EPA 400/9-73/001
OCTOBER 1973
A COMPUTER MODEL FOR EVALUATING
COMMUNITY PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL STRATEGIES
^ PRO^°
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
A COMPUTER MODEL FOR EVALUATING
COMMUNITY PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL STRATEGIES
By
Donald S. Yeaple
David A. Barnes
Francis A. DiGiano
JBF Scientific Corporation
2 Ray Avenue
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
Contract No. 68-01-0758
Prepared for
OFFICE OF AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
-------
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 Protection Agency, ncr does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or re-
commendation for use.
The Environmental Protection Agency has not verified this
computer model by using it to calculate the phosphorus removal
costs of many existing sewage treatment plants, and comparing
these calculated costs with the known costs of these operating
plants. The Office of Air and Water Programs would appreciate
receiving results of any such comparisons. Users of the model
may borrow a copy of Sensitivity Analysis__of a^Phosphorus Removal
Strategy Computer Model from the Office of Air and Water Programs,
ThTs~unp~ublis"hed report analyzes the sensitivity of the model's
parameters.
The Soap and Detergent Association has made the following comment
on this model.
"The phosphorus substitutes available at this time have costs
associated with their use which may partially offset or totally
outweight the savings in phosphorus removal costs which would
ensue from a ban on phosphorus in detergents. Examples are
higher raw material costs, shorter garment life, increased fre-
quency of washing machine service calls, loss of flame retardancy
of finishes on children's sleepwear, increased ingestion hazard,
potentially increased cost for treating the phosphate replacement
at the waste treatment plant. The costs do not lend themselves to
inclusion in a computer program. Every user of this program is
advised to evaluate magnitude of these off-setting costs in the
community of concern before drawing any conclusions. "
-------
ABSTRACT
A computer model for evaluating a number of strategies for removing
phosphorus in wastewater has been developed. The influence on
total treatment cost of several non-treatment strategies such as the
elimination of phosphates in detergents can be evaluated in terms of
the treatment cost at local waste treatment plants.
A review of phosphorus removal technology was conducted in order
to determine what methods should be included as available techniques
in a treatment strategy. Chemical precipitation techniques were
selected as being both available and most effective at the present time
and in the immediate future.
The model reports to the user the total cost of a selected strategy
for removing phosphorus. Over 21 treatment schemes with several
sludge handling schemes can be selected and evaluated depending
on local conditions. The computer guides the user through a series
of questions and answers to develop a local profile and prediction
of future conditions.
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Conclusions
II Purpose of Model
III Introduction 7
Scope and Purpose 7
IV Phosphorus Control Strategies 9
Legislation to Limit Detergent Phosphorus 10
Upgrading of Treatment Facilities
to Include Phosphorus Removal 10
Effluent Diversion 11
V Treatment Alternatives for Removing
Phosphorus From Wastewater 15
Chemical Precipitation Systems 16
Biological Phosphorus Uptake 29
Activated Alumina 30
Ion Exchange 31
Selection of Phosphorus Removal Scheme 33
Process Options 34
Input Data Required
for Process Options 35
VI Phosphorus Removal Strategy and Cost Model 41
Use of Model 41
Model Description 41
Modeling Considerations 43
Subroutines 4g
Assumptions and Limitations 50
Subroutine Descriptions and Flow Charts 55
Common Block Descriptions 95
VII Case Studies 111
Case 1 - 5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant 112
Case 2-20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant 112
Case 3-50 MGD Primary Plant 122
-------
VIII Operating Manual for the Phosphorus
Removal Cost Model (REMOVE) 151
Questioning Procedure 151
Printout 152
Keywords 154
Variables 155
Errors 165
Scheme 166
Errata Sheet for Program 171
Program Listing 172
IX Acknowledgements 285
X References 287
Section IV 287
Section V 287
Section VI 290
XI Appendices 293
A - Liquid-Phase Treatment System
Options for Phosphorus Removal 293
B - Sludge Handling System Options 298
C - Design Parameters 301
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
1 System Diagram 55
2 REMOVE Flow Chart 59
3 SYSTEM Flow Chart 61
4 STRTGY Flow Chart 64
5 INTIME Flow Chart 65
6 SPOPFNC Flow Chart 66
7 DTGLIM Flow Chart 72
8 EFFLIM Flow Chart 74
9 INDLIM Flow Chart 75
10 LCHOSE Flow Chart 77
11 TRTMNT Flow Chart 81
12 SCHOSE Flow Chart 83
13 SIZE Flow Chart 85
14 TSCHME Flow Chart 86
15 BUILD Flow Chart 87
16 LSKCST Flow Chart 91
17 SSKCST Flow Chart 93
18 5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant 114
19 5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant 118
20 20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant 124
21 20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant 128
22 20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant 132
VI
-------
23 50 MGD Primary Plant 138
24 50 MGD Primary Plant 142
25 50 MGD Primary Plant 146
VII
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 Effect of Chemical Additions for
Phosphorus Removal on Digestion 24
2 Effect of Chemical Additions for Phosphorus
Removal on Vacuum Filtration 25
3 Achievable Effluent Phosphorus Concentrations 36
4 Cation/Influent Phosphorus Weight Ratios 36
5 Lime Dosages 37
6 Sludge Production 38
7 Per Cent Solids of Chemical Sludges 39
8 Sludge Handling Options 40
9 Cost Function Locator 47
10 Construction Cost - Valid Ranges for
Sizing Parameters 52
11 5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant 113
12 20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant 123
13 50 MGD Primary Plant 137
14 Treatment Schemes 150
Vlll
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. This model is for evaluating strategies available to communi-
ties for the control of phosphorus in municipal wastewater. The
model will report to the user the cost of various strategies which
include the alternatives of controlling phosphorus concentration
in the raw sewage, limiting industrial discharge of phosphorus
and treating by various methods at the wastewater treatment plant.
The costs are computed from amortized capital costs, operation
and maintenance expenses, and materials cost for a predetermined
time period.
2. The costs of phosphorus removal strategies will vary depend-
ing on type of local treatment, the quantity of phosphorus in the
treatment plant influent and the final effluent concentration require-
ment. For a hypothetical community of 50, 000 population served
by a 5 MGD trickling filter plant, it has been found that alum treat-
ment after the trickling filter to achieve an effluent of Z.O mg/1
total phosphorus results in a cost of 7.7 cents/I 000 gallons. The
corresponding cost to achieve an effluent of 0.5 mg/1 is 13.7 cents/
1000 gallons and involves the addition of multi-media filtration to
the treatment scheme. These cost estimates are for a stable popu-
lation. The model will also predict costs based on various growth
rates. In contrast to the above, a hypothetical 200,000 population
city served by a 20 MGD activated sludge plant can achieve 2.0 mg/1
phosphorus effluents at a cost of 6.2 cents/I 000 gallons using a
scheme of ferric chloride added to the aeration basins. If an
effluent limit of 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus is required, a tertiary
single-stage lime treatment scheme is the least-cost scheme at
a cost to the community of 9.4 cents/1000 gallons.
Cost to the community may be substantially reduced if State and/
or Federal grant funds are available to assist with financing.
Costs may also be reduced by controlling the phosphorus load to
the treat nent plant through imposition of legislative limits on sale
and use of detergent products containing a high percentage of
phosphorus. Restriction of significant phosphorus discharges to
the sewerage system from industrial and commercial sources
may also be enforced to reduce treatment costs to the community.
-------
The model provides for cost computations using these alternatives
on financing and control of phosphorus discharged to the sewerage
system. The model requires as an input a description of present
treatment facilities and a prediction of the community growth rate.
The most cost-effective treatment scheme can then be determined.
3. In addition to being a valuable tool for planning local strategies,
the model can be used to evaluate and optimize various treatment
processes. Changes in design parameters, costs of chemicals,
transportation rates, power costs, and the introduction of automa-
tion to reduce manpower requirements can all be evaluated as to
their effect on overall treatment costs.
4. Several inconsistencies have been noted in the generally
accepted assumption that approximately 50 percent of the phosphorus
in domestic wastewater is due to the use of phosphate detergent
products. In several reports this assumption appears to be justi-
fied on the basis of an annual per capita use of 27 pounds of deter-
gent. This assumption may be erroneous for use in the model by
all communities. If legislative controls will be imposed on per-
cent phosphorus in detergents and industrial or commercial sources
of phosphorus controlled it is important that the community or user
of the model know the specific ratio of detergent phosphorus in the
sewage and the industrial-commercial contribution in order to
arrive at a valid best strategy for phosphorus removal.
5. After reviewing the current technology for phosphorus removal,
chemical precipitation was selected as being the most widely
accepted and effective means of removing phosphorus from waste-
water.
6. Four levels of effluent phosphorus concentration (total unfil-
tered phosphorus) were assumed to be achievable depending upon
the type of treatment provided. These are:
2. Q mg/1 (Option 1)* Chemical addition to
the primary clarifier
*See p. 34-35 and Table 14, p. 150, for description of process
options.
-------
(Option 2) Chemical addition to a
flocculation basin prior to the primary
clarifier
(Option 3) Chemical addition to the
aeration basin
(Option 4) Chemical addition after
the trickling filter.
0. 5 mg/1 (Option 5) Chemical addition to the
aeration basin plus multi-media
filtration
or
Chemical addition after the trickling
filter plus multi-media filtration
(Option 6) Addition of lime to a
flocculation basin following conven-
tional secondary treatment
0. 3 mg/1 (Option 7) Addition of alum, or ferric
chloride to a flocculation basin follow-
ing conventional secondary treatment--
one stage.
0. 1 mg/1 (Option 6) Addition of lime to a
flocculation basin following conven-
tional secondary treatment--two
stages
7. Chemical precipitation provided seven alternative process
schemes: (1) addition to the primary clarifier; (2) addition to
a flocculation basin prior to a primary clarifier; (3) addition to
the aeration basin; (4) addition to the secondary clarifier of a
trickling filter; (5) scheme (3) or (4) plus a multi-media filter;
(6) addition of lime to a tertiary treatment process; and (7)
addition of alum or ferric chloride in a tertiary process.
8. With chemical precipitation, sludge production is increased.
Although stoichiometric equations can be used to predict the total
additional sludge, variations to those estimates have been noted
-------
in many sources. In the future, there may be a trend toward using
oxygen in activated sludge and aerobic digestion schemes. This
will lead to decreased sludge production and improved sludge de-
watering and will probably have a beneficial effect on the costs of
sludge handling particularly for larger treatment plants.
9. Estimates of design parameters for gravity thickening, vacuum
filtration, sludge drying beds, anaerobic digestion, flotation thicken-
ing and multiple-hearth incineration have been presented.
A number of effects on the sludge handling capacity of a treatment
plant are a direct result of chemical addition. The following have
been noted:
a. Vacuum filter yields have been noted to decrease
with alum sludges and increase with lime and ferric
chloride sludges.
b. Lime sludges have an adverse effect on anaerobic
digestion unless carefully controlled. Iron and
aluminum sludge will not noticeably affect anaerobic
digestion.
c. Some release of phosphorus from the sludge may occur
in anaerobic digestion of iron sludges.
10. In regard to chemical addition schemes the following conclu-
sions apply:
a. Chemical addition to the primary clarifier may en-
hance the removal of BOD and suspended solids in ad-
dition to phosphorus removal. However, because the
hydrolysis of complex organic and inorganic phosphorus
compounds is incomplete prior to biological treatment,
the expected final effluent phosphorus concentration is
quite variable and significantly higher than that achiev-
able by tertiary phosphorus removal. Filtration of the
primary effluent must be practiced if low values are
to be achieved.
b. Lime dosing cannot be based upon influent phosphorus
concentration. The dosage of lime is related to the
-------
alkalinity of the influent. Higher alkalinities require
higher dosing. As a practical limit, wastewaters hav-
ing alkalinity less than 150 mg/1 as CaCC>3 are not
amenable to lime treatment because pH will increase
to levels greater than 10. 0 before effective phosphorus
removal occurs. This will be unacceptable if biological
treatment follows. For alkalinities between 150 and
300 an addition of 150 mg/1 of CaCC is required while
200 mg/1 of CaO is required for alkalinities greater
than 300. Estimates of dosage are also a function of
application point — primary versus tertiary.
c. Lime addition in tertiary treatment offers two alterna-
tives-- single and two stage. The choice of process
depends on alkalinity. Single stage can be used when
alkalinity is greater than 200 mg/1, while two stage is
required for low alkalinity wastewater.
d. Alum addition in tertiary treatment is also feasible.
While lime addition requires that rccarbonation be
practiced, alum does not because pH is depressed to
a manageable extent rather than increased. Alterna-
tively, lime can be recovered from tertiary sludge
while alum, thus far, cannot.
e. Data thus far reported indicate that the dosage of
iron or aluminum is dependent upon influent phosphorus
concentration but the exact ratio of cation/phosphorus
is not well established. In the computer model an
Al/P ratio of 2/1 and an Fe/P ratio of 3. 1/1 were
assumed when the chemicals were added to the primary
clarifier and I. 5/1 and 4/1 respectively when added
to the aeration basin.
-------
SECTION II
PURPOSE OF MODEL
The computer model developed in this program can be used by
local communities or their consulting engineers to plan the
expansion of present wastewater treatment facilities or provide
for new ones in order to meet requirements for phosphorus removal.
The model as it is presently conceived is based on best available
data. In order to insure its usefulness, EPA plans to periodically
update the model as additional performance data on phosphorus
removal processes becomes available.
Some communities presently using extended aeration systems for
waste treatment will not find the model particularly useful. There
is no existing data for modeling purposes on the performance of
extended aeration with chemical addition for phosphorus removal.
In view of the additional sludge production it would not appear that
these systems will be readily modified at this time.
We believe that substantial reductions in the production of sludge
may be realized with pure oxygen thus reducing costs of sludge
handling modifications. The model will be updated if and when
sufficient data are available to substantiate significant removal
of phosphorus by this process.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Scope and Purpose
Accelerated eutrophication in lakes and slow moving rivers is a
contemporary problem involving increased biologic productivity
as a result of increased nutrient enrichment. Both point and non-
point sources of nutrient addition have been identified. Suggested
corrective measures have included the reduction of nutrient inflows
by such actions as diversion of wastewater effluents to bodies of
water with more assimilative capacity, additional wastewater
treatment to remove nutrients from industrial and municipal ef-
fluents, product modifications such as reducing phosphorus content
of detergents, control of land use practices to reduce nutrient
drainage from fertilizers, and treatment of agricultural drainage.
The first three measures listed above deal with the control of point
sources while the last two are concerned with non-point sources.
A basic strategy of controlling eutrophication is presently linked
closely to the reduction or elimination of phosphorus, a nutrient
which does not have a gaseous phase as does nitrogen, and thus
does not replenish phosphorus in water through the atmospheric
gases. For this reason, the reduction of phosphorus input to a
body of water is the basic strategy chosen for the control of eu-
trophication. There is some indication that the atmosphere may
contain phosphorus contributed by dust particles or through air
pollution and this may be a significant contribution of nutrients
in some areas. The specific methods for achieving phosphorus
removal cannot be adequately specified until the local conditions
have been thoroughly determined and analyzed.
In the program discussed in this report we have dealt primarily
with point sources and in particular the control of point sources
at a municipal waste treatment plant. The first phase of the
program included a review of various alternatives for updating
existing treatment plants for phosphorus removal. We were
concerned with the feasibility of adding equipment to existing
plants and with isolating the additional capital and operating
costs so that the specific costs for phosphorus removal could
-------
be identified. We also -were concerned with the possibility that
techniques not presently suitable for routine introduction might
become feasible within the next 5 to 10 years. Thus, the first
phase was a review of both existing and possible future techniques
for phosphorus removal.
The second phase of the program involved the formulation of a
computer model for evaluating the various strategies for reducing
phosphorus in the effluent of municipal treatment plants. Since
at the present time there is no national limitation on the use of
phosphorus in detergents, the individual states and municipalities
have been faced with the problem of legislating their own controls.
In many cases this has been done and has affected the decision to
remove phosphorus by additional waste treatment. Each of the
possible strategies has an associated cost, thus the objective of
the model is to determine the best strategy on the basis of cost
for controlling effluent phosphorus within some given limit.
The model has been designed specifically for planning purposes
and can be used by municipalities, planning agencies and govern-
ment policy organizations. Input information is determined on the
basis of a series of questions and answers designed to define the
specific set of circumstances in a given municipality. A number of
parameters can be varied to simulate possible strategies including
the reduction of phosphorus in detergents and the requirements for
pretreatment of industrial wastes. Predicted changes in popula-
tion and growth rate can be handled by the model which also ac-
counts for future additions to plant capacity attributable to the
requirement for phosphorus removal.
The remainder of this report is divided into a number of sections
as follows: In Section IV the various strategies used to control
phosphorus are discussed, Section V is a review of the treatment
alternatives available to a municipality including methods which
may not be feasible at the present time but show some promise,
and Section VI is a description of the phosphate removal strategy
and cost model. Section VII presents three case studies we have
selected to illustrate how the model can be used by local com-
munities. Section VIII includes the instructions for using the
model along with a complete listing of the program. The program
listing is fully documented with comments which reference constants
and program variables including their source.
-------
SECTION IV
PHOSPHORUS CONTROL STRATEGIES
The primary purpose of this report is to investigate the costs of
various strategies for removing phosphorus from the effluents of
municipal wastewater treatment plants. We must assume, therefore,
that a decision has been made to reduce the input of phosphorus as
a result of a desire to curb "cultural eutrophication".
Although our effort is concerned with only the reduction of phos-
phorus through treatment plants, several working groups including
researchers at Utah State University under EPA sponsorship and
Case Western Reserve University under a grant from the Rockefeller
Foundation are investigating the overall implications of phosphorus
cycling in the environment. Their work will presumably include an
investigation of the relative quantities of phosphorus introduced
through both point and non-point sources and the rate of release of
phosphorus from previously deposited bottom sediments. Results
of these studies may affect future eutrophication control strategies,
but for the present we are assuming that a major reduction can be
achieved in the pounds of phosphorus passing daily through sewage
treatment plants.
Basically, the three available strategies for reducing or preventing
the impact of phosphorus discharges on lakes include:
1. Removing phosphorus from wastewater by upgrading pre-
sent treatment facilities.
2. Reducing the phosphorus content in raw sewage through
legislation and enforcement.
3. Diverting wastewater treatment plant effluents around
eutrophic receiving waters or to other waters which have
adequate assimilative capacity.
These basic strategies are influenced by a number of factors including:
a. The implementation or non-implementation of local legis-
lation limiting phosphorus content in detergent products.
b. The present status of local treatment facilities including
type of treatment, sludge handling capability, excess capacity
and degree of over or underloading.
-------
c. Type of waste treated including ratio of domestic to
industrial wastewater and classification of industrial waste.
d. Future growth of the community served and possible re-
gionalization of treatment in the near future.
e. Status of plans for upgrading present facility, or con-
structing new facilities for reasons other than phosphorus
removal.
f. Availability of alternate receiving waters where phosphorus
bearing effluents may be diverted and be assimilated without
adverse effects.
g. Regional factors such as climate, cost of chemicals, land
costs, and transportation.
Legislation to Limit Detergent Phosphorus
The absence of a national regulation on the concentration of phos-
phorus in detergents together with local regulations passed by more
than five states and 50 local governments has led to both a marketing
problem on the part of the detergent manufacturers and an enforcement
problem in the affected communities. In Canada, the government has
instituted phosphorus controls on both the detergent manufacturers and
the treatment plants. Phosphorus concentrations in detergents will
be limited to no more than 5 percent after December 31, 1972 (I). As
a result, many of the detergents distributed in Canada now contain
10-12 percent NTA which is presently banned in the U. S. (2). Some
recent work has shown that NTA is completely biodegradable (3),
although it apparently is still unacceptable for medical reasons.
Other phosphate substitutes have tended to be highly alkaline and
corrosive. Work is continuing, however, at an accelerated pace by
the major detergent manufacturers. Proctor and Gamble has re-
ported expenditures on the order of $85 million (4) to both reduce
phosphates in detergents and test the substitutes for safety and ef-
fectiveness. Colgate-Palmolive early in 1971 reduced phosphate
content of all its detergent products to less than 35%.
As the detergent manufacturers voluntarily reduce phosphate concen-
trations in their products, the enforcement costs on the local level
should decrease and will eventually not be a significant factor.
Up_g_radi.ng_ of Treatment Facilities to Include Phosphorus Removal
The present status of waste treatment within local communities will
have a significant affect on the strategy for removing phosphates.
10
-------
As we will discuss in the next section, chemical precipitation methods
of removing phosphorus are easily implemented and are effective for
80 to 98% removal. These same techniques can also be used to im-
prove BOD and suspended solids removal in plants which are presently
overloaded. The cost of implementing the techniques will, among
other factors, depend on the present chemical dispensing and mixing
facilities, capacity of clarifiers, sludge handling facilities and
ultimate disposal of sludge. Some treatment plants in smaller com-
munities are operated on the extended aeration principle which
requires relatively little sludge handling capacity. In other towns
aerated lagoons may provide equivalent secondary treatment but do
not provide adequate sludge handling facilities. The addition of
phosphorus removal requirements in these towns would require
relatively major fund! ng for both construction and operating costs.
The 1968 inventory of municipal waste treatment plants (5) showed
that more than 90 percent of the plants constructed were designed
for wastewater flows of less than 5 MGD. A majority of these plants
were designed for secondary treatment using either trickling filters
or activated sludge. Most of these plants do not presently provide
for any nutrient removal beyond the residual which in the case of
phosphorus is on the order of 20 to 30 percent. In many of these
areas the percentage of phosphorus in the wastewater due to the use
of detergents may vary over a range of 40-75 percent depending on
the classification and quantity of industrial wastewater treated. In
towns near the high end of this percentage range where there is a
minimum infiltration of sewer systems, the regulation of detergent
phosphate will have a major effect on any decision to remove
phosphorus by treatment.
Later in this report we will see that the major cost elements in
upgrading treatment plants for phosphorus removal are the cost
of chemicals, and the additional sludge handling facilities required.
Recent controversy over the costs of phosphorus removal have been
centered on the issue of whether or not the use of designed excess
capacity in local plants could be used for phosphorus removal. In
general, if excess capacity is provided, the capital costs for phos-
phorus removal are calculated on the assumption that this capacity
is available. The operation and maintenance costs, however, include
the overall increased effort necessary to operate the plant. These
assumptions are discussed in greater detail in Section IV.
11
-------
Effluent Diversion
We have briefly alluded to the impact on present waste treatment
facilities of population growth rates and possible regionalization
of treatment facilities. Section 208 of the Water Quality Amend-
ments of 1972 addresses the issue of areawide waste treatment
management. Regional development and implementation of area-
wide waste treatment management plans is encouraged by the
gove rnment.
In the development of strategies for controlling phosphorus we are
faced with the question of how to determine the future life of local
plants and the impact of regionalization. Our model at the present
time is designed for a single plant with all the peripheral decisions
of how to upgrade that facility. With some modifications it could
be designed to handle the same problem for regional organizations.
Often a local community will have little choice in determining what
water body will receive its treated effluent. Regional organizations
would have a wider choice, thus effluent diversion becomes a viable
alternative to phosphorus removal by treatment. In some temperate
areas spray irrigation may also be a possibility and where facilities
are regionalized and land is available this choice may be a logical
one.
Effluent diversion as a stretegy requires a major effort in planning
and construction. The Lake Washington diversion project in Metro
Seattle is an excellent example. The comprehensive plan for the
removal of all treatment plant discharges from Lake Washington
was approved in October, 1958. The first ten year stage of the
program required an outlay of $125, 000, 000 (6). Some revisions
and additions have added another $20, 000, 000 to the project which
has results in the removal of all treatment plant discharges from
Lake Washington and the abandoning of all the ten treatment plants
located on its shores. New interceptors were constructed and
several large treatment plants were provided with effluent discharge
into the Duwamish River or through deep outfalls to Puget Sound.
In the case of Lake Washington conditions improved markedly. A
decision was made to divert rather than treat. If the regional
mechanism had not been approved, the planning for any alternative
other than treatment would not have been possible.
In the consideration of effluent diversion as a strategy the major
cost elements are piping and pumping. Distance to the receiving
12
-------
body and topographic features control these costs. The problem
becomes more complex, however, when the economics of scale
of building large regional plants are combined with the costs of
piping and pumping influents over large distances. As in the case
of Lake Washington and Metro Seattle, the final solution most
likely will involve a consolidation of facilities but is unlikely to
involve one very large treatment plant serving a large area.
A number of optimization studies have been made on the problem
of minimizing cost of treatment along river systems receiving
waste treatment effluents. A recent report (7) discussed the
optimum number and location of treatment plants and uses as an
example the optimum design of a regional wastewater treatment
system for the Merrimack River Valley. The program assumes
that liabilities such as treatment plants now in operation and
effect of combined sewers can be disregarded. The method chosen
specifically treats the trade-off between the number of treatment
plants and the extent of sewer systems. In another recent publi-
cation (8), a computer program has been developed to provide
design data and the cost breakdown for regional sewer systems.
The program takes the specified characteristics for the conveyance
and designs a pipeline which minimizes the cost of conveyance for
that particular situation.
An effluent diversion strategy would employ both elements mentioned
above. The optimum number of treatment plants would be an element
of the problem together with the minimum cost of piping and pumping
the effluent. Since this strategy depends on a regional approach, we
have not made specific provisions for it in our program. A subroutine
could easily be added if required.
13
-------
SECTION V
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR REMOVING
PHOSPHORUS FROM WASTEWATER
The objective of this study has been to develop a computer program
which would provide a given community with a means for evaluating
various phosphorus control strategies and their associated costs.
To accomplish this objective it was essential that existing phosphorus
control technology be examined and that methods be selected which at
best could be implemented immediately and at worst in the very near
future at existing waste treatment facilities. The?e methods would
then become the treatment schemes or options available to the
community.
Inherent in the selection of available process options is a knowledge of
needed design parameters. While specific values of design parameters
may change with advancements in technology and more reliable measure-
ment of actual field performance, the current "best estimates" are the
minimum required. Obviously, the computer program provides for
updating of design parameter inputs as better system knowledge is
obtained.
A review of recent literature is presented in this section in an effort
to justify the selection of present phosphorus removal options deemed
acceptable for immediate implementation. Although there have been
innumerable studies of phosphorus control technology, only those most
recent studies relating to practical application, i.e. , feasibility, pilot
plant and demonstration studies are of interest herein.
Based upon this review, chemical precipitation was selected to be the
most widely accepted means of removing phosphorus. Because
chemical precipitation provides many alternatives (both of chemicals
and application points) a discussion follows the literature review in
which the specifics of each process option are presented.
15
-------
LITERATURE REVIEW
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
Points of Application and Expected Phosphorus Removals.
The most commonly employed points of application are:
1) the primary clarifier (in either conventional or physical-
chemical systems), 2) the aeration basin, 3) the secondary
clarifier and 4) the chemical flocculation unit in a tertiary
treatment system.
Removals of phosphorus in primary clarification can be achieved
with any of three cations: Aluminum (Al 34 \( Calcium (Ca^+) or Iron
(Fe2+, Fe^+J. The most common forms in which these cations are
added are shown below:
Alum
Sodium Aluminate
Lime
Ferrous Chloride, Ferrous Sulfate
Ferric Chloride, Ferric Sulfate
The chemistry of aluminum and iron reactions with phosphorus are
similar. Both can be postulated on the basis of a precipitation
reactions involving the formation of aluminum phosphate or ferric
phosphate, and additionally the formation of aluminum or ferric
hydroxide. The chemistry of these reactions is actually quite
complex, serving in part to explain the difficulty accompanying the
estimation of required cation dosages. The use of the reduced Torm
of iron (ferrous) is prompted by the availability of pickle liquor (prini-
pally ferrous sulfate) a waste product of steel mills. Although
oxidation to Fe^+ does occur, it is also possible for ferrous phosphate
to precipitate.
The addition of calcium in the form of lime results in precipitation of
hydroxyapatite, Ca10 (PC»4)6 (OH)2, as well as calcium carbonate,
CaCC»3f and possibly magnesium hydroxide Mg (OH)2 at very high
pH. The chemistry of calcium addition is also complex. In fact,
recent studies by Ferguson and McCarty (1) and Jenkins, et al
(2) indicate that precipitation of phosphorus can occur at neutral piJ
conditions when calcium is added in forms other than lime.
In comparing these three cations, aluminum, calcium and iron, it
may be noted that both aluminum and iron are added as salts of
common anions (SO^' and Cl"), while calcium is added with
hydroxide ions. Thus, aluminum and iron contribute anions to the
wastewater which may be of concern in the future when water re-use
becomes more prevalent (3). In contrast, lime adds only calcium
because the hydroxide ions can be easily neutralized in later stages
of treatment.
16
-------
Chemical addition to the primary clarifier has both advantages and
disadvantages. In addition to removing phosphorus, chemical
precipitation also enhances both removal of BOD (biochemical oxygen
demand) and suspended solids. As estimates, the removal of BOD
has been shown to increase from the standard value of 30 per cent tD
about 60 per cent. Similarly suspended solids removal increases
from 70 per cent to a maximum of about 90 per cent (4). These
additional removals could provide a measure of relief to overloaded
secondary facilities.
On the other hand, because hydrolysis of complex organic and
inorganic phosphorus compounds is incomplete prior to biological
treatment, the expected final effluent phosphorus concentration is
quite variable and significantly higher than that achievable in tertiary
phosphorus removal. In a review of data available from pilot plant
and full-scale testing, Minton and Carlson (5) report the results of
ten researchers and indicate effluent phosphorus concentrations
ranging from 0. 15 to 2.3 mg / 1 . The lower values, however, were
only obtained after filtration. This indicates that some phosphorus
was not readily precipitated or that insoluble phosphorus escaped
due to deficiencies in clarification design.
Both aluminum and iron dosages can be expressed as a concentration
ratio of cation to phosphorus (Al /P or Fe/P). Earlier research
results were reported in terms of per cent phosphorus removal.
However, it was recognized that the phosphorus content of waste-
waters is quite variable both at a given plant and from plant to plant.
Thus, to specifically state the chemical requirements, a cation/
phosphorus ratio is needed. Again, just as effluent phosphorus
values were shown to be quite variable, so too were the cation/
phosphorus ratios as indicated by the data reviewed by Minton and
Carlson (5). The weight ratios of aluminum to P for two studies
were 1. 5 and 3. 4 while that of three studies of iron were 2.8, 3.1
and 5.8.
The addition of aluminum as alum will depress pH and may necessitate
the addition of base in a low alkalinity water in order to maximize
phosphorus removal. Added as sodium aluminate, pH will tend to
increase which may displace the precipitation reaction from the
optimal pH. This is especially of importance in primary clarifiers
where axial dispersion is slight thus assuring increased pH near the
point of application (5). Hence the addition of sodium aluminate to
primary clarifiers is not recommended.
In wastewaters of low alkalinity (less than 150 mg/1 as
the addition of lime will increase pH to values greater than 11 before
adequate phosphorus removal is obtained. This implies that re-
carbonation, or some other form of pH adjustment will be necessary
prior to biological treatment. On the other hand, wastewaters of
higher alkalinity will provide a buffering capacity sufficient to
prevent the pH from increasing above about 10 while achieving the
17
-------
required phosphorus removal. Moreover, tTiese wastewaters usually
contain significant carbonate alkalinity which enables co-precipitation
of CaCOs thereby enhancing the settleability of hydroxyapatite.
However, if wastewaters have high alkalinity but low hardness (calcium
and magnesium), then co-precipitation may not prevail (3).
Lime treatment of raw sewage result in similar variations in effluent
phosphorus as observed for aluminum and iron treatment. Examination
of extensive field data from a full scale test at a 2. 0 MGD plant in
New Market, Ontario (6) indicate an effluent phosphorus of 2.0 mg/1
with a lime dosage of 200 mg/1 Ca(OH)2- In another full scale test
at Newport, Vermont (7), 80 per cent removal of phosphorus (effluent
concentration unspecified) was only achieved at dosages greater than
400 mg/1 (as Ca(OH)2). The City of Rochester (8) will employ lime
addition to primary clarifiers and this will be followed by the activated
sludge process. A dosage of 125 mg/1 Ca(OH)2 is expected to produce
a residual soluble phosphorus of 2 mg /1 at a pH of about 10.0. A
three month plant scale investigation at Richmond Hill, Ontario
indicated that a lime dose of 175 mg/1 produced a pH of 9. 3 and a
83 per cent removal of phosphorus. Plant effluent phosphorus was
stated to be 0. 9 mg/1 (9).
From review of various studies on lime addition to the primary
clarifier, it may be concluded that the dosage of lime is directly
related to alkalinity. Higher alkalinities require higher lime dosages
to achieve a given pH. In fact, lime dosing is independent of influent
phosphorus concentration and dependent on alkalinity and operation
pH (10).
As a practical lower limit, wastewaters having alkalinity less than
150 mg/1 as CaCO3 are not suitable for lime treatment because pH
will increase to levels greater than 10.0 before effective phosphorus
removal occurs, and this will be unacceptable if biological treat-
ment follows. To distinguish the lime dosage required for moderate
alkalinity (150-300 mg/1 as CaCOs) from that for high alkalinity
(> 300 mg/I as CaCO3) wastewaters, two levels of lime dose will be
assumed; moderate alkalinity requires 150 mg/1, while high
alkalinity requires 200 mg/1. Further, based upon field studies the
achievable total unfiltered effluent phosphorus is estimated con-
servatively to be 2 mg/1.
Although lime will be later shown to offer advantages in sludge
handling, consideration must also be given to solids recycle and
prevention of excessive scaling (3). This may require modification
of the primary clarifier. Lime recovery is not possible if lime is
added to the primary clarifier because of excessive amounts of
contaminants present in the sludge. Moreover, special consideration
should be given to locations where anaerobic digestion is used for
sludge handling. As will be discussed in later sections, lime sludge
could cause digester problems.
18
-------
The combined biological-chemical removal system provides a method
of improving secondary sludge handling characteristics while simul-
taneously removing phosphorus. As pointed out by Minton and
Carlson (5), use of this system also implies that careful consideration
be given to sludge wastage, maintenance of the culture and satisfactory
floe formation (secondary clarification).
Sludge wastage will control the build-up of inorganic precipitates in
the aeration basin. If build-up becomes significant then a higher level
of solids will be needed. Survival of the culture may be a factor if
the dosage of aluminum or iron salts depress pH excessively. For
example, although BOD removal may still be unaffected, the rate of
nitrification may be reduced during severe pH depression (11).
Satisfactory floe formation is related to the production of biological
floe in removing chemically precipitated phosphorus. Polymers
may be needed to assist in achieving good settleability.
Minton and Carlson (5) list results of eight studies of alum, seven of
sodium aluminate and three of ferric chloride for removal of
phosphorus in a biological-chemical scheme. Effluent total phosphorus
values range from a low of 0.5 mg/1 to a high of 6.8 mg/1. These
authors further suggest that without the ability to remove insolubilized
phosphorus, final effluent concentrations can be expected to exceed
1. 5 mg/1. With the addition of filtration as a tertiary step, residuals
of 0.5 mg/1 can be achieved.
Minton and Carlson (5) also list the cation/phosphorus ratio used in
each investigation. For alum, this value ranged from 0.8 to 2. 1;
for sodium aluminate, from 0.7 to 1.2; for ferric chloride, from
2.3 to 6.7. Similar results are listed in the EPA Process Design
Manual on Phosphorus Removal (9). Based on these reports, it was
concluded that the weight ratio of Al/P be estimated as 1.5/1 and
that of Fe/P as 4/1.
Sodium aluminate should be added in the aeration basins because
axial dispersion will prevent excessive pH rise. This chemical
may be of interest in wastewaters of low alkalinity. However, it has
been suggested that other means of controlling pH, namely adding a
base such as soda ash or sodium hydroxide, should be used in con-
junction with alum, thus avoiding the use of sodium aluminate (5,9).
In contrast to the application point of sodium aluminate, it is
recommended that alum and ferric iron be dosed to the effluent
channel of the aeration basin (5, 9 ). Minton and Carlson (5) state that
turbid effluents have often been associated with cation dosing to the
aeration basin itself, possible because of formation of poorly settling
cation-hydroxide precipitate.
Pickle liquor, containing iron in the ferrous form, can be a con-
venient and inexpensive precipitating chemical. If the dose point pH
is greater than 7, ferrous ion will be advantageous because ferrous
hydroxide is much more soluble than either aluminum hydroxide or
19
-------
ferric hydroxide and thus not detract from settleability. Studies
performed by the Detroit Metro Water Department (12) and the
Milwaukee Sewerage Commission (13) indicated that pickle liquor
provided satisfactory removal of phosphorus when added to the
aeration basin. The addition of pickle liquor should be made at the
head of the aeration basin to allow time for oxidation of Fe^* to
Fe^+. Jenkins, et_al. (2), however, point out that ferrous phosphate
may also precipitate.
Although investigated to a lesser extent, the addition of calcium in
forms other than lime has been postulated as another phosphorus
removal alternative (1,2). In wastewaters low in magnesium and
carbonate, precipitation of Ca3(PC>4)2 will occur at pH of 8. Hence,
calcium could be added to the aeration basin without causing the
excessive pH elevation associated with lime. Jenkins, et al, (2)
further suggest that solids recycle will enhance the rate of calcium
phosphate precipitation. In fact, these researchers have reasoned
that this mechanism may account for high phosphorus removals
presently achieved at specific activated sludge plants that are not
adding any precipitating chemicals. At the present time there is,
unfortunately, no pilot or full-scale plant data to substantiate the
success of this process alternative.
In trickling filter plants, chemicals should not be added ahead of the
trickling filters (3, 9). Rather, chemicals should be added to the
inlet of either the primary clarifier or secondary clarifier. Because
of the many different recirculation schemes in use, Cecil cautions
that chemical addition after trickling filters be only used where the
recirculation pattern is filter outlet to primary clarifier inlet, or
secondary clarifier outlet to primary clarifier inlet (3).
Based on limited data presented in the EPA Process Design Manual on
Phosphorus Removal (9), the weight ratios of Al/P and Fe/P were
determined to be 2.0/1 and 3.5/1 respectively for trickling filter
systems. The achievable effluent phosphorus remains the same as
that of chemical addition to the aeration basin or primary clarifier,
i.e., 2 mg /I.
Tertiary treatment systems include both filtration after chemical
addition to the aeration basin, and addition of precipitating chemicals
in a tertiary step followed by filtration. As mentioned previously,
chemical addition to the aeration basin together with a final filtration
step after secondary clarification can remove insoluble phosphorus
such that the final effluent phosphorus concentration is reduced to
0.5 mg/1.
Lime addition in tertiary treatment has been investigated to the
greatest extent, perhaps as result of the demonstration project at
Lake Tahoe (14). Although capital expense is largest in a tertiary
facility, the effluent phosphorus concentration can be reduced as low
as 0. 1 mg/1. This is a factor of twenty lower than that achievable
20
-------
with either addition to the primary or secondary system. In addition,
lime treatment at this application point enables lime recovery to be
practiced.
In tertiary treatment using lime, the extent of pH elevation is deter-
mined by the alkalinity. Thus, moderate to high alkalinity (> 300 mg / 1
as CaCC>3) require a dosage of lime sufficient to raise pH to about
9.5-10. Prior to discharge, recarbonation must be used to reduce the
pH to an acceptable level. This is referred to as single stage recar-
bonation because chemical flocculation is followed by clarification
and then recarbonation prior to filtration. Lime dosage is difficult
to predict as a function of alkalinity (9). However, as a "best esti-
mate", for alkalinities between 150 and 300 mg /1 as CaCOs, a lime
dosage of 200 mg /1 (as Ca(OH)2 is required. Alkalinities greater
than 300 mg /1 as CaCO3 will require 265 mg/1 (as Ca(OH)2). With-
out filtration, the expected effluent phosphorus concentration is
1.0 mg/1. With filtration, it is 0.5 mg/1.
In contrast, the pH of wastewaters of low to moderate alkalinity (less
than 200 mg/1 as CaCO^) will increase to values greater than 11
before the lime dosage produces satisfactory phosphorus removal.
Because of the low fraction of CaCC>3 formed in low alkalinity waters,
floe will settle poorly. Thus a two stage recarbonation process is
selected for production of more CaCO3 precipitate and for depression
of pH to the required final effluent value. This process therefore
consists of chemical flocculation, clarification, firststage recar-
bonation (to pH of about 10.5), clarification, second-stage recar-
bonation (to pH of about 7.5) and finally, filtration. Again, as a
"best estimate", a lime dosage of 400 mg/1 is required for waste-
waters of low alkalinity (< 150 mg/1 as CaCC>3) while a lime dosage
of 530 mg/1 is required for moderate alkalinity (150-250 mg/1 as
CaCOs). Experience with this process is better documented than
single stage recarbonation. Hence, the achievable effluent phosphorus
concentration is estimated to be 0. 1 mg/1 rather than 0.5 mg/1.
The addition of aluminum in a tertiary scheme can also produce a
lower final phosphorus concentration than either addition to the
primary or secondary system (9). On the other hand, iron salts are
less desirable because of residual iron remaining in the treated
water. Minton and Carlson (5) summarized the findings of five
researchers investigating alum in pilot-scale tertiary treatment.
Filtered effluent phosphorus values ranged from 0.05 to 2.3 mg/1.
Unfiltered effluent phosphorus ranged from 0.27 to 3.0 mg/1. The
EPA Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal (9) suggests
that with proper operation, effluent phosphorus can be reduced to
0. 1 mg/1 with filtration and 1. 0 mg/1 without filtration (but with
polymer addition).
Unlike lime, the recovery of alum has not been shown to be practical.
Hence, alum addition could only offer an advantage where local costs
of alum are low enough to offset the costs associated with the more
complicated single and two stage lime treatment system.
21
-------
Quantity of Sludge Produced
Wastewater treatment plants precipitating phosphorus by chemical
addition increase the amount of sludge to be handled. The quantity
of sludge produced is dependent principally on the type and dosage
of precipitant used. To obtain a first estimate of the additional sludge
mass to be produced by chemical addition, calculations may be made
based upon the stoichiometry of the chemical reactions involved. This
approach has been illustrated for the case of iron addition to raw
wastewater in the EPA Process Design Manual on Phosphorus Control
(9).
Due to practical factors, stoichiometric equations can only be used as
a rough guide to sludge production. The nature of chemical precipi-
tates and their ability to be captured in sedimentation basins, for
example, are affected by many variables which cannot be adequately
treated in a theoretical approach. In the case of lime coagulation,
the actual composition of the calcium precipitates is not even definitely
established. Hence, it is more reliable to employ actual data from
pilot plant or full-scale testing to predict sludge production from
chemical precipitation.
Available data on sludge production from phosphorus removal systems
is limited, but some values have been reported. A review article by
Adrian and Smith (15) contains data obtained from 13 case histories.
Tabulations of sludge quantities and densities are presented for
calcium, aluminum, and iron addition at various points in treatment
systems. Similar data has been presented by VanFleet et al (6), who
documented six recent case histories in Ontario. The EPA Process
Design Manual (9) also includes data on sludge production at several
locations. Other data on sludge volume produced by chemical pre-
cipitation systems has been reported by Schmid and McKinnery (16)
and Jenkins, et al_. (2)
Sludge Handling
At the outset of phosphorus removal investigations, little attention
was given to the ultimate fate of precipitated phosphorus. Although
there is still very little plant operating data available, recent studies
have dealt more fully with this crucial aspect of phosphorus removal.
In many existing plants, anerobic digesters are used for stabilization
of both primary and secondary sludges. Two factors are important to
the success of chemical precipitation in such facilities. First, the
cation associated with phosphorus removal must not interfere with
sludge digestion, and second, phosphorus resolubilization should be
minimal.
Studies by Grigoropoulos, et aJ (17) have shown that neither alum nor
sodium aluminate (both added to the aeration basin) were detrimental
22
-------
to digester performance. Further, these researchers concluded
that precipitated phosphorus was not released to the supernatant
during digestion. In fact, phosphorus present in the primary sludge
was also removed. Similar findings were reported by Thompson (7).
In full-scale testing, Van Fleet, jet^ aL (6) reported recently that in-
creasing the alum dosage above 150 mg /1 caused a drop in digester
temperature and gas production. However, below a dosage of
150 mg / 1, digestion appeared unaffected.
Malhotra, et ajl^lS) demonstrated that iron ohosphate precipitates
behaved differently than aluminum phosphate precipitates. Primary
sludges, with or without iron (ferrous) precipitated phosphorus
indicated a significant uptake of phosphorus during digestion. A
similar observation was noted by Thompson (7). In contrast, waste
activated sludge containing mostly ferric phosphate released phos-
phorus upon digestion. The solubility of ferrous phosphate is greater
than that of ferric phosphate and could, as the authors point out,
account for the release of phosphorus when the waste activated sludge
is anaerobically digested. The work of Singer (19) confirms this
postulation.
It may also be noted that in the event of phosphorus release to the
supernatant, recycle to the primary clarifier would only require
that a greater dosage of precipitating chemical be used (18). Economic
operation, however demands that supernatant release be minimized.
In full-scale tests at nine small activated sludge plants in Zurich,
Switzerland, addition of iron chloride to the aeration basin had no
noticeable effect on sludge digestion (20).
Sludge handling of lime precipitated phosphorus by anaerobic digestion
can cause difficulty if the pH of sludge is greatly elevated. However,
Van Fleet, et_ al (6) reported that holding of the lime sludge to a depth
of one to two feet in the primary clarifier has solved this problem in
a full-scale test.
In addition to anaerobic digestion, the Ontario Ministry of Environ-
ment (6) has provided the results of full scale testing at several
facilities where vacuum filtration is in use. Anaerobic digestion at
six activated sludge plants using various chemical precipitation
options and vacuum filtration at three other plants have been studied.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data that is currently available from
these investigations. The increase in sludge volumes as a result of
chemical precipitation confirm to some extent "the rule of thumb"
which states that sludge production will double. This has been indi-
cated in the EPA Process Design Manual on Phosphorus Removal (9)
and as well by Minton and Carlson (5).
23
-------
TABLE 1
Plant
New Market
(Activated)
Barrie
(Activated
sludge)
N. Toronto
(Activated
sludge)
Effect of Chemical Additions for Phosphorus Removal
on Digestion (6)
Flowrate
MGD
2.0
7.5
Chemical
Lime
Alum
Fuels
Dose
mg /e
200
150
35
Percent
w/o
p removal
3-4
4.54
Solids Sludge
with w/o
p removal p removal
Ibs/MGD
10-11 1700
4.25
Production
with
p removal
4900
-------
Table 2
Effect of Chemical Additions for Phosphorus Removal
on Vacuum Filtration (6)
Plant
W. Windsor
(Primary)
Little R.
(Activated Sludge)
Little R.
N. Toronto
(Activated Sludge
% Solids to
Filter
Flow Rate
MOD
24
4
4
Chemical
Alum
Poylmer
Alum
Lime
Dose
mg/1
90
0.4
.50
125
w/o P
removal
11.5
6.2
6.2
withF
remov
7.6
5.7
11.6
7.5
FeCl.
35
-------
Table 2 --Continued
CT-
Plant
W. Windsor
(Primar y)
Little R.
(Activated Sludge)
Little R.
No. Toronto
(Activated Sludge)
Filter Yield
lbs/hr/ftz
w/o P with P
removal removal
11.3
5.2
5.2
2. 27
5.8
4.6
7.2
4.74
Filter Cake
Solids
w/oP withP
removal removal
31. 1
19.2
15.9
Sludge Production
Ibs/MG
w/o P with P
removal removal
960
1580
1580
2l60
2440
2320
-------
As noted in Table 2, alum sludges diminished vacuum filtration
yields while both lime and ferric chloride sludges increased filter
yields. In addition, alum sharply reduced the per cent solids of
both the feed sludge and filter cake while lime increased these
parameters.
In this same field study, chemical conditioning of alum sludges was
found to be much more difficult at the primary West Windsor primary
plant (chemical costs increased from $3. 10 to $9.50 per ton of dry
solids). In contrast, little difficulty was encountered with alum
sludge at the Little River Activated sludge plant (chemical costs
increased from $16 to $17.96 per ton of dry solids). Lime sludge
actually reduced chemical conditioning costs from $16 to $11. 14
per ton of dry solids.
Pilot plant studies of physical-chemical treatment at the Cleveland
Westerly plant (21) included collection of sludge handling data. Using
lime addition to the chemical clarifier, per cent solids ranged from
6 to 14 per cent. Both a vacuum filter and a centrifuge were investi-
gated for dewatering of this chemical sludge. Depending upon
influent per cent solids, vacuum filtration produced a cake containing
from 14 to 36 per cent solids. Filter loadings varied from 3 to 19
Ibs/hr/ft . Success at higher loadings was attributable to the addition
of polymers (2 Ibs per ton of dry solids). Centrifuging produced a
cake solids ranging from 20 to 28 per cent at a rotational speed of
3500 rev/min. Polymer addition (1.2 to 1.7 Ibs per ton of dry solids)
was required.
Novel Modifications of Chemical Precipitation Systems
Sadek (22) has reported the use of sacrificial electrodes of either iron
or aluminum to introduce the cation necessary for removal of phos-
phorus. This system offers the advantage of introducing only the
cation. In addition, Sadek claims that the evolution of hydrogen gas
at the other electrode can be used to promote flotation of suspended
material in wastewater.
Only bench-scale testing of this unique method of chemical precipi-
tation has been reported. Although these results were used to
estimate process feasibility and costs, it is difficult to predict the
future of electro-chemical cation generation without pilot plant data.
Cecil (3), however, suggests that further work should be encouraged.
The moving bed filter concept has been pilot plant tested by Johns-
Manville Product Corporation (23). This process is actually a
tertiary treatment system consisting of chemical addition, clarifi-
cation and filtration. A bed of sand is pulsed upward in an inclined
filter vessel to contact chemically treated wastewater in a constant
head tank. Filtered wastewater passes down through the sand-bed.
The top layer of sand that has trapped chemical floe drops to the
bottom of the clarifier (constant head tank) and is removed as sludge.
27
-------
This spent sand is then clean and returned to the filter system while
the wash water containing chemically precipitated phosphorus is
removed for further sludge processing because floe-laden sand is
replaced continually with fresh sand. Filtration need not be inter-
rupted for backwashing.
Although the moving bed filter offers the advantage of continuous
operation, it is a more complex system than conventional filtration.
Moreover, removal of phosphorus should not be expected to be any
more complete than in other chemical precipitation systems employing
filtration. Hence, this system does not warrant consideration as a
process option for immediate implementation.
Evaluation of Process Data
As pointed out by Minton and Carlson (5), the method of data reporting
used by researchers investigating chemical phosphorus removal
systems lacks uniformity. For example, because of the wide
variation in reported biological removals of phosphorus, the cation/
phosphorus ratio should always be based upon the phosphorus left to
be removed chemically. Moreover, the distinction between total
phosphorus residuals and filtrate phosphorus residuals is clouded by
variations in filter pore sizes used by investigators. Of even greater
concern, some studies have failed to report the basis on which
effluent phosphorus is measured.
The variability in results is graphically depicted by Minton and
Carlson (5) in a plot of total phosphorus and filtrate phosphorus as a
function of the aluminum/phosphor us molar ratio. The data is widely
scattered, making selection of a cation/phosphorus ratio difficult.
These authors attribute inconsistencies in part to the lack of corre-
lation with system pH.
Based on this assessment of data by Minton and Carlson (5) and infor-
mation provided both by the EPA Process Design Manual on Phos-
phorus Removal (9) and a review article by Jenkins, £^£^.(2) four
levels of effluent phosphorus concentration were assumed to be
achievable. These were discussed in an earlier section. To
reiterate: addition of chemicals to either the primary clarifier or
aeration basin (or secondary clarifier of a trickling filter plant) will
result in a total phosphorus concentration of 2 mg /1; addition of
chemicals to the aeration basin followed by clarification and filtration
will reduce the effluent phosphorus concentration to 0.5 mg / 1; and
addition of tertiary chemical treatment will produce the lowest
phosphorus concentration of 0. 1 mg/1 using lime and 0. 3 mg '1 using alum.
Although addition of chemicals to the aeration basin of conventional
activated sludge systems has been discussed in detail, there is
little process data available on chemical addition to extended aeration
facilities. Because primary clarifiers are not usually included in
this form of treatment, chemicals must be added to the aeration
28
-------
basin unless tertiary treatment is proposed. Several technical
problems may arise in this system, primarily as a result of high per
cent sludge recycle.
It can be postulated that extended aeration systems to which chemicals
are added will show a continual increase in suspended solids. This
could impede clarification, increase mixing requirements, and over-
load the sludge recycle system. Moreover, without sludge wasteing,
pH depression caused by alum or ferric chloride addition could be
severe. Undoubtedly, sludge removal will be required at much more
frequent intervals than commonly encountered in extended aeration
plants.
Ewing Engineering Company performed a plant-scale study of alumi-
num (both alum and sodium aluminate) and iron (waste pickle liquor)
addition to an extended aeration facility (24). Mixed liquor suspended
solids increased from 7000 to a maximum of 11,000 mg/1. Unfor-
tunately, the period of time was not specified; however, it was less
than six months. Because the alkalinity of the waste-
water was high (400 mg/1 as CaCC^), pH remained between 6.8 and
8.2. Biological activity was not affected measurably by any of the
chemical additions. However, solids production increased by about
seven to eight pounds per pound of phosphorus removed. This in-
creased the required sludge wastage by approximately 100 per cent.
From this brief study of extended aeration systems, it is apparent
that a more careful analysis of chemical addition will be required
before being implemented on a wide scale.
BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE
All biological wastewater treatment processes require inorganic nutrients to
sustain growth. Thus, it is not surprising that some phosphorus removal is
noted in activated sludge and trickling filter systems. Nevertheless, it is
difficult to consider this a technique that will provide a predictable
and significant phosphorus removal. Most reports state that the
expected phosphorus removal in a biological system amounts to
about 2 to 3 mg/1 at pH4. At San Antonio, Texas (Rilling Plant),
Los Angeles (Hyperion Plant) and Baltimore, Maryland (Back River
Plant), 90 per cent phosphorus removal was indicated. This prompted
study by the EPA in 12 other activated sludge plants. All of these
other plants showed erratic removals, with most indicating very
little removal (4).
The luxury biological uptake theory put forth by Levin and Shapiro (25)
to explain biological removals has been refuted by Mulbarger, et^al_(26)
and Jenkins, et al (2). In fact, these latter two authors suggest that
chemical precipitation of Ca2HPC>4 with the proper range of pH and
calcium concentration can account for a considerable increase of
phosphorus removal beyond that characteristics of biological uptake.
29
-------
Cecil suggests that biological removals of phosphorus cannot be
predicted because the basic mechanism of uptake is not known (3).
He recommends, however, that operating conditions be maintained
carefully at specific activated sludge plants where biological uptake
has been noted to be significant.
