EPA-R5-73-013
APRIL 1973 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Ser
The Northern Maine
Regional Treatment System
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC. 20460
-------
RESEARCH .REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, 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 SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES series. This series
describes research on the socioeconomic impact of
environmental problems. This covers recycling and
other recovery operations with emphasis on
monetary incentives. The non-scientific realms of
legal systems, cultural values, and business
systems are also involved. Because of their
interdisciplinary scope, system evaluations and
environmental management reports are included in
this series.
-------
EPA-R5-73-013
April 1973
THE NORTHERN MAINE
REGIONAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM
by
James A. Barresi
Jeffery Gammon
Robert E. Hunter
The Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission
Presque Isle, Maine 04769
Project 16110 DPT
Project Officer
Mr. John Conlon
Region I
Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $3.46 domestic postpaid or $3 GPO Bookstore
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation of use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Detailed sampling, gaging and laboratory analyses determined current
waste loads from the Aroostook-Prestile Basin's potato processing in-
dustry. Studies indicated that significant reductions in load could
be accomplished by in-plant conservation. Biological treatment of
the residual wastes, however, was found necessary.
Preliminary designs were prepared for numerous treatment and loading
operations, including joint industry-municipal plants and regionally
inter-connected systems. A transport-treatment channel system covering
some eleven miles was shown to be technically feasible.
Cost analyses of all viable options and alternatives were prepared, in-
cluding capital and operating costs. Annual revenue requirements for
each system were projected, including evaluation of current State and
Federal grant-in-aid programs. Joint municipal-industrial treatment
facilities proved the most economic course of action.
The technical studies of the research and development program were
evaluated for water quality impact on the receiving waters, as deter-
mined by Companion River Basin Studies.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project No. 16110 DPT under
the partial sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Conclusions
II Recommendations
III Introduction
IV Industrial Waste Studies
V Treatment Plant Design Criteria
VI Treatment-Transport System Analysis
VII Regional Treatment Analyses
VIII Capital and Annual Costs
IX Cost and Ancillary Benefit Analyses
X Discussion
XI Acknowledgments
XII Literature Review and References
XIII Computer Design Program
XIV Glossary, Abbreviations and Symbols
XV Appendix
XVI Summary Report
Page
1
5
9
15
55
73
149
217
271
281
283
285
297
317
323
333
-------
FIGURES
PAGE
1 GEOGRAPHIC ORIENTATION PLAN 10
2 PROJECT CRITICAL PATH METHOD FLOW DIAGRAM 12
3 INDUSTRY LOCATION PLAN 16
4 SCHEMATIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - TATERSTATE-WASHBURN 18
5 SCHEMATIC PROCESS DIAGRAM - POTATO SERVICE INC 20
6 SCHEMATIC PROCESS DIAGRAM - CYR BROTHERS POTATO
STARCH CO 23
7 SCHEMATIC PROCESS DIAGRAM - COLBY COOPERATIVE
STARCH CO 26
8 SCHEMATIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - A & P PROCESSING
PLANT 28
9 SCHEMATIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - MAINE SUGAR
INDUSTRIES 32
10 PLOT - SURFACE LOADINGS VS BOD AND SS REMOVAL -
EXISTING FACILITIES 52
11 COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY LOCATION PLAN 74
12A & B INITIALLY PROPOSED TREATMENT-TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION 76 & 77
13A & B FINAL TREATMENT-TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION 80 & 81
14 PARABOLIC CHANNEL 83
15 WATER DEPTH IN CHANNEL VS INFLOW 86
16 WATER DEPTH VS INFLOW 87
17 VELOCITY VS INFLOW 88
18 VELOCITY VS INFLOW 89
19 TIME IN CHANNEL VS INFLOW 90
vi
-------
PAGE
20 CHANNEL SURFACE AREA VS INFLOW 92
21 CHANNEL SURFACE AREA VS INFLOW 93
22 DEPTH VS DIFFUSER SPACING 96
23 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM - TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM
ALTERNATE 2 98
24 BOD CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2 103
25 BOD CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2 104
26 BOD CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2 105
27 MLSS CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MINIMUM
LOAD - ALTERNATE 2 106
28 MLSS CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MEDIUM
LOAD - ALTERNATE 2 107
29 MLSS CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MAXIMUM
LOAD - ALTERNATE 2 108
30 OXYGEN DEMAND VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2 109
31 OXYGEN DEMAND VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2 110
32 OXYGEN DEMAND VS CHANNEL DISTANCE - MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2 111
33 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM - TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
ALTERNATE 3 118
-------
PAGE.
34 TYPICAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATOR AND RETURN INSTALLATION,
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEMS I19
35 BOD/MLSS RATIO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION - MINIMUM
CONDITIONS 121
36 BOD/MLSS RATIO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION - MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3 125
37 BOD/MLSS RATIO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION - MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3 126
38 BOD/MLSS RATIO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION - MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3 127
39 MLSS CONCENTRATION VS DISTANCE - ALTERNATE 3 131
40 MLSS CONCENTRATION VS DISTANCE - ALTERNATE 3 132*
41 MLSS CONCENTRATION VS DISTANCE - ALTERNATE 3 133
42 OXYGEN DEMAND VS DISTANCE - ALTERNATE 3 134
43 OXYGEN DEMAND VS DISTANCE - ALTERNATE 3 135
44 OXYGEN DEMAND VS DISTANCE - ALTERNATE 3 136
45 SCHEMATIC TREATMENT-TRANSPORT TERMINAL FACILITIES 146
46 DESIGN CONDITIONS - WASHBURN - SCHEMATIC 153
47 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - WASHBURN - LOWER SITE 160
48 EXPANSION - PRESQUE ISLE PLANT 163
49 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - PRESQUE ISLE 165
50 PRIMARY TREATMENT OPTIONS - IN-TOWN CARIBOU 171
51 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - CARIBOU - IN-TOWN 173
52 TRANSPORT ROUTE - GRIMES MILL TO CARIBOU 176
53 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - GRIMES MILL 178
54 DESIGN CONDITIONS - FORT FAIRFIELD - SCHEMATIC 180
viii
-------
PAGE
55 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - FORT FAIRFIELD 186
56 EASTON, MAINE - PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE SYSTEM
AND TREATMENT FACILITIES 188
57 IRRIGATION APPLICATION VERSUS ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS 194
58A & B WASHBURN - PRESQUE ISLE CONNECTING INTERCEPTOR 197 & 198
59 MAPLETON - PRESQUE ISLE - INTERCONNECTING SYSTEM 200
60 FORT FAIRFIELD - GRIMES MILLS INTERCONNECTING ROUTE 202
61 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - PRESQUE ISLE - EASTON JOINT
SYSTEM 205
62 PRESQUE ISLE-CARIBOU INTERCONNECTING ROUTE -
SOUTHERN SECTION 208
63 PRESQUE ISLE-CARIBOU INTERCONNECTING ROUTE -
NORTHERN SECTION 209
64 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - GRIMES MILL TERMINAL PLANT
CORE AREA 212
65 TREATMENT SYSTEM DIAGRAM 298
66 AERATION UNIT CONFIGURATION - QUANTITY ESTIMATE . 305
67 CORE AREA BORING LOCATIONS - SOUTHERN AREA 324
68 CORE AREA BORING LOCATIONS - NORTHERN AREA 325
IX
-------
TABLES
No. -
1 Waste Characteristic Summary - Taterstate -
Raw Wastes After Screening 34
2 Waste Load Summary - Taterstate - Raw Wastes
After Screening 35
3 Waste Characteristic Summary - Taterstate -
Wastes After Sedimentation - Flotation 35
4 Waste Load Summary - Taterstate - Wastes After
Sedimentation-Flotation 36
5 Comparison of Taterstate Wastes with Literature 36
6 Waste Characteristic Summary - Potato Service Inc -
Flume Line 37
7 Waste Characteristic Summary - Potato Service Inc -
Process Line 38
8 Waste Characteristic Summary - Potato Service Inc -
Pond Effluent 38
9 Load Summary - Potato Service Inc 40
10 Waste Characteristic Summary - Colby Co-Op Starch
Plant Raw Wastewater 41
11 Waste Characteristic Summary - American Kitchen Foods
Plant - Wastes After Screening 43
12 Waste Characterization Summary - Caribou Treatment
Plant - Influent & Effluent 43
13 Total Load and Unit Load Data - American Kitchen
Foods 44
14 Total Load - Influent to Caribou Plant 44
15 Pea Processing Wastes - American Kitchen Foods 45
16 Waste Characteristic Summary - A & P Co - Raw
Wastes After Screening 45
17 Waste Characteristic Summary - A & P Co - Wastes
After Air Flotation 45
x
-------
No.
18 Waste Load Summary - A & P Co - Raw Wastes After
Screening 47
19 Waste Load Summary - A & P Co - Wastes After Air
Flotation 47
20 Comparison of A & P Waste with Literature 48
21 Pea Processing - A & P Plant 48
22 Taterstate Processing Plant - Efficiency - Primary
Treatment Unit 49
23 Potato Service Inc - Efficiency - Flume Water
Clarifier 49
24 Potato Service Inc - Efficiency - Process Water
Clarifier 49
25 Caribou Treatment Plant - Efficiency - Primary Treat-
ment Units 50
26 A & P Processing Plant - Efficiency - Air Flotation
Unit 50
27 Primary Treatment - Summary - All Units - Ave
Efficiency 50
28 Town of Washburn - Domestic Waste Load 57
29 Estimated Residual Waste Load from Taterstate Based '
on Existing Production 60
30 Taterstate Loadings - With Flake Line Added 61
31 Town of Mapleton - Domestic Waste Load 61
32 City of Presque Isle - Domestic Waste Load 62
33 Waste Load Projections - Potato Service Inc 63
34 City of Caribou - Domestic Waste Load 64
35 Industrial Load Alternatives In-town Caribou 65
36 Fort Fairfield - Domestic Waste Load 66
37 Estimated Residual Waste Load from A & P 67
38 Easton - Domestic Waste Load 67
xi
-------
No. Page
39 Industrial Loadings - Easton Area 68
40 Summary - Tentative Design Criteria - Potato
Processing Wastewater Treatment 70
41 Design Loadings - Treatment-Transport System 79
42 Velocities and Water Depth for Various Channel
Configurations 84
43 Channel Biological Characteristics - Minimum Load -
Alternate 2 99
44 Channel Biological Characteristics - Medium Load -
Alternate 2 100
45 Channel Biological Characteristics - Maximum Load -
Alternate 2 101
46 Total Air Requirement - Minimum Load - Alternate 2 112
47 Total Air Requirement - Medium Load - Alternate 2 113
48 Total Air Requirement - Maximum Load - Alternate 2 114
49 Blower and Air Line Sizing - Minimum Load -
Alternate 2 115
50 Blower and Air Line Sizing - Medium Load -
Alternate 2 116
51 Blower and Air Line Sizing - Maximum Load -
Alternate 2 117
52 Channel Hydraulic Characteristics - Minimum Load -
Alternate 3 122
53 Channel Hydraulic Characteristics - Medium Load -
Alternate 3 123
54 Channel Hydraulic Characteristics - Maximum Load -
Alternate 3 124
55 Channel Biological Characteristics - Minimum Load -
Alternate 3 128
56 Channel Biological Characteristics - Medium Load -
Alternate 3 129
-*7 Channel Biological Characteristics - Maximum Load -
Alternate 3 13Q
xii
-------
No. Page
58 Total Air Requirements - Minimum Load - Alternate 3 138
59 Total Air Requirements - Medium Load - Alternate 3 139
60 Total Air Requirements - Maximum Load - Alternate 3 140
61 Blower and Air Line Sizing - Minimum Load -
Alternate 3 141
62 Blower and Air Line Sizing - Medium Load -
Alternate 3 142
63 Blower and Air Line Sizing - Maximum Load -
Alternate 3 143
64 Summary - Conduit Pipe Sizes - Treatment-Transport
Channel - Alternate 3 144
65 BOD to MLSS Ratio - Caribou Plant Aeration 147
66 Design Condition - Coding Summary - Washburn System 154
67 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Washburn - Condition C-l
Taterstate Plant Alone - Total Unit Size 156
68 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Washburn - Condition C-2
Taterstate and Domestic Wastes Combined - Total
Unit Size 157
69 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Washburn - Condition C-3
Municipal Wastes Alone - Total Sizing 158
70 Design Condition - Coding Summary - Presque Isle
System 161
71 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Condition B-l - Potato
Service Inc - Potato Processing Wastes Alone -
Total Unit Size 166
72 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Condition B-2 - Combined
Potato Service, Inc and Presque Isle Domestic
Flows 168
73 Design Conditions - Coding Summary - Caribou In-Town
System 170
74 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Caribou 175
75 Design Condition - Coding Summary - Fort Fairfield
System 179
xiii
-------
No.
76 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Fort Fairfield -
Condition C-l - A & P Plant Alone - Total Unit
Size 182
77 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Fort Fairfield -
Condition C-2 - A & P and Domestic Wastes Combined
Total Unit Size 183
78 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Fort Fairfield -
Condition C-3 - Municipal Wastes Alone - Total
Unit Sizing 184
79 Design Conditions - Coding System - Easton Area 187
80 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Vahlsing, Inc 190
81 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Maine Sugar Industries 191
82 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Easton Combined 192
83 Loading Condition Coding Summary - Presque Isle-
Easton Regional System - Industry Loading 203
84 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Presque Isle-Easton
Regional Plant 206
85 Regional Treatment Plant - Caribou Area Loading Con-
ditions 210
86 Key Treatment Plant Sizing - Caribou Regional Plant 213
87 Summary - Capital Cost Estimates - Washburn 219
88 Comparative Cost Summary - Joint vs Separate Plants -
Washburn 219
89 Effect of Grant-in-Aid Programs on Local Cost -
Washburn 220
90 Summary of Operating Costs - Washburn 221
91 Summary of Finance Costs - Washburn 222
92 Summary - Total Annual Revenue Requirements -
Washburn
222
93 Capital Cost Estimates - Supplemental Town Facilities
Washburn 223
xiv
-------
No. Page
94 Summary Capital Costs - Presque Isle Area 224
95 Summary - Joint System Capital Cost Savings
Presque Isle Area 225
96 Local Capital Costs - Presque Isle Area 226
97 Summary - Local Capital Cost Savings - Joint System
Presque Isle Area 226
98 Summary - Operating Costs - Presque Isle Area 227
99 Summary - System Finance Costs - Presque Isle Area 228
100 Summary - Annual Revenue Requirements - Presque Isle
Area , 228
101 Summary - Annual Cost Savings - Joint System Presque
Isle Area 229
102 Capital Costs - In-Town Plant Expansion - Caribou
Area 231
103 Capital Costs - Grimes Mill Site - Caribou Area 232
104 Capital Cost Differential - In-Town vs Grimes Site
Caribou Area 233
105 Local Capital Costs - In-Town Plant - Caribou Area 234
106 Local Capital Costs - Grimes Site - Caribou Area 235
107 Capital Cost Comparison - Two Plant Option -
Caribou Area 236
108 Summary - Operating Costs - Caribou Area 237
109 Summary - Finance Costs & Annual Revenue Requirements
Caribou Area 238
110 Summary - Capital Cost Estimates - Fort Fairfield 239
111 Comparative Cost Summary - Joint vs Separate Plants
Fort Fairfield 240
112 Effect of Grant-in-Aid Programs on Local Cost - Fort
Fairfield 241
113 Summary of Operating Costs - Fort Fairfield 242
xv
-------
No.
114 Summary of Finance Costs - Fort Fairfield 243
115 Summary - Total Annual Revenue Requirements - Fort
Fairfield 243
116 Capital Costs - Individual Plants - Easton Area 244
117 Capital Costs - Joint Systems - Easton Area 245
118 Summary - Capital Cost Savings - Joint System Easton
Area 246
119 Approximate Capital Costs - Advanced Waste Treatment
Easton Area 247
120 Local Capital Costs - Easton Area 247
121 Local Capital Costs - Easton Area - Joint
Municipal - Industry Systems 248
122 Summary Operating Costs - Easton Area > 249
123 Summary - System Finance Costs - Easton Area 250
124 Summary - Annual Revenue Requirements - Easton Area 251
125 Interconnected Versus Community System - Washburn
Area 253
126 Comparative Operating Costs - Interconnect vs Local
Washburn Area 254
127 Cost Comparison - Interconnection Versus Local
Treatment - Mapleton Area 257
128 Interconnected Versus Community System - Fort
Fairfield to Grimes Mill 260
129 Summary Capital Costs - Joint Presque Isle-Easton 263
130 Summary - Local Capital Costs - Joint Presque Isle -
Easton System 263
131 Summary Operating Costs - Joint Presque Isle-Easton
System 264
132 Summary - Annual Revenue Requirements - Joint Presque
Isle - Easton System 264
xvi
-------
No. Page
133 Summary - Capital Costs - Piped Interconnect System -
Core Area 265
134 Summary - Local Capital Costs - Piped Interconnect
System - Core Area 266
135 Summary Operating Costs - Piped Interconnect System -
Core Area 266
136 Finance Cost and Annual Revenue Requirements - Piped
Interconnect System - Core Area 266
137 Summary - Capital Costs - Treatment-Transport System -
Core Area 267
138 Summary - Local Capital Costs - Treatment-Transport
System - Core Area 267
139 Summary - Operating Costs - Treatment-Transport System
Core Area 268
140 Finance Costs & Annual Revenue Requirements
Treatment-Transport System - Core Area 268
141 Piped Interconnect Versus Treatment-Transport
Comparative Costs 270
142 Cost Comparisons - Local Versus Interconnected System
Washburn Area 271
143 Cost Comparisons - Joint Versus Individual Plants
Washburn Area 272
144 Cost Comparisons - Local Versus Interconnected
System - Mapleton Area 272
145 Cost Comparisons - Local Versus Interconnected System
Fort Fairfield Area 273
146 Cost Comparisons - Joint Versus Individual Plants
Fort Fairfield Area 273
147 Cost Comparisons - Joint Versus Separate Treatment
; Presque Isle - Easton Areas 274
148 Comparative Costs - Regional Systems - Core Area 275
149 Dissolved Oxygen Conditions - Aroostook River 276
xvii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The key conclusions drawn from the Research and Development Phase of
the Northern Maine Regional Treatment Project are summarized in the
following items. These technical conclusions must be related to the
administrative, legal, institutional, and economic conclusions contained
in the companion River Basin Planning Report. The reader is referred
to that report for a full discussion of the planning and water quality
study phases of the Project.
GENERAL POLLUTION CONTROL CONCLUSIONS
1. Liquid wastes presently generated in the Aroostook-Prestile Basins
far exceed the capacity of the rivers to receive and assimilate these
wastes without extensive treatment in addition to that now provided.
2. The Aroostook River has adequate capacity for assimilating organic
wastes provided treatment facilities are constructed to achieve 90%
BOD removal. The most critical locations on the River will be at
Caribou Dam and Tinker Dam. Present legal water quality limits,
however, will be possible at these locations with recommended treat-
ment of liquid wastes.
3. The Prestile Stream cannot assimilate the liquid wastes produced in
the Easton area without utilizing advanced treatment techniques to
achieve a very high BOD removal. Such techniques are very costly
and are not usually considered reasonable for situations analogous
to the one at hand.
4. Significant reductions in industrial-liquid waste loads can be
achieved by in-plant conservation and process alterations. Such
reductions will not meet water quality standards, however, and addi-
tional treatment of all residual liquid wastes will be required.
5. Potato processing wastes should be subject to primary treatment for
solids removal prior to biological treatment. The solids thus re-
covered can be utilized as animal feed.
6. Potato processing wastes can be biologically treated by the activated
sludge process either separately or in Conjunction with municipal
wastes.
7. In all communities with potato processing industries, it is more
economic to treat potato processing wastes jointly with municipal
wastes than separately.
-------
8. Disposal of excess biological solids can be a significant problem.
Sanitary landfill in conjunction with municipal solid waste programs
is best suited to initial operations. Effort should be made to de-
termine the economic feasibility of utilizing the organic and nutrient
value of this material as a soil conditioner.
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM CONCLUSIONS
9. The liquid waste treatment-transport system, wherein organic waste
would be oxidized enroute in an eleven mile regional facility be-
tween Presque Isle and Caribou, was shown to be technically feasible.
10. The treatment-transport system would require active aeration sources
because the hydraulic grade and surface area of the system could not
meet the oxygen demand requirements of the biological system through
natural means. '
11. In order to obtain BOD removals in excess of 85% in the treatment-
transport system, extension solids return facilities are required.
The solid return facilities could be eliminated if sufficient quan-
tities of an active biological mass were introduced at the head end
of the system.
12. The liquid waste treatment-transport system, was shown to be roughly
equal in cost to conventional pipeline transfer followed by more
extensive treatment at the terminus. Therefore, there is no clear
advantage to the treatment-transport system over more conventional
piped transport methods.
13. To assess the applicability of the treatment-transport system to
other pollution control systems, additional studies are necessary
concerning the economic effects of shorter or longer distances,
greater or lesser changes in elevation, and volume and strength
of wastes to be treated.
POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY CONCLUSIONS
14. Detailed design and cost analyses have shown that a completely in-
terconnected liquid waste system is uneconomical for the Northern
maine region and would not achieve the objective of minimizing
costs. This is primarily due to the wide separation and relatively
small number of major waste sources and high transportation costs.
15. Treatment of municipal and industrial wastes generated in the Towns
of Washburn, Mapleton, and Fort Fairfield at facilities located
within those communities is more economic than transporting such
wastes for treatment at a downstream location.
16. The least cost alternative for treatment of liquid wastes generated
in the Easton area is to transfer them to the Aroostook River Basin
for treatment in conjunction with Presque Isle's liquid wastes. A
reverse transfer of fresh water will be necessary to maintain ade-
quate flow in the Prestile Stream during times of extreme low flow.
Such interbasin transfer will require enabling legislation.
-------
17. The Prestile Stream can be returned over time to a condition which
will support a sport fishery if liquid wastes generated in the Easton
area are removed from the Basin.
18. Within the Core Area of Presque Isle, Caribou, and Easton, three al-
ternative means of waste treatment are feasible:
a. A two plant system with treatment facilities located in both
Presque Isle and Caribou,
b. a single treatment plant in Caribou with Presque Is"le and Easton
wastes transported to the Caribou facility in a conventional in-
terceptor pipeline, and
c. a single treatment plant in Caribou with Presque Isle and Easton
wastes transported to the Caribou facility in an eleven mile
treatment-transport system wherein organic wastes would be oxi-
dized enroute.
19. If the two plant system is adopted in the Core Area, the Caribou
facilities could consist of either an expanded in-town plant pro-
viding both primary and secondary treatment, or the existing in-
town plant for primary treatment supllemented by a biological treat-
ment plant located at Grimes Mill.
20. The in-town plant site is adequate to provide secondary treatment
to local waste loads, but inadequate area exists to enable expansion
for advanced waste treatment facilities.
21. Secondary treatment at the Grimes Mill site would be somewhat more
costly than expansion of the in-town plant, but offers the advan-
tage of providing the area required for major treatment plant ex-
pansion to accomodate additonal industrial flows and/or advanced
waste treatment, if required in the future.
22. If the one plant system utilizing the conventional pipe interceptor
transport is adopted for the Core Area, the treatment facility should
be constructed at the Grimes Mill site due to side limitations at
the existing in-town facility.
23. The capital cost for the one plant facility is approximately 19%
higher than the two plant system. However, operating costs are
slightly less.
24. The one plant system offers several ancillary benefits over the two
plant system resulting in improved water quality between Presque
Isle and Caribou and the benefits derived therefrom, including out-
door recreation and fisheries, improvement of Caribou's municipal
w'ater supply, a larger and more economical service area, a stimu-
lant to economic growth, and efficiency in the potential reuse of
solids.
-------
25. The international nature of the Aroostook River and Prestile Stream
render ultimate water quality requirements subject to international
agreement with potentially significant effects upon long -range treat-
ment methods. Should such agreements require higher dissolved oxy-
gen concentration, or if higher loads are generated, additional mea-
sures may be required during low flow periods in the future, such
as effluent holding ponds, advanced waste treatment, in-stream aer-
ation, use of pure oxygen, production curtailment, or a combination
thereof. The installation of drought condition effluent holding
ponds, or use of pure oxygen for aeration of the effluent appear ,
the most economic solutions.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following technical recommendations resulted from the research and
development phase of the Northern Maine Regional Treatment Project. It
should be noted that several of the technical recommendations must be
reviewed by the Commission upon evaluation of the administrative, legal,
institutional, and economic recommendations as presented in companion
River Basin Planning Report. The reader is referred to that report
for detailed discussions and recommendations concerning the planning
and water quality study phases of the Project.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A system of pollution abatement facilities is needed to meet water
quality standards within the Aroostook-Prestile Basin.
2. Local industry must evaluate their internal operations in light
of the data presented in the companion Research and Development
Report, and should determine the residual waste load to be treated
externally after in-plant water conservation.
3. All potato processing wastes must receive primary treatment or
its equivalent solids removal prior to entry into the biological
system.
4. Removed potato solids should be utilized as an animal feed, either
directly or through further processing.
5. Biological treatment systems should be designed to remove 90% of the
residual BOD at 20°C.
6. Attempts to develop a soil conditioning program utilizing the excess
biological solids from the treatment facilities should be implemented
with the necessary additional research being undertaken as soon as
possible. Until this is accomplished the excess biological solids
should be disposed of in conjunction with municipal solid waste dis-
posal program.
POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
7. Washburn - A treatment plant should be constructed at Washburn serv-
ing both the Washburn domestic and the Taterstate processing wastes.
Discharge should be to the Aroostook River via a diffuser system
rather than to Salmon Brook.
8. Mapleton - An extended aeration treatment plant should be constructed
at Mapleton to treat the domestic waste flows.
-------
9. Fort Fairfield - A treatment plant should be constructed at Fort
Fairfleld serving both the Fort Fairfield domestic wastes and the
A & P processing wastes.
10. Easton - Wastewaters generated in Easton should be transferred to
the Aroostook River Basin for treatment in conjunction with other
Core Area wastes from Presque Isle and Caribou.
11. Core Area - The Core Area of Presque Isle, Caribou, and Easton
should be served by an interconnected one plant system in the plant
located at the Grimes Mill site. This recommendation is based upon
long range cost minimization, the ancillary benefits to be derived,
and feasibility for future expansion of the facility and/or the pro-
vision of advanced waste treatment.
Pollution control facilities installed in the Core Area must in-
clude provision for future installation of effluent diversion and
holding ponds, and space for future installation of advanced waste
treatment facilities.
The interconnected one plant system for the Core Area should use the
conventional closed pipe system. The treatment-transport system is
not recommended due to greater cost and the need for large scale
pilot plant studies to confirm design data which could measurably
delay the project.
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
12. Implementation of the recommendations of the report must be under-
taken as expeditiously as possible to meet the State requirement
that all facilities be in operation by October, 1976.
13. A special session of the Maine legislature should be requested so
that enabling legislation for the river basin authority and inter-
basin transfers between the Aroostook River and Prestile Stream can
be enacted in 1972.
14. Final plans for recommended facilities must be commenced during
1972 and completed no later than April, 1974.
15. Construction of facilities must be commenced no later than May,
1974.
ACTION TAKEN BY NORTHERN MAINE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
The following resolutions were adopted at a meeting of the Executive
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Northern Maine Regional Planning
Commission, held in the Commission's offices on March 16, 1972:
-------
1. To accept the Northern Maine Regional Treatment System Research and
Development Report and the River Basin Planning Report as submitted
by Edward C. Jordan Co, Inc, subject to revisions as requested by
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Maine Environmental
Improvement Commission.
2. To adopt as the Regional Plan, the recommendations proposed by the
Jordan Company, specifically including:
a. Separate treatment facilities to serve Mapleton, Washburn and
Taterstate, and Fort Fairfield and A & P.
b. A regional treatment facility to serve the Core Area of Presque
Isle, Caribou, and Easton consisting of an interconnected piped
system and a single treatment facility to be located at Grimes
Mill.
3. To seek creation of an interbasin river basin authority with the
following powers:
a. Right of eminent domain.
b. To effect interbasin transfers of water and liquid wastes.
c. To finance and construct regional facilities.
d. To set rates on a relative use basis.
e. To collect revenues from users.
f. To require curtailment of industrial discharges during critical
low flow periods.
g. To purchase or take existing treatment facilities.
h. To approve and coordinate all treatment facilities within the
Basins.
i. To enter into contracts with municipalities for the maintenance
of collector sewers.
j. To sponsor soil conservation projects.
k. To accept grant-in-aid funds.
1. To require mandatory participation in the regional pollution con-
trol system.
m. To exercise other authority necessary for implementation of the
Regional Plan.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Aroostook County is located in the Northern extremity of the State of
Maine, bounded on the east by the Province of New Brunswick and on the
west by the Province of Quebec, Canada. Nearly all of the natural drain-
age from the County is tributary to the international Saint John River.
One of the major sub-basins of the Saint John Basin is the Aroostook
River which drains the central area of the County. The Prestile Stream
sub-basin is a minor segment of the Saint John River system, lying adjacent
to the larger Aroostook River Basin. The general geographical orienta-
tion of the region is shown on Figure 1.
x
The Aroostook River Basin contains the major population and industrial
centers of northern Maine, with main population centers at Fort Fairfield,
Caribou, and Presque Isle. The economy of the Basin is strongly agricul-
turally oriented, with potatoes being the dominant crop. Agriculture is
concentrated in the lower reaches of the Basin, while much of the head-
water areas are wild lands in timber management.
Since the early 1950's the potato economy of the nation, and Aroostook
County, has evolved from predominantly a fresh pack market to a substan-
tial processed product market. Currently about 40% of the Aroostook crop
is processed, primarily into frozen french fries and by-products. The
trend toward processing a larger portion of the crop is expected to con-
tinue into the 1970's.
Processing of a substantial portion of the potato crop has created an
increasingly serious pollution problem in the Aroostook River and adja-
cent Prestile Stream. The organic waste loads now generated by potato
processing plants in the area represent a load nearly thirty times that
generated by the resident population. This condition has created nuisance
conditions in both the Aroostook and Prestile waters, and represents a
frequent violation of State and Federal water quality standards.
In the mid 1960's it became evident that further expansion of the pro-
cessing industries of northern Maine was vitally dependent upon finding
a solution to the severe pollution problems of the area, consistent with
the economic resources of the communities and industries of the Basin.
To accomplish this objective the Northern Maine Regional Planning Commis-
sion initiated a preliminary evaluation of the problem which culminated
in a general comprehensive water resources plan for the Aroostook-
Prestile Basins34. This initial report recommended that the Aroostook-
Prestile Basins be considered as a hydrologic unit, and' that all pollu-
tion control efforts be coordinated on a river basin planning basis.
The report also suggested that physical integration of facilities, par-
ticularly those serving the upper Prestile Basin, could achieve the maxi-
mum degree of water quality improvement at minimum cost. These early
studies indicated that the geographical and topographic configuration of
the lower Aroostook Basin may permit utilization of a combined treatment-
transport system to achieve regional system economies.
-------
FIGURE 1
GEOGRAPHIC ORIENTATION PLAN
10
-------
The Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission adopted the recommenda-
tions of the initial report as the basis for subsequent pollution control
planning in the Aroostook-Prestile Basins. The Commission retained the
Edward C. Jordan Company, Consulting Engineers and Planners, to organize
an extensive planning effort which would lead to a Basin-wide program
of pollution abatement. The proposed preliminary design and planning
effort was divided into two basic phases, research and development, and
Basin planning; with each closely coordinated with the other to assure
implementation of the program at the earliest possible date.
A critical-path-method flow diagram and schedule was prepared for the
engineering and planning work to be accomplished. This flow diagram is
shown on Figure 2. As indicated on the figure, the research and develop-
ment phase of the project was directed at the many alternatives available
for regional treatment of the industrial, or combined industrial-domestic
waste loads. The primary consideration in this analysis was the research
and development phase for a process establishing the feasibility of con-
structing a treatment-transport system for treating the wastes while in
transit within an interconnected regional treatment facility. It is noted
that the original program included a pilot plant segment under the research
and development phase. This work was subsequently omitted from the re-
search and development program. In order to determine the economic fea-
sibility of the treatment-transport system, for the area under considera-
tion, it was necessary to establish potential design loadings and prelim-
inary design for alternative conventional treatment systems.
The river basin planning phase of the project consisted of three seg-
ments; namely, river and water quality studies, economic and land use
studies, and studies of administrative and financial systems necessary
for project implementation on a basin-wide basis. By closely coordinating
both phases of the study, it will be possible to shorten the time lag
normally occurring between completion of research and development studies
and actual pollution abatement. The CPM diagram of Figure 2 shows the
interplay of both phases of the project.
Application was made to the Environmental Protection Agency for funding
of the program under Section 5, Research and Development, and Section
3C, River Basin Planning, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended. Local funding was arranged through a combination of sub-
stantial input from local industries and the State of Maine. The work
was funded in late 1970 as Project 16110 DPT, Research and Development,
and Project IGA 00021, River Basin Planning. Such a combination of ef-
fort is unique in water resource planning.
The overall report will be published in two parts representing the two
major phases of work. This report presents the work accomplished under
the Research and Development Phase, while the second report will present
the Basin Planning efforts. Due to the close relationship and interplay
of the two phases, it is,recommended that the reader examine both reports
to assure full appreciation of the implications of each for the other.
11
-------
HOTE: PILO^ PLANT STUDIES
o-i THROUGH ii-s DELETED
IN CRflNI OFFER
IBPS^ f i | LflYDUT BORIN
ST auLYSis ^f lAeosT cafrm\!,ml^(,7\ COST-BEMEFIT
ITEGR. SYSTEM^ ^ J ^f\._J S™D?
^ "^
'HESTILE-LOhFLQW' 46 ) PREST1LE-COST LOU FL01. BUG ^
flUGMENTflTI OH | _ /
INQ. DEV. FDfiCQST^/ iM ""**'" flTln" ^ /" 1 ilr
' "V I STUDY "\ 7^
-i*» ,„. v_y w
FIGURE 2
THE NORTHERN MAINE REGIONAL TREATMENT PROJECT CRITICAL PATH METHOD FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
The combined studies and data presented in the two reports, Research
and Development, and Basin Planning, meet the requirements of both the
river basin planning and metropolitan/regional planning studies contained
in Regulation 18 CFR 601.32 & 33.
13
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRIAL WASTE STUDIES
The major pollution loads generated in the Aroostook-Prestile Basins are
industrial in nature, primarily from the food processing industry. The
food processing industry is very heavily oriented to the major crop, po-
tatoes . Relatively minor processing inputs are generated from pea packing
and the refining of sugar from beets, although this latter industry has
not as yet functioned to capacity to allow full evaluation of its impact
on water quality.
Prior to undertaking an evaluation of the research and development
studies for the abatement program, an evaluation of the existing and
projected waste loads from the Basin's major industrial plants was nec-
essary. This work was accomplished by a rather extensive literature
review and a program of in-plant gaging, sampling, and analysis, where
possible. A summary of the literature review is presented in Section
XI with a reference listing. The results of the on-site testing and
evaluation programs are presented in the following sub-sections.
IN-PLANT STUDIES
The major industrial plants in the study area are listed below with
location and product designation. The approximate plant locations are
shown on Figure 3.
Taterstate Frozen Foods, Washburn: Frozen french fries and by-
products .
Potato Service, Inc, Presque Isle: Frozen french fries and by-
products, and potato flakes.
American Kitchen Foods, Caribou: Frozen french fries and by-
products .
Colby Cooperative Starch Co, Caribou: Potato starch.
Cyr Brothers Meat Packaging, Inc, Caribou: Frozen french fries
and by-products.
A & P Co, Fort Fairfield: Frozen french fries and by-products,
and peas.
Vahlsing, Inc, Easton: Frozen french fries and by-products.
Maine Sugar Industries, Easton: Refined sugar.
In-plant inspections and process studies preceded actual gaging and samp-
ling programs at all of the above plants except American Kitchen Foods,
Vahlsing, Inc, and Maine Sugar Industries. General process review and
suggestions for in-plant waste load reductions are given in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
TATERSTATE FROZEN FOODS - The Taterstate Frozen Foods plant, at Washburn
produces frozen french fries and by-products. This plant is typical of
15
-------
LOCATION LEGEND
1 TATERSTATE FROZEN FOODS
2 POTATO SERVICE INC.
3 AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS
4 COLBY COOPERATIVE STARCH COMPANY
5 CYR BROTHERS MEAT PACKING" INC.
6 A&P COMPANY
7 MAINE SUGAR INDUSTRIES
8 VAHLSIN6 INC.
10
10
20
MILES
FIGURE 3
INDUSTRY LOCATION
PLAN
16
-------
plants utilizing the steam peel process. A generalized schematic process
diagram of the Taterstate operation is shown in Figure 4. This diagram
represents plant conditions at the time of gaging and sampling in the
spring of 1971, and may not represent adjustments made since that time
to effect a waste reduction program.
Potatoes are transported from storage to the process area via a fluming
system which also serves as the main washing mechanism. The flume facility
uses a recycle system to the extent possible, with silt and mud removed
periodically by hand. The potatoes are peeled by the steam peel method
with some additional peeling by abrasion. The peeled potatoes are then
cut, sorted and blanched prior to frying. After frying the product is
cooled, quick frozen, and packaged for storage. Slivers, nubbings and
other edible rejected pieces are utilized in a frozen by-products line.
Process water is taken from Salmon Brook, a tributary of the Aroostook
River. The intake water is first utilized for refrigerationn purposes,
after which the required process water is taken into the plant, while
the excess is returned to the brook.
Wastewater generation in the spring of 1971 amounted to about 1.0 mill-
ion gallons per day (MGD), with a raw potato input of about 340 tons per
day. This represents a process water usage of about 3000 gallons per
ton of potato input. This is somewhat below the reported industry av-
erage and suggests relatively good utilization of water within the
plant.
The waste stream passes through a screening unit and a sedimentation unit
prior to discharge to Salmon Brook. The solids thus removed are trans-
ferred to Presque Isle for processing into an animal feed product. The
effectiveness of the existing treatment units is discussed in a later
section.
A review of the Taterstate operation in the spring of 1971 suggested
several procedures for consideration by management for reducing waste
loads prior to external treatment. The suggested in-plant alterations
are briefly described as follows:
1. Review all existing in-plant recycle systems to maximize water
reuse and minimize net outflow.
2. Install automatic valves on general use hoses and conduct
in-plant education on their use.
3. Intercept all piped systems, including boiler water, to the
central waste'system to eliminate miscellaneous discharges,
however minor they may be.
4. Install a finer mesh screen on the existing screening facility.
5. Install dry caustic peel procedures to replace existing peel-
ing equipment.
6. Utilize cyclone type solids removal units on certain waste
streams, to remove concentrated protein water for salvage.
Items 1, 2, and 3, above, are for the most part routine housekeeping
suggestions. Their implementation may not reduce flows greatly, but
17
-------
r
lUTFflLL TO SALMON SHOOK
FIGURE 4 SCHEMATIC PROCESS HOW DIAGRAM
TATERSTATE-WASHBURN
-------
will assure that flows are maintained at consistent levels. Unless
these items are continually reviewed and checked, there will tend to be
a gradual increase in plant water usage, as employees find it more con-
venient to use excessive water. Most of the plant wastes now discharge
through the main drain. However, boiler water and possibly other small
drains still discharge to the bank area adjacent to the plant. To assure
that all wastes are adequately controlled, these discharges must be
brought into the main drain for measurement and treatment.
Item 4 suggests increasing the solids and BOD removals by using a finer
mesh screen in the screening unit. At the time of the testing program,
a 4 mesh unit was in use. Mesh sizes of 20 to 40 are in common use.
It is recognized that the finer mesh units require more maintenance and
cleaning than do open screens, but it is much less costly to remove BOD
by screening than by secondary treatment.
Item 5 above considers replacement of the existing peeling equipment with
a dry caustic peel line, with semi-dry haul of peel wastes. Such equip-
ment has been developed and is in current use in several plants, mostly
in the western states. Operational evaluation of this type of equipment
is currently being undertaken by processors and through studies supported
by funds of the Environmental Protection Agency. While these extensive
evaluation studies are not complete, data to date suggests a significant
reduction in waste load can be accomplished by utilizing dry caustic
peel equipment. This installation, however, must be considered a major
plant alteration with substantial investment required.
Item 6 suggests the possibility of removing concentrated protein water
from certain waste streams within the plant by use of centrifugal, or
cyclone type, solids concentration units. Limited work with these units
within the industry suggest that significant organic waste reductions
may be achieved. The economics of the process will depend on a market
for the salvaged materials and on the haul distance to that market.
The potential for residual-waste-load reduction through the above al-
terations is presented in a later section of this report. Prior to
final design of pollution abatement facilities at Washburn, the manage-
ment of the Taterstate plant must evaluate its operation to determine
the waste-load reductions which can be achieved by process changes and
pre-treatment, and the residual waste loads which must be handled ex-
ternally and paid for by the Company.
POTATO SERVICE, INC - The Potato Service, Inc, processing plant in
Presque Isle is the largest in Maine, and one of the largest in the
country, with a potato intake capacity of over 1000 tons per day. Po-
tatoes are processed into frozen french fries, frozen by-products, and
potato flakes. A generalized schematic process diagram is shown in
Figure 5. It is emphasized that this diagram does not reflect every
function in detail, and is presented to provide a general overview of
the process.
The potatoes are transferred from storage to the process unit by a
19
-------
LI NES
fdmg-WTK}-, H^n-HD-HD-HZF*!
L
FIGURE 5 SCHEMATIC PROCESS DIAGRAM POTATO SERVICE INC.
-------
fluming system utilizing partial recycling of flume water. The po-
tatoes are then sized and peeled by the standard lye peel process. The
peeled potatoes are trimmed, sorted and cut prior to blanching. The
blanched product is fried, cooled and quick frozen for storage. The
trimmings, slivers and other edible waste pieces are utilized in a
frozen by-products line, or a potato flake line. Process water is taken
from a series of wells adjacent to the Aroostook River.
Wastewater generation in the spring of 1971 amounted to about 3.1 MGD,
of which about 0.5 MGD was attributable to the fluming system and about
2.6 MGD to the various process lines. This flow represents a water usage
of just over 3000 gallons per ton of raw potato input. This is somewhat
below the reported industry average.
The waste streams from the fluming system and from the process line are
each given primary treatment in separate units. The flume wastewaters
pass ..through a clarifier at the plant, and the removed mud is truck
hauled. The process waste stream is screened and passed through a
relatively new primary clarifier. The solids from this clarifier are
dewatered on a vacuum filter. The solids from both the screening units
and the primary clarifier are hauled for use as animal feed.
After primary clarification the waste streams are combined and pass to a
pond system prior to discharge to the Aroostook River. The pond system
is three celled, with the initial cell equipped with some aeration capa-
city. The effectiveness of the existing treatment units is discussed
in a later section.
A review of the Potato Service, Inc, operation in the spring of 1971
suggested several procedures for consideration by management for re-
ducing waste loads prior to external treatment. The suggested in-plant
alterations are briefly described as follows:
1. Review all existing in-plant recycle systems to maximize water
reuse, with special attention to additional recycling of the
mud clarifier effluent to the flume system.
2. Install automatic valves on general use hoses and conduct in-
plant education on their use. Consideration should be given
to better automatic flow controls to eliminate excessive floor
spillage.
3. Use cyclone type solids removal units on certain waste streams,
to remove concentrated protein water for salvage.
4. Install dry caustic peel procedures to replace existing peeling
equipment.
Items 1 and 2 above are for the most part housekeeping in nature. The
existing mud clarifier is quite effective for silt removal from the
flume wastes. It would seem possible to recycle more of this effluent
within the flume, and thus reduce residual flume system wastes. Process
control of the plant's complex production lines appears to,be a problem,
with frequent floor spillages occuring because of surges. Improved flow
controls on the system could reduce these waste flows to some extent.
21
-------
Item 3 suggests the installation of cyclone-type solids concentrators
on certain waste streams. Such facilities have the potential for
increased in-plant organics removal, with production of a possibly
valuable by-product for starch recovery. Testing of this type of
equipment was underway during the course of this study, and appears
to show promise.
Item 4 above considers replacement of the existing peeling equipment
with dry caustic peel systems, with semi-dry haul of peel wastes.
The comments on application of this equipment to the Potato Service,
Inc, plant are similar to those previously presented for Taterstate.
The potential for residual-waste-load reduction through implementation
of the above alterations is presented in a later section of this report.
Prior to final design of pollution abatement facilities in the Presque
Isle area, management must evaluate its operation to determine the re-
ductions in waste load attainable by process changes and pre-treatment,
and the residual waste loads which must be handled at the Company's ex-
pense.
CYR BROS MEAT PACKING, INC - Cyr Bros Meat Packing, Inc, is a Caribou
firm which has operated in the meat packing field for a number of years.
As no slaughtering is accomplished on site, its wastewater loads have
been limited, and have been discharged to the Caribou Utilities District
system. In 1970 the firm began planning to enter the potato processing
field with french fry, by-products and whole white product lines. The
plant expansion has been under construction during this study.
The Cyr Bros plan has been developed around the dry caustic peel system,
with .intensive in-plant water recycle. A schematic process flow diagram
is shown on Figure 6. The potatoes are transferred from storage to pro-
cessing by a water flume system. The flume water will be reconditioned
by screening and a cyclone-type cleaner, and recycled through the system.
The solids will be removed by haul, and the excess flow will be dis-
posed in a subsurface disposal system.
The potatoes will be peeled by the dry caustic system, with the dry
scrubbings carried to a solids hopper. The final wash of the peeled po-
tatoes will be recycled after screening and conditioning with centri-
cleaners. The peeled potatoes will be water carried to the trimming
and cutting areas, with the carriage water recycled through the system
after conditioning with sieve and centri-cleaner units. Solids removed
from this system will be carried to the solids hopper. Slivers, etc,
will be taken from the trim and cut operations for by-product processing.
The potatoes will then be blanched, fried, cooled and frozen in normal
procedures.
A floor flume system will be provided to collect all drippings, spillages
and wash downs. This system will enter a receiving hopper where the
solids concentrated at the bottom will be pumped to a hydrosieve installa-
tion. The solids will enter the collection hopper. The liquid component
22
-------
. LIQUID TO RECYCLE
CENTRI CLEANERS
RESIDUAL EFFLUEHT
TO SEWER
ho
u>
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
EXCESS FLUME WATER
I I | I I
I I I I
EXCESS FLUME
| WATER
|HJ SOLIDS TO
I HAUL
! ' --- J
^ RECYCLE
1 ! VN
4RECYCLE i _J
i_ __—->_ S. -- _
STORAGE
SOLIDS TO
HOPPER
CENTRI CLEANERS AND
HYDROS I EVE
FIGURE 6
SCHEMATIC PROCESS DIAGRAM
CYR BROTHERS POTATO PROCESSING
-------
will be pumped through a series of centri-cleaners for further recondi-
tioning prior to return to the recycle tank. The concentrated solids
from the centri-cleaners will be placed on the hydrosieve.
The overflow from the flume receiving hopper will enter the flume re-
cycle tank, together with the reconditioned liquid component of the
solids draw off. Solids which may settle in this receiving and recycle
tank will be conveyed by screw conveyors to the solids hopper. A por-
tion of the flow will be pumped to the head of the flume system, while
the residual excess will be discharged to the District sewer system.
The evaporator cooling waters and defrost waters will also have a re-
cycle system, with any excess entering the flume system.
The Cyr Bros Plant is essentially completed and limited test runs are
reported satisfactory. Unfortunately, it is not possible within the
time constraints of the report to conduct a full, detailed evaluation of
the operation. It would be anticipated that the total water usage and
BOD generation of the operation would be well below the industry averages,
providing the system functions as planned. However, it is anticipated
that a considerable time may be required to de-bug the system and mini-
mize residual waste output. Maximum plant capacity on a potato input
basis will probably be between 300 and 400 tons per day, although a more
modest production is anticipated in the early years of operation.
General review of the system would suggest that considerable reductions
in waste loads may have been achieved, as compared with typical plants.
However, several problems may have to be overcome before full potential
is realized. The proposal to dispose of excess flume water by subsur-
face disposal may be difficult to achieve on the long term. This is, of
course, related to the residual volume which must be disposed of in this
manner, which intturn depends upon the effectiveness of silt removal
units. Silt removal is one of the most difficult problems in the indus-
try. It is also noted that the residual wastewater will still carry sig-
nificant quantities of colloidal silt which may tend to plug the sub-
surface disposal fields quickly.
The extensive reuse of water by recycling can effect a significant re-
duction in overall plant water usage, providing reasonable quality control
can be maintained. The screening and cyclone-type solids removal units
should accomplish a reasonable degree of solids removal, perhaps ap-
proaching primary sedimentation. However, the internal water systems
will gain in dissolved organic load with each usage. This could create
a bacterial or slime problem in the system. In practice, new water will
have to be added to the system and wastewater withdrawn at a rate which
will maintain acceptable quality. This balance can only be achieved
after full operating experience and system adjustment.
The system is dependent upon effective disposal of the collected solids
from the collection hopper. Such disposal may be dependent upon achiev-
ing a fairly neutral pH and solids consistency. The peel pulp coming
from the dry caustic peel unit will have a very high pH. Before this
material is acceptable for direct animal feed, and possibly for additional
24
-------
processing into feed, it must be neutralized. This can be accomplished
by natural fermentation if time is sufficient. The relatively dry sol-
ids from the dry caustic peel operation may be diluted to some extent
by solids from the hydrosieve and centrifugal-type solids concentrators.
Thus, it is hoped that a reasonable solids consistency can be maintained.
In summary, the Cyr Bros plant represents an attempt to minimize re-
sidual wastewater output by utilizing a dry caustic peel procedure,
coupled with maximum in-plant water recycle. After adjustment during
intial operation, the facility should produce significantly less waste-
water load than standard processing plants.
COLBY COOPERATIVE STARCH CO, - Colby Cooperative Starch Co, produces
potato starch from low grade potatoes. The residual pulp is processed
into an animal feed meal as a by-product. The process is typical of the
industry and is illustrated in Figure 7; a generalized process schema-
tic. Plant water is a combination of river water, well water, and a
modest amount from the municipal supply.
The potatoes are transported from storage to the process area by a water
flume system. They are then conveyed to a crusher where the potatoes
are pulped and passed to a centrifuge. The centrifuge draws off the
protein water and passes the pulp onto a vibrating screen where the
starch water is drawn off. The starch water is again centrifuged and
screened prior to drying into a starch product. Solids from the centri-
fuge and screen are returned to the head of the system.
The solids removed from the screening operation are further dewatered,
dried and processed into an animal feed product. Essentially all of the
plant solids are utilized in this process. The protein water removed
during the initial centrifuge operation is further screened and sub-
jected to a second centrifuge operation for additional solids recovery.
The solids removed from the protein line are returned for starch re-
covery. The excess protein water is then discharged either to the
river, or the Caribou Utilities District system.
Operation schedules of the Colby plant are quite erratic, which is ty-
pical of the industry. Actual operation depends in large part on the
availability of culls or low-grade potatoes as a raw material. Total po-
tato intake capacity may approach 450 to 500 tons per 24 hours. However,
this theoretical intake capacity is not generally utilized except for
short periods. The off-and-on type of operation typical of Maine potato
starch plants makes pollution control efforts difficult.
Review of the Colby operation suggests that water usage could be reduced.
by recycling a portion of the flume water, perhaps up to 50% recycle.
While this is an operating problem, the total water saved could be signi-
ficant. The primary source of organic pollution is the waste protein
water. The unit BOD of the protein may approach 25,000 to 30,000 MG/L.
Any significant in-plant organic load reductions must be accomplished in
the protein water. Management is currently exploring methods of eliminat-
ing the protein water from the waste streams by evaporation to produce a
25
-------
cc
£
co
3
UJ
3
(
_ PROTEIN H,0
r
SOL 1 DS
! f
1 v,
ty f^^^^ QfDCCU 1 ^—~
••^ 1 I oLKbtN ' ^^
j LJ •"
= r
LtJ !
0 x^v CENTRIFUGE 1 £
Q= { ) SOLIDS J S
a. W •* ^|
STORAGE * RIVER WATER
5>IWKA('t TO FLUMES
auME
^™^™l
— T I RECEIVING
1 J HOPPER
1 CONVEY
CRUSH^
V J
\ S CENTRIFUGE
— f\J
V
T SOLIDS RETURN
9 4
BHAn.i-»-u ». /E\ STARCH HnO _ 1
I
JH HOPPER AcENTRIFUGE ^
"^-pJ SOLIDS V/ ^
© JL ROTARY 1
T (\_ _SCREEN J
nrr. y^N PULP DEWATERING !±! *
w*--( J CENTRIFUGE z f-1— |
'
0 , UJ
=1 3
g' r\
1 ,
a. . —1
~3
1 o.
TO OUTFALL OR TO
1 CARIBOU UTILITIES DIST
1 INTERCEPTOR
1
>^rx . HOPPER
I ^ |
HOPPER c_> „_._
1 1 ^ • i HEAT
1 •- HOT AIR
00 DRYING
DIRECT UNITS
CONTACT
PULP I '
DRYER
[""I SCREEN
Y~~\ MEAL CYCLONE
* STARCH TO
f PACKAGING
x^s
^ A STORAGE SILO
* MEAL TO PACKAGING
FIGURE 7
SCHEMATIC PROCESS DIAGRAM
COLBY COOPERATIVE STARCH COMPANY
26
-------
recoverable protein product. If successful, such a procedure would greatly
reduce the plant's organic pollution load. However, the energy re-
quirements for such a process may prove prohibitive. It may also be
possible to remove additional solid materials from the protein water by
concentration with cyclone-type equipment. The question of disposal of
the concentrated material may or may not be a problem, depending upon
availability of a market and haul distances.
Colby management will be faced with difficult decisions concerning its
pollution control program. If it can effectively remove the protein
water component of the waste stream, its impact on the regional system,
and the costs to the company, will be small. If it cannot, the company
will be faced with a substantial pollution control cost.
AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS - The management of American Kitchen Foods, in
Caribou, indicated that it has a comprehensive program of in-plant water
and waste conservation underway and did not desire review or assistance
from the Commission as part of this study. Thus detailed in-plant
studies were not accomplished.
In general the American Kitchen Foods plant is typical of the industry,
producing frozen french fries and by-products. A water flume system is
used for transport from storage to process. A combination of peeling
methods is used, with one line reported on a dry caustic peel system.
Plant water usage in April of 1971 was measured at about 2.0 MGD. At
an approximate potato intake capacity of 440 tons per day, this usage
represents about 4500 gallons per ton. This is above the industry aver-
age and suggests that considerable reductions may be possible. It is
understood that steps are being taken by management to reduce its
water usage.
A & P PROCESSING PLANT - The A & P Co processing plant in Fort Fair-
field produces frozen french fires and frozen by-products during the
potato processing season, and processes frozen peas during a period in
the summer. A generalized schematic process diagram of the A & P opera-
tion is shown in Figure 8. Again this diagram reflects conditions during
the gaging and sampling period in the spring of 1971.
Potatoes are transferred dry from storage to the processing area. The
A & P plant is the only one in the County which does not use a flume
transport system. The potatoes are first washed for removal of silt and
rocks which may be in the storage boxes. The washed potatoes then enter
the peeling process, which consists of a rather unique combination of
lye-peel and steam-peel system. The relative use of each component of
the system varies with the difficulties encountered in peeling the po-
tatoes to be processed.
Subsequent to peeling, the potatoes are cut, trimmed, blanched and fried
in normal industry procedure. Typical of the industry, slivers, nubbings,
!etc, are utilized in a frozen by-products line. Process water is taken
from,Fort Fairfield's public water supply. As indicated in the diagram,
27
-------
POTABLE MATER
TO OFFICE ETC.
PROCESS.., ^WBIEfi
SOLIDS HflUL SOLIDS HflUL
WASTE HATER
TO AROOSTOOK
RIVER
Ft GURE 8 KANUFflCTUREO PRODUCTS LINE
SCHEMATIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
A & P PROCESSING PLANT
-------
recoverable protein product. If successful, such a procedure would greatly
reduce the plant's organic pollution load. However, the energy re-
quirements for such a process may prove prohibitive. It may also be
possible to remove additional solid materials from the protein water by
concentration with cyclone-type equipment. The question of disposal of
the concentrated material may or may not be a problem, depending upon
availability of a market and haul distances.
Colby management will be faced with difficult decisions concerning its
pollution control program. If it can effectively remove the protein
water component of the waste stream, its impact on the regional system,!
and the costs to the company, will be small. If it cannot, the company
will be faced with a substantial pollution control cost.
AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS - The management of American Kitchen Foods, in
Caribou, indicated that it has a comprehensive program of in-plant water
and waste conservation underway and did not desire review or assistance
from the Commission as part of this study. Thus detailed in-plant
studies were not accomplished.
In general the American Kitchen Foods plant is typical of the industry,
producing frozen french fries and by-products. A water flume system is
used for transport from storage to process. A combination of peeling
methods is used, with one line reported on a dry caustic peel system.
Plant water usage in April of 1971 was measured at about 2.0 MGD. At
an approximate potato intake capacity of 440 tons per day, this usage
represents about 4500 gallons per ton. This is above the industry aver-
age and suggests that considerable reductions may be possible. It is
understood that steps are being taken by management to reduce its
water usage.
A & P PROCESSING PLANT - The A & P Co processing pi ant in Fort Fair-
field produces frozen french fires and frozen by-products during the
potato processing season, and processes frozen peas during a period in
the summer. A generalized schematic process diagram of the A & P opera-
tion is shown in Figure 8. Again this diagram reflects conditions during
the gaging and sampling period in the spring of 1971.
Potatoes are transferred dry from storage to the processing area. The
A & P plant is the only one in the County which does not use a flume
transport system. The potatoes are first washed for removal of silt and
rocks which may be in the storage boxes. The washed potatoes then enter
the peeling process, which consists of a rather unique combination of
lye-peel and steam-peel system. The relative use of each component of
the system varies with the difficulties encountered in peeling the po-
tatoes to be processed.
Subsequent to peeling, the potatoes are cut, trimmed, blanched and fried
in normal industry procedure. Typical of the industry, slivers, nubbings,
etc^ are utilized in a frozen by-products line. Process water is taken
from, Fort Fairfield's public water supply. As indicated in the diagram,
29
-------
the plant makes reasonable use of internal recycling. The overall sys-
tem generated about 0.8 MGD of wastewater during the testing period in the
spring of 1971. With raw potato intake approximately 215 tons per day,
unit water usage is just under 4000 gallons per ton. This is only slightly
below the industry average and suggests that some reductions may be poss-
ible.
The waste stream combines the wash and process waters, and passes through
screening and air flotation units for solids removal prior to discharge to
the Aroostook River. The screenings are truck handled for processing
into animal feed, while the air-floated solids are disposed of at the
municipal dump. The effectiveness of these treatment units is discussed
in a later section of this report.
A review of the A & P operation in the spring of 1971 suggested several
procedures for consideration by management for reducing waste loads,
prior to external treatment. The suggestions for in-plant adjustments
are briefly described as follows:
1. Recycle and reuse water from the evaporation system.
2. Install automatic valves on general use hoses and undertake
in-plant education on their use.
3. Dry haul the solids from the wash water recycle screen.
4. Separate initial wash water from the other process water,
and install mud removal facilities prior to discharge
to the effluent pipe.
5- Install dry caustic peel procedures to replace existing
peeling equipment.
6. Utilize cyclone type solids removal units on certain waste
streams, to remove concentrated protein water for salvage.
Item 1 above constitutes the largest single potential reduction in plant
water usage. Currently, the water used for cooling the evaporators is
used once and discharged into the head of the flume system. This volume
varies with the outside air temperature and the demands of the evaporating
system, but can reach an estimated 180,000 to 200,000 gallons per day.
This water is essentially unpolluted after passing through the evaporator
and it should be possible to reintroduce this water into the plant flow.
Makeup water from the district mains can be allowed to enter the process
water system directly with a backflow preventer to safeguard the potable
water system.
Item 2 is primarily a routine housekeeping operation to minimize mis-
cellaneous water use. It is recognized that plant operating personnel
may dislike such devices, and may attempt to circumvent their use.
However, in-plant water use can be curtailed by this method, when coupled
with an education program for personnel in the significance of water con-
servation.
Item 3 above will not reduce plant flow, but effect have some reduction
in plant BOD loading by removing solids from the waste stream as
rapidly as possible. This will minimize the leaching of organics from
the solids into the solution.
