Ecological Research Series
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT
ELY, MINNESOTA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal
species, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term
influences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to
determine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical
basis for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms
in the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-76-092
August 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
by
Harold Kibby and Donald J. Hernandez
Criteria and Assessment Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Effective regulatory and enforcement actions by the Environmental
Protection Agency would be virtually impossible without sound
scientific data on pollutants and their impact on environmental
stability and human health. Responsibility for building this data
base has been assigned to EPA's Office of Research and Development
and its 15 major field installations, one of which is the Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL).
The primary mission of the Corvallis laboratory is research on the
effects of environmental pollutants on terrestrial, freshwater,
and marine ecosystems; the behavior, effects and control of pollu-
tants in lake systems; and the development of predictive models on
the movement of pollutants in the biosphere.
This report describes some of the resources used and pollutants
generated as a result of operating an advanced wastewater treatment
plant which includes phosphorus removal. Other reports are being
prepared which describe the improvement in the Shagawa Lake eco-
system due to the reduction in phosphorus loading, and the social
and economic consequences of operating the advanced wastewater
treatment plant.
A.F. Bartsch
Director, CERL
-------
ABSTRACT
The results presented in this report give an indication of the
pollutants that would be generated and the resources consumed in opera-
ting a treatment facility similar to the one at Ely, Minnesota. The
study analyzes not only the facility itself, but also those industries
that supply products to the treatment plant. It was found that the
total energy requirement of the advanced wastewater treatment plant was
50x10° Btu/million gallons of water treated.
-------
CONTENTS
I Introduction 1
II Wastewater Treatment Plant 3
III Resource Utilization and Pollutant Generation 6
Energy 7
Lime 9
Polymer 14
Carbon Dioxide 14
Ferric Chloride 15
Chlorine 16
Sulfuric Acid 19
IV Discussion and Summary 21
V Literature Cited 28
VI SI Units and Conversion Factors Used 30
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank R. M. Brice at Ely for his enormous
amount of help in supplying data on the operation of the treatment
facility. Without his help, this paper would not have been possible.
In addition, we would like to thank Mr. C. LaLiberte, Cutler-Magner
Corporation; Mr. M. Pressman, Betz Laboratories; Mr. C. Vorel, Cardox
Products; and Mr. J. Sharp, Dow Chemical, for supplying us with in-
formation on their respective industries, and for reviewing the draft
manuscript. Additionally, Dr. John Sheehy provided useful comments on
the manuscript.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The environmental effects of wastewater treatment include more than
the improvements in water quality that result from operating the treat-
ment facility. To understand the total environmental effects of a
facility, it is necessary to know the environmental tradeoffs that have
occurred as a result of construction and operation. For example: What
are the social and economic costs and benefits associated with treating
wastewater? What pollutants are generated in the manufacture of pro-
ducts used at the treatment facility? How much energy is consumed both
directly and indirectly in the construction and operation of the plant?
What changes have occurred in receiving water quality as a result of
reduced pollutant loadings to the system? What effect has the disposal
of sludge had on nearby terrestrial ecosystems?
These are but a few of the questions to be answered by an environ-
mental assessment being conducted by the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory of the Shagawa Lake Demonstration Project. It is hoped that
this environmental assessment will aid in understanding the types of
significant environmental effects that may occur if similar technology
were transferred elsewhere. The reader must be congizant that the
Shagawa Project was a research effort, not simply a state-of-the-art
application. Consequently, the costs and benefits of the project cannot
be developed into a traditional C/B ratio. For example, a primary
benefit has been an increase in both limnological and technological
knowledge. This increase in knowledge is unquantifiable in any tradi-
tional sense and no attempt is made to place a numerical value on this
commodity.
The purpose of this part of the overall environmental assessment is
to examine only one aspect of the environmental impact of the Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT) facility at Ely, Minnesota, namely resource
utilization and pollutant generation resulting from the operation and
maintenance of the AWT plant. These results give an indication of the
pollutants that would be generated and the resources consumed if the
technologies developed at Ely were transferred to another location.
Further, the results may be compared to those of a similiar AWT study at
South Lake Tahoe (Antonucci and Schaumberg, 1975).
Boundaries for the area of consideration need to be carefully
defined in order to assess the resources used and pollutants generated
-------
as a result of the operation and maintenance of the Ely AWT plant. The
following assumptions and limitations imposed on the study were due to
both data restrictions and manpower constraints: 1) Only the operation
and maintenance of the AWT plant has been considered. Resources utili-
zed and pollutants generated during the construction of the plant have
not been considered. 2) Consideration has been given only to the uti-
lization of resources and pollutants generated at the AWT plant and in
first order industries. A first order industry is any industry that
supplies products directly to the AWT plant at Ely. Resources utilized
or pollutants generated by second order industries (i.e. those indus-
tries supplying products to first order industries) have not been
considered. As an example, pollutants generated as a result of pro-
viding electricity to the AWT plant are considered; pollutants generated
as a result of supplying electricity for the manufacturing of lime are
not considered. 3) The city of Ely was operating a secondary treatment
plant. The phosphorus removal facility was added to the existing plant.
Consequently, an environmental assessment of advanced wastewater treat-
ment might cover only the tertiary phase, or that portion of treatment
beyond secondary treatment. This study, however, examined the entire
treatment process - primary, secondary and tertiary. The reasons for
studying the entire plant, instead of just the tertiary phase are: a)
the tertiary phase of the facility cannot operate without primary and
secondary treatment, and b) water quality improvements in Shagawa Lake
result from the treatment provided by the entire plant, not just the
tertiary plant.
To put the present study into proper perspective, a brief history
of the initiation of the AWT plant and a description of the plant itself
is necessary. Prior to the operation of the AWT, phosphorus entering
the lake was discharged from the secondary facility operated by the City
of Ely. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation
with the City of Ely, funded construction of an advanced wastewater
treatment facility to demonstrate that a reduction in phosphorus from a
point source could reduce the trophic status of Shagawa Lake (Malueg e_t
al, 1975). The tertiary plant which began operation in the spring of
1973, was designed to limit the phosphorus content of the effluent to 50
Mg/m (0.05 mg/r) or less. Operating data since that time indicate
that the effluent from the plant does indeed meet design criteria. Both
the improvement in water quality and the limnological characteristics of
Shagawa Lake have been reported in the literature by Malueg ejt a]_ (1975)
and by Larsen ejt a]_ (1975) and will not be discussed here.
