MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
a comparison of alternatives
Prepared for:
COUNCIL on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
and
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-
Office of Planning and Evaluation
-------
FINAL REPORT
EVALUATION OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
PREPARED FOR
THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION
CONTRACT EQC 316
FEBRUARY 1974
This report has been reviewed by the Office of
Planning and Evaluation, EPA, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
For sate by the Superintendent o( Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
USER’S GUIDE
The purpose of this report is to provide a single document which
can be utilized, on a comparative basis, to develop preliminary
selections of appropriate wastewater treatment schemes for a
municipality. The format of the text allows the reader to com-
pare various treatment strategies on an energy, environmental,
or economic basis and to develop cost figures which may better
reflect a particular local situation.
The user of this text should utilize the procedure outlined
below in order to develop a proper understanding of the basis of
the report and to facilitate treatment system comparisons.
• Review the Introduction chapter in order to become familiar
with the treatment strategies and. sludge handling options
chosen for study within the text.
• Review the Summary section in order to develop an understand-
ing of the general patterns which exist in the information
presented in the profile sheets. Systems are compared on a
relative basis in this section.
• Review the Liquid Treatment Strategies and Sludge Disposal
Options section to obtain a narrative description of the
treatment options and a discussion of the limitations of
each strategy.
• Review the Treatment and Disposal Process Profile section
in order to develop an understanding of the profile sheet
format and meaning. This section contains detailed data on
the input and output characteristics of the systems studied.
• Review Appendices A and B to understand the specific theory
behind design of each treatment operation and the specific
assumptions utilized for each unit operation, process, or
sludge handling option in this study.
• With the preceding information in mind, compare the viable
alternatives which appear to apply by utilizing the process
profile sheets.
• To develop cost figures more representative of a particular
municipality, utilize the worksheets in conjunction with
Appendices A and B and the profile sheets.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .. .. 1
SU ”1 L R.Y . . . . . . . . . . . 25
LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGIES
AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS 39
GEN:ER1. .L . . 39
LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGIES 42
Primary Treatment with Land Disposal of Effluent 43
Waste Stabilization Lagoon 43
Trickling Filter 44
Activated Sludge 45
Biological—Chemical Treatment 46
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration . . . . 47
Tertiary Treatment 48
Physical—Chemical Treatment 49
Extended Aeration 50
SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Sludge Spreading 50
Incineration 52
Ocean Disposal 55
Sanitary Landfill 58
Recalcination 59
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESS PROFILES 61
INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS . 61
DATA SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
LEGEND . . . . . . . . . . . * . . 63
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 1 . 71
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 2 . 75
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 3 . 78
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 4 . 83
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 5 . 87
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 6 . 92
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 7 . 96
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 8 . 100
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 9 . 113
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 10 126
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 11 139
COST ESTIMATION CONSIDERATIONS 143
CAPITALCOSTS 143
OPERATINGCOSTS 144
EXANPLECALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . 145
Assumptions for Sample Calculation . . . . . . . 145
CapitalCosts 145
OperatingCosts 147
SAMPLE WORKSHEET 151
Assumptions 151
CapitalCosts 152
OperatingCosts 152
LAND APPLICATION COST VARIATIONS . . . 155
REFERENCES 163
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1 STRATEGY # 1: PRIMARY TREATMENT WITH
LAND DISPOSAL OF LIQUID EFFLUENT . 4
2 STRATEGY # 2: WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOON . . . . 5
3 STRATEGY # 3: TRICKLING FILTER
WITH SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE, AND
STRATEGY # 4: TRICKLING FILTER
WITH LAND DISPOSAL 6
4 STRATEGY # 5: ACTIVATED SLUDGE
WITH SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE, AND
STRATEGY # 6: ACTIVATED SLUDGE
WITH LAND DISPOSAL . . 7
5 STRATEGY # 7: BIOLOGICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT . . . 8
6 STRATEGY # 8: ACTIVATED SLUDGE-
COAGULATION-FILTRATION . . . 9
7 STRATEGY # 9: TERTIARY TREATMENT 10
8 STRATEGY # 10: PHYSICAL—CHEMICAL TREATMENT 11
9 STRATEGY # 11: EXTENDED AERATION 12
10 SLUDGE OPTION 1: SLUDGE THICKENING, CHEMICAL
CONDITIONING, VACUUM FILTRATION, INCINERATION,
AND ILA.NDFILL . . . . . . . . . . 13
11 SLUDGE OPTION 2: CHEMICAL CONDITIONING, CENTRIFUGE
DEWATERING, INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL 14
12 SLUDGE OPTION 3: SLUDGE THICKENING, CONDITIONING
BY HEAT TREATMENT, VACUUM FILTRATION, INCINERATION,
ANDLANDFILL 15
13 SLUDGE OPTION 4: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
SAND DRYING BEDS, AND LANDFILL 16
14 SLUDGE OPTION 5: SLUDGE THICKENING,
DIGESTION, AND LAND SPREADING . . 17
15 SLUDGE OPTION 6: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
AND OCEAN DUMPING BY PIPELINE 18
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d.)
16 SLUDGE OPTION 7: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
CHEMICAL CONDITIONING, VACUUM FILTRATION, AND
LANDFILL . 19
17 SLUDGE OPTION 8: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
CHEMICAL CONDITIONING, VACUUM FILTRATION, AND
OCEAN DUMPING BY BARGING 20
18 SLUDGE OPTION 9: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING,
VACUUM FILTRATION, INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL 21
19 SLUDGE OPTION 10: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING,
VACUUM FILTRATION, RECALCINATION AND REUSE, AND
LANDFILL OF WASTED RESIDUE 22
20 SLUDGE OPTION 11: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING,
CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING, INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL 23
21 SLUDGE OPTION 12: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING,
CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING, RECALCINATION AND REUSE,
AND LANDFILL OF WASTED RESIDUE 24
22 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR LIQUID TREATMENT
STRATEGIES 28
23 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL ASSUMING INFLUENT SLUDGE FROM LIQUID
TREATMENT STRATEGYNO. 8 * . . . . . 29
24 OUTPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR LIQUID TREATMENT
STRATEGIES 30
25 OUTPUT CHARACTERIZATION PER UNIT CAPACITY FOR
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ASSUMING INFLUENT
SLUDGE FROM LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGY NO. 8 . . 31
26 TOTAL OPERATING COST STRUCTURE FOR LIQUID AND
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES . . . 34
27 PROFILE SHEET LEGEND . . . . 66
28 CONCEPTUALIZED PATTERN OF LAND VALUES FOR AN
URBANAREA 156
29 CONCEPTUALIZED RELATION OF TOTAL LAND APPLICATION
COSTS TO DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 157
30 TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR A FACILITY SERVING A
POPULATION OF 10,000 158
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d.)
31 TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR A FACILITY SERVING A
POPULATION OF 100,000 159
32 TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR A FACILITY SERVING A
POPULATION OF 1,000,000 160
33 TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR VARIOUS SIZED FACILITIES
SHIPPING SLUDGE OVER A 25 MILE DISTANCE 161
34 TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR VARIOUS SIZED FACILITIES
SHIPPING SLUDGE OVER A 300 MILE DISTANCE . . . 162
35 COST RELATIONSHIPS FOR CONVEYANCE OF EFFLUENT
WATER BY PIPELINE, TRUCK, AND RAIL IN $/1000
GALLON/MILE 164
V
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
I ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS AFFECTING LIQUID
TREATMENT STRATEGY PERFORMANCE 35
II ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS AFFECTING SLUDGE
HANDLING OPTION PERFORMANCE 35
III TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE
IN THEUNITED STATES 41
IV DATA SOURCE REFERENCES FOR LIQUID TREATMENT
PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
V DATA SOURCE REFERENCES FOR SLUDGE PROCESSING
OPERATIONS 65
VI SPECIFICS OF PROCESS PROFILE SHEET LEGEND . . 67
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report has been prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute,
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, for the Council on Environ-
mental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. EQC 316.
Dr. A. J. Shuckrow served as program manager for this study,
with Mr. G. W. Dawson acting as deputy program manager.
Other Battelle staff participating in the program included
R. C. Arnett, B. W. Cone, C. A. Counts, J. W. Green,
P. L. Hendrickson, B. W. Mercer, R. S. Pardo, and G. B. Parker.
Consulting assistance was also provided by Mr. Bradley Card.
The secretarial efforts of Ms. Sharon Cozad, Annette Heriford,
Dee Parks, Shirley Rose, Erna Strege, and Sheree Whitten are
gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks must go to members of the staff of the Council
on Environmental Quality, Mr. Steffen Plehn and Dr. Edwin H.
Clark, II, who provided helpful guidance throughout the
program.
vii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
require all federal grant applicants to demonstrate that
alternative waste treatment strategies have been evaluated
prior to final selection of a waste treatment scheme. Regard—
less of the legislative directive, it is clearly advisable that
such a review be made before plans for new treatment facilities
or expansions of old treatment plants are undertaken. A proper
evaluation can aid in minimizing total costs, and optimizing
the allocation of resources. The latter point is of great
interest since the effluent of the municipal waste treatment
plant is coming to be recognized as a potential resource in
its own right.
Although much of the information necessary to evaluate alterna-
tive waste management strategies exists in published and unpub—
lished forms, no single comprehensive source which gathers
together the required information has been available previously.
Such a comprehensive source which outlines the costs and environ-
mental effects of alternative treatment strategies should be
invaluable to Federal policymakers and to local cormitunities
faced with the problem of selecting optimum treatment systems
for particular situations.
In order to provide such a source document, the Council on
Environmental Quality initiated the study reported herein.
Available municipal wastewater and sludge treatment processes
were selected for study on the basis of current or projected
use in various sized flow regimes. Each set of liquid treat-
ment strategies and concomitant sludge options were characterized
as to resource input requirements and subsequent outputs. The
profiles thus constructed formed the basis for a comprehensive
evaluation of the alternatives aimed at selection of optimal
courses of action.
Such a selection process requires more than a simple objective
comparison. Some parameters cannot be quantified and many are
not easily defined in dollar values. Hence, subjective decisions
must be included to evaluate items such as nuisance generation
from noise and odor and the social cost of discharges of
various pollutants.
The selection process is further complicated by the complex
environment within which a treatment plant may be placed.
Clearly, certain strategies while optimal under a given set
of circumstances may be undesirable in a somewhat different
situation, e.g., biological treatment options may be the least
cost alternative for typical domestic plants but may be unaccept-
able in areas where frequent toxic industrial discharges occur
-------
or where mean temperatures are typically below freezing. This
suggests that alternatives must be characterized both under
normal operating conditions and in terms of their sensitivity
to envrioninental changes.
The data contained in this report are intended for use in
alternative strategy selection rather than for facility design.
Thus, it is more useful in a comparative sense than in an
absolute one. Accurate estimates of costs and required
operating conditions will vary with specific applications.
Whereas the work sheets at the end of the report should aid
in improving estimates based on land value and distance
considerations, only detailed design work can provide solid
cost and design estimates for a specific facility. The data
presented here represent the best available information which
could be obtained.
It must be recognized that the evaluation of waste treatment
approaches by a municipality will not be governed by technical
considerations alone. Indeed, some bias is introduced into
the selection process by existing legislative and institutional
structures. A survey of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 and other related laws revealed that the
present Federal grant and bonding mechanisms strongly favor
use of capital intensive technology. This emphasis is coupled
with some very clear directives to utilize land application
techniques when possible. The combination of the two influences
is quite strong now that land costs are eligible for grant aid.
These and other non—technical factors must be considered during
the selection process in that they can have major effects on
the cost to the municipality of a project.
The liquid treatment strategies selected for study in this
program are shown in Figures 1-9 as conceptual flowsheets
accompanied by a brief narrative. Similar characterizations of
the sludge disposal options evaluated in the program are pre-
sented in Figures 10—21.
The following section of this report contains a summary of the
findings of this program together with graphical comparisons of
the inputs and outputs required by the alternatives evaluated.
This section is followed by descriptions of the actual unit
processes and disposal options themselves and the basic assump-
tions employed in deriving the required data. The heart of the
document consists of detailed information sheets or profiles
presenting the quantitative data collected during an intensive
study of treatment processes. The final section of the text
addresses cost considerations and provides sample calculations
for modifying cost parameters to reflect variations from the
assumptions made in the current study.
2
-------
Appended materials include detailed discussions of unit pro-
cesses and sludge disposal options studied. Particular
emphasis is placed on identifying strengths and weaknesses and
describing the sensitivity of various process to changes in
influent or environmental characteristics. Appendix C includes
an extensive review of the agricultural aspects and value of
land application processes.
3
-------
The first strategy consists of primary treatment followed by
land application of the effluent as illustrated below. Primary
treatment is an effective unit process, but by itself is not
capable of achieving the degree of treatment required to meet
present water quality requirements. consequently, effluent can-
not be discharged directly to surface waters, but should be
further treated through land application.
MUNICIPAL
WASTE WAlE R
FIGURE 1.
STRATEGY # 1: PRIMARY TREATMENT WITH LAND
DISPOSAL OF LIQUID EFFLUENT
PRIMARY TREATMENT
— a e — — a — — — — — — — a — — —
SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE
SLUDGE
-------
The second strategy consists of waste stabilization as shown
below. Waste stabilization can be a very effective treatment
technique capable of effluent quality sufficient for discharge
either to land or to surface waters. The degree of treatment
achieved is proportional to the size of the facility.
C H LU RI NE
SPRAY
_________________________ IRRIGATION
MUNICIPAL — WASTE STABILIZATION ____I
WASTEWATER LAGOON _________________
SURFACE WATER
DISC H AR GE
FIGURE 2. STPATEGY 2: WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOON
-------
The third and fourth strategies, illi strated below, consist of
primary and trickling filter treatment followed by discharge
to surface water or land application, respectively. Trickling
filters are employed by a great many’ municipalities of all sizes.
MUNICIPAL
W AS I E WAlE R
FIGURE 3.
STRATEGY # 3:
STRATEGY # 4:
TRICKLING FILTER WITH SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
TRICKLING FILTER WITH LAND DISPOSAL
RECIRCULATION
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
-------
The fifth and sixth strategies consist of primary and activated sludge treatment
followed by discharge to surface water and land application, respectively, as can
be seen below. Activated sludge is presently the single most popular type of
secondary treatment process being desIgned for municipalities. The complete mix
activated sludge process was selected based on its ability to consistently achieve
high quality effluents Furthermore, it is presently considered to be the superior
method of biological treatment consistent with present and future treatment require-
ments as set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
FIGURE 4.
STRATEGY # 5: ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
STRATEGY # 6: ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH LAND DISPOSAL
- 1
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
r — — —1
I I
I L
-------
The seventh strategy consists of activated sludge treatment
with alum addition and nitrification-denitrifiCation followed
by discharge to surface water as illustrated below. Land
application of effluent water is not considered for this treat—
ment sequence since nutrient removal would be superfluous if
that mode of discharge were utilized. The nutrient removal
capacity is presumably added to protect surface waters to which
intended discharges are to be made.
QD
M u N U P Al
WAS TI WAT(W
S LU OS S
FIGURE 5. STRATEGY # 7: BIOLOGICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
-------
The eighth strategy consists of activated sludge treatment and
coagulation—filtration followed by discharge to surface waters
as depicted below. Once again, land application was not
considered as an ultimate disposal option since its use would
preclude the necessity for the high level of treatment afforded
by the addition of coagulation-filtration.
ACIJVATED SLUDGE
r
M UN I C! PG
NAT [ P
COAGULASION-F ILTRAT ION
SLUDGE
Ii US F
LIME SLUDGE
FIGURE 6.
STRATEGY # 8: ACTIVATED SLUDGE—COAGULATION-FILTRATION
-------
The ninth strategy consists of activated sludge, coagulation-
filtration, carbon sorption, and zeolite ammonia removal followed
by discharge to surface waters as outlined below.
I-J
0
**ION PENOVAL
FIGURE 7. STRATEGY # 9:
TERTIARY TREATMENT
-------
The tenth strategy consists of coagulation—filtration and carbon
adsorption followed by discharge to surface waters as illustrated
below. This physical-chemical treatment scheme produces high quality
water which can be returned to surface waters.
t 1
I —I
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
COAGULATION - FILTRATION
— — —
L____
LIME SLUDGE
FIGURE 8. STRATEGY # 10: PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
-------
The eleventh and final strategy evaluated consists of extended
aeration followed by surface water discharge of liquid effluents
as illustrated below. Extended aeration can provide relatively
high quality water if properly designed and hence effluents may
be disinfected and released to surface water without further
treatment.
MUNICIPAL
WAS TEWATER
H
SLUDGE
FIGURE 9. STRATEGY # 11:
EXTENDED AERATION
-------
A schematic diagram of sludge option one is presented below.
The overall sludge handling system, depending upon plant size,
can be operated intermittently or continuously. Sludge is
removed from the clarifiers, thickened by gravity or air f iota—
tion (depending upon sludge type) with the thickener overflow
being recycled to the head end of the plant, conditioned by
the utilization of polymers (if such treatment is appropriate),
dewatered by vacuum filtration including filtrate recycle to the
plant influent, incinerated in a multiple hearth unit, and
disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
FIGURE 10.
SLUDGE OPTION 1: SLUDGE THICKENING, CHEMICAL CONDITIONING,
VACUUM FILTRATION, INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL
PROCESS
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW FILTRATE AND WASHINGS
RETIJRN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
PROCESS
SLUDGE
Below is a schematic diagram of the second sludge handling
System. Incoming sludge from the clarifiers and treatment
systems is conditioned by a polymer, dewatered by centrifuge
with the centrate being recycled to the plant’s head end,
incinerated in a multiple hearth incinerator, and disposed of
at a sanitary landfill. The process can be operated continu-
ous].y or intermittently.
FIGURE 11. SLUDGE OPTION 2: CHEMICAL CONDITIONING, CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING,
INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL
GASES
CE NT RATE
(RETURN 10 PLANT)
-------
Sludge option three is represented schematically below. Initi-
ally, the sludge is thickened and the overflow is returned to
the plant. Then the sludge is heat treated in the porteous
unit with the portrate being recycled to the plant influent.
The sludge, with improved dewatering characteristics, is then
passed to a vacuum filter where the filtrate is also returned
to the plant influent and the cake is transported to the incin-
erator where the final product is an inert ash which is disposed
of in a sanitary landfill.
PROCESS
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW
(RETURN TO PLANT)
FIGURE 12.
SLUDGE OPTION 3: SLUDGE THICKENING, CONDITIONING BY HEAT TREATMENT,
VACUUM FILTRATION, INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL
H
U i
RESIDUAL FILTRATE AND WASHINGS
(RETURN TO PLANT) (JETURN TO PLANT)
-------
Sludge option number four is represented schem atically below.
In this case, sludge from the treatment system is initially
thickened with the thickener overflow being returned to the
plant. The thickened sludge is anaerobically digested and
applied to a sand drying bed. After completion of the drying
process, the sludge is removed and hauled to a sanitary land-
fill site.
METHANE GAS
FIGURE 13. SLUDGE OPTION 4: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
SAND DRYING BEDS, AND LANDFILL
H
PROCESS
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW
(RETURN TO PLANT)
SECONDARY DIGESTER SUPERNATANT
(RETURN TO PLANT
-------
Sludge option five is schematically represented below. Sludge
is collected from the wastewater treatment system, thickened
with the overflow being recycled to the plant influent, digested
anaerobically and transported to a designated region for land
spreading.
PROCESS
SLUDGE
METHANE GAS
FIGURE 14.
SLUDGE OPTION 5: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
AND LAND SPREADING
-J
THICKENE ERFLOW
(RETURN TO PLANT)
SECONDARY DIGESTER SUPERNATANT
(RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
Sludge option number six is represented schematically below.
In this, sludge is collected from the various wastewater treat-
ment systems, thickened by gravity or air flotation methods
(depending upon the sludge characteristics), anaerobically
digested for pathogen and odor control, and transported to
the ocean by pipeline.
METHANE GAS
ULTIMATE
PROCESS _______ _________ DISPOSAL:
SLUDGE THICKENER . DIGESTION — OCEAN
DUMPING
( PIPELINE )
THICKENER OVEIFLOW
(RETURN TO PLANT) SECONDARY DIGESTER SUPERNATANT
(RETURN TO PLANT)
FIGURE 15. SLUDGE OPTION 6: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION,
AND OCEAN DUMPING BY PIPELINE
-------
A schematic representation of sludge option number seven is
shown below. Sludge is collected and thickened by an appro-
priate method, anaerobically digested, and dewatered with a
vacuum filter. Thickener overflow and filtrate are recycled
to the plant influent. The filter cake is disposed of in a
sanitary landfill after hauling by truck.
FIGURE 16. SLUDGE OPTION 7: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION, CHEMICAL CONDITIONING,
VACUUM FILTRATION, AND LANDFILL
METHANE GAS
PROCESS
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW SECONDARY DIGESTER SUPERNATANT FILTRATE AND WASHINGS
(RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
The eighth sludge option is represented schematically below.
Sludges collected from the various treatment schemes con-
sidered are combined and depending on the type of sludge are
gravity or air flotation thickened. Thickened sludge is then
passed through an anaerobic digester for pathogen and odor
control. Sludge exiting from the preceding process is vacuum
filtered with the filtrate being returned to the plant’s head
end.
FIGURE 17.
SLUDGE OPTION 8: SLUDGE THICKENING, DIGESTION, CHEMICAL CONDITIONING,
VACUUM FILTRATION, AND OCEAN DUMPING BY BARGING
N J
0
METHANE GAS
PROCESS
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW SECONDARY DIGESTER SUPERNATANT FILTRATE AND WASHINGS
(RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
CHEMICAL
PROCESS
SLUDGE
A schematic diagram of chemical sludge option nine which involves
gravity thickening, vacuum filtration, incineration, and
sanitary landfill appears below. The lime sludge is gravity
thickened with the overflow, being recycled to the plant influent.
The thickened sludge is vacuum filtered with the filtrate also
recycled to the plant influent. The cake is then incinerated
and the lime and ash are disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
GASES
FIGURE 18.
SLUDGE OPTION 9:
CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING, VACUUM FILTPATION,
INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL
t’J
H
THICKENER OVERFLOW FILTRATE AND WASHINGS
(RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
CHEMICAL
PROCESS
SLUDGE
Sludge option ten, shown below, consists of gravity thickening,
vacuum filtration, recalcination, lime reuse and landfill of
recalciner blowdown. The chemical sludge is gravity thickened
(recycling the overflow to the influent), vacuum filtered (with
the filtrate being recycled), and recalcined in a multiple
hearth incinerator. The lime is recycled for its value as a
chemical coagulant. Approximately thirty percent (by weight)
is wasted and disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
THICKENER OVERFLOW
(RETURN TO PLANT)
GASES
FIGURE 19. SLUDGE OPTION 10: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING, VACUUM FILTRATION,
RECALCINATION AND REUSE, AND LANDFILL OF WASTED RESIDUE
FILTRATE AND WASHING RECALCINED LIME
(RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
CHEMICAL
PROCESS
SLUDGE
Sludge option eleven consists of gravity thickening, centrifu—
gation, incineration, and sanitary landfill as represented by
the schematic diagram below. Lime sludges are collected from
the wastewater treatment systems, thickened by gravity
(recycling the overflow), dewatered by centrifugation (recycling
the centrate), incinerated in a multiple hearth unit and disposed
of at a sanitary landfill site.
FIGURE 20.
SLUDGE OPTION 11: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING, CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING,
INCINERATION, AND LANDFILL
(,J
GASES
CONCENTRATED
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW CENTRATE
(RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
The final sludge option is represented schematically below. The
chemical sludges are gravity thickened and the overflow is recycled
to the plant influent. The thickened sludge is dewatered by centrifuge
with the centrate recycled to the plant. The dewatered cake is recalcined
in multiple hearth unit to recover the lime for reuse. Thirty percent of
the recalcined lime is wasted to a sanitary landfill.
CHEMICAL
PROCESS
SLUDGE
FIGURE 21. SLUDGE OPTION 12: CHEMICAL SLUDGE THICKENING, CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING,
RECALCINATION AND REUSE, AND LANDFILL OF WASTED RESIDUE
GASES
CONCENTRATED
SLUDGE
THICKENER OVERFLOW CENTRATE RECALCINED LIME
(RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT) (RETURN TO PLANT)
-------
SUMMARY
Three environments are potentially affected by operation of a
wastewater treatment plant:
• Air
• Land, and
• Water.
Potentially, the ultimate sink of all discharges from wastewater
treatment plants (as well as other sources) is the ocean. Unfor-
tunately, relatively little is known or understood concerning
the ultimate capacity of the ocean to accept wastes, its rate
of cleansing the numerous types of wastes, the physical and
biological effects of waste products, and the relation between
mankind’s existence and the ocean’s purity. A lack of under-
standing should not result in the indiscriminate disposal of
wastes into the ocean simply because detrimental effects have
yet to be proven. Rather, the approach should be geared toward
ocean disposal of only wastes known to cause little, if any,
significant degradation. Similarly, caution must be taken to
protect the intermediate sinks.
The three intermediate sinks: air, land, and surface water
(excluding oceans) are affected by effluent disposal in varying
degrees. The emission of airborne particulate matter and gases
to the atmosphere from treatment plants is normally confined to
such operations as biological treatment facilities, digestion,
incineration, and a few physical-chemical treatment schemes
(e.g., ammonia stripping). The majority of the gaseous products
from the biochemical reactions occurring within a treatment
plant are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen. In most cases,
the major sources of methane can be contained and the gas uti-
lized for various purposes within the plant. The other gases
are natural to the atmosphere. On the other hand, the main
source of particulate emissions is the sludge incineration
process. The inclusion of properly designed wet scrubbers,
cyclones, or electrostatic precipitators can minimize the quan-
tity of emissions actually reaching the atmosphere. That quan-
tity which manages to reach the atmosphere from treatment pro-
cesses will eventually be deposited upon the land, in surface
water, or in the ocean. In general, such quantities of material
are minimal and have little impact upon the environment.
Presently, the quantity of wastewater treatment plant effluent
reaching the surface water in the United States is significant.
The composition of these effluents varies immensely from one
site to another. Depending upon the assimilative capacity of
the surface water, the effluent characteristics, and the
25
-------
relative quantities involved, surface water disposal of treated
effluent may or may not be an appropriate alternative. Such
disposal will normally eliminate the utilization of valuable
nutrients in the effluent for crop production or land reclama-
tion. On the credit side, it will help recharge valuable water
supplies.
Land disposal of liquid and solid effluents has been receiving
increasing attention. The cleansing capabilities of soils and
the potential for nutrient utilization for crop production makes
land spreading quite appealing. However, here again, the amount
of knowledge available concerning the ultimate effect of massive
land spreading ventures is limited. The decay of pathogenic
organisms and the saturation of the soils with heavy metals are
two unanswered potential problems associated with the long—term
land spreading of waste treatment plant effluents. Furthermore,
the residence time of most constituents of any wastewater efflu-
ent will probably be much longer in the soil than in a stream
or river.
Each potential treatment plant site must be evaluated on a case—
by—case basis. The final disposal site will also influence the
operating and maintenance and capital costs, as well as many
other parameters as outlined below.
The graphical summaries presented in the following pages charac-
terize many of the input and output parameters associated with
the liquid treatment and sludge handling options analyzed within
this report. These graphs indicate various prominent trends in
the data presented on the process profile sheets and illustrate
some of the comparisons which should be made in order to properly
analyze and compare the wastewater treatment alternatives avail-
able. The danger inherent in the presentation of the data in
this manner is that the trends illustrated in the figures are
only representative of the data developed under the unit process
and unit operation assumptions of this text, and of the assumed
domestic wastewater quality characteristics. Hence, the trends
taken out of context may not represent any particular wastewater
treatment plant site. The reader should utilize these figures
prudently and should refer to the profile and computational
sheets in order to develop applicable rough estimates of treat-
ment alternatives for a particular location.
When reviewing the figures, the reader must be careful to compare
treatment strategies at similar flow rates since comparisons of
strategies at different flow rates will result in erroneous con-
clusions. Moreover, these comparisons, while being useful for
providing a quick insight into the relative inputs and outputs
of each treatment system, must be viewed in the light of the type
26
-------
of system applicable for each proposed treatment site. The
geographical location of a site may cause the elimination of
some of the alternatives evaluated in this text as would the
quantity of wastewater to be treated.
The figures presented have all been normalized in order to
provide the reader with a visual comparison of the various treat-
ment strategies presented within the text of this report. Hence
data is given per unit volume of water or per unit quantity of
sludge.
Figure 22 graphically illustrates the following liquid treatment
input parameters: 1) labor requirements (Figure 22—A); 2) energy
consumption (Figure 22—B); 3) operating and maintenance costs
(Figure 22-C); 4) capital costs (Figure 22—D); and 5) land
requirements (Figure 22—E). Figure 22—A also contains a code
indicating the level of operator skill which must be maintained
in order to provide efficient plant operation. The low, medium,
and high ratings have been developed on a comparative basis
between the various types of treatment plants evaluated. A rat-
ing of “high” would indicate the necessity for employing skilled
and well trained operators.
Figure 23 graphically illustrates the same input parameters
presented in Figure 22 for sludge treatment and disposal. As
previously stated, all comparisons are contingent upon the
assumptions presented in this report. bsolute quantitative
data can be obtained for each individual process from the spe-
cific profile sheet. In reviewing these graphs, Figures 22 and
23, and the two following sets of graphs, Figures 24 and 25, it
should be recalled that the strategy and option numbers refer
to treatment systems as outlined below:
Liquid Treatment Strategy *1 — Primary Treatment with Land
Application
2 — Waste Stabilization Lagoon
3 - Trickling Filter with Surface
Water Discharge
4 - Trickling Filter with Land
Application
5 - Activated Sludge with Surface
Water Discharge
6 - Activated Sludge with Land
Application
7 - Biological-Chemical Treatment
8 - Activated Sludge — Coagulation -
Filtration
9 - Tertiary Treatment
10 — Physical-Chemical Treatment
11 — Extended Aeration
27
-------
L ] j H H H H
h! fl. H k
I! H m
MOD 29 29 2 95
I 2S2 I 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11
FIGURE 22-k RELATIVE LABOR REQUIREMENTS PEN UNIT CAPACITY
RELATIVE OPERATOR
SKILL lEVEL
REQUIREMENT
I-
N - MEDIUM
H - HIGH
AMORTIZED CAPITAL
— COSTS
:::J OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
cLUR RATE MOD ‘9 ’5 9 fl!3 9 99 ‘1J ; —
TREATMO
1 32f 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11
FIGURE flC: RELATIVE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
z
0
z
S
FLONRA1T MGD 6 ° 9429499 ‘9 ‘9
TREATMENT 4 5
STRATEGY C _L 6 7 8 9 10 II
FIGURE 22-& RELATIVE EMRGY CONSUMPTION PER UNIT CAPACITY
ND COST
[ J CONSTRUCTION
P ANOEQIJIPMENT
COST
n
I I
I
cMRA1I MOD ‘
A I 2S’Zt’ 3 4 5 o 7 9 10 II
FIGURE 22+ RELATIVE CAPITAL COSTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
2
z
5
FLEMRATL MC D ‘99 ‘9 ’J ‘89 ‘88 ‘U 1
ENEATMENT
SIRATBY ITSZl3 4 5 07 89 1011
FiGURE 224: RELATIVE LAM) REQUIREMENTS PEN UNIT CAPACITY
I
*Ssurface water disposal of liquid
**LLand disposal of liquid effluent
effluent
FIGURE 22. INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR LIQUID
TREATMENT STRATEGIES
E iCiRI CAL
z
8
S
S
FU* RATE
TREATMENT
S1RAT Y
0
n
Ii
‘U 15 ‘U ‘9
A - THIS MISSING SEGMENT IS
APPRONIMATELY EQUAL TO
11€ LAM) REQUIREMENTS OF
TREATMENT STRATEGY 25’
28
-------
— AMORTIZED CAPITAL
COSTS
[ :::J OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
M
M
0
M L
FLON RATE, MCD !8 !
SWDGEOPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12
FICUREZ3-k RELATIVE LABOR REQUIREMENTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
0
U
2
FLON RATE, MCD -6 -8 !B E8 28 !
SWDGE OPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FICl E 23-C: RELATIVE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
2
a
2
FL RATE, MCD
SLuDGE OPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SUJDGE OPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C 11 12
FIGURE 23-8: RELATIVE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER UNIT CAPACITY
U
_L
98
FLOR RATE, MCD -- -- - - - -- -
SLUDGE OPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
FIGURE 23D: RElATIVE CAPITAL COSTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
FIGURE 23-E RELATIVE LAND REQUIREMENTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
FIGU1 E 23. INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL ASSUMING INFLUENT SLUDGE
FROM LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGY #8
29
11
12
RELATIVE OPERATOR
SKILL LEVEL
— REQUIREMENT
L-LCY.V
M - MEDIUM
H - HIGH
H
M
0
0
FLOW RATE, MCD
LAND COST
CONSTRUCTIOI
AND EQUIPMENT
COST
TOTAL LAM) REQUIREMENTS
—10 TIMES SWDGE OPTION #10
nIl
-------
I
a
II.’
1 2S* 2L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TREATMENT STRATEGY
FIGURE 24-A: RELATIVE BOL) EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS
-11-I-ill--
I 2 S 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
TREATMENT SIRAItGY
FIGURE 24-C: RELATI’ £ NITROGEN EFFLUENT
CONCEifRAT IONS
TREATMENT STRATEGY
FIGuRE 24-E RELATIVE SLUDGE PRODUCTION
PER UNIT CAPACI1Y
v .3
-J
C
C
LU
D -
= LU
Lfl
3-
C D
3-
3-
LU
L)
C
L)
V . 3
0
0
=
0
“ 3
0
LU
>
3—
LU
V . 3
—3
3-
0
3-
>- <
>
- : I-
LU
I- ( )
1 2S* 2L**3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TREATMENT STRATEGY
FIGURE 24-B: RELATIVE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
TREATMENT STRATEGY
FIGURE 24D: RELATIVE PHOSPHOROUS EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS
I 2S2L ’3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TREATMENT STRATEGY
FIGURE 24f: RELATIVE HEAVY METALS EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS
*S=Surface water disposal of liquid effluent
**L=Land disposal of liquid effluent
FIGURE 24. OUTPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR LIQUID
TREATMENT STRATEGIES
I .I
II
0
3-
I-
LU
0
C-)
C
0
LU
>
0
I.-
I-
LU
C-)
z
0
C-.)
z
I-
>
0
3-
C .)
C
0
a-
LU
C
-J
‘I )
>-
C
>
1 2S*2L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
30
-------
1 2 3 4 5 7 6,8 9 10 11 12
SLUDGE OPTION
FIGURE 25-A: FATE OF SOLIDS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
OPTIONS
SLUDGE OPTION
FIGURE 25-C: FATE OF HEAVY METALS CONTENT FOR SLUDGE
DISPOSAL OPTIONS
SLUDGE OPTiON
FIGURE 25-B: FATE OF PHOSPHOROUS CONTENT FOR SLUDGE
DISPOSAL OPTIONS
SLUDGE OPTION
FIGURE 25D: FATE OF NITROGEN CONTENT FOR SLUDGE
DISPOSAL OPTIONS
J LANDFILL
EJ LAND SPREADING
OCEAN
c: RETURN TO TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE 25.
OUTPUT CHARACTERIZATION PER UNIT CAPACITY
FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
ASSUMING INFLUENT SLUDGE FROM
LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGY #8
(I ,
-
0
—I
I- <
U-
z
cx
w
>
I-
>-
>
=
U- 0
>- ‘n
—
<0
U-
cx
U. ’
>
S
Li . ’
1 2 3 4 5 7 6,8 9 10 H 12
(1 ’)
0
0
=
0
= —J
Q- <
U_
<0
= U-
cx
>
I-
5
-J
0
0
1• )
0
0
U-
‘U
0
I-
U-
0
I-
cx
U-’
>
S
U . ’
OUTPUT
DISPLACEMENT LEGEND
1 2 3 4 5 7 6,8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 7 6,8 9 10 11 12
AIR
31
-------
Sludge Treatment
and Disposal Option #1 - Thickening - Conditioning - Filtration -
Incineration — Landfill
2 — Conditioning - Centrifugation -
Incineration — Landfill
3 — Thickening — Heat Treatment - Filtration —
Incineration — Landfill
4 — Thickening - Digestion - Sod Drying -
Landf ill
5 — Thickening — Digestion - Land Spreading
6 — Thickening — Digestion - Ocean Disposal
7 — Thickening - Digestion — Conditioning -
Filtration — Landfill
8 - Thickening - Digestion - Conditioning -
Filtration - Ocean Dumping
9 — Chemical Sludge Thickening - Filtration —
Incineration — Landfill
10 - Chemical Sludge Thickening - Filtration —
Recalcination
11 - Chemical Sludge Thickening -
Centrifugation — Incineration - Landfill
12 - Chemical Sludge Thickening -
Centrifugation — Recalcination
All sludge input numbers were derived based on sludge produced
from an activated sludge plant followed by coagulation and f ii—
tration (Liquid Treatment Strategy #8). This strategy was
selected because it generates both biological and chemical sludges.
It was also selected on the basis of widespread use of activated
sludge systems throughout the United States.
Figure 24 graphically illustrates the following liquid treatment
output parameters: 1) BOD (Figure 24—A); 2) suspended solids
(Figure 24-B); 3) nitrogen (Figure 24-C); 4) phosphorous (Fig-
ure 24—D); 5) sludge production- (Figure 24-E); and 6) heavy
metals (Figure 24—F). The effluent concentration figures reflect
the relative concentration of a specific parameter reaching the
final sink. For purposes of this study, the final liquid dis-
posal sink has been defined as either surface water or groundwater.
Strategies 2S, 3, 5, and 7-11 discharge to surface water while the
remaining strategies dispose the liquid effluent on land. It is
assumed that in these cases of land application, the effluent
eventually reaches groundwater.
Figure 25 graphically illustrates the same output parameters
presented in Figure 24 for sludge treatment and disposal options.
The relative figures indicate the percentage of the output from
the treatment plant which is distributed to the air, land, or
ocean. Those outputs which are recycled to the plant represent
the contaminants left in the liquid fraction which will be returned
32
-------
for liquid treatment processing. Their ultimate fate will be
determined by the disposition of the liquid effluent.
Figure 26 illustrates the fractional distribution of the total
operating costs per unit capacity for both the liquid treatment
strategies and the sludge treatment and disposal options.
Table I represents a qualitative analysis of several parameters
affecting the level of performance of a treatment plant. This
table is provided as a guide to the reader in understanding the
complexities involved in various treatment strategies as well
as the potential dangers of improper plant operation. Sensi-
tivity to Fluctuations (refer to Table I) measures the ability
of the plant to continue to maintain its design performance in
the wake of changing wastewater characteristics, climatic fluc-
tuations and other alterations. In this case, a low rating
would indicate that the plant’s efficiency is not significantly
influenced by such fluctuations whereas a high rating would
indicate that the treatment strategy’s efficiency is signifi-
cantly altered by changing environmental factors.
Necessary Level of Operator Attentiveness is a measure of the
system’s demand upon the operator’s awareness. A low rating
indicates that the system does not require constant operator
attention.
M 9 nitude of Failure Due to Operator Inattentiveness is a measure
of the tential consequences should operator inattention sponsor
plant failure. A low rating would indicate that plant failure
would result in an insignificant decrease in treatment levels
and hence would not lead to excessive environmental degradation
or health hazards. The strategies with these ratings typically
include redundant unit operations. A high rating would reflect
a potential significant increase in the level of contaminants
in the effluent water and therefore a concomittant increase in
environmental degradation and health hazard should the plant
fail to operate efficiently as a result of operator inattention.
Strategies with these ratings typically include sensitive unit
operations and little overlapping treatment capability.
Table II is a tabular display of a similar qualitative analysis
of the sludge handling options as was illustrated in Table I for
the liquid treatment strategies. In this case, Sensitivity to
Fluctuations and Necessary Level of Operator Attentiveness hold
the same meanings as previously discussed for the liquid treat-
ment strategies. Failure of these sludge handling schemes is
not viewed as a health hazard or an immediate threat to the
environment. In general, such a failure will temporarily require
the plant to handle and dispose of the sludge in a less optimal
manner.
33
-------
LAND
C, . ’
I-
C,.’
0
I-
.
0
0
0
0
0
L)
F. RATE, MG i)
TREATMENT
EJENERGY (ELECTRICAL
AND FUEL)
[ :JOPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE
CAPI1AL
2$ -9 28 28 £$ !8
1 3 4 5 o 7 S 9 10 11
FIGURE 26-A: FRACTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL OPERATINGS COSTS PER UNIT CAPACITY
FOR LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGIES
LAND
FL.ON RATE, MGI)
SWDGE OPTION
cJENERGY (LECTRICAL
AND FUEl.)
FIGURE 2& B: FRACTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL OPERATING COSTS PER UNIT CAPACITY FOR
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
(ASSUMES INFWENT SLUDGE FROM LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGY #8)
*Ssurface water disposal of liquid effluent
**LLand disposal of liquid effluent
FIGURE 26.
TOTAL OPEflATING COST STRUCTURE FOR
LIQUID AND SLUDGE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE
CAPITAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 9 10 11 12
34
-------
TABLE I
ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS AFFECTING
LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGY PERFORMANCE
___ Treatment_Strategy ___
Parameter 1 2S 2L 3 4 5 6 7 8 T5 ii
Sensitivity to
Fluctuations 0 a) a) a) a) a) 0 0 (1)
z z -i
Necessary Level
of Operator r rrj Fri rrj t
0 0 0 C L) a) a) a) —I a) •r-i 0
Attentiveness
Magnitude of
Failure Due to
b V b V
Operator mat— o w 0 a) 0 i-1 a) •r-1 a) i-4 0
z z
tentivene ss
TABLE II
ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS AFFECTING
SLUDGE HANDLING OPTION PERFORMANCE
___ ___ ___Treatment Strategy ____ ____ ____
Parameter 1 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 11 12
Sensitivity to
Fluctuations
0
0
0
,-i
-
•.-1
a)
Z
a)
Z
(1)
Z
a)
Z
a)
Z
(1)
Z
a)
a)
Necessary Level
of Operator
Attentiveness
V
a)
Z
V
C))
Z
b
r-4
0
‘-
V
C))
0
V
C))
Z
V
C))
Z
V
C)
Z
--1
V
a)
Z
b’
r1
35
-------
The figures and tables, along with the profile sheets, lead
to the following general conclusions.
• No single liquid treatment strategy or sludge disposal
option is optimal for all situations. Rather, there are
a number of acceptable alternatives with inherent advan-
tages and disadvantages which change in relative impor-
tance as a function of site—specific variables. Conse-
quently, regulatory policy and guidelines must permit
flexibility in the decision making process.
• All liquid treatment strategies evaluated are capable of
meeting existing discharge regulations if properly
designed and operated. Selection between individual
strategies will depend on prevailing conditions at the
proposed site.
• Although land application was the Only liquid treatment
practice evaluated for the removal of nutrients from small
volume wastewater flows, increased consideration should
be given to the addition of chemicals to primary and secon-
dary treatment facilities for small plants in areas where
land application is not possible.
• Land application of effluents can be an economical alter-
native for achieving high levels of organic and nutrient
removal. Additional research is needed, however, before
the application of treatment plant effluent to food and
feed grain crops should be encouraged on a widespread
scale.
• All sludge disposal options evaluated were found to be
acceptable if properly designed and operated. Selection
of individual courses of action will depend greatly on
the conditions prevailing at the proposed site.
• Land spreading of organic sludges offers the potential
for both disposal of a waste material, and resource
recovery of nutrient materials otherwise wasted. Because
experience is limited, unanswered questions still exist
concerning the public health effects and length of soil
exhaustion cycle associated with this practice
• Land spreading of sludges should receive special atten-
tion in areas where strip mining activities have been
intensive since the orqanic content and available nutrients
can have a beneficial impact on the otherwise relatively
sterile soil.
36
-------
• Incineration is one of the best developed methods for
disposal of sludges, but it affords little opportunity
for the reclamation of resources, and it places heavy
energy demands on the community. More work is needed
to identify specific stack gas contaminants and estab-
lish emission standards for individual toxicants.
• Ocean disposal represents one of the least expensive
methods available both in terms of economic costs and
resource utilization. More research is needed, however,
to gain a better understanding of potential degrading
effects.
• Sanitary landfills are an especially attractive alter-
native for municipalities currently disposing of solid
wastes in a similar manner.
• Advanced waste treatment schemes are typically energy
intensive and thus may be increasingly difficult to
institute. Work is needed to develop new alternatives
with lower energy demands.
• Additional work is required to detail the secondary
effects associated with various treatment options.
This will allow for optimization from a system over-
view.
• Grant and bonding provisions in the present laws favor
selection of capital intensive alternatives. In many
cases, these alternatives may not be the best techni-
cal choices, the least cost choices, nor will they
necessarily result in the least burden being placed
on the environment.
• Grant and bonding provisions also discriminate against
development of private utilities for the treatment of
municipal wastes. Such utilities could be beneficial
in sponsoring economical regionalization of facilities
and continued innovation in waste treatment.
37
-------
LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGIES AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
GENERAL
A community faces a monumental task when it must consider con-
structing new, or improving existing wastewater treatment
facilities. There is no single treatment system which is best
for all particular situations. All treatment alternatives
considered in this study could achieve the presently required
degree of treatment if properly designed, constructed, and
Operated.
The technical and cost information presented in this report
can be used as a guideline in selecting various alternatives
from a technical standpoint. However, there are several non-
quantitative considerations that are also pertinent. First,
the competence of the consulting engineer who is responsible
for the design and administration of construction activities
of the treatment facility must be considered. Consulting
engineers throughout the U.S. generally are conservative in
nature and tend to bias the selection of treatment options
towards traditional, well established systems. Many firms are
not familiar with the more recent innovations in waste treat-
ment technology and are unwilling and/or unable to give advanced
systems adequate consideration. Therefore, in selecting an
architect—engineering firm, it is extremely important to con-
sider the past experience and capability of the consulting
engineer to cope with the increasing complexities involved in
the selection and design of modern wastewater management systems.
Many municipalities tend to engage local firms or firms with
which they have traditionally dealt for general engineering
assistance. Such practice does not necessarily result in
selection and implementation of the optimum wastewater treat-
ment strategy.
Operating personnel at a wastewater treatment facility are a
major factor in the success or failure of the facility to
perform according to facility design expectations. Considerable
experience and trainir.g are required of operating personnel to
assure that a treatment facility will consistently achieve high
levels of treatment. Many communities have the attitude that
treatment plants essentially run themselves. All treatment
facilities must be operated with full knowledge of the process
and constant monitoring of the effluent. Improper management
of any facility can result in a failure to meet treatment
requirements. Historically, failure of many treatment facilities
to perform up to design expectations has been the result of
poor operational practices.
39
-------
Several general assumptions are implicit in the data presented
in this report. It is assumed that infiltration is minimized
and thus daily flows average 100 gpcd. Plants are operated on
a 24 hour per day, 365 day per year basis with average efficiency
unless otherwise noted. When older cost data was all that could
be found, figures were updated to 1973 costs using a five percent
inflation factor.
Domestic sewage is characterized in Table III. In all cases,
medium strength sewage was assumed in this work. It is
recognized that larger municipalities often handle a greater
volume of industrial wastes than smaller ones and hence may be
better characterized by the high strength sewage detailed in
Table III. The generalization, however, is not an easy one to
make since the degree of variation in wastewater strength will
depend both on the type of industry and the manner in which
specific plants are operated. Rather than attempt to differ-
entiate the quality of wastes for larger flows, and thus accept
the above generalization, the medium strength sewage assumption
was made. This puts all comparisons between unit inputs and
outputs on an equivalent base.
When wastes are found to be stronger than those assumed in this
study, some corrections in sizing and evaluating treatment
facilities will be in order. Many biological processes are
limited by organic loading rather than hydraulic loading. For
these processes, stronger wastewaters clearly require larger
facilities. Waste strength may also approach a point where
plant effluent recycle or other means of dilution are required
to effect better treatment. Thus, when stronger wastes are
anticipated, caution must be taken in reviewing the data
presented herein.
The one generalization that can be made about wastes received
by plants with industrial contributors relates to their higher
heavy metals content. These materials as well as other waste
constituents can affect process design and selection because
of their chemical and toxicological properties. This situation,
however, is in a state of flux. Section 307 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 requires the
formulation of pretreatment standards for all industrial wastes
routed to municipal sewers. These regulations will tend to
reduce heavy metal inputs in sewage to levels closer to those
assumed in the present study. Pretreatment standards, however,
will not eliminate differences in pollutant levels since they
are not addressed to nonpoint sources. Hence, municipalities
served by combined storm—sanitary sewer systems may continue
to receive high levels of some metals and compounds such as
commercial pesticides.
40
-------
TABLE III
TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMESTIC
SEWAGE IN THE UNITED STATES 6 ’ 31
Constituents Weak Medium Strong
Physical Characteristics
Color (nonseptic) Gray Gray Gray
Color (septic) Gray-Black Blackish Blackish
Odor (nonseptic) Musty Musty Musty
Odor (septic) Musty-H 2 S H 2 S H 9 S
Temperature-°F (average) 55°—90° 55°—90° 5 °90°
Total solids* (mg/i) 450 800 1200
Total volatile solids (mg/i) 250 425 800
Suspended solids (mg/i) 100 200 375
Volatile suspended solids (mg/l) 75 130 200
Settleable solids_ ! ) 2 5 7
Chemical Characteristics
pH (units) 6.5 7.5 8.0
Cl, SO 4 , Ca, Mg, etc.*
Total nitrogen (mg/i) 15 40 60
Organic nitrogen (mg/i) 5 14.5 19
Anunonia nitrogen (mg/i) 10 25 40
Nitrate nitrogen (mg/i) 0.5 1.0
Total phosphate-PC 4 (mg/i) 5 15 30
Biological Characteristics
Total bacteria ( counts ) i. x io8 30 x i0 8 100 x io 8
100 ml
Total coliforin ( MPN ) 1 x 106 30 x io 6 100 x io6
Biochemical oxygen demand 100 200 450
*Qujte variable depending on natural water quality of region.
-------
The complexity of these and other factors related to determining
the strength of sewage underscores the necessity for adequate
analysis of all wastewaters prior to process selection. Design
decisions can only be made on a site specific basis.
All operations are assumed to be accomplished within the exist-
ing regulatory requirements. Consequently, effluent standards
for air and water, pretreatment requirements for toxic sub-
stances, and specific operating guidelines for such practices
as ocean dumping and incineration are anticipated in the data.
The effect of such assumptions is largely seen in the capital
and operating costs where additional equipment and higher input
requirements are necessitated.
Operating performance data has been taken largely from empirical
data averages and thus represents what can be expected under
typical or normal range environmental conditions. Extremes in
temperature, flow variation, or other parameters will have
adverse effects on actual plant performance. The impact of
changes in significant parameters on specific treatment alterna-
tives is addressed in the sensitivity discussion included with
each process description.
Selection of alternatives can be best approached in a stepwise
fashion. First all viable options are selected for the re-
quired flow rate. Then comprehensive comparisons of costs,
resource needs, and outputs are made for candidate processes.
This step is somewhat of an iterative one due to the inter-
relations between liquid treatment and sludge production. When
acceptable candidates have been ranked in order of desirability,
environmental extremes specific to the site under consideration
must be identified. Review of the impact of changes in these
parameters from the norms assumed in the general profile develop-
ment will then lead to refinement of alternative rankings more
reflective of the actual site under consideration. The final
ranking should then represent the optimal treatment strategy
for a given site. The selection, however, will have been made
on a comparative basis. Data from the profile sheets should
not be considered as accurate design estimates for any given
plant.
LIQUID TREATMENT STRATEGIES
Numerous wastewater treatment alternatives are available to
treat municipal wastewater. Those alternatives selected for
analysis in this study are by no means exhaustive of the methods
available. However, the eleven strategies in this study are
representative of various alternatives which will provide
efficient, reliable wastewater treatment in compliance with
present regulations.
42
-------
Primary Treatment with Land Disposal of Effluent
Primary treatment followed by land disposal of effluents
corresponds with Strategy #1. This alternative, which is fully
described in Appendix A of this report, is especially attractive
in regions with large areas of uncommitted land available for
use as a wastewater spray field. The soil characteristics and
land availability are key considerations in the selection of
this alternative. For this strategy, approximately 129 acres
of land are required for a population equivalent of 10,000.
More land would be required in regions with clay type soils.
This alternative is most attractive for areas in the midwest,
west and southwest regions of the United States. It is
especially desirable in locations where irrigated agriculture
is presently in use.
Variations in land values and availability are particularly
important in comparing this practice with other alternatives.
In some respects, use of land for treatment can be construed
as an investment f or the city since land values are more likely
to rise than fall. Gain on the resale of the land when its
capacity as a disposal site is exhausted may well be offset by
increased prices of the replacement disposal option.
The nutrients in wastewater and the water itself may be con-
sidered as a resource. The growing and harvesting of crops
for animal feed may offset some of the operating expenses
incurred. However, different state health agencies have differ-
ing policies regarding crops which may or may not be irrigated
with wastewater treatment effluents and, therefore, these
agencies must be consulted. Aerosols containing bacteria and
virus may result from spray irrigation of wastewater and may
be transported by winds for some distance. Thus, buffer strips
are generally required around the spray sites as a health pro-
tective measure. Also spray irrigation sites should be fenced
so as to restrict the movement of people through the spray area.
Regions which experience prolonged cold temperatures must pro-
vide for storage of effluent. Since spraying on frozen ground
is generally not acceptable, storage basins must be sized. to
store wastewater effluent produced during the period of freezing
plus effluent that must be stored when precipitation causes the
curtailment of spray disposal operations. Thus, it can be seen
that land requirements may be considerably greater in the colder
northern regions.
Waste Stabilization Lagoon
The purification of wastewaters from small communities, small
industrial works, dairies, and canneries presents a significant
43
-------
problem because of the costs of constructing and operating a
small waste treatment plant. Waste stabilization ponds
(Strategy #2 described in Appendix A of this report) were devel-
oped as a simplified low cost method of treating such wastes.
No preliminary treatment is required and the system is of the
simplest construction, usually an earthen basin.
Stabilization ponds, with discharge of effluent to surface
waters, may be constructed in a series arrangement to achieve
high levels of BOD and pathogen removal. A combination of
anaerobic and aerobic ponds can achieve levels of treatment
equal to that of other secondary biological alternatives.
Stabilization ponds may be constructed on a non-overflow basis,
relying on evaporation for disposal of liquid. However, the
land requirement for this type of system generally becomes pro-
hibitive because the evaporation rate is dependent on surface
area. For a non—overflow system, evaporation rate must equal
wastewater flow rate.
Stabilization ponds with effluent discharged to the land via
spray irrigation are essentially solids removal and holding
basins.
The major consideration for land disposal of effluents from
stabilization ponds would be nutrient removal. Stabilization
ponds provide little or no nutrient removal. Therefore,
communities with a nutrient removal requirement pursuant to
discharge to surface waters may need to consider land treatment.
However, the total land requirement will significantly increase.
This strategy alternative may produce offensive odors if not
operated and maintained properly. Anaerobic conditions cause
the evolution of extremely odorous gases.
Waste stabilization pond profiles were constructed only for very
small communities (less than 1 MGD flow).
Trickling Filter
Strategies #3 and #4, as described in Appendix A of this report,
consist of trickling filter biological secondary treatment
followed by discharge to surface waters (Strategy #3) or
discharge to the land via spray irrigation (Strategy #4).
Trickling filtration became a popular method of biological
treatment primarily due to the reliability of the process.
Unfortunately, this dependability is accompanied by a reduced
44
-------
efficiency for removal of BOD. However, dependability is the
basis for its continued use. Trickling filters are highly
insensitive to fluctuations in influent flow and organic com-
position and achieve BOD removals of 85 percent almost inde-
pendently of such hydraulic and organic fluctuations. The
trickling filter process can effectively treat the large volumes
of wastewater from large communities.
Discharge of trickling filter effluent to surface waters
(Strategy #3) is an acceptable method of effluent disposal.
However, assuring that trickling filter effluents consistently
meet effluent standards necessitates continuous monitoring of
the effluent, and subsequent corrections for maintenance of
treatment efficiency.
Improvements in trickling filter technology have been less
dramatic than those associated with activated sludge systems.
Major improvements have been made in the filter media, where
the use of plastic and other materials have been utilized to
allow for increases in hydraulic and organic loadings. A former
objection to trickling filters was the large land area required.
Now with newer media, they may be constructed in tower form,
thus reducing the land requirement substantially.
Land disposal of secondary treatment effluents (Strategy #4)
will not be universally acceptable, especially for larger
communities. Coupled with the tendency for trickling filters
to not consistently meet increasing removal requirements for
discharge to surface waters without excessive operator control,
trickling filters are not generally preferred to activated
sludge units. Use, however, continues in many areas. Trick-
ling filters continue to be the optimal treatment method for
communities that receive large quantities of carbohydrate
wastes. This would be the case for small municipalities which
receive large portions of input from food processing plants or
canneries.
Activated Sludge
Treatment strategies #5 and #6, described in Appendix A of this
report, include the activated sludge process for secondary treat-
ment. Strategy #5 utilizes surface water disposal of effluents
and Strategy #6 utilizes land application of effluents.
Activated sludge systems are capable of providing good BOD
removals (up to 90 percent). Conventional activated sludge
systems are thought to be more easily upset than trickling
filter systems, but this is not the case for the complete mix
45
-------
process. In fact, the complete mix activated sludge process
meets the optimum conditions now known to be necessary for a
stable, predictable biological system.
Communities that incorporate large industrial developments for
wastewater treatment should consider the complete mix activated
sludge process. It is especially adaptable to the large fluc-
tuations in flow and organic loadings caused by most industries.
However, wastes containing high carbohydrate concentrations
can cause a “bulking” sludge, which generally results in opera-
tional problems and attendant loss in effluent quality. Such
wastes, characteristic of food processing operations, are bet-
ter handled with trickling filters.
This system is quite compatible with other (physical-chemical)
processes as required for nutrient removal.
Considerations for disposal to land and surface waters have
been noted previously.
Biological-Chemical Treatment
This approach, designated as Strategy #7 and described in Appendix
A of this report, is designed to remove phosphorus and nitrogen
from the wastewater effluent. The complete scheme includes
primary treatment, activated sludge secondary treatment with
alum coagulation, nitrification-denitrification, chlorination,
and surface water discharge.
Presumably, in the next decade, regulations restricting total
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in the effluent will be
formulated, acted upon, and enforced. This aforementioned
action will necessitate large communities (greater than 10 MGD
flows) to consider the application of a biological or physical-
chemical method of removing these nutrients.
Biological-chemical plants for small communities (less than
10 MGD) with relatively low quantities of nutrients in their
wastewaters were not reviewed for construction of profile
sheets.
Strategy #7 represents a biological and chemical precipitation
method of lowering the overall quantity of total phosphorus and
nitrogen reaching the surface waters. Alum precipitation of
phosphorus diminishes the potential for eutrophication of
surface waters, whereas nitrification—denitrification is
employed to remove nitrogen from the waste stream and sub—
sequently prevent potential high oxygen demands in the surface
waters as well as eutrophication.
46
-------
A biologically intensive method, such as this strategy, will
necessitate a high level of operator training and skill in
order to maintain relatively trouble-free operation, and is
not presently amenable to the higher degree of automation which
can be implemented in the physical-chemical treatment strategies.
Operationally, Strategy #7 will tend to be more susceptible to
environmental upsets (e.g., temperature changes and shock load—
ing) than would physical—chemical treatment plants. Strategy #7
is attractive for upgrading an existing plant which already has
activated sludge secondary treatment and trained operators.
In doing so, the plant managers must plan for potential plant
upsets which will lower the overall annual plant efficiency.
One disadvantage of this treatment strategy for communities
located in largely urban areas is its relative dependency on
land compared to that of physical—chemical methods. Cost for
purchasing the land required by the system could be exorbitant
near the urban center itself. In these cases, land farther
from the city must be employed and hence higher transporta-
tion costs incurred.
This strategy generates extremely large quantities of sludge
which are typically difficult to dewater.
