EPA-670/2-75-038
May 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY AND
RESEARCH NEEDS FOR REUSE OF
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
EPA-670/2-75-038
May 1975
DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
NEEDS FOR REUSE OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
By
Curtis J. Schmidt
Ernest V. Clements, III
SCS Engineers
Long Beach, California 90807
Contract No. 68-03-0148
Program Element No. 1BB043
Project Officer
Irwin J. Kugelman
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research. Center — Cincinnati has reviewed this
report and approved its publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWDRP
Man and his environment must be protected from the adverse effects of
pesticides, radiation, noise and other forms of pollution, and the
unwise management of solid waste. Efforts to protect the environment
require a focus that recognizes the interplay between the components of
our physical environment - air, water, and land, The National Environ-
mental Research Centers provide this multidisciplinary focus through
programs engaged in
* studies on the effects of environmental contaminants on man and
the biosphere, and
» a search for ways to prevent contamination and to recycle val-
uable resources.
The ever increasing demands for fresh water combined with a limited
supply has made the renovation and reuse of wastewater an important
component of water resource planning. This study presents the results
of a survey of existing reuse of municipal wastewater in the United
States of America. Reuse categories covered included agricultural
and industrial, recreational and domestic.
A. W. Breidenbach, Ph.D,
Director
National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati
Xll
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Review Notice i
Forevrord i i
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgements x
Sections
I Scope, Objectives, and Approach 1
II Irrigation Reuse 5
III Industrial Reuse 42
IV Recreation Reuse 73
V Domestic Reuse 92
VI Fish Propagation and Farming 103
VII Summary 117
VIII Conclusions 136
IX Recommendations 139
X General Reference Bibliography 141
XI Appendices 168
A Field Investigation Reports 169
B Questionnaire Response Tabulation 280
C Municipalities and Districts Reported 316
to Provide Effluent for Irrigation
but not Tabulated in Appendix B
D Foreign Reuse Sites 320
E Procedure for Calculating Treatment 324
Costs
F Conversions from English to Metric 326
G Sample Blank Questionnaire Used in Survey 328
iv
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Growth of Irrigation Reuse 5
2 Reclaimed Wastewater is Used for Irrigation of
Many Golf Courses 14
3 Reclaimed Wastewater Diverted for Irrigation of
Crops and Golf Courses, Las Vegas, Nevada 24
4 Storage Capacity of Irrigation Water Supply
Facilities 29
5 Transport Distance from Treatment Plant to Ir-
rigation Reuse 30
6 Alternate Sources of Standby or Blending Sup-
plies for Irrigation 30
7 Municipal Treatment Costs and Revenues for Irri-
gation Uses 32
8 Effect of Effluent Volume on Treatment Costs for
Irrigation Reuse (including capital amortiza-
tion) 35
9 Effect of Effluent Volume on Treatment Costs for
Irrigation Reuse (excluding capital amortiza-
tion) 35
10 User Charges for Irrigation Reuse Relative to
Levels of Treatment 37
11 Sales for Irrigation Reuse as a Function of TDS
Concentrations 38
12 Effect of Plant Effluent Volume on Irrigation
User Charges 38
13 User Charges for Irrigation Reuse Relative to
TDS Concentrations 39
14 User Charges for Irrigation Reuse Relative to
BOD Concentrations 39
15 Growth, of Industrial Reuse 42
16 Geographical Locations of Industrial Reusers
of Municipal Wastewater 48
v
-------
Figures (Continued)
No. Page
17 Cold Lime Clarifier to Treat Reused Wastewater
for Cooling Tower Makeup. The Nevada Power
Company, Las Vegas, Nevada 59
18 Cold Lime Clarifier (Background) and Zeolite
Softeners to Treat Reused Wastewater for
Cooling Tower and Boiler Feed Makeup. El Paso
Products Company, Odessa, Texas 59
19 Water Treatment to Prepare Reused Wastewater for
Boiler Feed Makeup. Hot Lime Clarifier in Back-
ground and Zeolite Softeners in Foreground. The
Cosden Oil and Chemical Company, Big Spring, 62
Texas
20 Transport Distance from Treatment Plant to In-
dustrial Reuse 64
21 Storage Capacity of Industrial Water Supply
Facilities 65
22 Municipal Treatment Costs and Revenues for
Industrial Uses 68
23 Effect of Effluent Volume on Treatment Costs for
Industrial Reuse (including capital amortization) 69
24 Effect of Effluent Volume on Treatment Costs for
Industrial Reuse (excluding capital amortization) 69
25 Effect of Plant Effluent Volume on Industrial
User Charges 70
26 User Charges for Industrial Reuse Relative to
Levels of Treatment 70
27 User Charges for Industrial Reuse Relative to
TDS Concentrations 71
28 User Charges for Industrial Reuse Relative to
BOD Concentrations 71
29 Water Renovation Plant No. 14 (Lancaster) L.A.
County Sanitation District 78
30 South Tahoe Water Reclamation Facility, South
Lake Tahoe, California 80
VI
-------
Figures (Continued1
No. Page
31 Recreational Lakes of Reclaimed Wastewater at
Santee, California 81
32 Santee County Water Reclamation Facility,
Santee, California 83
33 Isometric Sketch of Lake System, Santee, California 84
34 Children Frolic in Treated Effluent 88
35 Gammams Sewage Purification Works, Windhoek,
South West Africa 97
36 Renovated Water Uses 118
37 Relative Reuse Volumes in the United States 118
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Limits of Pollutants for Irrigation Water
Recommended by the Environmental Protection
Agency 7
2 Results of Soil Tests made on Grabe Silt
Loam Soil (1969) 8
3 Criterion for Classification of Irrigation
Water
4 Relative Tolerances of Crops to Salt Concen-
10
trations
5 Maximum Permissible Chloride Content in Soil
Solution for Selected Crops I2
6 Limits of Boron in Irrigation Water 13
A. Permissible Limits (mg/1) 13
B. Crop Groups of Boron Tolerance 13
7 Average Water Consumption for Selected Animals 15
8 Salinity Levels Tolerable by Selected Animals 16
9 Water Quality Parameter Limits for Livestock 17
10 Inventory of Treatment Facilities Categorized by
Specific Irrigation Uses 18
11 Presence of Industrial Wastes in Influent Raw
Sewage Reused for Irrigation 22
12 Significant Industrial Wastes Contained in In-
fluent Raw Sewage for Irrigation Reuse 23
13 Municipal Treatment Provided for Irrigation
Reuse on Specific Crops 23
14 Quality of Effluent Applied to Crops 25
15 Typical Fertilizer Content of Secondary Treated
Municipal Wastewater 2^
16 Pounds of Nutrients Removed per Acre in Har-
vested Crops at Various Levels of Effluent
Application in 1963
Vlll
-------
Tables (Continued)
No. Page
17 Volumes of Municipal Reuse in Israel 31
18 Reuse of Municipal Wastewaters, by Crop in
Israel 31
19 Treatment Costs for Irrigation Reuse 33
20 Ranges of Effluent Charges for Irrigation Reuse 36
21 Cooling Water Quality Requirements for Makeup
Water to Recirculating Systems 45
22 Quality Tolerances for Constituents of Indus-
trial Boiler Feedwater 46
23 Inventory of Industrial Reuse Operations in the
United States 47
24 Inventory of Industrial Reuse Operations in
Foreign Countries 50
25 Summary of Industrial Operations 53
26 Major Industry Classifications Using Municipal
Wastewater 55
27 Type of Industrial Reuse in the United States 55
28 Municipal Effluent Qualities to Industrial Re-
use in the United States 56
29 Effluent Quality Versus User Treatment Required
for Cooling Tower Makeup Water 60
30 Comparison of Treatment Processes Utilized for
Producing Boiler Feed Makeup Water from Munici-
pal Sewage Effluent 63
31 Industrial User Costs for Reclaimed Water 67
32 Recreational Reuse Operations 74
33 Water Quality Requirements for South Tahoe and
Lancaster 76
34 Water Quality Recommendations for Recreational
Uses 77
-------
Tables (Continued)
No. Page
35 Typical Plant Performance Supplying Wastewater
for Recreational Lakes 85
36 Heavy Metal Concentrations in Plant Effluents
Used in Recreational Lakes 87
37 Treatment Costs Reported by Tertiary Plants
Supplying Effluents Used in Recreational Lakes 90
38 Inventory of Domestic Reuse Operations 92
39 WHO and USPHS Drinking Water Standards 94
40 Typical Quality of Effluents from Windhoek and
Grand Canyon 9 8
41 Summary of Performance of the Dorr-Oliver Acti-
vated Sludge-Ultrafiltration Plant Operations at
Pikes Peak, August-September, 1970 100
42 Tertiary Treatment Costs at Windhoek, South
Africa (1968-1970) 101
43 Tentative Guides for the Quality of Water Re-
quired for Fish Life 105
44 Approximate Lethal Concentrations of Selected
Chemicals to Fish Life 106
45 Inventory of Reuse Operations for Recreational
Fishing in the United States 109
46 Inventory of Fish Farming Pilot Study Opera-
tions in the United States 110
47 Presence of Industrial Waste in Municipal Plant
Influent 111
48 Basic Water Quality Characteristics of Reclaimed
Water Reservoirs for Fish Propogation 111
49 Treatment Costs for Reuse for Recreational Fish-
ing 115
50 Geographical Distribution of Reported Municipal
Reuse H9
x
-------
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the following people for their cooperation
and assistance. Without their aid this report could never
have been completed.
Richard Aldrich
Superintendent
Water and Sewer Department
Oceanside, CA
Earl W. Anderson
S.T.P- Supervisor
Walla Walla, Washington
J.E. Anderson
Consulting City Engineer
Corning, CA
M.E. Angermiller
Sewer Superintendent
Uvalde, TX
Louis A. Anton
Superintendent of Sanitation
Las Vegas, NV
Robert L. Aslesen
Utilities Superintendent
Hanford, CA
Leslie F. Backer
Chief, Sanitation Branch
Fort Carson, CO
Earl T. Balkum, P.E.
Domestic Waste Consultant
Colorado Dept. of Health
Denver, Colorado
Melvin G. Basgall
Engineer
Winslow, Arizona
H.L. Beaney
Director/Engineer in Chief
Engineering and Water Supply
Department
Adelaide, Australia
Earl R. Bennett
Manager-Engineer
Camarillo Sanitary District
Camarillo, CA
E.F. Bishop
Navajo Area Sanitary Engr.
Shonto, AR
Otto H.W. Blume
Director of Utilities
Thousand Oaks, CA
Cyril L. Blythe
Superintendent
Cutler Public Utility Dist.
Cutler, CA
L.F. Bombardier!
Director, Public Works
Prescott, AR
Eugene Borawski
Water Superintendent
San Clemente, CA
E.H. Braatelian, Jr.
Art F. Vondrick
Jim Ash
Water and Sewers Department
Phoenix, AR
John Brennan
San Francisco County Jail #2
San Francisco, CA
Phillip G. Brewer
Superintendent
City of Fresno Water Pollu-
tion Control District
Fresno, CA
XI
-------
James P. Brown
Civil Engineer I
Tulare, CA
John Brown
Agricultural Engineer and
Administrator
Kerman, CA
Kermit M. Bunn
Sanitation Superintendent
Reese AFB, TX
Lewis E. Carroll
Director of Public Works
Shafter, CA
Lawrence K. Cecil, P.E.
Consulting Chemical Eng.
Tuscon, AR
Nicholas W. Classen, P.E.
Municipal Services
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, TX
Douglas M. Clements
Base Civil Engineer
George Air Force Base, CA
L.D. Cleveland
General Manager
Mojave Public Utility Dist,
Mojave, CA
Lawrence Cook
City Administrator
Tehachapi, CA
Don F. Cuskelly
City Engineer
Dickinson, North Dakota
Roy E. Dodson
Water Utilities Director
San Diego, CA
Jack K. Dudley
Treatment Supervisor
Thousand Oaks, CA
T.J. DuMont
Facilities Maintenance
Officer
Twentynine Palms, CA
Paul E. Duvel
District Superintendent
Leucadia County Water Dist.
Maurice Fantino
Plant Operator
Guadalupe, CA
Elmer R. Faseler
Sewer Superintendent
Hondo, TX
Kent D. Faulkner
Right of Way Engineer
Clark County Sanitation
District No. 1
Las Vegas, NV
Albert D. Flandi
Chief of Plant Operations
Camarillo State Hospital
Camarillo, CA
Carl Fossette
General Manager
Sanitation Districts of
L.A. County
San Jose Creek, CA
W.K. Freeman
Physical Plant Director
Arizona State Prison
Florence, AR
Gerald Gaglione
Treatment Plant Superintendent
Burbank, CA
Jonathan Gibbs
President
Boise City, Idaho
Bob Gibson
Treatment Plant Manager
Bakersfield, CA
XI1
-------
W.E. Gibson, Jr.
Coordinator, Air and Water
Conservation
Big Springs, TX
Engel Gideon
Environmental Engineer
Haifa, Israel
Claire Gillette
Eastern Municipal Water Dist.
Hemet, CA
R.F. Goldfinch
Honorable Sec./Treasurer
Australian Water and
Wastewater Assn.
Canberry City, Australia
Robert S. Gomes
Asst. Civil Engineer
Pleasanton, CA
Hector J. Gomez
Chemist Engineer
Copropiedad Grupo Quimico
Cydsa
Monterrey, N.L. Mexico
George P- Gribkoff, P.E.
Principal
Susanville, CA
Daryl Gruenwald
Chief Chemist
Colorado Springs, CO
Garry Harrington
Superintendent
Sanitation Districts of L.A.
County
La Canada, CA
Frank R. Hauser
General Foreman,
Water Stations
Baltimore, MD
John L. Hellman
Asst. to the Fuel Engineer
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Sparrows Point, MD
A.L. Hiatt
Director of Public Works
Woodland, CA
Michael P- Hopkins
Waste Water Treatment Supt.
Bakersfield, CA
B.J. Hord
Engineer
Taft, CA
Ted H. lies
Director
Strathmore, CA
Charles Johnson
City Engineer
Coachella Sanitary District
Coachella, CA
E.E. Jones
Water and Sewer Superintendent
Denton, TX
Ernest Kartinen
City Engineer
McFarland, CA
G.H. Keating
Plant Manager
Texaxco Inc.
Amarillo, TX
Dennis Keller
Engineer
Visalia, CA
Carl J. Kymla
General Manager
Moulton-Niguel Water Dist.
Laguna Niguel, CA
Kenneth Ladd
Staff Chemist
Southwestern Public Service
Company
Amarillo, TX
Xlll
-------
W.E. Loftin
Superintendent Water
Reclamation Plant
Livermore, CA
Arthur Maass
Superintendent,
Wastewater Department
Midland, Michigan
W.J. Mackay
Engineer
Victoria, Australia
George J. Mallick
Superintendent
San Francisco, CA
Philip E. Marcellin
Director of Public Works
Delano, CA
William N. Matteson
Engineer
Grand Canyon National Park
Grand Canyon, AR
R.H. McGhee
Chief of Plant Operations
III
Chino, CA
Robert Mclntyre
Base Civil Engineer
March Air Force Base,
CA
William McLennan
Town Administrator
Department of Public Works
Warden, WA
Claudia Miller
Arizona State Department of
Health
Phoenix, AR
Perry E. Miller
Technical Secretary
Stream Pol. Control Board
Indianapolis, IN
L. Dale Mills
General Manager
Mt. Vernon County Sanitation
District
Bakersfield, CA
George Moiseve
Treatment Plant Operator
Sanitation Districts of
L.A. County
Palmdale, CA
Michael T. Morgan
Assistant Manager
Denver, CO
J.L. Muir
Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Tolleson, AR
Tom L. Nance
Water and Sewer Supervisor
Lodi, CA
Charles D. Newton
Director
Water Quality Control Dist.
Oklahoma Dept. of Health
Oklahoma City, OK
Eugene Nicholas
Manager
Louisville, KY
N. Nicolle
Chief Chemist
Pretoria
John E. O'Neill
Manager
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Morenci, AR
Clarence Ortman
Superintendent, Sewer Plants
Hillsboro, Oregon
xiv
-------
D.A. Park
Engineer
Nhill Sewerage Authority
Victoria, Australia
Edwin M. Peterson
City Manager
Gustine City, CA
J.A. Petric
City Manager
Mesa, AR
James Rawlinson
Director of Utilities
Flagstaff, AR
Bill Ribbens
Laboratory Technician
Belding, MI
Broydon J. Riha
Public Works Director
Santa Rose, CA
George E. Robison
Director/Public Works
Patterson, CA
N. Rosen
Authority Engineer
Greater Haifa Regional
Sewerage Authority
Israel
Don Ross
General Manager
Sunnyside, Utah
Charles C. Royall
General Manager
Lake Havasu Waste Treatment
Plant
Lake Havasu City, AR
G.R. Salmon
Water and Sewerage Eng.
Windhoek, South West Africa
C.H. Scherer
Water Reclamation Supt.
Amarillo, TX
John D. Schrouder
Inland Fisheries Specialist
Fisheries Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
Lansing, MI
Wayne Shorter, Jr.
Superintendent of City
Utilities
Lockwood, Missouri
Clark B. Smith
Director
Cocoa Beach, FL
H.W. Smith
Chief Engineer
Bagdad Copper Corp.
Bagdad, AR
Tom Smith
Sanitary Engineer
Tallahassee, FL
Frank Smythe
Head Water Department
Odessa, TX
Oliver W. Solus
Director of Public Works
Weed, CA
R.T. Souders
Greens Superintendent
Los Alamos, NM
Edward Starkovich
Superintendent
Raton, NM
Leonard H. Stroud
Superintendent
Aurora, CO
W.H. Sturman
Public Works Officer
China Lake, CA
xv
-------
Emilio Sutti
Manager
Laguna County Sanitation
District
Santa Maria, CA
Kenneth L. Taplin
Director of Public Works
Callstage, CA
Alan I. Taylor
Street Foreman
Winnemucca, NV
Max C. Taylor
General Manager
Pomerado County Water
District
Poway, CA
Richard E. Thomas
Research Soil Scientist
National Water Quality
Research Program, EPA
Ada, Oklahoma
Glen D. Thornburgh
Plant Superintendent
Valley Sanitary District
Indio, CA
Harold A. Tomlinson
General Manager
Fallbrook Sanitary District
Fallbrook, CA
J.E. Williams
Director of Public Works
San Angelo Wastewater
Department
San Angelo, TX
Gordon W. Willis
Water Treatment Supt.
Lubbock, TX
Willis H. Wills
Village Clerk
Shelby, Nebraska
Dalton R. Winkler
Superintendent of WCPC
Midland, TX
Harold W. Wolf, Director
Dallas Water Reclamation Center
Dallas Water Utilities
Dallas, TX
Thomas C. Wolfington
Asst. Sanitation Supt.
Ventura, CA
John R. Wright
Special Projects Assistant
Chino, CA
Karl Zollner, Jr., P.E.
Asst. Regional Engineer
Water Resources Commission
Department of Natural
Resources
Lansing, Michigan
xvi
-------
SECTION I
SCOPE, OBJECTIVES, AND APPROACH
SCOPE
This study was limited to reuse of wastewater from municipal
plants with emphasis upon direct reuse of the water as it
leaves the treatment plant. Projects involving indirect re-
use after injection or percolation were not included except
where the degree of dilution by groundwater is slight.
Similarly, projects were not included which involved in-
direct reuse by downstream withdrawal of surface waters con-
taining wastewater, unless the degree of dilution with
natural surface waters is slight. Industrial reuse of in-
plant water is not included.
The types of reuse covered in this study are:
Irrigation and other agricultural uses
Cooling water
Industrial process water
Boiler feed water
Recreational lakes
Fish propagation
Non-potable domestic use
OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of this study was to make a state-of-
the-art survey to bring together information about existing
reuse operations in a concise form. This information can be
used by design engineers in the design of new reuse systems
and by governmental decision makers in planning whether such
systems are appropriate to their situations. The report is
also a useful tool for responsible management and technical
personnel in locating existing reuse operations which can
provide valuable background experience. A second purpose
of the project is to spotlight deficiencies that exist in
the available reuse information and suggest future research
to overcome these deficiencies.
-------
Specific project objectives were as follows:
Conduct a literature search to collect data on those
projects for which publications exist, and also to
obtain water quality criteria for various reuse
applications.
Supplement the literature search by various means to
locate and obtain descriptive information on unpub-
licized municipal reuse projects and update existing
information on publicized projects.
Conduct field investigations of important municipal
reuse operations which are relatively little known.
Well-documented operations, e.g., Santee, Califor-
nia; Lake Tahoe, California; etc., were not visited.
For each reuse situation obtain technical and eco-
nomic information pertinent to size, design, per-
formance, costs, reuse application, and problems.
Organize and analyze the data in an attempt to ar-
rive at optimum treatment systems and values of
design parameters which can be recommended for spe-
cific reuse applications.
APPROACH
The following tasks were performed by the SCS Engineers pro-
ject team during the completion of this study:
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in
the Library of Congress, several large university
libraries, and EPA in-house sources for any infor-
mation pertinent to municipal wastewater reuse
operations. Hundreds of sources were reviewed (see
Bibliography, Section VIII)and information extracted.
With the exception of the highly publicized reuse
projects, most of the published literature was out
of date and incomplete.
Letters were written requesting assistance in lo-
cating municipal wastewater reuse projects to the
following organizations;
- All 50 state water pollution control regulatory
agencies.
Each of the 59 U.S. and foreign member associa-
tions of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
-------
- Each, of the 51 State Water Resource Research Institutes.
- Various Federal agencies including the Bureau of Reclamation,
Office of Water Resources Research, and several divisions
within the Environmental Protection Agency.
- Prominent consulting engineering firms active in pollution
control facility design, including all those placing
professional service cards in the Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Association.
- University-connected individuals who have published reports
related to wastewater reuse.
- The national agencies responsible for pollution control in
all of the Major European Countries, plus Russia, Japan,
Israel, Canada, Mexico, and Australia.
Follow-up letter and telephone calls were made to corresponding
state agencies until answers were received from all.
A total of 358 United States and 55 foreign reuse sites were
tentatively identified. Of the 358 U.S. sites, 205 were judged
to be very small irrigation disposal operations. A detailed
11 page questionnaire (See Appendix G) was prepared and sent
to the 153 other American sites and 55 foreign sites. U.S.
respondents totaled 145. Foreign response was poor throughout
the project, finally totaling only 6 out of 55 questionnaires
sent.
In cooperation with the EPA Project Officer, 18 of the most
unique, little known reuse operations were selected for field
investigation and case studies prepared (see Appendix A). The
case studies included examples of reuse for irrigation of crops
for human consumption, irrigation of crops not for human con-
sumption, industrial reuse, recreational lakes, and non-potable
domestic use (i.e., toilet flushing).
A summary tabulation was made (see Appendix B) of data received
from U.S. questionnaire respondents. The tabulation concisely
presents data pertinent to location, volume, effluent quality,
costs, system reliability, plant design, purpose of reuse, and
additional treatment by user.
-------
Separate chapters were prepared describing the re-
sults of the study by category of reuse; i.e., irri-
gation, industrial, recreation, fish propagation,
and domestic. Each chapter contains sections cover-
ing water quality criteria for the specific reuse, a
listing and analysis of existing operations supply-
ing wastewater for the specific reuse, and economic
analysis.
-------
SECTION II
IRRIGATION REUSE
INTRODUCTION
Responses to this survey indicated the total yearly reuse volume in this
country was 133 billion gallons in 1971. Of this total, 77 billion gallons
or 58% was utilized in agriculture. One hundred thirty-two plants answering
questionnaires practice irrigation reuse of their effluent. An additional
205 plants in Texas, California, and Arizona irrigate on a very small scale
with reclaimed effluent. These small plants locations and associated flows
are tabulated in Appendix C, and are
not included in the remaining data
in the chapter.
Figure 1 shows the increase in irri-
gational reuse of municipal wastewater
during this century, as determined by
the year in which the plants surveyed
began reuse.
CO
UJ
o:
This chapter is divided into three
sections, as follows:
Required water quality, which is
largely derived from existing
literature sources.
Analysis of current reuse for
irrigation, which is largely
derived from the data developed
during this study.
Analysis of current economics,
which is largely derived from
data developed during this study.
z
UJ
z
_l
-------
REQUIRED QUALITY CRITERIA
General
Irrigation uses can be separated into the following major application
subsections:
Agricultural crops
Pasture land
Turf and landscape
Stock watering
Agricultural Crops and Pasture Land Irrigation
Irrigation water quality is set by a number of factors including short-
term effects on crop quality, long-term effect on soil characteristics
and the potential effect on the intended utility of the crop. Table 1
presents general limits for irrigation water constituents as suggested
by the U.S. EPA.
Irrigation water quality can, however, be assessed only in relation to
the specific conditions under which the water is to be used. Absolute
limits to the permissible concentrations of salts and constituents in
irrigation water are difficult to fix for several reasons: (1) Soil
solution is normally three to eight times as concentrated as the irri-
gating water applied to it because of the evaporation of water from the
soil surface, the transpiration of plants, and the selective absorption
of mineral constituents by the plants; (2) Plants vary widely in their
tolerance to salinity, as well as specific salt constituents; and
(3) Soil type, climatic conditions, irrigation practices, and drainage
all influence the reaction of a given crop to irrigation water quality.
The suitability of a given irrigation water is contingent, therefore,
upon both the crop and the soil characteristics. (4)
For example, establishment of a limit for heavy metal elements in
irrigation water is complicated by the ability of certain soils and
soil conditions to fix and absorb them. Soils containing larger
percentages of minerals and/or having high clay contents (fine
textured soils) have greater affinity for storing metallic ions
than sandy soils. Either soil type, however, shows increased
abilities to retain heavy metals at pH levels above 7.0 (alkaline
conditions). (6)
-------
Table 1. LIMITS OF POLLUTANTS FOR
IRRIGATION WATER RECOMMENDED BY EPA
CONSTITUENTS
FOR WATER USED
CONTINUOUSLY
ON ALL SOILS
(mg/1)
FOR SHORT-TERM USE** ON
FINE TEXTURED NEUTRAL
AND ALKALINE SOILS
(mg/1)
Heavy Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
5.0
2.0
0.1
0.75
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.2
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.02
20.0
10.0
0.5
2.0
0.05
1.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
0.05
2.0
Bacterial
Coliform density 1,000/lOOml
Chemical
TDS
4.5-9.0
5,000
Herbicides
Dalapon
TCA
2,4-D
0.2 jug/1
0.2 >ug/l
0.1 jug/1
**"Short-term" used here means a period of time as long
as 20 years.
-------
A recent study, (13) compared the effects of continued use, over a 14 year
study period, of wastewater effluent and well water as a source of irrigation
water on selected soil properties. The results are summarized in Table 2
below.
Table 2. EESULTS OF SOIL TESTS MADE
ON GRABE SILT LOAM SOIL (1969)* (13)
Irr.
source
Soil
nor.
Soluble
salts
(EC.X103)
N03
(mg/1)
P04
(mg/1)
Modu-
lus of
rupture
(g)
Infil.
rate
(cm/hr)
Effluent Ap 1.77 132 37 223 1.52
C 0.80 38 16 168
Well Ap 0.88 65 17 137 1.91
water C 0.43 12 8 153
KEY: Ap horizon (plow layer, 0 to 25 cm)
C horizon (sub-soil, 38.to 51 cm)
As can be seen, soil irrigated with treatment plant effluent had a lower
infiltration rate, higher modulus of rupture, and a higher concentration of
soluble salts, nitrates, and phosphates than soil irrigated with well water.
Thus improperly managed long-term use of irrigation waters (particularly
reclaimed wastewater) may result in deterioration of surface soil structure,
increased power needs for plowing and tilling, and possible adverse effects
on crop growth due to high salt concentrations in the soil. It should be
noted, however, that this study(13) indicated that irrigation with wastewater
effluent for 14 years had no adverse effect on crop production.
Table 3, on the following page, judges irrigation water quality by the
analysis of five basic constituents, % sodium, TDS, boron, chloride and
sulfate. Excessive TDS in irrigation water can have an osmotic effect
by restricting or preventing water uptake by the crops; the salts can be
toxic to plant metabolism, and, by altering soil structure, permeability,
and aeration, adversely affect plant growth. (7)
The cations calcium, sodium, and potassium, and the anions, carbonate,
bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, nitrate and phosphate, a&though
essential for plant growth, may be toxic above certain concentrations and
are augmented in importance by their effects upon the character of the
soil. (2)
-------
Table 3. CRITERION FOR CLASSIFICATION
OF IRRIGATION WATERS
Parameter
Classification*
Suitable
Low
Na,%** 0
TDS, mg/1 0
Boron, mg/1 0
High
Marginal
Low
60 60
700 700
0.5 0.5
High
Unsuitable
75 75
2,100 2,100
2.0 2.
0
(Semi-tolerant
plants)
Chloride, mg/1
S04, mg/1
0
0
177
960
177
960
355
1,920
355
1,920
*Classifications apply to most plants under most conditions
of soil, climate, and irrigation practices.
**Calculated by:
(Na)
(Na + Ca + Mg + K)
x 100
Sodium is generally one of the most critical of these ions since it can
limit plant growth by increasing the soil alkalinity to deleterious
levels. High sodium can also displace calcium and magnesium from the
soil, resulting in poor tilth and low permeability of the soil.(2)
Note that the standards given in Table 3 present a range of acceptable
concentrations, thus recognizing the varying salt tolerance between
different species of plants. Table 4 provides information on relative
salt tolerances of selected crops. Since the soil solution is always
more concentrated than the irrigation water, the standards for ion
concentrations allow for greater limiting values for ions as measured
in soil solutions rather than water solution.(4) In addition, crops
vary in their sensitivity to various constituents of water as mentioned
above. Table 5 provides data on tolerances of selected crops to
concentrations of chloride in the soil solution.
-------
Table 4. RELATIVE TOLEPANCES OF
CROPS TO SALT CONCENTRATIONS (7)
CROP
DIVISION
Fruit
Crops
LOW SALT TOLERANCE
EC x 103 <2
Avacado Plum
Lemon Prune
MEDIUM SALT TOLERANCE
Cantaloupe
Grape
HIGH SALT TOLERANCE
Date palm
Strawberry Grapefruit Olive
Vegetable
Crops
Forage
Crops
Peach Orange
Apricot Apple
Almond Pear
EC x 103 = 3
Green beans
Celery
Radish
EC x 103 = 4
EC x 103 = 2
Burnet
Ladino clover
Red clover
Alsike clover
Meadow foxtail
Fig
Pomegranate
EC x 103 = 4
Cucumber Lettuce
Squash Cauliflower
Peas Bell pepper
Onion Cabbage
Carrot Broccoli
Potatoes Tomato
Sweet corn
EC x 103 = 10
EC x 103 = 4
EC x 103 = 10
Spinach
Asparagus
Kale
Garden beets
^
EC x 103 = 12
EC x 103 = 12
Sickle milkvetch Smooth brome Bird's- foot trefoil
Sour clover Bia trefoil Barley (hay)
Cicer milkvetch Reed canarv Western wheat grass
Tall meadow ^adow rescue ^nada "ild rve
oat-grass Blue arama Rescue grass
Blue grama Rhodes grass
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
CROP
DIVISION LOW SALT 1
nOLERANCE MEDIUM SALT TOLERANCE
Forage White Dutch clover Orchard grass
Crops Oats (hay)
Cont. EC x 103 = 4 Wheat (hay)
Rye (hay)
Tall fescue
Alfalfa
Field EC x 103 =
Hubam clover
Sudan grass
=4 EC x 103 = 6
Crops
Field beans Castorbeans
Sunflower
Flax
Corn (field)
Sorghum
HIGH SALT TOLERANCE
Dallis grass Bermuda grass
Strawberry clover Nuttall alkali grass
Mountain brome Salt grass
Rye grass . Alkali sacaton
Yellow sweetclover
White sweetclover EC x 103 = 18
EC x 103 = 12
Rice
Oats (grain)
Wheat (grain)
Rye (grain)
EC x 103 = 10
EC x 103 = 10
Cotton
Rape
Sugar beet
Barley (grain)
EC x 103 = 16
Note: Electrical conductivity (EC) values represent salinity levels at which a 50
percent decrease in yield may be expected as compared to yields on nonsaline
soil under comparable growing conditions.
-------
Table 5. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE CHLORINE CONTENT
IN SOIL SOLUTION FOR SELECTED CROPSt1)
Crop
Rootstock or variety
Limit of tolerance
to chloride in
soil solution,
meq/liter
Citrus
Rangpar lime, Cleopatra
mandarin
Rough lemon, tangelo,
sour orange
Sweet orange, citrange
Stone fruit Marianna
Lovell, Shalil
Yunnan
Avocado
West Indian
Mexican
50
30
20
50
20
14
16
10
Grape
Berries
Strawberry
Varieties
Thompson seedless, Perlette
Cardinal, black rose
Boysenberry
Olailie blackberry
Indian summer raspberry
Lassen
Shasta
50
20
20
20
10
16
10
Detailed studies have compiled extensive data on the element
Boron in irrigation water. Table 6 lists permissible limits
and associated crop types which can tolerate these limits.
The allowable bacterial content of irrigation water varies
widely depending upon the crop and regulatory agency re-
quirements in various states, as described in the next sec-
tion of this chapter. In 1968, the FWPCA recommended the
following guidelines for irrigation water bacteria counts.
This criteria was expressed as particularly applicable to
crops destined for direct human or animal consumption:(3)
"The monthly arithmetic average density of the coliform
group of bacteria shall not exceed 5,000 per 100 ml, and the
monthly arithmetic average density of fecal coliforms shall
12
-------
Table 6. LIMITS OF BORON
IN IRRIGATION WATER(8)
A. PERMISSIBLE LIMITS (mg/1)
CLASS OF WATER
CROP GROUP
SENSITIVE
Excellent < 0- 33
Good 0.33 to 0.67
Permissible 0.67 to 1.00
Doubtful 1.00 to 1.25
Unsuitable >1.25
SEMI TOLERANT
<0.67
0.67 to 1.33
1.33 to 2.00
2.00 to 2.50
> 2.50
TOLERANT
<1.00
1.00 to 2.00
2.00 to 3.00
3.00 to 3.75
>3.75
B. CROP GROUPS OF BORON TOLERANCE*
SENSITIVE
SEMITOLERANT
TOLERANT
Pecan
Walnut
Jerusalem-artichoke
Navy bean
American elm
Plum
Pear
Apple
Grape
Kadota fig
Persimmon
Cherry
Peach
Apricot
Thornless blackberry
Orange
Avacado
Grapefruit
Lemon
Sunflower
Potato
Cotton
Tomato
Sweetpea
Radish
Field pea
Ragged Robin rose
Olive
Barley
Wheat
Corn
Milo
Oat
Zinnia
Pumpkin
Bell pepper
Sweet potato
Lima bean
Athel
Asparagus
Palm
Date palm
Sugar beet
Mangel
Garden beet
Alfalfa
Gladiolus
Broadbean
Onion
Turnip
Cabbage
Lettuce
Carrot
*In each group, the plants first named are considered as being
more tolerant; the last named, more sensitive.
13
-------
not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml. Both of these limits shall be
an average of at least two consecutive samples examined per
month during the irrigation season. Any one sample examined
in any one month shall not exceed a coliform group density
of more than 20,000 per 100 ml."
Turf and Landscape Irrigation
In general, golf course turf and hardy vegetation, such as
bushes and trees, are more tolerant than agricultural crops
to harmful constituents possibly contained in treated waste-
water. (An example of both golf course and freeway landscape
irrigation is detailed in the field investigation of San
Bernardino, California in Appendix A).
Percent sodium in the range of 50-75 percent can be harmful
as high percentage sodium water will cause soils to seal,
reducing percolation rates, and interfering with root
growth. TDS should not exceed 2,500-3,000 ppm. Although no
disease transmission has been reported as a result of golf
course irrigation with sewage effluent, California standards
require that such water be chlorinated to bring the coliform
count down to a median MPN of 23 per 100 ml. No adverse
effects on greens and fairways is reported unless an exces-
sively high chlorine dosage is substituted for adequate con-
tact time. Over-chlorination will result in bleaching and
yellow streaking of the turf. (10)
FIGURE 2
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER IS USED FOR
IRRIGATION OF MANY GOLF COURSES
14
-------
Stock Watering
Although much research data has been accumulated in the U.S.
relative to the effects of water-borne constituents on lab-
oratory animals, relatively little information is available
on this subject applicable to livestock.(4)
The daily water consumption by animals (See Table 7) deter-
mines the total quantities of ingested substances and, thus,,
the critical limits for animal metabolisms. The daily water
volume requirements, however, vary with regard to climate,
water content of food consumed, degree of exertion, and
salinity of the available water supply.(2)
Table 7. AVERAGE WATER
CONSUMPTION FOR SELECTED ANIMALS
Animal
Water consumption
in gpd/head
Beef cattle 7-12
Dairy cattle 10-16
Horses 8-12
Swine 3-5
Sheep and goats 1-4
Chickens 8-10
(per 100 birds)
Turkeys 10-15
(per 100 birds)
The tolerance of animals to salts in drinking water depends
on several independent factors, including their species,
ages, physiological conditions, season of the year, and salt
content of foods consumed. Water containing a high concen-
tration of salts may cause gastroenteritis, wasting disease,
and death.(4) Lactation and reproduction are usually the
first animal functions to be affected by unfavorable mineral
concentrations; reduction and termination of milk and eggs
production has been observed. Although animals can usually
tolerate higher salinity than man, it has been recommended
that, for good production, animals should be provided with
drinking water of as high a quality as that required for
human conumption. (8)
The Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has pub-
lished the threshold concentrations of salinity at which
animals begin to show deleterious symptoms. Table 8 tabu-
lates that government's findings.
15
-------
Table 8. SALINITY LEVELS TOLERABLE
BY SELECTED ANIMALS(4)
Animal
Threshold salinity
(mg/1)
Beef cattle 10,000
Dairy cattle 7,150
Horses 6,435
Pigs 4,290
Adult dry sheep 12,900
Poultry 2,860
Table 9 tabulates threshold and limiting concentrations for
various parameters in livestock drinking water.(4) Ionic
constituents of water, appear to produce an osmotic effect
when present in heavy concentrations. Results from tests
have shown that it is this effect rather than the toxicity
of any one element that is generally harmful to the animal.
Some elements, however, are injurious even in trace concen-
trations; the most critical of these are nitrates, fluorides,
selenium, and molybdenum.(4)
Bacterial infection of livestock by polluted water has not
been established even when human disease organisms were de-
tected in the water supply- Experts have recommended, how-
ever, that pending further studies and analyses, sewage
effluents should be adequately disinfected prior to use by
livestock.(4)
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT REUSE FOR IRRIGATION
Table 10 presents an inventory of treatment plants categor-
ized by specific irrigation reuses. This table may be used
in conjunction with Appendix B to obtain data pertinent to
irrigation of particular crops with municipal wastewater.
For example, only one facility is listed as irrigating
asparagus, i.e., CA-31, which is found in Appendix B to be
the Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California. Appen-
dix B provides additional current information pertinent to
water quality, treatment, charges, etc. at the Irvine reuse
operation.
16
-------
Table 9. WATER QUALITY PARAMETER
LIMITS FOR LIVESTOCK
Quality factor
Total dissolved
solids (TDS) ,
mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Bicarbonate, mg/1
Ch 1 or i de , mg/ 1
Fluoride, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Nitrite, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Range of pH
Threshold
concen. *
2,500
5
500
250
1,000
1
500
1,500
1
200
None
500
6.0-8.5
Limiting
concen. **
5,000
1,000
500#
2,000#
500
3,000
6
400
None
1,000*
5.6-9.0
EPA
acceptable
concen. (11)
5.0
0.2
2
100
*Threshold values represent concentrations at which
poultry or sensitive animals might show slight
effects from prolonged use of such water. Lower
concentrations are of little or no concern.
**Limiting concentrations based on interim criteria,
South Africa. Animals in lactation or production
might show definite adverse reactions.
#Total magnesium compounds plus sodium sulfate should
not exceed 50 percent of the total dissolved
solids.
17
-------
Table 10. INVENTORY OF TREATMENT FACILITIES
CATEGORIZED BY SPECIFIC IRRIGATION USES
TYPE OF USE
FACILITY CODE(*)
RECREATION
Athletic Fields
AZ-6
CA-63
CO-2
PL-1
Duck Clubs
CA-78
Game Refuges
Golf Courses
AZ-12
Parks
Parade Grounds
AZ-3
AZ-16
CA-34
CA-50
CA-63
CO-5
NM-5
TX-7
AZ-5
AZ-17
CA-35
CA-55
CA-70
CO-6
NM-7
TX-10
AZ-8
CA-13
CA-36
CA-56
CA-74
ID-1
NV-2
AZ-13
CA-25
CA-38
CA-62
CO-1
MO- 2
NV-3
CA-60
AZ-5
CO-2
CROPS
Alfalfa
Asparagus
AZ-4
CA-4
CA-19
CA-36
CA-64
CA-76
NV-1
TX-2
AZ-14
CA-5
CA-23
CA-40
CA-67
ND-1
NV-2
TX-6
CA-1
CA-9
CA-24
CA-41
CA-68
NM-1
NV-3
TX-11
CA-2
CA-1 4
CA-33
CA-4 6
CA-71
NM-8
NV-4
UT-1
CA-31
*See Appendix B for facility names and specific data.
18
-------
Table 10. (Continued)
TYPE OF USE | FACILITY CODE (*)
Avocados CA-22
Barley CA-3 CA-4 CA-5 CA-28
CA-45 CA-47 CA-75 CA-76
NV-2 WA-2
Beans CA-12 WA-2
Carrots WA-1
Citrus Crops
Corn
Cotton
Cucumbers
Fodder
Forest
Grain
Grapes
CA-21
CA-66
CA-4
CA-24
CA-64
AZ-4
CA-3
CA-18
CA-23
CA-3 3
CA-75
TX-6
CA-3 6
AZ-12
CA-4 8
MO-1
AZ-4
NM-2
CA-2
OR-1
CA-22
CA-5
CA-28
FL-2
AZ-15
CA-4
CA-19
CA-24
CA-4 6
CA-76
CA-6
CA-71
CA-18
NM-3
CA-18
TX-2
CA-31
CA-14
CA-31
NE-1
CA-1
CA-5
CA-20
CA-28
CA-64
NM-1
CA-22
CA-20
NM-6
CA-23
CA-41
CA-23
CA-45
CA-2
CA-7
CA-21
CA-30
CA-71
NM-8
CA-2 9
CA-4 6
CA-24
*See Appendix B for facility names and specific data.
19
-------
Table 10. (Continued)
TYPE OF USE
Grass AZ-6
CO-3
TX-11
FACILITY
AZ-9
FL-2
UT-1
CODE (*)
CA-54
MI-1
CA-63
OK-2
Hay
Landscapes
Milo Maize
Oats
Olives
Onions
Pasture
Potatoes
Rye
Seed
Sorghum
CA-19
NV-1
AZ-6
CA-55
CA-19
TX-11
WA-2
CA-47
CA-7
AZ-9
NV-2
CA-53
TX-2
AZ-14
CA-7 2
CA-45
CA-45 TX-2
CA-17
WA-1
CA-68
CA-39
CO-3
CA-64
TX-11
CA-44
CA-17
TX-6
CA-54
NM-9
CA-41
FL-1
NE-1
AZ-7
CA-5
CA-16
CA-29
CA-41
CA-51
CA-66
NM-10
TX-6
AZ-15
CA-6
CA-18
CA-30
CA-47
CA-5 2
CA-7 3
NV-2
TX-12
AZ-17
CA-9
CA-26
CA-32
CA-48
CA-5 9
CA-7 7
NV-4
WA-1
CA-4
CA-15
CA-27
CA-37
CA-4 9
CA-61
CA-7 8
TX-5
FL-2
*See Appendix B for facility names and specific data.
20
-------
Table 10. (Continued)
TYPE OF USE
FACILITY CODE(*)
Spinach WA-1
Squash CA-36
Sudan Grass CA-48 CA-54
Sugar Beets CA-12 CA-36 WA-2
Tomatoes CA-31
Trees AZ-6 CA-39 CA-41 CA-63
CO-3 FL-1
Wheat CA-2 CA-4 CA-5 CA-45
NM-2 NM-6 TX-2 WA-2
*See Appendix B for facility names and specific data.
21
-------
As shown in Table 11, some treatment plants producing irri-
gation water report significant percentages of industrial
wastes in their influent. Specific industrial wastes re-
ported as being significant are shown in Table 12.
Table 11. PRESENCE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES
IN INFLUENT RAW SEWAGE
REUSED FOR IRRIGATION
Average influent
industrial waste
as % of total
influent
Number of
treatment
plants affected
Percent of
treatment plants
affected
0 58 46
1-10 38 30
11 - 20 17 14
21-30 6 5
over 30 6 5
Conventional primary and secondary treatment are not effec-
tive in removing certain industrial waste constituents,
e.g. boron. Since tertiary plants are generally uneconom-
ical for wastewaters treated specifically for irrigation, it
is important to know the sources and types of industrial
wastes. Such foreknowledge may determine the type of crop
selected or restrictions on certain industrial waste char-
acteristics.
Table 13 tabulates wastewater irrigation into eight major
categories of crops and the degree of treatment provided.
Approximately three-fourths of the effluent undergoes
secondary treatment.
It is surprising, however, that primary treated effluent is
still used somewhere to irrigate each of the crop cate-
gories. The most significant reuse of primary effluent is
for corn, cotton and-cattle grazing uses; however, it should
be emphasized that this corn is utilized only for cattle
feed. This reuse of primary effluent is exemplified by
Bakersfield, California (CA-4), described in detail in Ap-
pendix A, Field Investigation reports. Two plants (CA-2
and CA-23) within the vegetable and fruit categories provide
primary effluent for irrigation of grape vineyards and olive
groves.
Fifteen plants supply tertiary water for irrigation; one
unique example of such tertiary treatment is Fort Carson,
Colorado, where a Neptune Micro Floe filter is utilized.
22
-------
Table 12. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL WASTES CONTAINED
IN INFLUENT RAW SEWAGE FOR IRRIGATION REUSE
Pollutant source
Nuinber of
treatment plants
affected*
Percent of treatment
plants producing
water for irrigation
Industrial Process
Paper & Textile
Mfg.
Laundry
Unspecified
Chemicals
Plating
Photographic
Unspecified
Food Process
Meat packing
Fruit and
vegetable
Dairy
Unspecified
None
6
4
10
1
3
10
5
7
6
71
5
3
1
3
6
5
56
*Certain plants are affected by more than one waste type.
Table 13. MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROVIDED FOR
IRRIGATION REUSE ON SPECIFIC CROPS
Crop
Number of
treatment
plants*
Treatment level (% of plants)
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Grain
Corn
Vegetables
Fruit
Cotton
Fodder
Pasture
Turf and
Landscape
17
11
6
12
26
51
34
47
23
36
14
18
29
24
20
9
77
64
86
82
71
73
71
70
0
0
0
0
0
3
9
21
*Certain plants supply water to more than one crop.
23
-------
(See Appendix A for a detailed discussion). However, in
many cases, irrigation is an adjunct to direct reuse demand-
ing high quality water, for recreation (CA-65) or industry
employed solely for the irrigation application.
FIGURE 3
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER DIVERTED FOR
IRRIGATION OF CROPS AND GOLF
COURSES LAS VEGAS, NEV.
The crops classified in Table 13 are listed again in Table
14 to summarize the quality of effluent currently employed
in agricultural reuse. Table 14 must be viewed only in the
most general terms, however, since parameters from all
levels of treatment are averaged together; furthermore, the
diverse tolerances of specific crops within one category
(e.g., vegetables) preclude a judgment of effluent adequacy
by an averaged value from several plants. It is recommended
that treatment adequacy be analyzed on an individual plant
basis relative to the crop types anticipated.
Many of the current users of renovated wastewater consider
their supplies to be substandard to fresh water sources.
Municipal wastewater, however, has a substantial value in
fertilizer elements required by all crops. Table 15 com-
piles the results of several researchers as summarized by
Williams, et. al.(10) These authorities estimate than an
24
-------
Table 14. QUALITY OF EFFLUENT
APPLIED TO CROPS
CROP
NO. PLANTS
IRRIGATING*
BOD (mg/1)
LOW
HIGH
AVG
SS (mg/1)
LOW
HIGH
AVG
TDS (mg/1)
LOW
HIGH
AVG
Ul
Grain
Corn
Vegetables
Fruit
Cotton
Fodder
Pasture
Turf &
Landscape
17
11
6
12
26
51
34
47
10
10
6
10
15
1
7
1
1100
370
1100
160
370
370
370
80,
180
76
193
32
84
54
50
19
10
10
6
9
12
0
2
0
173
135
127
135
259
259
118
200
71
69
31
58
94
66
40
26
324
8
5
14
324
8
6
43
1400
1114
1114
1400
2250
1450
2250
2000
837
601
700
798
854
641
839
658
* Certain plants supply water to more than one crop.
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
CROP
NO. PLANTS
IRRIGATING*
Na (mg/1)
LOW
HIGH
AVG
Cl (mg/1)
LOW
HIGH
AVG
pH
LOW
HIGH
AVG
Grain
Corn
Vegetables
Fruit
Cotton
Fodder
Pasture
Turf and
Landscape
17
11
6
12
26
51
34
47
87
56
0
100
87
5
10
5
300
220
321
300
450
300
450
400
204
137
163
176
211
167
193
140
10
49
160
115
0
0
2
0
300
200
283
300
460
380
460
400
130
105
212
176
163
154
149
109
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
6
.8
.8
.5
.0
.7
.7
.5
.7
9.9
8.7
9.9
8.4
8.7
8.7
9.2
9.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.4
*Certain plants supply water to more than one crop.
-------
acre-ft. of treated municipal wastewater contains approxi-
mately 17 to 18 dollars of commercial fertilizer value;
furthermore, some studies indicate, optimistically, that
almost all fertilization requirements can be met by waste-
water alone.(10)
Table 15. TYPICAL FERTILIZER CONTENT
OF SECONDARY TREATED MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER dO)
Researcher
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Hershkovitz
Fair, Geyer,
and Ok urn
Day and Tucker
5.5-6.6
Ibs/cap./yr
6-7
Ibs/cap./yr
65
Ibs/acre-ft.
1.7-2.2
Ibs/cap./yr.
1.2
Ibs/cap./yr.
50
Ibs/acre-ft.
2.9-3.5
Ibs/cap./yr.
2
Ibs/cap./yr.
32
Ibs/acre-ft.
By extracting the nutrients listed in Table 15, the crops
act as a further treatment method to protect surface and
groundwater resources. The efficiency of various crops in
achieving nutrient removals is listed in Table 16.
The municipal facilities supplying effluent for irrigation
generally do not utilize sophisticated instrumentation to
monitor the effluent quality. Rural plants with funds
available rely heavily on periodic laboratory testing by
state health departments and related agencies.
It is interesting to note that 60 percent of the plants sur-
veyed reported no end use quality criteria (Column F7,
Appendix B) for irrigation reuse. It is unreasonable to
accept almost two-thirds of the operations as having no
criteria requirements whatsoever, and presumably most
respondents were basing their answer on rejection by the
irrigator,- not health requirements. One-half the respon-
dents state that their effluents are of acceptable quality
100 percent of the time.
Slightly over half of the reclaimed irrigation water sup-
pliers reported no alternate means of disposal; forty-four
percent, however, indicate that their reuse was not total.
Factors in their inability to totally reuse the effluent
include the following:
Insufficient storage capacity to coordinate effluent
availability with irrigation needs.
27
-------
Table 16. POUNDS OF NUTRIENTS REMOVED PER ACRE IN HARVESTED
CROPS AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF EFFLUENT APPLICATION IN 1963
to
00
NUTRIENT
RED CLOVER
(INCHES)
1
N 216.8
P 26.0
K 264.1
Ca 127.0
Mg 22.3
2
ALFALFA
(INCHES)
1
210.7 143.2
24.4 23.0
243.5 167.9
119.2 50.0
21.7 11.4
2
CORN*
(INCHES)
1
191.7 88.3
32.0 19.9
234.0 16.8
45.3 0.26
14.5 5.6
2
WHEAT*
(INCHES)
1
90.2 63.8
23.7 16.1
24.8 11.7
0.27 1.3
6.9 4.0
2
82.7
20.4
11.9
1.8
5.3
*Grain only
-------
Uneconomically long distance between plant and addi-
tional possible users.
Insufficient land availability.
Lack of interest by effluent producer and potential
reusers.
Not surprisingly, seasonal conditions dictate effluent
utilization. The typical procedure in such cases is to dis-
charge the effluent to a water course during the non-growing
season. Conversely, in some situations, not enough effluent
can be supplied during the irrigation season to satisfy the
demand.
To assist in remedying this fluctuation, many plants have
storage facilities available as illustrated in Figure 4.
Effluent transport dis-
tances to potential
reuse sites is an im-
portant economic factor.
With one or two excep-
tions, transport facili-
ties are defined as an
engineered pipeline or
channel; not an existing
river bed into which the
effluent is discharged
and withdrawn by down-
stream irrigators.
Figure 5 displays the
ranges of irrigation
water transport distances
reported by current
agricultural reusers.
The figure illustrates
that 20 percent of all
irrigation reusers are
directly adjacent to
the municipal treatment
site and less than 6
percent are more than 4
miles away- The data
received indicates that
the bulk of the reusers
lie two miles or less
from their supplier.
Q.
Li.
O
UI
ffl
2
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
m
:*.'r.w
:•$$&
m
ii
m
m
•j'Gi;
0 .5-1 1-2 2-10 10-20 20-30 OVER
AVERAGE AVAILABLE STORAGE TIME (DAYS) 30
FIGURE 4
STORAGE CAPACITY OF IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
29
-------
IRRIGATION IN ISRAEL
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
fe 12
a:
kJ
CD 10
§ 8
6
4
2
<
a
It
m
•
&7^
$1
*Pj]
^:v>>;
••S&
ii
0 0-25 .Z5-.5 .5-1 1-2 2-4 OVER
DISTANCE TO REUSE (MILES) 4
FIGURE 5
TRANSPORT DISTANCE FROM TREATMENT
PLANT TO IRRIGATION REUSE
Figure 6 illustrates that half the
irrigation reusers have alternate
sources available. Many indicated
that their alternate sources are
rarely used. Nearly 50 percent of
the agricultural reusers are totally
dependent upon reuse for successful
operations. One of the largest of
these is the Buckeye Irrigation
District near Phoenix. The irri-
gational reuse program at Phoenix
is described in Appendix A.
<
O-
•z.
UJ
LU
cr
H
lij
O
tr
iij
o_
(12)
Data obtained from Israel shows
approximately 40 plants in that
country utilizing reclaimed muni-
cipal effluent for irrigation with
another 34 facilities practicing
groundwater recharge. Table 17 on
the following page shows the growth
of reuse in Israel from 1963 to
1971. Roughly 86 percent of the
country's total treated wastewater
flow was reused in 1971 (62% for
irrigation and 24% for recharge.)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
14%
?^ppi;
37%
49%
PRIVATE PUBLIC NONE
ALTERNATE SOURCE
FIGURE 6
ALTERNATE SOURCES OF STANDBY OR
BLENDING SUPPLIES FOR IRRIGATION
30
-------
Table 17. VOLUMES OF MUNICIPAL
REUSE IN ISRAEL (cu. m./day)
Volume treated
Volume reused
Percent reused
1963 Total
88,440
48,470
55
1967 Total
119,080
79,670
67
1971 Total
155,300
133,535
86
The predominant type of treatment in Israel involves anaero-
bic and aerobic lagoons. In a few instances these basic
systems are enhanced by the addition of Imhoff tanks, sedi-
mentation tanks, and trickling filters.
Table 18 below summarizes Israeli reuse of municipal waste-
waters by crop. As can be seen, field crops take the major-
ity of the reclaimed water. However, a significantly high
percentage of the reclaimed irrigation water (21%) is used
on citrus crops.
Table 18. REUSE OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATERS,
BY CROP IN ISRAEL
Crop
Field crops
Orchards and vineyards
Citrus
Other crops
Pastures
Fodder crops
Fish ponds
Area Irrigated
ha %
1,533.0 61.5
140.0 5.6
431.5 17.2
152.0 6.1
133.0 5.3
107.0 4.3
Quantity of
Wastewater Reused
cu. in/day %
45,680 47.7
4,900 5.2
19,500 20.6
5,150 5.5
10,075 10.0
9,130 9.7
1,250 1.3
Total
2,492.5 100.0
95,685 100.0
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT IRRIGATION REUSE ECONOMICS
In a report involving data from many plants, there is the
danger of overuse of the data obtained to arrive at broad
conclusions which are meaningless for a specific reuse
application. This is true particularly of the economics of
sewage treatment and reuse which are subject to many factors
completely outside of the scope of this study. The reader
is urged, therefore, to make a detailed investigation, be-
fore applying economic data presented herein to another
31
-------
location where conditions are only superficially similar.
Table 19 presents 1971 treatment costs reported by munici-
pal plants furnishing effluent for irrigation reuse in the
United States. The cost per million gallons treated is
shown both inclusive and exclusive of capital amortization.
The cost exclusive of capital amortization simply represents
all annual costs for labor, materials, energy, supplies, and
miscellaneous items divided by mg of effluent produced annu-
ally. The cost including amortization was developed as
shown in Appendix E and is based upon 5.5% interest, 25 year
life, and updating of all original construction costs to
January 1972.
Figures 8 and 9, depict the information from Table 19
plotted as best-fit curves for functions of average daily
plant effluent volumes. It should be remembered that the
curves in Figures 8 and 9 represent averages for all de-
grees of treatment from primary to tertiary.
Figure 7 shows the difference between current costs and
revenues for irrigation reuse. Current costs are the total
for all producers of reclaimed water for irrigation - not
just those who sell their
effluent. Only 25 produ-
cers of irrigation water
sell their renovated pro-
duct. Most municipalities
look upon the irrigation
operations as primarily a
means of disposal, and are
not prone to demanding
payment for effluent which
they would otherwise waste.
In some cases (e.g., CA-4)
the irrigation operation
allows the municipality to
provide only primary treat-
ment, whereas if discharge
were made to surface waters
a high degree of secondary
treatment would be required.
The discrepancy between
costs and revenues shown
in Figure 7 reveals, how-
ever, that as a whole
municipalities are ap-
parently not demanding
12
I 10
o
Q
12.06
| |COSTS
PH REVENUES
10.11
N _ —, i—
0.22
0.06
sufficient revenue for
reclaimed, wastewater they
supply for irrigation. In
TURF a LANDSCAPE CROPS a PASTURE
FIGURE 7
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT COSTS AND
REVENUES FOR IRRIGATION USES
32
-------
Table 19. TREATMENT COSTS
FOR IRRIGATION REUSE*
Plant
code
Trt. cost
($/MG)
incl. cap.
amort .
Trt. cost
($/MG)
excl. cap.
amort.
Plant
code
Trt. cost
($/MG)
incl. cap.
amort.
Trt. cost
($/MG)
excl. cap.
amort.
AZ-2
AZ-3
AZ-4
AZ-5
AZ-6
AZ-7
AZ-8
AZ-9
AZ-11
AZ-12
AZ-13
AZ-14
AZ-15
AZ-16
AZ-17
CA-1
CA-2
CA-3
CA-4
CA-5
CA-6
CA-7
CA-9
CA-11
CA-1 2
CA-1 3
CA-1 4
CA-1 5
CA-1 6
CA-1 7
CA-1 8
CA-1 9
CA-20
CA-21
CA-2 2
CA-2 3
CA-2 4
CA-2 5
CA-2 6
CA-2 7
CA-2 8
CA-2 9
-
145
57
-
2,580
-
244
117
-
72
-
34
698
-
-
-
485
-
113
92
144
245
348
519
-
-
-
-
143
902
171
88
61
57
289
79
79
936
276
-
206
408
-
54
22
-
604
-
76
60
-
32
4
18
215
-
62
151
254
-
58
38
80
185
244
322
272
144
—
56
143
49
30
41
26
18
166
42
42
395
128
12
123
127
CA-30
CA-31
CA-3 2
CA-3 3
CA-3 4
CA-3 5
CA-3 6
CA-3 7
CA-3 8
CA-3 9
CA-40
CA-41
CA-4 4
CA-4 5
CA-4 6
CA-4 7
CA-4 8
CA-4 9
CA-50
CA-51
CA-5 2
CA-5 3
CA-5 4
CA-5 5
CA-5 6
CA-5 7
CA-5 9
CA-60
CA-61
CA-6 2
CA-6 3
CA-6 4
CA-6 5
CA-6 6
CA-6 7
CA-6 8
CA-6 9
CA-70
CA-71
CA-7 2
CA-7 3
CA-7 4
CA-7 5
285
262
503
-
330
441
1,411
292
884
130
298
141
251
251
472
. 36
253
359
523
-
-
476
1,416
355
—
394
483
311
405
1,399
520
253
1,747
223
1,258
-
174
2,703
47
580
6,363
6,566
1,231
190
123
259
92
123
208
176
93
545
44
83
50
104
104
77
14
127
23
353
3,209
-
229
472
100
-
-
348
207
290
448
268
93
1,086
41
794
142
30
1,005
22
112
1,411
5,606
476
33
-------
Table 19. (Continued)
Plant
code
Trt. cost
( $/MG)
incl. cap.
amort.
Trt. cost
($/MG)
excl. cap.
amort .
Plant
code
Trt. cost
($/MG)
incl. cap.
amort.
Trt. cost
($/MG)
excl. cap.
amort.
CA-76
CA-77
CA-78
CO-1
CO-2
CO-3
CO-5
CO-6
FL-1
FL-2
ID-1
MI-1
MO-1
MO-2
NE-1
NV-1
NV-2
NV-3
NV-4
NM-1
NM-2
NM-3
NM-4
NM-5
NM-6
NM-7
NM- 8
NM-9
NM-10
322
28
498
363
522
174
310
1,381
128
29
66
288
352
47
506
190
429
ND-1 115
OK-2 2,806
OR-1 1,273
25
36
152
15
125
137
161
163
193
429
29
4
44
193
193
95
68
119
18
415
823
TX-1
TX-2
TX-5
TX-6
TX-7
TX-8
TX-10
TX-11
TX-12
UT-1
WA-1
WA-2
219
144
114
134
495
82
720
93
109
73
42
54
80
338
22
83
39
59
*See Appendix E for
calculation procedure.
34
-------
OVER
1000
1000
8
10 OVER
10
4567
PLANT OUTPUT (MGD)
FIGURE 8
EFFECT OF EFFLUENT VOLUME ON TREATMENT COSTS FOR IRRIGATION REUSE
(INCLUDING CAPITAL AMORTIZATION)
•R '
1000
1000
900
800
700
8 600
e>
g 500
400
£
300
200
100
•
I
8
10 OVER
10
234567
PLANT OUTPUT (MGD)
FIGURE 9
EFFECT OF EFFLUENT VOLUME ON TREATMENT COSTS FOR IRRIGATION REUSE
(EXCLUDING CAPITAL AMORTIZATION)
35
-------
all cases, however, any revenue is more than they would ob-
tain through disposal.
Table 20 shows the range of effluent charges by those 25
suppliers who currently charge for their effluent. The
majority of these charge less than $150/MG. Table 20 does
not differentiate between the level of treatment provided;
thus, to determine whether user charges are equitable,
facilities should be investigated on an individual basis.
Table 20. RANGES OF EFFLUENT
CHARGES FOR IRRIGATION REUSE
Range of Charges
for Effluent ($/MG)
No. of Suppliers
1 - 150 17
151 - 300 5
301 - 900 0
901 - 1,000 3
Figure 10 on the following page shows how the level of treat-
ment affects municipal charges for irrigation water. The
results, as expected, indicate better treatment allows
higher charges for the effluent. The high average price for
tertiary treated water is due mainly to the Grand Canyon,
Arizona (AZ-6) facility which charges $1,000/MG. When
weighted average is used, the tertiary price shown in Figure
10 decreases from $337 to $76/MG because the daily volume of
the Grand Canyon facility is only 0.03 mgd.
Several suppliers charge on either an indirect or flat-rate
basis. The typical indirect basis (e.g., CA-2, CA-3, CA-18)
gives the grower all water and land in exchange for a per-
centage of his farm income. This percentage ranges from 20
to 25 percent.
Flat-rate charges for effluent fall into two categories:
token fees and compensatory fees. Token fees (e.g., CA-44,
CA-45, CA-47) are imposed to fulfill legal obligations and
protect water rights. The three facilities cited here
charge $1.00 per year to users. Compensatory fees (e.g.,
NM-2, NM-3, NM-4, NM-5, NM-9) are designed to partially de-
fray the costs of treatment. The responders to this study
indicated charges in the range of $200 to $1,000 annually.
In several cases the price is set by bids received from
several interested potential users.
36
-------
ce
o
o
UJ
350
300
250
200
100
50
80-
35
337
o>60
UJ
IT
UJ
|30
Q20
UJ
PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY
TYPE OF TREATMENT
PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY
TYPE OF TREATMENT
FIGURE 10
USER CHARGES FOR IRRIGATION REUSE RELATIVE TO
LEVELS OF TREATMENT
76
The results of the study revealed little economic correla-
tion among the relationships listed below:
TDS concentration vs. total effluent sales, shown
in Figure n.
Effluent volume vs. average user charge, shown in
Figure 12.
TDS concentration vs. average user charge, shown in
Figure 13.
BOD concentration vs. average user charge, shown in
Figure 14.
It appears that charges for effluent are primarily influenced
by factors other than effluent quality. Among these factors
are fresh water cost and availability in the area, prior
water rights in the area, and the municipality's failure to
recognize its effluent as a valuable commodity rather than
something to be discarded.
37
-------
t?5
Q
o
150
140
130
120
3 ioo
o
a 90
CO
y so
« 70
I-
>g 60
i 50
UJ
< 40
i so
« 20
i I0
SALES
FUNCTION
0-500 500-1000 OVER 1000
TDS CONCENTRATION
FIGURE II
FOR IRRIGATION REUSE AS A
OF TDS CONCENTRATIONS
22
20
18
16
14
12
o 10
CD
4
2
22
0-3
EFFLUENT
12
3-6
VOLUME (MGD)
22
20
^ 18
~ 16
UJ
o
a: 14
-------
UJ
cs
a:
<
o
IT
ID
LU
CO
s
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
158
160
150
140
130
120
** "°
co I0°
co 90
or
o
80
70
60
50
cr
LU
co
UJ
o
2 40
LU
^ 30
20
10
113
co
120
co
30
160
150
140
130
120
no
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
32
llfllli
'v-'-V;*?^ • '.\v^
'-'•'•??•' ',i ':'''."•'•.-••'
wSsSS'Ki-M;
13
' ^ t.2" '
*
\ *
120
' r \ "'
,\ ">"
S _ *. r
-i ( -
' i
r " ^
- v1
1 t '
*
i"
-^ :
, ''-< ^
I. J
, ,f.
•30
IPW
:j'-!^)/v.>vr.*«
•'jtf-i: f^t^i ''.y •"•'
't:\ft '•SjVJ';'
0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 OVER 1500
IDS CONCENTRATION
0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 OVER 1500
TDS CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 13
USER CHARGES FOR IRRIGATION REUSE RELATIVE
TO TDS CONCENTRATIONS
159
CO
CO
LU
o
ffi
CO
44
Q
I
CO
UJ
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
18
0-20 20-40 40-60
BOD CONCENTRATION
0-20 20-40 40-60
BOD CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 14
USER CHARGES FOR IRRIGATION REUSE RELATIVE
TO BOD CONCENTRATIONS
39
-------
SPECIFIC REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER II
1. Bernstein, Leon, "Quantitative Assessment of Irrigation
Water Quality," Water Quality Criteria, American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, First National Meeting
on Water Quality Criteria, Philadelphia (1966) .
2. Camp, Thomas R., Water and Its Impurities, Reinhold
Book Corporation (1963).
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Agency, Water Quality
Criteria, Washington, D.C. (1968).
4. McKee, J. E., and Wolf, H. W. (ed.), Water Quality Cri-
teria, Publication No. 3-A, California State Water Re-
Sources Control Board (1971).
5. Parizek, R. R., L. T. Kardos, W. E, Sopper, E. A. Myers,
D. E. Davis, M. A. Farrell, and J. B. Nesbitt, Pehn
State Studies Wastewater Renovation and Conservation.
Pennsylvania State University Studies No.23, Univer-
sity Park, Pennsylvania (1967).
6. Stone, Ralph and Merrell, John C., Jr. "Significance of
Minerals in Wastewater," Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
_3?_, No. 7 (1958) .
