WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • DAST-17
     Feasibility of Joint Treatment
          in a Lake  Watershed
U.S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

-------
           WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
         The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe
         the results and progress in the control and abatement
         of pollution of our Nation's Waters.   They provide a
         central source of information on the research, develop-
         ment and demonstration activities of the Federal Water
         Pollution Control Administration, Department of the
         Interior, through in-house research and grants and
         contracts with Federal, State, and local  agencies,
         research institutions, and industrial organizations.
         Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are placed inside
         the back cover to facilitate information retrieval.
         Space is provided on the card for the user's accession
         number and for additional keywords.  The abstracts
         utilize the WRSIC  system.
         Water Pollution Control Research Reports will be
         distributed to requesters as supplies permit.  Re-
         quests should be sent to the publications Office.
         Dept. of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution
         Control Administration, Washington, D.  C. 20242
Previously issued reports of the Industrial Pollution Control
    Branch Program, in  this subject  area, are:

OKD-1    "Joint Municipal and Semi chemical Pulping Waste Treatment"

OKD-2    "Disposal of Wastes from Water Treatment  Plants"

-------
       FEASIBILITY OF JOINT  TREATMENT
             IN A LAKE WATERSHED
        "FEASIBILITY OF JOINT MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
        WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN THE ONONDAGA LAKE
          WATERSHED, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK"
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                         BY


                   ROY F. WESTON, INC.
                  WEST CHESTER, PENNA.
                 PROGRAM NO. 11060 FAE
                 GRANT NO. WPRD 66-01-68
                    NOVEMBER, 1969

-------
                 FWPCA  Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Federal Water Pollution
Control  Administration  and   approved  for  publication.
Approval  does not  signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Administration, nor does mention  of trade names
or   commercial  products  constitute   endorsement   or
recommendation for use.

-------
                                    ABSTRACT

Onondaga County, New York undertook a feasibility study of joint treatment of municipal
and industrial wastewaters.  Industries  were contacted to assess their wastewater situation,
and major wastewater contributors were  sampled. Influent wastewaters to the two major
sewage treatment plants were also sampled. With practically all industry connected to the
municipal systems and within the constraint of a pump station and  force main to transfer
wastewater from the Ley Creek to the Metropolitan Sewage Plant, the number of feasible
treatment alternatives was reduced.  Bench-scale activated sludge studies were conducted on
the feasible alternatives.

The initial plant  interviews showed that practically all  industries in the  watershed were
connected to the municipal sewer system, with one of them contributing approximately 60
percent of the  organic load on  the Ley  Creek Plant. While metals concentrations,  from
various metal-plating shops, were  high at different times, the concentrations measured in the
Ley Creek Plant influent were generally acceptable for biological treatment. Total organic
loads at the Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Plants were about equal; flow at the latter
plant was approximately three times as great.  Raw, pretreated, or secondary-treated waste-
water from  the Ley Creek Plant was shown to  be  amenable  to combination with raw
Metropolitan Sewage Plant influent  for secondary treatment.  A full-scale joint treatment
plant should obtain BOD removals of more than 85 percent during winter operation.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. WPRD 66-01-68 between the Federal
Water  Pollution Control Administration  and Onondaga County Department of Public
Works.

Key Words:

    Activated  Sludge - Contact Stabilization - Cost  Analysis-Industrial  Wastes-Joint
    Systems - Lake  Watershed - Municipal  Wastes - Process Design - Sampling Sur-
    vey - Waste Treatment.
                                         in

-------
                                 CONTENTS

Section                                                                   Page

             ABSTRACT                                                   iii

             CONTENTS                                                   iv

             TABLES                                                      vi

             DRAWINGS                                                  viii

   1         CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                        1

              Conclusions                                                    1
              Recommendations                                              2

   2         INTRODUCTION                                                3

              General Background                                             3
              Scope and Objectives                                            4

   3         PROBLEM DEFINITION                                          7

              Wastewater Sources, Quantities and Characteristics                    7
                General Basis of Data                                          7
                Survey Results                                                8
                Future Expansion in Wastewater Flow and Loads                  14
              Stormwaters                                                  16
              Summary of Wastewater Quantities and Characteristics               18
              Existing Treatment Facilities                                     18
              Effects of Effluent on Ley Creek and Onondaga Lake                18
              Stream Classification                                           20
              Treatment Requirements                                        20

   4         WASTEWATER COLLECTION MASTER PLAN                      21

              Industrial Wastewater                                           21
              Sanitary Wastewater                                            21
              Discussion of Wastewater Collection System                        23

   5         POTENTIAL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES                       25

              General Considerations                                          25
              Utilization of the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant                 25
              Utilization of the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant              27
              Industrial Pretreatment                                         27
              Summary of Potential Treatment Alternatives                       28
                                      IV

-------
                                 CONTENTS
                                 (continued)

Section                                                                   Page

   6         PROCESS INVESTIGATION                                     29

              General Planning Considerations                                 29
              I nvestigative Program and Results                                30
                Industrial Pretreatment                                       30
                Filtration Studies                                            31
                Biological Treatability                                        31
                Summary of Investigative Results                               36

   7         PROCESS DESIGN                                             37

              General Basis of Design                                         37
              Development of Process Designs for the
               Alternative Treatment Systems                                 38
                Secondary Treatment of Ley Creek ST.P. Influent                38
                Secondary Treatment of LCSTP Effluent and
                 MSTP Influents                                            38
                Secondary Treatment of Combined LCSTP and
                 MSTP Influent                                             39
                Plain Aeration of LCSTP Influent                              39
                Secondary Treatment of LCSTP Plain-Aeration
                 Effluent and MSTP Influent                                  39
                Summary of Design Basis and Major Unit Sizes                   39

   8         COST ESTIMATES                                             41

   9         SELECTION OF TREATMENT SYSTEM                           45

  10         SUMMARY                                                   47

  11         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                        53

  12         APPENDICES                                                  55

-------
                                   TABLES

No.                                                                         Page

  1          Summary of Estimated Industrial Waste Characteristics                   9
            Extended Ley Creek Sanitary District

  2          Wastewater Characteristics - Ley Creek Sewage Treatment               13
            Plant Influent

  3          Comparison of Observed and Estimated Ley Creek Sewage               13
            Treatment Plant Influent Characteristics

  4          Wastewater Characteristics - Metropolitan Sewage                       15
            Treatment Plant Influent

  5          Comparison of Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage                     16
            Treatment Plant Influent Wastewater Characteristics

  6          Projected Increase in Flow and Organic Loading                        17

  7          Storm Flow Capacity of the Major Interceptor Sewers                   17

  8          Summary of Design Flow and Organic Loadings                        19

  9          Summary of Discharge of Contaminated Industrial                      22
            Wastewaters to Surface Drainage Systems

10          Summary of Industrial Discharge of Sanitary Wastewaters               23
            to On-Site Septic Tank Systems

11          Summary of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives                        26

12          Organic Discharges Exceeding Allowable Limits                         28

13          Identification  of Alternative Treatment Systems                        29

14          Comparison of Raw and Filtered Wastewater Samples -                  31
            Ley Creek S.T.P. Influent

15          Summary of Observed Laboratory Results                             36

16          Summary of Unit Sizes for Various Treatment Alternatives              40

17          Summary of Capital and Annual Costs at Projected BOD                 42
            Loading
                                      VI

-------
                                    TABLES
                                   (continued)

  No.                                                                       Page

  18         Summary of Capital and Annual Costs at Reduced                     43
             BOD Loading

 A-1         Raw Data Tables - Wastewater Survey                                56
through
 A-8

 A-9         Raw Data Tables - Laboratory TreatabiIity Studies                     71
through
 A-15
                                      VII

-------
                                    DRAWINGS

 No.                                                                          Page

B-  1          Location Plan - Ley Creek and Metropolitan Treatment                 87
              Plants and Sanitary Districts

B- 2          Location of Industrial Sampling                                      89

B- 3          Location of Major Trunk Sewers                                     91

B- 4          Biological Treatability Studies - Conventional Activated                 93
              Sludge Systems

B- 5          Biological Treatability Studies-Contact Stabilization                   94
              Systems

B- 6          System No. 1-A - Batch Activated Sludge Data                         95

B- 7          System No. 1-B - Batch Activated Sludge Data                         96

B- 8          System No. 2 - Batch Activated Sludge Data                           97

B- 9          System No. 3-B - Batch Activated Sludge Data                         98

B-10          System No. 1-A - BOD5 Removal Kinetics Versus Organic               99
              Loading Ratio

B-11          System No. 1-B - BODs  Removal Kinetics Versus Organic              100
              Loading Ratio

B-12          System No. 2 - BOD5 Removal Kinetics Versus Organic                101
              Loading Ratio

B-13          System No. 3-B - 6005  Removal Kinetics Versus Organic              102
              Loading Ratio

B-14          System No. 3-A - BOD$  Removal Efficiency Versus                    103
              Detention Time

B-15          Simplified Flow  Diagram of Proposed Facilities                        105

B-16          Proposed Plot Plan                                                 107
                                       VIII

-------
                     CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

                                     Conclusions

Conclusions regarding the wastewater situation at individual industries have been presented
in the appropriate company sections of the Appendix of the Interim  Report, Industrial
Discharges  in the Ley Creek Sanitary District, dated March 1,  1969. The conclusions pre-
sented herein relate to the overall project and are based on the industrial interviews, waste-
water sampling and analysis programs, laboratory treatability study, process design investiga-
tions, preliminary cost estimates, and related discussions.

  1.  Of the 139 industries initially contacted, 113 are within the  Ley Creek Sanitary Dis-
     trict.  Twenty-four of these 113 industries were discharging wastewaters (including
     clean cooling water) to Ley Creek.

 2.  Of the twenty-four industries discharging to the creek, only two (Crouse-Hinds Co. and
     Syracuse China Corp.)  showed a need for  installation of  treatment facilities. The re-
     maining industries either discharged acceptable effluents or could produce acceptable
     effluent by the in-plant changes recommended in the Interim Report.

 3.  A number of industries  discharge significant concentrations of metals and cyanides to
     the Ley Creek Sewerage System. Because dilution in  the  overall wastewater flow
     generally lowers the concentrations of metals and cyanides to tolerable levels, these
     discharges normally will not adversely affect biological treatment. Nevertheless,  the
     potential for such interference exists.

 4.  80 - 90  percent  of the  industrial  organic  pollution discharged to the Ley Creek
     Sewerage System comes from the Bristol  Laboratories  plant. This same source con-
     tributed 50 - 60  percent of the total organic load  of the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment
     Plant.

  5.  The existing Ley Creek  Collection system is adequate in geographical coverage for all
     currently recommended additions of industrial wastewater.

  6.  The biological treatability studies indicated the following selections of activated sludge
     process modifications for various wastewater combinations:

                                                                   Process
                         Wajtewater                             Modification

     Ley Creek S.T.P. Influent (1-A)                           Conventional

     LCSTP Secondary Effluent and
     Metropolitan Influent (1-B)                               Contact-Stabilization

     LCSTP and MSTP Influents (2)                           Conventional

     LCSTP Plain Aeration Effluent and MSTP
     Influent (3-B)                                            Contact-Stabilization

-------
 7.   Removal of suspended  solids (through primary clarification) from the combined raw
     wastewater of the Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plants should change
     the  indicated treatment for this  alternative from conventional  activated sludge to
     contact-stabilization.

 8.   Within the frame of reference of the constraints imposed, treatment required, and total
     annual costs involved, contact-stabilization treatment of the combined raw Ley Creek
     and  Metropolitan S.T.P. influent wastewaters is preferable to any of the other treat-
     ment alternatives.

 9.   The  total  capital cost  for  this selected  treatment  system  is  estimated to  be
     $26,109,000; the total annual cost is estimated to be $3,455,000.

10.   Pretreatment by industry to reduce its BOD loading to the acceptable level (300 mg/L)
     would not significantly  reduce the total annual costs of the proposed municipal treat-
     ment system.

                                  Recommendations

 1.   Accept the discharge  of Grouse-Hinds wastewater into the Ley Creek sewerage system
     after satisfactory pretreatment for removal of oil, solids, and dissolved metals.

 2.   Permit  Syracuse  China  Corporation to discharge suitably clarified wastewater to Ley
     Creek.

 3.   Implement the wastewater management recommendations for individual industries out-
     lined in the Interim Report.

 4.   Initiate a program requiring industries discharging potentially toxic materials or high
     concentrations of  organics or other undesirable  materials to  begin a wastewater
     sampling and analysis program.

 5.   Monitor industrial wastewater discharges,  to  protect  the  collection  and treatment
     system.

 6.   Implement the design and construction of a contact-stabilization treatment plant for
     the  combined  Ley Creek S.T.P. and Metropolitan S.T.P. influent wastewaters, to be
     located at the site of the present Metropolitan plant.

-------
                                  INTRODUCTION

                                 General Background

Onondaga Lake and its watershed are located in Onondaga County, New York and are a part
of the larger Oswego River Basin Drainage Area. The southern portion of the lake lies within
the City of Syracuse, with the larger northern area of the lake being located in the towns of
Salina and  Geddes. Onondaga Lake is about 4.5 miles long and about a mile across at its
widest point. The most suitable uses of the waters of the southern end of Onondaga Lake
are for agriculture and process cooling.

A  number of studies have been made  on  Onondaga Lake and its watershed over the years.
These studies have indicated that the major problems affecting Onondaga Lake are the result
of: municipal plant effluents entering the  lake and its tributaries,  industrial wastewater
discharges in the watershed, stormwater overflows from the various interceptor sewers,  and
the existing organic deposits  in the lake. In addition, the lake has a high natural background
level of chlorides.

There are two sanitary districts for the collection and treatment of wastewaters around the
lower end of Onondaga  Lake: Ley Creek Sanitary District and Metropolitan Sanitary  Dis-
trict. The locations of these districts and  their treatment plants are shown on Drawing B-1.
The Ley  Creek Sanitary District covers approximately the drainage area of Ley Creek,  one
of the major tributaries of Onondaga  Lake. This Sanitary District lies generally to the north
and east of the City of Syracuse and includes the  Village of East Syracuse, a small section of
the City  of Syracuse, several highly concentrated industrial  sites, and a  large area of un-
developed land; the major concentration  of industries in and around the City of Syracuse is
within  the  Ley Creek Sanitary District. The initial  Ley  Creek Sewage  Treatment Plant
(S.T.P.), located approximately one mile  upstream of the outlet  of Ley Creek to Onondaga
Lake, was designed as a standard-rate  activated sludge plant for a population of 30,000  and
an average flow of 4.5 MGD. These facilities were placed into operation early in  1940,  and
in less than  five years the plant was overloaded,  primarily because of unexpected industrial
development. Duplicate facilities  were designed and put  into operation in March of 1951.
Since that time, the flow and organic load on the treatment plant have increased to such an
extent that the plant is again overloaded.  Effluent from the  treatment plant has been
discharged  into Ley Creek near the plant. The waters of this creek have been classified as
acceptable  for agricultural  use and industrial water supply, but unacceptable for fishing,
bathing, or drinking water supply.

Following World War 1, a primary-treatment plant was constructed in the general vicinity of
the present Metropolitan Plant on the southern  tip of  Onondaga Lake. This plant became
overloaded,  and in  September 1960 the  present  intermediate treatment system (chemical
flocculation in  a primary-treatment system) was put  into operation. Effluent  from  this
treatment plant is discharged to the southern tip of Onondaga  Lake. Two large industrial
complexes in the  Metropolitan Sanitary District discharge industrial wastewaters directly to
Onondaga Lake.

Onondaga County, in the early stages  of  its overall program to improve the quality of  Ley
Creek and  Onondaga Lake,  conducted pilot  plant operations  at the Ley Creek Sewage
Treatment Plant utilizing a plastic-media trickling filter alone and also followed by activated

-------
sludge. The results of these studies were reported to be successful, but the effluent was still
unacceptable to Onondaga County for year-round  discharge to Ley Creek. Subsequently,
the County's consultants investigated the feasibility of pumping this treated wastewater to
Onondaga  Lake or to the Seneca River, with the former indicated as the more economical.
With the construction of a lake outfall as the indicated  solution, it then became an attractive
alternative  to transfer the Ley Creek Treatment Plant effluent to the Metropolitan Treat-
ment Plant. This would permit utilization of the Ley Creek Treatment Plant as the first step
in a two-step treatment  system, with partial or pretreatment at the Ley  Creek Treatment
Plant to reduce organic  shock  loads or mitigate  possible toxicity factors  and with final
treatment at the Metropolitan Treatment Plant.

The two major industries in  the Metropolitan Drainage Area (Solvay Process Division of
Allied Chemical Company and Crucible Steel Company), although not directly involved in
the current study, are a definite factor in Onondaga  County's overall  study. The County has
been  working with  Solvay Process on a combined  treatment system  which in effect will
reduce the  contamination in Solvay's wastewater and provide tertiary treatment (phosphate
removal) for the municipal wastewater. The site  tentatively selected for this treatment
facility  is at the  Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant. This proposed tertiary treatment
facility  will not be considered  a part of this report except as  its location may affect the
location  of the proposed biological treatment system. Crucible Steel  is also working with
Onondaga County on the solution of its wastewater problems.

Disposal of digested sludge from the present Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant is to the
Solvay Process waste beds. Although ultimate sludge disposal was not considered a part of
this study,  it is anticipated that the present method of disposal will be used in the expanded
plant, and therefore, would have an effect upon treatment plant location.

                                Scope and Objectives

Onondaga  County, in an  attempt to reduce the pollution load  on Onondaga Lake and its
tributaries  and in anticipation of stricter treatment requirements, had initiated a number of
programs leading to an upgrading of treatment facilities. As part of this program, Onondaga
County in  December  1966 applied to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
for a  research and development grant to demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of joint
municipal-industrial wastewater treatment  in the Onondaga Lake Watershed. Subsequently,
FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 66-01-68 was awarded.

Onondaga County retained ROY F. WESTON early  in I968 for two phases of the Onondaga
Lake  Watershed Study: 1) to determine the present  state of industrial discharges within the
Ley  Creek  Drainage Area; and  2) subsequently to develop a  Master Plan of wastewater
collection and treatment  for this area. The scope of work as outlined  in Onondaga County -
ROY F. WESTON Contract No. P-112 of 13 February 1968 - includes the following:

 1.  Determination of the sources, quantities, and characteristics of the wastewater through
     sampling and analysis of the wastewaters of all  industries in the Ley Creek Sanitary
     District with significant discharges.

