EPA-600/2-77-018
JANUARY 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND PRETREATMENT IN THE
BUFFALO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
cateqories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
NOTE
To order this publication, MCD-31, Industrial Waste
and Pretreatment in the Buffalo Municipal System,
write:
General Services Administration (8FFS)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication,
-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND PRETREATMENT
IN THE BUFFALO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Grant No. R803005
Project Officer
Thomas E. Short, Jr.
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Project Advisor
Gary Otakie
Municipal Technology Branch
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
MCD-31
-------
ABSTRACT
The requirements and effects of combined treatment of indus-
trial and domestic wastewater were investigated for the Buffalo
Sewer Authority's sewerage system. The objectives of the study
were: Ij^to establish an industrial waste control program; 2)
to establish an equitable cost recovery and user charge system-
and 3) to evaluate the effects of the local, state and federal
requirements on the industrial users of Buffalo's sewerage system,
A comprehensive industrial waste survey was performed to ob-
tain the required background information on industrial dis-
charges. This was accomplished in three phases: Phase I identi-
fied the industrial users and their types of discharges (ie
domestic and process); Phase II determined the quality and quant-
ity of wastewater from 85 of the larger industries in Buffalo-
and Phase III determined the quality and quantity of wastewater
from an additional 79 industries.
Material balances were performed on Buffalo's sewerage sys -
tern in order to define the volume and waste characteristics of
each class of user (residential, industrial, inflow and infiltra-
tion; . This data is essential in developing equitable cost re-
covery and user charge programs and to properly establish incom-
patible pollutants discharge limits.
Based upon the findings of the Industrial Waste Survey and
the material balances, an industrial waste control program was
developed. Buffalo's program included revised sewer use regula-
tions coupled with a permit system and monitoring program.
A combination of ad valorem tax and wastewater service
charges, based on waste strength and volume were used to recover
the cost of treatment. In addition, for industries discharging
high strength wastes, surcharges were used to recover the in-
creased cost of treatment incurred. An economic evaluation of
these programs on the industrial users was then performed. Eval-
uated were: the economics of reducing incompatible pollutant
loadings (pretreatment vs joint treatment, and pretreatment vs
dilution) and the economics of reducing compatible pollutant load-
ings (surcharge vs dilution and surcharge vs pretreatment).
A 95,000 liter/day activated sludge pilot study was con-
ducted to evaluate the effects that industrial users will have on
111
-------
the treatment processes. The metal concentrations in the effluent
and waste sludges were defined and the potential of credits for
the incidental removals of metals was explored.
In the study area, three potential options were found for
the disposal of the sludge generated by Buffalo sewage treatment
plant: soil conditioning, landfill, and co-disposal with refuse.
The industrial contributions of metals to the waste treatment
plant could affect the use of the first two options. However, the
enforcement of Buffalo's Sewer Use Regulations will result in a
sufficient reduction of metal loadings to minimize the sludge
disposal problems due to its metal content.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant R803005-
01-2 by McPhee, Smith, Rosenstein Engineers for the Buffalo
Sewer Authority under the partial sponsorship of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. This report covers the period from April
1, 1974 to December 31, 1975 and work was completed as of January
31, 1976.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract .............................................. iii
Figures [[[ vii
Tables [[[ ix
Acknowledgments
1 . Introduction
2 . Conclusions
3 . Recommendations ............................... 12
4. Industrial Waste Survey ......................... 15
5. Material Balance Around the Sewage System ........... 36
6. Development of an Industrial Waste Program .......... 43
7. Economic Assessment of Buffalo's Joint Treatment ____ 53
8. Combined Domestic and Industrial Waste Treatment ____ 76
9 . Municipal Sludge Disposal ........................... 93
10 . References ................................. !Q2
11. Bibliography ........................................ 104
12. Appendices .......................................... 107
A. Characteristics of SIC Categories ............... 108
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Development of an Industrial Waste Control Program.. 18
2 BSA Industrial Waste Survey Questionnaire - Page 1.. 20
3 BSA Industrial Waste Survey Questionnaire - Page 2.. 21
4 XYZ Example 26
5 Contributors to BSA's System 37
6 Organization Chart - Proposed Industrial Waste
Section 51
7 Cost Recovery § User Charge System Under PL 92-500.. 55
8 Electroplater's Annual Costs for Meeting Effluent
Limitations 69
9 Dilution Costs vs. Surcharges for the BSA System.... 72
10 Annual Costs for Pretreatment of Compatible
Pollutants 74
11 Pilot Flow Diagram 78
12 BSA Process Diagram 95
B-1 BSA' s Sewer User Regulations 124
C-l Daily Cadmium Variation 171
C- 2 Daily Chromium Variation 172
C-3 Daily Copper Variation 173
C-4 Daily Cyanide Variation 174
C-5 Daily Lead Variation 175
C-6 Daily Nickel Variation 176
C- 7 Daily Zinc Variation 177
vn
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Industrial Occurrence by SIC Divisions 23
2 Industrial Distribution by Volume 23
3 Toxic Pollutants - Wet vs. Dry Weather '..'. 40
4 Material Balances on the Buffalo Sewerage System 42
5 BSA's Limited Discharge Limits 46
6 Summary of Pretreatment and Monitoring Schedule 49
7 Distribution of BSA's Construction Cost by Design
Parameters 59
8 Distribution of BSA's 0§M Costs by Design
Parameters 60
9 First Year Cost Distribution - BSA System........... 61
10 Application of Industrial Waste Rate Formula 64
11 Cost of Pretreatment Facilities by SIC Category 66
12 Requirements for Municipal Heavy Metal Treatment 67
13 Tertiary Two-Stage Lime Treatment Costs 68
14 Electroplater's Options for Meeting Effluent
Limitations 70
15 Cost of Dilution vs. Surcharge - Examples 71
16 Reductions from Pretreatment 73
17 Example of Industrial Surcharges 75
18 Trace Element Balances on BSA's Pilot Plant 81
19 Characteristics of Pilot Exit Streams - Summary 84
20 Average Influent Cone. § Removals for Pilot Plant
Operation 85
21 Surchargeable Loadings in the BSA System 87
22 Summarized Sludge Quantities from Pretreatment 89
23 Pretreatment Effects on BSA's Sludge 90
24 Examples of Industrial Sludge Characteristics 91
25 Annual Costs for Solid Waste Disposal Facility 100
A'l Characteristics of SIC Categories 109
C-l November's Pilot Plant Operational Data 157
C-2 December's Pilot Plant Operational Data 160
C-3 Daily Trace Element Concentrations 163
C-4 Waste Primary Sludge Characteristics 169
C-5 Waste Secondary Sludge Characteristics 170
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions to the overall
project by the staff of McPhee, Smith, Rosenstein Engineers in
particular Mr. Irwin Rosenstein for his overall direction and
supervision, and Miss Deborah Brody for the physical preparation
of this report.
The assistance and cooperation of the Buffalo Sewer Author-
ity; Mr. Gillman Laehy, General Manager, Mr. Richard Kressin,
Mr. Daniel Tattenbaum, and Mr. Norbert Gonglewski is gratefully
acknowledged.
Dr. Thomas E. Short of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Project Officer and Mr. Gary Otakie of the
Municipal Construction Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, provided valuable guidance throughout the project. Ap-
preciation is expressed to Mr. Charles H. Sutfin and Mr. William
A. Whittington of the Municipal Construction Division and to
Mr. Thomas Shannon of Region II, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency for all their cooperation and assistance.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Buffalo, like many other industrialized communities, treats
both industrial and residential wastewaters at its sewage treat-
ment plant. While combined treatment can be mutually beneficial
to both the users and the treatment agency, it can also result
in the need for additional planning and administration to operate
the facility. In addition, the publicly owned treatment works
is subjected to more stringent discharge criteria. A publicly
owned treatment works, which accepts industrial waste, must
1) define the cost of treatment then equitably proportionate it
to its users; 2) define what is acceptable for discharge to its
sewerage system then enforce it; and 3) insure that the methods
used in items 1 and 2 are in compliance with its National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and EPA's
requirements resulting from the acceptance of federal aid for
the facility's construction.
In concert with these requirements, the objectives of this
study were: 1) to establish an industrial waste control program,
including the revision of Buffalo's existing sewer use regula-
tions; 2) to establish an equitable cost recovery and user charge
system; and 3) to evaluate the effects of the local, state and
federal requirements on the industrial users of Buffalo's sewer-
age system.
The first task was to obtain a data base from which these
programs could be developed. Extensive information relative
to industrial discharges was obtained through a comprehensive
industrial waste survey. In addition, analyses were performed
on composite samples from outside sewer districts tributary to
the system and on a residential section of the city to determine
their contributions. The treatment plant's influent waste char-
acteristics were determined and the effluent and sludge charac-
teristics were projected for Buffalo's secondary treatment
plant, from data obtained during the pilot study on the Buffalo
Sewer Authority's new treatment facility which is slated for
completion in 1980.
An industrial waste control program was developed which
-------
included the revision of the existing sewer use regulations and
the adoption of a permit and monitoring program to enforce the
regulations. In establishing this program, consideration was
given to the various alternatives for controlling industrial
discharges and to the legal authority necessary to enforce the
control measures. In addition, the use of the proposed Federal
Standards of performance and pretreatment standards for indus-
trial discharges into publicly owned treatment works was evalu-
ated for use in the Buffalo Sewer Use Regulations.
The use of ad valorem tax and wastewater service charges,
based on waste strength and volume, were evaluated to establish
an equitable cost recovery and user charge system for Buffalo.
In addition, the economics for reducing the compatible and in-
compatible pollutants loadings from industry were evaluated.
The joint treatment of industrial and residential waste-
water can offer both advantages and disadvantages to a publicly
owned treatment works. As part of this study, an investigation
was made into the effect that various industrial discharges have
on the overall system. Three of the effects given special con-
sideration in the study were: 1) the anticipated reduction in
pollutants loading due to the enforcement of Buffalo's Sewer
Use Regulations; 2) the possibility of granting credits to in-
dustrial users based on the incidental removals of incompatible
pollutants at Buffalo's waste treatment plant; and 3) the effect
that the inclusion of industrial waste has on Buffalo's sludge
disposal options.
THE BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY SYSTEM
The City of Buffalo is located in northwestern New York
State, CErie County) encompassing 42.7 square miles along the
northern end of Lake Erie and the Niagara River. The city
and surrounding area has a gentle slope with a maximum elevation
of 698.95 ft. in the northeast and a minimum of 571.84 ft. at
lake level.
The city is approximately 89.5 percent developed accord-
ing to the 1963 Land Use Survey, The majority of the undevel-
oped area is comprised of inland waterways and vacant land.
The Great Lake's Water Basin, in particular Lake Erie and
the Niagara River, is used by Buffalo and the surrounding com-
munities as both a source of drinking water and wastewater dis-
posal. Tributary to the Basin and flowing through Buffalo are
three other waterways which are used to convey wastewater:
the Buffalo River, the Cazenovia Creek and the Scajaquada Creek.
The population of the City of Buffalo has decreased from
Vts peak of almost 600,000 during the 1950's to its present
-------
level of 460,000. Population projections by various state and
local agencies show Buffalo's population to remain essentially
unchanged over the next thirty years. On the other hand, the
population of the metropolitan area has followed the national
trend by increasing to its present level of 1.3 million persons.
Only a slight increase is projected for the future.
Buffalo and its surrounding area can be considered to be
highly industrialized. The type of industries range from steel
mills and oil refineries to flour mills and dairy processors.
As can be expected, the waste generated varies widely in volume
and complexity. While generally the larger industries treat
and discharge directly to waterways, substantial industrial
wastewater is discharged to the Buffalo Sewer Authority's system
for conveyance and treatment.
In 1935, the Buffalo Sewer Authority was formed to manage
and regulate the City's wastewater disposal efforts. Soon
thereafter, in July of 1938, the Bird Island Treatment Plant
went on stream. At the present time, a secondary treatment
plant with facilities for the removal of phosphorus is under
construction. Its completion date is set for early 1980. The
present flow averages 643 megaliters/day (170 MGD) and the de-
sign flow for the new plant is 681 megaliter/day (180 MGD).
Erie County undertook a county-wide sewerage study to de-
velop a master plan for the construction of sanitary sewage
treatment and collection systems. A sub-regional plan was
adopted whereby adjacent sewer districts are combined for treat-
ment at one plant. Under this plan the Buffalo Sewer Authority
will treat wastewater from certain outside sewer districts. At
the present time, the Authority is treating approximately 113.6
megaliters per day from communities outside of Buffalo. The
projected plan has some of these communities dropping out of
the Buffalo system as new plants are constructed, and others
joining the system once their interceptor sewers are built.
An average of 75.7 megaliters per day of extraneous flow
enters the Authority's system via the Scajaquada Creek. The
creek is a natural waterway flowing westward through the city and
terminating at the Niagara River. Originally, the creek re-
ceived only overflows during wet weather, however, direct dis-
charges were gradually made as storm, relief projects were im-
plemented. The Authority enclosed the creek at the city line
and now utilizes it as an integral part of its sewer system.
The Buffalo Sewer Authority presently has a project underway
and others on the drawing board, to eliminate this source of
extraneous flow.
The collection system of the Buffalo Sewer Authority is
largely combined sewers. The most recent comprehensive sewer-
-------
age study, found that 96% of the city's sewers were of the
combined type. In addition, 603 of the sewers were constructed
prior to 1910 with only 8% installed since 1941. Many of the
sewers were installed at a minimum grade and as a result, solids
tend to settle out in them during dry weather.
As can be expected, after considering the age of the sewers,
the area's relatively flat topography, and the high water table,
infiltration is a problem. The Authority's consultants have
estimated that ground water infiltration city-wide, to average
1380 liters per hectare per day.
Ground water infiltration is not the only source of ex-
traneous flow in the Authority's system. River water, on oc-
casion, enters the system through overflows which either have
no backwater gates or through gates which are jammed open by
debris. The city presently has seventy outfalls to open water-
ways. The average yearly inflow from these overflows is approx-
imately 4.2 megaliters per day.
Leonard S, Wegman Co., Inc, Comprehensive Sewer Study for the Buffalo
Sewer Authority, Buffalo, New York, 1973. p.IV 1 - IV 22.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY
1. To satisfy the federal construction grant and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit's requirement,
an industrialized community must perform an industrial waste
survey.
2. The industrial waste control, cost recovery and user
charge programs as well as the industrial waste survey itself,
can be facilitated by conducting the industrial waste survey in
phases. In the Buffalo survey, the first phase was identifica-
tion of all industrial users, the second phase was sampling of
the most significant industrial contributors, and the third phase
was follow-up sampling of the remaining significant industries.
3. Industries using the municipal system can be identified
by using existing sewer files, city and state industrial direc-
tories, tax and water records, and telephone yellow pages.
4. Industrial waste questionnaires were sent out to obtain
background data. However, 90% of these had to be followed up
by phone calls or scheduled plant visits to obtain questionnaires
which were accurately completed.
5. An effective method for improving the efficiency in
obtaining reliable data from the questionnaires, particularly
those sent to non-manufacturing establishments, was to include a
cover letter with the questionnaire explaining how the question-
naire relates to specific types of establishments. The letter
would direct their attention to significant areas of concern
thus aiding in the completion of the questionnaire.
6. The identification phase of the industrial waste survey
identified 1020 of the 1466 industries as being "dry" (no pro-
cess water) and an additional 26 as being either out of business
or synonymical with other firms.
7. A public relations program is an important part of an
industrial waste survey. It should be initiated as soon as pos-
sible and maintained at all times since it stimulates industrial
-------
cooperation and provides additional input for the entire indus-
trial waste program.
8. The Buffalo Sewer Authority determined that because of
the large amount of resources, expertise and short time duration
required for the initial sampling and analysis program, it was
cost effective to utilize a consultant to perform the work under
the Authority's supervision.
9. The initial sampling and analysis of the industries dis-
charging into the sewerage system was conducted by the city, in-
stead of utilizing industrial self-monitoring for three reasons;
A. This would provide more reliable data to serve as
a baseline for its continuing program.
B. The data obtained would be more consistent in that
the same sampling and analytical procedures would be used.
C. Economy of scale can be realized by having one cen-
tral organization conduct all the sampling and analysis required.
10. The results of the sampling and analysis program pro-
vides the data necessary to develop cost recovery, user charges
and industrial waste control programs.
11. An in-plant investigation which physically locates dis-
charge points, water sources and sampling locations is essential
to the success of the sampling phase of the industrial waste
survey.
12. Industries generally have more than one connection to
a sewerage system, which is an important consideration in plan-
ning an industrial sampling program. In Buffalo, the average
for the initial 85 industries sampled was 2.3 connections/indus-
try.
13. It is important to obtain more than one composite sam-
ple per industry to insure that the data obtained accurately
estimates the industry's normal discharge. For the 85 indus-
tries initially sampled in Buffalo's survey, the average number
of daily composite samples/connection was 3.1.
14. Although only 85 out of Buffalo's 420 wet (process
wastewater) industries were sampled, this amounted to 851 of
the industrial flow and served as a good basis for projecting
loadings for the remaining industries.
15. The total cost for developing Buffalo's industrial
waste program was approximately $450,000. The manpower alloca-
tion for each phase was:
Phase I - 6450 hours or 4.5 hours/industry to identify
the 1466 industrial users at an estimated cost of $75/industry.
-------
Phase II - 11,600 hours or 138 hours/industry to sample
and analyze 600 composite samples for 85 industries at an esti-
mated cost of $2,100/industry, plus capital expenditures.
Phase III - Similar to Phase II, however there are
only minor capital expenditures.
The manpower allocation for developing the Industrial Waste
Control Program was:
Sewer Use Regulation - 400 hours at an estimated cost
of $11,000.
Cost Recovery and User Charge System - 800 hours at an
estimated cost of $22,170.
Monitoring Program - 100 hours at an estimated cost of
$2,400.
MATERIAL BALANCE
16. In order to establish meaningful discharge limits and
to equitably distribute the cost of treatment to all users of
its sewerage system, a publicly owned treatment works must de-
fine the volume and waste characteristics of each class of user,
both point source and non-point source. This can be accomplished
through a sampling program for industrial and domestic discharges
and stormwater.
17. The industrial sampling, residential sampling, and the
sampling at the treatment plant provided the basis for a mater-
ial balance on Buffalo's sewerage system. The following are the
results of the material balances for dry weather flow:
Over 83% of the arsenic, cyanide, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc are contributed by industry.
Although only 5% of the mercury present was attributed to indus-
try, the 57% contributed by the Scajaquada Creek may be of an
industrial origin.
Industry contributes 34% of the BOD, 40% of the COD,
27% of the SS, and 38% of the phosphorus loadings.
18. Based on an analysis of the sewerage treatment paint's
influent during wet and dry weather, it was concluded that
stormwater did contribute significant quantities of lead and
zinc. However, the stormwater was not found to contribute
measurable quantities of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, CN.
19. The heavy metal content of the sewage could result in
high metal concentrations in the sludges and could have an ef-
fect on Buffalo's digestion process and sludge disposal options.
-------
Accordingly, any operational problems caused by these metals would
have to be reduced by an effective industrial waste program.
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL PROGRAM
20. It is necessary for a publicly owned treatment works in
an industrial community to have a comprehensive industrial waste
control program in order to meet today's more stringent require-
ments.
21. An enforceable sewer use regulation coupled with a
permit system and a self-monitoring schedule was adopted as a
most practical and economical industrial waste control program
for Buffalo's needs.
22. Once an industrial waste control program has been estab-
lished, it is essential that the publicly owned treatment works
conduct or require a scheduled monitoring program.
23. Self-monitoring by each industry is more effective when
the municipality has conducted the industrial waste sampling to
establish a baseline for comparison with subsequent self-monitor-
ing data. Buffalo's monitoring program includes self-monitoring
by industry as a basis for its continuing cost and control pro-
grams. The treatment agency must periodically spot check the
industrial discharges to insure that the information being sup-
plied by the industrial self-monitoring program is accurate.
24. Based on the evaluation of the proposed federal stan-
dards of performance for industrial discharges into publicly
owned treatment works, the use of production to establish efflu-
ent criteria was not recommended because it is complicated, ad-
ministratively difficult to handle, time consuming, and not com-
pletely understood by all the personnel that would be frequently
using it. The use of concentration as a base for establishing
discharge limits is more practical from an administrative point
of view, however, it requires a more rigid system of control to
include monitoring and plant inspections.
25. In Buffalo, the use of a wastewater service charge
based upon the waste's volume and strength was found to be the
most equitable method for recovering the cost of treatment from
all the classes of users.
26. Since Buffalo's treatment plant construction is regu-
lated by PL 84-660, the use of an ad valorem tax in conjunction
with the wastewater service charge, was found to be a good method
for distributing the costs for that portion of the treatment
plant set aside for future use and extraneous flow.
27. It was found to be cost effective to use one rate for
-------
the domestic strength waste rather than charge each user based
on their individual waste strengths. A surcharge would be
levied on those users having waste strengths in excess of normal
domestic waste.
28. It was found to be cost effective for industries to pre-
treat individually rather than having Buffalo expand its treat-
ment capability to remove incompatible pollutants.
29. For seven of the nine electroplaters investigated in the
Buffalo system, the economics favored pretreatment rather than
dilution for meeting incompatible pollutant discharge limits.
For the other two electroplaters, dilution was favored since they
were only slightly in excess of the discharge limits.
30. The publicly owned treatment works will be able to re-
cognize the industries using non-contaminated water for dilution
purposes by comparing an industry's present water consumption to
its historical usage.
31. For the Buffalo system, it was found to be cost effec-
tive for industries discharging high strength compatible waste,
to pay the surcharges, rather than dilute their waste.
32. It is cost effective for some of the industries using
the Buffalo system to use pretreatment of compatible pollutants
and reduce or eliminate their surcharges.
33. From the results of the industrial waste survey, it
was concluded that many industries could reduce or eliminate
their surcharges by making simple, low cost, in-plant process
modifications.
34. The cost effectiveness of pretreatment or dilution by
industries either to meet sewer use regulations for incompatible
pollutants or to reduce user charges and or surcharges for com-
patible pollutants will vary with each case. Important criteria
are: quantity discharged, strength of waste and the correspond-
ing dilution required, land availability for pretreatment faci-
lities, and sludge disposal problems resulting from pretreatment.
35. For some industries that presently discharge directly
to a receiving stream, it will be cost effective for them to
discharge all or portions of their wastewaters to a publicly
owned treatment works. Since this study was initiated, one in-
dustry that previously had a direct discharge to a receiving
stream has entered the Buffalo system and two others are nego-
tiating to redirect substantial portions of their discharges to
the Buffalo system.
-------
REMOVAL OF METALS
36. The results of the pilot plant study indicated that
better than 601 removals could be expected for lead, chromium,
and copper. Smaller, but significant removals, were also ob-
tained for zinc and cadmium while the removals of nickel and
cyanide were insignificant.
37. Based on these removals, the Buffalo Sewer Authority
has a basis for predicting credits for industries that will
reduce the degree of pretreatment required.
38. During the pilot study, significant incidental removals
of heavy metals were obtained, however, the results were highly
variable with the standard deviations of the removals ranging
from 17.8 for nickel and 29.9 for lead.
39. This incidental removal of heavy metals will result in
high metal concentrations in the sludge and could have an effect
on Buffalo's digestion process and sludge disposal options.
40. Since Buffalo's new secondary treatment plant was de-
signed for combined treatment, the industrial contribution of
compatible pollutants is necessary for its efficient and econ-
omical operation.
41. The enforcement of Buffalo's sewer use regulations will
result in a substantial reduction of the metal content in the
influent to the waste treatment plant due to industrial pre-
treatment and reduce the likelihood of any operating problems
caused by metals. The projected decrease will be greater than
48% for copper, lead, nickel, zinc, chromium and cadmium.
SLUDGE
42. The projected decrease iji the influent's metal concen-
tration due to industrial pretreatment will result in an im-
proved sludge quality which may be suitable for disposal as a
soil conditioner. The quantities of copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
chromium and cadmium in the sludge will be reduced by at least
501 due to industrial pretreatment.
43. The sludges resulting from industrial pretreatment will
have high metal concentrations and proper disposal methods will
have to be employed. At the present time in Buffalo, landfill
disposal of this type of sludge is broadly utilized.
44. Buffalo has three options for its sludge disposal:
landfill, soil conditioning, co-disposal with refuse.
45. Of these three options, the industrial metal contribu-
10
-------
tion^significantly affects only the use of the sludge as a soil
conrli ti onpT .
11
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY
1. Where possible, an industrial waste survey should be
conducted before the design of the treatment plant has been com-
pleted so that problem areas can be solved during the design
stage rather than during the operation.
2. In-plant investigations should be an integral part of
an industrial waste survey. They should be conducted far enough
in advance of the sampling stage so that problems located by the
in-plant investigation can be solved without interfering with
sampling.
3. When time and money permit, the publicly owned treat-
ment works should conduct on its own, the detailed sampling and
analysis stage of the industrial waste survey to insure that
the results obtained are accurate.
4. Before sampling and analysis is undertaken, strict
quality control procedures should be adopted for taking and anal-
yzing the samples. This will help to avoid legal problems stem-
ming from the contesting results.
5. The sampling and analysis program for each industry
should cover more than one day. This will help to insure that
the data obtained, accurately estimates an industry's normal
discharge.
MATERIAL BALANCES
6. The publicly owned treatment works should define the
waste strength and volume for all classes of users, both point
source and non-point source in its sewerage system. These are
important considerations in establishing the discharge limits
and an equitable cost recovery and user charge system.
7. Publicly owned treatment works can conserve their
financial and manpower resources by approaching the problem
systematically and by only performing detailed investigations
on those users which have an effect on the sewerage system. For
12
-------
example, the BSA initially sampled only 85 of the 420 wet indus-
tries and used the resulting data to develop its cost and indus-
trial waste control programs. The 85 industries sampled repre-
sented 851 of the industrial flow and provide a good data base
for establishing these programs.
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL PROGRAM
8. Publicly owned treatment works in industrialized
communities should develop a comprehensive industrial waste
control program. This program should not only establish dis-
charge criteria, but also include a method for insuring that
these criteria are met.
9. Every publicly owned treatment works should have the
power and authority to enforce its regulations on all users of
its system.
10. When industry performs the monitoring function, the
publicly owned treatment works should spot check the industrial
discharges to insure that the data supplied is accurate.
11. The use of production units to establish discharge
limits is not recommended. Based on an evaluation of the pro-
posed federal standards of performance for industrial discharges
to publicly owned treatment works, it was felt that the use of
production units would result in greater administrative problems,
paper work, and cost than would a concentration basis.
12. When using concentrations to define discharge criteria,
the publicly owned treatment works should strictly enforce its
control program through monitoring and inspections to identify
diluters.
METALS REMOVAL
13. A publicly owned treatment works should evaluate its
potential for credits for the incidental removal of incompatible
pollutants in its treatment plant. These credits can be used
to lower the industrial pretreatment requirements.
14. If the heavy metal removals obtained in Buffalo's
system are to be used to establish credits, then the high degree
of variability in the results should be taken into consideration
in establishing these credtis.
15. In establishing a credit, the publicly owned treatment
works should evaluate the effects of the incidental removals
on their sludge process and disposal options.
13
-------
SLUDGE
16. The sludges resulting from industrial pretreatment
should be disposed of properly. Necessary safe guards should
be established where they are lacking, to insure that the sludge
disposal is environmentally sound. Publicly owned treatment
works should be cognizant of industrial pretreatment sludge
disposal practices and should coordinate with the various solid
waste agencies.
17. In light of the increasing fuel costs and air pollution
requirements, the Buffalo Sewer Authority should re-evaluate its
present sludge treatment and disposal methods.
18. A detailed investigation should be performed to deter-
mine which sludge treatment process and disposal method will be
cost effective for Buffalo's secondary treatment plant. The
scope of this investigation should be much broader than this
study's investigation of how industrial waste effects the sludge
disposal options.
19. From the data obtained during the industrial waste
survey, it is recommended that more research efforts should be
directed in the following two areas:
A. Development of more accurate and instantaneous
methods of making analytical determinations of toxic materials.
B. Development of more data on removal mechanisms
for heavy metals. With the data already compiled by this and
other work, studies should be made on a full sized secondary
plant for at least a year.
14
-------
SECTION 4
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
In addition to sewage from residential sources, many of the
country's publicly owned treatment works (POTW) also accept in-
dustrial wastewaters. Because industrial wastes exhibit wide
variations in strength and toxicity, the inclusion of these waste
waters into a POTW necessitates additional planning and restric-
tions on the use of the sewerage system in order to protect the
sophisticated advanced treatment processes. When a POTW treating
industrial wastewaters accepts Federal Aid for the upgrading or
construction of its sewerage facility, additional requirements
are placed on that POTW. Three of these requirements are:
1. Pretreatment: Pretreatment of industrial waste is re-
quired in varying degrees to protect the sewerage system from
damage and upset and also to insure that pollutants do not pass
through the treatment works untreated.
2. Recovery of Construction and 0§M Costs: The intent of
this requirement is to insure that every user of- a sewerage sys-
tem pays his fair share of the treatment costs and that industry
is not subsidized in the construction of the sewerage facility.
This is accomplished by recovering costs in two areas: 1) con-
struction or capital, and 2) operation and maintenance costs
(0§M). Under Public Law 92-500, industrial users of the POTWs
must repay their share of the construction costs funded by feder-
al grants over a defined period of time not to exceed 30
years. In some instances, the portion of the construction costs
funded by state grants may also require recovery. In addition to
the construction costs, the annual 0§M costs must be recovered by
some type of user charge system whereby each user or class of
user pays their proportional share of the 0§M costs. Since the
inclusion of industrial waste in a POTW system usually creates
more than one class of user, the user charge system, in order to
be equitable, must take into account the variance in waste char-
acteristics of its users. This is normally accomplished by bas-
ing the charge on flow rate, waste strength, and volume.
3. NPDES Permit: All POTWs must secure a NPDES permit to
legally discharge their treated effluent. In cases where the
15
-------
POTW treats industrial waste, an additional section (IV) entitled
"Industrial Waste Contribution to Municipal System" is required
for every major contributing industry. A major contributing in-
dustry is defined as one that: 1) has a flow of 50,000 gallons
or more per work day; 2) has a flow greater than 5% of the total
flow received at the treatment plant; 3) has a toxic material in
its waste stream; or 4) has a significant impact, either singly
or in combination with other contributing industries on a public-
ly owned treatment work or on its effluent. Included on the form
is production information as well as the industry's waste strength
and volume.
In order for the public treatment works to meet these re-
quirements, it must define who uses the system and the magnitude
of the industrial contribution. To accomplish this, the POTW
performs an industrial waste survey (IWS) which can be approached
in three ways. Common to all three approaches, is the identifi-
cation of the industries using the system. Once identified, the
first method then estimates the specific industrial contributions
from waste characteristics published in literature. The second
method goes one step further by requiring that all major con-
tributing industries submit to the POTW analysis of their waste
streams for review. The third method differs from the second in
that the POTW itself samples and analyzes each major contributing
industry's discharge.
The Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA) elected to use the third
method in performing its industrial waste survey for two reasons.
The first was that while estimates may be used to satisfy Part
IV of its NPDES permit, for the first year, specific analytical
data is then required by the second year and therefore the first
method is only appropriate initially. The second reason for
using method three was the questionable reliability of the re-
sults obtained from method two. By the BSA scheduling, sampling
and analyzing the industrial waste stream themselves, they mini-
mized the possibility of the results being obtained on non-
typical production days or having some of the discharge and flow
data omitted.
Shown in Figure 1 is the flow diagram the BSA used in devel-
oping its industrial waste control program. The IWS segment,
outlined in dashed lines in Figure 1, was completed in three
phases: identification, cross section sampling, and follow-up
sampling.
PHASE I - IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRIES
This first phase of Buffalo's IWS was an inventory stage
and defined the magnitude of the following two phases. The first
step was to compile a complete list of all types of non-residen-
tial users of the BSA system. The types of industries ranged
from restaurants and laundries to steel mills and oil refineries,
16
-------
and included establishments in sewer districts outside the city
limits, but tributary to the Authority's system, as well as the
establishments within the city's boundaries.
Establishing the list of contributors was complex and time
consuming. Through contacting various organizations and agencies,
five primary sources were identified and subsequently used to
establish the list of contributors. These were:
1. Existing sewer authority files
2. City and State industrial directories
3. Water records
4. Tax records
5. Telephone yellow pages
From these sources, a complete list consisting of 343 com-
mercial and 1,123 industrial establishments was obtained. By
preliminarily screening this list for known inconsequential con-
tributing establishments, it was possible to reduce the number
of establishments requiring further investigation to 631.
The next task was to evaluate further the remaining indus-
tries in order to estimate the characteristics of the waste dis-
charged to the sewer. This screening process would allow a de-
cision to be made as to which industries would require sampling
and analysis. To obtain the specific data required to make this
evaluation, an industrial waste questionnaire was developed for
circulation to the selected industries. To stimulate cooperation
and so that the industries would be acquainted with the IWS, a
news release explaining the purpose and goals of the program,
as well as the federal regulations requiring it, was published
for one week in the local newspapers and included with the three
page questionnaire sent to the 631 industries.
The first two pages of the questionnaire, Figures 2 and 3,
requested information regarding production, employment, water
use and number and location of sewer connections. The third
page was for the chemical analysis of the plant's discharge and
was only to be completed if a previous analysis had been per-
formed.
While waiting for the return of the completed questionnaires,
water data was obtained from the various water agencies for all
the establishments. In addition, the establishments were pre-
liminarily placed in Standard Industrial Classifications^ (SIC)
and a map atlas and coordination system for locating the estab-
lishments and their points of discharge was prepared. In order
^ecutive Office of the President. Standard Industrial Classification
Manual. Washington B.C. 1972 edition. 649p.
17
-------
FIGURE I-DEVELOPMENT OF AN
EVALUATE
LEGAL a
FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
EVALUATE
P. 0. T. W.
AUTHORITY
REVIEW
EXISTING
ORDINANCE
PROJECT
REQUIREMENTS
COMPILE
MASTER
LIST OF
INDUSTRIES
COMPILE
WATER DATA
OBTAIN
INDUSTRIAL
BACKGROUND
DATA THROUGH
QUESTIONNAIRE
INDUSTRIAL
CATEGORIZATION
(SIC)
PREPARE
PRELIMINARY
MAP ATLAS
CLASSIFICATION
OF INDUSTRIES
(WET, DRY)
REVIEW
E. P. A. a
N.Y.D.E.C.
GUIDELINES
18
-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
OF
COST RECOVERY
a USER CHARGE
SYSTEM
i
DEVELOPMENT
OF INDUSTRIAL
WASTE
ORDINANCE
COMPILATION
OF
RESULTS
IN-PLANT
INVESTIGATION
SAMPLING
a
ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
(SURCHARGE OR
PRETREATMENT)
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
COMPLETE
MAP
ATLAS
-------
Figure 2. Sic #
BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY Map*
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY Loc#
Sheet 1 of 3 S.D.
(For BSA use only)
Company Name_ ___ _ .
Addre s s — ._
Representative __Title Phone No.
Hours of operation/day Days of operation/week
No. of employees: Shift No. 1 Shift No. 2 Shift No. 3_
Type of Business: (Manufacturer, Distributor or Retail)
RAW MATERIALS AMOUNT PER YEAR
PRODUCTS AMOUNT PER YEAR
Type of Process: Continuous Batch
Industrial Wastes:
What waste products are disposed to: Sewer Other_
Is discharge to sewer: Intermittent Steady
Quantity/day Est. or measured
Are wastes pretreated? If so, which and how:
Plant Sewer Connections to BSA
Size & Shape Material Location in Plant Connected To
(1) _____ .
