-------
phosphorus from the trickling filter effluent. Beginning in June, 1979 the
plant switched to liquid alum and polymer addition to the trickling filter
effluent followed by secondary settling and tertiary filtration. This was
the phosphorus removal practice used during the field sampling of this
project.
The liquid alum used for phosphorus removal was a 48 percent alum
solution. During the field sampling the dosage varied between 50 and 60
mg/L. The polymer added to the trickling filter effluent was Betz 1160, a
cationic polymer. It was added at a concentration of 0.3 mg/L.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total operation and maintenance costs for Ely are presented in Table 29.
These costs are based on the three month period of actual plant records from
June through August of 1979, extrapolated to one year. Prior to June,
phosphorus removal was practiced by Fed 3 addition; therefore, the months of
January through May were not used. Fuel costs were not available for this
three month period; hence, 1978 figures were used for that portion of the
power costs.
Table 29 shows the amount of money spent at Ely for wastewater treatment
($0.916/1000 gallons) ($0.24/m3) and that most of this cost is associated
with labor ($0.680/1000 gallons) ($0.18/m3). This is primarily due to the
fact that the City of Ely has a contract from the EPA to run this plant
which was built as a research facility. At the present time, a consulting
engineering company is operating the plant for the City of Ely. Thus, the
O&M costs are distorted by labor and overhead costs which are not typical
for a treatment plant of this size (approximately 1 mgd, 3.785x103
Table 30 presents a summary of operation and maintenance costs
associated with phosphorus removal at Ely. Labor costs associated with
phosphorus removal are computed by allocating 40 hours of manpower, per week.
This assumption is based on the judgment of the plant supervisor at Ely.
Using a rate of $6.00 per hour and 52 weeks per year, the labor costs
associated with phosphorus removal are thus $12,480 per year. Power costs
were computed by actual horsepower requirements for tertiary wastewater
pumping (15 HP) (11.2 kilowatts), polymer and alum pumping (0.5 HP each)
(373 watts) and an air scour were operated for 20 minutes each day. A rate
of $0.06 per kilowatt hour is used for calculating the electrical cost,
based on actual service charges at the Ely plant. Chemical costs are based
on the 3 month costs for the liquid alum and polymer, and extrapolated to
one year.
Sludge production associated with phosphorus removal is shown in Table
31. The chemical dosages are based on average dosages used during the field
sampling at Ely. Total sludge production is based on actual plant data
during the sampling period. The sludge associated with phosphorus removal
was calculated by the stoichiometric relationship between the aluminum ion
and soluble phosphorus and hydroxide ion as described by Vesilind (1979).
Additional parti cul ate phosphorus sludge removed by filtration is also
included.
109
-------
TABLE 29. ELY - TOTAL PLANT O&M COSTS
(TIME PERIOD BASIS: SUMMER 1979)
$/Year
$/1000 Gallons
Labor
Power
Chemical
Miscellaneous
223,200
33,421
24,648
19,525
0.680
0.102
0.075
0.059
Total O&M
300,794
1 0.916
TABLE 30. ASSOCIATED O&M COSTS FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL - ELY
Labor
Power
Chemi cal
Total
$/Year
12,480
6,325
16,501
35,296
$/100Q Gallons
0.038
, 0.019
' 0.050
0.1.07
TABLE 31. ELY SLUDGE PRODUCTION AND CHEMICAL
DOSAGES FOR P REMOVAL
Chemicals
Ibs Alum/106 gals
P Sludge Total Sludge
Ibs ;Polymer/10b gals lbs/106 gals lbs/106 gals
487
2.84
82.45
3415
1
$/1000 gallons is equivalent to $/3.785 nT
2lbs/106 gallons is equivalent to 0.12 g/m
110
-------
The unit cost of solids processing could not be determined for Ely due
to lack of sufficient plant data, in, that separate solids and liquid treat-
ment portions of the total cost were not maintained by the plant operators
However, it can be seen that only a small percentage of the total sludge
generated is associated with phosphorus removal.
Analysis of Performance
The Ely wastewater treatment plant has a phosphorus effluent standard
of 0.4 mg/L. During the time of the field sampling, liquid alum was added
to the trickling filter.effluent at an average dosage of 58 mg/L which is
equivalent to an aluminum ion concentration of 2.5 mg/L Al+3. This resulted
in an A1:P ratio of 0.8 on a total P basis. The average soluble phosphorus
concentration coming into the trickling filter was 1.4 mg/L. This results
in a:Al:P molar ratio of 2.0 (soluble basis) not accounting for the soluble
phosphorus which was removed by biological uptake in the trickling filter.
If this were taken into account, assuming 1 mg/L soluble phosphorus taken
up for every 100 mg/L BOD removed, the soluble phosphorus concentration at
the point of liquid alum addition would be 0.5 mg/L and the A1:P would be
5.5. By either basis, a sufficiently high dose of liquid alum is applied
to the trickling filter effluent. Examination of Figure 35 verifies that
almost all of the phosphorus in the secondary sedimentation effluent is in a
particulate form, therefore the dosage used is precipitating the phosphorus.
The pH of the secondary effluent during the sampling period was typically
/ O
At Ely, a trickling filter plant, it is clear that the 0.4 mg/L effluent
standard can not be met with chemical addition alone. While the phosphorus
was successfully insolubilized by the alum addition, it was not effecitvely
removed in secondary sedimentation. This may be due to the nature of the
settling of the solids which slough off trickling .filters as opposed to the
zone settling phenomenon associated with activated sludge biomass which may
better capture the particulate phosphrous. At any rate, the concentration
of suspended solids in the secondary clarifier effluent was 58 mg/L.
Figure 36 shows the results of a jar test conducted on the trickling
filter effluent. It can be seen that the plant dosage used, indicated by
the arrow, does result in a low soluble phosphorus concentration. The
phosphorus is in a non-sett!eable particulate form and the jar tests data
show additional alum is required, approximately 3 times more to coagulate
the particulate phosphorus. Note that the data for an alum dosage of zero
are for a control and do not match the initial data as settling had occurred
in the jar test beakers. Although the Ely plant uses a cationic polymer
dosage of 0.3 mg/L, no jar tests were conducted with the polymer. If the pH
were adjusted to 6.0, a more optimal pH for phosphorus precipitation with
aluminum, it would produce little difference in the results. This is shown
in Figure 37. For these tests, alum was added to the samples and then the
pH was adjusted to 6.0. These results indicate that additional alum is
required for coagulation to achieve solid separation.
A plot of the total phosphorus concentration in the secondary effluent
versus overflow rate is shown in Figure 38. The secondary sedimentation
111
-------
-a
to
cu
(O
vo
CO
O)
CD
112
-------
AQ
-o
CD
-M
to
3
"-5
o
03
O)
S-
03
CO
S-
O
113
-------
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
i
e 1.6
CO
g '»
o
to 1.2
o
X
a.
_i 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
250
1 ELY
Secondary Effluent
300
350
400
450
500
OVERFLOW RATE (gal / day-f t2)
(I aal/ft2-dav = 0.041 m3/m -day]
day)
Figure 38. Phosphorus concentration of secondary effluent versus
overflow rate of secondary sedimentation basin - Ely
114
-------
/ 5 ""I/ f/i9n?d I°r ^ overfl°w rate of 765 gallons per day per square foot
(31.4 m3/mZ/day) at a flow of 1.5 mgd (5.7x103 m3/day). It can be seen that
even at the low overflow rates observed during the field sampling, the phos-
phorus did not settle out well, as most of the phosphorus is particulate
(see Figure 35). Therefore filtration is needed to approach the 0.4 mg/L
standard at Ely. 3
* 4. f1Itrat1on unit at Ely is a dual media filter -consisting of two
feet (61 cm) of anthracite on top of one foot (30.5 cm) of sand. It is
backwashed for 20 minutes each day. The data shown in Figure 39 indicate
that the filter removes about 65 percent of the particulate phosphorus
Improvement in particulate phosphorus removal might be achieved by using a
Tl 1 T,Q K* ell Q '
BIG SISTER CREEK (ANGOLA, NEW YORK)
Introduction
The Big Sister Creek wastewater treatment plant located near Angola, NY
is a 3.1 mgd (1.1x10^ m3/day) tertiary plant. A description of the Big
bister Creek wastewater plant and field data collected there have been
presented previously (Section 6). A summary of the phosphorus data and a
line schematic diagram of the processes employed are shown in Figure 40.