30
-------
Item 4 above also will not significantly reduce plant flow. However, it
may ease maintenance problems in the existing sewer and at treatment
facilities, by removing much of the mud before it can settle out in the
sewer lines. Handling mud from a potato washing operation is difficult
at best, but it can probably be handled in a mud pit or sump more easily
than it can be removed from a pipe line.
Item 5 above considers replacement of the existing peeling equipment with
a dry caustic peel line with semi-dry haul of peel wastes. Again com-
ments on such a system are similar to those discussed in the prior later-
state discussion.
Item 6, concerning the use of cyclone-type solids concentrations for
starch recovery, is similar to that discussed above for the Taterstate
and Potato Service Inc, plants.
The potential for residual waste load reduction through implementation
of the above alterations is presented in a later section of this report.
Again, prior to final design of pollution abatement facilities, management
must determine the applicability of each as related to their product and
quality control procedures.
VAHLSING, INC - The Vahlsing, Inc potato processing plant in Easton was
not studied in detail concerning its internal operations. The plant is
generally typical of the industry, producing frozen french fries and by-
products . Water fluming is used together with the lye peeling process.
As the plant is relatively modern, a less than average water usage
would be anticipated. The prior comments on internal waste load reduc-
tion, particularly the dry caustic peel system, are equally applicable
to the Vahlsing plant.
MAINE SUGAR INDUSTRIES - The Maine Sugar Industries plant in Easton was
constructed in the late 1960's to process the newly acquired State sugar
beet allotment. Unfortunately, the growing of beets in Aroostook County
has proven difficult. This, combined with financial difficulties inherent
in a new venture, has prevented full operation of the facility. To date
only a limited volume of beets has been processed, and no production
occurred during the course of this study. The future of the operation
is uncertain.
The plant is capable of processing refined sugar from either beets or
cane. It is a modern plant designed by Braunschweigische Maschinenbaun-
statt of Braunschwieg, West Germany. The 'general process description
and schematic process diagram shown in Figure 9 are taken from the
Camp Dresser and McKee 197033 report to the Town of Easton.
The beets are transported from storage to process by a water flume
system. The fluming system is theoretically closed, although solids
buildup requires partial makeup and wasting. During the winter
the beets are warmed by this fluming process. The beets are then cut
into cossettes, and sugar is extracted in a continuous diffusion tower in
the form of raw juice which is 10% td 13% pure sugar. The spent coss-
ettes are pressed, dried and used for animal feed.
31
-------
RECEI VING AND
n r r T r> ^^ s TD R n n F ^
1
| HUSH
1
| flQUft PURA |
FLUME t
f
EH
f
SPLK
Fll TR2TF -_ J
rnSSFTTES MILK- OF LIME .
[- ^ KUW JUILL |
» WET PULP .DIF FUSIL
U PCF<;<;F<;
N KUktK • • 1 r'
1 T ' — r1, r •' •- pRF-r'iRRnNRTinN
f PRESSED PULP
DRYER
F
1 -T-— 1 1-ST SIHGE
f CARBONATION
PaCK.'SGING t
it; ^ SETTLER
TiJNK g CLARI FIED JUI CE TANK |
i •
= *
ROT. VAC. F-ILTR.I— ^ | " 1 ±
D ^RIFFUR00"EB ^FILTER CAKE CARBBN^N ^ 1
LIME PIT [ V
' DEMINERftL
CANDLE FILTERS'
^
A-MrtS
THI CK JUICE
— r
0 4 ^ •
a ^_ A- SUGAR
eT
Z
LLl
-------
The raw juice is purified in two carbonation stages, with the addition
of carbon dioxide and milk of lime. The precipitate is removed by
settling and candle filtration. Two stages are used in this operation.
The solids from both stages are vacuum filtered and air-ejected to the
mud-lime pit.
Sixty percent of the juice is thickened and subjected to three repeated
cycles of evaporation and centrifuging to produce declining quality A, B
and C sugars. The C sugar is either mixed with the pulp for feed or sold
as molasses. The remaining 40 percent is demineralized and subjected
to a remelt process, which is mixed with the low grade streams from the
A and B centrifuges, evaporated and centrifuged. The R sugar thus pro-
duced, is dried and stored for packaging.
The basic process is more characteristic of the straight house operation
than the Steffens operation, and makes extensive use of water recycling.
This eliminates many of the typical pollution sources in the United States
sugar beet industry. Plant production capacity is reported at 4000 tons
of beets per day. Operation would be on a 24 hour per day basis during
the operating season, which could run about 100 days in the late fall and
winter. Plant water usage was estimated at about 2000 GPM in the Camp
Dresser and McKee report-^. Operation of the plant to date has not
allowed detailed flow or organic load analysis.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Flow gagings, sampling, and analyses were conducted at all processing
plants, except Vahlsing, Inc, and Maine Sugar Industries at Easton, and
the Cyr Bros plant in Caribou. The program was conducted in April, and
early May, 1971. The analyses conducted during the spring of the year
represent the maximum organic loads to be anticipated; due to the diffi-
culties in peeling old pojtatoes and the increase in spoiled or partially
rotted potatoes which may enter the system. It should also be noted
that the picking season in the fall of 1970, was one of the wettest
in years, and large quantities of mud entered the storage and fluming sys-
tems. In general, the recorded values should represent maximum loadings
for production being accomplished by the industry.
All laboratory analyses performed in conjunction with the characteriza-
tion of the wastewaters, from the potato processing plants, were made in
conformance with the requirements of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. Thirteenth Edition35 and FWPCA Methods for Chemi-
cal Analysis of Water and Wastes, November, 1969.Analyses were per-
formed within 24 hours of the completion of the sampling period, with the
exception of the nitrogen and phosphorous examinations. Samples for
these analyses were preserved in accordance with the references listed
above.
TATERSTATE FROZEN FOODS - Samples were composited on^an 8 hour basis for
the 24 hour periods of 7 am, April 6, 1971 to 7 am, April 7, 1971; and
from 11 pm, April 7, 1971 to 11 pm, April 8, 1971. This constitutes a
33
-------
48 hour testing period. An additional limited test was also run on
April 28, 1971. A summary of the test data on the raw waste loads
(after screening) is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
TATERSTATE - RAW WASTES AFTER SCREENING
Date
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-28-71
7 hrs . only
Date
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
Flow
MGD
0.986
0.972
0.320
Ave
Fixed
SS MG/L
426
564
Ave
BOD
MG/L
2977
3568
3200
Ave
Sett
Sol ML/L
48
42
Ave
COD
MG/L
4545
5265
—
Ave
Alka
Ave
Total
Solids MG/L
4620
5100
—
Chlorides
MG/L(CaC03) MG/L
83
89
—
51
Ave
Fixed
TS MG/L
715
931
—
pH
6.0
6.1
Ave
SS
MG/L
2522
3050
— —
Temp
°F
77
77
The waste characteristics presented in Table 1 can be converted to total
daily waste loads, and to waste loads per ton of raw potato input. This
data form is necessary for preliminary design, and allows comparison with
generally available literature values. Table 2 presents measured total
waste load generation at the Taterstate plant.
The Taterstate plant is equipped with a sedimentation-flotation device
for solids removal, prior to wastewater discharge. Tests were conducted
on the sedimentation-flotation unit effluent, concurrent with the influent
testing described above. A summary of the test data on the waste loads,
after sedimentation-flotation, is presented in Table 3.
The waste characteristics presented in Table 3 have also been converted
to total waste loads, and unit waste loads per ton of potato after sedi-
mentation-flotation. This total load data is presented in Table 4.
34
-------
TABLE 2
WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
TATERSTATE - RAW WASTES AFTER SCREENING
Date
Unit
Total Amount
Unit Load/Ton Potato
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-28-71
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
BOD
Flow
24,400 Ibs/d
37,300 Ibs/d
20,800 Ibs/d
0.986 mgd
29,600 Ibs/d
42,600 Ibs/d
24,700 Ibs/d
0.972 mgd
21,050 lbs/d+
1.097 mgd+
72.0 Ibs/t
110.0 Ibs/t
61.4 Ibs/t
2900 gal/t
98.4 Ibs/t
141.2 Ibs/t
82.0 Ibs/t
3230 gal/t
60.5 lbs/t+
3138 gal/t+
TABLE 3
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
TATERSTATE- WASTES AFTER SEDIMENTATION-FLOTATION
Date
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-28-71
7 hrs . only
Date
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
Date
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
Flow
MGD
0.986
0.972
0.320
Ave
Fixed
SS MG/L
348
455
Total P
MG/L
40.4 '
40.2
Ave
BOD
MG/L
2313
3056
2100
Ave
Sett
Sol ML/L
27
33
Soluble
MG/L
37.0
35.4
Ave
COD
Ave
Total
MG/L Solids MG/L
4043
4560
—
Ave
Alka
MG/L(CaC03)
65
76
P Ortho P
MG/L
29.4
26.4
4168
4357
—
Chlorides
MG/L
—
55
Ammonia N
MG/L
0.005
0.007
Ave
Fixed
TS MG/L
771
849
pH
5.6
5.6
Total N
MG/L
0.085
0.107
Ave
SS
MG/L
1941
2107
—
Temp
°F
77
—
35
-------
TABLE 4
WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
TATERSTATE - WASTES AFTER SEDIMENTATION-FLOTATION
Unit Load/Ton Potato
jjate
4-6 to 4-7
1971
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-28-71
7 hrs .
UL1J- L.
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
BOD
Flow
19,000 Ibs/d
33,200 Ibs/d
16,050 Ibs/d
0.986 mgd
24,700 Ibs/d
37,000 Ibs/d
17,050 Ibs/d
0.972 mgd
19,200 Ibs/d
1.097 mgd
56.1 Ibs/t
97.8 Ibs/t
47.4 Ibs/t
2900 gal/t
82 Ibs/t
123 Ibs/t
56.6 Ibs/t
3230 gal/t
55 Ibs/t
3138 gal/t
The wastewaters from the Taterstate plant are generally typical of
plants processing potatoes into french fries and potato by-products,
utilizing the steam peel process. Table 5 shows a comparison of average
Taterstate loads per ton of potatoes processed to standard literature
values.
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF TATERSTATE WASTES WITH LITERATURE
(Raw Wastes - After Screening)
Item Taterstate Lit Low Lit Ave Lit High
BOD
SS
Flow
70 lbs/t+
65 lbs/t+
3000 gal/t+
22 Ibs/t
25 Ibs/t
2310 gal/t
51 Ibs/t
61 Ibs/t
4210 gal/t
90 Ibs/t
114 Ibs/t
7000 gal/t
The data presented in Table 5 are representative discharges from the
Taterstate plant. It is noted that unit waste generation on April 7-8,
1971, was considerably higher than that obtained on April 6-7, 1971.
However, on April 8, 1971, the plant was preparing to shut down for the
long Easter weekend. This increased the general clean up flows, tank
dumps, etc, while actual production tailed off. This resulted in the
very high unit waste production and does not represent normal conditions,
An additional run to confirm this observation was conducted on April 28
1971.
36
-------
Analysis of Table 5 shows that the waste volume generated at the later-
state plant is well below the industry average and indicates relatively
close in-plant control of water usage. The suspended solids value ap-
pears to be about the industry average. However, the unit BOD produc-
tion is somewhat above the published industry average. This value re-
flects spring run conditions, when the stored potatoes tend to be of
lower quality, and peeling is more difficult. It is anticipated that
fall conditions would indicate a lower unit BOD production. The remain-
ing data presented, appears typical of a processing plant utilizing a
steam peel operation.
POTATO SERVICE, INC - Samples were composited on an 8 hour basis for a
48 hour period on April 27 to 29, 1971. Samples were taken at 5 loca-
tions; namely, on the flume wastewater line before and after sedimenta-
tion, on the process wastewater line before and after sedimentation, and
on the final effluent before it enters the river. Table 6 presents the
flume line data; Table 7 presents the process line data; and Table 8
presents the final effluent data.
TABLE 6
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
POTATO SERVICE, INC - FLUME LINE
Before and After Sedimentation
Date
4-27 to 4-29
1971
4-28 to 4-29
1971
Date
4-27 to 4-29
1971
4-28 to 4-29
1971
Flow
MGD
0.5
0.5
Ave
Fixed
SS MG/L
1369
323
937
286
Ave
BOD
MG/L
522
254
340
182
Ave
Sett
Sol ML/L
15
0.7
13
1.5
Ave
COD
MG/L
1263
577
952
433
Ave
Alka
MG/L(CaC02
290
283
260
220
Ave
Total
Sol MG/L
3356
1863
3084
1789
Chlorides
) MG/L
__
464
—
398
Ave
Fixed
Total Sol
2026
1159
2027
1224
PH
10.0
9.8
Ave
SS
MG/L
2236
533
1519
286
Temp
°F
79
—
74
NOTE: Higher Values
Lower Values
Raw Load
After Sedimentation
37
-------
TABLE 7
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
POTATO SERVICE, INC - PROCESS LINE
Before and After Sedimentation
Date
4-27 to 4-28
1971
4-28 to 4-29
1971
Date
4-27 to 4-28
1971
4-28 to 4-29
1971
NOTE : Higher
Lower
Ave Ave Ave
Ave
Flow BOD COD Total Fixed
MG/D MG/L MG/L Sol MG/L Tot Sol MG/L
2.6 2893 5460 6340
2188 3745 4539
2.6 2793 5592 5519
2123 3453 4602
Ave Ave Ave
Fixed Sett Alka Chlorides
SS MG/L Sol ML/L MG/L(Ca C03) MG/L
310 68 1003
107 0.1 739 69
332 70 1080
108 0.2 670 89
Values = Wastes after Screening
Values = Wastes After Sedimentation
TABLE 8
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
POTATO SERVICE, INC - POND EFFLUENT
Ave Ave Ave
1419
1459
1491
1541
PH
11.2
10.8
11.5.
11.0
Ave
Flow BOD COD Total Fixed Tot
Date
4-27 to 4-28
1971
4-27 to 4-28
1971
Date
4-27 to 4-28
1971
4-28 to 4-29
1971
MGD MG/L MG/L Sol MG/L
3.6 669 1593 2815
3.6 812 1778 2836
Ave Ave Ave
Fixed Sett Alka Chlorides
SS MG/L Sol ML/L MG/L(CaC03) MG/L
190 0.6 975
361 0.5 1080
Sol MG/L
1314
1338
PH
7.4
7.4
Ave
SS
MG/L
2828
391
2418
327
Temp
°F
__
82
—
82
SS
MG/L
843
1097
Temp
C
°F
54
54
38
-------
TABLE 8
(CONTINUED)
Phos MG/L Ammonia Organic N N03 N02 Total N
Date Ortho Tot MG/L-N M;/T,-N MO/T.-N MR/T.-N MG/L N
4-27 to 4-28
1971
4-28 to 4-29
1971
19.4
19.2
34.6
33.0
0.017
0.009
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.141
0.199
NOTE: Pond has 10 to 12 days detention - effluent cannot be compared
directly with plant effluent to determine efficiency.
-Processing plant had been out of production for over a week
about 10 days prior to testing.
-Effluent showed an increase in strength over the testing period.
Based on earlier PSI data, an effluent BOD of about 1000 MG/L may
be expected.
Data from the above tables can be converted to total loads, and to
unit loads per ton of potatoes. This data format allows comparison with
literature values, and permits assembly of design loading for system de-
sign. The total plant load and unit load per ton of potatoes is shown
in Table 9.
Analysis of Table 9 shows the total BOD generated to be about 63,000
Ibs/day. At production levels on the days of testing, this represents
a generation of about 62 Ibs BOD per ton of potato input. This is about
20% above the industry average of 51 Ibs/t, as reported in literature.
Suspended solids flow generation, and the other reported data appears
to be in line with industry averages, for a plant using the lye peel
process.
COLBY COOPEEATIVE STARCH - Gaging and sampling was conducted on three
different days at the Colby plant. Each run was about 4 to 5 hours,
corresponding generally to plant production. Samples were taken on the
in-plant protein water line, and on the overall plant outfall. The
flow data obtained is approximate only, as foaming caused by the protein
water created difficulties in securing accurate weir measurements. The
data obtained during the testing program is shown on Table 10.
Analysis of Table 10 indicates that a significant organic waste load is
generated when the Colby plant is operating. The flow is about 1000
gallons per ton of potato input, which is mostly used for fluming. As
noted in the previous section, recycling of the flume water could re-
duce the total waste flow. The major organic component of the waste
is created by the protein water. The organic strength of the wastewater
39
-------
TABLE 9
LOAD SUMMARY - POTATO SERVICE, INC
Location
4-27 to 4-28, 1971
BOD COD
SS
4-28 to 4-29, 1971
BOD COD
SS
Inf Flume
Tank
Eff Flume
Tank
Inf to Process
Tank
Eff to Process
Tank
Inf to Ponds
Eff to Ponds
2,170
2.3
1,060
1.1
62,600
65.3
47,400
49.5
48,460
50.5
17,300
18.0
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
5,260
5.5
2,400
2.5
117,500
1122.5
81,200
84.6
83,600
87.2
41,200
43.9
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
9,300
9.7
2,220
2.3.
61,200
63.7
8,500
8.9
10,720
11.2
21,700
22.6
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
1,415
1.3
758
0.7
60,600
56.8
46,000
43.0
46,750
43.7
21,000
19.6
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
3,960
3.7
1,809
1.7
121,100
113.5
74,700
70.0
76,509
70.2
45,900
43.0
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
Ibs
Ibs/t
6,320 Ibs
5.9 Ibs/t
1,190 Ibs
1.1 Ibs/t
52,500 Ibs
49.1 Ibs/t
7,100 Ibs
6.7 Ibs/t
8,290 Ibs
7.8 Ibs/t
28,300 Ibs
26.5 Ibs/t
-------
TABLE 10
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
COLBY CO-OP STARCH PLANT
Raw Waste Water
Date
4-21-71
Plant Eff.
4-21-71
Protein H-0
Portion
Date
4-21-71
Plant Eff
4-21-71
Protein H20
Portion
Date
4-21-71
Plant Eff
4-21-71
Protein H20
Portion
Date
4-21-71
Plant Eff
4-21-71
Protein H20
Portion
Date
6-2-71
Plant Eff.
6-2-71
Protein H20
Portion
Flow
GPM
370+
70+
Ave Fixed
Tot Sol
MG/L
1830
7660
Flow
GPM
570
70+
N02 (N)
MG/L
0
0
Flow
GPM
370+
70+
Hrs
of
Run
5
4-1/2
Ave
SS
MG/L
3355
6680
Hrs Of
Run
5
4-1/2
NH3(N)
MG/L
.12
.09
Hrs
of
Run
4
4
Total
Flow
MG
0.111
0.019
Ave Fixed
SS
MG/L
710
825
Total PO^
as P MG/L
48.8
296
Total N
MG/L
.58
—
Total
Flow
MG
.08
.017
Ave
BOD
MG/L
5,700
28,900
Sett
Sol
ML/L
48
—
Ortho PO,
as P MG/L
26.8
275
Ave
BOD
MG/L
3500
14,900
Ave
COD
MG/L
8,950
45,200
pH
6,8
6.1
Org Nit
as N MG/L
.04
—
Ave
COD
MG/L
8700
37,600
Ave
Tot Sol
MG/L
9,035
20,300
Temp
°F
—
—
N03(N)
MG/L
.42
8.0
Ave Total
Sol
MG/L
7800
28,500
41
-------
TABLE 10
(CONTINUED)
Date
6-2-71
Plant Eff
6-2-71
Ave Fixed
Tot Sol
MG/L
2100
7500
Ave
SS
MG/L
3130 "
4760
Ave Fixed Sett
SS
MG/L
840
840
Sol
ML/L pH
—
—
Temp
°F
58
—
Protein H20
Portion
Date
6-3-71
Plant Eff
6-3-71
Protein H20
Portion
Date
6-3-71
Plant Eff
6-3-71
Protein H20
Portion
Flow
GPM
370+
70+
Ave Fixed
Tot Sol
MG/L
1850
7300
Hrs
of
Run
4-1/2
4-1/2
Ave
SS
MG/L
1900
3360
Total
Flow
MG
0.09
0.019
Ave Fixed
SS
MG/L
400
460
Ave
BOD
MG/L
3580
17100
Sett
Sol
ML/L
—
Ave
COD
MG/L
7840
35300
' —
,. Ave Total
Sol
MG/L
6750
27700
Temp
°F
58
was less during the June sampling than during April. No direct explana-
tion for this variation is apparent, although it is likely that the total
organic output may vary considerably depending on the quality of input
potato. Total organic load generation of the plant probably ranges from
15,000 to 20,000 Ibs/d BOD, if a full production day was achieved. It
must be noted, however, that production is erratic and depends on the
raw material supply. Full production days are not the norm.
AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS - Samples were composited on an 8 hour basis for
the 48 hour period April 20 to April 23, 1971. Samples were taken at
three locations; namely, the American Kitchen Foods plant effluent, after
screening; the influent to the treatment plant of the Caribou Utilities
District; and the effluent from the treatment plant during the periods
when it was operating. At the time of testing, American Kitchen Foods"
was the only significant industry discharging to the Caribou system. -
Table 11 presents the American Kitchen Foods effluent'data. Table 12 ~
presents both the influent and effluent data at the Caribou treatment -
plant.
It should be noted that the effluent data from Table 12 represents only
the period 8:30 am to 4 pm. During the remaining part of the testing;
on that date, the sedimentation units were being by-passed. This by-'
passing was required primarily because of the plant's inability to handle
the solids load generated.
42
-------
TABLE 11
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS PLANT
Wastes After Screening
Date
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
Date
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
Date
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
Flow
MGD
2.0+
2.0+
Ave
Fixed SS
MG/L
267
131
Phos-MG/L
Ortho Tot
16.6 28.2
12.2 23.4
Ave
BOD
MG/L
1850
1810
Ave
Sett Sol
ML/L
33
30
Ammonia
MG/L-N
0.006
—
Ave
COD
MG/L
2553
2483
Ave
Alka
MG/L(CaC03)
54
151
Organic
MG/L-N
0.020
—
Ave Total
Sol
MG/L
3384
2226
Chlorides
MG/L
—
36
N03
MG/L-N
0.35
—
Ave Fixed Ave
Tot Sol
MG/L
570
454
pH
6.5
7.1
N02
MG/L-N
0.00
—
SS
MG/L
1511
1833
Temp
OF
72
72
Total N
MG/L N
0.376
—
TABLE 12
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
CARIBOU TREATMENT PLANT
Influent & Effluent
Date
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
Date
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
Flow
MGD
4.0+
3.6+
Ave
Fixed SS
MG/L
101
69
65
50
Ave
BOD
MG/L
Inf 647
Eff 390
678
435
Ave
Sett Sol
ML/L
11
0.6
11
1
Ave
COD
MG/L
1033
610
925
640
Ave
Alka
MG/L(CaC03)
99
120
117
104
Ave Total
Sol
MG/L
1427
907
1337
982
Chlorides
MG/L
—
55
Ave Fixed
Tot Sol
MG/L
371
352
360
357
pH
6.8
—
7.7
7.0
Ave
SS
MG/L
556
184
475
164
Temp
°F
—
—
—
—
43
-------
Date
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
Phos MG/L
Ortho Tot
5.0
6.2
14.8
8.1
11.4
22.0
TABLE 12
(CONTINUED)
Ammonia Organic
MG/L-N MG/L-N
0.004
0.002
0.006
0.019
0.04
0.033
0.036
N03
MG/L-N
1.20
0.81
1.19
1.13
N02
MG/L-N
0.022
0.000
0.00
0.00
Total N
MG/L
0.854
1.225
1.172
The data compiled at American Kitchen Foods, and the Caribou treatment
plant have been processed to yield total daily load figures, and load
generated per ton of potatoes. It is noted that the unit loads are based
on approximate potato intake data only, as actual production data was not
available. Table 13 shows the effluent data from the American Kitchen
Foods plant, and Table 14 shows similar data for the Caribou treatment
plant influent. Due to the limited use of the treatment plant, data on
the overall effluent is not meaningful.
Date
TABLE 13
TOTAL LOAD AND UNIT LOAD DATA
AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS
Unit
Total Amount
Unit Load/Ton Potato
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
BOD
COD
ss
Flow
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
30,800 Ibs/d
42,500 Ibs/d
25,200 Ibs/d
2.0+ MGD
30,200 Ibs/d
41,500 Ibs/d
30,600 Ibs/d
2.0+ MGD
70.0 Ibs/t
96.6 Ibs/t
57.2 Ibs/t
4,550 gal/t
68.6 Ibs/t
94.4 Ibs/t
69.5 Ibs/t
4,550 gal/t
TABLE 14
TOTAL LOAD - INFLUENT TO CARIBOU PLANT
Date
Unit
Total Amount
4-20 to 4-21
1971
4-22 to 4-23
1971
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
21,300 Ibs/d
39,600 Ibs/d
18,600 Ibs/d
4.0 MGD
20,400 Ibs/d
27,800 Ibs/d
14,300 Ibs/d
3.6 MGD
44
-------
Analysis of Tables 13 and 14 indicate that the flow and organic load-
ings generated at the American Kitchen Foods plant, during the testing
period, was somewhat higher than the industry average, and higher than
many other plants in the area. It is reported that management is taking
steps to reduce the plant loadings. It is also noted that the total
organic load entering the Caribou treatment plant was about 30% less than
the. load generated at the American Kitchen Foods plant. While some BOD
reduction may be expected in transit, it cannot account for the 30% re-
duction noted. Later system inspections revealed that one of the diver-
sion manholes on the Utilities District interceptor line was salted up ,>•••
allowing significant flow to be by-passed directly to the river. This
interceptor carried the American Kitchen Foods waste flows. It is felt
that this unintentional overflow accounts for a good portion ojE. the 30%
variance between the two points of testing, and that the data presented
for the American Kitchen Foods plant was representative of conditions at
the time of testing. It must also be recognized that the loads measured
at the Caribou treatment plant did not represent the total load entering
the river at Caribou.
During the summer of 1971, the American Kitchen Foods plant processed
frozen peas. The data for a limited sampling on this waste stream is
presented in Table 15.
TABLE 15
PEA PROCESSING WASTES - AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS
AKF Caribou
Screen House Treatment Plant
BOD, mg/1 1000 825
Temp., °F 83 .80
Flow, MGD 2.2 2.8
While these loads are somewhat less than those generated by potato pro-
cessing, they do represent a significant load. It is our understanding
that American Kitchen Foods plans to discontinue pea processing in coming
seasons.
A & P PROCESSING PLANT - Samples were composited on an 8 hour basis for
48 hour periods, from April 7, to April 10, 1971. Samples were taken on
the raw plant effluent after screening, and after air flotation, which
represents the loads entering the river. Table 16 indicates the data
after screening, and Table 17 shows effluent data after air flotation.
The waste characteristics presented in Tables 16 and 17 have been con-
verted to total waste loads, and unit waste loads per ton of potato
before and after air flotation. This total load data is presented in
Tables 18 and 19.
45
-------
TABLE 16
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
A & P CO - RAW WASTES AFTER SCREENING
Date
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-9 to 4-10
1971
Date
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-9 to 4-10
1971
Flow
MGD
0.818
0.752
Ave
Fixed SS
MG/L
281
154
Ave Ave Ave
BOD COD Total Solids
MG/L MG/L MG/L
2481 3217 4253
2333 4080 4317
Ave Ave
Sett Sol Alka Chlorides
ML/L MG/L(CaC03) MG/L
52 812 71
44 687 66
TABLE 17
Ave
Fixed
TS MG/L
1035
869
PH
11.5
11.5
Ave
SS
MG/L
1608
1845
Temp
°F
59°F
49°F
WASTE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
Date
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-9 to 4-10
1971
Date
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-9 to 4-10
1971
Pate
4-7 to 4-8
1971
4-9 to 4-10
1971
A & P
Flow
MGD
0.818
0.752
Ave
Fixed
SS MG/L
178
161
Total P
MG/L
19.8
25.2
CO - WASTES AFTER AIR FLOTATION
Ave Ave Ave
BOD COD Total Solids
MG/L MG/L MG/L TS
1869 2746 3423
1763 3007 3687
Ave Ave
Sett Sol Alka Chlorides
ML/L MG/L(CaC03) MG/L
28 780 71
17 725
Soluble P Ortho P Ammonia N
MG/L MG/L MG/L
7-6 2.6 0.015
9.8 1.6 0.018
Ave
Fixed
MG/L
1053
923
pH
10.8
10.8
Organic
MG/L
0.000
0.020
Ave
SS
MG/L
702
1048
Temp
59°F
59°F
N
'- •.
46
-------
TABLE 18
WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
A & P CO - RAW WASTES AFTER SCREENING
Date
4-7 to 4-8
1971
Unit
BOD
COD
ss
Flow
Total Amount
16,900 Ibs/d
25,220 Ibs/d
10,930 Ibs/d
0.817 mgd
Unit Load/Ton Potato
78.5 Ibs/t
117.2 lbs/t
50.7 lbs/t
3800 gal/t
4-9 to 4-10
1971
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
13,800 Ibs/d
24,250 Ibs/d
10,950 Ibs/d
0.752 MGD
82.6 lbs/t
145.0 lbs/t
65.5 lbs/t
4500 gal/t
TABLE 19
WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
A & P CO - WASTES AFTER AIR FLOTATION
Date
4-7 to 4-8
1971
Unit
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
Total Amount
12,700 Ibs/d
18,680 Ibs/d
4,780 Ibs/d
0.818 MGD
Unit Load/Ton Potato
49.0 lbs/t
86.8 lbs/t
22.2 lbs/t
3800 gal/t
4-9 to 4-10
1971
BOD
COD
SS
Flow
11,000 Ibs/d
18,850 Ibs/d
6,850 Ibs/d
0.752 MGD
66 lbs/t
133 lbs/t
39.2 lbs/t
4500 gal/t
The BOD data generated during the current studies correlate reasonably
well with the limited data provided through the courtesy of the James W.
Sewall Co, consultants to the Fort Fairfield Utilies District. The
flows recorded during the recent survey suggest a 25 to 30 percent
reduction in wastewater volume since the Sewall work in 1967.
The wastewaters from the A & P plant are generally typical of plants
processing potatoes into french fries and potato by-products, utilizing
the caustic peel process. Table 20 presents a comparison of average
A & P loads per ton of potatoes processed to standard literature values
47
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF A & P WASTE WITH LITERATURE
(Raw Wastes - After Screening)
Item A & P Lit Low Lit Avg Lit High
BOD
ss
Flow
80 lbs/t+
60 lbs/t+
4000 lbs/t+
22 Ibs/t
25 Ibs/t
2310 g/t
51 Ibs/t
61 Ibs/t
4210 g/t
90 Ibs/t
114 Ibs/t
7000 g/t
Analysis of Table 20 indicates that the waste volume generated at the
A & P plant is about, or slightly below, the industry average. The sus-
pended solids value also appears to be about the industry average. How-
ever, the unit BOD production is somewhat above published industry aver-
age. This value reflects spring run conditions when the stored potatoes
tend to be of lower quality, and peeling is somewhat more difficult. The
processing plant was primarily utilizing the caustic peel process during
the testing period. It was also noted that the potatoes processed during
the testing period were smaller than normal. It is anticipated that fall
conditions would indicate a lower unit BOD production. Other test data is
typical of the industry.
During late July and early August the A & P plant processes frozen peas.
While the loads generated during this operation are somewhat less than
potato processing, they do represent a significant waste load. Test
data from a limited 4 hour composite, during pea processing, is shown in
Table 21.
TABLE 21
PEA PROCESSING - A & P PLANT
WASTEWATER ANALYSIS
Before After
August 4, 1971 Air Floatation Air Floatation
BOD, MG/L 795 360
Temp, °F 74 74
Flow, MGD 0.375 0.375
SEDIMENTATION EVALUATION
The wastewater testing program provides data for evaluation of primary
treatment facilities applied to potato processing plants. The primary
treatment facilities located at the processing plants on the Aroostook
River are as follows:
48
-------
Approximate
plant Type Facility Loading
Taterstate - Washburn Rect Sedimentation 1935 gal/sf/d
Potato Service -PI Cir Sed - Flume Water 520 gal/sf/d
Potato Service -PI Cir Sed - Process Water 320 gal/sf/d
Amer Kit - Caribou Rect Sedimentation 1100+ gal/sf/d
Utilities Dist Plant
A & P - Fort Fairfield Air Flotation 1080 gal/sf/d
Data was obtained to evaluate the efficiency of these units on the basis
of BOD, COD, and suspended solids removals. This evaluation is summar-
ized in the following tables:
TABLE 22
TATERSTATE PROCESSING PLANT
Efficiency - Primary Treatment Unit
4-6 to 4-7, 1971 4-7-4-9, 1971
ITEM IN-LBS OUT-LBS % EFF IN-LBS OUT-LBS % EFF
BOD
COD
SS
BOD
24,400
37,300
20,800
21,050+
19,000
33,200
16,050
4-28-71
19,200+
22.1
11.0
22.8
8.8
29,600
42,600
24,700
24,700
37,000
17,050
16.6
13.1
31.0
TABLE 23
POTATO SERVICE, INC
Efficiency - Flume Water Clarifier
4-27 to 4-28, 1971 ' 4-28 to 4-29, 1971
ITEM IN-MG/L OUT-MG/L % EFF IN-MG/L OUT-MG/L % EFF
BOD
COD
SS
522
1263
2236
254
577
533
51.4
54.3
75.5
340
942
1519
182
433
286
46.5
54.5
81.4
TABLE 24
POTATO SERVICE, INC
Efficiency - Process Water Clarifier
ITEM
BOD
COD
SS
4-27
IN-MG/L
2893
5460
2828
to 4-28, 1971
OUT-MG/L
2188
3745
391
% EFF
24.1
31.4
86.2
IN-MG/L
2793
5592
2418
4-29, 1971
OUT-MG/L
2123
3453
327
% EFF
24.0
38.2
90.7
49
-------
TABLE 25
CARIBOU TREATMENT PLANT
Efficiency - Primary Treatment Units
4-20 to 4-21, 1971 4-22 to 4-23, 1971
ITEM IN-MG/L OUT-MG/L % EFF IN-MG/L OUT-MG/L % EFF
BOD
COD
SS
660
1100
488
390
610
184
40.7
35.4
62.3
590
865
349
435
640
164
26.3
26.0
53.0
TABLE 26
A & P PROCESSING PLANT
Efficiency - Air Flotation Unit
Jordan Co Data - 1971
4-7 to 4-8, 1971 4-9 to 4-10, 1971
Item IN-LBS OUT-LBS % EFF IN-LBS OUT-LBS % EFF
BOD
COD
SS
16,900
25,220
10,930
12,700
18,850
4,780
24.8
25.2
56.3
13,800
24,250
10,950
11,000
18,850
6,550
20.3
21.7
40.3
Check with 1967 - Sewall Co Data
3-16-67 3-23-67
ITEM IN-LBS OUT-LBS % EFF IN-LBS OUT-LBS % EFF
BOD 12,600 9,700 23 15,500 10,800 29.4
TABLE 27
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Summary - All Units - Ave Efficiency
UNIT BOD
Taterstate - Sedimentation
P S I - Flume Sed
P S I - Process Sec
Caribou T P
A & P - Air Flotation
REMOVAL EFF
16+%
49%
24.1%
33.5%
24.5%
SS REMOVAL EFF
26.9%
78.5%
88.5%
57.5%
48.3%
The following comments can be made upon review of the foregoing data
on various primary treatment units:
50
-------
TATERSTATE - The existing primary unit at Taterstate is very ineffective.
It is understood that the unit was intended to operate basically as an
air flotation unit, with a recirculation pump and air inlet device.
This portion of the facility was not operating effectively, and the unit
was acting essentially as a plain sedimentation device. In addition to
being loaded at over three times desired hydraulic surface loading, its
configuration and method of solids removal leads to very low efficien-
cies. The unit is long and narrow (L=5W+), and has a water depth of
only 4.5 feet. The settled solids and the floating solids are collected
at the influent end of the tank, where they are partially removed by screw
conveyors. No solids sump is provided. The solids that are removed from
the unit are combined with screened solids for haul. In general, BOD re-
movals above 10 to 15% cannot be expected from this unit.
POTATO SERVICE, INC - Both sedimentation units at Potato Service, Inc are
of good design and appear reasonably well operated. The flume water
clarifier is providing excellent BOD and solids removal. The process
water clarifier is providing excellent solids removals, but on the test
days, the BOD removal efficiency was somewhat below that anticipated.
The reason for this relatively low BOD removal is not fully known, as
the hydraulic loading of the unit is relatively low. The residence time
of solids is quite high, as solids removal is retarded to achieve pH
adjustment by biologic action to facilitate dewatering. The high resi-
dence time of solids during the test days could decrease BOD removal by
leaching of soluable BOD from the solids. Previous data by Potato
Service Inc personnel has indicated frequent BOD removals of from 40 to
50%. With careful control and operation, the clarifiers at Potato Ser-
vice, Inc should generally obtain over 40% BOD removal.
CARIBOU TREATMENT PLANT - Hydraulic loadings to the primary clarifiers
are quite high, ranging from 1.5 to 2 times the desired level. Even at
this loading, however, moderate efficiencies are obtained when the units
are in operation. The main treatment plant problem at this time is solids
handling, which limits the time the plant can effectively operate. At
the time of testing, about 8 hours of flow during each day is passed
through the primary units, with the remainder being by-passed.
A plot of loadings to observed removals is shown on Figure 10. The plot
of suspended solids removals to loading is quite consistent, while the
BOD plot is more erratic, when the low observed efficiency at the Potato
Service, Inc process clarifier is included. Based on previous detailed
sedimentation studies at Taterstate^, and literature studies, it is ex-
pected that with a surface loading of 600 gallons per square foot per
day, and with effective settled solids removal, suspended solids re-
movals of 80% or better, and BOD removals of 40% or better should be
consistently obtained from a primary sedimentation tank. Figure 10
would confirm this effectiveness of primary sedimentation.
A & P - FORT FAIRFIELD - The existing air flotation unit is marginally
effective as a primary treatment unit. Both BOD and suspended solids
removals are below that desired for effective primary treatment. The
unit appears to be operated reasonably well, and it is unlikely that
51
-------
100
80
50
CO
60
BOD REM(
VAL CUR
30
20
10
0
UJ
ce
CO
O
O
CO
UJ
o
z
LU
Q_
CO
=>
CO
SUSPEND
REMOVAL
D SOLID
CURVE
20
PSl PROCESS WA
ER
0
FIGURE 10
PLOT- SURFACE LOADING V
BOD AND S S REMOVAL
EXISTING FACILITIES
0
6 8 10 12
SURFACE LOADING GAL/SF/DAY X 100
16
18
20
-------
consistantly higher removals can be obtained from this unit. It was
also noted that the solids removed from the unit were quite wet, making
handling and disposal difficult.
PRIMARY TREATMENT - EVALUATION OF NEED - Based on literature review and
on evaluation of test data obtained during this study, it is concluded
that primary treatment for the removal of potato solids, as close to
the source as practical, is warranted. With good design and operation
a primary treatment should generally remove over 40% of the BOD and over
80% of the suspended solids. Organic load removal of this magnitude, by
primary treatment means, will be less costly than allowing it to pass to
the biologic system.
Potato solids removal should be undertaken as close to the source as
practical. The less time such solids are in the waste stream, the less
organics will leach into solution. This time element will affect the
BOD removal efficiencies of a primary treatment unit. It is also noted
that potato solids removed by primary sedimentation can be used as an
animal feed supplement. The potential value of this material may also
enhance the value of early solids removal.
53
-------
SECTION V
TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA
DESIGN WASTE LOADS
The foregoing sections discussed the general operating procedures at
area processing plants and the waste loads generated in the spring of
1971. Evaluation of the research and development studies and prelimin-
ary design of pollution abatement facilities require the establishment
of design loadings. The design loadings must include both the indus-
trial loads, generated by local industry, and the domestic loads, gen-
erated by the resident population.
The industrial design loads, for the constructed facilities, may not
necessarily be the same as the loadings established by the sampling
and analyses presented in this report. Final design loadings must
consider in-plant water and waste conservation measures, which may be
undertaken by management and their effectiveness. The waste load re-
ductions obtained through in-plant modifications must be balanced
against possible production expansion over the life of any proposed
facility. In the final analysis, each industry must designate the design
waste loads which it proposes to contribute to a regional system. Once
established, these values will represent that industry's share of avail-
able capacity, which cannot be exceeded without plant expansion, or
agreements to reallocate capacity.
It is not possible, during the course of this study, to establish final
design waste loadings for each industry. In order to evaluate systems,
and to allow management to assess the cost impact of their waste load
options, a range of potential loadings have been established. This range
of loadings should reasonably represent the values which may be expected,
if various in-plant adjustment options are exercised. It must be empha-
sized that these values are not rigid, or fixed at this time, but must be
analyzed and refined as management evaluates its process. However, prior
to final facility design, firm figures must be established for all indus-
tries .
The reader is referred to the companion Basin Planning Report for a more
detailed discussion of the economic growth studies, which serve as a
background for establishing the ranges of industrial wastewater flows.
The domestic wastewater loadings were based on 20 year population projec-
tions, developed in the companion Basin Planning Report, and upon data
assembled from existing reports and operating data of municipal facilities.
The selected design period of 20 years, for treatment facilities, was
chosen as a reflection of a reasonable life expectancy of equipment asso-
ciated with such facilities. Where new systems are proposed, a value of
100 gallons per capita per day and 0.20 pounds BOD per capita per day were
usedi It should be noted that modest variation in domestic flow will have
little effect on preliminary system design.
55
-------
DESIGN LOAD CODING - Design loads, for the majority of communities
included in this study, consist of both domestic and industrial waste
loads. As outlined in Section IV, in-plant process modifications could
alter the residual waste loads from each processing plant. Evaluation
of external treatment of the residual wastewaters require estimates of
the quantity and characteristics of the residual waste loads from the
processing plants. A coding summary of loading conditions for the vari-
ous processing plants, included in this report, is as follows:
Washburn Area Coding Summary:
"A" Conditions - Taterstate loading alternatives
A-l; Operation during Spring of 1971; no in-plant changes
(maximum load)
A-2; In-plant flow reductions and screen change (medium load)
A-3; In-plant flow reductions, plus dry-caustic peel
(low load)
"B" Conditions - Taterstate product expansion alternatives
B-l; Retain existing production capacity
B-2; Expand with new flake line
Mapleton Area Coding Summary:
"A" Conditions - Municipal wastes alone, no industrial wastes
A-l; Municipal wastes alone
Presque Isle Area Coding Summary:
"A" Condition - Loading alternatives at Potato Service Inc
A-l; Operation during Spring of 1971, no in-plant changes
(maximum load)
A-2; In-plant flow reductions and solids recovery (medium load)
A-3; Flow reductions, solids recovery, and dry-caustic peel
(low load)
Caribou Area Coding Summary:
"A" Conditions - Loading alternatives for combined American
Kitchen Foods, Colby Starch, Cyr Brothers, and
municipal wastewaters
A-l; High industrial load options plus municipal wastewaters
A-2; Medium industrial load options plus municipal wastewaters
A-3; Low industrial load options plus municipal wastewaters
Fort Fairfield Area Coding Summary:
"A" Conditions - loading alternatives at A & P
A-l; Operation during spring of 1971, no in-plant changes
(maximum load)
A-2; In-plant flow reductions (medium load)
A-3; In-plant flow reductions, plus dry-caustic peel (low load)
56
-------
Easton Area Coding Summary:
"A" Conditions -Loading alternatives at Vahlsing, Inc
A-l; Estimated operation during Spring of 1971, no in-plant
changes (maximum load)
A-2; In-plant flow reductions (medium load)
A-3; In-plant flow reductions, plus dry-caustic peel (low load)
"B" Conditions - Loading alternatives at Maine Sugar Industries
B-l; High industrial waste load condition
B-2; Medium industrial waste load condition
B-3; Low industrial waste load condition
The following paragraphs list in detail the range of loadings established
for preliminary design analysis.
WASHBURN AREA - Wastewater loads in the Washburn area consist of the
domestic wastewater of Washburn Village and Crouseville Village, and the
process wastewater from Taterstate Frozen Foods. The Town of Washburn
has accomplished considerable planning for municipal sewer system im-
provements and pollution control facilities to serve the Town. This
work was accomplished by the Town's Consultants, the Edward C. Jordan
Co, Inc in 1966.^ The data generated in the above study has been re-
viewed in detail, updated, and serves as the basis for domestic design
waste load projections. The domestic waste load projections made by
the Town, in 1966, appear sound and should be considered valid input
data by the regional study effort.
The domestic waste load generation for the Town of Washburn, as adopted
for preliminary design and analysis, is shown in Table 28. It is noted
that the projections include both the main urban area of Washburn and
Crouseville Village, a part of the Town of Washburn to the east of the
central village.
TABLE 28
TOWN OF WASHBURN - DOMESTIC WASTE LOAD
Design Year 1995 '•-
Washburn
Village
Population Served
Design Flow (Average)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
2000
0.34 mgd
370'Ibs/day
400 Ibs/day
Crouseville
Village
200
0.02 mgd
40 Ibs/day
40 Ibs/day
The only major generator of industrial wastewaters, currently operating
in the Washburn area, is the Taterstate Frozen Foods processing plant.
57
-------
This plant processes potatoes during the fall, winter, and spring months
into frozen french fries and other frozen edible potato products. The
plant is closed for a period of 60 to 75 days in the summer months.
In 1966, the Edward C. Jordan Co, Inc, assembled data on waste loads at
the Taterstate plant, in the preparation of a report to the Town of
Washburn.^ This study indicated a wastewater flow of about 1.4 mgd,
with a BOD of 8,000 to 9,000 pounds per day.. This data was utilized to
develop preliminary design and cost estimates for primary treatment
facilities. These facilities were expected to remove 40% of the BOD,
and would produce an effluent capable of meeting the existing water
classifications.
Subsequent to the 1966 Report, Taterstate has expanded its production
facilities, and has installed limited pollution control units. The
data presented in the previous section, indicates the load conditions
as they existed in the spring of 1971.
The evaluation of possible internal system adjustments, as outlined
in Section IV, at the Taterstate processing plant is primarily the re-
sponsibility of company management. However, to assist in their evalua-
tion, and to allow preparation of alternate preliminary designs, an
evaluation of the impact that the suggested changes herein would have
on treatment of the residual wastes is presented. The suggestedd in-plant
changes must consider several factors, in addition to the impact on
residual waste treatment. These are: capital cost of the change, in-
creases or decreases in operating cost associated with the change, effect
on product quality, effect on material recovery, and potential use of
by-products.
Items 1, 2 and 3, as presented in Section IV, are primarily water con-
servation measures. Minimization of flow at various points within the
plant could probably reduce wastewater flow to about 0.85 mgd (590 gpm) ,
from current usage of about 1.0 mgd (695 gpm). However, continued
surveillance and personnel education will be required to maintain the
lower flow rate. This flow reduction, however, will not in itself signifi-
cantly reduce total BOD, or suspended solids generation, as increased
water recycle will tend to increase unit BOD and solids content.
Item 4 of the suggested in-plant adjustments; reduction of screen size,
is primarily a minor equipment change and will require little expendi-
ture of funds. The maintenance on this screen, and the collection and
hauling of extra solids from the plant, will require additional in-plant
operating effort. This procedure will reduce overall BOD and solids
output from the plant, and will thus, reduce overall treatment costs.
Item 5; installation of a semi-dry .caustic peel system to repl ace the
existing facilities, will have the most impact on overall pollution re-
duction, both from the standpoint of flow volume and organic loading.
It will also be the most difficult and costly to accomplish, if manage-
ment should determine this procedure to be valid for their plant.
58
-------
The semi-dry caustic process has been developed in recent years in an
attempt to reduce the pollutional load from potato processing plants.
This process consists of dipping the raw potatoes, after washing, in a
heated caustic solution. After a penetration period, the potato is
subjected to infra-red heat, after which the pulped skins are removed,
as a paste material, by rubber brushes. The potato then receives a
final wash, with relatively small amounts of water. In most instances,
this wash water can be combined with the peel paste to form a slurry,
which can be readily pumped for disposal.
The semi-dry caustic peel process greatly reduces, and may eliminate
most wastewater flows from the peeling operation. Limited studies indi-
cate the procedure produces a satisfactory product for further process-
ing. Caustic usage with this process is no more, and probably less, than
with the standard caustic peel process. The product recovery from the
semi-dry process is reputed to be equal to other processes. Data on this
factor may vary from plant to plant, and has not firmly established under
actual plant operating conditions. If the infra-red process is used, the
cost of fuel must be evaluated.
The peel pulp slurry generated in the system must be disposed of, or
preferably utilized. As would be expected, this material will have a
very high pH. After neutralization by bacterial fermentation, and
mixed with other potato waste products, it has been used as cattle
feed. Facilities for this fermentation process must be provided if the
material is to be used as feed. If not fermented and used as feed, the
disposal of this material could pose a problem. It cannot be simply
dumped, without creating potentially serious nuisance conditions.
It is likely that new potato processing plants will adopt some variation
of the semi-dry caustic peel operation. However, the conversion of older
plants will require careful evaluation by management. Unfortunately,
the current demands of pollution control are going to require decisions
of management on adopting this system in the very near future; probably
before full data on the process is available for evaluation.
The installation of cyclone-type solids concentrators on certain in-plant
waste systems, as suggested in Section IV, may provide reasonable solids
and BOD,reductions. However, at this time, full evaluation of their
effectiveness is not available.
Evaluation of external treatment of the residual Washburn wastewaters
requires estimates of the quantity and characteristics of the residual
waste load from the Taterstate processing plant. Table 29 presents the
estimated residual waste loads under three in-plant conditions, based
on current production capacity. These conditions reflect (1) no signi-
ficant adjustment, (2) initiation of general water saving measures,
together with screen mesh adjustment, and (3) conservation, as indicated
in (2) plus conversion to the semi-dry caustic peel procedure.
59
-------
TABLE 29
ESTIMATED RESIDUAL WASTE LOAD FROM TATERSTATE
BASED ON EXISTING PRODUCTION
Suspended
Condition Flow BOD* Solids*
A-l; B-l 1.00 mgd 300 mg/1-25,000 Ibs/d 3000 mg/1-25,000 Ibs/d
A-2; B-l 0.85 mgd 3000 mg/1-21,200 Ibs/d 3000 mg/1-21,200 Ibs/d
A-3; B-l 0.60 mgd 2100 mg/1-10,300 Ibs/d 1600 mg/1- 8,000 Ibs/d
*After Screening
The flows and characteristics indicated as Condition A-l; B-l are
essentially those measured during the recent sampling and gaging pro-
gram. These are representative of spring conditions, which must be
considered in any treatment plant design. The flows and characteris-
tics of Condition A-2; B-l reflect flow reduction, combined with
limited reduction in total BOD and suspended solids by increasing
screening efficiency, and possible installation of cyclone-type solid
concentrators. Thus, the unit values of BOD and solids remain the
same as Condition A-l; B-l, although flow and total BOD load is reduced.
Condition A-3; B-l, is an estimate of the impact of conversion to the
semi-dry caustic peel process. Unfortunately, these values must be
considered approximate at best, as full evaluation of the effects of
this procedure on overall plant production is not complete, and hard
data is not readily available. The estimates are based on limited
studies that are currently available.
A study of the effect of infra-red peeling procedures, on secondary
treatment, was prepared for the manufacturers of semi-dry caustic peel
equipment. This report presented an evaluation of waste loads pro-
duced by various peel procedures, including the semi-dry caustic peel.
This study was based on literature surveys and data, with no actual plant
wastewaters from the infra-red peel, procedures. BOD entering the clari-
fier, using infra-red peeling, was estimated to be from 33 to 64 percent
of that generated by conventional peel methods. The variation depends
on the peel loss obtained in the standard peeling procedures. These
percentages do not include the effect of initial potato fluming or wash
wastewater. The inclusion of these wastes would lessen the percent
reduction in wastes from the overall plant.
A study of the effect of the semi-dry caustic peel procedure on waste
generation is currently underway by Western Potato Service in Idaho,
supported by the Federal .Water Quality Administration of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Project FWPCA 12060 EIG). A progress report
summary was issued in March, 1971. The data presented in the progress
60
-------
report is limited. However, it does suggest total plant loads of about
40 Ibs BOD and about 1670 gallons of process water per ton of potatoes
processed, with the dry caustic peel process. As this data is based on
early operation of equipment at the plant, a further reduction in BOD
may be anticipated. The design values established for the Washburn an-
alysis are about 32 Ibs BOD and 1800 gallons per ton of potatoes pro-
cessed. This represents a BOD reduction of 60% from the current BOD
generation. It is felt that these values are representative of the
effect of conversion to the semi-dry caustic peel process, based on
available data.
Taterstate management has indicated it is considering expansion of
facilities to provide a potato flake line at Washburn. This line could
have a potato input capacity of up to 90 tons per day. If this expansion
should occur, the loading conditions at Taterstate would increase to the
values shown in Table 30, for the three assumed in-plant conditions, as
previously outlined.
TABLE 30
TATERSTATE LOADINGS - WITH FLAKE LINE ADDED
Condition
A-l; B-2
A-2; B-2
A-3; B-2
Flow
1.27 mgd
1.10 mgd
0.77 mgd
Suspended
BOD Solids
3000 "tag/ 1-31, 700 Ibs/d 3000 mg/1-31,700 Ibs/d
3000 mg/1-27,500 Ibs/d 3000 mg/1-27 ,500 Ibs/d
2100 mg/1-13,400 Ibs/d 1600 mg/1-10,300 Ibs/d
MAPLETON AREA - Mapleton Village has a small sanitary sewer system, serv-
ing only a portion of the Town. The Mapleton Sewer District has proposed
expansion of this system to serve the entire Village area. If this is to
be accomplished, treatment facilities must be provided. To allow analy-
sis of a regional system, domestic waste flow estimates have been pre-
pared and are presented in Table 31. There are no significant industrial
waste loads in the Mapleton area.
TABLE 31
TOWN OF MAPLETON - DOMESTIC WASTE LOAD
Design Year 1995
Population Served , 800
Design Flow (Average) -08 mgd
Biochemical Oxygen Demand ' 160 Ibs/d
Suspended Solids 160 Ibs/d
61
-------
PRESQUE ISLE AREA - Wastewater loads in the Presque Isle area consist of
the domestic wastewater from the City of Presque Isle, and the process
waters from the Potato Services, Inc, potato processing plant. The Presque
Isle Sewer District has maintained a primary treatment facility for the
City's domestic wastewater for a number of years. Data and existing re-
ports from the District allow reasonable projection of the domestic waste
loads. These projections are shown in Table 32.
TABLE 32
CITY OF PRESQUE ISLE - DOMESTIC WASTE LOAD
Design Year 1995
Population Served 14,000
Design Flow (Average) 1.40 mgd
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 3,000 Ibs/d
Suspended Solids 3,000 Ibs/d
The major industrial wastewater generator in the Presque Isle area is
the Potato Service, Inc, processing plant. This plant operates during
the fall, winter and spring, with a down period of approximately 60
days in the summer. Data presented in Section IV indicates the waste
load conditions present in the spring of 1971.
For preliminary design and analysis, three loading options have been es-
tablished. Condition A-l reflects essentially the measured conditions.
Condition A-2 anticipates recycling about 100,000 gpd clarified flume
water, general tightening up of in-plant water use and controls, and in-
stallation of cyclone-type solids recovery units on some waste streams.
These procedures were presented and discussed in Section IV. Condition
A-3 assumes the general plant improvements under Condition A-2, plus full
conversion to the dry-caustic peel process. The discussion on dry caus-
tic peel procedures, as presented for Taterstate in Washburn, are equally
applicable at all plants.
Both raw waste loads (after, screening) and waste loads leaving the exist-
ing clarifiers have been estimated. Estimates have been made for the
flume line and process line separately and the combined effluent. This
data is presented in Table 33.
CARIBOU AREA - The wastewater generated in the Caribou area currently
consists of the domestic wastewaters of the City, and the process waste-
waters of American Kitchen Foods and Colby Cooperative Starch Co. The
potato processing wastes of Cyr Bros is expected to go on line shortly.
In addition to these firm units, the Caribou Development Corporation is
attempting to establish a new processing plant in the Grimes Mill area
of Caribou. As the success of this expansion effort may be tied directly
to solution of the area's pollution control problem, load projections
62
-------
TABLE 33
WASTE LOAD PROJECTIONS - POTATO SERVICE, INC
Condition
A-l
A- 2
A-3
Flow^
BOD
SS
Flow
BOD
SS
Flow
BOD
SS
Flume
0.5 mgd
2,290 Ibs/d
9,000 Ibs/d
0.4 mgd
1,900 Ibs/d
7,500 Ibs/d
0.4 mgd
1,900 Ibs/d
7,500 Ibs/d
RAW LOAD
Process
2.6
62,800
61,200
2.5
60,400
57,000
1.6
27,800
20,000
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
Total
3.1
65,100
70,200
2.9
62,300
65,500
2.0
29,400
27,500
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
LOAD - PRIMARY EFF
Flume
0.5
1,170
2,000
0.4
950
1,500
0.4
950
1,500
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
Process
2.6
47,700
8,500
2.5
41,650
7,000
1.6
17,400
3,500
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
mgd
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
Total
3.1 mgd
48,870 Ibs/d
10,500 Ibs/d
2.9 mgd
42,600 Ibs/d
8,500 Ibs/d
2.0 mgd
18,350 Ibs/d
5,000 Ibs/d
-------
have been prepared with, and without this new plant. It should be noted
that the policy of the Caribou Utilities District provides for joint
treatment of all industrial and domestic wastewaters in its system. How-
ever, for clarity the flow projections have been subdivided.
The design domestic waste loads for the City of Caribou are presented in
Table 34.
TABLE 34
CITY OF CARIBOU - DOMESTIC WASTE LOAD
DESIGN YEAR 1995
Population Served 12,000
Design Flow (Average) 1.2 mgd
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2,400 Ibs/d
Suspended Solids 2,400 Ibs/d
Three industrial waste load conditions have been established for the com-
bined in-town plants, ie, American Kitchen Foods, Colby Starch, and Cyr
Bros. These loadings are shown in,Table 35.
Condition A-l assumes the American Kitchen Foods and Colby loads will re-
main at their maximum recorded in the spring of 1971. The Cyr Bros load
assumes production of about 1500 Ibs/hr of product, with only limited
success in its in-plant water management program. Thus, Condition A-l
would represent the maximum expected waste load generation from in-town
Caribou. ..
Condition A-2 assumes full conversion to the dry-caustic peel system at
American Kitchen Foods. Colby Starch is assumed to achieve limited in-
plant load reductions. Cyr Bros is assumed to have a production of
10,000 Ibs/hr of product and moderate success in its in-plant water man-
agement program. This condition would reflect a reasonable median over-
all waste load.
Condition A-3 again assumes American Kitchen Foods converts to the dry-
caustic peel system. Colby is assumed to achieve a substantial waste
reduction through elimination of its protein water component. The Cyr
Bros' plant production rate is assumed to be 10,000 Ibs/hr of product,
with substantial success in its water management program. This condition
would appear to reasonably represent the minimum residual flow conditions
that could be expected from the in-town Caribou plants.
It must be recognized that a nearly unlimited number of intermediate load
conditions could be realized, by differing the success of each plant's
water conservation program. While it is not possible to study each poss-
ible combination, the above conditions should represent a range within
64
-------
TABLE 35
INDUSTRIAL LOAD ALTERNATIVES
IN-TOWN CARIBOU*
CONDITION
A-l
A-2
A- 3
LOAD UNIT
Flow
BOD
SS
Flow
BOD
SS
Flow
BOD
AKF
2.2 mgd
31,000 Ibs/d
30,000 Ibs/d
1.0 mgd
15,000 Ibs/d
12,000 Ibs/d
1.0 mgd
15,000 Ibs/d
12,000 Ibs/d
CYR
0.7 mgd
12,000 Ibs/d
4,000 Ibs/d
0.4 mgd
5,000 Ibs/d
2,000 Ibs/d
0.2 mgd
3,000 Ibs/d
1,000 Ibs/d
COLBY
0.5 mgd
20,000 Ibs/d
10,000 Ibs/d
0.5 mgd
18,000 Ibs/d
8,000 Ibs/d
0.3 mgd
5,000 Ibs/d
2,000 Ibs/d
TOTAL
3.4 mgd
63,000 Ibs/d
44,000 Ibs/d
1.8 mgd
38,000 Ibs/d
32,000 Ibs/d
1 . 5 mgd
23,000 Ibs/d
15,000 Ibs/d
*Prior to primary sedimentation
-------
which actual loadings will fall. Prior to final design of the treatment
facilities, each processing plant must designate its desired load input,
allowing determination of actual total load values.