(2) __ ,
(3)
Are maps showing sewer connections available?.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED ON YOUR LETTERHEAD.
20
-------
Figure 3.
BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY
INDUSTRIAL WASTE STTRVEV
^ Sheet 2 of 3
ANNUAL VARIATION IN OPERATION
Is there a scheduled shutdown?
Is production seasonal?
If so:
Period of full production
If not:
WATER USE
Source (s) of water
Period of limited production.
Period of no production _
Employees (No.) Max.
Min.
Average # of employees
If from an agency. Account #_
Water used for:
Sanitary
Air Conditioning
Process water
Jacketed cooling water
Othdr
Period of max. water use.
Period of min. water use
Water disposal other than sewer.
Is water consumed in product?
Type and number of air pollution devices.
When?
to
to
_to_
% of time at max..
% of time at min._
Recirculated
. gpd
. gpd
Amount.
Amount.
% of total.
Amounl/day_
Have the waste streams been previously analyzed?
Are radioactive isotopies used in your process?
21
, Specify:.
-------
to minimize any confusion which may arise with industries having
similar names or locations, the coordination system was used to
reference all industries. This was accomplished by assigning
each industry a code number consisting of: the number of the
map atlas sheet on which it was located and its location number
on that sheet. When a distinction was to be made between an
industry's various connections to the BSA's system, each connec-
tion was assigned a number which was included in the code. For
example, code number 24-12-3, refers to connection number 3 of
industry number 12 on the 24th sheet of the map atlas.
The response to the questionnaire was very poor and slow;
one month after the initial mailing, only 251 of the industries
had returned the forms. Of this 25%, approximately 601 were re-
turned incorrectly completed or with much of the important data
omitted. A particular problem was encountered with the non-
manufacturing establishments. Many of these either did not re-
turn the questionnaire or returned them marked "non applicable".
Many of these firms did not consider their waste industrial in
nature. However, service type establishments such as laundries,
car washes, barrel reclaimers and hospitals have wastes which
may have high organic loadings, toxic materials or both and it
is important to include these in the sampling and analysis phase
of the survey. To obtain the remaining questionnaires and the
omitted data, it was necessary to follow up on 90% of the
questionnaires sent out. Phone calls, sometimes repeated phone
calls, and scheduled plant visits, where an engineer had to help
the firm complete the forms, were utilized to obtain the data.
In the case of non-manufacturing establishments, one method
which was found to be effective in obtaining completed question-
naires was to tailor the cover letter, included with the ques-
tionnaire, to specific classes of establishments and thereby
direct their attention to areas we considered significant in
completing the questionnaire. In retrospect, it was found that
approximately 40% of the establishments returned the question-
naire with some reminding by phone; 30% of the questionnaires
were completed over the phone, and 30% of the questionnaires
were completed by plant visits.
As completed questionnaires with production data were re-
ceived, their SIC classifications were finalized. A small num-
ber of companies surveyed were found to be either out of business^
moved out of the service area, or were synonymical with other
firms. This reduced the number of establishments to 605. Table
1, below, shows the breakdown of industrial users of the BSA
system.
22
-------
Table 1. INDUSTRIAL OCCURRENCE BY SIC DIVISIONS
Major Title
Occurrence
Division A
Division C
Division D
Division E
Division F
Division G
Division I
- Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
- Construction
- Manufacturing
- Transportation, Communiciations, Electric,
Gas, and Sanitary Services
- Wholesale Trade
- Retail Trade
- Services
2
4
417
14
35
31
102
Total
605
From the quantity of water used, the number of people em-
ployed, and the production data, the industries were classified
as wet (process wastewater) or dry (non-process wastewater), of
which 185 were classified as dry. The wet industries were then
further analyzed as to the type of raw materials used, the
quantity of water consumed and whether the discharges consisted
of process water or cooling water. The industries' wastewaters
were then categorized into organic (toxic and non-toxic) and
inorganic (toxic and non-toxic). Of the 420 industries classified
as wet, it was postulated that 309 should be investigated further.
The recommendations for further investigation is based on the
industry's potential as a revenue source or the industry's poten-
tial for violation of the existing or future sewer use regula-
tions. Shown in Table 2 is the distribution of the 420 industries
by water usage.
Table 2. INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION BY VOLUME
Water Usage-MGD
Number
>1 MGD
>0.5
>0.2
< 0.05
<0.05
.5
.2
.1
4
5
19
29
32
331
From these 309 industries, 85 (representing a cross-section
of the significant types of industries found in the Buffalo ser-
vice area) were selected for sampling in the next phase. These
85 industries were the largest in their respective SIC categories
23
-------
PHASE II - CROSS-SECTION SAMPLING
The backbone of any industrial waste survey, is the sampling
and analysis program. The sampling and analysis of wastes from
the major contributing industries within a large municipal system
provides the data necessary to make sound engineering judgements
and decisions with respect to:
1. Locating and identifying the major industrial discharges.
2. Locating and identifying violators of the Sewer Regula-
tions .
3. Development of a system of protection for the municipal
treatment works to include the enforcement of a Sewer Regulation.
4. Recommending pretreatment systems which will satisfy the
the POTW's requirements; and
5. The development of an equitable cost recovery system for
capital as well as operating costs.
Phase II was designed to be a cross-section sampling program
to speed up the development of the new Sewer Regulation, cost
recovery system and method for controlling the discharges into
the BSA system. Even though the number of industries sampled was
reduced from 309 to 85 for this phase of the project, 11
months were required for completion. For the 85 industries sam-
pled, 600 composite samples were analyzed and the data compiled
for use in developing the above programs.
Since the Phase II sampling program included 84% of the
total flow from Buffalo's industrial community, it was felt that
these results would provide a good background for estimating
BSA's total industrial and commercial loadings. The estimate
was completed by using the sampled results in each SIC category
as an average loading for other industries not sampled but in the
same category. If all 309 industries were to have been included
in this phase, the development of the above mentioned programs
would have been delayed a year to eighteen months. The sampling
and analysis program was carried out in four stages as follows:
1. In-plant investigation
2. Scheduling of industries for sampling
3. The sampling and analysis
4. Reporting
Each industry was handled as an individual case and passed
systematically from one stage to the next thereby providing con-
tinuity to the program and at the same time allowing for any
delays in the program due to poor weather, equipment breakdown,
and curtailment of production by industry. A map was used to
divide the industries into groups according to their location
within the study area to minimize travel time between locations.
The in-plant investigation played a major role in the suc-
24
-------
cess of the sampling program. Investigative teams, consisting
of an engineer and technician, revisited each industry to deter-
mine the following:
1. The number of discharge lines to the BSA system and the
type of waste being discharged through them:
Because of the age of most of the industrial buildings
in Buffalo and the lack of information with regard to the loca-
tion of their waste discharge lines, it became necessary to inves-
tigate thoroughly each plant's sewer system. In many cases dye
was used to locate and isolate the various points of discharge.
If it could be determined that any particular lateral conveyed
solely sanitary waste, that lateral was eliminated from the pro-
gram. This determination, however, could be made in only a
few cases. Where possible, the production processes using each
lateral were determined as well as the pretreatment methods used,
if any.
2. The accessibility of the discharge point for sampling
and flow measurement:
At locations where accessibility to discharge lines was
limited, samples were secured through vent pipes or cleanouts.
Where transmission lines were accessible, "V" notch weirs or
other flow measuring devices were fabricated to suit the needs
at that particular location. It was found that many industries,
even those discharging large volumes, used multiple "Y" type
connections to the street sewer rather than consolidating their
discharges through one or two manhole connections. Approximately
701 of the 85 industries sampled used "Y" type connections.
3. Location and number of water sources:
Water meters played an extremely important role in the
determining of plant flow. In cases where it was impossible to
make direct flow measurement, the total waste consumption was
used to estimate the plant discharges. The inspectors tried to
determine if the industry was receiving water from any sources
other than the city water department. However, in some cases,
this could not be determined until after the flows were measured.
Upon completion of the in-plant investigation, a sketch of
the plant locating the points of discharge and water meters was
prepared. From the previous data obtained on the industrial
waste forms, a preliminary analysis sheet outlining the analysis
to be performed on the sample was completed and the number of
sampling days and compositing times were assigned (see Figure 4).
In most cases, the duration of the composite time for each sam-
ple coincided with the normal work day for the particular indus-
try to be sampled. Composite rather than grab samples, were used
even for determining heavy metal concentrations, since a grab
25
-------
FIGURE 4. XYZ EXAMPLE
RECOMMENDATION
APPENDIX "A"
Company SIC No. 3325
Map Loc. 67-24
XYZ Company Sample Points 3
112 Park Lane Production Hrs. 24
Lancaster, New York Compositing Hrs. 24
Surcharge
Primary - Test results Indicated that when E.C.S.D. #4 becomes tributary
to the Buffalo system, XYZ Company should pay an Industrial waste
surcharge for excess suspended solids.
Secondary - When the new treatment plant goes on stream, no additional
surcharges should be added unless the character of XYZ's waste changes.
Ordinance Violations
During the sampling program, the waste from XYZ's sample point #1
was in violation of the sewer ordinance's grease and oil provisions. In
addition, concentrations of lead and phenols were measured at higher
than acceptable levels.
Water Balance
Allowance - None
Discharge - 450,000 gpd
Cooling
& -414,000 gpd
Process
Sanitary - 36,000 gpd
Special Requirements
Pretreatment - Before entrance into the Buffalo system is permitted, XYZ
Company must pretreat its waste to eliminate the above ordinance violations.
Control Manholes - We recommend that XYZ provide control manholes on
their discharges equipped with continuous monitoring equipment to pro-
1
26
-------
Figure 4 continued. XYZ EXAMPLE
B.S.A. INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
SHEET
Company XYZ Company
Code 67-24-01
Date
Sampling Point #1
Map Loc. fr 67^24
No. of Samples 3_
Type of Sample Composite
Hrs of Sampling 24
No. of Sample Points 3_
Parameters
PH
BOD I
COD
Chlor:
Color
Total
TSS
Settle
Greas
Phenols
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfides
Total i
Cyanid*
T.O.C.
Analyze For
Parameters
Analyze For
Sdavi
>olids
. & Oil
je
la Nitrogen . . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium hexavalent
Chromium-total . . .
Copper
Lead
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Nickle
Zinc
X
X
27
-------
Figure 4 continued. XYZ EXAMPLE
SAMPLE COLLECTION
FIELD SHEET
'..ulusLry XYZ Company
:ode No. 67-24-01
Time of Installation 10:30 AM
Date of Installation Day 1
Collector
DSB
Type of Sample Composite
Method of Sampling Dipper & DC
Hrs of Sampling 24
Grab Sample Required
Size of Outlet Weir
yes
DATE:
Weather
Waste Stream Temp.
Time Sample Collected
Volume Sample
Time Grab Sample #1
Time Grab Sample #2
Time Grab Sample #3
Initial Depth of flow
Flow Meter Range
Flow Meter Base Reading
Initial Water Meter Reading
Time of Initial Reading
Final Water Meter Reading
Time Final W.itftr Motor Reading
REMARKS
Day 1
Cloudy
6°C
Installed
10"30 AM
l\ " over weir
15"
set at 12
Refer to Supple
10:15
i
Day 2
C loudy
8:00 AM
3/4 gal
mental Field Sheet
8:15
Remove equipment
Day 3
Cloudy
Installed
1" over weir
7j"
set at 5
10:30
Day 4
Clear
1°C
9:30 AM
ligal
9:35 AM
1\" over weir
7i"
set at 5
9:45
Day 5
Clear
10:10 AM
0 gal
1 3/8" over wei
7i"
set at 5
10:00
Motor battery
DOA, sample
-------
Company: XYZ Company
Sample Point: #1
Figure 4 continued. XYZ EXAMPLE
SUMMARY ANALYSIS SHEET
Certified Correct
Code: 67-24-01
Type of Sample: Composite
Hrs. of Sampling: 24
Map Loc.# 67-24
No. of Samples: 3
No. of Sample Points: 3
Parameters Date :
PH
BOD (5 day)
COD
Chlorine Demand
Phenol
Total Solids
TSS
Grease & Oil
NH, - N
Total Phosphorous
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium Hex.
Chromium Total
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge
Flow Measured MGD
* Average Value
Day 1
8.1
17.2
722
5.55
0.210
2688
2340
8.31
15.0
5.4
0
35.90
0.19
0.06
0.23
.2985
Day 2
9.4
45
1042.2
12.10
0.155
5412
5160
2.38
10
5R.5
0
88.10
0.44
0.11
0.51
.2711
Day 3
6.7
7.5
446
16.5
0.02
1916
1850
101.9
1.0
2.0
0
*.2652
i
Day 4
76.0
0.20
2.2
0.13
*.2652
Day 5
.2260
tsJ
-------
FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 138-ROIOO
Figure 4 continued. XYZ EXAMPLE
STANDARD FORM A-MUNICIPAL
SECTION 1Y. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
PON AOINCV USE
Submit * description of each major Industrial facility discharging to the municipal lystam, using a separate Section IV for each facility descrip-
tion. indlcat* the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the Industry, the major product or raw material, the flow (In thou-
sand gallons per day), and the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the Industrial facility Into the municipal system. Consult Table
III for standard measures of products or raw material!, (see Instructions)
< • Major Contributing Facility
(lee Instructions)
Name
Number*. Street
City
County
State
Zip Code
1. f>rlmiry standard Industrial
Classification Code (see
Instructions)
J. Principal Product or Maw
Material (see Instructions)
Product
Raw Material
4. Flew Indicate the volume of water
discharged Into the municipal sys-
tem In thousand gallons per day
and whether this discharge Is Inter-
mittent or continuous.
S. Fretreatment Provided Indicate If
pretreatrmnt Is provided prior to
entering the municipal system
«. Characteristics of Wastewator
(see Instructions)
40U
401b
40IC
4Otd
4O1e
4011
401
4O3a
40Jb
404b
40S
XYZ Company
112 Park Lane
Lancaster
Erie
New York
00000
Castings
Quantity
8
Units (See
Table III!
_&fi.
450
.thousand gallons per day
Q Intermittent (Int) QJ Continuous (con)
QYes
B)No
\
-4
4**«
_«**•,
/ v A>
' * -a
406
406
Parameter
Parameter
value
BOD
00310
45
COD
00340
852
T. Solid
00500
3572
S.S.
00530
2320
P
00665
12.2
Phenol
32730
0.88
CN
00720 .
ND
Parameter Fe Pb Ni Zn G&O
a 01045 01051 01067 01092 00550
b 59.0 0.48 1.05 0.56 83.8
30
-------
Figure 4: CONTINUED XYZ EXAMPLE
MH*3
SMITH ST.
MH*»I
N
XYZ CO.
SP*I
•o
DRIVEWAY
DC.
CD
-------
sample can give misleading information unless the industry's dis-
charge is always the same, both in volume and strength. In most
cases, automatic samplers were employed to obtain the necessary
samples. Wherever possible, flow proportionate samples (ie. fre-
quency of sampling was proportional to flow) were obtained. How-
ever, this amounted approximately to 30% of the total due to the
use of "Y" connections to the sewer (ie. no manholes for flow
measurement). The remaining 701 were time composite samples where
a fixed volume was taken at fixed time intervals over the pro-
duction day. The time intervals varied from one every ten minutes
to one every thirty minutes. To insure that the data obtained
was not severely biased due to the particular production activity,
industries were sampled from a minimum of two days to a maximum
of seven days. The average for the 85 industries was 3.1 samples
per industry.
The majority of the industries surveyed had more than one
discharge line to the BSA system. The average for the 85 indus-
tries sampled was 2.3 connections per industry with a range of
from one to seven connections.
The number of discharge points an industry uses greatly
affects the effort required to sample and analyze its discharges.
Multiple discharge points and abnormal production hours place
heavy demands on equipment and manpower which_require good prior
planning and scheduling to minimize difficulties.
One of the problems which was encountered during the Phase
II sampling was in obtaining reasonably accurate flow data for
each sampling location of a particular industry. For an industry
having one discharge point, flows could be estimated from their
water meter(s) readings, however, this method could not normally
be used for industries having multiple discharge points unless
it could be established that the water meter serviced only that
portion of the plant drained by the discharge point in question.
For these "problem" industries, flow data was obtained by plant
inspections whereby plant and BSA personnel estimated the per-
centage of water used by each process and which discharge line
it drained to. In this manner, a rough approximation of an in-
dustry's discharge could be obtained. Control manholes, in which
flows could be accurately measured, were then required for those
industries which had either potentially surchargeable wastewater
or sewer regulation violations.
Industries were scheduled for sampling according to location
rather than by similarities in waste characteristics, to minimize
travel time. Two variables affected establishing the initial
schedule; equipment requirements and the number of discharge
points at each industry. Since the physical characteristics of
the various sampling locations varied widely from location to
location, some adjacent industries being sampled were initially
by-passed until the proper piece of equipment was freed for that
32
-------
installation. The number of discharge points at a particular in-
dustry also affected the sample scheduling since all discharge
points of a particular industry should He sampled at the same
time. In cases where industries had five or six discharge points,
they were initially by-passed and returned to when all discharge
points could be analyzed at the same time.
Samples and flow data were collected on a routine basis at
the end of each work day for the particular industries being sam-
pled. Field sheets were kept by the field crew for each sampling
point. The field sheet contained all pertinent information with
respect to the samples being collected and flow measurement (see
Figure 4). To insure that errors as to the origin of each sample
could not be made, each sample was labeled with a code number and
date which keyed it to the field sheet, preliminary analysis
sheet and industrial waste map atlas. The use of the map atlas
location number, as the sample code number, made a very conven-
ient cross reference.
After being received in the laboratory, the lab crew matched
the coded numbers on the sample containers to the codes on the
anlaysis sheets which told them which analysis to perform on that
particular sample. The routine analysis consisted of such para-
meters as BOD, COD, TSS, phosphorus and chlorine demand. For
approximately 451 of the industries, heavy metal parameters were
also included.
In order that the recommendations for each individual indus-
try would be instituted as soon as possible, monthly preliminary
reports were prepared. Each report contained sufficient informa-
tion to document the survey, characterize plant operations, indi-
cate problem areas in sampling or analysis and make recommenda-
tions regarding cost recovery and ordinance violations. Figure 4
gives an example of a report prepared for a fictitious industry.
By utilizing this cross section sampling, the cost recovery,
sewer use control and sewer regulation programs could be developed
while the remaining recommended industries were sampled.
PHASE III - FOLLOW-UP SAMPLING
This phase was designed to provide the required information
on the remaining 224 industries not yet sampled and at the same
time mate with the industrial waste program being developed from
the Phase II study. Approximately one year from the completion
of the Phase II study, the Buffalo industrial waste program was
functioning and staffed. By this time, 79 additional industries
had been sampled and final recommendations were made for these
and the 85 initially completed. Since Buffalo now has its own
functioning industrial waste section, the remaining 145 indus-
tries will be sampled as part of their permit requirements es-
tablished for the control portion of their industrial waste pro-
gram.
33
-------
MANPOWER AND DIRECT COST PLANNING
The total cost for developing Buffalo's industrial waste
program was approximately $450,000 or $0.75 per person served by
the sewerage system. This cost can be misleading when applied
to other POTWs since the program was designed to satisfy the
specific needs of Buffalo. So that Buffalo's experiences can
be related to other POTWs, an approximate manpower effort for
each stage of the industrial waste control program's development
was made.
Phase I
The first phase of the Buffalo IWS took approximately five
months to complete and did not incur any direct costs. The man-
power requirements occurred primarily on four levels: Project
Engineer, Engineer, Engineering Aid and Clerical. An approxi-
mation of the effort for each level is as follows:
Project Engineer - 1450 hrs. or 1.0 hr./industry
Engineer - 2000 hrs. or 1.4 hr./industry
Engineering Aid - 2000 hrs. or 1.4 hr./industry
Clerical - 1000 hrs. or 0.7 hr./industry
Total - 6450 hrs. or 4.5 hr./industry
It must be kept in mind that the manhours/industry total
shown is an average based upon the more detailed investigation
of the 631 industries sent questionnaires and the remaining 835
industries eliminated in the preliminary screening. At an aver-
age hourly rate of $16.75/hour, the cost/industry would be $75.38,
Phase II
The second phase of the IWS involved inspection, sampling,
analysis and data compiling for 600 composite samples from 85
industries and was completed in approximately eleven months.
Assuming existing laboratory facilities, direct costs are in-
curred for such items as:
Vehicle - $4,000 - $ 6,000
Safety Equipment and Tools - $ 750
Sampling Equipment - $3,000 - $ 9,000
Flow Measuring Equipment - $2,800 - $10,000
If an existing laboratory hatd to purchase additional
equipment to analyze the industrial samples, direct costs would
increase by $20,000 to $35,000.
The minimum manpower requirements for inspection, sampling,
analysis and data compilations, would be approximately:
34
-------
Clerical
Field Crew (2 man crew)
Chemists
Field Engineer
Project Engineer
Total
1500 hrs
3000 hrs
3500 hrs
3000 hrs
of 2.5 hr./comp.
or 5.0 hr./comp.
or 5.8 hr./comp.
or 5.0 hr./comp.
600 hrs. or 1.0 hr./comp.
11,000 hrs. 19.3 hr./comp,
2 3 connections/^ J1 av!Jage °f 3'1 Composites/connection and
1^7 fi £?! /• 3 7i ndustry, the manpower requirements averaged
7n
Phase III
TT ,^third.Phas\manPower requirements were similar to Phase
dlrecHosts
Development of the Industrial Waste Control Program
As previously mentioned, the information generated by the
first two phases of the IWS was used to develop a sewer regula-
tion and cost recovery system. The approximate effort required
to develop these programs was as follows:
Sewer Regulation: Project Engineer - 200 hrs.
Engineer - 150 hrs.
Clerical - 50 hrs.
Total Hours - 400 hrs.
Total Cost - $11,000
em: Project Engineer - 400 hrs.
Engineer - 325 hrs.
Clerical - 75 hrs.
Total Flours - 800 hrs.
Total Cost - $22,200
Project Engineer - 30 hrs.
Engineer - 50 hrs.
Clerical - 20 hrs.
Total Hours - 100 hrs.
Total Cost - $ 2,400
Cost Recovery § User Charge Syst
Monitoring Program:
35
-------
SECTION 5
MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE SEWAGE SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
In order to develop an equitable cost recovery and surcharge
system for all classes of users (ie. industrial commercial and
residential) and to properly establish incompatible pollutants
discharge limits, the POTW must first know the volume and waste
characteristics of each class of user. The industrial waste sur-
vey described in the previous chapter provides the data for one
class of user. In addition, the loadings from other sources
such as residential, infiltration and inflow must also be deter-
mined.
By performing material balances on its sewerage system, the
POTW gains the needed additional information on the various com-
ponents of its system to accurately proportion the costs of
Providing treatment fairly. In addition, the results of the
balances indicate what additional restrictioning is required and
what effect these restrictions will have on the performance of the
waste treatment facility. For example, in the Buffalo system,
prior to this study, it was not known what portion of the organic
loading received at the treatment plant was contributed from in-
dustrial sources. It was also not known whether or not the in-
dustrial contribution was a benefit or a hinderance to Buffalo's
treatment system. In addition, there were questions about the
magnitude of the domestic and stormwater contributions of trace
elements should be restricted in order for Buffalo to meets its
NPDES requirements. It is important to know the answers to all
of these questions when developing an industrial waste control
program.
In performing the balances, the BSA's system was broken
down into five types of contributors as shown in Figure 5, with
the following parameters investigated.
nrm Cadmium Mercury
*°° Chromium Nickel
LU frmnpr Zinc
Tco i.oppei
lb Pvanirlp FlOW
Phosphorus Lyanide
Lead
Arsenic
36
-------
Domestic
Industrial
Scajaquada Creek
Infiltration and
River Inflow
Stormwater
Figure 5. CONTRIBUTORS TO BSA'S SYSTEM
ESTIMATION OF DOMESTIC CONTRIBUTION
Domestic waste from approximately 700,000 persons is re-
ceived by the Sewer Authority from residential sources both within
the city and from outside districts. While fairly good estimates
can be made for BOD and SS loadings from literature, the same can-
not be said for trace elements. To obtain an estimate of the
trace element loadings, a sector of Buffalo's residential com-
munity was examined. To enhance the accuracy, flow proportion
samples were obtained and analyzed for three days. Of the trace
elements, only lead, mercury and zinc were found in measurable
quantities above what is normally found in Buffalo's drinking
water.
In order to get the domestic contribution of the loading to
the treatment facilities, a water balance had to be developed.
This was accomplished by obtaining the average amount of water
supplied daily by Buffalo's water department and subtracting the
industrial consumption and the system's losses. Based upon 1974
population figures, the resulting per capita consumption was
610 liters/day (161 grid) which is reasonable for unmetered sources
such as is the case in Buffalo.
ESTIMATION OF INDUSTRIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
The information obtained during Phase II of the BSA's indus-
trial waste survey was used to estimate the industrial portion
of the total loading received at the Bird Island Treatment Plant.
The first step was to classify the 420 wet industries into 210 SIC
subcategories covering seven major SIC divisions. The second
step was to obtain an average loading of the sampled industries
in each subcategory. The average loading was then applied to the
remaining industries in each subcategory. The loading for each
sampled subcategory was then totaled and an average industrial
loading rate established. Since the sampled industries accounted
37
-------
for 84% of the total industrial flow contributed to the BSA sys-
tem, the application of the average industrial loading rate to
those subcategories which did not include any sampled industries
provided a good estimate of their contribution. The totalization
of all the categories established the estimate of the total in-
dustrial contribution.
A summary of the characteristics of SIC categories investi-
gated, Table 26, can be found in the appendix. The summary
shows not only the quality of waste which can be expected from
industries in the same SIC category and their estimated loading,
but also indicates areas of concern for cost recovery and sewer
use regulations. For example, of the industrial loading to the
treatment plant, the electroplaters category (#3471) contributes
58% of the cadmium, 39% of the nickel, and 21% of the cyanide.
Discharge controls for this category would result in significant
reductions in the overall loadings of these parameters received
at the Authority's Bird Island plant. If in the future, problems
arise with regard to these parameters, the electroplaters cate-
gory would be a prime candidate for investigation. The much lower
but still significant contributions of other trace elements in-
dicate that the Authority must have a much more detailed program
of surveillance.
ESTIMATION OF SCAJAQUADA CREEK CONTRIBUTION
The Scajaquada Creek is a natural waterway flowing westward
to the City of Buffalo. As Buffalo was developing, more and
more sewage entered the creek through overflows until finally it
was enclosed at the city line and made an integral part of the
sewer system. The Buffalo Sewer Authority has a long term pro-
ject underway to divorce the stream from its sewer system, how-
ever for planning, it was included as a contributor.
While organic analytical data is available on the stream's
quality where it enters the city's sewerage system, metals con-
centrations had to be obtained from grab samples. Flow data was
readily available from the USGS gaging station at the city line.
The results of the Scajaquada Creek sampling indicated that
there were three parameters present in quantities that should
cause concern: phosphorus, cyanide and mercury. Approximately
56% of the mercury, 21% of the phosphorus and 10% of the cyanide
loadings received at the Bird Island plant are contributed by
the Scajaquada Creek. Industries upstream of the Scajaquada
Creek's connection to the BSA system are probably the sources of
these substantial loadings. This raises a serious legal ques-
tion as to whether the BSA has the jurisdiction to control these
industrial discharges to meet their NPDES permit requirements.
38
-------
ESTIMATION OF STORMWATER CONTRIBUTION
In estimating the stormwater contributions to a sewerage
system such as Buffalo's, there are many factors which should be
considered, such as the variation in precipation due to the geo-
logical location of the study area. In Buffalo the influencing
factor is Lake Erie. Rain and snow squalls may fall in one por-
tion of the city while other portions remain dry. Storm fre-
quency is an important factor since during extended dry periods,
large quantities of pollutants may build up in the sewers and on
the streets. Thus, the next substantial storm brings higher than
normal concentrations of the various pollutants to the treatment
plant. It is very possible that these concentrations could read
toxic or inhibiting levels causing upset or loss of efficiency at
the facility. All these factors should be carefully examined and
evaluated in making an analysis of the effects the stormwater has
on the system.
The method used to investigate Buffalo's stormwater contri-
bution was to compare the concentrations and loadings for wet and
dry days found at the treatment plant during the pilot operation.
While exact values cannot be obtained by this method, it was used
to show general patterns since time and money did not permit a
more detailed investigation. Of particular interest to this
study were the stormwater loadings for trace elements since these
loadings could have a bearing on the pretreatment requirements
imposed on the industry. From the information supplied by lit-
erature,' »4>^ it would seem that during storms preceded by dry
weather, the concentrations of metals during the initial wet
period would increase due to the quantities washed from the
streets and sewers. However, in general, this was not found to
be true. For all the pollutants other than lead, the average
and mean concentrations for wet weather were less than those for
dry weather. This indicated that the stormwater diluted the
quantities found in the dry weather sewage. Further confirmation
was obtained by comparing the concentrations of the plant's in-
fluent on wet days which are preceded by four or five dry days
(first flush), to the influent concentrations obtained on the
remaining days. Since a first flush occurrence
build-up of pollutants in the system, the concentrations measured
on a first flush occurrence should be significantly higher than
those measured on other days. Unfortunately, the study period
3Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Surface Contaminants. EPA-82-73-233.
4Sarton J., Boyd G., and Agardy F. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Con-
taminants. Journal WPCF. Vol. 46. No. 3. March 1974. p458-467.
Newton C.D., Shephard W.W., Coleman M.S. Street Runoff as a Source of Lead
Pollution. Journal WPCF. Vol. 46. No. 5. May 1974. p999-1000.
39
-------
was generally wetter than normal and only two days could be con-
sidered a first flush: November 18th and December 7th. Lead was
the only parameter investigated which definitely showed a higher
concentration on the first flush days. The first flush results
for zinc, the only other trace element which had a wet weather
loading higher than its dry weather loading, were not conclusive
since the increases on the first flush days could be attributed
to higher industrial activity as was observed on dry days. In
addition, the wet weather loadings, Table 3, with the exception
of lead and zinc, followed the same pattern as was observed for
the wet and dry concentrations. This indicated that stormwater
was only contributing measurable quantities of lead and zinc
during the study period. Stormwater was not found to contribute
measurable quantities of cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel or
cyanide.
Table 3. TOXIC POLLUTANTS LOADINGS - WET vs. DRY WEATHER
Parameter
Cadmium
Chromium-T
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Flow-mg/day
Wet Loading - kg/day
Avg.
0.0013
0.0131
0.0128
0.0126
0.0045
0.0363
0.0046
801.7
non-exceedance
501
0.0011
0.0142
0.0117
0.0075
0.0038
0.0142
0.0036
755.1
90%
0.0023
0.0331
0.0227
0.0318
0.0115
0.0682
0.0087
1105.2
Dry Loading - kg/day
Avg.
0.0020
0.0232
0.0129
0.0072
0.0050
0.0291
0.0049
723.8
non-exceedance
504
0.0016
0.0229
0.0125
0.0075
0.0043
0.0235
0.0045
658.2
904
0.0041
0.0402
0.0238
0.0112
0.0110
0.101
0.0079
752.5
It should be noted that, due to the numerous overflows in
the Buffalo Sewer System, during times of heavy rain significant
quantities of rain diluted sewage overflows into the lake and
rivers. If the quantity of the overflows were included in the
wet weather balance, the metal loadings would increase, however,
since Buffalo Sewer System is largely combined sewers, the con-
centration of metals at the plant would probably remain the same.
ESTIMATION OF INFILTRATION AND INFLOW CONTRIBUTIONS
During the study, economics and time did not allow for
direct measurements to establish the infiltration and inflow
contributions to the system. Therefore, it was necessary to make
estimates from other sources. While in fact, the quantity and
quality of infiltration and inflow varied widely across the city,
for this balance, it was assumed to be constant. For the Buffalo
system, inflow may occur during dry weather due to the lake or
river levels being higher than the overflow chamber's inverts,
causing these waters to flow into the BSA system. Based on the
Authority's average infiltrate rate, 70.8 million liters/day was
40
-------
theiaua?ftv°nftIieiflrW-COntribUtion- T° simPli£y the balances,
the quality of Lake Erie water was assumed to be a good estimate
1"""*1011 ^ infl°W ^ WaS Jed t0
RESULTS OF THE MATERIAL BALANCES
Summarized in Table 4, are the results of the material bal-
ances for four of the five types of contributors to the Buffalo
system. These balances apply only to dry weather conditions since
the uncertainty of storm occurrences preclude considering the
stormwater contributions in the balances. The balances clearly
indicate some important characteristics of the Buffalo system
which must be taken into account not only in developing cost
recovery and sewer use programs, but also in future planning.
One o± the most important areas identified by the balances is
that, with the exception of mercury, over 82% of each of the
trace elements loading is contributed by industry. This indicates
that an industrial waste control program will effectively reduce
these loadings to an acceptable minimum.
A second important area identified was compatible pollutant
loadings for use in an equitable cost recovery and user charge
system. In addition to establishing the loadings attributed to
each class of user, the balance showed that 231 of the flow and
21% of the phosphorus loadings were contributed by non-point
sources. This clearly pin-points an area where the Authority
should direct its efforts and thus reduce the sizable operation
and maintenance costs of those non-point source contributions
which at present must be recovered from the point source users.
(ie. residential and industrial).
41
-------
Table 4. DRY WEATHER MATERIAL BALANCES ON THE BUFFALO SEWERAGE SYSTEM
Parameter
BOD
Kg/day
\ of Total
Cone. -mg/1
COD
Kg/day
1 of Total
Cone. -mg/1
TSS
Kg/day
1 of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Phosphorus
Kg/day
1 of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Arsenic
Kg/day
\ of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Cyanide
Kg/day
* of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Cadmium
Kg/day
\ of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Chromium
Kg/day
\ of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Copper
Kg/day
% of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Lead
Kg/day
% of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Mercury
Kg/day
1 of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Nickel
Kg/day
% of Total
Cone. -mg/1
Zinc
Kg/day
% of Total
Cone . -mg/1
Flow
Megaliters/day
% of Total
Domestic
50,400
60
123
114,390
54
280
46,000
68
112
590
40
1.44
__
0
£0.01
1.04
3
0.003
—
0
£0.01
-
0
<0.01
2.96
2.2
0.007
4.09
13.9
0.01
1.18
39.3
0.003
—
0
£0.01
50.4
15.0
0.123
409
63.5
Industrial
28,900
34
327
83,570
40
944
18,300
27
207
570
39
6.44
0.018
100
0.0002
26.5
87
0.299
4.02
100
0.045
126.6
100
0.43
128.0
97.3
1.45
24.6
83.3
0.278
0.15
5.0
0.002
63.9
100
0.722
283.0
84.2
3.20
88.5
13.7
Infiltration
and Piver Inflow
2,300
3
32.5
5,500
2.5
78
600
1
8.5
0
0
~0
£0.01
—
0
£0.02
—
0
<0.01
—
0
<0.01
0.7
0.5
0.01
0.07
0.2
0.001
—
0
£0.001
-
0
£0.01
2.82
0.8
0.04
70.8
11.0
Scajaquada
Creek
2,500
3
33.3
7,380
3.5
98.4
2,600
4
34.7
300
21
4.00
0
£0.01
3.03
10
0.04
0
£0.01
__
0
£0.01
_
c
£0.01
0.76
2.6
0.01
1.67
55.7
0.022
_
0
£0.01
—
0
£0.01
75.7
11.8
42
-------
SECTION 6
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL WASTE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Of all public utilities, wastewater collection and treatment
systems are probably the most abused. This abuse stems from the
common misbelief that a sewer can carry any unwanted material
that can be put in it. This misuse of the public sewerage system
can affect the efficiency of the system, as well as increase the
operating and replacement costs to the users.