Phosphorus removal has been practiced at Big Sister Creek since May, "
19/7. It is removed during tertiary treatment by the addition of FeClq and
a polymer to 70 percent of the secondary effluent. The secondary treatment
processes activated sludge operated in an extended aeration mode. Tertiary
processes include solids-contact clarifiers and filtration through a gravity
sand filter. The plant has a phosphorus effluent standard of 1.0 mg/L.
The FeCl3 added for phosphorus removal was added at a concentration of
25 mg/L, which is equivalent to 8.7 mg/L of Fe+3, during the sampling period
at Big Sister Creek. It must be noted, however, that this dosage varied
widely throughout the year. During a three month period of December 1977
through February 1979 no Fed 3 was needed for phosphorus removal as effluent
standards could be met without the addition of chemicals. The plant serves
a resort area and thus, flows are higher during the summer. In addition to
FeCl3, Hercules 847 (an anionic polymer) was also used at a dosage of 0 6
mg/L.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total operation and maintenance costs for Big Sister Creek are presented
in Table 32. These costs are taken from actual plant records from 1978
Table 33 presents a summary of 'operation and maintenance costs associated
with phosphorus removal at Big Sister Creek. Labor costs associated with
phosphorus were based on the allocation of manpower by the plant supervisor
The total man-hours at Big Sister Creek during 1978 was 14,298 hours Of
* jS,fniS5? man-hours were allocated to operation of the filter (12 percent)
and 1835 hours were allocated to the solids contact clarifier (13 percent)
Power costs were assigned by actual horsepower data for each process. Fifty -
115
-------
I
SnaOHdSOHd
116'
-------
lOr-
8-
6-
o>
E
cc
o
£
o
a.
O .
0
T
<
P
Tl
\
~ <
Imq/L
BIG SISTER CREEK
JULY 30 - AUGUST 10, 1979
3P
i
TP
TP
0.5ma/L Tpp
T TPIITPP TPP
Fe Treated
Sed. Eff.
Grit , Extended
Chamber Aeration
FeCI3 Polymer
Solids
j:ontc
Final
'Eff.
Figure 40. Summary of phosphorus data and line schematic - Big Sister Creek
117
-------
TABLE 32. BIG SISTER CREEK - TOTAL PLANT O&M COSTS (1978)
Labor
Power
Chemical
Miscellaneous*
Total O&M
$/Year
258,384
99,301
16,983
45,994
420,662
$/1000 Gallons1
0.228
0.088
0.015
0..041
0,,372
'Includes such things as telephone service and water
TABLE 33. ASSOCIATED O&M COSTS FOR PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL - BIG SISTER CREEK
$/Year
$/100() Gallons
Labor
Power
Chemical
Total
91,133
4,834 '
12,501
108,468
0,081
0.004
0.011
0.096
TABLE 34. BIG SISTER CREEK SLUDGE PRODUCTION AND
CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR P REMOVAL
Chemicals2 - lbs/106 gals P Sludge2 Total Sludge P Sludge Cost
FeCU Polymer lbs/106 gals lbs/106 gals $/1000 Gallons
149V
3.29
116
990
0.013
1 '3 '
$/1000 gallons is equivalent to $/3.785 m
2lbs/106 gallons is equivalent'to 0.12 g/m3
3given for total plant flow; is equal to 212.8 lbs/10 g for treated flow
4given for total plant flow; is equal to 4.7 lbs/106g for treated flow
118
-------
two percent of the power costs were due to the solids contact clarifier and
associated equipment, while 48 percent were due to the filter. Chemical
costs were computed based on the dosages and flow (2.58 mgd, 9.8xl03 m3/day)
during the sampling period extrapolated to a nine month period, as chemical
addition for phosphorus removal is not necessary year round at Big Sister
Creek. This estimate is on the high side as smaller dosages can be used
during much of the year due to seasonal variation in wastewater composition.
Sludge production associated with phosphorus removal is shown in Table
34. The chemical and polymer quantities are based on quantities used during
the field study and are based on a total flow (2.58 mgd, 9.8xl03 m3/day).
The sludge associated with phosphorus removal was calculated based on
stoichiometry (Vesilind, 1979). The total quantity of sludge produced is,
from plant records, for the sampling period. The costs associated with
phosphorus sludge processing is based on a unit cost of $223 per ton of dry
solids processed. Again, this unit cost would be on the liberal side as the
iron-phosphorus sludge would be more difficult to process than the mixture of
primary, secondary, and chemical sludges on which the $223 figure is based.
Analysis of Performance
At the time of the sampling period at Big Sister Creek, the FeCls was
being added at a dosage of 8.7 mg/L Fe+3. The polymer was added at a dosage
of 0.6 mg/L. Based on the field data an iron to phosphorus ratio can be
calculated. On a total P basis, the ratio was 2.1. Soluble phosphorus in
the secondary effluent averaged 2.1 mg/L. This results in an Fe:P molar
ratio of 2.3 (soluble basis). Jar test results for the secondary effluent
are shown in Figure 41. Both the field data (Figure 40) and jar test data
indicate that the Fe dosage is adequate in both insolubilizing the phosphorus
and removing it by sedimentation. In fact, the data show that a total phos-
phorus of less than 0.5 mg/L can be achieved. The pH of the secondary
effluent during the sampling period was typically 7..4.
A large fraction of the particulate phosphorus was removed during the
extended aeration process with subsequent settling. The secondary sedimen-
tation basin is conservatively designed with an overflow rate of 500 gallons
per day per square foot (20.5 m3/mVday). This partially accounts for the
high degree of particulate .phosphorus removal. In examining Figure 41,
which shows total and particulate phosphorus concentration .of secondary and
solids'contact effluents versus overflow rate, it can be seen that the 0.5
mg/L phosphorus effluent limitation can be met without filtration. Also
from Figure 42, it appears that an overflow rate of 550 gpd/ft2 (22.6 m3/m2/
day) and less produced similar results. These data demonstrated the good
efficiency of Fe in insolubilizing the phosphorus. Both the secondary and
solids contact units were designed at overflow rate of 500 gpd/ft2 (20.5
m3/m2/day) at a design flow of 22 mgd (8.3xl03 m3/day). It should be pointed
out that because of the many variables associated with actual performance,
it would take significantly more data to show the effect of overflow rate on
effluent quality.
A plot of filter performance at Big Sister Creek is shown in Figure 43.
The filter used at Big Sister Creek consisted of 12 inches (30.5 cm) of high
119
-------
O)
O)
o
01
oo
£ .?
__ CQ
Ui
CO
ro
to
O)
O)
fO
cu
C7)
120
-------
CVJ
OJ
(M
.
CJ
00
-V
-
121
-------
CSl
O)
O)
O)
oo
01
r-
no
I
cu
O
c
fO
CD
O-
S-
01
res
-5
CD
fO
S-
CJ3
Ol
CO
O
to
d
in
d
ro
d
SnyOHdSOHd
122
-------
grade silica with a uniformity coefficient of 1.3 - 1.5 and an effective size
of 0.55 - 0.65 mm. Figure 42 clearly shows that the filter was a polishing
operation at the wastewater plant. Most of the phosphorus going to the
filter is soluble, less than 0.2 mg/L is particulate. The major purpose it
serves now is as a protective measure against solids blowout of the solids
contact units during periods of excessive flow.
Alternatives to Meet a 0.5 mg/L Limit
Based on the results of the jar tests and field data, if a 0.5 mg/L
effluent standard were imposed at Big Sister Creek, it could be met by
treating all the flow, rather than the present 70 percent, at the same
dosages of FeCla and polymer. This would result in an increase in chemical
costs of $5357 per year and in the generation of 50 extra pounds (23 Kg) of
sludge per million gallons treated which would result in an incremental
sludge handling cost of $3959 per year. These costs are based on a flow of
2.58 mgd (9.8xl03 m3/day) for 9 months of the year. It is assumed that no
additional power or labor costs would occur.
FRANK VAN LARE
Introduction
The Frank Van Lare wastewater treatment plant is located in Rochester,
NY. It has an average daily flow of approximately 100 mgd (3.78x105 m3/day).
A description of the Van Lare plant and the field data collected there have
been presented previously (Section 6). A summary of the phosphorus data and
a line schematic drawing of the processes employed are shown in Figure 44.
The Van Lare plant (along with GCO) is operated by the Division of Pure
Waters of Monroe County.
The Van Lare plant was upgraded several years ago from a primary to a
secondary treatment facility. As part of this upgrading, phosphorus removal
was included. The original method of phosphorus removal at Van Lare after
upgrading involved lime addition to the primary settling tanks with pro-
vision for recovery of lime. This method was used only for a brief time at
Van Lare and then abandoned due to excessive sludge production.