In addition to the in-plant industrial loads, the analysis includes con-
sideration of a significant load at Grimes Mill. This allowance has
been set at 1.4 mgd and 17,000 Ibs/d BOD. These loads would allow in-
stallation of a relatively large processing plant at Grimes Mill, assum-
ing that any new plant would utilize the latest techniques in plant de-
sign and water conservation programs.
FORT FAIRFIELD AREA - The waste loads generated in the Fort Fairfield
area consist of the domestic wastewater of the urban area, and the
process wastewater from the A & P Company processing plant. The Fort
Fairfield Utility District has accomplished considerable planning for
a municipal sewer system and pollution control plant to serve the Town
of Fort Fairfield. This work was accomplished by the District's Consul-
tants, The James W- Sewall Co. The data generated in these studies has
been reviewed in detail and serve as the basis for design waste load
projections. The domestic waste load projections made by the District
appear sound and should be considered valid input data to the regional
study effort. The domestic waste load generation for the Town of Fort
Fairfield as adopted for preliminary design and analysis is shown in
Table 36.
TABLE 36
FORT FAIRFIELD - DOMESTIC WASTE LOAD
Design Year 1995
Population Served 3,500
Design Flow (Average) 0.35 mgd
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 700 Ibs/d
Suspended Solids 700 Ibs/d
The only major generation of industrial wastewaters, currently operating
in the Fort Fairfield area, is the A & P processing plant. This plant
processes potatoes during the fall, winter, and spring months into
frozen french fries and other frozen edible potato products. During a
period in the summer, the plant processes peas for freezing. The more
significant waste loads are generated during the potato processing func-
tion. These will be the critical design loads. The design loads for
three alternative in-plant conservation conditions are shown in Table
37.
The flows and characteristics indicated as Condition A-l are essentially
those measured during the recent sampling and gaging program. These are
representative of spring conditions, which must be considered in any treat-
ment plant design.
66
-------
TABLE 37
ESTIMATED RESIDUAL WASTE LOAD FROM A & P
In-plant
Adjustment
Condition
Condition
Condition
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
Flow
0.82
0.60
0.40
mgd
mgd
mgd
2500
3400
2100
BOD*
mg/1-17
mg/1-17
mg/1- 7
,100
,000
,000
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
2000
2700
1600
Suspended
Solids*
mg /1-13
rag/ 1-14
mg/1 5
,670
,600
,300
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
Ibs/d
*After Screening
The flows and characteristics of Condition A-2 reflect essentially a
flow reduction with little or no reduction in total BOD or suspended
solids.
Condition A-3 is an estimate of the impact of conversion to the semi-dry
caustic peel procedure. The discussions and comments on this peeling
process, under Washburn, are equally applicable to Conditions at Fort Fair-
field.
EASTON AREA - The total waste load generated in the Easton area will con-
sist of the domestic loads of the Town of Easton, plus the industrial
wastes from the Vahlsing, Inc, potato processing plant and the Maine Sugar
Industries sugar refining plant. At the present time, the Town of Easton
does not have a sanitary sewer system. However, soil conditions are such
that continued long term use of individual subsurface disposal facilities
may not be possible and a central system will be required. Thus, esti-
mates of the domestic load have been made for use in the preliminary de-
sign analysis. The estimated domestic loads are given in Table 38, and
are based in part on the 1970 study prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee33.
TABLE 38
EASTON - DOMESTIC WASTE LOAD
Design Year 1995
Population Served
Industrial Employees
Flow (Average)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
1020
1500
0.30 mgd
460 Ibs/d
460 Ibs/d
It is pointed out that the domestic waste loads in Easton are vitally
affected by the industrial growth of the Town. The above data assumes
a favorable climate and the reestablishment of a viable sugar industry.
However, if design of treatment facilities for only the domestic waste
67
-------
were to be undertaken, it should be designed for lower loads, with ease
of expansion built in.
Three alternative loading conditions have been established for both the
Vahlsing potato processing plant and the Maine Sugar Industries plant.
The loadings at the Vahlsing plant are based on a potato input capacity
of 285 tons per day. The loadings at the Maine Sugar Industries plant
are based on a capacity of 4000 tons of beets per day. These capacities
are as reported in the 1970 Camp Dresser and McKee report^-3. A summary
of the design loadings is given in Table 39.
TABLE 39
INDUSTRIAL LOADINGS - EASTON AREA
Vahlsing Inc Flow BOD SS_ _
Condition A-l 2.1 mgd 25,000 Ibs/d 25,000 Ibs/d
Condition A-2 1.4 mgd 20,000 Ibs/d 18,000 Ibs/d
Condition A-3 0.8 mgd 13,000 Ibs/d 10,000 Ibs/d
Maine Sugar Industries
Condition B-l 2.8 mgd 16,000 Ibs/d 15,000 Ibs/d
Condition B-2 2.0 mgd 10,000 Ibs/d 10,000 Ibs/d
Condition B-3 1.2 mgd 5,000 Ibs/d 5,000 Ibs/d
Condition A-l in the above listing assumes normal processing conditions
with loads as reported in the 1970 Camp Dresser and McKee report-^.
These values are higher than industry averages, and would likely be the
maximum waste load production that would be anticipated. Condition A-2
would reflect a general tightening up of plant procedures, possible use
of cyclone-type solids concentrators, but with standard lye peel re-
tained. Condition A-3 would reflect tightened flow conditions, as with
Condition 2, plus conversion to dry-caustic peel procedures.
Condition B-l at Maine Sugar Industries reflects loadings suggested
in the 1970 Camp Dresser and McKee report", and would likely represent
the maximum waste loads to be realized from the modern facility at Easton.
Condition B-2 assumes a closure of the internal systems and general
good processing practice. Condition B-3 assumes nearly complete system
closure, and probably reflects the lowest load which'can be consistently
maintained at the plant.
Again it must be emphasised that the above represent a range of values,
and many other combinations are possible. Prior to final design each
plant must evaluate its internal practices to determine its final de-
sign loading.
68
-------
COMBINED SEWER CONSIDERATIONS - The existing sewer systems in all commu-
nities are combined in nature to some degree. This condition will affect
the hydraulic designs of treatment facilities. The Town of Washburn pro-
poses to separate all surface water from its sanitary system prior to con-
struction of pollution control facilities. This should effectively mini-
mize the impact of surcharge flows on the Washburn system.
The City of Presque Isle system is combined and will likely remain so for
some time. In the long term it may be desirable to separate this system.
However, the economic realities of the situation will delay this effort
for an extended period of time. Thus, during periods of high runoff,
discharges of combined flow will enter the Presque Isle Stream in the
vicinity of the existing treatment plant.
The Caribou Utilities District System is also combined, and like Presque
Isle, is likely to remain so for some time. Again long range plans may
call for ulitmate separation, if funds were available. Until this is done
overflows of combined wastes will enter the Aroostook River through various
overflow structures in the District's system.
The proposed water pollution control program by the Fort Fairfield Utilities
District provides for extensive new sewer construction. This work will be
as a separate sewer system. With this program, it is felt that the Fort
Fairfield system can be effectively separated. Likewise, the new systems
proposed at Easton and Mapleton will be constructed to carry sanitary
wastewaters only.
INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION - The range of loadings given herein for the indus-
trial plants in the region are based essentially on current production
capacity, except for the Taterstate plant where management has indicated
a definite expansion program. Future expansion of the potato processing
industry in Aroostook County is considered essential to the economy of
the region, and economic studies undertaken in the companion River Basin
Planning study support the probability of reasonable growth. Yet it is
not possible at this time to predict the total expansion, its timing,
and its location. It may occur through expansion of existing plants,
such as proposed in Washburn, or at new locations such as suggested at
Grimes Mill in Caribou.
With the vagaries of an agricultural industry, it does not appear reason-
able to design large amounts of surplus capacity into a system unless
it is reasonably certain expansion will occur. Fortunately, the changing
technology of the potato processing industry may aleviate this problem
to some degree. As new peeling processes are developed, it is antici-
pated that unit waste load generation per ton of potatoes will drop sig-
nificantly. New plants will almost certainly be equipped with such equip-
ment and a gradual conversion may be anticipated in older plants. Thus,
it is quite likely that increased production capacity can be achieved with
total waste loads not significantly exceeding 1971 levels. It is sug-
gested that consideration should be given to constructing pollution con-
trol facilities to handle reasonably high loads, in the ranges presumed.
If this is done, it is likely that increased production capacity in the
69
-------
future can be handled within the system. Where possible, facilities
should be designed to accept future expansion as easily as possible.
TREATMENT DESIGN CRITERIA
In order to properly evaluate the research and development studies, in
relation to their impact on the study area, preliminary treatment system
designs, to handle the range of loads presented herein, have been prepared.
A review of the water quality studies, conducted under the companion Basin
Planning report, indicates that at least 85% BOD removals will be required
for all significant waste loads. As current State and Federal policy calls
for secondary treatment of all wastes, this report assumes at least 85% BOD
removals for all wastes.
Nearly all of the biologic treatment studies on potato processing wastes
have been of the activated sludge process, or some variation thereof. A
review of the literature has been completed and is summarized in Section
XI. Based on this review, it is apparent that activated sludge technol-
ogy will be well suited to the treatment of potato processing wastes, or
potato processing wastes in combination with domestic waste flows.
Based on literature studies, proposed treatment design criteria have been
assembled. While sufficient for preliminary design analysis, some refine-
ment will be necessary before final design. A summary of key preliminary
design criteria is given in Table 40.
TABLE 40
SUMMARY - TENTATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA
POTATO PROCESSING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
1. PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
A. Surface Loading = 600 gal/sf/day
B. Side Water Depth = 10 to 12 feet
C. BOD removal efficiency - Average 40% to 45%
D. SS removal efficiency - Average 85%
E. Solids removed at 5 to 6% - Steam Peel
at 3 1/2 to 5% - Caustic Peel
Design - 4% Solids
with thickening in clarifier - 7%
F. Rate of solids removal - Adjust to have .pH of solids
between 6.0 and 7.0
2. DEWATERING PRIMARY POTATO SOLIDS
A. Utilize vacuum filtration
B. Filter loading - 5 Ibs/sf/hour
70
-------
TABLE 40
(CONTINUED)
C. Operate 24 hrs/day to dewater at optimum pH
D. Design for installation of conditioning chemicals, if needed
E. Solids content of cake = 9 to 14% w/o conditioning
= 17 to 19% with conditioning
F. Filtrate = 2500 mg/1 solids w/o conditioning
= 1000 mg/1 solids with conditioning
3. COMPLETE MIXED ACTIVATED SLUDGE
A. Aeration Volume: The larger as computed by
1. Detention Time = 12 hours based on inflow plus 30%
solids return, or
2. Organic Load = 180 Ibs BOD per 1000 cf aeration volume
B. Design MLSS = 3000 mg/1 to 4000 mg/1 - resulting in BOD
to MLSS ratio of less than 0.75 to 1
C. Reaction Rate Kg = 0.000425 at 20°C
D. Solids Production = (a) (BOD removed) - (b) (MLVSS)
a = 0.65 b = 0.05 VSS = 0.8 SS
E. Secondary Clarifier - 600 gal/sf/day based on inflow
plus 30% solids recycle
F. Solids Underflow =1.5%
H. Oxygenation Capacity = 1 Ib Q-y per Ib BOD removed
I. Anticipated BOD Removal = 90%
4. EXCESS BIOLOGIC SOLIDS REMOVAL
A. Vacuum Filtration
B. Thicken to 4% to 6% gravity or air flotation thickening
prior to filtration
C. Filter Loading - 4 Ibs/hr/sf
D. Provide for chemical conditioning
E. Solids content in cake = 15%
F. Filtrate = 1500 mg/1 Solids.
5. DISINFECTION
A. Chlorination - Design Normal Application = 10 mg/1
- Capacity = 30 mg/1
B. Residual Desired = 2.0 mg/1
C. Contact Time = 15 minutes at peak hourly flow
D. Dual "Units - each with full capacity
The above criteria apply directly to treating potato processing wastes
alone. However, they are essentially applicable to a reasonable combina-
tion of processing and municipal wastes. The municipal wastewaters
would not be subjected to primary treatment, but would be introduced di-
rectly into the aeration units. Otherwise, all of the above criteria
were considered applicable. This is a conservative approach, but is
valid for a comparative analysis.
71
-------
Treatment of the domestic wastewaters alone would be accomplished by the
standard extended aeration process in the smaller communities, and by
standard activated sludge in the larger communities, with criteria as
established in the "10 State Standards," so called, as adopted by the
Maine Environmental Improvement Commission.
72
-------
SECTION VI
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION - The Aroostook River Basin has major population and in-
dustrial facilities located at Fort Fairfield, Caribou, Presque Isle,
and Washburn, while the adjacent Prestile Stream Basin has major indus-
trial facilities located in Easton. The location of each community and
industry, in each Basin, is shown in Figure 11.
The economy of each Basin is strongly agriculturally oriented, with
potatoes the dominant crop. On the Aroostook Basin, agriculture and
potato processing are concentrated in its lower reaches with the head-
water areas being wild lands in timber management. The Prestile Basin,
however, has agriculture and processing facilities concentrated in its
headwater area.
Since the early 1950's the potato economy of the nation, and Aroostook
County, has evolved from predominantly a fresh pack market to a sub-
stantial processed product market. Currently about 40% of the Aroos-
took crop is processed, primarily into frozen french fires and by-
products. The trend toward processing a larger portion of the crop is
expected to continue into the 1970's.
Processing of a substantial portion of the potato crop has created an
increasingly serious pollution problem in the Aroostook River and adja-
cent Prestile Stream. The organic waste loads now generated by potato
processing plants in the area represent a load nearly thirty times that
generated by the resident population. This condition has created nui-
sance conditions in both the Aroostook and Prestile waters, and repre-
sents a frequent violation of State and Federal water quality standards.
In the mid 1960's it became evident that further expansion of the pro-
cessing industries of northern Maine was vitally dependent upon solving
the severe pollution problems of the area, consistent with the economic
resources of the communities and industries of the Basins. To accomplish
this objective, the Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission initiated
a preliminary evaluation of the problem which culminated in a general
comprehensive water resources plan for the Aroostook-Prestile Basins-^. This
initial report recommended that the Aroostook-Prestile Basins be considered
as a hydrologic unit, and that all pollution control efforts be coordin-
ated on a river basin planning basis. The report also suggested the
physical integration of water pollution control facilities, serving the
lower Aroostook Basin and upper Prestile Basin, could achieve the maxi-
mum degree of water quality improvement at minimum cost. These early
studies indicated that the geographical and topographic configuration
of the lower Aroostook Basin may permit utilization of a combined
treatment-transport system to achieve regional system economies.
73
-------
INDUSTRY LOCATION LEGEND
1 TATERSTATE FROZEN FOODS
2 POTATO SERVICE INC.
3 AMERICAN KITCHEN FOODS
4 COLBY COOPERATIVE STARCH COMPANY
5 CYR BROTHERS MEAT PACKING INC.
6 A&P COMPANY
7 MAINE SUGAR INDUSTRIES
8 VAHLSING INC.
COMMUNITY LOCATION LEGEND
A - FORT FAIRFIELD
B - CARI BOD
C - PRESQUE ISLE
D - WASHBURN
E - EASTON
MILES
FIGURE 11
COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY LOCATION PLAN
74
-------
The treatment-transport system, as Initially proposed, is shown in
Figures 12A and 12B. The original plan proposed transporting the
waste activated slu- , -'lijs from the Washburn area, and the waste-
water flows from *-he ^ ,• • n area, to Presque Isle. At Presque Isle
the waste flows, from bo.... wcishburn and Easton, would be combined
with the wastewater flows from Presque Isle. These flows would then
be conveyed to Caribou via the treatment-transport system. A terminal
treatment facility war. also proposed at Caribou for treatment of the
wastewater flows generated in Caribou, and the flows discharged from
the treatment-transport system.
The Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission adopted the recommenda-
tions of the initial report as the basis for subsequent pollution control
planning in the Aroostook-Prestile Basins. The Commission retained the
Edward C. Jordan Company, Consulting Engineers and Planners, to organize
an extensive planning effort which would lead to a Basin-wide program of
pollution abatement. The proposed preliminary design and planning effort
was divided into two basic phases, research and development, and Basin
planning; with one coordinated with the other to assure implementation
of the program at the earliest possible date.
The research and development phase of the project was primarily directed
at establishing the feasibility of constructing the treatment-transport
system between Presque Isle and Caribou. In order to accomplish a rela-
tively constant degree of treatment in such a system, with widely varying
flows, uniform velocities of flow, and thus transit time, must be main-
tained. If this can be accomplished, the problems of oxygen transfer to
the system, and maintaining an active biological growth must be evaluated.
Evaluation and design of a biological treatment-transport channel sys-
tem requires analysis of the interrelation of channel hydraulics, aeration
parameters, and biologic parameters.
The original program included a pilot plant study to establish the detailed
design criteria for a treatment-transport system. This work was omitted,
however, from the research and development program.
The following paragraphs present the studies and evaluations undertaken
for development of the treatment-transport system; namely, system con-
figuration, hydraulic, oxygen transfer, and biological. A general dis-
cussion on the proposed treatment-transport system is also included.
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION - Prior to undertaking detailed studies on the
treatment-transport system, it was necessary to confirm the system's con-
figuration. Initial studies were undertaken to determine the feasibility
of transporting the waste solids from Washburn and the wastewater flows
from Easton to the Presque Isle area, as previously discussed. These
studies, presented in Section VII, conclude that the waste solids gen-
erated in the Washburn area should be treated in a separate facility lo-
cated in Washburn, while the Easton wastewater flows could reasonably be
transported to the Presque Isle area.
75
-------
AROOSTOOK RlVER
TREATMENT TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
PREIQUE ISLE
flSTES
FORCE MAIN
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
RESCUE ISLE
FIGURE 12A
INITIALLY PROPOSED TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION CONFIGURATION
SOUTHERN AREA
76
-------
AROOSTOOK
'I RIVER TREflTMENT
" TRANSPORT SYSTEM-
MATCH LINE SEE SOUTHERN AREA
FIGURE 12B
INITIALLY PROPOSED TREATMENT - TRANSPORTATION CONFIGURATION
NORTHERN AREA
77
-------
The Washburn studies also included transportation of the wastewaters to <
Presque Isle by both gravity flow, and pumped means. The costs required
to accomplish the waste transfer by both means, however, greatly exceeded
the cost of providing a treatment facility at Washburn. As concluded in
Section VII, the benefits to be gained by such a transfer are not signi-
ficant enough to justify the additional costs.
Additional studies were undertaken to determine the feasibility of trans-
ferring the waste activated sludge, from the Washburn treatment facility,
to the head end of the treatment-transport system. As this sludge would
amount to about 7,000 pounds per day, it was felt that this could act as
a seed sludge for the treatment-transport system. To perform this func-
tion, however, the sludge would have to be kept in an aerobic condition
from Washburn to Presque Isle, a distance of approximately eleven (11)
miles.
Based on published data, "»" a sludge of this nature would exert an oxygen
demand of about 40 mg/1. If the solids were pumped at a concentration of
1.5%, the resulting pumping rate would be 35 gallons per minute (gpm).
With a four (4) inch force main, 18 hours would be required to transfer
the solids from Washburn to Presque Isle. With a six (6) inch force
main, the resulting time would be 41 hours.
A projection of the time of oxygen depletion, for the waste activated
sludge, was determined by:38
-kt
C = e
min
C0 CD
C"min = minimum allowable dissolved oxygen concentration
(0.5 mg/1)
C0 = original dissolved oxygen concentration (5.0 mg/1)
k = oxygen demand of the waste activated sludge (40 mg/1)
t = time in minutes
In order to maintain a dissolved oxygen content of 0.5 mg/1 in the sludge,
it would have to be aerated every 3.5 minutes. With a four (4) inch force
main, this would require about 300 reaeration stations, or one every 200
feet. McCabe and Eckenfelder^-"- indicate that sludge of this nature could
remain in a viable condition for several hours without aeration. If de-
tailed studies substantiate this, then the number of aeration stations
could possibly be reduced 12 or 18.
While such a system of sludge transfer would probably be technically
feasible, it was not adopted because of the following:
1. More detailed studies would have to be undertaken to
determine the extent of sludge re-aeration.
2. The capital and operating costs can not be justified
in relation to the benefits gained.
78
-------
The treatment-transport system configuration for detailed study, as
shown on Figures 13A and 13B consisted of:
1.
2.
3.
Pumping the Easton area waste flows to the Aroostook
River Basin.
Combining the Presque Isle area, and Easton area waste
flows for treatment while in transit to Caribou.
Terminal treatment facilities at Caribou for handling
the Caribou area waste flows and the discharge from the
treatment-transport system.
HYDRAULIC AND ORGANIC LOAD CONDITIONS - For analysis of the treatment-
transport system, three loading conditions were assigned. The makeup
of these loadings is summarized in Table 41.
TABLE 41
DESIGN LOADINGS - TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Contributor
High
Flow BOD
Load Conditions
Medium
Flow BOD
Low
Flow BOD
Presque Isle
Domestic 1.4 mgd 3000 Ib/d
Potato Ser-
vice Inc 3.1
Easton Muni-
48870
1.4 mgd 3000 Ib/d
2.9 42650
1.4 mgd 3000 Ib/d
2.0 18350
cipal
Vahlsing Inc
Maine Sugar
Industries
Totals
0.2
2.1
2.8
9.6
460
25000
16000
93330
0.2
1.7
—
6.2
460
2100
—
67020
—
—
—
3.4
—
—
—
21350
The high loading condition assumes full participation by all municipal
and industrial entities. The industrial loads represent the highest
levels, as previously presented, while the domestic loads are based on a
20 year projection. The medium load condition assumes modest in-plant
conservation success at Potato Service, Inc, and Vahlsing, Inc, but
omission of Maine Sugar Industries. In addition, the low loading con-
dition assumes no input from the Easton area for legal, or other adminis-
trative reasons. It is emphasized that the above loadings represent
a range for analysis, and in actuality, different combinations could
realize almost any hydraulic or organic load within this range. Prior
to final design, all participants and their loadings must be accurately
determined.
HYDRAULIC STUDIES - The topography along the Aroostook River drops from
elevation 445. at Potato Services, Inc to elevation 390. at the Caribou
treatment facility. Several alternative channel routes were investigated, all
79
-------
FIGURE 13A
FINAL TREATMENT-TRANSPORTATION CONFIGURATION
SOUTHERN AREA
80
-------
URMINUL TREATMENT
FttCILITr
FIGURE 13B
FINAL TREATMENT-TRANSPORTATION CONFIGURATION
NORTHERN AREA
81
-------
of which allowed gravity flow from Potato Services, Inc to the Caribou
treatment facility. Waste flows from the Presque Isle and the Easton
areas would be pumped to the Potato Services site. The proposed route
runs primarily adjacent to the Bangor and Aroostook KR right-of-way.
The other alternatives paralleling this route were discarded because
of excessive earth work, unfavorable construction conditions near the
.river bank, possibility of flooding and washout from excessive river
flows, and numerous crossings of the railroad right-of-way.
Several combinations of channel slope, were studied for the proposed
reach. The combination which provided for acceptable flow conditions,
with a minimum of earth work and rock excavation, was a reach of slope
at .0008 followed by a reach at .0004. This slope combination would
create the least interference with existing drainage patterns. Several
streams, the largest of which is the Caribou Stream, must be crossed
with pipe bridges or inverted siphons. Drainage structures to accommo-
date these and other flows were considered and must be included in any
design of a channel paralleling the river.
In order to maintain uniformity within the treatment process through a
widely varying flow regime, it is desirable to provide a channel section
which will maintain a relatively constant velocity, and transit time. A
study was undertaken to determine the most efficient channel configura-
tion for both hydraulic and treatment considerations. Those shapes anal-
ysed included rectangular, trapezoidal, circular, elliptical and para-
bolic. The hydraulics of these shapes were investigated for flow ranges
from 1.0 through 23.0 cfs. Table 42 presents the velocities and water
depths for slopes of .0004 and .0008 for the shapes investigated.
%
The circular, elliptical and trapezoidal channel slopes were discarded
because of inadequate depth for proper aeration, and because of the re-
latively large variation in velocities between high and low flow con-
ditions. The rectangular channel, especially that with a 2.0 foot base
width, provided for a reasonably constant velocity over the flow range
anticiapted. For low flow, however, the depth of flow is insufficient
for proper aeration of the waste.
Several parabolic sections were investigated. These channel sections
were generated by the following relationships: y = x^, y = 2x^ and
y = 5x . The y = 5x^ section provided for the most constant velocity
with varying flow rates, and also maintained sufficient depth for aera-
tion purposes. Preliminary biologic studies indicated that an exten-
sive biologic solids return system would probably be required for the
channel treatment system. Solids return would be accomplished by
pumping through return pipes embedded in the concrete section. A typi-
cal section through the channel showing dual return piping is shown in
Figure 14.
The hydraulics of the channel have been evaluated to determine the flow
vs depth and flow vs discharge relationships for solids return rates of
0% to 50% of the average inflow. The average inflow was taken at 9.6
mgd. These flow vs depth relationships for the channel slopes of 0.0004
82
-------
SOLIDS RETURN PIPING
FIGURE 14
PARABOLIC CHANNEL
83
-------
00
TABLE 42
VELOCITIES AND WATER DEPTHS FOR VARIOUS CHANNEL CONFIGURATIONS
Rectangular
1. base width = 2.0 ft
2. base width = 3.0 ft
Trapezoidal
1. base width = 2.0 ft
2:1 side slopes
Circular
42-inch
48-inch
Parabolic
1. y - 5x2
S = .0004
2.0
Vel
fps
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.5
1.4
cf s
Depth
ft
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
9.0
Vel
fps
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.1
cf s
Depth
ft
3.0
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.5
23.0
Vel
fps
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.6
2.7
cf s
Depth
ft
5.9
3.4
2.0
3.5
2.5
2.0
Vel
fps
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.8
1.8.
cf s
Depth
ft
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
S = .0008
9.0
Vel
fps
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.7
2.7 '
cf s
Depth
ft
2.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
23.0
Vel
fps
2.5
2.8
2.7
3.6
3.5
cf s
Depth
ft
4.5
2.7
1.6
2.6
2.1
1.4
1.9
1.7
4.2
2.0
7.0
1.7
1.6
2.3 3.7
2.6 6.0
-------
and 0.0008 are illustrated in Figures 15 and 16. For the initial
slope of 0.0004 and a solids return rate of 3.7 cfs, the channel flow
depth would range from 4.4 feet with inflow of 2.0 cfs to 8.3 feet
with an inflow of 25.0 cfs. For the section at slope 0.0008, the above
conditions would maintain flow depths of 3.6 feet and 7.1 feet, respec-
tively. As can be seen in Figures 15 and 16, for the high solids re-
turn rates, there is less depth variation with inflow.
Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the change in velocity with inflow for
the two design slopes. With a return rate of 3.7 cfs, the velocities
would range from 1.72 fps at an inflow of 2.0 cfs to 2.20 fps at an
inflow of 25.0 cfs with the 0.0004 channel slopes. For the 0.0008
slope, channel corresponding velocity values would be 2.30 fps and 2.94
fps, respectively.
The low flows occur during the summer months when the processing plants
are shut down. With only the domestic flow from Presque Isle of 1.4
mgd (2.26 cfs) and a solids return rate of approximately 1.0 cfs, the
velocities for the 0.0004 and 0.0008 channel slopes would be 1.5 fps
and 2.0 fps, respectively. The respective flow depths would be 2.1
feet and 2.0 feet. The 1.5 fps velocity is just adequate to maintain
solids in solution; the 2.0 fps velocity in the longer, steeper section
is completely adequate.
Velocities may be converted to time of transit from the vicinity of
Potato Services to the vicinity of the Caribou treatment facility for
the proposed channel route and slopes by utilizing Figure 19. With
a solids return rate of 3.7 cfs the residence time of flow will range
from 8.6 hours at an inflow rate of 25 cfs to about 11.0 hours at an
inflow rate of 2.0 cfs. Within the design flow rates the transit time
will vary from approximately 7 to 9 hours.
PROVISION FOR FUTURE EXPANSION - The design for the channel section allows
for industrial load levels at present high rates and a 20 year projection
for domestic flow, coupled with provisions for a solids return rate of
4.8 mgd. The channel invert would be set so that two extra feet could be
added to the top of the channel section. These two feet would allow for
increased flows of 15.0 cfs and 18.0 cfs for the 0.0004 and 0.0008 channel
slopes, respectively. These flows are comparable to increasing the capa-
city of the conduit to allow for discharges and 50% solids recirculation
approximating those flows from both the Potato Services, Inc and Maine
Sugar Industries during high flow periods. This provision for future ex-
pansion is felt to be adequate for the design life of the channel.
FLOW REDUCTION IN THE AROOSTOOK RIVER - Prior to construction of the
conduit, wastewaters are discharged directly into the Aroostook River
at the point of use. After construction of the channel the flow of the
Aroostook River between Presque Isle and Caribou will be reduced by the
inflow to the treatment-transport channel between these two points.
The maximum flow reduction with the system under design loading condi-
tions should be approximately 7.0 cfs occurring at Presque Isle; con-
sisting of the Presque Isle municipal and Potato Services, Inc wastewaters,
85
-------
10
LU
Q_
LU
Q
CC
UJ
I—
=1
3
LU
I—
CO
ex
CHANN
[L INVERT SLOPE-0.0004
10 15 20
INFLOW TO CHANNEL ( CFS)
FIGURE 15
WASTEWATER DEPTH IN CHANNEL VS INFLOW
25
-------
10 15
INFLOW TO CHANNEL (CFS)
FIGURE 16
WASTEWATER DEPTH VS INFLOW
25
-------
2.5
oo
oo
to
a.
u
o
'-U
1.5
u INVERT SLOPE=J.0004
10 15 20
INFLOW TO CHANNEL (CFS)
FIGURE 17
VELOCITY VS INFLOW
-------
3.0
INFLOW TO CHANNEL (CFS)
FIGURE 18
VELOCITY VS INFLOW
-------
10 15 20
INFLOW TO CHANNEL ( CFS)
FIGURE 19
TIME IN CHANNEL VS INFLOW
25
-------
The 10-year seven day and one day minimum flows at Presque Isle are 125.
cfs and 110. cfs, respectively. The 2-year seven-day and one day minimum
flows are 310. cfs and 240. cfs. A 7-0 cfs flow reduction amounts to
only approximately 6% for the 10-year return interval. This minor reduc-
tion is completely acceptable and should have np deleterious results.
AERATION STUDIES - To achieve the required aeration of the biological
mass in the treatment conduit, oxygen must be introduced to the system.
Theoretically, the introduction of oxygen may be accomplished by several
methods. These methods are analyzed in the following paragraphs.
Aeration may be accomplished with devices inserted into the flow to in-
crease the natural turbulance in the channel. These devices may be
baffles, cascades or increased roughness of the channel walls such as
rip-rap. The use of this type of aeration procedure is desirable because
no energy input other than gravity is required. Unfortunately, the
channel slope from Presque Isle to Caribou is too flat to allow for this
type of aeration. As presented in Table 42, the flow velocity for the
various channel shapes borders on the minimum, which will prevent depo-
sition of solids. Increasing the slope is not possible, and introducing
increased roughness at the proposed slope would reduce the channel vel-
ocities below acceptable values for transporting solids.
The use of periodic aeration basins along the channel route was also con-
sidered. The head loss through these units, however, combined with that
through the solids concentrators was too great. In order to allow for
this head loss, the channel slope would have had to be flattened with
attendant low velocity problems.
The introduction of pure oxygen into covered oxidation chambers along
the channel route was investigated and discarded because the number of
installations required proved this method to be uneconomical. Also
the head loss through each of these chambers would have been excessive.
The use of diffused air introduced continuously along the channel was
investigated and concluded to provide the best means of achieving the
required oxygen transfer to maintain aerobic biological activity. This
process is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
An analysis of the oxygen transfer from bubble aeration performance is
presented below. Bubble aeration was calculated to be the prime transfer
mechanism based on the studies by Downing "' which stated that surface
aeration transfer varies from 4.45% of the total transfer at a 4.0 foot
depth to only 2.21% of total oxygen transfer at a 12.0 foot depth. Neglect-
ing surface aeration in the analysis provides for a degree of conserva-
tiveness. Surface areas in the channel are presented in Figures 20 and
21 for the proposed slopes. It can be seen from these figures that the
narrow channel does not provide appreciable surface area for any depth.
Much of the procedure and parameters for the required spacing of diffusers
was taken from Ecenfelder and 0'Conner^°. The oxygen absorbtion number
N is determined by the following relationships:
91
-------
1.0
10 15 20
INFLOW TO CHANNEL (CFS)
FIGURE 20
CHANNEL SURFACE AREA VS INFLOW
25
-------
CHANNEL INVEIT SLOPE=0.0008
15 20
NFLOH TO CHANNEL (CFS)
FIGURE 21
SURFACE AREA
CHANNEL
-------
N = VKLa
(1-n) (1-g)
G h
s
Where N = absorbtion number for aeration diffusers
V = Volume of flow being aerated
KLa = reaeration coefficient
Gs = air flow per diffuser (SCFM)
(1-n) = gas rate exponent
(1-g) = depth parameter
r
r ..... l - 1 - (3)
CCS - CL) 1.219
Where: rr = oxygen uptake rate (mg/l/hr)
Cg = oxygen saturation (mg/1)
CL = concentration of dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
=c = ratio of KLB in wastewater to K^a in water
1 = temperature correction for temperature = 30°C
1.219
Substituting equation (3) into equation (2) and rearranging yields:
Vr = 1.2190CN (Cs - CL) h^'S'Gg ^"n' (4)
If V is taken as the cross-section area (A) of the channel times the
distance between diffusers (d) and substituted into equation (3), the
final relationship developed is:
dist x rr = 1.219pC N(CS - CL) h'""11 (5)
A
This relationship provides a means for determining the distance between
diffusers for various depths of flow and for various oxygen uptake rates.
For the purpose of this analysis, values for several of these parameters
were taken from the literature in order to provide a means for determin-
ing the number and spacing of diffusers.
While those precise values to be utilized for a final design should be
determined from pilot plant studies, the following values are believed
to realistically represent the waste conditions to be expected. The
design operating temperature was taken at 30°C, oxygen transfer being
more efficient at lower temperatures. The following key oxygen transfer
design criteria were adopted:
94
-------
O. range 0.0 - 2.0 mg/1
oC= 0.80
Oxygen transfer 10% from bubbles to wastewater
Saturation DO (C ) = 7.5 mg/1
Air flow per diffuser - 10. SCFM
N = 30
1-n = 1.0
1-g = 0.78
Oxygen transfer rates were computed assuming a sparjer type diffuser
and were varied with depth of flow in the channel. The oxygen transfer
along the channel would be varied to meet oxygen demand by adjusting the
spacing of the sparjers, as required. Figure 22 presents the results of
the analysis in a plot of channel depth versus a distance-oxygen uptake
factor expressed in ft x mg/l/hr. The figure also indicates curves with
mixed liquor dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging from 0.0 to 2.0 mg/1.
From this data, and the oxygen demand studies, it is possible to select
diffuser spacing along the channel and to compute air flow requirements.
Oxygen demand analysis suggest that peak oxygen demand could range up to
about 70. mg/l/hr with maximum design loading, dropping to a low of about
15. mg/l/hr at the end of the channel with minimum loading conditions.
As an example of utilizing Figure 22, assume the depth of flow is 4.0 feet
and CL = 1.0 mg/1. Dist x rr is taken from the curve to be 1210 feet
mg/l/hr. If the uptake rate is 60. mg/l/hr the distance between diffusers
would be 20.2 feet.
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES - As previously stated, the original program included
a pilot plant study for determination of the biological design, parameters.
This phase of the program, however, was deleted. As a result, the design
parameters had to be established from literature.
Three variations of a biological system for the treatment-transport channel
were considered, as follows:
1. Aeration in channel with no solids return and no insertion
of active biologic mass at the head of the channel.
2. Insertion of an activated biologic mass in the head of the
channel, with aeration and no solids return.
3. Aeration in channel with extensive solids return system.
Alternate 1 above provides simply for aerating the waste flpws while
in transit from Presque Isle to Caribou. While this would be technically
possible, the only benefit to be gained is maintaining the waste flows in
a "fresh" condition. With such a system, little BOD reduction would be
achieved due to the inability of the system to generate an active biological
growth within the time of flow (7 to 11 hours, depending on flow rate).
In an actual system, however, some BOD removal could be achieved by the
virtue of growths along the channel surfaces acting as a seed. The extent
of such growths, resulting BOD removal, and oxygen demand would have to
be determined through detailed pilot plant studies.
95
-------
=0 MG/L
01=0.5
ci_=i.o
CL=i.S
FIGURE 22
DEPTH VS DIFFUSER SPACING
96
-------
Alternate 2 above requires the addition of an active biological
mass at the head end of the channel. After several rough approximations
it was decided to evaluate this system by adding sufficient solids at
the head end of the channel to increase the MLVSS by 500 mg/1. For the
three design loadings, the following quantities of solids would be re-
quired :
Load Cond Flow Rate //Solids Required
Maximum 9.6 MGD 38,400 ///day
Medium 6.2 MGD 25,800 ///day
Minimum 3.4 MGD 14,200 ///day
A schematic diagram of the system configuration for this alternate is
shown in Figure 23.
The establishment of the various design parameters and evaluation of the
above system were accomplished by the following formulations:
Oxygen Requirement: (Eckenfelder & O'Connor38)
#02/day = (a-X/teODj^Q/day) + (bf) (//MLVSS) (6)
Where:
a' = 0.48
b' = 0.03
Upon determination of the oxygen requirements by equation (6) the total
air requirement was determined from the curves previously presented for
channel aeration. The use of the channel aeration curves allows deter-
mination of the number of air diffusers,, blower size, and air header
size.
o o
BOD removals along the various reaches of the channel were determined by:
BOD Removal = (100)(ksSat ) (7)
l+ksSat
Where ks = 0.00047 (sludge growth factor)1
Sa = MLVSS concentration
t = time of aeration
Solids production,along the various reaches of the channel were determined
by.38
//Solids Growth/Day = (a) (//BODREMD) - (b) (MLVSS) (8)
Where a = 0.65
b = 0.05
Tables 43, 44 and 45 presents the data concerning solids production and
BOD1 removals along the channel reach for the minimum, medium, and maximum
load conditions. These tables show projected BOD removals for the Alter-
nate 2 system in the order of 70 to 80%.
97
-------
VO
CO
-------
TABLE 43
CHANNEL BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Channel
Reach
0-20000
0-72000
Time
(hrs)
2.57
11.57
Initial
Solids
Cone
(mg/D
750
750
Vol
Solids
Prod
(Ibs)
6,200
10,100
New
Solids
Cone
(ms/l)
968
1,110
Initial
BOD
Cone
(mg/1)
755
755
Ib BOD
Removed
9,600
16,000
New
BOD
Cone
(ing /I)
415
190
%BOD
Removed
45
75
Ib BOD
1000 cf
__
120
Ib
Ib
_
1
BOD
MLSS
_
.84
VO
Hydraulic and Organic Loading
Flow(MGD) Ib BOD
Presque Isle
Potato Service
Easton Municipal
Vahlsing, Inc
MSI
1.4
2.0
0
0
0
3,000
18,350
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 44
o
o
CHANNEL BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Channel
Reach
(ft)
Time
(hrs)
Initial
Solids
Cone
(mg/1)
Vol
Solids
Prod
(Ibs)
New
Solids
Cone
(OR/I)
Initial
BOD
Cone
(mg/D
Ib BOD
Removed
New-
BOD
Cone
(mg/1)
%BOD
Removed
Ib BOD
lOOOcf
Ib
Ib
BOD
MLSS
0-7000 0.85 750 5,865 910 1,270 9,100 1,020 20
AT 7000 FT EASTON PORTION ADDED - FIGURES AT 7000 REFLECT NEW CONG AFTER MIXING
2,180
42.0
7000-2000
7000-32000
7000-60000
7000-72000
1.57
3.65
8.52
10.61
705
705
705
705
11,000
18,000
25,000
27,000
918
1,053
1,189
1,280
1,120
1,120
1,120
1,120
17,400
29,000
40,500
44,500
785
560
336
258
30
50
70
77
167
2.8
Hydraulic and Organic Loadings
Flow(MGD) Ib BOD
Presque Isle
Potato Service
Easton Municipal
Vahlsing, Inc
Maine Sugar
1.4
2.9
0.2
1.7
0
3,000
42,650
460
21,000
0
-------
TABLE 45
CHANNEL BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Channel
Reach
(ft)
0-7000
7000-20000
7000-72000
Time
(hrs)
0.8
1.47
9.14
Initial
Solids
Cone
(ffiS/D
750
592
592
Vol
Solids
Prod
(Ibs)
7,700
13,400
37,000
New
Solids
Cone
(mg/1)
928
760
1,055
Initial
BOD
Cone
(mg/1)
1,380
1,040
1,040
Ib BOD
Removed
10,400
20,700
58,000
New
BOD
Cone
(mg/1)
1,100
780
312
%BOD
Removed
20
25
70
Ib BOD
lOOOcf
2,240
166
Ib BOD
Ib MLSS
41
2.8
Hydraulic and Organic Loadings
Flow(MGD) Ib BOD
Presque Isle
Potato Service
Easton Municipal
Vahlsing, Inc
Maine Sugar
1.4
3.1
0.2
2.1
2.8
3,000
48,870
460
25,000
16,000
-------
The BOD concentrations along the channel reach, for the three design
conditions, are shown in Figures 24, 25, and 26. As can be seen, the
residual BOD concentrations would be in the order of 300 mg/1.
Figures 27, 28, and 29 show the anticipated solids concentration along
the channel reach for the three design loadings. Total solids growth
in such a system could range from 10,000 to 37,000 pounds per day, de-
pending on actual loading.
The estimated oxygen uptake rates along the channel reach, for the
three loading conditions are shown in Figures 30, 31, and 32. The
oxygen demand analyses suggest that peak oxygen demands could range
up to 160 mg/l/hr at maximum loading, to 15 mg/l/hr at the end of
the channel at minimum loading.
Tables 46, 47, and 48 show the aeration requirements in the channel for
minimum, medium and maximum load conditions. These tables indicate the
oxygen demand, diffuser spacing, number of blowers and blower capacity
along the channel.
Tables 49, 50, and 51 show the blower capacity, horsepower, and air
pipe sizing for each blower station along the channel system. The
total system connected and operating horsepower is also tabulated on
these tables.
The overall channel installation will require air piping to be incor-
porated into the channel section, or laid parallel to the channel.
The biological system for Alternate 3 would most nearly approach a com-
plete mixed activated sludge system for which reasonable design criteria
is available. Lacking the opportunity for pilot studies or detailed
laboratory analysis, the following general criteria were adopted for de-
sign from published data.
Organic Loading = 200 to 400 Lb BOD per 1000 CF
MLSS = 3000 to 4000 mg/1
Detention Time Desired = 8 to 12 hours
BOD to MLSS Ratio = Less than 1.0
MLSS Return Rate = 25 to 50%
Ks = 0.00040
Solids Growth Constants a = 0.65, b = 0.05
A schematic diagram of the Alternate 3 treatment-transport system is shown
in Figure 33. Eight solids concentrators and return pump systems are pro-
posed at the locations indicated. These units would consist of an inter-
ceptor system in the channel to allow varying portions of the flow to be
drawn into a sedimentation chamber which would be equipped with tube settlers
and solids collecting mechanisms. Centrigugal pumps would return the
solids upstream about 16000 feet for re-entry into the channel. A sketch
plan of a typical unit is shown on Figure 34. Blowers for the aeration
system would also be located at these units. The entire unit would be
covered for cold weather protection. It is noted that the, return pipes
from two stations overlap to bring the MLSS concentrations up to desired
levels.
102
-------
o
u>
10 20 30 40 50 60
CHANNEL DISTANCE - FEET X 1000
FIGURE 24
BOD CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MINIMUM LOAD - ALTERNATE 2
70
80
-------
1400
1200
1000
800
o
o
GO
600
400
200
10
20 30 40 50 60
CHANNEL DISTANCE - FEET X 1000
70
80
FIGURE 25
BOD CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MEDIUM LOAD ALTERNATE 2
-------
1UOO
1200
1000
I
t_> 80°
o
o
03 600
400
200
10
20 30 40 50
CHANNEL DISTANCE - FEET X 1000
60
70
80
FIGURE 26
BOD CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MAXIMUM LOAD ALTERNATE 2
-------
1200
1000
800
I
LJ
z
o
if)
to
600
400
200
10
20 30 40 50
CHANNEL DISTANCE - FEET X 1000
60
70
80
FIGURE 27
MLSS CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MINIMUM LOAD- ALTERNATE 2
-------
1*00
1200
1000
z
o
t-J
OO
800
7"
600
400
200
10 20 30 40 50 60
CHANNEL DISTrtNCt - FtET X 1000
FIGURE 28
MLSS CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MEDIUM LOAD - ALTERNATE 2
80
-------
o
CJ
1200
10CO
800
600
00
gr 400
200
10 20 yt 40 50 60
CHANNEL DISTANCE - FEET X 1000
FIGURE 29
MLSS CONCENTRATION VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MAXIMUM LOAD-ALTERNATE 2
70
80
-------
20 30 W 50 60
CHANNEL - DISTANCE FtET X 1000
FIGURE 30
OXYGEN DEMAND VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MINIMUM LOAD -ALTERNATE 2
70
80
-------
200
DC
I
LU
I—
-------
40O
200
160
0=
120
80
10 20 30 HO 50 60
CHANNEL DISTANCE - FEET X 1000
FIGURE 32
OXYGEN DEMAND VS CHANNEL DISTANCE
MAXIMUM LOAD ALTERNATE 2
70
80
-------
TABLE 46
TOTAL AIR REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Reach
0-3500
3500-7000
7000-12000
12000-16000
16000-20000
20000-24000
24000-28000 -
28000-32000
32000-36000
36000-40000
40000-45000
45000-50000
50000-55000
55000-61000
61000-66000
66000-72000
Blower
Location
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
20,000
20,000
28,000
28,000
36,000
36,000
45000
45,000
55,000
55,000
66,000
66,000
Ave Up Rt
(rr)
mg/l/hr
33
29
27
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
16
15
15
Depth
of Flow
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
D*rr
(CL = 0.5)
1690
1690
1690
1690
1690
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
1550
Diffuser
Spacing-D
51
58
63
68
71
67
71
74
78
82
86
91
97
97
103
103
Channel
Length-Ft
3,500
3,500
5,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
No of
Dif fusers
69
61
80
59
56
60
56
54
51
49
58
55
52
62
58
58
Blower
Cap CFM
690
610
800
590
560
600
560
540
510
490
580
550
520
620
580
580
*Diffuser Spacing-Ft
-------
TABLE 47
TOTAL AIR REQUIREMENTS
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Ave Up Rt
Reach
0-3500
3500-7000
7000-12000
12000-16000
16000-20000
20000-24000
24000-28000
28000-32000
32000-36000
36000-40000
40000-45000
45000-50000
50000-55000
55000-61000
61000-66000
66000-72000
Blower
Location
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
20,000
20,000
28,000
28,000
36,000
36,000
45,000
45,000
55,000
55,000
66,000
66,000
-------
TABLE 48
TOTAL AIR REQUIREMENTS
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Reach
0-3500
3500-7000
7000-12000
12000-16000
16000-20000
20000-24000
24000-28000
28000-32000
32000-36000
36000-40000
40000-45000
45000-50000
50000-55000
55000-61000
61000-66000
66000-72000
Blower
Location
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
20,000
20,000
28,000
28,000
36,000
36,000
45,000
45,000
55000
55,000
66,000
66,000
Ave Up Rt
(rr)
mg/l/hr
152
135
48
44
40
37
34
32
30
28
26
25
24
24
24
24
Depth
of Flow
3.2
3.2
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
D*rr
(CL = 0.5)
1510
1510
1150
1150
1150
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
Mffuser
Spaclng-D
10
12
24
26
29
28
31
33
35
37
40
42
43
43
44
44
Channel
Length-Ft
3,500
3,500
5,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
No of
Diffusers
350
290
208
154
138
143
129
121
114
108
125
119
116
139
136
136
Blower
Cap CFM
3,500
2,900
2,080
1,540
1,380
1,430
1,290
1,210
1,140
1,080
1,250
1,190
1,160
1,390
1,360
1,360
*Diffuser Spacing in Ft
-------
TABLE 49
BLOWER AND AIR LINE SIZING
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Blower
Location
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
20 , 000
20,000
28,000
28,000
36,000
36,000
45 , 000
45,000
55,000
55,000
66,000
66,000
Blower
Capacity
690
610
800
590
560
600
560
540
510
490
580
550
520
620
580
580
Discharge
PS
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Blower
HP .
37
37
37
37
34
37
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
37
34
34
562 HP
Air Line
Length
3,500
3,500
5,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,000
Line
Size
6"
5"
6"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
5"
Length
Served
0-3500
3500-7000
7000-12000
12000-16000
16000-20000
20000-24000
24000-28000
28000-32000
32000-36000
36000-40000
40000-45000
45000-50000
50000-55000
55000-60000
60000-66000
66000-72000
-------
TABLE 50
BLOWER AND AIR LINE SIZING
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Blower
Location
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
20,000
20,000
28,000
28,000
36,000
36,000
45,000
45,000
55,000
55,000
66,000
66,000
Blower
Capacity
3180
2920
1920
1380
1290
1330
1210
1140
1080
1020
1250
1190
1160
1330
1300
1280
Discharge
PS
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Blower
HP
154
141
93
64
60
60
60
60
60
46
60
60
60
60
60
60
Air Line
Length
3,500
2,500
5,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,000
Line
Size
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
Length
Served
0-3500
3500-7000
7000-12000
12000-16000
16000-20000
20000-24000
24000-28000
28000-32000
32000-36000
36000-40000
40000-45000
45000-50000
50000-55000
55000-60000
60000-66000
66000-72000
1,158 HP
-------
TABLE 51
BLOWER AND AIR LINE SIZING
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 2
Blower
Location
3,500
3,500
12,000
12,000
20,000
20,000
28,000
28,000
36,000
36,000
45 , 000
45,000
55,000
55,000
66,000
66,000
Blower Discharge
Capacity PS
3,500
2,900
2,080
1,540
1,380
1,430
1,290
1,210
1,140
1,080
1,250
1,190
1,160
1,390
1,360
1,360
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Blower
HP
154
141
117
70
64
64
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
64
64
64
1,222 HP
Air Line
Length
3,500
3,500
5,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,000
Line
Size
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
Length
Served
0-3500
3500-7000
7000-12000
12000-16000
16000-20000
20000-24000
24000-28000
28000-32000
32000-36000
36000-40000
40000-45000
45000-50000
50000-55000
55000-60000
60000-66000
66000-72000
-------
in
in
loui
x
l-ul
u ui
SOLIDS RETURN
SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
AND BLOWER STATIONS
cx>
o
p
«0
i
s
^ SLOPE 0.0008
§
o
CM
1
«»v
o
§*
o
§
*
o
o
e>
$
o
g
10
o
g
=?
1-
^ SLOPE 0.0004
PS;
FIGURE 33
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEMS-ALTERNATE 3
-------
VO
r~°"">kl
PUMPS ;
Al R :
BLOWERS ._
•_,
I8"**""*
1
14
•-o-
\
t. _•.•"-'.;
)
c
.
• *•„•-• •-'-•-: .•--
^
^
•«•
)
/
/
6" AIR HEADER "^^^
FINISH
GRAD^Y,,
r
/
r1"
/
i
i
i_
1
-0
•
T l
Hi CROSS
1 iJDRlVI
1 1 MA
DR
|
#^
^-DIVERSION
PUMP ROOM
•4 «€*•
t
-W
n
; 1 1 L, j
1 ^\
<
XT"
_/l
rf-".1! '
r-'-l i---
TYPICAL
60° - 0" TO 135'
r11" ~ "" T ^° jf
TUBE MODULE —
5
N 1
VEj
CHANNEL -~^
PLAN
1
_™^
-•-^
i
t
1
CT1'"0
o
1
s
*
""* (
\
.-—POSSIBLY TO USE ..„
/r PRECAST DOUBLE TIES s WATER LEVEL ° ^
«_» •_! 1_1 ^
|.\\\x
.;\\\\>. •* TUBE MODULE -> ,
-T-
-'3'-0" SCRAPER ^ (•
SECTIONAL VIEW
"~* li
\\\:\v;
- 8" WATER DEPTH
t.
J2
."
;
/ o.
i- *.
,J
y
)
FIGURE 34
SOLIDS CONCENTRATOR AND RETURN INSTALLATION
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
-------
As previously discussed under "System Configuration", the oxygen demand
rate of the recirculated sludge will be in the order of 40 mg/l/hr.
The design of the sludge recirculation system is based on the assump-
tion that sludge activity will not be seriously affected without aeration
for 1.5 to 2 hours.
The basic design for the above biological system in terms of BOD removals
and solids growth, was based on equations (7) and (8), as previously
presented for the Alternate 2 biological system, and on the design cri-
teria above.
The demand for oxygen will vary along the channel with the higher demands
at the head end and declining values as the flow progresses down channel.
The variation of demand along an extended channel of this nature cannot
be predicted precisely without additional pilot plant or laboratory
studies specifically designed for the system. For preliminary analysis
the data suggested by McCabe and Eckenfelder^l on demand variation with
time was used. This data, as adapted to the channel section, is shown
on Figure 35. It is emphasised that this data needs confirmation by
additional study prior to final system design. Based on this data and
other design criteria discussed previously, the variation in oxygen de-
mand along the channel has been computed for each loading condition.
Tables 52, 53, and 54 indicate the volume, length and depth relationships
for each reach of the channel for the three design load conditions. In
each case a design MLSS concentration of 3000 mg/1 was chosen for pre-
liminary design. Plots of BOD/MLSS ratio versus MLSS concentrations
are shown on Figures 36, 37 and 38. Based on this data and the design
criteria listed previously, the estimated BOD removals and solids pro-
duction in the channel were computed by the methods previously presented.
Tables 55, 56, and 57 summarize the biologic characteristics of the
channel. Figures 39, 40 and 41 show the estimated mixed liquor suspended
solids variations along the channel.
Review of Tables 55, 56 and 57 reveal that BOD reductions of over 90%
may be anticipated in the channel section for each of the design loading
conditions. Solids production will vary with the total BOD removal and
ranges from about 10,000 pounds per day at minimum loading to nearly
50,000 pounds per day at maximum loading conditions.
Accomplishment of the BOD removals suggested is dependent upon adequate
oxygen transfer to maintain aerobic biologic activity. The introduction
of oxygen into the mixed liquor in the channel will be accomplished via
a combination of surface transfer and diffused air placed in the channel.
Analysis indicates that without artificial aeration, the mixed liquor
would quickly become devoid of oxygen indicating surface aeration alone
is not sufficient. This would be expected in the relatively narrow
channel section. Surface aeration could be increased by widening the
section, but velocity problems prohibit this.
The oxygen demand analyses, as shown in Figures 42, 43, and 44, suggest
that peak oxygen demands could range up to about 70 mg/l/hr with maxi-
mum design loading, dropping to a low of about 15 mg/l/hr at the end
of the channel with minimum loading conditions.
120
-------
NJ
o
H=
^3.
oo
oo
o
o
3D
1.00
.75
• 50
.25
0 i
MLSS CONC X 1000
WITH: INFL
AtF
-------
NO
NO
TABLE 52
CHANNEL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
MINIMUM LOADING
ALTERNATE 3
Inflow Rate =5.26 CFS
Sol Ret Rate =1.32 CFS
Channel
Reach
A to B
B to C
C to D
D to E
Slope
ft/ft
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0004
Depth of
Flow-ft
2.9
3.2
3.2
4.0
Vol Per
Ft (CF)
2.9
3.3
3.3
4.7
Vel
ft/sec
2.20
2.26
2.26
1.68
Length
ft
8,000
8,000
4,000
4,000
Reach
Vol(CF)
23,200
26,400
13,200
18,800
Reach Det
Time (hrs )
1.01
0.98
0.49
0.66
C to E
8,000
32,000
1.15
E to F
F to G
G to H
H to I
I to J
J to K
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
3.9
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.64
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
10,000
37,600
37,600
37,600
37,600
37,600
39,000
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.70
-------
l-o
TABLE 53
CHANNEL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
MEDIUM LOADING
ALTERNATE 3
Ave Inflow Rate =9.6 CFS
Return Rate =2.4 CFS
Channel
Reach
A to B
B to C
C to D
D to E
C to E
E to J
J to K
Slope
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
Depth of
Flow- ft
3.5
4.7
4.7
5.6
5.6
5.0
Vol Per
Ft (CF)
3.9
6.1
6.1
8.0
8.0
6.7
Vel
ft/sec
2.30
2.46
2.46
1.86
1.86
1.80
Reach
Length-ft
8,000
8,000
4,000
4,000
8,000
40,000
10,000
Reach
CF
31,200
48,800
24,400
43,000
56,400
320,000
67,000
Reach Det
Time-hrs
0.97
0.90
0.45
0.60
1.05
6.00
1.55
-------
CHANNEL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXIMUM LOADING
ALTERNATE 3
Inflow Rate
Return Rate
Channel
Reacj
A to B
B to C
C to D
D to E
G to E
E to J
J to K
=14.9 CFS
= 3.7 CFS
Slope
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
Depth of
Flow-Ft
3.7
6.0
6.0
6.9
6.9
6.1
Vol Per
Ft-CF
4.2
8.8
8.8
10.8
10.8
9.0
Vel
ft/sec
2.32
2.64
2.64
2.04
2.04
1.94
Reach
Lensth-ft
8,000
8,000
4,000
4,000
40,000
10,000
Reach
CF
33,600
705500
35,200
43,200
432,000
90,000
Reach Det
Time-hrs
0.96
0.84
0.42
0.54
0.96
5.45
1.43
704,500
9.64
-------
1.00
— .75
f—
a.
K
(ft
.50
tn
a
o
CO
.25
UITH: INFLjUENT BODr
AEFUTION VOL =
21,l»00#/DA
2.3
2 3
MLSS CONC X 1000
FIGURE 36
BOD MLSS RATIO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
-------
ce
CO
to
o
o
OQ
1*50
1.25
1.00
.75
INFLUENfT
ftERATIO
12 3
MLSS CONC X 1000
FIGURE 37
BOD/MLSS RATIO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
-------
1.50
1.25
1.00
O
i .75
QC
CO
s:
• SO
o
i—
o
as ,,
* 25
0
\
\
\
,
\
1
V
V
\
^v^
^^x.
Ml TH
^-^.
; INFLU
AERAT
^—- ,
ENT BOD
ION VOL
"• .
5=93,33C
= 5-28
• — .
#/DAY
MG
1234^6.789
MLSS CONC - MG/L X 1000
F.IGURE 38
BOD/MLSS RATSO VS MLSS CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
-------
NJ
00
TABLE 55
CHANNEL BIOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Channel
Reach
A to
B to
A to
C to
A to
E to
A to
J to
B
C
C
E
E
J
J
K
Det Time
hrs
1
1
2
1
3
6
9
1
.0
.0
.0
.2
.2
.6
.8
.7
MLSS BOD5
Reach Ave Reach Tot Lbs Removal
Vol MG Conc(mg/l) In System % Ibs
.174
.198
.372
.240
.612
1.41
2.02
0.29
1,800
3,000
2,450
3,000
2,700
3,000
2,900
2,100
60,
60,
60,
60,
60,
60,
60,
000 43 9,200
000
000 66 13,400
000
000 77 16,400
000 91 19,500
000
BOD5 Sludge
Start End Production
mg/1 Ibs mg/1 Ibs Ibs/day
750
410
750
750
750
21
12
21
21
21
,400
,200
,400
,400
,400
410 12,200 3,000
280 8,000 5,700
175 5,000 7,700
67 1,900 9,700
A to K 11.5 2.31 2,800 60,000 92 19,700
ACTUAL MLSS CONG
PT mg/1
750 21,400 60 1,700 9,800
A
BI
l
B2
C
E
Jl
J2
K
1,800
1,885
3,085
3,160
3,220
3,280
2,080
2,100
-------
TABLE 56
CHANNEL BIOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
MLSS BOD5
Channel Det Time Reach Ave Reach Tot Ibs Removal
Reach hrs Vol MG Cone (mg/1) To System % Ibs
A to B 0.97 0.234 2,000
B to C 0.90 0.366 3,000
A to C 1.87U.56)2 0.600 2,600
C to E 1.05 0.423 3,000
A to E 2.92(2.62)2 1.023 2,750
E to J 6.00 2.400 3,000
A to J 8.92(8.62)2 3.42 2,900
J to K 1.55 0.50 1,500
A to K 10. 47 (10. 20) 23. 92 2,700
110,000 43
110,000
110,000 62
110,000 74
110,000
110,000 91
110,000
110,000 92
ACTUAL
A
B!
