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