United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA 600 2 79 075
Laboratory          July 1979
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Nitrogen  and
Phosphorus
Control by Two
Facilities  in Florida

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional  grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1   Environmental Health  Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7  Interagency Energy-Environment  Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                      EPA-600/2-79-075
                                      July 1979
      NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
       BY TWO FACILITIES IN FLORIDA
                     by

                Tom Comfort
 Hillsborough County Utilities Department
           Tampa, Florida  33601
                    and
                Larry Good
       Florida Cities Water Company
         Sarasota, Florida  33581
             Grant No. 805005
              Project Officer
                E. F. Earth
       Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
          Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
    OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                                DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                     11

-------
                                  FOREWORD

     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people.  The complexity of that environment and
the interplay between its components require a concentrated and integrated
attack on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic efforts of pollution.  This publica-
tion is one of the products of that research; a most vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.

     This report describes the operational and analytical considerations
necessary for municipal wastewater treatment facilities that are required
to produce high quality effluents.
                                      Francis T. Mayo
                                      Director
                                      Municipal Environmental Research
                                      Laboratory
                                     111

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     Municipal wastewater treatment plants employing multi-stage processes
can be operated to consistently produce high quality final effluents.

     Data for both the 11,400 m /d Hillsborough County, Florida and the
6,813 m3/d Florida Cities Water Company facilities are presented in tabular
and graphic form.

     These data show that both utilities can achieve the stringent State of
Florida effluent limitations.  These limitations, for selected sites in the
State, require that the effluent shall not contain more than 5 mg/1 five
day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 mg/1 suspended solids, 3 mg/1 total nitrogen
and 1 mg/1 total phosphorus.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. 805005 by
Hillsborough County under partial sponsorship by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency.  This report covers a period from February 1976 to
December 1978 and work was completed January 1979.
                                      IV

-------
                                  CONTENTS
FOREWORD	iii
ABSTRACT	    iv
FIGURES	 ,	    vi
TABLES	 viii

     1.   Introduction	    1
     2.   Conclusions and Recommendations	    3
     3.   River Oaks Facility	    4
     4.   Gulf Gate Facility	    25
                                      v

-------
                                   FIGURES






Number                             ,                                   Page




 1   Location of River Oaks Facility	    5




 2   Flow Diagram of River Oaks	    6




 3   First Stage Carbonaceous Reactor 	   10




 4   Sodium Aluminate Storage Tank	   11




 5   Influent to Denitrification Reactor	   13




 6   Methanol Tank Before Insulation	   14




 7   Insulated Methanol Tank	   15




 8   Hillsborough County Laboratory 	   18




 9   Sludge Truck Transport to Orange Grove 	   19




10   Total Nitrogen Content of River Oaks Final Effluent. .....   23




11   Total Phosphorus Content of River Oaks Final Effluent	   24




12   Location of Company Treatment Plants 	   26




13   Billing and Records Office 	   27




14   Gulf Gate Flow Diagram	   29




15   Equalization Tank	   30



16   First Stage Carbonaceous Reactors	   31




17   Denitrification Facilities 	   32




18   Rotating Disc Surface	   33




19   Gravity Dual Media Filters	 .  .   34




20   Filtered Final Effluent	   35
                                     VI

-------
                             FIGURES (continued)


Number                                                              Page


21   Control Laboratory	    37

22   Aerobically Digested Sludge Transport 	    39
                                ,•
23   Total Nitrogen Content of Gulf Gate Final Effluent	    45

24   Total Phosphorus Content of Gulf Gate Final Effluent. ...    46
                                     Vii

-------
                                   TABLES






Number                                                                Page




1    Design Values for Major Components of the River Oaks Plant. . .   7




2    Hillsborough County Utilities Sampling Schedules	16




3    River Oaks Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values - 1976. . .  20




4    River Oaks Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values - 1977. . .  21




5    River Oaks Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values - 1978. . .  22




6    Sampling Schedule of Gulf Gate Plant	36




7    Gulf Gate Plant - Final Filters, Unit Removals	41




8    Gulf Gate Plant - Final Filters, Unit Removals	42




9    Gulf Gate Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values	43
                                     vni

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                INTRODUCTION
     Designated areas of the State of Florida are subject to wastewater eff-
luent discharge standards of five milligrams per liter 6005, five milligrams
per liter suspended solids, three milligrams per liter of total nitrogen and
one milligram per liter total phosphorus, depending on the population density
and receiving water quality.

     These water quality standards are established under the State of Florida
Pollution of Waters Act referred to as the Wilson-Grizzle Act.  It was
enacted in 1970 under Chapter 403.086 of the Florida Statutes and amended by
Chapter 72-58 of the Laws of Florida in 1972 and Chapter 17-3.04, Florida
Administrative Code.

     The Federal Environmental Protection Agency permit requirements as set
forth by Region IV limit effluent residuals to 8 mg/1 BOD, 8 mg/1 suspended
solids, 5 mg/1 total nitrogen and 2 mg/1 total phosphorus.

     Florida's second largest industry, tourism, and other water related
industries are dependent upon the availability of safe, clean waters.  Through
the enactment of the Wilson-Grizzle Bill, the State's greatest natural
resource, its costal waters, will be protected from degradation.

     The River Oaks treatment facility, operated by the Hillsborough County
Utilities Department, and the two treatment facilities known as Gulf Gate and
South Gate (Sarasota County) operated by the Florida Cities Water Company
are subject to the Wilson-Grizzle effluent standards.

     Florida rules define secondary treatment as having a minimum efficiency
of 90 percent.  Sarasota County also has an Ordinance which demands 98 per-
cent removal of BODg and suspended solids.