B2
C
E
Jl
J2
K
19,0002
41,500
51,000
61,000
61,500
MLSS CONC
= 2,000
= 2.145
= 3,090
= 3,270
= 3,360
= 3,440
= 2,030
= 2,050
BOD5 Sludge
Start End Production
mg/1 Ibs mg/1 Ibs Ibs/day
1,300 45,600 750 26,000 7,000
1,300 67,000 500 25,500 21,500
1,300 67,000 310 16,000 27,700
1,300 67,000 115 6,000 34,000
1,300 67,000 105 5,500 34,500
1Based on BOD input at P I
Weighted Ave based on BOD Loads
-------
TABLE 57
CHANNEL BIOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Channel
Reach
A to B
B to C
A to C
C to E
A to E
E to J
A to J
J to K
A to K
Det Time
hrs
0.96
0.84
1.80(1.38)2
0.96
2.76(2.39)2
5.45
8.21(7.85)2
1.43
9.64(9.25)
Reach
Vol MG
0.252
0.528
0.780
0.588
1.368
3.240
4.608
0.675
5.283
MLSS BOD5 BOD
Ave Reach Tot Lbs Removal Start End
Conc(mg/l) To System % Lbs mg/1 Ibs mg/1 Ibs
2,760
3,000
2,920
3,000
2,930
3,000
2,990
2,020
2,880
130,000 51
130,000
130,000 61.5
130,000 74
130,000 90.5
130,000 91.5
27.0001 1,380 51,900 24,900
57,500 1,170 93,300 35,800
69,000 1,170 93,000 24,300
84,500 1,170 93,000 8,800
85,500 1,170 93,300 93 7,800
Sludge
Production
Ibs /day
11,000
31,000
38,500
48,500
49,000
ACTUAL MLSS CONG
i
A
Bl =
B2 -
C
E
Jl =
Jn =
K2 -
2,760
3,050
3,170
3,260
3,320
3,400
2,500
2,510
Based on BOD input at P.I.
^Weighted Ave. Based on BOD loads
-------
4
3
o
0
o
x:
_J
X.
C3
s:
I
2
•z.
o
00
00
_1
•s.
i
. — - —
^- —
^
•
Ml NIMUP
DES I GN
FLOW
) 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 74
DISTANCE - FT X 1000
FIGURE 39
MLSS CONCENTRATION
ALTERNATE 3
VS DISTANCE
-------
o
o
o
U)
Is)
to
Si
\
o
z
o
CJ
OO
00
AVE
DESIGN
FLOW
0 8
DISTANCE
16
FT X
24
40
1000
MLSS
FIGURE 4O
CONCENTRATION VS
ALTERNATF 3
48
DISTANCE
64
-------
«
3
o
0
o
X
_l
\
<-S
5:
,' 2
t_>
•z.
o
(_)
LO
t/>
_J
s:
l
(
^*"
-~~~
^—
BOD^/MI
M<
.ss = o.
a DESIG
72
N FLOW
) 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 74
DISTANCE - FT X 1000
FIGURE 41
MLSS CONCENTRATION VS DISTANCE
ALTERNATE 3
-------
OJ
-P-
i
o
z
•a.
•s.
LU
Q
X
o
20
10
MIN
AVE DESIGN FLO
H
08 16 24
(IIS) (228) (33*1
DISTANCE - FT X 1000
32
56 64
(86%!
FIGURE 42
OXYGEN DEMAND VS DISTANCE
ALTERNATE 3
-------
ME3.AVE DESIGN FLOW (6.2
DISTANCE - FT X1000
FIGURE 43
DEMAND VS DISTANCE
ALTERNATE 3
OXYGEN
-------
X
os
IE
\
_i
\
13
2
I
o
UJ
o
UJ
X
o
MAX
ttVE E
ESIGN FLOW (9.6
MOD)
0 8
'DISTANCE
16
FT X1000
OXYGEN
40
FIGURE 44
DEMAND VS
ALTERNATE
56
64
72
DISTANCE
-------
Tables 58, 59, and 60 show the aeration requirements in the channel for
minimum, medium and maximum load conditions. These tables indicate the
oxygen demand, diffuser spacing, number of blowers and blower capacity
along the channel.
Tables 61, 62, and 63 show the blower capacity, horsepower, and air pipe
sizing for each blower station along the channel system. The total sys-
tem connected and operating horsepower is also tabulated on these tables.
The overall channel installation will require both air piping and re-
turn solids piping to be incorporated into the channel section, or laid
parallel to the channel. A summary of these conduits sizes are indicated
on Table 64.
DISCUSSION - Alternate 1 above proved to achieve relatively little BOD
reduction due to the inability of the system to generate an active bio-
logical mass within the time restrictions. The cost of constructing the
channel cannot be justified for the project under consideration unless
significant BOD reductions can be achieved.
Alternate 2 above proved to achieve reasonably high BOD removals (70%
to 80%) in the channel, providing an active biological mass is available.
This biological mass could possibly be generated in an aeration system at
the head of the channel, or it could be brought in. Neither of these
methods appeared desirable for this particular study. Consideration was
given to transporting the active biological mass generated at the Wash-
burn plant to the head of the channel. Pumping of the activated sludge
was evaluated and disgraded due to the technical problems inherent in
pumping relatively small amounts of solids for long distances.
If large quantities of excess biological solids were available to insert
at the head end of the channel, Alternate 2 could possibly provide the
desired treatment efficiencies. While such solids are not readily avail-
able for the specific project under study, it could be applicable to
other areas of the country. Before such a system is undertaken, however,
detailed pilot plant studies should be undertaken to determine the de-
tailed oxygen transfer and biological parameters.
Alternate 3, with the extensive sludge recycle system, would be the most
practical approach to a biological system for the project under considera-
tion. Even with this system, however, detailed pilot plant studies should
be undertaken to determine detailed aeration and biological design para-
meters. The remaining discussion assumes selection of Alternate 3 treatment-
transport system for the project under consideration.
The channel section, as previously discussed, would be of concrete construc-
tion with piping incorporated in the section. The design of the system in-
cluded an evaluation of an open, or uncovered channel, versus a covered
covering for flood protection as the top of the channel would be above the
flood elevation of the Aroostook River, as discussed on Page 82.
137
-------
OJ
00
TABLE 58
TOTAL AIR REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Ave C>2
Blower Demand (rr)
Reach Location mg/l/hr
A to B
B to C
C to D
D to E
E to 28,000'
28,000' to F
F to 36,000
36,000 to G
G to 44,000
44,000 to H
H to 52,000
52,000 to I
I to 60,000
70,000 to J
J to 69,000
69,000 to K
B
C
C
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
K
25
38
34
33
31
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
23
23
15
15
Depth of
Flow (ft)
2.9
3.2
3.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
(D)(rr)
(CL-I.O)
1,500
1,400
1,400
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,330
1,330
D(ft)
60
37
41.5
36.5
39
41.5
43
44.5
46
48
50
52
52
52
89
89
Length
(ft)
8,000
8,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
No of
Diffusers
133
216
96
110
103
96
93
90
87
83
80
77
77
77
45
45
Blower
Cap (CFM)
1,300
2,200
960
1,100
1,000
1,000
900
900
900
850
800
800
800
800
450
450
-------
us
TABLE 59
TOTAL AIR REQUIREMENTS
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Ave 62
Reach Blower Demand (rr)
(ft) Location mg/l/hr
A to B
B to 12,000
12,000 to C
C to D
D to E
E to 28,000
28,000 to F
F to 36,000
36,000 to G
G to 44,000
44,000 to H
H to 52,000
52,000 to I
I to 60,000
60,000 to J
J to 69,000
69,000 to K
B
B
C
C
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
K
35
57
54
51
50
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
42
41
41
24
22
Depth of
Flow (ft)
3.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.0
5.0
(D)(rr)
(CL=1.0)
1,330
1,080
1,080
1,080
970
970
970
970
970
970
970
970
970
970
970
1,040
1,040
D(ft)
37
19
20
21.2
19.5
20.2
20.6
21.1
21.6
22.0
22.6
23.1
23.1
23.6
23.6
43.5
47.5
Channel
Length (ft)
8,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
No of
Diffusers
216
210
200
188
205
198
194
190
185
182
177
173
173
170
170
115
105
Blower
Cap (CFM)
2,160
2,100
2,000
1,900
2,050
2,000
1,950
1,900
1,850
1,800
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,700
1,700
1,150
1,050
-------
TABLE 60
TOTAL AIR REQUIREMENTS
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Ave 02
Reach Blower Demand (rr )
(ft) Location mg/l/hr
A to B
B to 12,000
12,000 to C
C to D
D to E
E to 28,000
28,000 to F
F to 36,000
36,000 to G
G to 44,000
44,000 to H
H to 52,000
52,000 to I
I to 60,000
60,000 to J
J to 69,000
69,000 to K
B
B
C
C
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
K
57
65
63
60
58
56
54
52
50
49
48
47
46
45
45
31
29
Depth of
Flow (ft)
3.7
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6,9
6.1
6.1
(D)(rr)
(CL=1.0)
1,280
930
930
930
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
920
920
D(ft)
22.5
14.3
14.8
15.5
14.7
15.2
15.8
16.3
17.0
17.4
17.7
18.1
18.5
18.9
19
29.6
31.8
Channel
Length (ft)
8,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
No of
Difussers
355
280
270
258
272
263
253
246
235
230
226
221
216
212
212
169
157
Blower
Cap(CFM)
3,600
2,800
2,700
2,600
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,500
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,200
2,200
2,100
2,100
1,700
1,600
-------
TABLE 61
BLOWER AND AIR LINE SIZING
MINIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Blower Blower
LocationCap (CFM)
B
B
C
C
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
K
1,300
1,100
1,100
950
1,100
1,000
1,000
900
900
900
850
800
800
800
800
450
450
Discharge
psi
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Blower
hp
60
50
50
45
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
25
25
Air Line
Length (ft)
8,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Tentative
Size (inch)
8 & 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4 1/2
4 1/2
Reach
Served (ft)
A to A
B to 12,000
12,000 to C
C to D
E to D
E to 28,000
F to 28,000
F to 36,000
G to 36,000
G to 44,000
H to 44,000
H to 52,000
I to 52,000
I to 52,000
J to 60,000
J to 69,000
K to 69,000
725
Total Connected HP
Blowers =
Return Pumps = 2(8)(40)
Settling Tanks = 8(2)
Total Operating HP
Blowers =
Return Pumps = (8)(40)
Settling Tanks = 8(2)
725
640
_16_
1,381
-------
TABLE 62
to
BLOWER AND AIR LINE SIZING
MEDIUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Blower
Location
B
B
C
c
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
K
Blower
Cap (GFM)
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
2,050
2,000
1,950
1,90ft
1,850
1,800
1,750
1,750
1,750
1,700
1,-700
1,150
1,050
Discharge
psi
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Blower
hp
100
100
90
90
100
100
90
90
85
85
80
80
80
80
80
55
50
1,435
Air Line
Length (ft)
8,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Tentative
Size (inch)
12 & 8
10
10
8
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
Reach
Served (ft)
B to A
B to 12,000
12,000 to C
C to D
E to D
E to 28,000
F to 28,000
F to 36,000
G to 36,000
G to 44,000
H to 44,000
H to 52,000
I to 52,000
I to 60,000
J to 60,000
J to 69,000
K to 69,000
Total HP
Blowers
Return Pumps
Set Tanks
Connected
Operating
-------
*••
UJ
TABLE 63
BLOWER AND AIR LINE SIZING
MAXIMUM LOAD
ALTERNATE 3
Blower Blower
Location Cap(CFM)
B
B
C
C
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
K
3,600
2,800
2,700
2,600
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,500
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,200
2,200
2,100
2,100
1,700
1,600
Total HP
Blowers
Discharge
psi
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Sludge Return
Set Tanks
Blower
hp
155
130
125
120
125
120
115
115
105
105
105
100
100
90
90
80
75
1,855
Connected
1,855
1,200
20
3,075
Air Line
Length (ft)
8,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Operating
1,855
600
20
2,475
Tentative
Size (inch)
12 & 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
Reach
Served (ft)
A to B
B to 12,000
C to 12,000
C to D
E to D
E to 28,000
F to 28,000
F to 36,000
G to 36,000
G to 44,000
H to 44,000
H to 52,000
I to 52,000
I to 60,000
J to 60,000
J to 69,000
K to 69,000
-------
Min Ave Flow
TABLE 64
SUMMARY
CONDUIT PIPE SIZES
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT CHANNEL
ALTERNATE 3
Ave Flow
Max Ave Flow
Reach
Served(ft)
A to 4,000
4,000 to B
B to 12,000
12,. 000 to C
C to D
D to E
E to 28,000
28,000 to F
F to 36,000
36,000 to 6
G to 44,000
44,000 to H
H to 52,000
52,000 to I
I to 60,000
60,000 to J
J to 69,000
69,000 to K
Air
Size
(inch)
6
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4 1/2
4 1/2
Piping
Length
(ft)
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4 , 000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Sludge
Size
(inch)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Return
Length
(ft)
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4;000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Air
Size
(inch)
8
12
10
10
8
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
Piping
Length
(ft)
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Sludge
Size
(inch)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Return
Length
(ft)
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4 ,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Air
Size
(inch)
10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
Piping
Length
(ft)
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Sludge Return
Size Length
(inch) (ft)
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 4,000
12 5,000
12 5,000
NOTE: From "B" to "J", there are two (2) sludge return pipes of equal size.
-------
Cold weather, however, could seriously affect channel performance. The
Aroostook River Basin experiences extended winter periods when cac t•->'..,:,"
eratures do not rise above 0°F, and frequently dip to -30°F to -409F. 'in
addition, because of the relatively flat topography, blowing and drifting
snow creates many problems. With an uncovered channel system, severe
icing and frozen mist problems would probably reduce treatment efficien-
cies. Open exposure of the channel would also reduce the effectiveness
of the treatment process through radiational cooling. The channel could
also become partially or fully clogged with drifting snow. Because of
the potential winter problems with an open channel system, it is recom-
mended that the channel be covered. In addition, if an open channel
system is used, both sides of the channel would have to be fenced for
safety reasons. This would be extremely expensive, and would severely
limit access to the properties abutting the channel route.
The channel will be laid in trench in most areas with some embankment
sections. In areas where significant brooks must be crossed, the sec~
tion may be converted to a standard pipe section of convenience. Care
must be taken to provide an adequate surface water drainage system from
the uphill drainage areas, and to assure protection of the adjacent
railroad grades. While this will require special attention during design,
no extraodinary problems are anticipated.
The locations for solids return pumps, blowers etc are generally quite
accessible from existing roads, and should present few site problems.
Electric power must be available at each location. With the power re-
quirements at each, it is expected that the power company can easily
justify providing such service.
While the overall treatment-transport channel concept is rather unique, it
appears to be technically feasible with Alternative 3 to achieve reason-
able BOD removals in the system. The cost of such a system and its relation
to other alternatives is discussed in a later section.
Upon discharge from the treatment-transport channel, the mixed liquor must be
treated in a terminal facility prior to final disposal. These terminal
facilities must be coordinated with the expansion of the Caribou facilities.
The alternatives studied for these facilities are briefly described as
follows:
1. Chlorination of the clarified channel effluent with dis-
charge to the Aroostook River at Caribou. The solids gen-
erated in the channel system would be dewatered with
expanded solids handling facilities at the Caribou in-town
plant. In addition, the Caribou plant would treat the
Caribou wastes in the same manner as described under
community system.
2. Chlorination of the clarified channel effluent with dis-
charge to the Aroostook River at Caribou. The excess
biological solids from the channel system would be used in the
Caribou in-town aeration tanks for contact stabilization of
the incoming Caribou wastes.
145
-------
.SOLIDS RETURN EXCESS SOLIDS
TO CARIBOU PiTj
FINAL
SOLIDS
REMOVAL
CHLORINATION
EFaUENT
^OUTFALL - RIVER
- D! FFUSER
DEWATERED SOLIDS
TO LANDFILL
T I
T I
CARIBOU PLANT TO BE
EXPANDED TO SECONDARY
TREATED CARIBOU EFFLUENT
TO RIVER
TERMINAL FACILITY 1
SOtI OS RETURN EXCESS SOLIDS
TREAT-TRANS
CHANMa
FINAL
SOLIDS
REMOVAL
CL —J~~] CHLORINATION
EFFLUENT
— OUTFALL - Rl VER
IT 01 FFUSER
CARIBOU INFLUENT
FROM PR! NARY
t-CARIBOU PLANT
AERATION UNITS
TREATED CARIBOU
EFFLUENT TO RIVER
SOLIDS RETURN
TERMINAL FACILITY 2
EXCESS SOLIDS
TREAT - TRANS
CHANNEL
CL,
FINAI SOLIDS
REMOVAL
CHLORINATION
EFaUENT
;OUTFALL RIVER
. Dl FFUSER
CARI BOU
PRIMARY
EFFLUENT
TRANSFER P.S.
-*TO GRIMES MILL
TERMINAL PLANT
TERMINAL FACILITr 3
FIGURE45
SCHEMATIC TREATMENT-TRANSPORT
TERMINAL FACILITIES
146
-------
3. Chlorination of the clarified channel effluent with dis-
charge to the Aroostook River at Caribou. The excess
biological solids from the channel system would be combined
with the incoming Caribou wastes for transport to Grimes Mill
for final processing.
The schematic configurations of the three terminal alternatives are shown
on Figure 45. In all three cases the channel system effluent would be
chlorinated and discharged to the river at Caribou. The chlorination fa-
cilities would be an expansion of those at the in-town Caribou plant.
The first terminal alternative assumes no attempt to utilize the excess
biological mass generated in the channel system for contact stabilization
with the Caribou wastes. In this case the in-town Caribou plant would
treat the incoming Caribou wastes, as described for the community in-town
plant expansion, except that the solids handling facilities would be
expanded. This terminal alternative is not adaptable if the Caribou
wastes are to be transferred to Grimes Mill for treatment.
The second terminal alternative again considers that the Caribou waste-
waters will be treated by expansion of the in-town plant, and not trans-
ferred to Grimes Mill. Again the channel effluent would be chlorinated
and discharged to the river. The excess biological mass would be entered
into the Caribou plant aeration facilities. If this is accomplished, a
contact stabilization system will in a sense be created. Table 65 indi-
cates the BOD to MLSS ratios which will be created in the system upon
mixing.
TABLE 65
BOD TO MLSS RATIO - CARIBOU PLANT AERATION
Flow Condition
(MGD)
Conduit Caribou
Min Load
Med Load
Max Load
3.4
6.2
9.6
2.7
3.0
4.6
Conduit
Waste
Sol Ib/day
9,800
34,500
49,000
Caribou
BOD5
Ib/day
19,400
26,400
54,000
BOD5 to
MLSS
Ratio
0.20
0.76
1.10
A desirable BOD to MLSS ratio would be from about 0.4 to 0.8. Thus it
can be seen that except for the minium flow conditions, a reasonable mix
can be obtained. Limited studies by Atkins and Sproul9 and Cornell,
Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield20 indicate reasonable BOD removals may
be achieved by contact stabilization techniques. BOD removals of about
80% were reported with a one hour contact time. As new active solids
would be continually supplied by the channel system solids, reaeration
and return would not be required, or .would require minimum facilities.
Ideally the mixed liquor leaving the contact aeration tanks could be
clarified with the effluent, chlorinated and discharged, and the solids
thickened and dewatered.
147
-------
It must be recognized, however, that reliable design data for such a
system is not currently available. Prior to final design, considerable
laboratory, and possibly pilot plant work, would be required to establish
a reasonable contact time, and to refine removal efficiencies. For
preliminary analysis a 4 to 6 hour aeration-contact time was adopted,
recognizing that the system does not represent a true contact stabilization
plant in the theoretical sense. Thus, the aeration volume capacity for
the in-town Caribou plant may be reduced substantially if the contact
stabilization concept is adopted and is successful. The final clarifiers
at the plant will not change greatly regardless of the type of biological
system used.
The third terminal alternate is similar to the second one, except the
mixed Caribou wastewaters and the channel excess solids will be transported
to Grimes Mill for final treatment. The in-transit time between Caribou
and Grimes Mill will be about 1 hour. If a one hour contact time
were sufficient to achieve full treatment of the Caribou wastes, the
transit system could serve as a contact mechanism. However, current data
is not sufficient to plan on such efficiency, although more detailed
laboratory studies may give it some credence. For preliminary analysis
it has been assumed that a 6 to 8 hour terminal aeration time will be
provided at Grimes Mill for the mixed liquor and any incoming flows
from the Grimes Mill industrial park.
The plant at Grimes Mill would be similar in orientation and construc-
tion to that illustrated in subsequent sections for the local commun-
ity systems, except for some reduction in aeration volume and an in-
crease in solids handling facilities.
The Alternate 3 treatment-transport channel system combined with ter-
minal facilities at either Caribou or Grimes Mill, could provide a
treatment system capable of handling the design loads from the Core Area
in a manner that will meet current water quality standards on both the
Prestile Stream and Aroostook River.
148
-------
SECTION VII
REGIONAL TREATMENT ANALYSES
Preliminary designs have been prepared for facilities to treat the range
of waste loads generated within the region, as presented in the previous
section. The preliminary design studies considered numerous system al-
ternatives, in addition to the various loading options. The system
designs were subdivided into three major categories; namely, individual
community treatment facilities, partially integrated or interconnected
regional facilities, and fully integrated regional facilities. Through
this mechanism it is possible to determine the system best suited to the
region as a whole, and each community within the region.
The most common approach to the pollution abatement problems of the Basin
would be to construct separate treatment facilities for each significant
source of pollution. That is, at each community and at each industry.
With this approach, as many as 18 treatment plants could be operated in
the Aroostook-Prestile Basins. A modification of the individual approach
would be the construction of joint industry-municipal plants in each
community. This would provide significant consolidation of waste flows,
but would still result in a multi-plant system.
In addition to local industry-municipal consolidation, varying degrees of
intercommunity interconnection are also possible. This type of consolida-
tion could range from complete interconnection from Washburn to Fort Fair-
field, to a simple two community joint project. The analyses of this sec-
tion, and Section VIII, consider all reasonably viable combinations. Eval-
uation of these alternatives must be made in light of technical feasibility,
relative total costs, and impact on water quality. The following subsections
discuss the preliminary designs and technical aspects of the facility options,
The financial implications of each proposed system are presented in subse-
quent sections.
The geographical orientation of the communities and industrial waste
sources reveal that the region can be subdivided into a "Core Area"
encompassing Presque Isle, Easton and Caribou; excluding outlying communi-
ties such as Washburn, Mapleton and Fort Fairfield. The geographical
"Core Area" is frequently referred to in the following text.
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION - The primary objective of the project was to determine
the optimum system for treatment and disposal of all wastewaters being dis-
charged to the Aroostook River and Prestile Stream. The proposal for the
project outlined linear programming techniques to be used for determining
the optimum configuration of the proposed treatment-transport system. The
programming format, outlined in highly simplified terms in the proposal, is
as follows:
An objective function would be written which would contain all the factors
which would influence the total cost of waste treatment, subject to pilot
plant constraints.
149
-------
Y = C1X1 + C2 X2+ ....... cnxn
where Y = total cost
• • •
xl» X2 \. = individual cost factors (such as cost
of aeration, construction, etc)
c, , G£ c = unit cost of each cost factor
An example of total cost factor is the cost of aeration. (Let this be
represented by x^.) The amount of oxygen which must be transferred to
the mixed liquor for a given number and spacing of aeration units (as-
suming use of the treatment-transport system) can be calculated from the
results of the pilot plant data. (x^ assumes this value.) c^, then, is
the cost of transferring one pound of air. If, for a system arrangement,
requiring the transfer of 1,000 pounds of oxygen per hour, and the unit
cost is $5 per pound of oxygen transferred per hour, the first term in
the ob j ective function becomes :
c± xl - 5.00 (l.OQ'O)
or
Y = 5.00 (1,000) + c2 x2 + ....... cn ^
If X2 is the number of aeration units required to transfer 1,000 pounds
of oxygen to the treatment-transport system (say x2 = 20) and the unit
cost for construction of an aeration unit is $700, the second term of
the objective function becomes c2 X£ - 700 (20) and the objective func-
tion cannot be written as:
Y - 5.00 (1,000) + 7.00 (20) + c, xo + c x
j J n n
The process is continued until all factors influencing the cost of treat-
ment are included in the objective function.
A sensitivity analysis would be carried out to determine which cost factors
can be ignored as having insignificant response to the overall cost. Thus,
the smallest objective function can be developed which can be handled easily.
If such an analysis yields five factors of significant sensitivity (n = 5) ,
then the (general) objective function becomes:
When this has been accomplished, the cost factors (x, , X2» x_, x^, x_)
can be changed Systematically (using a computer) to determine the cost
for a very large ritimber of different systems. Some of the terms of the
objective function will increase under the influence of a given change,
while others will decrease. In this way, an optimum solution can be de-
termined .
150
-------
The use of optimization techniques for establishing an optimum treatment
system is contingent on the availability of parameters for each variable
function. The original proposal included pilot plant studies to determine
such parameters. This portion of the project, however, was eliminated by
EPA on the assumption that they could provide the necessary data from
existing EPA projects.
Initial project concept was to use optimization techniques for the design
of the treatment-transport system. Such techniques would be used to de-
termine aerator spacing, solids return volumes, location of sludge return
structures, etc. The detailed parameters required to justify such tech-
niques, however, were not available from published literature, or from
the information provided by EPA. Without the pilot plant portion of the
project, the data could not be generated.
As discussed in Section VI, the data available for designing the treatment-
transport system was drawn from sources that were not directly related to
the system in question. Many assumptions were required, therefore, in de-
veloping the basic design parameters for the treatment-transport system.
The design parameters developed could have been used in conjunction with
optimization techniques, but serious difficulties could result, as follows:
1. The data developed was not of the desired sensitivity to
accurately determine optimum design recommendations.
2. Because of the nature of the data, sensitivity analysis
of the various factors could be very misleading.
3. Future researchers could be mislead if the results of
such optimization studies were used without full know-
ledge of the data generation.
Because of the inherent dangers, as outlined above, associated with opti-
mization procedures based on only general data, it was decided not to use
this technique even though it was outlined in the initial proposal. If
the pilot plant work had been undertaken, or if EPA had provided sufficient
data, as indicated, optimization techniques for determining the optimum con-
figuration of the treatment-transport system would have been employed.
DESIGN CONDITION CODING - Design conditions for the majority of the com-
munities included in this study consist of both domestic and industrial
waste loads. As presented in Section V, Tables 28 through 39, the residual
waste loads from each industry could vary considerably, depending on the
degree of in-plant process modification. A coding summary of design con-
ditions for treatment facility design is presented for each system evalu-
ated.
INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
WASHBURN AREA - Preliminary designs were prepared for the Washburn area
waste loads, as presented in Tables 28, 29, and 30- Designs include
151
-------
individual, industrial and domestic facilities, and the option of pro-
viding improved sedimentation facilities at Taterstate, or retaining the
existing unit.
The question of joint versus separate treatment of domestic and indus-
trial wastewaters is complex. Several factors must be considered; in-
cluding capital costs, operating costs, technical compatibility, govern-
mental aid policy, and local administrative policy. Planning to date at
Washburn has been based on construction of a single plant to treat both
the domestic and industrial wastewaters. This policy has been reviewed
and updated in light of current technology and administrative factors.
The interrelation of the domestic wastewaters of the Town and the pro-
cessing wastewaters of the Taterstate plant becomes quite complex when
the variable factor of in-plant adjustments at Taterstate is considered.
It is further complicated by the option of improved primary treatment and
potential product expansion at Taterstate. Figure 46 illustrates the
basic system of wastewater flow at Washburn, with the alternates avail-
able. The basic alternate is connection, or non-connection, of the muni-
cipal wastes with the industrial wastes. If not connected, two treat-
ment plants will result or, if connected, a single plant. The Tater-
state plant has the options of in-plant changes as disucssed in the pre-
vious section. It also has the option of retaining its existing sedi-
mentation-flotation primary treatment facility, or replacing it with a
gravity sedimentation facility.
The existing sedimentation-flotation unit is removing only 10% to 20%
of the plant BOD, and about 20% to 35% of the plant suspended solids.
This unit is considerably less efficient than a well designed gravity
sedimentation unit. A gravity unit would be expected to remove 40% to
50% BOD and up to 85% of the suspended solids. The existing unit is de-
signed to function as an air flotation unit. Its configuration and
equipment, however, is such that it is essentially operating as a sedi-
mentation unit. It is overloaded for this use, and its solids removal
equipment is inadequate for the job intended. The solids retention
time of this unit leads to fermentation and a lowering of effluent PH
to below allowable standards. This unit is not adequate for primary
solids removal, and should be taken out of the active service when re-
placed by an efficient gravity sedimentation unit. All subsequent
studies assume replacement of this unit.
It is also understood that management is considering product expansion
in the form of a potato flake line at the recently acquired Staley Build-
ing. As many as 90 tons of potatoes per day could be processed through
this line, resulting in waste loads as previously presented in Table 30.
Thus, preliminary design analyses have considered treatment facilities
with, and without, this potential expansion.
The many variables in load conditions at Washburn create a great number
of potential problem solutions. The studied combinations are coded as
indicated in Table 66.
152
-------
TATERSTATE
PROCESSOR
Ul
MUNICIPAL
WASTE
GENERATION
EXIST SED
FLOTATION UNIT
|
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
.TO Ri VER
ALTERNATE FLOW
DlVERSION
ALTERNATE DISCHARGE
TO SALMON BROOK
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
.TO RIVER
FIGURE 46
DESIGN CONDITIONS- WASHBURN - SCHEMATIC
-------
TABLE 66
DESIGN CONDITION - CODING SUMMARY
WASHBURN SYSTEM
"A" Conditions - Loading Alternatives at Taterstate
A-l - Operation during Spring of 1971 - no in-plant change
A-2 - In-plant flow reductions and screen change
A-3 - In-plant flow reduction, plus dry caustic peel conversion
"B" Conditions - Product Expansion Alternatives
B-l - Retain existing production capacity
B-2 - Expand with new flake line
"C" Conditions - Municipal-Industrial Coordination
C-l - Taterstate without municipal wastes in following combina-
tions of "A" & "B" conditions:
A-l + B-l A-2 + B-l A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2 A-2 + B-2 A-3 + B-2
C-2 - Taterstate combined with municipal wastes in following
combinations of "A" & "B" conditions:
A-l + B-l A-2 + B-l A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2 A-2 + B-2 A-3 + B-2
C-3 - Municipal wastewaters alone.
The loads to the treatment plant for "A" conditions, reflecting alter-
nate in-plant conditions at Taterstate and the impact of flake line ex-
pansion are as previously presented in Tables 29 and 30. Preliminary -
designs of all combinations outlined in the foregoing paragraphs were
accomplished by means of a computer design program developed by the Edward
C. Jordan Company, Consultants to the Commission. Such computer techniques
were mandatory to evaluate all possible combinations of waste loads, and
to study the effect of varying design criteria. The detailed computer de-
sign program is presented in Section XIII.
In addition to the previously outlined load conditions, the preliminary
designs reflect both single unit and dual unit construction. In publicly
owned plants constructed with government grants-in-aid, dual units of
most plant components are required. In many industrial plants, however,-
only a single sequence of units is provided. The use of dual units pro-
vides greater operational flexibility, and provides some degree of redun-
dancy. Dual units, of course, cost more than single units. For full
154
-------
evaluation of a joint domestic-industrial treatment facility, data on
both systems is necessary.
For all treatment systems evaluated a single primary settling tank was
included for the industrial wastewater. This unit will treat only in-
dustrial wastewater, and can be taken out of service annually for in-
spection and repair. The existing sedimentation-flotation unit will
also provide some degree of standby potential. In all cases where joint
treatment is considered, dual components have been provided. This will
be necessary for consideration of governmental grants-in-aid.
Certain key equipment in all configurations, including strictly indus-
trial usage, would be provided in at least two units. These include
chlorinators, vacuum filters, aerators, and solids return pumps.
The preliminary design sizing of key treatment plant units is shown in
Tables 67, 68 and 69.
Review of the foregoing tables suggest the following:
1. A considerable reduction in plant unit sizing can be
achieved if the Taterstate plant converts to the dry
caustic peel system, providing the system can achieve
the estimated waste load reductions.
2. The increased size requirement to handle the municipal
wastes are relatively significant in the units with hydrau-
lic design criteria such as aeration tanks, sedimentation
tanks, etc., but are relatively insignificant on the or-
ganic design criteria items.
3. The aeration volume required for the municpal wastes
alone are nearly as great, or greater than, the volumes re-
quired for combined waste treatment. This is due to the
long aeration time of the municipal extended aeration
system. For the municipal plant alone, this is necessary
to effectively handle the small volumes of excess solids
generated.
4. Based on the data presented above, serious consideration
should be given to joint treatment of the domestic and
industrial wastewaters.
Preliminary designs indicate that combined treatment has advantages over
separate treatment. The cost impact of such combination is discussed in
the next section. The topography of the Town of Washburn is such that
all wastes, both domestic and industrial are concentrated in the vicinity
of the Taterstate plant. No additional transportation costs are required
to place the wastewaters in a combined plant as opposed to individual
plants. Thus, any plants> or combination of plants, considered at
Washburn will be located adjacent to the Wade Road on the westerly side
of Salmon Brook, or on the higher ground northerly of Wade Road. Either
location would appear suited and final selection should be made during
detailed design.
155
-------
tn
TABLE 67
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - WASHBURN
CONDITION C-l TATERSTATE PLANT ALONE - TOTAL UNIT SIZE*
Sub
Condition
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Primary
Sed Tank
Dia-ft
46
42
36
52
48
40
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
86,968
73,829
52,181
110,000
95,602
66,821
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
2,169
1,841
1,301
2,752
2,384
1,666
02 Req
Lbs/hr
573
486
241
728
630
308
Excess
Solids
Ibs/day
29,100
24,700
10,000
37,000
32,100
12,800
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
366
311
134
465
403
172
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
1,400
1,183
837
1,769
1,532
1,071
CL2
Req
Ibs/day
85
75
55
110
100
70
*For Dual System - Primary tank as given, subdivide other units as appropriate to obtain sizing of each unit.
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary.
-------
TABLE 68
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - WASHBURN
CONDITION C-2 TATERSTATE AND DOMESTIC WASTES COMBINED - TOTAL UNIT SIZE*
Sub
Condition
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Primary
Sed Tank
Dia-Ft
46
42
36
52
48
40
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
116,624
103,362
81,838
139,900
125,134
96,354
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
2,908
2,578
2,042
3,488
3,120
2,402
02 Req
Ibs/hr
594
502
246
744
646
324
Excess
Solids
Ibs/day
29,300
24,700
9,800
37,000
32,100
12,800
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
374
313
130
470
410
175
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
1,870
1,658
1,312
2,242
2,060
1,544
CL2
Req
Ibs/day
115
100
80
135
120
95
*For Dual System - Primary tank as given, subdivide other units as appropriate to obtain sizing of each unit.
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary.
-------
TABLE 69
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - WASHBURN
CONDITION C-3 MUNICIPAL WASTES ALONE - TOTAL SIZING*
Sub
Condition
24 hr Aer
20 hr Aer
Primary
Sed Tank
Dia-ft
None
None
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
90,866
75,600
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
413
413
02 Req
ISs/hr
15
15
Excess
Solids
Ibs/day
60
80
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
NA
NA
CL
Contact
Vol CF
474
474
CL
Req
Ibs/day
29
29
* For Dual Units - Divide appropriate elements by 2.
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary.
oo
-------
Preliminary designs were based on the use of concrete tanks for primary
and secondary sedimentation, and the chlorine contact tank. The aera-
tion basins were assumed to be of earthen embankment construction with
a concrete lining. Fixed platform mechanical aerators were utilized.
Air flotation was used for excess activated sludge thickening prior to
vacuum filtration. The sedimentation tanks and aeration tanks were
left uncovered. Other equipment would be enclosed in the control build-
ing. All wastewaters will be pumped to the plant. It will be necessary
to raise the lower plant site grade for flood protection, if used, or to
lift to the higher plant site. Figure 47 shows a typical site plan for
the lower site adjacent to Salmon Brook. The basic configuration would
remain the same for all loading conditions, with only the sizing varied
as presented in the previous tables. The configuration for the upper
site, if used, would be similar although specific adaptation to the site
will be required.
Hydrologic studies presented in the companion Basin Planning Report in-
dicate that the flow from Salmon Brook does not mix well with the Aroos-
took River flow. The Salmon Brook tends to stratify horizontally and
follow the north and east shore of the Aroostook River for a considerable
distance downstream. This, combined with the limited natural flow in
Salmon Brook, restricts waste load input to the brook. Construction of
a piped outfall to the river with a diffuser system to disperse the
treated wastewater in the full available flow of the river is recommended.
If a municipal plant is constructed for the domestic wastewaters only,
direct discharge to Salmon Brook would appear adequate.
MAPLETON AREA - Expanded water pollution control facilities will be re-
quired in the Mapleton area in the relatively near future. The Mapleton
Sewer District proposes to construct a treatment plant to handle the do-
mestic wastewaters, with discharge to the North Branch of the Presque
Isle Stream. The plant will be of the extended aeration type with facili-
ties for excess solids handling. The entire facility will be enclosed for
cold weather protection.
The proposed Mapleton facilities have been reviewed and are considered
quite adequate to meet the domestic needs of the community. No appre-
ciable amount of industrial wastewater is anticipated in the Mapleton
area.
PRESQUE ISLE AREA - Preliminary designs were prepared for the expansion
of the existing primary plant of the Presque Isle Sewer District to meet
current water quality standards. Likewise preliminary designs were pre-
pared for provision of effective secondary treatment at Potato Service
Inc. A further design considered consolidation of all wastewaters within
the City at a single treatment facility. Each of these options is dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs. The load conditions at Presque Isle
provide several potential problem solutions. The studied combinations
are coded as indicated in Table 70.
The existing Presque Isle municipal plant actually consists of two ele-
ments. The main element is a primary treatment facility serving the
159
-------
I MARY SEO.
INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT
ONLY
TATERSTATE PROCESSING PLANT
[CONDITION 4-1-6-20
FIGURE 47
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
WASHBURN-LOWER SITE
100
0
FEET
100
160
-------
TABLE 70
DESIGN CONDITION - CODING SUMMARY
PRESQUE ISLE SYSTEM
IA" Conditions - Loading alternatives at Potato Service, Inc
A-l - Operation during Spring, of 1971, no in-plant changes
A-2 - In-plant flow reductions and solids recovery
A-3 - Flow reductions, solids recovery, and dry-caustic peel
"A"
llTlIt
'B" Conditions - Municipal-Industrial Coordination
B-l - Potato Service, Inc without municipal wastewaters
B-2 - Potato Service, Inc combined with municipal wastes
in following combinations of "A" and "B" conditions:
A-l + B-2 A-2 + B-2 A-3 + B-2
B-3 - Municipal wastewaters alone
major portion of the City. This facility consists of the following
units:
Comminutor
Grit Removal
Imhoff Tanks (Covered-Circular)
Sludge Pumps
Heated Digesters
Covered Sand Drying Beds
Effluent Pumps
Chlorination
The original installation relied on the Imhoff tanks for sludge diges-
tion. As loads increased, these digestion facilities proved inadequate
and supplemental heated digester units were constructed. Thus the bottom
sections of the Imhoff tanks serve no real purpose. During periods of
high stream flow the effluent must be pumped from the plant site.
While the existing main installation has provided reasonable service in
the past, it is inadequate to meet current water quality standards. If
this facility is to remain in service extensive modernization and expan-
sion will be required.
The second element of the Presque Isle Facility is the old plant serving
the Presque Isle Air Force Base which has been turned over to the City.
The former air base properties now serve as an industrial park and other
public uses. The old air base plant is an Imhoff tank installation with
one circular and one rectangular unit. These units'are covered with
concrete slabs. Covered sand drying beds served the initial installation,
161
-------
The old air base plant has received no maintenance for a number of years
and is in a state of complete disrepair. Very little actual treatment
is currently achieved by this facility, and its value in any expansion
program is negligible.
A major expansion is necessary at the Presque Isle plant to meet current
water quality standards. The existing facilities are shown on Figure 48
together with the proposed expansion and renovation. The required work to
the Presque Isle plant to handle the waste loads presented in the pre-
vious section is summarized as follows:
1. Renovate existing headworks structure to provide better
heating, ventilation, and backup chlorination facilities.
2. Remove existing glass covered sludge drying beds and con-
struct two aeration tanks to provide 6 1/2 hours aeration.
3. Construct new control building to house influent pumps to
lift influent to aeration tanks, control gear, office
space, vacuum filters for excess solids dewatering, ex-
panded laboratory and workshop.
4. Abandon existing air base Imhoff tank plant, fill all units,
grade and landscape the area.
5. Divert flow now entering old air base plant to the proposed
aeration tanks. Provide comminutor and flow measuring de-
vice at inlet to aeration units.
6. Convert existing Imhoff tanks to secondary sedimentation
tanks. Renovate superstructures and improve ventilation.
7. Construct supplemental secondary sedimentation tank.
8. Renovate sludge pumping station to provide for activated
sludge return to the aeration tanks and transfer of excess
solids to the digesters.
9. Maintain existing digesters, renovate to provide better
utilization of generated gas, or convert to aerobic units.
10. Construct chlorine contact tank for final effluent chlorina-
tion.
11. Supplement and renovate existing effluent pumping facili-
ties .
12. Adjust drives, walks and landscaping to meet additional
units described above.
If the above program is completed, the facility should provide the
treatment required to meet current water quality programs and the growth
needs of the City.
Study indicated that if consideration was to be given to combining the
Presque Isle domestic wastewaters with those of Potato Service, Inc for
treatment, the plant would be located in the vicinity of the Potato
Service, Inc processing plant. Thus, studies were made for construction
of a facility in the vicinity of the Potato Service, Inc plant to serve
either Potato Service, Inc alone, or in combination with the Presque Isle
municipal wastewater.
162
-------
DIGESTION OF EXCESS SOLIDS OK
SIMPLY STORAGE OF EXCESS
IOD TO DEUATERING,
1 I DIGESTED SOLIDS
UU j
REMOVE GLASS COVERED DRV KG BED
FOR CONTROL BLOS. CONSTRUCTION.
CONTROL BLDG, TO HAVE CONTROL
IEAR. OFFICES, Hmramr.
WRDVED LtB SOLIDS OEWTERING
RENOVATE GRIT BLDG.
"PROVE: HEAT - VENT LIGHTING
NSTALL STAHDBV CL.
SEDIMENTATION UNITS. RENOVATE
BLDGS. IMPROVE VEKTILATION
BOTH UNITS IDENTICAL
/ 8" GRAVITY S
RENOVATE SLUDGE PUMP STA.
TO ACCOMPLISH SOLIDS RETURN
TO AERATION TANKS AND PUMP
EXCESS SOLIDS TO DIGESTION
OR STORAGE
FIGURE 48
EXPANSION-PRESQUE ISLE PLANT
-------
The existing primary sedimentation facilities at Potato Service, Inc are
relatively new and should continue to provide good service. All evalua-
tions in this report assume these facilities will remain in service. In
addition to the primary facilities, Potato Service, Inc maintains a system
of three ponds through which the effluent passes before discharge to the
river. The first of these ponds is equipped with limited aeration fa-
cilities while the remaining two are anerobic. Total detention time in
the pond system probably ranges from 6 to 8 days depending on the solids
buildup in the ponds. It appears that a 50 to 60% BOD reduction is ob-
tained across the ponds. However, the suspended solids level in the
pond effluent was found to be 2 to 3 times higher than that of the in-
fluent, during the spring of 1971. Also, the anerobic conditions of the
ponds frequently create nuisance odor conditions in the vicinity of the
plant.
The efficiency of these ponds could be increased by providing aeration
capacity in all ponds to maintain aerobic conditions. However, studies
by Dostal^2 indicate that final clarification of the effluent will be
required to achieve consistently acceptable BOD reductions. It is also
noted that studies reported by Jordan^ indicate that aerated pond sys-
tems are not economic when over 70% BOD removal is required. This is
due to the oxygen demands created by the solids generated which will
settle in the ponds. While it may be possible to achieve the required
90% BOD removal by adding aeration and final clarification facilities
to the existing ponds, it does not appear to offer the consistent reli-
ability required, and in the long term will be equally costly when com-
pared with new relatively short term aeration facilities.
An activated sludge plant to serve the Potato Service, Inc loading condi-
tions, as outlined in the previous section, is shown in Figure 49. It is
proposed to reshape a portion of the first existing pond into an aeration
basin which would be concrete lined. Preliminary design assumes surface
aeration facilities. Secondary clarifiers would be installed in a sec-
tion of the third pond as shown, followed by a chlorine contact tank. The
control building would house solids pumps, excess solids thickening and
dewatering facilities, laboratory facilities, controls etc. The effluent
would be discharged to the river through a new diffuser system. This is
required to distribute the effluent to achieve mixing and avoid concentra-
tions due to the river's tendency to stratify along the shore. It is
noted that dual units are shown. While this is recommended, it may be
possible to use a single unit system if handling only the industrial wastes,
The remaining sections of the existing ponds would be drained, cleaned
and utilized for storage of treated flow if necessary during critical
drought conditions, or in event of a system malfunction. The need for
possible drought storage of a portion of the flow is discussed in the
companion River Basin Planning Report. The plant configuration would be
essentially the same for any design loading with only the unit sizing
changing. The tentative key unit sizing for the three industrial design
conditions as shown in Table 33 are presented in Table 71.
164
-------
FIGURE 49
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
PRESQUE ISLE
-------
TABLE 71
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - CONDITION B-l
POTATO SERVICE, INC - POTATO PROCESSING WASTES ALONE - TOTAL UNIT SIZE*
Load
Condition
at Psi
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
270,000
237,000
102,000
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
6,710
6,270
4,340
0 Req
Lbs/hr
2,026
1,783
765
Approx
Excess Solids
Lbs /day
28,000
25,000
10,500
Vac
Filter
A-Sq Ft
680
590
250
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
5,750
5,375
3,720
CL2
Req
Lbs /day
310
290
200
*Data for single unit system, divide by two for individual units of Dual System.
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary.
-------
The Presque Isle domestic wastewater must be transported to the Potato
Service, Inc site if joint treatment is to be considered. The work at
the existing Presque Isle plant would be limited to renovations to the
existing headworks and expansion of the effluent pumping facilities to
lift the flow from the site. New pumps and standard power would be
required. The old air base plant would be filled and graded with all flow
connected to the pumping facility. The existing Imhoff tanks could be
used for partial treatment of excess combined flows if it appears warr-
anted. The existing sand drying beds would be removed, and the digesters
would be inactivated.
The wastewater would be carried easterly in an 18 inch force main to the
crest line east of US Route 1. From this point gravity flow would be
possible, probably paralleling the railroad. It is proposed to carry the
interceptor line across the Aroostook River on the existing railroad
bridge which is located close to the Potato Service, Inc plant. From the
end of the bridge the flow would enter the treatment plant by gravity.
The route described above is general in nature, and must be refined dur-
ing final design to achieve the proper balance between added service area
and cost. In any case there appears to be no unusual technical problems
in the proposed transfer.
The proposed treatment facility for the combined municipal-industrial
wastewaters would be similar to that discussed for the industrial plant,
except that dual units would be required. Again the remaining existing
pond areas would be utilized for drought storage. Table 72 indicates
the key unit sizing of the combined plant for the three assumed load
conditions as previously outlined in Table 70.
Review of Tables 71 and 72 reveal that the aeration volumes increase sig-
nificantly with the introduction of Presque Isle domestic wastewater.
The data in Table 72 reflects a 12 hour minimum aeration time, as estab-
lished in the design criteria. In the combined system, the domestic flow
is a significant component of the total flow. It may be possible during
final design to justify a shorter aeration time for the combined flow.
However, for preliminary analysis the sizing presented should be adequately
conservative. The size of the secondary sedimentation units likewise in-
crease with the larger flow. These values cannot be significantly reduced
in final design. The oxygen requirements, solids generation, and other
organic design criteria do not increase significantly with the addition of
the domestic wastes in combination with the industrial wastes.
It appears technically feasible to combine the Presque Isle domestic
wastewater and the Potato Service, Inc process wastewater for treatment in
a single plant. Unit sizing of the combined unit are for the most part
smaller than the sum of two small systems. However, the combined sys-
tem must be analyzed from a cost standpoint before decisions are made.
Such an analysis is contained in the next section.
CARIBOU AREA - Preliminary designs have been prepared for expansion of
treatment facilities in Caribou to meet the demands of current water
167
-------
TABLE 72
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - CONDITION B-2
COMBINED POTATO SERVICE, INC AND PRESQUE ISLE DOMESTIC FLOWS*
Load •'.
Condition
at J?si
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
391,000
374,000
296,000
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
9,748
9,310
7,380
02 Req
Lbs/hr
2,200
1,900
900
Approx
Excess Solids
Lbs/day
29,000
26,000
12,000
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
690
620
280
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
8,400
8,000
6,320
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
450
430
350
*Data for single unit system, divide by two for individual units of Dual System.
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary.
-------
quality requirements. The policy of the Caribou Utilities District
calls for inclusion of all industrial wastewaters in its municipal system.
All preliminary designs, therefore, are based on joint industrial-domestic
treatment for all wastewater generated within the existing in-town service
area.
The existing primary treatment plant of the District is located adjacent
to the Aroostook River just downstream from the junction of Caribou
Stream. The plant provides primary sedimentation with chlorination of the
effluent prior to discharge to the river. The plant provides anerobic
digester facilities and vacuum filtration equipment for primary solids
handling. The high percentage of potato solids in the sludge has made
normal digestion impossible. This would be expected from review of data
by Hinden and Dunstan . With this condition it has been impossible for
the District to handle all the solids removed by the primary sedimenta-
tion units. Thus a large portion of the incoming wastewater must be by-
passed each day. The solids handling problems at the plant must be
solved before the existing sedimentation facilities can function effec-
tively .
Two treatment plant site locations have been evaluated. The first option
considers on-site expansion of the existing facilities to secondary
treatment. The second option provides only primary treatment at the
existing site with the clarified waste transferred to Grimes Mill for
biological treatment, either with or without the waste flows from a new
processing plant, as loading conditions dictate.
Studies have determined that the potato processing component of the
waste flows should receive primary treatment. It is assumed that the
internal water management program at the Cyr Bros plant will accomplish
the equivalent of primary treatment, and additional sedimentation is
not required. The Colby Starch plant effluent is not effectively
treated by primary sedimentation. The only component of the in-town
Caribou flow that actually requires primary treatment is that from Ameri-
can Kitchen Foods. As the primary units at the existing plant are hy-
draulically overloaded at the present time, they must either be expanded,
or the flow must be reduced. Two options have been considered for pri-
mary treatment at the Caribou plant.
The alternate designs considered for the Caribou area are coded as pre-
sented in Table 73.
Condition B-l, for primary treatment at Caribou, provides for the construc-
tion of a new intercepting sewer running southerly from the plant essen-
tially paralleling the existing line. The new interceptor would pick up
all flows except those of American Kitchen Foods. In this manner only the
American Kitchen Foods wastewater would be carried to the existing primary
facilities. If this is accomplished the existing units would be of adequate
size to effectively remove the suspended solids component of the American
Kitchen Foods waste flow. The waste flows picked up in the new interceptor
line would not enter the existing primary units but would pass through new
grit removal units and enter the aeration units directly.
169
-------
TABLE 73
DESIGN CONDITIONS - CODING SUMMARY
CARIBOU - IN-TOWN SYSTEM
"A" Conditions - Loading alternatives for combined American Kitchen Foods,
Colby Starch, Cyr Brothers, and municipal wastewaters
A-l - High industrial load options plus municipal wastewaters
A-2 - Medium industrial load options plus municipal wastewaters
A-3 - Low industrial load options plus municipal wastewaters
"B" Conditions - Primary Treatment Options at In-Town Plant Site
B-l - Primary - American Kitchen Foods Only
B-2 - Primary - All Flows
"C" Conditions - Grimes Mill Load Option
C-l - No load from Grimes Mill
C-2 - With load from Grimes Mill
"D" Conditions - Location of Biological Treatment Plant
D-l - In-town plant site
D-2 - Grimes Mill plant site
Design Combinations for Conditions D-l and D-2
A-l, B-l, C-l A-2, B-l, C-l A-3, B-l, C-l
A-l, B-l, C-2 A-2, B-l, C-2 A-3, B-l, C-2
A-l, B-2, C-l A-2, B-2, C-l A-3, B-2, C-l
A-l, B-2, C-2 A-2, B-2, C-2 A-3, B-2, C-2 ,
Condition B-2 for primary treatment at Caribou assumes provision of
primary treatment for all waste flows arriving at the plant site. To
accomplish this within design loading restrictions, supplemental sedi-
mentation facilities will be required. A single supplemental circular
unit is proposed. It will also be necessary to install flow apportion-
ment facilities and supplemental grit removal units.
Following either of the primary options outlined above the wastewater
flow will enter the biological portion of the system. The design criteria
for this portion of the plant will be similar to the other plants previously
discussed. Figure 50 shows a schematic system diagram illustrating the two
primary treatment options.
Preliminary designs for expansion of the in-town plant have been prepared
for the three in-town industrial loads presented previously in Table 35
170
-------
AKF
OPTION 1 - PRIMARF SED IM£NTAT I ON - AKF ONLY
CYR
NEW INTERCEPTOR- DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC
EXIST INTERCEPTOR
TO CARRY AKF ONLY
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
AKF ONLY
OUTFALL
ABANDON
AKF
COLBY
OPTION ? - PRIMARY ALL FLOWS
CYR
EXIST INTERCEPTOR
•DOMESTIC FLOW
FLOW SPLITTER
COMMINUTOR AND
GRIT REMOVER
SUPPLEMENTAL
PRIMARY SESWEWTATION
OUTFALL
ABANDON
OUTFALL
SECONDARY
SEDIMENTATION
' OUTFALL
FIGURE 50
PRIMARY TREATMENT OPTIONS
INTOWN CARIBOU
-------
(A-l, A-2, and A-3), and for the two primary treatment options discussed
above (B-l and B-2). A third option considers including a significant
processing load from the Grimes Mill industrial park. No load from Grimes
Mill is designated C-l. The potential Grimes Mill load, as outlined in
the previous section, is designated as C-2.
A tentative site layout of the in-town plant expansion is shown on
Figure 51. This figure also illustrates both of the primary treatment
conditions outlined above. For Condition B-l the flows from the new in-
terceptor would enter directly into the wet well for lifting to the aera-
tion tanks. The flow from American Kitchen Foods would pass through the
existing primary units prior to entry into the wet well. The existing
chlorine contact structure would be reconstructed to serve as the wet well
for low lift pumping to the aeration tanks.
With Condition B-2, the incoming flow would enter a new headworks struc-
ture which would apportion the flow between the existing primary sedimen-
tation units and a new circular clarifier. This structure would also con-
tain additional grit removal facilities. After primary sedimentation the
two components would be reunited in the low lift wet well.
The clarified influent would be lifted to aeration tanks, to be con-
structed northerly of the existing digesters. Due to site limitations
rectangular concrete basins are required. The secondary sedimentation
tanks will be of similar construction. The effluent would then be chlor-
inated and discharged to the river in a new outfall diffuser system. A
new control building would be provided to house offices, chlorinator fa-
cilities, electrical gear and laboratory.
It will be necessary to expand the solids handling facilities at the ex-
isting plant. This will be necessary in order to handle the solids removed
from the primary clarifiers, and the excess biological solids. If Condition
B-l of the primary system is utilized, the primary solids will be mainly
potato solids which could be utilized as a feed by-product. If Condition
B-2 is adopted, the solids will be mixed potato solids and primary sewage
solids, which would likely prohibit its use for feed. In either event, it
is proposed to expand the solids dewatering filters to handle the primary
solids load. Similar to other plans, it is proposed to dewater this mate-
rial on vacuum filters without digestion. Chemical conditioning facilities
will in all probability be required.
The excess biological solids will require thickening prior to vacuum fil-
tration. It is proposed to convert the existing digesters into thicken-
ing units, either air flotation or gravity, as final design indicates.
The solids dewatering filters will be further expanded to dewater the
excess biologic solids.
The remaining work at the in-town plant would be general reconditioning
of existing facilities and site adjustments as required for the new plant
units. The adjustments and expansions as proposed should provide the
treatment necessary to meet current water quality standards.
172
-------
FUTURE EXPANSION AREA;
t_0f BAMWR AMD AftOOSTOOK R.R
I K__J 7^----4
30'.RCP [ INTERCEPTO* LINE
SEDIMENTflTION TflNK
CHLORINE CONTfiCT TONK
CONSTRUCT NE., ,
PRIMARY CLBRIFllER
x I R.OW SOLID
WTIDN 2 i 2A ONLY I . |
MC»»T OI5TIH6 OlttSTEBS To
SOLIDS THICKENING a CONDITIONING
MO TEMPORARY STORAGE
TRUCT EXISTING CHLDRI NATION
TIES INTO LOM LIFT^PUMPS
IN WASTE STREAM, ANO
SOLIOS TRANSFER PUMPS
50
FIGURE 51
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
C ARIBOU-iNTOWN
-------
The in-town plant design would remain essentially the same if a waste
load from Grimes Mill is included. This flow would either enter the
aeration tanks directly or would enter the low lift pumping station de-
pending on grade available. The siting of plant units would then be ad-
justed to meet flow conditions. Sizing of key plant units is summarized
in Table 74.
Under the C-2, D-l conditions, the flows generated at Grimes Mill would be
brought to the in-town plant. These wastes would receive primary treat-
ment at the Grimes Mill processing plant before being introduced into the
public system. Topographical conditions require this waste flow be pumped
across the river and proceed up stream on the south or east bank. The
wastewater sould be lifted to a sufficient elevation to allow gravity flow
along the river and recrossing of the river to the plant in an inverted
siphon. In this manner some service to the community east of the river in
Caribou can be achieved. The general location of this transport link is
shown on Figure 52.
As an alternate to the in-town plant expansion described above, preliminary
designs were prepared for a biologic plant located in the Grimes Mill area.
This is identified as Condition D-2, as presented in Table 73, and includes
the same basic options as described earlier.
With the Grimes Mill site alternate, it will still be necessary to provide
primary treatment of at least the potato processing component of the waste
flows generated ji-town. The alternatives for doing this are identical
with those of the in-town expansion alternate. It will also be necessary
to expand the solids handling facilities at the existing in-town plant.
The work required at the existing in-town plant before transporting the
wastewater to Grimes Mill is summarized as follows:
1. Expand primary clarification facilities, or construct
new interceptor, ie Conditions B-l or B-2 described in
foregoing paragraphs.
2. Expand raw solids conditioning and dewatering capacity by
addition of vacuum filter capacity and chemical condition-
ing facilities. Anerobic digestion would be discontinued.
3. Convert existing chlorine contact chamber to a wet well and
pumping facility by structural adjustments and pump in-
stallation. Aeration of the wet well would be considered
in final design.
The clarified effluent would be pumped across the Aroostook River and
lifted to a sufficient elevation to allow gravity flow to the point across
the river from Grimes Mill. The wastewater would pass under the river in
an inverted siphon system and enter the headworks of a biological treatment
plant at Grimes Mill.
By lifting at Caribou the flow would enter the plant at Grimes Mill
without additional pumping. This route is essentially the reverse of
that shown on Figure 52.