 2.  Evaluation of operating practices at these  industrial plants (including  inspection of
     wastewater treatment facilities) to provide recommendations relative to:  reduction of
     wastewater discharges by  in-plant changes, segregation of clean  wastewaters  not  re-
     quiring treatment; reduction of total  water  usage; recovery of waste constituents or
     by-products, as applicable; improvement of on site waste control programs, and need
     for on-site pretreatment of wastewaters.

-------
 3.  Sampling survey of the influent to the Ley Creek S.T.P. for comparison with the total
     industrial wastewater discharged to the Ley Creek system. Data from this survey was
     included in an interim report to Onondaga County dated 1 March 1969.

 4.  Laboratory-scale treatability and related studies of the wastewater generated in the Ley
     Creek Drainage Area and of wastewater from selected industrial  plants to determine
     design parameters. These studies were to cover: physical/chemical treatment, biological
     treatability, determination of quantities and  characteristics of the sludges produced,
     and the effects of combining various wastewaters.

 5.  Preparation of a Master Plan for wastewater collection, including  alternative methods
     of collecting industrial wastewater separately from sanitary wastewaters.

 6.  Development  of a process design based on the  results of the treatability studies and the
     wastewater collection  Master Plan,  including plot plan,  process flow  sheet, and
     schedule  of estimated capital and operating  costs for the recommended treatment
     alternative.

 7.  Preparation of a report covering discussion of the treatment alternatives, the recom-
     mended solutions, and the supporting reasons. This report was intended to include
     recommendations  for  improving  water  pollution  control practices  for individual
     industries whenever appropriate.

Treatment of  Ley  Creek wastewaters (raw or pretreated) in conjunction with the influent to
the Metropolitan Treatment Plant became a  real  possibility with the construction of a
pumping station and force main to transfer all wastewaters to the Metropolitan Treatment
Plant. The original scope  of  the  treatability  studies was thus expanded to  include the
Metropolitan wastewater.

-------
                                         3

                              PROBLEM DEFINITION

                  Wastewater Sources, Quantities and Characteristics

General Basis of Data

The wastewater survey of the Ley Creek Drainage Area basically consisted of two phases:
industrial interviews, and a sampling and analysis program. In preparation for the industrial
interviews, a list of 139 industries either served by the Ley Creek Sewerane System or within
the drainage area of Ley Creek was obtained from Onondaga County. This list was based on
information provided  in Directory of Manufacturers and Products-1965 prepared by the
Manufacturers Association of Syracuse.

Each industry was asked to cooperate in the wastewater survey and was notified of the type
of information  which  would be requested in the interview. Subsequently, the  industries
were visited, the production facilities toured, and wastewater handling facilities inspected.
At the conclusion of each preliminary visit, a file memorandum was prepared describing the
wastewater problem and indicating the need for sampling and analysis. The industrial plants
visited were sent letters expressing appreciation for their cooperation and  informing them of
future sampling and analysis plans.

Prior  to  the inception  of the  industrial  sampling  and analysis program, a random grab
sampling  survey of the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant influent was conducted to obtain
an estimate of  the magnitude of the problem  and to prepare baseline  figures for use in
determining the  significance of  individual  industrial wastewater  discharges.  Forty-two
random grab samples were collected during the period 6/13/68 through  6/20/68 and were
analyzed  in the engineer's laboratories in Syracuse, New York, for 5-day and Ultimate
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand  (BODs,  BODUC),  Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD), suspended solids (SS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), pH, and alkalinity or acidity.
A portion of each of these  samples  was appropriately  preserved,  shipped to the ROY F.
WESTON laboratory  in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and analyzed for phenol, oil and grease,
cyanide (CN), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), cadmium (Cd), zinc {Zn), ammonia
(NH3), total organic  nitrogen  (TON), orthophosphate (O-PO^, and  total  phosphate
(T-P&4).  Flow measurements were recorded from the influent flow meter at the time of
sample collection.

The industrial sampling and analysis survey was based on the premise that samples would be
collected  from all industries fulfilling any of the following criteria: 1) major industry not
presently included in the Ley Creek Sewerage System; 2) industry with significant potential
toxicity problems, e.g., metals, cyanides, phenols; and 3) industry whose organic load was
considered  to be a significant fraction of the present Ley Creek Treatment Plant organic
load. The information would be used to assess the contribution of each sampled industry to
the wastewater  treatability problem  in the  Ley Creek Drainage Area and also to provide
information helpful to each industry's waste management program.

Grab and composite (up to 24 hours) samples were collected from the selected industries.
Flows over the  sampling period were obtained  by  water meter readings, lithium dilution
technique,  bucket  and stopwatch, orifices, or combinations thereof. The most common
method used was the lithium dilution technique, in  which a known  standard solution of

-------
lithium chloride is added at a constant rate to the wastewater upstream of the sampling
point. The lithium concentration measured in  the collected samples is the basis for the
calculation of the  wastewater flow  rate. Average loadings during the compositing period
were estimated as the product of the measured contaminant concentration and the average
flow during the sampling period.

With the  expansion  of the scope to include  the Metropolitan  Sewage Treatment Plant
wastewater, a sampling survey was conducted on the plant influent to obtain an estimate of
the magnitude of flow and  of contaminant concentrations in order to determine the signifi-
cance of combining  Ley Creek and Metropolitan wastewaters. Twenty-eight random grab
samples were  collected on  the  influent wastewater during the period from September 3
through September 10, 1968 and  were analyzed for the same contaminants outlined in the
Ley Creek Treatment  Plant survey. Influent  flows were measured concurrently with
sampling.

Survey Results

Discussions of  each  industry known  to be within the  Ley Creek Sanitary District (and
extensions) are presented in the  Interim  Report, Industrial Discharges in the  Ley Creek
Sanitary District, dated 1  March  1969. Included  for each industry are a brief outline of
manufacturing process, a description of wastewater production and disposal, and  recom-
mendations for wastewater  management procedures. Nineteen industries were considered to
have wastewater characteristics which required sampling and analysis. Descriptions of these
sampling and  analysis surveys are  included in the respective industrial  discussions. The
locations of those industries sampled are shown in Drawing B-2.

The estimated wastewater characteristics of all industries contacted are summarized in Table
1. Also  included in Table 1 are the points of discharge (Ley Creek Treatment Plant, Ley
Creek, or other) and the potentials for clean-water segregation.

Within the Ley Creek Drainage Area, approximately 9.1 mgd of wastewater were accounted
for in the survey.  Approximately 3.3 mgd of wastewater are being discharged directly to
Ley Creek or its  tributaries; of this total, approximately 2.7 mgd are the total process
wastewaters of the Grouse-Hinds Co., Will and Baumer Candle Company, General Motors-
Ternstedt Division, and Syracuse China Corporation.  Approximately 5.8 mgd of industrial
wastewaters go to  the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, of which 0.2 mgd are relatively
uncontaminated (of could be made so) and could be diverted to storm sewers.

The results of the  Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant influent sampling and analysis survey
are contained in Appendix A. The raw, ranked raw, extended, and ranked extended data are
listed in  Tables A-1  through A-4, respectively. A  summary of these results is presented in
Table 2. The sampling survey  defined  a wastewater highly variable in organic  load but
without significant toxicity problems. BODs  concentrations ranged from 117  mg/L to
1,620 mg/L during the 7-day survey, with a median concentration of 389 mg/L; the median
BOD5 loading was 47,800 pounds per day. Metal  concentrations  were generally quite low;
the maximum metal  level,  obtained by adding the maximum  observed concentrations of
chromium, copper, zinc, cadmium, and nickel, was less than 4 mg/L.

A comparison of the wastewater  characteristics observed at the  Ley  Creek Sewage Treat-
ment Plant influent with the summation of estimated industrial and municipal discharges is
presented in Table 3. Samples of the Ley Creek influent were taken to  reflect the loading
                                         8

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                                          Table 2
                                  Wastewater Characteristics1
                           Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant Influent
Probability of Occurrence

Flow, MGD

BOD5
BODUC
COD
PH
Acidity^
Alkalinity2
S.S.
V.S.S.
Oil and Grease
Cyanide
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Org-N
Ortho-P04
Total PO4

10%
9.6
202
272
441
6.3
0
0
191
137
45.5
0.001
0.04
0.14
0.12
0.33
0.02-
0.032
10.5
15.8
11.0
22.0
mq/L
50%
14.0
389
560
944
7.0
0
0
456
260
79.5
0.019
0.17
0.26
0.26
0.74
0.05
0.145
15.4
26.5
25.0
54.0

90%
17.3
725
908
1,510
7.8
28.0
50.0
1,293
547
153.0
0.18
0.66
0.56
0.50
1.09
0.15
0.235
23.9
44.4
40.0
80.0

10%
9.6
25,400
31,500
54,800
6.3
0
0
21,000
14,400
4,700
0.1
3.4
11.7
11.3
33.6
1.6
4.0
1,000
1,560
1,080
1,970
Pounrio/Dav
50%
14.0
47,800
69,600
1 02,00 J
7.0
0
0
54,200
29,500
8,600
2.0
19.5
30.4
32.5
93.8
5.9
15.6
1,775
3.110
2,960
6,760

90%
17.3
72,800
103,000
188,600
7.8
3,340
4,780
164,000
64,400
20,000
27.0
80.0
76.9
62.9
129.6
19.6
28.4
2,730
5,120
4,840
10,390
 'Dry Weather
 2To pH 7
                                            Table 3

                               Comparison of Observed and Estimated
                                     Ley Creek Sewage Plant
                                      Influent Characteristics
3
Parameter

Flow (MGD)
BOD5
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease1
Cyanide
Chromium
Copper
7inp
^II1V>
Csdmium
Nickel



Observed Ley Creek Influent
Mean
13:7
51,100
74,800
10,300
8.7
39.9
34.6
Mo
.0
Q 4
O.^
16.2
Median
14.0
47,800
54,200
8,600
2.0
30.4
32.5
00 Q
9O>U
5 9
*J.&
15.6
Range
8.7-18.8
15,400-202,000
1,600-326,000
2,600-22,500
0.1-96.0
10.2-199
9.1-76.2
1R 1 lltt ">
to. i- 100.^
1 R.Afl R
1 .fcj *TW.*J
2.0^8.2
Industrial
Survey
Mean
5,8
32,900
51,400
1,300
51.6
28.1
45.9
RQ n
\jy.u
0-3 Q
&O.!7
26.0
Municipal2
Estimates
Mean
4.0
8,000
8,000
1,330








	
Estimated
Total
Ley Creek
Influent
Mean
9.8
40,900
60,000
2,600
51.6
28.1
45.9
RQ 0
\jty.\j
2"? 9
£o.9
26.0
 1 CCI4 Extractables.
 2 Assuming population of 40.000.
 J Pounds per day except as noted.
                                           13

-------
over a 24-hour period. However, the majority of industries sampled operate on a one- or
two- shift basis.  In those instances where samples were mainly representative of the working
shifts only,  the values obtained were adjusted so that they could be compared to the Ley
Creek influent on a more equitable basis. This adjustment consisted of dividing the mean
values by the fraction of the day that the waste producing processes were in operation. For
the municipal discharge, the flow, BOD5, suspended solids, and oil and grease loadings were
estimated for  the approximately 40,000  people within the Ley Creek Sanitary District.
Estimated and observed loadings generally were  in agreement, the  only notable exception
being the oil and grease (carbon tetrachloride extractables) values;  only 30 percent of the
mean oil and grease content  in  the  Ley Creek Sewage Treatment  Plant influent could  be
accounted for in the estimated industrial and municipal discharges.  It should be noted that
samples were taken for oil and  grease only in those industrial wastewaters where it was
considered very likely to be present (i.e., slaughter houses, rendering plants, processes using
lubricating or cutting oils).

The information obtained  from the industrial interviews and from the sampling and analysis
surveys  indicates that  most of the organic loading  discharged to  the Ley Creek Sewage
Treatment Plant is contributed by Bristol Laboratories.

Although there  does not  appear to  be a toxicity  problem at the treatment plant,  un-
acceptable concentrations of  metals  and cyanides were noted  at some industries. Definite
restrictions must be placed on these industries to prevent the batch dumping of metals and
cyanides; these restrictions should be consistent with the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Use  of Public Sewers  promulgated by the Onondaga County Division of Drainage and
Sanitation. A copy of these rules and regulations is attached in Appendix C.

The results of the influent sampling survey on the Metropolitan Treatment Plant, along with
the corresponding flow measurements, were statistically analyzed. The raw,  ranked raw,
extended, and ranked extended data  from this survey are listed in Tables A-5 through A-8,
respectively. A summary of the 50 and 90 percent  occurrence values from this statistical
analysis  is shown in Table 4. The sampling survey defined a wastewater relatively weak in
organic concentration (compared to normal domestic sewage) and generally containing only
trace concentrations of heavy metals.  BOD5 concentrations ranged from 30 mg/L to 183
mg/L during the 7-day survey, with a median concentration of 101 mg/L; the median 6005
loading  was 37,600 pounds  per day.  Heavy metals generally were present only  in trace
amounts; however,  there were a few occurrences of  measurable concentrations. The maxi-
mum level,  obtained by  adding the maximum observed  concentrations of chromium,
copper, zinc, cadmium, and nickel, was less than 5 mg/L. Oil and grease concentrations were
at normal levels; however, Onondaga County personnel have on occasion observed signifi-
cant amounts of floating oil entering the treatment plant.

The wastewater characteristics observed at the Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Treat-
ment Plants are  shown in  Table  5. These two wastewaters contain  approximately the same
organic and total metals loadings (in pounds/day), but the wastewater volume at the Metro-
politan Plant is about 3 times the volume at the Ley Creek Treatment Plant.

Future Expansion in Wastewater Flow and  Loads

The results of the influent  surveys conducted on both treatment plants represent the present
flow and organic loadings. Since a  treatment plant should be designed for  some future
design period  (generally 20 years), and since  it is anticipated  that both the sanitary and
                                          14

-------
                                           Table 4
                                    Wastewater Characteristics^
                           Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant Influent
Probability of Occurrence

Flow,MGD

BOD5
BODUC
COD
PH    .
Acidity^
Alkalinity2
S.S.
V.S.S.
Oil and Grease
Cyanide
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
NH3-N
Org-N
Ortho-P04

Total PO4

10%
29.7
36.0
59.0
78.0
6.3
5.0
0
40.0
36.0
4.7
0.010
0.010
0.10
0.058
0.11
0.05
0.05
4.9
1.3
6.4
mo/L
50%
46.0
101
131
261
6.8
10.0
0
128
99.0
27.3
0.017
0.025
0.16
0.110
0.25
0.05
0.08
8.4
5.5
18.5

90%
58.6
155
196
458
7.0
48.0
0
217
171
55.5
0.061
0.140
0.60
0.242
0.93
0.05
0.16
14.4
9.4
28.6

10%
29.7
10,200
18,000
23,600
6.3
1,790
0
10,200
9,200
1,300
2.8
2.8
27.7
11.2
29.7
12.2
12.2
1,360
480
1,565
Pounds/Dav
50%
46.0
37,600
48,800
108,100
6.8
0
3,230
48,000
40,000
9,500
6.4
8.4
63.5
41.5
97.9
18.9
27.7
3,290
1,565
7,390

90%
58.6
78,600
96,000
221,900
7.0
20,700
0
100,000
74,000
30,100
27.2
69.4
255.1
110.8
417.2
24.4
63.8
5,475
4,540
13,600
10.1
32.6
61.7
2,490
13,000
23,750
1
  Dry Weather.
2TopH7.
                                          15

-------
                                     Table 5

               Comparison of Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant
                           Influent Wastewater Characteristics
 Parameter^
Flow (MGD)
BOD5
BODUC
COD
pH
Acidity
Alkalinity
S.S.
V.S.S.
Oil and Grease
Cyanide
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
   Ley Creek STP Influent
Org-N
Ortho-P04

Total PO4
                  Mean   Median
                 Range
13.7
51,100
71,100
116,000

840
1,320
74,800
36,400
10,300
8.7
29.4
39.9
34.6
84.8
8.4
16.2
1,870
3,280
3,240
14.0
47,800
69,600
102,000
7 0
/ .u
0
0
54,200
29,500
8,600
2.0
19.5
30.4
32.5
93.8
5.9
15.6
1,775
3,110
2,960
8.7-18.8
15,400-202,400
19,900-251,100
26,300-342,000
60-fl 8
* v^UiO
0-6,650
0-23,100
8,500-326,000
7,700-106,000
2,600-22,500
0.1-96.0
0.8-114.0
10.2-199.0
9.1 76.2
18.1-183.2
1.5-40.5
2.0-38.2
864-3,540
980-6,820
730-15,300
   Metropolitan STP Influent
Mean   Median      Range
44.5
39,300
53,400
103,800
6.7
5,560
115
50,300
40,800
13,700
10.9
16.6
115.6
50.1
168.1
18.5
33.6
3,300
2,110
7,130
46.0
37,600
48,800
108,100
7.0
3,415
0
48,000
40,000
9,500
6.4
8.4
63.5
41.5
97.9
18.9
27.7
3,290
1,565
7,390
21.0-76.0
9,100-87,400
13,500-125,000
14 •'00-255,000
6.2-7.2
0-26,300
0-3,200
3,500-160,000
2,500-109,000
1,300-30,100
2.2-74.2
2.9-69.4
15.7-649
10.8-127
17.5-984
8.7-31.6
8.7-105
980-7,910
0-5,160
1,100-16,600
6,400    6,760   1,200-19,500
14,300   13,000   1,550-57,500
 ^ Pounds per day except as noted.

 industrial  wastewater loads should  increase, the projected  increases in flow and organic
 loadings should  be determined.  Personnel  at Onondaga  County  have indicated that the
 population increases over the next 20 years in the  Ley Creek and  Metropolitan Sanitary
 Districts should be almost 5,000 and 25,000, respectively. A reasonable basis for estimating
 the increases in flow and  BOD loading is average per capita contribution of 100 gallons/day
 of flow and 0.2 Ibs/day of 6005. At the present time, there are a few industries {listed in
 Table 1) which are discharging contaminated wastewaters to surface waters but which, with
 appropriate control,  should  be included in the collection system. This flow is estimated at 2
 mgd, with  the BOD estimated at 200 pounds/day.  In addition, it is anticipated that new
 industries  will discharge  wastewaters to  both  the  Ley Creek and  Metropolitan Sanitary
 Districts, and that those already located in these areas may  increase  both their water usage
 and their organic discharge.  An expansion factor of approximately 15 percent (2 mgd) has
 been allowed for  the Ley  Creek Sanitary  District for this  potential increase in average flow
 at an organic concentration of  300  mg/L 6005. The concentration used  is the allowable
 limit established  by Onondaga County's Sewer Ordinance. Similar  increases in flow and
 organic concentration have been projected for the Metropolitan  Sanitary District. The pro-
 jected increases in flow and BODs loadings are shown in Table 6.