7. Todd, D. K., Groundwater Hydrology, Wiley & Sons (1959).
8. Todd, D. K. (ed.), The Water Encyclopedia, Water Infor-
mation Center, Port Washington, N.Y.(1970).
9. Wilcox, Lloyd V., Water Quality from the Standpoint of
Irrigation, Journal American Water Works Association,
Vol. 50: 650-654 (1958) .
10. Williams, Roy E., Eier, Douglas D., and Wallace, Alfred
T., Feasibility of Reuse of Treated Wastewater for Ir-
rigation, Fertilization and Groundwater Recharge in
Idaho, Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow (T969) .
40
-------
11. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Criteria,
Draft Report, Washington, B.C. (1973) .
12. Ministry of Agriculture, Water Commissioners Office, De-
partment for Water in Agriculture and Sewage, Jerusalem,
"A Review of the Collection, Treatment, and Reuse of
Sewage Water in Israel, 1971", (prepared by E.E.T. Ltd),
October 1972.
13. Day, A. D., Tucker, T. C., Strochlein, J. L., "Effects
of Treatment Plant Effluent on Soil Properties," JWPCF,
44, 373. (1972) .
41
-------
SECTION III
INDUSTRIAL REUSE
INTRODUCTION
Responses to this survey indicated that reuse of municipal
wastewater effluents by industry amounted to 53.5 billion
gallons in 1971, or 40 percent of the total United States
reuse volume. The bulk of the industrial reuse volume is
due to one user; the Bethlehem Steel Plant in Baltimore,
Maryland, which utilizes 44 billion gallons annually.
Figure 15 depicts the
growth of industrial re-
use since 1930, as deter-
mined by the year in
which the plants surveyed
began reuse. Only 15
industrial plants are
presently reusing munici-
pal wastewater in the
United States. These 15
facilities include three
city-owned power plants,
so private industry is
represented by only 12
plants in the entire na-
tion. Obviously, numerous
potential reuse opportuni-
ties remain unrecognized.
Nine of the industrial re-
use facilities were
visited during the project
and detailed descriptions
of their operations are
presented in individual
case studies contained in
Appendix A.
1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980
RGURE 15
GROWTH OF INDUSTRIAL REUSE
42
-------
This chapter is divided into three sections as follows:
Required water quality, which is derived from
existing literature sources and this study-
Analysis of current reuse by industry which is
largely derived from the data developed during this
study.
Analysis of current economics, which is largely de-
rived from data developed during this study.
REQUIRED QUALITY CRITERIA
General
Water quality requirements vary widely between industries,
between different plants in the same industry, and between
various processes within a single plant. It is impossible,
therefore, to present quality criteria for all industrial
operations. References 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the end of this
chapter contain substantial general information pertinent to
water quality requirements by most of the major water using
industries. The bulk of industrial water is used for
cooling, boiler feed, washing, transport of materials, and
as an ingredient in the product itself. Of these uses,
cooling is predominant in the reuse of municipal wastewater,
accounting for approximately 145 mgd out of the total 147
mgd reported industry reuse.
Cooling Water
Cooling water systems may be broadly classified as either
"once through" (e.g. MD-1) or recirculating (e.g. CA-8,
NV-2, NV-3) .
Once through cooling systems, as the name implies, use in-
take water for only one cooling cycle and then discharge it.
The intake water need not be of high quality. Sea water and
polluted river waters are commonly used with minimal treat-
ment, such as coarse screening and periodic shock chlorina-
tion. The Bethlehem Steel Company cooling system which uses
Baltimore, Maryland, municipal effluent is a once through
system. The effluent successfully used by Bethlehem for
over 20 years is relatively poor quality secondary effluent.
A detailed description of their operation is given in
Appendix A.
Recirculating cooling systems, on the other hand, continual-
ly recirculate the same cooling water for many cycles by
utilizing cooling towers or spray ponds to recool the water
43
-------
after each heat exchange cycle. To prevent unacceptable
build-up of contaminants, a portion of the recirculating
water is continuously wasted. This waste discharge is
called blowdown, and is representative of the quality of the
recirculating water. To replace the volume lost in blowdown
the recirculating cooling system requires makeup water.
Contaminants present in makeup water are concentrated many
times during the cooling cycles, and organics and nutrients
in the makeup water furnish food for organisms. Thus, it is
important for the makeup water to be of high quality. Sew-
age effluent treated to a high degree is successfully used
for cooling makeup water at nine locations as described
later in this chapter.
The basic requirements for cooling waters are that they:
Do not form scale on heat exchange surfaces.
Are not corrosive to metal in the cooling system.
Do not supply nutrients promoting the growth of
slime-forming organisms.
Do not foam excessively.
Do not deteriorate wood in cooling towers.
The literature provided several lists of water quality for
cooling water supplies which are summarized in Table 21. As
indicated later in this chapter, sewage effluent is being
successfully used with higher TDS than recommended, however
all successful users reduce their organics and nutrients to
very low levels.
Boiler Feed Water
Quality requirements for boiler feed makeup water are depend-
ent upon the pressure at which the boiler is operated. The
higher the pressure, the higher the quality of water re-
quired. Very high pressure boilers require makeup water of
distilled quality or better. Table 22 shows quality toler-
ances recommended by several authorities. As described in
the following section of this chapter, three industrial
users of treated sewage effluent for boiler feed water make-
up were reported, with a total volume requirement of approx-
imately 1 mgd. All users reduce the hardness of the boiler
feed makeup water to close to zero. Low pressure boilers,
e.g. 200 psig, report use of effluents with TDS concentra-
tions as high as 1,000 mg/1.
44
-------
Table 21. COOLING WATER QUALITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR MAKEUP WATER
TO RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS
Parameter
Cl
TDS
Hardness
(CaC03)
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
PH
COD
TSS
Turbidity
BOD
MB AS
NH3
P04
Si02
Al
Fe
Mn
Ca
Mg
HC03
so4
Reference
(2)
500
500
130
20
aar
75
100
—
—
—
—
—
50
0.1
0.5
0.5
50
aar
24
200
Reference
(3)
--
50
—
6.9-9.0
—
25
50
25
2
4
1
—
—
0.5
—
—
0.5
--
~~ •""
SCS comment based
on this study
up to 460 successfully
used
up to 1,650 success-
fully used
—
—
preferably 6.8-7.2
preferably below 10
preferably below 10
preferably below 10
preferably below 5
2 is good
preferably below 1
<1 is good
—
—
--
—
--
_„
—
_ _
Note: aar = accepted as received
High pressure boilers, e.g. 650-1,500 psig, however, in both
reported uses demineralize the effluents to TDS concentra-
tions of under 2 mg/1.
Silica and aluminum are very undesirable 'because they form
a hard scale on heat exchange surfaces. Pottasium and
sodium in higher concentrations can cause excessive foaming
of the boiler water.
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT INDUSTRIAL REUSE
Only 15 industrial plants, as listed in Table 23 and located
in Figure 16 were reusing municipal wastewater in the United
States during 1972.
45
-------
Table 22. QUALITY TOLERANCES FOR
CONSTITUENTS OF INDUSTRIAL BOILER FEEDWATER
Quality
Parameter
American Boiler Manufacturers
Association, (ABMA) -1*
Pressure ranges, psig
0-300 301-150 1451-600 J6bi-75'6
751-900
301-1000
1001-1500
New Kngland Water Works
Association (NEWKA) ^
Pressure n
0-150
150-250
nqea, nr
250-400
icj
ovei 400
rcdnttil Koter Pollution
Control Administration
(now CPA) •'•
Pro.1-.? i
0-iiO
ri ranaer, p.- in
150-700 [voO-1500
TDS, ppm
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1250
1000
3000- 2500- 1500-
50
700 500
Suspended
solids , ppm
S i lie a ,ppm
Hardness as
CaCC>3,ppm
Alkalinity,
ppm
pll, units
Dissolved
oxygen, ppm
Iron, ppm
Manganese, ppm
Aluminum, ppm
Bicarbonate,
ppm
Chloride , pptfi
ppm
Sulfate ,ppm
*Sources
300
-f
N.sT
N.S.
700
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
: 1.
2.
3.
250
N.S.
N.S.
600
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
from
from
Erom
150
N.E.
N.S.
500
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
.N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
reference
reference
reference
100
N.S.
N.S,
400
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
(2)
(3)
(4)
60
N.E.
^
N.S.
300
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
** Varies
-i- N.S. -
40
N.S.
N.S.
250
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
with
not
500** 500 100
20 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
N.S. 40 20 5 0.0
N.S. 80 40 10 2
200 N.S. N.S.
N.S. 8.0 8.4 9.0 9.6
N.S. 1.5 0.10 0.0 0.0
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
N.S. 5 0.5 0.05 0.01
N.S. 50 5 5 0.0
N.E. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
boiler design
specified
10 5 0.0
30 .10 0.7
20 0.0 0.0
140 100 40
8.0- 8.2- 8.2-
10.0 10.0 9.0
2.5 0.007 0.007
1.0 0.30 0.05
0.3 0.10 0.01
5 0.10 0.01
170 120 0.01
NPl HP NP
NP NP NP
t NP - no problem at levels normally encountered
-------
Table 23. INVENTORY OF INDUSTRIAL REUSE
OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
.Location
Bagdad,
Arizona
Morenci,
Arizona
Burbank,
California
Colorado
Springs,
Colorado
Baltimore,
Maryland
Midland,
Michigan
Las Vegas,
Nevada
Las Vegas,
Nevada
Enid,
Oklahoma
Amarillo,
Texas
Big Spring,
Texas
Den ton,
Texas
Lubbock,
Texas
Odessa,
Texas
Producer
Bagdad Copper
Corporation
Phelps Dodge
Corporation
City of Burbank
City of Colorado
Springs
City of
Baltimore
City of Midland
City of Las
Vegas
Clark County
Sanitation
District
City of Enid
City of Amarillo
City of Big
Spring
Dity of Den ton
City of Lubbock
City of Odessa
User
Same
Same
City Power
Generating
Station
City Electric
Division
Martin Drake
Plant
Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
Dow Chemical
Company
Nevada Power
Company
Nevada Power
Company
Champlin
Refinery
Southwestern
Public Service
Company
Texaco, Inc.
Cosden Oil and
Chemical Co.
Municipal Steam
Electric Plant
Southwestern
Public Service
Company
El Paso Products
Company
Purpose
Process
Process
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
and
Process
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Boiler
feed
Cooling
Boiler
feed and
cooling
Boiler
feed and
cooling
47
-------
00
FIGURE 16
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL REUSERS
OF MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER
-------
Industrial reuse operations in foreign countries are listed
in Table 24. With few exceptions cost and technical infor-
mation was not obtained from foreign industrial reusers, and
Table 24 is derived primarily from the technical literature.
Detailed technical information pertinent to each American
industrial use is summarized in Table 25. The major indus-
try classifications using municipal wastewater, and the ap-
proximate percentage of the total volume used by each is
shown in Table 26. Basic metals manufacturing at 74 percent
of the total volume, followed by power generation at 20 per-
cent, petro-chemical at 5 percent, and ore processing at 1
percent represent all the industries presently reusing muni-
cipal wastewater. Again, relative usage volumes are dis-
torted by the large volume used by the Bethlehem Steel
Company in Baltimore, Maryland for their once through
cooling operation.
In terms of industrial usage, Table 27 shows that the major
volume of reclaimed sewage is used for cooling water, with
minor quantities used for boiler feed makeup water and manu-
facturing processes.
Cooling Water
Twelve of the fifteen industrial reusers report, cooling
water as the primary use for the reclaimed municipal sewage.
Cooling water technology is complex, and the use of re-
claimed sewage presents special problems of treatment and
control to responsible operating personnel. The differences
between treated sewage effluent and fresh water must be
recognized and planned for, or serious problems may occur in
the heat exchange and cooling system. For example, the city
of Denton, Texas began using its municipal sewage effluent
as cooling water makeup to its municipal power generation
plant in early 1972 and rapidly experienced massive conden-
ser tube fouling and other problems. The effluent produced
by the Denton Sewage Treatment plant is of only average
quality, as seen in Table 28, with wide fluctuations in
quality because the plant is on the verge of being over-
loaded. The Denton power generating station has no treat-
ment facilities to remove suspended solids, organics or
nutrients from the reclaimed sewage. Problems at Denton
were inevitable, and the experience of other users indicate
that the Denton difficulties can only be resolved by great
improvement in the Denton sewage effluent or installation of
treatment facilities at the power plant to remove suspended
solids and organics. Appendix A presents a case study dis-
cussion of the reclamation and reuse program at Denton.
49
-------
Table 24. INVENTORY OF INDUSTRIAL REUSE
OPERATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
LOCATION
PRODUCER
USER
PURPOSE
Belmont,
West. Australia
Perth,
West. Australia
Bristol,
England
Derby County,
England
Dunstable,
England
Nottingham,
England
Nuneaton,
England
Oldham County,
England
Scunthorpe,
England
Sheffield,
England
Stoke-on-Trent,
England
City of Belmont Western Mining Process
Corp., Ltd.
City of Perth
Dampier Mining Process
Co., Ltd.
Hamersley Iron Process
Pty., Ltd.
Mt. Newman Process
Mining Co.
City of Bristol Bristol Corp. Process
and Imperial
Smelting
Corp., Ltd.
Derby County
Borough
Borough of
Dunstable
City of Not-
tingham
Borough of
Nuneaton
Oldham County
Borough
Scunthorpe
Borough
City of
Sheffield
City of Stoke-
on-Trent
Refuse Incin-
erator
Cement Works
Cooling
Process
Skins and Offal Cooling
Processor
Offal Renderer Cooling
Power Station
Steel Manufac-
turer
Steel Manufac-
turer
Steel Manufac-
turer
Gas Producer
Tire Manufac-
turer
Power Station
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
50
-------
Table 24. (Continued)
LOCATION
Haifa,
Israel
Kawasaki,
Japan
Nagoya,
Japan
Osaka,
Japan
Tokyo ,
Japan
PRODUCER
USER
PURPOSE
Greater Haifa Oil Refineries, Cooling
Regional Sew- Ltd.
erage Authority
Iriezaki Sewage
Treatment
Plant
Tatsumi Indus-
trial Water
Plant
Tsumori Sewage
Treatment
Plant
Mikawashima
Sewage Treat-
ment Plant
Minamisenju In-
dustrial
Water Plant
Minamisunamachi
Industrial
Water Plant
Shin Toyo
Glass Com-
pany
Nippon Kokan
Mizue Iron
Works
Toa Oil
Company
Sumitomo Metal
Company
Yamato Steel
Works
Senju Paper
Mfg. Com.
180 plants
150 plants
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
and
Process
Cooling
and
Process
Cooling
and
Process
Mexico City,
Mexico
Monterrey,
Mexico
City of Mexico
City
City of Monter-
rey
Federal Com-
mission of
Electricity
Celulosa y
Derivados,
S.A.
Aceros Pianos,
S.A.
Papelera Mal-
donado
Cooling
Cooling,
Boiler
Feed,
and
Process
51
-------
Table 24. (Continued)
LOCATION
PRODUCER
USER
PURPOSE
Monterrey,
Mexico
(Cont.)
Pretoria,
South Africa
City of
Pretoria
Agua Industrial
de Monterrey
S. de U.
Federal Commis-
sion of Elec-
tricity
Rooiwal Power Cooling
Generation
Station
52
-------
Table 25. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE .
a
&
g
R
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
A5
H
D
« W
W
INFLUENT
B'la
So
SE
E> -
B2b
y *
B -
Q 3
2 £
H
B3
EH J W
K, H AH
H EH EH
H D H
M S
PRODUCER INFORMATION
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
B
WQ
Hg
" *
Sg
s>
"^
Clc
B
O W
z
o *c
W H
*
C2a
\
s
o
m
C2b
M
CP
s
tn
tn
C2c
X.
s
Q
EH
C2d
i-i
tn
£
fD
"Z.
C2e
rH
X,
B
a;
o
K
u
C2f
,-1
E
X
a
C2q
Cfl
§7.
SI
J
o
u
C2h
^
E-<
£"w
t1^
<
u
!£
A3-130
A3-515
Cl-160
C2-186
M2-130
M4-510
N2-471
N2-470
02-250
T2-115
T2-14U
Bagdad, AZ
Morenci , AZ
Burbank , CA
Colorado Springs , CO
Baltimore, MD
Midland, MI
Las Vegas, NV
Las Vegas, NV
Clark County San. Dist.
Enid, OK
Amarillo, T!X
Bia Sorina. TX
1967
1957
1967
1971
1942
1968
1958
1962
1954
1954
1943
0.2
0.6
5.2
21
170
6
27
12.5
5
10
0.5
0
0
25
10
4
10
0
0
23
7
0
none 0.2 non 14 100 100 18
none 0 . 6 non
Aircft. 2.0 Sum 2 2 500 88
mf g.
Plating, 2.0 Win 8 2 650 50
Elect.
Mfg.
120 ... 46 44 450 75
none 6.0 Sum 25 25 450 ...
none 3.8 Spr 21 18 985 ...
Sum
none 4.3 Spr 19 22 1550 ...
Sum
... 2.0 ... 31 32 600
Meat, 4.5 ... 10 15 1400 300
Laundry,
Food
none 0.5 ... 35 30 960 ...
12 6.8 ... none
82 7.2 0-20 trace
20 6.9 225
100 7.0 5 x 106 trace
250 7.6 1000 none
7.6 ...
330 7.6 ...
... 74 ... ...
300 7.7 0 none
... 7.0 ...
T2-202 Denton, IX 1972 6 1 Metals, 1.5 ... 30 38 127 ... 70 7.2 16,000 Cr,Zn
Meat
T2-497 Lubbpck, IX
1938 6.5- 20 Dairy, 2.8 ... 18 20 1650 450 460 7.8 ...
Plating
T2-575 Odessa, TX
1956 6.5 1 Chro- 5.5 Sum 10 13 1300 ... 250 7.4 6
mates
.SYMBOLS
QUALITY MONITORING DEVICES
Cl2 Cl2 Residual Analizer
CON Conductivity Meter
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pH pll Analizer
TURB Turbidimeter
PURPOSE OF REUSE
DOM Domestic
FISH Fish Habitation
IND Industrial
IRR Irrigation
GRD Ground Water Recharge
END USE CRITERIA
BOD Low BOD Required
B Low Boron Required
Cl Low Cl Required
DIS Disinfection Required
DWQ Drinking Water Quality
FD Free of Debris
NH3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Removal
pH pH Adjustment Required
SHD State Health Department Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USPHS U.S. Public Health Stds.
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
Prs Private Source
PS Public Source
53
-------
Table 25. (Continued)
PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVENUE
(Cost: Data
Appendix )
D7
WEH
O w
a««
£&
D8
w
M O
EH 0
H 2 H
< 2«
QUALI
ONITOR
DEVIC
S
•E3
Z
s§
TERRUP
OLE RAT
H
USER INFORMATION
F6
PH
O
URPOSE
REUS
0.
F7
L
OH
K
H W
ss
0R
5
F9
^g
2 U
DDITIO
T RE ATM
F10
w
SS
QUALI
AFEGUA
F8
g
%»
rPPLEME
SUPPL
w
TREATMENT PLANT
G5
Q
U
S
H EH
W H
88
&
O
F6 & 7
EH c/>
52 W
H to
S CO
SS
SS
EH Oj
F8b
u
Bu *
JKEn
bOH
PnEnO
ww«;
&
o
F9
S
gS§
WO
TRANSP
TANCE,
I-I
Q
Fin
ATE
METHOD
SU
=H U3
aS
H
O.
COMMENTS
K
la
Z
s
p
Yes IND ... No ... none 4 PCL,AS
0 none Yes IND none No none none 1.5 PCL,TF
43 31 0.5 pH Yes IND SS Yes LAB ps 6 PCL,AS
TDS PPC
BOD
... Yes IND ... Yes none PS ... PCL,
TF(88%)
AS(12%)
3.33 0
. . . none Yes IND PS
20 42.5 0 LAB No IND BOD Yes LAB PS 30 PCL,TF
Cl,
IRR SS
30 64
7 5
0 none Yes IND BOD Yes LAB ps 12 PCL TF
IRR SS '
IND ... Yes LAB ps 8.5 pCL,AS
„„,.
PCI-,AS
80 145 0 TURB Yes IND BOD Yes LAB PS
90 CON IRR SS PrW
pH
C1
79 14.4 1 none Yes IND TDS Yes LAB PS 1.4 pCL.AER.
P04
Hard.
80 10.8 67 ... Yes IND SS ... LAB PS ... PCL,AS
TDS
P°4
119 42.7 1 Cl- Yes IND BOD Yes LAB PS 12 PCL,AS
IRR SS
Cl
pH
P°4
125 250 0 LAB Yes IND Alk Yes LAB PrW 8 PCL,AS
Hard.
Ca
Mg
PO,
infin 1 Ye;
none 2.5 No
none 1
3°0 38 2 TURB Yes IRR BOD Yes LAB ps 2 PCL,TF, 3 3
pH IND SS CCOAG,pH,
LAB PO4 CADS. MMF
MBAS
Yes
75 5 yes
none 1 Yes
6 1.5 Yes
none 2 Yes
18 10 Yes
1 2 Yes
10 2 Yes
none 1-3 Yes
15 0.5 Yes
A3-13C
A3-515
User Treatment: Cl-160
shock chlorination,
pH adjust. , corro-
sion inhibitor
User Treatment: C2-186
Cold lime, Filt.,
Carbon adsorption
User Treatment: M2-130
sedimentation,
chlor., screening
M4-510
User Treatment: N2-471
Cold lime clarif.
User Treatment: N2-470
Cold lime clarif.
User Treatment: 02-250
Chem. clarif.
Multiple users T2-115
graduated charges
User Treatment:
cold lime. Alum
floe., Clar., Soft.
User Treatment: T2-140
Hot lime, Hot zeo.,
Deaer., Anth. flit
User Treatment: T2-202
Shock chlorin.,
pH adjustment
User Treatment: T2-497
Cold lime, pH
adjustment, Anth-
Fj.lt., Rev. Osmos.,
Zeolite
User Treatment: T2-575
Lime, Recarbona-
tion, Zeolite
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTOAutomatic Testing
PPC Pre s Post Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ET State Testing Only
TREATMENT PROCESSES
-PRIMARY TREATMENT
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT
AS Activated Sludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
ANTH Anthracite Filter
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH pH Adjustment
POL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
54
-------
Table 26. MAJOR INDUSTRY
CLASSIFICATIONS USING
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Industry
Number
of plants
Percent of total
volume reused
Basic Metal
Manufacturers
74
Power Generation
Petro- Chemical
Mining and Ore
Processing
7
5
2
20
5
1
Table 27. TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL
REUSE IN THE UNITED STATES
Type of use
Boiler feed
Process
Cooling
Number of
plants (D
3
3
12
Percent
of total
17
17
66
Reuse volume
(mgd)
1
1
154
(l)More than 15 because several reusers use
municipal effluent for more than one use.
55
-------
Table 28. MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT QUALITIES TO
INDUSTRIAL REUSE IN THE UNITED STATES
Bag
Cop
Co
Bag
PARAMETER Ari
Pro
BOD , ppm
INDUSTRIAL USER
dad El Paso
per Products
rp . Company ,
dad, Odessa,
zona Texas
cess Cooling &
Boilers
14 10
SS, ppm 100 10-15
TDS, ppm 100 1300
Na, ppm
Chlorides ,
ppm
pH 6
Coliforms,
MPN per
100 ml
Total
Hardness
P04, ppm
Organic N,
ppm
Heavy
Metals,
ppm
Color,
units
MBAS , ppm
NH3, ppm
NO -j , ppm
18
12 250
.8 7.4
6 x 105
240
44
. ,
••
...
. . .
18
AND APPLICATION
City of
Burbank ,
Calif.
Cooling
2
2
500
88
82
7.2
0-20
160
20
39
trace
...
...
City of
Colorado
Springs,
Colorado
Cooling
8
2
650
50
20
6.9
225
240
1
1-5
trace
5
0.15
27
0.5
(R&D)
56
-------
Table 28. (Continued)
PARAMETER
INDUSTRIAL USER AND APPLICATION
Bethlehem
Steel
Corp.
Baltimore ,
Maryland
Cooling &
Process
Dow
Chemical
Company
Midland,
Michigan
Cooling
Nevada
Power Co.
Sunrise
Station
Las Vegas ,
Nevada
Cooling
Champlin
Refinery
Enid,
Oklahoma
Cooling
BOD , ppm
SS , ppm
TDS, ppm
Na, ppm
Chlorides,
ppm
PH
Coliforms ,
MPN per
100 ml
Total
Hardness
46
44
450
75
100
7.0
5 x 106
• • •
20-30 21
20-30 18
400-500 980-990
• • • • • •
200-300
7.6 7.6
< 1000
• • • • • •
31
32
600
• • •
• • •
7.4
• • •
• • •
P04, ppm
Organic N,
ppm
Heavy
Metals,
ppm
Color,
units
MBAS, ppm
NH-,, ppm
12
15-20
trace
none
1.0-3.4
57
-------
Table 28. (Continued)
PARAMETER
INDUSTRIAL USER
Southwestern
Public
Service Co. &
Texaco, Inc.
Amarillo ,
Texas
Cooling
BOD, ppm 10
SS, ppm 15
TDS, ppm 1400
Na, ppm 300
Chlorides, 300
ppm
pH 7.7
City of
Denton
Denton,
Texas
Cooling
10
38
127
• • •
70
7.2
AND APPLICATION
Southwestern
Public
Service Co.
Lubbock ,
Texas
Cooling &
Boilers
18
20
1650
450
460
7.8
Cosden Oil
& Chem. Co.
Big Spring,
Texas
Boilers
35
10
960
• • •
7.0
Coliforms, none 16,000
MPN per
100 ml
Total
Hardness
P04/ PPm
Organic N,
ppm
Heavy
Metals,
ppm
Color,
units
MBAS, ppm
NH^, ppm
NO,,, ppm
trace
30-40
58
-------
FIGURE 17
COLD LIME CLARIFIER TO TREAT REUSED
WASTEWATER FOR COOLING TOWER MAKE-
UP. THE NEVADA POWER CO., LAS VEGAS, NEV.
FIGURE 18
COLD LIME CLARIFIER (BACKGROUND)
AND ZEOLITE SOFTENERS TO TREAT
TREAT WASTEWATER FOR COOLING TOWER
AND BOILER FEED MAKE-UP.
EL PASO PRODUCTS, CO..ODESSA, TEXAS
59
-------
Table No. 29 shows average sewage treatment plant effluent
quality (as measured by BOD and suspended solids) versus the
treatment required by the industrial plant to make the water
suitable for cooling tower makeup. The table shows that
superior quality sewage effluent, e.g., the city of Burbank,
California, can be used successfully with only an increase
in chlorine, acid, and corrosion inhibitors required to put
the effluent on almost equal status with fresh water. If,
Table 29. EFFLUENT QUALITY VERSUS USER
TREATMENT REQUIRED FOR COOLING
TOWER MAKEUP WATER
Selected Users
Effluent quality
mg/1
BOD
SS
TDS
User treatment
processes
City of
Burbank, CA
Nevada Power Co. 20
Las Vegas, NV
Southwestern 10
Public Service
Company
Amarillo, TX
City of 30
Denton, TX
500 Shock chlorination,
pH adjustment, corro-
sion inhibitor
20
1,000-
1,500
15 1,400
30
130
El Paso Products 10
Company
Odessa, TX
13 1,300
Shock chlorination,
lime clarification,
pH adjustment, corro-
sion inhibitor
Lime clarification,
pH adjustment, shock
chlorination, corro-
sion inhibitor
Shock chlorination,
pH adjustment, corro-
sion inhibitor (Treat-
ment insufficient for
effluent of this qual-
ity)
Lime clarification,
pH adjustment, fil-
tration, softening.
however, the treated sewage effluent is of average quality
or worse, then clarification treatment is necessary to
remove suspended solids and organics prior to use.
60
-------
Boiler Feed Makeup Water
The three industrial plants reporting the use of sewage
effluent for makeup to boilers are as follows:
Cosden Oil and Chemical Company
Big Spring, Texas
El Paso Products Company
Odessa, Texas
Southwestern Public Service Company
Lubbock, Texas
Each of the users provides substantial additional treatment,
the extent of which is dependent upon the type of boiler for
which the makeup water is intended. Low pressure boilers
successfully utilize effluents which have been clarified,
softened, and reduced in phosphates. High pressure boilers
require makeup water which has been given the additional
treatment step of dissolved solids removal, or deionization.
Table 30 tabulates the treatment processes and average re-
sults achieved by each user. For their high pressure
boilers, Southwestern Public Service Company and El Paso
Products produce water of less than 2 TDS. For their low
pressure boilers, Cosden Oil and Chemical Company and El
Paso Products do not reduce total dissolved solids in the
reclaimed water prior to use.
In depth discussions of all facets of these three sophisti-
cated industrial reuse operations are presented in Appendix
A.
Processing Water
Three plants reported using reclaimed sewage effluent for
processing purposes, all in the mining and steel making
industries. These are:
Bagdad Copper Corporation
Bagdad, Arizona
Phelps Dodge Corporation
Morenci, Arizona
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Baltimore, Maryland
The two Arizona plants utilize the sewage effluent in the
mining of copper.
61
-------
FIGURE 19
WATER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT TO PREPARE REUSED WASTEWATER
FOR BOILER FEED MAKE-UP USE. HOT LIME CLARIFIER
IN BACKGROUND AND ZEOLITE SOFTENERS IN FOREGROUND.
THE COSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL CO., BIG SPRING, TEX.
62
-------
Table 30. COMPARISON OF TREATMENT
PROCESSES UTILIZED FOR PRODUCING
BOILER FEED MAKEUP WATER FROM
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE EFFLUENT
Company and boiler
pressure
Treatment processes
Product
water
quality,
in ppm as
CaC03
Cosden Oil and
Chemical Company,
Big Spring, TX
(175 psig boilers)
El Paso Products
Company
Odessa, TX
(200 psig boilers)
El Paso Products
Company
Odessa, TX
(650 psig boilers)
Southwestern Public
Service Company
Lubbock, TX
(1,500 psig
boilers)
Hot process lime clarifi-
cation, anthracite fil-
tration, hot zeolite
softening, and deaeration.
Cold lime clarification,
recarbonation, anthracite,
filtration, zeolite sof-
tening, and deaeration.
All of above for low
pressure boilers plus
demineralization through
cation and anion ex-
changers .
Cold lime clarification,
pH adjustment, reverse
osmosis, followed by
demineralization with
cation and anion ex-
changes , and a mixed bed
exchanger for final
polishing.
TDS, 443
hardness,
0-2
TDS, 1,000
hardness,
0-2
TDS, 0-2
hardness,
0
TDS, 0-1
hardness,
0
Bagdad Copper Corporation pumps an average of 0.2 mgd of
secondary treated effluent to its' tailings pond, where it
is diluted approximately 20:1 with fresh water and used for
milling of copper. Most domestic copper ore consists of low
grade copper sulfides that are concentrated by flotation.
Water for this purpose may be highly mineralized but it
should be free of acid, mud, slime, and particularly petro-
leum products that adhere to ore and change its specific
gravity. Later in this process, water is required for a
leaching step where low pH and alkalinity are desirable.
The Phelps Dodge Corporation plant in Morenci uses 0.6 mgd
of primary treated domestic sewage effluent from the town of
Morenci. The sewage effluent is first percolated through
63
-------
the mine leach dumps collecting copper values. The pregnant
leach solution is then pumped to the precipitation plant
where it is reacted with recycled tin cans, removing the
copper. The precipitation plant wastewater is then recycled
back to the leach dump.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation uses the bulk of its' 170 mgd
inflow of treated sewage effluent for cooling purposes but
small amounts are also used for a variety of processes with-
in this fully integrated iron and steel plant. Specific
uses include gas cleaning, quenching, mill roll cooling,
bearing cooling, process temperature control, direct process,
de-scaling systems, mill hydraulic systems, fire protection,
air conditioning, and road equipment washing.
Reported details of effluent quality utilized by all three
of these process water users was given in Tables 25 and 28.
An additional use of reclaimed sewage for industrial pro-
cesses should be mentioned. Three petro-chemical plants,
as described in the previous section use sewage effluent for
boiler feed makeup water. The steam from these boilers, and
boiler blowdown, is used for
a variety of process pur-
poses within the plants.
Transport distances are
often an important consid-
eration in the feasibility
of wastewater reclamation.
Figure 20 shows the dis-
tances of various indus-
trial users from the
municipal suppliers. In
all reported cases the user
has been responsible for
financing the effluent
transport facilities.
Storage facilities for the
reclaimed effluent were
constructed by eight of
the industrial reusers.
Figure 21 illustrates the
range of storage facility
sizes.
Q.
o
-------
ECONOMICS OF INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE
Economics is the prime motivating force of industry and the
use of reclaimed wastewater is governed by the cost of al-
ternate water supply procurement and treatment. In loca-
tions where public water supplies of good quality and
quantity are available at low cost, treatment and reuse of
renovated water by industry
has not been economically
attractive. Thus, it is
not surprising that most
industrial users of treated
municipal effluent are in
the semi-arid southwestern
states where water costs
are relatively high and
water quality tends to be
poorer in terms of TDS and £2
hardness. z
CL
Several of the industrial u.
plants do not have an ade-
quate alternate source of u
water and are strongly s
dependent upon their sew- z
age effluent supply. One
example of such a situa-
tion is Southwestern
Public Service Company's
power plant in Amarillo,
Texas. The public fresh
water supply is limited
and reclaimed effluent
supplies 100% of their
cooling water needs. See
Appendix A for discussion
of the Amarillo operation.
Most of the other plants,
however, have chosen to
use reclaimed water because it is the cheapest source to
serve their needs.
The cost of reclaimed water may be divided into two parts.
First, the cost of procuring the reclaimed water, including
payments to the municipality, construction of effluent
transportation facilities, and all other costs required to
deliver the effluent to the industrial plant site.
Second, the cost of treating the reclaimed water to make
its' quality suitable for the intended use.
0 .5-1 1-5 OVER 5
AVERAGE AVAILABLE STORAGE TIME (DAYS)
RGURE 21
STORAGE CAPACITY OF INDUSTRIAL
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
65
-------
When comparing reclaimed water to fresh water, the cost of
procuring reclaimed water is virtually always less, however,
the cost of treatment is usually more. Table 31 shows re-
ported procurement costs and user treatment costs for indus-
trial plants. (In some cases, it was not possible to obtain
information pertinent to user treatment costs because of
company policy discouraging release of cost information.)
The total cost to the industry of procurement and additional
treatment varies from nothing to $821 per million gallons.
The purchase price for the municipal effluent is sometimes
tied to the cost of municipal sewage treatment, but avail-
ability of water in the area, local political situations,
quality of the effluent, and other factors in some cases
have significant effect. Disregarding Colorado Spring,
which is a pilot operation, the range in purchase price of
municipal effluent to industrial users is nothing to $144/jy[Q
with a median of $79/MG.
Additional treatment costs generally comprise the largest
portion of the cost of reclaimed water to industry. The
treatment costs depend upon the end use quality required,
the quality of the sewage effluent, the degree of treatment
required, the quantity of water treated, and other factors.
For cooling water use in recirculating systems, the reported
industry treatment costs varied from $IQQ/M.G to $550/y[G.
The lower cost is for treatment of exceptionally high qual-
ity effluent produced at Burbank, California, and the higher
cost is for a very sophisticated reclaimed water treatment
system at Odessa, Texas.
Both the exceptional secondary treatment at Burbank and the
extensive tertiary system at Odessa, Texas, are discussed as
field investigations in Appendix A.
For boiler feed makeup water use, Cosden Oil and Chemical
Company reported treatment costs of $742/MG. Treatment
costs incurred at other plants treating a portion of the
effluent for boiler feed makeup water are estimated by SCS
Engineers to be in the range of $500/MG to $1,000/MG.
In this economics section primary emphasis has been made on
the costs to the users. Various aspects of treatment costs
incurred by the municipalities supplying the effluent were
also summarized. None of the municipalities provided more
treatment than would be necessary for discharge to surface
waters. With only 15 plants represented, there is limited
statistical significance to the summary figures which are
as follows:
66
-------
Table 31. INDUSTRIAL USER
COSTS FOR RECLAIMED WASTE
COST 1
PROCU]
USER EFFLUI
($/M(
Bagdad Copper Corp. 0
Bagdad, Arizona
Phelps Dodge Corp. 0
Morenci , Arizona
City of Burbank 43
California
City of Colorado Springs 320
Colorado
DO USER
RE TREATMENT
3NT COST
3) ($/MG)
0
0
100
• • *
Bethlehem Steel Corp. 1.33(avg) N/A
Baltimore, Maryland
Dow Chemical Co. 3.33(avg) N/A
Midland, Michigan
Nevada Power Co. 25
Las Vegas, Nevada
Champlin Refinery 7
Enid, Oklahoma
Southwestern Public 80
193
N/A
160
TOTAL
EFFLUENT
COST
($/MG)
0
0
143
» • •
N/A
N/A
225
N/A
240
Service Co.
Amarillo, Texas
Texaco, Inc. 90
Amarillo, Texas
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. 79(avg)
Big Spring, Texas
City of Denton 80
Texas
Southwestern Public 144
Service Co.' Lubbock, TX
El Paso Products Co. 125
Odessa, Texas
194
742
100
160
550
284
821
18Q
304
675
67
-------
Municipal treatment costs and revenues for indus-
trial uses, Figure 22.
Effect of effluent
volume on munici-
pal treatment costs
for industrial re-
use, Figures 23
and 24.
Effect of plant
effluent volume on
industrial users
charges, Figure 25.
User charges for
industrial reuse
relative to levels
of treatment,
Figure 26.
User charges for
industrial reuse
relative to TDS
and BOD concentra-
tions, Figures 27
and 28.
8.26
o
_)
CO
tr
o
Q
| "] COSTS
REVENUES
0.69
0.08
BOILER
FEED
COOLING PROCESS
FIGURE 22
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT COSTS AND
REVENUES FOR INDUSTRIAL USES
As with irrigation reuse,
the revenue received by
the municipalities from
industrial reusers is less
than the cost of treatment
to the municipality. However, in all cases the municipality
would have had to provide equivalent treatment prior to dis-
charge in any case, so any revenues for sales of effluent
are a bonus to the local municipal taxpayers.
Treatment costs per unit volume treated decreases, as volume
increases, which is expected.
Correlations between municipal effluent quality and cost to
the user were as expected when measured by BOD, i.e. costs
of low BOD effluent is more than high BOD effluents. When
quality is measured in TDS, however, the cost relationship
is contrary to what would be expected, i.e. the wastewater
with high TDS sold for a higher price than the low TDS
wastewater. This apparent incongruity is caused by the
small sample of plants being considered, and the many fac-
tors influencing costs other than effluent quality. In the
desert, even poor quality water is at a premium.
68
-------
OVER
1000
1000
900
800
i 700
-w-
600
CO
0500
1*400
2 300
200
100
8
10
OVER
10
1234567
PLANT OUTPUT (MGD)
FIGURE 23
EFFECT OF EFFLUENT VOLUME ON TREATMENT COSTS FOR INDUSTRIAL REUSE
(INCLUDING CAPITAL AMORTIZATION)
OVER
1000
1000
900
^ 800
"" 700
w
8 600
Sz 500
< 400
cc
300
200
100
I
8
10 OVER
10
2345 67
PLANT OUTPUT (MGD)
FIGURE 24
EFFECT OF EFFLUENT VOLUME ON TREATMENT COSTS FOR INDUSTRIAL REUSE
(EXCLUDING CAPITAL AMORTIZATION)
69
-------
5
\
•V)-
ac.
o
UJ
^
UJ
or
UJ
60
50
40
30
20
10
64
49
W.Ki-Ayi-'ii.
piS^i
^j^d
*$?«$5
,i§l|
fe$a|^
"'"'""fes
••'SJVv
£pp
•'s&H
££
iiipii
Ktt^
iM®SS&
60
50
ui 40
o
£
CO
or
Q
UJ
I
O
30
20
10
1.33
0-5 5-10
EFFLUENT VOLUME (MGD)
OVER 10
FIGURE 25
EFFECT OF PLANT EFFLUENT VOLUME ON
351
X,
•w-
CO
UJ
CO
I
o
-------
CD
90
80
70
•w-
- 60
50
o
cr 40
UJ
UJ 30
CD
cr
UJ
20
10
107
0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 OVER 1500
TDS CONCENTRATION
0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 OVER 1500
TDS CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 27
USER CHARGES FOR INDUSTRIAL REUSE RELATIVE
TO TDS CONCENTRATIONS
85
38
CO
UJ
CD
O
cr
LU
CO
UJ
o:
UJ
o
o
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
I
88
20
I
0-20 20-40 40-60
BOD CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 28
USER CHARGES FOR INDUSTRIAL REUSE RELATIVE
TO BOD CONCENTRATIONS
a_
0-20 20-40 40-60
BOO CONCENTRATION
71
-------
SPECIFIC REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY
FOR CHAPTER III
1. McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. , Water Quality Criteria,
Pub. No. 3A, California State Water Quality Control
Board, 1963.
2. FWPCA, Water Quality Criteria, April 1968.
3. Petrasek, Albert C., Esmond, Steven E. and Wolf, Harold
W., Municipal Wastewater Qualities and Industrial
Requirements, Paper presented at ASCHE meeting, Washing-
ton, B.C., April 1973.
4. Schmidt, Curtis J., The Role of Desalting in Providing
High Quality Water for Industrial Use, Office of Saline
Water Contract Report No. 14-30-2776, Oct. 1972.
72
-------
SECTION IV
RECREATION REUSE
INTRODUCTION
Recreational uses of renovated wastewater include the fol-
lowing:
Recreational lakes without sanctioned boating,
fishing, or body contact, but with possibility of
some inadvertent public contact. For example, lakes
with shoreline picnic areas. It is assumed there is
little significant risk of injestion.
Recreational lakes with boating and fishing allowed,
but no swimming. It is assumed that there is a
significant risk of injestion and that the fish will
be eaten by the fishermen.
Recreational lakes with swimming, i.e., total immer-
sion.
Reclaimed wastewater lakes "used only for incidental
fishing.
Irrigation of landscaping vegetation located in
recreational areas.
Reclaimed wastewater lakes used only for incidental fishing
are described in Chapter VI, and reuse for irrigation of
recreational facilities (e.g., golf courses) is covered in
Chapter II. This chapter will discuss three projects as
listed in Table 32 which have made valuable contributions
to the future development of recreational lakes composed of
treated municipal wastewater.
The Tahoe and Santee projects are well publicized and were
not fiel.d investigated as part of this study- Information
on thes|j$j.two operations is thus based upon returned ques-
tionnai;'|j?s and technical literature sources. The reuse pro-
73
-------
gram at Lancaster, California, is discussed in depth in
Appendix A.
Table 32. RECREATIONAL REUSE OPERATIONS
Municipal plant location
Reuse volume
(mgd)
Level of
municipal
treatment
Los Angeles, California 0.5 Tertiary
(L.A. Sanitation District
Lancaster Plant)
Santee, California 1.0 Tertiary
(Santee County Water
District
Lake Tahoe, California 2.7 Tertiary
(South Tahoe PUD)
REQUIRED QUALITY CRITERIA
For recreational use, general water characteristics of con-
cern include the following:
Dissolved oxygen concentrations must always be
above levels required to support game fish-
Therefore, the organic strength, e.g., BOD, of the
effluent must not exert an oxygen demand which
lowers dissolved oxygen concentrations below accept-
able levels. In addition, dissolved oxygen levels
can be effected seriously by heavy algae grow.th or
formation of an ice covering.
Nutrients, e.g., nitrogen and phosphate compounds,
stimulate unaesthetic algal growth and accelerate
eutrophi cation.
Ammonia in small concentrations can be very toxic
to fish. The level of toxicity depends upon other
water characteristics, including pH, dissolved oxy-
gen and carbon dioxide concentrations.
Fecal coliforms are indicative of the presence of
pathogenic bacteria and viruses which can cause ill-
ness to persons coming in contact with the water.
74
-------
Toxic materials, e.g., heavy metals and chlorinated
hydrocarbons, if present in water or bottom muds can
be concentrated to deliterious levels in the aquatic
food chain.
Water quality standards for municipal effluents supplying
recreational lakes have thus been generally established to
prevent introduction in detrimental qualities of the con-
stituents listed above. In Table 33 are shown the standards
set for the Lake Tahoe and Lancaster, California projects.
To emphasize the stringency of the effluent standards shown
in Table 33, a comparison may be made with Table 34 which
shows the standards recommended by the California State
Water Quality Control Board for water recreational areas
where sewage is not being reclaimed. The water quality
standards for recreational waters composed of reclaimed
wastewater are obviously much more stringent than the qual-
ity recommendations for ordinary recreational waters.
CURRENT OPERATIONS
In the following three subsections the facilities at Santee,
Lake Tahoe and Lancaster, California are briefly described.
Certainly any municipality which is seriously considering
the use of reclaimed effluent for a recreational lake in-
volving body contact should contact these agencies operating
the lakes directly in order to obtain complete information.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
A very interesting recreational lake project has been initi-
ated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
utilizing oxidation pond effluent from their Lancaster,
California water renovation plant. The project is described
in detail in Appendix A. Over four years of study and pilot
plant experimentation was conducted to determine optimum
tertiary treatment design factors and the feasibility of
economical renovation of oxidation pond effluent to meet
quality standards. Much of the research and development
was conducted under EPA grants, and is detailed in reports
prepared for EPA.(2) The treated water is purchased by the
county of Los Angeles for their Apollo County Park, an aqua-
tic recreational park featuring boating and fishing.^)
The tertiary processes at Lancaster as illustrated in Figure
24 include pre-chlorination, flocculation with alum, sedi-
mentation, filtration, and disinfection. The product water
quality objectives include the following criteria:
Turbidity - 5.0 JTU's
Coliform organisms - 2.2 per 100 ml
75
-------
Table 33. WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR SOUTH TAHOE AND LANCASTER
Parameter
South Tahoe
and Lancaster
Lahontan
RWQCB *
South Tahoe
Alpine County
—
USPHS
drinking
water
Turbidity, JTU 3-10 5 5
P04, mq/1 0.1-0.5 no
BOD, ppm
COD, ppm
DO, ppm
Algae, counts/ml
Coliforms, MPN/100 ml
Temperature, °C
SS, ppm
TDS, ppm
Ammonia Nitrogen, ppm
Organic Nitrogen, ppm
Nitrate Nitrogen, ppm
Total Nitrogen, ppm
Total Alkalinity, ppm
Hardness, ppm
MBAS, ppm
Boron, ppm
SAR
Residual
Chlorine, ppm
C02, ppm
ABS, ppm
6.5-7.0
5-10
45-75
7-15
0-10,000
0-2.2
10-30
10
500-650
0.1-15.0
1.0-3.0
1.0-4.0
3-20
74-140
85-110
2-4
0.8-1.4
5-7
0.5-2.5
1
7-15
requirement
6.5-8.5
<5
<30
adequate
disinfection
<2
<0.5
6.0-8.5
4-7.5
1
500
45
0.5
*In California, quality standards for the plants discharging
effluent to recreational lakes are set by regional water
quality control boards.
76
-------
Table 34. WATER QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR RECREATIONAL USESd)
Parameter
Water contact
Noticeable
threshold
Limiting
threshold
Boating and aesthetic
Noticeable
threshold
Limiting
threshold
Coliforms, MPN per 100 ml
Visible solids of sewage origin
ABS (detergent), mg/liter
Suspended solids, mg/liter
Flotable oil and grease, mg/liter
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/liter
Turbidity, silica scale units
Color, standard cobalt scale units
Threshold odor number
Range of pH
Temperature, maximum °C
Transparency, Secchi disk, ft
1,000*
None
1*
20*
0
10*
10*
15*
32*
6.5-9.0
30
—
1
None
2
100
5
20
50
100
256
6.0-10.0
50
—
None
1*
20*
0
20*
20*
15*
32*
6.5-9.0
30
20*
None
5
100
10
50
+
100
256
6.0-10.0
50
+
*Value not to be exceeded in more than 20 percent of 20 consecutive samples,
nor in any 3 consecutive samples.
#No limiting concentration can be specified on the basis of epidemiological
evidence, provided no fecal pollution is evident. (Note: Noticeable
threshold represents the level at which people begin to notice and perhaps
to complain. Limiting threshold is the level at which recreational use in
surface waters would impede use.)
+No concentrations likely to be found in surface waters would impede use.
-------
RAW SEWAGE
COMMINUTOR
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
,CL,
FLOCCULATION
CHAMBER
SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
MULTI-MEDIA
GRAVITY FILTER
OXIDATION
PONDS
PUMP STATION
(\ CHLORINE CONTACT
\J TANK
EVAPORATION
PONDS
APOLLO PARK
RECREATIONAL LAKES (80 MG)
FIGURE 29
WASTEWATER RENNOVATION PLANT NO. 14
(LANCASTER) UA. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
78
-------
Total phosphates - 0.5 mg/1
Ammonia -1.0 mg/1
Quality characteristics of the tertiary treated effluent and
the lake water are summarized in Table 35, which shows that
the effluent quality objectives have been accomplished. As
detailed in the Appendix A case study, however, a careful
program of oxidation pond management is required due to sea-
sonal changes in the ammonia concentration and TDS of the
oxidation pond effluent.
Low TDS, low ammonia water is stored at the treatment plant
in the fall and used to dilute otherwise unsatisfactory ef-
fluent during the winter months. A heavy irrigation program
is also encouraged at the receiving lakes to keep the water
moving, thereby reducing the increase in dissolved solids in
those waters.
During the winter months, green algae predominate in the
oxidation ponds. These species of algae are easily removed
in the tertiary plant by flocculation and filtration and
cause no problems. However, with the advent of warmer tem-
peratures blue-green algae (anacystic and oscillatoria) be-
come prominent and initially caused difficulties. Blue-
green algae do not flocculate and settle as readily as the
greens and because of their size and shape, they pass
through the dual media filter and cause an increase in tur-
bidity. To counteract this problem, a pre-chlorination pro-
gram prior to flocculation was initiated and the problem has
been virtually eliminated. With pre-chlorination, the or-
ganisms flocculate and settle well and once settled they do
not gas as they did previously.
South Tahoe Public Utility District
The beet documented (4,5,6) tertiary treatment process in
the nation is found at South Lake Tahoe Sanitary District,
California where five tertiary treatment steps are combined
to provide exceptionally high quality effluent. Figure 30
on the following page illustrates the treatment of activated
sludge effluent by chemical coagulation for phosphate and
nitrogen removal, filtration, carbon adsorption, and chlor-
ination. This plant also utilizes advanced sludge handling
techniques, lime recalcination and carbon reactivation.
Much of the research and demonstration work has been funded
by EPA.
Shortly before 1950 the regulatory agencies of Nevada and
California responsible for protecting the waters of Lake
Tahoe reached agreement that no sewage would be allowed to
enter the surface waters of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Except
79
-------
SCREENING
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANK
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANK
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANK
FLOCCULATION
CHAMBER
|w
•
O AMI~>
[Til
TCTDO
FINAL AMMONIA
CLARIFICATION STRIPPING
AND TOWER
RECARBONATION
TANKS
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FILTERS
TO INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR
FIGURE 30
SOUTH TAHOE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA
80
-------
for accidents, this policy has been adhered to throughout a
period of rapid growth in the Basin. In 1968 the District
placed their tertiary system in operation and began to ex-
port water from the Tahoe Basin into Alpine County. The
treated effluent is pumped 14 miles through a lift of 1,470
feet, and then flows through gravity pipeline an additional
13 miles to Indian Creek Reservoir. Indian Creek Reservoir
has a capacity of 3,200 acre feet. It is approved for body
contact sports (swimming) and is reported to boast excellent
trout fishing.(7) Table 35 shows typical effluent charac-
teristics of the South Tahoe treatment plant.
Santee County Water District
This project is justifiably famous for its' pioneering work
in the reclamation of domestic sewage for recreational
lakes. Since 1961, Santee has provided much of the research
and development data utilized to answer questions regarding
the potential health hazards involved in public use of
recreational lakes composed of treated wastewater. The
Santee lakes have been used progressively for recreational
activities involving increased human contact as laboratorv
results and epidemiological information indicated that such
activities could be conducted without health hazard. The
lakes are now used for boating and fishing with associated
activities along the shoreline but are not open for whole-
body water contact sports. In 1965, an area adjacent to one
of the lakes was equipped with a separate flow-through
swimming basin which used reclaimed water that was given
FIGURE 31
RECREATIONAL LAKES OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER AT SANTEE , CA.
81
-------
additional treatment by coagulation, filtration, and
chlorination.
Among the most significant data developed by the Santee pro-
ject were studies of virus survival. The virus study(°)
concluded that the oxidation pond and percolation zone were
efficient in removing bacteria and virus. No virus were
found in the recreational lakes or in the swimming pool. In
concurrent studies,(8) no epidemiological evidence of ill-
ness was found.
As shown in Figures 32 and 33 effluent from the Santee
activated sludge plant is discharged to a 30 MG oxidation
pond. Effluent from the pond is the pumped one half mile to
three acres of percolation beds located upstream from the
recreational lakes. The down-canyon flow from the beds per-
colates horizontally underground through the natural sand
and gravel strata for distances that have varied from 400 to
1,500 feet. The vertical drop is approximately 15 feet.
The underground flow is intercepted by large collection
ditches. Intercepted flow is essentially 95 percent waste-
water except during periods of heavy rainfall. The col-
lected water is chlorinated in a contact chamber prior to
entry into the uppermost of four recreational lakes or to
tertiary treatment at the swim basin described above. The
four lakes are arranged in series and range in capacity from
12 to 18 MG and in surface area from 6 to 10 acres.
Plant Performances
Typical effluent quality is shown in Tables 35 and 36 for
each of the three plants supplying reclaimed water for
recreational lakes. While each plant meets most of its
quality objectives the great majority of the time/ specific
problems have been encountered. Lancaster reports that the
ammonia levels are occasionally excessive during the winter
months while turbidity is consistently above limits. The
Lancaster effluent also has a high chlorine residual and
high carbon dioxide concentration, both of which drop to
acceptable levels in the recreational lakes. The lakes,
however, show excessive turbidity and total dissolved
solids. These problems, and others discussed previously,
cause the effluent to be substandard 15 percent of the time.
The Santee County Water District reports that the TDS dis-
charge requirement set by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board has been difficult to meet. The high saline level of
the local water supply is responsible for the situation.
Also noted are algae blooms in the lakes, especially during
the summer months.
82
-------
RAW SEWAGE
GRIT REMOVAL
CL,
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TANKS
SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
OXIDATION
POND 30 MG
3.5 MGD
" TO DISCHARGE
0.5 MGD
TO LAKES
(SEE FIGURE 33)
FIGURE 32
SANTEE COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
83
-------
INFILTRATION AREA
3 ACRES
, CHLORINATION, COAGULATION, 0. E. FILTH ATION
-SWIM AREA
CHLORI NATION
TANK
LAKE 5
14 MIL GAL
8 ACRES
LAKE 4
17.5 MIL GAL
10 ACRES
OXIDATION POND
30 MIL. GAL.
16 ACRES
CHLORINATION TANK
FLOW TO
SYCAMORE CREEK
GOLF COURSE
SEWAGE
FIGURE 33
ISOMETRIC SKETCH OF LAKE SYSTEM
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
84
-------
Table 35. TYPICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE SUPPLYING
WASTEWATER FOR RECREATIONAL LAKES
oo
Ul
PARAMETER
LANCASTER WATER RENOVATION PLANT
PLANT
EFFLUENT
LAKE 1
LAKE 2
LAKE 3
Temp . , °F
Turbidity, JTU
PH
TDS, mg/1
SS, mg/1
Alkalinity, mg/1 CaCO^
Boron, mg/1
C02, mg/1
Chlorine Demand/hr., mg/1
Chlorine Residual,, mg/1
Total Hardness , -mg/1 CaCO^
MBAS, mg/1
Amnonia Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate Nitrigen, mg/1
BOD, mg/1
Total COD, mg/1
DO, mg/1
Ortho Phosphate, mg/1
Total Phosphate, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sodium Equiv. Ratio, % Na
Coliforms, MPN/100 ml
38
1.5
6.15
544
5
65.1
0.74
67.58
0
3.4
68
0
1.0
1.7
0
1.9
0.4
35
12.4
0.21
0.29
16
158
79.5
<2.2
36
23
7.70
843
28
148
1.33
2.64
0.99
0
117
0.1
1.0
2.0
0.02
1.2
2.2
45
10.5
0.26
0.38
20
238
78.6
<2.2
36
22
8.59
932
32
167
1.52
0
1.01
0
128
0.1
1.2
2.0
0.03
0.8
1.4
51
11.7
0.25
0.43
19
239
77.3
<2.2
35
25
8.62
851
32
150
1,29
0
0.96
0
121
0.1
1.2
1.9
0.03
1.1
1.9
49
12.1
0.20
0.40
18
237
78.2
<2.2
-------
Table 35. (Continued)
Parameter
So. Tahoe P.U.D.
Plant
effluent
Indian
creek
resv ' r
Santee
Co. W.D.
Ox.
pond
effluent
After
infil-
tration
Lakes
system
CO
CTi
Temp. , °F
Turbidity, JTU
pH
TDS , ing/1
SS , mg/1
Alkalinity, mg/1 CaCo-^
Boron, mg/1
C02, mg/1
Chlorine Demand/hr. , mg/1
Chlorine Residual, mg/1
Total Hardness, mg/1 CaCC>3
MB AS , mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrite Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate Nitrigen, mg/1
BOD, mg/1
Total COD, mg/1
DO, mg/1
Ortho Phosphate, mg/1
Total Phosphate, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sodium Equiv. Ratio, % Na
Coliforms, MPN/100 ml
Ammonium & Ammonia Nitrogen
Chlorides mg/1
Sulfates mg/1
0.3-0.5
6.9-8.6
250
0
187-308
0.6-2.2
110-164
0.19-0.45
23.0-35.0
0.01-0.27
0.1-0.9
0.7-3.2
12.0-28.7
0.17-0.41
<5
<2
0.1-1.2
30
15-36
4-22
8.4
120-416
3.4
125
3.6
0.9
0.2
2.8
6.6
22
9.8
0.05
0.09
3. 3-4.0
21. 8
30
7. 7
1,168
8.6
250
5.6
0
380
22.3
0.02
1.0
5.0
8.0
230
450
5
7.7
1,150
5-10
240
2.4
0
400
0.36
0.01
1.0
3.5
41
3.6
207
<2
250
340
0-20
8.8
1,150-1,600
50-170
0
0.01
210
0.1-1.0
0.01
1.0
6.0
0.1-4.2
<2.2
270-480
380-575
-------
Table 36. HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS
IN PLANT EFFLUENTS USED IN
RECREATIONAL LAKES, mg/1
Parameter
Arsenic
Chromium+6
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bromine
Uranium
Cobalt
Cesium
Mercury
Rubidium
Scandium
Antimony
So. Tahoe
P-U.D.
< 0.005
< 0.0005
0.0116
< 0.0003
0.002
< 0.0005
0.0004
< 0.005
0.065
0.0015
0.00022
0.000006
< 0.0005
0.010
0.000001
0.00044
San
Lancaster Cou
W.R.P. W.
0 0
0 0
0.04 0
0.22 0
0.03
0
-
0.24 0
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
— —
Maximum
tee U.S.P.H.S.
nty drinking
D. water
0.05
0.05
1.0
0. 3
0.05
0.01
0.05
5.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
The South Tahoe Public Utility District reports no adverse
conditions in either the plant effluent or the reservoir in
Alpine County since the installation of an ammonia stripping
process. Prior to that, a major fish kill at Indian Creek
Reservoir occurred during the winter of 1971. An 8 inch ice
cover on the reservoir melted very rapidly releasing a surge
of nutrients and NH3 into the water and approximately 5 to
10 percent of the fish in the reservoir were killed.
Final disposal of the water following detention in the rec-
reational lake is an important consideration in overall uti-
lization by reuse. The one billion gallon capacity Indian
Creek Reservoir retains water for an average period of 7
months between complete turnovers. Final disposal is to
Indian Creek from which farmers extract a portion for their
irrigation needs. Santee maintains an average 16 day reten-
tion followed by final disposal through turf irrigation and
discharge to the San Diego River. The Lancaster Water Reno-
vation Plant has no receiving stream for its final disposal,
so it must depend upon irrigation practices to assimilate
the stored effluent.
87
-------
All three of the plants provide advanced laboratories
equipped to perform the tests required to monitor treatment
performance. Chemists have a program of routine sampling
established for all the parameters described previously in
this chapter. As exemplified by the Lancaster operation,
sampling is necessary at both the plant effluent point and
within the reservoir.
Unofficial Recreational Use
The operations describe in this chapter are plants official-
ly supplying effluent for recreation. An unknown number of
plants producing high quality effluent provide recreational
water on an unofficial, informal or illegal basis. Figure
34 illustrates such a case where children have climbed a
fence to frolick in the effluent from the Whittier Narrows
Water Reclamation Plant in Los Angeles County.
FIGURE 34
CHILDREN FROLIC IN TREATED EFFLUENT
88
-------
The heavy use of municipal sewage ponds by ducks, and other
game birds, has been reported. The ponds are thus contrib-
uting to wildlife conservation and American outdoor recrea-
tion. Thousands of these birds are killed and consumed
annually by hunters. A public health concern exists since
lead shot will drive bacteria from feathers into the body
of the duck. Also, the ducks may build up high concentra-
tions of toxic elements and organic compounds, if such dele-
terious compounds are significantly present in the sewage
pond the ducks inhabit. No research into these potential
health hazards has been reported.(9)
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT ECONOMICS
Table 37 summarizes treatment costs reported by the three
plants supplying effluents used in recreational lakes. Of
interest are the bottom lines of Table 37 which contrast
the comparatively low cost of the Lancaster treatment opera-
tion relative to the more sophisticated operations at Tahoe
and Santee. The Lancaster plant, which uses simple chemical
flocculation and filtration following oxidation ponds, pro-
duces effluent for about $150/MG including amortization.
Operating costs are also much less at Lancaster than at
Tahoe or Santee.
A major reason behind the high cost of treatment at South
Tahoe P.U.D. is that the present volume of 2.7 mgd is far
below the plant design capacity of 7.5 mgd. The District
believes its costs will be reduced to approximately $320/MG
when the plant reaches full design capacity.
89
-------
Table 37. TREATMENT COSTS REPORTED BY TERTIARY
PLANTS SUPPLYING EFFLUENTS USED IN RECREATIONAL LAKES
Parameter
Plant
South
Year built 1959
Original cost 2.0
Tahoe
1965
1.0
P.U.D.
Lancas
1967 1958 1959
2.5 .687 .06
ter W. R.P.
S antee
County
W.D.
1960 1969 1967
3 .069 .248 2.0
(millions)
Sewerage const.
cost index ratio
(Jan. 1972/yr
built)
January 1972
equivalent cost
Annual capital
amortization
5.5%-25 years
1971 annual
operating costs
labor
supplies
utilities
other
total
Total annual cost
in-eluding
amortization
Annual effluent (ing)
Effluent cost
w/amorti z ation
($/mg)
Effluent cost
w/o amortization
($/mg)
1.66
3. 32
1.54
1.54
238,600
869,293
986
882
242
1.44
3.60
247,506 114,807 268,380
1.69
1.66
1.64
30 ,503
8,883
12,634
12,217
64,237 (sec.)
28,273 (tert.)
218,499
1,460
150
63
1. 30
1.16 0.10 0.11 0.32
86,478 7,455 8,200 23,856
1. 44
2. 88
214,704
78,040
30,141
43,175
171,727
323,083
537,787
1,205
446
268
-------
SPECIFIC REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER IV
1. McKee, J.E., and Wolf, H.W. (ed.),"Water Quality
Criteria" Publication No. 3-A, California State Water
Resources Control Board (1971) .
2. Dryden, F.D., and Stern, G., "Renovated Water Creates
Recreational Lakes," Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, 2, 268, 1968.
3. Los Angeles County Engineers Office, "Summary Report on
Apollo County Park, Wastewater Reclamation Project for
Antelope Valley Area," October 1971.
4. Gulp, Gordon, and Selechta, Alfred, "Tertiary Treatment-
Lake Tahoe," Bulletin of the California Water Pollution
Control Association, January 1967.
5. Leggett, J.T. and McLaren, F.R., "The Lake Tahoe Water
Quality Problem History and Prospectus," Bulletin of
the California Water Pollution Control Association,
October 1969.
6. Leggett, J.T. and McLaren, F.R., "Lake Tahoe Revisited,"
Bulletin of the California Water Pollution Control
Association, January 1971.
7. Tharrett, Robert, California Department of Fish and
Game, Informal report to South Tahoe P.U.D. (May 5,
1970) .
8. Merrell, John C. Jr., and Ward, Paul C., "Virus Control
at the Santee, California Project," Jour. AWWA, February
1968.
9. Dornbush, James N. and Anderson, John R., "Ducks on the
Wastewater Pond," Water and Sewage Works, Volume 3,
No. 6, June 1964.
91
-------
CHAPTER V
DOMESTIC REUSE
INTRODUCTION
Great controversy surrounds the subject of domestic reuse
of wastewater for potable purposes. A recent study in
California,(6) documented public attitudes in that state
toward various uses of reclaimed wastewater. It was found
that opposition to the use of reclaimed water is generally
dependent upon the likelihood or extent of personal contact.
Non-potable domestic uses such as lawn irrigation and toi-
let flushing were opposed by less than 4 percent of the
respondents, home laundry by 20 percent, and potable reuse
was opposed by over 55 percent of all respondents.
It is not within the scope of this study to enter into the
controversy over technical capability, health hazards or
public acceptability of domestic reuse of reclaimed water.
This chapter briefly describes the well known operation at
Windhoek, South West Africa, which is the only current exam-
ple of direct potable reuse of municipal wastewater. In
addition, the non-potable domestic reuse program managed^by
the National Park Service at Grand Canyon National Park is
discussed. The Grand Canyon operation is described in de-
tail in Appendix A, Field Investigation Reports.
Table 38 summarizes treatment and volume reused for these
systems.
Table 38. INVENTORY OF DOMESTIC REUSE OPERATIONS
Municipal Plant Location
Reuse Volume
(mgd)
Level of
Municipal
Treatment
Windhoek, South West Africa 0.59 Tertiary
Grand Canyon, AZ (National Park
Service) 0.03 Tertiary
92
-------
One other documented example of potable reuse, although of
short duration, was that at Chanute, Kansas.(*) A severe
drought from 1952 to 1957 forced this town of 12,000 inhabi-
tants to make almost direct potable use of the effluent
from its sewage treatment plant during a 5 month period.
When the Neosho River, the normal water source, went dry
in the summer of 1956, chlorinated effluent from the second-
ary treatment plant was collected behind a dam in the river
bed. The residence time in this pond was approximately
seventeen days. The water was then coagulated, settled,
filtered, and chlorinated at the water treatment plant for
distribution to the community as the potable supply.
The tap water never failed to meet Drinking Water Standards.
However, it had a pale yellow color, an unpleasant musty
taste, and frothed when drawn into a glass. It was high
in chlorides, sodium, total solids, and organic content.
Coliform organisms were found on three different days, but
MPN levels were within standards.
Algae were present from 2,000 to 45,000/ml. A few live, un-
identified amabae and small nonpathogenic worms were re-
covered. No viruses were identified.
Public acceptance was poor and sales of bottled water flour-
ished. Seventy private wells were drilled (although most
of the water from this source was found too mineralized
to be palitable).
One year later local and federal health authorities met
with the local medical society. It was the consensus that
no illness could be traced to the water supply, even though
many patients blamed the water for illnesses they acquired.
Ten years later, Carl E. Workman, Superintendent of the
Water Plant, stated in a telephone interview that apparently
no chronic ill effects had ever been discovered due to the
drinking of reclaimed water during the 5 month emergency
period.
QUALITY CRITERIA
Criteria for the reuse of municipal wastewater for domestic
purposes is recognized by authoritative sources to be lack-
ing. The USPHS drinking water standards are ineffective in
stipulating limits for treated wastewater constituents; the
standards, in fact, exclude wastewater by definition.(D
The operation at Windhoek, South West Africa is currently
the only officially-recognized, full-scale potable reuse
facility in the world; and, even at Windhoek, the treated
93
-------
wastewater is diluted 7.5 to 1 with fresh water before being
supplied to the city.
The World Health Organization (WHO) sets the standards for
the Windhoek water supply. Portions of the WHO standards
and the USPHS Drinking Water Standards, are presented in
Table 39.
