[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ALENTOS GIYA GUAHAN ENERGY ON GUAM The Feasibility Of Utilizing Wastewater Discharge For Hydroelectric Power Generation On Guax@/ COASTAL ZOIV.C, 'NFORAlt A TION ow 21- 1@ Now- oup TD 768 F43 00 19 SJ. GUAM ENERGY OFFICE NA, GUAM 96910 472-8711, 477-9445, 477-9526 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM GEO TECHNICAL REPORT N9 8103 THE FEASIBILITY OF UTILIZING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE FOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION ON GUAM A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE GUAM ENERGY OFFICE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM PAUL M. CALVO, GOVERNOR JAY L. LATHER, DIRECTOR by PACIFIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS P.O. BOX 8888 TAMUNING, GUAM 96911 January 1981 GEO Technical Report No. 8103 This report is funded under a grant provided by Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pacific Energy Management Consultants was contracted to study the feasiblity of the use of wastewater outfall for hydroelectric power generation on Guam. This study was funded under a grant provided by the Coastal Energy Impact Program and administered by the Guam Energy Office, Jay L. Lather, Director, under contract number C-0-3400015. All island wastewater outfall sites were examined. With the exception of the Northern District Sewage System (NDSS), all sites were found to have inadequate head-volumetric flow characteristics. The NDSS system is capable of producing 50 kilowatts of electrical power. The NDSS already has in place many features of a hydroelectric power generating system, thus minimizing the initial cost of an installation. Although NDSS flow parameters fall below those required of traditional small hydro projects, centrifugal pumps can be used in a reverse mode, as turbines, to implement a reliable low cost generating system. First cost of implementation is estimated at $109,250. The current annual value of electrical power produced is projected to be $43,800. The savings to investment ratio is 6.50. The project can be funded through existing federal programs. The project is technically feasible and yields significant economic and energy savings benefits. Project implementation is recommended. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Section I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. GUAM'S WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Wastewater Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 The Discharge Line. - - . . . . . . . . 12 Potential Pressure V;riatio.n.. .13 Net Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Water Hammer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Air Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Station Civil and Mechanical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Pump-Generator Configuration and Design . . . . . . . . . . 18 Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 IV. PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Performance Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Economic Value of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Turbine/Generator Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Civil/Structural Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Plumbing/Mechanical System Installation . . . . . . . . 24 Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A/E Design, Construction Management and Final Testing .25 Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Value of Electricity Produced Over Lifetime . . . . 28 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . 28 Salvage Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) . . . . . . . . . 28 Benefit/Cost Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section V. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Implementation Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Cutover Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Sizing of Future Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Dynamic Load Testing of Techite Pipe . . . . . . . . . . 34 Coordination With GPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Vi. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Conclusion . . . . . . 36 Recommendations . . . .*36 APPENDIX A. GUAM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B. FLOW DATA, NORTHERN DISTRICT SEWAGE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . 40 C. OUTFALL LINE PLAN AND PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 D. TECHITE PIPE TECHNICAL DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 F. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 G. TYPICAL PUMP-GENERATOR PRICE QUOTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 98 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Generator Station Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.1 Agana STP Wastewater Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 A.2 Agat STP Wastewater Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 NOSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Tables: . . . . . . . 41 B.1 September 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 B.2 October 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B.3 November 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B.4 December 1979 . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 B.5 January 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 B.6 February 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 8.7 March 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B.8 April 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 B.9 May 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 B.10 June 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 B.11 July 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 B.12 August 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 B.13 September 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 B.14 October 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 D-2.1 Flow Coefficients, Techite Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Guam's Wastewater Outfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. NDSS Outfall Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 NOSS Input Flow Data Graphs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 B.1 September 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 B.2 October 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 B.3 November 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 B.4 December 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 B.5 January 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 B.6 February 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B.7 March 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 B.8 April 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 B.9 May 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 B.10 June 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 B.11 July 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 B.12 August 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 B.13 September 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 B.14 October 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 D.1 Techite Pipe Head Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 D.2.a Flow Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 D.2.b Experimental Value of n versus Reynolds number . . . . . . . . 87 D.3 Alignment Conditions for Flow Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88-89 D.4 A Typical Piezomter Tap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 0.5 A Typical Point-Gauge Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 vi SECTION I INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric power generation began in the nineteenth century and continues to the present day as a practical means of production of electric power. Because of its self-sustaining nature and freedom from dependence on conventional fossil fuels, it has received increased attention in recent years as an attractive alternate energy resource. In hydroelectric power generation, water is passed through a turbine to produce rotary power which is in turn converted to electrical power in a generator. This train of energy conversion ending with the production of electricity begins with a water impoundment system which creates a volume and elevation of water of sufficient magnitude to achieve the desired result. No matter how small, any mass which possesses elevation with respect to some reference level possesses energy; therefore any quantity of water trapped in an impoundment system can theoretically be used to generate electricity. Practical limitations in the form of the economics of design and construction of such facilities, compared to the power realized from their operation, tend to place lower limits upon the size of commercial or institutional generation systems. These limitations are usually expressed in terms of lower limits of volumetric flow and elevation or head between the impoundment site and generating system. It is important to realize that flow and head limits derive from economic considerations. It is possible to design turbine-generator systems for any non-zero flow or head; it is not, however, practical. Several firms have developed stock turbine designs and thus lowered design and manufacturing costs; this has enabled the recovery of energy from otherwise economically marginal or unacceptable sites. Presently, such designs will operate in applications where flow is as little as 50 cubic ft. per second and head as small as 6.5 ft. I A generating facility operating with these minimum resources might conceivably provide sufficient electrical energy to support ten or fifteen middle class residences. There is a trade-off on flow and head: small volumes at high head can be made to produce useful power; however present conventional hydroelectric turbine designs do not function below the levels mentioned. Guam's volumetric flows are far below the limit of conventional turbine design. It is unlikely that Guam will witness hydroelectric development in this conventional sense. The question immediately forms: is there some other path to the production of hydroelectric power on Guam? The answer is yes. A wide variety of pumps are commercially available and many have been demonstrated to be capable of reliable reverse operation; i.e., being driven by a flow of water to produce shaft power rather than using shaft power to produce water flow. The variety available offers reasonable assurance that pumps can be found which match flows and heads found locally. Rugged pump designs are available at relatively low cost. In spite of the absence of suitable conventional devices, Guam still can make use of its water resources. lSmaller designs are commercially available; however, these devices are not considered appropriate or feasible in the context of this study. This point is more fully treated in Section III. 2 The second question forms: are there economically feasible sites on Guam? Other work in progress at the time of preparation of this study examines conventional sites: Guam's rivers, streams and existing or proposed water impoundment locations.2 It is the purpose of this study to examine a less conventional source of hydro energy: the island's wastewater system. Most of the islaiid's wastewater system cannot be used for such application; there is not sufficient volume and heads are minimal (Appendix A). One notable exception is the Northern District Sewage System. Here approximately 2 million gallons of treated wastewater are daily discharged into the open ocean under a head of more than 250 feet. A rudimentary engineering calculation shows that this flow can produce small but useful amounts of electrical energy. The nature of the system offers hope that this production may be cost effective because the existing system possesses many of the features normally required in hydroelectric power generation; thus, the cost of the installation is reduced to that of the generating facility alone. The impoundment system, penstock, and other components are already in place. Another inviting feature of the Northern District system is that the potential generating system site is located within approximately one mile of two possible users of electricity produced: the treatment plant itself and a conventional fossil fuel electrical generating plant (Tanguisson) operated by the Guam Power Authority (GPA). The electrical energy produced can be returned to the sewage plant or can be fed into the GPA distribution grid. 2See: "Economic and Environmental Impacts of Low Head Hydroelectric Power Systems, in Guam," Guam Energy Office, 1981. 3 These possibilities have prompted this present study. Its purpose is to examine this method of hydroelectric power generation: to define the equipment and system required, to investigate operating characteristics, to quantify benefits and to thus establish feasibility. 