                                      Stormwaters

 The  collection system  serving  the  Metropolitan Sanitary  District  is a  combined  sewer
 system, while the  Ley Creek System is a separate sewer system. The combined sewer system
                                           16

-------
                                   Table 6

                 Projected Increase in Flow and Organic Loading


    Ley Creek Sanitary District                  Flow            Average BOD5
                                              MGD                Ibs/day

    Sanitary                                    0.5                  1,000
    Industry Not Presently Connected            2.0                   200
    Other Industrial Expansion                   2.0                  4,500

      Total                                    4.5                  5,700
    Metropolitan Sanitary District

    Sanitary                                    2.5                 5,000
    Industrial Expansion                       JLQ                 4,500

      Total                                    4.5                 9,500
collects not only municipal and industrial wastewaters, but also stormwater runoff. How-
ever, during and shortly  after a heavy rainfall,  flow through both  these sewer systems
increases. No attempt was made during the survey to determine the frequency or magnitude
of stormwater runoff. However, estimates of the maximum storm flow that could be accom-
modated in the existing interceptor sewers have been made in previous studies for Onondaga
County. These estimates (see Table 7) indicate  the Metropolitan system could handle 175
mgd of storm flow and the Ley Creek system could handle 40 mgd.

                                     Table 7

                   Storm Flow Capacity of the Major Interceptor Sewers


                 Sewer                                           Capacity
                                                                   MGD

         Main Interceptor                                             120

         Harbor Brook Interceptor                                      30

         West Side Sanitary                                            20

         Liverpool Sanitary                                             5
             Metropolitan Sub-total                                   175

         Ley Creek Sanitary Districts                                    40
             Total                                                  215


                                          17

-------
                 Summary of Wastewater Quantities and Characteristics

For use in design of facilities to handle the combined dry weather wastewater flow to both
treatment plants, the 50 and 90 percent probability of occurrence values of flow and BODs
(with appropriate expansion factors) were computed by adding the respective values derived
from  the influent surveys at the two treatment plants. Addition of two 90 percent proba-
bilities does not represent a true 90 percent probability for the combined  system; such an
addition would give a  probability somewhere between 90 and  99 percent, because of the
unlikelihood of simultaneous occurrence of the two individual 90 percent values. The design
flows and BOD5 loadings  for the Metropolitan and Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plants and
the combined wastewaters are shown in Table 8.

The maximum stormwater flow is established by the maximum capacity of the sewer lines
and has been estimated at 215 mgd. The  organic loading during stormwater flow was not
determined, but it will not affect the 90 percent occurrence design value, since storm flow
conditions occur less than  10 percent of the time.

                             Existing Treatment Facilities

The duplicate facilities presently in operation at the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant
consist of bar screens, grit chambers,  pre-aeration tanks, primary settling tanks,  aeration
tanks, final  settling tanks, and chlorination facilities. A portion of  the  excess sludge is
handled through digestion tanks and sludge-drying beds, with the remainder being pumped
to the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant for disposal.

A portion of the recent contract covering the construction of the pump station and force
main  contained provisions for additional modifications to the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment
Plant. One of these modifications was the  installation of baffles in the primary clarifiers for
better flow  distribution and for prevention of short circuiting through  the tanks.  Even
though  these tanks are hydraulically overloaded, this modification should result in better
removal efficiencies.

Another modification being made includes the installation of four 5-horsepower mechanical
aerators in each aeration basin  of the original treatment  plant,  to supplement  the existing
aeration equipment. Prior to this modification, a portion of the flow had to be bypassed
around the aeration tanks, since the available aeration capacity  was not adequate to main-
tain the desired dissolved oxygen level.  Preliminary observations  made by Onondaga County
personnel  indicate that this modification can maintain dissolved oxygen in the system at the
desired level without any bypassing of the influent wastewater.

The  present intermediate  treatment system  at the Metropolitan Sewage  Treatment Plant
consists of  a grit chamber, flocculation and  settling  tanks, chlorine  contact tanks,  and
chlorine feed facilities. At the present time,  an organic polymer is added to increase solids
capture and BOD removal. The  sludge solids  removed from this wastewater are digested; the
major portion of sludge is then pumped to the Solvay waste beds for disposal, while the
remaining solids are centrifuged  and stockpiled on-site.

                  Effects of Effluent on Ley Creek and Onondaga Lake

More than 90 percent of the present contamination in Ley Creek is traceable to the effluent
from  the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. Thus the effluent from the treatment plant is
the major factor in making the waters of Ley Creek unsuitable for drinking water supply
                                          18

-------
                                    Table 8

                   Summary of Design Flow and Organic Loadings

                                             50 Percent               90 Percent
Ley Creek Wastewater                          Occurrence               Occurrence

Flow, MGD

  Present                                        14.0                      17.3
  Projected Expansion1                             4.5                      4.5

  Future Design                                  18.5                      21.8

BOD, Ibs/day

  Present                                       47,800                   72,800
  Projected Expansion1                            5,700                    5,700

  Future Design                                 53,500                   78,500


Metropolitan Wastewater

Flow, MGD

  Present                                        46.0                      58.6
  Projected Expansion                             4.5                      4.5

  Future Design                                  50.5                      63.1

BOD, Ibs/day
  Present                                       37,600                   78,600
  Projected Expansion1                           9,500                    9,500

  Future Design                                 47,100                   88,100
Combined Ley Creek and
JVIetropolitan Wastewaters

Design Flow, MGD                               69.0                     84.9
Design BOD5 Loading, Ibs/day                   100,600                  166,600
 190% occurrence value increased by 50% over the 50% occurrence value.
                                      19

-------
and for other uses with high water quality requirements. Upon final completion of the
pumping stations and  force  main,  raw or treated  wastewater  will be discharged to the
Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant, thereby alleviating the wastewater discharge to Ley
Creek. The removal of this effluent discharge should significantly  improve the quality of
Ley Creek downstream of the  present Treatment Plant discharge.

Before the installation of primary treatment at the present Metropolitan Sewage Treatment
Plant  location, the water quality in Onondaga Lake was poor. According to the results of
samples collected by Onondaga County, the construction of the  original primary treatment
facilities and the subsequent upgrading to the present "intermediate" treatment facility have
improved  the water quality in the  lake. A formal sampling survey was started during the
summer of 1968 (under FWPCA  Contract No. WPRD 66-01-68) to determine the condition
of Onondaga Lake, but the results are not yet available.  However, with the  combination of
Ley Creek and Metropolitan  wastewaters for treatment  and the addition of tertiary treat-
ment, the water quality in Onondaga Lake is expected to show additional improvement.

                                Stream Classification
The  Water Pollution  Control  Board of the New York State Department of  Health has
established water quality standards for surface waters in the Onondaga Lake Drainage Area.
The  Board has issued  a report entitled Onondaga Lake Drainage Basin (Oswego River Drain-
age Basin Survey, Series Report No. 1), in which it recommended water quality criteria. The
southern section of Onondaga Lake (and that portion of  Ley Creek below the treatment
plant outfall) have been given a D classification. Highlights of the  water quality criteria
suggested by the New York State  Department of Health for this stream classification and
applicable to the combined discharge from the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant are
given in Appendix D.

The  best usage of class D waters is agricultural or as a source of industrial cooling or process
water.  Class D waters are not acceptable for fishing,  bathing, or as a source of water supply
for drinking, culinary, or food-processing  purposes. Special treatment  may be  required
under particular  circumstances to make the water satisfactory for industrial process use, and
natural impurities may be present at various locations. Otherwise, the waters without treat-
ment should be satisfactory for agricultural uses and for industrial process cooling water.

                              Treatment  Requirements

The  New York State Department of Health  requires a minimum of secondary treatment for
municipal effluents discharging into Ley Creek or Onondaga  Lake. Secondary treatment is
defined as that degree of treatment which will remove from 75 to 95 percent (depending
upon local conditions) of the organic pollution load, as measured by the 5-day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand test. Communications between Onondaga County personnel  and  the New
York State Department of Health  have  indicated that a  BOD5 removal efficiency of 85
percent based on the average results of thirty consecutive 24-hour composite samples will be
required.

The  New York State Department  of Health also requires chlorination and the  removal of
settleable solids  as  the minimum acceptable treatment of excess stormwater flow entering
the treatment plant.

It is further anticipated that future regulatory requirements may recommend additional
treatment to achieve an orthophosphate reduction of eighty percent. A tertiary treatment
facility at the Metropolitan Treatment Plant is currently under consideration  by Onondaga
County to meet these  requirements.
                                         20

-------
                    WASTEWATER COLLECTION MASTER PLAN

In the initial planning stages of this project, it was thought that a number of industrial
plants in the Ley Creek  Sanitary District were discharging wastewater directly to surface
waters. The initial plant interviews and related sampling survey, however, disclosed that all
plants with  significant flow and/or contamination were discharging at least their sanitary
wastewater to the Ley Creek system and the great majority were discharging both sanitary
and industrial wastewaters to the system. Nevertheless, a number of these plants still dis-
charge some contaminated wastewaters,  along with cooling water and stormwater, directly
to surface streams.

                                Industrial Wastewater

A  compilation of the estimated industrial discharges to Ley Creek is presented  in Table 9.
Of the approximately 1,980,000 gallons per day discharged, two industries  account for
practically  all of the wastewater. General Motors-Turnstedt Division discharges approxi-
mately  1  mgd  of  treated  wastewater to  Ley  Creek,  while  Crouse-Hinds discharges
approximately 745,000 gpd to a tributary of Ley Creek.  Each month General Motors
submits the results  of daily (5 days/week) analyses  of wastewater samples to the State
Department of Health. Recent discussions between Onondaga County and the State Depart-
ment  of  Health  indicated that  discharge of this treated wastewater to Ley Creek  can be
tolerated. Based  upon the samples  collected during our survey, the wastewater contained
minimal amounts of organics and low concentrations of heavy metals. Therefore, it appears
that this wastewater will not impair the quality of Ley Creek.

Crouse-Hinds is in the process of installing pretreatment systems and in-plant modifications
to make  its wastewater acceptable for discharge to the Ley Creek Collection System. The
other  industries  listed on Table 9 discharge less than  235,000 gallons per day to surface
drainage  systems. These  industries should comply with the recommendations  made in the
Interim Report, and in general should discharge their contaminated industrial wastewater to
the Ley  Creek  Collection  system.  A  hydraulic  capacity of 2  mgd has been provided
specifically for these industries in the projected expansion; however, the  inclusion of these
wastewaters is not expected to significantly change the characteristics of the total waste-
waters. From the information obtained  during the initial interviews, all of these industries
(with  the exception of Clicquot Club Bottling Company) presently discharge sanitary waste-
water to the Ley Creek Collection System.

                                 Sanitary Wastewater

During the  initial plant interviews, a number of small industries (generally with less than 50
employees)  indicated  that  they discharge  sanitary wastewaters to  on-site  septic  tank
systems.  These  industries (listed in Table 10) discharge  a total of approximately 2,200
gallons per day.  Therefore,  as  long as this treatment system (septic tank and tile field) is
effective  and appropriate, it does not appear economically feasible to tie these plants into
the municipal system. If they are connected later,  the quantity and characteristics of their
discharges should have no noticeable effect on the quantity and characteristics of the overall
system wastewater.
                                         21

-------
                                                                                          Table 9

                                                                                        Summary of
                                                                       Discharge of Contaminated Industrial Wastewaters
                                                                                 to Surface Drainage Systems
Bristol Laboratories

Carrier Corp.

Chrysler Corp.

Clicquot Club Bottling Co.

Continental Can Co.


Grouse-Hinds

Franklin Engine Co.

G. E. - Electronics Park

General Motors Corp. • Ternstedt Div.


Liberty Combustion  Corp.

Prestolite Div. - Eltra Corp.

Syracuse China Corp.


Syracuse Concrete Pipe and
  Products Corp.

Syracuse Ready Mix Co.

 Union Carbide Corp., Linde Div.


Will and Baumer Candle Co.
Volume Discharged
to Surface Drain
gpd
23,000
50,0001
40,000
2,300
20,600
745,000
68,500
200,000
1,470,000
1,020
40,0001
164,000
5,000
950
10,000
aiRnnn
Type of Wastewater Discharged
Industrial Cooling Stormwater
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Is Industry
On Sewer System
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Approximate Volume of
Contaminated Wastewatei
< 5,000
< 50,000
< 10,000
2,300
20,600
745,000
< 20,000
< 10,000
1,000,000
< 1,000
< 20,000
< 50,000
< 5,000
< 1,000
10,000
< 20,000
    TOTAL                                   3,209,000


 Note:  Less than 185,000 GPD of contaminated wastewater discharged if Crouse^inds and General Motors are excluded.

        1 Estimate
        Approximate total ±  10% of  average values.
                                                                                                                                 1.9700002
                                                                                                                                                                        Remarks
Some contamination observed in storm sewer -
  segregate to industrial sewer.
Contamination observed in outfall to creek -
  segregate to industrial sewer.
Traces of oil observed in storm sewer -
  remove to industrial sewer.
Industrial and sanitary wastewater should be
  discharged to sewer system.
Discharge contaminants on plant site - should
  be discharged with sanitary wastewater to
  Metropolitan S.T.P.
Will be connecting to sewer system

Contaminated wastewater should  be discharge to
  sewer.
Trace contaminants should be removed from
  storm sewer.
Contaminants reduced in G.M. treatment plant -
  May be required to discharge to other than
  Ley Creek.
Contaminants should be discharged to sewer.

Contaminants observed in storm sewer -
  should be segregated to industrial sewer.
Solids should be removed or recycled in plant -
  Clean waters can be discharged to Ley Creek.
Remove solids-discharge uncontaminated
  wastewaters to creek.
Remove contaminants-discharge clean waters
  to stream.
Discharging to settling pond - supernatent will
  enter creek when pond is full-should be
  investigated at that time.
Saline cooling water should be discharged to creek -
  Contaminated wastewater should be discharged to
  collection system.

-------
                               Table 10

                              Summary of
                Industrial Discharge of Sanitary Wastewaters
                     to On-Site Septic Tank Systems
                                                      Estimated Volume of
              Industry                                 Sanitary Wastewaters
                                                              gpd

 Advanced Welding Company                                      40
 Allied Tool Corporation                                         190
 Barnes and Cone, Incorporated                                   220
 Bomac, Incorporated                                           140
 Clicquot Club Bottling Company                                  70
 Cook, E.  F. Company                                            50
 Prey's Pattern Shop                                             70
 Iroquois Door Company                                        500
 Sanitary Process Equipment Corporation                          120
 Sawyer Industries, Incorporated                                 160
 Steps and Rails, Incorporated                                    140
 Super Heat Treating, Incorporated                               130
 Syracuse Pharmacal Company, Incorporated                       140
 Thomas Foundry, Incorporated                                   90
 Wickhardt Company, Incorporated                               140
   Total                                                     2,200


                      Discussion of Wastewater Collection System

The existing major trunk sewers for the Ley Creek and Metropolitan systems are shown on
Drawing B-3, along with the locations of those  industries sampled. Based on the available
information, essentially  all  of the sanitary and industrial wastewater generated in the Ley
Creek Sanitary District  is discharged  to  the collection system. There are a few industries
(shown in Table 9) that discharge industrial Wastewaters to surface drainage systems; how-
ever, all except Clicquot Club Bottling Company discharge at least sanitary wastewaters to a
municipal  collection system. It is expected that the municipal collection system will be able
to handle this additional wastewater flow through the existing facilities.  Clicquot Club
Bottling Company, however, will require a new sewer lateral to discharge  its wastewaters to
the municipal system.

Those industries listed in Table  10  should also be connected to the  closest municipal
collection  system as soon as discharge of sanitary wastewater to a septic  tank system is no
longer adequate or appropriate. Should all of the industrial wastewater presently discharged
to surface drainage and all the sanitary wastewater presently discharged to septic tanks be
discharged to the collection system, the increase in flow would be less than 2.0 mgd. This
projected  increase  is not expected to change the characteristics of the total wastewater
influent to the treatment plants.
                                        23

-------
                     POTENTIAL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

                                General Considerations

A great number of factors were involved in the determination of the treatment alternatives
available for meeting the State's requirements for wastewater discharges in the Ley Creek-
Metropolitan  area. Numerous combinations of new and existing treatment facilities, treat-
ment methods, effluent discharge points, etc., with varying potentials for accomplishment
of the desired objectives were developed and subjected to a  preliminary evaluation. The
results of this evaluation are shown in Table 11. The principal  factors involved were:
utilization of the  existing Ley Creek and Metropolitan ST.P. facilities effluent discharge to
Ley  Creek, Onondaga  Lake, and/or the Seneca River; pretreatment by appropriate indus-
tries; and the constraints imposed by modifications to the overall sewerage system recently
implemented  or well along in the planning stage. This preliminary evaluation disclosed that
several of the potential  treatment  alternatives involved obvious economical  or technical
disadvantages, and therefore, did not warrant further investigation. The remaining alterna-
tives, which did appear to be feasible and consequently worthy of further  investigation,
furnish the basis for the  planning for the laboratory treatability studies and the subsequent
process design and cost estimating activities. The following discussions highlight the effects
or the involvement of  the major factors in the  various alternative treatment systems.

                  Utilization of the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant

With the pump  station  and force  main for transfer of wastewater to the Metropolitan
Treatment  Plant, it is possible  to  convert the  Ley  Creek Sewage Treatment  Plant to a
pretreatment facility. The heavy concentration of  industry in the Ley Creek Sanitary  Dis-
trict results in the  discharge of highly variable concentrations of organic materials, solids,
oil, grease,  and heavy metals; any one  of these contaminants which could be reduced  in a
properly designed pretreatment system.

The  existing  activated sludge treatment facilities at the Ley Creek Treatment Plant are
designed to handle  normal concentrations of  BODg, oil  and grease, solids, and alkalinity or
acidity. Inadequate biological treatment in this plant has been  attributed partly to metal
toxicity, but the  results of the influent sampling survey at this plant did not show concen-
trations of heavy metals sufficient to cause biological toxicity. If metal toxicity subse-
quently becomes a problem, extensive modifications of the  Ley  Creek  Treatment Plant
would be required, since treatment of  significant concentrations of heavy metals generally
cannot be accomplished in a biological system.