Beginning in 1979, phosphorus removal was again practiced at Van Lare
with liquid alum and a polymer being added to a portion of the flow in the
primary sedimentation basins. Due to the industrial input to the wastewater
at Van Lare, the waste is generally nutrient deficient and hence an effluent
concentration approaching 1 mg/L can be produced by means of conventional
secondary treatment. In order to meet a level of 1 mg/L the operators began
treating increasing increments of the raw wastewater in the primary tanks,
until the present portion which is 20 percent of the flow was found to be
sufficient.
Thus, at present 20 percent of the incoming flow is treated in one of
the primary settling basins on the east side (referred to in Figure 44 as
the Chemical Side) of the plant and then mixed with the other 80 percent of
the flow after secondary settling. In other words, the 20 percent treated
123
-------
o>
E
b
6
4
2
0
FRANK VAN LARE
JULY 16- 27, 1979
TP
<>
TPP
11 TP
1 ITPP
M
I
CHEMICAL SIDE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
,
Img/L
0.5 mq A.
Raw
Chambe
Alum Polymer
0.2Q I \ Primory
Sed.
.Primary _^eration_
Sed.
CHEMICAL SIDE
Sed.
C\
2IT
8
I
£
BIOLOGICAL SIDE
BIOLOGICAL SIDE
TP
TPP
TP
TPP
Img/L
0.5ma/L
Figure 44. Sunmary of phosphorus data and line schematic - Frank Van Lare
124
-------
with liquid alum and polymer does not undergo biological treatment, in this
case the activated sludge process.
The liquid alum used at Van Lare is a 48 percent alum solution purchased
from Allied Chemical. During the sampling period, a dosage of 85 mg/L was
used which is equivalent to 3.2 mg/L of Al+3. The polymer used was
Carborundum WT 3000, which was used at a dosage of 0.4 mg/L.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total operation and maintenance costs for Van Lare are presented in
Table 35. Note that two periods are shown one corresponding to a time
when phosphorus removal was not being practiced and one when phosphorus
removal was practiced. Each of these is based on five months of actual plant
records extrapolated to a one year period. These costs are reported in
dollars of their respective periods and are therefore not indexed. Based on
the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CIP-U) (Department of Labor,
1979), the rate of increase was 11.8.percent fo'n August"1978 to August 1979
(unadjusted) for all items in the CPI expenditure category. This can be used
as an approximate means to account for inflation in comparing the two periods.
The extremely high power costs listed in Table 35 are mostly due to sludge
incineration which is supplemented with oil.
Table 36 presents a summary of operation and maintenance costs associ-
ated with phosphorus removal at Van Lare. Labor costs associated with
phosphorus removal are not very significant. As is the case at the GCO plant
when phosphorus removal was started, no additional personnel were hired. It
is estimated that only two man-hours per week are allocated to phosphorus
removal. Specifically, using a rate of $7.00 per hour (from plant records)
only $728 per year is spent.
The power costs directly associated with phosphorus removal are also
insignificant. They were computed by converting electrical requirements for
pumping the alum and polymer to the primary sedimentation, basins. Both are
pumped by 1/2 HP (373 watts) motors and it is assumed that both are operated
continuously. An average rate of $0.029 per killowatt hour was used, which
was obtained from actual plant records. Although both Van Lare and GCO are
in the same area (Rochester), Van Lare being a larger consumer of electricity
is charged a lower rate by the power company.
Finally, chemical costs were derived from actual costs incurred for -
liquid alum and the polymer over the five months period extrapolated to one
year. The total includes $233,141 for alum and $27,532 for polymer. As was
the case with GCO, the chemical costs are the most significant item in terms
of phosphorus removal costs.
Table 37 shows cost associated with the additional sludge generated from
phosphorus removal. The alum and polymer quantities are based on actual .
dosages used during the field study. The sludge associated with phosphorus
removal was calculated based on the stbichiometric relationship of Al+3 to
soluble phosphorus (Vesilind, 1979). It also includes the addition of
suspended solids removed in primary sedimentation due to alum. The total
125
-------
TABLE 35. VAN LARE - TOTAL PLANT O&M COSTS
Before Phosphorus Removal After Phosphorus Removal
(Feb-June 1978) (Feb-June 1979)
$/Year
Labor 613,113
Power 2,090,599
Chemical 334,035
Miscellaneous 68,737
Total O&M 3,106,484
$/1000 Gallons1 $/Year
0.021 756,226
0.071 2,934,250
0.011 819,655
0.002 7,560
0.105 4,517,691
$/1000 Gallons
0.020
0.079
0.022,
0.002
0.123
TABLE 36. ASSOCIATED
O&M COSTS FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
- VAN LARE
Labor
Power
Chemical
Total
$/Year
728
190
260,674
261,592
$/100.0 Gallons
0.0001
0:0001
0.007
0.007
TABLE 37.
VAN LARE SLUDGE PRODUCTION AND
CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR P REMOVAL
(BASE PERIOD: SUMMER, 1979)
2
Chemicals - Polymer
Alum lbs/106 gals
141.7 0.684
P Sludge2 Total Sludge
Ibs/I06gals lbs/106 gals
252 1529
P Sludge Cost
$/1000 Gallons
0,004
1/I/I000 gallons is equivalent "to $/3.785 m3
2lbs/106 gallons is equivalent to 0.12 g/m3
126
-------
quantity of sludge produced is from plant records for the sampling.period.
The costs associated with phosphorus sludge processing is based on a unit
cost of $158 per ton of dry solids, taken from plant records during the
sampling period. Again this unit cost would be on the liberal side as the
alum sludge would be more difficult to process than the mixture of primary
and secondary and alum sludge on which the $158 figure is based.
Analysis of Performance
The Van Lare wastewater treatment plant which discharges directly into
Lake Ontario has an effluent standard of 1.0 mg/L. The wastewater which
enters the plant is generally low in total phosphorus averaging 3.8 mg/L
during the field sampling. This is mainly due to the phosphorus ban on
detergents in New York State and a large industrial input which is low in
phosphorus. Becuase of this, a low effluent phosphorus level can be achieved
through conventional primary sedimentation and the activated sludge process,-
without the addition of chemicals.
The data indicate that through the biological side of the plant, the
average effluent phosphorus concentration was 1.5 mg/L. The alum primary
effluent had a phosphorus concentration of 1.3 mg/L. This would result in a
plant effluent of 1.5 mg/L total phosphorus, which .clearly would not be
acceptable. It should be pointed out, however, that these data were col-
lected for a two week period (rather than a one month average) and that
during the sampling period several of the biological side, primary and one of
the secondary sedimentation basins were not in operation. The alum effluent
had a particulate phosphorus concentration of 1.1 mg/L and the biological
effluent had a particulate concentration of 1.1 mg/L which would result in
a plant particulate phosphorus concentration of 1.1. Therefore, most of the
plant phosphorus effluent was particulate, and the fact that the clarifiers
were!overloaded might be somewhat responsible.
The biological effluent consisted of 30 mg/L 8005 and 53 mg/L SS while
the alum effluent consisted of 151 mg/L BODs and 53 mg/L SS. Thus, the
plant effluent, which would be 54 mg/L BODs and 53 mg/L SS would also not
meet the secondary treatment standards, based on the two weeks of field data.
A plot of phosphorus concentrations versus overflow rates for the
primary sedimentation basin in which the alum and polymer were added is
shown in Figure 45. The basin had a design of 1000 gallons per day per
square foot (40.7 m3/nr/day). The points on the far right occurred during
a storm. No distinct trends can be identified by the data.
Alum was added to the primary tank at a concentration of 3.7 mg/L Al+3.
The soluble phosphorus concentration in the influent was 1.1 mg/L and the
total phosphorus was 3.8 mg/L. As summarized in Table 26 the resulting
A1:P molar ratios on a soluble P and total P basis are 3.8 and 1.2, re-
spectively. Jar tests conducted on the raw wastewater are shown in Figure
46 (unadjusted pH) and Figure 47 (pH adjusted to 6). Note that the data for
an alum dosage of zero are for controls and do not match the initial data as
settling had occurred in the jar test beakers. Also for Figure 47, alum was
added to the samples and then the pH was adjusted to 6.0. The jar test
127
-------
O
-o
0)
(O
S-
Q.
1-
O
£=
0)
o
c a>
o s-
U (O
3 C
S- n3
O >
CO £=
O eO
J= 5-
D- U_
O)
CD
sndOHdsoHd nvioi
128
-------
CD1
i-
(O
fO
10
<=!-
or
s-
C7>
snaoHdsoHd nvnaiS3diNvivNy3dns
129
-------
O)
to
c.
to
d>
re)
3C
Q.
