Laserfiche WebLink
' rY <br /> Table i Performance of Recirculating Sand Filters in Oregon and California. <br /> (Data from Wert) <br /> Actual <br /> System Size Year Load ES Depth BOD** SS** TN** TN** <br /> No.* ft2 Instlld MdLft2 Media mm Cu In. m L m L m L % Red, <br /> 1 144 1976 1.5 Mine slag 1,2 2 36 2.7 3.8 31.5 51 <br /> 2 144 1980 1.3 Pea stone 3-6 -- 36 18 8.6 31.3 52 <br /> 3 874 1987 1.8 Pea stone 24 -- 36 15 17 -- <br /> 4 120 1985 1.0 Ash 2.4 3A 32 "11.9 11 8.6 79 <br /> 5 --- 1982 --- -- 0.6 — — 2 3 W <br /> 6 12,800 1984 2,8 Sand 1-1.5 2.5 34 3.7 3 <br /> 7 2485 1984 3.0 --- 4.6 1.6 — 15 12 -- <br /> 8 3000 1984 2.0 --- 4.6 1.6 — 12 12 --- <br /> *System ID <br /> 1 <br /> non, Douglas County, Recirculating Sand Filters 5 Miranda, California, Marilyn Campos East Bay Mud. <br /> (average ree systems).. 6 Contra Costa County - Port Costa, California. <br /> 2 Oregon, Recirculating Pea Gravel Filter (average of 7 Oregon, Clackamas County, Church Camp of Salvation <br /> two systems). Army. Used Year round. <br /> 3 Paradise, California, Recirculating Pea Grave] Filter. 8 Oregon, Clackamas County, subdivision of 26 homes. <br /> 4 West Virginia, Recirculating Pine Gravel 1711ter. <br /> (Swanson et al., 1985). <br /> **All values are averages of several samples, no. of samples vary, <br />