Activated Sludge—Coagulation—Filtration
Strategy #8, as described in Appendix A of this report, consists
of primary treatment, complete mix activated sludge, lime
coagulation, two—stage recarbonation, multi—media filtration,
chlorination, and ultimate disposal to surface waters.
Profiles for this strategy were constructed for treatment facili-
ties in the size range of 10 to 100 MGD. The process is espe-
cially applicable in areas where regulatory requirements restrict
phosphorus concentration levels in effluents and where residual
BOD and suspended solids represent a problem to existing acti-
vated sludge plants. Furthermore, since the tertiary process
is basically a physical-chemical operation, the flexibility
and adaptability of the modular component system allows the
plant to be quite easily modified to meet increasingly stringent
effluent requirements. Modular addition of carbon sorption and
nitrogen removal facilities should be relatively simple.
Environmental factors such as climatic conditions, in general,
have little effect upon the overall efficiency of the plant
other than those inherent with the activated sludge process.
Furthermore, due to the lower sensitivity to upset in this
47
-------
strategy, the overall average removal efficiency may be higher
than with similar biological-chemical systems.
Tertiary Treatment
Strategy #9, as described in Appendix A of this report, consists
of primary treatment, complete mix activated sludge, lime
coagulation, two—stage recarbonation, filtration, carbon
sorption, zeolite selective ion exchange, chlorination and
ultimate disposal to surface waters.
This particular strategy, in contrast to Strategy #7, provides
for physical—chemical removal of refractory organics, nitrogen
and phosphorus to control oxygen demands and potential
eutrophication. In general, the cost and land requirements
for the preceding method of operation are equal to or higher
than those for Strategy #7. The tertiary treatment provided
by this scheme would be applicable to existing secondary acti-
vated sludge plants which now require additional organic and
nutrient removal. A major advantage of this system is that it
provides more positive control over the refractory organic and
nutrient removal operations than does Strategy #7.
This strategy is sensitive to changes in pH. The pH from the
two—stage recarbonation step must be near 7 in order to prepare
the water for filtration, increase the efficiency of carbon
sorption of organics, improve the disinfection by chlorination
and provide a suitable pH for discharge into surface waters.
In addition, the selective ion exchange process which removes
ammonia from the wastewater stream is most effective at pH
levels below 8.5.
Lime sludge production from this operation is quite large and
recalcination can be a strong consideration in order to avoid
dependence upon a chemical supplier and to conserve the use of
natural resources. Furthermore, the cost savings from ash
handling operations may economically justify recalcination.
In comparison to biological systems, the physical-chemical
tertiary treatment proposed in this strategy is not as depen-
dent upon environmental factors. The system is relatively in-
sensitive to climate variations. Thus, it is preferred to
Strategy #7 for areas with heavy industrial development or
protracted periods of inclement weather. The reliance on
activated sludge secondary treatment, however, preserves some
sensitivity to variations in influent. Strategy #9 best serves
as an alternative for upgrading existing activated sludge
48
-------
plants and will produce a higher quality effluent than any of
the other strategies considered.
Profiles on Strategy #9 have been constructed for plants larger
than 10 MGD.
Physical—Chemical Treatment
Strategy #10 is a complete physical—chemical treatment process,
as described in Appendix A of this report. Lime addition in a
rapid mix tank is followed by sedimentation in order to remove
phosphorus. Two-stage recarbonation is then employed to lower
the pH and recover excess CaCO 3 . Suspended solids are removed
in the filtration process, and dissolved organic species are
removed in the carbon sorption step prior to chlorine disin-
fection and discharge to surface waters.
Profiles for this design were constructed for large treatment
plant facilities (larger than 10 MGD). The process is quite
applicable to regions where legislation restricting phosphorus
concentrations in the effluent are binding.
The production of lime sludge is large and recalcination may
be advisable in order to realize potential revenue benefits
and conservation of natural resources. A tradeoff situation
may exist related to the conservation of chemical and land
resources as opposed to the higher energy requirements asso-
ciated with recalcination versus incineration.
The relatively low land requirements of this option increase
its attractiveness for urban areas where land values are high
and availability is restricted.
In regions where nitrogen removal is also a concern, zeolite
ion exchange could be added to this process for the removal of
nitrogen. Hence, the scheme provides the advantage of flexibility
and adaptability which is a key ingredient in order to meet
increasingly stringent effluent requirements. This modular
aspect of physical—chemical treatment is by far one of the major
advantages which can be offered to a municipality. It is
particularly attractive in areas expecting rapid growth, since
it lends itself to staged construction and associated cost
savings.
In general, the process is insensitive to environmental factors
(e.g., climatic changes and shock loadings) and, therefore,
49
-------
average overall plant efficiencies of removal may be higher than
biological systems. This feature makes Strategy #10 especially
attractive to industrialized areas where strong or toxic wastes
may occur. In general, the quality of the effluent produced by
physical—chemical systems will be intermediate between secondary
biological systems and tertiary systems.
Extended Aeration
Strategy #11, as described in Appendix A of this report, consists
of the extended aeration process, which is a modification of the
complete mix activated sludge process, and is utilized for
small communities, industries, shopping centers, and schools.
Extended aeration minimizes sludge handling problems by operat-
ing with a long aeration period to aerobically oxidize waste
sludge.
As a package plant, it is easily installed, but it must be
operated and maintained efficiently like any other biological
treatment system in order to perform satisfactorily. Frequently,
these package plants are left unattended resulting in subsequent
deterioration of effluent quality. For small communities that
are required to meet increasingly stringent standards for
wastewater treatment, extended aeration may be the system of
choice. Waste stabilization (Strategy #2) is often preferred
for its lower characteristic costs but is not capable of
achieving the higher effluent qualities possible with extended
aeration and may be far more objectionable to nearby residents.
SLUDGE DISPOSPIL OPTIONS
Sludge Spreading
The spreading of organic sludge over soil is a viable ultimate
disposal alternative. Land spreading offers the potential for
resource recovery as well as being an acceptable disposal
practice.
Sewage sludge does not compare favorably with commercial
fertilizers when the comparison is based solely on nutrient
content or ease of handling. Sewage sludge, however, does have
exceptional soil conditioning characteristics which greatly
enhance soil physical fertility. This property is best utilized
in the reclamation of marginal lands for recreational, agri-
cultural, or silvicultural purposes. Thus, land spreading of
sludge takes on additional value as an alternative when pro-
posed for sites near strip mining areas or wastelands.
50
-------
Sludges may contain pathogenic bacteria or viral organisms.
Digestion or some form of pasteurization or stabilization
should be a prerequisite to land spreading in order to mini-
mize the potential health hazard. Such pretreatment of sludge
should reduce insects and odor problems associated with land
spreading operations and thus should also reduce the potential
for conflict with local inhabitants. Some forms of pretreat-
ment (e.g., anaerobic digestion) also reduce the quantity of
sludge which must be spread. Land spreading is an excellent
disposal alternative for sludges resulting from extended
aeration since these sludges undergo stabilization during
treatment similar to that resulting from digestion., On the
basis of public health considerations, it is generally accepted
that crops grown on sludge treated land should be restricted
to feed grains or fruits and vegetables which do not contact
the soil.
Sludges contain heavy metals which may also pose some threat to
public health either through transmission at toxic levels in
crops grown on treated land or through leaching into ground-
water. The interactions between soil constituents and metals
are complex and are not well understood at this time. Con-
sequently, precautions must be taken to protect groundwaters.
Sites proposed for land spreading should have at least a five
foot soil mantel on top of the water table. Sites should also
be free from excessive precipitation and high flood potential.
A regular monitoring program should be maintained to contin-
uously follow trends in groundwater quality. Provisions should
also be made to protect against uncontrolled surface runoff.
Sludge can be transported from the wastewater treatment facility
to the ultimate disposal site by truck or by pipeline. Truck
transport is generally the optimum method for plant sizes of
10 MGD or less where required haul distances are less than 100
miles. Pipelines become economical at larger plant sizes and
longer transport distances. A more complete discussion of
transportation costs can be found in Appendix B.
When contemplating instituting a land spreading program, munici-
palities must consider the availability of land, the time frame
within which that land can be leased or otherwise controlled,
and potential alternative sites. Should public pressure or
public health considerations cause termination of land spread-
ing activities, municipalities must be prepared to undertake
interim sludge disposal operations until more acceptable perma-
nent solutions can be devised. Similarly, it must be recognized
that land for sludge spreading may well have a finite useful
lifetime. Thus, additional land should be available nearby.
Gaining access to the large tracts of land is always difficult
51
-------
near urban areas. Hence, land spreading of sludges may not be
a realistic alternative for most large metropolitan areas,
especially on a long term basis.
When land is to be leased, or sludge is to be sold to private
landowners, municipal officials will have to deal with problems
of general acceptance. The extra time and costs associated
with transporting and spreading sludges, a natural reluctance
to work with sewage sludge, and the limited nutrient value
compared to commercial fertilizers may make it difficult to
sell sludge to farmers. Where sludge spreading is an attrac—
tive sludge disposal alternative wastewater officials should
therefore have the flexibility to offer additional incentives.
These would be most effective in the form of indirect sub-
sidies such as free delivery of bulk lots of processed sludge
and low cost rental of spreading devices. Municipalities
should also consider the possibilities for nutrient enrichment
of sludges to enhance their value to the farmer. This form of
activity could be handled in conjunction with a private
fertilizer concern.
Incineration
Incineration can be an economical arid environmentally acceptable
procedure for disposal of sludge. The major advantages of
sewage sludge incineration are:
• it produces a sterile, chemically and biologically
inert ash which is easily disposable;
• it significantly reduces the volume of waste for
ultimate disposal.
The primary disadvantages of incineration are:
• it has high capital and operating costs;
• it is a potential source of air pollution through
gas and particle emission and malodor production;
• it usually requires supplemental fuel;
• it is not always easy to sustain proper operation.
Incineration systems are subject to marked economics of scale.
Smaller wastewater treatment plants do not produce sufficient
quantities of sludge to realize the lower unit sludge disposal
costs associated with large furnaces. Primary plants, due to
EPA use restrictions, do not approach sizes that warrant incin-
eration facilities. Incineration of sludge from activated
sludge and trickling filter plants, on the other hand, appear
52
-------
to become competitive when the plant processes more than 10
MGD.
The costs associated with disposal of ash from incineration
processing are small in comparison to the operational costs
involved in the incineration process itself. However, these
costs must be included as part of the original basis for selection
of a sludge disposal option.
Atmospheric emissions from incinerators may cause environmental
problems. The size and quantity of particulate emissions from
an incinerator vary greatly and depend on such factors as the
character of the sludge being fired, incinerator operating
conditions, and completeness of combustion.
Complete combustion to produce the principal end products of
C0 2 , H O and S02 is costly. In addition, S02 emissions must
be minimized since S02 is toxic and corrosive. Incomplete
combustion is unacceptable since the intermediate products
formed, such as hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, are objection-
able. Smoke and gases contribute to overall air pollution
through reduction in visibility and through their tendency to
enter into smog-forming photochemical reactions in the atmos-
phere. Stack gases must be cooled so that the plume produced
will dissipate upon entry into the atmosphere. Care must be
taken to prevent plume condensation which would violate equiv-
alent opacity regulations even though the plume may be white
in color.
Odor problems may be associated with poorly designed and/or
operated sludge incinerators. Odors generally emanate from
raw sludge thickening or storage tanks, vacuum filtration
units, sludge incinerators and dryers. The basic requirements
for preventing odor are good plant design and operation.
Septicity of sludge can be prevented by providing adequate
sludge hoppers and flexibility in pumping schedules.
The incinerators investigated in this study were designed to
meet all present emission standards. In the future, standards
will probably be set for discharges of individual materials
such as the metals, and monitoring programs must be instituted
to assure compliance. Additional work will be required to
characterize the nature of other toxic materials such as
chlorinated hydrocarbons and carcinogenic agents which may be
present in stack gases.
The two important factors that affect the auxiliary fuel
requirements are the heat value of the sludge and the heat
required for adequate burning. Adequate burning refers to the
heat required for complete incineration of the sludge with
53
-------
elevation of the temperature of the gases to a sufficient level
to assure odor control. The magnitude of the temperature require-
ment depends upon the nature of the sludge being burnt, but the
minimum deodorizing temperature far conventional incineration
units has been established at 1350—1400°F.
The heat required for the incinerator system depends primarily
on the efficiency of burning and the degree of excess air
required. The following constitute the total heat requirements:
• heat required in raising the temperature of sludge
from about 60°F to 212°F; evaporating water from
sludge; and increasing the temperature of dried
volatiles to the ignition point;
• heat required to raise the temperature of the exhaust
gas to the deodorizing temperature;
• heat required to raise the temperature of the air
supply required for burning plus the excess air;
• heat losses due to radiation;
• cooling air losses; and
• heat required for other endothermic reactions taking
place.
As an example, a ton of sludge at 30 percent solids with a heat
content of 10,000 Btu per ton may require 60,000 additional Btu
for incineration.
In the incinerator the sludge solids must draw sufficient heat
from the surroundings to reach kindling temperature before
combustion can occur. When the heat released is sufficient to
replace the amount withdrawn, combustion will be maintained.
When the quantity of heat released is insufficient to maintain
combustion temperature at deodorizing level, heat is recovered
from the stack gases and reused, or heat is supplied from an
outside source. The latter solution generally represents
dedication of energy to destruction of sludge solids with no
recovery of the energy for other beneficial uses.
Plant sizes, and therefore quantities of sludge produced per
day, dictate the type of incineration equipment most applicable.
For plants producing less than 500 lb/hour of sludge, the
cyclonic reactor incineration process appears most economical
and operational. However, incineration of sludges at a plant
of this size (less than 10 NGD) may not be the least cost
alternative. For treatment plants in the range of 10 to 100
MGD, the multiple hearth system appears to be most appropriate.
Plant sizes approaching 1 BGD may find that economics will
prescribe the use of rotary kiln incinerators. The capital
54
-------
investment in rotary kiln incineration at large plants can be
substantially lower than an equivalent multiple hearth opera-
tion. However, before the above can be realized, operational
problems with the rotary kiln which cause the sludge to form
large balls must be overcome. A more detailed discussion of
the considerations leading to these conclusions is contained
in Appendix B of this report.
The addition of sludge producing tertiary processes does not
necessarily change this balance, since chemical tertiary sludges
are typically treated separately. The economic threshold for
these plants can be reduced, however, if the incineration facil-
ity is designed to handle the combined organic and chemical
sludges. This practice may preclude recalcination of chemical
sludges. Chemical and organic sludges can also be treated
alternately in the same facility on a campaign basis.
Smaller activated sludge plants or primary and trickling filter
plants can achieve economic incineration if some form of region—
alization is attempted. This may be accomplished through con-
struction of a central incineration facility serving several
municipalities.
There is no question that incineration is the major energy con-
suming sludge disposal option. In addition, it offers no real
opportunities for the reuse of resources contained in the sludge.
On the other hand, it involves only a minimal requirement for
land. The facility itself is quite small, and only a portion
of the solids remain afterwards for ultimate disposal (approx-
imately one third of the dry weight of organic sludges remain
as ash). Thus, the decision for construction of an incinerator
to dispose of sludges will be influenced greatly by the relative
abundance or scarcity of land and energy. Where these influences
fail to differentiate a clear choice, the potential for or lack
of potential for resource reclamation opportunities should be
an important factor in considering alternatives other than
incineration.
Ocean Disposal
The oceans have always served as the ultimate disposal sink for
all the waterborne waste material carried by the natural and man-
made streams discharging at their shores and for all the atmos-
pheric pollutants scrubbed from the air by rain. In addition,
with increasing frequency in this century, sewage sludges and
hazardous waste materials have been deliberately shipped out
to sea and dumped as either an expedient or an economically
attractive disposal technique.
The practice of barging municipal sewage treatment sludges to
the ocean for dumping, or piping them offshore for discharge
55
-------
has recently received close scrutiny. Experience in the New
York Bight area suggests that improper operation of this dis-
posal practice can lead to the sterilization of entire zones
in the ocean as well as other undesirable ecological effects.
Ocean disposal, however, is economically attractive for large
urban areas located on coastal regions.
In 1973 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estab-
lished new criteria governing ocean disposal practice. Ocean
dumping became illegal on or after April 23, 1973, under the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act as adopted in
1972. Exemptions, which also regulate acceptable methods of
ocean dumping, will be granted by permit from EPA. Authori-
zation to dispose of wastes by this method is dependent upon,
but not limited to, the following:
• the need for proposed disposal;
• the effect of such disposal on human health and wel-
fare (including economic, aesthetic, and recreational
values);
• the effect on fish resources, plankton, shellfish,
wildlife, shorelines and beaches;
• the effect on marine ecosystems, particularly with
respect to
1. the transfer, concentration, and dispersion
of such materials and byproducts through bio-
logical, physical, and chemical processes,
2. potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity,
productivity, and stability, and
3. species and community population dynamics;
• the persistence and permanence of the effects of the
dumping;
• the effect of disposal of particular volumes and con-
centrations of such materials;
• appropriate locations and methods of disposal or re-
cycling, including land-based alternatives and the
probable impact of such alternate locations or methods
upon considerations affecting the public interest; and
• the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as
scientific study, fishing, and other living and non-
living resource exploitation.
56
-------
In designating recommended sites for ocean disposal, the Admin-
istrator is constrained to utilize wherever feasible locations
beyond the edge of the continental shelf.
EPA approval to dump is being based on a case by case evaluation
of each application. In addition to submitting evidence that
the materials he wishes to discharge are in compliance with ex-
tensive requirements set forth in the legislation, the applicant
must also provide supportive data that the dumping of materials
in proposed quantity and quality will have no adverse effects
on the ocean environment.
The major potential problems associated with disposal of sludges
in the ocean can be attributed to the biochemical oxygen demand
of the sludges and to pathogenic organisms and toxic substances
present in the sludges. These problems can be minimized with
digestion or pasteurization of all sludges prior to discharge.
Similarly, the consequences of these potential effects can be
reduced through proper selection of disposal sites. All sites
should be studied carefully before approval. One of two condi-
tions should be sought: 1) sufficient currents to insure rapid
and complete dispersal of the solids over a sufficient area of
the ocean floor to prevent excessive buildups in any one partic—
ular area, or 2) deep unproductive segments of the ocean where
sludges can be deposited with little possibility of contact
with ocean life or transmittal to other active areas of the
ocean. It is also essential that a monitoring program be main-
tained to follow any changes in water quality or movement of
deposited solids.
Ocean disposal, like incineration, makes no attempt to recover
potential resources contained in organic sludges. Rather, all
control and recoverability is relinquished. This, as in the
case of incineration, is countered by a minimization of require-
ments for land. The energy requirements are not as easily
definable since they will depend on the distance between the
wastewater treatment plant and the disposal site, and the
means of transportation employed.
Ocean disposal of sludge has a number of advantages for sea—
coast cities when compared with other disposal methods:
• the removal of sludge from the treatment plant is complete,
not even an ash residue remains;
• disposal of sludge at sea is relatively inexpensive; and
57
-------
‘. assuming the sludge is digested, ocean disposal permits
flexibility in plant operation since problems with sludge
volume fluctuations are reduced and the dumping schedule
can be varied.
Long term effects of ocean disposal of sludges have not been
fully established, so surveillance is needed in areas where
this disposal method is practiced.
Before a decision is made to use the sea for dilution, beneficial
uses of the water should be evaluated in addition to the
biologic, geologic, and oceanographic characteristics of the
disposal area. Then, decisions can be made concerning the
degree of sludge treatment required and the best location for
outfalls or barging dumps. Once adopted, a control method is
required to assure that the sludge is being dumped in the pre—
scribed location.
Current regulatory agency attitude toward ocean disposal indi-
cates that regulation of ocean disposal practice will be strict
and that elimination of the practice may be forthcoming.
Sanitary Landfill
The use of landfills and more recently sanitary landfills is a
commonly employed practice for the disposal of sludges. The
development of the operational practices which distinguish
sanitary landfills from their predecessors (open dumps) has
greatly increased the acceptability of landfill disposal.
As with other sludge disposal options, sanitary landfill has
associated potential public health problems stemming from the
presence of pathogenic organisms in sludges. This threat to
public health is best minimized through mandatory digestion,
stabilization, or pasteurization of all sludges proposed for
burial. Digestion will also help prevent the generation of
objectionable odors and gases.
Many of the considerations that must be taken into account in
evaluating the land spreading option such as protection of
groundwaters are pertinent to the discussion of sanitary land-
fills. Typically, however, sanitary landfills are better
protected against problems resulting from surface runoff, and
uptake by crops is generally not a prime consideration.
Further, sanitary landfill obviously requires less land than
land spreading.
The trade-off required to obtain this added protection and
decreased land requirement is the loss of most of the advantages
of resource recovery realized in land spreading. Landfill offers
58
-------
little more than the use of a solid material to fill natural
depressions or replace soils or gravel that can be used else-
where. Areas where landfill has been practiced can be reclaimed
for recreational or other purposes. No studies have been
conducted to assess any added benefits to soil fertility that
might be attributed to the prior use of land for sanitary land-
fills. The minimum two foot overlayer of soil would probably
minimize these effects.
The potential danger of ground or surface water pollution by
landfill leachates cannot be overlooked. Solid wastes,
especially raw sewage sludges, ordinarily contain contaminants
and infectious materials. Serious public health problems can
result if pollutants enter water supplies. Proper landfill
site selection and good engineering design can minimize this
danger.
The selection of sanitary landfill as a disposal option requires
that availability of inexpensive land with a sufficiently deep
water table (five feet or more below the excavation). The land
must be dedicated to the use for at least the lifetime of the
operation since cropping or other productive activities cannot
be conducted coincident with disposal as in the case of land
spreading. Similarly, sufficient additional land must be avail-
able for use in the foreseeable future since repeated use of the
same plots is not feasible in the short term. These restraints
minimize the usefulness of landfills to larger metropolitan
areas. The practice may be attractive in areas where municipal
solid wastes are placed in landfills since joint processing of
the two wastes can result in lower unit costs.
Re cal c in at ion
Recalcination is an attractive sludge disposal option for cheini-
cal sludges resulting from lime clarification of wastewaters.
Recalcination is subject to many of the considerations that
must be made in selecting incineration options in general:
very high capital costs for small plants, potential added costs
for additional emission control devices that may be required
in the future, unknown emission of potentially harmful hydro-
carbons, high energy requirements, and low land usage. The
potential for recovery of a useful coagulant adds another
dimension to the evaluation.
It is true that in many cases recalcining lime may not be less
expensive than purchasing new chemical. The tradeoff is more
59
-------
than just one of costs; however, reuse of lime through recalcin—
ation reduces the demands on both limestone deposits and land
required for the disposal of ash. Blowdown from recalcination
may represent approximately one half of the quantity of ash
that would be produced from conventional incineration. Further-
more, recalcination of lime sludges reduces the dependency of
a treatment plant upon a supply of chemicals and thus may reduce
the necessity to maintain a large lime inventory at the treat-
ment plant. These advantages are gained at the expense of
additional energy needed to produce the required temperatures.
Thus, recalcination intensifies the sludge option tradeoff
between land and energy.
There may not be as many options available for disposal of
lime—based chemical sludges as there are for organic sludges.
The increased pH and alkalinity eliminate the potential for
digestion. Hence, pasteurization or further stabilization
should be required before landfill, ocean dumping, or land-
spreading should be attempted. The ramifications of these
courses of action have not been sufficiently investigated to
render these alternatives acceptable at this time. In light
of this, recalcination appears the best option for disposal of
lime—based chemical sludges from plants larger than 10 MGD.
While neither recalcination or incineration are economical for
smaller plants, incineration is the more practical of the two.
The desirability of either option will also be dependent on
the exact nature of the chemical sludge. Lime sludges will
differ as a function of where in the process and how they are
generated. Sludges from physical—chemical processing, such as
that found in Strategy #10, will have a high organic content,
while those from lime addition (after activated sludge treat-
ment such as found in Strategy #8) will largely be calcium
carbonate. The level of organic content will influence the
disposal options available and their ultimate efficiency.
60
-------
TREATNENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESS PROFILES
INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS
The process profile sheets contained in this section are de-
signed to present comparative data on the liquid treatment
strategies and sludge treatment options evaluated during the
study reported herein. Individual parameters employed were
selected for their ability to display the characteristic inputs
and outputs of these systems, Comparison with processes not
included in this study must be undertaken cautiously with a
full understanding of the assumptions made for the purposes
of this study as outlined in Appendices A and B.
Two slightly different formats were utilized in the presentation
of the strategies. Strategies #1 through #7, and #11 utilized
the profile sheet format which contains no chemical sludge
handling option column due to its inapplicability. Chemical
sludges are generated in Strategies #8 through #10 and four
chemical sludge handling options were considered for each of
these strategies. However, only one chemical sludge option is
presented per profile sheet so that the organic sludge option
columns can be compared on an economic basis. Hence, for any
one plant size and liquid treatment combination, four separate
profile sheets are included in order to present the chemical
and organic sludge handling options analyzed for strategies #8
through #10.
The numerical figures presented represent general values that
apply for municipal wastewater treatment plants located in
temperate regions. The running totals listed below the organic
sludge option columns include the complete costs of the liquid
treatment strategy, the chemical sludge option (if applicable)
and the particular organic sludge treatment option being ana-
lyzed. Therefore, each running total appearing under the
various sludge options is independent of any other sludge
handling scheme and can be directly compared with the remaining
seven options.
A total of twelve distinct sludge handling and disposal systems
were considered in this work. Each of these systems is com-
prised of a series of several of the unit operations described
in Appendix B. These twelve systems do not constitute all
feasible methods of sludge handlinc and disposal; however, they
are considered to be representative of the major systems pre-
sently in use and those which are likely to be in use during
the next decade.
61
-------
Several general assumptions relative to each unit operation
were required to facilitate the development of operational and
cost parameters. These general assumptions are presented with
the unit operation descriptions in Appendix B.
For the sizing and cost purposes of this report, 1000 MGD size
facilities were treated as being ten times the size of a 100 MGD
facility, except for pipeline transport of sludge, where the
economics of increased size can readily be calculated. In
practice there may be some decrease in costs with increased
size; however, the economics of scale for 1000 MGD size facil-
ities are uncertain and, therefore, no attempt was made to
report them herein. Unit operations such as vacuum filtration,
centrifugation, Porteous heat treatment, and anaerobic digestion
are all limited by size arid/or period of operation.. After a
specific size, or operational period, is exceeded, multiple
units are required to process increased volumes of sludge. In
the case of a 100 MGD plant, most treatment units have already
reached their physical and operational limits and, therefore,
direct extrapolation of their cost and operational parameters
is justifiable.
Eight separate organic sludge handling schemes were considered.
Each sludge handling scheme was evaluated for the various com-
binations of sludge types and quantities in order to assess
the economic and operational feasibility of each option and to
establish base values for comparing one option against another.
As was expected, several of the handling schemes were found to
be infeasible for certain plant sizes and/or sludge types.
In the cases where organic sludges were produced from more than
one treatment operation, the organic sludges were combined and
handled as a single sludge stream. This simplification was also
extended to the chemically (alum) precipitated biological sludge
of wastewater treatment strategy number seven. However, chemi-
cal sludges from the tertiary and physical-chemical liquid
treatment Strategies #8, #9, and #10 were handled separately.
Four separate chemical sludge options were evaluated for hand—
ling the massive chemical sludges produced by the physical-
chemical processes of treatment Strategies #8, #9, and #10.
The recalcinated product represented approximately eighty per-
cent (by weight) of the initial sludge collected and twenty—five
percent of the recalcined lime was wasted in order to prevent
excessive phosphate return to the treatment plant system or the
buildup of inert ash residue in the system. An equivalent
amount of makeup lime was provided to replace the amount
wasted.
62
-------
The chemical sludge handling capital and operating cost figures,
as well as the physical parameters, indicated on the profile
sheets for gravity thickening, vacuum filtration, centrifuga-
tion, and sanitary landfill are all based upon the same data
reported in the organic sludge unit operations descriptions
given in Appendix B.
Recalcination and/or incineration of lime sludges differs only
slightly from the organic sludge incineration process and is
described in Appendix B.
Overall performance of a particular sludge option is dependent
upon the operational efficiency of each individual unit opera-
tion in the sludge handling sequence. Should the efficiency
of any one unit decline, th characteristics of the sludge
leaving that unit will change and cause subsequent disruption
of the performance of succeeding units.
DATA SOURCES
References were not included on the profile sheets so as to
reduce the potential for confusion. The applicable references
have been tabulated by unit process and unit operation and are
numerically presented in Tables IV and V. Complete descriptions
of each reference follow the profile sheet presentation.
LEGEND
Figure 27 contains a legend to assist the reader in utilizing
the profile sheets. The number designations in this figure
are keyed to numbers in Table VI which contains detailed ex-
planations of the specifics involved in the development of the
rows and columns of the profile sheets.
63
-------
Inputs
Energy
Concrete
Steel
Chernica is
Land
Labor
TABLE IV
DATA SOURCE REFERENCES FOR LIQUID TREATMENT PROCESSES
Activated
Sludge
Activated with
Primary Sludge Chern Add• _
13 13 13
19,76 19,76 19,73
19,76 19,75 19,73
16
5,9 5,9 2
13 52 52
13
19,76
19,76
9,20
52
BOO
Suspended
Solids 3,6
Nutrients 3,6
Toxic Sub—
tances
Sludge 1
Safety 177
Nuisance
1
1,16
1
1 1 1
1,3 22,31 1
177 177 177
2,6 1 16
31 1 16
31 1 16
1 55
1,31 22,47
177 177 177
5,2. 11 5
11 U 5
21 11,12 5,17
4,21 4,5
171 li. 177
28
1
1
1
1
177
1
Costs
Capital 9
Operating 9
9,13
9,13
54 66 17
13 13 15,16
21 4,21,178 9
21 4,21,176 9
41
66
Waste
Trickling Stabili—
Filter cation
C.’
3,6 1
Nitrifi— Coagu- Clarification
cation lation Carbon
Surface
Extended
Aeration
Denitrifi- Filtra- Sorption
cation tion Zeolite
Carbon
Sorption
Land
Disposal
Water
sposal
13
13
22 23 5,23
23
5
76
19,66
19,20,41,73 4,24,74 4,12,74
4,74
76
76
19,76
19,66
19,20,41,73 4,24,74 4,12,74,76
16 4 4,12,18
4,74,76
4
76
19
76
19
26
9
5,9 5,9 5,9
5,9
1
10
52,54
13
52 23 23
23
203
1
1
1,20
1
1
9,20 9
9 9
9
9
-------
TABLE V
DATA SOURCE REFERENCES FOR SLUDGE PROCESSING OPERATIONS
Gravity Flotation Centri— Vacuum Inciner— Chemical Diges- Land- Ocean Land Sand
Thickening Thickening Porteous fuge Filtration ation Conditioning tion Fill Disposal Spreading Drying
Inputs
Energy 29,210 60,211 4 74 19 19 19 19
Concrete &
Steel 19,75 19 76 74,75 75 4,74,76 19
Chemicals 7 10,20,61
Land 4 64 19 63 65 10 31
Labor 52 52 52,54 52,54 52,54 52,54 65 72 1 52
Outputs
Nutrients 10 65 10 68
Atmospheric
Emissions 212
Sludges 1,5,10, 7,10, 10 20,51, 20,31,55 10,31 65 10 31 31,56
22,31 20,55 53,55
Costs
Capital 53,64 7,10 62 29,54,60 10,29,54 54,62 54 70 67 68 54
Operating 10 7,10 7,59,62 4,10 10,60 3,10,54 7,10,60 10 70 67 68 10
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY • 32 . AT A FLOW RATE OF 33.
INPUTS
1. ENERGY (UNI1SIDAY)
2. CONCRETE ICU YDS)
3. 51W. (TONS)
4. CHEMICALS ILBS!DAY)
5 LAND (ACRES)
4. LABOR (MAN YRSTYRI
OUTPUTS
7. 800 (MOlD
4. BOO ILBSIDAY)
9. SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( 1 4 0 (L)
IO SUSPENDED SOlIDS ILBSIDAY)
U. IWIRIENTS:P (MOlD
3.2. (LBSIDAY)
13. N(MGIU
14. (L BSIDAY )
15. HEAVY IWIM.S (LBS/DAY)
16. ATMOSPHERIC (MISSIONS (LBSIDAYI
17. SLUDGES - 9. SOLIDS
3.6. TOTAl. DRY WT. (LBSIDAVI
19. SOLID WASTE (CU FT (YR)
XL MJISANCE - ODOR
21. NOISE
22. tRAFFIC
23. SAFETY IINJURIES! 1I MAN-AIRS)
COSTS
a CAPITAl. (8 x
25. RUNNING TOTAl. CAPITAL (8 iO (
26. LAND ($3
27. RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 x 1O
a OPERATING WIETA) GAD
29. 135 N RTIZED /1OO) 64L)
XL TOTAL OPERATING K11W GAL)
31. RUNNING TOTAL ti11 0 GAL)
CHEMI I. SLUDGE
OPTION /4A.
XL ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATMENT OPTIONS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3&PRIMARY
35 SECON-
DARY
36. IERTI-
ARY
37. LIQUID
DISPOSAL
45. UNIT OPERATION
46.THICKENING
4LCONDITIONING :
QDEWATERING
43. DISPOSAL
GRAVITY
PORTEOUS
DIGESTION
DIGESTION
DIGESTION
DIGESTION
DIGESTION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
Ch E MICAL
VACUUM
FILIRATION
CHEMICAL
CENTRI FUGE
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SAND
DRYING
LAND
OCEAN
VACI$JM
FILTRATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
OCEAN
RECALCINATION
REUSE-LANDFILL
INCINERATION
LANDFILL
INCINERATION
LANDFIU.
LANDFILL
LANDFILL
SPREADING
DUMPING
LANDF ILL
DUMPING
I
,
FIGURE 27. PROFILE SHEET LEGEND
-------
TABLE VI
SPECIFICS OF PROCESS PROFILE SHEET LEGEND
1. Energy in units/day gives the average daily use of electrical power and
natural gas or fuel oil. When references gave overall electrical costs,
a unit cost of 2 /kwh was assumed. The numerical values displayed on the
profile sheets for electrical energy usage may vary ±15 percent and the
thermal energy values may vary ±20 percent.
2. Concrete in cu yds gives the total requirement for basins, channels,
structures, and foundations. Estimates were largely made from design
criteria. The concrete was not allocated for buildings other than the
foundation. The numerical values displayed on the profile sheets may
vary ±20 percent a ng installations.
3. Steel in tons gives the total requirement for structural steel, piping,
and steel in various equipment items. Estimates were largely based on
design criteria. The numerical values displayed on the profile sheets
may vary ±20 percent among installations.
4. Chemicals in lbs/day gives the average daily requirement for reagents.
The sludge conditioning chemicals were assumed to be organic polymers.
5. Land in acres specifies the spatial requirement for the treatment process
selected. In the case of spray irrigation or land spreading, the require-
ment may occur periodically as parcels of land are exhausted. For other
strategies, the land requirement occurs only at the outset and does not
change unless the plant size is changed. The land figures appearing in
the secondary treatment column include both secondary, primary and admin-
istration building requirements, where applicable.
6. Labor in man years/year denotes the manpower requirement for individual
processes. The figure includes administrative personnel, laboratory
assistants, supervisory personnel, and operating and maintenance labor.
A man year of labor was estimated to be equivalent to 2080 hours/year.
The man hours required for disinfection appear in the liquid treatment
figures.
7. BOD in mg/l refers to the biochemical oxygen demand of the effluent from
the stated process.
8. SOD in lbs/day refers to the total daily biochemical oxygen demand repre-
sented by the effluent level listed in 7.
9. Suspended solids in mg/l gives the concentration of undissolved particulate
matter in the effluent from the stated process.
10. Suspended solids in lbs/day gives the total daily quantity of particulates
represented by the effluent level given in 9.
11. Nutrient P in mg/i gives the concentration of phosphorus present in the
effluent of the stated process.
12. Nutrient P in lbs/day gives the total daily quantity of phosphorus
represented by the effluent concentration given in 11. The values indi-
cated under the sludge handling option columns represent the total
quantity of phosphorus reaching the sludge handling equipment. The
fractional distribution of phosphorus contained in the sludge is indicated
on Figure 25—S.
13. Nutrient N in mg/i gives the concentration of nitrogen present in the
effluent of the stated process. Nitrogen may be present as ammonia,
nitrate, nitrite, or organic nitrogen.
14. Nutrient N in lbs/day gives the total daily quantity of nitrogen repre-
sented by the effluent concentration given in 13. The values indicated
under the sludge handling option columns represent the total quantity of
nitrogen reaching the sludge handling equipment. The fractional distri-
bution of nitrogen contained in the sludge is indicated on Figure 25-0.
The only exception is the incineration process where the total quantity of
nitrogen has been assumed to be released into the atmosphere as nitrogen
and nitrogen oxides. The nitrogen oxide quantities are indicated under
atmespheric emissions.
67
-------
TABLE VI (Cont’d.)
15. Heavy metals in lbs/day gives the total daily combined quantity of the
heavy metals in the effluent of the stated process. The values indicated
under the sludge handling option columns represent the total quantity of
heavy metals reaching the sludge handling equipment. The fractional dis-
tribution of heavy metals contained in the sludge is indicated in Figure
25.-C. The only exception is that quantity which is discharged in the
incineration process as particulate matter • This quantity appears under
the row entitled Atmospheric Emissions.’
16. Atmospheric emissions in lbs/day gives the total daily emissions from
incineration or recalcination options. Other treatment options were
considered to have no atmospheric emissions.
17. Sludges in % solids reflect the solids concentration of the sludges
produced by the process.
18 • Total dry wt in lbs/day gives the total daily quantity of solids contained
in the sludges listed for item 17.
19. Solid waste in cu ft/yr gives the annual volume of solid wastes resulting
from spent chemical containers. The figures presented assume the use of
bags for chemical delivery. It was also assumed that 150 bags equals one
cubic yard of solid waste. Delivery of chemicals in barrels was con-
sidered as an option. The barrels were assumed to be returnable.
20. Odor reflects a subjective evaluation of the threshold at which odors
become frequent and annoying. Processes or unit operations known to apply
to the preceding criteria were labeled as ‘potential’ violators. All
other processes were assumed not to be offenders.
21. The level of noise was subjectively evaluated due to its inherent depen-
dence upon length of exposure as well as decibel level. This category
essentially reflects potential effects upon plant employees. Processes
known to be noisy were evaluated as ‘ABOVE AVERAGE’ offenders depending
upon plant design.
22. Traffic reflects the nuuber of trips per day necessitated by a truck
capable of hauling 20 tons of sludge from the plant plus the traffic
involved in supplying plant chemical needs. Trips necessary to meet
total liquid treatment chemical requirements appear in the liquid dis-
posal uoli .
23. Safety reflects the nuuber of lost-time accidents normally occurring in a
treatment plant per million man hours worked. These figures are only
specific to treatment plants and not to types of plants. Only one figure
is reported for the strategy considered.
24. Capital cost in $ x 106 gives the total initial investment required for
the stated option in millions of dollars. The figure includes all
equipment and facilities at an installed cost, but does not include the
cost of land. All costs are given in 1973 dollars. When recent data
was not available, older costs were adjusted with a five percent annual
inflation factor. The costs involved in chlorination preceding land
application are included in the land application cost figures.
25. Running total capital cost in $ x 106 gives the total capital costs in
millions of dollars for the stated treatment process and all previous
unit processes in the given strategy. All provisions for item 24 are
maintained. Th. final running totals appearing in the organic sludge
option coltme*s are independent of the other sludge options. Therefore,
they can be directly cc ared.
26 • Land cost in $ gives the cost of land required for the stated unit
process at an assumed land value of $1000/acre. The effect of different
land value patterns can be determined through use of the work sheets
presented later in this report.
27. Running grand total cost in $ x 106 gives the total capital and land costs
in millions of dollars for the stated treatment process and all previous
unit processes in the given strategy. All provisions for items 25 and 26
are maintained.
68
-------
TABLE VI (Cont’d.)
28. operating cost in Vl000 gal gives the average daily cost for treatjnq
1000 gallons of influent. These costs include power, fuel, chemicals,
labor, maintenance, and supervision.
29. 10% amortized cost in
-------
TABLE VI (Cont’d)
both the chemical and organic sludge. The various subheadings in this
column identify the unit operation segments of the option being considered.
A description of the option and assumptions utilized in constructinç the
profile have been previously discussed. Descriptions of individual unit
operations can be found in Appendix B.
39. Bight organic sludge treatment options are presented for the primary and
secondary sludges produced in various strategies. The subheadings in each
column identify the unit operations employed for each option. A general
description of the options and assumptions utilized in constructing the
profile sheets have been previously presented. Descriptions of individual
unit operations can be found in Appendix B. Not all organic sludge options
are recoaaended for each liquid treatment strategy as previously noted.
40. The thickening unit operation consisted of either gravitational or dis-
solved air flotation, The references utilized in developing the numbers
appearing on the profile sheets are numerically listed under the appro-
priate subheading in Table V. The particular thickening process utilized
is indicated for each sludge option on all profile sheets.
41. Conditioning consisted of either chemical or Porteous heat treatment.
The appropriate method is indicated in the profile sheets for each sludge
option. The references utilized in developing the numbers appearing in
the profile sheets are numerically listed under the appropriate subheadings
in Table V.
42. Dewatering techniques utilized include vacuum filtration, centrifugation
and sand drying. The references utilized in developing the numbers appear-
ing on the profile sheets are numerically listed under the appropriate
subheadings in Table V.
43. Ultimate disposal methods analyzed include recalcination and sanitary
landfill alone, landspreading (pipeline or truck transportation) or ocean
dumping (pipeline or barge). The references utilized in developing num-
bers appearing on the profile sheets are numerically listed under the
appropriate subheading in Table V.
44. The numbers appearing in this row identify the organic sludge options
presented in the text of this report.
45 • The unit operation column indicates the major category of sludge treat-
ment to be undertaken. The specific unit operation utilized can be read
left to right through the sludge handling options presented.
70
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 1
Primary Treatment with. Land Application of Liquid Effluent
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
—I
F- ’
PRIMARY TREATMENT
r — — — — — — — a — — — — a a — a
I
I
I
I
— —
— — a a
SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE
SLUDGE
-------
PRIMRY
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY) 110 kwh
CONCRETE (cu vos> _______
STEEL (ToNs) ________
CF4EI4ICALS (LBs/DAY) _______
LAND (AcREs) _______
LA3oN (MAN VMS/AR) _______
OUTPUTS - BOO (MG/I) _______
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MA/L)
(L .as/DA’r)
NUTRIENTS P (Mo/L)
(LBS/DAY)
(MG/I>
(LBS/DRY)
NEAVY METALS (LBS/DAY)
ATANDSPNERIC (LBS/DAY) _______
SLUDSES SOLIDS ________
TOTAL DAY Mt. (LBS/DAY) ________
SOLID WASTE (cu FT/AG) _________
NUISANCE - 0:109 ________
NO! SE _________
TRAFF I C __________
SAFETY )INJUgIEs/10 MANNRS IllS
COSTS - CAPITAL (S x 10 ) ________
NLBAENG TOTAL CAPIIAL(S iO .D9O
LAND (5) ___
RGIRNING GRAND TOTAL (S L
OPERATING (C/1 O SAL)
101 • IZSC (T/ IOOS SAL) 29.5
TOTAL OPERATING ( (/j O GAL)
RUNNING TOTA (C/IOOS GAL) 375
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT?(NT SIPATEGY ‘ UT A FLOW PATE OF 1 ’000 GAD
Pr raary Treatment - 100,000 GPD
LIQUID TREUT! NT
SECON—
DAFRY
TERTI—
ARE
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
UNIT OPERATIoN
THICKENING:
CONDITION 11 16:
Land
DEWATERING:
DISPOSAL:
1
2
3
V ACUU9
CENTR IFUGE
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATP NT OPTIONS
5
INCI NEUA IIUN INLINEPAILUN
lANDFIL l LANDFILL
VACUU9
SAND
LANDF ILL
-.4
5”)
LUrIU
VACUUM VACUUM
FILTRATIO (t I_f ILIYAII0 )L
U I LAN
LANDFILL
GIJMP I NI
liLt AN
SURF INS
22
2
2.3
5.5
C1 2 —S.4
1.8
12.9
.82
.1
1.30
2.6
—_
2.1
80
5.2
64
4.1.6
4.3
.14
11.4
.11
32
4.8
25.6
3.8
.4—8.3
7 8 g1igUb1
S______
108
otent:___
L-________
.
.O9O 4
Se 11 ib
.2 At I
.o39_.o57J:
.129—. 14
E800
---
,
ii
13.901
.I U -.262
5-9
(6.7—27.5
120 kwh
__ //\
_____ 1
iii_
T _
I
Ii±i±H
t-
ThS—
---Y-—---—---—----i
NOT
— __I
Thi IIi i
H
59.2—69
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT! NT STRATEGY # 1 AT A FLOW RATE OF 1 14Cr )
—
9.6
3.4
2.6
130
1040
80
640
14.3
114
32
256
-
i—
-
41
72 7
1oriee
129
1
2.6
21
5.2
41.6
.14
Li
4i8
38
2—3.2
g$ligib le
P thog An
Lp t I mU
.39- - I l
.85—1.0
12 1Q
12
5—8
.26—. 35
Ill—SO
LIQUID T ATPENT
SECON TERTI- LIQUID UNIT OPERATION 1 .1
PRIMARY DM7 ART DIDPO$AL ThICKENING: Vj . . ...
CONDITIONING:
lA nd DEN1ATERING
9c0 Ao l DISP0SRL:
______________ I :
I
__________ 2.5—3.2
16.7-22.51 ______
_______ _____________ 113.2—14.0
20.8 42.5—52.3 55.?—46.3
P —
J-
.455
3400
: .458
14.8
20.8
11
2.7—5.4
.26—35
is— so
7 1
ORONflC SLUDGE TREATMENT 0PTI S
14
CENTRIFUGE VACULI I
_____________ FILTRATION
INE IIAIIUN INCINERATION INCINERATION
LANDFILL . LANDFILL — LANDFILL -
RTu S i0O RI-
SAND
LANDFILL
39 RAID
7 2e10 5 Atu
24
7 c kvls
28
77
AS
14 /
tACt)
SPREAD I RU
VACUUM
I urS -
COSTS -
DUMP INS
N0C
1c k ,
LANDFILL
VACUUM
FILTRATION
120
iTT
172
172
17 4 kwh
OCEAN
DUMP I N C .
14
.17—23
.42—. 53
3.5—14
16
1.7—2.0
1.5—1.6
1.6—1.7
.7—.9
1 I_i N
1.2—1 4
1’
4—6
16
ENERGY (uNITI/DAY)
CONCRETE (CU MDI)
STEEL (TONS)
CNEM ICALS (LAD/DAY)
LA m (*ci s)
LABON (19*14 ENS/ rN)
NOD (INS/C)
(LAS/DAY)
SUSPEI ED SOCIDS (MG/L)
(LAS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (I4G/L)
(LAS/DAY)
N (RG/L)
(LAs/DAY)
IISRVY PIETRLS (IAN/DAY)
ATP )SPHERIC (LAS/DAY)
SLUDGES—% SOLIDO
TOTAL DRY WT, (LAS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (cu FT/VA)
NUISANCE - ODO R
NOl SE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (INJuGIEI/10 6 MANUAl,
CAPITAL IS 1061
RUNNING TOTRL CAPITAL)) U II ) 7.455
LAND IS)
RUNNING 186111 TOTAL (5 x 1561
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
10% *Am iLE1 ((/1000 GAL)
10161 OPERATINI ((/1000 SRI)
RUNNING TOTAL ) f130O GAL)
k—A
, .23_
S17_ ( 527
lU—lU
10—30
10—10
10—30
10—30
_ .____
12—45
12—45 112_45
12—45
Mptele—.05—.
S0 2 .05— .08
6C1 .3 .4R
NO- .34-.22 .A.r. (jcla
100 100 __ . . .
320 320
L3S3. 1 . 1 .. ._
4 _ _ N. .._.
2....._ .
100
243
25—50
750
QLQLU.A1. .
64
750
20-30
i.________
2.6—3.9
PUteRCi14 l
—---—— .—-
750 -
.2 .. .6L1__
J ( p . —
.. .OCO._. .... ..
.Qft .
.006
.019
.019
-
Negligible
.332—.33 E .245—.271
1.18—1.37 0.1—1.3
260 54260—350
1.31—1.50 11.23—1.43
L2 .2_3
7.9-8.7
.7
.255—.311
1.11—1.34
170—231
1.24—1.47
2.2—2. ?
Q.2-1:
112.1
.J .52. .J4O... 5. ..6546.3.
1.01.19 .96—1.18 -— 51.24 1.51469
420—530 I 3500—14.00O 17—23
1.13—1.32 2.09-1.32 1.18—1.37 1.64— 1.A2
1.6-2.3 ,77— .93 i.3—i.6 —
L1-5,2 4.5-5.3 — L.6_._ 21 ..2 . 2L .1
6.7-’. 5 5. _j jL 8 .2 2L.5r2 8_
52.6-61 5 8-63 J -59j 58.5 ___ 5O.3-6O
66.1—77.)
Primary Treatment - 1 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TR [ AT?ENT STRATEGY H 2 . AT A FLOW RATE OF 11) WLS
Primary Treatment - 10 MGD
L!AUID TREHTIENT
SECON TERTI— LIQUID
PRIMARY
IDARY ART DISPOSAL
Land
L270 lowl
I SA
4600 kwh
VACUUM
All TRAYIGN
252
CENTRIFUGE
ORGANIC SLUDGE FREArMFNT OPTIONS
3 q
GRAVITO GRAVITY (,KAVITT —
.UQRIUOLLI_ .SIU2.$1L05 OIQUUQ& 0
VACU IIN $4 50
FILTRATION DRYING
I ANT I I II I
500 wh 4 kwh 390 1ow I
.2lpIO 6 Bta 22A1.0 VIs
I A N OFTL E
LRNDF ILL
LAND
:
8
8.. .
GRAVITY
DIGESTION
CL&VI
DISESTIOR
25 kwh
VACUUM
INPUTS -
OUTPUTS -
STS -
OCEAN
flYnn, All
75
66.7
2h lorine—
40
—
2 .0 _
—-----
10_
130
2.6
1 I2d9 . .
210
80
5.2
6400
616
14.3
.14
11
1140
32
4.8
2560
380
40—830
2—32
Not
VACUUM
All tO YTfl&
LANDFILL
1 S k .h
DUMP I RU
ENERGY (uNITs/DAY)
CONCRETE (CU YDS)
STEEL (To l ls)
CNEMIC.ALS (us/DAY)
LAPO (ACREG)
LABUM (MAIl YRS/YB)
aoo (MAIL)
(us/oao)
SUSPEP RD SOLIDS (MAIL)
(LAS/SAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MAIL)
(LAs/DAY)
(MA/L)
.85/DAY)
AEAVY €TALS (us/DAY)
A ’TP SPHERIC (Us/SAY)
SLUDGES-! SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (LAS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU FTJYR)
NUISANCE —
NOISE
166FF IC
SAFETY (IWJONICS/10 6 M#NAASL TO S
CAPITAL (S 12 )
RLINNING TOTAL CAPIT8L(S o IDSP2_21
LAND (N)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (1 o 13 )I 2.22
OPERATING (U1fl0 GAL)
102 AIVRTIZGD ((/1000 SAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL) 11.1
RUNNING TOTAL. ((/1000 GAL)
22
20
25
565
565
170
...—
570
44
42 52
65
65 -
P0
—
70
50—80
27—54
40—60
60—AlT
2.6—3.5
2.6—3.5
1.7—2.3
4.2—5.3
34—137
,jl .23
4.2—5.3
3.2—3.6
3.7—4.8
2.0—2.6
9.6-12.9
-
--
IINIT OPERATION -
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING: .._..Gk
DEWATERINS:
DISPOSAL
/ \
/
1.8-3.1
1 S_Ar I A 1 1111— I7fl I V(1_ ’rIT 100— 30 ( 7 100-300
5
,_
+ — --4
100—300 100— 100
P OEWU-
1---
- _
- ‘——rnl
L2. .L . __
?atho or As
Last Irno
3.9—1.7
6.11—7.91
.—— -— —.
[ J 4104L.
-_________
l29 1O
l—_
-
-
1.41—9.21
5-9
—t
16.7—22.1
21.7—31.5
1 120—450
120—450 —
120—450
ZQ 4.2.0___
Meta.1s.5—.8
.2
100
02 .5_.8
rorticolatoo_
100
6C1.3—4.6
17—25 —
100
25-50
6—8
,
20-30
i s. .._.. .. .
3200
3200
2430
—
7500 7 )00
7500
7500
—
.i -
Z6.- __
NTYN
.0 9
No sR Done
.A8.ove AVera e,
.08 .06
Poteo ie1 PctpntiAl
—------——--.
Y .19 .19 .19
Negliglblo.
.56—97
6.67—8.85
2600_35C 10
.51-71 .54-755
6.62-9.62 6.65-8.66
2600—3530 1730—2303
.39-44_- .21-29 9Q_ fl
6.5-9.35 6.12—8.2
4230—5800 .34—1 ,37s1O 1700—2300 170—230
7.97—10.2
7.92—9,92 7.95-9.96
78—9.66 7.65—9.64 7.87—9.78
8.3—10.2
1.5—2.2
\ 3.3_5.3
1.5—2.3 2.3—1.9
1.6-2.3 1.7-2.4
i.i-4.6 3.0-4.3
1.6—2.2 .77—.93 1.0—1.6 1.1—1.8 -
1.3-1.4 1.0-2.7 1.3-1.8 2. 3.3
2.9-3.6 j 1.8-2.6 2.5—3.4 4.0-5.)
I
132. 8—42 . 6
V 36.1—47.9 [ 359—47.2 f 35.8—46.9 f 35. 7—46.2 f 34.6—45.2
j3 ).3 —46.0 136.8—47.7
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY // 2
-‘ ste Stabilization Lagoon
[ CHLORINE
—4
01
S P RAY
IRRIGATION
MUN I CI PAL
_________ WASTE STABILIZATION 1 l
WAS TE WATER
LAGOON f
SURFACE WATER
.3 DISCHARGE
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT! NT STRATEGY A 2 AT A FLOW RATE OF 100.000 Gi I )
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu sos)
STEEL (To. s)
CHEIUCALS ( s/DAv)
LARN) (ACRES)
IJBDR (iw IRs/FR)
OUTPUTS - ROD (NGIL)
(I . . S/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
(i . s/oA)
NUTRIENTS: P (INGIL)
(LAs/w ,Y)
M (INGIL)
(LAS/DAY)
IGRAT I TRLS ( .ss/DAY)
ATP SPHERiC (LAs/DAY)
SLUDGES4 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT, (I.JSIDAY)
SOLID WASTE (cu FT/IN)
NUISANCE - ODON
NOI SE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (NJuaIEs/1 NAN—AND)
COSTS - CAPITAL (I 10 G)
RONNING TOTAL CAPIIAL($ s 106
LARD CS)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x 106)
OPERATING ((/1 (8)0 GAL)
102 RTICL I ( /1 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1)8)0 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ( /1 30 GAL)
LIQUID TRf fltNT
PRIMARY
SECON—
TERTI—
LIQUID
UNIT OPERATION
DART
ANY
DISPOSAL
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
Was Ce
Stabili
zatio
Surface
Water
DEWATER 1MG I
DISPOSAL:
27 60
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATMENT OPTIONS
INCINERATION INCINARA1IUAI )NLINLKAIIUTI
I Lund, I LNT IFTI I I ANflFTI I
VACUI .R4
dILTRAT ION
CENTRIFUGE
VACUI R N
iiI_mArLoN
SAND
DRYlNO
VACUUM
FILTRATION
VACUUM
FILTRATIOTE
LANDFILL
8
LAMU OCEAN
SPRFATIISG flIIMPTNU
lON
0C C AN
LANDFILL ShAPIRO
1
5.5
Cl,—8.4
_ . .
6
.05—.O7
40
34
64
53
12
10
32
25.6
.4—8,3
. __
±.:A. 5 . ___ .
047
Q47
6,000
.053
Negligible
.0055
.0525
.058
1.8
18.7
3.8
I
I!
U
ES
- —.— — -. - . —
-
N
01
P __
\I______
— --.
T
18.7 1 22.5
Waste Stabilization - Discharge to Surface Water - 100,000 GPD
-------
PROCESS P F RE SHEET FOR TREATP(ENT STRAIEGY # 2 AT A FLOW RATE OF 1O0 000 GPO
INPUTS s t ay (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (co vos)
STEEL (TONS)
ci ic ..s (LBS/DAY)
LARD (ACRES)
LANOR (MAN YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS - oD (P4 5/ L)
(LB s!
SUSPENDED SCUDS (MG/I)
(L3 sfDA )
MUTRIEN1S P ( tsA.)
(LBs/DAY)
N (ROIL)
(L .asfDAv)
REAVY PIEIALS (I_As/nAY)
I C ( / y)
SLUDGES-2 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY WY. (Las/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CLI FT/FR)
NU 1SANCE ODOR
NOISE
TRAPF IC
SAFETY (IN UPIES/10 6 MA4444R$)
COSTS - CAPITAL
-------
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATE R
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY // 3
Trickling Filter with Discharge to Surface Water
—4
I ECIRC UL AT I ON
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR T T ) NT STRATEGY 9 3 AT A FLOW RATE OF 4
LIQUID_TRERT!fNT
SECO N TEAT!—
PR I MARY
DARV ARY
rtckl0 n
Filter I
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
230L_kV >S
aM 153
THICKENING:
CONDITION INS:
DEWATERIN6:
DISPOSAL.:
CENTRI FlUE
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATP HT OPTIONS
L I 5
GRAVITY GRAVITY
) ISESTIUN DIGESTION
SAND
cac 01 ) 1
FILTRATION
INC INER ATION
LMIDF ILL
56 i’jh 60 fl
7 1 1 Lb u .. S Wall) Ar,,
45
- .4
‘a
LANDFILL
3—17
3 kwh
LAN !) OttflN
SPRSADING DUMPING
3.5—7.0
41
40
16
VACUUM
3 kwh
1.8—2.4
.27—37 .26—.35 .19—23
riot
Prarriral
LANDFILL
vALour,
1.4—1.8
16
SC t AN
DUMP INS
25 kwh
1.1—1.5
Sc kwh
.51—.69
18
4—17
.9—1 .75
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu iso)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (LBS/SM)
LAND (ACRES)
LABOR (MAlI VMS/YB>
OUTPUTS - NOD (RG/L)
(us/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MA/L)
(us/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MUlL)
(us/DAY)
N (RG/L)
(LBS/SAP>
HEAVY PMIALS (LBS/DAY>
A1I SPHENIC (us/DAY)
SLUD GES— I SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY W I. (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU FI/YR)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
(HUFF IC
SAFETY (INJURIES/iT 6 MANHRS)
COSTS CAPITAL (S o 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL($ x (5>
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x 1061
OPERATING (4/1000 SAL)
10% AI TIZED (0/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (4/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
c_i A
IA
c..i A
. 23—.31
ni,_ n rA
1.4—1.8
2. 2_S
L. .__
!!Ci___
2.7
Chlor in
-
- ---
2.6
.5
130
30—50
1040
250—417
80
40—60
—
337-500
14.3
10
114
32
24
256
21)1
3—67
3—67
jV
.455
—
.65 . .
.02
5.455
1.1
1.12
.455
4000
(.11
1.13
6
2
1.1
14.6
21.0
.63
20.6
23.0
1.7
7.5
25—40 25—40 25—40 20—40
1080
320
/
To ten—
tial
2 5—40
tial
25—40 25—40
UvMta
23
.
24
2U
150
150
--
152
—
153
1—16
1—16
0—16
40—70
i—lA
40—70
1—16
40—70
4 —7Q —
1—16 —
?feCaia—.07—.
N0 ..S_.78
S0 2 —.07- .1
PatticUlatea.
8C1 .33— .6
2.2—3.3
100
100
IOQ .
25..50
20—30
L GQ_
450
315
930
930
930
930
1.9—11.2
2.3—4.6
3.3—11.8
3.3—L1.8
None
Mona
None
°‘ Y
Potential
Potential
No&__ ...
.01
.01
.008
.02
.02
.02
Neg1i 1e
.345—.37
.24—33
.26—.))
