced
discs revolve at a slCM speed by a low-energy consuming electric motor
equiFPed with a gear reducer and a chairrand-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 irr
duced by canpressed air is more energy intensive than the lCM energy r~
quired for the electric motors used to rotate the shafts. HCMever,
air-driven units have resulted in less shaft maintenance and repairs.
Bianass (biological slime) grCMs on the surface of the discs whim
are SlCMly rotated in the wastewater and then exposed to the air where
oxygen that is absorbed pranotes the metabolisn of the attached micro
organisms. In addition, the shearing force exerted on the bianass sloughs
off excess grCMth in the clarifier/sedimentation basin where it is gener
ally ranoved memanically and recirculated to the primary clarifier carr
ponent for further treatment, or transferred to the solids handling sectionof the treatment plant.
The concept of treating wastewater by the RBC principle was first corr
ceived in Germany in lroO by Weigland and was described in his patent as
2
consisting of a cyli.rXJer constructed of wooden slats. But it was not until
the 1930s that this particular design was built am tested, and eventually
prO\1ed unsuccessful because of severe clogging prct>lems. Further investi
gation of the RBC concept did not take place in Europe until the mid-1950s
(Tsuji 1982) •
Research r~camnenced on the RBC process in 1955 by Hans Harbnan amFranz Popel at the Technical University of Stuttgart, west Germany and by
1960 the first camnercial facility, using the RBC process was placed on
line in Europe (Autotrol Corp. 1983; Tsuji 1982). In 1965 independent
developnent of the RBC system was begun in the United States by Allis
Chalmers, who were testing rotating discs for chanical processing applica
tions. After learning of the European developnents of the RBC 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 Oleese canpany in DePere, .Wisconsin (Birks
and Hynek 1971). By the latter !Brt of the 1970s over 3000 RBC systems
were installed worldwide (Bio-Shafts, Inc. 1977) •
. Studies involving RBC units in Hawaii were initiated at the laboratory
bench-scale level in a Master of SCience thesis project in 1974 (Vietor
1974) • This 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 RBC unit was tested at a local wastewater treatment
plant O\1er a 5-mo period. A Master of SCience thesis <Griffith 1977) was
produced fran this project. Because the major portion of oahu's treated
municipli wastewater effluent total flow has a high salinity () 1000 mYl
chloride) concentration, the WRRC SIX>nsored a project (Dugan 1984) involv
ing the treatment of primary effluent fran the Sand Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant (\W1l'P) at the laboratory bench-scale level. The chloride
content of the sand Island WWTP effluent ranged fran approximately 1200 to
2000 mgll (Dugan 1983). '!he RBC treatment of the higher salinity Sand
Island WWTP primary effluent proved to meet secondary treatment in tenns of
carbonaceous 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOOs) and suspended solids
(SS), based on the WWTP's average rCM and primary wastewater concentra
tions. Prior to this time only Pescod and Nair (1972) awarently had
~
IIIII
iI
'I
3
reported RBC treatment of wastewater in tropical and subtropical climates,
and none of the RBC studies in the tropical type climates apparently dealt
with high saline () 1000 rrg/l chloride) mmicipal wastewater.
'!he u.s. Navy's 7.5 ngd design flow capacity Fort Kamehameha WWTP,
which will be described in a subsequent section, receives a very high
salinity wastewater that includes inputs fran heavy netals process opera
tions. The wastewater presently receives secondary treatment l¥ the acti
vated slUdge process; however, because of the increased cost of electrical
power al Oahu and the RBC's rep.1tation to withstand shock loading, the u.s.Navy sponsored this pilot research project through fmding to the Water
Resources Research Center.
'!he success of the laboratory bench-scale RBC treatment of the high
salinity (1200-2000 rrg/l chloride) Sand Island WWTP primary effluent
pranpted the u.s. Navy to sponsor further study at the pilot-scale larel
(-1000 gPd) by using the high saline (-4000-5000 rrg/l chloride) Fort
Karnehameha WWI'P effluent which also receives wastewater fran heavy netal
process operations. Thus, the general cbjective was to determine the ~r
formance of a pilot RBC unit at the u.s. Navy's Fort Kamehameha rMTP at the
south inlet of Pearl Harbor, Oahu. OOy the efficiency of the RBC opera
tion under various conditions was studied.
Specific research cbjectives included the following:
1. To operate, maintain, and monitor the RBC unit for a 12-mo ~riod
at the Fort Karnehameha WWTP at loading parameters SPecific to the
influent wastewater characteristics
2. To obtain sufficient data to OOcument the ability of the RBe unit
to consistently achieve 85% BCDs and total suspended solids r~
JIlOIlal and to produce a nitrified effluent
3. To identify limitations of the RBC process to handle shock load
ings of organics and inorganics.
'!he IOOI1itoring parameters for the RBC's influent and effluent included
B(])s, suspended solids (SS), heavy neWs, chemical oxygen demand (CXD),
nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, grease and oil, temperature, and pH.
4
~ other analysis CNer and above the routine sanitary analysis was also
conducted, as Cleaned necessary, for the evaluation of the RBC mit.
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 e::atpared with the WIF's operat
ing activated sludge unit, based on records provided to WRRC. Monthly
status reports were prepared and subnitted to the U. S. Navy by WRRC. A
cost estimate is included for converting the Fort Kamehameha WIF to RBC
treatment, as well as an operation and maintenance comparison between RBC
treatment and the present activated slUdge process.
The government was responsible for the following support for the
project:
1. PrCNide the site and utilities for the ~ototype (pilot) RBC mit
and assist in the initial setup and any relocation to other areas
of the plant as required for E.IlJaluation p.rrposes
2. PrCNide autanatic wastewater collection samplers and wastewater to
the RBC unit by neans of a p.mtp
3. Collect and temporarily store the wastewater samples that are
collected by the autanatic wastewater samplers for pickup by project (WRRC) personnel
4. Conduct the routine (same as normally conducted at the WIF)
laboratory analysis on the influent and effluent of the RBC mit
and provide the results to WRRC.
The Fort Kamehameha WWTP, a secondary wastewater treatment plant that
has a design flow of 7.5 ngd and presently treats awroximately 5 to 6 ngd,
is located adjacent to the entrance to Pearl Harbor, southern oahu, as
sham in Figure 1. 'Ihe general area around the Fort Kamehameha WIF,
which is considered fairly dry by oahu standards, receives a IOOdian annual
rainfall of awroximately 21 in. (525-530 nm> (Giambelluca, Nullet, and
Schroeder 1986) •
A schematic flow diagram for the VMl'P is presented in Figure 2
while the general site layout of the treatment components is outlined in
IIIIIIII~
I5
Moanalua Hwy.
Figure 1. Location map of Fort Kameharneha Wastewater Treabnent Plant,Pear1 Harbor, oahu
saJRCE: Engineering Science Inc. (PJ77, Fig. I-I).
I If!)Ilake
I Nimit1 I1wY·
.:".
--I
II~
~
~
~
~~
~~
0\
SUpernatant
Plant Effluentsample pt.
CELCIUNEcnmcr
TANK
Effluent
~Punq:'6 ~·_·1
~ r-·~ !r-.--- .I
-_.1OoeanOutfall
Scum
DewateredSludge toDisp>sal
CEN'lRIFOOES
P
AERATIOOTANKS
MLSSsample
pt.
Centrate
Effluent Recirculation
~
Primary ClarifierEffluent sample pt.
GritDiBp)sal
DigesterSludgeSCrnple
pt.
---PlantInfluent
centrifuge S1.Brp PPrimary fl.""
Alternative fl""
0Plmq;>SClJRCE: Engineering Science Inc. (HJ77, Fig. 1-3 IOOdified).
Figure 2. Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant process flow schematic
E!ii#.omI Gm1lmI ~ ~~ _ _ __ ~ _ IlI!lIiiiIlII _ :_ __ _ _ __ __ .-
III
I
7
Figure 3. The design treatment criteria for the various treatment canpo
nents are listed in 1q::pendix Table A.I.
'!he secondary treatment at the Fort Kamehameha WWI'P is achieved I:¥ a
conventional activated sludge process that also includes shredding, grit
remOlal, primary sedimentation, aeration, secondary clarification, dis
infection of effluent, and solids handling by anaerobic digestioo and
centrifuge dewatering. '!he WWTP receives wastewater fran the Pearl Harbor
Naval Facilities and Hickam Air Force Base as well as wastewater fran an
Arrcrj source which enters the wastewater fl<7tl fran Hickam Air Force Base.
Incoming wastewater is primarily danestic with snall anounts of industrial
wastewater, and ship wastewater that is IUnPed f ran the unloading dock to
the WWTP (Engineering Science Inc. lCfl7). There is concern over IX>tential
heavy netals input to the wastewater stream fran the industrial sources and
its IX>ssible effect a1 the biological treatment process, particularly since
the Fort Kamehameha WWTP 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 CMS Rotordisk Inc.,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, on a J'X)-cost basis. '!he RBC Wlit, designed
for a canplete household or relatively small volume wastewater fl<7tl, is
rated I:¥ the manufacturer to have a treatment capacity of 750 gpd. '!he RBC
unit has slUdge storage capacity on the influent and effluent sides so as
to simulate primary clarification (if not already provided) and also pr<r
vide secondary (or final) clarificaticn to collect the slough~off bianass
fran the discs; thus a separate sedimentation mit foll<7tling the pilot RBC
unit was not necessary. A manufacturer's brochure, describing the features
of the pilot RBC Wlit (the Rotorobic System> is presented in ~ndix B.
The pilot RBC unit consists of 42 separate 34 in. diam discs rotated
on a shaft that is chain driven I:¥ a 1/4 hp single tbase electric motor.
The resulting flat effective surface area of the discs is slightly IOOre
than 500 ft 2 • The mit's shell is constructed of fiberglass and the discs
are a plastic mesh, which provides a higher actual disc surface area. How-
co
~
I!~
1-l1
PAVED ROAD
CEmRIFmEBUILDIN:>
1IERATIONTANKS
S[,mx;E RJHP I IBUILDIN:>
~--r!!)S[,mx;EDRYlN:>
BErEl
[f~~ION
I PUMPL_ EFFLUENr
PUMPBUILDIN:>OfLClUNE00NT1IC1'TANK
0fLCIUNA'ltRBUlLDIN:>
SOORCE: Engineering SCience Inc. (lg]7, Fig. 1-2 IOOdified).
Figure 3. Fort Kamehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant site plan
~ ~ ~ _ '1IIIlI:I!IIIl:l a.BI::l:II ~ __ ~ __ .... lEIZlm!I IIi!!i:liiiIlI! ~ ~ ...
I
'i'\r:~(
9
ever, this could be a IOOOt p:>int as the bianass tends to cover the mesh
openings, thus, for this study the 500 ft 2 (46.45 m2 ) flat surface areavalue was used for calculation fUI'poses. A fiberglass cover for the discs
was also provided for optional use.
'!he pilot RBC unit was delivered to the Fort Kamehameha WWI'P by WRRC
project members. The personnel at the WWTP,under the direction of SUper
intendent Joe Hanna, set up the unit, and provided and installed an influ
ent plIIIp, plumbing, and the electrical facilities and power 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 WWTP's ldninistration Building (Fig. 3).
The personnel at Fort Kamehameha WWTP were scheduled to install the
canposite sanplers for the RBC unit, to collect and tenp:>rarily store an
aliquot of the wastewater sanples collected by the autanatic sanpler for
biweekly pickup by WRRC personnel, and to analyze the collected canposite
RBC influent and effluent sanples for the routine constituents parameters,
which are presently being used to monitor the operating efficiency of the
WWTP. The projected monitoring parameters which the WWTP personnel were
scheduled to perform, if they were also being conducted for their normal
treabnent efficiency nonitoring schedule, included: BOOs (total and
soluble), SS, COD, nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, teIrQ?erature, and
pH. Analysis for grease and oil would also be conducted if the analysis
was also being performed for other locations of the wastewater stream. But
because grease and oil sanples have a well-knC1tlll 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 by WRRC in a related project,
the Fort Kamehameha sanples would also be tested.
The constituent analysis results for the influent and effluent RBC
samples as well as the other related routine laboratory analysis performed
by and/or arranged by Fort Kamehameha personnel were to be provided 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, raw wastewater, primary effluent, and final
WWTP effluent, were also provided 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 canposited sanples
collected and stored at the WWTP for heavy metals analysis. During the
biweekly canposite ~le pick-up grab sanples fran other sanpling points
(RBC effluent, secondary clarifier effluent, aeration tank MLSS, raw
sludge, and digested slUdge) were also collected to canplement the heavy
metal analysis for the WWTP in general. Also during the biweekly visit,
the operating conditions of the RBC were checked, for exanple, hydraulic
flCM rate, relative buildup am pattern of the grQith of the attached bier
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 netal analysis performed t:¥ WRRC was conducted in the
Department of Civil Engineering/WRRC Water Quality Laboratory, located
in Holmes Hall, University of Hawaii at Manoa, approximately 10 miles fran
the Fort Kamehameha WW1'P.
All glassware and plasticware used in the project for heavy netal
analysis were washed t:¥ soaking in 50% (1:1) nitric acid at roan tempera
ture for at least 24 hr and then rinsed five times with distilled deionized
water. The sanples for heavy netal analysis were collected, preserved, and
stored at 4°C in high density polyethylene plastic containers. Preserva
tion consisted of adding reagent grade nitric acid (HOOa) at a rate of
1.5 ml. HID;,/l of ~le except for the sludge sanples which were preserved
at twice this concentration. With the exception of the RBC and aeration
tank MLSS sanples, all other samples were performed t:¥ the nitric acid
digestion method (302 D) in Standard Methods, (AFHA, PliMA, and WPCF 1985).
'!be heavy netal analysis consisted of testing for an array of typical
heavy metals t:¥ utilizing the recently a~uired Perkin-Elmer Model 2380
Atanic AOOorption spectrophotaneter. '!be test involves direct aspiration
atanic absorption into an air-acethylene flame, follCMing the procedure
described in Standard Methods (APHA, JIVlWA, and WPCF 1985). A separate
hollCM cathode lamp is required for one or more (depending on the individ
ual constituent being ai1al.yzed for> specific constituents. The wavelengths
and slit width used for the various heavy netal analyses are presented in
Table 1.
'!be RBC lD1it was scheduled to operate (Ner a 12-00 period, which
included the time required for installation, check out of the mechanical
and hydraulic functions, and the establishment of bianass on the discs.
IIIIIIIII
II
11
Heavy Wavelength Slit WidthMetal (nm) (nm)
T1'BLE 1. WAVELEN:;'lHS.AND SLIT WIDlHS FORHEAVY METAL ANALYSIS
exposed discs
exposed discs
exposed discs
covered discs
0.70.70.70.20.20.20.70.7
328.1228.8359.4324.8248.8232.0217.0213.9
DISCS
1.5
3.0
5.0
5.0
Hydraulic Loading ro-'e Condit'ons(gpd/ft l *) UoIV r 1.
RESULTS AND DIsroSSION
OPERATION OCHEDULE FOR PILOI' RBC UNITFOR FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWI'P
SilverCaaniumChraniumCoR;lerIronNickelLeadZinc
TABLE 2.
3.5
1.3
1.2
1.0
TIME PERICD
(100)
*Flat disc area.
Because of the uncertainties of the foregoing the projected operating
schedule for the project (Table 2) was established after the RBC unit was
installed and operating properly.
The chemical analytical results of the roonitoring parameters for the
operation of the pilot RBC unit and corresponding parameters for the Fort
Karnehameha WWI'P rcrw wastewater and final discharge effluent for the four
separate operation schedules (Table 2) are tabulated in AJ;tJendix Table C.l.
As can be noted the daily WWl'P (effluent) flow rate was generally in the
5 to 6 ngd range, although flows above and below this range occurred
fre:;ruently.
The pilot RBC unit, placed on line on 31 May 1985, received a rela-
12
tively low hydraulic loading rate (-1.0 gpd/ft 2 of disc area) until 1 July
1985 to pranote am acclimate bianass growth on the discs. '!be first };base
of the project was initiated on 2 July. After the initial };base of the
project camnenced, the operation of the RBC unit was relatively continuous
for wer 7 oonths (July 1985 to mid-February 1986), which covered the final
two };bases (Table 2) of hydraulic loading (1.5 am 3.0 gpd/ft 2 of disc sur
face area, respectively). However, major periods of operational sto:wage
occurred during the final two hydraulic loading phases (5.0 gpd/ft2 , with
out and with the discs covered, respectively).