More recently, Levin, et aj. (27) reported on pilot plant studies in
Washington, D. C. in which a controlled process for biological re-
moval of phosphorus was evaluated. In this process, activated
sludge withdrawn from the secondary clarifier enters a thickener
and is held for up to 12 hours. During this time, anaerobic con-
ditions develop and cause the release of phosphorus into the super-
natant. Activated sludge, now, deprived of phosphorus, is returned
to the aeration basin where luxury phosphorus uptake occurs. Super-
natant from the thickener, containing a high concentration of
phosphorus in a relatively small volume, is then chemically coagu-
lated for ultimate removal of phosphorus.
Results reported by Levin, e£ a_l (27) were obtained over a relatively
short time (two months). Further, the objective was somewhat
limited to demonstrating process feasibility rather than optimizing
design. Several key features of the process require further study.
These all relate to process stability during sustained operation in
which sludge characteristics could be affected by changing waste-
water characteristics and flowrates. Although this study did evaluate
to some extent variations in process loading, there is still a need
for collection of data over a longer time period.
Sherrard and Schroeder (28) lend support to the luxury uptake theory
with their stoichiometric calculations of cellular phosphorus. Cell
residence time is, however, very critical to optimal phosphorus
removal. At low cell residence times, cell growth rate is maximized
thereby maximizing phosphorus removal. The initial ratio of organic
matter to phosphorus was also shown by calculations to affect
biological uptake efficiency.
It may be concluded that biological uptake cannot be put forth as a
generally accepted means of phosphorus removal, but must rather
be considered in conjunction with chemical precipitation (which may
further be enhanced by chemical additions).
ACTIVATED ALUMINA
Activated alumina has been shown to remove phosphorus by a
mechanism best described as a combination of adsorption and ion-
exchange. In this process, removal of phosphorus causes exhaustion
of the columnar bed of activated alumina through which wastewater
is passed. The rate of exhaustion has been predicted by mathematical
modeling using synthetic sewage and laboratory columns (29). In
considering practical application of this process, the most critical
parameters become 1) length of service provided by a given charge
30
-------
of activated alumina, 2) degree of difficulty in regeneration and
3) interference from other constituents of the waste-water, e.g. , head
loss in the bed and surface fouling.
Ames (30) reported the results of laboratory studies in which both
synthetic sewage and secondary effluent were fed to a column charged
with activated alumina. Using secondary effluent, a steady decline
in phosphorus loading capacity was noted after each regeneration
cycle. On Cycle I, 600 bed volumes were treated before significant
phosphorus breakthrough occurred; however, only 200 bed volumes
could be treated on Cycle V.
The regenerant solution was 1 molar NaOH. It was concluded that
solids were precipitating in the column during regeneration thus re-
ducing the efficiency of phosphorus stripping. An acid wash with
HC 1 followed by regeneration with a molar NaOH renewed the phos-
phorus capacity close to that originally observed.
It should be noted that a carbon bed was used prior to the activated
alumina column to prevent carryover of organics which had in previous
runs caused a build-up of bacterial slime on the alumina. Thus,
practical installation of this process as a tertiary treatment step
would involve more than just an activated alumina column. Moreover,
the regenerant solution must, of course, be further treated to remove
captured phosphorus. Ames (30) suggests the use of lime in a typical
chemical precipitation scheme. The advantage offered by this system
is a much reduced volume. That is, while phosphorus is removed
from 600 bed volumes of wastewater, the volume of regenerant to be
treated is only about 20 bed volumes.
ION EXCHANGE
Most experience with ion exchange involves strong base anion resins
in the chloride form. Eliassen et^al^S!) reported successful appli-
cation of ion exchange following either flocculation and filtration or
filtration alone. A conventional activated sludge plant would therefore
require multiple tertiary units to achieve phosphorus removal.
Without pretreatment, resin fouling severly restricts exchange
efficiency (31). Because regeneration becomes less effective after
each cycle, periodic cleaning of the resin is required. Pollio and
Kunin (32) in later studies reported similar results. Gregory and
Dhond (33) confirmed Eliassen1 s finding regarding preferential
exchange of sulfate. That is, after breakthrough of phosphorus,
sulfate continues to be removed. Therefore, wastewaters high in
sulfate limit the effective resin capacity for phosphorus and in
addition, cause more chloride ions to enter the effluent water.
In column studies using secondary effluent, a breakthrough of less
than 0. 3 mg / 1 of phosphorus occurred after 100 bed volumes had
been treated (33). Although excessive head loss due to clogging by
31
-------
suspended solids did not occur, Gregory and Dhond noted that this may
be a serious problem in plants with poor secondary effluents. Organic
matter was also removed by the exchange columns, but, for the
limited number of cycles of operation in this study, phosphorus
removal was not impaired as a result.
Economics and efficiency demand that regenerant volume be mini-
mized. Gregory and Dhond (33) observed that about four bed volumes
of regenerant were needed for every 100 bed volumes processed. The
waste regenerant solution must then be disposed. For small volumes,
evaporation may be practical. Larger volumes warrant precipitation
for removal of phosphorus.
Gregory and Dhond (38) concluded that ion exchange for phosphorus
removal was of only limited application due to economics. Specifically,
they cited its use in instances where local situations demand a very
high quality effluent; for example, discharge to a recreational lake.
A low concentration of sulfate may also be considered to be essential
to economic use of this process.
Envirogenics (34) investigated a combination resin/iron sorbing
system for phosphorus removal. In these studies, a cation exchange
resin (Amberlite 200) was contacted with ferric chloride such that
the resin surface then held Fe^ + . Laboratory column studies indi-
cated substantial phosphorus removal capacity. Regeneration was
accomplished with 0. 1 molar ferric chloride solution. The spent
regenerant could, according to these investigators, be treated with
lime for ultimate precipitation of phosphorus.
A relatively constant regeneration capacity was observed over ten
cycles; however, an uneconomical amount of ferric chloride was
required. A lesser percentage of resin regeneration was deemed
essential for economic application of this process. The results of
this study cannot be stated as conclusive because they were obtained
from a small laboratory scale investigation and were not complete.
Reliable cost projections and actual operation of the system are
impossible to predict from such limited information.
Finally, a similar study reported by Block (35) was aimed at con-
version of a solid adsorbent to an anion exchanger. Exchangeable
cations in vermiculite were replaced by aluminum ions. It was
postulated that columnar operation would result in removal of
phosphorus by an adsorption reaction involving aluminum ions on
the surface of the vermiculite. However, it was found that
phosphorus adsorption capacity was far below that required for
economic operation and this process was subsequently disregarded.
32
-------
SELECTION OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL SCHEME
As shown in the review of literature, phosphorus can be removed by
chemical precipitation, biological uptake, chemisorption and ion
exchange. The first technique has been repeatedly shown by
laboratory, pilot plant, and full-scale testing to be the most success-
ful approach. The other three techniques, while noteworthy, suffer
both technological and economic drawbacks.
The phosphorus control schemes to be considered herein are restricted
to chemical precipitation. However, this does not severely limit the
treatment options available. Foremost, there are three cations which
can be used: aluminum, iron, and calcium. These are generally
added in the following rather inexpensive chemical compounds:
1. aluminum in alum or sodium aluminate
2. iron in ferric or ferrous chloride as well as ferric
or ferrous sulfafce
3. calcium in calcium hydroxide (lime)
In addition to a selection of chemicals, precipitation offers a choice
of application points; the most commonly employed are addition
to: 1) the primary clarifier, 2) the aeration basin, 3) the secondary
clarifier, and 4) the chemical flocculation unit in a tertiary scheme.
Besides process flexibility, chemical precipitation offers the
advantage of a minimal investment in capital equipment. Moreover,
the type of equipment required is already used in water treatment
practice, thus assuring reliability. Essentially, chemical pre-
cipitation does not involve new process technology.
Finally, in addition to phosphorus removal, both organics as BOD
(biochemical oxygen demand), and suspended solids removals are
enhanced. The process can therefore serve to upgrade existing
plant efficiency.
Biological uptake, in contrast, has not been shown to be a reliable
method of phosphorus control. Although demonstrated at specific
activated sludge plants, there is little information on design
factors of impact because there is not at present a clear under-
standing of the mechanism of removal. It may be concluded that
more operational data must be obtained before this can be
recommended as a practical method of phosphorus control.
Chemisorption is the technique or mechanism associated with the
use of activated alumina for phosphorus removal. Although the
exact removal mechanism is not understood, it is thought to be a
combination of ion exchange and adsorption. There have been no
reports of pilot plant or full-scale testing with activated alumina.
33
-------
The chief technical disadvantage of the process is the requirement
for regeneration of the alumina bed before exhaustion of phosphorus
removal capacity.
Furthermore, the added complexity of another unit operation (packed
beds of activated alumina) needs to be carefully considered in light
of the inherent operational disadvantages associated with backwashing,
bed fouling, brine disposal, and multiple-bed rotational schedules.
Aside from technical drawbacks, the capital and operating costs of
the process have not been fully studied.
In pilot plant studies of ion exchange, organic fouling led to reductions
in regeneration efficiency after each cycle and limited the effective-
ness of a given quantity of resin. Thus, in order for ion exchange to
be successfully employed, it will be necessary to pretreat wastewater
even after secondary clarification. The technical problems described
above with regard to activated alumina equally apply to ion exchange.
Consequently, unless several advanced waste treatment objectives
are sought simultaneously, ion exchange cannot be considered as a
practical means of phosphorus control.
Process Opt ions
Both application point and chemical added provide options for a given
community. These are summarized below and are represented
schematically in Appendix A.
Option ] . Addition to the Primary Clarifier
Chemical Alternatives:
a. Alum + polymer
b. Ferric Chloride + polymer
c. Ferrous Chloride + Lime
d. Lime
Option 2. Addition to a Flocculation Basin Prior to Primary Clarifier
Chemical Alternatives:
Same as a, b, c, d above
Option 3. Addition to the Aeration Basin
Chemical Alternatives:
a. Alum
b. Ferric Chloride
c. Sodium Aluminate
34
-------
Option 4. Addition After Trickling Filter
Chemical Alternatives
a. Alum
b. Ferric Chloride
Option 5. Option 3 or 4 plus multi-media filtration
Option 6. Addition of lime to a Flocculation Basin Following
Conventional Secondary Treatment
a. Single Stage
b. Two Stage
Option 7. Addition of Alum or Ferric Chloride to a Flocculation
Basin Following Conventional Secondary Treatment
In all of the above options, it is assumed that the plant is either
already providing secondary treatment or is under an implementation
schedule to construct these facilities. This means that the selection
of phosphorus control schemes is not limited to Option 1 or Option 2
in an existing primary plant. Where secondary facilities do not
exist, however, capital costs computed for phosphorus removal will
include those items needed to acquire a secondary treatment plant.
INPUT DATA REQUIRED FOR PROCESS OPTIONS
General
In order to compute the costs directly attributable to phosphorus
removal, the following technical information must be known for
each process option:
1. Achievable Effluent Phosphorus Concentration
2. Chemical Dose(s) Required
3. Quantity of Sludge Produced
4. Density of Sludge Produced
5. Sludge Handling Processes to be used
6. Design Factors for Sludge Handling Equipment
These factors are discussed individually in the following sections.
Achievable Effluent Phosphorus Concentrations
Table 3 lists the four levels of phosphorus concentration estimated to
be achievable with the specific control strategies listed. These levels
are attainable throughout the range of influent phosphorus concentration normally
found in municipal wastewaters. Although advantages for Option 3 over Option 1
have been cited, process reliability dictated that these be rated the same. The
35
-------
Table 3
Achievable Effluent Phosphorus Concentrations
Level (rug / 1 as F) Process Options
2 1, 2, 3, 4
0.5 5
0.5 6 (Lime, one stage)
0.1 6 (Lime, two stages)
0.3 7 (Alum)
addition of multi-media filtration (Option 5) provides removal of
insoluble phosphorus, while tertiary treatment (Option 6) adds more
process reliability and control and yields the highest quality effluents.
Chemical Dose(s) Required
For both aluminum and iron addition, the amount of cations required
to achieve the effluent phosphorus concentration described above is
proportional to the influent phosphorus concentration. A considerable
variation in weight ratios was found from study to study for each
cation. However, for the purpose of a phosphorus control strategy
program, only a reasonable estimate is necessary. Table 4 provides
the weight ratios selected for use for both aluminum and iron in all
options.
Table 4
Cation/Influent Phosphorus Weight Ratios
Options Option Option Option Option
1.2 3 4 5 7
Al 2/1 1.5/1 2/1 1.5/1 2/1
Fe 3.1/1 4/1 3.5/1 4/1
In addition to the cation of choice, polymer addition is also recom-
mended at a level of about 0.5 mg / 1.
In contrast to aluminum and iron precipitation, phosphorus precipi-
tation with calcium depends upon the formation of more than one
precipitate. That is, calcium carbonate along with calcium hydroxy
apitite precipitation is considered essential to successful phosphorus
removal. Moreover, a pH in the range of 9.5 to 11.5 is also required
in most applications. Therefore, inmost cases, lime [Ca(OH);?] is
used for calcium precipitation of phosphorus.
The amount of carbonate contained in a wastewater directly relates
to the alkalinity of the water supply (and possibly to industrial
36
-------
contributors). At higher alkalinities, more lime is needed to reach
a given pH because of the increased buffer capacity. In these waters,
lime can be added to the primary clarifier in sufficient dose to
provide phosphorus removal without raising the pH to an unacceptable
level for subsequent biological treatment. On the other hand, waters
of low alkalinity will reach a pH of 11 to 12 for the same applied lime
dose. This would be unacceptable if biological treatment followed.
Thus, the phosphorus control scheme provided herein considers lime
addition to the primary clarifier (Option 1 or 2) to be valid only if
alkalinity is greater than 150 mg / 1 as CaCO.,.
Similarly, in tertiary treatment, lime precipitation is influenced by
alkalinity. High alkalinity waters permit single stage precipitation
while low alkalinity requires two stages with the second stage pro-
viding re-carbonation to lower pH and precipitate calcium carbonate.
An alkalinity greater than 200 mg /1 has been selected for meeting
the requirements of single stage treatment.
The addition of lime or other salts containing calcium to the activated
sludge system (pH7.5 to 8.5) was not considered herein. This
process has been suggested by Jenkins _e_^ al^ (2) as an alternative
phosphorus removal method in low alkalinity waters accompanied by
low magnesium concentrations. However, little verification of this
approach could be found from either pilot plant or full-scale testing
programs.
Table 5 lists the lime dosages to be used in the various phosphorus
removal options.
Table 5
Lime Dosages
Lime Dose
mg/1 as CaO
150
200
300
400
150
200
Option
1,2
Alkalinity 150-300
1,2
Alkalinity > 300
6 (Two Stage)
Alkalinity < 150
6 (Two Stage)
Alkalinity > 150
6 (Single Stage)
Alkalinity 200-300
6 (Single Stage)
Alkalinity > 300
37
-------
Quantity of Sludge Produced
Table 6 lists the values selected to represent sludge production for
each cation precipitant and process option. The values are based
upon data given in the literature, employing engineering judgment
where divergent results were reported. As more information becomes
available, it will be possible to further refine these values. The numbers
shown in Table 6 are incorporated in TSHEME subroutine of the model.
Table 6
Sludge Production
Cation
Aluminum
Iron
Calcium
Option
o,
"1,2
3
4
5
7
•A*
"1,2
3
4
5
*j»
""1,2
6A(Single Stage)
6B(Two Stage)
Sludge Produced
5.7 Ib/lb Aluminum
4 Ib/lb Aluminum
3.6 Ib/lb Aluminum
8 Ib/lb Aluminum
3.6 Ib/lb Aluminum
2.4 Ib/lb Iron
2.4 Ib/lb Iron
2.4 Ib/lb Iron
1300 Ib/MG
3000 Ib/MG
3000 Ib/MG
7000 Ib/MG
Does not include sludge assumed from added removal of 50 mg/1
suspended solids.
It may be noted that, although some estimates in Table 6 are ex-
pressed in pounds per million gallons, sludge production was related
to pounds of cation added where possible to account for varying
chemical dosages. Additionally, it should be pointed out the values
presented represent only the additional chemical sludge produced by
the precipitation process; they do not include, for instance, the
additional incremental removal of organics that would be achieved by
chemical addition to a primary clarifier.
Density of Sludge Produced
To define the exact magnitude of the additional sludge handling load
at a treatment plant when phosphorus removal is instituted, the sludge
density or per cent solids in the sludge must be stated. This parameter
can directly affect the efficiency of sludge thickening and dewatering.
In general, addition of iron or aluminum coagulants will cause a
reduction in percentage solids resulting in a bulkier sludge and one
which is more difficult to dewater. Lime addition, on the other hand,
seems to produce a denser sludge while enhancing dewaterability.
38
-------
Estimates of percentage solids in various chemical sludges produced
by the different process options are given in Table 7. The values are
Table 7
Per Cent Solids of Chemical Sludges
Cation % Solids
Aluminum 1,2 3
3, 4, 5, 7 1.5
Iron 1, 2 (Pickle liquor) 8
1,2 2
3 1.3
4, 5 1.5
Calcium 1, 2 5
6A (Single Stage) 4
6B (Two Stage) 3
based on limited information presented in the literature and should
be updated as better data becomes available.
One area of increasing interest regarding sludge production involves
the use of pure oxygen in activated sludge and aerobic digestion
systems. A recent pilot study on the use of oxygen in conventional
activated sludge processing has shown that 40-45% less excess
biological sludge is produced corhpared to conventional plug flow.
diffused air aeration (37). The economic studies indicate that as
plant size increases, the costs with oxygenation become less than
conventional diffused air. The authors projected savings of 20% for
a 100 MGD design.
In regard to filtering characteristics in the same pilot study mentioned
above, it was concluded that waste activated sludge from an oxygen-
ation system can be vacuum filtered directly without thickening.
Although studies of aerobic digestion were performed only on a
batch basis, a stabilized sludge was obtained in 7-9 days with a
20-30% reduction in volatile suspended solids.
If the pure oxygen systems are used more frequently in the future,
there will undoubtedly be a reduction in sludge handling costs which
will in turn influence the cost of phosphorus removal. More infor-
mation is required, however, on the reduction of chemical sludge
resulting from phosphorus removal by precipitation and coagulation.
Sludge jiandling Process Options
The overall purpose of sludge handling processes is to reduce the
water and organic content of sludges. To accomplish this purpose,
39
-------
numerous types and combinations of processes may be used. The
possibilities are so numerous, in fact, that for purposes of this study
it is necessary to delineate only a few of the more typical sludge
handling schemes. The schemes selected should, however, be
representative, of most of those used in practice since process flow
sheets for sludge treatment tend to follow similar arrangements.
The sludge handling options designated in this study are shown
schematically in Appendix B and are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8
Sludge Handling Options
Option 1. Combined handling of all sludge by gravity thickening,
anaerobic digestion, and mechanical dewatering.
Option 2. Combined handling of all sludge by gravity thickening,
dewatering, and incineration.
Option 3. Same as Option 2, except that secondary (biological)
sludge is thickened by flotation while primary and tertiary
(if any) sludge is thickened separately by gravity.
Option 4. Combined handling of all sludge by gravity thickening,
anaerobic digestion, dewatering, and incineration.
Option 5. Separate handling of tertiary lime sludge by gravity
thickening, centrifugation, calcination, and slaking.
Additional options may be added in the future if experience
t.
it.
Design Factors for Sludge Handling Equipment
warrants
In order to size sludge handling equipment, estimates of equipment
performance with various types of sludge is needed. Again, little
data is available. The loading factors developed for the various
sludge handling processes are given in Appendix C. The values are
based principally on data presented by Smith (36). Loading factors
presented for vacuum filtration also incorporated the recent work of
Van Fleet, et al (6).
40
-------
SECTION VI
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL STRATEGY AND COST MODEL
Use of Model
The phosphorus removal model, REMOVE, is an interactive simula-
tion of the process of removing phosphorus from the effluents of muni-
cipal wastewater treatment plants. Included in the model are the inter-
actions between phosphorus limiting legislation, upgrading of the
treatment plant, changes in the population of the community, strength
of the influent wastewater and the effluent objective to be achieved.
The model evaluates for the user a number of strategies for achieving
the effluent objective and presents least cost alternatives in terms of
both unit cost and estimated total costs.
The three major strategies available to a community for the control of
phosphorus include:
1. Legislation to limit phosphorus concentration in detergents.
2. Chemical methods for treating wastewater to remove
phosphorus.
3. Diversion of phosphorus bearing effluents to receiving
waters with greater assimilative capacity.
It is the basic function of the model to evaluate the interactive effects
on cost for the first two strategies mentioned above. In the program-
med version of the model we have not considered effluent diversion
since this would require the availability of alternate receiving waters.
This option might not be available to local communities although if
regional groupings were considered the option might be viable. The
model can be incorporated in a regional model if this is desirable.
At the present time, the programmed version is suited to the evalua-
tion of strategies and costs on the local level which might be, for
example, the case of a medium-size community on the shores of Lake
Erie, faced with decisions on whether to upgrade their present plant,
limit industrial effluents, or pass legislation to limit phosphorus in
detergent products sold in the community.
Model Description
REMOVE consists of a series of subroutines which correspond closely
to the physical subsections of the phosphorus removal problem as
41
-------
shown in Figure 1. The flow chart for REMOVE, -which is shown in
Figure 2, corresponds closely to the major elements in Figure 1. In
addition, each of the major subroutines is comprised of smaller sub-
routines which can be easily modified as additional phosphorus re-
moval and waste treatment process data becomes available. REMOVE
has been designed to manipulate variables contained in common blocks,
therefore, many- of the subroutines have no arguments because the
heart of the program is contained in the common blocks.
The program has been written in Fortran IV and has been run on an
IBM 360/67. A core size of 288K bytes is required for execution when
the program is run in the interactive mode on a time shared system.
"With some modifications the program can be run in a "batch" mode
with some reduction in core size.
REMOVE is designed to provide an estimate of the cost to a particular
community of achieving a designated level of phosphorus removal. The
program begins with the entry of data describing the community in
terms of population and future trends, the treatment plant in terms
of present size and excess capacity, and the influent wastewater char-
acteristics. The data can be entered interactively through subroutine
SYSTEM.
After input data has been entered, the user has the opportunity to in-
vestigate various control strategies for achieving a low phosphorus
concentration in the wastewater effluent. Typically, the effects on
cost of reducing phosphorus in detergent products, of increasing or
decreasing the amount of government financing available, or of using
various treatment options can be investigated.
From the description of the community, treatment plant, wastewater
characteristics, and desired strategy the model will design a treat-
ment plant incorporating the present plant as described by the user
and will add those processes or additional equipment necessary to
achieve the desired effluent level. The process options which will
achieve particular effluent levels are described in Appendix A. Each
process is sized according to relationships developed in Reference 10
and by our own work under this contract as described in Section V.
The program converts the sizing information into construction costs,
operating man-hours, maintenance man-hours, and total material and
supply costs for each process. It is important to note that any increase
in plant capacity dictated by the population growth of the community and
not by the requirement for additional phosphorus removal is not includ-
ed in the computed cost. This is achieved in the BUILD algorithm and
subroutine which is described later.
The majority of the cost relationships for the processes and equipment
included in the program were developed for EPA by Black and Veatch,
42
-------
Inc. (Reference 6). Costs representing a fixed percentage of construc-
tion and operating and maintenance were not included in the cost calcu-
lations. These costs, which include yardwork, legal, and administra-
tive charges, may increase the total cost estimate for each phosphorus
removal process by five to ten percent. The unit treatment costs on a
cents per kilogallon of wastewater treated basis are computed and
printed for each scheme. The user may refer to the unit cost as a
rough indication of the "figure-of-merit" of a particular process
scheme.
Modeling Considerations
The model has been developed as a simulation and as such does not
achieve a mathematical optimization. The user is presented with least
cost alternatives for various removal strategies and from these alter-
natives can optimize his/her decision.
The reader is referred to the Fortran program listing in Section VIII
for the specific cost equations and sizing relationships chosen. The
program is fully documented with comments and can be easily under-
stood by readers with only a limited knowledge of Fortran program-
ming. In this section we are presenting some of the basic considera-
tions upon which the simulation is based.
Limiting the phosphorus concentration in detergents has a
significant influence on wastewater phosphorus concentrations since
almost 50% of phosphorus in wastewater appears to originate from the
use of household detergents. This number can vary, however, and we
have found that depending on the volume of non-household waste treated,
the percentage can vary from 10-75%. If we assume p to be the
current percentage of phosphorus in detergents, p^ to be new legisla-
ted percentages of phosphorus and N to be the total amount of detergent
consumed by the sewered population per year, then:
is the total phosphorus reduction achieved by implementing removal
legislation.
Assuming Pc is the current phosphorus concentration in wastewater,
including sources other than detergents, then PT as shown below is
the concentration in the raw sewage which may be achieved by legislation
assuming that W is the amount of wastewater treated per year.
PT = P - N
L c
43
-------
The cost to society of this legislation will be directly proportional to
the cost difference for a new phosphate substitute detergent. We will
assume that Ce is the cost of a new phosphate substitute detergent in
dollars per unit weight of detergent and Cc is the current cost of a
phosphate containing detergent. The cost to society of the new deter-
gent will be:
CT = N(C - C ) - NC
L e c s
The differential cost C may also be the difference in cost between a
high phosphate percentage detergent and a low one. In the computer
model Cs will be called the DIFCOS. We are assuming in the develop-
ment of this methodology that each detergent substitute will have
similar cleaning power per unit weight and that Cs can be estimated
for each town.
We might also add to the above cost, an enforcement cost E, covering
for example, the cost of having officials enforce the legislation. This
cost can be considered directly proportional to the community's sew-
ered population, POP. When we include the enforcement cost,
becomes
CT = NC + E(POP)
L-i S
Equations for CL and PL are in subroutine DTGLJM of the model. The
subroutines are listed in alphabetical order in Section VIII. Values for
Cs and E have been assumed to be $. 02 and $. 40 respectively based on
best available information. These values may be changed by the user
and we expect that as phosphate substitutes become more widely accep-
ted, both values will decrease as a result of greater market compet-
ition and a reduced enforcement requirement.
Chemical treatment methods as discussed in Section V are presently
the only practical means of phosphorus control at the waste treatment
plant. There are N x M treatment possibilities resulting from the
choice of N chemicals (e.g., lime, aluminum, iron) at M points of
application (e. g. , primary, secondary, tertiary) within the treatment
plant. Although two or more chemicals may be used in combination,
it is usually not practical and we may consider chemical treatment as
a single, discrete variable which we will call T. Each value T may
assume represents one chemical treatment applied at one treatment
stage including one value of T representing the option of no chemical
treatment. Ideally, we would like to find a functional relationship
between chemical dosage and phosphorus effluent level for each of the
values of T. Unfortunately stochiometric relationships for chemical
phosphorus removal treatments do not accurately predict the treatment
44
-------
plant results. In addition, only a limited number of experimental and
actual phosphorus removal applications have been reported in the lit-
erature and those available give widely varying results. For these
reasons we have found it impossible to develop a widely applicable
functional relationship giving detailed descriptions of each procedure.
Rather, we have established for each value of the treatment variable
a maximum expected value for phosphorus concentration in the plant
effluent. This value is called PQut(T). A list of treatment options and
the value of Pout(T) is given in Appendix A.
The effluent phosphorus concentration will be given by:
P ,, = min of [P- , P .(T)l
eff L L our J
In general, treatment will usually be required since a minimum PL
will generally be greater than 2 mg/1 which is the maximum allowable
effluent concentration in many locations.
A cost function relating the cost of chemicals, handling equipment and
storage can also be defined. These costs will be designated by
and will include amortized equipment cost as well as the costs for
energy, chemicals, and maintenance.
Crp(T) = C . (W) + C; (W) + C .(plf chemical)
Tv ' equip o+rrv ' mat H.
The cost of chemicals will be a function of the level of phosphorus in
the influent and this in turn is affected by the legislated level of phos-
phorus in detergent products. The dosing relationships for the various
chemicals used in the phosphorus removal treatment have been dis-
cussed in Section V. The specific Cation/Influent phosphorus weight
ratios used in the model and the lime dosages are summarized in
Tables 4 and 5 of Section IV.
The addition of a chemical treatment scheme for phosphorus removal
to an existing waste treatment plant will result in the production of
additional sludge. The handling and processing of this sludge results
in additional costs. The amount of additional sludge, which we will
call S(W, T, PL), will be a function of the wastewater volume (W), the
chemical treatment method (T), and the phosphorus concentration in
the wastewater influent (PL)- The equations for determining the
additional sludge produced are contained in subroutine SIZE and in-
corporate data presented in Table 6 of Section V. In this subroutine
the size of equipment required to handle additional sludge produced
as a result of both the phosphorus removal requirement and increased
population are determined. P-^ is a function of the detergent limiting
legislation so that the amount and therefore the processing cost of
45
-------
additional sludge will depend on the legislation variable (pi) as well as
the treatment variable (T). The cost function itself will be a simple
summation of amortized capital costs, operating and maintenance costs,
and materials costs for various types of sludge handling equipment.
This function will take into account the excess capacity of a plant and
future growth of the community over a given time horizon. This cost
function is represented by Csige(pj, T):
C, (p., T) = C . (S) + C , (S) + C .(chemical, S)
slgevrl' equip o+mv mat'
Equations for determining Cgjee(pi> T) are contained in subroutine TRT2.
Table 9 lists the cost functions together with their location in the pro-
gram listing.
The costs attributable to phosphorus removal will depend on size rela-
tionships developed in SIZE and in the BUILD subroutine which deter-
mines whether or not excess plant capacity can be used, and if not,
whether or not the plant expansion is chargeable to phosphorus removal
or to increasing population.
Solid waste disposal assumes that there is at least one sink available
with the capacity to accept the minimum amounts of solid waste output
from the treatment plant. The capacity of each sink N is defined as
Pss(n) and the cost of transporting the solid waste is a function of dis-
tance from the plant to the sink and is Css(n):
C (n) = C • DIST(n) • S(W, T,PT )
S S S S 1_(
where Css equals unit transportation costs, and DIST(n) is the distance
to sink n. The Css(n) equation is contained in subroutine SSKCST.
Although the model is a simulation and not a linear programming model,
we can define what might be called an objective function for phosphorus
reduction. Cost minimization will result when values of the variables
Pi (legislation), T (chemical treatment), and m (selection of sink) are
in the right combination to minimize the total cost:
Total Cost = CL(PI) + CT(T) + Cgx (pr T) + C
ss
The minimization is carried out by the user interacting with the simu-
lation model under the constraints that:
46
-------
Table 9
COST FUNCTION LOCATOR
Cost Term
CT(T)
C . (W)
equip
C (W)
o+mv
Name
Cost of Phosphorus
Limiting Legislation
Total Cost of Liquid Treatment
Amortized Cost of Equipment
for Liquid Treatment
Operating and Maintenance Cost
of Liquid Treatment
Subroutine Location
DTGLIM
TRT1
CONCST
Cequip(S)
C 4-(Pn» chemical) Cost of Chemicals for Liquid
mat 1 Treatment
Total Cost of Sludge Handling
Amortized Cost of Equipment
for Sludge Handling
Operating and Maintenance Cost
for Sludge Handling
chemical, S) Cost of Chemicals for Sludge
C onditioning
Cost of Solid Waste Disposal
'mat
C (n)
ss
TRT1
TRT1
TRT2
CONCST
TRT2
TRT2
SSKCST
47
-------
Peff < Paink(m) °r mU ^iW' POut(T>J < Psink
-------
if the allowable effluent concentration is 2 mg/1, treatment schemes
achieving effluent levels lower than 0. 5 mg/1 will not be chosen.
A loop is then entered and disposal costs are calculated for each of
the treatment schemes selected. A long report may be printed for
each scheme showing for each process within the treatment scheme
the construction cost, amortized cost, year process is first needed,
and the periodic operating costs. Several short report formats may
also be selected which summarize cost information for each treatment
scheme.
A number of subroutines enter into the above cost calculations. The
subroutine, TRTMNT, first calls SCHOSE to select the sludge handling
scheme most compatible with the input data describing the existing
waste treatment plant. A list of the sludge handling schemes incor-
porated within the model is presented in Appendix B. SIZE is then
called to compute for each time period of the control strategy the size
of each piece of equipment {or process) required by the eligible treat-
ment scheme with and without phosphorus removal being considered.
BUILD then determines, based on the present size of equipment cur-
rently in the treatment plant, how much additional equipment will be
needed, at what time, and whether or not the cost will be assessed to
the phosphorus removal requirement. TRTMNT then calls SIZE again
and computes the operating and maintenance costs, and material costs
for each process required for each time period. SIZE is called at this
time because some of the operating and maintenance costs depend on
the design size as determined by BUILD and some on the actual oper-
ating time the equipment is used. After the O&iM and material costs
are calculated the construction costs are determined by CONCST. The
flow chart for the computation of costs in TRTMNT is shown in Figure
12.
Subroutines, LSKCST and SSKCST, compute the disposal costs for
liquid and solid effluent from the plant. LSKCST is not activated in the
model at the present time since it involves the effluent diversion
strategy. If it were to be activated, it would examine the maximum
assimilative capacity for phosphorus for each of several possible re-
ceiving bodies of water and would select those sinks capable of assim-
ilating the phosphorus effluent over the whole time horizon. It would
then determine the sinks resulting in the lowest pipe and pumping
costs. The effluent would be routed to those sinks with acceptable
assimilative capacity and lowest piping and pumping costs. SSKCST
chooses the lowest cost solid waste sink for each time period. To be
eligible a sink must have sufficient capacity for the solids over the
entire time period. The least costly eligible sink would be the one with
the lowest transportation cost which generally would be the site closest
to the treatment plant.
Finally, for each particular treatment scheme REPORT prints a sum-
mary of the costs. After printing the costs for one treatment scheme
49
-------
the program returns to compute costs for the next eligible scheme and
continues until all eligible schemes have been costed.
After all treatment schemes eligible under a particular control strategy
have been evaluated, the program will ask the user if another control
strategy is desired. If so, the program variables are reinitialized and
control returns to STRTGY. If not, the program is ended.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Cost Data
The accuracy of cost predictions for each of the strategies evaluated
by REMOVE depends to a large degree on the validity of sizing and cost
data incorporated in the SIZE, CONCOS, and TRTMNT subroutines.
Cost data for most of the processes and manpower requirements is
from a study performed for EPA by Black and Veatch, Inc. {Reference
6). In several cases cost data has also been used from the COST2
computer program developed by Smith and Eilers (Reference 10) and
the Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal (Reference 12).
Comments incorporated in the subroutine program listing refer to the
source of the particular cost equations.
All cost and labor data is keyed to standard indexes which update the
cost data to the present time. The EPA "Sewage Treatment Plant Con-
struction Cost Index", the U. S. Department of Labor "Index of Whole-
sale Prices and Prices Indices", and the Department of Labor "Employ-
ment and Earning Statistics" have been used for this purpose.
The information developed in Reference 6 for estimating costs and man-
power requirements was intended to be applicable to average situations
throughout the United States. When a cost estimate is prepared for
broad applicability, however, it can only be regarded as being suitable
for preliminary estimates of what might be considered average situa-
tions. The cost data and manpower requirements for estimating oper-
ating costs were based on the experience of the investigators, extensive
data concerning design details, and actual construction costs during the
period 1950 to 1968. This information was supplemented by field visits,
and the examination of operating and maintenance records.
From the extensive data acquired by Black and Veatch, graphical cost
relationships were developed. These are plotted in a log-log format in
Reference 6. Much of the graphical information was later converted by
Smith and Eilers (Reference 10 and 15) to exponential equations by
linear and polynomial curve fitting. This is the form of the equations
appearing in the CONCOS and TRTMNT subroutines.
50
-------
It should be recognized that in the development of average cost data
it is impractical to recognize all variations of design occurring among
individual projects. Variations in cost from one specific project to
another can be attributed to differences of design details, construction
site conditions, and the economic climate at the time the bids are taken.
Differences in costs will tend to be minimized if many different com-
ponents and processes are involved in the construction project due to
the tendency for composite estimates to vary less than the individual
components. For this reason we would estimate that the variation in
actual construction cost data compared to estimates provided by
REMOVE will tend to be more pronounced in small projects involving
relatively little additional equipment. In these cases, however, the
cost of chemicals will usually be the dominant factor in phosphorus
removal costs and the overall cost estimate should be a valid one.
Several processes included in the TRTMNT subroutine do not have cost
equations in the program listing. They may easily be added as valid
cost data becomes available. We were not able in the course of this
contract to find information on these processes which would lend itself
to curve fitting techniques. The affected processes include aerobic
digestion, waste stabilization ponds, sodium hydroxide feeding and
storage, and fluidized bed incineration. Except for aerobic digestion,
which is being used more frequently now, the other processes will not
appear frequently in treatment plant flow sheets.
Valid Ranges for Design Parameters Calculated by REMOVE
As discussed above, the mathematical cost relationships used in
REMOVE have been developed from linear and polynomial curve fitting
techniques. The cost calculations are valid only over the range of the
regression data points used to generate the data points. Where the
cost relationships are linear, some extrapolation above and below the
data points may be reasonable. The range of validity of the cost cal-
culations for the various processes is given in Table 10. Costs of some
supplies, such as chemicals for phosphorus removal are directly input
by the user if the assumed value is not correct for the particular area
or region in question.
If the user selects design parameters which are outside the range shown
in Table 10, the program will print a warning message. If the user is
satisfied that a linear extrapolation is involved or that the input value is
just barely out of the valid range, the program can be continued satis-
factorily.
Assumptions Concerning Additional Capacity and Input Information
The model is based on the following assumptions concerning the addition
of sludge handling equipment as a consequence of increased sludge pro-
duction.
51
-------
Table 10
CONSTRUCTION COST - VALID RANGES FOR
SIZING PARAMETERS
Process Name
Raw Waste Pumping
Pre Treatment
Flocculation Basin
Before Primary
Primary Settler
Primary Sludge Pump
Trickling Filter
Aeration Basin
Diffused Air System
Mechanical Aeration
Secondary Settler
Recirculation
Pumping (1)
Chlorination Feeding
System
Chlorination Contact
Basin
Multi Media Filtration
Recirculation
Pumping (2)
Anaerobic Digester
Sludge Drying Beds
Vacuum Filter
Centrifuge
Multiple Hearth
Incineration
Recarbonation Basin (1)
Recarbonation Basin (2)
Tertiary Settler (1)
Tertiary Settler (2)
Gravity Thickener
Recalcination
Independent Sizing
Parameter
Initial Firm Capacity
Maximum Capacity
Maximum Capacity
Surface Area of
Settler
Initial Firm Capacity
Media Volume
Liquid Volume
Initial Firm Blower
Capacity
Total Installed
Capacity
Surface Area of
Settler
Maximum Capacity
Average Chlorine
Use
Liquid Volume
Maximum Capacity
Maximum Capacity
Sludge Volume
Surface Area of Beds
Filter Area
Firm Capacity
Capacity
Liquid Volume
Liquid Volume
Surface Area of
Settler
Surface Area of
Settler
Surface Area
Maximum Capacity
Units
MGD
MGD
MGD
GPM
Thos Cu Ft
Thos Cu Ft
Thos CFM
HP
Thos Sq Ft
MGD
Ibs/day
Thos Cu Ft
MGD
MGD
Thos Cu Ft
Thos Sq Ft
Sq Ft
GPM
Lbs dry
solids/hr
Thos Cu Ft
Thos Cu Ft
Thos Sq Ft
Valid
Range
.5-300
1-200
1-200
Thos Sq Ft 1-30
30-5000
3-9000
3-4000
.02-200
20-5000
1-30
.5-300
20-8000
3-300
1-200
.5-300
30-6000
7-4000
80-6000
1. 5-700
700-
30, 000
1-400
1-400
1-200
Thos Sq Ft 1-200
Thos Sq Ft
MGD
.02-20
1-200
52
-------
1. Existing equipment will be operated up to the maximum
nominal time before any new equipment is constructed.
Nominal values selected for the various units have been sel-
ected from Reference 10.
2. When additional sludge handling units are constructed,
the sizing will be performed as follows:
a. The maximum size needed with phosphorus removal
is determined. This will occur sometime within the
chosen time horizon.
b. The time when present capacity will be exceeded is
determined.
c. The maximum size needed during the chosen time
horizon is constructed at the time when present capacity
is first exceeded.
3. Existing equipment used for sludge handling is assumed
to be in sufficiently good condition to be operated throughout
the chosen time horizon. The user of the model may wish to
shorten the time horizon if it is expected that major changes
will be necessary to existing equipment.
4. Sludge handling schemes will generally be chosen to
include the following processes:
a. thickening
b. digestion
c. dewatering
d. incineration
If there is no existing sludge thickening provided at a treatment plant,
the model assumes that gravity thickening, as a minimum, will be
required. If there are no provisions for sludge drying, the model assumes
that vacuum filtrating will be required. Anaerobic digestion capacity
will not be increased by the model as it is assumed that alternatives to
this process are available which will result in lower cost. This may
include dewatering and incineration of partially stabilized sludges. It
is also expected that aerobic digestion will be used more frequently in
the future. The model will calculate costs associated with landfill
disposal of digested dewatered sludges in addition to incineration. We
expect, however, that incineration may increase in popularity. The
costs of land spreading digested sludges is not included in the model.
53
-------
At the present time the model will include the cost of upgrading a pri-
mary- treatment plant to secondary treatment as a cost associated with
phosphorus removal. If this is not desired, the strategy can be run
twice in the following manner.
The upgrading is performed on the present primary treatment plant
and all costs of the particular strategy are calculated. Then using the
secondary treatment sizing parameters selected by the model as input
data to the model, the strategy is run again, this time assuming that
the plant has secondary treatment. The cost of phosphorus removal
without the cost of upgrading to secondary treatment is the result
achieved in the second run.
As with the primary upgrading costs, the cost of adding chlorination
to plants not having this equipment will also be charged to phosphorus
removal. These decisions were made by the EPA program monitor
early in the project. If the user does not wish to include these costs,
the long printout may be requested and the unit cost of chlorination
subtracted from the unit cost summary.
The model is presently restricted to the treatment and sludge handling
schemes shown in Appendices A and B. The process schematics shown
will be suited to most treatment plant configurations although occasion-
ally variations such as a two-stage trickling filter may require modifi-
cation of the model.
54
-------
Ul
Ul
fl> hrt
3 H..
3 OTQ
Sewered
Population
Phosphate
Detergent
Usage
Phosphate
Legislation
Phosphorus
From
Industry
Industrial
Waste
Treatment
High
Phosphorus
Content
Liquid
PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL
MODEL
Energy
Chemicals
Labor
Additional
Equipment
LIQUID
TREATMENT
-3
CUD
w
v
QO
'
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
Waste
I Transportation
^-*
Effluent
Diver sion
Phosphorus
Content
Licluid
-------
Subroutine Descriptions and Flow Charts
REMOVE
THIS IS THE MAIN PROGRAM. IT USES A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF
A COMMUNITY AND A DESIRED (INPUT 8V USER) PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
STRATEGY TO COMPUTE THE COSTS OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT SCHEMES
WHICH ACHIEVE A GIVEN PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT LEVEL. A REPORT ON
THE COSTS FOP EACH SCHEME IS THEN PRINTED.
NOTE It THIS PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TT RUN ON AN IBM 360/67
TIME SHARING SYSTEM. S" ECIFICALLYt THAT OF, INTERACTIVE
DATA CORP., WALTHAM, MASS. (617-890-1234).
A CORE SIZE OF 238K BYTES WAS REQUIRED FOR EXECUTION.
NOTE 21 THE BASIC STUCTURE OP THE COST EQUATIONS WAS TAKEN
FRCM RFF. 10 AND FOR THIS WE ARE EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO
RICHARD EILERS AND ROBERT SMITH OF EPA-CINCINNATI FOR THEIR
FINE WORK WHICH WE BUILT UPON.
COMMON BLOCKS:
PRGCNT - CONTAINS PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
PRNTR - CONTAINS PRINTOUT CONTROL VARIABLES
SCHEME - CHARACTERISTICS OF LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEMES
SUBROUTINES CALLED:
LCHOSE - PICK LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME
LSKCST - COMPUTE COST OP FEASIBLE LIQUID SINK (dummy for now)
REPORT - PRINT SUMMARY OF COST INFO FOR SCHEME
SSKCST - COMPUTE COSTS Oc FEASIRL^ SOLID SINKS
STRTGY - INPUT CONTROL STRATEGY
SYSTEM - INPUT DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY, SEWAGE, PLANT
TOTMNT - COMPUTE COST OF LIQUID AND SLUDGE TREATMENT
REFERENCES:
1. MONOGRAPH
NO. 9, 'ENVIRONMENT REPORTER', DOYLE, KATHLEEN
.t
20 AUG 71.
2. 'CHEMICAL HANDBOOK MANUAL OF CURRENT INDICATORS',
STANCFHPD RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AtJG 71.
3. PRIVATE COMMUNICATION WITH LARRY COX OF EPA-WASHI NGTON ,
O.C. ON II SEP 72. HE SAID THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY WAS
PLANNING ON $.*O/CAPITA/YR.
4. «NCWS RELEASE CF FRIDAY, 1 MAY 70', U.S. OF.PT OF INTERIOR
FWQA.
56
-------
5. «REPORT TO OECD WORK GROUP ON DETERGENTS'* BUNCH, ROBERT
L. , SEP 71.
6. 'ESTIMATING COSTS AND MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONVENTIONAL WASTFWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES', PATTERSON,
W.L. AND BANKER, R.F. OF BLACK 6 VF.ATCH, CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, F.PA REPORT NO. 17090 DAN.
7. MYSELF
8. 'SFWAGE TREATMENT PALNT CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX', EPA-
TFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS.
9. 'WHOLESALE PRICES AND PRICE INDICES - INDUSTRIAL
COMMODITIES', U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR.
10. 'COST2', A COMPUTER PROGRAM BY RICHARD EILERS OF
EPA-CINCINNATI, OHIO. 'COST2' COMPUTERIZES THE GRAPHS OF
REFERENCE 6.
11. PRIVATE COMMUNICATION WITH W.C. KRUMRI OF PROCTER
C GAMBLE, CINCINNATI, OHIO (513-562-2859) ON 6 SEP 72.
HE SAID THAT ANY NUMBER FROM -.05(FOR SQOIUM CARBONATE)
TO +.26CFOR CITRIC ACID) WAS VALID BECAUSE NO ONE
SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A' PHOSPHATE SUBSTITUTE.
12. 'PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL*,
BLACK 6, VEATCH, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, EPA REPORT
NH. 17010-GNP.
13. 'COST AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES FOR TERTIARY WASTEWATER
TREATING PROCESSES', SMITH, ROBERT AND MCMICHAFL, WALTER
F., EPA-CINCINNATI, OHIO, JUN 69.
1*. 'EMPLOYMENT £ EARNINGS STATISTICS - HATER, STEAM,
£ SANITARY SYSTEMS (SIC <»94-497)', U.S. OEPT. OF LABOR.
15. 'PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND SIMULATION OF CONVENTIONAL
WASTEWATER RENOVATION SYSTEMS USING THE DIGITAL
COMPUTER*, POBEO.T SMITH, EPA- CINCINNATI, MAR 68.
THIS REPORT PROVIDES A THEORECTICAL BACKGROUND FOR
RFFFRENCE 6.
57
-------
NUMERIC
CONSTANTS'
.020825 =
.029
.075
.123
.125
.232 *
.4902
.6
.7
.7457
1.506
2.27
2.6
2.89
3.95
4.?2
5.4
5.4
6.
7.48
8.33
11.
24.
30.
60.
180.
365.
1440.
2000.
43560.
PCUNDS/GAL FOR LIQUID POLYMER
ASSUMED RATIO OF TRICKLING FILTER SLUDGE
WASTING STREAM VOLUME TO INPUT VOLUME
POUNDS PF AIR/CUBIC FOOT
POUNDS OF C02/ CUBIC FOOT
ENDCGENQUS RESPIRATION CONSTANT AT 20C
POUNDS OP 02/ POUND 0^ AIR
PQUNDS/GAL FOR LIQUID ALUM
ASSUMED FRACTION OF MLVSS WHICH APE ACTIVE
ASSUMED RATIO OF MIXED LIQUOR VOLATILE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO MLSSAR
KILOWATTS/HPRSEPOWER
WQO-STP INDEX FOR JAN 71 NATIONAL AVERAGE $
POUNDS OF FECL2/PGUND OF FE
POUNDS/GAL FOR FECL2
POUND OF FECL3/ POUND OF F£
OOUNDS/GAL FOR FECLS
POUNDS OF NAAL/POUNO OF AL
PCUNOS/GAL FOR ALUM
(ASSUMED) POUNDS/GAL FOR NAAL
ASSUMED DEPTH OF TRICKLING FILTER MEDIA
GALLONS/CUBIC FOOT FOR WATER
POUNDS/GAL FOR WATER
POUNDS OF ALUM/POUND OF AL
HOURS/DAY
DAYS/MONTH
MINUTES/HOUR
ASSUMED CONCENTRATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN
TRICKLING FILTER SLUDGE WASTING STREAM
DAYS/YEAR
MINUTES/DAY
POUNDS/TON
SQUARE F5F.T/ACRE
AUTHOR:
CAVID A BARNES 19DEC72
RCNALC CRNER
JBF SCIENTIFIC CORP.
2 RAY AVENUE
BURLINGTON, MA 01803
(617-273-0270)
58
-------
f REMOVE J
SYSTEM
STRTGY
LCHOSE
DO FOR ALL ELIGIBLE SCHEMES
NO
TRTMNT
LSKCST
SSKCST
REPORT
END
OF
SCHEME
DO-LOOP
Figure 2
59
-------
YES
YES
USER
SELECTS
LONG
PRINT-
OUTS
USER
TRY
ANOTHER
STRATGY
Figure 2 (cont. )
SYSTEM
PURPCSt:
SYSTEM CALLS THE SUBROUTINES WHICH READ IN A DESCRIPTION OF
Tt-F TCTAL WASTE SYSTEM. THIS DESCRIPTION! CONSISTS OF THE
CHARACTERISTICS CF ThE COMMUNITY, THE INFLUENT SEWAGE,
THE TREATMENT PLANT.
SLeKGLTINES CALLED:
- RE ACS IN DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY
- REACS IN JESCRIPTICN OF INFLUENT SEWAGE
PLANT - RE/iDS IN' DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT PLANT
CAl.LEC 3Y:
Ff EMGVE
- THE MAIN PROGRAM
AUTHC'fc :
CAVIC A BAF.NFS
05CCT72
60
-------
( SYSTEM J
CMMNTY
SEWAGE
PLANT
f RETURN J
Figure 3
SYSTEM and its three (3) subroutines CMMNTY, SEWAGE, and
PLANT have the function of reading in and storing large amounts
of information into selected common blocks whose variables des-
cribe the community and its treatment plant.
Each variable is filled in the following manner:
"-H
o
C C 3
* C 0
— .1-1 J_l
4J ac o
-------
c
STRTGY
INTIME
EFFLIM
DTGLIM
INTIME
INDLIM
i
( RETURN
Figure 4
PURPOSE:
IMI-ME &EAOS IN A DESCRIPTION OF THE TIME HORIZON DESIRED-
IT THEN CALLS SP^NC TO COMPUTE THE SEVERED POPULATION FOR
EACH TINC PERIOD.
COMMCN PLCCKS:
PPGCNT - CONTAINS PRCGKAM CONTROL VARIABLES
TIMC - PARAMETERS OF TIME HCRIZCN
SLBRCLTINES CALLED:
SPFMC - CCMPUTES SEhEfcED POPULATICN FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
CALLEC 8Y:
ST&TGY - CONTkUL STRATEGY CALLING ROUTINE
ALTHGI' :
DAVI'J A B
06nCT72
64
-------
SPFNC
f INTIME J
READ IN:
1. Number of
Years in
Time Horizon
2. Size of Each
Time Period
COMPUTE
MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF TIME PERIODS
SPFNC
C RETURN J
Figure 5
SPFIVC COMPUTES THE SIZIE OF ThP SEWERED POPULATION OVE* ALL
TIKE PEKIUCS OF A GIVEN CCNTRCL STRATEGY.
CGMMCN flLCCKS:
SEhPOP - THE Sf-bEREO POPULATICN
T1M£ - PARAVIPTFRS OF TIME HCRIZCN
CALLtC BY:
INT IMF. - READS IN TIME HGklZGK OF CONTROL STRATEGY
AUTHCP:
CAVIC A BARNES 060CT72
65
-------
( SPOPFNC J
/GO TOV
\FNCTYPX
linear 5%
linear
exponential
piece-wise linear
B
D
Figure 6
66
-------
B
COMPUTE SLOPE
FROM FIRST TWO
VALUES OF SPOPIN
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
COMPUTE SEWPOP
FOR THIS TIME PERIOD
NO
YES
C RETURN J
SLOPE = .05
J
Figure 6 (cont. )
67
-------
c
COMPUTE EXPONENTIAL
CONSTANT FROM FIRST
TWO VALUES OF SPOPIN
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
COMPUTE SEWPOP
FOR THIS TIME PERIOD
NO
END OF
DO-LOOP
YES
( RETURN J
Figure 6 (cont. )
68
-------
D
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
DO FOR EACH TIME INTERVAL
IF
TIME
PERIOD LIES
WITHIN
INTERVAL
COMPUTE SLOPE
AND INITIAL
POPULATION VALUE
NO /END OF
DO-LOOP
COMPUTE SEAVPOP
FOR THIS TIME PERIOD
NO
YES
rRETURNS
Figure 6 (cont. )
69
-------
POPULATION GROWTH FUNCTIONS
present
linear:
PT
t = T - T
- PO
T2 - TO
t + P
0
0
exponential:
t = T - T P = P(1 +
Q
K = ex - 1
Q
piecewise linear fit:
T < T.
t=T- T
T T. - T.
i- 1
70
-------
DTGLIM
PUP PCSF: :
CTCLIM
INITIALIZES THE INFLUENT-HALF OF IELIMT TO 'PINPS1
DTP.GLIM KEACS IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE LIMITS ON THE
US CONTENT OF DETERGENTS AND THE I VPLENENT AT ION
FOk EACH TIME PERIOD THE INFLUENT-HALF OF IELIMT
COSTS OF NCN-PHCSPHATE SUBSTITUTES ARE COMPUTED.
DTGIIV ASSUMES THAT PYEAR V»ILL INCREASE EACH
TIME IT IS READ .IN.