There is certainly no question that many problems experienced
in sewage treatment can be eliminated or to a great extent con-
trolled by the proper regulation of the use of the sewerage sys-
tem. In an industrial area this control can only be brought by
an effective industrial waste program which includes not only
regulations on the use of sewers but also a method of enforce-
ment.
Based on the finding of the Industrial Waste Survey and the
resulting material balances, the Buffalo Sewer Authority elected
to use sewer use regulations coupled with a permit system and
monitoring program to establish its industrial waste controls.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Before any municipality, Authority, or treatment and col-
lection agency can control the waste being discharged into its
system, it must first have the power and authority to enforce
such a regulation. In the case of the BSA, they do have the
power and authority of control under Item No. 8, Section SS1403
of the Laws of New York State - by Authority. To provide a
means of control over other municipalities wishing to use the
Authority's sewage system, a contractual agreement is used. In
order to meet today's requirements for equitable cost recovery
and pretreatment, the power to control industrial discharges
must not stop at the point where the outside municipalities inter-
ceptor sewer enters the Authority's sewerage system, but rather
should extend to the industry's front door. Thus the BSA re-
quires compliance with its sewer use regulations and cost re-
covery and user charge system. Every outside sewer district is
required to enter into a contractual agreement with the BSA.
43
-------
The BSA's ordinance and cost recovery program are specifically
made a part of these contractual agreements. In this manner, the
industrial users outside of the city limits, like the industrial
users inside the city, are required to obtain permits and parti-
cipate in the cost recovery and monitoring programs as well as
allow access to the BSA, EPA, County and State officials for dis-
charge inspection.
DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGE LIMITS REQUIREMENTS
Before a POTW can develop its sewer use regulations, it
should evaluate the federal, state and local requirements to
insure compliance with the most stringent. At the time BSA's
study was undertaken, it was anticipated that the standards of
performance and pretreatment standards for the majority of in-
dustrial discharges into POTWs would be promulgated and that the
Best Practical Control Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA)
would establish the federal effluent criteria. However, as of
this writing, most of the standards for discharge into POTWs are
only proposed. In addition, EPA is considering amending its de-
termination of the discharge criteria from a loading per pro-
duction unit basis to a concentration basis.
New York State's requirements are on a concentration basis
but they have not established any firm guidelines since each
POTW is evaluated based upon the magnitude of its industrial dis-
charges, the type of treatment process employed, and the water
quality standards of its receiving stream. Since New York State
had no applicable guidelines, the proposed Federal requirements
for discharge into POTWs were evaluated to determine their ap-
plicability for use in controlling industrial dischargers served
by the BSA.
In making this evaluation, three major problem areas were
encountered. The first was that in general, industries did not
keep the type of production records required to determine their
allowable discharge. Many industries were even reluctant to
give an estimate based on the required production units since
they felt that the production basis for determining discharge
was too complex and it was information which was confidential
and they did not want to impart it. The second problem area was
how to handle plants having a varied product line. Many of the
industrial users of the Buffalo system have either more than
one product line or associated processes such as captive plating
lines. To further complicate this problem, the waste streams
from the various production lines are often discharged through
common sewer laterals. The third problem was that there was not
enough information available in the published effluent guidelines
to determine the allowable discharges. Even with the aid of the
Development Documents used to establish the guidelines, the de-
termination of what was specifically included was difficult and
44
-------
sometimes not possible.
Based on this evaluation, the BSA had adopted the concen-
tration method of expressing discharge limits because it was
felt that the use of'production units to establish effluent
criteria would result in greater administrative time, paperwork
and cost on the part of the Authority. For example, using the
production basis, when the BSA monitors the discharge from a job
shop plater to insure compliance with the regulations, it could
easily spend four or five manhours just in determining the allow-
able discharge limits for the sampled period since this type of
plater not only changes its quantity and type of plating from
day to day, but also the type of pieces plated.
SEWER USE REGULATIONS
The BSA's sewer use regulations were established to provide
for the maximum possible beneficial public use of the Authority's
facilities through regulations of sewer construction, sewer use
and industrial wastewater discharges.
The results from the Phase II IWS indicated areas of con-
cern which were not covered under its old sewer regulations.
Thus, from the old regulations, a new regulation was developed
to meet BSA's expanding needs and match the sophistication of
the new secondary treatment plant. The new regulation, coupled
with a monitoring program enforced by the BSA's industrial
waste staff provides the tools necessary to control the wastes
discharged into the system.
Buffalo's sewer use regulations were developed around four
major requirements, control of the construction of sewers and
connections, establishment of prohibited and limited discharge
criteria, control of industrial discharges, and establishment
of an enforcement procedure for violations of the regulation.
Two of these requirements, establishment of prohibited and
limited discharges and controlling industrial discharges, were
greatly expanded over the old regulation.
In establishing the prohibited and limited waste discharge
criteria, a distinction had to be made between which wastes
would not be allowed at all and which would be allowed in limited
concentrations. The prohibited wastes section, in general terms
included all wastes which would be hazardous or harmful to
either the sewerage system, public health or the receiving
stream. Since the BSA's limits were established in concentra-
tion terms rather than production units, an antidilution clause
was included to prohibit the discharge of any water for the
purpose of diluting wastes which would normally exceed applic-
able maximum concentration limits. This clause established the
basis for the illegality of dilution to meet discharge limits.
45
-------
The limited discharge concentrations, Table 5 below, was estab-
lished by initially setting the limits based on the applicability
of other existing ordinance limits on the BSA system then re-
fining them to meet New York State Requirements. A copy of the
entire Sewer Use Regulations can be found in the appendix.
Table 5. BSA's LIMITED DISCHARGE LIMITS
Parameter Concentration mg/1
Chromium (total)
Chromium (trivalent)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Cadmium
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Boron
Mercury
Selenium
Cyanide
Phenolics
Grease and Oil
2.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.4 mg/1
0.6 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
.01 mg/1
.05 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
50.0 mg/1
The BSA's NPDES permit establishes certain discharge limits
which must be met. To meet these limits, the Authority must
not only operate its treatment plant efficiently, but must also
control industrial discharges to insure that they do not either
upset the treatment plant or pass through untreated. In formu-
lating the control method that best suited the Buffalo system,
four alternatives were evaluated and ultimately utilized, to
varying degrees, in Buffalo's Industrial Waste Control program.
1. Enforcement of Sewer Regulations:
In the past, with only a primary system, the "Enforce-
ment of the Sewer Regulations" has been a satisfactory method
for controlling discharges. However, a more sophisticated
treatment process, increasingly demanding federal and state re-
quirements and a fluctuating industrial community, this system
alone no longer provides an adequate level of control. Under
this method, the industries are not required to report changes
in their production methods or flow rates. In short,, the Sewer
Authority has no way of monitoring changes in the waste charac-
teristics. In addition, by simply enforcing the sewer regula-
tions, the BSA is not providing a convenient means by which they
can obtain production data and waste characteristics. When the
46
-------
new treatment plant is completed and in operation, this data will
become essential for evaluation of industrial waste surcharges
and to insure BSA's compliance with Part IV of their NPDES per-
mit.
2. Contractual Agreements:
Contractual agreements with each industry would offer
the BSA the maximum possible control. The reason for this being
that a contract is a specific and legally binding agreement be-
tween two parties and is readily enforced in a court of law. As
one would imagine, to negotiate a contract with each major con-
tributing industry in a city the size of Buffalo would be obvious-
ly far too expensive and time consuming. However, it may be
advisable for the Sewer Authority to consider having contractual
agreements with isolated problem industries.
3. Continuous Monitoring Program:
The third method would be a continuous monitoring pro-
gram to insure that each industry is complying with the sewer
regulations. This method has, in the past, been proven to be
very effective. However, it would require a large staff of
chemists and engineers to collect ana analyze tne samples from
each industry. Here again, the cost associated with such a pro-
gram would be excessive.
4. Permits:
The permit system seemed to be the most practical and
workable method; however, permits alone will not insure adequate
control. It must be coupled with a strong enforceable sewer use
regulation and an industrial self-monitoring program. This
means that industries would be required to sample and analyze
their own waste streams and report the results to the BSA on a
routine schedule. To insure that the data being supplied to
them is accurate, the POTWs could spot check the waste from the
industries in question.
As previously mentioned, a sewer regulation alone is not
going to control the wastes being discharged to a municipal sys-
tem. Therefore, a program of enforcement and specific monitor-
ing procedures were developed. As called for in the new regula-
tions, the permit system coupled with an industrial self-monitor-
ing program was adopted as the most practical, economical and
workable method to adequately satisfy Buffalo's needs.
BUFFALO'S PERMIT SYSTEM
Upon enactment of the new sewer regulations, every indus-
trial and commercial establishment is given six months to obtain
an industrial waste permit. A completed application would con-
47
-------
tain all the information the BSA would require to evaluate the
industry's waste stream. Based on the questionnaire, the Sewer
Authority will decide:
1. Whether or not the discharge is of a surchargeable
nature.
2. Whether or not the discharger will be required to pro-
vide pretreatment.
3. Whether or not the discharger should self-monitor.
4. Whether or not further investigation is required.
After the BSA's industrial waste staff has evaluated the ap-
plications and has made its recommendations as to which indus-
tries should: 1) pretreat their wastes; 2) pay an industrial
waste surcharge; 3) install a control manhole; and/or 4) self-
monitor; a formal letter stating the conditions under which the
waste would be accepted will be sent to the discharger. In some
cases the Authority may ask the discharging industry to submit an
industrial wastewater facilities report, to insure that the pre-
treatment which is proposed will be adequate and a time table for
achieveing acceptance will be agreed upon by the applicant and
the Authority.
After all the requirements for the permit are met, a second
letter, formally accepting the waste would constitute the permit.
In addition, industry may be required to self-monitor to insure
compliance with their permit. This requirement will be discussed
in more detail in the following subsection.
BUFFALO'S MONITORING PROGRAM
The monitoring program is an essential part, of an industrial
waste control program. The IWS conducted by the Authority pro-
vided an accurate data base and check enabling the use of indus-
trial self-monitoring to provide the required data in the con-
tinuing program to reduce the expense and work load on the Author-
ity. However, spot checks by the Authority will be used to main-
tain the integrity of the self-monitoring program. A preliminary
schedule has been drawn up, see Table 6, establishing the fre-
quency of both industrial and BSA monitoring. In addition to es-
tablishing a monitoring schedule, Table 6 also summarizes the
industries': pretreatment requirements, flow and SIC code; there-
by providing the pertinent data for each industry in one refer-
ence. The frequency of the required monitoring was based upon
the quantity and characteristic of the wastes discharged by each
industry. If an industry did not have any violations or sur-
charges, then self-monitoring was not required, however, the BSA
will periodically spot check industries which do not self-monitor
for changes in their waste characteristics.
Since the results of the monitoring program are used to es-
tablish: user charges, compliance with sewer use regulations,
48
-------
Table 6. SUMMARY OF PRETREATMENT AND MONITORING SCHEDULE
Industry
44-7
44-24
44-6
44-5
38-11
45-2
38-12
37-7
32-13
S6-6
33-13
34-13
24-2
23-6
23-10
9-2
27-9
SIC #
2011
2011
2011
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2021
2022
2024
2026
2026
2047
2051
2051
2079
Flow
Ipd
101,800
39,400
73,800
1.018 MLD
210,100
424,300
275,200
901,200
103,700
111,700
839,900
1.098 Mil
709,300
157,500
186,600
243,400
1.540 MIX
Control
M.H.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Improved House-
keeping Required For
Solids, G & O
Solids
Solids
G & O
G & O
Solids
Pre treatment
Update
G & O
pH. solid:
PH
New
G & O
G & O
G & 0
G SO
GTA O
pH
G & O
Monitoring Schedule
Self
Annually
Annually
Bl-annually
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Bl-annually
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Quarterly
B.S.A.
Spot check
Every two years
Every two years
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Every two years
Annually
Annually
Bl-annually
Annually
Spot check
Annually
Annually
Annually
Applicable Unit Processes
These unit processes also apply to SIC
codes 2014 and 2077.
1 . Improve in-plant control practices
a) blood recovery
b) handling of paunch manure as
solid waste
2. Course solid separator
3. Removal of all floating oil and grease
4 . Ne utra liza tion
These unit process also apply to SIC
code 2023.
1. Improve in-plant control practices
by recycling of by-product
2. Removal of grease and oils
3. Equalization
4. Neutralization
-------
or a combination of both, the monitoring requirements are strin-
gent. Samples taken in proportion to flow are preferred and
required in some cases. However, samples composited over the work
day are usually acceptable. To allow for normal production
variations, analysis is required on samples collected over three
to five consecutive work days. Registration is required of all
laboratories performing analysis for industrial self-monitoring
to insure that all the analytical procedures, quality control,
and sample preservation methods being used are uniform and in'
accordance with BSA standards. In addition, to minimize con-
flicting results between the industrial analysis and the BSA
spot checks, the Authority provides the opportunity for the in-
dustry to split samples taken during the monitoring period.
PRETREATMENT
Some of the industries will be required to pretreat their
waste. From an industrial point of view, the pretreatment of
waste streams will serve two purposes: (1) to eliminate viola-
tion of the sewer regulations, and (2) to reduce industrial
waste surcharges.
From a municipal point of view, the pretreatment of indus-
trial waste will reduce loadings at the treatment plant, mini-
mize the chance of process upset due to toxic pollutants, and
improve the quality of the sludge. This requirement is outlined
in the Federal Register, Issue 40 CFR 128, and is further elab-
orated on in the Federal Guidelines, entitled "Pretreatment of
Pollutants Introduced into Publicly Owned Treatment Works,"
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in October
1973. Therefore, using the above as a guide, the BSA formulated
its own pretreatment policy.
After reviewing the federal and state policies concerning
pretreatment, the following policies were adopted by Buffalo.
1. Joint treatment of domestic wastewater and adequately
pretreated industrial wastewater is encouraged where it is
economically advantageous.
2. In-plant measures to reduce the quantity and strength
of industrial wastewater flows would be beneficial to joint
treatment, and should be encouraged.
3. Pretreatment requirements should be based on an indi-
vidual analysis of the permitted effluent limitations placed on
an industry and on the potential for adverse effects to the
treatment works.
INITIAL WORKINGS OF BUFFALO'S INDUSTRIAL WASTE PROGRAM
Buffalo's industrial waste program was finalized approxi-
mately one third of the way through Phase III of the IWS and was
staffed according to the Organization Chart present in Figure 6.
50
-------
Figure 6
ORGANIZATION CHART
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL WASTE SECTION
BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY
GENERAL MANAGER
SEWERS
DEPARTMENT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
ENGINEERING
ADMINISTRATIVE
DEPARTMENT
SEWAGE TREATMENT
DEPARTMENT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SECTION
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER OR
ASSOCIATE CHEMIST (I)
TO PRESENT LEGAL INVESTIGATOR
8 BILLING DIVISION
OFFICE OPERATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATOR (I)
FIELD OPERATION
SENIOR
ENGINEER (I)
CLERICAL TYPING (I)
INVESTIGATING
SAMPLING 8 GAGING
ENGINEERING AID
JUNIOR ENGINEERING (2)
LABORATORY
SENIOR SANITARY AND
SANITARY CHEMISTS (2)
-------
The Authority felt that even though additional requirements were
to be placed on the industrial users of their system, the tran-
sition to and acceptance of the new program could be harmonious.
To facilitate the implementation of the new program, the Authority
approached the change over in the following manner: to approach
the industries with an attitude of cooperation and to solicit
ideas thereby stimulating public participation. Instead of de-
manding compliance, the industries were asked to work along side
the BSA so that together they would be able to meet BSA's NPDES
permit requirements.
A series of public meetings were held to explain the new
program and to obtain an exchange of ideas. This method has
been successful and has stimulated an attitude of cooperation
between the BSA and the industries it serves. The initial feel-
ing of industry is that the public meetings were extremely help-
ful in gaining a good understanding of the program.
52
-------
SECTION 7
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF BUFFALO 'S COMBINED TREATMENT
INTRODUCTION
The starting point in assessing the economics of combined
treatment is to estimate what the capital (construction) and
operation and maintenance (0§M) costs will be. Once a good
estimate is obtained, methods for the recovering of the costs of
providing treatment can be developed.
In order to qualify for participation in the federal govern-
ment's financing program for grant funds to POTW's and where the
considered project includes treatment of industrial waste, the
grantee must assure the granting agency that it has or will have
in effect an equitable cost recovery and user charge system.
The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated specific require-
ments with respect to establishing and implementing these systems
in the Federal Register, Volume 39, Number 29, 40 CFR, Part 35,
State and Local Assistance, February 11, 1974. The requirements
are as follows:
§ 35.925-11 User Charges
That, in the case of grant assistance awarded after March 1, 1973,
a project involving Step 2 or Step 3, an approvable plan and
schedule of implementation have been developed for a system of
user charges to assure that each recipient of waste treatment ser-
vices within the applicants service area will pay its proportionate
share of the cost of operation and maintenance (including replace-
ment as defined in § 35.905^17) of all waste treatment service pro*
vided by the applicant and the applicant must agree that such sys-
tems will be maintained.
§ 35.925*12 Industrial Cost Recovery
(a) That, in the case of any grant assistance awarded after March
1, 1973, for a project involving Step 2 or Step 3, signed letters
of intent have been received by the applicant from each signifi*
cant industrial user to pay that portion of the grant amount air
locable to the treatment of its waste. Each such letter shall
also include a statement of the industrial user's intended period
of use of the treatment works. A significant industrial user is
53
-------
one that will contribute greater than 10 percent of the design
flow or design pollutant loading of the treatment works. In
addition, the applicant must agree to require all industrial
users to pay that portion of the grant amount allocable to the
treatment of wastes from such users.
Shown in Figure 7, is a graphical representation of the cost
recovery and user charge system required under PL 92-500.
Once an industrial cost recovery and user charge system has
been established, the industrial user can evaluate it in conjunc-
tion with the pretreatment requirements to determine the most
economical solution for their specific needs. This evaluation may
indicate that an industry should pretreat its compatible pollu-
tants rather than pay a surcharge or that minor production changes
or better housekeeping procedures should be instituted to lower
surcharges or pretreatment requirements. In systems using a con-
centration basis for discharge limits the potential exists for
industry to use dilution to either meet discharge limits or to
reduce or eliminate surcharges. During this study, as will be
discussed later in this section, consideration was given to these
areas to indicate their effects on the Buffalo system.
BACKGROUND - COST RECOVERY AND USER CHARGE SYSTEM FOR BUFFALO
Since Buffalo secured their grant prior to March 1, 1973,
the regulations governing the industrial cost recovery and user
charges are those of PL 84-660 rather than PL 92-500. There are
two basic differences between these two laws: first,_PL 84-660
does not require the recovery of the industrial portion of the
Federal grant, and second, the use of ad valorem tax will not
satisfy the Federal requirement for user charges for PL 92-500.
PL 84-660 requires the applicant demonstrate the use of ad val-
orem tax as the base for user charge. This is based on a de-
cision made by the Comptroller General of the United States.0
The problems involved in developing a method by which the
BSA should distribute its financial obligation to those that
benefit from it is quite complex. The system must be based on
the principle that the total annual revenue required for the
operation of the sewage works should be distributed to the users
and non-users for whose use, need and benefit the facilities are
provided, approximately in proportion to the cost of providing
the use and the benefits of that works.
In the past, the most commonly accepted method for raising
6Agee, James L. User Charge Systems. Program Guidance Memorandum. EPA.
pg. 38. July 16, 1974. lp.
54
-------
en
t/i
Figure : 7 COST RECOVERY 8 USER CHARGE SYSTEM UNDER PL 92-500
TOTAL
REVENUE
REQUIREMENTS
OPERATING
FUNDS
USER CHARGES
CONSTRUCTION
FUNDS
(BONDS AND NOTES)
FEDERAl
GRANT
FUNDS
STATE
GRANT
FUNDS
NON-INDUSTRIAL a
INDUSTRIAL PORTION
COST RECOVERY
NON-INDUSTRIAL PORTION
NO RECOVERY
INDUSTRIAL PORTION
COST RECOVERY
NO RECOVERY
-------
revenue has been based on assessed valuation.7 Historically
communities, as they developed to the state of providing wast*
water services, tended to use this means of raising revenue sinmlv
t?nnT6 T! WS- ^^ti^Hy used to support governmental Lnc P 7
tions. The simplicity of the system makes it very desirable since
it requires no monitoring or sampling to determine charges and the
accounting and billing work is minimal. In addition, ?eal estate
taxation provides means of financial contributions from unde-
veloped property for the benefits received from having a wastP
water system available and ready to serve. From a tax payer's"
point of view, the ad valorem tax takes preference over the ser
vice charge since the former is a tax deductable expense. Ovlr-
shadowing the above described benefits of an ad valorem tax are
the inadequacies and special problems that are encountered in it*
use. One objection to an ad valorem based on a taxation system
for wastewater treatment is that the users do not pay in proper
tion to their use of the system. For example, in industrialized
areas such as Buffalo, the cost recovery system that favors the
property tax places a disproportionately large charge for waste
water treatment on those industrial or commerical properties
that produce little or no industrial wastewater. Similarily
those industries with a large volume of wastewater in proportion
to their property investment would pay less than their fair share.
On the other hand, wastewater service charges can provide
for financial support of collection and treatment systems when
sys?em?nsucheasf6me ^ re£lects the actual Physical use of the
1. Volume of wastewater as determined by water meters
hv Rnn' cV?1Um\?f wastewater plus pollutant load as measured
by BOD, S.S., chlorine demand, phosphorus, etc.
3. Number and size of sewer connections
manufacturSI.°f ^°^"^ 5uch as residential, commercial or
5. Number and types of plumbing fixtures.
6. Uniform rates per dwelling unit,etc.
The philosophy used here is that the cost is being distri-
buted according to the benefit and use made of the system Com
munity benefit, readiness to serve, and ability to pay factors
are not considered. One of the advantages of the service charts
system is that it permits fair charges to churches, schools or-
ganizations and other governmental units that are exempt for
property taxes.
Financing and charges for Wastewater Systems. American Public Works Assc
American Society of Civil Engineers. Water Pollution Control Federation''
1973. p37-40. erdtion.
56
-------
An additional benefit that the wastewater service charge
tends to provide is the reduction of wastewater being discharged
from industries. When industry is paying for every liter, gm of
BOD, S.S. and P, that is discharged, they may find that is has
become more economical to improve the quality and/or reduce the
quantity of their discharge. Such a reduction in wastewater
volume or pollutant loading is generally advantageous to both
the industry and the community.
On the negative side, the point can be raised that such a
system does not provide for payment by undeveloped property as
for the benefits of having facility capacity available whether
used or not. It also does not consider the benefits the com-
munity derives as a result of having wastewater collection and
treatment adequate for health protection, nuisance elimination
and aesthetic enjoyment of waterways. In addition, how can the
lost associated with infiltration, inflow and future use be
equitably apportioned since these costs are not a function of a
user's loading?
Thus, it is obviously unfair to raise the annual revenues
reauired entirely by the ad valorem tax method. Similar ily,
I?qis unfair to expect the present users to pay the entire cost.
Consequently, the best system to meet the revenue requirement
for p?oviding secondary wastewater treatment in an industrial
community under PL 84-660 would be a combination of the two
methods previously discussed, where part of the cost of the treat
mint workTis obtained from charges to property or an ad valorem
?ax! special assessments and/or a special wastewater treatment
surcharge.8
For the Buffalo system, a volume and loading base was used
-For the costs resulting from point source discharges, Ue.
COST RECOVERY AND USER CHARGE SYSTEM FOR BUFFALO
mentioned, Buffalo cost recovery and user
Suitable Recovery of Industrial Waste Treatment Costs in Municipal Systems.
EPA. October 1971. p5.
9Stoats E B Decision - Use of Ad Valorem Tax to Satisfy Statutory Require
menf forB;BUsereSaS System for Water Treament Works. Comptroller
General of the United States. B-166505. July 2, 1974. p2.
57
-------
valorem tax was used as a base for non-point source contributions
The BSA's secondary treatment plant has a number of design
considerations (flow, BOD, S.S., P04) and the relative propor-
tions charged to users and property owner, differ for the various
unit processes. For example, the pump station, final settling
tank, chlorine tank, plant outfall and modification to the gate
chamber were all designed based on flow. Consequently, the costs
should be distributed based on flow. On the other hand, the grit
disposal facility, the modification of the primary tanks and the
primary digesters were designed based on the suspended solids
loading. Since the capital as well as the 0§M costs of the treat-
ment facility are directly related to the parameters for which it
was designed, the allocation of the relative proportion of the
works to the users of the system or the property owners should
be based on these same parameters.
To derive the formula for the allocation of capital costs,
the new plant was broken down into the twenty individual facili-
ties with each being assigned its portion of the total cost rela-
tive to the appropriate design parameters. Table 7 shows the
distribution for the estimated construction costs of BSA's new
secondary treatment plant. This breakdown resulted in: 41.6%
of the total construction costs being attributed to BOD removal;
30.8? to flow; 25.3% to S.S. removal; and 2.31 to P04 removal.
The allocation of the estimated first year 0£jM costs were
arrived at in much the same manner with the costs of the fifteen
unit operations being apportioned according to design parameters
as shown in Table 8. This apportionment resulted in: 411 of
the total 0§M cost assigned to S.S. removal; 25.5% to flow; 17.5%
to BOD removal; and 161 to P04 removal.
Based upon the material balances discussed in Section V, and
the plant's design criteria, the loadings received at the plant
were distributed to the users as shown in Table 9. Nineteen
percent of the first year's costs, both capital and 0§M will be
collected from all taxable real property with the remaining 81%
collected from users.
The preceding paragraphs laid the groundwork for the deter-
mination of unit rates, rate formulas and charges. The alloca-
tion of capital and operating and maintenance costs as shown in
Table 9, relate the unit costs of waste treatment of each indi-
vidual user based on the waste characteristics actually being
discharged.
It is neither administratively nor economically feasible to
measure the strength and charge each individual user of a sewer-
age system. Therefore the BSA established as a standard for
domestic strength waste 250 mg/1 BOD, 250 mg/1 S.S. and 15.35 mg/1
58
-------
Table 7. DISTRIBUTION OF BSA'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS BY DESIGN PARAMETERS
t/l
tO
Facilities
Modifications to Primary
Grit Disposal Facilities
Settled Wastewater Pump Station
Secondary Treatment Units
Blower Building
Final Settling Tanks
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Sludge Concentration Tanks
Sludge Disposal Facilities
Plant Outfall Sewer
Gate Chamber
Phosphate Removal Facilities
Preliminary Site Preparation
Roadways and Grading
New Electric Service
Heating and Ventilation
Administration Building
Miscellaneous Structures
Maintenance Shop
Technical and Legal Costs
Total
Percent of Total
Breakdown By Design Parameters
Flow
$ -
7,698,680
18,587,080
5,750,810
656,600
331,440
3,875,580
1,109,790
445,450
1,299,220
574,440
1,612,970
459,370
7,255,840
$49,657,270
30.8%
S.S.
$ 2,410,430
170,660
6,836,410
17,610,860
™
3,183,520
911,610
365,900
1,067,220
471,860
1,324,940
377,340
5,960,150
$40,690,900
25.3%
BOD
$ -
34,066,760
7,841,010
721,620
1,858,920
5,234,550
1,498,940
601,650
1,754,790
775,870
2,178,550
620,450
9,800,090
$66,953,200
41.6%
P
$
1,808,670
647,920
289,410
82,870
33,260
97,020
42,900
120,450
34,300
541,830
$3,698,630
2.3%
Total
$ 2,410,430
170,660
7,698,680
34,066.760
7,841,010
18,587,080
c yen R1 n
7,558,030
21,278,450
656 600
m440
647,920
12,583,060
3,603,210
1,446,260
4,218,250
1,865,070
5,236,910
1,491,460
23,557,910
$161,000,000
100%
-------
Table 8. DISTRIBUTION OF BSA'S 0§M COSTS BY DESIGN PARAMETERS
Facilities
Raw Wastewater Pump Station
Administration Building
Grit Tank and Building
Sedimentation Tank and Building
Settled Wastewater Pump Station
Thickener and Filter Building
Incinerator Building
Blower Building
Chemical Building
Aeration Tank and Building
Final Tank and Building
Chlorine and Traveling Screen Building
Digester Control Building
Laboratory
Miscellaneous
Total
Percent of Total
Breakdown By Design Parameters
Flow
I 267,300
162,100
-
409,700
-
-
-
1,905,900
-
-
235,600
16,400
-
573,400
£3,570,400
25.5%
S.S.
$ -
139,000
137,900
98,500
-
1,078,500
3,255,700
-
79,400
_
92,400
54,300
131,500
93,800
573,400
$5,734,400
41%
BOD
$
139,000
34,500
98,500
_
_
985,400
301,700
92,400
72,500
16,400
147,400
573,400
$2,461,200
17.5%
P
$ -
$ 23,100
4,100
_
_
1,985,300
_
_
_
26,800
191,200
$2,230,500
16%
Total
$ 267,300
463,200
172,400
197,000
413,800
1,078,500
3,255,700
985,400
3,970,600
301,700
184,800
362,400
164,300
268,000
1,911,400
$13,996,500
100%
-------
Table 9. FIRST YEAR COST DISTRIBUTION - BSA SYSTEM
Capital Cost Distribution 0$M Costs Distribution
Parameter
BOD
S.S.
P04
Flow
Total
A
27.7
50.4
34.7
5.6
26.8
B
2.0
0.5
-
10.4
5.1
C
2.2
1.9
13.6
11.1
4.2
D
43.1
33.8
25.8
59.9
45.5
E
25.0
13.4
25.9
13.0
18.4
B
3
1
0
11.0
3.6
C
3
4
21
11.8
8.2
D
60
68
40
63.5
59.0
E
34
27
39
13.7
29.2
Chargeable to Property
A. Future Use - %
B. Infiltration - %
C. Scajaquada Creek - I
Chargeable to Users
D. Residential - I
E. Industrial - %
61
-------
PO* to be used in establishing the basic sewer use charge. In
addition, since high strength wastes are directly responsible
for increased costs at the treatment plant, an extended charge
or surcharge, over and above the basic sewer use charge, is
levied against industries discharging wastes with strengths
above the domestic waste standard.
The individual users of the Authority's facility have been
broken down into four groups or classes as follows:
1. Domestic users residing in Buffalo
2. Industrial and commercial users in Buffalo
3. Domestic users outside of Buffalo
4. Industrial and commercial users outside of Buffalo
Each one of these groups that avails themselves of the ser-
vices of the Sewer Authority will pay an identical basic unit
rate for flow, BOD, S.S., and P04 concentrations. However, the
0§M rate charged to the industrial users has been adjusted to
take into account the additional administrative and engineering
costs associated with the industrial waste program described in
the previous sections.
are:
Those special industrial rates for the first year 0§M costs
Flow - $0.017/1000 liters
BOD ^ $0.090/kg.
S.S. , $0.260/kg.
P04 - $1.573/kg.
Based on the allocation of loading previously described
and shown in Table 9, rate formulas were developed. There are
two basic formulas, the first for computing the charge to the
customers who discharge only domestic strength waste and the
second for computing the rates charged to the industrial user.
The domestic rate formula consists of two terms and is stated
as thus:
Domestic Treatment Charge = Domestic User Charge + Property Charge
Each of the above terms contains a portion of the capital
as well as the operating and maintenance costs.
The unit rates which apply to the above formula and all users for
their share of the capital and OfTM costs are as follows:
Rates For Capital Costs Rates For 0§M Costs
Flow - $0.008/1000 liters Flow - $0.015/1000 liters
BOD - $0.062/kg. BOD - $0.081/kg.
S.S. - $0.031/kg. S.S. - $0.233/kg.
P04 - $0.060/kg. P04 - $1.401/kg. -
62
-------
By using the domestic strength waste characteristics, all
the unit rates for user charge can be expressed in terms of flow
as follows:
Domestic User Charge = $0.078/1000 liters
Industrial User Charge = $0.106/1000 liters
Using the appropriate unit cost and the total assessed
valuation of taxable property in the City of Buffalo, a property
rate of $2.32/$1000 and $1.75/$1000 of assessed valuation for
the capital and operations portions, respectively, was derived.
It must be kept in mind that the formula equates charges in
dollars to water consumption in thousands of liters.
The industrial rate formula is only an expanded version of
the formula for domestic discharges just described. It consists
of three basic terms, as follows:
Industrial Waste Treatment Charge = Domestic User Charge + Property Charge +
Surcharge
The simple addition of the surcharge term makes the formula
broadly applicable to all industries. When applying it to an
industry that discharges only domestic strength waste, the last
term just drops out and the formula becomes that of a domestic
user. The surcharge portion, as stated below, provides an ad-
ditional charge for each milligram of BOD, S.S., and PO. being
discharged over and above what is considered domestic strength
waste:
Surcharge = Q(0.152(BOD - 250) + 0.291(SS - 250) + 1.63CPO. - 15.35) )
where: Q = average annual discharge rate expressed in million liters/year
The determination of waste characteristics that would de-
fine an upper limit for domestic strength waste required a great
deal of investigation. We reviewed ordinances from other muni-
cipalities across the country and it was found that the range
of values adopted varied from 250 mg/1 to 350 mg/1 for BOD and
suspended solids. Since the Buffalo metropolitan area has al-
w^ys had what would be considered a weak waste, it was deemed
appropriate to use the low values. Therefore, 250 mg/1 was
selected to define the concentrations of BOD and suspended solids
in Buffalo's domestic waste. The typical domestic concentrations
of phosphorus was established at 15.35 mg/1 as P04, or 5 mg/1
as P. Shown in Table 10 is an example of the application of the
industrial waste formula.
ECONOMICS OF REDUCING INCOMPATIBLE POLLUTANTS LOADING
In the Buffalo system, three areas were investigated for
the pretreatment of incompatible pollutants: industrial pre-
treatment, municipal treatment^ and dilution. It should be
63
-------
0\
-£»
Table 10. APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE RATE FORMULA
Formula: Industrial Waste Treatment Charge - Q(1000 liters)(0.106) + A(4.071) )
Q(MLY)(°-152(BOD - 25°) + 0.291(SS - 250) + 1.63(P04 - 15.35) )
Where A = Assessed Valuation in $1000
Industrial User
Let's assume Industry "X" has an assessed valuation of $1,087,740
When surveyed, this company was found to discharge 8,703,200 ipd
BOD was measured at 384 mg/1, but SS and P04 were below their re-
spective limits of 250 mg/1 and 15.35 mg/1.
QC1000 liters) = 3»176,679
VLY)= 3>177
A = $1,087.74
BOD = 384
Applying the Industrial Rate Formula:
Sewage Treatment Charge = 3,176,679(0.106) + $1,087.740(4.071) +
3,177(0.152)(384 - 250)
Sewage Treatment Charge = $405,860
-------
stressed that the results of these investigations apply specifi-
cally to Buffalo and other systems completing the same analysis
could have different results.
Pretreatment vs. Joint Treatment
At the present time, EPA's regulations governing industrial
discharges into POTWs has not been finalized. Therefore, Buf-
falo's sewer regulations were used to determine which industries
would require pretreatment. A review of the IWS's results pro-
duced a total of 30 industries that would require substan-
tial pretreatment of heavy metals before discharge to Buffalo's
system. It is anticipated that those industries which have
waste characteristics only slightly in excess of the limits es-
tablished by the regulations, will make in-plant or product line
changes to meet the new discharge limits. With the exception of
one industry, the method proposed for pretreatment was single
stage lime precipitation. It was anticipated that the remain-
ing industry would meet the limitations required by the sewer
regulations by increasing the efficiency of its present clari-
fication process.