The  existing hydraulically-overloaded primary clarifiers at the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment
Plant are equipped to remove floating materials, such  as oil  and grease; however, at the
present time  these  facilities are manually operated and  require  considerable maintenance.
The  plant's capacity to handle suspended solids is limited by the anaerobic digestion and
sludge disposal facilities.  Removal of contaminants such  as oil and grease, inorganic solids,
and  alkalinity or acidity could be  handled in the  Ley  Creek Plant; however, sewer ordi-
nances (including that of Onondaga County) generally preclude discharge of large quantities
of these materials due to potential detrimental effects on the collection system.
                                         25

-------
                                                                                                                                Summary of
                                                                                                                      Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Alternative

    A
                   Wastewater
                   Treatment
                   at L.C.S.T.P.
 L.C.S.T.P.
 Effluent
Destination
Wastewater
Treatment
atM.S.T.P.

Secondary1
   M.S.T.P,
   Effluent
  Destination

Onondaga Lake
             Positive Factors

1.  Meets N.Y.S. treatment requirement of
   85% BODg removal

2.  L.C.S.T.P. effluent organic load eliminated
   from Ley Creek

3.  Dilution available in Onondaga Lake
   much greater than in Ley Creek

4.  L.C.S.T.P. effluent will receive tertiary
   treatment

5.  Present M.S.T.P. outfall can be utilized
          Negative Factors

1   Would require additional facilities at
 '  both L.C.S.T.P. and M.S.T.P.

2.  Minimum land area available for ex
   pansion at L.C.S.T.P.

3.  Additional labor force required at
   both L.C.S.T.P. and M.S.T.P.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Future
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Consideration
                                                                                                                                                               1.  A pump station and force main to transfer
                                                                                                                                                                  wastewater from the L.C.S.T.P. to the
                                                                                                                                                                  M.S.T.P. has been installed.
                                                                                                                                                                                                         2.  Tertiary treatment facilities have tenta
                                                                                                                                                                                                            lively been designed at the present
                                                                                                                                                                                                            M.S.T.P. location.
                    Secondary           Ley Creek
                                                                Secondary         Onondaga Lake
                                                                1.  Meets N.Y.S. treatment requirement of
                                                                   85% BODs removal

                                                                2.  M.S.T.P. need not be designed for
                                                                   L.C.S.T.P. effluent

                                                                3.  Present outfalls can be utilized
                                                                                            1.  Same as Negative Factors 1, 2, and
                                                                                               3 in Alternative A

                                                                                            2.  Ley Creek quality would no doubt
                                                                                               be unacceptable under low stream
                                                                                               flow conditions
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Same as Alternative A
                                         Onondaga Lake         Secondary          Onondaga Lake
                                                                1.  Same as Positive Factors 1, 2, 3 and 5
                                                                   of Alternative A
                                                                                             1. Same as Negative Factors 1, 2 and 3
                                                                                               in Alternative A

                                                                                             2. New L.C.S.T.P. outfall to Onondaga
                                                                                               Lake would be required

                                                                                             3. L.C.S.T.P. effluent would not receive
                                                                                               tertiary treatment
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Same as Alternative A
                                          Onondaga Lake2        Secondary          Onondaga Lak
                                                                1.  Same as Positive F actors 1,2,3 and 5
                                                                   of Alternative A

                                                                2.  Secondary facilities at M.S.T.P. need
                                                                   not be designed for L.C.S.T.P.  effluent

                                                                3.  Pump station and force main installed
                                                                                             1.  Same as Negative Factors 1, 2, and
                                                                                                3 in Alternative A

                                                                                             2.  Nominal 85% BODg removal of or-
                                                                                                ganic matter from L.C.S.T.P. in
                                                                                                fluent may not be acceptable

                                                                                             3.  L.C.S.T.P. effluent would not re
                                                                                                ceive tertiary treatment
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Same as Alternative A
                      Partial3             M.S.T.P.
                                                                  Secondary1        Onondaga Lake
                                                                 1. Same as Positive Factors 1 through 5
                                                                   in Alternative A
                                                                                                           2.  Minimum expansion and optimum
                                                                                                              utilization of L.C.S.T.P. facilities
                                                                                             1.  Secondary facilities at M.S.T.P.
                                                                                                must be designed for additional
                                                                                                flow and organic load
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Same as Alternative A
                                                                  Secondary1        Onondaga Lake
                                                                 1.  Same as Positive Factors 1 through 5
                                                                    in Alternative A

                                                                 2.  Manpower at L.C.S.T.P. would be
                                                                    available for M.S.T.P.

                                                                 3.  L.C.S.T.P. operating costs eliminated
                                                                                             1.  Secondary facilities at M.S.T.P. must
                                                                                                be designed for additional flow and
                                                                                                organic load

                                                                                             2.  L.C.S.T.P. bond issue still outstanding
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Same as Alternative A
                      Secondary1          Ley Creek
                                                                  Primary            L.C.S.T.P.
                                                                 1.  Meets N.Y.S. treatment requirement of
                                                                    85% BOD5 removal
                                                                                                           2.  Uses existing facilities at M.S.T.P.
                                                                                             1. A new pump station and force main
                                                                                                would be required. The recently com-
                                                                                                pleted facility does not have the re
                                                                                                quired capacity

                                                                                             2. Would require additional facilities and
                                                                                                manpower at the L.C.S.T.P.

                                                                                             3. Effluent from the L.C.S.T.P. would
                                                                                                probably impair the quality of Ley
                                                                                                Creek

                                                                                             4. Adequate land area and sludge dis-
                                                                                                posal site not available at the L.C.S.T.P.
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Same as Alternative A
                        Secondary
                                            Onondaga La
                                                                    Primary
                                                                                                            1. Same as Positive Factors 1 through 3
                                                                                                                                                             1. Same as Negative Factors 1, 2 and
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Same as Alternative A

-------
The concentrations of organic material in the effluent to the secondary treatment section of
the Ley Creek S.T.P. are high and variable. Since this section of the plant is overloaded, it
could not be expected  to consistently produce an effluent suitable for discharge to surface
waters,  but it could be used effectively  for pretreatment of organic contaminants. The
decision  concerning  the use of the existing Ley Creek S.T.P. for the pretreatment  of
organics  is essentially a matter of  economics, i.e.  whether it  is more economical for the
County  to treat the  total organic  load  with  industry paying a surcharge for contaminant
discharges in excess of  specified levels, or for the appropriate industries to pretreat to meet
these specified sewer discharge requirements. An important factor affecting this decision is
the availability of Federal and/or State aid for municipal facilities,  but not for private
industrial facilities.

                 Utilization of the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant

As  indicated in Table 11, there are a number of options  involving the  Metropolitan  S.T.P.
facilities. Many of these options include secondary treatment at the Metropolitan S.T.P. of
various combinations of Metropolitan raw wastewater with  Ley Creek wastewater already
subjected to various degrees of treatment. The force main (and pump station) between the
two treatment plants  provides flexibility  and  increases the number  of options, but the
greater volume of the  Metropolitan wastewater and  the greater dilution available  at the
Metropolitan outfall  favor transfer from Ley Creek to Metropolitan over transfers  in the
reverse direction. The tentative selection of the Metropolitan S.T.P. as the location of  future
tertiary  treatment facilities also tends to  favor  Metropolitan as a terminal rather than an
intermediate point for treatment of wastewaters from the two districts.

                               Industrial Pretreatment

Discharge limits on a number of contaminants have been set forth by Onondaga County in
their Rules and Regulations Governing the Use of Public Sewers. These restrictions prohibit
the discharge of toxic substance  in sufficient  quantity to  interfere  with  the treatment
process.  Although no  toxic concentrations were  observed  at either treatment plant, the
potential does exist for an occasional high  concentration of heavy metal. If metal toxicity
does become a problem in the future, the most  economical  solution would be to eliminate
the problem at the source. It would be more reasonable to treat a low volume of a relatively
high metal-content wastewater at the source than to treat the high  volume (approximately
15  mgd) at the treatment plant. Almost  all  industries using large  amounts of any  of the
heavy metals have the  potential  to discharge these materials at toxic concentrations.  There-
fore,  in-plant measures should  be taken  to  minimize the occurrence of accidental toxic
discharges. The need  for surveillance and related protective measures by individual  industries
was indicated in the Interim Report.

The first concern of  any wastewater system should be the protection of the collection
system. Therefore, the discharge of high concentrations of contaminants such as oil,  grease,
inorganic solids,  and extremes of  alkalinity or  acidity, which  will  cause problems  in the
collection  system, should be  reduced to those  concentrations  set  forth  in Onondaga
County's Rules and Regulations.

Since the average influent 8005 concentration to the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant
exceeds  the allowable  discharge of 300  mg/L, it is  logical  to assume that at least one
industry is exceeding its discharge limit. During the ROY F. WESTON survey, samples were
collected at selected industries that were felt to contain high organic  concentrations or other
                                          27

-------
contaminants that could cause a potential  problem  in a biological treatment plant. The
survey indicated the four industries were discharging mean 6005 concentrations in excess
of 300 mg/L. These industries are listed in Table 12.  It is interesting to note that of those
four industries exceeding the limit, practically all  of the excess 8005 (approximately
25,000  Ibs/day)  accounted for originates from Bristol Laboratories. It should be stated,
however, that the Onondaga County Sewer Regulations provide that organic concentrations
higher than the limit of  300 mg/L BOD$  may be discharged upon approval by the County.


                                      Table 12

                       Organic Discharges Exceeding Allowable Limits
Mean Flow     Mean BODs      Allowable BOD51
                                                                      Excess BOD
                                                                       Ibs/day
 Bristol Laboratories

 Corenco

 Crispy Maid

 Ralph Packing Company
 1,890,000    29,085 Ibs/day      4,740 Ibs/day

  131,000      575 mg/L         300 mg/L

    8,000       59 Ibs/day        24 Ibs/day

   40,000      325 Ibs/day       100 Ibs/day
   Total
                                                24,905
 1 Allowable BOD5 discharge is 300 mg/L.
                      Summary of Potential Treatment Alternatives

A summary  of potential  treatment alternatives was shown  in  Table 11. Not all  of the
potential  alternatives received serious consideration because of pre-imposed constraints or
obvious economical or technical disadvantages. Those  alternatives justifying further con-
sideration and  investigated in laboratory treatability studies were secondary treatment, par-
tial or pretreatment, and no treatment of the Ley Creek Treatment Plant influent waste-
water, followed by secondary treatment of these three different  Ley Creek effluent waste-
waters in combination with the Metropolitan wastewaters.
                                           28

-------
                            PROCESS INVESTIGATION

                           General Planning Considerations

Since practically all major  industries in the area are connected to the municipal sewerage
systems,  the influent wastewaters to the Ley  Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Treatment
Plants  are  the major  concern  in this process  investigation.  Industrial wastewater  pre-
treatment methods require attention only to the extent that specific discharges would affect
either the municipal collection system or the surface waters.

The  low  metal concentrations and relatively high organic concentrations observed in the
survey  of the treatment plant  influent wastewaters indicated that organic loading is the
major  pollutant characteristic which will require  treatment.  Experience has  shown the
activated sludge process to  be an economical, flexible, and dependable method for reducing
the organic content of wastewaters.  Various alternative treatment  systems, based on the
preliminary evaluation of  the potential treatment  alternatives discussed in  the previous
section, were  investigated in the  laboratory. Table  13 identifies  three alternative  systems
(and the major components of two of them) by code numbers which will be used in this
report  for laboratory treatability systems  and subsequently  for the corresponding process
design and cost estimate discussions.


                                 Table 13


            Identification  of Alternative Treatment Systems
 System Number                    Treatment Involved

       1-A            Secondary treatment of Ley Creek ST.P. influent

       1-B            Secondary treatment of the combination of clarified
                      Ley Creek S.T.P. secondary effluent and the raw
                      wastewater influent to the Metropolitan S.T.P.

         2            Secondary treatment of the combined Ley Creek
                      and Metropolitan raw wastewaters

       3-A            Partial treatment (Plain Aeration) of  Ley Creek
                      S.T.P. influent

       3-B            Secondary treatment of the combination of the
                      clarified effluent from the Ley Creek Plain Aeration
                      system and raw wastewater influent to the Metropolitan
                      S.T.P.
Laboratory investigations were planned to obtain the essential design parameters required
for plain aeration, conventional activated sludge, and the contact-stabilization modification
                                          29

-------
of the activated sludge process. Complementary studies of filtration were included to deter-
mine  the extent of BOD associated with the solids in the wastewaters and to indicate the
applicability of biofloccuation or initial contact removal.

The plain aeration system was operated in a complete-mix reactor over a range of hydraulic
loadings  while the  influent  and  clarified effluent organic concentrations were  being
measured. There was no sludge recycle, and no  batch test was performed on this system.

The other  laboratory programs  included operation of  continuous-feed  activated  sludge
systems over a wide range of loadings to generate operating data and develop acclimated
biological sludges. The acclimated sludges developed in this manner were used in performing
a "Tube Run", which  is a batch test used to develop process parameters, such as BOD
removal rate kinetics,  oxygen requirements, sludge production rates, and loading charac-
teristics. The acclimated sludge from two pre-selected systems (1-A and 2) remaining after
the Tube Runs, was used to start a pilot-scale contact-stabilization system on each of the
selected wastewaters. Additional tests  were conducted to determine the oxygen transfer and
saturation characteristics, and the activated sludge settling and compaction requirements.
The results of the investigations are the basis of the process design parameters.

A schematic flow diagram of various laboratory-scale activated sludge treatability systems is
shown in Drawing B-4; the contact-stabilization pilot units operated on Systems 1-A and 2
are shown in Drawing B-5.

Wastewaters used  in  the biological treatability  studies were daily composite (but not flow-
proportioned) samples  of  the  influent flow  at the Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage
TReatment Plants. Suspended solids  in these  wastewater samples were  kept in suspension
during operation of the laboratory system, because at the time these studies were initiated,
discussions with Onondaga County indicated that primary clarifiers would not be included
in any plant design.

                           Investigative Program and Results

Industrial Pretreatment

The only industrial wastewater situation where a pretreatment investigation was considered
significant was at  Grouse-Hinds, which was discharging directly to a small drainage ditch
flowing into  Ley Creek. A brief treatability study was conducted at the Crouse-Hinds plant
for oil  removal.  STS  (Susceptibility  to Separation) tests were  conducted on two  grab
samples taken from an oily sewer.  In the STS  test, the  concentration of  oil  (Carbon
Tetrachloride  Extractables)  is determined in the wastewater at the start of the test and in
the subnatant liquid  after 30 minutes quiescent settling, the  results of these tests are shown
below:
                         Time                  Sample                  Oil, mg/L

                         1130                 Raw                       287
                         1200                 Subnatant                   38.6

    11/19/68             1415                 Raw                       150
                         1445                 Subnatant                   25.0
                                         30

-------
These preliminary results indicate that the subnatant oil concentration can be reduced to
acceptable levels in a properly designed gravity separation system.

Filtration Studies

The filtration studies for investigation  of the association of organics with suspended solids
and of the applicability of  bioflocculation  were conducted  on random  samples of the
influent to the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. Ten grab samples were taken and filtered
through No. 4 Whatman paper to remove the suspended solids. Data collected during this
experiment,  shown  in Table 14,  indicate that suspended solids removal resulted in an
average COD reduction  of 56.2 percent. However,  in a full-scale  plant even under ideal
conditions and with  optimum  polymer (or inorganic chemical)  dosage,  the  degree of
removal expected would be less than that obtained in  the laboratory tests.

                                   Table 14

              Comparison of Raw and Filtered Wastewater Samples
                           Ley Creek S.T.P. Influent
                           Raw Wastewater
      Date     Time      SS    VSS    COD
                         mg/L  mg/L  mg/L
Filtered Wastewater    COD
8/21/69
8/21/69
8/21/69
8/21/69
8/21/69
8/22/69
8/22/69
8/22/69
8/22/69
8/22/69
0200
0600
1200
1600
2200
0400
0900
1400
1900
2400
594
384
772
908
1,332
354
1,652
472
1,596
3,212
394
224
428
564
984
138
556
148
772
384
700
680
800
1,320
1,540
920
1,360
828
1,258
1,236
COD
mg/L
280
360
360
660
760
480
840
374
278
238
Removal
Percent
60.0
47.1
55.0
50.0
50.7
47.8
38.2
54.8
78.0
80.6
     Average

 Biological Treatability
                       56.2
 General  Discussion - Laboratory  investigation  of the  biological treatability  of regular
 domestic  sewage generally is not justified. However, the Ley Creek S.T.P. influent waste-
 water (or any combined wastewater stream which includes the LCSTP wastewater) contains
                                          31

-------
enough industrial wastewater to affect significantly the organic-removal  rates and other
parameters involved in development of a sound process design. The following sections cover
the general principles of interpretation  of  the  activated sludge process  and the design
information developed from the various laboratory studies.

The reactions occurring in an aerobic biological system, although complex, are based on
fundamental reactions. Biodegradable organic matter is consumed by the micro-organisms
which  comprise the activated sludge mass. In the process of assimilating the organic matter,
a fraction of the organic waste material is biochemically  oxidized to obtain energy necessary
for motility, growth, and cell maintenance. After the organic food material is removed from
solution into the biological mass, it must be "stabilized". Stabilization  involves conversion
of  all  food  material  into energy  and new-cell  synthesis reactions.  Energy  to support
synthesis comes from  oxidation of a portion of the available food supply and conversion to
CO2,  water, and other stable, innocuous  end-products. Throughout these  assimilation
reactions, the biomass undergoes a basal metabolism reaction called endogenous respiration.

In the activated sludge treatment of some wastewaters which are readily biodegradable, the
stabilization reactions occur almost as rapidly  as the transfer of BOD to the organisms.
However,  when a wastewater contains several or many complex organic compounds which
are not rapidly degraded, BOD transfer can occur at a  much faster rate than stabilization.
The rate of stabilization relative to the rate of BOD transfer is a primary factor  in designing
an  activated sludge system. When the two rates are nearly equal, the  "conventional"
approach  is applicable. When stabilization occurs at a  slower rate than BOD transfer, the
"contact-stabilization" (BOD transfer and stabilization accomplished in separate facilities)
approach may be beneficial in minimizing aeration basin volume requirements.

Nutrient Requirements - A proper balance of nutrients is necessary to develop and maintain
a healthy  biological  population. The two most important nutrient materials are nitrogen and
phosphorus. Generally, five pounds of nitrogen and one pound of phosphorus  are required
for every  100 pounds of BODs removed. Other nutrients, required by activated sludge in
trace amounts, are normally present in most wastewaters.

From  the influent surveys conducted on both wastewaters, it was apparent that adequate
phosphorus was present  in the wastewaters. however,  on occasion there was  not enough
nitrogen (as ammonia)  in  the Ley Creek wastewater for the expected amount of 6005
removal. Therefore, in the laboratory treatability investigations, nitrogen was added, regard-
less of the amount ini ially present in  the wastewater, to make sure that the nutrient supply
was adequate for proper growth of the biological organisms.