'!be stoppages were mainly the result of malfunctioning of the influent
pumps, not having a standby plIIlp (furnished and installed l::!i Fort Kameha
meha VMI'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 low-flow pump that could handle the suspended
matter in the primary effluent (influent to the RBC unit) was necessary for
the first operational Iilase and over three-fold increased flows were re
quired for the succeeding phase.
In addition the Fort Kamehameha persomel were under time constraints,
which understandably dictated that the operation of the VMI'P receive high
priority. Nevertheless, the first two };bases, which were considered the
most likely full-scale RBC operational ranges, functioned essentially as
scheduled in Table 2, except that the second phase (3.0 gpd/ft 2 ) 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 2 ).
'!be median values (derived fran App. Table C.l> of the major oonitor
ing chemical constituents and their removal 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 low for a limited period of time, and thus
could significantly distort average values wer a given period of time.
The BeDs median values for the influent rCM wastewater ranged fran
72 to 92 ~/l, which is on the low side for predaninately nunicipal type
wastewater, whereas, the unusually high chloride level (4000-5000 ~l)
tabulated in AI:PeOOix Table C.l indicates significant dilution. '!be
respective BeDs loading rates based on median BeDs values for the four
IIIIII
III~
."
I
~.
I~£
~
~
~i
~~
~;'"
LI
13
operating phases were LOO, 1.80, 3.75, and 3.83 lb/lOOO ft ' of disc area
for the hydraulic loading rates (Table 1) of 1.5, 3.0, 5.0 gpdIft' with
discs exposed and 5.0 gpdIft ' with cover in place. '!hese canpare to sug
gested maximum BOOs loadings of 15 to 20 lb/lOOO ft ' with nitrification
CU.S. Environnental Protection Agency 1985), and far below the maximum
loading of 6.4 lb/lOOO ft' recarmended I:¥ the u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency (1985) fran a review of the operating characteristics of 23 mcfacilities throughout the United States. The latter recarmended 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 WWTP final effluent which received activated sludge second
ary treatment. The attached algal growth 00 the discs could have contril>
uted to the increased pH through the uptake of HCOJ/CO, •
The median BOOs concentration values (Table 3) of the primary clari
fier effluent experienced during the four RBC operational phases were lower
than typically expected for numicipaI. operations, with the first opera
tional phase being the highest at 102 ng/l. However, during the first
phase quite high () 365 ng/l) BeDs concentrations occurred 17 times, but
out of the 55 total BOOs values they did not significantly influence the
median value. Only one BOOs value was recorded in the second operational
phase (3.0 gpdIft J ). The BOOs concentration values for the primary
clarifier effluent carq::ere to "text book" values of 130 ng/l (200 ng/l r8!ti
wastewater and 35% primary clarifier Bros rertlO\7al efficiency), which is
essentially the same as the l24-ng/l value reported by the u.s. Environ
Iteltal Protection Agency's (1985) review of 16 mc facilities in the United
States.
The BOOs median concentration values of the presently operated Fort
Kameharneha WWTP utilizing activated sludge secondary treatment were very
low (2.0-3.0 rrg/l> and the corresponding BOOs removal efficiencies were
very high (96 to 98% based on r8!ti wastewater) during the four RBC opera
tional phases as shown in Table 3.
'!he median BOOs concentrations of the RBC effluent were similarly
very low (2.0 ng/l> and relatiVely low (8.3 ng/l) during the first two
TABLE 3. MEDIAN OONSTITUEm' CONCEN'IRATIONS CF WWTP AND PILOT mc UNIT, roRT KAMEHAMEHA \\Wl'P, PEARL HARBCR .......AVERl1GE BCD, enD SUSPENDED sa...ms
SAMPLE LOCATIONS HYDRNJLIC pH COncen- Removal COncen- Removal COncen- RemovalLQADIN; tration tration tration(gpd/ft Z ) * (ng/l) (%) (ng/1) (%) (ng/l) (%)
Raw WAstewatert 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) ·......5.0 t 7.2 (14) 92 (12) ....... 165 (6) ....... 129 (14) ·......
Primary Clarifier 1.5 ........ 102 (55) ....... 418 (67) ·...... 146 (71) ·......Effluentt (pilot RBC 3.0 65 (1) 371 (47) 105 (57)unit influent) ........ ....... ....... ·......
5.0 ........ 81 (13) ....... 203 (12) ....... 104 (12) ·......5.0 t ........ 64 (5) ....... III (4) ·...... 100 (6) .......
WWI'P Final Eff1uentt 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) 97 (25) 266 (46) 34 (44) 9.3 (56) 96 (52)outfal11 efficien-cies based on raw 5.0 6.6 (10) 2.3 (13) 97 (13) 45 (12) 73 (12) 9.7 (12) 90 (12)wastewater)
5.0t 6.9 (ll) 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 onprimary 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)-
IDI'E: Values determined fran data presented in Aw. Table C.1.IDI'E: Numbers within p:l.rentheses denote nll'llber of sanples1 refer to Fig. 2 for sanp1e locations.*Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted.tDiscs covered.t24 hr canposite sanples, except for a few grab samples.SGrab sample•
.~_IiIIIl!l:llIB~- o:::::=!lnI __
II~
IIIII : ..
/.
I
~
I~
~
~
~
~
~~
15
testing phases <1.5 gpdIft Z and 3.0 gpdIft Z), respectively. Hcwever, at
the 5.0 gpdIft Z hydraulic loading rates the effluent median BCDs concentra
tim increased significantly, 30.7 and 35.5 ng/l, for without and with a
cover over the discs, respectively; with the corresp:mding BCDs removal
efficiency of 64% and 61% (based on primary effluent). 'lbe constituent
removal rates for the RaC effluent were based on inputs fran the primary
clarifier rather than raw wastewater as was used for the WW1'P constituent
removal efficiencies. 'Ifus is a typical practice utilized by RBC manufac
turers (Autotrol Corporation 1974, 1983); thus the treatment efficiency,
based on constituent removal up through the primary clarifier, is not in
cluded for the indicated RBC constituent removal efficiencies.
The median BOOs removal rate for the RBC unit of 98% for the initial
hydraulic loading phase of 1.5 gpd/ft Z canpares to a predicted removal rate
of awroximately 92.5% for the same hydraulic loading according to graI:ili
cal information published by the Autotrol Corporatim (1974). 'lbe secooooperational testing phase (3.0 gpdIft Z ) only had one BCDs removal value
(85%) because the BCDs values for the primary clarifier were not included
. in the WW1'P's analytical results; thus, it is not considered actually can
parable although it was quite close to the Autotrol Corporation's (1974)
predicted value of awroximately 87.5%. 'lbe BOOs removal efficiencies for
the last two operational testing phases (5.0 gpdIft Z ) of 64% and 61%, for
without and with discs covered, respectively, were significantly lcwer than
the predicted approximately 82.5% removal by the Autotrol Corporation
(1974) information for the same hydraulic loading rate and influent BCDs •
Hcwever, as previously indicated, the influent flow to the RaC unit was
frequently discontinuous during the last two operational testing phases.
'!he median BCDs removal rates of 64% and 61% and effluent concentra
tions of 30.7 and 35.0 ng/l for the last two operational testing phases
(5.0 gpdIft Z ) , 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. Hcwever, the concentrations are belcw the recently adopted limit
of 45 JIg/I (with certain stipulations) by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1984) for trickling filter secondary treatment, an attached growth
system. Thus, it is assumed that the 45-ng/1 limit would be applicable in
most situations to RBC secondary treatment systems.
16
The soluble median BCDs values of ~ndix Table C.2 for the RaC
effluent produced median values of <2, 4.1, and 10 JIg/I for the operational
P'lases one to three, respectively. No soluble BCDs values were cbtained
during the final };base. In canparison to the median RaC effluent BOOs
concentrations (Table 3) the soluble BOOs values were less than one-half
of the total BOOs values, although the first Plase 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 asStmled that the biological
treatment· system is more effective in removing the soluble portion of the
BCDs • Although this asstmlption is prOOably valid to a significant degree,
suspended and colloidal BCDs materials undoubtedly adhere to biological
grarth material and are consequently rem()lled, and/or metabolized to a
varying degree, when the biological material is rem()lled fran the treatment
system.
The median roD values for the various testing phases aR;leared to be
generally inconsistent. Unless biological inhibition is present, a typical
and reasonable correlation should be evident between BCDs and roD. The roDvalue is nearly always higher than the BCDs value unless unusual high rates
of nitrification occur that could utilize significant quantities of.
dissolved oxygen. The general practice now, hcwever, is to use a
nitrification inhibitor in the BCDs test and thus have only carbonaceous
BCDs ' which tends to normalize the test. As is particularly evident for
the WWl'P final effluent and the first two operational testing phases for
the RaC unit (determined fran Table 3), a very low BOOs to roD ratio would
typically indicate BCDs inhibition. But the aforementicned inconsistency
of the roD data, and the relatively close agreement between total organic
carbon ('!OC) and BCDs for the RaC unit's effluent (Aw. Table C.l), lends
credence to the reliability of the BOOs data ()ller the roD values. O1loride
concentrations of > 2000 JIg/I are known to inhibit the reliability of the
roD test (APHA, NilWA, and WPCF 1985). Thus, the high chloride content of
the samples (4000 to 5000 JIg/I range) may have altered the accuracy of the
roD test.
The median suspended solids (SS) concentration pattern (Table 3) for
the WWl'P final effluent and the RaC effluent appeared to follow the same
general pattern as encountered for BCDs ' which again lends credence to the
BCDs concentration values. While the median BCDs for the wwrP effluent
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII~
I "~I
."
I
II~
~
~
~
~
~~
17
varied fran 2.0 to 3.0 ng/l for the four operational test lilases, the
median ss of the WWTP effluent had a similar very tight range of 9.3 to
10.6 ng/l. The median effluent Bros for the RaC's first o~rationl test
~ase u.s gpd/ft2) had a corresponding SS value of 8.0 ng/l, which is
essentially that produced in the WWTP effluent, but surprisingly, during
the second operation lilase (3.0 gpd/ft2) when the RaC effluent BCDs irr
creased to 8.3 ng/l, the corresponding SS value (7.5 ng/l) remained esserr
tially the same. The notable increase of the RaC effluent's median BCDs
concentrations during the final two o~ration test phases (5.0 gpd/ft2)
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 Bros and SS were quite
close. It should be noted that the WWTP final effluent values were 0b
tained fran 24-hr canposite samples, whereas the RaC effluent constituent
concentrations were based on grab samples.
A canparison is shown of the longer term operation of mc systems
treating municip;1l strength wastewater in the northwest W. S.) in terms of
l¥draulic loading (gpd/ft2); total BCDs ; soluble BOOs; and sus~nded solids
(Table 4). Interestingly, the lowest reported total and soluble BeDs
average concentrations were for Tillamook, Oregon, which had the highest
(average) hydraulic loading 2.71 gpd/ft2 U25% of design capacity). The
eleven RBC 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
WWTP was in the mid-70's, with rare extremes fran slightly below 60°F to
slightly above 90°F.
The treatment efficiency of the RBC unit decreases when the waste
water temperatures are below 55°F, but no apparent appreciable increase
is evident in temperatures above 55°F. Inhibition of the biological
process occurs generally when wastewater tem~ratures exceed 86°F (Autotrol
Corporation 1978; u.s. Environmental Protection Agency 1980; Davies and
Pretorius 1975). The typical average wastewater temperature on oahu is
near the mean ambient temperature. Considering the temperature differ
ences, the first two o~ration testing phases of the pilot RBC unit
(Table 3), res~ctively, were quite canparable with the results of the
various RBC systems tabulated in Table 4, which would have had inhibited
LOCATION
T~LE 4.
HYDRMJLICLOADIK7
(gpd/ft ' )*
CDMPARISCl'l CF RBC OPERATION IN KR'mWEST UNITED STATES
BCD, TSS SCLUBLE BCD, (ng/1)Iii OUt In OUt OliVe ESt.
(ng/l> (ngll> In OUt Predicts carbon
% DESIGNSCLUBLE BCD,Db/1000 ft I)
....(Xl
Wapato, WA
Woodland, WA
Wilsonville, OR
Union, CR
Tog>enish, WA
Ti1iamook, CR
Enumclaw,WA
Herminston, CR
Battle Ground, WA
Blaine, WA
Woodburn, CRCanningNon-Canning
1.37
1.64
0.44
1.60
2.20
2.71
1.67
0.87
0.94
1.00
0.811.92
199
184
244
206
132
169
177
175
224
154
324
16
20
9
13
9
4
19
21
10
18
16
148
230
241
158
125
236
215
204
244
139
357
9
16
6
6
6
20
15
14
10
13
6
86
69
112
III
57
51
71
53
90
72
137 (2)26 (2)
8
10
6
6.5
5
2
9.5
10
5
9
108.5
5
5
5
9
6
6
9.5
5
5
5
9.55
5 (3)
5 (3)
5 (3)
5 (3)
5 (2)
84
43
21
123
63
125
117
37
113
38
70
SOORCE: Interoffice correspondence (25 Jan. 1984) to Albert Tsuji, M.C. Nottingham, Honolulu, HI, franRay Ankaitis, Envirex, 49 Quail Court-Rm. 216, walnut Creek, CA 94596.
IDl'E: All VMI'P data are 1-yr averages, except Woodburn, Oregon and Battle Grolnld, Washington;Soluble and carbon soluble BCD, data for Woodburn, Oregon are actual plant data;At 50% of design (BOO,) or less, all data available indicate that effluent soluble BCD, is50% carbon and 50% nitrogenous.
*Hydraulic loading per surface area of discs.
t,,,,,.,,,,,cl ~ &_.._~~_E!lllllIiI:II _ ....
II
IIIIIII-,
I
19
biological growth when wastewater tenperatures were less than 55°F.
'Ihrough rnisunderstaOOi.ng or rniscarmunication, nitrogen aOO phosphorus
values were not performed for the RBC effluent sanples. The reporting of
nitrogen aOO phosphorus values is typically re:;Iuired by the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for fresh waters.
For ocean discharges values of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are
generally only of minor concern, and not re:;Iuired for the case of ocean
discharge of effluent fran Fort Kamehameha WWI'P (Engineering-SCience Inc.
19J7) •
The primary concerns of nitrogen in wastewater treatment and dis
charge is that (1) the nitrification of 1.0 ng/l of anmonia (the most
prevalent nitrogen form in wastewater) to nitrate stoichianetrically re
quires awroximately 4.5 ng/l of O2 (dissolved oxygen); (2) amnonia inter
feres with the effectiveness of the chlorination process; (3) ammonia is
toxic to given cquatic organisms at various concentrations; (4) anmonia is
corrosive to sane metallic surfaces; (5) nitrogen is a nutrient which can
potentially create undesirable eutrophic conditions in receiving waters;
aOO (6) higher concentrations of nitrates (;;.. 10 ng/l 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
awlicable for the ocean discharge of Fort Kamehameha WWI'P effluent because
dissolved oxygen limitation is not a problem for the effluent quantities
being discharged in the ocean outfall, which terminates at the mouth of
Pearl Harbor (Engineering-SCience Inc. 19J7). However, the Fort Kamehameha
WWl'P 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 BCDs concentration awroaches
30 ng/l, at which time the nitrifying bacteria (autotrophic) are canpeti
tive with the more rapid grCM'ing carbon oxidizing organisms, that pre
daninate at the higher BCDs concentration levels. Olce established, nitri
fication usually proceeds rapidly until the BCDs concentration is awroxi
rnately 10 ng/l, at which time nitrification is generally canplete <Antonie,Kluge, arx1 Mielke 19J4). This observation generally conforms with the data
presented by the Autotro1 Corporation (1gJ4, 1983), in which hydraulic
loading of 1.5 and 3.0 gpd/ft Z results in amnonia removal of approximately
20
98% and 80%, respectively, when the influent B(J)s is 100 ng/l.