4 SECTION II GUAM'S WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM 2.0 GENERAL: Guam's disposal system collects wastewater from various areas of the island and, following treatment, discharges it into the Philippine Sea (see map). In most cases collection and treatment occurs at elevations near sea level and so rules out, by the lack of sufficient pressure, the use of this flow in hydroelectric power production (See Appendix A). The significant exception to this situation is the Northern District Sewage System. There, wastewater from the northern part of the island is collected and treated at a plant at Harmon Cliffline near Tanguisson Point; the fluid component is discharged into the Philippine Sea from an elevation of approximately 270 ft. Although designed for a capacity of 12 mgd, plant statistics show a current processed daily volume of only 2.2 m9d. Cutover plans in which additional segments of the island's system will be channeled to the Northern Sewage Treatment Plant will, if implemented, increase the processed volume to some 6 mgd or more, but these plans are at present indefinite and at least three years (and perhaps much farther) in the future. Increasing daily volumes can be expected as the result of new connections to the line. The volume of this system is far too small to permit it to be considered in terms of conventional hydroelectric power generation systems. However, as emphasized in the introductory remarks, any mass possesses potential energy by virtue of its elevation above some datum level. The volumetric flow and 5 T/N,,4 GQ 1 S500 UNIN,@ aVW44 S7r UT ff^ L L- AMP-A SrT^71 /4440471 STP ,Ou7r^LL- U r-J^T^ c (:@UAJ@-j 15 N^S-If@FNA71Er, 4OUTf=ALI 6 head of the water mass of the Northern District outfall therefore represents a total potential power of 69 hp. The use of small pumps as turbines driving generators will permit the recovery of this energy, energy which is presently wasted. This ammount of power seems insignificantly small until expressed in economic terms: this power could produce $43,800 worth of electricity annually at present rates ($0.10/KWH). 2.1 THE SYSTEM: Discharge from the Northern District Sewage Plant is carried by gravity through a single 48 inch (diameter) pipe for a distance of 948 ft. to Guam's northwestern cliff line. This segment of the line is buried to an average depth of approximately 30 feet. At the cliff line, at an invert elevation of 268.5 ft., the line intersects a manhole which provides access from the surface to the line. The remaining run of pipe from manhole to defuser section is a single 30 inch (diameter) buried pipe (See Figure 2). The precipitous descent from cliff line to beach level carries the discharge from invert elevation of 268.5 feet to 13.3 feet in a pipe line distance of 3,220 ft. At the end of this segment, the pipe is buried some 6 feet beneath the surface. The final segment, from end of cliff descent to defuser section where discharge into the ocean occurs, is 3,170 ft. The pipe itself is constructed of Reinforced Plastic Mortar (RPM), Techite T-2, manufactured by the Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company. The segment of line carrying wastewater from cliff line (invert elevation 268.5 ft) to bottom of cliff (invert elevation 13.3 ft.) is Techite T-2 150 lb/in 7 TF4@N eqT ITM W 7"@ ay F-r. Lx=@4<a 30 1946 ff. LSN6n4 H, DI^M r-7 STA t7 00 rp4zl SIP-D d**@ 45179 S Tf=^Ll L-lt-J@ pressure pipe. The interior walls are extremely smooth, as characterized by the Manning flow coefficient n = 0.0095, Hazen-Williams flow coefficient C=145, or Darcy-Weisbach flow coefficient f = 0.0160. Pipe sections are 20 ft. long and are sealed at bell and spigot type joints by a round "0" ring elastomeric gasket (Refer to Appendix IV for more complete technical information). 2.2 THE WASTEWATER Raw sewage enters the treatment plant where it is separated, settled, aerated, chlorinated and then discharged. The discharged wastewater has a specific gravity of 1.000474. There are small amounts of solids remaining after the treatment; however, particle size is small and presents no engineering design or technical problem with respect to pump operation. Total solids in the discharge are measured at 480 parts per million (ppm). Filterable solids (with diameter of 40 microns or more) are 40 ppm and dissolved solids (with a diameter of less than 40 microns) are 440 ppm. The composition of solids contained in the discharge is chlorides (135.0 ppm), sodium (87.75 ppm), and others (PO 41 N, Ca, Mg) (117.25 ppm). pH of the water is measured at 7.6.1 lAll analytical information contained in this paragraph derives from Guam Environmental Protection Agency analyses. 9 2.3 WASTEWATER FLOW Wastewater enters the Northern District Treatment Facility through two trunk lines. The first, called the Northern Link, originates at Andersen Air Force Base and traverses a semicircu lar route paralleling Route 9. The second, called the Southern Link, originates in Dededo and services activities along a reasonably direct route to the pump station. Flow data is derived from measurements of these two inputs to the treatment facility. The measurements themselves are accomplished manually by facility personnel and consist of 12 instantaneous measurements of fluid heights in the two trunk lines taken at 2 hour intervals throughout the day. By tables, the heights are converted to instantaneous flow rates and the sum of the two readings is the instantaneous facility input. The daily average flow at the time of this report is approximately 2.2 million gallons per day. Flow from the Northern Link trunk is approximately twice that of the Southern Link. Such factors as variation in expertise of staff, measurement techniques and the apocryphal nature of the conversion tables make the precision of the measurements somewhat suspect. The values of flow into the facility are treated circumspectly in this report. Flow records exist from September 1979 to the present (January 1981). These records show a long term trend of increasing daily volumes. Presently, the volume treated is approximately 2.2 million gallons per day (mgd). Flow data is contained in Appendix B. 10 The flow data is processed statistically to determine hourly, daily and monthly means. In any given month, the volumetric flow rate at a given hour varies appreciably; the standard deviation in these measurements is about 0.4 mgd. The monthly averages, however, are consistent and a graph of one recent month's daily flow pattern is similar to that of any other. There is no appreciable correlation between wet or dry climatic conditions and wastewater flow. The flow data is measurement of inputs to the facility. The facility is operating well below its 12 mgd design capacity and it is unlikely that capacity will be reached in the foreseeable future. This implies that the facility can be operated as a reservoir and buffer which can attenuate hourly variations in input; the discharge rate can be rendered almost constant and daily variations can be ignored in the process of this study. Because of the wide difference between capacity and use, even unusual surges can be handled with no difficulty. Such a property of the facility makes the power station more attractive in spite of its unusually small scale, for the design is freed from the constraint of incorporating a complicated and expensive flow regulation system and all the flow can be used for power generation; no overflow need be assumed. SECTION III DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 3.0 THE DISCHARGE LINE Plan and profile drawings of the discharge line are contained in Appendix C. The present flow of 2.2 mgd is so small in comparison to the design capacity of 12 mgd that it does not fill the discharge line to any significant elevation above sea level. The design of a generation station must naturally include features which match capacities to flows and permit the cliff-descent segment of the line to remain completely filled. In this way a usable, dynamic pressure head for generation station operation is created. The generator station is assumed to be located at Station 31 + 75, at an invert elevation of 13.75 feet.I This location appears suitable because it is well back from the shore line and at the end of the cliff descent section of the line. The line is buried only six feet beneath the surface at this point and is accessable by excavation. The cliff descent section ends immediately upstream from the generator station; it begins at station 11 + 60.45, the location of the manhole, at an invert elevation of 267.77 feet. This section is assumed to be completely lAs Built Drawings, Northern District Sewarage System, Austin, Smith and Associates Incorporated, NAVFAC Drawing 73-04-819, dtd 7/23/75. 12 filled with wastewater. This section of line is capable of holding 15,806 ft3 or 118,220 gal. of wastewater. 3.1 POTENTIAL PRESSURE VARIATION In a system which permits average flow of 2.2 mgd (3.404 ft 3 /sec), the column of water contained in the cliff descent section can potentially change elevation at a rate of 0.0547 ft. head/sec or 18.28 sec/ft. head. At first glance, this would appear to be unacceptable variation and to imply a requirement for sophisticated water level control in the system. A solution to this potential problem is at hand and in place, however, in the form of the 947.5 ft. section of 48" pipe delivering wastewater from treatment plant to cliff line. A potential volume of 89,058 gal (11,907 ft3 ) is contained in a vertical distance of 7.41 ft. The potential time-rate-of-change of heao in this section is only 0.0021 ft/sec or 472.04 sec per ft. head. At the average flow rate, over 58 minutes is required to exhaust the volume contained in this section and change the overall head 7.41 ft or 2.92 %. Such regulation to maintain a partially filled condition in this 48" section is well within the capabilities of the existing system, and a gross regulated head of approximately 258 ft. can be assumed to be routinely available for power generation. Although discharge of wastewater occurs in the open sea at a depth which varies with the tide, such tidal variations do not influence the head available for power generation. Head is a function of the height of the column of water in the discharge line leading to the proposed generation site 13 (and of flow characteristics, involving flu id-pipe interactions). 3.2 NET HEAD The head derived in a change in elevation from the mean elevation of the 48" section of the discharge line to the proposed generating site is 258 ft; this represents the gross head available for electric power generation. Water velocity in the cliff descent section is calculated to be 0.6935 ft/sec at an average daily volumetric discharge rate of 2.2 mgd. Head loss in this section due to friction along the line is negligible. The combined effects of wall roughness and normal joint losses cause Techite pipe to perform similarly to one with an equivalent sand roughness of 1/5000.2 Calculation using the Manning equation and n = 0.01 (a high value) gives a frictional head loss of less than I ft over the entire cliff descent section of pipe. A net operating head for power operation is therefore assumed to be 257 ft. 3.3 WATER HAMMER Water hammer is the phenomenon which occurs when a liquid, flowing in a pipe, is abruptly stopped by the closing of a valve. The result is the 2Engineering Report ER-01019, Revision A, dtd. Dec. 17, 1971. Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company. See Appendix D of this report. 14 creation of a travelling pressure (and density) wave which oscillates through the pipe system until damped out by friction. Water hammer can produce potentially severe stress and must be considered in any study of a hydraulic system. Direct engineering remedies to potential water hammer conditions exist and present no real problem to the designer. Surge tanks and bypass valves are the two most common solutions. Water hammer analyses of hydroelectric turbine systems usually take the compressibility of water and the elasticity of pipe walls into account. The resulting equations are quite complex and solutions are normally obtained using computers. In preliminary work such as this, simpler methods following the techniques first developed by Allievi are routinely used. The results of an Allievi analysis indicate a pressure rise of 60 ft (27 lb/in 2) upstream on a two second valve closing in the piping system. The discharge line uses buried Techite-II pipe 2.5 ft in diameter. Specifications for this pipe state the minimum design pressure as 150 lb/in 2. A nominal 250 ft. head and 60 ft. water hammer over-pressure 2 produces a total pressure of 140 lb/in . Since valves which by design limit closing times are commercially available, water hammer does not appear to be a substantial design problem. 