BOD  Removal Kinetics - The rate of  removal of BOD  from the influent wastewater is an
essential factor in the design  of an activated sludge treatment facility. The development of
BOD  removal kinetics by evaluation  of individual reactions is impractical, because of the
complexity  of the biological  system. Therefore, the evaluation of the removal  kinetics has
been approached on a simplified overall basis.

A laboratory-scale technique reported by  Weston and Stack^  was used to  develop the
fundamental information about the progress of biological oxidation kinetics. The technique
involves the growth and acclimation  of an activated sludge system  in a continuous-flow,
1 Prediction of the Performance of Completely-Mixed Continuous Biological Systems from
 Batch Data, R. F. Weston and V. T. Stack, Conference on Biological Waste Treatment,
 Manhattan College, April 20-22, 1960.

                                         32

-------
laboratory-scale unit,  and the use  of the biological sludge in a batch test, called a "Tube
Run".  During  the acclimation  period,  composite wastewater samples  are  fed to  the
continuous-flow unit,  with daily  measurement of the operational parameters. The activated
sludge, after acclimation to  the particular wastewater in the continuous-flow  system, is
harvested, concentrated by settling, and  used in the Tube Run procedure. The Tube Run
study consists of operating four batch systems (tubes) in  which the BODs-to-biological-
solids (VSS) ratio  is varied over a  range observed in the operation of the continuous-flow
systems.  By observing the rate of  BOD removal, COD removal, and oxygen consumption,
the kinetics of  biological  treatment for the particular wastewater are developed.

The theoretical interpretations applied to the batch tube run data  include the following
steps:

 1. Calculation of BOD and COD transfer coefficients for each activated sludge mixture in
    the tube run study.

 2. Correlation of the transfer coefficients with the corresponding loading, as food-to-
    organism ratios.

 3. Translation of the batch kinetics to  a prediction  of the performance of a completely-
    mixed, continuous-feed system utilizing a "completion of reaction" curve. The curve is
    calculated from the proper BOD or  COD transfer data and from a pre-defined mixing
    theory relationship.

Operating  data  from the  plain  aeration,  conventional  activated  sludge, and contact-
stabilization systems are presented  in Tables A-9 through A-15. Tube run data from Systems
1-A, 1-B, 2, and 3-B are presented in Drawings B-6 through B-9, respectively.

The kinetics, interpreted from the tube  run  procedure and from the daily operating data
from the continuous laboratory or pilot units, form the basis for the prediction of perfor-
mance of a full-scale activated sludge facility  and for  selection of the conventional process
or the contact-stabilization modification. Graphical representations of the BOD  removal
kinetics vs organic loading ratio (i.e.  the concentration of organics in  the influent to the
concentration of volatile suspended solids in the aerated mixed liquor) for Systems 1-A, 1-B,
2, and 3-B are presented in Drawings B-10 through B-13, respectively. Interpretation of the
stabilization kinetics  of the contact-stabilization pilot unit has not been included in these
drawings. These data indicate  conventional  activated sludge for  System 1-A,  and the
contact-stabilization modification for Systems 1-B and 3-B. System 2, which was operated
in the laboratory  without primary solids removal,  would appear to call  for conventional
activated sludge; however, if primary solids  are removed, it is expected  that the kinetics
would shift to favor contact-stabilization. Since primary solids removal is now anticipated in
the eventual full-scale system, contact-stabilization kinetics were derived for System 2. The
following tabulation is a summary of the BOD removal kinetics for the various systems:
                                                                -1
                            	Removal Rate,* Hours	
     System No.             Overall               Contact               Stabilization

         1-A                  1.6
         1-B                   —                   1.8                      0.55
         2                     —                   1.1                      0.45
         3-B                   —                   3.7                      1.3


     *at 20° ± 2°C.

                                           33

-------
The  plain aeration system for the Ley Creek influent wastewater (System 3-A) was inter-
preted in a different manner than the other systems. It was operated on a homogeneous raw
wastewater, which was fed  to a complete-mix aeration  system  varied to give a range of
detention times; the  overflow was clarified before discharge. There was no solids recycle,
and  the mixed liquor had a low concentration of solids. Drawing B-14 shows the percent
BOD removal  efficiency obtained  with various aeration detention times. The average BOD
removal by clarification along, without aeration, was approximately 30 percent.

Oxygen Requirements - Oxygen is consumed  by the activated sludge in the energy reactions
which support synthesis  of organic  materials into  new cell material and  in endogenous
respiration or autooxidation (self-destruction) of cell material. The requirements for energy
and  endogenous oxygen can be predicted from the oxygen consumption observed in the
batch tube run system. Energy oxygen requirements are usually stated  in terms of pounds of
oxygen consumed per pound of 6005 removed, while the endogenous oxygen requirements
are stated in pounds of oxygen per 1,000 pounds of VSS under aeration per hour. Oxygen
requirement data obtained  from the continuous systems were comparable to the oxygen
requirements measured in the batch system.

The  following is a summary of the oxygen requirements measured both on the Tube Run
systems and on the continuous flow units:


     System No.             Energy Oxygen              Endogenous Oxygen
                              Ibs. 02/lb.                 Ibs.  02/1,000 Ibs.
                                 removed                   VSS/hr.
        1-A                     1.0                            6.9
        1-B                     0.9                           13.0
        2                       0.85                          11.6
        3-B                     0.9                            9.5
Oxygen Transfer - The sizing of aeration equipment for the transfer of required amounts of
oxygen into the aeration mixture requires an understanding of the interfacial resistances to
oxygen transfer. Aeration  equipment  manufacturers generally  base  the  performance  of
equipment on the rate of oxygen  transfer into tap water under "standard  conditions",
Therefore, resistances to oxygen transfer into the activated sludge aeration mixture must be
compared to  the  corresponding resistances  for  tap water to assure the  selection  of
adequately sized equipment. This relationship is called the alpha (•) value, and is defined as
the oxygen transfer coefficient of the wastewater divided by the oxygen transfer coefficient
of tap water.

Another important ratio is the beta factor (ft), which accounts for the difference in DO
saturation levels between activated sludge mixed liquor and tap water.

The alpha  and beta  factors  calculated  on the  activated sludge  grown  in  the  four
continuous-unit systems did not vary greatly.


            System No.               Alpha                    Beta

                1-A                    0.66                    0.94
                1-B                    0.68                    0.93
               2                      0.77                    0.91
               3-B                    0.70                    0.95

                                        34

-------
Production of Excess Activated Sludge - The activated sludge system normally produces an
excess of biological solids, which are the result of the synthesis of soluble organic material
to insoluble bacterial protoplasm and of the inclusion of inorganic and organic insoluble
solids into the biological mass.

The amount of sludge synthesis can be estimated by several methods from the operation of
the laboratory units. The theoretical  approach  consists of comparing the oxygen require-
ments and the  BOD and COD  removal  data with  a  predetermined sludge production
coefficient. The  monitoring of actual production rates is the  second approach to estimating
excess activated sludge quantities.

The rate of sludge synthesis was calculated from relationships that combine the theoretical
approach and actual data. The gross sludge production rate calculated from both the Tube
Run data and the continuous flow systems are presented below.

                                                                         1
                 System No                       Gross Sludge Production
                                                         Ibs.  VSS/
                                                     Ib. BOD   removed
                     1-A                                     1-0
                     1-B                                     0.9
                     2                                       1.2
                     3-B                                     1-0
                 1At20°±2°C.

Sludge Settling Characteristics - During the operation of the laboratory continuous-flow and
batch systems, gravity  settling tests  were conducted  on mixed liquor  to determine the
subsidence rate of the activated sludge solids. These observed data were analyzed to deter-
mine the  practical settling rate for designing secondary clarifiers. In addition, the settled
solids concentration was estimated for the purpose  of approximating  clarifier  activated
sludge recycle flows and concentrations.

The clarifier overlfow rates and the corresponding underflow solid concentrations for the
various activated sludge systems are shown below:

                                                                     Underflow Solids
 System No.                    Overflow Rates,                         Concentration
                               gal/day/sq.ft.                               mg/L

    1-A                             600                                 17,000
    1-B                             800                                 13,000
    2                               650                                 14,000
    3-B                             500                                 10,000


Gravity Thickening - Additional settling tests were conducted to evaluate the compaction
characteristics of the excess activated  sludge solids.  Interpretations of the data obtained in
                                         35

-------
the thickening  studies  indicate  the following mass (solids)  loadings and  underflow  solids
concentrations for the  individual systems:
 System No.
Overflow Rates
 Ibs/day/sq.ft.
                             Underflow Solids
                               Concentration
                                   mg/L
      1-A
      1-B
      2
      3-B
        40
        23
        25
        16
                                  30,000
                                  28,000
                                  25,000
                                  19,000
Summary of  Investigative Results

The design parameters for the optimum activated sludge modification as determined  from
laboratory treatability investigations on the individual  systems are summarized in Table 15.
                                                          Table 15

                                               Summary of Observed Laboratory Results
 Design BODS Removal Kinetics
   Total Kinetics1
   Contact Kinetics

 Oxygen Requirements
   Energy, Ibs OVIb. BODc removed
 .  Endogeneous, Ibs Oj/hr./IOOO Ibs. MLVSS

 Oxygen Transfer Coefficient,
 Oxygen Salutation in Wastewater,
 Temperature of test, °C

 Laboratory Sludge Settling Rate
   Clarifier Overflow Rate, gpd/sq.ft.
    Underflow Concentration, mg/L
   Thickener Loading, ppd/sq.ft.
   Min. Underflow Concentration, mg/L

 Gross Sludge Production2 Ibs/lb. BOD5 remo
 Sludge Destruction Rate2, % VSS/day
                                              System 1-A

                                           Secondary treatment
                                           of Ley Creek S. T.P.
                                           influent
    1.6 hours"
    1.0
    6.9

    0.66
    0.94
      23
     600
   17,000
      40
   30.000

    1.0
    3.0
                       System 1-B

                    Secondary treatment
                    of Ley Creek S.T.P.
                    secondary effluent
                    and Metropolitan
                    S.T.P. influent
                       0.55 hours"
                       1.8 hours"1
 0.9
13.0

 0.68
 0.93
   18
  800
13,000
   23
28,000

 0.9
10.0
                 Secondary treatment
                 of the combined Ley
                 Creek and Metropolitan
                 raw wastewaters
                     0.45 hours''
                     1.1 hours'1
 0.85
11.6

 0.77
 0.91
   21
  650
14,000
   25
25,000

 1.2
 7.0
                     System 3-B

                   Secondary treatment
                   of Ley Creek Plain
                   Aeration effluent
                   and Metropolitan
                   S.T.P. influent
                      1.3 hours'!
                      3.7 hours'1
 0.9
 9.5

 0.7
 0.95
   18
  500
10.000
   16
19.000

 1.0
 4.0
  ^Stabilization kinetics in Contact-Stabilization system or overall kinetics in Conventional Activated Sludge system
  2At 20 - 2°C

  Note: Results for System No. 3-A (Partial treatment - Plain Aeration • of Ley Creek S.T.P. influent) shown in Drawing No. B-14
                                                         36

-------
                                 PROCESS DESIGN

                               General Basis of Design

The principal consideration  or objective in the development of the process design was to
establish a sound base for preliminary estimates of the capital and total annual costs of the
several treatment alternatives considered technically feasible. Since these estimates would
then be used for comparison and selection purposes, certain elements were excluded from
the process design, such as the existing collection systems, the pump station and force main
between  Ley Creek ST.P. and Metropolitan ST.P., the existing pumping stations and  grit
chambers at both treatment plants, and sludge digestion and disposal facilities. The principal
types of treatment operations considered are primary clarification, activated sludge, final
clarification, and sludge thickening.

The factors which constitute the basis for process design are as follows:

 1.  The treatability parameters established by the  laboratory process investigations  and
     related discussions, particularly the 50 percent probabilities of occurrence of projected
     daily dry-weather flow and BODs  loading. (For the design of certain  facilities where
     peak loadings would affect performance, the 90 percent  probabilities of occurrence
     values are relevant.)

 2.  The requirement of 85 percent 6005 removal (30 consecutive-day  average) under
     cold-temperature conditions (10°C).

 3.  A minimum of primary clarification for all wastewaters, including excess  stormwater.

Since the studies were  conducted with a mixed wastewater feed and the present design
includes  the  installation of primary  clarifiers,  it is anticipated  that the  removal  of  the
settleable solids will have an  effect  on the removal kinetics.  Therefore,  the  treatability
parameters  established  during the laboratory-scale  investigations have  been  adjusted to
reflect this change in removal rate kinetics.

Removal rate kinetics are affected by the operating  temperature. Since cold-temperature
operation is not critical  for the biological treatment process, the kinetics were adjusted for
ambient-air operating temperature of 10°C.

Design of the hydraulic  capacity for  a  combined treatment plant under maximum storm
flow conditions has been established by Onondaga County's consultants  in  prior studies. It
has been estimated that the maximum capacity of the various  collection systems entering
the plant will be 215 mgd.  These collection systems are  combined wastewater and storm-
water systems.

Excess stormwater flow  has been  excluded  from consideration for treatment  at the  Ley
Creek ST.P. because in each of the feasible treatment alternatives all the LCSTP wastewater
would  be transferred to the Metropolitan ST.P. for some kind of  additional treatment.
During heavy stormwater flow  conditions,  the  wastewater  influent to  the Metropolitan
ST.P. will, according to Onondaga  County's consultants, enter a  diversion  chamber ahead of
the primary  clarifiers.  This diversion chamber  will bypass that volume  of wastewater in
excess of the MSTP design capacity  around the primary clarifiers to a second diversion
                                          37

-------
chamber. This second chamber will be designed so that all the wastewater that has bypassed
primary clarification will be  routed to the activated  sludge tank,  while a  like volume of
primary-treated wastewater will be discharged directly to chlorination facilities and thence
to the final effluent line.

At the present time there are six primary clarif iers at the Metropolitan ST.P., but Onondaga
County's consultants have indicated that these clarifiers should  be used  in the tertiary
treatment system currently under consideration. Therefore, new primary clarifiers would be
required for the biological treatment system.

The  type of construction  to be employed in the treatment  facilities will depend on a
number of conditions, such as available  land  area, subsurface conditions, cost, and other
related factors which  ROY F. WESTON was not in  a position to investigate fully. Onondaga
County's consultants have investigated  these  conditions for this particular location, and
their proposed vertical, common-wall, concrete  tank design will be used for construction.

Since additional  raw wastewater pumping should not be required in any of  the various
proposed biological treatment systems, pump facilities are not included in the designs.

Wastewater from the two treatment plants was found to have  phosphorus concentrations
adequate for biological treatment. Wastewater at the Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant was
occasionally deficient in  nitrogen, but there  should be adequate nitrogen for the expected
BOD concentrations for all alternatives except activated  sludge treatment of the Ley Creek
influent wastewater. Nitrogen storage and feed facilities  therefore will be included only in
the design of this system.

                        Development of Process Designs for the
                            Alternative Treatment Systems

In the following sections the  facilities to be included in each  of  the technically feasible
treatment systems are discussed in light of the rationale  presented in the General Basis of
Design section.

Secondary Treatment of Ley Creek S.T.P. Influent

From the laboratory treatability data, conventional activated sludge appeared  to be more
advantageous than the contact-stabilization modification.  The existing LCSTP pump station,
grit chamber, and  primary clarifiers would be suitable for use in the proposed system. Since
the primary clarifiers are overloaded, the suspended solids removal should be minimal, and
the BOD  removal  rate coefficient  would probably not vary from that observed  in the
laboratory studies, which were conducted on wastewater feed from which the solids had not
been removed. The existing LCSTP aeration basins  and final clarifiers would require modifi-
cations of such an extent as to rule out their use in  the proposed system. To summarize, the
treatment plant design for this alternative includes two new complete-mix activated  sludge
tanks,  three new final clarifiers,  a new sludge thickener, and pumps and other auxiliary
equipment. No stormwater would be treated  at Ley  Creek S.T.P., because LCSTP is not
equipped to handle stormwater and because the overall treatment system calls for pumping
of the wastewater to Metropolitan S.T.P. for further treatment.

Secondary Treatment of LCSTP Effluent and MSTP Influent

The  contact-stabilization modification  of activated  sludge  was  indicated as the  most
advantageous method for this particular wastewater. The pump station and force main for

                                         38

-------
transporting wastewater  from the  Ley Creek  Plant to the  Metropolitan  Plant  and the
existing grit chamber and pump station at the Metropolitan Treatment Plant are considered
to be adequate. The new facilities required  would therefore include new primary clarifiers
and pumps, contact and stabilization tanks, final clarifiers and pumps, and sludge thickeners
and pumps.

Secondary Treatment of Combined LCSTP and MSTP Influents

The treatability data for the unsettled wastes indicated conventional activated sludge to be
the optimum biological treatment system.  However, with primary clarification, the solids
removal should change the kinetics so that contact-stabilization would be preferable to the
conventional system. Therefore,  the new facilities required for the system would include
primary clarifiers,  contact  and stabilization tanks, final clarifiers,  sludge thickeners, and
pumps and other auxiliary equipment.

Plain Aeration of LCSTP Influent

The plain aeration system for the Ley Creek wastewater would use the existing treatment
plant, with  modifications. Minimal  modifications to the existing plant have already been
made  under a recent  contract. Additional  modifications could be  made to this  plant to
improve performance,  but no such additional modifications have been incorporated into the
design of this system.

Secondary Treatment of LCSTP Plain-Aeration Effluent and MSTP Influent

The process design for this system would use the contact-stabilization process. The existing
grit chambers and pump station at the Metropolitan Sewage Plant could be utilized; new
primary clarifiers,  contact  and stabilization tanks, final clarifiers,  sludge thickeners, and
pumps and other auxiliary equipment are included  in the process design.