The minimum total capital cost required to meet the new
discharge limits was approximately 4.5 million dollars. Table
11, Cost of Pretreatment Facilities by SIC Category, shows the
breakdown for the industries affected by SIC category. Approxi-
mately half of the four million dollars will be used for the
pretreatment of discharges from plating processes. In addition
to 12 electroplating industries, Buffalo has four industries
in the Motor Vehicle Parts category whose pretreatment require-
ments are primarily a result of captive plating operations.
Equipment costs were based on the data presented in the
Electroplating Point Source Category.1° Labor, chemicals and
sludge disposal costs were based on the rates being charged in
the Buffalo area for 1974. Land costs were not included in
these estimates, and process discharges were segregated where
possible, to reduce the quantity of wastewater requiring treat-
ment.
The potential reductions in surcharge levies were not taken
into consideration in the cost estimates since the reduction will
vary from industry to industry depending on the magnitude of the
surchargeable parameters being discharged.
An alternative to having industries pretreat their waste
individually would be to expand BSA's proposed treatment plant
to provide the required treatment for incompatible pollutants.
Common and Precious ^tals Segment of the Electroplating Point Source Cate-
gory. EPA-440/1-75/040. April 1975. p!53-179.
65
-------
Table 11. COST OF PRETREATMENT FACILITIES BY SIC CATEGORY
# of
SIC Category Industries
Converted Paper Prod.
(2649)
Cylic Crudes
(2865)
Pottery Products
(3269)
Steel Wire
(3315)
Copper Rolling
(3351)
Hand and Edge Tools
(3423)
Plating
(3471)
Steel Springs
(3493)
Refrigeration Equipment
(3585)
Motor Vehicle Parts
(3714)
Industrial Supplies
(5085)
Industrial Laundries
(7218)
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
1
4
3
3
Total
Capital Cost
$ 0
0
84,580
310,000
657,140
292,790
1,010,280
50,850
80,450
1,064,500
147,280
267,480
Total
Annual Cost
$ 15,400
1,300
53,000
188,200
296,900
145,200
719,000
23,900
62,500
558,400
66,100
140,700
Totals
30
$3,965,350 $2,270,600
66
-------
For industry to have all pretreatment requirements waived, the
BSA would have to remove the same quantity of pollutants as would
be achieved by the sum of individual industry pretreatment facil-
ities. Table 12, below, shows the quantity of heavy metals that
would have to be removed, the projected plant influent, and the
required effluent quality.
Table 12. REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL HEAVY METAL TREATMENT
Parameter Kg/day Removed
Calculated
Influent mg/1
Required
Effluent mg/1
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
2.5
100.0
104.0
19.3
40.5
205.0
0.008
0.254
0.198
0.044
0.096
0.514
0.004
0.104
0.041
0.015
0.035
0.207
The ability of a municipality to meet these required effluent
limits without using advanced treatment methods is very question-
able; however, some industrial treatment plants have reached
these low levels for soluble chromium, copper, nickel and zinc
by using chemical precipitation. The cadmium and lead limits
required effluent concentrations far below what could be ex-
pected by chemical precipitation.
For the purposes of comparing costs, it was assumed that
chemical precipitation could remove the required quantities of
heavy metals. Any advanced treatment processes that may be re-
quired would result in an even higher cost for heavy metal treat-
ment at the BSA plant. The Buffalo Sewer Authority would most
likely use a tertiary system to achieve the necessary removals
since the organic portion of Buffalo's influent is already weak,
a further reduction before biological treatment would not be de-
sired. Therefore, it was assumed that a two-stage tertiary lime
treatment system would be employed. Costs from The Guide^to the
Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems , ad-
justed by a factor of 2 as per An Analysis of Construction Cost
Experience For Wastewater Treatment Plants1-5, was used for es-
nMetal Finishing Segment of the Electroplating Point Source Category. EPA-
440/1-75-040-a. April 1975. Table 24. plOO.
'A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems.
EPA 430/9-75-002. July 1975. pB-1.
!An Analysis of Construction Cost Experience for Wastewater Treatment Plants.
EPA 430/9-76-002. February 1976. p44.
12
13
67
-------
tablishing the capital costs shown in Table 13.
Table 13. TERTIARY TWO-STAGE LIME TREATMENT COSTS
Description Costs
Capital Cost $21,900,000
Annual Cost
Amortized Capital 2,334,900
Labor 341,200
Maintenance, Power and Heat 175,900
Chemicals 6,575,300
Savings in Phosphate Removal - 2,520,100
Total Annual Cost 6,907,200
Assumptions
101 interest
30 year amortization
400 mg/1 lime dosage
The costs for a municipal treatment of heavy metals as shown
above, would be approximately three times what the total cost
would be for individual industrial pretreatment. The large di-
lution the industrial waste receives in Buffalo's system and re-
sulting quantities of chemicals required, make it uneconomical
for the BSA to attempt treatment. If advanced treatment methods
•should be required, then this would result in an even greater
economic favorability for individual industrial pretreatment faci-
lities .
Even though the BSA has an anti-dilution clause in its Sewer
Use Regulations (Section VI), a concentration based discharge
criteria creates the potential for industry to dilute its waste
streams prior to discharge to avoid the need for pretreatment.
Pretreatment vs Dilution
In evaluating the economics of dilution versus pretreatment
it was found that many of the industries requiring pretreatment
do not have surchargeable pollutant loadings and would therefore
only be required to pay the domestic rate for their discharges
to the sewerage system. Figure 8, Electroplating Annual Costs
for Meeting Effluent Limitations, was developed to show the po-
tential for using dilution as a method for pretreating incompat-
ible pollutants. The unit costs for pretreatment were adopted
from the electroplater's (SIC 3471) cost estimates as previously
discussed, using a minimum pretreatment plant size of 6000 1/hr.
The costs for using dilution included the domestic rate of
$0.106/1000 liters and an average cost for water of $0.224/1000
liters.
68
-------
(A
v>
Q>
U
O
O
O
O
4*
I
CO
O
U
COST TO PRETREAT
BASIS:
5 YEARS AT 11%
INCLUDES SLUDGE
DISPOSAL.
20 40 60 80
PLANT DISCHARGE - 1,000 liters/hr.
CO
« 15
CO
(A
Q>
U
O
O
O
O
10
CO
O
O
COST TO DILUTE
10 20 30 40 50
REQUIRED NUMBER OF DILUTIONS
Figure 8 - Electroplaters Annual Cost Options For Meeting Effluent Limitations
69
-------
There may be an economic incentive for some industries
to use dilution as opposed to pretreatment. For example, an in-
dustry with a copper discharge 3.2 mg/1, presently would have to
meet a discharge limit of 0.4 mg/1 under the BSA Sewer Regulations
This industry would require 8 dilutions to reduce the 3.2 mg/1
of copper to 0.4 mg/1 at a cost of $1.79/1000 process liters.
Pretreatment would be cost effective if the industry's discharge
rate was 30,000 1/hr. since the cost of pretreatment would be
$1.60/1000 process liters. However, if the industry's discharge
rate was 20,000 1/hr., the cost of pretreatment would then be
$1.92/1000 process liters and dilution would be cost effective.
This clearly indicates that the cost effectiveness of dilution
versus pretreatment of incompatible pollutants is a function of
the quantity of water necessary to reduce the pollutants concen-
tration to an acceptable level and the size of the pretreatment
plant that would be required. While this indicates an area of
potential problems, the BSA will be able to recognize those in-
dustries using dilution by the sudden increase in their water
consumption.
For the nine platers sampled, Table 14 shows their costs for
using dilution and pretreatment to reduce their discharge metal
concentrations to the Sewer Regulation1 s limits. For seven of the
nine platers, the economics favored pretreatment with only two
industries, 45-1 and 44-2, showing dilution to be more economical
than pretreatment. In both these cases, the BSA will recognize
the use of dilution by the large increase (five and seven fold,
respectively) over their historical water consumption.
Table 14. ELECTROPLATER'S OPTIONS FOR MEETING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Plant
44-28
20-16
9-7
27-10
45-1
20-12
32-1
16-16
44-2
Discharge
1000 1/hr
19.5
18.0
45.5
4.9
20.2
11.2
12.8
10.9
18.8
Dilution
Required
15
36
19
43
5
217
30
13
7
Cost of
Dilution
$/1000 1
3.25
7.99
4.13
9.48
1.02
48.20
6.70
2.97
1.60
Cost of
Pretreatment
$/1000 1
1.96
1.67
1.29
3.05
1.90
2.36
2.23
2.38
1.95
70
-------
ECONOMICS FOR REDUCING COMPATIBLE POLLUTANT LOADING
Surcharge vs Dilution
Some industries using the Buffalo treatment facilities will
be paying substantial surcharges for excess loadings once the
secondary treatment plant goes on stream. With the higher costs
resulting from secondary treatment, surcharged industries may-
choose to reduce their loadings to the sewerage system by either
installing pretreatment equipment or diluting their discharge to
reduce concentration. As was previously mentioned, the use of di-
lution to reduce discharge concentrations is a violation of Buffalo's
Sewer Use Regulation. However, as was the case for incompatible
pollutants, there could be a potential for industries to use di-
lution as a method of pretreatment to reduce surcharges. Figure 9
was developed to evaluate this potential. Shown are the surcharge
unit rates for various concentrations of BOD, SS, and P04, as well
as unit costs for dilution. In all cases, the cost for using dilu-
tion far exceeded the cost for paying surcharges. This is illus-
trated in the examples shown in Table 15. This data and an effec-
tive public relations program should eliminate any attempt by in-
dustry to dilute its waste instead of paying the surcharge.
Table 15. COST OF DILUTION vs SURCHARGE - EXAMPLES
Industry "X"
Surcharge Rate
400 mg/1 S.S.
300 mg/1 BOD
10 mg/1 P0d
Total H
Dilution Rate
Decision: Pay Surcharge
Industry "Y"
800 mg/1 S.S.
600 mg/1 BOD
38 mg/1 P04
Total
Dilution Rate
Decision: Pay Surcharge
$0.045/1000 1.
$0.008/1000 1.
$0.053/1000 1.
$0.132/1000 1.
*
Surcharge Rate
$0.160/1000 1.
$0.052/1000 1.
$0.040/1000 1.
'$0.252/1000 1.
$0.492/1000 1.
Industry
800 mg/1 S.S.
1000 mg/1 BOD
38 mg/1 PO,
Total
Dilution Rate
Surcharge Rate
$0.160/1000 1.
$0.101/1000 1.
$0.040/1000 1.
SO.301/1000 1.
$0.815/1000 1.
Decision: Pay Surcharge
71
-------
0.7 -
MAXIMUM SURCHARGE
MINIMUM SURCHARGE
234
REQUIRED NUMBER OF DILUTIONS
Figure 9- Dilution Costs Vs Surcharges For The B.S.A. System
72
-------
Surcharge vs Pretreatment
Because industries have such varied product lines and waste
characteristics, even within the same SIC category, the evaluation
of the economics for pretreatment versus payment of surcharges
would be done on an individual basis. Therefore, Figure 10 was
developed only as a guide to indicate whether pretreatment of
compatible pollutants would be economically justified before dis-
charge to a municipal system. Costs were developed for three
unit processes: clarification, chemical precipitation, and bio-
logical treatment. The costs and process efficiencies were ob-
tained from the manufacturers of the various types of equipment.
Amortization of the capital costs was based on a five-year payback
at an 11% interest rate. It must be kept in mind that on a case
by case basis, the economics may favor a different type of pro-
cess or any combination thereof. The removals that might be ex-
perienced from these processes are shown in Table 16.
Table 16. REDUCTIONS FROM PRETREATMENT
Process
Clarification
Chemical Treatment
Biological Treatment
Percent Removal
BOD SS P04
30 45 5
60 80 80
85 85 10
The removals shown in Table 16 are a generalization, and it
should be pointed out that in practice, the removals shown above
may vary depending upon the specific waste characteristics. _For
example, an industry having a high concentration of S.S. in its
discharge, the majority of which is settlable, will undoubtedly
obtain better than 45% removal with a properly sized clarifier.
In general, clarification was the least expensive method for
pretreatment; however, it is obvious that if an industry is only
surcharged for BOD, unless the waste stream contains a I*****
percentage of insoluble BOD, clarification may not• be cost effec
tive, versus payment of the surcharge. Therefore Before design
ing a pretreatment facility, an industry should thoroughly inves
ti|ate all possible alternatives including the possibility of
segregating sources of its waste streams to reduce flow quanti-
ties .
In order to obtain an idea of the relative costs of ^treat-
ment versus the cost of BSA's surcharges, the discharges from
three specific industries were evaluated. The surcharges and
waste characteristics for these industries can be found in Table
17.
73
-------
175
150 -
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
CHEMICAL TREATMENT,
CLARIFICATION
200
1000
400 600 800
DISCHARGE - 1000 liters/day
Figure 10 - Annual Cost For Pretreatment Of Compatable Pollutants
NOTE: Capital Costs Obtained From Vendors Quotas
74
-------
Table 17. EXAMPLE OF INDUSTRIAL SURCHARGES
Industry
29-3 Converted Paper
Surcharge
17-9 Fats and Oils
Surcharge
37-7 Sausages
Surcharge
Flow-
Megaliters
0.341
1.540
0.901
BOD-mg/1
191
None
908
$56,238
1990
$59,577
SS-mg/1
5486
$189,347
215
None
423
$11,332
P04-mg/l
3.1
None
5.23
None
562.3
$201,135
Looking first at Industry 29-3, the computed surcharge
amounts to $189,347 per year as a result of the discharge of ex-
cess suspended solids. The installation of a clarification pre-
treatment unit would normally result in a 45% removal of the
S.S.; however, data from the IWS indicated that clarification
with the addition of polyelectrolite would remove enough S.S.
to eliminate any surcharge. From Figure 10, the annual cost for
clarification was approximately $30,000 and $7,000 for polyelec-
trolite addition, for a total annual cost of $37,000. Comparing
this cost to Industry 29-3's surcharge in Table 15, shows that
the use of pretreatment would result in a savings of $152,000
per year. For Industry 27-9, the economics favor the payment of
the surcharge. In this case, the surcharge of $56,238 per year
was less than the annual cost of installing clarification equip-
ment which would only remove 30% of the BOD. Industry 37-7's
waste discharge is surchargeable in all three categories re-
sulting in a total surcharge of $272,040 per year. Pretreatment
consisting of chemical precipitation would eliminate the sur-
charges for S.S. and P04 at a cost of $80,000 per year and the
BOD surcharge would be reduced to $18,695. In this case, the
installation of pretreatment will result in an annual savings
to the industry of $173,345.
As shown, pretreatment of compatible pollutants can be
economical for some of the industries. Again, each industry
should be evaluated individually to determine the economics of
pretreatment.
75
-------
SECTION 8
COMBINED DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT
INTRODUCTION
Combined treatment of industrial and domestic type wastes is
often economically beneficial to the treatment agency and its
users. However, as discussed in earlier sections, the discharge
of industrial wastes into POTWs must be controlled so that the
treatment plant can function at maximum efficiency with a mini-
mum of cost.
POTWs accepting industrial wastes, especially those upgrad-
ing from primary treatment or those who have not yet received
their NPDES permits must carefully evaluate their entire sewer-
age system before establishing industrial waste control policies.
One significant area which should be examined is the operation
and efficiency of the treatment plant. Treatment plants are de-
signed and operated to remove specific pollutants, such as BOD
and S.S. However, other pollutants may also be removed, to a
lesser degree, in the treatment processes. The removals of in-
soluble phosphorus and metals in the clarifiers are typical
examples of incidental removals. It would be beneficial to its
industrial users if the treatment agency could reduce the pre-
treatment requirements by taking advantage of these incidental
removals. However, the treatment agency must keep in mind that
when incidental removals are achieved the decrease in pollutant
levels in the liquid or effluent stream will result in an in-
crease in the pollutant level in the sludges, thus possibly
limiting their~sludge disposal options. Therefore, the treat-
ment agency must carefully evaluate their specific conditions to
insure that the benefits gained are greater than the problems
that may arise. The Environmental Protection Agency has pro-
vided for the allowance of a credit to industries for incidental
removals. This policy is described in the following quotation
from Section 128.133 of 40 CFR 128:
"...Provided, that, if the publicly owned treatment works which
receives the pollutants is committed, in its NPDES permit, to
remove a specified percentage of any incompatible pollutant,
the pretreatment standard applicable to users of such treatment
76
-------
works shall be correspondingly reduced for that pollutant..."14
DESCRIPTION OF PILOT PLANT INVESTIGATIONS
Since the upgrading of Buffalo's primary treatment plant to
secondary treatment is only in the initial stages of construction,
a 95,000 liter/day pilot study was conducted to evaluate the ef-
fects the industrial users will have on the treatment processes.
This investigation was primarily concerned with three areas: de-
fining the metal concentrations in the sludges, exploring the
possibilities of credits for the incidental removals of heavy
metals, and to compile background data for finalizing Buffalo's
NPDES permit.
So that the data generated by the pilot study would have the
maximum applicability to the Buffalo sewerage system, a package
treatment plant was modified to simulate as closely as possible
the characteristics and operation of Buffalo's new plant. In
order to incorporate the daily fluctuations in waste strength and
volume normally experienced in a full scale plant, the influent
to the pilot plant was varied in direct proportion to the flow
received at the Authority's primary plant. As shown in Figure 11,
the process piloted was a conventional activated sludge with the
addition of the chemical precipitation of phosphorus in the
aeration tank.
It took 43 days for the process to reach a steady state
condition. The pilot plant was then monitored for a period of
30 days to trace the movement of heavy metals through the
system. This was accomplished by daily analyzing flow proportion
samples of the influent and secondary effluent. The primary
effluent, waste primary, and waste secondary sludge were sampled
daily and weekly composites analyzed for heavy metals.
During the beginning of the acclimation period, the food/
mass ratio was quite high due to the low quantities of mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids. This was attributed to the
slow acclimation of the biomass to the wastewater. The extended
period of time required for acclimation was a result of the un-
usually wet weather Buffalo was experiencing. During the opera-
tion of the pilot plant, precipitation fell approximately 501 of
the time. Since 96% of the Buffalo's collection system is com-
bined, the dilution from the storm water inflow created an ex-
tremely weak waste. During this start-up period, the influent
BOD varied from 19.5 mg/1 to a high of 97.5 mg/1. In order to
provide additional food for the biomass during this period, the
primary clarifier was by-passed and the influent was fed directly
into the aeration tank. As the plant became acclimated,
14Pretreatment Standards, Part 128. Federal Register. Vol. 38. No. 215.
EPA. November 8, 1973. p30984.
77
-------
INFLUENT
95,000 liter/«QV
oo
SETTLING RATE-
37,000 l/m%Qy
CLARIFIER
WEIR RATE-
103,6001/m^
DETENTION -
SLUDGE
WASTE
SLUDGE
COAGULANT AID ADDITION
FeCl2
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
t
DETENTION - 2.86 hf.
Ft* - I2.8IRQ/I
AERATION UNIT
COA8ULANT- 0.6m9/l
SETTLING -
£6,500 t/m7do/
CLARIFIER
Figurelh B.SA*S ACTIVATED SLUDGE PILOT FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
the primary clarifier was put back in operation. Additional
quantities of secondary sludge were recycled to the aeration tank
to compensate for the weak influent.
New York State standards require that the concentration of
phosphorus in a POTWs effluent average 0.5 mg/1 with a maximum
concentration not to exceed 1 mg/1. Ferric chloride (FeCl^) was
used to achieve the required phosphorus removals. Commercial
FeCls diluted to the proper concentration was fed by means of a
metering pump to the head of the aeration tank. By locating the
FeCls addition at this point, proper mixing of the FeCls and
mixed liquor was insured. To allow for the pilot plant to sta-
bolize, the addition of FeCls was started one week prior to the
heavy metal monitoring of the system.
On the 18th of November, monitoring of trace quantities of
heavy metals began. The pilot plant was well acclimated and oper-
ated efficiently in spite of the lower than desired level of mixed
liquor suspended solids.
In the first two weeks of the monitoring period, the sus-
pended solid removals were below the desired level. It was felt
that this was caused by a pin point floe that is created by the
vigorous mixing occuring in the aeration tank. During the third
week of the monitoring period, an attempt was made to correct
this condition by changing the single feed location of the FeCls
to two points. This did increase the suspended solids capture
but did not bring it up to the desired level. In the fourth
week, the second FeCls point was replaced with a polymer addition.
This resulted in a greater suspended solids capture than was pre-
viously achieved, however, it was still .below the desired remov-
als.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The level of treatment achieved by the pilot plant was
slightly lower than that which will be required of Buffalo's
secondary treatment plant. This was attributed to the low in-
fluent concentrations and poor performance of the secondary clar-
ifier. It is expected that the full scale plant will average
higher BOD and suspended solids removals since the treatment
units are more precisely designed. A summary of the operational
data can be found in the appendix.
The monitoring of toxics in the pilot plant, was conducted
to indicate the removals that could be expected and the quantity
of metals which build up in the sludges. While their determina-
tion was beyond the scope of the project, some comments on tne
possible removal mechanisms are pertinent for interpreting the
data. Many of the metal's removals varied with influent concen-
trations. However, the large degree of variation in the removal
indicate that other factors, such as complexing ligands, ionic
79
-------
strength and volatile suspended solids concentrations, affect
the removals obtained. Adsorption of metals onto the solid
phase and the removal of insoluble metals by settling probably
accounted for the majority of the removals obtained. The contri-
bution from metal precipitation was thought to be minimal due to
the pll and relatively low metal concentrations in the influent.
To establish the criteria that would enable the BSA to pre-
dict the metal removals that could be expected and the metal con-
centrations that would be found in the sludges, balances were
performed on the pilot plant as shown in Table 18. The background
data for these balances, Pilot Sludge Characteristics and Daily
Trace Element Concentrations can be found in the appendix. Due
to weekly instead of daily sludge analysis and also to periodic
freezing and leakage of the waste sludge lines, the results on the
primary and secondary unit balances were not as accurate as the
balances around the entire pilot plant, since the influent and
effluent streams were analyzed daily. Based on the results of
the balances, the heavy metal concentrations for the pilot plant's
effluent and waste sludge streams were projected as shown in
Table 19. To investigate the effects these metal concentrations
will have on the BSA sludge disposal options, projections were
made for sludge concentrated to 20% solids and for ash. This
will be discussed in more detail later in this section.
The balances for the various metals indicated that better
than 60% removals could be expected for lead, chromium and cop-
per. Less, but significant, removals were also obtained for zinc
and cadmium, while nickel and cyanide exhibited insignificnat re-
movals. This information, together with the data previously de-
veloped for the sewerage system, enabled the BSA to develop sewer
use regulations which suits its system. For example, the dis-
charge limits for lead need not be as stringent as those for
nickel since a larger percentage of lead is removed at the Auth-
ority's plant. Other investigations across the country have also
shown that significant roftal removals could be obtained by muni-
cipal treatment plants. ' ' Based on actual removals being
obtained by their treatment plant, the municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle has already requested that consideration should
be given to these removals in determining Metro's NPDES permit.
The removals achieved during Buffalo's pilot study were lower
15Cheng M.H, Patterson J.W., and Minear R.A. Heavy Metals Uptake by Activated
Sludge. WPCF Journal. Vol. 47. No. 2. Feb. 1975. p362-276.
16Brunner C.A. EPA Correspondence to John T. Rhett. Removal Capability of
Wastewater Treatment Processes for Metals and Other Pollutants. 8/20/74.
pl-12.
17Esmond S.E., Petrosek A. Dallas Water Utilities Dept. Removal of Heavy
Metals by Wastewater Treatment Plants. March 1973. pl-16.
80
-------
Table 18. TRACE ELEMENT BALANCES ON BSA'S PILOT PLANT
Description
Influent Sewage
Primary Effluent
Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
% Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall % Removed
Influent Sewage
x Primary Effluent
-> Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
% Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall % Removed
Influent Sewage
Primary Effluent
Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
% Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall % Removed
-4
Weekly Quantities - Kg/day x 10
Week 1
78.58
384.13
0.15
increase
98.16
—
74.50
125.10
increase
1096.8
853.3
12.2
22.2
458.9
46.2
43.0
58.2
561.5
527.1
0.0
: 6.1
| 406.3
22.9
; 72.4
27.6
Week 2 Week 3
Cadmium Balance
155.22
145.33
0.59
6.40
71.34
40.86
50.90
73.00
54.00
139.81
148.41
1.41
increase
74.41
10.90
49.90
62.00
47.00
Chromium Balance
1094.9
1211.0
10.3
increase
455.0
1024.2
62.4
136.0
58.4
2049.6
2091.4
27.1
increase
553.2
294.6
73.5
42.7
73.0
Week 4
64.33
65.29
1.68
increase
47.60
8.63
27.10
90.00
26.00
885.6
1044.6
23.4
increase
512.3
219.3
51.0
85.3
42.2
Copper Balance ;
715.7
484.4
4.3
32.3
275.8
653.8
43.1
130.0
61.5
1002.3
877.0
17.9
12.5
274.5
384.9
68.7
40.0
i 72.6
795.3
783.4
18.9
1.5
261.7
397.4
66.6
52.0
67.1
Week 5
90.09
86.98
1.20
3.45
44.81
6.81
48.50
59.00
50.00
1062.7
1381.5
15.9
increase
243.3
143.5
82.4
37.9
77.1
Study
Period
528.03
830.14
11.06
increase
336.31
67.20
59.50
78.50
36.30
6189.6
6581.8
88.9
increase
2222.7
1681.6
66.2
64.5
64.1
j
1038.8
921.0
16.5
11.3
332.1
136.7
63.9
47.0
68.0
4113.6
3592.9
57.6
12.7
1550.4
1572.8
56.8
77.3
62.3
-------
Table .18 continued. TRACE ELEMENT BALANCES ON BSA'S PILOT PLANT
Description
Influent Sewage
Primary Effluent
Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
\ Removed in Secondary
Overall 1 Accounted For
Overall % Removed
Influent Sewage
oo Primary Effluent
t° Primary Sludge
\ Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
1 Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall % Removed
Influent Sewage
Primary Effluent
Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
% Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall 1 Removed
Weekly Quantities - K>/r1ay x 1P~4
Week 1
282.6
430.0
3.4
increase
297.9
-
30.7
106.6
increase
1036.8
843.1
2.7
18.7
223.5
-
73.5
21.8
78.4
20.700
179.500
0.018
increase
37.600
-
79.100
181.700
increase
Week 2
Week 3
Cyanide Balance
205.5
N.D.
4.6
100.0
176.9
217.9
increase
194.4
13.9
408.4
1045.7
3.5
increase
339.8
78.1
67.5
103.2
16.8
Lead Balance
326.7
213.2
5.7
34.7
138.5
517.6
35.0
202.6
57.6
726.6
74.2
22.2
89.8
143.4
173.0
increase
46.6
80.3
Mercury Balance
2.000
N.D.
0.018
100.000
7.230
1.500
increase
437.400
increase
N.D.
20.20
0.14
increase
N.D.
0.77
100.00
Gain
-
Week 4
291.7
404.8
3.5
increase
338.2
65.4
16.5
139.6
increase
546.7
652.9
35.1
increase
140.4
250.6
78.5
77.9
74.3
N.D.
N.D.
0.059
_
N.D.
78.500
_
Gain
-
Week 5
222.7
547. 5
3. 1
increase
220.6
38.1
59.7
117.6
0.9
524.2
460.5
23.8
12.2
114.0
215.2
75.2
67.3
78.3
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
_
_
-
Study
Period
1410.9
2428 .0
18. 1
increase
1373.4
399 . 5
43.4
126.9
2.7
3161.0
2243.9
89. 5
29.0
759.8
1156.4
66. 1
63.5
76.0
22.7
199.7
0.2
increase
44.8
80.8
77.6
554.2
increase
-------
Table 18 continued. TRACE ELEMENT BALANCES ON BSA'S PILOT PLANT
Description
Influent Sewage
Primary Effluent
Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
% Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall 1 Removed
Influent Sewage
Primary Effluent
Primary Sludge
% Removed in Primary
Secondary Effluent
Secondary Sludge
% Removed in Secondary
Overall % Accounted For
Overall 1 Removed
- 4
Weekly Quantities - Kg/day x 10
Week 1
291.7
351.5
23.2
increase
291.4
-
17.1
107.9
0.1
5313.2
2356.8
30.5
55.7
2957.8
-
increase
56.2
44.3
Week 2
Week 3
Nickel Balance
258.5
242.2
0.6
6.4
226.7
81.7
6.4
119.4
12.4
26.0
N.D.
2.7
100.0
8.1
21.8
increase
125.4
68.9
Zinc Balance
1532.2
1501.7
10.6
2.0
986.5
762.7
34.3
114.9
35.6
242.6
202.4
4.4
16.6
201.1
49.5
0.6
105.1
17.1
Week 4
608.3
522.3
3.7
14.1
563.1
31.3
increase
98.3
7.4
1902.3
1697.4
62.0
10.8
1026.1
357.3
39.6
76.0
46.1
Week 5
398.7
358.2
4.0
10.2
314.6
46.8
12.2
91.7
21.1
1494.0
1432.6
4.9
4.1
783.2
241.5
45.3
68.9
47.6
Study
Period
1583.5
1474.2
34.2
6.9
1403.9
181.6
4.8
102.3
11.3
10484.3
7190.9
112.4
31.4
5954.7
1411.0
17.2
71.3
43.2
CO
-------
Table 19. CHARACTERISTICS OF PILOT EXIT STREAMS - SUMMARY
oo
Parameter
Lead
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Cyanide
A
Cone.
mg/1
0.099
0.210
0.140
0.340
0.018
0.050
0.051
B
Cone.
mg/1
0.025
0.074
0.050
0.200
0.011
0.047
0.046
%
Rem.
76
64
62
43
36
11
3
C
Cone.
mg/1
8.78
8.44
5.48
14.80
0.45
3.25
1.71
*
Rem.
6
5
5
4
2.5
2
1
D
Cone.
mg/1
7.64
11.11
6.85
9.32
0.44
1.20
2.64
\
Rem.
70
59
57
39
33.5
9
2
Ei-0.6% Solids
Cone.
mg/1
7.72
10.9
6.74
9.77
0.44
1.37
2.56
1
Rem.
76
64
62
43
36
11
3
E7-20% Solids
Cone.
mg/1
360
508
314
455
20
63
120
Cone.
mg/kg
2660
3760
2325
3360
150
460
890
£3 -Ash
Cone.
mg/kg
2660
3760
2325
3360
150
460
0
INFLUENT /'PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
AERATION TANK
EFFLUENT
PRIMARY
SLUDGE f
V
SECONDARY
SLUDGE
TOTAL SLUDGE
-------
than those reported by other investigators. This is probably
due to the low influent concentrations in the Buffalo wastewater.
The policy of crediting the removals obtained at the POTWs
in establishing discharge limits must be carefully considered in
light of removal variability and potential limitations for sludge
disposal. Considering that sludge treatment and disposal costs
are typically 30% - 35% of a plant's annual costs, the metal
concentrations in the sludge should be considered not only in
developing the Sewer Use Regulations but also in the design of
the plant. For example, if a POTW planned to dispose of its
sludge as a soil conditioner, they would have to require more
stringent discharge limits to insure that the metal levels would
be low enough so as not to inhibit the plant's digesters and be
acceptable for use as a soil conditioner. However, if incinera-
tion was to be the chosen method for sludge treatment, a higher
metal content could be tolerated. The controlling limitations
would be those imposed by regulations for the disposal of ash
and water quality.
VARIABILITY OF RESULTS
The influent concentrations and the removal efficiencies
exhibited by the pilot plant had a high degree of variability.
This variability should be taken into account when establishing
discharge limits or determining credits.
Summarized in Table 20 below, are the average removals, and
the influent concentrations with their respective standard devi-
ations for the trace elements measured during the study. The
average removals shown below differ slightly from those presented
in Table 19. The reason for this is that the removals shown be-
low were calculated from concentrations and do not include a
factor for the variations experienced in flow. Whereas the re-
movals shown in Table 20 account for these flow variations.
Table 20. AVERAGE INFLUENT CONG. § REMOVALS FOR PILOT OPERATION
Parameter
Lead
Copper
Chromium
Zinc
Cadmium
Cyanide
Nickel
Daily Removals - %
Avg. *
73.8
61.0
62.2
41.3
37.7
6.5
11.0
Std. Deviation
29.9
23.0
27.4
21.6
26.4
18.6
17.8
Influent Cone.
Avg.- mg/1
0.099
0.137
0.208
0.337
0.018
0.046
0.050
Std. Deviation
0.087
0.075
0.131
0.311
0.015
0.024
0.044
*Does not include a factor for flow variations.
85
-------
From the daily graphs of metals influent concentrations and
removals, see Appendix, it was obvious that one of the major vari-
ables effecting the removals was the specific metal concentration
in the influent. It was also found that there were specific con-
centration limits, below which, factors other than influent con-
centration controlled the removals obtained. For example,
Figure C-7, shows the daily variations in zinc removals and in-
fluent concentrations. Between December 9 and December 20, the
removal efficiencies seem to be directly related to the influent
concentrations. However, between December 1 and December 8, the
influent concentrations were low and fairly constant while the
removals varied from 0 to a high of 71.4 percent removed. Ob-
viously, some factor other than the variation in concentrations,
was affecting the removals obtained.
IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON THE BSA'S COMBINED TREATMENT
The BSA, in establishing its industrial waste control pro-
gram, evaluated both Federal and New York State's pretreatment
requirements. It was.found that there were no federal require-
ments presently in effect and those that were proposed were being
re-evaluated. New York State's published requirements are of a
general nature with the specifics being established on a case
by case basis, depending upon the water quality standards for the
POTWs receiving stream and their method of treatment. Since
there were no firm guidelines available from either of the two
regulator agencies, the BSA established what they considered
stringent discharge limits for specific incompatible pollutants
and submitted them to EPA and New York State for approval. Ap-
proval was obtained from EPA. However, New York State required
that the discharge limits for chromium (hexavalent), copper,
zinc, cadmium, arsenic and cyanide be lowered. While the dis-
charge limits were revised and incorporated into the Sewer Use
Regulations (Section VI), the BSA is presently working with
New York State to re-evaluate their imposed discharge limits in
order to reduce the pretreatment loading on industry. Due to
today's poor economic conditions existing in the Buffalo area
which has already been hard hit by plant closures, the BSA feels
that their discharge limits should not only be environmentally
sound but also have some relative stringency as the discharge
limits for other areas of the country. The importance of having
uniform standards was illustrated in the BSA's public meetings
when the point was brought up by a few industries that the dis-
charge limits being imposed by BSA are more stringent than those
in some other areas of the country. This could provide the ad-
ditional incentive for these industries to relocate all or por-
tions of their plant operations in other areas of the country
having less stringent regulations. One of the methods the BSA
would like to use to reduce industry's pretreatment requirements
is to incorporate into its discharge limits, a credit for re-
movals achieved at the BSA plant. This would effectively raise
86
-------
the discharge limits while still maintaining the same discharge
quality.
While the control of discharges of pollutants in toxic or in-
hibitory quantities from industry is important, industry is also
an important contributor of compatible pollutants. Since the BSA's
new secondary treatment plant was designed for joint treatment,
the industrial contribution is necessary for efficient operation.