THE
BLOCKS:
OTRGNT - CHARACTERISTICS OF DETERGENTS AND USAGE
lELl^T - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT LII-ITS
PRC-CNT - CONTAINS PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
LIQUID - LIQUID INFLUENT INFCPfATICN
SEkvPQP - THE SF.UERED POPULATICN
TI^E - PARAMETERS CF THE TIME HCRIZQN
C&LLEC BY:
STRTGY - CONTROL STRATEGY CALLING ROUTINE
AUTHOR:
DAVID A BARNES
11CCT72
71
-------
f DTGLIM J
INITIALIZE
IELIMT = PINPS
PSUBCS = 0
NOTE: DTGLIM
assumes that 'PYEAR1
will increase each
time it is read in
READ IN
PCNTNT AND PYEAR
= VALID NUMBER
CHANGE PYEAR
TO A TIME PERIOD
COMPUTE
1. New influent P level
2. Annual substitution cost
DO FOR ALL REMAINING TIME PERIODS
SET
1. New influent level
2. Substitution cost for
this time period
Figure 7
72
-------
DTGLIM
NO
Figure 7 (cont.)
EFFLIM
PLRPCSE:
EFFLIM READS IN THE PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND
CONSTRUCTS THE EFFLUFNT-HALF OF IELIMT
NOTE: EFFLIM ASSUMES THAT 'EYEAR1 hILL INCREASE
EACH T IME IT IS READ IN.
VCN BLCCKS:
IELIMT - LIMITS OK INFLUENT/EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATIONS
PRGCNT - CONTAINS PROGRAf CONT«CL VARIABLES
SEfcPOP - THE SEWERtO POPULATICN
TIME - INFC ABOUT THE TIME HCRIZON
CALLEC BY:
STKTGY - THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALLING ROUTINE
AUTHCP :
DAVIC A BARNES UCCT72
73
-------
( EFFLIM )
READ IN
ELIMIT,
EYEAR
NOTE: EFFLIM
assumes that EYEAR
will increase each
time it is read in
=OTHER
'00 ' X *\
' ( RETURN }
= VALID NUMBER
CHANGE EYEAR
TO A TIME PERIOD
DO FOR ALL REMAINING TIME PERIODS
SET EFFLUENT LEVEL
FOR THIS TIME PERIOD
NO
END OF
DO-LOOE
YES
Figure 8
74
-------
INDLIM
PURHCS6:
INOLIM REACS IN LEGISLATED RESTRICTIONS CN INDUSTRIAL
PHCSPHOF-US EFFLUENT. THE CORRESPONDING CHANGES ARF THEN
MACE TO THE INFLUENT-HALF OF IF.LIMT.
BLOCKS:
INDSTY - INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT LEVFLS
CALL6C 3Y:
STRTGY - THE CONTPCL STRATEGY CALLING ROUTINE
AUTHOR :
CAVIC A BARNES 113CT72
( INDLIM J
DUMMY
FOR NOW
f RETURN J
Figure 9
75
-------
LCHOSE
LCKlSt 1^3 KS iS ELIGIBLE FCfi C CNS I DEkATJ CN THOSE LIQUID
FUAFMtNT scHi, ves UHICH WILL:
1. ACHItVt; TH[,: O^SIRL'J MINF^UM r-h'f-LUL'M PHOSPHORUS LfcVtL
2. ACHltVE A LEVEL CLOSE TO THAT CFSIREO.
MCN BLCCKS:
IELIMT - LIMITS "N INFLUIfM/FFFLUfEM PHOSPHORUS
PR'jCNT - CONTAINS PHCGRAM CUNTRCL V^RIAQLES
LIOU1C - LIQUID INFLUENT INFC
SCHrMF - I NFL AECUT L I QU I C TREATMENT SCHtMES
TlVb - INFC: AbCUT TIME HC-PIZCN
TPLANT - INFG ^BCLT TKEATi^FNT PLANT PROCESSES
CALL EC ev:
»fc:MG\/f. - THE VAIN P^CGRAM
AUTHCR :
CAVID A 3AK\nS 12UCT72
76
-------
( LCHOSE )
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
FIND MINIMUM PHOSPHORUS
EFFLUENT LEVEL REQUIRED
END O
DO-LOOP
DO FOR ALL TREATMENT SCHEMES
WILL THIS
SCHEME ACHIEVE
THE MINIMUM AND IS ITS
VALUE THE
CLOSEST TO
MINIMUM
SET CLOSENESS
FACTOR
END O
O-LOOE
Figure 10
77
-------
DO FOR ALL SCHEMES
MARK AS ELIGIBLE
THOSE SCHEMES THAT WILL:
1. Achieve min.'eff. P
2. Lie within closeness
factor
IF \ /IF
ALKALINITY\ YES / SCHEME IS
INTO PRIMARY;?—(EITHER, LIME
SETTLER / \TO PRIMARY,
IS < 150/ \OR 1-STAGE
TERTIARY
SCHEME
IS
MARKED
NOT
ELIGIBLE
Figure 10 (cont. )
78
-------
IF
SCHEME IS
SUCH THAT
ADDITION OF ALUM
OR FECL3 WOULD
DEPRESS THE
ALKALINITY
BELOW
50.
MARK
SCHEME
NOT
ELIGIBLE
IF
SCHEME CAN
HAVE ALTERNATIVE
EQUIVALENT
PROCESSES
CHOOSE AND ADD
PROCESS SO AS
TO CLOSELY MATCH
PRESENT CONFIGURATION
END O
O-LOOP
RETURN
Figure 10 (cont.
79
-------
TRTMNT
PUPPCSE:
TRTMENT IS THE MAIN COST COMPUTING SUBROUTINE. IT FIRST
DETERMINES WHAT ADDITIONAL (IF ANY) SLUDGE HANCLING
hGUIPKENT IS REQOIREC RY THE COMBINATION CF THIS TREATMENT
PLANT AND ELIGIBLE TREATMENT SCHrME. THEN PCR FACH TIME
PER IOC THE FALLOWING WILL BE COMPUTED.
1. SIZE AND CCST OF ADDITIONAL EOUIPMENT
2. OPERATION AND CAINTAINENCE COSTS
3. MATERIAL AMD SUPPLY COSTS.
NJTfc: THE ABOVE CCSTS ARE ONLY THOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
COMMON BLCCKS:
SCKMfc - INFO ABQLT LIQUID TREATMNET SCHtMES
TPLANT - INFO. ABOUT LIQUID T»EATMfcNT PROCESSES
TlNf. - PARAMETERS CF TIME HORIZON
SLBRCLTINES CALLED:
BUILD
SCHOSf
SIZE
TRT1
TRT2
CCNCST
CALLEC BY:
DETERMINES MAXIMUM SIZE OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
CHOOSES SLUDGE HANDLING PROCESSES
COMPUTE INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETERS FOR PROCESSES
COMPUTES 0 I * COSTS
COMPUTES OEM COSTS
CCMPUTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS
- THE MAIN FPCGRAM
AUTHOR:
CAVIL A BARNES
120CT 72
80
-------
( TRTMNT J
SCHOSE
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
YES
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
SIZE
COMPUTE O&M AND
MATERIAL COSTS FOR EACH
REQUIRED PROCESS
NO
SUBROUTINES
TRT1 & TRT2
YES
COMPUTE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS FOR EACH
REQUIRED PROCESS
SUBROUTINE
CONCST
( RETURN J
Figure 11
81
-------
SCHOSE
PUKPCSE:
SCHOSc PICKS THE SLUCGE HANDLING PROCESSES (EQUIPMENT) WHICH
,iRF CCTh:
1. NtCESSARY FOR A PARTICULAK LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME
2. CCNFCRM MOST CLOSELY WITH THE PRESENT PLANT CONFIGUR AT ICN
SCHOSE ALSC CONSTRUCTS A COMPLETE LIST OF NECESSARY EQUIPMENT
F'JK THIS STRATEGY
CCMPCN BLCCKS:
PHGCNT - PROGRAM CCNTROL
SCHEME - REQUIRED LIOUIO
SLGSCM - REQUIRED SLUOGE
TFLANT - CHARACTERISTICS
VARIABLES
HANDLING EQUIPMENT
HANCLING EQUIPMENT
GF TREATMENT PLANT
PROCESSES
CftLLEC PY:
TSTMNT -
AUTHCR:
L^AVIC A
THE MAIN COSTING SUBROUTINE
flARNES
120CT 72
82
-------
CHOOSE THICKENING
PROCESS
CHOOSE DIGESTION
PROCESS
IF
CHEMICAL
CONDITIONING
NEEDED
PICK CHEMICAL
PROCESSES
CHOOSE INCINERATION
PROCESS
TERTIARY
LIME
PICK
R EGA LI NATION
PROCESS
NO
Figure 12
83
-------
TURN 'ON' PROCESSES
COMMON TO ALL
TREATMENT SCHEMES
TURN 'ON' PROCESSES
REQUIRED FOR THIS
TREATMENT SCHEME
TURN 'ON1
FOR SLUDG1
PROCESSES
£ HANDLING
( RETURN J
Figure 12 (cont. )
SIZE
PURPOSE:
SIZE COMPUTES FOR TH«E CURRENT TIME PERIOD (TP), THE
INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETERS FOR EACH PROCESS WITH/WITHOUT
PHCSPHORUS REMOVAL TREATMENT.
CCMNCN BLOCKS:
IbLItfT - INFLUENT ANC EFFLUENT LIMITS
LIQUID - LIQUID INFLUENT INFORMATION
PKGCNT - PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
SCHEME - INFC ABCUT LIOUIC TREATMENT SCHEMES
SLCHAR - SLUDGE,LIQUID,CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SLGSCK -REQUIRED SLUUGE HANDLING EQUIPMENT
SLLDGE - SLUDGE INFORMATION
SEksPOP - THE SEWERFD POPULATION
TIME - PARAMETERS OF TIME HORIZON
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS OF TREATMENT PLANT PROCESSES
SUBROUTINES CALLED:
TSCHME(ES) - INITIALIZES
IN CRDER TO SIZE WPARM
CALLEC BY
TRTMNIT
- THE MAIN COSTING SUBROUTINE
AUTHOR:
DAVIC A BARNES
120CT72
84
-------
f SIZE (ipn
ES = Current
Eligible
Scheme
TSCHME
(NONE)
SIZE ALL
REQUIRED PROCESSES
WITHOUT
PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL
TREATMENT
TSCHME(ES)
SIZE ALL
REQUIRED PROCESSES
i WITH
! PHOSPHORUS
[REMOVAL
' TREATMENT
f RETURN]
Figure 13
TSCHME(ES)
TSCHME INITIALIZES ALL THE DOMAIN VARIABLES NECESSARY TO
SUE WPARM(J) (THE INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER WITH
PHTSPHCPUS REMOVAL TREATMENT FCR E/CH PROCESS(J))• THIS IS
JCNE FOR A PARTICULAR ELIGIBLF TREATMENT SCH^MEttS).
MCN BLOCKS:
LICUIL - LUUIO INFLUENT INFCRMATICN
PRGCNT - PROGRAM CCNTROL VARIABLES
SLCHAft - SLUDGfcfLlOUlU.CHfcPICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SLUDGE - SLUOGt CHARACTERISTICS
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS CF TPCATMENT PROCESSES
LEL
SIZE
- THE INDEPENDENT PARAMETER SIZING SUBROUTINE
ALTHf> :
i-wn
b A ft N E S
130CT72
85
-------
ES = Number of
Eligible
Scheme
INITIALIZE ALL
DOMAIN VARIABLES
FOR SCHEME ES
n
f RETURN J
Figure 14
BUILD
PURPOSE:
BU1LC DETERMINES THE MAXIMUM SIZE CF THE NECESSARY
ACDIT ICNAL EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR EACH PROCESS AND THE
PE«IOC WHEN AODITICNAL EtiUIP^ENT IS FIRST NEEDED.
TIME
CLOCKS:
PKGCNT - PROGRAM CQNTKOL
TIME - INFC ABCUT TIME
TPLAM - CHARACTERISTICS
TKTCST - TREATMENT CCSTS
VARIABLES
HCRIZCN
CF THE TREATMENT
FOR EACH PROCESS
PLANT PROCESSES
FOR EACH TIME
CALLED BY:
TRTMNT -
THE MAIN COSTING SUBROUTINE
AUTHOR :
DAVID A BAHNES
19DEC72
86
-------
C BUILD )
DO FOR ALL PROCESSES
DETERMINE AMOUNT
TO BE BUILT
FOR THIS PROCESS
USING BUILD
ALGORITHM
N0 XEND or
JO-LOOP,
YES
( RETURN J
Figure 15
PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF BUILD ALGORITHM
P = Present Plant sizing parameter for a process
B = Size to be built
W = Size needed with Phosphorus Removal
"WO = Size needed without P removal
NOTE: Assume W > WO always
Case 1:
P = 0
B
i.e. B = W
P \VO "W
87
-------
Case Z:
WO
W
B = (#, because present size is
large enough
Case 3:
B
W
B = W-P, i.e. the excess
capacity, P-WO, is
utilized for Phos.
removal
Case 4:
WO
W
B = W-WO, i. e. the amount,
WO-P, which is also
required is not caused
by Phos. removal,
but by population
growth, and therefore
its cost is not charged
to Phos. removal
88
-------
TRT1
PURPOSE:
THE COSTS ARE COMPUTED FOR EACH PROCESS WHICH IS
BEING USED FOR THE CURRENT TREATMENT SCHEME IN
THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
1. COSTS WHICH DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF THE PROCESS
A. IF P < 0, THEN COST = F(B)
B. IF TP < TPFADD, THEN COST = 0
C. IF TP^TPFADD, THEN COST = F(P + B) - F(P)
2. COSTS WHICH DEPEND ON ACTUAL USAGE OF THE
PROCESS
A. IF P<0, THEN COST = F(W)
B. OTHERWISE, COST = F(W) - F(WO)
P = PPARM = PRESENT SIZE OF PROCESS
B = BPARM = SIZE REQUIRED TO BE BUILT BY TIME
PERIOD 'TPFADD1
W = WPARM = SIZE REQUIRED WITH PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
WO = WOPARM = SIZE REQUIRED WITHOUT PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
(SEE COMMON 'TPLANT' FOR ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION)
TRT2
PURPOSE:
TRT2 IS SIMILAR TO TRT1.
COMMON BLOCKS:
SUBROUTINES CALLED:
AUTHOR:
DAVID A. BARNES 30 NOV 72
89
-------
CONCST
PURPOSE:
CGNCST COMPUTES CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR EACH PROCESS
MOTE: FOR MOST PROCESSES THE EQUATIONS ARE FROM REF. 10
COMMCN BLOCKS:
LBRCST - COST OF LABOR
SCHEME - INFO ABOUT LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEMES
TIME - TIME HORIZON INFORMATION
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS OF TREATMENT PLANT PROCESSES
TRTCST - TREATMENT COSTS
TSCST - TIME AND SPACE DIFFERENCE COSTS
CALLED BY:
TRTMNT - THE MAIN SIZING AND COSTING ROUTINE
REFERENCES:
AUTHOR:
DAVIG A. BARNES 30 NOV 72
90
-------
LSKCST
PUKPGSt:
LSKCST CHOOSES A LIQUID SINK kITH A LARGE ENOUGH
ASSIMILATIVE PHOSHHJRUS CAPACITY. IT THTN COMPUTES THE
PUVD AND PIPE -fctCUIRfcMENTS. ANC THEM CALCULATES THE CHST
OF Thf? SINK FU» EACH TIME PFRITO.
CQVMCN BLOCKS:
f'NGCST - OELIVEREC CCSTS Cf ENtSGY FOkMS
IcLlMT - INFLUENT/EFFLUENT LIVITS
LIQUID - -LiaUIO -INF.LLENT INFCRfATICN
LSINK - CHARACTERISTICS GP LICUIC SINKS
PRGCNT - PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
CALLEC BY:
- THE MAIN PKCGRAM
AUTHOR:
L1 A BARNES 12GCT72
( LSKCST J
DUMMY
FOR
NOW
f RETURN J
Figure 16
91
-------
SSKCST
PUKPCSE:
SSKCST COMMUTES THE COST CF TRANSPORTING THE SOLID WASTE
FHC^ THE TREATMENT PL^NT TO A SINK WITH SUFFICIENT CAPACITY.
THIS IS DC3Nc FOR EACH TIVE PERIOD.
CCMNIGK BLOCKS:
PRGCNT - PROGRAM CCMTRDL VARIABLES
3SINK - CHARACTtRlSTICS CF THE SCLIO SINKS
CALLEC BY:
^E^OVt - THE PAIN PKCGRAM
AUTHCP :
C4VID A BARNES 120CT72
92
-------
f SSKCST J
DO FOR ALL TIME PERIODS
I
DO FOR ALL SOLID SINKS
REDUCE CAPACITY
OF CHOSEN SINK
COMPUTE COST FOR
THIS TIME PERIOD
NO
ES
( RETURN J
NO
CAN
AMOUNT OF SOLID
WASTE FOR THIS TIME PERIOD
BE PUT INTO THIS
SINK
IS
THIS SINK
THE
LOSEST
PICK THIS SINK
SET NEW CLOSEST
END OF
0-LOOP
Figure 17
93
-------
A SUMMARY
TKL7ATMENT
OF THE COSTS
SCHEME,
ASSOCIATATEO WITH
REPORT
PLRFCSE:
PtFCRT PRINTS
EACH ELIGIBLE
CCMMCN BLCCKS:
9TRGNT - DETERGENT INFORMATION
LBRCST - CCST OF LABCR
LIQUID - INFO. ABCUT LIQUID INFLUENT
PRGCNT - CONTAINS PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
SCHEMF - INFC ABOUT LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEMES
SLiVvPOP - THE SEWERED POPULATICN
TIMt - PARAMETEFS OF TIME HCPIZON
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS CF TREATMENT PROCESSES
TRTCST - TREATMENT CCSTS
C.HLEL BY:
RtMOVF - THE MAIN PKCGfcAM
ALTHCR:
CAVIC A 3ARNFS 130CT72
REINIT
RFINIT REINITIALIZES ALL THfc VARIABLES NECESSARY TO TRY A
New PHOSPHORUS CCNTPCL STRATEGY.
BLCCKS:
CALLtC HV:
RENGVfc - THE MAIN PRCGRAM
DAVID A tiAKNES
130CT72
94
-------
Common Block Descriptions
CCWMCN BLCCK:
ChfCST
PUR PCSE :
CONTAINS
'DELIVERED COST QF CHEMICALS
VAR IAELES;
ALLMCS
CI12CS
FECLCS
L IMEC5
NAALCS
NAGHCS
PCKLCS
POLYCS
»
t
- COST
- COST
- COST
- COST
- COST
- COST
- COST
- COST
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
DF
GF
ALUM
CARBON
FERRIC
LIME
SODIUM
SODIUM
PICKLE
POLYMER
0
C
A
10X1
HLOR
LUMI
HYCRQ
L
OF.
IDE
NATC
XIDE
IQUCR
AUTHOR:
RCN CPNFK
10 CCT 72
BLCCK:
01PGNT
PURPOSE:
CCNTAINS Df-TEKGtNT INFORMATION
DIFCOS
OTP.GUS
ErtFCST
PORATQ
PCTRG
FPRATC
PRESPC
DIFFERENTIAL CCST OF PHOSPHATE SUBSTITUTF (WL3)
ANNUAL PEt< CAPITA DETERGENT USE (LBS/CAP/YR)
ANNUAL PER CAPITA ENFORCEMENT COSTS OF P BAN U/C4
RATIC P^OSPHATL- TO CETtRCENT * RIGHT
WEIGHT P IN ScWAGE CUE TC DETERGENTS (LBS)
RATIC PhCSPHORUS TC PHOSPHATE
PPFSfiMT P CONCENTRATION IN JfcTERGLNTS (KATI01
r»SUBCS(TP) - COST OF P SUBSTITLTe FOK EACH TlVt PERIOD ($)
AUTHOR:
PCN
10 CCT 72
95
-------
COVCN 3LCCK:
FNGCbT
CONTAINS DELIVERED CCSTS Uf ENERGY SUPPLIES
VAR TABLES :
bLFCGS - ELECTRICITY COST (t/KKHR)
GILCCS - OIL COST U/GAL )
GASCOS - GAS COST ($/CU.FT)
AUTHOR :
RCN CKNEK 10 GCT 72
/E;NGCST/ ELECOS, CILCCS, GASCCS
CCMMCN BLOCK:
Ifc'LIMT
u 1 10 p f c r •
CONTAINS INFLUcNT ANt EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
OF FHCSPHJKUS
VARIFLWT(I,J1 - I-l: INFLUENT CCNCtNTKAT ION (MG/L)
IrLir^UtJ) J = is E|=FLUEKT CGNCENTRATION (MG/L)
j : TIME PEFUCC
tFF - cFFLUENT CONCENTRATION INDEX
- INFLUENT CQNCENTKAT I CN INDEX
AUThCR:
RCNCFNtF. 10 GCT 72
96
-------
CC.MMCN ciLCCK:
INCSTY
PURPCSEi
CCMA1NS INDUSTRIAL FHCSPHCHUS INFCRMAT I CN . This common block
is unused since it is referenced only by the dummy subroutine INDLIM.
VARIABLES:
INDSTYUiJ) - 1=1: LBS P/DAY OUTPUT OF INDUSTRY J
I=2i3: 8 CHARACTER NAME FOR INDUSTRY J
LEGINP - LEGISLATED P LEVEL FOR INDUSTRY (MG/L)
AUTHOR:
10 CCT 72
CCMMCN BLCCK:
L3&CST
CONTAINS LAtJCP. COSTS
VARIABLES:
)H* - DIRECT HOURLY RATE: U/HK)
IOPRAC - INDIRECT FRACTION OF DIRECT LABOR
AUTHCR:
RCN CFNEK 10 GCT 72
BLOCK:
LIGUID
PURPOSE:
CONTAINS
VARIABLES:
ALKIPS
BODIPS •
MLSSAR
NH3IAR •
PINPS
QAVE
QPEAK
SSINPS
TBOCAR
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIQUID INFLUENT SEWAGE.
ALKALINITY CONC. INTO PRIMARY SETTLER (CAC03 MG/L)
BOOS CONC. INTO PRIMARY SETTLER (MG/L)
MIXED LIQUOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN AER. PROC. (MG/L»
NH3 CONC. INTO AERATION PROCESS (MG/L)
PHOSPHORUS CONC. INTO PRIMARY SETTLER (MG/L)
PRESFNT AVERAGE DAILY ^LOW (MGD)
PRFSENT PEAK DIURNAL FLOW (MGD)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONC. INTO PRIMARY SETTLER (MG/L)
TOTAL CHANGE IN RODS ACROSS AF.RATION PROCESS
(FRACTION REMOVED)
AUTHCP:
DAVID A BARNES
26 DEC 72
97
-------
COMMC3N BLOCK:
PRNTR
PURPOSE:
PRNTR CONTAINS VARIABLES CONTROLLING THE PRINTOUT
VAR TABLES:
IPASS - =1,
PASSES THRU ELIGIBLE
FIRST SET OF
SCHEME LOOP
=?, TO GET SELECTED LONG PRINTOUTS
ISELCT(J) - NUMBERS OF SCHEMES SELECTED FOR LONG PRINTOUT
FOLLOWING SHORT OR SUPF.RSHORT
PRINTOUT OF ALL ELIGIBLE SCHEMES
I SHORT - = ON, FOR SHORT OR SUPERSHQRT PRINTOUT
= DFF, FOR LONG PRINTOUT
[SKIP - SET TO ON MRST TIME THRU REPORT
SET TO OFF BY REMOVE
ISUPFF - =ON» COP SUPFRSHOPT PRINTOUT
-OFF, OTHERWISE
AUTHOR:
CAVIC
A BARNES
4- JAN 73
98
-------
COMMON BLCCK:
LSINK
PURPOSE;
LICU I C
SINK COSTS
VARIABLES:
3ESTLS(TP)
L ICSNKU , J)
ORDINAL OF LIQUID SINK USED FOR TIME PF.RICD TP
1=1: ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY OF SINK J (LBS
1=2: HEAD LCSS TC SINK J (FT)
1=3: DISTANCE TC SINK J (FT)
LSNKCS(TP) - COST UF LIQUID SINK USEC FOR TlMc PERIOD TP
CPNEK
10 OCT 7?
N BLCCK:
f»*GCNT
PRGCNT CONTAINS V^RI^BLE USED E3Y THE PROGRAM REMOVE
AND ITS SUBROUTINES TO CONTROL THE FLGrt CF DFClilCNS
VARIABLES
ITYPE -
IGOTO -
lANSwR -
ANSWER -
- DO-LOOP V^RAIELE (SCHtVE NUMBER)
KIND OF VALUE OF TYPED IN ANi«F*S
1 IMTEGEP
2 FLCATIKG PCINT
3 ALPHANUMERIC
COMPUTED GG TC TO SIMULATE
FP.CM SU6RCTUlNt:S
F1XFO =
FLUTE =
ALPHA =
UStD IN
RETUkWS
WILL
WILL
MULTlLE
CCNTAIN
CONTAIN
FIXcD
FLOAT
VALUE
VALUE
TYPED
TYPED
IN
IN
99
-------
CCNMCN bLCCK:
SOtME
PUrtPLSE:
CONTAINS PARAMETERS FGk FHCbPHOPUS REMOVAL SCHEMES
VAK IflBLES:
f!LG3TY(J) - = ON IF SCHEME J IS ELIGIBLE, = CFF OTHERWISE
L-OUIP(K) - EQUIP(K)=CN IF PR.CCESS K IS NtCESSARY FOR THIS
STRATEGY, = OFF IF NL)T
^/JXSCM - THE MAXINUM NUMBER OF SCHEMS, MAX VALUE OF J
MINtFP(J) - MINUMUM ACHIEVABLE EFFLUENT P CONC. FOR
SCHEME j
SChfcMEl I.J) - I PARAMETERS FCR J SCHEMES
I REPRESENTS REQUIRED LIQTC EQUIPMENT FOR
SCHEME J - SEE COMMON /TPLANT/
J \AMF DESCRIPTION OF SCHEME
i ALPYP6 ALUM + POLYMER TC PRIMARY SETTLER
2 FCPYPS FERRIC CHLORIDE + POLYMER TT PRIMARY SETTLER
3 FCLMPS FEKP.OLS CHLQRIDt + LINE TC PRIMARY SETTLER
•+ LlVt:PS LIWE TO PRIMARY SETTLER
j /.LPYFd ALUM * PGLYMER TC FLGCCULATICN BASIN
O FCPYPri FCKf 1C CHLORIDE + POLYMcR TO FLOCC. BASIN
7 FCL^HB FtRRCUS CHLORIDE * LIME TO FLOCC. BASIN
ii LlVfrJ LIME TO THE FLCCCULATICN BASIN
'•J ALL*A3 ALUM Th" THE AERATION BASIN
10 P-FCLA6 FFP.SIC CHLORIDE TO AERATION BASIN
11 \AAL.rA-i SHOIUM ALUMINATE TC AERATION BASIN
12 ALArtMF ALJM TO £cP. fcASIN + VULTI-MECIA FILTRATION
13 FCA6MF FfcRklC CHLORIUE TO AER. HASIN * MULTI-MSDIA FIL,
If NA-lfcMF SODIUf-1 ALUMINATH TC AER. BASIN * MIJL-MED FILTR.
Lb /SLLMTF ALUM AFTER TRICKLING FILTER
16 FECLTF FERRIC ChLORlCt AFTER TRICKLING FILTFR
17 ALTFMF ALUM AFfHR TRICKLING FILTER * fUL-MEU FILTR.
18 FCTFMF FtRRIC CHLQRIUL AFTER TRK.FIL. * MUL-^fcD FILTR,
19 ALFcAS ALUM TO FLOCC. AFTER CONVENT ICNAL SECONDARY
^0 FCFBAS FbCLH T2 FLUCC. wFTfiK CONVENTIONAL STCCNCARY
21 L1FBAS LIME( 1-STAGF. ) TC FLCCC AFTER CONVEM. SfcCCNCAftY
22 L2FBAS L IMF (2-STAGE) TC FLOCC AFTER CONVEN. ScCONCARY
23 NfMt NO CHfMICALS ADDru FOR PhCSPHGRUS REMOVAL
AUTHCf-:
PCN CRNEF 10 CCT 72
100
-------
C L M v C N 3LCCK:
SL
::NTAINS INFCHMATICN ABOUT PRESENT AND FUTURE SEWERED
POPULATION.
-\CfYP - THT- TYPE OF FUTURE SEWERED POPULATION GROWTH FUNC
= 1 ASSUMED LINF.AR 5 PtRCNT GROWTH RATE
= 2 LINilAK
= 3 FXPCNEINiTI AL
=^ PieCE-^ISE LINEAR
SPGPIN(IfJ) - THE SEWERED POPS AND YEARS READ IN
1=1 THE SEwERFC POP
1=2 THE YEAR
J THF. OKCINAL FOR PGP AND VALUES KEAO IN
SSUPUP ,-l - ThE YtAR INOEX
AUTrtJH :
CAVIC A fiAKSF.S 03QCT72
101
-------
CUVMflN BLOC
SLCHAP
PURPOSE:
CONTAINS
STREAMS
VARIABLES
AARATC
ADDSSR
\LKIAR
30DIAR
C020
FCVFD
FFP.ATC
LBNVPS
LBIVVSS
LBNVTS
LRVPS
LBVSS
L3VTS
LIMEPD
L IMETD
LMVFD
PALUM
PC02
PFECL
PLIMF
PNAAL
PNAGH
PCLYD
PPOLY
°PCKL
"YFTD
PYVFD
QPSLGF
OSSLGE
OTGTAL
QTSLGE
SRALF
SRALP
SRCAT
SRCATA
SRC ATS
SRFEF
SPrEP
SPL IMF
SRTLIM
TLBNV?
TLBPS
TLPSLG
TLBSS
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
K:
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SLUDGE, LIQUID* AND CHEMICAL
DURING PLANT OPERATION.
POUNDS OF ALUM (OR NAAD/POUND OF AL
ADDITIONAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL (MG/L)
ALKALINITY IN AERATION PROCESS (MG CAC03/L)
BOC5 INTO AERATION PROCESS (MG/L)
C02 DOSE IN RECARBONATION (L9S C02/MR. GAL.)
<=ECL3 DOSAGE FOR VACUUM FILTER (L9S/TON)
POUNDS OF FFCL3 (OP PCKD/POUND OF FE
POUNDS OF NON-VOLATILE PRIMARY SLUDGE (LRS/DAY)
POUNDS OF NON-VOLATILE SECONDARY SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
POUNDS OF NON-VOLATILE TERTIARY SLUOGt (LBS/DAY)
POUNDS OF VOLATILE PRIMARY SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
POUNDS OF VOLATILE SECONDARY SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
POUNDS OF VOLATILE TFPTIARY SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
LIME PRIMARY DOSAGE (MG/L)
LIME TFRTIAPY DOSE (MG/L)
LIME DOSAGE FOR VACUU* FILTER (LBS/TON)
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALUM USED FOR 1 TP (LBS)
TOTAL AMCUNT OP C02 USTD CQR 1 TP (LBS)
TOTAL AMOUNT OF FECL USED FOR i TP (LBS)
TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIME USED IN 1 TP (L5S)
TOTAL AMOUNT OF NAAL USED FOR 1 TP (LBS)
TOTAL AMOUNT OF NAOH USED FOR 1 TP (L8S)
POLYMER PRIMARY DOSAGE (MG/L)
TOTAL AMCUNT OF POLY USED F3R i TP (LBS
TOTAL AMOUNT OF PCKL USED FQR 1 TP (L3S
POLYMER DOSE FOR FLOTATION THICKENER (LBS/TON)
POLYMER DOSE FOR VACUUM FILTRAT ION (LBS/TON)
VOLUME OF PRIMARY SLUDGE (MGD)
VOLUME OF SECONDARY SLUDGE (MGD)
VOLUME OF TOTAL SLUDGE (MGD)
VOLUME OF TERTIARY SLUDGE (MGD>
SLUDGE RATIO IN TRICKLING FILTER (LBS/LB AL )
SLUDGE RATION IN PRIMARY (LBS/LB AL )
SLUDGE RATIC FOR CATION (LBS SLUOGE/LBS CATION)
SLUDGE RAT 1C IN AERATOR (LBS/LBS FE)
SLUDGE RATIO IN SECONDARY EFFLUENT (LBS/LB CATION)
SLUDGF RATIO IN TRICKLING FILTER (LBS/LB FE )
SLUDGE RATIO IN PRIMARY (LBS/LB FE)
SL'JOGF RATIO FOR LIME (LBS SLUDGE/MG)
SLUDGE RATIC PQR LIME (TERTIARY) (LBS SLUOGE/MG)
TOTAL POUNDS OF NON-VOLATILE SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
TOTAL POUNDS OF PRIMARY SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
TOTAL POUNDS OF ALL SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
TOTAL POUNDS 0* SECONDARY SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
102
-------
TL8TS
TLBVS
TSETUC
WQLBSS
WOPALM
WOPC02
WOPFC
WOPLIM
WOPNAL
WOPNOH
WOPPLY
WOTL9S
WOPPCK
WRALA
WKALF
WRALP
WRALS
WRCAT
WRCATS
WRFF.A
WRFEF
WRFEP
TOTAL POUNDS OF TERTIARY
TOTAL POUNDS OF VOLATILE
TERTIARY SETTLER UNDERFLOW
= TL8SS (WITHOUT
{WITHOUT
(WITHOUT
(WITHOUT
(WITHOUT
(WITHOUT
(WITHOUT
(WITHOUT
PALUM
PC02
PFFCE
PLIME
PNAAL
PNAOH
PPOLY
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
SLUDGE (LBS/OAY)
SLUDGE (LBS/DAY)
DENSITY (FRACTION)
REMOVAL) (LBS/DAY)
(LBS)
(LBS>
(L3S)
(LBS)
(LBS)
(L3S)
(LBS)
AUTHOR:
CAVID
REMOVAL)
REMOVAL)
REMOVAL)
REMOVAL)
REMOVAL)
REMOVAL)
REMOVAL)
TOTAL POUNDS OF SLUDGE WITHOUT P REMOVAL
= PPCKL (WITHOUT P REMOVAL (LBS)
WEIGHT RATIO AL/P IN AERATOR
AL/P IN TRICKLING FILTER
AL/P IN PRIMARY
AL/P TO SECONDARY
OF CATION TO PHOSPHORUS
OF CATION TC PHOSPHORUS IN SEC.
FE/P IN AERATOR
FE/P IN TRICKLING FILTER
F
-------
COMMCN BLCCK:
SLLCGE
PURPOSE:
CUNTAINS CHARACTERISTICS OF SLUDGE.
IABLES:
ASC - ACTIVATED SLUOGE DENSITY (FRACTION)
FLOTUC - FLOTATION THICKENER UNDERFLOW SLUDGE DENSITY (FRAC)
GPAVUD - GRAVITY THICKENER UNDERFLOW SLUOGE DENSITY (FRAC)
HPDFT - OPERATING HOURS PEP DAY FCK FLOTATION THICKENER
HPDVF - OPERATING HOURS PER CAY FOR VACUUM FILTER
PSETUC - PRIMARY SfcTTLER UNDERFLOW SLUDGE DENSITY (FRAC)
PSRMVE - SOLIDS REMOVAL IN PRIMARY St-'TTLEP (FRACTION)
VFPSLG - VOLATILE FRACTION FOR PRIMARY SLUDGF (FRACTION)
VSANR^ - VOLATILE SLUDGE REGAINING AFTER ANAEROBIC
DIGESTICN (FRACTION)
VSARM - VOLATILE SLUCGE REMAINING AFTER AEROBIC DIGESTION
(FRAC1 ICN)
AUTHOR :
DAVID A RARN6S 03QCT72
CCMMCN BLCCK:
SSINK
PUkPCSE:
SCLID SINK CHARACTERISTICS
VARIABLES:
t3cSTSS(TP) - ORDINAL OF SCLID SINK USED AT TP
CAP - CAPACITY INDEX
OIST - DISTANCE INDEX
MAXSS - MAXIMUM NUMBER CF~ SCLID SINKS
SCLSNK(ItJ) - 1=1: CAPACITY OF SINK J
1-2: DISTANCE TO SINK J
SSCQST(TP) - COST OF SOLID SINK USED AT TP ($)
SlnASTHTP) - SOLID *A$TE FROM TREATMENT PLANT AT TIME TP
(TONS)
TPNCST - TRANSPORTATION CCST OF SCLID *ASTE (S/TOM/MILEJ
AITHCP :
RCN CRNER 10 OCT 72
104
-------
CCMMCN BLCCK:
TIME
PIRPOSE:
CCNTAINS INFORMATION ABOUT TIME HCRUON CF CONTROL STRATEGY
NICYRS - NUMBER OF YEARS FCR CONTROL STRATEGY
MAXTP - MAXIMUM NUMBER CF TIMF PERIODS = NCYEARS/TPSI ZE
TPSIZE - SIZE OF TIME PERIOD STEPS (FRACTION OF YEARS)
TP - THE CURRENT TIME PERICD
ALTHOP:
uAVIQ A 8ARNES 03CCT72
CC^NCN BLCCK:
TPLANT
PURPCSE:
CCNTAINS TREATMENT PAKAHETEHS CCK TREATMENT PROCESSES
VARIABLES:
TPLANT(ItJ) - I PAf-AMb'TERS FCK TREATMENT PPQCESS J
J VARIAELE DESCRIPTION
1 PwFLJVF FAW WA5TEWATFR PUMPING
2 PRfcT«T PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
3 PRMSET PRIMARY SETTLES
4 PSPUMF PRIM^kY SLUDGE PUMPING
5 TRKFTR TRICKLING FILTER (SINGLE MEDIA)
6 JERBSN AEHATICN BASIN
7 CIF^IR DIFFLS=0 AIR SYSTEM
3 NCHAEK MECHANICAL AE^TICN
9 FLOCCP FLOCCULATION BEFORE PRIMARY
10 SECSET SECONDARY SETTLER
11 RE1PMF RECIP.CULATICN PUVFING
32 CLFerr CHLORINE FEEC SYSTFW
13 CLB£SN CHLOKINATUN CONTACT 6ASIN
1^ MILFTF MULT-MErCIA FILT?«
1.5 RE2PMF HEC I5CULATILN PUMPING
16 CRVTKN GRAVITY THICKNER
17 FLCTKN AIR FLGTATION ThICKNcR
Id ANAC1G ANAb'RO-JIC DIGtSFICN
19 AERCIG AEKCPIC CIGF.STICN
20 CRYEfcC SLULGF. DRYING BcO
21 SLCTNK SL'JOGi HOLDING TfiNK
22 VACFTP VACUUM FILTER
105
-------
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
CENFUG CENTRIFUGE
MHINC MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR
FBINC FLU10IZED BED INCINERATOR
kSPCND WASTE STABILIZATICN PCND
SLGCCN SLUDGE LAGOCN
RECREl Kt-CARBINATICN
RECPE2 RE-CAP3INATICN
TERST1 TERTIARY SETTLER
TERST2 TERTIARY SETTLER
ALUMFS ALUM
FECLFS FERPIC CHLORICE
LIMEFS LIME
PCLYFS POLYMER
CG2FS CO 2
NAALFS SODIUM ALUMINATE
PCKLFS PICKLING LIQUOR
NADHFS SODIUM HYDROXIDE
RECALC RECALCINATICN
FLGCCT FLOCCLLATION BEFORE TtRTIARY
FEEDING
FEEDING
FEEDING
FEEDING
FEEDING
FEEDING
FEEDING
FEEDING
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
ANO
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STCRAGE
STCRAGE
STORAGE
I
i
2
3
4
t)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
•» 5
16
ERS FOR TREATMENT PROCESSES
VAPIAELE DESCRIPTION
PNAPfc
PNAME
AMRATE
IFE
BASE
APV/R
PA K M X
M IN h V
MAXPV
CHARACTER DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
CHARACTER DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
RATE
LIFETIME
12
12 CHARACTER
AMORTIZATION
AMORTIZATION
FOR CCSTS
PRESENT INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER
PRESENT DESIGN PARAMETER
INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER WITHCUT P REMOVAL
INDEPENDENT SIZING PAKAMETER WITH P REMOVAL
DESIGN PARAMETER fclTH P REMOVAL
INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER TO BE BUILT
AMAXK WC^ARMf PPARV) , USED BY C-«-M COST EQS.
INITIAL ASSUMt'J VALUE CF PVAR
FOUt< CHARACTER DESCRIPTION OF PAkN1
MINIVLM USABLF VALUE CF BPARV
MAXIMUM USA3LE VALUE CF PPARM
106
-------
DESCRIPTIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF PARM AND VAR FOR EACH
PROCESS FOLLOW:
PARM = INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER
VAR. = DESIGN VARIABLE
INITIAL FIRM CAPACITY (MGD)
MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGO>
SURFACE AREA CF SETTLER (THOS. SQ. FT.)
DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE ( GPO/SQ.FT. )
INITIAL FIRM CAPACITY (GPM)
OPERATING HOURS < HOURS/DAY)
PEDIA VOLUME (THOS. cu. FT.)
HYDRALIC LOADING (MGO/ACRE)
LIQUID VOLUME CTHOS. cu. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (HOURS)
INITIAL FIRM BLOWER CAPACITY (THOS. CFM)
OIFFUSER EFFICIENCY (FRACTION)
TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY (HP)
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (LBS 02/HP-HR)
MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER CTHOS. SQ. FT.)
OFSIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD/SO.FT.)
MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
AVERAGE CHLORINE USE (LBS/DAY)
CHLORINE DOSAGE (MG/L)
LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. cu. FT.)
CHLORINE CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
CAPACITY (MGO)
MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
SURFACE AREA (THOS. so. FT.)
DESIGN LOADING RATE (LBS/SQ.FT.)
SURFACE AREA (SQ. FT.)
LOADING RATE ( LB/HR/SQ .FT . )
SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
SURFACE AREA OF BEDS (THOS. SQ. FT.)
REQUIRED OEO AREA (SQ.FT. /CAPITA)
SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. cu. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (HOURS)
FILTER AREA (SQ. .FT.)
LOADING RATE (L8S/HR/SQ.FT. )
PI^M CAPACITY (GPM)
OPERATING TIME (FRACTION OF DAY)
CAPACITY (LBS DRY SOLIDS/HR)
OPERATING TIME (HOURS/DAY)
CAPACITY (LBS DRY SOLIDS/HR)
OPERATING TIME (HOURS/DAY)
RWPUMP:
PRETRT:
PRMSET:
PSPUMP:
TRKFTR:
AERBSN:
DIFAIR:
PCHAER:
FLCCCP:
SEC SET:
RE1PMP:
CLFEED:
CLBASN:
MULFTP:
RE2P"P:
GRVTKN:
FLOTKN:
ANADIG:
AERDIG:
CRYBED:
SLDTNK:
VACFTR:
CENFUG:
MHINC:
FBINC:
PARM -
PARM -
PAPM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
PAP.M -
VAP -
PARM -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
PARM -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM -
VAR -
PARM •
VAR -
PARM •
VAR -
PAPM •
VAR -
PARM •
VAR -
PAPM
VAR -
PARM
VAR -
PARM
VAR -
PARM
VAR -
107
-------
fcSPOND: PARM •
VAR -
SLGCCN: PAPM
VAR -
RECRBi: PARM •
VAP -
RECRE2: PARM •
VAP -
TER STl: PARM •
VAR -
TERST?: PARM •
VAR -
ALUMFS: PARM
VAR -
FECLFS: PARM •
LIMEFS: PARM •
VAR -
POLYFS: PARM •
VAR -
C02FS : PARM •
VAP -
NAALFS: PARM •
VAR -
PCKLFS: PARM •
VAR -
NAOHFS: PARM •
VAR -
RECALC: PARM •
FLOCCT: PARM -
VAXP - MAXIMUM
• SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
• SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
- LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
DETENTION TI^F (MINUTES)
- LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
DETENTION TIME (MINUTES)
• SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER (THOS. SQ.
DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD/SQFT)
• SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER (THOS. SQ.
DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD/SQFT)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS AL/DAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB ALUM)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS FE/DAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/L8 FECL3)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS CAD/DAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB CAO)
- CHEMICAL USAGf (LBS/OAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB POLY)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS/OAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB CQ2)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS AL/DAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB NAAL)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS FE/DAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB FECL2)
• CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS/DAY)
COST OF CHEMICAL (t/LB NAOH)
• MAXIMUM CAPACTIY (MGD)
MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
NUMBER OF PROCESSES
FT.)
FT.)
AUTHCP
PON
OPNER
10 OCT 72
MCf\ BLCCK:
T4TCST
TREATMENT COSTS. FOP 45 PROCESSES OVER 20 TIME PERIODS
VAR IABLES :
- OPERATING MAN-HOURS
- MAINTAINENCE MAN'-HCURS
IMS - TOTAL MATERIAL AND SUPPLY COST
CCNCQS - CCKSTKUCTKJN COST
AMCOST - AMOKTIZEC CCNSTRUCTIQN COST FROV TIME PERIOD
TPFAUD TO NAXTP
TPFAOL - TIME PERIUJ WHEN FlkST ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF
tQUIPMENT IS NFtCEC
AUTHOR:
PCfv CRNER 10 CCT 72
108
-------
BLCCK:
TSCST
PURPOSE :
TlfE ANC LOCATION DIFFERENCE COSTS - MULTIPLIERS TO CONVERT
TO PRbSENT LOCAL $
VARIABLES:
CNSTRC - (WQO-STP INUGX I /100.
MATRLS - NIATFRIAL CJST MULTIPLIER
KCN CRNEK 10 CCT 12
109
-------
SECTION VII
CASE STUDIES
The primary purpose of the computer model is to assist local
communities in evaluating the costs of various strategies undertaken
to reduce effluent phosphorus. In order to demonstrate how the
model can be used by a community we have performed three case
studies which are presented in this section. Each case is designed
with a different size community in mind. The cases include:
1. A community of approximately 50,000 population
presently operating a 5 MGD secondary trickling
filter treatment plant.
2. A medium size city of approximately 200, 000 population
operating a 20 MGD secondary activated sludge treat-
ment plant,
3. A large city of approximately 500,000 population
operating a 50 MGD primary treatment plant.
In each case we have assumed that the average per capita generation
of liquid waste is 100 gallons per day and that peak flow is 80% of
the average. It is also assumed that sludge disposal facilities of
sufficient capacity to handle all sludge generated during a 20 year
assumed time horizon are available v/ithin a distance of 5 miles
from the treatment plant. Although we have not done so in these
cases, it is possible to limit and disperse sludge disposal facilities
if desired.
The treatment plants in each community had available the following
process equipments adeouately sized to treat the present influent
load assuming that phosphorus removal was not required:
1. Raw waste pumping
2. Pre-treatment facilities
3. Primary settler
4. Primary sludge pumping
5. Chlorination
6. Gravity thickener
7. Sludge holding tank
8. Vacuum filter
In addition to the above, the'trickling filter plant had a secondary
settler, and recirculation pumping. The activated sludge plant had
an aeration basin, mechanical aeration, secondary settler, and re-
circulation pumping.
Each case study was examined over a 20 year time horizon. In these
case studies we assumed that the populations were constant over the
111
-------
time horizon. However, the program can accept linear, exponential,
and piece-wise linear growth predictions. Cost estimates were
generated (and appear in Tables 11, 12 and 13 for each case) for six
different combinations of events. These combinations can be viewed
as "strategies". Costs of achieving phosphorus effluent concentrations
of both 2.0 mg/1 and 0.5 mg /1 were examined. For each of these
effluent requirements the effect of federal and state governments
financing 80% of the construction costs was examined as was the
additional effect of restricting phosphate detergents. The detergent
restriction evaluated in these cases consisted of a total ban on the use
of phosphates in detergents assuming a national detergent consumption
of 16 Ibs/capita/year. The model can also accept various percentage
decreases in phosphate consumption assuming a zero ban is not feasible.
It was also assumed that there would be no enforcement cost to the
consumer since detergent manufacturers have recently complied with
most phosphate restrictions and are anticipating further reductions in
the future.
Case 1 - 5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant
For this case we found that a phosphorus effluent level of 2. 0 mg/1
can be achieved at a minimum cost of 4.6 cents/1000 gallons using a
treatment scheme of alum added after the trickling filter. This is
shown as scheme 1 5 in Table 11. (See Table 14 for a list of treatment
schemes). The minimum cost was achieved assuming that all phos-
phate detergents would be banned and the federal and state governments
would finance 80% of the required construction costs. As can be seen
from Table 11, this scheme would also be the most cost effective if
there were no ban on detergent phosphates and government financing
was not available.
We can also see from Table llthat reducing the effluent phosphorus
from 2.0 to 0.5 mg/1 resulted in a different treatment scheme being
selected. In this case scheme 17 also included the addition of alum
after the trickling filter but, in addition, required that a multi-media
filter be added to the alum treatment process.
The costs of the feasible treatment schemes capable of achieving 2.0
and 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus effluent requirements are shown in Table 11.
The long printouts for schemes 15 and 17, showing in detail the
equipment and operating costs for the individual processes, are
shown in Figures 18 and 19. The information shown in these tables
and figures is available to the program user as part of the computer
output format.
Case 2-20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant
For this case we found that the minimum cost of achieving a 2.0 mg/l
phosphorus effluent was 4.0 cents/1000 gallons achieved with the
112
-------
Table 11
5 MGD TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
TREATMENT COSTS IN CENTS/1000 GAL.
P 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5
GOVFF .8 .8 .8 .8
RESTRICT yes yes
SCHNO
1
2
5
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 18.9 1U.5 10.2
13 16.6 12.1 9.1
U 21.7 17.1 11.5
15 7.7 6.7 U.6
16 S.2 7.3 4.8
17 15.7 10.0 iti
18 1U.9 11.2 7.7
21 15.3 10.5 11.2
NOTES:
1. P = Phosphorus effluent level In mg/1 .
2. GOVFF * Fraction of construction cost financed
by federal and stdte governments.
3. RESTRICT = Restrictions on phosphate detergents.
U. SCHNO • Treatment scheme number.
5. » Lowest treatment cost.
13.9
10.0
17.8
13.1
lit. 8
11.0
18.8
11*. 0
12.5
10.0
15.1
11.9
8.4
15.0
10.9
12.3
8. R
15.3
11.2
10.6
8.U
13.5
8.U
6.6
13.7
11.7
8.8
7.0
1U.O
12.1
7.5
6.3
8.8
113
-------
Figure 18
5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant
CASE 1
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 15
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20 0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
= .0
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
CONSTRUCTION
COSTdOOO $ )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31*.821*
15.61*9
101*.751
1*9.858
1*5.525
15.901
2G6.507
SIZING
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.022
0.987
39.600
62U. 750
61*. 565
71*6.367
MGD
MGD
TSF
GPM
TCP
TSF
MGD
*/D
TCF
TSF
TCF
SQFT
#/D
#/D
*/D
AMORT
(10
IZED
00 $
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
8
1*
3
1
21
COST
/TP)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.791*
.256
.1*06
.001
.653
.276
.385
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
199U
199U
199U
1991*
1991*.
199U
199U
199U
1971*
197U
1971*
1971*
1971*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1971*.0
-------
Figure 18 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIKC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MA I NTAI NANCE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
18.
665.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
18.
665.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
18.
665.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
11.
80.
11*73.
600.
1578.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
11.
80.
1473.
600.
1578.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
11.
80.
1473.
600.
1578.
TOTALS
665.
685.
6S5.
5742.
3742.
3742.
-------
Figure 18 (cont. )
PROCESS NAME
RAl,' V.'STE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FLITR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
MATER
AVE.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
S.C7
51*. 57
51CC.75
7SS72.UU
;
-------
Figure 18 (cont. )
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL & SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CMLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
TIME
PERIOD
1
2
3
k
5
G
7
o
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
SINK
USED
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOTALS =
UNIT COSTS
TOTAL UNIT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.07
0.1*6
0.22
0.20
0.07
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.oo
0.01
0.19
0.37
0.15
0.39
1.17 1.10
SOLID SINKS COSTS
AMOUNT
(TON
SOL
S)
IT 10
1*10
1*10
IrlO
U10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
1*10
IDS
. I; 6
.1*0
AC
.l*G
.1*0
.1*0
AG
.IrG
. to
. 46
. ^G
AC
.l*G
.1*6
.1*6
.1*6
.1*6
. i*6
.1*0
.1*0
COST
(S/TP)
102G1
10201
10261
10201
1U2G1
1 0 2 G 1
102G1
102G1
10261
102G1
10201
10201
10261
1 0 2 G 1
10201
10201
10201
10201
102 G 1
10261
.50
.50
.50
.50
. 50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.LG
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
8209.17
205220.12
o.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.0
o.co
0.00
0.17
U.32
0.16
0.1G
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
o.n
o.n
o.o
O.li
0.08
0.82
U.31
0.51
0 .C>2
7.09
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/10CO GAL
COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) = 7.G6
) =
117
-------
Figure 19
5 MGD Trickling Filter Plant
CASE 1
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 17
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
.0
00
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUK FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION
COSTC1000 $ )
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
595,
124,
30,
27,
157,
49,
US.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
028
588
645
753
691
858
525
18.908
si z inn
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.C
5.000
9.000
0.205
3.193
88.G87
624.750
83.588
965.279
MGD
r-:cn
TSF
n PM
TCF
TSF
MGD
#/D
TCF
MGD
MGD
TSF
TCF
SOFT
#/D
#/n
*/D
AMORT 17.
(1000
EP COST
$ /TP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.C
O.C
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.747
9.997
2.1*59
2.227
12.654
4.001
3.653
1.517
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1074,
1974,
1974,
1974,
1974,
1974,
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1974.0
1974.0
TOTALS
1049.994
84.255
-------
Figure 19 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTi
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FlLTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FlLTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MlN.
MA INTAI NANCE MAN-HOURS
(.MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1672.
597.
16.
57.
U28.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1672.
597.
IB.
57.
1«»28.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1672.
597.
16.
57.
li»28.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
519.
7.
33.
171.
1U73.
600.
1660.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
519.
7.
33.
171.
1473.
600.
1660.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
519.
7.
33.
171.
1<*73.
eoo.
1660.
TOTALS
3769. 3769.
3769.
1*1*61*.
i*<*6l*.
l*i*6«*.
-------
Figure 19 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SEC SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL_MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FLITR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
MATER
AVE.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
8013.89
4312.23
51.20
171.56
6882.15
78872.UU
3881.48
3696.66
105881.50
IAL ft SUPPLY
( $ /TP)
MAX.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8013.92
4312. 2k
51.20
171.56
6E82.18
78872.69
3881.U9
3696.66
105881.81
COST
MIN.
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
8013
4312
51
171
6882,
78872,
3881,
3696,
0
0
0
92
24
20
56
18
69
49
66
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000S/TP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OiM
(1000S/TP)
7,
5,
105881.81
594
072
0.105
0.410
7.262
6.693
2.725
7.541
37.402
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
15.
9.
0.
0,
14.
85.