A{:parenUy at the hydraulic loading rate utilized for the last two
operatiooal. test Ihases (5.0 gpd/ft2 ), the progression of nitrification was
limited as anunonia goes off scale when the influent amnonia nitrogen ex
ceeds 13 ng/l. When the influent anmonia is 13 ng/l, the effluent amnonia
nitrogen is projected to be awroximately 6 JIg/l (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/ft 2--dependent on influent BCDs 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 Kameharneha WWTP, inclUding the influent
(primary clarifier effluent), plus the effluent RBC unit, for the four
operational test Ihases (Table 2) are presented in Awendix Table D.l. The
median concentrations of the heavy metal concentrations for the various
sanpling locations and operational test Plases in ~ndix Table D.l are
tabulated in Table 5. Also sham in Table 5 are the applicable heavy metal
concentration limits for the primary (Public Health Regulations 1981> and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations <u.S. Erwiroomental Protection Agency
1979), the City and ColU'lty of Honolulu's regulations for industrial waste
water discharges (Division of Wastewater Management 1982), and the Federal
Guidelines for State and Local Pretreatment Programs (1977). '!bese 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 IXll"poses of the liquid sanples (excluding rEM and
digested sludge, and the aeration tank's mixed liquor suspended solids).
Primary drinking water regulations are set for public health, and adherence
to the limits must be met, whereas, secondary regulations are for public
welfare, with limits being recamnended.
None of the individual liquid sanples of Af:pendix Table 0.1 exceeded
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
,-.........-- I e~n,- ...~:I>fJ '~n.=··:1 tomW--' ~ ~ _ ~ . _ I ~ - - ~ ~ ~~
TABLE 5. MEDIAN HEAVY METAL Q)NCEN'lRATION SAMPL:ES FROM FORT KAMEHAMEHA ~, PEARL HARBCR, IW'lAII
SJ\HPLE WCATIOO HYI:RNJLICLQADm:J Silver caanium O1ranium Cower Iroo Nickel Lead Zinc
(gpd/ft l ) * (ng/l)
Raw Wastewatert 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)
PrimaIy 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)
RaC 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)
Aeratioo Tank MLssl 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 Effluend 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 Eff1uentt 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) 0.11 (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:PrimaIyl 0.05 0.01 0.05 ... ... ... 0.05Secondary I .... .... .... 1.0 0.3 ... .... 5.0
City & Colmty of HonoluluIndustrial Wastewater 0.43 0.69 2.77 3.38 ... 3.98 0.6 2.61Discharge PrOlTisions: I
Federal Guidelines' forInhibitory 'lbreshold Limit:
1-lRa/5-5ObActivated Sludge 5.0 10-100 1.0 1000 1.0-2.5 0.1 0.0&-10lInaerobic Digestion ... 0.2 5-50 :t50-500b 1.0-10 5 ....... ... 5-10
NJlE: Values determined fran data pr:esented in Aw. Table D.1. SDiscs covered.NJlE: Nunbers within parentheses denote Il1.IIIber of sanples taken; lDepart:ment of Health (19111).
see Figure 2 for scurple locations. IU.5. Emironnental Protection Agerey <1!179).?lat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted. IDivision of Wastewater Management (1982).24 hr OCIlqX)Site saDt>le. 'U.S. Emironnental Protection Aqeooy <1!177). N
fGrab sauple. Baexavalent. brrivalent. ....
22
the City and Cotmty of Hooolulu' s industrial wastewater discharge (1982)
regulatioos (not awlicable to Fort Kamehameha VM!'P) and, as noted in
Table 5, the median values of all the liquid smrples, except iron, were
at or below the dr inking water regulatioos. '!here is no drinking water
regulation for nickel, but the liquid median values are quite low (maximum
0.2 ng/l>. None of the individual saIIq)les (App. Table A.l) for cower and
zinc, and only two for cadmium exceeded the drinking water regulatioos.
The 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 &ystem, only
copper, lead, and possibly the lower threshold range for zinc (a wide band)
exceeded the median respective heavy metal values of Table 5. NelJerthe
less, individual slug loads did exceed the threshold limits (see App.
Table 0.1) • However, the high treabnent efficiency resulting fran the
activated sludge treabnent &ystem strongly indicates that if heavy metal
inhibition did occur, it was very negligible.
'!he accmnulation of heavy metals in the smrples containing higher
suspended and settleable solids concentratioos, mixed liquor suspended
solids, and rCN and digested slUdge is expectedly awarent in Table 5.
The median concentration of silver in the mixed liquor suspended solids
is awroximately the same as the digested slUdge smrples and the median
cadmium concentration for rCN and digested sludge is awroximately the
same. But with the exception of nickel, the remaining median heavy metal
concentratioos were higher in the digested sludge smrples. '!he median con
centration of nickel in the rCN sludge was awroximately four times higher
than the digested sludge smrples, the reason for which is not known except
possibly that the concentration of nickel had recently increased in the
rCN sludge, and sufficient time had not elapsed for introduction into the
digested sludge. Further saIIq)ling am analysis would be rEquired to con
firm this hypothesis. Nevertheless, the median concentration of nickel is
still quite low. Of the potential heavy metal inhibition to anaerobic
digestion based on the Federal Guidelines (Table 5), only copper, zinc, and
especially iron, exceeded the threshold limit. '!he cperation efficiency
of the anaerobic digestor was not within the scope of the project, thus,
anaerobic monitoring parameters were not prCNided to WRRC for evaluation.
II
III
-I
IIIIIII
23
OJerall, however, it is obvious that the introduction of heavy netals into
the wastewater stream leading to the Fort Kamehameha WWTP is being camnend
ably controlled and not of ~rent present concern to the lower concentra
tim wastewater flow stream. It is notable that the median raw wastewaterheavy netal concentration values are very canparable (both above and below)
to the values reported t:¥ Nanura and YOlmg (1974) for an II-roo study of the
City and County of Honolulu's Wahiawa WWTP which received an average flOlol
of 4.54 mJ/day (1.2 JI9:1) fran the town of Wahiawa in central Qiliu.
me (n)'l'S: 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 evaluated, among others (e.g., treatment
efficiency, dependability, and aesthetic considerations) when considering
the potential replacement of the present Fort Kamehameha WWI'P 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/ft 2 , an effluent (fran brackish
wastewater) well within the BOOs and 55 remCNal and final effluent con
centration range that is considered to be secondary treatment (85% and
30 rrgll, respectively). As mentioned earlier in this report, roost
municipal-sized RBC systems with hydraulic loadings up to 3.0 gpd/ft 2
function quite well in the t~rate zone. '!hus, mc operations on Oahu,
with daily Dean temperatures always > 55°C (below which the bianass on mcunits are inhibited), are expected to perform satisfactorily. For evalua
tion purposes the 3.0 gpd/ft 2 hydraulic loading rate will be used for
sizing purposes.
Final evaluations, in addition to capital cost, can be highly influ
enced by projected assumptions, such as interest rate, life of the CQ"lr
ponent, operation and maintenance cost, and future cost of utilities and
materials. '!bus, for meaningful projections, assumptions have to be as
reasonable as possible, based on presently available information. Informa-
24
tion obtained for a different time Feriod, at locations other than oahu,
and for different design terarneters will have to be normalized to a camnon
technical and econanic h:1se to expedite the evaluation of the alternatives
under consideration. Hcwever, as in any engineering conceptual econanic
evaluation, the presented results have to be considered ~s being aWlicable
CNer a SOIn&lhat undefined range (in a terticular 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, hcwever, should
have a major effect on whether or not further consideration is warranted.
capital Costs
capital costs for installing a 7.5 ngd RBC treatment canponent at the
Fort Kameharneha WWI'P, obtained fran four different sources, are presented
in Table 6. The cost data were updated to August 1986 by using the Engi
neering N&ls-Record Construction Cost Index U985, 1986) 1 where applicable.
'!he design flcw values were cbtained for or adjusted to 7.5 ngd average
wastewater flcw. No scaling factor was used because an estimated 80% of
the RBC canponent cost Uess freight) consisted of relatively canplete
manufactured items. A freight allcwance 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 gpd/ft2 • No credit was allotted for potential
salvage of the existing activated slUdge treatment canponent (such as air
blcwers, 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 Canpany (controllers/owners of Aerotrol Corporation) i the last
two are fran U. S. Enviromnental Protection Agent.y U980a, 1 980b) publi
cations, h:1sed on a collection of anpirical data fran operating WWTP plants
up to the rnid-1970s. '!he u.s. Environnental Protection Agent.y (1980ai
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
CU.S. Enviromnental Protection Agent.y 1 980b) was based on a conservative
hydraulic loading of 1.0 gpd/ft 2 · with several additional cost items added
lConstruction costs obtained fran u.s. Engineering News-Record 214(12):98101 (985); Engineering market trends, Engineering News-Record 217 (7) : 37(1986) •
I~
IIIIIIIII
TABLE 6. CAPITAL cnsT <DMPARISCNS FOR PROR>SID 7.5 KID RBC <DMPONENTFOR FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWTP, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII
25
~g CDST ~TA SOORCE
Envirex Co. design forHonouliuli WWl'P adjustedfran 25-7.5 ngd (see AR;>.Table E.l for details)
Autotrol Design ManualExample (Autotrol 1983)(see AR;>. Table E.2,examples 4 & 17 fordetails)
HYDRAULICLOADIN; RATE
(gpd/ft l )
2.4
3.0
2.0
2.1
CAPITAL rosrsg
~chanically Air-DrivenDriven Discs Discs
($1000) ($1000)
2,0655
2,562a ,f
EPA Construction CostManual (U. S. EPA 1980a)
NO!' PRORATED(unknown hydraulic loading)
3.0
Unspecified;assumed <3.0
I
1J
EPA canponent Costs(U.S. EPA 1980b) 1.0 l3,893a ,d
IDlE: Potential salvage value for existing activated sludge treatment c:cmponent and costs for demolition were excluded. mc costs are foruncovered units.
~cludes freight costs to oahu.bIncludes $285,000 freight charges fran U.S. west coast to oahu.~umed to be mechanically driven discs."30% added to estimated 20% of nonmanufactured canponents for constructionand assenbly on Oahu.~O% added for nonconstruction costs reccmnended by EPA (1980b).
Includes present worth of power costs; no additional cost assigned forconstruction on Oahu.
gAdjusted by Engineering News-Record (1985, 1986) to August 1986 whereawlicable •
26
(as recaunended) for pl.pl.ng, electricity, instrunentation, site prepar~
tion, engineering, and contingencies.
'Ihe first cost source (Envirex Canpany) is for air driven disc units,
the second cost source (Autotrol Corporation) includes both air driven and
mechanically driven discs. 'Ihe third and fourth cost sources (EPA publica
tions) were based on mechanical units, although an assurrption was made for
the third cost data source. It is interesting to note that the Envirex/
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 canpany), which is
based on a scaled-down version (25-7.5 ngd) of the estimate for an air
driven disc RBC treatment canponent for the Honouliuli WWl'P on oahu, can be
assumed as the most applicable, although the labor and material costs (App.
Table E.l) may be low for construction on oahu and no estimates were given
for engineering 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 and specifications have been prepared, are necessary
for further refinement of the RBC installation cost data at this time.
~ration and Maintenance Costs
Because the present situation irwolves 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
and sophisticated technical attention than the RBC system. Also, depreci~
tim is assumed to be already built into the present activated sludge eatr
ponent, and the RBC canponent is assigned its depreciation schedule.
A 1985 report by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, which re
viewed 23 operating RBC facilities, RBC manufacturers' power studies, and
the results of the WES'ION field power measuranents, revealed that the power
consumed by a mechanically driven RBC unit was directly proportional to the
surface areai the power consumed by the manufacturers I clean media tests
were significantly lower than the power consumed under field conditions,
with bianass growth on the diSCi and initial RBC stages have thicker bio-
IIIIIIII!IIiIII
I
III~
II
27
mass which consumes more ];X)Wer and can lead to septic conditions (particu
larly in the initial stages of a multi-stage system> for mechanically
driven lDlits (supplanental air may be required).
Mechanically driven disc unit's ];X)Wer consumption by standard
<100,000 ft Z ) and high-density media shafts <150,000 ft Z ) at rotational
speeds of 1.6 rpn were d:>served in the field to be 2.3 and 3.4 kWh/shaft,
respectively1 whereas air driven discs, with canbined standard- and higtr
density media shafts, rotating at 1.2 .rpn, required 3.6 kWh/lOO,OOO ft Z
shaft. It should be noted that the overall ];X)Wer consumption for mechani
cal driven units are essentially the same as their respective areas and
power consumption <100,000 ft z:15O,000ftz ..., 2.3 kWh:3.4 kWh).
Based on the foregoing a mechanically driven RBC disc facility, loaded
hydraulically at 3.0 gpd/ft Z am treating 7.5 ngd of primary treated waste
water, would consume $50,000 worth of electricity if the electrical cost
were 10¢/kWh, whereas, an air-driven lDlit would require $79,000 of electri
city under the same given conditions, (rounded off to the nearest $1000)
W.S. Environnental Protection Agency 1985). Interestingly, the $79,000
electrical costs for an air driven RBC facility is nearly identical (well
within $1000) to the electrical cost projected by the Erwirex Canp:my (Aw.
Table E.l> for the 25 ngd Honouliuli WW1'P on oahu, if adjusted to a 7.5-ngd
facility at a 3.0 gpd/ft Z hydraulic loading.
The present aeration basin at the Fort Kamehameha WWTP is supplied air
fran three air blC7t/ers, each driven by a 125-hp motor, operating 24 hr/day.
At an electrical cost of 10¢/kWh,the annual ];X)Wer cost for the three
blC7t/ers (375 hp) is equal to $245,000. Again, this value is the same as
was projected for a canparison activated sludge system (subnerged turbines)
by Envirex Canpal1¥ (App. Table E.l> for the 25 ngd Honouliuli WWTP 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 base cost will
be assumed to be 10¢/kWh with increases of 5% per year for a 15 yr canpcr
nent life which should be a conservative projection. However, the close
proximity of the ocean tends to deteriorate products made of metal1 thus, a
15 yr projected life may not be out of line, although plastics are heavily
28
TABLE 7. PRESENr~ CF ELECI'RICAL <DST SAVIroS, RBC VS. AcrIVATEDSLtJIX;E, FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWl'P, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII
*Present worth cost projections as of August 1986, an electrical costof 10¢/kWh with increases of 5% per year and annual interest rateof 8%.
TYPE OF ANNUAL ELECmICAL COST PRESENr \\OR'm CFRBe SAVIroS OF RBC VS. ELEX:TIUCAL a:>sT SAVI~
DISC DRIVE AcrIVATED SLUOOE 'IREATMEN!' 15-yr 20-yr
II
$2,858,000
2,433,000
$2,287 ,000
1,947,000
$195,000
166,000
Mechanical
Air
used in the manufacture of ROC units. The annual interest rate is assumed
to be 8%, as this should be near the present <August 1986) interest paid
for nontaxable 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
asstm1ptions and utilizing the geanetric-gradient-series formula of Thuesen
and Fabrycky (1984) with interest canpounded annually, the present worth
values <15 yr at 8% interest) for the mechanically driven disc unit is
$2,287 ,000, and $1,947,000 for the air driven unit. Thus, the present
expenditure 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.
Fran the RBC canparative capital cost values in Table 6 and its subse
quent discussion, an RBC facility could conceptually replace the existing
activated sludge canponent at the Fort Kamehameha WWl'P for a present pro
jected cost of up to $2,500,000, which would be near the break-ellen point,
based on the foregoing projected electrical cost and savings, and a RBC
canponent life of nearly 20 years.
I
29
a:>NCLUSIONS
'!he pilot RBC unit, located at the Fort Kamehameha WWI'P am operated
with sane shutdowns for influent punp 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, and 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 BCDs and suspended solids (SS) at. the initial loading of
1.5 gpd/ft Z showed very high treatment efficiency, with respective median
BCDs and 55 effluent concentrations of 2.0 and 8.0 ng/l and corresponding
median removal efficiencies of 98 and 97% (Table 3). The efficiencies for
this loading rate were quite similar to the efficiencies of the present
WWI'P operation which uses activated sludge treatment. The treatment effi
ciency of the second hydraulic loading rate (3.0 gpd/ft Z ) was not as high
as the initial loading, but still quite high for secondary treatment, with
respective median effluent values of 8.3 and 7.5 for BCDs am SSe
The treatment efficiencies of the third am fourth operational test
modes decreased significantly for the 5.0 gpd/ft Z hydraulic loading rates
for exposed and covered discs, respectiVely. '!he median BCDs values
were 30.7 and 35.0 ng/l while the corresponding SS values were 26.5 and
28.0 ng/l. SUch efficiencies may be accepted for secondary treatment since
the RBC system is an attached growth system, however, 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 RBC unit at Fort Kamehameha VtWl'P (utilizing
primary clarifier effluent as its input) proved that ~rently no par
ticular inhibiting growth factors occurred during its operation and no
aesthetic problems (such as odors and 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 RBC canponent could function at the Fort
Kamehameha WWl'P, in replacement of the present activated sludge canponent,
at a hydraulic loading rate of 3.0 gpd/ftz • Ambient temperatures below
55°F tem to inhibit the RBC's biological growth on the discs, but since
Oahu's average daily teIIq)erature is always above this value, concern for
this aspect is el iminated.