In addition to being a significant flow contributor,(17.7%) indus-
try contributes approximately 39% of the phosphorus, 34% of the
BOD, and 27% of the S.S. loadings. As discussed in Section 7, in-
dustry will pay for the expanded portions of the treatment facil-
ity required to treat its contribution at no additional cost to
the public. The cost to each user will be equitable since the
charges are based on each user's waste characteristics. Practices
such as separate rates for industry and volume discounts will not
be allowed once the new treatment plant goes on stream.
In the near future, two factors will affect the characteris-
tics of the industrial contributions to the BSA system. The adop-
tion and enforcement of the sewer regulations will reduce the a-
mounts of potentially toxic or inhibitory contaminents entering
the Sewer Authority's system. In addition, once industries install
pretreatment to meet the requirements, reductions would also occur
for BOD, suspended solids and phosphorus loadings. A rough esti-
mate of those reductions would be 1.5% of the BOD, 9.9% of S.S.,
and 4.5% of phosphorus loadings. The second factor affecting the
characteristics of the industrial contributions will be the sur-
charge levels. The cost recovery system requires an additional
charge be paid by industries discharging wastes with concentrations
in excess of 250 mg/1 of BOD and S.S. and 5 mg/1 of phosphorus.
Industries that will be levied high surcharges will probably in-
vestigate pretreating their wastewater prior to discharge into the
BSA's system. Estimates of those that may install pretreatment
cannot realistically be made at this time since other factors such
as the availability of land and money affect the ability of any
given industry to install the necessary equipment. A more detailed
discussion of the economics of pretreatment vs surcharge can be
found in Section 7. The quantities of BOD, S.S. and phosphorus
contributed at surchargeable levels is substantial. Summarized
below, are the loadings arid percent of the total plant loadings,
contributed by wastewater having strenghts exceeding the limits
previously described for surcharge.
Table.21. SURCHARGEABLE LOADINGS IN THE BSA SYSTEM
Surchargeable Loading
Parameter kg/day % of Plant Loading
BOD 12,530 10.8
S.S. 4,222 3.1
P 289 13.3
87
-------
It is expected that these quantities will be reduced by in-
plant control measures, product changes, and pretreatment.
In some instances, the economics may favor a combination of
a direct discharge to waterways and a discharge to a municipal
sewerage system. With the segregation of process stream, an
industry could discharge its pretreated incompatible pollutants
to a waterway and only discharge its compatible pollutants to
the municipal system, thereby lowering their sewer use charges.
Since this study was initiated, one industry has entered Buffalo's
system rather than pretreat for direct discharge. In addition,
two other industries, a petroleum refiner and an inorganic chemi-
cal plant, are negotiating to redirect the compatible pollutant
portions of their waste discharged to the BSA's system. In the
surrounding area, other industries are also expressing interest
in entering POTWs.
It is difficult to predict, beyond a few years, what the
impact of the Industrial Wastes Characterisitcs will have on the
treatment plant since it is not known what the future require-
ments will be. The new plant was designed to include the indus-
trial portion, their inclusion in the future would remain an
important factor from both a cost distribution and treatment ef-
ficiency point of view.
One of the immediate impacts of the enactment and enforce-
ment of the BSA Sewer Regulations will be a reduction in the
quantity of potentially toxic material received at the treatment
plant.
The primary toxic problem in the Buffalo system can be cate-
gorized as "heavy metals". Another problem area, minor in nature,
was the industrial contributions of phenol, however, industries
contacted indicated this problem could largely be solved through
better in-plant control measures. Insecticides and pesticides
were not found in measureable quantities at the treatment works
nor are they produced nor used to any great extent in the areas
served by the BSA system.
Table A-l, Characteristics of SIC Categories Summary, in-
dicated twelve categories that contribute substantial quantities
of heavy metals. The 12 categories consisted of 30 industries
which will require pretreatment. For 30 of the 30 industries
requiring pretreatment, the method used in this analysis was
lime precipitation with CN destruction and Cr reduction, where
required.
It should be recognized that alternative methods may be em-
ployed to achieve the necessary reductions. The process used
for these determinations was single stage lime precipitation with
polymer addition which would generate 5% solids and could be de-
watered to a 20% cake. The assumption was made with some reser-
88
-------
vation, that this unit process would produce an effluent meeting
the Sewer Regulation's limits. The remaining industry can meet
the limits prescribed by the sewer regulations by clarification.
The quantities of metals that would be removed by this type of
pretreatment were totalized to obtain an estimate of the kilo-
grams per day of metals removed by pretreatment. Each metal the
total quantity removed, was then contrasted against that metal's
present loading at the Authority's Bird Island Treatment plant
to show the reductions which could be obtained by pretreatment.
Summarized in the following table are the findings for each of
the parameters investigated.
Table 22. SUMMARIZED SLUDGE QUANTITIES FROM PRETREATMENT
Parameter
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Chromium
Cadmium
Mercury
Present Ind.
Contribution
mg/1
0.198
0.044
0.096
0.514
0.254
0.008
0.0049
Removed*
Kg/day
104.0
19.3
40.5
205.0
100.0
2.5
0.04
Resulting Influent
mg/1
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.21
0.11
0.004
0.0048
% of BSA's
Plant Load.
79.0
66.3
63.4
60.1
59.1
48.1
1.3
*Quantities removed from plant influent if industries pretreated
to the existing discharge limits.
With the exception of mercury, pretreatment will substantial-
ly reduce the metal loadings received at the Bird Island Treat-
ment Plant. In the case of mercury, only 1.3% reduction in the
treatment plant's loading was projected due to the pretreatment
of mercury. It should be pointed out that only a few industrial
discharges exhibited mercury levels in excess of BSA's discharge
limits and over 89% of the mercury loading was from other sources.
Thus, little can be achieved by pretreatment. The high contri-
bution of mercury from the Scajaquada Creek (56%) may be attri-
buted to industrial contributors outside of Buffalo's limits.
Once all of the required pretreatment facilities are established,
the Bird Island Plant could have a reduction in the present
loading ranging from 48.1% for cadmium to 79.0% for copper. This
reduction in loading to the treatment plant would reduce the
metal content in the sludges. A greater degree of reduction
would occur in the sludges metal content since the plant's metal
removal efficiency would be less due to the decrease in the in-
fluent concentrations. Shown in Table 23, is a comparison of
the estimated sludge concentrations with and without industrial
pretreatment.
89
-------
Table 23. PRETREATMENT EFFECTS ON BSA'S SLUDGE
Without Pretreatment With Pretreatment
Parameter mg/kg (dry) mg/kg (dry)
Copper 1570 330
Lead 1800 605
Nickel 315 115
Zinc 2275 364
Chromium 2540 1040
Cadmium 100 50
As shown in Table 24, the industrial sludges will have high
metal concentrations and proper disposal methods will have to be
employed.
Sludge disposal options in the Buffalo metropolitan area,
are limited for this type of sludge. Research into the methods
for reclaiming and recycling metals are presently being conducted.
However, when compared to the level of pretreatment required, it
is not economically justifiable with the methods available today.
Potentially, there are five disposal options which are widely
used for the ultimate disposal of sludges. The following is a
brief discussion of each relative to its use in this area for the
disposal of sludges from chemical precipitation processes.
1. At the present time, landfill disposal of this type of
sludge is broadly utilized in the Buffalo area. The relative
cost of this disposal method makes it the most economical option
presently available to industries. However, increasing restric-
tions on the allowable metal content may force the creation of
specialized landfills to handle metal sludges.
2. The use of a scavenger is another option open to the
industries investigated. In addition to accepting sludges, the
scavenger may also accept the waste as a liquid and then pretreat
it. While the ultimate sludge disposal method used by the
scavenger most often falls into one of the other four options,
it was included because the potential for reclaiming and recycl-
ing the metals is present. For example, one scavenger located
in the Buffalo area is seriously looking into recovering metals
on a large scale. In fact, he has already recovered copper from
a highly concentrated wastewater. However, unless the sludges
require additional treatment or specialized storage in the land-
fill, it is more economical to use the conventional landfill
approach.
3 Ocean dumping is not a serious consideration for dis-
posal of the metal sludges since EPA will not approve it and
even if they did, the transportation costs from Buffalo would be
prohibitive. Sludges are also prohibited from being dumped off-
shore in Lake Erie.
90
-------
Table 24. EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
SIC Category
Cyclic Crude
(2865)
Solids
Zn
Steel Wire
(3315)
Solids
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Plating
(3471)
Solids
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Zn
Ind. Laundry
(7218)
Solids
Cd
Cu
Fe
Pb
Hg
Zn
Kg/day Removed
Dry
9.8
0.64
2383.5
0.10
6.45
15.03
0.50
0.41
1.00
53.12
1184.9
1.86
15.89
10.99
14.44
7.17
1162.7
0.18
3.31
69.05
11.58
0.01
3.86
Cone @ 5% Solids
mg/1
5%
3405.0
5%
2.2
142.0
331.0
11.0
9.0
22.0
1170.0
5%
82.5
704.0
486.8
639.6
317.8
5%
8.2
149.6
3118.0
522.7
0.6
174.2
Cone @ 20% Solids
mg/1
20%
23,314.7
20%
25.1
973.5
2269.2
75.4
61.7
150.8
8021.0
20%
567.7
4846.0
3350.7
4402.9
2187.6
20%
56.2
1026.1
21,380.3
3584.5
4.2
1194.8
91
-------
4. The use of metal sludges for land reclamation in high
ground water areas or near lakes and streams would only cause a
greater problem with water contamination. While land reclamation
may be used at selected sites, it is not forseen to be a major
method of disposal for this area.
5. Sludges, in general, have been used both as fertilizer
and soil conditioner. However, little benefit is seen from using
the metal sludges for this purpose. The high metal concentra-
tions, as shown in Table 24, would severely limit its applica-
tion.
92
-------
SECTION 9
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL
INTRODUCTION
It has been shown in the preceding chapters, that the com-
bined treatment of industrial and domestic wastes has many econ-
omic advantages. However, combined treatment imposes the need
for the careful consideration of the effect the industrial waste
has on the entire system. Many of the effects have already been
discussed in detail. This section deals with the effect the
c£™ i K^ o?rge has on POTW's sludge disposal options. As
shown in Table 23, the effects of industrial waste on sludge
quality can be significant. *
In an area such as Western New York, there are only three
major options of ultimate disposal open to the POTW. Those
being:
1. Disposal in a landfill;
2. Disposal or recycling for agricultrual purposes; and
3. Co-disposal with solid waste or refuse by incinerator.
It must be kept in mind that in addition to industrial
wastes, there are many other factors that will ultimately effect
a POTW's decision as to which disposal option best suits their
needs, for example:
1. Normally, the sludge process selected by the POTW will
not^effect their sludge disposal options since ideally, these
options are taken into account when the method of processing is
selected. In areas where the POTW is still in the planning stage
this is essential. However, in today's rapidly changing market,
things such as power and fuel, that were economically advanta-
geous to use four years ago, are not today. This is the case in
Buffalo, therefore, the BSA must re-evaluate its option, taking
into consideration the additional sludge process factor.
2. The geological location of the POTW will affect their
option.
3. The location of the other POTWs and large industries
with large volumes of sludges and solid waste to be disposed of
93
-------
will affect their option,
4. The availability of land disposal sites will affect their
option.
5, The location of acceptable landfill sites will affect
their option,
6, Federal, State and local regulations will affect their
options, etc.
Since all of the above are non^industrial related factors,
they will not be discussed in this report.
All of the information, conclusions and recommendations
presented here have been taken from data obtained for a larger
study performed by EPA on sludge disposal problems. That report
will be published separately at a later date.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Buffalo Sewer Authority's upgraded Bird Island Treatment
plant will be the largest in Erie County. It will produce 17,900
kkg of ash per year which is 43% of the total quantity of sludge
disposed of in the county.
In addition to the quantity of sludge produced, the quality
of its sludge will also affect Buffalo's options. The high
metal concentrations presently in Buffalo's sludge (Section 7,
Table 23) may eliminate any agricultural options such as using
the sludge for soil conditioner or fertilizer. However, the
enforcement of the BSA Sewer Regulations could lower these metal
concentrations to levels where the agricultural options could be
a viable alternative.
As shown in Figure 13, initially the Authority will use
both digestion and incineration in its sludge processing. It is
not generally common practice for a POTW to provide both diges<-
tion and incineration. However, Buffalo requires digested sludge
for operating its activated sludge process in the Kraus mode and
incineration to further reduce the sludge volume for disposal.
When the BSA plant was in the design stage, it was found that
their present location for ash disposal would no longer be availr
able. New disposal sites were scarce. Fuel costs were much
lower than they are today and air pollution regulations were less
stringent. In light of todayrs economy, the BSA is re-evaluating
its options and investigating alternatives to its present sludge
treatment and disposal method.
Since Buffalo utilizes both the digestion and incineration
processes in its new plant, they have the options of, using either
94
-------
RAW
WASTEWATER
GRIT
TANKS
Ln
MULTI
HEARTH
INCINERATORS
-*
VACUUM
FILTERS
AIR
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
t
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TO
RIVER
ASH
B.S.A.
Figure 12
PROCESS DIAGRAM
-------
one or both in treating their sludge. The decision on which
sludge treatment process to use will be based upon an economic
evaluation of all the combinations of processes and disposal
methods available to them. While this is beyond the scope of
this project, the potential can be briefly illustrated by looking
at Buffalo's present primary system. In the fiscal year ending
on June 30, 1975, the Sewer Authority's costs for sludge incin-
eration was $175.59/kkg of dried solids burned.18 Since diges-
tion and dewatering is also utilized by the Authority, and if
adequate sites were available, a substantial savings could be
seen by disposing of the digested, dewatered sludge in a landfill
or land reclaiming area. The resulting cost to the Authority
would be far less than the $175.59/kkg presently being paid for
incineration. Although a detailed study was not made of long
term landfill availability, at the present landfill tipping costs,
it is estimated that approximately $250,000 per year would be
saved if this option could be used.
The presence of industrial waste in Buffalo's treatment
plant may create problems in both the use of digesters and in-
cinerators. However, the problems caused by the metal laden
sludge in the digestor can be solved through the enforcement of
sewer use regulations. On the other hand, the problem of metal
laden sludges in the incinerators are air pollution oriented.
Mercury poses the most serious metal problem during incineration
since substantial quantities will be vaporized during the de-
struction process. EPA does not feel that an appreciable quanti-
ty of other metals will appear in stack gases because of vola-
tilization. 19 A study20 on the incineration of sludges contain-
ing mercury indicated 9.7 percent of the mercury entering a
mulitple-hearth incinerator, enters the atmosphere, 59 percent
was found in the ash and the remainder was removed by the scrub-
ber water. Considering the actual influent concentration, this
level of performance for existing and planned sewage treatment
plants in Erie Coundy woul4 meet the national emsission standard
for mercury, considering the actual influent concentration. A-
nother area of concern is that toxic organic substances, such
as PCB (polychlorinated-biphenyl) may enter the atmosphere,
New regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation requires after-burners on all multiple
hearth sludge incinerators to insure the complete destruction of
the PCBs. While little is known about PCB concentrations in
18Laehy, G. Annual Report of the Buffalo Sewer Authority. Buffalo Sewer
Authority. 1974-1975. p41.
19Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 1974. p8-43 - 8-54.
20Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration. Environmental Protection
Agency. 625/4-75-009. June 1975. p9.
96
-------
sludges, New York State is particularly concerned about their
destruction due to the tendencies for PCBs to concentrate in the
food chain. For example, just recently, most of the Hudson River
was closed to all types of fishing since high levels of PCBs
have been detected in stock taken from this source.
AGRICULTURAL DISPOSAL OPTION
Environmental groups and other sectors of the public in
Erie County have been calling for the use of sewage sludge to
either reclaim land or for use as fertilizers. At the present
time in Erie County, there are no long term plans or needs for
land reclamation. The costs of transportation to other areas
outside of Erie County for this purpose, such as reclaiming strip
mines, make it economically unattractive. As a fertilizer, sew-
age sludges are relatively poor being deficient in the proper 21
balance of nitorgen, phosphorus and potassium. Dr. J.D. Mendies
has rated an average sewage sludge as being 2-1-0.2 (nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium) fertilizer. Coupled with the handling
problems the farmers have scheduling it and spreading it in
large quantities, there is not much of a market for it. Some
other cities in the country have successfully marketed their
sludge as a low grade fertilizer. However, their sludge is
either high in nitrogen, or they fortify it with chemicals before
sale. There are also other cities which have been unsuccessful
in selling their sludge as fertilizer, mainly because of the
lack of an adequate market.
Sewage sludge is particularly useful as a soil conditioner.
Stabilized sewage contains 45-50 percent organic materials which
improves the soil tilth and permeability with the added benefit
of having a low fertilization value. There are two constraints
to the use of Buffalo's present sewage sludge on crop lands:
1) its heavy metals concentration, and 2) the presence of patho-
gens. Heavy metals, especially zinc, copper, cadmium and nickel
are potentially toxic to crops and may be introduced into the
food chain. The New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation requires proof that hazardous levels of metals will not
be present in crops grown for human consumption in sludge condi-
tioned soil. The second constraint is the level of pathogens
and their potential for contamination of surface water, ground
water, the air, and crops. It is recommended that land condi-
tioned with sludge not be used for human consumable vegetable
crops, at least during the first year, unless the sludge has
been pasteurized or efficiently composted.
In light of the above discussion, Buffalo's agricultural
21Mendies, J.D. Composition and Properties of Sewage Sludge Cropping Up.
New York State College of Agriculture. Cornell University. XVIII:5.
Sept. 1974. pl-3.
97
-------
option would be limited to soil conditioning. Their Sewer Use
Regulation would have to be strictly enforced so that the metal
concentrations in the sludges were at the levels compatible with
its use as a soil conditioner. By enforcement of the sewer regu-
lations, the BSA could reduce the metal concentrations in its
waste as shown in Section 8, Table 23.
Presently, in Erie County, there is a need for approximately
2800/kkg/yr of dried solids to be used as a soil conditioner.
Even with three out of the four new secondary treatment plants
in the area utilizing incineration as their sludge reduction pro-
cess, the present demand for soil conditioning does not exceed
the supply if Buffalo exercises this option. Thus, the BSA
would have to expand the present market, which largely consists
of home owners, to include more usage on farm, parks, and recre-
ational area.
LANDFILL OPTION
The sanitary landfill is presently being used for the dis-
posal of both sludge and ash. Under present landfilling methods,
these sludges are incorporated either into the face of the fill
matter or combined with the cover material. Since the pH of the
material in a sanitary landfill is normally acidic, this creates
the problem of the resolublization of metals which during wet
weather would leach out into the groundwater or drainage system.
Therefore, it is recommended, since new regulations are present-
ly being established, that these regulations be carefully con-
sidered in the design stages. For example, as a result of re-
quests made by county health authorities, one of the larger land-
fills in the area recently sent to its customers a notice indi-
cating substances which will not be accepted for disposal;
included were the metals found in Buffalo's sludges. Since the
request was not specific by including limiting concentrations,
this implies that Buffalo's municipal sludge would be prohibited.
Since all waste even domestic, will contain some metals, the
lack of specific limits in the regulations prevents us from
determining what, if any, effect the industrial control of metals
has on thl's option. The costs for the use of landfills ranged
from $6.00 to $11.00/kkg, plus the cost of transportation.
However many landfills have not yet established fixed charges
for sludges. In most cases they would rather not handle it be-
cause of the equipment problems it produces.
In evaluating the landfill option, the POTW must consider
both the transportation costs and the costs charged by the land-
fill For long term projects, incineration of the sludge before
disposal in the landfill may prove to be cost-effective since it
would drastically reduce both costs by reducing the volume. For
example, assuming a POTW has to process and dispose of 1,500,000
kkg/year of wet sludge containing 50% volatiles of 2% solids,
98
-------
one of two methods could be used: 1} digestion followed by
dewatering to 20S by weight, and 2) dewatering, followed by in-
cineration. If the digestion process were to be used, approxi-
mately 102,000 kkg/yr of wet sludge would be generated. If in-
cineration were to be used, only 15,000 kkg/yr of ash would have
to be disposed of. If the reduction in transportation and land-
fill costs resulting from the use of incineration exceeds the
difference in 0$M and amortization costs between incineration and
digestion, then incineration would be the cost effective method.
CO- DISPOSAL OF REFUSE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE
Co-disposal of refuse and sewage sludge is being evaluated
by Erie County's Southtowns Sewage Agency for use at its new
sewage treatment plant. LL The concept is to locate pyrolysis
oxygen furnaces, oxygen generation facilities and wastewater
facilities at a common location. Each process would augment the
other, the pyrolysis units disposing of the sewage sludge, the
wastewater treatment plant supplying cooling and flushing water
as well as treating the contaminated wastewater, and the oxygen
facilities supplying oxygen to both facilities. The new savings
in the cost of constructing the wastewater treatment facility
would be approximately 3.6 million dollars.
The solid waste facilities would include shredding, ferrous
metal separation and pyrolysis units. The manufacturer, Union
Carbide, estimated that the quantity of sludge that could be
handled jointly with the refuse is 20-30 percent of the total
capacity of the incinerator. The sludge dewatered to 25 percent
would result in negligible losses of energy. Sludge with higher
solids content could produce enough energy to make it a market-
able commodity. New York State has expressed an interest in a
facility of this nature and grant funds are available to pay up
to 50 percent of the construction costs. In addition, EPA and
NYDEC will provide 751 and 12.5 % of the funds necessary for that
portion of the facility for wastewater treatment. The annual
conceptual cost estimates for the solid waste facility are shown
in Table 25.
Generally, the use of landfills which are relatively close
to the refuse source was found to be more economical than co-
disposal. However, as the distance to the landfill increases,
the increase in transportation costs make the pyrolysis method
more attractive. The Lancaster Sanitary Landfill would be avail-
able for refuse for some time. Tipping costs are presently $5.70
Smith, Rosenstein Engineers. Technical Memorandum on Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities Being Combined With Wastewater Treatment Facilities at
the Southtowns Site. Erie County's Southtowns Sewage Agency. February
j.y /o • p / •
99
-------
Table22 25 . ANNUAL COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Net Annual Costs
Operating and Maintenance
Debt Service
Wastewater Debt Credit
Total
Annual Tonnage
Cost per Ton
1980
$3,712,000
1,600,000
(43.000)
$5,269,000
197,830
$ 26.63
2000
$5,294,000
1,600,000
(45,000)
$6,851,000
385,000
$ 18.76
Credit for Sale of Metals
Gross Cost per Ton
Credit for Metal
Net Cost per Ton
Credit for Sale
Gross Cost per Ton
Credit for Metal
Credit for Gas
Net Cost per Ton
Credit for Sale
Gross Cost per Ton
Credit for Metal
Credit for Gas
Net Cost per Ton
1980
$26.63
(2.50)
$24.13
of Metals and Gas @ $0.
1980
$26.63
(2.50)
(5.63)
$18.50
of Metals and Gas @ $1.
1980
$26.63
(2.50)
(11.25)
$16.25
2000
$18.77
(2.50)
$16.26
75/106 BTU
2000
$18.77
(2.50)
(5.63)
$10.63
50/106 BTU
2000
$18.76
(2.50)
(11.25)
$ 5.01
100
-------
per ton of refuse with sludge tipping charges being four times
that amount, depending on the handling problems encountered. To
be cost effective, compared to the use of the Lancaster Landfill,
the solid waste co-disposal facility would have to operate at
near capacity and sell all its off-gases at $1.50/10° BTU. The
industrial contribution to Buffalo's waste treatment system
would not be a hindrance to the utilization of this option. In
fact, if co-disposal were to become a reality, the POTW would
neither have to digest or incinerate, merely dewater.
101
-------
SECTION 10
REFERENCES
1. Leonard S. Wegman Co., Inc. Comprehensive Sewer Study for
the Buffalo Sewer Authority. Buffalo, New York. 1973.
p.IV 1 - IV 22.
2. Executive Office of the President. Standard Industrial
Classification Manual. Washington, B.C. 1972 edition.
649p.
3. Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Surface Contaminants.
EPA-82-73-233.
4. Sarton, J., Boyd, G., and Agardy, F. Water Pollution Aspects
of Street Contaminants. Journal WPCF. Vol. 46. No. 3
March 1974. p458-467.
5. Newton, C.D., Shephard, W.W., Coleman, M.S. Street Runoff
as a Source of Lead Pollution. Journal WPCF. Vol. 46.
No. 5. May 1974. p999-1000.
6. Agee, James L. User Charge Systems. Program Guidance
Memorandum. EPA. p38. July 16, 1974. Ip.
7. Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems. American
Public Works Assc., American Society of Civil Engineers.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1973. p37-40.
8. Equitable Recovery of Industrial Waste Treatment Costs in
Municipal Systems. EPA. October 1971. p5.
9. Stoats, E.B. Decision - Use of Ad Valorem Tax to Satisfy
Statutory Requirement for a User Charge System for Water
Treatment Works. Comptroller General of the United States.
B-166505. July 2, 1974. p2.
10. Common and Precious Metals Segment of the Electroplating
Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-75/040. April 1975.
p!53-179.
11. Metal Finishing Segment of the Electroplating Point Source
Category. EPA-400/l-75-040-a. April 1975. Table 24. plOO.
102
-------
12. A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treat-
ment Systems. EPA 430/9-76-002. July 1975. pB-1.
13. An Analysis of Construction Cost Experience for Wastewater
Treatment Plants. EPA 430/9-76-002. February 1976. p44.
14. Pretreatment Standards, Part 128. Federal Register. Vol.
38. No. 215. EPA. November 8, 1973. p30984.
15. Cheng, M.H. , Patterson, J.W., and Minear, R.A. Heavy Metals
Uptake by Activated Sludge. WPCF Journal. Vol. 47. No. 2
Feb. 1975. p362-276.
16. Brunner, C.A. EPA Correspondence to John T. Rhett. Removal
Capability of Wastewater Treatment Processes for Metals and
Other Pollutants. 8/20/74.
17. Esmond, S.E., Petrosek, A. Dallas Water Utilities Dept.
Removal of Heavy Metals by Wastewater Treatment Plants.
March 1973. pl-16.
18. Laehy, G. Annual Report of the Buffalo Sewer Authority.
Buffalo Sewer Authority. 1974-1975. p41.
19. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
Environmental Protection Agency. October 1974. p8-43 -
8-54.
20. Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration. Environmental
Protection Agency. 625/4-75-009. June 1975. p9.
21. Mendies, J.D. Composition and Properties of Sewage Sludge
Cropping Up. New York State College of Agriculture.
Cornell University. XVIII:5. Sept. 1974. pl-3.
22. McPhee, Smith, Rosenstein Engineers. Technical Memorandum
on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Being Combined With
Wastewater Treatment Facilities at the Southtowns Site.
Erie County's Southtowns Sewage Agency. February 1976. p7.
103
-------
SECTION 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Earth, E.F., Ettinger, M.G., Salotto, B.V., and McDermott,
G.N. "Summary Report on the Effects of Heavy Metals on the
Biological Treatment Processes". Journal WPCF. 37-1: 86-96
January 1965.
2. Board of Supervisors of Weschester County, County Public
Works Sewer Ordinance No. 1, 27-1968. 16p.
3. Buffalo Sewer Authority, Sewer Regulations of the Buffalo
Sewer Authority. 1967. 12p.
4. Carnes, B.A. "Laboratory Simulation and Characterization
for Water Pollution Control". Chemical Engineering. 97-104
December 11, 1972.
5. Cheng, M.H., Patterson, J.W., and Minear, R.A. "Heavy Metals
Uptake by Activated Sludge". Journal WPCF. 47-2: 362-376
February 1975.
6. City of Cincinnati, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations of the
Metropolitan Sewage Disposal System. 1962. 23p.
7. County of Onondaga, N.Y. Rules and Regulations Relating to
the Use of the Public Sewer System. Nov. 15, 1972. 19p.
8. Erie County Dept. of Public Works, Rules and Regulations for
Erie County Sewer Districts. December 21, 1971. 28p.
9. Esmond, S.E. and Petrasek Jr., A.C. "Removal of Heavy Metals
by Wastewater Treatment Plants". Texas A§M University (pre-
sented at Industrial Water and Pollution Conference and Ex-
position. Chicago, Illinois. March 14-16, 1973). 16p.
10. Impact of Environmental Regulations on Capital Markets and
on Industry Capital - Raising Problems. EPA. PM-219.
December 1975. 14p.
11. Interaction of Heavy Metals and Biological Sewage Treatment
Processes. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare.
May 1965. 199p.
104
-------
12. Irvine, R.L., Keegan, R.T., Langley, W.D. and Catchings,
R.C. "Specific Removal Patterns in Activated Sludge System
Design". Journal WPCF. 4_5 - 8: 1771-1782. August 1973.
13. Klein, L.A., Lang, M., Nash, N., and Kirschner, S.L.
"Sources of Metals in New York City Wastewater". (Presented
at New York Pollution Control Association. Jan. 21, 1974).
18p.
14. Kroner, R.C. "The Occurrence of Trace Metals in Surface
Waters". EPA - 902/9-74-001. 311-322p.
15. Mandel, J. "The Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data".
Interscience Publishers. 1964. 410p.
16. Maryuama, T., Hannah, S.A., and Cohen, J.M. "Removal of
Metals by Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes". EPA.
February 1974. 35p.
17. McPhee, Smith, Rosenstein Engineers. "Industrial Waste Sur-
vey Phase II Engineering Report". Buffalo Sewer Authority.
December 1975. Vol. I § II. 87p.
18. McPhee, W.T., Rosenstein, I. "Municipal Disposal Contracts
for Industrial Users". (Presented at New York Pollution Con-
trol Associations's Annual Meeting. Jan. 1973.). 14p.
19. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. Sewage
and Waste Control Ordinance. Sept. 18, 1969. 12p.
20. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. Industrial
Waste Surcharge Ordinance. Dec. 31, 1970. 9p.
21. Model Industrial Waste Ordinance. Environmental Improvement
Agency. Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1971. 9p.
22. Nebolsine, Toth, McPhee Associates. Industrial Waste Survey
Engineering Report. Buffalo Sewer Authority. Jan. 1973.
50p.
23. Nevfeld, R.D. and Hermann, E.R. "Heavy Metal Removal by
Acclimated Activated Sludge". Journal WPCF. 47-2 :310-329.
Feb. 1975.
24. Patterson, J.W., Shimada, P., and Haas, C.N. "Heavy Metals
Transport Through Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants".
(Presented at the Second National Conference on Complete
Water Reuse. Chicago, Illinois. May 5, 1975.). 15p.
25. Peterson, F.L. and Hargis, D.R. "Subsurface Disposal of Storm
Runoff". Journal WPCF. 45-8: 1663-1670. Aug. 1973.
105
-------
26. Regulation of Sewer Use. WPCF Manual of Practice No. 3
Journal WPCF. 45-9,10. 1973.
27. Rubin, A.J. (Ed.) "Aqueous-Environmental Chemistry of Metals"
Ann Arbor Science. 1974. 381p.
28. St. Paul Metropolitan Sewer Board, Sewage and Waste Control.
Rules and Regulations for the Metropolitan Disposal System
Dec. 1, 1971. 13p.
29. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. An Ordinance
Regulating Sewer Construction, Sewer Use and Industrial
Wastewater Discharges. April 1, 1972. 48p.
30. Texas Water Quality Board. Suggested Industrial Waste Ordi-
nance. 72-04. 31p.
31. Treatment of Mixed Domestic Sewage and Industrial Wastewaters
in Germany. Organization for Economic Co-operation and De-
velopment. No. 20215. Dec. 1966. 113p.
106
-------
SECTION 12
APPENDICES
A Characteristics of SIC Categories
B Sewer Use Regulations
C Pilot Plant Investigation's Background Data
107
-------
APPENDIX A
CHARACTERISTICS OF SIC CATEGORIES
108
-------
Table A'l CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Meat Packing (2011J
Kg /day
339
706
16.2
595
128.6
23.8
D.78
0.1115
7
60.6
nd. Total
1.4
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.6
3.1
mg/1
802
1671
38.4
1410
305
56.4
1.83
0.1115
7
Prepare
S.I.C.
Kg /day
2495.9
4198.3
54.18
8,841
830.1
88.9
541.1
0.9145
13
89.8
d Meats (20
Ind. Total
10.4
7.3
2.0
4.6
4.7
1.6
38.5
4.7
5.8
~3) T
mg/1
721
1213
15.6
2553
240
25.7
156
0.9145
13
Creamery Butter (2(
SIC % of
Kg /day
44.53
80.81
0.52
60.39
15.95
18.82
0.15
0.0363
1
100
Ind. Total
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.2
0.4
)21)
Cone.
mg/1
324
588
3.8
439
116
137
1.1
0.0363
1
Cl
S.I.C.
Kg./day
736.5
1552.2
2.6
1039.8
34.24
13.54
6.24
0.0335
2
88.0
leese (2022
% of
Ind. Total
3.1
2.7
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.89
Cone.
mg/l
5803
12,338
20
8193
270
107
49
0.0335
2
-------
Table A'l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Ind.
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Ice Cream (2024)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
104.7
235.5
8.25
417.3
68.5
394.0
21.0
0.225
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
7.0
1.5
1.1
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
122
277
9.7
490
80
463
25
0.225
1
Fluid Milk (2026)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
6,990
9,251
34.35
8,054
1,261
123
290
0.5147
3
91.8
% of
Ind. Total
29,2
16.2
1.2
4.2
7.1
2,2
20.7
2.6
1.33
Cone.
mg/1
3579
4747
18
4133
647
63
149
0.5147
3
Pickles (2035)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
1843.7
2297.0
24.43
6,390
38.1
5.93
4.76
0.1030
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
7.7
4.0
0.9
3.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
4725
5887
63
16,377
98
15
12
0.1030
1
Flour (2041)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
3.21
9.6
0.365
55.1
5.06
0.25
0.0619
2
66.4
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
<0. 1
<0 . 1
<0.1
<0.1
0.30
0.89
Cone.
mg/1
13.67
41.1
1.6
235
22
1.1
0.0619
2
-------
Table A'l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Pel
S.I.C.
Kg/day
40.5
101.6
0.75
138.6
20.3
2.31
2.26
0.0549
2
45.7
fooa izu*/
%of
Ind. Total
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.3
0.89
_
;
Cone.
mg/1
195
489
3.6
666
98
11
11
0.0549
2
—
S.I.C.
Kg/day
750
1040
8.2
993
415
81.9
11.51
0.2013
15
50.7
%of 1
Ind. Total
3.1
1.8
0.3
0.5
2.3
1.4
0.8
1.0
6.67
Cone.
mg/1
984
1364
11
1303
546
108
15
0.2013
15
Animal F»t & on 12077)
S.I.C. I
Kg/day
110.1
630
6.5
594
444
5.2
0.56
0.0455
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
0.5
1.1
0.2
0.3
2.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
645
3674
37.8
3470
2587
32.7
3.5
0.0455
1
S.I.C.
Kg/day
1399.1
1927
4.7
1378.4
331.5
103.8
8.05
0.4070
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
5.8
3.4
0.2
0.7
1.9
1.8
0.6
2.1
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
1068
1471
3.6
1052
253
79
6.1
0.4070
1
-------
Table A-I Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
S.I.C.
Kg/day
107.45
196.9
6.30
170.4
39.01
0.64
7.03
0.0704
1
100
Walt (2083)
% of
Ind. Total
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.5
0.4
0.44
Cone.
rog/1
403
739
23
639
146
2.4
26
0.0704
1
Soft Drinks (2086)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
9.42
21.9
0.51
125.1
10.19
1.37
0.229
' O.OS61
8
75.3
%of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
3.6
Cone.
mg/1
44
103
2.4
589
48
6.0
1.1
0.0561
8
Macaroni & Spaghetti (2098)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
71.2
115.7
0.92
178.9
12.5
1.8
5.3
0.0451
1
94.7
% of
Ind. Total
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
Cone.
mg/1
417
677
5.4
1048
73
10.9
31
0.0451
1
Narrow Fabric Mills (2241 )
S.I.C.