15 3.4 AIR BINDING An air pocket in a water line can reduce effective pressure and create unacceptable fluctuations in that pressure. The Piping Handbook3 suggests that in sharp downward slopes, air pockets may form along the top of the pipe at several points and flows between 7 and 10 ft/sec may be required to assure air free conditions. The projected water velocity of 0.69 ft/sec is so low, however, that the possibility that air binding and resultant pressure losses will occur in the proposed system is negligible. 3.5 STATION CIVIL AND MECHANICAL DESIGN So as to preserve the largest working head possible at the generating station, it is envisioned that pump/turbine intercept of the wastewater flow will occur at the level of the buried pipe at station 31 + 75, at an invert elevation of 13.75 ft. Since the pipe at this station is buried some 6 feet beneath the surface, excavation will be required and a subsurface generating room must be constructed. Although there is no record of wave action reaching the proposed generation station location, station design must incorporate drainage and protective features to minimize any potential hazard to equipment resulting from the accumulation of water in the generating room, whatever might be its origin. 3piping Handbook, 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Book Co. 16 The wastewater flow pattern through the generating station is envisioned as asystem of three parallel lines, two of which are designed to accomodate pump-generators to produce power; the remaining line is a by-pass. All lines will be properly valved, the two pump-generator lines may be valved both upstream and downstream from the pumps . Upstream valves on these lines are assumed to be.capabie of fine adjustment for flow regulation. In its initial, start up configuration the generating station will contain only one pump-generator. A second parallel pump-generator line is included in the design to account for plant expansion and increased wastewater flow above the present 2.2 mgd. Wastewater flows will increase with future connections to the Northern and Southern links and because of cut-overs in which other portions of the island's sewage system is deverted to the Northern District. For the purposes of cost estimation in this study, two pump-generator lines are assumed to be of equal size; however, it is desirable to consider dissimilar sized lines and pump-generators during the actual A/E design phase: two dissimilar sized pump-generators may be operated to account more fully for routine daily variations in flow and thus lessen the requirement for flow regulation at the treatment facility. This factor will be important in the future when there are larger routine daily inputs to the plant. Although increased flow can be expected in the future, no reliable estimates can be made of the time span over which such increases will occur. Although new connections will occur and past trends in new connections can be extrapolated, this will not be useful in light of cut-overs (rerouting of 17 other componants of the island's wastewater flow to the Northern District) which will probably also occur; changes in flow resulting from cutovers will mask any new connection trend. At this time, no schedule of cutovers exists. It is axiomatic of small hydroelectric power station design that cost effective operation is achieved by automation. On site operators are more expensive than servo mechanisms. Therefore it is assumed that all valving switch gear and controls will, to as great an extent as possible, beautomated. 3.6 PUMP-GENERATOR CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN The static and dynamic constraints of the wastewater discharge system not withstanding, the possible variations in pump-generator configuration and design are almost limitless in their detail. Several possible designs were formulated in the process of this study and cost estimates for these designs were made. The cost estimates were sufficiently uniform across all designs to demonstrate that it is not necessary at this juncture to formulate detailed, equipment-specific designs (two quite practical designs, however, are itemized for future reference in Appendix G). There are two types of generators: induction or sychronous. Induction generators achieve phase and frequency sychronization by use of an external signal; sychronous generators achieve this sychronization through an independent regulator which is part of the generator controls. Induction generators are less expensive (by some 10%) because frequency and phase regulation derives from the distribution network to which the generated 18 elecrical power is supplied rather than specific controls and sensing mechanisms. The choice of generator type is determined by the use of the generated power: if power is supplied to an existing electrical distribution network, induction generators, being less expensive, are the logical choice. Should it be decided that the generated power will be supplied to the treatment facility for use without comingling with GPA service, synchronous generators are called for. The economics of these considerations (and others) are quantified in Section IV of this report. An induction generator supplying electricity to the Tanguission entrance to the Guam electrical grid possesses design, operational, and economic benefits far superior to any other combination of generator type and power user. The simplicity of the design tends to insure reliability; control and protective devices required to protect the system in case of malfunction are less elaborate; the existing grid can easily accept all the power generated, regardless of the degree of future expansion of the generating station. This last consideration is more important than it might first appear: future expansion of the generator system may result in production capacity in excess of treatment station demand. No such limitation exists in connecting the generator system to the GPA distribution grid. The grid can absorb all the power generated, no matter what that quantity might be. Particulate matter is present in the wastewater discharge (Section II); the chemicals present imply some slight chance for interaction and 19 deterioration of exposed pump surfaces. The turbine system used must be designed for sewage pumping service. 3.7 DIFFUSION The placement of electrical generation equipment implies, when compared with the original design parameters, a diminished head in the diffusion section of the discharge line and altered characteristics of disbursement of wastewater into the open ocean. The plant presently operates well below design capacity; diffusion occurs under the influence of diminished head at the present time with no adverse affects; thus, such a situation does not appear to be a matter of serious concern. However, this aspect of the design must be carefully examined during the design phase and it may be necessary to open more ports in the diffusion section of the line in order to limit wastewater back up and avoid depreciated turbine performance. 20 SECTION IV PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES 4.0 PERFORMANCE ESTIMATE Any mass elevated with respect to some reference level possesses energy. The fundamental equation is P.E. = m9h, (4.1) where P.E. is the potential energy, m is the mass, g the acceleration due to gravity, and h the vertical elevation above the reference level. Beginning with this equation, and incorporating the definition of power as work per unit time, the basic equation expressing the power potential of water flowing under pressure can be derived and represented as: P = Qvhe, (4.2) 550 where P is power (horsepower), Q is flow (ft 3 per second), v is the density (lb per ft ), h is the head (ft), and e is the efficiency of the conversion system. From the data of preceeding sections, and the assumption of an overall efficiency of 0.7, we have: 21 3.404 ft3 x lb x 1.000474 x (254 ft) x (0.7) sec. 0.01602 ft3 P 550 ft-lb/sec. Fo-rsepower 68.72 hp. Using the theoretical conversion factor from horsepower to kilowatts, we have P = (68.72 hp) x (0.7457 KW) = 51.25 KW. @_p This calculation is tentative since it assumes without detailed investigation that the overall efficiency of the system is 0.7; however, it is useful in establishing a working estimate of system's economic performance. Reference to performance data of suitably sized pumps used as turbines (for example, the Bingham-Willamette Company model 4 x 6 x 7 1/2H HTCAP I-STAGE) indicates a turbine operating efficiency of 78% can be expected. This efficiency, when combined with a generator efficiency of 90% (a typical value), produces an overall system efficiency of 70%. Other pumps used as turbines will yield similar values. Private communication from institutional, contractural, and manufacturing representatives qualified in such applications bear out the assumption that 70% is indeed a reliable working estimate of system efficiency. 22 4.1 ECONOMIC VALUE OF POWER Given a generator output of 50 KW, electric power production at present (January 1981) rates represents an annual value of V = (50.0 KW) x (24 hr) x 365 day x ($0.10) dTy yr KWH = $43,800/year It can reasonably be assumed that local electrical rates, and hence the value of the power generated, will rise as a function of world oil prices. 4.2 COST ESTIMATE The value of electric power produced by such a generating station must be weighed against the cost of implementing such a station. This cost divides into the following general catagories: 4.2.1 Turbine/Generator Equipment: The materials cost for turbine, synchronous generator, valving, piping and related electrical controls and relays has been quoted by one contractor experienced in such installations at $15,324 complete (F.O.B. Twin Falls, Idaho). A pump manufacturer has quoted the cost of similar equipment at $12,341 (F.O.B. Schreveport, Louisiana); however, this latter quote omits valving. The higher quote is taken as typical, but is escalated as follows to produce a more conservative cost estimate 23 for materials: assume 20% of materials cost for shipping and 15% increase in materials cost for inflation. A materials cost of MS = $15,324 x 1.15 x 1.20 = $21-,150 is assumed for synchronous generator and M $13,950 x 1.15 x 1.20 = $19,250 for an induction generator. 1 4.2.2 Civil/Structural Construction: Earthwork necessary to intercept the discharge line and concrete structure required for system protection (241 x 141) are estimated at $27,910. A 20% contingency cost is added. Total civil/structural costs are estimated at $33,500. 4.2.3 Plumbing/Mechanical System Installation: All labor and materials necessary to install the system in place within the protective structure are estimated at $23,000. A 20% contingency overage brings this amount to $27,600. 4.2.4 Transmission: The total installed cost of transmission lines capable of delivering 50 KW at 13000 volts is $1300/180 ft. (this line is capable of handling increased future power transmission IThis price will vary somewhat but induction generator cost will average some 10% below sychronous generators. See Section 3.6 and Appendix G. 24 resulting from generator plant expansion). Step-up or step-down transformer total cost is $3500 each. Delivery of power to the NDSS treatment plant will involve two transformers and 4200 ft. of transmission line, for a total installed cost of $37,300. This cost is escalated by 20% for contingency to ob tain a transmission equipment cost estimate of $44,800. The generated power may also be fed directly to the Tanguisson Generating Plant for distribution in the GPA net. Such a distribution arrangement requires one step-up transformer and 1600 ft. of transmission line for a total in-place cost of $15,060. A 20% contingency overage brings this total transmission cost estimate to $18,070. There is obvious economic advantage in connection with Tanguisson. 4.2.5 A/E Design, Construction Management and Final Testing: Costs associated with engineering design, construction management, and testing are estimated at between eight and eleven percent of total installed material and labor cost. Because of the innovative nature of the project and the probable requirement for off-island consultants, the larger percentage is assumed. 4.2.6 Total Cost: As mentioned at various points in this report, two system configurations are possible: (1) an induction generator providing power to the GPA grid and (2) a synchronous generator providing power to the NDSS treatment plant. The difference in cost in the two configurations centers on the lower cost for the 25 induction generator and the lower cost of delivery of the power to the GPA grid. There quite possibly may be slightly higher annual operating and maintenance costs for the synchronous system. TABLE I GENERATOR STATION COST System Type Component Induction Synchronous Turbine/Generator $19,250 $21,150 Civil/Structural $33,500 $33,500 Plumbing/Mechanical $27,600 $27,600 Transmission $18,070 $44,800 A/E Design $10,830 $13,976 TOTAL $109,250 $141,026 26 Obviously, economic analyses comparing the two systems will give results favorable to the induction generator system. In what follows, only the induction system is analyzed. 