174
-------
TABLE 74
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING* - CARIBOU
CONDITION D-l and D-2
New
Primary Aeration
Load Sed Tank Tank Vol
Condition Dia Ft CF
A-l,
A-l,
A-l,
A-l,
A-2,
A-2,
A-2,
A-2,
A-3,
A-3,
A-3,
A-3,
B-l,
B-l,
B-2,
B-2,
B-l,
B-l,
B-2,
B-2,
B-l,
B-l,
B-2,
B-2,
C-l
C-2
C-l
C-2
C-l
C-2
C-l
C-2
C-l
C-2
C-l
C-2
NA
NA
78
78
NA
NA
50
50
NA
NA
50
50
400,400
522,000
400,400
522,000
260,000
380,000
260,000
380,000
236,000
356,000
236,000
356,000
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
10,000
13,000
10,000
13,000
6,500
9,480
6,500
9,480
5,860
8,884
5,860
8,884
02
Req
Lbs/hr
2,180
2,920
2,015
2,710
1,440
2,130
1,325
1,980
810
1,488
797
1,470
Primary
Solids
Lbs/d
26,600
26,000
39,400
39,400
10,400
10,400
29,000
29,000
10,400
10,400
14,800
14,800
Excess
Bio
Solids
Lbs/d
29,500
39,600
27,200
36,500
19,400
28,800
14,300
26,600
10,500
19,700
10,300
19,400
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
1,300
1,550
1,100
1,180
1,000
1,300
750
940
850
1,200
500
800
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
6,416
8,366
6,416
8,366
4,170
7,100
4,170
7,100
3,760
5,710
3,760
5,710
CL2
Req
Lbs/d
462
602
462
602
300
436
300
436
270
410
270
410
*Data given is for total unit - Divide appropriate units by 2 for individual unit sizing
Data assumes any flow from Grimes Mill has been subjected to primary treatment
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
-------
RANSPORT ROUT
176
-------
The wastewater generated at the Grimes Mill industrial park would also
enter the plant by gravity. It is assumed that these wastes would receive
primary clarification, or equivalent solids removal, before entry into the
biological portion of the plant. This could be done at the individual
industrial plant, or as a part of the treatment plant headworks.
The biological treatment plant at Grimes Mill would be similar to that
proposed at other locations; consisting of lined earthen embankment type
aeration basins, circular sedimentation units, chlorination facilities
and a diffuser type outfall. Solids handling would consist of thick-
ening and vacuum filtration.
The plant would be located southerly of the Bangor and Aroostook railroad
tracks adjacent to the old highway location. A preliminary site plan is
shown on Figure 53. The general layout would be similar under all load-
ing conditions, with only the sizing changing. The key unit sizing will
be identical with those shown in Table 74 for in-town plant expansion,
except that the primary sedimentation tank would be located in-town and
the vacuum filter capacity would be divided between the in-town and Grimes
Mill location. Only the site configuration and type of construction would
change.
It is recommended that additional land easterly of the plant site be
purchased for possible future installation of effluent holding ponds
for river quality control during drought conditions. The potential need
for such facilities is discussed in detail in the companion River Basin
Planning Report. It is noted that installation of such a facility is
not possible at the in-town location.
Construction of treatment facilities, as proposed at either in-town
Caribou or at Grimes Mill, would meet the immediate requirements of
water quality standards. The relation of each program to costs and
long range water quality objectives is discussed in later sections.
FORT FAIRFIELD AREA - Preliminary designs were prepared for the waste
load ranges established for the Fort Fairfield area. Again designs in-
clude individual industrial and domestic facilities, and the option of
providing improved sedimentation facilities at the A & P plant, or re-
taining the existing air flotation unit.
Planning to date at Fort Fairfield has been based on construction of sep-
arate treatment at two plants, both of which were to be constructed and
operated by the Fort Fairfield Utility District. This policy has been
based on the District's, and their Consultant's, best judgment of State
and Federal requirements for both water quality standards and eligibil-
ity for construction grants-in-aid. These requirements, however, have
been in a state of flux, and appear to warrant re-evaluation at this time.
The studies accomplished under the Northern Maine Regional Treatment Pro-
ject are, therefore, in no way critical of past planning by the Fort
Fairfield Utility District. They are, rather, an attempt to update
planning to meet current guidelines and to provide a basis for final
decisions by the District.
177
-------
00
FIGURE 53
./" PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
GRIMES MILL
CULTIVATED
AREA TO BE ACQUIRED
FOR FUTURE HOLDING
POND
UinilSTRIttL ARE*
I I I I I I I \/\ I I I I I I
BANGOR AND AROOSTOOK RAILROAD
THIS UREA TO BE ACQUIRED FOR
FUTURE EXPANSION IN SOLIDS
PROCESSING OR ADVANCED
TREATMENT ^- -*
JSSSW&
XUTURE EXPANSION
CONDITION:
B-1 ,' C-2
-------
The interrelation of the domestic wastewaters of the Town and the proc-
essing wastewaters of the A & P plant becomes quite complex when the vari-
able factor of in-plant adjustments at A & P is considered. It is further
complicated by the option of improved primary treatment at A & P. Figure
54 illustrates the basic system of wastewater flows at Fort Fairfield
with the alternates available. The basic alternate is connection, or
non-connection, of the municipal wastes with the industrial wastes. If
not connected, two treatment plants will result, or, if connected, a
single plant. The A & P plant has the option of inplant changes as
discussed in the previous section. It also has the option of retaining
its existing air floatation primary treatment facility or replacing it
with a gravity sedimentation facility.
The existing air flotation unit is removing about 20 to 25% of the plant
BOD, and about 50% of the plant suspended solids. This unit is somewhat
less efficient than a well designed gravity sedimentation unit which
would be expected to remove 40 to 50% BOD and up to 85% of the suspended
solids. In addition, the solids removed from the air flotation unit are
very wet and difficult to dispose of in a manner which will not cause
additional environmental problems. To assist in evaluation of this op-
tion, analysis of treatment facilities have been made, both considering
retention of the air flotation unit, and considering its replacement.
The many variables in load conditions at Fort Fairfield create a great
number of potential problem solutions. The studied combinations are
coded as indicated in Table 75.
TABLE 75
DESIGN CONDITION - CODING SUMMARY
FORT FAIRFIELD SYSTEM
"A" Condition - Loading Alternatives^ at A & P
A-l - Operation during Spring of 1971, no in-plant change
A-2 - In-plant flow reductions only
A-3 - In-plant flow reduction, plus dry caustic peel conversion
"B" Condition - Primary Treatment Alternatives
';• B-l - Retain existing air flotation unit
-fe- B-2 - Build new primary sedimentation tank
"C" Conditions - Municipal-Industrial Coordination
C-l - A & P without municipal wastes in following combina-
tions of "A" & "B" conditions:
179
-------
A & P
PROCESSOR
oo
o
MUNICIPAL
WASTE
GENERATION
EXIST
FLOTATION
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
TO RIVER
• ALTERNATE FLOW
I DIVERSION
I
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
•TO RIVER
FIGURE 54
DESIGN CONDITIONS - FORT FAIRFIEID- SCHEMATIC
-------
TABLE 75 (CONTINUED)
A-l + B-l A-2 + B-l
A-l + B-2 A-2 + B-2
C-2 -
A-3 + B-l
A-3 + B-2
A & P combined with municipal wastes in following
combinations of "A" & "B" conditions:
A-l + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-l
A-2 + B-2
C-3 - Municipal wastewaters alone
A-3 + B-l
A-3 + B-2
The loads to the treatment plant for "A" conditions, reflecting alterna-
tive in-plant conditions at A & P, are as previously presented in Table
37. The "B" conditions have been established by assuming the following
operational characteristics of the primary treatment units:
UNIT
Air Flotation Unit
Gravity Primary Unit
BOD REMOVED
22%
45%
SS REMOVED
45%
85%
In addition to the outlined load conditions, the preliminary designs re-
flected either single unit or dual unit construction. The option is
similar to that discussed under the Washburn system.
In all cases where a new primary sedimentation tank is to be constructed,
a single unit is proposed. This unit will treat only industrial waste-
water, and can be taken out of service annually for inspection and re-
pair. The existing air floatation unit will also provide standby poten-
tial. In all cases where joint treatment is considered, dual components
have been provided. This will be necessary for consideration of govern-
mental grants-in-aid.
Certain key equipment in all configurations, including strictly indus-
trial usage, would be provided in at least two units. These include
chlorinators, vacuum filters, aerators, and solids return pumps.
The preliminary design sizing of key treatment plant units is shown on
Tables 76, 77, and 78.
181
-------
CO
TABLE 76
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - FORT FAIRFIELD
CONDITION C-l A & P PLANT ALONE - TOTAL UNIT SIZE*
Sub
Condition
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A- 3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Primary
Sed Tank
Dia-ft
None
None
None
42
36
29
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
71,376
70,000
34,787
71,376
52,200
34,787
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
1779
1301
868
1779
1301
868
Lbs/hr
556
553
228
392
390
161
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
14,500
14,500
7,500
16,900
16,900
6,300
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
220
220
135
225
225
105
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
1143
837
557
1143
837
557
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
70
50
35
70
50
35
*For Dual System - Primary tank as given, subdivide other units as appropriate to obtain sizing of each unit.
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary.
-------
TABLE 77
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - FORT FAIRFIELD
CONDITION C-2 A & P AND DOMESTIC WASTES COMBINED
TOTAL UNIT SIZE*
00
10
Sub
Condition
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Primary
Sed Tank
Dia-ft
None
None
None
42
36
29
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
101,600
82,600
65,600
101,600
82,600
65,600
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
2540
2060
1630
2540
2060
1630
°2
Lbs/hr
583
582
- 230
420
455
190
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
14,600
14,600
8,300
17,000
13,000
7,500
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
220
220
100
225
175
100
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
1630
1324
1046
1630
1324
1046
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
100
80
65
100
80
65
*For Dual System - Primary tank as given, subdivide other units as appropriate to obtain sizing of each
unit.
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary.
-------
TABLE 78
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - FORT FAIRFIELD
CONDITION C-3 MUNICIPAL WASTES ALONE - TOTAL UNIT SIZING*
Sub
Condition
24 hr Aer
20 hr Aer
Primary
Sed Tank
Dia-ft
None
None
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
93,946
78,288
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
454
454
02
Req Lbs/hr
30
30
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
100
174
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
NA
NA
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
245
245
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
25
25
*For Dual Units - Divide appropriate units by 2.
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary.
-------
Review of Tables 76, 77, and 78 suggest the following:
1. If the A & P plant does not install semi-dry caustic peel
equipment, and does not install a new sedimentation tank,
(Conditions A-l 4- B-l, and A-2 + B-2) the increase in
general plant size to accommodate the municipal wastes is
relatively small.
2. The increased size requirement to handle the municipal
wastes becomes greater if A & P installs a new sedimenta-
tion tank, and becomes quite significant if dry caustic
peel is installed.
3. The aeration volume required for the municipal wastes
alone are nearly as great, or greater than, the volumes
required for combined waste treatment. This is due to
the long aeration time of the municipal extended aeration
system. For the municipal plant alone, this is necessary
to effectively handle the small volumes of excess solids
generated.
4. Based on the data presented above, serious consideration
should be given to joint treatment of the domestic and
industrial wastewaters.
Preliminary designs indicate that combined treatment has advantages over
separate treatment. Cost evaluation of these systems is presented in the
next section. It was assumed that the municipal wastewaters would be
transported to the site of the A & P air floatation unit for treatment.
Earlier studies by the District indicated that, if joint treatment were
to be considered, the most economic plant site would be in the vicinity
of the A & P plant. This recommendation appears valid as future industrial
growth in the community will most likely be in the westerly section of
Town.
Preliminary designs were based on the use of concrete tanks for primary
and secondary sedimentation, and the chlorine contact tank. The aeration
basins were assumed to be of earthen embankment construction with a con-
crete lining, Fixed platform mechanical aerations were utilized. Air
flotation was used for excess activated sludge thickening prior to vacuum
filtration. The sedimentation tanks and aeration tanks were left uncovered.
Other equipment would be enclosed in the control building. The existing
A & P outfall would be utilized. All wastewaters would be pumped to pro-
vide hydraulic grade through the plant. Figure 55 shows a typical site
diagram for the plant. Other plant configurations not sketched would be
similar to those shown except for varying unit sizing.
EASTON AREA - Preliminary designs have been prepared for treatment of
wastewaters generated in the Easton area. Designs have considered in-
dividual treatment of the industrial and domestic wastewaters in the Town,
and combined treatment of the various components.
Under the individual system alternate at Easton, the Town facility was
designed for the loading conditions as previously presented in Table 38.
Vahlsing, Inc and Maine Sugar Industries plants were designed for each
185
-------
DOMESTIC
FLOW IF JOINT
PLANT ADOPTED
.18
a %
EXIST A&P
SCREENING 4
AIR FLOTATION
UNITS
U.S. ROUTE 1 A (HIGH ST.)
TO
CARIBOU
FENCE
g~
a. --•
S\*.
o — L
. CONTROL BLDG.
'VACUUM FILTERS
' CHLORINATORS
', OFF ICE, LAB.
' ETC.
/
/
'
^
/
'
__ _ ^385
A & P WASTES ONLr
DESIGN CONDITION
(A-1) (B-1)
DUAL UNITS
50
0
FEET
50
FIGURE 55
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
FORT FAIRFIELD
-------
of the three loading conditions, as previously presented in Table 39.
The municipal plant was designed as an oxidation pond similar to that
recommended in the 1970 Camp Dresser and McKee Report.33 The general
layout and location of the municipal Easton system is shown on Figure
56.
The alternate designs considered for the Easton area are coded as pre-
sented in Table 79. In addition to the individual plant designs pre-
liminary designs were prepared for various load combinations within the
Town.
TABLE 79
DESIGN CONDITIONS - CODING SYSTEM
EASTON AREA
"A" Conditions - Loading Alternatives at_Vahlsing, Inc
A-l - High Loading Condition
A-2 - Medium Loading Condition
A-3 - Low Loading Condition
"B" Conditions - Loading Alternatives at_Maine Sugar Industries
B-l - High Loading Condition
B-2 - Medium Loading Condition
B-3 - Low Loading Condition
"C" Conditions - Municipal-Industrial Coordination
C-l - Industrial wastes treated jointly
C-2 - Industrial and municipal wastes combined
C-3 - Municipal wastewaters alone
Biological Treatment Combinations Studied
A-l, B-l, C-l A-l, B-2, C-l A-l, B-3, C-l
A-2, B-l, C-l A-2, B-2, C-l A-2, B-3, C-l
A-3, B-l, C-l A-3, B-2, C-l A-3, B-3, C-2
A-l, B-l, C-2 A-l, B-2, C-2 A-l, B-3, C-2
A-2, B-l, C-2 A-2, B-2, C-2 A-2, B-3, C-2
A-3, B-l, C-2 A-3, B-2, C-2 A-3, B-3, C-2
"D" Conditions - Disposal of Easton Biological Treatment Effluent
D-l - Pump treated effluent to the Aroostook River
D-2 - Land disposal of treated effluent by spray irrigation
D-3 - Advanced waste treatment (99% BOD Removal) for disposal
to Prestile
187
-------
LEGEND
NOTE: THIS PLAN ADAPTED FROM
CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE REPORT
TO TOWN OF EASTON 33
PIPE SIZE AND
DIRECTION OF FLOW
FORCE MAIN
PUMPING STATION
STATION RD.
PUMPING
STATION
MAIN
PUMPING
STATIC
FIGURE 56
EASTON , MAINE
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE
SYSTEM AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
-STABILIZATION LAGOONS
1000 2000
188
-------
The preliminary design of the Vahlsing, Inc plant was based on the assump-
tion that the equivalent of primary solids removal would be accomplished
by the industry prior to entry into the biological plant. The general type
of plant and construction would be similar to those discussed for Presque
Isle and Caribou. Pumping to the biological system may be required.
The actual siting and configuration of the Vahlsing plant must be accom-
plished during final design due to limited topographic data. However,
no unusual construction problems would be anticipated. The key unit
sizing of the plant to serve only Vahlsing, Inc is shown on Table 80.
Preliminary design of a plant to serve only Maine Sugar Industries has
been approximated using the same design criteria as developed from the
potato processing plants. Little firm design data is available for design
of activated sludge systems for beet processing plants. However, it is
felt that the design criteria used reflects reasonable plant sizing for
preliminary evaluation purposes. The plant again would be similar in con-
figuration and construction to previously discussed plants. The sizing
of key plant units for the various loadings at the Maine Sugar Industries
treatment plant is shown in Table 81.
Under the C-l condition the domestic wastes would be treated individually in
the oxidation pond system described in the foregoing paragraphs. The com-
bined Vahlsing, Inc - Maine Sugar Industries plant would be located in the
vicinity of the adjacent plants at Easton Station. Under the C-2 condition
the domestic wastewaters would be pumped to Easton Station for inclusion
in the central plant. The combined plant would be similar in configuration
to other area plants. The design criteria for the plant units were that
assigned to potato processing waste treatment plants even though the beet
processing wastes are included. The preliminary sizing of key treatment
units is presented in Table 82.
Construction of the combined facilities described above at Easton would be
comparable to those proposed in the Aroostook River watershed. However,
river studies under the companion River Basin Planning Report indicate
that the Prestile Stream cannot accept the effluent from these facili-
ties without violation of the current water quality standards. It would
probably be possible to handle only the treated domestic wastewaters
through the Prestile system, providing the oxidation ponds had some
holding capacity to store flows during low stream flow conditions. Such
disposal of the treated industrial wastewaters would not be feasible with
the degree of treatment described above.
There are three potential options for ultimate disposal of the treated
Easton effluent. These are, 1) pump the treated effluent to the Aroos-
took River for disposal (Condition D-l), 2) land disposal of the treated
effluent by spray irrigation (Condition D-2), and 3) application of advanced
waste treatment technique to the Easton wastes to allow disposal to the
Prestile (Condition D-3).
Pumping the-treated Easton wastewaters to the Aroostook River (Condition
D-l) for disposal would maintain the water quality standards of the Prestile
Stream. However, such disposal raises several serious problems. The removal
189
-------
TABLE 80
KEY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - VAHLSING, INC*
"A" CONDITIONS
Loading
Condition
A-l
A-2
A-3
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
183,000
122,000
70,000
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
4,555
3,033
1,732
02
Req
Lbs/hr
1,045
835
541
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
14,500
11,500
7,500
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
340
275
180
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
2,930
1,950
1,113
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
210
140
80
*For Dual Units - Divide appropriate units by 2.
i->
o NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
-------
TABLE 81
KEY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - MAINE SUGAR INDUSTRIES*
"B" CONDITIONS
Loading
Condition
B-l
B-2
B-3
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
294,000
174,000
105,000
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
6,068
4,334
2,600
°2
Req
Lbs/hr
666
400
210
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
8,400
5,000
2,500
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
200
120
60
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
3,900
2,785
1,670
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
280
200
120
*For Dual Units - Divide appropriate units by 2.
M
VO
1-1 NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
-------
VO
(S3
TABLE 82
KEY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - EASTON COMBINED*
CONDITION C-l and C-2
Loading
Condition
A-l.B-ljC-l
A-2,B-1,C-1
A-3,B-1,C-1
A-1,B-2,C-1
A-2,B-2,C-1
A-3,B-2,C-1
A-1,B-3,C-1
A-2,B-3,C-1
A-3,B-3,C-1
A-l,B-l,C-2
A-2,B-l,C-2
A-3,B-l,C-2
A-l,B-2,C-2
A-2,B-2,C-2
A-3,B-2,C-2
A-l-,B-3,C-2
A-2,B-3,C-2
A-3,B-3,C-2
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
426,000
366,000
314,000
356,000
296,000
243,000
287,000
226,000
174,000
452,000
392,000
340,000
382,000
322,000
270,000
314,000
252,000
200,000
- Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
10,620
9,104
7,800
8,892
7,370
6,065
7,158
5,634
4,330
11,268
"9,754
8,448
9,540
8,018
6,714
7,806
6,284
4,990
02
Req
Lbs/hr
1,700
1,502
1,206
1,642
1,228
891
1,256
1,050
754
1,726
1,526
1,234
1,671
1,252
920
1,280
1,080
778
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
22,200
19,700
16,000
21,800
16,300
11,000
16,400
13,600
10,000
22,300
19,800
16,200
22,100
16,400
11,800
17,000
14,300
10,200
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
540
480
380
528
392
280
400
338
240
544
481
388
534
394
286
406
344
245
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
6,800
5,850
5,012
5,114
4,736
3,900
4,600
3,620
2,790
7 ,200
6,268
5,930
6,132
5,154
4,316
5,016
4,038
3,200
CL2
Req
Lbs/day
490
420
360
411
340
280
330
260
200
520
445
390
440
370
310
360
300
230
*Data given for total plant - For dual units divide by 2
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
-------
of the industrial waste flows from the Prestile watershed will have a
significant impact on downstream flow conditions on the Prestile. This
raises questions of law concerning downstream riparian rights. Low flow
augmentation would in all likelihood be necessary.
The introduction of the treated industrial wastewaters into the Aroostook
River also creates serious legal questions under current Maine law. Such
action has been denied by Maine courts in similar cases. It must also
be recognized that introduction of the treated Easton wastewaters into
the Aroostook will also utilize a portion of the Aroostooks assimilative
capacity. Thus, while transfer to the Aroostook may prove the best eco-
nomic and technical solution, it poses many difficult legal and administra-
tive problems. These problems are fully discussed in the companion River
Basin Planning Report.
Land disposal (Condition D-2) of the industrial wastewaters generated in
the Easton area was considered in some detail in the 1970 Camp Dresser and
McKee Report.33 The degree of treatment necessary before such land dis-
posal on potato crop land can be questioned. The 1970 Camp Report suggested
only holding basins which would remove suspended solids prior to spray
irrigation during the growing season. Capacity would have to be provided
to store up to 8 months flow for summer irrigation.
It is felt that such raw application to active potato crops should not
be undertaken until research has been accomplished in sufficient detail
to assure against health hazards. It should be noted that potato pro-
cessing wastes have a very high coliform bacteria count, although it is
mostly, but not entirely, non fecal types. Studies of sugar beet pro-
cessing wastes by the Federal Water Quality Administration31 has in-
dicated a significant potential health problem with high bacteria counts,
which included salmonella.
It is also possible that potato plant diseases could be transmitted or
concentrated by application of essentially a raw waste to active crop
land. This area requires additional plant science research. The effect
of relatively high loading of the raw wastes on the soil characteristics
is generally unknown. While certain nutrient components are perhaps bene-
ficial, other components could be harmful in the long run. Again research
is necessary before a full scale land disposal system appears viable.
The above comments apply to a somewhat lesser degree to a secondary,
treated disinfected wastewater. However, its long term effect on crop
land soils should not be overlooked. The cost of an extensive spray
irrigation system on top of full secondary treatment would also be high.
The rate of application of the effluent to the soil must be gaged to
assure essentially no runoff. If any significant runoff occurs, the water
quality standards of the Prestile will be violated. This rate of appli-
cation will vary with several factors, such as soil types, slopes, and
especially the climatic conditions. Figure 57, as adapted from the Camp
Dresser and McKee Report33} indicates tentative application rates. When
193
-------
5.0
1/5
UJ
4.0
NOTE:
CAMP DR
TO
THI S
ESSER
EASTON
CUfjVE ADAP
Af»D MCKEE
33
ED FROM
REPORT
- 3.0
ce
•z.
o
5 2.0
ce
cc
I
Q
QL.
0_
Ul
•=r
i—
o
SUGt
ESTED AF
PLICATICiN
RATE
=1.0 TO
1.5 INCHES
4 6 8 10 12 1U 16
THOUSAND ACRES UNDER IRRIGATION
FIGURE 57
IRRIGATION APPLICATION VERSUS ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS
18
20
-------
design loads are applied to this figure, it is seen that very large land
areas would be required. Its availability within a reasonable distance
is questioned. It is also noted that during above average wet seasons
it will not be possible to dispose of all of the effluent by land irriga-
tion without significant runoff. While it is likely that stream condi-
tions may be higher than normal during such a season, the runoff would
undoubtedly violate water quality standards.
A legal question is also posed by a land disposal system. Such a system
would constitute a consumptive use of water at Easton and could signifi-
cantly reduce downstream flow. Again the question of riparian rights
can be raised. This, combined with the above described technical problems,
make this alternative quite unattractive at this time.
The third alternative (Condition D-3) suggests application of advanced
waste treatment techniques to the ^Easton industrial wastewaters until
they are of a quality capable of being placed into the Prestile without
violating the classification. Such treatment is technically feasible
through precipitation and removal of phosphorous by sedimentation and
filtration, plus activated carbon treatment for high organics removal.
As the nitrogen content of potato processing wastes is rather low, its
removal by ammonia stripping may not be required. BOD removals of 98 to
99% would be required, plus facilities for occasional drought flow storage.
This system would not pose the legal problems that the other alternatives
do. The economics of this system are discussed in a later section.
From the foregoing discussions it is evident that routine treatment and
disposal of the wastewaters generated at Easton is not possible. Com-
plete local advanced waste treatment systems will be required, or considera-
tion must be given to regionalization of the systems.
REGIONAL SYSTEMS
It is generally accepted that the unit costs of wastewater treatment in
a larger plant are less than those in multiple smaller plants. This
treatment cost saving must be balanced against the added transport cost
required to concentrate the wastewater at a single location for treatment.
To accomplish the potential economies of scale of larger systems, it is
often necessary to regionalize the system. That is, the facilities would
be oriented to achieve flow integration uninhibited by political boundar-
ies.
To allow evaluation of the merits of regionalization of the system, pre-
liminary designs have been prepared for numerous possible intercommunity
connections. Designs include both the treatment system and the inter^
ceptor systems required to transport the wastewaters. In this evalua-
tion the Presque Isle-Easton-Caribou area has been defined as the "Core
Area" containing the largest concentrations of population and industry.
The Towns of Washburn, Mapleton and Fort Fairfield have been defined as
outlying adjacent areas. The analysis first considered the designs re-
quired to interconnect the outlying adjacent Towns to the Core Area.
195
-------
Once the feasibility, or lack thereof, was determined for outlying town
interconnection, the potential Core Area system combinations were evalu-
ated.
WASHBURN-PRESQUE ISLE INTERCONNECT - Study of the physical interconnection
between Washburn and Presque Isle has been limited to flow from
Washburn to Presque Isle. Reversal of this flow to carry the Core Area
to Washburn is not considered a viable alternative. Two possible sys-
tems were studied as follows:
1. A gravity system for carrying both the domestic and in-
dustrial wastewaters to Presque Isle via a gravity inter-
ceptor sewer along the river banks.
2. A pressure pumping station system for carrying both the
domestic and industrial wastewaters to Presque Isle in a
similar manner as the gravity system.
The gravity system provides for carrying both the domestic and industrial
wastewaters to the vicinity of US Route 1 in Presque Isle via a gravity
interceptor along the river bank. The natural gradient in this section
of the river is low, about .006. While this would result in minimal ve-
locities in the interceptor, such a line would be technically feasible.
A pumping station would be required in the vicinity of Route 1 in Presque
Isle to lift the Washburn flows to the head of the Core Area plant. This
Core Area plant, if located in Presque Isle would be in the vicinity of
Potato Service, Inc. The pumping station would also serve the local
Presque Isle community in the vicinity of the Route 1 and Route 164 inter-
section. A schematic layout of this transport system is shown on Figures
58A and 58B. It is also noted that Crouseville Village, so called, in
Washburn would be served by this interceptor. A minimum of an 18 inch
pipe would be required for existing flows, and a 24 inch pipe would be
desirable if any significant industrial growth is anticipated at Washburn.
It will be necessary to construct primary sedimentation and solids hand-
ling facilities at the Taterstate plant in Washburn prior to entry into
the interceptor system. This is necessary because of the minimal grades
and flow velocities available in the gravity interceptor. If these solids
were carried in the interceptor, it would result in the excessive leaching
of organics from the potato solids into a dissolved state. It may also
be desirable to chlorinate the waste flow prior to entry into the inter-
ceptor system. The chlorine demands would be increased if the potato
solids remained. The primary sedimentation units required at Taterstate
would be similar to those discussed under the local system options.
Construction of the interceptor along the river will be difficult due to
water and the alluvial soil conditions. A heavy allowance for sheet-
ing will be required in any cost analysis. To avoid these conditions
an alternate design was considered using a pressure system. A pumping
station would be installed in the vicinity of Wade Road in Washburn which
would transport the combined domestic-industrial wastewater to the vicin-
ity of Route 1 in Presque Isle in a force main along Route 164. A second
196
-------
,^AV'\^.
CROUSEVILLE SERVED BY
^ \ \ ;
-{0nBKJ 18" AflOOSTOOK RIVER
' ORTH INTERCEPTOR
;x
V \AW-
-PRESQUE ISLE \N h
^;^, \
-------
• 18* AROOSTOOK RIVER
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
PUMPING STATION
INTERCEPTOR
rTO REGIONAL
TREATMENT
PLANT FACILITY
MAIN PUMPING STATION
ALSO SERVICE LOCAL COLLECTORS;
SOUTHERN
-------
pumping station would be constructed in the vicinity of Route 1 in Presque
Isle in a similar manner to the gravity system. Again solids removal at
Taterstate would be required prior to entry into the transport system.
Chlorination may also be required in this system.
Cost analyses of each of the above interconnect systems are presented
in the next section. Based on the data presented in Section VIII, it
was concluded that physical interconnection of the Washburn wastewaters
with the Core Area is not economically feasible, and Core Area studies
should not include these waste flows.
MAPLETON-PRESQUE ISLE INTERCONNECT - An analysis was made of the poten-
tial interconnection to carry the Mapleton wastewaters to the Core Area
at Presque Isle. Again only a one-way transfer was considered.
Two potential interconnection routes by which the Mapleton wastewaters
may be transferred to Presque Isle were studied. These are:
1. Gravity interceptor along Presque Isle Stream to Presque
Isle with one pumping station to lift into the Presque
Isle Sewer District system.
2. An interceptor system along Route 163 consisting of a
series of pumping stations, gravity sewers, and force
mains.
These two routes are shown schematically on Figure 59- The system along
Route 163 would require a minimum of five pumping stations due to the
rolling nature of the topography. The gravity route would pass through
extensive areas of swamp land which would increase construction diffi-
culties and costs. As only domestic wastewaters are generated at
Mapleton, primary sedimentation prior to entry into the interceptor sys-
tem would not be required.
An economic evaluation of the Mapleton-Presque Isle interconnection is
given in the next section. Based on the data presented therein, it was
concluded that physical interconnection of the Mapleton wastewaters with
the Core Area is not economically feasible, and Core Area studies should
not include these waste flows.
FORT FAIRFIELD-CARIBOU INTERCONNECT - An analysis was made of the poten-
tial interconnection between Fort Fairfield and Caribou. Unlike the
Washburn and Mapleton analyses, the Fort Fairfield study considered flow
in either direction, that is, the Fort Fairfield wastewaters carried to
Caribou for treatment, and the Core Area waste flows carried to Fort
Fairfield for treatment.
The first analysis assumed that both the domestic and industrial waste-
waters from Fort Fairfield would be pumped to Grimes Mill for treatment
in the terminal plant of the Core Area regional facility. This would re-
quire a major pumping station at Fort Fairfield, in the vicinity of the
A & P plant, with a capacity of about 815 gallons per minute. A force
199
-------
GRAVITY
INTERCEPTOR
MAPLETON
TREATMENT
- PLANT SITE
PUMPED
/'INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM-<
GRAVITY STREAM
INTERCEPTOR
.1 • I
m}L-M
FIGURE 59 iv
\ / . \ ' \ \iV^ \ ';
MAPLETON - PRESQUE ISLE
INTERCONNECTING SYSTEM
-------
main of some 45,000 LF would be required. A minimum 12 inch pipe would
be required for existing flows, and a 14 inch pipe would be desirable if any
significant industrial growth is anticipated at Fort Fairfield. This
pipe would run up the southerly side of the river to a point opposite
Grimes Mill where it would cross the river in an inverted siphon. The
approximate location is shown in Figure 60.
The piped system will operate satisfactorily while the A & P plant is in
operation. However, during periods when the A & P plant is not operating,
the domestic wastewaters still must be transferred by the pipeline.
With flows less than 50% of design, the transfer time will be increased
significantly. This may cause operating difficulties in keeping the flow
fresh. It will also be necessary to provide primary sedimentation for
solids removal, or its equivalent, at the A & P plant prior to entry into
the transport system. The considerations for such primary treatment is
similar to those discussed under the Washburn transport system.
A second analysis was made of physical interconnection by carrying the
regional wastewaters to Fort Fairfield for treatment. This transfer
could be accomplished by either a 48 inch diameter gravity sewer along
the northerly side of the river, or by lifting and crossing the river at
Grimes Mill, followed by a 36 inch gravity line along the vicinity of
the railroad. If gravity flow is utilized to Fort Fairfield, the waste-
waters would have to be lifted into the treatment plant. Lifting at
Grimes Mill to achieve a better hydraulic grade would probably be the
best approach to the design, and has been used for preliminary analysis.
This route is essentially the reverse direction of the Fort Fairfield to
Grimes Mill route shown on Figure 60. Before carrying the Core Area
wastes to Fort Fairfield it is assumed that at least the potato process-
ing component of the Core Area wastewater has received primary treatment
for solids removal.
An economic analysis of the Fort Fairfield - Caribou interconnection is
presented in the next section. Based on the data presented therein, it
was concluded that physical interconnection between Fort Fairfield and
Caribou is not economically feasible for either flow direction, and Core
Area analysis should not include consideration of the Fort Fairfield
waste loads.
CORE AREA INTERCONNECTIONS - Analysis of the outlying Towns, as discussed
above, indicates that their interconnection with the Core Area is not
economically feasible. Thus the Core Area of Presque Isle, Easton and
Caribou should be evaluated on the basis of loads generated within the
area. Two basic interconnection options for the Core Area have been
evaluated. These alternatives are as follows:
1. Partial Core Area area interconnection combining the waste
loads from Presque Isle, including Potato Service Inc, and
Easton, including Vahlsing Inc and Maine Sugar Industries.
The Caribou wastewaters would be treated as described in
the earlier section on individual community systems.
201
-------
FORT FAIRFIELD - GRIMES MILL INTERCONNECTING ROUTE
-------
2. Full Core Area interconnection with all wastes generated
in Presque Isle and Easton carried to Caribou for treat-
ment in a single large treatment plant.
Alternate 1 above would basically be an expansion of the plant previously
described for the joint Presque Isle-Potato Service, Inc community sys-
tem to a size capable of serving the various loading which would be
contributed from the Easton area. To accomplish the interbasin transfer
of Easton flows, the Easton area wastes would be concentrated in the
vicinity of the Easton Station industrial complex in a similar manner
to the joint domestic-industry option for the Easton community system.
A pumping station would be installed at this point to lift the combined
Easton wastewaters northwesterly to the watershed divide line. From the
divide line the Easton wastes would flow by gravity to the Aroostook
River opposite the Potato Service, Inc treatment plant sit. The flow
would cross the river and enter the plant headworks via an inverted
siphon. It is assumed that the Easton industries will provide the equiva-
lent of primary treatment for solids removal before the wastes are entered
into the transport system.
The five contributors to the joint system, ie Presque Isle, Potato Ser-
vice, Inc, Vahlsing Inc, Maine Sugar Industries, and Easton can contri-
bute almost an infinite number of loading combination to the plant, depen-
ding on the various industry loading options as discussed in the previous
section. In all analyses it was assumed that all five units would be
participating in the system. For preliminary analysis eight typical
combination of loadings were studied in detail with preliminary plant de-
signs prepared. The loading conditions for the eight preliminary designs
are coded in Table 83.
TABLE 83
LOADING CONDITION CODING SUMMARY
PRESQUE ISLE - EASTON REGIONAL SYSTEM
INDUSTRY LOADING*
Study
Condition
Designation
IV- a
IV-c
IV-g
IV-i
Vl-a
VI-c
Vl-g
Vl-i
Loading
Conditions
Presque Isle
A-l + B-2
A-l + B-2
A-l + B-2
A-l + B-2
A- 3 + B-2
A- 3 + B-2
A- 3 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Loading
Conditions
Easton
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2 ,
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2
*Refer to coding systems established under community systems analysis
and design criteria for key to industry loadings.
203
-------
The Easton-Presque Isle regional plant would be located in the vicinity
of the existing Potato Service, Inc ponds, the same location as the joint
Presque Isle domestic-Potato Service, Inc industry plant. The type of
plant would be similar to that required for Presque Isle and Potato
Service, Inc alone, except that a three unit system would be provided rather
than the dual unit system proposed for the community system. A prelimin-
ary site plan is shown on Figure 61. The configuration would be the same
for all plant loadings with only the unit sizes varying. The sizing of
the key plant units is given in Table 84.
As discussed under the Easton community systems, the transfer of Easton
industrial wastewaters to the Aroostook River watershed raises several
legal questions. These are discussed in detail in the companion Basin
Planning Report. These studies conclude that low flow augmentation will
be required to maintain flows in the Prestile Stream at downstream loca-
tions . The most feasible source of such low flows augmentation is the
Aroostook River. Preliminary designs call for the installation of
a pumping station on the banks of the Aroostook River, adjacent to the
inverted siphon which will carry the wastewaters to the treatment plant.
This station would be capable of lifting Aroostook River water into the
Prestile watershed through a pressure pipe laid in the same trench as
the wastewater interceptor.
The low flow augmentation pumping station would tentatively have a capa-
city of 1000 gpm. The pressure pipe would be 14 or 16 inch diameter.
The system would operate only when natural flows in the Prestile below
Easton drop to a certain minimum level. The actual value of this level
will probably have to be established by legislative action as discussed
in the companion Basin Planning Report.
Construction of the Presque Isle-Easton regional system, as described
above, would provide a means of meeting the current water quality stan-
dards of both the Aroostook River and Prestile Stream. The impact of
the added Easton waste load on the river and its capacity to receive
treated wastewaters is discussed in detail in the Basin Planning Report.
The second alternative for Core Area regionalization is full interconnec-
tion of all wastewaters in the area with treatment at a large regional
plant in Caribou. As the Core Area is extensive in size, such interconnec-
tion is a major undertaking. Two options have been considered for the
Presque Isle-Easton-Caribou interconnection. These are:
1. Standard gravity interceptor pipe system between the
Potato Service, Inc location and the existing Caribou
treatment plant.
2. Adoption of a treatment-transport system between the Po-
tato Service, Inc location and the existing Caribou plant
whereby significant reduction in organic waste load may
be accomplished in transit.
204
-------
NJ
O
INFLOW FROM
POTATO SERVICE I
PRIMARY UNITS PHIS
PBESOUE ISLE
MUNICIPAL FLOW,
FIGURE 61
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
PRESQUE ISLE - EASTON JOINT SYSTEM
OUTF4LL OIFFUSER SYSTEM
TO RIVEB
-------
TABLE 84
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - PRESQUE ISLE-EASTON REGIONAL PLANT*
Loading
Condition
IV -
IV -
IV -
IV -
VI -
VI -
VI -
VI -
a
c
g
i
a
c
g
i
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
913,800
729,777
704,250
590,880
747,798
634,803
608,898
495,528
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
22,782
18,195
17,559
14,730
18,645
15,825
15,180
12,354
02
Req
Lbs/hr
4,152
3,336
3,390
2,868
2,646
2,130
2,190
1,665
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
55,400
44,600
45,500
38,500
34,400
27,400
30,400
21,500
Vac
Filter
A-Sq ft
1,332
1,070
1,092
924
825
660
684
516
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
14,743
11,694
11,286
9,468
11,982
10,173
9,756
7,941
CL2
Req
Lbs / day
1,050
840
810
680
860
729
700
570
*Data given is for total plant sizing - for individual units sizing divide by 3.
NOTE: See Table 83 for design condition coding summary
-------
For evaluation of the extensive Presque Isle-Caribou interconnection
system topographic maps were prepared by photogrammetric means at a
scale of 1" = 200' with a 5 foot contour interval. Reproducible copiep of
the photos and contour maps are on file in the Commission office for
use in later studies. A soils investigation program was also initated
along the interconnect route. The soils report and boring logs are in-
cluded in this report as Appendix A.
The interceptor route was selected through evaluation of topographic
plans, aerial photos and on-site reconnaissance. A high level route gen-
erally paralleling the Bangor and Aroostook railroad grade was selected
over a low level route along the river. This route is desirable to avoid
difficult soils and water conditions along the river. As both the Presque
Isle municipal and all Easton wastewater must be pumped to reach the Po-
tato Service, Inc site, and the Potato Service, Inc wastes leave the
plant at a relatively high elevation, it is possible to adopt the higher
route without additional pumping. The general routing of the intercon-
nection is shown in Figures 62 and 63.
It is noted that the interbasin transfer route for the Easton area
wastewaters would shift downstream slightly if the Presque Isle-Caribou
interconnect is adopted. This route will shorten the length of pipe re-
quired for transfer. This alternative route is also shown in Figure 62.
The standard gravity interceptor would consist of 36 inch reinforced con-
crete pipe from Potato Service, Inc to the junction with the Easton in-
verted siphon. Due to grade restrictions and standard pipe sizing, this
size would be the same for all design flow combinations at Potato Ser-
vice, Inc. From the junction with the Easton siphon, the pipe size would
increase to 42 inch and extend downstream about two miles where a change
in grade will require a further increase to 48 inch, which would continue
to the Caribou treatment plant. It may be possible to reduce the 42 inch
and 48 inch pipe by one size for the lower flow conditions for the
Presque Isle-Easton area. Access manholes would be provided along the
line at about 500 foot intervals. There are a number of brooks and
streams which must be crossed by pipe bridges, the largest of which will
be at Caribou Stream in Caribou.
The piped interconnection as described above is technically feasible.
However several special conditions should be considered. The low grades
on the line will maintain reasonable velocities (2.5 fps+) during normal
flow conditions with the processing plants in operation. With all pro-
cessing wastes receiving primary sedimentation prior to entry into the
system no sedimentation problem in the pipe line would be anticipated.
During the summer when only the Presque Isle and Easton municipal flows
enter the system the velocities will drop significantly and may be in
the range of 0.7 fps. These flows may result in some solids sedimenta-
tion in the pipe during the summer. While this could contribute to a
potential odor problem, it should not prove an obstacle to the proposed
system.
207
-------
RESCUE ISLE
FIGURE 62
PRESQUE ISLE-CARIBOU INTERCONNECTING ROUTE
SOUTHERN AREA
208
-------
FIGURE 63
PRESQUE ISLE CARIBOU INTERCONNECTING ROUTE
NORTHERN AREA
209
-------
The Presque Isle-Easton flows will be in the pipeline for a period of
8 to 10 hours. This period will allow bacterial action to begin in the
wastewater. This bacterial action quickly consumes any residual dissolved
xygen and will lower the pH of the wastewater, as is typical with potato
processing wastes. This condition will have two potentially detrimental
consequences. The anerobic condition of the wastewaters may well give
rise to an odor problem near the Caribou end of the pipeline, and the
lowering of pH and possible hydrogen sulfide generation may have a rather
corrosive effect on the interior of the pipe.
Design of the piped system will require a protective coating on the pipe
interior, and possibly lime addition to counter pH drop and retard bac-
terial action. Chlorination at intervals along the line could also be
considered for controlling bacterial action. Additional studies of an-
erobic action of potato processing wastes may be warranted.
It should also be noted that anerobic action, if allowed to occur within
the pipeline, would provide a certain degree of BOD removal in transit.
However, it is probable that such action will be purposely inhibited and
the treatment facilities at Caribou should be designed for the full entry
BOD load.
Upon reaching the existing Caribou plant, the incoming Presque Isle-Easton
wastes must be treated in some combination with the Caribou waste flows.
With the 5 input units at Presque Isle and Easton combined with the 5 in-
put units at Caribou an almost infinite range of loadings is possible.
For analysis of treatment of the combined Core Area waste loads at Cari-
bou, we have assumed three loading conditions. The high loading condi-
tion represents essentially the existing industrial input (as measured
in the spring of 1971) plus a twenty year design flow from the domestic
component. The low loading condition is the minimum expected and repre-
sents maximum in-plant waste reductions by industry, and the omission of
the Easton waste load component. This omission would only occur if the
current legal restrictions on interbasin transfers prohibit such inter-
connection. The third loading condition represents a medium condition
which could reasonably be reached by various combinations of inplant con-
servation measures by industry. The design loadings assumed for these
three conditions are presented in Table 85.
TABLE 85
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT - CARIBOU AREA
LOADING CONDITIONS
Unit High Medium Low
Flow MGD
BOD Lbs/day*
15.2
147,330
9.2
93,420
6.1
40,750
*After Primary Sedimentation
210
-------
In theory this treatment could be accomplished by expansion of the exist-
ing Caribou treatment plant, in a similar manner to that described under
the Caribou community system. While this may be possible for the lower
range of loadings, the site is not adequate for the medium to higher
flow ranges. This fact combined with the potential need for treated
effluent storages during drought conditions dictates that if the
Presque Isle-Easton wastewaters are to be transported to Caribou, the
wastes should be transferred to Grimes Mill for biological treatment.
The incoming Caribou wastewaters would receive primary treatment for
solids removal in a similar manner to that described for the Caribou
community system. Primary solids would be dewatered at the in-town site.
The primary effluent from Caribou would be combined with the incoming
Presque Isle-Easton flows in a new wet well structure. Aeration would
be provided in the wet well prior to pumping in order to freshen the
wastewater. The combined wastes would then be pumped across the river and
lifted to achieve gravity flow to the vicinity of Grimes Mill where it
would recross the river in an inverted siphon. This is the identical
transfer system as described under the Caribou community system with
increased hydraulic capacity. The gravity line would be increased to
48 inch. Residence time in the transfer system between Caribou and
Grimes Mill will be about 1 hour.
Upon arrival at Grimes Mill, the combined wastewater would receive bio-
logical treatment prior to discharge to the river. Any industrial
wastes generated at the Grimes Mill industrial park would also enter the
plant.
The treatment plant at Grimes Mill for the combined wastes would be
similar to that described for the Caribou community system, except
for increased capacity. For high load conditions a four unit plant is
suggested as shown on the general site plan, Figure 64. The medium load
plant would be a three unit system, while the low load plant would have
two units. As suggested for the Caribou community system, the land
easterly of the site should be acquired for possible future installation
of effluent holding ponds. The need for such units at Grimes Mill is
discussed in the companion Regional Planning Report. The sizing of
key treatment plant units for the three load ranges is presented in Table
86.
The above described regional Core Area system would provide treatment to
meet current water quality standards on the Prestile Stream and Aroostook
River. The impact of the treated effluent on the water quality of the
Aroostook River is discussed in the companion River Basin Planning Report.
The second alternative for full regional interconnection in the Core Area
consists of a treatment-transport system between Potato Service, Inc and
Caribou. A full discussion of the studies undertaken to evaluate the
treatment-transport were included in Section V under a separate subsection
entitled "Treatment-Transport Studies".
211
-------
NJ
M
ro
(.25
|—hH—i— i . • • •
BdNGOR AND flrtOOSTQOK RAILROAD*~
P«IMARr SED UNITS
GRIM£S IND
, IF REQUIRED
«RE« -TO BE ACQUIRED FOR
FUTURE EFFLUENT
HOLDING PONDS OR
PLANT EXPANSION
J CONTROLNiLDb.,
'SOLIDS ^v.
/OiUftTERINC x
/L HBOTAKIRT
GRIMES
FIGURE 64
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
MILL TERMINAL PLANT- CORE
AREA
-------
TABLE 86
KEY TREATMENT PLANT SIZING - CARIBOU REGIONAL PLANT*
Loading
Condition
High
Medium
Low
Aeration
Tank Vol
CF
1,251,336
814,620
425,454
Secondary
Sed Tank
Surf Area
31,200
20,310
10,608
°2
Req
Lbs/hr
7,248
5,076
1,852
Excess
Solids
Lbs/day
98,500
69,400
24,600
Vac
Filter
A-Sq Ft
2,368
1,668
590
CL2
Contact
Vol CF
20,052
13,053
6,818
CL2
Req
: Lbs/day
1,440
936
489
N3
M
UJ
*Sizing given is for full plant. For high load divide by 4 for individual unit sizes, for medium loading
divide by 3, and for low loading divide by 2.
-------
As previously discussed, the treatment-transport channel system, com-
bined with terminal facilities at either Caribou or Grimes Mill, would
provide a treatment system capable of handling the design loads from the
Core Area in a manner that would meet current water quality standards on
both the Prestile Stream and Aroostook River.
SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Treatment works proposed for either individual community systems or
.interconnected regional systems will generate significant quantities
of excess solids which must be disposed of. This disposal must be
accomplished in a manner which will not create additional environmental
problems. There will be two basic components of the solids generated;
namely, the solids from primary clarification units, rtnd the excess bio-
logical solids generated in the activated sludge systems. Each has its
own characteristics and disposal problems.
PRIMARY SOLIDS - Primary sedimentation facilities have been proposed for
all potato processing wastes. The solids removed from such units are
entirely a potato solid with definite value as an animal feed. This ma-
terial, when dewatered, can be utilized directly as a cattle feed when
mixed with other feed components, or it can be further dried and processed
for shipping as a feed product. There is currently one plant in the area
which dries and processes waste potato solids for feed. One processor
uses a portion of this material for direct cattle feeding.
As additional primary clarification units are installed, the volume of
this material will increase. Facilities for processing and utilizing
this material as an animal feed product should keep pace with production.
The only alternative to animal feed at this time is a sanitary landfill
system. While the landfill may be suitable, utilization of the material as
a by-product would seem somewhat more desirable.
EXCESS BIOLOGICAL SOLIDS - The biological treatment systems proposed for the
area will generate significant quantities of excess biological solids which
must be disposed of. This material will be the waste products and excess
organisms from the biological mass. With maximum load conditions at all
plants within the study area, from 65 to 75 tons, dry weight, could be gen-
erated within the systems. This material will be dewatered on vacuum
filters to solid form and would represent 500 to 550 cubic yards per day
during the processing season. These amounts would be lessened in
general relation to the BOD for other loadings studied.
This material can present a significant disposal problem. The available
disposal options are as follows:
1. Incineration
2. Sanitary landfill
3. Utilization on the land as a soil conditioner
Incineration of the excess solids in a multiple hearth system could be a
reasonable disposal method if all solids were concentrated at one location,
214
-------
but would not be practical at each local unit. The system would be
designed for solids loadings (dry weight basis) of 65 to 75 tons per
day. With the dewatered biologic solids it is likely that auxilliary
fuel would be required. It must also be noted that a residual ash must
be handled from the incinerator and landfilled. The ash content of the
biologic solids would be limited. '
Studies conducted under the companion River Basin Planning Report suggest
that utilization of the nutrient and organic values of the excess biolo-
gical solids may be possible. It is felt, therefore, that installation
of incineration facilities for excess biological solids disposal at this
time is not warranted. However, if solids utilization does not material-
ize, installation at a future date could be considered.
Sanitary landfill would be considered a viable disposal method for the
excess biological solids. The dewatered material will be volitile in
nature and subject to additional bacterial breakdown. If a landfill op-
eration is adopted, it may be desirable to utilize lime in the dewater-
ing process to raise the pH of the dewatered solids to retard bacterial
action.
Current solid waste disposal practices in the area consist primarily of
open dumps. It is likely that air quality standards now under considera-
tion by the State Environmental Improvement Commission will prohibit
such methods in the near future. It is likely that by the time the bio-
logical treatment plants are constructed, the communities in the region
are going to have operating municipal refuse sanitary landfills. It
would appear logical to utilize joint landfill operations for munici-
pal refuse and excess solids disposed from the treatment systems. The
actual locations of such facilities must be selected based on land avail-
ability, soil conditions, and other factors. During this selection
process the points of generation of the excess biological solids should
be considered. If good landfill practices are adopted by the munici-
palities, disposal of the excess biological solids, in combination with
the refuse, should not create any severe environmental problems.
The excess biologic solids will have a nutrient or fertilizer value. This
material could be utilized as an ingredient in a manufactured fertilizer
product. However, the quantity generated, and the difficulties in drying
the material probably renders this usage economically unattractive. Studies
under the Basin Planning Report, however, suggest the use of this mate-
rial in its semi-dry form as a soil conditioner. The reader is referred
to the Basin Planning Report for more detailed discussions. If such a
use can be developed, a portion, or all, of the material being landfilled
could be diverted to soil conditioning projects. Thus, this use factor
would make adoption of sanitary landfill procedures in conjunction with
municipal refuse disposal somewhat more attractive than incineration.
215
-------
SECTION VIII
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
The previous section presented preliminary designs for a wide range of
pollution control alternatives for the Aroostook River-Prestile Stream
Basins. Of the many alternatives presented, several provide systems which
can meet current water quality standards. Full evaluation of the tech-
nically viable systems require an economic analysis of each, including
consideration of capital costs, governmental aid programs, and operat-
ing costs. Such an analysis has been made on the basis of costs developed
from preliminary design plans and data. It must be recognized that costs
developed at this time are not based on firm working drawings and must be
considered as preliminary costs only. However, they should be suffi-
cient to realistically reflect the magnitude of the project cost require-
ments, and should provide data on which system comparisons can be made.
The construction cost estimates were based on unit prices applied to
quantity estimates based on preliminary designs. The unit costs used
were typical of those received in Maine for similar work in recent
months. For the treatment-transport channel, consultation with contractors
was used to aid in estimates. Quotations from equipment suppliers were
obtained where applicable. An allowance of 25% for engineering, technical
services and contingencies has been applied to all estimated construction
costs. Land costs are not included in the estimates due to their wide
variability with local conditions. In the overall project, however, land
costs should not be an appreciable factor. In general; construction costs
reflect an Engineering News Record index of about 1620. Future increases
can be obtained by applying the index at the time of consideration.
The existence of State and Federal grant-in-aid programs will have sub-
stantial effect on local capital costs. The question of State and Fed-
eral grants-in-aid as applied to industrial waste plants and combined
domestic-industrial waste treatment facilities has been in a state of
flux over the past year. It is our understanding that current interpre-
tation of Federal guidelines is as follows:
1. Plants treating only an industrial wastewater are not eli-
gible for grants-in-aid, even if built and operated by a
public authority, unless special circumstances can be dem-
onstrated.
2. Those portions of a joint plant passing only industrial
wastewater are not eligible for aid. However, those por-
tions treating both wastes jointly are eligible if con-
structed and operated by a public agency, and the system
provides general treatment to the entire waste load of the
community. The public agency must also demonstrate by
contract that the industry is paying its full share of both
local capital and operating costs.
The cost analyses of this section are based on the following aid factors
217
-------
for those portions of the project deemed eligible under the general
criteria outlined above.
1. State Aid = 30% of eligible project costs
2. Federal Aid, EPA = 50% of eligible project costs
3. Federal Aid = 5% additional for eligible project costs
meeting regional planning requirements.
It should be noted that land or right of way acquisition and certain legal
and administrative costs are not included in the eligible project cost.
The central Aroostook region is currently an area designated by the Econ-
omic Development Administration as eligible for grant funds for projects
benefitting the economic development of the area. As a solution to the
pollution control problems of the area is a key factor in its economic
development program, some portions of the work may be eligible for additional
aid. This could raise the total aid factor to 90%. However, for prelim-
inary analysis we have used the 85% factor as a reasonable level for sys-
tem comparisons.
INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
WASHBURN AREA - CAPITAL COSTS - Capital cost estimates have been prepared
for the interceptor and treatment plant alternatives presented in the
foregoing sections for the Washburn area. The following estimates are
keyed to the Washburn coding system presented in Table 66. The reader is
referred thereto for definition of alternatives and loading factors.
Estimated capital costs for treatment facilities in the Washburn area
are presented in Table 87.
Analysis of Table 87 indicates that the costs of a plant treating the
Taterstate waste only will range from about $1,445,000 to $1,980,000 de-
pending on the configuration, processing plant expansion, and on in-plant
changes undertaken. A plant treating both the domestic and the industrial
wastewaters will have a cost range of about $1,600,000 to $2,314,000, again
depending on configuration, plant expansion, and in-plant changes at
Taterstate. These costs all include a river outfall and diffuser system,
and the pumping facilities leading to the plant. The total cost of separ-
ate plants would be the sum of the Taterstate plant plus the municipal
extended aeration plant. This total cost would range from $1,775,000
to about $2,450,000. A summary of the potential cost savings, assuming
dual units at the Taterstate plant, are presented in Table 88. Dual units ar
assumed for comparative purposes to obtain equal operating flexibility
and plant redundancy.
From Table 88 it can be seen that a significant capital cost savings,
ranging from $338,000 to $388,000 may be realized by installation of a
joint treatment facility. The use of single units at a strictly industrial
plant would lessen this savings slightly, but would not provide identical
treatment flexibility.
218
-------
TABLE 87
SUMMARY - CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
Washburn
Condition C-l - Single Unit.
Taterstate Alone
Sub Condition Est Cost
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
$1,736,000
1,629,000
1,315,000
1,960,000
1,820,000
1,445,000
Condition C-2 - Dual Units
Taterstate & Municipal Combined
Sub Condition Est Cost
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
$2,086,000
1,919,000
1,600,000
2,314,000
2,174,000
1,737,000
Condition C-l - Dual Units
Taterstate Alone
Sub Condition
Est Cost
Condition C-3 - Dual Units
Municipal Alone
Sub Condition Est Cost
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
$1,980,000
1,832,000
1,518,000
2,230,000
2,060,000
1,605,000
20 hr Aer
20 hr Aer
$ 470,000
460,000
Note: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
TABLE 88
COMPARATIVE COST SUMMARY - JOINT VS SEPARATE PLANTS
WASHBURN
Industry
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 -'r B-2
Capital Cost
Separate Plants
Condition C-l & C-3
$2,450,000
2,302,000
1,988,000
2,700,000
2,530,000
2,075,000
Joint Plant
Condition C-l
$2,086,000
1,919,000
1,600,000
2,314,000
2,174,000
1,737,000
Capital Cost
Estimated
Savings
$364,000
383,000
388,000
386,000
356,000
338,000
Note: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
219
-------
Federal and State grants-in-aid should be available to assist in the capi-
tal costs of the proposed Washburn facilities. The applicable aid factors
and eligibility requirements would be as previously discussed. At
Washburn, this interpretation will mean that if a separate plant is
constructed for only the Taterstate wastewaters, it, in all likelihood,
will not be eligible for aid. It definitely would not be eligible if con-
structed by Taterstate. It would also be assumed that a new primary sedi-
mentation unit would not be eligible, but the remaining portion of the
joint plant and joint outfall to the Aroostook River would probably
be eligible for aid, if all other requirements are met. The effect of this
aid interpretation has a very marked effect on local project costs. This
is illustrated in Table 89-
TABLE 89
EFFECT OF GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS ON LOCAL COST
WASHBURN
SEPARATE PLANTS (Condition C-l & C-3)
Industry
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A- 3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Total Cost
$2,450,000
2,302,000
1,988,000
2,700,000
2,530,000
2,075,000
Elig Cost
$ 470,000
470,000
470,000
470,000
470,000
470,000
Est Aid
$ 400,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
Estimated
Local Cost
$2,050,000
1,902,000
1,588,000
2,300,000
2,130,000
1,675,000
JOINT PLANT (Condition C-2)
Indus try
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2,+ B-l ,
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Total Cost
$2,086,000
;, 919, 000
1,600,000
2,314,000
2,174,000
1,737,000
Elig Cost
$1,895,000
1,735,000
1,435,000
2,109,000
1,979,000
1,559,000
Est Aid
$1,610,000
1,472,000
1,220,000
1,790,000
1,680,000
1,323,000
Estimated
Local Cost
$ 476,000
447,000
380,000
524,000
494,000
414,000
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
As can be seen, the lack of aid for the separate Taterstate plant
greatly increases the local capital cost, and would cause the local
community to lean strongly to the joint plant if it, in turn, is de-
termined eligible. However, it must be noted that, on a capital cost
basis, a joint plant would be indicated regardless of aid eligibility.
220
-------
WASHBURN AREA - OPERATING COSTS - Any comparative analysis must consider
operational and maintenance costs as well as capital costs, especially as
all operating costs must be raised locally. Preliminary estimates of
operating costs have been prepared for both a joint plant and separate
plant systems. The estimates of operational costs are summarized in
Table 90.
TABLE 90
SUMMARY OF OPERATING COSTS
WASHBURN
Separate Plants
Industry Taterstate
Loading Condition C-l
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
$70,000/yr
65,200
53,000
76,500
72,100
57,000
Town
Condition C-3 Total
$18,000/yr
18,000
18,000
18,000
18,000
18,000
$88,100/yr
83,200
71,000
94,500
90,100
75,000
Joint Plant
Condition C-3
$75,100/yr
69,700
57,000
82,800
76,800
60,300
Estimated
Savings
$13,100/yr
13,500
14,000
11,700
13,300
14,700
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
The costs in Table 90 include labor costs, power costs, chemical costs,
heating and general utilities and maintenance. The major items are labor
and power costs. Table 90 indicates that, in addition to a capital cost
savings, an operating cost savings of about $13,500/yr may be possible
with a joint plant. These savings are mostly in the form of labor costs.