     Chapter 17-3.04 does provide:  (3) Alternate effluent disposal is a
minimum of secondary treatment (90 percent) followed by an effluent disposal
system approved by the Department which will prevent any effluent from being
discharged to the surface waters of the State.  Such disposal may include
land disposal, deep injection wells, or combinations thereof, or other
methods approved by the Department.

     These facilities have been in operation for several years and have
demonstrated the feasibility of controlling both nitrogen and phosphorus in
municipal effluents.  This report will concern the operational and analytical
considerations involved with the daily routine for the River Oaks and Gulf
                                     1

-------
Gate facilities.  Since the River Oaks and Gulf Gate facilities are required
to meet the same effluent limitations, but employ different processes,
comparative data should be of interest to designers, operators and regulatory
personnel.

-------
                                 SECTION 2

                      CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS

     1.  This study has shown that multi-stage wastewater treatment systems
         can be very efficient for the control of BOD , SS, TN and TP.

     2.  Combined chemical-biological processes can be managed by plant
         operators.

     3.  Combined chemical-biological processes depend upon adequate
         laboratory control.

     4.  Sludges generated by these processes can be applied to agricultural
         land.

RECOMMENDATIONS

     1.  Efficiency data should be routinely displayed as frequency
         distribution plots so that variability of effluent composition can
         be documented.

     2.  Effluent limitations should be based on probability of occurrence
         rather than "never to exceed values", in the case of general
         pollutants such as nutrients.  Toxic residuals however may have
         to be restricted to absolute values.

-------
                                 SECTION  3

                  RIVER OAKS FACILITY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY


     The plant is located in the Northwest area of Hillsborough County on the
outskirts of the City of Tampa as shown in Figure 1.  The receiving water is
a man-made canal which is subject to tidal action, and empties into Old
Tampa Bay.
                                             3
     The plant was designed to treat 11,400 m /d O3 mgd) with provisions
for future expansion to 34,000 m3/d (9 mgd).  Initial design was for a
complete mix two sludge nitrification system, followed by deep bed, dual
media, down flow filters for denitrification and filtration.

     Figure 2 is a schematic layout of the River Oaks facility showing the
major unit processes and initial points of chemical additions for control of
nitrogen and phosphorus.

     Table 1 gives the design valves of the major unit processes at plant
hydraulic capacity of 34,000 m^/d and a process design of 11,400 m^/d.

Operation of the River Oaks Plant

     Due to an unexpected economic recession, the projected growth rate in
the area did not occur and the hydraulic loading on the facility was less
than 3,785 m /d for several years.   During this time the nitrification stage
was bypassed and the carbonaceous reactor was operated as an extended aera-
tion process to provide nitrified effluent for the dentrification units.
Figure 3 is a view of the carbonaceous reactor.  Considerable equipment and
operational changes were made during this time to optimize phosphorus and
nitrogen removal.

     The best dosing point for sodium aluminate addition proved to be after
the grit chamber and just before the inlet to the carbonaceous reactor. -A
1.2:1 mole ratio of A1:P at this point provided the most efficient and eco-
nomical dose to achieve the 1 mg/1 effluent total phosphorus limitation.
Figure 4 shows the sodium aluminate storage tank and dual metering pumps for
addition of the chemical.

     Continual problems with the denitrification filters plagued operation
due to the fact that the filters would not accept the design application rate
without rapid headless and consequent frequent backwashing.  Excessive slime
growth, inorganic aluminum percipitates and media destratification were all
evaluated as probable causes.  Eventually the filters could be kept on line

-------
                   Y T~a->s~^*~ T-"™
                   _J -.-.-, 3 ff*~^  --•--   1  ~
Figure 1.  Location  o£ River Oaks Facility

-------
                                         fWER OAKS ADVANCED WASTE  TREATMENT PLANT
o\
                                    FINAL
                                    EFFLUENT
                                                CONTACT
J
(t
s „ 1
0| S
t- Z
1 2
T|REA™T,ON *
CIIU'OER
»ACKV«SH
RETURN
TANK
-^
\


^
DtNIIF- * 1
FILTERS * 2

» 3
*«
                                                 DACKWASH RETURN
                                              Figure 2.   Flow Diagram of River  Oaks

-------
               TABLE  1.  Design Values  For Major Components  of
                            The River Oaks Plant
COMPONENTS
Flow Meters Magnetic

Influent
Return Sludge  (Carbon Cycle)
Return Sludge  (Nitrogen Cycle)
Nitrogen Cycle Spikeline  (Carbon
  Source)
Denitrification  Influent

Grit Removal
                    DESIGN.
              (at 11",400 in /d)
Cyclone Degritter
Bar Rack  (Hand cleaned)
Comminutor

Phosphorus Removal

56 m   (15,000 gal) tank  (storage)
Chemical  Feed Pump (1)
Chemical  Feed Pumps  (2)

Denitrification Carbon Source

38 m   (10,000 gal) tank  (storage)
500 gallon tank (day)
Chemical  Feed Pump
Chemical  Feed Pump

Aeration  Tank (Carbonaceous)

Diameter
Capacity
Mechanical Aerators
Aerator Horsepower
Detention Time
Return Sludge Rate
1
1
1

1
1
0.3 m
34,000 nu/d
34,000 m /d
0.02 1/s
0.2 1/s
1
1
0.005 1/s
0.03 1/s
               (12 in.)
               (9 mgd)
               (9 mgd)
               (17 gal/hr)
               (175 gal/hr) each
               (5 gal/hr)
               (27 gal/hr)
               (105 ft x 12 ft SWD)
               (778,912 gal)

               (60 hp)
32 m x 3.6 m
2,950 m
3
45 kW
6.2 hrs
6800-8700 m /d (1.8 - 2.3 mgd)