CO
o>
S-
O)
fB
-3
O)
3
Dl
SndOHdSOHd
!NVlVNd3dnS
130
-------
results confirm the plant performance data for P removal, indicating that
the alum dosage being used is not effective in reducing the total P below
1 mg/L. This is because the alum is being added to raw wastewater; conse-
quently, alum is being used to coagulate the solids of the raw wastewater as
well as for P removal. No jar test experiments were performed using the
polymer employed at the Van Lare plant. However, comparison of plant phos-
phorus data with jar test results indicate that a considerable fraction of
the remaining phosphorus after treatment is particulate. This particulate
P might be removed by increasing the alum dosage, lowering the pH, and/or
optimizing the polymer dosage.
Alternatives to Meet a 0.5 mg/L Limit
Suggesting a feasible alternative approach for the Van Lare plant to
meet a 0.5 mg/L effluent standard would be very difficult on the meager
information available in this study. Because of the complex and unusual
treatment approach currently being used and because of the final settling
problems observed during the monitoring period, any phosphorus removal
alternative suggestion would be highly speculative. Furthermore, any new
approach would probably require significant alteration of the current
operation and, quite likely, require additional capital expenditure.
It might be possible for the Van Lare plant to practice phosphorus
removal in the same manner as the GCO plant. This approach would require
biological treatment of the entire flow, with phosphorus removal being
achieved by addition of liquid alum to the mixed liquor effluent from the
aeration basins. The field data (Section 6) indicated an average value of
0.3 mg/L soluble phosphorus in the effluent from the biological side of the
plant. Therefore, an alum dosage of 16 mg/L would be necessary for an Al:P
molar ratio of 2:1. A polymer addition to the final clarifiers at a dosage
of approximately 0.5 mg/L might also be necessary to ensure effective solids
removal. Assuming costs of $0.056 per pound ($0.12/Kg) for alum and $1.32
per pound ($2.90/Kg) for polymer, the chemical costs would be $0.013/1000
gallons of $435,159 per year, based on an average daily flow of 102 mgd
(3.86x105 m3/day).
Based on the stoichiometric relationship between Al+3 and phosphorus,
33 Ibs of aluminum phosphate sludge would be generated from phosphorus
removal resulting in a cost of $0.003/1000 gallons treated for $96,592 per
year (based on a unit cost of $158.22 per ton of dry solids process).
The capital expenses for adding the above phosphorus removal approach
to secondary treatment at Van Lare are impossible to estimate at this time.
Based on the field data it would appear that the final settling facilities
at the plant are already overloaded. Any costs for upgrading the secondary
sedimentation facilities could not be totally attributed to phosphorus
removal. In order to assess the true investment necessary at the Van Lare
plant to meet a 0.5 mg/L effluent phosphorus standard, a major study would
have to be made to determine all the ramifications - such as available
land, effect on pumping, sludge processing, etc. - which might result.
131
-------
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
APHA, Standard Methods. 1975.
Association, Washington, D.C.
14th Edition, American Public Health
Armstrong, D.E., M.A. Anderson, J.R. Perry, and D. Flatness,. 1977.
Availability of Pollutants Associated with Access to the Great Lakes.
Unpublished, EPA Progress Report. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Armstrong, D.E., R.F. Harris, and J.K. Syers. 1971. Plant available
phosphorus status of lakes. Final Report. Water Resources Center,
University of Wisconsin, Madison. 25 pp.
Chamberlain, W. and J. Shapiro. 1969. On the Biological Significance
of Phosphate Analysis; Comparison of Standard and New Methods with a
Bioassay. Limnol. Oceanogr., 14, 921-927.
Cowen, W.F. and G.F. Lee. 1976. Phosphorus Availability in Particulate
Materials Transported by Urban Runoff. Jour. Water Pollution Control
Fed., 48(3), 580-91.
6. DePinto, J.V. 1978a. Phosphorus Availability of Aquatic Sediment
Material: A Review. Environmental Engineering Technical Report.
Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, N.Y. 24 pp.
7. DePinto, J.V. 1978b. Annual Progress Report of EPA Grant No. R-804937.
November 1, 1976 - October 31, 1977.
8. Dorich, R.A. and D.W. Nelson. 1978. Algal Availability of Soluble
and Sediment Phosphorus in Drainage Waterof the Black Creek Watershed.
Unpublished report from Purdue Univ. Agricultural Experiment Station.
20 pp.
9. Fitzgerald, G.P. 1970. Aerobic Lake Muds for the Removal of
Phosphorus from Lake Waters. Limnol. Oceanogr., 15, 550-55.
10. Goltermann, H.L., C.C. Bakels and J. Jakobs-Mogelin. 1969.
Availability of Mud Phosphates for the Growth of Algal. Verh. Internat.
Vevin. Limnol., 17, 467-479.
11. Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1979. Personal Communication.
12. Gregor, D.J. and M.G. Johnson. 1979. Nonpoint Source Phosphorus
Inputs to the Great Lakes. Presented at the llth Annual Cornell
University Waste Management Conference. Rochester, NY.
132
-------
13. IJC. 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.
14. IJC. 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality, 1977, Appendix C. Remedial
Programs Subcommittee International Joint Commissions. Great Lakes
Water Quality Board, 6th Annual Report.
15. IJC. 1979. Inventory of Major Municipal and Industrial Point Source
Dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Water Quality Board
-Remedial Programs Subcommittee.
16. Logan, T.O., F.H. Verhoff, and J.V. DePinto. 1979. Biological
Availability of Total Phosphorus. Technical Report Series. Lake Erie
Wastewater Management Study. U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo,
N.Y. 62 pp.
17. McKosky, P.M. 1978. Laboratory Study of the Kinetics of Phytoplankton
Decomposition and Subsequent Phosphorus Regeneration. M.S. Thesis.
Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, N.Y. 99 pp.
18. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1979.
Descriptive Data of Sewage Treatment Plants in New York State.
19.. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1977. Water and Wastewater
Treatment Works in Ontario.
20. Peters, R.H. 1977. Availability of Atmospheric Orthophosphate.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 34, 918-924.
21. Sagher, A., R.F. Harris, and D.E. Armstrong. 1975. Availability of
sediment phosphrous to microorganisms. Technical Report WISWRC-75-01.
Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
22. Sagher, A. 1976. Availability of soil runoff phosphorus to algae.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 176 p.
23. Scheiner, D. 1976. Determination of Ammonia and Kjeldahl Nitrogen
by Indophenol Method. Water Research 10:37.
24. USEPA. 1976. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
U.S.E.P.A. Office of Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, Ohio.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Construction Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1977. EPA 430/9-77-013,
MCD-37.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Energy Consumption of
Advanced Wastewater Treatment at Ely, Minnesota. EPA600/6-78-001.
v
27. U.S. Department of Labor. 1979. CPI Detailed Report, August.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
133
-------
28. Vallentyne, J.R. and N.A. Thomas. 1978. Point tributary, diffuse
tributary, runoff. Fifth Year Review of Canada-United States Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement Report of Task Group III.
29. Vesilind, P.A. 1979. Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater Sludges.
2nd Edition, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.
30. Weston Environmental Consultants-Designers. 1977. Wastewater
Treatment Processes and Systems, Performance and Cost.
31. Wildung, R.E., R.L. Schmidt, and R.C. Routson. 1977. Phosphorus
status of eutrophic lake sediments as related to changes in
limnological conditions - phosphorus mineral components. Jour. Env.
Qua!. 6(1):100-104.
32. Williams, J.D.H., J.K. Syers, S.S. Shukla, R.F. Harris, and D.E.
Armstrong. 1971. Levels of inorganic and total phosphorus in lake
sediments as related to other sediment parameters. Envir. Sci.
Techno!. 5:113-1120.
134
-------
r-.i UfSP
Clarkson
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY WORK'SHEET
Dear Sir:
At the present time, our Environmental Engineering .group is working
in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency on a
project entitled, "Analysis of Phosphorus Removal in Great, Lakes Basin
Municipal Treatment Plants". This project involves an analysis of the
costs and benefits pertaining to the establishment of regulations regarding
the removal of phosphorus from municipal wastewater in the Great Lakes
Basin in order to generate useful information for deciding upon final
effluent regulations.
As part of this prqject, a survey is being conducted of municipal
treatment plants larger than one MGD in the lower Great Lakes Basin in
order to evaluate their treatment approach and plant operation; and to
.document their.costs. Your answers to the enclosed questionnaire and any
further information you could supply would help us greatly in regard to our
survey.