-------
SECTION II
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Prior to construction of the tertiary treatment plant, the Ely,
Minnesota, waste treatment facility consisted of a conventional second-
ary treatment operation. Wastewater entered the facility, passed
through two parallel grit chambers and then through a bar screen and
comminuter. The waste proceeded through a primary clarifier, trickling
filter and secondary clarifier. After the effluent left the secondary
clarifier, it was chlorinated and discharged into Shagawa Lake (Brice
1975).
Historically, sludge from the secondary clarifier was returned to
the influent line of the primary clarifier and sludge from the primary
clarifier was digested and discharged to sludge drying beds. The plant
was designed to use digester gas in the plant boiler burner. However,
it was necessary to use supplemental gas to heat the digester (Brice
1975).
The tertiary treatment system was constructed as a research faci-
lity with a maximum of operational flexibility. Because of this, it is
possible to pump almost any part of the waste "from anywhere to any-
where". Chemicals can also be introduced at many points in the system.
However, much of this capability is not used and a standard procedure
which is working quite satisfactorily, was developed. It is this normal
operating procedure which will be described. A plant flow schematic is
shown in Figure 1.
The effluent from the secondary treatment facility is pumped to a
solids-contact clarifier at a rate of 4164 m /day (1.1 mgd), Sheehy and
Evans (1976). Flow from this clarifier goes to a second, similar clari-
fier and then to a flow splitter box which feeds by gravity to four dual
media filters.
The filters polish the effluent by removal of suspended solids
containing phosphorous. Use of dual media (anthracite and sand) permits
longer filter runs while still retaining excellent solids retention
capability. Backwash water is returned to the secondary plant influent
line. The filter effluent is chlorinated and discharged to Shagawa Lake
or pumped back to the plant for use as process water.
It should be noted that an activated carbon feed capability is
available for the removal of soluble organic phosphorous, or other uses
as indicated. However, due to normal plant efficiency activated carbon
-------
Exhaust
CHLORINE FEED
SYSTEM
ACTIVATED CARBON
FEED SYSTEM
nfluent J[ jf 1
tion I .—. J I
Sludge conveyor
Sludge hoppers
Truck to landfill
-Effluent
sampler
.Effluent to
Shagawa Lake
Storm flow and
septic drainage
from Stinky Creek
ELY, MINNESOTA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
NORMAL FLOW SCHEMATIC
MODIFIED FROM
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANHERSON AND ASSOCIATES SCHEMATIC
Effluent pump
station
Thickened sludgel
pump station
Process piping
Chemical feed piping
-------
is seldom used, consequently the analyses which follow do not include an
assessment of the activated carbon system.
Chemical sludge is withdrawn from the tertiary system at both
clarifiers and pumped to a gravity sludge thickener. Organic sludge
from the primary and secondary clarifiers goes to the sludge thickener
where it is mixed with the chemical sludge from the tertiary plant.
From the sludge thickener, the sludge is pumped to a rotary belt vacuum
filter and trucked to an approved sanitary landfill. In the event of
equipment failure, the sludge can bypass any given treatment facility
and be discharged to a sludge holding pond. Filtrate from the vacuum
filter and slurry from the vacuum are discharged to the equilization
tank and returned to the head of the plant.
3
The tertiary treatment plant was designed to treat 5,678 m /day
(1.5 mgd) and from April 1, 1973 - March 31, 1974 was treating 4,164
m /day (1.1 mgd). Overall plant performance relative to certain para-
meters is presented in Table 1 (Sheehy and Evans, 1976).
TABLE 1. ELY AWT PLANT PERFORMANCE
Influent Effluent
3 3
g/m g/m
Removal
% g/m3 kg/d
Mg/yr
Total P 7.1
Suspended Solids 202.0
Alkalinity (as 181.0
CaC03)
BOD 90.0
0.05 99.4 7.02 29.2 10.7
1.30 99.4 201.0 837.0 306.0
41.90 76.9 139.0 579.0 211.0
12.30
86.3 78.0 325.0 119.0
-------
SECTION III
RESOURCE UTILIZATION AND POLLUTANT GENERATION
As discussed in the Introduction, the operation and maintenance of
the Ely AWT requires resources and the production of these resources
generates pollutants. This section describes and quantifies the major
resources utilized both directly (Table 2) and indirectly by the AWT.
In addition to the resources discussed below, there is the human re-
source which will be discussed in a later paper on socioeconomic fac-
tors. However, it should be noted here that at present there are eleven
people employed directly in the operation of the treatment facility.
The significant pollutants caused by the production of these resources
are also identified and quantified. These data will allow an assessment
of the trade-offs which exist between the benefits accrued to the AWT
through improved effluent quality and the costs incurred by the AWT
through resources employed and pollutants generated.
TABLE 2. RESOURCES USED DIRECTLY AT ELY PER YEAR
SHEEHY AND EVANS (1975), BRICE (1975)
1. Lime Mg (Tons) 488 (538)
2. C02 Mg (Tons) 152 (168)
3. Chlorine Mg (Tons) 4.7 (5.2)
4. Electricity (kwh) 780,000
5. Fuel Oil m3 (gals) 238 (63,000)
6. FeCl3 Mg (Tons) 39.9 (44)
7. Sulfuric Acid Mg (Tons) 74.4 (82)
8. Polymer kg (Ibs) 304 (670)
-------
ENERGY
Electricity
On an average annual basis approximately 65 MWh (65,000 kWh) are
used monthly at the wastewater treatment facility at Ely, Minnesota.
This electricity is purchased from the City of Ely, who in turn buys
electricity from Minnesota Power and Light (MP&L). The environmental
analysis which follows is based on the fuel mix for the base load of
MP&L, which is approximately 80% low sulfur western coal, 12% hydro-
electric, and 8% residual fuel oil (Rutka, 1975). The following assump-
tions were made with regard to the fuels: 1) coal = 0.65% sulfur, 19.77
MJ/kg (8500 BTU's/lb), ash content = 7%; 2) Fuel oil = 1% sulfur and
0.5% ash; and 3) hydroelectric - no environmental insults are assigned
to production of electricity by hydroelectric generation.
It is recognized that production of electricity by hydroelectric
generation creates environmental alteration such as changing a free
flowing stream to a standing water reservoir. This in turn alters
recreational opportunities and species composition of the aquatic
ecosystem. Further, dams can and do create other potential environ-
mental effects, such as gas bubble disease. However, with present
assessment techniques it is not possible to allocate a percentage of
these types of effects to the AWT at Ely. It must simply be recognized
that the AWT at Ely contributed to the demand for electricity and that
demand is being partially satisfied by hydroelectric power.