6.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
608
384
156
582
144
565
607
11.238
143.283
-------
Figure 19 (cont. )
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL & SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS »
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.62
0.55
0.13
0.12
0.69
0.22
0.20
0.08
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.U2
0.28
0.01
0.02
0.1*0
0.37
0.15
O.Ul
U.62 2.05
SOLID SINKS COSTS
TIME
PERIOD
1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
SINK
USED
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AMOUNT SOLIDS
(TONS)
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
912.13
COST
($/TP)
22803.3U
22803.31*
22803.31*
22803.31*
22803. 3U
22803.3U
22803.31*
22803.3U
22803.31*
22803.3U
22803.31*
22803.31*
22803.31*
22803.314
228-03.31*
22803. 3U
22803.31*
22803.31*
22R03.3U
22803.3U
TOTALS «
UNIT COSTS
TOTAL UNIT
182U2.66
1*56066.31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1*1*
0.2U
0.00
0.01
0.38
I*.32
0.21
0.20
5.80
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
n.o
3.U7
1.06
0.11*
0.15
1.1*7
I*.91
0.56
0.70
12.U7
FOR SOLID WASTF. DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000 GAL.)
COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) -13.72
1.25
121
-------
addition of ferric chloride to the aeration basin. This is shown as
scheme JO in Table 12. This scheme is also the least cost treatment
method when government financing is available and there is no limi-
tation on detergent phosphates.
When an effluent phosphorus concentration of no more than 0.5 nig / 1
was required, the best treatment scheme was the addition of a multi-
media filter to the ferric chloride process. This scheme is number
13 in Table 12.
When there is no detergent phosphate limitation the best scheme
became the single stage tertiary lime process shown as number 2].
This scheme also remained the best choice if there was no government
financing. This fact resulted from a balancing of two effects. The
capital costs for the tertiary lime process were a larger fraction of
the total costs than was the case for the ferric chloride process.
This resulted in a greater increase for the lime process when govern-
ment financing was reduced. However, the sludge disposal costs
for the ferric chloride process were 0.9 cents/1000 gallons while
they were essentially zero for the lime process since the lime sludge
was recalcined and thus reused.
There was an additional consideration in this case due to chemical
costs. The cost of new lime was less than 0.5 cents/1000 gallons
while the cost of ferric chloride was on the order of 4. cents/1000
gallon. Although much more lime is used than ferric chloride, the
ferric chloride was not recalcined and the overall chemical cost was
always greater than the lime.
The long printouts of the lower cost treatment schemes including
schemes 10, 13, and 21 are presented in Figures 20, 21, and 22.
Case 3-50 MOD Primary Plant
In this case it was assumed that the treatment plant would require
upgrading to secondary treatment and that the costs of this upgrading
would be included in the phosphorus removal cost.
In this case we evaluated the two options of either upgrading with a
trickling filter or an activated sludge process. For the case of a
total phosphate ban and 80% government financing the least cost
scheme was the addition of alum after a trickling filter. This scheme
is shown as number 15 in Table 13. When no government financing
was available and the phosphate ban was lifted, the addition of alum
after the aeration basin of an activated sludge plant became
equivalent in cost to the alum-trickling filter scheme.
When the effluent limit was reduced to 0.5 mg / 1, scheme 17 which is
the addition of a multi-media filter after alum addition to the trickling
filter effluent, was the lowest cost scheme. With no phosphate
122
-------
Table 12
P
GOVFF
RESTRICT
SCHNO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
II*
15
ID
17
18
21
20 MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
TREATMENT COSTS IN CENTS/1000 GAL.
11.2
7.9
8.4
2
.8
11.0
6.1*
7.U
2
.8
yes
11.1
7.6
16.5
9.8
11.7
8.1
17.1
10.4
8.5
9.9
6.5
13.9
8.6
10.1
6.7
14.2
8.9
8.0
6 . 4
4.8
12.7
9.5
6.7
5.1
12.9
9.7
5.0
6.4
4.4
0.5
13.U
11.3
16.3
0.5
.8
10.9
8.8
13.S
0.5
.?
yes
7.0
6.0
12.3
15.6
Ut
8.9
10.0
£i±2
6.3
6.6
7.1
NOTES:
1. P « Phosphorus effluent level in me,/1 .
2. GOVFF = Fraction of construction cost financed
by federal and state governments.
5. RESTRICT = Restrictions on phosphate determents.
4. SCHNO = Treatment scheme number.
5. * Lowest treatment cost.
123
-------
Figure 20
20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant
CASE 2
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 10
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
IN)
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION
COSTUOOO $ )
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0
0
38
0
98
115
0
n
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
16.3
0
759
133
SIZING
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.51*6
0.0
31*. 950
641*6.578
MGD
MGD
TSF
RPM
TCF
HP
TSF
MGD
#/P
TCF
TSF
TCF
SOFT
#/D
36.171
251*1.481 */D
AMORT
(10
IZED
00 $
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
7
9
2
COST
/TP)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.062
.0
.925
.239
.903
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
197
199
197
197
U
k
k
i*
I*
i*
l*
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1971*.0
TOTALS =
288.226
23.128
-------
Figure 20 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
ro
PROCESS NAME
RAW WbTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PI-'.PMG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD INK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MA INTAI NANCE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1*1.
0.
3013.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
J*l.
0.
3013.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Ul.
0.
3013.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
23.
0.
3T9.
2881*.
2009.
C.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
23.
0.
3H9.
288U.
2009.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
23.
0.
359.
2S8U.
2009.
TOTALS =
3055.
3055
3055.
52£i».
52£i*.
-------
Figure 20 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
REG IRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FLITR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
MATERIAL a SUPPLY
( $ /TP)
AVE. MAX.
COST
MIN.
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000$/TP)
TOTAL OekM
(1000$/TP)
17
299
9
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
88.
0.
365.
353.
722.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
kQ
0
26
00
P2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88
0
17365
299353
9722
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
*
*
*
•
*
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
uo
0
30
06
£5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88
0
17365
299353
9722
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. **o
.0
.30
.06
.85
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
15.
13.
9.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
290
0
362*
101
121*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
312
18
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.378
.0
. 729
.1*53
.8U7
TOTALS
326529.56 326529.56
37.873
-------
Figure 20 (cont. )
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME
RAW t'JSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS -
AMORT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
IZATI
0
C
r>
C
0
0
u
0
0
0
ou
0
11
13
01*
32
SOL
TIME SINK
PERIOD USED
1 1
2 1
3 1
i* 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
£ 1
9 1
10 1
11 1
12 1
13 1
1U 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1
TOTALS =
AN'OU
NT
in
so
ON
SI
LI
LABOR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NKS
n
S
r
. o
. ')
.0
n
la
.0
">
.0
.0
.0
.00
.0
.21
.18
.12
.52
COS
TS
M
ATE
COST
(TONS) («/
5
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1079.
9
9
9
q
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
9
q
9
U
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
12
638
638
638
638
638
633
638
658
638
638
638
638
638
638
638
638
638
638
638
638
769
1*9
1*9
!*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1*9
U9
1*9
1*9
1*9
1+9
85
TP)
.36
.36
.35
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.36
.3C
.36
.36
.36
.00
MATERIAL A SUPPLY TOTAL
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.c o. --i
o.o n. o
u.n 0.0
o.o o. n
o.o r-, c
o.o n. o
o.o o.o
0.00 0.05
o.o o.o
0 . 2 U n . 5 C
I*. 10 U.i*l
0.15 H.30
U.U7 5.31
UNIT COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000 GAL.)
TOTAL UNIT COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) = 6.18
= D.S7
127
-------
CASE
Figure 21
20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 13
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
= .0
00
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIKC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASH
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION
COSTUOOO $ )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1C70
372
59
53
339
118
1*2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.251*
.327
.732
.183
.398
.005
.581
SIZING
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
20.000
38.000
1.712
11.1*50
320.500
GG1G.OG2
32U1.200
MGD
MGD
TSF
GPM
TCF
HP
TSF
MGD
#/D
TCF
MGD
MGD
TSF
TCF
SQFT
#/D
#/D
AMORTIZED COST
(1000 S /TP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
150.075
29.877
£*.703
U.2G8
27.234
9.1*69
3.1*17
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
1991*
1991*
1991*
199U
1991*
1991*
1991*
1991*
1991*
1971*
1971*
197U
1971*
197t*
1971*.0
197U.0
TOTALS =
229.153
-------
Figure 21 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
sO
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECM AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CMLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MA I NT A I NANCE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE.
MAX.
MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
126.
95.
5927.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
126.
95.
5927.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
12C.
95.
5927.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
69.
59.
727.
2927.
2107.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
69.
59.
727.
2927.
2107.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
09.
59.
727.
2927.
2107.
TOTALS
11072. 11072. 111)72.
CS59.
6859.
GS59.
-------
Figure 21 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FLTER
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
MATERIAL ft SUPPLY COST
( $ /TP)
AVE. MAX.
MIN
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000$/TP)
TOTAL O&M
(1000S/TP)
2G3
SO
2
1*
3U2
3072
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
78
68
02
1U
23
99
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.56
.01
.39
.13
.87
.00
.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20387
8078
268
U02
31+211*
307223
12399
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.59
.03
.39
.13
.87
.06
.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2G387
8078
268
1*02
31*211*
307223
12399
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.59
.03
.39
.13
.87
.00
.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
9
0
0
30
13
9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.13
.61*
.88
.70
.22
.29
.57
2
U
3
0
9
(*
o
L.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1*3.
17.
X •
1.
61+.
320.
21.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
520
722
151
102
1*1*1*
517
972
TOTALS =
33S973.G2
388973.75
388975.75
81.U5I*
1*70.1+27
-------
Figure 21 (cont. )
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL & SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CULORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
TIME SINK
PERIOD USED
1 1
2 1
3 1
k 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
£ 1
9 1
10 1
11 1
12 1
13 1
Ik 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 U.O
0.0 0.0
2. 06 U.23
Q.kl 0.13
0.07 0.01
O.OG O.C1
0.37 0.1*1
0.13 0.18
0.05 0.13
3.1U 1.12
SOLID SINKS COSTS
AMOUNT SOLIDS COST
(TONS) (S/TP)
5107.95 12769S.G9
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 12769S.G9
5107.05 127698. C9
5107.95 127G9S.G9
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 127698.69
5107.35 127698.69
5107.95 127694}. 69
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 127698. G9
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 127698. GO
5107.95 127G95J.G9
5107.95 127698.69
5107.95 127698.09
5107.95 12769S.69
5107.95 127698.59
TOTALS -
UNIT COSTS
TOTAL UNIT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.36
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.1*7
I*.21
0.17
5.33
102158.87 2553966.00
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000
COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) -11.33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6ii
0.65
0.08
0.07
1.2G
U.52
0.35
9.58
GAL.)
1.75
131
-------
Figure 22. 20 MGD Activated Sludge Plant
CASE 2
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 21
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20 0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
= .0
PO
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
CONSTRUCTION
COSTC1000 $ )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0,
0,
1870,
372,
0,
0.
o(
85.
374.
0.
82.
27.
456.
355.
.0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
254
327
.0
0
0
288
382
0
873
699
965
555
S 1 7. ! .NG
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.000
38.000
0.0
0.0
n.o
55.704
2fc.571
0.0
871*6.1*96
0.190
20.000
20.000
MGD
MGD
TSF
G PM
TCF
HP
TSF
MGD
*/P
TCF
MGD
MGD
TSF
TCF
SQFT
TCF
TSF
#/D
*/D
*/n
MGD
AMORTIZED COST
(1000 $ /TP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
150.375
29.377
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.841*
30.042
0.0
6.650
2.223
36.668
28.531
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
1994
1994
1991*
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1974
1974
1994
1994
1994
1974
1974
1994
1974
1974
1974
,0
,0
,0
,0
0
,0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1974.0
TOTALS =
3625.344
290.909
-------
Figure 22 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE Pf-'P
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRKYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BA3N
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FlLTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MA I NTA I NANCE MAN-MODRS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. "AX. N'IN.
0.
0.
n.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
3772.
1153.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1932.
0.
0.
69 8.
8625.
0.
n.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
0.
0.
-o.
0.
1932.
C.
0.
698.
8625.
0.
n.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
1932.
0.
0.
69?.
8G25.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
0.
0.
0.
n.
1072.
coo.
2563.
590.
I* 3 8 0 ,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
0.
G.
-0.
0.
1072.
600.
2563.
590.
1*380.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
0.
0.
-G.
0.
1072.
600.
25 C 3.
590.
4380.
0.
TOTALS =
16180. 16180. 16180. 10175. 10175. 10175.
-------
Figure 22 (cont. )
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
MATER
AVE.
0.0
o.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26587.56
8078.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3766.37
0.0
331*61.12
70695.UU
1191*93.12
11604.89
IAL * SUPP
( $ /TP)
MAX.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26387.59
8078.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3766.38
0.0
331*61.18
70695. C2
1191*93.37
11601*. 92
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
LY COST LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
MIN. (1000$/TP)
TOTAL OfiM
(1000$/TP)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
26337,
8078,
0,
0,
0,
0,
3766,
0,
331*61,
70695.
1191*93,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
03
0
0
0
0
35
0
IS
62
37
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
17,
9,
0.
0,
0,
0,
13.
2.
11.
5.
59.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
6l*U
0
0
0
0
6U7
725
6UO
81*9
076
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
1*3,
17,
0,
0,
0,
0.
17.
2.
U5.
76,
178,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
520
722
0
0
0
0
1*11*
725
102
51*5
569
llfcOU.92
0.0
11.605
TOTALS =
2731*86.50 2731*87.00 273«*87.00
119.715
393.201
-------
Figure 22 (c o nt.
UNIT C^ST n.ATA
( CENTS/ 10 00 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL ft SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW ','
0
n
23
13
r
v;
ij
n
o
19
nu
1C
OK
11
r\
V,
f*\
o
n
0
•^
L'
Q
n
o
Ci
r
r>
o
1
n
r>
r
0
0
n
n
1
0
.0
.0
.0
n
• tj
.n
n
• I*
» i J
r
• •.
.0
.0
.36
.11
.0
.0
. i)
.0
.05
0
• v
.U6
.97
.fit
.1C
3.99
1.6U
3.75
0.0
0.0
o.o
0 . 0
o.o
0.0
o.o
n.n
o.o
o.o
2.T5
O.R5
ii. 0
o.o
fi.PQ
O.G5
0.04
r.. 71
i.os
2.^5
0.55
Q.37
>OLID SINKS COSTS
TIME
PERIOD
SINK
USED
TOTALS =
AMOUNT SOL IDS
(TONS)
0.0
COST
(S/TP)
0.0
UNIT COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000 GAL.)
TOTAL UNIT COST (CENTS/1000 RAD = 9.37
0.0
135
-------
detergent limitation, scheme 21 which is single stage tertiary lime,
became the best choice.
The long printouts in these cases show the interesting relationship
between capital costs, chemical costs, and operation of the plants.
They are shown in Figures 23, 24, and 25.
136
-------
Table 13
50 MOD PRIMARY PLANT
TREATMENT COSTS IN CENTS/1000 GAL.
P 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 b.5
GOVFF .8 .8 . fc . S
RESTRICT yes yes
SCHNO
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 15.5 12.1 7.6
12 15.0 11.7 7
13 13.0 9.7 7
1U 17.G 1U.G 9
15 8_JL && JL.J.
16 9.1 7.2 U.9
17 12.1* S.7
18 13.G 9.8 6.7
21 ifiJL Ul 7.3
NOTES:
1. P * Phosphorus effluent level in mr/1 .
2. GOVFF » Fraction of construction cost financed
by federal and state governments.
3. RESTRICT = Restrictions on phosphate deterrents
U. SCHNO » Treatment scheme number.
b. = Lov;est treatment cost.
15.0
9.5
lb.2
11.6
13.5
9.9
18.6
12.0
10. G
8^5
10.8
7.5
1U.8
9 . i>
11.0
7.7
1U.9
9.7
9.1
7.1
7. it
5.8
13.5
10. U
7.6
6.0
15.7
10. C
6.2
5.2
137
-------
Figure 23. 50 MGD Primary Plant
CASE
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 10
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
= .0
OJ
co
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TKETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIMC PN'PNG
CHLORNE FEEH
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
3LGE HLD INK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
CONSTRUCTION
COSK1000 $ )
0.
0.
0.
0.
167U.
371.
799.
1*65 .
0.
0.
52.
0.
ise.
336.
66.
0
0
0
0
708
'JUfi
331
798
0
0
!*80
n
U32
751
R81
PA
1
16
F,
SIZING
1AMETER
0.0
o.r,
O.G
0.0
F. 7 1 . 1 2 2
69U.16G
71.U2Q
50.GCO
0.0
0.0
1.289
0.0
S7.375
116.UU5
353.695
MGD
f'.CD
TSF
npM
TCF
HP
TSF
MTD
#/n
TCF
TSF
TCF
SOFT
*/p
#/D
AMORTIZED COST
(1000 $ /TP>
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
3931.329
1
0
0
0
0
5U
30
3
C
3
1
2
1
1*
7
0
0
u
0
2
7
5
5
.C
.0
.y
.0
. 3
.1*
.1
8
0
1*
.37
.0
.0
.2
.0
.5
.0
.3
. ^4
1
5
2
G
6
l*
8
1
7
1
3
2
7
2
199(4.
199U.
199U.
199U,
197U,
1071*.
197U,
197U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
199t*.0
197U.0
1991*.0
1971*.0
1971*.0
1971*.0
-------
Figure 23 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
OJ
vO
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMY3LGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FlLTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MA INTAINANTE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
51«i*2.
3(481.
0.
0.
0.
73.
0.
6897.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
31*1*2.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
78.
0.
6R97.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3UU2.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
78.
0.
BF07.
C.
0.
0.
n.
c.
0.
0.
2133.
191*9.
1133.
0.
0.
1*3.
0.
862.
1*996.
2UOf .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2133.
19J*9.
1133.
0.
0.
1*3.
0.
862.
U906.
2i*OG.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2133.
19U9.
1133.
0.
0.
«i3.
0.
fc62.
t»93P.
2i*nc.
TOTALS -
1389?. 1389?. 13898. 13522. 13522.
13522.
-------
Figure 23 (cont.
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
113
7
10
39
748
24
9u?
MATER
AVE.
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
I22.no
493. 70
396.82
0.0
0.0
166.03
0.0
537.44
382.00
307.07
4U5.00
IAL ft SUPPLY
( $ /TP)
MAX.
0.3
0.0
0.0
0 . G
0.0
118122.06
7493.71
10396. 24
0.0
0.0
166.05
0.0
39537.49
748382.50
24307.11
948405. 5C
COST
M 1 M .
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118122.06
7493. 71
10396. 84
0.0
0.0
166.05
0.0
39537.49
748322.50
24307.11
948405.56
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000$/TP)
TOTAL O&M
(1000S/TP)
0
0
0
0
0.
25,
24,
5,
0,
0,
0.
0.
35.
22,
10,
,0
,0
0
0
0
325
C65
149
0
0
548
0
242
C96
930
0
0
0
0,
0,
143,
32,
15,
0,
0.
0.
0.
74.
771.
0
0
0
0
0
447
159
54G
0
0
714
0
779
078
124.555
35.237
1072.960
-------
Figure 23 (cont. )
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL A SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE Pf-'.P
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
oECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS =
TIME SINK A?
PERIOD USED
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.74
0.17
0.35
0.20
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.07
0.15
0.03
1.73
SOLID
.'.OUNT SO
(TONS)
G38
63S
638
638
638
638
638
63
63
63
63
63
63
a
8
S
8
8
8
638
63
63
63
63
63
8
S
n
c
8
P
u
C38
S
L
k
4
4
4
k
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INKS
IDS
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
'.94
.94
.94
.34
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.14
.14
.03
.0
.0
.00
.0
.19
.12
.06
.GS
cos
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TS
596
596
596
59P
596
59&
596
596
59 6
59 f,
59 f-
596
596
5^6
596
596
596
596
596
596
COST
$/TP)
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
25.50
2
2
3.
3.
23.
2
3.
23.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
EC
50
50
50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.C
0.65
0.04
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.22
4.10
0.13
5.20
TOTALS =
UNIT COSTS
TOTAL UNIT
127698.75 3132463.DC
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000 HAL )
COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) = 8.48
0.0
O.P
O.Q
o.o
0. 74
0.95
0.53
0.29
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.4£
4.37
0.22
7.61
0.87
141
-------
Figure 24. 50 MGD Primary Plant
CASE 3
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = lb
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
.0
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PKP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION
COSTdOOO $ )
0
0
0
0
3659
799
652
0
0
0
0
0
287
1*5
7k
.0
.0
.0
.0
.099
.531
.002
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.187
.525
.509
S 1 Z 1 NG
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2613.600
71.1*29
75.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
621*7.1*92
6U5.Rl*fi
MGD
MGD
TSF
GPM
TCF
TSF
MGD
#/D
TCF
TSF
TCF
SOFT
#/D
#/D
7U63.672
AMORTIZED COST
(1000 $ /TP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
293.618
61*.11*1
52.319
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
23.0U5
3.653
5.979
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
199U
1991*
1991*
199U
197U
1971*
1971*
199U,
199U,
1991*,
199U,
199U,
1971*,
1971*.
197U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
5517.6U1
-------
Figure 24 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
to
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FlLTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC Pf.PNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAM-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MA INTAI NANCE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3295.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1*528.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5295.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1*528.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3295.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1*528.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
183C.
191*9.
U5G.
0.
0.
0.
0.
562.
52UG.
969.
21*8*4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1830.
191*9.
11*56.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5f:2.
52Ufi.
969.
21*81*.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1830.
191*9.
ll*5G.
0.
0.
0.
0.
562.
521*6.
9G9.
2t*8U.
TOTALS -
11303. 11303. 11303. IkkSS. 11*1*95. 1UI*95.
-------
Figure 24 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRICING FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC FEED
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
MATERIAL * SUPPLY COST
( $ /TP)
AVE. MAX.
MIN.
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000$/TP)
TOTAL O&M
(1000$/TP)
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.0
2919.70
7U93.70
10396. S2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23292.32
788727.00
29381.19
28553.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2919.70
7U93.71
10396.SU
O.C
0.0
0.0
0.0
23292.36
738727.56
299F.1.20
28553.52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2919.70
7U93.71
10396. 8U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25292.36
788727.56
29981.20
28553.52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.279
2k. 665
6.611*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.118
23.829
lt.U02
11.282
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.199
32.159
17.010
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U6.I+10
812.556
3i+. 383
39.c36
TOTALS =
S0136U.19 89136U.81 89136U.81
117.188
1008.552
-------
Figure 24 (cont. )
UNIT POST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLO'JS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAI ft SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW rt'STE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRI-1YSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORME FEED
CHLORNE BASN
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
Lli".E FEEDING
TOTALS =
TIME SINK
PERIOD USED
1 1
2 1
3 1
I* 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 1
11) 1
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1
O.C
0.0
0.0
O.C
1.G1
0.35
0.29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.02
0.03
2.U3
SOLID SINKS
AK.OUNT SOLIDS
(TONS)
U10U. 61
1*101*. 61
1*101*. 61
t*io«*. r>i
1*101*. 61
UOi*. 61
1*101*. F>1
1*101*. 61
1*101*. 61
1*101*. 61
i*ini*.6i
1*101*. 61
1*10 I*. Cl
1*101*. 61
l*10U. 61
l*10U. 61
U10U. 61
UlOl*. 61
UIQU. 61
1*101*. 61
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.1U
0.01*
0.0
u.o
0.0
o.n
0.13
0.13
O.R2
0.06
0.61*
CO?TS
COST
($/TP)
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102515.12
102615.12
102C15.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
102615.12
TOTALS
82091.9U 2052301.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
o.ou
O.QC
0.0
O.C
O.C
0.0
0.13
I*. 32
0.16
0.16
U.C8
0.0
0.0
o.n
n.o
1.7!
0,
0,
n,
o,
n
o
o
53
38
0
0
0
0
25
58
21
25
7.35
UNIT COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000 GAL.)
TOTAL UNIT COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) = 8.51
0.56
145
-------
Figure 25. 50 MGD Primary- Plant
CASE 3
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = 21
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
.0
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
TOTALS =
CONSTRUCTION
COSTdOOO $ )
0.
0.
0.
0.
1674.
378.
799.
465.
0.
0.
4115.
759.
0.
0.
0.
173.
799.
0.
153.
45 .
522.
595.
0
0
0
0
70S
94P,
331
798
0
0
578
593
0
0
0
254
331
0
233
65F
194
094
SIZING
PARAMETER
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
1671.122
694. 166
71.429
50.000
0.0
0.0
50.000
90.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
139.260
71.429
0.0
2186C.230
0.474
50.000
50.000
MGD
MOP
TSF
fiPM
TCP
HP
TSF
MGD
#/n
TCF
MGD
MGD
TSF
TCF
SQFT
TCF
TSF
*/D
#/D
*/D
MGD
AMORTIZED COST
(1000 $ /TP)
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST N'F.EDED
10482.703
0
0
0
0
134
30
64
37
0
0
330
60
0
0
0
13
64
0
12
3
41
47
Ski
.0
.0
.0
.0
.384
.408
.141
.377
.0
.0
.247
.952
.0
.0
.0
.902
.141
.0
.296
.604
.903
.752
.16E
1094,
1994,
1994,
1994,
1974,
1974,
1974,
1974,
1994,
1994,
1974,
1974,
1994,
1994,
1994,
1974,
1974,
1994,
1974,
1974,
1974.0
1974.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
Figure 25 (cont.)
PERIODIC
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
OPERATING COSTS
MA INTAI NANCE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
31*1*2.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
6U58.
2211.
0.
0.
0.
0.
31*81.
0.
0.
808.
12106.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
31*2*2.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
6U58.
2211.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
31*81.
0.
0.
808.
12106.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
31*1*2.
31*81.
0.
0.
0.
61*58.
2211.
0.
0.
-o.
0.
31*81.
0.
0.
808.
12106.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2133.
19U9.
1133.
0.
0.
0.
16U3.
C.
0.
0.
0.
191*9.
600.
3070.
1*31.
10950.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2133.
191*9.
1133.
0.
0.
0.
161*3.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
191*9.
fiOO.
5070.
1*31.
10950.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2133.
19U9.
1133.
0.
0.
0.
16U3.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
19U9.
600.
3070.
1+31.
10950.
0.
TOTALS
319&7. 31987. 319E7. 2385E. 23S58. 2385S.
-------
Figure 25 (cont. )
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
00
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
MATER
AVE.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
116122.00
7U93. 70
10396.82
0.0
0.0
58605.25
10396.82
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7U93.70
0.0
83652.50
141*110.25
282007.00
23624.37
IAL & SUPPLY
( $ /TP)
MAX.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118122.06
7493.71
10396.81*
0.0
0.0
58605.35
10396.81*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7493.71
0.0
83652.81
141*110.69
282007.12
23024.1*1
COST
MIN.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118122.06
71*93. 71
10396. 81*
0.0
0.0
58605.35
10396.8U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71*95.71
0. 0
83652.81
11*1*110.69
282007.12
23621*. 1*1
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000S/TP)
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.525
21*.665
5.1!*9
0. 0
0.0
29.335
17.506
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21*.665
2.725
5.626
101*. 732
0.0
TOTAL O&M
(1000$/TP)
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
11*3,
52,
15,
0.
0,
87,
27.
0.
0.
0.
0.
52,
2,
97.
1U9.
386.
0
0
0
0
0
1*1*7
159
546
0
0
91*0
903
0
0
0
0
159
725
537
736
739
23.621*
TOTALS -
745902.37
745903.37 71*5903.37
253.672
999.571*
-------
Figure 25 (cont. )
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL & SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
AERTN BASIN
,MECH AERATN
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD INK
VACUUM FILTR
RECARBONATN1
TER SETTLER1
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
C02 FEEDING
RECALCINATN
FLOCC -TRTRY
TOTALS =
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.71*
0.17
0.35
0.20
O.C
0.0
1.81
0.33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.08
0.35
0.0
0.07
C.02
0.23
0.26
i*.Gl
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.ll*
Q.Ik
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.16
0.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.li*
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.57
O.C
1.39
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.65
0.04
0.06
0.0
o.n
0.32
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.01*
0.0
O.U6
0.79
1.55
0.13
(4.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Q.7k
0.95
0.53
0.29
0.0
0.0
2.29
O.U9
0.0
0.0
o.n
o.os
0.53
a.ni
o.ro
n.8U
2.35
n.39
TIME
PERIOD
SI NK
USED
TOTALS =
SOL IP SINKS COSTS
AMOUNT SOL I OS COST
(TONS) ($/TP)
o.o o.n
UNIT COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/10flO GAL.)
TOTAL UNIT COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) =10.00
0 . 0
149
-------
TABLE 14
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SYMBOL
ALPYPS
FCRYPS
FCLMP
LIME PS
ALPYFB
FCPYFB
FCLMFB
LIMEFB
ALUMAB
FECLAB
NAALAB
ALABMF
FCABMF
NAABMF
ALUMTF
FECLTF
AKTFMF
FCTFMF
ALFBAS
FCFBAS
LIFBAS
L2FBAS
NONE
TREATMENT SCHEMES
SCHEMES
APPENDIX A
OPTION
DIAGRAM
EFFLUENT
PHOSPHORUS
(mg/L)
Alum & Polymer to Primary Settler
Ferric Chloride & Polymer to Primary Settler
Ferrous Chloride & Lime to Primary Settler
Lime to Primary Settler
Alum & Polymer to Flocculation Basin
Ferric Chloride & Polymer to Flocc. Basin
Ferrous Chloride & Lime to Flocc. Basin
Lime to the Flocculation Basin
Alum to the Aeration Basin
Ferric Chloride to Aeration Basin
Sodium Aluminate to Aeration Basin
Alum to Aer. Basin & Multi-Media Filtration
Ferric Chloride to Aer. Basin & Multi-MediaFil.
Sodium Aluminate to Aer. Basin & Mul-Med Fil.
Alum After Trickling Filter
Ferric Chloride After Trickling Filter
Alum After Trickling Filter & Multi-Med Filtr.
Ferric Chloride After Trk. Fil. & Mul-Med Fil.
Alum to Flocc. After Conventional Secondary
Fecl3 to Flocc. After Conventional Secondary
Lime(l-Stage) to Flocc After Conven. Secondary
Lime(2-Stage) to Flocc After Conven. Secondary
No Chemicals Added for Phosphorus Removal
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5-A
5-A
5-A
4
4
5-B
5-B
7
7
6-A
6-B
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
2
2
0. 5
0. 5
0. 3
0. 3
0. 5
0. 1
-------
SECTION VIII
OPERATING MANUAL FOR THE PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL COST MODEL (REMOVE)
General
This manual describes how REMOVE functions and explains how to
interpret the results provided. The manual should be used in con-
junction with the descriptive data provided in the other sections of this
report. REMOVE is an interactive program which means that it is
designed to 'hold a conversation with the user'. The program will ask
questions of the user and perform certain operations based on the
responses. The program asks the user to describe his/her community
and treatment plant. It then inquires about the control strategy the
user wishes to evaluate in achieving phosphorus removal. The program
then chooses all the various treatment schemes which are to be con-
sidered in a particular strategy and starts calculating costs for the
first one. Certain errors are detected if input data is outside the
range of the cost functions in the model and, if they are, error messa-
ges are printed during the cost computations. (See ERRORS section for
further explanation. ) The user is then asked what type of printout is
desired and the printout begins. Following the printout, the next treat-
ment scheme from the list of eligible schemes is considered and its
costs are printed out. This is done for each eligible treatment scheme.
Control then returns to the strategy design portion of REMOVE. The
user may then evaluate additional strategies. Detailed explanations of
the questioning and printout follow.
Questioning Procedure
Every variable, whose value is to be set by the user, is input in the
following manner: (NOTE: In demonstrating computer/user interaction
all computer responses are underscored. )
VNAME = C/R
Where VNAME is the name of the variable and C/R is a carriage
return. The user then may type: q, a, m, or a valid input value,
followed by a C/R.
q - tells the program that the user did not understand what is wanted
and results in the long form of the question being printed. Sometimes,
following the long form, certain keywords, enclosed in parentheses,
will be printed. These keywords further clarify what type of value is
expected by the program and are explained in the KEYWORDS section.
151
-------
a - tells the program to set the variable to the assumed value. The
assumed values are given in the 'VARIABLES section and represent the
'best known value' at the time the program was last updated.
m - tells the program that the user discovered a mistake in a pre-
viously input variable and desires to return to the beginning of this
block of variables. (WARNING - be careful about using this as it can
result in a lot of repeat typing. ) If return is not as far back as desired
then the program must be restarted from the beginning.
valid input value - results in the variable being set to that value.
(WARNING - due to IBM limitations on word length, no more than 8
characters are accepted. ) (WARNING - there are no checks on the
reasonableness of the input values, i.e., a number may be ridicul-
ously large or small and will be accepted as valid. )
non-valid input value - results in the question being repeated.
Below is an example of a sample question period.
ELECOS=
q (Long form of question is desired)
ELECTRICITY COST ($/KWHR)
a (Assumed value is input)
q
DIRECT HOURLY LABOR RATE ($/HR)
ew3 (Non-valid response, question is
repeated)
DHR =
4. 05 (User inputs Labor Rate other than
assumed)
IDFRAC =
The questioning procedure for the variables describing the treatment
plant is slightly different than above. The treatment plant consists of
a number of processes about which the user can input two pieces of
information; the present size (PPARM) and the present loading rate
(or design variable, PVAR). So, for the treatment plant, the program
will print the treatment process name and ask that PPARM and PVAR
be input. A list of the processes and the present size (PPARM) and
design variable (PVAR) parameters is presented later in this section.
PRINTOUT
There are three (3) types of printout available for each treatment
scheme. They are known as SUPERSHORT, SHORT, and LONG.
The program will ask the user if he/she desires a short printout.
152
-------
If the answer is 'yes1, then the program will ask if a supershort print-
out is desired. Printing then begins. Following the printout for all
eligible schemes, the user is asked if he/she desires to select up to
five (5) schemes for the LONG printout. The most advantageous use
can be made of this feature by first printing all schemes under the
SUPERSHORT option and then selecting a few for detailed examination.
A complete description and example of each type of printout follow
below.
SUPERSHORT -
The output consists of two lines:
LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME = schno
TOTAL UNIT COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) = xx. xx
Where, schno = number of the treatment scheme,
see SCHEME section for further
explanation,
xx. xx = total unit cost
LONG -
The output consists of:
1. Treatment scheme number.
2. Miscellaneous
a. Amortization Rate and Lifetime for all equipment
to be built.
b. Per cent of construction cost financed by federal
government.
c. BODS and suspended solids removal in the primary.
3. Construction information for each process in the treat-
ment plant:
a. process name,
b. construction cost in $1000,
c. sizing parameter, i. e. , the amount to be built,
d. amortized cost in $1000 per time period,
e. the year in which the additional equipment to be
built will be first needed,
f. total for construction cost and amortized cost.
4. Periodic Operating Costs for each process:
a. process name,
b. operating man-hours, average, maximum, minimum.
The max & min are useful when sewered population is
growing to get an idea of just how much costs will in-
crease as time goes on. ,
c. maintainance man-hours,
d. material & supply costs in $ per time period,
e. average labor cost computed from the average
operating & maintainance man-hours, and the direct fe
indirect labor rates,
f. total O & M cost which is the sum of the average
labor cost and material & supply cost,
g. total for each of the above.
153
-------
5. Unit Cost Data in CENTS/1000 GALLONS for each
process:
a. amortization,
b. labor,
c. material fc supply,
d. total of a. , b. , and c. for each process,
e. column totals of a. , b. , c. , and d.
6. Cost of Substitutes of Phosphate Detergents:
a. average, maximum, and minimum cost in $ per
time period,
b. average unit cost in cents/1000 gal.
7. Solid Sink Costs for each time period:
a. time period,
b. number of the sink used for that time period,
NOTE: If sink number - 99, then all the sinks have
been used up and the waste is being dumped in the
backyard. See also ERRORS section.,
c. amount of solids sent to the sink,
d. cost in $ per time period,
e. totals for amount of solids and cost,
f. average unit cost in cents/1000 gal.
SHORT -
The output consists of the titles and column totals from the
LONG printout.
KEYWORDS
FLOAT - a floating point number is desired, i. e. , a number -with a
decimal point. For example, 5.7, 35.26, 23., .02. If no decimal
point is input, then the number input will be converted to floating
point, e. g. , 38 will become 38.
FIXED - an integer is expected, i. e. , no decimal point. If a decimal
point is typed the number will be considered invalid and the question
will be repeated.
FRACTION - a decimal fraction is expected, e. g. , . 52, . 02. A num-
ber greater than one will not be trapped and most probably will result
in invalid results. FRACTION is used most often to signify that a
fraction is desired and not a percentage. For example, activated
sludge density is usually expressed as a percent, i.e., 5%, this means
that the program would expect 5% to be input as . 05.
others - other keywords usually indicate the dimensions of the vari-
ables. For example:
$/CAP/YR - Dollars per capita per year (This type of operation
is always equivalent in the report to $/CAP« YR)
MG/L - Milligrams per liter
154
-------
VARIABLES
This section contains a list of all the variables whose values may be
input by the user. They are listed alphabetically within each group
consisting of variables common to an input subroutine. The variable
name, a description, dimensions, and assumed value are given for
each variable. Test methods for variables requiring measurement
are referenced to Standard Methods, 13th Edition.
NOTE; If a variable deals with a treatment process which is not to be
considered, then the assumed value may be used safely.
***** Subroutine CMMNTY
CNSTRC
The WQO-STP Construction Cost Index
Dimensions = Index divided by 100.
Assumed Value = 1. 714 for MAY 72
DHR
Direct hourly labor rate. Average labor rate for personnel working
at the treatment plant including supervisory personnel.
Dimensions = $/Hour
Assumed Value = 3.95 for MAY 72 (S.I. C. 494-497)
ELECOS
Delivered cost of electrical power
Dimensions = $/KWHR
Assumed Value = .01
FNCTYP
A number representing the type of sewered population growth function
desired.
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = 1
Allowable input = 1 (linear growth rate of 5%)
2 (linear growth rate calculated from
present pop. and one future pop. )
3 (exponential growth rate calculated from
present pop. and one future pop. )
4 (piece-wise linear growth function rate
from present pop. and up to four future
pop. values)
GOVFF
Fraction of construction cost that will be financed by the federal and
state governments.
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = 0.
155
-------
IDFRAC
Indirect labor fraction. Indirect labor costs include those labor
related costs paid by the utility other than salaries, wages and other
direct compensation. Examples of indirect labor costs include social
security; contributions to pension, retirement, or welfare funds; and
premiums paid on hospitalization, health, life, and workmen's com-
pensation insurance. The costs are specified as a fraction of the base
wage and generally average about 15%.
Dimensions - none
Assumed Value = . 15 (i. e. 15%)
MATRLS
Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Commodities
Dimensions = Index divided by 100.
Assumed Value = 1. 176 for MAY 72
SOLSNK(CAP)
Capacity of solid waste sink. Capacity should be given in terms of the
estimated tons a solid waste disposal area will take before it is filled
to capacity. It can be estimated by determining how many years of
useful life are left times the annual tonnage of sludge material trucked
to the site.
Dimensions = Tons
Assumed Value = large (i.e. 10 billion)
Special Input - 99- will cause the subroutine to end input for solid sinks,
Note: Up to fifteen (15) solid sinks may be input.
SOLSNK(DIST)
Distance to solid sink (solid waste disposal site)
Dimensions = Miles
Assumed Value = 0. (which results in zero cost)
SPOPIN(SPOP)
The size of the sewered population. This number is usually given in
survey or engineering reports generated by regional planning agencies
and represents the present population served by sewers feeding the
treatment plant.
Dimensions - Capita
Assumed Value = none
Note: This is input after FNCTYP and up to five (5) population values
may be input.
Note: The first SPOPIN input must be the present population and year.
SPOPIN(YEAR)
The year corresponding to the sewered population of SPOPIN(SPOP).
This number is the year of the present sewered population estimate
and must be entered. It forms the base for the FNCTYP growth
functions.
156
-------
Dimensions = Year (e. g. 1980. )
Assumed Value = none
Special input - 0. will cause the subroutine to proceed to the nrxt
variable. This is used to input less than 5 values for a piece-vise lim. .r
growth function, [corresponding SPOPIN(SPOP) must be set to /.erol
TRNCST
Transportation costs for solid wastes
Dimensions = $/Ton-Mile
Assumed Value = 5.
***** Subroutine SEWAGE
ALKIPS
Alkalinity into the primary settler (Standard Methods, 102)
Dimensions = Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value - Z01.
ASD
Activated sludge density. Ratio of weight of dry sludge to weight of
wet sludge. Test method 224G, (Total Residue).
Dimensions = none (Note: 5% is input as .05)
Assumed Value = . 01
BODIPS
BODS into the primary settler (Standard Methods, 219)
Dimensions = Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value = 200.
FLOTUD
Air flotation sludge thickener underflow density (Standard Methods,
224G)
Dimensions = none (Note: 5% is input as . 05)
Assumed Value = .05
GRAVUD
Gravity sludge thickener underflow density (Standard Methods, 224G)
Dimensions = none (Note; 5% is input as . 05)
Assumed Value = . 08
HPDFT
Maximum allowable operating hours per day for the air flotation
thickener. This number is set by the superintendent of the treatment
plant and represents the time available for an operator to run the process
or the maximum time per day the superintendent is willing to run the
equipment in view of maintenance considerations. For instance, the
assumed value of 8 hrs/day is based on a one shift operation. To raise
this number would either involve an additional shift or possibly over-
time hours.
Dimensions = Hours/Day
Assumed Value = 8.
157
-------
HPDVF
Maximum allowable operating hours per day for vacuum filter (see
above)
Dimensions = Hours/Day
Assumed Value = 8.
MLSSAR
Mixed liquor suspended solids in the aeration process (Test method
224C, Total Suspended Matter)
Dimensions - Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value = 2000.
NH31AR
NH3 concentration into the aeration process (Standard Methods, 212)
Dimensions = Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value = 0.
PINPS
Phosphorus concentration into the primary settler (Total Phosphorus -
Standard Methods, 223C)
Dimensions = Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value = 10.
PSETUD
Primary settler underflow sludge density (Standard Methods, 224G)
Dimensions = none (Note: 5% in input as . 05)
Assumed Value = .05
PSRMVE
Fraction of suspended solids removed in primary settler. This is the
ratio of suspended solids in the effluent from the primary settler to the
suspended solids in the influent.
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = . 5
QAVE
Average daily flow
Dimensions = Million Gallons/Day
Assumed Value = 10.
QPEAK
Peak diurnal flow
Dimensions = Million Gallons/Day
Assumed Value = 19.
SSINPS
Suspended solids into the primary settler (Standard Methods, 224C)
Dimensions = Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value = 200.
158
-------
TBODAR
Total change in BODS across aeration process
(i.e., the fraction removed)
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = . 85
VFPSLG
Volatile fraction of primary sludge (Standard Methods, 224G Volatile
Residue)
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = . 78
VSANRM
Volatile sludge fraction remaining after anaerobic digestion (Standard
Methods, 224G Volatile Residue)
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = . 5
VSARM
Volatile sludge fraction remaining after aerobic digestion (Standard
Methods, 224G Volatile Residue)
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = . 5
***** Subroutine PLANT
AMRATE
Amortization rate for all equipment to be built
Dimensions - none
Assumed Value = . 05 (i. e. , 5%)
AMLIFE
Amortization lifetime for all equipment to be built
Dimensions = years
Assumed Value = 20.
The following variables describe the equipment (processes) comprising
the treatment plant. For each process there are two variables which
describe it.
PPARM
The present independent sizing parameter
Dimensions = see below for a particular process
Assumed Value = 0.
Special Input - 99. indicates the end of process description data and
execution proceeds to the next subroutine.
- -1. indicates that the plant is to have this process but
its present size is set to zero.
159
-------
PVAR
The present design variable
Dimensions = see below for a particular process
Assumed Value = see below for a particular process
Note: If PPARM = 0. , then PVAR is set to its assumed value
automatically. In some cases, there will be no PVAR for a particular
process. Although the program does not in these cases need this value
to calculate costs, the program due to programming limitations will
request a value. The assumed value which is zero can be safely-
entered.
PROCESSES -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
RWPUMP
PRETRT
PRMSET
PSPUMP
TRKFTR
AERBSN
DIFAIR
MCHAER
FLOCCP
SECSET
RE1PMP
CLFEED
CLBASN
MULFTR
RE2PMP
GRVTKN
FLOTKN
ANA DIG
AERDIG
DRYBED
SLDTNK
VACFTR
CENFUG
MHINC
FBINC
WSPOND
SLGOON
RECRB1
RECRB2
TERST1
TERST2
ALUMFS
FECLFS
LIMEFS
POLYFS
RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
PRIMARY SETTLER
PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMPING
TRICKLING FILTER (SINGLE MEDIA)
AERATION BASIN
DIFFUSED AIR SYSTEM
MECHANICAL AERATION
FLOCCULATION BEFORE PRIMARY
SECONDARY SETTLER
RECIRCULATION PUMPING
CHLORINE FEED SYSTEM
CHLORINATION CONTACT BASIN
MULT-MEDIA FILTER
RECIRCULATION PUMPING
GRAVITY THICKNER
AIR FLOTATION THICKNER
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
AEROBIC DIGESTION
SLUDGE DRYING BED
SLUDGE HOLDING TANK
VACUUM FILTER
CENTRIFUGE
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
WASTE STABILIZATION POND
SLUDGE LAGOON
RE-CARBCNATION
RE-CARBONATION
TERTIARY SETTLER
TERTIARY SETTLER
ALUM
FERRIC CHLORIDE
LIME
POLYMER
FEEDING AND
FEEDING AND
FEEDING AND
FEEDING AND
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
160
-------
36
37
38
39
40
41
CO2FS
NAALFS
PCKLFS
NAOHFS
RECALC
FLOCCT
CO2
SODIUM ALUMINATE
PICKLING LIQUOR
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
RE CALCINATION
FLOCCULATION BEFORE TERTIARY
FEEDING AND STORAGE
FEEDING AND STORAGE
FEEDING AND STORAGE
FEEDING AND STORAGE
DESCRIPTIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF FARM AND VAR FOR EACH
PROCESS FOLLOW:
FARM = INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER
VAR = DESIGN VARIABLE
RWPUMP: PARM - INITIAL FIRM CAPACITY (MGD). The total
capacity of the original installation with the largest pumping
unit out of service. If a plant had three raw waste pumps
each with 1 MGD capacity, the initial firm capacity would be
2 MGD.
PRETRT: PARM - MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
PRMSET: PARM - SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER (THOS. SQ. FT.)
VAR - DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD /SQ. FT. ) Design
flow divided by surface area of the settler.
Assumed value for VAR = 700.
PSPUMP: PARM - INITIAL FIRM CAPACITY (GPM) Same as above.
VAR - OPERATING HOURS (HOURS/DAY)
Assumed value for VAR = 4.
TRKFTR: PARM - MEDIA VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT. ) Media depth
multiplied by surface area.
VAR - HYDRAULIC LOADING (MGD/ACRE)
Assumed value for VAR - 5.
AERBSN: PARM- LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - DETENTION TIME (HOURS)
Assumed value for VAR = 6.
DIFAIR: PARM - INITIAL FIRM BLOWER CAPACITY (THOS. CFM)
The total capacity of the original installation with the largest
blower unit out of service.
VAR - DIFFUSER EFFICIENCY (FRACTION) Ibs oxygen
absorbed divided by Ibs of oxygen supplied.
Assumed value for VAR = . 05
MCHAER: PARM - TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY (HP)
VAR - TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (LBS 02/HP-HR) (Number
specified by supplier of the aeration equipment)
Assumed value for VAR = 3.5
FLOCCP: PARM - MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
SECSET: PARM - SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER (THOS. SQ. FT.)
VAR - DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD/SQ. FT. )
Assumed value for VAR = 700.
RE1PMP: PARM - MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
CLFEED: PARM - AVERAGE CHLORINE USE (LBS/DAY)
VAR - CHLORINE DOSAGE (MG/L)
Assumed value for VAR = 8.
161
-------
CLBASN: FARM- LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - CHLORINE CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
Assumed value for VAR - 15.
MULFTR: FARM - CAPACITY (MGD). Limited cost data is available
on multi-media filter installations. The cost information
used by the program is a function of the effluent passed
through the filter. The number requested is the flow rate
of secondary effluent through the filter.
RE2PMP: FARM - MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
GRVTKN: FARM - SURFACE AREA (THOS. SQ. FT.)
VAR - DESIGN LOADING RATE (LBS/DAY/SQ. FT. )
Assumed value for VAR = 20.
FLOTKN: FARM- SURFACE AREA (SQ. FT.)
VAR - LOADING RATE (LB/HR/SQ. FT.)
Assumed value for VAR = 2.
ANADIG: FARM - SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
Assumed value for VAR = 15.
AERDIG: FARM - SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT. )
VAR - DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
Assumed value for VAR = 15.
DRYBED: FARM - SURFACE AREA OF BEDS (THOS. SQ. FT. )
VAR - REQUIRED BED AREA (SQ. FT./CAPITA) Sludge
bed loadings are computed on a per capita basis. Typical
ranges for chemical sludges are 2. 0 - 2. 5 for open beds
and 1. 25 - 1.5 for covered beds.
Assumed value for VAR =2.3
SLDTNK: FARM = SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT. )
VAR - DETENTION TIME (HOURS)
Assumed value for VAR = 4.
VACFTR: FARM - FILTER AREA (SQ. FT.)
VAR - LOADING RATE (LBS/HR/SQ. FT. )
Assumed value for VAR = 4. 5
CENFUG: FARM - FIRM CAPACITY (GPM) Rated capacity of the
centrifuge.
VAR - OPERATING TIME (FRACTION OF DAY)
Assumed value for VAR = 34.
MHINC: FARM - CAPACITY (LBS DRY SOLIDS/HR)
VAR - OPERATING TIME (HOURS/DAY)
Assumed value for VAR = 8.
FBINC: FARM - CAPACITY (LBS DRY SOLIDS/HR)
VAR - OPERATING TIME (HOURS/DAY)
Assumed value for VAR = 8.
WSPOND: FARM - VOLUME OF SLUDGE (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
SLGOON: FARM - SLUDGE VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - DETENTION TIME (DAYS)
Assumed value for VAR = 0.
162
-------
RECRB1: FARM- LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - DETENTION TIME (MINUTES)
Assumed value for VAR = 30.
RECRB2: FARM- LIQUID VOLUME (THOS. CU. FT.)
VAR - DETENTION TIME (MINUTES)
Assumed value for VAR = 30.
TERST1: FARM - SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER (THOS. SQ. FT.)
VAR - DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD/SQ. FT.) Flow
volume divided by surface area of the settler.
Assumed value for VAR = 700.
TERST2: FARM - SURFACE AREA OF SETTLER (THOS. SQ. FT.)
VAR - DESIGN OVERFLOW RATE (GPD/SQ. FT.)
Assumed value for VAR = 700.
ALUMFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS AL/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB ALUM) The cost
desired is the dollars per pound of dry alum charged to the
treatment plant. If the plant receives liquid alum, the
charge should be converted to a dry alum basis assuming
that liquid alum has a density of 11.1 Ib/gal at 60°F and
there are 5. 4 Ib dry alum per gallon of liquid.
Assumed value for VAR = . 03
FECLFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS FE/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB FECL3)
Assumed value for VAR = . 042
LIMEFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS CAO/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB CAO)
Assumed value for VAR = . 01
POLYFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB POLY)
Assumed value for VAR = 1.5
CO2FS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (1000 cu. ft. min)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB CO2)
Assumed value for VAR = . 023
NAALFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS AL/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB NAAL) The cost
desired is the dollars per pound of dry sodium aluminate
charged to the treatment plant. Liquid sodium aluminate
has considerable variation in density and viscosity, thus
the manufacturer's data should be checked to convert the
cost of liquid sodium aluminate to an equivalent dry cost.
Assumed value for VAR = . 12
PCKLFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS FE/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB FECL2) .
Assumed value for VAR = . 04
NAOHFS: FARM - CHEMICAL USAGE (LBS/DAY)
VAR - COST OF CHEMICAL ($/LB NAOH)
Assumed value for VAR = 0.
RECALC: FARM - MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
FLOCCT: FARM - MAXIMUM CAPACITY (MGD)
163
-------
***** Subroutine INTIME
NOYRS
Number of years in desired time horizon
Dimensions - Years
Assumed Value = 20
TPSIZE
Size of time periods in desired time horizon
Dimensions = Years
Assumed Value = 1.
***** Subroutine EFFLJM
ELIMIT
Desired phosphorus effluent limit
Dimensions = Milligrams/Liter
Assumed Value = 99.
Special Input - 99. indicates end of effluent data and execution continues
with the next subroutine.
Note: Up to 20 limits and years may be input
EYEAR
Year of effluent implementation
Dimensions = Years
Assumed Value = 0.
Note: Subroutine EFFLIM expects EYEAR to increase each time it is
input.
***** Subroutine DTGLJM
DIFCOS
Differential cost between old and new detergents. This number is the
difference in cost between a new detergent product replacing a phos-
phate containing detergent as a result of local legislation. The new
product may contain no phosphate or it may contain some reduced
amount depending on the legislation. DIFCOS is the extra cost of
replacing one pound of phosphate with a substitute.
Dimensions = $/Pound Detergent
Assumed Value = .02
DTRGUS
Annual per capita detergent usage
Dimensions = Pounds/Capita/Year
Assumed Value = 27.
Note: 27. is equivalent to 90% of phosphorus in influent wastewater
resulting from detergents.
Use 16. to get 50%.
164
-------
ENFCST
Enforcement cost of phosphate restrictions
Dimensions = $/Capita/Year
Assumed Value = .4
PC NT NT
Proposed legislated phosphorus content in detergent. Up to five values
are accepted. The variable PYEAR requests the year of implementation
of the legislative restrictions.
Dimensions = none (Note: 3% is input as . 03)
Assumed Value = 99.
Special Input - 99. indicates end of limit data and execution proceeds to
read in the next variable.
PRESPC
Present legislated phosphorus content in detergents. If the community
has passed legislation limiting phosphorus in detergents, what is the
percent allowed?
Dimensions = none
Assumed Value = . 1 (i. e. 10%)
PYEAR
Year of implementation corresponding to a PCNTNT
Dimensions = Year (e. g. , 1982. )
Assumed Value = 0.
Note: DTGLIM expects PYEAR to increase in value each time it is
input.
ERRORS
1. Since linear and polynomial curve fitting techniques were used
to obtain the mathematical cost relationships that are used in the pro-
gram, the cost calculations are valid only over the range of the re-
gression data points used to generate the cost equations. If an input
value to the construction cost equations lies outside this range, a
warning message is printed. This informs the user that the construc-
tion cost, operating and maintainance man-hours, and material &
supply costs may be inaccurate for this process. The warning message
is of the form:
***** WARNING - THE VALUE OF THE SIZING PARAMETER
FOR PROCESS 'pname' = pvalue LIES OUTSIDE THE RANGE
minvalue TO maxvalue
where: pname = name of process
pvalue = value of parameter
minvalue = minimum value of range
maxvalue = maximum value of range
165
-------
2. Because it is possible to run out of capacity in the solid sinks,
a warning message will be printed when this occurs. The message is
of the form:
***** WARNING - ALL, SOLID SINKS ARE COMPLETELY FILLED
SCHEME
The following chemical treatment schemes have been selected to pro-
vide varying levels of phosphorus in the effluent.