Summary of Design Basis and Major  Unit Sizes
The unit tank sizes, aeration requirements, and estimates of sludge production determined
from the process design and the treatability investigations are summarized in Table No. 16.
                                         39

-------
                                                           Table 16

                                     Summary of Unit Sizes for Various Treatment Alternatives
                                                    System 1
                                               1 A
DESIGN BASIS

Flow, MGD
BOD, Ibs/day
(BOD, Ibs/day for aerator design)
Max. Stormwater Flow, MGD
      18.5
     53,500
     78,600
                      1-B
69.0
55,100
96,100
   215
                                     System 2
 69.0
100,600
166,600
    215
                                            System 3
                                       3-A
 18.5
53,500
78,600
                                     3-B
 69.0
 73,850
127,350
    215
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS

Design Overflow Rate, gpd/sq.ft.
Total Area Required, sq.ft.
Pump Capacity each, MGD
Use existing tanks
                        650
                    106,000
                         50
                    650
                 106,000
                      50
                                Use existing tanks
                                       650'
                                    106,000
                                        50
AERATION BASINS

Contact Tanks
  Total Volume, 106 gallons
  Oxygen Transfer, Ibs/hr.
  Aerators
Stabilization Tanks
  Total Volume, 10" gallons
  Oxygen Transfer, Ibs/hr.
  Aerators
Conventional  Activated Sludge Tanks
  Total Volume, 10^ gallons
  Oxygen Transfer, Ibs/hr.
  Aerators
                                                     Use existing tanks
      None



None




4.3
3,500
20 at 90- HP
12.45
3,500
20 at 100-HP

5.75
2,500
16at90-HP
None



12.55
4,060
20 at 100 HP

4.9
2,190
12at90-HP
None



                                                                            6.85
                                                                            3,500
                                                                        16 at 1CKM

                                                                            5.6
                                                                            2,500
                                                                        12 at 100-lf
                                                                           None
FINAL CLARIFIERS
Design Overflow Rates, gpd/sq.ft.
Total Area Required, sq.ft.
Recycle Pump Capacity each, MGD
        600
     30,900
         20
   800
86,300
    70
                                                      Use existing tanks
                                                      (or convert to
                                                      aeration tanks)
    650
106,000
     70
                   700
                98,600
                    70
SLUDGE THICKENERS

Sludge Produced, Ibs/day
Total Area Required, sq.ft.
Pump Capacity each, MGD
                                                                                                    None
     75,000
       1,900
       0.5
76,800
 3,400
 1.25
133,000
  6,860
  1.25
               101,200
                  5,300
                  1.25
10verflow Rate approximately 1,370 gpd/sq.ft. at peak storm flow conditions.
                                                            40

-------
                                         8

                                 COST ESTIMATES

Preliminary estimates of capital and total annual (including both fixed and operating) costs
for the various treatment alternatives are presented in Tables 17 and 18. Table 17 covers the
capital and  annual  costs for the three  overall alternative systems on  the basis of the
projected  BOD5 loading. Table 18 covers the costs for the same systems on the basis of a
reduced 8005  loading; this reduced loading represents the effect of the estimated 25,000
Ibs/day of BOD§ that would  be  kept out of the municipal system if Bristol  Laboratories
pretreated its wastewater to  produce an effluent in compliance with the sewer discharge
limit of 300 mg/L.

Amortization costs  of existing treatment  facilities  at  the Ley  Creek  and Metropolitan
Sewage Treatment Plants have been excluded from the calculation of fixed annual costs. In
like  manner, the  fixed  and  operating costs do  not  include costs  associated with the
collection systems, the  pump station and force main, the  proposed tertiary treatment
system, or sludge digestion and disposal.
                                           41

-------
                                                         Table 17
                                                 Preliminary Cost Estimate
                                               Wastewater Treatment Facilities

                                                     Onondaga County
                                                    Syracuse, New York
                                SUMMARY OF
Primary Clarifiers - pumps and mechanisms

Contact Tanks with aerators

Stabilization Tanks with aerators

Secondary Clarifiers - pumps and mechanisms

Thickeners and Pumps

  Sub-Total

Piping at 15%
Electrical at 12%
Instrumentation at 8%
Site Work  at 1%

  Sub-Total

Construction Contingency at 15%

TOTAL CAPITAL COST2/PLANT


TOTAL CAPITAL COST2/SYSTEM
                                SUMMARY OF
Operating Costs for Biological Treatment Units

   Labor
     number of man-hours/day
     cost at $5.00/man-hour, 365 days/yr.

   Maintenance
     Mechanical at 6%
     Structural at 1%
     Piping and Electrical at 2.5%

   Utilities
     number of HP-hr.
     costat$0.012/KWH

     Total Annual Operating Costs

Fixed Costs for Biological Treatment Units

   Amortization Cost at 5%, 30 years,
   20% coverage

TOTAL ANNUAL COST/PLANT

TOTAL ANNUAL COST/SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS AT PROJECTED
System 1
1-A 1-B
$A 1 ?n nnn
S2,410,0001 5,900.000
	 •) QQC nnn
1,044.000 3,205,000
69,000 324,000
53,523,000 $16,494,000
529,000 2,470,000
424,000 1,980.000
282,000 1,320.000
35,200 165.000
$4,793,200 $22,429.000
718,000 3,380,000
$5,511,200 $25,809.000
$31,320,000
ANNUAL COSTS AT PROJECTED
System 1
1-A 1-B
296 488
$ 540,000 $ 890,000
46,100 179,500
31,400 150,000
23,800 111,200
1,400 2,400
109,000 188,000
$ 750,800 $ 1,518,700
374,000 1,750,000
$1,138,800 $ 3,268,700
$ 4,407,500
BOD LOADING
System 2

So qon nnn
6,080,000
7 A Rn nnn
3,990,000
247,000
$16,697,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,335,000
167,000
$22,699,000
3,410,000
$26,109,000
$26,109,000
BOD LOADING
System 2

536
$ 978,000
213,000
146,700
112,500
3,000
235,000
$ 1,685,200
1,770,000
$ 3,455,200
$ 3,455,200

System 3
3-A 3-B
SA 971"! nnn
3,530,000
•) R7n nnn
4,010,000
168,000
$14,848,000
2,230,000
1,782,000
1,188,000
148,500
$20,196,500
3,030,000
No additional $23,226,500
costs
$23,226,000

System 3
3-A 3-B
272 488
$496,000 $ 890,000
100,0003
175,000
133,000
100,500
400 2,400
31,100 188,000
$627,100 $ 1,486,500
	 1.575,000
$627,100 $ 3,061,500
S 3,688,600
'Conventional Activated Sludge
^Engineering Design Fee not included
^Estimate
                                                              42

-------
                                                         Table 18
                                                 Preliminary Cost Estimate
                                               Wastewater Treatment Facilities
                               SUMMARY OF
Primary Clarifiers • pumps and mechanisms

Contact Tanks with aerators

Stabilization Tanks with aerators

Secondary Clarifiers - pumps and mechanisms

Thickeners and Pumps

  Sub-Total

Piping at 15%
Electrical at 12%
Instrumentation at 8%
Site Work at 1%

  Sub-Total

Construction Contingency at  15%

TOTAL CAPITAL COST3/PLANT


TOTAL CAPITAL COST3/SYSTEM
Onondaga County
Syracuse, New York
CAPITAL COSTS AT REDUCED1
System 1
1 A 1-B
$A i -jn nnn
S1,493,0002 5,900,000
2,895,000
1,044,000 3,205,000
69,000 324,000
$2,606,000 $16,494,000
391,000 2,470,000
313,000 1,980,000
208,000 1,320.000
26,000 165,000
$3,544,000 $22,429,000
532,000 3.380.000
$4,076,000 $25,809,000

BOD LOADING
System 2


6,030,000
2,450,000
3,990,000
247,000
$16,647,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,330,000
166,000
$22,643,000
3.400.000
$26,043.000


System 3
3-A 3-B

3,530,000
2,870,000
4,010,000
168,000
$14,848,000
2,230,000
1,782,000
1,188,000
148,000
$20,196,000
3.030.000
No additional $23,226,000
costs
$29,885,000
$26,043,000
$23,226,000
                                SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COSTS AT REDUCED BOD LOADING

                                                        System 1	       System 2
                                                    System 3
Operating Costs for Biological Treatment Units

  Labor
    number of man-hours/day
    cost at $5.00/man-hour, 365 days/yr.

  Maintenance
    Mechanical at 6%
    Structural at 1 %
    Piping and Electrical at 2.5%

  Utilities
    number of HP-hr.
    cost at $0.012/KWH

    Total Annual Operating Costs

Fixed Costs for Biological Treatment Units

  Amortization Cost at 5%, 30 years,
  20% coverage

TOTAL ANNUAL COST/PLANT

TOTAL ANNUAL COST/SYSTEM

Annual Savings at Reduced BOD Load
1-A
296
$ 540,000
30,400
22.900
17,600
890
69,600
680,500
277,000
$ 957,500
$ 4
$
1-B
488
$ 890,000
179,500
150,000
111,200
2,400
188,000
1,518,700
1,750,000
$ 3.268,700
,226,200
181,300
536
$ 978,000
210,000
146,700
112,500
2,865
224,500
1,671,700
1,768,000
$ 3,439,700
$ 3,439,700
$ 15,500
3-A
272
$496,000
100.0004
320
24,900
620,900

$620,900
3-B
488
$ 890,000
175,000
133,000
100,500
2,400
188,000
1,486,500
1,575,000
$ 3,061,500
$ 3,682,400
S
6,200
 JBOD Load on LCSTP reduced by 25,000 Ibs/day.
 ^Conventional Activated Sludge.
 ^Engineering Design Fee not included.
 ^Estimate.
                                                                 43

-------
                       SELECTION OF TREATMENT SYSTEM

As shown in the Cost  Estimate tables, three total system alternatives were compared  to
determine which one was most advantageous. System 1 includes secondary treatment of the
Ley Creek S.T.P. influent wastewater (1-A), followed by secondary treatment of the com-
bination of that effluent and the raw wastewater influent to the Metropolitan S.T.P. (1-B).
System 2 is secondary treatment of the combined Ley  Creek and  Metropolitan S.T.P. raw
wastewaters. System 3 is another two-part system, which includes Plain Aeration of the Ley
Creek S.T.P. influent (3-A), followed by secondary treatment of that effluent and the raw
wastewater influent to the Metropolitan S.T.P. (3-B).

The total annual costs, based on the design at either the projected or the reduced BOD load,
indicate that System 2, which combines  the two raw wastewaters  in a contact-stabilization
process, will cost considerably less per year than either System 1 or System 3. Although
amortization  costs  for existing  treatment  facilities  have not  been  included  in these
calculations, it is evident that their  inclusion  would  not change the cost  relationships
between the alternative treatment systems.

Further advantage for System 2 is recognized by considering that the present treatment
plants are understaffed due to a lack of qualified manpower. The operation of the proposed
secondary and tertiary treatment  systems  at  the Metropolitan  Treatment  Plant would
require additional manpower. Therefore, phasing out the Ley Creek S.T.P. in the near future
should not only reduce the total annual costs  but should also provide  a good source of
manpower for the additional operations at the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant.

The total annual cost savings achieved by the reduced 6005 loading are not significant. If
industry  should  be  required  to pretreat its  wastewaters to achieve this  reduced  loading,
industry would spend considerably more than the indicated savings  to the municipal system.
This appears to be adequate justification for Onondaga County to accept the high industrial
BOD loads provided  that the affected industries pay an equitable share  of the treatment
costs.

Onondaga County should secure commitments from the  industries which contribute a signif-
icant portion of the flow and/or organic load regarding  their intentions about future waste-
water discharge. This will increase the likelihood that adequate capacity for expansion will
be designed into the treatment facilities, and that industry will utilize the capacity  reserved
for them in the  proposed expansion.  These commitments  should be obtained before the
County begins detailed design of the proposed facilities.

System 2, secondary treatment of the combined raw wastewaters influent to the Ley Creek
and Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plants,  is recommended for installation by Onondaga
County, because it will  achieve the desired wastewater effluent at a  more reasonable cost
than any of the other available alternative  systems. A preliminary flow diagram and
tentative  plot plan for this system are shown on Drawings B-15 and  B-16, respectively.
                                         45

-------
                                         10

                                     SUMMARY

This evaluation of joint municipal-industrial wastewater treatment is part of a compre-
hensive continuing series of studies of environmental conditions in and around Onondaga
Lake. The general objectives of the overall program are to reduce the pollution  load on
Onondaga Lake  and its tributaties and  to develop a good foundation for meeting the
anticipated stricter  water quality regulations and their consequently increased treatment
requirements.

The  present study originated as a determination of the  status of industrial wastewater
discharged in the  Ley Creek drainage area and development of a master plan of wastewater
collection and  treatment for this area. Subsequent developments, particularly other aspects
of the overall  pollution abatement program, resulted in expansion of this study to cover
certain considerations of the  Metropolitan Sanitary District wastewater and treatment plant
facilities.

After an  extensive biological  treatment pilot unit program at the Ley Creek ST.P. failed  to
produce an effluent  acceptable  for year-round discharge to Ley Creek, Onondaga County
shifted its attention to investigation of  the feasibility of  transferring the LCSTP-treated
wastewater to  Onondaga Lake or to the  Seneca River for discharge. The determination  of
Onondaga Lake as the  more economical discharge point led to the design and construction
of a  pump station and force  main to transfer wastewater from the Ley Creek plant to the
Metropolitan treatment plant. The  existence of these pumping facilities has a significant
impact on the  development of an overall wastewater treatment system that makes optimum
use of existing treatment  facilities. It increases the number of feasible alternatives for
wastewater treatment and  consequently  increases the wastewater  combinations justifying
laboratory treatability investigation.

The first major phase of the present study was the survey of industrial wastewater discharges
in the Ley  Creek  Drainage area.  Onondaga  County  furnished a comprehensive list  of
industries either served by the Ley Creek sewerage system  or within the drainage area of Ley
Creek. With  the  cooperation of the County and the individual  industries, the Engineer's
personnel evaluated the wastewater situation at each industry by interview, by inspection  of
production and wastewater  handling facilities, and, where appropriate,  by sampling and
analysis  of wastewaters. The principal criteria  for determining that a particular industry
warranted inclusion  in  the sampling and  analysis  survey  were: 1) a major industry not
currently connected  to the  Ley Creek  sewerage system;  2) an industry with significant
potential toxicity problems; and 3) an industry whose organic wastewater load constituted a
significant portion of the total organic loading on the Ley  Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
The  information  obtained  from the interviews, visits, and wastewater surveys was used  to
assess the contribution of each industry and to provide guidance to each industry's waste-
water management program.  The findings and  related recommendations were included  in
the appropriate industry sections of the Interim Report of 1 March 1969, Industrial Dis-
charges in the Ley Creek Sanitary District. The most  important of these findings were:

  1.  Twenty-four industries were discharging wastewaters (including clean cooling water)  to
     Ley Creek,  but only two  of them showed a need for treatment facilities. The others
     either discharged acceptable effluents or could do so by the in-plant processing changes
     recommended in the Interim Report.
                                          47

-------
 2.  A number of industries were discharging metals and cyanides at significant concentra-
     tions to the Ley Creek sewage system. Apparently there has been sufficient dilution in
     the system to avoid any adverse effects on the biological treatment operations, but the
     potential for such interference is there.

 3.  One industry, Bristol Laboratories, contributed 80-90 percent of the industrial organic
     wastewater loading to the Ley Creek sewerage system and 50-60 percent of the total
     organics loading on the Ley Creek S.T.P.

Complementing the industrial wastewater investigation was a random grab sampling survey
of the Ley Creek S.T.P. influent wastewater. Forty-two random grab samples were collected
between 13 June and 20 June 1968 and analyzed at ROY F. WESTON laboratories. Flow
measurements were recorded (from the treatment plant's influent flowmeter) at the time of
each sample collection. With the expansion of the scope of the study to include the Metro-
politan S.T.P. wastewater, a similar survey was conducted of that treatment plant's influent
wastewater. Twenty-eight random grab samples were collected between 3 September and 10
September 1968 and were analyzed for the same contaminants as  in the Ley Creek S.T.P.
survey. Complete analytical  results of the two  treatment  plant  wastewater surveys  are
presented in Tables A-1 through A-8, and are summarized along with the specific industry
surveys in Tables 1 through 5.

These data constitute the basis for definition of the wastewater quantities, sources, and
characteristics and for planning of wastewater treatability investigations and development of
a treatment system.

Development of a wastewater collection master plan for the Ley Creek Sanitary District and
consideration  of  potential  treatment alternatives were required  before the treatability
investigations and process design  studies could  be carried  out in a reasonably efficient
manner to  produce meaningful results.  The principal focus  in the development  of  the
wastewater collection  master plan was the question of  the  adequacy  of the existing Ley
Creek collection  system  for handling present and  anticipated future wastewater flows
resulting from addition of industries not currently connected and from projected increases
from sources already connected. The adequacy of the geographical coverage of the existing
collection system was  substantiated by the finding that all  industries with significant waste-
water flow and/or contaminant load were discharging at least their sanitary wastewater to
the Ley Creek system, and most were discharging both industrial and sanitary wastewaters.
Nevertheless, a  few plants were discharging some contaminated  wastewaters, along with
cooling water and stormwater, directly to surface streams, and the impact of an eventual
tie-in of these discharges on the municipal system had to be evaluated. Of the approximately
2  million gallons  per day discharged  directly to streams, practically  all came  from two
industries,  Crouse-Hinds and the General Motors Ternstedt Division. Grouse-Hinds is in the
process of installing pretreatment  facilities and in-plant processing modifications that will
make its wastewater effluent suitable for  discharge to  the  Ley Creek collection system,
Ternstedt Division has demonstrated through periodic wastewater analytical reports that its
treated effluent is acceptable for discharge to surface waters.

Connection of  the few plants discharging sanitary wastewaters through on-site septic tank
systems would be  no big problem, primarily because the flows involved are quite small and
because the collection  system is reasonably accessible. However, there is no need to connect
these sanitary discharges as long as the septic tank  systems remain effective and appropriate.
                                          48

-------
Stormwater  flow is  another factor  in assessing the hydraulic adequacy of the existing
collection system because the Metropolitan sewers are combined sewers, i.e. they collect
both wastewater  and Stormwater. Although the  Ley Creek Sewer  System  is a separated
sewer system, increases in flow are evident during periods of rainfall. The scope of the
current study did not include determination of the frequency or magnitude  of Stormwater
runoff. However,  previous Onondaga County studies indicated that the Metropolitan system
could handle about 175 mgd of storm flow and the  Ley Creek system 40 mgd.

Many factors were involved  in the determination of treatment systems capable  of meeting
the requirements for wastewater discharges in the Ley Creek-Metropolitan area. Numerous
combinations of  new and existing treatment facilities, treatment processes, effluent dis-
charge  points,  pretreatment by individual industries,  etc. with  varying potentials for
accomplishment of the desired objectives were developed and  subjected to a preliminary
screening, the results of which are presented in Table 11. This preliminary evaluation dis-
closed  that  several   of the  potential  treatment  schemes involved  obvious economic or
technical disadvantages. The remaining  alternatives shown in the following tabulations
furnished the basis for planning of the laboratory treatability studies and subsequent process
design and cost estimating activities:

System Number                            Treatment Involved

     1-A                         Secondary treatment of Ley Creek S.T.P. influent

     1'B                         Secondary treatment of the combination of clari-
                                 fied Ley Creek S.T.P. secondary effluent and the
                                 raw wastewater influent to the Metropolitan S.T.P.