The resources consumed and pollutants generated, as shown in Tables
3 and 4 respectively, were calculated from Pigford e_t al_ (1975). While
Pigford e_t aj_ have included pollutants generated throughout the entire
fuel cycle of both fuel oil and coal, this analysis includes only pol-
lutants generated at the power plant. This paper has not included an
analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the extrac-
tion, transportation, or processing of fuels prior to burning in the
power plant.
TABLE 3. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY
FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
Per MWh Per year (780 MWh)
Fuel oil (8%) m3 (gals) 0.020 (5.2) 15.4 (4070)
Coal (50%}, Mg (ton) 0.420 (0.46) 328 (359)
Hydro-electric (12%)
-------
TABLE 4. POLLUTANT DISCHARGE DUE TO PRODUCTION OF,ELECTRICITY FOR AWT
AT ELY, MINNESOTA 780 MWh/year
kg
S02
NO
To Air
CO
HC
Particulates
Suspended
Solids
H2S04
ci2
To Water
Phosphates
Boron
BOD
To Land Fly Ash
(Ibs) of pollutant
per MWh
5.56
4.04
0.25
0.045
2.31
0.053
0.009
0.003
0.005
0.036
2.72
(12.3)
(8.91)
(0.55)
(0.10)
(5.09)
(0.116)
(0.020)
(0.006)
(0.010)
(0.080)
Negligible
(6.00)
kg (Ibs)
per
4.34 x 1
3.15 x 1
193
34.9
1.80 x 1
41.2
7.02
2.3
3.6
28.3
Negl
21.2 x 103
of pollutant
year
O3 (9.6 x 1
O3 (6.95 x
(426.0)
(77.0)
O3 (3.97 x
(90.8)
(15.5)
(5.1)
(7.9)
(62.4)
igible
C46.7 x
o3)
103)
103)
103)
1
Assumes fuel mix of 80% coal, 12% hydro and 8% fuel oil.
It is emphasized that the data in Table 3 indicate the pollutants
generated as a consequence of electric energy use by the Ely AWT.
However, it must be recognized that these pollutants are discharged to
the environment at the generating location, not at Ely. Consequently,
as with all indirect pollutants generated as a result of operating the
AWT, the environmental costs are being borne not by the users of Shagawa
Lake or the residents of Ely, but by the residents living near, and the
people using the environment at another location.
-------
Fuel Oil and Gasoline
Significant quantities of pollutants are generated by burning fuel
oil and gasoline at the AWT facility. Further, the oil refineries
required to produce these products are the most significant indirect
source of pollution that can be assigned to the operation of the AWT at
Ely.
The direct pollutants generated and energy consumed as a result of
burning these fuels may be accounted for as follows. The trucks which
haul sludge from the AWT to a sanitary landfill consume 9.273 m (2450
gallons) of gasoline pes year. This is a direct energy consumption of
3.30 x 10 MJ (31.3 x 10 BTU's). In addition, based on air pollution
emission factors (EPA, 1972) this study assumes the following air
pollutants are emitted from these trucks: 1) carbon monoxide, 1838 kg;
2) hydrocarbons, 183 kg; 3) Nitrous Oxide (NO ), 1503kg. Based on
assumptions shown in Table 2, the burning of 238.5 m (63,000 gallons)
of fuel oil at Ely may be expected to emit the following air pollutants:
1) SO , 4113 kg; 2) CO, 6 kg; 3) HC, 83 kg; 4) NO , 1145 kg; 5) parti -
culates, 429 kg; and an undetermined amount of fly ash7(EPA, 1972). 7
This results in a direct energy consumption of 1.01x10 MJ (957 x 10
BTU's).
As noted above, the refining of the fuel oil and gasoline con-
stitutes the largest indirect source of pollutants and energy consump-
tion required for the operation of the AWT. To allocate pollutants
generated and resources consumed at an oil refinery it is necessary to
know the percentage of gasoline and fuel oil produced by the total
refinery process. For this analysis, it is assumed that gasoline
represents 44.7% of the crude input and fuel oil represents 21.7%
(Pigford e_t a_l_, 1975). Tables 5 and 6 show the resources consumed and
pollutants emitted in refining the fuel oil and gasoline consumed at
Ely. This information has been taken from Pigford et_ al_, (1975), and it
should be noted that it represents industry-wide data for 1969. Thus it
does not represent the most modern technology; rather is indicative of
existing operations in the United States. It is interesting to note
that of the total amount of energy consumed as a result of operating the
AWT at Ely 65% can be assigned to the direct use of fuel oil and gaso-
line, and/or the refining of these products. In a wastewater treatment
plant that uses digester gas in the boilers, significant savings in
energy and pollutant discharges, both directly and indirectly, would be
realized.
LIME
The Ely AWT facility uses 488 Mg (537 tons) of lime ger year. Lime
is fed into the clarifier at an average dosage of 275 g/m (mg/1) as
CaO to maintain a pH of 11.8 - 12.2 and to react with the ortho-phos-
phate to form calcium hydroxyapatite. This is the primary mechanism by
which phosphorus is removed from the wastewater. Magnesium hydroxide
-------
TABLE 5. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTION QF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
9.273 m (2450 gal) Gasoline and 238.5 m (63,000 gal) Fuel Oil per Year
Water, m (gal )
3
Natural Gas, m
(cu ft)
Proeane and Butane
m3 (gal)
Crude Oil, m3 (gal)
Per m3
Gasoline
6.19xl07
0.748
1.028
6.29xlO"3
Per 1000 gal
Gasoline
(6.19X1010)
(100)
(1020)
(6.29)
3
Per m
Fuel Oil
S.OlxlO7
0.364
0.538
3.05xlO"3
Per 1000 gal
Fuel Oil
(3.01xl010)
(48.6)
(538)
(3.05)
Per year
Total
7.76xl09 (2.05x1
93.5 (3304)
138. (36400)
0.786 (208.)