1
2
ALPYPS
FCPYPS
FC LMPS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LIME PS
ALPYFB
FCPYFB
FCLMFB
LIMEFB
ALUMAB
FECLAB
NAALAB
ALABMF
FCABMF
NAABMF
ALUMTF
FECLTF
ALTFMF
FCTFMF
ALFBAS
FCFBAS
L1FBAS
L2FBAS
NONE
ALUM + POLYMER TO PRIMARY SETTLER
FERRIC CHLORIDE + POLYMER TO PRIMARY
SETTLER
FERROUS CHLORIDE + LIME TO PRIMARY
SETTLER
LIME TO PRIMARY SETTLER
ALUM + POLYMER TO FLOCCULATION
BASIN
FERRIC CHLORIDE + POLYMER TO FLOCC.
BASIN
FERROUS CHLORIDE + LIME TO FLOCC.
BASIN
LIME TO THE FLOCCULATION BASIN
ALUM TO THE AERATION BASIN
FERRIC CHLORIDE TO AERATION BASIN
SODIUM ALUMINATE TO AERATION BASIN
ALUM TO AER. BASIN + MULTI-MEDIA
FILTRATION
FERRIC CHLORIDE TO AER. BASIN +
MULTI-MEDIA FIL
SODIUM ALUMINATE TO AER. BASIN +
MUL-MED FILTR.
ALUM AFTER TRICKLING FILTER
FERRIC CHLORIDE AFTER TRICKLING
FILTER
ALUM AFTER TRICKLING FILTER + MUL-
MED FILTR.
FERRIC CHLORIDE AFTER TRK. FIL. +
MUL-MED FILTR.
ALUM TO FLOCC. AFTER CONVENTIONAL
SECONDARY
FECL3 TO FLOCC. AFTER CONVENTIONAL
SECONDARY
LIME (1-STAGE) TO FLOCC AFTER CONVEN.
SECONDARY
LIME (2-STAGE) TO FLOCC AFTER CONVEN.
SECONDARY
NO CHEMICALS ADDED FOR PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL
166
-------
LONG PRINTOUT EXAVPLE
LIQUID TKEATMENT SCHEME = 17
AMORTIZATION RATE =0.05 AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =20.0
FRACTION OF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASM
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
CONS
COST(
TRUCTION
1000 $ )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11*31. 811
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1870.2511
372.327
0.0
56.1*05
0.0
IOC. 520
1*5.525
1*7.318
S 1 Z 1 NC
PARAMETER
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
101*5.1*1*0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.P
20.000
38.000
0.0
12.796
0.0
21*93.000
5314.353
3865.117
MOD
MGD
TSF
RPM
TCF
TSF
MGD
#/D
TCF
MGD
MGD
TSF
TCF
SOFT
#/D
#/0
*/D
AMORT
(10
IZED
00 $
0
0
0
0
119
0
0
0
0
150
29
0
1*
0
8
3
3
COST
/TP)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.708
.0
.0
.0
.0
.075
.877
.0
.526
.0
. 51*8
.553
.81*5
YEAR PROCESS
FIRST NEEDED
199*4
199U
1991*
199U
1974
199U
1991*
199U
1991*.
197li.
197U,
1991*,
1971*.
1991*.
197U.
1971*.
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1971*.0
TOTALS
3990.760
320.231
-------
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
oo
PROCESS NAME
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
OPERATING MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS
(MAN-HOURS/TP)
AVE. MAX. MIN.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1UU9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
0.
13U.
1*391.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
UU9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
0.
131*.
U391.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
UU9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3772.
1153.
0.
13U.
1+391.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
925.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
0.
80.
536.
3012.
765.
2182.
0.
0.
0.
0.
925.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
0.
80.
536.
3012.
765.
2182.
0.
0.
0.
0.
925.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
971.
0.
80.
536.
3012.
765.
2182.
TOTALS =
10898. 10898. 10898. 81*70. 8U70
8U70.
-------
PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
vO
PROCESS NAME
RArt WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRICING FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
MATERIAL & SUPPLY COST
( $ /TP)
AVE. MAX.
MIN,
LABOR COST
(AVERAGE)
(1000$/TP)
TOTAL O&M
(1000$/TP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1819. 01*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25175.88
7707.08
0.0
1*86.36
2161*1*. 56
301004.00
11*813.01
11*107.63
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1819.0U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25175.92
7707.10
0.0
1*86.36
2161* k. 59
30100U. 37
11*815.06
1U107.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1819. 01*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25175.92
7707.10
0.0
1*86.36
2161* l*. 59
30100i*.57
14813.06
1U107.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0tt6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.961
8.985
0.0
0.901*
20.852
12.7U5
3.239
9.233
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.865
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1*1.137
16.692
0.0
1.390
i*2.i*97
313.71*9
18.052
23.31*0
TOTALS
386757.50 386758.00 386758.00
81.961*
1*68.721
-------
UNIT COST DATA
(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)
PROCESS NAME AMORTIZATION LABOR MATERIAL & SUPPLY TOTAL
RAW WSTE PMP
PRE TRETMENT
PRIM SETTLER
PRMYSLGE PMP
TRKLNG FILTR
SECY SETTLER
RECIRC PMPNG
CHLORNE FEED
CHLORNE BASN
MUL-MED FLTR
RECIRC PMPNG
GRAV THICKNR
SLGE HLD TNK
VACUUM FILTR
ALUM FEEDING
FECL FEEDING
LIME FEEDING
TOTALS «
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.61*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.06
0.1*1
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.11*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.22
0.12
0.0
0.01
0.29
0.17
o.oi*
0.13
i*.39 1.12
SOLID SINKS COSTS
TIME
PERIOD
1
2
3
i*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11*
15
16
17
18
19
20
SINK
USED
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AMOUNT SOLIDS
(TONS)
36l*8.5it
36U8.5I*
361*8.51*
361*8. 5k
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
36U8.51*
361+8.51*
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
361*8.51*
36U8.51*
36U8. 51*
361*8.54
36i*S.5l*
3Gl*8.5i»
COST
<$/TP)
91213.1*1*
91213.U1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213. 1*1*
91213.1*4
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.i*£*
91213.i*U
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
91213.1*1*
TOTALS -
72970.69 182^*265.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,3i*
0.11
0.0
0.01
0.30
l*.12
0.20
0.19
5.30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.80
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.62
0.61*
0.0
0.08
0.58
l*.t*2
0.30
0.37
10.81
UNIT COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000 GAL.)
TOTAL UNIT COST (CENTS/1000 GAL) =12.06
= 1.25
170
-------
ERRATA SHEET FOR THE PROGRAM LISTING
NOTE: Statement # n-fm means Fortran statement number n + m lines
Subroutine: CQNCST
Statement # 6790 + 1
should read X = TPLANT (BPARM, RECALC)
Statement # 6790 4 2
should read 'REF. 13', not "REF. 12'
Subroutine: SIZE
Statement # 4000 + 22
which reads 'PFECL = PFECL + WRFEP* , . . '
should be replaced by the following 6 lines:
C FE CAN BE ADDED AS EITHER FECL3 OR FECL2
C IF FECL3, THEN FFRATO = 2.89
C IF FECL2, THEN FFRATO ^ 2. 27
FECON = WRFEP * IELIMT(INF, TP) * FFRATO * CON
IF (FFRATO .EQ. 2. 89) PFECL = PFECL + FECON
IF (FFRATO .EQ. 2. 27) PPCKL - PPCKL + FECON
Subroutine: TSCHEME
Statement # 5700
Insert before this statement the followinq line:
RETURN
171
-------
FILF:
PI
INTERACTIVE DM* CORPORATION
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
8LCCK DATA
PURPOSE :
BLOCK OfTA CONTAINS DAT!
VARIABLES IN NAVPC
roMvcf^ PLCCKS:
S"UTcv'\TS USED TO INITIALIZE
PRGCNT
SCHEME
SF.WPDP
SSINK
TPLANT
INFLUr*lT/rFFLUENT I NCC2MA TI CN
CONTAINS P^UGKAM CDNTRCL VARIABLES
INFO APGUT LIQ'MS TREATMENT SCHPMES
THE: SCWEREO PQOULATICK
SOLID SINK INP3RMATION
THE TREATMENT PLANT CHSR ACTFR IS TIC5
AUTHCP :
DAVID A 5APNES 171CT7?
COMMON /IELIMT/ IFLIMT(?,?0)
1 , INF, EFF
REAL IELIMT
INTtGEO EFF
/P:
-------
BLKCAT
pi
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
CCMS'CN /TPLfiNT/ TPL4NTJ 16,45)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
2
3
4
5
6
, RVWlvp,
, ^Cn*':Efif
, RFPPMF,
, VACCTR,
, REC»32,
, CC2FS .
, PNAME ,
, WVAR .
, MAXP
INTEGER Rwi
t DIC4 TRt
, GRVTKT. ,
, CEMFUC,
, TERST2,
, PNAME ,
, WVA3 ,
PRFTOT,
CLOCC°,
GRVTKN,
CE^FIJ^>»
TE^STI ,
NA4LCS ,
t M r A T c ,
6 P A t M ,
P^-'SET ,
sscsrr.
PS°IJMP,
TRKPT3
A?on,SN.
^FlPyP, CLFLEC, CL8ASN,
PL^TKN, iMADir,, AFDOIG, ORYBEC,
MHINC ,
TFR3T2,
PCKLFS,
AMLIFc,
3ASF ,
CRINC , WSPONC, SLGCCN,
AL'JMFS,
FECLFS, LI"rcS,
DIFAIP
MULCT«
SLDTNK
PFCf31
POLYPS
NiQHFs, PECALC, PLTCCT
PPAR" ,
PVAR , WGPAP.M,
APVA^ , PA3MX , MIN^V ,
WPAPM
MAXRV
>UNP, PRETRT, PRESET, PSPUMP, TRKFTP, AERRSN
FLOCCP,
FLCTKN,
FBINC ,
ALUMFS,
AMR ATE.
BPARM ,
SECSET,
AMAHI G,
WSPGNO,
FECLFS,
AML i FE ,
FLOCCT,
»FIPMP,
AERDir,,
SLGCCN,
"OLYPS,
PPARM ,
9ASE ,
CLFEED
CPYBSP
"ECR Bl
C02FS
PVAR
APVAR
CLflASN,
SLOTNK,
RECRP2,
PCKLFS,
WOPAPM,
PARMX
RE2PMP
VACFTR
TERSTl
RECALC
WPARM
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
****? I r L 1 v T «:-•
INf/l/, Lr~l2l
***** PkGCNT *****
DATA FIXFD/1/, FLCTF/2/, ALPHA/3/
DATA YES/3HYFS/f NO/2HNC/
CATA GN/1/ , OFF/0/
***** SEfcDCP *****
DATA YFAR/2/i SPOP/1/, MAX°v/5/
***** SSIM< *****
OATA CAP/I/, CIST/2/, MAXSS/15/
***** SCI-EME *****
OATA MAXSCM/25/
SCHEME NAMES AND NU«BE*S
DATA ALPYPS/1/, FCPYPS/2/, FCLMPS/3/, I
1 , FCPYFB/ 6/, FCLMFV 7/f LlMEFB/ 8/,
2 , NAALAB/11/, ALABMF/12/, FCA8MF/13/,
3 , FF.CLTF/16/, ALTFMF/17/, FCTFMF/1B/,
4 , ll?BtS/21/, L2FP.AS/22/, ^nNIE/23/
LljUir fftATMFNT PP^CESSCS FOP FACH
:ATA >c»-t*;
-------
Fir
3LKCAT
PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CC&POPATION
c
c
c
c
DATA SCHEME(1,13) /!'»/, S-.HE-r ( 2, 13) /15/, SCHCME<3,13> /33/
DATA SCHE*Ed,l /!«/, SCH?'iE < 2, U) /15/, SCHEMEI3.U) /37/
DATA SCHEME (I,1 5) /3?/t SCH=M= ( 2 ,'. 5 1
DAT* SCKEȣd,l6) /33/, SCHEV=(2,16!
DATA SOFMEd.17) /IW, SCHE«E(2,m /15/, SCHFME(3,17) /32/
I , SCHEME!*,17) /5/
DATA SCHFMEd,l3) /!<»/, SCHevP(2,18) /15/, SCHEME(3,18) /33/
CATA SCt-EME(l,i9) /1V, SCHE"=<2,19> /15/, SCHFCE(3,19) /30/
1 , SCHEME(*»19> /32/, SCH = l«E(5,19) Ml/
DATA SCHEMEd.201 /I*/, SCH£MF(2,20) /15/, SCH£ME(3,20) /30/
1 , SCHFMECV,20) /•?•;/, SCH5ME(5,20I /41 /
CATA SCHEM!?d,21t /I'*/, SCHEMF(2,2l) /15/, SCHFME(3,2l) /28/
1 , SCHEVE(4,21) /30/, SCH:ME(5,21) /34/, SCHEME(6,2l) /36/
2 , SCHEV£<7,21) /41/
DATA SCHtMFd,22) /I*/, SCHEME«2,22) /15/, SCH?ME<3,22) /28/
I , SCH£ME(4,22) /29/, SCHuV?(5,221 /30/, SCHEMF(6,22) /31/
2 , SCHEME! 7,22) /34/, SCH?^EH,22) /36/, SCHEME!9,22)
MINIMUM ACHIEVABLE EFFLUENT p LEVELS FOR EACH SCHEME
DATA MIN£FP( D/2./,
MINEFP(
2
3
-%
5
6
7
"IMEFP(
MINEFp<10)/2./, MIME'Pdl)/2./
MINEFP(13)/.5/, MINEcP(l^)/.5/
MINEFPJ16I/2./, M!NEcP(17)/.5/
M^EFP(22)/.l/, MINE-P(23)/10./
**.*+ TPLANT *****
MINEFPJ 9)/2./
MINEcP(12)/.5/
MINEFP(l5)/2./
DATA MAXPM5/
DATA
PROCESSES NAMES AND NUMBERS
PRETRT/2/, PRMSET/3/,
TRKFTR/5/
1 AE13SN/ 6/
2
3
4
5
6
••
a
0
t
o
,
RElPMP/U/t
GRVTKN/16/
SLOTNK/21/
WSPCNC/26/
TERST2/31/
C02FS /36/
FLOCCT// 9/,
^UL"TR/l*/,
AERDIG/19/,
MHINC /2W»
PECR92/29/,
LIMEFS/34/,
NtOHFS/39/,
SECSET/10/
RE2PMP/ 15/
ORYBED/20/
FBINC /25/
TESST1/30/
PCLYFS/35/
RECALC/40/
PPARM/6/, PVAC/7/
f
BPARM /d/,
MAXRV/16/
BASE /12/
«=0». PRINTOUT
OATATPLANT11,
OATATPLANT(1,
OATATPLANT(I,
OiTATPLANTd,
OATATPLANT(1,
DATATPCANTd,
/,TPLANT(2,
E /,TPLANT(2,
3)/«HPRIM/,TPLANT(2.
1 )
TPLANTO ,
PMP/
5)/4HTP.KL/.TPLANT(2i
6)/4HAERT/,TPLANT(2,
SFT/,
TPLANT(3t
C/,TPLANTC3,
3IMHTLEP/
PMP/
6J/AHSIN /
174
-------
INTERACTIVE DAT* CORPORATION
DATATPLANT.d , 7) /4MQ IFF/, TPLAMT ( ? , 7>/4HUSF.D/,
DATATt>LANT( 1, 8 ) /4HM?r H/, Tt>L ANT ( 2 , 81/4H AFP/.
OATATPLANT( 1, 9 ) /4HFLOC/, TPL ANT (2 , 9)/4HC -P/,
DATATPLANTd.lOJ/'tHSEC Y/, TPL ANT ( 2 , 10 > /4H S'T/,
DATATOLANTl 1, 11 J/4HP.FC I /, TPLAMTl 2, ll)/4HRC P/f
DAT/T°LANT(
DATATPLANT
OATATPLANT
DATATPLANTC
DATATPLANT(
OATATPLANT<
OATATPLANTJ
DATATPLANT(
OATATPLANT(
OAT AT PL ANT (
5 , 1 3 J / 4HCHLH/,
, I 4 ) MHMUL-/,
,15)MHRECI/,
1 , 16) MHGR AV/,
1,17)/4HFLOT/,
1,1B)/4HANA /,
1,19)/4HAER /,
1,20)/4HSLGE/,
1, 21 ) /4HSLGF/ ,
1,22 IMHVACU/,
TPL ANT ( 2,
TPL ANT ( 2,
TPLA'IT(2,
TPL ANT ( 2,
TPLANT(2,
TPL ANT ( 2 ,
TPL ANT( 2t
TPLA\'T(2,
TPL4NT ( 2,
TPLAMT( 2,
= /,
14 )/4H*1ED /,
15)/4HRC P/,
16)/4H THI /,
17)/4H TMI/,
13 1/4HOI GF_/,
19) /4HDIGE/,
20)/4H DRY/.
2 I ) MH HLD/,
22 )MHIH F/,
PEE/,
FEE/,
FEE/,
FEF/,
FEE/,
FEE/,
OATATPLAMT(l,24J/4HNtUL-/,TPLANT(2,^ ,
DATATPLANT(l,25)/4HFLUD/,TPLANT<2,25)/4H-3ED/,
OATATPLANT«l,27)/4HSLGE/,tTPL4NT(2,'27)/4H LAG/!
OATATPLAMT(1,28)/4HRECA/,TPLANT(2,28)/4HR30N/,
DATATPLANT(l,29)/4HRECA/,TPLANT(2,29)/4HRfiON/,
OATATPLAMT(1,30)/4HTER /, TPL ANT ( 2, 30) MHS^TT/,
DATATPLANT1l,3i)/4HT5R /,TPLANT I 2,31)/4HS^TT/,
OATATPLANMI,32)/4HALUM/,TPLANT(2,32I/4H FEE/,
OAT/>TPLANT(1,33)/4HFECL/,TPLANT(2,33)/4H
DATATPLANT<1,34)/4HLIME/,TPLANT(2,34)/4H
DATATPLANT(1,35)/4HPOLY/,TPLANT(2,35)/4H
DATATPLANT(1,36)/4HC02 /,TPLANT(2,36)/4H
OATATPLANT<1,37)/4HNAAL/,TPL4NT(2,37)/4H
DATATPLANT<1 ,38 )/4HPCKL/,TPLANT(2,38)/4H
OATATPLANT»1,39)/4HNAOH/,TPLANT(2,39)/4H . l.u,,
DATATPLANT(1,40)/4HRECA/,TPLANT(2,40)/4HLCIN/,
DATATPLANT
-------
Fill?: OI.K.CVT
Ff-TPAN PI
INTERACTIVE CA"M
PATA
04TA
OATA
PATA
DATA
D4T/S.
TATA
TATA
CAT*
CATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
OATA
DATA
CATA
DATA
CATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
S
DATA
OATA
CATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
CATA
OATA
OATA
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLAVT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPL4NT
TPLANT
TPLANT
( 12,16
(13,17
( l ? , \ a
(13, 19
(13,20
(13,21
(13, 72)
(13,23)
(13,24)
(13,25)
(13,26)
(13,27)
(13,28)
(13,29)
(13,30)
(13,31)
(13,32)
(13,33)
(13,34)
(13,35)
(13,36)
(13,37)
(13,38)
(13, 3S)
(13,40)
(13,41)
(13,42)
(13,43)
(13,44)
(13,45)
/20./
/2. /
X1 5./
/I1)./
/?.3/
/4./
/4.1)/
/ .34/
/8./
/8./
/O. /
/O./
/30./
/30./
/TOO./
/700./
/.03/
/.042/
/.Ol/
/1.5/
/.023/
/.12/
/.04/
/O. /
/O./
/O./
/O./
/O./
/O./
/O./
IZING PARAMETER UNITS US
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
(14,1)
(14,3)
(14,5)
TPLANT (14, 7)
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
TPLANT
(14,9)
(14,11)
(14,13)
(14,15)
114,17)
(14,19)
(14,21)
(14,23)
(14,25)
(14,27)
(14,29)
( 14,31)
(14,33)
(14,35)
(14,37)
(14,39)
(14,41)
(14,43 )
(14,45)
/4Hwf»0 /
/4HTSF /
/4HTCF /
/4HTCCM/
/4HHGC /
/4HMGD
/4HTCF
/4HMGD
,
ff
,
,
t
/,
/.
/,
/4HSCPT/,
/4HTCF
/4HTCF
/4HGpM
/4HK/D
/4H
/4HTCF
/4HTSF
/4H "*/D
/4H /4HMGD
TPLANTU4,16>
TPLANH 14.18)
TPLANT(14,20)
TPLANT(14,22»
TPLANT(14,24)
TPLANT(14,26)
TPLANT(14,23)
TPLANT(14,30)
TPLA'4T( 14*32)
TPLANTC14,34)
TPLA»iT( 14, 36)
TFL6-\T(14,33)
TP>LANT( 14,40)
fPLANT(!4,42)
/4HK/H
AND MAXIMUM VALUES FOR VALID RANG? FOR CONSTRUCTION EO.
/4HTCF
/4HTSF
/4HK/D
/4H#/0
/4HK/0
/4H«/D
/4H
/4H
176
-------
PILE: RLKDAT
PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CCRPORATICN
CAT*
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
D4TA
OATA
DAT*
DATA
OATA
OATA
OATA
DATA
OATA
OATA
DATA
OATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DAT*
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
DATA
OATA
DATA
DATA
END
TPLAMT(15,2)
TPLANT(15,3)
TPLANT(15,5)
TPLANT(i5,6)
TPLANT(15,7J
TPLANT(15,8)
TPLANT(15,9)
TPLANT (15, 10)
TPLANT(15,1U
TPLANT( 15,12)
TPLANTU5.14)
TPLANT (15,15)
TPLANTU5, 16)
TPLANT (15,17)
TPLANT (15,1*)
TPLANT(15,19)
TPLANT(15,20)
TPLANT (IS, 21)
TPLANTU5.22)
TPLANT<15,23)
TPLANT(15,24)
TPLANTU5.25)
TPLANT (15, 26)
TPLANT(15,27)
TPLANT(15,28)
TPLA\T(15,29)
TPLANT(15,30)
TPLANTU5.31)
TPLANT (15, 32)
TPLANT(15,33)
TPLANT(15,34)
TPLANT(15,35)
TPL/SNTU5.36)
TPLANT(15,37)
TPLANT(15,38)
TPLANT(15,39)
TPLANT (15,43)
TPLANT(15,45) /O./,
6,1) /1000./
/I./, TPLANT(16,2) X200.X
/I./, TPLANT<1<,,3) X200.X
X30./, TPL4NTU6.4) /5000.X
/3.X, T°LANT<16,5) X9000.X
X3.X, TPLiNT(16,6) X4000.X
/.02/, TPLANT(16,7) /200.X
X20.X, TPLANT(16,8) /5000./
/I./, TPLANT(16,9) /200.X
/I./, TPLANT(16,10) X200.X
X.5X, TPLANT(16,1J.) X300.X
/20.X, TPLANT(15,12) /8000.X
X3.X, TPLANT(16,13) X300./
/I./, TPLANT(16,14) X200.X
/.5/, TPLANT(16,15) X300.X
X.02X, TPLANT(i6,16) /20.X
/O./, TPLANT(16,17) X1.EIOX
/30.X, TPLANT(16,18) /6000./
XO.X, TPLANT(16,19) X1.E10X
/7.X, TPLANT(16,20) /4000.X
/I,/, TPLANT(16,2!1 X1000.X
X80.X, TPLANT(16,22) /6000./
/I.5/i TPLANT(16,23) /700.X
X700.X, TPLANT(16,24) X30000./
XO.X, TPLANT(16,25) XI.E10/
XO.X, TPLANT(16,26) X1.E10X
X30./, TPLANT(16,27) X30000.X
XI.X, TPLANT(16,28) X400.X
/l.X, TPL4;JT(16,29) X400.X
XI.X, TPLANT(16,30) X200.X
XI.X, TPLANTU6.31) X200.X
XO.X, TPLANT(i6,32) X1.S10X
XO.X, TPLANT(16,33) X1.E10X
XO.X, TPLANT(16,34) X1.EIOX
XO.X, TPLANT(16,35) X1.510X
XO.X, TPLANT(16,36) X1.EIOX
XO.X, TPLANT(16,37) X1.EIOX
XO.X, TPLANT(16,38) X1.EIOX
XO.X, TFLANT(16,39) X1.E10X
XI.X, TPLANT(16,40) X200./
/l.X, TPLANT(16,41) /200.X
/O./, TfLANT(16,42) /1.510/
XO.X, TPLANT(16,43) XUEIO/
/O.X, TPLANT(16,44) X1.E10X
TPLANT(16,45) X1.E10X
177
-------
FRF:
PI
INTERACTIVE CAT* CORPORATION
r PUILO
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
SUILD DETERMINES THC "4XMU* SIZE 0= THf NECESSARY
ADDTTJC\AL EQUIPMENT NtcOEP FOR EACH PROCESS ANC THF TIME
PFRIOC WHjN ADDITIONAL iiQUI P*::NT IS = IRST NEEDED.
BLOCKS:
PRGCNT - PROGRAM CONTROL
TIME - INC0 ABOUT TIME
TPLANT - CHAPACTEPISTICS
TRTCST - TREATMENT COSTS
VtRI A1!' PS
HCRIZCN
OF THE TREATMENT
FOR FACH PROCESS
PLANT PROCESSES
FOR EACH TIME
CALLED BY:
TRTMNT - THE MAIN COSTING SOBROUTINE
AUTHOR:
TAVID A fJARNES 19DEC72
COHMCN /PRGCNT/ IGOTO, IANSWR, FIXED, FLOTE, ALPHA
I , YES, NO, CN, OFF
2 , ISCH*
3 , IDUHMY, CUVMY
EQUIVALENCE ( I ANSWS,ANSWEHI
INTEGER FIXED, FLCTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, ON, OFF
COMMON /TIME/ NOYRS, MAXTP, TPSIZE, TP
INTEGER TP
CCMMQN /TPL*^T/ TPLANTJ 16,45)
1 RWPUKP,
2
3
it
5
6
7
8
q
MCHAER,
PE2PMP,
VACFTR,
RECRB2,
C02FS ,
PNA^E ,
WVAfi ,
MAXP
PRETRT,
FLCCCPi
GRVTKN,
CENFUG,
TFPST1,
NAALCS,
AMRATE,
EPARM ,
PRESET,
SECSET,
FLOTKN,
MHINC ,
T6RST2,
PCKLFS.
A^LIFE,
BASE ,
PSPUMP,
RE1PMP,
ANAOIG,
FBINC ,
ALUMFS,
NAHHFS,
PP4RM ,
ADVAR ,
TRKFTP,
CLFEEO,
AEPOIG,
WSPCNC,
FECLFS,
RFCALC,
PVAR ,
PARMX ,
AERBSN,
CLBASN,
ORY8ED,
StGOCN,
LIMEFS,
FLOCCT
WOPARM,
MINRV ,
OIFAIR
MULFTR
SLOTNK
RECR31
POLYPS
WPARM
MAX^V
INTEGER RWPUMP, PRETRT, PRESET, PSPU"P, TPKFTR, AERBSN
1 DIFAIP,
2 GP.VTKNt
3 CENCUG,
4 TERST2,
5 PNAME ,
6 WVAR ,
FLGCCP,
FLCTKN,
FSINC ,
ALUMFS,
AMRATF,
BPARM ,
SECSET,
4NAOIG,
WSP3ND,
FECLFS,
AMLIFF,
FLHCCT,
BE1PMP,
AEHOIG,
SLGCCM,
POLYPS,
PPARM ,
S»SE ,
CLFEEO,
QRY3ED,
PECRBl,
CC2FS ,
PV4R ,
ftPVAR ,
CLBASNt
SLOTNK,
RECRB2,
PCKLFS,
WOPAPM,
PARMX
RE2PMP
VACFTR
TERST1
RF.CALC
WPARM
COMMON /TPTCST/ OMH^S ( 45, 20 1 , MMHPS ( 45, 20) , T«SU5,20), CONCOS(45)
1 , AMCQSTU5), TPFADO(45I
178
-------
FILF: BUILD
FORTRAN PI
INTERACTIVE O'TA
F. AT I CN
PEAL M1HRS
INTFGER TPFflCC
C
c
C
c
c
c
1000
c
c
c
C
C
C
4COO
c
c
***************************************************************
**************** ****************
**************** STAFT FXECUTICN ****************
**************** ****************
*******,****»****¥********************************+*************
CCNTINUE
COMPUTE ADDITIONAL SIZE NFEDEC TC BE BUILT
FOR EVERY PROCESS
00 4000 IP » ItMAXP
IF (TP .LE. 1) TPPADDUP) « *AXTP + 1
TPLANTCSPARK,IP) - 0.
TPLANT(BASEiIP) - AMAX1(TPLANT(WOP ARM,IP),TPLANT("PARM, I P) )
8 - TPLANT(kPARM.IP)
IF JTPLANT
-------
CyMC!TY FCrTFiN f>\ INTERACTIVE ^flTA CCJl'Pn'U T I ON
C
C
C CMMMTY Rfc'AOS IN VALUE"; rOP THE VA^IA^LES WHICH DFSCPIRE THT
C COVVU.MTY. THES^ INCLUDE SUCH 1REAS AS: SEW5"'EO POPULATION,
C ENERGY-, TCANSPOaTAMnN-COSrS, LIOUIO AN^ S3LID
C SINKS.
C
c CO""":N PLOCKS:
C ENGCST - DtLIVcSED COSTS Oc ENEPGY FORMS
C INDSTY - INPORMATIPN A30UT INDUSTRIAL PHCSPHO^US EFFLUENTS
C LRPCST - COSTS TF LA^G'? (DIRECT AND INDIRECT)
c LSINK - CHARACTFRISTICS OF LIQUID SINKS
C PRGCNT - CONTAINS PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
C SEWPOP - THE SFWERED PTPULATICN
C SSINK - CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID rfASTE SINKS
c TSCST - TIME AND SPACF DIFFERENCE COSTS
c
C CALLED BY:
C 5YSTEP
C
c AUTHOR:
C DAVID A BARNES 190EC72
C
c ---------------------------------------------------------------
COMMON /ENGCST/ ELECOSt OILCCSt GASCCS
COMMON /INPSTY/ INDSTY ( 3, 20 >, LEGINP
REAL INCSTY, LEGINP
COMMON /LBRCST/ OHO , IOFRAC, GOVFF
REAL tDFRAC
COMMON /LSIM
-------
= ILF: CV^'TY FORTRAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
CCHKON XSSINK/ T^NCST, SV.ASTE(20), SCLSMK ( 2 , 1 5 ) , SSC^ST(20)
I . 9ESTSS(20), CAP, DIST, MAXSS
INTEGt.A EcSTSS, CAP, OIST
CCMMON /TSCST/ CNSTRC,
REAL
1010 FORMAT!IHO,/IX,«CC^UNITY CHARACTERISTICS')
3051 FORMATdH ,'ELECOS='I
3054 FORMATdH , • EL5CTR 1C I TY CCST ! S/KWH') • )
3151 FORMATdH ,«riLCOS=«)
3154 FORMAT! IH ,'QIL COST !$/GAL)')
3251 FORMATdH ,'GASCOS='J
3254 FOPMATdH ,«GAS COST
-------
FILF:
INTERACTIVE DAT4 CP?PCRATI»1N
CTSTS Afc f NOT
AT PRESENT
C THi FCLLr*/ING
GO TO 4CCO
3150 POINT 3151
3152 CM.L RL:AniN(PLOTF )
GOTO (2153, 3000, 3155, 3150, 315S), IGOTO
3153 PRINT 3154
GO TO 3152
C NPT LSED YET
3155 CILCCS = DLC^Y
GO TO 3157
3156 OILCCS = ANSWER
3157 CONTINUE
3250 PRINT 3^51
3252 CALL R E 4C IN( FLOTE )
GOTO (3253,3000,3255,3250,3256), IGOTO
3253 PRINT 5254
GC TO 3252
C NOT tSEO YET
3255 G4SCOS
GO TO 3257
3256 G&SCOS = A
3257 CONTINUE
*000 CONTINUE
C PEAO IN LAPPR COSTS
*050 PRINT
-------
FILE:
FORTRAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA
5057
C
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5150
5152
5153
5156
5155
C
5157
5250
5252
5253
5255
C
5256
5257
C
5300
6000
6050
4052
6053
C
6055
6056
6057
6110
6150
6152
CCNTINUE
SET NC OF PHTMTS TO BE READ IM FOR EACH TYPE OF
IF(FNCTYP.EC.1)SO TO 5110
IF(FNCTYP.eC.2.OR.CNCTYP.ro.3JGC TO 5111
IF(FNCTYP.EC.4)GO TO 5112
GP TH 5050
LIM = I
GO TC 5113
LIM = 2
GO TO 5113
LI^ = 5
CCNTINUF
LI"1 = 0
LIMl = LI^l + I
PP INT 515.1
CALL REACINfFLOTE)
GO TO (5153,5000,5155,5150,5156), IGOTO
P?INT 5154
GC TC 5152
SPOPlM(litIl»l) = ANSWER
GO TO 5157
GC TO 5150
NO DEFAULT VALUE FOR SPCPIN
CONTINUE
PPINT 5251
CALL REACIN(FLOTE)
GO TO (5253,5000,5255,5250,5256), IGOTO
PRINT t>254
GO TO 5252
GO TO 5250
NO DEFAULT VALUE FOR SPCPIN
SPOPIN(2tLII*l) = ANSWER
CTNTINUE
CHFCK HC OF ENTRIES
IF UIM.EQ.LINl) GO TO 5300
IF PIECE-WISE LINEAR ALLOH
.EG. 5 .OR. ANSWF« .50. 0.
THiN
) GO
IF UIM1
GC TO
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
P^INT 6051
C»LL P-EADIMFLOTE)
GD TO (6053,6000,6055,6050,6056), IGOTO
PSU!T 6054
GC TO 6052
5. I/TGN-1ILE FROM REF. 7
TRNCST = 5.
GO TO 6057
TCNCST = ANSWER
CCNTINUE
LIM1 = 0
Livi = LI"! + 1
PSU
-------
FILE: CVVIMY F?,MMN PI INTERACTIVE DAT* CORPORATION
6153 P (WOg-STP INOCX FOR MAY 72)/100. FROM REF. 8
7055 CNSTRC = 1.714
GC TO 7057
7056 CNSTRC = ANSWER
7057 CONTINUE
7150 PF IMT 7151
7152 CALL REACIN(FLOTE)
GO TO 47153,7000,7155,7150,7156), IGOTO
7153 PMNT 7154
GO TO 7152
C 1.176 f-RCM REF. 9
7155 MATfLS * 1.176
GO TO 7157
7156 MATRLS * ANSWER
7157 CONTINUE
C
C FND C* SUBROUTINE CMWNTY
RrTURN
END
184
-------
FILF: C7NCST FGF.TPA'J PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CCSPOSATION
SCBRHUTINF CCKCST
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
CflNCST COMPUTES CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR EACH PROCESS
NOTE: FCR MOST PROCESSES THE EQUATIONS A*E FROM
10
BLOCKS:
LSPCST - COST OP LA30R
SCHEME - INFO ABOUT LIQ'JIO TRFATMENT SCHEMES
TIME - TIME HORIZON IN=0<>M£TIGN
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS OF TREATMENT PLANT PROCESSES
TSTCST - TREATMENT COSTS
TSCST - TIME AND SPACE DIFFERENCE COSTS
CALLEC BY:
TRTMNT - THE MAIN SIZING AND COSTING ROUTINE
REFERENCES:
AUTHOR:
DAVID A.
BARNES 30 NOV 72
CCMMCN /LBPCST/ DHR, IOFRAC, GOVF<=
REAL ICFPAC
COMMON /SCHEME/ SCHEME I 25,25), ELG9TY(2r>» MINEFP125). VAXSCM
I , ALPYPSf FCPYPSt FCLMPSt LI"FPSt ALPYFBt FCPYFBi FCLMFP,
2 t ALUMA6, FECL49, NAALAB, AL4B«P, FCABMr, NAABMF, ALUMTFt FECLTF
3 , ALTFNF, FCTFMF, ALFBASt FCFBASt L1FBAS, L2FBAS, NONE
4 f FQUIPCtSI
INTEGEk ELGBTY, EQ"JI«>f SCHEME
INTEGER ALPYPSt FCPYPSt FCL««PS. ALPYFBt FCPYFfl, FCLMF3t ALUMA3
1 t FECLA8, ALA«3MF, FCABMF, ALUMT^t FECLTF, ALTFMF, FCTFMF, ALFBAS
2 , FCFBAS
REAL MINEFP
CCMVON /TIVE/ NOYRS, MAXTP, TPSIZ6, TP
IMTFGER TP
COMMON /TPLANT/
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
RWPUMP,
MCHAER,
RE-2PMP,
VACPTfl,
PPCRB2,
C02FS t
PNA^E ,
HVAP, t
MAXP
PRET^T,
FLCCCP,
GRVTKNf
CENFUG,
TERSTL,
NAALPS,
/MPATt,
PPA-.M ,
PRMSET,
SECSFT,
FLOTKNf
MHINC t
TE^ST2,
PCKLFSf
AMLIFE,
BASE t
PS^U«*P,
RfclPMP,
AN A DIG,
FBINC ,
AL'JMFS,
NAQHFSt
l>Pi*M t
APVAR t
TRKFTft,
CleEEO,
AE^DIG,
WSPONO,
FECLFS,
RECALC,
PVAP .
PAP MX t
AERBSN,
CLBASN,
DRY^ED,
SLGOCN.
LIMEFSt
FLOCCT
WOPARH,
MINPV t
OIFAIR
MULFTR
SLOTNK
RECPBl
POLYPS
WPAOM
MAXRV
185
-------
CILE: C'lNCST CGRT&A-VJ Pi INTERACTIVE DA T \ COR POP AT ION
TRKFTR ,
1 , CICMR| FLC'CCP, SrCSF.T, ^ETP^P, CLFrEl1, CLBASN, RE?PMP
2 , CRVfKh, FLCTKN, ANACIC, A^OIO, DOY^SO, SLOTNK, VA^.FTR
3 , CENFUG, FBIMC , WSPOND, SLGCCN, RECFP1, RrC»B2, TERST1
4 , TE^ST?, *LUV1CS, F£CLCS, POLYPS, CC2FS , PCKL^S, RECALC
5 , PNi«E , JMCAT&i A^LIFE, °PARv , pvA1? , WOPARM, WPAPM
6 i V»VA= , PPAKM i FLCiCCTt BASE , A°VAR ,
COMMON /TRTCST/ OMHO'i (
C
C PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
6030 1C < TPL ANTt 9P4RM, PP.ETRT) .LE. 0.) 00 TO 6050
X = ALOG(TPLANT(9P«RH|PRETRT))
CONCDS(PRtTRT)=EXP(3.2597l6*.6l915l«X)
C
C PRIMARY SETTLFR
605C IP ING
6070 1C < TPL ANT ( PPARw.PSPU'-IP) .LE. 0.) GO TO 60
-------
FILE: CQNCST FORTRAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
6110 tc (Tf'LiNTtSPiSM, ATR3SM) ,L = . 0.) GC TO 6130
X * ALOG(TPL AKT (Ro fls.M, AER4SN > >
C
C CIFFLSFC AIR SYSTEM
6130 IF (TPL ANT(BP^M,r>IFAIR) .L5. 0.) GC TO 6150
X = ALPG(TPLANT(«PAPM,OIF A 13))
COMCOSIDIFAIR)=EXP(4.145454+.633339*X+.031939*X**2-.0024!9*X**3>
C MECHANICAL AERATION
6150 Ic
-------
FILM CaNCST crpTR*N PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
C Al* FLOTATION
6330 IF ( TPL^r.'TJ PP*=M,FL'JTKN ) .L~. O.J GC TH 6350
X = AtOG
C
C VACUU^ FILTER
6430 I^ ITPLANTiecAP^.VACFT?) .LF-. 0.) GC TO 6450
X* ALOG(TPLANT(BPARH,VACCTR))
CONCOS( VACFTK) = EXPO.238028 + . L94537* X+. 033313*X**2)
C
6450 IF (TPLANT(FPAR^,CENFUGI .LE. 0.) GO TO 6470
X » ALCGITPLANT(RPARf1,CENcUr,) )
CONCOS(CcNFLG)=EXP(4.528439*.049867*X+.053l98*X**2)
C
C KULTIPLE-HEARTH INCINERATION
6470 1= CTPLANT(ePtRM,«HINC I .LE. O.J GC TO 6490
CONCOSCMHINC )=EXP(2.377364».5989a6*X)
C
C FLUICIZEC-BE') INCINE"ATION
64<)0 ic ( TPLANTIPPAR^.FBINC ) .LE. 0.) GC TO 6510
X « ALOG(TPLAMT(i
C NO dATA FOU
C")NCOS(F?INC ) = 0.
C
C WASTE STABILIZATION FCND
6510 1= CTPL ANTlEPA^.wSPQMD) .L=. 0.) GC TO 6530
X » ALOG(TPL4M
C MH TSTA FOR
C
C SL'JDGE LAGCCN
6530 1= ( TPLANT«?PA?M,SLGr)nN) ,LE. 0.) GC TO 6550
188
-------
FILE: C.WST CGFTFA^ PI INTERACTIVE OA.T4 CORPORATION
X = ALTG( TPLANTJ PP/1P.M, SLG1CN) J
CmCOSCSLOCfN) = EXPM. 375449+. 394996*X+.014726«X**2)
c
C RE-CiRSCMZATION
6550 IP AP«,LIM?«=S) .L = . 0.) 00 TO 6690
X = ALOG(TPLANT(BPA3M,LIMITS))
CONCGS(LI"EFS)=eXP(-1.900487*.670797*X)
C
C POLYMER FEEDING ANO STORiGc
6690 IF (TPHNTAKy,PCLYFSr .LE. 0.) GO TO 6710
X = ALOGITPLAN'TtBPASM, PCLYFSM
189
-------
: CJNC5T -TPTPAM PI INTERACTIVE DATA
C
C CAP.4CN CIOXnF FfETIMG ANO STORAGE
6710 Ic < TPL4NT< pn/^,CD2FS » .L?. 0.) GC TT 6730
X = AL1G(TDL£\T( R%rtMiCC2(:S ))
C ASSUMED SAME tS OIFFLSFC AIR
CCNCCS( CC?FS )= = XP(4.l45454f..633339'''X*.031939*X**2-.0024 19*X**3»
C
C SODI'J" UUMINATr P'FDING AND STORAGE
6730 IF AL = S ) .L^:. 0.) GC TO 6750
X - AL:>G » 200. *X**. 5 * 1.506/1.2984
C
C FL^CCtLATICN BEFOPE TERTIARY
6810 IP ITPLANT(BPA?M,FLOCCT) .LE. 0.) GC TO 6330
X = AL3G(TPLA\T(9P*o.M,cLCCCT) )
C PQUAMCN FR01 RF.F. I2i P. 5-6f TA«?LE
CPNCTS(FLOCCT) = EXPC4. 06044*. 56209*X)
6830 CONTINUE:
c
C Cr>NV?°T NATIONAL AyfPA3E J4N 71 DOLLARS TO PRESENT LCCAL OOLLA"
C USING ^CC-STP COST INDEX
C CCMPIJT: FEMJCIC A^cdTI^co CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR EACH
C PROCESS
C
00 7500 IPrfQC = lt"iXP
IF (E3UIPC IP80C) .EO. nFF) GG TO 7500
CONCOS( IFROC) = CONCHSJ IP-»CC) * ( CNSTRC /1.506) * (l.-GOVFF)
RATE =
190
-------
FILE: CCNCST FORTRAN »l INTERACTIVE DAT\ CORPORATION
RTON = < l.**4T6)«*TPl ANTI iMLI-Ei IP3CC)
AMCCST( IP'.'JC) = CONCOSC IPOOCI*CPC*TPSIZE
7500 CCNTINJF
C
C END Oc SLfle OUTING CONCST
RETURN
END
191
-------
r»T<-,LIv "C^T-AM PT INTERACTIVE DAT4 C0=. PHB AT ION
SlBKO'JTIMt
C
C
C 3TGLI* INITIALIZES TH£ t NF1_UENT-H4L= 0? IFLI**T TO
C OTRGLI* R?ACS IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE LIMITS ON THE
c PHCSPH^SUS CCNTFNT cf DETER^E\TS t\o THC IMPLEMENTATION
C TIMES. pnc EACH Tl^if P = KIOO TH= INFLUENT-HALF
C ANC ThF CISTS OF N 3^- PHDSPHiTE SUBSTITUTES 45E COMPUTED
C NOT= : CT5LI" ASSUMES THAT PY?AR WILL INCPEASF EACH
C TIME IT IS PEAO IN.
C
C CO^CN BLOCKS:
C OTRGNT - CHARACTERISTICS OF OETERGtNTS 4KO USAGE
C IcLIMT - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT LIMITS
C PSGCNT - CONTAINS P*CCF,A*» CONTROL V»»IABLES
C LICUIO - LIQUID INFLUENT IMFCdmiT HN
C SEU?CP - THE SFWEREO POPUL4TICN
C TIME - PARAMETERS 0? THE TIME HORIZON
C
C CALLEC BY:
C STRTGY - CONTROL STFAT=GY CALLING ROUTINE
C
C AUTHOR:
C 04Vn A B4FNES 11JCT7?
c
c
CrwMQV /DT^GNT/ OT3GUS, POR4TO, PPRSTO, CIFCOSf P^ESPC
i , PDTRG t ENFCST, PSu5CS(20)f PCNTNT
REAL LEGPC
/IELIMT/ IELIMT(2,?0)
1 , INF,
REAL IELIMT
INTEGER EFF
CCHMCN /LI3UIC/ ALKI°St BOOIPSt MLSSAR, NH3IAR, PINPSt
1 t QPEAK, SSINPSt TB30AR
NH3IA3
F'JCTYP, SPC?IN(2t5), SEWPOP<20»
1 i YEA^, SPCP, MAXPV
INTF3E-? YEAE, S?CP, CNCTY">
CC*yCN /P^GCNT/ I30TO, lA'JS i~ ., CIXFO, FLQTE, ALPHA
1 t YESi IO, CN, OFF
2 t ISCHM
3 * IC'-I^Y, C'.
EQUIVALENCE I l
INTEGER FIXED, CLOT£, SLPHi
192
-------
FILE: rir,l
cC«TPflM PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CO«Pn»ATION
1010
1951
1954
2051
2054
2151
2154
2251
2254
2651
2654
3051
3054
4051
4054
3510
C
C
c
c
c
c
1000
1500
C
C
1900
1950
19*2
1953
1955
1956
1957
2000
C
COMMON /TIME/ NHYRS, WAXTP, TPSIZE, TP
INTEGER TP
FCSM«T(1H ,'OETERGrNT RETSICTIONS1)
FC?VAT(1H ,
FORMAT dH , *CC YOU Wi'.'T TO IMPLEMENT PHOSPHATE OETERfJENT PESTHICTI
ONS? ( Y-:S Uf- NO) • )
(1H
(If^
1RGNT)')
FGPMATI 1(-
cPRMATdH
I1H
;IH
FORMATdH
FCRMATdH »PC£:sENT P CONCENTRATION IN CETEP.GENTS (RATIO)*)
FORMAT (1H ,'PCNTNT=')
FORMAT CM ,'PGOPOSEO LEGISLATED PHCSPHCRJS CONTENT IN DETERGENTS
KFLrAT.FRAO* )
FORMAT (lr| ,«PYEAPsf)
FORMAT (1H f'YEA5 OF IMPLE^cNTATI1N (FLOAT)*)
FORMAT (IH ,'PCNTNT IS TOO LAfvGE, PESURMIT PCNTNT * PYEAR* )
•CIFFERFNTIAL COST BETWEEN OLO E NEW DETERGENT ( J/LB OT
•CTPGUS=«)
•ANNUAL PER, CAPITA OCTfRGENT USE (L BS/CAP/Y",) • )
•AMN'JAL PE? CAPITA ENFORCEMENT COST OF P BAN (i/CAP)')
*"RESPC=*)
****************
****************
***«*********#**
START EXECUTION
****************
****************
*************««;*
>***
CCNTINUE
P^INT 1010
DO 1500 TP * l.MAXTP
ISLI^TCINF.TP) » PINPS
PSUBCS(TP) « 0.
CCNTIN'JE
ASK USER IF HE/SHE OESIRSS TO TRY DETERGENT CONTROL STRATEGY
'CCNTIN'JE
PhU.T 1<3U
CALL RCACIN(ALPHA)
GO TO (1953,1900,1955,1950,1956), IGOTO
PRINT 1954
GO TO t<>52
I/«NSW3 a NC
GC TO 1957
CCNTINUE
IP (IANSKS .SO. YES) GC TC 2000
IF (IANSK* .EO. NT)
GO TCI 1900
IN DETF9GENT
193
-------
FILF: HTGLM eCRTP.AN f>i INTERACTIVF OST4 CCRPOPATIOM
2050 PC[Nr 205]
2052 CALL =PACIN(FLOT&)
G'J TO ( 2053 ,2000,2055,2050,2056) , IGOTG
2053 P=MMT 2054
GC TO 2052
C .0? */LB cp^M 5FF. l.»P. 15 AMO "-PP II.
C ASSUMING TH5T 1 13 OF D€TERGF.NT CONTAINS 0.4 LB OP PHPSPHATE OK
C ITS SUBSTITUTE
2055 DISCOS = .02
GO TO 2057
2056 CIPCOS = ANSWER
2057 CONTPJJP
2150 PPINT 2151
2152 CALL PE4CIN(CLCTF)
GO TO (2153,2000,2155,2150,2156), IGOTO
2153 PRINT 2154
GO TC 2152
C 27 L8S/CAPITA/V=4R F^CM P-EF. 2
2155 OTRGUS = 27.
GC TO 2157
2156 DTRGUS = AMSKER
2157 CONTINUE
2250 P3INT 2251
2252 CALL R £ AC IN ( FLOTF )
GO T'J (2253,2000,2255,2250,2256), IGOTO
2253 PRINT 2254
GO TO 2252
C *.40/CAPITA/YEAR FROM REF. 3
2255 ENCCST - .40
GO TO 2257
2256 ENFCST = AMSWEP
2257 CONTINUE
C PORATO = WEIGHT RATIO Or PHOSPHATE TO DETERGENT
C .4 FPCM "EF. 4
PDRATO = .4
C PPRATO = WEIGHT KATIC Or PHOSPHORUS TC PHOSPHATE
C .25 FROM REF. 5
PPRATO = .25
2t50 PRINT 2651
2C52 CALL HPACIN(FLDTE)
GOTO (2653,7000,2655,2650,26561, fGQTQ
2653 PRINT 2654
GC TO 2652
C NEGATIVE NUMBER WILL CAUSE PRESPC=t>DR AT3»PPRATO IN «CTGLIM«
2*55 PRESPC = -1.
GO TO 2657
2656 PRESPC = ANSWEP
2657 CONTINUE
C
C RF.Ai) IN LEGISLATED PHOSPHORUS CONTENT
3050 P',INT 305'
3052 CALL ° E AC IN ( FL CTF »
GO TO ( 3053 ,10 >0,30->5, 3050, 3056), IGOTO
305? PRINT 3054
GO TC 3052
194
-------
FILt: OTf.LIM =ORTSAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CCPPORiTICN
3055 PCNTNT = 99.
GO TO 3057
3056 PCNTMT = ANSWER
3057 CHNTINUE
C IF PCNTMT = 99., THEN END OF LEGISLATION DATA SO 3ETURN
IF( PCNTNT ."FQ. 99. ) nfT'JSN
C
C FEAT IN IMPLEMENTATION y^A* ASSOCIATED WITH PCNTNT
4050 PRINT 4051
4052 CALL = EAriMcLOTn
GOTO (4053f 1000, 4055, 4C50, '.056), IGOTO
4053 PRINT 4054
GC TO 4052
4055 PYEA* = 0.
GC TO 4057
4056 PYEAR = ANSV«SP
4057 CONTINUE
C
C CHANGE YEA" OF IMPLEMENTATION TO A TIME PERIOD
ICTP * IPYSAft - SPCPIN(YciP,lll/TPSIZE
C
C IF PRESENT P CONC. IS UNKNOWN, USE ASSUMED VALUE
IP (PRSSPC .LT. 0.) PRESPC = PORATC*PPRATO
C
C COMPUTE INFLUENT PHOSPHC3US RESULTING F^OM DETERGENTS IN
C (PQ'JNOS/tAYI
POT^G « OT5GUS/365. * PRESPC * SEWPOPdl
C
C COMPUTE NEW P CONCENTRATION "ESULTING FROV LEGISLATION
PLEGRT = (PRESPC - PCNTNT J/fRESPC
IF (PLEGRT .LT. O.I P3IMT 3510
PINNEW = P^PS - t»!>TSG*PLSGKT/(QAV5*a.33l
C
C COMPUTE ThF ANMUiL PER CAPITA COST OF NON-PHOSPHATE SUBSTITUTE
PCOST * CDIFCCS*DTRG'JS + tNFCST )*TPSI ZE
C
C FILL INFLUENT HALF OF IELIMT
C AND STORE SUBSTITUTION COSTS FO1* EACH TI"E PERIOD
00 4500 TP = ICTP,MftXTP
I6LIMT(INF.TP) * PINNEW
PSUBCS(TP» = PCOST * SEWOOP(TP)
4500 CCNTINUE
C PEAD IN KEXT LEGISLATED 0 CONTENT
GO TO 3050
C
C ENO OF SUBROUTINE OTGLIV
END
195
-------
FILF: EFCLIM CCFTFAN PI INTERACTIVE 04Ti CORPORATION
SLFP.;iuriNf
C
C PURPOSE:
C EFFLIM RfcAOS IN THE PHOSPH03US EFFLUENT LIMITS AND
C CONSTRUCTS THE E=FLUENT-HALC OF IELIMT
C NOT = : cF<=LlM ASSUMES TH4T 'CYEAR' WILL INCREASE
C fACH TIME IT IS "EAO IN.
C
C COMMCK BLOCKS:
C IELIMT - LIMITS ON INFLUENT/EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS
C CONCENTRATIONS
C LIQUID - LIQUID INFLUENT INFORMATION
C PRGCMT - CONTAINS PROCr.A,1'! CJNTRQL VARIABLES
C SEWOOP - THE SFWEPE^ POPULATION
C TIME - INFJ ABTUT THE TIME HCRIZON
C
C CALLEC BY:
C STRTGY - THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALLING ROUTINE
C
C AUTHOR:
C TAVIO A BARNES I10CT7?