We greatly appreciate your attention to this questionnaire, and please
call me (315-268-6515) if you have any questions concerning this question-
naire or our project. ' , ,
Sincerely,
Michael Switzenbaum
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil.. and
Environmental Engineering
Enclosures
CLARKSON COLLEGE, POTSDAM, NEW YORK, 13676
135
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is the location of your..wastewater/treatment plant? 'Please give
complete mailing address, name of plant and stream receiving discharge.
2. What type of plant is it? (Examples: conventional activated sludge,
extended aeration,'contact stabilization, trickling filter, primary
treatment, etc.)
3. What is the average daily flow and design flow at your plant?
4. What method of phosphorus removal is being practiced at your plant?
Please be specific as to type of chemical used and point at which
chemical is applied and any additional unit processes used in
conjunction with phosphorus removal. (Example: Alum added to effluent
from trickling filter between filter and secondary clarifier followed
by filtration.
5. What are the average concentrations of phosphorus (both soluble and
particulate) in the influent and. effluent of your plant? What is the
frequency of analysis (daily, weekly, etc.) and what is ;the sampling
basis (grab, or composite)?
6. If the removal of phosphorus involves the use of chemicals, please
indicate quantities used (indicate dosage).
7. Additional information.
PLEASE RETURN IN SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED
ENVELOPE BY JULY 15, 1979.
136
-------
-APPENDIX A (continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WORK SHEET
Plant Reference Numer ________ Source of Information
1. Treatment plant name and address
2. Location
a) Lake Basin:
b) Regulatory region:
c) County:
d) City:
e) Discharge site:
3. Type of plant
4. Phosphorus treatment approach
a) Chemical(s) used:
b) How much:
c) Where in process:
5. Flow data
a) Average daily flow
b) Design flow
6. Influent and Effluent quality
a) Influent: Total P
b) Effluent: Total P
c) Basis:
Soluble P
Soluble P
7. Annual phosphorus load (metric tons/year)
137
-------
APPENDIX B
WASTEWATER PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
HASTEWATER PLANT PERFORMANCE. MONTHLY AVERAGES, 1979*
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Monthly
Average
Influent
Flow
(M6D)
Gates-Chili -Ogden
January 14.1
February
March
Apri 1
Frank Van
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
Big Sister
January
February
March
April
May
June
Ely
January
February
March
April
May
June
12.
16.
15.
Lare
92.
124.
117.
93.
88.
5
5
5
1
9
2
1
0
BOD
(mg02/L)
108
112
80
89
148.0
134.5
144.9
195.9
187.1
SS
(mg/L)
133
120
89
91
114.8
109.1
108.7
133.7
134.5
TP
(rug P/L)
4.7
4.6
3.9
3.6
2.64
3.01
2.13
2.94
2.86
Effluent
BOD
(mg02/L)
7
6
10
5
24.
32.
33.
33.
27.
9
0
2
1
4
SS
. (mg/L)
13
13
13
10
22.
42.
26.
30.
25.
1
1
7
7
5
TP
(mg P/L)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
80
70
96
90
98
99
75
04
82
Creek
5.
14
4.13
5.
5.
2.
2.
0.
77
10
89
54
71
0.76
0.
1.
1.
0.
80
31
00
98
102
91
88
61
130
199
107
146
123
87
80
58
99
91
88
70
181
271
113
159
147
121
115
69
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.0
4.9
6.4
NA .
NA .
NA
NA
NA
NA "
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
4.
5.
7.
12.
9.
.11.
5
5
5
8
8
4
1
9
4
8
6
1
2.
2.
4.
2.
2.
4.
2.
3.
6.
11.
4.
4.
3
9
6
4
8
1
4
3
0
1
1
8
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7
0
7
7
7
8
395 '
337
305
321
180
122
* From plant records
138
-------
o
X
HH
z.
LU
Q,
<^
oo
LU
I)
Q
^
1
OO
CD
i i
D:
o
i i
o
s:
Q
i
LU
1 1
1 i
SI
o
U_
=C
|Z£
Q
1
LU
i
i
LU
I
LU
h-
oo
3 -X
i~*t ^^
LU eC
O CL.
t i Z.
Z. i i
O 1C
\ 1
>- 3
1
LU z:
> o
1 H t H
OO h-
z: =3;
1 O
Z. 1
t 1
Q
s: z:
Ll_ 1
rv e^
LU I
1 CL.
~^S ^^"
LU CQ
OO >
=C oo
3 1
LucC
O _l
Cu
CO r
LU Z.
OO ' LLJ
1 i
,-sC U-
z, z.
LJL. 3
O >
00 h-
g
0
t*- -
0 -!->
o
CD O
^ ^
H- 0
O
CO
re
Q
r-- CM LO o
vo r~- CM VD
CO CO CO CO
CM CM
l-~ 1
O 0
V V
r en
LO CO
LO CO
i CM
LO CO
CM CM
LO UO
en. en
i f
o ID en LO
r. ID en en
oo oo CM oo
CM ^ oo r »
co si- r-.
cn o * co
OO LO OO !£>
CM i OO CM
^D O VD O
LO LO «* "~t
CM CM CM OO
en en «D CM
oo o o r-.
i i CM i
r-- r-. «~i- oo
LO i LO CM
r r CM CM
CO CM CO CM
i CO O O
«~t- oo m us
^D co en *~}~
r i O i
CM CM CM CM
CM CO LO CO
!*** I"*""1" r*^1* r**^
CD O O
s s: s: s:
5 CL. CL. Q.
O O O LO
O O CO i
en en LO LO
CO CO «~J~ LO
* ~, " ~ . " . "- .
r-.r-.r-.r-.
O 0 i 0
LO r~ r~~ ^*
oo oo CM oo
0
LO
o
CM
CO
CO
VD CM
en ID
CM r
o
r-
en CM co CM
VD CM r-~ O
i}- «* CM **
r cn-co co
CO LO CM ID
r~~ r-~ rr r"^
00 O «~f CM
O CO i
CO CO CM CM
OO O CO CO
i LO VD *~J*
-d" co *~t* *~i"
CM ID CM LO
f~i r- en ^*
CM i O i
VD * CO CM
ID CO CD r
CM CM r CM
i en CM LO
o r~- t-~ VD
r-. LO LO vo
r-, o o 10
O r- i r
CM CM CM CM
r-. co co oo
r-.r-~r-.r-~
o o o o
s: s: s: s:
<; CL. ~a; o.
LO O LO LO
i CO i i
r- CO CO ~d-
1
LO vo VD r ~ r~~
* . " ~~ *-~ ~ *--~ ~
r-.r~~t-~r-.i-~.
cn en ir> i
VD CO VO CO
CM OO CM CO
CM CM LO
r~~ r~~ r~~
O O 0
V V
vo en LO
CO CM <*
LO CM i
i r~~
r-^ CO
CM CM
>~1- CO CM CM
CM -J- CM CO
CO -i- CO LO
r CM CO LO
o CM i en
i CM i CM
VD CO CO O
o vo i o
CM CM CM OO
O CM VO VD
O O <~1- «*
* ^U:"*
«* O * CM
VO CD OO O
i CM i CO
CM VO O VO
r-r-~.r-~.vD
CM CM r CO
co en LO -~j-
o o oo vo
r-. r~i co co
r O CO r
r CM I r
CM CM CM CM
CO CO CO t-~
r~~ r~~ r~- r-~
0000
s: s: s: s:
<=C CL. CL. CL.
CD LO O O
0 r 0 0
r-~ VO CO O
. i
\ ^ 0 r
CO CXi
-------
o
en 10
i OO CM CM
CO
CT>
oo r-. r^ i CM oo
i
OO
CM CO i 00 i i CO
r CM
** t
O O
O i
t-~ CM
CM
CM
CM
i i r CM
o o o
CO CM
co i
CM r^
CM CM
00
OO i
oo <*
co
CM
co
1-^.