o12)
-------
TABLE 6. POLLUTANT DISCHARGE DUE TO PRODUCTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
9.273 m (2450 gal) Gasoline and 238.5 nT (63,000 gal) Fuel Oil/year
3 kg per
m Gasoline
Ibs per
1000 gal Gasoline
,kg per
m* Fuel Oil
Ibs per
1000 gal Fuel Oil
kg
Per Year
Ibs
To Air
Particulates
Organic
N0y
S0x
COX
To Water
Chlorides
Grease
NH-, - N
Phosphate
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
15.9
127.6
99.4
118.0
24.1
134.9
0.34
0.34
0.02
0.56
36.40
1.13
618.0
(133)
(1065)
(830)
(985)
(201)
1126)
2.8)
(2.8)
(0.14)
(4.7)
(304)
(9.4)
(5160)
7.8
61.8
48.3
57.3
11.7
65.4
0.17
0.17
0.01
0.28
17.70
0.55
300.10
(64.7)
(516)
(403)
(478)
(97.6)
(546)
(1.4)
(1,4)
(0.07)
(2.3)
(148)
4.6)
(2505)
1993
15930
12440
14760
3014
16850
43.1
43.1
2.2
70.9
4567
142
77320
(4394)
(35,000)
(27,000)
(33,000)
(6650)
(37157)
(95.1)
(95.1)
(4.8)
(156.4)
(10,100)
(313)
(170,000)
-------
and calcium carbonate are also formed and serve as coagulants to assist
in removing the gelatinous calcium hydroxyapatite. In addition, lime is
used when necessary as a sludge conditioner.
The analysis and documentation of environmental alterations which
are assigned to the Ely AWT plant as a result of using lime include only
those associated directly with the processing of limestone. Both the
mining of limestone and the transporting of the limestone to the pro-
cessing plant generate pollutants which are not considered here. All
lime used at the AWT plant is purchased from the Cutler-Magner Company
of Duluth, Minnesota. The calcining data in this paper is based largely
on information supplied by Cutler-Magner Company (LaLiberte 1975). Lime
is produced by calcining limestone at temperatures in excess of 1093°C
(2000°F) in rotary kilns fired 37% of the time by #6 fuel oil and 63% of
the time by natural gas. In the analysis which follows, the calculations
are based on the fact that it requires 7,500,000 Btu's of oil to produce
one ton of lime and 8,000,000 Btu's of natural gas. The difference
between natural gas and fuel oil is that the kilns are more efficient
when fired with fuel oil. It takes approximately 2Mg of limestone to
produce IMg of lime. In this operation, power is required to drive the
rotary kilns, induced draft fans, water cooling pumps, feeders, com-
pressors, crushers, screens, conveying equipment and to generate high
D.C. voltage in the electrostatic precipitators. Water is required for
cooling kiln beamings and cleaning the exit gas samples going to the
continuous gas analyzers which record levels of oxygen and combustibles
in the exit gases of the three kilns. The resources utilized and the
pollutants generated as a result of producing lime are presented in
Tables 7 and 8. Other literature (EPA, 1974; Lewis and Crocker, 1969,
Boynton, 1966) all indicate that the Cutler-Magner data are generally
representative of the industry as a whole.
TABLE 7. RESOURCE REQUIREMENT FOR PRODUCTION OF LIME
FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA*
488 Mg (537 Tons)/year
Limestone, Mg (tons)
Fuel Oil, m3 (gal)
q
Natural Gas, m (cu ft)
Electricity, MWh (kWh)
Water, m (gal)
Per Mg Lime
2
0.209
237
0.055
0.334
Per Ton Lime
(2)
(50)
(7619)
(50)
(88)
Per Year
976 (107CT)
38 (9935)*
73,200 (2.58xl06)*
27 (26900)
148 (42700)
Based on fact that 37% of the time kilns are fired with #6 fuel oil
therefore it was assumed 37% of the total lime consumed at Ely was
produced by this fuel and 63% was produced by natural gas.
12
-------
TABLE 8. ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANT DISCHARGE DUE TO PRODUCTION OF LIME FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
488 Mg (537 Tons)/year
To Air
S0xkg (Ibs)
Particulates, kg
(Ibs)
Heat, GJ (BTU)
*NOy, kg (Ibs)
A
*CO, kg (Ibs)
*HC, kg (Ibs)
Per
Mg Lime
2.04
0.16
5.20
0.61
0.05
0.035
Per
Ton Lime
(4.1)
(0.32)
(4.5xl06)
(1.23)
(0.10)
(0.07)
Per
Year
996 (2196)
78 (172)
2500 (24.0xl08)
299 (661)
24.6 (54)
17.1 (37.8)
NO , CO, and HC are calculated from "Compilation of'3Air Pollution Emission Factors" (EPA 1972)
ana are based on the fact that approximately 209 dm (liter) of fuel oil are burned to
produce 1 Mg of lime (50 gallons/ton'). Sulphur content of fuel oil was assumed to be 1.6%.
Kilns are fired 37% of the time by fuel oil and 63% of the time by natural gas.
-------
POLYMER
In addition to the lime, a cationic polymer (Betz 1150) is used as
a coagulant aid and added at a dosage of 0.1-0.2 (mg/1). This results
in 299 kg (659 Ibs) of polymer being used each year. Betz polymer 1150
is "actually a co-polymer of acrymlamide with a portion of quaternary
ethyl acrylate included in the structure" (Pressman, 1975). However,
since this polymer is only one of several products being manufactured
simultaneously, Betz Laboratories could not furnish detailed information
on resource utilization such as energy consumption. The company claims
no waste products are given off during the manufacturing process. All
constituents which are not used are recycled and used in other produc-
tion (Pressman, 1975). The resources utilized and energy costs of
transporting 299 kg (659 Ibs) of polymer from Trevose, Pennsylvania to
Ely, Minnesota, are insignificant compared to other energy and resource
requirements of the AWT plant. As a result of these findings, even
though the cost of the product, $8367 per Mg ($7606/ton) would indicate
that the process of producing Betz 1150 may be highly energy consuming,
no environmental impacts are assigned to the utilization of the polymer
at Ely.
CARBON DIOXIDE
Commercial grade carbon dioxide is added to the second clarifier at
a level of 100 g/m (mg/1). This reduces the excess calcium by forming
calcium carbonate resulting in an annual usage of 152.4 Mg (167.6 tons)
of C02- Carbon dioxide is generally obtained as a by-product of some
other reaction and is either emitted to the atmosphere or diverted to a
purification and liquefaction plant. There are only two resources
required to produce liquefied CO- - electrical energy and cooling water
(Vorel, 1975). The information on electrical consumption and pollutants
generated, as supplied by Cardox products (Vorel, 1975) is shown in
Table 9. This information is valid only for gas produced as a byproduct
of another reaction, and not appropriate if gas were produced in an
inert gas generator.