Kg/day
16.06
144.3
1.61
146.3
44.73
12.19
1.02
0.4478
2
70.5
%of
Ind. Total
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.3
0.89
Cone.
mg/1
9.47
85.1
0.95
86.3
26.4
7.19
0.60
0.4478
2
-------
Table A-1 Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATEGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
C hrom ium- tota 1
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industrie
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Converted Paper Products (2649)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
41.16
726.7
1364.2
1184.5
6.1
0.67
0.138
<0. 00028
0.0570
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
0.2
1.3
0.7
6.7
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.3
0.44
uonc.
mg/1
191
3369
6318
5485
28
3.1
0.64
0.0570
1
Corrugated Boxes (2653)
. l.C .
Kg /day
93.4
522.2
3.49
439.6
334.9
91.0
1.04
0.0094
0.00023
0.1039
3
65.7
7o 01
Ind. Total
0.4
0.9
0.1
0.2
1.9
1.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.33
mg/1
237
1327
8.9
1117
851
231
2.6
0.024
0.0006
0.1039
3
New
S.I.C.
Kg /day
25.1
103.7
1.21
141.1
39.5
2.53
0.2
0.1160
5
66.7
spa per s (27
% of
Ind. Total
0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
2.22
LI)
Cone.
mg/1
57.3
236
2.8
321
90
5.8
0.62
0.1160
5
S.I.C.
Kg/day
0.39
15.2
0.26
112.7
17.51
1.66
0.74
0.0272
0.00005
0.0378
6
38.4
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<,0.1
0.1
0.2
2.67
Cone.
mg/1
2.7
107
1.8
788
122
12
5.2
0.19
0.0004
0.28
0.0378
6
-------
Table A-1 Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Manifold E
S.I.C.
Kg /day
38.15
108.1
15.07
280-0
29.0
23.24
10.60
0.032
0.0374
0.0031
0.1715
1
100
uslness For
% of
Ind. Tota:
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.2
2.1
0.9
0.44
ms (2761)
mg/1
59
167
23.0
432
45
36
16
0.05
0.06
0.005
0.1715
1
Pharmaceutical (2834)
Kg/day
1118.6
3306.7
4.65
1564
196.3
91.7
1.851
0.0172
0.0292
-------
Table A'l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATEGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
KgYday
3.31
19.3
0.67
122.4
6.37
22.12
0.33
0.0923
3
9.8
ubber Produ
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.4.
<0.1
0.5
1.33
cts (3069)
Cone.
mg/1
9.5
55
1.9
350
18
63
0.94
0.0923
3
Purchased. Glass Produ
S.I.C.
Kg /day
4.64
34.49
0.9
223.1
71.4
3.87
"6.54
-------
Table A-I Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
C hromium-tota 1
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Ste
S.I.C.
Kg /day
475.9
928.9
1605.3
36,467
201.1
8.05
20.41
2.4
0.16
199.2
277.5
58.1
4.3
3.7
7.6
0.1776
1
100
el Wire (33
% of
Ind. Total
2.0
1.6
58.2
18.9
1.1
0.1
1.5
9.4
4.1
76.9
70
33
17.2
5.9
2.7
0.9
0.44
15)
Cone .
mg/1
707
1381
2387
54,243
299
12
30
3.6
0.24
296
412
86
6.4
5.5
11
0.1776
1
Cold FinJ
sir
Kg/day
12.19
44.09
1.14
228.3
14.05
3.9
2.35
0.0163
0.2230
1
100
shing of Ste
Ind. Total
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
1.1
0.44
el (3316)
mg/1
14
52
1.3
271
17
4.7
2.8
0.02
0.2230
1
Gray Iron Foundaries (3321)
Kg/day
14.29
107.5
3.79
213.3
125.9
4.9
1.37
0.0451
0.0233
0.054
0.1211
3
81.8
7b OI
Ind. Total
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.6
1.33
cone.
mg/1
31
234
8.3
465
275
11
3.0
0.10
0.05
0.12
0.1211
3
Malleable Iron Foundaries (3322)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
14.03
37.76
1.26
319.9
63.6
0.78
3.7
0.015
0.083
0.108
33.43
0.0558
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.4
<0.1
0.3
<.0.1
<0.1
0.2
11.9
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
66
179
6.0
1514
301
3.7
17.6
0.07
0.40
0.52
158
0.0558
1
-------
Table A'l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
C hromium - hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Steel Foundarles (3325)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
67.62
1190.0
17.14
5,140
4,653
45.9
17.96
0.45
1.770
0.54
0.5518
4
66.7
% of
Ind. Total
0.3
2.1
0.6
2.7
26.2
0.8
1.3
1.8
2.8
0.2
2.8
1.78
Cone.
mg/1
24
582
8.5
2571
2360
23
8.9
0.23
0.90
0.25
0.5518
4
Copper Rolling (3351)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
176.5
1370.3
20.64
4,512
457.1
91.83
8.25
0.206
12.38
0.309
79
2.2728
2
100
% of
Ind. Total
0.7
2.4
0.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
0.6
5.2
7.1
0.5
28.3
0.89
0.89
Cone.
mg/1
21
159
2.4
524
53
11
0.96
0.02
1.4
0.04
9.23
2.2728
2
Hand & Edge Tools (3423)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
49
269.7
1266.8
178.1
84.1
19.55
0.0089
5.19
5.44
3.95
1.24
0.5450
3
97.0
% of
Ind. Total
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
1.4
0.2
2.0
1.4
6.2
0.4
2.8
1.33
Cone.
mg/1
24
131
614
86
41
9.5
0.004
2.5
2.6
1.9
0.6
0.5450
3
Fabricated Plate Work (3443)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
94.6
365.6
7.31
2849.5
640.8
34.41
13.54
1.29
0.4737
7
92.2
% of
Ind. Total
0.4
0.6
0.3
1.5
3.6
0.6
1.0
0.5
2.4
3.11
Cone.
mg/1
53
204
4.1
1589
357
19
7.6
0.72
0.4737
7
-------
Table A- 1 continued. CHARACTERISTICS OF SIC CATEGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
C hrom ium - tota 1
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Metal Stampings (3469)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
85.4
476.8
4.42
670.0
65.2
26.99
13,91
0.0058
0.0280
0.126
0.216
0.108
0.0034
0.117
0.126
0.1989
7
91.9
% of
Ind. Total
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.4
O.S
1.0
75.9
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
1.0
3.11
Cone.
mg/1
113
633
5.9
890
87
36
18
0.0078
0.037
0.17
0.29
0.14
0.0046
0.16
0.17
0.1989
7
Plating & Polishing (3471)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
15.7
125.4
3.09
1277
132.0
11.48
11.74
5.41
2.32
18.04
18.22
11.99
0.039
0.00366
24.92
8. 51
0.6309
13
70.2
% of
Ind. Total
0.1
0.2
0.1
2.2
0.7
0.2
0.8
20.7
57.9
7.0
4.6
6.9
0.2
2.5
39.2
3.0
3.2
5.78
Cone.
mg/1
6.6
52.5
1.3
535
55
4.8
4.9
2.3
0.97
7.6
7.6
5.0
0.017
0.0015
10.4
3.6
0.6309
13
Steel Springs (3493)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
4.39
25.02
2.17
123.8
4.07
2.76
2.48
0.63
0.40
<0.016
0.011
0.033
0.026
0.0003
0.1389
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
2.4
10.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
8.4
48
4.2
235
7.8
5.3
4.7
1.2
0.8
0.02
0.063
0.05
0.0006
0.1389
1
Machine Tools (3541)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
1.53
5.38
0.11
32.57
2.8
7.73
0.303
0.0038
0.047
0.0304
4
95.8
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<,0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.78
Cone.
mg/1
13.3
47
1.0
283
24
67
2.6
0.03
0.41
0.0304
4
CO
-------
Table A"l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil \
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium -total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Blowers & Fans (3564)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
4.84
26.5
0.88
116.8
31.6
0.79
1..53
0.0018
0.046
0.1026
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.1
24.1
0.2
0.5
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
12.5
68
2.3
301
82
2.0
4.0
0.0048
0.12
0.1026
1
Refrig. & Heat. Equip. (3585)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
25.1
134.6
4.95
1117.8
88.8
6.54
28.12
113.2
0.3896
3
95.9
% of
Ind. Total
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.2
2.0
40.3
2.0
1.33
Cone.
mg/1
17
91
3.36
758
60
4.4
19
76.7
0.3896
3
Motor Vehicle Parts (3714)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
309.7
170.0.6
71.8
6,783
1,401
2896
89.5
14.13
0.1187
36.51
95.5
69.5
0.847
25.78
10.13
2.5941
6
75.4
% of
Ind. Total
1.3
3.0
2.6
3.5
7.9
51.2
6.4
54.0
3.0
14.1
24
39.9
3.4
40.5
13.2
2.67
Cone.
mg/1
31.5
173
7.3
691
143
295
9.1
1.4
0.01
3.7
9.7
7.1
0.086
2.6
1.03
2.5941
6
Manufacturing Industries (3999)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
249.5
521.6
5.06
1353.8
309.1
27.58
7.96
0.1702
3
97.7
% of
Ind. Total
1.04
0.9
0.2
0.7
1.7
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.33
Cone.
mg/1
387
809
7.9
2101
480
43
12
0.1702
3
-------
Table A-1 Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B .O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
l_t Cyanide
^ Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Gas Production (4925)
S.I.C. 1 ' "
/day
101.08
683.3
22.44
1623.3
199.42
11.2
5.0
<0. OO'SO
0.64
0.2364
3
100
% oi
Ind. Total
0.5
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.2
0.4
2.5
1.2
1.33
Cone.
mg/1
122
763
25
1814
223
12.5
5.6
0.72
0.2364
3
Poultry Products (5144) '
S.I.C.
/day
18.12
46.37
0.87
50.57
16.97
1.16
1.43
0.0258
1
100
% of
Ind. Total
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.44
Cone.
mg/1
186
475
8.9
518
173
12
15
0.0258
1
Industrial Supplies (5085)
S.I.C. 1
/day
245.9
1156
3.06
925
228
260.5
7.18
0.040
0.040
0.087
3.01
0.024
0.0082
2.51
0.0369
5
25.5
% of
Ind. Total
1.0
2.0
0.1
0.5
1.3
4.6
0.5
1.0
<0.1
0.1
12.2
16.0
s.0.1
0.9
0.2
2.22
Cone.
mg/1
1760
8277
22
6623
1635
1864
51.4
0.29
0.29
0.62
21.6
0.17
0.059
18
0.0369
5
Eatina Places (581?
S.I.C.
Kg/day
185.4
396.2
1.65
352.7
158.3
81.7
2.24
0.0865
16
38.6
Ind. Total
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.9
1.4
0.2
0.4
7.11
Co
mg/1
566
1210
5
1077
483
249
6.8
0.0865
16
-------
Table A'l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease & Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Power Laundries (7211)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
79.6
173.4
1.18
255.6
38.6
3.48
5.51
0.0843
4
76.9
% of
Ind. Total
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
1.78
Cone.
mg/1
249
543
3.7
801
121
10.9
17
0.0843
4
Linen Supply (7213)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
194.6
354.2
2.3
615.4
58.1
36.28
12.7
0.0999
3
84.5
% of
Ind. Total
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.33
Cone.
mg/1
514
936
6.0
1627
153
96
34
0.0999
3
Dry Cleaning Plants (7216)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
5.09
19.2
0.46
104.1
11.6
3.65
1.58
0.0724
15
49.4
% of
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
6.67
Cone.
mg/1
19
69
1.7
373
42
13
5.8
0.0724
15
Industrial Launderers (7218)
S.I.C.
Kg /day
1419
6,411
13.33
5,849
1,253.8
568.3
117.3
0.58*
0.90*
4.13*
11 . 7*
0.0316*
5.1*
0.7779
6
94.9
% of
Ind. Total
5.9
11.2
0.5
3.0
7.1
10.0
8.4
14.6
0.2
2.4
47.2
21.4
1.8
4.0
2.67
Cone.
mg/1
482
2176
4.6
1986
426
193
40
0.29*
0.44*
2.04*
5.8*
0.016*
2.5*
0.7779
6
* Note: Heavy metal loadings include only three industries having a total flow of 535,494 gpd.
-------
Table A'l Continued CHARACTERISTICS OF S.I.C. CATAGORIES
Parameters
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Chlorine Demand
Total Solids
Total S.S.
Grease &Oil
Phosphate
Arsenic
I-* Cyanide
ts)
Cadmium
Chromium-hex
Chromium-total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Discharge-MGD
No. of Industries
Weight %
S.I.C. Sampled
Photofinish
S.I.C.
Kg/day
35.90
77.2
7.1
105.5.
4.0
0.034
0.00085
0.0083
0.011
0.0452
1
100
ing Lafoorato
Ind. Total
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
<0. 1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.44
ries (7395
mg/1
210
452
36
617
24
0.2
0.005
0.048
0.066
0.0452
1
Car Washes (7542)
Kg/day
3.56
21.4
0.74
47.3
13.17
1.26
0.092
0.0248
3
42.6
7a UI
Ind. Total
<0.1
<0. 1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
1.33
Lone.
mg/1
38
228
7.9
504
140
13.4
0.98
0.0248
3
General Medical Hospitals (8062)
S.I.C.
Kg/day
737.0
2088.8
68.6
4,938
587.3
197.0
59.8
0.147
0.084
2.7468
15
37.8
% of
Ind. Total
3.1
3.6
2.5
2.6
3.3
3.5
4.3
3.7
57.4
14.0
6.67
mg/1
71
201
6.6
475
56
19
5.8
0.014
0.0082
2.7468
15
-------
APPENDIX B
SEWER USE REGULATIONS
123
-------
Figure B-l
SEWER REGULATIONS
OF THE
BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY
Buffalo Sewer Authority
Room 1038 City Hall
Buffalo, N.Y. '14202
124
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHEREAS the Buffalo Sewer Authority was created by Chapter
349 of the Laws of 1935 (now Title 8 of Article 5 of Chapter 870
of the Laws of New York of 1939, Sections 1175 to 1195 of the
Public Authorities Law,) and
WHEREAS upon the completion of the "Project" as defined in
Section 1176, sub-division 8 of the Public Authorities Law, the
Buffalo Sewerage System theretofore constructed by the City of
Buffalo was assigned, transferred and dedicated to the use and
was thereafter in the possession of and under the jurisdiction,
control and supervision of the Buffalo Sewer Authority, and
WHEREAS, the Buffalo Sewer Authority has, since the com-
pletion of the "Project" constructed additions and betterments
to the public sewerage system including stormwater and sanitary
sewers, and
WHEREAS the Federal Government has enacted Public Laws
84-660 and Public Laws 92-500, and the Buffalo Sewer Authority
desires to remain in compliance therewith, and
WHEREAS, the Buffalo Sewer Authority desires to assure that
the use of the public sewerage system operated by it will con-
form to the best sanitary engineering practices, and desires to
regulate the use of the facilities of the Buffalo Sewer Authority,
and
WHEREAS, the Plumbing Code, the Building Code and the Health
Ordinances of the City of Buffalo regulate to a substantial de-
gree, the construction and use of building service sewers and
the disposal of the sewage and wastes:
NOW, THEREFORE, the following Regulations, which shall be
considered supplementary to the Plumbing Code, the Building
Code and the Health and other applicable ordinances of the City
of Buffalo, are hereby adopted by the Buffalo Sewer Authority:
125
-------
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise,
the meaning of terms used in these Regulations shall be as fol-
lows :
Sec. 1 "ABNORMAL STRENGTH SEWAGE" shall mean any waste having
a suspended solid, BOD, chlorine demand or total phosphate con-
centration in excess of that found in normal strength sewage, but
which is otherwise acceptable into a public sewer under the terms
of these Regulations,
Sec, 2 "A.S.T.M." shall mean the American Society for Testing
and Materials,
Sec, 3 "BOD" (denoting Biochemical Oxygen Demand) shall mean
the quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter under standard laboratory procedure in five (5)
days at 20°C, expressed in milligrams per liter.
Sec, 4 "BSA, THE AUTHORITY, SEWER AUTHORITY" shall mean the
Buffalo Sewer Authority.
Sec. 5 "BUILDING DRAIN" is that part of the horizontal piping
of a building drainage system which receives the discharge of
all soil, waste and other drainage from inside the walls of any
building and conveys the same to the building service sewer five
feet outside the foundation wall of such building.
Sec. 6 "BUILDING SERVICE SEWER" is that part of the horizontal
piping of a building drainage system beginning five feet from
the foundation wall and terminating at its connection with the
main sewer, cesspool, bacterial tank or other disposal terminal.
Sec. 7 "CHLORINE DEMAND" shall mean the difference between the
amount of chlorine added to water, sewage or industrial wastes
and the amount of residual chlorine remaining at the end of a
fifteen (15) minute contact period.
Sec. 8 "COLLECTING SEWER" shall mean a sewer that receives
wastewater and discharges into a main sewer serving more than
one (1) collecting sewer.
126
-------
Sec. 9 "COMBINED SEWER" is a public sewer or drain intended to
receive domestic sewage, industrial water carried wastes, as well
as surface, and storm waters.
Sec. 10 "COMMON SEWER" shall mean a building service sewer or
building drain that receives wastewater from more than one (1)
discharger before it empties into a collecting sewer.
Sec. 11 "COMPATIBLE POLLUTANT" shall mean Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, fecal coliform
bacteria, chlorine demand, phosphorus and phosphorus compounds,
fats, oils and greases of animal or vegetable origin, except as
prohibited herein or identified on Buffalo Sewer Authority's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit.
Sec. 12 "COMPOSITE SAMPLE" shall mean a sample consisting of
several effluent portions collected during a specific time
period and combined to make a representative sample.
Sec. 13 "COMPOSITE SEWAGE" shall mean sewage consisting of
several effluent portions collecting from various discharge lines
at a common point.
Sec. 14 "COOLING WATER" shall mean the water discharged from
any system of condensation such as air conditioning, cooling
or refrigeration.
Sec. 15 "DIRECT DISCHARGE" shall mean the conveyance of waste
from a building service sewer, uninterupted to a BSA public sewer.
Sec. 16 "DOMESTIC SEWAGE" shall mean a combination of the water
carried normal strength sewage from residences, business build-
ings, institutions and industrial establishments.
Sec. 17 "DOMESTIC USER" shall mean any user not covered under
the definition of "Industrial User" or "Commercial User".
Sec. 18 "EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
Sec. 19 "GARBAGE" shall mean solid wastes from the domestic and
commercial preparation, cooking and dispensing of food, and from
the handling, storage and sale of produce.
Sec. 20 "GENERAL MANAGER" shall mean the Chief Executive Officer
of the Buffalo Sewer Authority or his authorized deputy, agent
or representative.
Sec. 21 "GROUNDWATER" shall mean water within the earth that
supplies wells and springs.
Sec. 22 "INCOMPATIBLE POLLUTANT" shall mean any pollutant which
127
-------
is not a compatible pollutant.
Sec. 23 "INDIRECT DISCHARGE" shall mean the conveyance of waste
to a public BSA sewer by any means other than that defined in
Section 13 of this Article.
Sec. 24 "INDUSTRIAL USER" shall mean any industrial or commercial
establishment with a classification as designated in the "Stan-
dard Industrial Classification Manual" 1972 edition, as published
by the Executive Office of the President and who utilizes the
services of the Buffalo Sewer Authority.
Sec. 25 "INDUSTRIAL WASTE" means the liquid, solid, and gaseous
waste, including suspended solids resulting from the processes
employed in industrial or commercial establishments.
Sec. 26 "INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT" shall mean a permit to deposit
or discharge industrial waste into any sanitary sewer under
jurisdiction of the BSA.
Sec. 27 "INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURCHARGE" shall mean a charge, as
outlined in the latest edition of the Buffalo Sewer Authority
Sewer Rent Schedule, levied on industrial users of the sewerage
treatment works for the additional cost of treating waste dis-
charges of abnormal strength sewage. This charge includes
capital, as well as operating and maintenance costs.
Sec. 28 "LATERAL SEWER" shall mean a sewer that discharges into
a collecting sewer or other sewers and has no other common sewer
tributary to it.
Sec. 29 "MAIN SEWER" shall mean a sewer that receives waste-
water from the collecting sewer.
Sec. 30 "MAJOR CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRY" shall mean an industrial
user of the publicly owned treatment works that: (a) has a flow
of 50,000 gallons or more per average work day; or (b) has a
flow greater than five percent of the flow carried by the muni-
cipal system receiving the waste; or (c) has in its waste a toxic
pollutant in toxic amounts as defined in standards issued under
section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972; or (d) is found by the Buffalo Sewer Authority,
in connection with the issuance of a National Pollution Discharge
Eliminations System Permit at the publicly owned treatment
works receiving the waste, to have significant impact, as set
forth in these Regulations, either singly or in combination with
other contributing industries, on that treatment works or upon
the quality of effluent from that treatment works.
Sec. 31 "mg/1" shall mean milligrams per liter.
128
-------
Sec. 32 "MINOR CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRY" shall mean an industrial
user of the publicly owned treatment facility that has a total
discharge of less than 50,000 gallons per day on every day of
the year and does not come under any of the provisions of Section
23 of this Article.
Sec. 33 "NATURAL OUTLET" shall mean any outlet into a water-
course, pond, ditch, lake or other body of surface or ground-
water.
Sec. 34 "NORMAL STRENGTH SEWAGE" shall mean sewage which, when
analyzed, by the BSA, shows by weight a daily average of not
more than 2085 pounds per million gallons (250 parts per million)
of suspended solids, and not more than 2085 pounds per million
gallons (250 parts per million) of BOD and not more than 75.1
pounds per million gallons (9.0 parts per million) of chlorine
demand, and 41.7 pounds per million gallons (5.0 parts per mil-
lion) of phosphorus, and which is otherwise acceptable into a
public sewer under the terms of these Regulations.
Sec. 35 "NPDES" shall mean the National Pollution Discharge
Eliminations System.
Sec. 36 "OBJECTIONABLE WASTE" shall mean any wastes that can
harm either the sewers, sewer treatment process, or equipment,
have an adverse effect on the receiving stream, or otherwise
endanger life, health, or property, or constitutes a nuisance.
Sec. 37 "P" (Total Phosphorus) shall mean the total quantity of
phosphorus contained in a particular waste as determined by
acceptable laboratory procedures, as set forth in Article VI,
Section 11 hereof.
Sec. 38 "PERSON" shall mean any individual, firm, company,
association, society, corporation or group, including a City,
County, Town, Village, or Sewer District.
Sec. 39 "pH" shall mean the logarithm of the reciprocal of the
weight of hydrogen ions in gram moles per liter of solution as
determined by acceptable laboratory procedures as set forth in
Article VI, Section 11 hereof.
Sec. 40 "POINT OF DISCHARGE" shall mean any discernible, con-
fined and discrete conveyance or vessel from which pollutants
are or may be discharged into a public waterway or public sewer
system.
Sec. 41 "POLLUTED WATER OR WASTE" shall mean any water, liquid
or gaseous waste containing any of the following: soluble or
unsoluble substances of organic or inorganic nature which may
deplete the dissolved oxygen content of the receiving stream;
settleable solids that may form sludge deposits; grease and oils;
129
-------
floating solids which may cause unsightly appearance; color;
phenols and other substances to an extent which would impart any
taste or odor to the receiving stream; and toxic or poisonous
substances in suspension, colloidal state, solution or gasses.
Sec. 42 "ppm" shall mean parts per million.
Sec. 43 "PRETREATMENT" shall mean the treatment of wastewater
before introduction into a publicly owned sewerage system.
Sec. 44 "PROPERLY SHREDDED GARBAGE" shall mean the wastes from
the preparation, cooking, and dispensing of foods that have
been shredded to such a degree that all particles will be
carried freely under the flow conditions normally prevailing in
public sewers, with no particle greater than one-half (^) inch
(1.27 centimeters) in any dimension.
Sec. 45 "PUBLIC SEWER" means a publicly-owned sewer, storm
drain, sanitary sewer or combined sewer.
Sec. 46 "RECEIVING WATERS" shall mean a natural water course or
body of water into which treated or untreated sewage is dis-
charged.
Sec. 47 "SANITARY SEWER" shall mean a sewer intended to receive
domestic sewage and admissible industrial waste but to which
storm, surface and groundwaters are not intentionally admitted.
Sec. 48 "SEWAGE" shall mean a combination of the water-carried
wastes from residences, business buildings, institutions and
industrial establishments, together with such ground, surface,
and stormwaters as may be present.
Sec. 49 "SEWER" shall mean a pipe or conduit for carrying sew-
age.
Sec. 50 "SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT" shall mean any arrangement
of devices and structures used for treatment of sewage.
Sec. 51 "SEWERAGE WORKS" shall mean all facilities for collect-
ing, pumping, treating and disposing of sewage.
Sec. 52 "SHALL" is mandatory. "MAY" is permissive.
Sec. 53 "SLUG" shall mean any discharge of water, sewage or
industrial waste which in concentration of any given constituent
or in quantity of flow exceeds for any period of duration longer
than fifteen (15) minutes more than five (5) times the average
twenty-four hour concentration or flow during normal operation.
Sec. 54 "STANDARD METHODS" shall mean "Standard Methods for the
130
-------
Examination of Water and Wastewater" prepared and published
jointly by the American Public Health Association, American
Waterworks Association and the Water Pollution Control Federation
latest edition.
Sec. 55 "STORM DRAIN" (sometimes termed "storm sewer") shall
mean a public sewer which carries storm and surface waters and
drainage, but is not intended to carry sewage and industrial
wastes, other than unpolluted cooling water.
Sec. 56 "STORMWATER" shall mean excess water which is derived
from precipitation. This wuld include surface water.
Sec. 57 "SUSPENDED SOLIDS" shall mean solids that either float
on the surface of, or are in suspension in water, sewage, or
other liquids, and which are removable by acceptable laboratory
procedures as set forth in Article VI, Section 11 hereof.
Sec. 58 "SURFACE WATER" shall mean the source of water which
occurs when the rate of precipitation exceeds the rate at which
water may infiltrate inot the soil.
Sec. 59 "THE ACT" shall mean Public Law 92-500.
Sec. 60 "TOXIC SUBSTANCES" shall mean any substance whether
gaseous, liquid or solid which, when discharged to a public
sewer in sufficient concentrations, may in the opinion of the
General Manager, be hazardous to sewer maintenance and per-
sonnel, tend to interfere with any sewage treatment process, or
to constitute a hazard to human beings or animals, or to inhibit
aquatic life, or to create a hazard to recreation in the re-
ceiving waters of the effluent from a sewerage treatment plant.
Sec. 61 "TRUNK SEWER" shall mean a sewer constructed, maintained
and operated by the Authority that conveys wastewater to the
Authority's treatment facilities and into which lateral and
collecting sewers discharge.
Sec. 62 "UNPOLLUTED WATER" shall mean water which is free of
any polluted water or waste as described in Section 34 of this
Article.
Sec. 63 "USER CHARGE" shall mean a charge leveid on users of
sewerage treatment works for the capital cost, as well as the
operation and maintenance of such works as outlined in the
latest edition of the Buffalo Sewer Authority Sewer Rent Sched-
ule.
Sec. 64 "WATERCOURSE" shall mean a channel in which a flow of
water occurs, either continuously or intermittently.
Sec. 65 "WPCF" shall mean the Water Pollution Control Federation.
131
-------
Sec. 66 "FLOW RATE" shall mean the quantity of waste or liquid
that flows in a certain period of time.
Sec. 67 "FLOW VOLUME" shall mean the quantity of wastes or
liquid.
132
-------
ARTICLE II
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of these Regulations is to provide for the
maximum possible beneficial public use of the Authority's facili-
ties through regulations of sewer construction, sewer use and in-
dustrial wastewater discharges to provide for equitable distri-
bution of the Authority's costs, and to provide procedures for
complying with the requirements contained herein.
Sec. 2 SCOPE
These Regulations shall be interpreted in accordance
with the definitions set forth in Article I hereof. The pro-
visions of these Regulations shall apply to the direct or in-
direct discharge of all liquid carried wastes to facilities of
the Authority. These Regulations, among other things provide
for the regulation of sewer construction in areas within the
jurisdiction of the BSA, the quantity and quality of discharged
wastes, the degree of waste pretreatment required, the setting
of waste discharge fees to provide for equitable distribution of
costs, the approval of plans for sewer construction, the issuance
of Permits for Industrial Wastewater Discharge and of other mis-
cellaneous permits, and the establishment of surcharges and
other procedures in cases of violaton of these Regulations.
Sec. 3 AREA AFFECTED
These Regulations shall apply to the City of Buffalo
and those users outside the city who are by contract or agree-
ments with the Buffalo Sewer Authority, users of the Authority's
sewerage treatment works.
Sec. 4 ADMINISTRATION
Except as otherwise provided herein, the General Manager
of the Buffalo Sewer Authority shall administer, implement and
enforce the provisions of these Regulations.
Sec. 5 VIOLATION
Every person violating any provision of these Regula-
133
-------
tions, including the failure to pay any fees, charges or sur-
charges imposed hereby, or any condition or limitation of a
permit or plan approval issued pursuant hereto, shall be assessed
a special surcharge of five hundred dollars ($500), as provided
in the Buffalo Sewer Authority Schedule of Sewer Rents and Other
Charges.
Each day during which any violation continues shall con-
stitute a separate violation. A day shall consist of a twenty-
four hour period beginning at 12:01 AM and ending the following.
12:01 AM.
The Buffalo Sewer Authority may, upon authorization of
its Board, sue to recover any amounts due the Authority under
the provisions of these Regulations.
Any person, who violates any provision of these Regula-
tions pertaining to the subject matter of either subparagraphs
(A) or (B) below, or any condition of limitation of a permit or
plan approval related thereto shall be assessed a special sur-
charge as provided in the Buffalo Sewer Authority Schedule of
Sewer Rents and Other Charges, in a sum not to exceed six
thousand dollars ($6,000) for each day during which such viola-
tion continues.
(A) Under these Regulations, the pretreatment of any
industrial waste which would be detrimental to the treatment
works, or its proper and efficient operation and maintenance, is
required as set forth in Article VI, Section 2, hereof.
(B) Under these Regulations, the prevention by the user
of the entry of such untreated wastewater into the collecting
system and treatment works is required.
When, in the opinion of the General Manager, or the
Governmental Agencies, having jurisdiction in the matter, a
violation of these Regulations is of such a nature as to be
likely to cause damage to sewerage systems of the Buffalo Sewer
Authority, or a menace to the health or safety of the inhabitants
of any areas served, the Buffalo Sewer Authority may forthwith
continue and sever any connections with its sewerage system
without any liability for prosecution or damages.
Sec. 6 NOTICE
Any person found in violation of these Regulations or
of any limitation or requirement of a permit issued hereunder,
may be served, by the General Manager, with a written notice
stating the nature of the violation and providing a reasonable
time limit for the satisfactory correction thereof. If satis-
factory correcting action is not taken in the time allotted by
the General Manager, action to implement Section 5 of this
134
-------
Article shall be taken.
Unless otherwise provided herein, any notice required
to be given by the General Manager under these Regulations shall
be in writing and served in person or by registered or certified
mail. The notice shall be sent to the last address of the vio-
lator known to the General Manager. Where the address is un-
known, service may be made upon the owner of record of the prop-
erty involved.
Sec. 7 TIME LIMITS
Any time limit provided in any written notice or in any
provision of these Regulations may be extended only by a written
directive of the General Manager.
Sec. 8 APPROVAL OF PLANS, ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND CERTIFICA-
TION OF FINAL INSPECTION
The General Manager will approve plans for sewerage
works construction, issue a Permit for Industrial Wastewater
Discharges or any other permit under these Regulations only if
the sewerage construction, sewer connection, industrial waste-
water discharge or other procedure conforms to the requirements
of these Regulations.
The approval of plans, waste pretreatment process or the
issuance of a permit by the General Manager, shall not relieve
the discharger of his responsibility to maintain such pretreat-
ment facilities so that its discharge meets all effluent require-
ments contained in these Regulations.
All required fees and charges shall be paid, before ap-
proval of plans or issuance of a permit will be made.
The General Manager reserves the right to inspect all
work being constructed for the purpose of complying with these
Regulations.
Sec. 9 FEES AND CHARGES
All fees and industrial waste charges payable under
the provisions of these Regulations shall be paid to the Buffalo
Sewer Authority. These charges shall be as outlined in the
latest edition of the Buffalo Sewer Authority Sewer Rent Sched-
ule.
Sec. 10 ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND VALUES
Unless otherwise provided herein, whenever the fees
and charges required by these Regulations are based on estimated
values or estimated quantities the General Manager shall make
135
-------
such determinations in accordance with estimating practices here-
tofore used by the Buffalo Sewer Authority.
Sec. 11 PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND DELINQUENT CHARGES
All fees and charges imposed under the provisions of
these Regulations, are due and payable upon receipt of the notice
of charges. Unpaid charges shall become delinquent 45 days
after mailing or delivering the notice of charges. A basic
penalty charge of 10 percent of the unpaid amount shall be added
to any fee or charge that becomes delinquent. Interest at the
rate of one (1) percent per month shall accrue on the total of
all delinquent charges including the 10% charge provided for
herein.
Sec. 12 NEW INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
All persons desiring to discharge industrial wastewater
to the Buffalo Sewer Authority system must first obtain an In-
dustrial Wastewater Discharge Permit issued by the General
Manager of the Buffalo Sewer Authority.
Sec. 13 EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
All persons discharging industrial wastewater directly
or indirectly to the Buffalo Sewer Authority sewerage system
prior to the effective date of these Regulations and who have ob-
tained prior approval of that industrial wastewater discharge
are hereby granted a temporary permit to continue that discharge.
This temporary permit shall expire six months after notification
by the General Manager that a new permit must be obtained, or
after two (2) years for the effective date of these Regulations,
whichever shall occur first. Prior to the expiration of the
temporary permit, the industrial wastewater discharger shall
apply for and obtain a new permit for industrial wastewater dis-
charge.
Sec. 14 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
In compliance with Public Laws 84-660 and 92-500 of the
Water Pollution Control Acts and amendments hereto, these
Regulations adopt and use as a guide the national pretreatment
standards and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pre-
treatment Guidelines. The Buffalo Sewer Authority recognizes
that in some cases these pretreatment standards may not be suf-
ficient to protect the operation of its treatment works, or
make it unable to comply with the terms of its NPDES permit. In
such cases, the Buffalo Sewer Authority reserves the right to
impose more stringent pretreatment standards, than those speci-
fied in the EPA regulations.
136
-------
Sec. 15 INSPECTIONS
The General Manager of the Buffalo Sewer Authority, EPA,
County and State Environmental Conservation Department represen-
tives, bearing proper credentials and identification shall be
permitted to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspec-
tion, observation, measurements, sampling and testing in accor-
dance with the provisions of these regulations.
Sec. 16 EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATIONS
The effective date of these Regulations is .
Sec. 17 SUPERSEDING PREVIOUS REGULATIONS
These Regulations governing Sewer Construction, Sewer
Use and Industrial Wastewater Discharges shall supersede all
previous regulations of the Buffalo Sewer Authority.