30
Two cautions should be noted when evaluating the data. One, the sur
face area of the discs were oonsidered flat, thus, areas around the ope~
ings in the disc were not oonsidered since the bianass on the discs tends
to grow CNer these openings and to thereby approximate a flat surface.
Nevertheless, if sane additional area around the openings were oonsidered
(e.g., an additional 10 to 15%), the indicated hydraulic loading would
reduce acoordingly. Two, as the flow rate decreases, the difficulty of
holding it at a oonstant low flCM rate increases due to plugging and/or
throttling down the flow. Thus, the scheduled flow rate for the initial
l¥draulic flCM rate (1.5 gpdIft Z ) may have actually averaged slightly lCMer
and tended to make it appear to have a higher treatment efficiency. HeM
ever, this latter aspect is only speculation.
The 7.5 ngd Fort Kamehameha WWTP which uses activated sludge secondary
treatment and presently handles an average flow of 5 to 6 ngd, appears to
be extremely efficient· in terms of BeDs and SS remCNal and low effluent
concentrations, based on analytical data d:lserved fran July 1985 to July
1986. Wastewater entering the WWTP is highly brackish (4,000-5,000 ng/l
chIoride) and is reported to include industrial discharges that contain
concentrations of heavy netals, although such wastewaters are supposed to
be controlled and/or treated before discharging into the raw wastewater
flow.
'!be monitoring of an array of heavy netals (Table 5) Oller the pr~
viously nentioned 12-100 period fran sanples of raw wastewater, primary
clarifier effluent, secondary clarifier effluent, and final effluent,
revealed very low ooncentrations of heavy netals. sane heavy netals,
notably copper and zinc, were even below drinking water regulations.
Sanples with higher suspended and settleable solids (activated sludge
mixed liquor suspended solids, and the rCM and digested sludge) had higher
accumulated concentrations, as expected, but they should be of no particu
lar ooncern if disposed properly in a landfill.
Based on the results of the pilot RBC unit and cost data d:>tained fran
various sources and reasonable asslJrl¢ions, it is projected that an RBC
canponent could replace the present activated sludge unit at the Fort
Karneharneha WWI'P for a capital cost approaching $2,500,000, if the loading
for the RBC facility 'Nere approximately 3.0 gpdIft Z • Since this is a ~
ponent replacement in a presently operating systern,only the differential
IIIIIIIIIIIIII~
I~
~
~
I
III
-I
31
projected electrical cost savings will be considered, which are calallated
to be $195 ,000 and $166,000, respectively, for RBC mechanically driven disc
units and air driven units. utilizing an electrical cost of 10¢/kWh with
5% increases per year and an 8% interest rate canpounded annually, the pro
jected present worth for a 15-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 aI=Pears that the potential repla~
rent 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 appreciation is extended to Joe Hanna, Superintendent, Fort
Kameharneha Wastewater Treabnent Plant and his personnel for their coopera
tion, technical assistance, installation of a:}uipnent, collection of waste
water samples, and arrangements for the perfoonance of chemical analyses.
we wish to thank Michael Croston, representative for CMS Rotordisk Inc.,
Mississauga, Ontario, canada, for arranging the no-cost use of the pilot
RBC unit (the Rotorooic System>. The projected RBC capital costs and oper
ation and maintenance costs pravided t!i Albert TsUji, with M.C. Nottingham
of Hawaii, Ltd., were very useful and deeply appreciated.
REFEREOCES CITED
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, andWater Pollution Control Federation. 1985. Standard Irethods for theexamination of water and wastewater. 16th ed. Washington, D.C.:APHA, NilWA, and WPCF.
Antonie, R.L.; Kluge, D.L.; and Mielke, J.H. 1974. E.\7aluation of arotating disk wastewater treabnent plant. Water Pollut. Control Fed.46(3):498-511.
Autotrol Corporation. 1974. BIcrSURF process package plants for secondarywastewater treabnent. Brochure No. 974-1.1.2, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
32
Autotrol Corporation. 1983. waste treatment systems ~sign manual.Bi<rSystems Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Bio-Shafts, Incorporated. En7. Rotating biological discs. (Brochure)
Birks, C.W., and Hynek, R.J. 1971. Treatment of cheese processing wastesby bio-disc process. In Proc.. 26th Purdue Industrial Waste Conf. atPurdue University, 26:89-105.
Davies, T.R., and Pretorius, W.A. 1975. Denitrification with a bacterialdisk unit. Water Res. 9:459.
Department of Health. 1981. Potable water systems. In Title II, Mni.ni.strative 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 WastewaterDischarge 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 atManoa, Honolulu.
Dugan, G.L. 1984. "Rotating biological contactor for brackish wastewatereffluent treatment." Special Rep. 3:12:84, water Resources Researchcenter, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.
Engineering-Science, Inc. 1977. ~ration and maintenance manual, FortKamehameha Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.Rep:>rt prepared for the Naval Facilities Engineering Camnand, PacificDivision,. PNFEC Library, Bldg. 258, Makalapa, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii96860.
Giambel1uca, T.W.; Nullet, M.A.; and Schroeder, T.A. 1986. Rainfall atlasof Hawaii. Rep. R76, Division of Water and Land Developnent, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii (prepared by WaterResources Research center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu).267 W.
Griffith, G.T. 1978. "Rotating disc treatment systems for suburbandevelopnents 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 sewagetreatment systems for suburban developnent and high-density resorts ofHawaii. Tech. Rep. No. 116, Water Resources Research center, university of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.
Nanura, M.M., and Young, R.H.F. 1974. Fate of heavy metals in the sewagetreatment process. Tech. Rep. No. 82, Water Resources Researchcenter, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 26 W.
IIIIIIII~
I
33
Pescod, M.B., and Nair, J. V. 19]2. Biological elisc filtration for tropical waste treatment. water Resour. Res. 6:150~23.
Tsuji, Audrey. 1982. "A municipli wastewater treatment process - Rotatingbiological conductors (RBC)." Directed Research Report (CE 699),Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa,Honolulu.
u.s. Enviromental Protection Agency. 19]7. Federal guidelines state amlocal pretreatment progress. Tech. Rep. MO:>-43, EPA-430/9-7~017a,
Construction Grants Program, Municipal Construction Division, Washington, D.C. 20460.
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency. 19]8. Analysis of o~ration andmaintenance costs for municipal wastewater treatment systems. Tech.Rep. MO:>-39, EPAl430 ~77-o15, Office of Program Operations, Washington, D.C. 20460.
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 19]9. National secondary drinkingwater regulations. EPA-570/~76-o00, Office of Drinking Water,washington, D.C. 20460. 37 pp.
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980a. Construction costs for municipal wastewater treatment plants: 19]3-1g]8. Tech. Rep. FRIrll, EPA430/~80-o03, Facility Requirements Division, Washington, D.C. 20460.
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Innovative and alternativetechnology assessment manual. CIr53, Office of Water Program Operations (Wlr547), Washington, D.C. 20460.
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Operation and maintenancecosts for municipal wastewater facilities. Tech. Rep. FRIr22, EPA430/~81-o04, Facility Requirements Division, Washington, D.C. 20460.
u.s. Environnental Protection Agency. 1984. T.F. (fixed media) plants nowonly r~uired to meet <45 JIg/I BCDs/SS wUess they are presently meeting 10iler values. Fed. Reg., pt. II, 40 CFR, pt. 122, NPDES, vol. 49,no. 49, p. 37708 (20 sept. 1984).
u.s. Environnental Protection Agency. 1985. RevieN of current RaC performance and design procedures. EPAl600/S2-85/033, water EngineeringResearch Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
Victor, D.H. 19]5. "Evaluation of a rotating disc unit for the treatmentof municipal wastewater." Master's thesis (Civil Engineering),University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.
Water Pollution Control Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers.19]7. Wastewater treatment plant design. Landcaster, Pennsylvania:Landcaster Press.
Wells Corporation. 1980. "The rotorooic system, total on-site sewagetreatment" (brochure). 653 Manhatten Beach Boulevard, SUite I,Manhatten Beach, California 90266.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
~
~
~
]
J35
APPENDIX (X)N!'ENTS
E.2. Exanq;>les of RBC Sizing, Capital and Operation Costsfor a Design FION of 7.5 rrgd, by Autotrol CorPOration • • • • •• 81
C.l. Chemical Analyses andPerfonmance Characteristicsof Pilot RBC Unit and Overall Treatment Plant,Fort KarnehamehaWWI'P. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 48
E.l. Capital Costs and Operation and Maintenance Expense •
A.l. Fort Karnehameha Wastewater Treatment Plant.
37
59
• • • • 69
• • • • 47
• • •• 41
• •
. . .
. .
· • . • . . •. 39
· .
· . .
· . .
· . .
· . .
· . .
. . . . . .. .. .• •
. . . . .. . .
. . . . . .
AppeOOi.x Tables
. .
. .B. Pilot RBC Brochure. • • •
A. WWI'P Design Criteria.
D. Heavy Metal Analyses. • •
C. C1emical Analyses •
l...1
lI
]
]
I~
1J
l..J
0.1. Heavy Metal Concentration at Various LocationsThroughout Fort Karnehameha WWI'P • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• 61
I
IJ
J
J
J
J
J
[
r[
[
[
[
I~
r[
t. L
~
[
[
[
[
[
[
APPENDIX A. \W7.lF DFSIGN QUTERIA
37
IIIIIIJ
IIIIIIII~
I~
~
39
APPENDIX TABLE FrI. FORT KAMEHAMEHA WASTEWATER 'lREATMENI' R.ANTDESIGN aUTERIA
Influent Characteristics
III~..
II
~m
Average Design Dry Weather Flow, rrgdAverage Peak Wet Weather Flow, rrgdInstantaneous Peak Flow, rrgdTotal Dissolved Solids, ngllSuspended Solids, ng/lBCDs Concentration, ng/l
Headworks
N:anber of BarminutorsCapacity of Each Barminutor, ngdBarminutor Size, in.
Aerated Grit Chambers
Number of UnitsLength x Width x Depth per Basin, ftTotal Volume, galDetention Time, minAir Supply Capacity, ft 3/rnin
Pr imary settling Tanks
N:anber of UnitsDiameter x Depth, ftTotal Volume, galSurface Loading AJJIlF, gpd/ft 2
weir Overflow Rate NJt1F, gpd/ftDetention Time NJt1F, hr
Aeration Tanks
Number of TanksTotal Volume, galHydraulic Detention Time, hrBCDs Loading, Present Conditions, lb/dayMLSS, ng/lOrganic Loading, lb BCDs/lb MLVSS • dayAir Requiranent, cfrn
SOORCE: Engineering Science Inc. (lg]7).*Assumed to be one magnitude too high.
7.516.023.0
75,000*240240
21536
216.5 x 10 x 8.6 SWD
21,3004.1
350
280 x 9 SVD
679,000747
14,9602.2
62,6g] ,000
8.64,400
700-1,5000.25
6,960
40
APPENDIX T1lBLE A-l.-COntinued
secondary Clarifiers
tUnber of UnitsDiameter x Depth, ftTotal Volume, galSurface Loading at AtWF, gpd/ft 2
weir Olerlflow Rate at AI1flF, gpd/ftDetention Time, hr
Chlorine Contact Tank
Number of Chlorinatorscapacity of Fach Chlorinator, lb/dayEstimated Chlorine Feed Rate at
AI1flF, 1bIdayBasin Volume, galDetention Time at mwF, minDetention Time at MJilF, min
Anaerobic Digesters
a.rnber of UnitsDiameter x Depth, ftTotal Volume, ft 3
Organic Loading, lb VMIft 3/ dayVolatile Solids , lb/dayDetention Time at 2% Solids, day
Centrifuges
Number of UnitsBcMl Length x Diameter, in.Solids Feed capacity of Fach Unit, lb/hrcapacity of Fach Feed Pump, 9IJIlDewatered Sludge cake Moisture Content, %
Sludge Drying Beds
lbnber of BedsTotal Area, ft'
Effluent Punping S,ystem
RJmber of Pump3capacity of Fach Pump, gpn
380 x 9
1,018,000500
9,9703.26
22,000
625182,400
16.535
275 x 18
155,3000.10
7,50022
272 x 36
1,000100
25
36,000
38,000
IJ
I
IIIII
APPENDIX B. PILOl' me BROCHURE
41
II,
II
43
THE ROTOROBIC SYSTEMTOTAL ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
EFFICIENT AEROBIC PROCESSING THROUGH'THE SIMPLICITY OF RBC TECHNOLOGYRELIABLE PERFORMANCE UNMATCHED BY ANY OTHER RESIDENTIALSEPTIC OR MECHANICAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. '
NO PUMPS. NO FILTERS. NO COMPRESSORS.
""ellesCORPORATION...in the Hycor tradition 01 engineering excellence.
44
THE ROTOROBle SYSTEM:
EFFECTIVE, RELIABLE WASTEWATERPROCESSING SPECIFICALLYENGINEERED FOR RESIDENTIALAND COMMERCIAL USE.The Rotorobic system is a compact,mechanical sewage treatment processspecifically engineered for individualhomesites and light commercial duty. Whensewer service is not practical, or a septictank is not feasible, the Rotorobic system Isa proven and reliable aliernative.
The Rotorobic system uses the patentedRotordisk™process developed by CMSEquipment, Ltd., Canada. The Rotorobicprocessor is the only CMS/Rotordisk'··unllavailable in the United States for residentialand small business use.
The Rotorobic process is a major departurefrom other approaches to on-sitewastewater treatment. The Rotorobicsystem is an unusually reliable and powerfulaerobic sewage treatment unit used inconjunction with an ordinary filier bed orleach field.
The aerobic unit itself is built around asimple and highly dependable Sewageprocessor known to engineers as an RBC,or Rotating Biological Contactor. RBC unitshave long been used in central municipalsewage plants. Now, Ihis proven, timetested technology Is available for home andsmall business appUcations. The Rotorobicprocessor is the only RBC system currentlyavailable that is specifically designed forresidential applications up to 1000 gallonsper day.
Unlike complicated extended aerationdevices, the Rotorobic processor employsno pumps, filters, or compressors that canleak, clog, or fail. The Rotorobic RBCmechanism has few moving parts, making itinherently simple and trouble -free. Outputfrom the unit meets or exceeds EPAstandards for secondary quality eflluent.Equally important, the Rotorobic processorwill continue to meet these standards undersudden overload or persistent underflowconditions.
WHEN A SEPTIC SYSTEMCAN'T DO THE JOB, THEROTOROBte PROCESSORMEETS THE CHALLENGE:• Improper soil conditions.• High groundwater tables.• Liltle or no soil over the bedrock.• An older leach field has become clogged.• Geological conditions cause polluted
effluent 10 be returned to the localgroundwater.
• Site too close to lakes and streams.• Space limitations do not allow for an
adequate leach field.
EVEN IN AREAS WITHSEWER SERVICE, THEROTOROBIC SYSTEM ISAN ECONOMICALALTERNATIVE 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 tothe local sewers.
The Rotorobic processor removes morethan 90% of the organic pollutants fromthe wastewater, leaving less than 10% ofthe job to be done in the leach field.Because so much of the sewage breakdownoccurs within the unit Itself, even underextreme conditions, an effective, reliabletreatment system can be designed.
The output of the Rolorobic unit Is soclean, many applications require only asub-surface or above-ground liIter bed ofproperly selected sand. Poor soilconditions, high groundwater, or shallowsoil layers are no problem for the Rotoroblcsystem.
The ideal alternative to septic lanktechnology in new construction, theRotorobic processor is also an economical .long-term repair for old or failing septic·systems. In addition to significantly relievingthe load on an aging leach field, Rotorobicoutflow actually reverses tile fielddeterioration and Improves the porosity ofthe soil. If used to pre-treat wastewaterbefore discharge to the local sewer system,the Rotorobic unit pays for Itself in reducedmunicipal surcharges.
POWERFUL RBCPROCESSINGIn organic. waste treatment, aerobicbiological reactions (those that take place Inthe presence of oxygen) are far morevigorous and efficient than anaerobic orseptic reactions (those that take place in theabsence of oxygen.) Thus. aerobic sewagetreatment proceeds much more rapidly andpurifies far more completely than septictreatment.