C
C
CCMMON /IFLIMT/ IELIMT<2,20>
I i INF, tFF
REAL IELIMT
INTEGER EFF
/LIQUID/ ALKIPSi 9QCIPS, MLSSA^, NH3IAR, PINPS, GAVE
1 , QPEAK, SSINPS, TBOOAR
REAL WLSSAR, NHSIAR
COMMON /P^GCNT/ IOOTO, IANSWB , FIXED, FLOTE, ALPHA
1 , YES, NO, CN, OFF
2 , ISCHM
3 , IDUMMY, DUMMY
EQUIVALENCE ( I ANSwR , VJShE* I
INTEGER FIXEC, CLOTP, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN,
/S=*POP/ rNCTYP, SPCPIN«2,5I, SE«POP
-------
F IL F : 2 ' ~ L I v
INTFPACTIV? DATA CC\P0^4TIOS
3054
C
C
c
c
c
c
1000
1500
C
c
2050
205?
2053
2055
2056
2057
C
C
C
3050
3052
3053
3055
3056
3057
C
C
C
C
4500
C
C
( 1H
(Iri
: ***J
LIMIT I"?LEMENTATIOM (FLOAT)')
*»**»**«***«=****
*•»"***«**"****""
STt-.T EXFCUTICN
****** «**#**«:***
K,*»r-* ***********
DC 150i> TP =
ICL I'^TI =Fr ,T
CCNTIN'Jt
PE«0 IN PRC^SED EFPLUrNT LIMIT ON PHCSPHQ^US
PRINT ?051
CALL REACIN(FLnTE)
GO TO (2053 (!000, 2055, ?050t2056», IGOTO
PRINT 2054
GO TO 2052
CLIMIT = "59.
GO TO 2057
ELICIT = AT4SKER
CCNTINUE
«?ETUON IF ELIMIT = 99. = ENC OF DATA
IF lELI^IT .cO. 99.) RFTURN
READ IN I^PLE^NTATICN YPA? ASSOCIATED WITH ELMIT
PPINT ^OV.
CALL RE4CIMFLOTE )
GO TO <3053,1000,3055,3050,3056), IGOTC
PQTNT 3054
GC TO 3052
EYEA* = 0.
GO TO 3057
EYEAR = ANShE"
CONTINUE
CHANGE YEAP QP IMPL E *c "IT AT I ON TO A TI^E P=RIOD
ICTP = (EYEAR - SPOPIN(YFAE,1))/TPSIZc
FILL EFFLUENT H*LF CF IELIMT
DO 4500 TP = ICTP.MAXTP
IELIMT(EFF,TP) = ELICIT
CONTINUE
PEAO IN K£XT EFFLUENT
GO TO 2050
END OF SUBROUTINE
END
197
-------
FILf: I'iC>LI* ^JFTRA'! Pi INTEPACTIVF DATA
c
C
C INCLI"' fcE.irS IN LFGISL&TFO =ESTP I CTIOMS CN INDUSTRIAL
c pHrsPHOsus Ef-PUJENT. TH~ CORRESPGNOING CHANGES SRE THEN
C MftDF TO THE INCLUFMT-HALF 3F lELI^T.
C
c CCHMCN BLOCKS:
C INDSTY - INDUSTMil EPFL'JENT LEVELS
C
C CALL?C 3Y:
C STRTGY - THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALLING ROUTINE
C
C AUTHOR:
C DAVID A BARNES 110CT72
C
c
/INOSTY/ INCSTY(3,20l, LEGINP
REAL INCSTY, LEGINP
Q »*»»»***********
c **»*»»*».******* STA^T EXECUTION ****************
£ **«t*»»a**« * «:«* 4*
r
C
C
C END OF SLBPCUTIN'E INCLIM
RETURN
END
198
-------
FILf: !NTI"r -nKT->AN Pi I^ERACTIVE DATi
c
C
c INT:«F = -AOS IN A OFSCFIPTIJN oc THE
C IT ThE.-J C4LLS SP = MC TQ COMPUTE THE SEWEPrD PnpiJl AT IOM F -Jr«
C EACH TIMF PEPIOT.
C INTIT ALSl'' t-EAOS IN TH= GOVERNUFNT FJNA^.'CIMO FACTOR.
C
C 00*"^ BLCCKS:
C L>?t*
**************** STAPT cX£CUTIrlN ****************
**-B »»» ********* ****************
199
-------
FILE: INTIWE c:PTpi'.| PI INTERACTIVE OAT4
*»****»
C
1000 CCATtNJc
C
C PP4D IN NUMBER DF YEARS IN TIM? hCSI
2050 P"IMT 2051
2052 CALL p=ACiN
-------
FILr: LCHOSfc
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
SLBPQUTUE LC»-nS =
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
LCHDSE "AUKS AS ELIGI3L5 COR CONSIDERATION THOSc LIQUID
TREATMENT SCH=MPS KHICH WILL:
1. &CHIEV? THE DESIRED 1R4IMUM EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS LEVEL
2. ACHIEVE A LEVEL GLOSS TO THAT DESIRED.
COMMCN BLOCKS:
PRGCNT
LICUIO
SCHEME
TIME
TPLAMT
CALLED 3Y:
LIMITS CN I NFUJENT/ tF FLUENT PHOSPHORUS
CONTAINS PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
LICUIO INFLUENT INFO
IMC0 ABOUT LlCLJIC TREATMENT SCHEMES
INFO ABOUT T!"= HORIZON
INFO ABOUT TREATMENT PLANT PROCESSES
- THE MAIN
AUTHOR:
DAVIH A BARNES
28 0":C 72
/IELIMT/ IELIMT(2,20)
INF, EFF
REAL IELIHT
INTEGER EFF
COMMON /LIQUIO/
ALKIES,
QPEAK,
SSINPS,
MLSSAR,
TBODAR
NHSIARt PINPSt GAVE
REAL MLSSAR, NH3IAR
COMMCN /PKGCNT/ I GOTO, IANSWP, FIXED, FLOTE, ALPHA
1 t YES. NTi CN, Occ
2 , ISCHM
3 f IDUM-Y, CUMMY
EQUIVALENCE ( IANSW* , ANSfcEP.)
INTEGER FIXED, FLOTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YESt CN, OFF
COMMON /SCHEME/ SCHEME 125,25), ELGBTY125), MINEFPC25). MAXSCM
I , ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCLMPS, LIMEPS, ALPYFB, FCPYFB, FCL^FB, LIMEFB
2 , ALU^AB, FF.CLAB, N»ALAR, ALABMF, FCABMP, NAA«?HF, ALUMTF, FECLTF
3 t ALT-MF, FCTFMF, ALC3AS, FCFBAS, L1FBAS, L2FBAS, NCNE
INTEGER. ELG8TY, E<3UI», SCHF*«5
INTEG!=» ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCL^PS, ALPYF3, FCPYFB, FCL^F'J, ALUMA3
1 , FECLAB, ALA9MF, FCAB"F, AL'JMTF, FECLTF, AL^FVP, FCTFMF, ALFBAS
2 t FCF3AS
REAL MINEFP
201
-------
PI
INTERACTIVE OAT^t CC3PORCT I O'J
CPHVCN /TirF/ rJYRS, ViXT?, TPSI?f. TP
INTfG^-. TP
criMON /TPLANT/ TPLANT( 16,45)
1 , FWP(JWP| P3ETRT, °RMSETi PS°'JvPt T"KFTR,
2 , McmEa, FLTCCP, SPCSET, RF.IP.MP, CLFEEr/,
3 i RE2PMP, G3VTKN, FLDTKN, AN49IG, AEPDIG,
4 , VACFTR, CENFUG, «MI MC , F6I.NC , WSPONO,
5 , PECSE2, T-R5T1 , TERST?, AL'J^FS, CECLFS,
6 , C02FS , N4ALFS, PCKLFS, NA1HFS, RECALC,
7 , PN«'1E , *^PATfi A"LIFE» PPARV , PVAF. ,
8 , WVAO , np/fcH , 64SE , APVAF. , PAP.MX ,
<3 , MAXP
AERBSN, DIFAIR
CLSASN, MULFTR
HPY3ED, SLOTMK
SLGOGN, RECKB1
LIMEFSt PCLYFS
FLOCCT
WOPARM, WPARM
^IIN'JV , M6XRV
INTEGER P*PUWF, PRETkT, PRESET, PSPUMP, THKFT* t AERBSN
C
C
c
c
c
c
1000
1500
C
c
2000
C
c
c
3000
C
C
C
i , DICAIC, FLPCCP, S^CSET, C.EIPMP, CLFEEO,
2 , GRVTKN, FLCTKN, ANACIG, AE3EIG, CRYBEO,
3 , CFNFUG, F^INC , XSPOMDi SLGOCN, PECRB1,
4 , TE3ST2, ALUMFSt FECLFS, POLYPS, CC2^S ,
5 i PNAME , AMRATE, AMLIFE, PP&RM , PVAR ,
6 , WVAR , 6PARM , FLOCCT, BASE , APVAR ,
»*t*B«*»*»t«-»*5*******<-*»»**************
*****4**»*»**#** STAPT EXECUTION
****»*r»*****«**
***«****»**************«'********* *******
CONTINUE
DO 1500 ISC = It^AXSCM
ELGeTYdSCI = OFF
COMINUE
EFPMIN = 99.
FIND NINIfUM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT DESI?.EO
DO 2000 TP = l.MAXTP
IF (IELICT(EFF,TP) .LF. FFP^IN) EFPMIN = t
CONTINUE
DELMIN = 99.
SEARCH ALL LIQUID T"»FATMENT SCHEMES FC*
EFFLUENT LEV^L ATTA INA3 I LTY CLOSEST TO °
DC 3000 ISCH = l,l"^XSCv
HELTA = l»ISEPP( ISCH) - ECP"IN
IF
-------
FILE: LrHCSf FORTRAN PI IMTE&ACTIVE OAT* CO=PO°.ATION
SCHfMf ( ILIQ.ISCH) -
IF (TPLANT
-------
FILC: LSKTST FCRTkA'l PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
SUPPOUTIN5 LSKCST
C
c PU°POSE:
C LSKCST CHOOSES A LtOUID SINK WITH A LARGE ENOUGH
C ASSIMILATIVE PHOSPmRUS CAPACITY. IT THEN COMPUTES THF
C PUKP ANC PIPE REQUIRE ME'JTS. AND THEN CALCULATES THS COST
C OF THE SINK PIP FACH TI'^E PERIOD.
C
C COMMON BLOCKS:
C ENGCST - DELIVERED COSTS OF ENERGY FCR^S
C IF.LIMT - INFLUENT/EFFLUENT LIMITS
C LICUID - LIOUID INFLUENT IMFCRKATICN
C LSINK - CHARACTERISTICS OF LIQUID SINKS
C PRGCNT - PROGRAM CCNT*1L VARIABLES
C SEWPOP - THE SEWEREO POPULATION
C
C CALL=C BY:
C REMOVE - THE MAIN PRCS, MLSSAR, NH3IAR, PINPS, GAVE
1 , OPEAK, SSINP?, TBODAR
REAL MLSSAR, NH3IAR
CCMMON /LS^K/ LIQSNK(3,201, LSNKCSI20I, BESTLS(20J
REAL LISSNK, LSNKCS
/PRGCNT/ IGCTQ, IANS»
-------
FILF: LSKCST FORTRAN PI
C
£ ****************
C »*««»»**»»**«***
C ********+******»
C
C
C END OF SUBROUTINE LSKCST
RETURN
END
INTERACTIVE DATA CCRPCFATION
ST4PT EXECUTION
««****** *****«*^
206
-------
.'.f. T
INTERACTIVE CAT4 COrPOATION
SU6r~!UTINE PLANT
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
"L4NT RFAOS IKJ VALUES Cc VARIABLES WHICH DESCRIBE THE
SEWftGE Ta=ATMf.NT PL&KT.
NOTE: THE ASSUMFO WLU5S PC& 'APVAP', 'MINRV't AND
ARE FCCM *EF. 10.
MCN BLOCKS:
CHKCST - CONTAINS DELIVERED CCSTS OF CHEMICALS
PRGCKT - CONTAINS PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
TPLANT - DESCRIPTION fie TFcATMENT PLANT
CALLED BY:
SYSTEf
AUTHOR:
DAVID A BAPNES 060CT72
/ CHPCST/ LI«OCSt ALUMCS . POLYCSt FECLCSt NAALCSt PCKLCS
, NAOHCS, C02CS
P«=AL LIMECS, NAALCSt MACHCS
CCMKC'J /PF.GCNT/ IGOTO,
1 , YES, NO, CNt OFr
2 t ISCH"
3 t IOUXMY,
EQUIVALENCE ( I ANSHP .ANSWER )
INTEGER FIXEC, FLCTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN, OFF
/TPLANT/ TPLANT ( 16,^5)
FIXED, FLCTEt ALPHA
1 ,
2 t
3 t
4 ,
5 ,
6 ,
7 ,
8 ,
Q ,
RWPJPP,
VCHAEF,
PE2PMP,
VACFTR,
PECRB2,
Cr12FS ,
PNA-4E ,
KVAR ,
MAXP
PRF.TRT,
FLCCCP,
GRVTKN,
C5NFJG,
TErSTl,
NAALFS,
AMRATE,
B°#RM ,
PR SET,
SECSET,
FLOTKN,
MHINC ,
TEBST2,
PCKLFS,
AMLIFE,
BASE ,
PS°UMP,
RFipju-p,
ANADIG,
FBINC ,
ALUMFS,
NiOHFS,
PP4RM ,
APVAP ,
TRKFTR,
CLFEED,
AERDIG,
WSPONO,
FECLFS,
RECALC,
PVAR ,
PARMX ,
AER3SN,
CL9ASN,
DRY3EO,
SLGOCN,
LIMEFS,
FLOCCT
WO"ARM,
MINRV ,
DIrAIR
»
-------
PILE: PLA'T FCCTf4N PI INTERACTIVE CATA CORPORATION
1010 FOP" AT ( 1 HO, 'QfSCC I PT ION Or PB5SE*iT TREATMENT PL^NT1//
1 • Scl OPF.FftTING M4NLIAL F JP ni«FNS!CNS OF PAR^.ETEkS FTS EACH PROC
2FSS' I
2i5i FORMAT IH ,»PP4~M=M
H , 'PRESENT INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER FOR COSTS')
1351
FORMAT
1551
FORMAT
275' FORMAT
IH
IH ,'AMCmiZATnN P-ATfc FCR ALL ECUIPMF.NT TO 35 BUILT')
IH ,'AKLIFE='I
IH ,'AMORTIZATION LIFETIME FOR ALL EQUIPMENT TO RE BUILT")
IH ,«PVAS=»)
275'. FOP"'AT(1H ,'PRESENT DESIGN PARAMETER1)
f *»»»*»***»*»«»*«*«**»«'*»**««*****»*«*»*«t
^ ***rt *»*»*«.****** ****************
C ***n»*******«*** START EXECUTION ****************
C
C
C
1000 CrNTI.MME
PRINT 1010
C
C RK40 IN AMORTIZATION e\T=
1350 PRINT 1351
1352 CALL R€ACIN(CLOTEI
GO TO (1353,1000, 1355, 135f), 1356) , IGOTO
1353 PRINT 135<*
GC TO 1352
1355 4RATE = .05
GO TO 1357
1356 APATfc = ANSUFR
1357 CCNTINJ5
C
C FtAD IN AMOP.TI ZATIG^ LIFETIME
1550 PRINT 1551
155? CALL REACIM "L'JTE I
GO TO <1553 ,1000, 1555, 155l>, 1556) , IGOTQ
1553 PRINT 155*
GC TC 1552
1555 4LIer = 20.
GC TO 1557
1556 ALIFF = ANSfc£P
1557 CCKTINUE
DO 1900 IPRCC = 1,MAXP
TPLANT< AMP.ATE, IPROC) * ARATE
TPLANT(AML IFE,IPRQC) = ALIFE
TPLANT(PV4R,IP50C) = TPLANT(APVAR,IPROC)
1<300 CONTINUE
C
C PE^^ IN PARAMETERS FCR TREATMENT PROCESSES
00 3000 IPROC » l.MAXP
POINT 2010, (TPL4NTUf 1PR3C),J = 1,3)
r
C READ IN PRESENT INDSPESDENT SIZING PARAMETER
2150 PFINT 2151
208
-------
FILF
CDRTRAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
2152
2153
2155
21*6
2157
C
C
2750
275?
2753
2755
2756
2757
3COO
3500
C
C
C
C
C
C
CALL
GO TO «2153, 1000, 2155, 215J, 2156) , IGTTO
PRINT 2154
GO TO 215?
TPLflNTCPPARP, IPROC) » 0.
GO TO 2157
IF (ANSWER .EO. <59.) GO TC 3500
TPLANTCPPARf , IPPOC) = A\SWFR
CCNTINUE
IF
FECLCS = TPLANT(PVAR.PECLFS)
LIMECS * TPLAMT
-------
FILE: F.E/iOl\ FCRTRAM PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
NE REA3INC ITYPE)
C
C
C REJOIN REA1S IN ANSWERS INP'JT SY THE USER. tFTEH
C EXAMINING THF VALUF TY»EO iNt THE S'JBROTUIN? SETS *IGOT1»
C S3 THAT ON RETURN TO TH= CALLING ROUTINE A CORRECT
C PRANCh CAN OCCUR. (USING "IGOTO* AND A COMPUTED GO TO
C IS A CLUMSY WAY OF GETTING AROUND THE IMCCKPAT IB IL IT I ES
C BETWEEN I3M ANO CPC WITH RESPECT TC MULTIPLE RETURNS
C «=RCM A SUBROUTINE.)
C I TYPE HAS A VALUF 0^ :
C FIXED = 1 = INTEGER VALUE IS EXPECTED
c FLOTE = 2 = BLOATING POINT VALUE EX°ECTEC
C ALOHA - 3 = ALPHANUMERIC EXPECTED
C IGCTC CAN BE SET Tp:
C 1 = PRINT FULL EXPLANATION OF QUESTION IF A *Q* WAS INPUT
C 2 = GO TO BEGINNING OF CALLING SU8RQTUINE IF A *M* WAS
C INPUT
C 3 - USE ASSUMED VALUF OF VARIABLE IF AN *A* WAS INPUT
C 4 = REPEAT E°.IEF QUESTION 3ECAUSE INCORRECT VALUE
C hAS INPUT
C 5 = CORRECT INPUT, F.ET'JRN AND CONTINUE PROCESSING
C
C COMVCN BLOCKS:
C PRGCNT - PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
COMMON /PRGCNT/ IGTTO, IANSW( FIXED, FLCTE, ALPHA
1 , YES, NO, ON, 0"
2 , ISCHM
3 , ID'J^Y, CUMVY
EOUIV«LENCE ( I ANSWP , ANSWE' )
INTEGF^ FIXEC, FLCTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN, OFF
CIMENSICN ISTCStdOl
REAL*S INTYPF, M/1HM/, C/1H3/, A/IHA/
LOGICAL*! D<8)
C D IS A ?U^^Y V^IA^LE TC ALLOW US T0 COUNT BYTES
INT£G£R*2 ITF^P, ID=C/l"./, I3L4NK/1H /, NEG/1H-/
CALLED BY:
CVMNTY
OTGLIM
E<=FLIM
INDLIM
INTIME
PLANT
SEWAGE
AUTHGP:
DAVID A
- READS
- REAOS
- READS
- READS
- REAPS
- F.EAOS
- READS
3ARNES
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
DESCRIPTION OF
REST* ICTIONS ON
EfFLUENT RESTRI
COMMUNITY
DETERGENT
CTIONS OF
PHOSPHATES
PLANT
INDUSTRIAL EFCLUENT RESTRICTIONS
Tl«E HCRIZQN
DESCRIPTION OP
DESCRIPTION CF
130CT72
TREATMENT
SEWAGE
PLANT
210
-------
FILf:
=fPT3AN PI
INTERACTIVE DMA CCR"OP AT I ON
1 , NUMS( 10) /lHOf 1H1, IH2 , 1H3? lH4,lH5flH6, lH7ilH8f IH9/
C THE CCMMCN 'JUS«/yt j 5 ijs = n TC p^CE CONSECUTIVE STORAGE IF
C THS JURE1!
COMMON
2010 FPf»WAT< Afl)
D, INTYPE, ITFMP
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
2050
C
2C70
C
3COO
C
4COO
C
C
C
C
C
C
ft****************************** ****** ft*?*** ****** **************
**«****<-****«4*t
START 5XECUTICM
****************
****************
4030
C
READ IN INPUT VALUE IN *4* FOPMAT
READ (5t2010tEND=5000) INTYPE
CHECK FOR 1ST ANH CNLY CHARACTER EQUAL TO *0*t *»<*t OR *A*
IF I INTYPE .NF. Q» GO TO 2050
RETIJRK TC PRINT FULL EXPLANATION QF QUESTION
IGOTO = 1
RETURN
IF (IMTYPE .ME. *} GO TO 2070
RETURN TO BEGINNING CF CALLING SUBROUTINE
IGOTO - 2
RETURN
I=( INTYPE .N?. A) G3 TO 3000
RETURN TC USE ASSUMED VALUE OF VARIABLE
IGOTG * 3
THEN RETURN
CCNTIN'J5
IF ALPHANUMERIC INPUT WAS EXPECTECi
IF tITYPE .NE. ALPHA) GC TO 4000
ANSWER * INTYPE
IGOTO » 5
RETURN
CONTINUE
CONVERT *A* FORMAT NUMBER READ IN TO AN INTEGER OR
FLOATING NUMBER
NSIGN » 0
1PLACE * 0
ITEMP » IBLANK
DETERMINE NUMBE" Oc CHARACETERS TYPED INt VALIDITY OF
CHARACTER! AND START CONVERSION
CO 4200 I - S,J6
SHICT BYTE TO LFFTMCST POSITION OF ITEMP
0(17) * C(I)
CHECK FCR NEGATIVE SIGN
IF UTEMP .NE. NEC) GC TO 4030
NSIGN » 1
GO TO 4200
CONTINUE
CHECK FOR BLANK MEANING END OF
IF (IT^MP .EQ. ISLANKJ GO TO 4300
CHECK FOR DECIMAL PCINT
211
-------
FRF: «FADI\' FORTRAN PI INTERACTIVE OATI CORPORATION
IP (ITS'tp ,N5. IQ£C) <-,o TC
IPLiCF = 1-8
Ic (ITYP? .FQ. CLCTE) GC TT 4200
ERR1R - OECIHiL POINT IN AN INTEGER
IGOTO = 4
C CHECK FOR VALID N'JMEOJC C
4040 03 4100 J = 1,10
Ie UT6MP . EQ. N'JVS
-------
FILF: REMOVE FCRTP4M P! INTERACTIVE DATA CCfPOP. AT ION
C
C
C THIS IS THE MAIN PROGRAM. IT USFS A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF
C A COVyWITY AMD A DESI&50 (INPUT BY USER) PHOSPHORUS CCNiTROL
C STRATEGY TO COMPUTE THE COSTS CF DIFFERENT TREATMENT SCHEMES
C •JHIO ACHIFVE A GIVEN PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT LEVEL. A REPORT C'J
C THE CCSTS FQC EACH SCHF^E IS THEN PRINTED.
C NOT1; I! THIS P^CGPA" WAS DESIGNED TO "UN ON AN I«M 360/67
C TIMr SHfKINj SYSTEM. S°EC I FI CALL Y, TH4T OF, INTERACTIVE
C DATA COfP.t WALTHtw, MASS. < 6 1 7-890-1234 ) .
C * CORE SIZE OF 28flK 3YTES WAS REQUIRED FOR EXECUTION.
C NOT? 2: THE BASIC STUCTIJGE CF THE COST EQUATIONS WAS TAKEN
C p!
-------
PILE: RevrvF PCRTKAN PI INTERACTIVE DAT*
c
C 7. MYSFLF
c
C 8. 'SEWAGE TPb'ATMFNT PALNT CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX', *PA-
C OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS.
C
C 9. 'WHHLESALE PRICES AND PRICE INDICES - INDUSTRIAL
C CPrtfdQITieS'i U.S. OEPT. OF LABOR.
C
C 10. 'COST2', A COMPUTER PROGRAM BY RICHARD EILERS OF
C EPA-CINCIWATI, OHia. 'COST21 COMPUTERIZES THE GRAPHS OF
C REFERENCE 6.
C
C II. PRIVATE COMMUNICATION WITH W.C. KRUMRI OF PROCTER
C £ GAMBLE, CINCINNATI, OHIO (513-562-2859) ON 6 SEP 72.
C HE SAID THAT ANY NUMBER FRC* -.05IFOR SOOIUM CARBONATE!
C TO +.26{FO» CITKIC ACIOI W&S VALID BECAUSE NO ONE
C SU3STANCF HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A PHOSPHATE SUBSTITUTE.
C
C 12. 'PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL1,
C BLACK C VEATCH, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, £PA PEPCW
C NO. 17010-GNP.
C
C 13. 'COST AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES FOR TERTIARY WASTEWATER
C TREATING PROCESSES', SMITH, ROBERT AND MCMICHAEL, HALTER
C F., EPA-CINCINN4TI, OHIO, JUN 69.
C
C 1*. 'EMPLOYMENT f. EARNINGS STATISTICS - WATER, STEAM,
C C SANITARY SYSTEMS (SIC V»4-*97I«, U.S. DEPT. OF LA90R.
C
C 15. 'PRFLIMIN4RY DESIGN AND SIMULATION OF CONVENTIONAL
C WASTEWATER "^NOVATION SYSTEMS USING THE DIGITAL
C CCMPUTER', ROBERT SMITH, EPA- CINCINNATI, MAR 68.
C THIS REPORT PROVIDES A THEORECTICAL BACKGROUND FOR
C REFERENCE 6.
C
c NUMEPIC CONSTANTS:
C .020825 - POUNOS/GAL FOR LIQUID POLYMER
C .029 » ASSUMED RATIO CF TRICKLING FILTER SLUDGE
C WASTING STREAM VOLUME TO INPUT VOLUME
C .075 » PCCNDS OF AIR/CUBIC FOOT
C .123 » POUNDS OF C02/ CUBIC FOOT
C .125 * ENOC1ENOUS RESPIRATION CONSTANT AT 20C
C .232 * BOUNDS OF 02/ POUND OF AIR
C .4902 * PCUNDS/GAL FOR LIQUID ALUM
C .6 ASSUMED FRACTION Oc MLVSS WHICH ARE ACTIVE
C .7 * ASSUMED RATIO OF MIXED LI3UCR VOLATILE
C SUSPENDcO SOLIDS TO *LSSA<*
C .7457 * KILP4ATTS/HORSEPOWER
C 1.5Q6 = WOO-STP INDEX FCP JAN 71 NATIONAL AVERAG= %
C 2.27 * POUNDS Oc FFCL2/POUNO OF FE
C 2.6 » POUNDS/GAL FQR CECL2
C 2.8S * i>CUNO OF FECL3/ POUND Oc FC
C 3.95 * POUNDS/GAL FOR FECL3
C 4.22 * POUNDS CT= NAAL/POUNC Oc AL
214
-------
FILE:
PI
INTERACTIVE DAT\ CORPORATION
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
5.4
5.4
6 .
7.48
8.33
11.
?4.
30.
60.
180.
365.
PCUN'JS/G*L FOR ALUM
(ASSUMED) PCUNOS/GAL FOR NAAL
ASSUME1!) OcPTH CF TRICKLING FILTER
GALL1MS/CU3IC "90T FQC WATER
PCUNOS/GAL FOR WATER
POUNDS OF ALMM/POUNO OF AL
HOURS/DAY
DAYS/M3NTH
MEDIA
2000.
43560.
ASSUMED CONCENTRATION OF SUS^END^D SOLIHS
TRICKLING FILTER SLUDGE WASTING STREAM
OAYS/YFSR
MINUTES/OAY
PCUNOS/TON
SQUARE FEET/ACRE
AUTHCR:
TAVID S BA'NES 09 FEB 73
SCNSLD CRNEH
JPF SCIENTIFIC CORP.
2 PAY AVENU?
aUPLINGTON, *!A 01803
(617-273-0270)
COMMON /PRGCNT/ I GOTO , IANSWP, FIXED, FLOTF., ALPHA
1 t Y5S, NO, CN, Occ
2 , ISCHM
3 t IOUVMY,
EQUIVALENCE ( IANSWS , ANSWER )
INTEGER
INTEGER
FIXED, FLCT-,
YES, CN, OFF
ALPHA
CPMMCN /PRNTR/ ISHCKT, ISUPER, ISKIP, IPASS, ISELCT(5)
COMMON /SCHEME/ SCHEME{25,25), ELGBTY(25),
1 , ALPYPS, FCPYPS, =CLMPS, LI^EPSt ALPYPB,
2 , ALUMAP, FECLA9, NAiLAB, ALAfiMF. FCA5««F,
3 , ALTFKF, FCTF^F, ALF3AS, FCFBAS, LIFSAS,
4 , FQUIP145)
MINEFPC25), MAXSCM
FCLMFB, LIMEFB
AL'JMTF, FECLTF
L2FBAS, NONE
INTEGER ELGPTY, 6CUIP, SCHEME
INTfGE" ALPYPS, CCPYPS, FCLMPS, ALPYF3, =CPYFB, FCLMC3, ALUMA3
i , FECLAB, ALABMF, FCAB^F, ALUMTF, FECLTF, ALTFI-F, FCTFMF, AL=RAS
2 , FCFPHS
REAL MINEFP
1010 FORMAT IIHO.'THIS is THE PHOS°HCSUS REMOVAL MODEL*)
6551 CORMAT (IH ,'S=LECT?'»
6554 FORMAT (IH .•OU YOU WISH 4 SELECTED LONG PRINTOUT? (YES OR N0»«)
6754 CDR"AT ( IH ,»MJM?ER QC SCHEME TO BE LHNG PRINTED (FIXED)1)
Z15
-------
FILE: orvpvr COET3AN °1 INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
7651 =3^MAT ( 1HO, •
7854 rns.vflT (IHO.'CC V.1U WISH TC TSY ANOTHER CONTROL STRATEGY (YES OR N
10) •)
9010 FORMAT
216
-------
Tii-j PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
GO TC 6^52
6555
GT TT 6S57
C556 CnNTINUc.
6557 CONTINUE
je (IANSW9 .FC. YES) r.C TC 6700
IF (IANSV>B .EQ. MO) GC TC 7BOO
GO TO fcSCO
C
C S?T UP SELFCTfO LONG PRINTOUT
6700 CONTINUE
isnrm = CCF
ISUP5R = OFF
ISKIP = CPF
OC 6600 1-1,5
ISELCT(I) = 0
6600 CONTINUE
LIM * 0
6710 LI* = LI? * I
6750 ORIKJT 6751
6752 CALL * c AT. IN ( F IXEO )
GO TO (6753,1000,6755,6750,6756), IGOTO
6753 PSINT 6754
GO TO 6752
6755 ISELCT(LIM) = 0
GC TO 6757
6756 ISELCT(Ll*» = lANSh1*
6757 CONTINUE
IF 1 ISILCTJLIM .NT-. 99 .AND. LIM .LT. 5) GO TC 6710
GO TO 3000
C
C ASK USER IF HE/SHE DESIPES TO TRY ANOTHER CONTROL STRATEGY
7800 CONTINUE
7650 PRINT 7851
7852 CALL Re AC IN(ALPHA)
GO TO (7853,1010,7855,7850,7856), IGOTO
7653 PRINT 7P54
GO TO 7952
7655 IANSWR - NO
GO TO 7657
7856 CONTINUE
7657 CONTINUE
IP (IA.NSKR .FC. YES) GO TO 2000
IF (IANSfc°. .EC. NO) GO TO 9000
GC TO 78CO
C
C ENO CF PROGRAM
C PRINT END
4000 CCNTIN'J5
PRINT 9010
CALL EXIT
5ND
217
-------
FILE:
FORTRAN PI
INTEPACTIVF DATA CORPORATION
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
A SUMMARY
T*E4TMtNT
OF THE COSTS
SCHEME.
ASSOCIATATEO WITH
PEPTRT
PIRP.-SF :
REPORT PRINTS
EACH ELIGIBLE
COMMCN BLOCKS:
OTRGNT - DETERGENT INFORMATION
L8RCST - COST Oc LA'iO"
LICUlC - INFO. ABfUT LIOUID INFLUENT
P3GCNT - CONTAINS PROGRAM C3NTPOL VARIABLES
PRNTR - CONTAINS PRINTOUT CONTROL VARIABLES
SCHEME - INFC ABOUT LIO'JIC TREATMENT SCHEMES
SEtePOP - THE SEWETD POPULATION
SLCHAR - SLUDGEt LIQ'IID CHARACTERISTICS
SLtOGE - SLUPGE INFO
SSINK - SOLIO SINK INPQRWATICN
TIWE - PARAMETERS OF TIME HORIZON
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS OF TREATMENT PROCESSES
TRTCST - TREATMENT COSTS
CALLEC BY:
REMOVE - THE MAIN PRCGPAV
AUTH3R:
DAVID A 3ARNFS
26
COMMON /CTKGNT/
DTRT.US. PCR4TH, PPRATO, DIFCOSi PRESPC
PDTRG , ENCCST, PSUBCS(20)f PCNTNT
REAL
COMMON /LPRCST/ DHR , ICFPACt GOVFF
CCMMON /LIQCIC/ ALKIPSi BOOIPS, MLSSAIf NH3IAR, PINPS, GAVE
1 , QPEAK, SSINPS, TBODAft
REAL MLSSAR,
COMMON /PRGCNT/ TGOTOf IANS4F* FIXEOt FLQTEf ALPHA
I , YES, NO, CK., OFF
2 , ISCHM
3 , IQiJw^Y, CU"^Y
PQUIVALENCE ( IANSW" , AN SnE" )
INTEGFR FIXED, cLCTt, ALPHA
INTFGF'< VrS, CfJ, OFF
COMMCN /PRNTR/ ISHQRT, ISJPER, ISKIP, IPASS, ISELCTI5I
218
-------
FILE:
c">PT(.AN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
COMMON /SCHEME/ S CHFv|E( 25 , 2 5 ), ELG6TYC25), MINEFPK25I, «AXSCM
1 , ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCLMPS, LIMFPS, ALPYFB, FCPYFB, FCLMPB, LIMEFB
2 , ALUMAE, FECLAH, NAALA6, ALAB-F,
3 , ALTFVF, FCTFMF, ALCBAS, FCF3AS,
4 , FQUIPU5)
NAABKF, ALUMTF, FECLTF
L2FBAS, NONE
INTFGER FLGPTY, EQUIP, SCHEME
INTEGER ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCL^PSi ALPYF9, CCPYFB, FCLMF3, ALUMA9
1 , FECL4B, ALAPMF, FCABMF, ALUMTF, FECLTF, ALTFMF, FCTFMF, ALC8AS
2 t FCFRAS
REAL MINEFP
CCMKON /SEHPCP/ FNCTYP, SCOPIN(2,5I, SEWPDPI20J
1 , YEA\, SPOP, MAXPV
INTEGER YEAP, SPOP, FNCTYP
COMMON /SLCHAP/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LBNVTS
PC02
OSSLGE
TLBSLG
WftPFC
PLIME
SRFE"=
WRFEA
C020
L6VPS ,
PFECL ,
CTOTAL,
TLBSS .
VGPLIM,
PYFTO ,
WPFEF ,
AARATO,
SRTLIM,
AOOSSR,
L8VSS ,
PNAAL ,
OTSLGE,
TLBTS ,
WOPNAL,
PYVFD ,
SRFEP i
FFRATO,
TSfrTUC,
ALKI/P FCVFD ,
LBVTS
PNACH
SRCAT
TLBVS
WOPNGH
PPOLY
SPALP
SRCATS
LI^ETO
LIMEPO,
PCLYD ,
SRLIME,
WGLBSS,
WOOPLY,
SRALF ,
WRALP ,
WRCATS,
BCDIAR,
LBN VPS,
LMVFC ,
PPCKL ,
TLBNVS,
WOPALM,
WCPPCK,
SRCATA,
WRFEP ,
WRALS ,
WOTLBS
LBNVSS
PALUH
QPSLGE
TLBOS
WOPC02
WRCAT
WRALF
WALA
W9FES
REAL LBNVPS, LBNVSS, LBNVTS, LBVPS , LBVSS , LBVTS
1 , LIMF.PC, LMVFO , L
COMMON /SLUDGE/ ASP , FLOTUO, GRAVUO, HPDFT , HPHVF , PSETUO
I t PSRMVE, V^PSLG, VSANR«1, VSARM
COMMON /SSUK/ TPNCST, SWASTE(20), SOLSNK< 2,15) , SSCOST(20)
1 , 9ESTSS(20), CAP, OISTi M4XSS
INTEGER BESTSS, CAP, OIST
COMMON /TI
INTEGER TP
"E/ NQYRS, M4XTP, TP$IZE, TP
COMMON /TPLANT/ TPl
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
q
RWPU^P,
MCHAER,
VACFTR,
PECRB2,
CC2FS ,
PNAMS ,
WVAR ,
MAXP
PRETRT,
FLOCCP,
GRVTKN,
CENFUG,
TFRST1,
NAALFS,
AMRATE,
PPARM ,
.ArjT(16,<
PRMSET,
SECSET,
FLOTKK,
MHINC ,
TERST2,
PCKLFS,
AMLIFF,
?ASF ,
t5)
^ E l P y p ,
A.NAOIG,
CBINC ,
NAOHFS,
PPA'w ,
APVAR ,
TRKFT»,
CLFEED,
AEROIG,
WSPONO,
FECLFS,
REC.ALC,
PVAP ,
PARMX ,
AERBSN,
CLBASN,
DRY3ED,
SLGOCN,
FLOCCT
WOPARH,
MINRV ,
OIFAIR
MULFTR
SLOTNK
RECR31
PCLYFS
WPA«1
MSXRV
INTEGER RWPUMP, PRETRT, PS«SET, PSPUMP, T8KFTR, AERBSN
1 , OIFAIR, FLCCCP, SECSET, REtPvP, CLFEEO, CL3ASN, RE2PMP
219
-------
FtPr".T
PI
INTERACTIVE DAT\ COSPORATIOr4
COMMCN /TSTCST/ 0MH3S ( 45 , 20 I • >'"HRS ( 45 , 20) ,
i , AMCOSTJ45), T=FAOD(45)
REAL MMHPS
INTEGER TPFiOC
DIMENSION LPRAVEK5), SPAVE
LFRAVE
TM«5(45,20)f CONCOS(45)
1551
1554
1151
1154
2010
2020
2025
2030
FORMAT
FORMAT
FORMAT
FORMAT
FOB MAT
=ORMAT
FORMAT
1 = »,F
FORMAT
(IH
11H
( IH
(IH
(IN
(IH
(IH
1.2)
(IH
1 ,' BOOS
2050
2130
FORMAT
I ,' S
FORMAT
(IH
.S.
(IH
,'SHORT?')
,'CO YOU WANT A SHORT
I'SUPE" SH01T7M
,'CC1 YOU WANT A SUPER SHORT
(1H1 ,'LIQUID TREATMENT SCHEME =
,'AMORTIZATION RATE =',C4.2
PRINTOUT? (YES OR NO)'1
PRINTOUT? (YES OR
',151
,' AMORTIZATION LIFETIME =•
,'FRACTION CF CONSTRUCTION COST FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT
,'BCD5 (INTO PRIMARY) = '.F4.0
(INTO SECONDARY) = »,F4.0)
,'SUSPENDED SOLIOS (INTO PRIMARY) = ',F5.0
(INTO SECONDARY) = '.F5.0I
(1HOi//IX,'PROCESS NA«E',4X ,'CONSTRUCT I ON',9X , •S IZING*,11X
1 ,'AMORTI7fcC COST',6X,'YEAR PROCESS'/16X
2 ,'COSTdOOO 1 )',6X,'PARAMETER',13X.MIOOO $ /TP)'
3 , 6X,'FIRST NEEDED'/)
2150 FORMAT (IH t3A4,7X,F9.3,5X,p10.3,2X,A4,IOX,F9.3,9X,F6.1)
2170 FORMAT (IH ,/lX,'TOTALS = • , 10X.F11. 3 ,28X, <=11. 3 )
3010 FORMAT (1HO,///30X,'PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS'/)
3030 FGRM4T (IH ,'PROCESS NAME',5X,•CPERATING IAN-HOURS•,3X
1 , 'MAINTAINANCE MAN-HOU"S•,8X,•MATER IAL £ SUPPLY CCST'f7X
ft ,'LABOR COST*
2 ,3X,'TOTAL CCM•/14X,2(5X,•(MAN-HOURS/TP)',5XI,14X,•( S /TP)',15x
3 ,'(AVER AGE)«,3X,'(1000S/TP)•/15X,212X,'AVE.• t4X,•MAX. •,4X,«MIN. •,
42XI.6X,'£VE.',BX,'MAX.',8X,'MIN.»,2X,«(1000S/TP)'/)
3050 FORMAT (IH ,3A4,2X,6(F6.0,2X),3(FIO.2,2X),2(F10.3,2X))
3C70 FORVAT (IH ,/lX,'TOTALS =',6X,6(F6.0,2X),3(FIO.2,2X),2(e10.3,2X))
4010 FT^MtT (1HO,///30X,'!)NIT CCST DAT A'/27X,'(CENTS/1000 GALLONS)'/)
4030 FORMAT (IH ,'PROCESS NAME ', 3X, • A-'HRTI ZAT ION ', 3X, ' LA8CR «
1 ,3X,'MATERIAL £ SUPPLY',3X,'TOT«L'/)
4050 FORMAT CH ,3A4,5X,C5.2,7X,C5.2,9X,F5.2 , IOX,F5.2)
4C70 FORMAT (IH ,/lX,'TOTALS =•,9X,=5.2,7X,F5.2.9X,F5.2,IOX,F5.2)
5010 FORMAT (1HO.///1X,'C^STS ne SU9TITUTFS FQ^ PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS')
5030 CORMAT (IH .'/VcPAGE (t/TP) = •,C10.0/1X,'MAXIMUM (S/TP) = •
1 ,F 10.0/1X, 'MlfiUMUM ($/TP) = '.FIO.O/1X, ' AVE« AGE (CENTS/1000 GAL)
2 = «,F5.2)
6030 FORMAT (1HO ,///20X,'SOLID SINKS COSTS'/)
6030 CORMAT (IH ,'TTME',5X,'SI M< ',3X,«AMOUNT SOL IDS',8X,'COST•/
1 lX,'P=.MOn USED (TONS)',J1X,M$/TP)')
220
-------
FOT^.N PI
INTERACTIVE DAT* CO«PO«ATI3\
6050 <=OP«ftT (1H ,I6,!7,6X,F10.2,3X,P10.2)
6070 FORMAT CM ,/?X, 'TOTALS =' ,9X, F ! 0. 2 , 3X
6090 FJRM£T (1H t/ttx,«UNIT COSTS FOR SOLID
1 GAL.) =',r!0.2)
.F10.2)
WASTE DISPOSAL (CENTS/1000
7020 FOPWAT (1H , 'TOTAL UNIT CTST (CENTS/1000 GAL) =',F5.1/)
£ ***««*?** ****** *« atttt***~«* *********
C **-ox***e*****f**
c **************** START EXECUTION
C » t*» »*»**** *3» *»
^ *****««*********«*****,: a***********
C
1000 CONTINUE
C
C IF THIS IS S5COMO P6SS THRU REPORT
C SCHEME, THFN EXECUTE LCN3 PRINTOUT
IF (IPASS .EQ. 1) GO TO 1200
DC 1150 I = 1,5
Ic (ISFLCT(I) .EQ. ISCHM) GO TC 2000
1150 CONTINUE
GO TO 9000
1200 IF (ISKIP .FO. ON) GO TO 1900
1500 ISHORT = OFF
ISUPER = CFF
ISKIP = CM
C
c ASK USER OF HE/SHE DESIRES A SHORT
1550 PRINT 1551
1552 CALL PEACIN(ALPHA)
GO TO (1553,1000,1555,1550,1556), IGO
1553 PRINT ] 554
GC TO 1552
1555 IANSW? = NO
GO TO 1557
1556 CCNTINUE
1557 CONTINUE
IF (IftMSWR .EQ. YES) GO TO 1605
IF (IANSV*R .FQ. NO) GO TO 1900
GP TO 1500
C
C . SET UP CORRECT TYPE OF PRINT OUT
1605 I SHORT = CN
C
C ASK USEP. IF HE/SHE DESIRES A SUPER
1750 PRINT 1751
1152 CALL REACIN(ALPHA)
****************************
****************
****************
****************
****************************
FOR A SELECTED
PP.INT OUT FOR ALL SCHEMES
SHORT PRINTOUT
GH TO (1753,1000,1755,1750,1756), IGOTO
1753 PRINT 1754
GO TO 1752
1755 I4NSW3 = NO
GC TO 1757
1756 CONTINUE
1757 CCNTINUF
Ic UAMSfe0 .EC. YES) GC TO 1805
ic (IANSW7 .EC. NO) GC TO 1900
221
-------
CILE: c?Pr?r FOrT^AN Pi INTERACTIVE DATA CCCPCR/TI ON
GO TO 15CO
C
C SFT UP CTRRECT TYPE OF P3T1TOUT
1805 ISUPFK = JN
1900 CCNTIN'Jt
2000 CONTINUE
C
C PRINT SCHEME NAVE, AMORTIZATION RATE, AMORTIZATION LIFETIME
PRINT 2010, ISCHV
IF (ISUPER .EQ. ONI GO TO 2100
PRINT 2020, TPLANT(A'4PATE,1), TPLANT(AMLIFE,I)
PRINT 2025, GCVFc
C IF SChEMF IS CHEMICALS TO PRIMARY PRINT 9005 AND SS
I<= (ISCHW .GT. 8) GO TO 2100
P'UMT 2030, ecrips, PODIAP
SSINS = SSU.PS - (SSINPS*PS3MVE*ADDSSR)
P^INT 2050, SSINPS, SSIN«
2100 CCNTINUF
C
C PRINT CCNSTPUCTION COSTS
IF (ISUPER .SO. OFF) PRINT 2130
TOTCON * 0.
TOTAMC = 0.
00 2900 IPSCC * l.MAXP
IF (FQLIIPI IPROCI .EC. OpF) GO TO 2900
TOTCON = TOTCCN * CONCOS(IPSOC)
TOTAMC * TOTA"C * AMCOST(IP*OC)
YP.CA3D = TPFAODUPFCC)*TPSIZE + SPOP IN( YE
IF JISHORT .EC. OFF)
I PRINT 2150i (TPLANT(J,IP*OC),J=1»3), CONCOS1
2 , TPLANTIEPARM, IPROC), TPL ANT ( PA»«1X ,1 PRCCI , A«COST( IPRCC)
3', YRFACC
2900 CONTINUE
IF (ISUPER .EG. DFFt
1 PRINT 2170, TOTCON, TOTAMC
3000 CCNTINUE
C
C PRINT PERIODIC OPERATING COSTS
I" (ISUPER ,5C. ON> GO TO 3100
PRINT 3010
PRINT 3030
C
C ZERO COLUMN TOTALS
3100 CCNTIMUE
CTQPAV = 0.
CTOPMX = 0.
CTOP^N - 0.
= 0.
= o.
* o.
CTSPAV =0.
CTSP«X = 0.
CTSPMN = 0.
CTLBAV = 0.
CTAV5T = 0.
222
-------
FILE:
FORTRAN PI
INTERACTIVE
CO=POPATION
on 3900 IPS.OC = I.MAXP
IF |EO'.MP< IPRCC) ,EQ. OFF) GO TO 3900
OP = 0.
UP = 0.
QOMAX = -1.
OPMIN = 1.F10
A* = 0.
= -1.
' I.E10
SP = 0.
SPMAX = -1.
SPMIN * l.F. 10
00
OP
AM
SP
TOTAL UP "AN-HDURS AND COSTS
?eoo
* OP
= AM
= SP
OFMAX
TP = 1,MAXTP
* AKAX1(C*HRS( IPRaC,TP),O.I
* APAXUMMH3S( IPRQC.Toj.o.l
* AfAXKTMS (IPPOCjTP),0.I
*MAXKOPKAX,O^HPS< IPPOC.TPH
SPMAX * AMAX1«SPMAX,TMS (IP"nCfTP»l
OP.MIN » AKIM (QPMIM,QMHRS( IPF 3CfTPl }
AMMIN = AMJM (AMMIN, MMHR$< IPRDCtTPI )
SPMIN = AMIN1(SPMIM,T««S
-------
Flic- 3TppjT eCc'T^AN P) INTERACTIVE DATA CCOPQRATION
C PRINT UNIT C:STS
IF CISUT1 .FS. ON) 00 TT 4100
P1SP = «SPAVE(IPPOC)/(365.*T»SIZEI )/<=L HAVE 1*100.
«CHTOT = UA^C * UL3U. * UMSP
CTUA^C = CTLA^C * UAMC
CTULB9 « CTL'LPR + ULflR
CTUMSP = CTUMSP * UMSP
CTRT - CTRT * ROWTOT
IF (ISHORT .EC. OFF)
1 PRINT 4050, (TPLANTUtlP'.OOtJ*! f3)» U4"C, UL3R, U«*SPf ROWTOT
4900 CCNTIN'JE
IF ( ISUPER .EC. CF«-|
1 PRINT 4070, CTUAVC, CTULBR, CTUMSP, CTRT
5000 CCNTINJ5
C
C PRINT COSTS OF SUBTITUTES FOR PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS
P - 0.
PMAX * -1.
P*!N » 1.F10
DO 5500 TP * 1,1AXTP
P » P «• PSUBCSJTP)
PMAX » S»»axi(FHAX,PSiJRCSITP»)
PMIN « lINHPi'INtPS'JBCStTp) )
5500 CCNTINUE
IF IP .LT. C.) GO TO 5900
PAVE » P/^AXTP
UP * «P4VE/«?65.*TOSim )/FLWAVF)"«lOO.
ie (ISUPFa .=0. CNI fiO TO 5900
PRINT 5010
POINT 5030, PAVE, PHAX, P«MN, UP
5900 CPNTIN!UC
C
6000 CONTINUE
224
-------
FILE: prprsr crF'PAN PI INTER4CTIVE DATA CORPORATION
c
C PC I NT COSTS IF SHLID SINKS
fc CIS'jnE* . = 0. ON) r,n T,-) 4100
PPINT 6110
P3INT 6030
6100 CONTI^U?
CTSSCS = 0.
CTSfcST * 0.
00 6500 TP = l.MAXTP
C USE 1. INSTEAD CP 0. PEC4USP CF 1CUNO-OFF
IE
-------
MLF: SCHOSr.
P)
INTERACTIVE DATA Cr»POR AT IQfl
SUBFOUTINE S
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
/•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SCfOSF PICKS TH" SL'IT-.F HANDLING PROCESSES (FOUIPMENT) /JHICH
««E PCTI-:
1. NECESSARY FOP i PARTICULAR LIQUID TREATMENT SCHFVE
2. CONrORM MOST CLCSFLY WITH THF PRESENT PLANT CONFIGURATION
SCHHSF ALSO CONSTRUCTS \ COMPLETE LIST OF NECESSARY
EQUIPMENT FOP THIS SCHEME
COM^'C^ BLOCKS:
PRGCNT - PROG^'A*' CCrjT=.nL VARIABLES
SCHEME - REOUIPEO LIO'JID HANDLING EQUIPMENT
SLGSCM - REQUIRE? SLUOGC HANDLING EQUIPMENT
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS CF TREATMENT PLANT PROCESSES
CALLEC BY:
TRTMNT - THE MAIN CDSTING SUBROUTINE
AUTHOR:
CAVID A BARNES
26 CF.C 72
CJMMCN /P^GCNT/ IGOTG,
1 , YES, NC, CN, 0CF
2 , ISCH^
FIXED, FLOTE, ALPHA
EQUIVALENCE (IA
INTEGF-? FIXEC, FLCTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN, CFF
COMMON /SCHEME/ SCHEM=<25,25), CL08TY(25), MINEFP(Z5)f MAXSCM
1 , ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCLVPS, LIMEPS, ALPYFB» FCPYFB, FCLMFB, LIMEFB
2 , ALUMAB, FECLA", NAALA3, ALA3"F, ^CASMF, NftABMF, ALUMTF, FECLTF
3 , ALTFMF, FCTFMF, ALc8iS, CCFBAS, Ll^BAS, L2F8AS, NONE
4 , EQtJIP<
-------
fll.t: SCHObE FOHTtAN PI 1NUPACTIYE UA1A CfWOKAT I UN
7 , PNAME , AMi-ATF, AMLIIC, f'PAP" , PVAR , W'JPARM, wPAtt*
8 , HVAM . OP ARM , BASE , APVAR , PAP. MX , H|NRV , MAXKV
9 , KAXP
INTEGER RWPUMP, PKF.1RT, PRKSFT, PSl'UKP, TKKFT't, AFFU'SN
I , OIFAIK, FLCCCP, StCSIT, RC1PMP, CLFEEC, CLRASN, 4E2PXP
? , CRVTKK, FL( TKN, AS'ACIG, AFROIG, CRYL'Et), SL01NK, VAC^TH
j , rrNFUG, FniNC , WSP'JN^, SLOUCN. BECPHI, UK""?, IIRSTI
4 , T(RST2, AlU'lFSf FtCLFS, PCIIYFS, CC2f S . , PCKLFS, '(FCfllC
5 , PNAMfc , *Ma/vrfc', A^LKf, PI'ARM , PvAD , W)P\R», wP&PM
6 , WVAR , PP/HI , FLOCCT, BASE , AI'VAR , PAK^X
DIMENSION
£ »***4««*t«»**»*<>*»»»*<>«t***t**<-<'*»««*»«»«*»**t««t»*»*»***»»**»*
^ (r t« «««*•< ««»»»*» START F.XFCIITICN »<•*»»»» •*««»»»».
£ «•»»»»«***<*•«**»*«»»**«««****»*•»**»*««*«**»«(.««»*»«**«««»«•»»
C
1000 CONTINUE
C
C RESTORE NEGATIVE PPARMS IF THEY HAVE BEFN SAVEU FROM BEFORE
IF (1SK .NE. CM) GO TO 1900
DO 1500 IfSCC = l.MAXP
TPLANT IPPARK,I'>,^UC) = SAVNEG ( I PROC )
1500 CONTINUE
1900 CONTINUE
I * 0
C
C CHOOSE THICKENER, DEFAULT IS GRAVITY THICKENER
1-1*1
SLGSCMtI ) - CCV1KN
II- (TPL ANMPI'AsM,ri.UTKK) .E3. 0.) GO TO 2100
I » I » 1
SLGSCM( I ) - FI.OTKN
2100 CONTINUE
C
C CHOOSE DIGESTERi DEFAULT IS NONE
1=1*1
SLGSCMU) = 0
IF ( TPl ANT(PPAKM,AERDIC) .NE. 0.) SLGSCMU) = AEROIG
IF (TPLANT( PPA- .NE. o.) MGSCMUJ = CENIUG
C AUU SLUOGI ir.JLOING TANK FOR VACUUM MLTL'R AND CENTRIFUGE
IF" ISLGSCM(|» .EU. Of LIME FflDING ANO STORAGE FOI VACUUM riLTf«
22?