-------
TABLE 1.  (continued) - Design Values for Major Components of the River Oaks
                       Plant
COMPONENTS
Aeration Tank  (Nitrification)

Diameter
Capacity
Mechanical Aerators
Horsepower
Diffused Air Blowers
Capacity

Detention Time
Return Sludge  Rate
                                        18 m x 3.6 m
                                        960 m
                                        1
                                        17 kW

                                        3    3
                                        0.5 m /s at
                                        34 kn/m
                                        2 hr
                                                            DESIGN  ,
                                                        (at 11,400 m /d)
(60 ft x 12 ft SWD)
(253,791 gal)

(25 hp)

(1042 cu ft/min at
5 psi)
                                        6800-8700 m /d (1.8 - 2.3 mgd)

Clarifiers (Nitrification § Carbonaceous)
Diameter
Capacity
Surface Settling Rate
Detention Time
Wier Overflow Rate

Aerobic Digesters

Number of Units
Diameter
Capacity

Aerators  (Mechanical)
Horsepower

Sludge Handling

Sludge Thickening Tank
Diameter
Capacity
Sludge Holding Tank
Diameter
Capacity
Sludge Disposal (Contract Hauling)

Chlorine Contact Tank

Number of Rectangular Units
Length
Width
Depth
Total Volume
                                        27 m x,3.6 m
                                        2160 m
                                        19,190 1/m
                                        4.56 hr
                                        134 m /m/d
                                        2
                                        23 m x 3.6 m
                                        1,500 m

                                        2
                                        30 kW
                                        1
                                        10 m x 3 m
                                        270 m
                                        1
                                        9 m x,7 m
                                        480 m
(90 ft x 12 ft SWD)
(571,030 gal)
(471 gal/sq ft)

(10,600 gal/lin ft/day)
(75 ft x 12 ft SWD)
(53,105 ft  (3.5 ftV
capita))

(40 hp)
(34 ft x 10.5 SWD)
(71,272 gal)

(30 ft x 24 ft SWD)
(126,831 gal)
1
17 m
14.5 m
1.5 m
374 m
(55.6 ft)
(48 ft)
(5 ft)
(99,813 gal)

-------
TABLE 1. (continued) - Design Values for Major Components  of  the  River Oaks
                       Plant
COMPONENTS
Denitrification Filters  (Dual Media)

Number of Units
Rectangular Units

Denitrification  (Anthracite)
Polishing  (Sand)
Support  (gravel)
Surface  Loading

Contact  Wet Time
Reaeration  (Mechanical Aerator)
                    DESIGN
               (at 11,400 m /d)
7.6 m x 3 m    (25 ft L x 10 ft W
x 4 m          x 13 ft)
0.9 m          (36 in.)
0.5 m          (18 in.)
0.3 m        7 (12 in.)             2
1.4 - 4.1 1/m  (2.0 - 6.0 gal/min/ft )
/S
5-10 min
3.7 kW         1 - (5 hp)

-------
Figure 3.  First Stage Carbonaceous Reactor

-------
Figure 4.   Sodium Aluminate Storage Tank

-------
a reasonable length of time by maintaining a 1.5 mg/1 chlorine residual in
the backwash chamber and releasing nitrogen gas with periodic short pulses
of air and backwash through the underdrain system.  Figure 5 shows the in-
fluent end of the down flow dual media denitrification filters.

     Careful monitoring of the methanol fed for denitrification showed that
there was an 11 percent loss of methanol during storage due to evaporation.
The original storage tank was not insulated.  Foamed, in-place insulation
was applied to the storage tank and the day-tank used for daily dosage con-
trol.  Figures 6 and 7 show these tanks before .and after foam insulation.
The insulation was effective in greatly reducing evaporation losses.

     Gradually population increased and the County purchased several small
private utility package plants which were abandoned and the flows diverted
to the River Oaks Plant.  When flow increased over the 3,785 m^/d mark, the
nitrification system was placed into operation.

Staff Required for River Oaks Operation

          1 - Chief Operator       -         40 hours per week
          3 - Lead Operators       -        120 hours per week
          3 - Shift Operators      -        120 hours per week
          2 - Relief Operators     -         80 hours per week
          2 - Laboratory  Tech-
               nicians                       80 hours per week

                                            440 Total Manhours per week

Chemicals Required for River Oaks Operation

          Sodium aluminate  -  1.2:1 A1:P weight ratio
          Methanol          -  3:1 methanol to nitrate nitrogen weight ratio
          Polymer           -  for sludge thickening
          Chlorine for disinfection - 9 mg/1

Analytical Program and Sampling Schedule

     The laboratory for the analysis of the River Oaks Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plant is located approximately one block away.  Samples composited
for 24 hours are collected by four automatic samplers and analyzed the
following day.  To meet minimum State requirements, analysis for total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, suspended solids, BOD  and fecal coliform are
required on the chlorinated effluent only.  Analysis on the effluent alone
would not provide the data necessary for process control.  Therefore, four
sample points were chosen throughout the treatment process for control.  The
sample locations are: the influent before any chemical addition or treatment,
the carbon cycle clarifier effluent, the nitrogen cycle clarifier effluent
and the chlorinated effluent.   Table 2 shows the sampling and analysis
schedule.
                                     12

-------
                                   •

Figure 5.   Influent to Denitrification Reactor

-------
Figure 6.   Methanol Tank Before Insulation

-------


 [\
                          FLAMMABLE
                            MATERIAL
Figure 7.  Insulated Methanol Tank