TABLE 9. RESOURCE REQUIREMENT FOR AND POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE DUE TO PRODUCTION OF C09 FOR AWT AT
ELY, MINNESOTA ^
152 Mg (168 Tons)/year
Electricity, kWH
Waste Heat to Cooling
Water, GJ (BTU)
Per
Mg C0?
176
0.32
Per
Ton C02
160.
(S.OxlO5)
Total
Per Year
26800
53.1 (503 x
105)
14
-------
FERRIC CHLORIDE
Ferric chloride is added to the processes at two points. First it
is added to the second stage lime clarifier at the rate of approximately
6 g/m (mg/1) of iron. This serves to form complex insoluble phosphorous
salts which are precipitated or filtered out.
Second, after the effluent leaves the second stage lime clarifier,
chlorine, ferric chloride a«d sulfuric acid are added. Ferric chloride,
at a level of 1.0 - 2.0 g/m (mg/1) of iron, provides a floe blanket
which improves filter efficiency and extends filter runs. There is an
annual usage of 39.8 Mg (43.8 tons) of ferric chloride.
There are several different techniques and processes for producing
ferric chloride. The analysis which follows is based upon information
supplied by Dow Chemical Company (Sharp, 1975) and information contained
in the Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Significant Inorganic
Products (EPA, 1975). The manufacturing of ferric chloride utilizes
mostly waste products from the steel industry - scrap steel and/or waste
pickle liquor (WPL) (Table 10). Chlorine is added to the iron solution
in a reactor and ferric chloride is formed. In some processing plants,
additional hydrochloric acid is added to the reactor. However, since
the facility at Shagawa has been using Dow or DuPont ferric chloride,
neither of which use HC1, it has not been included in this analysis.
While the reaction 2 FeClo + Cl- -> 2 FeCl3 is basically exothermic,
external heat is used at times to concentrate the final product. The
quantity of energy utilized for this step is insignificant (Sharp, 1975)
and is not counted in this analysis.
TABLE 10. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF FERRIC CHLORIDE
USED AT AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
40 Mg (44 Tons)/year
Mg Per Mg Ton Per Ton Total Per Year
Ferric Chloride Ferric Chloride Mg_ Tons
Waste Pickle
Liquor (as Fe) 0.34 0.34 13.7 15.1
Chlorine 0.66 0.66 26.2 28.9
15
-------
In the manufacturing of FeCl3, there are no waste products produced
that are either discharged to the water or emitted to the air (Sharp,
1975). There are, however, a total of approximately 17.7 kg of sludge
produced for every Mg of product ferric chloride (35.4 Ibs/ton). This
means that the amount of solid waste produced each year as a result of
using FeCU at Ely is approximately 706.5 kg (1558 Ibs). There is no
detailed information on the chemical composition of the sludge but it is
expected that it would contain grease, silica, sand, ferric chloride,
and iron oxide and hydioxide (EPA, 1975). No environmental insult has
been assigned to the chemicals contained in the sludge.
CHLORINE
o
Chlorine is added at a dosage of approximately 3.0 g/m (mg/1) to
provide a final effluent residual of 0.2 g/m (mg/1). This serves as a
control for potential pathogenic bacteria and results in the use of 4.7
Mg (5.17 tons) of chlorine per year.
The industrial process and energy requirements for the production
of chlorine has been detailed by Saxton et al_ (1974) and EPA (1974).
The electrolytic processing of brine by either diaphram or mercury cells
accounts for 96% of the total chlorine production in the United States.
The remaining 4% is presently produced as a by-product of other indus-
trial processes. In this study it has been assumed that the chlorine
used at Ely has been produced by the electrolytic process. The follow-
ing information and assumptions are important in analyzing resource
requirements of the chlorine industry: 1) 75% of the installed elec-
trolytic capacity in chlor-alkali plants consist of diaphram cells and
25% of the capacity consists of mercury cells; 2) 41% of the cells use
graphite anodes, and 59% use metal anodes; 3) for every megagram (Mg) of
chlorine produced, 1.13 Mg of caustic soda (NaoH) are produced (1 ton
chlorine/1.13 ton caustic soda). Since most available raw data that are
for the co-production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, this last fact
could lead to misinterpretation of data. This study has allocated
resources between chlorine and caustic soda on a weight basis. For
example, if the co-production of 1 Mg of chlorine and 1.13 Mg of caustic
soda requires 3197 kwh of electricity, 1500 kWh are assigned to the
production of 1 Mg of chlorine. In this case, it is legitimate to
allocate energy resources between chlorine and caustic soda because both
products are in high demand and the dollar value of both products is.
high. In other words, caustic is not necessarily just a by-product of
chlorine production, or vice versa. If caustic was simply a by-product
with little or no economic value, it would not be legitimate to allocate
resources between the two products. Further, the total process yields
hydrogen gas as a by-product which is sold. However, this paper does
not allocate any of the resources to the production of hydrogen (i.e.,
it was considered solely as a by-product of producing chlorine and
caustic soda).
The net and gross energy costs of producing chlorine by different
technologies are shown in Table 11. In this analysis, net electrical
use, rather than gross electrical use, has been used in calculating
16
-------
TABLE 11. ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CHLORINE
(Modified from Saxton et al, 1974)
Mercury Cell
Graphite Anode
Metal Anode
Diaphragm Cell
Graphite Anode
Metal Anode
Net Electrical1
Energy
GJ/Mg BTU/Ton
6.1 52.6xl05
(1700 kWh)
5.2 44.8xl05
(1445 kWh)
5.5 47.4xl05
(1527 kWh)
4.7 40. 5x1 O5
(1300 kWh)
Gross Electrical2 Total Net3
Energy Process Steam Energy
GJ/Mg RTU/Ton GJ/Mg BTU/Ton GJ/Mg BTU/Ton
19 164xl05 1.3 11.2xl05 7.4 63.8xl05
16 138xl05 1.3 11.2xl05 6.5 56xl05
17 147xl05 5.6 48.3xl05 11.1 95.7xl05
15 129xl05 5.6 48.3xl05 10.3 88.8xl05
Power consumed directly in the electrolytic cell and elsewhere in the chlorine plant.
Fuel required to generate the net electricity (in some instances electric power is generated on-site).
Total of Net Electrical Energy and Process Steam.
-------
pollutant emissions and energy consumption. This is done because the
entire analysis is limited to first order industries. The gross energy
figures represent the energy required to produce the electricity.