CTi
co
co
o i
CTl
co in
co co
«* co
CD O
01 in
in in1
LO
o
CO
co
CO
CTi OO OO
O «=J-
CO CO CM
CT>
10 i r-^
CM
en
cr>
CM CM
O CO OO
IQ i
CO '
CM
ca
o
co
co
co
co
co
CO
o o in co
OO ID
CT>
co i cr>
at
cz> o o
o CD CM «=i-
ID in co i
O CD O O
OOLO«*O * r O O
in
vo
CM en en r--
. o CM o
o o o o
in
CM
o o o o
CM in CM co
> en CM CM
CM
CO
CO Or- Or r r ^ r CO CM
O O O O
r-~. o en «3-
co CM -vi-1
o o o o
O CM O
r r CM
res
i CO CO CM
«3 «* CO O
- LO v
O O
CM CM CM
LO r-^ t
r->. LO -
- CM
oooo
IQ iO CO CM
co o
co
r i O O
CO i i IO
CM CM CM OV
CM CM CM LO
co co co
O O O CD
oo CM CM cr>
^J- LO LO LO
r i i O
CM
CM
co «=i-
CM co LO
oooo
CT> r CO CM
<& LO co co
OOOO O O O i
LO CO CO *d-
i O i-1- CM
oo -
cr>
eu
O) -K
m jg
Q. >
00 t
o o o o
c_) o
o
oooo
o
O 1
O
O) Ol
o
O)
re
<=C Q- D-
O CD CD
O O O
cr> co o
CO
CU
o
o
at
re
Q- 0_ D-
O CD LO
O CO r
cn LO LO
LO O LO LO
co i
CO 00
CD LO O O
r O i O O
r-. to oo o
o i
140
-------
u-
UJ
ra
u_
2:
* i i
-a
CU 3
**^ ' ^^
c: rv
4J
O LJLJ
o a:
- "SC
1
0
X
5
x/C
h-
a
CD
CD
Q
O
O
"oo
D_
oo
D.
D-
m
(O
z.
Q-
L_
Q_
t
_i*l
r
e-f
Q.
CU *
r- *
Q. OJ
E Q-
(O >*>
00 P
E
O
M- -r-
0 -!->
O
O) Ln-vi-c\jr~»r-.ooi
t^I~~r~-OOr~.lOr~.CMCOr-r ;
CM CM CM CM
i r r 1 1 1 r
O O O O
*
V V V
r Or <£)
CO CO CD .CM
LO CM >* 'CM
oo ! criooiocri'^j-
CMCMr i CMCMCMr r i
voi£5cr>CMLor--.cocMcor^
i roLnr^-ooun^t-i «5i-n
^t-Lnooror--.'**d-oo«3-oo
Or- cocMOi cocMr-~o
ooco-=d-oor-~vDr~-r~.cMr^
to o cr>cMr-^cnvor~-.>=j-r
Or Or i OOOOO
ouni <=i-ocMcncDi£)«^-
i r r-r CMr CDr-OCD
r-»r vfcMr LnvoLo«*co
i CMi i COi i i CXI.
CTl^LOCTlr lOCOCTlCMO
«=j-oooooa->^i-CM^i-r co
CO >* m CO IQ CO CO CO «* CM
CM >=d- un tn i co co LO 10
=d-tO«DLnt^.CM COCO-=3-
CO'Sl'COCOCOVOCMCOVOCM
r^r^r~-r-~r~.ior~-i~-.t-~.r^.
OC_>OC_5OC_)OCJ>CJ)O
CDCDCDCDOCDOCDCDCD
OOOOOOOOOO
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
I^.COCriOr-CMCO"*LO«D
r r r CMCMCMCMCMCMCM
t^-i^.f^i~^i ^r^r~i~^i~^r^
H-
^r
LU
rD
_J
Li
Uu
LU
s:
rD
<
LU
cc
,
oo h-
c:
4- O
O -r-
4->
CO O
E OJ
Q
0
-l->
to
cn
r f^ CM CM
CO ^- r i
000 0
'
y y
CM ai ai co
CM LO CO CM
CO CO CO -=d-
i o CD in oo
CM LO LO «3- CM
r^-cr>r~»cococotbr^crico
LocoLoior^-CMcn^coo
CMCOLOvoi r-»vocoiocr>
cMi-co^-Loior^r^voLO
OCOCMCM>v|-OOCOCMi
CDOOOi OOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
coi^.r~.co"vi-^-coLoooco
Or r i r OOr OO
OOOOOOCDOOO
uoLor~-r cor^-otococo
cnijDiocoocOLOLOcnco
OOOOl Or- r OO
ocricocrir-^^OLncoovo
cr> LO r-x r^ i cr> LO r- CM en
OOOOi Oi i i CD
, " '
coa-icococot-~.io«*r «*
r i^.cr)cM'*i coo-vj-o
i O O- 1 i i i CMi i
co to co CM co
i^^i CMI^-OICO r^r~-i£>
cTicocriOi o laicrioi
^CnCOCTiOOi CD«*CTi
r~-voiQior^r^r--i 1-^.1x3
cjcjcjocjocjcjoo
s:ss:s:^ss:s:s:s:
eCeCcCeEeCeC'SCeCeCeC
CDCDCDOCDOCDCDOO
OOOC3OOCDCDOO
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
r-~. co cr> o r- CM co vi- LO IJD
i !-! i CMCMCMCM.CMCMCM
i^-i^-r r~-r~«i^.r~~r^.r^i^.
141
-------
=>
u_
u_
UJ
_I
C (continued)
« LARE: BIOLOGK
X «=C
a
LU z:
a. <
Q- c2
>
CO r-
c
«*-£
O -M
o
cu cu
( o
o
cu
rd
Q
CM «* CM LO
r i CM CO
0 O O O
V
00 O CO CM
^* co ^f* i r^
*3" CM *^t" ^j~
LO
O r^ i LO to
«3- LO CM CM r-~
CO CO -5t LO tO i CT> LO CM O
CO «^* *xt" *^f" r r tO CM r
O r LO O1 CM CM
*sj" LO CO LO CM **J OO ^"^ i i_o
r i r r
LOOLOCDOOLOO LO
LO to r~» r^ CM i CM co r co
r
LO -stf- «d- CM o i Locnoco
COCMCOCOCMOOOr O
oooooooooo
oocMcMococnoocotocri
oooooooooo
CO f * *xl" *sj' *5|" OO OO *sj" c^^j tD
CDr i r OOOOCMO
t OOLOCMLOr-~COr-.OOr
r rr i OOOOCMO
Sr^c^"P:5§SoS
i i CMCMOOOOCOO
to
CO CO O^ OO t***» OO I"""* CO CO
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
r r r CMCMCMCMCMCMCM
1
LU
1
U-
l i
cc.
LU
LU
o:
o;
h-
co
i i
co
CD
i i
CO
o
u_
Ll_
CU
U_
X
o
o
o
CQ
O
o
Q-
co
t/5
I
D.
1
CO
D-
1
Q_
r
r**^ to LO CTI to co co
CMLOCMLOCMI-^ COCTl CDlOCJtO CT>
r*~ CT» CFl r CO CT) C3S r*~ CT> CT> CO r CO
CM CM CM LO
i i i CM
, *
tO r r-» CD
vi- =!- LO ID
CM CM LO CD
LO CM tO CO
r
O
O 1 1 1 II
O
CO r CO CO tO CTl
: «
CM r r CM r~» "^l"
CM *CM COCOCMO, CM
cOLocnOLoo i to "d-coi o LO
CMLOCMOir-."* LOt-^ CO O1 r t-~ CM
=! «^-sJ-OOCM Oil t"-.r--LOO LO
COr^OCDCOCM CTvtO t"--LOLOCM CT>
CM CM CM CM i r CMr CO CM t CM r
OO * LO ^ r CO O1LO CM CO r OO CM
CMCOCOCOCOCO r-~CM tOCMiCDCO CTl
i COLOI--CO'^- CMCM CM«d-CMt£> r
cocMCMtOLoto cno CD co i co co
^LOLOCMtor-. O1* c:oi co CM
CMCOtOtOCOLO COCM CM«vl-i r CM
c i t i i f^ **J t i ^o ^J ^li" O^' O^ c i t i
Lor-»ocy>Loco Lo«^h tor-^cor «^
r r
«^t~ sd* CT» co r*^ LO cr> co CM o LO CT^ co
r LO LO CM O LO CMCM LOI--OCM r
CMCMCMCMCMCM CMCM CMCMCMCM CM
LOLOi COCOCO CO«^f *d-^l-CO -sd-
OOCJOOCO OO CJOCJO O
S:S:S:SLS:S: sis: :J=:S:S:E: s:
CDCSOr LOO OO CDLOC3O O
O O CO LO r CO COO CO r O O CD
OOi LO^-CO1* CMCO CMtOCOCM P~-
O O r 1 1 1
cococoi cMCMCMcoLOLot.oior^r<.oocn
r^r^r^cooocooococococo'oocococooo
142
-------
1
z:
UJ
_i
u_
u_
UJ.
fV
2:
o
""" CJ
-O UJ
cu co
3 -
{=
r-
fJ ^^
E UJ
0 UJ
o o;
- ^ f
o oi
i .