-------
TABLE 2.  Hillsborough County Utilities Sampling Schedules
RAW
ANALYSIS WASTEWATER
BOD5
ss
TKN
N03-N+N02-N
NH3-N
P Total
D.O.
pH
Alkalinity
COD
Fecal Coliform
5C
1C
5C
X
5C
5C
7G
7G
7C+G
5C
X
CARBONACEOUS NITROGENOUS
CLARIFIER CLARIFIER
EFFLUENT EFFLUENT
5C
7C
5C
5C
5C
5C
7G
7G
7C+G
5C
X
1 = once per week
2 = twice per week
5 = five times per week
7 = seven times per week
8 = once per month
5C
7C
5C
5C
5C
5C
7G
7G
7C+G
5C
X
x = no sample
C = composite samples
G = grab samples
CHLORINATED
EFFLUENT
EFFLUENT
5C
7C
7C
7C
X
5C
7G
7G
7C+G
5C
2G

                            16

-------
     In order to better compare the data  from  the  Gulf Gate  treatment plant
with the River Oaks Plant, four portable  automatic samplers  were purchased
and set at comparable points of the treatment  process  at  Gulf  Gate  for
sampling.  Once per week the four samples were split between the two labora-
tories for comparative analytical results.   Figure 8 is a view of the
Hillsborough County laboratory.

Sludge Production at River Oaks

     About 25 m3 of waste sludge is produced for each  3,785  m3 of wastewater
treated  (6,800 gal/million gallons).  This sludge  is aerobically digested
in two-1500 m3 digesters utilizing floating  mechanical  aerators of  30 kW
(40 hp) each.  Loading rates dictated an  average of 30 days  detention per
digester.  After aerobic digestion, Nalco #7120 polymer is added to thicken
the digested sludge from two percent solids  to 3.2 percent solids.  The sludge
is then hauled by truck to a local orange grove for land  spreading.  Figure 9
shows the application of the digested sludge in the grove.

Efficiency of the River Oaks Multi-Stage Treatment

     Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the overall  efficiency of the facility in
removing BOD5, SS, TN (total nitrogen) and TP  (total phosphorus).  The tables
cover the period 1976 to 1978.  As the daily flow  increased  from less than
3,785 m3/d  (1 mgd) in 1976 to near 11,400 m3/d (3  mgd) in 1978 there was no
reduction in efficiency for removal of pollutants.

     Figure 10 is a plot of 145 daily analyses for total  nitrogen during the
first six months of 1978 reported in Table 2.  The data were arrayed in 0.1
mg/1 increments and the frequency of occurrence plotted on logarithmic
probability paper.  Results show that 50 percent of the samples contained
1.5 mg/1 TN, or less; and the effluent limitation  of 3 mg/1  TN was achieved
on 90 percent of the samples.

     This same technique was used to plot the  total phosphorus values for
the first six months of 1978 analyses.  Figure 11  shows that 50 percent of
the 155 data points were 0.7 mg/1 TP, or  less;  and the effluent standard of
1 mg/1 TP was achieved on 66 percent of the  samples.  Efficiency improved
during the latter six months of operation.

     Calculation of the spread factor, by comparing the mean value with one
standard deviation, for each of the above data sets shows that the process
control for TP is more variable than control of TN.  Tables  3,  4, and 5 show
that River Oaks more consistently meets the  total  nitrogen effluent limita-
tion than the total phosphorus limitation on a monthly average basis.
                                      17

-------

    POLLUTION
       ISA
   WRTYWORD
Figure 8.  Hillsborough County  Laboratory

-------
-

                             Figure  9.   Sludge  Truck Transport  to  Orange  Grove

-------
                        TABLE 3.  River Oaks Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values
K)

O
YEAR
1976
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
ANALYSIS, mg/1
BOD SS
Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff.
238
212
208
204
193
207
234
188
170
198
193
238
33
45
27
17
5
6
3
5
2
2
6
4
166
155
163
155
149
219
277
210
157
205
233
191
3
4
4
3
2
5
4
4
2
2
1.6
2
FINAL EFFLUENT
TOTAL N
TKN
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
NO -N*
X
5.5
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.5
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.8
1.5
0.5
1.2
SOL. P TP
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.9
2.0
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0 0.8
0.6
DAILY
FLOW
mgd**
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
     **mgd x 3,785 = m /d


     *NO -N = N00-N+NO,-N
        x       23

-------
                  TABLE 4.   River Oaks  Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values
YEAR
1977
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
ANALYSIS, mg/1
BOD SS
Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff.
237
238
245
258
249
263
207
197
200
242
261
240
4.0
5.0
4.0
1.6
2.3
2.6
2.0
0.6
1.6
0.9
1.4
2.0
168
235
220
193
172
197
153
196
134
175
234
210
1.0
2.6
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.0
FINAL EFFLUENT
TOTAL N
TKN
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.9
NO -N*
x
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.
0.
5
8
8
2
2
3
1
3
2
1
8
6
SOL.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
P
5
7
3
7
7
8
8
5
1
7
8
5
TP
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.6
DAILY
FLOW
mgd**
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
**mgd x 3,785 = m /d


*NO -N = NO^-N+NO_-N
   x       23

-------
                      TABLE 5.  River Oaks Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values
N)
YEAR
1978
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
ANALYSIS, mg/1
BOD SS
Inf. 5Eff. Inf. Eff.
239
205
207
250
206
218
238
229
207
216
216
183
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
212
190
212
239
214
229
293
246
162
177
181
166
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
4
3
FINAL EFFLUENT
TOTAL N
TKN
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
2.1
1.2
2.7
2.6
1.6
2.1
NO
X
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-N*
.1
.7
.5
.7
.6
.1
.1
.1
.2
.7
.5
.5
SOL
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. p
.3
.9
.4
.9
.0
.8
.5
.3
.4
.6
.5
.7
TP
1.2
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
DAILY
FLOW
mgd**
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.9
    **mgd x 3,785 = m /d