However, nearly 50% of the electrical consumption by the chlor-alkali
industry is generated on site, therefore, gross energy values are given
in Table 11 so that (if desired) the reader may recalculate energy
values for the production of chlorine.
In addition to electrical energy, the production of chlorine
requires large amounts of process steam in the evaporators. Natural gas
is the primary fuel used in the boilers to produce steam. However,
there are no data on the specific fuel mix used in the boilers. There-
fore, the emissions generated from producing chlorine have been calcu-
lated using the same fossil fuel mix as utilized by the alkalies and
chlorine industry (SIC 2812) as a whole (5% fuel oil, 18% coal, 77%
natural gas). It has been assumed.that these^fuels have the following
heat content: .fuel oil, 39.8 GJ/m (143 x KTBTU/gal); coal, 30.24
MJ/kg (13 x 10J BTU/lb); and natural gas 39.12 MJ/ni (1056 BTU ft ).
Based on these assumptions, Table 12 shows the resources consumed in
producing 1 Mg (and 1 ton) of chlorine, as well as the resources uti-
lized in producing the 4.72 Mg (5.20 ton) of chlorine that is used
yearly at the AWT plant in Ely.
TABLE 12. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF CHLORINE
FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
4.72 Mg (5.20 tons)/year
Electrical, MWh (kwh)
Steam1, GJ (BTU)
Fuel Oil, dm3 (gal)
Coal, kg (lbs)3
Natural Gas, m (cu ft)
2
Rock Salt , Mg (tons)
Sulfuric Acid, kg (Ibs)
Sodium Carbonate, kg (Ibs)
Per
Mq Cl
1.4
4.8
6.3
28.9
95.0
1.1
6.1
8.2
Per
Ton Cl
(1250)
(41.6X105)
(1.51)
(58.0)
(3050)
(1.25)
(12.2)
(16.4)
Per
Year
6.5
22.8
29.7
136.
448
5.3
28.8
38.7
(6.45xl03)
(21.6xl06)
(7.7)
(300.) ,
(15T8xlOJ)
(6.5)
(63.5)
(85.3)
Steam includes fuel oil, coal and natural gas.
Rock Salt was allocated on a molecular weight basis between chlorine
and caustic soda.
18
-------
Table 13 shows the atmospheric and aquatic emissions that result
from the manufacture of chlorine. To calculate these numbers, addi-
tional assumptions were made: ash content of coal = 12%; ash content of
fuel oil = 0.5%; sulfur content of coal and fuel oil = 1%; and emission
controls = 98% participate removal.
TABLE 13. POLLUTANT DISCHARGE DUE TO PRODUCTION OF CHLORINE
FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
4.72 Mg (5.20 Tons)/year
gm per
Mg Chlorine
Ibs per
Ton Chlorine
Per Year
gm Ibs
To Air
To Water
Particulates
SOo
CO
HC
NOY
Clp
COo
Suspended
Solids
Lead
Hgz
45
590
45
20
540
9070
15900
320
2.5
Negligible
9
118
9
4
108
1800
3180
64
0.5
Negligible
210
2780
210
94
2550
42800
75000
1510
10
Negligible
47
614
47
207
561
9360
16500
330
2.60
Negligible
1
Based upon effluent guidelines for best practical control technology.
Allowable discharge of Hg from chlorine plants using mercury cells
is 0.14 g/kg of chlorine produced. Since this analysis is based
upon the assumption that only 25% of Ely's chlorine comes from
mercury cells, the discharge of mercury is 0.0315 g/kg of chlorine
produced.
SULFURIC ACID
As the wastewater leaves the second stage liwe clarifier, sulfuric
acid is added at a dosage of approximately 37 g/m (mg/1) which is
sufficient to maintain a final effluent pH of 7.0-7.5. This results in
the use of 74.5 Mg (82 tons) per year. Sulfuric acid is produced pri-
marily by burning sulfur to produce S0?, followed by oxidation to yield
S03, which is reacted with water to produce H-SO-. This process consumes
19
-------
insignificant quantities of energy, 174.4 kJ/kg (75 BTU/lb) (Saxton et^
a 1, 1974), and, in many cases, much of the excess steam is utilized
either internally or in a nearby plant. For these reasons, this paper
does not include a detailed analysis of the fuels required to produce
the 174.4 kJ/kg (75 BTU/lb) of H?SO». The total energy requirement,
13.0 GO (1.23 x 10 BTU's), is counted in the energy consumption of the
facility at Shagawa. The processes produce an emission of 20 g of S0?
per kg of H2S04~(0.02 Ib/lb) (EPA, 1972). Acid mist is produced and L
emitted to the air. If the HpSO* facility has acid mist eliminators,
then from 0.01 to 0.1 g/kg of H?SO. is emitted. If there are no eli-
minators then from 0.15 to 3.75 g/kg are emitted. The following as-
sumption was made: acid mist eliminators are present at the facility
supplying Ely and 0.1 g/kg (1 x 10~ Ib/lb) are emitted. This results
in the assignment of 7.45 kg (16.4 Ibs) per year of acid mist emissions
due to the production of H-SO* used at the Ely AWT.
20
-------
SECTION IV
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Thegtotal pollutants generated and resources consumed for treating
1.616 hm (427 million gallons) per year of wastewater at the AWT faci-
lity in Ely are summarized in Tables 14, 1§, and 16. Of the total
energy requirement of 26.34 TO (24.96 x 10 BTU's) (Table 14), 10.1 TJ
(9.57 x 10 BTU's) are contained in the fuel oil burned at the AWT
plant. The major indirect energy sources are for refining gasoline and
fuel oil and in the energy content of the fuel required to produce the
electricity used for the AWT. The operation of the oil refinery was the
single largest contributor of pollutants generated as a result of oper-
ating the Ely AWT.
When the values for the AWT at Ely are compared to those of the AWT
at Lake Tahoe (Antonucci and Shaumberg, 1975) there are some apparent
differences (Table 17):
1) At Ely, chlorine is consumed both directly and indirectly in
the manufacturing of Fed,. At Tahoe, since alum is used instead of
FeCK, chlorine is only consumed directly. Because of this difference
in operational procedure, chlorine consumed at Ely is 1.5 times that
used at Tahoe. However, when direct consumption of chlorine is con-
sidered then the chlorine consumed at Ely is only 0.25 times that used
at Tahoe. Likewise, salt and sodium carbonate, used in chlorine manu-
facturing, values are much higher at Tahoe. The difference in these
values iSodue to: 1) the chlorine dosage at Tahoe is 12 g/m (mg/1),
and 3 g/m (mg/1) at Ely; and 2) in this study, the resources used in
chlorine production were allocated between chlorine and its co-product,
caustic soda.