The superiority of aerobic processing andthe mechanical simplicity of Rotorobic RBCtechnology make the Rotorobic systemdramatically different from any otherresidential septic or mechanical sewagetreatment process.
Within the self-contained Rotorobicprocessor colonies of microorganisms(naturally present In domestic wastes) growon Rotorobic's BioMesh™ media discs. Asmall electric motor slowly rotates the halfsubmerged discs through the wastewater.This alternately exposes the biomass to thesewage and to the air, continually aeratingthe microorganisms to sustain the aerobicprocess and promote the efficientbreakdown of the organic pollutants. Thissimple, yet effective mechanism is the keyto the Rotorobic processor's trouble-freerecord of reliable service proven Inhundreds of Installations.
QUALITY COMPARISON OF ON·SlTEWASTE TREATMENT UNITS
ANAEROIIC UNrT.'
ICH=~~~:STlC I TYPICAL WELL·MAIN'AINED I8lPTlC TANK SEPTIC TANK
BOOt moll 110 ".&S1ng}1 '00 '"DOmgJI 0 0
AEROBIC UNITS'
II, OUTFLOW cINSF ClASS 11'1 NSF CLASS" IAOTOM)'I~ ICHARACTERISTIC 'AOCESSO"
BOD. moll .. 20 20
SSm"JI 100 40 ,.DOmgJI ~ apecllled) jrIone specified) 1.5-"-
...... I1I'~_..• __ ...• .....•IJltMI_s.r.t••_,_'_c......loc ••_.__• __.. _.
~_..._-....--CONSISTENT.DEPENDABLEPERFORMANCERotorobic's RBC technology Is remarkablydependable. The process is selfcompensating over a wide range offluctuating demands. Rotorobic is aparticularly tough performer under "shockloading," a sudden sharp Increase in theorganic workload. Unlike some systems,Rotorobic will continue to perform properlydespite repeated cycles of underflow oroverload (25-400% of design flow) withlittle or no adv.erse effect on effluent quality.
PRIMARY SETTLING CHAMBEROne·plece molded fiberglass Oule, shell.
ROTOR ZONEMolded llberglas! Inner lank. exclusiveSplro·llow'M weirlng assures maximum flow contactwllh the biomass
ROTOR BEARINGSAircralt·quailly,heavy·duty. Sealedagainst molSlufe.
CHAIN COUPLING
FINAL SETTLING CHAMBER
I,I
I
It
I
45
•• A8S OR PVC PERF. DIST. PIPE
TYPICAL INSTALLATION
'SLOPE OF FEED PIPE TO FACILITATE MIN. FLOWVELOCITY OF APPROX. 2 F.P.S. WITH GRAVITY DISCHARGE
ROTOROBICFEATURES
• A TOTAL WASTEWATERTREATMENT PROCESS
• HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
• DEPENDABLE RBCTECHNOLOGY
• SIMPLE, TROUBLE-FREEDESIGN
• PROVEN IN THE COLD
• EXTREMELY LOWMAINTENANCE
• ENERGY-EFFICIENT.ECONOMICAL OPERATION
• EASILY HANDLES SUDDENOVERLOAD ORUNDERFLOW
• WIDE RANGE OFAPPLICATIONS
• WORKS WHERE OTHERSYSTEMS CAN'T DOTHE JOB
• IDEAL FOR LONG TERMREPAIR OR RETROFIT
• READILY INSTALLED ANDSERVICED BY YOUR LOCALDEALER
• ENVIRONMENTALLYRESPONSIBLE
• HEAVY·DUTY, LONG LIFECOMPONENTS
• NO SUBMERGED PARTS
• NO COMPLICATEDCOMPRESSORS.COMPONENTS, ORELECTRONIC CONTROLS
• NO FILTERS TO CLOGOR CLEAN
• SELF-CONTAINED.TOTALLY ENCLOSED
• NOISELESS, ODORLESS,AND VIBRATION·FREE
• CAPACITIES TO 1000GALLONS PER DAY
• PRODUCES NOFLAMMABLE GASSES
@ IS'. :.... ',"
....: ..... ,'.:.
CROWN TO DIVERT SURFACE WATER 1·2%.TOPSOIL. PLANT WITH GRASS
POWERCONSUMPTION COMPARISON
TREATMENT WATTS/PERSON/DAYTECHNOLOGY
Oillused Air 166Mechanical Aer alion 93Ditch lagoon Aefation 41
ROTOAOBICfI. Processor 20
Totally enclosed and vlbratlon-f;ee, theRotorobic processor is virtually noiseless.The lightweight fiberglass top Is completelyremovable for easy servicing. In the rareInstance that replacement parts are needed,all Items are standard oll-the-shelf Industrialcomponents always available from yourlocal Rotorobic dealer. But with no pumpsto prime, no required "dosing" withbacteria, and no "mixed liquor/suspendedsolids" ratios to worry about, the Rotorobicprocessor is practically maintenance free.Twice a year,· your Rotoroble dealer willperform a routine service check, and whennecessary, pump out the accumulatedsludge.• (Recommended service interval.Local regulations may differ.)
This is all the servicing normally needed toinsure trouble-free. reliable performanceunmatched by any other mechanicalsewage treatment system.
35 years of successful RBC technology andthe Welles Corporation commitment toproducts of unparalled excellence Inengineering and design make the Rotorobicsystem the sensible choice over other wastetreatment methods. Solid warranties anda dedication to local after-sales servicefurther guarantee dependable. worry-freeoperation year after year.
.::.:'I' .
/,:..':::~:;: '...•:.;~ ;'~;"'~"" ~'~'~:'•.".':':"-"?:-:":'.:' :::."',/.~ .,
t~;~~ ~'~';;:.--~~~:,..~~~ =::. ";,,;_,"Z:='~
SCUM 8AFFLE
ELECTRIC MOTOREpolty·coated 11~. IJ.h.p.Totally enclosed and lan·cooled.
DRIVESHA" ASSEM8LYAll·ateel construction. All melal pariscadmium plated for corrosion pro'Betion.
MEDIA PANELSPolvethylene SloMttsh'lIIpanels provide optimumbiomass retention and Uow-through
ENERGY EFFICIENT,EASY TO MAINTAINDesigned to run continuously, Rotoroblc'slow rpm and steady surge·free operationassures extremely long life and low energycosts, typically less than JOe per day. Manyyears of trouble·free performance areengineered into each Rotoroblc unit. Allcomponents are selected for extra·long lifeand heavy-duty service.
There are no pumps, compressors, uolues,micro·computers. or electronic conlro/s 10foil. Rotorobic has no screens, dillusers, orfilters to clog-or clean. There are noexposed gears or submerged parts tocorrode; all components are above thewaterline. In addition, the unit producesNO nammable gasses, and NO odor.
I
I
I
I
II
Unit Illustrated: Rotoroblc 750
46
ROTOROBIC/ROTORDISK SYSTEMS AREINSTALLED AND OPERATING IN THESEVARIED APPLICATIONS:
Units with capacities over 1000 gal./day are available under the name Rotordisk™ from CMS Equipment, Ltd., Canada.Consult your dealer.
• Commercial Establishments• Shopping Malls• Restaurants• Parks and Campgrounds• Golf Courses• Sports Centers• Rest Stops• Logging and Construction Camps
• Residential Housing• Condominiums• Cluster Housing• Apartments• Nursing homes• Vacation homes• Hotels and Motels• Mobile Homes
I· f "I
~.a ',T --- .
d SLUDGE -~LUDGE~;ORAGE -- IeSTORAGE
---'_--''----1.--1._
Available Options• Lightweight concrete outer shell• Solar power package• Trouble alarm• Chlorinator for treating final effluent• Extended warranty• Financing
III
'unil width (g) me.sured at shoulder height (c)
TECHNICAL DATAUNIT DIMENSIONS (Inch••) SLUDGE STORAGE
TREATMENT DRY UNIT BURIAL SHOULDER EFFLUENT INFLUENT UNIT UNIT PRIMARY FINALModel No. CAPACITY WEIGHT HEIGHT DEPTH HEIGHT WATERLINE WATERLINE LENGTH WIDTH {eu.II.1 (cu. fl.)tgal.lday) Ilbs·1 . b c • . I g'
ROTOROBIC 500 500 400 68 60.5 43.5 33 35 59 69 16.9 2.9
ROTOROBIC 750 750 700 59 47 40 30 32.5 71 88 23.4 4.0
ROTOROBIC 1000 1000 800 59 47 40 30 32.5 71 88 23.4 4.0EXTERNAL CONNECTIONS: 4' diam. "asELECTRIC 1I0TOR: Single PIlese 110.. 60 cycle
Rotorobic™ is a trademark of Welles Corporation, exclusive U.S. distributors of Rotordisk™ residential-sized waste treatmentsystems. Rotordisk™ is a patented product of CMS Equipment, Ltd., Toronto, Canada.
Your local Rotoroble dealer Is:
¥lellesCORPORATION...In the Hycor Iradition 01 engineering excellence.
653 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite IManhattan Beach, California 90266(213) 470·1292 (213) 545·1921TELEX: 804294 - SPEEDEX ATL
of'1981 Welle. Corpor.tlon. Prinled In U.S.A. WA·1829 2.5M
I
I
iII~
J
APPENDIX C. CHEMICAL ANALYSES
47
I48
APPENDIX TABLE C.l. QIEmCAL ANALYSES AND PERFORMANCE 0IARAC1'ERIS- ITICS OF PILOl' RBC UNIT AND OJERALL 'lREATMENl'PLANl', FORT KAMEHAMEHA WWTP, PEARL HARBOR, HmAII
IWAS'm'lATER '.IREATMENl' H.ANT
Raw wastewatera Final Effluenta ,b,C
DM.'E FlOri J3(]). CDD SSEffl. pJ J3(]). CDD SS pH Re- Re- Re-Cone. lOO\7al Cone. lOO\7al Cone. lOO\7al
(ngd) --(ng/I)- (ng/l) (l) (ng/l) (l) (ng/I) (l)
~
07/02 6.50 6.7 93 177 156 6.9 3.6 96 169 5 10.4 93
07/04 5.90 6.7 88 395 130 6.9 <2.0 trI 368 7 10.8 92
07/07 4.86 6.8 82 390 83 7.0 2.6 trI 224 43 14.4 69 I07/09 6.20 6.7 80 300 132 6.8 <2.0 98 158 47 6.2 95
07/10 5.50 6.8 117 390 155 7.4 4.5 96 93 76 8.2 9507/11 6.20 6.9 III 313 155 7.4 3.7 trI 152 51 11.0 93 I07/14 5.00 6.7 91 618 100 3.6 96 445 28 13.8 86
07/15 5.10 7.1 75 276 103 7.5 3.5 95 175 37 12.8 88
07/16 5.58 7.6 71 185 134 7.2 <2.0 trI 11.6 91 I07/28 5.72 6.8 32 151 58 7.0 2.0 94 trI 36 10.6 82
07/29 6.30 6.9 70 Itr1 103 7.1 2.2 trI 66 66 10.6 92
07/31 6.65 7.0 107 299 123 6.9 4.0 96 91 70 9.1 93 I08/01 5.77 6.9 51 707 132 7.3 2.0 96 0 100 11.0 92
08/04 5.17 7.0 40 200 78 2.0 95 44 78 7.6 9008/05 5.29 7.0 367 220 7.0 83 77 8.6 96 I08/06 6.45 7.0 64 304 287 6.9 2.0 trI 7 98 7.6 trI
08/07 5.06 6.9 98 94 86 7.1 5.2 95 58 38 9.6 89
08/08 5.67 8.0 72 108 75 6.9 5.6 92 72 33 10.0 87
"'08/11 4.84 7.0 104 363 208 2.1 98 142 61 10.0 95
08/12 5.44 6.8 305 217 6.6 146 52 9.3 96
I08/13 5.07 6.9 96 181 135 7.0 2.0 98 112 38 7.4 95
08/14 5.55 6.9 75 105 trI 7.1 3.0 96 39 63 13.4 86
08/15 5.67 6.8 34 79 6.9 2.0 94 11.0 86
I08/18 5.14 6.9 74 478 102 3.9 95 111 77 14.3 86
08/20 5.60 7.8 630 594 504 6.7 <2.0 99 6 99 6.6 99
08/21 5.56 7.0 118 50 169 7.0 6.3 95 0 100 13.8 92
08/22 6.13 7.0 120 279 79 7.0 6.6 95 11.4 86
08/25 5.56 6.9 89 132 2.0 98 6.8 95
08/26 6.25 6.8 55 74 6.8 4.0 93 11.4 85
I08/27 5.40 6.9 100 121 448 6.9 3.0 trI 64 47 12.2 trI
08/28 5.74 6.8 84 109 6.9 2.1 98 5.5 95
08/29 5.46 6.9 78 213 111 6.8 2.0 trI 72 66 7.8 93
~09/02 4.98 6.8 80 94 100 6.7 2.0 98 4 96 8.0 92
N:JI'E: Constituent values obtained fran analysis performed (or arranged to be analyzed)by Fort Kamehameha WWl'P.
~: ·X· means effluent greater than influent.4-hr carq:osite sanp1e.
I:£ischarged to ocean outfall.~ffiCienCies for final effluent based on rCiti wastewater inputs.
~1at surface area of discs.
~
49
APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-COntinued
RJrATlNi BICLCGICAL OONrlCroR
Influenta ,e Effluentf ,g Average
Bro, <XD SS HydaulicBro, <XD SS pH Cl Re- Sol. Re- 'IOC ReO' IDading
Cone. lOOVal BCD, COne. lOOVal Cone. lOOVal (~
--ng/l-- (ng/l> (ng/l> (%) (nr¥l) (nr¥l> (%) (nr¥l) (nr¥l) (%) ft,)d,h
I~
64 252 85 8.0 4196 37.8 41 <6.0 354 X 31.1 286.4 X 1.5
68 375 100 8.0 4313 2.0 fR <2.0 220 41 9.3 30.8 69 1.5
I79 394 95 8.2 4313 2.0 fR 217 45 7.8 3.6 96 1.5
212 285 301 8.1 3963 2.0 99 132 54 7.9 15.8 95 1.5125 969 290 8.1 3846 2.0 98 162 83 8.6 13.0 96 1.5
I112 403 231 8.0 3788 <2.0 98 153 62 9.3 12.1 95 1.5
52 175 139 8.1 3963 2.0 96 2.6 47 73 6.2 16.4 88 1.5
64 IfR 85 7.9 4371 <2.0 fR 187 5 3.1 4.2 95 1.5
I63 210 46 7.4 4021 6.6 90 <2.0 86 59 9.7 18.8 87 1.5
55 203 86 8.0 3903 4.8 91 <2.0 145 29 2.3 32.6 62 1.5
50 283 81 8.1 4021 3.5 93 <2.0 132 53 6.5 4.8 94 1.5
B255 318 550 8.1 4371 8.6 fR 12.4 7.4 8.6 98 1.5
108 1596 1126 8.0 4429 2.0 98 2.0 30 98 7.3 17.3 98 1.5
258 1096 1510 8.2 4079 <2.0 99 <2.0 185 83 8.2 14.0 99 1.5
I_.
435 293 7.5 4487 72 83 7.0 9.2 fR 1.5
159 836 1278 7.7 4138 2.0 99 <2.0 88 89 6.2 3.4 99 1.5
460 910 1208 7.5 3788 10.3 98 7.6 35 96 6.2 2.0 99 1.5
I 388 943 1106 7.4 3846 9.0 98 5.7 8.0 3.1 99 1.5
370 865 1386 7.7 2739 11.4 fR 4.6 171 80 12.3 31.0 98 1.5
944 1078 7.8 4371 2.0 2.0 182 81 4.5 2.7 99 1.5
I 490 1172 1388 8.0 4254 3.9 99 <2.0 112 90 10.0 4.5 99 1.5
620 1085 2044 7.5 4313 3.0 99 <3.0 12 99 10.9 3.8 99 1.5
388 766 1545 8.0 4313 3.9 99 <2.0 55 93 4.2 3.7 99 1.5
I 580 1555 1610 7.8 3374 6.0 99 <2.0 260 83 6.5 6.3 99 1.5
990 1374 1490 7.7 5285 8.3 99 3.9 7.9 5.8 99 1.5
1140 1118 1670 7.7 5566 17.6 98 6.9 13.6 23.3 99 1.5
~ 1350 1086 1819 7.7 5679 16.3 99 25.0 8.9 15.3 99 1.5
525 1088 1935 7.6 5791 <2.0 99 <2.0 8.2 3.9 99 1.5
393 1278 1450 7.7 5623 <3.0 99 <2~5 7.8 6.2 99 1.5
~ 538 1069 1535 7.6 5622 <2.0 99 <3.6 8.8 5.4 99 1.5
365 1082 1420 7.8 5904 <2.0 99 <2.0 7.1 3.4 99 1.5
315 1101 1565 7.8 5791 <2.0 99 <2.0 121 89 9.1 3.8 99 1.5
~ 255 1016 1227 7.9 5679 <2.0 99 <2.0 3.9 4.8 99 1.5
?ww primary effluent.