137
-------
ARTICLE III
SANITARY FACILITIES REQUIRED
Sec. 1 CONNECTIONS
Sanitary facilities for all structures in the City of
Buffalo shall be provided in accordance with Chapter XI of the
Ordinances of the City of Buffalo "Buffalo Housing and Property
Code", Chapter XII of the Ordinances of the City of Buffalo
"Buffalo Building Code" and Chapter XXV of the Ordinances of the
City of Buffalo "Buffalo Health Ordinance" and shall be connected
with the facilities of the Authority.
Sec. 2 BUILDING CONNECTIONS
Building service sewers to residential, commercial or in-
dustrial buildings shall be required in accordance with applicable
ordinances and with the Plumbing Code of the City of Buffalo a-
dopted by the Examining Board of Plumbers on February 4, 1957, and
approved by the Erie County Health Department on April 2, 1957,
as the same may be amended from time to time, and all other sewer
construction shall be governed by said Code and other Ordinances.
Sec. 3 PRIVATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Where a public sanitary or combined sewer is not avail-
able, a private sewage disposal system shall be required, and
shall be installed in accordance with all laws of the State of
New York, Ordinances of the City of Buffalo and regulations of
the Department of Health of the State of New York. This instal-
lation shall be subject to the approval of the Commissioner of
Health of the County of Erie, and shall be maintained and oper-
ated in a sanitary manner.
Sec. 4 EXISTING CONNECTIONS
Existing connections to the combined system will be
allowed to function in their present form until such time as a
separate sanitary sewer shall be constructed, at which time all
sanitary sewer outlets shall be required to be connected thereto.
It is one explicit purpose of this Regulation, by the
application and enforcement thereof to deter, prevent and elim-
inate, as far as possible, the introduction of storm waters into
138
-------
the BSA trunk sewer system and all public sewers tributary there-
to. However, it is recognized that in certain areas the immediate
and strict application and enforcement of these Regulations
against existing and established connections would not be feasible,
This statement shall not be construed to mitigate in any
way the application and enforcement of these Regulations against
the construction of any new combined sewers and against any new
connections discharging storm water to the BSA trunk sewer system
and public sewers tributary thereto. Nor shall this statement
of policy be construed to be used as a defense against any changes
which may be ordered by state or federal regulatory agencies.
Sec. 5 SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Except as hereinafter provided, it shall hereafter be
unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, privy unit, septic
tank, cesspool, or other facility intended or used for the dis-
posal of sewage. If application is made to the General Manager
of the Buffalo Sewer Authority for a temporary type toilet facil-
ity, and if said applicant has theretofore obtained the approval
of the Erie County Health Department, the said General Manager
of the Buffalo Sewer Authority may consent to the usage of the
same for a temporary period not to exceed 180 days.
Sec. 6 OTHER LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS
These Regulations are in addition to the applicable
Ordinances of the City of Buffalo, the codes and regulations
of the County of Erie and the laws, rules and regulations of
the State of New York and the United States. Where such laws,
codes, rules and regulations contain provisions more restrictive
than those contained in these Regulations, the former shall apply.
139
-------
ARTICLE IV
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS AND CONNECTIONS
Sec. 1 PERMITS
No person shall uncover, make any connections with or
opening into, use, alter, or disturb any public sewer or appur-
tenance thereof without first obtaining a written permit for the
City of Buffalo, Division of Engineering, with the approval of
BSA endorsed thereon, for such connection and, if required, pay
either a permit fee or connection charge.
Sec. 2 PERMIT CHARGES
A permit and inspection fee of $25.00 for a residential
or commercial building sewer permit, and, $50.00 for an indus-
trial building sewer permit shall be paid to the BSA at the time
the application for the permit is filed. These charges are in-
tended to cover the administrative costs of processing the ap-
plication. Other charges and fees are outlined in BSA's latest
edition of "The Schedule of Sewer Rents and Other Charges".
Sec. 3 NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION
The applicant for the building sewer permit shall notify
the BSA Principal Engineer when the building sewer is ready
for inspection and connection to the public sewer. The con-
nection shall be made under the supervision of the Buffalo Sewer
Authority.
Sec. 4 JOINTS
Every joint in the connection to a sanitary sewer shall
conform to the New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation requirements and be made water tight so that no leak-
age into or out of such connections shall occur.
Sec. 5 INSPECTION
No sewerage facility, other than building service sewers,
shall be constructed in the City of Buffalo except by the Buffalo
Sewer Authority, or by others in accordance with plans and speci-
fications approved by the Buffalo Sewer Authority, and subject
140
-------
to inspection during construction by Engineers and employees
of the Buffalo Sewer Authority. No sanitary or storm' sewer shall
be considered to be a part of the public sewerage system of the
City of Buffalo unless the Board of the Buffalo Sewer Authority
duly adopts a resolution of completion and acceptance thereof.
Sec. 6 EXPIRATION OF PLANS
An approval of plans for construction of sewerage facili-
ties shall expire one year after the date of approval unless con-
struction has been initiated and completed within a reasonable
time thereafter.
Sec. 7 SPECIAL DRAINS
Drains receiving acid waste shall be constructed of acid
resisting material. Such drains located outside of a building
shall be constructed of vitrified clay or earthenware pipe or
other approved acid resisting material. Joints shall be con-
structed by caulking with asbestos rope wicking and by pouring
a heated sulphur and carbon compound or a heated bituminous
compound in such a manner as to secure tight joints.
Sec. 8 CLASSES OF PERMITS
There shall be two (2) classes of sewer permits: (a) for
residential and commercial service and (b) for service to estab-
lishments producing industrial wastes. In either case, the owner
or his agent shall make application on a special form furnished
by the Buffalo Sewer Authority. The permit application shall be
supplemented by any plans, specifications, or other information
considered pertinent in the judgement of the General Manager.
Sec. 9 CONNECTION COSTS
All costs and expense incident to the installation and
connection of the building service sewer shall be borne by the
owner. The owner shall indemnify the City of Buffalo and the
Buffalo Sewer Authority from any loss or damage that may directly
or indirectly be occasioned by the installation of the building
service sewer.
Sec. 10 SEPARATE CONNECTIONS
A separate and independent building service sewer shall
be provided for every building in residential and commercial
areas, except that where one building stands at the rear of
another on an interior lot, and no private sewer is available,
or can be constructed to the rear building through an adjoining
alley, court, yard, or driveway, the building service sewer from
the front building may be extended to the rear building and the
whole considered as one building service sewer.
141
-------
Sec. 11 USE OF EXISTING SEWEPS
Old building service sewers may be used in connection
with new buildings only when they are found, on examination by
the BSA Principal Engineer, to meet all requirements of these
Regulations.
Sec. 12 SPECIFICATIONS
The size, slope, alignment, materials of construction
of a building service sewer, and the methods to be used in ex-
cavating, placing of the pipe, jointing, testing and backfilling
the trench, shall all conform to the requirements of the build-
ing and plumbing code or other applicable rules and regulations
of the City of Buffalo. In the absence of code provisions or in
amplification thereof, the materials and procedures set forth in
appropriate specifications of the ASTM and WPCF Manual of Practice
No. 9 (Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers)
shall apply.
Sec. 13 ELEVATION OF SEWERS
Whenever possible, the building service sewer shall be
brought to the building at an elevation below the basement floor.
In all buildings in which below floor building drains are too low
to permit gravity flow to the public sewer, sanitary sewage
carried by such building drains shall be lifted by means estab-
lished in standard engineering practice to a suitable level and
then discharged to the building service sewer, or the building
drain may be hung on the cellar wall and shall not be less than
four (4) inches in diameter.
Sec. 14 CONNECTION OF ROOF AND FOUNDATION DRAINS
No person .shall make connection of roof downspouts, ex-
terior foundation drains, areaway drains, or any other sources
of surface runoff or groundwater to a building service sewer or
building drain which in turn is connected directly or indirectly
to a public sanitary sewer.
Sec. 15 PUBLIC SAFETY
All excavations for building service sewer installation
shall be adequately guarded with barricades and lights so as to
protect the public from hazard. Streets, sidewalks, parkways
and other public property disturbed in the course of the work
shall be restored by the Permittee in a manner satisfactory to
the City of Buffalo.
142
-------
ARTICLE V
USE OF PUBLIC SEWERS
GENERAL
Sec. 1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES PROHIBITED
No industrial wastewaters shall be discharged to a trunk
sewer or to a sewer discharging directly or indirectly to a trunk
sewer until a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge has been
approved by the General Manager.
Sec. 2 DISCHARGE OF WATERS NOT CONTAINING SEWAGE
The discharge of waters not containing sewage is pro-
hibited. Except with the approval of the General Manager, or as
otherwise provided in these Regulations, no storm water connection
from any building or yard, nor any drain from any catch basin,
lake, swamp, pond, or swimming pool, nor any outlet for surface
water, storm water or ground water of any kind shall be connected
to the BSA trunk sewer system or any public sewer tributary there-
to or to any private sewer connected to any such public sewer.
Within any area served by a separate sanitary sewer and
a storm sewer, no storm water shall be allowed to enter soil,
waste or vent pipes from any building. Within any such area no
down spout, roof leaders, gutters, other pipes, or drains such
as channels which may at any time carry storm water surface
drainage derived from hydraulic pressure or from well points,
cooling water or lake water shall be connected with any sanitary
sewer, but must be connected to said storm sewer.
Sec. 3 DISCHARGE TO A NATURAL OUTLET
It is prohibited to discharge to any storm sewers or
natural outlet within the area served by the Buffalo Sewer Author-
ity any sewage or other polluted waters, except where suitable
treatment has been provided in accordance with the provisions of
these Regulations, and except where a Federal National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit has been duly issued
and is currently valid for such discharge. A valid copy of such
a permit and any modifications thereof must be filed with the
General Manager for an exception under this section of these
Regulations.
143
-------
Sec. 4 COOLING WATER DISCHARGE
The discharge of industrial cooling water or unpolluted
process waters to a storm sewer, combined sewer or a natural out-
let without the approval of the General Manager is prohibited.
Sec. 5 PROHIBITED DISCHARGES
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any
of the following described waters or wastes to any public sewers
or natural outlets:
(a) Any gasoline, benzene, maphtha, fuel oil, or other
flammable or explosive liquid, solid or gas.
(b) Any waters used for the purpose of diluting wastes
which would exceed applicable maximum concentrations limitations.
(c) Any water or wastes having a pH lower than 5.5, or
having a pH higher than 9.5- or having any other corrosive
property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures,
equipment of the sewer system, or personnel employed in its oper-
ation.
(d) Solid or viscous substances in quantities or of
such size as to be capable of causing, obstruction to the flow in
sewers or otherwise interfering with the proper operation of the
sewage works such as, but not limited to, ashes, cinders, sand,
mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics,
wood, unground garbage, whole blood, paunch manure, hair and
fleshings, entrails, paper dishes, cups, milk containers, etc.,
either whole or ground by garbage grinders.
Ce) Any waters or wastes containing toxic or poisonous
solids, liquids, or gases in sufficient concentration in the
opinion of the General Manager either singly or by interaction
with other wastes, to injure or interfere with any sewage treat-
ment process, or to constitute a hazard to humans or animals or
to create a public nuisance, or to create any hazards in the re-
ceiving waters of a sewage treatment plant effluent.
(f) Wastes, other than domestic sewage, from any hospi-
tal, mercantile, manufacturing or irrhisfrip.l establishment, or
any steam, hot gases or vapors, grease fats, oils, acids, carbon,
iron or mineral wastes, or any other wastes which would tend to
obstruct the public sewer, to be injurious to the public health,
create odors, be determental to the sewerage works, or which
would interfere with the proper repair or maintenance of the
sewerage system, the operation and maintenance of the disposal
works or the proper treatment of domestic sewage, or which re-
sults after treatemnt in an effluent which is a menace to life or
health.
144
-------
Sec. 6 LIMITED DISCHARGES
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into
the public sewerage system or into a natural outlet, the follow-
ing described substances: materials, waters, or wastes, if it
appears likely in the opinion of the General Manager, that such
wastes are likely to harm the public sewers, sewage treatment
process, or equipment, have an adverse effect on the receiving
stream, or is likely to otherwise endanger life, health or pro-
perty, or constitute a nuisance. In forming his opinion as to
the acceptability of these wastes, the General Manager will give
consideration to such factors as the quantities of subject wastes
in relation to flows and velocities in the sewers, materials of
which the sewer is constructed, nature of the sewage treatment
process, capacity of the sewage treatment plant, degree of treat-
ability of wastes in the sewage treatment plant and other factors
which are pertinent in the opinion of the General Manager. The
substances prohibited are:
(a) Any liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than
one hundred fifty (150°?) (65°C). if, in the opinion of the
General Manager, lower temperatures of such wastes could harm
either the sewers, sewage treatment process, or equipment, have
an adverse effect on the receiving stream, or could otherwise en-
danger life, health or property, or constitute a nuisance, the
General Manager may prohibit such discharges.
(b) Any water or waste containing fats, wax, grease,
or oils, whether emulsified or not, in excess of fifty (50) mg/1
or containing substances which may solidify or become viscous
at temperatures between thirty-two (32)op or (0)°C and one hun-
dred fifty C150)°F and C.65)oc.
(c) Any garbage that has not been properly shredded.
The installation and operation of any garbage grinder equipped
with a motor of three -fourths (3/4) horse power (0.76 hp metric)
or greater shall be subject to the review and approval of the
General Manager,
(d) Any waters or wastes containing heavy metals and
similar objectionable or toxic substances to such degree that
any such material received in the composite sewage at the Point
of Discharge exceeds the limits established below:
Chromium (Total) 2.0 mg/1
Chromium (Trivalent) 1,0 mg/1
Chromium (Hexavalent) 0.1 mg/1
Copper 0.4 mg/1
Zinc 0,6 mg/1
Nickel 1.0 mg/1
Cadmium 0,2 mg/1
Arsenic 0,1 mg/1
145
-------
Barium 1.0 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Manganese 1.0 mg/1
Silver .05 mg/1
Boron 1..0 mg/1
Mercury .01 mg/1
Selenium .05 mg/1
or any element which will in the opinion' of the General Manager,
damage collection facilities or be detrimental to the treatment
processes. The limits set forth above amy be amended from time
to time as such amendment is deemed necessary by the General
Manager to protect the facilities or life or health.
(e) Any water or wastes that contain phenolics in ex-
cess of 0.1 parts per million by weight, or other taste or odor
producing substances in such concentrations exceeding limits
established by the General Manager.
(f) Any radioactive wastes or isotopes of such half-life
or concentrations as may exceed limits established by the General
Manager in compliance with applicable State, Federal, or other
public agencies having jurisdiction.
(g) Quantities of flow, concentrations, or both, which
constitute a "slug" as defined herein.
(h) Materials which cause:
1. Unusual concentrations of inert suspended
solids which are defined as concentrations exceeding 250 ppm or
dissolved solids such as but not limited to, sodium chloride in
concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm and sodium sulfate in
concentrations greater than 500 ppm.
2. Unusual concentrations of BOD which are defined
as concentrations exceeding 250 ppm, chlorine requirements ex-
ceeding 9.0 ppm or phosphorus concentrations exceeding 5.0 ppm.
3. Discolorations, such as, but not limited to
dye waters and vegetable tanning solution.
In cases where the effluent characteristics of an indus-
trial or commercial discharge exceeds the maximum permissible
limits stated above, the acceptability of such waste will be
left to the engineering judgement of the General Manager. If
in the judgement of the General Manager the admission of such
wastes will not overload the Authority's facilities, a permit
to discharge said waste may be granted. However, the Authority
may require the payment of an industrial waste surcharge for
both capital and operating and maintenance expenses to cover the
cost of treatment for the abnormal strength sewage.
146
-------
Ci) Waters or wastes containing substances which are
not amenable to treatment or reduction by the sewage treatment
processes employed, or are amenable to treatment only to such
degree that the sewage treatment plant effluent cannot meet the
requirements of State, Federal or other agencies having juris-
diction over discharge into the receiving waters.
Cj) Any waters or wastes which by interaction with
other waters or wastes in the public sewerage system release
odors, form suspended solids which interfere with the collection
system or create a condition deleterious to the sewerage works.
(k) Any waste with a concentration of cyanide in excess
of 0.8 mg/1.
Any waste containing any substance that may pre-
,««idify» or become viscous at temperatures between
4U°r and 100UF.
Sec. 7 IMPROPER USE OF SEWERS
The Buffalo Sewer Authority hereby reserves the right
to inspect any existing building service sewer and drain, lateral
or collecting sewers that discharge wastewater directly or in-
directly to the Authority's facilities. If it is found that
such laterals or collecting sewers are used or maintained in
such a way as to cause discharge of septic wastewater or ground
water or debris which exceeds the design criteria of said sewer
or any other substance deemed objectionable by the General Mana-
ger, the General Manager will give notice of the unsatisfactory
condition to the discharger and shall direct that the condition
be corrected,
In cases of continued non-compliance with the General
Manager's directive, the Buffalo Sewer Authority may disconnect
the said sewer from the Authority's sewerage system without any
liability for prosecution or damages,
Sec, 8 EXCESSIVE SEWER MAINTENANCE EXPENSE
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged to
a trunk sewer, either directly or indirectly, any waste that
creates a stoppage, plugging, breakage, any reduction in sewer
capacity or any other damage to sewers or sewerage facilities of
the Authority. Any additional sewer or sewerage maintenance
expenses caused by such a discharge, or any other expenses at-
tributable thereto will be charged to the discharger by the
Authority,
Any refusal to pay the additional maintenance expenses
duly authorized by the General Manager shall constitute a viola-
147
-------
tion of these Regulations. The charge shall be determined as
outlined in the latest edition of the BSA's Schedule of Sewer
Rents and Other Charges.
148
-------
ARTICLE VI
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Sec. 1 PERMIT FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged,
any industrial wastewaters directly or indirectly to sewerage
facilities owned by the Buffalo Sewer Authority without first
obtaining a Buffalo Sewer Authority Permit for Industrial Waste-
water Discharge. As a condition for issuance of a Permit, the
BSA may require that any user of the Authority's facilities shall
enter into a contractual agreement for a period of one year with
provisions for renewal of such agreements as may be required by
the General Manager.
If the volume or character of the waste to be treated is
determined by the BSA not to cause overloading of the sewage
collection, treatment, or disposal facilities of the BSA, then
prior to approval, the General Manager and the person making the
discharge shall enter into an agreement which provides that the
discharger pay a sewer rent or industrial waste charge, as out-
lined in the latest edition of "The Schedule of Sewer Rents and
Other Charges".
If the volume or character of the waste to be treated
by the BSA requires that wastewater collection, treatment, or
other disposal facilities of the Authority be improved, expanded,
or enlarged in order to treat the waste, then prior to approval,
the BSA and the person making the discharge shall enter into an
agreement which provides that the discharger pay in full all
added costs the Authority may incur due to acceptance of the
waste.
The Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge may re-
quire pretreatment of industrial wastewaters before discharge,
restriction of peak flow discharges, discharge of certain waste-
waters only to specified sewers, relocation of points of dis-
charge, prohibition of discharge of certain wastewater components
restriction of discharge to certain hours of the day, payment
of additional charges to defray increased costs of the Authority
created by the wastewater discharges and such other conditions
as may be required to effectuate the purpose of these Regula-
tions.
149
-------
No Authority Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge
is transferable without the prior written consent of the General
Manager.
No person shall discharge industrial wastewaters in ex-
cess of the quantity or quality limitations set by his Permit for
Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Any person desiring to dis-
charge wastewaters or use facilities which are not in conformance
with its Industrial Wastewater Permit must apply to the General
Manager for an amended Permit. Such amended Permit shall be
granted provided its terms shall comply with these regulations.
It is the explicit purpose of this Article to achieve
the following:
(a) Protect the operation of the publicly owned sewer-
age works,
(b) To prevent inadequately treated pollutants from
passing through said works, and
(c) To insure the Buffalo Sewer Authority's compliance
with their NPDES Permit.
Sec. 2 APPLICABILITY
The standards and procedures set forth in this Article
apply to all industrial users of the Buffalo Sewer Authority
sewerage system.
Where an industrial user qualifies as a major contribut-
ing industry, EPA's Effluent Guidelines and Standards will de-
termine the characteristics of permissible waste discharges and
the degrees of pretreatment required. In cases where the
General Manager deems it necessary to impose more stringent re-
quirements, or where removals within the system permit less
stringent requirements, and where no EPA guidelines exists, the
provisions of Article V (Use of Public Sewer-General) of these
Regulations shall apply.
Sec. 3 PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING A PERMIT FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE-
WATER DISCHARGE
Applicants for a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Dis-
charge shall complete a Buffalo Sewer Authority application form
available in the appendix of these Regulations or at the Buffalo
Sewer Authority offices, Room 1030, City Hall.
Upon receipt of all required information, the applica-
tion shall be processed. When properly executed by the BSA, the
application form shall constitute a valid Permit for Industrial
Wastewater Discharge.
150
-------
The application shall be approved if the applicant has
complied with all applicable requirements of these Regulations.
Sec. 4 CHANGES OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMIT RESTRICTIONS
As EPA adds or amends specific pretreatment and effluent
guidelines, or as the Buffalo Sewer Authority deems necessary,
the restrictions or conditions of a Permit for Industrial Waste-
water Discharge may require amendment, as circumstances dictate.
The Buffalo Sewer Authority shall require an industrial discharg-
er to establish an abatement time schedule to comply with any
changes in the Industrial Wastewater Permit.
Sec. 5 SUSPENSION OF PERMIT FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
The General Manager may suspend a Permit for Industrial
Wastewater Discharge when such suspension is necessary in the
opinion of the General Manager, in order to stop a discharge
which presents a hazard to the public health, safety or welfare,
to the environment, or the Authority's sewerage system.
Any discharger notified of a suspension of his Indus-
trial Wastewater Permit shall immediately stop the discharge of
all industrial wastewater to the BSA system. In the event of a
failure of the discharger to comply voluntarily with the sus-
pension order, the General Manager shall take such steps per-
suant to Article II, Section 5 as he deems necessary to insure
compliance.
The General Manager shall reinstate the Industrial
Wastewater Permit upon proof of satisfactory compliance with all
discharge requirements of these Regulations.
Sec. 6 REVOCATION OF PERMIT FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
The General Manager may revoke a Permit for Industrial
Wastewater Discharge upon a finding that the discharger has
violated any provision of these Regulations.
Any discharger whose Industrial Wastewater Permit has
been revoked shall immediately stop all discharge of any liquid
carried wastes covered by the Permit to any public sewer that
is tributary to a sewer or sewerage system of the Authority.
The General Manager may disconnect or permanently block from
such public sewer the industrial connection of any discharger
whose Permit has been revoked, if such action is necessary to
insure compliance with the order of revocation.
Before any further discharge of industrial wastewater
may be made by the discharger, he must apply for a new Permit
for Industrial Wastewater Discharge, pay all charges that would
be required upon initial application together with all delin-
151
-------
quent fees, charges and such other sums as the discharger may owe
to the Authority. Costs incurred by the Authority in revoking
the Permit and disconnecting the industrial sewer shall be paid
for by the discharger before issuance of a new Permit.
Sec. 7 PROHIBITED WASTE DISCHARGES
In most cases, the concentration or amounts of any par-
ticular constituent which will be judged to be excessive or
unreasonable cannot be foreseen, but will depend on the results
of technical determination and action of regulatory agencies.
A partial list of these constituents appear in Article V of these
Regulations. However, as new regulations and requirements are
promulgated by Federal and State authorities, they too will be-
come part of these Regulations.
Sec. 8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER SURCHARGE
As a condition of the Industrial Waste Permit, an in-
dustry may be required to pay an industrial waste surcharge.
The payment of the surcharge shall, at a minimum, occur annually.
This surcharge will be required from those industrial wastewater
dischargers whose contribution of compatible pollutants create
costs in excess of that normally created by a domestic user. The
surcharge shall be based on the Authority's annual debt service
and total operating and maintenance costs for providing industrial
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services. The
actual charges and formula for determining these charges are out-
lined in the Buffalo Sewer Authority's Schedule of Sewer Rents
and Other Charges.
Sec. 9 PRETREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS
An Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment System may be re-
quired by the General Manager to treat industrial flows prior to
discharge to the BSA system when it is necessary to measure,
sample, restrict or prevent the discharge to the sewer of certain
waste constituents, to more equally distribute peak discharges
of industrial wastewater, or to accomplish any pretreatment re-
sult required by the General Manager. All pretreatment systems
shall be subject to the approval of the Sewer Authority, but such
approval shall not relieve the industrial dischargers of the
responsibility of meeting any required industrial effluent limit-
ations. All pretreatment systems shall be adequately engineered
and designed to the satisfaction of the General Manager and all
reports and plans shall have been prepared and signed by a pro-
fessional engineer licensed in the State of New York.
Sec. 10 CONTROL MANHOLE
As a condition of the Industrial Waste Permit, when re-
quired by the General Manager, the owner of any property serviced
152
-------
by a building service sewer, carrying wastewater shall install a
suitable control manhole together with such meters and other ap-
purtenances deemed necessary by the General Manager to adequate -
ly sample and measure the waste passing through the control man-
hole. This control manhole shall be located so as to permit un-
restricted access by representatives of the Authority. The con-
trol manhole may be used as a junction manhole for domestic
sewage and industrial waste providing the junction occurs down-
stream of the sampling or flow measuring point.
Sec. 11 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND FLOW
MEASUREMENTS
Periodic measurements of flow rates, flow volumes, BOD,
P, chlorine demand and suspended solids for use in determining
the annual industrial wastewater treatment charges, and such
measurements of other constituents deemed necessary by the
General Manager, shall be made on all industrial wastewater dis--
charges, unless specifically relieved of such obligation by the
Authority. All sampling, analysis and flow measurements of in-
dustrial wastewaters shall be performed by an independent lab-
oratory, or by a laboratory of an industrial discharger, approved
by the General Manager. If performed by the Sewer Authority per-
sonnel, an appropriate charge shall be paid by the discharger re-
questing the tests. The charges are outlined in the latest
edition of the Schedule of Sewer Rents and Other Charges. Prior
to submittal to the Authority of data developed in the laboratory
of an industrial discharger, the results shall be verified by a
responsible administrative official of the industrial firm or
corporation.
All wastewater analysis shall be conducted in accordance
with the appropriate procedure contained in EPA's "Methods of
Analysis of Water and Wastes", 1971Cmost recent edition) or
"Standard Methods". If no appropriate procedure is contained
therein, the standard procedure of the industry, or a procedure
judged satisfactory by the General Manager, shall be used to
measure wastewater constituents. Any independent laboratory
or discharger performing tests, shall furnish the required test
data or information on the test methods or equipment used, if
requested to do so by the General Manager.
All dischargers making periodic measurements shall fur-
nish and install at the control manhole, or other appropriate
location, a calibrated flume, weir, flow meter or similar de-
vice approved by the General Manager, and suitable to measure
the industrial wastewater flow rate and total volume. A flow
indicating, recording, and totalizing register may be required
by the General Manager. In lieu of wastewater flow measurement,
the General Manager may accept records of water usage and adjust
the flow volumes by suitable factors to determine peak and aver-
age flow rates for the specific industrial wastewater discharge.
153
-------
The sampling, analysis and flow measurement procedures
equipment and results shall be subject at any time to inspection
of the Authority.
When required by the General Manager, dischargers shall
install and maintain in proper order, automatic flow-proportional
sampling equipment and/or automatic analysis and recording equip-
ment .
Measurements to verify the quantities of waste flows and
waste constituents reported by industrial discharges will be con-
ducted on a random basis by personnel of the Authority.
Sec. 12 DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ACTUAL AND REPORTED INDUSTRIAJ
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE QUANTITIES
,. ,In the event a discharger fails to report changes in
his discharge characteristics to the General Manager, and should
measurements and other investigations reveal that a discharger
is discharging a flow rate, flow quantity, or waste exhibiting
waste characteristics in concentrations in excess of that stated
on their Industrial Waste Permit, the discharger must then apply
for an amended Industrial Wastewater Permit. If the erroneous
data reported to the Authority by the discharger was used as a
basis for an industrial waste treatment charge, the discharger
shall be assessed for all delinquent charges together with the
additional 10% charge and interest provided for in Article II
Before additional charges shall be assessed or the permit amended
at least two (2) additional 24-hour samples and flow measurements
shall be obtained by the Authority or by another independent
laboratory acceptable to both parties, with all costs of sampling
and analysis to be paid by the discharger.
For the purpose of establishing the correct treatment
surcharge, the data obtained in these samplings, along with any
other relevant information obtained by the Authority or presented
by the discharger, shall be used by the General Manager in de-
termining the quantity parameters for use in the formula. An
industrial discharger found in violation, shall in the absence
of other evidence by presumed to have been discharging at the
determined parameter values over the preceeding year, or sub-
sequent to the previous Authority verification of quantity
parameters, whichever period is shorter.
Sec. 13 DAMAGE CAUSED BY PROHIBITED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Any industrial wastewater discharger who discharges, or
causes the discharge, of prohibited wastewaters which cause dam-
age to the Authority's facilities, detrimental effects on treat-
ment processes or any other damages resulting in costs to the
Sewer Authority, shall be liable for all damages occasioned
thereby.
154
-------
Sec. 14 TRUCKERS DISCHARGE PERMIT
All persons owning vacuum or "cesspool" pump trucks, or
other liquid transport trucks, and desiring to discharge septic
tank, seepage pit,' interceptor or cesspool contents, industrial
liquid waste or other liquid wastes to sewerage facilities of
the Authority, or to facilities that discharge directly or in-
directly to such sewerage facilities, shall first have a valid
Sewer Authority Trucker's Discharge Permit. All applicants for
a Trucker's Discharge Permit shall complete the application form,
pay the appropriate Permit fee, receive a copy of the Sewer
Authority Regulations governing discharge to sewers, of liquid
wastes from trucks and shall agree, in writing, to abide by
these Regulations.
Discharge of septic tank, seepage pit, interceptor or
cesspool contents or other wastes containing no industrial wastes,
may be made by truckers holding a Permit at any of the designated
public dumping manholes. Truck transported industrial wastes
shall be discharged only at the locations specified by the
General Manager for the specific waste. The Sewer Authority
shall require payment for treatment and disposal costs fo the
compatible industrial waste, or may refuse permission to dis-
charge prohibited wastes.
The Trucker's Discharge Permit shall be valid for one
(1) year from date of issuance.
Any person violating the Authority's requirements for
liquid waste discharges from trucks may have his Permit revoked
by the General Manager.
155
-------
APPENDIX C
PILOT PLANT INVESTIGATIONS BACKGROUND DATA
Table
C"1 November's Pilot Plant Operational Data
c"2 December's Pilot Plant Operational Data
c"3 Daily Trace Element Concentrations
c"4 Waste Primary Sludge Characteristics
C~5 Waste Secondary Sludge Characteristics
Figure
C-l Daily Cadmium Variation
C-2 Daily Chromium Variation
C-3 Daily Copper Variation
C-4 Caily Cyanide Variation
C-5 Daily Lead Variation
C-6 Daily Nickel Variation
C-7 Daily Zinc Variation
156
-------
Table C-l. NOVEMBER'S PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA
D
A
T
E
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
D
A
Y
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Total C.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
263.7
236.4
221.8
214.1
187.6
239.0
229.6
246.1
269.7
220.0
238.6
242.3
154.1
136.2
108.9
112.8
97.7
88.6
244.2
177.1
126.5
173.2
200.7
113.3
196.0
203.8
201.6
173.2
193.3
140.7
P.E.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
194.0
102.0
118.6
153.5
145.6
86.0
176.4
173.6
155.0
100.0
148.6
117.7
S.E.
70.8
81.4
81.7
62.3
85.9
82.3
46.7
78.2
66.4
77.2
76.9
76.9
55.3
42.8
58.4
66.1
46.9
42.8
73.6
59.0
39.5
47.2
31.5
50.8
62.7
41.6
31.0
19.2
55.7
41.8
% Remova
Prim.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.6
42.4
6.2
11.4
27.5
24.1
10.0
14.8
23.1
42.3
23.1
16.2
Total
73.2
65.6
63.2
70.9
54.2
65.6
79.7
68.2
75.4
64.9
67.8
68.3
64.1
68.6
46.4
41.4
52.0
51.7
69.9
66.7
68.8
72.7
84.3
55.2
68.0
79.6
84.6
88.9
71.2
70.3
Soluble C.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
114.1
96.9
81.7
105.1
93.8
113.7
-
132.9
78.2
100.4
92.4
115.4
79.1
54.5
77.8
73.9
54.7
54.5
89.1
59.0
75.1
90.5
-
62.5
117.6
101.9
96.9
34.6
107.8
60.8
P.E.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
96.9
55.1
55.3
106.3
-
66.4
101.9
90.6
62.0
34.6
100.3
49.4
S.E.
59.0
50.4
50.6
46.7
46.9
51.0
-
46.9
27.4
42.5
46.2
57.7
39.5
35.0
46.7
50.6
31.3
27.2
46.5
39.4
19.8
23.6
-
39.1
47.0
30.2
15.5
3.8
40.9
11.4
% Removal
Prim.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.6
26.4
-
-
-
13.4
11.1
36.0
0.0
7.0
18.8
Total
48.3
48.0
38.1
55.6
50.0
55.1
-
64.7
65.0
57.7
50.0
50.0
50.1
35.8
40.0
31.5
42.8
50.1
47.8
33.2
73.6
73.9
-
37.4
60.0
70.4
84.0
89.0
62.1
81.4
Flow
103
gpd
11.9
9.9
12.8
8.5
9.1
10.1
12.7
12.9
13.4
14.6
12.7
12.7
13.6
13.2
10.8
12.8
13.9
14.8
29.6
30.6
33.2
25.3
24.6
21.2
27.6
22.0
21.0
20.6
18.9
9.3
Precp
in.
0.0
0.27
0.99
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
Total B.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
72.9
87.9
76.5
91.5
56.7
79.5
78.0
77.1
64.3
78.0
97.5
85.7
42.0
33.0
33.0
34.5
19.5
21.6
48.0
28.0
32.5
59.3
68.3
33.5
42.6
63.0
-
34.2
59.3
40.2
P.E.
_.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
27.6
33.0
36.0
33.0
24.8
30.6
65.3
-
31.1
41.5
40.1
S.E.
11.4
14.3
15.8
14.5
15.0
16.5
10.0
8.4
9.6
16.5
13.5
13.2
7.5
8.7
11.0
16.2
7.5
6.8
12.0
9.0
6.2
6.0
5.4
6.5
3.8
6.2
-
4.7
6.8
4.4
% Removal
Prim.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
39.3
51.7
26.0
28.2
-
-
9.1
30.0
~
Total
84.4
83.7
79.3
84.2
73.5
79.2
87.2
89.1
85.1
78.8
86.2
84.6
82.1
73.6
66.7
53.0
61.5
80.6
75.0
67.4
80.9
89.9
92.1
80.6
91.1
90.2
-
86.3
88.5
89.1
Soluble B.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
_
-
26.5
41.0
-
41.0
44 .T)
38.0
27.8
37.0
54.0
44.1
21.6
14.0
30.0
20.4
18.0
13.5
25.2
14.4
22.8
-
-
-
28.5
42.0
-
14.2
36.5
21.8
P.E.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.0
14.3
24.4
-
-
-
19.9
40.2
-
21.8
31.5
21.9
S.E.
6.5
7.1
8.5
6.4
-
3.5
5.6
6.0
5.1
7.2
6.0
4.0
3.6
4.3
3.6
8.0
3.6
4.2
7. 5
4.2
6.6
-
-
-
2.3
4.0
-
1.7
1.4
2.2
% Removal
Prim.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
30.2
4.3
-
-
13.7
_
Total
_
-
67.9
84.4
-
91.5
87.3
84.2
81.7
80.5
88.9
90.9
83.3
69.3
88.0
60.8
80.0
68.9
70.3
70.8
71.1
-
-
-
91.9
90.5
-
88.0
96.2
90.0
on
-------
Table C-l. Continued NOVEMBER'S PIA NT OPERATIONAL DATA
L)
A
T
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
D
A
Y
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Tr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Total Phosphorus
mg/1
Infl.