-------
CILF: SCHPS" cCiRTrAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
IF (SLGSCM(I-1) .F3. CENF'JG) r,0 TO 2?00
I = 1*1
SLGSC1II) = LIVE=S
I = 1*1
SLGSC^II) = FECLFS
c
C CHOOSE INCINERATOR , DEFAULT IS NONE
2200 CONTINUE
1 = 1*1
SLGSCVII) = 0
IF «TPLANT|PPA<5Mf FHINC I .NE. O.I SLGSC*(I» = FBINC
IF (TPLANTCPP/PM,MHINC ) .NE. 0.) SLCSC^U) = MHINC
C
C CHCJOSF W^STE STABILIZATION POND, DEFAULT IS NONE
2300 CTNTINUE
1 = 1*1
SLGSCM(I) = 0
IF (TPL4NT(PPAPM,WSPONC) .MF.. 0.) SLGSCM(I) = WSPOND
C
C CHOOSE SLUCGE L6GOON, DEFAULT IS NONE
I =* I * 1
SLGSCMJ11=0
IF (TPLANT(P?APMtSLGQON) .NE. 0.) SLGSCMJI) = SLGOON
C
C IF LICUIC TREATMENT SCHEME IS A TERTIARY LIME SCHEMEt
C THEN USE RECALCINATION
I * I * 1
SLGSC^I11=0
IF ((ISCI-M .EO. LIFBAS) .OR. ( ISCH* .EQ. L2FBASI)
1 SLGSCfMIl = R5CALC
C
C CONSTRUCT CPHPLETE LIST OF NECESSARY EQUIPMENT FOR THIS
C STRATEGY
C
3000 CONTINUE
C
C INITIALIZE WHOLE LIST TC 'OFF'
00 3050 IPftCC = 1,MAXP
EOUIP(IPKOC) = OF*
3050 CflNTI^UE
C
C TURN «CN' REQUIRED PROCESSES COMVGN TO ALL SCHEMES
= ON
FOUIPJPRETRT
= ON
ECUIP«PSPJMP
PQUIP( SECSET
E3UIPFVE< ILIQ.ISCMM) .Nt. 0» ECUI P« SCHEME (IL 10, ISCHM ) | s o\
3100 CONTINUE
228
-------
FILE: sent s? CHPTSAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA
c
C CILL TQUIP WITH MECESSAS* SLUDGE PROCESSES
On 3200 ISLG = Itl
1= I SlCSr.^l ISLT- ) .NE. O) eCUIP(?LGSCM< ISLOI ) = CN
3200 CCNTINUE
C
C Ic DPACM ic NEGATIVE, TH=N CHANG? TT TC ZERO
ISK = CN
DO 35UO IPCCC - ltMAXP
SftVNEGl IP^HC ) = TPLANTCPPAR^.IP^CC)
IF ( TPLANT (ppaqM, IPk3C ) ,1_T. 0.) TPLANTI PPARM , IPROC ) = 0.
3500 CTNTINUF
C
C FND OF SC9«0'JTINE SCHQSE
3ETURN
ENO
229
-------
IL F:
PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CC°PnpATIOM
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
PlHPCSf :
S=WAGF SCADS IN VALUES FOR VARIABLES rtHICH DESCRIBE THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF TH = SEWAGE.
NOTE: ASSURER VALUES OP VARIABLES A.RF FRO" RCF. 10.
CO^CN BLOCKS:
LIQUID - LIQUID IMCL'JF'JT INFORMATION
PRGCNT - CONTAIN? PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
SL(J3Gf - SLUDGE 1NCCRMATION
CALLEC 8Y:
SYSTEM
AUTHOR:
CAVIC A
27 DEC 72
CCMMON /LI'JtIC/ ALKIPS, PODIPS, MLSSAR, NH3IAR, PINPS, OAVE
1 , QPEAK, SSINPS, TBQOAR
1EAL MLSS4R, NH3IAR
/P"GCNT/ IGOTO,
1 t YES, NCt C^, OFF
2 , ISCHW
3 , IDU.IA'Y, CU^MY
FIXED, FLQTE, ALPHA
EQUIVALENCE ( IANSWF ,
INTEGER FIXEC, FLOTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN, CFF
/SLUCGE/ ASD , FLOTUO, GRAVUD, HPOFT , HPOVF , PSETUO
, PSPMVE, VFPSLG, VSANSM, VSARM , TScTUO
1010
1051
1054
1151
1154
Z25i
125<»
1351
1354
1551
1751
175*
ieci
I 854
1-551
FORVATtIH
FIRMATdH
IH
IH
FOIMiTdH
(IH
C03MAT(IH
Fn'^AT
•NH3 C'JMC. INTO AERiTION PROC (MG/L)1)
•CHGSDHrl-US CCNC. INTO PRIMARY SETTLER (MG/L)')
E= ' I
flVrPA^E CJ4ILY
•°PFSEKT PEAK TI'JRNAL FLOW
•SSINPS=')
'SLS0fcNOED SOLIDS CO\C. INTO PRIMLY SETTLER (MG/L)')
230
-------
FILE: $r-iAf,t C.-"?TRAN "I INTERACTIVE D«TA CORPORATION
1<354 ctiRN-MC.^ ,'TOTAL CHANGE IN B035 iC°CSS AECATICN PROCESS (FRACTICN
2051 FO«"AT( i(- ,iASn=»}
2054 F^RMMUH , 'ACTIVATE1} SLUTGE DENSITY (FRACTION)'*
2154 ensMiTdh j'CLCTATUIN THICKER UNDERFLOW SLUDGE DENSITY (FRAC)*»
2254 C0«M\T(1H ,'GRAVITY THICKNER 'JNOEPFLCW SLUDGE DENSITY (FPAC)')
2354 PCSVATdH , 'PRIMARY SETTLER UNTF&FLOV. SLUDGE DENSITY (FRACI'I
2451 FORK5T(iH ,'V'PSLO=')
2454 FOP^iTdH ,'VCL\THE CPACTIDN FCP PRIMARY SLUDGE')
2554 FOPMAf
-------
FILf! SCWJ'~,F CC"T5JN PI INTERACTIVE DAT* CORPORATIO',
Gf TO (l?53,1000,l?55,1250,l?56), K.OTO
1253 P-"INT 1254
GO TL1 1252
1255 MLSS6
1457 CCNTINUE
1550 PRINT 1551
1552 CALL ^EACIN(=LOTEI
GO TO (1553,1000,1555,1550,1556), IGOTO
1553 PRIM 1554
GC TO 15«2
1555 QAVE - 10.
GO TO 1557
1556 QAVE * AKSHER
1557 CONfPJUE
1750 PRU'T 1751
1752 CALL REACIMFLOTEI
GO TO (1753,1000,1755,175(1,1756), IGOTO
1753 PRINT 1754
GO TO 1752
1755 OPEAK « 19.
GC TO 1757
1756 QPPAK = ANShS"?
1757 CONTINUE
1850 PRIKT 1951
1852 CALL PPACINIFLOTEI
GO TH (1853,1000,1855,1850,1856), IGOTC
1853 PKIVT 1854
GO TO 1852
1955 S$IK?S = 200.
GO TO 1957
1656 5?IK°S = ANShf6.
1€57 COMTIMUS
1950 »RI\T IS51
1S5? CALL ?-ACIN(=LOT-)
GO TO (1953,1000,1955,1950,1956), IGOT3
232
-------
S-.WAC.r cfpTRfi.M P1 INTERACTIVE CAT \ CORPORATION
o^INT 1<354
GH TO ..S57
T2CCA* = .85
GO Tn 1957
1956 T30DA3 = At SnEP
l«557 CCNTINU?
2000 CCNTINUr
C FEiD IN SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
2050 P'lNT 2051
2052 CALL RfADIN(FLOTE)
GC TO (2053,?000,2055,2050,20561, IGOTO
2053 P^INT 2054
GO TO 2052
2055 ASD = .01
GO TO 2057
2056 ASD = ANSWEP
2C57 CCNTINUE
2150 P^INT 2151
2152 CALL RE4CIN(rLPTE)
GO TO (2153,2000,2155,2150,2156), IGOTO
2153 PRINT 2U4
GO TO 2152
2155 PLOTUD = .05
GO TO 2157
2156 FLOTUO = ANSWER
2157 CONTINUE
2250 PRINT 2251
2252 CALL R E AC I N( f=LOT6 )
GO TO (2253,2000,2255,2250,22561, IGOTC
2253 PRINT 2254
GO TO 2252
2255 GHAVUO = .08
GO TO 2257
2256 GPAVin = ANSW?P
2257 CONTIMJE
2350 PRINT 2351
2352 CALL REACIN(PLOTE)
GO TO (2353,2000,2355,2350,2356), IGOTO
2353 P<*INT 2354
GO TO 2352
2355 •PSETUO = .05
GO TO 2357
2356 PSETUD = ANSKER
2357 CONTINUE
2450 PRINT 2451
2452 CALL 'EACIN(FLOTc)
GO TO (2453,2000,2455,2450,2456), IGOTO
2453 P^INT 2454
GO TO 2452
2455 VPPSLS = .78
GO TO ?457
2456 VFPSL3 = ANShE?
2457 CONTINUE
2550 P°.INT 2551
2552 CALL ^FACIN(FLOTE )
233
-------
= ILE: Srw/>0f c'_; s T * J N PI INTERACTIVE DATA CC^P^P AT I ON
GT T! (2553.20JO,25'»5,255i),2556) , IGOTC
255? PRINT 25ft
GC TO 255?
2555 VSANs* = .5
G? TC1 2557
2556 VSAK°y = A\SUF°
2557 CT\'TlNUr
2650 DP INT 2651
265? CALL UfAUN (FL3TFJ
GQ TO (2653,2000,2655,2650,2656), ! GCTO
2653 PRINT 2t54
GO TO 2«5?
2655 VSASM = .5
GO TC 2657
2t56 VSAP* = ANSWER
2657 CCNTINUE
2750 PPINT 2751
2752 CALL FEACIN(FLCTF)
GO TO (2753,2000,2755,2750,2756), IGrTO
2753 PRINT 2754
Gfl Tn 2752
2755 HPO^T = 8.
GO TO 2757
2756 HPOrr = A'JSkFF
2757 CCNTINUE
2650 PSINT 2951
2852 C41L Pt^CI^(':LOTE)
GC TO (2853,2000,2355,2fl50,2856), IGCT3
285? Phi NT ,?854
GO TO 2852
2655 HPDVF = e.
GO TO 2857
2856 HPOVC = ANShER
2657 CCKTINL?
2950 PPU'T 2S51
2S52 CALL °EACIN(CLCTEJ
GO TO (2953, 2000, 2<>55, 2<550,20561, IGOTO
2953 P^INT 2954
GC TO 29J?
2S55 PSS»«VE *> .5
GH TO 2957
2956 PSPWVE =
2S57 CONTINUE
C
C ENO 0«
RFTl
END
234
-------
= 11!
INTERACTIVE DATA COLORATION
£ SI2F
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
r
C
c
c
c
SIZ'. COMPUTES PPR THfj C'J'JRFNT TT4E PERIOD ITP), THE
INCfPFNCENT SIZING PARAMETERS FO* EACH PROCESS WITH/WITHOUT
PHOSPHORUS PEMOVAL TPEATVFNT.
PLCCKS:
- INCLU=NT A\C ECCLUENT LIMITS
- LIQUID INFLUENT INFORMATION
- PROGRAM CfNTftCL VAPIAPLES
- IN=0 ABOUT LIQUID TRP4TM?NT SCHEMES
- SLUDGEiLIOJlOiCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
-PPQUIPEO SLUDGE HANDLING EQUIPMENT
- SLUDGE INFIRMtTICN
- THE SEWERtO POPULATION
- SOLID SINK INFORMATICS
- PARAMETERS OF TINE HORIZON
- CHARACTERISTICS OF TREATMENT PLANT PROCESSES
SUBROUTINES CALLED:
TSCHME(ES> - INITIALIZES IN ORDER TO SIZE WPARM
CALLEC PY:
TRTMNT - THE MAIN COSTING SUBROUTINE
AUTHORS
DAVID ft 3ARNES 12QCT72
IIOUID
PRGCNT
SCHEME
SLCHAP
SLGSCM
SLUDGE
SFHPOP
SSINK
TIME
CC*!VON /lELI^T/ IELIMT(2f 20)
1 , INF, EFC
R5AL IELIMT
INTEGER EFF
COMMON /LIQUIC/ 6LKIPS, B3CIPS, MLSSAR, NH3IAP, PINPS, QAVE
1 , QPEAK, SSINPSt T9QDAP.
REAL
NH3UR
COMMON /PPGCNTX IGOTO, IANSWR, ^IXEO, =LOT?t ALPHA
1 t YES, NO, CN, OFF
? , ISCMM
3 , IDUMMY, DUMMY
EQUIVALENCE ( I ANSV.O , ANSWER )
INTEGER Fixrc, PLCTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, OM, OFF
COMMON /SCH?H=/ SCHE«=(25,25), ELG°TY«25),
1 . ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCLMPS, Ll"FPS, AL«>YFP,
2 , ALUMAB, FECLAB, NAALAP, »H9MF,
3 , ALTF^F, FCTFMC, ALF3i$, FCC9AS,
MINE?PI25),
FCPYFB,
NAAH»«F,
L2FBAS, NCNE
MAXSCM
LI*EF»
235
-------
f ILT:
PI
INTERACTIVE H
CCSPCRATION
E U'J I P ( 4 5 )
FLGPTV, EOUIP,
INTEGER ALPYPSi PCPYP£, FC
I , CECLAB, AL*?MF, FCA8VF,
2 ,
ALPYCB, ^OPY^, FCLM=9, ALU"A3
FECLTF, ALT=«F, FCTF«-|ef ALpRAS
C3MWCN /SEVsPOP/ FNCTYP, S PO" I N ( 2 , 5 ) , SEWPOP(20)
1 i YEA", SPPPi
INTEGER YEAR, SPOP, FNCTYP
N /SSINK/ TSNCST, SWASTF(20), SOL SNK ( 2 , 1 5 I , SSCnST(20)
1 i BESTSS(20), C*P, DIST, MAXSS
INTEGER etSTSS, CAP, HIST
CCMMC'IN /SLCHAP/
L3NVTS? LPVPS , L'WSS
PCCJ2 , PCECL , PNAAL
OSSLGE, CTCTAL, OTSLGE
TIRSLG TLPSS , TLBTS
WOPFC WCPLIM, WOPfJAL
PLIMC PYFTO , PYVFD
SRFEF WRFFF , SRFEP
WR^E/i AARATO,
CO?D
ADnSSF, 4LKIAF
L6VTS
PNAOH
TLSVS
PP3LY
SRALP
SRCATS
TSETUD, LINFTH
FCVFD , LBNVPS, LBNVSS
LIMEPC, LMVCD t PALIJ"
PCLYD , DPCKL , QPSLGE
SRLIMF, TLBNVS, TLSPS
WCLBSSt WOPALM, WCPC02
WOPPLY, WQPPCK, WRCAT
SRALF , SRCATA, WRALC
WP.ALP , WRFEP i WRALA
WRCiTSt WRALS . WRFE5
BCOIAP, WOTLRS
REAL LBNVPS, LRNVSS, L9NVTS, LflVPS , L8VSS , L3VTS
I t LIMEPDi L"VFD , LIVFTO
COMMON /SLGSCM/ SLGSCM<20)
INTEGER SLGSCf
CCMMGN XSLUCGE/ A5D , FLOTUO, GPAVUtS HPOFT , HPOVF , PSETUO
I v PSRMVEt VFPSLG, VSANPM, VSAR«
CTMMCN /TIVE/
INTEGER TP
"AXTP, TPSIZE. T?
CCMMCN /TPLANT/ TPLANT(16,45)
I f R-IPJMP, PRETRTi P^MSET, PSPUVP,
2 t VCHA = R, FLCCCP, SSCSET, RFI.OMP,
3 . P62PMP, GRVTKN, FLOTKN, AfiiDIf,, SEROIG,
4 , VACeTR, CENPiJG, HHINC , CBINC
5 , C£CRa2, TFPST1, 1
6 , C02FS , NiALcS, F
7 , PN4ME » *MRiTEt A^Lirtt -r*"." ,
8 , WVA~ , SPARS , BASF , APVA" ,
R, AE^SN, OICAIP
CLRASN, MULPTP
SLOTNK
PLOCCT
HOP ARM,
MINRV . MAXRV
INTEGER P.WPUUP,
1 , OI=AI=, FLCCCP,
2 , GRVTKN, FLCTKN, ANAQIG, AP
PSP'JVP, TSK^TR,
CLPEEO, CL"ASN,
CIG, CRYQFO, SLDTNK, VACFTR
236
-------
F ILF
PI
INTEPACTIVE DATA CO»PORATION
c
c
c
r
C
C
1000
c
c
c
c
2COO
c
c
c
c
c
c
3 t Cc\FUCt FSINC , WSPCNi), SLr,GCN, RECK61,
4 . TEPST2, ALUV^S, FFCLFS, POLYPS, CC2FS ,
5 » PNA 4E > A^PATF, A*ILIeEt °PA°M t PVAR
6 , WVAS , 6PAPM , FLnCCT, BASF , APVAR j
PEAL LBCC, PLVSS
****»*«***********«****,:,,***,**,»***,,„
**** » ** A***** ***
****»*i*****»*±4 START EXECUTION
***A ************
»=»e**T*"***x*************ft4***c,»*t<»**^R
.7 = 70 PER CENT ocwcVAL 0<
SSRTF = .7*(1 ,-PSK^VE ) *SS!N°S
LBVSS = SSRTF*VCDSLG*QAVE«PQPR*3.33
LBNVSS = SSPTc*(l.-vcPSLG)*QAVE*POPR*8.33
TLBSS = LBVSS * L3MVSS
QTOTAL = QTCTAL + OSSLGF
TLBNVS = TLPNVS + L3NVSS
TLRVS = TLBVS * L^VSS
TLBSIG = TLBSLG » TLBSS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN FILTER
237
-------
FIIF: SIZt CPPTFAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
< "^3560. *6. *F.QUIP(
t>VAP,Ta«FTRI*lOOO. )
207C CCNTnU =
Ic (FQUIPJAFPESN) -EO. OFF) GO TO 2090
FOOP = TP1CiP*RODIA3
MLVSS = .7*VLSSA3
VA5P = *8)
TPLANT(HPPAR«,MJLFTR) - Q
-------
FIlc: SIZf FCRTPfN PI INTERACTIVE DATA
PV A3
QTOT4L = GO TO 2170
TPLANT< WlPftRM,ANADIG) * ( TPL ANT ( PVA" , AN ADI Gl *E3U IP ( ANAOI G)
I *3TQTftL*lOOO.>/7.48
TENSS = TLBVS / *EQU1«> ( VAC^TR )
1 /(TPLANT»PVAR,VACFTR)*HPDVF)
CCN * « ITLBNVS * TL3VS ) *EQ'JI P{ "HINC )
1 /TPLANT(PVARfMHINC)
TPL#NT(wr?PAOK,F3INC ) = ITL^NVS * TLBVS »*EOUtPJ
Ic «EOUIP(XHINCI .FQ. CN .OR. EQUI PI FRI NC I ,EQ. ON)
1 TLBVS = 0.
TPLANTIrtOPAOw.WSPGNCI » 0.
TPLANT( WG3i(
-------
MLF:
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
C
c
CHEMICAL HANDLING PrlCC?SS6S
C
c
c
c
4COO
c
c
c
c
c
c
W30CO? = PCC2
W9PFC = PCECL
= PNAAL
W2PNOH
WTPPCK
WO°PLY
PPCKL
T PLANT) wOPAOM , =ECLFS »
TPLANTtWOPAFK.LIfFFS)
TPL AMT (WOPARM»°3LYFS)
TPLANT(WCPARM,C02 FS )
TPLANT(WO-»ARM,.MAALFS)
PALUM/ll.*FflUIP(ALUMFS)
PFCCL/2.89*EQUIP«FECLFSI
PUIME*EQUIP(LIMEFS)
r>PnLY*5CUIPSRMVE*ADDSSR)*OAVc*POPR*VFPSLG*8.33
*(1.-VFPSLGI*SRLIM=/8.33)*QAVE*PCPR*8.33
L3VPS * LBNVPS
TLBNVS * LBNVPS
TLBVS * LBVPS
TLBSLG * TLBPS
» TLePS/(PSETUD*(10.**6.)*8.33)
OTOT^L + OPSLGE
QAVF*PCPR*8.33
PALU*
PFECL
PLI^E
PpCLY
• WRALP*I?LI*'TUNPfTP)*AARATO*CON
* WRFEP*IELIMT(INFfTP)*FFRATQ*CON
* LI"EPO*CCN
* POLYO*CON
PRMSETI a C3AVE*POPR*1000.*ECUIP
-------
f ILE: sm
FCBTFAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
SnLIDS IM FJLTF?
;'. = .02<5»OAvE*pr:pR
C .7 * 70 PfB CENT REMOVAL Oc
LBVSS = SS3TF*VFPSLG*0*VE*P)PR*B.
LBNV'S = ( SSC TF*( l.-VFPSlr.l+W'ALF'
1 +SRfE?*rfRFEF*IfLIMTMNF.TP)»*9 AV6»POP<**8. 33
TLBSS * LRVSS * L«NVSS
CTPTAL - QTCTAL * CSSLG?
TLBN'VS = TL6NVS * LBNVSS
TLBVS » TLBVS » LBVSS
TLBSLG a TLPSLG * TLBSS
PALUM * PALUV » WRALF*IELI^T(INF,TP)*AARATO*CDN
PFECL = PFECL » W?=EF*IELIMT(INctTP)*FFRATO*CON
TPLANTIWPARP, TRKFTR1 = OAV E*PC1PR*43560.*6.*EQ'JIP( TRKFTR )
1 /(TOLANT(MVAR,TFKFTR)*1000.)
'LSSAR
VAEP * (TPLAMT(1.VVAR,AER9SN)/2'».)*QAVE*PO[»R
TPLANTt wPARM, AERBSN) - ( VA'P / 7.48) *lOOO.*(rQUI P< AERBSN)
URSS = USO*10000.)/MLSSAR
RTUPN « (l.-1.08*cnOO/1LVSS * I,25*VAER/(3AVE*POPR))/(URSS-1.)
IF (RTURN .LT. 1.) RTURN = ?.
LBOD = C.58*FCOO*OAVE*PnPR4-l.l6*.l25*VLVSS*.6*VAER»NH3IAR*4.6
LBVSS
SCON =
L8NVSS
TLBNVS
TLBVS
TLBSS
OSSLGE
QTOTAL
TLBSLG
PALUM
PFECL
PNAAL
1
(!.C8*FOOD*OAVE*P3P'*-.125*VAER*KLV$S)*8.33
SRCATA*IELI«T( INF,T(>)*3AVE*POPR*8.33
* L3VSS*.3/.7 «• (WRFEA * WRALA)*SCON
» TLBNVS + LBNVSS
TLBVS * LBVSS
L3NVSS * LBVSS
* TLBSS/«10.**6.)*ASD*3.33>
- OTCTAL * QSSLGE
* TLBSS
HRALA*IELlMT(lN|::»TP)*AAR.ATa*CON
W«PEA*tELIMT( INF,TP»*FFRATO*CON
WRALA*IELIMT( INcf TP »*AARATO*CON
FAIRI » (LB3D*EGUIP«DIFAIR) )/<.075*.232
*TPLANT(WVAR,OIFAIR)*1AAO.*1000.)
(15CO.«'QAVE*POPP*3C9IAR*8.33)/(1440.*1000..»
IF (T»LANT( WPA3M, OIFAIRI .LT. TENSS) TPLANT« WPARM, 0 IFAI R I-TENSS
TPLANKWPAR*-, »»CHAFR) » ( LBOD*ECUI1>(MCHAPRI J/l TPLANTi WVAR .MCH4ER)
« TLBSLG
PALU1 *
PFECL +
PNAAL *
TENSS
TENSS » (QAVE*P1PR*BQDIAR*8.33I/«TPLANT(KVAR,MCHAER)*24.)
IF (TPLANTIWPARM, MCHAER) .LT. TENSS) T«»LANH WPAPM , MCH&ER I»TENSS
*00«>«'*EOU!P(FLOCCT)
SECSCT) - (1AVE*POPP*1000.*ECUIP(SECSET»)
/TPLANT«WVAR,SECS?T|
TPLANTJ WPARf ,
TPL ANT I HP ARM
TPLANT IWP4FK,
TPLANT( WPARPt
CL3ASNI
QPEAK*PQPR*TPLANTCWVAR ,CLF£EOJ*8
*EOUIP«CLFEED»
33
241
-------
MLf: Sia FORTRAM PI INTERACTIVE DAT* CC1PCRATIQN
1 *EQUIP(C13/VSM) /( 1. 440*7.41 >
TPLANT( UPA^I* f VIILFTrtJ = C
OTOTAL * OTOTAL «• OTSLGE
4C93 CCNTIMUE
CCN = QAVE»POPP*8.33
PALUM = PALUM + I EL I "T ( INC , TP) *WP. ALS*£ARATO*CCN
PFECL ' P=£CL * IELI^T(lNF,TP)*W!}PES*FFftATO*CON
PLHE * PLIMt «• LI»«tTD*CCN
40S5 CONTINUE
IF .EO. Ccc» GO TO 4097
T PL A NT (W PARC, TERST2J = ( QAVE*POPR*1000.»E/3UIP( TERST2) }
1 /TPLANT(WVARtTERST2)
L8VTS = C.
LBNVTS * 0.
TLBNVS * TLBNVS + L3NVTS
TLBVS = TL3VS * L9VTS
TLBTS = LBNVTS «• LBVTS
TLBSLG = TLBSLG «• TLRTS
OTSLGE * QTSLGE * TLBTS/( TSETiJD*( 10. **6. 1*3.33 )
QTQTAL * OTOTAL * CTSLGE
4C?7 CONTINUE
C *********************
C SLUPGE PROCFSS?S
C V******K***********1«*
C IF THERE IS AN AIR FLOTATION THICKENER .THEN IT HANDLES
C BIOLOGICAL AND SECONDARY SLUCGE ONLY
TPLANT(*PA*Kt FLOTKNI = TLBSS*EQUIP(FLOTKN)
I /(TPLANT
-------
FILF: s
Pi
CMA CCDDr:P AT I OH
4130
4150
C
c
C
4160
4170
TLBSLG/(r.cAVUD*8.3^*(10.-*6.)l
/ ( TPL ANT( WVA3 ,GR VTKN) «1000. I
TPLANT
eCNMMUe
VSRFM = 1.
IF (EQUIP(AERCIG) .Eg.
TPLANT(WPA3C, A?»OIj)
VSREU " VSAPM
C^ NT I Nil?
IF (E3UIP(ANACIG)
TPLANKWPARK,
EQ.
1
CFF) SO TH 4150
» (TPL ANT (VWAR , AEaTIG)*EOUtP< Ac
*OTr)TAL*lOOO.)/7.48
CFF) GO TO 4170
= tTPLA^TlWVAR,ANADIO)*EQUIP(AN4DIG)
*QTOTAL*lOOO.)/7.43
TFNSS = TLBVS / *
Ie (TPLANT(HP£<:i,
VSREM « VSANRK
ANODIC) .LT. TENSS) TPLANT
-------
: SIZF FCPTPAN P! INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORJTI Of,
SWASTE(TP) = SWCC\'/2000.*365.*TPSIZE
C **«»»<
C CHEMICAL HANDLING PRCCESSES
'(WP1RP* CECLCS) = PFECL/2.89*ECU!P(FECLFSI
TPL ANT( WPAKNt LI'IF^S) = PL I ^C*60UI P( LI M?FS )
TPLANT(WPAPft POLYCS) = PPOLY*EOUIP(POLYCS)
TPLANTI WPA^V, c^2 FS» = ?co2 /i^'.o./.123/1000.*fOuiP(C02 cs>
TPLANT(HPA7^f PCKLFS) = PfCKL/2.27*EOUIP(PCKLFS)
TPLANT (WPAf^^f NAOHFSI = PNAOH*CCUI P( NAQHFS )
C
r
C END OF SUBROUTINE SIZE
RETURN
END
244
-------
FILF:
FCFTKAN PI
INTERACTIVE C4TA COc
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
SUBROUTINE SPFNC
PURHQSe:
SP^NC COMPUTES THE SIZE OF TH£ STORED POPULATION OVE? ALL
TIKS PERIODS Oc a CTV5N CONTROL STRATEGY.
COMWCN PLCCKS:
SEWPOP - THC SEWF^^O PTPULATICN
- PARAMETERS OF TIMF
CALLEC 3VS
INTIME - READS IN T I'lE HCPIZTN OF CONTROL STRfiTEGY
AUTHOR:
DAVID A BARNES 061CT72
CCMMGN /SFWPOP/ FNCTYP, SPOPIN(2,5), SEHP3P<20)
1 , YEAR, SPCP, MAXPV
INTEGER YrAR, SPOP, FNCTYP
CCMMON /TIKE/ NOYPSf MAXTP, TPSI2E, TP
INTEGER TP
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
1000
2000
2500
C
C
C
C
2900
C
C
**** ***•***£?****:*******«******« *********** 8 ***********
******«=********* ****************
**************** STAP.T EXECUTICN ****************
**************** ****************
********* **********•-*»*«:************* ***************************
GC TC APFPCPRIMfc TYPE OF FUNCTION
GO TO HOOOtZOOOi 3000,4000) . CNCTYP
LIKEA9 WITH 5 PERCENT GROWTH
CONTINUE
SLOPE = .05 * SPCPINtSPCP.l)
GO TO 2500
CONTINUE
POPDLT = SPCPIN(SPOP,2) - SPOP I N t SPOP, 1 1
TOELT =
-------
CILE: SPC?.C FCftTRAN PI INTEPACTIVE 04TA CORPORATION
3000 CONTINUE
SPPATO = SPCPIN
-------
FILF: SSKCST FORTRAN PI INTERACTIVE DAT* CORPORATION
Sl3rPIJTINE SSKCST
c
C PURPCSE:
C SSKCST COMPUTES THE COST OF TRANSPORTING THE SOLID WASTE
C FRCM THr TREATMENT PUNT TO A SINK WITH SUFFICIENT CAPACITY.
C THIS TS DONE FOR EftCH TIME PERIOD.
C
C CHMMCN BLOCKS:
C PRGCNT - PPOGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
C SS1NK - CHARACTERISTICS OF THS SOLI1"? SINKS
C
C CALLED BY:
C REMOVE - THE MAIN P3CGRAM
C
C AUTHOR:
C CAVID A BARNES 120CT72
C
c
COMMON /PRGCNT/ IGOTO, UNSWP-, FIXED, FLDTE, ALPHA
1 , YES, NO, CN, Or':
2 , ISCHf
3 , TDUMMY, DUMMY
EQUIVALENCE (IANSWP,ANSWER)
INTEGER FIXEC, FLQTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, ON, OFF
COMMON /SSINK/ TfNCST, SW4STE(20», SCLSNKJ2,15) , SSCOST(20)
1 , BFSTSS(20), CAP, OIST, MAXSS
INTEGER BESTSS, CAP, DIST
COMMON /TIME/ NOYRS, MAXTP, TPSIZE, TP
INTEGFK TP
rOMMON /TSCST/ CNSTRC, MATRLS
REAL MATRLS
DIKENSICK DSINK(2,15»
6010 FORMAT (IN ,'***** WARNING - ALL SOLID SINKS ARE COMPLETELY FILLED
\ ')
£ **************** ****************
£ ****4****»****** START EXECUTION ****************
C **************** ****************
£ ************«*A****j»*********A*********************************
C
1COO CONTINUE
C
247
-------
FILF: 5SKCST PQOTRAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
C SET CAPACITY OF DUHwy SINKS TO ACTUAL SINKS
DC 1500 ISNK = l.MAXSS
OSINMCAP.ISNK) = SOLSNKCAP.ISNK)
1500 CONTINUE
C
C COMPUTE THE COST FOR EVFRY TIME PERIHO
DO 5000 TP = l.MJXTP
DSTMIN = 9999S.
9ESTSS(TP) = 99
SSCCST< TPJ = 0.
C
C SEARCH ALL SINKS TO FjKiO t SINK FOR EACH TIME PE
-------
STPTT.Y
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
SUBROUTINE ST3TGY
PUPPCS=:
STPTGY CALLS THE SUBROUTINES WHICH ".CAD IN VALUES FOP
THE VARIABLES OF THE OESI&E9 CONTROL STRATEGY.
TI-ESE VA^IA^LES AP.E IN THE CATEGORIES OF: TIME, EFFLUENT
LIKITSt OETEFGENT PESTR ICTI DNS, AND INDUSTRIAL CDNTPOLS.
CALLED:
- READS IN RESTRICTIONS PN DETERGENT PHOSPHATES
- READS IN RESTRICTIONS ON T»EATMENT PLANT EFFL'JENT
- READS IN RESTRICTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL
- READS IN DESCRIPTION OF TIME HORI7QM
1NDLIM
INTIME
CALLED BY:
»Ef»OVE - THS MAIN
AUTHCP:
OAVIC A BARNF.S 06XT72
****************
*****4**********
****************
START EXECUTION
****************
****************
****************
READ IN DESCRIPTION CF TIME HORIZON
CALL INTIME
REAO IN PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT RESTRICTIONS
CALL
REAO IN RESTRICTIONS ON PHOSPHATES l\ DETERGENTS
CALL
READ IN FESTRICTIONS CN INDUSTRIAL PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENTS
CALL INDLI"
END OF SLBPOUTINE STRTGY
RETURN
END
249
-------
:JRTP<\N PI
INTERACTIVE DATi CORPORATION
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SYSTEM
SYSTEM CALLS THE SUBROUTINES WHICH READ IN A DESCRIPTION Qf
ThE TOTAL WASTE SYSTEM. THIS DTSCRIPTION CONSISTS OF THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THC COWUNITy, THC INFLUENT SEWAGE, AND
THE TREATMENT PLANT.
SUBROUTINES CALLED:
CMMNTY - hEADS IN DFSCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY
SEWAGE - BEADS IN DESCRIPTION OF INFLUENT SEWAGE
PLANT - READS IN DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT PLANT
CALLED BY:
REMOVE - THE MAIN
DAVID A 34!
-------
ILF: TRTVNT FO*TCAN pi
INTERACTIVE DAT*
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
r
c
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
r T^TMNT
TRT«ENT IS THE MftIN COST COMPUTING SUBROUTINE. IT FIRST
DETERMINES WHIT ADDITIONAL (IF ANY) SLUDGE HANDLING
EyUIFPFNT IS REQUIRED f?Y THE CCMBIMTION OF THIS TREATMcNT
PLANT AND ELIGIBLE T«?.\TMENT SCHEMF. THEN FOR EACH TIME
PERIDC THE FCLLOWIN3 WILL BE COMPUTED.
1. SIZE AND CIST CF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
2. OPERATION ANO MAINTAINENCE COSTS
3. MATERIAL AND SUPPLY COSTS.
NOTE: THE ABOVE COSTS ARE ONLY THOSE AT73 I BUT4SLE TO
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
BLOCKS:
PRGCNT - PROGRAM CONTROL VARIABLES
SCHEHE - IMFC iOCUT LIQUID TP.EATMNFT SCHEMES
TPLANT - INFO. 490UT LIC3UID TREATvcNT PROCESSES
TI«E - PAPAIETfPS OF TIME HQRUON
SUBROUTINES CALLFO:
BUILD - DETERMINES MAXIMUM SIZE OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
SCHOSE - CHOOSES SLUDGE HANDLING PHOC^SSIS
SIZ6 COMPUTE INJEPENOFM SUING PA^AMETESS fC\ PROCESSES
T*Tl - CCVPUTSS C S M CCS'-S
T.^T'' - Cfp'iTrs o i M crsrs
cr|r.csT - co^t?jTs crvsT'-'ucTi IN COSTS
CALLFCIY:
REMOVE - THE VAIN PROGRAM
AUTHOR:
CAVID A BARNES
23 MAR 73
CCMMCN /PRGCNT/ IGOTO, IANSW? i FlXECi FLOTE, ALPHA
1 t YES, NTt CNt OFF
2 , ISCHM
3 t IOUMMY,
EQUIVALENCE ( IANSW"
INTEGER FIXED, FLOTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN, O^F
C3MMCN /SCHEME/ S CHEME( 25 , 251, ELG9TY(25),
1 , ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCL^PS, LIMEPS, ALPYF3, !=CPYF9, PCLMFB, LIMEF6
2 t ALU^AB, FECLAB, NAALAB, AURMF, FCAftMF, NAA5MF, ALUMTF, F?CLTF
3 t ALTFMF, CCTFMF, ALFBAS, FCPBAS, LI^SAS, LZFBAS, NONE
A , FQUIP(45)
INTEGER ELCRTY, E'.:JI', ?
T^Tf-j---, iL^Yrs, =rPY^s, ^CLXOS. ALPYC?, CCPYCB, FCLMFB,
1 , CCCI'.6, £L.'aM^, =rA3MC, ALJMTF, FECLTF, ALTFMF, FCTFMF,
251
-------
FItF:
FORTRAN PI
INTERACTIVF CAT* CORPORATION
REAL MIMEFP
COMMON /TIME/ N3YRS, MAXTP, TPSIZE, TP
INTfcGPP TP
COMMON /TPLANT/ TPLANT(16,45)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RWPUMP,
MCHAER,
RE2PMP,
VACFTR,
PECRC2,
C02FS ,
PMAME ,
WVA1 ,
MAXP
PRETRT,
FLCCCP,
CaVTKN,
CENFUG,
TERST1,
NAALFS ,
AERATE,
BPARM ,
PRMSET,
SECSET,
FLOTKN,
MHINC ,
TE*ST2,
PCKLFS,
AML I CF ,
BASE ,
PSP'JMP,
? ? 1 P M P ,
4NAOIG,
F3INC ,
4L'JMrS,
N*OHCS,
0 p A tJ w ,
APVAR ,
TO-KFTP,
CLFEEO,
A ERO I G,
W SPOND»
FECLFS,
RECALC,
PVAR ,
PARMX ,
iER3SN,
CLBASN,
ORYBED,
SLGOCN,
LIMEFS,
FLOCCT
WGP4RM,
MINRV ,
DIFAIR
MULFTR
SLDTNK
RECP31
POLYPS
WPARM
MAXRV
INTEGER RWPUVP, PRfTRT, PR^SiET, PSPUMP, TRKFTR, AERBSN
1 , DIFAIR, FLCCCP» SECSET, REIPMP, CLFEED, CLBASN, RE2P1P
2 , GRVTKN, FLOTKN, ANADIG, 4ERDIG, DPYBED, SLDTNK, VACFTR
3 , CENFUG, F8INC , WSPOND, SL500N, RECP.B1, RECRB2, TERST1
A , TERST2, ALUV.FS, FECLFS, POLYPS, CC2FS , PCKLFS, RECALC
5 , PNAME , AMRATE, A«LIPE, pPiR" , PVAR , WOPARH,
6 , WVAP , PPARM , FLOCCT,
3351 FORfAT (1H ,'SUPRESS?')
3354 FORMAT (1H , • DO YOU WISH TO S
1 • )
3550 FORMAT (1H ,«***** WARNINS -
1 PROCESS •••,3A*,»«« = «,p10.
2 ,F10.3,« TC «,F10.3)
C ****************¥*****«***
^ ****************
C **************** START
C *****************
IPRESS THE WA^NIN'J MESSAGES? (YES/NO)
THE VALUE CF THE SIZING PARAMETER FOR
3./16X," LI?S OUTSIDE TH= RANGE •
*************************************
****************
EXECUTION ****************
****************
C *************** *********«**a* **********************************
C
1000 CCNTINUE
C
C PICK THE APPROPRIATE SLUOGE HANDLING PROCESSES
CALL SCHCSE
C
C COMPUTE, FOP EVERY TIME PERIOD, THE INDEPENDENT SIZING
C PAR4YETEF FOR EACH PSOCFSS
C REMOVAL. THEN COMPUTE THE
00 2000 TP = l.MAXTP
CALL SIZE
CALL BUILD
2000 CONTINUE
3000 C°NTINUE
, WITH AND WITHOUT PHOSPHORUS
ADDITIONAL SIZE NEEDED TO 6E BUILT.
IF (IPASS .NE. 0)
IPASS = 1
GO TC 3500
252
-------
FILE: T'T'nT FORTRAN PI INTERACTIVE PiTA CORPORATION
C
C «SK USE" IF HE/SHC DESIRES TO SUPSESS WARNING MESSAGES
3300 CONTINUE
3350 PRINT 3351
3352 CALL
IP (EQUIPUPRCC) .EG. OFFJ GO TO 3900
IF (TPLANT«EPARM,IPROC) .EG. 0.) GO TO 3900
IF ((TPLANTIRPAOM,IPROCI .LT. TPLANT(MINRV,IPROC> .OR.
1 TPLANTJBPAR*,IPROC) .GT. TPLANT(MAXRV,IPRCC)) .AND. ISUP.EQ.OFF)
2 PRINT 3550, (TPLANT(J .I^ROC),J=1,3), TPL^NT
-------
FILE: TtUl FORTRAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
SUBROUTINE TRT!
C
c PURPOSE:
C TRT1 COMPUTES THE OPERATING AND MAINTAINANCE MAN-HOUPS
C RECUIREC AND THE TOTAL MATERIAL AND SUPPLY COSTS.
C NHTE: «TRT1« IS SFPAP4TE FROM •TPTfNT* ONLY TO EASE
C COMPILATION REQUIREMENTS.
C
C THE COSTS ARE COMPUTED COP EACH PROCESS WHICH IS
C BEING USED FOR THF CURRENT TREATMENT SCHEME IN
C ThF FOLLOWING MANNED:
C
C I. COSTS WHICH DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF THE PROCESS
C A. IF p .LE. O.f THEN COST=F(B)
C B. IF TP .LT. TPFACD, THEN COST=0.
C C. IF TP .GE. TPFAOOi THE COST=FtP+8|-F
-------
FOf-ThA-J PI
INTEFACTIVE DATS CCf-POP flT I 3*.
F.QUIV4LEKCF ( Ifl NJSV'P , ANSWE" )
INTFGE9. FIXEC, FLCTE, ALPHA
INTFGEP. YES, C"., HFF
COMMON /SCHEME/ SCHFMC<25,25), UGBTY<25), 1INEFP(25), MflXSCM
1 , «LPYPS, FCPYPS, FCLN-PS, LI«E°S, ALPY^e, FCPYFB, FCLMFB, Ll"EFB
2 , ALU*AP, FECLAS, NAALAR, ALABMF, FCABV-,
3 , ALTFMF, FCTFMF, ALFRAS,
4 , FguiP(^5)
LlFBASt L2FRAS, MCNir
FECLTF
INTEGER ELGPTY, EQUIP, SCHEME
INTEGER 4LPYPS, FCPY"S, <=CIMDS, 4LPYF8, cCpYFB, FCLMFH,
1 i PECLAB, ALABMP, PCAB«e, U'JVTF, C6CLTF, ALTFMF, FCTFMF, ALC3AS
2 , FCFPAS
MINEFP
FNICTYP,
t YEAF, SPOP, MAX^V
INTFGtff YEAR, SPOP, FNCTYP
COMMON /SL
1
2
3
A
5
o
7
8
q
LBNVTS,
PC02 ,
QSSLGE,
TLBSLG,
WOPFC ,
Pll^E ,
SRFEF ,
W?crA ,
C020 ,
CHAR/
L8VPS ,
PFECL ,
QTPTAL,
Ttess ,
WOPLIM,
PYFTD ,
WRFEF ,
AAF.ATO,
SRTLIM,
ADOSSF , ALKIAR ^CVFO ,
L3VSS , LBVTS
PNAAL PNAOH
OTSLGE
TL«TS
WOPNAL
PYVFO
SRFEP
CFO&TO
TSETUD
SRCAT
TLBVS
^00NOH
PPOLY
S^ALP
SRCATS
LIMETD
LIMEPC,
PCLYC ,
SRLIME,
WCLRSS,
WO^PLY,
SR4LF ,
WRALP ,
WCCATS,
BODIAR,
LBNVPS,
LMVFO ,
PPCKL ,
TLBNVS,
WOPALM,
WOCPCK,
SRCATA,
WRFFP ,
WR4LS ,
WOTLBS
L3NVSS
PALUM
OPSLGE
TLBPS
WQPC02
WRCAT
WRAL4
WRFES
REAL LBNVPS, LBNVSS, LRNVTS, L8VPS
1 t LIMr.PC, L^VFO , LIMETO
CCMMQN /TIME/ NOYKS, M4XTP, TPSIZ5, TP
INTEGES TP
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
<3
. LBVSS , L3VTS
/TPL4NT/ TPLANH16,
PWPUKP, PRETRT, PRMSFT,
MCH4EP, FLCCCP, SECSET,
RE2PMP, GRVTKN,
VACFTR, CENCUG,
TEPSTl,
NA4LFS,
AMRATE,
6PAR»1 ,
C02FS
PN4ME
WVAR
1HINC ,
TEPST2,
PCKLFS,
A«LIFE,
BASE ,
AN40IG,
CPINC ,
CLFEED,
AESDIG,
AHRBSN, DI«=AIP
CL3ASN, MULFTp
ORY?EO, SLOTNK
N40HFS
FECLFS,
"ECiLC,
APVAR , PAPMX
LIMEFS, POLYPS
ctOCCT
WP4BM.
MAXRV
255
-------
FILE: T->T1
PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CCMPORATION
ft . T5RST2, ALUMCSt F5CLFS, POLYPS, C02FS , PCKLFS, RECALC
5 t PNAME f AMp«TE, AMLIFEi PPARX , PVAR , H3PARM, WPAP.M
6 , WVAP , POACM , FtOCCT, 34SE , APV&S , PARMX
CCMMON /TRTCST/ QMHRS(45,?0J, MMHRS(45,20), TMSC<^t20), CONCOS(45)
1 , AMCOST(AS), TPFADJU5I
REAL MMHRS
INTEGER TPFACC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
OPERATION, MAITAINANCE, AND SUPPLY STATEMENT FUNCTIONS
FOR EACH PPOC^SS:
1. LETTER I "F THE FUNCTION NAVE DESIGNATES TH? KIND OF
FUNCTICN-
ANNUAL OPERATING MAN-HOURS
HA^TAINANCE MAM-HOUPS
SUPPLY COSTS (JAN 71 tJ
ELECTRICAL COSTS (JAN 71 $)
CHEMCAL COSTS
TCTAL MATERIAL AND SUPPLY COSTS (JAN 71 $)
LETTERS 2 THRU 6 CESIGN4TE THE PROCESS.
RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
ORWPMP680*ALOGIY»**4)
ARWPMP**2)
ERWPMP(Y) » EXP(6.799199+.735690*ALOG
TPRTRT(Y) * EXP(7.235657*.399935*ALOG(Y|-.224979*ALOG(Y)**2
1 ».ll0099*ALOr,(Y)**3-.01l026*ALOG(Yl**4>
PRIMARY SETTLER
OPRMST(V| = EXP(5.846565*.254913*ALOG{Y)*.113703*ALOG(Y)**2
1 -.010942*ALCG(YI**3»
APRMST(Y) = EXP«5.273419*.228329*ALOG(Y|*.122646*ALOG(Y)**2
I -.Oll672*ALOG(Y)**3)
TPRHST(Y) » EX"(5.669881*.750799*ALCG(YlI
PRIMARY SLUOG9
EXP(3
PULPING
941555*.
993365*.
)
APSPMPIY)
TPSPMP
TRICKLING FILTER
OTRKFTIYI = EXP(4.536510-.09573l*ALCG(YI*.173718*ALOG(Y)**2
I -.OIOU4*ALOGIY)**3)
ATRKFT(YI = EXP(4.312739-.052122*ALOG(Y)+.
1 -.010245*ALC1G( v)»*3)
TTPKFTJY) = EXP(5. 1059^.6*.4651 00*ALCG(Y» )
256
-------
PILE: T*TI PORTPAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
C AESATION 5AMN
OAEPRM(Y) * 0.
AA£P9N
ADIFAR(Y) = FXP(6.169937*.29l
EXP(5.9115'il-.Ol315e*ALOG( Y) *.0766*3*ftLQGC Y J**2 )
ERIPMP(Y) « EXP(6.799199*.785690*ALOG(Y)*.037865*ALOGCY)**2
1 -.042646*ALOG(Y)**3-.004488*ALOG
-------
FILF: T^n FJBTRAN PI INTERACTIVE DATA COOPQP6TIDN
I + .07320l*ALOr, ( YJ**3-. 006680* ALOG(
AR2PMPJY) = FXP(5.9115U-.OlM5fl*ALOG( Y) «-.0766
-------
PI
INTERACTIVE DATA
3200
3230
C
c
33CO
3330
C
C
3400
CrNTl'j'JE
IF {E>JIP(PRET:a> .EQ. Cc=) 30 TO 3300
IF (TPLAM ( PP/..-'1,P'ETRT ) .GT. 0.) GC TO
3230
CMHPStPRfcTKT,'"' t =
"'•IMF SIPtfTRTiTPI =
IPRTP.T ( QAVEftPriPR)«TPSIZE
APR TKTUAV^PPPR^TP SIZE
TPRTKT(OAV£*POPR)*TPS!ZE
GO TO 3300
ijMHP5<
T,TPJ
= 0.
= 0.
= 0.
PRIMARY SETTLE*
CCNTIMUE
IP <£TIIP(PpMSET|
Ic
TMS (PR^SET.TP)
GO TO 3400
OMHPS(PP.^SETfTP)
f^HPSIP^^SET.TP)
TVS (PRMSfcT.TPI
CFF» GO TO 3400
) .GT. 0.) GO TO 3330
1ST(Tf>LANT(BPAp«,P|».M$ET))*TPSIZE
APRMSTJTPLANT(<3PARM,PR.MSET) )*TPSIZE
TPRMST(TPLANT(8PARM,PPMSET)|*TPSIZE
0.
0.
0.
3430
IF (TP ,LT. TPFAP-1(f>PMSET) ) GO TO 3400
OMH9S -QP^MST (TPL ANT ( PPARM, PP MSET ) ) ) *TPS I ZE
= (APRyST(TPLANT(PPABM.PRMSET)
' WSET» -APPMST(TPLANT( PPARM.PRHSET) ) )*TPSIZE
THS (PPMSET,TP) = (TPRMST(TPLANT(PPARM,PRMSET)
1 ^TPLANTteoA^.f , P-i. WSET) I -TPRMST(TPLANT(PP ARM,PRESET) ))*TPSIZE
PUMPING
PRIMARY SLUCGf
COMTPIJP
IF (EOUIP(PSPUMP) .EQ. OFF)
1= (TPLANT(PPA*",PSPUMP) .GT
CMHF.S(PSPUMP,TP)
MMHRS(PSPUMP.TP)
T^S
-------
FILE: T.^T: rrcTfAN "i INTERACTIVE ITATA CORPORATION
GO TO 3600
3^30 C^HPS( TSK^TR ,TP j =o.
V-tHF,S (TRKFTP , TP ) = 0.
TMS D(TkKFTR| I GO TO 3600
OMHFS(TRKFTR,TP) = *TPSIZE
MMHF,S(TRKFTP,T°) = IFAIR) ) -DO IF \a (TPL AMT( PPA«M,OI FA IR ) J »*TPS t ZE
MMHRS = TMCHAR(QAV=*POPR»*TPSIZE
GC TO 3SOO
3830 0"HPS(MrMApci,Tp) - 0.
MVMFS(MCI-A = R,TP| = 0.
TMS (MCHAER.TPI = 0.
Ic (TP .LT. TPFADO
-------
FILE: TST1
FORTRAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPQOATICKJ
3*300
3S30
C
C
4000
4030
C
C
4200
IF (F.'J'JIPJFL'KrP) .F.Q. OFF) ^o TO 4000
Ic (TPLANT(PP^M,FLnCCP) .GT. 0.) GO TO
CMHFS(FLCCCF,TP) = OCLCCP(T?LANT(?PSPM,FLOCCPI)*TPSIZc
MKHFMcLr;CrP,TP 1 = AFLCCP(TPL4NT(SPAPM, FLGCCP> I*TPSIZE
TM$ (FLOCCP,TP) = TFLCCP«7AV=*POPP)*TPSIZE
GO TO 40CO
= 0.
TP) = o.
(FLCCCF.TP) = 0.
Ic (T? .LT. TPFACniFLnCCm GO TO 4000
OMHPS(FLOCCP.TP) = (OFLCCP(TOLANT(POAPM,FLQCCP)
1 »TPl ANT(rPA^.M,FLOCCP) • -OFLfCP(TPLANT(PPARM, FLOCCP) ) )*TPSIZE
l*i"HPS(cLOCCPfTP ) = ( AFLCCP* TPL ANT< PPA3M , FLOCCP I
1 +TPLANT(f)P ARM.FLCCCO) ) - AFL CCP (TPL »NT ( PPARM, FLCCCP ) ) ) *TPS I ZE
C
C
4100
SECONDARY SFTTLF«>
CONTINUE
IF (EQUIP(StCSFT) .Fg. OFF)
Ic (TPLANT(PPARM,SECSET» .OT,
GO TO
0.)
4100
GO TO
4030
CMHRS(SECSET.TP)
MMHRSJSECSET.TPJ
T1S (SECSETiTP)
GO TO 4100
OMHPS(SECSET,TP)
»HHFS(SECSET,TP)
TMS (SECSfcT.TP)
CSECST(TPL£NT(BP*R^,SECSET)>*TPSIZE
ASECST(TPLANT(PPA9M,SECSET)
TSECST(TPl4NT(opARMfSECSET)
0.
0.
0.
IF (Tf .LT. TPFACD(SECSET)) GO TO 4100
OMHP.S(SECSETtTP) = (OSFCST ( T^LA^T ( PPARM, SECS ET )
1 +TPLAMT'(BPAHM,SF.CSET) J-OSECST (TPL ANT| PPARM, SECSET I ) )*TPSI ZE
.MMHP.S(SECS£TfTP) = (ASECST(TPLA.NT(DOARM,SECSETI
1 +TPLANT(9PARM,SECRET) )-ASECST(TPLANTIPDA^M,SEC SET)))*TPSIZE
TMS (SECSET.TP) = (TSECST(TPLANT(PPARM,SEC SET)
1 +TPL4NT(SP*RM,SECSET)I-TSECST(TPLA\T(PPARM,SECSET)))»TPSIZE
PECIRCULAT I ON PUMPING
CONTINUE
IF (EQUIPCREIPMP) ,EQ. OFF)
IF (TPLANTJPPA^M.REIPMP) .GT
OMHRS(r I J *TPS I Z E
CHLORINE FEPO SVSTE"
Ic (EQUIP(CL»:FEO) .F.Q. OFF) SO TO 4300
261
-------
FRF:
FCETPAM PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
4430
C
C
4500
4530
C
C
IF (TPLAM (PPMM,CLFEEC» .GT. 0.) r,r Tn 4230
H = (JAVE*POF»*TPLANT( WVAP ,C LP'50 » *3 65. * fl. 33/2000.