WASHBURN AREA - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS - A total cost comparison of
the systems studied can be achieved by estimating the finance costs for
the capital system and combining them with the operating costs to arrive
at a total annual revenue requirement for the system. For this prelim-
inary analysis, we have assumed 30 year term bonds at 6%. While such
bonding procedures may or may not be acutally utilized by the Town or
the industry, the costs thus arrived at represent reasonable average
finance costs for the project. Prior to construction, the Town should
seek expert financial advice on optimum bonding procedures for the
project.
The summary of estimated finance costs is presented in Table 91, while
the estimated total annual costs are summarized in Table 92.
221
-------
TABLE 91
SUMMARY OF LOCAL FINANCE COSTS*
WASHBURN
Industry
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Separate
Plants
Condition C-l & C-3
$149,000/yr
137,400
115,200
167,300
154,700
126,200
Joint Plant
Condition C-2
$34,500/yr
32,200
27,700
37,900
35,700
29,900
Savings
$114,500/yr
105,200
87,500
129,400
119,000
96,300
*Based on Dual Unit System for all configurations.
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
TABLE 92
SUMMARY - TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS*
WASHBURN
Indus try
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Separate
Plants
Condition C-l & C-3
$237,100/yr
220,500
186,200
271,800
244,800
201,200
Joint Plant
Condition C-2
$109,600/yr
101,900
84,700
120,700
112,500
90,200
Savings
$127, 500 /yr
118,600
101,500
151,100
132,300
111,000
*Based on Dual Unit Systems for all configurations.
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
Study of local treatment at Washburn indicates that the Town and Tater-
state Frozen Foods should consider joint treatment of domestic and
industrial wastes in the community. The potential economic advantages
to both parties far outweigh the administrative and financial negotia-
tion problems inherent in such a system. This recommendation is in
line with prior recommendations of the Jordan Company in its 1966
Report to the Town of Washburn. The following advantages are realized
with a joint system:
222
-------
1. Total capital costs of joint treatment plant are
about 15% less than two plants, if equally flexible
and reliable systems are installed.
2. Governmental aid would not be available for a plant
treating only the Taterstate waste. This has a very large
impact on local costs.
3. Operational costs for a joint plant are also about
15% less than for the two plant system.
4. The additional nutrients provided to a joint system by
the municipal wastes will be beneficial in operating the
biological system.
Future expansion of the treatment plant must also be considered. The fore-
going preliminary design and cost estimates are based on a municipal waste
load projection to the year 1995. The loads generated at Taterstate are
assumed to represent present production (with in-plant changes considered),
and with a planned expansion of a flake line. Should Taterstate greatly
increase its production beyond those projected, or should another signifi-
cant waste producing industry locate in Washburn, the plant would have to
be expanded. While it is practical to project municipal waste loads, it is
not practical to anticipate significant industrial expansion unless it is
firmly planned. However, in an industrial treatment facility, it is vital
to design the initial facility so that it may be expanded with relative
ease. This approach has been taken at Washburn. If it becomes the public
policy of the Town or other public agency to provide treatment of the
Taterstate and other industry wastes, it will be no more difficult, and
probably less so, to expand a joint plant than it would a separate plant.
Provision of such facilities will, in fact, enhance the Town's economic
growth potential.
In addition to the treatment costs indicated in prior tables, the Town
must support the remaining in-town interceptor system, if it is con-
structed at this time. The estimated total and local cost qf these addi-
tional facilities is presented in Table 93.
TABLE 93
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES - SUPPLEMENTAL TOWN FACILITIES
WASHBURN
Unit Total Cost Local Cost*
Interceptors $ 99,000 $ 14,800
Storm Drains 70,000 70,000
Crouseville Int & TP 70,000 10,500
Crouseville San Sewers 65,000 32,500
Sanitary Sewer Extension 70.000 35 »OOQ
TOTALS $374,000 $162,800
*Assumes 85% aid on Int & TP, State & EPA, - 50% FHA aid on Sanitary Sewers,
223
-------
MAPLETON AREA COSTS - The scope of this study generally would not in-
clude cost analysis of each small community in the Basin. However, as
the geographical orientation of Mapleton is such that physical inter-
connection with the Core Area could be feasible, cost data was prepared
to allow realistic comparison of local versus regional system.
Capital cost estimates for the Mapleton treatment plant are available
through the Town's 1967 planning effort. The capital cost of the treat-
ment plant at that time was estimated at $190,240, including engineering
and contingencies. This estimate was based On an Engineering News Record
Index of 1100. Updating to 1971 prices, with an ENR Index of 1600, this
estimate would rise to $277,000. The 1967 design did not provide facili-
ties for excess solids handling during the winter months. Current regula-
tions will make such facilities mandatory. Inclusion of solids handling
facilities will raise the estimated plant cost to about $320,000. The
local cost of this plant would be about $48,000, again assuming an 85%
aid factor. Operating costs at Mapleton are estimated at about $12,000
per year. The comparison of local costs at Mapleton, with regional inter-
connection, is presented in a later section.
PRESQUE ISLE AREA - CAPITAL COSTS - Cost estimates have been prepared for
the local community system in the Presque Isle area. The facilities
estimated include treatment facilities for the Presque Isle domestic
wastes and the Potato Service, Inc industrial wastes both individually and
in combination. For the combined system the costs of transporting the
domestic wastewater to the joint plant site have also been estimated.
The loading condition designation is that described earlier in Table 70-
The reader is referred thereto for definition. The capital cost esti-
mates are summarized in Table 94.
TABLE 94
SUMMARY CAPITAL COSTS
Presque Isle Area
Individual Systems
Industry
Loading
A-l
A-2
A-3
PSI Alone
Condition B-l
Est Cost
$4,400,000
3,950,000
2,650,000
PQI Alone
Condition B-3
Est Cost
$1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
Total
Est Cost
$5,500,000
5,050,000
3,750,000
224
-------
TABLE 94
(CONTINUED)
Joint System (Condition B-2)
Indus try
Loading
A-l
A-2
A- 3
Transport
Cost
$260,000
260,000
260,000
Adj In- town
Plant Cost
$190,000
190,000
190,000
Treatment
Cost
$4,470,000
4,100,000
2,850,000
Total
Cost
$4,920,000
4,550,000
3,300,000
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
Analysis of Table 94 indicates considerable capital cost savings can be
gained by adopting a joint treatment program for the Presque Isle domes-
tic wastes and the Potato Service, Inc industrial wastewaters. The poten-
tial savings are summarized in Table 95.
TABLE 95
SUMMARY - JOINT SYSTEM CAPITAL COST SAVINGS
CONDITION B-2
Presque Isle Area
Loading Industry Capital Cost Savings
A-l $500,000
A-2 500,000
A-3 450,000
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
The local share of the capital costs reported above will be lessened by
application of State and Federal aid programs, as described in the intro-
duction to this section. The effect of this aid is illustrated in Table
96.
Analysis of Table 96 indicates that application of Federal and State aid
factors to the capital costs greatly increases the local cost advantage of
the joint system versus individual systems. These local cost savings are
summarized in Table 97.
225
-------
TABLE 96
LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS
Presque Isle Area
Individual Systems
Industry
Loading
PS I Alone
Condition B-l
Est Local Cost
PQI Alone
Condition B-3
Est Local Cost
Total
Est Local Cost
A-l $4,400,000 $165,000 $4,565,000
A-2 3,950,000 165,000 4,115,000
A-3 2,650,000 165,000 2,815,000
Joint System - Condition B-2
Industry Transport Adj In-town Plant Joint Treatment Total
Loading Est loc Cost Est Local Cost Est Local Cost Est Local Cost
A-l
A-2
A-3
$39,000
39,000
39,000
$28,500
28,500
28,500
$670,500
615,500
428,500
$738,000
683,000
496,000
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
TABLE 97
SUMMARY - LOCAL CAPITAL COST SAVINGS - JOINT SYSTEM
CONDITION B-2
Presque Isle Area
Loading Industry Capital Cost Savings
A-l $3,827,000
A-2 3,432,000
A-3 2,319,000
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
PRESQUE ISLE AREA - OPERATING COSTS - Estimates have been prepared for
the operating costs of both the individual and combined plants in the
Presque Isle area. These costs include labor, power, chlorine and other
chemicals, and general operation and maintenance. These costs assume
a 10 month operation at Potato Service, Inc. Table 98 summarizes the
operating costs of the required facilities.
226
-------
TABLE 98
SUMMARY OPERATING COSTS
Presque Isle Area
Individual System
Industry
Loading
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
PS I Alone
Condition B-l
Oper Costs
$185,000/yr
168,000
118,000
PQI Alone
Condition B-3
Oper Costs
$68,000/yr.
68,000
68,000
Total
Oper Cost
$253,000/yr
236,000
186,000
Joint System - Condition B-2
Industry Total
Loading Oper Cost
A-l $243,000/yr
A-2 230,000
A-3 176,000
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
Analysis of Table 98 indicates a modest operating cost savings by adop-
tion of a joint plant. The savings are not as pronounced as was the case
in Washburn due to the transportation costs and the costs of general
maintenance at the existing Presque Isle facility.
PRESQUE ISLE AREA - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS - The total annual costs
required to support the Presque Isle area facilities will be the opera-
tion costs, as outlined above, plus the finance costs necessary to support
the local bonds. Again, 30 year term bond at 6% have been assumed for
preliminary design analysis. It is recognized, however, that industry
would utilize other financial procedures if individual plants were
adopted. Table 99 summarizes the finance costs, and Table 100 summarizes
the total, annual revenue required.
227
-------
TABLE 99
SUMMARY - SYSTEM FINANCE COSTS
Presque Isle Area
Individual Systems
Industry
Loading
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
PSI Alone
Condition B-l
Finance Cost
$320,000/yr
287,000
193,000
PQI Alone
Condition B-3
Finance Cost
$12,000/yr
12,000
12,000
Total
Finance Cost
$332,000/yr
209,000
205,000
Joint System - Condition B-2
Industry
Loading
A-l
A-2
A-3
Total
Finance Cost
$54,500/yr
50,200
35,600
NOTE:
See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
TABLE 100
SUMMARY - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Presque Isle Area
Individual Systems
PSI Alone
PQI Alone
Industry
Loading
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
Condition B-l
Annual Cost
$505,000/yr
455,000
311,000
Condition B-3
Annual Cost
$80,000/yr
80,000
80,000
Total
Annual Cost
$585,000/yr
535,000
391,000
Joint System - Condition B-2
Industry
Loading
A-l
A-2
A-3
Total
Annual Cost
$297,500/yr
280,200
231,600
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
228
-------
Analysis of Table 100 indicates a substantial reduction in annual revenue
required by adoption of the joint treatment system. Most of this sav-
ings is in the finance cost, which reflects both the overall capital
cost reductions by a joint plant and the aid eligibility for public sys-
tems. The overall annual savings is summarized in Table 101.
TABLE 101
SUMMARY - ANNUAL COST SAVINGS - JOINT SYSTEM
CONDITION B-2
Presque Isle
Annual
Industry Loading Cost Savings
A-l $287,500/yr
A-2 254,800
A-3 159,400
NOTE: See Table 70 for design condition coding summary
Study of local treatment at Presque Isle indicates that the Sewer District,
or other public body, and Potato Service, Inc should consider joint treat-
ment of domestic and industrial wastes in the community. The potential
economic advantages to both parties far outweigh the administrative and
financial negotiation problems inherent in such a system. The following
are advantages of a joint system:
1. Total capital costs of joint treatment plant are
about 10 to 12% less than two plants, if equally
flexible and reliable systems are to be installed.
2. Governmental aid would not be available for a plant
treating only the Potato Service, Inc waste. This has a
very large impact on local costs.
3. Operational costs for a joint plant are also
about 5 to 8% less than for the two plant system.
4. The additional nutrients provided to a joint system by the
municipal wastes will be beneficial in operating the bio-
logical system.
Future expansion of the treatment plant must also be considered. The
foregoing preliminary design and cost estimates are based on a municipal
waste load projection to the year 1995. The loads generated at Potato
Service, Inc are assumed to represent present production (with in-plant
changes considered)* Should Potato Service, Inc greatly increase its
production beyond, those projected, or should another significant waste
producing industry locate in Presque Isle, the plant would have to be
229
-------
expanded. While it is practical to project municipal waste loads, it is
not practical to anticipate significant industrial expansion unless it
is firmly planned. However, in an industrial treatment facility, it is
vital to design the initial facility so that it may be expanded with
relative ease. This approach has been taken at Presque Isle-Potato
Service, Inc joint plant. If it becomes public policy to provide
treatment of the Potato Service, Inc and other industry wastes, it will
be no more difficult, and probably less so, to expand a joint plant than
it would a separate plant.
While the plant expansion in the vicinity of Potato Service, Inc would not
be difficult, it must be recognized that the piped system from the exist-
ing Presque Isle plant to the vicinity of Potato Service, Inc will be an
expansion constraint. If a major wet process industry should locate in
in-town Presque Isle, the piped transport system could prove inadequate.
However, the system could handle reasonably large loads by utilizing the
existing sedimentation tanks as equalization tanks to remove peak flow
excess. In general, however, it would be more desirable to locate
such wet process industries in an area where direct flows to the municipal-
industrial plant could be achieved. This factor should not be considered
an obstacle to joint facilities, however, as it must be recognized that
with in-town plant expansion, very definite capacity limits would exist.
CARIBOU AREA - CAPITAL COSTS - Cost estimates have been prepared for the
local community systems in the Caribou area. In Caribou, current policy
dictates joint treatment of the industrial and domestic wastewaters.
All facilities, therefore, have been based on this policy, as described
under the preliminary design section. Estimates have been prepared for
the various options of in-town primary treatment, and the option of in-
town expansion versus treatment of Grimes Mill. The loading condition
and combination options are coded in the same manner as designated under
Table 73. The reader is referred to that section for coding definitions.
The capital costs for the expanded Caribou in-town (Condition D-l) fa-
cilities are presented in Table 102, and those of the Grimes Mill option
(Condition D-2) are presented in Table 103.
Analysis of Tables 102 and 103 indicate that it will cost more to
treat the Caribou wastewaters at Grimes Mill than by expansion of the
in-town plant. The cost differential is summarized in Table 104.
230
-------
TABLE 102
CAPITAL COSTS - IN-TOWN PLANT EXPANSION
CONDITION D-l
Caribou Area
WITHOUT GRIMES MILL FLOW (Condition C-l):
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-l
A-2 + B-l + C-l
A-3 + B-l + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
Treatment Inter-
Primary Biological ceptor
-
$115,000
90,000
75,000
$4,820,000
3,730,000
2,820,000
4,660,000
3,620,000
2,810,000
$175,000
175,000
175,000
—
Est Total
Capital Costs
$4,995,000
3,905,000
2,995,000
4,775,000
3,710,000
2,885,000
WITH GRIMES MILL FLOW (Condition C-2):
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
Treatment Inter-
Primary Biological ceptor
^
-
-
$115,000
90,000
75,000
$5,940,000
4,760,000
3,920,000
5,690,000
4,570,000
3,910,000
$905,000
905 ,000
905,000
730,000
730,000
730,000
Est Total
Capital Costs
$6,845,000
5,660,000
4,825,000
6,535,000
5,390,000
4,715,000
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
231
-------
TABLE 103
CAPITAL COSTS - GRIMES MILL SITE
CONDITION D-2
Caribou Area
W/0 MAJOR INDUSTRY AT GRIMES (Condition C-l)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-l
A-2 + B-l + C-l
A-3 + B-l + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
Treatment Transport
In-town Biological Cost
$675,000
660,000
625,000
615,000
600,000
575,000
$4,610,000
3,600,000
2,920,000
4,425,000
3,465,000
2,640,000
$930,000
900,000
850,000
930,000
900,000
850,000
Est Total
Capital Costs
$6,215,000
5,160,000
4,395,000
5,970,000
4,965,000
4,065,000
WITH INDUSTRY AT GRIMES (Condition C-2)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
Treatment Transport
In-town Biological Cost
$675,000
660,000
625,000
615,000
600,000
575,000
$5,650,000
4,540,000
3,700,000
5,390,000
4,340,000
3,685,000
$930,000
900,000
850,000
930,000
900,000
850,000
Est Total
Capital Cost
$7,255,000
6,100,000
5,175,000
6,935,000
5,840,000
5,110,000
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
232
-------
TABLE 104
CAPITAL COST DIFFERENTIAL - IN-TOWN VS GRIMES SITE
Caribou Area
Loading Condition
A-l + B-l + C-l
A-2 + B-l + C-l
A-3 + B-l + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
$1,220,000
1,255,000
1,400,000
1,195,000
1,255,000
1,180,000
410,000
440,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
395,000
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
Table 104 indicates that if no significant industrial wastes are to be
generated in the Grimes Mill industrial park (C-l Conditions), it will
cost about 1.25 million dollars additional to utilize the Grimes site. If,
however, a significant wet process industry were to locate in the indus-
trial park, this differential would drop to about $400,000. Other,
non cost factors will also influence the site selection at Caribou.
These are discussed in a later section.
The above tables also suggest that it will be more economic to install
additional primary sedimentation facilities to handle the total waste
flow at the in-town Caribou plant (Condition B-2), rather than separating
the American Kitchen Foods process wastes by construction of a new relief
interceptor (Condition B-l). The differential is about $200,000.
The local share of the Caribou system will be lessened by application of
State and Federal aid programs as described in the introduction of this
section. The effect of this aid is illustrated on Tables 105 and 106.
233
-------
TABLE 105
LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS - IN-TOWN PLANT
CONDITION D-l
Caribou Area
WITHOUT GRIMES MILL FLOW (Condition C-l)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-l
A- 2 + B-l + C-l
A-3 + B-l + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
Total Capital
Cost
$4,995,000
3,905,000
2,995,000
4,775,000
3,710,000
2,885,000
Local
Cost
$750,000
575,000
450,000
700,000
540,000
435,000
WITH GRIMES MILL FLOW (Condition C-2)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
Total Capital
Cost
$6,845,000
5,660,000
4,825,000
6,535,000
5,390,000
4,715,000
Local
Cost
$1,030,000
850,000
725,000
985,000
810,000
710,000
234
-------
TABLE 106
LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS - GRIMES SITE
CONDITION D-2
Caribou Area
WITHOUT GRIMES MILL FLOW (Condition C-l)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-l
A-2 + B-l + C-l
A- 3 + B-l + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
Total Capital
Cost
$6,215,000
5,160,000
4,395,000
5,970,000
4,965,000
4,065,000
Local
Cost
$930,000
770,000
670,000
800,000
745,000
585,000
WITH GRIMES MILL FLOW (Condition C-2)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
Total Capital
Cost
$7,255,000
6,100,000
5,175,000
6,935,000
5,840,000
5,110,000
Local
Cost
$1,075,000
920,000
775,000
1,045,000
865,000
760,000
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
Tables 105 and 106 indicate that the cost differential between the Grimes
Mill site and the in-town expansion is greatly reduced by application of
aid factors. If a major industry were to locate in the Grimes Mill in-
dustrial park, the added local cost would be about $30,000 to $40,000.
A third site alternative, in the Caribou area which would be applicable if
a major industry located in Grimes Mill would be the construction of
two plants, one in-town to service existing loads, and a second plant at
Grimes Mill to serve the new industry. A cost comparison has been pre-
pared for this option and is presented in Table 107.
235
-------
TABLE 107
CAPITAL COST COMPARISON - TWO PLANT OPTION
Loading
Condition
In-town
Plant
Caribou Area
Grimes
Plant
Total
Joint
Plant at
Grimes
Savings
Joint Plant
A-l + B-l + C-l $4,995,000
A-2 + B-l + C-l 3,905,000
A-3 + B-l + C-l 2,995,000
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
4,775,000
3,710,000
2,885,000
$2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
$7,495,000
6,405,000
5,495,000
7,275,000
6,210,000
5,385,000
$7,255,000
6,110,000
5,175,000
6,935,000
5,848,000
5,150,000
$240,000
295,000
320,000
340,000
370,000
275,000
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
Table 107 indicates that if a major industry were to locate at the Grimes
Mill industrial park, it would be more economic to treat its wastewater
jointly with the other Caribou area wastes than it would to build two
plants. This advantage would be greatly increased if the new industry
plant at Grimes Mill was not eligible for State and Federal aid. All
further analysis at Caribou assumed the one plant system, either in-town,
or at the Grimes site.
CARIBOU AREA - OPERATING COSTS - Estimates have been made of the opera-
tion costs for both plant sites in the Caribou area. All operating costs
assume use of the expanded primary option (Condition B-2) rather than the
new interception option (Condition B-l). It was further assumed that the
Grimes site would be used only if a major industry were expected to lo-
cate there (Condition C-2). These costs include labor, power, chlorine
and other chemicals, and general operation and maintenance costs. Again
a 10 month industry operation season is assumed for the processing plants.
236
-------
TABLE 108
SUMMARY - OPERATING COSTS
Caribou Area
In-town Plant
Loading
Condition D-l
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A- 3 + B-2 + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
..---*- _ •*• — —
$258,000/yr
206,000
179,000
326,000
276,000
242,000
Grimes Plant
Loading
Condition D-2
Est Oper Cost
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
$363,000/yr
311,000
275,000
NOTE: See Table 73 for design condition coding summary
Analysis of Table 108 indicates that the operating cost at the Grimes
Mill site would be about 10 to 15% more than the in-town site. This
is due to the pumping costs required to carry the in-town wastewater
to Grimes, and the fact that even if the biological plant is built at
Grimes, the in-town plant must be maintained and operated as a primary
plant with solids dewatering and disposal. Other, non-cost, factors
concerning site selection in Caribou are discussed in a later section.
CARIBOU AREA - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS - The total annual costs re-
quired to support the Caribou area facilities will be the operating
costs outlined above, plus the finance costs necessary to support the
local bonds issued. Like the analysis of other community systems, a 30
year term bond at 6% interest has been assumed for preliminary design an-
alysis. Table 109 summarizes the local annual finance costs and the
total annual revenue requirements.
237
-------
TABLE 109
SUMMARY - FINANCE COSTS & ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Caribou Area
IN-TOWN PLANT (Condition D-l)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-2 + C-l
A-2 + B-2 + C-l
A-3 + B-2 + C-l
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
Est Finance
Cost
$51,000/yr
40,000
32,000
72,000
59,000
52,000
Est Total Annual
Rev Req
$309,000/yr
246,000
211,000
398,000
335,000
294,000
GRIMES SITE (Condition D-2)
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
Est Finance
Cost
$76,000/yr
64,000
56,000
Est Total Annual
Rev Req
$429,000/yr
375,000
331,000
Analysis of Table 109 indicates that use of the Grimes site would cost
about $30,000 to $40,000 per year more than the in-town site, assuming a
major industry locates in the Grimes Mill industrial park. However,
other factors must be considered in final site selection in the Caribou
area. The main problem faced with expansion of the in-town Caribou site
is the limited space available. This is contrasted by the Grimes site
which has ample land area available. This space factor will affect the
site selection decision in several ways.
The in-town site can be utilized to treat the expected wastewaters flows,
including flow from a major industry in the Grimes Mill industrial park,
to a level sufficient to meet current water quality standards. However,
as discussed in the companion Basin Planning Report, the assimilative
capacity of the Aroostook River will be fully taxed at times of drought
conditions. This raises the distinct possibility of having to curtail
waste load input on occasions. This can most effectively be accomplished
by diverting a portion of the treated waste flow to a storage pond during
drought for release at a higher flow regime in the river. It is quite
possible that such facilities may be eventually required if industrial
expansion is to take place. There is no opportunity to provide such a
facility at the in-town plant location, while there is sufficient space .
at the Grimes site.
238
-------
A second factor which must be considered in site selection at Caribou is
the possxbility of the requirement of nutrient removal at some future
date. The fact that the Aroostook River is a trans-boundary river tribu-
tary to the Saint John may hasten this requirement due to the power pools
on the Saint John at Beechwood and Mactaquac. A Saint John River Basin
study is expected to begin shortly which may clarify this issue. It
should be noted that the limited space at the in-town site would make in-
stallation of such facilities somewhat more costly and difficult than at
the Grimes site.
A third factor to be considered in site selection at Caribou is that
of future solids handling requirements. The initial program will call
for sanitary landfill of the excess biologic solids. This can be
accomplished from either site. However, the companion Basin Plan-
ning Report recommends that a program be established to attempt to util-
ize all, or a portion of, the excess biologic solids as a soil conditioner
on agricultural lands. To accomplish this, some storage capacity for
excess solids on site would be desirable. This cannot be obtained at
the in-town location because of site limitations and its proximity to
highly developed areas. Such storage or processing of solids in the
future could be accomplished at the Grimes Mill site.
In summary, while the initial costs of treatment would seem to favor plant
expansion at the in-town site, long range space and treatment requirements
may offset this short range cost advantage. If a local community system
is adopted at Caribou, serious consideration should be given to use of the
Grimes Mill site.
FORT FAIRFIELD AREA - CAPITAL COSTS - Capital cost estimates have been
prepared for the treatment plant alternatives at Fort Fairfield as proposed
in the foregoing sections. The following estimates are keyed to the Fort
Fairfield coding system presented earlier in Table 75. The reader is
referred thereto for definition of alternatives and loading factors.
Estimated capital costs for the treatment facilities at Fort Fairfield
are presented in Table 110.
TABLE 110
SUMMARY - CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
Fort Fairfield
Condition C-l - Single Unit
A & P Alone
Industry Loading Est Cost
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
+ B-2
A-l
A-2
A-3
B-2
B-2
$1,400,000
1,390,000
1,050,000
1,290,000
1,280,000
1,050,000
Condition C-2 - Dual Units
A & P and Municipal Combined
Indus try Loading Est Cost
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
$1,520,000
1,480,000
1,210,000
1,480,000
1,440,000
1,170,000
239
-------
TABLE 110
(CONTINUED)
Condition C-l -Dual Units
A & P Alone
Industry Loading Est Cost
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l +
A-2 +
A-3 +
B-2
B-2
B-2
$1,488,000
1,460,000
1,120,000
1,420,000
1,350,000
1,110,000
Condition C-3 - Dual Units
Municipal Alone
Sub Condition Est Cost
24 hr Aer
20 hr Aer
$ 500,000
490,000
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary
Analysis of Table 110 indicates that the costs of a plant treating the
A & P waste only would range from about $1,050,000 to $1,480,000 depending
on the configuration and on in-plant changes undertaken. A plant treating
both the domestic and industrial wastewaters will have a cost range of
from about $1,170,000 to $1,520,000, again depending on configuration and
in~plant changes at A & P. The total cost of separate plants would be the
sum of the A & P plant plus the municipal extended aeration plant. This
total cost would range from about $1,530,000 to about $1,980,000. The
potential capital cost savings, however, must be tempered by an added
capital cost of about $60,000 to transfer the domestic wastewaters to
the A & P s.ite. A summary of the potential cost savings, assuming dual
units at the A & P plant, is presented in Table 111.
TABLE 111
COMPARATIVE COST SUMMARY - JOINT VS SEPARATE PLANTS
Fort Pairfield
Indus try
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
NOTE: See Table
Capital Cost
Separate Plants
Condition C-l & C-3
$1,980,000
1,960,000
1,620,000
1,920,000
1,850,000
1,510,000
75 for design condition
Capital Cost
Joint Plant
Condition C-2
$1,580,000
1,540,000
1,270,000
1,540,000
1,500,000
1,230,000
coding summary
Estimated
Savings
$400,000
420,000
350,000
380,000
350,000
380,000
240
-------
From Table 111 it can be seen that a significant capital cost savings may
be realized by installation of a joint treatment facility, ranging from
$350,000 to $420,000. The existance of State and Federal grant-in-aid
programs will have substantial effect on local capital costs. Eligibility
for State and Federal grants-in-aid, as applied to industrial waste plants
and combined domestic-industrial waste treatment facilities was discussed
in earlier paragraphs.
At Fort Fairfield, this interpretation will mean that if a separate plant
is constructed for the A & P wastewaters, it would not be eligible for
aid. It definitely would not be eligible if constructed by the A & P
Company. Also, a new primary sedimentation tank and influent pumps for
the A & P processing wastes would not be eligible for aid, even if a
joint plant is constructed. The remaining portion of the joint plant
would be eligible for aid, if all other requirements are met. The effect
of this aid interpretation has a very marked effect on local project costs,
This is illustrated in Table 112.
TABLE 112
EFFECT OF GRANT-IN AID PROGRAMS ON LOCAL COST
Fort Fairfield
SEPAMTE PLANTS (Condition C-l and C-3)
Indus try
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Total Cost
$1,980,000
1,960,000
1,620,000
1,920,000
1,850,000
1,610,000
Elig Cost
$ 500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
Est Aid
$ 425,000
425,000
425,000
425,000
425,000
425,000
Estimated
Local Cost
$1,555,000
1,535,000
1,195,000
1,495,000
1,435,000
1,185,000
JOINT PLANT (Condition C-2)
Industry
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Total Cost
$1,580,000
1,540,000
1,270,000
1,540,000
1,500,000
1,230,000
Elig Cost
$1,480,000
1,450,000
1,200,000
1,440,000
1,410,000
1,160,000
Est Aid
$1,260,000
1,235,000
1,020,000
1,225,000
1,200,000
985,000
Estimated
Local Cost
$ 320,000
305,000
250,000
315,000
300,000
245,000
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary
241
-------
As can be seen, the lack of aid for the separate plant at A & P greatly
increases the local capital cost, and would cause the local District to
lean strongly to the joint plant if it, in turn, is determined eligible.
However, it must be noted that, on a capital cost basis, a joint plant
would be indicated regardless of aid eligibility.
FORT FAIRFIELD AREA - OPERATING COSTS - Any comparative analysis must con-
sider operational and maintenance costs as well as capital costs, espe-
cially as all operating costs must be raised locally. Preliminary esti-
mates of operating costs have been prepared for both a joint plant and a
separate plant system. The estimates of operational costs are summar-
ized in Table 113.
TABLE 113
SUMMARY OF OPERATING COSTS
Fort Fairfield
Indus try
Loading
Separate
A&P $/Yr
Condition
C-l
Plants
Town $/Yr
Condition
C-3
Total $/Yr
Condition
C-l & C-3
Joint Plant
$/Yr
Condition
C-2
Estimated
Savings
$/Yr
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
$63,100/yr
62,500
48,000
60,100
59,000
47,000
$20,500/yr
20,500
20,500
20,500
20,500
20,500
$83,600/yr
83,000
68,500
80,600
79,500
67,500
$67,800/yr
66,100
50,100
63,000
62,400
40,000
$15,800/yr
16,900
18,400
17,600
17,100
17,500
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary
The costs in Table 113 include labor costs, power costs, chemical costs,
heating and general utilities and maintenance. The major items are labor
and power costs. Table 113 indicates that, in addition to a capital cost
savings, a joint plant will provide an operating cost savings of about
$17,000/yr. These savings are mostly in the form of labor costs.
FORT FAIRFIELD AREA - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS - A total cost comparison
of systems studied can be achieved by estimating the finance costs for
the capital system and combining it with the operating costs to arrive
at a total annual revenue requirement for the system. For this analysis,
30 year term bonds at 6% were assumed. A summary of annual finance costs
is presented in Table 114, while the total annual costs are summarized in
Table 115.
242
-------
TABLE 114
SUMMARY OF FINANCE COSTS*
Fort Fairfield
Indus try
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A- 3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Separate
Plants
Condition C-l & C-3
$112,800/yr
111,400
86,900
108,500
104,100
86,100
Joint Plant
Condition C-2
$23,200/yr
22,100
18,200
22,900
21,800
17,800
Savings
$ 89,600/yr
89,300
68,700
85,600
82,300
68,300
*Based on Dual Unit System for all configurations
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary
TABLE 115
SUMMARY - TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Fort Fairfield
Industry
Loading
A-l + B-l
A-2 + B-l
A-3 + B-l
A-l + B-2
A-2 + B-2
A-3 + B-2
Separate
Plants
Condition C-l & C-3
$196,400/yr
194,400
155,400
189,100
183,600
153,600
Joint Plant
Condition C-2
$91,000/yr
88,200
68,300
85,900
84,200
67,800
Savings
$105,400/yr
106,200
87,100
103,200
99,400
85,800
Study of local treatment at Fort Fairfield indicates that the Fort Fair-
field Utility District, or other public body, should consider construc-
tion of a treatment plant serving both the domestic and industrial wastes
in the community. The following advantages are realized with a joint
system.
1. Total capital costs of a joint treatment plant are
about 20% less than two plants.
2. Governmental aid would not be available for a plant
treating only the A & P waste. This has a very large
impact on local costs.
243
-------
3. Operational costs for a joint plant are also about
20% less than for the two plant system.
4. The additional nutrients provided to a joint system by the
municipal wastes will be beneficial in operating the bio-
logical system.
Future expansion of the treatment plant must also be considered. The
foregoing preliminary design and cost estimates are based on a municipal
waste load projection to the year 1995. However, the load generated at
A & P is assumed to represent present production (with in-plant changes
considered). Should the A & P Company greatly increase its production,
or should another significant waste producing industry locate in Fort
Fairfield, the plant would have to be expanded. While it is practical
to project municipal waste loads, it is not practical to anticipate sig-
nificant industrial expansion unless it is firmly planned. In an indus-
trial treatment facility it is vital to design the initial facility so
that it may be expanded with relative ease. This approach has been
taken at Fort Fairfield. If it is public policy to provide treatment for
A & P and other industry wastes, it will be no more difficult to expand
a joint plant at the A & P location than it would a separate plant.
This consideration should not preclude a joint effort.
EASTON AREA - CAPITAL COSTS - Cost estimates have been prepared for the
local community systems in the Easton area. The facilities estimated
include individual systems for each industry and the Town, and for the
various combinations outlined in the previous section. The estimates
also included the outfall system required to carry the treated waste-
waters to the Aroostook River, and the low flow augmentation system
required to meet minimum flow conditions in the Prestile. No cost
allowances have been made for primary sedimentation facilities at the
industry. The loading condition and combination options are coded in
the same manner as previously designated in Table 79. The reader is
referred to Table 79 for coding definition. The capital cost estimates
for the combined industry and industry-domestic systems are .presented
in Tables 116 and 117.
TABLE 116
CAPITAL COSTS - INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Easton Area
Vahlsing, Inc
Condition A
Loading
Condition Est Cost
Maine Sugar Industries
Condition B
Loading
Condition Est Cost
A-l
A-2
A-3
$2,400,000
2,100,000
1,600,000
B-l
B-2
B-3
$1,700,000
1,300,000
1,000,000
Easton Municipal - Condition C-3 - Est Cost = $420,000
244
-------
TABLE 116
(Continued)
Transfer Industrial Wastes to Aroostook River - Condition D-l -
Est Cost = $1,100,000
Total Capital Costs - Ind Systems
Condition C-l ^^
A-l + B-l = $5,620,000 A-l + B-2 = $5,220,000 A-l + B-3 = $4,920,000
A-2 + B-l = 5,320,000 A-l + B-2 = 4,920,000 A-2 + B-3 = 4,620,000
A-3 + B-l = 4,820,000 A-3 + B-2 = 4,420,000 A-3 + B-3 = 4,120,000
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
TABLE 117
CAPITAL COSTS - JOINT SYSTEMS
Easton Area
Loading
Condition
A-l + B-2 + C-l*
A-2 + B-l + C-l*
A-3 + B-l + C-l*
A-l + B-2 + C-l*
A-2 + B-2 + C-l*
A-3 + B-2 + C-l*
A-l + B-3 + C-l*
A-2 + B-3 + C-l*
A-3 + B-3 + C-l*
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-2 + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2
Treatment
$3,860,000
3,760,000
3,470,000
3,700,000
3,350,000
2,800,000
3,500,000
2,900,000
2,300,000
3,890,000
3,790,000
3,450,000
3,730,000
3,380,000
2,830,000
3,530,000
2,930,000
2,330,000
Municipal
Pumping
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
Outfall to
Aroostook
$1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
Total
$4,970,000
4,860,000
4,570,000
4,800,000
3,450,000
2,900,000
4,600,000
4,000,000
3,400,000
5,240,000
5,140,000
4,800,000
5,080,000
4,730,000
4,180,000
4,880,000
4,280,000
3,680,000
*C-1 Conditions include only the cost of industrial waste treatment. For
a separate Easton municipal plant, add $420,000-
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary.
245
-------
In Table 117 the C-l conditions assume the Easton domestic wastes are not
included in the joint plant, while the C-2 conditions assume they are in-
cluded. While the C-l condition is theoretically possible, it is quite
likely that if a joint system is adopted in Easton, it will be accomplished
by a public body and the Easton domestic wastes would be included. There-
fore, only the C-2 conditions at Easton were used for additional study.
Analysis of Tables 116 and 117 indicate that in general, savings can be
achieved by adopting a joint industry-municipal system in Easton. These
savings are summarized in Table 118.
TABLE 118
SUMMARY - CAPITAL COST SAVINGS - JOINT SYSTEM
Easton Area
Loading Condition Est Capital Savings
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-2 + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2
$380,000
180,000
20,000
140,000
190,000
240,000
40,000
350 ,000
440,000
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
In general, savings of $200,000 to $400,000 can be expected if a joint
plant system is adopted for the Easton area. The variations in the fig-
ures in Table 118 are to be expected with preliminary estimating proce-
dures. The total savings in capital cost for a joint plant at Easton
is not as large as similar facilities in other communities. The savings
are tempered by the costs of pumping the municipal wastewater to Easton
Station and the cost of transferring the effluent to the Aroostook
River.
As presented in the previous section, the installation of advanced waste
treatment facilities at Easton is a possible option, in lieu of transfer
to the Aroostook River. While a detailed cost analysis has not been
conducted, a rough analysis suggests cost ranges for comparison with
transfer. Stephan, etal^°reported on the status of advanced treatment
and wastewater renovation in 1970, giving approximate cost values. The
approximate cost of full advanced wastewater treatment facilities at
Easton, based on the cited published data, is presented in Table 119.
246
-------
TABLE 119
APPROXIMATE CAPITAL COSTS - ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
CONDITION D-3
Easton Area
Loading Condition Approx Capital Cost
A-l + B-l $8,000,000
A-2 + B-l 7,200,000
A-3 + B-l 5,800,000
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
Although the above table represents an approximate cost only, it is evi-
dent that the installation of full advanced wastes treatment facilities
at Easton is much more costly than transfer to the Aroostook River, as-
suming such transfer can be legally accomplished. This is discussed in
detail in the companion Basin Planning Report.
The local share of the Easton system cost will be lessened by application
of State and Federal aid programs as described in the introduction to this
section. The effect of this aid is illustrated in Tables 120 and 121.
TABLE 120
LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS
Easton Area
Individual Systems
Vahlsing, Inc
Condition
A
A-l
A-2
A-3
- $2,400
= 2,100
= 1,600
,000
,000
,000
Maine Sugar ,
Condition
B
B-l =
B-2 =
B-3 =
$1,700
1,300
1,100
Ind.
,000
,000
,000
Transfer
Condition
D-l
$1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
Easton
Condition
C-3
$61,000
61,000
61,000
Total
$5
4
3
,261,
,561,
,761,
,000
,000
,000
NOTE: Est total costs for other combination of loadings can be found by
alternating the A & B load combinations, such as A-l, B-2, etc.
See Table 79 for design condition coding summary.
247
-------
TABLE 121
LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS
Easton Area
Joint Municipal-Industry System
Condition C-2 & D-l
Typical
Loading Est Total Savings
Condition Local Cost Joint System
A-l + B-l + C-2 $790,000 $4,471,000
A-2 + B-l + C-2 780,000
A-3 + B-l + C-2 730,000
A-l + B-2 + C-2 770,000
A-2 + B-2 + C-2 710,000 3,851,000
A-3 + B-2 + C-2 630,000
A-l + B-3 + C-2 740,000
A-2 + B-3 + C-2 650,000
A-3 + B-3 + C-2 560,000 3,201,000
Analysis of Tables 120 and 121 indicate significant local capital cost
savings if a joint system is undertaken by a public body. These sav-
ings will range from 3 million to 4 million dollars, depending on the
loading combinations finally adopted. These savings are largely realized
by application of the grant-in-aid factors, although a joint system would
be the most economical regardless of aid factors.
EASTON AREA - OPERATING COSTS - Estimates have been prepared for the opera-
tion costs of both the individual and combined plants in the Easton area.
These costs include labor, power, chlorine and other chemicals, and gen-
eral operation and maintenance. These costs assume a 10 month operation
at both Vahlsing, Inc and Maine Sugar Industries. It is recognized that
the beet processing campaign would only last 100 to 130 days. However,
plans have been proposed for processing imported cane during other periods.
If only beets are processed, the operating costs could be reduced
accordingly. Estimated operating costs are presented in Table 122.
248
-------
TABLE 122
SUMMARY OPERATING COSTS
Easton Area
Individual Systems
Conditions A, B, & C-3
Est
Vahlsing Cost
A-l
A-2
A-3
$124, 300 /yr
105,200
87,000
Maine
Sugar
Ind
B-l
B-2
B-3
Est
Cost
$110,000/yr
80,500
67,500
Easton
Cost
$17,000/yr
17,000
17,000
Total
Cost
$251,300/yr
202,700
171,500
NOTE: Est total operating costs for other combinations of loadings can
be found by altering the A & B load conditions, such as A-l, B-2,
etc.
Loading
Condition
Joint System
Conditions C-2 & D-l
Est
Oper Cost
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-2 + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2
$232,000/yr
214,000
193,000
218,000
191,000
166,000
195,000
175,000
154,000
Typical
Savings $/Yr
Joint System
$18,700/yr
$ll,700/yr
17,500/yr
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
Analysis of Table 122 indicates that a joint treatment system in Easton,
receiving both the industrial and municipal wastes, has significant
advantages over individual treatment facilities.
249
-------
EASTON AREA - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS - The total annual costs re-
quired to support the Easton area facilities consist of the operating
costs, as outlined above, plus the finance costs to support the local
bonds. Again, 30 year bonds at 6% has been assumed for preliminary de-
sign analysis. It is recognized that industry would utilize other finan-
cing procedures if individual plants were adopted, but the data presented
provides reasonable comparative data. Table 123 summarizes the finance
costs, while Table 124 summarizes the total annual revenue requirements.
TABLE 123
SUMMARY - SYSTEM FINANCE COSTS
Easton Area
Individual Systems
Vahlsing
Condition
A
Maine Sugar Ind
Condition
B
Transfer
Condition
D-l
Easton
Condition
C-3
Total
A-l = $174,000/yr B-l = $124,000/yr $80,000/yr $4,500/yr $382,500/yr
A-2 = 153,000 B-2 = 95,000 80,000 4,500 332,500
A-3 = 116,000 B-3 = 73,000 80,000 4,500 273,500
Loading
Conditions
Joint Systems
Conditions C-2 & D-l
Est
Cost
A-l + B-l + C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-2 + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2
Typical
Cost Savings
$57,400/yr
56,600
53,100
56,000
51,600
46,700
53,700
47,200
40,600
$325,100/yr
280,900
232,900
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
250
-------
TABLE 124
SUMMARY - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Easton Area
Individual Systems
Vahlsing
Condition
A-l =
A-2 =
A-3 =
A
$298
258
203
,300/yr
,200
,000
Maine Sugar Ind
Condition
B-l =
B-2 =
B-3 =
B
$234
175
140
,000/yr
,500
,500
Transfer
Condition
$80
80
80
D-l
,000/yr
,000
,000
Easton
Condition
C-3
$21
21
21
,500/yr
,500
,500
Total
$633
535
445
,800/yr
,200
,000
Loading
Conditions
Joint Systems
Conditions C-2 & D-l
Est
Annual Cost
Typical
Cost Savings
A-l + B-l 4- C-2
A-2 + B-l + C-2
A-3 + B-l + C-2
A-l + B-2 + C-2
A-2 + B-2 + C-2
A-3 + B-2 + C-2
A-l + B-3 + C-2
A-2 + B-3 + C-2
A-3 + B-3 + C-2
$289,400/yr
270,600
246,100
274,000
242,600
212,700
248,600
222,200
194,600
$343,400/yr
292,600
250,400
NOTE: See Table 79 for design condition coding summary
Analysis of Table 124 indicates a significant overall local savings by
adoption of a joint plant system for Easton. Much of this savings is in
the finance costs, which reflect both the overall capital cost reductions
by a joint plant and aid eligibility for public systems.
The costs presented in the foregoing paragraphs do not reflect the cost
of pumping water from the Aroostook River, for low flow augmentation of
the Prestile during drought conditions. The estimated capital cost for
these facilities is $520,000. These costs must be incurred regardless
of whether joint or individual systems are adopted in Easton. If indi-
vidual systems are adopted, the low flow augmentation facilities would
251
-------
not be eligible for State and Federal aid. If they were constructed as
part of a general public system, their aid eligibility is uncertain.
However, it is believed that a sound case can be made for their inclu-
sion, as the alternatives would be somewhat more costly to all levels
of government. If eligible for aid, the local finance costs would be
estimated at about $6,000/yr and operating costs could run from $2,000
to $6,000/yr depending on required usage. These costs would be additive
to those presented in the foregoing paragraphs.
Study of local treatment at Easton indicates that the Town, or other public
body, and local industries should consider joint treatment of domestic
and industrial wastes in the community. The potential economic advan-
tages to all parties far outweigh the administrative and financial nego-
tiation problems inherent in such a system. The following are advantages
of a joint system:
1. Total capital costs of a joint treatment plant are
about 5% less than multiple plants, if equally flexible
and reliable systems are installed.
2. Governmental aid would not be available for plants
treating only the industrial wastes. This has a very large
impact on local costs.
3. Operational costs for a joint plant are also about 6 to
10% less than for the multiple plant system.
4. The additional nutrients provided^to a joint system by the
municipal wastes will be beneficial in operating the bio-
logical system.
Future expansion of the treatment plant must also be considered. The
foregoing preliminary design and cost estimates are based on a municipal
waste load projection to the year 1995. The loads generated at local
industries are assumed to represent present production (with in-plant
xchanges considered). Should the industries greatly increase their prod-
uction beyond those projected, or should another significant waste pro-
ducing industry locate in Easton, the plant would have to be expanded.
While it is practical to project municipal waste loads, it is not practi-
cal to anticipate significant industrial expansion unless it is firmly
planned. In an industrial treatment facility, however, it is vital to
design the initial facility so that it may be expanded with relative
ease. This approach has been taken at Easton. If it becomes public
policy to provide treatment of industry wastes, it will be no more difficult,
and probably less so, to expand a joint plant than it would a separate
plant.
REGIONAL SYSTEMS
WASHBURN - CORE AREA INTERCONNECT - As described under the preliminary
design sections, facilities were studied to interconnect the Washburn area
to the Core Area at Presque Isle. An economic analysis of these facilities
has been made, including evaluation of capital and operating costs.
252
-------
The Washburn-Core Area interconnect was designed as both a gravity flow
and a pumped system. The estimated capital costs for the physical inter-
connect systems are:
Gravity System = $2,902,000
Pumped System = 2,480,000
Difference = $ 442,000
It is evident that the pumped system is somewhat more economic than the
gravity system due to the difficult construction conditions that would
be encountered along the river.
In addition to the capital costs of the interconnect system, the cost of
treatment must be considered. Primary sedimentation for solids removal
at Washburn will be required prior to entry into the interconnect system.
These facilities are estimated at $280,000 to $300,000 depending on the
Taterstate loading condition.
It will also be necessary to treat the Washburn area wastewaters in the
Core Area plant after transfer. Studies of a regional treatment facility
suggest that the wastewaters can be treated in a large regional facility
for about $15 per population equivalent. If this factor is applied to
the Washburn wastewaters, the Washburn component of regional treatment
costs would range from about $800,000 to $1,400,000, depending on the
Taterstate load condition. With these treatment costs included, an
approximate capital cost comparison between an interconnected and local
system was prepared. This comparison is presented in Table 125.
TABLE 125
INTERCONNECTED VERSUS COMMUNITY SYSTEM*
Washburn Area - Condition C-2
Cost- Cost- Cost-
Condition Condition Condtion
Unit A-l+B-2 A-2+B-2 A-3+B-2
Local Treatment $2,314,000 $2,174,000 $1,737,000
Regional System
Transport Costs 2,902,000 2,850,000 2,800,000
Primary Treatment Costs 300,000 290,000 280,000
Regional Treatment Costs 1,400,000 1,100,000 800,000
Total Regional System $4,602,000 $4,240,000 $3,880,000
Est Savings Local System $2,288,000 $2,066,000 $2,143,000
*Costs based on pumped interconnect system.
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary.
253
-------
From Table 125 it is evident that an interconnected system between Wash-
burn and the Core Area will cost significantly more than a local system.
Even if Federal and State aid factors were applied, the added local cost
would amount to over $500,000. An approximation of comparative operating
costs has also been prepared. These costs are summarized in Table 126.
TABLE 126
COMPARATIVE OPERATING COSTS - INTERCONNECT VS LOCAL
Washburn Area - Condition C-2
Cost Unit
Primary Plant-Taterstate
In Route Transport
Pumping at Presque Isle
Regional Treatment
Totals
Est Oper Costs-Local System
Savings for Local System
Taterstate Design Condition
A-l+B-2 A-2+B-2 A-3+B-2
$18,000/yr
13,500
4,000
63,000
$98,500/yr
$82,800/yr
$15,700/yr
NOTE: See Table 66 for design condition coding summary
$17,000/yr
13,000
3,800
57,200
$91,000/yr
$76,800/yr
$14,200/yr
$15,000/yr
12,000
3,000
44,000
$74 ,000/yr
$60,300/yr
$13,700/yr
It is estimated that an operating cost savings of $14,000 to $16,000
per year can be achieved by adoption of the local Washburn system. To
evaluate both systems on a total annual cost basis, the average annual
finance cost of the additional $2,000,000+ capital cost was computed
using 30 year term bonds at 6% interest. This average annual finance
cost is estimated at $145,000 per year. If based on only local cost,
the additional annual finance cost is estimated at $40,000 per year.
With the total capital cost increase considered, the transfer of the
Washubrn wastewaters to the Core Area for treatment will cost an esti-
mated additional $160,000 per year. If only local financing is consid-
ered, the additional annual local cost is estimated at $54,000 per year.
To complete the analysis of the feasibility of transferring the Washburn
wastewaters to the Core Area for treatment, other, non-direct cost ele-
ments have been considered. These elements are:
1. Comparative Service Area
2. Flexibility for Growth at Washburn
3. Effect on Water Quality
4. General Operational Difficulties
254
-------
The interconnection of the Washburn system with the Core Area will not
increase the basic service area provided by the system over that provided
by treatment at Washburn if the lower cost pressurized system is used.
If the gravity interceptor along the river is used, the basic service
area is expanded greatly. The expanded area would include Crouseville
Village, and all tributary drainage area between Washburn and Presque Isle,
Most of this additional service area is currently in agricultural pro-
duction, and is likely to stay in this usage for the foreseeable future.
It must be recognized that the added service area is only of value if ex-
tensive development is goint to take place in a reasonable period of time.
The anticipated growth rate in the Washburn area is such that only a
small portion of the added service area will actually be used during a 20
year design period.
The interconnected system will not provide the Town of Washubrn with the
flexibility for growth that a local treatment system will. The major
cost of interconnection is the force main, or gravity interceptor, con-
necting Washburn and the Core Area. This must be sized, at this time,
for a reasonably anticipated flow. If too large, the time of transfer
becomes so great that operating and maintenance problems would be expected.
Also, such oversizing at this time would be speculative in anticipation
of significant growth, and would tie up capital funds which may be needed
for other community projects. Once installed, the only way to gain any
significant increase in capacity is to build a parallel line; whereas,
a local treatment plant at Washburn can be designed for ready expansion
as the demand arises. Thus, the physical interconnection could prove
to be a constraint on growth in the Washburn area.
The water quality standards established for the Aroostook River can be
met by either a local treatment plant or the interconnected regional
system. Discharge of treated wastewater at Washburn will affect the
water quality below the discharge. The limiting factor on discharge at
Washburn is the B-l classification of the river in the vicinity of Cari-
bou. The treatment proposed at Washburn, however, would meet this classi-
fication with reasonable allowance for growth in the area. Studies in-
dicate the oxygen sag point in the river created by organic discharge
at Washburn would be located between Presque Isle and Caribou.
Carrying the Washburn wastewater to the Core Area has the potential ad-
vantage of discharge below the Caribou water intake. If this were ac-
complished, essentially all significant waste discharges above Caribou
would be eliminated. This would have the effect of tending to lower
water quality in the Aroostook River below Caribou- More detailed dis-
cussions of waste load impact on the river is presented in the companion
Basin Planning Report. On balance, however, no great gain-in river water
quality would be obtained by connecting Washburn-to the Core Area.
The piped interconnecting system would operate satisfactorily while the
Tatyerstate plant is in operation. However, during periods when the
Taterstate plant is not operating, the domestic wastewaters must still
be transferred by the pipeline. With flows less than 30% of design,
255
-------
the transfer time would increase significantly and velocities would be
lowered somewhat. This may cause operating difficulties in keeping the
flow fresh. While perhaps not critical, such conditions must be considered
a disadvantage for interconnection.
Based on the study of potential benefits which may accrue from regional
interconnection of the Washburn wastewaters with the Core Area system, it
must be concluded that they do not warrant the significant additional
capital and operating costs of such interconnection. The wastewaters
generated at Washburn should be treated locally prior to discharge to the
Aroostook River.
MAPLETON - CORE AREA INTERCONNECT - As described under the preliminary de-
sign section, facilities were studied to interconnect the Mapleton area
with the Core Area at Presque Isle. An economic analysis of these facili-
ties has been made for comparison purposes.
The Mapleton-Core Area interconnect was designed on both gravity and
pumped systems. The estimated capital costs for the physical interconnect
systems are:
Gravity System = $1,062,000
Pumped System = $ 935,000
Difference = $ 127,000
In addition to the interconnection costs, additional capital costs must
be allowed for treatment capacity in the regional system. This, however,
will be quite small due to the large economies of scale. The capital
cost increase to the regional treatment system to handle the Mapleton
wastes would not exceed $15 per capita, or about $15,000. Also, as
the flows are quite small, at least initially, it has been assumed
that the Mapleton flow could pass through the Presque Isle sewer system
with no increase in size required. While this would have to be checked
in detail prior to construction, it is a reasonable assumption for com-'
parative purposes.
With the treatment cost included, the total capital cost of handling the
Mapleton wastewater through the regional system is :
Stream Route $1,077,000
Route 163 Route . . $ 950,000
Difference $ 127,000
With Federal and'State aid applied at the 85% factor, the local costs of
the interconnected system are:
Stream Route. ... . . $ '160,000
Route 163 Route $ 142,500 -
Difference $ 17,500
256
-------
The capital costs of the interconnected system can be compared with the
capital cost of locally treating the Mapleton wastewaters. Capital cost
estimates for the Mapleton treatment plant are estimated at $320,000.
From a capital cost standpoint, the local treatment system is somewhat
more economic than physical interconnection. This is summarized in
Table 127. This table assumes use of the less costly Route 163
interconnection route.
TABLE 127
COST COMPARISON-INTERCONNECTION VERSUS LOCAL TREATMENT
Mapleton Area
Total Local
Unit Capital CosJ: Capital Cost
Interconnected System $950,000 $143,000
Local System 320,000 48,000
Savings, Local System $630,000 $ 95,000
In addition to capital costs, the systems have been compared on an oper-
ating cost basis. The estimated system operating costs for both
systems is $12,000/yr to $15,000/yr. Thus, from a cost standpoint
it will be somewhat more costly to interconnect the Mapleton waste-
waters to the Core Area at Presque Isle.
Again, it must be recognized that factors other than direct costs must
be considered when evaluating local and regional pollution control pro-
grams. These factors include consideration of the following factors:
1. Comparative service area and need for service.
2. Effect on water quality and downstream water uses.
3. Effect on economic growth and development of the Town and
the Region.
The interconnected regional system will significantly increase the po-
tential service area. The interconnection route al
-------
163 between Mapleton and Presque Isle. Additional gravity sewers not
included in the estimates of this report would be required to service
the remianing 60%. Strip development along Route 163 would be encour-
aged unless the Town takes steps to discourage such development.
The primary demand for development will probably be in the vicinity of
Route 163 near Mapleton Village. The areas along Route 163, as it ap-
proaches Presque Isle, tend to be low and wet and are only marginal for
development. It is estimated that the section of Route 163, and adjacent
areas, from the point where it crosses the Presque Isle Stream to Maple-
ton Village, could be provided with basic sewer service through the lo-
cal Mapleton system, equivalent to that provided by the regional system, at
a cost of about $278,000. If this cost were added to the treatment cost
at Mapleton, the total capital cost would amount to $578,000. This can
be compared to $955,000 for the fully interconnected regional system.
Thus, the local service could be expanded to include most of the desirable
land for development in Mapleton at somewhat less capital cost than
through full interconnection.
The demand for added service area must also be considered. The popula-
tion of Aroostook County as a whole has been declining, with a decrease
of 12.8% in the last 10 years. However, the Town of Mapleton has in-
creased in population by 5.5% during this same period. With its close
proximity to the "Core Area" of Presque Isle and Caribou, a modest con-
tinued residential growth in Mapleton will probably continue. However,
the need for service in the vast areas possible by regional interconnec-
tion cannot possibly develop within a 20 year planning period, although
some service adjacent to Route 163 near Mapleton Village may well be
warranted.
There are two primary considerations when evaluating the effect of
treated effluent discharges at Mapleton on water quality. These are:
the water quality at the Presque Isle Water District intake, and the pos-
sible multi-purpose impoundment on the North Branch of the Presque Isle
Stream downstream of Mapleton.
The current classification of the North Branch of the Presque Isle Stream
below Mapleton is B-2. The discharge from the proposed Mapleton treat-
ment plant will not lower this classification. If properly treated, the
discharge from the Mapleton treatment plant will not have any adverse
effect on the water quality provided by the Presque Isle Water District
treatment plant, nor will it have any effect on the operating cost of
the Presque Isle plant. Thus, while desirable to eliminate any effluent
discharge above the water intake, the value gained by removing the Mapleton
discharge is small in comparison to the cost of doing so,
As part of its Presque Isle Stream watershed plan, the Soil Conservation
Service has proposed a dual-purpose impoundment on the Lower North Branch
of the Presque Isle Stream below Mapleton. The structure will be for
flood control, and will provide a permanent pool for municipal recrea-
258
-------
tional use. The Town of Mapleton has undertaken considerable planning
for the recreational aspects of this impoundment. To date, the recrea-
tional development at this site is uncertain. The shallow depths of
the permanent pool, together with the high organic content of the
underlying soil, creates doubt concerning the water quality of the pool
for recreational purposes. Concern has also been expressed on the dis-
charge of treated effluent from the Mapleton plant above this location.
The discharge from the Mapleton treatment plant should in no way create
any health hazard if recreational use is made of the permanent pool of
the Lower North Branch impoundment. It is recognized that the plant
effluent will contribute to the nutrient input to the pool. However, this
input will be small in comparison to that from natural runoff from forest
and agricultural lands in the area. Also, considerable amounts of nutri-
ents are readily available in the organic peat which covers most of the pro-
posed impoundment area. The significance of municipal effluent, therefore, in
the overall water quality of the permanent pool is questionable.
For preliminary evaluation, nutrient (phosphorous) removal at the Mapleton
plant was considered. Moderate reductions could be achieved by addition
of alum to the aeration system and utilizing the surplus capacity
available from the solids dewatering unit to handle the increased solids
removal required by such a procedure. This removal technique would re-
quire little additional capital cost, perhaps $10,000 to $15,000. If
higher removals were required, a separate coagulation, sedimentation,
and filtration unit could be provided at an added cost of about $80,000.
Thus, even if phosphorous removal was .warranted, the costs would be
somewhat lower than regional interconnection.
Industrial and economic development is a prime concern to communities in
northern Maine. The Town of Mapleton cannot effectively attract wet
process industries with today's concern for environmental problems. The
capacity of the Presque Isle Stream to receive waste loads is definitely
limited and, while reasonable population growth can be easily accommo-
dated by a local treatment system, large industrial loads definitely can-
not. This would tend to suggest a regionally interconnected system.
Installation of such a system at this time, however, to handle a wet pro-
cess industry would be very speculative and tie up large amounts of local
capital. If the regional system was installed as outlined herein, definite
limits on capacity exist. Any wet process industry locating in Mapleton
would have to connect to the Presque Isle, or regional system. This will
prove a definite economic disadvantage and will discourage such industry.
The development efforts in Mapleton, therefore, should be directed in the
"Dry Process" area, with such development being within the capacity of the
local system. With all factors considered, it is very doubtful if inter-
connection of the Mapleton wastewaters to the Core Area can be justified.