2) Lime is used in greater quantities at the Ely facility pri-
marily because there is a lime recovery system at Tahoe, whereas at Ely
the lime sludge is trucked to a sanitary-landfill. This must be balanced
against energy cost at Tahoe of 3.8 xlO kJ (35.7 x 10 Btu's) to recover
1 i me.
3) Finally, it is apparent from Table 17 that it takes twice as
much total energy, per million gallons of effluent to operate the Tahoe
facility. Of the 111.8 GJ (106 million BTU's) used at Tahoe over 36.9
GJ (35 million BTU's) are used in recalcining lime, which is not done at
21
-------
TABLE 14. TOTAL ENERGY1 REQUIREMENTS PER YEAR FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
ro
ro
Electricity, MWh (kWh)
Fuel Oil, m3 (gal)
Gasoline, m (gal )
Indirect
60.2 (60200)
38 ( 9,935)
-_
Natural Gas, m3 (cu ft) 73,200 (2.58xl06)
Propane & Butane, m3 <9al> 1 38 (35>400>
Crude Oil, m3 (gal) 0.79 (208)
Misc. GJ (BTU's)
2Fuel Oil, m3 (gal)
2Coal, Mg (Tons)
Energy Factors Used:
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas =
Propane & Butane =
Crude Oil
Coal
35.8 (33.9/106)
115.2 (4069)
326.4 (359)
3413 BTU/kWh
19,000 BTU/lb (8 Ib/gal)
20,750 BTU/lb (6.152 Ib/gal)
1050 BTU/cu ft
95,500 BTU/gal
138,100 BTU/gal
8,500 BTU/lb
Direct
780. (780,000)
238.5 (63,000)
9.27 (2450)
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
Gross
TO BTU
0.65 6.18xl08
6.43 6.10X109
Total
840.2 (840,200)
276.5 (72,935)
9.27 (2450)
73,200 (2.58xl05)
138 (36,400)
0.79 (208)
35.8 (33.9xl06)
Sub Total
Net
TJ BTU
0.43 4.08xl08
4.24 4.02xl09
Grand Total
Converted to
TJ BTU
3.03
11.7
0.330
3.10
3.67
0.03
0.04
21.6
0.43
4.24
26.34
(287xl07)
(1109xl07)
(31.3xl07)
(271xl07)
( 348x1 O7)
(2.87xl07)
(3.39xl07)
(205.3xl08)
(4.08xl08)
(40.2xl08)
(249.6xl08)
"Fuel required to produce direct electricity shown on 1st line of table. In these lines, gross refers to energy content of
fuel, and net refers to energy after the energy content of electricity has been subtracted - assuming 33% thermal efficiency.
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF MAJOR POLLUTANT DISCHARGES PER YEAR DUE TO OPERATION OF AWT
AT ELY, MINNESOTA
Mg_
Indirect
Tons
Direct
Mq Tons
Total
Mq Tons
To Air
Participates
S0x
CO
HC
N0y
Clo
3.88
20.6
3.20
0.15
15.88
4.28
5.23
22.74
3.59
0.16
17.5
4.70
0.43
4.08
1.84
0.27
1.29
0.4*
4.50
2.03
0.29
1.43
4.31
24.7
5.10
0.42
17.15
4.28
5.71
27.2
5.62
0.45
18.9
4.70
ro
CO
To Water
Suspended
Solids
H2S04
Phosphates
BOD and COD
0.33
0.007
0.007
4.6
0.37
0.01
0.01
5.1
0.33
0.007
0.007
4.6
0.37
0.01
0.01
5.1
To Land
Sludge
Fly Ash
0.78
2.12
0.78
2.34
893.0
984.
894.
2.12
985.
2.34
-------
TABLE 16. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PER YEAR FOR OPERATION OF AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
Chi on ne
Lime
FeCl3
H2S04
Polymer
Salt
Sodium Carbonate
Limestone
Mg
26.
—
—
0.
--
5.
0.
971 x
Indirect
Tons
2 28.9
--
--
03 0.03
--
30 5.80
04 0.04
103 1070.
Mg
4.7
488.1
39.9
74.4
0.15
--
--
<_ ~i
Direct
Tons
5.2
538.1
44.0
82.0
0.17
--
--
« «
Total
Mg
30.9
488.1
39.9
74.4
0.15
5.3
0.04
971.
Tons
34.1
538.
44.
82.0
0.17
5.8
0.04
1070.0
-------
TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWT AT ELY, MINNESOTA
AND LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA
ro
en
•— — - — • L-~ -- - ----- -- - - - - -
Chlorine, kg (Ibs)
Salt, kg (Ibs)
Sodium Carbonate, kg (Ibs)
Lime, kg (Ibs)
Limestone, kg (Ibs)
Energy, GJ (BTU)
Per o
1000 nr
19
3.26
0.02
302.0
600.5
16.19
ELY
Per
Mill ion Gallons
(160)
(27.2)
(0.19)
(2520)
(5011)
(58.1xl06)
Per .-,
1000 nr
12.7
33.6
0.31
192.0
383.5
29.5
TAHOE
Per
Million Gallons
(106)
(280)
(2.6)
(1600)
(3200)
(106xl06)
-------
Ely. Secondly, the AWT at Ely does not incinerate its organic solids,
but mixes them with the lime sludge and hauls them to a landfill. At
Tahoe the incineration of these solids results in an energy cost of 6.64
kj/m (23,800 Bill's per million gallons). The only energy value that
was calculated differently in the two studies was the amount of energy
required to produce chlorine. In this study the energy consumed in
producing chlorine and caustic soda was allocated between the two end
products, whereas Antonucci and Schaumberg (1975) assigned all of the
energy in the production of chlorine and caustic soda to chlorine. This
difference is insignificant when compared to other energy requirements
of the AWT plants.