4.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 4.3.1 Preliminary Analysis: A rudimentary estimate of the economic benefit of the project may be obtained by simply dividing the initial cost by annual savings and thus obtaining an estimated payback period: Simple Payback - $109,250 2.49 year. $43,800/yea-r This simplistic treatment ignores several important factors such as future worth of money, escalation of utility rates (implying an increased value of the power produced), annual operation and maintenance costs, and system lifetime; however, it serves to point imphatically to the inherent potential of this project. 4.3.2 Detailed Analysis: Governmental agencies traditionally evaluate projects in terms of benefit-cost ratio analysis; however, because the using agency, the Public Utility Agency of Guam (PUAG), presently experiences the same severe financial pressures resulting from increased electrical cost as any commercial enterprise, it is appropriate to express the economic merits of this project in a variety of ways including those conventionally reserved for private business. 27 4.3.2.1 Value of Electricity Produced Over Lifetime: The production is assumed to yield at a monthly income of $3,650 in present dollars. Equipment lifetime is estimated at 15 years; the future value of money is estimated at 12%; conventional electric costs are assumed to rise at an annual rate of 15%. Future increase in production, the result of plant expansion, is ignored. The present value 1 of all production over the fifteen year life is $839,713. 4.3.2.2 Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost (0 & M): 0 & M costs are estimated at 10% of installed costs annually, or $10,925. If a 10% annually inflation rate is assumed, the present value of 0 & M costs over equipment life is $129,370. 4.3.2.3 Salvage Value: Assumed negligible for purpose of this study. 4.3.2.4 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR): Calculated over the lifetime of the project, the savings to investment ratio may be expressed as lAppendix F contains a definition of the terms and discription of the economic analysis used. 28 SIR Net Return Initial investment $839,713 - $129,370 $109,250 6.50 This is quite good. The system pays for its initial investment six times over during its life. As cut-overs and new connections increase flow, a second generator can be installed. Since the entire installation cost of the second generator involves the pump-generator but no civil, structural, transmission, or design costs, the economic analysis becomes even more favorable. For example, if a second generator, equal in size to the first, is installed after three years and if a 10% annual inflation rate is assumed, the installed cost of the second generator will be $25,620, which is approximately 23% of the cost of the original station. For this investment, we have now doubled production. 29 4.3.2.5 Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/C): With the definition B/C - benefits - disbenefits costs and the categorization of initial installation and annual 0 & M expenses as costs, B/C = $839,713 $238,620 = 3.52. Again, this is quite good. 4.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS One factor of primary importance is that the proposed generation scheme does not depend on imported fossil fuels. Guam has a narrow and somewhat fragile economic base and it is important to the island's economic well-being that money circulates on-island to as great an extent as possible rather than leaving in consequence of the purchase of off-island goods. Presently, all of Guam's energy derives from imported fossil fuel. In spite of energy conservation efforts, the purchase of fossil fuel represents a substantial drain from the island's economy. Although the proposed project is admittedly small and of negligible consequence in terms of overall energy consumption, it is extremely significant as a precedent-setting act: it will be the first energy producing system of recent times on Guam not dependent on fossil fuel. 30 SECTION V IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 5.0 FUNDING The key act to be performed in implementing this project is, of course, to secure funding. Since it is unlikely that the Public Utility Agency of Guam will fund this project from department resources, funding must probably derive from fedral resources.1 The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 emphasized " ... more use of systems that reclaim and reuse wastewater, eliminate the discharge of pollutants, and allow for a more efficient use of energy and resources."2 Grants for construction (85% funding) are discussed in 40 CFR Part 35. 3 It appears likely that this project qualifies under these regulations. Public Law 95-617, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Title IV, establishes a loan program meant to stimulate development of additional hydroelectric generating capacity by providing low interest loans to defray up to 90% of the cost of feasibility studies, licenses, and approvals. lIt is interesting to speculate on the possibility of private funds being used for this project; e.g., a commercial firm being granted a concession to utilize the wastewater discharge for production of electricity and sale to GPA. Such a scenario falls outside the scope of this present study but should be examined. 2Bureau of National Affairs, Policy and Practice Series, Water Pollution Control, section 931:1011 ff, 1979. 3Fedral Register, Vol. 45, No. 249, Wed. Dec. 24,1980. 31 Although this present project does not directly qualify, its innovative nature and good economic performance may qualify it for a variance. The U.S. Department of Energy has, in recent years, coordinated the efforts of programs and several agencies with the intent of promoting accelerated development of hydroelectric generation capacity. DOE must necessarily be contacted regarding programs for which this present project qualifies. 5.1 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS This feasibility study has been conducted with the cooperation, but not the detailed participation, of PUAG. The first task directed at implementation must be to affect liaison with PUAG, to advise them of the consequenses of this study, and to enlist their cooperation. Many decisions concerning this generating station can only be made with PUAG cooperation: the manner of funding construction, the designation of the operator of the station (PUAG, GPA, or a private firm acting under contract), the manner in which reimbursement for power is obtained; all these are pivotal decisions. This study indicates that the distribution of hydroelectricity to the general consumer through the island grid is desirable from both an engineering and economic point of view. It is therefore critical to the successful implementation of the project that GPA concurrence and support be obtained at the outset. There are a number of issues crucial to the project's success which must involve GPA. The most important of these concerns the precedent 32 setting nature of the project. Elsewhere, public utilities have accepted power originating outside their own system, purchased it (or otherwise reimbursed the producer), and distributed it. (The Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act mandates this procedure for utility agencies; GPA is exempt by virtue of its small size) There is no provision in current GPA regulations or policy for such an operation; certain provisions of GPA Service Rules4 qualify conditions under which interconnection can be made. It should also be noted in this regard the GPA presently is faced with a fixed expense level and declining consumption; in such circumstances, GPA may not be overly enthusiastic about purchasing additional power. One possible solution here might be for GPA to own and operate the generating station. On the assumption that funding is secured, the project becomes a straight-forward design and construction activity. This feasibiliy investigation has not uncovered any significant design or construction problems which might arise during the course of implimentation. Quite the contrary, the existing outfall system appears ready-made for the incorporation of a hydroelectric generating plant. Implimentation tasks then become the sequence of A/E review and selection, fee negotiation, A/E design and submittal, contractor selection, construction, and finally start-up and operation. 4Guam Power Authority Service Rules dated October 16, 1979, p. 10. 33 5.2 DETAILS Certain specific points, primarily relating to design, must be explicitly treated: 5.2.1 Cutover Plans: A concerted effort must be made to define the plans of the Public Utility Agency of Guam for future cutovers to the NDSS, for this will influence plant design as it pertains to future expansion. 5.2.2 Sizing of Future Generators: As the NDSS expands and flows increase, more pump-generator sets should be brought on line. As flows increase, the treatment facility cannot be so extensively used for flow regulation (although in its normal operation it will continue to serve as a buffer of the wastewater flow). This implies that future pump-generator sets must be sized in order to utilize daily flows as completely as possible, given its natural daily cyclic variation in flow rates. Such considerations will certainly influence the design of the initial generating station building and the manner and extent of the interception of the buried Techite pipe. 5.2.3 Dynamic Load Testing of the Techite Pipe: A preliminary dynamic test of the Techite pressure pipe of the cliff descent portion of the outfall line must be made very early in the project to insure its capacity to function under 250 ft (and more) of head. Leaks (if any) must be identified and repaired. 34 5.2.4 Coordination with GPA: Liaison must be established with the Guam Power Authority to insure cooperative participation in this project. Engineering coordination must be affected to avoid problems arising from connection of the generating station to the grid. 35 SECTION VI CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 CONCLUSION From an engineering and economic point of view, this project is feasible. 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS Work should immediately commence to secure funding for design and construction of the project. The project should be configured as an induction generator system connected to the GPA power distribution grid. The project should be given high priority for implimentation because of its precedent-setting nature. Personnel familiar with the reverse pump mode of hydroelectric power generation must be included in the design and construction team. 36 APPENDIX A GUAM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DATA Guam discharges wastewater into the Philippine Sea at four locations along it's western shoreline: The Northern District Sewage System Outfall, Agana Sewage Treatment Plant Outfall, the U.S. Navy Outfall (Apra Harbor), and the Agat Sewage Treatment Plant Outfall. It was the original intent of this report to investigate the potential for hydroelectric power generation of all Guam outfalls; however, repeated inquiries to Director of Water and Sewage Division, U.S. Navy Public Works Center, failed to produce any data concerning head or volumetric flow of the U.S. Navy Outfall. That outfall is therefore not a part of this study. The Agana STP Outfall processess the largest volume of wastewater, an average -of 6.57 million gallons daily (Table A.1). Next in volume is the NDSS with 2.2 mgd (Appendix B) and last, the Agat STP with 1.3 mgd (Table A.2). Unfortunately, Agana and Agat outfalls discharge their wastewater at heads of no more than twenty feet, making hydroelectric generation impractical. The Agana outfall could deliver only 16 horsepower or 12 KW, the Agat outfall could deliver less than 4 horsepower or less than 3 KW. As shown in Section IV, the NDSS can deliver 50 KW. 37 TABLE A.1 AGANA STP WASTEWATER FLOW MONTH (1980) AVE. DAILY VOLUME (millions gallons) Jan 5.73 Feb 6.57 Mar 5.8 Apr 5.86 May 6.8 Jun 6.69 Jul 6.74 Aug 6.7 Sep 7.61 Oct 7.44 Nov 6.38 Mean E-.-57 Public Utility Agency of Guam records. 38 TABLE A.2 AGAT STP WASTEWATER FLOW MONTH (1980) AVE. DAILY VOLUME (millions gallons) May 1.5 Jun 0.81 Jul 1.32 Aug 1.07 Sep 1.68 Oct 1.54 Nov 1.20 Mean T -0 Public Utility Agency of Guam records. 