.175—JO
.12—.17
..66—.81 —
1.47—1.49
1.36—1.45
1.38—1.45
1.29—1.3
1.24—1.29
i.32—147
I. J9—J..9J
17—23
270—370
260—350
190—250
510—690
3500—14.000
230—310 .
1.48—1.59
4.3-4.9
1.37—1.46
4.0-5.5
1.39—1.46
3.5-4.2
1.39—1.31
1.A-2.5
1.25—1.31
.91—1.15
1.35—1.48 1.79—1.94 —
1.9-3.5 2.7-4.9
11.1—11.9
7.7—10.6
6.4—10.6
5.6—5.U
‘F
6.4—11.3
22iJ._..
15.3—16.8
11.7-16.1
9.9-14.8
7.4—8.3
8.3-14.8
23.9-31.0
20 6
41 6
45.3
I
60.6—62.1
57—61.4
55.2—60.1
52.7—53.6 50.1—52.3
5 3.4—60.1
76
Trickling Filter - Discharge To Surface Water - 1 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEEI FOP TRLAT!(NT STRATEGY 3 AT A FLOW RATE OF 10 9Gb
INPUTS - ENERGY (uNITs/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu YDS)
STEEL (io.is)
CHEW ICALI (us/NY)
L.APGI (ACRES)
LABOR (MAN VHS/FR)
OUTPUTS - SOD (MG/C)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPEI ED SOLIDS (NEIL)
(us/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (I IL)
(us/DAY)
N (NEIL)
(us/DAY)
AEGOY METALS (L8s/DAV)
ATPCSPHER C (us/DAY)
SLuDGEs—! SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY WI, (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu P1/ 0 9)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOt SE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IN.JURIES/10 6 MANA S)
COSTS — CAPITAL (S x 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL($ x iT
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x OO >
OPEGATINO ((/1000 GAL)
10! OMECYIZUG (0/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL (0/1000 GAL>
UNIT OPERATION 1 —
THICKENING: I IRAVIT
CORDITIONINGI r CMEN!C.AL
V AC U 1 54
DEWATERING: FILTRATION
INCINERATION
DISPOSALI j LANDFILL
I _____
__
6.2—8.0
4 .3—3.5
250—400
Trickling Filter - Discharge to Surface Water - 10 MGD
LIQUIU TREATP NT
PRIMARY
SECOH
TERTI
LIQUID
DARY
ART
DISPOSAL
r1ck1i
Surface
Filter
Water
1370k,,, 1774k,.
CENTRIFUGS
ORGANIC_SLUDGE TREATP(NT OPTIONS
VACUI .J 4
LANDFILL
6 )1) EWN) 360
A0 1 flS NYu 70 1 6 RE.,
nyu jtWs
TR, 1flS Rt,, in k.n,
LANDFILL I LAND I OCEAN
SPRFAI)TNG I flI N4DTS Z
: OR thL:: CRAv
DIGESTION DIGESTION
VACUUM VACUUM
FIITRAt!CnJ CTItDATICN
756
1160
252
1.S.__
AQA_.
or 10 1
—
—fl--
-
—
—_
—
- -
—_
MO
‘ i’
80
40—60
6400
3370—500
14.3
10
1140
840
—
2560
2010
30—670
30—670
S I) kwh
27
26
30
775
780
780
48
45
58
78
78
83
83
F lot -
Practical
LANDF ILL
3.6— l.A
250 kwh
4.1—4. 5
30—170
35—70
50—1.80
50—180
27—3.7
2.6—3.6
1.9—2.5
5.4—7.2
40—170
22—1
.17—.23
250 kwh
2.25 - 11.5
9.6—12.9
2G_3 S
250—400
I 1 ._I .
5
7.5
10.800
3200
2 50—400
250—400 250—400 250—400
Poten—
tial
Poten-
YSaI
250—400
28.5
2.21
1.6—1.7
.087
12.21
3.81—3.91
3.9—4.0
20, 000
2.21 3.03—3.9
4 2
3.92—4.0
.9
7.1 5.2—3.5
.3
1.2
11.1 7.2_7.5j
9—159
9—159
9—159
10—160
10—160
104160
1(3—160
M et.a le .7—1
N0 —5—7.8
S02.7_1
Particulatee
HC1 .35—6
22—33 —
100
4500
100
4500
100
3150
25—50
9300
7.5 —
9300
20—30 20—30
9300 9300 -.
19—112
23—46
833—118__——
P2C C1A 1.
None
None
None
Potential
Potential
Above Averag
.11
.11
.08 .23
H .46—47
4.63—4.90 4.36—4.47
.23
.24—32
4.14—4,32
-—
.23 Negligible
40—64+841.1
4 5 a 6jj 7451
2200—3000 170—230
.94—1.3
4.84—5.3
.65—.88
4.55—4.88
2700—3700
2600—3600
2600—3601
5400—7200
.4—1.7x10 3
4.86—5.32
4.57—4.90
4.65—5.0
4.39—4.5
4.2—4.51
432—4
4.76—5.12
3.2—3.8
2.9—4.3
2.4—3.2
1.7—2.3 .91—L15
1.6—3.3
1.2—3
3.0—4.2
2.1—2.3
2.3—3.2
1.5
.9—1.6
1.3—2.0
2.7—3.5
5.0-7.1
4.7-6.
3.2-3.8 1.8-2.8
2.9_5.311 6 5
1.1.1
18.3—18.6
19.5—19.8
25.7—27.8 24.5—26.9
124226.2
22.7—23.6 21.3—22.6
22.4-25.1 25.4-26.1
-------
ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRS1E (Cu YDI)
STEEL (rt is)
CH ICALS (us/DAY)
LANU (ACRES)
LARON ( w YRS/YR)
ROD (NAIL)
(us/DAY)
SUSPENUED SOLIDS (NEIL)
(us/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (NAIL>
(us/DAY)
N (NAIL)
(Us/DAY)
H€A9Y TALS (US/DAY)
ATNASPS4ERIC (Us/DAY)
5LUONES SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY WI. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/TO)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOl SE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (INJORIEO/10 6 NAN— ’ 1
CAPITAL (S x 106) -- -
RI.RININO TOTAL CAFITAL($ 15 )ii .7
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 0 106)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
10 ARVWIIZED (4/1000 SAL)
TOTAL 0PERATINc (C/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL) 6.4
PI1OCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREA11(NT STRATEGY # 3 AT A FLOW RATE Q 100 }SGD
LIQUID TR AT! NT
PRIMARY
TENT I
ART
SECON-
DARY
rickflr
Filter
L 1Q01 0
DISPOSAL
Surf ace
Water
CENTS IFUGE
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREAT$ NT OPTIONS
GRAVITY
PORTEDLIS
YAC SON
F I LTOAT ION
=
6700 kyh 5600 h 50110 kwh
600x10 5 NEw “ ‘ RAw ,an.., 6 SEw
I SAND
I ORYING
GRAVITY
E !
ISL
DIGESTION
...D.LG
INC IURATION LANDFILL
LANDFILL
300 kwh 300 kwh
I I UTS -
COSTS -
VACUUM VACUUM
rllrDnrrn.arI:Yn ,rInN
300 kwh
2500 kwh 2500 kwh
165
142
172
890
890
890
915
915
220
200
236
82
80
80
100
100
30 1700
350—700
500—1800
500-1600
16.7—36.1
26—36
19—25
54—72
401—1701
1.7—2.3
22—30
1.8—2.4
(2—28
23—31
19—24 12.5—39
7.8—10.6
7.8—10.6
15—21
15—22
24O
10900
45
882
140
Chlorine
—
—a-- __
30-50
—_
04.000 xl0
0
40—60
4.000
3- O4
4.3
10
- -
2
24
— _
300—6700
00—6700
7.5
08000
otentie
Potent
41
1
J_ .1
1.L.5L
.416
24.1
1.7
24.1
24.5
.6
1.7
.7
.4
5.7
UNIT OPERATION 1
THICKENING: GRAVITY
CONDITIONING: CHEMICAL
ONWATERING: VACULIR
FILTRAT ION
DISPOSAL: INCINERATION
— Is enE lli
I __________________________________________
1
_ 17.6
2500—4000
2500—4000
2500—4000 2500—4000 TSflfl
Yn, n
4000—7000
/Y0 Z0OQ
sooo oo..
4000—7000
4000—700g..
93—1590
93—1590
93’1590
000—1600
100—1600 100—1600
100-1600
100—1600
$etala7—10
002710 .CL—3 5—60
5O—7A_Particwlatea—220—
30
[ 00
100
100
25-50
i . s_
2 .0- 3D
93,000 93,000
5,000
45,000 t31 ,500
93,000
93,000
-
93,000
197—1117
230—460
329—1183
329—1183
one
None 1one
Potential
Potential
(lone
Potential
(lone
Above Average
1.1
1.1
.79
2.3
2.3
None
2.3
— -- ——
.25
12.]. 12.9
.8
3.2—4.4
2.2—3 4—5.4
26.7—27.5 28.5—29.9
3.1—3.3
3.3—3.7
4.5—19.7
2.4—3.2
.15—3.2
27.7—28.9
27.6—27.8
27.8—28.2
39—44.2
—
26.9—27.7 7.6—21.7
26,700-36,100
27.8—30
2.7—3.3
1.0—1.4
26,000—36,000
26.8—27.6
2.7—4.1
.7 —1.0
l9 ,000—25 OQ0 54,000—72,C
28.6—30 427.7_27.9
2.2—2.9 l.7—2.3
1.3—1.7 1.0—Li
0 .4—1.7x10
20.2—29.9
.98—1.2 —
1.2—1.3
1700—2300
39—44.2
.4—.5
4.7-6.3
22,000—30,0)
27—27.8
1.5—3.2
.8—1.0
1800—2400
7.6—27.7
.2—3
.0
3.4—5.1
3.5—4.6
16.3—18 16.4—17.5
2.7—3.4
2.2—2.5
3 1 —€1. A
15.6—16.3 15.1—15.4 18—15.7
2.3—4.2 .2-4.0
15.2—17.1 5.1—16.9
Trickling Filter - Discharge to Surface Water - 100 MGD
-------
I I flS - ENERGy (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cv flYs)
STEEL (i is)
CHEMICALS (us/DAY)
LAIRI (acREs)
LABOR (MAN YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS - (NEIL)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPEIRIED SOLIDS (HG/L)
(ijslo*v)
NUTRIENTS: P CI G/L>
(LBS/DAY)
N (is/i .)
(us/DAY)
HEAVY NETALO (us/DAY)
ATI EIC (us/DAY)
SLUDGES-Z SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY WI. (LBS/SAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU FT/TN)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFE IC
SAFETY (IN.JuRIes/1( MA1S-HRS)
TS — CAPITAL (S c 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPIIAL(I x 10
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
IOZ ei: ss (6(0000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (C/1t GAL)
RUNNING TOTAl. ((/1000 s .)
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATWNT STRATEGY I AT A FLOW RATE OF 1000 IND )
Trickling Filter - Discharge to Surface Water - 1000 MGD
LIQUID THEAT ) MT
PRIMARY
SECON— TERII
DART ANY
rricku,
Filter
NU,UUU
k h
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Surface
U ., —
CENTRI FUGE
,sWncrII
VACULJI
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATWNT OPTIONS
- -
IUFUTII
SAND
1430
29° ?” i ?SU 000 gkwh
1730
co
LANDFILL
---
1280 1460
8
1610 1850
3000 bth n1Ifl ln h
26 7—361
VACUUM VACUUM
CtirflSTTflN tII TDATTflN
LAND
cPRFASING
OCEAN
DLUIPING LANDFILL
OCEAN
DUMPING
8500 “n f l
220—280
260—360
lYnn kwh
780 780
230—310
190—250
nn
3000—17.000
1500—7000
lhYn_YA.000
YnlYfl —YR .nnfl
c a nn n . ,. Inn kwh
NO
,.,n
540—720
Sn
8470
125—390
1000—17.000 5.3—20.7
72—98
920
20—300
0. (—95 .5
18—24
50—210
6.i2829 _
‘.O2. ,.
19,300
5400
8820
1270
Chlorine
94000
200
280
245
130
1.04a10
30— 50
2.5—ialOS
80
40—60
14.3
1.0
114,000
84,000
32
24
256,000
201,000
i1 a
5
7.5
L08a1C Q Q0
otantia
l’otent
1
2.1
41
117
117
2.16
117
234
236.2
. i o 6
117
234.2
236.4
2
1.3
.5
3.8
3.8
.07
.57
150—220_
NIT OPERATION. CL&TTY
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING: C MICAL
VACUUM
D€WATERING: FILTRATION
INCINERATION
DISPOSAL;
67 000 kwh
1.0—1.4
3,7-4.7
15.2—16.2
2.5—4x .10 4
2. 5—4x10 4
2. 5—4x10 4
2. 5—4e10 4
2. S—4x10 4
2. 5—4x1O 4
2. 5—4xjO —
4—7r10 4
4—7 10
4—7x10 4
4—7x10 1
4—7 iO
‘ 3 —15.900
NetalRlO—100
8 )—i5.90O 930—15,900
22—70-100 acl—350—600
2000-16,000
1000—1.6,000
60016
1000-16.00 (1
1000-16.000
N0 ”500—780,
100
450,000
1970—11,170
None - -
- --
32—44
26E.2280.2
.27-.36x10 6
268.7-280.8
2.7—3.3
rtlculatea — 22 00_33 0 0
00 100 25—50 7.5 7.5 20—30 20—30 ——
315.000 930.000 1930.000 930.000 930.000 930.000
300—4600 3290—]4 , . 3290—11.830
one - Poter .tLal YotentiAl HouR coteutial None ——
23.3 23.i tN00e
2—30 40—54 — 32—34 8—14 j — 2 l -— 24_32 31.5—32
‘fr58.3-266.2 276.2—290.2 268.2—270.2 244.2—250.2 251.2—257.2 260.2_26U J 67.7258.2
L26-.36x10 6 .19—.25i10 .54_.725106 417 io6 15,300—20,7 L .31O 18,0O0—24 ,
58.7-266.8 276.6—290.6 268.9_271.1I24G.4_267.4 251.4_257.4 260.6-268.7 267.9-268.4
p.7—4.1 2.2—2.9 1.7—2.3 4.5—6.9 .14—19 1.5—3.2)1.2 3
7—1.0 1.3—1.7 1.0-1.1 .3-5 .5-.7 .8-1.0 1.0
.4—5.1 3.5—4.6
2.7—3.4
4.8—7.4
.64—.89 tZ.3—4.2 2.2—4.0
5.8
.0.9
11.5
.4.9—16.6 15.0—16.1
14.2—14.9 16.3—18.9
12.1—12.1 . 13.8—15.7 F 13.7—15.5
-------
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATE R
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 14
Trickling Filter with Discharge of Liquid Effluent to Land
aD
w
REd RCIJLATI ON
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TPEATI(NT STRATEGY AT A FLOW RATE )W 1 9800
INPUTS - sRoo (UNITS/DAT)
CONCRETE (CA s ’Ds)
STEEL (ToNs)
CKEMICALS (LBS/DAY)
L .AJ (ACRES)
LAIN (i ‘r sf )
OUTPUTS - POD (ssk)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPEI ED SOLIDS (hElL)
(Us/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (nA/L)
(LBS/DAY)
N (NA/L)
(LBS/DAY)
HEAVY METALS (LBS/DAY)
A1380S?HERIC (Us/DAY)
SLUD6ES SOLIDS
TOTAL DAY NT. (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu Fl/VP)
NUISANCE -
HOlES
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IN, AUES/10 6 ,t ,i-oes)
COSTS - CAPITAL (S 10 S)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL($ x
1080
LAND (I) _______ ________ _____________
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL 18 Ic 106) _______ _______
OPERATING )(/1C GAL) ________________ _________
lOX .LLMTIZID ((/1000 GAL) 14 A _________________ _________
TOTAL OPERATING ( (/1 )XX3 GAL) 2U6
RUNNING TOTAL ( (/1 O GAL)
Trickling Filter - Discharge to Land - 1 MGD
LIQUID TP fltNT
PRIMARY SECORI— TERTI-
PART ART
LIGUID
DiSPOSAl.
rick liu Land
Filter
UNIT OPERATION
ThICRENING
CONDITIONING:
DEWATEPI NA
DISPOSAL:
Z5O k h 400 kWh 800 kwh
3
VACUN
FUITRATTON CENTRIFUGE
ISNUFTIT nWnrcl!
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATMENT_OPTIONS
LI c —
- 57 kyIs
6 .IO BEn
VACUUM SAND
FILTRATInU flDVTNr.
O KyTS
wIGIO
GO F S
1O RI-u
LANDF ILL
LAND OCEAN
8
8
153
41
L 1 i.___.
17.5
22.7
Chio riaG
84
—
4 , ,
l_
129
Z
.6-1.0
10.40
250—417
5—8.3
80
40—60
1.4—4
640
331—500
2.1—5.2
14.3
10
.1
114
84
.8
32
24
3.6
256
201
30.2
3-67
.2—3.2
N ot
VACUUM VACUUM
LL.LJ.8A1128_ FL LTGATI Of )
LANDFILL OCEAN
25 kwh 2° , kwh
—±—--——
5 7.0
320
POCRLLCL FOERUC
al
j 23
24
20
150
..—.
150
152
152
65
41
40
16
16
18
18
3— 17
3.5—7.0
—
.27—37
.26—.35
.19—.25
.51—.69
4—17
.23—.31
5—18
.017—.023
1.8—2.4
1.4—1.8
1.1—1.5
.9—1.75
1.1—1.5
1.4—1.8
7.2—3
25—40
25—40
25—40
25—40
25—40...._
25—40
25—40
1—16
40—70
-7G
1-16
1-1.6
1-16
40-70
1-16
40-70
MeCole.07— .1
502—07—. 1 C1— .3 )—.
1-lA
1-16
NO —.SO—.7B
100
1.9—11.2
oo _ ,_
j Ol
Particu1ates .2—3.3
100 1100
__j l __
2.3—4.6
Hone 4
25—50
930
FoCentlAl
20—30
930 930
3.3—11.8
FoCeotio1 Potentiol
20—30 —
3.3—11.8
None
.01
.008
.02
.02
.02
N T ib1e
,345-.37
1.85—2.07
1270-370
.24-33 .26-.32
1.74—2.03 1.76-2.02
260—350 192—250
.175-18
1.67-2,85
510—690
.12-17 .2-35 .66-81 -
.167—187 .17—.20 .216-.251
3500—14 ,00Q 230_310J 17—22
1.98—2.18
4.3-6.9
1.87—2.14
4.0-5.5
1.89—2.13
3.5—4.2
1.81—1.99 1.75—1.99 1.83—2.16 2.29—2.62
1.8—2.5 .91-1.15 1.9-3.5 2.7—4.9
5.6-5.8 3.9-5.9 6.4-11.3 21,2—2&.1
7,4—5,3 4.8-7.1 8.3-D4.i J 23,9—31.ó T
. .-
11.1-11.9
7.7-10.6
6.4-10.6
15.4—16.8
11.7—16.0
I
9.9—14.8
.4554 .65
ieg lLg lb l
OeflR
.39—57
7 .455
1.1
1.5-1.7
4000
129,000
, .LI5
1.11
2 I
1.63—1.8
6
,, ..
-,
21.0
16.7—22.
23.0
22.7-31.
43.6
65.3—75..
80.7—9 1.9
77—91.2
75.2—89.9
72.7—83.41 70,1—82,2
73,6—59.9 89.2—106.1
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT1 NT STRATEGY 0 4 AT A FLOW RATE OF 10 DWD
I UTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu TOO)
STEEL (TONs)
CHEN I CALS (1.80/RAY)
L.ARG (ACRES)
LABON ( 19M YRS/YN)
OUTPUTS - ioo (‘ / .)
(lBs/DAY)
SUSPENUED SOLIDS (no/c .)
(us/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MN/LU
(us/DAY)
N (MG/I)
(us/DAY)
I*A ( 1Y RGTALS (i.ss/uav)
(us/SAY)
SLIJDAES-Z souss
TOTAL DRY Ni. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/yE)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (!NJuRIEs/1 MAN-°
COSTS — CAPITAL (8 x 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL($ 1)
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 x 1061
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
102 riZtG ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
LIQUID TREHIPENT
SECOPI— TERTI
PRIPJ.RY
DARY ANY
ricklin
Filter
UNIT
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Land
1 TTfl
THICKENING;
CONDITIONING:
DEWATENING:
DISPOSAL:
77 /, k . .h Afin kwh
VACUIR
Oil TDAT1flN
CUMIN I FUGE
ORGN IC SLUDSE TREATP NT OPTIONS
3 I S
YACUIPI
F II 15171 OW
iUTI liv
27
560 kwh
,n..iflb
INCINERATION INCINERATION
I 550 ( 1! I AMn OTI I LANDFII.L
SAND
000111 (1
48
U,
.— v ._
TA
78 .1(10
10
30—170
45
30 kwh
2.7—3.7
35-70
58
30 kwh
775
OCEAN
qPING
4.3—5.8
2.6—3.6
VAi.UUfl VRCUI.R4
fiLTRATION FILTRATION
79
775
LANDFILL I OCEAN
DUMP I NC.
3.6—4.8
1.9—2.5
,cn kwh
78
4.1—4.5
75 (7 kwh
5.4—7.2
40—170_
7 R 0
78(1
83
2.25—11.5
50—180
9.6—12.0
83
50—180
2.2—3
2.6—3.5
.S7—.23
, .0,8___
J.6Q_
‘i—
CO—
hlorine
1_ tn
—.——-——
0
290
1.2
3
0
130
30—50
.6-1.0
l0 4OO
2500—4170
50—83
80
0—60
1.4—4
6400
3370-5000
T152
14.3
10
.1
1140
40
32
24
3.6
2.560
2010
302
3 .6 .30_
2—32
S_
10.800
1 QO __
Potentii
Potent
ii
.02
at ho ens
2.21
.6—1.7
3.9—5.7
2.21
.81—3.9
7.71—9.61
0.000
io
2.21
.83—3.9
-
.0.2—10.9
4
5 9
7.1
.2—5.5
6.7—22.5
7.2—7.5
1.7—31.5
1.4—4.6
9—1 SQ
250—400
250—400
750—400
750—400
, n.. .nnn
250—400
9—159
100
Metals—.7—1
tt__s n_, N
SO 2 —. 7—1
- -
1101—3.5—6
l
41 10— l An
400—700
400—700
400—700
4500
?prtIC v (At pg
i on
1 fl_I An
19—112
10—160
1017
4500
None
23—46
3150
79—NO
None
10—160
911)0
7-s
0—160
Above Average
9 500
.11
20—50
- YR
9 300
None
Potenti 1
Potential
Potential
20—30
.25
9300
33— 118
Ud
11.1
70
33-118
None
18.3—18.6 40.0—50.1
77
Negligible
.94—1.3
.65—.88
. 73—.90
.46—.47
.24.32
.40—64
.84—1.1
8.65—10.9
8.36—10.5
0,44—10.6
8.17—10.1
7.95—9.93
8.11—10.2
2200—3000
-
8.55—10.7
170—230
2700—3700
2600-3600
1900—2500
5400—7200
.4—l.7x10 5
9.96—12.2
9.67—11.8
—
9.75—11.9
9.49—11.4
9.3—11.4
9.42—11.5
9.86—12.0
3.2—3.8
2,9—4.3
2.4—3.2
1.7—2.3
.91—1.15 -
1.6—3.3
0.2—3
3.0—4.2
2.1—2.8
2.3—3.2
1.5
.9—1.6
1.3—2.0
2.7—3.5
6.2—8.0
5.0—7.1
4.7-6.4
3.2—3.8
1.8-2.8
2.9—5.3
3.9-6.5
46.2—58.1 45.0—57.2
44.7—56.5
43.2—53.9
41.8—52.9
42.9—55.4 43.9—56.6
Trickling Filter - Discharge to Land - 10 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE S LET FOR TREAT NT STRATEGY I 4 AT A FLOW RATE cc ioo MOO
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu yos)
STEEL (Tolls)
CHEMICALS (LBS/DAY>
LAIC (ACI1ES)
L.ABON (INAJI YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS — ooo (i, k)
(US/DAY)
SUSPENOED 504.105 (MaIL)
(LBS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (116/4.)
(LBS/DAY)
N (116/4.)
(Us/MY)
HEAVY I TALB (L.asfruy)
AT E 1IC (LBS/DAY)
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS-
TOTAL ON! NT. (Us/DAY)
504.10 WASTE (CU PT/TN)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAP! IC
SAFETY (II4JuaIEs/l( W l—11R0
COSTS - CAPITAL 1$ x 106)
RIPINIJIG TOTAL CAPITAL(S x ‘°
LIQUIO T AT!rNT
12.1 1 33.R—A1.6
PRIMARY
SECON-
TERTI-
LIQUID
uNIT OPERATION
DARY
ANY
DISPOSAL
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
riekjj.s
Land
DEWATERING:
Filter
DISPOSAL:
4000 kw 479(3 h 1RR O O
CENTRI FUSE
lilt. I I ISKA II Ufl
LANDF I Li.
ORGANIC SLUDGE TR AT NT OPTIONS
U !I1
VRCLJIJI
E li rDAt,nw
3
;3.d5LIr0_ __ __
I
CRAVITY
5
iii
PORTEOUS
DIGESTION
JIOISILQ )L.
.D1GE.J
INCINERATION INCINERATION
LANDFILL LANDFILL
OWY1 1W
1 .65
SANS
220
142
5600 E fl 6000 EvIl
‘lOfllflt Stu 300 kwh
LANDFILL
tI—1 7(1(1
172
I_AM U
26.7—36.1
. lct l—,nn
1190
300 kwh
OCEAN
flu_Ut—
6240
1000
545
882
265
—
40
C1 —84O0
12,900
28
24.5
55
130
D—50
.& ‘l. -O
104,000
2 .kwlo’
500—830
80
40—60
1.4-4
64.000
3—S,,l0
210—520
14.3
10
0.3
11,600
8400
83
32
24
2.9—3.6
25.600
20,100
2000—3020
300-6700
20—320
22—28
26—36
300 kwh
890
LANDFILL
VACu’.—
200
236
82
1 10
11 0
lnfl
23—31
2500 kwh
890
OCEAN
19—24
2500 kwh
915
19—25 54—72 401—1701
1.7—2.3 22—30
12.5—39
91 S
7.8—10.6
7.8—10.6
500-11100
I 9—21
1.8—2.4
5 7.5
108,000 32,000
93 1590
“ -u_°°
‘—‘- “°°
2.300—4000
2500—4000 2500— .00 251)0-4000 2500—4000
2500—4000
93- 9O
Metals— 7—10
80_—5 0—78
100
93-4390
4 000—7000
SO 2 — 7—10
P artlc u1ate —
HC135—60
220—330
100
100-1600
L000—,rbnn
45.000
45.1)00
19 7—1117
100—1 600
4000— 7000
100
Hone
100—1600
230—460
,.flflfl—. lnnn
31. 500
25—50
None
100—1600
4000-7000
1.1
7.9
‘otentir
—
—
Potent 1
‘iJ .._
t’athogena
Laat
39—57
11.7
12.35
11.7
24.].
63.1—81.1
40,000
i.2.9x 1.06
11.7
24.1
6—94
_.O
1.7
_9
3.8
4.0
16.7—22.5
..4
5.7
J 21 . 7 _ 31 . 5
1
93000
93000
S- 0 — 16 00
Above Aversee
LAND Ct)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL($ x 106).
OPERATING (4/1COO SAL)
lOX TI04D (4/l(X)O GAL)
TOTAL OPENATIN6 (4/l(N)O GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((flOlX) GAL)
8-ne
7.9
I_i
S I 0110
70—30
Potential
79
93,000
20—3 ( 1
Poteutlol
2 1
93.000
None
329—1181
1
- .
129—11113
No
un
3
‘S
37.5—48.3
5.2—4.4 2.2—3
4—5.4
3.2—3.)
3.3—3,7
14.5—19.7
2.4—3.2
3.13—3.2
66.3—85.5
65.3—84.1
67.1—86.5
66.2—84.4
66.4—84.8
77.6—100.8
65.5—84.3
66.3—84.3
26,700—36,100
26.000—36.000
19,000—23,005 :888 -
4—1.7x106
3.700—2300
82 ”
1800—2400
79.2—98.4
78.2—97
80—99.4
79.2—97.4
79.7—99.4
90,5—113.7
78.4—97.2
79.2—97.2
2.7—3.3
2.7—4.1
-
2.2—2.9
1.7—2.3
.98—1.2
.4—.5
1.5-3.2
1.2—3
1.0—1.4
.7—1.0
1.3—1.7
1,0-1.1
1.2—1.3
4.7—6.3
.8—1.0
1.0
3.7—4.7 3.4-5.1
3.5—4.6
2.7—3.4
2.2—2.5 5.1—6.8 f 2.3—4.2
2.2—4.0
137.2—48.7
37.3—48.2
36.5—47
36—46.1
38.9—50.4 j 36.1—47.8 36—47.6
Trickling Filter - Discharge to Land - 100 MCD
-------
MUNICIPAL
WASTE WAlE R
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY // 5
Activated Sludge with Discharge to Surface Waters
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
r — — —
I I
I L
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SlEET FOR T AT1ENT SIRATE6Y I 5 AT A FLOW RATE OF I W 1
IM’UTS — ENANAY (t IisIIlAv)
cONC TE (cu sos)
STEEL (YDRE)
CIIANICALS (Las/DAY)
LANO (ACRES)
LAIDR (,w, YRS/YR)
WJTPUTS - I (J%/L)
(us/DAY)
SU$PEI ED SOLIDS (nah.)
(Las/DAY)
IWTRIEKTS: P (146/L)
(L3 5!DAY)
N (NAIL)
(Las/DAY)
) AVV . Taas (LAS/MY>
AT N SPI4ERJC
SLUDUES2 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY 81, (1.11/DAY)
SOLID WAOTE (CU FTL’YR)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (I . ,t IEs/1 MA’
COSIS — CAPITAL (S 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL($ x
P8 9 18EV
Activated Sludge - Discharge to Surface Waters - 1. MGD
LIQUID T A17VST
SECOII ’
TERTI
LIQUID
IIT ONDRATIM
DARY
ANY
DISPOSAL
ThICKENING:
COIIDITIDRI NA:
ctivato
Surface
D€WATERIN6:
Sludge
water
I SISPOS
‘Sn
S..4 . 011 fr 4.
YACUDR
III TPAT ION
CENTRIFUGE
DRUMIC_SLU&TREA11 NT OPTILWS
INCINERATION INCINERATION
- L AáIS F ILL
,.
LANDFILl.
co 50
19—27
YACUON
f1L1RAIT10 8
SAMI
Y1HU
VACUIRI
FICTRATZOR
YncUUI
FILTRATION
U p”r , .
22 19
4’________
50
—_
‘
—-- - ,
“
LAND OCEAN
.43—.58
A 5_c c
2.2—2.6
1 2—5R
.41—.
Not
OCEAN
LANDFILL SUIUITAC
1.7—2.1
,cc-. - SAc
40 36 36 38 58
16 kwh 1.26 kwh
‘- 1 ,2—3 .8
, fl_I a
3,4—1.6
—
E I _‘
ariSe
— 67
——_
V.6
1.0
130
10-30
1.040
83—250
80
10—30
640
35-250
14.3
10
114
84
32
25
256
210
2.5—50
‘.5—50
5
1
1080
1250
“otenti
PotenT
11
6—26
1 - 1
362
1 4—1 A
13.2—18.8
86—1 .2
3.2—18.8
1 6_5I
.034—.01
6 — lc
LAND (4)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 x 1061
OPERATING ((/1(8)0 GAL)
101 A TIZOD (4/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPRRATING ((/1000 SAL) J20.6
RUNNING TOTAl. ((/1000 GAL) [ a ..
19.6
455
.26—.)
.019
-
.U.1- _ ._____ .734—774
3800
.455
.719—. 759 .738—.778
6
5.1
.1
14,6
8.5—9.8
.6
.7
50—70 —
50—70
50—70
50—70
50—70
50—70
50—70
80—100
80—100
1.5—33
80—100
80—100
1.3—33
.3—33
1.3—33
1.5—33
1.5—33
1.5—33 —
l4etale•.25—.4
NO —
S0 2 —.44— .61
2.5—3.9 Patti
HC0-.08—.12
ulatea4.4—7
100
100
100
25—50
( ‘-6
20—30
20—30
699
699
524
1400
1400
1400
1400
12—18
3—3.6
.8—3.8
.8—3.8
.8—3.8
9—12
9—12 ——
lone
None
one
Potential
Potential
Potentl.aA
03.5
Mone
NeGligible
.02
_,,__ . __
.01
.035
.035
37—.445
.57—.51
.46—.465
.234.26
.19—25
.28—.3
.67—. 1 —
1.11.2
1.1—1.28
1.19—1.24
.98—1.03
.92—1.02
1.0—1.07
1.41—1.47
30—580
410—550
55—345
1400—1600
6000—26.00’
860—1200
34—50
1.11—1.22
1.11—1.29
1.2—1.24
.99—1.04
.93—1 .05
1.02—1.08
1.41—1.48
.6—8.1
1.9—14.3
4.2—5.9
11.9—16.4
.9—6.4
4.8—15.0
3.1—4.1
8.0—8.4
2.6—2.9
6.3—8.9
3.0—5.0 4.4—6.7
9.0—9.6 2l.9—22.5
7.5—22.4
16.1—22.3
9.7—21.4
11.1—12.5
8.9—11.8
12.0—14.6
26.3—29.2
30.2—35 5 ks.9.-37.2 3.4—59.6 52—59.5
5.0-58.6
47—49.7 I 44.8—49 I
47.9—51.8 62.2—66.4
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR T AT NT STRATEGY s AT A FLOW RATE OF _J.O D___
IP UTS — ENEROY (UNITS/DAY)
coNcRETE (Cu YDS)
STEEL (TcAs)
CHEINICM s (LusIDA ’O
LAND (ACRES)
LABUM (MN CR1/eR)
OIfTPUTS - BOO (MA/i)
(us/DAY)
SUSPEND SOLIDS (MAlL)
(us/DAY)
NIJYRIENTOT P ( fU
(L S SIDA V)
8 (NG/L)
(us/DAY)
l&AVY METACS
AT SPRERtC (us/DAy)
SLUDGES2 soLIbs
TOTAL DRY AT, (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/YR)
NI I ISM ICE - 0008
AOl SE
TRAYF IC
SAFETY CINJuRIES/lOF
COSTS - CAPITAL (8 x 1O )
RIJINIIIG TOTAL CAPITAL($ x iO
LARD (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S 106)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
100 a,wp zrp ((/1000 GaL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
VACUUM VACUUM
9LTKAT I DN .1 _E1J.IB&LLQ O
r O ILER
LANDFILL OUMPING
1.200 L22 0
4.1—4.6
a_c
500—700
90-120
500—7 00
98—120
LIQUID TREAT!ENT
2E8T 1
ARY
PRIMARY SECOM
I DART
Activat d
1270 Ia 43734 !F! _
LIQUID -
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
ORGANIC SLUDGE T T NT OPTIONS
INCINERAI O i l I
LANDFILL LANPPLLL_
VACIJI.J i
CENTRIFUGE P t, TRATIUN
2
iE )1LCAL__
3
v l ’rATVr.u
PORTEUIIJS
4
FIJ1TATTOE
.____5_.____
.ILQXA.T .100_
.1.SLI.0li__
6
._i11
JuxiU —
30
‘ L°. k h
SAND
nAY I MG
1460 kwh
—‘ Etc
LANDF ILL
55
192—268
4. 3-5.8
-
28 -
34
LAND OCEAN
cpe sn1Nr. flIIMAI AG
-220 kwh 220 kwh
5.6—7.5
Not
1210
4.1—5.8
mo
75 290
252
66.7
—
_ __
n—-- _
Chlorine
670
—
L
- _
—
10-50
_-
10.400
830—25)
SQ
6400
830—251
1.4,3
10
1140
840
32
25
2560
2100
25—500
25—500
—
1
w ___
-
56
70
120
120
123 }25
132—188
1.1—58
11—58
12—58
T T4llkwh
4.3-6.3
0. 7—1 1.9
500—700
500— 700
—3-
— 1
.Ua11 .Or6.8.A11l . . T’TAAI
T1IICKSNING. C1 NICAL I
CONDITIONINS VACUI.P1
D€WATERINR: FILTRATIQA .L
DISPOSAL ’
Mt.,
l7 8 l1 32 .3
29.6—3
500—700
13—326
500—700
Meta1s ’ 2. 5—4
13—324
500—700
-
Pop p pptl . I PctPn aT
1 1_17A
100
6990
800—1000
800—1000
800-1000
800—1
120— 180
30—36
None
c) 2 4 ,46.7
rtu1ate 4-70
6990
8Cl ,8—1.2
20-3 OJ
3240
so
14.000
-s
14,000
14.000
7—38
.18
7RS
.02
-
2
2.21
4.11—4. 1
4,2—4.3
2.21
4
4.13—4423
3.4 1
_ .42
.9
7.1
6.1-6.
.3
7—38
8—38
1—1.3
None
None —
Potential
Potential Potential
5.2—5.6
4300- 5800
5. 2 2—5. 63
4. 6—7 .0
3.2—4.2
.d . 6
.13
35
.._T. _.
11.1 9. 5-9.9 1.2 -
11.1 20.6-20.9 121.8—21.1
5.4—5.6
6.0—6,4 —
4.77—4.94
4.5-4.7
4.89-5.15
oi4 o
5.3-5.6
4100-3500
2700-3700
j °
.6-2.6xl0
5.42—5.63
6.02—6.42
4.8—4.97
4.58—4.98
4.92—5.18
3.15-4.85
3.8-5.3
3.1—4.1
2.6-2.9
3.2-5.4
3.9—4.2
5.8-6.8
1,8-2.1
1.1-7.1
2.2-2.7
7. 1—0.1
28.9—31.2
9.6—12.1
31.4—34.2
4.9—6.2 3750
26.7-28.3 25.5-27.1
5.4—8.1
5. 32—5. 62
3.0-5.2
J
3.5—4.2
4.5-9.1
— 3l
i_ 8 _ ±—J
27.2—30.2
Activated Sludge - Discharge to Surface Waters — 10 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET F04 ) T ATHENT STRATEGY 5 AT A FLCH RATE OF 100
I PIJTS - ENERGY (usrrs/DAY)
COISCRETE (CU ‘rOD)
STEEL (suss)
CHEMICALS (us/nAy)
LANG (ACREs)
LAB (MAlI ‘6RS /Y9)
OUTPUTS - NOD (M6/L)
(us/DAY)
SUSPENGED SOLIDS (MG/C)
(L.,s/ oaY)
NUTRIENTS P (MAIL)
(L iD/DAT)
N ( MsA)
(us/DAY)
L*AVY METALS (LAS/Day)
ATNUSPHERIC (us/nAY)
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY W I. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/ TN)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJuWIES/1 MN— ’ °’ 9 _____________ _____________ ____________ __________ ___________
COSTS — CAPITAL (9 x 1O ) ________ _______ _____________ ___________ __________ __________ _______
RUINING TOTAL CAP!TAL(% lob) _________ _______________
LAND (9) _______ ________ _____________ _____________ ___________ __________ __________ _________
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL CS x 1O _____________ _____________ ____________
OPERATING )(/1 ( GAL) _______ _________ _____________ _____________ ____________ ___________
101 M eTUZEO ((/1500 GAL) __________________ _____________ _____________ ____________ ___________ ___________
TOTAL OPERATING (6/1000 GAL) ________________ __________________ _____________
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL) ________________________________________ ____________________________________
Activated Sludge - Discharge to Surface Waters - 100 MGD
liQUID T ATPEIIT
PRIMARY
SECOII
DAPY
TERTI—
ANY
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
L IT OPERATIDR
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
ACtivat
Sludge
Sutface
Water
DEWATERING
DISPOSAL:
VACUUII
).
OTA T I D R
2
3
VTArTDR
U)
FLtYEAT04RI
4MICAL
C, MICAL
PI TEQUG
DIGESTI ON
IISflNt!S*I Lu,,
CENTRIFUGE
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREAT?ENT 0PTI S
1.8,120 kwh
VACUIII
Eli ‘TRAtina
SAND
flDyTUi S
io a 14,600 kwh
- hi n9 Ry,, A7fl.1
C
LANDFILL
2204) k ,n. 2500 k..h
ULtAN
VACOUN VACUIRN
flfl T,..I.
& 9 _
2120
_
1600
—
140
Chiorinc
6700
—
38
28
41
130
‘ T , :3O._
? 6r10
. 8—3x 30
80
0-50
• z 2__
14.3
10
- ±
-__
L
— __
i
A_ __
250—540
2 0—5000
5
1
Q .!2
LANDFILL OS
fl ’ flfl ““1 kwh
OtenEt.
Pnrontl
I i L i7
—
365
342
.,___
373
10 .200
10.200
10.200
10 2O0
10.200
300
295
340
940
940
940
980
980
1917—2683
450-550
1.17—583
117—583
117—5&3
11.7—583
1317—1880
1317—1880
41—55
41—55
27—37
137—154
603—2603
2.6—3.6
82—112
3—4
38.4—49.2
26.7—35.4
31—36
_
13.6—18.4
13.6—18.4
25—29_
.2 . ,5 . 2L . . . . . . . . . ..
5000— 7000
5000— 7000
5000—7000
5000-7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
8000—10,000
8000-10,000
8000—10,000
8000-10,000
i O0
125—3260
125—3260
125—3260
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300
350—3300
)IetalN ’ .25—40
W) —25o—39O
S0244 67
Particulatee—
HC1—8—12
440—700
.100
100
104)
25—50
6—8
6—8
20—30
20—30
69,900
69•900
52,400
140,000
140,000
140,000
140.000
1200-1800
300—360
80-380
80—380
80-380
900—1200
900—12D _
None
None
None
Potential
Potential
None
Potential
J9 r
Above Av ’ r pgy
1.75
1.75
2.3
3.5
3.5
.03
——_- - -— -—
3.5
-__—- -
.2
3.4—4.7
5—6.8
11—15
4.4—5.2
5.1—6.9
14.7—199 37—49
3547
29.5—31.8
31.1—33.9
37.1—42.1
30.5—32.2
31.2—34.0
40.8—47
29.8—32
29.6—31.8
41,000—55,000
1,000—55,000
27,000—37,000
1.37—1.54x70 5 .6—2.Ae1C
2600—3600
82 —1.1n10 5
3000—4000
29.5—31.8
31.1—33.9
17.1—42.1
30.6—32.4
31.8—36.6
40.8—47
29.9—32.1
296—31.8
4.4—6.9
1.1—1.5
5.5—8.4
2.95—4.65
1.6—2.2
4.6—6.9
3.6—5.1 j 3.1—4.1 2.2—2.8
3.6—4.8 1.4—1.7 1.8—3.1
7.2—9.9 4.5—5.8 :
.54—.73 3.2—5.3 2.8—5.0
4.7—6.4 11.2—1.6 1.1—1.5
5.2—7.1 4.4—6.9 3.9—6.5
—
.17
I
41
11.7
.42
11.7
2.3.l 26
26.1—27.1
.7
2.6
3.8
6.4
75.7—26-fr 26.1—27.1
.7
4.5—4.4 .1
5.7—6 [ .8
6 ,4
12.1—12.4 112.9—13.2!
18.4—21.6 17.5—20.1 2O.1— 3.1
17.4—19.0 16.9—19.1 18.1—20.3 J 17.3_2O. j 16.8_19.7
-------
PROCESS PROF liE SHEET FOR T A1HENT STRATE6Y • 5 AT A FL RATE OF 1000 ) D
l WlJTS - ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu ODD S
STEEL (Tolls)
CHEMICALS (LBs/DAY)
LAIL (ACRES)
LABOR ( 1w. YNs/Yt.)
O )JTPVIS — DOD (MG/I)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPERGED SOLIDS (sO/L)
(LBS/DAY)
NUTRIEN1S P (MG/I>
( s/ DAv)
N (MG/L)
(t sfDAY)
IIEAVT IIETALS (t3S/D*
* 1MG IC (us/DAY)
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL two wi (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/OR)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJupIEs/1 MAN-HRS
cosrs - CAPITAL (S io 6 i
RUNNING TOTAL CAP 1TAL($ x 10
LAND (6)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 *
OPERATING ((/1000 GALS
10% * RTIZEO (4/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
LIOUID T AT>ENT
PRIMARY
lEST 1
ART
- SECUN—
DART
Ectivit
S lwdg.
A J L$J’J
kwh
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
SUrface
Water
ThICE EN lUG
COREl )) DRUID I
DENAItRIN D
DISPOSAL
VACUIN I
CENTRIFUGE
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREAT NT OPTIORS
iSift
1G8 ).__
TL rAI1OR
I F2EI
FLor YIcw
TWTITIOR
FL &1O
PC TEOU5
DI GEST I I DIGESTION
D1 5$X1
._niOES11flti_
0J1L108_
‘knA
VUCUEJI
rTITDAyuc*
SAND I
flaviac I
VACUUN
•ItTDArIflN
INCINERATION
LARDF ILL
[ NCINERAIIOR
LAIIDPILL
INCINERATION
LANDFiLL
Fl LAND
LUND SPREADING
- — -
1Te i G
1 fl_inN a.-..
1.5ri0 kwh
1,19 0 .-..
1.5x10 5 kwh
1. ,, n9 a . -,,
,, nnn ..i.
“‘‘“ kwh
10 llfl..lf.
TD.ES
410—5 50
1 ” ”
OCEAN
kIn 4500 - 5500
1 17(L.cRtfl
384—492
410—330
LANDFILL
VACUUM
CIITOAr1OG
---—..
—- - -
. ..M.& ,5DL5L___
fl ’
2860
i,on
TOAD
9400
9400
9400
9800
44 G ‘A.
267-354
19 • 300
5-400
1270
—.—
—
—
C6lori G N .
67.000
190
280
1 )0
410
10—30
1.04x10 6
.8—3a10 5
—
. 5_____
14.3
‘0
0___
-
32
25
‘56a10
Lz10
__
--
2 gOj 1
5
1
1.O8I.JO
1.25a10 1
270—370
11
OCEAN
Ii ’ , ’
310—360
1370—1540
‘ “— ‘O iL’
A 0 0 0-. 17 - O n
9800
1I70 —cRlh A
200_Ann 1 17—1 7R
2 6— )A
870.-I 120
11 170-laBS
in—i. in
.sjinias _ __
290—290
TO-An
/
-
tia.1
tial
1.2
117
143—150
2.16
117
260-267
262—269
- --_
260—267
262—269
—
—
. 5
3.7
4,6—4.8
.07
—
.6
5_7 jQ4
5 —7x10
S—?x115 4 -
5-7x10 4
5-7x10 —
5 — 7 i o —
5—7 ,u0 4
5—7 gb 4
.13—3.3g10 4
)4etalo—250—40
N0 25OO—39OO
3.3x118
SO 440—670
Palticuiatea
.13—3;3x1’0 4
IEC1 ”80—120
4400—7000
. 8—l a iD 5
15—3,3z10’
..8zl,a2.0 -
.15—3.3x10 4
.W.
.15—3.3a10 4
.8—laiD 5
.1S—3.i,.10
.15—3.3a10 4
100
699.000
100
699,000
100
524,000
25—50
‘i-:z;:i --- —
6—8
6—8
1.4 o6
20—30
1.4x10 6
1.4x10 6
12—18zj0 3
3000-3600
800—3800
800—3800
800—3800
9—12gb 3
9—12x10 3
None
‘ .L5
None
HOUR
POtRUtIAl
PotentiAl
NOON
Potential
ooe _._
——
.__
3 5—47
Abàve Averagu
18.0 — —
.. i_
.3
. . ..s i .__.
34—47
50 —68
110—150
44—52
7.1—9.7
16.1—21.8
36—4R
296—316
312—337
372—419
306—321
249—179
178—291
298—311
297—314
4.1—5.5x10 5
5.5x1
2.7-3.7a10 5
.37—1.S’al (
(—27x10 6
‘6.000—36La
.82—1.1x10 6
3 ,9 . UDI
296—316
4.4—6.9
312—337
2.95—4.65
372—419
3.6-5.1
307—322
3.1-4.1
275—306
1.;2.4
278—291
.22-.3
299—118
3.2-5.3
297—516
2,8—5.0
1.1—1.5
1.6—2.2
3.6—4.8
1.5—1.7
.4—1.2
.52—.7
1.2—1.6
1.1—1.3
5.5—8.4
4.4—8.9
7.2—9.9
4.6—5.8
2.1—3.6
.7—1.0
4,4—6.9
3.9—6.5 -
c-I
13.9—12.1
17.4—20.5 16,3—19.0
l9.l—22.O 26.5—27.9 19.5—24.1
12.6—13.1 16.3—19,0 15.8—18.6
Activated Sludge - Discharge to Surface Waters — 1000 MGD
-------
MUNICIPAL
WASTE W ATE P
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 6
Activated Sludge with Land Application of Liquid Effluents
-------
PROCEsS PROFILE SHEET FOR TPEAT1 NT STRATEGY 6 AT A FLOW RATE
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu TOO)
STEEL (TUNS)
CHEMICALS (LAS/DAY)
LAI (ACRES)
LA ION (1W4 YRS/YR)
OWTPIJTS - ROD ( MG/ I)
(LID/DAY)
SUSPEIIIED SOLIDS (1 G/L)
(LID/DAY)
MJTAIENITS: P ($G/L)
(LID/DAY)
N O 6/L)
(LI s/o*v)
I AYY I TALS (us/oay)
AT! SPHDRIC (LID/DAY)
SLUDAES-Z SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY wi. (LID/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/OR)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOJ SE
INAPT IC
SAFETY (INJURIES/10 6 AANNRS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (S x 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL(S x 10
LARD (6)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x
OPERATING (0/l O GAL)
102 AI TIZLD (A/10CO GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (4/IDOS GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL (0/10 )XJ GAL)
ORITN1IC SLUDGE 1REAT ) TNT OPTIONS
— OCEAN
LANDFILL
36
S i —c A
I i_I A
1 7_i I
50—7 S
25—50
1400
Potential
36
i 2 —c8
6—76
1 U_i A
50—75
A
6—8
1400
Potential
362
38
1 6 . 7 7
50—7 5
I S—IT
20—30
1400
9-12
O,.r,.r41
LIQUID TREATT NT
SECON TENT I—
PRIMARY 5*80 ANY
LI QUID
DISPOSAL
UNIT
‘Sn
Activat Land
Sludge
kwh 055 kwh 800 kwh
THICKEN 1N6
CONDITIONING:
DEWATER 1 146:
DISPOSAL:
V AC U 1 81
Fir TRATION
CENTRIFUGE
81 kwh 151 kwh
Uto 12x10 0
VACUON SAND
FILTRATION DRYING
INCINERATION
aNflcii i
‘‘
INCINERATION
EANSFIII
OF!
Sp A nnING
50
U)
10—77
50
22
19
360
360
360
L’._. co
8
US—c S
36
VACUUM
Fir TRAY TON
2.2—2.6
ii_ cc
1 2—S R
V6CUUM
Fri TPATTflN
1.7—2.1
7cc_. sic
OCEAN
26 kwh 126 kwh
7 fl..T h
562
58
R6—1 7
051—OS
50—75 •
50—75
..
IZI_ ..____
42
2
22.7
L.I. ...
ChI orine
67
129
a
1
130
10—30
.2— .6
1040
83—250
1,7—5
80
10—30
.7—2.0
640
83—250
5.8—16.7
14.3
10
.1
114
84
.8
32
20
3.8
256
210
2.5—50
32
.2—3.2
5
1
1080
1250
POtenti
1 Foten
al
—
Negligible
Pathogen
.aat 1
-
-_j 1_
) 4
,715—,755
1.1—1.3
3800 1
—
.7l9—.759
1.24—1.46
j
5.1
5—9
2Ji_6_
8.5—9.8
16.7—22.5
20.6
I
13.6—14.9
21.7—31.5
2.6—3.5
50—75
1 1—SR
5 1 11
200
Ii I—ST
Metals— .25—4
NO_ ’2.5
SO 2 — .44—67
3.9 Fartir rlat
1 1G1.OR— .12
s4.4—7
80—100
80-100
80-100
80—100
100
699
22— 1 8
99
5 ( 1—7 1
100
None
524
lone
1 5— 5 5
3—3.6
.8—3.8
.8—3.8
.8—3.8
None
2 0—30
1400
9—12
,J(,,,.
20.6
34.2—35.5
55.9—67
.02
.02
,Ol_
.035
.035
035
Neg 5
.37—.445
.37—51
.46—465
.25—26
.19—,25
.28—.3
.68—.?
1.47—1.75
1.47—1.81
1.56—1.77
1.35—1.56 1,29—1.55
1.38—1.6
1,78—2.0
34—50 —
430—580
10—550 — 255—345 —
1400-1600
6000—26,00
860—1200
1.61—1.91 1,61—1.97
1.7—1.93
1,49—1.72
1.44—1.74
1.52—1,76
1.92—2,16
5.6—8.1 .2—5.9
4.9—6.4
3.1—4.1
2.6—2.9
3.0—5.0
4,4—6.7
11.9—14.3
1.9—16.4
14.8—15.0
8.0—8.4
6.3—8.9
9.0—9.6 21.9—22.5
12.0—14.6 26.3—29.2
\
17.5—22.4
6,1—22.3
19.7—21.4
11.1—12.5
8.9—11.8
73.4—89.4 -_ 72—89.3
75,6—88.4 67—79.5 I 64.8—78,8
67.9—81,6 82.2—96,2
Activated Sludge — Discharge to Land - 1 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATI(NT STRATEGY 8 6 UT A FLOW RATE OF _ 10 _ M
INPUIS — ENERGY (UNITS /DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu 805)
STEEL (TONs)
CHUN ICALD ( s/i *Y)
LANG (ACRES)
LARON (WAR YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS - 808 (ii /i)
(IRS/DAY)
SUSPENGED SOLIDS (WElL)
( 1.88/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (1N6/L)
(us/DAY)
N (WElL)
( 1.3 5/DAY)
IEAVY METALS (us/DAY)
ATMESPHERIC ( /p y)
SLUDGES2 S IDS
TOTAL DRY NT (1.3 5/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/YR)
NUISANCE - ODOR
HAl SE
TNAFF IC
LIQUID .r AT? NT
otivate
Sludge
12.500
=
,-4 1
tot-
t1 l
SAFETY (INJUNIES/10 6 MAN—ORS)
CAPITAL (8 x 106)
RIMMING TOTAL CAPITAL(S 1fl I77
LAND 1$) ________
RURNING GRAND TOTAL (So 106112.21
OPERATING (4/1000 GAL) 4
101 TIZLD (0/1000 SAL) _________
TOTAL OPERATING (UIIIY .83 GAL) iA4
RUNNING TOTAL (0/1 *Y3 GAL) Lii.i /20.6—20.9
Activated Sludge - Discharge to Land - 10 MGD
SECON— TERTI— LIQUID
PRIMARY
DART ANY DISPOSAL
1270
Land
fr. 57 5 1. fr . .I
.600 kw
CENTR I FUSE
LANOFI [ 1.
VACULII
ORGRAIC SLUDGE TRE.AT!I(NT OPTIONS
! L0T .tTI(
) IGFSTIO
SANE)
SAYING
30
ISIU KWh 510 EyE 1460 kwh
l0Ox1O°Rtu 2O 1flD BCu 47x106 Gtu
55
28
LANOF I L i
192—268
56
34
LAND
220 kwh
4.3—5.8
45—55
Z
252
Z5_____
9 L
66.7
otine
.290
3.2
LLL_..._
10
130
10—30
.2—.6
l0 4O0
30—2500
17—50
80
10—30
.7-2.0
6400
830-251
58—167
14.3
10
.1
1140
840
8.3
32
25
3.8
2560
2100
320
25—500
2—32
70
VACUUM
OCEAN
220 kwh
1210
5.6—7.5
11—58
LANSFI LL
119
V ACUU S
1210
4.1—5.8
11—58
OCEAN
1260 kwh
118
12—58
4.3—6.3
1220
1260 kwh
4.1—5.5
2.7—3.7
13.7—15.4
1.3.7—15.4
8.2—11.2
123
1220
3.4—7.9
3.4—7.9
132—188
123
132—188
500— 700
4.1—4.8
.34—5
4.8—5.5
UNIT OPERATION 1
THICKENING: FLOTATION
CONDITIONING: CARWICAL
VACUIJN
DEWATERIN6I FILTRATION
INC INENATION
DISPOSAL: LANDFILL
78 _lI I
500— 700
500—700
500—700
500—700
500-700
500—700
COSTS -
.02
Pathogens
k at 1
3.9-5.7
2 1_
JJ. _
— - .—.——
1.9-2
4.11—4.21.
8.0—9.9
!
19.000
l.29 .1O
,
,4.13—4.23
9.3—11.2
.
3.4 I
6.1—6.4 16.7—22.5
9 .5 9.8 21.7—31.5
800—1000
800—1000
800—1000
800—1000
—
13—326
13—326
13—326
15—330
05—330
35—330
15—330
M et a l a—2 .5—4
0 25- 9
SO —4 .4—6.7
Particulatea
IAC1— .8—1.2
44—70
——
100
6990
100
6990
100
5240
25—50
14,000
6—8
14,000
20—30
14,0O0
90—120
20—30
14,000
[ 20—180
30—36
7—36
7—38
8—38
-
90—120
None
.18
Wane
Above Avera31
.18
None
f .13
Potential 1 Potential
.35 .35
Potential
—
None
.1-
.35
Negligible
1-1.3
1.2-1.3
1.8—2.1
.57-64
.30-40
.69-.85
1.1-1.3]
9.0—11.2
4300-5800
10.3—12.5
9.2—11.2
4100-5500
10.5-12.5
9.8—12.0 8.6—10.5 8.3—10.3
2700-3700 13 ,700-15,40 .6-2.6z10 5
11.1-13.3 9.9-11.9 9.7-11.9
3.8—5.3 3.1—4.2 2.6—2.9
U.7—LO.8
8200—11,200
10—12.1
9.1—11.2
340—500
10.4—12.5
4.6—7.0
3.13—4.85
3.2-5.4
3.0—5.2
3.2 4.2
.. .
3.9—4.2 5.8—6.8
7.1—9.1 9.6-12.1
.1.8—2.1 1.1—1.3 I
4.9-6.2 3.7.2
2.2—2.7 I 3.5—4.2
5.4—8.1 J 6.5—9.4
142. 3—52.4
50j—63.6 149.4—61.5 I 51.9—64.5
47.2—58.6 I 46.0—56.6
47. 7—60.5 I 48.8—61.8
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHET FOR T ATItNT STRATEGY # 6 AT A FW KATE OF D_
IIFIJTS — ENAN6Y (w Irs/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu ‘ TIS)
STEEL (Tca )
CHEMICALS (LBS/MY)
LAIBI (AcNG5)
LABOR (MM ‘ ,‘aslve)
OUTPUJS - B00 (MS/i)
(LAs/My)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (iiGIL)
(LBS/MY)
NUTRIENTS: P (NG/L)
(LBS/MY)
N ( p 4 6/ I)
(LBs/DAY)
HEAVY RETA&.S (LAS/DAY)
APEIIC (LBS/DAY)
SLUDGES4 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT, (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (cu FT/PR)
NUISANCE — ODOR
NOISE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (INjURIOSI1O 6 MAII”NRS
COSTS - CAPITAL (S 1O )
RORNING TOTAL CAPITAL(S x 10
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x 306)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
101 RIGVYIZED (6/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL (0/1000 GAL)
2 3
______________ FT LI TA (IN
CHEMICAL PORTEOUS
CENTRIFUGE VACUON
_____________ FILTRATION
!NCIHERATISN INCINERATION
..J..A DFILL LANDFILL
15,100 kwh 14,600 kwh
—° —- i,o in 6 p Ie,,
295
450—550
41—55
375
117— RU 3
27—37
LIQUID T fl ]ff
PRIMARY
SECO$1 TERTI- LIQUID
DART ART DISPOSAL
ctiv te Land
Sludge
uNIT OPFRATION 1
T hICKENING
CONDITIONING:
DEWATERINS;
DISPOSAL:
VACU1I
18MD k
LANDFILL
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREAflf8T OPTIONS
4 5
18,100 kwh
i 9 R
SAND
565 S42
300
u s
LANDFILL
19 17—268 3
41—55
L p I I IU OCEAN
SPREADING OLAYPINU
22O kwh 2200 kwh - 121 )0 kwh
340 940
38.4—49.2
VACUUM VACUUM
10.200
LANDFILL OCEAN
OIeIP INS
117—58S
940 940
12.600 kwh 12.600 kwh
117—583
13 7—154
10.200
26.7—35.4 32—36 20—60 13.6—18.4 11 ,..IH .