Table 39. WHO AND USPHS DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Parameter^ mg/1
Regulatory Agency
WHO
Acceptable
Allowable
USPHS
pH
Color
Turbidity
TDS
Sulfates
Chlorides
Nitrates
Ammonium Nitrogen
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
COD
BOD
DO
ABS
Colif orms
7.0-8.5
5
5
500
200
200
-
0.5
1.0
10
6
-
0.5
—
6.5-9.2
50
25
1,500
400
600
45
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
—
6.0-8
15
5
500
250
250
45
-
-
-
-
4-7
0.5
1
.5
.5
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's "Policy
Statement on Water Reuse" (July 7, 1972) states in regard
to potable reuse as follows:
"We do not have the knowledge to support the direct
interconnection of wastewater reclamation plants in-
to municipal water supplies at this time. The pota-
ble use of renovated wastewaters blended with other
acceptable supplies in reservoirs may be employed
once research and demonstration has shown that all
of the following conditions would be met:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Protection from hazards to health
Offers higher quality than available conventional
sources
Results in less adverse ecological impact than
conventional alternatives
Is tested and supplied using completely depend-
able chemical and biological control technology
94
-------
e. Is more economical than conventional sources
f. Is approved by cognizant public health authori-
ties."
The joint AWWA-WPCF statement on domestic reuse is somewhat
different from the EPA statement and reads as follows:
"WHEREAS: Ever-greater amounts of treated wastewaters
are being discharged to the waters of the nation and
constitute an increasing proportion of many existing
water supplies, and
WHEREAS: more and more proposals are being made to
introduce reclaimed wastewaters directly into vari-
ous elements of domestic water-supply systems, and
WHEREAS: the sound management of our total available
water resources must include consideration of the
potential use of properly treated wastewaters as
part of drinking-water supplies, and
WHEREAS: there is insufficient scientific informa-
tion about acute and long-term effects on man's
health resulting from such uses of wastewaters, and
WHEREAS: fail-safe technology to assure the removal
of all potentially harmful substances from waste-
waters is not available,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the AWWA and WPCF
do hereby urge the federal government to support im-
mediate multi-disciplinary national effort to pro-
vide the scientific knowledge and technology rela-
tive to the reuse of water for drinking purposes in
order to assure the full protection of the public
health."
It is expected that more definitive quality standards for
both potable and non-potable domestic reuse will be forth-
coming .
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROCESS PRACTICES
South Africa
In South Africa, the need for additional water supplies has
instigated substantial research into water reclamation. The
only known operation reclaiming sewage directly for potable
use on a permanent basis was put on stream in Windhoek,
South West Africa, during the late 1960's. The design capa-
city of the Windhoek plant is 1.17 mgd and during the first
95
-------
two years of operation, the reclamation plant has contrib-
uted an average of 13.4 percent of the total local water
consumption.
Figure No. 35 on the following page, schematically illus-
trates the plant processes. Following conventional second-
ary treatment by trickling filtration and maturation (oxida-
tion) ponding, the water is sent through a tertiary plant
consisting of the following unit processes:
pH correction with carbon dioxide
Algae flotation (aided by alum sulphate)
Foam fractionation
Lime flocculation
Breakpoint chlorination
Sedimentation
Rapid sand filtration
Activated carbon adsorption
Post chlorination
A key element in the process chain is the stimulation of
algae growth in the maturation ponds in order to remove
nutrients. The maturation pond effluent is then subjected
to extensive treatment to remove algae, settleables, and
suspended solids. Referring to Figure 35, it is seen that
breakpoint chlorination is practiced to provide a free
chlorine residual through the sand filters and oxidize
ammonia-nitrogen. Carbon adsorption and final chlorina-
tion to a free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/1 completes the
treatment process. Two chlorine residual recorders with
alarm actuators ensure proper chlorination.
The typical plant effluent quality attained from the Wind-
hoek facility is shown in Table 40. A comparison with the
WHO limits previously shown in Table 39, shows that Wind-
hoek exceeds the "acceptable" values for color, TDS, COD,
and ABS; however, stays well under the "allowable" limits.
Subsequent blending of the effluent into the normal potable
supply from Goreangab Dam improves all quality parameters
of the combined water to better than the WHO "acceptable"
values. Average percentage of reused water in the combined
water is 13 percent with a reported range of 0 to 28 percent.
Problems experienced at the Windhoek plant include the fol-
lowing:
Mechanical failures in the algae flotation and foam
fractionation units (now corrected)
Tertiary plant shutdown for activated carbon regen-
eration
96
-------
GRIT
CHAMBER
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANK
TRICKLING
FILTER
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANK
MATURATION PONDS
BREAKPOINT
CHLORINATION
RECARBONATION ALGAE ABS
CHAMBER FLOATATION REMOVAL
TANK TANK
LIME
COAGULATION
UVIV1C.O 1 IU
WATER
FROM WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
'( V
v y
C|_E/\R ^- »S
WATER ACTIVATED RAP|D
SUMP CARBON SAND
FILTERS FILTERS
/'-Til \>V-Xv^/V w J
fi° CL1 \ '
CL2 CITY
RESERVOIR
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANK
CITY
FIGURE 35
GAMMAMS SEWAGE PURIFICATION WORKS
WINDHOEK, SOUTH WEST AFRICA
97
-------
Table 40. TYPICAL QUALITY OF EFFLUENTS
FROM WINDHOEK AND GRAND CANYON
Parameter, mg/1
PH
Color
Turbidity
TDS
Sulf ates
Chlorides
Nitrates
Ammonium Nitrogen
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
COD
BOD
DO
ABS
Co li forms
Sodium
Potassium
Phosphates
Facility
Windhoek 1 Grand Canyon
7.8 6.9-7.2
8
4
540 616
125
62 200
9
0.2
0.5
14
0.3 5-10
- -
0.7
0 0
76
19
0.016
Excessive maturation pond ammonia levels during win-
ter months, making treatment to reuse levels uneco-
nomical
As a result of these problems, the plant has operated at
only 50 percent of design capacity.
The plant also experiences substantial water losses in the
algae flotation and foam fractionation units and backwash of
sand and activated carbon filtration systems. These losses
account for over 10 percent of the plant influent volume.
The Windhoek water reclamation plant operated from October
1968 until the end of 1970. Towards the beginning of 1971,
the loading on the conventional sewage treatment works had
increased to such an extent that the quality of the matura-
tion pond effluent did not comply with the water quality
specifications of the reclamation plant. Reclamation of
treated sewage effluent was therefore stopped temporarily
pending upgrading of the conventional sewage treatment
facilities. In addition, increased rainfall in the area
eliminated the urgent need for water reclamation. The plant
will be commissioned again upon expansion of the conventional
treatment works.
98
-------
All information on the Windhoek plant presented in the
foregoing section was derived from the technical litera-
/ O •n "7 Q Q\
ture.(2 ,3, /, b, y;
Grand Canyon Village, Arizona
The Grand Canyon, Arizona, wastewater treatment facility,
operated by the National Park Service, provides water for
direct, non-potable domestic uses. (A field investigation
is included in Appendix A of this report). During the May
through September high-use season an average of 30,000 gpd
of reclaimed water (approximately 7 percent of the total water
demand during the period) is used for: toilet flushing, car
washing, irrigation, construction, and stock watering. All
water use decreases significantly during the winter months.
The largest single use of the effluent is for flushing pub-
lic toilets in the older lodges, motels, dorms, and cafe-
terias within the village. Irrigation of the high school
football field and landscaping is another major use of re-
claimed water, and minor quantities are used for vehicle
washing and road construction.
Treatment consists of conventional activated sludge followed
by anthracite filtration and final chlorination to a high 5
mg/1 residual. Typical effluent characteristics were shown
in Table 40.
The Grand Canyon plant is non-automated. Chlorine residual
is considered to be the most critical parameter and is
checked every 24 hours by plant personnel. Specific efflu-
ent quality limits are as follows:
10 mg/1 BOD
10 mg/1 SS
200 per 100 ml coliforms, MPN
The effluent is reported to be substandard in quality approxi-
mately two percent of the time.
Pikes Peak
A potential domestic reuse system has been partially evalu-
ated at Pikes Peak, Colorado. Toilet and kitchen wastes
generated at this recreation area will be treated to allow
reuse on site for toilet flushing. To date only the treat-
ment system has been evaluated. Acceptability of the efflu-
ent cannot be fully evaluated until the U.S. Forest Service
selects a permanent location for the installation on the
Peak site. Treatment is conducted in a closed activated
sludge-ultrafiltration unit of proprietary design. The
99
-------
ultrafiltration portion acts as a positive barrier to the
movement of biomass out of the system. Thus, the system
can operate at a very long SRT which is conducive to high
treatment efficiency. In addition, the ultrafiltration
membrane prevents escape of high molecular weight soluble
organics and colloidal matter.
At Pike's Peak, 15,000 gpd have been produced by this pro-
cess. Typical quality values reported for August-September
1970 are summarized in Table 41 below.
Table 41. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE OF THE DORR-
OLIVER ACTIVATED SLUDGE-ULTRAFILTRATION PLANT
OPERATIONS AT PIKES PEAK AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1970
Influent
mg/1
BOD
COD
TOC
Turbidity
285
547'
136
(JTU) 47
Color (units) 320
TSS
MLSS
Colif orm
P04-P
PH
Threshold
129
3,954
(per 100 ML)
9.1
7-9
Odor Number
Effluent Percent
mg/1 Removal
1 99
32 94
6.6 95
0.33
40
100
-
100
11.1
5.9
6
Average Flux
11.0 GFP = 21,000 GPD
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT ECONOMICS
Windhoek is reported to produce effluent at $577/MG, includ-
ing amortized capital costs. Table 42 on the following page
summarizes the tertiary treatment costs over the first two
years of operation.
These costs do not include that of conventional sewage
treatment and are based on the actual plant flow at roughly
50 percent of design. For the maximum 80 percent utiliza-
tion, the total unit cost would drop to $495/MG; a figure
which compares favorably with the unit cost of $530/MG for
conventional water treatment of surface water supplies at
Windhoek.
The combination of tertiary unit processes at Windhoek
proved to be an economical system for production of
100
-------
Table 42. TERTIARY TREATMENT COSTS AT
WINDHOEK, SOUTH AFRICA (1968-1970)(9)
Cost Item $/MG
Capital costs 194
Labor 44
Chemicals 144
Activated carbon 120
Specialized supervision 75
Total $577
reclaimed water. A constraint is imposed upon the cost
evaluation, however, by the previously discussed inability
of the sewage treatment facility to always provide an efflu-
ent suitable for reclamation by the tertiary treatment pro-
cesses.
The cost of treatment at Grand Canyon is estimated at $604/
MG not including capital amortization, and $2,580/MG includ-
ing capital amortization. The high cost of the Grand Canyon
effluent is due to its' low volume, and is not indicative of
"normal" cost for non-potable domestic reuse.
It is not known what revenues, if any, are received by the
city of Windhoek for reused water. Grand Canyon, however,
has a specific rate structure for its water. The charge
for renovated water is $1,750/MG except where fresh potable
water is available. If fresh water is available, the charge
is $1,000/MG to provide stronger incentive for reuse since
fresh water is priced at $2,450/MG. The importance of the
reclaimed water supply is emphasized by the method of fresh
water transport. Fresh water is piped 15 miles across the
Grand Canyon and pumped 3,400 feet vertically. The National
Park Service realized $11,000 on sales of renovated water in
1971.
101
-------
SPECIFIC REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER V
1. Wolf, Harold W-, and Esmond, Steven E., "Water Quality
for Potable Reuse of Wastewater."
2. Stander, G.J. and J.W. Funke, "Direct Cycle Water Reuse
Provides Drinking Water Supply in South Africa," Water
and Wastes Engineering, May 1969.
3. Clayton, A.J. and P.J. Pybus, "Windhoek Reclaiming Sew-
age for Drinking Water," Civil Engineering, September
1972.
4. "Water Re-Used on Pike's Peak," Public Works, November
1970.
5. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Water Reuse,
Symposium Series 78, Vol. 63, 1967.
6. Bruvold, W.H., and Ward, P.E., "Using Reclaimed Waste-
water - Public Opinion," JWPCF 44, 1690, 1972.
7. Stander, G.J., "Reuse of Wastewater for Industrial and
Household Purposes," Paper presented at the International
Water Supply Congress, September 1972.
8. Hart, O.O. and Stander, G.J., "The Effective Utilization
of Physical-Chemically Treated Effluents," Applications
of New Concepts of Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treat-
ment, Edited by Wesley W. Eckenfelder, Pergammon Press,
September 1972.
9. Van Vuuren, L.R.S. and Henzen, M.R., "Process Selection
and Cost of Advanced Wastewater Treatment in Relation
to the Quality of Secondary Effluent and Quality Re-
quirements for Various Uses," Applications of New Con-
cepts of Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment, Edited
by Wesley W. Eckenfelder, Pergammon Press, September
-L y / ^ •
102
-------
SECTION VI
FISH PROPAGATION AND FARMING
INTRODUCTION
Current programs involving the propagation of fish in
treated municipal wastewater lagoons provide encouragement
that this type of water reuse has good potential. Two
major potential applications are: (1) recreational fishing,
and (2) commercial fish farming.
Although various species of fish exist in numerous municipal
wastewater treatment lagoons, stocking of effluent lakes and
ponds for public recreational fishing is done in relatively
few locations in the county. As treatment processes become
more advanced and effluent qualities improve, however, the
use of effluent lakes and ponds for raising recreational
fish may become more popular.
We were unable to locate any current commercial fish farming
operations utilizing reclaimed sewage in the United States.
Several foreign countries, notably Israel, as well as sever-
al countries in Asia and Europe have practiced pisciculture
in wastewater lagoons. The studies and pilot programs
referenced in this chapter generally indicate a cautious
optimism toward the feasibility of wastewater fish farming.
Required Quality Criteria
Of primary importance in fish farming is the presence of
dissolved oxygen in sufficient concentrations to support
fish life.
When wastewater is the environment, the potentially signifi-
cant BOD concentration is particularly critical since it can
reduce or totally deplete oxygen levels in the water. (•*-'
Ammonia is a detrimental constituent common to wastewater;
even very low concentrations can result in significant fish
kills.(37 The toxicity of ammonia and ammonium salts to
fish is directly related to the amount of undissociated
103
-------
ammonium hydroxide in the water which in turn is a function
of pH according to the following equilibrium equation:^>
[NH4+][OH-] = 1.8 x 10-5
TNH40H]
As the pH is raised the concentration of unionized ammonia
and toxicity increases. One researcher found that the toxi-
city of a given concentration of ammonium compounds toward
fish increased by 200 percent between pH 7.4 and 8.0.(2'
Other sources documented in Reference 2, show that the toxi-
city of ammonia to fish is increased markedly at low-concen-
trations of dissolved oxygen. One theory explains that at
low DO levels, the concentration of fish excreted CO2 is
reduced and thus, the pH value of the water in contact with
the gill surface rises, leading to increased toxicity of am-
monium hydroxide as explained above.
Of equal importance to water quality is the presence of
pathogenic bacteria and viruses, certain heavy metals (such
as mercury), and pesticides and herbicides. Their presence
in the reclaimed water could be hazardous to both the fish
and the individuals who eat the fish.(4) Tables 43 and 44
offer typical limiting concentrations of selected quality
parameters.
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROCESS PRACTICES
As summarized in Tables 45 and 46 current practices in the
United States for raising of fish in wastewater lagoons is
limited to recreational fishing operations. Pilot experi-
ments with fish farming in treated sewage effluent have
been conducted in Michigan and Las Virgenes, California.
Appendix A provides a field investigation of the Las Vir-
genes operation, including specifics on their fish farming
experimentation. Overseas, successful fish farming is re-
ported in Israel.
Quality of effluent is of paramount importance to a healthy
fish population. Conventional secondary treatment is unable
to sufficiently remove some pollutants that could be toxic
fish life, e.g., some pesticides and algacides, heavy
metals, and some components of industrial wastes. Table 47
shows the low percentage of industrial waste in the influent
of municipal plants providing treated wastewater for raising
fish.
Table 48 summarizes the water quality characteristics of the
reservoirs holding fish. In the case of Lancaster, Santee,
and Indian Creek, these reservoirs are recreational lakes
104
-------
Table 43. TENTATIVE GUIDES FOR THE QUALITY
OF WATER REQUIRED FOR FISH LIFE(D
Determination
Threshold
concentration*
Fresh water
Total dissolved solids (TDS), mg/liter
Electrical conductivity, jumhos/cm @ 25°C
Temperature, maximum OQ
Maximum for salmonoid fish
Range of pH
Dissolved oxygen (D.O.), minimum mg/liter
Flotable oil and grease, mg/liter
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/liter
Detergent, ABS, mg/liter
Ammonia (free), mg/liter
Arsenic, mg/liter
Barium, mg/liter
Cadmium, mg/liter
Carbon dixoide (free), mg/liter
Chlorine (free), mg/liter
Chromium, hexavalent, mg/liter
Copper, mg/liter
Cyanide, mg/liter
Fluoride, mg/liter
Lead, mg/liter
Mercury, mg/liter
Nickel, mg/liter
Phenolic compounds, as phenol, mg/liter
Silver, mg/liter
Sulfide, dissolved, mg/liter
Zinc, mg/liter
2,000#
3,000#
34
23
6.5-8.!
5.0 +
0
10#
2.0
0.5#
1.0#
5.0#
0.01#
1.0
0.02
0.05#
0.02#
0.02#
1.5#
0.1#
0.01
0.05#
1.0
0.01
0.5#
0.1
*Threshold concentration is value that normally might not be
deleterious to fish life. Waters that do not exceed these
values should be suitable habitats for mixed fauna and
flora.
#Values not to be exceeded more than 20 percent of any 20
consecutive samples, nor in any 3 consecutive samples.
Other values should never be exceeded. Frequency of
sampling should be specified.
+Dissolved oxygen concentrations should not fall below 5.0
mg/liter more than 20 percent of the time and never below
2.0 mg/liter. (Note: Recent data indicate also that rate
of change of oxygen tension is an important factor, and
that diurnal changes in D.O. may, in sewage-polluted water,
render the value of 5.0 of questionable merit.)
105
-------
Table 44. APPROXIMATE LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS
OF SELECTED CHEMICALS TO FISH LIFE'1'*
CHEMICAL
ORGANISM TESTED
LETHAL
CONCENTRATION,
mg/LITER
ABS (100 percent)
ABS (100 percent)
Household syndets
Alkyl sulfate
LAS (C12)
LAS (C14)
Acetic acid
Alum
Ammonia
Ammonia
Sodium arsenite
Sodium arsenate
Barium chloride
Barium chloride
Cadmium chloride
Cadmium nitrate
C02
CO
Chloramine
Chlorine
Chromic acid
Copper sulfate
Copper nitrate
Cyanogen chloride
H2S
HCI
HCI
Lead nitrate
Mercuric chloride
Nickel nitrate
Nitric acid
Oxygen
Phenol
Phenol
Potassium chromate
Potassium cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Fathead minnow
Bluegills
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill fingerlings
Bluegill fingerlings
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Perch, roach,
rainbow trout
Minnow
Minnow
Goldfish
Salmon
Goldfish
Goldfish
Various species
Various species
Brown trout fry
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Stickleback
Stickleback
Goldfish
Goldfish
Stickleback
Goldfish
Minnow, stickleback,
brown trout
Stickleback
Stickleback
Minnow
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Perch
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Stickleback
3.5-4.5
4.2-4.4
39-61
5.1-5.9
3
0.6
423
100
2-2.5
3 N
17.8 As
234 As
5000
158
0.017
0.3 Cd
100-200
1.5
0.06
0.03-0.08
200
0.03 Cu
0.02 Cu
1
10
pH 4.8
pH 4.0
0.33 Pb
0.01 Hg
1 Ni
pH 5.0
3 cc/liter
6
9
75
0.13 Cn
1.04 Cn
106
-------
Table 44. (Continued)
CHEMICAL
ORGANISM TESTED
LETHAL
CONCENTRATION,
mg/LITER
Silver nitrate
Sodium fluoride
Sodium sulfide
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Pesticides
1. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Aldrin
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
BHC
BHC
Chlordane
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Stickleback
Goldfish
Brown trout
Stickleback
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Salmon
Brook trout
Minnow, guppy
Stoneflies (species)
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Carp
Fathead minnow
Various species
Stoneflies (species)
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Bluegill
Redear sunfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Carp
Goldfish
Goldfish
Minnows
70 K
1000
15
0.3 Zn
0.5
0.028
0.027
0.5-0.32
0.08
0.032
0.75 ppb
0.32-1.8
2.3
3
0.082
0.5
0.037
0.008
0.05
0.0019
0.14
0.001
0.03-0.05 ppb
0.32-2.4 ppb
0.25
0.23
0.019
0.017
0.05
0.056
0.05
0.0056
0.1
0.2
0.04
0.2
107
-------
Table 44. (Continued)
CHEMICAL
ORGANISM TESTED
LETHAL
CONCENTRATION,
mg/LITER
2. Organic
phosphates
Chlorothion
Dipterex
EPN
Guthion
Guthion
Malathion
Parathion
TEPP
3. Herbicides
Weedex
Weeda Zol
Weeda Zol T.L.
Simazine
(no plants
present)
Atrazine (A361)
(plants present)
Atrazine in
Gesaprime
4. Bactericides
Algibiol
Soricide
tetraminol
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Young reach
and
trench
Minnow
Minnow
Minnow
Minnow
Minnow
3.2
180
0.2
0.093
0.005
12.5
1.4-2.7
1.7
40-80
15-30
20-40
0.5
5.0
3.75
20
8
*Note: This table is a summary derived from numerous
sources as specifically listed in reference (1).
108
-------
Table 45. INVENTORY OF REUSE OPERATIONS FOR
RECREATIONAL FISHING IN THE UNITED STATES
MUNICIPAL PLANT
LOCATION
FISH SPECIES
RAISED
REUSE VOLUME
(mgd)
LEVEL OF
MUNICIPAL
TREATMENT
Los Angeles, CA
(L.A. County
Sanitation
Districts,
Lancaster
Plant)
Santee, CA
South Lake
Tahoe, CA
(South Tahoe
PUD)
Colorado
Springs, CO
(U.S. Air
Force Academy)
Bass
Channel Catfish
Gambusia
Redeared Sunfish
T'rout
Bluegill
Channel Catfish
Gambusia
Largemouth Bass
Rainbow Trout
Redeared Sunfish
Threadfin Shad
Rainbow Trout
0.5
Tertiary
1.0
Secondary
2.7
Smallmouth Bass
Trout
1.4
Okolona, KY Bluegill
(Okolona Sewer Largemouth Bass
Const. Dist.) Minnows
1.0
Tertiary
Tertiary
Secondary
109
-------
Table 46. INVENTORY OF FISH FARMING PILOT STUDY
OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
MUNICIPAL PLANT
LOCATION
FISH SPECIES
RAISED
TYPE OF
MUNICIPAL
TREATMENT
Bangor, Mich.
Belding, Mich.
Carson City, Mich.
Coopersville, Mich,
Eau Claire, Mich.
Gassopolis, Mich.
Lawton, Mich.
Las Virgenes, Ca.
Fathead Minnows
Fathead Minnows
Golden Shiners
Muskies
Bottom Muds
Fathead Minnows
Golden Shiners
Tiger Muskies
Fathead Minnows
Fathead Minnows
Fathead Minnows
Fathead Minnows
Gambusia
Bass
Catfish
Crappie
Bluegill
Oxidation Pond
Oxidation Pond
Oxidation Pond
Oxidation Pond
Oxidation Pond
Oxidation Pond
Oxidation Pond
High Quality Ac-
tivated Sludge
110
-------
Table 47. PRESENCE OF INDUSTRIAL
WASTE IN MUNICIPAL PLANT INFLUENT
Plant
Average
Flow
(MG)
Percent of
Industrial
Waste in
Influent
Lancaster, California 4.0 5
Santee, California 3.3 1
Okolona, Kentucky 1.0 0.1
Colorado Springs, Colorado 1.5 0
Indian Creek, California 2.7 0
Michigan (total of 7 plants) 10.0 5
fed from effluent from tertiary wastewater treatment. The
fish in Okolona, Kentucky are raised in aerated lagoons and
those in Michigan in oxidation ponds at the treatment plants
Table 48. BASIC WATER,QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF
RECLAIMED WATER RESERVOIRS FOR FISH PROPOGATION
BOD
mg/1
SS
mg/1
pH
CH
mg/1
Coliform
MPN
TDS
mg/1
Lancaster,
Calif.
Santee,
Calif.
Indian Creek,
Calif.
Okolona,
Michigan
Belding,
Michigan^
1.4-2.2 28-32 7.7-8.6 — 2.2 843-942
8.8 270-480 <2.2 1150-1600
6.6 3.4 8.3-8.4 22 - 120-416
Not Known
2-10 5-10 7.3-7.6 100-150 -
(1) One of 7 similar treatment facilities in Michigan
that participated in pilot fish farming programs.
(2) See Chapter IV "Recreation" for extensive quality
characteristics for the Lancaster, Santee, and
Indian Creek operations.
Controversy exists regarding the necessary degree of treat-
ment to provide an optimum wastewater lagoon habitat for
fish. There is an apparent trade-off between water quality
and availability of natural food for the food chain. Pri-
mary treatment removes most of the settleable solids but
leaves a larger percentage of the nutrients and BOD to
111
-------
provide food for the aquatic food chain. However, water
quality is usually poor and DO levels often approach the
threshold values of fish survival. Secondary treatment
prior to release to fish inhabited lagoons provides ad-
vantages of much improved water quality (higher DO, lower
BOD, COD, SS) but removes a portion of the nutrients avail-
able to stimulate growth of aquatic plants. Tertiary treat-
ment provides the highest water quality but is capable of
removing nearly all nutrient value.
As of yet, standard measurements have not been made of sever-
al important water characteristics affecting fish. Although
much research has been conducted regarding lethal limits and
observable deleterious effects of various concentrations of
pollutants, little has been done to investigate water char-
acteristics that taint the flesh or impart tastes and odors
to the fish. These considerations are of importance if com-
mercial fish farming in reclaimed wastewater is to be suc-
cessful in this country.
From the inventory of existing operations in Appendix B it
can be seen that four out of the five recreational fishing
systems employ some type of tertiary treatment. The Air
Force Academy plant has two oxidation ponds, following
trickling filters, prior to discharge to the fishing lakes.
Santee, California takes advantage of a natural sand bed,
for its tertiary treatment. After secondary treatment the
wastewater percolates through a 15 ft depth of sand and soil
in a spreading area consisting of 6 basins of about 1/2 acre
each. The water then flows horizontally through the sand-
soil strata for approximately 400-1,500 feet into the first
of a series of recreational lakes.
Lancaster, California employs a tertiary treatment system
following secondary oxidation ponds. It consists of:
chemical coagulation, sedimentation, multi-media filtration
(anthrafilt, sand, gravel), and chlorination. Indian Creek
Reservoir is fed with waters from the much publicized Lake
Tahoe water reclamation plant. Tertiary treatment at Lake
Tahoe is comprised of: chemical coagulation, sedimentation,
ammonia stripping, 2-stage recarbonation, mixed media fil-
tration, granular carbon adsorption and chlorination. The
remaining recreational facility, Okolona, Kentucky, has
plans for future expansion to more advanced aerated lagoon
treatment but currently involves only two lagoons in series,
the second one being aerated with a Hinde system and con-
taining the fish.
In comparison, the pilot fish farming study by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Fishery Division, was con-
ducted at municipal plants with only settling preceding the
112
-------
lagoons. The program in Michigan and at Okolona, Kentucky
were not extensively monitored as to water quality and its
affect on the fish population.
Naturally, the species of fish best suited for stocking in
wastewater lakes and lagoons is directly contingent upon
water quality- Species that are more tolerant of most com-
mon pollutants include minnows, gambusia, catfish, carp,
muskies, bluegill, and small mouth bass which have better
chances of survival in effluent from primary treatment. As
water quality improves and stabilizes with secondary and
tertiary treatment, less tolerant, higher quality fish such
as brown and rainbow trout can survive successfully.
Most waste treatment operations will occasionally have prob-
lems and plants upsets. These may become critical if a
lagoon or lake containing fish receives the treated effluent.
Specific problems were mentioned by five of the six opera-
tions covered in this chapter (Okolona, Kentucky reported no
problems).
At the Air Force Academy, a transfer of low DO water from an
upstream oxidation pond caused a fish kill in one of their
recreation lakes. Concern is also indicated that concentra-
tions of copper in bottom muds, from now discontinued appli-
cations of CuS04 algacide, will re-enter the water and build
up in the aquatic food chain. This is being closely moni-
tored. Details of the recreational fishing program, waste-
water treatment, and water qualities at the Air Force Aca-
demy are supplied in a case study report in Appendix A.
Lancaster, California reports problems with high NH3 levels
during winter months which could be critical because of
ammonia's high toxicity to fish. Build up of heavy metals
in the fish population at Lancaster is being monitored and
a report to EPA is being prepared. Appendix A contains an
in-depth discussion of Lancaster reuse systems.
Santee, California's greatest concern is meeting the strin-
gent TDS discharge requirement established by the Regional
Water Quality Control Administration (400 mg/1 increase in
concentration above those concentrations in the .public
water supply). Santee also experienced an unusual fish
kill which was believed to have been caused by a bloom of
algae (statoblasts) concentrations. Several similar cases
known as "red tides" have been reported on the eastern coast
of Florida and in California.
The only water quality problem experienced at Indian Creek
reservoir occured during the winter of 1971 prior to ammonia
stripping operations at the Lake Tahoe treatment plant. An
113
-------
8 inch ice cover on the reservoir melted very rapidly releas-
ing a surge of nutrients and NH3 into the water. Concur-
rently, loss of the ice cover allowed escape of CC>2 from the
lake water which raised the pH and increased the toxicity of
the ammonia concentrations. Approximately 5% to 10% of the
fish in the reservoir were killed during this incident. How-
ever, no similar problems have occurred since, and the treat-
ment plant now operates an ammonia stripping unit to safe-
guard against such occurances in the future.
The fish farming operation in Michigan experienced winter
kills in nearly all of their lagoons.(4) Ice cover shut out
light and eliminated surface aeration while plant respira-
tion and organic matter decay continued, thus greatly re-
ducing the DO concentration in the water and killing the
fish. Also of concern in the Michigan study was the build-
up of mercury in the fish of one of ponds coupled with the
knowledge that toxic industrial wastes could not be diverted
once they had reached the treatment plant. The most criti-
cal problem indicated in the Michigan study(4) was the po-
tential health hazard of transfer of human pathogens from
the sewage effluent to the fish and back to man. The unans-
wered health questions were the basis of their decision to
terminate their experimental operation until conclusive in-
formation could be developed.
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT ECONOMICS
The economics of current recreational fishing operations in
treated wastewater lagoons and lakes are difficult to ana-
lyze. Costs associated with the treatment operations them-
selves are given in Table 49. In most of these operations,
fish are simply an added benefit and recreational fishing
was not a significant factor in determining type or cost of
treatment. The recreational benefits to the public are real,
but beyond the scope of this study to evaluate. One general
recreational benefit-cost analysis is provided in the case
study report on Lancaster, California in Appendix A.
If these reclaimed water recreation operations are compared
with small commercial fishing lakes, it can be assumed that
each fisherman could be assessed a fee of $1.00 per day for
use of the facility- Currently, none of the programs charge
patrons to fish on their lakes. However, authorities at
Lancaster anticipate a facility fishing permit of $1 per
fisherman per day to help finance the extensive stocking
program.
Commercial fish farming in wastewater treatment plant efflu-
ent is governed by economics. The pilot fish farming opera-
tion by the Natural Resources Department of the State of
114
-------
Michigan showed that certain species of fish could grow and
reproduce successfully in primary sewage and that possible
economic gain may be realized as well. Approximately 400-
800 Ibs/acre of fathead minnows were raised at the Belding,
Michigan Wastewater Treatment plant in 1971. The minnows
were harvested and transported to a nearby state fish
hatchery at a total cost of $0.15/lb. The normal price paid
by the state for forage minnows from commercial hatcheries
is $0.50/lb. The basic areas for savings over normal hatch-
ery operations are: (1) reduction of artificial feeding
(dependent on degree of treatment with more advanced treat-
ment removing greater quantities of natural food); and (2)
lower water costs.
Table 49. TREATMENT COSTS FOR
REUSE FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING*
Municipal Plant
Code
Treatment Cost
($/MG)
Incl. Capital Amort.
Treatment Cost
($/MG)
Excl. Capital Amort.
CA-39
CA-63
CA-65
CO- 3
KY-1
130
520
1,747
498
211
44
268
1,086
126
134
*See Appendix E for calculation procedure.
115
-------
SPECIFIC REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER VI
1. McGauhey, P.H., Engineering Management of Water Quality,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
2. McKee, J.E., and Wolf, H.W., Water Quality Criteria,
California State Water Resources Control Board, Publi-
cation No. 3-A, 1963.
3. Personal communication., February 27, 1973, Robert C.
Summerfelt, PhD., Oklahoma State University, Department
of Zoology.
4. Personal communication, January 31, 1973, John D.
Schrouder, State of Michigan, Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Division.
116
-------
SECTION VII
SUMMARY
This report provides the results of the effort performed by SCS Engineers
under Contract 68-03-0148 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Environmental Research Center-Cincinnati, Ohio. The project
conpiled an updated listing of municipal wastewater reuse operations, and
utilized questionnaires and field visits to obtain information describing
current treatment and reuse practices. Municipalities contemplating
various kinds of wastewater reuse will find the report useful in identify-
ing existing operations elsewhere which have initiated similar reuse
practices. For most reuse operations (very small irrigation operations
excluded) data is provided pertinent to volume, effluent quality, municipal
treatment, user treatment, costs, specific reuse, quality safeguards, and
other information. Report data is provided in English units. Appendix F
is provided for those who wish to convert English units into metric.
The types of reuse covered in this study are:
Irrigation and other agricultural uses
Cooling water
Industrial process water
Boiler feed water
. Recreational lakes
Fish propagation
Non-potable domestic use
Separate chapters were prepared describing the results of the study by
category of reuse; i.e., irrigation, industrial, recreation, fish pro-
pagation, and domestic. Each chapter contains sections covering water
quality criteria for the specific reuse, a listing and analysis of
existing operations supplying wastewater for the specific reuse, and
an economic analysis.
As shown in Figure 36, of the above types of reuse by far the greatest
number of plants practice reuse by irrigation. In terms of volume,
however, irrigation reuse accounts for only slightly more than half
117
-------
the reuse reported, with
industrial reuse a close
second. Figure 37 shows
the comparative volumes
by types of reuse. One
large industrial reuser,
the Bethlehem Steel Corp.
in Baltimore, Maryland
(170 mgd) significantly
effects the volume com-
parison.
Geographically the reuse
operations are concentra-
ted in the semi-arid
Southwestern United States,
As shown in Table 50, Texas
with 149 municipal reuse
operations and California
with 138 are far ahead of
other states.
Irrigation Reuse
The irrigation chapter
provides an excellent
tabulation (Table 10)
by crop of the munici-
palities that are sup-
plying effluent for ir-
rigation of that crop.
Thirty-nine types of
irrigation reuse are
represented, ranging
from golf courses (30
locations) to sugar
beets (3 locations).
A subsequent tabulation
(Table 14) summarizes
the quality of effluent
being applied to various
crops. A wide quality
range is represented,
e.g., BOD of 15 to 370
mg/1 for cotton, showing
that the effluent qual-
ity ranges from poor
primary to excellent
secondary. Of particu-
lar interest are the
o
>
100
90
80
70
60
50
=i 40
CD
30
20
IO
IRR. IND. REC. DOM.
TYPE OF REUSE
FIGURE 36
RENOVATED WATER USES
IRR. IND. REC. DOM.
TYPE OF REUSE
FIGURE 37
RELATIVE REUSE VOLUMES
IN THE UNITED STATES
118
-------
Table 50. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
OF REPORTED MUNICIPAL REUSE
N
State I
o. of Municipalities Practicing Reuse
rr. Ind.
Texas 144(2) 5
California 134 (D 1
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado
Nevada
Michigan
Florida
Oklahoma
Washington
Missouri
Maryland
Kentucky
North Dakota
Indiana
Nebraska
Oregon
Utah
28(3) 2
10 0
5 1
4 2
1 1
2 0
1 1
2 0
2 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Rec.
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Dom.
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
149
138
31
10
7
6
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Totals
338
14
358
Includes 61 very small irrigation disposal which are not
included in comprehensive data tabulation, Appendix B.
(2)Includes 135 very small irrigation disposal which are
not included in comprehensive data tabulation, Appendix B.
(3)Includes 13 very small irrigation disposal which are not
included in comprehensive data tabulation.
119
-------
high average TDS (over 800 mg/1) and Na (over 300 mg/1)
levels of reclaimed waters used for irrigation. These aver-
age values indicate that relatively poor waters in terms of
dissolved salts are being successfully used on a wide variety
of crops, with proper irrigation management.
The prevalent relationship between the municipal suppliers
of effluent and the users of the effluent for irrigation is
to suit the crop to the quality of the effluent. If con-
taminants are present which are not readily removed by con-
ventional treatment, e.g., TDS and Boron, crops are selected
which tolerate the contaminant. In most cases, irrigation
reuse is more a method of disposal than an alternative to
fresh water supplies.
Of the plants returning questionnaires, approximately 25 per-
cent of those furnishing effluent for irrigation provide
only the equivalent of primary treatment (see Table 13).
The majority are small plants which irrigate small acreages
of pasture, landscape or animal feed crops. One large user
of primary effluent for irrigation is located at Bakersfield,
California and is described in the field investigation re-
ports (Appendix A). As a result of developing concern over
the potential long-term damage to groundwater and soil from
use of primary effluent, it is probable that regulatory
agencies will eventually require secondary treatment of
effluent for irrigation at Bakersfield and elsewhere.
Few of the reuse applications are irrigation of crops for
human consumption. Most of the crops for human consumption
are those that do not come into direct contact with effluent
such as grapes, citrus, and other tree crops. Truck crops
such as asparagus, beans, cucumbers, onions, spinach, and
tomatoes are irrigated at least partially with effluent only
at three California sites; Camarillo, Irvine, and Livermore;
and at two Washington sites; Walla Walla, and Warden. The
Walla Walla operation is described in the field investigation
reports (Appendix A).
Only 18 of the irrigation reuse operations reported no efflu-
ent storage available, and most have storage of two days or
more. Comments received from operators, irrigators, and
regulatory agencies emphasized the importance of substantial
storage facilities for effluent and tail water in order to
balance irrigation demands, allow for rainy periods when the
fields are saturated, and prevent run-off. Approximately
half the operations reported having alternate sources of ir-
rigation water in addition to the municipal effluent.
The study acquired a great deal of information pertinent to
economics of reuse by irrigation and other means. This is
120
-------
summarized and presented at end of each specific reuse chap-
ter. In a report involving data from many plants, there is
danger of overuse of the data obtained to arrive at broad
conclusions which are meaningless for a specific reuse appli-
cation. This is true particularly of the economics of sewage
treatment and reuse which are subject to many factors com-
pletely outside the scope of this study. The reader is
urged, therefore, to make a detailed investigation, before
applying economic data presented herein to another location
where conditions are only superficially similar.
Only 25 municipal producers of irrigation water report they
sell their renovated product. Most municipalities look upon
the irrigation operations as primarily a means of disposal,
and are not prone to demanding payment for effluent which
they would otherwise waste. In some cases the irrigation
operation allows the municipality to provide only primary
treatment, whereas if discharge were made to surface waters
a high degree of secondary treatment would be necessary.
Municipal revenues from irrigation are estimated to equal
less than one percent of the treatment cost incurred by the
municipality. As a whole, municipalities are apparently not
demanding sufficient revenue for reclaimed wastewater they
supply for irrigation.
Among those municipalities charging for their effluent, it
appears that charges for effluent are primarily influenced
by factors other than effluent quality. Among these fac-
tors are fresh water cost and availability in the area,
prior water rights in the area, and the municipality's fail-
ure to recognize its effluent as a valuable commodity rather
than something to be discarded.
Industrial Reuse
Only 15 industrial plants are presently reusing municipal
wastewater in the United States, including three city-owned
power plants, so private industry is represented by only 12
plants. Obviously, numerous potential reuse opportunities
remain unrecognized.
Cooling (154 mgd), boiler feed (1 mgd) and copper mining Cl
mgd) are the three reported uses for treated municipal
effluent. Obviously, cooling is predominant, and excellent
examples of successful operations are described in Appendix
A of this report for Burbank, California; Las Vegas, Nevada/-
Baltimore, Maryland; and five sites in Texas.
Cooling water technology is complex, and the use of reclaimed
sewage presents special problems of treatment and control to
responsible operating personnel. The difference between
121
-------
treated sewage effluent and fresh water must be recognized
and planned for, or serious problems will occur in the heat
exchange and cooling system.
The Bethlehem Steel Company cooling system which uses Balti-
more, Maryland municipal effluent is a once through system,
and successfully uses a relatively poor quality secondary
effluent. The other industrial reusers use the effluent in
recirculating cooling systems and require a much higher qual-
ity water supply. Chapter III, Industrial Reuse, provided
several tabulations (Tables 21 and 29) detailing water qual-
ity necessary, and the field investigation reports (see Ap-
pendix A) for Lubbock, Texas (see Table A-29), and Odessa,
Texas (see Table A-31) describe water quality criteria at
those locations. Generally, the industrial reuser treats
the municipal effluent with lime clarification prior to use
in order to reduce phosphates, organics, and suspended solids.
After lime treatment, the reclaimed water is more heavily
chlorinated and acid treated than is customary for fresh
water supplies. Burbank, California is unusual because the
power plant there does not find it necessary to lime treat
the municipal effluent prior to use. The Burbank sewage
treatment plant, however, produces an outstanding effluent
(typically 2 mg/1 BOD and 2 mg/1 Sus. Sol.). The effluent
is heavily chlorinated, pH adjusted, and corrosion inhibi-
tors added.
The use of treated municipal effluent for boiler feed water
makeup is practiced at three Texas locations; Big Spring,
Lubbock, and Odessa, all of which are described in field in-
vestigation reports contained in Appendix A. Since water
quality criteria is very high for boiler feed makeup water,
the effluent must be extensively treated by the industrial
user prior to use. At Southwestern Public Service Company,
Lubbock, Texas, for example, TDS and hardness are reduced
to less than 1 mg/1 with pH adjustment, reverse osmosis,
followed by demineralization with cation and anion exchanges,
and a mixed bed exchanger for final polishing. For low
pressure boilers clarification, filtration and softening is
a typical treatment sequence, and demineralization is not
used.
Three plants reported using reclaimed sewage effluent for
processing purposes in the mining and steel making industries.
Two Arizona plants utilize the effluent in the mining of cop-
per. Bethlehem Steel Corp. uses small amounts for a variety
of processes within its' fully integrated iron and steel
plant in Baltimore, Maryland. Specific uses include gas
cleaning, quenching, mill roll cooling, bearing cooling,
process temperature control, direct process, de-scaling sys-
tems, mill hydraulic systems, fire protection, air condition-
ing, and road equipment washing.
122
-------
Most industrial users of treated municipal effluent are in
the semi-arid southwestern states where water costs are
relatively high and fresh water quality tends to be poor in
terms of TDS and hardness. Several of the Texas plants do
not have an adequate alternative source of water and are
totally dependent upon their sewage effluent supply. The
others, however, have chosen to use reclaimed water because
it is the cheapest source to serve their needs.
The cost of reclaimed water may be divided into two parts.
First, the cost of procuring the reclaimed water, including
payments to the municipality, construction of effluent trans-
portation facilities, and all other costs required to de-
liver the effluent to the industrial plant site. Second, the
cost of treating the reclaimed water to make its' quality
suitable for the intended use.
Additional treatment costs generally comprise the largest
portion of the cost of reclaimed water use to industry. The
treatment costs depend upon the end use quality required,
the quality of the sewage effluent, the degree of treatment
required, the quantity of water treated, and other factors.
For cooling water use in recirculating systems, the reported
industry treatment costs varied from $100/MG to $550/MG.
Recreational Reuse
The recreational reuse chapter describes the three major
recreational lake reuse projects in the United States, i.e.,
Santee, Tahoe, and Lancaster, California. Reclaimed waste
water lakes used only for incidental fishing are described
in a later chapter.
Each of the recreational lake projects described has pro-
vided important background for advances in waste water treat-
ment.
The Santee County Water District lakes project is justifiably
famous for its' pioneering work. Since 1961, the Santee
Lakes have been used progressively for recreational activi-
ties involving increased human contact as laboratory results
and epidemiological information indicated that such activi-
ties could be conducted without health hazard. The lakes
are now used for boating and fishing with associated activi-
ties along the shoreline but are not open for whole-body
water-contact sports. In 1965, an area adjacent to one of
the lakes was equipped with a separate flow-through swimming
basin which used reclaimed water that was given additional
treatment by coagulation, filtration, and chlorination.
123
-------
The best documented tertiary treatment process in the nation
is found at Lake Tahoe, California where five tertiary treat-
ment steps are combined to provide exceptionally high qual-
ity effluent. Activated sludge effluent is subjected to
chemical treatment for phosphate removal, nitrogen removal,
filtration, carbon adsorption, and chlorination. This plant
also utilizes advanced sludge handling techniques, lime re-
calcination and carbon reactivation.
The treated effluent is pumped 14 miles through a lift of
1,470 feet, and then flows through gravity pipeline an addi-
tional 13 miles to Indian Creek Reservoir. Indian Creek Re-
servoir has a capacity of 3,200 acre feet. It is approved
for body contact sports (swimming) and is reported to boast
excellent trout fishing.
An interesting new project is located at Lancaster, Califor-
nia, where since 1971, the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County have sold renovated wastewater to the county
of Los Angeles for use in a chain of three recreational
lakes. The lakes have a capacity of 80 MG and serve as a
focal point for the Counties' 56 acre Appolo Park. The
park, located near Lancaster, California, was opened to the
public in 1973 and features fishing, boating, and picnic
areas.
During 1973, an average of 0.5 mgd of renovated wastewater
for the Appollo Park lakes was supplied by the District's
Renovation Plant No. 14 near Lancaster, California.
Treatment at Lancaster consists of a series of eight oxida-
tion ponds followed by flocculation and sedimentation for
removal of phosphates, suspended solids and algae; filtra-
tion to polish the effluent; and chlorination.
Each of the three recreational projects briefly described
above is unique but they share much in common. All have
found it technically feasible to consistently produce ef-
fluent meeting drinking water coliform standards. All prac-
tice phosphate removal for algae control and filter the
effluent to reduce turbidity. Many species of fish have
been grown successfully, including trout.
Domestic Reuse
Great controversy surrounds the subject of domestic reuse of
wastewater for potable purposes. Much less opposition is
voiced to non-potable domestic reuse, e.g., toilet flushing.
It is not within the scope of this study to enter into the
controversy. This report briefly describes the well-known
operation at Windhoek, South West Africa, which is the only
124
-------
current example of direct potable reuse of municipal waste-
water. In addition, the non-potable domestic reuse program
managed by the National Park Service at Grand Canyon National
Park is described in detail in Appendix A, Field Investiga-
tion Reports.
The Grand Canyon domestic reuse operation provides an aver-
age of 30,000 gpd through a separate distribution system for
toilet flushing, car washing, irrigation, construction, and
car watering. Major tertiary treatment given the activated
sludge effluent is anthracite filtration and heavy chlorina-
tion. Cost to the user for the reclaimed water is $1,000 to
$1,750 per MG. This premium price can be obtained because
fresh water sells for $2,450 per MG.
Fish Propagation and Farming;
The study did not locate any commercial fish farming ventures
using reclaimed wastewater in the United States.
Although various species of fish exist in numerous municipal
wastewater treatment lagoons, stocking of effluent lakes and
ponds for public recreational fishing was reported in only
eleven locations in this country. The fish species range
from fathead minnows, raised for bait in Michigan oxidation
pond, to rainbow trout stocked at Indian Creek Reservoir,
fed by effluent from Lake Tahoe.
Fish kills have resulted from depleted oxygen or the presence
of ammonia at some locations. Other potential problems can
result from the presence of pathogenic bacteria, heavy
metals, and pesticides. Several tables are provided in the
chapter which detail concentrations of various constituents
reported to be lethal to fish.
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF WASTEWATER REUSE
Municipal wastewater reuse cost benefit analysis may be
viewed from a local, regional, and national basis. A broad
evaluation of wastewater reuse economic feasibility re-
quires consideration of both water supply management and
waste treatment management systems.
On a national basis, EPA, and many other agencies and organi-
zations, support the continued development and practice of
successive wastewater reclamation, reuse, recycling, and re-
charge as a major element in water resource management, pro-
viding the reclamation systems are designed and operated so
as to avoid health hazards or environmental damage. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 em-
phasizes a much broader consideration of wastewater reuse in
125
-------
the development and implementation of waste treatment manage-
ment plans than has been given in the past. EPA encourages
the incorporation of wastewater reuse facilities in municipal
wastewater systems whenever such facilities are: (a) cost-
effective, and (b) will result in no greater pollution
effects to receiving waters than if wastewater reuse were not
employed. As shown by this study, only a small percentage of
municipal wastewater is presently reused in this country. On
a national basis, it will be beneficial to increase reuse
whenever possible within the technological and economic re-
straints stated above.
Cost-benefit analysis of municipal wastewater reuse on a
regional and local basis is complex, and a need exists for
development of detailed procedures and methodologies for
economic evaluation of wastewater reuse. Each site and each
area is unique. Based on this studyt however, preliminary
guidelines are presented below which list the major consid-
erations involved in the reuse economic feasibility analysis.
An outline for the essential components of a complete eco-
nomic analysis is given below. Following the outline, a
brief discussion of each major component is presented, with
examples from this study to illustrate applicable situations.
OUTLINE OF CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER REUSE
A. Fresh water considerations, present and future
1. Demand: in terms of quality, volume, and reliability
for
a. Domestic
b. Industrial
c. Irrigation
d. Recreational
e. And other purposes
2. Supply: quality, volume, accessibility, reliability,
and resultant cost to meet anticipated'demand of l.a
through e.
3. Legal or contractural restraints: e.g., a binding
contract to purchase a minimum quality of fresh water
from an existing water development project.
126
-------
B. Municipal wastewater treatment considerations, present
and future.
1. Volume and quality of raw sewage
2. Control of industrial sources contributing constitu-
ents potentially detrimental to reuse
3. Differences in treatment and effluent conveyance
facilities required to discharge to either receiving
waters, land, or various potential reuses.
a. Capital improvements, including effect of fed-
eral and state construction grants
b. Operational costs
c. Environmental considerations
4. Legal or contractural constraints; e.g., water rights
requiring return of certain volumes of effluent to a
water course.
C. Reclaimed wastewater market considerations, present and
future.
1. Potential customers for irrigation, industrial, rec-
reational water, both public and private.
2. Volume, quality, and reliability requirements of po-
tential reusers.
3. Effluent transportation and storage facilities re-
quired.
4. Additional treatment and/or volume, if any, required
by the reuser above that necessary for the fresh
water supply-
a. Capital improvements
b. Operation
5. Additional treatment, if any, required by the reuser
before discharge of his wastewater, above that neces-
sary when using the fresh water supply.
6. Potential revenues from sale of effluent to reusers.
D. Development of an analytic framework to complete an eco-
nomic analysis of municipal wastewater reuse and
127
-------
feasibility using reasonable assumptions for capital
financing costs, life of capital improvements, future
changes in water demand and wastewater treatment require-
ments, and so forth.
A. Fresh Water Considerations
In most areas the present volume demand for fresh water for
various purposes is readily available information. Future
water demand projections are also usually available through
the agencies responsible for water supply, or can be easily
developed from existing planning data. A projection of
water supply needs over a period of 20-30 years is desirable
and it is important that estimates be made of what percent-
ages of the demand are attributable to irrigation (other
than private home landscaping), industrial (particularly
large water using industrial complexes), power generation,
and recreational lakes (especially in the arid areas.)
The existing and projected quality of alternate water sup-
plies is often an important consideration in the economics
of wastewater reuse. The potential user in deciding between
alternate water supplies is interested in what additional
treatment and handling costs he will incur because of quality
differences between fresh water and reused water. For exam-
ple, in all cases of reuse for cooling tower makeup water
reported in this study, the user paid a penalty in extra
treatment and chemicals required over that required for
fresh water. For many irrigation applications, the quality
difference is less important.
The volume reliability of the fresh water supply may be in-
ferior to the reclaimed wastewater. In an area experiencing
a water shortage, domestic needs will normally be met first,
with agriculture and industry having lower priority. In
Odessa, Texas, the El Paso Products Company deliberately
chose to purchase reclaimed water for cooling and boiler feed
makeup because the municipal effluent is a more reliable
source than the public or private water supply. Similar
situations exist at other cities in Southwest Texas.
The present and future purchase price of fresh water is a
paramount factor in an economic analysis of wastewater reuse.
In areas where fresh water is cheap and abundant, the reuse
of municipal wastewater is less attractive. Conversely, in
areas where fresh water is expensive, there is strong incen-
tive for reuse. To take an extreme example, at Grand Canyon
Village, Arizona, the purchase price of fresh water is
$2,450/MG and reclaimed wastewater is used for many purposes
including toilet flushing. In some cases, the reuse project
can be justified on the basis of an expected increase in the
128
-------
future cost of fresh water. The Contra Costa County Water
District near San Francisco is planning extensive industrial
reuse of municipal wastewater in spite of the fact that at
1973 prices the fresh water costs less than the treated re-
claimed water. The District has projected ahead and deter-
mined that the reuse of wastewater now will result in lower
overall water management costs a few years hence.
Legal or contractural requirements to pay for water supply
improvements or to purchase a minimum quantity of imported
water may influence some communities in their consideration
of wastewater reuse. Many California areas, for example, are
obligated to purchase a minimum quantity of water annually
from large water importation projects. Unless the community
can modify its contractural obligation to purchase fresh
water, a large scale reuse program may be impractical.
B. Municipal Wastewater Treatment considerations
The volume and quality of the sewage generated by an area to
some extent determines what types of reuse applications are
feasible and, in addition, has an effect on treatment costs
because of "economy of scale." Generally, a community must
prevent the excessive discharge into its' collection system
of contaminants which survive the treatment process and are
detrimental to reuse applications. For example, many com-
munities using municipal wastewater for irrigation have ord-
inances preventing discharge of home water softener brines
into the sewers. Similar restrictions against wastes con-
taining heavy metals are prevalent. In some areas, such as
Big Spring, Texas, excessive infiltration of high TDS water
into a deep trunk sewer renders most of the municipal efflu-
ent unsuitable for industrial jr irrigation reuse.
An important cost factor in evaluating reuse are the differ-
ences in treatment facilities required to discharge to either
receiving waters, land, or various potential reuses. This
study showed, however, that very few of the municipal treat-
ment plants supplying effluent for reuse provide greater
treatment than would be necessary for alternate wasting of
the effluent to receiving waters. In some cases of irriga-
tion and industrial reuse, the municipal effluent is poorer
in quality than would be required by state agencies for di-
rect discharge to receiving waters, e.g., Bakersfield, Cali-
fornia and Big Spring, Texas. These municipalities have
enjoyed reduced treatment costs because their effluent is
reused.
Expensive facilities may be required to transport the waste-
water to the reuser. The treatment plant is usually located
at the lowest elevation in its' service area and very near
129
-------
to receiving waters. A force main, pump station, and stor-
age facilities are often necessary to convey the treated
effluent to the reuser.
If the reuse requirement is periodic or seasonal, large ef-
fluent storage ponds may be necessary. Occasionally, ponds
must be aerated to maintain effluent quality.
The results of our questionnaire response indicated that in
the majority of existing reuse operations, the reuser paid
for the effluent transportation and storage facilities. The
trend has reversed in recent years, however, because of the
availability of federal and state construction grants to
municipalities.
Legal or contractural constraints are important in some lo-
cations because the reuse of wastewater instead of discharge
to a receiving stream is complicated by water rights of
downstream users. Water rights laws are usually based on a
priority system whereby river waters are subject to appro-
priation. Prior to initiation of a reuse program such con-
straints should be investigated and resolved. For example,
the city of Denver, Colorado, which is planning a major
municipal wastewater reuse program, has entered litigation
to resolve water rights questions raised by the planned re-
use program. The city of Phoenix, Arizona, constructed an
effluent transport canal and provided assurance of a cer-
tain quantity of effluent to a large downstream agricultural
user under prior rights laws. Legal or contractural res-
traints may effect the feasibility and economics of waste-
water reuse, but can usually be resolved.
C. Reclaimed Wastewater Market Considerations
Obviously, a municipal wastewater reuse program must have
customers for its' reclaimed water to be successful. It
appears from the results of this study that generally muni-
cipalities have not sought out potential reusers, particu-
larly among private industry. Rare is the municipality
which thinks of its' effluent as a commodity to sell rather
than a nuisance to waste. Yet, reused water has enormous
potential for increasing the water resources of individual
localities and the nation. If reclaimed wastewater is used
to satisfy demands for non-domestic uses of water wherever
feasible, the fresh water thus saved will be able to satisfy
much of the future increase in demand for general water
s upply.
One of the first places for a municipality to look is at
its'^own municipal activities. Municipal power generation
stations, golf courses, parks, school grounds, farms, and
130
-------
recreational lakes are all successfully using their own
treated municipal effluent as a water supply. Other govern-
mental agencies, e.g., county, state, and federal, are also
excellent prospects to purchase reclaimed water.
Private irrigation reuse sales opportunities are prevalent
in most areas. Private farms, orchards, and golf courses
are all amply represented among existing reusers listed in
this report. Financial arrangements in effect between the
municipality and the irrigator range from charges based on
volume used to a flat fee negotiated annually. Most of the
existing irrigation reuse operations are located very near
the treatment plant. It appears that more emphasis might
be given to selling effluent to large irrigators remote
from the treatment plant.
There are only twelve private industrial reusers of munici-
pal effluent in the nation and two of these are "company
towns" for large copper mines. Undoubtedly, many opportuni-
ties for industrial reuse of municipal wastewater are being
ignored, especially for cooling purposes. As the results of
this study amply demonstrate, municipal effluent can be suc-
cessfully used for both once-through and recirculating cool-
ing systems. There is extra cost to the industry in treat-
ment and chemicals in the use of reclaimed water instead of
fresh water, however, in many cases this extra cost is off-
set by the lower cost of the used water. The potential mar-
ket is staggering. The power industry alone uses over 75
billion gallons per day of cooling water.
Looking at the reclaimed wastewater market from the reusers
point of view, it appears that generally the reuser is most
concerned about what will be the real total cost to him of
using effluent instead of fresh water. He is willing to
consider the use of reclaimed water if the cost savings
justify his having to cope with any additional problems
associated with reclaimed water use. The potential extra
costs of the problems may include the following:
The effluent may be insufficient volume at times. For
example, during a hot summer spell there may be insuf-
ficient effluent for adequate irrigation or cooling water
makeup. The city of Burbank supplies cooling water to a
nearby power plant, and occasionally low effluent volume
late on a summer night is insufficient to satisfy the
power plant requirement. Adequate storage facilities
can normally overcome volume supply-demand problems.
Conversely, as previously indicated, the reclaimed waste-
water supply may be the more reliable in water short
areas.
131
-------
The effluent is of lower quality than fresh water, and
will show occasional variability in quality resulting
from sewage treatment plant upsets. The industrial re-
user for cooling will normally incur extra cost for the
use of lower quality water, because of increased treat-
ment required and need for greater volume. The greater
volume may be necessary because the higher TDS of the
reclaimed water allows fewer cycles through the cooling
system before discharge. The occasional variable_quality
may necessitate extra safeguards in personnel vigilance
and quality monitoring instrumentation to protect the
industrial user.
The irrigation reuser is normally less concerned about
occasional changes in quality (except health hazards).
His only extra cost may be increased volume required to
prevent buildup of TDSr sodium, chlorides, etc. in the
soil root zone. Offsetting this may be the fertilizer
value of the effluent, which has been estimated at $18/
MG in the irrigation chapter of this report.
Effluent transportation and storage facilities in many
cases may be the single largest extra cost to the reuser.
The magnitude of the cost is dependent upon many factors,
including distance, elevation difference, storage volume,
pipe diameter, etc. In some cases equivalent facilities
would be required for fresh water supplies so no extra
cost is incurred for wastewater reuse.
A problem in some instances to the reuser is the dis-
charge of his wastewater. Because he is using a lower
quality water supply, his wastewater discharge in turn
may have difficulty meeting the regulatory agency stand-
ards. A common example of this situation is cooling
tower blowdown which has concentrated contaminants such
as TDS, heavy metals, chlorides, etc. many times over
their levels in the cooling makeup water. The problem
was approached in several ways by respondents to this
study. Several industrial plants simply have no dis-
charge, but instead dispose of their final waste by
evaporation or deep well injection. One power genera-
tion station proved to the local regulatory agency that
its' use of treated sewage effluent resulted in a lower
overall discharge of contaminants to the environment;
though the discharge from the power station is more con-
centrated, the discharge from the nearby sewage treatment
plant is eliminated entirely.
Revenues from sale of effluent are an important factor in
the economic evaluation of a wastewater reuse program.
The results of this study show that generally most indus-
trial reusers are paying for the wastewater they use on a
132
-------
volume basis, and most irrigation reusers are getting the
wastewater free or for a very minimal sum. Price is a
relative factor. The price of reclaimed wastewater must
be compared to the price of alternative supplies of water
that will meet the customers needs and to whether or not
he can afford to pay the price being asked, and still
compete on the open-market with his product.
The cost of additional treatment, transport and storage
to meet a customers' special needs is a further restraint
on price setting. No matter how conservation minded a
community is, the use of reclaimed water will be severely
limited if the net cost to the community for disposal via
reclamation exceeds that of alternative method of dis-
posal which is also commensurate with regulatory require-
ments .
D. Development of an Analytic Framework to Complete an Eco-
nomic Analyst
Development of an analytic framework to complete an economic
analysis is necessary to tie the various considerations des-
cribed in the previous pages together and arrive at a ra-
tional answer to the feasibility of wastewater reuse. A
need exists to develop detailed procedures and methodologies
to accomplish this. On a simplistic basis, however, waste-
water reuse is probably worth seriously investigating when-
ever one or more of the following conditions is met:
Existing fresh water supplies are limited and substantial
future expenditures are contemplated to develop addi-
tional supplies.
Existing fresh water supplies are relatively expensive.
Private or public developments with need for large vol-
umes of water exist in the area.
The treatment provided the wastewater produces an efflu-
ent of very high quality which is now wasted into receiv-
ing waters.
Regulatory agencies are planning to require a higher de-
gree of treatment for discharge to receiving waters, such
as nutrient removal.
Again on a simplistic basis, the economic feasibility of
wastewater reuse can be viewed from the standpoint of both
the municipality and the potential reusers as a series of
pluses and minuses. A favorable situation will have both
the municipality and the potential reuser on the plus side.
133
-------
For the municipality the balance sheet would include the
following:
Pluses
1. Savings in fresh water supply facilities which do not
have to be built because reuse lessens the demand upon
fresh water sources.
2. Savings in sewage treatment and disposal costs, if any,
for discharge to reuse instead of discharge to receiving
water.
3. Savings, if any, in construction of raw sewage trunk
sewers resulting from construction of a sewage reclama-
tion plant at an upstream location in the collection sys-
tem.
4. Revenues received from the sale of reclaimed water..
5. Environmental advantages, i.e., discharge of nutrients
to land instead of receiving waters.
6. Public relations advantages.
Minuses
1. Extra costs for sewage treatment and effluent transport
and storage, if any, for discharge to reuse instead of
discharge to receiving waters.
2. Extra costs, if any, for administration of a reuse pro-
gram, e.g., billings, handling complaints, etc.
3. Legal restraints, e.g., prior water rights.
4. Salt, nitrate, and other contaminants build-up in the
basin resulting from recycle, especially in cases of
irrigation reuse.
For the reuser, the balance sheet would include the follow-
ing:
Pluses
1. Lower cost water supply.
2. If an irrigator, higher fertilizer value of reclaimed
water.
3. In some cases, more dependable water supply.
134
-------
4. Beneficial public relations.
Minuses
1. Extra cost for treatment, conveyance or storage, if any,
over that required for fresh water supply.
2. Extra volume needed to accomplish similar purposes, if
any, over that required for fresh water supply.
3. Extra costs, if any, for reuser to discharge his waste-
water as a result of using reclaimed water instead of
fresh water.
Both the municipality and the potential reusers should ana-
lyze reuse on the basis of future as well as existing con-
ditions. Rising fresh water costs and more stringent waste-
water discharge requirements in the near future may make
reclamation a practical solution now.
135
-------
SECTION VIII
CONCLUSIONS
The reuse of municipal wastewater is being practiced on a
continuing basis at about 358 locations in the United
States. About 95 percent of these operations are located
in the semi-arid Southwest states of Texas, California,
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. Total reuse
volume is approximately 133 billion gallons annually,
exclusive of groundwater recharge which was not included
in the scope of this study.
Treated municipal wastewater is being successfully uti-
lized for irrigation of a wide variety of crops and land-
scaping, industrial cooling and process water, recrea-
tional lakes, and fish propagation. At one U.S. site
treated effluent is used for non-potable domestic pur-
poses (e.g., toilet flushing).
Irrigation with municipal wastewater is practiced at
approximately 338 locations and utilizes about 77 billion
gallons annually. The majority of the crops are not for
human consumption. Examples are cited, however, of the
irrigation of many varieties of crops for human consump-
tion and irrigation of landscaping with human contact
(e.g., golf courses).
Approximately one quarter of the treatment plants fur-
nishing wastewater for irrigation in 1972 provide only
primary treatment. The remainder provide secondary
treatment and in a few instances tertiary treatment.
Reported quality, both organic and inorganic, of effluent
used for irrigation varies widely. With proper crop
selection and irrigation management even very poor qual-
ity effluents are used successfully.
Important components of a successful irrigation program
include adequate storage, well engineered runoff control,
odor and insect nuisance prevention, protection of the
public against unsafe exposure, and good lines of com-
munication between the municipal supplier and the irri-
gator. Many existing programs lack one or more of these
safeguards and guidelines for proper design and operation
should be adopted and enforced by responsible regulatory
agencies.
Many irrigation operations are primarily intended as a
method of disposal. If there was no runoff from irri-
gated areas into surface waters, regulatory agencies paid
little attention to the irrigation wastewater quality.
In recent years, however, there has been growing concern
136
-------
over the possible effect upon groundwater resources from
infiltration of pollutants contained in treated sewage
used for irrigation. It is probable that in the future,
effluent quality standards for such use will become more
stringent.
Approximately 20 percent of the municipalities supplying
treated wastewater for irrigation receive revenue from
sale of the wastewater. At those municipalities which do
charge, weighted average user charges are $6/MG for pri-
mary effluent, $11/MG for secondary effluent, and $76/MG
for tertiary effluent. As a whole, municipalities are
apparently not charging enough for the effluent they sup-
ply, however, any revenue is more than would be received
if the effluent were simply discharged to waste.
Only 15 industrial plants are presently reusing munici-
pal wastewater in the U.S. These 15 facilities include
three city-owned power plants, so private industry is
represented by only 12 plants. Obviously, numerous
potential industrial reuse opportunities remain unrecog-
nized.
Approximately 53.5 billion gallons of treated municipal
effluent is reused annually by industry. Cooling water
use accounts for 98.5 percent of the total volume, with
the remaining small increment used for boiler feed water
makeup, process water in copper mining, and miscellaneous
process uses.
Treated municipal wastewater is being used successfully
for cooling water makeup at 12 industrial plants in the
U.S. Cooling water technology is complex and the use of
reclaimed sewage presents special problems of treatment
to the industrial operator. Unless the municipal efflu-
ent is of exceptionally high quality, further chemical
treatment is required to remove phosphates, organics, and
suspended solids prior to use in the cooling tower system.
Municipalities and industries have demonstrated the abi-
lity to cooperate in managing reuse programs to the bene-
fit of both. Probably the greatest single undeveloped
reuse potential is the increased use of municipal efflu-
ents for industrial cooling purposes.
Generally, from an industry point of view, the municipal
wastewater is in direct competition with fresh water. In
order for reuse to be attractive, either the total cost
of purchasing, transporting, and treating the wastewater
must be less than the total of equivalent costs for fresh
water, or the reclaimed wastewater must provide a more
dependable supply than the fresh water system. At seven
137
-------
locations where costs could be determined, the total cost
of using effluent ranged from $143 to $675/MG with a
median of $240/MG.
There are three U.S. municipal treatment plants which
provide treated effluent for major recreational lake pro-
jects. They are located in California at the cities of
Lake Tahoe, Santee, and Lancaster. All provide some
degree of tertiary treatment, and have been extensively
covered in the technical literature. Each project has
been successful in achieving most of its' goals in terms
of consistantly providing high quality effluent which
poses no hazard to the public utilizing the lakes.