39 APPENDIX B FLOW DATA, NORTHERN DISTRICT SEWAGE SYSTEM This data is taken from Public Utility Agency of Guam (PUAG) daily records of instantaneous input to the NDSS treatment plant. Data is analyzed to determine mean daily flow in million gallons per day (m9d). Mean daily flow values appear as the far right hand column of the table. There are occasional gaps in this data, periods for which no instantaneous flow readings were made. When such gaps were encountered in the data, no daily mean was computed. Data was also averaged to determine the mean instantaneous flow at 2, 4, 6, ... hours (24 hour clock time) for each month. These means appear as the bottom line of the tables. A mean daily flow (mgd) for the month was determined. This value appears at the lower right hand corner of the tabulated data. Mean instantaneous flow for 2, 4, 6, ... hours (24 hour clock time) were plotted and appear as graphs on pages immediately following each month's tabulated data. 40 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: September 1979 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.0 0.9 1.25 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.15 0.82 0.65 15 0.65 0.4 0.4 0.65 0.82 1.25 1.25 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.65 0.9 16 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.82 1.25 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.9 0.9 0.65 0.8 17 0.65 0.65 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 18 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.25 1.25 0.9 1.1 19 0.65 0.8 0.75 0.65 1.25 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.05 0.9 0.75 1.0 20 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.05 1.1 21 0.65 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.25 0.9 0.8 0.75 1.1 1.1 1.25 0.9 0.9 22 0.5 0.5 0.65 1.25 1.25 1.6 1.6 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.1 0.75 1.1 23 0.75 0.5 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.45 1.25 0.9 1.25 1.25 0.75 0.9 1.0 24 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.8 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.9 1.2 1.25 1.25 1.1 1.0 25 1.0 0.65 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 26 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.25 1.05 1.45 0.75 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.75 1.1 1.0 27 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.05 0.65 1.1 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.0 28 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.9 1.05 0.9 0.75 0.65 1.1 1.25 1.05 1.25 0.9 29 0.9 0.65 0.5 0.9 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 30 0.4 0.65 0.9 0.65 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.8 1.25 0.75 1.1 31 AVG. 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 41 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: Septermer 1979 3.0 + + 2.5 + ro + + ?.0 + + + .0 + E-= 1.5 + + U- V) + =) 1.0 C) + LU cl-c V) 02-'-4 0.5+ + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 42 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: October 1979 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 0.75 0.75 0.9 1.25 1.25 1.4 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.25 1.25 1.5 2 1.25 1.05 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.25 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 3 1.25 1-05 1.2 1.4 1.25 1.4 1.25 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.45 4 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 5 1.4 4.7 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.45 1.9 6 0.8 0.75 0.-)5 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.4 7 0.9 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 8 1.05 0.9 0.73 0.9 1.25 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 9 1.6 1.05 0.75 10 11 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 12 1.6 1.6 1.45 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.5 13 1.25 0.9 0.5 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 14 1.8 1.05 3.2 1.45 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.65 1.45 1.05 1.25 1.6 15 1.2 0.9 0.9 2.0 1.4 1.25 1.27 1.6 1.25 1.4 16 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 17 1.6 1.6 1.05 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.32 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.4 18 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.6 1.2 19 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.45 1.25 0.8 20 0.8 0.65 0.65 1.25 1.2 1.4 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.45 1.1 1.1 21 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.05 0.9 1.2 22 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.75 1.25 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.45 1.05 1.2 23 1.25 0.9 0.75 1.1 1.05 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.45 1.45 1.05 1.3 24 0.85 0.75 0.9 1.1 1.05 1.25 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.3 1.2 25 0.9 0.85 1.25 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.25 1.25 1.3 26 1.25 0.9 1.25 1.05 1.3 1.05 1.05 27 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.45 1.4 28 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.45 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.05 1.6 29 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 30 1.6 0.9 0.9 1.25 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.25 1.4 31 0.9 0.5 0.75 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 AVG. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 43 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: October 1979 3.0 + + + 2.5 + >1 + to + + + 2.0 + + + + 1.5 + + CD --i U- + 1.0 + CD U.j + 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 44 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: November 1979 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.05 0.65 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.4 1.25 1.4 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.2 2 1.1 1.05 0.9 1.25 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.45 1.25 0.9 1.25 1.3 3 1.25 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.45 1.2 1.05 0.9 0.9 1.2 4 0.9 0.9 0.0' 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.05 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.25 1.1 5 0.9 1.1 0.65 0.9 0.75 1.3 3.5 2.85 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 6 1.2 1.05 0.9 1.05 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 7 1.4 0.9 1.05 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.5 8 1.6 1.05 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.1 1.6 9 1.4 1.4 1.05 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.25 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.75 1.5 10 0.75 0.75 0.65 1.1 1.05 1.4 1.4 1.05 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.75 1.0 11 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.9 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.05 1.0 12 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.9 1.05 1.05 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.05 1.05 1.0 13 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.05 1.1 1.25 1.8 0.9 1.05 1.4 1.05 1.05 1.1 14 0.75 0.65 0.65 1.4 1.2 0.75 0.9 1.1 1.25 1.05 0.9 0.9 1.0 15 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.75 0.9 1.05 0.75 0.8 0.9 1.25 1.25 1.4 0.9 16 1.3 0.65 0.65 1.05 1.05 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 17 0.75 0.75 0.9 1.05 0.75 1.05 0.9 0.9 1.2 18 0.9 0.65 0.65 0.8 0.9 1.05 1.05 0.8 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.9 0.9 19 0.65 0.84 0.75 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.1 0.9 1.05 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.9 20 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.8 1.05 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.05 0.9 1.0 21 0.9 0.75 0.65 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.05 0.9 0.9 1.0 22 0.75 0.6 0.75 1.0 1.6 1.45 1.6 1.1 1.25 1.05 0.9 0.9 1.1 23 0.75 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.65 0.8 24 0.65 0.65 0.8 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.9 0.75 0.75 1.0 25 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.75 1.2 1.25 0.9 0.75 1.15 1.15 1.05 0.9 26 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 27 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.4 1.25 0.9 1.25 1.35 1.05 1.65 1.35 1.45 1.1 28 1.45 1.15 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.05 1.25 1.35 1.8 1.45 1.25 1.3 29 1.6 1.2 0.75 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.05 1.25 1.45 1.9 2.25 1.75 1.4 30 0.5 0.9 0.75 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.05 1.75 1.8 1.4 1.25 1.05 1.3 31 AVG. 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 45 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: November 1979 3.0 + + 2.5 + + + 2.0 + + + + E 1.5 + + U- V) + = 1.0 C) U-j cz + Ln + 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 46 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall FILne Data Table For: December 1979 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.05 0.75 0.6 1.05 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 2 1.05 1.05 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.6 0.9 1.05 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 3 0.9 0.9 0.65 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 4 1.6 1.2 1.35 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.2 5 1.3 1.05 1.05 1.4 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 6 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 7 1.4 1.05 0.9 1.4 2.5 2.1 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 8 1.4 1.05 0.9 1.6 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.7 9 1.4 1.05 0.9 1.05 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 10 1.4 1.05 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.45 1.6 11 1.6 1.4 1.65 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 1.9 12 1.9 1.25 1.3 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 13 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.9 14 1.8 1.05 1.25 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 15 1.6 1.25 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 2.6 1.8 16 1.9 1.45 1.45 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.8 17 1.5 1.4 1.05 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.45 2.6 1.7 18 2.0 1.25 1.17 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.05 2.0 1.6 19 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.0 20 1.9 1.45 0.99 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.8 21 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.8 22 2.0 1.45 1.25 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 2.4 2.4 2.6 1.75 2.1 1.9 23 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.9 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.0 24 2.6 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.45 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.1 25 1.8 1.25 1.25 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.1 1.7 26 2.0 1.2 1.3 1.05 1.4 1.8 1.6 27 1.05 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.3 28 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 29 1.8 1.45 1.05 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 30 31 2.0 2.1 3.0 AVG. 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.7 47 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshail Flume Graph For: December 1979 3.0 + + + 2.5 + + + + 2.0 + + + E 1.5 + + + + C> 1.0 + LLJ cc + V) 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 48 NDSS Treatuient Plant Parshall FlLm-ie Data Table For: January 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2 1.8 0.9 0.9 3 2.6 4 2.0 1.6 1.05 1.15 1.9 2.1 1.65 5 6 2.6 7 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.75 2.6 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.2 8 1.9 1.65 1.8 2.1 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 9 2.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 10 1.6 1.25 0.75 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 11 1.6 1.25 1.05 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 12 2.2 1.4 0.9 1.6 1.8 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.65 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.2 13 2.1 1.25 1.25 1.1 1.6 2.45 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.9 2.1 2.1 14 1.7 1.25 1.25 1.5 1.6 2.45 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.3 15 2.1 1.9 0.9 1.8 2.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 1.6 2.6 2.3 16 1.75 1.2 1.0 1.65 2.3 2.4 2.6 17 1.65 1.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.6 18 1.65 1.9 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.4 19 1.45 1.19 0.9 1.65 1.9 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 20 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.25 21 1.65 1.25 1.05 2.0 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.6 22 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.1 23 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.6 24 1.6 1.2 0.9 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.1 25 1.6 1.6 1.25 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.6 26 1.8 1.2 1.25 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.8 27 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.6 28 1.4 1.25 0.9 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 29 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 30 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.9 2.6 31 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.8 2.4 1.45 1.45 AVG. 