~Grab samples.~fficiencies based on inputs fran primary clarifier.. iscs eJCPOSed, unless otherwise noted.~iscs covered.JEPA determined values.
~
~)J.
52
APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued
WAS'I5lATER 'mEA'.1!'IENT RJlNl'
Raw wastewatera Final Effluenta ,b,c
DATEF1Qi BCD, OOD SS IEffl. ~ BCD, aD SS ~ ~ ~ ~Cone.
m::walCone.
m::walCone.
m::wal(mp) -(ng/l>-- (ng/l> (\) (ng/l) (\) (ng/l> (\)
~ I10129 5.60 6.9 45 313 79 6.5 2.0 96 98 69 8.2 en10/30 5.63 6.7 342 60 6.9 266 22 12.2 96
I10/31 5.50 6.7 426 111 6.6 245 42 9.0 98
11/03 5.23 6.8 29 434 79 2.0 93 280 35 8.8 9811/04 5.06 6.7 41 64 6.8 <1.0 98 9.0
I11/05 6.19 6.7 30 61 7.0 <1.0 en 9.811/06 5.42 6.6 37 387 58 6.2 <1.0 en 217 44 6.6 9811/07 5.61 6.6 25 59 7.5 <1.0 96 12.2 I11/11 4.98 6.7 70 503 70 2.5 96 356 29 7.0 9911/12 5.07 7.7 <1.0 324 93 7.0 <1.0 X 277 15 15.2 95
11/13 5.22 6.6 96 424 89 6.9 2.1 98 243 43 7.0 98 I11/14 5.62 6.8 46 329 101 6.9 2.0 96 309 6 6.6 98
11/17 4.50 6.9 82 487 en 2.0 98 266 45 12.2 en11/18 5.90 7.7 141 308 123 7.1 2.3 98 280 9 8.4 en I11/19 5.50 7.1 ISO 322 125 6.9 2.2 99 209 35 5.7 98
11120 5.22 7.1 115 430 94 7.0 3.2 en 253 41 4.6 99
11/21 5.31 7.4 100 1142 112 6.8 2.0 98 190 83 6.0 99 I11124 4.75 7.1 56 404 87 2.0 96 382 5 8.7 98
11/25 5.43 7.4 59 379 en 7.0 2.0 en 348 .8 6.0 98
11/26 5.56 7.0 68 504 119 6.7 2.0 en 445 12 7.8 98 I11/28 4.51 7.4 73 610 96 2.0 en 592 3 6.4 99
12101 4.43 7.0 810 90 580 28 7.0 92
12102 4.21 7.4 294 63 7.0 len 33 8.6 86 I12103 4.50 6.8 377 77 6.7 207 45 8.8 89
12104 3.99 7.1 330 92 7.3 226 32 5.1 94
12105 5.23 7.0 114 7.8 14.2 88 I12108 5.32 7.0 93 17.6 81
12109 5.98 6.8 67 6.9 16.8 75
~12110 5.58 6.8 94 7.1 14.4 85
12112 5.79 6.8 90 6.8 92
12119 5.20 6.9 345 133 6.8 274 21 8.8 93
12/22 5.04 6.9 403 101 6.7 263 35 13.1 87
12/23 5.83 7.4 324 1125 6.7 282 13 16.8 99
12/25 4.74 6.8 454 74 291 36 9.9 87
~12/26 5.51 6.8 407 113 268 34 15.5 86
12/29 5.15 6.9 538 327 39
12/30 5.49 6.8 129 13.4 90
I 53
APPENDIX TABLE C.I.-continued
ROl'ATIm BIlLCGlCAL <D~
Influenta ,e Effluentf,9 Average
BCD, COD SS HydaulicBCD, COD SS pH Cl k" Sol. Re= 'roC Re- Loading
COne. JlICNal BCD, COne. JlICNal COne.JlICNal (gpc1(
--ng/l-- (ng/l) (ng/l) (\) (ng/l) (ng/l) (\) (ng/l> (mg/l) (\) ftl)d,h
I ~
65 182 102 7.4 4901 9.7 85 2.0 li2 38 13.3 3.0
354 li8 7.4 4734 257 27 13.3 3.0
I 309 94 7.3 4511 7.3 2.0 287 7 13.1' 3.0
320 96 7.3 5012 3.7 2.0 280 13 11.8 5.8 94 3.0
80 7.3 6.9 2.0 17 79 3.0
I 101 4.9 2.3 7.8 93 3.0
364 83 7.7 4678 3.0 2.0 284 22 12.8 6.4 92 3.0
93 2.2 2.0 6.2 93 3.0
I 451 101 7.4 5347 21.5 12.0 263 42 14.3 14.5 86 3.0349 126 7.6 4511 325 7 15.5 20.7 84 3.0219 91 7.7 4455 12.5 3.2 256 X 13.5 37.2 59 3.0
I 340 92 7.5 4901 >50.0 8.2 309 fJ7 14.6 28.0 70 3.0
472 102 7.7 5068 5.9 5.2 450 5 12.4 5.0 95 3.0
414 113 7.6 4623 10.3 6.4 272 34 16.7 4.3 96 3.0285 96 7.6 4233 5.6 4.5 242 15 14.4 4.3 96 3.0
499 133 7.2 4288 6.0 4.4 288 42 14.9 3.8 m 3.0
I377 106 7.5 4455 19.0 7.1 327 13 18.5 17.5 83 3.0
472 105 7.5 4511 12.5 6.3 401 15 16.4 9.7 91 3.0
331 101 7.6 4814 5.8 5.7 361 X 13.9 5.6 94 3.0
664 110 7.6 4338 10.0 3.4 451 32 14.5 5.5 95 3.0
I 456 128 7.6 4549 5.2 3.4 542 X 13.8 9.6 93 3.0
610 135 7.6 4814 4.5 2.5 347 43 12.1 12.8 91 3.0
I386 106 7.7 4708 2.0 2.0 413 X 11.6 7.2 93 3.0
466 188 7.7 4761 8.1 5.6 243 48 15.1 4.1 98 3.0
294 108 7.6 4391 9.7 6.9 178 39 13.3 4.1 96 3.0
I105 5.0 2.1 9.0 91 3.0
131 5.8 2.0 15.6 88 3.0
134 400 X 3.0
~324 18.6 8.2 13.6 96 3.0
102 10.4 3.2 3.0
627 233 7.5 4179 >8.3 >5.4 444 29 22.2 15.6 93 3.0
532 170 7.4 4285 5.8 6.2 480 10 16.0 5.6 m 3.0
1400 1532 7.4 4391 12.4 4.5 302 78 14.7 9.3 99 3.0
309 171 7.3 4761 2m 4 7.0 6.8 96 3.0
~389 85 7.4 4920 9.0 3.0 14.4 7.5 91 3.0
301 7.2 4920 7.6 4.3 293 3 13.8 7.7 3.0
88 10.2 4.1 3.0
~
~~
~"
54 IAPPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued I
WAS'miATER 'Im'JmoIENI' PLANT
Raw wastewatera Final Eff1uenta,b,c
IDATEF1Qi ea>, COD SSEffl. pH ea>. CXD SS pH Ie- Re- Re-COne. lOOVal COne.
lOOValCOne.
lOOVal(1lIiP) --(1Il:Y'l>- (1Il:Y'1) (\) (1Il:Y'l> (\) (ng/l> (\)
~
01/01 5.02 6.9 62 329 67 6.8 4.3 93 254 23 9.6 g]
01/02 6.00 6.9 161 124 6.7 2.4 99 11.2 I01/05 5.53 6.9 99 358 92 6.6 12.8 87 45.8 87
01/06 5.97 6.7 126 305 145 6.8 <2.0 98 232 24 11.2 96
01/07 5.82 6.8 123 501 120 6.9 3.6 g] 328 35 14.6 g] I01/08 6.04 6.7 100 449 125 6.6 4.5 96 172 62 13.0 g]
01/09 6.17 7.0 84 354 111 6.8 2.1 98 308 1301/12 5.43 6.8 558 91 308 45 13.7 98 I01/13 5.67 6.9 205 485 6.7 329 X 29.8 85
01/14 5.16 6.8 302 114 199 34 8.6 g]
01/15 5.08 6.8 221 144 6.5 155 30 23.6 89 I01/16 5.43 6.8 418 174 6.4 228 45 53.8 87
01/20 4.68 6.9 395 105 300 24 5.6 9901/21 5.59 6.8 363 175 6.6 219 40 5.4 99 I01/22 5.44 7.3 447 169 6.4 266 40 16.4 90
01/23 5.49 7.7 354 102 6.8 222 37 11.8 88
01/26 5.52 7.0 101 90 7.0 353 X 9.7 89 I01/27 5.46 6.9 410 152 6.6 256 38 18.1 88
01/28 5.57 6.8 468 185 6.5 7.5 96
I01/29 5.89 7.0 508 133 6.7 357 30 5.4 96
01/30 6.12 7.0 326 133 6.7 255 22 7.7 94
02/05 6.41 7.0 105 493 119 7.0 9.2 91 457 7 40.9 66
i02/06 6.14 6.6 68 566 113 7.0 2.6 96 450 20 11.2 90
02/09 5.20 6.8 105 153 2.0 98 8.6 94
02/10 5.61 6.5 126 702 7.2 2.8 98 586 17
I(Pilot ROC unit not operating fran 11 Feb. to 31 Mar. 1986.)
04101 5.05 7.2 108 230 114 6.7 7.2 93 45 80 6.6 94
04102 4.82 6.9 99 205 109 6.5 <2.0 g] 45 78 7.4 93
I04103 4.99 7.1 96 160 84 6.5 <2.0 98 40 75 9.3 8~
04106 4.54 6.9 50 95 62 2.3 95 20 79 8.4 86
04107 5.06 7.0 63 170 71 6.8 2.7 96 50 71 10.1 86
04108 5.46 7.1 73 180 126 6.5 <2.0 g] 20 89 10.1 92
04109 5.48 7.4 90 160 140 6.3 <2.0 98 90 44 15.4 89
04110 4.67 7.3 90 195 105 6.5 2.9 97 45 77 20.4 81
04113 4.39 7.1 71 120 76 <2.0 g] 35 71 3.9 95
06/18 5.90 7.2 94 260 128 6.6 2.0 98 18.6 85
06/19 6.12 7.2 140 162 6.9 6.4 95 31.9 80 I06/22 5.40 6.7 102 169 6.6 94 25.3 8506/23 5.90 7.3 113 180 7.1 2.3 98 15.2 92
~
I,I
55
APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continuedROrATlNi BICLOOlCAL <Dm'J\ClUR
Influenta ,e Effluentf, 9 Average
BCDs <DD SS HydaulicBCDs <DD SS pH Cl Re= Sol. Re: roc Re- Loading
COne.lOOVal
BCDs Cone.lOOVal
Cone.lOOVal (~
--m;Vl-- (m;Vl) (m;Vl> (\) (m;Vl> (m;Vl> (\) (m;Vl) (m;Vl> (\) ft,)d,h
~
847 572 7.2 5026 10.2 6.2 382 55 11.9 5.5 99 3.0
761 7.3 4655 10.1 2.0 273 10.5 10.9 99 3.0
115 7.2 4523 10.4 3.0 9.3 3.5 97 3.0
467 122 7.2 4920 10.4 3.6 352 25 11.8 7.3 94 3.0
I478 100 7.2 4497 8.5 3.9 397 17 12.6 5.6 94 3.0
371 91 7.3 4481 8.2 3.2 399 X 14.5 6.8 93 3.0
326 86 7.0 4529 26.4 11.4 398 X 16.3 46.0 47 3.0
I 436 110 7.3 4091 3.2 2.0 180 59 10.5 7.2 93 3.0
III 59 7.2 4140 3.8 2.0 301 X 14.1 4.9 92 3.0
304 102 7.1 3945 82.7 67.8 279 8 23.5 12.9 87 3.0
I 292 105 7.4 4140 82.0 59.0 180 38 35.7 19.3 82 3.0
380 113 7.1 3701 86.2 >35.0 287 24 25.4 24.8 78 3.0
466 70 7.2 4286 5.1 2.0 316 32 15.1 4.6 93 3.0
I 351 127 7.1 4286 5.3 5.0 291 17 17.7 5.6 96 3.0
360 108 7.1 4334 6.6 4.8 286 21 19.5 7.5 93 3.0
304 95 7.0 4775 2.4 325 X 22.3 24.5 74 3.0
I 365 97 7.1 4821 12.3 5.1 324 11 16.5 16.5 83 3.0
338 104 7.3 4334 13.0 3.7 399 X 17.3 9.2 91 3.0
370 85 7.2 3896 5.2 5.5 351 5 18.5 8.3 90 3.0
I 405 93 7.3 3945 13.2 5.7 581 X 17.9 6.6 93 3.0
390 183 7.2 4627 5.4 3.0 298 24 16.0 5.8 97 3.0
100 658 III 7.1 4821 88.5 13 56.5 488 11 29.6 33.3 70 5.0
I 54 489 104 7.3 3765 19.8 63 10.0 381 22 21.0 17.3 83 5.0
81 126 7.5 4061 15.6 81 7.1 544 17.1 18.4 85 5.0
86 536 7.3 4145 29.3 66 9.9 556 X 21.1 28.0 5.0
I 61 1~ 78 7.1 3699 48.0 21 70 63 23.2 58.0 25 5.0
83 160 130 7.1 4254 20.8 75 70 56 23.8 16.8 87 5.0
179 355 238 6.9 3930 62.0 65 151 57 35.5 9.3 96 5.0
75 ISO 78 7.2 3468 32.0 57 65 57 26.7 46.8 40 5.0
~82 240 98 7.2 3930 81.5 1 155 35 39.9 56.8 42 5.0
72 140 91 7.3 3930 19.0 74 70 SO 26.5 32.4 64 5.0
71 205 85 7.2 3484 12.0 83 70 66 24.9 36.0 58 5.0
~78 200 103 7.4 3457 160 80 32.0 42.0 59 5.0
100 195 191 7.3 3808 65.0 35 140 28 39.4 49.2 74 5.0
ISO 6.7 4361 48.0 225 X 12.8 18.4 S.Oi
~7.4 4874 7.5 128 11.7 13.4 5.01
7.3 5387 23.0 373 13.7 28.0 S.Oi
7.4 5489 22.0 219 14.7 24.4 S.Oi
~
~r,
56
APPENDIX TABLE C.l.-continued
W1lS'lnlATER 'IREATMEN'l' FLANT
Raw wastewater4 Final Etfluenta,b,c
Dl\TE Flow B(J). aD SSEffl. pH B(J). WI> SS pH Re- Re- Re-COne.
JOOII'alCOne. JOOII'al Cone.