    *NO -N = NO_-N+NO_-N
       x       23

-------
K)
                     5.0
                     4.0
                  ^3.0
                   E

                   §2.0
                   o>
                   o
                   * 1.0
                   o
                     0.5-
Spread Factor = 1.7
River Oaks
Effluent
Standard
                                                       Mean
                                 10       30    50     70
                                    Percent of  Observations
                                    90
    98
                    Figure 10.  Total Nitrogen Content of River Oaks Final Effluent

-------
N>
                      5.0


                      4.0



                      3.0




                      2.0
 O>




 S  1.0

 o
JC
 a
 (A
 o

0- 0.5

"5
                      0.1
Spread Factor =  2.4
                             River  Oaks

                             Effluent

                             Standard

                          Mean
                                                                  90
                                           98
       2    5   10       30     50    70

                    Percent of  Observations

  Figure 11.  Total Phosphorus Content of River Oaks Final Effluent

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                     GULF GATE FACILITY, SARASOTA COUNTY

     The Gulf Gate area utility was purchased by Florida Cities Water
Company in 1965 and provides water and wastewater utility services.  Figure
12 shows the location of the two plants owned by the Company in Sarasota
County.  The present facilities, designed to meet the AWT standards, were
completed in early 1975 after being judged by Company management as being the
most practical and economical process available to achieve the desired
results.  The billing and records office of the Company is shown on Figure 13.
Facilities Design
                     NOMINAL CAPACITY 6,813 m3 (1.8 mgd)
1.  Grit removal is sized to remove + 150 mesh grit.

2.  Equalization tank is a 24m (80 ft) diameter tank having a capacity
     of 2,700 m3 (715,000 gal.) with a turbine aerator and peripheral
     diffusers.

3.  Aeration Tanks - There are 4 tanks having a total volume necessary to
     permit a BOD  loading of 961 g/m3 (60 lb/1000 ft ) at design flow.
     Each tank is provided with turbine aerators.

4.  Intermediate Clarifiers - There are 3 designed for 2.2 hr detention
     and 35 m3/m2/d (850 gal/ft /d).
                                                                    2
5.  Rotating Disc Nitrification - There are 8 shafts rated at 9290 m       „
     (100,000 ft2) each, for a hydraulic loading of 0.1 m3/m2/d (2.2 gpd/ft )

6.  Suspended Growth Denitrification - There are 3 mixing basins of equal
     volume with a total detention time of 2.5 hr.  Each basin is equipped
     with a submerged mixer to keep the denitrification mixed liquor in
     suspension.  Methanol is added for controlling the denitrification
     reaction.

7.  Purge tank to blow out nitrogen operates at one minute rapid mix and
     5 minutes high rate air purge.

8.  Final Clarifiers - There are 2 with 2.5 hr detention time and a surface
     loading of 30 m /m2/d (750 gpd/ft2).
                                     25

-------
FLORIDA  CITIES  WATER  CO,     L/S  MAP
 Figure 12.  Location of Company Treatment Plants

                    26

-------
'
I
                                    Figure 13.   Billing and Records Office

-------
 9.   Filters - There are 4 gravity/sand/anthracite filters with air2surface
      wash.   Surfa.ce loading is 2.3 H/jtT/s (3.5 gpm/ft2)  or 3.3 £/m /s
      (5.0 gpm/ft )  with one filter being backwashed.

 10.  Aerobic Sludge Digesters - There are 2 rectangular tanks with coarse
      air diffusion having a capacity of 0.06 m  (2 ft3)  per capita.   An
      air rate of 0.3 Jl/m /s (20 cfm/1000 ft ) is applied.

      Figure 14 shows a schematic flow diagram of the  Gulf Gate Plant.  The
 major installed unit processes are shown in a series  of pictures.  Figure 15
 is the 2,700 m3 equilization tank.  This tank is considered essential by the
 operational staff since it allows the following processes to be operated at
 constant flow.  This is particularly important for chemical dosages and
 final filter and disinfection control.  Figure 16 shows two of the first
 stage aeration tanks with turbine aerators.  Figure .,17 shows the second
 stage rotating discs on the left, suspended growth denitrification reactor
 in the middle background, nitrogen gas purge in the left foreground, and
the final clarifiers in the right foreground.  Figure  18 is a close-up view
of the rotating disc inside the plastic shell.  Since  the discs receive a
very low BODs load from the first stage carbonaceous reactor, only a very
thin film of biological growth occurs on the discs.  There is no intermediate
settling between the rotating discs and the denitrification reactor because
these second stage discs do not slough solids.  Figure 19 is a top view of
the gravity dual-media filters.  Figure 20 shows a one liter beaker of the
filtered final effluent; the clarity and sparkle are characteristic of daily
effluent production.

Analytical and Sampling

     Two composite samples are taken daily.  One is taken as a raw sample
ahead of the grit chamber and the other is taken from the effluent in the
tank located ahead of chlorination.  Automatic samplers take a 200 ml
sample every 40 minutes totaling 7,200 ml per day.  A sampling and analysis
schedule is shown in Table 6.

Plant Operation

1.    An operator is on-duty from 7:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight each day.  Mainte-
     nance and control work are performed by a lead operator and three shift
     operators.  The laboratory is staffed seven days  a week by two labora-
     tory technicians.  Figure 21 is a view of the wastewater control
     laboratory.