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.2 49 NDSS Treatment Plant input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: January 1980 3.0 + + + 2.5 + >1 + + + + 0 2.0 + + 0 + E 1.5 + C) + + 1.0 + C) LU + < 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 50 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Fhm@e Data Table For: - February 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.45 0.9 0.75 2.2 2.3 2.1 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2 3 4 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.8 1.8 1.4 2.1 2.1 6 1.9 1.45 1.45 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.1 7 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.05 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.3 1.75 2.1 2.0 8 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.25 1.9 1.8 9 1.9 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.05 1.9 1.8 10 1.65 1.45 1.45 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.1 1.45 1.9 2.0 11 1.45 1.25 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 12 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.1 13 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.4 1. 8 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.7 1.9 14 2.0 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 15 1.9 1.45 1.4 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.7 16 1.8 1.6 1.05 2.0 17 1.6 1.6 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.1 18 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.3 19 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.25 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.2 20 1.4 1.25 1.25 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 21 2.1 1.6 1.25 1.25 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.2 22 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.35 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.8 23 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.8 24 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 25 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.9 2.1 26 4.5 4.1 2.3 2.6 3.1 27 1.45 1.25 1.19 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 28 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.75 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 29 1.7 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.8 2.1 2 .1 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 30 31 AVG. 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 51 NOSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: February 1980 3.0 + + + 2.5 + >j + + + 0 2.0 + + .0 + + 1.5 + + + + 1.0 + + C:c 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 52 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: March 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.4 1.75 2.1 2.0 2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.0 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 3 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.25 2.2 4 1.45 1.45 2.@ 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 5 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.1 6 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 7 1.05 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.8 8 1.45 1.25 1.25 2.6 9 2.6 1.9 1.6 10 11 12 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.3 2.6 1.9 1.75 1.75 1.9 13 1.75 1.65 1.05 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.25 2.25 2.6 2.25 2.4 2.2 14 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.75 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.1 15 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.45 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.9 16 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.6 17 18 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.3 19 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 20 2.3 1.45 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.4 21 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.1 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 22 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 23 1.45 1.25 1.15 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.1 24 2.1 2.1 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.75 2.4 2.7 3.2 3.0 2.6 25 1.45 1.9 2.6 2.25 2.25 2.8 1.8 2.0 2.6 26 2.1 1.8 1.35 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.1 27 1.4 1.25 1.25 1.8 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.2 28 1.75 1.75 1.6 1.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3 29 1.9 1.45 1.25 1.6 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 30 1.9 1.6 1.45 1.4 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.2 31 1.9 1.6 1 .2 1.4 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.1 AVG. 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2 53 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: March 1980 3.0 + + + cc 2.5 + + + 0 2.0 + -E + r. + C) -j + U- 1.5 + C) LU + 1.0 + + 0.5 + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 54 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: - April 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.6 1.6 1.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.4 2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 3 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.4 4 2.6 1.8 I.C5 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.2 5 1.9 1.45 1.05 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 1.25 2.3 6 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.0 7 1.75 1.65 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.6 1.75 2.25 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 8 1.9 1.25 1.05 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.2 9 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.45 2.6 10 2.6 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.8 11 2.8 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 1.6 2.5 12 1.2 1.4 1.05 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.1 13 2.8 2.3 1.6 1.25 1.25 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 14 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.6 2.25 1.75 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.1 2.4 15 1.8 1.4 1.05 2.1 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 16 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 17 2.9 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.45 2.25 2.25 2.4 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.4 18 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.45 2.25 2.25 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 19 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.05 1.6 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.1 1.8 2.3 20 2.1 2.1 1.6 0.9 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.1 3.1 1.8 2.25 2.1 21 1.75 1.45 1.2 1.05 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.45 2.2 22 2.25 1.45 1.2 1.05 1.6 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 23 1.75 1.45 1.4 1.05 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.1 24 1.75 1.45 1.4 1.05 1.8 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.1 25 1.75 1.0 1.25 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 1.45 26 1.45 1.65 0.9 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.1 27 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.8 2.0 28 1.9 1.25 0.9 1.8 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.2 29 2.3 1.6 1.05 2.3 2.8 2.8 1.9 2.25 2.25 1.75 2.6 30 2.3 1.4 1.05 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.25 1.75 2.3 2.0 31 AVG. 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 55 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: April 1980 3.0 + + + 2.5 + + + 2.0 C) + C + 0 + 1.5 + + C) __j U- + V) + =) 1.0 CD + 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 56 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: May 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG.- 1 1.6 1.6 1.05 1.6 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.25 1.75 1.75 1.9 2 1.75 1.45 1.05 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.4 1.9 2.12 2.0 3 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 4 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.6 5 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 6 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 7 2.8 1.6 0.9 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.3 8 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.0 9 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.2 10 1.8 1.25 1.15 1.25 1.45 1.9 2.6 1.9 2.8 3.1 2.3 1.9 2.0 11 1.6 1.05 0.99 1.25 1.75 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.9 12 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.75 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.2 13 1.4 1.25 0.75 1.05 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.7 14 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.9 2.3 15 1.75 1.45 1.25 1.4 1.8 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.6 2.4 2.1 16 1.75 1.45 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.4 2.25 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.1 17 1.9 1.45 2.25 1.3 1.45 1.75 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.2 18 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.25 1.6 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.1 19 2.4 1.45 1.75 1.6 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4 20 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 21 2.1 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 22 2.1 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 23 2.3 1.4 1.25 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.3 24 2.4 1.45 1.25 25 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 26 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.5 4.9 3.0 27 3.1 2.8 2.7 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.6 28 2.6 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.6 2.6 29 30 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.1 31 2.3 1.8 1.05 1.4 2.0 2.8 2.6 2.25 2.8 2.4 1.75 2.8 2.2 AVG. 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 57 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: May 1980 3.0 + + + 2.5 + + + 2.0 + + + + E 1.5 + U- + + 1.0 + CD + cv. + V) 1=4 0 .5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 58 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: June 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 2.6 2.4 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 4.4 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.5 2 2.2 2.1 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.2 3 2.0 2.0 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.9 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 4 1.9 1.65 1.45 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.0 5 1.9 1.45 1.45 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.8 2.1 1.6 2.7 2.2 6 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 7 2.1 1.8 1.45 2.0 2.1 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.2 8 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.0 9 2.25 1.75 2.35 1.6 2.7 3.2 2.6 2.4 10 1.75 1.45 1.45 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.1 11 1.65 1.45 1.75 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.2 12 1.9 1.75 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.1 13 1.9 1.6 1.75 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 14 1.75 1.25 1.6 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.3 15 2.1 1.45 1.25 2.8 2.7 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 16 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.5 17 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 18 1.9 1.25 1.45 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 19 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 20 2.8 2.1 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 21 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 3.0 2.6 22 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 2.6 2.5 23 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.8 3.1 3.3 2.3 24 1.8 1.4 1.2 2.0 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.5 25 2.8 2.1 2.1 1.4 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.8 26 1.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 27 1.4 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.1 28 1.5 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.4 1.9 2.8 29 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.2 30 2.1 1.9 1.45 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.2 31 AVG. 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 59 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: June '1980 3.0 + + 2.5 + + + 2.0 + + + + E 1.5 + :3: + C) -i + U- V) + C20 1.0 + LU + Ln 1=4 0 .5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 60 NDSS Treatment Plant Parsball Flume Data Table For: July 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1 2 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.45 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 3 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.25 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.0 4 2.3 1.9 1.45 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 5 1.75 1.75 1.45 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 6 2.1 1.75 1.45 1.