1_L.
x 1
i i co
O i i
z: . co
UJ
0. O
D- i i
=£ . CQ
2
0
LZ
«"
4J
1
LL.
X
o
*~
*r^
"~
Q
O
CQ
O
O
CO
CO
. Q_
oi
co
Q_
CO
1
0-
^*r
Q_
h-
D-
v>*
r-
-J-
Q.
CD "V-
i .j<
O. CU
E Q.
(0 >>
CO t
c.
0
O 4J
o
CU
E r
H- "o
0
CO
'4->
(O
' . - '
CM CM CM CM
V V V V
r-- 0*1 co r .
tO CM CO LO
CM CM LO =*
LO f^ G.Q i ^^ i^J
to *-!" CT> CM "CJ" to
r- i r-
CTl tO «* tO LO CO
o co co co . r- en
i CD CD O O O
CO
* CO
CM r CM CM CM r-- -51-1 COCOCOCO i-^
LO ^ LO LO LO CO LO *Sl" CO LO CM ^" "^*
r r^ en r-- to co tor^- r-- ^- CM t-- CM
r v r-> r o r . r* co r* r » LO r CD CTI
r ; r i
OOCDCOLOLO «3-co co i r- CM co
CM CM i i i i r i rCMCMCM r
r CM i^ LO r- 'SJ" CM LO P^ CO CTv CM r-
CM v"? >-*l Ol wi ^ CM LtJ J CM QJ
CM CM CM i i i i CM CMCMCMCM i
OOOOOO OO OOOO O
t '
tO CD CTl CO CD tO f1^ I" LO CM CO LO "^"
r^-CMp-r CMr i CM CM i r r r
CDCDCDOOO OO OOOO O
to CT* co r . LO co CT» co CM LO to CD co
CO -vl- CO 00 r O OCM "d-tOLO'* CO
CM CM CM r CM CM CS1CM CMCMCMCMi
LO i"~ CTl tO tO tO CTl <5tf" CM tO CD ^" CM
O CD CD r CM CM CMCO CMOr r «d-
«*coco-^-^j-r-. to oo =a-Loco«3- co
r--r--r-.r-.i r-. r--co r-.r-^r-.c-« r-.
OOOOOCJ COO COCOOCO CO
s:s:s:s:s:s: ss: sissis: s
CDC3OLOLOO CDCD CDLOOO O
oocoi r-co coo co'er-oo o
COi LO-xf-CO^l" CMCO CMtOCOCM r^
r r r~* i~~
O O r 1 1 1
CO CO CO r-* CM CM CM CO LO LO tO CO f- r CO CTl
- ^ ^ » *- . " « ^ . -- * ^ "-^^ ^ ^ ^ " ^- . ^ . ^ . - ^ *-
r-. r-.r--oococooococoooco/cocococooo
1
1
UJ
_J
u_
1 1
UJ
o:
UJ
1 1
u_
o;
^^
_I
CO
h-
0
=£.
h-
<-5
CO
Q
t 1
.^J
c^
oo
'
"^/^
UJ
UJ
(**£
^_5
Q:
LxJ
1
CO
1 1
co
CJ3
i i
CQ
O
c
X
. o
zz
\-
o
o
CQ
CD
O
CO
. CL.
co
D_
co
1
o_
res
!y
d.
Q.
Q_
,
sx
r
^^
-j-
Q.
CU *
r *
O. CU
E Q-
ta >>
CO 1
c
o
4- !-
0 4->
O
CU CU
E-i
1 f^
\ o
o
CU
fO
Q
LO CTl O i
CM CM CO CM
CD CD CD CD
tO tO CM CD
0 0 i O
CD O CD CD
CO CO CD CD
'
0 O CD CD
cn oo co CM
' ^^^ * '
O O CD O
cn co cn "^
r CM I i
CD CD 0* CD
CM cn co to
CO CO CO CO
O CD O O
CD CO O O
s: s: s: s:
D- «C <=C
-------
o
O
CM
CM
V
,
r-I
I--
OO
CM
o
o
CQ
00
CO
CO
CD
cn
CO
o
cn
=3-
CD
to
CO
CD
CM CM
LO
CO
CD
CM cn en
cn to
i co
LO CM
CMCOCOCMCOCO
Cn LO CM CM CO CM
co r-.
coco
COLO
CO CO CO CM i
CM CM
cn to i
CM
WD CM O CO
i CM CM CM
CO VO CM
cn
CO
CO
CO
tS)
o.
in cr> CM
LO
LO O O «*
I-- LO LO CO
C3C3OOC3C3 OC3 C3OC3C3
<* vo r^ «* i^ co co r cn «
cncT>cooocn cocn cy>i
LO co
o o o i
i o
o o
o o o o
CO LO tO LO tO CO
r O O O O O
o o
o o o o
o o o o o o
o o
0000
CO i
} cn to *^t* co CD
i O O O O O i
LLl
Qi
uu
a »-H
O) I
a.
000000
CO i CD CM CM IO
O O CD i r Cn
CO O CM to VD LO
O CT1 CD CT1 O O
O O r-
to co
COVO
a> *
r *
C-5CJCJOOO
i t
OO
CO O O O
CD O CD O O O
=* ^- to to co r--
cn o cn t--. to co
o o o o
to
(O
D- D_ O. D. D_
OOOLOLOO OC3
O O CO i r CO
CO O
O LO CD O
CO
O O
03 i
LO«3-CO'=d' CMCO CMIOCOCM
O O r
CO CO CO
I I I
cMCMCMcoLOLototof-.r-.cocn
r-.r-.r>-cocococococococooococococo
144
-------
'
, s
o
cu
c: i
i~ ^**
)-> UJ
c ro
o i
0 U-
i i
o
p^»
I* D£
Q
^"T,
LU
D- >-
Q- _l
5
CO t
C"
0
M- -r-
0 4->
O
CU CU
i- ^
1 O
O
CU
(C
O
LO OO I*""** i ' ' t"**** O"^ CO ^-O O^ LO IQ LQ
CO ^O OO OO OO LO iQ kO ^3 LO P"*^ CNj
i OJ OJCMCMCMi i CMCMi CM
CO 00 "3" CM CD
o i r^* i i
CM O r O O
V
CD ' CO CO o oj LO
r ! i CO r
; co CD
cr> CD
OJ
*^i- i co en co i co co co i~-. co
COLO '=d-LOOJ^-LOi OJCO<^-«=t
i CO CMOJCOCOi <=l-OJCOi CM
COCD CDr LOCOCOCMCOCM-^CO
COCO OCMr LOI~-.r- rOJCOCM
i i ^ i i CM f i - i
r*^ CO CO CO CM !"*-« O r CT> LO CO CTJ
coco r^.r~-cr>CMcocoCT>icocricoocor-.oO'=*-
i OJ i Oi i OOJi OJOi
<^f en -^f co r~- LO W- co o^ o co co
ocn io>i
CM OO O^ ^^ CO *»J f~~* CO CM LO CTl
LOCO r--«*coLocor^.r^-co ii
.
r~-«5j- vt-COCOOCOr^-CDr OCT)
LO ^o co LO r^*1"" *^j~ ^j" o^ t-Q ^^' cvj r*^"*
C\J vj C\J OO OO vj C\J LO OO *^J CNJ C^5
r CD COr-.r CM^-sJ-COCOCMCO
r-wco "=d-cOLor--OJLOcocOi LO
COCM LOCM-sJ-r CO^-r I~-OJCT>
OD co r--r^i^coi^t^.r^cor^t<.
CJO OCJOOOOC-JOCJO
^- ^- ^- ^- y y* y y gr* ^" ^r* y*
^C ^ ^f ^f o .^ c^ ef ^f f^ ej" d"
OO OOOOOOOOOO
OCO COOCOOOOOOOO
CO"v|- CMOJCOCDCOCOOJCDCTlOJ
1 1
CT^ CTi O"l CTi CT> O"^ CTi O"* O^ CT^ O^ CTt O*> O^
h-
LiJ
li
1
LJL.
LJ_
LU
^"
rv
^c
f\
2:
o
UJ
CO
1
UJ
o
1 t
^
.
I %
cc
X
o
v,/:
1
^^
o
CO
Q
o'
o
co
CO
D_
CO
Q-
1
D_.
1
(0
z.
. CL..
Or °
1 _,__,
\^
Q
^^
~1~
a.
j
CO H?
, C
o
O -M
0
CU CU
^ £^
1 O
o
CU
' 1 ^
(O
CD OJ -vl- CO
OJ CM "=J- "=!
O O 0 O
i CM en r^-
co en o i
OO CO CO CO
0 ^ 0 '
cr> co °°
en CM f
. *
0 r- .