P = 04VE»POPR*70LAN;TM , C L9ASN ) ) *TPS I ZE
TCLdSN ( TPL ANT ( 5P APM.CL3ASN) ) *TPS I ZE
VULTI-MECIA
CONTINUE
IF .GT. o.i GO TO 4430
CMULFT(TPLANT(BP4RM,MULFTR))*TPSIZ5
AMULFT»'P)
) -0?2 PMP < TPL ANT ( PP4RM , q £?PMP ) ) ) *TPS I Z E
(«S2PMPITPLANT(PPARM,RE2PMP)
) -AR2 P«P (TPL ANT ( PPAosi.R P2PMP ) |) *TPS I ZE
GRAVITY
262
-------
PI
1NTFGACTIVF DATA CORPORATION,
4600
4«3C
C
C
4700
C'WIS'Jr
IF JFOUIP(GRVTKN) .E'J. OFF) GO
Ic «TPL»NT))*TPSIZE
MMHRS(CLCTKN,TP) = (AFLCTK(TPLANT(PP4RM,FLOTKN)
I +TPL4NT ( 3P»^M, FLCTKN) > -4FLOTK (T^L ANT ( PPA^i V, CLCTKN> ) ) *T°S I Z E
TMS (FLnTKN,TP) = (ECLCTK(TPLANT(PPA^w,=LOTKN>
+TPLANT(bt>AR»»,
J -£FLOTK(T?L«NT(
+TMSIFLCTKN.TP)
LOTKN) J>»TPS IZE
C
C
A800
CIGESTION
CCNTINJE
IF ( FJUIP( AN4CIG) .EO.
Ic ( TPL4NTI
OFF)
1 .f,T,
GO TO
0.)
4<300
OC TO
4330
«MHRS(
G,TP) = 04NniG(TDHNT( 3PAPM, ANA3IG) >*TPSIZE
G,TP
GC
4830
S( ANAOI C-tTP
S(
IF (IP .LT. TPF
i>.^C!CfT?
f;T OPiSM,
= 0.
= 0.
= 0.
CD( AN'CIG) )
Q 4,900
T(PPA^M,
, ) I -J«-;DlG(TPL.A-"lT(PP4PM,ANADIG) ))*TP5I?E
263
-------
FILF": TJT! FORTPA4 PI INTERACTIVE DATA CO.PORM ION
VHPSI 4>"AUI
+ TPL AN
(4NADIG.TP) - (T*NDIG ) "TPSI 2E
M1HF-S(ASiOIG,TP> * A ASOIG( T°L ANT( 9P A"M, AER01G) ) *TP$ I 2?
T'-
-------
F ILC : T
-------
FILF: T
t
,
TPKFTR,
CLFEEO
AEPDI G
WSPOND
,
,
,
FPCLFS,
RECALC
PV»R
PARMX
t
,
i
AERBSN
*
CL3ASN,
ORYBEO
SLGOCN
LIMPFS
FLOCCT
,
t
t
WOPAP.M,
MINR.V
t
OIFAIR
MULPTR
SLDTNK
RECP.31
PCLYCS
WPAF.1
MAXRV
INTEGER PWPUPF, PKETPT, P^SET, PSPU^P, TRKPTR, AFRSSN
i
2
3
tt
5
&
CIF4IR,
GRVTKIS,
CENrUGt
TF.KST2,
PNAME ,
WVAf ,
FLfCCP
*
FLOTKN,
F6INC
ALUMFS
/MPATE
6PAPM
f
t
t
,
SFCSFT ,
AN40IG,
WSP1ND,
FECLFS,
AMLIFE,
FLOCCT,
RFIPMP
AF^OIG
?
*
SLGCCN,
POLYPS
PPAP.H
3ASE
,
,
,
CLFEED
RECR6J
C02FS
PVAR
APVAR
V
,
,
t
,
t
CLBASN
SLOTNK
t
t
RECRB2,
PCKLFS
WOPARW
PABMX
,
,
RE2P1P
VACPTR
TE^STl
RECALC
W P A P. M
CONCOSC«5)
, AMCOSTU5), TPFAOD«45)
BEAL
INT6GES TPFADT
CCVMCN /TSCST/ CNSTRC,
REAL HATRLS
SLUPCE DFYIN5 BED
= EXP( 6.3 45052-. 476730*aLOGm*. 101 319»ALOG( Y )**2 )
= eXP(^.290039-.098293*ALOG(Y)*.075^53*ALOG(Y>**2)
TCRYBD(Y) = EX3! .693 1^3*-l.O*ALOG( Y) »
SLUDGE HCLTING TANK
OSLTNK(Y) = EXP(5.727345*.000762*ALGG(YI*.093701*ALOG(YI**2
I -.006786*4LnG(Y)**3)
14662*ALCG(Y)+.071402*AL3G
-------
TRT2
FURTFAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
C
r
OVCFTL
C
C-
C
c-
CVCFTL(Y)
OVCFTKY)
I
AVACFT(Y)
SVACFT(Y)
CVACCT(Y)
1
GCNFGLm -
OCNPGI(Y) =
ACENFG(Y) *
TCENFG(Y) »
1 *1000.
MULTIPLE
OMHINC(Y) «
1
AMHINCm «
1
TMHINCCY) =
FLUIOIZFC
IS THE FOUATI3N FOH LANDFILL
IS THF EOUATICM FOK. INCINEPJTICN
= EXP(6.069419-.009994*ALnG(YI*.042699*ALaG(
= ?XP(3.714368*.a50S48*ALCG(Y)-.074615*ALOG(Y)**2
*.005085*ALPG(Y)**3)
= EXP(4.3061lO-.093695*ALnG(Y)*.047738*ALOG('
= EXP«-3.113515*.71S466*ALCG(Y)1*1000.
= Y*«FCVFO*-ECLCS*LMVFO*LI*1ECS*PYVFD*POLYCS»
EXP«7.62;5r7-.476977*ALOGCY)*.
EXP(7.264153-.466246*ALOG«Y)*.
0715!6*ALOG(Y)**?)
069552*ALQG(Y)**2)
HEARTH INCINERATION
EXPO. 402537*1. 21 5130*ALOG«Y|-
+ . 00977 1*ALOC.(Y)**3)
EXP( 3. 906553*. 702471*ALOG(Y)-.
*. 006827* ALOGfY)** 3 >
EXP(8.51^996-.252966*ALCG(Y1#.
BED INCINERATION
.157203»ALOG«Y)**2
088337*ALOG(Y)**2
0*5589*ALQG(Y)**2)
NO DATA FOP FBINC
OFBINCm = 0.
A=8INr(Y) - 0.
TFBINCm » 0.
WASTE ST/8ILIZATION PC»4D
NO DATA FOP WSPONO
OWSPND(Y) = 0.
AwspNom * o.
ThSPNDlY) » 0.
SLUDGE LAGCCW
OSLGGN(Y) = EXf>(6. 567594-. 971 759*ALOG( Y1*.
ASLGCM(V) - EXP(-2.0R7392*2.395831*ALOG(Y)
1 +.017<»99*ALOG(Y)**3)
TSLGON(Y) = EXP(-3. 134169*. 763622*ALOG( Y) )
RECARBCNATI3N
ORCRBKY) - 0.
ARCRBKYI * 0.
TPCRBHY) « 0.
PECARBCNATION
ORCRe2(Y) » 0.
A«CR«2«Y) * 0.
TRCRB2(Y> * 0.
TERTIARY SETTLE".
OTRSTKYJ « EXP(5. 846565*. 25431 3* ALOGI Y I *.
I -.010942*ALOG(Y)**3I
ATRSTl(Y) « EXP(5. 273419*. 228?29*ALOG(YJ*,
1 -.01I672*ALOG(Y)**3)
TTRSTl(Y) » EXP(5.669m*.750799*ALOG(YH
TERTIARY SETTLEP
OTRST21Y) « EXP(5. 846545*. 254813*ALOG(Y)*.
1 -.010942*ALOG(Y)**3»
ATRST2(Y> * EXP(5. 273419*. 2283?9*ALOG(YI».
I -,011672*ALOG(YI**3)
TTRST2(Y) « EXP{5. 669881*. 750799*ALCG(Y)I
095689*ALOG{ Yl**21
-.340388*ALOG(Y)**2
* 1000.
l 13703*ALOG( Y) **2
122646*ALOG(Y)**2
U3703*ALOG(Y)**2
122646*ALOG(Y)**2
267
-------
: T?T2 -C&TSi\ PI INTERACTIVE DiTA CORPORATION)
C ALLT FEtDING A NT
AM_*-Sm = £X?<5. 043043- ,09721H*ALOG( V > + .0390 30*ALOO( Y»*«2)
C LIME FEEDING Af.D STORAGE
AIIWFS(Y) = FXD<6. 060054+. 197073«ALQG( Y) )
C FF°,C. 1C Ct-LC.DIOE FEECING AND STORAGE
OrECFS(Y) = 0.
APECPS(Y) = ?X?(5. 9930^3-. 0972 1 8*PLOG ( Y » + .0390 10*ALOG( Y) **?)
C PCLYMEI- FPFOING AND ST'JRAGE
APLYFS(Y) = EX"(6.'t2692<5-.061^43*aLOr,(Y)*.033i>37*#L!3G« Y»**2I
C CARbC\ ClOXIOF FEE01NG AND STORAGE
QCOIFS(Y) = PXP(6.9005R6*.323725*ALOG( Y ) *.059093*ALOG( Y»**2
1 -.00^<>?6*ALDG( Y)**3)
ACOP^Sm = FX"(6. 169937*. 294S 53*SLOG ( Y ) +. 1 75999*UOG< Y ) **2
1 -.040947* ALPG(Y)*»3^.003300*ALOG(Y)**4)
TC02FS(Y) = EXPd. 999679*. 703339*' LOG ( Y ) *.0 102 14*ALQG( Y I ** 2 )
1 *iooo.tcn2; -PC02
C SODIUM ALUMINATE FEEDING AND STORAGE
ANALFS****
START EXECUTION ******
W = TLBSLG * 365. / 2000.
WO = W3TL°S*365./2000.
C
c SLUCCE CRYING BEDS
5000 CCMTIMUF
Ip (E JUIPl C-.YPEO) .cC. CPp) GT Tn 5100
>GT> 0>, GC T0 5030
TO ) = ATO ygo ( W ) * TPS
268
-------
FILE: Tu,T2 FfPTt-A^ PI INTERACTIVE OA^ CORPORATION
= TORYbDtVO-TPSIZF
GH TO 5100
5030 P"HPS(r>: Y^CC iT>- ) = ( DC -iYBC ( d) -OUP YBO (WO ) )*ToSt ZE
C SLUDGE HOLDING TANK
5100 CONTINUE
I- (EO'JIPISLHTMO .EO. OFF) GO TP 5200
Ic (T^LANT(PPfl=v,SL3TNK) .GT. 0.) GC TO 51 JO
OMHRS(SLCTNK,TP) = HSL TNK ( T^L ANT ( 9P iRM, SL ")T NK I
MMHF S( SLPTNKtTPl = ftSL TNK ( T°L \NT ( BP A1? Mt SLOT NK ) ) *TPS I ZE
TVS (SLHT'JKtTP) = TSL TKK ( TPLA\T( PP A^M, SLOTN^I )*TpS I ZE
GO TO 5200
5130 CMHRSlSLCT\K,TP) = 0.
TKS (SUDT\K,TP) = 0.
IF (TP ,LT. TPFADD(SLOTNK)) GO TT 5200
CVHRS(SLCTNK.fp) = (OSLTNK(TPL ANT(PPiR",SLOTMK)
MMHPS^SLCT^:K^TP ) = ( iSLTNXt TPLANT ( PPARM , SLDTMK )
i -I-TPL Ar-.Tt-ap/s^NtSi.mNK)» -ASLTNK)) *TPSI ZE
C
C VACl'UV FILTF.*
5200 CC\TINUF
IF (EQUIP(V*CFT<) .60. OFF) GO TO 5300
IP (T°L£NT(PPARvi,VACFT=<) .GT. 0.) GO TO 5230
CMHRSIViCFTP,TP) = OVCFTL(W)*TPSIZE
\c tFQUIP(M.HINC) .=Q. ON .PR. E OUIP( FBINC) .EO. CN)
1 GMHRS)*TPSIZF
IF IEQUIP<^HU'CI .C0. CN .OR. EOUIP(F3INC) -EQ. ON)
I G*HkS(VACFTR,TP) = (CVCFTIIW)-GVCFT I (WO ) )*TPS I ZE
MMHFS(VACFJF,TP| = (AV*CcT(A}-AVACCT(WO>I*TPSIZE
T«is (vACFTPtTP) = ((svACFT(w)<-cv£CFT{ w»)-« SVACFTJHOJ+CVACFTIWCI))
1 *TPSIZF
C
C CLNT9IFUGE
5100 CCNTINUE
IF (FQUlPtCE'JF'JG) .EQ. CF~) GO TO 5400
.GT. 0.) GO TO 5330
IF (FQUIP(MHINCI .FQ. OK .OR. rOUIP(F9INC) .E3. CM)
1 0"!HRS ( CEN'FUG.TP ) = OCNFGK W )»TPSUr
TO) = TCENFG(W)«TPS!ZE
GO TO 5^00
IF < EQUIP( PHUC ) .EO. ON .OR. cQU IP ( FR INC ) .?Q. ON)
1 CNHRSCCfNFUG.TP) = (CCNFGI(W)-CCN*GI(HO))*TPS!ZE
;,TP) = (ACENFG(W)-ftCENFG(WO))*TPSIZE
269
-------
?: TOT?
FCfrTFAN
INTERACTIVE DATA
IMS (CENFUG.TP) * (TCENFG(W)-TCFNFG(WOII*TPSIZE
c
c
5400
PUL T I PL E
-HEARTH
INCINERATION
CONTINUE
IF
IF
IF.OUIPIM
-------
FILE
OT?
F^Fnri PI
INTERACTIVE 0*T\
C
C
8COO
8030
C
C
8100
1= |F;j'MP»RPC*P2» .^0. CFFI GO TO flOOO
0'"HFS(tL A.MT( pf>4R% TfhSTl ) .C-T. 0.) 00 TO
8030
QMHfiS( TERSTliTP) =
MMHRSITEPSTJ .TP) =
IMS ITFRST1.TP) =
Gfi TC 8100
CKHPS(T£RST1,TP) =
T«1S (TERST1.TP) =
J1T&STI (TPLiNT( BP«0", TERSTl ) )*TPSI ZF.
AT* SU ( TPL ANT ( BPAR^, TE*$T 1) ) *Tf>SI Z£
TTBSTl(TPL4NT< 30iPMt TE3ST1) l»TPSt ZE
0.
0.
0.
IP (TP .LT. TPFAOD(TEOSTI) ) GO TO 8100
CMHPS1TERST1 ,TP) = ( GT "-ST1 1 TPL ANT ( PP ARM , TE*ST 1 )
1 +TPLA«JT(BPA-V, TfRSTi. j J -uT^STi (TPL ANT ( PPAR% T£RST1 ) ) ) *TPS UE
MMHPS«TERST1,TP) = ( iT".ST 1 { TPL ANT( PP fiR M , TER ST 1 )
1 *TPLANT(B°Aoy,TER5Tl) ) -AT^STL (TPLANT { PPAR"t T ERST 1) ) I *TPS HE
IMS (TSRST1.TP) =
1 «-TPHNT(B°ARM,TE.-vST?) ) -CTRST2 (TPL ANT( °P4RM, TERST2 » ) » *TPS I ZF
MMHRS(T£RST2tTP ) = ( ;. TR ST 2 ( T PL ANT ( PP te M , TER ST2 )
Ttopa^w.TFRSJZ) 1 -A TRST2 (TPHNT< opARM, TEPST 2 ) ) ) *TPS I ZE
(TFRST?,TP) = ( TTRST2 ( T°L ANT ( "i>ARM , T=RST2 )
1 +TPLANT(BPtP",TE3ST2) ) -TTR$T2 (TPL4NT ( PPA^«, T5P-ST2 ) ) » *TPS I ZE
C
C
8200
ALUM FSECIKG ANC
CONTINUE
IF (EOUIP( ILU^FS) .EO. CF-) GO TO 8300
W
WO
OMHPS(ALU«CS,TP) = 0.
IF «TPL ANT(PP/>OM, ALUWCS > .CT. 0.) GC TO 3230
IF (W .GT. 100.)
TMS (ALUMFS.TP)
GO TO 8300
8230 K^HPSULUMFS.TP >
( ALUMF5.TP I =
(WVAP
A4L «F S ( W ) *TPS I Z E
ALUKFS >*365.«TPSI
= ( AA I «F S ( W I-AAL «FS ( WO ) )*Tt>SI 1*
271
-------
: TRT2 FUPTRiN PI INTERACTIVE OAT4 CORPORATION
CALUHFS.TP) =
I -WOP4L 1«T°L4NT(3VAP,ALUMrS)
C ITMP FEEDING AND STCPAGF
8300 CO*ITI,\JJF
IF »E3UIP(LI>»EFS) .EQ. CFFI GO TO 8*00
W * PL I "IF
WO wnPLIM
Cl*HFS(L IKEFS.TP) * 0.
IF ITPlANTIPPASf'tLIMEPS) .GT. 0.) GC TO 8330
MMHPSIL IMEFS.TP) = ALIMFS(H)*TPSIZE
TMS JLI«EFS,TP) «= PL I M£*TPLANT (WVA* , LI MPFS 1*365.«TPSI ZE
GO T3 8*00
8330 ^MHesa IMEFS.TP) = »*TPSIZE
IMS CLIMEFS.TP) * (PLIWE*TPLANT,POLYPS)
1 -WOPPLY*TPL6NT
-------
FILF: T»T? FCFTRA'4 PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPO^/TIT
fltBO G"HKS(C'-2FSfTP) = 0.
•IT< WVAR .NIAALFS » *365. *TPSI ZE
GC TC 3ROO
8730 ^HFS(MAALFS,TP) = < ANALFS< W)-A*»ALF$ ( KO ) »*TPS I ZE
TMS (NAALFStTPI » ( PNAAL *TPL'.NT( WVAR.MAALrS)
I -WOPNAL*TPHNT(PVAR,NA4LFS> ) *365.*TPSIZE
C
C PICKLING LIQUOR FEEDlMi AND STORAGE
8800 CONTINUE
IF CKL*TPLANT(WVAR,PCKLFS)
1 -WOPPCK*TPLANT(PV4R.PCKLeS))*365.*TPSIZ E
C
C SODIUM HYOPOXIOF FEEniNG AND STORAGE
C KO DATA FOP NAOHFS
esoo CCNTIMJE
Ie LANT(v»rPARM,RECALC)
IF JTf>LANTtPPA<>M,REClLC) .GT. 0.) GC TO 9030
OMHF.S(PECALC, TPI = C^C ALC i W ) »TP$I ZE
MMHRS("ECAIC,TP) « ARC4LC(W)*TPSIZE
273
-------
FILE: TkT? FCRTRAM Pi INTERACTIVE DAT* CCRPOR AT I ON
TMS MEC^LCiTP) = T"CALC(W)*TPSIZE
GO TO 9100
9030 C"HPS( ^EC&LCtTO J = ( C ALC ( W ) -OPC AL C < WO ) ) *T PS I Z?
MMHDSUFCALC.TP ) = (ARCALC<*)-AFCaLC*TPSIZE
C
C FLOCCULATICN B^ORF TERTIARY
9100 CONTINUE
IF (EQ'JIP(FLQCCT) .EQ. QFF ) GO TO 9200
IP (TPLANT) = OFLCCT(TPLAMT(^PARM,FLOCCT» )*TPSI 7E
MVHPSP4RM, FLOCCT ) ))*TPSIZE
MMHPS(FLOCCT.TP) = ( AFLCCT ( TPLfNT ( PPAS M , FLOCCT )
1 *TPLANTJ3PA^Mf FLQCCT) ) -4FLCCT (TPL ANT ( PPARM, FLCCCT I ) ) *TPS I ZE
9200 CONTINUE
C
C CCNVERT JAN 71 S FOR MATERIAL S SUPPLY COSTS TO PRESENT LOCAL t
DO 9900 IPPOC = It^AXP
TI"S< IPFOCfTP) = TKS(IPRCCiTP) * MATRLS/1.122
9SOO CCNTI^UE
C
C END OF SC3PO'JTIN= TRT2
RSTUKN
END
274
-------
FILE: TSCH«=
PI
INTERACTIVE OAT.' CO^ORAT I ON
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
SUBROUTINE
PURPOSE:
TSCHME INITIALIZES ALL THE DOMAIN VARIABLES NECESSARY TO
SIZE VIPAPM(J) (THE INDEPENDENT SIZING PARAMETER WITH
PHCSPHOSUS REMOVAL TRF4TMENT FnR FfCH pRQCESSni). THIS IS
OONE FQF A PARTICULAR CLIGI«LC TREATMENT SCHEM?IES).
CHMMON BLOCKS:
LIQUID -LIQUID INFLUENT INFORMATION
PRGCNT - PROGRAM CCMT3PL VARIABLES
SLCHAR - SLUDGr,LIQUID,CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SLUDGE - SLUDGE CHARACTER ISTICS
TPLANT - CHARACTERISTICS CF TREATMENT PROCESSES
CALLED BY:
SIZE - THE INDEPENDENT PARAMETER SIZING SUBROUTINE
AUTHORS
DAVID A 3ARNES 13CCT72
COMMON /LIOUIC/ ALKIPS, BODIFS, MLSSAR, NH3IAR, PINPS, QAV£
1 , QPEAK, SSINPS, TBOOAR
REAL MLSSAR, MH3IAR
CCHMON /PRGCNT/ IGOTD, IANSWP, MXEO, FLOTE, ALPHA
1 , YES, NO, CK, OFF
2 , ISCHM
3 , 10UM«Y, DUMMY
EQUIVALENCE (IANSWR,ANShFR)
INTEGER FIXEC, FLOTE, ALPHA
INTEGER YES, CN, OFF
COMMON /SCHEME/ SCHEME(25,25), ELGBTY(25J, MINEFPI25), MAXSCM
1 , 4LPYPS, FCPYPS, FCLMPS, LIMfPS, ALPYFB, ^CPYPB, FCLMCB, LIMEFB
2 • ALUMAB, PECL4B, NAALAB, ALABMF, FCA8MC, NAAB^F, ALU^TF, F^CLTF
3 , ALTFMF, FCTFMF, ALF3AS, FCF6AS, L1F3AS, L2F3AS, NONE
4 , EQUIPS)
INTEGER ELGBTY, EQUIP, SCHEME
INTEGER ALPYPS, FCPYPS, FCL^PS, ALPYFB, FCPYFB, FCLMFB, ALU^AB
1 , FECUB, ALA8MF, FCAB«C, ALUMTF, PECLTF, ALTF"F, FCTFHF, ALC6AS
2 , FCF?«S
REAL MINEFP
/SLCH/R/
1 , LB^VTS, L^VPS ,
2 , PC02 , P^eCL ,
3 , SSSLGE, CTCTAL,
4 , TLBSLG, TLPSS ,
5 , WOPPC , WOPLIM,
6 , PLIME , FYFTD ,
ADOSSP
LBVSS
PNAAL
3TSLGE
TLBTS
WQPNAL
PYVFD
ALKIAP
LPVTS
PN4CH
SRCAT
TL^VS
WP°MC?H
PP'JLY
FCV^D ,
LIMEPC,
OCLYC ,
SRLIME,
WnLRSS,
W1PPLY,
SRALF ,
LBNVPS, LBNVSS
LMVFP , PALU""
PPCKL , OPSLGE
TLBNVS. TL^PS
WQPALM, WO"C02
WO«»PCK, W
-------
FILE:
PI
INTFPACTIVt DATA CORPORATION
7 »
9 , KRFEJ , iABATC, F.= C4TC,
9 t Cn20 , SRTLIU, TScTUOi
PEAL
CCMHHN /SLICGF/
L«NVPS, L5NVSS, LRNVTS.
, W°.FEP ,
t WRALS , WRF5S
, WOTLBS
, LBVSS , LBVTS
ASD t
PSR^VE,
FLOTUD, GP.AVUOi
VFPStG, VSAN=M,
HfDFT
HPDVF
PSETUO
CCMMDN /TPLANT/ T°LANT(16,45)
1 t
2 ,
3 ,
»
F'WPUMP,
, TRKFTR, AER3SN,
OIFAIR
MULFTR
SLOTWC
RECRS1
POLYPS
r *\ r ' ^ ' f '^'"Ji-'f ^ j >" *j • i r f
FLCCCP, SFCSET, REIOMO, CL^EEO, CLBASN,
GRVTKN, FLOTKN, ANAOIG, AEROIG, DR.Y3EC,
4 , V^CFTR, C?NF(JG, MHIN;C , C3INC , WS^OMO, SLGQtN,
5 , PGCRR2, TEPST1, TFPST2, AL'J^FS, FECLFS, LIMEFS,
6 t CQ2FS , NA/IL^S, PCKLFS, NAOM^S, FECALC, FLOCCT
7 t PNAME , 4MRATE, A^LIFE, PPARV , PVA" , WQPAPM, WPARM
8 f WV43 , flPARM , B4SE , APVAR , PARMX , MINPV , MAXP-V
9 , MAXP
INTEGcK RWPUMP, PRFTRT, PFVSET, PSPU^P, TRKFTR, AEPBSN
5T, ^EIPMP, CLFEED, CLBASN, RE2PMP
•IG, AEROIG, DRY3EO, SLDTN'K, VACFTR
t LC^'-u^, rair.u , war.JNDf SLGGCN, RECR61, RECRB2. TERST1
, TERST2, SLUMPS, FECLCS, POLYPS, CC?CS , PCKLFS, RECALC
, PNAME , 4MRATE, AMLI=E, PPARM , PVAR , WOPARM, WPARM
, WAR , BPARM , FLOCCT, BASE , APVAR , PAOMX
» t SECS5T,
2 t G3VTKN, FLCTKN, A>4«DIG,
3 t CENFUG, F3INC t HSP
4 , TERST2, ALUMFS,
5
6
INTFGER ES
c
1000
1500
****************
CONTINUE
00 1500 IPROC =
TPL*NT< k«VAR,
CONTINUE
L3NVPS = 0.
LPNVSS = 0.
LBNVTS = 0.
TLBNVS = 0.
LBVPS = 0.
LBVSS = 0.
LBVTS = 0.
TLBVS = C.
TLBPS = C.
TLBSS = 0.
TLBTS = 0.
TLBSLG = 0.
START EXECUTION
= TPLAMT ( PVAR , I PRCC )
****************
****************
**********
276
-------
FILE:
:CRTF.n PI
INTERACTIVE DATA COCPORATION
CPSLGP = 0.
QSSLG.= = 0.
QTSIG- = 0.
QTCT*L = 0.
ACCSS^ = 0.
ALKIAR = M.KIPS
PCVFD = 0.
LTMF00 = 0.
LMVCT = 0.
P'LU^ = 0.
PCQ2 = 0.
PC£CL = C.
PNAAL = 0.
PN40H =0.
PCLYO = 0.
PPCKL = 0.
S»CAT = o.
SPLICE = o.
WPCAT = 0.
PLIM? = 0.
PYFTD = 0,
PYVFD = 0.
PP3LY = 0.
SRALF = o.
SRCATA = 0.
SRFfc = 0.
W=IFEF = 0.
SRPEP = 0.
WPFEP = 0.
SRALP = 0.
HPALP = C.
W^ALA = 0.
WFEA = 0.
W9CATS = 0.
SRCATS = 0.
AAPATO = 0.
F=FRATn = 0.
C020 = 0.
LIMETD = 0.
S^TLIM = 0.
TSPTUD = I.
WRFES = 0.
W=IALS = 0.
VIBALF = 0.
If (ES .Eg. ALPYPS)
IF (ES .EO. FCPYPS)
IF CS ,E!3. CCLMPSJ
IP (ES .EQ. LI^=PS)
IF
-------
FILE:
FTRTKAN PI
INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
2100
C
f»
2130
2135
IF
IF
1^
IF
1 =
\c
1C
IF
IF
JF
IF
IF
= S .
FS .
ES .
€S .
FS .
ES .
ES .
CS .
ES .
SS .
FS .
r.s .
CONTINUE
F.Q.
EQ.
E3.
Eg.
EO.
fQ.
FO.
FQ.
E-3.
EC.
FO.
EQ.
ALUM +
HBAIP =
SRALP *
WPC/T =
SRCAT =
PSETUD =
AARATO =
CONTINJE
AOC5S* =
PCDIAR =
POLYD =
GRAVUO =
CCNTIN'JF
2.
5.7
WAL
AUBMF)
FCABMF)
NiASKF I
ALUMTF)
FfCLTF )
ALTFKF)
FCTFMP )
ALPHAS)
CCF('AS )
L1FBAS)
L?F«)AS)
NPNE )
PCLYVER
P
GO
GO
GO
GO
GC
GO
GO
r,o
GO
GO
GO
GO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
T1
TO
T-"t
TO
TO
TCI
Tfl
PR
4300
*500
4700
4900
5100
5300
5500
5700
5900
6100
6300
6400
IMA^Y SETTLER
SPALP
.03
11.
50.
.5
.5
.05
* 30DIPS
IF GO TO 2153
ON .AND. (EQUIPtANAOIG) .EO. ON
60. ON H GO TO 2155
CM .4NO. VAR ,V4CFTR )
GO TO 2159
278
-------
Fllf:
PI
INTERACTIVE DAT4 CQRPP3AT I'„•••
2157 FCVFD =60.
LMVFO = 160.
TPL *NT(h ViR
GC TQ 2159
2155 CCNTIN'JF.
TPLf\T(HVAc
Ie (=ECLFS) = OFF
TPLANT (V.VAR ,V4CeTR ) = 6.
Ir
200
OP TO 2740
GO TO 2740
TPL ANT(WVAR,VACFTS)
279
-------
FILF: TSCH->7 FCPTRAM PI INTECACTIVF DATA CORPORATION
2<5CO
C AL'JX * PC'LY'-ifH TC FLOCC'JUTION BASIN BEFORE PRIMARY
C
GO TO 2100
3100 CONTINJE
C FERRIC CHLORITE + PJLYMS3 TO FLOCC'JLAT ION BASIN
C
GO TO 23CO
3300 CTNTIN'Jt
C FSRPCIS CHLORIDE * LI^S TO FLOCCULATION BASIN
C
GO TO 2500
3500 CCMTIN'JfE
C LIME TO THE FLOCCULATtPN PiSIN BEFORE PRIMARY
C
GO TJ 2700
3700 CONTINUE
C ALUM TU TH£ Af^ATIQrj BASIN
C
WRALA a 2.
= 11.
3730 CONTINJE
ASC * .015
GPAV'J9= .07
TPLANTUVA
-------
FILF: TSCH^c FCPTFVl PI INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
AAP«TQ = 11.
Gn T.T 3730
4500 CPNTINiJE
C FERRIC CHLORIDE TO AcRATICN BASIN » MULTI-MEOU FILTER
C
WRFEA = 3.5
SRCATA = 4.8
FFR.AT3 = 2.89
GO TO 3730
47CO CCNTINUe
C SOOIUK ALUMINATP TC AERATION BASIN * MULTIMEDIA FILTER
C
WRALA * 2.
S»CATA = 3.
AARATO *
-------
FILF: TSCM'-f FCST=£N Pt INTERACTIVE DAT4 CORPORATION
GO TO 4930
5700 CTNTINUF
C ALUM TO FUnCC'JLATIC.M 9ASIN AFTGF CONVENTIONAL SECONDARY
C
WPALS = 2.
S?ALS = 3.6
W^C'TS = WRALS
S'CATS = SP.ALS
AAS A TO = 11.
TSETU3 = .015
573C CONTINUE
GD.AVUO * .06
,G°VTKNI = 10.
PKFTR) .EO. OFF) GO TO 5740
GxAVUO = .07
TPLANTChVAR ,GCVTKN) = 12.
5140 CONTINUE
IF IEOUIPIAFRBSN) .EO. CN .AND. (EOUIP(ANADIG) .EO. OFF
1 .AND. ECUIPUE^DIG) .EO. OFF)) GO TO 5751
IF (EO'JIP(TRKFT .EO. OFF
1 .AND. EQUIPUPROIG) .EQ. CFF)) GO TO 5753
IF «EOUIP(/!E*PSN) .EQ. CN .ANC. (E OU IP( «NAOIG) .EO. ON
1 .OF.. EC'JIP(AeRDIG) .FQ. ON I) GO TO 5755
If
-------
TSCHXfc-.
PL
INTERACTIVE DATA COPPO^ATI
6130
63CO
C
c
6400
C
C
C
«420
£430
LTMETO = 150.
If J4LKIPS .GT. 300.1 tntTD = 2<10.
SBTLIM » 3000.
CC29 = 1400.*!. 2
TSETUO = .04
CONTINUE
G"AVU9 » .10
TPLANTCWVAR tGRVTKN) = 20.
PFTUKN
CONTINUE
L1CE(2-STAG-:J TO FL1CC. 5FTER CONVEN. SECONDARY
LI^ETO = 400.
LIKETO - 30C.
IF IALKIPS .GT. 150)
SRTLTM =« TOCO.
C02D * 3000.*!. 2
TSETUO * .03
Gr TO 6130
CONTINUE
NO CHEMICALS 4DDfO FCfc PHOSPHCRUS REMOVAL
SORIAR » .7 * 90DIPS
TPLANT « 12.
CONTINUE
Ic (EOUIP(#ERBSN) .EQ. OFF) GO TO 6430
GRAVUO - .06
TPLANT
-------
FILE: TSCH«"E FORTRAN PI INTERACTIVE DAT4 CORPORATION
LMVFO = 160.
on TO
C459 CONTINUE
TPLANTI PVAR,C^Y3EC) = 2.3
IF
-------
SECTION IX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support and assistance of the Project Officer, Mr. Hugh Maynard
of the Office of Planning and Management, Environmental Protection
Agency, is acknowledged with sincere thanks. In addition, the
assistance of Mr. Robert Smith, Mr. Robert Eilers, and Mr. John
Convery of the Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory, National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati in providing us with a
Fortran program for sizing and costing elements of waste treatment
plants is greatly appreciated.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the support of their colleagues,
Mr. Ronald Orner and Dr. Gerald Foess in helping with the design of
the model and providing data on liquid and solids treatment and
handling schemes.
285
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
Section IV
1. Van Fleet, G. L. , Barr, J.R. and Harris, A. J., "Treatment
and Disposal of Chemical Phosphate Sludges in Ontario," 45th
Meeting WPCF, Atlanta, Georgia, October, 197Z.
2. Personal Communication, R. Bunch, December 12, 1972.
3. Warren, C.B., Malec, E.J., Science, 176, 272-279, April 21,
1972
4. Business Week, October 28, 1972, p. 41.
5. 1968 Inventory Municipal Waste Facilities, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Publication No. OWP-1, 1971.
6. "Metro-The First Ten Years," Metropolitan Council of Seattle.
7. Converse, A.O., "Optimum Number and Location of Treatment
Plants," JWPCE, 44_, 8, August 1972. August 1972
8. Basin Management for Water Reuse, EPA Report No. 16110EAX,
February 1972.
Section V
1. Ferguson, J.F. and McCarty, P.L. , "Effects of Carbonate and
Magnesium on Calcium Phosphate Precipitation," Environ. Sci.
Technol. 5_, 534-40(1971).
2. Jenkins, D. Ferguson, J.F., andMenar, A. B. , "Chemical
Processes for Phosphate Removal," Water Research, 5,
369-89(1971).
3. Cecil, L.K. , "Evaluation of Processes Available for Removal of
Phosphorus from Wastewater," EPA, Project No. 17010 DRF,
Contract No. 14-12-581 (October 1971).
4. Shindala, A. , "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal from Waste-
waters - Part 1", Water and Sewage Works, 66-71 (June 1972).
5. Minton, G.R., and Carlson, D. A. , "Combined Biological-
Chamical Phosphorus Removal", Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.
44, 1736-55 (1972).
287
-------
6. Van Fleet, G.L., Barr, J.R. , and Harris, A.J., "Treatment
and Disposal of Chemical Phosphate Sludges in Ontario," paper
presented at the 45th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Atlanta, Georgia (October 1972).
7. Thompson, J.C., "Removal of Phosphates at a Primary Waste-
water Treatment Plant," New England Jour. Water Poll. Control
Fed., 6, 121-37 (1972).
8. Weller, L.W. and Wahbeh, V. N. , "Design of Waste-water Treat-
ment Plant Additions at Rochester, New York,11 paper presented
at the 45th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Atlanta, Georgia (October 1972).
9. Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal, EPA Program
No. 17010 GNP, Contract No. 14-12-936 (October 1971).
10. Convery, J.J., "Treatment Techniques for Removing Phosphorus
from Municipal Wastewaters, " EPA Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 17010---01/70 (1970).
11. Long, B.A., Nesbitt, J.B., and Kountz, R.R., "Soluble Phosphate
Removal in the Activated Sludge Process - A Two Year Plant
Scale Study, " presented at the 26th Annual Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, LaFayette, Indiana
(May 1971).
12. "Development of Phosphate Removal Processes," Detroit Metro
Water Department, EPA Water Pollution Control Research Series,
17010FAH07/70 (July 1970). ~~
13. Leary, R.D. , Ernest, L.A. , Powell, R. S. and Manthe, R.M. ,
"Phosphorus Removal with Pickle Liquor in a 115 MGD Activated
Sludge Plant," Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, EPA Water Quality Office, Grant No. IIOIOFLQ
14. Gulp, R. L. , and Culp, G.L., Advanced Wastewater Treatment.
Van Nostrand-Ruinhold New York (1971).
15. Adrian, D. D., and Smith, J.E., "Dewatering Physical-Chemical
Sludges, " presented at the Conference on Applications of New
Concepts of Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment, sponsored
by the International Association of Water Pollution Research and
the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee (September 1972).
16. Schmid, L.A., and McKinney, R.E., "Phosphate Removal by a
Lime-Biological Scheme." Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. 41,
1259- (1969). ~~
288
-------
17. Grigoropoulos, S.G., Vedder, R.C., and Max, D. W. , "Fate of
Aluminum-Precipitated Phosphorus in Activated Sludge and
Anaerobic Digestion," 43. 2366-82 (1971).
18. Malhotra, S.K. , Parrillo, T.P. , and Hartenstein, A. G. ,
"Anaerobic Digestion of Sludges Containing Iron Phosphates,"
Jour. San. Eng. Div. , Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr. , SA5,
629-46 (1971).
19. Singer, P.C., "Anaerobic Control of Phosphate by Ferrous Iron,"
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. . 44, 663-69 (1972).
20. Wildi, P. , "Operating Experience and Results Using the Simul-
taneous Precipitation of Phosphates in Activated Sludge Plants
for 5,000 to 30,000 Inhabitants in the Canton of Zurich," Water
Research, 6_, 477-79 (1972).
21. Shuckrow, A.J., Bonner, W. F. , Presecan, N. L. , and
Kazmierczak, E.J., "A Pilot Plant Study of Physical-Chemical
Treatment of the Raw Wastewater at the Westerly Plant in
Cleveland, Ohio," Water Research, 6, 619-26 (1972).
22. Saduk, S. E. , "An Electrochemical Method for Removal of
Phosphate from Waste Waters," EPA Water Pollution Control
Research Series 17010---02/70 (1970).
23. Bell, G.R., Libby, Div. and Lordi, D. T. , "Phosphorous
Removal Using Chemical Coagulation and a Continuous Counter-
current Filtration Process," EPA Water Pollution Control
Research Series 17010 EDO 06/70 (1970).
24. Ewing, L. , "Phosphate Removal Systems for Small Activated
Sludge Plants," a paper presented to the Pennsylvania's Water
Pollution Control Assn. , State College, Pennsylvania (August 1970),
25. Levin, G.V., and Shapiro, Jr., "Metabolic Uptake of Phosphorus
by Wastewater Organisms," Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. ,
37_, 800- (1965).
26. Mulbarger, M.C., Shifflett, O.G., Murphy, M.C., and Huffman,
D. D. , "A Full-Scale Evaluation of "Luxury Uptake" for
Phosphorus Removal," presented at the 42nd Annual Conference
of the Water Pollution Control Fed. , Boston, Massachusetts
(October 1970).
27. Levin, G.V., Topol, G. J. , Tarnay, A.G., and Samworth, R. B. ,
"Pilot Plant Tests of a Phosphate Removal Process", Jour. Water
Poll. Control Fed. 44, 1940-54(1972).
28. Sherrard, J.H., and Schroeder, E. D. , "Importance of Cell
Growth Rate and Stoichiometry to the Removal of Phosphorus from
the Activated Sludge Process," Water Research 6, 1051-57 (1972).
289
-------
29. Winkler, B. F. , andThudes, G. , "Kinetics of Orthophosphate
Removal from Aqueous Solutions by Activated Alumina, " Jour.
Water Poll. Control Fed. 43, 474-82 (1971).
30. Ames, L. L. , "Evaluation of Operating Parameters of Alumina
Columns for the Selective Removal of Phosphorus from Waste-
waters and the Ultimate Disposal of Phosphorus as Calcium
Phosphate," Robert A. Taft Research Center, Report No.
TWRC-8 (March 1969).
31. Eliassen, R. , and Bennett, G. E. , "Anion Exchange and Filtration
Techniques for Wastwater Renovation, " Jour. Water Poll. Control
Fed., 39, R82-91 (1967). ~ '
32. Pollio, F.X. , and Kunin, R. , "Tertiary Treatment of Municipal
Sewage Effluents," Environ. Sci Technol. 2, 54-60 (1969).
33. Gregory, J. , and Dhond, R.U. "Wasewater Treatment by Ion
Exchange" Water Research 6, 681-694 (1972).
34. "Investigation of a Niw Phosphate Removal Process," EPA
Water Pollution Control Research Series, 17010DJA 1 1/70
Contract No. 14-12-487 (November 1970).
35. Block, J. , "Chemically Exfoliated Vermiculite for Removal of
Phosphate from Wastewaters," EPA Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 17010 DHK 08/69 Contract No. 14-12-485
(August 1969).
36. Memoranda on "Cost of Phosphorus Removal in Conventional
Wastewater Treatment Plants by Means of Chemical Addition,"
from Robert Smith of National Environmental Research Center.
Cincinnati, Ohio, Nov. 3, 1971, May 30, 1972, July 6, 1972,
July 17, 1972.
37. "Activated Sludge Processing," Union Carbide Corporation,
EPA Report No. 17050 DNW, February 1972.
Section VI
1. Monograph No. 9, Environmental Reporter, 20 August 1971,
2. Chemical Handbook Manual of Current Indicators, Stanford
Research Institute, August 1971.
3. Personal Communication, L. Cox, EPA, 11 September 1972.
4. "News Release of Friday, 1 May 1970", U. S. Department of
Interior, FWCA.
290
-------
5. "Report to OECD Working Group on Detergents", Bunch, R. L. ,
September 1971.
6. "Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conventional
Waste-water Treatment Facilities, " Black and Veatch, Inc. ,
EPA Report No. 17090 DAN.
7- JBF Scientific Corporation unpublished data.
8. "Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index, " EPA - Office
of Water Programs (Current Edition).
9. "Wholesale Prices and Price Indices - Industrial Commodities, "
U. S. Department of Labor (Current Edition).
10. "COST2, " A Computer Program by Richard Eilers, EPA - NERC
Cincinnati.
11. Personal Communication, W. C. Krumri, Proctor and Gamble,
Cincinnati, 6 September 1972.
12. Process Design Manual For Phosphorus Removal, EPA Report
No. 17010 - GNP.
13. "Cost and Performance Estimates For Tertiary Wastewater
Treating Processes, " Smith, R. L. , McMichael, W. F. ,
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1969.
14. "Employment and Earning Statistics - Water, Steam, and
Sanitary Systems (SIC 494-497), " U. S. Department of Labor.
15. "Wastewater Treatment Plant Cost Estimating Program, "
R. G. Eilers, R. Smith, EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1971.
291
-------
SECTION XI
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Liquid-Phase Treatment System Options
For Phosphorus Removal
System Option 1: Addition to the Primary Clarifier
A.
Process Schematic*
Chemical
Prelim.
Trmt. Units
#only major treatment units are shown. Buildings, pumps, etc. are
omitted for simplicity. Also, processes incidental to P-removal, e.g.,
chlorine contact basins, are not included.
B. Attainable Effluent P: 2 mg/1 (either option)
C.
Alternative Chemical Additives
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lime
Alum + Polyelectrolyte
Pickle Liquor or FeCl? & lime
FeCl., + Polyelectrolyte
System Option,2; Addition to a Flpeculation Basin Prior to Primary Clarifier
A. Process Schematic
Chemical-
Rapid
Mix
Flocculator
293
-------
B. Attainable Effluent P: 2 mg/1
C. Alternative Chemical Additives
1. Lime
2. Alum + Polyelectrolyte
3. Pickle Liquor or FeCl2 & lime
4. FeCl., + Polyelectrolyte
System Option 3; Chemical Addition to the Aeration Basin in Activated
Sludge Treatment
A. Process Schematics
>econd.
Sett.
Chemical
B. Achievable Effluent P; 2 rrig/1
C. Alternative Chemical Additives
1. Alum
2. FeCl3
3. Pickle Liquor or FeCl2 (not one of the modeled schemes)
4. Sodium Aluminate
294
-------
System Option 4: Chemical Addition to Trickling Filter Effluent
A. Process Schematics
B. Achievable Effluent P; 2 mg/1
C. Alternative Chemical Additives
1. Alum
2. FeCl3
3. Pickle Liquor or FeCl? (not one of the modeled schemes)
4. Sodium Aluminate (not one of the modeled schemes)
System Option 5; Option 3 or 4 Plus Multi-Media Filtration
A. Process Schematics
1. Sub-option 5-A.
Filter Aid
Aeration
Basin
Filtra-
tion
Chemical"
295
-------
2. Sub-option 5-B.
Chemical
B. Achievable Effluent P; 0. 5 mg/1
C. Alternative Chemical Additives
1. Alum
2. FeCl3
3. Pickle Liquor or FeCl2 (not one of the modeled schemes)
4. Sodium Aluminate
System Option 6: Lime Addition to Secondary Effluent
A. Proces s Schematics
1. Sub-option 6-A. Single Stage
Secondary-
Effluent —^
Rapid
Mix
ime
Flocculator
Settler
Recar-
bonator
Filter
2. Sub-option 6-B. Two Stage
Secondary-
Effluent ~~"
Rapid
Mix
Flocculator
Lime
Filter
Recarb.
296
-------
B. Achievable Effluent P
Option 6-A Single Stage 0. 5 mg/1
Option 6-B Two Stage 0. 1 mg/1
System Option 7; Alum Addition to Secondary Effluent
A. Process Schematic
Secondary .
Effluent ~*~
Rapid
Mix
Flocculator
Settler ]
V /
Filter
Chemical
B. Achievable Effluent P: 0. 3 mg/1
C. Alternate Chemical Additives
1. Alum
2. Fed,
Z97
-------
APPENDIX B
Sludge Handling System Options
Option 1
All
Sludge
Gravity
Thickening
Anaerobic
Digestion
>
Dewatering
Dewatering Alternatives
1. Drying Beds
2. Vacuum Filtration
3. Centrifugation
Application
Existing plant contains anaerobic
digester, no incinerator
Option 2
All
Sludge
Gravity
Thickening
Dewatering
Incineration
Dewatering Alternatives
1. Vacuum Filtration
2. Centrifugation
298
-------
Application
Existing plant treats primary and secondary
sludge in combination, has incinerator
Option 3
Primary +
Tertiary
Gravity
Sludge (If
Any)
Secondary
Sludge
imcKemng
Flotation
Thickening
i
j
Dewatering
Incineration
Dewatering Alternatives
1. Vacuum Filtration
2. Centrifugation
Application
Existing plant has flotation thickener
Option 4
All
Sludge
Gravity
Thickening
Anaerobic
Digestion
Dewatering
-
Incineration
299
-------
Dewatering Alternatives
1. Vacuum Filtration
2. Centrifugation
Application
Existing plant contains anaerobic digester,
contains incinerator
Option 5
Tertiary
Lime
Cln^rrc.
Gravity
Thickening
— »-
Centrifuga-
tion
Calcination
»i
Slaking
Application
Phosphorus removal scheme selected is
lime addition to secondary effluent
Note
Thickening and dewatering processes used in this option are
independent of any similar processes used in primary and
secondary sludge handling "upstream" in the plant.
300
-------
APPENDIX C
Design Parameters
Type of
Sludge
A. No Chemical Added
Primary
Primary- & Trickling
Filter
Primary fc Activated
B. Lime Addition Before
Primary
Primary
Primary & Trickling
Filter •
Primary & Activated
C. Fe or Al Addition Before
Primary
Primary
Primary & Trickling
Filter
Primary & Activated
D. Fe or Al Addn. to Aerator
Primary & Activated
E. Chemical Addn. to
Trickling Filter Effluent
Primary & Trickling
Filter
F. Fe or Al Addn. to
Secondary Effluent
Primary & Activated &
Tertiary
Primary & Trickling
Filter & Tertiary
G. Lime Addn. to Sec.
Effluent
Tertiary Lime Sludge
Sludge % Solids
Unthickened
4
4
3
5
5
4
2
3
1. 5
4
5
3
4
3
Thickened
8
7
6
9
8
7
5
6
4
7
8
6
7
10
Design Solids
Loading
Ib/sq ft/day
20
12
10
20
15
10
8
10
8
12
15
10
12
20
301
-------
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR VACUUM FILTRATION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
.
F.
Type of
Sludge
No Chemical Added
Primary & Activated
Primary & Trickling
Filter
Digested Primary &c
Activated
Digested Primary &
Trickling Filter
Lime Addition Before
Primary
Primary & Activated
Primary &t Trickling
Filter
Fe or Al Addn Before
Primary
Primary &i Activated
Primary & Trickling
Filter
Digested Primary &t
Activated
Digested Primary &
Trickling Filter
Fe or Al Addn to
Aerator
Primary & Activated
Digested Primary &
Activated
Chemical Addn to
Trickling Filter
Primary & Trickling
Filter
Digested Primary
&t Trickling Filter
Fe or Al Add to
Secondary Effl.
Primary & Activated
Tertiary
Primary & Trickling
Filt. & Tertiary
Digested Primary &
Activated & Tert.
Digested Primary &
Trick. Filt & Tert.
Liquid & Solids
Processing Options
From Which Sludge
Is Derived
--
—
L.O. I
S. O. II, III
S. O. II, III
L.O. I
S. 0. II, III
S. O. II, III
S. O. I, IV
S. O. I, IV
L.O. II
S. O. II, III
S. O. I, IV
L.O. Ill
S. 0. II, III
S. O. I, IV
1
L.O. V
S. O. II, III
S. O. II, III
S. 0. I, IV
S. 0. I, IV
Design
Yield
(Ibs /sq
ft/hr)
4. 5 -
7
4
4.5
6
7
i
3
'5 ''
3
4
6
5
7
6
5
6
6
5
Chemica!
(Ib/Ton
i FeCL,
as FeCl3
70
40
: 70
60
' '
, •.
70
.
40
. . 'J. . ,
70-
60
70
•
70
40 |
60 ;
i
l
70
!
40
70
I
60
I
L Dose
Solids)
Lime
as CaO
< 100
160
180
160
100
160
180
160
100
180
160
160
100
160
180
160
302
-------
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
Type of
Sludge
A.
B.
C.
No Chemical Added
Digested Primary &
Activated
Digested Primary &
Trickling Filter
Fe or Al Add'n Before
Primary
Primary & Activated
Digested
Primary & Trickling
Filter Digested
Fe or Al Add'n to Aerator
to Trick Filt Effl, or to
Secondary Effl
Primary &: Secondary
& Tertiary (if any)
Digested
Bed Area Requirement (sq ft/capita)
Open Beds
North
2.3
1.6
2.6
1.8
2.4
South
1. 8
1. 3
2. 0
1. 5
Covered
Beds
1.4 .
1. 1
1.6
1.3
1
i
1
2.1 1.4
303
-------
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION, FLOTATION
THICKENING AND MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION*
Conventional Anaerobic Digestion
Organic Loading Factor = 40 Ib VSS/day/1000 cu ft
Hydraulic Loading Factor = 30 days detention
High-Rate Anaerobic Digestion
Organic Loading Factor - 150 Ib VSS/day/1000 cu ft
Hydraulic Loading Factor =15 days detention
Multiple Hearth Incinerator
Solids Loading Factor = 2 Ib/hr/sq ft hearth area
Air Flotation Thickening
Solids Loading Factor = 2 Ib/hr/sq ft
Chemical Dose = 10 Ibs Polymer/ton
*Design parameters for these processes are assumed to be independent
of the liquid-phase processing and sludge handling scheme selected.
304 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1973 546-311/102 1-3
-------
) /Vuni/MT
,S'u/-;.'<-'
06B
SELECTED WAVE:* R:SOUXCES ASSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
JBF Scientific Corporation
Title
A Computer Model For Evaluating Local Phosphorus Removal Strategies
10
j22j
Donald S. Yeaple
David A. Barnes
Francis A. DiGiano
16
Project Designation
Contract No. 68-01-0758
21 Nate
Citation
mo I Descriptors (Starred first) ~~ '•
*Phosphorus, #Water Pollution Treatment, '-Evaluation, *Costs, Local
Governments, Eutrophication
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
^Phosphorus Removal Strategies, Chemical Treatment, Detergents
27
Abstract
A computer model for evaluating a number of strategies for removing phosphorus
in wastewater has been developed. The influence on total treatment cost of
several non-treatment strategies such as the elimination of phosphates in deter-
gents can be evaluated in terms of the treatment cost at local waste treatment
plants.
A review of phosphorus removal technology was conducted in order to deter-
mine what methods should be included as available techniques in a treatment
strategy. Chemical precipitation techniques were selected as being both avail-
able and most effective at the present time and in the immediate future.
The model reports to the user the total cost of a selected strategy for removing
phosphorus. Over 21 treatment schemes with several sludge handling schemes
can be selected and evaluated depending on local conditions. The computer
guides the user through a series of questions and answers to develop a local
profile and prediction of future conditions.
**•*•*'" Donald S. Yeaple
Institution
JBF Scientific Corporation
VVR:102 (REV, JULY >»•»)
WRilC
»BNO, WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT. TOl rtATEH RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
6I>G. I S.7.J- 3H
------- |