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.
------- |