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 7 1.9 1.6 1.75 2.1 2.8 2.6 2.1 8 1.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.6 10 1.9 1.6 1.25 1.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.4 11 1.75 1.45 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.5 12 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 13 1.45 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.6 14 1.2 1.2 0.9 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 15 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.8 16 3.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.1 17 3.1 2.0 1.8 2.8 3.0 3.2 2.1 2.1 18 1.6 1.6 1.25 1.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.4 19 2.1 1.25 1.05 2.4 2.25 1.75 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.3 20 2.6 1.75 1.45 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 21 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.3 22 1.6 1.8 2.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.8 2.25 23 1.75 1.75 2.8 1.6 2.2 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 24 2.25 1.75 1.39 2.1 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.3 25 1.75 1.75 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.6 26 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.2 27 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.25 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 28 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.2 29 2.6 1.9 1.6 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.75 2.6 30 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.8 2.45 2.25 1.75 2.6 31 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.8 3.2 2.1 2.35 1.9 1.75 2.45 1.9 2.1 AVG. 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 61 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: July 1980 3.0 + + + 2.5 + + + tA + 0 2.0 + + + .0 + + E-= 1.5 + C) --j U- + V) + C,::I) 1.0 + Ui + 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 62 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: August 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 1.6 1.45 1.25 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.9 2.7 2.45 2.25 1.9 2.0 2 1.6 1.25 1.25 1.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.88 2.8 2.5 2.35 2.18 2.3 3 1.45 1.6 1.4 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.3 2.4 4 1.8 1.45 1.25 1.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.6 3.3 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 5 1.6 1.6 1.25 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.1 2.1 2.0 6 1.8 1.6 1.25 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.0 7 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 2.0 3.0 3.2 2.1 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.3 2.2 8 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.1 9 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 10 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 3.1 2.1 11 2.1 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.3 3.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 12 2.3 1.8 1.88 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.2 13 1.75 1.75 2.45 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.1 14 1.75 1.45 1.19 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.7 1.9 15 1.9 1.25 1.0 1.6 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.1 1.75 2.1 16 1.45 1.25 0.9 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 17 1.75 1.25 1.1 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 18 1.75 1.19 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.1 2.1 19 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.4 20 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4 21 2.8 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.4 22 2.8 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.3 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.25 3.0 2.5 23 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.8 2.9 24 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.4 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 1.75 1.75 1.9 2.1 25 1.9 1.45 1.25 1.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.45 2.4 2.2 26 1.9 1.45 1.25 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 1.75 1.75 1.9 2.1 27 1.9 1.45 1.25 1.6 2.6 3.1 2.8 28 2.1 1.6 1.25 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 29 2.1 1.6 1.25 2.7 2.8 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 30 1.9 1.6 1.25 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.2 31 2.8 2.6 1.9 2.8 2.3 1.75 1.75 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.4 AVG. 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 63 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: August 1980 3.0 + + 2.5 + + + 0 + 2.0 * + + + 1.5 + + U- + V) + E3 1.0 + + + 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 64 NDSS Treatment Plant Parshall Flume Data Table For: September 1980 DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 2.6 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.2 2 2.8 2.1 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.5 3 2.6 2.1 1.6 2.5 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.5 4 2.9 2.6 2.4 1.6 2.1 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.5 5 2.1 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.3 1.65 2.3 6 1.25 1.1 1.2 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 4.7 4.5 3.3 2.6 3.6 2.8 7 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.05 1.4 1.7 2.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.2 8 1.45 1.45 1.25 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.3 9 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.3 3.0 10 1.6 1.4 1.25 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.1 11 1.5 1.25 1.39 1.25 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.1 12 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.3 13 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.3 2.3 14 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 15 1.45 1.25 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.0 16 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.3 17 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 18 2.1 1.4 1.05 1.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.6 2.8 19 2.1 1.6 0.9 2.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4 20 2.1 1.6 1.25 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.5 21 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.2 22 2.1 1.6 1.4 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 3.1 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.3 23 1.4 1.4 1.45 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.3 24 2.1 2.1 2.8 1.6 2.3 2.8 1.8 2.1 25 2.1 1.6 1.4 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.3 26 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.5 27 3.3 3.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 28 2.8 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.9 3.2 2.9 2.6 29 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.5 3.1 30 3.2 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 31 AVG. 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.4 65 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: September 1980 3.0 + + 2.5 + + + 2.0 + + + 1.5 + E + + U- + 1.0 + C> + + 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY 66 NDSS 'rTentim--nt Plant For: October 1980 Parshall Flume W- ta Table DAY 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 AVG. 1 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2 1.9 1.9 1.75 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.4 3 2.3 2.25 2.8 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 4 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 5 1.75 1.65 1.Z5 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.1 6 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.5 7 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.3 8 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.1 9 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.45 2.6 2.2 10 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.1 1.75 2.25 2.5 2.3 11 1.9 1.45 1.25 1.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 12 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.9 2.2 13 1.9 1.25 1.05 1.6 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.3 14 1.6 1.25 1.05 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 15 1.6 1.05 0.9 1.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.2 16 1.8 1.25 0.9 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.2 17 1.8 1.25 1.05 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.1 18 2.6 1.8 1.35 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 19 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.45 1.75 1.75 1 75 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.0 20 2.6 2.3 1.25 1.45 3.1 2.9 1:9 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 21 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.25 2.45 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.3 2.4 2.8 2.4 22 2.8 1.9 1.25 1.6 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.3 3.8 2.8 2.5 23 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.6 2.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.2 2.25 2.5 24 1.45 1.25 1.19 1.8 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.1 25 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 1.45 2.2 26 1.25 1.25 0.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 27 2.1 1.25 1.45 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 1.75 2.4 28 1.75 1.25 1.1 1.05 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.0 29 1.25 1.1 1.2 1.05 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.1 30 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.3 31 1.8 3.0 2.9 AVG. 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 67 NDSS Treatment Plant Input Flow Data Parshall Flume Graph For: Octboer 1980 3.0 + + 2.5 + + + 2.0 + + + + + 1.5 + U- + V) + = 1.0 + C) U-1 + + F- cn + PE-4 0.5 + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME OF DAY ZZ 68 APPENDIX C OUTFALL LINE PLAN AND PROFILE Sketches of the outfall line Plan and Profile are reproduced from As Built Drawings, Northern District Sewarage System, Austin, Smith and Associates, Incorporated, NAVFAC drawings 73-04-819 ff, dtd. 7/23/75. 69 "^7cH UNE7,vTA.6400 M"'vTcH Lit4EE -T INV. Z7+ SO k3 Iri T P'TA-7 Irs 70 KA 7@--H INV. bL (SL 09 Vi S-rA. STAj 10 t6O INV. 7-73"+o T 71 + ro:2,77' STA. + +11. OUTF-AL-L ST^ @22 +2.19 114, -341 F'L A @l '-4 4 m DO 41 cl oo INV eF -%Fo IW- M-75 f Lfi 0@ S7A @9 +7 G7 114v. 1q, FPO .40 r- CA kA 7J IL 5TA2--7+71;' < I Nv. .35.5;0 _j s-rA + 0 to LA + N -A + STA 2R + 155; TA24.+AG7 INV, a-ld +Oc ".-,Tcl 4 WOEj @STA- 24 cl@ 4@ Ir 73' ST^. 33 + 572J STA G3 sic 3-37 %,G'158 +07,74- WAS FLA :00 Z-: egtoc) too VF-F ISO, C?: 62,9 z S7^ 44-- e A .T tn' r@>q!;Tr sew ckjr6A'--- ?10 Srz@pz OLrTF^LL- 4- Woo W + 11. d'7 STA, +73,9 F@'L A 1 < 20 wn ,n V) Yl -4 QD rwT Fwf- L@5 F---?Y-Tf A@4 10 -.96 ton too SO tcoo Pico 52te)o 5) HOF SIC Fz-(:@> F1 L F- A-IF: n^-T,::@H L-jr4 16TA.&++-a@t ff TA + INV. (-;), 5. LIA dp GT^ 54 MATp4 wwsrm. sa+4%:), 77 <TA 4@. LA 69 INVC-) 4.67 + INV. @-)419- -7-4-W F.FIf I.- +1040 17- 5 TA 6 5@. 57 LL IN V. C-) z?. 60 5TA C,,j ail -'I' @) 78 '24 ?o @-Czlo 4. -71 :p 68 430,G-i F-4 P S'jA. gr,A. -71 +3;0 161@@ 72to7(;q FL A @,I @JL LA se Tn '72tc . =lit -Gre@. VI-@F-. 14 AMOCO TECHITE Technical Report Title TECHITEO PIPE HYDRAULIC TESTS Technical Report No. 01019 Rev. A Date December 17, 1971 Prepared By M. Sayar B. Glascock Technical information andlo, assistance contained in his repor, is furnished without charge or obligation, and is given and accepted at recipients sole risk. Reasonable efforts were made to verify this information, however as conditions of use are beyond our control Amoco makes no representation about and is not responsible or liable for the accuracy or reliability of such data or the results obtained therefrom. Nothing contained in this bulletin shall be considered a recommendation for any use that may infringe patent rights or an endorsement of any particular product not supplied by Amoco. Printed in U.S.A. Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company a 3100 Jefferson Street, Riverside, California 92504 81 ENGINEERING REPORT ER-01019 Revision A December.17, 1971 TECHITEO'PTPE HYDRAULIC TESTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION: The information contained herein is a synopsis of the report written by Mr. Thomas Carmody, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Arizona, relative to hydraaic tests 13erformed on ten foot lengths of 12 inch diameter TECHITE9@jpipe. The tests were conducted at the University of Arizona during August, September and October, 1970. Copies of the original document are available upon request. 