Reported treatment costs, including capital amortization,
for supplying tertiary treated effluent for recreational
lakes range from $150/MG at Lancaster, California to
$882/MG at Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe costs are misleading
because the treatment plant is operating at less than
half design capacity.
Successful fish propagation in treated municipal effluent
has been reported at several locations in addition to the
major recreational lakes listed above. There is little
or no information available, however, regarding the suit-
ability of the fish for human consumption.
The only active domestic reuse operation in the U.S. is
at Grand Canyon Village, Arizona where about 30,000 gpd
of treated municipal wastewater is used for toilet
flushing, car washing, and other non-potable uses.
Only a small percentage of municipal wastewater is pre-
sently reused in this country. To conserve our national
fresh water resources government and the public will be
wise to strongly support the expanded practice and con-
tinued development of municipal wastewater reclamation.
138
-------
SECTION IX
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
1. A major need to supplement this report is a state-of-the
art study of groundwater recharge, using reclaimed
wastewater for water supply augmentation, salt water
intrusion barrier and oil field flooding. The approach
for the additional work would be similar to that used
for this study.
2. Work should begin on preparation of an EPA technology
transfer seminar publication on wastewater reuse, simi-
lar to EPA publications on upgrading lagoons, nitrifi-
cation, and denitrification facilities, etc. Such a
publication would have widespread distribution and
create interest in reuse.
3. Implementation of a series of comprehensive, in-depth
evaluations of existing reuse operations would be of im-
mense value. This report is a broad overview, almost
entirely dependent for its information upon data sup-
plied by the existing reuse operations. What is needed
is a detailed technical and economic field study involv-
ing extensive on-site analysis of various phases of rep-
resentative reuse operations. Irrigation, industrial,
groundwater recharge, and recreational lake uses should
be represented.
4. Preparation of a study showing detailed methodologies
and procedures for economic evaluation of a municipal
wastewater reuse program.
5. The role of incentives for reuse on a federal, state,
and local level should be studied. Many of the bene-
fits from local wastewater reuse are felt on a regional
or national level, and perhaps local reuse operations
should be compensated accordingly. Similarly, the re-
user is benefitting the community and perhaps should be
rewarded in some manner, e.g., lower industrial waste
discharge surcharge, etc. As part of this work, the
relationship between treatment plant construction
grants and potential reuse programs should be analyzed.
There is a danger that federal and state grants will
139
-------
contain provisions which tend to inadvertently discour-
age reuse. Possibly this recommendation could be incor-
porated into 4. above.
6. Continued basic research is needed into the potential
health hazards of the use of reclaimed wastewater for
purposes of direct potable reuse, total body contact,
edible fish propogation, and irrigation of crops for
human consumption. Of particular interest is the fate
of the refractory organics, heavy metals and pathogenic
organisms during reuse. Is there a buildup? Is there
a health hazard? At what concentrations? Etc.
7- Since cooling water is the predominant industrial use
for reclaimed wastewater, now and in the future, more
needs to be known about optimizing the technical and
cost relationships between effluent quality, user treat-
ment required, and cooling system operational procedures
(e.g., number of cycles, corrosion control, etc).
8. Continued basic research is needed in the area of ad-
vanced treatment methods for removal of contaminants
detrimental to reuse. Partial demineralization of ef-
fluent must be made less expensive, if possible. An
inexpensive method of removing boron from potential
irrigation water is needed. The effectiveness of dis-
infection with and without filtration should be deter-
mined for various qualities of effluent. Some munici-
palities feel their effluent could only be reused if
it were filtered, because chlorination alone will not
produce adequate bacterial kills.
9. Dual potable and non-potable water system technology and
economics is of interest, particularly the factors
bearing on the feasibility of a dual system, and the
necessary design criteria to protect the public health.
10. Basic research should continue in the development of
simple, rapid procedures and reliable instrumentation
for measurement and monitoring of bacteria, chemicals,
and toxic agents in reclaimed water. Other than an
occassional chlorine residual recorder or turbidimeter
very little instrumentation to monitor reclaimed water
was reported by this study. Bacteriological tests would
be more valuable if the time lag between sampling and
results were shortened.
140
-------
SECTION VIII
GENERAL REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY
PART I: ANONYMOUS ARTICLES
"All Round Re-Use of Effluent at Bristol," Water and Waste
Treatment Journal, 14, No. 9, p 10 (1971).
An Expanding Lubbock ... Reclaimed Water for a Growing City,
Lubbock, Texas, City Planning Dept. (1969).
California Endorses Wastewater Reuse," Engineering News-
Record, 179, No. 10, p 21 (1967).
"Can We Use Treated Sewage in Our Boilers?," Power, 111,
pp 170-171 (1967).
"Central Contra Costa Water Renovation Project," Bulletin,
California Water Pollution Control Association, 8, No. 2,
p 22 (1971).
"Chemical Process Purifies Waste-Water, Makes it Drinkable,"
Product Engineering, 40, p 15 (1965).
Chlorinated Municipal Waste Toxicities to Rainbow Trout
and Fathead Minnows, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, Michigan (1971).
"Conservation and Re-Use of Used Water," Effluent and Water
Treatment Journal, 4, pp 442-443 (1964).
"Cost Factors for Water Supply and Effluents Disposal,"
Chemistry and Industry, pp 667-683, 697-703 (1970).
"Effluent Re-Use Investigated," Water Works and Wastes Engi-
neering, 1, p 94 (1964).
"Effluent Re-Use Study at Pudsey," Water and Waste Treatment
Journal, 14, No. 6, p 4 (1971).
Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for Muskegon
County, Michigan Wastewater Treatment-Irrigation System,
Muskegon County Board and Dept. of Public Works, Muskegon,
Michigan (1970).
"Field Investigation of Waste Water Reclamation in Relation
to Ground Water Pollution," Publication No. 6, California
State Water Pollution Control Board, (1953).
141
-------
"Fish Raised in Wastewater Lagoons," American City, p 148
(June 1972).
"Improved Sewage By-Product Reclamation," Fluid Handling,
No. 88, p 150 (1957).
"Industry Utilizes Sewage and Wastes Effluents for Processing
Operations," Wastes Engineering, 28, No. 9, pp 444-448,
467 (1957).
"Irrigate with the Wastewater," American City, p 24 (March 1972)
"Israel's Wastewater Reclamation Scheme," World Construc-
tion, 22, No. 8, pp 37-39 (1969).
"Israel Turns to Sewage for Water," Engineering News-Record,
p 42 (Nov. 1969) .
"Methodology for Economic Evaluation of Municipal Water
Supply-Wastewater Disposal Including Considerations of Sea-
water Distillation and Wastewater Renovation," a final report
for Office of Saline Water and Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration (August 1970).
"Nassau Activates Recharge plant," Water in the News, 7
(1967) .
"New Process Promises Clean Water at Low Cost," Machine
Design, 41, pp 14-15 (1969).
"New Sewage Treatment Works for Exeter England," Local
Government Technology, 137, No. 4118, pp 30-33 (1971).
New Technology for Treatment of Wastewater by Reverse
Osmosis, Environmental Protection Agency (1970).
"On the Use of Reclaimed Wastewaters as a Public Water
Supply Source," Journal, American Water Works Association,
£3, p 490 (1971) .
"Power Plant to Run On Treated Sewage," Power Engineering,
75_, p 54 (1971) .
"Purified Sewage Will Provide Water Supply at the Jurong
Industrial Estate, Singapore," Water and Water Engineering^
£9, pp 208-209 (1965).
"Reclaimed Wastewater May Fill a Salt Free Aquifer,"
Engineering News-Record, 179, No. 6, p 38 (1967).
142
-------
"Reclaimed Water Solves International Problem," Journal of
the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 89, No. SA 3,
pp 12-13 (1963).
"Renovated Waste Water for Industry?," American City, 86,
No. 6, p 118 (1971).
"Re-Use of Sewage Plant Effluent," Industrial Water Engi-
neering, 5, No. 8, p 32 (1968).
"Reverse Osmosis for Wastewater Treatment," Gulf General
Atomic, Inc., San Diego, California, GA-8020 (1967).
Reverse Osmosis Renovation of Municipal Wastewater, Federal
Water Quality Administration (1969).
"Sowing with Sewage," Mechanical Engineering, 92, No. 7,
p 48 (1970).
"Steel Mill's Use of Clarified Water Cuts Stream Pollution,"
Water and Sewage Works, 115, p 489 (1968).
"Symposium on Waste Water Treatment and Re-Use," Effluent
and Water Treatment Journal, p 94 (Feb. 1969).
"The Re-Use of Water," West Texas Today, 45, No. 9, p 12,
22-23 (1964).
"The Reverse Osmosis Process and Its Potential for Applica-
tion in Water and Waste Treatment," Internal Project Report
No. OP-4 (J-20, 904)-1, Rex Chainbelt Inc. (Nov. 1968).
"Use of Ozone in Reclamation of Water from Sewage Effluent,"
Surveyor and Municipal Engineer 131, No. 3947, pp 21-22
(1968).
"Using Effluents as Coolants," Compost Science, 5, p 31
(Spring 1964).
"Water from Raw Sewage," Chemistry and Engineering News, 49,
p 11 (May 1971).
Water Quality Criteria; Report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, Federal
Water Quality Administration (1968).
"Water Requirements of the Petroleum Refinery Industry,"
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1330-G (1963).
143
-------
"Water Reused on Pike's Peak," Public Works, 83, No. 11,
p 114 (1970).
"Water Reuse in Industry," Journal, Water Pollution Control
Federation, 42, p 237 (1970).
"When Waste Disposal Taxes Water Supply, Reclamation is Key
to Treatment," Engineering News, 173, p 41-42 (1964).
PART II: AUTHORED ARTICLES
Abelson, P.H., "An Overall Look at Water Resources," Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, p 96
(1967) .
Aitken, I.M.E., "Solute Control in Water Reuse," Effluent
and Water Treatment Journal, p 34 (1968).
Amramy, A., "Re-Use of Municipal Waste Water," Civil Engi-
neering, 38, No. 5, pp 58-61 (1968).
Anderson, C.M., Grits, G.N., and Pratt, J.B., "A New Waste-
water Renovation System" Water Works & Wastes Engineering,
pp 28-31 (July 1965) .
Arnold, J.L., "Basic Thinking in Water Pollution Control,"
Water Pollution Control, pp 601-610 (1971).
Baffa, J.J. and Bartilucci, N.J., "Wastewater Reclamation By
Groundwater Recharge on Long Island," Journal, Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 39, No. 3, pp 431-438 (1967).
Baffa, J.J., et al., "Development in Artificial Ground Water
Recharge," Willing Water, (Nov. 1968).
Banks, H.O., et al., Economic & Industrial Analysis of
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Projects, Leeds, Hill &
Jewett, San Francisco (1971).
Bargman, R.D., Adrian, G.W., and Garber, W.F., "Urban Waste-
water Recovery: City of Los Angeles," Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series No. 90, 6>4, No. 216 (1968) .
Barker, J.E. and Pettit, G.A. , "Water Reuse," Industrial Water
Engineering, 5, No. 1, p 36 (1968).
Bauer, J.H., "Air Force Academy Sewage Treatment Plant Designed
for Effluent Re-Use," Public Works, 92, No. 6, pp 120-122
(1961).
144
-------
Berger, B.B., "The Natural Cycle of Water Reuse," Water and
Wastes Engineering, 5, No. 8, p 34 (1968).
Berger, H.F. , "Evaluating Water Reclamation Against Rising
Costs of Water and Effluent Treatment," Louisiana State
University, Division of Engineering Research Bulletin, 89,
pp 155-168 (1967).
Bernstein, Leon, "Quantitative Assessment of Irrigation Water
Quality," Water Quality Criteria, American Society for Testing
and Materials, First National Meeting on Water Quality
Criteria, Philadelphia (1966).
Bernstein, M., "Water Renovation and the Reuse of Water,"
The Civil Engineer in South America, 10, No. 8, p 168 (1968).
Besik, F. , "Reclamation of Potable Water from Domestic Sew-
age," Water Pollution Control (Canada), 109, No. 4, p 35;
No. 4, p 46; No. 6, p 38 (1971).
Besik, F., "Wastewater Reclamation in a Closed System," Water
and Sewage Works, pp 213-219 (1971).
Bishop, Bruce A. and Hendricks, David W., "Water Reuse Sys-
tems Analysis," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
ASCE, 97, No. SA 1, pp 41-57 (1971).
Bloodgood, D.E., Utilization of Wastewaters," Water and Wastes
Engineering, 7, pp E 2-4 (1970).
Boen, D.F., Bunts, J.H., Jr., and Currie, R.J., Study of
Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled Through Groundwater,
Vol. I and II, Eastern Municipal Water District, Hemet,
California D-971) .
Borneff, J., "Die Wiederverwendung von Abwasser," Archiv
fur Hygiene und Bakteriologie, 153, No. 4, pp 289-297 (1969).
Borneff, J., "Die Wiederverwendung von Abwasser," Zentral-
blatt fur Bakteriologie, Paristitienkunde ... Abt.'Orig. 212,
p 334.
Bouwer, Herman, Rice, R.C., and Escarcega, E.D., Renovating
Secondary Sewage By Ground Water Recharge with Infiltration
Basins. Environmental Protection Agency (1972).
Bouwer, Herman, "Ground Water Recharge Design for Renovating
Waste Water," Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE,
9_6, No. SA 1, pp 59-74 (1970).
Bowen, D.H.M., "Effluents Are Tasting Better and Better,"
Environmental Science and Technology, 5, No. 2 (1971) .
145
AWBERC LIBRARY U.S. EPA
-------
Bradakis, H.L., "Joint Municipal-Industry Spray Irrigation
Project ," Industrial Water & Wastes, 6, No. 4, pp 117-120
(1961).
Bramer, B.C., and Hoak, R.D., "Water Reclamation," Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 92-95
(1967).
Bray, D.T., Merten, U., and Augustus, M., "Reverse Osmosis
for Water Reclamation," Bulletin, California Water Pollution
Control Association, 2, No. 2, p 11.
Bringmann, G., Gesundheitsingenieur, 80, p 140 (1960).
Brungs, William A., "Chronic Effects of Constant Elevated
Temperature on the Fathead Minnow," Transactions, American
Fish Society, 100, No. 4, pp 659-664 (1971).
Brunner, C.A., "Pilot-Plant Experiences in Demineralization
of Secondary Effluent Using Electrodialysis," Journal,
Water Pollution Control Federation, 39, p Rl (1967).
Bruvold, W.H., and Ward, F.C., "Public Attitudes Toward
Uses of Reclaimed Wastewater," Water & Sewage Works, 117,
pp 120-122 (1970).
Bunch, R.L., Chambers, C.W., and Cook, W.B., "Disinfection of
Renovated Wastewater," Federal Water Quality Administration
(1971).
Burns & Roe, Inc., "Disposal of Brines Produced in Renovation
of Municipal Wastewater," Federal Water Quality Administration,
Contract No. 14-12-492 (May 1970).
Butler, C.E., "Survival and Recovery of Salmonella in Tucson's
Wastewater Reclamation Program," Journal, Water Pollution
Control Federation, 41, No. 5, Pt. 1, pp 738-744 (1969).
Caspi, B., Zohar, Y., and Saliternik, C., "Water Reuse in
Israel," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63,
No. 78, pp 54-65 (1967).
Cecil, L.K., "Complete Water Reuse," Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 258-261 (1967).
Cecil, L.K., "How Usable is Present Technology for Removing
Nutrients from Wastewater," Progress In Water Technology,
Vol. I, Applications of New Concepts of Physical-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment, Pergamon Press, New York (1972).
146
-------
Cecil, L.K., "Problems and Practice of Phosphate Removal in
Water Reuse," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series, 63, No. 78, pp 159-163 (1967).
Cecil, L.K., "Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent for Water
Re-Use," Water & Sewage Works, 111, pp 421-423.
Chaiken, Eugene I., Poloncsik, Stephen, and Wilson, Carl D.,
"Muskegon Sprays Sewage Effluents On Land," Civil Engineering-
ASCE, 43, No. 5, pp 49-53 (1973).
Channabasappa, K.C., "Reverse Osmosis Process for Water
Reuse Application," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series No. 97, 65, No. 140 (1969).
Chaty, N.B., "Carbon Systems Play Key Role in Advanced
Wastewater Treatment," The Flowsheet, No. 5, pp 4-8 (1972).
Clayton, A.J., & Pybus, P.J., "Windhoek Reclaiming Sewage
for Drinking Water," Civil Engineering-ASCE, pp 103-106
(Sept. 1972) .
Clouse, J.L., "Need for Water Reuse," Tappi, 47, Sup. 182A-
183A (1964).
Connell, C.H., "Utilization of Wastewater to Meet a Shortage
of First Water," Industrial Wastes, pp 148-151 (1957).
Connell, C.H., and Berg, E.J.M., "Industrial Utilization of
Municipal Waste Water," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 31,
pp 212-220 (1959).
Connell, C.H., and Berg, E.J.M., "Practice and Potentials
in Industrial Utilization of Municipal Wastewater," Prp-
ceedings of the 13th Industrial Waste Conference at Purdue
University, pp 227-242 (1958)";
Connell, C.H., and Berg, E.J.M., "Reclaiming Municipal Waste
Water for Industrial and Domestic Re-Use," Southwest Water
Works Journal, 41, pp 17-19 (1960).
Connell, C.H., and Forbes, M.C., "City Sewage-Plant Effluent
is Worth Your Study," Oil and Gas Journal, 59, pp 94-96
(1961).
Connell, C.H., and Forbes, M.C., "Once-Used Municipal Water
as Industrial Supply," Water & Sewage Treatment, 3, No. 9,
pp 397-400 (1964).
147
-------
Cooper, J.C., and Hager, D.G., "Water Reclamation with
Granular Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 185-192 (1967).
Gulp, R.L., "Wastewater Reclamation by Tertiary Treatment,"
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, p 799 (June 1967)
Gulp, R.L., and Moyer, H.E., "Wastewater Reclamation and
Export at South Tahoe," Civil Engineer (New York) 39, No. 6-,
pp 38-42 (1969).
Gulp, R.L., Wilson, Jerry C., and Evans, David R., "Advanced
Wastewater Treatment As Practiced At South Tahoe, EPA Water
Quality Office (1971).
Day, A.D., "City Sewage for Irrigation and Plant Nutrients,"
Crops and Soils, pp 7-9, (1962).
Day, A.D., et al, "Effects of Treatment Plant Effluent On
Soil Properties," Journal, Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, p 372 (March 1972).
Dea, S.J., "Total System Concept of Water Pollution Control,"
Water and Wastes Engineering, 6, pp 36-39 (1969).
Deaner, D.G., California Water Reclamation Sites, 1971, Cali-
fornia State Dept. of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering.
Deaner, D.G., Directory of Wastewater Reclamation Operations
in California, 1969, California State Dept. of Public Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.
Deaner, D.G., "Public Health and Water Reclamation," Water
& Sewage Works, 117, pp R 7-13 (1970).
De Leeuw, A., "Waste Water Utilization in the Dan Region,"
Bulletin of Hydraulic Research, IAHR, 18, p 174 (1964).
Diekmann, S., "Water for Bielefeld," Veroffentlichungen
Instituts fur Siedlungswasserwirtschaft, No. 9, p 5 (1962).
Dobie, J., Meeheon, O.L., Snieszko, S.F., and Washburn, G.N.,
Circular No. 35, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1956).
Dodson, R.E., "San Diego Takes Another Bold Step to Obtain
Pure Water from Sewage," American City, 86, No. 2, p 43 (1971)
Dominy, Floyd E., Aquisition of Water from Federal Reclama-
tion Projects for Industrial and Community Development, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (1969).
148
-------
Dornbush, J.N. and Andersen, J.R., "Ducks on the Wastewater
Pond," Water and Sewage Works, 3, No. 6, pp 271-276 (1964).
Dryden, F.D., "Mineral Removal by Ion Exchange, Reverse
Osmosis, and Electrodialysis," Paper Presented at the Workshop
on Wastewater and Reuse, South Lake Tahoe, California
(June 1970) .
Dunlop, S.G., and Wang, W-L. L., "Studies on the Use of
Sewage Effluent for Irrigation of Truck Crops," Journal of
Milk and Food Technology, 24, pp 44-47 (1961).
Dye, E.O., "Wastewater Reclamation Project," Water & Sewage
Works, 115, p 139 (1968).
Eastman, P.W., "Municipal Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation,"
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 93, IR 3,
pp 25-31; IR 1, pp 167-168 (1968).
Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Jr. & Ford, Davis L., "Economics of
Wastewater Treatment" Chemical Engineering, p 109 (Aug 1969).
Eden, G.E., et al., "Water from Sewage Effluents," Proceedings
and Journal, Institute for Sewage Purification (Brit.) Pt. 5,
p 407 (1966).
Eilers, Richard G., and Smith, Robert, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Cost Estimating Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (1971).
Eliassen, R., Wyckoff, B.M., and Tonkin, C.D., "Ion Exchange
for Reclamation of Reusable Supplies," Journal, American
Water Works Association, 67, p 113 (1965).
Eller, J., et al., "Water Reuse and Recycling in Industry,
Journal, American Water Works Association, 62, p 149 (1970).
Elliott, J.F., and Duff, J.H., "Municipal Supply Augmented
by Treated Sewage," Journal, American Water Works Associa-
tion, pp 647-650 (1971).
Eynon, D., "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse of Treated Sewage
as an Industrial Water Supply," The Chemical Engineer, p 6,
(1970) .
149
-------
Fair, G.M., and Geyer, J.C., Water Supply and Waste Water
Disposal, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1969).
Fair, G.M., Geyer, J.C., and Okum, A.D., Water and Wastewater
Engineering, Vol. 2, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1968).
Feinmesser, A., Survey of Wastewater Utilization, Dept. of
Supervision over Agricultural Water, National Water Commis-
sion (1963).
Fish, H., "Effluent Standards and Water Reuse," Water Pollu-
tion Control (London), 68, p 307 (1969).
Flack, J.E., "Urban Water: Multiple Use Concepts," Journal,
American Water Works Association, 63, p 644 (1971).
Flaherty, W.F., "Effect of Water Reuse on Stream Quality,"
Water & Sewage Works, 115, pp 354-357 (1968).
Fleming, R.G., "Water Re-Use by Design," American City, 78,
pp 106-108 (1963).
Fleming, R.G., and Jobes, H.D., "Water Reuse: A Texas
Necessity," Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 41,
pp 1564-1569 (1969) .
Flower, W.A., et al., Optimization of Combined Industrial-
Municipal Waste Treatment Through Automation and Reuse,
Environmental Protection Agency (1972).
Foster, Herbert B., Jr. and Jopling, William F., "Rationale
of Standards for Use of Reclaimed Water," Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 95, No. SA 3, p 503
(1969) .
Fuhrman, R.E., "Adaptation of Known Principles and Techniques
of Waste Water Management to Specific Environmental Situa-
tions and Geographical Conditions," Water Pollution Control
(London),68, p 619 (1969).
Funke, J.W., "A Guide to Water Conservation and Water Reclama-
tion in Industry," CSIR Guide K9, National Institute for
Water Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
Gallagher, E., "Water Reuse as a Method of Water Supply and
Pollution Reduction," Water & Sewage Works, 115, pp 356-360
(1968).
Garland, C.F., "Waste Water Reuse in Industry," Water &
Sewage Works, 114, p R-204 (1967) .
150
-------
Garthe, E.G., and Gilbert, W.C., "Water Reuse at Grand
Canyon," Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 40,
No. 9, pp 1582-1585(1968).
Gavis, Jerome, Wastewater Reuse, National Water Commission,
Arlington, Virginia (1971).
Gloyna, E.F. , et al. , "Water Resources Activities in the
United States: A Report upon Present and Prospective Means
for Improved Re-Use of Water," 86th Congress, 2d Session,
Committee Print No. 30.
Gloyna, E.F. , et al., "Water Reuse in Industry," Journal^
Water Pollution Control Federation, p 237 (1970).
Gloyna, E.F., Drynana, W.R., and Hermann, E.R., "Water Reuse
in Texas," Journal, American Water Works Association, 51,
No. 6, pp 768-780 (1959).
Gomez, H.J., "Water Reuse at the Celulosa y Derivados, S.A.
Plants," Proceedings, 23d Industrial Waste Conference^
Purdue University Extension Series, 53, p 165 (1969).
Gould, B.W., "Wastewater Reclamation Using Groundwater
Recharge," Effluent & Water Treatment Journal, 11, No. 2,
pp 88-90, 94-95; No. 3, pp 139-143 (1971).
Graesser, H.J., "Dallas-Wastewater Reclamation Studies,"
Journal, American Water Works Association, 63, No. 10,
pp 634-640 (1971).
Graesser, H.J. , "The Dallas Philosophy—An Approach to
Wastewater Reclamation," Water and Wastes Engineering, 6,
No. 9, p 58.
Graesser, H.J. , and Haney, P.O., "Dallas Builds Center to
Study Wastewater Reclamation," Water and Wastes Engineering,
5_, No. 12, p 34 (1968) .
Gram, A.L., and Isenberg, D.L., "Waste Water Treatment,"
Science Journal, p 77 (1969).
Grant, Robert J., "Wastewater Treatment In Great Britain,"
Water & Sewage Works, 117, No. 8.
Gray, J.F., "Irrigation Processes Using Reclaimed Water of
Effluent Described," West Texas Today, 45, pp 18-19, 23
(1965) .
151
-------
Griffith, C.O., "Conservation of Water by Reuse in Mexico,"
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78,
pp 37-40 (1967).
Gruenwald, A., "Drinking Water from Sewage?" American City,
J32, p 3 (1967) .
Guiver, K., and Huntingdon, R., "A Scheme for Providing
Industrial Water Supplies by the Re-Use of Sewage Effluent,"
Water Pollution Control (London),70, p 75 (1971).
Guymon, B.E., "Sewage Salinity Prevents Use of Effluent
for Golf Course Irrigation," Wastes Engineering, 28,
No. 2, pp 80-83 (1957).
Haack, J.E., "Treatment of Sewage for Industrial Utilization
at Moose Jaw," Municipal Utilities, 90, No. 10, p 20, 36-41.
Hallock, R.J., and Ziebell, C.D., "Feasibility of a Sport
Fishery in Tertiary Treated Wastewater," Journal, Water
Pollution Control Federation, 42, pp 1656-1665 (1970J7
Haney, P.O., "Water Reuse for Public Supply," Journal^
American Water Works Association, 61, No. 2 pp 73-78 (1969).
Hansen, William F., "Some Research Findings on the Bennett
Springs Sewage Irrigation Project," Unpublished Data, Uni-
versity of Missouri (1972).
Hauser, Frank R., "Expansion of Industrial Water Facilities
at Sparrows Point," Iron & Steel Engineer, (Sept. 1956).
Hennessy, P.V-, Williams, L.R., and Lin, Y.S., "Tertiary
Treatment of Trickling Filter Effluent in Orange County,
California," Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 39,
No. 11, pp 1819-1933 (1967).
Heukelekian, H., "Utilization of Sewage for Crop Irrigation
in Israel," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 29, pp 868-874
(1957).
Hill, William P., "Industry Converts Sewage Works Effluent
Into Water Supply," Water Works & Sewage, (Dec. 1945).
Hillinger, Charles, "Farmer Finds Boon In Drip Irrigation,"
L.A. Times 11/11/72.
Hindin, E., and Bennett, P.J., "Water Reclamation by Reverse
Osmosis," Water and Sewage Works, 66 (1969).
152
-------
Hirsch, L., "Wastewater Reclamation for Water Deficient
Lands—Experiences in Southern California," International
Conference on Water for Peace, Washington, D.C., Paper
No. 418 (1967).
Houser, E.W., "Santee Project Continues to Show the Way,"
Water and Wastes Engineering, 7, No. 5, pp 40-44 (1970).
Muggins, T.G., "Production of channel Catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) in Tertiary Treatment Ponds," Unpublished M.S.
Thesis, Iowa State University (1969).
Humphrey, F.C., "Sewage Effluent in Use as Power Plant
Circulating Water," Proceedings of 14th Industrial Waste
Conference at Purdue University, pp 732-742 (1959).
Hyde, C.G., "The Beautification and Irrigation of Golden
Gate Park with Activated Sludge Effluent," Sewage Works
Journal, 9, pp 929-941 (1937).
Ide, T., Matsumoto, N., and Armitsu, H., "Utilization of
Municipal Wastewater in Japan," Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 46-53 (1967).
Ikonnikova, S., "Purification of Municipal Water Supplies
in the U.S.S.R.," Water and Waste Treatment, p 535 (1964).
Ingraham, H.S., "Regional Planning for Water Supply and Sewage
Treatment," Archives of Environmental Health, 16 (1968).
Irvine, R.L., and Davis, W.B., "Water Conservation and
Reuse by Industry," Water and Wastes Engineering, p a 17
(1970).
Israel, Ministry of Health, Special Conditions for Use of
Wastewater in Agriculture, 11965).
Janacek, K.F., "Treated Sewage as Boiler Make-Up," Industrial
Water Engineering, 2, No. 12 (1966).
Jenkins, S.H., "Composition of Sewage and its Potential Use
as a Source of Industrial Water," Chemistry and Industry,
pp 2072-2079 (1962).
Jensen, L.C., and Renn, C.F., "Use of a Tertiary Treated
Sewage as Industrial Process Waters," Water and Sewage
Works, 115, p 184 (1968).
Johnson, J.F., Renovated Waste Water: An Alternative
Source of Municipal Water Supply in the United States,
University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, Chicago (1971).
153
-------
Johnson, W.H., "Treatment of Sewage Plant Effluent for
Industrial Reuse," International Water Conference (1964).
Johnson, W.H., "Water Treatment and Reclamation in Steel
Plants," Iron and Steel Engineering, 40, pp 142-147 (1963).
Karassik, I.J., and Sebald, J.F. , "Pasterilized Water:
Potable Supplies from Waste Water Effluents," Public Works,
9_4, pp 131-133 (1963) .
Kardas, L.T., "A New Prospect," Environment, 12, No. 2,
p 10 (1970).
Keating, R.J., and Calise, V.J., "Treatment of Sewage
Effluent for Industrial Re-Use," Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 27, No. 7, pp 763-782 (1955).
Reefer, C.E., "No Crash Timetable Involved in Baltimore's
$68-million Plan," Wastes Engineering (Nov. 1960).
Keefer, C.E., "Tertiary Sewage Treatment," Public Works, 93,
No. 11, pp 109-112; No. 12, pp 81-83 (1962).
Kirkpatrick, F.W., Jr., and Smythe, E.F., "History and
Possible Future of Multiple Reuse of Sewage Effluent at
Odessa, Texas Industrial Complex," Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 201-209 (1967).
Kluth, H.W., "Evolution of a Steel Plant Water Supply,"
Bethlehem Steel Corp. (June 1966).
Koebig & Koebig, Inc., Wastewater Reclamation in Southern
California Coastal Area (1972).
Koenig, L., and Ford, D., "Reuse Can be Cheaper than Dis-
posal," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63,
No. 78, pp 143-147 (1967).
Konefes, J.L., and Bachmann, Roger W., "Growth of Fathead
Minnow (Pimephales promelas) in Tertiary Treatment Ponds,"
Iowa Academy of Science, 77, pp 104-111 (1970).
Krone, R.B., McGauhey, P.H., and Gotaas, H.B., "Direct
Recharge of Ground Water with Sewage Effluents," Journal of
the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 83, No. SA 4,
(1957) .
Kruez, C.A., "Hygienic Evaluation of the Agricultural Utili-
zation of Sewage," Gesundheitsingenieur, 76, pp 206-211
(1955).
154
-------
Ladd, Kenneth, and Terry, S.L., City Waste Water Reused
For Power Plant Cooling and Boiler Makeup, Southwestern
Public Service Co., Amarillo and Lubbock, Texas.
Law, J.P., Jr., Agricultural Utilization of Sewage Effluent
and Sludge, Environmental Protection Agency.
Law, J.P., Jr., et al., Water Quality Management Problems
In Arrid Regions, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Federal
Water Quality Administration (1970).
Leclerc, E.H.T.H., "Considerations on Reuse of Water in
Certain Industries," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series, 63, No. 78, pp 66-73 (1967).
Levy, D., and Calise, V.J., "Fresh Water From Sewage,"
Consulting Engineer, 12, No. 1, pp 100-105 (1959).
Libya, Ministry of Agriculture, "Water Resources in Libya,
Their Investigation, Development and Improvement," Inter-
national Conference on Water for Peace, Washington, D.C.,
Paper No. 614 (1967).
Linstedt, D., Evaluation of Treatment for Urban Wastewater
Reuse, Environmental Protection Agency (1973).
Linstedt, H.D., et al., "Metropolitan Successive Use of
Available Water," Journal, American Water Works Associa-
tion, 63, p 610 (1971).
Linstedt, H.D., "Quality Considerations in Successive Water
Use," Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 43,
pp 1681-1694 (1971).
Lubzens, Michael, "Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational
Problems at Haifa, Israel," Journal, Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 41, No. 3, Part 1, pp 413-417 (1969).
McCormick, E.B., and Wetzel, O.E., Jr., "Water Supply from
Sewage Effluent," Petroleum Refiner, 33, No. 11, pp 165-167
(1954).
McCoy, J.W., Chemical Analysis of Industrial Water, Chemical
Publishing Company, New York (1969).
McGauhey, P.H., Engineering Management of Water Quality,
New York, McGraw-Hill (1968).
155
-------
McGauhey, P.H. , "The Why and How of Sewage Effluent Reclama-
tion," Water and Sewage Works, 104, pp 265-270 (1957).
McGauhey, P.H., and Middlebrooks, J.E., "Wastewater Manage-
ment," Water and Sewage Works, 119, No. 7, pp 49-53 (1972).
Mcllhenny, W.F., "Recovery of Additional Water from Indus-
trial Wastewaters," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series, 36, p 76 (1967).
McKee, J.E., "Potential for Reuse of Wastewater in North
Central Texas," Water Resources Bulletin, 7, No. 4,
pp 740-749 (1969).
McKee, J.E., and Wolf, H.W. (ed.), Water Quality Criteria,
Publication No. 3-A, California State Water Resources Con-
trol Board (1971).
McQueen, F., "Sewage Treatment for Obtaining Park Irrigating
Water," Public Works, 64, pp 16-17 (1933).
Marks, R.H., "Waste Water Reclamation: A Practical Approach
for Many Water Short Areas," Power, 107, No. 11, pp 47-50
(1963).
Mayes, W.W., and Gibson, W.E., "Successes and Failures in
Water Reuse at Cosden Oil & Chemical Co., Big Spring, Texas,"
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78,
pp 167-200 (1967) .
Mendia, L., "Municipal Sewage Reuse for Industrial Purposes,"
International Conference on Water for Peace, Washington, D.C. ,
(1967) .
Merten, U., and Bray, D.T., "Reverse Osmosis for Water Reclam-
ation," International Conference on Water Pollution Research,
Munich, Germany (1966).
Merz, R.C., "Direct Utilization of Waste Waters," Water and
Sewage Works, 103, pp 417-423 (1956).
Merz, R.C., "Waste Water Reclamation for Golf Course
Irrigation," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
ASCE, 85, No. SA 6, pp 79-85 (1959).
Metzler, D.F., et al., "Emergency Use of Reclaimed Water for
Potable Supply at Chanute, Kansas," Journal, American Water
Works Association, 50, No. 8, pp 1021 (1958).
156
-------
Metzler, D.F., "The Reuse of Treated Wastewater for Domestic
Purposes," Public Works, p 117 (1958).
Metzler, D.F., "Wastewater Reclamation as a Water Resource,"
87th Annual Conference of American Water Works Association
(1967).
Middleton, F.M., "Advanced Treatment of Waste Waters for
Reuse," Water and Sewage Works, 3, No. 9, pp 401-410 (1964).
Middleton, F.M., "Concepts of Wastewater Reuse," Water and
Sewage Works, 118, pp 59-62 (1971).
Middleton, F.M., "Wastewater Treatment for Return to Natural
Cycle Reuse," Water and Wastes Engineering, 5, pp 61-64
(1968) .
Miller, D.G., and Newsome, D.H., "Conservation of Water by
Reuse in the United Kingdom," Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 13-31 (1967).
Miyahara, Shoza and Ando, Tokiya, "Tertiary Treatment of
Sewage Water," Sangyo Kogai, 6, No. 8, p 454 (1970).
Moyer, H.E., "South Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation Project,"
Public Works, 99, No. 12, pp 87-94 (1968).
National Industrial Pollution Control Council, Wastewater
Reclamation, NIPCC Subcouncil Report (March 1971).
National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the
Interior, Water Quality Criteria, Federal Water Pollution
Control Agency, Washington, D.C. (1968).
Neale, J.H., "Washing Water," Science and Technology,
pp 52-57 (June 1969).
Neveux, M.M., Jaag, O., and Kieling, J., "Agricultural Utili-
zation of Sewage Effluent," Techniques et Sciences Munici-
pales, 54, pp 425-432 (1959).
Nichols, M.C., "Industrial Use of Reclaimed Sewage Water at
Amarillo," Journal, American Water Works Association, 47,
No. 1, pp 29-33 (1955).
Nierstrasz, H., "Cyclic Waste Recovery Systems," Water
Pollution Control (Canada), 109, No. 11, p 33 (1971).
157
-------
Nupen, E.M., "Virus Studies on the Windhoek Wastewater
Reclamation Plant South-West Africa," Water Research, 4,
No. 10 (1970).
O'Farrell, T.P., Bishop, D.F., and Bennett, S.M., "Advanced
Waste Treatment at Washington, B.C.," Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series, 65, No. 97, p 251 (1969).
Okun, D.A., "New Directions for Wastewater Collection and
Disposal," Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 43,
No. 11, pp 2171-2180 (1971).
Orcutt, R.D., "An Engineering-Economic Analysis of Systems
Utilizing Aquif.er Storage for the Irrigation of Parks and
Golf Courses with Reclaimed Wastewater," University of
Nevada Desert Research Institute, Center for Water Resources
Research, Technical Report Series H-W, Publication No. 5
"(1967) .
Osborn, D.W., "Factors Affecting the Use of Purified Sewage
Effluents for Cooling Purposes, Johannesburg Municipality
(South Africa)," Water Pollution Control, 69, No. 4, p 456.
Ottoboni, A., and Greenberg, A.E., "Toxicological Aspects
of Wastewater Reclamation," Journal, Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 42, pp 493-499 (1970).
Owen, L.W., "Ground Water Management and Reclaimed Water,"
Journal, American Water Works Association, 60, No. 2,
pp 135-144 (1968).
Parizek, R.R., "Wastewater Renovation and Conservation,"
Public Works, 99, p 130 (1968).
Parkhurst, J.D., "Practical Application for Reuse of Waste-
water," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 64,
No. 90, pp 225-231 (1968).
Parkhurst, J.D., "Reclaiming Used Water," American City, 78,
pp 83-85 (1963).
Parkhurst, J.B., "Waste Water Reuse—A Supplemental Supply,"
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 96,
No. SA 3 (Jan. 1970).
Parkhurst, J.D., "Water Utility Concept Applied in Water
Reuse," Public Works, 98, No. 10, pp 110-112, 200, 202 (1967).
Parkhurst, J.D., Carry, C.W., Masse, A.N., and English, J.N.,
"Practical Applications for Reuse of Wastewater," Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series No. 90, 64, No. 225 (1968)
158
-------
Parkhurst, J.D., Chen, C.L. , Carry, C.W., and Masse, A.N.,
"Demineralization of Wastewater by Ion Exchange," Paper pre-
sented at the 5th International Conference on Water Pollution
Research, San Francisco, California (August 1970).
Patterson, W.L., and Banker, R.F., Estimating Costs and Man-
power Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, Environmental Protection Agency(Oct.1971).
Pennypacker, S.P., Sopper, W.E., and Kardos, L.T., "Renova-
tion of Wastewater Effluent by Irrigation of Forest Land,"
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 39, No. 2,
p 285 (1967).
Peter, I.Y., "Sewage Effluent into Sand Dunes," Water and
Sewage Works, 105, p 493 (1958).
Peters, J.H., and Cuming, D., "Water Conservation by
Barrier Injection," Water and Sewage Works, 114, No. 2,
p 63 (1967).
Peters, J.H., and Rose, J.L., "Water Conservation by Reclama-
tion and Recharge," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE, 94, No. SA 4, pp 625-639 (1968).
Petrasek, A.C., Jr., Esmond, S.E., and Wolf, H.W., "Municipal
Wastewater Qualities and Industrial Requirements," Paper
Presented at Complete Water Reuse Meeting, American Insti-
tute of Chemical Engineers, Washington, D.C. (April 1973).
Phillips, J.D., and Shell, G.L., "Pilot Plant Studies of
Effluent Reclamation," Water and Wastes Engineering, 6,
pp 38-41 (1968) .
Pollio, F.X., and Kunin, R., "Tertiary Treatment of Munici-
pal Sewage Effluents," Environmental Science and Technology,
2, p 54 (1968) .
Porter, J.W., "Planning of Municipal Wastewater Renovation
Projects," Journal, American Water Works Association, 62,
pp 543-548 (1970).
Porter, J.W., Hopkins, A.N., and Fisher, W.L., "An Economic
and Engineering Analysis of Municipal Wastewater Renovation,"
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series No. 90, 64,
No. 246 (1968).
Powell, S.T., "Adaptation of Treated Sewage for Industrial
Use," Paper presented at the Meeting of American Chemical
Society, April 9, 1956.
159
-------
Powell, S.T., "Some Aspects of Requirements for the Quality
of Water for Industrial Uses," Sewage Works Journal, 20,
No. 36 (1948).
Ranganathan, G.S., "The Use and Disposal of Water in India,"
Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, No. 10, p 517 (1968).
Rawn, A.M., et al., "Integrating Reclamation and Disposal of
Waste Water," Journal, American Water Works Association, 45,
No. 5, (1963).
Rickles, R.N., "Conservation of Water by Reuse in the United
States," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63,
No. 78, pp 74-87 (1967).
Rose, John L., "Injection of Treated Wastewater Into Aqui-
fers," Water & Wastes Engineering, p 40 (Oct. 1968).
Scherer, C.H., "Effluent Reuse In Amarillo," Paper presented
at Complete Water Reuse Meeting, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, Washington, D.C. (April 1973).
Scherer, C.H., "Fifteen Years Experience with the Reclamation
and Industrial Reuse of Amarillo's City Waterwaste," Ameri-
can Water Works Association Annual Conference (1970).
Scherer, C.H., "Industrial Reuse of Sewage Plant Effluent,"
State of Texas Manual for Sewage Plant Operators, 3d ed,
Chapter 23 (1964).
Scherer, C.H., "Sewage Plant Effluent is Cheaper than City
Water," Wastes Engineering, pp 124-127 (1959).
Scherer, C.H., and Terry, S.L., "Reclamation and Industrial
Reuse of Amarillo's Waterwaste," Journal, American Water
Works Association, 63, No. 3, pp 159-164 (1971).
Schouten, Maria, "Land Disposal of Municipal Waste Stabiliza-
tion Pond Effluent," Unpublished Data, Ministry of the
Environment, Ontario, Canada (1971).
Schouten, Maria, "Smithville Spray Irrigation Study Progress
Report," Unpublished Data, Ministry of the Environment,
Ontario, Canada (1972).
SCS Engineers, The Role of Desalting In Providing High
Quality Water for Industrial Use, Office of Saline Water
(1972).
Sebastian, F.P., "Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse," Water
and Wastes Engineering, 7, No. 7, (1970).
160
-------
Sepp, Endel, "Disposal of Domestic Wastewater by Hillside
Sprays," Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, 99, EE 2, pp 109-121 (1973).
Shannon, E.S., and Maass, A., "Michigan-Industry Reuse of
Treated Waste," Journal, American Water Works Association,
6_3, No. 3, p 154 (1971) .
Shuvel, H.I., Proceedings of the Jerusalem International
Conference on Water Quality and Pollution Research, Humphrey
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor (1970).
Shuvel, H.I., "Water Pollution Control in Semi-Arid and
Arid Zones," Water Research, 1, No. 4, p 297 (1967).
Simins, H.J., Advanced Waste Treatment for Water Reclamation
and Reuse by Injection, Nassau Co. Dept of Public
Works, Mineola, N.Y.
Skulte, B.P-, "Irrigation with Sewage Effluents," Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 28, pp 36-43 (1956).
Slack, J.G., "Sewage Effluent Treatment for Water Recovery,"
Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, 9, p. 257 (1969) .
Sloan, G., "Waste Water Reclamation for Golf Course Irri-
gation," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE,
86_, No. SA 3, p. 167 (1960) .
Smith, J.M., Masse, A.N., and Miele, R.P., Renovation of
Municipal Wastewater by Reverse Osmosis, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (1970).
Smith, Robert, A Compilation of Cost Information for Con-
ventional and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Processes, Federal Water Quality Administration (Oct. 1967)
Smith, Robert, Costs of Wastewater Renovation, Environmental
Protection Agency (1971).
Smith, Robert and Eilers, Richard G., "Cost to the Consumer
for Collection and Treatment of Wastewater," Environmental
Protection Agency (July 1970).
Sontheimer, H., "Die Wiederverwendung von Abwasser,"
Umschau in Wissenschaft und Technik, No. 7, pp 195-200 (1968).
Sopper, W.E., Effects of Irrigation of Municipal Sewage
Effluent on Spoil Banks, Pennsylvania State University
(Dec. 1971).
161
-------
Sopper, W.E., "Renovation of Municipal Sewage Effluent for
Groundwater Recharge Through Forest Irrigation," Interna-
tional Conference on Water for Peace, Washington, D.C.,
Paper No. 571(1967).
Sopper, W.E. , "Waste Water Renovation for Reuse'; Key to
Optimum Use of Water Resources," Water Research, 2,
p 471 (1968).
Sopper, W.E. and Kardos, L.T., "Sewage Effluent and Sludge
Successfully Revegetate Strip Mine Spoil Banks," Science in
Agriculture, 18, No. 3, pp 10-11 (1971).
Sosewitz, B., and Bacon, V.W., "Chicago's First Tertiary
Treatment Plant," Water and Wastes Engineering, 5, No. 9,
p 52 (1968).
Sparks, J.T., "Sewage Irrigation in the Mitchell Lake Area,
Texas," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 25, pp 233-234 (1953).
Sprowl, Tom M. and Hopkins, Robert M., "Tertiary Wastewater
Treatment Made Practical," The American City, p 65
(April 1972).
Stanbridge, H.H., "From Pollution Prevention to Effluent
Re-Use," Water and Sewage Works, 111, pp 446-452, 494-499
(1964) .
Stander, G.J., "Reclamation of Potable Water from Sewage,"
Water Pollution Control (London), 68, pp 5513-5522 (1969).
Stander, G.J., "Tertiary Treatment - The Corner Stone of
Water Quality Protection and Water Resources Optimisation,"
Progress In Water Technology, Vol. I, Applications of New
Concepts of Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment, Pergamon
Press, New York (1972).
Stander, G.J., et al., "Current Status of Research on Waste
Water Reclamation in South Africa," Water Pollution Control
(London), 70, No. 2, pp 213-222 (1971).
Stander, G.J., and Clayton, A.J., "Planning and Construction
of Waste Water Reclamation Schemes as an Integral Part of
Water Supply," Water Pollution Control (London), 70, p 228
(1971).
Stander, G.J., and Funke, J.W., "Conservation of Water by
Reuse in South Africa," Chemical Engineering Progress Sym-
posium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 1-2 (1967).
162
-------
Stander, G.J., and Funke, J.W., "Direct Cycle Water Reuse
Provides Drinking Water Supply in South Africa," Water and
Wastes Engineering, 6, No. 5, p 66 (1969).
Stander, G.J., and Funke, J.W., "South Africa Reclaims
Effluents As Industrial Water Supply," Water and Wastes
Engineering, 6, p 20 (1969) .
Stander, G.J., and Van Vuuren, L.R.J., "The Reclamation of
Potable Water from Wastewater," Journal, Water Pollution
Control Federation, p 355 (March 1969).
Stenburg, R.L., et al., "New Approaches to Wastewater Treat-
ment ," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE,
9J_, pp 1121-1136 (1968); 9_5, pp 978-982 (1969),-96, pp 613-
615 (1970) .
Stephan, D.G., "Renovation of Municipal Wastewater for Reuse,"
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series , 9,
(1965) .
Stephan, D.G., "Water Renovation—Advanced Treatment Pro-
cesses," Civil Engineer, 35, p 46 (1965).
Stephan, D.G., and Schaffer, R.B., "Wastewater Treatment and
Renovation Status of Process Development," Journal, Water
Pollution Control Federation, 42, pp 399-410 (1970).
Stephan, D.G., and Weinberger, L.W., "Wastewater Reuse—Has
it "Arrived1?/1 Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation,
40^, No. 4, pp 529-539 (1968).
Stevens, D.B., and Peters, J., "Long Island Recharge Studies,"
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, 38, No. 12,
p 2009 (1966).
Stevens, J.I., "Present and Future Disposal of Sludges from
Water Reuse," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series, 63, No. 78, p 250 (1967).
Stone, R.V., Gotaas, H.B., and Bacon, V.W., "Economic and
Technical Status of Water Reclamation from Sewage and
Industrial Wastes," Journal, American Water Works Associa-
tion, 44, pp 503-517 (1952).
Storm, D.R., "Land Disposal, One Answer," Water and Wastes
Engineering, 8, pp 46-47 (1971).
163
-------
Suhr, L.G., "Some Notes on Reuse," Journal, American Water
Works Association, 63, p 630 (1971J7
Sullivan, T.F., "Sewage Effluent Used for Industrial Water,"
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, SA 3,
(1958) .
Symons, G.E., "2020 Vision; a Look at Wastewater Disposal 50
Years Hence," Water and Wastes Engineering, 7, pp 66-68
(1970) .
Taras, M.J., "Water Guide to Europe," Water and Sewage Works
(Jan. 1969) .
Telfer, J.G., "The Medical Professions' Attitude Toward
Water Reuse," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series 63, No. 78, p 101 (1967).
Tischler, L.F., and Burnitt, S.C., Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse, Texas State Water Development Board, Austin (1971).
Todd, O.K., Groundwater Hydrology, Wiley & Sons (1959).
Todd, O.K. (ed.), The Water Encyclopedia, Water Information
Center, Port Washington, N.Y. (1970).
Truesdale, G.A., "Water Pollution Control: Need and Trends,"
Water Pollution Control, pp 644-649 (1971).
Unger, J., "Chinese Turning Old Waste Material to New Uses,"
Christian Science Monitor, p 15 (March 22, 1972).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1968 Inventory, Muni-
cipal Waste Facilities, Publication No. OWF-1, Washington,
B.C. (1971).
Van Der Goot, H.A., "Water Reclamation Experiments at
Hyperion," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 29, No. 10,
pp 1139-1144 (1957).
Vandertulip, J.J., "Return Flows: A Reusable Water Resource,"
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78,
p 106 (1967). •
van Vuuren, L.R.J. and Henzen, M.R., "Process Selection and
Cost of Advanced Wastewater Treatment in Relation to the
Quality of Secondary Effluents and Quality Requirements for
Various Uses," Progress In Water Technology, Vol. I, Appli-
cations of New Concepts of Physical-Chemical Wastewater
Treatment, Pergamon Press, New York (1972).
164
-------
Veatch, N.T., "Industrial Uses for Reclaimed Sewage Effluents,"
Sewage Works Journal, 20, No. 3 (1948).
Viessman, W., Jr., "Developments in Waste Water Re-Use,"
Public Works, 96, No. 4, pp 138-140 (1965).
"Viewing Water Renovation and Reuse in Regional Water
Resources Systems," Water Resources Research, 3, No. 1
(1967).
Viraraghavan, T. , "Sewage Treatment with Special Reference
to Use on Land for Irrigation," Institution of Engineers
(India), 50, No. 2, PH I, pp 25-28 (1969).
Wakeman, B., "New Lake at South Lake Tahoe, California,"
Water and Sewage Works, 115, pp 348-349 (1968).
Watson, J.L.A., "Oxidation Ponds and Use of Effluent in
Israel," Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, 3, pp 150-153
(1963).
Weber, W.J., Jr., and Di Giano, F.A., "Reclamation of Water
for Reuse as a Water Resource," International Conference
On Water For Peace, Washington, D.C., Paper 393 (1967).
Weddle, C.L., and Masr, H.N., "Industrial Use of Renovated
Municipal Wastewater," Transactions of the ASME, Journal of
Engineering for Industry, Paper No. 72-PID-6.
Weinstein, R.H., "Water Recycling for Domestic Use,"
Astronautics and Aeronautics, p 44 (March, 1972).
Weir, E. McG., "Notes on Water Pollution Control," Water
Pollution Control, pp 212-216 (1969).
Weismantel, G.E., "Denver Aims at Total Reuse," Chemical
Engineer, 78, pp 82 (1971).
Wells, W.N., "Irrigation as a Sewage Re-Use Application,"
Public Works, 92, p 116 (1961).
Wells, W.N., "Sewage Plant Effluent for Irrigation,"
Compost Science, 4, p 19 (1963).
Wesner, G.M., and Baier, D.C. , "Injection of Reclaimed
Wastewater Into Confined Aquifer," Journal, American Water
Works Association, 62, pp 203-210 (1970).
165
-------
Wesner, G.M., and Gulp, R.L., "Wastewater Reclamation and
Seawater Desalination," Journal, Water Pollution Control
Federation, p 1932 (Oct. 1972).
Whetstone, G.A., "Potential Reuse of Effluent as Factor in
Sewage Design," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series, 63, No. 78, pp 255-257 (1967).
Whetstone, G.A., "Re-Use of Effluent in the Future," Texas
Water Development Board, Austin (1965).
Wierzbicki, J., "Augmenting Water Supply Through Agricultural
Utilization of Municipal Sewage," Gaz, Wod i Technika Sani-
tarna, 31, 17 (1957).
Wiessman, W., Jr., "Developments in Waste Water Re-Use,"
Public Works, 96, pp 138-140 (1965).
Williams, Roy E., and Eier, Douglas D., The Feasibility of
Reuse of Chlorinated Sewage Effluent for Fertilization and
Irrigation in Idaho, University of Idaho Graduate School,
Moscow (1971).
Williams, Roy E., Eier, Douglas D., and Wallace, Alfred T.,
Feasibility of Re-Use of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation,
Fertilization and Ground-water Recharge in Idaho, Idaho
Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow (1969).
Williamson, J.S., and Hirsch, L. , "Treatment and Reuse of
Industrial Wastewater," Water and Sewage Works, 116, IW
24-26 (1969).
Wilson, C.W., and Cantrell, R.P., "A Study of the Technical
and Economic Feasibility of Using Sewage Effluent for Irri-
gation in Lincoln Parish, La. (1969).
Wolf, H.W. and Esmond, S.E., "Water Quality for Potable
Reuse of Wastewater," Unpublished data, Dallas, Texas (1972).
Wolman, A., "Industrial Water Supply from Processed Sewage
Treatment Plant Effluent at Baltimore, Md." Sewage Works
Journal, 20, p 15 (1948).
Wolters, N., "Water Reuse in West German Industry," Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 63, No. 78, pp 41-45
(1967) . ~
Woodruff, E., and Lammers, H.B., Steam Plant Operation,
McGraw-Hill, New York (1967).
166
-------
Zanker, A. , "Utilization of Treated Wastewater as Cooling
Water," Water and Sewage Works, 118, pp 188-189 (1971).
Zillman, "Organization of the Application of Sewage, as Arti-
ficial Rain in Wolfsburg," Stadtehygiene, 7, p 53 (1956).
Zuckerman, M.M., and Molof, A.H., "High Quality Reuse Water
by Chemical-Physical Wastewater Treatment," Journal, Water
Pollution Control Federation, 42, pp 437-456 (1970).
167
-------
SECTION XI
APPENDICES
168
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTS
GRAND CANYON VILLAGE, ARIZONA
INTRODUCTION
Grand Canyon Village, located on the south rim of the Grand
Canyon, is the only reported location in the United States
where reclaimed sewage effluent is utilized as a non-potable
domestic water supply. An average of 30,000 gpd (approxi-
mately 7 percent of the total water demand) is used during
the May through September high-use season for: toilet
flushing, car washing, irrigation, construction, and stock
watering.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Reclaimed water is supplied to the village by the village
tertiary treatment plant. The plant, built in March, 1972,
treats an average of 0.22 mgd during peak season, of which
approximately 14 percent is reclaimed for non-potable use.
Industrial wastes from a large laundry comprise only a small
fraction of the influent raw sewage flow and exert no sig-
nificant effect on the treatment process.
Figure A-l diagrams the major treatment processes. Primary
treatment consists of screening followed by comminution.
The raw sewage then goes directly into one of three acti-
vated sludge aeration tanks which provide 5 hr detention
time, MLSS concentration of 2,000 to 3,000 mg/1 and 60 per-
cent sludge recirculation rate. Gravity circular secondary
clarification follows with an overflow rate of 600 gpd/sq
ft. Aerobic sludge digestion is used followed by drying
beds.
Tertiary treatment constructed in 1926 consists of filtra-
tion through anthracite coal beds (which are composed of 2.5
to 3.5 ft of various sized rock covered with 18 inches of
coal), and chlorination to a residual of 5 mg/1 chlorine.
A covered concrete storage tank holds 0.3 mg and serves to
meet the varying demands of the village. The reclaimed
water is then pumped directly into the village distribution
system, where a steel storage tank holding 0.1 MG provides
constant pressure.
169
-------
SCREENING
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
COMMINUTOR
DRYING
BEDS
1
_ _J
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANK
CL,
DISPOSAL
LAGOONS
ANTHRACITE
FILTERS
TO NON-POTABLE
DOMESTIC REUSE
COVERED HOLDING
TANK (0.3 MG)
FIGURE A-I
VILLAGE WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
GRAND CANYON VILLAGE, ARIZONA
170
-------
Typical final effluent characteristics are listed in Table
A-l. The only reported effluent odor is a noticeable
chlorine odor resulting from the high residual, that is
maintained partly to discourage human consumption of the
water.
Table A-l. AVERAGE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
AT GRAND CANYON VILLAGE, ARIZONA
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
BOD 10
SS 10
TDS 616
Cl 200
MPN 0
pH 6.9-7.2
After secondary treatment, the effluent remaining after the
non-potable distribution system needs are met, is stored in
a 6 MG evaporation lagoon.
REUSE PRACTICES
The largest single use of the effluent is for flushing pub-
lic toilets in most of the older lodges, motels, dorms, and
cafeterias within the village.
Irrigation of the high school football field and landscaping
is another major use of reclaimed water, followed by vehicle
washing and occasional use in road and airport runway con-
struction. Table A-2 shows high and low reuse volumes for
various activities. Use drops off during the winter months
as tourist activity declines.
Table A-2. REUSE VOLUMES AT
GRAND CANYON VILLAGE, ARIZONA
Use
Volume (gal/month)
High Low
Public Toilets 1,050,000 321,000
Irrigation 515,000 19,000
Car Washing 26,000 3,200
171
-------
The major problem reported with the reclaimed water opera-
tion is distribution. The distribution system for reclaimed
water is old and piping is corroded. The existing system is
already limited in area and becomes more so as old piping
deteriorates and is abandoned.
If requested funds become available, park engineers are
planning to replace and expand the reclaimed water distribu-
tion system and replace the tertiary treatment plant. Re-
claimed water would then be made available to all private
and public toilets for which an economic advantage could be
shown. The potential use for reclaimed water is roughly
6 MG/month during peak seasons. Figure A-2 depicts the
existing and future distribution plan for the village.
In addition to problems of distribution, other difficulties
include minor occurances of sludge bulking and poor settling
in the secondary clarifier. Low pressure resulting from in-
sufficiently elevated reclaimed water storage tank was re-
cently rectified by installation of a pneumatic pressure
system to serve the higher points of use. Generally, the
present system is considered very successful. There have
been no reports of health or aesthe'tic problems due to re-
claimed water use.
An improved and expanded system of wastewater treatment and
distribution would ease the increasing demand on the pre-
cious fresh water supply of Grand Canyon Village. The suc-
cess of this operation may interest other communities with
critical water supply problems, to evaluate the advantages
of domestic water reclamation and reuse systems. This is
especially true for those future developments where costs
of a parallel non-potable piping system would not be as pro-
hibitive. At Grand Canyon, reclaimed water pipes were laid
in the same trench with the sewers. All trenching is in
solid rock.
ECONOMICS
Economics is of particular importance in the grand Canyon
since geographic and climatic constraints to obtaining fresh
water are severe. The land surrounding Grand Canyon Village
is arid. Potable water must be piped 15 miles across the
Grand Canyon from Roaring Springs and pumped 3,400 ft in
elevation. As a result, fresh water cost is $2.45/1,000 gal.
In addition, damage to the transmission pipe from falling
rock along the canyon walls is common. Maintenance is dif-
ficult and costly, involving the use of helicopter air lifts
and other unusual techniques. The Village's rapid popula-
tion growth of approximately 6 percent annually increases
the critical nature of the water supply problem. Maximum
172
-------
FIGURE A-2
EXISTING AND FUTURE REUSE
AT GRAND CANYON VILLAGE, ARIZONA
-------
use of reclaimed water is economically feasible. Charges
for reclaimed water are $1.00/1,000 gal when piped to a
point of use where potable water is also available, and
$1.75/1,000 gal for all other areas. The lower rate pro-
vides an incentive to use reclaimed water. Total revenue
from sale of reclaimed water was $11,000 in 1971.
SCS Engineers estimates that the treatment cost of the waste-
water is $2.58/1,000 gal. Sales of effluent reduce the vil-
lage's treatment costs by approximately 5 percent. The re-
maining treatment costs are paid out of appropriated funds
by the federal government.
174
-------
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
INTRODUCTION
The municipality of Phoenix, Arizona has one of the nation's
largest wastewater reclamation and irrigation programs.
Approximately 35 mgd of secondary treated effluent is com-
mitted by contracts for irrigating crops, providing water to
a 70 acre fish and game marsh, and for experimental reclama-
tion purposes.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Phoenix, Arizona operates two activated sludge treatment
plants, the 23rd Ave. Plant which serves a portion of
Phoenix, and the Multi-City 91st Ave. Plant which treats
sewage from Phoenix and the surrounding cities of Glendale,
Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, Youngtown, Sun City and Peoria.
Industrial waste flow into the municipal plants comprise
about 7 percent of the total volume, with the predominant
waste coming from plating operations. Stringent industrial
discharge standards which require the pretreatment of all
industrial wastewaters discharged into the sanitary sewerage
system, protect the treatment plants and insures an effluent
suitable for reuse. Treatment provided at the two plants is
nearly identical and only the 91st Ave. plant will be dis-
cussed in detail. Figure A-3 shows schematically the treat-
ment and reuse operations.
The 91st Ave. plant treats 60 mgd of raw sewage. Primary
treatment consists of screening followed by grit removal and
four primary sedimentation tanks. The sewage then flows
into four activated sludge tanks using step aeration with
conventional spiral flow, 5 hr detention, and 2,100 mg/1
mixed liquor solids concentration. Air is supplied at the
rate of 1,300 cu ft per Ib of BOD removed. Twenty-four
secondary gravity clarification tanks with overflow rates
of 530 gpd/sq ft provide final settling prior to discharge.
Water quality characteristics of the secondary effluent from
the 91st Ave. activated sludge plant are tabulated in Table
A-3.
175
-------
40MGD
SCREENING
GRIT CHAMBER
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
23 RD. AVE. PLANT
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
SIX DAMS UPSTREAM
SALT
RIVER
(NORMAL!^
DRY)
A
STABILIZATION PONDS/
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
60 MGD
91 ST. A\
(SAME FLOW
DIAGRAM AS
23 RD. AVE
PLANT BUT
WITHOUT
STABILIZATION . PONDS)
'E. PLANT
6.5 MGD. ;
ASU
EXPERIMENTAL
UNIT
0.3 MGD
FISH a GAME
MARSH /.
60-70 f
ACRES L :
L ^
£ 1
±
... V s
U.S. WATER CONSERVATION
LABORATORY
1.07 MGD. WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION RESEARCH
BUCKEYE IRRIGATION
COMPANY
26.8 MGD
FOR ALFALFA, COTTON,
AND GRAINS.
PHOENIX AREA
BEAGLE CLUB
0.18 MGD FOR
IRRIGATION
FIGURE A-3
MUNICIPAL WATER RECLAMATION AND IRRIGATION REUSE SYSTEM
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
176
-------
Table A-3. TYPICAL MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT CHARAC-
TERISTICS AT 91ST AVE. PLANT, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Characteristics
SS
BOD
TDS
Total N
N03
NO 2
NH3
P04
so4
Cl
Concentration
(mg/1)
25
13
1,000
32
2
1
20
33
100
275
Characteristics
Ca
Mg
Fe
Na
COD
Hardness
Alkalinity
PH
MPN
Concentration
(mg/1)
64
26
0
125
50
268
316
7'4 fi
3.5 x 106
Currently, an advanced tertiary treatment pilot system is
being tried at the 91st Ave. plant in cooperation with Ari-
zona State University to treat approximately 0.3 mgd of
secondary effluent. The treatment involves two submerged
biological filter units in series. This simple system is
reported to consistently reduce BOD and SS concentrations
below 1 mg/1. A smaller submerged biological filter pilot
system at the 23rd Ave. plant is being fed raw sewage at the
rate of 8,000 gpd. The effluent from this small operation
has a BOD of about 1 mg/1 and is being successfully used in
hydroponic irrigation experiments with tomatoes, carrots,
lettuce, and beans.
Further treatment of secondary effluent is provided only at
the 23rd Ave. plant. One-hundred twenty acres of ponds pro-
vide this additional treatment and also serve as a sanctuary
for hundreds of water fowl, including ducks, geese, herons,
and smaller marsh birds. The 91st Ave. plant discharges
directly to the dry Salt River bed.
REUSE PRACTICES
Reclaimed water reuse in Phoenix, Arizona, can be separated
into four areas: (1) irrigation by the Phoenix, Arizona
Beagle Club, 0.18 mgd; (2) irrigation by the Buckeye Irriga-
tion Company, 26.8 mgd; (3) creation of a marsh for fish and
wildlife refuge by the Arizona Fish and Game Department; and
(4) advanced wastewater treatment experimentation, 1.07 mgd.
Effluent from the 91st Ave. plant, averaging 60 mgd, flows
through an open, earth-lined channel to the normally dry
Salt River bed. Approximately three miles downstream, the
flow encounters a dike which causes a portion of the
177
-------
reclaimed water to form a marshy area of 70 acres. This
area serves as a refuge for birds and other wildlife as well
as a site for recreational fishing. Carp, Catfish, and Gam-
busia are among the species of fish life found in the refuge.
Further down the river, the U.S. Water Conservation Labora-
tory extracts 1.07 mgd for experimentation, and the Buckeye
Irrigation Company diverts 27 mgd for irrigation of alfalfa,
cotton, and grains.
ECONOMICS
About 25.2 mgd is purchased from the Multi-Cities by the
Buckeye Irrigation Company at $4.60/MG; however, an addi-
tional 1.6 mgd of Phoenix's reclaimed water flow is also
diverted from the Salt River by the Buckeye Irrigation Com-
pany to satisfy a legal commitment. Total revenue to the
Multi-Cities was $42,300 in 1972. Plans are being prepared
for reuse as cooling water for nuclear power plants, the
first of which is to be completed in about 1981. The Ari-
zona Nuclear Power Project has been granted an option to
purchase an ultimate volume of 140,000 acre feet of effluent
per year.
The city of Phoenix has recently been offered an EPA Re-
search Grant to construct and operate a soil filter system
to reclaim about 15 mgd of effluent from the 23rd Ave.
plant. This demonstration system, a larger version of the
1 mgd research unit now operated by the U.S. Water Conserva-
tion Laboratory downstream from the 91st Ave. plant, will
produce water that is suitable for unrestricted agricultural
use. It is intended that this water will be sold to the
Roosevelt Irrigation District when the unit is placed in
operation about July 1974.
178
-------
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
The city of Bakersfield, California has reclaimed primary
treated municipal wastewater for irrigation water since 1912,
During 1972 the program irrigated 2,400 acres of corn, bar-
ley, wheat, alfalfa, cotton, and permanent pasture by utili-
zing the entire average effluent flow of 12 mgd from two
municipal treatment plants located adjacent to the fields.
The project demonstrates that irrigation with poor quality
effluent is agriculturally feasible and economically attrac-
tive. The farmer realizes substantial savings in the pur-
chase of water and the municipality gains economic advan-
tages through low treatment costs. Of major significance is
the resulting conservation of fresh water supplies in this
water short area. Long-term effects upon groundwater qual-
ity, however, have not yet been thoroughly investigated.