2.    Operator Training:  Operators are encouraged to study and take classes
     from schools offering courses leading to certification and licensing.
     The company pays tuition and expenses directly related to operator
     training programs.  On-site instruction and discussion is a daily
     occurrence.  The Sarasota Division of Florida Cities Water Company
     has two "A" Wastewater Operators in staff, one "B" and one "C" Operator.
                                      28

-------
AIR
BLOWERS
                                                                           METALLIC SAL1
                                                                           FEED SYSTEM
N)

i ! f
FLUENT COMMNUT.MI _ __™»._.. ^INFLUENT "!£*"

" SUPERNATANT
DIGESTER .
	 a — ~> 	 &UUHU£HIIUN VrjPIIMD<: mlA
GRIT REMOVAL ^T "UWKa AERATION



C BACKWASH RETURN _
FILTER


CHLORINE POLYMER
FEED SYSTEM FEED SYSTEM
i
BACKWASH |
PUMPS ' 1
®. .. !
i
i FlLTFR !
•NT CHLORINE DUAL MEDIA PUMPS
;,__ ^nLUKiMt nriAuiTY t fr\ , r) AniFirATirtra
CONTACT FILTRATION ^

SLUD6E
K RETURN


WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE

< (SLUDGE , 	 • —
* IPUMPS F
, , 	 SUPERNATANT TlM »•
PUMPS V^* AEROBIC
t a -fpS . niKFSTOB

i_
— >




/^K RETURN 8 WASTE
*'" 	 vL/SLUUBE
T PUMPS

!
| METHANOL
. ; FEED SYSTEM
i 	

FLASH MIX
NITROGEN PURGE
SLUD_GE }
!
SLUDGE PUMPING
STATION
r llFN
nar© — "4-r




\
\
\

                                            Figure  14.  Gulf Gate  Flow  Diagram

-------
i
                                    Figure 15.  Equalization Tank

-------
Figure 16.   First Stage Carbonaceous Reactors

-------
I J
                              Figure 17.  Denitrification Facilities

-------
I
                                    Figure  18.   Rotating  Disc Surface

-------
w
i.
                                     Figure  19.  Gravity  Dual Media  Filters

-------
Figure 20.   Filtered Final Effluent
                 .

-------
                         TABLE 6.  Sampling Schedule of Gulf Gate Plant
SOLIDS
Raw Waste
Equal . Tank
M.L. Carbon
BOD5
mg/1
Daily
Comp.

cycle
SS
mg/1
Daily
Comp.

Daily
Spot
Sett.
Solids


Daily
Spot
DO
mg/1

Daily
Spot
Daily
Spot
pH Alk. C12
mg/1 mg/I
Daily
Spot
Daily
Spot

Total Fecal
TKN NO_-N P Coliform
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 MPN



Inter-Sett.
Eff. Bio Surf
M.L.-Denite
Final-Sett.
Filtered Eff.
Chlorinated Eff.
Aerobic Digester
       2-weekly  Daily
         Spot    Spot
Daily Daily
Comp. Comp.
      Weekly
      Spot
                          Daily  Daily Daily
                          Spot   Spot  Spot

                                       Daily
                                       Spot
Daily  Daily  Daily
Spot   Spot   Spot

Daily  Daily  Daily
Spot   Spot   Spot
Weekly  Weekly  Weekly
Comp.   Comp.    Comp.
                                                Daily
                                                Spot
                                                    Daily
                                                    Spot

-------
I
                                   Figure 21.  Control Laboratory

-------
3.   Special Operational Techniques:  Chemical inventory and feed rates are
     checked each day and adjusted as needed.  The day shift operator reads
     flow totalizer, temperature and rain gauge, collects samples and runs
     daily D.O., pH and chlorine residual tests as well as 30 minute settle-
     able solids tests on the two mixed liquors.  Daily alkalinity tests on
     each process indicate the efficiency of nitrification, denitrification
     and filtration.

4.   Carboncycle sludge is wasted to the digesters each day to maintain a
     constant mixed liquor concentration.  The return sludge pumps are shut
     down for one hour after which 37 m^ (10,000 gal) clarified underflow
     is pumped to digesters at 12 £/s (200 gpm) rate which equates to 550 kg
     (1220 Ibs) of solids per day.

5.   Denitrification sludge return telescopic valves are checked and adjusted
     each hour.  Sludge from this system is wasted once a week by diverting
     return sludge to waste for desired time.  Normally 30 m^ (5,000 gal)
     per week is sufficient to maintain fairly constant mixed liquor
     concentration.   This translates to  about 160  kg (354  Ibs)  of sludge
     accumulation per week or 22  kg (50  Ibs)  per day from  the  loss of carbon
     cycle solids plus solids made in the nitrification and denitrification
     of 68 kg/d (150 Ibs/d).

 Sludge Operations and Disposal

      From the  previous discussion it is  known that  sludge  wasted to  digesters
 amounts to about 590 kg/d (1300  Ibs/d).   By  careful wasting the  concentration
 of solids in the aerobic digesters is maintained  at about  1.5%.   Since final
 disposal of all solids is by hauling and spreading  over pasture  lands, it is
 important that sludge be as  concentrated as  possible and  there be no objec-
 tionable odors when sludge is spread.  At  1.5% it is necessary that  two  tank
 trailer loads  per day or 14  per  week at  20 m^ (5,000 gal)  be  disposed of.
 During the rainy season in Florida this  method of disposal  can become very
 difficult to manage.   Figure 22  shows the  sludge  tanker used  for hauling.

 Special Studies and Problem  Solutions

    1)  The first vexing problem experienced after  initial  start-up was the
 attempt to use ferric chloride to precipitate phosphates.   The resulting
 turbidity and  iron  precipitates  leaving  the  plant could not be corrected
 through various operating changes or polymer additions.  Operating personnel
 gave up on trying to use ferric  chloride and turned to sodium aluminate.
 In  order to control  colloid  loss  in the  effluent  it was necessary to feed
 sodium aluminate to  the aerator  effluent ahead of the settlers.