3.02
3.04
2.60
1.84
1.72
2.20
2.80
2.78
2.82
2.74
4.22
2.64
1.52
1.56
1.44
1.14
0.68
1.03
2.09
0.88
1.01
1.98
1.83
1.02
2.01
1.56
1.21
1.68
2.50
1.95
P.E.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.05
0.90
1.14
1.67
1.79
1.05
1.63
1.94
0.98
1.65
2.08
1.69
S.E.
2.64
1.36
1.80
0.8.4
1.28
0.94
0.86
1.36
1.42
1.64
1.76
0.98
0.97
0.64
0.38
0.80
0.33
0.33
0.59
0.37
0.20
0.53
0.30
0.41
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.53
0.79
0.36
% Removal
Prim.
fc
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.9
Incr
in or
15.7
2.2
Incr
18.9
incr
19.0
1.8
16.8
13.3
Total
12.6
55.3
30.8
54.3
25.6
57.3
69.3
51.1
49.6
40.1
58.3
62.9
36.2
59.0
73.6
29.8
51.5
68.0
71.8
58.0
80.2
73.2
83.6
59.8
81.1
76.3
69.1
68.5
68.4
81.3
Soluble Phosphorus
mg/1
Infl.
1.64
1.04
1.08
0.92
0.86
1.26
1.62
1.64
1.62
1.56
2.82
1.26
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.12
0.50
0.85
0.06
0.55
0.02
-
0.51
0.86
1.48
0.22
0.94
0.97
1.21
P.E.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.97
0.17
0.90
1.11
-
0.47
0.98
1.24
0.23
0.86
1.20
1.05
S.E.
1.17
1.03
0.97
0.63
0.78
0.67
0.74
1.03
1.08
1.09
1.37
0.63
0.31
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.39
0.03
0.44
-
0.19
0.06
0.12
0.36
0.23
0.23
0.15
% Removal
Prim.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
incr
incr
incr
incr
-
7.8
Incr
16.2
incr
,8.5
incr
13.2
Total
28.7
0.9
10.2
31.5
9.3
46.6
54.3
37.2
33.3
30.1
51.4
50.0
48.3
85.0
88.3
75.0
58. 3
94.0
96.5
incr
94.5
56.9
-
62.7
93.3
92.0
incr
76.0
76.5
87.8
Total S.S.
mg/1
Infl.
116.0
76.0
152.0
120.0
164.0
94.0
70.6
152.0
152.0
52.0
88.0
108.0
162.0
136.0
68.0
42.0
26.0
32.0
184.0
184.0
76.0
40.0
72.0
45.0
61.0
82.0
42.0
48.0
58.0
89.3
P.E.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
84.0
152.0
82.0
41.0
42.0
32.0
53.0
70.0
26.0
20.0
46.0
78.6
S.E.
16.0
20.0
30.6
18.0
49.3
36.0
27.0
50.0
40.0
26.0
46.6
30.6
41.3
50.0
49.3
14.7
22.0
24.0
29.3
S6.0
16.0
12.0
3.5
11.5
16.5
20.5
56.0
12.0
25.5
39.0
% Removal
Prim.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
54.3
17.4
incr
incr
41.7
28.9
13.1
15.0
38.1
58.3
20.7
12.0
Total
86.2
73.7
79.9
85.0
69.9
61.7
61.8
67.1
73.7
48.8
47.0
71.7
74.5
63.2
27.5
65.0
15.4
25.0
84.1
69.6
78.9
70.0
95.1
74.4
73.0
75.0
Incr
75.0
56.0
56.3
Volatile S.S.
mg/1
Infl.
60.0
48.0
108.0
96.0
128.0
58.0
37.3
60.0
68.0
46.0
50.0
68.0
56.0
52.0
18.0
20.0
12.0
26.0
92.0
72.0
38.0
31.0
52.0
26.0
40.0
50.0
34.0
38.0
28.0
5.3
P.E.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42.0
36.0
36.0
31.0
36.0
22.0
31.0
45.0
18.0
12.0
18.0
-
S.E.
1.3
2.0
22.6
18.0
38.6
20.0
13.0
8.0
21.3
25.3
16.0
17.3
25.3
2.0
9.3
1.3
12.0
23.0
17.3
26.0
8.5
6.5
10.0
6.0
10.0
8.5
46.0
8.0
11.5
13.0
pH
Infl.
7.66
7.72
7.78
7.86
-
7.71
7.85
7.60
7.75
7.92
7.82
7. 76
7.78
7.51
7.97
7.78
7.80
7.90
7.52
7.58
-
7.30
7.65
7.85
7.61
7.68
7.41
7.60
-
7.65
P.E.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.50
7.65
-
7.35
7.55
7.61
7.50
7.60
7.53
7.55
-
7.65
S.E.
7.93
7.83
7.89
7.82
-
7.86
7.88
7.70
7.75
7.80
7.84
7.70
7.80
7.83
8.01
7.71
7.76
7.72
7.41
7.32
-
7.35
7.60
7.61
7.42
7.61
7.49
7.50
-
7,60
NH3-N
Infl.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.8
23.5
18.6
12.1
-
-
-
3.7
4.9
10.7
5.7
-
5.7
5.3
7.9
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
S.E.
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
18.2
25.8
21.2
18.0
-
-
-
5.6
5.8
17.8
5.2
-
5.0
4.8
11.9
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
oo
-------
Table C-l. Continued NOVEMBER'S PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA
D
A
T
E
1
2
3
4
5
g
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ol
£l
7?
if tf
00
£l>
24
25
9 A
/D
27
28
OQ
£.7
30
D
A
Y
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
F/M
0.38
0.39
0.53
0.34
0.21
0.52
0.38
0.35
0.27
0.18
0.28
0.22
0.11
0.07
0.15
0.17
0.12
0.13
0.64
0.29
0.31
0.22
0.13
0.20
0.30
0.15
0.20
0.14
MLSS
mg/1
656
690
582
736
762
588
866
916
1,157
1,845
1,146
1,314
1,390
1,440
520
556
613
735
890
1,256
1,497
1,644
1,663
1,715
1,875
1 ,898
1,485
1,453
1,125
MLVSS
mg/1
528
524
426
530
578
444
608
654
736
1,440
876
956
970
1,000
367
325
331
403
538
680
817
852
940
979
1,107
1,102
966
910
605
Recycle
Flow
gpd
10,276
10,316
9,441
10,587
12,089
8,222
_
10,298
10,310
12,650
12,270
13,110
12,060
13,450
12,640
12,490
13,220
15,150
14,440
13,040
12,290
13,500
13,540
12,080
12,320
12,510
8,360
10,360
RAS
mg/1
2,587
1,300
1,530
1,540
1,590
930
2,545
3,685
2,920
4,560
2,700
3,830
3,775
2,253
223
1,577
1,278
1,633
3,189
3,315
5,162
-
7,850
2,998
6,107
4,605
3,974
6,146
4,211
1,750
RAS
Volatile
mg/1
2,024
980
1,180
1,135
1,215
760
1,805
2,725
2,010
3,435
1,967
2,789
2,610
1,547
150
935
750
1,039
1,983
1,806
2,861
-
3,570
1,728
3,528
2,688
2,439
3,893
2,456
963
Temp.
°C
18
16
17
15
14
14
15
15
15
14
16
15
14
11
8
10
10
10
12
12
10
11
12
12
10
12
11
10
10
10
FeCl3
Ib/day
_
-
-
-
-
-
0.624
0.990
1.039
1.904
2.015
2.717
1.855
2.178
2.299
2.415
2.420
1.901
1.683
1.980
1.668
2.127
1.966
1.717
1.591
1.647
0.651
Aeration
D.O.
Range
2.0 - 4.4
2.0 - 4.8
2.2 -4.2
3.4 - 6.3
2.4 - 4.8
1.6 - 5.8
1.2 - 5.6
1.6 - 5.8
2.8 - 4.0
1.9 - 6.5
1.2 - 4.2
2.4 - 4.4
1.2 - 4.8
2.6 - 5.4
3.8 - 7.6
4.8 - 8.6
4.0 - 7.3
1.8 - 4.6
1.8 - 3.7
2.2 - 4.6
2.4 - 6.6
1.5 - 4.6
1.8 - 4.6
2.4 - 5.0
1.8 - 4.2
2.0 - 5.0
2.2 - 5.4
1.5 - 5.0
1.2 - 5.3
3.2 - 5.0
Remarks
By-passing primary clarifier
Cut skimmings flow by 2/3
Recycle plugged, influent partially plugged
Influent pubp down 12 mid. to 8 AM
Recycle channel leaking - reclined
Inflow green 8 AM to 1 PM
Inflow green 8 AM to 1 PM
Start FeCla feed at 4 PM
Inflow colored at various times
Rebalanced effluent weir: Inflow pink 10 - 1 PM
Heavy snow
Heavy snow; Unmanned 3 PM - 11 PM
Switched back to primary clarifier
Slight chlorine residual in Inflow
Inflow colored at various times
Inflow green at 4 AM
Wasting and effluent lines frozen for 5 hours
Inflow green 8 AM - 9 PM
Wasted sludge: No samples for 8 AM
Unplugged inflow pump 4 PM
Inflow milky 1 PM - 7 PM
cn
-------
Table C-2. DECEMBER'S PIANT OPERATIONAL DATA
D
A
T
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
A
Y
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Total C.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
173,2
246.2
205.4
233.5
237.9
248.2
220.6
113.6
170,9
200.0
220.6
215.9
156.0
179.7
241.4
197.8
190.9
192.6
183.7
',24.8
P.E.
165.4
199.3
205.4
202.4
148.7
229.6
172.8
135.8
181,8
167,3
163.6
178.0
243,5
131,0
139.6
164,2
176,0
162,1
164.1
193,8
S.E.
43.3
66.4
65.9
66.9
59.5
55.6
58.8
87.8
65.5
72.3
68.5
49.2
57.1
56.2
45.3
44.8
48.7
27.0
50.8
50.4
% Removal
Prim.
4.5
19.0
0.0
13.3
37.5
7.5
21.7
incr
incr
16.4
25.6
17.6
incr
27.1
42.2
17.0
7.8
15.8
10.7
13.8
Total
75.0
73.0
67.9
71.3
75.0
77.5
73.3
22.8
61.7
63.9
68.9
77.2
63.4
68.7
81.2
77.4
74.5
86.0
72.3
77.6
Soluble C.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
82.7
113.3
127.9
109.0
133.8
118.5
77.2
62.3
87.3
112.7
114.1
109.8
110.3
104.8
98.1
108.2
86.1
104.2
93.8
135.7
P.E.
78.7
109.4
124.0
109.0
111.5
103.7
73.5
69.6
105.5
101.8
106.5
94.7
110.3
67.4
79.2
89.6
82,4
84.7
89.9
108.5
S.E.
35.4
39.1
50.4
42. £
37.2
29.6
40.4
33.0
18.2
32.7
38.0
37.9
45.6
41.2
37.7
33.6
33.7
15.4
43.0
46.5
% Removal
Prim.
4.8
3.4
3.0
0.0
16.7
12.5
4.8
incr
incr
9.7
6.7
13.8
0.0
35.7
19.3
17.2
4.3
18.7
4.2
20.0
Total
57.2
65.5
60.6
60.7
72.2
75.0
47.7
47,0
79.2
71.0
66.7
65.5
58.7
60.7
61.6
68.9
60.9
85.2
54.2
65.7
Flow
103
gpd
17.95
22.97
25.51
17.44
24.57
21.58
28,78
37,44
26.95
24.68
24.46
25.42
25.24
22.37
23.37
25.56
32.32
24.76
28.80
23,78
Precp.
in.
0.10
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.33
0.24
0.03
0.15
0.00
Total B.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
61.8
71.0
95.3
80.3
75.0
90.0
72.0
42.0
66.0
76.5
102.0
66.0
47.0
56.4
60.0
75.6
69.6
76.5
61.5
64.0
P.E.
52.5
61.8
70.2
71.3
69.5
72.0
60.0
25.2
72.0
68.0
71.0
69.0
66.0
46.5
55.2
67.0
53.0
70.8
52.8
73.2
S.E.
5.9
10.3
12.3
11.8
10.3
11.0
15.0
11.4
21.2
7.5
17.4
9.6
6.5
6.0
6.8
8.0
10.8
7.6
7.6
8.4
% Removal
Prim.
15.0
13.0
26.3
11.2
7.3
20.0
16.7
40.0
incr
11.1
30.4
incr
incr
17.6
8.0
11.4
23.9
/.5
14.1
incr
Total
90.5
85.5
87.1
85.3
86.3
87.8
79.2
72.9
67.9
90.2
82.9
85.5
86.2
89.4
88.7
89.4
84.5
90.1
87.6
86.9
Soluble B.O.D.
mg/1
Infl.
30.3
43.5
49.1
51.5
45.0
49.0
32.4
24.0
39.0
48.0
52.0
42.0
39.0
35.0
35.3
49.0
40.5
37.5
37.5
38.4
P.E.
16.8
41.6
45.5
46.9
45.5
49.0
29.5
24.6
40.0
44.0
50.0
39.0
41.0
34.5
34.2
40.5
36.0
34.0
36.0
39.0
S.E.
) .7
7.0
6,2
6.6
S.9
5.1
7.2
7.2
8.8
3.6
8.8
5.6
6.6
10.4
7.2
5.2
7.6
5.7
5.7
8.0
% Remova'
Mm.
44.6
4.4
7.3
8.9
incr
0.0
9.0
incr
incr
8.3
3.8
7.1
incr
1.4
2.5
17.3
11.1
9.3
4.0
incr
Total
94.4
83. 'J
87.4
87.2
86.9
89.6
77.8
70.0
77.4
92.5
83. 1
86. 7
83.1
70.3
79.6
89.4
8!. 2
84.8
34.8
79.2
21
22 END OF TEST RUN
23
-------
Table C-2. Continued DECEMBER'S PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA
D
A
T
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
A
Y
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Total Phosphorus
mg/1
Infl.
2.22
2.27
2.42
2.39
2.90
2.90
1.12
1.05
2.94
2.28
2.39
2.07
2.08
1.82
2.58
2.07
1.55
1.85
1.85
2.19
P.E.
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.56
2.72
2.94
1.10
0.95
3.78
2.34
2.27
2.15
2.13
1.84
2.06
2.08
1.52
1.88
1.76
2.08
S.E.
0.708
0.922
-
0.680
0.660
0.756
0.384
0.454
0.910
0.552
1.240
0.505
0.413
0.280
0.390
0.490
0.330
0.260
0.275
0.425
% Removal
Prim.
incr
incr
1.7
Incr
6.2
incr
1.8
9.5
incr
incr
5.0
Incr
incr
incr
20.2
incr
1.9
incr
4.9
5.0
Total
68.1
59.4
-
71.5
77.2
73.9
65.7
56.8
69.0
75.8
48.1
75.6
80.1
84.6
84.9
76.3
78.7
85.9
85.1
80.6
Soluble Phosphorus
mg/1
Infl.
1.38
1.43
1.48
1.70
1.62
1.56
0.38
0.52
2.27
1.52
1.62
1.25
1.02
1.08
1.04
1.50
0.81
1.18
1.17
1.28
P.E.
1.30
1.25
1.46
1.48
1.68
0.92
0.41
0.58
3.44
1.48
1.38
1.18
1.02
0.88
1.27
1.42
0.72
1.05
1.02
1.18
S.E.
0.316
0.324
0.336
0.256
0.304
0.516
0.148
0.192
0.744
-
0.544
0.245
0.203
0.138
0.190
0.190
0.165
0.175
0.125
0.240
% Removal
Prim.
5.8
12.7
1.4
12.9
incr
41.0
incr
ncr
incr
2.6
14.8
5.6
0.0
18.5
incr
5.3
11.1
11.0
12.8
7.8
Total
77.1
77.3
77.3
84.9
81.2
66.9
61.1
63.1
67.2
-
66.4
80.4
80.1
87.2
81.7
b7.3
79.6
85.2
89.3
81.3
Total S.S
mg/1
Infl.
58.0
82.0
88.0
96.0
108.0
144.0
204.0
60.0
96.0
140.0
84.8
80.0
58.0
108.0
87.0
73.0
119.0
57.0
71.0
79.0
P.E.
57.0
63.0
60.0
86.0
76.0
86.0
176.0
50.6
100.0
80.0
68.6
80.0
83.0
48.0
61.0
52.0
107.0
49.0
67.0
67.0
S.E.
25.5
25.0
29.3
41.3
28.0
30.0
42.6
20.0
54.6
22.0
40.0
13.8
9.0
4.0
16.0
14.2
17.3
6.0
11.3
21.0
•
% Removal
Prim.
1.7
23.2
31.8
10.4
29.6
40.3
13.7
15.7
incr
42.9
19.1
-
incr
55.6
29.9
28.8
10.1
14.0
5.6
15.2
Total
56.0
69.5
66.7
57.0
74.1
79.2
79.1
66.7
43.1
84.3
52.8
82.8
84.5
96.3
81.6
80.5
85.5
89.5
84.1
73.4
Volatile S.S.
Infl.
42.0
60.0
20.0
82.0
56.0
116.0
92.0
42.0
52.0
12.0
60.0
51.0
24.0
54.0
65.0
62.0
70.0
38.0
34.0
67.0
mg/1
P.E.
37.0
48.0
18.0
74.0
44.0
64.0
72.0
34.6
48.0
16.0
46.0
50.0
45.0
26.6
46.0
45.0
63.0
31.0
32.0
52.0
S.E.
17.5
17.5
6.6
38.6
18.6
26.0
16.0
17.0
28.0
6.0
27.0
8.7
3.0
0.5
13.5
10.2
16.0
3.0
2.0
19.0
pH
Infl.
7.98
7.80
7.90
7.86
7.82
8.17
7.96
7.83
7.70
7.92
-
-
7.55
7.48
7.90
7.50
7.70
7.60
7.50
7.70
P.E.
7.73
7.88
7.80
7. 72
7.79
7.59
7.79
7.67
7.75
7.89
-
-
7.50
7.59
7. 72
7.50
7.65
7.70
7.40
7.80
S.E.
7.70
7.61
7.50
7.54
7.68
7.77
7. 52
7.56
7.50
7.82
-
-
7.65
7.54
7.60
7.55
7.40
7.50
7.35
7.70
NH3-N
Infl.
_
-
-
-
10.8
12.0
9.7
4.9
6.9
12.8
13.3
7.8
6.2
-
8.0
7.5
6.8
7.4
7.3
10.7
S.E.
-
-
-
-
10.0
10. n
10.3
6.6
6.8
10.6
14.9
8.1
5.8
-
9.0
7.8
7.5
6.2
6.6
9.8
21
22
23
END OF TEST RUN
-------
Table C-2. Continued DECEMBER'S PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA
D
A
T
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
D
A
Y
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
Sa
Su
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
F/M
0.52
0.72
0.62
0.40
0.53
0.50
0.58
0.31
0.73
0.57
0.52
0.50
0.52
0.46
0.52
0.58
0.72
0.62
0.52
0.61
MLSS
mg/1
730
744
933
1,070
1,047
1,009
1,078
1,100
1,137
1,197
1,190
1,211
1,159
845
870
925
887
1,068
1,113
983
MLVSS
mg/1
423
459
666
717
739
723
691
702
613
681
771
806
741
527
579
681
549
655
673
661
Recycle
Flow
gpd
10,380
14,720
14,720
11,390
8,000
8,340
11,180
12,730
6,740
6,710
6,320
6,920
6,910
7,000
7,040
7,750
9,730
7,000
9,940
7,680
RAS
mg/1
1,378
1,515
2,009
2,205
2,780
3,723
4,775
4,297
5,355
5,355
5,441
5,057
4,213
4,320
4,023
2,485
2,938
3,549
3,332
4,176
RAS
Volatile
mg/1
808
1,043
1,468
1,579
1,874
2,665
3,216
2,871
2,975
2,994
3,310
3,368
2,707
2,855
2,743
1,813
1,806
2,154
2,001
2,769
SVI
.
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
100
97
94
107
-
134
116
117
98
98
116
Temp
°C
10
10
11
10
11
11
12
9
8
9
11
11
11
11
10
10
9
8
10
9
9
FeCl3
Ib/day
1.402
1.682
2.022
1.874
1.565
1.809
2.384
3.145
2 244
2.067
2.109
2.265
2.310
2.197
2.300
2.487
3 .031
2.363
2.616
2.234
Aeration
D.O.
Range
2.2 - 4.2
2.8 - 6.4
1.2 - 5.0
2.0 - 6.0
1.8-4.4
1.4 - 5.0
2.4 - 5.9
1.6 - 6.2
1.0 - 5.2
2.4 - 6.1
1.2 - 4.8
1.4 - 4.4
1.8 - 5.0
1.7 - 7.4
1.8 - 5.8
1.8 - 7.0
1.2-8.8
1.6 - 6.6
2.9 - 5.2
1.4 - 5.2
3.8
Remarks
Influent colored at times
Influent pink 10 AM - 1 PM
FeClg addition at two points
Inflow red 12 PM to 4 AM
All lines frozen 9 PM - 6 AM
Primary sludge line frozen
Thawed primary sludge valve SAM
Started polymer addition 6 PM
Influent colored at various times
Gasoline in influent- Blue color 3-7 AM
Influent blue 1 - 2 PM
Influent colored at various times
Shut down at 9 AM
22 END OF TEST RUN
h-*
0\
N)
23
-------
Table C-3 DAILY TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Day
November 18
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 19
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 20
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 21
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 22
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 23
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
Concentration - mg/1
As
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cd
0.007
0.010
incr
0.20
0.010
50.0
0.010
0.040
incr
0.010
0.007
30.0
0.020
0.020
0.0
0.007
0.010
incr
Cr-T
0.10
0.04
60.0
0.21
0.07
66.7
0.10
0.07
30.0
0.19
0.08
57.9
0.27
0.12
55.6
0.18
0.04
77.8
Cr-hex
0.02
< 0.01
50.0
0.07
<0.01
85.7
0.03
<0.01
66.7
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cu
0.08
0.03
62.5
0.02
0.14
incr
0.15
0.04
73.3
0.08
0.04
50.0
0.09
0.06
33.3
0.10
0.05
50.0
Pb
0.050
0.049
2.0
0.500
0.025
95.0
0.250
0.025
90.0
0.033
0.02
39.4
0.045
0.024
46.7
0.050
0.033
34.0
Ha
0.0011
0.0017
incr
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
O.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
0.0020
incr
0.0010
0.0071
incr
Ni
0.04
0.04
0.0
0.02
0.05
incr
0.03
0.03
0.0
0.05
0.04
20.0
0.05
0.05
0.0
0.10
0.06
40.0
Zn
0.65
0.43
33.8
0.69
0.30
56.5
1.41
0.65
53.9
0.74
0.16
78.4
1.06
0.90
15.1
0.50
0.45
10.0
CN
0.033
0.054
incr
0.048
0.057
incr
0.040
0.070
incr
0.070
0.030
57.1
0.050
0.040
20.0
0.030
0.050
incr
-------
Table C-3 Continued DAILY TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Day
November 24
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 25
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
^ November 26
o\ Inflow
"* S.E.
% Removal
November 27
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 28
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
November 29
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
I
L
L
L
L
L
As
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cd
0.003
0.007
incr
0.020
0.010
50.0
0.070
0.009
87.1
0.030
0.020
33.3
0.050
0.020
60.0
0.010
0.020
incr
Concentration - mg/1
Cr-T
0.03
0.03
0.0
0.30
0.11
63.3
0.30
0.10
66.7
0.49
0.25
49.0
0.03
0.06
incr
0.09
0.10
.ncr
Cr-hex
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
0.01
incr
<0.01
0.01
incr
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.0
Cu
0.05
0.04
20.0
0.16
0.05
68.8
0.13
0.04
69.2
0.14
0.07
50.0
0.26
0.07
73.1
0.12
0.07
41.7
Pb
0.035
0.075
incr
0.077
0.024
68.8
0.140
0.013
90.7
0.077
0.060
22.1
0.042
0.022
47.6
0.031
0.033
incr
Hg
0.0250
0.0250
incr
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
0.0010
0.0030
incr
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
0.0027
0.0063
incr
Ni
0.01
0.03
incr
0.09
0.06
33.3
0.09
0.06
33.3
<0.01
0.07
incr
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
0.04
0.05
incr
Zn
0.16
0.18
incr
0.45
0.26
42.2
0.35
0.19
45.7
0.32
0.22
31.3
0.11
0.18
incr
0.54
0.22
59.3
CN
_
-
0.036
0.035
2.7
0.047
0.025
47.3
0.053
0.048
9.4
0.005
0.014
incr
0.054
0.0481
11.9
-------
Table O3 Continued DAILY TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Day
November 30
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 1
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 2
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 3
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 4
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 5
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
Concentration - mg/1
As
-
-
-
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cd
-
-
-
0.009
0.010
incr
0.014
0.012
14.3
0.016
0.009
43.8
0.040
0.012
70.0
0.030
0.009
70.0
Cr-T
-
-
-
0.08
0.06
25.0
0.27
0.08
70.4
0.45
0.10
77.8
0.42
0.12
71.4
0.35
0.10
71.4
Cr-hex
-
-
-
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.03
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cu
-
-
-
0.06
0.04
33.3
0.12
0.05
58.3
0.17
0.05
70.6
0.14
0.05
64.3
0.14
0.04
71.4
Pb
-
-
-
0.020
0.021
incr
0.050
0.023
54.0
0.100
0.019
81.0
0.095
0.023
75.8
0.082
0.015
81.7
Hg
-
-
-
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
NI
-
-
-
0.02
0.03
incr
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.0
0.01
<0.01
deer
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Zn
-
-
-
0.09
0.11
incr
0.055
0.098
incr
0.029
0.021
27.6
0.034
0.019
44.1
0.029
0.015
48.3
CN
-
-
-
0.0630
0.0495
21.4
0.0755
0.0550
27.2
0.0820
0.0790
3.7
0.0590
0.0510
13.6
0.0420
0.0670
incr
-------
Table C-3 Continued DAILY TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Day
December 6
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 7
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 8
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 9
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 10
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 11
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
Concentration - mg/1
As
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cd
0.044
0.012
72.7
0.011
0.014
incr
0.007
0.010
Incr
0.006
0.007
Incr
0.010
0.007
30.0
0.013
0.011
15.4
Cr-T
0.42
0.09
78.6
0.354
0.083
76.6
0.034
0.037
incr
0.12
0.15
incr
0.18
0.06
66.7
0.19
0.12
36.8
Cr-hex
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cu
0.30
0.06
80.0
0.14
0.07
50.0
0.08
0.04
50.0
0.16
0.03
81.3
0.22
0.02
90.9
0.10
0.16
incr
Pb
0.115
0.014
87.8
0.154
0.018
88.3
0.131
0.032
75.6
0.08
0.04
50.0
0.10
0.01
90.0
0.08
0.04
50.0
Hg
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0010
<0.0010
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
Ni
0.02
0.01
50.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
0.12
0.10
16.7
0.08
0.10
incr
0.09
0.^8
11.1
Zn
0.063
0.018
71.4
0.037
0.023
37.8
0,018
0.021
incr
0.46
0.20
56.5
0.25
0.13
48.0
0.30
0.18
40.0
CN
0.0620
0.0355
42.7
0.0665
0.058
12.8
0.044
0.020
54.5
0.0040
0.0051
incr
0.0950
0.035
63.2
0.0620
0.1880
incr
-------
'Table C-3 Continued DAILY TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Day
December 12
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 13 ;
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal]
December 14
Inflow !
S.E. !
% Removal
December 15
Inflow '
S.E. i
% RemovaJ
December 16
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 17
Inflow ;
S.E.
% Removal
Concentration - mg/1
As
< 0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cd
0.011
0.008
27.3
0.013
0.007
46.2
0.009
0.005
44.4
0.007
0.006
14.3
0.014
0.007
50.0
0.011
0.008
27.3
Cr-T
0.14
0.06
57.1
0.19
0.08
57.9
0.09
0.05
44.4
0.03
0.02
33.3
0.20
0.06
70.0
0.13
0.06
53.8
Cr-hex
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cu
0.14
0.03
78.6
0.09
0.02
77. 8
0.05
0.01
80.0
0.08
0.01
87.5
0.15
0.06
60.0
0.13
0.06
53.8
Pb
0.11
0.01
90.9
0.11
0.01
90.9
0.05
0.02
60.0
0.05
0.02
60.0
0.11
0.02
81.8
0.15
0.03
80.0
Hg
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
Ni
0.17
0.13
23.5
0.09
0.08
11.1
0.04
0.08
incr
0.05
0.03
40.0
0.07
0.04
42.9
0.09
0.10
incr
Zn
0.27
0.15
44.4
0.34
0.15
55.9
0.22
0.16
27.3
0.17
0.13
23.5
0.31
0.16
48.4
0.33
0.16
51.5
CN
0.0490
0.0500
incr
0.0370
0.0270
27.0
0.0425
0.0405
4.7
0.0390
0.0220
43.6
0.0425
0.0345
18.8
0.0390
0.0210
46.2
ON
-------
Table C-3 Continued DAILY TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Day
December 18
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
December 19
Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
M December 20
» Inflow
S.E.
% Removal
As
<0.01
< 0.01
0.0
< 0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Concentration - mg/1
Cd
0.013
0.01
23.1
0.012
0.006
50.0
0.042
0.014
66.7
Cr-T
0.13
0.04
69.2
0.30
0.02
93.3
0.29
0.06
79.3
Cr-hex
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.0
Cu
0.10
0.06
40.0
0.34
0.06
82.4
0.30
0.09
70.0
Pb
0.08
0.02
75.0
0.08
0.02
75.0
0.08
0.02
75.0
Hg
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
<0.0020
<0.0020
0.0
Ni
0.05
0.05
0.0
0.11
0.05
54.5
0.06
0.06
0.0
7n
0.21
0.15
28.6
0.28
0.14
50.0
0.32
0.16
50.0
CN
0.0480
0.0280
41.7
0.0360
0.0320
11.1
0.1310
0.1130
13.7
-------
Table C-4 WASTE PRIMARY SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium-T
Chromium-hex
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
T.S.S.
T.V.S.S.
Phosphorus-T
Discharge-gal.
Concentration - m
11/18 - 11/24
<0.01
0.090
7.60
<0.01
0.02
2.10
1.70
0.010
14.50
19.00
13,951
8,829
-
42.3
11/25 - 12/1
<0.01
0.320
5.60
<0.01
2.32
2.50
3.10
0.010
0.31
5.72
13,899
8,512
242.1
48.8
12/2 - 12/8
<0.01
0.670
12.90
<0.01
8.54
1.64
12.00
0.080
1.29
2.10
14,496
9,885
186.5
55.4
/I
12/9 - 12/15
<0.01
0.718
10.00
<0.01
8.10
1.49
15.00
0.025
1.60
26.50
16,897
10,809
236.2
61.8
12/16 - 12/20
<0.01
0.454
6.00
<0.01
6.26
1.18
9.00
<0.002
1.50
18.30
8,572
5,814
122.2
69.8
vo
-------
Table C-5 WASTE SECONDARY SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium-T
Chromium -hex
Copper
^ Cyanide
5
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
T.S.S.
T.V.S.S.
Phosphorus -T
Discharge-gal.
Concentration - mg/1
11/18 - 11/24
2
o
M
>
CO
H
M
d
11/25 - 12/1
<0.01
0.750
18.80
<0.01
12.00
4.00
9.50
0.027
1.50
14.00
3,835
2,318
78.8
980.0
12/2 - 12/8
<0.01
0.357
9.55
<0.03
3.58
2.53
5.60
0.025
0.70
1.60
4,027
2,742
84.5
537.5
12/9 - 12/15
<0.01
0.274
7.00
<0.01
4.33
2.09
8.00
2.5
1.00
11.40
4,833
2,997
132.9
685.5
12/16 - 12/20
<0.01
0.192
4.00
<0.01
3.81
1.06
6.00
<0.002
1.30
6.74
3,284
2,099
73.7
796.7
-------
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
-80
O
i
19 20 21 2? 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOVEMBER
Figure C-l Daily Cadmium Variation
9 10 II 12
DECEMBER
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-------
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
-100
80
1
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Figure C-2 Doily Chromium Variation
-------
-100
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
04
-80
V60
-40
-20
IS fo 20 21 2£ 23
2C Jifa 27 ?.& 29
I 2 34 5 C 7 8
NOVEMBER
IO II 12 17- 14 lf» It 17 It. lb»
DECEMBER
Figure C~3 Oiily '-niper Variation
-------
.14
J2
.10 —
r
uf .08
Q
J
•^ z nA
-P* £ -06
.04
.02
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
IS l» 2u ill <£ kS 24 SiG i;C 27 28 2y 30 I 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1C 17 18
NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Figure C-4 Doily Cyanide Variation
-------
0.
0.-
£0.3
o
<
UJ
en
O.2
0.1
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
— 100
UJ
o:
-20
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Figure C-5 Daily Lead Variation
-------
-70
-60
-50
-40
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
-30
-Jt-20
I
i
18 19 20 21 22 2? 24 25
NOVEMBER
27 28 29 ?O I
Figure C~6 Daily Nickel Variation
8 9 10 || 12 I? 14 1C IG 17 16 19 2O
DECEMBER
-------
1.4,—
CONCENTRATION
% REMOVAL
-100
-80
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Figure C-7 Daily Zinc \toriation
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
It lease read ImUructioiis on the reverse before completing!
EPA-600/2-77-018
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Industrial Waste and Pretreatment in the
Buffalo Municipal System
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January 1977
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Kenneth Peck and John C. Horton, Jr.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
McPhee, Smith, Posenstein Engineers
625 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R803005
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Office Uf ,^u
U.S. EPA - Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, P.O. Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - 4/74-6/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
• A * - -,
tri&1 ** domestic
The requirements and affects of the combined treatment
wastewaters were investigated for the Buffalo Sewer Authoril
A comprehensive industrial waste survey was performed
background information on industrial discharges This mimi^ ,n-*i, «. •-,',-,
on the sewerage system provided the data nece^rv t« ^^ • }th material balances
and cost recovery programs. necessary to develop industrial waste control
The industrial waste control program for Buffalo -inrinri^ • j
lations coupled with a permit system and monitoring prograrf ™ ^^ U5G
A combination of ad valorem tax and wastewater servir^'rV,-,™* u j
strength and volume were used to recover the cost of treatment A ' °n WaSte
tion of the cost recovery and industrial waste control proerams onth^
users was performed. i^Mcuiib on tne
A 95 000_liter/day activated sludge pilot study was conducted to
affects that industrial users will have on the treatment processes
Three potential sludge disposal options (soil conditioning landfill and co dis-
posal with refuse) were investigated for the disposal of th^ «I,,H™ ^ 5 u
combined treatment of industrial and domestic Sewater In Buffalo.8 ^
17.
DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
——^—^—————.—-^^_^_
Activated Sludge, *Sewage Treatment,
*Sludge Disposal, *Sludge Treatment,
*Adimmstrative Agencies, *Cost Sharing
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Combined Industrial/
Municipal, *Joint Treat-
ment, *Pretreatment,
Buffalo, NY
19- SECURITY CLASS (This Re portI
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COSATI Field/Group
05D
06A
06C
21. NO. OF PAGES
184
U.S. Government Printing Office: 1977-778-489/116 Region 8
------- |