2.0 SUMMARY: Results of the tests indicate the following: 2.1 Flow coefficients determined for pipe flowing full are: Velocity (fps) Manning "n" Darcy Weisbach "f" Hazen Williams 11C11 4.0 .0092 .0160 146 5.0 .0092 .0155 145 6.0 .0091 .0154 144 7.0 .009 .0152 142.5 8.0 .009 .0149 142 2.2 Tests conducted on the pipe flowing partially full indicate a Manning's "n" of .010 to .009 for Reynolds number greater than 3 x 105. The effect of maximum misalignment is negligible (see Figure 2b). 2.3 The combined effects of wall roughness and normal joint losses cause the pipe to behave similarly to one with an equivalent sand roughness of 1/5000 (see Figure 2a). Page 1 82 ENGINEERING REPORT ER-01019 Revision A December.17. 1971 2.0 SUMMARY: (Cont'd) 2.4 The hydraulic performance of a piping system is affected by workmanship during installation, but precise alienment of TECHITE pipe sections is not required to achieve good performance. A commercially unacceptable alignment (all joints misaligned with an average joining pull of 3.50) was tested with only a 5 - 10% increase in losses. Poor installation of one joinf,(l k inch joint gap instead of the nominal 1/8 inch) yielded negligible head loss at an average flow velocity of 4.0 ft/sec. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS: The hydraulic performance of the pipe of 12 inch diameter meets or exceeds the claims of the manufacturer (n = 0.010; Cw = 145). Since absolute wall roughness is constant for all pipe sizes (a function of the manufacturing process), it can be expected that losses from wall friction will be less in the larger diameter pipe. Joint losses can certainly be reduced by using 20 foot rather than 10 foot lengths. 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS: The piping tested consisted of nine 10 foot long sections of 12 inch diameter TECHITE pipe assembled to form a continuous 90 foot run. Water was dumped from a large sump to an overhead constant head tank. The water was supplied to the piping by way of a 12 inch galvanized approach line and 12 inch gate valve and a vertical "S" section. The water then flowed through two three foot wide open channels, the lower of which contained a 1.85 foot high sharp crested weir. The water then returned to the sump to complete the cycle. Flow rate was determined by measuring the weir head: Q = bCd 2/3 V2-g h 3/2 where b = 3', Cd = 0.611 + .075 (w = 1.85') w In the full pipe tests, piezometric head was measured at 18 points, two in each pipe., Data obtained from two of the 18 points (stations 16 and 76) was discarded due to faulty tapping of the pipe. The Darcy Weisbach equation LH = f L V2 was U -rg Page 2 83 ENGINEERING REPORT ER-01019 Revision A December 17, 1971 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS: (Cont'd) evaluated in the full pipe flow test. It was assumed that for a given pipe and fluid viscosity, the friction factor (f) does not change with velocity once turbulent flow is established. Each station head reading was subtracted from the reference point (H6) to yield a AH or slope. By plotting this AH vs. station and drawing, a "best fit" line to the points, "f" was determined directly (see Figure 1). Hazen-Williams C and Manning n were computed from Darc-Weisbach f as follows: DARCY-WEISBACH: AH = f l v2 , where AH = S , D = 4R D 2g l so v = 2( 2g/f) R0*5S0*5 so 2 2g/f = v R*5S*5 HAZEN-WILLIAMS: V = 1.318 C R*63s.54 so V = 1.318 C R-13S.04 (R.5S.5) and V/(R*5*S*5) = 1.318 C R*13S.04 = 2 2g/f MANNING: V = 1.49 R2/3SI/2 n so V = 1.49 R1/6(R.5S.5) n and v/(R*5S*5)= 1.49 R'/6 = 2 2g/f n Now, for 12 inch pipe flowing full with 2g = 64.4 f/S2, we have R = D/4 .25 feet, R*167 = 0.794 R*13 = 0.835 , 2g = 8.02 so that HAZEN-WILLIAMS: C 14.5 f S*04 MANNING: n = 0.074 f Plots of "f","n" and "C" vs velocity are shown on Figure 2a. Page 3 84 ENGINEERING REPORT ER-01019 Revision A December 17, 1971 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS: (Cont1d) It is obvious that the Hazen Williams "C" should decrease as the velocity increases because the increase in slope of the piezometric head. Partially full pipe flow tests were performed by adjusting the slope of the open channels to attain steady and uniform flow as evidenced by constant depth of flow. The value of Manning's "n" was then determined by referring to Table 103, Page 12 of "Steady Flow in Open Channels" by Woodwards and Posey (John Wiley and Sons, New York, Sixth Edition 1955). Page 4 85 STATIONS 6 12 16 22 26 32 36 42 46 52 56 62 66 72 /0 FLOW All joints tig .2- V 4.0 fps ---Q Loose joint at .3 i@r@@ Pipe misaligne V 7.4 fps X- -X All joints mis .4- 0a H6 -H DQ M CD tA V2- .6 - - 2g .8 .9 1.0 1.1 Relative head loss vs, station for full pipe flow with various alignment/installation conditions. @0 1.2 1.3 FIGURE I M M M M M M M NOTE: Points within dcstted lines indicate 3 mis-alignment conditions for reference .0160 .0150 .0140 Mona 0130 L 4 6 10 12 152 ILI I 148 C 144 A 140 4 10 12 0095 10 0090 .0085 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean Velocity (ft/sec) Experimental values of f, C and vs. Mean Velocity pipe flowing full FIGURE 2a .011 .011 .010 rn n- n 009 008 2 x10 5 -2 IDS 4005 5 IDS 1 5 000 Reynolds Number (N2) Expirebaental values of n vs. Reynolds Number Partially filled pipe FIGURE 2b Page 6 7 FIGURE 3 ALIGNMENT CONDITION FOR FLOW TEST FIGURE 3-A STRAIGHT FIGURE 3-B WITH KINK AT MID-LENGTH Page 7 920 FIGURE 3 (Continued) ALIGNMENT CONDITION FOR FLOW TEST FIGURE 3-C EXTREMELY MISALIGNED Page 8 81-Q FIGURE 4 A TYPICAL PIEZOMETER TAP .4 F.W.- J. 'T -.rl;, W, FIGURE 5 A TYPICAL POINT-GAUGE INSTALLATION Page 9 90 APPENDIX E ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Pacific Energy Management Consultants; however, other individuals, firms, and government agencies contributed with suggestions, reference material, engineering calculations and analyses, and technical performance data. This report would not be complete without the acknowledgement of their contribution: I. PUMP MANUFACTURERS: 128 pump manufacturers were queried concerning the use of centrifugal pumps in a reverse mode as turbines. Among those responding, of particular help were the following: Allis-Chalmers Box 712 York, Pennsylvania 17405 Bell & Gossett ITT 8200 N. Austin Avenue Morton Grove, Illinois 60053 Bingham-Willamette Company 2800 N.W. Front Avenue Portland Oregon 97210 Buffalo Forge Company P.O. Box 985 Buffalo, NY 14240 Crane Demings Pumps 884 South Boradway Salem, Ohio 44460 Central Scientific Company, Inc. 2600 S. Kostner Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60623 Challenge Manufacturing Co., Inc. 1308 67th Street Oakland, California 94608 91 Dean Brothers Pumps, Inc. P.O. Box 68172 Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 Dresser Industries, Inc. 5715 Bickett Street Huntington Park, California 90255 Ecodyne, fmith & Loveless Division 14040 Santa Fe Trail Drive Lenexa, Kansas 66215 Enpo Pump Co. 420 E. Third St. Piqua, Ohio 45356 Galligher P.O. Box 209 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110, Gelber Pumps, Inc. 11090-G Artesia Blvd. Cerritos, California 90701 Gorman-Rupp Company P.O. Box 1217 Mansfield, Ohio 44903 ITT 4711 Golf Road Skokie, Illinois 60076 LaBour Pump Co. 1607 Sterling Ave. Elkhart, IN 46514 Morris Pumps, Inc. Baldwinsville, New York 13027 Neptune Chemical Pump Co. Lansdale, PA 19446 Paco-Pacific Pumping Co. P.O. Box 12924 Oakland, CA 94604 Peabody Floway P.O. Box 164 Fresno, California 93707 92 Piper Hydro Incorporated 3031 East Coronado Anaheim, California 92806 Price Pump Co. P.O. Box Q Sonoma, CA 95476 Smith Precision P.O. Box 276 Newbury Park, California 92320 Tuthill Corporation 12500 South Pulaski Road Chicago, Illinois 60658 Weil Pump Company 1530 North Fremont Street Chicago, Illinois 60622 Wilden Exports, Inc. P.O. Box 845 Colton, California 92324 Wilfley P.O. Box 2330 Denver, Colorado 80201 Wilson Snyder Pumps P.O. Box 478 Dallas, Texas 75221 Worthington 14 Fourth Avenue East Orange, NJ 07017 93 GUAM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Ricardo C. Duenas, Administrator: Of particular assistance in providing data and guidance for this report were: James B. Branch, Deputy Administrator John R. Worlund, Director,, Water Division Kenneth L. Morphew, Head, Monitoring Services Division PRIVATE CONSULTANTS Jack B. Witherspoon Idaho Pump Supply P. 0. Box 901 Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 Calvin C. Warnick Professor of Civil Engineering University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843 John P. Duenas, P.E. Chief Engineer, Juan C. Tenorio and Associates P.O. Box 8900 Tamuning, Guam 96911 94 APPENDIX F ECONOMIC ANALYSIS An economic analysis has two principle goals: * The estimation, in economic terms of the impact of a particular investment in energy conservation. * The comparison and ranking of various alternatives available to an organization for future conservation. The analysis is more accurate in the latter role rather than the former; estimation of future economic trends is at best educated guessing and thus the prediction of savings to be realized by a particular investment can only be approximate. However, various alternatives can validly be compared and ranked as long as estimates concerning future trends are held constant across all alternatives. It is important to bear this fact in mind when studying economic projections. The basic principle of the analysis is that money has value (which changes) over time. An amount of money may be invested, banked or otherwise used, thus causing it to appreciate. $1,000 invested at 10% now will be worth $1,610.51 in 5 years (compounded annually). Similarly, money we expect to obtain at some future date is not worth its full amount in terms of today's dollars. $1,000 which we will obtain 6 years from now is only worth $564.47 today (assuming money grows 10% annually), because $564.47 invested today at 10% will, in 6 years, grow to $1,000. 95. Investments in energy conservation will realize savings at various times in the future; the only fair way to examine the economic impact of these investments is to adjust the amounts which we expect to obtain and express them all at a common time. Usually, future amounts are adjusted back to the present and expressed in terms of "present" dollars. This practice is called discounting. It is easy to see that the result of an economic analysis is not the expression of the actual dollars saved over the lifetime of the investment; rather, it is a representation of the value of all savings in terms of today's money. The income from this project takes the form of monthly dollar amounts which accrue over several years. Each increment is assumed to grow over the lifetime of the project at an annual rate. The cost of energy is assumed to change periodically. Thus, the monthly increment is not a constant over the lifetime of the investment, but will itself change at some annual rate. At the end of the project life a number of incremental monthly dollar amounts which have grown because of money's future worth and the changing value of the increment. But this amount accrued is at some future date. The accepted practice is to express this future amount in terms of present dollars. The analyses performed in this study incorporate these considerations to arrive at a present value of all income accrued. Annual operating costs are estimated according to accepted engineering practice and discounted. The sum of all such costs are expressed in terms of 96 present dollars. These costs will change annually, the result of a rate of inflation. This change is accounted for in the calculation. The present value of all 0 & M expenses over project life is found. 97 APPENDIX G TYPICAL PUMP-GENERATOR PRICE QUOTATIONS I. IDAHO PUMP SUPPLY Idaho Pump Supply is a firm experienced in reverse mode operation of pumps, having installed such devices on municipal wastewater disposal systems. Their basic quote involves supply of either a synchronous or induction generator. The system proposed is a short coupled verticle turbine consisting of: * 8" x 16" discharge head assembly. * 5' x 8" x 2 112" x 1 112" column tube and shaft. * 3 stage 12B bowl assembly. * 60 hp, U.H.S. gearhead with 1:1 ratio. Watson-Spicer drive shaft, model SL-36. 50 KW, 3 phase, 60 hertz AC generator. 3 minute electric motorized valve. Nema size #4 combination starter with circuit breaker disconnect, magnetic starter, voltage meter, amperage and frequency meter. Solid state frequency regulator. I Quote , sychronous generator: $15,324; induction generator: $13,950. 1F.O.B. Twin Falls, Idaho. 98 II. BINGHAM-WILLAMETTE COMPANY The Bingham-Willamette Company is an established manufacturer of pumps and turbines. Their quote involves an induction generator (but does not include valving): * 4 x 6 x 7.5 HT-CAP Turbine. * Westinghouse model 20-5H4-TBFC-KKN motor (generator). * Export create. * Spares. Quote2 induction generator: $12,341. 2F.O.B. Shreveport, Louisiana. 99 1111011111mill 3 6668 14109 7354