    2)  In order to control  the amount of  solids build-up in  the equalization
 tank,  the  plant was  designed with an exposed grit chamber.  The  raw  waste-
 water  was  aerated by the grit washer and the neighborhood  was  exposed to
H_S  odors  from the  treatment plant,  along  with many irrigation wells in  the
neighborhood which  also released  hLS when  sprinkling.  The  winter of 1975-76
 created further strained relations with  neighbors due to noise,  lights and

                                     38

-------
Figure 22.  Aerobically Digested Sludge Transport

-------
 H S  odors.   The H2S  was  alleviated  greatly by  a  change  in  water  supply.
 In June,  1976, the high  sulfate  well  water was replaced by surface  water
 from the  Manatee  River.  However, complaints continued  to  be  received  until
 May, 1977 when operating personnel  experimented  with  the use  of  ferrous
 sulfate to precipitate H^S.   It  was found that the use  of  ferrous sulfate
 added to  the influent flow would effectively eliminate  the odor  and at the
 same time react with the phosphate, thus reducing the amount  of  sodium
 aluminate needed.  Hence the  H S was  removed at  no extra cost to the Company
 and  helped our neighborhood relations as well  as our  relations with the
 County Environmental Control  staff.

   3) Nitrogen purge following the  denitrification tanks is absolutely
 necessary if sludge  is to  be  settled  and returned.  The original combined
 air  piping resulted  in decreased air  to the purge system when the filters
 were air  scoured.  The nitrogen-gas-lifted sludge covered  both final
 clarifier surfaces and taxed  the scum removal  system.   Water  sprayed over
 the  surface helped somewhat.  But the problem  was not solved  until  the
 purge tank was supplied  with  an  independent air  supply  to  constantly and
violently agitate the denitrification mixed liquor.   Various arrangements of
air  diffusers were also attempted.

      Regular wasting of sludge and  control of return sludge rate are very
important also.

   4) A special study on the effect of the equilization tank was made May 1-
15,  1978.  The equilization tank study revealed that adjustment of the gate
regulating the flow to the Parshall flume was necessary to  achieve a more
uniform flow from the equalization  tank.   Table 7 shows the utility of the
equalization tank.  Analytical data adjusted for dilution from filter back-
wash  indicated that about one third of the BOD,, was  removed in the equaliza-
tion  tank with average residence time of 7.5 hours.   The ferrous iron was
almost completely oxidized as evidenced by the drop  in PO.  and alkalinity.
There was essentially no loss of TKN.
                                                  i
   5) A special study on the operation of the final  filters was concluded
May  28, 1978.  The data from this study is shown in  Table 8.  The filters
were  lightly loaded during the two  week period.

Plant Efficiency

     Table 9 shows the monthly average data for BOD  ,  SS, total nitrogen
and total phosphorus during the year  1977 with the plant operating at about
48 percent of hydraulic design capacity.

     Only the effluent values for phosphorus and nitrogen are shown because
these determinations are not routinely run on influent wastewater.   Chemical
dosages for phosphorus and nitrogen control are based on grab samples
obtained at each respective unit process location.   Reference to Table 7 can
give  an approximation of the concentration of nitrogen and  phosphorus that
occurs in the Gulf Gate raw wastewater.
                                     40

-------
                          TABLE 7.   Gulf Gate Plant - Equalization Tank
                                   (24 Hour Composite Samples)
1978
Date

5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
Avg.
EQUALIZED
FLOW
mgd*

0.93
.89
.95
.89
.93
.91
.88
.94
.87
.90
.92
.86
.87
.89
.90
BOD
mg/l
Raw
200
230
225
268
288
230
315
306
205
244
268
227
278
326
258
Eq.
145
120
143
132
144
149
184
153
128
133
187
187
138
225
155
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS,
mg/l
Raw
234
222
258
226
218
370
280
462
202
232
312
318
310
302
282
Eq.
220
242
248
254
248
276
256
260
260
248
252
254
242
250
251
ORTHO-PO
mg/l,
(as p)
Raw
' 9.4
9.7
9.3
8.5
8.5
8.5
11.5
11.5
8.2
8.2
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.0
9.0
Eq.
4.7
5.3
5.3
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
8.0
5.8
5.5
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.6
ALKALINITY
mg/l,
(as CaCO )
o
Raw
210
198
190
192
182
187
198
202
220
172
204
190
184
190
194
Eq.
152
162
158
169
154
154
165
164
171
162
173
162
151
161
161
TKN,
mg/l,
(as N)
Raw
—
38.1
38.0
39.2
38.6
40.3
36.4
43.1
39.8
39.8
40.9
41.0
44.8
41.2
40.1
Eq.
—
34.7
35.8
35.3
34.7
37.0
35.8
39.8
35.8
37.0
38.1
38.1
37.0
37.8
36.7
*mgd x 3,785 = m /d

-------
                    TABLE 8.  Gulf Gate Plant - Final Filters, Unit Removals
                                      (24 Hour Composites)
1978
Date

5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-22
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-26
5-27
5-28
Avg.
EQUALIZED
FLOW
mgd