A successful program requires knowledgeable crop management
and a well balanced irrigation program. Sufficient water
storage capacity should be available to meet variance in
water demand for optimum results. A large capacity tail-
water collection and recirculation system is required to
prevent runoff of polluted irrigation water.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The two Bakersfield primary treatment plants are located
within 2,400 acres of irrigated fields and approximately 2
miles from the nearest residential development. The plants
are very similar, consisting of screening, grit removal, and
primary gravity clarification, followed by a holding pond.
Conventional anaerobic sludge digestion is used. Dried
sludge is composted with collected leaves and spread in city
parks. The only significant difference in the two plant
processes is the addition of pre-aeration prior to sedimenta-
tion at Plant No. 2. A schematic flow diagram of Plant No.
2 is shown in Figure A-4 and plant effluent characteristics
are presented in Table A-4. The poor quality of the Plant
No. 1 effluent is due to high influent BOD from dairy and
poultry processing plants.
179
-------
Table A-4. AVERAGE MUNICIPAL
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AT
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Characteris ti c
(mg/1)
BOD
SS
TDS
Na
Cl
PH
P04
NH3-N
Plant No. 1
(3.6 mgd)
370
118
630
181
96
7.0
16
29
Plant No. 2
(8.4 mgd)
85
26
324
87
50
7.4
20
23
10 MG
HOLDING POND
SCREENING
GRIT CHAMBER
IRRIGATION
TO 2400
ACRES
AERATION TANK
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
DIGESTERS (
TO DRYING BED
FIGURE A-4
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
180
-------
REUSE PRACTICES
The irrigated fields surround the treatment plants and uti-
lize all effluent from the plants. Ridge and furrow irriga-
tion is used. No discharge of wastewater is allowed from
the 2,400 acre farm. Management of tailwater (runoff from
the fields) is a large operation involving storage in a 20
MG tailwater pond and pumping back to the irrigation system.
This effort could be greatly reduced by increased storage
capacity of effluent prior to irrigation.
In general, odors in the fields are not severe; however,
mosquitos are ubiquitous throughout the irrigation system
and pose a significant problem which is perpetuated by ex-
cess water ponding during the winter season. Mosquito
abatement spraying is the only insect control practiced.
The farm is surrounded by other agricultural land and is lo-
cated southeast of the city of Bakersfield, approximately
two miles from the nearest residences. This separation is
sufficient to prevent nuisance odors and insects from dis-
turbing local citizens.
Cotton is the only cash crop grown. Corn, barley, alfalfa,
wheat and permanent pasture are used for animal feed on the
farm. Irrigation with primary effluent is restricted by the
California State Health Department to crops not for human
consumption.
The reclaimed water supply must be augmented during the
months of June, July, and August by well water which consti-
tutes 33 percent of the total supply during these summer
months.
In Bakers field's experience, the effect of using reclaimed
primary effluent varies with the crop. Corn and permanent
pasture is reported to grow equally well using fresh water
irrigation systems or using primary effluent. The grain
crops of alfalfa, barley, and wheat also showed growth and
yields comparable to crops irrigated with fresh irrigation
water. Bakersfield reports, however, that high nitrogen
concentrations in the reclaimed water can impair optimum
production of grain crops, and careful management is neces-
sary to regulate the amount of irrigation water used and the
amount of nitrogen assimilated by the plants. Cotton is the
only crop that appeared to be detrimentally affected by
irrigation with primary effluent. The high concentrations
of nutrients direct growth to the plant rather than to the
cotton boles; thus, cotton production is reduced by an esti-
mated 25 percent compared to irrigation with fresh water and
balanced fertilization.
181
-------
Substantial storage capacity is important for an optimum
irrigation program with reclaimed wastewater. The present
irrigation program at Bakersfield is impaired by inadequate
lagoon storage capacity which prevents complete satisfaction
of high summer demands and forces overuse in the rainy win-
ter season, causing saturation of the fields and ponding. A
proposed reservoir of 800 to 1,500 acre-ft would balance the
reclaimed water supply to meet seasonal needs. Also planned
is increased replacement of open earth ditches with irriga-
tion pipe in order to increase percolation and reduce tail-
water accumulation, storage, and pumping.
The city recognizes the potential for groundwater contamina-
tion when irrigating with primary effluent. The major con-
cern is that nitrates will increase in groundwater and well
supplies. Studies are presently under way to determine the
effects of reclaimed water irrigation on groundwater quality
in the area. Preliminary investigations indicate no nitrate
contamination of well water supplies has occurred during the
first 50 years of the Bakersfield reclamation operation.
ECONOMICS
The city of Bakersfield realizes substantial savings because
primary treatment is sufficient for disposal to field irri-
gation whereas secondary treatment would be required if the
effluent was discharged to surface waters. The approximate
1972 cost for primary treatment is $113/MG at Plant No. 1,
and $92/MG at Plant No. 2. The city estimates an increase
to $175/MG if secondary treatment were necessary (costs in-
clude capital amortization).
Financial savings through the use of the reclaimed water are
significant for the farming and livestock operation also.
No exact dollar values are available, but the farm operator
believes a savings of $5/acre annually in water cost is con-
servative. A greater savings would be possible if the ef-
fluent were properly balanced to meet all seasonal demands.
Construction of deep wells has been necessary to augment the
flow from the treatment plants in the summer. The $9,000/
year cost for mosquito abatement could also be reduced by
proper water storage and balancing to reduce tailwater vol-
ume and ponding on the fields.
182
-------
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
Located in the heart of the downtown area, the municipal
wastewater reclamation facility at Burbank attains a sig-
nificantly higher quality effluent than is typical of con-
ventional secondary treatment systems. Since 1967, the city
power generating plant has successfully utilized this efflu-
ent for cooling water makeup. Initial problems with efflu-
ent reuse were solved by close cooperation between personnel
of the wastewater treatment plant and the power plant. Co-
operation continues on a day-to-day basis to ensure opti-
mum operation. In the opinion of SCS Engineers, the Burbank
reclamation operation is presently among the outstanding
examples of cooling makeup water reuse in the nation.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The municipality treats an average raw sewage flow of 5.2
mgd, ranging from 2 to 9 mgd. The influent contains approxi-
mately 25 percent industrial waste, predominantly generated
by aircraft manufacture and containing hexavalent chromium,
cyanide, and heavy metals. Concentrations of undesirable
industrial waste characteristics are controlled by a ridgidly
enforced industrial waste ordinance and frequent inspections.
The 6 mgd design capacity treatment plant, as diagrammed in
Figure A-5, includes screening and barminutors, followed by
gravity settling in two rectangular primary clarification
tanks designed for 1,250 gpd/sq ft surface overflow rate.
The three aeration tanks are each 30 ft wide by 210 ft long
by 15 ft deep. The tanks may be operated in parallel or in
series. Presently, series operation is used with step feed
of the primary effluent at 10 ft, 60 ft, 110 ft, and 160 ft
from the beginning of the first tank. Design parameters for
the aeration tanks include the following:
BOD load - 31 lbs/1,000 cu ft tank volume
Air supply - 1,300 cu ft/lb BOD removed or 1.9 cu
ft/gal
Detention period - 8.4 hrs
183
-------
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
TO SEWER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
ALTERNATE DISPOSAL
TO SEWER
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
ALTERNATE DISPOSAL TO CHANNEL
TO STEAM PLANT REUSE
FIGURE A-5
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
184
-------
Return sludge - 30 to 70 percent.
Present operation utilizes one of the aeration tanks for
sludge reaeration, maintains approximately 900 mg/1 MLSS in
the aeration tanks, and recirculates approximately 30 per-
cent return activated sludge.
Final clarification is provided by four rectangular clari-
fiers designed for 935 gpd/sq ft overflow rate.
The final treatment step is chlorination at a dosage of
approximately 7 rng/1 for 45 minutes producing a residual of
2 to 3 mg/1. Typical plant effluent quality is shown in
Table A-5. It should be noted that the city of Burbank
plant has a significant advantage over other plants because
it disposes of its raw sludge to the city of Los Angeles via
a nearby interceptor sewer. No sludge and supernatant hand-
ling requirements are a great asset in producing an excep-
tional quality effluent. In case of an emergency, the same
interceptor to the city of Los Angeles can be used to dis-
pose of raw sewage or poor effluent.
Table A-5. AVERAGE MUNICIPAL
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AT BURBANK
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
BOD
SS
TDS
Na
Cl
pH
MPN
Total Hardness
Total P04
0.66
4.5
500
88
82
7.2
0-20
160
20
Organic N
Pb
Cr
Zn
Ne
Cu
B
Hg
Cd
39
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.32
0.03
0.9
0.002
0.002
Water not used for cooling water makeup is discharged to the
Los Angeles River and ultimately used for groundwater re-
charge via spreading grounds.
The power plant has no specific limitation on the effluent
quality received; however, minimum levels of dissolved and
suspended solids, phosphate, nitrogen, and organics are
desired. The power plant cannot discharge wastewater with
greater than 750 mg/1 TDS, thus severly limiting the number
of recycles of water prior to blowdown.
185
-------
Communication between treatment plant personnel and power
plant personnel is important in the success of the effluent
reuse practice in Burbank. Any change in effluent charac-
teristics or performance of the reused water in the cooling
towers is immediately reported and discussed.
REUSE PRACTICES
The city of Burbank's 170 Mw power generation station uses
approximately 2 mgd of the renovated water in its mechanical
draft cooling towers. This volume varies from 1.5 to 2.5
mgd with about 25 percent more water used during the summer
months when high power demands are placed on the station.
User treatment includes shock chlorination once daily in
winter and twice daily in summer to produce a 1 mg/1 chlo-
rine residual. The pH is adjusted to between 6.6 and 6.8
with sulfuric acid. Poly-electrolyte is added for corrosion
inhibition and scaling prevention. All chemical additions
are direct to the recirculating cooling water.
Standby supplies from the city potable water sources are
available if required. Prior to implementation of the
wastewater reuse, the city water supply was the only source
of makeup water, and the power plant has good data comparing
the treatment required for effluent vs. potable city water.
Effluent generally is reported to have the following disad-
vantages :
1. Greater chlorine dosage is needed to prevent growths
due to the nutrient values. The difference is
approximately 2:1 in the winter and 4:1 in the sum-
mer.
2. More acid for pH control is required because of the
greater buffering action. The difference is approxi-
mately 3:2.
3. More poly-electrolyte is required.
4. More water is required in the cooling operation be-
cause the higher TDS of the wastewater prevents as
many recycles as could be obtained with potable
water.
ECONOMICS
Municipal waste treatment costs are estimated at $126/MG,
based upon the following reported costs: labor, $74,000;
supplies, $13,000; utilities, $27,000; and other items,
$4,000. Capital cost of the treatment plant was $1.1
186
-------
million in 1966 which represents an equivalent 1972 cost of
$1,626,000 calculated with the FWPCA Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index Ratio (1972/1966 = 1.48). Therefore,
annual capital amortization (5.5% over 25 years) totaled
$121,367. Adding the operating costs to amortization yielded
a total annual treatment cost of $239,367 or $126/mg for the
annual effluent volume of 1,898 mg. Reclaimed water sales,
though simply an inter-city transfer, totaled $31,000 in
1972 at a rate of $43/MG.
It is estimated by SCS Engineers that the power plant spends
approximately $100/MG for additional chemical treatment as
previously described. The combined cost of $226 compares
very favorably with total costs reported by other munici-
palities, and is a strong argument for the overall effi-
ciency of the Burbank reclamation program.
187
-------
CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA
(LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT)
INTRODUCTION
The Las Virgenes Water District has been reclaiming treated
effluent since 1965. Currently, it is using renovated water
for crop and pasture irrigation. However, a $3.5 million
expansion of the reclaimed water system is tentatively
planned for 1976 and is to include a series of recreational
lakes as well as an enlarged irrigation program. The rec-
lamation plant was selected Los Angeles Basin Plant of the
Year for 1972 and is an outstanding example of good acti-
vated sludge design and operation.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The Tapia Treatment Plant in Las Virgenes gives secondary
treatment to an average wastewater flow of 3 mgd, 10 percent
of which is contributed by industry. However, all indus-
tries are required to pretreat their waste to domestic sew-
age strengths, and no heavy metal concentrations are allowed
in excess of USPHS Drinking Water Standards. Due to these
stringent discharge controls, no problems are experienced at
the treatment plant due to industrial wastewater flows.
Figure A-6 shows a schematic flow diagram of the treatment
processes. Primary treatment consists of comminution fol-
lowed by sedimentation in two rectangular tanks each 125 ft
x 20 ft x 12 ft in dimension, with a 1,600 gpd/sq ft over-
flow rate, and 1.1 hour detention time at the design flow
rate of 8 mgd.
The wastewater then enters three rectangular activated
sludge aeration tanks, each having dimensions of 160 ft x 30
ft x 15 ft. The operation is step feed with 3.6 hour
detention at a sludge recirculation rate of 33 percent. Air
is diffused at 1 cu ft per gallon of raw sewage or approxi-
mately 1,000 cu ft of air per Ib of BOD removed. The MLSS
concentration is regulated with seasonal temperature and
microbiological activity to 1,600 mg/1 in the summer and
188
-------
COMMINUTOR
AND
METERING
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
CHEMICAL
DEWATERING
TO FARM
FERTILIZATION
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
RE-AERATION
TANKS
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
RETURN
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
CHLORINE
CONTACT
13 MG HOLDING POND
3 MG HOLDING
POND
3 MG HOLDING POND
TO CROP
IRRIGATION
AND WASTE
SPRAY
WASTE
SPRAY
"IRRIGATION
ONLY
FIGURE A-6
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT
TAPIA PLANT
LAS VIRGENES, CALIFORNIA
FACILITY
189
-------
2,600 mg/1 in the winter. The activated sludge process is
closely monitored and regulated to achieve consistent com-
plete nitrification. Concentration of nitrate nitrogen
(N03) is monitored at regular intervals along the aeration
tanks with corrections and modifications of the operation
geared to maintain proper concentration and activity of the
sensitive nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter) ,
Following aeration, the mixed liquor is settled in five
secondary clarification tanks each 150 ft x 20 ft x 10 ft in
dimension, with a 600 gpd/sq ft overflow rate, and 2.5 hour
detention time at design flow. Presently, one of the
secondary clarifiers is being used as a chlorine contact
chamber to supplement the old chlorine tank and provide 1.1
hours of contact time. A chlorine dosage of 8 mg/1 results
in a free chlorine residual of 1 mg/1.
Return activated sludge can be reaerated prior to return to
the aeration tanks. A combination of settled waste acti-
vated sludge and primary sludge is pumped into two aerobic
digestion tanks with 120 ft x 30 ft x 15 ft dimensions,
which provide 20 days of detention time at a total plant
flow rate of 4 mgd. Digested sludge is dewatered in three
dual cell gravity units and trucked to agricultural fields
for spreading and tilling into the soil.
Following chlorination, the final effluent is stored in a 3
MG asphalt lined reservoir. From the here the reclaimed
water is pumped to two unlined stabilization/storage reser-
voirs. The first reservoir holds 3 MG and contains only
excess water for waste spray disposal on non-productive
land. During winter months, all effluent is disposed in
this manner since the Tapia plant has no permit for stream
discharge, except during periods of inclement weather. The
second reservoir holds 13 MG of reclaimed water for crop and
permanent pasture irrigation. Gravity feed from the reser-
voirs supplies sufficient head for irrigation and disposal
operations.
As summarized in Table A-6, the final effluent from the
Tapia plant approaches drinking water quality. BOD, SS,
heavy metal concentrations, and Coliform MPN are very low.
The low metals concentrations are due to the stringent in-
dustrial discharge regulations.
REUSE PRACTICES
Reclaimed wastewater is currently used for irrigation of
nearby farmland. The irrigation program is highly seasonal
utilizing approximately 60 percent of the total effluent
flow from March to October, and little water the remainder
190
-------
Table A-6. AVERAGE MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS AT LAS VIRGENES
Constituent
Pb
Cd
Cu
Ni
Zn
MBAS
CRTG
Phenols
Org-N
F
PH
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.022
0.003
0.014
0.031
0.056
0.34
0.0
0.034
2.2
0.36
7.8
Constituent
B
N03-N
N02-N
NH3-N
Cl
TDS
SC>4
P04
BOD
SS
MPN
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.77
13.2
0.07
0.0
112
870
267
32.8
3
1
2.2
of the year.
ted:
The following crops and acreages are irriga-
. Alfalfa - 225 acres
Permanent pasture - 30 acres
Sudan grass - 5 acres
In addition, the campuses of a local grade school and Pepper-
dine University (Malibu) are irrigated with effluent during
the summer months.
The irrigation system will be expanded next year to include
a golf course and green belt areas in the community of
Calabasas. The additional demand will be for 300 to 500
acre-ft/year of reclaimed water.
As seen in Table A-6, the nutrient concentrations in the
renovated effluent are quite high, due in part to the com-
plete nitrification aeration process. The nutrient value
in the effluent is estimated at approximately $18/acre-ft
based on current market values for nitrogen and phosphorus
fertilizers.
Farmers have reported favorable results using effluent water.
Yields of alfalfa have increased over previous years when
well water was used. Some of this alfalfa is used to make
"alfalfa juice concentrate", a health food supplement for
human consumption. The final product of dehydrated alfalfa
juice has successfully passed all FDA requirements and is
sold on the open market. The growth of sudan grass has been
markedly stimulated by irrigation with reclaimed water; used
as green feed for cattle, the best previous production using
191
-------
well water was one regrowth after harvest. Currently, three
regrowths occur each season approximately doubling gross pro-
duction.
The treated effluent is of such high quality that no signifi-
cant problems are reported with the irrigation program. Soil
damaging constituents are not evident and suspended solids
are so low that no plugging of spray nozzles has occurred.
The water district is planning a $3.5 million expansion of
the reclaimed water system in 1976. In addition to enlarg-
ing the irrigation program several recreational lakes will
be constructed for public fishing and picnicking.
Extensive bio-assay experiments are being conducted in the
plant laboratory to determine acute and long-term toxic
effects of the effluent on fat-head minnows and gambusia
(mosquito fish). The purpose of the experimentation is two-
fold: (1) to assure the success of fish health, reproduc-
tion, and growth in planned reclaimed water recreational
lakes; and (2) to validate requests for a stream discharge
permit by proving that the plant effluent has no deleterious
effects on fish life.
Preliminary results have been encouraging as no toxic ef-
fects have been observed either in the lab aquariums or the
two treatment plant aeration tanks presently used as fish
raising reservoirs. Reproduction and vital activities have
been normal.
Fish have also been introduced into the existing reclaimed
water reservoirs. Bass, bluegill, crappie, and catfish have
shown higher growth rates (bass growing from 4 inches to 16
inches in 15 months) and equivalent reproductive activities
than are reported for identical species living in natural
surface waters.
ECONOMICS
The Las Virgenes Municipal Water District sells reclaimed
water to the farmers for $15/acre-ft. The price was selec-
ted to be competitive with the cost of local well water,
which is of poor quality with TDS concentrations of 1,300
to 1,500 mg/1. Because of the added nutrient value and
competitive cost of the high quality effluent supply, the
farmers have switched to 100 percent reclaimed water usage
with well water used only as standby.
The $15/acre-ft amortizes the reclaimed water piping system;
thus, the municipal water district is reimbursed for a minor
192
-------
portion of their estimated treatment costs of $348/MG while
the farmers receive high quality water at costs competitive
with poor quality well water supplies.
193
-------
SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY (LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA)
INTRODUCTION
Since 1971, the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
have sold renovated wastewater to the county of Los Angeles
for use in a chain of three recreational lakes. The lakes
have a capacity of 80 MG and serve as a focal point for the
Counties' 56 acre Appolo Park. The park, located near Lan-
caster, California, was opened to the public in 1973 and
features sport fishing, boating, picnic areas, play fields,
hiking, and camping. Pending final tests, the fish caught
are not kept for eating. The area has a typical southwest
desert climate.
During 1973, an average of 0.5 mgd of renovated wastewater
for the Appolo Park lakes was supplied by the District's
Renovation Plant No. 14 near Lancaster, California. The
treatment, which is simple and relatively inexpensive, was
developed through an extensive research and pilot program
conducted by the District and the federal EPA to establish
design criteria for the project. This background data, and
the operating experience now being developed, will be of
value to future similar recreational lake developments.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The District Wastewater Renovation Plant No. 14 near Lan-
caster provides oxidation pond treatment to an average in-
fluent flow of 4 mgd. An average of 0.5 mgd of the pond
effluent is filtered and chlorinated prior to pumping to the
recreational lakes. Figure A-7 on the following page shows
a schematic flow diagram of the operation.
The raw influent passes through a communitor and into two
primary sedimentation tanks. Only 5 percent of the raw sew-
age flow is contributed by industry and no deleterious effects
on plant operation are reported.
194
-------
RAW SEWAGE
COMMINUTOR
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
FLOCCULATION
CHAMBER
SEDIMENTATION
TANKS
MULTI-MEDIA
GRAVITY FILTER
CHLORINE CONTACT
TANK
OXIDATION
PONDS
PUMP STATION
EVAPORATION
PONDS
APOLLO PARK
RECREATIONAL LAKES (80 MG)
FIGURE A-7
WASTEWATER RENNOVATION PLANT NO. 14
(LANCASTER) LA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
195
-------
Secondary treatment is provided by eight oxidation ponds,
with a total surface area of 240 acres. Detention at aver-
age flow rates is 60 days with a BOD loading of 100 Ibs/
acre/day- An average of 3.5 mgd of effluent from the oxi-
dation ponds is retained behind dikes for disposal by evapo-
ration. The remaining 0.5 mgd is given the following se-
quence of tertiary treatment stages:
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Filtration
Chlorination,
for removal of phosphates, suspended solids, algae, and bac-
teria.
Effective flocculation is achieved with an average alum dos-
age of 300 mg/1. The flocculation chamber is designed for
380 gpm, with tank dimensions of 16 ft x 8 ft x 8 ft depth
and a detention time of 20 minutes.
Sedimentation is provided by a covered tank measuring 16 ft
x 68 ft x 7 ft depth. Two and one half hours of retention
time is provided at an overflow rate of 500 gpd/sq ft.
Following sedimentation, a multi-media filter is employed
for further solids removal.
Characteristics of the unit are as follows:
Filter media - 18 in. anthrafilt
9 in. sand
15 in. gravel
360 gpm design flow
180 sq ft filter bed area
2.0 gpm/sq ft loading rate
7.0 ft final head loss
18 gpm/sq ft max. backwash rate
2.0 gpm/sq ft surface wash at 50 psi
50 percent bed expansion
Following filtration, chlorination is accomplished in a con-
tact tank with 44,000 cu ft volume and 8 hour detention
time. Chlorine dosage will range up to 15 mg/1 to provide
the desired 3.4 mg/1 residual in the recreational lake sup-
ply.
Problems experienced to date include high turbidity and am-
monia levels during winter months, as cooler temperatures
cause slowing of biological activity in the oxidation ponds.
In order to affect complete nitrification and breakdown of
196
-------
ammonia, long retention periods (60 days in the summer and
longer periods in the winter) are provided in the secondary
oxidation ponds. An undesirable side effect, however, is
that the TDS concentrations of the ponds increase with time
due to high evaporative loss. The tertiary treatment plant
has no significant effect on dissolved solids. Thus, the
high TDS concentrations are passed on. to the recreational
lakes. Evaporation in the recreational lakes further con-
centrates the dissolved solids, often to levels as high as
1,200 mg/1.
To alleviate the situation, low ammonia water is stored each
autumn in one of the oxidation ponds for release during the
winter to dilute water with higher ammonia concentration as
necessary. In addition, irrigation with lake water is en-
couraged to keep water flowing through the lakes and to con-
trol increasing TDS concentrations.
Table A-7 on the following page shows effluent qualities for
the oxidation ponds and the tertiary plant. Quality require-
ments for the tertiary effluent are also listed. General re-
quirements for the reclaimed water for recreational use are
set by the State as follows:
"It is desirable that the reclaimed water be of high quality,
low in dissolved salts and nutrients, while fully oxygenated.
The water must-be pleasing esthetically, in both clarity and
odor for full public acceptance. It must be capable of sus-
taining fish life and of course be pathogenically acceptable."
REUSE OPERATIONS
The tertiary effluent at Lancaster is used as the sole
source of makeup water for three recreational lakes for use
by boaters and fishermen. Discharge from the lake is uti-
lized for irrigation of park landscape and leaching opera-
tions to reclaim nearby alkaline soils.
Water is not supplied to the aquatic park unless it meets
all the quality standards delineated in Table A-7. To in-
sure compliance, turbidity, phosphate, chlorine, and ammonia
tests are made daily; alkalinity and suspended solids tests
are run weekly; and tests for all other constituents are
carried out every two weeks.
Water quality characteristics of the recreational lake
water are summarized in Table A-8.
Note the high TDS concentrations as previously mentioned.
However, as the other characteristics show, the reclaimed
lake water is of good overall quality.
197
-------
Table A-7. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, RENOVATION PLANT NO. 14
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND REQUIREMENTS
Constitutents
Oxidation
Pond
Effluent
(Dec. 1971)
Tertiary
Effluent
(Dec. 1971)
Lake Supply
Quality
Requirements
Turbidity (JTU)
P04"3 (mg/1)
PH
BOD (ppm)
COD (ppm)
DO (ppm)
Algae Counts
Coliform (MPN)
Temp. (°C)
SS (ppm)
TDS (ppm)
NH3-N (ppm)
Org. N (ppm)
N03-N (ppm)
Total N (ppm)
Total Alk (ppm)
Hardness (ppm)
Boron (ppm)
Na (ppm)
Residual Cl2 (ppm)
C02 (ppm)
ABS (ppm)
Fl- (ppm)
Ca++ (ppm)
Cl- (ppm)
804= (ppm)
Total heavy metals
(ppm)
23.0
29.0
9.15
5.8
149.0
12.4
200,000
150,000
34.0
25.0
560.0
1.1
8.6
1.8
--
227.0
69.0
1.06
—
—
—
0.1
—
—
—
--
—
1.5
0.25
6.15
0.4
35.0
12.4
—
—
38.0
5.0
544.0
1.0
1.7
1.9
—
65.0
68.0
0.74
153.0
3.4
68.0
0.0
1.7
61.0
85.0
65.0
0.53
3-10
0.1-0.5
6.5-7.0
5-10
45-75
7-15
--
0-2.2
10-30
10
500-650
0.1-15.0
1.0-3.0
1.0-4.0
3-20
74-140
85-110
0.8-1.4
—
0.5-2.5
1
7-15
—
—
—
—
—
198
-------
Table A-8. ANTELOPE VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION
PROJECT RECREATIONAL LAKES QUALITY
Temperature, °F
Turbidity, JTU
pH
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Alkalinity, mg/1 CaC03
Boron, mg/1 B
Carbon Dioxide, mg/1 C02
Chlorine Demand/hr, mg/1 Cl
Chlorine Residual, mg/1 Cl
Total Hardness , mg/1 CaC03
MBAS, mg/1 ABS
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/1 N
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1 N
Nitrite Nitrogen, mg/1 N
Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/1 N
BOD , mg/1 0
Total COD, mg/1 0
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 0
Ortho Phosphate, mg/1 P04
Total Phosphate, mg/1 PO4
Potassium, mg/1 K
Sodium, mg/1 Na
Sodium Equivalent Ratio, %Na
Lake
No. 1
35
21
7.6
833
26
143
1.27
3.17
0.89
0
116
0.1
1.0
2.2
0.01
1.3
0.9
44
10.7
0.26
0.37
19
235
78.5
Lake
No. 2
37
20
8.58
932
32
168
1.48
0
0.94
0
128
0.1
1. 3
2.1
0.03
0.6
1.2
51
11.8
0.26
0.41
19
268
79.3
j Lake
! No. 3
36
25
8.62
853
9
151
1.26
0
1.09
0
120
0.1
1.4
1.8
0.03
1.2
1.7
47
12.2
0.20
0.39
18
235
78.2
199
-------
A program of fish stocking was initiated in the spring of
1971. Table A-9 below summarizes past and future fish plant-
ing operations.
Table A-9. APOLLO PARK FISH STOCKING PROGRAM
Date
Type
Number
Size
December, 1971
March, 1971
March, 1973
Future program
annually
Rainbow trout 100
Large mouth bass 100
Redear sunfish 50
Channel catfish 20
Gambusia 1,000
Channel catfish 5,200
Rainbow trout 40,000
Channel catfish 10,000
4-6"
Mature
Mature
Mature
Mature
4-6"
1/2 Ib
1/2 Ib
Fish growth in the recreational lakes has been extremely
good to date, averaging roughly 1" per month. Some of the
trout planted in December, 1971 measured from 18"-24" when
caught two years later. Observations have shown all fish
metabolism and reproduction to be normal and lab analyses
have failed to reveal any bacteriological or virological
disease.
It is anticipated that the lakes will be opened to the pub-
lic for fishing in 1974 pending final verification of the
epidemiological quality of the fish.
ECONOMICS
The county of Los Angeles pays the L.A. Sanitation District
approximately $30,000 per year for the reclaimed wastewater
used in the recreational lakes. This sum reimburses the
Sanitation District for operation and maintenance of the
tertiary portion of the treatment plant.
It is estimated that the total cost (present worth) of the
Apollo Park project is $5,777,050 which includes a construc-
tion cost of $2,415,150 and operation, maintenance, and part
replacement present worth of $3,361,900 (capitalized at 4
percent for 50 years).
Recreational benefits are estimated at $1.60 per visitor day
based on the "Recreation and Fishing and Wildlife Enhance-
ment Benefits," prepared by the State Department of Water
200
-------
Resources. Total recreational benefit present worth is cal-
culated as $16,431,600, yielding a "benefit-cost ratio" of
2.8:1.
Costs of maintaining the fishing program are not available
as yet. However, it is anticipated that in the future a
$1.00 facility permit fee per fisherman per day may be re-
quired to help finance the fish stocking program. The lake
and fish population is large enough to accomodate 20,000
fishermen per year. Thus, the permit program could raise
roughly $20,000 per year in revenue.
201
-------
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
The city of San Bernardino, California has supplied re-
claimed water since 1960 to the State Division of Highways
for freeway landscape irrigation purposes. The lush land-
scaping totals approximately 80 acres under irrigation, and
enhances approximately 3 miles of 8 lane freeway with a wide
variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover.
The effluent receives tertiary treatment including lime
treatment, gravity sand filtration, and chlorination prior
to reuse. This is the only significant example of reuse
for highway landscaping in the nation and provide background
information for others contemplating similar applications.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The treatment plant processes 16 MG of water a day of which
3 mgd is given tertiary treatment for reuse. The raw sewage
is approximately 15 percent industrial, however,it causes no
significant effect upon the characteristics of the plant in-
fluent. At the time this report was prepared, the city
plant was undergoing a major expansion and we will describe
the treatment processes only briefly.
Primary treatment consists of screening followed by gravity
settling in covered circular clarifiers of 120 ft diameter.
The primary clarification tanks are kept under a slight
vacuum and are equipped with KMnO^ spray units for odor con-
trol.
Secondary treatment is conventional activated sludge fol-
lowed by secondary clarification and chlorination. Because
the plant is in the midst of an expansion program, design
details and performance are not meaningful to this report.
Sludge handling involves thickening, digestion with sludge
heating, separation by centrifuge, and fluidized bed in-
cineration at 400 deg F and 300 psi.
Thirteen mgd not receiving tertiary treatment is discharged
to the Santa Ana River. Tertiary treatment as shown in
202
-------
Figure A-8 is installed to process the remaining 3 mgd for
reuse as irrigation water. Secondary effluent from the
chlorination tank flows through a 10 mesh revolving screen
and into a 60 ft diameter reaction clarifier with a 16 ft
depth and 2,100 gpm overflow rate. Lime, alum and polymer
are added to effect coagulation and KMnC>4 is added for odor
removal. Mixing, coagulation, floculation, internal recir-
culation and clarification take, place in the reaction
clarifier. The reactor clarifier chemicals are added by a
dry lime feeder, liquid alum pumps and liquid polymer pumps.
Reactor effluent is filtered through a 3 cell circular
gravity sand filter of 32 ft diameter and 10 ft deep.
The filter backwashes itself automatically as required using
previously filtered water in storage. Backwash wastewater
is returned to the primary clarifier of the sewage treatment
plant. Following filtration, the renovated effluent is
heavily chlorinated and stored in a 1 MG asphalt-lined hold-
ing pond. Pumps withdraw water from the lagoon to feed two
pressure tank systems, one of 700 gpm capacity supplying a
local golf course, and a second of 500 gpm capacity at 150
psi pressure to supply 3 miles of freeway landscaping.
Table A-10 shows typical quality characteristics of the ef-
fluent after tertiary treatment.
Table A-10. AVERAGE TERTIARY EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS AT SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
BOD 13
SS
TDS 553
Na 85
Cl 83
pH 7.4
MPN 2
REUSE PRACTICES
In 1972, the reclaimed tertiary treated water was used to
irrigate fairways and greens of the Orange Show Public Golf
Course and a 3 mile section of freeway landscaping on
Interstate 15 through San Bernardino. Golf course irriga-
tion consumes 1 mgd of reclaimed water in the drier summer
203
-------
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CHAMBER
EFFLUENT
FROM
SECONDARY
i_imc
ALUM
iR
1
CLARIFIER OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PLANT
10 MESH
REVOLVING
SCEEN
REACTION
CLARIFICATION
TANK
GRAVITY
SAND FILTERS
IN PLANT
— ^ v^^
USE 1000 GPM ±2
PRESSURE TANK
700 GPM
12" PIPE
TO GOLF COURSE
6 PIPE
TO FREEWAY
LANDSCAPING
I MG STORAGE
TANK
PUMPS
IMG
HOLDING
POND
?
PRESSURE TANK
500 GPM
150 PSI
FIGURE A-8
TERTIARY SYSTEM
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
204
-------
months and 0.5 mgd during winter. Approximately 2 mgd of ef-
fluent from the municipal plant is used to irrigate the free-
way landscape. A large variety of plants are grown along
this section of freeway and the Division of Highways reports
no problems associated with use of the reclaimed water.
Types of plants grown are:
Nerium oleander
Parthenocissus tricuspidata
Pyracantha Santa Cruz
Lagerstroemia indica
Platanus racemosa
Schinus molle
Photina arbutifilia
Punica granatus
Washingtonia robusta
Baccharis pilularis
ECONOMICS
Common Oleander
Boston Ivy
Fire-Thorn
Crape Myrthe
California Sycamore
California Pepper Tree
Toyon
Pomegranate
Mexican Fan Palm
Dwarf Coyote Brush
In 1971, the city of San Bernardino realized a revenue of
$3,500 from the sale of reclaimed water to the Orange Show
Golf Course, at a price of $15.34/MG. Reclaimed water was
given free of charge to the highway department for land-
scape irrigation and thus no revenue was generated from the
water use.
The treatment costs, as calculated by SCS Engineers, amount
to $355/MG with capital amortization, and $100/MG without
amortization.
205
-------
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
INTRODUCTION
The city of Colorado Springs currently provides tertiary
treatment to a portion of its secondary effluent for reuse
in irrigation and cooling tower makeup. Their experience is
of great interest to others contemplating reuse because the
secondary treatment plant effluent is of relatively poor
quality and tertiary treatment includes chemical clarifica-
tion, dual media filtration, and carbon adsorption. Of the
20 mgd of sewage given secondary treatment at the plant,
approximately 5 mgd receives tertiary filtration and is
piped throughout the city in a non-potable water distribu-
tion system to provide irrigation water for city facilities.
An additional 2 mgd is given chemical clarification and car-
bon adsorption tertiary treatment for supply to the munici-
pal power generation plant for cooling water makeup. A new
30 mgd activated sludge plant, due to be completed in mid
1973, will replace the existing trickling filter plant.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The treatment plant treats an average daily flow of 19 mgd
in the winter and 23 mgd during summer months. Approxi-
mately 10 percent of this flow is industrial wastewater,
primarily from electronics manufacturing and metal plating
operations. Most significant contaminants in raw sewage are
copper (1 to 1.5 mg/1), hexavalent chrome (0.3 mg/1), and
zinc (1.0 mg/1).
Figure A-9 illustrates the unit processes of the present
plant. Raw sewage is degritted followed by comminution and
flow measurement. A splitter box diverts the wastewater to
three primary clarifiers, each 115 ft in diameter and hav-
ing a detention time (with recirculation) of about 2 hours
at maximum flow. A 122,500 gal primary effluent storage
tank feeds a constant rate to the trickling filters. Pumps
transfer the water from the storage tank to a distribution
tower where a steady head is maintained to the trickling
filter units. The three trickling filters are each 170 ft
in diameter with a bed depth of 5 1/2 ft. The filter media
206
-------
""' I
6
DETRITORS
J-^ AND
COMMINUTORS
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
o
WET
WELL
ooo
TRICKLING
FILTERS
PORTEOUS HEAT
TREATMENT FOR
SLUDGE
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
TO SLUDGE
STOCKPILE
CLORINE
CONTACT
13 MGD TO STREAM
7MGD TO TERTIARY TREATMENT
FIGURE A-9
MUNICIPAL SECONDARY WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
207
-------
in the two older units is redwood slats, and that in the
third is quarry rock. All the filters are covered and
equipped with air exchange systems which circulate 18,000
cfm of air that is scrubbed with KMnC>4 mist to remove odors.
The average recirculation ratio is 1.6:1 with the redwood
media units loaded at 200 Ibs BOD/1,000 cu ft of media and
the rock filter at 45 Ibs BOD/1,000 cu ft. Following the
trickling filters are three secondary clarifiers each 120 ft
in diameter, with an overflow rate of 680 gpd/sq ft. Sludge
from these clarifiers is returned to the primary influent.
The final secondary process is chlorination with 30 minute
detention time. All sludges receive Porteous heat treatment
processing. This operation includes: grinding, heating
with steam to 360 deg F at 150 to 180 psi, cooling, decant-
ing, thickening and vacuum filtration. Final moisture con-
tent is 62 percent.
As seen by the first column of Table A-ll the secondary ef-
fluent is of relatively poor quality. As seen in Figure A-
10 the tertiary treatment consists of two circuits, termed
industrial and irrigation respectively; each involves dif-
ferent processes. The irrigation circuit provides filtra-
tion and chlorination with three dual media pressure filters
removing suspended solids. The media consists of 3 ft of
1.5 mm sand covered by 5 ft of 2.8 mm anthracite coal. The
filters have a surface area of 113 sq ft and an hydraulic
design loading of 15 gpm/sq ft for a total design capacity
of 7.3 mgd. The filters are backwashed every 8 hours with
either air, at 300 cfm/sq ft, water, at 20 gpm/sq ft, or
both. After filtration, the water is chlorinated again and
discharged to storage reservoirs of 2.5 MG total capacity
from which water is pumped upon demand to various irriga-
tional users throughout the city.
The 2 mgd of effluent intended for industrial reuse receives
a much higher degree of treatment than the irrigation water.
The chlorinated secondary effluent is pumped to a reaction
clarifier where a lime dose of 300 to 350 mg/1 is added to
enhance coagulation and settling. The tank has a diameter
of 48 ft, a capacity of 168,000 gal and a 2 hour detention
time at a 2 mgd flow rate. The 11.5 pH effluent from the
lime reaction clarifier is neutralized to 7.0 in a recarbon-
ation step with C02 from the lime recalcination furnace, sup-
plemented by H2S04.
The recarbonation tank is 14 ft in diameter, has a capacity
of 16,000 gal, and a detention time of 12 minutes. The
water is then filtered through one dual media pressure fil-
ter, identical to those previously described fro the irri-
gation circuit. This filter is intended primarily to pro-
tect the carbon adsorption units that follow. If the lime
208
-------
Table A-11. AVERAGE 1972 WATER CHARACTERISTICS FOR
INDUSTRIAL REUSE AT COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Characteristic
mg/1
Stage of Tertiary Treatment
Secondary
Effluent
Reactor
Clarifier
Effluent
Lead Carbon
Tower
Effluent
Polish
Tower
Effluent
BOD
COD
TSS
Turbidity, JTU
Org-N
Na
Cl
Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca++
Color
P04
MBAS
NH3-N
N03-N
Cu
Cr
Fe
pH
TOC
TDS
Total Fecal Coli-
form
75-115
325
85
56
12-15
—
—
200
--
150
30
4.6
—
—
—
—
—
7.3
96
—
—
47
145
5
6
--
—
—
240
—
35
1.0
3.0
--
—
—
—
—
11.2
46
—
--
28.8
59.4
2.7
4.5
2.4
—
—
220
100
21.9
1.55
1.07
24.5
0.5
—
—
—
7.0
25.3
659
22.1
43.5
2.7
3.3
1.8
50
20
253
92
11.8
1.53
0.43
15.6
0.4
1-1.5
0.3
1-2
7.1
20.4
661
700/lOOml
209
-------
INDUSTRIAL CIRCUIT
2MGD
STANDBY
TOWER
7 MGD SECONDARY EFFLUENT
5 MOD
v~™
2 MGD TO
POWER
PLANT 3 MG
HOLDING POND
IRRIGATION CIRCUIT
(56p
c\,
REACTION
CLARIFICATION
TANK
PH
ADJUSTMENT
TANK
DUAL
MEDIA
FILTERS
5 MGD TO
IRRIGATION
2.5 MG.
HOLDING POND
CARBON
ADSORPTION
TOWERS
FIGURE A-10
TERTIARY TREATMENT FACILITY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
210
-------
clarifier should malfunction, losing its sludge blanket, the
dual media water filters would remove most of the solids be-
fore they could saturate the carbon. Following the filter
are two carbon adsorption units operated in series, with a
third as standby. Each down flow unit is 20 ft in diameter
and has a 10 ft depth of 8 x 30 mesh granular activated car-
bon totaling 94,000 Ibs of carbon per tower. At a design
flow of 2 mgd, the loading rate is 4.25 gpm/sq ft (or 0.50
Ibs COD removed/lb of carbon) providing a total residence
time in the carbon beds of 34 minutes. The carbon towers
and sand filter are backwashed daily with either air, at
1,000 cfm/sq ft, water at 10 gpm/sq ft, or both, for 30
minutes. After carbon adsorption, the water is chlorinated
to a residual of 0.5 mg/1 and stored in a 3 MG butalyne-
lined reservoir. Water from this reservoir is presently
used for either backwashing filters or irrigation reuse;
however, beginning in June 1973, 2 mgd will be used for
makeup to the cooling towers of the municipal power plant 2
miles away.
Auxiliary equipment for the industrial circuit includes lime
recalcination and carbon regeneration systems. In the lime
recalcining operation, the lime mud is drawn from the solids
contact clarifier underflow at 7 to 8 percent dry weight and
pumped to a spent lime holding tank. An 18 inch centrifuge
dewaters the sludge to a cake of about 50 percent solids.
This cake is conveyed to a 6 ft diameter, six hearth furnace
fired at 1,650 deg F. The calcium carbonates and bicarbon-
ates and the calcium phosphates are converted to calcium
oxide and blown to a fresh lime holding tank. The calcium
oxide is then slaked in a lime slaker and hydrated to cal-
cium hydroxide which is recycled back to the solids contact
clarifer for reuse.
In the carbon regeneration system the spent carbon is con-
veyed, by water eduction to a holding tank. The carbon is
then removed through a rotary proportioning valve to a de-
watering screw and the dewatered carbon fed to a 3 ft dia-
meter, six hearth furnace, fired at about 1,650 deg F.
After regeneration, the carbon is quenched and moved by
water eductors back to the carbon tower. The furnace has a
throughput capacity of 75 Ibs/hour and the regeneration loss
of carbon is about 6.5 percent.
Major problems reported with the treatment process are over-
loading of the trickling filters (to be alleviated by the
new activated sludge plant), and very high maintenance costs
for the lime recalcination furnace.
211
-------
REUSE PRACTICES
In 1960, the city of Colorado Springs initiated the present
reclaimed water system for irrigation. After the previously
described secondary and dual media filtration treatment, the
water is chlorinated and stored in a series of reservoirs.
From here the water is piped through approximately 12 miles
of pipeline to irrigate city parks, a 27 hole golf course,
the Colorado College grounds, industrial landscapes, and a
cemetery.
All water outlets from these lines are marked with signs
reading "Non-Potable Water"; however, if the water is used
accidentally for drinking, the 0.5 mg/1 chlorine residual,
maintained at all times, should prevent illness.
Industrial reuse will commence in the summer of 1973 when
2 mgd of the industrial circuit tertiary effluent will be
supplied to the 250 Mw municipal power plant for cooling
tower makeup water. The power plant, located approximately
2 miles distant, is currently using a small volume of the
reclaimed water in its stack gas scrubber to remove particu-
late matter. The renovated water for cooling will satisfy
95 percent of the cooling makeup demand. The remaining 5
percent will come from the public supply.
Due to the high quality of the tertiary effluent, further
waste treatment at the industrial site is expected to be
minimal. A zinc chromate biological inhibiter, or equiva-
lent, will be added prior to the cooling towers to reduce
microorganism growth. Problems with calcium phosphate and
calcium sulfate scaling in condenser tubing are possible but
not anticipated- The use of stainless steel tubing at the
power plant minimizes potential corrosion from the 27 mg/1
of NH3 in the effluent. Close monitoring and system analy-
ses to determine additional treatment, if any, will begin
once the reuse program is initiated. The quantities of
chemicals and costs cannot be determined until reuse begins.
ECONOMICS
SCS Engineers has estimated that the cost of primary and
secondary treatment is approximately $60/MG, including capi-
tal amortization. The tertiary equipment at the facility
adds an additional $260/MG. Thus, a total of $320/MG is
estimated to produce the effluent for reuse. It must be
recognized, however, that the industrial tertiary circuit
is significantly more expensive than the irrigation tertiary
circuit; thus, the $320/MG is not necessarily applicable for
both uses.
212
-------
The irrigation supply is sold for 7£/100 cu ft ($94/MG) and
produced a revenue of $37,955 in 1971. The resale price of
this water to be used for cooling at the power plant has not
yet been established. Reuse in this case is oriented toward
conservation of the fresh water supply.
The chemical costs at the tertiary plant are indicated in
Table A-12.
Table A-12. TYPICAL TERTIARY PLANT
CHEMICAL COSTS AT COLORADO SPRINGS*
Material
Cost ($)
Lime 28,163
Acid 26,888
Carbon 12,054
Natural Gas for regeneration 14,207
*1972 total for 588 MG treated
213
-------
FORT CARSON, COLORADO
INTRODUCTION
The Army base at Fort Carson, Colorado, has been partici-
pating in a wastewater treatment and reuse program since
1971. Secondary effluent is given tertiary treatment in
preparation for spray irrigation of the base's 18 hole golf
course. The tertiary treatment includes mixed media pres-
sure filtration by Neptune Micro-Floe filters.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
As a military installation, Fort Carson's population varies
considerably. However, an average of 20,000 military per-
sonnel and 2,000 civilians (on base 8 hours per day) produce
a raw wastewater flow of approximately 1.7 mgd. Roughly 5
percent of this volume is industrial waste, composed primar-
ily of laundry discharges and grease and oil from equipment
washing operations. These wastes have no significant dele-
terious effects on plant operations.
Treatment of an average of 1.7 mgd is illustrated schemat-
ically in Figure A-ll and begins with bar screening and
comminution followed by gravity settling in two primary
clarification tanks. Sludge from these tanks is given con-
ventional 2-stage anaerobic digestion. Secondary treatment
is provided by four high rate trickling filters having rock
media, 8 ft depths, 73 ft diameters, and loadings of 25 Ibs
BOD/1,000 cu ft/day. Three final clarifiers have 9.5 ft
side wall depths, 55 ft diameters, and an overflow rate of
870 gpd/sq ft based on a 2 hour detention period. (Only two
clarifiers are normally utilized).
Sludge from final clarifiers is returned to the primary
clarifiers. New controls for effluent recirculation are
being constructed to allow a more constant flow through the
trickling filters. Secondary effluent is then chlorinated
at a dosage of approximately 5 mg/1 before discharge into a
0.7 MG pond. Water to be reused for irrigation (0.3 mgd) is
pumped from this pond through a pair of Neptune Micro-Floe
mixed media filters, while the remainder of the effluent is
214
-------
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC SLUDGE
DIGESTION
DRYING
BEDS
OVERFLOW TO
STREAM
(100% OF
FLOW IN
WINTER)
\ — — ^-^ -
\
GRIT CHAMBER
SCREENING
COMMINUTOR
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
TRICKLING
FILTERS
o
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
-Cl 2
0.7 MG HOLDING POND
145 PSI
CI2 (PLANNED)
TO GOLF
COURSE
IRRIGATION
3 MG HOLDING
POND
MICROFLOC
FILTERS
FIGURE A-ll
WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FORT CARSON, COLORADO
215
-------
released to a stream. The 8 ft diameter filters are pres-
sure type, downflow units with a total capacity of approxi-
mately 1,000 gpm based on 10 gpm/sq ft filtration rate. The
filter beds are comprised of the following media layers from
top to bottom:
Media Depth
Anthracite Coal 13.5 in.
Silica Sand 9.0 in.
Garnet Sand 7.5 in.
Gravel 14.0 in.
Filter backwashing occurs once every 8 hours on the average
and takes 1/2 hour to complete. Water filtered through one
unit is used, along with water stored in the pipe to the
reservoir, to backwash the other. Backwash rates are 15
gpm/sq ft or 1,500 gpm total. A surface backwash at 41 gpm
is employed prior to backwashing to remove solids from the
filter surface.
Typical effluent quality characteristics of the final re-
claimed water are as follows: BOD - 12 mg/1, SS - 17 mg/1,
coliforms 0 - 100,000/ml, pH - 7.5.
REUSE PRACTICES
After filtration, the water is pumped 3 miles to a 3 MG
storage reservoir from which water is drawn for irrigation
of the adjacent golf course and for fire protection of the
clubhouse building. Water for irrigation can ;also be taken
from the effluent pipeline before it reaches the reservoir
or, if necessary, from the potable distribution system. An
average of 0.3 mgd is used on the course during the irriga-
tion season (May to October). Plans have been made to in-
clude 40 acres of sewage treatment plant grounds in the
renovated water irrigation system. Through the winter
months, when no irrigation is done, a total of 10 MG is
pumped to the reservoir to compensate for seepage, with the
remainder discharged to the stream.
Major problems encountered by the Fort Carson system are
associated with the pumping and distribution systems rather
than treatment. Numerous breakdowns of pumps and pipeline
have hampered efficient operation. Sprinkler heads are pre-
sently being modified to alleviate problems caused by algae
plugging the spray nozzles. To reduce health hazards, and
to meet the requirements of the Army Medical Laboratory, a
new chlorination station is planned immediately before ap-
plication to the golf course to provide a minimum of 2 mg/1
residual at the sprinkler head. Referring again to
216
-------
Figure A-ll, it is seen that there is no chlorination at
present through the filters or final storage. Regrowth of
coliforms in the final 3 MG holding pond cause high coliform
counts in the golf course irrigation water.
The greatest maintenance troubles reported at the treatment
plant have involved the Micro-Floe filters. Initially de-
signed for total automatic control, malfunctions in this
system have forced substantial manual supervision (especi-
ally during backwashing) averaging 4 to 6 man-hours per 16
hours of filter operation.
ECONOMICS
Fort Carson realizes substantial savings through the use of
reclaimed water for irrigation. Public potable water pur-
chased from the city of Colorado Springs costs $409/MG.
Total cost, including capital amortization of all equipment,
to produce 1 MG of reclaimed effluent is approximately $363.
This cost is deceptive, however, in that only about $105/MG
is for tertiary treatment. Approximately $258/MG is re-
quired in any case to treat the sewage for disposal to the
stream. Comparing $105/MG to $409/MG for fresh water shows
a savings of $304/MG to Fort Carson for reuse or approxi-
mately $15r000 annually.
217
-------
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
(U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY)
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Air Force Academy is utilizing reclaimed wastewater
to fill a series of non-potable reservoirs which provide
recreational fishing for the cadets and supply irrigation
water for academy grounds. This program of water reclama-
tion and reuse was initiated in 1957 upon completion of the
academy and sewage treatment plant construction.
TREATMENT PROCESSES
The wastewater treatment plant provides secondary treatment
to an average of 1.2 mgd in serving a population of 16,700
including 4,400 cadets. The flow contains an insignificant
amount of industrial wastes but has relatively high amounts
of grease from food services.
Figure A-12 shows the treatment process. Treatment begins
with mechanical bar screening and grinding in comminutors,
followed by passage through a grit and grease removal unit.
The grease removal efficiency is poor, and grease clogging
of trickling filter units has occurred. Three circular pri-
mary clarifiers remove settleable solids, transferring the
sludge to a conventional anaerobic sludge digestion process.
Primary effluent is fed to three rock media, primary trick-
ling filters of 60 ft diameter with organic loadings of 50
Ibs BOD/1,000 cu ft/day. Intermediate clarification follows
the primary trickling filters. The water then passes into a
second set of standard rate trickling filter units identical
to the primary filters. Preceding final clarification, the
water enters an aeration tank operated as an activated
sludge unit. This tank is 10.5 ft in depth and provides 4
hours of retention time at 400 mg/1 MLSS concentration.
Aeration is accomplished with a brush aerator, and activated
sludge is recycled from the final clarifiers. Four final
clarification tanks are each 30 ft in diameter with a de-
sign weir overflow rate of 7,800 gal/lf/day under conditions
of no recirculation to the trickling filters. This overflow
218
-------
SCREENING
COMMINUTORS
a
PARSHALL FLUME
GRIT CHAMBER
S GREASE
REMOVAL
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
DRYING BEDS
CONVENTIONAL ANAEROBIC
SLUDGE DIGESTION
AE
RATION
TANK
|
\
-i
SECONDARY
TRICKLING
FILTER
INTERMEDIATE
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
PRIMARY
TRICKLING
FILTER
TO RESERVOIR
SYSTEM
TO IRRIGATION
TO STREAM
DISCHARGE
FINAL CLARIFICATION TANKS
FIGURE A-12
WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
219
-------
rate can be increased when recirculating to augment low flow
through the filters. The clarifier effluent is then chlo-
rinated for approximately 20 minutes to a 0.5 mg/1 chlorine
residual before release to a creek or the non-potable reser-
voir system.
Average effluent quality characteristics are given in Table
A-13. It is surprising that the effluent is not of better
quality in view of the extensive secondary treatment pro-
vided. The superintendent stated that the plant is not an
optimum design hydraulically, and the activated sludge unit
BOD removals are poor due to inability to maintain a suit-
able floe.
Table A-13. AVERAGE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AT THE
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Characteristic
BOD
SS
P04
NO3
NH3
pH
Concentration
mg/1
20
30
12
35-40
5
7.1
Additional treatment is provided for water used for recrea-
tional fishing and irrigation. It consists of long-term
residence (85 day maximum) in four reservoirs.
Presently, only the second reservoir is aerated. Three sur-
face aerators driven by a 30 HP compressor comprise the
Helixer System that diffuses approximately 135 Ibs of oxygen
into the lake in a 24 hr period. The primary purpose of
this aeration is to induce circulation and turnover of the
lake waters to increase natural surface transfer of oxygen
from the atmosphere. Aeration systems are also planned for
reservoirs No. 1 and No. 3 when funds become available.
REUSE PRACTICES
Reuse at the Air Force Academy is seasonal. From May to
October all the effluent (approximately 1.2 mgd) is dis-
charged to the non-potable reservoir system. During late
fall and winter months, when there is no irrigation or fish-
ing, the effluent is discharged to a stream. To improve the
quality of water discharged to the stream, all effluent is
first sent through non-potable reservoir No. 1.
220
-------
The reservoir system consists of three soil-cement lined
ponds and one clay-lined pond connected in series with a
total storage capacity of 149 MG. In addition to the 1.2
mgd effluent discharge, a system of eight non-potable wells
can supply a total of 2.9 mgd to the four reservoirs.
Water from all four reservoirs is used for irrigation. Dur-
ing the irrigation season, approximately 3 feet of reclaimed
water is applied to 347 acres of academy lands including
cadet athletic fields, a cemetery, parade grounds, highway
median strips, a golf course, and the stadium. Some odor
problems have been encountered with the use of water from
the first lake, especially if this water remains in the
irrigation distribution system too long. Plugging of irri-
gation nozzles with algae and debris is also an occasional
problem. It is anticipated that construction of a 1/4 inch
screen to filter the final effluent will help relieve this
problem. Algal blooms are experienced in all the reservoirs
in the late summer. High nutrient loads in the reservoir
system stimulate algal growth. It is the opinion of the
academy technical staff that CO2 is the limiting nutrient
rather than P04~3, and that reduction of benthos organisms
(that release CO2) by inducing lake turnover through aera-
tion will reduce the CC>2 concentrations in the water, there-
by reducing algal growth. Low concentrations of CuS04 alga-
cide have also been used in the past to discourage aquatic
plant growth. Table A-14 lists water quality characteris-
tics of the reservoirs.
For several years, a program of research stocking has been
carried out in non-potable reservoirs No. 2 and No. 3. Rec-
reational fish stocking was limited to reservoir No. 4.
This lake is approximately 40 feet deep and holds 20 MG. It
is the last lake in the series, is situated in a natural
drainage basin, and has the best water quality (see Table A-
11). The DO content is over 5 mg/1 near the lake surface,
but rapidly deteriorates to an oxygen demand at the deeper
levels.
A full spectrum of aquatic plant and animal life is evident.
The reservoir has been periodically stocked with 6" to 8"
trout, small and large mouth bass, bluegill, and channel
catfish fingerlings.
The low temperature of Reservoir No. 4 (only occasionally do
surface temperatures rise to 70° in late summer months)
favors a trout population rather than warm water species;
e.g., bass, bluegill, and catfish. However, the rainbow
trout are more sensitive to dissolved oxygen concentration,
and sporadic kills of the trout have occurred with low DO.
Fish spawning activity is also insignificant because the
221
-------
Table A-14. RESERVOIR WATER CHARACTERISTICS AT
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Characteristic
Temp. , Deg C
DO, mg/1
P04, mg/1
pH
Total alkalinity, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
COD, mg/1
BOD, mg/1
SS, mg/1
C02, mg/1
Reservoir No.
1* 2* | 3**
12.2 10.0 10.5
2.8 13.9*** 4.5
22.0 26.4 3.0
8.2 7.5
98.0
5.0
60.5
5.0
20.0
— — 8.6
4
10
6
3
7
77
-
-
—
-
5
**
.0
.1
.0
.5
.0
-
-
-
-
.7
*Data obtained in April 1971.
**Data obtained are average surface readings for the period
April 17 through May 5, 1961.
***Not typical; supersaturated due to algal activity.
lake does not have the shallow, sandy bottom preferred for
spawning, and most of the trout stocked in the spring are
caught by fishermen during the summer season.
Although much remains to be learned about these reservoirs,
several conclusions are reported by the Academy. Year-
round potential for trout is limited based on the demon-
strated inability of reservoir No. 4 to support trout over
the long term. Fish kill experiences here date back over a
decade, and this reservoir has the best water quality of the
series. Trout potential, if such exists on a predictable
basis, lies in growing a crop over the colder months in the
highly fertile ponds No. 2 and No. 3. The aeration of
reservoir No. 2 could create conditons capable of supporting
a trout population. This project is under investigation.
Undoubtedly year-round potential of the latter ponds lies in
the management of more tolerant warm water fishes, such as
has been empirically determined for Pond No. 4. Periodic
(3-4 year) stocking of fingerling bluegills eventually re-
sults in some king-size specimens (just under one pound).
Channel catfish likewise do reasonably well. Although such
fishing opportunity cannot be considered Utopian, it is
nonetheless judicious use of the water resource and provides
diversity to the overall program.
222
-------
ECONOMICS
The reclaimed water irrigation program consumes approximately
1,000 acre-ft or 336 MG a year. Public water purchased from
the city of Colorado Springs costs $409/MG. Therefore, the
Academy is realizing a savings in water purchase costs of
roughly $137,000 per year.
In addition to the 347 acres irrigated with reclaimed water,
485 acres are watered with potable city supplies. Unfor-
tunately, the costs of expanding the existing non-potable
reclaimed water irrigation system to include this land are
prohibitively high.
There are no tangible economics benefits from the recrea-
tional fishing program as no fees are charged to cadets or
employees of the academy to use the lakes. The costs of the
trout and bass stocking programs are minimal.
223
-------
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
INTRODUCTION
The city of Baltimore, through its Back River Wastewater
Treatment Plant, supplies an average of 120 mgd to the Spar-
rows Point Plant of Bethlehem Steel Corporation. In terms
of volume, this is the largest reuse operation in the na-
tion, and possibly in the world. In operation since 1942,
the reclamation program has long been a success, both tech-
nically and economically. It is remarkable that in the
intervening 30 years similar arrangements have not been in-
stituted between other municipalities and large basic metal
manufacturing plants in America.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Figure A-13 illustrates schematically the major treatment
processes at the municipal plant and management of the re-
claimed water during transportation to the steel plant.
After screening, grit removal and primary clarification, the
180 mgd average flow of primary effluent is split into par-
allel secondary treatment process lines.
Approximately 160 mgd is treated with standard rate trick-
ling filters with a total surface area of 30 acres and a
depth of 8.5 ft. Final clarification following the trick-
ling filters is provided in 5 tanks designed for 1.5 hours
detention and 900 gpd/sq ft overflow rate. Sludge is re-
turned to the grit chamber for eventual removal in the pri-
mary clarifier.
In the other secondary treatment process line, approximately
20 mgd of primary effluent is treated in two activated
sludge tanks measuring 60 ft x 376 ft x 15 ft deep. Return
activated sludge is normally 20 percent and air supply is
around 1 cu ft/gal. The activated sludge final clarifiers
are 126 ft diameter x 16 ft deep. Waste activated sludge
is returned to the grit chamber.
224
-------
20 MGD
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
SCREENING
GRIT
CHAMBER
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
160 MGD
TRICKLING
FILTERS
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
i Mmrxo ^-
BETHLEHEM f
STEEL CO. (
SETTLING V
20 MGD
?
1
60 MGD
^ IANKS
~" CITY CHLORINATION
JL 80 MGD
ALTERNATE DISPOSAL TO
STEEL CO
CHLORINATION
BETHLEHEM
STEEL CO.
75 MG
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
BACK RIVER
120 MGD
n n n
STEEL PLANT
FIGURE A-13
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
BACK RIVER PLANT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
225
-------
Referring again to Figure A-13 it is seen that the city dis-
charges to waste approximately 60 mgd which is chlorinated
at a dosage of approximately 10 mg/1. The remaining 120 mgd
is directed to the Bethlehem Steel Corp. post-treatment
facilities. Average effluent quality to Bethlehem Steel is
shown in Table A-15 below.
Table A-15. AVERAGE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (UNCHLO-
RINATED) BACK RIVER PLANT, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Characteristic
BOD
SS
TDS
Na
PH
Con cen tr at i on
(mg/1)
46
44
450
75
7.0
Characteristic
MPN
Zn
Fe
P04
N03
Concentration
(mg/1)
5 x 106
1.0
0.5
12.0
4.0
The effluent quality shown in Table A-15 is suitable for
cooling water by Bethlehem Steel because its cooling use is
"once through", i.e., there is no recirculaion of cooling
water for multiple use. Other cooling water applications
described in this report, e.g., Burbank, California and
Odessa, Texas, supply recirculating cooling systems and re-
quire higher quality effluent to operate successfully.
Specific quality parameters have been agreed upon between
the city of Baltimore and Bethlehem Steel. The following
monthly average limits are stipulated:
. pH 6.5 to 7.8
. SS 25 mg/1 (Activated Sludge)
50 mg/1 (Trickling Filter)
. Cl 175 mg/1
Since the city must also meet the more stringent require-
ments of the state of Maryland, these contract limits are
generally not exceeded.
USER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Bethlehem Steel operates a tertiary sedimentation facility
adjacent to the city's Back River Plant. This facility con-
sists of two 15 mgd capacity and one 20 mgd capacity package
units, however, due to hydraulic problems their combined
capacity is only 40. mgd.
226
-------
The 40 mgd is blended with the 80 mgd not further settled,
and chlorinated before being pumped 5 miles to a 75 MG capa-
city equilization reservoir at the steel plant. The Spar-
rows Point Plant of Bethlehem Steel removes effluent from
the reservoir as needed for cooling and manufacturing pro-
cesses.
The equilization reservoir has a current deposition of
sludge varying from 0 to 14 inches which is never removed.
Floating sludge is returned to the municipal treatment plant
via sewers.
Quality assurance is maintained by sampling for chlorine,
chloride ion, and turbidity levels at 4-hour intervals at
the continuously-manned tertiary plant. Currently it is re-
ported that the treated wastewater must be by-passed approxi-
mately 12 hours per month due to unacceptable turbidity or
when the chloride concentration exceeds 175 mg/1. Although
this occurs infrequently, runoff from salted roads during
winter months and excessively high tides can cause diffi-
culty in maintaining the 175 mg/1 limit.
REUSE PRACTICES
The municipal effluent is utilized in many aspects of steel
plant operation. Specific uses occur in furnace cooling,
gas cleaning, quenching, spray cooling, mill roll cooling,
closed heat exchangers, bearing cooling, process temperature
control, descaling systems, hydraulic systems, fire protec-
tion, air conditioning, and road equipment washing. Figure
A-14 depicts a typical flow schematic of water use in the
steel industry.
Reuse can be discontinued for only short times because of
the steel plant's dependence upon the municipal supply.
After a 12 hour period, brackish water from the Back River
and other sources is utilized. After 24 hours a portion of
the steel operation would be forced to shut down, although
this has never occured.
Bethlehem Steel is required by contract to accept a minimum
of 100 mgd from the city treatment plant. In addition to
the municipal wastewater supply, the industry has a 550 mgd
capacity brackish water system as well as other sources of
both potable and non-potable supply.
Plans for future improvements and increased reuse are cur-
rently being considered at Bethlehem Steel. The Blast fur-
naces, now using brackish cooling water, will be partially
converted to reuse effluent, and a new blast furnace will be
designed to reuse effluent exclusively. The company is also
227
-------
BOILER MAKE-UP BOILER MAKE-UP
COOLING
COOLING
WATER
WATER
POWERPLANT
COOLING
WATER
COOLING
WATER
WATER GAS
SCRUBBER
OPEN HEARTH
FURNACE
COOLING
WATER
COOLING
WATER
WATER
AIR COMPRESSOR
(FOR
BLAST FURNACE
OPERATION)
WATER
COKING PLANT
BLAST FURNACE
COKE
PIG IRON AND SCRAP STEEL
BASIC OXYGEN
FURNACE
ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACE
STEEL INGOTS
PRIMARY ROLLING
MILLS
RINSE
WATER
BILLETS, BLOOMS, SLABS
SECONDARY
ROLLING MILLS
RINSE
WATER
FIGURE A-14
WATER USE AT A GENERALIZED INTEGRATED STEEL MILL
228
-------
planning for greater in-plant recycling of the effluent
prior to discharge. The entire plant wastewater is treated
prior to discharge, with separate treatment provided for
sanitary and industrial wastes.
ECONOMICS
Because of the scale of operations involved, the unit cost
of treatment for reuse is very low at Baltimore. The Steel
Company is charged $500/month for each average daily flow
increment of 12.5 mgd, an equivalent of $1.33/MG. in 1972,
total reclaimed water sale was $60,000.
Total 1971-72 operating and maintenance costs for the Back
River Plant was $2.4 million, divided approximately as fol-
lows :
Labor $1.70 million
Contractural services .25 million
Material and supplies .33 million
Equipment replacement .15 million
Operating and maintenance cost per mg equals only $37. It
was not possible to obtain costs from Bethlehem Steel Corp.
for their treatment and transportation. An engineering
estimate by SCS is that $11/MG is a conservative figure.
229
-------
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
INTRODUCTION
The city of Las Vegas and Clark County Sanitation District
each operate a secondary sewage treatment plant to serve the
Las Vegas, Nevada area. A portion of each plant's effluent
is reclaimed for use as cooling tower makeup water and in
irrigating local farms and golf courses.
The effluent is very high in TDS and of average quality in
other respects. The Nevada Power Company provides tertiary
treatment to the effluent prior to reuse in cooling towers
at two of its power plants.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The city of Las Vegas municipal treatment plant is schemati-
cally shown in Figure A-15. An average of 27 mgd of in-
fluent raw sewage is screened and grit removed before pri-
mary sedimentation. Secondary treatment consists of three
180 ft diameter trickling filters with 4 ft of rock media
and three rectangular secondary sedimentation tanks each
measuring 184 ft by 34 ft by 8 ft deep. The secondary
clarifiers provide for a recirculation ratio of 2:1 with an
overflow rate of 800 gpd/sq ft.