ID o en en
^ =d- "* *
i r r r
en CM
CM 1^-
CO CO
cn oj en «=d" ^ CD o LO
LO CM i co LO co cn o
Cnr i r ' i l^~r
CnCM CDCOCOLOOJCO
CO CD LO LO LO CO *xi" «^t"
i ! O OO i O i
oo oooooo
i i ; o O O O O O
OJCO CMCMLOCOCMLO
oo oooooo
oo oooooo
,£, , O CO CO «d- OJ CD
COCO r r -=d-LOOCO
CO LO CO CO CD "=3- CO 1^
cncn co * CD r~- r co
' CM *^j LO r^^ t 3 ^^ t i co
O CD ^J" *^i~ r . CO CM CO
=J-LO cncoLoocoi
"^f *3- CO OO OJ CO CM i
i CO OJ CO <*~> <^ CM CO
I--I-.. i^i^r^r-i--.r^.
C_3O CJ OCJOOO
5EI S! y y y" y y ^*"
frf- C\ ^f i^T *"* 1^ i^C "^
"
oo oooooo
O CO CO O ^ CD O O
OO-vt- CMOJCOCOCOOO
.1 1
cncncncncncn cncncncn
145
-------
o
cu
3
C
r
o
o
* '
(
^^ UJ
CU I
=» u.
c LU
,^_ t f 1
f" UJ
4-*
C >-
o o£
~ I
o o
f T
X UJ
(-H CO
a
UJ
Q- >-
CU _1
eC UJ
£
O
tr~
Lu
(/)
5
4-3
«=C
'X
O
£S£
^^
1
a
o
CO
a
o
C_2
CO
CO
a.
CO
a.
H-
ex
1
o
(0
21
ex
CX
ex
5
-T-
a.
,2$
tai
a.
/) r"~*
C
O
4- -r-
0 4->
O
CU CU
r r
1 0
O
CD
(8
O
O
LO
0
| .
O^
CTl
O
O
LO
o
ID
*-*t"
r
r «e- O i
LO OO «3" i
r r CTl i
CO CO LO CTl
CM O r
1000
O CD 0
J- OO CO
O O O O
O O O O
r*^ **j" ^.o co
t<- CTl r ' CO
*
O O t~-» O
O CO CM O
CM CM r CM
«d" LO CO r
CM LO CO CM
CM CM r CM
«3- <3- CM CO
CM «3- -si- LO
i~- r-~! r--! r--I
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
0 0 O 0
CM ID CTl CM
O i CM CM
OJ CM CM CM
CTl CTl CTl CTl
1
LU
Uu
U.
UJ
Q
UJ
LU
r-
i i
Lz_
^
1
UJ
3£
o
r
U.
u
r
O
U CU
o
cu
4-3
Q
«^-
CO CM t-~- VO "vf-
=} i CO ID ' O
O O O O
V
* CM CTl CO CM
LO r 1^ LO cy>
O r O O O
«* i co r-» co
c^ ^j" r^*» ^^ o^
r r p CM r
CO O CTl CO CM
r CM O CM CO
r i r- i r
CM CM
t ,
ID CO
i r
LOCM r~-Oi . OO<=tf-OOCTltD<=J-
i o cM-3-r-.r^coiooooocritD
r~» to LO CTI r^ r--. LO*LO i to ID LO
r-LO CTiLo^-r^i^-cMr^cor^LO
CMr~- i CTlOOCMCM-id-OOOOlOCM
CMO OOi i i CMCOCMCMl
OO OOOOOOOOOO
OO OOOOOOOOOO
LOCM CMCMCTlCOOOLOLO«d-«d-OO
OO OOOOOOOOOO
OO OOOOOOOOOO
lOr LOr CTlLO'd'r LOr «^fr~~
OO OOOOOOOOOO
oooo coo^^oo^SrSSS?
OO OOOOC3OOOOO
IDCO *! r^.OOCTlLOCMLO(Dr~-
OO OOOOOOOOOO
tD ^D r-^ CO r-" LO "^" CO *^l" CD CD 1^*
r CM COCOCMr OJOCMCMCOCM
CMLO ^-=i-COCOlDCM'^-^t- f-~ i«=l. iG~ «£. ^^ «£.
^^ ** ^^ '^^ *** ft i^^ ^f ^f ft ^^ (^r*
OO OOOOOOOOOO
OCO COOCOOCOOOOOO
CO-* CMCMLQtDOOCOCMlOCTlCM
< r p i
1
*«J sj ' *-J LO LO VD ^^ CO c~*i f~t f~ CM C\j
CTl CTl CTl CTl CTl CTl CTl OVCTl CTl CTl CTl CTl
to
p- ^~- en cu
a E s-
-£= ^, T- CU
, OOO r 3E
r- E Q.
3S LO lO O
CO t/1 v-
r > r 3S
CU
CO tO CU
C E S-
C3 ' CU CJ
4.J O O S-
CX r" f£j
Oj 4-34-3
cj "a to
X O t- M-
GJ T- O CO
j:: cu E co
+> Q. O -r-
r- !-' CO
ji: CO 4->
E . Q-4->
** 'r~~ OJ fO
J i O
-^ Q. X i.
Q. E QJ cu
fO T-
CIO c/) CU 4
O) 4-3 si
ll% c~ frj
en 4-3 o
n (J j ip
QJ c s +->
i o
« JL. i ft5
4-3 13 -O +J .
c: -a o c
CU *r~ O
E= to s- o
CU E CU
r O r*> {/)
a? i T3
CO lO 3 i
as co o o
c- OO
CU E
1 4-3 O CO CU
rt! T- .E
t p E 4-3
rtS c tO
c: -r- E
to . E cu s- o
4-3 CU S-
o to to o
o cu
_l E Q. E to
~~> CU E CU O
CO "> O .^ -E
E -r- O lO 4-3
CO 4-3 .
E n -a -o
r" tO OJ E O
E CU S-
ai 3s " 3s cu cu
>' O ^ £- CL
r-' r fO tO fO
CT U- S_ CU ^-1 S-
COi 3
ai Q. E o
&- II E to <~
rci n: to >
Q.CJ3 to -=d-
tO J^ CM
E -a cu E
Cl E 4-3 to tO
P- to a> T- s-
4-1' Q- tO U_ S-
fti _l >> O CU
S-. ^, 4-3 CX 4-> >
4-1' 00 E tO 0
C! O CU O
CU O i O to E
O to Q- CU CU
E 0 E i 4-> ^
O CO to i T- fO
O' E CO
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-6QO/2-Sn-117
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Phosphorus Removal in Lower Great Lakes Municipal
Treatment Plants
5. REPORT JDATF
August 1980 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7-AUTHOR(S)Joseph V. DePinto, James K. Edzwald, Michael S.
Switzenbaum and Thomas C. Young
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. P
i ADDRESS
EBFORMING ORGANIZATION &LAME AND ADDI
uarkson uoYiege of Technology
.-Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Potsdam, New York 13676
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
PE I35B1C Task C/17
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-806817
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory -Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. T,*P.E O
JIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
E. F. Barth, Project Officer
(513) 684-7641
16. ABSTRACT
This report discusses a survey of phosphorus treatment approaches and
accomplishments for all lower Great Lakes basin plants with flows greater than
1 mgd; field operation monitoring studies to evaluate the performance of four
municipal treatment plants practicing phosphorus removal, including a determination
of the bioavailability of the wastewater phosphorus; and ,an analysis of costs at
each of four plants monitored, including incremental costs to achieve a Oi5 mg/1
standard.
Of the 229 plants in this survey, 52 percent are achieving an effluent total
phosphorus concentration of 1.0 mg/1, while only 8.3 percent (19 plants) are meeting
a 0.5 mg/1 standard. If all plants in the Lake Erie basin not currently achieving
a 1.0 mg/1 standard were to do so, the municipal load would be reduced by 2165 MT/yr.
A standard of 0.5 mg/1 met in the Lake Erie basin would reduce the current load
by 3264 MT/yr. Similar standards achieved in the Lake Ontario basin would reduce
municipal loads by 1450 and 2085 MT/yr., respectively.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Wastewater
Activated sludge process
Chemical removal
Bioavailable phosphorus,
Chemical precipitation,
Phosphorus removal,
Filtration
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SEqURITYjCLASjS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
JnciassTMed
161
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
147
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 657-165/0128
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
3>Q
03
ill
0) rtl
00
!
td
ha
L° 3
' ** to
2 sss-
CT>
o.
N>
00
II II
01 I
5 30
C/)
WOOD
co-< cr.
.
3 al
o
-------