JOOII'al(1IkJd) --(mYl)- (mY1) (\) (mY1) (\) (ug/l) (\)
~
06/24 5.75 7.2 125 191 7.1 2.6 98 11.9 9406/26 5.19 7.1 88 136 7.1 <2.0 98 6.7 95
06/29 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 9207/07 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
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II
IIIIIII
II~
II~
IIIIIIIIIIIII~
I~
APPENDIX D. HFAVY METAL ANALYSES
59
IIIIIIIIIIIiII~
~
~
~
~
62
APPENDIX TM3LE D.1.--COntimed
AVERPGE HEAVY METALS
MTE HYDRAULIC Ag Cd Cr eu Fe Ni Pb ZnLQN)IN:;(gpd/ft 2 ) * (ng/1)
11/19/85 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1511/26/85 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5711/29/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1012/03/85 3.0 0.12 0.01 0.2 0.5 5.1 0.2 0.1 0.50
~12/06/85 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1712/13/85 3.0 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2612/20/85 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.18
I12/24/85 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1512/31/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4501/06/86 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1501/10/86 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.11 I01/17/86 3.0 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1001/24/86 3.0 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1101/28/86 3.0 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.14 I02/04/86 5.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1602/07/86 5.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.18
PRIMARY CLARIFIER EFFLumrt ~06/14/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1307/02/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.13 I07/05/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1007/09/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.3407/12/85 1.5 0.06 0.01 0.0 0.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.36
I07/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1207/19/85 1.5 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.3 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.4207/23/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.1707/26/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.30 I07/30/85 1.5 0.12 0.04 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1108/02/85 1.5 0.20 0.02 0.2 1.2 10.8 0.4 0.2 1.1808/06/85 1.5 0.11 0.00 0.1 0.5 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.40 I08/09/85 1.5 0.12 0.01 0.4 2.2 12.2 0.0 0.1 1.0108/13/85 1.5 0.20 0.02 0.2 1.5 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.8408/16/85 1.5 0.24 0.00 0.4 2.4 16.3 0.4 0.0 1.92
~08/20/85 1.5 0.22 0.04 0.0 1.8 10.6 0.2 0.2 1.3808/23/85 1.5 0.12 0.02 0.4 2.4 15.4 0.4 0.2 1.9808/27/85 1.5 0.12 0.06 0.5 2.0 14.6 0.4 0.4 1.8708/30/85 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 1.2109/06/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0909/10/85 1.5 0.26 0.04 0.3 2.2 13.0 0.2 0.2 1.78 i09/12/85 1.5 0.28 0.02 0.3 2.2 12.4 0.4 0.2 1.7809/17/85 1.5 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.2709/20/85 1.5 0.07 0.02 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.29
INJrE: Refer to Figure 2 for sanq;>le locations.*F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted.t24-hr caIIlX>site sanq;>le except as noted. .
~
~
I.1
63
I APPENDIX TABLE D.1.-COntinuedAVERN;E HEAVY METALS
I HYDRAULIC Cd Cr eu Fe Ni Pb ZnI DATE LQADIN; Ag,·1;1:
(gpd/ft2 )* (ngl1)
I 09/24/85 1.5 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.4 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.5609/27/85 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.3710/01/85 1.5 0.03 0.06 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.41
I 10/04/85 1.5 0.09 0.04 0.1 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.2010/08185 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.8910/11/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.14
I 10/15/85 1.5 0.03 0.04 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1710/18185 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2210/22185 1.5 . 0.03 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.11
I10/25/85 1.5 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.2 1~3 0.1 0.1 0.1710/29/85 3.0 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1511/01/85 3.0 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.1411/05/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.10
I 11/08185 3.0 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.1611/12/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1611/15/85 3.0 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.23
~11/19/85 3.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.0 0~1 0.0 0.2011/22/85 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.2811/26/85 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 0.1812106/85 3.0 0.06 0.04 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.2012110/85 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
I 12117/85 3.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.4 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.33. 12124/85 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 0.0901/07/86 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1001/10/86 3.0 0.06 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.19
I01/17/86 3.0 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1901/24/86 3.0 0.26 0.03 0.2 1.2 9.8 0.2 0.2 0.8401/28/86 3.0 0.07 0.02 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.5802104/86 5.0 0.04 0.01 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.14
~ 02/07/86 5.0 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1302lW86t 5.0 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.9502/14/861 5.0 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.14
~021181861 5.0 0.07 0.02 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.2102125/861 5.0 0.10 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1602/28/861 5.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.7503/04/861 5.0 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 . 0.0 0.19
~ 03/11/861 5.0 0.06 0.03 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.11L 03/14/861 5.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1303/18186l 5.0 0.07 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.10
~03/21/86l 5.0 0.06 0.03 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.17
WIE: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations.*F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted.lGrab sample.
64
APPENDIX TABLE D.1.--COntinued
AVERAGE HFAVY METALS
DATE HYDRAULIClv:J Cd Cr eu Fe Ni Pb ZnLOADIR;
(gpd/ft Z) * (ng/l>
RDI'ATIR; BIOIroICAL CONl'AC'IDR EFFLUENIi ~06/14185 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1307/02/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.07
I07/05/85 1.5 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0507/09/85 1.5 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0707/12/85 1.5 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0607/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 I07/19/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1007/23/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0307/26/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.05 I07/30/85 1.5 0.01 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0408/02/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1108/06/85 1.5 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.07
I08/09/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1208/13/85 1.5 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0508/16/85 1.5 0.00 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3608/20/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0508/23/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0408/27/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3208/30/85 1.5 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.05 I09/03/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0209/06/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0609/10/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.07
I09/13/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0509/17/85 1.5 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3609/20/85 1.5 0.08 0.10 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2709/24/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.03 I09/27/85 1.5 0.07 0.07 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4510/01/85 . 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0610/08/85 1.5 0.00 0.06 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.07 I10/li/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0310/15/85 1.5 0.04 0.08 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0110/18185 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 0.0410/25/85 1.5 0.01 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0610/29/85 3.0 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0111/01/85 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 0.0311/08/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1011/12/85 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 0.0211/19/85 3.0 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0111/22/85 3.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02
~NJl'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations.*F1at surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted.tGrab sample.
~
~
~.'65
~ APPENDIX T1lBLE D.1.-COntinued
AVERJlGE HEAVY METALS
~HYDRAULIC Ni Pb~ DATE Ag Cd Cr eu Fe Zn,/1: LQN)IN31,-
(gpd/ft 2 ) * (ng/I>
~ 11/26/85 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 0.0012103/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 O.Q 0.01
~12109/85 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.02
pC 12110/85 3.0 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0312113/85 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 0.0112/27/85 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0012131/85 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.01
I01/03/86 3.0 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0101/07/86 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0001/10/86 3.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0001/14/86 3.0 0.02 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02
I 01/17/86 3.0 0.12 0.02 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0601/24/86 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0001/28/86 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0101/31/86 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.01
~ 02/07/86 5.0 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.021'';
02/21/86 5.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0204/08186 5.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1104/11/86 5.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0206/17/86 5.0§ 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.4 0~1 0.0 0.0506/20/86 5.0§ 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.05
I 06/24/86 5.0§ 0.02 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0206/27/86 5.0§ 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0407/01/86 5.0§ 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.04
~07/03/86 5.0§ 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.05
MIXED· LIQUOR SUSPEN)ID SOLIDS (AERATION TAN<) f
I 07/02185 1.5 0.06 0.03 0.2 0.8 7.9 0.2 0.4 0.5207/05/85 1.5 .0.10 0.04 0.5 1.7 13.7 0.3 0.5 1.2507/09/85 1.5 0.06 0.05 0.4 1.6 10.5 0.2 0.5 1.04
~07/12/85 1.5 0.20 0.04 0.6 1.8 12.4 0.3 0.6 1.3807/16/85 1.5 0.20 0.05 0.3 1.5 10.0 0.2 0.5 1.0807/19/85 1.5 0.03 0.03 0.4 1.2 9.1 0.2 0.4 0.9107/23/85 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 0.74l{' 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
l. 08106/85 1.5 0.22 0.04 0.2 1.1 7.0 0.2 0.4 0.81J 08/09/85 1.5 0.23 0.03 0.2 1.4 8.3 0.2 0.4 0.70
08/13/85 1.5 0.24 0.04 0.2 0.9 8.0 0.2 0.3 0.63
~\ NJ1'E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations.->! *Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted.
JfGrab sample.§Discs rovered.
'1J~
66I
APPENDIX TABLE D.1.--continued ~AVmJlGE HFAVY METALS
DATE HYDRAULICAg Cd Cr eu Fe Ni Pb Zn
fLOADI&;(gpd/ft Z ) * (ng/1)
08116/85 1.5 0.27 0.05 0.3 1.3 9.7 0.3 0.4 1.21 I08123/85 1.5 0.27 0.01 0.2 1.2 8.6 0.3 0.2 1.4308127/85 1.5 0.28 0.07 0.4 1.2 8.7 0.4 0.1 1.4009/10/85 1.5 0.10 0.04 0.2 1.0 7.2 0.2 0.4 0.86 I09/13/85 1.5 0.21 0.01 0.2 1.0 6.1 0.0 0.2 0.9609/20/85 1.5 0.19 0.12 0.1 1.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.8409/24/85 1.5 0.21 0.08 0.2 1.1 9.3 0.2 0.4 1.05
I09/27/85 1.5 0.19 0.08 0.1 0.9 7.9 0.2 0.2 0.9310/08185 1.5 0.20 0.04 0.0 0.9 6.6 0.2 0.3 0.6410/11/85 1.5 0.19 0.04 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.1 0.4 0.69
I10/22/85 1.5 0.24 0.04 0.2 0.9 12.0 0.3 0.0 1.0111/22/85 3.0 0.22 0.04 0.2 1.2 10.0 0.2 0.5 0.9311/26/85 3.0 0.22 0.03 0.3 1.2 8.0 0.2 0.3 0.7811/29/85 3.0 0.02 0.03 0.5 1.3 10.2 0.3 0.3 0.83 I12/10/85 3.0 0.27 0.04 0.5 1.4 9.9 0.2 0.5 1.0512/13/85 3.0 0.03 0.04 0.1 1.2 7.9 0.2 0.4 0.8412/17/85 3.0 0.09 0.04 0.1 1.3 8.7 0.2 0.4 0.88
~SEXXN>ARY CLARIFIER EFFLUENIi07/02/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0307/05/85 1.5 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0707/09/85 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0407/12/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.01
J07/16/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0807/19/85 1.5 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0407/23/85 1.5 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0007/26/85 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.02 I07/30/85 1.5 0.12 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0308/02/85 1.5 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0408106/85 1.5 0.02 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.11 I08109/85 1.5 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1008113/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0408116/85 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 0.0108123/85 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0308127/85 1.5 0.05 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0408130/85 1.5 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.05 i09/03/85 1.5 0.03 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0209/10/85 1.5 0.16 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0309/13/85 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 0.0909/24/85 1~5 0.06 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.04
II~ iiNJ1E: Refer to Figure 2 for sample locations. 'i
*Flat surface area of discs, with discs exposed except as noted.tGrab sample.
~r.
a.,;f:
iii
JII~
IIIIIIIIIII
69
APPENDIX E.l. CAPITAL CUSTS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE
Material prOl7ided, with the permission to utilize in this report,by Albert Tsuji, and M.C. Nottingham of Hawaii, Ltd., Honolulu, Hawaii
IIIIIIIIIIJIII,I
IIII
Dear Albert:
Process Design Proposal for the Honouliuli Wastewater Treatment Facility
Enclosed is a binder containing our Process Design Proposal for thesubject project. Also included are data and technical papers dealingwith the RBC process and the AERO-SURF RBC process.
As you will note, the attached design does not vary too much fromthe design presented to the City and County of Honolulu back in 1980.Due to the tight land requirements, the previous submitted layoutworks the best.
As we did in 1980, the following is the energy consumption comparisonbetween the proposed RBC process in the Turbine Aerator ActivatedSludge Process previously considered.
At ~per KW the energy usage will be: $0.10x(375+125HP 0.745) x 24x 3~= $326,310 per year for the Rotating Biological Contactor processand NO.10x(1,125+125HP 0.745) x 24 x 365 = $815,556 per year for theSubmerged Turbine Activ~ted Sludge Process.
The difference works out to be $489,246 per year, or $9,784,940 savingsover 20 year life of plant.
Please let me know if further data or help is required.
Very truly yours,
§tiSRA/sos
71
a Rexnord CompanyEnvirex
cc: Dick DavieEd Saffran
Albert Tsuji
January 25, 1984--_.. _..~_. '--
.lnter·Offj\;~
To
Dote
Subject
i
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt
25.0Nl6D
~? 5' N1 G-P
61.0 MG-D
\'1.9MG-D
4'1,000 ID$/ds'ts
211 tn~/e
(IDe ~3/f)
35'. ~()O 'b~ lei B~
112. tn~ /tGrfa1er than 55DF
Nates
'801>S
'BODS-
'BODs (Solu b Ie)
TS S
TSS
Wa~tewaie( TtmfereJf" re
I. E'rt"ire,>c Qs+im.a~e of v'_l",e~ are ~hOc.Jh h" pBret'\+~t"sis.
2. IhcllJ~+ria I 'BoDs load i~ ass(Jt'rI~d -to be less fh31'\ IO~D 0'; tl-.eto". I 80])5'
3.£nv:rex a~cJO'Ie~ ihaT 4he ZlbOVt" ".1lcJt'~ it'\ducJ.e BO%>5"I·,U"'3- N .a",c.lTS-> reicJ('1"\ IrofV' ~I ....die co",d:Hanit'\8 ~~s~m~.
F'Iow, 'D_:/~ A,,~r88e
F1olV) M_~intlJW\ t4C)lJrl~
I=lo~, Pea k-
Flow Mi n il')t&Jm,
72
HONOUL'UL,)OAHU, HAWAII
DE!»I(;t-J CAL.CUL.AT'ONS
Prin'lar'i Trea1"'~n""
T'jpe: Grit RerY'oval and P("irner~ C/_(":tic~+ior"\
BODS RelYlo"ed: NoT arf/;ca ble a~ +h e J2'BC d/!"'S:.:g 1'\ ;'!> ba$~cl on
Sol.., o'e '801:>s
Se(.ond~('~ TreatmenT
T~1f'e~ FJE52o-Sc.J£.F l2ot~T;"~ Bjoto~ic:J' Cor.tactors (esc)
Tnflvent Solvble BODs
Sol..,ble BODs':: ToTal 201)5 - (TS'$)(O.'-)
108 mg/e ::' 211 ""''d It - ( '72 Male )C o. ,)
Eff(ve .... .,. Soluble 'BODs
Solvb'Q 'BODS = Tot.. , BoOs x 0.'5
73
I
FroM ~E12o-$u£F' CIJNe~ (".'A)) the h~dravl;e lo;ad (,""L~r~t",i(".cL to
,.~dlJee Solvb/e Bobs frt>W\ I08rr-3/.t. to IS'Wlalt. i~
~·'4°3rd~
No tQ MrQr.+Vre corree:l-j On :s ret ",:recL. c9~ the se"ha~e teJrlfer~+ure
is area+t>r th~f"\ 5S of
74
--
Med:,el 5u,.-F~ce Are. I2It oJ; red..
$",rf.ac:e A""- 'E?e1"';".cL = A\'era~~ t>ail~ ~low + ,.,. L-
10, LUG,~" 5" ok. = 2.s,OOOJOOO~fcL -+ 2.4jfcl/s1. #.
4v ~rfV\ent Ge lec:f"ion
'e~'''n'\mel'·\(Je.d tJumber of 5i-aaes: Two (2.) or Three (1)
Si ce(,,,,,..fae~ IIr12.) of f: ,.,,+ ~t"8 ~: '+) 5'00, 000 ffL min,
Standa"-d l>en$:+a M~dj... WH)~t b~ used in ~:(':S+ dolae.
.j.Ii1 h 1>~I\~Ha J'Iledi~ ~ho<Jld be 1J!>~d is. sub$c,oJ~""+ si."es
E'4j'" :rrn~ .....of :
Li5'-FlIJTDfROL l'<1odel 703-2.S~ S-I.r-t:!;arcL D~l"$H~ AEleo-Su£'= I2SC
';i5,eMbl;e~1esch w:th 1/0,0005';' ff. cf ~Llr('ace .rea ft.!>r a
fota' ~f '+)~50) 000 ~,• .ft, of media 'SLlrfae.e ~,.ea_.
L(S'-FhJToT~c)L.... M()d~1 ii-I-ZSI 1-l;~L.. Def'\-:,H·~ flE"~O-$U~F R:Se
CiI$SE"MbliM,eacl. wH~ ILf-Z)ooos1. Tt . C'T- sLlr.f~,~ sr"a for It
tota r or 6,"3g0J 000 ".~, err W\edia ,svrface a rea.
TOT A L surf.cll a,....a f('o I/:c1ed w ~ II be 1),3L10, 000 s1' #. v,.IO,"4I~I~"rs1.(I-, of tr'\ed:a svrf'.c.e area r,e'V,,;,.ea...
E1L1~f?t""l"'rd· ('on.f1",r.;t:on and land l2etvir~mt',.,-t~
Se~ at1ached.. s k.tzfche-s and drawi"s $,
IIIJ
IJ
;i
IIIIIIJ
I 75
9-5-80 '?e,,;sed. 1-23-~'f
CA PIT'A~ aO~T ~"'5T'M ATc~
E'1"'i rrn~t"\t .