In order to put the resource consumption due to the operation of
Ely's AWT in perspective, one can compare this consumption with a common
"baseline", for example, home consumption of energy. On the average an
all-electric home, 111.5 m (1200 sq ft), in Ely, Minnesota, consumes
approximately 3240 kWh/mo which is equivalent to 11,065,000 BTU's. The
AWT plant at Ely uses 65,000 kWh per month (221,980,000 BTU's) plus
another 798 million BTU's in fuel oil. Thus the direct energy consump-
tion at the AWT facility is equal to the direct energy consumed in 74
all-electric homes. Using another comparison, the 2450 gals of gasoline
used in the trucks for hauling sludge would drive an automobile (getting
20 mpg) approximately 49,000 miles, about what four average families
would drive in one year.
Based on 1975 emission standards, which are more stringent than the
emissions from an average auto, it is possible to compute the number of
miles of auto travel that would create the equivalant grams of certain
pollutants as does the operation of the AWT at Ely: 1) CO, 337,200
miles; 2) HC, 224,000 miles; and 3) NOV, 57,950,000 miles.
s\
Other comparisons can be made. However, the purpose of this paper
is not to evaluate operation of the Ely AWT facility by comparing its
operation to other activities of man. The purpose of this study is to
assess what pollutants have been emitted and what resources have been
consumed as a result of operating the AWT at Ely. Ideally, it would be
desirable to carry this analysis a step further and discuss the effect
these pollutants have on human health and natural ecosystems. This is
not possible using techniques available today.
Consequently, we are faced with the situation where it is possible
to quantify, to some extent, the unquestionable improvement of the
Shagawa Lake ecosystem, and compare this improvement to unquantifiable
environmental effects that are being borne, not by the users of Shagawa
Lake and the residents of Ely, Minnesota, but by others who live in the
area of the oil refineries, chlorine plants and other support industries.
While we cannot quantify these tradeoffs it is important to understand
that they do exist and because of this technology fixes may not neces-
sarily be the solution to all environmental pollution problems.
26
-------
SECTION V
LITERATURE CITED
1. Antonucci, D. C. 1973. Environmental Effects of Advanced Waste-
water Treatment at South Lake Tahoe, California. M.S. Thesis,
Oregon State University.
2. Antonucci, D. C. and F. D. Schaumberg. 1975. Environmental Effects
of Advanced Wastewater Treatment at South Lake Tahoe. J. Water
Pol. Cont. Fed. 47:2694-2701.
3. Boynton, R. S. 1966. Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Lime-
stone. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
4. Brice, R. M. 1975. Personal Communication.
5. LaLiberte, C. 1975. Personal Communication.
6. Larsen, D. P., K. W. Malueg, D. W. Schults, and R. M. Brice (1975).
Response of Eutrophic Shagawa Lake, Minnesota, U.S.A., to Point-
Source Phosphorus Reduction. Verh. Internet. Verein. Limnol.
19:884-892.
7. Lewis, C. and B. Crocker, 1969. The Lime Industry's Problem of
Airborne Dust. Air Pollution Cont. Assoc. 19:31-39.
8. Malueg, K. W., D. P. Larsen, D. W. Schults, and H. T. Mercier (1975).
A Six Year Water Phosphorus and Nitrogen Budget for Shagawa Lake,
Minnesota. Journ. of Envir. Qua!. 4:236-242.
9. Pigford, T. H., M. J. Keaton, B. J. Mann, P. M. Cukor and G. L.
Sessler, 1975. Fuel Cycles for Electric Power Generation in Compre-
hensive Standards: The Power Generation Case. Final Report by
Teknekron to EPA.
10. Pressman, M. A. 1975. Personal Communication.
11. Rutka, R. R. 1975. Personal Communication.
12. Saxton, J. C., M. P. Kramer, D. L. Robertson, M. A. Fortune, N. E.
Laggett, and R. G. Capell. 1974. Industrial Energy Study of the
Industrial Chemicals Group. Final Report to the Department of
Commerce and the Federal Energy Office. Contract #14-01-0001-1654.
ASTM Metric Practice Guide, E 380-74.
13. Sharp, J. 1975. Personal Communication.
27
-------
14. Sheehy, J. W. and Evans, F. L. 1975. Tertiary Treatment for
Phosphorous Removal at Ely, Minnesota AWT Plant April, 1973 thru
March, 1974, EPA 660/2-76-082.
15. Shreve, R. 1967. Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill, NY.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors - 164 p. EPA Report No. AP-42.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Major Inorganic Products Segment of Inorganic
Chemicals Manufacturing. EPA 440/1-74-007a.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development Document
for Interim Final and Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Significant
Inorganic Products Segment of the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-75-045.
19. Vorel, C. J. 1975. Personal Communication.
28
-------
SECTION VI
SI UNITS AND CONVERSION FACTORS USED
UNITS
length metre (m)
mass kilogram
energy
(kg) volume
joule (J)
o
cubic metre (m )
2
area square metre (m )
SI PREFIXES
Multiplication Factors Prefix
1012
10g
lOo
10-
iof
10-,
10"!
10~o
10 £
10~Q
10 n p
^-1 5
1r\
-18
10 IS
CONVERSIONS
To Convert From
BTU
foot
* 4-3
foot
gallon (U.S. liquid)
kilowatt-hour (kWh)
mile (U.S. statute)
pounds (Ib avoirdupois)
ton (short-2000 Ibm)
barrel (bbl)
tera
giga
mega
kilo
hecto
deka
deci
centi
milli
micro
nano
pi co
femto
atto
to
joules (J)
2 2
metre (m )
metre (m )
2
metre (m )
joules (J)
kilometer (km)
kilogram (kg)
megagrams (Mg)
gallon (U.S. liquid)
SI Symbol
T
G
M
k
h
da
d
c
m
u
n
P
f
a
Multiply By
1.055 x 103
9.290 x 10~2
2.832 x 10"2
3.785 x 10~3
3.600 x 106
1.609
4.536 x 10"1
0.907
4.2 x 10
29
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-76-092
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI ON- NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Impacts of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment At Ely, Minnesota
5. REPORT DATE
August 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Harold Kibby and Donald J. Hernandez
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97330
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
sane
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The results presented in this report give an indication of the pollutants that
would be generated and the resources consumed in operating a treatment facility
similar to the one at Ely, Minnesota. The study analyzes not only the facility
itself, but also those industries that supply products to the treatment plant.
It was found that the total energy requirement of the advanced wastewater treat-
ment plant was 50x10° Btu/million gallons of water treated.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Environmental Assessment
Resource Consumption
Advanced Wastewater
Treatment.
i. DISTRIBUTI
STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
unclassified
Release to public
21. NO. OF PAGES
36
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
30
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1976-697.991 (124 REGION 10
------- |