603—2603
980
10 .2 00
117—583 1317—1880
2.0—3.0
980
82—112
1317—1 RAn
3.4
,c_ Q
‘
K50 ,_
6240
1000
545
265
_
C1 1 -6700
38
12,900
28
.L_
55
130
10—30-
.2—.6
1.O841O
2 !2_
170—500
80
‘92 __
.7-2.0
64,000
.8—3a3O ’
580-1670
14.3
1
0.1
11,400
8400
63
32
___ ._
3.N
23,600
3200
250-50043
20—320
—
L _
k08.000
l?. .O 2
otenSia
Potenti
-17
Fathogena
Last 1 an
&L_____
U.?
14—15
39—57
11.7
25.7—26
64.7—83.7
38,000
12.9 e10 6
11.7
25.7—26
77.6—96.6
2.6
1.2
5—9
3.8
4.5—4.8
16.7—22.5
6.4
5.7—6
21.7—31.5
, c_YR
5000—7000
5000-7000
00— 7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000-7000
5000-7000
5000-7000
1000—10.000
8000-10,000
8000—10,000
8000-10,000
8000—lq ,pOO
125-3260
125—3260
125—3260
150—3300
155—3300
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300
MetalN—25—40
N0f250—39O
SOr4 4 — 6 ?
Particulaten
HC5-8-12
440—700
100
100
100
25—SO
6 8
..20r3O
203 .
69,900
69,900
52,400
140,000
O00
I.4C) .000
140.000
1200—1800
300—360
80—380
80—380
80—380
900—1200
900—1200
None
None
Nou
Potential
Poter t1a1
None -
Potential
.. .. —
Nooe
Above Average
i7c
1.75
1.3
3.5
3.5
.0 3
_.3. ,S_
3.4—4,7
5—6.8
11—15
4.4—5.2
5.1—0.9
14.7—19.9
3.7—4.9
5,5—4,7
68.1—88.4
69.7—90.5
75.7—98.7
- 69.1—R8.9
69.8—90.6
79,4—103.6
68.4—88.6
68.2—88th
41,000—55,000
41,000—55,000
27,000—37,00
j 3l. 54
.6—2.6xl0
2600—3600
.82—1.1x10 5
3000—4000
81—101.4
82.6—103.5
88.6—111.6
82.1—102
83.3—106.). 92.3—116.5
81.4—101.6 Si.1—101.3
4.4—6.9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1
2.2—2.8
.54—73
3.2—5.3 2.8—5.0
\
1.1—1.5
5.5-8.4
1.6—2.2
4.6—6.9
3.6—4.8
7.2—9.9
1.4—1.7
4.5—5.8
1,8—3.1
4,0—5.9
4.7—6.4
5.2—7.1
1.2—1.6
4.4—6.9
1.1—1.5
3.9—6.5
6.4
12.1—12 33.8—43.9
39.3—52.3
38.4—50.8
41—53.8
38.3—49.7 37.8—49.8 39—51
Activated Sludge - Discharge to Land - 100 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 7
Biological—Chemical Treatment
ACTIVATED SLUOG(
DENITRIFICA1 ION
—
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SWEET FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY #j.... ._ AT A FLOW RATE OF 10 N D
LIQUID TREAThENT
PRIMARY
SECON
DARY
tivated
Sladge
with
TERTI—
ARY
Nitrifi
cation
enitriE
, , , • , ,
LIGUID
IIISP000L
Surface
— Water
UNIT SPURATION
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
DENATURING:
DISPOSAL:
1DTU
k ,h ‘5754 kv 115 In.1.
VACUUM
RTI rDATIflN
INCINERATION INCINERATION
IAIJflFtII IANflCTII
CENTR I FUGE
0, k h 3990 , h
OUGMIC SLUDGE TREATMENT OPTIOUS
JRAV’ iTY
DUGESTI III - -
58 850
DRYING
LANDFILL
INCINERATION
LAP”)
100 kwh
VACUUM
100 kwh
U LtATI
6.4—9.2
riot
90
45
57
1800
1800
1820
1820
US
“— ‘
95
120
190
190
200
200
53.5—73.5
170—210
VACUUM
5.6—8.3
8.4—11.4
8.1—11.3
5—6.6
17—19
94—376
LANDFILL _________
TRAYS kwh 2640 kwh
4.3—7.8
3.3—10
INPUTS ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (CU vos)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (LBS/SAY)
LAND (ACRES)
LAGOS (RON SOS/YE)
OUTPUTS - GOD
(LB S/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (RG/L)
(LB S/DAY)
NUTRIENTS P (MU/L)
(Las/DAY)
N ( /iJ
(LBS/SAY)
HEAVY RITALS (LBS/SAY)
ATMOSPHERIC (usla*v)
SLUOSES SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT, (LBS/DAY)
SOLID HASTE (cu FT/SN)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IRJUVIES/10 6 RON-HRS
COSTS - CAPITAL (5 x io6
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL($ S 10
LAND (NI
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S S
OPERATING (4/1000 UAL)
OOZ NSOROIZOD (4/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
11—15
1000— 1400
1. fl_v fl
.43—.58
Z.UL , , , , , ,_
1 LQL..
.6Q..._
052
1
Z.L . . .___
i2 2.. . . .. .
250
56.7
AlAn
J L.W0ft
fl4A8G
)iaOQ___
.,nsorioe
590
—
L
u—_
7.9 4 .s
7
______ 4 13
8
zQ___
80
8.8
7.1
6400
737
593
14.3
.3
.3
1140
25
25
s—-
2560
2100
168
200—305
200—300
5
2—5
<1
1Q
M°
1 L_
8278
Po;e 0 —
Pote —
L481
POKC “
‘43
.
28.5
L2
2 L
Ni
)L L
j 4 .2
6
1
EL
2
.2
7-7.1
4
6.4
6.5
.9
LL
,11. L . ..
L 5 2.L
1.2
1
U c_c a
SAAJJ Lg iUJ £VQUJ ’40U
1000—1400 1000—1400 1000—1400 1000—lbS
800—1000
800—1000
800—1000
800—1000
36-750
36—750
36—750
36—750
36—750
36—750
-
36—750
100
100
100
Z5-50
_7
15—30
15—30
14,100 14,100
8460
18,800
18,800
—
18,800
18.800
225—243
35—48
—
112—138
-
112—138
None
.35
None
Above Average
.35
None
.21
Potential
Potential
Potential
g , , ,_ -—
.47
.47
.47
Negligible
1.6—2,2
1.43—1.93
1.3—1.7
.763—83
.44—.6
1.2—1.6
1.6—2.2
8.6—9.)
8.4—9
:8.3—8 8
7.8—7.9
7.4— .7
8.2—8.7
8.6—9.3
8400’11 ,400
8100—11,300
5000—6600
300—10.000
94—3.8x10 5
1,000—15,01
430—580
8.6—9.)
8.4—9
7.5—8.1
8.2—8.7
8.6—9.3
4—7.3
3.8—6.5
.8.3—8.8
2.9—4,8
2.5—3.2
1.9—2.4
3—4.7
2.8—4,9
5.1—7.1
4.6—6.2
4,2—5.5
2.4—2.7
1.7—3.2
3.9—5.1
5.1—7.1
9 , ,
8.4—12.7
7.1—10.3
4.9—5.9
3.6—5.6
6.9—9.8
7.9—12.0
39.3—
1l S 23.6—23.9 39A
40.S—4I1A
50.3—5 5.2
48.9—53.5
47.6—51.1
45.4—46.7
44.1—46.4
47.4—50.6 48.4—52.8
Biological-Chemical Treatment - 10 MGD,
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATP NT STRATEGY * 7 AT A FLOW RATE OF inn w n
Biological-Chemical Treatment - 100 MGD
LIQUID TREAT!(NT
PRIHARY
5ECON—
TERTI-
LIQUID
DART
ANY
DISPOSAL
etivated
Nitrifi
Sludge
cation
Surface
with
Denitri
Water
, 900
JOR.L1 OPERATIUN
THICKENING:
CONS 1110W INS
DE WATER INS
DISPOSAL
6240 4,000 26,100 2120
V HCUIB 4
. ...FIL1RATI O N
INC I’ IERATION
_LANDF ILL
CENTRIFUGE
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREATP NT OPTIONS
31,1(04.1 Kwh
1, .1n 9 a ,..
n:::::
C A5 IT?
71I11A ITy
cRAv TY
Q . ._
DIGESTION
OjGESII0 5 .
DIGESTION
— LAINDL.1I.L__..
35,000kwh 19,500 kwh
, ,n9 at., 750.,1fl 6 Br,,
LANDF ILL
VACULPI
NTITQLTTflN
SAND
TIDYING
VACUUM
nITRATION
VACUUM
FI!TPATITN
LAND
non I,.-.,.
OCEAN
LANDF ILL
OCEAN
nOb lY I NO
26.400 kwh
545
600
1900
.40
2.LQ .QO_
A Y 4 U
2 . QQO.
3SloTtne
5900
8
20
24.3
130
5
17.2
3
8
00
2 !22
_
lb
.8
7.1
-
14.3
7 __
2 _
.3
.3
11,400
50
250
32
25,600
1,000
1680
---
-
2000—
000_
2000—
5_____
-5_
‘.08.220
.51x10 5
I ,.7 . , .209_
2 • 780
‘otentt
Potent
al P0Cc
ial
4.3
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu IDE)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (LBSJDAY)
LANE (AcHES)
LABOR (MAN YRSJYR)
OUTPUTS - SOD (MG/C)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/C)
(t . s/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MG/C)
(as/DA Y)
N (MG/L)
( .aSIDA Y)
HEAVY IRTALS (LAS/SAY)
ATPN7SPHERIC ( sIoAY)
SLUDGES SOLIDS
TOTWL DRY WE. ( aS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/TN)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (IN.Ju8IES/l MA8-°
COSTS - CAPITAL (8 x 106
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL s 10
LAOS (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 o 306)1
OPERATIWS (0/1300 GAL)
108 TIZLU (0/1O GAL) 3.8
TOTAL OPERATING (0/1000 SAL) 6.4
RUNNING TOTAL (UJEOO GAL)
/510
580
635
17.300
17.500
1
17.300
500
580
1.590
1590
(.590
1660
-________
1660
I
I . Q - 370 O
545—7)5....
1700—2100
1700—2100
53—113
81—109 50—66
182—197
857—34)1
3.7—4.9
117—159
4.3—5.8
49—74
41—62
30—56
22—62
17—23
l5 3 J
3 8 5.
28.1—37.9
L4ic1P”_
1—l.4R10 4
1—1.4x10 4
1—1.4x10 4 j1_1.4xl04
1-1.4x10”
1 -14x10 4
11.4x1O
9000—10,)00 S000l0.00
8000—10,000
8000—10,000
8000—10.000
360—7500
360—7500 360—7500
360—7100
360—7500
360—7500 360—7500
360—7500
_ _____
100
100 —
5-7
- ____
i ,.3Oi
T1
! i ,000
141,000 84,600
188,000
188,000
188,000
188,000
1A8,000
2230—2430
350—480
1120—1380
lllO—13 8 Q_
None
SHone
lone
Potential
Potential
Bone
Potential
None
_èkwx AU
1
1,5
3,5
2.1
4,7
4,7
NOne
4,7
‘0—9,6
6.4—8.8
8—10
6.1—6.8
6.5—8.8
) .5.1— ç.3_
6.4—8.6_
8.1—8.3 —.
)2.h—66
61.8—65.2
63.4—66.4
61.5—63.2
61.9—65.2
70.5—76.7
61.8—65
1.2—1.6x10
63.5—64.7
4300—5800
.83-l.13x10 5
.81—1.1x10 5 j 1 ’ 1
3700—4900
,2.5—66.1
61.9—65.3 63.4—66.5
61.7—63.4
62.8—68.6
70.5—76.7
61.9—65.2
63.5—64.7 -
1.8—7,0
3.6—6.2
3.2—5.1
2.5—3.2
1.6—2.1 .6—. 75
3-4.7
1.6_3.0
2.3-3.1
2.1—2.8 2.6—3.2 2.0—2.2
2.4—3.9 4.9—6.5
2.1—2,8
2.6—2.7
6.1-10.1
5.7—9.0
5.8—8.3 4.5—5.4
4.0—6.0 5.5-7.3
5.5—7.5
‘i . L
iT __
)Li __
42
.7—
11. 7 ,( , —
38.000 0 000
-4
11.7 26. 7—27.7 55-56
‘.6 6.3
- 1.8-5.1 9.1
1.3—9.6 15.4
,.z*_
iá . . 4 ,._____ ,_
5,4—56.4
.7
.13
.8
.5.7—16 1.1—3l.4 31.9—32.2
38—42.3
37.6-41.2 P 7 . 7 - 40 . 5 36:6-37.6
35.9—38.2 I 36.1—37.9
-------
ISPUTS - EMERGY (uNITS/ lA o)
CONCRETE (CU YDS)
STEEL (TONS)
CUEMICALS (LBS/DAY)
LARD (ACRES)
LABOR (MAN YRO/YR)
OUTPUTS - 305 ffiG/L(
(LAS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (Mo/I)
(LAS/Gao)
NUTRIEIITS1 P (MAIL)
(LBS/DAY)
N (MG/I)
(LAS/DAY)
NERVY METALS (LBS/DAY)
ATNGSPHERIC (LAS/DAY>
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY MT. (I.. s/DRY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu PT/OR>
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (1NJURIES/10 6 MAN—HAS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (S x
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITEL($ x 10
LUND (5)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x
OPERATING (0/1000 GAL)
IOZ CRTIDED (0/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (8/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL (4/1000 GAL)
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATP NT STRATEGY $ 7 UT A F lOW RATE f 1000 1100
LIQUID TREAT)ENT
SEC0N TERTV LIQUID
PR I MARY
DART ART DISPOSAL
ctUvate Nltrifi
Sludge cation Ourface
with IGentri— SPaCer
Chea Ad S icatio ________
119,000 317400
A OOU
61.600
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
DEWATERING:
DISPOCAL:
2 i:
a 0(10 TUU (10(1 19,300
VACIJLRI
FILTRATION
INCINERATION
LANDF ILL
CENTRI FIJUE
ORGASIC SLUDGE TREAT NT OPTIONS
_- S -
GRAVITY _GRA3UIIL jILMUIL 0
PORTFDUS LSC2IL0& _ELLULS .IIJI 1L_ fl
I NC I NERAT ION
U J S I GF1LL -
S i SO
LANDF ILL
1.OxiO’ kwh
LAND
SO READ I RE
OCEAN
DUMP LBS
14 5 04 1 17 0,7 , 10 UUSSG. ..h 10 0044 k...h
s; nr S 17(4000 TTTOO
VACUUM VACUUM
I OCEAN
LANDFILL DUMPING
-
I 1 70 - 00(4
5 ( 0 0____
__-_
2 OO
L2UAIf 20..000
380 j 200
127O
59.000
243
130_
150 I 172
1.04x10 6
109.000
67,000
80
8.8
7.1
6 /J , ,Q0Q
1U. 1Q0
!.L1OO
14.3
1i tOO
.3
.3
2___
2.5_______
Z__
00
i6800
2-3 i0
2-3x10 4
S
2—S
Vi
,.08 10
2.SlxlO
170,000
8. 3U10 5
otp t1a
Poteop
‘ sI Potel
tal
43
—
—
--- -_
ilL —
150—360
‘AL......
2.16
j•-__-.
267—277 500—560
OO
552—562
O_
u1_____
21Z 0 2.U
S5O—5 O
552—562
iE
1 -
.5
0_ _
4.6-5.1
LW
.1
.6
I
I ixlU-’ kVIs JXiO kwh
7 n... _____________
[ o __
/I4 58o ______
/r _
/ __
V V
500—640
1 O l11L
A i1 2.1Q 42.1—56.9
J:888 :88S
. ‘ .L7O—159O 43—58
2i4
410—620 —
300—560 .
ZQ k 2 .O.. . ..
l=2& —__
Ur2Q.L 366 —495 .8J . ,U329...___._.
U10 5
1-1.4x10 5
1—1.4ni0 5
1-i.4x10 5
11.L 0 1 1 1.4x105
1i.LX1O
1—i.4x10 5
—-—i---—
.4—7.5x10
— 4
.A—7.5x10
4
.4—7.5x10
.47.5o10
1iWI?_
.4—7.SxlO
.8-Le13 5
.4—7.5 10
.47.5x10 ’ .S—U.5x10
15-30
1.88 106 1.880106
11—14x1O 4 1i—14x10
PoCential Gorse
100
100
00
-____
1.41.x30 6
L.41 106
46,000
J.SAUUQ
1.880106
L.88 1O
2—24 10
35—48 10
kose
36.3
None
Above Average
35.3
one
1.2
potential
47
FotenCial
47
None
———--—.--—.
—— - - — ——
1
None
48
71—97
64—88
0—U 00
62—68
67.6—90
17—24
65—88
81—83
633—645
23—659
616—650
32—662
614—630
619—602
569—586
617—650
83—1.13xiO .81_1.10106
—6.6x10
j i j
8.6x34x10 6
31
1.2_i.6x106 .43—.58x1O
23—659
617—651
32—662 —
616—632
628—686
569—586 -
618-652
633—645
.8—7.0
3.6—6.2
.2—5.1
2.5—3.2
1.1—1.6
.2—.28
3—4.7
1.6—3.0 -
.3—3.1
.3—10.1
2.1—2.8
5.7—9.0
.6—3.2
8—8.3
2.0—2.2
4.5—5.4
2.4—3.0
3.5-4.6
.56—.77
.A—1.1
2.1—2.8 2,6—2.7
5.1-7.5 4.2-5.7
15.2— 30.6— 31. —
is s A 51
57.3—41.6
36.9—40.5
37—39.8 35.7—36.9 34.7—36.1
32—32.8, 36.3—39 35.4—37.2
Biological-Chemical Treatment - 1000 ! IGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 8
Activated S1udqe—Coagu1ation- Fi1tration
0
0
COAGULATIQt -F1LtRAT ION
— -I
?IUNI C I ‘AL
AT C P
-------
I U TS — o ov (rails/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu Yns)
IThRL (TOI lS)
CI NICALS (us/DA T)
LANG (AcIu)
LANGE (oua yislyo)
OUTPUTS - , (iaA)
(LAS/DAY)
suspipmu SOLIDS ($ 6/ I)
(Us/DAY)
NUTNIENTS: P ( P a/ I)
(US/DAT)
N ($8/I)
(US/DAT)
IVAYY PVTALS (Us/SAY)
(r .es/o y)
SLIJDGES -0 SN.IDS
TOTAL tat VT. (Us/oat)
SOLID WASTE (cu FTfy )
NUISANCE -
EQ 5 8
TRAFFIC
75
3.2
130
0 ( 1
‘Ann
14 3
1140
32
2560
SAFETY (re . .rs.eiEs/1 MAIl—OIls) ________
CAPITAL (6 5 106) ________
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (0 S 106) 2.21
LAND (8) ________
NUPIAA GRANG TOTAL (1 106 2.21
OPYRATING ( (/IOGE GAL)
JRO ANGITIflD ((/1 O AAL) 7 - ’
TOTAL OPERATING (4/JORO as_I LI___t ._ .
RUNNINS TOTAL ( (I1OCP GAL) I 11.1
70
A c..1T c
55
S A_I S
64.4—49.2 52.2—60.4
1111 LANGF ILL
126) rh 1260 kudr
I 71fl
I tYn
6 ,1—6 - S
.34—3
I
Activated Sludge—Coagulation-Filtration with
Filtration—Incineration of Chemical Sludges - 10 MGD
I POIIIS raTT
PRIMARY
DONY
Acti-
vated
Sludge
tart
TESTI
MY
C o gu—
i diom
‘iltrat
1 18 0 1 0
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
-On
11 Pr)
il .Ye 3451)
k..6 k..h
PROCESS PROFILE SlEET F T Afl(k1 STPAIE6YI 6 AT A ft ) ( RATE 10 1620
QE ICk SUW
ORGAIIIC SLUDGE ATPU(T 0PTI(9 S
THICKENI N G
CONGITIONING:
DAPIATEN INN:
DiSPOSAL:
756
2100
5160
252
VAC&Ora VACIA
290 225 16.7
3 A!
— -
1Q
1 E IX” ‘9E.k
—
CElITH I PAGE
in
7.9
—. -i—_
4-’
VACrAa SAND
68
30
20
10-30
3
iTc sr . ttS i °kr. .1 ?l 6Rru 220 5516 770 bib
I-A
Q
‘-A
LAJOP IL l.
252
I 0_ il l
56
.1) .
4 5—55
70
1210
,c
10
11—58
.1
——- - tactical.
1210
840
A 1_S a
8.4
pa n_,c n 1. 1_S S t. 1_S c 2.7—3.7 13 7_i C AlI..IAI1 8.2—11.2
25
I, I_A 3
120 120 120 125
17
2100
3. 4—7 .9
1428
25—500
10.2—1 3.9
._ -- ,
800—I ISO 500—700 500—700 500—700 500—700 400—700 500-700 500—700
COSTS -
_—_ - 5__
10.80052.500
rial
.54
2.21 1.9—2 2 .043
6.2—6.3
_
6.1—6. 6.2—6.
L _ L L2_ .9
6.1—6. 6.5 .1
25—500
13—326
13—326
43—326
55—330
15—330
15—330
15—330
24 .4 67
NO.25—39
HCI—.8—1.2 S
Particuiatee— 4
tals—2.5—4
—70
100
100
1.00
100
25—50
0-8
20-30
35.300
6990
125—180
6990
30—36
5240 14.000
7—38 7—38
14.000
8—38
9.5—9. 14.2 1.0
20.6— 3-4.8— 353—
20.5 35 1 34 1
51.5—58.3
54.0—61.3 49.3—55.4 48.1—54.2
49.8—57.3 50.9—58.6
-------
Activated Si udge-Coagula tion-Fil tra tion with
Filtration-Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 10 MCD
I 10111 P
PRIMARY
SECON-
DORY
keti—
oated
Sludve
TERFI
GPO
Coags.--
latioss
tltrat 4 ,n
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Sarfaee
Water
10
lUll)
kwh
3134
.8.
5480
kwh
CETSTR I FORE
ORGOWIC SLUDGE TREATI NT OPTIOW(S
RLCALCIMTIORS INCIIIERATIQA
•ISNtWiiI
.
InNOF IlL
MillEt!!
4
VACUuIP
Oil TRAYtON
95 5 11
78
Q
NJ
98
LANDF ILL
12—16.2
182—768
01)1) lEWIS lOll) lEV iS
£.Sk 1fl Re,, inn...tnb a ,..
)J.IJ kwh
,n,.,n( . a.-..
J.4D0 kwh
,.-,..lnô a.-..
ion k h
220 kwh
Not
P.-..., -4 ..1
‘ “
1260 kwh
5 1 ,
LARD
Ii 3.17 8
4.1—5.5
45—cc
VACUIAP
eli TRAY? SM
17111
S 6_i S
4 .i — A
I i—SR
VACUU R I
t in
LAMOF ILL
1710
4.1—5.8
11—SR
OCEAN
DL R IPI I tA
i ill
LLU i)flIfl
7.7—1.7
117—iSI
611—7611
4.3—6.3
I 7—SR
1270
3.4—7.9
1 fl
I I IPUTS - ENERGY (UNITS/DAY) ________
CONCRETE (cu vos) __________
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (ces/oun) ________
I.AND (AcNGs) _________
l_A3DR ( a.uu IRS/Oil) ________
OUTPUTS - oo (NG/L) ________
(LOS/DAY) __________
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (nAIL) __________
(LOS/I R S) __________
NUTRIENTS: P (MG/LI ________
S/DAY I __________
N (MG/LI ________
(LOS/DAY) __________
HEAVY METALS (UJSJDAY) ________
ATMGSPS4ERIC (LBS/DAY)
SLULRAES—l SOLIDS ________________ _________
TOTAL DRY eT. (LOS/DAY) _________
SOLID aNG lO (CU T/yn) ________________ _________
5015 6 0CR - DOOR ___________________________ ___________
NO! SE _________________ _________
TRA Ce IC _____________________________________________
SAFETY (INJORES/1 MARARS) __________ ________
10515 . CGPTAL CS x _________________ _________
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (6 o 006 ______________________________________
LARD (8) ____________
P10511 11 GRAND TOTAL (6 o ___________________________________
OPERATING (C’1 GAL) _______________________________________
100 R0VR1I O (Cr2330 GAL) __________________________________________
TOTAL OPERATiNG ((/l0 GAL) __________________________________________
120.6— r ” ’°
RUNNING TOTAL CD/1 GAL) LiJ_. .L_____1209 __.35.1 35.8—36.1 !
tic
1 37—IRA
10.2—13.9
117—188
A 7—11 7
756
2100
760 . 252
73
.-.-———
290
225
t6lymera—
4 ....G02...2s1orin —
9
1.0
3.2
130
0—30
3
25O
—
0-30
6400
10-210
_
-
-
-_
1140
J __
—
J__
2560
1.00
1428
___
400
Po
r
441 51
—Poe—
t o
,
,
.
:17
2.21 .9—2 2 Q43
2,01 i 6.1-6.26.2—6.3
9.000 1D,000
2.21 6 .l 6 .Z 6.2—6.3
4.0 3.4 I,9
7.L i-6.4 .5 1.1
111.1 W.5-9.8 14.2 1.0
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATFf NT STRATEGY 8 8 AT A FLOW RATE OF JJLJiO.0...._
CHDIICAL SLUDGE
________________ (SPIT (I II
Will OPERATION
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
O€NATER IN S I
RISPOSALI
I _____ __ __
- l4 — 6
4.1—4.8
U A_S S
1600-2100
500—700
s
500—700
500—700 500—70O
500-700
.500-700_
25—500
100
20,600
800—1000 8 ) )0-1900 - 800-1000 800-1000
13—326 13—326 13—326 15—330 15—330 15—330 15—330
S0 2 —4.4—6.7 flI21 .,8—1.2 114ta1a.2.5—4
NOx ’ .2539 Partjya1atea—4 —70 —
100 4100 1.00 25—50 20—30
6990 6990 5240 14.000 14.000 14.000
. .
None
120—180 10—16 7— 38 7—IA
None None - None Potential
booe Averag8
8—3.8 9 Q Tj 2 __ . . . 5Q — l 2 O —
PoteTtlal P tenti Potential
—
.35 -.35
- _ - I
.5
28.5
.18 .18
.13 .35
2—2.7
8.2—9
10-16,2 lO
__
4.5-0.8
0—1.3 41.2_G.3 1.8—2.1 .57—,64 .30—40 .6 — .S ) 1 1.1—1,3
9.2—3,0.3 10—11.2 8.8—9.6 8.5—9.4 8,9—9.0 9.3—10.3
1 130—55/Q 4100-5500 2700-3730 .200 34 5oo___J
9.2-10.3 9.1-10.3 10—11.2 8.8—9.7 8.6-9.7 8.9-9.9 9.3-10.3
4,6—7.0 3.15—4.85 3.8 .3 3. —4.1 2.6 2.9 3.2-5.4 3.0-5.2
6.5-8.7 3.2—4.2 3,9-4,1 5.8—6.8 1.8—2.1 1.1-2.1 2.2-2.7 3.5—4.2
11—19.5 7 8—) 1.1 7.1—9.1 9.6—12.1 4.9—6.2 j 3.7—5,0 1.4—8.1 6.5—9.4
46.8—55.6 L .6—o6.8 53.9—64.7 56.4—67.7 51.7—61.81 5O.5_60.6j
52.2—63.7 53.3—65
-------
PROCESS PROF )LC SKEET FOR 1REAT #T STRATEGY 00 7 FLOW RATE OF __LQ _2lQQ______
INPUTS - ENERGY (uNITSfODY)
CONCRETE (Cu TOG)
STEEl. (roes)
CIIDAICALS (LAD/OAT)
LAND (ACRES)
LAWN (MAN I RS/V A)
O 8TPOTS - NOV (RG/L)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL>
( L AS/SAY)
NUTRIERTO P ) /L)
(LAS/DAY)
9 (MAIL)
(LAS/DAY)
#EAVS METALS (LBS/DAY)
ATT C (1,35/DAY)
SLUWES—Z SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY WI. (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CO FI/YR)
NUISANCE - 000W
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJUWIEO/20 6 MUNURS>
C OSTS - CAPITAL (S x lob) ________
WUNNINS TOTAL CAPITAL ( x 10
LAMP (I)
RUNMINS GRANEI TOTAL (5 1O6(
OPERATING (C/1 GAL)
100 ANDITIZED ((/1000 SAL>
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 SAL)
Activated Sludge—Coagulation—Filtration with
Centrifugation—Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
AY LrTHIcEENZWG
DUG D CONDITIONING:
ACti Coagu— 1 Sur (SYe DEMATEWIIB :
vuCed 1aCOOIi lJuCer
..I , . ‘RI 1.. . U DISPOSAL:
1270
k h
756
COE 1ICAL SLUDGE
_00110L . —
-
CENTRIFUGE
INCINERATION
2
— 4
01
INC
08100)1 SLUDGE TRE8T RT OPT(OWS
1690 ) ‘N T bOr
2GS, 1flb SE 1
INCINERATION
LMAOF ILL
H
Q
.AL
PONT EOUS
F1.nTATI754
DIGEST ION._
i L0Z 5 I05 7 - FtOTATroS
1.. LQN I oJ.1E1I_I :_nIoL1u.oB_
I VACOUG
0TIYr TTUTr
0i4L2IiD8.
CENTRIFUGE
LLV14FUD9T
ACUIJI
SAND
VACUL,.
LANOF I Li.
6 0
LAND
SPREADING
220 kwh
OCEAN
DIRTY INC
LANDFILL
220 kwh 1260 kwh
VCEAN
OUTP I lAG
1260 kwh
o,
—
9
‘ VVVI
L3 V
19
10
4.3
n - J— —
j.ZL, . kr TS 757 515 252
-_ j-
6400
- - - --
1140 L 4 8.4 —
256 2 J .I42.R_t____._._____
0
‘
° =Li
POCBO-
tH
6.1—6. 6.2-6.3
19 000 10,000
2.21k
I
--
225 16.7
. 1 .
L L U G - . 120
092—268 43 5 5 11—58 411—58 12 1 __ 132—1A
20—26 4.1—5.5 4.1—5,5 2.7—3.7 413.7—15.4 60—260 J,A2—11.2 .34—.5
Z. .2 L.R_._-____ 3..2.. .L..,.._.. (I.J . ..G.3. .,L,............. 4. 3—6.3 3’47.9
-
800-1150
500-
507575 Qt 70 Q
5l_ __
1 500-700 1 500-700
8OQ—10OO j 80O-10O0 OO-100O
, 13—326 13—326 13—326 15—330 15—330 .i5-13Q -
—
J.00............ 100 100 I ______ 425 50 6—8 . . . 3.O_ .Wr30 I
0 j 000 14,000
None 100 , 1 W 4 .ooi oii 1 P0teOtial -
.88 .18 g .13t .35 .__.__ _(.. : 5. S le O ltgl .b l e
— - - - —-- —— J - -
85—1.2 1—1.3 1 1.2—1.3 1.8—2.1 .57—64 .30—45 .69—85 1.1—1.3
7.1—7.5 - 8.1 .a 8.9—9.6 1 7.7—8.1 7,4—7.9 7.8—8.4 Jo. 2—8.8
22—26 1O 4100—5500 4100-5503 2700—3700 B8 .6—2.6IE1Q 340—500
7.1—7.5 8.1—8.8 8.3—0.8 8.9—9.6 7.7—8.2 7.5—8.2 7.8—8.4 8.2—8.8
—
L
L2.&_3.9
4.6-7.0
3.2-4.2
3.15—4.85
3.9-4.2
5.8-5.3
5,8-6.8
3.1-4.1
1.8-2.1
2,6-2.9 3.2-5.4 3.0-5.2
1.1-2.1 2.2-2.7 3.5—4.2
3.7-5.0 16.5-9.4
6.5_8.8 7.8-11.2
7.1-9.1
.6-l2.l
4.9-6.2
,O U
14.2 1
31.S— 35.8—
1 42.3—44.9
50. 1—56.1
49.4—54.0
51.9—57.0
47.2—50.1
46.0—49.9
47.7—53.0 I 48.8—54.3
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATOtRI STP TE6Y H . AT 9 FLOR PATh Of 10 MCD
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-FiltratiOn with
Centrifugation;ReCalCiflatiOfl of Chemical Sludge - 10 NGD
PRIMARY
I OVum F Ynrargy
SECON—
DODY
Acti—
vated
C3 ..A .
YEAh—
ANY
Coagu’.’
latlon
P01 , ... ’ .,
LIQuID
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
CHERICAL SLUDGE
(PTJr
12
GQAVIT Y
C EP I1 ’PIFUGE
T RILNOMIMN:
cONDITIS aING:
DEWATER INS :
DISPOSAL:
1270
3734
5480
YACUI
F ILTRATIOW
CENTR I FUSE
t01 3x10
ORG#S)IC SLUDGE TREAT? NT OP ’TIORS
5 7
cc
-- ‘ .
--,
-
flu
Sn
T A
11.
1710
LA$DF ILL
192—268
L
—
-
&
boo-
-
2
A 4QQ ___
L
5 ___
—
—
-
1140
840
8.4
12
75
-.
O_
-_
.
z Q
108&GA
nbLe
SE
LAND
at
,k h ,_ , , , 1260 )owh
VACUUM
Eli I nTl ON
in
OCEAN
Slap! NC.
S & ...1 S
VACUUM
I 2111
LANDFILL
1 70
.1— c 7 ,7—7
7 17 .7—Ic 4
60—260
5—55
11—58
11—58
i_s a
OCEAN
DI 1 1FIN0
I 70
6 U_A 7
1260 kwh
-_-.-.
. - — ..-
07 -179
( HPUTS — ENERGY (UNtrS/DA )
CONCRETE (CU SOS)
STEEL (TONS)
CIVENICALO CLAD/DAY)
LAND (ACRES)
LAROR (NAIl IN S/ h p)
OUTPUTS — ROD (POlL)
(LSs/DAv)
SUSPENDED SOLLAS (146/Li
(Las/DAY)
N OJTMIENTS: P (MG/Li
(Las/DAY)
N (MG/Li
(Las/DAY)
HEAVY METALS (Las/DAY>
ATMOSPISERIC (LAS/DAY)
SLUDGESS SOLIDS
TOTal. ONY AT, (Las/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU rolss)
NUISANCE - 0 110 5
$00 SE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJuRIESfIO 6 MAN-HAS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (S x JQ6)
RUNNING TOTAL CAP:TAL * x 10
LMD (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S R 106)
OFERATINO (9/1000 GAL>
100 ASONTICED ((/1000 SAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 SAL>
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 SAL)
3 1111
12.5
7
1 32—188
8.2—11.2
0 32—188
S
. 34—. 5
in
/. AS S
7— 5
Roil
17 .508
77.400
P T ” 9 —
6.1 54
P ft_
17
2.21
1.9—2
2
.043
22 . .L .
‘ ..u-
4_. .23_
6.1—6. 6.2—6.3
2.21
I
10001
2 —
6.1—6,
6.2—6.3
.9
1 3,4
LI.L.. .
7.1 6.1—6.6
6.5
.1
11.1 9 I5 1 ,_A
14.2
1600—2300
25—500
500—7000 0
.500-700
i0o_J 500—700 .50O—70O 500700
iQ AO0O . 800—1000 800—1000 1OO II
15—330 41330 1S_33O4j , _130
I
—______ , .__ . . --—. - —I - -
2 5-50 6-8 20-30
14.000 14.000 14.000 14,000
7-38 8—36 90—220 90—220_
Pote tj 1 Potent(u1 Fotentlai POCRnELA1
13— 26
13—326
73—326
SO —4.4—6.7 C i— .8—1 .2 MeCaIa . ’2 .5—4
70 ,_ ,_
100 100 .00 100
2Q . .QQ__ ..__ 09O_ . ._.. . . . . . . . 990 .24 .._.
0.20—180 10—36 7—38
oDe Nooe
.18
.19
.13
.35 .35
.35
j ( 1
28.5
1-1.3 -
L 1.3
2 .1
12—16 1o
7.9—8.6
.! .2
4100—5500
8.9—9.9
.! . ,__
9.1—9.9
5500
9.1—9.9
8.5-9.2
77OO_77OQ__ iiii:
9.7-10.7 8.5-9.3
3.1—4.1
8 6—9 .5_
. 1 L i00
8.3—9.3 6 4 ,6.6—9.5
, . j _-_- 3.2—5.4
.9-9.9 -
1A°—500
5.5—7.5
11.1—16.2
7,8—11.2
3.9—4.2
7,1—9.1
5.8—6. , , , , , ,_.
9.6—12.2
1.8—2.1
4.9—6.2
1.1—2.1
3.7—5.0 J
2.2—2.7
5.4—8.1
3.5—4.2
6.5—9.4
20.8—
.11_.L .__J 20.9
35.8—36.i
4 7. 1—52. 3
54.9—83.5 54.2—61.4
56. 7—64. 4
52.0—58.5 50.8—57.3
52.5-60.4 53.6—61.7
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SlEET FOR T APU(T ST TIGY I 8 AT A FL RATE
INPUTS - ENERGY (uwITs/ONo)
CONCRETS (cu YOU)
STEEI (loiNs)
CHEMICALS (L u/DAT>
LAND (A NES)
LAIO R ( S lAIN TNs/Yo)
OUTP (JTS - SOD (NAIL)
(I_Is/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLCOS (NA/L.)
( 1.33/DAY)
MIUTRIENISI P (NEIL)
kss/ouy)
M ( Ne/L)
(LAS/DAY)
REAYY METALS (LAS/DAY)
ATMESPOURIC (us/DAY)
SLUDGESD SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (1.1 5/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/TN)
NUISANCE — ODOR
NOISE
TR U E IC
SAFETY (IN JUR IES/ I D 6 MANIIRO)
COSTS - CAPITAL (6 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (s x io
LAND )
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S x iob
OPERATING ( (/i GAL)
100 ANEMTIZED ( (/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (4, ’U0 2 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1 0 GAL)
Activated .Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration with
LI JTfl EAT Ic1T
PR IRAUT
GECOII—
DODY
Acti—
vAted
S1 dge
TERTI—
MT
Coagu—I
lNtiOnJ
Fiitrat .on
LIQUID
DISPOsAL.
Surface
Water
OIERICM. SWD
1PTII
MU4JU
iL., Ju J.D,05U
CONS IT ION IRA
DAWATEM INA
DISPOSAL
VACIA —
FILTRATI —
a Nne ni
ORIUOAIC SLUDGE TREAT NT OPT(ONS
_____ S 1
-: S1OIAIIUUL ELQIAflON I
—- SIGFSTION _ -n15LM1_I_ a
CENTRIFUGE VOIJIUR GAOl
______________ FILTRATION _MILNA...
IR IC 1NERATISN INCINERATION LANDFILL
I AUflETI I I AWf ul I
I- A
0
01
0 0ks h 15 9 1OO kwh 14 ,600)cwb 7111U
L.NPUU LILIAN
Vflfl t._fl.
VACUUM VACUUM
FIIIRATIOII FIlTAIrInA
LANDFILL
D C F AU
SlIMY N I.
kwh
a
6ZGQ.__
1A..Q
-
.A .30 __
-
2120
k .0 __
)L QP_
.2.L ___
140
Polyl
._ I.3j :
r—210
.m4lLxl
40 —265
1 2 _A,M
—
z _
L 18-50
t 2520
-
1 a0
14000
0
-
-
-_
0
a
25600
14.2ND
250 -SOIl
thle
S
‘ 2
1.4o10
-y0 -
tlal
PUCe
tUJI
5.4
JJ..._L__ 14—15
10.2
.13
11.7
-
35.9-
-
—
Lu_L__
,90 0
‘.0 .2.__
k . , .2___
‘—
-
-
-
7
.04
—
86
.7
1
‘‘fl ”
- wAit
f 370
400
... ..
365
300
....
342
290
A71W 1 1 10 S...
373
340
10,500
940
10,500
960
...
10,000 110.500
960 1000
, .. u .. ,
10.500
1000
196—266
1917—2681
41—55
450—350
41—55
117—381
27—37
117—581
137—154
517—509
603—2603
517 —581
2.6—3.6
1317—1880
82—112
‘317—1880
3—4
61—83
38.4—49.2
26.7—35.4
31—36
20—40
13.6—18.4 13.6—18.4
25—29
o.za. ...
8000—11, 500
5000-7000 50007000 5000—7000 •5o00—7QQ 5000—70005000—7000 5000-7000
8000—10,000 8O00 —1 9O0 8000—10 .oOO 92 UOOO080O0-LO ,0I iiJ
125—3265 125—3260 125—3260 150—3300 150—330O i5O —33O0_ji5O_33O0j 50_330O
DO2 44 67 502-44—67 ?articulatea 1
)AetalelO—40 4_
100 100 100 4 25—50 6—8
40.909 69.900 52.400 14O.000 140.000
.12fl0r .18S10 . . r .2B0_ ._ . .8flV .38U .. . .00 3OQ .
J o .__ None Potent Ia) Po ja .2 Jj Pote , tI.o7 PotentjR
Above Averafr -
J_2 5____ 1.3 J
L -
34_47 5—6.8 11—15 4.4—5.2 5.1—6.0 14.7—19.9 3
44,6—45.4_ 46.2—50.7 52.2—58.9 45.6—49.1 46.3—50.8 55.963.8 44.9—40.8 44.7.48.4
k: 1 41,000— ,00U— h ’ 54 .6 2.6riI5 2600—3600 .S2—1.1x14 OUp—4Q40
44.8—49 46.4—51.1 52.4—59.2 55-496 47.1—53.7 56,1—64.1 45.2—49.2 44.9—48.9
4.4—6.9 2.95—4.65 3.6—5.1 3j1—4.1 2.2—2.8 32—53
250—5000
100
353.000
None
8.8
41
5.2—6.9
4.1.2—43.9
196—266x10 1
41.4—44.2
4—6.8
1.8—2.3
1.1—1.5
1.6—2.2
3.6—4.8
L. .4—1.7
4.7—6.4 .1_ 4 .__ L1 .J . . .&
5.2—7.1 . .9 -
4.6—6.9
.2—9.9
‘i .5—5.8
1.8—3.1
4.0—5.9
21.4—21.
77 3_3D u 32.7—39.2
318—97.7
SI. 1._LU
11 7— 56 6 31.2—36.7
52.4—37.9
31.6—37.7
1
31.1—17.1
Filtration—Incineration of Chemical Sludge — 100 MGD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SlEET FOR TOFATILNI STRATEGY B AT A FLRA RATE OF 100 M CD
IIIMJTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DRY)
CONCRETE (CU yos)
STEEL (To. s)
CNGMICALS (Lu/DAY)
t .AIAI (*cus)
LuoA (iwi ou/y )
OUTPUTS - sac (MG/I)
(Lu/DAY)
SUSPGND€D 501.105 (MA/L>
(Lu/DAY)
MSJTRIENTS1 . P (ING/L)
(I .80 AY)
N ( Ms/i)
(Lu/DAY)
Avy NGTAI..S (LID/DRY)
ATMASPRERIC (LAs/Day>
SLUDGE8-X SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY . ( 1. 5 5/DRY)
SOLID SA l lE (Cu fl/TN)
NUISANCE - OD
NOISE
IRATE) C
SAFETY (INJLaIES/10 6 RAICIINS)
COSTS CAPITAL (D x
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (A 106
LAND ($1
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S D
OPERATING ( /1 SAL)
101 GIDITIOED ((/1 GAL>
TOTAL OPERATING ((11001 SAL>
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1010 GAL)
\
518
560
1 ,fl.. 11.1
91—126
CHENCM . SLUD6C
I TI DR
I LmIT DR NAT INN
) TNICREUEIN6I AUVITY
COND IT ION INS I _____________
DAWATEM IN S
DISPOSAL
3.2—4.3
U_iS 1.
29.4—37.1
LMIDFIIL
Hnn
101 ,_,AAS
41—55
38.4—49.2
Asn_Scn
41—55
26.7—35.4
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration with
Filtration-Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
I Iflhlin
SECON-
DM0
Act 0-
vated
PRINAUP
kwh
TERTI -
ARE
COaBU—
lation
I .1trat
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
? , Tluu Uuu
FILTRATION I
RECALC
ORURIlIC SLUDGE T AT9E9T OPTI01S
18 100 kwh
I OR!)) A ,-,,
C’
15 100 kwh 14 600 kwh
i5 ,-uiO s,-. _
6 0
14,
8300
2120
545
1600
710
1.40
El
Th
—
—
n___
ZL
‘ii
—
130
22 _ .L_
fE i
80___
2 2Q.
. ,.3. __
L4 L
2 _
-
- L
U aa
M0C
M
a—
11
342
TA E
CEN IFUG
YACUON
SAND
SPYING
VACLARE
flITRAYION
VICIJIJI I
EIIrRATION
‘a’
kwh
373
10,500
An
OCEAN
StRIP I l lS
11-7—SM-’
OGn
LANDFILL
27fl0 1,,.).
10. 500
27—37
II _SRl
9 6S 1
OCEAN
DIllY INS
ThAn kwh 17f4Ifl b..h
31—36
0611
137—154
I I 1_SRI
10,500
10,500
10,500
603—2603
20—60
71 7_SRI
1000
250—50
2.6—3.6
1317-1880
92—112
1317—1880
3—4
5
1.
1—5
774,000
ETu I
- -
365 -
- I
16—23al0
3000—70*0
5000—7000
5000-7000 5000-7000 - 5000-7000 5000-7000 5000-7000
,0Oe O0O—10 .00000—10, 00Cj8000 - 10,000
150—3300 150—3300 15O - )3OO 150—3300 153—5300
—
25—50 6—8 6—8 20—30 20—30
140.000 140.000 140.000 140.000 140,000
80-560 80-380 900-J2 0 (L
PUtp t 101 10Lrut.ILI - PnX.AlStiA4 EClOntial.
1.5 r — .03
-______ -
J
250—5000 125—3260 125—3260 J125—3260
S02 44_A7 WCL—8—12 M N E34 R—25—4
N 390 E ’srticulatee—440—70 0
200 100 100 100 —
206,000 9 ,9QQ_ .6 . ,1Q0 52.400 —
3.200-1800 4 500- 560 Q_
Nime L.IiQ G_ Non.
JAl tove Averac-
5
L75
1.75
4j
______
41.3
9.7—13.2
45.7—50.2
1.2—1.62s1O
45.8—5Q.4
4.8—11.1
4.3-54,9
I3
49.2—55.2
5—6.8 11—15
PtiT2 H1k . 1 .EU3 . .L_
jfl88 j:X
50.8—57.3 56.8—65.4
4.4—5.2
.1 )1J . 7 51A
•‘ JO L
50.3—55.8
5.1-6.9 14.7—19,9
.50..&.SLI. 4Q4s10,.L.
6—2 6s1116 7 T- f .00
51.4—59.9 6O 6—70.7
494 15_1.
.8 2 .L .Lo3..Q
49.3-34.9
1.8.4—65
j
1 6—0.1
5 7.4 1
7 7—7 8 .64— 71
5 2—6 5
7 8_S Ii
,.___._
I 1—1 7 —
5.5-4.1
3.6—4.8
7 7-04
.1.4—1.7
4.5-5.8
1.8—3,1 4 .7—6 1. 7.1 1. i I_I
4.0-5.9 5.2- .1.LA.Q r
—
! t2____ z6_1___
l.7
II
..36... ... 36—37
5.3 .7
3.3 .04
3.8
. _____
5.7—6
.!L ____
‘7
6.4
14.1— U./— 4.1.4—
121. DI 0 21 7
3-49—46. 5
1L— IL
46 6.47
I ! 8— I 33.3—43.6
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR T9EATT 8T STRATEGY 8 AT A FLOW RATE OF 100 P C I )
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
Co IcaOTE (Cu vos)
STEEL (TONS)
CIAO$ICALS (LJs/Du ’l)
LAND (SCROD)
LA)OR (MRS. YRS/YM)
O OTPUTS - DOD (ROIL)
( t .2s/DAv)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (Du/L)
(1.3 S/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (PAIL)
(LAS/DAY)
H
(LAS/DAY)
HEAvY METALS (US/DAY)
ATMOSP$lERic (LAS/DAY)
SLUDGES-Z SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT, (LAS/DAY)
SOLID RASTE (cu FT/TO)
NOJISANCS DOOR
MG I SE
TRuFF IC
SAFETY (INJ0OIES/10 6 MAN-HOG)
COSTS — CAPITAL (6 x 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (8 i o6
LAND (H)
MORNING GRAND TOTAL (S U 106)
OPERATING (0/1000 GAL)
101 NANDRTI005 ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (0/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration with
Centrifugation-Incineration of Chemical Sludge — 100 MCD
I IOII TT YOTMENT
PRIMARY
CHEN) CAL SLUDGE
OPT T Old
5000
kwh 90O OO0
GECON
DARE
Acti-.
vated
Sludge
TERTI- LIQUID
ARE DISPOSAL
CoAgu— Surface
lation Watar
‘iltrat on
f - i
FIJTTATTIIN
CONDITIONING I
CRFMICAL
DENATURING: CENTRIFUGE VACUIJI
DISPOSAL: INCINERATION FILTRATION
aNnUl:: INCIWERATION
1 320
CENTR I FUSE
_________ ORGANIC SLUOGE TREA7 NT OPTIONS
If5fGTT5AU F1OTATOTIW FL0T TI0N
PORTESLIS DIGESTION J10021LQD_ ._
VACUON SAND
1JLTRATOOM DRYING
270
365
0
IIb? B I 8 h. 14 O kwh
300
LANDFILL
,6240
1 2OO
8300
2120
-
—
-
151. ) ’
38
710
r —4J.0
inSor
25
0
L02 ’Z65
_
-
2L _
130 0—30
lO
80 l0—30
to
3
3
2520
- -
-_
84
—
—
—_
25.600
21.000
14.280
0 QQ
OGle
205
LAND
342
373
1G.500
10.500
340
VACUON
2200 k h
OCEAN
DONPING LANDFILL
960
2200 kwh
RAG
10.500
1917—2683
47 ,0—550
117—583
117—583
ui—sg i
1317—1880 1317—1880
J2. 2 41—55
41—55
27—31
137—154
603—2603
26—3.6
82—112
3—4
54—77
18.4—49.2
2 5.7—15.4
31—36
20—P .O
1”
I
25—20
25—28
12 6Q kwb
10 , 500
9401
OCEAN
D I R IRS
12,600 kwh
10.500
I (S W )
31300
.
5
L
1—5
108.000
L25.00
441.00
-
PU ten
5.4
11.7
14—15
10.2
.13
—
11.7
‘5.7-
j )69
35.9-
--
36-37
-
38.000
‘5.’-
25 000
J):9-
11L . . .
.I.O,,.Z__
36—37
2.6
Th F
3.8
1.2
4.8
5.3
3.3
.7
.04
6.4
0.7—6
8.6
.7
8000—11,500
OO10Oz.1tm0
50C3—7000 5000—7000 9—70OO
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
9 O O .T:0i000
S000_10,00 ”Y000—L0.000 ’0000—10 .0O39000—10,00
250—5000
125—3260
125—3260
125—3260
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300
S0 2 44—67
Meta -25-40
11C18—12 p
9 0 0
ticulateld..
-
- -..
-.
100
353.00Q , ,
100
5Q
100
49 _
100
52.400 —
25—50
140.000
6—8 6—S
. 140,000
20—30
i’.oooo
20—30
NOUN
120o J.no .
None_______
.1 = . fl___
80- 3RD
Ofl=.iE __
— -- + 0-L200._
.Oione — Lpuutes.ti.a.itputentiai_
- -
Nose
None
Potent i 1
EoO .gjstt .aJ ,
Above Avers
88
41
1.75
1.3 —
3.5
s
3.6—4.9
3.4—4.7
5—6,8
11—15
4.4—5.2 5.1—6.9
14.7_19.9 .7_4.9
54.3—61.8 43.3—46.8
3.5—4.7
43.1—46.6
OPO-4OOO
39.6—41.9
43—46.6
44,6—48,7
50.6—56.9
44—47.1 44.7—48.8
196-266 10
=___
_
4’
j 4
6- 6x1O
2600 ’ -360O
2-1. x1I(
39.8—43.2
43.2—47
44.8—49.1
50.8—57.2
44.3—47.6
5.5—51.7
54.5—62.1
43.6—47.2
43.3—46.9
3.4—4.6
4.4—6.9
2.95—4,65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1 2.2—2.8
.54—73
3.2—5.3
2.8—5.0
1.2—1.7
1.1—1.5
1,6—2.2
06 4L . . . . .
0.4—1.7 1.8—3.1
4.7—6.4
1.2—1.6
1.1—1.5
4.6—6.3
5.5—8.4
7.2—9.9
4.5—5.8 4.0—5.9
5,2—7.1
4.4—6.9
5.9—6.5
6 4
L1..I’ LU,!— LL.G
U.4 2].0 71.1
26.0—28.0 3L.5—36.4
30.6—34.9 33.2—37.9
30.5—33.8 30.0—33.9 31.2—35.1 30.4—34.9 29,9—34.5
-------
PROCESS PROF i lE SHEET FOR TOEATP€NT STRATEGY 8 Al A FLOW RATE OF 1 nfl IRCO
INPATS - NNEEAS (SuITS/DAY)
CNNCRETE (Cu s o s)
STEEL (ToNs)
CHEMICALS (US/DAY )
LAND (ACues)
LAZON (MAN YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS - NOD (ass/L)
(Las/DAY)
DOSPENDED SOLIDS (nIL)
(LAS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (Mu/U
(LAO/DAY)
(I (MD/L)
(I SO /DAT)
HEAVY METALS (LAO/DAY)
ATMOSPHERIC (US/DAY)
SLHDSES-0 bLISS
TOTAL OAT w i (1 55/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CS FT/AN)
N UISANCE - SOON
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IS,IsaIEO/lth MAN_t tS
COSTS - CAPITAL )$ o 3Q6)
NUNMINS TOTAL CAPITAL (8 S
LAND (63
EUNNINS SNUAD TOTAL (8 o _________ ______________ _____________ _____________
OPENATINS ((/1000 SAL) _________ _______________ ______________ ______________ _____________
100 NCETI100 ((/1039 GAL) _________ ______________
TOTAL OPEEATINS (0/1000 SAL) _________ _______________
RUHNINS TOTAL ((/1000 SAL)
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration wit -h
Centrifugation-Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
I 101110 TEFETI WNT
PEIMANY
OECSN
:t
—
VUCA 6
SCUI IEA
TENTI-j_
CoW il
Ailtra—’
CLOD
LINUID
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
r
fr.A.
rnvuo
fr..h
fl
fr.,I,
OIUDtCAL WIOCE
0PT II
12
ENSVITY
CENTS IFIIGE
— . THICESMINSI
CONDITIOWINSI
DENATENING I
DIEPSSAL:
VACSIAN
DILYDAT I ON
ORGANIC SLUDGE TREAII€NT OPTIONS
4 c
PT7A1YAYIISN PLCTkFJON 11
SISESYIS M - SISDSYINIL ._J
VACUSM 5USD
tENTH IFIISO _FJLINAISOL DNflMD
H
0
co
l R 1 LU0 jk ISHEPRMNDA!i. E4QIEWI.. . .,,, ....., .
‘ t.’:” LANDFILL
LANDFILL
TflflI..a. Ietflflb.ó IS £450 %.a.
2±Q
545
1 J2Q 1 ’
1600
710
2120
140
P0T
._Liat
2I0
34100
C0 2 —2b5,
•# lr& OO?
—
—
n____
28
41
29
150
E!E
&—
sa
0—30 5
t-
9-a- Li—
5- jQ 4 250
-
L
iia
GA20
14
32
25
17
a
ZL.QOO
S
5
1
1—5
12L
jo
n ooo_
PE1
41 Sit
liaL
1ia1_
1A
11.7
iw__
14—15
r
10.2
3
.13
36-fl
U -
38 000
in i-
9pp
a
-3’
2.6
1.2
5.3
7
—_
L4
—cr
—
Wzh-
hL
LL-
.04
x? -
1
x
448
£_-
365
- “S ’
342
373
•__•__
10,500
————. ..
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
3 3 4
300
295
340
960
960
960
1000
‘000
1917— SAN S
450— 550
117—SR i
117—583
117—585
117—cal
1317—1881’ ‘317—1880
120—160
41—55
41—55 -
27—37
137—154
603—2603
2.6—3.6
82—112
3—4
85—10.5
38.4—49.2
26.1—35.4
31—36
20—60
11.6—18.4 flJ J4,4
%S—2M
25—3M
16—23 3.0
500070 00
5000 7000
5000— 7000
5000-7000
5000—7000
5000-7000
5000-7000
IQQF_7000_
250—5000
1 *5-3260
125—3260
1*r3260
8000—10,000 A00O—lO.OO09000— 10 p0 8000-10 4 OOO8000—1Q ,Q9O
150-3300 155-3300 155-3300 150—3300 150—3300
—
tieCa la—25—40 S0 2 44_ 67 HC1 —8—12
N0 ”2 50 -390 P rticolater 10—700
100 100 100
—
--—-- —
-.— ——..—.
20—30
100
25—50
6—8
6—8
20—30
206,000
j9QQ
69.900
52.400 —
140.000
140.000
j40.000
140.000
AáQ.20t..
1200- lA UD
3513-360
M O- ISO
AU- SAp
MU- I SO
Srflflft spa-iioo _
Nona_ —. !0 !MIS !25S051!L.
- . --—- — —
9?........ ..3.s. - -
None
S
41
None
1.73
None
None
pentiaJ
Potential
Above A.vcrI
1.75
1.3
3.5
. 5
7.3—9.9
3.4—4.7
S—6.8
11—15
4.4—5.2
5.1—6.1
14.7—19.9 5.7—4.9
47—51.8
3.5—4.7
46.8—51.6
43.3-46.9
85—115x10 3
46.7—51.6
t*’RRW
48.3—53.7
k ’RRF
54.3—61.9
3’RRTh
47.7—52.1 48.4—53
M 1 5 ’ .5—2.Av10 6
58—66.8
2600—3600
58.1—66.9
.82—1
3000—4000
46.9—51,7
43.4—47
5.3—9
46.8—51.8
4.4—6.9
48.4—33.9
2.95—4.65
54.4—62
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1
2.2—2.8
.54—.13
3.2—5.3
2.8—5.0
2.4—3.2
1.1—1.5
1.6—2.2
5.6—4.8
1.4—1.7
1.8—3.1
4.7—6.4
1.2—1.6
1.1—1.5
7,7—12.2
5.5—8.4
4.6—6.9
7.2—9.9
4.5—5.8
4.0—5.9
5.2—7.1
4.4—6.9
3.9—6.5
6.4
IL.u— Lu. !— tic—
12.4 21.0 21.7
29.1—33.9 34.6—42.3 33.1—40.8
56.3—43.8 33.6—39.7 33.1—39.8
34.3—41 33.5—40,8 33—40,4
-------
N9 9TS - .L8#CY (ursF** )
CGNC*GtE <4/1IXO GAL)
108 ARORTI FD (411000 SMJ
TOTAL. ORtNAT lOW 6613.200 0*6 )
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration with
Filtration-Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
I 101 1 (0
PRIIAR8Y
8610W ’
DANY
2 .ttf
v t d
11RT1
. 1.85
CoAgle-
186 tae
LIQIJID
DIRPOSAS.
Surf ace
WateC
APR•SATIOD
V #IICKENINQT
CIDITIOWIW$I
‘OWING.
Sludge
L1 T8
oo
VON E PIWFIIL SOEET F00 1 AVUO SIR9IESTI 8 J A F)ON RN16 OP J .000 (0013
O3U cPL su
400831CC SLUOGE T0EA71 #T OPTIONS
#a,uuu
1.. l .
6.47$
1 (13 k.
6.40 5
603
, o
27x10 BLU.