     2                           Secondary treatment of the combined Ley Creek
                                 and Metropolitan raw wastewaters

     3-A                         Partial treatment (Plain Aeration) of Ley Creek S.T.P.
                                 influent

     3-B                         Secondary treatment of the combination of the clari-
                                 fied effluent from the Ley Creek Plain Aeration system
                                 and raw wastewater influent to the Metropolitan S.T.P.

Systems 1 and 3 were divided into two parts to facilitate identification and comparison of
the alternatives. Each of the three systems utilizes the  force main between the Ley Creek
and Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plants, and each involves the Metropolitan S.T.P. as the
end of the treatment train.  MSTP is preferred over LCSTP as the terminal  point because
there is more dilution available  at an  Onondaga Lake  outfall, because the MSTP influent
wastewater flow  is  about 3 times as much as the LCSTP influent, and because of the
proposed location of future  tertiary treatment facilities at MSTP. each system is applicable
either to the entire projected wastewater load of the combined sanitary districts or to the
wasteload reduced by industry pretreatment.

Since practically all  major industries in the area are connected to the municipal sewerage
systems, the  influent wastewaters to the Ley  Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Treatment
Plants were  the major concern  in  the process investigation. The relatively high organic
concentrations and relatively low metals concentrations determined in the surveys indicated
                                         49

-------
that organic loading is the major pollutant characteristic requiring treatment. Experience has
shown the activated sludge process to be an economical, flexible, and dependable method
for reducing the organic content of wastewaters.

Normally, domestic sewage does not require specific laboratory investigation to determine
reaction rate and process design parameters, but in the present case there is a large enough
proportion of  industrial wastewater  in  the  total  wastewater flow  to modify the normal
characteristics of domestic sewage. Thus,  laboratory investigations were conducted to obtain
the design  parameters required  for  conventional  activated sludge  and for the contact-
stabilization  modification of the activated sludge for various combinations of LCSTP and
MSTP influent and  partially-treated  wastewaters. Plain aeration (essentially conventional
activated sludge without sludge recycle) was investigated for preliminary treatment of the
LCSTP influent. Complementary filtration studies were included to determine the extent of
organic material  associated  with  the  solids  in  the  wastewaters  and  to indicate  the
applicability of bioflocculation or  initial contact removal. One industrial wastewater was
investigated to determine the feasibility of oil removal in attaining an effluent acceptable for
discharge to the municipal sewage system.

The laboratory programs included: operation of continuous-feed activated sludge systems
over a wide range of organic pollutant loadings; several 'Tube Runs" (a batch test to derive
process design parameters); and related investigations of oxygen transfer and saturation
characteristics and activated sludge settling and compaction  requirements. The design para-
meters determined from the laboratory treatability investigations are summarized in Table
15. The process modifications selected on the basis of these tests are summarized below:


                                                                      Process
            Wastewater                                            Modification

 LCSTP Influent (1-A)                                            Conventional

 LCSTP Secondary Effluent and                                  Contact-Stabilization
 MSTPInfluent(l-B)

 LCSTP and MSTP Influents (2)                                   Conventional

 LCSTP Plain Aeration Effluent                                   Contact-Stabilization
and MSTP Influent (3-B)


The laboratory  investigation of  System 2  (combined LCSTP and MSTP influent waste-
waters) was conducted on a sample which  was not subjected  to primary clarification. A
subsequent  decision to  include  primary clarification in the overall  treatment scheme
stimulated a re-examination of  the  laboratory data. This showed that removal of suspended
solids  through primary  clarification would change the indicated  mode of treatment for
System 2 from conventional to contact-stabilization.

The principal objective in the development  of the process design was to establish a sound
base for preliminary estimates of the capital and total annual costs of the several technically
feasible treatment alternatives. The  principal bases of design were:  1) the treatability para-
meters established in the laboratory investigations; 2) the requirement for 85 percent BOD
(organic) removal under cold  temperature  conditions;  and 3) a minimum of primary
                                         50

-------
clarification for alt wastewaters, including stormwaters. The latter requirement is met by the
provision of two diversion chambers at the Metropolitan S.T.P.; the first diverts that volume
of wastewater in  excess of MSTP's design capacity to by-pass the primary clarifiers, while
the second routes all the by-passed wastewater to the activated sludge tank and diverts a like
volume of primary-treated wastewater directly to the final chlorination facilities. Major unit
sizes,  aeration  requirements,  estimated  sludge production, and  other design data are
summarized in Table 16.

Preliminary estimates of the capital  and total annual costs for the three alternative systems
are presented in Tables 17 and 18; Table 17 covers capital and annual costs based on the
total projected organic loading, while Table  18 covers the costs based on a reduced loading.
This  reduced loading represents the effects of the estimated 25,000 pounds per day of
BODs (roughly half the LCSTP loading) that would be kept out of the municipal system if
Bristol Laboratories pretreated its wastewater.

The  total annual costs include  both operating  and fixed costs,  but do  not include
amortization  of existing treatment facilities nor the costs associated with the collection
systems,  the  pump station and force main, the proposed tertiary treatment facilities, or
sludge digestion and  disposal. The capital costs  include a construction contingency but no
engineering design fee. The overall costs for the  three alternative systems are summarized as
follows:

                            	Projected BOD Loading	
     System                  Capital Cost                      Total Annual Costs

        1                     $30,300,000                        $4,410,000
        2                     $26,100,000                        $3,460,000
        3                     $23,200,000                        $3,690,000

                            	Reduced BOD Loading	

        1                     $29,900,000                        $4,230,000
        2                     $26,000,000                        $3,440,000
        3                     $23,200,000                        $3,680,000
These figures indicate the economic advantages of System 2, which treats the combined raw
wastewaters of  the  Ley  Creek  and Metropolitan  Sewage  Treatment Plants.  Further
advantage for System 2 accrues from consideration  of  the current under-staffing at the
present treatment plants due to a general lack of qualified  manpower; phasing out the Ley
Creek ST.P. would provide a good source of manpower for proposed secondary and future
tertiary treatment operations at the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant.

Total annual cost savings achieved by operation on the basis of the reduced BOD loading are
not  significant.  If industry should be required  to pretreat  its wastewater to attain this
reduced loading, industry would spend considerably more than the municipal system would
save. It would be  mutually beneficial for Onondaga  County to accept the full projected
organic load provided that the affected industries pay an equitable  share of the treatment
costs.
                                          51

-------
                                        11

                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The cooperation of industry  participants  in this  study,  especially those who permitted
samples of their effluent to be taken and the results reported, is acknowledged with sincere
thanks.

Mr. E. F. Gilardi and  Mr. M. L. Woldman of ROY  F. WESTON, INC., West Chester,
Pennsylvania,  who with their associates, guided the overall project, conducted initial plant
interviews, supervised the sampling surveys and the biological treatability  studies, designed
the various biological treatment systems, and wrote  the interim and final reports.

The field sampling surveys, analytical  work, bench-scale treatability studies  and  report
editing were performed by a  team from ROY F. WESTON, INC. consisting of Mr. G. W.
Berman, Mr. A. B. Chandler, Mr. T. F. Rooney and Mr. J. L. Simons.

The assitance  and cooperation of employees of Onondaga County at both  the Metropolitan
and Ley Creek Sewage Plants is greatly appreciated.

The support of the project by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the
help provided by  Mr.  George Rey, Mr.  Edward  Dulaney, and  Mr.  L.  E. Townsend  is
acknowledged with sincere appreciation.
                                        53

-------
                                     12

                                APPENDICES


APPENDIX A - Raw Data Tables

APPENDIX B-Drawings

APPENDIX C - Onondaga County's Rules and Regulations Governing the Use of Public
             Sewers

APPENDIX D - Quality Standards for Class D Waters - New York State Department of
             Health
                                     55

-------
                                                                               TABLE  A-l
                                                               THIS TABULATION IS THE RAM DATA FROM THE SURVEY
                                                                   FLOW IS IK MILLION GALLONS PER CAY
                                                               CCNCENTRATICNS ARE IN MILLIGRAMS PER X.ITFR

                                                                     RANDOM GRAB SURVEY - INFLUENT
Ui
O)
ID DATE
001 06 13 68
002 06
003 06
>, .4 U6
005 06
006 06
007 06
008 06
009 06
010 06
Oil 06
012 06
013 06
014 06
015 06
016 06
017 06
018 06
019 06
020 06
(J21 06
022 06
023 06
024 06
025 06
027 06
028 06
029 06
030 06
Oil 06
032 06
033 06
014 06
035 06
O'A 06
0*7 06
038 06
fM9 06
040 06
041 06
042 06
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
66
68
68
6fl
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
TIME
1500
2000
2100
2400
0600
0800
1600
1700
2300
0100
0400
1200
1300
1600
2100
0200
0700
1200
1500
1900
2100
0300
0800
1000
1300
1900
2200
0200
0700
090C
1600
1800
2100
0300
06CC
0900
" i 900
2100
01CC
0500
110L
FLCW
18.8
15.6
15.7
14.3
10.2
13.3
18.3
18.0
14.2
13.2
10.2
15.6
15.6
13.3
15.0
10.5
12.8
13.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
8.7
9.7
17.3
17.3
15.7
15.0
10.4
9.6
12.3
15.2
16.?
15.7
1 1 .0
9.1
13.2
17.2
lb.8
15.7
13. fl
9.2
15. 3
PH
7.4
6.5
6.6
7.4
6.2
6.5
6.4
6.6
7.0
6.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
6.9
6.7
7.1
7.0
B.O
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.8
8.0
7.4
6.3
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.1
6.2
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
ALK
28
0
0
28
0
0
0
154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
60
0
0
130
0
2
0
C
C
0
62
28
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
C
ACID
0
20
16
0
60
30
22
" 0
0
24
0
0
0
60
2
6
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
24
2
2
0
0
36
0
b
0
0
0
C
noo-5
190
388
260
600
450
19'i
372
3 50
360
432
567
28t'
270
336"
1620
1080
255
210
444
480
276
696
646
177
396
510
342
73'
192
684
438
540
384
321
372
411
.. >?!.•
456
HO
1440
BCD UC
212
530
565
BIO
600
276
468
690
552
660
816
420
399
" 477"
2010
1410
288
240
612
900
396
768
864
270
528
696
417
864
249
912
606
750
540
196
576
501
510
555
624
615
1950
438
cno
432
936
696
1248
792
368
720
995
893
33S
1150
597
731
"770
2735
2235
462
423
904
1230
1000
11*4
1079
500
800
1030
800
1220
329
1065
12^2
1253
1004
944
1310
944
914
1314
1545
1430
27S4
70'.
SS
276
586
616
1024
420
148
500
~'sr? '
252
448
464
332
360
256~"
1232
326
80
164
456
724
1016
852
2232
456
468
516
376
420
20
312
624
1240
1036
412
436
408
412
1820
2492
356
1316
320
VSS
140
216
320
232
224
76
320
360
252
268
220
224
228
TOO"
360
248
72
140
336
336
432
232
1312
180
264
260
164
124
460
"428"
468
?M4
328
344
776
604
!:68
468
136
OH'
70.5
STIO"
93.0
157.0
63.0
46.5
62.0
139.0
62.5
98.5
52.5
45. C
70.0
84.0
24.4
37.2
54.2
126.0
105.0
93.5
144.0
64.5
142.0
103.0
103.0
95.5
41.5
66.0
63.5
lOS'.O
172.0
81. :*
59.5
77.5
85.5
165.0
134.0
63. 'j
286.0
65.0
CN-
0.024
0.6T4"
0.010
O.OCO*
O.OC9
0.018
0.160
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.092
0.226
O.OC1
0.002
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
o.ooc*
0.000*
O.OC1
0.001
0.001
O.OC1
0.002
0.000*
0.758
O.C83
0.124
f),04C
Q.C! •
0.051-
o.ooo*
0.014
C.019
PHENOL
0.07
"0".33
0.06
0.20
0.00*
0.26
0.11
0.34
0.20
0.31
0.15
0.15
0.04
'"0.50*
0.13
0.17
0.15
0.19
0.27
0.86
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.19
0.47
0.61
0.24
0.16
0.30
0.12
0.90
0.43
0.28
0.04
0.98
0.14
o.no*
0.10
••3.00*
0. "•!)•
0.(-4
TOT Cf
0.44
0.20
0.34
0.27
0.45
0.23
0.39
0.52"
0.19
0.15
0.12
0.15
0.22
0.15
0.22
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.34
0.43
0.15
0.20
0.27
1.38
0.57
0.36
0.22
0.14
0.34
0.34
0.47
0.50
0.24
0.14
0.22
0.5C
0.64
O.iO
0.?9
0.?2
0.64
* COP
0.
cr.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
" - 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
	 o;
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'PER
28
12
35
16
10
50
41!
29
39
20
25
40
36
40
18
10
14
23
45
62
16
21
39
50
41
26
14
14
16
39
34
54
16
12
40
44
20
18
10
ZINC
0.69
0.39
0.70
0.68
0.76
0.56
0.74
0.74
0.50
0.58
0.50
1.41
0.47
0.90
0.90
0.78
0.17
0.22
0.31
0.88
1.06
0.25
0.44
0.78
0.88
1.10
0.74
1.30
0.42
0.58
0.76
0.70
1.14
0.78
0.66
0.90
0.88
0.96
l.CO
0.9?
0.44
0.10
CADM
0. 10
0.03
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.O2
0.06
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.31
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.09
0.15
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.20
0.08
0.06
O.U2
C.1C
MCKEL
0.125
0.120
0.150
0.115
0.145
0.185
0.150
0.115
0.000*
0.000*
0.150
0.045
0.040
0.020
0.000*
0.060
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.265
0.080
0.190
0.135
0.020
0.135
0.240
0.180
0. 15-j
0.070
O.,°40
0.200
0.170
0.215
0.060
0.030
NH3-M
9.6
19.5
15.7
11.9
26.6
9.8
17.8
14.6
11.9
11.3
11.0
14.8
7.8
24.6
13.4
16.5
25.2
13.2
16. A
18.5
12.6
15.4
18.5
15.7
15.1
10.4
10.7
22.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
20.9
14.6
17.4
13.4
20.7
20.7
20.7
30. fl
19.6
16.9
CRG-N
26.6
28.7
23.0
26.0
38.4
14.7
27.8
45.5
23.4
24.2
21.2
26.3
35.0
10.6
42.0
11.2
21.8
34.2
31.9
27.7
29.4
21.8
22.4
26.8
20.9
23.9
33.1
18.2
25.2
22.4
47.3
34.4
29,7
22.1
56.3
23.8
33.6
35.0
35.0
46.8
25.4
13.7
P04-0 PO'
25
35
48
35
180 ;
8
27
28
20
24
13
26
20
19
32
31
10
40
28
33
38
20
9
15
20
25
36
15
10
15
35
32
38
13
18
16
22
34
45
22
25
14
        •=NO ANALYSIS

         Total oi1 and  grease

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                       ONONDAGA  COUNTY
                 BIOLOGICAL  TREATABILITY  STUDIES
                  CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEMS
                                                                    EFFLUENT
                       METROPOLITAN
                        NFLUENT
                       WASTEWATER
      LEY CREEK
      INFLUENT
      WASTEWATER
                                                                 ft.  EFFLUENT
                     75'-
                     HETROPOL1TAN
                     INFLUENT
                     AND
                     2 5::
                     LEY CREEK
                     INFLUENT
                     WASTEWATFPS
                                                                        B-4
W.0.33605
                                             ROY F. WESTOIM
                                             EIMVIRDMIV! E NTAL SCIENTISTS AfMD ENGINEERS
                                             LEWIS LAfNJE • WEST CHESTEH • PENNSYLVANIA • 193BO
                                   — 93 —

-------
                       ONONDAGA  COUNTY

                 BIOLOGICAL  TREATABILITY  STUDIES

                     CONTACT  STABILIZATION  SYSTEMS
   INFLUENT  CHANNEL
   LEY CREEK S.T.P.
                                   NO. 1-A
                                   CONTACT
                                                           NO.  1-A
                                                           STABILIZATII
                                                   EFFLUENT
   METROPOLITAN
   INFLUENT
   AND
   25'*
   LEY CREEK
   INFLUENT
   WASTEWATERS
NO. 2
STABILIZATION
                                                                       B-5
W.0.33605
                                             ROY F. WESTOM
                                             ENVIHDNME NTAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
                                             LEWIS LANE • WEST CHESTER • PENNSYLVANIA • 1S-3SO
                                   — 94—

-------
                       TUBE NO   I
                                        SS =1121 IC/L

                                        iss  ieiMC/1

                                        L0/S. '0 OBIb

                                        rc • 2 91 HOURS

                                          0 557 HOURS
                                               ONONDAGA  COUNTY
                                                    SYSTEM   1-A
                                              •ATCH  ACTIVATED SlUDGE  DATA
                                                               Bi T 1400 T 1
                       TUBE  NO  3
    50T HDDT
W.O.33605
                                                                                   TUBE  NO  2
                                                                                   <    f    S       1:   14       IB   2 4
                                                                                   TUBE  NO
                                                                                                                B-6
                                                                                ROY  F. WESTON
                                                        -95-

-------
                          TUBE  NO  I
                                                      ONONDAGA  COUNTY
                                                            SYSTEM   1-1
                                                     IATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE  DATA
                                                                         35T   I75T  140
                                             1    14    It   II   14
                           TUBE NO   3
                                                            - —
                                              SS = 266  IC/L

                                              '. .• - I6C it/I

                                              1,/S, ' 1 ]44

                                              rE = o.231 HOUIS-

                                              r,- o  151 MDUIS-
                      246     B    10    12   14    16   II    74

                                    THE  HOURS
W.0.33605
                                                                                               TUBE NO   2
                                                                                                                  -".  44S  IC/L

                                                                                                                  *:':  2BD HC/L

                                                                                                                  L./S  o in

                                                                                                                  r:  o 427 «ou»r

                                                                                                                  r.  D.236HOUIS
                                                                                               TUBE  NO
                                                                                                                                B-7
                                                                                            ROY   F. WESTON
                                                                                            E N Vi RON M ENTAL  SCIEMTiSTB  AND
                                                               -96-

-------
                                                   ONONDAGA  COUNTY
                                                         SYSTEM  2
                                                  BATCH  ACTIVATED  SLUDGE  DATA
                        TUBE  NO   I
   10 T  JOOT  350
            .2001
                                      s
                                           SJ=5i?4  II/L

                                           I!! 0111 It/L

                                           L,/I, = 0111

                                           rc= i ss PI.':

                                           r, = i  ii mil
                    2     t    6     I    10   17    14    E   II    24