After 40 minutes chlorine contact, the renovated water flows
to a holding pond at the Nevada Power Company Sunrise Sta-
tion cooling towers, and to the Las Vegas Wash. Three farms
utilizing renovated water take their supply straight from
the chlorine contact tank. On an annual average, 23 mgd is
wasted to the wash, 3 mgd is used by the farms, and 1 mgd by
the Power Company. Table A-16 tabulates the total reuse ac-
tivities in the Las Vegas Valley.
The Clark County facility, as shown in Figure A-16, is very
similar to that of the city of Las Vegas. An average raw
sewage influent volume of 12.5 mgd, after screening, is in-
troduced to four primary clarifiers measuring 18 ft by 220
ft by 8.5 ft deep, which have a detention time of 2 hours
and an overflow rate of 950 gpd/sq ft. These are followed
230
-------
GRIT
CHAMBER
SCREENING
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
TRICKLING
FILTERS
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
ALTERNATE DISCHARGE TO
LAS VEGAS WASH
IRRIGATION OF 3 FARMS
750 ACRES
HOLDING POND
NEVADA POWER CO.
SUNRISE STATION
FIGURE A-15
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
FACILITY
231
-------
SCREENING
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
TRICKLING
FILTERS
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
.
"PEPCON"
CHLORINE
CONTACT
ALTERNATE DISCHARGE TO
LAS VEGAS WASH
6 MG
AERATED
LAGOON
NEVADA POWER CO.
SUNRISE STATION
WINTER WOOD
-^ —
^— . ALFALFA FIELDS >
NEVADA POWER CO. r
1 CLARK STATION
!
PARADISE VALLEY
GOLF COURSE
GOLF COURSE
FIGURE A-16
CLARK COUNTY WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
232
-------
by two high-rate trickling filters each 175 ft diameter with
5 ft of rock media. A recirculation ratio of 1.5:1 is main-
tained providing a BOD loading of 60 lb/100 cu ft. Two sec-
ondary clarifiers provide detention time for the trickling
filter effluent of 2 hours. The overflow rate is 760 gpd/sq
ft.
The final treatment step consists of chlorine contact for 20
minutes prior to discharge to a 6 MG asphalt paved holding
pond for reclaimed water storage. The effluent is pumped to
the Sunrise and Clark Power Stations of the Nevada Power Com-
pany, two golf courses, and alfalfa fields. Maximum dis-
tance to any user is 1.5 miles. As seen in Table A-16, on
an average basis, 8.3 mgd is discharged to Las Vegas Wash, 3
mgd for irrigation, and 1 mgd to power plant cooling tower
makeup.
Both plants average 85 to 90 percent reduction in BOD and
suspended solids. Table A-16 tabulates average effluent
characteristics for each plant. The significant difference
between the effluents is in the high TDS of the county plant
effluent due to the higher TDS in the water supply of the
county area.
Table A-16. AVERAGE EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS IN LAS VEGAS VALLEY
Characteristic
Concentration (mg/1)
Las Vegas City Plant
Clark County Plant
BOD
SS
Cl
TDS
PH
21
18
295
985
7.6
19
22
330
1,550
7.6
REUSE PRACTICES
The municipal effluents from both the city of Las Vegas and
Clark County Sanitation District are utilized for 35 percent
of the supply in the cooling towers of the Nevada Power Com-
pany power generation stations. Tertiary treatment at the
power stations consists of chlorination followed by cold
lime treatment and lagooning. Problems reported by the
power company are occasional algae buildup in the county
aerated lagoon and septicity of the renovated water supply
upon arrival at the power company due to anaerobic condi-
tions in the force main. Installation of floating aerators
233
-------
in the lagoon following the county treatment facility has
helped reduce this problem by maintaining higher dissolved
oxygen levels in the final effluent.
The irrigation reuse operations on two golf courses have ex-
perienced several problems including significant odors, and
salt accumulations in the soil due to the high TDS of the
effluent. Table A-17 summarizes municipal wastewater reuse
practices in the Las Vegas area.
Table A-17. SUMMARY OF REUSE VOLUMES
IN LAS VEGAS VALLEY
Description
Avg. total effluent volume
Avg. volume to reuse
High volume to reuse
Low volume to reuse
Avg. Volume to power plant
Avg. volume to farms*
Avg. volume to golf courses**
Avg. discharge to surface waters
Volume
Las Vegas
City Plant
27.0
3.8
6.5
1.0
1.0
2.8
-
23.2
, mgd
Clark County
Plant
12.5
4.3
5.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
2.0
8.2
*Ranges from high of 8 mgd in summer to low of 1 mgd in
winter.
**Estimated volume, summer use is approximately double win-
ter use.
ECONOMICS
Table A-18 lists pertinent data relative to the reuse of ef-
fluent by Nevada Power Company. The cost of effluent to
Nevada Power Company averages $15/jy[G plus amortized costs
for capital investment in the pumping and transportation
facilities. The latter costs raise the delivered price of
effluent to $20/MG and $30/MG respectively at the power sta-
tions.
The delivered effluent requires additional clarification and
nutrient removal before it can be used for cooling tower
makeup water. Including amortization of treatment facili-
ties, it is estimated that the tertiary treatment by the
power plants averages approximately $200/MG.
234
-------
Table A-18. SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT REUSE BY NEVADA
POWER COMPANY IN LAS VEGAS NEVADA
Description
Power Plant
Clark Station Sunrise Station
Present capability, KW
Use of effluent
Source of effluent
Alternate source of water
130,000
Cooling tower
Clark County
San. District
None
85,000
Cooling tower
City of
Las Vegas
Clark County
San. District
Avg. effluent used, mgd
Effluent cost, $/MG*
Capital cost of treatment
facilities at power sta-
tion, $**
Chemical cost, $/day***
Labor cost, $/day
Other costs, $/day
Total cost, $/MG****
1.3
30
400,000
75
48
5
223
1.0
20
400,000
50
48
5
195
*Includes amortization of storage and transport facili-
ties for effluent between sewage treatment plant and
power generation station. Actual charge for effluent
less capital amortization is approximately $15/MG for
each power plant.
**Estimated by SCS Engineers.
***Sunrise is disproportionately lower because effluent
used is of better quality. See Table A-16.
****Includes amortization of treatment facility cost at 5.5
percent interest, 25-year life divided by 365 days x
average effluent volume used.
235
-------
AMARILLO, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
The city of Amarillo, Texas treats municipal wastewater and
provides reclaimed effluent to Southwestern Public Service
Company and Texaco Oil Company for use as cooling water
makeup. They also supply water to agricultural concerns for
irrigation of approximately 2,300 acres of crop land. The
River Road Wastewater Treatment Plant supplies all reclaimed
water for industrial use and will be the only municipal
plant discussed in this section. Renovated water for irri-
gation is supplied by the Hollywood Road Plant in Amarillo.
The use of reclaimed water is a vital part of plant opera-
tion at both Texaco and Southwestern Public Service Company.
Aside from economic savings to both municipality and indus-
try, it is likely that discontinuation of reclaimed water
use would severely disrupt operation of the Southwestern
power plant. When the irrigation of 2,500 acres of crop
land is added to the balance, reclamation is obviously a
vital resource to the community.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The activated sludge plant at River Road handles an average
flow of 10 mgd. Of this influent flow, 7 percent is contri-
buted by industrial discharges which include meat packing,
laundries, and food processing plant wastes. Although these
wastes comprise 29 percent of the total BOD load to the
plant, they appear to have no significant adverse effects on
either plant operation or efficiency.
Primary treatment consists of screening, grit removal, and
gravity clarification, followed by storage in a 3.7 MG
equalization lagoon to stabilize flow to the aeration tanks.
Secondary treatment involves conventional spiral flow acti-
vated sludge with a 4 hour detention time, mixed liquor con-
centration to 2,600 mg/1, 40 percent sludge recirculation
rate, and 1.8 cu ft of air added per gal. Circular second-
ary clarifiers with overflow rates of 600 gpd/sq ft precede
final chlorination and discharge to an 18 MG holding pond.
236
-------
Solids handling consists of sludge thickening and conven-
tional anaerobic digestion. Figure A-17 shows a schematic
diagram of the treatment process.
Typical effluent quality characteristics of the River Road
plant are shown in Table A-19 along with comparative list-
ings of city well and lake supplies. The reclaimed water
quality is within the limits specified in the contract with
industry, also shown in Table A-19.
Problems with activated sludge upsets due to filamentous
organisms and high grease content of the raw waste have been
reduced considerably by close regulation of industrial waste
discharges. Persistant problems with sludge bulking during
winter months have forced usage of concentrated hydrogen
peroxide in final clarifiers as a specific biocide. Con-
sideration is also being given to alum addition to increase
coagulation and enhance settling.
USER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Southwestern Public Service Company, an electric utility,
has been treating reclaimed city sewage effluent since 1961
at its Nichols Station Plant in Amarillo. Reclaimed water
usage varies from 1.5 to 5 mgd and satisfies the entire
cooling water demand for the 485 Mw capacity power plant.
Southwestern's treatment facility has a maximum capacity of
13.7 mgd and consists of cold lime treatment, pH adjustment,
storage and chlorination prior to use in the cooling towers.
Figure A-18 shows a schematic flow diagram of the treatment
process. Two of four cold lime treaters are currently in
use and are operated at chemical feed rates of 2.5 to 3.0
Ibs lime and 0.25 Ibs alum per 1,000 gals treated. Phos-
phate reductions to less than 2.0 mg/1 and substantial sili-
ca removal is achieved in this unit, preventing problems of
orthophosphate and silicate scaling. The treated effluent
from the cold lime softener has a high pH of 10.0 to 10.5,
an hydroxide alkalinity of 50 to 100 mg/1, and is very un-
stable. In this state the water will scale calcium carbon-
ate very rapidly; therefore, acid is added to lower the pH
to 9.2 and prevent after-precipitation and scaling. Storage
is in two lagoons with a volume of 3 MG.
Problems with biofouling and scaling of heat exchange equip-
ment and piping are minimized by heavy chlorination and pH
control to 7.0. The chlorine treatment, however, was some-
what corrosive to the system as condenser tubing was pitted
and the pH difficult to control during chlorination. Some
slime was found in condenser tubing even with the high chlo-
rine dosage. Amertap systems have recently been installed
in one of the three units at Nichols Station to circulate
237
-------
SCREENING
GRIT CHAMBER
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION TANKS
3.7 MG EQUALIZATION POND
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TANKS
FINAL CLARIFICATION 3.0MGD TO SOUTHWESTERN
TANKS PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
18 MG HOLDING POND
1.5 MGD TO TEXACO
5.5 MGD TO CREEK
FIGURE A-17
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
RIVER ROAD PLANT
AMARILLO, TEXAS
238
-------
Table A-19. COMPARATIVE AVERAGE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS IN AMARILLO, TEXAS
Characteristic
mg/1
Source
Well
Water
Lake
Water
Treated
Municipal
Effluent
Contract
Limits
Ca
Mg
Na
Fe
M- Alkalinity
Hardness
Si02
NH3-N
N03-N
P04
Cl
so4
TDS
SS
BOD
COD
Chlorine
Residual
pH
40
26
34
0
230
210
56
0
1
0
11
28
360
0
0
0
0.2
7.7
58
23
210
0
162
240
3
0.43
0.6
0.02
225
225
950
0
0
0
0.6
7.8
61
24
300
287
253
10
24
4
20
300
280
1,400
15
15
0.6
7.7
1,400
25
25
0.1
6.8-9.0
*A11 analytical data except pH is expressed as the ion.
239
-------
SULFURIC_
ACID
EFFLUENT FROM MUNICIPAL
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
FACILITY
COLD LIME
TREATMENT
pH ADJUSTMENT
UNIT
STORAGE
TANK
STORAGE
TANK
SULFURIC
ACID
3 MG TOTAL
COOLING
TOWERS
SLOWDOWN TO IRRIGATION
FIGURE A-18
RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
AMARILLO, TEXAS
240
-------
Table A-20. AVERAGE WATER CHARACTERISTICS
FOR REUSE AT SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC
SERVICE COMPANY, AMARILLO, TEXAS
Amar
Constituent Fre
(mg/1) Wat
Ca 6
illo Treated
sh Municipal
er Effluent
8 74
Mg 29 36
Na 111 134
K
NH3
HC03 10
CO 3
3 «8
0 12
4 134
0 0
S04 254 281
Cl 60 78
NO 3
P04
Si02
pH 8.
BOD
0 3
0 48
5 17
1 7.3
0 15
Cooling
Tower
Makeup
72
10
134
8
12
24
36
336
78
2
2
6
9.2
2
Cooling
Water in
Tower
376
51
689
39
1
20
0
1,728
388
90
10
30
7.0
6
*Analysis results corrected for calculated cation and
anion balance.
All analytical data except pH expressed as the ion.
241
-------
sponge rubber balls through the condenser tubes, thus main-
taining a cleanness factor of 85 to 90 percent. It is hoped
that this action will eliminate the need for chlorination.
Blowdown water from the cooling towers is used by a local
farmer to irrigate alfalfa, wheat, maize, and other high
salt tolerant grasses.
Typical effluent qualities produced by the Southwestern Pub-
lic Service Company treatment system are listed in Table A-
20, along with the qualities of fresh water, sewage effluent,
and water within the cooling towers.
Reclaimed water treatment at Texaco consists of cold lime
treatment for phosphate, silica, and SS removal with some
softening also effected. Water is fed directly to the cool-
ing towers from the cold-lime treatment with chlorination of
cooling tower recirculating water for control of biofouling.
Storage facilities totaling 6.5 MG are used only for emer-
gency as the regular inflow bypasses the storage sites.
Texaco's treatment facility is diagrammed in Figure A-19.
Typical reclaimed water quality values obtained through
treatment are shown in Table A-21.
Table A-21. AVERAGE TREATED EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
FOR REUSE AT TEXACO REFINERY, AMARILLO, TEXAS
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
TDS 1,100
P04 5
Sio2 34
S04 220
Cl 207
Hardness 130
Total Hardness 225
M-Alkalinity 270
All analytical data expressed as the ion.
REUSE PRACTICES
Of the 10 mgd treated at the River Road Plant, an average of
3 mgd is purchased by Southwestern Public Service Company
and 1.5 mgd by the Texas Oil Refinery; all this water is
used for cooling water makeup. The remaining 5.5 mgd is
discharged to a creek and must meet Texas State discharge
standards of 20 mg/1 SS and 20 mg/1 BOD. It is expected
242
-------
EFFLUENT FROM MUNICIPAL
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
FACILITY
POSSIBLE
STORAGE
((0.5MG)
SLOWDOWN TO
EVAPORATION POND
EMERGENCY
STORAGE
POND (6MG)
COLD
LIME
TREATMENT
COOLING
TOWER
FIGURE A-19
RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
TEXACO OIL RERNERY
AMARILLO, TEXAS
243
-------
that by 1975, virtually all effluent from the River Road
Plant will be reused by industry, since Southwestern Public
Service plans increased reclaimed water usage due to plant
expansion.
The Texaco Refinery in Amarillo also uses effluent from the
River Road municipal treatment plant for cooling purposes.
The 20,000 barrel/day refinery treats and reuses an average
of 1.5 mgd of reclaimed water, which satisfies all its cool-
ing water demands. Renovated water has not been used re-
cently for low pressure boiler feed; however, it was util-
ized in previous years to supply up to 100 percent of the
boiler feed water when well water supplies were insufficient.
The main problem encountered at the Texaco refinery due to
reclaimed water use are: (1) increased usage of algacides
and biocides to control growth of bacteria and algae due to
the presence of nutrients in the effluent; and (2) sludging
tendencies that produce soft deposits on heat exchange
equipment. Another problem when renovated water was used in
the boilers was corrosion of copper parts by ammonia pro-
duced from decomposition of organic matter. High TDS con-
centrations (1,300 mg/1), foaming, and scaling problems dis-
couraged further use of treated reclaimed effluent in the
boilers.
ECONOMICS
In the case of Southwestern Public Service Company, the eco-
nomic decision to use reclaimed water is based on long-term
availability, long term cost, and effect on total capital
investment, rather than immediate lowest cost.
One of the major reasons for consideration of sewage effluent
water is its availability. As the need for power increases,
the flow of wastewater increases. The natural balance thus
provides the cooling water requirements for the necessary
additional generation needs.
The long term cost of sewage effluent for industrial water
for cooling approaches the same cost as more valuable fresh
water. The use of treated sewage effluent conserves high
quality fresh water.
Public fresh water presently costs approximately 19£/1,000
gal; however, this cost would increase significantly if
Texaco and Southwestern abandoned the use of reclaimed water
in favor of the city supply, because the city would be
forced to locate and drill extensive new wells in order to
meet the added 7.8 mgd peak industrial demand.
244
-------
Cost data for the two reusing industries in Amarillo
listed in Table A-22.
are
TABLE A-22
REPORTED COSTS OF RECLAIMED WATER REUSE
IN AMARILLO, TEXAS
ITEM
COST ($/MG)
SPSC
TEX
Reclaimed water
Operation:
80
90
- Labor
- Utilities
- Supplies
Maintenance
Capital Amort.
Total
20
(inc. in
labor)
59
13
68(2)
240
8
12
25
12
137(3)
284
(1) Difference between two industrial costs due to
graduated price scale.
(2) Estimated by SCS Engineers
(3) Based upon Texaco figures as follows:
In-plant treatment facilities, $132, 400, at 6%
for 20 years, = $40/MG/yr. , and for contribution
to city treatment plant and reclaimed water
transportation facilities, $964,000, at 3%% for
30 years, = $97/MQ/yr.
245
-------
BIG SPRING, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
The Cosden Oil and Chemical Company of Big Spring, Texas has
used reclaimed water from the Big Spring sewage treatment
plant since 1943. Presently Cosden utilizes 0.5 mgd of
treated effluent for low pressure boiler feed makeup water.
The boiler steam is used for a great variety of consumptive
purposes within this large petro-chemical complex.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Figure A-20 shows a flow diagram of the 0.5 mgd Big Spring
treatment plant which supplies the reclaimed water. The
raw sewage contains no industrial wastes. Built in 1943,
the plant uses the outmoded Hays aeration process of two
stage aeration without activated sludge recirculation.
The Hays aeration facility includes: screening, primary and
intermediate settling, first and second stage aeration,
final clarification, anaerobic digestion and storage in a
1 MG capacity holding pond. Typical quality characteristics
reported for the treated wastewaters are: BOD-35 mg/1,
SS-10 mg/1, TDS-960 mg/1, pH-7.0, and hardness-250 mg/1.
Adjacent to the Hays plant shown in Figure A-20, the city
operates a trickling filter plant with an average flow of
2.3 mgd. This plant receives raw sewage from a different
area of Big Spring. Infiltration of the sewers causes this
sewage to contain up to 1,000 mg/1 chlorides which renders
the effluent unsuitable for reuse by the Cosden plant.
Improvements in the present sewer system are underway to
greatly reduce the amount of groundwater infiltration into
the sewer lines. If successful, this program should improve
the quality of the effluent from the city's trickling filter
plant and make its reuse by Cosden a possibility; however,
according to Cosden engineers, future usage of this water
for cooling is doubtful due to the corrosive properties of
residual organics in the sewage effluent and the high costs
of algicides and corrosion inhibitors that would be needed.
246
-------
SCREENING
PRIMARY FIRST
CLARIFICATION STAGE
TANK AERATION
(HAYS AERATION PROCESS
NO SLUDGE RECIRCULATDN)
SLUDGE
INTERMEDIATE
CLARIFICATION
TANK
SECOND STAGE
AERATION
DRYING
BEDS
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC SLUDGE
DIGESTION
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANK
2
HOLDING
PONDS
TO
COSDEN
OIL a
CHEMICAL CO.
FIGURE A-20
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
BIG SPRING, TEXAS
247
-------
USER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Treatment by the Cosden Oil and Chemical Co., preceding use
in its 175 psig boilers, includes: hot process lime sof-
tening, anthracite filtration, hob zeolite softening and
deaeration. Figure A-21 shows a schematic flow diagram of
the Cosden Oil treatment plant. Table A-23 gives important
quality characteristics of the effluent from the sewage
treatment plant as well as water qualities after the lime
and zeolite softening.
Table A-23. AVERAGE WATER CHARACTERISTICS
AT VARIOUS STAGES OF TREATMENT FOR REUSE
AT COSDEN OIL, BIG SPRING, TEXAS
Constituent
(mg/1)
Stage of treatment
Treated
municipal
effluent
Hot lime
softener
effluent
Hot zeolite
softener
effluent
Cations
Ca
Mg
Na
Total
Anions
HC03
C03
OH
S04
Cl
Total
Total hardness
Methyl orange
alkalinity
pH
50
84
494
636
386
70
180
636
142
386
20
8
405
433
164
22
100
147
433
28
186
0-1
0-1
431
433
164
22
100
147
433
0-2
186
7. 3
9.95
REUSE PRACTICES
The Cosden Oil and Chemical Company processes over 12 mil-
lion barrels of crude oil annually. The 0.5 mgd of treated
effluent supplied by the city of Big Spring equals approxi-
248
-------
EFFLUENT
FROM
MUNICIPAL
FACILITY
SLUDGE
FRESH
WATER
SUPPLY
RECIRCULATION
GYPSUM OR
SODA ASH
LIME
HOT LIME
TREATER
ANTHRACITE
FILTERS
BRINE
HOT ZEOLITE
SOFTENERS
FOAM SUPPRESSANT
AND CHELATING
AGENT
LOW PRESSURE
-ff ^BOILER FEED WATER
MAKE UP
DEGASIFIERS
FIGURE A-21
RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
COSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL CO.
BIG SPRING , TEXAS
249
-------
mately 25 percent of Cosden's total water demand. The
remainder of the supply comes from Lake Thomas and is used
primarily for cooling water. Table A-24 lists the various
ways in which steam produced from sewage effluent water has
been successfully used over many years of operation at Cos-
den Oil and Chemical Company.
At present, the reclaimed effluent is used only to feed 175
psig boilers. Condensate from these boilers also supply
high quality makeup water for the high pressure boilers (600
psig) .
Solutions of amine, caustic, and ammonia for various treating
uses have been made up using steam condensate for many years.
There has been no problem noticed when using sewage effluent
water to generate the steam.
The C3 and C4 olefin feed to a catalytic polymerization unit
for producing polygasoline has been saturated with steam
condensate from sewage effluent without noticeable changes
in the catalyst life or quality of the gasoline. The pro-
cess is a fixed, multibed solid phosphoric acid type of
process.
For several years, chloride salts have been continuously
washed from the feed-effluent heat exchange equipment of a
hydrosulfurization unit with steam condensate. It was found
that without this wash steam the heat exchanger tubes plug
rapidly on the effluent side.
Table A-25 is a tabulation of the applications in which
sewage effluent water has been used in process requirements.
In maintaining bottom hole pressure of LPG products in salt
cavern storage, there has been no evidence of algae prob-
lems. As a result of the ammonium nitrates present in the
effluent there was a problem with the LPG products passing
the copper strip corrosion test.
Reclaimed effluent has been used in electrical desalting of
crude oil. It was found, however, that using effluent, the
crude preheat exchange equipment fouled too rapidly- This
problem was overcome by heating the water between 200 and
250 deg F.
ECONOMICS
In exchange for the sewage plant effluent, Cosden pays
$14,400 per year towards operation of the municipal treat-
ment plant. Additional treatment costs at the refinery are
250
-------
Table A-24. TYPICAL REUSE APPLICATIONS OF
STEAM PRODUCED FROM TREATED MUNICIPAL
EFFLUENT AT COSDEN OIL, BIG SPRING, TEXAS
Steam stripping of atmospheric crude oil dis-
tillation sidecut streams.
Vacuum jet requirements for flash separation
between gas oil and asphalt.
Steam stripping of FCC fractionator side streams.
Steam stripping of FCC catalyst (both regenerated
and spent) .
Steam stripping of boiler feed water.
Steam-air decoking of catalyst:
- Cobalt-moly type hydrogeneration
- Activated carbon
Palladium
Steam-air decoking of furnace tubes.
Fuel oil atomizing.
Ethylbenzene dehydrogenation reaction diluent.
Steam required to create vacuum for styrene
monomer distillation.
Heating process streams in tubular exchanger
equipment.
251
-------
Table A-25. REUSE APPLICATIONS
OF PROCESS WATER PRODUCED FROM
TREATED MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT AT
COSDEN OIL, BIG SPRING, TEXAS
Maintenance of bottom hole pressure for
salt well storage of light hydrocarbons.
Crude oil desalter water requirements.
listed in Table A-26 and compared to the procurement and
treatment costs of water from Lake Thomas.
252
-------
Table A-26. REPORTED 1967 COSTS OF WATER FOR
BOILER FEED AT COSDEN OIL, BIG SPRING, TEXAS
Item
Source
Municipal
Sewage
Effluent
Water
Raw Lake Water
Capital investment
Capacity
Water costs
Chemical costs:
Oxygen scavenging agency @
$100/ton
Lime @ $20/ton
Rock Salt @ $8/ton
Gypsum @ $18/ton
Sludge conditioning agent @
$560/ton
Filming amine
Utilities costs:
Steam @ $0.30/1,000 BTU (15
psi gauge)*
Electrical power
Labor:
Supplies
Maintenance:
Amortization:**
Total cost at design rate:
$300,000
825 gpm
$/M gal.
0.045
0.0028
0.0444
0.0040
0.0184
0.0785
0.4000
0.0005
0.0671
0.0134
0.0150
0.0921
0.7870
$300,000
825 gpm
$/M gal.
0.185
0.0029
0.0157
0.0040
0.0457
0.0345
0.4000
0.0005
0.0671
0.0134
0.0150
0.0921
0.8797
*This heat is actually utilized as boiler preheat.
**0ver ten years with alternate value of money at 6% com-
pounded annually.
SCS Engineers has calculated the total cost of effluent
treatment by the municipal plant at $343/MG.
253
-------
DENTON, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
The city of Denton initiated reuse of its municipal waste-
water effluent in 1972 for makeup water to cooling towers
of the city power generating station. The effluent was of
variable quality. As a result major difficulties were ex-
perienced by the power plant during the summer of 1972. The
city reports that operations during the spring of 1973 im-
proved greatly, however, others presently considering reuse
of effluent for cooling tower makeup can benefit from Den-
ton's initial experiences. The reader is directed to the
chapter on industrial reuse in this report which concludes
that unless the municipal sewage treatment plant produces a
superior effluent, e.g., BOD and SS below 5-10 mg/1, addi-
tional clarification should be provided for further removal
of organics, nutrients, and suspended solids prior to use
in recirculating cooling towers.
The city of Denton initially attempted, without further
clarification, to use, for cooling water makeup, an average
secondary treated effluent from a plant on the verge of
being overloaded. It could not be successfully done. Mas-
sive fouling of heat exchange systems by bacterial growths
occurred, significantly reducing power generation efficien-
cies and increasing maintenance costs.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The city sewage treatment plant has reached its design flow
of 6 mgd, with maximum flow rates up to 10 mgd. A plant
expansion is being planned since the existing facility is
on the verge of being overloaded. Raw sewage is only one
percent industrial waste, primarily blood from a packing
house and heavy metals from a plating operation.
Figure A-22 schematically illustrates the treatment pro-
cesses at the sewage treatment plant and the power genera-
tion station. Incoming raw sewage is screened, grit removed,
and settled in three primary clarifiers, 58 ft diameter x
7 ft deep. Primary effluent flows to five aeration tanks
254
-------
SCREENING
GRIT
CHAMBER
ALTERNATE DISCHARGE TO STREAM
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
ALTERNATE DISCHARGE TO SEWER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
ALGAECIDE
CORROSION
INHIBITOR
tCHLORINE
10 MG.
HOLDING POND
POWER
STATION
COOLING
TOWERS
SLOWDOWN
TO WASTE
FIGURE A-2 2
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
AND POWER STATION REUSE
DENTON, TEXAS
255
-------
which may be alternatively operated in a conventional acti-
vated sludge manner, step aeration, or with sludge reaera-
tion. The tanks each measure 29 ft x 150 ft x 15 ft deep.
Operating parameters are as follows:
4 hour detention
. 2,500 to 3,000 mg/1 MLSS
40 to 45 percent sludge recirculation
The three secondary clarifiers are 70 ft diameter x 12 ft
deep with a design overflow rate of 520 gpd/sq ft. Chlorine
contact is for 30 minutes at design flow of 6 mgd.
Sludge is anaerobically digested and treated by the Zimpro
process.
An average 4.5 mgd of final effluent is gravity discharged
from the chlorine contact tank to an adjacent creek. The
remaining 1.5 mgd is pumped approximately 2 miles through
an 18 inch diameter steel pipe, terminating in a 10 MG capa-
city unlined storage pond adjacent to the power plant.
Reported quality of the final effluent is shown in Table
A-27.
Table A-27. AVERAGE MUNICIPAL
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AT
DENTON, TEXAS
Characteristic
BOD
SS
TDS
Cl
PH
MPN
Concentration
(mg/1)
30
38
127
70
7.
16,000
2
The effluent characteristics shown in Table A-25 are re-
ported to be superior to the quality of the reclaimed water
in the 10 MG holding pond. Apparently the effluent some-
times becomes septic in the 2 mile force main enroute to
the pond, since dark, odorous discharge into the pond is
reported by power plant personnel.
256
-------
REUSE PRACTICES
The municipal steam electric generating station which
attempted to use the effluent for approximately 3 months is
110 Mw in size. The steam station pumped the effluent out
of the 10 MG holding pond direct to the cooling towers.
Chlorine, algicides and scale inhibitor are added to the
cooling tower recirculating water. While effluent was used,
dosages of these chemicals were doubled or quadrupled, over
normal fresh water dosages, but great difficulties were
still experienced due to rapid fouling of condenser tubes.
Suspended solids, organics and nutrients in the effluent
were at too high a level. Unlike some other cooling water
applications of reclaimed wastewater, the TDS level at Den-
ton is relatively low at 127 mg/1.
It appears to SCS Engineers that the city of Denton reuse
problems/can only be solved by greatly improved treatment
facilities at the wastewater treatment plant or additional
treatment at the power plant to reduce suspended solids, or-
ganics and nutrients.
ECONOMICS
The economics of the Denton reuse program are unresolved
since the effluent was not of suitable quality. The sewage
treatment plant cost $0.5 million to construct in 1964 and
an additional $1.2 million to expand in 1968. Operating
costs in 1971 were $174,000. Including amortization of
capital investment, treatment costs average approximately
$168/MG. Operating costs alone comprise $80/MG. Pumping
costs to transport the effluent 2 miles to the steam station
are estimated at $20/MG additional.
The power station reports that cost of its chemical treat-
ment for cooling water is $40 to $50/MG for fresh water, and
$80 to $100/MG during their attempt to use the effluent
during their attempt to use the effluent during 1972. These
costs covered purchase of chlorine, acid, algicides, corro-
sion inhibitor, etc.
257
-------
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
The city of Lubbock, Texas supplies reclaimed water for
industrial and agricultural reuse. Out of 14 mgd of treated
effluent generated in an average day, approximately 20 per-
cent is sold to Southwestern Public Service Company for use
as cooling water and boiler feed water makeup, and the re-
maining 80 percent is used by local farmers for irrigation.
Lubbock, Texas illustrates the advantages to both munici-
pality and industry of the utilization of reclaimed munici-
pal wastewater. Southwestern Public Service Company is
heavily dependent on the renovated water supply, which it
requires to reach optimal operating capacity. Economic ad-
vantages are reflected in lower water costs to the power
company and greater revenues to the city from reclaimed
water sales.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The municipal treatment system at Lubbock consists of three
interconnected treatment plants located on one site south-
east of the city and one located northwest of the city. Two
of the southeast plants are trickling filter plants with a
combined capacity of approximately 14 mgd and one is an
activated sludge plant capable of treating 12 mgd. Only the
activated sludge plant supplies renovated water for indus-
trial reuse and the trickling filter effluent is used solely
for irrigation. The northwest treatment plant is a contact
stabilization plant with a rated capacity of 0.75 mgd.
Chlorinated effluent is pumped to Texas Tech University farm
for irrigation. The remainder of this report will be con-
cerned primarily with the activated sludge plant and South-
western Public Service Company's reclaimed water treatment
and reuse system.
Of the 6 to 7 mgd treated by the activated sludge plant,
approximately 20 percent is industrial waste. The four
major industrial wastes are: cotton seed oil and hulls,
packing house grease and blood, dairy whey, and various
258
-------
heavy metals from plating plants. These industrial compo-
nents have adversely affected the efficiency of the treat-
ment plant on past occasions as follows: (1) Grease and oil
clogs piping and machinery and inhibits settling. (2) Blood
and whey have extremely high BOD's (100,000 mg/1 and 42,000
mg/1 respectively), thus surge loads can significantly in-
crease effluent BOD's. (3) Chromium, arsenic and other
heavy metals, even in low concentrations, can be toxic to
activated sludge bacteria and upset the process.
Figure A-23 schematically illustrates the activated sludge
plant. Primary treatment for the activated sludge plant
consists of screening and grit removal followed by gravity
settling. Secondary activated sludge treatment involves
conventional spiral flow with 6 hour detention at 12 mgd
design flow with an MLSS concentration of 2,000 mg/1. Re-
cycled sludge (30 to 50 percent recirculation rate) is
treated with 3 to 5 mg/1 chlorine for control of sludge
bulking. In the aeration tanks, an average 1,680 cu ft of
air is supplied per pound of BOD removed. Two gravity, cir-
cular secondary clarifiers with 580 gpd/sq ft overflow rates
are employed for final settling. Reclaimed effluent for use
by Southwestern Public Service Company is then chlorinated
at 4 to 10 mg/1 and pumped to the power plant about 3 miles
away. Irrigation water is stored in three lagoons with a
total capacity of 30 million gallons. Solids handling in-
volves conventional anaerobic digestion followed by sludge
drying beds.
Problems with the activated sludge operations, aside from
those connected with industrial wastes previously discussed,
concern overloading of the digesters causing a poor quality
supernatant that is discharged to the older trickling filter
plant, and prolific algae growth in the aeration tanks which
hinders settling. Effluent characteristics from the acti-
vated sludge plant are listed in Table A-28.
USER TREATMENT PROCESSES
The reclaimed water is given further treatment by South-
western Public Service Company prior to reuse as illustrated
in Figure A-24. The effluent is discharged into two cold
lime clarifiers for removal of solids and phosphates. Lime
is fed at a rate of 3 lbs/1,000 gal and alum at 0.2 Ibs/
1,000 gal. Sulfuric acid is added to lower the pH to neu-
tral. Next, storage is provided in a 6 MG concrete-lined
lagoon, to meet irregular flow demands and to serve as an
emergency reserve, prior to use in the cooling towers.
Further extensive treatment is given to 30,000 gpd for use
as boiler feed water makeup. After the cold lime treatment
and pH adjustment, this water is fed to a reverse osmosis
259
-------
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION
DRYING
BEDS
BAR
SCREEN
GRIT
CHAMBER
Cl,
RETURN
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TO IRRIGATION
2.3 MG
HOLDING POND
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
WASTE
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TO SOUTHWESTERN
PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
POWER PLANT
ALTERNATE REUSE
TO IRRIGATION
FIGURE A-2 3
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
260
-------
Table A-28. AVERAGE MUNICIPAL
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS FROM
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT AT
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
Characteristic
Concentration
(mg/1)
BOD
SS
TDS
Na
Cl
P-Alkalinity
M-Alkalinity
18
20
1,650
450
460
0
250
Total hardness
Ca
Si02
P04
so4
Chlorine
residual
pH
240
145
11
35
250
2
7-8
unit that removes 85 percent of the total dissolved solids
while wasting 30 percent of the flow as concentrated brine
solution. The R.O. unit has completed over one year of
operation, but Southwestern believes it would be premature
to make any accurate performance evaluation of the cellulose
acetate membranes. Following R.O., total demineralization
is achieved by passage through successive cation exchange,
weak base anion exchange, and strong base anion exchange
units, followed by a mixed bed polishing unit. Due to the
salt removal by the R.O. unit, the demineralization train
has been operated for as long as 6 months between regenera-
tions. Effluent from the treatment system exceeds the qual-
ity of distilled water for direct use in the boilers. Table
A-29 shows typical quality characteristics of the reclaimed
water at various stages of treatment.
REUSE PRACTICES
An average of 2 to 3.5 mgd of reclaimed water satisfies the
entire water demand of the Southwestern Public Service Com-
pany for cooling water and boiler feed water makeup in their
250 Mw power generation plant. Fresh water is available
from the city in the event of failure of the reclaimed water
system, however, the 0.7 mgd available from the city would
be insufficient to run the power plant at rated capacity.
Overall, the use of reclaimed water for cooling and boiler
feed makeup water has been successful at Southwestern Pub-
lic Service Company. The Company's confidence in this
renovated water supply is reflected by the current construc-
tion of new boiler facilities to increase the power genera-
ting capacity from 250 Mw to 500 Mw, and proportionately
increase the use of reclaimed water. Several minor problems
261
-------
EFFLUENT FROM MUNICIPAL FACILITY
COLD LIME
TREATMENT
SULFURIC ACID
pH ADJUSTMENT UNIT
-\
6 MG HOLDING POND
SLOWDOWN TO
EVAPORATION
POND AND
IRRIGATION
COOLING TOWERS
ANTHRACITE
FILTER
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
CATION
EXCHANGER
WEAK BASE
ANION UNIT
STRONG BASE
ANION UNIT
MIXED. BED
EXCHANGER
TO BOILER FEED
WATER MAKE UP
FIGURE A-24
RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
262
-------
CO
Table A-29. AVERAGE WATER CHARACTERISTICS AT VARIOUS
STAGES OF TREATMENT FOR REUSE AT SOUTHWESTERN
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, LUBBOCK, TEXAS
State of Tertiary Treatment
Characteristic
(mg/1)
P-Alkalinity
M-Alkalinity
OH
Total Hardness
Ca
Si02
P04
S04
Cl
pH
Power
Plant
Influent
0
250
--
240
145
11.5
35
250
358
7.8
Chlorine Residual 2
Conductivity, Mmho --
TDS
—
Cold-Lime
Treater
Effluent
158
220
96
240
214
1.5
1.5
250
358
10.6
0
0
—
R.O.
Unit
Influent
_ —
—
—
234
180
1.5
1.5
380
354
5.6
0
1,760
1,130
R.O.
Unit
Effluent
— —
8
—
8
6
0.6
0.5
10
62
5.5
0
180
115
Boiler
Feed
Influent
0
0
0
0
.02
0
0
0
0
7.0
0
0
0
-------
were reported in the treatment and reuse of the municipal
effluent. Prolific bacterial growth in the 6 MG storage
lagoon following cold lime treatment produces acids through
biological activity and organics breakdown. This acid up-
sets the pH equilibrium in the cooling towers.and may force
treatment with chlorine to kill the microorganisms. More
frequent cleansing of the R.O. unit membrane is necessary
because of the higher TDS concentration of the reclaimed
water than would be expected using fresh water. The problem
of cooling tower blowdown disposal with its high concentra-
tion of dissolved salts, is solved by storage and evapora-
tion in an unlined pond which also serves as a water supply
storage for seasonal irrigation by a local farmer.
Reclaimed water for irrigation is stored in three lagoons
with a total capacity of 30 MG. One large grower receives
the majority of the water free of charge in exchange for
disposing of all the effluent, except that used at the power
plant, on his 2,500 acres of land. Crops irrigated with re-
claimed wastewater include: cotton, sorghum, alfalfa, win-
ter wheat, and pasture grasses.
ECONOMICS
Both the city of Lubbock, and the Southwestern Public Ser-
vice Company gain economic advantages through the treatment
and reuse of renovated water. The power company pays a
total cost of 14.4c/l,000 gal for the reclaimed water. Of
this sum, 11.9 goes to the city of Lubbock and pays the
power company's prorated share of the operating cost of the
12 mgd capacity activated sludge plant. The remaining 2.5c
is paid as a reimbursement to the large irrigation user who
has a legal right to the water until 1990 for his irrigation
program. The large irrigation user receives the water free
in exchange for disposing of all the effluent on his land,
allowing none to escape to surface waters.
Total costs to Southwestern Public Service Company for re-
claimed water purchase and treatment are shown in Table
A-30.
The power company has no discharge permit but currently
sells its cooling tower blowdown water to a local farmer for
irrigation at lc/1,000 gal. Evaporation ponds are used for
ultimate disposal if the farmer does not utilize the entire
flow.
264
-------
Table A-30. REPORTED COSTS OF
WATER FOR REUSE AT SOUTHWESTERN
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
Cost
Item (£/l,000 gal)
Paid to city of Lubbock 11.9
Paid to other owners 2.5
Operating cost of tertiary 16.0
treatment plant (in-
cluding capital
amortization)
Total reuse cost 30.4
265
-------
ODESSA, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
The El Paso Products Company of Odessa, Texas, is currently
using reclaimed water from the Odessa Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plant for makeup water to cooling towers and low
pressure boilers. This water reclamation and reuse opera-
tion is of economic value to both city and industry. El
Paso Products receives an inexpensive, reliable, and contin-
uous water supply while the city of Odessa receives suffi-
cient revenues to operate the sewage treatment plant and
also partial funding of plant expansions and improvements.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The sewage treatment plant at Odessa provides secondary
treatment to an average of 6.5 mgd of which 99 percent is
domestic sewage and 1 percent is industrial waste, primarily
from a plating operation. Primary treatment units consist
of screening, grit removal, grease removal, and primary
clarification. Primary effluent is stored in an aerated
equalization tank of 1 MG capacity to provide steady flow
into the aeration tanks.
Secondary activated sludge treatment takes place in three
tanks with conventional spiral flow, MLSS concentrations of
1,100 to 1,400 mg/1 and 3.5 hour detention time. Clarifica-
tion is performed in three final circular clarifiers, two of
70 ft diameter and 11 ft depth and a third with 90 ft diam-
eter and a depth of 13 ft. Chlorination is done in a con-
tact basin with 30 minute detention. Pumps transport re-
claimed water to either El Paso Products' 15 MG lagoon or
storage ponds for irrigation. Figure A-25 shows a schematic
of the municipal treatment process.
Reported quality characteristics of the treated wastewater
are:
. BOD - 10 mg/1
. SS - 13 mg/1
. TDS - 1,300 mg/1
266
-------
SCREENING
GRIT CHAMBER
GREASE
REMOVAL
o
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
AERATED
EQUALIZATION
TANK
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TANKS
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
SLUDGE
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC
SLUDGE DIGESTION
TO EL PASO
LAGOON
TO
CHLORINE
CONTACT
HOLDING
POND
IRRIGATION
LAKES
FIGURE A-25
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
ODESSA, TEXAS
267
-------
Chlorides - 250 mg/1
. Coliform - 6 x KP/100 ml
pH - 7.4
Hardness - 240 mg/1
Total P - 44 mg/1
Total N - 18 mg/1
Occasionally high concentrations of chromate from a plating
operation must be bypassed to the irrigation lakes.
USER TREATMENT PROCESSES
The El Paso Products Company at Odessa, Texas, is a large
chemical manufacturing plant requiring 7 mgd to satisfy its
water demand. Approximately 5.5 mgd is supplied by treated
sewage effluent with the remainder coming from company-owned
wells.
As shown in Figure A-26 El Paso Products operates a sophis-
ticated water treatment system to give further treatment to
the effluent from the sewage plant and to well-water sup-
plies .
El Paso's holding lagoon is an unlined pond with a capacity
of 15 MG and is utilized for eliminating surges and for
storing fire demand and utility water. Water from the
holding lagoon is pumped to a cold-lime treater, the essen-
tial purpose of which is to remove phosphates and suspended
solids. Some hardness and silica are removed, but the quan-
tity is considerably less than the theoretical amount of
which a cold-lime treater is capable. The reason for the
underrated efficiency is believed to be due to ammonia oxi-
dizing to nitrate, followed by reaction with calcium bicar-
bonate to produce calcium nitrate and carbon dioxide. These
processes reduce the amount of calcium bicarbonate hardness
that can be removed by lime treatment. Treatment in the
lime treater is accomplished with hydrated lime fed at 150
mg/1 and a cationic polyelectrolyte at 2 mg/1.
The effluent from the cold-lime treater is recarbonated to
convert carbonate and hydroxyl ions to the soluble bicarbon-
ate in the subsequent water-conditioning equipment. Recar-
bonation is accomplished with waste carbon dioxide from El
Paso's ammonia plant. The recarbonation system has bottled-
gas and inert-gas generators on emergency standby. Sludge
from the cold-lime treater is thickened in an old hot-lime
treater shell. The overflow is returned to the treater and
the bottom sediment is sent to the waste disposal area.
After recarbonation the water contains suspended floe and
must be filtered before further use. This filtration is
268
-------
SLUDGE TO WASTE
LIME
SODIUM ALUMINATE
POLYELECTROLYTE
COLD LIME
THEATER
ANTHRACITE
FILTERS
COOLING WATER MAKE UP
UTILITY
LOW PRESSURE
DEGASIFIERS
ZEOLITE
EXCHANGERS
BOILER FEED WATER
MAKE UP
600 PSI. BOILER FEED WATER
MAKE UP
SURGE
TANK
STRONG BASE
ION UNITS
FIGURE A-26
RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
EL PASO PRODUCTS COMPANY
ODESSA, TEXAS
269
-------
accomplished in pressure-type filters utilizing sized anthra-
cite coal for the filtering media. Backwash water from the
filters is reclaimed in a closed backwash system consisting
of a primary surge tank, a clarifier, two pressure-type fil-
ters, and a final surge tank. The backwash water is con-
tinually reused, with fresh water being added to replace
that which is lost through clarifier blowdown.
The filtered water is stored in a 50,000-barrel capacity
surge tank which enables the lime treater to operate at a
steady rate even though water demands in the industrial comr
plex fluctuate between day and night conditions.
Water is taken from the surge tank and split into two
streams, one of which goes to sodium zeolite exchangers and
the other to hydrogen zeolite exchangers. After softening,
the streams are blended together and sent to degasifiers
where the carbon dioxide formed by blending the streams is
stripped from the water with the use of air. The degasifier
basins contain level controllers that regulate the flow of
sodium zeolite-treated water in accordance with the demand
for total split-stream water, with the flow of hydrogen zeo-
lite-treated water being proportional to the sodium flow.
An operator determines, by analysis, the ratio of each
stream needed to obtain the desired total alkalinity of the
blended stream and sets this ratio into the ratio control-
lers .
Regeneration of the exchangers is accomplished with sodium
chloride in the sodium units and hydrochloric acid in the
hydrogen units. Backwash water for the ion exchangers is
taken from and returned to the closed backwash system.
Rinse from the sodium units goes to the process sewer within
the complex, whereas rinse from the hydrogen units goes to a
waste acid surge tank in the waste disposal area. At this
point, El Paso incorporates another in-plant reuse plaji by
recovering the last third of the rinse from both the sodium
and hydrogen exchangers and returning it to the 50,000-bar-
rel surge tank.
Tables A-31 and A-32 list typical quality attainments in the
user treatment processes and representative parameters for
the various reuse systems.
REUSE PRACTICES
Split-stream water is used for cooling tower blowdown and as
makeup to the low pressure (175 psi to 250 psi) boilers. A
small stream of the hydrogen zeolite water is demineralized
in strong-base anion units for high pressure (600 psi)
boiler makeup.
270
-------
Table A-31. AVERAGE WATER CHARACTERISTICS
AT VARIOUS STAGES OF TREATMENT FOR REUSE AT
EL PASO PRODUCTS COMPANY, ODESSA, TEXAS
Characteris tic
(mg/1)
Stage of Tertiary Treatment
Sewage
Effluent
Cold-Lime
Effluent
Recarbonator
Effluent
Split
Stream
P alkalinity
M alkalinity
Total hardness
Ca
Mg
Cl
so4
Na
SI02
P04
Conductivity,
Mmho
PH
0
137
240
51
10
250
101
92
19
40
1,012
7.4
85
159
158
47
10
146
97
78
19
4
935
10.2
0
159
163
48
10
151
101
92
19
-
1,020
7.9
0
64
0
0
0
156
97
117
19
-
925
7.1
271
-------
Table A-32. TYPICAL QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS IN
TERTIARY TREATMENT AND REUSE UNITS
AT EL PASO PRODUCTS COMPANY,
ODESSA, TEXAS
Unit and
characteristic
Cone.
Unit and
characteristic
Cone.
Lime Treater
Lime (2P-M)*,
mg/1
Sludge volume
(15 min
settling) , %
Algae control
Recarbonator
P alkalinity
(controlled
by C02)
Sodium Units
Hardness, mg/1
as
Hydrogen Units
Free mineral
acidity, mg/1
H ar dne s s , mg/ 1
as CaC03
Split-Stream Blend
M alkalinity, rng/1
as CaC03
Hardness, mg/1
as CaC03
600 psi Boilers
Dissolved solids as
conductivity ,
Mmho
Phosphate, mg/1
Sodium sulfite,
mg/1
Antifoam
20-50
20
as
required
5 max.
200-375
0
40-60
0 to
trace
1,000
40-60
25-35
as
required
Negative hardness,
mg/1
Causticity, mg/1
as OH
Silica, mg/1
Steam and Condensate
PH
Cooling Tower
M alkalinity, mg/1
as CaC03
P alkalinity, mg/1
as CaC03
Conductivity, Mmho
Orthophosphate ,
mg/1
Chromate, mg/1
Filterable solids,
mg/1
Dispersant, gpd
PH
-2 to -5
50-100
50
7.5 to
8.0
80-100
0
7,000
+ 250
20
12-15
20
1
6.4 to
6.8
150
3.0 x
106
2.0
, mg/1
Total plate count,
bacteria/ml
Corrosion probe,
MPY
Bactericides
Quaternary ammonium
compounds, nitrogen-based
compounds, pentachloro-
phenate, trichlophenate,
peracetic acid, and
chlorine.
272
-------
Cooling towers are of the recirculating counterflow type and
utilize a concentrated solution of zinc and chromate for
corrosion inhibition, the major ingredient of which is zinc
salt. The inhibitor functions as a true dicathodic polari-
zation, and it contains no organics or phosphates that could
serve as nutrients for bacterial growth.
ECONOMICS
In exchange for the effluent from the Odessa treatment plant,
El Paso Products pays virtually all the operating expenses
for the municipal plant. Last year these expenses amounted
to approximately $250,000 or 12.56/1,000 gal received. In
comparison, raw water taken from the public supply would
cost approximately 506/1,000 gal with zeolite softening and
degasification still being necessary. In addition to opera-
ting costs, El Paso Products paid the $1,000,000 construc-
tion cost of the original secondary facility at the City of
Odessa plant and for the addition, in 1965, of a third clar-
ifier, blower, and spargers at a cost of approximately
$100,000.
Table A-33 is a breakdown of water treatment costs at the
El Paso Products plant during the period January 1970 to
September 1970, which is representative of current expendi-
tures.
273
-------
Table A-33. AVERAGE TREATMENT COSTS FOR
REUSE AT EL PASO PRODUCTS COMPANY, ODESSA, TEXAS
ITEM
COSTS
$
<=/1000 gal*
Raw Water
Sewage effluent
Well water
140,111
31,635
171,746
12.55
Chemicals
Lime (150 mg/1)
Coagulant (sodium aluminate,
15 mg/1)
(polymer, 2 mg/1)
Biocide
Acid
Brine
Sodium softener cleaning
Resin, filter media
Utilities
Power
Waste water disposal
Operations
Labor
Supervision and engineering
Expenses
Administrative overhead
Maintenance
25,128
14,786
6,031
160,568
38,305
2,888
8,476
43,081
161,407
103,942
7,308
28,879
19,612
133,900
Total
18.72
1.84
1.08
0.44
11.73
2.80
0.21
0.62
14.94
3.15
11.79
11.66
7.59
0.53
2.11
1.43
9.78
67.65
*Based on 1,368.6 MG total influent
(Waste water 1,203.5 MG and well water 165.1 MG)
274
-------
WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
Farmers in Walla Walla have utilized reclaimed sewage efflu-
ent for irrigation since the original treatment plant was
constructed in 1929. A variety of crops, irrigated with
renovated wastewater, are grown on a total of 1,650 acres of
land including a 700 acre city-owned farm adjacent to the
plant.
The Walla Walla reclamation program has several unique as-
pects. Truck crops for human consumption have been irriga-
ted with sewage effluent for many years with approval of
health authorities. During summer months over half the
plant influent is industrial waste. Finally, an extensive
spray irrigation system has been constructed to apply the
effluent.
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
The treatment facilities at Walla Walla are illustrated
schematically in Figure A-27. Treatment is complicated by
high industrial waste volumes generated by food canneries
from mid-April through November. Different treatment and
disposal is provided during these months than during the
winter months when only the domestic raw sewage enters the
plant.
The domestic system (as opposed to the industrial system)
has a design capacity of approximately 7.5 mgd and consists
of degriting and clarification followed by three high-rate
trickling filters, 145 ft diameter and 4 ft deep, utilizing
2:1 recirculation ratios. The water then passes into three
intermediate clarifiers, two with 60 ft diameters, and one
rectangular with 45 ft x 90 ft dimensions. One standard
rate, fixed nozzle, square trickling filter follows clarifi-
cation and measures 220 ft square with 7 ft depth of rock
media. Following the standard filter, chlorine is added to
maintain a 0.5 mg/1 residual into the final clarification
tanks. The two final clarifiers are rectangular, measuring
35 ft x 140 ft and 35 ft x 80 ft, respectively. The treated
275
-------
8MGD
INDUSTRIAL
INFLUENT
MGD
CITY FARM
IRRIGATION
EXCESS
RETURN
AERATION BA9N
AND PUMP STATION
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
HIGH RATE
TRICKLING
FILTERS
INTERMEDIATE
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
5MGD DOMESTIC INFLUENT
GRIT
CHAMBER
MIXING
CHAMBER
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC
SLUDGE
DIGESTION
STANDARD
RATE
TRICKLING
FILTER
^
-Clj
FINAL
CLARIFICATION
TANKS
HOLDING POND
6.3 MGD TO BLALOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
ALTERNATE DISPOSAL
IN MILL CREEK (WINTER)
FIGURE A-27
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON
276
-------
effluent is then stored in a surge lagoon from which 7.5 mgd
flows by gravity to the Blalock and Gose Irrigation Disr
tricts. A pump station located at the lagoon returns excess
water to the industrial wastewater treatment system when the
effluent flow exceeds the irrigation demands of the two dis-
tricts .
During the April-November period when canning is in progress,
0.0 to 3.0 mgd of the cannery waste is mixed with the domes-
tic sewage and treated to supply the total 7.5 mgd needed by
the Blalock and Gose Irrigation Districts. The remainder of
the raw cannery waste (approximately 5.0 to 5.5 mgd) is
stored temporarily in an aeration basin, treated with NaOH
for pH control, and then is pumped directly to the 700 acre
city farm for alfalfa irrigation. Alternative piping sys-
tems allow for intermediate treatment of certain industrial
flows, by-passing primary treatment units, and entering the
secondary process directly. The cannery wastewater is gen-
erally acidic in nature; therefore, NaOH is added in the
aeration basin for pH control before the wastewater is
pumped to the city farm.
The treatment system is flexible enough to satisfy all irri-
gation demands and yet provide secondary treatment to the
largest water volume possible. During the non-growing
season there is no canning activity, and the domestic sewage
is given secondary treatment prior to release to an adjacent
creek. During the growing season, all effluent from the
plant, both domestic and industrial, is used for irrigation
with no stream discharge. At this time of the year. Mill
Creek is diverted for irrigation by upstream interests, and
there is no water in the bed near the plant. During winter
months, there is no industrial wastewater and domestic ef-
fluent is released to the now flowing receiving stream.
Effluent characteristics of the treated wastewater are as
follows: BOD - 5 to 50 mg/1; SS - 4 to 23 mg/1; and pH -
6.3. The lower range of concentrations represent total
domestic sewage effluent while the higher figures reflect
considerable industrial wastewater contributions to the
plant influent from canneries. Considering the seasonal re-
use program, it is evident that the effluent of higher
quality is released to the stream during winter months,
while the poorer quality reclaimed wastewater is used for
irrigation during the growing season.
REUSE PRACTICES
Referring again to Figure A-27, it is seen that the irriga-
tion program in Walla Walla is comprised of two distinct
systems. The city alfalfa farm of 700 acres uses only
277
-------
aerated and neutralized industrial wastewater, while the
Blalock and Gose Irrigation Districts use only effluent
which has undergone complete secondary treatment.
The Blalock and Gose Irrigation Districts were using water
from the creek contaminated with raw sewage at the turn of
the century. When the sewage treatment plant was built in
1926, an agreement was reached between the city and the
irrigators whereby water (treated or not) would be provided
to the Blalock and Gose Districts at 9.48 and 1.77 cfs, res-
pectively. The equivalent flow at this rate is 7.3 mgd.
The new treatment plant is designed to provide 7.5 mgd of
treated effluent to the districts. Blalock and Gose are
divided into several hundred parcels of land, each contain-
ing only a few acres. Farmers supply their own irrigation
pipe systems and irrigate carrots, onions, lettuce, spinach,
radishes, turnips, beets, and asparagus with the reclaimed
city effluent. Produce from these fields has been sold
fresh as well as canned for years. The investigators were
advised that the State Department of Ecology has not yet
questioned the health hazards of human consumption of these
vegetable crops. Neither has there been a lack of crop mar-
ketability- Knowledgeable local authorities, however, feel
that this issue will be closely examined by public health
authorities in the near future. It is interesting to note
that, prior to completion of the 7.5 mgd secondary plant,
untreated industrial waste was used to irrigate the Dis-
trict's fields. It is reported that clogging of pipes and
sprinkler heads with slime and solids was a continual prob-
lem. Sludges present in the industrial waste stream sealed
the surface of the ground and greatly reduced soil permea-
bility- Subsequently, the sludge had to be manually re-
moved from the furrows. The high chloride content of can-
nery wastewaters from processing peas caused some crops to
turn yellow. High salt content was degrading to the agri-
cultural soils, and odor problems were also significant
under the old system.
The city, in 1972, completed a $1.6 million pump station and
sprinkler irrigation system to irrigate the city alfalfa
farm. The new system operated only six weeks using fresh
water to test the system hydraulics and occasional indus-
trial wastewater for trouble shooting. Full-scale operation
is planned for 1973. Water is to be pumped from the 325,000
gal aeration basin to the fields by three 3,800 gpm pumps
(one always on standby). Automatic controls regulate the
wastewater flow through the piping network, which consists
of two lead lines from the plant, each feeding into two main
lines 1/4 mile apart. Laterials are spaced 80 ft apart off
the main lines, and contain sprinkler heads at 60 ft inter-
vals. By June 1973, industrial wastewater up to 6 mgd will
278
-------
be pumped through this irrigation system. Problems with
clogging due to suspended matter and bacteriological and al-
gal growth have been reduced during test runs by sprinkler
head modifications. In essence, this system is an unusual
land disposal system for industrial waste in that it will
use Rain Bird type sprinklers and is municipally operated.
The system of wastewater reclamation and irrigational reuse
provides advantages to the city and farmers alike. Farmers
receive a large volume of irrigational water free of charge,
without which their crop would be greatly reduced or totally
eliminated. The city, on the other hand, is saved from the
problems and costs of meeting stream standards for their in-
dustrial wastewater effluent.
ECONOMICS
The 7.25 mgd of treated effluent is provided to the Blalock
and Gose Irrigation Districts at no charge under prior water
rights agreements. Also, there is no inter-city transfer of
funds between the alfalfa farm operation and the treatment
plant, since the alfalfa farm is intended primarily for in-
dustrial waste disposal.
An analysis of cost/MG f°r treatment and disposal is given
below:
Year constructed
Capital cost, $ million
Construction cost index factor
1972 cost equivalent, $ million
Annual cost factor, 5.5 percent
25 year life
Total Annual Cost Factor
Total Operational Cost
1953
.173
2.09
.362
1962
.435
1.61
.700
1972
1.600
1.00
1.600
26,987 52,185 119,280
$198,452
90,367
Total Amortization & Operation Cost $288,819
Annual Volume, MG 2,300
Total Cost, $/MG 126
Operational Cost Only, $/MG 39
The cost/MG of $39 for operation only and $126 for capital
recovery and operation are comparatively low. If the city
treated its high-strength summer season wastes in a conven-
tional manner and discharged direct to surface waters, the
unit cost for treatment and disposal would be higher, based
on costs experienced at other cities with a large percentage
of cannery waste; e.g., Modesto, California.
279
-------
APPENDIX B
&+ZL
1|
III
" T~ ~ *~~~ •'
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
AS
u
in
S2
a. o
« m
u
!H
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
S 0
S£
e -
< u;
>:
rf3
K§
e
B2h
STRIAL
T'E, %
D tn
Q <
7: '£.
M
B3
e- w
< < CL
Cl M >*
M a H
a, H
KJ LT CJ
C Q w
•-• 2 <
W M 2
AVERAGE- CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT
Cla
u:
^ 0
feZ.
tj in
a ^
^
<
Clc
u
°l
7,
° S
< z
w •-<
tn X
<
£
C2a
cr
Z
Q
0
CQ
C2b
Cr.
E
8
C2c
E
Cfl
Q
H
C2d
•H
«J
Z
C2e
CP
x
en
u
o
H
K
S
X
u
C2f
\
Cr
E
a
TO REUSE
C2g
w
O 2
t, a.
8
C2h
H «
S u
u
AU-l IRYMPLE, AUSTRALIA 64
(Red Cliffs Sewer. Au.)
AU-2 MARYBOROUGH, VICTORIA, 56
AUSTRALIA
(Maryborough Sewer. Au.)
AD-3 NHILL, VICTORIA, 40
AUSTRALIA
AF-1 BULAWAYO, RHODESIA, 61
AFRICA
0.4 10 tanning 0.1 sum 35 30
none 0.1 none 9 26
1.2
10
350
7.6
7.3
AF-2 PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA 53
AF-3
WINDHOEK, SOUTH WEST
AFRICA
68
10 brewery, 9.0
dairy/
metal
14
12 460
60
7.5 0
2.25 10 brewery, 0.7 spr 0.5
dairy, sum
meat
650 110 91 7.8 0
EN-1 BRISTOL, ENGLAND
IS-1 HAIFA, ISRAEL
MX-1 MONTERREY, MEXICO
65 3.5
3.5
700
100 7.5
64 14.0 10 none 2.5 sum 70 75 1100 250 400 7.0
55 3.3 1 oil, 2.7 ... 17 10 510 ... 26 7.1
chromate
Fe
Ni
In
Pb
SYMBOLS
QUALITY MOI.'ITQpnn DEVICES
CI2 C] 2 HtJSlJual Ar.ai.l-cr
CON' Co.'uluc tivi ty Meter
LAH Laboratory Analysis
pH pii Annlir,;r
TURB Turbidincter
PURPOSE OK !>!'"S!:
DO~I ~ ["or'ostic
FISH Fir,:-. Habitation
IND InduGtrial FD
IRR Irrigation PO.
GRD Ground h'atcr Rac'iarge NH^
PJ:C Recreation OR
END USE QUALITY C.°ITi:RIA pH
liUU Low L J'J KL. q u 1 r"t~cT" SHD
B Low Boron Kcouired SS
Cl Low Cl Requirrd TDS
DIS Disinfection Roouired USPI1S
DV/Q Drinking Water Quality
Free of Debris
Phosphate Removal
Low NH^ Required
Odor Removal
pii Adjustment Required
State Health Dept. Stds.
Low SS Required
Low TDS Required
U.S. Public Health Stds.
280
-------
PRODUCER
Appendix j
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
08
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
S1000
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT %
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
S'.'PPLY
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN-
CAPACITY, MGD
GG S 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
09
EFFLUENT
TRANSPORT
DIS^IST1-- . MT'.F =
GIO
ALTERNATE
DISPOSAL METHOD
ri'nS" 1 0'.''.' A ,' i-F PFS PONS K
COMMENTS
Sf^
~Q* Q £; '•
IRR
.. PCL,TF,SCL, ...
POL
none yes IRR BOD,S3 no none none 0.6 PCL,OXPD
15
1.6 yes
. . AC-l
none yes IRR none no none none 0.2 PCL.TF
AU-3
0 . 0
IRR
.IND
iAB
yes IRR
.IND
DOM
SS
yes LAB PS
4060*235.3 32 C12 yes DOM
no AUTO PS
1.6 PCL,TF,SCL, ..
POL,CCOAG,
SF
18. PCL,TF,SCL, 0
SF.POL
*piped throughout AF-1
city
5.0 yes *RSD unit produc- AF-2
ing drinking water
1.0 PCL,TF,SCL,
POL,pH,
CCOAG.SF,
CADS**
IND SS.BOD yes
8.0 yes 'total cost for AF-J
blended domestic
water;**additional
treatment: algae
flotation,foam
fractionation
none 5.0 ... 5 *treatmont after EN-1
reuse: SS removal,
heavy metals remov-
al
32 25.9
170 85.0
LAB .yes IND PO
-------
.$&;
i
MUNICIPAL
PT.ANT
LOCATION
A5
W
w
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
U
o o
Si
H
TOTAL A\
VOLUME
R2h
3-
INDUST
WASTE
B3
t* en
<. < a.
U M >"
w tK ^t
SIGNIF
INDUST
HASTE
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT
Cla
w
^ c
3*
AVERAGE
VOLUME
Clc
U
fr. —
°£
SEASON
MAXIMUM
C2a
rH
>
Q
O
P3
C2b
r-l
\
M
W
C2c
iH
W
Q
C2d
*v
,
a
z
C2e
V,
o*
£
CHLORIDE.
C2f
^
x
Q.
TO REUSE
C2q
to
COLIFO
MPN
C2h
tl 10
HEAVY M
TYPE
AZ-1 BAGDAD, AZ
(Bagdad Copper Corp.)
AZ-2 CASA GRANDE, AZ
AZ-3 FLAGSTAFF, AZ
AZ-4 FLORENCE, AZ
(Arizona State Prison)
AZ-5 FT. HUACHUCA, AZ
(Ft. Huachuca Mil. Res.
AZ-6 GRAND CANYON, AZ
AZ-7 KEARNY, AZ
AZ-8 LAKE HAVASU, AZ
AZ-9 KESA, AZ
AZ-10 MORENCI, AZ
(Phelps Dodge Corp.)
AZ-11 PHOENIX, AZ
(23rd Avenue Plant)
AZ-12 PHOENIX, AZ
(91st Avenue Plant)
AZ-13 PRESCOTT, AZ
1967 0.2 0 none
1959 1.0
1972 1.0 0 none
1953 0.7 0 none
1941 1.5 0 none
1928 0.2 7 deterg.
NaCl
1958 0.6 0 none
1972 0.6 0 none
1957 4.3 10 none
1957 0.6 0 none
1932 40.0 7 plating
1971 60.0 7 plating
1958 1.5 0 none
0.2 none 14 100 100 18 12 6.8
AZ-14 EHOHTO, AZ 1965 0.1 0
(BIA,Shonto Board. School)
AZ-15 TOLLESOH, AZ
1968 1.1 60 meat
pack.,
plating
1.0
0.7
1.0
,0.03
0.5
0.6
4.3
0.6
28.0
60.0
0.5
0.1
1.1
spr
sum
spr
sum
none
none
sum
17
55
27
10
5
45
20
13
70
35
23
30 7.
Ill 8.
7.
10 616 ... 200 7.
0.1 1 7
30 350 7.
20 800 ... 300 7.
25 1000 7.
117 7.
350 8.
16 2250 7.
?
0
1
0
5
5
4
0
7
0
100,000 none
0
50,000 ...
... ...
3.5 x ...
106
1400 ...
AZ-16 WILCOX, AZ
AZ-17 KIN3LOW, AZ
CA-1 ARMONA, CA
CA-2 ARVIN, CA
CA-3 AVENAL, CA
1951 030 none
1952 0.5 0 none
... 0.5 0 none
0.2
0.5 . 50
03
05 . .
0.5
8.5
7.3 ... . . .
CA-4 BAKERSFIELD, CA
(Plant SI)
1912 3.6 14 dairy, 3.6 ... 370 118 630 181 96 7.0 ...
poultry
SYMBOLS
MONITORING
Cl2 Cl2 Residual Ar.aJizer
CON Conductivity tlotcr
LAB Laborflt ory Analysis
pit pll Analiztr
TURB Turbidincter
Fl'RPOSK OF r-iTTH
DO.M
fISH
i-jh Habitation
IND
IRR
GKD
REC
E1JU
BOD
B
Cl
DIS
D\;Q
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground Water Recharge
Recreation
USE QUALITY Cr.ITPRIA
Low LOD j
-------
PP.ODUCEP INFORMATION'
(Cost Data
Appendix
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
DS
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
n «<
Q f;
[* LV
en u.