WA I1OW G - - - VACUAI SAND
_.1.1J.2DAIL -_
liL1IU1fl 1 ’ Il lCS#IEIU.TIOl1. INC I IER ATIUN INC INER*TIC11.
LARtlL1LL_ LAPI1W Iii - -
aeon
I—J
0
“ 3
1.8x1Q AVO i.3XiU- OWn
1EL.InY 0k.. ) .3 1 jfl *I ..
a Ar on
•3 540
LANDI CU .
184 I .7 4 * 0
81 fl_ flfl
“ Rn
4 tO- ’ 350
OCEAN
4500—5500 —
im - .c R ln
YACIJUII 5*15114
C I I flaTIllpS cI t tC1TInC
. n u* __ non .i. I 1,1l ’ID L . I 1 .1(15 4.
3 84— 492
uio—sso
IA14D I U.
60 IJ -2DAW__.
267—354
OCEAN
ni—DIMe
Ii 7”
inc 11141
‘i 1 (1.. 14(1
0411(1. 08(10 ifl000
- 5 x: °
001
mc ncin
‘r ) (IaC1. 06-86
13 2—]
Wa 1
111_I I D
820—1120
1 .L 1 . QQ
! :
S. k.I QR
z r 1.9 .500
113
280
12L
410
290
130
10—30
3
i ° _
80
10—30
.3
f !
8—3x10
2500
14 5
40-,
2 _0
32 25
- -
1 .7
-
_
00 -
5
T
LQ_
1
T
u—
1—5
-
9T _
1. 8
F3Th5
11(1
VOt88
56
117
103—15
102
1.1
!J .L_
260-26
]
ll
29L9_0
280-26
30,0013
5 5 5
34j
363—
310
2.0
1.0
3.3
.5
3.7
4.6—4.
3.3
.134
L - i _-
30-40
. ..__...
Z)UZWU
, 011_TAG
9—ll.5 LO 4
5—7 1D
5—7
—i
5 7s10< 5—7s113 ’
.8_1 1 .81x1 ,O5
.15-3.3 .1p .15 ---3. 3x10
,_ 7rU0 4
28 ,Q±L.
5. -/xJ o4
2500-50.00 000
13-3. 3 10
-___________
.13-3. 3, 10
.U-3. 3810k
.8—1 105
3A4Q
i-J. 1x1fl
.N— Tic1O —
41_3z1D
100
Otet le—Z50—4
0 Z i 0’
I S0 440—67
.1 xr.icjo1ai &
11C180—120
I460-2 D ..
inrr
2 3 - 50 3-8
6—8
Q__ ..,
ZOn .1CL .
3•33 j13 6
i2-18ic10
1.99.000
Q 3600 —
CL_
0-3O510 -__
4•4 jQ 6
.SOCTSSOLL 806-1900
4io106
1 . z.L0 ._
222311 _.
L10 .,
iZD
None
88
None
u. s
1 10 16*
Al ,oue. 118Th)
ii s
None
.113..... ,.- .__.
i a4 ’
S
1cs nA
g
Potorttal
35
-
...
.
3 .
43
52—69 34—47
ois—aa 449—466 -
Z O12 4.1—5.5x10
417—442 456—490
4—6.8 4.4—6.9
50 —68
465—507
4.L- 5 .5xt0 5
461—5U
2.95—4.65
11.0—150
525—589
2.7—3.7s6C
527—592
3.6—5.1
44—52
459—491
462—491.
3.1—4.1
7.1—9.7
422—449
6 —27x10 6
430—479
1,7—2.6
16.1. -Z1a 36—48 35—67
431—461 451-417 450—486
2.6—3.6x10 .81_fl;j,08 3_4x4134
433-464 454-501 452—489
.20-.3 2-5.5 Z.8—5.0
4.8—2.3
\5.8_9.1
1.2—1.5
0,6—2.2
4.6—5.9
3.6—4.8
7.2—9.9
1.5—6.1 .4—1.2
4.6-5.8 i2 . t 1 4 _.
.32—.7
2.2—6.6
4,4—6.9_
1.1—1.5
39 —b .5
RU$IIIFG TOTAL. CO/iCeS
‘5.7 t ” i:t ’
Z6.2—29.7 31.7-38.1
‘In S_IC C
33.4—39 .6
30.8—35.51 28.3—33.3 26.9—30.7 30.6-36.6 3&1—36.2
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT ) NT STRATEGY 8 8 AT A ftOW RATE 1000 IRD
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu POD)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (us/DAY)
LAND (AcocE)
LABOR (N M YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS — SOD (ROIL)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPUIIDUD SOLIDS (MAIL)
(us/DAY)
NUTRIENTOI P (MulL)
4 us/DAY)
N (Ms/u.)
(us/DAY)
HEAVY METALS (us/DAY)
ATMOSPHERIC (us/DAY)
SLUDGES 4 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY AT. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (cu FT/TM)
NUISANCE ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IN JURIEs/1O 6 NAR ” ’ 5
COSTS - CAFITAL (8 0 10 )
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (8 o
LAND (6)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (6 x 106)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
100 HMRTIZCD ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (4/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL (6/1000 GAl..)
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration with
Filtration-Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
1101115
£HEIIICAL SLEDGE
nOTION
SECOM
PRIMARY BURY
Acti—
vated
S.! .
TSRTI-
ANY
Coagu-
lalion
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
SOO OaCe
Water
°
IINIT OPERATION
THICKENINGI
CONDITIONING:
DEWATERING(
DISPOSAL I
-1
40.000 l.19x 1.1bX
ins i..*. tESS I..
VACUUM
CENTRIFUGE
VACUUM
ORGANIC SLUDGE TI)EAflOJIT OPTIONS
- -
SAND
flDVING
I-I
0
“9 . ,
“ —.. ,a an
2C fl IF.flfl
5 9 S ,, wh
U SNCINERATION
LANDFILL
flLleAI &(
INCINERATION
LAMP OCKAN
mien. ItOh
OCEAN
LANOFILL
LANDFILL
SPREADING
DUMPING
LANDFILL
DUMPING
YSUn
VACUUM
FIt TRATION
VACUUM
IntO
lb 13)4
ILJQO
• • QQf
ZLQQQ
1.9.300
\
k
‘2 0
—
-
—_
4a__
Z Q _
130
10—30
3
i
80
1 L
I
-
i—
i—_
9 C
P Q
A Q
32
.o.a ___
—
25
4 ;
) L____
—
UQ _
2000-
,01 nA 1
3j
PP00ff FP
o!
L-
_
-_
—
17•
t —. -.
1200—1620
410—550
.. -
4500—5500
410—550
1170—5830
270-370
1170—5830
1370—1 540
8_583O
27.000
1170—5830
26—36
820—1120
t M8
30-40
384—492 71O _ Sf.U 132—178
mi_itO
IAn_IRA
o’nn
in nan
Inc OnES
zu .J—OtIu
l )U—ZSU
16—23x10 4
7 e1U
5—7 x10
5—7 x1O
5—7 1O
j Q 4 —
j o 4
5—7x10 4
5—7x10 4
.8—1x10 5
.8—1x10 5
2AL10 5
.8—1x10 5
.8—1x10 3
2500—50,000
.13—3.3x10 4
.13—3.3x10 4
.13—3.3 1O
8C190 — ILU
.15—3.3x10
.15—3.3x10
l5—LJs10 4
l5—3.3 1U
NetalaZSO—4 0 S0 2 ’ .440—6I
N0 .e 2 5OO 3 9 OO ParticuLateEA440 07000
10 ( 1
1U O
100
10 ( 1 —
25—50
68
6—8
2 9 T 3O
230_
OA,,10 6
809050
‘.99.000
524.001)
1.4x10 6
1.4e106
1.4x10 6
j4 g 6
1.t . . 1n 6
12—18, .10
3000—3600
800—3800
800—38(10
800—3800
9—12 1fl
1 J2 J fl ._
None
41
None
None
None
1
11.1
Potential
Pnt-.ntlttl
Nnmmo
P.pt nLia1.
P rommf1o1
3.
Above Avera
17.5
17.5
35
3 5
___ __
97—132
34—47
50—68
11(1—150
44—52
7 1—0.7
16.121.8
36—48
35—47 —
460—502
1.2 1.6a10 6
461—504
494—549
4.1—5.5x10
495—552
510—570
1.1—3.541n
511—573
570—652
7.7—I 7,,1fl
571—654
504—554
1. 7 1.54
506—558
467—312
6 1fl6
474—041
476—524
.2’RR .
477—526
496—550
.82—1.lxlO
498—553
493—349
496—551
4.B —11.i
3.2—4.3
4.4—6.9
1.1-1.3
2.95—4.65
L6-2.2___..
3 6 ..i____.. 3.1—4.1
3.U4.L_... 1 5-1.7.
1.7—2.4
.22—.3
3.2—5.3
1.2-L
2.8—4.0
.2.4.—1 .l—
i0c
2L
1.3
112_.......
260—267
362—369
363—370
—
9 Q
Q _
UI. —
±Z
362—369
363— 370
2 ft._—
Q_____
5.J___
.5
12_......
.04
£1_
W
L-
.5
i i— J.S.S IAU.’+
3.7 1.3 20.1 20.6
6—15.4
28.4—36 33.9—44.4 I 33—42.9
US A_l.A C l i _Li U
,. t_c o 21 —I.6
In S_ tC A O I_tI 0.1.5 0 ti 7_I.,
4.4—6.9 3.9—6.5
-------
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE ( c v YES)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (LOS/SAY)
CR1111 (ACRES)
LABOR (MAIl ORE/YE)
OUTPUTS - DOD (MS/I.)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (NEIL)
(LBS/DAY)
NUTRIEPETS P ( RGlL )
(LBS/DAY)
(NAIL)
(L os/DAY)
HEAVY nETALS (LAS/DRY)
UTMOOPOERIC (LBS/DOT)
SLUDSESI SOLSDO
IDY lL tINY AT, (LBS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CE FT/YE)
NU SAMCE - DOOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJURIES/10 6 NAN-ORE)
COSTS - CAPITAL (1 x 106)
RUNNERS TOTAL CAPITAL (0 x 1O
LAND (8)
RANNINA CR01 111 TOTAL (6 1O )
OPERATING ($/1000 GAL)
109 AMORTIZED (6/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OYERATINS ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ($/1D 0 GAL)
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREATP 8T STRATEGY 8 8 01 A FL0l RATE OF 0000 MOD
Activated Sludge—Coagulation-Filtration with
Centrifugation-Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD.
PRIMARY
[ TENTI
I AR!
COaguli
LECLVGt+d lion
Slcsdge Fi [ tra
‘.11,1200 2 29 x (1.6 x
kwh 163 6 ,6 103 kw l
LIQUID
BIAPOSAL
Su EE AC
Water
I IE
CHEMICAL SLuDGE
IlYInIS 0BEAT IAY ( 10 1( 56 096IUIIC SLUDGE 1REATI NT OPTIONS
TMI L,.tfl,,,,
CONDITIONING 1 __________
DEWATERII*U CENTS IFUSE
OP S INCINERATION
- I — AL. LD ”DO1LL.....
H
H
I- ’
CENTRIFUGE
INCZNRRATIEN
OREGON
..1111MIJ.QD ..
INCINERATION
SARI)
ONYING
LAND
OCEAN
YAEUUM
FILTRATION
IAIJI1FIII
IiItflflhI
LANDFILL
SPRH&TIIRS
BIIMPINS
LANDFILL
L1UiTO kwIo 2.5x10 3 kwh 1.5*10’ kwh
n.. .S .i ,nY *.... ,. .,n9 n.... TO flnfl I ... TO nnn t....h flflfl I. ..1 I t.Yn$ 1...., 1 l.flflS I . .
OCEAN
SlIME INS
k
5400
166.00)
07 400
6.500 1
J0
1270
\
I_—
.‘0115801’L
1 9o .
o j!-4 .00 ’
190
80
—
—
ED—
u _
00 il
ia
_
80
9 : L
8-34
.- _-
—
J—_
nQft
132
l ’
• 0
25
—
1x1
17
142.80
-___
9go-
1 1—2
‘,. 25x10_______
,1.4x100
-
I-
54
U?
1.43—151
00
1.3
)11T
260—26
AT1 o
363— 372
—
Q _
L 0-26
10
-
—
-
.3 .04
I46
x
1 3 (&Y ---
..
.
3360
.. ..
105.000
—
2600
3520
4400
103.000
103.000
005flQ )L_
305.000
2RAI 4
27MB
31160
9600
9600
9600
19.000
1.0 .000
______.
tU6Qr2 6fl . ... .. ....
4i ’0—550
4500—5500
410—550
1110—5830
270-110 -
-1070—5630
1370—1540
iO GL
27.000
1170—5830
26—36
E M
820—1120
30—40 —
540-729
3G4492
267—354
310—360 —
200—600
.i 7r1lE
L3J .r .12L
2512—290
2502E0 -
9—11. Sx .10 4
5L.SJ ±..
5—7 olO
5—7 o10 4
5—7x10
.15-3.3x].0
- -
..Oio.1.fl L
.6-1I(10
15—3.3x10
.-- - —. ——
.LJeiUS .
i l s .0 4
.a-i io
15—3.3xj
—--.--—---.
L _
5— lx . IQ”
.8-1 .o1Q -
O.5 .—L.3 id’.
--—-.- .—.
2030.....
L .4 1th_..
1300 .1200_.
.13 3 .JxJ .Q . ,
)4etals—250--4
00—2500—390
.13—3.3 10
0 S0 2 440_67
.13—3.3 10
HCO—80—120
oA400ri000...
500
3
101)
(AG .._
O OL
3.53 j0
609.OIIL. .
1.4*106
JJ j ( ) .
- -
12-18 1O
30E2600
800- 1800
Z00 5000
00 0120
..
92 1 13L
s iz ioL.
Elooe
-
88 .
4 ) . .--
blo oe
.
07.1
h2S *.A Eoxar
1 ______,_
Dane
AD01g
UifltI)ntiR .1
De_ -.
.
.....
is —
3 _j_
14
13
.
36—49
9— 1 9 •
34—47
433—466
0—68
4.49—487
110—150
509—569
44—52
443—411
1.37 1.14
7.1—0.7
406—A29
16.5-21.8
415—441
210000
36—48 .
435—467
35—47
434—466
-
L9b-2.26 x
onE
5
4.1—5.5*10 -
.1—5.5*13
l J—3.7x10
xi
6
36.000 -
,821.1x1 IT
•
401—421
435—469
451—490
501—571
446—475
414—458
417—443
438—470
436—468 -
.. .
4.4—6.9
.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.0
1.7—2.4
.22—.3
3.2—5.3
2.8—5.0
1.2—1_i
1.1—1.5
1.6_2.2
.6—6.9
3.6—4.8
7.2—9.9
1.5—1.7
4.6—5.8
.4—1.2
.52—.?
.7—1.0
1.1—1.6
4.4—6.9
1.1—1.5
3. -6.5
—
tt .c
:f I :g
30.5—35.3 29.6—33.8
29.6—32.7 27.1—30.5 25.7—77.9
-------
PROCESS PROP)!.! SHEETFOR IRORJJE9T STh41157# 8 .4TAFLrMRATEOF 1000 0(05
INPUTS — ENERGY (GRITS/NET)
CANCRETE Ccii i s o)
STEEL (TONS)
CNENICALS (toE/DAY)
LAND (ACRES)
LAtER (IRAN OR E/ S N)
0(UPUTS — S OS (NE/L)
(LED/DAY)
100PRRDED SSLIDG CsieIJ
(taD/SAT)
RIITR IRATE: P (TR I lL)
(Las/DAY)
N (NEIL)
CUE/DAY)
MEATY METALS (LOS/EM)
AmossIoEeic (LEE/DAT)
SUJDOEE4 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY IT. (L AD/DAT)
SOLID IRETE (C s ct/TO)
NIJ100NC C - 0000
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IRJOYIED/10 6 NARIIIYR)
(C U TS CAPITAL (0 i i 10!?
RURNITIS TOTAL CAPITAL (5 x 1o
LOAD (5)
RU IRUNE INANE TOTAL (5 106)
GPERAT1NE ((11900 GAL)
lOt UCETICEE ( (/100 9 A oL)
EETAS. OPERATING (4/10(0 GAL)
RINNINE TOTOL (4/10(0 GAL)
CHEMICAL SLUDGE
(S?TEIS I
Activated Sludge-Coagulation-Filtration with
Centrifugation-Recalcina-tion of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
PRIMARY
N ECOTI-
EAST
AcCI—
nted
‘ FEET!-
ART
Coa u-
laEion
,
LIEEID
DISPOSAL
EUrERES
Water
JI lT ORE? TI
THICEEE ING:
WIDTTJONINS:
DENATENINS:
SEodoe
DiltraP
Cl i
DI SPOSALt
40,1101 ,9XIW I.DIELl
L ,l. .I. . I.
CENTRIP00 0
YACALRN CENIRIFESE VACUJ I
RILTRATIEN
PILTEAT 1 00
_ ,R5tiNIC SLUDGE TREATCENI OPTIONS
_J_
Ti
EMS
cc v I wS
I - ’
N)
LATNEPILL SPI llS
1.8x1Q26 181 Is A9 8 - I __________ 7 701)11 T... 27111111 o.A. , Ivin 1... i q..’,nS, . ,s..in5
TACOS?! YACLJRUR
EILIEA1105_ FILIRATIEPE
LINOR IIS X i s?
6iJQ_°
‘oS QQ
‘4.Q90
09.300
\
Ic
5400
7 40
6500
1210
0 33
LL,Ss—
. 2I0
-5liQ,
0021 9 ’
CJ.)”42.(
—
2811
Q___
i—_
10
290
130
0—30
i
1- 13
S o
0-30
.3
cr
-
e2xW 5 ’ 2t
14 1-
L
U9 .QQ
) &Q0
A&Q____
-
95r9i-
%
.-
25
6gs
w -_
r
-
3 -
hr__
-_
fl E
S
—.—
fl1
tial
—
17
127
43—150
E2: ñ 7
102
1.3
Ufl
r
—
363-
370 -
11L
29.EPQP
90 000
ti
.5
L0_...__
-. 0_____
¶_.3 ___
3.?
.6—4.8
3.)
.0/
5.7
.6—5.8
6.6
.5
i
I*.MJ . .CCIA... _
4 l c n
LIfl.L13
552Q..__ 3401)
S iA M )
.
1 0 5.000
.
105 0110
. ... . -.
105.0 31)
- .
505.0 00
—. -—_——
05000
7ARI)
27 5 1)
306!)
9600
9600
9600
09.000
1200— 1600
WI —i l 5 1 1
6500—5500
53QQ............ 610—550
1.1 1(7—5830
2 °—
.1170-583C 3—5830
).37(S-144 0 21.000
1170—5813
26—36
ik;AX8
fl ,113(N
+ MR
30—40
384—492
267—354
310-360
.2a0 430..
132— 178
131 —378
250—290
—
230-280. —
—5)1n4
5—7 uo
5-7 E10
5—7x10
5—7 10
5—7±L0
5—7,.i0
-
.a-i.io
.AJaWL
.JclxlO 5
.8j 81 j
L5L.3_xlQ
. Oiic ipL
15z.3.3IS’
(500-50.000
-13-3.3 10
,j3_33 jØ4
1 >3.3 10
.05-3.3s10
.15—3.3 .10
.i5—3.3c10’
D(eCaLs25O-
j9 jQ2—
00 S02 440_6
I) ParCiculaE
0 SICI. •80—120
joMQQrlOCO..
100
ion
i on
1 00
—
25—50
——-——
t!__._.._
-.——-. —
6—8
20—30 —
1.0.1 06 L6z2.0!___
—
2.06x10 5
.E&L.00(L.......... 699.000
12—L8.10 3000—3600
.3a4JnQ.. 1.4x10 6
1.4c106
1.4 i0
800—3800
Sop—saga
%,J.2x101.
lrl.lxWj._..
HonE
Ssone
?OL L tat
‘)tJS 1
PESLT&S8L..
3.
-__&0Y84!8tfl____-
SI )
JJ.. 5.,,__.............
17.5
15 _I
55
ss
.3
-
35
73—99 134 47
50—68
310—150
44-52
7.1—9.7
16.1-21.8
3 45
S & 69
1.3-1.tain 6
437—411
470-516
.4_J.rs..Szlfl?_
471—519
486—537
Li—S 4 .105
487—340
—
546—619
2 7—5 ,,in 5
547-621
480—521
t6 1 ’ 35
482-325 -
443— 4 1 9
cnp.in 6
450—308
452—491
:81 ’
453—493
472—517’
.82—1.1x10
474—520
411—516
48 U8b
472—518
t n
4.4—6.9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1
,1.72.4
,,,22 ,j,,,,,, 5 .2 —c 3
2.8-5.0
2.4—3.2
7.7—12.2
E.1—3.5
5.38..L............
1.6—2.2
A —Ac
1.6-4.8
..2.2.J_._.
1.5—1.7
j.6—SB
.4— 1.2
2.1—3.6
.52—.7
.7—1 0
1.2-0.6
4 i._j,
1.1—1.5
3.9—6.5 —
5.7
1:4
:T
-r
28.1—30.8
57T—18 A
31.2-36.4 ION_ S I A 57 5—15 ‘7
30—39.3
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 9
Tertiary Treatment
H
I— ’
L )
SLUDGE
———-I
UL UDUL
LL ( SLUDGE
-------
PROCESS PIrJILE SHEET F ) TEA17W STRA1E6Y 9 AT A FLIR RATE 10 I D
INPUTS — ENEROY (imi Is/DAY)
CDACSEU (Cu TOY)
SIECL ( ous)
c ic*ts (us/DAY)
LAUD (*csu)
USDA (sAlt vuAs)
ouyp )IrS - , o o / a
(us/SM)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (ss/L)
(L as/ D AY)
NUTRIENTNI P (sa/L)
(us/DAY)
ii (se/c)
(us/DAY)
P 8 8W METALS (1 51/DAY)
ATUDSPIIURIC (us/o*y)
suilou-Z s.c .iss
TOTAl. DAY NT, (Us/DAY)
581.15 WASTE (cu pi/ R)
M I I I 5 0 * 11 - DADS
NOISY
YRAFUIC
SAFETy (SNJW 1 1IU/10 6 Mm—Nss)
0) 515 - CAPITAL (8 u 106)
DISIGIIAG TOTAL CAPITAL (8
LA N D (8)
DUNNING GRAND TOTAL (8 x 106)
OPERATING (6/130) sas.)
IHE AINNTIDAD ( (I1 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATIII3 (6/100) GA l.)
DUNNING TOTAl. (4/1000 s .d
Tertiary Treatment with Filtration-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
I UNIlfl’
PDIMARY
SACOD-
SIARY
Acti-
vated
$ odND
TEATI-
ANY
Clarif
cat oo
--
LI
5615
DISPOSAl.
Surfac
Water u
TT G TIAN
JUICEDNINDI
C ITIOMI :
ccwATsRIiMI:
51560381.1
.
•
—
JU WV S
•1 £ 511 a
GIfflICM. SU
9
AvITY
CI ATI * IN
•‘ G6t1 £545 ENS
1O Blu_ IIWI5105 A. _ .
OROM)C SLUDGE T UUfl OPT(0NS
3 ___ $ :
IIrrATTlSI PImAT7CA 1 YIffT8T1Ti5 —
PGIRTFO(IE DISTIl IDS DCOEOTLCN ..8
CENT F . . .. . 1 L ______
70
‘U.
I-i
I
. n
52111
55
56
“—‘a
756
2100
1400
232
75
290
390
16.7
?817
2TEND
e.c&1J .z .s
:2T00
16L8L
eaij— uu]
— °
19
52
i__
z _
—_
130
10—30
1
i
8_6_
Q—
& Q -
-
—_
14.3
10
1
2—
Q—
L
23
.4-i
2560
2100
.2—84
25—500
ibla
n Inal,
a a_ li
1 . - i..5 5.
70
IPRTA1 11N5
qPs
LANDFILL
SIS IND
VACUUM
C £ fl C
121(1
4.1—3.5
120
Cl
1.52—285-.
43—55
11—58
‘
12—SR
‘“
‘ra , dcai 1260 b
17711
120
A i_L I
1260 kwh
127(1
120
14_I 0
2,7—3.1
11.7—15.4
60—260
8.2—11.2
.36—.5
124
in 3_I %0
500_il 511
5 0 0-mn
I . i 4 - A
5
1
1—5
4 A _ c - S
10,800
12,500
45.400
u,—26 ,500
-—420
5011—IOn
100—700
cnn..,nn
nat
Y w
17 SO I l
TS_snn
13_-326
13—326
13—326
T InS
50 0— 100
40
800—1000
15—330
cnn- la o
14—310
Metala—2.5—4
1!0 !2D 32__F
S0f4.4_6.l
i MS
8C1.8-1.2
I20_............._
-
.
SAG_ lOll
800—1000
800-1000
800—1000 —
15—330
15—310
L. L_
1.9—2
4. .1_. . . . ._
.043
L iZi_ _
‘L. 8J
6.9—9
J.0 .. .OQQ
12,000
L8- 9
8.9-9
4
3.4
8.4
.9
7.1
6.1—6.
.5.1
.1
11.1
5.5—9k 13.3 — LJ1 _
zO.6— ,4.1—
I lLS 53.1—55.4
100
100
00
100
25—30
20—30
36.300
8990
6990
5240
14.000
14,000
14.000
14.000_ .
620—160
10—36
7—38
7-38
8-38
90—120
90—120
5603
Moos
Moos
Nasse
PotentiAl
PotonCiel.
Pntnntial
Above Averag
-
NegligIble
gj
.18
.18
.13
.35
.35
.35
26.5
1.5—1.9
1—1.3
1.2—1.3
1.8-2.1
51—.64
.30—,40
.60—85
.--—--. ---—-—
1.1—1.3
10.4—10.9
21—29x10 3
U 5 4—1Z.2
4100—5500
11.0—12.2
4100—5500
12.1—13
21 Q9 . . .3700
1 —Ij 4 S
t I, _
1O.7_U.1
.6—2.6x10 ”
,_
J ,1J .—1.L1
8200—11,20
JJ . ...5 1Z 2
340—500
10.4—10.9
l.1.4 12.2
11.6—12.2
12.2—1)
11—11.5
10.8.11.6
11.1—11.8 11.5—12.2
4.2—7.0
4.6-7.0
3.15—4.85
3,8—5.3
3.1—4.1
2.6—2.5
3.2—5.4
3.0—5.2
4.6-6.1
9.0—1 .1
L2—4.2
3.9—4.2
5.8—6.8
1.8—2.1
1.1—1.3
2.2—3.7
3.5—4.2
3R I! 7
7 1 —0
5 A—I l i
4.9—6,2
3.7—4.2
5.4—8.1
6.5—9.4
64.1—65.5
71.9—79.7
73. 2—80.6
69—74.7
67.8—12.7
69.5—76.6 70.6—77.9
-------
PROCESS PROf ILL SH€ET F09 TROAT NT STRATEGY 0 9 AT A FL RATE Of 10 7 11Th
Ic (JTS - ENERGY (uPIIT 5/My)
CONCRETE (cu oIls)
STEEL (TouR)
cHENI COLD ( 1.15/DAY)
LANK (AcRES)
LAJOR (IVAN PES/YR)
OUTPUTS - • (Ne/U
(us/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (NA/L)
(us/DUO’)
NUTRIENTS: P ( /t.)
(us/DAY)
(NA/U
(us/DAT)
lEAPT METALS (us/DAY)
ATIlESPHARIC (Us/DAY)
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/OS)
NUISANCE - 000 11
P101 SE
SAFETY (IIUuRIES/10 6 uu—° I
COSTS — CAPITAL (5
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL ( i x 1O
LAND II)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S io6
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
10Z WMENTIZEO ( (/1OAYJ SAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((11000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 SAL)
5794kw6
120
11—58
S 4—7 -9
500—700
OCEAN
DII IPINC
220 kwh _..L -‘ 160 kwh
1 T lfl
120
12—58
1 (I - 7 —1 9 - A
500— 7 00
800—1000
71.6—82.1 70.4—80.1
1220
120
1 92—188
8.2—11.2
I . - 1—U A
500—700
800—1000
Tertiary Treatment with Filtration-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
PRIMARY
SECOII
DANY
Acti—
vated
Sludee
TERTI
ANY
Clarif
Sorpti
LIAUID
DISPOSAL
— Surfec
11
THICKENING:
CONDITIONING:
DEWATER INK:
DISPOSAL:
CHEJRICk SLImE
IPTIf
10 1.
SYITY YLO1ATTISI
CIlENICAL
VAWIJI VACIAJI
Fl LTRATINK FELTIATIIII
RECALCINATI J II
Li
95
CENTRIFUGE
Ga
08GM IC SLUDGE TREAT! NT 0PTI
FIflTATI(
DIGESTIC
SAND
ONYING
1(1
78
I—i
I 1
U,
I NUMERATION
LANDFILL
1 c
ECu 220 kwh
13—17.5
192—268
55
56
70
Ti.
191(1
14. 4—18 .6
45—55
c A_U S
11—58
LANDFILL
VHCU IJP
— FILTRATION
4.1—5.5
2.7—3.7
13.7—15.4
60—260
A L.A I
1260 kwh
1220
I 75
756
2100
400
252
3
75
290
390
16.7
2
ii
3.2
7.9
9.2
-
39_
L___
LQ DQ
3 Z Q
-s- -- _
80
00—30
.3
-
N 25O
-
-
1 _
1 _
-
84 _
32
1 _
, hQ___
‘ Qn
4 4 _
25—500
ObOe
5
1
1—5
1L000_
.L 500
81 3
w
- -
P -
-ia-
n
I_
.32
2.21
1
4.7
.043
2.21
4.11-4.
]j{
8.9—9
2.21
09000
z•1• -•—
00000
8.9—9
—
-
25 _
.9
7.1
6.1—6.4
15.1
.1
1 12—188
1600—2300
500—700
500—700
.34—.5
1. 8—5 5
x
500-700
TRAFFIC
25—500
13—326
13—326
13—326
15—330
15—330 I
Metale—2.5—4
NO —25—39 r
S024.4—6.7
rticulpteu—4
)IC5-.8—1.2
-70
500- 700
800-1000
[ 5—330
2030
100
100
10))
100
25—50
20—30 1
21.600
6990
120—180
6990
30—36
5240 —
7—38
14.000
7—38
14.000
8—38
14.000 414 1 p .
90—120 90—120
None
None
None
NUn e
Ppl-c,,rlo I
Potenti4
POteIiG44 Potentiel
- -
.35 Negligible
.___ 83-.A5 1 J . j.jj
-— L2.i— ) .3.1
A200—11 .20 340—500
kboye Aver
.54
.18
.18
.13
.35
.35
28.5
2.1—2.8
1-1.3
1.2-1.3
1 .8—2.1
,57-.64
.3—4
11—11.8
12—13.1
12.2—13.1
12.8—13.9
11.6—12.4
11.3—12.2
13—17.5A10 3
4100—5500
4100—5500
2700—3700
H: 88
.6—2.6x10
11—11.8
12—13.1
12.2—13.1
12.8—13.9
11.6—12.4 11.4—12.5
11.7—12.7
11.1—13.1
4.8—11.4
4.6—7.0
3.15—4.85
3.8—5.3
3.1—4.1
2.6—2.9
3.2—5.4
3.0-5.2
6.8—9.1
11.6—20.5
3.2—4.2
3.9—4.2
5.8—6.8
1.8—2.1
1.1—1.3
2.2—2.7
3.5—4.2
7.8—11 2
7.1—3.1
9.6—12.1
4.9—6.2
3.7—4.2
5.4—8.1
6.5—9.4
-—— --- —
U...L_ 9.5—9J 33.5 - 1.0
20.6— 54.1—-
U_1. _ _ 20.9L 54•41—55.4
66.7—75.9 74.5—87.1
73.8—85 76.3—88
72.1—84 73.2—85.3
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SI{EET FOR TREADENT STRATEGY 6 9 AT A FLOW PAlE Off 10 S O lD
Tertiary Treatment with Centrifugation-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 10 NGD
P M t PAR U
SLCOMI I
DART
A.eti—
TENTS—
ART
ICl e tif I
IIQUU)
D 1SPOSAL
Surface
Water
3734
C9RAICAL SLUDGE
, Inulls TSTATRCNT OPTIIIN — 0RG ,UUC SLUDGE TO(EATY UT OpT(Ot (S
756
COND ITIONIN S
DEWATEMIMO.
DI SPOSAI
SInTS i&nn Ycs
CONSUl SF008
— VACIJWN
&‘49 A •“HT SO
1.9
I lilflRIlk
CUNTRIFUA E
4
12
lUAU AVI S
511150 llt ’n
l 1O p 1 O_ yh
1
LANDRIU_
VACUUM
FILTRAIIDIN
SARIS
DRAINS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
LADS
220 k. t.
OCEU
DUMPING
LAIIDF ILL
0 _T!?L_ 1 1260 kwh
ULERM
DUMPING
1.260 kwh
i irrs — ENERGY (SALTY/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu yos)
STEEL (TONS)
CIUSICALA (LBS/DAY)
LAND (RcIszs)
LABOR (I lAll VMS/TRY
)11PIJTS - ROD ( R O/L)
(lAS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
(LBS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS. P (ipift.)
(us/DAY)
P ( s/LO
(Las/DAY)
IIEAVT $STALD (us/DAY)
ATMOSPHERIC
$LUDRESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DUE NT, (us/DAY)
SOLID WAST! (Cu FT/AR)
NIL SAJICU -
NOISE
IRA TFIC
SAFETY (IN .IURIUS/10 6 PSANTARS)
COSTS — CAPITAL 4$ x lOs>
RUShING TOTAL. CAPITAL (S s 106
LARID (5)
UIJII)IINS GRAND TOTAL. (SO 3QG)
OPERATING ((/1000 SAL)
10! AMORTIZED ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL. OPERAS L OG (4/1000 SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL (1/1200 GAL)
3.2
7.9
92
L
_
UD 00
63 23
INS
80—
13-30-
a—
—
P
-
-
1140
840
84
a—
_
-
z 0
25—500
j g jj
ble
L_
L
‘
‘ M00
12.
868
:_Gj ,M2._
L.±82..
PoGioi
4
-_- --
2_2.L._
.A...2.L_.
44
L L._...
43
.9-9
221
. 23.29
12,000
8.8—8.9
8.9—A
4
3.4
18.4
.9
7.1
6.1 6.4
19.1
.1
.2 .i . i . .. ..
L .2 ___
T .i 5 .....
1 0 i
52
30
28
34_ —
13.0
1210
1220
1220
38 —
55
56
70
120
1.20
120
125
•
192—268
45—55
11—58
11—58
12—58
112—188
.1.32—188
21—29
4.1—5.5
4.1—5.5
2.7-3.7
13.7—15.4 60—260
8.2—11.2
.34—.5
7.2—9.8
9.6—7.5
4.1—5.8
4.1—6.3
3.4—7.9
10.2—13.9
4.1—4.8
4.8—5..L
800—1150
500—700
300—700 -
500-700
500—700
GiO0___
,. QQLloQ_
500-700
800—1000
000
•
800-2.0 >)
800 —100Q_
25—500
13-326
13—326
15-326
1.5—330
15—330
— j5—33
1.5—330 -.
Metaja—2.5-I
.R9G 3E3t..J
,rtic.,letee —Z
100 1.8—1.2
30_____._-.
—-.-—
2U 30.
100
1.00
130
100
25—50
EL_
36.504)
6990
6990
5240
14.000
1’. .000
14.000 — 14.000 —
120-180
30-36
7—38
7—38
8—38
90-120
90—120
No i e
None
Oon e
Noise
.13
FotenEiai
Potential
.Eo —’ 1a I
cM3tiaL
Above Ave rag
8ea tb1o
.91
.18
.18
.35
.35
.35
.Y 85 , .
1.1—1.3
28.5
.83—1.2
1—1.3
1.2—1.3
1.8—2.1
.3—.4
N 7—10 2
21—29 x io
10.7—11.5
4100-5500
10.9—11.5
4100—5500
11.5—12.3
2700—3700
10.3—10.8
1 1 W ’
10—10.6
.6-2.6x10 5
10.4—11.1
1200—11,200
10.8—11.5
348-500
9.7—10.2
10.7—11.5
10.9—11.3
11.5—12.3
10.3—10.8
10.1—10.9
10.4—11.1
10.8—11.5
3.7—4.9
2.7—3.9
(.6—7.0
3.2—4.2
3.15—4.85
3.9—4.2
3.8-5.3
5.8-6.8
3.1—4.1,
1,8—2.1
2.6—2.9
1.1—1.3
3.2—5.4
2.2—2.7
3.0—5.2
3.5—4.2
6.4—8.8
7.8—11.2
7.1—9.1
9.6—12.1
4.9—6.2
3.7—4.2
5.4—8.1
6.5—9.4
‘7U 6—
SflQ
54.1-
n ,.
03.]—
cc 4
61.5—64.2
60.1-754 68.6—73.3 73.1—76.3 66.4—70.4 65.2—68.4 46,9—72.3 68—73.6
-------
PR0CES PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAUU(T STRATEOS 9 HT ROW RHTE OF 10 MUD
Tertiary Treatment with CentrifugatiOfl
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge — 10 MGD
m il l — ? i7CNt
P C I MAN V
C4 (EROC L SUJD6E
SECOR
06111
ActS—
vated
SLu4 e
15611-
861
lariRi
ar 5*
1161(1
OIOPO$AI.
Surface
Watet
.
miii neeNslioN
COI4OITIOII IRSI
ORWM’ERIIIG
DISPODAL:
12
n eawnv
IPCGS
UALCIMT I GI I
IPU G E-tANNWILI
MAcSAM
08186 (1. 51111162 UEAII€HT OPTIONS
CENTRIFU6E
c i
I A
55
- 146& 1’ i a
4,, .iu Stu
H
H
li—i?
192—2h 8 .
86
iflfS t_ 5.
i is__is
nc_CC
4.1—S_S
dD L q
70
220 kwh
-
—..
lirn rI-in
racttcal
._.__
1220
sa
Ylcon, YACUIJI
a A_i 6
i ,..cA
12 ( 1
ni—c 2 .7— 7 13.7—13.4
a a—ca
6LW. .’
U.j.NWS
‘
756
2100
1400
252
3 .27 9 L
0
-
—
30_
-
—_
-_
J__
-
L
T
RAQ
1z___
—
-_
2560
2100
42—89
23-500
le
-
I-
• SOQ
81.100
E
5170
‘_E2 .T .9. 1
_
d
.32
i,.cnb,b 1260kw6
12—51
120 120 125
I I U1S ENIRIY (wIlls/OAf)
CON tORTS Its
STIlL (toNs)
CAVIl C*I.S (1. 13/SAY)
LAND (AcRES)
LABOR (Iu.N IRs/YE)
OUTPUTS - sos (1,611)
(Las/SKI)
ODIPOACIED 501151 (ND/I.)
( 1 .311 5* 2)
NVTRIVIT3 P ( 1 , 6/ I .)
(us/DAY)
N (ND%)
(LIs/DAY)
, , 6*v’r ,n*u ( 1.83/MY)
ATRUSP015IC (us/DAY)
ti.us €sZ sotiss
TOtAl. DRY N T. (i.ss/o* )
SOlID CASTE (Cu FT/ER)
I IUIM II CE — ODOR
NOISE
TRAF F IC
SAFETY ( mu sics/ lU 6 Nm-ASS)
COSTS — capitAl. (I x 106)
6601,101 TOTAl. CAPITAL (6 s 106
LAND (8)
RWIJI 1N ( 6RAPV 11161. (8
OPOR*TI0G ( (IK%.iO GAL)
108 AINOTIZID I1(X)0 GAL)
20151. QPSRATIPIG ((/1008 061.)
RUNNING TOIAI. ((/1000 GAL)
1220
I A_? Q
I li_SIR
1.600—2300
A. 2—IL S
s 1-
rn—La.
sty,.- ,nn
54—.5
s i_s a
A - A . .c - c
cnn_- Inn
300—700
500— 700
5 00-. /uu
9 0 ( 1—700
l
25—500 23—326 13—326 ‘.3—326
800—1000
15330
800-1000
15—330
800—1000_
15—330
800—1000.-
1Ieta1 2.5—A
M3e 25 39 r
S0 4.46 .F
rttc.u1etea
3C1.81.2
70 —
25.-SO
______.
14.000
20—30
14.000
iQ so__..
100
¶00
00
100
5240
14.000
14.000
15.100
6990
7—SR
7—38
8—38
90—120
90—120
120—180
30—36
Potential
.35
Potential
.3 o! !Si
—
. 3so3 4
No n.
.54
283
None
.1.8
.______
one
oye Avetac
.18
.
None
.13
.33
.3.4
20.9—11.7
._ __
—
Negl ig ibLe
,69-.85_
11.3 —2 J
1.1—1.3
J JJ ..L
L1—2.3
10.6—11.2
.j _ . _ _ .____
2.2—i.)
01.8—12.6
L8—2.1
12.4—13.4
11.2—21.9
13—174O
1L6—12..
4100-5500
4100-5500
11.8—12.6
2700—3700
12.4—13.6
I iZ88
11.2—11.9
.6—2.6*11?
11—12
5200—21.20
11.3-12.2
340-500
10.7—12.6
10.6—11.3
21.6—12.6
2.6—2.9
3.2—5.4
3.0—5.2
3.3-9.1
4.6—7.0
3.13—4.85
3.8—5.3
3.1—4.1
_________
2.2—2.7
2.5—4.2
5.5—7.6
10.8—16.7
3.2—4.2
1.9—4.2
1.8—6.8
1.8—2.1
1.1—1.3
5.4—8.2
6.5—9.4
2.8—11.2
7.1—9.1
9.6-12.1
4.9-6.2
—
-
‘L
L8 L
L!
±-
LU:
8.9-9
4
3.4
6.1—6.4
18.4
15.1.
.9
.1.
11.1 9.5—9. 33.5 1.0
73. 7—83.3
7S5 —Ri.2 1O.8—7S 3 69.6—26.3
71.3—80.2 72.4—82.5
-------
9PtflS - ENERGY (wuITS/T Y)
cANcurr (Cu ots)
GYRO. (bAR)
c 3cAI.u ( 1.8$/DAY)
LAND C*c us)
LABOR (MAlI YNU/YR)
CIJIPUTS BID (MUlL)
(uu/DAV)
SusPENDED 801368 (jq / .)
(Lu/DAY)
,wTRIENTu: P (MulL)
(us/DAY)
H (MulL)
(US/DAY)
HEAVY METALS (US/DAY)
ATNOSPIIE#IC (us/DAY)
SLuXES 8 $01105
To!Al. 1eV WY. (LDAFDAY)
SOLID WASYE (Cu FY/YR)
NUIS IJICE -
NOISE
T RAFVIC
SAFST’V (IRJUSiIES/1 ’ lAlI -NRs
LISTS - cAPITAL (8 E 1O )
MOANING TOTAl. CAPITAL (9 s
LAND (8)
$03 5 1186 GRAND TOTAL (I 10 )
OP080E 1RE ($11000 GAL)
105 AJeRTIZES (0/1050 GAL)
TOTAL SOCRATINE ((/3000 oe.)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAl.)
Tertiary Treatment with Filtration ’-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
I 30 1 11 1
—
REORN-
DAM
vated
Acti-
FERII—
ANY
ClaTif
a
LISSID
DIEPOSAL
Surf at.
Water
1511T 590 551151 1
ThICOSNINOI
CDITIONING I
PENATRUIN U
uuPOs*s.:
r
1,900 900 Th
PROCESS PROFILE SlEET FOR TROA1 )flT STRATEGY 8 _ 9 AT A FLOR RATE OF 100 MCD
D{EAICAL SU )D
IPTUII ORGONIC SLIJDI3E T LATTIENT OPTIONS
SR
. . . . CENTRIFUGE
3.2 ’ ff
,Jx10! .Itu_
WACULM
nfl
SAND
no ?,— ,
SIGn
- ,, .in i,. . , .
.-..., .. ...
PiLl l iAhi iJM
—
TILII AIlJfi
r
INCINERAI3OK
LANDFILl.
SACIMERATION
.LAIUFILL
INCENERATIOW
LANIWILL
LAJOF
LAND
SPREADINO
OCEAN
DI51P1NG
wonu.
OCt40
DURAING
20S
1—82
41—55
VACUUM
5 4 0
,,nn U . . ,.
38.4—49.2
41—55
342
373 -
IT OIVI
10,500
10.500
L2AL . ._.
L.000 .
‘L.DOfl
2120
.33J
z w
‘ ii
a a
oi-ii
008dl
8
1
57
.30
0—30
1
‘ 9j2c2Q
—
-
a—_
‘3 3__
a—
‘-_
-
—
—_
—
3__
-
QQ
o o—s .r
1.81
i—
—
-_
0O
— -
,,nn i_ .U
VACUUM
Gi l tRAT 1O 1I
960
980
27—37
26. 7—35 4
1S %.flA
uai, . .EAos
&cn..ccll
Ill—GAS
U7—583
00 1
os
1317—5880
1517—1880
11 5A
“A
1 37—1 54
froth
1 Ann
‘fl—An
603—2603
1
1 Ann
2. 6—3.6
1.0—jo .,
82—1 12
13.6—1R.k
3—4
00 C1 2 —4200
f A S . .265x1 0
roost
roten—
915
L
49.7-50.
ir
J___
‘8 000
17 000
z;:
3.8
.5—4.8
7.7
.04
5.4
.7—6
20.3
.7
8000-11.500
soop—iooo
3300-7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000-7000
5000-7000
000—10.00
8000-10,000 8000... o ,Gooaoo0—iO00O. 9 .q2 .q 1 Q99
5 Q lQ0.. 1503.300_ 350—3300 J 150—33C0__
40—5000
125—3260
125—3260
125—1240
150—3300
MRCN1APZS—40
N0 o250—390
00 —44—67
Pa ticu1ate
RC1—8—12
7ç10
. —
.—.
‘00
100
100
100 —
25—50
_.__
68
20-30
20—30
‘63000
69.900
69.900
3j Q _
160.000
QQ_
14 .
1,000
1200—lOO t. —
300-360
80—560
60—380
SQ .3d&_
...9130-.1201L
900-J.200 _
Usue
Mon.
NOiRe
Above Aver,
L75
YIn ,.
Poponpiol
Pp ,tiol
3.5
.________
Mnno
POtEfltiA .l
PotonEtal
. .. . ._ t . . ...
— . ._. ,...
.. .., —
.tL........
.3
1.74
1.3
3.5
3.
5.2 —6.0
54.9—S7 6
4 — .7
58.3—62.3
5—6.8
59.9—64.4
U.— 3 .5
65.9—72.6
4.4—5.2
59.3—62.8
60-64.5
..Z’!. .!
69.0—77.5.
J. .Z .4 . .2 .
58.6—62.5
L..S—JL..L._.
58.4—62.3
2.1-2.9x10
55.1—57.9
58.5—62.7
•O •
60.1—64.8
2 ,O —
66.1—72.9
1 3 —1.54 .6—Z.6x10
59.6—63.3 60 8—67j 69.8—77.8 58.9—62.9
oooo
56.6—62.6
—6. 5
4.4—6.9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4 ,1..... 2.2—2.8
2.6—5.0
.7—2.3
1J—1.5 — 1.6—2.2
3.6—4.8
1.4—1.7
1.8—3.1
4.7—6.4
1.2—1.6
1.1—1.5
.7—9.1.
5.5—8.4
4.6—6.9
7.2—9.9
4.5—5.8
4.0—5.9
5.2—7.1
4.4—6.9
3.9—6.5
.4
£1 .— ,jJ. ’l—
2€. 32.1
33. 1—33.
.8.8—42.5
44.3—50.9
43.4—49.4
.6—52.4
43.3—48.3
42.8—48.4
44.0—49.6
43.2—49.4
42.7—49
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SATE) FOR TREAT! NT STRATEGY 8 9 AT A FlOW RATE OF 100 MCD
Tertiary Treatment with Filtration—
Rec lcination of Chemical Sludge — 100 MGD
I TODIE
CSIE8LCAL SL006C
5ECO$ 1
DART
Acti—
vated
Sludge
TERTV
APP
C1Arifit
cation
rarbOu
Sor5lj O
‘ .o9L. .Lf
[ LIOUID
DISPOSAL
H
Surface
if
Water
INIIT OPERATiON
TNICKEMlNG
C DITIONI NGI
DEWATERINGI
DISPOSAL:
.•,..,
10
ITO
I R A
t LCIMTION
000 kwh 900 90(1 Thi aa
1 ON_In t A.
240
4,000
16,000
2120
45
600
1880
140
±IJ .L
YeLt SIN
O.OXLU EVIl
4.9x10 Rio
8
CEOTRIP I)GE
27
NI. ‘15110 ION
1
ORSON IC SLUDGE TRLAT ( NT OPTIONS
L0TATI0 l (j
DIGESTION _ .4. .
S pil l
l S 9 lOO 9 kVh
300
130—175
295
9 5—129
4 1—55
340
10. 500
L.AADPILL
4980
SPOLASUAL.
OCEAN
O181fJ .NG
rlLI I S e I ION I LI I I O II O N
IA .sI OCEAN
38.4—49.2
41—55
960
10.500
‘2200 kwh
2200 kwh
12.600 ‘- ‘ ‘‘‘ kwh
74 .7—35.4
27—37
960
10. 500
117-5 8 )
3 1—36
960
13? —154
INPUTS - ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu IDA)
STEEL (TONS)
CAEI!ICAI.5 (lu/DAY)
LANG (Acilts)
LAIRN (NM Yes/IN)
O 1JTPUTS - 50 (1 (M/L}
(Las/DAY)
OUSPENGED SOLIDS CN6/L)
(LIE/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (NG/L)
(495/DAY)
N
(LIE/DAY)
I8AYY P8TALS (us/ INS)
A1MOSPYERIC (49 5/DAY)
ELUDSES-Z SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (us/DAY)
SOLID PASTE (cu er/Ye)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOl SE
TRA C T IC
lATEST (INJURIES / iS 6 MAN—IRS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (0 x io
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (8 x 106
LAND 16)
RONNIE 59890 TOTAL (8 x 1O )
ITERATING ((/1000 GAL)
j UNITIZED ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUINING TONAL ((/11830 GiL)
20—60
1000
603—2603
2.6—3.6
1000
156—18.6
1 31 7_i AOfl
82— 112
13.6—18.4
571 7_iRAn
3—4
2 5—29
8
1
57
30
0—30
1
.0 i1 .Q . 5
L° 4 # Q__
p—
4.3
0
1
1,400
400
840
2
5
.5—1
600
11 .
4
1.50—500
g )
Ible
.
1—5
08.
0
8. 2x10 4
N -
01
ed
32
1.7
.4—15
28.3
.13
Ii___.
1.7
U—26.
257—26.
49.7—50.
27.O IIT
.6
.2
12.6
.7
3.8
4.8 77
.04
2 5—29
E 6 1 ?85
.7
1 518
365
342
373
10.500
1O.StIO
i6-23 10 3
5000- 7000
5000— 7000 5000—7000 5000-7000
‘(000—10 ,00 ’l’(OOO—lO, 0(00000—10,001
5000-7000
‘(000—10,001
R000—10,00c
250—5000
125—3260
125—3260
125—3260
1.50—3300
300 I o—o
5 Op_ [ is — o
Metal —25—40
! 0_390
.
So —44—67
Pa tico1ate
HC18—12 I . . --
-‘440—700 — - - - .
100 468 -
o0 — j p , oo sO,Ooo 140,000
.UQ .1SQ .__ ._ .i - 360 il=28Q__ - - — . -— . 5 ) D -J2Q .Q 5 0q-J .2QQ. —
100
100
2I600Q_
Q_
Qoi4O.Q ._
69Q _
iQS .Th
None
None None — None Potential Potential Woue Potentl4 Potent 1_
Above 4vera fl
37L 03
-. —
3.4—4.7 5—6.8 11—i5 _ , —5.4 5.1—6.9 14.7—19.9 3.7—4.9 3.5—4.7
63,4—69.3 .65—71.4 71—79.6 4l 5_70 . 65.1—71.5 I 74.7—84.5 —69.5 63.5-69.3
LP0 .Q 53 Q5O ‘1,000-55.00 37.000—37. OO XiO 2600—3600 .82-1. lxi? 3000-4000
63.5—69.6 65.1— 1.7 71.1—79.5 64.7—72.6 65.8—74.3 74.8—84.? 63.9—69.8 63.6—69.5
4.4—6.9 2.95-4.65 3.6-5.1 3.1-4.1 2.2-2.8 .54-.73 3.2—5.3 2.8—5.0
1.6—2.2 3.6—4.8J 1.4—1.7 1.8—3.1 4.7—6.4 1.2—1.6 1,1—1.5
5.5—8.4 4.6—6.9 7.2—9.9 C .5_5•5 4.0—5.9 r 5.2—7.1 4.4—6.9 3.9—6.5
41
J.0.3 iL9___
60-64.6
i,3—1.75xl0
60.1—64.8
5.1—11.7
3.4—4.5
j _
6.4 5.7—6 20.3
12.1— 32.4—
l.4 I12.i. 32.7
41 6—49.6
46 .2—56.5
48.8—50.5
46.1—55.41
45.6—5S.Sf 46.U—56.7
46—54.5
45,5—56.1
-------
PROCESS PROFiLE SHEET FOR 111ATP ’ENT STRHTEIY 9 Al A FLOW ROTE OF 100 ’lSGI-_
tNPUTS - ENERGY (uJ - :ro/DAY)
CONCMETE (cu TOO)
STEEL (TONS)
CIIEAICALS (.isfoav)
LAND (ACRES)
LABOR ( P 98 14 PRO /T N)
OHJTP IJTS - SOD ( qG/L)
(UI/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (NG/L)
(Us/ sM)
NUTRIENTS: P (NAIL)
(uo/o*y)
I (MG /Li
(LAS/DAY)
PlEAS ’S PARTALS (LOS/DAY)
(L 5S/I)AY)
SLUDGESI SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (LAO/DAY)
SOLED IPASTE (cu FT/YE)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOIYL
TR 9FFI
SAFETY (IMJuRIESJ1O 6
COSTS CAPITAL (9 5
ROOMING TOTAL CAPITAL is x io6i
LARD (1)
BURNING GRAND TOTAL (0 V 206)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
100 AINDTI2ED ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING tOTS . 1 //J0 00 GAL)
Tertiary Treatment with Centrifugation-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
PRIMARY
SR CO N
DRAY
Acti-
vated
Sludge
WE?UCAL SLIJOIGE
SPTTTYU --
______ --
TERTI iloult lIMIT OPERATION
OSEPOSAL TROCKEMINGI
Clarifi )- cONDITIONIKS
I Surfata DEWOTEENAL
Carnon I I
Water DISPOSELI
11 —
CENTRIPU
RV
Tr oi,
. ph..__
‘ .. .áB .xJ.
k ,.,h
°ci-_i:j: 1 c o Cl —420/
-
CCL . 840 :o -7
E Q____
)M
1 fl830
ieoJ..it.a
i.QQ_O
9840._N
9 iKERAT1ON
-,
CEArRI FUSE
SIGASIC SLUDIYE TREAT H1 opuoS:
. _ 21LDAD . D16 5IUQYA L 1OUflDG 1
VACUIJI SAND
FI [ TSATIOPI ESPIED
I -i
LANDFILL
LMOF IL l.
LAflLl
cA_7 O
AL SAN
._
aru 4 18 0 wh
‘201
) ,S.J .i— 168j .__
—
342
295
43 _cSD
41_V . P
373
340
U7_cgS -
27 — lI
2200 ‘e h
L0 500
960
117—SPY
131—154
2200 kvh
10.300
960
1 51—GaS
603—2603
fl0J tL
101500
960
ill—cal
2.6—3.6
i OQ j ’
10,500
1000
1317—1880
02—11.2
12 .600 kwtu
10,500
1000
5327—1880
3—4
LAIIOF ILl.
- 0690 54
,IIINP INN
R A_AD S Of. 7_YcA 31.36 20—60 ,, a_ a ?S. -2Q 25—28
- - ‘-
1.
fl_
L
—_•
1Q____.
l __
‘ _
z1Q
160
—
0-30
J _
4QQQ
.
Q—_
I __
u. on
aao
Q-
—
_—
J _
1ZQ 4_
cJ,b1
. _
‘ 0flQ
2.50—50
L....jH g0
5
1
1 .—5
Q
‘
Q0
78x1
—
._Si: pL . .fl.oL “ .D0 .CD 1 - -
.a_ Z4L W — _ -iJ
1L7 .
3 !LQQP_ 27,000
1L.2 13 49.7-50.7’
.2
3.li . . _ - S-4 ! J _
6 _45.7-6 i .Th
I
8000—11,500
j g_
5000-1000_
QQQlQQQ. 5000—7000
9000 1O , } 9000—J.Q.Pth
L Q 13QQ_ J. 50T 53 0 0 __
—
25—50 6—8 -
ooo—7ooo 5O00 _O 5000—7000
9000—10 ,00O8( Q0—J O 1 000
s50 3aaD_liJ)QQ_. 15O—33W__
_
6—8 20—30 20—30
250—9000
100
125—3260
MOESII—25— 4 0
0-390
100
125—3260
S0f 446 ?
Particulatr
100
125—3260
l (C18 ’1.2
r _0 _
100 —
3 .QQQ___
69.900
9.JOQ__ . .
52.400 —
140.000
140.000
40 ,000.
140.000
J J2.OOO —
900 . -J100 ._
___
1200180JO__
j00360___
80r340____
Oone
8 380.._
Pote06ial
00-380
PolS iGli_al
_ _
820!4 . ._
OIQEOAL .LA’
20t9S1.iDl._
None
q _
_____
Above 5v pj
LJ5 l.G
— - -
J .
9L_ . . — --
14.7—19.9’ 35,47
67.6—74.9 56.6—59.9 56.4—59.7
3_ . . ._ .
01
L15__
.
5.4—6.9
7,2-4.3 —
‘5 .4—4.7 —
3—6.8
11—15
52.9-55 — -
56.3—50.7
57.9—61.9
63.9—70
58—61.9
2.1-2.9x1.0 5
± EEt
56.5—60.
8 ’
58.1—52.2
‘3 , 1_
64,1—70.3
51.7—60.9
6-2.A t0
58.8—6-4.8
2900-3600
67.8—75.2
.1A1
56.9—60.3
.3Q QZ .JI0JI0_
56.6—60
2.8-5
5 _4 44-4,5 295-4.65
3.6—4.6
3.85.7 2.2-2.8
L4—1.7 1.9-3.1
4.7—6.4
3.2-1.6
1.2—1.5
4.5-6.1
1.1—1.5
S 0
S.6 .-2.2
k _JI W _
4.5-1.6
5,2-7.1
r
37.6—39.5 UT I_Y’ T
.4 42.9-46.6 42-46.4 A1.5 -.6
-------
I (t9 STS - ENERGY (uwITsI o*v)
CONCRETE (CA Too)
STEEL (Tows)
CHEIIICALS (LAS/Day)
1_AltI (ACRES)
LAQOR ( ul vus/y*)
OUTPUTS - BOO (ROIL)
(Lis/Day)
SUSPENDED 504105 ( 3 , 6/1.)
( 1 . 1 5/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MG/ti
(LAS/Day)
N ( I RS/i)
(LAS/DAY)
HEAVY NETALS ( 1.15/DAY)
ATNOSPHERIC (LAS/Day)
SLUDDES-X SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY Hr. (too/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu PT/VP)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TWAFP IC
SAFETY (IN JU RIE s/ l U 6 PiANRRS (
COSTS - CAPITAL (S o 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (S x i0
LAND (5)
RUNNING GRASP TOTAL (5 x 106)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
100 RINUTIZEE ( (/l GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((11000 GAL)
CENTRIFUGE CENTRIFUGE
RECALCINATION INCINERATION
I Z-44 SIrt LA ILL
6.2z10H kwh 18 100 kwh
Q,.in a... i_in a...
Tertiary Treatment with Centrifugation-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 100 MCD
1101110 TD’ATNENT
PSIMAVY
SECON
DARY
Acti—
vated
I TERTI— I LIQUID
ART ) DISPOSAL
IC1arifI —
i: g I
Surf ace
S1t4geISorpLic t Water
I i n , .ie ,-I
—- ‘--
CONDITIONING:
DENIATERIRN:
DISPOSAL;
11,900 900 Th; ow
4000 I a. ,, 1 AR .1l l_
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR THEAT NT STRATEGY 9 AT A FLOR RATE Cf 100 IEID
0(1 IC L SLEDGE
tWTTr OR0N IC SLUDGE TREAT? NT OPTIOUS
T4D0O l2O_
?