FORT FAIRFIELD - CORE AREA INTERCONNECT - As described in the preliminary
design section, facilities were studied to interconnect the Fort Fair-
field area with the Core Area at Grimes Mill. An economic analysis of
259
-------
these facilities has been prepared, including evaluation of capital and
operating costs. The Fort Fairfield interconnect was studied in both
directions, ie, the Fort Fairfield area wastes carried to Grimes Mill, and
the Core Area wastes carried to Fort Fairfield for treatment. The capi-
tal costs of the physical interconnections are:
Fort Fairfield to Grimes Mills = $1,725,000
Core Area to Fort Fairfield = $3,200,000
In addition to the costs of the physical interconnect system, the cost of
treatment in the regional system must be considered. The A & P waste-
waters must receive primary treatment prior to entering the interconnect
system. These facilities are estimated at $150,000 to $200,000, depending
on load conditions at A & P.
It will be necessary to treat the A & P wastewaters in the Core Area
biological plant after transfer. This treatment can be accomplished at an
approximate cost of $15 per population equivalent. If this factor is
applied to .the Fort Fairfield wastewaters, the Fort Fairfield component
of regional treatment costs would be about $600,000 to $900,000 depend-
ing on A & P load conditions. With these treatment costs included, an
approximate capital cost comparison for the Fort Fairfield to Grimes
Mill interconnect, and a local community system can be undertaken. This
comparison is presented in Table 128.
TABLE 128
INTERCONNECTED VERSUS COMMUNITY SYSTEM
Fort Fairfield to Grimes Mill - Condition C-2
Cost Cost Cost
Condition Condition Condition
Unit A-l+B-2 A-2+B-2 A-3+B-2
Local Treatment $1,480,000 $1,440,000 $1,170,000
Regional System
Transport Cost $1,725,000 $1,650,000 $1,500,000
Primary Treatment Cost 200,000 175,000 150,000
Regional Treatment Cost 900,000 800,000 600,000
Est Savings - Local System $1,345,000 $1,185,000 $1,080,000
NOTE: See Table 75 for design condition coding summary
From Table 128 it is apparent that a Fort Fairfield-Grimes interconnect
will be nearly double the cost of the local system. Even if Federal and
State aid factors are applied to, the added cost will be significant
in light of the overall project cost.
260
-------
An approximate operating cost analysis of the Fort Fairfield-Grimes inter-
connect, similar to that reported in detail under the Washburn discussion,
indicates approximately equal operating costs between the regional and
local system, with possibly some slight saving for the regional system.
To complete the analysis of the feasibility of transfer of Fort Fairfield
wastewaters to Grimes Mill for treatment other, non-direct cost elements
have been considered. These elements are:
1. Comparative Service Area
2. Flexibility for Growth at Fort Fairfield
3. Effect on Water Quality
4. General Operational Difficulties.
Carrying the Fort Fairfield water to Grimes Mill will not increase the
basic service area over that provided by treatment at Fort Fairfield.
This is due to the pressurized system interconnecting Fort Fairfield
and Grimes Mill.
The interconnected system will not provide the Town of Fort Fairfield
with the flexibility for growth that a local treatment system will. The
major cost of interconnection is the force main connecting Fort Fairfield
and Grimes Mill. This must be sized, at this time, for a reasonably an-
ticipated flow. If too large, the time of transfer becomes so great that
operating and treatment problems can be expected. Once installed,
the only way to gain any significant increase in capacity is to build a
parallel line; whereas, a treatment plant at Fort Fairfield can be de-
signed for ready expansion as the demand arises. The physical intercon-
nection would prove to be a constriant on industrial expansion at Fort
Fairfield.
The water quality standards established for the Aroostook River can be
met by either system. No advantage is gained by transferring the Fort
Fairfield wastewaters to Grimes Mill.
The piped system will operate satisfactorily while the A & P plant is in
operation. During periods when the A & P plant is not operating, however,
the domestic wastewaters still must be transferred by the pipeline. With
flows less than 50% of design, the transfer time will be increased
significantly. This again may cause operating difficulties in keeping
the flow fresh. ,
It is not desirable,or economically justified to interconnect the Fort
Fairfield system with regional system by pumping to Grimes Mill.
A second analysis was made of physical interconnection by carrying the
regional wastewaters to Fort Fairfield for treatment. The capital cost
of this interconnection is estimated,at $3,200,000. If this were accom-
plished, the incremental Fort Fairfield cost of treating the Fort Fair-
field wastes in the regional system would be $600,000 to $900,000. As
261
-------
the size of a regional plant would not greatly increase by addition of
the Fort Fairfield load, no unit reduction in treating the regional
wastes would be anticipated. Thus the net additive cost for such trans-
fer is estimated at about $2,600,000. Operational cost differentials
would be similar to those outlined in the previous section.
The total added capital cost can only be justified if significant added
non-direct benefits can be gained. The four items listed previously
have been reviewed in light of the large scale regional interconnection.
The gravity interconnection will provide a large increase in potential
service area. However, it must be recognized that this is only of value
if entensive development is going to take place within a reasonable per-
iod of time. While growth in Fort Fairfield will, in all likelihood,
occur, only a small portion of this added service area will actually be
used. Study of the topography of the added service area indicates that
60% to 70% of it is in the Hockenhull Brook watershed, which drains to a
point within one mile of the Fort Fairfield treatment plant site. Thus,
60% to 70% of the added service area could be also served by the Fort
Fairfield local system with relatively little added cost. As the service
area in the Hockenhull watershed is more than sufficient to meet any
reasonable needs of the Town, the value of the remaining service area
added by the regional interconnection is relatively small.
The flexibility for growth in Fort Fairfield is essentially the same
for both systems as long as the treatment facility is located in Fort
Fairfield. However, the connecting pipeline could impose some restraint
on upstream industrial growth.
The extension of the regional system downstream to Fort Fairfield would
tend to upgrade the water quality of the Aroostook River between Grimes
Mill and Fort Fairfield, and would tend to lower it below Fort Fairfield.
In both cases, however, the water quality standards of the river could
be met with proper treatment. Even with the transfer of wastewaters to
Fort Fairfield, it is doubtful if the Aroostook River below Caribou
could be raised to a "B" classification, especially as long as the Cari-
bou municipal sewer system is combined in nature. The urban runoff from
Caribou will likely cause frequent coliform bacteria counts above the "B"
classification limit. No significant water quality benefits can be
gained by bringing the Core Area wastes to Fort Fairfield for treatment.
In summary, it must be concluded that the physical interconnection of
Fort Fairfield with the Core Area regional system is not a valid concept,
and all Fort Fairfield wastewaters should be treated locally.
CORE AREA INTERCONNECTIONS - As described under the preliminary design
section, two basic Core Area interconnections were considered; namely,
interconnection of the Easton area wastes with those of the Presque Isle
area for joint treatment, and separate treatment of the Caribou wastes;
and full interconnection of all Core Area wastewaters. These alternatives
represent a two plant, and a single plant system, respectively. Cost
analyses have been undertaken for each of these alternatives. Federal
262
-------
aid and other cost factors are the same as those described in earlier
paragraphs of this section. Cost estimates are coded as described
in earlier sections. The reader is referred to those sections for coding
definitions.
The estimated capital costs of the Easton-Presque Isle joint system are
presented in Table 129.
TABLE 129
SUMMARY CAPITAL COSTS - JOINT PRESQUE ISLE-EASTON
Loading
Condition
IV -
IV -
IV -
IV -
VI -
VI -
VI -
VI -
a
c
g
i
a
c
g
i
Est
Capital Cost
$10,075,00
8 ,800 ,000
8,910,000
7,940,000
7,560,000
6,800,000
6,910,000
6,140,000
NOTE: See Table 83 for design condition coding summary
State and Federal aid has been applied to the combined Easton-Presque Isle
system, in a similar manner to the individual systems outlined in the
foregoing paragraphs. A summary of the estimated local cost of the joint
Easton-Presque Isle system is presented in Table 130.
TABLE 130
SUMMARY - LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS
JOINT PRESQUE ISLE - EASTON SYSTEM
Loading
Condition
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
VI
VI
VI
- a
- c
- g
- i
- a
- c
- g
- i
Est
Local Cap Costs
$1,510,000
1,320,000
1,340,000
1,200,000
1,130,000
1,040,000
1,040,000
920,000
NOTE: See Table 83 for design condition coding summary
263
-------
A comparison of the total capital costs and local capital costs of the
joint system with those of individual community systems is presented with
appropriate discussion in the next section.
Operating costs have also been estimated for the joint Presque Isle-Easton
system. These include labor, power, chlorine and other chemicals, and
other operating costs in a similar manner to the local community systems.
A summary of the estimated operating costs is presented in Table 131. These
are compared with the local system operating costs in the next section..,
TABLE 131
SUMMARY OPERATING COSTS
JOINT PRESQUE ISLE - EASTON SYSTEM
Loading
Condition
IV -
IV -
IV -
IV -
VI -
VI -
VI -
VI -
a
c
g
i
a
c
g
i
Est
Operating Cost
$451,000/yr
403,000
404,000
362,000
344,000
319,000
320,000
295,000
NOTE: See Table 83 for design condition coding summary.
The total operating costs of Table 131, plus the finance costs to support
the local capital costs represent the annual revenue requirements nec-
essary to support the joint Presque Isle-Easton system. Comparable to
the preceding analyses, 30 year term bonds at 6% were assumed. The
total annual revenue requirements are presented in Table 132.
TABLE 132
SUMMARY - ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
JOINT PRESQUE ISLE - EASTON SYSTEM
Loading
Condition
IV -
IV -
IV -
IV -
VI -
VI -
VI -
VI -
a
c
g
i
a
c
g
i
Est Annual
Rev Req
$560,000/yr
499,000
500,000
450,000
426,000
395,000
396,000
362,000
NOTE: See Table 83 for design condition coding summary
264
-------
The annual revenue requirements presented in Table 132 do not include the
costs of low flow augmentation to maintain minimum Prestile Stream flows.
As discussed under the local Easton system, such facilities may be
required to meet the legal requirements of interbasin transfer. As the
aid factors for such facilities are uncertain, the costs are reported
separately. The capital costs are estimated at $520,000, and the
operating costs will run $4,000 to $6,000/yr depending on the required
usage.
The second alternative for Core Area interconnection is carrying the
Easton and Presque Isle area wastewaters downstream to Caribou for
treatment. As described under the preliminary design section, two
interconnecting concepts were studied; namely, the standard piped
interconnect system and the transport-treatment concept. A cost analy-
sis of the two full interconnect systems have been prepared. As presented
earlier, three loading conditions were studied. The final treatment
plant of this interconnect system would be located at Grimes Mill. As
discussed under the design section, the in-town site is not adequate for
treatment of the entire Core Area load. The estimated capital costs of
the standard piped interconnect is presented in Table 133.
Table 133
SUMMARY - CAPITAL COSTS
PIPED INTERCONNECT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Unit
PQI to PSI Transport
Easton to PSI Transport
Low Flow Augmentation
PSI to Caribou Transport
ADJ Caribou In-town Plant
In-town to Grimes Transport
TP at Grimes Site
Totals
Cap Cost
Max Load
$ 450,000
1,550,000
520,000
4,600,000
1,100,000
1,300,000
12,300,000
$21,820,000
Cap Cost
Med Load
$ 450,000
1,400,000
520,000
4,200,000
900,000
1,000,000
9,200,000
$17,770,000
Cap Cost
Min Load
$ 450,000
—
—
4,000,000
750,000
900,000
4,500,000
$10,600,000
State and Federal aid factors would apply to the interconnected system in
a similar manner to that discussed under the local system options. The
estimated local costs are summarized in Table 134.
265
-------
TABLE 134
SUMMARY - LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS
PIPED INTERCONNECT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Loading
Condition
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Est Local
Cap Cost
$3,280,000
2,670,000
1,590,000
Operating costs have also been estimated for the standard piped inter-
connected system. These costs were estimated on the same basis as the
individual system options. The estimated operating costs are summarized
in Table 135.
TABLE 135
SUMMARY - OPERATING COSTS
PIPED INTERCONNECT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Loading Est
Condition Oper Cost
Maximum $750,000/yr
Medium 560,000
Minimum 320,000
The total annual revenue required to support the Core Area interconnected
system is the sum of the operating costs as listed in Table 135, plus the
finance charges for the local capital costs. The finance charges were
computed on 30 year term bond conditions at 6%. The finance costs and
the annual revenue requirements are summarized in Table 136.
TABLE 136
FINANCE COSTS AND ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
PIPED INTERCONNECT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Loading
Condition
Maximum
Medium
Low
Finance
Cost
$238,000/yr
194,000
116,000
Annual
Rev Req
$988,000/yr
754,000
436,000
266
-------
Similar analyses have been prepared for the transport-treatment method
of Core Area interconnection. The capital cost estimate for this sys-
tem is presented in Table 137.
TABLE 137
SUMMARY - CAPITAL COSTS
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Unit
PQI to PSI Transport
Easton to PSI Transport
Low Flow Augmentation
Treatment-Transport Channel
Sub total- System to Caribou
Plant
Cap Cost
Max Load
$ 450,000
1,550,000
520,000
11,500,000
$14,020,000
Cap Cos t
Med Load
$ 450,000
1,400,000
520,000
10,500,000
$12,870,000
Cap Cost
Min Load
$ 950,000
9,000,000
$9,450,000
TERMINAL FACILITIES
Option 1 - In-town Caribou 8,085,000 7,000,000 4,000,000.
Total W/Option 1 $22,105,000 $19,870,000 $13,450,000
7,685,000 6,290,000 3,700,000.
Option 2 - In-town Caribou
Total W/Option 2
$21,705,000
Option 3 - Grimes Site 8,635,000
Total W/Option 3 $22,655,000
$19,160,000 $13,150,000
6,090,000
5,315,000
$19,960,000 $14,765,000
State and Federal aid factors would apply to the treatment-transport con-
cept, in a similar manner to the piped system. The local costs of the
system are summarized in Table 138.
TABLE 138
SUMMARY - LOCAL CAPITAL COSTS
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Terminal
Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Local Cost
Max Load
$3,310,000
3,260,000
3,400,000
Local Cost
Med Load
$2,980,000
2,870,000
2,990,000
Local Cost
Min Load
$2,020,000
1,970,000
2,210,000
267
-------
Operating costs have also been estimated for the treatment-transport
system. These costs are similar to, but slightly higher than the piped
system. This is due to the travel required to service the channel system
and aeration units plus a lower oxygen transfer efficiency. The esti-
mated operating costs are summarized in Table 139.
TABLE 139
SUMMARY - OPERATING COSTS
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Loading Est
Condition Oper Costs
Maximum $780,000/yr
Medium 610,000
Minimum 370,000
The total annual revenue required to support the Core Area treatment-
transport system is in the sum of the operating costs, as listed in
Table 139, plus the finance charges for the local capital cost. The
finance charges were computed for 30 year term bonds at 6%. The fi-
nance costs anc the annual revenue requirements are presented in Table
140, assuming the Grimes site is adopted as the terminal plant.
TABLE 140
FINANCE COSTS & ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
TREATMENT-TRANSPORT SYSTEM - CORE AREA
Loading
Condition
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Finance
Cost
$246,000/yr
217,000
147,000
Total Annual
Rev Req
$l,027,000/yr
827,000
517,000
From the above tables a comparison can be drawn between the standard
piped interconnect system and the treatment-transport system. This
comparison is illustrated in Table 141, assuming the Grimes site is
adopted for terminal treatment.
268
-------
Analysis of Table 141 indicates that the treatment-transport system will
be more costly than a straight piped system, although the differential
is not great for the maximum flow conditions. As the loading conditions
lessen, the cost disadvantage to the treatment transport system increases,
indicating the concept is primarily applicable to large loadings. Other
advantages and disadvantages of each system are discussed in more detail
in the next section, as is the comparison of the full interconnected Core
Area system to the partially interconnected system.
269
-------
TABLE 141
PIPED INTERCONNECT VERSUS TREATMENT-TRANSPORT
COMPARATIVE COSTS
Max Load
Total Cap
Local Cap
Oper
Finance Total Ann Rev Reg
Piped System
Treatment- Transport
Added Cost-Treatment-Transport
Med Load
Piped System
Treatment-Transport
Added Cost-Treatment-Transport
N» Min Load
o Piped System
Treatment-Transport
Added Cost-Treatment-Transport
$21,820,000
22,655,000
835,000
17,770,000
19,960,000
2,190,000
10,660,000
14,765,000
4,105,000
$3,280,000
3,400,000
120,000
2,670,000
2,990,000
320,000
1,590,000
2,210,000
62,000
$750,000/yr
780,000
30,000
560,000
610,000
50,000
320,000
370,000
50,000
$238,000/yr
247,000
9,000
194,000
217,000
23,000
116,000
147,000
31,000
$ 988, 000 /yr
1,027,000
39,000
754,000
827,000
73,000
436,000
517,000
81,000
-------
SECTION IX
COST AND ANCILLARY BENEFIT ANALYSES
The foregoing section presented detailed cost analyses of the many system
alternatives available within the study area. This section summarizes
the comparative costs and any ancillary benefits which may accrue from
adoption of one alternative over another. For illustrative purposes
the high loading option is used in each system comparison.
OUTLYING ADJACENT TOWNS
WASHBURN AREA - The Washburn analysis indicated that it would be somewhat
more economical to construct a plant in Washburn rather than connecting to
the Core Area at Presque Isle. This cost comparison is illustrated by
the costs summarized in Table 142.
TABLE 142
COST COMPARISONS - LOCAL VERSUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
Washburn Area
Cost Local System Interconnected
Item Joint Plant System
Total Capital Cost $ 2,314,000 $ 4,620,000
Local Capital Cost 524,000 947,000
Operating Cost 82,000/yr 98,000/yr
Total Annual Rev Req $ 120,700/yr $ 167,000/yr
The potential ancillary benefits to be gained by the interconnected
system at Washburn are discussed in some detail in the cost analysis
section. In the case of the Washburn interconnection, the benefits
gained over the local system are not significant, and would be offset by
local constraints imposed by such a system.
The Washburn analyses also indicated that a joint plant treating both the
domestic and industrial wastewaters would be more economic than individual
plants. This cost comparison is illustrated by the costs summarized
in Table 143-
271
-------
TABLE 143
COST COMPARISONS - JOINT VERSUS INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Washburn Area
Cost Item Joint System Individual Systems
Total Capital Cost $ 2,314,000 $ 2,700,000
Local Capital Cost 524,000 2,300,000
Operating Cost 82,800/yr 94,500/yr
Annual Revenue Requirements 120,700/yr 271,800/yr
The primary ancillary benefit gained by the joint plant system is adminis-
trative from the State or regional authority viewpoint, as only one plant
must be monitored rather than two, and a single entity within the Wash-
burn area would be responsible for the pollution control problem.
MAPLETON AREA - The Mapleton analyses indicated that it is more economic
to construct a plant in Mapleton rather than interconnecting with the
Core Area at Presque Isle. This cost comparison is illustrated by the
costs summarized in Table 144.
TABLE 144
COST COMPARISONS - LOCAL VERSUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
Mapleton Area
Cost Local Interconnected
Item System System
Total Capital Cost $320,000 $950,000
Local Capital Cost 48,000 142,500
Operating Cost 12,000/yr 12,000+/yr
Annual Revenue Requirements 15,500/yr 22,500+/yr
The primary ancillary benefit to be gained by interconnecting the
Mapleton area with Presque Isle is the elimination of all direct treated
wastewater discharges into the Presque Isle Stream above Presque Isle.
This is of significance due to the water intake of the Presque Isle Water
District. The interconnection would also eliminate one source of nutri-
ents from the contemplated lower North Branch impoundment proposed by
the Soil Conservation Service. Analysis of these benefits, however, in-
dicate that they do not justify the added cost of transporting the small
quantity of wastewater generated in Mapleton. If the waste volumes were
larger, the benefits of interconnection could possibly outweigh the
added costs.
272
-------
FORT FAIRFIELD AREA - The Fort Fairfield analysis indicated that it is
more economical to construct a plant in Fort Fairfield rather than inter-
connecting with the Core Area at Grimes Mill. This cost comparison is
illustrated by the costs summarized in Table 145.
TABLE 145
COST COMPARISONS - LOCAL VERSUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
Fort Fairfield Area
Cost Local System Interconnected
Unit Joint Plant System
Total Capital Cost $1,540,000 $2,825,000
Local Capital Cost 315,000 594,000
Operating Cost 63,000/yr 60,000+/yr
Total Annual Revenue Req 85,900/yr 103,200+/yr
The potential ancillary benefits to be gained by the interconnected sys-
tem at Fort Fairfield are discussed in some detail in the cost analysis
section. In the case of the Fort Fairfield interconnection, the benefits
gained over the local system are not significant, and would be offset by
local constraints imposed by such a system.
The Fort Fairfield analyses also indicated that a joint plant treating
the domestic and industrial wastewaters would be more economical than in-
dividual plants. This cost comparison is illustrated by the costs sum-
marized in Table 146.
TABLE 146
COST COMPARISONS - JOINT VERSUS INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Fort Fairfield Area
Cost Item Joint System Individual System
Total Capital Cost $1,540,000 $1,920,000
Local Capital Cost 315,000 1,495,000
Operating Cost 63,000/yr 80,600/yr
Annual Revenue Requirements 85,900/yr 189,100/yr
The primary ancillary benefits gained by the joint plant system is admin-
istrative from the State or regional authority-viewpoint, as only one plant
must be monitored and a single entity would be responsible for the area's
pollution control program.
273
-------
CORE AREA
The alternatives in the Core Area are more numerous and complex then in
the outlying towns. The potential impact of non-direct ancillary bene-
fits will also be greater in this area.
Analysis of the Core Area indicates that it will not be possible within
reasonable economic limits to treat and dispose of the wastewater gen-
erated in the Easton area via discharge to the Prestile Stream, and that
transfer to the Aroostook River Basin will be necessary. If this is ac-
complished, the analysis indicates it will be more economic to treat
these wastes jointly with the combined Presque Isle municipal and Potato
Service, Inc industrial wastes than to treat in Easton and discharge the
effluent to the Aroostook River. This cost comparison is illustrated by
the costs summarized in Table 147.
TABLE 147
COST COMPARISONS - JOINT VERSUS SEPARATE TREATMENT
Presque Isle-Easton Areas
Cost
Item
Easton
Alone
Joint Plant
PQI-PSI
Joint Plant
Total
Ind Systems
Joint
Easton-PSI-PQI
Total Cap Cost $5,240,000 $4,920,000 $10,160,000 $10,055,000
Local Cap Cost 790,000 738,000 1,528,000 1,510,000
Oper Cost 232,000/yr 243,000/yr 475,000/yr 451,000/yr
Annual Rev Req 289,400/yr 297,500/yr 586,900/yr 560,000/yr
The primary ancillary benefit gained by a single treatment plant for the
Easton-Presque Isle area is the concentration of facilities at a single
location for control and monitoring. Such concentration will also fa-
cilitate attempts to process and utilize the excess biological solids.
Analysis of a full regional interconnected system for the Core Area
indicates that it would be less costly to construct a single plant than
to construct two plants, one at Presque Isle and one at Caribou. For illus-
trative analysis terminal facilities at Grimes Mill has been assumed.
Of the two methods of interconnecting studied, the standard piped system
would be more economic than the treatment-transport system. The compara-
tive costs of the regional Core Area systems is illustrated in Table 148.
274
-------
TABLE 148
COMPARATIVE COSTS - REGIONAL SYSTEMS - COKE AREA
Cost Two Plant One Plant System One Plant System
. item __ System Piped Interconnect Treatment-Transport
Total Capital Cost $17,530,000 $21,820,000 $22,655,000
Local Capital Cost 2,635,000 3,280,000 3,400,000
Operating Cost 820,000 750,000/yr 780,000/yr
Annual Rev Req 1,001,000/yr 988,000/yr 1,027,000/yr
Analysis of Table 148 indicates that while the fully interconnected sys-
tem for the Core Area has a higher cpaital cost than the two plant system,
the total annual revenue requirements are essentially the same for either
system. The treatment-transport system has a slightly higher annual
revenue requirement than the standard piped system. Within the accuracy
of preliminary design estimates, however, the total local annual revenue
requirements for each system are essentially the same.
With the overall local cost requirements for each option of Core Area
facilities about the same, careful analysis must be given to other non-
direct cost factors which may affect system selection. The key element in
any pollution control program is the enhancement of the receiving water,
in this case the Aroostook River.
The companion River Basin Planning Report includes a detailed discuss-
ion of water quality and the impact of waste loads on the river. The
reader is referred to that report for background material. The key as-
pects of this work are summarized herein as they apply to the Core Area
facilities.
The Aroostook River is Class C from Washburn to the Canadian border, ex-
cept for a 3 mile stretch above the Caribou municipal water supply in-
take. This classification is currently being violated on frequent occa-
sions. Studies of the river indicate that it has an excellent assimilative
capacity in all reaches except at the headpool of the dam in Caribou and
at the Tinker dam headpool down river from Fort Fairfield. Except for these
two locations, the river can readily accept the treated effluents with
very little lowering of oxygen content. Within these pools, however,
effluent will have a marked effect on the oxygen content. The "C"
classification calls for a DO level of 5.0 mg/1 for salmon and trout
waters and 4.0 for non-salmon and trout waters under low river flow con-
ditions (7 days low flow - 10 year return frequency).
The Aroostook River above Washburn is an excellent trout stream. It is ex-
pected that this category would certainly apply downstream from Washburn
to the Tinker headpool in the vicinity of Fort Fairfield. The ques-
tion of the Tinker headpool being classified as salmon and trout water
275
-------
may be debated. Prior to dam installations on the Saint John and
Aroostook River, Atlantic salmon migrated into the Aroostook River. It
is currently impossible for sea run salmon to reach the Aroostook River
above Tinker dam. If the problems of power dam and pool passage of salmon
in the Saint John River are solved, and fishways are successfully in-
stalled in Tinker dam, the salmon and trout category would apply. To a
great degree this question will be subject to international negotiation
between the United States and Canada.
The impact of the treated effluent on the Aroostook River, for the maxi-
mum load conditions in the Core Area, is summarized in Table 149.
TABLE 149
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONDITIONS - AROOSTOOK RIVER
Maximum Load Conditions
Core Area
System
2 Plant System
1 Plant System
Est Min DO
Caribou Pool
6.6 mg/1
8.4
Est Min DO
Tinker Pool
5.6 mg/1
4.7 mg/1
From Table 149 it can be seen that the two plant system will increase
the DO problem at Caribou and will lessen the problem at Tinker pool.
The one plant system will eliminate the DO problem at Caribou but will in-
crease the problem at Tinker.
The B-l classification at Caribou dictates a minimum DO concentration of
75% of saturation. At 20°C this value is 6.9 mg/1. It can be seen
that with maximum load conditions, the two plant system may not meet the
B-l classification under design river flow. The single plant system is
well above minimum at Caribou. The DO minimum at Tinker is well above
either the 4.0 or 5.0 mg/1 classification limit with the two plant sys-
tem, if adopted. If the single plant system is adopted the DO level at
Tinker may drop below the classification limit if a 5.0 mg/1 minimum is
adopted, but will be above classification if a 4.0 mg/1 minimum is
adopted.
The above discussions indicate that whichever system is adopted for the
Core Area, the capacity of the river will be taxed to its limit at Cari-
bou, or Tinker at maximum load conditions. It is doubtful, however, if actual
discharges to the river will reflect maximum load conditions, as cer-
tain in-plant modifications have already been acconplished by industry.
If a lesser, but moderately high, load is assumed, the river studies
indicate that the classification requirements can be met. Recognizing
that river studies to date are based on limited data, however, provisions
should be made for maintaining the classifications if industrial expansion
276
-------
occurs. This can be accomplished by either increasing BOD removals
through advanced waste treatment methods, by diverting a portion of the
effluent into holding basins during drought conditions, instream aera-
tion at critical conditions, or a combination of the three. The
holding pond diversion system will be the most economical. These facili-
ties could be installed at either the Potato Service, Inc site or the
Grimes Mill site, but not at the in-town Caribou site.
The Caribou municipal water supply is taken from the Aroostook River above
the Caribou dam. Although treated by sand filtration, the quality of
the drinking water has been quite marginal from an esthetic standpoint.
The water company has also encountered operational difficulties caused
by slime and other organic growths. Improvement in raw water quality
by installation of pollution control plants will certainly improve the
Caribou water quality. The key question, however, is how much improve-
ment would be achieved by carrying the Presque Isle-Easton wastewater
below the intake than would occur if the treated effluent were placed
in the river upstream? This question cannot be precisely answered in
quantitative terms.
The operating problems at the Caribou water plant are for the most part
caused by organic growths which inturn are probably related to nutrient
conditions in the raw water. This is a very complex phenomenon and the
critical nutrients for any particular organism is difficult to determine.
Disposal of the treated Presque Isle-Easton effluent above the intake
may or may not solve the problems at the Caribou water treatment plant.
If the effluent were carried below the intake, the maximum protection
possible would be provided.
It is difficult to evaluate the Caribou water supply problems in terms
of firm costs. It is understood, however, that the Caribou Water Company
has studied alternative supply sources, and none appear available at a
reasonable cost. It is likely that capital improvements are going to be
required at the Caribou Water Company plant in the relatively near future.
The extent of this capital investment will depend to some extnet on the
raw water quality. If an entire new filtration plant is required, an
investment of 2 to 3 million dollars could be anticipated. If a better
raw water quality would allow rennovations to the existing facilities,
this cost could possibly be reduced to about 1/2 million dollars. While
these costs are approximate at best, they do indicate a potential signifi-
cant cost benefit at Caribou, with the one plant system.
The Aroostook River is a transboundary river tributary to the Saint
John River. As such its water quality will likely be subject to inter-
national negotiation between the United States and Canada. It is under-
stood that intensive studies of the Saint John Basin are about to begin.
The key water quality problem in the United States section of the river
is oxygen content. However, one of the prime Canadian concerns is the
nutrient conditions as they may affect the extensive power pools at Beech-
277
-------
wood and Mactaquac. It is possible that future international negotiations
may dictate that nutrient, primarily phosphorous, removal facilities be
installed at plants along the Aroostook River. If this were necessary,
it would prove more economical to achieve such removals at one large plant
than at two separate plants. As space is available at Grimes, this
factor would favor the one plant system. It should be noted that this
factor would also tend to favor the standard piped system over the
treatment-transport concept, as the latter inherently will have an efflu-
' ent discharge at in-town Caribou.
Recreational uses of the river should also be considered. With installa-
tion of treatment facilities, the fisheries potential of the river below
Presque Isle will increase. If the single plant system is adopted,
there is no reason why the river between Washburn and Grimes Mill could
not support an active trout fishery. This will have significant recrea-
tional value to the people of Presque Isle and Caribou. If the two
plant system is adopted, it may also be possible to establish this fish-
ery, although the water quality will not be as inducive to this program
as the single plant system. It is not possible to equate this benefit
in dollar terms.
Although the dissolved oxygen content of the river above Grimes Mill
could support a B-l or a B-2 classification, it is not likely that this
will be possible because of the coliform bacteria counts. It is likely
that the urban runoff from the Presque Isle and Caribou areas will con-
tribute sufficient coliform bacteria to the water to preclude the higher
classifications, at least until full separation of storm water is achieved
in both cities. Thus, contact recreation, such as swimming, below
Presque Isle will be limited. This situation is independent of which
Core Area system is adopted.
Another factor which must be weighed in system selection in the Core Area
is that of service area and economic growth of the communities involved.
The interconnected system will provide a basic interceptor facility along
the Aroostook River from Potato Service, Inc to Caribou, some 11 miles.
As discussed in the companion Basin Planning Report, this area is lo-
cated where development pressures will occur. It is served by US Route
1, the Bangor and Aroostook railroad, and the City of Caribou on the north
and Presque Isle on the' south. The provision of basic sewer service to
this area will certainly enhance its development potential. Location of
industrial development in a central area, capable of being s&rved, is much
more desirable than scattered development in unsewerable areas.
The provision of basic sewer service in this area will certainly enhance
its development potential.
If the two plant system were adopted in the Core Area, the section be-
tween Presque Isle and Caribou could be served, provided additional in-
terceptor sewers were built. If a service area equal to that obtained
by the one plant system were to be achieved, an investment of 3 million
dollars or more would be required. If a significant portion of the area
between Presque Isle and Caribou, from the river to Route 1, develops
278
-------
and requires sewer services in the forseeable future, the added costs of
interceptor sewers should be considered in economic evaluation of Core
Area systems. If development is to be limited so sewer service will
not be required, these costs would not be weighed in system selection.
The handling and disposal of excess biological solids must also be con-
sidered in Core Area system evaluation. As discussed earlier, initial
programs will call for disposal, in conjunction with municipal solid waste
disposal systems, in sanitary landfills. Effort should be made, however,
to utilize the organic and nutrient value of this material as a soil
conditioner. This will require certain storage and processing facilities
if usage of this material is developed. Such facilities can more easily be
concentrated at a single large plant than at two sites. If usage of this
material cannot be developed and incineration is ultimately required, this
too can be best accomplished at a single site.
The main potential esthetic problem with the piped interconnect system
is that of possible odors at the Caribou end of the conduit. Special de-
sign considerations must be applied to overcome this problem. While a po-
tential problem, it should not be insurmountable.
279
-------
SECTION X
DISCUSSION
Extensive discussions have been included in the design, cost analysis,
and other sections as appropriate. This format is helpful in a report
of this magnitude as it allows discussion with adjacent data. Thus,
this section will be limited to more general discussion.
The Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission must evaluate the data
in this report and that contained in the companion Basin Planning Report.
Upon such evaluation, a basin plan must be adopted in which both the
selected physical system described herein, and the selected institutional
system described in the Basin Planning Report is defined as the basis for
project implementation. This is a large task and involves technical,
economic, administrative, and political considerations, the mixture of
which must be determined by the Commission. This report provides the
basic technical and cost data for the Commissions evaluation. Data on
the general economic, institutional, legal, and administrative considera-
tions are presented in the Basin Planning Report. Based on these reports
and the local knowledge of the Commission, implementation decisions
must be made.
281
-------
SECTION XI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project was administered by the Northern Maine Regional Planning
Commission, Mr. James A. Barresi, Executive Director. Mr. Jeffery
Gammon served as Commission staff engineer.
The research and development studies of this report and the basin
planning studies of the companion report were accomplished by the
Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc, Consultants to the Commission. Key Jordan
Company personnel contributing to the overall project were:
Project Director - Robert E. Hunter, PE
Analysis, Treatment-Transport System - Barry A. Patrie, PE
In-plant Sampling and Analysis - James S. Atwell, PE
Hydraulics - Charles Horstmann, PE
Industrial Plant-Internal Studies - Richard C. Southard, PE (deceased)
General Planning Studies - Stanley Goodnow, Gerry Whiting
On Site Coordination - Richard F. Smith
River Condition Studies - Donald Cote, PE
Project Coordinator - James G. Vamvakias, PE
The assistance of special consultants to the Jordan Company is gratefully
acknowledged. These consultants were:
Sanitary Engineering Review: Dr. Otis J. Sproul
Dr. Millard W. Hall
Dr. Franklin Woodard
Dr. M. Gosh
Legal: Barnet I. Shur
Orlando DeLogue
Administration: John Bibber
Economic Studies : Altenberg-Kirk Company
rees
The cooperation and assistance rendered by the management and employ
of the Basin's processing industries, and their financial support is ac-
knowledged with sincere thanks.
The support of the Project by the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency, and the help of Mr. John Conlon, Project
Offices is acknowledged. Added financial support for the Project was
provided by the State of Maine Environmental Improvement Commission,
Mr. William R. Adams, Director.
283
-------
SECTION XII
LITERATURE REVIEW AND REFERENCES
POTATO PROCESSING WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
The processing of potatoes into frozen food products and potato starch
is the primary industry of the Aroostook River-Prestile Stream water-
sheds of Northern Maine. Being a wet process type of industry, it cre-
ates the major pollution problems which must be solved if the water
quality standards established by State and Federal authorities are to be
met. To assist in the evaluation of waste loads to be encountered in
the regional treatment system, a review of applicable literature was
undertaken. This review is summarized in the following paragraphs,
closing with a listing of references.
FLUMING AND WASHING - At most processing plants in the study area the
potatoes are transferred from storage to processing by a water flume sys-
tem. This system also serves to either fully or partially wash the po-
tato. In this transport-wash system the carriage water picks up an ap-
preciable pollution load. Water usage in the flume system varies greatly
depending largely on the amount of recycling used. Welters-"- reports
European practice generates 800 to 1400 gallons per ton of potatoes in
the flume and about 500 to 700 gallons per ton in a separate wash cycle.
Adler^ suggests values of 1000 to 1800 gallons per ton in Europe for
fluming and washing. Jordan-^ reports 1450 to 1950 gallons per ton in a
combined flume-wash system in Aroostook County, Maine. Wolters-'-
indicates a BOD loading in the flume-wash water of 2 to 6 pounds per ton
of potatoes. Jordan-^ reported up to 10 pounds BOD per ton of potato.
Suspended solids in the flume water will vary greatly with the season
and with in-plant removal practice.
PEELING - The peeling process has been the major source of organic waste
load generated at a potato processing plant. Cooley^ reports a waste-
water production of 625 gallons per ton of potatoes in the steam peel pro-
cess and 715 gallons per ton in the lye peel process. Corresponding
BOD values were reported at 32.6 and 40.0 pounds per ton of potatoes re-
spectively. Solids, COD and pH data were also reported. Sijbring re-
ported European values for steam peeling at 2.63 to 3.26 cubic meters per
ton and BOD values of 79 to 114 population equivalents per ton. Corres-
ponding values for lye peel operations was estimated at 3.82 to 5.48
cubic meters per ton and population equivalents of 240 to 345. Sproul,
et al^ reported BOD concentrations from lye peel operations at 1950 to
3550 mg/1. pH values of this flow were about 11.5
OVERALL PLANT WASTE FLOWS - Most published data deals with overall plant
waste loads generated during processing. Sproul et al" report overall
waste flows from a lye peel french fry plant at 2520 gallons per ton and
52 pounds BOD per ton. This data was taken prior to extensive in-plant
conservation. After such conservation measures were initiated Sproul
reports corresponding waste loads of 2310 gallons per ton and 22 pounds
285
-------
BOD per ton of potato. Flume loads were not included in data given.
Olson^ reported on waste loads from potato flake plants. A lye peel
plant indicated a BOD of 1265 mg/1, suspended solids of 1294 mg/1 and a
pH of 10.8. A steam peel plant indicated a BOD of 701 mg/1, suspended
solids of 297 mg/1 and a pH of 7.1. Jordan3 analyzed waste loads from
a steam peel french fry plant and found flows ranging from 7500 to 9420
gallons per ton, BOD of 36 to 44 pounds per ton and suspended solids of
53 to 64 pounds per ton. These values include flume and wash flows.
Kueneman^ reported flows of 2670 gallons per ton from a steam peel
french fry plant with BOD values of 1788 mg/1 and suspended solids
values of 1574 mg/1. Atkins and Sproul^ suggest average values for a
screened waste from lye peel french fry operations at 4210 gallons per
ton, a BOD of 51 pounds per ton, and suspended solids values of 61
pounds per ton.
Dostal reports on average discharges from three Idaho french fry pro-
cessing plants as follows: Flow = 4200 gallons per ton, BOD = 90 pounds
per ton, suspended solids = 110 pounds per ton, phosphorous = 0.6 pounds
per ton, and nitrogen = 3.5 pounds per ton. Industry averages were sug-
gested as 4200 gallons per ton, 50 pounds BOD per ton, and suspended
solids 60 pounds per ton. Cooley^ reported overall waste flows from a
potato flake plant as follows: Flow = 1540 gallons per ton, BOD = 38.4
pounds per ton, total solids = 125.6 pounds per ton, suspended solids =
16.4 pounds per ton, and a pH of 5.2.
Ambrose and Reiser11 indicated a waste water flow of 2755 gallons per
ton of potato from potato starch plants carrying about 35 pounds BOD
per ton, excluding pulp. Hinkleyl2 estimated a BOD generation of about
57 pounds per ton of potatoes at a Maine starch plant. Caron13 estimates
flows from a potato starch plant at 2160 to 3600 gallons per ton of po-
tatoes .
TREATMENT OF POTATO PROCESSING WASTES
In recent years considerable effort has been directed at treatment of
potato processing wastewaters. Primary treatment for solids removal has
been proven successfully in the field at a number of plants. Biologic
treatment of potato processing wastewaters has received considerable
study, but actual full scale plant data is limited. The literature re-
view included data assembly on both the primary and biologic phases of
treatment.
SCREENING - Ballance ^ reported on efficiencies of rotary screens in
treating potato processing wastes. The most common screen sizes used
were 20 and 40 mesh, with 120 mesh being the smallest practical. Sus-
pended solids removal of 35%+ were reported on a 20 mesh screen. Sol-
ids removals on a 20 mesh screen were found to be about 25% by Grames
and Kueneman15. They also indicated that BOD reduction of 10 to 14%
could be anticipated. Talburt and Smith16 suggested suspended solids re,-
movals of 34% and BOD removals of 23% by screening at a french fry plant.
286
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT - Talburt and Smith16 found that overflow rates of 800
to 1000 gal/sq ft/day would give 50 to 75% COD removal after screening.
A tank depth of 10 to 12 feet was suggested. Filbert17 found similar
values. Kueneman18 found that 50% BOD removal could be achieved by pri-
mary sedimentation at an overflow rate of 800 gal/sq ft/day. Detention
times were 2 to 4 hours. The solids underflow from a lye peel plant was
found to be 3.5% which could be conditioned to 5 to 8%. Solids under-
flow at a steam peel plant was found to be 5 to 6%. Kueneman8, in other
studies, reported a 93% suspended solid and a 70% BOD removal by primary
clarification of a steam peel effluent. Surface loading was suggested
at 600 to 800 gal/sq ft/day. Lye peel plant efficiencies were slightly
less although a 66% COD removal was reported. At an overflow rate of 600
to 800 gal/sq ft/day, others reported the following removal efficiencies:
Pailthrop and Filbert19 - 58% suspended solids, 55% BOD re-
moval
Olson7 - Potato Chip Plant - 92% suspended solids, 63% BOD
removal
Potato Flour Plant - 83% suspended solids, 51% BOD
removal
Dostal10 - Lye Peel French Fry - 37% BOD removal
o
Jordan-* reported on sedimentation column tests on processing wastes from a
steam peel french fry plant. Excellent solids and BOD removals were in-
dicated. Removal vs loading curves were presented in the Jordan Report.
The Jordan-3 study also demonstrated that sedimentation of potato starch
wastes was not effective with removals of only 21% suspended solids and
11% BOD.
PRIMARY SOLIDS DEWATERING - Dewatering of primary potato solids has been
successfully accomplished by vacuum filtration. Grames and Kueneman-'--'
indicate that successful filtration is very pH dependent. With the pH
between 6 and 8+, the solids can be dewatered without extensive chemical
conditioning. With such pH adjustment, usually by proper timing of sol-
ids withdrawal, a filter sludge of 12 to 16% solids can be obtained.
The solids content of the filtrate is suggested as 1000 to 1200 mg/1.
A design filter loading of 5 pounds dry solids per hour per square foot
of filter surface was suggested, although rates up to 15 pounds per hour
per square foot have been realized. Jordan-3 reported on filter leaf tests
on primary potato solids from a steam peel french fry plant. Again pH is
shown to be critical. Sludge with a pH above 6.0 could be readily de-
watered without chemical conditioning. If the pH drops below 6.0, condi-
tioning with feric chloride was required for successful filtration. It
was shown that the fresh solids pH of 6.9 would drop rapidly and would reach
4.9 within a few hours. Filter design loadings of 6.0 to 7.0 pounds per
hour per square foot for a steam peel plant were suggested. The filtrate
would contain 2000 to 3000 mg/1 solids if conditioners were not used, and
would fall to about 1000 mg/1 if the solids were conditioned with 2% ferric
chloride prior to dewatering. Solids contents of the filter cake were re-
ported at 9.5 to 13.5% without conditioning, and 18 to 19% with condi-
tioning. Additional data on form times were also given in the Jordan
Report.
287
-------
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - Extensive studies have been conducted on biological
treatment of potato processing waters by the activated sludge system and
variations thereof. The earliest significant work was conducted by •
Atkins and Sproul^ in 1964. These studies indicated that BOD removals
of over 90% could be achieved in a completely mixed activated sludge sys-
tem treating potato wastes from a lye peel plant. Aeration times of 6
to 12 hours were studied with 8 hours suggested for design. 'It was demonstra-
ted that pH adjustment was not necessary and the system could be accli-
mated to wastes from a lyle peel plant. Organic loadings of 200 to 400
pounds BOD per 1000 CF aeration capacity per day were found satisfac-
tory. Mixed liquor suspended solids levels of 3000 to 4000 mg/1 were
used in the bench scale units. The Atkins and Sproul work also provided
limited data on treatment by the contact stabilization method. A eon-
tact time of 1 hour and a reaeration time of 6 to 8 hours was suggested.
BOD removals of about 80% were achieved.
20
Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield reported on contact stabiliza-
tion studies on potato wastes. A contact time of 1 hour and a reaera-
tion time of 10 hours was suggested. Organic loads were up to 480
pounds BOD per 1000 cubic feet. BOD removals of 60% were achieved.
This study suggested that nutrient addition may be necessary, and foam-
ing problems could exist in such a system. Kintzel reported good BOD
removals on a potato starch wastewater treated by contact stabilization.
Jordan^ reported on bench scale studies of completely mixed activated
sludge systems applied to wastewaters from a steam peel french fry plant,
and on this waste combined with a potato starch plant waste. Design
recommendations from this work were as follows:
Aeration Time = 7 Hours
MLSS = 3000 mg/1
Ks = 0.000,425
BOD Removal = 90%+ at 20°C
Temperature Relation: (KS)T = (KS)2Q x 1.05T~20
Solids Production: LB VSS/day = ;65(LB BOD Removed)-.05(MLVSS)
Maximum Oxygen Uptake = 38 mg/1 per hour
Jordan also reported on limited tests with aerated pond systems for po-
tato processing wastes. Removals of up to 70% could reasonably be
achieved by such a system.
27
Dostal conducted studies on both anerobic and aerobic ponds following
primary sedimentation of a lye peel processing plant effluent. Re-
movals achieved in the primary clarifier confirmed present data. Test
data on the covered anerobic phase of the system showed poor BOD re-
movals. The aerobic phases of the system indicated fairly good BOD re-
movals, although it was evident that final clarification would be re-
quired to achieve consistent results.
288
-------
23
The R. T. French Co. conducted extensive tests on a full scale acti-
vated sludge plant at Shelley, Idaho. The following summarizes the key
design criteria and other data generated by the French Report:
Design Flow =1.25 MGD
BOD = 14,100 LB/Day
Suspended Solids = 6620 LB/Day
Aeration Volume = 3.75 MG
Basin Depth = 16 Ft
Design Organic Load = 28 LB BOD/1000 Cubic Ft/Day
MLSS = 4000 Mg/1
Operating DO = 1.5 Mg/1
Overflow Rate - Secondary Clarifier = 325 Gal/Sq Ft/Day
Although significant operational difficulties were encountered in the
French Plant, it was demonstrated that under normal conditions BOD re-
movals of over 90% could be achieved. Effluent BOD was reduced to 85
mg/1 unfilterad, and 40 mg/1 filtered. An attempt was made to combine
the clarification of the flume water with thickening of excess biologic
solids.
This system did not function well and separate facilities are suggested.
Buzzell et al reported on a bench scale completely mixed activated
sludge system treating potato starch wastes. It was concluded that
nutrient addition was not required and 90% BOD removal could be achieved
with organic loadings up to 420 Ibs BOD/1000 cu ft/day. Foaming of the
system was considered a problem. Michaelson presented data on a full
scale activated sludge plant which served to lessen organic loads prior
to entry into a municipal system. Loadings were 400 Ibs BOD/1000
cu ft/day with a detention time of 5 hours. The effluent BOD varied
from 200 to 400 mg/1. A sludge thickening unit was used with a load-
ing of 8 Ibs solids/sq ft/day.
PRIMARY SOLIDS DISPOSAL AND UTILIZATION - Disposal of solids removed
from primary clarifiers treating potato wastes may or may not present a
problem, depending on the possible utilization of the material. Hinden
and Dunstan^^ reported on the composition of waste potato solids as
follows:
Total Organic Nitrogen as N = 1.002%
Carbon as C = 42.2%
Total Phosphorous as P = 0.083%
Total Sulfur as S = 0.082%
Volatile Solids - 95.2%
Guttormsen and Carlson27 summarized the use of potato solids as cattle
feed. Screenings and dewatered primary solids have been successfully
used for this purpose. Lye peel solids must be fermented to reduce the
pH to 7.0 or below prior to use. Potato solids are usually mixed with
chopped hay or other feed in varying amounts. Potato solids have been
289
-------
sold for $3 per ton for feed purposes. Dickey et al" discussed use of
potato pulp for feed to a variety of animals. The general composition
of potato pulp was reported as follows:
Dried Wet
Moisture = 11.83% 83.3%
Protein = 5.71% 1.20%
Fat = 0.40% 0.06%
Fibre = 13.16% 1.06%
Nitrogen Free Extract = 66.58% 13,80%
Minerals 2.58% ' 0.51%
DRY CAUSTIC PEELING - In an attempt to minimize organic wastewater load-
ings from the peeling operation, extensive work has been directed at
development of a dry, or semi-dry caustic peeling process. Willard
reported on tests accomplished on such peeling systems. By utilizing
a caustic dip system followed by infra red heat, it is possible to re-
move the peelings with a dry or semi-dry brush system. The" system was
reported to produce a pulp of 12 to 14% solids which could be pumped.
Peel loss and caustic usage was compared favorably with conventional sys-
tems. Material could be used for feed if allowed to ferment to reduce
pH.
Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield^O prepared comparative data on
the dry caustic peel system for Magnuson Engineers, Inc. makers of
peeling equipment. The following comparative loads to the primary clari-
fier, excluding flume or washing operations, were suggested for a 40,000
pound per hour plant.
Dry Caustic 11,700 LBS BOD/Day
Steam Peel 18,400 LBS BOD/Day
Lye Peel 13% Loss 29.500 LBS BOD/Day
Lye Peel 18% Loss 36,300 LBS BOD/Day
This report also presented approximate comparative cost data for pollu-
tion control systems.
SUGAR BEET PROCESSING
A secondary industry which is in the process of development in northern
Maine is refining sugar from beets. Although currently not operative,
the impact of this industry on any regional pollution control program
must be considered. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Report^1 on the beet sugar industry summarized the existing condition
in the industry and the current methods being used or explored for
pollution reduction. This report indicates that BOD production in
United States plants ranged from 10 to 33 pounds BOD per ton of beets
processed, with an average of 15 pounds per ton. These values exclude
the organic loads from mud lime and silo drainage. It was also reported
that beet plant effluents contain high bacteria counts, . including
290
-------
salmonella, and this may constitute a significant health problem. The
report suggested that large pollution reductions could be achieved by
in-plant water conservation and recycling. While such procedures could
create some operating problems and would require treatment in the recycle
system, it was shown that BOD generation could be reduced to 1 pound
per ton of beets, or possibly less if an essentially complete reuse
system were adopted. Biological treatment of beet wastes has not been
used extensively, due in part to the short processing season of 80
to 160 days per year. Pilot plant studies of activated sludge systems
show good results, although nutrient additions may be required.
o o
Lof and Kneese undertook an extensive economic analysis of water con-
servation measures in the beet processing industry. They indicated a
potential BOD generation of nearly 40 pounds per ton of beets, including
lime cake slurry and silo drainage.. Without the latter elements, now
common in United States practice, a value of 16.8 pounds BOD per ton of
beets is given. Lof and Kneese further suggest that this value could)
readily be reduced to about 6 pounds per ton by in-plant conservation and
limited treatment, and could ultimately be reduced to 1.2 pounds per
ton with extensive recycling of treated waters. Camp Dresser and
McKee-^ in a report to the Town of Easton, Maine, based load estimates on
a BOD generation of 4 pounds per ton of beets based on a plant capacity
of 4000 tons per day. Average flow was estimated at 2000 gpm with maxi-
mum flows approaching 3000 gpm during the processing season.
291
-------
REFERENCES
1. Wolters, N. 1965. "Abwasserprobleme der KartoFfelver Arbeitenden
Industrie" Der KartoFflebau 11, (1965).
2. Adler, G. 1965 "The Production, Use and Disposal of Potatoes in
West Germany" Proceedings. International Symposium, Utilization
and Disposal of Potato Wastes, New Brunswick Research and Prod-
uctivity Council, New Brunswick, Canada, (1965).
3. Jordan, Edward C. Co., Inc. Town of Washburn, Maine, Report on
Wastewater Control System (1966).
4. Cooley, A.M., Wahl, E.D., and Possum, G.O., 1964 "Characteristics
and Amounts of Potato Wastes from Various Process Streams."
Proceedings of the 19th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue,Univer-
sity, 379-390, (1964).
5. Sijbring, P.M. 1968 "The Peeling of Potatoes for Processing" pre-
sented at the Utilization Section Meeting, European Association for
Potato Research, Lund, Sweden (1968).
6. Sproul, O.J. 1965 "Potato Processing Waste Treatment Investigation
at the University of Maine", Proceedings, International Symposium
Utilization and Disposal of Potato Wastes; New Brunswick Research
and Productivity Council, New Brunswick, Canada (1965). ;
7. Olson, O.O., Van Heuvelen, W. and Vennes, J.W., 1965 "Experimental
. Treatment of Potato Wastes in North Dakota, U.S.A." Proceedings,
International Symposium Utilization and Disposal of Potato Wastes,
New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council, New Brunswick,
Canada (1965).
8. Kueneman, R.W. 1965 "Performance of Primary Waste Treatment Plants
in Northwest U.S.A." Proceedings International Symposium, Utiliza-
tion and Disposal of Potato Wastes, New Brunswick Research and
Productivity Council, New Brunswick, Canada, (1965).
9. Atkins, P.P. and Sproul, O.J. 1964, "Feasibility of Biological
Treatment of Potato Processing Wastes" Proceeding, 19th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University (1964).
10. Dostal, K.A. 1968, "The State of the Art of Potato Waste Treatment"
Proceedings of the 18th National Potato Utilization Conference,
Corvallis, Oregon (1968).
11. Ambrose, T.W. and Reiser, c.o:: 1954 "Wastes from Potato Starch
Plants" Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 46 (June 1959).
12. Hinckley, W. "Pollution Survey of the Colby Cooperative Starch
Factory" Maine Water Improvement Commission, (1948).
292
-------
13. Caron, A-L, J. "Evaluation of Biological Filters for the Treatment
of Protein Water Produced by the Manufacture of Potato Starch:
unpublished Master of Science Thesis, University of Maine, (June
14. Ballance, R.C. 1965, "A Review of Primary Treatment Processes",
Proceedings International Symposium, Utilization and Disposal of
Potato Wastes. New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council,
New Brunswick, Canada, (1965).
15. Grames, L.M. and Kueneman, R.W. 1968 "Primary Treatment of Potato
Processing Wastes with By-Product Feed Recovery", 41st Annual
Conf., Water Pollution Control Federation, Chicago, Illinois,
(Sept. 1968).
16. Talburt, W.F. and Smith, 0., 1967, "Potato Processing" The AVI
Publishing Co., Inc. (1967).
17. Filbert, J.W- 1968 "Other Treatment Methods for Potato Wastes"
Proceedings of a Symposium on Potato Waste Treatment, FWPCA
and University of Idaho, (1968).
18. Kueneman, R.W. 1968 "Future Growth of the Potato Processing Indus-
tries," Proceedings of a Symposium on Potato Waste Treatment,
F.W.P.C.A. , and University of Idaho, (1968).
19. Pailthrop, R.E. and Filbert, J.W. 1965, "Potato Waste Treatment in
Idaho Pilot Unit Study" Proceedings International Symposium, Util-
ization and Disposal of Potato Wastes, New Brunswick Research and
Productivity Council, New Brunswick, Canada (1965).
20. Cornell, Rowland, Hayes, and Merryfield, Inc. 1966 An Engineering
Report on Pilot Plant Studies, Secondary Treatment of Potato Pro-
cess Water. Prepared for the Potato Processors of Idaho Associa-
tion. (July 1966).
21. Kintzel, A. 1964 "Biosorption in Application to the Treatment of
Potato Starch Waste Waters". Water Pollution Abstract No. 832.
(1964).
22. Dostal, K.A. 1969 Secondary Treatment of Potato Processing Wastes
Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion Report No. FR-7. (July 1969).
23. R.T. French Co., 1970 Aerobic Secondary Treatment of Potato Process-
ing Wastes. Environmental Protection Agency. WPRD 15-01-68,
(December 1970).
24. Buzzell, J.C., Caron, A-L.J., Ryckman, S.J., and Sproul, O.J. 1964
"Biologic Treatment of Protein Water from Manufacturers of Starch",
Water and Sewage Works. (July & August 1964).
293
-------
25. Michaelson, C.H. 1969 Personal Communications Presented in Current
Practice in Potato Processing Waste Treatment. U.S. Department of
Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration. (October 1969).
26. Hinden, E., and Dunstan, G.H., 1965 "Utilization of Potato Wastes
for Fuel Purposes . " Proceedings International Symposium Utiliza-
tion and Disposal of Potato Wastes, New Brunswick Research and Prod
uctivity Council, New Brunswick, Canada, (1965).
27. Guttormsen, K. and Carlson, P. A. Potato Processing
Treatment , Current Practices , Federal Water Quality Administration,
(1969).
28. Dickey, H.C., Brudman, H.H., Plummer, B.E. and Highlands, M.E. 1965,
"The Use of By-Products from Potato Starch and Potato Processing,"
Proceedings International Symposium, Utilization and Disposal of
Potato Wastes, New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council,
New Brunswick, Canada (1965).
29. Willard, Miles, Pilot Plant Study of the USDA-Magnuson Infrared
Antipollution Peeling Process , Presented to Pacific Northwest Sec-
tion, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, (October 1969).
30. Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield, Infrared Potato Peeling-
Secondary Effluent Considerations , Report for Magnuson Engineers ,
Inc. (1969).
31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, The Beet Sugar Industry - The Water Pollution Prob-
lem and Status of Waste Abatement Program, (June, 1967).
32. Lof, O.G., and Kneese, A.V. , The Economics of Water Utilization in
the Beet Sugar Industry, Resourced for the Future Inc., (1968).
33. Camp Dresser and McKee, Report on Sewerage and Wastewater Treat-
ment for the Town of Easton, Maine, HUD Project P-ME-3210, (Febru-
ary, 1970).
34. Jordan, Edward C. Co. Inc., Comprehensive Plan, Pollution Control -
Water Resources, Aroostook Rive:r Northern Maine Regional Planning
Commission, (1968).
35. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Thir-
teenth Edition, American Public Health Association, (1971).
36 FWPCA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, US Depart-
ment of Interior, (1969).
294
-------
37. Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of Sanitary Engineers.
Recommended Standards for Sewage Works; Policies for the Review and.
Treatment. Albany, New York; Health Education Service (1968).
38. Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, and Donald J. 0'Conner, Biological Waste^
' Treatment. Oxfore: Pergamon Press (1961).
39. Downing, A. L., Statement on oxygen transfer surface aeration
cited on Page 90 of Eckenfelder and 0'Conner.
40. Stephan, David G. and Robert B. Schaffer. 'Vastewater Treatment
and Renovation Status of Process Development" Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 42 (March, 1970), 399-410.
41. McCabe, Brother Joseph, and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr., Biological
Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 1. New York:
Reinhold Publishing Corporation (1956).
295
-------
SECTION XIII
COMPUTER DESIGN PROGRAMS
A set of waste treatment plant design programs were written specifically
for this study for evaluating the various treatment process configurations.
The programs were written in FORTRAN IV programming language for the
IBM 1130 Computing System with 16,000 words of core, but could easily
be modified to run on other systems. Input consists of the basic de-
sign criteria for process and structural design. Output is composed
of design and quantity data for each design configuration. System
diagrams for the treatment processes appear in Figure 65.
The presentation of this documentation assumes that the reader is familiar
with waste treatment facility design and Fortran programming.
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMMING - The program set is made up of two main-
line programs (PRIME and SECON) and one subroutine (QUATY) called by
both mainlines.
PRIME and SECON compute the process .design data for primary (sedimen-
tation) and secondary (activated sludge) treatment processes respectively;
QUATY computes earthwork and concrete for both.