(O W
E2
>• ;: tn
E3
INTEKRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
K6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
K7
O-.l'H
*1 U
G *C £-•
woo;
CJ
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
FID
0"ALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
ML7IICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLA.NT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
n;s:G!j
CAPACITY, MGD
G6 t 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G3b
n
0
31
H
fc:" ^ >-
w ui a,
G'J
u
•o
i: a
i, *^r
wt-t-
u
c
G10
ALTER.-.' ATE
DISPOSAL METHOD
— ^-iLL^iU^yg N f-"p' S P
COMMENTS
s ^ cr. ''-^ : '
II
> ) o -;.'.;
yea IND none no none PrS 4.0 PCL,AS,SCL 13.0 1.0 yes
.7 2.5 ... none ... IRR ...
36 13.1 0 none yes IRR SHD
00 0 none yes PRR FD
0 0 IRR ...
no none none 8.3 RSL
yes LAB none
no ... PS 2.0 PCL,OXPD
8.4
... 0.3 yes
yes ... PS 4.0 PCL,TF,SCL 2.5 2.0 ...
1000 10.9 2 none yes IRR BOD,SS, no none PS 0.5 AS,SCL,ANTH 0.3 2.0 yes
DOM DIS
.0 0 ... none ... IRR ...
00 0 none no IRR FD
no none none 1.5 RSL
no none none
10.0 0
3 4.8 0 none yes IRR none no none none 5.0 PCL,TF,SCL 7.0 0 yes
00 0 none yes IND none no none PrS 1.5 PCL.TF 0 2.5 no
0 0 ... IRR ... 30. PCL,AS,SCL yes
4.30 14.1 0 pll yes IRR SHD no none PS 60. PCL,AS,SCL 234. 2.0 yea
00 90 none yes IRR none no none PS 1.5 PCL,OXPD,SF 0.6 5.0 yes
.0 0 IRR ... no ... PS 0.1 PCL,OXPD 10.0 1.5 ...
AZ-1
AZ-2
AZ-3
AZ-4
AZ-5
AZ-6
AZ-7
A2-8
A2-9
AZ-10
AZ-11
AZ-12
AZ-11
A2-14
1 LAB yes IRR
no none PS 2.5 ft
1.40
0
0
•
*
.0
0.1
0
D ..
i.i
3.0
b
IRR
. . . none yes IRR none
. . « . . none ... IRR none
yes IRR ...
IRR ...
25 IRR *
no none none
no none PrS
no ... PrS
no ' ... none
... '. .. PrS
1.
0.
1.
1.
5.
8
3
0
0
5
RSL
PCL,OXPD
PCL
PCL
PCL.OXPD
PCL
6.5 1.0
... 0
1.0 1.5
... 0
yes
...
...
...
4.0 ... *no irrig. of di- AZ-1S
rectly consumed
crops or dairy cat-
tle
A2-16
AZ-17
CA-1
*usor charges: 25% CA-2
of farm income
•user charges: 20% CA-3
of farm income
•no irrig. of di- CA-4
rectly consumed
.crops . .
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrS
PS
Private Source
Public Source
PY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO Automatic Testing
PPC Pre & Po:*t Clilorination
IA3 Regular Lab Testing
ST State TusLing Only
TREATMENT PROCESSES
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT
AS Activated sludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
VRi:AT;u:;."r
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH ph Adjustment
"OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
283
-------
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
SS .
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
TOTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, MGD
R2h
INDUSTRIAL
WAST'E, »
33
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT
Cla
AVERAGE REUSE
VOLUME , l-T,r,
Clc
SEASON OF
MAXIMUM REUSE
C2a
J
m
C2b
o-
£
V)
V)
C2c
Z
W
Q
t'
C2d
tr
£
2
C2e
CHLORIDES, Mg/1
C2f
, tr
X
x"
o.
TO REUSE
C2g
COL I FORMS ,
MPN
C2h
HEAVY METAL
TYPES
CA-5 BAKERSFIELD, CA
(Plant »2)
CA-6 BAKERSFIELD, CA
(Mt. Vernon Co.-San. Dist)
CA-7 BAKERSFIELD, CA
(No. of River San. Dist. 11)
CA-8 BURBANK, CA
1912 8.5 0 none 8.5 ... 85 26 324 87.4 49.6 7.4 ...
1949 3.8 1 cotton, 3.8 win 50 SO 425 7.4 ...
chemical
1947 2.3 1 ... 2.3
1967 5.2 25 aircrft.2.0 sura 2
mfg.
50 12 7.S
2 500 88 82 7,2 10
CA-9 CAIABASAS, CA
(Las Virgenes MWD)
CA-10 CALISTOGA, CA
CA-11 CAMARILLO, CA
1965 3.0 10 *
1972 0.2 1
3.0 ... 5
870 7.8 2.2
0.1 sum 13 61 528 122 141 8.4 12,000 ...
1958 2.3 11 plating, 2.3 none 10 14 900 321 195 7.5 2.2 none
chemical
CA-12 CAMARILLO, CA 1935 0.2 0 none 0.3 ... 6
(Camanllo St. Hospital)
CA-13 CHINA LAKE, CA 1955 1.6 20 air
(Naval Weapons Center) cond.
CA-14 CHINO, CA
CA-15 CHINO, CA
(Calif. Inst. for Men)
CA-16 COACIIELLA, CA
(Coachella San. Dist.)
CA-17 CORNING, CA
CA-18 CUTLER, CA
(Cutler PUD)
CA-19 DELANO, CA
CA-20 EARLIHART, CA
(Earliniart PUD)
CA-21 EXETER, CA
SYMBOLS
QUAJ.I'IY TOMITORING DEVICES
Cl2 Cl2 r^L-isuuai Ar.aiizc
COM Conductivity Iloter
LAB Laboratory Ar-.tilysis
pH pit Aaalizer
TURB Turbidincter
PURPOSI: OF ni:i:sK
6 0.1 0 283 7.4 2.2 none
0.7 ... 7 ... 450 110 100 8.4 23
1942 2.4 5 meat 2.4 ... 10 12 8 70 70 7.5 2 .none
DOM
FJSH
t Olcst 1C
Fish Habitation
1938
1950
1960
1948
1960
1955
1.0
0.3
0.4
2.7
0.3
0.7
IND
IRR
GRD
RL'C
I:ND
Coir
D
Cl
DIS
DHO
5 food 0.2 none 20
prcc.
10 food 0.2 sum 25
proc.
5 none 2.7 ... 70
10 fruit 0.7
packing
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground Water Recharge
Recreation
USE OrAMTY CRITERIA
Low liOD Required
Low Boron Kc-cuired
Low Cl Required
Disinfection Rcnuircd
Drinking Water Quality
5 475 ... 69 7.2 ... . noni
49 14 7.3 ... ...
62 0 7.0 ... . ...
FD Free of Debris
PO^ Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Removal
pH pll Adjustment Reouired
SHD State Health Dcpt. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USPHS U.S. Public Health Stds.
284
-------
PFOOUCER INFORMATION
iH a
fr- K
M <
»J Ij
•< O
:^ w
Ul
F8
-1
E-
b* r"
tu a.
r- cr
w
TRF.ATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
C
L;
x
0 >
t/3 i-i
g^
<
U
OC (, 7
E-< en
^i2
t- w
< u
H e.
G3b
0
p, z
5 fe^
-. o u
5
r;fj
t
,_^^
-'. C
^vf.
V
c
G10
c
o
t-I t-
< £
fc,J
t: <
^n
^£
Ul
M
'"••"i'"rn''.':' 'Fj: PrSFr.".-.E
COMMENTS
-^ -^ ; •
: V £:•--:•
£>*i'~
y$
r.'-j- '.'•
0 0 30 ...
0 0
43 31.0 0.5 pH,
... IRR . ..
yes IND *
yes LAB PS
PrS 16. PCL
*no irrig. of di- CA-5
rectly consumed
crops • •
5.0 no
3.0 PCL,TF,SCL 40.0 0.3 ...
CA-6
CA-7
LAB
PPC
5.4 0 Clj, yes IRR ... AS
TURB
0 1.0 yes *end use quality: CA-8
desires low TDS,SS,
'PO,j~,N03-, organics
**user treatment:
shock chlorination,
pH adjust., corro-
sion inhibitor
... 5.0 ... "industries treat CA-9
wastes before dis-
charge
98 none yes GRD ... 0.4 PCL,OXPD,
CCOAG
1 ... no IRR SHD no LAB PS 4.8 PCL,AS,SCL,
POL,SF
0 none no IRH ... no PPC none ... PCL,TF,SCL
0 Clj ... IRR SHD no none none 2.0 PCL,OXPD
0 C12 yes IRR SHD,IDS no none none 3.0 PCL.AS.SCL
CON
0 none yes IRR none no none none 1.3 PCL.OXP3
0 none yes IRR none no none none 1.5 PCL,AS
0 none yes IRR * no none ... 0.5 PCL,OXPD**
0 none yes IRR none no none none 1.0 PCL,OXPD,TF
30 none yes IRR * no none PS 1.0 PCL,OXPD
0.5 yes
CA-10
12.
1.5
30.
20.
11.
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
5
3
5
0
8
yes
yes
...
yes
no
CA-11
CA-12
CA-13
CA-14
CA-15
0.1 yes
CA-16
IRR ... no ... none 0.8 PCL,TF,OXPD
GRD
no ... none 0.8 PCL.OXPD
5.0 0.1 ... "cattle not pas- CA-17
tured on disposal
fields
**reuse from PCL
tank only
6.5 1.0 no "user charges: 25% CA-18
of farm income
1760 0.5 yes "irrig. of non-ed- CA-19
ible crops only
CA-20
CA-21
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrSPrivate Source
PS Public Source
QH.V.ITY SAFEGUARDS
AU'i'O Automatic To sting
ppr Pre & Pont Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TRT'ATUKMT PROCESSES
-PK.WiKV ?'k!:A7."j:::T
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TRKATMENT
AS Activated Sludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
AjNTII Ani.hracite filter
MMF
SF
CADS
CCOAG
DAER
IE
LCOAG
pll
POL
RO
Mixed Media Filter
Sand Filter
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Coagulation
Dcaeration
Jon Exchange
Lime Coagulation
ph Adjustment
Polishing Ponds
Reverse Osmosis
285
-------
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
AS
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
OTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME , MGD
H
B2h
INDUSTRIAL
KASfE, %
B3
SIr.tllFICA.MT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT
Cla
VERAOE REUSE
VOLl'ME, MGD
<
Clc
SEASON OF
AXIMUM REUSE
z
C2a
r*
a
o
(8
C2b
X
tn
w
C2c
V.
a
C2d
•H
V
a
C2e
LORIDES, Mg/1
U
C2f
V,
TO REUSE
C2g
COLI FORMS ,
MPN
C2h
HEAVY METAL
TYPES
CA-22 FALLBROOK, CA
(Fallbrook San. Dist.)
CA-23 FRESNO, CA
(Plant II)
CA-24 FRESNO, CA
(Plant (2)
CA-25 GEORGE AFB, CA
CA-26 GUADALUPE, CA
CA-27 GUSTINE, CA
CA-28 HANFORD, CA
CA-29 UEMET, CA
CA-30 INDIO, CA
(Valley San. Dist.)
CA-31 IRVINE, CA
(Irvine Ranch W.D.)
CA-32 IVANHOE, CA
(Ivanhoe PUD)
CA-33 KERMAN, CA
CA-34 LACUNA NIGUEL, CA
(Moulton Niguel W.D.)
CA-35 LEUCADIA, CA
(Lcucadia Co. W.D.)
CA-36 LIVERMORE, CA
CA-37 LODI, CA
CA-38 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
La Canada Plant)
CA-39 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
Lancaster Plant)
CA-40 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
Palmdalc Plant)
CA-41 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
Pomona Plant)
1354
1900
1900
1963
1952
...
1901
1965
1936
1967
1953
1950
1966
1962
1967
1968
1962
1970
0.7
26.0
12.0
0.6
0.5
2.7
2.0
2.8
3.4
2.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
4.2
3.7
0.1
4.0
0
20
30
0
0
65
10
1
10
0
o
0
5
0
17
•11
0
5
none
none
wine
proc.
none
none
none
milk
proc.
laundry
fruit
proc.
none
none
none
none
none
canning
plating
none
none
0.06
3.9
1.8
0.5
0.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
2.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
4.2
3.7
0.1
0.5
spr
sum
spr
sum
spr
sum
sum
none
...
none
spr
sum
sum
fall
spr
sum
...
. . .
spr
sum
none
sum
43
60
60
36
77
33
40
30
15
13
200
113
25
15
7.3
13
13
3
47
135
135
100
72
90
124
20
40
15
88
30
18
13
17
36
3
1100
700
700
150
1670
1130
720
452
1110
COO
1075
768
8.6
1122
550
175
140
140
...
198
292
145
• • •
200
235
131
10
300
150
215
115
115
...
138
191
70.9
135
100
160
0
180
375
159
1.6
196
80
7.0
8.4
8.4
7.6
7.7
9.0
8.7
7.3
7.2
7.5
6.9
7.4
7.2
6.7
7.3
6.8
7.6
1.4 x 0
106
• • • .• • .
.._.
... ....
.Cr
424,000 ...
' '
1.8 x none
106
2.3
2 none
2.0 none
2.2
2.5 ...
10 Zn
.Pe
... Zn
Fe
1964 1.3 8
1928 7.7 5 none
0.7 spr 50 200 500 120 55
sum
fall
0.7 sum 15 9 564 100 148 7.7 23
SYMBOLS
CUALITV MOMITORH.'G DEVICES
Cl2 Cl2 Residual AnaiTzer
CON Conductivity Mater
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pH pll Analizer
TURB Turbiclincter
PURPOSE or Rj:f?K
DOM Dottcs'-ic
Fish Habitation
IND Industrial FD
IRR Irrigation PO^
GRD Ground Water Recharge NH^
REC Recrc;*tion OR
END BSE QUALITY CP.ITKRIA pH
tiOD Low i;0i) Kcciuircd SIID
B Low Boron Required SS
Cl Low Cl Required TDS
DIS Disinfection Rcouircd USPHS
DWQ Drinking Water Quality
Free of Debris
Phosphate Removal
Low NH3 Required
Odor Renoval
pIT Adjustment Required
State Health Dcpt. Stds.
Low SS Required
low TDS Required
U.S. Public Health Stds.
-------
PRODUCER INFOP.-J.TIO.-f
(Cost Data
Appendix
D7
cn£-i
UNIT CHARGE
FOR EFFIAT.N-
S/MG
D8
w
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUEN'T SAL
$1000
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT »
f,2
u
> 'S T.
t-l-ti!
M cr. o
E3
INTEF-.LTTION
TOI.FHATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
O
w tn
o:
Cu
F7
CO >- <
v: H >-<
.-3 ..]
WOK
CJ
F9
ADDITIOXAL
TREATMENT
F1C
DUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
?8
E- _
u; J
r r-
f,) 0.
CL CO
O.
D
W
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
Q
PESIGN
CAPACITY, MC
GC S 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
D
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY. MG
G,
.j 'JL
V-
c
rao
o
ALTEFu-iATE
DISPOSAL METHf
COMMENTS
T"*""^ T>
'^ - Li). ;"
""7 ^ 5 :^
i^y;
0 _. 0 30 none no IRR £!!D
.00 0 LAB no IRR none
0 _ 0 0 LAB no IRR none
00 0 Cl2 yes IRR none
000 LAB yes IRR none
.0 0 IRR .. .
000 none ... IRR SHD
18 4.5 0 CON, yes IRR, SS
LAB GRD
.0 0 10 Cl, yes IRR SS
120 • 0 CON yes IRR B.TDS,
DIS
no none none 0.6 PCL,TF,AS, 0 1 yes
SCL
no none PS 37 PCL
no none PS 8 TF/SCL
CA-22
_ CA-23
'CA-24
no none none 1.5 PCL,TF,SCL 10.2 2 no .CA-25
no none PrS 0.5 RSL 1.0 0.3 no "cA-26
no ... none ... RSL ... 0.1 . CA-27
no none none 2.3 PCL,TF,OXPD 72 0 yes CA-28
no none none 2.5 PCL,AS ... 1.0 yes CA-29
no none PrS 5.0 PCL,AS,SCL CA-30
no LAB PS 5.0 PCL,AS,SCL 300 3.5 no "indirect revenue CA-31
no ... PrS ... PCL,OXPD .... 0.3 ... ._. .CA-32
0 none yes IRR none
90 TURB yes IRR ...
LAB
1 CON yes IRR IDS,DIS,
C12 BOD,SS
1 none no IRR DIS,BOD,
SS
0 ... yes IRR none
0 none yes IRR FD,TDS
no none PrS 0.3 PCL 0 0.3 ... 'indirect revenue CA-33
no none PS ... AS,SCL,SF 5 1.0 yes CA-34
no none PS 0.8 PCL,TF,SCL 10 1.3 yes CA-35
,no none PrS 5.0 PCL,TF,AER, 1.0 yes CA-36
ECL
no none 3.5 PCL,AS,SCL 250 0 yes CA-37
no none PrS 0.2 AS,SCL 0.2 0.2 no CA-38
.5 ____ .0.9
15 TURB yes IRR near
C12 REC DKQ
no AUTO none 4.5 PCL,OXPD,
CCOAG,MMF
4.0 yes
none yes IRR SHD,BOD no none PS 3.1 PCL,OXPD .50 2.0.yes
CA-39
icA-40
22
3.9 0 Cl2 yes IRR SHD
... . CON
. ; , TURB
i .. . 1 . . . J. .
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrS Private Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS.
Al.VO Autor.^t-ic Testing
Pi-C Pre & Foot Chlorination
i,*u3 Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TREATMENT PPOCE::f-Eb'
~?'HIMARY TKI;AT:U::;T_~
no none none 9.6 PCL.AS^CL 0
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT
ASActivatedSludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
ANTUAnthracite Filter
2.0 yes
"CA-41
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH ph Adjustment
"OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
287
-------
T*T*
ill
III
•"mn"'—
MUNICIPAL
PIANT
LOCATION
¥' c-
"S
u
to
=> =5
w <
So
w
a
*
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
u
O Q
S£
w
**
d3
Kg
B2h
STRIAL
TV., «
Z) tn
Q •<
Z S
M
S3
<< < 0-
yss
COW
M 2 <
tn M 2
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFTUJENT TO REUSE
Cla
«
01 D
^j O
SE
S3
gs
<
Clc
U. D
og
2
° £
K 5
< s:
W X
<
z
C2a
X.
D-
s:
Q
0
ea
C2b
•H
X.
Cr
£
w
w
C2c
•H
X.
Cr
£
M
Q
fr-
C2d
ft
s
n
z
C2e
^
o.
0]
s
K
O
»J
C2f
>-4
^
s
C2g
en
s
0 X
8
C2h
^
<
sa
a
M
CA-42
CA-43
CA-44
CA-45
CA-46
-
CA— 47
CA-48
CA-49
CA-50
CA-51
CA-52
CA-53
CA-54
CA-55
CA-56
CA-57
CA-58
CA-59
CA-60
--
CA-61
SYMBOLS
OUAI.JTY
^•'^2
CON
LAB
pll
TURD
PITP&SF
DO:I
fJSH
LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.-
San Jose Creek Plant)
LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.-
Whittier Narrows Plant)
MARCH AFB, CA
(March Plant)
MARCH AFB, CA
(West March Plant)
McFARLAND, CA
rtOJAVE , *-"
(Mojave PUD)
OCEANSIDE, CA
ORANGE COVE, CA
PALM SPRINGS, CA
PATTERSON, CA
PLEASANTON, CA
PORTERVILLE, CA
POWAY, CA
(Pomerado Co. H.D.)
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
SAN BRUIJO, CA
(San Fran. Co. Jail «2)
SAN CLEMENTE, CA
SAN DIEGO, CA
SAN DIEGO, CA
(Rancho Bernardo Recla-
mation Plant)
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
(McQueen STP)
SANTA MARIA, CA
(Laguna Co. San. Dist.)
MONITORING DEVICES
C'IT k(.--.i^:^al Anaiir.er
Conductivity J'uLer
Labor a r ory Analysis
p!l An^li^tjr
1'urhidi ro ter
OF P.i'.'f::
Lor.i.1:, L; i:
fish iljlAtation
1972 30.5
1962 17.1
1941 0.4
1941 0.3
1949 0.3
1945 0.2
1958 4.4
1956 0.4
1960 2.7
1960 0.02
1910 1.3
1952 1.3
1972 0.4
1962 16
1932 0.1
1957 2.0
1971 0.02
1960 1.3
1932 1.0
1964 1.3
IND
IRR
CRCi
REC
20 none 23 none 7
15 none 16 none 12
15 aircrft.0.4 none 15
ma int.
5 none 0.3 none 15
5 agri. 0.3 ... 64
pack.
1 plating 0.6 none 7
0 none 1.0 ... 12
0 none 0.01 ... 33
5 ... 1.3 ... 40
0 none 0.05 sum 18
15 none 3.0. sum 13
15 plating,. 015 none 7
elect.
25 plating 1.3 ... 15
0 none 0.9 none 10
2 photo 1.3 spr 27
sum
fall
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground V.'ater Rccharqe
Recreation
TNT; USE OL'ALITY CKITIIRIA
BOD
B
Cl
DIS
Di.'O
Lo'v i'.'-'U Kt_quireJ
Low Doron Roam red
Low Cl F'-quirec!
Disinf ectior. Reouired
Drinking Water Quality
13 687 ISO 138 8.0 20
13 606 130 99 7.6 240
12 850 175 160 6.8 ...
10 900 220 200 6.8 ...
259 438 ... 78 6.8 ...
18 1280 285 303 7.7 43
Fe
Zn
.Pb
Zn
Pb
trace
trace
...
--
trace
... 437 ... 58 7.1 2400
102 11 8.2 ...
7.4
23 1450 ... 380 8 120
... 553 85 83 7.4 2
0 35 7 7 7 0
20 1000 7.5 23
10 6.9 2.2
23 1144 270 217 7.0 724
FD Free of Debris
PO^ Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low KH-j Required
OR Odor Renoval
none
none
Cr
• Cu
000 none
pll pit Adjustment Reouired
SHD State Health Dept.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low 70S Reouired
USniS U.S. Public Health
Stds.
Stds.
288
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVLHl'L
(Cost Data
Appendix )
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
D6
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
$1000
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT t
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL 1
TREATMENT |
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN 1
CAPACITY, MGD 1
GG <. 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
EFFLUENT I
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD |
G9
EFFLUENT
TRANSPORT
DIST.VITF . MTTFC
G10
ALTERNATE
DISPOSAL METHOD
OITSTION'.'M v: F^KPONSE
COMMENTS
.• i,"y
*?K.-;
m
^
#g&
*. ) o v1 •
$§?
.15
68
395
C12 yes GRD USPHS, no CON PS
CON SHD LAB
TURB
37.5PCL,AS,SCL 0
5.0 yes "new operation
C12 yes GRD USPHS, no -LAB PS 12.OPCL,AS,SCL 0 3.0 yes
CON
CA-43
*
r. . -
*
0
•
0
0
0
0
0....
0
0
15
0
*
o —
~~~.~
o;i
*
*
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3.5
0
0
0
0 Clj yes IRR none
pH
0 C12 yes IRR none ...
pH
0 none yes IRR none no
... LAB ... IRR EHD,DIS no
GRD
0 none yes IRR none no
IRR ... no
GRD
0 none yes IRR SHD no
0 C12 yes IRR OR, BOD, no
DIS
IRR ... no
0 LAB . . . IRR DWQ no
GRD
.. IRR ... no
1
1
none PS 0
... none .
... PrS 4
none none 0
... none 1
ST none 1
.0
.2
.3
..
f 4
.2
.5
.7
.0
.5
none PS 16.
PCL
PCL
PCL
RSL
PCL
TF,
PCL
PCL
SCL
PCL
PCL
POL
PCL
,TF,ECL 2.4
,TP,SCL 2.7
,TF
, AS, SCL* 0
,TF 10.0
OXPD 9.5
,OXPD 0
,TF,AER, 5
,POL
, AS, SCL 0
,TF,SCL, ...
, AS, SCL, 1.0
1.0 no *?1.00 per year
user charge
3.0 no *?1.00 per year
user charge
user charge
5.5 yes *3 plants in city
0
0.5 ...
0
0.5 ...
0 no
0.3 yes
... yes
CA-44
CA-45
CA-46
CA-47
CA-43
CA-49
CA-50
CA-51
CA-52
CA-53
CA-54
CA-55
CCOAG, SF
... PS 0
none ... 4
... none 1
.1
.0
02
.3
PCL
PCL
MMF
RO
AS,
, AS, SCL 1.0
,AS,ECL, 15
SCL 0.2
2.3 ...
3.5 yes *user charge: 1/2
potable water cost
. . . yes *experimental
boiler feed
2.0 ...
CA-56
CA-S7
CA-58
CA-59
none no IRR SHD
none PS ... PCL,AS,SCL 2.0
yes
CA-60
IRR SHD,BOD,no
SS
none none 1.4 PCL,TF,ECL, 13.
POL
CA-61"
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrSPrivateSource
Pb Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
/ijTGAuU'l.iat icTesting
Pt-C Pro (. Por.t Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Tasting
S'.' Stjta Testing Only
rUEATI'J'.MT PROCESSES
-rHIi-l/\KV 1 RI.A~!'.i::."-
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TKF.AT."ii:NT
AS Acti-. atedSludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIAT/ TREATMENT
ANTil Antliraclte filter
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH ph Ad justment
*>OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
289
-------
8
MUNICIPAL
PT.ANT
LOCATION
AS
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
w
U Q
TOTAL AVERA
VOLCME , MG
B2h
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE, %
B3
f- 0)
SIGMIFICAN
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPE
.V.TRAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT
Cla
£r,
AVERAGE RF.U
VOLUME, MG
Clc
W
SEASON OF
MAXIMUM REU
C2a
r-l
•x
o-
Z
O
a
C2b
r-4
Cr
w
M
C2c
H
O-
X.
Ul
a
C2d
X,
tr
£
IQ
C2e
\
en
CHLORIDES, M
C2f
rH
a
TO REUSE
•C2g
COLIFORMS
MPN
C2h
HEAVY METAl
TYPES
CA-62 SANTA ROSA, CA
CA-63 SANTEE, CA
CA-64 SHATTER, CA
CA-65 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
CA-66 STRATHMORE, CA
(Strathroore, PUD)
CA-67 SUSANVILLE, CA
(Susanville San. Dist.)
CA-68 TAFT, CA
CA-69 TEHACHAPI, CA
CA-70 THOUSAND OAKS, CA
CA-71 TULARE, CA
CA-72 TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA
(U.S. Marine Corps)
CA-73 VALLEY CENTER, CA
(Valley Center MWD)
CA-74 VENTURA, CA
CA-75 VISALIA, CA
CA-76 WASCO, CA
(Wasco PUD)
CA-77 WEED, CA
CA-78 WOODLAND, CA
CO-1 AURORA, CO
CO-2 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
SYMBOLS
gU;M.,JVV MOMTORIl.T, DEVfCCS
CON Conductivity Neter
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pH pH Analizer
TURB Tuibidinoter
pURrosr OF rL':i'SE
DOM Uorestic
FJSII Fish Habitation
1967
1961
1938
1966
1949
1951
1951
1937
1968
1926
1954
1965
1966
1966
1937
1948
1930
1969
1971
0 . 2
3.3
1.0
2.7
0.2
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.1
3.8
1.2
0.01
5.5
5.1
0.8
0.2
4.5
1.3
21.0
IND
IRR
GRD
REC
0 none 0 .
1 none 1 .
0.5 food, 1.
meat
0 none 2.
2
0
0
7
... 10
none 5
spr 54
sum
spr 1
sura
7.1 2.1 ...
9 1168 207 245 7.2 2
98 7.0 ... ...
0 250 5 30 7.0 2 none
60 ... 0.'
0 ... 0.
... 1
0 none 0.
0 none 0.
82 dairy 3.
proc.
0 none 0.
0 none 0 .
25 fruit 0.
proc.
25 ... 5.
20 ... 0.
5 none 0 .
50 veg. 6.
proc.
1 oil 0.
10 plating, 7.
elec.
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground Water
Recreat j on
2
0
4
1
e
5
01
3
1
7
2
0
4
0*
sum 40
... 120
spr 1
sum
fall
... 70
... 25
spr 30
sum
... 40
. * . 150
... 14
spr 25
sum
spr 10
sum
win 8
Recharge
END USK QUALITY CFTTER
JlUU
B
Cl
DIS
DU'Q
Low bfjLJ Kecu
Low Boron Re
Low Cl Rcqui
Disinfection
lit
oui
rod
I A
o~
red
Rccuircd
Drinking Water
Quality
30 50 ...
1 450 124 136 7.7 2.1 none
... 460 180 40 7.4 0
7.0 ... ...
30 2000 400 400 7.2 23 '....
32 600 ... 175 7.5 ... ...
173 7.0 . . . .
33 6 ... ...
9.2 ... ...
20 900 7.4
2 650 50 20 6.9 225 Cu
Cr
Zn
FD Free of Debris
PO4 Phosphate Removal
NH;j Low N'Hj Required
OR Odor Renoval
pH pH Adjustment Roauired
SHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USPUS U.S. Public Health Stds.
290
-------
PRODUCER im'ORXATION
Hi: ,'i.M -L
(Cost Data
'Nppend i x
D7
IARGES
PLtT.NT
^C
(JU,^
UJW
E-
M a
KC
Dt,
D8
to
w
--H O
H T: -i
it UJ 1-0
[-• p
L' tn
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
O 0*
E- ~
n £
t/3 U.
E2
o
>• xC y,
0
£3
7.
c r
i-- r
H M
2? C-'.
u t:
M
USER INFORMATION
F6
t,
0
w
M OT
PURPOS
RLl
F7
W > *£
W E- M
P i-i Ci
C < £-
aj o c:
u
F9
x tl
c, y
n t*:
n a.
C ft
F10
to
>- a
S3
J ZJ
< !J
U U
Of*
<
W
F8
•1ENTAL 1
•>LY I
SUPPLE
SUP
MUNICIPAL SFWAGF
TREATMENT PLANT
DF.SICN 1NFOPWATION
G5
n
0
2:
g>
(/) —1
fb;2
C.
rt1
0
G6 4 7
f-« w
X. tc
^?K
ss
w o
2 K
H 0.
(Jib
Q
C
X.
'. t] -
O
09
:*: o"
c
GIG
o
C
X
Ki-
E- W
-------
'"•om
"^5^-
T^S,-
'^PC*;,
«'r r:. '•---
£•("!_•>
\.V~J
CO- 4
CO- 5
£0—6
FL-1
MbNICIPAL
PJ.ANT
LOCATION
AS
REUSE
EGAN
5"
'£
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Rla
ti
u c
§£
S -
"*!
o §
EH
B2h
STRIAL
T'F,, %
o <
2 X
M
B3
< < ft.
O M >•
£ EH
M Ul W
7; U EH
C O tn
W M 2
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
in O
|2
2 3
fcj §
<
Clc
Ed
(/]
tuS
c r
to £j
W M
C/] X
C2a
tr
Q"
o
(Q
C2b
v.
o--
s:
tn
w
C2c
^H
tr
s:
to
Q
EH
C2d
f
nl
a:
C7e
^
ET
£.
w
S
£
3
X
u
C2f
•H
X
X
a
C2g
0 2
C2h
-3
2
a,
>H >4
> CH
cu
X
(U.S. Air Force Academy) sum
DENVER, CO 1970 150 20 plating 0.1 ... 3 0 800 7.2 5 Pb
(Denver Board of Water - Zn
Commissioners) -Wo
DENVER, CO 1940 0.5 0 none 0.5 spr 25 20 43 100 100 7.2 0 ....
(Fitzsimons Gen. Hosp.) sum
sum • •
fall
COCOA BEACH. FL 1969 2.7 0 none 1.0 none 1 1 17 7.2 25 none
PL-2
ID-1
KY-1
MD-1
TALLAHASSEE, FL
BOISE, ID
1966
1971
2.0 0 none
0.1 10 paint
OKOLONA, KY 1971
(Okolona Sewer Con. Dist)
BALTIMORE, HD
1.0 0 none
1942 170. 4
2.0 ... 57 16
29
0.1 spr 79
sum
1.0
375 120
44
433 56
65
0.5
7.4 ...
7.3 ... none
7.2 ...
450 75
100
7.0 5 x Zn
106 Fe
ra-1 BELDING, MI
MI-2 MIDLAND, MI
MO-1 JEFFERSON CITY, MO
(Mo. State Park Board)
MO-2 LOCKWOOD, MO
NE-1 SHELBY, NE
NV-1 ELY, NV
NV-2 LAS VEGAS, NV
NV-3 LAS VEGAS, NV
(Clark Co. San. Dist.)
NV-4 KINNEMUCCA, NV
NJ-1 VINELAND, NJ
(Landis Sewerage Auth.)
NM--1 ARTESIA, NM
1972 0.5 10 none
1968
1972
1971
1961
1967
1958
1962
1966
1965
6.0 10 none
0.4 0 none
0.5 0 none
0.05 0 none
1.5 2
27.0 0 none
12.5 0 none
0.4 10 none
3.8 60 ...
0.05
6.0
0.04
0.5
1.0
3.8
4.3
0.4
.3.8
spr 6
sum
sum 25
spr ...
sum
spr 15
SUIQ
20
spr 21
sum
spr 19
sum
fall
... 20
8
25
450
18
22
11
70
125
250
68
7.5 0
7.6 1000 none
8.7
8.0 200
985
1550 ... 330
7.6
7.6
8.5
1960 0.6 5
0.6
25
7.4
SYMBOLS
gUALITV
DEVICES
Cl2 Ci2 K'jsicual An a i 1 7 c r
CON Conductivity [later
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pH pi! Analizer
TURB TurbidinoLer
PURPOSE OF R!A'Si:
DOM
WSH
Donuj^ic
Fish Habitation
IND Industrial FD
IRR Irrigation PO^
GRD Ground Water Recharge NH3
REC Recieation OR
F.ND USE QUALITY CRITERIA pll
COD Low iiOD k.;c;uircd EHD
B Low Boron Required SS
Cl Low Cl Required TUS
DIS Disinfection Rcouired USPHS
D\<0 DrinkiiKj Water Quality
Free of Debris
Phosphate Removal
Low NH3 Required
Odor Removal
pH Adjustment Reauired
State Health Dept. Stds.
Low SS Required
Low TDS Required
U.S. Public Health Stds.
292
-------
PPODUCER I.-JFGKMATION
(Cost Data
e.pp-r
D7
^H
< -J t?
— U- 21
uu-^
dix
06
r- ^
c~> c/j o
—t o
TOTAL
EFFLUES*
SI
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
Kl
Q dfl
C t-
'J~, 2
a u.
I-/ U.
t/i to
E2
t- X V,
•^ E- >
^j — u:
O;: c
c
E3
7-,
f- •-•
P
-" —
USER INFORMATION
K6
C
1$
C-
F7
l/l E-l l-H
^ M o;
n < £-
rJ c- a;
u
F9
E- <
•- LL.
Q OL
F10
S2
< U
O k.
F8
F-
V. >
SUPPLE
SUP
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
O5
c
.,/:
nr. si
CAPACIT
tj6 I. 7
*s
tZ §
EH C.
G3b
a
;7 w -
G3
u
:- rci
-; S'^p^p
£ j"-< cSi
-ifl
G1C
o
tJ t-
H "
ALT n H:
DISPOSAL
COMMENTS
"-*. ;.'
;-?|v::;
?i§!/-
0 pH yes IRR OR.DIS, yes PPC FS
REC SHD
D ... yes RiD DWO
2.2 PCL,TF,SCL, 128 6.0
AER,AS
RO,IE,CADS, ... ...
SF.CCOAG, Ni-
trogen Rem.
yes
00 0 none yes IRR none no none none 0.9 PCL,TF,SCL 2.3 0.3 yes
0.0 0 LAB yes IRR DIS no LAB PS
3.5 PCL,TF,SCL, 3.0 3.0 yes "Micro-Floe fil-
MMF* tration
CO-3
CO-4
CO-5
CO-6
a o
o o
0 0
0 0
1.33 60
0 none no IRR SHD
IRR . ..
... LAB yes IRR SHD,DIS,no none none
USPI1S
FISH ...
0 ... yes IKD ...
0 LAS yes IRR DIS
no LAB none 3.0 AER,SCL,OXPD... 0.3 yes
no ... none 2.5 PCL,TF,SCL 5.0 0 ... .""
0.5 OX?D,AER, 0.4 0.5 yes «Micro-Floc fil--
CCOAG.MMF* tration
1.0 RSL,OXPD, 1.8
AER
yes none PS ... PCL,TF,SCL, 75.0 5.0 yes *sed..Clj,screen-
* AS** ing;**TF-150 mgd,
AS-20 mgd
no none none ... RSL
0 yes
FL-1
FL-2
ID-1
KY-1
MD-1
MI-1
3.33 0 ... none yes IND ... PS
00 0 LAB yes IRR SS,B no LAB none
. .. RSL ... 0 ...
0 none yes IRR none no none none ... PCL,TF,OXPD 136 0.5 yes
HI-2
MO-1
MO-2
0 none yes IRR SHD no ST none .05 RSL
yes *irrig. twice NE-1
during sunrner
no ... none 3.0 RSL,AER,
OXPD
3.0 yes
Cl,
IND
PPC
plant
NV-1
.20. 42.5 0 LAB no IRR BOD.SS yes LAB PS 30 PCL,TF,ECL 0 1.0 yes *LCOAG at steam NV-2
.30 ._ 63.9 0 LAB yes IRR BOD,SS yes LAB PS 12 PCL,TF,SCL 6.0 1.5 yes *LCOAG at steam NV-3
_ IND * plant
.0 .0 0 none yes IRR none
0 0 yes GRD
no none PS 1.5 OXPD,AER 33.0 0 yes
no ... none 5.0...
NV-4
NJ-1
0.5
IRR
4.0
1.5
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrSPrivate Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO AuLoinat 1C Testing
PPC Fro k Pont Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TREATS'JNT PnoCTT.SlJS
-i'hiK.\R\ TRi-/vr;u::,r
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewaae Lagoon
-SECCN-DAF.Y TPEATH!:NT
ASActivatedSludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
ANTHAnthracite Filter
*flat rate annual NM-1
bid
1
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sar.d Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Decoration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lire Coagulation
pi! ph Adjustment
POL Polishing Po.ms
RO po'-'erse Osmosis
293
-------
jj
:V=ft"
'Ip?
7^v*l-
u'F-SlIr.,«-.-""n irr
,
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
AS
REUSE
EGAN
5 ra
W
SH
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
AVERAGE
ME, MGO
"3 3
< iJ
H O
C >
H
B2h
Si-
t£ -
E-. ca
HI
B3
IFICA'IT
STRIAL
E TYPES
C Q w
tfl £ ~
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
:c
u: 0
n 0
s*
<*?
*•
Clc
W
2
o r
< i
"2
C2a
\
Cr
E
D
O
CQ
C2h
(H
\
cr
z
en
en
C2c
•-I
1
en
Q
e-<
C2d
•-I
\
tr
Z
«
2
C2e
X.
DI
£
to
g
M
K
s
o
C2f
rH
X
tr
X
X*
a
C2g
O 2
y
CJh
^
H 01
£ u
a.
^
w
£
NH-2 CLOVIS, NM
NH-3 DEMING, NM
NM-4 DEXTER, NM
NM-5 JAL, NM
NH-6 LORDSBURG, NM
NM-7 LOS ALAMOS, NM
(Los Alamos Co. Utilities)
NM-8 ROSHELL, NM
NM-9 RATON, NM
NM-10 TUCUMCARI, NM
ND-1 -DICKINSON, NO
OK-1 ENID, OK
OK-2
OR-1
FREDERICK, OK
HILLSBORO, OR
PA-l UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
(Penn. State University)
TX-1 ABILENE, TX
TX-2 AMARILLO, TX
TX-3 BIG SPRING, TX
TX-4 DENTON, TX
TX-5 HONDO, TX
SYKDOLS
QUALITY MOMITORII.T, DEVICES
CON
LAB
pil
TURB
PURPOSE 0
BOM Dor.-; c ic
FISH Fish Habitation
Conductivity t:cter
Laboratory Analysis
pi I Analizer
Turbidir'.-tnr
1935 4.0
1941 1.5
1951 0 3
1949 0 3
1951 0.4
1948 3.0
1951 0.5
1951 1. 0
1958 1 0
1954 5 0
1919 0.6
1941 1.0
1963 0.5
1958 8.7
1954 10.
1943 0.5
1972 6.0
1968 0.4
IND
IRR
GRD
REC
n;.'D
BOU
B
Cl
DIS
DWO
milk
sum
fall
18 meat 3.0 spr 55
packing sum
sum
5 dairy 0 1 spr 42
proc. sum
23 20 31
17 ... 0.2 ... 4.2
0.5
12 ... 3.2 ... 17
0 7 meat, 6.3* spr 10
food, sum
laundry
1 metals, 1.5 none 30
meat
0 none 0.4 ... 30
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground Water Recharge
Recreation
USE C't'AI.ITY CRITERIA
I,'. ;w I1 '^H Koq ui r od
I,o w Boron Ren ui red
Low Cl Required
Disinfection Rccrui red
Drinking Water Qual ity
69 1021 *. ».. 7.6 ..* ...
26 7.4 ... ...
100 . . ... ... 7.2 ... ...
148 7.2
66 7.1 BOO . ..
.. . 750 ... 168 7.1 ... Mg
15 1400 300 300 7.7 0 none
30 960 7,0 ... ...
38 127 ... 70 7.2 16,000 Cr
Zn
96 8.4 ... ...
FD Free of Debris
PO* Phosphate Removal
NK3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Removal
pH pi! Adjustment Renuired
SHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Reouired
L'SPLiS U.S. Public Health Stds.
294
-------
PRODUCER INFORTJITION
REVENUE
(Cost Data
^ppcndix
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
DE
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUTNT »
E2
O
>- r.
D ^ w
C';: ci
c
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOI.EHATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9 F10
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
QUALIVY
SAFEGUARDS
FS
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN
CAPACITY, MGD
06 t 7
TREATMI.HT
PROCESSES
G8b
EFFLUENT I
S TO PAGE
CAPACITY, MGD |
CJ
(-"•
f- ~3'
.'- O
_) T.'j
£'&
' 1 'J. f.
^E-C
l/
>-
a
G 1 C
ALTFFC.'ATE
DISPOSAL METHOD!
-^4' i '^i.» ^aaTBSJcayr'j ^{-V[!K»
COMMENTS
" j't^x'.'
1
.i^y<-;
"rtaJ"i'
1.0
". .. 0.2'
* 0.5
0 0
120 3.4
IRR
IRR ...
0 LAB no IRR ...
PS PCL.OXPD 0 ... 'user charge SIOOO
per year
none 2.0 PCL,TF,OXPD 13.0 0.3 ... 'flat rate annual
bid
'flat rate
... 3.0 ... *S40 per month
flat rate
2.4 2.0 ...
NM-2
NM-3
NM-4
NM-5
NH-6
NM-7
11 7.7
IRR
PS 5.0 PCL,TF,SCL 0
3.0 yes
NM-8
• 0.2 2 none yes IRR ...
0 o IRR -•• no •'• • none 1-° PCL.TF.SCL 0
0 o yes IRR none no none PS 0.8 RSL 0
'user charga S200 NM-9
per year
0.5 yes NM-10
0.2 no
ND-1
7 5.0
0 0
IND ...
IRR SHD
00 0 none yes IRR EHD
yes LAB PS 8.5 PCL,AS,SCL 0 2.0 yes *user treatment: OK-1
* chem. addition
no PCL,AS,SCL 0 1.5 yes
yes RSD ... 4-0
... 5.0 yes
OK-2
no none PrS* 2.0 PCL,AS,SCL 3.7 0.5 yes 'industrial waste OR-1
water
PA-1
0
145
.79* 14.4
1RR ... 12. PCL,AS,SCL 600 3.0
TX-1
LAB yes IRR BOD.SS, yes LAB PS 15. PCL,AS,SCL
IND pH *** PrS
1 none yes IND TDS.PO^.yes LAB PS 1.4 PCL.AER'"
HARD.
.80 10.8 67
.0,
I .
LAB yes IND SS.POj, yes LAB PS
TDS *
PCL,AS,SCL
none yes IRR none no none none 0.4 PCL,OXPD
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrS Private Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFlXUAP.nS
AUTO Automatic Testing
PPC Pre Cr Post Chlonnation
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
.
-PRIMARY TRr.AT;u.:iT
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT
T5Activated Sludge
AER Aeration Only
TF1 Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemi^al Coagulation
OXPD Oxida'-.ion Ponds
-TERTIARY T^ATKCNT
Anthracite Filter
18.0 10. yes *ind. use-4.5 mgd; TX-2
"avg. ind. charge
580-590 per MG,-*"
User treatment:
LCOAG.Alum. Floe.,
Clar..Soft.
1.0 2.0 yes 'graduated charge; TX-3
"user treatment:
hot lime,hot zeo.,
DAER,ANTII;"'Hayes
aeration
10.0 2.0 yes 'user treatment: TX-4
shock chlorin.,pH
adjustment
TX-5
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Dcaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH ph Adjustment
POL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
295
-------
11
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
A 5
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
P«ODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Pla
UJ
u a
OTAL AVKRA
VOLUME, MG
B2h
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE , ?
B3
£-. M
SICNIFICAN
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPE
A'/ERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
&
VERAGE REU
VOLUME, MG
<
Clc
w
SEASON OF
AXIMUM REU
£
C2a
•H
X
cr
X.
0
o
m
C2b
V.
Cr
£
W
C2c
•H
Cr
£
en
0
C2d
rH
\
C2e
N.
LORIDES, M
X
C2f
X
cr
z
s:
a
C2g
COLIFORMS,
HPN
C2h
3
w w
£ UJ
s*
w
TX-6 LUBBOCK, TX
TX-7 McKINNEY, TX
TX-8 MIDLAND, TX
TX-9 ODESSA, TX
1938 14.2 20 packing, 11.4 ... ,65 66
dairy,
plating
1938 14.2 20 packing, 2.8 ... O.8 20
dairy,
plating
1650 450 460 7.8
... 0.2 11 8
... 4.3 5 packing 4.3 none 250 250 1200 235 305 6.7 ... trace
1956 6.5 1 plating 5.5 sum 10 13 1300 ... 250 7.4 6 x
TX-10 REESE ATD, TX
TX-11 SAN A-NGELO, TX
TX-12 U7ALDE, TX
EUNNYSIDE, UT
(Kaiser Steel Corp.)
UT-1
WA-1 HALLA WALLA, WA
WA-2 WARDEN, WA
1943 0,3 0 none
0.02 sum 8
4.8 19 packing, 4.8 none 77
dairy
1938 0.9 0 none
1954 0.1 25 none
1929 6.3 10 food
proc.
1964 1.3 100 food
proc.
0.9 none 40 60
0.1 ... 9.4 15
8.3
28
14
1.3 spr 1100 127
sum
fall
324 428 8.2
7.0
7.4 93-x
103
6.5 ...
9.5 none
I.AB
pH
TUR3
(,
2 r.-'i; j .1L.U- .--.:: a -1 r.er
Conductivity 'i^t'jr
Laboratory Analysis
p!i A.-.ali;er
Vurbidipeter
or T-; ' .--;•
Fif.h ila!)itc\tio:i
IND Industrial
I^.R Irrigation
GRD Ground V.'acer Recharge
Fil.C Recrcat j on
r;:-j VST. o\-..: ITY C-I:T":A
tl^u) Low ii^J r"q-iruu
B Low Boror. Rcnuircd
Cl low Cl Rrn'iired
CIS Disinfection Required
fl'O Drin'Mr.g li.itiT Quality
FD Free of Debris
PO^ Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low N^3 Required
OR Odor Renoval
pM pH Adjustment Reauired
SHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Reouired
UEPHS U.S. Public Health Stds.
296
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVENUE
(Cost Data
Appendix )
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
D8
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
' SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT (,
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTEKRUPTION 1
TOLHUATION |
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL I
TREATMENT |
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
GS
DESIGN
CAPACITY, MGD
GC i 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
G9
" tFFLLY.NT
TRANSPORT
nTST.V.T? . MTT,F =
G10
ALTERNATE 1
3IEPOSAL METHOD]
COMMENTS
•K^v*. '•'
001 Cl2 yes IRR none yes LAE PS 12 PCL,TF,SCL 0 3.0 yes *user treatment:
. ..... * OXPD ....
TX-6
119 42.7 1 C12 yes IND BOD,SS, yes LAB PS 12 PCL,AS,SCL 0 3.0 yes 'user treatment:
i. - - PH,C1, * LCOAG,RO,IE,ANTH,
P04 pH adjustment
IRR ...
00 0 none yes IRR ...
125 250* 0 LAB yes IND **
0 0 none yes IRR none
0 0 none yes IRR none
PS
2.0
no none none 6.0 PCL,TF,OXPD
TX-7
TX-8
yes LAB PrS 3.0 PCL,AS,SCL 15.0 0.5 yes *user pays munici- TX-9
•** pal treat, costs;
**high quality for
boiler feed;***
LCOAG.pH.ANTH.IE
no none none ... ...
no none none 5.0 PCL,OXPD
130. 0 no
TX-10
TX-11
000 none yes IRR
0 0 10 TURB yes IRR SHD
LAB
15 Cl2 yes IRR ...
no none none 1.0 PCL,OXPD 2.6 0 no
TX-12
no ST none 0.3 PCL.TF.SCL* ... 0.5 yes «coke-breeze fil- UT-1
ter
no none PS 7.5 PCL.TF.SCL 0 1.0 ...
25 LAB yes IRR none no none PS 1.5 PCL.OXPD,
AER
2.0 no
WA-1
WA-2
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PtS Private Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO Automatic Vesting
PVC Pre & Post Chlcrinatlon
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TRT.,vni>:NT PROCESSES
-»H i VJ.HY 1 Ki::vl'tii-:ri' _
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREAT,".L'NT
ASActivatedSludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
AN1H Anthracite Kilter
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorp'-ion
CCOAG Ch.-mical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation .
pll pn Adjustment
"OL Polishing Porus
RO Reverse Osmosis
297
-------
il
•ftr'Si'
MUNICIPAL
PTJtfJT
LOCATION
A5
u
tn
H S
K O
U
S
INFLUENT
Bla
OTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, MGD
H
B2h
INDUSTRIAL
WAST'E, %
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
PRCDuCCR INFORMATION
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
VERAGE REUSE
VOLUME, MGD
i"
Clc
SEASON OF
AXIMUM RE:ISE
a:
C2a
o-
E
Q"
O
a
C2b
s-
W
to
C2c
8
C2d
•H"
V,
0
z
C2e
\
CT>
E
tn
g
M
K
O
g
C2f
£
a:
a
C2g
COLIFORMS ,
MPN
C2h
g
W V)
£ u'i
e*
|p
w
AZ-1
BAGDAD, AZ
(Bagdad Copper Corp.)
1967 0.2 0 none 0.2 none 14 100 100 18 12 6.8
AZ-2
AZ-3
A2-4
A2-5
AZ-6
AZ-7
AZ-8
AZ-9
AZ-10
AZ-11
AZ-12
AZ-13
A2-14
AZ-15
CASA GRANDE, AZ
FLAGSTAFF, AZ
FLORENCE, AZ
(Arizona State Prison)
FT. HUACHUCA, AZ
(Ft. Huachuca Mil. Res.)
GRAND CANYON, AZ
KEARNV. AZ
LAKE HAVASU, AZ
HESA, AZ
MORENCI, AZ
(Phelps Dodge Corp.)
PHOENIX, AZ
(23rd Avenue Plant)
PHOENIX, AZ
(91st Avenue Plant)
PRESCOTT, AZ
SHONTO, AZ
(BIA,Shonto Board. School)
TOLLESON, AZ
1959
1972
1953
1941
1928
195C
1972
1957
1957
1932
1971
1958
1965
1968
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
40
60
1.
0.
1.
,0
0
7
5
2
6
6
3
6
.0
.0
5
1
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
10
0
7
7
0
0
60
none
none
none
deterg.
NaCl
none
none
none
none
plating
plating
none
none
meat
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
,0.03
0.5
0.6
4.3
0.6
28.0
60.0
0.5
0.1
1.1
sura
spr
sum
spr
sum
none
none
none
spr
sura
17
55
27
10
5
45
20
13
70.
35
23
30 7,
111 8,
7.
10 616 ... 200 7.
0.1 1 7
30 350 7.
20 800 ... 300 7.
25 1000 7.
117 7.
... 350 8.
16 2250 7.
,2 ...
.0 100,000 none
i3 ...
0 0
5 50,000 ...
5
4 3.5 x ...
10"
0 ... ...
7 1400 ...
0
pack
plating
AZ-16
AZ-17
CA-1
CA-2
WILCOX, AZ
KINSLOW, AZ
AEMONA, CA
ARVIN, CA
CA-3 AVENAL, CA
... 0.2 0 none
1958 0.8 0 none
1951 0.3 0 none
1952 0.5 0 none
... 0.5 0 none
0.2
0.5 ... 50
0.3
0.5
0.5
8.5 ... . ..
7.3 ... ...
•i CA-4
BAKERSFIELD, CA
(Plant 11)
1912 3.6 14 dairy, 3.6
poultry
370 118 630 181 96
7.0
SYMBOLS
iatlALITY MONITORING DEVICES
Cl2Cl2Residual AnaJizcr
CON Conductivity Meter
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pll pll Aiializer
TURB Turbidincter
PURPOPF. OF RT'JSK
otl
FJEH
Domestic
Fish Habitation
IND Industrial
IRR Irrigation
GRD Ground Water Recharge
REC Recreation
HUD USE QUALITY CRITERIA
BOD Low liOD Required
B Low Boron Required
Cl Low Cl Required
DIE Disinfection Rcciuircd
DWQ Drinking Water Quality
FD Free of Debris
PO. Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Removal
pH pll Adjustment Roouired
SIID State Health Dept. 3tds.
ES Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
L'SPUS U.S. Public Health Stds.
298
-------
i
;.~? ---•;
PT.ANT
LOCATIOM
. A5
U
Pi ffl
«:
a
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Pla
OTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, MGD
B2n
INDUSTRIAL
WASfE, %
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TVPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
VERAGE REUSE
VOLUME , MGD
<
Clc
SEASON OF
AXIMUM REt'SE
r
C2a
\
a-
a
0
C2h
l-l
X.
o-
£
C2c
cr
£
a
f-
C2d
z
C2e
LORIDES, Mg/J
R
C2f
X
o-
a:
a
C2q
COLIFORMS,
MPN
C2h
1EAVY METAL
TYPES
CA-5
CA-6
CA-7
CA-8
BAKERSFIELD, CA
(Plant 12)
BAKERSFIELD, CA
(Mt. VernonCo. -San. Dist)
BAKERSFIELD, CA
(No. of River San. Dist. 11)
BURBANK, CA
1912 8.5
1949 3.8
1947 2.3
1967 5.2
0
1
1
2
8.5
65 26 324 87.4 49.6 7.4
cotton, 3.8 win 50
chemical
2.3
50
mfg.
50 425 ...
12
2 500 88
... 7.4 ...
... 7.5
82 7.2 10
tra<
CA-9 CALABASAS, CA
(Las Virgenes MWD)
CA-10 CALISTOGA, CA
CA-11 CAMARIL1O, CA
1965 3.0 10 *
1972 0.2 1
3.0 ... 5
870 7.8 2.2
0.1 sum 13 61 528 122 141 8.4 12,000 ...
1958 2.3 11 plating, 2.3 none 10 14 900 321 195 7.5 2.2 none
chemical
CA-12 CAHARILLO, CA 1935 0.2 0 none 0.3 ... 6
(Canarillo St. Hospital)
6 0.1 0 283 7.4 2.2 none
... 450 110 100 8.4 23
1942 2.4 5 meat 2.4 ... 10 12 8 70 70 7.5 2 none
1941 0.6 20 laundry 0.5 none 15 15 610 62 40 6.9
1938 1.0 5 food 0.2 none 20 5 475 ... 69 7.2 ... none
proc.
CA-13 CHINA LAKE, CA 1955 1.6 20 air 0.7 ... 7
(Naval Weapons Center) cond.
CA-14 CIIIHO, CA
CA-15 CHINO, CA
(Calif. Inst. for Hen)
CA-16 COACHELLA, CA
(Coachella San. Dist.)
.CA-17 CORNING, CA
CA-18 CUTLER, CA
.(Cutler PUD)
CA-19 DELANO, CA
CA-20 EARLIMART, CA
(Earlimart PUD)
CA-21 EXETER, CA
SYMBOLS
bUALITY MONITORING DEVICES
Cl2cTjKusiUual Analizer
CON Conductivity tleter
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pH pll Analizer
TURB Turbidincter
PURPOSE or RI:USE
DOMbonestic
NSH
Fish Habitation
X3,)W U.J
1960 0.4
1948 2.7
1960 0.3
1 qcc Q 7
J.7->-J V • 1
IND
IRR
GRD
REG
KNI)
[)6D
B
Cl
DIS
DNQ
J.W iUUU U • £ O LUJJ f, J
proc.
5 none 2.7 ... 70
packing
Industrial^
Irrigation'-^
Ground Water Recharge
Recreation
USE QUALITY CRITERIA
Low 1JOU Required
Low Doron Required
Low Cl Required
Disinfection P.couircd
Drinking Water Quality
•« 3 J.1
62
FD
P04-
Nl!3
OR
P"
SHD
SS
TDS
USPUS
... 0 7.0 ...
... i .
Free of Debris
Phosphate Removal
Low NH3 Required
Odor Removal
pll Adjustment Rcouired
State Health Dcpt. Stds.
Low SS Required
Low TDS Required
U.S. Public Health Stds.
299
-------
3?r2«
MUNICIPAL
PT.ANT
LOCATION
AS
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
OTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, MGD
fr"
B2b
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE, %
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUEWT
Cla
VERAGE REUSE
VOLUME, MGD
<
Clc
SEASON OF
AXIMIJM REUSE
I
C2a
1-4
X
Z
Q
O
a
C2b
£
cn
(0
C2c
tr
X
tn
e
C2d
x
z
C2e
LORIDES, Mg/1
e
C2E
i-t
c-'
£.
X
a
TO REUSE
C2g
COLIFORMS ,
MPN
C2h
ij
H
W tn
S u
0.
f
CA-22 FALLBROOK, CA
(Fallbrook San. Dist.)
CA-23 FRESNO, CA
(Plant »1)
CA-24 FRESNO, CA
(Plant 12)
CA-25 GEORGE AFB, CA
CA-26 GUADALUPE, CA
CA-27 GUSTINE, CA
CA-26 HANFORD, CA
CA-29 UEMET, CA
CA-30 INDIO, CA
(Valley San. Dist.)
CA-31 IRVINE, CA
(Irvine Ranch W.D.)
CA-32 IVANHOE, CA
(Ivanhoe PUD)
CA-33 KERMAN, CA
CA-34 LACUNA NIGUEL, CA
(Moulton Niguel W.D.)
CA-35 LEUCA0IA, CA
(Lcucadia Co. W.D.)
CA-36 LIVERMORE, CA
CA-37 LODI, CA
CA-38 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
La Canada Plant)
CA-39 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
Lancaster Plant)
CA-40 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.
L Palmdale Plant)
CA-41 LOS ANGELES, CA
CL.A. County San. Dist.
:. Pomona Plant)
SYMBOLS
MONITORING DEVICES
Cl2
CON
LAB
pH
TURB
PURPOSE OF Rj.'USE
DOM Uomost-ic
MSH Fish Habitation
Clj Residual Analizor
Conductivity IKjter
Laboratory Analysis
pll Analizcr
Turbidincter
1954 0.7
1900 26.
1900 12.
1963 0.6
1952 0.5
... 2.7
1901 2.0
1965 2.8
1936 3.4
1967 2.8
1953 0.3
1950 0.3
1966 0.4
1962 0.5
1967 4.2
1968 3.7
1962 0.1
1970 4.0
1964 1.3
1928 7.7
IND
IRR
GRD
REC
KNt)
boo
B
Cl
DIS
DWQ
0 none 0.06 spr 43
Bum
0 20 none 3.9 epr 60
sum
0 30 wine 1.8 spr 60
proc. sum
0 none 0.5 sum 36
0 none 0.5 none 77
65 none 2.0 ... 33
10 milk 2.0 none 40
proc.
1 laundry 1.0 spr 30
sum
10 fruit 0.3 sum 15
proc. fall
0 none 2.8 spr 13
sum
0 none 0.3 ... 200
0 none 0.3 ... 113
5 none 0.4 ... 25
0 ... 0.5 ... 15
17 none 4.2 ... 7.3
11 canning 3.7 spr 13
plating sum
0 none 0.1 none 13
5 none 0.5 sum 3
8 ... 0.7 spr 50
sum
fall
5 none 0.7 sum 15
t ,
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground Water Recharge
Recreation
USE QUALITY CRITERIA
Low HOD Ku'quircU
Low Boron Required
Low Cl Required
Disinfection Reouired
Drinking Wator Quality
47 1100 175 215 7.0 1.4 x 0
10
135 700 140 115 8.4 ... ....
135 700 140 115 8.4 ...
100 150 7.6 ... Cr
72 1670 198 138 7.7 424,000...
90 1130 292 191 9.0
124 70.9 8.7 ... ....
20 720 145 135 7.3 1.8 x none
106
40 452 ... 100 7.2 2.3
15 1110 200 160 7.5 2 .none
88 600 ... 0 6.9
30 1075 235 180 7.4 2.0 none
18 375 7.2 2.2
13 768 131 159 6.7 2.5
17 8.6 10 1.6 7.3
36 1122 300 196 6.8 10 Zn
.Fe
3 550 ISO 80 7.6 ... Zn
Fe
200 500 120 55 7.8 ... none
9 564 100 148 7.7 23 ...
. . I ,
FD Free of Debris
PO. Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Rer.oval
pH pH Adjustment Reauired
EHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USP>IS U.S. Public Health Stds.
300
-------
|i
H
MUNICIPAL
PT.ANT
LOCATION
A5
HEAR REUSE 1
BEGAN j
PRODfCH.t INFORMATION
I
INFLUENT
Bla
TOTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, MGD
B2h
INDUSTRIAL
WASfF,, »
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WAS YE TYPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
AVERAGE «EU,Sr 1
VOLUME, MGD |
Clc
SEASON OF 1
MAXIMUM REUSE 1
C2a
r-l
Q
g
C2b
1
w
to
C2c
1
8
C2d
•H
X.
cr
X.
a
z
C2e
CHLORIDES, Mg/1
C2f
X
a
C2q
COLI FORMS ,
MPN
C2h
HEAVY METAL 1
TYPES 1
CA-42 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.-
San Jose Creek Plant)
CA-43 LOS ANGELES, CA
(L.A. County San. Dist.-
Khittier Narrows Plant)
CA-44 MARCH AFB, CA
(March Plant)
CA-45 MARCH AFB, CA
. . (West March Plant)
CA-46 MCFARLAND, CA
CA-47 MOJAVE, CA
(Mojave PUD)
CA-48 OCEANSIDE, CA
CA-49 ORANGE COVE, CA
CA-50 PALM SPRINGS, CA
CA-51 PATTERSON, CA
CA-52 PLEASANTON, CA
1972 30.5 20 none
23 none 7
13 687 ISO 138 8.0 20
1962 17.1 15 none 16 none 12 13 606 130 99 7.6 240
1941 0.4 15 aircrft.0.4 none 15 12 850 175 160 6.8
ma int.
1941 0.3 5 none 0.3 none 15 10 900 220 200 6.8
1949 0.3 5 agri. 0.3 ... 64 259 438 ... 78 6.8 ...
pack.
1945 0.2 0 none 0.2 *. 232 139 8.2 ...
1958 4.4 1 plating 0.6 none 7 IB 1280 285 303 7.7 43
1956 0.4 0 none 0.4
19CO 2.7 0 none 1.0 ... 12 ... 437 ... 58 7.1 2400
1960 0.02 0 none 0.01 ... 33 102 11 8.2 ...
1910 1.3 5 ... 1.3 ... 40 7.4 ...
Fe
Zn
.Pb
Zn
Pb
trace
CA-53 PORTERVILLE, CA
CA-54 POWAY, CA
(Pomerado Co. W.D.)
CA-55 SAN BERNARDINO, CA
CA-56 SAN BRUNO, CA
(San Fran. Co. Jail 12)
CA-57 SAN CLEMENTE, CA
1952 1.3 0 none 0.7 none ... ... ... .... ... ...
1972 0.4 0 none 0.05 sum 18 23 1450 ... 380 8
1962 16 IS none 3.0 sum 13 ... 553 85 83 7.4
1932 0.1 0 none 0.1 ...
1957 2.0 0 none 2.0 0.2 6.9
120 none
2 none
CA-58 SAN DIEGO, CA
CA-S9 SAN DIEGO, CA
I ' (Rancho Bernardo Recla-
L nation Plant)
CA-60 SAN FRANCISCO, CA
|_ (McQueen STP)
CA-61 SANTA MARIA, CA
I .(Laguna Co. San. Dist.)
SYMBOLS •
jjUALITY KOUITORING DEVICES
Cl2 Cl2 Kcsiciual Anali?.Gr
CON Conductivity Meter
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pll pll Analizer
TURB Turbidineter
PURPOSE OF Rllt'SK
B55! Domestic
FISH Fish Habitation
1971 0.02 15 plating, .015 none 7
elect.
1960 1.3 25 plating 1.3
15
35
20 1000 ...... 7.5 23 Cr
Zn
•Cu
1932 1.0 0 none
1964 1.3 2 photo 1.3
0.9 none 10 10 6.9 2.2
23 1144 270 217 7.0 724,000 none
spr
sum
fall
27
IND Industrial
IRR Irrigation
GRD Ground Water Recharge
REC Recreation
END USE QUALITY CRITERIA
E55 Low DO!) Required
B Low Boron Required
Cl Low Cl Required
DIS Disinfection Rcouirod
DW3 Drinking Water Quality
FD Free of Debris
POj Phosphate Removal
NHj Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Removal
pll pll Adjustment Reouired
SHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USPUS U.S. Public Health Stds.
301
-------
\jUE.i)1'LO ."< A i rF RESPONSE
$$&;
|P.
vJl|:
!CPf
W'
•?£&',
MUNICIPAL
PT.ANT
LOCATION
AS
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
TOTAL AVERAGE
VOL'JMR, MGD
B?h
INDUSTRIAL
WASl'E , t
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS or EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
AVERAGE REUSE
VOLl-ME, MGD
Clc
SEASON OP
MAXIMUM REt'SE
C2a
v,
Cr
£
O
O
a
C2b
^
£
en
w
C2c
iH
£
w
a
f
C2d
1
a
z
C2e
CHLORIDES, Mg/1
C2f
r*
s
i
C2g
COLIFORMS ,
MTN
C2h
HEAVY METAL
TYPES
CA-62 SANTA ROSA, CA
CA-63 SANTEE, CA
1967 0.2 0 none
1961 3.3 1 none
0.2 ... 10
1.0 none 5
7.1 2.1
1168 207 245 7.2 2
CA-64 SHATTER, CA
CA-65 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
1938 1.0 0.5 food, 1.0 spr 54 98 7.0
neat sum
1966 2.7 0 none 2.7 spr 1
cum
250 5 30 7.0 2
CA-66
CA-67
CA-68
CA-69
CA-70
CA-71
CA-72
CA-73
CA-74
CA-75
CA-76
CA-77
CA-78
CO-1
STRATHMORE , CA
(Strathraore, PUD)
SUSAN VI LLE, CA
(Susanville San. Dist.)
TAFT, CA
TEHACHAPI, CA
THOUSAND OAKS, CA
TULARE, CA
TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA
(U.S. Marine Corps)
VALLEY CENTER, CA
(Valley Center MWD)
VENTURA, CA
VISALIA, CA
KASCO, CA
(Wasco PUD)
WEED, CA
WOODLAND, CA
AURORA, CO
1949
1951
1951
1937
1968
1926
1954
1965
1966
1966
1937
1948
1930
1969
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
3.
1.
0.
5.
5.
0.
0.
4.
1.
2
8
0
5
1
8
2
01
5
1
8
2
5
3
60
0
0
0
82
0
a
0
25
25
20
5
50
1
none
none
dairy
proc.
none
none
fruit
proc.
...
...
none
veg.
proc.
oil
0.
0.
1
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
5.
0.
0.
6.
0.
,2
,2
4
1
8
5
01
3
1
7
2
0
4
cum
spr
sum
fall
none
spr
sum
...
spr
sum
spr
40 30 50 ...