..
-
‘_ l S Qsn
I
77
Nat -i_lu,
I-J
51qkWh 14 uu wI,
VACAWI SAND
FILTRATION ONYIRA
INCINERATION LAND
LAIIDF ILL
kwh
2200 fra N.
OCEAN
01191 NE
VACULJ I
FILTRATIONI
LANOP ILL
OCEAN
StOW! N C
22110 beN. 12.600 h 12600 kwh
Li
8- 1x10 4
.-_
—
-
-_
Q2U_
8— 3e10 250
—
-
‘L4DO
D
L
L
.5.600 Q
‘2 _
2.S0- 00f ’
.&g.1 ’
ible
—“---
-_
‘08 .000
25.4 )00
Voten-
ULL
1J_AL
OCIRa :
A
32
L1
‘Ll____
4=4
L .____
7 U.—-.
9. 7—S0.
— r.i sos 27.0001
)_,z 3_ U 9Q.6
12.6
49.7-50.7
7
7.7
20.3
04
7
IL ! C12 -4200
—2,65x10 5
44.8
365
342
373
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
378
300
295
340
960
960
960
1000
1000
1.917—2683
430—560
157—581
117—583
1 (7—SAl
• 1 7—SRI
1317—1880 1317—1880
130—170
41—55
41—55
27—37
137—154
603—2603
2.6—3.6
82—112
3—4
88—120
38.4—49.2
26.7—35.4
31—36
20—60
15.6—18.4 13.6-18.4
25.29
25—28
16—23x10 3
5000—7000_
5000—7004)_
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
5000-7000
5000—7000
5000—7000
( ‘000—10 .QC” ( ‘000 10,001(9000—10 , O ( ’0 ( (000—10 ,0008000—10,000
250—5000
125—3260
125—3260
125—3260
150—3300
150—3300
150—3300 1 15 30Q 150—3300___
Meta1R25 40
80—250—390
S0244_67
ParticuLate
IICI—8—12
440—700
100
100
100
100
25-50
6—8
6—8
20—30
20—30
216.000
9.900
69.900
52.400 —
140.000
140.000 140,000
140.000
140CQQQ .
None
1200-0800
Q _____
100-. 360
None
Above Micra
1.75
80 GAO
None
OTID1l_
Potential
I02 0_ 00rJ..2Off —
Potential _Potenti P 80 Cj 8
-L
3.5 . P3_ .i.o . . .4. — .1
I
7
5.4
1.71
1.3
3.5
41
7.4—10.1
.4—4_i
—6.8
J—1 .S__
4.4—5.2 —
5.1—6.9
14.7—19.9
- . -
57.1—60.8
60.5—65.3
62.1—67.6
68.1—75.8
61.5—66
62.2—67.7
71.6—80.7
—
60.8—65.7 60.6—65.5
1;3—1.7z10 5 41,000—55.00
41.000—55.00
27,000-31.0
Ij 65’’ 54
.A_2.6x106
2600—3600
.82—1.] .x]M 5 3000—4000
57.2—61
60.6—65,9
62.2—67.9
68.2—76
61.7—66.4
62.9—70.5
71.9—80.9
61—66 9 60.7—65.7
5.6—9.4
.!u _,9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1.
3.8—5.7
2.2—2.8
.54—73
3.2—5.3 2.8—5.0
2.4—3.3
8—12.7
1.1—1.3
3.5—8.4
1.6—2.2
3.6—4.8
1.4—1.7
1.8—3.1
4.7—6.4
1.2—1.6 1.1—1.5
4.6—6.9
7.2—9.9
4.5—5.8
4.0—5.9
5.2—7.1
4.4—6.9 3.9—6.5
.4
1(31334
46.6—54.5 .1 45.7—53
48.3—56
45.6—41.9
15.1—c,
46.3—53.2
45.5—53 I
-------
I UTS — E,IusY (Lullis/MY>
CONCRETE (Cu YDS)
STEAL (10 ( 1 5>
C1U4 1C611 (usfDAv)
L (Ac*ss)
LAION (iu. v s/v )
OUTPUTS - pso (s s/t.)
(133/DAY)
SUSPEIGIED SOLIDS (Ms/I)
(L u/DAY)
NUTEICETS: P (Y iS/L)
( 1 35/DAY)
N (I .SIL)
(us/DAY)
NEAYY METALS (us/DAY)
ATMOSPHERIC ( 1.85/DAY)
SLUDGESZ soiius
TOTAL DRY WI. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu pilyp)
NOISUSCE - ODOR
NO I SE
T#A PF (C
SAFETY (INJI.MIES/10 6 MAJIHRS)
( . 3616 - CAPITAL (S x j 56)
PUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL(S x i06
LAAD (0)
PUNNING GREND TOTAL (8 x 1063
OPERATING (((1118 GAL)
102 N 3TIZRQ ((/111 ) 0 PAL)
TOTAL OPERATING (0/1002 sut.)
PUNNING TOTAL ‘0/102C GAL)
Tertiary Treatment with Filtration-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
Ll11iIfl T A11cJ(T
PRIMMY
SECON
DAIRY
ActS—
sated
Slud >e
TERTI
Cf T f
EAtInG
CarbAc
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Surf
ace
iWaEerjJ
U
CONDITIO NING:
PEWATERING:
DISPOSAL:
GU 1 UW
Pith
A.L5X Y000 I EONS
PROCESS PIWF!LE SHEET FOR TREAT1(1)I STRATEGS 9 9 AT A FLOW RATE 1°00 PROS
114EROCAL SLUDGE
__________ - -- ORGMIC SLUDGE TROATRENT OWTI
VACUIJN
FILTRATION
VACUQU
II lILY (ON
CENTRI FUSE
VACLRII 0USD
FIlTRATION DRYING
1 8z1IP kwh 1 Sal( (’ kwh 1 Sai lS? kwh
in .,in9 a... i3,.11 59 a... A7 IflW R Io
I —. ’
INCINERATION
LAi ILL
‘‘‘
I
.A8 a
b (
SPREADING
0CEAII
SIJ ING
LANEPIU.
OFEUG
DORIING
VACUIJI (ACtUAl
PU 22 .000’kw 22.000 kwl 1.3O s- 1.3 .I10 k
Inc ruin
ins nAn inc non
a
as
‘
QQ
P
‘ 1 IQO
19.300
5400
17 400
i
18 500
1270 1
—
—
3Q__
v—
L Q___
130
10—30
1
°
-
—
- --
—_
6.4x10 0
8—lab
3500
1.4.3
10
1.
U4 4-
32
25
5—1
2.56x10
2.1a1O
4200—8-
— o-
0
5
1
1—5
kO8zi8
25x
L
F E
Contro
LZ8z _
led
69
117
143—15-0
238
1.3
117
260—267
499-506
190000
90.000
117
2 7
-
.5
3.7
4.6—4.8
7.7
.04
57
5.6-5.8
20.3
.
84.000 C1 —42
.011Cc 88,
394 10
>0
71 0 0—29 ( W )
I R A A S
410—5543
p780
4500—5500
410—550
wo
1170—5.830
270-370
.000 9600
1170—5830
1330—1 spa 27.000
9600
1170—5830
26—36
1Q.PQ ‘10.000
1 iZX ’
820—1120 30—40
510—8.30
384—492
267-354
310—360
300—600
J1A
131 jlL_.
250-290
250—280
8—11.5z10 4
s-i io
5—7 i0
5—7 aID 4
5— laiD 4
5—7x10 4
5—7 10
5-7a10
5—7.iO
.8—1xiO
.8—lai D 5
.8—lai D 5
.8—lab 5
.8 —ixiOS
Snn—cpnon
.13—3.3a10 4
J 3JzjQ ..
i3—3.3al0 4
15—3,3x10
i5—3.3a10
—_3. 3.a1&
iTLlaJQ
M ete ls2SO —4
N0 2500—39I
I SO 440—6 0 NCj—80—12
Particub, r8T lQQU’
100 ___
—
- _
-—-- . ——
——-——--
—---——- —-
2 i x3 0
J 3
100
100
25-50
6-8
60
-3 -
1.67, ,106
199.000
524000 —
1.4x10 6
l.4a10
4 JJ
12—(8 iQ
3000—3600
800—3800
0003800
800—3800
6-12a1fl _ 1 -12a10 3
None
91
41
None
17_S
None
None
Potrotlo
.pnr.or4 1
plOU _
) 1P01i8L
- - ---.-.- ---
J .5 - __
Po 6. j_
- -
--
17.5
111........
36
15
—
52—69
34—47
50—68
‘10—150
44—52
7.1—9.7
16.1—21.8
55 4i
551—573
585—622
601—643
661—725
595—627
558—585
567—597 587—623 586—622
2-1.lxlO
2.t—2.9x10 6
4.i—5.5x10
4.l—5.5x10 5
2.7—3.7x10 5
( 1 .54
553—578
587—670
603—647
663—728 — 598—E32
566—61
569—600
590—627
588—625
4—6.8
4.4—6.9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1
1.7—2.4
.22—.3
3.2—5.3
2.8—5.0
1,7—2.3
1.1—1.5 -
1.6—2.2
3.6—4.8
1.3-1.7
.4—1.2 .32—.7
1.2—1.6 1.1-1.5
5.7—9.1
1.5—8.4
4.6—6.9
7,2—9.9
4.6—5,8
2.1—3.6
4.4—6.9 3.9—6.5
5. 7
1U_ iiL 32A-32. L
37.8—42.4
41J2L
42.4-48.3
45riL3_
4L6-47.2 I
39.9—49.2! 38.5—42.4
42.2—48.3
41.7—47.9
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT? 8T STRATEGY 9 AT A FLOW RATE OF . 2000 ?4 ( ID
INPUTS - ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (CU YDS)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (LBS/DAY)
LAND (ACRES)
LABOR (MAN SUShI)
OUTPUTS - BUD (NH/LI
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MS/L)
(I_ RU/DAY)
NUTRIENTS P (NG/L)
(LBS/BAY)
N (no/i.)
(LBS/DAY)
NDAVY METNLS (LBS/DAY)
U IC (LOS/DAY)
SLUBESO SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY WT. (LBS/DAY)
SOLID HASTE (CU FT/vp)
NUISANCU ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJuRIES/10 6 MAN ’ ”- I
COSTS - CAPITAL (8 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (8 x 100
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (S o 1061
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
102 RASUTITUD ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ( (/1000 SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 o . i.)
, ! i8;
I
C l -42,
4,000 C 2 —2
LUQQ:L1L SEL
Tertiary Treatment with Filtration-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
I 1 (0110
COE GAL SLUDGE
OPTION
—
PRIMARY
—
SECON I TERTI- LIQUID 1
DRAY ANY J DISPOSAL
C1arif —
ActS— cation Surface
vated Water
ONIT OPERATION F
10
THICKENING: I GRAVITY
CONDITIOHING
DEWATERING VACUUM
40 000 1.1.9. 9000 TI rms
in) I. . ..k I ,.U..lit b.a_
L _
10
19, 300
4 O .1 1270
\
r0inr LUAU i .A
I ‘‘“ ‘ CENTRIFUGE
590 80
1 .8,ilQS kwh
0 4Q’
0670
ORGANIC_SLUDGE TREAfl NT OPTI00S
3 4
FIJ1TAI’TI*J 11 A2]
fONIEONL . . . ._ DIHESTII
VACIJON SAND
I-I
I ’ ,
(.&)
i. s . 5 wi
8
INCINERATION
LANDFILL
INCINERATION
LANIIE ILL
LANDFILl.
LAND
SPREADING
OCEAN
L6NDFI L
OCEAN
,, win I.- . .. ,,nnn i... , nnn,... i t..inS
VACUUM VACUUM
106 0 (A ) lOS (100 inc ann
l.3c10 5 kw
ins non ins non
280
410
570
4xJ3 .8 3x10
3O. ___ 10-30
6.4x1O .8—3x10
Ii)_ 1 fl
L _
3O0___
O
84,000
-—
12
25
.5—1
T .56x1O
2jx10 5
4200—BY
0
2500—
3Ü.. 00I
2500—
50 ( Inn
-
1_I-S
. 2OAG0
.JJA!(
r
-- ---
0a Q
ed
69
117
143—150
338
1.3
6-267
499
0-267
00 000
499-506
.7
4.6—4.8
7.7
.04
57
5.6—5.8
203
.5
— ‘ --———
2B___
.
.410—550
I7R ( I
4500—5500
6J .Q S50
3 I 3 GA
1170—5830
21U .32Q_...__
96 (R)
1170—5830
1370—1540
9600
8
27.000
9600
1170—5B 40
26—36
10 000
I 8_
820—1120
‘.0.000
+ : l 8
10—40
. —129O
384—492
2 0j—354
310—360
200—600
132—178
.31-1.7 . ._ .
250—290
250—280
t —----——--—
-___
—
5—7 x10 4
5—7 x10’
5-7x10 4
-J 21 ,] ,Q
5-7ic1O
5-7x10”
1S T 6 __
25QO 5Q , .Q0Q....
.8—1x10 5
.8—15
.ri xiO
.8—ix105
.15—3.3x10
.8-1.1.05
.15—3.3x10 4
.13—3.3x10
.13—3.3x10
.13—3.3x10 4
15—3.3x10 4
15—3.3x10 4
.lS—S.3x10
— —.._.
.J2
I4eta1s 250—4
I S0244O 6
Perticula
I UCJ. Q—J . .
es4400—700 0
—
_ 0
Jj )fl _
lOll
i
6-8
20-30
— -
4911 AnAl
12—l8 .S0
699.00Q
3000—3600
—
.. ,90UL..
800—3000
/ 10
.000-j800..
1.4o106
800—3800
i.4x10 6
9—J.2x10.i.
OU 15Cj 1.
L4x10. . . . . . ..
s.— 1 z 2 u.o. ...j
Pt!
None
,
None
oop
NOne
EQC 535C ’
.EsLEAOLEIA.1
1IonG.
Above AveraB
-
4..
103—139
. 1 1 .5
i1 5________
11.1
3 .5
15
— ——
—. -- -—
. . . . .
35—47 —
7 — gz
:ooo
. l8ñ02a..... .. .
33 . —-
34—47
50—68
110—150
44—52
7.1—9.7
16.1—21.8
36—48
. Q641.
1.3_1.75x106
.&0fr6 L .
4.
652-713
._.&..1::.1. ..2c2J2_:
722—795 ... 4669Z . .
2 ,7- -3.7a10 5 jp6
609—655
6—71.1 6
603—647
637—695
653—716
713—797
648—701
616—604
. .6J,.9 tth9
.4Q 68.6....
5.1—11.7
3.4—4.5
4.4—6.9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1
1.7—2.4
.22—.3
3 —5,3
i.i — 1 . ,. .J
3.9—6.5
1.1—1.5
1.6—2.2
3.6—4.8
1.5—1.7
.4—1.2
.52—.?
1.2—1.6
6.5—16.2
5.5—0.4
4.6—6.9
7.2—9.9
4.6—5.0
2.1—3.6
.7—1.0
4.4—6.9
1L3— 31.6—
5.7 II S 3CR 32.1—32.
46 1—96.9 45. 2—55.4
47.8—58.4 is s_si i
41.. O t ..Q 6
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SPEET FOR TRAAT (€NT STRATEGY 9 AT A FLOW RATE (If 1000 MGI )
Tertiary Treatment with Centrirugation-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge — 1000 MGD
I millS — Wfl ,CUT
PRIMARY
SE CON
DRAY
Acti-
vated
Sludge
lERTI— LIQUID I
APT DISPOSAL I
Clarif4— I
cation I Surface
arbou
Water
40,000 1.19x 9000 Ttjpraa
fr ,I . inS b. . I I.N..lllb b.h
Ci4EnI CAL SLUDGE
11
CENTRIFUGE
CONDITIONING
DEWATERING;
DISPOSALI
61,600 166.000 160,00 ) 19,300
5400 11,400
I ’
m .ob muer z .
18,500 )270 Ij
I
CENCRI FUGE
INCINERATION
LAt FIL
i /ItINERATION
IANTUII
INCINERATION )
i*WflPT!i
INCINERATION
isanrmii
LANDFILL
C1 2 —42,
V AC U UR
I-J
ORGANIC_SLUDUE TRE8TI 9T OPTIONS
DIUC ST1
SAND
_______ _______ 22 (1(115 , 1.3x10 kvti 1.3xiO km
110— c n
3100
3i2CL________
340&______.
1561)
1 flS ( 1150
Jfl1 .000_
th .5 ..OOft ._..
.IflQ_
l&500__
/ . 5 0 /I.. 5500
iJt U AN
2780
950 11
9(,00
Al fl . ccfl
VACUUM VACUUM
F1 ).TRATION FILTRATION
Ji7O-5 3
C AN
LANDFILL I IIUt IPING
9600
INPUTS - ENERGY (UNITs/DAY)
CONCRETE (CU yos(
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (us/DAY)
LAND (ACRES)
LABOR (HAN YRS/YR)
OUTPUTS - ROD (MG/C)
(us/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (hAIL)
(us/DAY)
NUTRIENT); P (IRa/C)
(LAS/DAY)
N (IRS/I)
(LBS/DAY)
REAYY METALS (LBS/DAY)
ATNOSPAERIC (usfnAV)
SLUDGES—Z EDLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (us/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU FT/CR)
NUISANCE — ODOR
NOISE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (IN.juRmEsf)0 6 MAN—AR))
COSTS - CAPITAL (I A 106)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL It a
LAND (8)
RUNNING (RAGS TOTAL (S io6
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
102 ANDRTI050 ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL UPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TDTU (C/lOUD GAL)
cAvi l—
la -ln_,U,.n ,, Ann
1170—5830 1170-5830 L12fl—5830
10.0 ( 10
ASS—il Sn
‘fl—An
—,
LLUt_I.
—_
280
410
570
130
.0—30
1
‘.. O4x10
8—3a10
‘I4ØQ
—
-
J—_
f.4x10 5
8 —3x10
2500
—
a—
i 4ppp
94000
Q _
32
75
.5—1
2.56x1I)
2.1x10
4200—8
0
.
2000—
.5.0 ,.00
2500—
5nfl /m
5
1
1— 5
l.08x10
l 5X (I
4 . 5 4x1
-
1.?8x1
6
EAUT-
.._..tjal.
E-
......c.iai.
l -
417
._ ...._____
143-150 238 1.3
260—267 498—50 499—50o
l9O.0OO R2 .0 3 -— Ii
117
260—267 45 — .
.
2
1.0 12.4
3.7
5.7
4.6—4.8!7.2 .04
— 0 -
5.6—3.420.3 I .5
I I IU I U A
PiZ0.. .
-
384—492
-.
6E354.__
2/0—370
310—360
..
200—600
132—178
131—IlL...
S (rZOQ...__..
ZS0=28 (L.......
8—11 .5x10 4 j ... . . 5—3 x1O 5—7 x10 4 .j—7x10 4 5—7xl0 . 5—7x10 4 5—7x1O 4
I . 8-1x105 81io 9 -j j 5
2500—50,000 .13—3.3x10 4 . —3.3xl0
MetajB 250-4 SO 2 440—6 ( Id 80 124 I
390 Particu1a 4400-7a00 —L
100 100 100 .4 10 (7 25.50468 - L ! L 3 9. .20.—.3fl_ -
3.63x10 6 69/I 0(01 699 0O . . 524.000 1 .4 106 1. . ip 6 1.45106
L2J6iJP 35DO 3c Q5 _ 310ZL2310_ 00O .1aS0. - - .___9-I.e SflL45- 12 3 1 10 3._
None J Noa .. Noon .Eote UQ R0R
1R01 11&L4PQtefl Cia1_
-
AUOYA Avera8 — ._.... - - . - . . —
17.5 3 55 — .. ._ J - . —. 1 -—
32-43 34-47 50-68 ‘S°t 4 6 7.1-9.7
531—549 565—596 581—617 641—699 I 570—601 J538_559 547—571 567—597 I 566—596
2.l 2.9x1Q 4.1—5.5x10 5 4J—5.5 5 10 5 ‘ R .82_Li,d 8 . 88 -
533—552 567—600 583—621 643—702 576—606 346—589 5L9_547 570—601 j 568—599
3.4—4.6 -— 4.4—6.9 2.95—4.65 3.6—5.1 3.1—4.1 1.7—2.4 .22—. ) 3.2—5.3 2.A—5.O
1.1-1.5 1.1—1.5 41.6_2.2 — 3.6—4.8 1.5-1.7 .4-1.2 .52-.7 1.2-1.6 1.1-1.3
4.5—6.3 5.5—6.4 I 4.6—6.9 7.2—9.9 4.6—5.8 2.1—3.4 .7—1.0) 4.4—6.9 3.9—6.5
5.7
11.2— 2.1.0—
11.5 31.6 32.1—32.)
56.6— IR.4
41.2—45.3
43.8—48,3
41.2—44.2
38.7—42
137.3— SQ.1. 41—45.3
40.5—40.9
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR T AT €NT STRATEGY 8 9 AT A FLOW RATE OF 1000 MCD
Tertiary Treatment with Centrifugation-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
I 14(1)0 1 ’R ’ATWNT
PRIMARy
SECOI - 1 TERTI-
SWAY I / .RY
I C açif
CCtN Icatnon
vated Carbon
Sorot I
SimSee 7 nT)Y
LIQUID
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
qu,vUu
k ..h --
CORD 1110 1 11 1 1 6
DENIATERING:
DISPOSAL:
CHEJ ICk SLUDGE
1PTF (
12
ANAVIfl
CENTRIFUGE I E l UN
s.40x iT ”jV I EN1S
.0? 1--’-
CENTRIFUGE
ORG 871)0 SLU060 TREATVE FIT OPTIOHS
I
1.8x1 ’ kvto 1.3x1 ’ IGWA
L iU-
lilt I NERD I ION
I ’ . )
U.S
LANDFILL
2 -
1300—1700
VACUUM
F1L 7 AAIIO.
SANS
DRYINS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
LAND
3700 1WA A S un m on QUITO 9600
880—1200
- 410—550
4500—5500
IRA_UQO
LANOF ILL
II tJTS - €NSWCY (uNITS/DAY)
C01ICRETE (cu ODD)
STEEL (ToNs)
CHEMICALS (l . sIoAY)
LAND (AcRES)
LASOR (iw. ONES/TN>
80TPIJTS - oo (MAIL)
(LAS/Day)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
(LAS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MAlL)
(LAD/DAY)
N (MAIL)
(LAS/DAY)
ICAVY METALS (LAS/say)
AC (LOS/DAY)
SLUDGES% SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY AT. (LAS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/ON)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NO! SE
SNUFF C
SAFETY MJOAICS/10 6 RAN—Yes)
COSTS - CAPITAL (0 U 1061
RUNNING TOTAL CAP :l*L(8 x 1o 11.7
LARD (8)
RUNNING GRAND rOYRL fL ._ 5-7 xlO’ 1
5—7 , .iO’
3-7i 10’
5—7x10 4
5—7x]O
5—7x10 4
5—7x10 4
2S00—5O.O0
.13—3.3x10 4
.13—3.3 10
.81
.i . 2t3x10 4
..&J. 1O 5
15—3.3x )Q
1ss10 L.
i .s—
.._.J=1x10 5
i ixiü .
Metaia—250 —4
‘I0 —2500—39G
) S0 2 —440—67
Pp ticu1pt
HC1 ’40—120
M40fl7000.
—_. . ——
———--——
Q 5 —
-- -—- —-
20 30_ .
100
lDfl__
10)1
100
.! _ ._
2.16x10 6
69 0O__
90
524.000 —
1.4x3 .0 6
. .Lfux2.O __.
.L4xJJ3 ._.
L_10 __.
) 7 1O
5 QQPQ_.
800-3800
. Q JIOQ
B U ..3 QU._
5-i2 . 0 4I-LzS1Q 3 ._ _
- - -_.- —
- — —
——--— -
__ ,____
None .
None —
Potent Sa l
YQIAD.Ij.U1.
9uue_
—
. 0Y6AVOCAJ
54
41
S75_
17S
IT. 15
s______
.3 —
74—103
573—607
l.l—1,7x10
34—47 __
607—654 - 623—675
4 1—5.5a10 4.1—5.5a10 5
110—150 /4—52 —
- 683—757 617—659
2 .7—3. 7 c10 xjo
7.1—9.7
580—617
6—27e10 6
16.1—21.8 36—48 347 ._
.4 ff— 4 --
36 .82—l.lxlO
590—631 611—658 609—656
574—609 608—657
624—678
684—759
619—663
587—646
5.6—9.4
4.4—6.9
2.95—4.65
3.6—5.1
3.1—4.1
1.7—2.4
j__ I ..ZT.S.1__. .__
2 4—3.3
1.1—1.5 —
1 6—2 2
3.6—4.8
1.5—1.7
.4—1.2
.52—.7
L.2TL.&
IJ.,’.L3
Ri: :r
32.1—32.
8.0—12.7
40.1—45
45.6—53.4
/. 4_A A
44-7—Si N i7 1—S/. 9
44.7—50.8
4.6—5.8 2.1—3.6 7—10 4.4—5.9 3.9—6.5
44A-51R SUN_CA
lit S_ST 0 ‘1,/Si S
-------
PROCESS PROFiLE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 10
Physical —Chemical Treatment
MUN C1PAL
W STEb ATER
-------
psoass P IFILE SI(U FOR TPfATPUST STMTE Y 10 AT A Ftmd RATE ( 10 MCD
I tJTS £NCNAY (INIITS/MY )
COSc ETE (Cu oDD)
nui. (TOSs)
CI*,,ICALS (LasfoAv)
L* (AcRes)
LANOR (u N oDD/si)
OUTPUTS - p (use/i.)
(IRS/DAY)
$UIP 5OSRD 801 15$ (i fL)
(ui/ouv)
NUTNIINTS: P (I%JL)
(Las. Y)
8
I AV’Y METALS (us/MY)
ATNOSPHER(C (us/DAY)
SUJDGES4 SOLIDS
TOTAL SRI WI, (Iso/DAY)
SOLID WM$TE (Cu FT/si)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IIs .JURIED/10 6 ,IAN-ISJIS)
COSTS — CAPITAL. (8 0 106)
SUNNINR TOTAl. CAPITAL (8 x 106
LOAD (6)
RSWIING NAN TOTAL (8
OPERATING (6/1ORO sAL)
108 seeiizio ( (I10 e*i.)
TOTAL ODERATING (4/OOOR SAl,.)
RUIPILNG TOTAL ((/1000 cui.)
64
90
32—4 5
9.9—13.5
ucn_1 2ni
11T N TlOS
ThICKEN INN;
CsemITION!NS
bERATeD INS
DISPOSAL:
I ____
/ \ ffi 1.3
11 S 21 0
42 2 49 7
40—830
100
54.960
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Filtration-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
I tOSID T A1WIT
PRIMMY
None
DECOR—
DAD!
osgule
tion
iltTa
tion
TERTI
MV
Carboo
Sorptio
110USD
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
O 8IC SLULIGE
cAROL ..
VACUSP
.IIT..TI V11flA71 1
4 50/ lOAD
,oi ,dO Rt,,
tENTh PUKE
ORGANIC SLUIGE 1 EAJ7 KT OPTING
3 9
POSTVOIS OISANTIN :x
VACUtP 5*0 1 5
flIYPATrrS
INEINRATION
tArSus
INEINCRATION
rUStLE
INCINERATIOR
LA I II LFILL
t.uuscnu.
( .AJ lD
IflflfliNC
I
w. .,.w. LANDFILL
I-’
=
2, j_
41
224
80
2.7
—
—
-
—_
—
&____
4788
E72
—
—
5 u__
—
1.5
.13
—
-
U—_
a—
7L
-
‘2 &
—
—
u _
YACUIJI
FILTRATI O S
OCEAN
I l l S
4
6 5 , . 70 /)
4—
1
non
flI)
NO
A P P I
V
.6
.L___
AJ.__
.043
L
4.1
—
j
,
1000
4.1
L2
L
.9
6.4
6.8
.1
-
-
-
—
14.1
27.7
28.7
None
1-
1
•
1.6
-- -
28.5
2.6—3.5
r_______
—--———--.-—
—- ------——
6.7—7.6
—
32 —. 43 ,c l Oj
6.7—7.6
5.1—9.7 —
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREAT)LNT STRATEGY P in AT A FLOW RATE S o ‘ASE
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITs/sAT)
CONCRETE (cu vns)
STEEL (ToNs)
CMSIPICALS (as/DAT)
LAJIS (ACRES)
LAbOR (sui YRS/VA)
OUTPUTS - ROD (IRA/I.)
(as/SAY)
SASPERSES SOLIDS (ME/I.)
(as/SAP)
NUTRIENTS: P (ME/I.)
(as/SAT)
N (iRs/s.)
(as/SAY)
HEAVY PETALS (as/SAY)
ATMOSPHERIC (as/SAY)
SLASEESZ SSLISS
TOTAL. bOY NT. (as/s*y)
SOLID HASTE (cs FT/TM)
RAISANCE - SODA
ROl SE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY CIIUANIEG/10 6 MAMNAS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (S o 1O )
RARRIRA TOTAL CAPITAL (S
LAAS (I)
RARRIAS ARAAS TYTAL (S o 1O (
SPERATIRG C(/1 GEL)
102 AMORTIZES (u1000 SAL)
TOTAL SPERATIRS “/_‘% sa.)
RURRIRS TOTAL ((/1000 SAL)
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Filtration-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
I -I
tJ
OD
-------
PROCESS PROFILE S lEET FOP T*AflEPIT STRATEGY I 10 AT A FL M It 1 LI) C
1* 1 113 — ENlIST (w i lTs/DAT)
CONCRETE ( c u YDS)
STEEL (TONS)
CIRRICALO (iso/ Sn)
LAND (SOns)
LANON (JUN Tn/TN)
OUTPUTS - w ( is/ i)
(us/SAT)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
(us/s AT)
NUTRIENTS: P (RAIL)
( i so/SAT)
(I (RA/L)
(iso/SAT)
tt*vy I€TAI..O (iso/DAT)
ATMOSP#ERIC (iso/SAT)
SLUOSEO I ODLISS
TOTAL DRY NT. (Iso/OAT)
DOLlS WAOTE (cu FT/TN)
NOISANCE - ODOR
Aol 01
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (:NJoRlEo/10 6 IRAI4HNO(
COSTS CAPITAL (1 o 10 )
RONRINA TOTAL CAPITAL (S
LAI IS (5)
RUNNING AMMO TOTAL (1 0 )36)
OPERATINA (( /10(1 .) SAL)
10% AICRTI200 ((/1000 SAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/10(1) SAL)
RONNIRO TOTAL ((/1000 GAL(
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Centrifugation-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
I- a
E s - )
¼0
-------
)‘ROCILSS PROFILE SWEET FOR TREATR NT STRATEGY _10 AT A FLOW RATE OF 10 MOD
I 0TS - ENERGY (URIITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu YDS)
STEEL (TOM)
CHEMICALS (LNS/DAY)
lAND (AcRES)
LANOR (Has IRS/Va)
OUTPRTS - NOD (MAIL)
(Us/DAY)
SUSPATW€D SOLIDS (MAIL)
(155/DAY)
NUTS IENTS: P (sOIL)
( I . sD/DAY)
N (RAIL)
(Us/DAY)
ASAHI RATI&S (L5s/SM (
AT SPH€RIC Ujo/oav(
SUJDGES—Z SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (US/DMS
SOLID WASTE (Cu u/VA)
RUIGAPICE -
NO IS O
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (INJURIES/il 6 MS-Has)
COSTS - CAPITAL (8 x
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL(0 u 1U
LAND (8)
RUNNING GRAND POTAL (8 x 1l )
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
100 .MARTIZED ((/1 (0) GAL)
TOTAl OPERATING ((flow GAL)
RUNNING POTOL ((/1000 GAL)
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Centrifugation—
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 10 MGD
,,nhiTn 1ncsT tr
PRIMARY
None
SECON
DART
O agu ia—
tion
il ra—
TENTI
ANY
Carbon
orptio
LIQUID
EISPOSAL
SGrfRce
Water
5’ 100
k .h
CIIE1 ICAL SLUIJ6E
12
GRAVITY
CENTRI FOOD
TMI CUENIN A
CONDITIONING
DAWATER 1MG I
DISPOSAL
u Inc IN
(.200 I .
lQ 4 Avis
URRAOO Stu
ORGANIC SLUDGE TO€ATP NT OPTIONS
99
LM IDFILL._ --
(UJ
VACUON
5 YNO Y ON
CENTRIFODE
VACULIA
FILTRATION
SAND
RY1NG
VACUON
FILTRATION
YACUIJI
FILTRATION
LANUF ILL
20-7 5
LAND OCEAN
83
LATIOF ILL
01 A AN
2.’— . S,
1700—2400
j __
-
—
—
—
224
SO
27
FDI _
2rt1
l=bOUV
2
B
T
4 _
—
—
—_
— -_
—
2_
—
—_
—
u____
—
30
27
- - - p-_I
MI
1tb1b
4
148 OOO
6380
o nC roll
EEEE! 1H
‘1 4.1
2
2
4.1
4.1 I
-: II /
x
40-830
100
40 • 300
NV
APP
LY
—
I 14.1 27.7 28.7
V
-
-- -
-__
--- -----
H- I——
—
-
— -
28.5
L
6.4—7.3
-
H
r
23—32x10
6.4 _7•3
QY—TAG
7 1O4
I
17—27
45.7—55.7
-------
at P FILE SlEET PC I TlEATPINT SIMTEG! ) M AT A FUN RATE 100 MC! )
Z UTS - E*R6T (laIrs/raT)
CONCRETE (cu 005)
STEEL (TONS)
cIIDIIcALS (Us/ray)
LAND ( ScAn)
LASON ( n A N W as/n)
OUTPUTS - (ius/t)
(L uflIAy)
SUSPE D SOI.IDS (n i/U)
(as/ray)
NUTRIENTS; P (nA/U)
(as/DAY)
N ( nE IL)
(as / DUT)
HEAST WETAUS ( us/DAT)
ATPOSPIIENIC (US/DA y)
SLSOEES—2 SOLIDS
TOTAL OAT NT. (Lbs/OAT)
SOU l ! WASTE (a pt/n)
NU ISANCE - OD O R
NOl SE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (INJI*IES/10 6 MANHSS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (0 x 10 )
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (U
LARD (U)
RUNNING SNAIC TOTAL (S *
OPERATING (C/lUtE SAL)
102 MORTISE! )(/((fd) SAL)
TOTAL OPENATEINI ((/13% GAL)
NUNNING TOTAL ( (/l( SAL)
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Filtration-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
I-J
C o
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR WA1WRT STRATEGY # 1 -0 AT A ftOU RATE UP 11111 C
INPUTS - CHERRY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu YES)
STEEL (TONS)
CHENICALS (IJS/DAY)
LANG (AcRES)
LABOR (M M YRS/YN)
OUTPUTS - ROD (SNAIL)
( 1 15/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
(LAS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (BOIL)
(US/DAY)
H ( N O/ t i
(Us/DRY)
HEAVY S CALA (us/DAY)
ATINASPNENIC (US/DAY)
SLUDAES% SOLIDS
TOTA l DRY AT , (US/DAY)
SOLID NASTE (Cs FT/YE)
NOISANCE — ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (INJURIES/10 6
COSTS — CAPITAL (U S 1U )
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (U s
LAND (U)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (U o
OPERATING ((/1Cm SAL)
102 NBOTIZ&O ((/JIYJO SAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/10))) SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 sAL)
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Filtration-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge — 100 MGD
H
(A)
N J
-------
PROCESS PR0F LL SOEET FOR TREAT NT STRATEGY? 10 — AT A aow ROTE OF mo w n
Physical—Chemical Treatment with Centrifugation-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
HE COL SLUDGE
11 J
CENTRIFUGE J
i
VACULI
FI TAUT ION
2120
140
.G Cl 2 .
\
INCINERATIUI INCINERATION
LN,Z T Wh LANDFILL
7 SwiflY NYu
OROA8IC SLUDGE T ATPVff OPTICUIS
CENTRIFUGE
VACUIIA
8300
710
e IO
•.flYfl2.
27
19
57
65
54.600
1.5
-
I &)
LANDFILL
4800
490
iwe
AS SG
3
29
8
6720
5880
.13
-
—
U I_t n,
LANDFILL j DIRiPINO
i
i1i
-4.
3 1 0—430
$L . ._
I
+
INPUTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (Cu CDI)
STEEL (Tows)
CREMICALS )I .as/DAv)
LAND (ACRES)
LAJOM (MAN YRSJYR)
OUTPTS - oo ( N EIL)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
(LBS/DAY)
NUTMIENTS P (MAIL)
(US/DAY)
? (MU/L)
(Us/DAY)
AEAVY METALS (LBS/DAY)
ATMOOPRERIC (ISS/DAU)
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY R I. ( Ss/oA1)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/OR)
NUISANCE — ODOR
NOISE
TAMP IC
SAFETY )INJuRIISCO 6 MAN-GUS)
COSTS CAPITAL (5 x J )6)
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL )S U
LARI CS)
RUNNING GRAND TOTAL (0 x 1O )
OBERAYINC (0/1300 GAL)
JOT AANDTIUDD ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPCEATING ((/1000 SAL)
RUNNING DorM ((/1000 GAL)
CA T __
PRIMARY DACON- TERII THIC%ENINA
Nooc CORgRA CArbOn SGIrfAYR COND I
lAtIoNS orptio Sjwter D€WATERII .
iltr.ti n DISPOSALI
O00 ?2° -
_ 1
4 _ _ 1
I 4.
_ ooof
_____ 4
8500—12.000
—— - -
1
-
-I
-
4 4 -—
40 8 300
—4—— -
‘ OLPO°
—
flfl E C
100
GIG GOT
Cole
—_— -4 ‘RI
NOT
-— —- . f -— --—,
—
- ——
13.7
‘ I
,_A C
0)1 0—52 (4
p.)
,.2—4.24x10 5
1.4
.04
:0. A— 23.0
—5.4
ii m iihL
--- —- - - -—
- — --—--—- - -—-,
5. 1—27.1
. 1—U_ i
1
-------
IPPUTS - E NAY (usiItD/DAv)
c iceEfl (cv YOU)
ATIEL (Toss)
C ICALD (LID/DAY)
ijim (vceEs)
L509 (l is a Tao/Ye)
O(flPUTS - ass (TaIL)
(L u/DA T)
SUSPEssID SOLIDS ( 1 19/ I)
(USI’Dav)
SSTIIEeTS P (ss/.)
(Las/DAY)
N ( s o s/ i .)
(Las/SAY)
I AVY 19T*L.S (us/DAY)
AT,osS.ESRIC (us/DAY)
sumiss-! SO4.IDS
TOTAL SOY AT. (ui/SAY)
SOLID WASTE (Cu FT/TN)
NUISANCE -
NOl SE
T NA FFIC
S .A FY TY (ie_osics/1 sue—sas)
COSTS CAPITAl. (S i 1O )
5u119 TOTAL CAPITAL (S 10
LMSD (5)
N IJSA AIAUS TOTAL (S x 108)
OPESATINU (C/1X SAL)
101 Ti ((I1
TOTAL SPUAT (NA ( (/1 ssi)
5(54 TOTAL )efl)U) SAL)
Physical—Chemical Treatment with Centrifugation—
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 100 MGD
I 1 1 5 1 (0 1 AINSNT
PNIM**Y
Non.
SECCS
TDATI—
1.19USD
DMY
TaT
DISPOSAL
Coagos—
Carbon
Surface
litton
orptto
Wat.r
iltrati
ft
PROCESS PROFILE S ( E1 FOR T A1WNT STRATEGYR 10 AT A FL RATE I 100 1W
CIIEIIICM SLUDGE
IWTIII ORGRNtC SLUDGE T AT ) NT OPT) ORS
26 000 900 Tb .
I L LIST .1.
CENTS (FUSE
CENTNIFUSO FIltRATtlos
1.1 510-. 4wh
5Q, 13A N Y,,
04
VACUIJI 51110
57(1
I UCI IIENATION
LMADFI LL
230—320
Q___
4 . ._
2120
‘
:
C12
—
u—
-_
si
a
-
U.M
82 _
i__
-_
—
L
3 _
—
—
-
u _
un
—
n—_
- _
& -1_
LAND 04(11 1
D IIIPIDA
VACUIJI VACULNI
LANDFILL OCEAN
DI I I? [ NA
IT EIA14
TM IC NiNi I
C o l 1 0ITloI IINA I
DESATEN INS I
DISPOSAL I
it
L________-_
L4R 1O
AT 51A1
3.3
1(1.7
13.8
10 2
.13
24
24.1
27.000
3000
10.2
7 flflfl-2A• IHmfl
DOES
400—8300
NT
100
A P
I
__
1
j.
403.000
j
10
10.1-13.7
.2-3?.8
2.3—3.2 s10 5
34.4—39.1
J.Q L—1Z-3
3.3—6.5
13,5—21.8
I -
.. ..
24
t I
I I
____
___
.04
t_. ___
9_8__
.1
IN_ 3
19.0 I
32.5—40.8
-------
PROCESS PRO ILf S (lT FOU TROA 1UT STRA1tG’! 10 Al A ftOU RATE ( 1000 M CD
IPFUTS - f NSY (ImITs/MY)
CANCNETE (Cu oes)
STEEL (bela)
CulaIIICALS (us/DAY)
LAAN (*ciess)
LAION (ueua vu/vi)
OUTPUTS - i
(Lu/DAY)
WSPEANCD W ilDs
(LU/DAY)
WITDIEN1S P (I%/L)
(uLf Av)
N (ia &)
(t.u aS)
HEAVY NETALS (us/Day)
ATIWEPHENIC (..as aV)
sutssu-Z iOisoa
TOTAL WY AT. (us/DAY)
SOLID WAlE (cu FT/ VA)
NUISANCE —
NOIsE
TAAFFIC
SAFETY (iujiai s!1O 6 iues—,.s )
COSTS CAPITAL (0 x 106)
NUIEW TOTAL CAPITAL (S x
L (8)
NADNO TOTAL (S
OANATINI ((/1003 i&i)
103 nzso (U/10 sai)
TOTAL OFESATINS ((/1000 suu.)
laINS TOTAL ((/1030 sus.)
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Filtration—
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
PAIMAY
Uclal TERTI
DAlY ANY
Coeg t— Cerbo
lation Sorptio
iltrat on
LINUID
DISPOSAL
Surfere
Water
‘‘
C ITI0NINl:
SOIIATWINA:
DISPO SAL
U 03C SUI 03
I Ilalili T - wr -- ORUMIC SU8 GE TROAT1 NT OPTIOUS
.6x10’ ? 0 ?2F
VACINNA
Fit TIATIW
v*a*ji
CENTAIFUNE 1 0O
I- ,
(a)
01
f 10—RIO
II
LANDFILL
LAND
SPNEADINA
OCEAN
F
LAND ILL
OCEAN
sa,ipeo
2700
6500
VACUUN VACULUP
3150—4270
229
OA 2Q
19 300
(100
ca
‘ 800
Lii 7 .
1270
lE1O Cl 2
‘_
70
10
90
290
7
8
o_
5
1
QQ9
Q 0_
.5
.13
—
—
i
u __
0___
i Q
2S00:
--- 1e
.87x10
1. 6x10 6
Coutro’
ed
2
02
138
1.3
02
240
241
7° .
22 _
02
240
241
.2
5.4
.5
.3
4.4
.04
x
4—8. 3x10
H. i—i 7o1
“ In
DOES
5. 5x10 6
I l
I
AP LY
.5 18.13 18.8 I
None
137
41
——-----—
-- —--——
82—111
325—354
-—-
—— -—
-
—-
3.15 4.27 5 jp 6
328—358
A
2.7—3.7
7.7—11.3
, 1—32 3
-------
INPUTS — ENERGY (OMITS/Mv)
CONCRETE (Cu oos)
STEEL (TONS)
CHEMICALS (LAS/DAY)
LAuD (ACRES)
LABOR (NAB TaO/Va)
OUTPUTS - ROD (MAIL)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (nulL)
(us/DAY>
NUTRIENTS: P (MG/I)
(us/DAY)
N (MulL)
(us/DAY)
HEAVY METALS (us/DAY)
ATMOSPHERIC (Los/DAY)
SLUDGES4 SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY AT. (us/SAY)
SOLID YADTE (CU FT/SN)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFiC
SAFETY (INJ0RIEG/10 6 MAN-Has)
COSTS - CAPITAL (8
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (6 x 106
LANS (U)
RAMMING GRAND TOTAL (S s 106)
OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
106 APVRTIZ(D ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL OPERATING ((/1000 GAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 GAL)
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Filtration-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
1101110 T OTNDIJT
PRIRARY
None
SECON—
DART
Codgo—
lotion
Filtrat
TERTI—
ANY
Carbon
Sorpti
on
110010
DISPOSAL
Surface
n Water
uNIT OPERATION
10
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TRE#TP NT STRATEGY • 10 AT A FLOW RATE OF 1O0O _ M
CHE CAL SLUDGE
_______________ OPTION _____________ _____________ ORGANIC SLUDGE T 1 NT OPTIONS
CONDITIONING:
DEBATER INS:
DISPOSAL:
Ic lxI
WAG UUN
FIL1 HATION —
RECALCINATIOR
C ENTRIPUGE
A flfl
115. 11515
I-J
0 5
24 00—3200
VACUUM
flITRATIOW
SAND
ROVING
VACUUM
EIITIATIRM
VACUUM
EIITRAYIflN
LAND
LANDFILL OPRIASINO
12 10—1640
OCEAN
OlildO MU
LANDFILL
OCEAN
V ILIMPINO
17—24x10 4
Q0
7000
48.OQQ
4800
19.300
1270
1O Cl 2
_
_
g le_
ed
_ii
1.3
241
241
.5
.04
.5
490
290
57
8
—
478.80
65
7
546,00
58,800
1.5
.13
1100
30
27
—
250.00
4
14.8xJ
6
O QO
Control
102
138
102
240
—
270.00
102
240
5.2
3.3
5.4
4.4
8.5
9.8
,000
4—8. 3x10 4
100
DOES
>9 Gil I
A
pp
L v
S81 18.0
None
100
_1
— —
—————- . -
- --— —-
—
146—197
j 4 .5N
—_______
-.- --——-—- . -
—
.4—3.2 10
389—44 1
9. 3—21.4
4.8—6.4
\
14.1-27.8
——_______
32.9—46.6
-------
Physical—Chemical Treatment with Centrifugation-
Incineration of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
I mum T000TMCIJT
PRIMARY
lone
SECON— TERn- LIQUID
DORY ART DISPOSAL
Coagu— Carboni Surface
lotion Sorptio i Water
“iltraY on I
it
U. S 1 51 1 )
kwh
DRAY
AGOG) 1IS Clfl5
kwh
CENtRIFUGE
V AC U W Y
‘1
CENTRIFUGE
ORGN1IC SLUDGE TREAT NT OPTIONS
VACUUM
4100
SAND
DRYING
I-
‘2.bxlO
29x10 9
,S000CJ .Sh ........ .
Kwh
Utu
—- 1.DftL IL
IUCINtRATICN IICIWERATIUM
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
LANDFILL
n c
ItIRAIION
LANDfILL
IILTEATIQB_
11 Ofl. .L 100
INPUTS
OUTP’JTS -
COSTS -
El 0—All
VACUUM
VACUUM
— ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu YOU)
STEEL (TONS)
CAIPICALO (LBS/DAY)
LAND (ACRES)
LABOR (MAN YES/OR)
BOA (MU/L)
(LBS/DAY)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MUlL)
(LOS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (MU/L)
(LUG/DAY)
(LUG/DAY)
hEAVY METALS (LDS/DUV)
ATMOSPHERIC (LBS/DAY)
SLUDGEDZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY RI. (LAS/DAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU FT/PR)
NUISANCE - ODOR
NOISE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY )INJuPlt /i0 6 MAN HOG)!
CAFIDUL (S Y
RUNNING TOTAL CAPITAL (6 x
LAND (U)
RUNNING TRANS TOTM (9 io
OPERATING ((/1030 GAL)
100 RUORIIZED ((/1000 SAL)
TOTAL YPEYATIIIIG (1/1010 GAL)
RUNNING TA1G H(/1000 GAL)
8 Q
‘8.000119.300
4800 I 1270
U ZT IO O’A
0 ___
-
17000
PoT mor -OTh
‘G,3L (CL4’
10
490
290
57
8
-__
‘LL O OO O I 6L.2 0U
65
.
L H
IIIL
1 6.87x10
1 l.6xlO
•
Control
ed
6 ___
I1 _
——_L_
l() 240
OF 3000O
-
‘
- —_ -
1.3_4 .4 .04
—
I—
1——--—
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET FOR TREFFIEKT STRATEGY 8 10 91 A FLOW RATE OF 1000 MGD
CHEMICAL SLUDGE
__ -
UNIT OPERATION
THICKEN INU: ______________
CONDITIONING: _________
SENATOR INS:
DISPOSAl
\2.000 /4 ______ ______ ____ ______
A _ _
8.5-12 l0 —— —_______
II 0 F S ———-—--Y---—
I
1O04
H -
—--
—_____ -
NT
—
--
_
---------—
ip
-
137
—
-1
--______
I 1III
-
I —
—-----—-—-.
I . 1II
-
41
6 2—84
303—325
3.1_4.3n106
I
0.5
19.8
US
SO_S
----fO
307—310
4—5,4
1. 1—7.7
6.1-0.1
160
__ -
——- —
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEET F09 TREAT1 NT STRATEGY 10 AT A FLOW RATE OF 1000 1400
Physical-Chemical Treatment with Centrifugation-
Recalcination of Chemical Sludge - 1000 MGD
P 0 1p 5* 0 5’
None
SECON—
DART
Coagu—
latlon
Piltrer
TEaTI-
A NT
Carbon
orptto
on
.IOUID
DISPOSAL
Surface
Water
tiNt,
CI4ENICAL SLUDGE
lullS T U iTION ORGUIIIC SLUDGE TREATItWI O TIOWS
THICkENING:
CONDITIONING
DENATER IN k :
DISPOSAL:
x10 O fl
CENTRIFUGE
- 2
CIUiN ICAL
VACU I A I
F ILTRAT ION
INCINERATION
la D ATtI
S
.
Z1U . 1 IEV?I
89x10 Dtu
CE IITRIFLJGE
4900
I LNflFl:I
VACU CI N
LANDFILL
2300—3200
LAND
8
1220—1650
VACU )P I
OCEAN
6500
V ocA ls
LANDFILL
OCEAN
Sn
I ?6 IJTS — ENERGY (UNITS/DAY)
CONCRETE (cu TON)
STEEL (TONS)
I CALS (LAS/DAY)
LA ND (AcREs)
CANON (NAil osglve)
OUTPUTS - a (NG/L)
(LAS/DAY)
SUSPGND€D SOLIDS (NO/I)
(LAS/DAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (1 16/I)
8 (1 ,6/1)
(LAS/DAY)
ICAVY NGmi.s (us/DAY)
ATNGSPNERIC (LAS/DAY)
SLUDGESZ SOLIDS
TOTAL DRY NT. (LAs/DAY)
SOLID cASTE ( Cl ) FT/TO)
NUISANCE
ND I SE
TRAFF IC
SAFETY (IpIJt.aIEs/1 . ,Ail-o.nS
COSTS - c* :oui. (0 o 106)
RUNRIRU TOTAL CAPITAL(D 106:
LAND (I)
RLINIIIN6 SNAilS TOTAL (1 o 1161
OPERATING ((11 )00 SAL)
100 NTIZ0D :Cfj00O SAL)
TOTAL OYERATNG (/1000 SAL)
RuNNING iOTA) I/l SAL)
48.
19 3O4)
1000
4800
1210
II i
10, Cl
270
30
L1 _
—_
u _
490
290
57
8
478.
u—
58.
u
n—
u
?25 0
—
1cg.iL
liE
— 1-_
—--- _(I
Led
1.3
241
261
.1
102
138
270 .000( 30.000
102 240
15.2
A .000
13.5-21.8
17—24 1O
—
D
E S
-—4-
4 L _
I
- —
100
A P L Y
.--
—-—-
6__
honk
t
I
---___
----- - - —. -—-—— — — ---
100
41
-________
— — —--
— — ,
101—137
I.
—
— —
342—378
- — —
—
- - - —
2: 3_32 p 6
_ __ __
:
—_—____
10.2-17.3
__ _
i1iiiiiiii
:
- I
—
.
8.5 18.3
18.8
-------
PROCESS PROFILE SHEETS FOR TREATMENT STRATEGY # 11
Extended Aeration
MUN!CI PAL
WASTEWATER lIIFPi
I — .
( )
SLUD(E
-------
PROaSSP FlLES$€ETFORTEAfltNTSTRA1EUYI 11 ATAftOWMWUF10 0.000 0?D
INPUTS — ENEMY (UNITS/MY)
CEWCSETS (Cu I SO)
STEEL. ( Ton)
CIEMICALS ( 11$/DAY)
LAND ( Es)
L.AASN (lul l YES/TN)
OUTPUTS - s ( n/ (
(Lu/DAT )
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MAIL)
( us/D AY)
NUTRIENTS: P (I%/L(
(Us/SAY)
F — T N ( nE/L)
a
0 (( IS/DAY)
TWAVY METALS ( 1_US/tOY)
ATONESPYTENIC (LAS/DAY)
SLUTMSS4 SOLIDS
TOTAL. MY WY. (LAS/SAY)
SOLID WASTE (CU FT/tN)
NUT SANCE - MUN
NO SE
TRAFFIC
SAFETY (IN.JLMIES/10 6 NAN-WAS)
COSTS - CAPITAL (S o 106)
NUNNIWA TOTAL CAPITAL (S
LAND (5)
NS$SINA SNA IlS TSTAL (S o 106)
OPERATING ((/1 ML)
15% McnIaS (S/ IWO sn)
TOTAL OPENAT (NA ((/IOOU GAL)
NWRI)NN TOTAL ( (/1 O WAS.)
Extended Aeration - 100,000 GPD
-------
PROCESS PROILL 5)LET FOR Tr€AT)tNT STRATEGY I 11 AT A FLOR RATE OF 1 MCD
INPUTS - ENERGY (I A I IT O/SAY)
CoNCRETE (cu as)
STEEL (to m)
CItWICALS (Iso/OAT)
LATe (ACRES)
USSR (m l sRi/a)
OUTPUTS - ROE (NAIL)
(LID/SAY)
SOISPEIOES SOLIDS (WAIL)
(US/SAY)
NUTRIENTS: P (I’A/L)
(US/SAY)
N (NUlL)
(US/SAT)
HEAVY ACTALS (LOS/DAY)
ATMOOPNERIC ( L IS/SAY)
SL006EO4 SOLIDS
TOTAL 000 w I. (US/SAY)
SOLID WASTE (cu ET/YR)
M U IANCE - U SD0
NOISE
TWAFF IC
SAYETY )IAJUWIES/)0 6 WAS—HAS)
COSTS - CAPITAL u 106 1
0055105 TOTAL CAPITAL))
LMO )S)
ROWAIWS GRAND TOTAL (S o 5Q6)
OPEWATING ((/1000 GAL)
102 AICRYIOEU ((/1000 GAL)
TOTAL SPEWATIWG ((/1000 SAL)
RUNNING TOTAL ((/1000 soa.)
Extended Aeration - 1 NGD
-------
COST ESTIMATION CONSIDERATIONS
It must be recognized that the profile comparisons constructed
for this report contain cost data based on specific assumptions
for pertinent unit cost factors. These factors will vary with
location and time. This section of the report contains work
sheets and example calculations which are inclu .ed to enable
the user to develop cost information more pertinent to his
specific case.
CAPITAL COSTS
Capital costs for the eleven treatment strategies evaluated in
this report are provided on the profile sheets. Specific
estimates must be adjusted to correct for differences in
design flow rate, national cost factors, local cost multipliers,
and land values.
Cost changes due to variations in plant size can be approximated
through use of the exponential rule. That is, if plant size
changes by a factor of X, the cost will change by a factor of
XN where N varies from 0-1. The exact value for N is deter-
mined by the economies of scale one encounters when con-
structing larger facilities. That is, typically, unit costs
decrease with size. The exponentional factor N has been
found to average 0.6 for wastewater treatment facilities
and equipment designed for plants with 100 MGD flow or less.
Above 100 MGD, N approaches unity; that is, little or no
economies of scale are realized in increasing plant size
beyond 100 MGD. 1
National cost factors refer to changes in overall price
structure due to economic trends (e.g., recession, and
inflation). Thes e factors are frequently updated and published
in Engineering News Record as the ENR Cost Index. Cost
estimates can be updated by multiplying the base cost by the
ratio of the current ENR index to the index that prevailed
when the base cost was formulated. Costs presented in this
report are given as 1973 dollars and are based on an ENR
index of 169 using the 1967 base year. The EPA also publishes
a Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index (STPCCI).
This index is the preferred adjustment factor when available.
Cost figures in this report are based on an STPCCI of 175.
Local cost multipliers are employed to adjust national average
costs to figures reflecting the price structure likely to
prevail at the location where the plant is to be built. Local
cost multipliers are published in the Engineering News Record
for major metropolitan areas in the United States.
143
-------
Land values vary greatly with the area of the country, and the
proximity to urban areas. Location of a treatment facility
should reflect consideration of land values and cost estimates
must be adjusted accordingly. For the purposes of developing
the data presented in the profile sheets in this report, a
land value of $1000 per acre was assumed.
OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs may vary from the estimates provided in this
report as a result of changes in costs for power, fuel, chemical,
labor, transportation, supervision, and maintenance; or as
result of selection of plant sizes other than those evaluated.
The first step in refining operating costs is to adjust the
levels of these inputs required for the flow rate under con-
sideration. No adjustment is necessary if the design flow
rate matches the rate evaluated on the profile sheet.
Adjustment factors vary with the parameter of concern. An
exponential rule is approximated for operational and mainten-
ance costs in general and chemicals, labor, and electrical
power specifically. Thus quantity requirement estimation
for plants designed at flows other than those evaluated in
this report can be made by taking the ratio of the design
rate and a rate presented in this report to a standard
exponential. The value of the exponential should be 0.58 for
labor and supervision, 0.55 for electrical, 1.0 for chemical,
and 0.52 for operation arid maintenance in general up to
flow rates of 100 MGD.’ 3 All exponentials approach unity at
flow rates greater than 100 MGD. Fuel and transportation
costs are directly related to sludge volume and thus can be
considered to have quantity multiplier exponentials close
to one. Transportation costs are also dependent on the
distance of travel required.
Once these adjustments in the quantity of inputs required are
made, estimates can be made to reflect the actual operating
and maintenance costs anticipated. The calculations for this
phase of cost adjustment are straightforward since they in-
volve only the use of the adjusted quantities and prevailing
prices.
Total annual costs can be calculated by adding amortized
capital costs to the operating and maintenance costs dis-
cussed above. These cost adjustment procedures are illustrated
in the following example calculations. A blank worksheet is
also provided at the end of this chapter.
144
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Assumptions for Sample Calculation
Plant Type - Activated Sludge with Digestion and Land-
spreading of Sludge (Strategy #5, Sludge
Option #5)
Flow Rate - 25 MGD
Prevailing Construction Index - STPCCI - 180
Local Multiplier - 1.1
Local Land Value - $1500/acre
Local Cost of Labor - $5.00/hr.
Local Cost of Power - 2 /KWhr
Prevailing Cost of Chemicals - Chlorine - $0.05/lb.
Conditioning Polymer - $2.00/lb.
Transport Distance for Sludge - 60 miles round trip
Transport Cost for Sludge - $0.05/ton-mile (round
trip basis)
Transport Distance for Effluent - Not Applicable
Transport Cost for Effluent - Not Applicable
Amortization Basis - 10%
20 years
Amortization Factor — . 117
Capital Costs
1. Take running total cost from option #5 column of strategy
#5 at a flow rate of 10 mgd.
Base Cost is $4,700,000
2. Determine multiplier to account for flow change using
the 0.6 exponential rule. This is done by taking the
ratio of the new flow rate 25 mgd to the old flow
rate 10 mgd to the 0.6 exponential.