No permanent storage or file space is required. The programs run under
Version 2, Modification 10 of the IBM Monitor System.^
DESCRIPTION OF INPUT - Numeric data must contain a decimal point or be
right justified.
PRIME
S.C. Inclusive
Description Unit Card Columns Format
CARD NO. 1 - STANDARD DATA
Suspended Solids in Sludge Outflow (%) 1-7 F7.0
Side Water Depth (ft) 8-14 F7.0
Bottom Slope (in/ft) 15-21 F7.0
Free Board (ft) 22-28 F7.0
Sidewall Thickness (in) 29-35 F7.0
Bottom Slab Thickness (in) 36-42 F7.0
Filter Loading (Ibs/hr) 43-49 F7.0
Suspended Solids in Solids Input (%) 50-56 F7.0
Gravel Base Mat (ft) 57-63 F7.0
Suspended Solids Removal (%) 64-70 F7.0
BOD Removal (%) 71-77 F7.0
1. IBM 1130 Disk Monitor System, Version 2, Programmer's and Operator's
Guide, File No. 1130-36, Order No. GC26-3717-8
297
-------
SYSTEM PIAGRAM - PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
Q -INFLOW (GPM)
TANK DIA - FT
OUTPUT
WEIR OUTFLOW G.P.M.
SLUDGE OUTFLOW G.P.M.
VACUUM FILTER
00
SYSTEM DIAGRAM - ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NOTE* MAY BE MULTIPLE UNITS. IF SO - DIVIDE
TflFCoV
INFLOW
DATA MAY BE FROM
INALYSIS, OR IT MAY
.NDENT INPUT
AERATION TANKS
SOLIDS RETURN
»/ SFP
4
^SOLIDS
OUTPUT
DW Q AND B.O.D. ACCORDINGLY
OUTFLOW
SOLIDS OUTFLOW
SOLIDS PUMP
•THICKENER
WASTE SOLIDS
VACUUM FILTER
CL2 CONTACT
TANK
FIGURE 65
TREATMENT SYSTEM DIAGRAM
-------
s.c.
Unit
Inclusive
Card Columns
Format
Description
CARD NO. 2 - VARIABLE DATA
Inflow
Suspended Solids Inflow
BOD Inflow
Surface Loading
Filter Operation
Height of Earth Above Base Slab
Run Description
NOTES:
1. Data Order - One card no. 1 (standard data) followed by any number
of card no. 2's (variable data) with a blank at the end.
2. Percentages are expressed as decimal values, e.g. 52% = 0.52
(gpm)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(gal/sf/day)
(hrs/day)
(ft)
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-28
29-35
36-42
43-80
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
Al
SECON
Description
CARD NO. 1 - STANDARD DATA
Oxygen Uptake
Volatile Sus. Sol. in Mixed
Liquor Suspended Solids
Solids Growth Constants "a"
Suspended Solids in Solids Outfall
Surface Loading to Thickener
Filter Loading Rate
Solids Content of Solids Output
Side Water Depth, Sedimentation
Tank
Bottom Slope Sedimentation Tank
: Side Slope Inside Aeration Tank
Side Slope Outside Aeration Tank
Card No. (1)
CARD NO. 2 - STANDARD DATA
Freeboard, Aeration Tank
Freeboard, Sedimentation Tank
Solids Growth Constant "b"
Sedimentation Tank Sidewall
Thickness
(mg/L/hr)
(gal/sf/day)
(Ibs/hr/sf)
(ft)
(in/ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(in)
Inclusive
Card Columns
1-7
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-28
Format
F7.0
8-14
15-21
22-28
29-35
36-42
43-49
50-56
57-63
64-70
71-77
80
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
F7.0
299
-------
Inclusive
Description Unit Card Columns Format
Card No. 2 - Standard Data (Cont)
Sedimentation Tank Base Slab
Thickness (in) 29-35 F7.0
Sedimentaton Tank Gravel
Thickness (ft) 36-42 F7.0
Aeration Tank, Gravel Mat
Thickness (ft) 43-49 F7.0
Aeration Tank, Concrete Lining
Thickness (in) 50-56 F7.0
Rate of Biological Reaction 57-63 F7.0
Minimum Expected Temperature (°c) 64-70 F7.0
Width of Top Berm (ft) 71-77 F7.0
Card No. (2) 80
CARD NO. 3 - STANDARD DATA
CL2 Contact Time (min) 1-7 F7.0
CL2 Contact Tank Depth (ft) 8-14 F7.0
Height of Earth Above CL2 (ft) 15-21 F7.0
CL.2 Contact Tank Base Slab
Thickness (in) 22-28 F7.0
CL2 Contact Tank Wall Thickness (in) 29-35 F7.0
CL2 Contact Tank Free-Board (ft) 36-42 F7.0
Hours Pumping Solids (hrs) 43-49 F7.0
Filter Hours Operation (hrs) 50-56 F7.0
Card No. (3) 80
CARD NO. 1 - VARIABLE DATA
Inflow (gpm) 1-7 F7.0
Inflow BOD (mg/L) 8-14 F7.0
Rate of Solids Return (%) 15-21 F7.0
Aeration Detention (hrs) 22-28 F7.0
Organic Loadings (Ibs of BOD) 29-35 F7.0
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (mg/L) 36-42 F7.0
Hydraulic Loading, Secondary
Clarifier (gal/sf/day) 43-49 F7.0
Water Depth Aeration Tank (ft) 50-56 F7.0
Length/Width Ratio 57-63 F7.0
Design Temperature (°C) 64-70 F7.0
Earth Height Above Concrete Base (ft) . 71-77 F7.0
Card No. (1) 80
CARD NO. 2 - VARIABLE DATA
CL2 Dosage (mg/L) 1-7 F7.0
Earth Height Above Aeration Tank
Base (ft) 8-14 F7.0
Description 15-52 Al
Card No. (2) 80
300
-------
NOTES:
1. Data Order - One set of standard data (cards 1, 2, and 3) followed
by as many sets of variable data (cards 1 and 2) as desired followed
by a blank.
2. Percentages are expressed as decimal values, e.g. 50% =0.52
OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS - Under the IBM Monitor System these programs may
be stored and called by execution cards or executed under the load and
go concept. The following execution cards presume that the program will
be stored.
Execution Cards
PRIME
// XEQ PRIME
Card No. 1 (standard data) one per run
Card No. 2 ( variable data) as many as desired
Blank
SECON
Standard Monitor input/output error messages will alert the user to
errors in data fields. No effort has been made to edit the data
within the program logic.
VARIABLE LIST
DESCRIPTION VARIABLE NAME
Inflow in GPM Q
Suspended solids inflow in MG/L SSIN
BOD inflow in MG/L BODIN
Surface loading in GAL/SF/DAY SURFL
Suspended solids removal in % SSREM
BOD removal in % BODRE
Suspended solids in sludge outflow in % solids SSSLU
Side water depth in feet SWDEP
Bottom slope in inches/foot BOTSL
Freeboard in feet FREEB
Sidewall thickness in inches SWTHK
Bottom slab thickness in inches BOTST
Filter loading in LBS solids/hr FILLD
Suspended solids in solids output in % solids SSOUT
Period of filter operation in hours/day PERID
Height of earth above top of base slab in feet HTEAR
Gravel base mat thickness in feet GRAVE
Surface area SA
301
-------
Tank Diameter TKDIA
Tank Volume TKVOL
Detention Time TIME
Weir Loading WLOADS
Suspended solids in weir outflow SOLWR
Solids to sludge SOLSG
Sludge outflow SLOUT
Filter solids output FILSO
Filter area FILAR
BOD in weir outflow BODWO
Earth excavation EE
Gravel mat GM
Base slab concrete BC
Wall concrete WC
Backfill BF
Disposable excavation DE
Peripheral underdrains PUD
SECON
DESCRIPTION VARIABLE NAME
Oxygen uptake in LSB 02/LB BOD applied A (1)
Percent volatile suspended solids in mixed liquor
suspended solids in percent A (2)
Solids growth constant "a" A (3)
Suspended solids in solids outflow in percent A (4)
Surface loading to thickener in gallons of sludge/SF/DAY A (5)
Loading rate to filter in LBS/Hour/SF A (6)
Solids content of solids output in percent A (7)
Side water depth in sedimentation tank in feet A (8)
Bottom slope of sedimentation tank in inches/foot A (9)
Side slope, aeration tank, inside A (10)
Side slope, aeration tank, outside A (11)
Freeboard - aeration tank in feet A (12)
Freeboard - sedimentation tank in feet A (13)
Solids growth constant "b" . A (14)
Thickness of sedimentation tank sidewalls in inches A (15)
Thickness of sedimentation tank base slab in inches A (16)
Thickness of sedimentation tank gravel mat in feet A (17)
Thickness of aeration tank gravel mat in feet A (18)
Thickness of aeration tank concrete lining in inches A (19)
Rate of biologic reaction A (20)
Minimum expected temperature "Centigrade A (21)
Width of top berm in feet A (22)
CL2 contact time in minutes A (23)
Depth of CL2 contact tank in feet A (24)
Height of earth above base slabs of contact tank in feet A (25)
Thickness of CL~ contact tank base slabs in inches A (26)
Thickness of CL2 contact tank walls in inches A (27)
302
-------
Freeboard - CL2 contact tank A (28)
Hours pumping solids A (29)
Filter hours operation A (30)
Inflow in gallons per minute B (1)
BOD in inflow - MG/L B (2)
Rate of solids return in percent of inflow B (3)
Aeration detention time in hours B (4)
Organic loading in LBS BOD/1000 CF aeration volume B (5)
Mixed liquor suspended solids in MG/L B (6)
Hydraulic loading of secondary clarifier in GAL/SF/DAY B (7)
Water depth in aeration tank B (8)
Ratio of lenfth to width in aeration tank B (9)
Design temperature "Centigrade B (10)
Height of earth above concrete base in feet B (11)
CL2 dosage in MG/L B (12)
Height of earth above aeration tank base B (13)
Aeration tank volume in cubic feet C (1)
Organic load in LBS BOD/1000 CF/DAY C (2)
Required aeration volume in cubic feet C (3)
BOD to mixed liquor suspended solids ratio C (4)
Oxygen required in LBS/Hour C (5)
Solids return rate in GPM of solids returned C (6)
Percent BOD removal in percent at 20° C C (7)
BOD percent removed at design temperature in percent C (8)
Biological solids generation in LBS/DAY C (9)
Excess solids volume in gallons/day C (10)
Excess solids pumping rate in GPM C (11)
Thickener surface area in square feet C (12)
Filter area in square feet C (13)
Solids output in cubic yards/day C (14)
Sedimentation tank surface area in square feet C (15)
Sedimentation tank diameter C (16)
Sedimentation tank volume C (17)
Detention time in hours C (18)
Weir loading in galIons/LF/day C (19)
BOD in outflow in MG/L C (20)
Aeration horsepower C (21)
Earth excavation C (22)
Gravel mat C (23)
Base slabs concrete C (24)
Wall concrete C (25)
Backfill c (26)
Disposable excavation C (27)
Peripheral under drains C (28)
Averate area at one-half side water depth C (29)
303
-------
Note: See Figure 66 for following dimensions:
Wave in feet C
Lave in feet C (31)
Lb in feet C (32)
Wb in feet C (33)
LLs in feet C (34)
WLs in feet C (35)
Lt in feet C (36)
Wt in feet C (37)
Volume of excavation in cubic yards C (38)
Volume of embankment in cubic yards C (39)
Volume of spoil in cubic yards C (40)
Volume of concrete in cubic yards C (41)
Volume of gravel mat in cubic yards C (42)
Volume of CL.2 contact tank in cubic feet C (43)
Area of CL2 contact tank in square feet C (44)
Note: Length to width ratio assumed L=2W
Volume of CL2 contact tank excavation in cubic yards C (45)
Note: 1:1 excavation slope is assumed
Volume of contact tank base concrete in cubic yards C (46)
Volume of contact tank wall concrete in cubic yards C (47)
Volume of contact tank gravel mat in cubic yards C (48)
Volume of contact tank backfill in cubic yards C (49)
Volume of contact tank spoil in cubic yards C (50)
Volume of chlorine required in LBS/DAY C (51)
304
-------
A
t_
LLS
AVE
A
J
PLAN
FREEBOARD
DEPTH-
OUTSIDE SLOPE
•ORIGINAL
/•
/ GROUND SURFACE
27*- INSIDE SLOPE
S E C T I 0 N
A - A
FIGURE 66
AERATION UNIT CONFIGURATION
QUANTITY ESTIMATE
305
-------
// JOB
// FOR
*EXTENDED PRECISION
*ONE WORD INTEGERS
*LIST ALL
*IOCSICARD,DISK,1403 PRINTER)
DIMENSION A(30),B(13),DESC(38),C(51
C INPUT SECTION
C READ STANDARD INFORMATION
READ12.2! A
2 FORMATU1F7.0)
C READ VARIABLE DATA
3 READ12.4) (8U)»J = 1,11)
4 FORMATU1F7.0)
READ(2,6) BU2),BU3),DESC
6 FORMAT(2F7.0,38A1)
IF (6(1)1200,200|7
C AER TANK VOL
7 VOL * ( (B(l) + B(3)* BUM/7.48) *
C ORGANIC LOAD
C(2) « ( B(2) * 6(1) * 8.33 *1440.
C REQUIRED AER. VOL
C(3) = (BU) * 1440. * B(2) * 8.33 *
IF(C(2) - B(5) ) 8,8,10
8 C<1) = VOL
GO TO 12
10 C(1) = C(3)
C BOD TO MLSS RATIO
12 C(4) = IBID* 1440 * B(2)
1C( 1) * 7.46 / 1000000.) )
C OXYGEN REQ
C(5) = A(l) * (B(2) * BU) *
C SCLIDS RETURN RATE
60. * B(4)
)/( 1000000. * VOL /1000,
1000.)/(1000000.* 6(5))
* 8.33) /(1000000. * B(6) * 8.33 *(
* 8.33 /(1000000. * 24.))
* B(6) * A(2) * B(4M /( 1 +(A(20) * B(6) * A
DESIGN TEMP
EXP
* A(2)
* B(4) )/U + ASD * 6(6) * A(2)
C(6) = BU) * 6(3)
PERCENT BOD REMOVAL
C(7) = ( 100. * A(20)
1(2) * 6(4)1)
PERCENT BOD REMOVAL AT
EXP = A(21) - 20
ASD = A(20! * 1.05 **
C(8) = ( 100. * ASD * 8(6)
1 * 8(4) )
BIOLOGIC SOLIDS GEN
C(9) = ((A(3)*B(1)*1440.*B(2)*8.33*C(7)/100.)/lOOOOOO.)-
1)*8.33*C(1)*7.48*A(21/1000000.)
EXCESS SOLIDS VOL
C( 10) * C(9) * 7.48 /(62.4
EXCESS SOLIDS PUMP RATE '
CUD = CUO) /(1440 * A(29)/24)
THICKENER SURF A
CU2) = CUM * 1440 / A(5)
FILTER AREA
CU3) = C(9) /(A!6) * A(30) )
SCLIDS OUTPUT
CU4) * C(9)
SEDIMENTATION
* A(4M
* 100. /(62.4 * A(7) *
TANK SURFACE AREA
CU5) = (BU ) + (8(3) * BUi ) i *
SED TANK DIA
CU6) = IFIX( ( (4*0(151/3.1418)1'*. 5)
SED. TANK VOL
C( 17) = CU5)* ( (A(8) + (A(8) -KC
27 *100.)
1440./ B(7)
+ .5)
(16)* A(9)/24)))/2)
306
-------
WRITE(5,2Q)
20 FCRMATdHO,51X,'VARIABLE DATA (INPUT)1)
WRITE(5,22)
22 FCRMATJlhO,30X,' INFLOW S S BOD SURFACE FILTER
1 EARTH* /1H ,40X,« INFLOW INFLCW LOADING OPS HEI
2GHT '/1H ,30X,» (GPM) (MG/L) (MG/L) (GAL/SF/DAY) (HRS/DAY
3) (FT) ' )
WRITE(5, 24) Q,SSIN,BODIN,SURFL,PERID,HTEAR
24 FORMAT(LHO,27X,6F10.1///)
WRITE15.26)
26 FORMAT!1H0.57X,'OUTPUT'/1HO,« SURFACE TANK TANK DETEN
IT WEIR S S SOLIDS SLUDGE FILTER FILTER B
2 C D • )
WRITE(5,28)
28 FCRMATdH , ' AREA DIAM VOL TIME , LOADING WE
HR TO OUTFLOW SOLIDS AREA WEIR «/!H ,i>2X,'U
2UTFLCW SLUDGE OUTPUT OUTFLOW1)
WRITE(5,30)
30 FORMATdH ,' (SOFT) (FT) (CF) (MRS) (GAL/LF/DAY) (MG
1/L) (LBS/DAY) (GPM) (CY/DAY) (SF) (MG/L) ')
WRITE(5,32)SA,TKDIA,TKVOL,TIMt,WLOADtSOLWR,SOLSG,SLOUT,FILSO,FILAR
1.6CDWO
32 FCRMATl1HO,F7.1,10F10.1 ///)
WRITE!5,34)
34 FCRMAT( 1HO,10X,' EARTH GRAVEL BASE WALL BACK
1 DISPOS PERIF «/!H , 10X,' EXC MAT SLAB
2 CONC FILL BACK U. D.'/IH f36X,'CUNC ',24X,'FIL
3L • )
WRITE(5,38)EE,GM,BC,WC,BF,DE,PUD
38 FORMATdH ,10X,' (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY)
1 (CY) (LF)' /iHOi 7X,F10. 1,4X,6F10.1 )
GO TO 3
200 CALL EXIT
ENC
// DUP
*DELETE PRIME
*STORE WS UA PRIME
307
-------
// JOB
// FOR
*EXTENDED PRECISION
*ONE WORD INTEGERS
*LIST ALL
*IOCS(CARDtDISK,1403 PRINTER)
DIMENSION A130),8(L3)tOESC(38)»C(51)
C INPUT SECTION
C READ STANDARD INFORMATION
READ(2,2) A
2 FORMATU1F7.0)
C READ VARIABLE DATA
3 READ<2,4) (B(J)tJ = It 11)
4 FORMAT(11F7.0)
READ(2,6) B(12)tB(L3)fOESC
6 FORMAT(2F7.0,38A1)
IF (BID )200,200,7
C AER TANK VOL
7 VOL * ( (B(l) + B(3)* BUM/7,48) * 60. * 6(4)
C ORGANIC LOAD
C<2> « ( B(2) * B(l! * 8.33 *1440. )/(1000000. * VOL /1000.)
C REQUIRED AER. VOL
C(3) = (B(l) * 1440. * B(2) * 8.33 * 1000.)/(1000000.* B(5))
IF(C(2) - B(5)) 8,8,10
8 C(l) » VOL
GO TO 12
10 C(l) = C(3)
C BOD TO MLSS RATIO
12 C(4) = (B(D* 1440 * B(2) * 8.33) /(1000000. * B(6) * 8.33 *(
1C(1) * 7.48 / 1000000.) )
C OXYGEN REQ
C(5) = A(l) * (6(2) * 8(1) * 1440 * 8.33 /(1000000. * 24.))
C SCLIDS RETURN RATE
C(6) = B(i) * B(3)
C PERCENT BOD REMOVAL
C<7) = (100. * A(20) * B(6) * A(2) * B(4M /{ 1 +(A(20) * B(6) * A
1(2) * B(4)) )
C PERCENT BOD REMOVAL AT DESIGN TEMP
EXP = A(21) - 20
ASD * A(20) * 1.05 ** EXP
C(8) = (100. * ASD * B(6) * A(2) * B(4))/(l+ ASD * B(6) * A(2)
1 * B(4) )
C BIOLOGIC SOLIDS GEN
C(9) = ((A(3)*BU)*1440.*B<2)*8.33*C(7)/100.1/1000000.}-(AU4)*Bl6
1)*8.33*C(1)*7.48*A(2)/1000000. )
C EXCESS SOLIDS VOL
CUO) * C(9) * 7.48 /(62.4 * AUM
C EXCESS SOLIDS PUMP RATE
C(ll) = CllO) /(1440 * A129J/24)
C THICKENER SURF A
C< 12) = Cdl ) * 1440 / A(5)
C FILTER AREA
C(13) * C(9) /(A(6) * A<30))
C SCLIDS OUTPUT
C(14) * C(9) * 100. /(62.4 * A(7) * 27 *100.)
C SEDIMENTATION TANK SURFACE AREA
C(15) = (B(l) + (8(3)'* BUM) * 1440./ 8(7)
C SEC TANK DIA
C(16) = IFIX((14*C( 151/3.1418)**.5) +.5)
C SED. TANK VOL
CU7) = CU5)* t(A(8) + (A(8) + 1C ( 16 ) * A ( 9 ) /24 ) M /2)
308
-------
C DETENTION TIME
C(18) = C117) /((B(l) + (BO) * B(l»)« 60./7.48)
C WEIR LOADING
C119) = B(l) * 1440. /O.1418 * (C116) -2))
C BOD IN OUTFLOW
C(20) = B(2) * ( 1 - C(7)/100.)
C AERATION HP
C(21) = C(5) / 2.5
CALL QUATY (C(16),A(15 ) ,B(11),A( 17),A(16),A(8),A(13),C(22),C(23),
1C(24),C(25),C(26),C(27),C(28))
C AERATION TANK VOLUME
C AVERAGE AER TANK AREA
C(29) = C(l) / B(8)
C AVERAGE WIDTH
COO) = (C(29) / B(9)) **.5
C AVERAGE LENGTH
CO1) = B(9) * COO)
C BOTTOM LENGTH
CO2) = COD - .5 * B(8) * A(10)*2.
C BOTTOM WIDTH
CO3) = COO) - .5 * B(8) * A(10)*2.
C LICUID SURFACE LENGTH
CO4) = CO1) + .5 * B(8) * A(10)*2.
C LICUID SURFACE WIDTH
COS) = COO) + .5 * B(8) * A(10)*2.
C TOP LENGTH
CO6) = C(34) + 2 * A(12) * A(10)
C TOP WIDTH
C07) = C(35) + 2 * A(12) * A(10)
C VOLUME EXCAVATION
COS! = ( CO2) * CO3) + ( (CO2) + 2* B113)* A(101) * (CO3)
1 + 2 * B(13) * A(10)))) * (B(13) + A118) + A119J/12.) / 54
C VOLUME EMBANKMENT
CONST = B(8) + A(12) - B(13)
CO9) » ( A(22)* CONST + ( (CONST*CCNST*A (10) ) 12. ) + ((CONST*
1CONST * A(ll))/2.» * <2 *(CO6) +.5*A(22)) + 2 * (C (37) +.5 *
2A(22))) / 27.
C VOLUME OF SPOIL
C(40) = COS) - CO9)
C VOL CONC
XL = B(8) + A(12)
RATS = XL * A(10)
FACT = (XL**2 t RATS**2)**.5
C(41) = (C02) + 2 * FACT) *(CO3) + 2 * FACT) * A (19) / (27. *12. )
C VOLUME OF MAT
C(42) = (CO2) + 2 * FACT) * (CO3) + 2 * FACT) * A(lb) /27.
C CL2 TANK VOLUME - CONTACT TANK
C<43) = B(1) * A(23) / 7.48
C CL2 TANK AREA
C(44) = C(43) / A(24)
WCL = ( C(44)/2)**.5
TCL = 2*WCL
C VOLUME EXCAVATION - CONTACT TANK
AL = TCL + 2* A(27)/12. * 4.
BL = WCL + 2* A(27)/12. + 4.
CI45) = (( AL* BL) * (AL+ AI25)) * (BL + A(2&)1) / 2
C(45) = C(45) * (A(25) •«• A(26)/12. + A(17» / 27.
C VOLUME BASE CONC.
C(46> = (TCL * 2) * (WCL +2) * A126) /(12.* 27.)
C VOLUME OF WALL CONC
C(47) = (2 *(TCL + 2*A(26)/12.)+ 2*WCL) * A(26> * (A(24) + A(28))/
309
-------
* A(17) / 27.
1324
VOLUME OF GRAVEL MAT
C(48) = (TCL + 4) * (WCL +
BACK FILL
C(49) = C(45) - C(46) - C(48) -((TCL + 21 * (fcCL+2) * A(25))/27.
SPOIL
C(50) = C(45) - C (49)
CL2 REQUIREMENTS
C(51) - B(12) * 8(1) * 1440 * 8.33 / 1000000.
OUTPUT SECTION - PRINT INPUT FIRST
CALL HED1
WRITE(5,25)DESC
25 FORMATdHO,38AU55X,'PAGE 1 '/, 1HO, SIX, ' STANDARDS (INPUT)')
WRITE(5,
-------
WRITE(5,48)VOLt(C(K),K
48 FORMATdH,' (DET TIME)
* 'RATE
1PUMP RATE AREA'/lH ,'
2XHR) (GPM)
3 (SF)'/1HO,F8
WRITE(5,50)
50 FORMAT
-------
// JOB
// FOR
*EXTENOED PRECISION
*LIST ALL
*ONE WORD INTEGERS
SUBROUTINE QUATY (TK,SW,HTfGR|B0» SP,FR,E,G,B,W ,F,D.P)
CW = SW/12
TEMP = TK + (2*CW) + 4
EE = (.785 * TEMP**2 +
E = EE * (GR + BO/12.
G = ((3.1418/4.) *
B = (3.1418/4.) *
W = 3.1418 * (TK
F = E - G - B -(((3
D = E - F
P = 3.1418 * (TK
RETURN
.785 * (TEMP * HT)**2)/2
+ HT)/27.
((TK + 2*CW -f4)**2)*GR) / 27.
((TK + 2*CW +2)**2) * BO/127.*12.)
+ CW) * CW * (SP + FR) /27.
1418/4.)* ((TK + 2*CW)**2) * HTJ/27.)
4)
END
// DUP
*DELETE
*STORE
WS UA
CUATY
QUATY
312
-------
II JOB
// XEQ PRIME
°'°4 12* l' U5 12- ?• 5. Q.lb 1. 0.85 0 <*5
L5S?" 8°°* 2A> 7' AP FT ^AIRFIELD PRIMARY SEC CUND A-l
nn ? ' 24> 7' AP FT FAIRFIELD PRIMARY SED COND A-2
278. 1600. 2100. 800. 24. 7. AP FT FAIRFIELD PRIMARY SED CCNO A-3
313
-------
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO., INC.
ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
PORTLAND - BANGOR - PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE
AP FT FAIRFIELD PRIMARY SED CONO A-l
STANDARDS (INPUT)
ss
SLUDGE
OUTFLOW
(PC)
0.04
SIDE
WATER
DEPTH
(FT)
12.00
BOTTOM FREE-
SLOPE BOARD
(IN/FT) (FT)
1.00 1.50
INFLOW
(GPM)
570.0
SIDE
WALL
THKNS
( IN)
12.00
s s
INFLOW
(MG/L)
2000.0
BOTTOM
SLAB
THKNS
( IN)
7.00
VARIABLE
FILTER
LOADING
(LBS/HR)
5.00
S S
FILTER
OUTPUT
(P C)
0.15
GRAVEL
BASE
THKNS
(FT)
1.00
S S BOD
REMOVAL REMOVAL
(PC) (PC)
0.65 0.45
DATA (INPUT)
BOO SURFACE
INFLOW LOADING
(MG/L) (GAL/SF/DAY)
2500.0
800.0
FILTER
OPS
IHRS/OAY)
24.0
EARTH
HEIGHT
(FT)
7.0
OUTPUT
SURFACE
AREA
(SOFT)
1026.0
TANK
DIAM
(FT)
36.0
EARTH
EXC
(CV)
519.6
TANK DETENT WEIR
VOL TIME LOADING
(CF) IHRS) (GAL/LF/OAY)
13081.5 2.8
GRAVEL BASE
HAT SLAB
CONC
(CY) (CY)
51.3 27.
7683.8
WALL
CONC
(CY)
1 58.1
S S SCLIDS
WEIR TO
OUTFLOW SLUDGE
(MG/L) (LBS/OAY)
300.0
BACK
FILL
(CY)
147.
11623.3
DISPOS
BACK
FILL
(CY)
1 372.5
SLUDGE FILTER
OUTFLOW " SOLIDS
OUTPUT
(GPM) (CY/DAY)
24.1
41.3
FILTER BCD
AREA WEIR
OUTFLOW
-------
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO.. INC.
ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
PORTLAND - BANGOR - PRESCUE ISLE, MAINE
AP FT FAIRFIELO PRIMARY SEO COND A-2
STANDARDS (INPUT!
ss
SLUDGE
OUTFLOW
(PCJ
0.04
SIDE
HATER
DEPTH
(FT)
12.00
BOTTOM FREE-
SLOPE BOARD
(IN/FT) (FT)
1.00 1.50
INFLOW
(GPM)
417.0
SIDE
HALL
THKNS
(IN)
12.00
S S
INFLOW
(MG/L)
2700.0
BOTTOM
SLAB
THKNS
(IN)
7.00
VARIABLE
BOD
INFLOW
(MG/L)
3400.0
FILTER
LOADING
(LBS/HRI
5.00
S S
FILTER
OUTPUT
(P C)
0.15
GRAVEL
BASE
THKNS
(FTI
1.00
S S B 0. 0
REMOVAL REMOVAL
(PC) (PC)
0.85 0.45
DATA (INPUT)
SURFACE
LOADING
(GAL/SF/OAY)
800.0
FILTER
OPS
(HRS/OAY)
24.0
EARTH
HEIGHT
(FT)
7.0
OUTPUT
SURFACE
AREA
(SOFT)
750.6
TANK
DIAH
(FT)
31.0
EARTH
EXC
(CY)
412.3
TANK DETENT HEIR
VOL TIME LOADING
(CF) (HRSI (GAL/LF/DAY)
9491.9 2.8
GRAVEL BASE
MAT SLAB
CONC
(CY) (CY)
39.8 20.
6590.5
WALL
CONC
(CY)
7 50.2
S S
WEIR
OUTFLOW
(MG/L)
405.0
SOLIDS
TO
SLUDGE
(LBS/DAY)
11479.5
BACK DISPOS
FILL BACK
FILL
(CY) (CYi
130
.0 282.3
SLUDGE FILTER
OUTFLOW SULIDS
OUTPUT
(GPM) (CY/DAY)
23.8
40.8
FILTER BOD
AREA WEIR
OUTFLOW
(SF) (MG/L)
95.6 1870.0
PERIF
U. D.
(LF)
109.9
-------
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO., INC.
ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
PORTLAND - BANbOR - PRESQUE ISLEt MAINE
AP FT FAIRFIELD PRIMARY SED COND A-3
00
M
ON
STANDARDS (INPUT)
ss
SLUDGE
OUTFLOW
(PC»
0.04
SIDE
WATER
DEPTH
(FT)
12.00
BOTTOM FREE-
SLOPE BOARD
(IN/FT) (FT)
1.00 1.50
INFLOW
(GPM)
278.0
SIDE
WALL
THKNS
(IN)
12.00
S S
INFLOW
(MG/L)
1600.0
BOTTOM
SLAB
THKNS
(IN)
7.00
VARIABLE
BOD
INFLOW
(MG/L)
2100.0
FILTER
LOADING
(LBS/HR)
5.00
S S
FILTER
OUTPUT
IP C)
0.15
GRAVEL
BASE
THKNS
(FT)
1.00
S S BOD
REMOVAL REMOVAL
(PC) (PC)
O.B5 0.45
DATA (INPUT)
SURFACE
LOADING
(GAL/SF/DAY)
800.0
FILTER
OPS
(MRS/DAY!
24.0
EARTH
HEIGHT
(FT)
7.0
OUTPUT
SURFACE
AREA
(SOFT)
500.4
TANK
DIAM
(FT)
25.0
EARTH
EXC
(CY)
300.0
TANK DETENT HEIR
VOL TIME LOADING
(CF) (MRS) (GAL/LF/OAY)
6265.4 2.8
GRAVEL BASE
MAT SLAB
CQNC
(CY) (CY)
27.9 14.
5539.8
WALL
CONC
(CY)
2 40.8
S S
WEIR
OUTFLOW
(MG/L)
240.0
SOLIDS
TO
SLUDGE
(LBS/DAY)
4535.1
BACK OISPOS
FILL BACK
FILL
(CY) (CY)
109
.4 190.6
SLUDGE FILTER
OUTFLOW SOLIDS
OUTPUT
(GPM) (CY/DAY)
9.4
16.1
FILTER BCD
AREA WEIR
OUTFLOW
(SF) (MG/L)
37.7 1155.0
PERIF
U. D.
(LF)
91.1
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY, ABBREVATIONS AND SYMBOLS
activated carbon - Carbon particles usually obtained by carbonization of
cellulosic material in the absence of air and possessing a high adsorptive
capacity.
activated sludge - Sludge floe produced in raw or settled wastewater by
the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms in the presence of
dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient concentration by returning
floe previously formed.
activated sludge process - A biological wastewater treatment process in
which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aerated.
The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the treated waste-
water (mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or returned to the
process as needed.
aerated pond - A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in which
mechanical or diffused-air aeration is used to supplement the oxygen
supply. See oxidation pond.
aeration tank - A tank in which sludge, wastewater, or other liquid is
aerated.
aerobic bacteria - Bacteria that require free elemental oxygen for their
growth.
alkalinity - The capacity of water to[neutralize acids, a property im-
parted by the water's content of carbonates, bicarbonates, hydroxides,
and occasionally berates, silicates, and phosphates. It is expressed
in milligrams per liter of equivalent calcium carbonate.
ammonia - A chemical combination of hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) occurr-
ing extensively in nature. The combination used in water and wastewater
engineering is expressed as NH-^.
anaerobic - Requiring, or not destroyed by, the absence of air or free
(elemental) oxygen.
assimilative capacity - The capacity of a natural body of water to re-
ceive: (a) wastewaters, without deleterious effects; (b) toxic materials,
without damage to aquatic life or humans who consume the water; (c) BOD,
within prescribed dissolved oxygen limits.
biological process - (1) The process by which the life activities of bac-
teria and other microorganisms, in the search for food, break down complex
organic materials into simple, more stable substances. Self-purification
of polluted streams, sludge digestion, and all the so-called secondary
317
-------
wastewater treatments result from this process. (2) Process involving
living organisms and their life activities. Also called biochemical process
BOD - (1) Abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand. The quantity of
oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified
time, at a specified temperature, and under specified conditions. (2) A
standard test used in assessing wastewater strength.
BOD load - The BOD content, usually expressed in pounds per unit of time,
of wastewater passing into a waste treatment system or to a body of water.
centrifuge - A mechanical device in which centrifugal force is used to
separate solids from liquids and/or to separate liquids of different
densities.
chlorination - The application of chlorine to water or wastewater, gen-
erally for the purpose of disinfection, but frequently for accomplishing
other biological or chemical results.
COD - Symbol for chemical oxygen demand.
coliform-group bacteria - A group of bacteria predominantly inhabiting
the intestines of a man or animal, but also occasionally found elsewhere.
It includes all aerobic and facultative anaerobic, Gram-negative, non-
sporeforming bacilli that ferment lactose with production of gas. Also
included are all bacteria that produce a dark, purplish-green colony
with metallic sheen by the membrane-filter technique used for coliform
identification. The two groups are not always identical, but they are
generally of equal sanitary significance.
contact stabilization process - A modification of the activated sludge
process in which raw wastewater is aerated with a high concentration
of activated sludge for a short period, usually less than 60 min, to
obtain BOD removal by absorption. The solids are subsequently removed
by sedimentation and transferred to a stabilization tank where aeration
is continued further to oxidize and condition them before their reintro-
duction to the raw wastewater flow.
detention time - The theoretical time required to displace the contents
of a tank or unit at a given rate of discharge (volume divided by rate
of discharge).
disinfection - The art of killing the larger portion of microorganisms
in or on a substance with the probability that all pathogenic bacteria
are killed by the agent used.
dissolved oxygen - The oxygen dissolved in water, wastewater, or other
liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per liter, parts per million,
or percent of saturation. Abbreviated DO.
318
-------
dissolved solids - Theoretically, the anhydrous residues of the dissolved
constituents in water. Actually, the term is defined by the method used
in determination. In water and wastewater treatment the Standard Methods
tests are used.
domestic wastewater - Wastewater derived principally from dwellings,
business buildings, institutions, and the like. It may or may not con-
tain groundwater, surface water, or storm water.
excess sludge - The sludge produced in an activated sludge treatment plant
that is not needed to maintain process and is withdrawn from circulation.
extended aeration - A modification of the activated sludge process which
provides for aerobic sludge digestion within the aeration system. The
concept envisages the stabilization of organic matter under aerobic
conditions and disposal of the end products into the air as gases and
with the plant effluent as finely divided suspended matter and soluble
matter.
fixed solids - The residue remaining after ignition of suspended or dis-
solved matter according to standard methods.
flotation - The process of removing suspended solids by induced air
bubbles which cause the material to rise to the surface.
force main - A pressure pipe joining the pump discharge at a water or
wastewater pumping station with a point of gravity flow.
industrial wastes - The liquid wastes from industrial processes, as
distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes.
intercepting sewer - A sewer that receives dry-weather flow from a num-
ber of transverse sewers or outlets and frequently additional predeter-
mined quantities of storm water (if from a combined system), and con-
ducts such waters to a point for treatment or disposal.
inverted siphon - A pipeline crossing a depression or passing under a
structure and having a reversal in grade on a portion of the line, thus
creating a V- or U-shaped section of conduit. The line is under positive
pressure from inlet to outlet and should not be confused with a siphon.
Also called depressed sewer.
mechanical aeration - (1) The mixing, by mechanical means, of wastewater
and activated sludge in the aeration tank of the activated sludge process
to bring fresh surfaces of liquid into contact with the atmosphere.
(2) The introduction of atmospheric oxygen into a liquid by the mechanical
action of paddle, paddle wheel, spray, or turbine mechanisms.
milligrams per liter - A unit of the concentration of water or wastewater
constituent. It is 0.001 g of the constituent in 1,000 ml of water. It
has replaced the unit formerly used commonly, parts per million, to which
it is approximately equivalent, in reporting the results of water and
wastewater analysis.
319
-------
orthophosphate - An acid or salt containing phosphorus as PO^.
outfall sewer - A sewer that receives wastewater from a collecting sys-
tem or from a treatment plant and carries it to a point of final discharge.
oxidation pond - A basin need for retention of wastewater before final
disposal, in which biological oxidation of organic material is effected
by natural or artificially accelerated transfer of oxygen to the water
from air.
£H - The reciprocal of the logarithm of the hydrogen-ion concentration.
The concentration is the weight of hydrogen ions, in grams, per liter of
solution. Neutral water for example, has a pH value of 7 and a hydrogen-
ion concentration of 10~'.
population equivalent - A means of expressing the strength of organic
material in wastewater. Domestic wastewater consumes, on an average,
0.17 Ib of oxygen per capita per day, as measured by the standard BOD
test. This figure has been used to measure the strength of organic
industrial waste in terms of an equivalent number of persons. For
example, if an industry discharges 1,000 pounds of BOD per day, its
waste is equivalent to the domestic wastewater from 6,000 persons
(1,000 r 0.17 = 6,000).
primary treatment - (1) The first major (sometimes the only) treatment
in a wastewater treatment works, usually sedimentation. (2) The removal
of a substantial amount of suspended matter but little or no colloidal
and dissolved matter.
returned sludge - Settled activated sludge returned to mix with incoming
raw or primary settled wastewater.
secondary wastewater treatment - The treatment of wastewater by biologi-
cal methods after primary treatment by sedimentation.
sedimentation tank - A basin or tank in which water or wastewater contain-
ing settleable solids is retained to remove by gravity a part of the
suspended matter. Also called sedimentation basin, settling basin,
settling tank.
settleable solids - (1) That matter in wastewater which will not stay in
suspension during a preselected settling period, such as one hour, but
either settles to the bottom or floats to the top. (2) In the Imhoff
cone test, the volume of matter that settles to the bottom of the cone
in one hour.
sludge dewatering - The process of removing a part of the water in sludge
by any method such as draining, evaporation, pressing, vacuum filtration,
centrifuging, exhausting, passing between rollers, acid flotation, or
dissolved-air flotation with or without heat. Involves reducing from a
liquid to a spadable condition rather than merely changing the density
of the liquid (concentration) on the one hand or drying (as in a kiln)
on the other.
320
-------
suspended solids SS - (1) Solids that either float on the surface of, or
are in suspension in, water, wastewater, or other liquids, and which are
largely removable by laboratory filtering. (2) the quantity of material
removed from wastewater in a laboratory test, as prescribed in "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" and referred to as
nonfilterable residue.
total solids TS - The sum of dissolved and undissolved constituents in
water or wastewater, usually stated im milligrams per liter.
vacuum filter - A filter consisting of a cylindrical drum mounted on a
horizontal axis, covered with a filter cloth, and revolving with a partial
submergence in liquid. A vacuum is maintained
under the cloth for the
larger part of a revolution to extract moisture. The cake is scraped off
continously.
volatile solids - The quantity of solids in water, wastewater, or other
liquids, lost in ignition of the dry solids at 600°C.
321
-------
SECTION XV
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
THE NORTHERN MAINE REGIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study has been to make a preliminary investigation
of the subsurface conditions in the vicinity of proposed pollution con-
trol facilities proposed in the Research and Development phase of the
Northern Maine Regional Treatment System. It is understood that the pro-
posed facilities are to consist of works for the conveyance and treat-
ment of domestic and industrial sanitary sewage from Washburn, Presque
Isle, Easton Station, Caribou, and Grimes Mill.
The investigation has been accomplished through a review of available
airphotos and soil and geologic maps, a geologic field reconnaissance,
field explorations, and laboratory testing and analysis. The airphotos
and maps reviewed were: (1) Aerial photographs of Project Area, Proj
16110 DPT, by James W. Sewall Company of Old Town, Maine, dated May 15,
1971; (2) Soil Survey, Aroostook County, Maine, Northern Part, Series
1958, No 27, USDA Soil Conservation Service, issued April, 1964; and (3)
Preliminary Geologic Map of Maine, Maine Geological Survey, 1967. The
geologic field reconnaissance was made in mid-October, 1971, by Mr. S. E.
Walker of Jordan Gorrill Associates.
The subsurface conditions were explored by means of 43 test borings made
by Maine Test Broings, Inc, of Brewer, Maine, in November and December,
1971. The locations of the borings (except the three made at Washburn
which are not shown), as selected by Jordan Gorrill Assoicates, are
indicated on the Boring Location Maps, Figures 67 and 68. Logs of the
borings based on the drillers' field notes and modified on the basis of
laboratory examination and evaluation of the samples and field data are
presented as data sheets 3 through 45. A key to symbols and terms used
on the logs is included as data sheet 2.
All samples retrieved from the borings were visually examined in the
laboratory. Representative samples were selected for grain size analy-
sis, the results of which are plotted on data sheets 46, 47 and 48. A
qualitative evaluation of the moisture condition of each of the samples
based on visual examination as received at the laboratory was made and
is recorded at the appropriate location on the logs.
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION^ OF SITE CONDITIONS
GENERAL - As anticipated from airphoto and map reviews, the soils in the
study area were found through the field reconnaissance and explorations
to be a variety of glacial (late Wisconsin Age) and post-glacial ice-,
323
-------
FIGURE 67
CORE AREA BORING LOCATIONS
SOUTHERN AREA
324
-------
MATCH LINI---- Sil SOUTHUN All A
FIGURE 68
CORE AREA BORING LOCATIONS
NORTHERN AREA
325
-------
water-, and wind deposited soils over the undulating surface of the dark
grey metamorphosed limestone common throughout the area. Generally, the'
soils of the rolling upland areas consist of only a few feet of firm to
compact till (an unstratified, well-graded mixture of clay to gravel and
boulder sized particles) over the sometimes weathered bedrock surface,
while the stream and river valleys are underlain by some tills and a
variety of loose to compact stratified, water-laid deposits of silts,
sands, and gravels over the erratically shallow (exposed at ground sur-
face) to deep (greater than 31.5 at Caribou Stream) bedrock surface.
Groundwater levels appear to vary with the local terrain and soil condi-
tions, and are expected to fluctuate considerably (probably as much as
5 to 8 feet) with the seasons and climatic conditions. Free groundwater
was not encountered in many of the shallow (less than 12 feet deep) bor-
ings.
Brief descriptions and evaluations of the site conditions at the several
sections of the study area are presented in the following paragraphs.
WASHBURN TREATMENT PLANT SITE - The proposed Washburn treatment plant site
(upland site) is located on a broad terrace above the floodplain of Sal-
mon Brook about a quarter of a mile north of Wade Road and west of the
Brook. The subsurface conditions were explored by Borings W-l, -2, and
-3. Logs of these borings are presented as data sheets 3, 4 and 5, and
again size distribution curves for four representative samples are
plotted on data sheet 46. As may be seen from the logs, the site is
underlain by 8 to 9 feet of firm to compact sandy gravel which is in turn
underlain by about 8 to 13 feet of firm silty sand and firm sandy siltt
extending at least to the exploration depths of 26.5 feet. Based on the
moisture condition of the samples, it appears that the groundwater table
was at or below a depth of 20 feet in late November, 1971. The soils
have high to moderate bearing strengths and would be expected to provide
adequate support for the proposed basin, tank, and control facilities.
GRIMES MILL TREATMENT PLANT SITE - The proposed Grimes Mill treatment
plant site is located on a broad terrace, about 25 to 30 feet above the
Aroostook River, west of State Route 223 and about a half mile north of
the confluence of the Little Madawaska and Aroostook Rivers. The subsur-
face conditions were explored by Borings GM-1 and -2, located approxi-
mately as shown on the Subsurface Exploration Map, Figure 68. Logs of
these borings are presented as data sheets 6 and 7, and grain size dis-
tribution curves for two representative samples are plotted on data
sheet 47. The borings encountered firm to compact water-laid deposits of
sand and gravel, with some thin clay and silt layers below 25 feet in
GM-1, extending to the bottoms of the borings at a depth of 26.5 feet.
Although some of the near-surface samples were found to be damp, the
groundwater table was apparently at least 25 feet below the ground sur-
face in mid-December, 1971. The soils have moderate to high bearing
strengths and would be expected to provide adequate support for normal
treatment facilities.
326
-------
POTATO SERVICE, INC TREATMENT PLANT SITE - The existing Potato Service
treatment facilities are located on the northerly bank about 15 to 20
feet above the Aroostook River adjacent to the company's potato process-
ing plant approximately one mile east of US Route 1 on State Route 210.
The subsurface conditions were explored by borings PC-1 (near the process-
ing plant), PC-1A and -IB (through the dikes of the aeration basins of
the existing treatment facilities), and PC-2 (about 100 feet north of
the existing basins). The approximate locations of these borings are
shown on Figure 67. Logs of these borings are presented as data sheets
8 through 11. As may be seen from the logs, the borings encountered 0
to 14 feet of loose to firm gravelly silty sand fill over firm strati-
fied silty sand at 8 feet in PC-1 and over firm to compact and stiff
glacial till in the other three borings. The refusal to sampler penetra-
tion at 26.0 feet in PC-1A may have been caused by a boulder, but the
refusal encountered at 8.0 feet in PC-2 is believed to have been on the
bedrock surface. The natural groundwater table appears to have been at
least 8 feet below the surface in late November, 1971. The undisturbed
native soils would be expected to provide suitable support for additional
structures or earthfill embankments. However, the loose surficial fills
and probably shallow bedrock would be expected to cause some difficulty
in making any deep trench excavations.
PRESQUE ISLE TO CARIBOU INTERCONNECT - The proposed 6 to 8 foot conduit
from Presque Isle to Caribou is to be located along the westerly bank of
the Aroostook River and extend from the vicinity of the existing treat-
ment facilities at the Potato Service Inc plant to the vicinity of the
existing municipal treatment plant in Caribou. The conduit invert is to
slope.from elev 438+ (USGS) at Sta 0+000 (preliminary project stationing)
at the Potato Service Inc plant to elev 425+ at Sta 17+500, drop to elev
423+ at Sta 17+500, slope to elev 403+ at Caribou Stream, Sta 67+500+,
and then slope into the municipal treatment plant at Sta 71000+ (ground
surface at elev 390+). The proposed sewage pipeline from Easton Station
is to discharge into this conduit at Sta 7+600+.
The subsurface conditions along the proposed route were explored by 31
borings numbered PC-1 to -28 (with auxiliary numbers) and EP-1. The
approximate locations of these borings are indicated on Figures 67 and
68. The logs are presented as data sheets 8 and 11 through 40. Grain
size distribution curves for nine representative samples are plotted on
data sheet 48.
As may be seen from the logs, the borings encountered a variety of soil,
rock, and groundwater conditions. Generally, the soils along the proposed
route were found to consist of various combinations of glacial till,
stratified river terrace (including glacial outwash and recent alluvium)
deposits, and miscellaneous man-placed fills overlying the irregular bed-
rock surface. Groundwater levels vary with both terrain and season from
depths of less than 1 foot to greater than 15 feet below the ground
surface.
327
-------
With reference to the preliminary project stationing and proposed conduit
invert elevations, we would expect the following subsurface conditions:
0+000 to 1+500
1+500 to 7+000
7+000 to 10+000
10+000 to 14+000
14+000 to 15+750
15+750 to 19+500
19+500 to 21+150
21+150 to 30+500
30+500 to 37+000
37+000 to 50+000
50+000 to 52+500
0 to 8 feet of fill over 5 to
10 feet of till. Bedrock below
invert.
0 to 10 feet of till over bed-
rock, 0 to 20 feet above invert.
Some groundwater near bedrock
surface.
10+ feet of till. Bedrock
below invert.
0 to 10+ feet of fill and river
terrace deposits over till.
Bedrock below invert.
Groundwater at or below invert.
4 to 10 feet of terrace deposits
and till over bedrock, 0 to 4
feet above invert. Groundwater
at or below invert.
4 to 10 feet of terrace depo-
sits and fill over till. Bed-
rock below invert. Groundwater
near top of till, 0 to 3 feet
above invert.
10 to 15 feet of terrace de-
posits over till. Bedrock be-
low invert. Some groundwater
near top of till, 2 to 4 feet
above invert.
0 to 6 feet of terrace or out-
wash deposits over till, 0 to
12 feet above invert. Bedrock
below invert. Some groundwater
near top of till, below to 3
feet above invert.
0 to 15 feet of terrace, out-
wash, and alluvial deposits
over till. Till and bedrock
below invert. Groundwater be-
low invert.
0 to 5 feet of terrace or out-
wash deposits, over 4 to 10
feet of till, over bedrock at
invert +2 to -2 feet. Ground-
water near surface of till, 0
to 5 feet above invert.
0 to 3 feet of terrace deposits,
over 10 feet of till. Bedrock
below invert. Groundwater at
or below invert.
328
-------
52+500 to 55+000 10 to 25 feet of till over
bedrock, 0 to 6 feet above in-
vert. Groundwater in till 5 to
10 feet above invert.
55+000 to 56+000 Same as above except bedrock
below invert.
56+000 to 63+500 5 to 30+ feet of terrace or out-
wash deposits over till. Bed-
rock below invert. Groundwater
below invert.
63+500 to 61+000+ 0 to 6 feet of fill or terrace
and outwash deposits, above in-
vert. 0 to 30 feet of outwash
over till, below invert. Bed-
rock below invert. Groundwater
below invert.
Although much of the required excavation work is not expected to en-
counter any unusual construction difficulties, some sections will probably
require one or more of the following: rock excavation, sheeting and
bracing, and control of surface and groundwater seepage. The areas of
deep cut will need considerably more exploration and evaluation prior to
final design and construction. Control of seepage in excavations made
entirely in nearly impervious tills is not expected to be difficult, prob-
ably requiring only sump pumping. However, seepage control in excava-
tions below the groundwater table in the pervious terrace, outwash and
alluvial deposits will warrant careful consideration and may require some
braced close sheeting and sump pumping and possibly some wellpoint de-
watering .
The conduit will require an elevated structure for the Caribou Stream
crossing. The results of Boring PC-27 indicate that soils below a depth
of about 9 feet should have sufficient bearing strength to support such
a structure.
EASTON STATION TO PRESQUE ISLE - The proposed 14- to 24-inch pipeline
from Easton Station to the proposed Presque Isle to Caribou conduit is to
extend from the industrial complex at Easton Station, along the Bangor
& Aroostook Railroad tracks to Rand Pond, down, northwesterly, to and
across the Aroostook River approximately three-quarters of a mile south-
west of the intersection of State Routes 163 and 205. The subsurface
conditions were explored by Borings EP-1 (at the proposed Presque Isle
to Caribou conduit) , EP-2 and -3 (on the westerly and easterly banks of
the river), and EP-4, -5 and -6 (along the proposed pipeline from Easton
Station). The approximate locations of these borings are indicated on
the Subsurface Exploration Map, Figure 67. The logs are presented as
data sheets 40 through 45 and grain-size distribution curves for two
representative samples are plotted on data sheet 47.
329
-------
Boring EP-1 encountered firm to compact sandy silt till extending to the
completion depth of 11.5 feet. Although the samples were damp,, no free
groundwater was observed during the drilling of the hole. Excavations, j
within the explored depth, would not be expected to pose any unusual dif-
ficulties.
Boring EP-2, on the westerly bank (ground surface about 12 to 15 feet
above the river level), encountered 4 feet of loose (probably flood-
deposited) silty fine sand over 8 feet of compact to very compact sandy
silt till which was in turn underlain by a water-laid deposit of very.,
compact gravelly sand extending to the 26.5-foot completion depth of ,the
boring. The field and laboratory observations indicate the groundwater
table was between 12 and 15 feet below the surface (about at the river
level) in early December, 1971. Boring EP-3, near the easterly bank
(ground surface about 30 feet above river level), encountered several firm
to compact strata of water-deposited silts, sands, and gravels before
being terminated by refusal (probably on bedrock, but possibly on a
boulder) at the depth of 15.3 feet, the borehole and samples were dry
to the depth explored. On the two banks, excavations extending to ele-
vations above river level are not expected to encounter any unusual dif-
ficulties except possibly some rock excavation in the vicinity of EP-3
depending upon the required excavation depth. However, excavations ex-
tending into the clean granular deposits below river level will probably
require close sheeting and bracing and possibly wellpoint dewatering to
maintain trench stability. Based on the limited information and observa-
tions currently available, little or no rock excavation is expected for
the river crossing itself.
The soils along the cross-country pipeline from the crossing of State
Route 163 to Easton Station are expected to consist of firm to compact
shaley glacial tills from 0 to more than 10 feet thick over the undulat-
ing and sometimes weathered limestone-shale bedrock surface. Groundwater
levels vary with both season and terrain from depths of less than 1 foot
to greater than 10 feet, sometimes being well below the bedrock surface.
With regard to the preliminary stationing (in 1000-foot stations) which
has been assigned, we would expect the depths to bedrock to vary approxi-
mately as follows:
Stations, Depth to Bedrock
0+250 (edge of river) to 0+750 6 to 15+ feet
0+750 to 1+500 2 to 6
1+500 to 3+000 0 to 6
3+000 to 4+500 6 to 10+
4+500 to 6+000 0 to 6
6+000 to 10+000 3 to 6
10+000 to 12+000 6 to 10+
12+000 to 14+000 0 to 6
14+000 to 19+000 (B&A RR tracks) 3 to 6
19+000 to Easton Station 4+ to 6+
330
-------
The necessity for a considerable amount of rock excavations is expected
to be the major construction difficulty; however, control of surface and
groundwater, especially in any deep cuts and in the low-lying areas along
the stream will also warrant careful consideration.
LIMITATIONS
The descriptions and evaluations of the site conditions as presented
herein are based on an interpretation of a limited number of widely
spaced explorations, on-site observations of surficial features, and a
review of available mapping and photographic information. The evaluations
are preliminary in nature and scope and are intended for use in prelimin-
ary engineering planning and cost estimating only. Additional detailed
exploration, testing, and analysis will be needed to establish appropri-
ate design criteria for the several proposed facilities.
331
-------
DATA SHEET 2
NOTES
1. w Water content, percent - dry weight basis.
2. c Unit cohesion, tons/sq ft - based on Unconfined Compression
testing.
3. qp Unconfined compressive strength - by pocket penetrometer.
4. cv Unit cohesion, tons/sq ft - based on Field Vane Shear Test-
ing.
5. C Groundwater surface (casing in place) - based on observation
by the boring crew.
6. Groundwater surface (casing removed) - based on observation
by the boring crew.
7> //// Hole caved in and dry at depth indicated.
8. LL Liquid limit.
9. PI Plasticity index.
10. WOH Weight of hammer.
11. WOR Weight of rods.
332
-------
SECTION XVI
SUMMARY REPORT
As part of its program for pollution abatement, the NMRPC has actively
pursued public information programs to inform the citizens and indus-
tries of its activities. Because of the length and technical nature of
both the "Research and Development" and the "River Basin Planning" re-
ports, the NMRPC felt that it would be difficult for the public to read
and comprehend them. The NMRPC decided, therefore, to prepare a summary
report:to inform the general public on the nature of the studies under-
taken .
The summary report contains discussions on the historic background.of the
project, the nature of the problem, the effects of existing waste loads on
the river, techniques of waste treatment, the pollution control alternatives,
the research and development efforts, cost analysis, the land use and pop-
ulation studies, the economy of the area, legal and administrative consid-
erations for implementation, and the basic conclusions and recommendations
of the project. In order to make the summary report as effective as possi-
ble, graphics were employed to illustrate basic treatment processes and to
define the geographic limits of study area (center fold of report). In
addition, photographs were employed to illustrate the nature of specific
problems, and the general characteristics of the area.
A draft of the summary report was prepared by the Edward C. Jordan Co.,
Inc. and edited by the NMRPC. To provide maximum impact on the reader,
it was decided that the cover and center fold map of the area should
be multicolored. Upon completion of the draft, a professional printing
firm was contracted with to print 5,000 copies of the summary report.
The initial distribution of the report was made at a public hearing
held in Presque Isle, Maine, on April 26, 1972. Since that date, the
summary report has been distributed by the NMRPC to numerous civic organ-
izations, and local, state, national, and international government officials.
A representative distribution list is as follows:
Chamber of Commerces
Rotary Clubs
St John River Basin Board
Local Community Officials, including:
Town Selectmen, Town Council Members
Planning Boards, Sewer Districts,,and
Water Districts
Nato-CCMS-Inland Watter Pollution Project, United States
Symposium, Fish River Lake, Maine, Sept 18-23, 1972
Interested parties can obtain copies of the summary report upon request
from the NMRPC.
333 «U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973 514-155/30? 1-3
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
!. Re," -tffo.
05D
w
The Northern Maine Regional Treatment System
.7. R- P»rt D
April 1973
James A. Barresi, Jeffery Gammon and Robert E. Hunter
northern Maine Regional Planning Commission
P. 0. Box 911
Presque Isle, Maine
16110 DPT
12. : Sponsoring OrS,n!za,ion
13. Ty/-,-?(?' Rrpot -'.me!
Period i^ovteu
I, Northern Maine Regional
Planning Commission, Industry
R & D, Feb. 1971 - Dee
1972
Environmental Protection Agency report
number, EPA-R5-73-013, April 1973.
Detailed sampling, gaging and laboratory analyses determined current waste loads
from the Arooatook-Prestile Basin* s potato processing industry. Studies indicated
that significant reductions in load could be accomplished by in-plant conservation.
Biological Treatment of the residual wastes, however, was found necessary.
Preliminary designs were prepared for numerous treatment and loading operations,
including joint industry-municipal plants and regionally inter-connected systems.
A transport-treatment channel system covering some eleven miles was shown to be
technically feasible.
Cost analyses of all viable options and alternatives were prepared, including
capital and operating costs. Annual revenue requirements for each system were pro-
jected, including evaluation of current State and Federal grant-in-aid programs.
Joint municipal-industrial treatment facilities proved the most economic course of
action.
The technical studies of the research and development program were evaluated
for water quality impact on the receiving waters, as determined by Companion River
Basin Studies.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project No. 16110 DPT under the
partial sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection
Agency.
17a. Descriptors
"Regional Treatment, Municipal Treatment, Potato and Sugar Beet Treatment,
Treatment in Transport, Inter-Basin Transfers
17h Idcr.tlftr'f;
International Stream (US-Canada), St. John River, Aroostook River, Prestile
Stream, State of Maine, Arooetook County, Municipal, Industrial, Coat Sharing,
Treatment Type
Grouo
ft i , -, . Y 19. S nrity C'xss.
20. Security CVasi.
21. fa. Oi
22. Price
Send To :
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. ZO24O
| ',. Environmental Protection Agency
------- |