Lf5-f"Iod~1 103-251 '1Eec)-~ue.F'.~s~",blip~
LJ 5"- N1e>d~ I 16 I - 25" qe.eo-SVR.F ~~S~m bl i~~go- AERo --Su2F S:-:b~,..~ I~ss co"er!J90-A:" head~(s with di.ff\),,~r.'1- Hen" 0'; C.~e~"- of jnstall~t,'D'" f,;f.,,..+-.Jf1- I+4!rn of sp:u"e fsrl ~
1- Tfer't" of t~""'~fortaiio.... to Wt>~" ~o~~t t:lo~k. TOTAL.. ~ 1.1,9001000
1- He~ of Oces 1"\ F"~:ah-t- ifd d
ubor- and N1~-I-~";dl E5iimaies
18,000
*As p:!r reoarmendatioo of Albert Tsuj i, M.e. Nottingham of Hawaii, Ltd.,Hooolulu, Hawaii, August 1986.
264.000$7,415,000
950.000$8,365,000
M3 $950,000 for ocean freight:*
Increase these prices t¥ 10':* 1.10 x $6,501,000 a:: $7,151,000
M3 contractor's profit* and contingencies:Assume 15% of non-equipment items (0.15 x 1,761,000)
sutrTotal
Labor. f:b~("3Ia'5s ~ov~r iv.~t~l/;;lf.:ol"\ 63)000
Mi~(!. a:,.. plq>:",. 45",000
Blo&AJers (inc/' e lec.fr: ~_I) 150) 000
'Blower Bu; 1d; "1 @ tsa/s1' fl. 2.00)000
COtJt~~TE @ 4(1/00 !C-.uJ, ~ d. ',080)000
76
II
"-_."
E~T 1M ATE'!:) A I ~ ee-QIJIe.E N'\el.JT
A""D
TOTAL _~,. r"lJtr~d .por :;l"4?roae CJrer.a+i,,~ ~ond;riotts i~ IS,OOoSCEI'I1
-'OTAL. e~t:~_+ed d:s<:ha'-ae. pres'Su rt! . ,:> '3.0 psIG-
IIIIIIIIIII
375
, 2.5"
TOTAL.l~ori~fo..rr
125'
12.5'
NoteJ,Sil"\ce ~et",r" SIud1e ~~stE"rIo\ i~ 1'\0+ retlJirecL,no a.dd:+iot\a I
rowe ... &4,,1; II bl!' rei"'ired. for ~h;s portio", (W~s+-e sluda-e
FlJMf :Y\a wU 1 be re,,,,rr-ed)
e..I+ is rl?r!oW\meV\Je~ ~~-I a. h1"I"I"htUIM o+- 50~o ,~&&~+ion8
a,y- be frov',Je& £,.. stCJV\i- ba- Fur-poses
:3. The na/Ylerlat~ ~DrsE'fow.pr L~ 12.5'. Tt,e adtJal j,rsk
hDr'Sefow~r tor cDr"l:+iol'\. of ~,Doo st:~rYl @3'Z>Fs:Q
is lCO,o bh P (-ffro)C. '1!i: kw /l:.low1!'rJ
Use S blower~ run" Ih~1 each ra+~d for G,OOOSCl="M @ g,o PSJG
N~f\'\l!!rla'fe MoTor ,",ors~f0uJe(" l2e1lJ:rern~t'l+~:
Na"'~rla.feQ""~"":ir Iolo~r 'Ill~("
Maintenance Schedule
77
Per Blower12.17
Man/Hr/YrPer ,Shaft
2. Grease blower bearings.
3. Check blower v-belts, wear, tension alignment.
1.' Check oil in blowers.
Air Drive System
,1. Inspect pillow blocks, blowers, motors, drives, etc. for
operation. Check shafts for uniform rotation and proper
speed. Report any unusual noises or operation.
1. Inspect oil level on blowers and fill as needed.
2. Wipe down oHand grease around unit.
1. Clean air intake filters.
Weekly:
Monthly:
1. Lubricate main shaft bearings.
1. Lubricate electric motors.
.2. Co~~ stub.ends of.shaft and pillow blocks with grease.
Estimate'd times for the ab.ove niainterance are: '
Daily - 2 minuts/blower
2 minuts/shaft
Weekly - 6 minutes/shaft
10 minutes/blower
Da ily:
2 Months:
3 Months:
6 Months:
I'
IIIIIIII,
~
Monthly - 3~ minutes/blower
2 'Months - 30 minutes/blower
3 Months - 10 minutes/shaft
6 ~onths - 5 minute5/blo~er
- 30 minutes/shaftTota1 How's Es t ima tes
78
IIIII
I.,
IIIII
.
]\'o-u~~
..<J
r.gc::o
~cr:..a0._
79
'":xI...
:J
IUET CfM COllEeTl ..'01 nUl TUI
no. llLET COIDITIO.I
II". 'IUlun 'II
", Z , •... .. 10 40 56 70.- .. n 27 38 47,.0 c.. - 50 13 19 23c"." 70 0 0 0......... 10 12 17 21",.oi..... 110 25 35 43.... ,... 130 35 49 61
hC. OIH. ,ulSun Pli
-HI. Z , •ZO 492 689 853II 392 548 679II 310 435 538.. n 247 346 429..... c IZ 195 273 338· ·,. .. 10 151 212 262.... ..... => I 113 158 196
"'0 ..· - • 79 III 137.. .... , 49 69 85...... Z 22 31 38"'.~3 jon....c PIICL~
0 0 0 0.. I 23 32 40..c Z 42 59 73
S 59 83 103
s,. DIH. ,nsaun PI,
I,. Z , I.. .5 278 389 482.. •• 196 274 339.... · .7 131 183 227.. ..- · .1 79 III 137~ -,.co .. .1 35 49 61·-... 1.0 0 0 0.... ... 1.1 32 45 56- .....
I.Z 59 83 103-0.. .. I. S 83 116 143... .... .. I. , 104 146 181.. c1.1 124 174 215I.' 141 198 245
The correction tlble. are uled tocorrect the Inlet CIPlclt, curvee It• gi Yin RPM. Inhr,olate In thet.blel .1 required .nd vhen .orethan one correction II being ••de,add .nd/or lubtr.ct .1 Indlclted.
Br.ke horsepover II dependentonly on speed .nd pressure .nd ,.un.ffected by c,plcity correctlone.
for differentl.1 pressure curveeother th.n Ihovn, Interpol.te b.·tveen •• Istlng curv.s.
.PlI
• PI•
• PI.
1442 SERIES 3200 BLOWER
TYPICAL PERfORMAIlCE
IIlLET COIlDITIOIlS - AIR. 1'.7 PSIA , 700f
C E R T If' CAT I 0 II
~ _ 1M _ ._ _ ~ •• 1M ,. ,. ~ 'M ~
.UO 1.'.M.
~o .o ....._,
....-.....................-,....
~e;...W... .....: ,..
INL[ T orl ... rING CUSlOYIICOHOI TIONS 'OINT
GAS lilLI' erM
'U_CHAII OIOEI HO.
S,. U. 0'''. ,uss. PSI
SALlS 01011 "0.
TIM'. ., "M
"HG.DATI
VACUUM IH'
'uss. '"G DISCH. TIMP. ., "
-.
II )
i~
ID~
I
I
II
I
IIIIIII~
IIIIiIIIm
"II
81
APPENDIX E.2. EXAMPLfS OF RBe SIZ:nl;, CAPITAL AND OPERATION <DS'lS FOR
A DESIGN FI..a-l OF 7.5 mgd, BY AU'lO'1ROL OORPORATION (1983)
IIIIIIIIIIIiIiII~
m
f1ijI
83
CHAPTERC DOMESTIC WASTEDESIGN PROCEDURES
PAGE 26
BIO-SURF PROCESS
c. At 54 CFM per kw power = 2520 -+- 54 = 47 kw(63 hpjd. Operating blower capacity = 2520 x 1.2 = 3024 CFMe. Minimum installed blower capacity = 18 units x 250
CFM/unit = 4500 CFMf. Blower recommendation:
Operating capacity is greater than 2000 CFM. Therefore, 3blowers are to be used. Each blower is to provide a flow raleof 3024 -+- 2 = 1512 CFM ambient air al 3.0 psi. Totalinstalled capacity is 1512 x 3 = 4536 CFM.
TOTAL
1600920
2520
CFMPER UNIT
1601151.0
RPM
1.3
STAGES
12
Total
1. Surface area calculationa. Influent soluble BOD = 75 mg/I
Effluent soluble BOD = 15 mg/Ib. Hydraulic loading = 3.2 gpd/ft2 from Figure C-1B
c. Surface area = 7.5 x 10· gpd = 2.34 x 10. fF3.2 gpd/W
2. Size of lirst stagea. From Figure C-3 overall soluble BOD loading 2.0
Ib/day/l000 fFb. From Figure C-2B size of first stage = 50%
c. Surface area = 2.34 x 10· x 0.50 = 1.1 7 x 10· IF
3. Media distributionFigure C-2B indicates that no Hi·Density media can be used.
4. Choice of configurationa. Total number 01 standard media assemblies required =
2.34 x 10· = 23 4 240.1 x 10. . use
b. Media assemblies in first stage =1.17 x 10·O~ = 11.7use 12
c. From Table C-2. 2 or 3 stages are recommended withstage two ~ 50% stage one
d. Possible configurations are:3 (SSSS + SS + SS) = 24
or4 (SSS + SS + S) = 24
or6 (SS + S + S) = 24
5. Blower Selectiona. & b.
Stage RPM profile and air requirements from Table C-3 andFigure C·7 (or Figure C·8)
NO.UNITS
108
18
EXAMPLE NO.2At a design flow of 7.5 MGD for the wastewater in Example No.1.it is required to produce an effluent of 30 mg/I total BOD (15 mg/Isoluble BOD).
AERO-SURF PROCESS
Number preceding parentheses indicates the numberof 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 indicateunits in first stage
Balance of S's and H's separated by "plus" signsindicate the placement of units in subsequent stages
Number after "equal sign" is the lotal number of units
Where:
1. Surface area calculationa. Influent soluble BOD = 75 mg/I
Effluent soluble BOD = 15 mg/Ib. Hydraulic loading = 3.45 gpd/fF fror:n Figure C-l A
c. Surface area = 7.5 x 10· gpd =2.17 x 10. fF3.45 gpd/ft2
2. Size of the first stagea. 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· IF
3. Media distributionBalance 01 surface area is Hi-Density media
4. Choice of configurationa. Standard media assemblies each have 100,000 IFb. Standard media assemblies (all in first stage)
0.93 x 10· = 9.3 use 100.10 x 10·
c. Hi-Density media area = 2.17 x 10· -1.0 x 1Q6 = 1.17 x 10·fF
d. Hi-Density media assemblies each have 150.000 fFe. Hi-Density media assemblies =
1.17 x 10· = 7.8 use 80.15 x 10'
f. Two or three stage operation is recommended with secondstage area~ first stage
g. A possible configuration is:2(SSSSS + HHHH) = 18
~'."~,
I
I
I
e '878 AUTOTROL CORPORATION AUTOTROL CORPORATION - Blo-Systems Division
~'."..'.~;
f
84
CHAPTERC DOMESTIC WASTEDESIGN PROCEDURES
PAGE 28
EXAMPLE NO."For the same design conditions as Example NO.2, it is required to produce an effluent of 15 mgtl total BOD (7.5 mgtl soluble BOD).
II
IAERO-SURF PROCESS
1, Surface area calculationa. Influent soluble BOD: 75 mgtl
EflIuent soluble BOD: 7.5 mgtlb. Hydraulic loading: 2.1 gpdtIF from Figure C-l A
c. Surface area: 7,5 X 10· gpd : 3.57 X 10. IF2.1 gpdtft2
2. Size of first stage
a. Soluble BOD load: 1.3 Ibtday t 1000 IF fromFigure C-3
b. Size of first stage from Figure C-2A :26% for standard media52% for Hi-Density media
3. Media distributionBecause influent soluble BOD is .$.90 mgtl and designeffluent soluble BOD is < t 2 mgtl, 100% Hi-Density media canbe used
4. Choice of configurationa. Hi-Density media in first stage: 3.57 x 10· x 0.52: 1.86 x
lQ6 IFb. Hi-Density media assemblies in first stage:
1.86 X 10· : 12.4 use 150.15 x 1Q6
c. Total Hi-Density assemblies:
3.57 X 10· : 23.8 use 240.15 x 10·
d. From Table C-2, 3 or 4-stage operation is recommendedwith stage two ~ 40% the size of first stage
e. A possible configuration is3 (HHHHH T HH T H) : 24
5. Blower selectiona. & b.
NO. CFMSTAGES RPM UNITS PER UNIT TOTAL
t 1.2 15 t75 26252 1.0 6 115 6903 1.0 3 1t5 345
Total 24 3660
c Power Consumption = 3660 CFM = 68 kw (90 hpj54 CFMtkw
d. Operating blower capacity = 1.2 x 3660 = 4392 CFM
e. Minimum installed blower capacity = 250 CFM x 24 units:6000 CFM unit
f. Blower recommendation:Operating capacity is greater than 2000 CFM therefore 3blowers are recommended. Each has a capacity of 4392 -;2 : 2196 CFM at 3.0 psi and ambient condilions for a totalinstalled capacity of 3 x 2196 : 6588 CFM
BIO-SURF PROCESS
1, Surface area calculationa. Influent soluble BOD: 75 mgtl
Effluent soluble BOD: 7.5 mgtlb. Hydraulic loading: 2.0 gpdtfF from Figure C-l B
c. Surface area = 7.5)( 10· gpd : 3.75 x 10. fF2.0 gpdtIF
2. Size of first stagea. From Figure C-3 overall soluble BOD load:
t.25lbtdaytl000 IFb. From Figure C-2B size of first stage: 32%c. Surface area: 3.75 x 1Q6 x 0.32 : 1.20 X 10· IF
3. Media distributiona. From Figure C-2B, Hi-Density media: 45%b. Hi-Density media surface area =
3.75 x 10· x 0.45 : 1.69 x 1Q6 IF
c. Standard media surface area =3.75 )( 10· )( 0.55 : 2.06 )( 10· IF
4. Choice of configurationa. Siandard media assemblies =
2.06 x 10' : 20 6 200.1 X 10. . use,
b. Standard media assemblies in first stage:
1.20 X 10· : t2.00,1 x 10·
c. Hi-Density media assemblies =1.69 x 10· = 11.3 use 120.t5 x to·
d. From Table C-2, 3 or 4-stage operation recommended withsecond stage ~ 50% the size of first stage
e. A possible configuration is:4 (SSS T SS T HH T H) = 32For 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 shaftx 32 shafts =80 kw.
IIII
I
I
C 1979 AUTOTROL CORPORATION AUTOTROL CORPORATION,... Blo-Systems Division
I
I
85
CHAPTERECAPITAL ANDOPERATING COSTS
PAGE 33
EXAMPLE NO. 17
To demonstrate the present worth procedure, a comparison of the Aero-Surf arid Bio-Surf designs in Example NO.4 in Chapter C will bemade.
III
I
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 $0.08/kw-hr(2) x24 hr/dx365d/yrx 11.47 present worth factor (3) =$546,600
Maintenance Cost
Blowers: Present worth 31.2 m-hr/blower-yr (4) x 2operating blowers x $10/m-hrx 11.47 PWF = $7,157
Shafts: present worth = 2 m-hrlshaft-yr (4) x 24 shafts x $10I mohr x 11.47 PWF =$5,506
Total 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 $43,500/unit =$ 870,00012 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 x11.47 PWF = $643,000
Maintenance Cost
For shafts and drives
Present worth = 43.2 m-hrlshaft-yr x 32 shafts x $10/m-hr x11.47 PWF = $158,560
Total Present Worth = $2,242,000
I
The total present worth for the Aero-Surf process in this example is more than 30% lower than for the Bio-Surf process.
(1) Includes media assembly, drive system, enclosure, tankage,freight and installation costs.
(2) Estimated average cost of power for 20-year period. ThiS isan alternative to escalating power cost over the 20-yearperiod.
(3) From Table E-ll(4) From Table E-12(5) This value is for Aulolrol mechanical drive Bio-Surf media.
The value for various competitive mechanical drive RBCsystems is about 50% higher.
., 1979 AUTOTROL CORPORATlON AUTOTROL CORPORATION - Bio Systems Division