Flow Change Multiplier is (25/10)0.6 =
145
-------
The new base cost is then taken as the product of this
multiplier and the base cost.
Flow Adjusted Cost is 1.73 x $4,700,000 = $8,130,000
3. Determine the price adjustment due to changes in the
national cost structure by first calculating the National
Cost Factor as the ratio of the prevailing index and
the base index employed for this report. (175) for the
STPCCI index and 169 for the ENP. index.)
National Cost Factor is (180/175) = 1.03
This multiplied by the flow adjusted cost yields the
Price Index Adjusted Cost.
Price Index Adjusted Cost is 1.03 x $8,130,000
= $8,370,000
4. Determine the local multiplier.
Local Multiplier = 1.1
5. Determine variations in price due to local considerations
by taking the product of the local multiplier and the
Price Index Adjusted Cost. This yields the Total
Adjusted Cost.
Total Adjusted Cost is 1.1 x $8,370,000 = $9,210,000
6. Take the land requirement from the profile sheet by adding
the requirements for each of the liquid treatments and
option #5.
Base Land Requirement is 19 + 3 + 260 282 acres
7. Determine the Land Requirement Multiplier from the ratio
of the desired flow rate to that flow rate on the profile
sheet using the 0.6 exponential rule.
Land Requirement Multiplier is (25/10)0.6 — 173
NOTE: This number should be the same as the previously
calculated flow change multiplier in Item 2.
8. Determine the Adjusted Land Requirement by taking the
product of the Base Land Requirement and the Land
Requirement Multiplier.
Adjusted Land Requirement is 1.73 x 282 = 488 acres
146
-------
9. Calculate the Adjusted Land Cost by taking the product
of the Local Land Value and the Adjusted Land Require-
ment.
Adjusted Land Cost is 1500 x 488 = $730,000
10. The Total Capital Expenditures can now be calculated as
the sum of the Total Adjusted Cost and the Adjusted
Land Costs.
Total Capital Expenditures = $9,210,000 +
$730,000 = $9,940,000
Operating Costs
1. The Base Labor Requirement is taken from the profile
sheet as the sum of the man-year requirements for the
liquid treatment processes and the selected sludge
option #5.
Base Labor Requirement is 3.2 + 7.9 + 13.9
= 25 man—years
2. The Labor Multiplier is calculated by taking the ratio
of the desired flow rate and the base flow rate to the
0.58 power.
Labor Multiplier is (25/10)058 = 1.70
3. The Adjusted Labor Requirement can now be determined as
the product of the Base Labor Requirement and the Labor
Multiplier
Adjusted Labor Requirement is 25 x 1.70
= 42.5 man—years
4. The Base Electrical Requirement is taken from the profile
sheet as the sum of the energy requirements for the liquid
treatment processes and the selected sludge option #5.
Base Electrical Requirement is 1270 + 3734 + 130
= 5134 KWhr/day
5. The Electrical Multiplier is calculated by taking the
ratio of the desired flow rate and the base flow rate
to the 0.55 power.
Electrical Multiplier is (25/10)0.55 = 1.66
147
-------
6. The Adjusted Electrical Requirement can now be determined
as the product of the Base Electrical Requirement and
the Electrical Multiplier.
Adjusted Electrical Requirement is 5134 x 1.66
= 8522 KWhr/d
7. The Base Chemical Requirement is taken from the profile
sheet by including all entries from the liquid treatment
process columns and the selected sludge option, #5.
Base Chemical Requirement is Chlorine 670 lbs/day
Conditioning Polymer 58 1bs/da
8. The Chemical Multiplier is calculated by taking the ratio
of the desired flow rate and the base flow rate.
Chemical Multiplier is (25/10) = 2.5
9. The Adjusted Chemical Requirement can now be determined
as the product of the Base Chemical Requirement and the
Chemical Multiplier.
Adjusted Chemical Requirement is
Chlorine 670 x 2.5 =1675 lbs/d
Conditioning Polymer 58 x 2.5 = 145 lbs/d
10. Fuel calculations do not apply in this example. If fuel
were employed, the technique for cost adjustment would be
the same as that for chemicals.
11. Fuel calculations do not apply in this example. If fuel
were employed, the technique for cost adjustment would be
the same as that for chemicals.
12. Fuel calculations do not apply in this example. If fuel
were employed, the technique for cost adjustment would be
the same as that for chemicals.
13. The Base Quantity of sludge requiring transportation
is taken from the quotient of the sludges - total dry
solids figure for sludges — percent dry solids figure
for the selected sludge option #5. The figure should
be converted to tons by dividing by 2000.
Base Quantity of Sludge = 14,000/(.06 x 2000)
= 117 tons/day
14. The Sludge Multiplier reflects the additional sludge
generated by a change in plant size and is defined as
the ratio of the desired flow rate and the base flow
rate.
Sludge Multiplier is (25/10) 2.5
148
-------
15. The Adjusted Quantity of Sludge requiring transportation
can now be calculated as the product of the Base Quantity
of Sludge and the Sludge Multiplier.
Adjusted Quantity of Sludge if 117 x 2.5 = 293 wet tons/day
16. The Volume of Effluent requiring transportation is merely
the new desired flow rate. This should be expressed in
1000 gal/day quantities since operating costs are presented
in these units.
Volume of Effluent is 25,000 x 1000 gal/day = 25 MGD
17. The Daily Labor Cost can now be calculated by taking the
product of the Adjusted Labor Requirement, the Local Cost
of Labor, and the conversion factor of 8 man-hours per
man-day.
Daily Labor Cost is 42.5 x 5.00 x 8 = $1,700/day
18. The Daily Electrical Cost can now be calculated by taking
the product of the Adjusted Electrical Requirement and the
Local Cost of Power.
Daily Electrical Cost is 8522 x 0.02 = $170/day
19. The Daily Chemical Cost is calculated as the sum of the
daily chemical costs derived by taking the product of the
Adjusted Chemical Requirement and the Prevailing Cost
of Chemicals.
Chlorine 1675 x 0.05 = $84/day
Conditioning Polymer 145 x 2.0 = $290/day
Daily Chemical Cost is $374/day
20. The Daily Fuel Cost does not apply in this example but is
calculated in the same manner as the Daily Chemical Cost.
21. The Daily Solids Transportation Cost is calculated from the
product of the Adjusted Quantity of Solids, the Transport
Distance for Sludges, and the Transport Cost for Sludge.
Daily Solids Transportation Cost is 293 x 60 x 0.05
= $879/day
22. The Total Daily Cost is now determined as the sum of the
Daily Labor, Electrical, Chemical, Fuel, and Solids
Transportation Costs.
Total Daily Cost is 1700 + 170 + 374 + 0 + 879
= $3,123/day
149
-------
23. The Total Cost/l000 gal is now calculated by dividing
the total daily cost by the volume of effluent in
1000 gal/day units.
Total Cost/bOO gal is 3123 25,000 = $0.125/l000 gal
24. The cost for effluent transportation is taken as the pro-
duct of the volume of effluent, the transport distance for
effluent, and transport cost for effluent. This figure
does not apply to this example.
25. The Adjusted Operating Cost is the sum of the Total Cost/
1000 gal and the cost for effluent transportation.
Adjusted Operating Cost is 0.125 + 0 = $0.125/1000 gal
26. The Adjusted Amortization Cost is calculated by taking
the product of the total capital expenditures and the
amortization factor and dividing by 365 days/year and
the volume of effluent in 1000 gal units.
Adjusted Amortization Cost is (9,940,000 x .117)
(365 x 25,000) = $O.l 27 /lOoQ
27. The Total Adjusted Operating Cost is calculated by taking
the sum of the Adjusted Operating Cost and the Adjusted
Amortization Cost.
Total Adjusted Operating Cost is 0.125 + 0.127
= $0.252/lO0o
150
-------
SAMPLE WORKSHEET
As sumptions
Plant Type -
Flow Rate -
Prevailing Construction Index - EPA -
ENR-
Local Multiplier -
Local Land Value - $ /acre
Local Cost of Labor - $ /hr (weighted average for
operating labor and
supervision)
Local Cost of Power - $ /kW-hr
Prevailing Cost of Chemicals
_______________ _________/lb
_______________ _________/lb
_______________ _________/lb
______________ ________/lb
Transport Distance for Sludge miles round trip
Transport Cost for Sludge $/ton-mile
Transport Distance for Effluent miles
Transport Cost for Effluent $71000 gal
Amortization Basis
Years
Factor
151
-------
Capital Costs
1. Running Total Base Cost
on Profile Sheet
2. Flow Change Multiplier = —
Flow Adjusted Cost
3. National Cost Factor =
Price Index Adjusted Cost =
4. Local Multiplier __________
5. Total Adjusted Cost =
6. Base Land Requirement
from Profile Sheet
7. Land Requirement Multiplier =
8. Adjusted Land Requirement = — ______
9. Adjusted Land Costs =
10. Total Capital Expenditures =
Operating Costs
1. Base Labor Requirement
on Profile Sheet
2. Labor Multiplier ( /_______
3. Adjusted Labor Requirement =
4. Base Electrical Requirement
on Profile Sheet _____
5. Electrical Multiplier = ( /_____
6. Adjusted Electrical Requirement
x
$
Estimated Cost
_______for flow
x
$___________
/175) =
$
$
___________acres
___/___ ___
x = acres
_____ =$________
$_______________
______________man years
).58 ______man years
________man years
________kW-hr/day
55
kW-hr/day
152
-------
7. Base Chemical Requirements
on Profile Sheet ___________________lb/day
8. Chemical Multiplier = ( / ) 0=
9. Adjusted Chemical Requirement = x
___________________lb/day
10. Base Fu].e Requirement
on Profile Sheet __________________Btu/day
11. Fuel Multiplier = ( / )l.0 =
12. Fuel Requirement = X
___________________Btu/day
13. Base Quantity of Sludge
requiring transportation _________________tons/day
14. Sludge Multiplier ( /_____ ______________
15. Adjusted Quantity of Sludge
requiring transportation _________________tons/day
16. Volume of Effluent Requiring
Transportation ___________ 1000 gal/day
17. Daily Labor Cost x x 8 =
$ /day
18. Daily Electrical Cost x
$ /day
19. Daily Chemical Cost x
$ /day
20. Daily Fuel Cost _________ x
$ /day
21. Daily Solids Transportation Cost x
$ /day
153
-------
22. Total Daily Cost _________ + _________ + - +
______ + _____ ____________/day
23. Total Cost/l000 gal __________ 4 . __________
$ /1000 gal
24. Cost for Effluent Transportation _________ x
x _________ = / 1000 gal
25. Adjusted Operating Cost __________ +
$ /1000 gal
26. Adjusted Amortization Cost @ 10% for 20 Years
____x )4’ (365x _____
$ /1000 gal
27. Total Adjusted Operating Cost
___________ + _________ / 1000 gal
154
-------
LAND APPLICATION COST VARIATIONS
The cost of land disposal practices will vary greatly from
facility to facility. For the most part, this variation is
due to local differences in land values. Land values generally
follow an established pattern in urban areas with land prices
extremely high in the core city except perhaps for blighted
areas or similar low-value enclaves. Values then decrease
slowly as one moves outward. Recreational areas such as lakes
and rivershores, suburban shopping centers, or other points of
interest form similar higher value centers. The rate of decrease
in value is related to the importance and drawing power of the
attraction. A mapping of value regions would form a topograph-
ical map as conceptualized in Figure 28.
Hence, land value in general decreases with distance from the
core city. Transportation costs, on the other hand, are pro-
portional to the distance over which effluent or sludge must be
moved, excepting those components of cost related to overhead,
loading, and unloading. The costs for land applications of
effluent sludges are high near the core city due to land value
considerations and high at great distances due to transportation
costs. Generally, some intermediate region represents the
minimum cost zone. This relation is conceptualized in Figure 29.
Over a period of years, land may become exhausted in its capacity
to retain heavy metals and phosphates. When this occurs,
additional acreage must be sought. Thus, the band of minimum
cost land moves outward from the city over a period of time.
This outward movement may be accelerated both by growth in
population and increases in urban land values.
While the actual range of land values that will be encountered
at a specific facility vary with the location of that facility,
transportation costs can be generalized. The relation of cost
per ton of liquid digested sludge hauled versus distance is
presented in Figures 30 to 32 for various sized plants. The
cost curves vary with plant size in response to economies of
scale in storage and loading facilities. Other cost items in-
clude operation and maintenance as well as the actual transpor-
tation costs themselves, e.g., fuel, salaries, power, and
amortization. Data is presented in Figures 33 and 34 showing
the relation between cost per ton and size of facility for
short and long distances respectively. General assumptions
made in the analysis are listed below:
• Per capita production of
sewage solids 0.20 lbs/person/day
• Sludge concentration after
thickening 5%
• Volatile matter content of
raw sludge 75%
155
-------
\
I
N
01
I’H ‘ ‘ALUE
IGH EDIU ‘.‘ALLE
El:
Li
E IU V L
L 0
EDI U
/ L U
AL JE
FIGURE 28.
CONCEPTUALIZED PATTERN OF LAND VALUES FOR AN URBAN AREA
-------
DISTANCE FROM TREATMENT PLANT ________
FIGURE 29.
CONCEPTUALIZED RELATION OF TOTAL LAND APPLICATION
COSTS TO DISTANCE FROM SOURCE
I —
C d ,
C
C-)
157
-------
I I I I I
I ___
40 60 100
200 400 600
1ILES TO POINT OF DISPOSAL
FIGURE 30.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR A FACILITY SERVING
A POPULATION OF 10,00072
(FLOW EQUIVALENT, 1 MGD)
PIPELINE
It
uJ
Q
uJ
6000
4000
2000 —
1000
600
400
200 -
1 00
60
40
20
‘I . )
C
I—
LiJ
C i )
C
R.R. TANK CAR
TANK TRUCK
158
-------
TANK TRUC
R.R. TANK CAR
a
Lu
Lu
(I )
(I ,
0
I-
Lu
I —
v)
C-,
600 —
400 —
200
100
60
40
20
F I I I I
PIPELINE
20
I I I I
40 60 100
200
MILES TO POINT OF DISPOSAL
400 600
FIGURE 31.
TRANSPORTATION -COSTS FOR A FACILITY SERVING
A POPULATION OF 100,00072
(FLOW EQUIVALENT, 10 MGD)
159
-------
LiJ
C,
L 60
40
U-,
J)
C
U)
10
6
20 40 60 100 200
400 600
MILES TO POINT OF DISPOSAL
FIGURE 32.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR A FACILITY SERVING
A POPULATION OF 1,000,000 12
(FLOW EQUIVALENT, 100 MGD)
400
200
100
(7)
C—
C
4
160
-------
POPULATION IN THOUSANDS
FIGURE 33.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR VARIOUS SIZED
FACILITIES SHIPPING SLUDGE OVER A
25 MILE DISTANCE 72
(ASSUME 100 GALLONS/CAPITA/DAY
FOR FLOW EQUIVALENTS)
400
200
100
60
20
40
C ’)
I —
w
I-
(I )
cD
L)
6
10
4
2
4 10 40 100 400
1000
161
-------
4000
POPULATION IN THOUSANDS
FIGURE 34.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR VARIOUS SIZED
FACILITIES SHIPPING SLUDGE OVER A
300 MILE DISTANCE 72
(ASSUME 100 GALLONS/CAPITA/DAY
FOR FLOW EQUIVALENTS)
D
w
cD
Li
U,
c i : :
ci-
If-)
C)
2000
1000
600
400
200
100
60
40
20
4
10 40 100 400
1000
162
-------
• Reduction in volatile matter
by digestion 50%
• Digested Sludge concentration 3.5%
Based on these assumptions, it is evident that truck transpor-
tation is economical for small plants (1 NGD or less) trans-
porting over distances up to 150 miles. At this distance, rail
shipment becomes competitive. For short distances (25 miles),
pipelines are not economical until flow exceeds 6 MGD. For a
300 mile transport distance, pipelines become economical at a
plant flow rate of 15 MGD. Higher sludge solids concentrations
would make truck and rail more competitive.
For dewatered or dry solids transportation, trucking is the
preferred alternative up to fairly long distances where rail
becomes competitive. Barging is economical only for long hauls
of large quantities.
For effluent water produced in excess of 10,000 gpd, pipelines
are the only economical means of transportation. The relation-
ship between costs for various modes of transportation over a
spectrum of distances can be seen in Figure 35.
The preceding analysis assumes that land application of effluents
or sludges requires purchase or leasing of land. This may not
always be the case. In instances where resjdents of the agricul-
tural community wish to utilize the effluent resources, no
charges may be incurred. This is a relatively unstable arrange-
ment, however, unless long—term commitments can be obtained.
Typically, leases or land purchase will be the preferable mode
of operation, thus insuring long—term stability and greater
control over land use and loading rates.
If land is purchased, amortized purchase price is not necessarily
a good measure of annual operating cost since the land can be
resold. Indeed, land value will probably increase rather than
decrease. A better measure of annual cost would be to amortize
the difference in the present worth of the land and the present
worth of its value after use is completed. This practice,
however, was not employed in the present program. Obviously,
under a lease arrangement, the annual charge is the appropriate
operating cost.
163
-------
1 0
L I)
LU
-J
LU
LU
(/ )
D
>-
z
CD
LU
100
10
1
0.01
DAILY PP0D] T • 1000 GPO
FIGURE 35. COST RELATIONSHIPS FOR CONVEYANCE OF EFFLUENT
WATER BY PIPELINE, TRUCK, AND
RAIL IN $/1000 21 6
0.1 1.0 10 100
1000
-------
1 EFERENCES
1. Reed, S.., et al. “Wastewater Management by Disposal on the
Land,” Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
U.S. Army, Hanover, New Hampshire, May 1972.
2. “Technology—Water Pollution Control,” Chemical Engineering
Deskbook Issue, p. 65, June 21, 1971.
3. Sawyer, G. A. “New Trends in Wastewater Treatment and
Recycle,” Chemical Engineering , p. 120, July 24, 1972.
4. Cuip, R. L., and G. L. Cuip. Advanced Wastewater Treatment ,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1971.
5. Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield; Clair A. Hill &
Associates, “Wastewater Treatment Study - Montgomery
County, Maryland,” Reston, Virginia, November 1972.
6. Hann, R. W., Jr. Fundamental Aspects of Water’Quality
Management , Technomic, USA, 1972.
7. Balakrjshnan, S., D. E. Williamson, and R. W. Okey.
“State—of—the—Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice,”
Federal Water Quality Administration, 17070 DIV, April 1970.
8. Mar, B. W., et al. “Water Quality Aspects of the State of
Washington,” State of Washington Water Research Center,
June 1970.
9. Smith, R. “Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment
of Wastewater,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 40, No. 9, p. 1546,
September 1968.
10. Burd, R. S. “A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal,”
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, WP—20-4,
May 1968.
11. Smith, R., and R. G. Eilers. “Cost to the Consumer for
Collection and Treatment of Wastewater,” Environmental
Protection Agency, 17090, July 1970.
12. “Wastewater Ammonia Removalby Ion Exchange,” Battelle—
Northwest and South Tahoe Public Utility District for
Environmental Protection Agency, 17010 ECS, February 1971.
13. Michel, R. L. “Costs and Manpower for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance,” Journal
WPCF , Vol. 42, No. ll,p. 1883, November 1970.
14. Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary
Engineers (GLUMRB). “Recommended Standards for Sewage Works,”
Revised Edition, 1971.
165
-------
15. Michalas, B. J., P. M. Allen III, and W. W. Matsphjelu.
“A Study of Nitrification and DenitrifiCation,” Federal
Water Quality Administration, 17010 DRD, July 1970.
16. Barth, E. F., R. C. Brenner, and R. F. Lewis. “Chemical—
Biological Control of Nitrogen and Phosphorous in Waste—
water Effluent,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 40, No. 12, p. 2040,
December 1968.
17. Bishop, D. F., et al. “Advanced Waste Treatment System
at the Environmental Protection Agency — District of
Columbia Pilot Plant,” Water - 1971 , AIChE Symposium Series
Vol. 68, 124, 1972.
18. Personal Communication, B. W. Mercer, Battelle—Northwest,
May 30, 1973.
19. Sewage Treatment Plant Design , Water Pollution Control
Federation Manual of Practice No. 8, Washington, D.C.,
1959.
20. Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plants , Roy F. Weston, Inc., Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1971.
21. Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal , Black &
Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1971.
22. Schwinn, D. E. “Treatment Plant Designed for Anticipated
Standards,” Public Works , p. 54, January 1973.
23. Evans, D. R., and J. C. Wilson. “Capital and Operating Cos ..
AWT,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 1, January 1972.
24. Shuckrow, A. J., et al. “A Pilot Study of Physical-
Chemical Treatment of the Raw Wastewater at the Westerly
Plant in Cleveland, Ohio,” Water Research , Pergamon Press,
Vol. 6, No. 4/5, p. 619, April/May 1972.
25. “Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery
or Disposal of Hazardous Waste,” prepared by TRW Systems,
Inc., for the Environmental Protection Agency. Report No.
21485—6013—RU—00, February 1, 1973.
26. “Analysis of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives at Fairbanks
Alaska,” prepared for Department of Army Corps of Enginee 5 ’
by Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield; Clair A. Hill &
Associates, December 1972.
166
-------
27. Ferrel, J. F. “Sludge Incineration,” Pollution Engineering ,
p. 36, March 1973.
28. Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption , Swindell-
Dressier Co., Environmental Protection Agency, October
1971.
29. “Cost of Wastewater Treatment Processes,” Dorr—Oliver,
for Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Report
TWRC—6, December 1968.
30, Babbitt and Baumann. Sewerage and Sewage Treatment , 8th
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1958.
31. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering , McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1972.
32. Clark, Viessman, and Hammer. Water Supply and Pollution
Control , 2nd Edition, International Textbook Co., Scranton,
Pennsylvania, 1971.
33. H. B. No. 381, Washington State Legislature 1973, adding
two new chapters to Title 43 K.C.W. pertaining to Manda-
tory Certification of Domestic Wastewater Plant Operators,
43rd Regular Session Washington State Legislature.
34. Metcalf and Eddy. American Sewerage Practice , 3rd Edition,
McGraw—Hill, New York, 1935.
35. American Public Works Assn. “Municipal Refuse Disposal,”
Public Administration Service, Chicago, Illinois, 1970.
36. Besselieure, Edmund B. The Treatment of Industrial Wastes ,
McGraw—Hill, New York, 1969.
37. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. “Inter-
action of Heavy Metals and Biological Sewage Treatment
Processes,” Publication No. 999—WP. 22, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
38. Kshirsagar, S. R., and S. S. Tipnis. “Effects of Sulfates
on Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge,” Environmental
Health (md.) Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 5, 1969.
39. Foree, E. G., and P. C. Mccarty. “Anaerobic Digestion of
Algae,” Environmental Science and Technology , Vol. 4,
No. 10, p. 842, October 1970.
40. Cuip, R. L.., C. M. Wesner and G. L. Culp. Seminar on
Advanced Wastewater Treatment, South Lake Tahoe, June 1973.
167
-------
41. Metcalf,& Eddy, Inc. “Nitrification-Denitrification
Facilities,” prepared for Environmental Protection Agency
Design Seminar for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Dallas,
Texas, July 1971.
42. McKee and Wolf. “Water Quality Criteria,” The Resources
Agency of California, State Water Resources Control Board
Publication, 3A, State of California, 1971.
43. Rudolf s, W., et al. “Review of Literature on Toxic Mater-
ials Affecting Sewage Treatment Processes, Streams and
B.O.D. Determinations,” Sewage and Industrial Wastes ,
Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 1157, September 1950.
44. Barth, E. F., M. B. Ettinger, B. V. Salatto, and G. N.
McDermott. “Summary Report on the Effects of Heavy Metals
on Biological Treatment Processes,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 37,
No. 1, p. 86, January 1965.
45. Grigoropoulos, S G., et al. “Fate of Aluminum—Precipitated
Phosphorus in Activated Sludge and Anaerobic Digestion,”
Journal WPCF , Vol. 43, No. 12, p. 2366, December 1971.
46. Film, “Wealth from Waste,” EPA Technology Transfer Seminar,
Seattle, Washington, May 22, 1973.
47. Mulbarger, M. C. “Nitrification and Denitrification in
Activated Sludge Systems,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 43, No. 10,
p. 1791, October 1971.
48. Stukenberg, J. R. “Biological—Chemical Wastewater Treatment
Journal WPCF, Vol. 43, No. 9, p. 2059, September 1971.
49. Hooker Chemical Corporation, Bulletin # 125, 1965.
50. Gulf Research Institute, “Methanol Requirement and Tempera-
ture Effects in Waste Water Denitrification,” Water Quality
Office, EPA, Contract 14-12—527, August 1970.
51. “sludge Dewatering,” WPCF Manual of Practice #20, 1968.
52. “Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treathent
Facilities,” prepared by CH 7 M/Hill for the Environmental
Protection Agency, March 1973.
53. Weber, Walter J. Physiochemical Processes for Water Qu 4
Control , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1972.
168
-------
54. “Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conventional
Wastewater Treatment Facilities,” prepared by Black and Veatch
Consulting Engineers for the Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1971.
55. Eckenfelder, W. W. Water Quality Engineering for Practicing
Engineers , Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, 1970.
56. Bacon, V. W. and F. E. Dalton. “Professionalism and Water
Pollution Control in Greater Chicago,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 40,
No. 9, p. 1586, September 1968.
57. “State of the Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice,”
Water Pollution Control Research Series 17070 DIV 04/70,
Federal Water Quality Administration, April 1970.
58. Guarino, C. F. and M. S. Cameron. “Sludge Processing in Phila-
delphia,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 41, No. 8, p. 1609, August 1971.
59. Sherwood, Robert, and James Phillips. “Heat Treatment
Process Improves Economics of Sludge Handling and Disposal,”
Water & Wastes Engineering , November 1970.
60. Albertson, Orris, and Eugene Guidi, Jr. “Centrifugation of
Wastes Sludges,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 41, No. 4, April 1969.
61. Albertson, Orris, and Eugene Guidi, Jr. “Advances in the
Centrifugal Dewatering of Sludges,” Water and Sewage Works ,
p. R—l24, 1967.
62. “Animal Waste Management,” Cornell University Conference,
Syracuse, New York, January 13-15, 1969.
63. Fair, Geyer, and Okun. Water and Wastewater Engineering ,
Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1968.
64. Personal Correspondence from Tony Campman. EIMCO Division
of Envirotech, July 1973.
65. Clark, R. H. and J. H. Brown. “Municipal Work Disposal
Problems or Opportunity,” report to Ontario Economic Council,
Ontario, Canada, 1971.
66. Personal Communication. Mr. Bradley Card, Consulting Engi-
neer, Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Yakima Valley
Junior College, Yakima, Washington, 1973.
67. Clark, B. D., W. F. Rittal, D. J. Baumgartner and K. U.
Byran. “The Barged Ocean Disposal of Wastes,” Environmental
Protection Agency, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon, July 1971.
169
-------
68. “Bulk Transport of Waste Slurries to Inland and Ocean Dis—
posal Sites,” Summary Report prepared by Bechtel Corporatj 0
for the FWPCA under Contract 14-12-156, December 1969.
69. Mulbarger, M. C., et al. “Lime Clarification, Recovery,
Reuse, and Sludge Dewater Characteristics,” Journal WPCF ,
Vol. 41, No. 12, p. 2070, December 1969.
70. “Sanitary Landfill Facts,” U. S. Department of Health, Educa
tion, and Welfare, 1970.
71. Dotson, C. K. News of Environmental Research in Cincinnati
EPA, May 31, 1973, “Constraints to Spreading Sewage Sludge ‘
on Cropland.
72. Proceedings: 10th Sanitary Engineering Conference Waste
Disposal from Water & Wastewater Treatment Processes,
Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Illinois and Illinois Dept.
of Public Health, Division of Sanitary Engineering, Feb.
1968.
73. Schwinn, Donald E., “Treatment Plant Designed for Anticj- ..
pated Standards,” Public Works , p. 54, January 1973.
74. Culp, Pt. L, D. Pt. Evans, J. C. Wilson, “Advanced Waste—.
water Treatment as Practiced at South Tahoe,” prepared
by South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District for the
Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. 17O1OELQOB/71
August 1971.
75. Envirotech Corporation, EIMCO Processing Machinery
Division. Advertising Brochures.
76. Perry, R. H., Editor. Chemical Engineering Handbook , 14th
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
77. Rich, L. C. Unit Operation of Sanitary Engineering , John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1961.
78. Sparr, A., and V. Grippi. “Gravity Thickeners for Activated
Sludge,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 41, No. 11, p. 1886, November
1969.
79. Malina, J. F., Jr., and J. DiFilippo. “Treatment of Super....
natants and Liquids Associated with Sludge Treatment,”
Water and Sewage Works , p. R—30, Reference Number 1971.
80. Dalton, F. E., J. E. Stein and B. T. Lynam. “Land Reclama....
tion-- -A Complete Solution of the Sludge and Solids Disposal
Problem,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 40, No. 5, p. 789, May 1968.
170
-------
81. Carison, C. W., and J. D. Menzies. Utilization of Urban
Wastes in Crop Production , U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, Agricultural
Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, June 15, 1971.
82. Peterson, J. R., C. Lue—Hing, and D. R. Zenz. Chemical
and Biological Quality of Municipal Sludg e , Unpublished
manuscript, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1973.
83. “50-Ton Drier Added to Milorganite Facilities,” Compost
Science , Vol. 1, No. 2, P. 48, 1970.
84. “Marketing Practices for Milorganite,” Compost Science ,
Vol. 2, NO. 4, p. 35, 1962.
85. Leary, R. D. “Production of Vitamin B12 from Milorganite,”
Compost Science , Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 35, 1962.
86. Styers, F. “It’s Not Sludge—-It’s Fertilizer,” American
City , Vol. 86, No. 2, p. 48, January 1971.
87. Rudolfs, W. “Fertilizer and Fertility Values of Sewage
Sludge,” Water and Sewage Works , Vol. 96, No. R—157, 1949.
88. Fleming, 3. R. “Sludge Utilization and Disposal,”
Sewage and Industrial Wastes , Vol. 31, P. 1342, December 1959.
89. Niles, A. H. “Sewage Sludge as a Fertilizer,” Sewage
Works , Vol. 16, p. 720, 1944.
90. Jenne, E. A. “Controls on Mn, Fe, Cc, Ni, Cu, and Zn
Concentrations in Soils and Water: The Significant Role
of Hydrous Mn and Fe Oxides,” Trace Inorganics in Water ,
Advances in Chemistry Series 73, American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C., 1968.
91. Lunt, H. A. Digested Sewage Sludge for Soil Improvement ,
Bulletin No. 622, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station, Storrs, Connecticut, 1959.
92. Ewing, B. B., and R. I. Dick. “Disposal of Sludge on
Land,” Advances in Water Quality Improvement—-Physical
and Chemical Processes , E. F. Gloyna and W. W. Eckenfelder,
Jr., Editors, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1970.
93. Utilities and Transportation Commission, Special Commission
Tariff , Tariff No. 4, Itera 870, Note 14, Schedule C, State
of Washington, December 1, 1971.
171
-------
94. Allen, S. E., G. L. Terman, and J. M. Soileau. “Municipal
Waste Compost: Effects on Crop Yields and Nutrient Content
in Greenhouse Pot Experiments,” Journal of Environmental
Quality , Vol. 2, No. 1, January-March 1973.
95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Prices ,
Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board ,
Washington, D.C., September 15, 1972.
96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commercial Fertilizers ,
Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board,
Washington, D.C., October 27, 1972.
97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Prices ,
Statistical Reporting Service, Croj ReporiThg 3oaid ,
Washington, D.C., October 27, 1972.
98. Duggan, 3. C., G. L. Terman, and D. A. Mays. “Municipal
Compost: Effects on Crop Yields and Soil Properties,”
Journal of Environmental Quality , Vol. 2, No. 1, 1973.
99. Bunting, A. H. “Experiments on Organic Manures, l942—49,’
Journal of Agricultural Science , Vol. 60, p. 121, 1963.
LOU. Hortenstine, C. C., and D. F. Rothwell. “Garbage Compost
as a Source of Plant Nutrients for Oats and Radishes,”
Compost Science , Vol. 9, NO. 2, p. 23, February 1968.
LOl. Kellogg’s Supply Co., Inc. Miscellaneous Information,
23924 S. Figueroa, Wilmington, California, 1973.
L02. “Composting: Is It Economically Sound?,” Refuse Removal
Journal , Vol. 9, No. 7, p. 10, July 1966.
L03. Anderson, M. S. “Comparative Analyses of Sewage Sludges “
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 28, No. 2 n 132
• ,
February 1956.
L04. Davis, W. K. “Land Disposal III: Land Use Planning,”
Journal WPCF , Vol. 45, No. 7, p. 1485, July 1973.
L05. McGauhey, P. H., and R. B. Krone, “Soil Mantle as a
Wastewater Treatment System,” Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory Report 671l, University of Californj
Berkeley, 1967.
L06. “Sewage Sludge Incineration,” EPA Task Force for the Of
of Research and Monitoring, Program Element B12043, March
1972.
172
-------
107. Weber, J. “Effects of Toxic Metals in Sewage on Crops,”
Water Pollution Control , Canada, Vol. 71, p. 404, 1972.
108. Berrow, M. L. and J. Webber, “Trace Elements in Sewage
Sludges,” Journal Sd. Food Pgr. , Vol. 23, p. 93, 1972.
109. Rudolfs, W., L. L. Falk, and R. A. Ragotzkil, Literature
Review on the Occurrence and Survival of Enteric, Patho-
genic, and Relative Organisms in Soil, Water, Sewage, and
Sludges, and on Vegetation, I. Bacterial and Virus Diseases,”
Sewage and Industrial Wastes , Vol. 22, No. 10, P. 1261,
October 1950.
110. Kenner, B. A., G. K. Dotson, and J. E. Smith, Jr. “Simul-
taneous Quantitation of Salmonella Species and Pseudomonas
Aeruginosa,” EPA-NERC-Cincinnati, internal report, 1971.
111. Hinesly, T. 0., T. L. Jones, and E. L. Ziegler. “Effects
on Corn by Applications of Heated Anaerobically Digested
Sludge,” Compost Science , Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 26, July—
August 1972.
112. “University of Toronto Studies Reveal Toxic Metals in Sludges
Used for Soils,” Water & Sewage Works , p. 50, July 1973.
113. Cadmium in the Environment , CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio,
1971.
114. John, M. K., et al. “Factors Affecting Plant Uptake and
Phytotoxicity of Cadmium Added to Soils,” Environmental
Science and Technology , Vol. 6, p. 1005, June 1972.
115. Hinesly, T. 0., 0. C. Braids, J.A.E. Molina, R. H. Dick,
R. L. Jones, R. C. Meyer, and L. Y. Welch. “Agricultural
Benéf its and Environmental Changes Resulting from the
Use of Digested Sewage Sludge on Field Crops,” Annual
Report, University of Illinois and City of Chicago, EPA
Grant DO I—UI—00080, Unpublished, 1972.
116. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Prices ,
Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board,
Washington, D.C., September 15, 1972.
117. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commercial Fertilizers .
Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board,
Washington, D.C., October 27, 1972.
118. Connell, C. H. “Utilization of Wastewaters,” Industrial
Wastes , Vol. 2, p. 148, February 1957.
173
-------
119. Merz, R. C. “Direct Utilization of Wastewaters,” Proceed
ings of the 11th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Uni-
versity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1956.
120. Connell, C. H., and E. J. M. Berg. “Industrial Uti1izatj 0
of Municipal Wastewater,” Sewage and Industrial Wastes ,
Vol. 31, p. 212, February 1959.
121. Connell, C. H., and N. C. Forbes. “Once Used Municipal
Wastes as Industrial Supply: In Retrospect and Prospect,”
Water and Sewage Treatment , Vol. 3, p. 397, 1964.
122. Todd, D. K. “Economics of Groundwater Recharge,” ASCE
Proceedings , Vol. 91, No. HY4, p. 249, 1965.
123. Law, J. P. “Agricultural Utilization of Sewage Effluent
and Sludge: An Annotated Bibliography,” FWPCA, U. s.
Department of the Interior, NTIS No. PB-205 028, January
1968.
124. parizek, R. R., et al. “Wastewater Renovation and Conserva
tion,” Pennsylvania State Studies No. 23, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, 1967.
125. Rutaan, V. W. The Economic Demand for Irrigated Acrea ,
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1965.
126. Cone, B. W. “A Survey of the Economics of Irrigation jr
Israel,” Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Report
No. y—56081, Richland, Washington, 1972.
127. Nelson, A. G., and C. D. Bush. “Cost of Pumping Irrigatj 0
Water in Central Arizona,” Arizona Agricultural Experiment
Station, Tech. Bull. 183, University of Arizona,
1967.
128. Miller, S. F., L. L. Boersma, and E. N. Castle. “Irrjga
Water Values in the Willamette Valley: A Study of Alterna
tive Valuation Methods,” Agricultural Experiment Station,
Tech. Bull. 85, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 19G5
129. WhittlesaY, N. K., and T. H. Allison, Jr. “The Value of
Water Used in Washington Irrigated Agriculture,” Washing
ton Agricultural Experiment Station, Bull. 745, College
AgricUltUrev Washington State University, Pullman, 1971.
130. Eckenfelder, W. W., and D. . O’Conner. Biological Waste
Treatjflent, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961.
131. OceanOlogy International, October 1970.
174
-------
132. Allen, J. “Sewage Farming,” Environment , Vol. 15, No. 3,
April 1973.
133. Rohde, G. “The Effects of Trace Elements on the Exhaustion
of Sewage Irrigated Land,” Water Pollution Abstracts , Vol. 36,
No. 421, P. 2063, 1962.
134. Dye, E. 0. “Crop Irrigation with Sewage Effluent,” Sewage
and Industrial Wastes , Vol. 30, p. 825, June 1957.
135. Herzik, G. R., Jr. “Texas Approves Irrigation of Animal
Crops with Sewage Plant Effluents,” Wastes Engineering ,
Vol. 27, p. 418, 1956.
136. Wilcox, L. V. “Agricultural Uses of Reclaimed Sewage Efflu-
ent,” Sewage Works Journal , Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 24, January 1948.
137. Henry, C. D., et al. “Sewage Effluent Disposal through
Crop Irrigation,” Sewage and Industrial Wastes , Vol. 26,
P. 123, February 1954.
138. Dunlop, S. G. “Survival of Pathogens and Related Disease
Hazards,” in Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation ,
Chapter IX, Agricultural Engineering Department, Louisiana
Polytechnic Institute, Ruston, July 30, 1968.
139. Contrell, R. P., et al. “A Technical and. Economic Feasi-
bility Study of the Use of Municipal Sewage Effluent for
Irrigation,” in Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation ,
Chapter XI, Agricultural Engineering Department, Louisiana
Polytechnic Institute, Ruston, July 30, 1968.
140. Wolfel, R. M. “Liquid Digested Sludge to Land Surfaces,
Experiences at St. Mary’s and Other Municipalities in
Pennsylvania,” paper presented at 39th Annual Conference
of the Water Pollution Control Association of Pennsylvania,
August 11, 1967.
141. Dean, R. B. “Disposal and Reuse of Sludge and Sewage:
What are the Options?,” EPA/NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio.
142. Graham, R. E., and R. D. Dodson. “Digested Sludge Disposal
at San Diego’s Aquatic Park,’ 1 paper presented at the 41st
Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
Chicago, Illinois, September 1968.
143. Dotson, G. K., R. B. Dean, and G. Stern. “The Cost of
Dewatering and Disposing of Sludge on the Land,” EPA/NERO,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
175
-------
144. Morris, W. 1-I. M. “Economics of Liquid-Manure Disposal
from Confined Livestock,” in Farm Animal Wastes, Journal
Paper No. 2886, Agricultural Experiment Station, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana.
145. Dean, R. B., ed. “Nitrogen Removal from Wastewaters,”
FWQA, Division of Research and Development, Advanced Waste
Treatment Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1970.
146. Jones, J. R. E. Fish and River Pollution , Butterworth’s,
London, 1964.
147. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater,
ITth ed. , Anerican Public Health Association, New York, 1971
148. Camp, T. R. Water and Its Impurities , Reinhold Publishing,
New York, 1963.
149. Betz Handbook of Industrial Water Conditioning , Betz Labora
tories, Philade1 hia, Pennsylvania, 1g62 .
150. Behrman, A. A. Water is Everybody’s Business: The Chemis....
try of Water Purification , Anchor Books, Garden City, Ni T
York, 1968.
151. Wuhrmann, K. “Nitrogen Removal in Sewage Treatment Processes
Verh. mt. Verein. Lirnnol. , Vol. 15, p. 580, 1964.
152. Johnson, W. K., and G. J. Schroeffer. “Nitrogen Removal
Nitrification and Denitrification,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 36,
No. 9, p. 1015, August 1964.
153. Slechta, A. F., and G. L. Cuip. “Water Reclamation Studies
at the South Tahoe Public Utility District,” Journal WPCF ,
Vol. 39, No. 5, p. 787, May 1967.
154. Parkhurst, J. D., et al. “Pomona Activated Carbon Pilot
Plant,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 39, No. 10, p. R-70, October 1957
155. St. Arnant, P. P., and P. L. McCarty. “Treatment of High
Nitrate Waters,” Journal AWWA , p. 659, 1969.
156. Seidel, D. F., and R. W. Crites. “Evaluation of Anaerobj 0
Denitrification Process,” Journal San. Eng. Div., ASCE ,
Vol. 96, P. 267, April 197 .
157. Rimer, A. E., and R. L. Woodward. “Two Stage Activated
Sludge Pilot Plant Operation at Fitchberg, Massachusetts,”
Journal WPCF , Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 101, January 1972.
176
-------
158. Wild, H. E., C. N. Sawyer, and T. C. McMahan. “Factors
Affecting Nitrification Kinetics,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 43,
No. 9, p. 1845, September 1971.
159. Barth, E. F. “Combined Treatment for Removal of Nitrogen
and Phosphorus,” paper presented at FWPCA Technical Seminar
on Nutrient Removal and Advanced Waste Treatment, Portland,
Oregon, February 1969.
160. Parker, D. S., and D. G. Niles. “Full Scale Test Plant at
Contra Costa Turns Out Valuable Data on Advanced Waste Treat-
ment,” The Bulletin, July 1972.
161. “Denitrification by Anaerobic Filters and Ponds,” EPA Water
Pollution Control Research Series, No. 13030 ELY 04/71-8,
April 1971.
162. Haug, R. T., and P. L. McCarty. “Nitrification with Sub-
merged Filters,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 44, No. 11, P. 2086,
November 1972.
163. Ardern, E., and W. T. Lockett. “Experiments on the Oxida-
tion of Sewage Without the Aid of Filters,” Journal Soc.
of Chem. md. , Vol. 33, p. 523, 1914.
164. Schmidt, 0. J. “Developments in Activated Sludge Practice,”
Public Works , Vol. 94, No. 9, p. 109, September 1963.
165. Sawyer, C. N. “Activated Sludge Modifications,” Journal
WPCF , Vol. 32, No. 3, March 1960.
166. McKinney, R. E., and R. J. Ooten. “Concepts of Complete
Mixing Activated Sludge,” Trans. 19th Annual Conference on
Sanitary Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 1969.
167. Wuhrmann, K. Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial
Wastes , Vol. I, Reinhold Publishing, New York, 1956.
168. Goodman, B. L. Manual for Activated Sludge Sewage Treat-
ment , Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut,
1971.
169. Keefer, C. E., and J. Meisel. Sewage and Industrial Wastes ,
Vol. 27, No. 3, p. 982, 1951.
170. Chipperfield, P. N. J. “Performance of Plastic Filter
Media in Industrial and Domestic Waste Treatment,” Journal
WPCF , Vol. 39, No. 11, p. 1860, November 1967.
171. Cuip, G. L. “Direct Recirculation of High Rate Trickling
Filter Effluent,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 742,
June 1963.
177
-------
172. Rincke, G., and N. Wolters. “Technology of Plastic Medium
Trickling Filters,” in Advances in Water Pollution Research ,
Vol. II, p. 15, Pergamon Press, New York, 1971.
173. Bruce, A. M. “Some Factors Affecting the Efficiency of
High Rate Biological Filters,” in Advances in Water Pollu-
tion Research , Vol. II, p. 14, Pergamon Press, New York,
1971.
174. Meltzer, D. “Experimental Investigations into Biological
Filtration of Sewage at Klipspruit Sewage Purification
Works,” Journal and Proc., Inst. Sew. Purif. , Part 3,
p. 329, 1958.
175. Krige, W. P. “Effect of Different Grades of Filter Medium
on the Purification of Sewage in Biological Filters,” Jour-
nal and Proc., Inst. Sew. Purif. , Part 2, p. 150, 1962.
176. Germain, J. E. “Economical Treatment of Domestic Waste by
Plastic Medium Trickling Filters,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 38,
No. 2, P. 192, February 1966.
177. “Federation Report of 1971 Disabling Injuries per Waste-
water Works: Deeds and Data,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 45, No. 3,
1973.
178. “A Regional Water Reclamation Plan,” prepared for Upper
Occoquan Sewage Authority, Virginia, by CH 2 N/Hill, January
1971.
179. Baker, R. H. “Package Aeration Plants in Florida,” Journal
San. Eng. Div., ASCE , Vol. 88, No. SA6, p. 75, Marchi i
180. Lynam, B., et al. “Tertiary Treatment at Metro Chicago by
Means of Rapid Sand Filtration and Microtrainers,” Journal
WPCF , Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 247, February 1969.
181. Tchobanoglous, G. “Filtration Techniques in Tertiary Treat
ment,” paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of th
Water Pollution Control Association of California, April 26,
1968.
182. Shell, C. L., et al. “Upgrading Waste Treatment Plants,”
Business and the Environment , McGraw—Hill, New York, p. 52,
1972.
183. Personal communication with Mr. Walter Conley, Vice Presj....
dent, Neptune Microfloc, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, 1973.
184. Conley, W. R., and K. Hsiung. “Design and Application of
Multimedia Filters,” Journal AWWA , p. 97, February 1969.
178
-------
185. Proges, R., et al. “Sewage Treatment by Extended Aeration,”
Journal WPCF , Vol. 33, No. 12, December 1961.
186. McKinney, R. E. “A Study of Small Complete Mixing, Extended
Aeration, Activated Sludge Plants in Massachusetts,” New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1961.
187. “A Study of Aerobic Digestion Sewage Treatment Plants in
Ohio, 1959-1960,” State of Ohio Department of Health,
Columbus, 1962.
188. Pfeffer, J. “Design Criteria for Extended Aeration,” Trans-
actions 13th Annual Conference on Sanitary Engineering,
Public Bulletin A&E No. 51, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
1963.
189. Shaver, J. W., et al. “Performance Study of a Municipal
Extended Aeration Plant,” Public Works , Vol. 99, No. 3,
p. 85, March 1968.
190. Clark, S. E., et al. “Biological Waste Treatment in the
Far North,” FWQA, U. S. Department of the Interior, No.
1601—6—70, 1970.
191. Sawyer, C. N., and P. L. McCarty.. Chemistry for Sanitary
Engineers , McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
192. Giese, A. C. Cell Physiology , 3rd ed., W. B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia, 1968.
193. Roulds, J. M. “Oxidation Pond as an Advanced Treatment
Unit,” Water and Sewage Works , Vol. 119, p. 56, December 1972.
194. McKinney, R. E. “Waste Treatment Lagoons—-State-of—the—Art,”
EPA, Water Pollution Control Research Series, No. 17090
EHX 07/71, 1971.
195. Crawford, H. B., and D. N. Fischel, eds. Water Quality and
Treatment , The American Water Works Association, Inc.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.
196. Recht, H. L., and M. Ghassemi. “Kinetics and Mechanisms of
Precipitation and Nature of the Precipitate Obtained in
Phosphate Removal from Wastewater Using Aluminum III and
Iron III Salts,” EPA, Water Pollution Control Research
Series, No. 17010 EKI 04/70, 1970.
197. Oswald, W. J., and H. B. Gotaas. “Photosynthesis in Sewage
Treatment,” Journal San. Eng. Div., ASCE , Vol. 81, p. 686,
1955.
179
-------
198. Eckenfelder, W. W. “Engineering Aspects of Surface Aerator
Design,” Proc. of 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, May 1967.
199. Bartsch, E. H., and C. W. Randall. “Aerated Lagoons--A
Report on the State-of-the-Art,” Journal WPCF , Vol. 43,
No. 4, p. 699, April 1971.
200. Oswald, W. J. “Advances in Anaerobic Pond Systems Design,”
in Advances in Water Quality Improvement , University of
Texas Press, Austin, 1968.
201. Noles, A. H. “Sewage Sludge as a Fertilizer,” Sewage Works ,
Vol. 16, P. 720, 1944.
202. Rohliech, G. A. “Chemical Methods for Removal of Nitrogen
and Phosphorus from Sewage Plant Effluents,” in Algae and
Metropolitan Wastes , U. S. Public Health Service, 1960.
203. Green Land-—Clean Streams! The Beneficial Use of Wastewater
thzough Land Treatment , Temple University, Philadelphia, 1 72.
204. “Ammonia Removal from Agricultural Runoff and Secondary
Effluents by Selective Ion Exchange,” prepared by Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories for Robert A. Taft Water
Research Center, Report No. TWRC-5, March 1969.
205. “Wastewater Ammonia Removal by Ion Exchange,” prepared by
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and the South Tahoe
Public Utility District for the EPA, Water Pollution Control
Research Series, No. 17010 ECZ 02/71, February 1971.
206. Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption , EPA, Technology
Transfer Contract No. 14-12—92B, October 1971.
207. Smisek, M., and S. Cerny. Active Carbon , Elsevier Publish-.
ing Co., New York, 1970.
208. Loven, A. W., and C. H. Huether. “Activated Carbon on Treat...
ing Industrial Wastes,” paper presented at the American
Chemical Society National Meeting, February 1970.
209. O’Farrell, T. P., et al. “Advanced Waste Treatment at Wash...
ington, D. C.,” paper presented at the 65th Annual AIChE
Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, May 1969.
210. White, W. F. “Fifteen Years of Experience Dewatering Munio ..
pal Wastes with Continuous Centrifuges,” Water - 1972 ,
AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 69, p. 129, 1973.
180
-------
211. Sherwood, R. J., and D. A. Dahistrom. “Economic Costs of
Dewatering Sewage Sludges by Continuous Vacuum Filtration,”
Water - 1972 , AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 67, p. 127, 1973.
212. “Sewage Sludge Incineration,” NTIS No. EPA-R2-72-040,
August 1972.
213. Bouwer, J. C.,, et al. “Renovating Sewage Effluent by
Groundwater Recharge,” U. S. Department of Agriculture
Water Conservation Laboratory.
214. McCarty, P. L. “Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals,”
Public Works , Vol. 10, p. 123, October 1964.
215. Kabler, P. W., et al. “Pathogenic Bacteria and Viruses in
Water Supplies,” paper presented at the 5th Sanitary Engi-
neering Conference, University of Illinois, Urbana, January
1963.
216. “Disposal of Brines Produced in Renovation of Municipal
Wastewater,” prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc., for FWPCA,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Contract No. 14—12-492,
May 1970.
217. Fair, G. M., and J. C. Geyer. Water Supply and Wastewater
Disposal , John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1954.
218. Hudson, H. E., Jr. “How Serious is the Problem?,” Proc.
of the 10th Annual Sanitary Engineering Conference, Uni-
versity of Illinois Bulletin, Vol. 65, No. 115, p. 1, 1968.
219. “Inorganic Fertilizer and Phosphate Mining Industries—-
Water Pollution and Control,” EPA, Water Pollution Control
Research Series, September 1971.
181
-------
APPENDIX A
LIQUID TREATMENT PROCESSES
-------
GENERAL
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A-i
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Process Description
Design Assumptions .
WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
Oxidation Ponds . .
Aerated Lagoons
Facuitative Lagoons
Anaerobic Lagoons .
Design Assumptions
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
Process Description
Design Assumptions .
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
Process Description .
Design Assumptions . .
EXTENDED AERATION . . . .
Process Description .
Design Assumptions . .
TRICKLING FILTER PROCESS
Process Description .
Design Assumptions . .
FILTRATION • •
Process Description .
Design Assumptions . . .
COAGULATION-FLOCCULATION
Process Description .
Design Assumptions . .
CARBON SORPTION . . . . .
Process Description .
Design Assumptions . .
A—i
A—6
• . • • • • . A—6
P.—9
• • • . • . • A—il
A—il
. A—13
• S • • • S • A—14
A—14
A—14
A—22
• 5 0 • 0 • • A—23
A—23
• . A—25
A—26
A—26
. A—3i
A—31
• . I I I I S
• • S • • • • A—41
A—41
A—41
• I I S S • I A—46
A—48
A—52
.A—53
A—53
A—62
• S S S S
• . 0 • I
• • • S S
• S S • I
• S S I S
ADDITION
• S S S
• S S S
• I I I
• . . S
• I S S
S S • S
• S S S S •
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)
NITRIFICATION-DENITRIFICATION
Process Description
Nitrogen Removal by Suspended Growth Reactors
Nitrogen Removal by Column Reactors
GeneralAssumptiOnS
SELECTIVE ION EXCHANGE REMOVAL OP N 1MONIA-NITROGEN
Process Description
Design Assumptions . . * .
LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENTS . . . . . . . . .
Process Description . . . . .
Design Assumptions . . . . .
DISINFECTION
Process Description
Design Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . .
• . A—62
• . A—62
• . A—68
• . A—70
• . A -72
A—73
• . A—73
• . A—78
• . A—78
• • A—78
• . A—86
• • A—87
• . A—87
• . A—89
A-u
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
A-i PERFORMANCE OF SEDIMENTATION TANKS
FOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL A-4
A-2 BOD REMOVAL IN PLAIN SEDIMENTATION
OF RAW WASTEWATER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
A-3 SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ALGAE AND BACTERIA A-8
A-4 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF A FACULTATIVE LAGOON A-12
A-5 COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS . . . . A-lB
A-6 EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS A-26
A-7 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON ACTIVITY OF ACTIVATED
SLUDGE AS MEASURED BY OXYGEN REQUIREMENTS
PER UNIT TIME . . . . . . • • • A—28
A-8 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON THE ACTION OF MALT
AMYLASE WHEN HYDROLYZING STARCH TO GLUCOSE A-30
A-9 LOW RATE SINGLE STAGE FILTER . . . . . . . A-32
A-iO INTERMEDIATE RATE FILTER WITH
ALTERNATE RECYCLE FLOW PATTERNS . . . . . . . A-32
A-il HIGH RATE, TWO STAGE TRICKLING FILTER
WITH ALTERNATE RECYCLE FLOW PATTERNS . . . . A-32
A-12 EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC LOADING ON STONE
MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER PERFORMANCE . . . . . A-37
A—i3 EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC LOADING ON PERFORMANCE
OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS . . . . . A-38
A-14 EFFECT OF ORGANIC LOADING ON STONE
MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER PERFORMANCE . . . . A-39
A-iS EFFECT OF ORGANIC LOADING ON PERFORMANCE
OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS . . . . . A-40
A-16 CUTAWAY VIEW OF A TYPICAL GRANULAR
MEDIA GRAVITY FILTER A-43
A-17 EFFECT OF FILTER INFLUENT (ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EFFLUENT) SUSPENDED SOLIDS ON HEADLOSS
BUILDUP FOR MIXED-MEDIA FILTER . . . . . . . A-47
A—i ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d.)
A-18 PRESSURE DROP VERSUS HYDRAULIC LOADING
IN GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON BEDS ...... A—56
A-19 HEADLOSS ON BED EXPANSION • • • A—57
A—20 EXPANSION OF CARBON BED AT VARIOUS FLOW RATES A-58
A-21 CROSS SECTION OF A TYPICAL CARBON COLUMN . . A—61
A-22 RATE OF NITRIFICATION AT ALL TEMPERATURES
COMPARED TO THE RATE OF 30°C A—64
A-23 PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PATE OF NITRIFICATION
AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE VERSUS pH . . . . . . A-65
A-24 DENITRIFICATION RATE VERSUS TEMPERATURE . . . A-67
A-25 THREE SLUDGE SYSTEM FOR NITROGEN REMOVAL . . A-69
A-26 ATTF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM . A—7].
A—27 FLOWSHEET FOP. AMMONIA SELECTIVE
ION EXCHANGE PROCESS . A—75
A-28 RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF HOC1 AND 0C1
FORMED AT VARIOUS pH LEVELS A—9 0
A-29 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONCENTRATION AND
TIME FOR 99 PERCENT DESTRUCTION OF E. CULl
BY 3 FORMS OF CHLORINE AT 2—6°C A-9].
A-iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
A-i DETENTION TIMES FOR VARIOUS SURFACE
LOADING RATES AND TANK DEPTHS A-3
A-2 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR STABILIZATION PONDS . . A-1O
A-3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DESIGN
PARAMETERS OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESSES . . A-17
A-4 SOLUBILITY OF OXYGEN (MG/L) AT VARIOUS
TEMPERATURES AND ELEVATIONS A-21
A-5 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF VARIOUS
TRICKLING FILTER MEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . A—36
A-6 VARIATION IN MEDIA DESIGN
FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS . A-45
A-7 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC LOADING OF
WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FOR VARIOUS
SOIL TEXTURES (IDEAL CONDITIONS) • . . . . . A-81
A-8 TYPICAL VALUES OF HEAVY METALS AND BORON FROM
SEVERAL SOURCES AND LIMIT FOR IRRIGATION WATER A-84
A-v
-------
APPENDIX A
LIQUID TREATMENT PROCESSES
GENERAL
The following sections of this appendix are designed to provide
a description of each liquid treatment unit process employed in
the eleven treatment strategies evaluated in this part. Each
discussion is aimed at providing information on major parameters
involved in design and/or installation of the process, the factors
which affect performance of that process, and the general assump-
tions that were made in the development of the data presented in
the profile sheets of this report.
The unit process design assumptions combined with specific
design parameters presented in the liquid treatment strategy
descriptions in the text of this report are intended to provide
sufficient information on land and labor requirements and
capital and operating costs to enable reconstruction of data
where greater detail is desired.
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Process Description
Primary wastewater treatment is concerned with the removal of
solids from wastewaters. This includes the removal of settle-
able, coarse, and suspended solids. Settleable solids include
those solids which settle readily such as sand, coffee grounds,
and rice, inclusively known as “grit”. Coarse solids include
branches, rags and other large floating debris. Suspended
solids are those solid particles which require a quiescent
period of gravity settling for removal. Settleable and coarse
solids are generally removed by so—called preliminary treatment
and suspended solids by primary sedimentation. Primary treat-
rnent includes both preliminary treatment and primary sedimentation.
In addition, primary treatment normally involves flow measurement
of influent wastewater.
The removal of coarse solids in preliminary treatment involves
the use of screening and/or shredding devices. Screening
devices include bar screens (bar racks) and traveling water
screens. Shredding devices include coinminutors, barminutors
and pulverizing pump units. Screening devices are intended
for entrapment of floating debris and subsequent removal.
Shredding devices cut or grind up the coarse solids to allow
for their passage to downstream treatment units for subsequent
removal.
A-l
-------
The removal of settleable solids, or grit,is achieved via grit
removal devices of several different designs. Grit removal
equipment is utilized to remove abrasive solids from wastewater,
to provide protection of mechanical equipment, and to reduce
deposits of grit in downstream treatment appurtenances. Grit
removal equipment may be located before or after primary sedi-
mentation.
Grit removal equipment located after primary sedimentation
receives primary settled sewage for degritting, and includes
centrifuges and hydraulic cyclones as solids removal devices.
The reason for locating grit removal equipment after primary
sedimentation is to reduce the size, and thus capital costs,
of grit removal equipment. Size reduction is due to the volume
reduction of sludge as compared to influent wastewater. Grit
removal equipment located after primary sedimentation will allow
the grit to pass through the primary clarifier and primary
influent pumps (if pumps are used) . However, it is thought by
some that the grit will not cause excessive wear on this equip-
ment, and that reduction in costs resulting from the use of
smaller grit removal equipment will significantly offset
increased maintenance costs on mechanical equipment caused by
the grit.
Locating grit removal equipment before primary sedimentation
protects downstream pumping equipment and the sludge scraper
mechanism in the primary clarifier from abrasive wear. Various
designs of grit chambers are used for this type solids removal.