120
1 1 450 124 136 7.7 2.1 nono
70 ... 460 180 40 7.4 0
30 30 2000 400 400 7.2 23 ....
40 32 600 ... 175 7.5 ...
14 38 6 ....
25 9.2 . ".
10 20 900 7.4 ... '...
CO-2 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
1971 21.0 10 plating/7.0* win 8 2 650 50 20 6.9 225 Cu
elec. cr
Zn
SYMBOLS IND
QUALITY MONITORINC. DEVICES IRR
Cl2CljResidual Analizer GRD
CON Conductivity Meter REC
LAB Laboratory Analysis END
pH pl| Analizer EoU~
TURB Turbidincter B
PURPOSE of R::L'SE cl
bOMDomestic DIS
FJSH Fish Habitation DUO
Industrial FD
Irrigation P04
Ground Water Recharge NIlJ
Recreation OR
USE QUALITY CRITERIA pll
Low BOD Required SHD
Low Boron Required SS
Low Cl Required TDS
Disinfection Renuired USPUS
Drinking Water Quality
Free of Debris
Phosphate Removal
Low NH3 Required
Odor Removal
pll Adjustment Required
State Health Dept. Stds.
Low SS Required
Low TDS Required
U.S. Public Health Stds.
302
-------
ODESTTO.'i.'JA 1 FT
•ifisr.'.
:*[§•$»
i
MUNICIPAL
PJANT
LOCATION
A5
M
«j ID
M
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
u
6X
g -
(
2
C2a
s.
tr
s;
a
o
a
C2b
£
in
w
C2c
X
W
0
C2d
•H
BJ
2
C2e
1 -1
X,
Z
CO
s
K
3
C
C2t
fH
X
i
C2q
COLI FORMS ,
MPN
C2h
P.
** >-
CO-3 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
(U.S. Air Force Academy)
CO-4 DENVER, CO
(Denver Board of Water
Commissioners)
CO-5 DENVER, CO
(Fitzsimons Gen. Hosp.)
CO-6 FT. CARSON, CO
FL-1 COCOA BEACH, FL
FL-2 TALLAHASSEE, FL
ID-1 BOISE, ID
KY-1 OKOLONA, KY
(Okolona Sewer Con. Dist)
MD-1 BALTIMORE, MD
KI-1 BELDING, MI
MI-2 MIDLAND, MI
HO-1 JEFFERSON CITY, MO
(No. State Park Board)
MO-2 LOCKWOOD, MO
NE-1 SHELBY, NE
NV-1 ELY, NV
NV-2 LAS VEGAS, NV
NV-3 LAS VEGAS, NV
(Clark Co. San. Dist.)
NV-4 WINNEMUCCA, NV
5 MJ-1 VINELAND, NJ
. .. (Landis Sewerage Auth.)
NM-1 ARTESIA, NM
SYMBOLS
IQUALITY MONITORING DEVICES
fcl-j Cl2 Residual Analizer
CON Conductivity Motor
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pll pll Analizer
TURB Turbidinoter
PURPOSE OF Ri:USK
DOM Dome s t i c
FJSH Fioh Habitation
1957 1.5 0 none 1.4 spr 20
sum
1970 150 20 plating 0.1 ... 3
1940 0.5 0 none 0.5 spr 25
sum
1971 1.7 5 laundry 0.3 spr 12
sum
fall
1969 2.7 0 none 1.0 none 1
1966 2.0 0 none 2.0 ... 57
1971 0.1 10 paint 0.1 spr 79
. sum
1971 1.0 0 none 1.0 ... 375
)
1942 170. 4 ... 120. 46
1972 0.5 10 none 0.05 spr 6
sum
1968 6.0 1C none 6.0 sum 25
sum
1971 0.5 0 none 0.5 spr 15
sum
1967 152 10 20
sum
1962 12.5 0 none 4.3 spr 19
sum
fall
1ND Industrial
IRR Irrigation
GRD Ground Water Recharge
REC Recreation
END USE QUALITY CRITERIA
OOtl Low HOD Required
B Low Borcn Inquired
Cl Low Cl Required
DIS Disinfection Rcouircd
30 7.1 0.5
0 800 7.2 5
20 43 100 100 7.2 0
17 7.5
1 17 7.2 25
16 433 56 65 7.4 ...
29 0.5 7.3 ...
120 7.2 ...
44 450 75 100 7.0 5 Y.
106
8 125 7.5 0
25 450 ... 250 7.6 1000
11 ... 8.7 ...
70 68 8.0 200
22 1550 ... 330 7.6 ...
: i ... _ i
FD Free of Debris
PO. Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Removal
pH pll Adjustment Roauired
SIID State Health Dept. Std
ES Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USPHS U.S. Public Health Std
none
Pb
Zn
Mo
none
none
2n
Fe
none
...
s .
s .
303
-------
^ut;bTio:.r-.'Ai HK Fr,si"l!iNk _
&K&V
>v».-.
g|k
&££
-jgrc-:
fe
MUNICIPAL
PLANT
LOCATION
AS
YEAR REUSE
BEGAN
INFLOENT
Bla
TOTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, MGD
B2h
INDUSTRIAL
WASfE, %
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
PRODUCER INFOPJ1ATION
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
AVEP.V1E PJ2-JSE
VOLUME, MGD
Clc
SEASON OF
MAXIMUM REUSE
C2a
\
cr
X
§
DQ
C2b
.-(
\
£
«
W
C2c
ft
1
s
C2d
rH
*
«
Z
C2e
CHLORIDES, Mg/J
C2f
.H
£
S
C2g
COLI FORMS,
MPN
C2h
HEAW METAL
TYPES
(Perm. State University)
IX-1 ABILENE, TX
TX-2 AMARILLO, TX
1958 8.7 12 ...
NM-2
NM-3
NM-4
NN-S
HM-6
NM-7
NM-8
NM-9
NH-10
ND-1
OK-1
OK-2
OR-1
PA-1
CLOVIS, NM
DEMING, NM
DEXTER, NM
JAL, NM
LORDSBURG, NM
LOS ALAMOS, NM
(Los Alamos Co .
P.OSWELL, NM
RATON, NM
TUCUMCARI, NM
DICKINSON, ND
ENID, OK
FREDERICK, OK
HILLSBORO, OR
UNIVERSITY PARK
1935
1941
1951
1949
1951
Utilities)
1948
1951
1951
1958
1954
1919
1941
, PA 1963
4
1
0
n
n
•»
n
i
i
s
0
1
0
n
s
i
,1
4
n
, i
.0
0
.0
.6
.0
.5
17
0
0
0
n
in
?
0
5
71
17
10
meat.
milk
none
none
meat
packing
none
none
proc.
laundry
4.
1
n
n
n
1
0
n,
n
7.
n.
?
0.
s
3 .. .. .
3 ... 118 69 1021 7.6
2 spr 22
sura
fall
0 spr 55 26 7.4 ... ...
sum
5 spr 16 100 7.2
cum
1
1 spr 42
sum
0 ... 31 32 600 7.4 ...
2 ... 4.2 148 7.2 ... ...
0 win 59 66 7.1 BOO ...
5 ...
3.2 ... 17 ... 750 ... 168 7.1 ... Mg
1954 10.0 7 meat, 6.3* spr 10 15 1400 300 300 7.7 0 none
food, sum
laundry
TX-3 BIG SPRING, TX
1943 0.5 0 none
0.5
35 30
960
7.0
TX-4 DENTON, TX
1972 6.0 1
metals,
meat
1.5 none 30 38 127
70
7.2
16,000 Cr
Zn
TX-5 HONDO, TX
1968 0.4 0 none
0.4
.30 96
8.4
SYMBOLS
bUflLlTY MOUITORliJO DCVICHS
Cl2C12 Residual Analizer
CON Conductivity I'.oter
LAB I-aboratcry Analysis
pH pit Analizcr
TURB Tuibidineter
DOM
F-ISH
Domestic
Fish Habitation
IND Industrial
IRR Irrigation
GRD Ground Water Recharge
RDC Recreation
END USE QUALITY CRITERIA
BODLow BUD Required
B Low Boron Required
Cl Low Cl Required
DIE Disinfection Reauircd
DWQ Drinking Water Quality
FD Free of Debris
PO4 Phosphate Removal
NH3 Low NH3 Required
OR Odor Renoval
pH pi! Adjustment Reouired
EHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TBS Required
USPUS U.S. Public Health Stds.
304
-------
OOESTlli'.fJ.MPi; rrSTTTTTP
pUMB F. P "rogrow. ' *
-><•£. "'•-".
MUNICIPAL
PT.ANT
LOCATION
A5
YEAR REUSE 1
BEGAN 1
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
OTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME , MGD
B2b
INDUSTRIAL
WAST'E , I
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
VERAGE REUSE
VOLUME, MGD
<
Clc
SEASON OF
AXIMUM RF.USE
I
C2a
tr
X
a
o
00
C2b
cr
C2c
a
C2d
•H
^.
tr
z
«
C2e
LORIDES, Mg/1
K
C2£
X
a.
C2g
COLI FORMS,
MPN
C2h
1EAVY METAL
TYPES
•tX-6 LUBBOCK, TX
TX-7 MCKINNEY, TX
TX-8 MIDLAND, TX
TX-9 ODESSA, TX
86
1938 14.2 20 packing, 11.4 ... ,65
dairy,
plating
1938 14.2 20 packing, 2.8 18 20 1650 450
dairy,
plating
... 0.2 11 8
... 4.3 5 packing 4.3 none 250 250 1200 235
1956 6.5 1 plating 5.5 sum 10 13 1300 ...
460 7.1
305
250
6.7
7,4
6 x
ID'
IX-10 REESE AFB, TX
TX-11 SAN ANGELO, TX
TX-12 UVALDE, TX
OT-1 SUNNYSIDE, UT
(Kaiser Steel Corp.)
KA-1 WALLA WALLA, WA
WA-2 WARDEN, WA
1943 0.3 0 none 0.02 sum 8
... 4.8 19 packing,4.8 none 77
dairy
324 428 8.2 ... none
1938 0.9 0 none 0.9 none 40 60 7.0 ... ...
1954 0.1 25 none 0.1 ... 9.4 15 7.4 93.x
6.5
1929 6.3 10 food 8.3 ... 28 14
proc.
1964 1.3 100 food 1.3 spr 1100 127 9.5 none
proc. sum
fall
'III
J .
SYMBOLS
"
MONITORING DKVICrS
~CT]> kesitlutil Analjzcr
Conductivity fU:tor
Laboratory Analysis
pll Analizer
Turbiclineter
PURPOSE OF
FJSH
Done ii t- i. c
Fisli Habitation
IND Industrial FD
ISR Irrigation P04
GF.D Ground Water Recharge NHj
REC Recreation OR
END USE QUALITY CRITERIA pll
t)OU Low I1OU R.-quirucT" SHD
B. Low Boron Renuircd SS
Cl low Cl Roquirtxl TDS
DIS Disinfection Ronuircd USPHS
Ol.'O Drinking Water Quality
Free of Debris
Phosphate Removal
Low NH3 Required
Odor Removal
ptl Adjustment Required
State Health Dopt. Stds.
Low SS Required
Low TDS Reouired
U.S. Public Health Stds.
-------
UUfcJiT K^. V"\TFr, KKSI'TTSF.
aC^Y
IP
it
ii??*"ii
MUNICIPAL
I7.ANT
LOCUTION
A5
u
is
u
K a
H
X
PRODUCER INFORMATION
INFLUENT
Bla
OTAL AVERAGE
VOLUME, KGD
fr>
B2h
INDUSTRIAL 1
WAST'E, 4 |
B3
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TYPES
AVERAGE- CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT TO REUSE
Cla
VERAGE REl'SE
VOLUME, MGD |
<
Clc
SEASON OF
AXIMUM REUSE
X
C2a
tr
I
Q"
o
CD
C2h
iH
tn
W
C2c
lH
g
C2d
z
C2e
LORIDES, Mg/1
8
C2f
i
C2g
COLI FORMS ,
MPN
C2h
g
H Ul
X U
O.
|S
U
AU-1 IRYMPLE, AUSTRALIA 64
(Red Cliffs Sewer. Au.)
AO-2 MARYBOROUGH, VICTORIA, 56 0.4 10 tanning 0.1 sum 35 30
AUSTRALIA
(Maryborough Sewer. Au.)
10
AO-3 NHILL, VICTORIA,
AUSTRALIA
AF-1 BULAWAYO, RHODESIA,
AFRICA
40 0.1 0 none 0.1 none 9 26
61 1.6 1.2
350
7.6
7.3
AF-2 PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA 53 20 10 brewery, 9.0 ... 14 12 460 ... 60 7.5 0
dairy/
metal
AF-3 WINDHOEK, SOUTH WEST 68 2.25 10 brewery, 0.7 spr 0.5 0 650 110 91 7.8 0
AFRICA dairy, sum
meat
EN-1 BRISTOL, ENGLAND
1S-1 HAIFA, ISRAEL
MX-1 MONTERREY, MEXICO
65 3.5
3.5
700
100 7.5
Fe
Ni
Zn
Pb
64 14.0 10 none 2.5 sum 70 75 1100 250 400 7.0
55 3.3 1 oil, 2.7 ... 17 10 510 ... 26 7.1
chromate
SYMBOLS
DUALITY MONITORING DEVICES
Clj Clj HoaiJual .\nalizcr
CON Conductivity Meter
LAB Laboratory Analysis
pH pll Anal i^er
TURB Turbidiricter
PURPOSF. OF PIIUSi:
BOH
Domestic
Fish Habitation
IND Industrial
IRR Irrigation
GRD Ground Water Recharge
REC Recreation
END USE QUALITY CRITERIA
I)OD Low BOD Required
B Low Boron Required
Cl Low Cl Required
DIS Disinfection Roouired
DWQ Drinking Water Quality
FD Free of Debris
PO^ phosphate Removal
NH3 Low NIlj Required
OR Odor Renoval
pH pll Adjustment Required
SHD State Health Dept. Stds.
SS Low SS Required
TDS Low TDS Required
USPIIS U.S. Public Health Stds.
306
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
XEVLNUL
(Cost I'ata
\ppcr
D7
se
SS
<-)O
Xfc-Z
UU.-S
Win
Sir
§O
t.
Ciix
D8
u
sa
tn W o
•H O
t* 0
aas
£3
E-> b
b.
u
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
D •«
tc
<;
Q f-
% u
H LJ
(O J
en u.
3 fc.
CO U
E2
u
^ »- u:
02: c
Z
E3
C K
>-< C
ERRUPT
LERATI
Z f
M
USER INFORMATION
F6
b,
O
RPOSE
F^USE
^-)
OH
f7
w > <
tn £-• 1-1
= S£
p s ^
woo;
F9
dfc
o ?:
s$
ss
ni:
F10
en
>• 9
H K
QUALI
AFEGUA
to
TREATMENT PLAIIT
DESIGN INFORMATION
F8 1 GS
g
H
=PLEME
SUPPL
c>
to
Q
£
C5 >^
• • h-
I/I »H
K^
<
o
06 t 7
E- to
^ k;
bJ w
ti U
< o
t.1 O
K K
fr- U.
G8b
D
0
31
E-
FFLUEN
TO RAGE
ACITY,
U to Oj
G9
I,
j£p
UE-E-
t/
C
CIO
o
c
3:
u t,
-------
PRODUCER INrORMATION
REVENUE
(Cost Data
\ppcndix
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
D8
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EF?1A'EMT >
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION
"OjHRAI ICN
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSI: OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
"10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN
CAPACITY, MOD
GC t, 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
GBb
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
G9
EFFLUENT
TRANSPORT
DTSTJ.'-.'rF MTT.TC
G10
ALTERNATE
DISPOSAL METVOD
orKSTic:. ',',•. T P". RESPONSE
COMMENTS
'Wfe
5rS£?
'^•:
"V >'--•
$&*>
"'lOV.
*(&£•;','
^y-/*;:'.
25
30
IRR
PrS 16. PCL
•no irrig. of di- CA-5
rectly consumed
crops . - - .
IRR none no none PrS 6.6 PCL,TF,SCL 0 5.0 no
3.0 PCL,TF,SCL 40.0 0.3 ...
. .._ . CA-7
.43 31.0 0.5 pH, yes IND
LAB
5 . 5.4 0 C12, yes IRR
.TURB
yes LAB PS 6.0 PCL,AS,SCL 0 1.0 yes *end use quality: CA-8
** PPC i desires low TDS,SS,
PO^~,N03", organics
**user treatment:
shock chlorination,
pH adjust., corro-
sion inhibitor
AS
5.0 ... *industries treat CA-9
wastes before dis-
charge
0098 none yes GRD ...
0 0 1 ... no IRR SHD
000 none no IRR ...
000 Cl2 ... IRR SHD
0.4 PCL,OXPD, 0
CCOAG
0.5 yes
no LAB PS 4.8 PCL,AS,SCL, 12.0 0.5 yes
POL.SF
no PPC none ... PCL,TF,SCL 1.5 0.3 yes
no none none 2.0 PCL.OXPD 30.0 0.5 ...
CA-10
CA-11
CA-12
CA-13
000 Clz yes IRR SHD,IDS no none none 3.0 PCL,AS,SCL 20.0 1.0 yes
CON .
000 none yes IRR none no none none 1.3 PCL.OXPD 11.0 0.8 no
*00 none yes IRR none
000 none yes IRR *
*..„.. 0 none yes IRR none
.30 none yes IRR
.... IRR
GRD
.0 0
h
"4.20 i
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrSPrivate Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO AutomaLlc Tasting
PPC Pre & Pont Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TRTATHF.MT pnocr:pr.i:s
-PRIMARY TK!.A';-.!::,7 "
no none none 1.5 PCL,AS
0.1 yes
CA-14
CA-15
CA-16
no none ... 0.5 PCL.OXPD** 5.0 0.1 ... "cattle not pas- CA-17
tured on disposal
fields
"•reuse from PCL
tank only
no none none 1.0 PCL,OXPD,TF 6.5 1.0 no *user charges: 25% CA-18
of farm income
no none PS 1.0 PCL.OXPD 1760 0.5 yes *irrig. of non-ed- CA-19
.ible crops only
no ... none 0.8 PCL,TF,OXPD ... 0
no ... none 0.8 PCL.OXPD ... 'o
PCL Primary Clarification MMF
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon SF
-SECONDARY TPl'ATMENT CADS
ASActivatedSiudqe CCOAG
AER Aeration Only DAER
TF Trickling Filter IE
CCOAG Chemical Coaqulation LCOAG
OXPD Oxidation Ponds pll
-TERTIARY TRl:ATVCN'T t>QL
ANT1I Anthracite Filter RO
CA-20
CA-21
Mixed Media Filter
Sand Filter
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Coagulation
Deaeration
Ion Exchange
Lime Coagulation
ph Adjustment
Polishing Ponds
Reverse Osmosis
308
-------
^PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVENUE
(Cost Data
Upper
D7
• UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
dix
D8
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT »
F.2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERKL'PTION |
TOLERATION |
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL 1
TREATMENT |
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
I- 8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY |
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN 1
CAPACITY, MGD |
GC i 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
r;*ta
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
G3
EFFLUENT I
TRANSPORT
DISTASTE. "TI.FSl
010
ALTERNATE 1
DISPOSAL METHOD]
T-r'KSTrO .;•;••..' PR PEiPONSE
COMMENTS
'^st~'~
0--- 0 30 none no IRR
: - •
9 . . . 0 .0 LAB no IRR
.0. .0 0 LAB no IRR
0.0 0 C12 yes IRR
000 LAB yes IRR
0- 0 0 none ... IRR
18 4.5 0 CON, yes IRR,
LAB GRD
.0. 0 10 C12 yes IRR
120 • .0 CON yes IRR
.* .* 0 none yes IRR
LAB
.6" 0 1 CON yes IRR
C12
0 0 .1 none no IRR
.. .
.0 0 0 ... yes IRR
00 0 none yes IRR
.0 .-.. .0 15 TURB yes IRR
, . C12 REC
.5 .0.9 0 none yes IRR
.22 .3.9 .0 C12 yes IRR
| i._ . .CON
| j. , TURB
LI 1 i , i
fUPPI.EMENTAL SUPPLY
rS Private Source
PS Public Source
pUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUVO Autoiutic Testing
PPC Pro t Post Chlorinati
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State -Testing Only
TRT.ATMENT pnnn:rsi:s
-PRIMARY Tki:A"':a.:rr
SHD no none none 0.6 PCL,TF,AS,
SCL
none no none PS 37 PCL
none no none PS 8 TF,SCL
none no none none 1.5 PCL, TF, SCL
none no none PrS 0.5 RSL
SHD no none none 2.3 PCL,TF,OXPD
SS no none none 2.5 PCL, AS
SS no none PrS 5.0 PCL,AS,SCL
B,TDS, no LAB PS 5.0 PCL, AS, SCL
DIS
... no ... PrS ... PCL,OXPD
none no none PrS 0.3 PCL
... no none PS ... AS , SCL , SF
TDS,DIS,no none PS 0.8 PCL, TF, SCL
BOD,SS
DIS, BOD, no none PrS 5.0 PCL,TF,AER,
SS SCL
none no none ... 3.5 PCL, AS, SCL
FD,TDS no none PrS 0.2 AS, SCL
near no AUTO none 4.5 PCL,OXPD,
DWQ CCOAG, MMF
SHD, BOD no none PS 3.1 PCL.OXPD
SHD no none none 9.6 PCL.AS.S'CL
i
! • I 1
: ....: • ! 1
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT
AS Activated Sludge
AER Aeration Only
.on TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TKOTIARY TREATMENT
ANTI1 Anthracite Filter
0 .1 yes ._'...
. _ . _ .
.... .... no
no
10.2 2 no
1.0 0.3 no "7~
0»
. 1 * . . .
72 0 yes .
... 1.0 yes
300 3.5 no 'indirect revenue
0 3
... V.J.... . ,.
0 0.3 ... 'indirect revenue
5 1.0 yes
10 1.3 yes
. .. 1.0 yes
250 0 yes
0.2 0.2 no
0 4.0 yes
-•
50 2.0 yes
0 2.0 yes
_ ; . .. i - - .
I ! '
! 1
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pll ph Adjustment
*>OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
1
.CA-22
ICA-23
TCA-24
CA-25
-CA-26
•
.CA-27
CA-28
CA-29
CA-30
CA-31
CA-32
CA-33
CA-34
CA-35
CA-36
CA-37
CA-38
CA-39
-
'CA-40
'CA-41
H
• H
1 . _i
309
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVLNUE
(Cost Data
Appondix
D7
1 UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
D8
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT »
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION-
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
0ESIGN
CAPACITY, MGD
06 4 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
GBb
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
G9
EFFLUENT
TRANSPORT
BTSTftMrp. . MTT.F*;
G10
ALTERNATE
DISPOSAL METHOD
OUKd'l lON'.NAH'F RESPONSE
COMMENTS
Ip
pH yes IRR OR, DIS, yes PPC PS
, . REC SHD
2.2 PCL,TF,SCL, 123. 6.0 yes
AER,AS
CO-3
0 ... 0 0 :... yea RID
DHQ
...
RO, IE, CADS,
... .> .
...
CO-4
i . - . . . SF, CCOAG, Ni- _
i i. ;
0 0 0 none yes IRR
0-0 0 LAB yes IRR
. . .
0.0 0 none no IRR
0 .0 IRR
0 0 ... LAB yes IRR
-
0. 0 FISH
1.33 60 0 ... yes IND
— ...
000 LAB yes IRR
.3.330 ... none yes IND
000 LAB yes IRR
.0 0 .0 none yes IRR
.0 .0 .0 none yes IRR
0 .. .0 ... IRR
- -- • •
JO- «2.S ,o LAB no IRR
... Clj IND
JO— .63.9 0 LAB yes IRR
i . . . . .IND
JO - .0 0 none yes IRR
^ . i.
— h- ---i i
Lv.:.:.o.5 ; ;... IRR
tT.f .::.!_:_. _I_.L.__
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrS Private Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO Automatic Vesting
none
DIS
SRD
no
no
no
... no
SHD, DIS, no
USPUS
...
...
DIS
SS,B
none
SHD
...
BOD,SS
BOD.SS
none
j
....
yes
*
no
no
no
no
no
yes
*
yes
*
no .
no
....
PCL
RSL
trogen Rem.
none none 0.9 PCL,TF,SCL
LAB PS 3.5 PCL,TF,SCL,
MMF*
2.3 0.3
3.0 3.0
LAB none 3.0 AER, SCL, OXPD. .. 0.3
... none 2.5 PCL,TF,SCL
none none 0.5 OXPD, AER,
CCOAG, MMF*
1.0 RSL, OXPD,
AER
none PS ... PCL, TF, SCL,
AS**
none none . . . RSL
... ps
LAB none ... RSL
none none ... PCL, TF, OXPD
ST none .05 RSL
... none 3.0 RSL, AER,
OXPD
LAB PS 30 PCL, TF, SCL
PPC
LAB PS 12 PCL, TF, SCL
none PS 1.5 OXPD, AER
:... :... 4.o:... "' i
i...! -.'- i ..-:.::.;l
Primary Clarification
Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT'
AS Activated Sludge
PPC Pre t Post Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TREATMENT PllOOCPprs
-PRIMARY TKLAYriT:.1!1
AER
Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
ANTI!
Anthracite Filter
5.0 0
0.4 0.5
1.8 ...
75.0 5.0
... 0
... .0
136 0.5
... 0
... 3.0
0 1.0
6.0 1.5
33.0 0
o [1.5:
.:."t.i
MMF
SF
CADS
CCOAG
DAER
IE
LCOAG
pll
POL
RO
yes _.
yes *Micro-Floc fil-
tration
yes "^
yes *Micro-Floc fil-
tration
...
yes *sed. ,Cl2 .screen-
ing;**TF-150 mgd.
AS-20 mgd
yes
...
yes
yes *irrig. twice
during summer
yes
yes *LCOAG at steam
. . plant
yes *LCOAG at steam
.plant _
yes '." ;~;;
. .. 'flat rate annual
, bid
L . . J _. .
Mixed Media Filter
Sand Filter
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Coagulation
Dcacration
Ion Exchange
Lime Coagulation
ph Adjustment
Polishing Ponds
Reverse Osmosis
CO- 5
CO- 6
FL-1
FL-2
ID-1
XY-1
MD-1
MI-1
MI-2
HO-1
MO- 2
NE-1
NV-1
NV-2
NV-3
NV-4
NJ— 1
NM-1
310
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION '
(Cost Data
kppendix ;
D7
UNIT CHARGES
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
E'.
SUBSTANDARD
nr-'LIIK.i'T t
E2
OUALIVY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE Of
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN
CAPACITY, MGD
GO S 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
09
EFFLUENT
TRANSPORT
DTST»\TF . MTT.F.c
010
ALTERNATE 1
DISPOSAL METHOD)
COMMENTS
Sj£*V"
Si
i- —
0... _
150
r
L
0--
b"
... _..
. —
. — -
0
o
o
220
19
0
"o
"o
. . . _ .
A
Ji
£177
>40
1
1
5 ****
[ '"
E.
b
0.06 0
I
0
b b
-i . .
b ...
0.75 ...
0 0
6.1 0
25.5 30
0 10
0 ...
0 0
o
0
Oe
9
jr "o
20.5 0
I :
38.0 2
i. i..
SUPPLEMENTAL
LAB
none
AUTO
LAB
.. .
none
LAB
LAB
none
LAB
none
none
TURB
TURB
PH
LAB
SUPPLY
yes
yes
yes
...
yes
yes
ves
j^a
yes
yes
yes
yes
IRR
IRR
REC
IRR
IRR
REC
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
yes IRR
yes
1
PrS Private Source
PS public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
IRR
IND
J...-
no ....
SHD no PPC
FD no none
DWQ , S HD , no none
USPHS
... no ...
... no
... no ...
SHD no none
SHD no none
DIS no none
SHD no none
... no none
... no ...
SHD no none
yes ...
BOD,TDS,yes LAB
P04,SS
i i. j
none
none
PS
none
PS
PS
PS
PrS
PS
PS
PS
PrS
none
none
PS
PS
0.7
4.0
1.8
7.5
0.2
0.5
1.5
3
2.5
.01
4.0
6.2
1.0
10.
1.0
13.
** *
i
AS.SF
PCL.AS.SCL
PCL,TF
PCL,AS,SCL,
LCOAG.MMF,
CADS, Ammonia
Stripping
PCL.OXPD
PCL, OXPD
PCL.TF
PCL, TF, OXPD
AS.SCL
PCL,TF
PCL.OXPD
PCL.AER
PCL.TF.SCL
PCL, TF, OXPD
PCL
RSL
AS,SCL,MMF*
PS,TF,SCL,
LCOAG.MMF,
pH.CADS****
.! . i
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY | TREATMENT,
AS Activated Sludge
3.5 2.0
32.0 0.5
3 0
1000.27
4.0 0.1
30.0 0.5
0 0.1
10.0 0
3.0 0.8
14.0 0
5.0 0.8
0 0
2.7 2
426 3.5
10.0 3.7
3.0 2.0
1
yes .".".._.
yes "~~1' _'
~rm.
yes _~. .
... - .
...
yes "user charge flat
fee
ves
j ^°
yes
no
yes
...
yes
yes *micro-floc fil-
tration; "occasion-
al algae control
yes *IRR-5 mgd,IND-2
mgd RSD;**charges
to irrig. only;
***expanded system
| under const.;****
i ... IRR-MMF only tert.
1
CA-62
CA-63
CA-64
CA-65 -
CA-66
CA-67
CA-68
CA-69
CA-70 "
CA-71
CA-72
CA-73
CA-74
CA-75
CA-76
CA-77
CA-78
CO-1
CO- 2
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
rtft PD n*» aoyat'inn
AUVO AuLomatic Testing
PPC Pre & Pont Chlorination
LAD Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TRLATIlFilT PROC[:;;r.l-JL
TilLA'l !U::~
AER
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TRrATMI'MT
ANTII Anthracite Kilter
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH ph Adjustment
"OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
311
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVLNUE
(Cost Data
\ppendix !
D7
3£
sz
s«
§£
D8
w
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALE
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT »
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICFS
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMF.NTAI
SUPPLY
MUNTCirAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESir.N INFORMATION
G5
Q
CESI1N
CAPACITY, HG
Ci6 s 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
a
EFFL'JENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, HG
C9
" EFFLUENT
TRANSPORT
DTSTH.'.VP. MTT.
G10
a
ALTERNATE
DISPOSAL METHC
- "
COMMENTS
[15
£8 395
I •• •
Cl2
CON
lues
yes GRD
USPHS,
SHD
CON
, LAB
'
PS 37.5PCL,AS,SCL 0 5.0 yes *new operation
0 C12 yes GRD USPHS, no -LAB PS 12.0PCL,AS,SCL 0 3.0 yes
CON SHD
none yes IRR none no none PS 0.3 PCL,TF
CA-42
.CA-43
0 Cl2 yes IRR none 1.0 PCL.TF,SCL 2.4 1.0 no *$1.00 per year CA-44
pB user charge
0. C12 yes IRR none 1.2 PCL.TF,SCL 2.7 3.0 no *S1.00 per year CA-45
pH user charge
CA-46
no none none ... RSL
.0 0
0 0
0 .0
t>. - 0
... 0 no *$1.00 per year CA-47
user charge
... LAB ... IRR SHD.DIS no ... none ... PCL.AS.SCL* 0 5.5 yes *3 plants in city CA-48
GRD
IRR SHD no ... none 1.4 PCL.TF 10.0 0
IRR ... no ... PrS 4.2 TF,OXPD 9.5 0.5 ...
0 none yes IRR none no none none 0.5 PCL.OXPD 0 0 ...
IRR ...
IRR ...
GRD
no ... none 1.7 PCL,TF,AER, 5 0.5 ...
SCL,POL
no ... none 2.0 PCL.AS.SCL 0 0 no
0 none yes IRR SHD no ST none 1.5 PCL.TF,SCL, ... 0.3 yes
POL
15 3.5 0 C12 yes IRR OR,BOD, no none PS 16. PCL,AS,SCL, 1.0 ... yes
DIS CCOAG,EF
0 0 ... IRR ... no ... PS 0.1 PCL.AS.SCL 1.0 2.3 ...
CA-49 .
CA-50
CA-51
CA-52
CA-53
CA-54
CA-56
0 LAB ... IRR DWQ
GRD
... ... yes RSD* TDS
'....... ... IRR ...
no none ... 4.0 PCL,AS,SCL, 15
MMF
02 RO
none 1.3 AS,SCL
3.5 yes *user charge: 1/2 CA-57
potable water cost
yes "experimental
boiler feed
0.2 2.0
CA-58
CA-59
none no IRR SHD
no none PS
PCL,AS,SCL 2.0 0 yes'
CA-60
no IRR
SHD,BOD,no
SS
none none 1.4 PCL,TF,SCL,
POL
13.
1
.CA-61
SOPPI.EM:NTAL SUPPLY
PrSPrivate Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
XUTO Autoroatic festing
PPC Pre & Post Clilorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST Stitc Testing Only
TREATMENT PROCC!'.'i:s
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECOHDARY TREATMENT
AS Activated sludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling .Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
ANTII Anthracite Filter
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SF Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Deaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
1 pll ph Adjustment
"OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
312
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
(Cost Data
D7
UNIT CHARGES
POR EFFLUF.NT
S/MG
De
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
SIOOO
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUEUT %
E2
U
>2:«
f*M UJ
MIKU
JOM
•tH>
r>^ w
ago
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
u x<
w fr. M
o »-t «
J U
Q rt H
Z O M
MOB
U
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN
CAPACITY, MGD
G6 I 7
TR::ATMINT
PROCESfES
GBb
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
09
* EFFLUENT 1
TRANSPORT
DISTANT". MTT.F<;I
ALTERllATE 1
DISPOSAL METHOD)
OL'f:STro>:w;aH. p
COMMENTS
"SPONSE
£?. o ^_* •'
. i.o.
... IRR
.... IRR
... PS ... PCL.OXPD
none 2.0 PCL.TF.OXPD 13.0 0.3
.. *user charge SIOOO
per year
.. 'flat rate annual
NM-2
NM-3
.... 0.2*
•"77 0.5"
00
120 3.4
... IRR
... IRR
0.3 PCL.OXPD
.3.0
•flat rate
*S40 per month
flat rate
... .... IRR
LAB no IRR
none 0.8 OXPD .2.4 2.0 ...
... 0.8 PCL.TF.SCL 0.5 1.0 ...
NM-4
NM-5
JJM-6
NM-7
11 7.7
IRR
no
PS 5.0 PCL.TF.SCL 0 3.0 yes
4.2 2 none yea IRR ... ....
0 ... IRR ... no ... none 1.0 PCL.TF.SCL 0 0.5 yes
0 ...... yea IRR none no none PS 0.8 RSL 0 0.2 no
NH-8
•user charge $200 NM-9
per year
HM-10
ND-1
7 5.0 IND ...
0 0 IRR SHD
0 0 0 none yes IRR SHD
yea LAB PS 8.5 PCL.AS.SCL 0 2.0 yes 'user treatment: OK-1
* chem. addition
PCL,AS,SCL 0 1.5 yes
OK-2
no none PrS* 2.0 PCL.AS.SCL 3.7 0.5 yes "industrial waste OR-1
water
yes RtD ... 4.0
.... 5.0 yes
PA-1
IRR ... 12. PCL.AS.SCL 600 3.0
TX-1
145
LAB yes IRR BOD.SS, yes LAB PS 15. PCL.AS.SCL 18.0 10. yes *ind. use-4.5 mgd; TX-2
IND pH *** PrS «*avg. ind. charge
• . . $80-$90 per MG;«**
User treatment:
1 ._'.'. _..._. . .. LCOAG.Alum. Floe.,
. ._ ... Clar. .Soft.
.79* 14.4 1 none yes IND
LAB yes IND
5.80
s::.
10.8 67
.... p.
o"' ,... j
TDS,PO{,yes LAB
HARD.
SS,PO4, yes LAB
TDS *
PS
PS
1.4 PCL.AER"* 1.0
2.0 yes *graduated charge; TX-3
. . **usor treatment:
hot lima,hot zeo.,
: DAER,ANTH;***Kayes
, aeration
PCL.AS.SCL
none yes IRR none
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrS Private: Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO Auton'atii: Testing
PPC Prc ( Poat Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
'
-PK1MAKY TKl'ATiU. .'•"!'
no none none 0.4 PCL.OXPD
: i
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TKF.ATMCHT
AS Activated Sludge
AER Aeration Only
TF Trickling Filter
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
OXPD Oxidation Ponds
-TERTIARY TREATMENT
ANTII Anthracite Filter
10.0 2.0 yes *user treatment:
shock chlorin.,pll
I | adjustment
TX-4
I
TX-5
. i _
MMF Mixed Media Filter
SK Sand Filter
CADS Carbon Adsorption
CCOAG Chemical Coagulation
DAER Dcaeration
IE Ion Exchange
LCOAG Lime Coagulation
pH ph Adjustment
t»OL Polishing Ponds
RO Reverse Osmosis
313
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
REVENUE
(Colt Data
Appendix
D7
UNIT CHARGES 1
FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
08
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
$1000
SYSTEM
"•SUABILITY
l-l
PI!BS?.VRD 1
EFFLUEn » 1
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION 1
TOLERATION |
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL
TREATXENT
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLY
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
DESIGN
CAPACITY, MGD
G« ( 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
C,8b
EFFLUENT
STORAGE
CAPACITY, MGD
G9
EFFLUENT
•mSKJ^BFrr,
G10
ALTERNATE
JISPOSAL METHOD
COMMENTS
MS5^
11
igfc
1 Clj yes IKK none yes LAB PS 12 PCL.TF.SCL 0 3.0 yes "user treatment: TX-6
.... * , : . • OXPD
119 42.7 1 Cl, yes IND . BOD.SS, yes LAB PS
i. 1 ' pH.Cl, *
t~i-: .- .:• .
• « • ~ • • • ... ... ... IRR ... ••• ... PS
0 .... 0 0 none yes IKK ... no none none
125 250* 0 LAB yes IND ** yes LAB PrS
12 PCL,AS,SCL 0 3.0
yes "user treatmenti
LCOAG,RO,IE,ANTH,
pB adjustment
2.0 :...
6.0 PCL.TF.OXPD
8.0 PCL,AS.SCL 15.0 0.5
000 none yes IRR none no none none ...... .... ...
000 none yes IRR none no none none 5.0 PCL.OXPD 130. 0
TX-7
..... Tx-e
yes 'user pays munici~ TX-9
pal treat, costs;
"high quality for
boiler feed;***
• LCOAG.pH.ANTH.IE
TX-10
no TX-11
0 none yes IRR
no none none 1.0 PCL.OXPD 2.6 0 no
TX-12
10 TURB yes IRR SHD no ST none 0.3 PCL.TF.SCL* ... 0.5 yes *coke-breeze fil- UT-1
LAB , ter
15 C12 yes IRR
no none PS 7.5 PCL.TF.SCL 0 1.0 ...
.. 2.0 no
25 LAB yes IRR none no none PS 1.5 PCL.OXPD
AER
WA-1
NA-2
5r-
fUPPLEMKNTAL SUPPLY
rS Private Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS
AUTO Aut.omat.ic Testing
PPC pre < Post Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
PCL Primary Clarification
RSL Raw Sewage Lagoon
-SECONDARY TREATMENT
Activated Sludge
Aeration Only
Trickling Filter
Chemical Coaqulation
Oxidation Ponds
-PKIMAHY TKt:ATtlL:rf
AS
AER
TF .
CCOAG
OXPD
-TERTIARY TRrATMITNT
ANTII Anthracite Filter
I .1
MMF
SF
CADS
CCOAG
DAER
IE
LCOAG
pll
DOL
RO
Mixed Media Filter
Sand Filter
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Coagulation
DCaeration
Ion Exchange
Lime Coagulation
ph Adjustment
Polishing Ponds
Reverse* Osmosis
314
-------
PRODUCER INFORMATION
(Cost Data
Kppcndix ]
07
: UNIT CHARGES
. FOR EFFLUENT
S/MG
TOTAL 1971
EFFLUENT SALES
$1000
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
El
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT »
E2
QUALITY
MONITORING
DEVICES
E3
INTERRUPTION
TOLERATION
USER INFORMATION
F6
PURPOSE OF
REUSE
F7
END USE
QUALITY
CRITERIA
F9
ADDITIONAL 1
TREATMENT |
F10
QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS
F8
SUPPLEMENTAL
S"PPLY !
TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN INFORMATION
G5
a
S
5*
MH
(/> M
82
I
(it t 7
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
G8b
EFFLUENT 1
STORAGE 1
CAPACITY , MGD |
G9
EFFLUENT 1
TRANSPORT 1
ftTSI'AMPP . MTT.rcl
CIO
ALTERNATE I
BISPOSAL METHOC|
OUESTIONNA 1 IT. RESPONSE
COMMENTS
ir* *'•';?
^BiW r^-1-"
n|w
llg
'*?•& - ':•
.... IRR
... PCL.TF,SCL,
POL
none yes IRR BOD,S3 no none none 0.6 PCL.OXPD 15 1.6 yes
AU-I
AU-2
none yes IRR none no .none none 0.2 PCL.TF
AU-3
IRR
.IND
LAB yes IRR SS
.IND
, . DOM
.4060*235.3 32 £12 yes DOM
yes LAB PS
no AUTO PS
1.6 PCL,TP,SCL, ..
POL, CCO AG,
. SP
18. PCL.TF, SCL, 0
- SP.POL
1.0 PCL.TF,SCL,
POL.pH,
CCOAG,Sf.
CADS**
.IND' SS.BOD yes ... none 5.0 ...
... 'piped throughout AF-1
city
5.0 yes *RtD unit produc- AF-2
ing drinking water
8.0 yes "total cost for
blended domestic
water .-"additional
treatment: algae
flotation,foam
fractionation
AF-3
•treatment after EN-1
reuse: SS removal,
heavy metals remov-
al
LAB yea IND PO^.SS, yes LAB PS
NH3 *
8.0 PCL.TF, SCL none 0.8 yes 'additional treat- IS-1
nent: cold lime
LAB
no IRR BOD.SS yes LAB
. IND .-- *
PS 2.5 PS, AS, SCL 2.0
0.5 no 'additional treat- MX-1
nent: CCOAG,pH,IE
r
i
i
j-
,
i : j
i ' i •
[ ; . ;
! l| '
...i - . ; ! ..' --.;. : , ' . - |
:T ~ L..L_t_.L '[ L..i .i • ...!...._ .. i...:
..
i .
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY
PrS Private Source
PS Public Source
QUALITY SAFEGUARDS,
AUTO Automatic Tosting
PPC Pro I Post Chlorination
LAB Regular Lab Testing
ST State Testing Only
TREATMENT PrOCEn.TJL
-PRIMARY Tl!i:A'i',".!'!IT _
PCL Primary Clarification MMF
RSL Raw Sewage lagoon SF
-SECONDARY TREATMENT CADS
AS Activated Sludge CCOAG
AER Aeration Only DAER
TF Trickling .Filter IE
CCOAG Chenical Coagulation LCOAG
OXPD Oxidation Ponds pll
-TERTIARY TREATMENT °OL
ANT1I Anthracite Kilter RO
Mixed Media Filter
Sand Filter
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Coagulation
Dcaeration
Ion Exchange
Lime Coagulation
ph Adjustment
Polishing Ponds
Reverse Osmosis
315
-------
APPENDIX C
TEXAS MUNICIPALITIES REPORTED TO PROVIDE
EFFLUENT FOR IRRIGATION
BUT NOT TABULATED IN APPENDIX B
City
Ave. Flow
mgd
City
Ave. Flow
mgd
Abernathy
Amherst
Anson
Anton
Aspermont
Benjamine
Bexar County
Big Lake
Blanco
Bonnam
Barger
Brady
Brownfield
Burkburnet
Burnet
Castroville
Coahoma
Coleman
Colorado City
Comfort
Crane
Crockett County
Crosbyton
Cross Plains
Crystal City
Dalhart
Del Rio
Denison
Denver City
Devine
Dimmitt
Dublin
Dumas
Earth
El Dorado
El Paso
El SA
Fab ens
Falforias
Falls City
Farwell
Florence
Floydada
0.13 Fort Stockton
0.08 Fredericksburg
0.19 Freer
0.04 Friona
0.10 Fritch
0.04 Goldthwaite
0.005 Gorman
0.15 Graford
0.04 Grand Falls
1.4 Granger
0.88 Hale Center
0.50 Happy
0.47 Hart
0.65 Holliday
0.14 Honahans
0.04 Idaldo
0.05 Ingleside
0.51 Johnson City
0.51 Karnes City
0.002 Kermit
0.31 Kerrville
0.001 Kilgore
0.14 Kingsville
0.06 La Coste
1.20 Lamesa
0.60 Lorenzo
0.40 Levelland
0.15 Littlefield
0.35 Llano
0.08 Lyford
0.82 Lockney
1.0 McCamey
1.00 McKinley
0.09 McLean
0.09 Marfa
0.45 Mason
0.002 Meadow
0.001 Miles
0.35 Monahans
0.02 Morton
0.79 Muleshoe
0.046 Munday
0.07 Nordheim
0.90
0.001
0.16
0.25
0.40
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.70
0.13
0.07
0.18
0.13
0.90
0.09
0.001
0.04
0.12
0.83
0.001
0.005
0.81
0.04
1.13
0.08
0.66
0.47
0.28
0.27
0.14
0.23
1.5
0.13
0.23
0.14
0.04
0.02
1.00
0.24
0.5
0.21
0.01
316
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
City Ave. Flow
mgd
O'Donneil 0.07
Orange Grove 0.06
Paducah 0.23
Pearsall 0.23
Pecas 0.33
Perryton 1.0
Petersburg o.10
Plains 0.09
Poteet 0.19
Fremont 0.20
Quitaque 0.04
Rails 0.20
Rankin 0.20
Raymondvilie 0.002
Richland Springs 0.025
Rio Grande City 0.10
Roby 0.06
Rochester 0.04
Ropesville 0.03
Roscoe 0.15
Rotan 0.12
Sabinal 0.08
SanSaba 0.17
Santa Anna 0 .10
Seagraves 0.19
Seminole 0.45
Shallowater 0.08
Silverton 0.09
Slaton 0.40
Snyder 1.50
Sonora 0.22
Spur 0.1
Stanton 0.15
Stockdale 0.18
Stratford 0.16
Sudan 0.098
Sundown 0.07
Sunray 0.20
Sweetwater 0.001
Tahoka 0.18
Taylor 0.20
Uvaloe 0.002
Van Horn 0.13
Wellington 0.19
Whiteface 0.04
Wilson 0.03
Winters 0.80
Yoakum 0.42
Youth City O.OQ4
317
-------
CALIFORNIA LOCATIONS REPORTED TO
PROVIDE EFFLUENT FOR IRRIGATION BUT
NOT TABULATED IN APPENDIX B
City
Barstow (USMC)
Brentwood
Buttonwillow
CA Conservation
Center
CA Medical
Facility
(Vacaville)
Callan
Camp Pendleton
Carmel San. Dist.
Chester
Chowchilla
Coit Ranch, Inc.
Colton
Coalinga
Corcoran
Devel Vocational
Institute
Dinuba
Elsinore
El Toro Marine
Base (USMC)
Encinitas San.
Dist.
Fowler
Golden Gate Park
Huron
La Canada
Lakeport
Lament
Lemoore
Lindsay
Log Cabin Ranch
School
Loma Linda
University
Made r a
Manteca
Meadow oo d
Mendocino State
Hospital
Key: P - pasture
F - fodder
MGD
Reused
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.04
0.36
0.27
0.82
0.14
0.16
0.68
0.03
1.23
0.68
0.68
0.05
2.33
0.30
0.96
0.47
0.23
0.63
0.27
0.16
0.26
0.08
0.36
0.30
0.01
0.11
2.38
1.37
0.01
0.05
L
C
Crop
Irrigated
G
P
P
P
P
L
G
Artichokes
P
C, F
C, B
P
C, B
C, P
P
Plums ,
grapes
P
G
Flowers
C
grapes
L
C, B
G
P, Walnuts,
pears
C
P, F
C
L
P
P
F, L
G
F
- landscape
- cotton
City
Mount Vernon
San. Dist.
Murphy ' s S an .
Dist.
North of River
San. Dist.
Ontario- Upland
Pacific Union
College
Palmdale
Quincy San. Dist.
Rainbow Municipal
Water Dist.
Rancho Bernardo
Reedley
Ridgecrest Co.
San. Dist.
Riverdale
Ross moor Sanita-
tion, Inc.
San Francisco Co.
Jail #2
San Joaquin
General Hosp.
San Luis Obispo
San Pasqual
Academy
Sanger
Sebastopol
Shastina San.
Dist.
Solvang
Stratford
Tehachapi State
Institute
Terra Bella
Valley San. Dist.
Warner Springs
Resort Co.
Win ton San. Dist.
Woodlake
MGD
Reused
3.56
0.05
2.33
0.96
0.13
1.10
0.19
0.02
0.41
0.38
0.58
0.14
1.10
0.14
0.27
1.10
0.01
0.93
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.003
0.18
0.03
0.30
0.03
0.41
0.16
Crop
Irrigated
C, F
P
C, F
G
F
F
P
G
G, L
Grapes
F
P, F
G, L
G
F
P
G
Walnuts ,
grapes
P
P
P
C, B
F
P
C
G
P
F
G - golf course
B - barley
318
-------
APPENDIX C(continued)
ARIZONA MUNICIPALITIES
REPORTED TO PROVIDE EFFLUENT FOR IRRIGATION
BUT NOT TABULATED IN APPENDIX B
Arizona City
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Chandler
Coolidge
Douglas
Eloy
Gilbert
Litchfield Park
Mesa
Show Low
Tucson
319
-------
APPENDIX D
FOREIGN REUSE SITES
SITE
USE
VOLUME REUSED
AFRICA
RHODESIA
Salisbury • • •
SOUTH AFRICA
Cape Town
Durban, Natal
Krugersdorp, Transvaal ...
Kimberley
Pietermaritzburg, Natal
Port Elizabeth
Randfontein
Springs, Transvaal ...
Vanderbijl Park, Transvaal ...
SOUTH_WEST AFRICA
Luderitz
AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA
Ararat IRR
Benalla IRR
Bendigo IRR
Birchip IRR
Charlton IRR
Cobram IRR
Corryong IRR
Dandenong IRR
Dimboola IRR
Donald IRR
Echuca IRR
Eildon IRR
Euroa IRR
Frankston IRR
Horsham IRR
Jeparit IRR
Kyabram IRR
Kyneton IRR
Lang Lang IRR
Maffra IRR
Mansfield IRR
Mooroopna IRR
Morwell IRR
Murtoa IRR
Rochester IRR
320
-------
SITE
USE
VOLUME REUSED
AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA (Continued)
St. Arnaud IRR
Sea Lake IRR
Seymour IRR
Stawell IRR
Swan Hill IRR
Tallangatta IRR
Tatura IRR
Warracknabeal IRR
Wycheproof IRR . . .
Yarrawonga IRR
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Belmont IND
(Western Mining Corporation LTD.)
Exmouth IRR ...
Kalgoorlie IRR
Katanning IRR
Kojonup IRR ...
Merredin IRR
Narrogin IRR
Northam IRR
Perth IND
(Dampier Mining Company LTD.)
Perth IND
(Hamersley Iron Pty. LTD.)
Perth IND
(Mount Newman Mining Company Pty.
LTD.)
Port Hedland IRR
Roebourne IRR
Wyalkatchem IRR
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Bolivar Sewage Treatment Works IRR 1-0 mgd
Glenelg Sewage Treatment Works IRR 0.5 mgd
CANADA
ONTARIO
Listowel IRR 1-°
ENGLAND
Bristol
(cooling, process) 5.3 mgd
Derby County IND 0.3 mgd
(cooling)
321
-------
SITE
USE
VOLUME REUSED
ENGLAND (Continued)
Dunstable
Nottingham
Nuneaton
Oldham County
Scunthorpe
Sheffield
Stoke-on-Trent
ISRAEL
NORTHERN DISTRICT
Bet Shean
Hazor
Upper Tiberias
Migdal HaEmeq
'Afula
Qiryat Shemonah
HAIFA DISTRICT
Or Aqiva
Tirat Karmel
Karkur
'Atlit
Pardes Hanna
CENTRAL DISTRICT
Even Yehuda, Qadima, Tel Mond
Qiryat Ono
Her^liyya
Yehud
Hod HaSharon
Lod
Lod Airport
Nes Ziyyona
Nahariyya
Rosh Ha'Ayin
Rishon Le Zion
Rehovot
Ramla
Ramat HaSharon
Ra'ananna
Be'er Ya1aqov-Zrifin
IND
(process)
IND
(cooling)
IND
(cooling
IND
(cooling)
IND
(cooling)
IND
(cooling)
IND
(cooling)
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
xIRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
FISH
FISH
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR, FISH
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
IRR
0.3 mgd
0. 8 mgd
0.2+ mgd
1. 5 mgd
0.7 mgd
1.0 mgd
3.2 mgd
600 CuM/D
600 CuM/D
1,300 CuM/D
1,075 CuM/D
2,100 CuM/D
2,200 CuM/D
500 CuM/D
1,850 CuM/D
1,350 CuM/D
250 CuM/D
1,000 CuM/D
150 CuM/D
2,000 CuM/D
3,750 CuM/D
1,300 CuM/D
3,230 CuM/D
3,200 CuM/D
2,500 CuM/D
1,100 CuM/D
7,000 CuM/D
1,880 CuM/D
4,500 CuM/D
5,000 CuM/D
3,800 CuM/D
2,000 CuM/D
2,000 CuM/D
1,400 CuM/D
322
-------
SITE US
ISRAEL (Continued)
T. A. DISTRICT - DAN REGION
E VOLUME REUSED
Bat Yam IRR 12,500 CuM/D
Holon IRR. 3,000 CuM/D
Ramat Can IRR 1,000 CuM/D
JERUSALEM DISTRICT
Jerusalem IRR 13,300 CuM/D
Bet Shemesh IRR 1,000 CuM/D
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
Elat IF
Ofaqim IF
Ashdod II
Be'er Sheva IF
Dimona II
Yavne II
Yeroham II
Mizpe" Ramon II
Qiryat Gat II
JAPAN
,R 3,150 CuM/D
IR 1,050 CuM/D
IR 3,600 CuM/D
tR 6,000 CuM/D
IR 2,000 CuM/D
IR 2,500 CuM/D
iR 1,000 CuM/D
IR 150 CuM/D
IR 2,000 CuM/D
Kawasaki IND ...
(cooling)
Nagoya IND
(cooling)
Osaka IND
(cooling)
Tokyo IND
(cooling, process)
MEXICO
MEXICO CITY
IRR
Chapultepec Park
Sports City
San Juan de Aragon
Xochimilco
(Floating Gardens of Mexico City)
Federal Commission of Electricity IND
(cooling)
IRR
5-3 m9d
i:L-4 m
-------
APPENDIX E
PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING TREATMENT COSTS
1. Establish equivalent January 1972 capital cost of
facility by multiplying the original cost by fac-
tors for year built (see Table E-l) .
2. Calculate annual cost of facility, amortized over 25
years at 5.5% interest, by multiplying the results of
Step 1 by 0.07455.
3. Add annual operating costs to the result of Step 2 to
obtain total annual plant costs.
4. Determine average annual treatment volume by multiplying
average daily influent flow by 365.
5. Divide result of Step 3 by result of Step 4 to determine
average treatment cost of effluent in $/MG, including
amortized capital investment.
6. Divide only annual operating cost by result of Step 4
to determine average treatment cost of effluent in
$/MG, excluding amortized capital investment.
324
-------
TABLE E-l
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST
INDEX RATIOS: JANUARY 1972/YEAR BUILT*
YEAR
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
FACTOR
1.75
1.69
1.66
1.64
1.63
1.61
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.48
1.44
1.39
1.30
1.20
1.08
1.00
*Derived from FWPCA, Department
of Interior, Dec. 1967, and Treat-
ment Optimization Research Program,
Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
325
-------
APPENDIX F
CONVERSIONS FROM ENGLISH UNITS TO METRIC UNITS
Customary Units
Description
Acre
British thermal unit
British thermal units
per cubic foot
British thermal units
per pound
British thermal units
per square foot per
hour
Cubic foot
Cubic foot
Pounds per thousand
cubic feet per day
Cubic feet per minute
Cubic feet per minute
per thousand cubic
feet
Cubic feet per second
Cubic feet per second
per acre
Cubic inch
Cubic yard
Fathom
Foot
Feet per hour
Feet per minute
Foot-pound
Gallon
Gallons per acre
Gallons per day per
linear foot
Gallons per day per
square foot
Gallons per minute
Grain
Grains per gallon
Horsepower
Horsepower-hour
Inch
Knot
Knot
Mile
Symbol
Multiply
ac
Btu
Btu/cu ft
Btu/lb
Btu/sq ft/hr
cu ft
cu ft
lb/1000
cu ft/day
cfm
cfm/1000 cu ft
cfs
cfs/ac
cu in.
cu yd
f
ft
ft/hr
fpm
ft-lb
gal
gal/ac
gpd/lin ft
gpd/sq ft
gpm
gr
gr/gal
hp
hp-hr
in.
knot
knot
mi
Multiplier
By
0.4047
1.055
37.30
2.328
3.158
0.02832
28.32
0.01602
0.4719
0.01667
0.02832
0.06998
0.01639
0.7646
1.839
0.3048*
0.08467
0.00508
1.356
3.785
0.00935
0.01242
0.04074
0.06308
0.06480
17.12
0.7457
2.684
25.4*
1.852
0.5144
1.609
Metric Units
Symbol
To Get
ha
kJ
J/l
kJ/kg
J/nrsec
m3
1
kg/m3 day
I/sec
1/m3 sec
m3/sec
m-Vsec Tia
1
m3
m
m
mm/sec
m/sec
J
I
m3/ha
m^/m day
m3/m2 day
I/sec
g
mg/1
kW
MJ
mm
km/h
m/sec
km
Reciprocal
2.471
0.9470
0.02681
0.4295
0.3167
35.31
0.03531
62.43
2.119
60.00
35.31
14.29
61.01
1.308
0.5467
3.281
11.81
196.8
0.7375
0.2642
106.9
80.53
24.54
15.85
15.43
0.05841
1.341
0.3725
0.03937
0.5400
1.944
0.6215
326
-------
Appendix F (Continued)
Customary Units
Description
Miles per hour
Million gallons
Million gallons per
day
Million gallons per
day
Ounce
Pound (force)
Pound (mass)
Pounds per acre
Pounds per cubic foot
Pounds per foot
Pounds per horse-
power-hour
Pounds per square
foot
Pounds per square
inch
Pounds per square
inch
Square foot
Square inch
Square mile
Square yard
Ton, short
Yard
Symbol
Multiply
mph
mil gal
mgd
mgd
02
Ibf
Ib
Ib/ac
Ib/cu ft
Ib/ft
lb/hp-hr
Ib/sq ft
psi
psi
sq ft
sq in.
sq mi
sq yd
ton
yd
Multiplier
By
1.609
3785.0
43.81
0.04381
28.35
4.448
0.4536
1.121
16.02
1.488
0.1690
4.882
703.1
6.895
0.09290
645.2
2.590
0.8361
0.9072
0.9144*
Metric Units
Symbol
To Get
km/h
m3
I/sec
m^/sec
g
N
kg
kg/ha
kg/m3
kg/m
mg/J
kgf/m2
kgf/m2
kN/m2
m2
mm2
km2
m2
t
m
Reciprocal
0.6215
0.0002642
0.02282
22.82
0.03527
0.2248
2.205
0.8921
0.06242
0.6720
5.918
0.2048
0.001422
0.1450
10.76
0.001550
0.3861
1.196
1.102
1.094
*Indicates exact conversion factor.
Note: The U.S. gallon is assumed. If the conversion from the Imperial
gallon is required, multiply factor by 1.201.
Standard gravity, g = 9.80665* m/s2
= 32.174 ft/s2.
327
-------
APPENDIX G Form Approved
O.M.B. No.158-3 72012
When completed mail to SCS Engineers, 4014 Long Beach Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90807
SURVEY OF TREATED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER REUSE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Full name of responsible agency producing the treated waste-
water:
2. Address:
3. Telephone numbers: Office:
Plant:_
4. Name of agency manager:
Title: _ Alternate contact for
technical information: Name: _
Title: _
5. What year did you begin reclaiming treated effluent? 19
B. RAW SEWAGE INFLUENT INFORMATION
1. Daily influent raw sewage flow volume:
a . Aver age : _ MGD
b. Range: _ MGD min. to: _ max.
2. Influent raw sewage type of waste (estimated percentage)
a. Municipal: _ _^_____ _ %
b. Industrial: %
3. Specific industrial wastes - list the industrial wastes, if
any, which exert a significant effect upon the chemical char-
acter of the influent raw sewage: _
328
-------
4. Remarks: Please add any information which indicates that
your raw sewage characteristics are different from the nor-
mal range of municipal sewage. For example, significant
infiltration of saline ground water causing high TDS, etc.
C. TREATED WASTEWATER EFFLUENT INFORMATION
1. Volume:
a. To reuse: Average: MGD
Range: MGD min. to MGD max.
b. To other disposal: Average MGD
Range: MGD min. to MGD max.
c. If reuse is seasonal describe seasonal variations in
volume reused:
2. Quality: Describe, or attach, typical quality character-
istics of the treated wastewater for reuse:
a. BOD, ppm:
b. Suspended solids, ppm:__
c. Total Dissolved Solids, ppm:
d. Sodium, ppm:
e. Chlorides, ppm:
f. pH:
g. Coliform, MPN:
h. Heavy metal ions, if significant:
329
-------
i. Other significant characteristics, if any, e.g., color,
nutrients, etc. :_
D. TREATMENT FACILITY COST INFORMATION (attach budgets or other
helpful cost information)
1. Year treatment plant built: 19 , capacity: MGD,
Type of treatment: (primary, secondary, or
tertiary)
2. Original cost: $ , construction cost only; do not
include costs for land, engineering, financing, and admini-
stration.
3. Significant additions:
Brief description Year Cost
4. Operating cost in 1971, (excluding amortization) total:
$
a. Labor: $
b. Supplies: $
c. Utilities: $_
d. Other: $
5. State your average cost (including capital amortization)
per unit volume of water produced for reuse: $
per MG.
330
-------
6. Estimate your average cost (including capital amortization)
per unit volume of water treated, if no reuse were practiced:
$ per MG. In other words, how much would it cost
you to treat the same municipal waste sufficiently to meet
regulatory agency discharge requirements to disposal other
than reuse.
7- What are your charges for reclaimed water sold: $
MGD. If graduated, explain:
8. What were your total revenues from sale of reclaimed water
in 1971? $ .
E. SYSTEM RELIABILITY INFORMATION
1. Estimate the percentage of time that the treatment facility
does not meet the volume and quality demands of the reclam-
tion use: %
2. Briefly describe the quality monitoring safeguards on your
reclaimed water, such as chloride residual analyzer, turbidity
meter, conductivity meter, etc.:
3. Indicate how essential to the user is the maintenance of
the reclaimed water supply. In other words, can the user
tolerate interruptions in his supply or must the reliability
be equivalent to that of a municipal water supply?
331
-------
4. Briefly describe your roost serious problems in meeting the
volume and quality demands of producing reclaimed water for
your reuse situation:
332
-------
Form Approved
O.M.B. No. 158-S 72012
When completed mail to SCS Engineers, 4014 Long Beach Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90807
F. RECLAIMED WATER USER INFORMATION:
The producing agency and the using agency are often the same,
or the producing agency may be able to answer all questions in
this section, and in such cases the responder is requested to
continue furnishing data. If the user is better able to answer
these questions then please detach this section and send it to
the user for his completion. If there is more than one user,
please xerox and send additional copies or advise SCS Engineers
to do so.
1. Name of responder to this section:
2. Full names of the users of the treated wastewater:
3. User address:
4. User telephone number:
5. User name of manager:
Title: Alternate contact for tech-
nical information. Name:
Title:
6. Describe purpose for which treated wastewater is used; i.e.,
specific reuse application. Be as specific as possible;
e.g., if irrigation, designate the specific crops grown:
333
-------
7. Describe the water quality criteria necessary for the speci-
fic reuse application. In other words, what physical and
chemical characteristic limitations are imposed upon the re-
claimed water supply?
8. If other water sources are used for blending or standby
supply, briefly describe the source and how it relates to
the reclaimed water;
9. Describe additional treatment provided the reclaimed water,
if any, by the user:
10. Describe quality safeguards, if any, installed by the user
to protect against sub-standard reclaimed water supply:
334
-------
11. Describe significant problems, if any, encountered by the
user as a result of using reclaimed municipal wastewater:
335
-------
Form Approved
O.M.B. No. 158-S 72012
When completed mail to SCS Engineers, 4014 Long Beach Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90807
G. DETAILED DESIGN INFORMATION
The producing agency may have the detailed design information
requested below and in such cases the responder is requested
to continue furnishing data. If not, please detach this sec-
tion and send it to your design engineer for his completion.
It is the object of this section to obtain general design cri-
teria used in design of the major reclamation plant processes.
Emphasis is upon advanced secondary and tertiary treatment units,
Primary and conventional secondary treatment processes should
be only briefly described. Please attach any reports, diagrams,
etc. which will assist in understanding your design:
1. Full name of the design engineer firm:
2. Engineer address:
3. Engineer telephone no.:
4. Name of responding engineer:
Title:
5. Design capacity: MGD
6. Briefly describe primary treatment processes. For example
"screening followed by gravity settling" would be suffi-
cient:
336
-------
6. Briefly describe conventional secondary treatment processes,
including secondary clarifiers and its important design
parameters. Several typical examples follow to guide you.
Example No. 1 - Activated sludge, conventional spiral flow,
6 hour retention, 2000 ppm mixed liquor suspended solids,
30 percent sludge recirculation rate, 600 ft3 air per Ib
BOD removed, gravity circular secondary clarifier with
overflow rate of 800 gpd per ft2.
Example No. 2 - Oxidation pond, surface area 25 acres, aver-
age depth 5 ft, average retention 25 days, 5 day BOD loading
50 Ibs/day/acre.
Example No. 3 - Trickling filter, plastic media, 10 ft deep x
40 ft diameter, 3:1 recirculation ratio, gravity circular
2
secondary clarifier with overflow rate of 600 gpd per ft .
7. Describe below your design parameters for advanced secondary
or tertiary treatment utilized. This might include chemical
coagulation and sedimentation, filtration through sand or
other media, microstraining, carbon adsorption, ammonia
stripping or anaerobic denitrification, desalting with
reverse osmosis, electrodialysis or ion exchange resins,
337
-------
aerated polishing ponds, and so forth. We are especially
interested in obtaining complete information in response
to this question. Accompanying reports, diagrams, etc.
will be appreciated: ,
8. Storage facility for treated water intended for reuse:
a» Type:
b. Capacity:___ MG
c. Average storage period: days
9. Distance between producer and user that reclaimed water is
transported for reuse: Miles
10. Alternate disposal method if normal reuse is not feasible:
338
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-670/2-75-Q38
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION«NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs
for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater"
5. REPORT DATE
May 1975; Issuing Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Curtis J. Schmidt
Ernest V. Clements, III
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
SCS Engineers
4014 Long Beach Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90807
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 1BB033
ROAP 21-ASB - Task Oil
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final: June 1972-March 1974
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This survey identified 358 sites at which direct reuse of municipal wastewater
was being practiced. Detailed data were gathered on volume, effluent quality,
treatment, reliability and economics.
It was found that direct reuse of municipal wastewater was not widespread
accounting for less than 2 per cent of this nation's water use in 1972. Irrigation
and industrial cooling account for virtually all of this reuse. Only three sites
practice reuse for recreational lakes, and one for nonpotable domestic use. Potable
reuse is not presently practiced. General quality standards could not be derived
for any category. In fact, water which is substandard according to published
criteria is being successfully used in many reuse situations by fitting the water
quality to the specific local condition. Overall economic analysis was also
difficult. Storage and distance between supplier and consumer were more important
considerations than quality and treatment. In general, the supplier undercharged
the consumer because reuse was viewed as an inexpensive disposal technique.
There is significant potential for an increase in reuse of wastewater in all
categories; increased publicity concerning successful reuse is required to initiate
this increase.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Water Reclamation
Water Conservation
Water Resources
Water Supply
Industrial Water
Irrigation
Wastewater Renovation
Wastewater Reuse
Wastewater Treatment
Water Reuse
Water Recycle
Reuse Technology
Domestic Reuse
Recreation Reuse
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)'
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
355
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
339
• U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-657-592/5368 Region No. 5-11
------- |