                                  THE.  HOURS



                         TUBE  NO   3




/
t
\


•
\
• •
,





SS 1
tSS
L0/S
rc
rs




1^^





89E iC
112BHC
097
86 M
05 H




**-*






/L
UBS'
HIS'1




















i


W.0.33605
                                                                                          TUBE  NO  2
                  SS  3111 It/L

                  fSS 2Q6QIC/L

                  l,/S,  0534

                  rc-i 19  HOUIS

                  r*  in  HOUIS
TUBE NO   t
                                                                                                                          B-8
                                                                                        ROY  F.  WESTON
                                                                                                                            •F OS
                                                                                                                            3380
                                                             -97-

-------
                                          ONONDAGA  COUNTY
                                               SYSTEM  3-t
                                         IATCH ACHVATEO SLUDGE DATA
                    TUBE NO
                     TUBE NO  3
   78 T 350 T 175
W.0.33605
                                                                          TUBE NO  2
                                                                          TUBE NO   4
                                                         NT 350 T 175
                                                                                                     B-9
                                                                         HOY  F. WESTON
                                                                         LEWIS LANE • WEST CHESTER • PEMMSV^VAN
                                                  -98-

-------
                           ONONDAGA   COUNTY

                                  SYSTEM    1-A
                             BOD5 REMOVAL KINETICS
                                       VERSUS
                             ORGANIC LOADING  RATIO
           10.0
         .-
         4
         .
         -
         . -
             0.1
                                                     • CONTINUOUS DftTA
                                                       (CONV. ACT. SLUDGE)
                                      TUBE RUN
                                   A CONTACT KINETICS

                                    I STABILIZATION  KINETICS
CONTACT KINETICS-
CONTACT STABILIZATION  ^N
SYSTEM
                                                 CONTACT KINETICS-TUBE
                  STABILIZATION
                  KINETICS-
                  TUBE  RUN
               0.01


                                   ORGANIC  LOADING RATIO. Lg S,
                                                                                B-10
W.0.33605
                                                   ROY  F. WESTON
                                                   ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
                                                   LEWIS LANE • WEST CHESTER • PENNSYLVANIA • 19380
                                        — 99 —

-------
                     ONONDAGA  COUNTY

                            SYSTEM   1-B
           10.0
         H
             .0

               0.01
                        BOD5 REMOVAL  KINETICS
                                VERSUS
                        ORGANIC LOADING  RATIO



























^
^v
H

















X

i











\


•

x












X



>












\


1

*x


«













•












s
i



i










• CONTINUOUS DATA
(CONV. ACT.
TUBE RUN
A CONTACT KIN!
• STABILIZATI





T^
X












SLUDGE)
:TICS
IN KINETICS












\-nnMT4r.T KIMFTinS-
• 2s
X
STABILIZA
KINETICS-
v TUBE RUN
\
N
s,.
TION
TUBE RL


N-^


"*


\



































                              ORGANIC LOADING RATIO. LQ S,
W.0.33605
                                           ROY  F. WESTON
                                                                  B-ll
                                           ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
                                           LEWIS LANE • WEST CHESTER • PENNSYLVANIA • 193BO
                                 —100—

-------
            10.0
         -
          —:

          L
          -
          _

                      ONONDAGA  COUNTY
                              SYSTEM
                         BOD5 REMOVAL KINETICS
                                 VERSUS
                         ORGANIC LOADING RATIO




pnw T /
LUN 1 f
CONT/
SYSTt















CT KIN
CT STA
.M-7
< '
\
\
•
•*«.
•












ETIC
Bill

•




4

i-
NATION
•
X
*
•V
>
"•-*.









\
N











_^_




9
M
^









V









*s *
^ ^
4
















i
r-CONT
J \TUBE
x
i
• CONTINUOUS
(CONV. ACT.


DATA
SLUDGE)
TUBE RUN
A CONTACT KINETICS
• STABILIZAT
ACT
RUN
V
~t^"^^*^^m

\«
\
\
\




-------
            ID.D
           .
         -
          !
          L
           :
          - :
W.0.33605
                       ONONDAGA  COUNTY

                             SYSTEM   3-B

                         BOD5 REMOVAL KINETICS
                                 VERSUS
                         ORGANIC LOADING RATIO
                               ORGANIC LOADING RATIO. Lg S,
                                                                    B-13
                                            ROY  F. WESTON
                                            ErvjVIRONrviEMTAL. SCIENTISTS ANiD  EMGirsltERS
                                            LEWIS LANE • WEST CHESTEH • PENIMSYLvAISJIA • 193BO
                                 — 102 —

-------
ONONDAGA COUNTY
SYSTEM 3-A
90
80
70
z
LtJ
to
CC.
£ 60
LU
CJ
u_
^ 50
•X
o
X
LU
ac
S 40
OD
30
20
15
BOD5 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY VERSUS DETENTION TIME






/
/
/ ^




HIGHER REMOVA
I7ATF

J

y
/
**
'



• ,
L/
/ /
/'
Y
• *
^^
•



../
/
!/«.
X-PROBABLE R
RATE


^-
-LOWER REMOVAL
RATE





iMOVAL
•
j^1
'^






^~~~


^










0.5 .0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
DETENTION TIME, HOURS
B-14

ttV ROY F. WESTON
|ywar ENVIRONME NTAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
Uf\ LEWIS LANE • WEST CHESTER • PENNSYLVANIA • 193SO
—103 —

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
                                    APPENDIX C
     The following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated by the Commissioner of
     Public Works pursuant to sections 11.53g and  11.53J of Article 11A of the Onondaga
     County Administrative Code

                            Rules & Regulations Governing
                               the Use of Public Sewers

     Section 1. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any storm water, surface
water, ground water, roof runoff, subsurface  drainage, cooling water or unpolluted in-
dustrial process waters to any sanitary sewer.

     Section 2. Storm  water and all other unpolluted drainage shall be discharged to such
sewers as  are specifically designated as combined sewers or  storm sewers, or to a natural
outlet approved by the Commissioner. Industrial cooling water or unpolluted process waters
may be discharged, upon approval of the Commissioner, to a storm sewer, combined sewer
or natural  outlet.

     Section 3. Except as  hereinafter provided, no person shall discharge or cause to be
discharged any of the following described waters or wastes to any public sewer:

a)   Any liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than (150°F.).

b)   Any water or waste which may contain more than (100) parts per million, by weight,
of fat, oil, or grease.

c)   Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil, or  other flammable or explosive liquid, solid
or gas.

d)   Any garbage that has not been properly shredded.

e)   Any ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics,
wood, paunch manure, or any other solid or viscous substance capable of causing obstruc-
tion to the flow  in sewers or other interference with the proper operation of the sewage
works.

f)   Any waters or wastes  having a pH lower than (5.5) or higher than (9.0), or having any
other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard  to structures, equipment, and
personnel of the sewage works.

g)   Any  waters  or wastes containing  a  toxic  or  poisonous or radioactive substance in
sufficient  quantity to injure or  interfere with any  sewage  treatment process, constitute a
hazard to  humans or animals, or create any hazard in the receiving waters of the sewage
treatment  plant.

h)   Any waters or wastes  containing suspended solids of such character and quantity that
unusual attention or expense is required to  handle such materials at the sewage treatment
plant.

i)   Any noxious or malodorous gas or substance capable of creating a public nuisance.


                                        109

-------
     Section 4. Grease, oil, and sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the opinion of
the Commissioner,  they  are  necessary for the proper handling of liquid wastes containing
grease in excessive amounts, or any flammable wastes, sand, and other harmful ingredients;
except that such interceptors shall not be required for private living quarters or dwelling
units. All interceptors shall be of a type and capacity approved by the Commissioner, and
shall be located as to be readily and easily accessible for cleaning and inspection.

     Grease and  oil interceptors shall be  constructed of impervious materials capable of
withstanding abrupt and extreme  changes in temperature. They shall be of substantial
construction, watertight, and equipped with easily  removable covers which when bolted in
place shall be gaslight and watertight.

     Section 5. Where installed, all grease, oil and sand interceptors shall be maintained by
the owner, at his expense, in continuously efficient operation at all times.

     Section 6. The admission into the public sewers of any waters or wastes having (a) a
5-day Biochemical  Oxygen Demand greater than (300) parts per million by weight, or (b)
containing more  than (350)  parts per million by weight of suspended solids, or (c) con-
taining any quantity of substances having the characteristics described in Section 3, or (d)
having an  average  daily flow greater than (2%) of the average  daily sewage flow of the
receiving treatment plant, shall be subject to the review and approval of the Commissioner.
Where necessary in the  opinion  of  the Commissioner,  the owner shall provide,  at his
expense, such preliminary treatment as may  be necessary  to, (a) reduce the Biochemical
Oxygen  Demand to (300) parts per million and the suspended  solids to (350)  parts per
million by weight, or (b)  reduce objectionable characteristics or constituents to within the
maximum  limits  provided for in Section 3,  or (c) control the quantities and rates of dis-
charge of such waters or wastes. Plans, specifications, and any other pertinent information
relating to proposed preliminary treatment facilities shall  be submitted for the approval of
the Commissioner  and  no construction of such facilities  shall  be commenced until  said
approval is obtained in writing.

     Section 7. Where preliminary treatment facilities are provided for any waters or wastes,
they shall be maintained continuously in satisfactory and effective operation, by the owner
at his expense.

     Section 8. When required by the Commissioner, the owner of any property served by a
building sewer carrying  industrial  wastes shall install  a suitable control  manhole  in the
building sewer to facilitate  observation, sampling and measurement  of the wastes. Such
manhole, when required, shall be accessibly and safely located, and shall be constructed in
accordance with plans approved by the Commissioner. The manhole shall be installed by the
owner at his expense, and shall be maintained by him so as to be safe and accessible at all
times.

     Section 9. All measurements, tests,  and analyses of the characteristics of waters and
wastes to which  reference is made in Sections 3 and 6 shall  be  determined in accordance
with  "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater",  and shall be
determined at the  control manhole provided  for in Section 8,  or upon suitable samples
                                               110

-------
taken at said control manhole. In the event that no special manhole has been required, the
control manhole shall be considered  to be the nearest downstream  manhole in the public
sewer to the point at which the building sewer is connected.

     Section 10. No statement contained in this article shall be construed as preventing any
special agreement or arrangement between the Commissioner and any industrial concern
whereby  an industrial  waste  of unusual  strength or  character  may  be  accepted by the
Commissioner for treatment, subject to payment therefor by the industrial concern.
Signed:                                                Approved:
 Edwin M. Baylard                                       John H. Mulroy
 Commissioner of Public Works                           County Executive
 February 28, 1968                                      February 28, 1968
                                       111

-------
                                    APPENDIX D
                          Quality Standards for Class D Waters
                         New York State Department of Health
Floating solids, settleable solids,
sludge deposits
         Items                                             Specifications

                                                  None which are readily visible and
                                                  attributable to sewage, industrial
                                                  wastes or other wastes, or which
                                                  deleteriously increase the amounts
                                                  of these constituents in receiving
                                                  waters after opportunity for reason-
                                                  able dilution and mixture with the
                                                  wastes discharged thereto.

                                                  Range between 6.0 and 9.5

                                                  Not less than 3.0 parts per  million.

                                                  None alone or  in combination with
                                                  other substances or wastes  in suf-
                                                  ficient amounts or at such tempera-
                                                  tures as to prevent fish survival or
                                                  impair the waters for agricultural
                                                  purposes or any other best usage as
                                                  determined for the specific waters
                                                  which are assigned to this class.

Note:  With reference to certain toxic substances as affecting fish life, the establishment
       of any single numerical standard for waters of New York State would be too
       restrictive. There are many waters, which because of poor buffering capacity and
       composition will require special study to determine safe concentrations of toxic
       substances. However, based on non-trout waters of approximately median alka-
       linity (80 p.p.m.) or above for the State, in which groups most of the waters near
       industrial areas in this State will fall, and without considering increased or de-
       creased toxicity from possible combinations, the following may be considered as
       safe stream concentrations for certain substances to comply with the above stan-
       dard for this type of water. Waters of lower alkalinity must be specially considered
       since the toxic effect of most pollutants will be greatly increased.
pH

Dissolved Oxygen

Toxic wastes, oil, deleterious
substances, colored or other
wastes, or heated liquids
Ammonia or Ammonium Compounds


Cyanide


Ferro- or Ferricyanide


Copper


Zinc


Cadmium
                                                  Not greater than 2.0 parts per million
                                                        at pH of 8.0 or above.
                                                  Not greater than 0.1 parts per million
                                                  (CN).

                                                  Not greater than 0.4 parts per million
                                                  (Fe(CN)6).

                                                  Not greater than 0.2 parts per million
                                                  (Cu).

                                                  Not greater than 0.3 parts per million
                                                  (Zn).

                                                  Not greater than 0.3 parts per million
                                                  (Cd)
                                         113

-------
1
•
1
1
•
1
1
1


1

1


1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1


1

1
1
1
1

1

1
r

i
i

i
i
i


i

i
i
•
i

i
i

BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

ROY F. WESTON, Feasibility of Joint Treatment in a Lake
Watershed, Final Report FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 66-01-68,
September, 1970.
ABSTRACT:

Onondaga County, New York undertook a feasibility study of
joint treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters. Indus-
tries were contacted to assess their wastewater situation, and
major wastewater contributors were sampled. Influent waste-
waters to the two major sewage treatment plants were also sam-
pled. With practically all industry connected to the municipal
systems and within the constraint of a pump station and force
main to transfer wastewater from the Ley Creek to the Metro-
politan Sewage Plant, the number of feasible treatment alterna-
tives was reduced. Bench-scale activated sludge studies were
conducted on the feasible alternatives.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

ROY F. WESTON, Feasibility of Joint Treatment in a Lake
Watershed, Final Report FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 66-01-68,
September, 1970.
ABSTRACT:

Onondaga County, New York undertook a feasibility study of
joint treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters. Indus-
tries were contacted to assess their wastewater situation, and
major wastewater contributors were sampled. Influent waste-
waters to the two major sewage treatment plants were also sam-
pled. With practically all industry connected to the municipal
systems and within the constraint of a pump station and force
main to transfer wastewater from the Ley Creek to the Metro-
politan Sewage Plant, the number of feasible treatment alterna-
tives was reduced. Bench-scale activated sludge studies were
conducted on the feasible alternatives.


BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

ROY F. WESTON, Feasibility of Joint Treatment in a Lake
Watershed, Final Report FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 66-01-68.
September, 1970.
ABSTRACT:

Onondaga County, New York undertook a feasibility study of
joint treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters. Indus-
tries were contacted to assess their wastewater situation, and
major wastewater contributors were sampled. Influent waste-
waters to the two major sewage treatment plants were also sam-
pled. With practically all industry connected to the municipal
systems and within the constraint of a pump station and force
main to transfer wastewater from the Ley Creek to the Metro-
politan Sewage Plant, the number of feasible treatment alterna-
tives was reduced. Bench-scale activated sludge studies were
conducted on the feasible alternatives.

ACCESSION NO.



KEYWORDS:
Activated Sludge
Contact Stabilization
Cost Analysis
Industrial Wastes
Joint Systems
Lake Watershed
Municipal Wastes
Process Design
Sampling Survey
Waste Treatment




ACCESSION NO.



KEYWORDS:
Activated Sludge
Contact Stabilization
Cost Analysis
Industrial Wastes
Joint Systems
Lake Watershed
Municipal Wastes
Pfocess Design
Sampling Survey
Waste Treatment





ACCESSION NO.



KEYWORDS:
Activated Sludge
Contact Stabilization
Cost Analysis
Industrial Wastes
Joint Systems
Lake Watershed
Municipal Wastes
Process Design
Sampling Survey
Waste Treatment




-------
                                                              I
 The initial plant  interviews showed that practically all industries
 in the watershed were connected to the municipal sewer system,  I
 with one of them contributing approximately 60 percent of the  i
 organic  load on  the  Ley Creek Plant. While  metals concentra-
 tions, from various metal-plating shops, were high at  different  |
 times, the concentrations measured in the Ley Creek Plant influ-
 ent  were  generally acceptable for biological treatment.  Total  •
 organic  loads at  the Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Plants  i
 were about equal; flow at the latter  plant was approximately
 three times as  great. Raw, pretreated, or  secondary-treated  |
 wastewater from the  Ley Creek Plant was shown to be amenable
 to combination with  raw Metropolitan Sewage Plant influent for  I
 secondary treatment. A full-scale joint treatment plant should  •
 obtain BOD removals  of more than 85  percent during winter
 operation.                                                    |

 This report was submitted in fulfillment of  Grant  No. WPRD  I
 66-01-68 between the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-  •
 tration and Onondaga County Department of Public Works.       "
                                                              I
                                                              (

 The initial plant interviews showed that practically all industries  _
 in the watershed were connected to the municipal sewer system,  I
 with one of them contributing approximately 60 percent of the  I
 organic load  on the  Ley Creek Plant. While metals concentra-
 tions, from various metal-plating  shops,  were high at different  I
 times, the concentrations measured in  the Ley Creek Plant influ-  .
 ent  were generally acceptable  for biological treatment. Total  •
 organic loads at  the  Ley  Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Plants  I
 were  about equal; flow  at the latter  plant  was approximately
 three times as  great. Raw, pretreated, or  secondary-treated  |
 wastewater from the Ley Creek Plant was shown to be amenable  .
 to combination with  raw Metropolitan Sewage Plant influent for  •
 secondary treatment. A full-scale joint treatment plant should  I
 obtain BOD removals  of more than 85  percent during winter
 operation.                                                    |

 This report was submitted in fulfillment of  Grant  No. WPRD  •
 66-01-68 between the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-  I
 tration and Onondaga County Department of Public Works.
	                                   I

 The initial plant interviews  showed that practically all industries  .
 in the watershed were connected to the municipal sewer system,  '
 with one of them contributing approximately 60 percent of the  I
 organic  load on the Ley Creek Plant. While  metals concentra-
 tions, from  various metal-plating shops, were high at different  I
 times, the concentrations measured in the Ley Creek Plant influ-  •
 ent  were  generally acceptable for biological treatment.  Total
 organic  loads at the Ley Creek and Metropolitan Sewage Plants  |
 were about  equal; flow at the latter  plant was approximately
 three  times  as  great. Raw, pretreated, or  secondary-treated  I
 wastewater from the Ley Creek Plant was shown to be amenable  .
 to combination with raw Metropolitan Sewage Plant influent for  '
 secondary treatment. A full-scale joint treatment plant should  |
 obtain  BOD removals  of more than 85  percent during winter
 operation.                                                    I

 This report  was submitted in  fulfillment of Grant  No. WPRD  '
 66-01-68 between the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-  |
 tration and Onondaga County Department of Public Works.

-------