0.86
.88
.88
.88
.91
.89
.87
.93
.96
.84
.86
.88
.68
.89
0.87
BOD
mg/I
Inf.
2.6
2.6
1.3
0.7
1.7
1.3
1.8
5.9
6.4
3.8
1.6
1.1
1.2
0.6
2.3
Eff.
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.4
2.5
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.8
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS,
mg/1
Inf.
1.6
3.6
1.6
1.6
5.2
4.8
4.0
3.6
1.6
3.6
2.0
2.0
1.6
0.8
2.7
Eff.
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
ALKALINITY
mg/1
(as CaCO )
Inf.
135
128
127
128
126
128
127
126
128
133
127
128
128
134
129
Eff.
136
127
126
125
124
128
127
124
114
129
132
127
127
128
127
TURBIDITY
NTU
Inf.
3.4
2.5
2.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.2
3.7
2.9
2.6
1.9
— i
2.0
1.3
2.3
Eff.
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
2.3
1.3
1.0
--
0.8
1.3
1.1
Note:  Hydraulic rate 0.9 1/m /S (1.3 gpm/ft2)
       Solids loading 0.4 kg/m2/d (0.08 lb/ft2)

-------
TABLE 9.  Gulf Gate Plant Efficiency, Monthly Average Values
MONTH
1977

Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Avg.
Year
*mgd x
FLOW,
mgd*

0.864
0.860
0.853
0.792
0.760
0.783
0.786
0.900
1.134
0.900
0.890
1.001
0.877
3,785 = m3/d
BOD
mg/I
Inf.
177
198
195
190
198
183
217
207
233
272
310
251
219

Eff.
1.3
2.7
2.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.2

PERCENT SS ,
REMOVAL mg/1

98
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99

Inf.
278
279
274
288
309
282
338
245
242
293
346
251
285

Eff.
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.0

PERCENT
REMOVAL

99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99

EFFLUENT
TP
mg/1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


.7
.8
.5
.8
.6
.5
.4
.8
.6
.5
.4
.2
.6

EFFLUENT
TN
mg/1

1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1


.5
.3
.0
.0
.4
.7
.8
.1
.9
.2
.3
.7
.6


-------
   4.0
   3.5
   3.0
 o>
 E 2.5
  *
 c
 0)
 £2.0
Z
To 1-5
+*
o

   1.0
   0.5
Spread Factor = 1.5
                Mean
                                      Gulf Gate
                                      Effluent
                                      Standard
      5   10        30    50    70       90       98    99.5   99.9   99.99
                      Percent of Observations
              Figure 23.  Total Nitrogen Content of Gulf Gate Final Effluent

-------
       1.6
      1.4
   _  1.2

   \
   O)


   Ei.o
   V)
   3
      0.8
   w
   O
   Q.
   _  0.6
   to
      0.4
      0.2
      0.0
                  Spread Factor = 1.8
                             Gulf  Gate

                             Effluent
                             Standard
                                •Mean
         5   10
30    50    70       90

      Percent  of  Observations
99-5   99.9
Figure 24.   Total Phosphorus Content of Gulf Gate Final Effluent

-------
      The effluent residuals for weekly average values of nitrogen and
 phosphorus during 1977 were plotted as frequency distributions.   Figure 23
 contains the nitrogen data.  Gulf Gate produces an effluent  with a mean total
 nitrogen content of 1.5 mg/1,  and achieves the effluent standard of 3 mg/1
 96 percent of the time.  The spread factor for the data is about the same
 as the River Oaks plant for nitrogen control.

      The residual phosphorus data on Figure 24 indicates a mean  total
 phosphorus effluent concentration of 0.5  mg/1  and the effluent standard of
 1.0 mg/1 is achieved 90 percent of the time.   The spread factor  of 1.8 is
 slightly better than the 2.4 factor for River  Oaks.   The equalized flow at
 Gulf Gate probably aids in more consistent chemical  dosages  and  consequent
 lower spread factors for both nitrogen and phosphorus control.

      Considering the analytical variability of BOD ,  SS,  TP, N03-N and TKN,
 as reported in the 14th edition of Standard Methods  for The  Examination of
Water and Wastewater,* both plant effluents are of excellent  high quality.
                                                                   i
     Figures 10, 11, 23, 24 and Tables 5 and 9  indicate both  facilities are
conscientiously striving to achieve stringent Federal, State  and  local
effluent limitations.
  Publication Office
  American Public Health Association
  1015 Eighteenth St. NW
  Washington, DC 20036
                                     46

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 . REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/2-79-075
2.
                              3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

  NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONTROL BY TWO FACILITIES
   IN FLORIDA
                              5. REPORT DATE
                                July 1979  (Issuing Date)
                              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)

  Tom Comfort and  Larry Good
                              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Hillsborough County Utilities Department
  P. 0.  Drawer 3292
  Tampa,  Florida  33601
                              10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                1BC822,  SOS #3, Task C/06
                              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                  Grant #R-805005
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
  Office of Research  and Development
  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
                              13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                  Final  - 2/77 - 2/79	
                              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                  EPA/600/14
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 Project  Officer: Edwin  F.  Earth,  (513)  684-7641
 16. ABSTRACT
      Municipal wastewater treatment plants  employing multi-stage  processes can
 be operated to consistently produce high  quality final effluents.

      Data for both the  11,400 m /d Hillsborough County, Florida and the
 6,813  m /d Florida Cities Water Company facilities are presented  in tabular
 and geographic form.

      These data show  that both utilities  can achieve the stringent  State of
 Florida effluent limitations.  These limitations, for selected sites in the
 State,  require that the effluent shall not  contain more than 5 mg/1 five day
 Biochemical Oxygen Demand,  5 mg/1 suspended solids, 3 mg/1 total  nitrogen and
 1 mg/1  total phosphorus.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                              COSATI Field/Group
 Activated  Sludge Process*
 Nitrification
 Wastewater*
 Nitrogen cycle
                    Phosphorus removal'
                    Nitrogen removal*
                    Tampa Bay
                    Attached Growth ^
                     Denitrification
  13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  Release to Public
                 19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                    Release to Public
1. NO. OF PAGES

  55
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

                                                  Release to Public
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                              47
                                       4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 -657-060/5457

-------