For the purposes of this report, a grit chamber located before
primary sedimentation was the alternative considered.
Primary sedimentation involves the separation and removal of
suspended particles that are heavier than water and lighter
than water. Suspended particles heavier than water are re-
moved via quiescent gravitational settling. Those solids
lighter than water float to the surface as a scum layer and
are skimmed from the surface. The removal of settleable and
floating material reduces the suspended solids content by 50
to 65 percent with an associated reduction in BOD of 25 to
40 percent. 3 ’
Primary sedimentation may be used to provide the principal
degree of treatment or may be used as a preliminary step in a
biological secondary treatment sequence that will provide
greater degrees of treatment. Primary sedimentation which
precedes secondary biological treatment is normally designed
to provide shorter detention times and higher surface loading
rates than when designed for primary treatment as the only
method of treatment. Normally, primary sedimentation tanks
are designed to provide 90 to 150 minutes of detention based
on the average daily rate of flow of influent wastewater.
Primary sedimentation tanks preceding secondary biological
A-2
-------
treatment normally are designed to provide 30 to 60 minutes
of detention. 3 ’
Currently, sedimentation tanks are designed on the basis of
surface loading rates. The surface loading rate, or surface
overflow rate, is based on the average daily flow and expressed
as gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sq ft) of tank surface
area. The selection of a suitable loading rate must meet the
approval of state regulatory agencies, most of which have
adopted standards that must be followed. Many state standards
are based on the Ten State Standards ‘ which require that
surface loading rates for primary sedimentation not followed
by secondary treatment “. ..shall not exceed 600 gpd/sq ft for
plants of 1 MGD size or less”. Larger plants may use higher
surface loading rates, but for the purposes of this report
600 gpd/sq ft is considered optimum.
Based on the design flow, the surface area of the tank is
determined, reflecting the 600 gpd/sq ft criteria. After the
surface area of the sedimentation tank is established, the
detention time is determined by water depth as shown in Table A—l.
TABLE A-l
DETENTION TIMES FOR VARIOUS
SURFACE LOADING RATES A D TANK DEPTHS 31
Detention time, hr
Surface Loading 7 ft 8 ft 10 ft 12 ft
rate, gpd/sg ft depth depth depth depth
400 3.2 3.6 4.5 5.4
600 2.1 2.4 3.0 3.6
800 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.7
1,000 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.2
It should be emphasized that surface overflow rates must be
set low enough to ensure satisfactory performance at peak
hydraulic flow rates, which may vary from 3 times the average
flow in small plants to 1.5 the average flow in large plants. 3 ’
Figure A-i shows the effect of overflow rate on suspended
solids removal and Figure A-2 shows the effect of overflow
rate on hOD removals.
The effect of the surface loading rate and detention time on
suspended solids removal varies widely depending on the character
of the wastewater, proportion of settleable solids, concentrations
of solids, and other factors.
A-3
-------
80
o o
0•
• RECTANGULAR TANKS
o CIRCULAR TANKS
70— 0 0
.
0.0
•000\ 0 0 0 .
60
2:
S
• S MEDIAN LINE OMITTING
REMOVALS LESS THAN 35%
0 AND OVERFLOW RATES —
5u S \LESS THAN 300 GAL
LU
\ , o DAY PE
0
L’)
FT
40
LU
2:
LU
V) .0
3Q S
.
S
20
S
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
OVERFLOW RATE, GAL PER DAY PER SQ FT
FIGURE A-i. PERFORMANCE OF SEDIMENTATION TANKS FOR
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL’ 9
A-4
-------
1000 800 600
OVERFLOW
RATE, GPD/SQ FT
I—
LU
(U
LU
-J
LU
01
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
1500
400
FIGURE A-2.
BOD REMOVAL IN PLAIN SEDIMENTATION OF RAW WASTEWATER 32
-------
The maximum volume of solids will be removed by sedimentation
when the flow through the settling tank is uniform, that is,
when no extraneous currents are present that will interfere
with particle settling velocities. Density currents may also
reduce settling efficiency. Such currents are caused by influx
of materials of lesser or greater specific gravities, as by the
recycle of digester supernatant or by large variations in
influent temperatures. Poorly designed inlets may induce
interfering currents, and improper outlets may allow a loss
of solids out of the tank. Wind may also cause rather high
velocity currents on larger size clarifiers.
A large number of primary sedimentation tanks utilize lift
stations for pumping wastewater into the tanks for treatment,
and as such are dependent on a realiable source of power. In
such cases emergency power supplies are required to assure
continuous operation.
Design Assumptions
For the design and cost purposes of this report the design flow
was based on the average daily flow and surface loading rate
of primary sedimentation tanks was assumed at 600 gpd/sq ft.
Solids loadings of 20-25 lbs/sq ft/day were assumed. Preliminary
treatment, including screening and grit removal, precedes primary
sedimentation.
Primary sludge solids production for the type and quality of
wastewaters considered will provide approximately 900—1100
pounds per million gallons of wastewater treated.
WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
Domestic wastewaters may be effectively stabilized by the
natural biological processes of relatively shallow ponds.
Stabilization is carried out by the photosynthetic processes
of algae and/or the oxidative processes of bacteria. Waste
stabilization ponds (or lagoons, as they are sometimes called)
have become very popular with small communities because their
low construction and operating costs offer a significant finan—
cial advantage over other recognized treatment methods.
Waste stabilization ponds are generally classified according to
the nature of the biological activity and environment within
the pond. Thus stabilization ponds are classified as aerobic,
aerobic—anaerobic (or facultative) , and anaerobic. A waste
stabilization pond system may include a single pond or a number
of ponds in series or parallel. Also the differently classified
ponds may be utilized in series, i.e., aerobic followed by an
A-6
-------
anaerobic, or vice versa. This is usually done to effect
greater treatment efficiencies than can be achieved via a single
pond type.
Aerobic ponds are generally separated into two categories based
on whether natural or artificial methods of supplying oxygen
to the bacteria in the pond are utilized. Lagoons which receive
their oxygen supply by natural surface aeration and by algal
photosynthesis are generally termed “oxidation ponds.” Mechan-
ical aeration units can be used to artificially supply oxygen
to the bacteria and the process is essentially the same as the
activated sludge process, without recycle of microorganisms.
Mechanically aerated ponds are generally termed “aerated lagoons.”
Oxidation ponds utilize algae and bacteria in a symbiotic rela-
tionship t.o stabilize waste organics. This is depicted in
Figure A-3. The oxygen released by the algae through the pro-
cess of photosynthesis is utilized by bacteria in the aerobic
degradation of organic matter. The nutrients and carbon dioxide
released via respiration are, in turn, used by the algae. During
the daylight hours of increased algal photosynthetic activity,
it is possible for oxygen concentrations to reach supersaturation
levels. Generally solids will settle in an oxidation pond due
to the lack of mixing. These settled solids accumulate, forming
an anaerobic sludge layer on the bottom, and the pond becomes
an aerobic—anaerobic (facultative) pond. Oxidation ponds ener-
ally are relatively shallow being 3 to 5 feet in depth.’ 9
Aerated lagoons are an outgrowth of the development of the con-
pletely mixed activated sludge process in that surface mechani-
cal aerators were applied to overloaded oxidation ponds. Aerated
lagoons are generally constructed at depths of 8 to 15 feet. 55 ’’ 9
Generally, no consideration is given to algae for supplying
dissolved oxygen because the pond surface is turbulent inhibit-
ing the growth of algae.
Aerobic—anaerobic, or facultative, ponds were historically
known as stabilization ponds. The symbiotic algae-bacteria
relationship is utilized to its fullest in these ponds. The
ponds are generally 3 to 8 feet in depth and solids settle to
the bottom to eventually decompose. This decomposition is
anaerobic and results in the interchange of anaerobic decom-
position byproducts and aerobic oxidation byproducts between
the lower and upper portions of the pond.
Anaerobic ponds were the inevitable result of the widespread
use of “stabilization” ponds (facultative) where the organic
loading rates became excessive causing anaerobic conditions
throughout the pond. The symbiotic stabilization relationship
failed, but was substituted for by an anaerobic stabilization
A-7
-------
ALGAE
0
NEW ALGAE
Co 2 N H
PU 4 , H 2 0
oo o oo NEW BACTERIA
SOLUBLE C GANIC _________ 0
MATTER BACTERIA
FIGURE A-3. SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALGAE AND BACTERIA
-------
process where waste organics are stabilized by anaerobic methane
forming bacteria similar to that which occurs in anaerobic
digesters.
Stabilization ponds (aerobic, facultative and anaerobic ponds)
have been found to be an effective and relatively inexpensive
means of treating domestic wastes. Economic considerations and
space requirements tend to make these methods of treatment most
attractive to smaller urban areas. Table A—2 presents design
criteria for stabilization ponds as will be discussed below.
Oxidation Ponds
Encouragement of the process of aerobic oxidation of wastes
requires that design parameters be considered which promote a
viable bacterial population, including dissolved oxygen, tem-
perature, pH, nutrient source, and time.
The physical size of the pond establishes the majority of the
above factors; temperature is a climatic parameter which cannot
be controlled to any great extent. A discussion of the remain-
ing criteria follows.
Loading criteria (lb BOD/acre/day) have been based on the ability
of algae, through photosynthesis, to supply sufficient oxygen
to bacteria for oxidation of waste organics. Oxidation ponds
are constructed with large surface areas for maximum exposure
to sunlight which is important for the growth of algae. Studies
have indicated that photosynthetic efficiencies of only ten
percent were possible in sewage oxidation ponds. 197
Ice cover has been reported to decrease the light penetration
to 0.5 to 15 percent of that reaching the surface. In the
summer, approximately 99 percent of the light is absorbed in
the top 24 inches of the ponds. Diurnal variations in photo-
synthetic supply of oxygen result in large concentration ranges
of dissolved oxygen (high levels during the day and low at
night).
To achieve best results with aerobic ponds, their contents must
be mixed periodically with pumps or some type of aeration device.
The efficiency of BOD conversion in aerobic ponds may be high.
It should be noted that this BOD has been taken up in algae
cells. The pond effluent may contain a large quantity of algae
which will ultimately die, causing an oxygen demand. Therefore,
to actually remove BOD requires removing the algae from the
pond effluent.
Several techniques for separation have been attempted including
centrifugation and chemical precipitation. 194 Perhaps the most
economical and practical method to date is to operate several
ponds in series with outlet structures designed to draw the
final effluent from below the pond surface.
A-9
-------
TABLE A-2
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR STABILIZATION PONDS 31
Type of Pond
Mechanically Mechanically
Oxidation Aerated Aerated
Parameter Pond — Facultative Facultative Anaerobic Lagoons
Detention time, days* 10—40 7—30 7—20 20—50 3—10
Depth, ft 3—4 3—6 3—8 3—15 6—20
pH 6.5—10.5 6.5—9.0 6.5—8.5 6.8—7.2 6.5—8.0
Temperature range, °C 0-40 0—50 0—50 6-50 0-40
Optimum temperature, 20 20 20 30 20
oc
BOD 5 loading, 60—120 15—50 30—100 200—4000
lb/acre/day
BOD 5 conversion, 80—95 70—95 80—95 50—70 80—95
percent
Principal conversion Algae, CO 2 . Algae, C0 2 ,CH 4 , C0 2 , CH 4 , C0 2 , CH 4 , C0 2 ,
products bacterial bacterial cell bacterial bacterial bacterial
cell tissue tissue cell tissue cell tissue cell tissue
Algal concentration, 80-200 40—160 10—40
mg/liter
*Depends on climatic conditions
-------
It is generally considered that in a period of 20 days at 20°C,
bacteria are able to more or less completely stabilize the
organic matter. However, if ice is covering the pond surface
preventing sufficient oxygen development from the algae in
winter months, artificial aeration must be utilized to produce
a high quality pond effluent.
Aerated Lagoons
As mentioned previously, aerated lagoons are deeper versions of
the oxidation pond where the contents of the pond are vigorously
mixed with some type of aeration device. Little consideration
is given to the contribution of algae for the supply of oxygen.
Aerated lagoons depend on aeration devices for supplying oxygen
required to stabilize the organic matter. Aeration devices
must also provide sufficient mixing to disperse oxygen and main-
tain solids in suspension. Mechanical aeration devices have
been shown to supply considerably more oxygen per unit horse-
power than air diffusion devices. However, in the extreme cold
temperatures of the northern latitudes, mechanical aerators
become inoperable during winter months. Subsurface air diffu—
Sian devices have proven quite effective in these instances.
Power level requirements of 0 02 to 0.03 hp/bOO gallons are
required to maintain solids in suspension and approximately
0.01 hp/l000 gallons to disperse oxygen uniformly throughout
the jfl• 98 Generally the power input levels are around
100 hp/million gallons for aerated lagoons.’ 99 Studies have
indicated the potential feasibility of obtaining 90 percent BOD
reduction at 0.5°C temperatures in aerated lagoons operating
with detention times of 10 to 15 days. Air diffusion devices
are normally utilized for cold climate applications.
Facultative Lagoons
The aerobic-anaerobic or facultative lagoon is designed to take
maximum advantage of the symbiotic relationship between algae
and bacteria, and is characterized by two distinct zones; an
aerobic zone and an anaerobic zone. Hydraulic and. organic
loadings are such that the dissolved oxygen in the lower sec-
tions of the lagoon is near zero and an aerobic layer is main-
tained above. A cross section of a typical facultative lagoon
is shown in Figure A-4.
Actually, most so—called aerated lagoons constructed today are
facultative lagoons. The facultative lagoon is designed with
only sufficient power input to insure uniform dissolved oxygen
in the upper layer of the lagoon. The aeration equipment is
designed for minimum energy input, only that theoretically
A-il
-------
2—3 FT. AEROBIC ZONE
H
TRANSITION ZONE
ANAEROBIC ZONE
3-8 FT.
FIGURE A-4. TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF A FACULTATIVE LAGOON
-------
required to provide for oxygen supply. Therefore, the bulk of
the solids are not kept in suspension but settle to the bottom
for anaerobic decomposition. Sedimentation may be provided to
obtain a clear effluent. Oxygen requirements for facultative
lagoons are determined at 1.5 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD
app1ied . 9 ’ Power input to a facultative lagoon is approximately
15 to 20 hp/million gallons of basin volume.’ 99
Facultative lagoons are used almost exclusively rather than
aerated lagoons because an equal quality effluent is produced
with lower power inputs.’ 19
Anaerobic Lagoons
Anaerobic ponds are designed to maintain environmental condi-
tions which are favorable for the development and growth of
methane bacteria. The primary factors affecting the growth
of methane bacteria are temperature, pH, detention time and
organic loading. Methane bacteria grow relatively slowly com-
pared to facultative organisms normally employed in aerobic
processes. Free dissolved oxygen in the environment is inhibi-
tory to these organisms. The minimal temperature for active
growth of methane bacteria is approximately 20°C. The methane
bacteria are sensitive outside a rather narrow pH range of 6.6
to 7.2.
Anaerobic ponds are loaded to such an extent that anaerobic
conditions exist throughout the lagoon. The anaerobic digestion
process in the lagoon is a two—stage process of organic acid
formation followed by methane fermentation. Organic loadings
of 500 to 2,000 lb BOD/acre/day are usually employed, resulting
in removal efficiencies of approximately 70 percent.
Extensive studies of anaerobic lagoons in California indicate
that the establishment of methane fermentation within anaerobic
lagoons will minimize nuisance odor problems generally associated
with these types of lagoons. 200 BOD loading necessary to create
environmental conditions favoring anaerobic reactions may be as
little as 100 lbs BOD/acre/day in the winter or as much as
400 lbs BOD/acre/day in the summer. 20 °
Anaerobic lagoons should be designed to provide a small surface
area-to—volume ratio for retention of maximum heat content.
Large surface areas present an opportunity for increased heat
exchange potential with the air.
A major advantage of anaerobic lagoons is the minimal attention
required for maintenance and laboratory control. In most cases
A-l3
-------
the lagoons are constructed and placed into operation on strictly
an empirical basis. Once placed into operation they are gener-
ally unattended.
Anaerobic lagoens have not been considered adequate as a complete
wastewater treatment process and are generally followed by
aerobic type ponds to achieve higher quaLity effluents.
Design Assumptions
As previously indicated, waste stabilization ponds a Jpear to
provide the least expensive (both capital and operating) alter—
native for sewage treatment plants of less than I M CD. Mechar i-.
cally aerated facultative ponds have been selected as the type
of waste stabilization pond most likely to be installed in a
small community. Facultative ponds are characterized by minimum
operational and maintenance requirements, capital costs, odor
nuisance, and relatively high BOD removals. Furthermore, it
was assumed that no sludge production would occur from the system•
As the pond fills with decomposed solids, it would be eventually
covered with soil and a new site excavated.
The final effluent from the system will be drawn below the pond
surface to minimize the release of algae. The effluent will be
either released to surface waters or applied to the land by
spray irrigation. The design loadings and parameters indicated
previously in Table A—2 for mechanically aerated facultative
ponds were assumed to apply. Cost data and sire requirements
appearing on the profile sheets reflect a pond Located in a
temperate climate. Extremely cold climates will cause
adjustments o the data. The electrical power requirements were
assumed to vary between 15 and 20 hp/million gallons of basin
volume. 199 An averaqe detention time of fifteen days
was also assumed.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
Process Description
The need for increasing degrees of wastewater purification has
created a continually growing interest in the activated sludge
process. In recent years it has become the most popular bio-
logical wastewater treatment process. There is every reason to
believe that it will find even greater use in the future, espe—
daily in combination with so-called “advanced physical-chemical”
treatment methods, which will be discussed in a later subject
phase.
The activated sludge process which was developed in England
about 60 years ago involves the production of a suspended mass
of microorganisms in a reactor to biologically degrade soluble
A— 14
-------
organic compounds in wastewater to carbon dioxide, water,
microorganisms and energy. The flocculant biological solids
(sludge) are continuously circulated and mixed with incoming
organic wastes in the presence of molecular oxygen. Ardern
and Lockett, 163 discoverers of the activated sludge process, in
reporting the results of their studies referred to the floccu—
lant biological solids (sludge) as being “activated.” In their
aeration studies, they saved the flocculant biological solids
(sludge) for use in subsequent experiments and were amazed at
the increased effectiveness each time the experiment was repeated,
thus the term “activated sludge.” As a basic biological treatment
system, it remained nearly unchanged during the first 30 years
of its existence, Significantly, nearly all modifications of
the system in the first 40 years of its use were the result of
efforts of treatment plant operators, not consulting engineers
or researchers. These early attempts at modification tended to
treat the process as a “physical” system and thus often met with
failure. Much of this difficulty was due to the lack of under-
standing that the process was biological-biochemical in nature.
Only in more recent times have biological—biochemical considera-
tions played a part in the design and/or operation of activated
sludge systems.
In operation of the activated sludge process, wastewater con-
taining soluble organic compounds is fed to the aerobic reactor
(aeration tank) which furnishes 1) air required by microorgan-
isms to biochemically oxidize the waste organics, and 2) mixing
to insure intimate contact of microorganisms with the organic
waste. The aerobic reactor contents are referred to as mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS). In the vigorously mixed aero-
bic reactor, the organic wastes are metabolized to provide
energy and growth factors for the production of more microor-
ganisms with the release of carbon dioxide and water as
metabolic end products. The organic waste compounds are thus
degraded to innocuous end products and microorganisms. The
mixed liquor suspended solids flow from the aeration tank to a
sedimentation tank which provides quiescent settling to allow
separation of the biological solids from the treated wastewater.
The treated and clarified water is collected and discharged as
process effluent. Most of the settled biological solids are
recycled as return activated sludge (RAS) back to the aerobic
reactor to provide an activated mass of microorganisms for con-
tinuous treatment of incoming wastewater. Some of the settled
biological solids are wasted to maintain a proper balance in
the population of microorganisms in the mixed liquor suspended
solids of the aerobic reactor. Recycling and wasting of bio-
logical solids (microorganisms) from the reactor insures a pro-
per ratio of incoming waste to the population of microorganisms
(food to microorganisms, or F/M ratio) , which is critical to
efficient biodegradation of soluble organic waste compounds.
A-15
-------
The term BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) is used to measure the
strength of organics in wastewater and, as such, is a measure
of the substrate level or food value of wastewater. The F/M
ratio is the process loading factor and is expressed as pounds
of BOD applied per day per pound of MLVSS (lb BOD/Day/ib MLVSS)
contained in the treatment system. This process loadin factor
is being used in current wastewater treatment practice. How—
ever, there is also another parameter that is often used to design
aeration systems. The concept of BOD loading in terms of
MLVSS is extremely important, but it should be used in conjunc-
tion with knowledge of air requirements and the ability of
facilities to handle the system solids. For this reason it is
common practice to also base design considerations on volumetric
Loadings, i.e., pounds of BOD per 1000 cubic feet of aeration
tank. Used together, these two parameters act to “cross check”
loading factors to ensure that the activated sludge system will
operate effectively.
The activated sludge process is very flexible and can be util-
ized for the treatment of almost any type of biodegradable
waste. The original process configuration is called the con-
ventional activated sludge process, and has been modified in
numerous ways. Characteristics, typical treatment efficiencies,
and design criteria for these processes are shown in Table A—3.
For this study, the completely mixed activated sludge process
was assumed as the method of treatment in case.s where activated
sludge treatment was required. Figure A—5 is a process flow
schematic of the completely mixed process.
Perhaps the most significant contribution to activated sludge
technology during the past twenty years has been the recent
application of biochemistry to the activated sludge process.
Awareness of biochemical relationships that govern the biologi-
cal degradation of waste organics in the activated sludge pro—
cess has enabled the development of the complete mix flow
pattern and process.
In the complete mix system, influent wastewater is uniformly
mixed throughout the entire aeration basin as rapidly as possi-
ble. The mixing tends to produce a uniform organic load
through the entire contents of the aeration basin. Since the
influent wastes are mixed throughout the aeration basin, the
entire basin volume acts to buffer hydraulic surges and organic
shock loads. For example, it has been shown that 100 mg/i of
phenol is toxic to the conventional activated sludge process,
whereas 2000 to 3000 mg/i phenol was not toxic in the complete
mix system.’ 66 This ehables the establishment of equilibrium
(or nearly so) conditions for stable operation.
A-16
-------
TABLE A—3
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DESIGN PARAMETERS
OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESSES 2 0,31 1 6’ , 16 5
High Rate or “Contact “Extended “Complete” Step High Purity
Conventional Modified - Stabilization” Aeration” Mixing Aerator Oxygen Systems
Priinar ’ Sedimentation Usually Optional Optional Generally Optional Usually Optional
Provided None Provided
Flow Mcdel Plug Flow Complete Mix Plug Flow Complete Mix Complete Mix Plug Flow Complete Mix
Reactors in
Series
Aeration System Diffused Air Mechanical Diffused Air Mechanical Mechanical Diffused Mechanical
Aerators Mechanical Aerators Aeratrrs Air Aerators
Aerators
Aeration Period 5—10 hours 2-3—1/2 hours 20—40 mins. 24 hourS 2 louro 3—6 hours 1—3 hours
(mixing-aeration)
Secondary yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Sedimentation
Return Sludge Flow 25—50% 10% 30—50% up to 100% up to 100% 25—50% up to 100%
BOD Loading (lbs/day .25.50 .20—.40 .l5—.3 5 about .15 about .60 .25-.50 about .60
per lb MLVSS)
Sludge Age 3—6 days 1/4—1/2 day 3—7 days ± 10 days 1—2 days 3—6 days 1—2 days
SOD Removal 85—90% 60—75% 90% 98% 95—90% 85—90% 85—95%
Application Low Strength General Expansion of Small High Organic General, Expansion of
Wastes Existing Systems, Communities, Wastes, Re— Wide Range Existing Plants,
Package Plants Package sistaiit to of Wastes Must be Used
Plants Shock Loads Near Economical
Source of Oxygen
-------
INFLUENT
DISTRIBUTION
WASTE WATER
FOR WASTE WATER
AND RETURN SLUDGE
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
CHANNEL
SEDiMENTATION
TANK
WASTE
S L U B G
ADJUSTABLE WEIRS
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (RAS)
MECHANICAL AERATORS
S
QD
f
I
I
© Th
I
It
-d/
I I
I
I
I
1
4
!
1414
©
EFFLUENT
FIGURE A-5. COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
-------
A complete mix activated sludge plant can function equally as
well, if not better, without primary clarification as with
primary clarification to provide greater than 90-95 percent BOD
removals and highly nitrified effluents. 5 However, the use of
primary clarifiers prior to the activated sludge aeration basin
can provide dampening or surge control of the diurnal variations
in wastewater flows.
Several environmental factors affect the growth of microorgari-
isms. The most important are temperature, pH, oxygen supply,
availability of nutrients, and type of substrate.
One of the significant factors to be considered in the selec-
tion of a process utilizing microorganisms for degradation of
organic wastes is the effect of temperature on process perfor-
mance. The temperature effect on the reaction rate of a bio-
logical process can be expressed by the relationship
K — K 0 (T—20)
T - 20
where KT = reaction rate at T°C,
K 20 = reaction rate at 20°C,
U = temperature activity
coefficient, and
T = temperature, °C.
The coefficient U for microbial activity expressed as respira-
tion rate has been reported as 1.074 by Wuhrmann 167 and 1.085
by Eckenfelder.’ 3 ° It has been shown, however, that this coef-
ficient varies markedly with the type of process and its opera-
tion. Eckenfelder 55 states that the wide variation of U is due
to its dependency on the diffusion of oxygen into biological
flocs, which in turn affects the degree of oxidation. At low
temperatures, a low oxygen utilization rate permits development
of a larger aerobic zone (boundary layer surrounding the fioc)
and biological flocs are mostly aerobic. At high temperatures,
the increased respiration rate depletes oxygen rapidly causing
the aerobic zone surrounding the floc to be thin. In fact,
some portions of the floc may be anaerobic in the latter case. 55
Temperature not only influences metabolic activity of microor-
ganisms, but also has a profound effect on gas transfer rates
and settling characteristics of biological solids. Oxygen is
a slightly soluble gas in water, having a saturation value of
approximately 9 mg/i at 20°C. The saturation value decreases
with increases in water temperature. The following equation
A-19
-------
can be used to approximate the oxygen saturation at different
temperatures. 1 6 8
475 — 2.65 S
Cs= 33..5+T p
where Cs = oxygen saturation
concentration, mg/i
S = water salinity, mg/i
T = temperature, °C
— barometric pressure, mm Hg
— 760
Table A-4 illustrates the effect of temperature on oxygen
saturation at various elevations.
The pH of a biological culture medium has a direct influence
on microbial growth. Most biological treatment systems operate
optimally in a neutral environment, or within a pH range of
6.5 to 8.5. Some microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
changes in ph, while others are quite tolerant. The p1-I has an
overall affect on biological oxidation by influencing enzymatic
activity. Municipal wastewaters have a large buffering capacity
which resists changes in pH and thus maintains the near neutral
pH range. However, this is not the case for industrial waste—
waters.
Keefer and Meisel 169 found the optimum range for treating
domestic sewage to be pH 7.0 to 7.5, and found treatment effi-.
ciency still effective in the pH range 6.0 to 9.0. At pH 4.0,
the process was only 43 percent as effective and at pH 10.0,
only 54 percent as effective.
Most biological Waste treatment involves the utilization of
aerobic bacteria for the stabilization of waste organics.
Aerobic bacteria require molecular, dissolved oxygen for res—
piration. AtrrtOSPheric oxygen becomes available to the micro-
organisms as it is dissolved into the liquid medium that
surrounds the cells. As previously mentioned, the solubility
of oxygen is temperature dependent.
Photosynthesis carried out by aquatic plant cells supplies a
significant portion of the dissolved oxygen in many surface
waters. However, in most biological treatment systems the popu-
lation of aquatic plants (algae) is unstable; thus oxygen must
be supplied by artificial means.
Efficient and Successful biological oxidation of organic waste 5
requires a minimal quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus for the
A-20
-------
TABLE A-4
(Based on
Tem perature
(°C)
SOLUBILITY OF OXYGEN (MG/L) AT
VARIOUS TEMPERATURES AND ELEVATIONS
Sea Level Barometric Pressure of 760 mm Hg)
Elevation, Feet above Sea Level
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
14.6
14.1
13.6
13.2
12.7
12.3
11.8
2
13.8
13.3
12.9
12.4
12.0
11.6
11.2
4
13.1
12.7
12.2
11.9
11.4
11.0
10.6
6
12.4
12.0
11.6
11.2
10.8
10.4
10.1
8
11.8
11.4
11.0
10.6
10.3
9.9
9.6
10
11.3
10.9
10.5
10.2
9.8
9.5
9.2
12
10.8
10.4
10.1
9.7
9.4
9.1
8.8
14
10.3
9.9
9.6
9.3
9.0
8.7
8.3
16
9.9
9.7
9.2
8.9
8.6
8.3
8.0
18
9.5
9.2
8.7
8.6
8.3
8.0
7.7
20
9.1
8.8
8.5
8.2
7.9
7.7
7.4
22
8.7
8.4
8.1
7.8
7.7
7.3
7.1
24
8.4
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.3
7.1
6.8
26
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.6
28
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.3
30
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.5
6.3
6.1
32
7.3
7.1
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.1
5.9
34
7.1
6.9
6.6
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
36
6.8
6.6
6.3
6.1
5.9
5.7
5.5
38
6.6
6.4
6.2
5.9
5.7
5.6
5.4
40
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
A-21
-------
synthesis of new cells. In addition, trace quantities of sev—
eral other elements such as potassium and calcium are required.
These trace elements are usually present in natural waters in
sufficient quantities to satisfy requirements for microbial
metabolism. However, nitrogen and phosphorus are sometimes
deficient in wastewater substrates and cause reductions in
removal efficiencies of biological treatment systems. In such
cases, nutrients must be added to supplement those in the waste....
water substrate. Nitrogen should be added as a supplement in
the form of ammoniacal nitrogen because nitrite and nitrate
nitrogen are not readily available for microbial usage. Several
soluble phosphorus salts which are readily assimilated by micr 0 .....
organisms are available. Generally, a BOD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1
is thought to be the optimum ratio of nutritional requirements
for microorganisms utilized in biological waste treatment.
(BUD is the term applied to signify the strength of organics
in wastewater and is defined generally as the amount of oxygen
required by microorganisms to biologically oxidize a given
quantity of organics. The stronger the organic waste material,
the higher the BUD.)
Microorganisms have enormous ability to acclimate themselves to
materials which are thought to be toxic to them. Acclimation
is accomplished over a lengthy period by adding increasing
amounts of the material and letting the microorganisms come to
equilibrium at each increasing incremental concentration. How-
ever, once acclimated to a certain concentration level, the
microorganisms become extremely sensitive to rapid changes.
Phenolics and formaldehyde have been processed at concentrations
up to 1,000 mg/i, and sulfides and cyanides up to 100 mg/l.’ 3 °
Metal ions, often thought to be highly toxic, have been success
fully treated at concentrations of 10 mg/l. 13 °
Aeration equipment and sludge return pumps are the major pieces
of equipment dependent on a constant source of power. There-
fore, providing continuous treatment will require an emergency
standby power supply.
Design Assumptions
A BOD loading factor of 50 pounds/bOO cubic feet, a return
activated sludge flow of 100 percent, and a 6 hour aeration
period were assumed for the sizing and cost purposes of this
report. In addition, primary sedimentation and mechanical
aeration was to be provided. Design flows are based on the
average daily flow.
A—2 2
-------
Secondary sludge production is a complex function of several
variables including suspended solids and BOD removal efficien-
cies in both primary and secondary treatment, soluble BOD and
other factors. For the type and quality of wastewater antici-
pated, secondary sludge yield should be about 0.7 pounds per
pound of BOD applied to the secondary system. Therefore, it is
anticipated that secondary sludge production will be approxi-
mately 1000 pounds per one million gallons of wastewater treated.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION
Process Description
Chemical addition to the activated sludge process has been
found to be an effective method for adding nutrient removal
capability to an efficient biological treatment system. The
combination of the two processes constitutes a biological.-
chemical process designed to accomplish two purposes: the
biological conversion of organic matter to particulate form
and the chemical coagulation of this particulate matter with
the concomitant precipitation of phosphorous. Each process
is designed to be highly efficient at its particular task.
Furthermore, the marriage of the two processes reinforces the
advantages of each step while minimizing their disadvantages.
This biological-chemical process is particularly well adapted
for application to existing activated sludge wastewater treat-
ment plants since it makes maximum use of existing facilities,
thus minimizing capital expenditures. Biological—chemical
processes may also be applied to newly constructed treatment
facilities to achieve effluent quality better than that
expected from conventional secondary treatment.
The biological aspects of the combined treatment system are
essentially the same as those described in the previous dis-
cussion of the activated sludge process. The chemical aspects
typically require the addition of either iron or aluminum
salts near the effluent end of the aeration basin. Lime is
not employed since the resulting rise in pH is not compatible
with efficient biological activity. A discussion of the
coagulation process pertinent to the chemical aspects of this
alternative is presented later in the report.
Activated sludge with chemical addition suffers the same process
sensitivities as the basic activated sludge process as de-
scribed earlier. The use of the coagulent, however, affords
greater flexibility in the ability to remove suspended solids
at high loading rates. Combined biological-chemical treatment
produces approximately twice the sludge produced in a simple
activated sludge unit.
A-23
-------
Flexibility should be incorporated into the design of these
systems so that reasonable changes from predicted values can
be incorporated into plant operation without adversely affecting
the result obtained. The following parameters must be evaluated
in order to achieve an economical design that will provide the
flexibility and capability to meet the effluent requirements
established for the plant:
• Flow — design for average flow rates with due
consideration of peak flow and daily, weekly
and monthly variations.
• Phosphorus concentration — variation in con—
centration with time is important as are the
relative amounts of ortho and complex, soluble
and insoluble phosphorus.
• Alkalinity — higher alkalinity systems (125 mg
CaCO 3 /1 or above) tend to favor usage of alum.
If alkalinity is below 125 mg CaCO 3 /l, sodium
aluminate would probably be the chemical of
choice although alum plus lime should also be
considered.
• pH — related to alkalinity. If pH is 7.0 or
above, alum is preferred whereas low pH would
favor usage of sodium alurninate.
• Sulfate - addition of appreciable amounts of
sulfate to wastewaters already high in sulfate
concentration or where effluents are to be
discharged to a stream used for potable water
sources may be undesirable. In this event,
sodium aluminate Would probably be the chemical
of choice.
Liquid chemical handling and feeding systems are generally
easier to operate and maintain than are dry feed systems.
However, transporatation costs and inaccessibility to liquid
chemical sources may dictate use of dry chemicals in some
instances. Chemical manufacturers should be consulted for
detailed recommendations on chemical storage and unloading
facilities. Provision Should be included for measuring the
amount of chemical fed.
The point of chemical addition should be located as near to ti ie
effluent end of the aeration tank as is practical. Because
of the severe pH shock which occurs when alum was added directi
into the effluent channel, it is suggested that addition be
made into the aeration tank in order to take advantage of the
A-24
-------
greater buffering capacity at that point. Some deterioration
in effluent quality can be expected as the point of addition
is moved toward the influent end.
No special solids handling equipment or requirements are
necessary for handling and disposal of the sludges resulting
from chemical—biological treatment. Flexibility in pumping
units should be sufficient to handle the greater weight of
solids and volumes of sludges which result from chemical—
biological treatment. Sludge weights approximately twice those
obtained without chemical addition can be expected.
Dewatering and disposal of the chemical-biological sludges
should not present any unusual problems. Dewatering of sludges
may be accomplished by any of the normally employed unit
processes. It is unlikely that recovery of the precipitating
chemical will offer any economic advantage except under unusual
circumstances.
Different wastewaters will undoubtably require different Al/P
ratios to achieve a given effluent phosphorus concentration and
these relationships can only be developed from actual plant
operating data.
Control of mixed liquor suspended solids must take into con-
sideration the much lower percentage of volatile solids in the
chemical-biological system. The mixed liquor volatile suspended
solids should be maintained at the necessary level to achieve
the desired organic loadings. Once the system has reached a
balance, control can be based on total suspended solids with
regular checks on volatile solids so that any changes can be
incorporated into sludge wasting schedules.
Design Assumptions
Alum was selected as the chemical coagulant to be added at the
effluent end of the complete mix activated sludge process.
The alum dose was 150 mg/i, resulting in a 90 percent phosphorus
removal. The amount of sludge (dry solids basis) produced was
assumed twice that from a normal activated sludge plant or
2,500 pounds per million gallons treated. A liquid chemical
feed system was assumed. Sludges were handled and disposed
as normal activated sludge.
A-25
-------
EXTENDED AERATION
Process Description
The large amount of waste sludge that must be disposed of is
a major limitation to all activated sludge systems. The
extended aeration process was developed in an attempt to
completely oxidize the waste sludge within the system.
The extended aeration process operates in the endogenous growth
phase of the bacterial growth curve. The endoqenous growth
phase is utilized in the extended aeration process with low
concentrations of substrate in contact with a relatively high
number of organisms for long periods of time, thus theoreti-
cally resulting in complete oxidation of the incoming wastes.
Solids are retained for a relatively long period (high sludge
age) to provide for stabilization of the sludge. A sludge age
of 30 days usually provides a well-stabilized sludge. Excess
sludge is generally wasted in the form of suspended solids in
the effluent. Suspended solids in the effluent are normally
less than 70 mg/l. These solids are generally sufficiently
stabilized so as not to create an excessive oxygen demand upon
discharge to surface waters. A schematic of a typical extended
aeration system is shown in Figure A—6.
EFFHJENT
I
PERIODIC HOLDING
WASTING POND
FIGURE A-6. EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS
The extended aeration system has become the standard for waste
treatment in small housing subdivisions, schools, industrial
plants, institutions, shopping centers, recreation resort areas,
and small communities that are located beyond municipal sewerage
systems. 1 8 5 1 89
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
— a — a — — — a —
RAW
A-26
-------
Treatment efficiencies for extended aeration plants, if properly
operated, are generally greater than 90 percent. At tempera-
tures above 60°F (15.5°C) sludge growth is approximately
balanced by losses of relatively inert suspended solids which
are carried out of the system in the effluent. These inert
suspended solids contribute little BOD.
As mentioned previously, temperature has an effect on microbial
metabolism, and thus the degradation of wastes. Decreasing
temperatures decrease the metabolism rate of microorganisms.
It has been reported that low loaded extended aeration systems
operating at temperatures of 5°C to 10°C showed good removal
efficiencies 9 ° Extended aeration at reduced BOD loadings with
resultant long aeration times can compensate for the low metab-
olism rate of the microorganisms.
Successful operation of an extended aeration plant at tempera-
tures down to 2°C has been reported’ 9 ° indicating low tempera-
ture activated sludge treatment is feasible.
Extended aeration is characterized by loading factors that are
much lower than those associated with the short—term aeration
processes. Extended aeration typically operates at loading
factors ranging from about 0.05 to 0.20 lb DOD/day/lb volatile
suspended solids (VSS). The volumetric loading is generally
about 20 lb BOD/day/1000 ft 3 of aeration tank capacity. Deten-
tion time in the process is usually about 24 hours.
One important consideration in extended aeration is thorough
mixing of the biological sludge and the raw waste. The oxygen
requirements of the microorganisms in the biological sludge
are very low, about 10 to 15 mg/i/hr. This is about 25
percent of the oxygen requirement at the head end of a
conventional activated-sludge aeration tank.
Several environmental factors affect the growth of microorganisms.
The most important are temperature, pH, oxygen supply, avail-
ability of nutrients and type of substrate.
One of the most significant factors to be considered in any
process utilizing microorganisms for degradation of organic
wastes is the effect of temperature on process performance.
Biochemical reactions, in general, follow the van’t Hoff rule
of doubling of reaction rate for a 10°C increase in temperature,
over a restricted temperature range. Studies with activated
sludge have shown the reaction rate to be more than doubled for
a 10°C rise in temperature, as shown in Figure A—7, 191
A-27
-------
>-
I—
-4
-4
F—
(-)
LU
-4
F--
-J
LU
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE A-7. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON ACTIVITY OF ACTIVATED
SLUDGE AS MEASURED BY OXYGEN
REQUIREMENTS PER UNIT TIME ‘ 1
10 15 20 25 30 35
TEMPERATURE, 0 C
A-28
-------
Ultimately, however, a maximum temperature is approached at
which reaction rate begins to decline. This has been credited
to a denaturization of enzymes or continually greater difficulty
for the organism to produce enzymes. 191 The overall relation
is analogous to that shown in Figure A—B for the enzyme malt
amylase.
The ph of a biological culture medium has a direct influence
on microbial growth. Most biological treatment systems
operate optimally in a neutral environment, or within a pH
range of 6.5 to 8.5. Some microorganisms are extremely
sensitive to changes in pH, while others are quite tolerant.
The ph has an overall effect on biological oxidation by
influencing enzymatic activity. Biological utilization of
organic material involves a series of enzyme catalyzed reactions.
Each enzyme is catalytically active within a limited range of
pH. For example, the optimum range for the activity of pepsin
is between pFI 1.5 and 2.5; for trypsin, between p1-1 8 and 11;
for salivary amylase, between pH 6.7 and 6.8.192 In a
heterogeneous system such as treatment of a municipal wastewater,
involving a whole sequence of enzyme reactions and a qood
•buffering capacity, a mean pH range generally is established.
This is not necessarily true for industrial wastewater.
Keefer and Meisel’ 69 found the optimum range for treating
domestic sewage to be pH 7.0 to 7.5, and found treatment
efficiency still effective in the pH range 6.0 to 9.0. At
pH 4.0, the process was only 43 percent as effective and at
pH 10.0, only 54 percent as effective.
Efficient and successful biological oxidation of organic wastes
requires a minimal quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus for the
synthesis of new cells. In addition, trace quantities of
several other elements such as potassium and calcium are
required. These trace elements are usually present in natural
waters in sufficient quantities to satisfy requirements for
microbial metabolism. Generally, a BOD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1
is thought to be the optimum ratio of nutritional requirements
for microorganisms utilized in biological waste treatment.
Biological activity will also be effected by the presence of
various toxic substances. Heavy metal content in general
should not exceed 10 ppm. Specific work in Cincinnati suggests
10 ppm chromium, 1 ppm copper, 1-2.5 ppm nickel, or 5-10 ppm
zinc. Cyanides, phenols and detergents may also cause distur-
bances in active biota, but acclimation to steady state doses
allows treatment of relatively high concentrations. Slug loads
of these materials poses the greatest threat to effluent quality.
A-29
-------
100
80
60
40
20
>-
-l
F—
L U
>
F--
-J
LU
cx
FIGURE A-8.
0
TEMPERATURE,
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON THE ACTION OF
MALT AMYLASE WHEN 1-JYDROLYZING
STARCH TO GLUCOSE 191
0 20 40 60
oc
80
A-30
-------
Power failure can effectively shut down extended aeration plants
due to their reliance on mechanical aerators. Other operational
sensitivities are similar to those noted for the activated sludge
process.
Design Assumptions
For the purposes of the profiles presented in this report, a
loading rate of 0.05 lbs BQD/day/lb volatile suspended solids
(VSS) was assumed. Volumetric loading was set at 20 lbs
BOD/day/l000 cu ft. Provision was made for a 24 hour aeration
period with 100-150 horsepower per million gallons utilized.
Biological solids are aerobically digested leaving a minimum
amount to be handled. Solids were wasted at 900 dry pounds per
million gallons of wastewater treated.
TRICKLING FILTER PROCESS
Process Description
The trickling filter process consists of a fixed bed of coarse,
rough material over which wastewater is intermittently or con-
tinuously distributed in a uniform manner by a flow distributor.
Microorganisms grow on the surface of the filter media forming
a biological or zoogleal slime layer. Wastewater flows down-
ward through the filter, passing over the layer of microorgan-
isms. Dissolved organic material and nutrients in the waste—
water are taken up by the zoogleal film layer for utilization
by the microbial population. Oxidized end products are released
to the liquid and collected in the underdrain system for dis-
charge via the effluent channel. Aerobic conditions are main-
tained by air passing through the filter bed induced by the
difference in specific weights of air on the inside and outside
of the bed. A trickling filter will operate properly as long
as the void spaces are not clogged by solids or excessive growth
of the zoogleal film layer. The zoogleal film layer grows and
gradually increases in thickness to the point that hydraulic
shear force from the downward flow of wastewater causes portions
of the film layer to slough off the filter media. This periodic
sloughing of filter film is discharged to secondary clarifica-
tion units.
Trickling filters may be classified as low, intermediate, high or
super-tate filter systems. The distinction between these sys-
tems is usually based on the hydraulic and organic loading to
the filter. Low rate filters operate at hydraulic loadings of
2-4 MGD per acre with organic loadings of 10 to 20 lbs BOD/
1000 cu ft/day. Figure A-9 is a flow sheet of a low rate filter.
Generally, low rate filters do not use recirculation of efflu-
ent to maintain a constant hydraulic loading, but use either
A-31
-------
I NFLUENT
IN FL UENT
PRIMP RY
CLARI F l ER
PRIMARY
CLARI FIER
SECONDARY
CLARI Fl ER
SECONDARY
CLARI F I ER
EFF LUENT
FFLUENT
INTERMEDIATE RATE FILTER WITH ALTERNATE
RECYCLE FLOW PATTERNS
EFFLUENT
FIGURE A-il. HIGH RATE, TWO STAGE TRICKLING FILTER WITH
ALTERNATE RECYCLE FLOW PATTERNS
FIGURE A-9. LOW RATE SINGLE STAGE FILTER
FIGURE A-1O.
IN FLUE NT
PRIMARY SECONDARY
CLARIFIER CLARIFIER
A—32
-------
suction-level controlled pumps or a siphon for an intermittent
water application. 20 Intermittent dosing may become a problem
if the dosing interval is long (greater than one or two hours)
since the filter slime layer may dry out.
Intermediate rate trickling filters are generally designed to
operate at hydraulic loadings of 4 to 10 MGDZacre with corres-
ponding o 9 anic loadings ranging from 15 to 30 lbs BOD/l000
cu ft/day. ° These loading rates include recirculatiori of a
portion of the effluent, which is often practiced with these
filters. Normally these filters are single stage filters.
Figure A-b illustrates a flow sheet for an intermediate
rate filter, with various alternative patterns for recycle
that are now, or have been used in the past.
High rate trickling filters operate at hydraulic loadings of
10 to 30 MGD/acre and organic loadings of up to 90 lbs BOD/
1000 cu ft/day. These loadings include recirculation of a
portion of the effluent to maintain a relatively constant
hydraulic loading. The higher loadings applied to a single
stage filter in the high rate mode generally result in lower
BOD removal efficiencies. To improve BOD removal efficiency,
a second stage is added to treat the effluent from the first
stage. Figure A—il shows a flow sheet of a typical two stage
filter with various alternatives for recirculation.
Super rate trickling filters have evolved as a result of the
development of various types of synthetic filter media. Past
experience has indicated that hydraulic loadings of 150 MGD/
acre, including recirculation, may be accommodated in super
rate filters. The flow configuration for super rate systems
is similar to that of high rate filters.
Several environmental and physical factors affect the perfor-
mance of trickling filters as they do all biological systems.
Environmental factors such as temperature, p11, oxygen supply,
nutrients and substrate are discussed in the activated sludge
process descriptions. Physical factors include the type of
media and depth, hydraulic and organic loading, and recircu-
lation.
Diurnal fluctuations in hydraulic and organic loads cause con-
siderable problems to trickling filters, especially high organic
loads or extremely low hydraulic loads. High organic loads
(shock loads) may be deleterious to the organisms in the zoogleal
slime layer. Low hydraulic loads may allow the slime layer to
become dry.
A—33
-------
It was thought that recirculation of effluent back to the filter
would help minimize these two effects.’ 76 In addition, most
investigators agree that recirculation aids in removal efficien-
cies to a point. Chipperfield 17 ° feels that recirculation of
partially treated effluent to the top of the filter ceases to
have any beneficial effect on removal of BOD when the hydraulic
loading is equal to or greater than the minimum wetting rate.
Minimum wetting rate is defined as the minimum irrigation rate
(volume applied/unit cross-sectional area of the filter) below
which adequate wetting of the surface of the filter pack media
does not occur. The surface slime layer must be kept wet to
maintain a viable population of organisms, thus a portion of the
effluent should be recycled to maintain hydraulic equilibrium
above this “minimum wetting rate.” Recycle becomes very impor-
tant at periods of low influent flows. Culp’ 7 ’ compared the
effectiveness of two high rate trickling filter recirculation
patterns and found little difference.
Ventilation of trickling filters is essential to the maintenance
of aerobic conditions throughout the filter media. In the past
the depth of conventional rock filled trickling filters was
limited by the amount of air that could be forced through the
filter; depths in excess of 9—10 feet caused anaerobic conditions
in the lower portion of the filter. Hence, most conventional
trickling filters are 3—8 feet deep, normally averaging 6
feet. 31
Trickling filter media in the past generally consisted of crushed
rock materials such as granite, slag, and gravel. Rock materials
normally have specific surface areas of 10—12 square feet per
cubic foot and void spaces of approximately 50 percent. Con-
ventional rock-filled trickling filters are subject to certain
disadvantages. These include the large land area required,
relatively high construction costs, and tendency of void spaces
to become clogged at excessive organic or hydraulic loading
rates causing restriction of both air and liquid flow resulting
in a condition known as “ponding.”
Consideration of these disadvantages stimulated investigation
of new types of filter media. Investigations have centered
around the use of various types of artificial media to replace
the conventional rock type materials. A trickling filter pack-
ing material must meet the following requirements.
• Material must be biologically inert and capable
of supporting the growth of a biological film
layer on its surface.
• Configuration and nature of the material must
allow a thin, uniform distribution of liquid
(wastewater) over its entire surface.
A-34
-------
• Material installed as filter media should have
a relatively high percentage of void spaces to
allow for adequate passage of air and water
throughout the filter. Sloughing of solids
downward through the filter must be unhindered.
• Material must be chemically stable, not degraded
in the presence of solvents, organic chemicals
or biologically secreted substances.
• Material must be structurally able to support
considerable weight for long periods without
extraneous support.
• Material must be economically competitive with
other types of trickling filter media.
Table A—5 compares the physical properties of several natural
and artificial types of filter media. Two properties of sig-
nificant interest are the specific surface area and the per-
centage of void spaces. Plastic materials have been fabricated
having specific surface areas from 25 to 80 square feet per
cubic foot 86 ’ 87 and void spaces of 94-98 percent. If these
larger surface areas can actually be utilized, that is, pro-
vided with sufficient substrate and oxygen supply and kept
free of excess sludge, greater urification efficiencies may
be expected. It has been shown 70 that plastic type filter
media with its large percentage of void spaces allows free
passage of air to depths in excess of 25 feet. Plastic mater-
ials are light in weight and this, together with the large
surface areas per volume and high percentage of void spaces,
combines to give new freedom in trickling filter design. Since
plastic materials are light in weight, trickling filters uti-
lizing plastic media may be constructed to heights of 30 to 40
feet without the massive concrete support/underdrain systems
required of conventional rock type materials. 31 ’’ 70 A trick-
ling filter constructed in tower form with plastic media for the
treatment of a given volume of wastewater will require consi-
derably less land area than a filter constructed with conven-
tional rock materials.
A-35
-------
TABLE A-5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF VARIOUS TRICKLING FILTER MEDIA 2 °
Nominal Unit Specific Void
Unit Size Weight Surface Area Space
Media Type ( inches) ( lbs/cu ft) ( sq ft/cu ft) ( % )
Plastic 20 X 48 2—6 25—30 94—97
Del—pak 47 1/2 X 47 1/2 10.3 14
Redwood X 35 3/4
Granite 1—3 90 19 46
Granite 4 13 60
Blast Furnace Slag 2-3 68 20 49
Two major factors affecting the performance of a trickling filter
are its hydraulic and organic loading rates. As previously men-
tioned, these factors are the bases for classification as to the
type of filter, i.e., high or low rate. An attempt was made to
correlate the efficiency of various trickling filters with their
corresponding hydraulic and organic loading rates. 2 The
effects of hydraulic loading rates for stone media are shown in
Figure A-12 and for plastic media are shown in Figure A-13. Two
facts appear in comparing these figures: first, the range of
applied hydraulic loading of the plastic media is greater than
five times that of the stone media; and secondly, it appears
that increasing hydraulic loading causes reductions in BOD
removal efficiencies. The effect of the organic loading rates
for stone media are shown in Figure A-l4 and for plastic media
in Figure A-15. These show that increases in organic loading
have little effect in reducing BOD removal efficiencies. Rincke
and Wolters 172 and Chipperfield’ 7 ° also noted similar effects.
However, in two separate studies using different sized stone
media, Me1tzer’ 7 and Krige’ 75 concluded that increased organic
loadings had no effects on removal efficiencies of smaller media
(3/4” to 1 1/2” stones), but that larger media (2” to 4” stones)
showed a significant decrease in removal efficiencies with
increased organic loadings.
Very heavy organic loading of trickling filters will cause
excessive growths of the zoogleal slime layer to a point where
the void spaces are filled and “ponding” occurs. This “ponding”
halts the flow of liquid through the filter with subsequent
reductions in BOD removal efficiencies. Plastic media, with
its larger percentage of void spaces, will not be affected as
easily as stone media filters.
A-36
-------
IOU
60
40
20
HYDRAULIC LOADING, GPM’FT 2
(INCLUDING RECYCLE)
FIGURE A-12. EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC LOADING ON STONE
MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER PERFORMANCE 20
0
A-37
L J
L J
‘U
0.! 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.6
-------
-J
= 60
40
0 2
FIGURE A-13.
HYDRAULIC LOADIWC. CPM FT 2 IWCLUOIWC R(CYCL
EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC LOADING ON PERFORMANCE
OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS 20
I00
60
L )
co
20
0
-------
00
80
-
60
=
40
20
FIGURE A-14.
0
ORGANIC LOADING LBS BOO DAY 1Q00 FT 3
(INCLUDINI R(CYCLE)
EFFECT OF ORGANIC LOADING ON STONE
MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER PERFORMANCE 20
20 40 60 80 o0 120
140
A- 39
-------
100
£
.
LA
ORGANIC LOADING LBS BOO 1000 FT 3 / DAY
(INCLUDING RECYCLE)
FIGURE A -15.
EFFECT OF ORGANIC LOADING ON PERFORMANCE
OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS 20
A
-J
U.J
80
60
40
20
0
U
.U
A
—
1
A A
I I .
0
0
A
S
‘ .
S
0
100
200
300
400
A-40
-------
Design Assumptions
For the design and cost purposes of this report a high rate two
stage trickling filter with an organic loading rate of 50 lbs
BOD/l000 cu ft and a hydraulic loading rate of 20 MGD/acre were
assumed. The average daily flow was used as the design flow.
Influent wastewater characteristics are outlined in the intro-
ductory section of this report.
Conventional rock type materials were assumed as filter media
for both trickling filters. The organic solids produced from
a trickling filter result mainly from the sioughing of zoogleal
slime layers from the filter media. It was assumed that 320 lbs
(dry solids basis) of sludge would be produced from the treat-
ment of one million gallons of wastewater.
FILTRATION
Process Description
Filtration is a unit process for the separation of solids from
liquids. Solids are removed from the liquid during passage
through some kind of network of wires, threads, fibers or other
porous membranes such as woven fabric or filter paper, or porous
beds of powdered or granular material such as diatornaceous earth
or sand. The solids are retained by the filtering medium itself
and/or by the solids already held or matted on the medium.
The development of the filter for solids removal took place in
England in the mid-nineteenth century and was originally used
to filter water for drinking purposes. 53 These early filters,
using sand as a filtering media, were operated at relatively
low flow rates (.04 to .12 gpm/ft 2 of filter area) and generally
functioned satisfactorily on untreated English surface waters.
However, these filters were not generally successful on untreated
waters in the United States. This led to the development and
use of chemical coagulation before sand filtration of the water.
Filters developed in the late nineteenth century in the United
States were oRerated at much higher flow rates, ranging from
1 to 4 gpm/ft’. The higher rates used in these filters meant
less filter area and less capital investment to achieve the
desired capacity. In the early to mid 1900’s, wastewater filtra-
tion (using sand as the media) was implemented as a tertiary
treatment process to remove solids from biologically treated
wastewater. Since that time, more sophisticated and efficient
filtration units have found widespread use in many wastewater
treatment facilities.
A-41
-------
The mechanisms involved in the removal of suspended or colloidal
material from wastewater by filtration are complex and interrelated
The dominant mechanisms depend on the physical and chemical char-
acteristics of the particulate matter and filtering medium, the
rate of filtration, and the biological—chemical characteristics
of the water. The mechanisms responsible for the removal of
particulate matter will vary with each treatment system.
The processes by which solids are filtered from wastewater may
be generally classified into two categories: adhesion and
straining. Adhesion involves the physical-chemical process of
particle adsorption on the surface of the filtering medium. As
a particle approaches the surface of the filtering medium, or
previously deposited solids on the medium, an attachment mechanism
retains the particle. This attachment mechanism may involve
electrostatic interaction, chemical bridging, or specific adsorp-
tion. It is the adhesion process which makes possible the
removal of submicron particles during filtration by adsorption
on the surfaces of the filter media.
The second process operation in removal of suspended particles
is straining. Straining action takes place in the filter media
at restrictions in the pores (minute openings in the filter).
All particles larger than these openings will be trapped and
held back. In granular filters, straining action takes place
in the filter medium at restrictions in the pores formed where
several particles of the filter medium come in contact. Smaller
particles are also removed by straining in the depth of the
filter (depth removal), but the fraction removed by straining
decreases with the decreasing suspended solids particle size.
Secondary treated wastewater effluents may be “polished” by
filtration to improve the quality of water discharged to surface
receiving streams. Particulate matter, if not removed, would
contribute to increased suspended solids, BOD and phosphorous
concentrations, as well as increased turbidity of treated
effluents. Granular media filtration can be the first step in
an attempt to upgrade the effluent from a treatment plant to
meet increased water quality standards. Alternatively, filtra-
tion can follow the coagulation—sedimentation processes in a
physical-chemical treatment sequence.
A typical granular media filter is shown in Figure A-16. The
wastewater is passed through one or several layers of granular
material and suspended solids are removed by physical screening,
sedimentation, and interparticle action.’ 82 Headloss increases
until breakthrough or removal capacity is reached, and then the
filter is cleaned by backwashing.
A-42
-------
WASH TROUGHS
BACKWASH
GULLET
FIGURE A—16.
CUTAWAY VIEW OF A TYPICAL GBANULAR
MEDIA GRAVITY FILTER 3 ’ 1
(-4j
EFFLUENT/BACKWASH
HEADER
FILTER FLOOR
LATERALS
-------
Effective cleaning of the filter during backwash is essential to
successful filter performance. In the past, it was felt that a
50 percent expansion of the filter media was required to suffi-
ciently clean the particulate matter from the granular media
during backwash. However, it is now recognized that optimum
scouring of the particles results when the media are just sus-
pended.. A. backwash rate is required which will achieve the
necessary bed expansion of 25-30 percent. However, the backwash
rate is dependent on water temperature, specific gravity, and
particle size of the filter media. Increased water temperature
and specific gravity necessitate an increase in backwash flow
rate.
Period of backwash is generally 5—8 minutes and requires approx-
imately 2-5 percent of the filter throughout. Source of back-
wash water in wastewater treatment should be the filter effluent
or other source which is low in suspended solids. The backwash
water which must be reprocessed in the treatment plant represents
a substantial volume. If directly recycled back to upstream
treatment units, backwash volume is usually large enough in
relation to design flow to cause hydraulic overload and upset
of upstream treatment units. Thus, provisions should be made
to store backwash water for subsequent controlled release back
to the process stream.
Surface wash is required to insure effective cleaning of the
filter media during backwash. Surface washing breaks up the
clumps of media and floc or “mud balls” which are formed during
filter operation. Proper surface washing causes circulation
of the entire contents of the bed. Typical surface wash equip-
ment consists of a rotating header with spray nozzles which
direct high pressure (50-100 psi) wash water downward at a
rate of approximately 1.0 gpm/sq ft, and are positioned about
1-2 inches above the normal height of the filter media. Surface
wash water must be of relatively high quality so as not to plug
the spray nozzles.
Backwashing causes the filter media to grade hydraulically,
with the finest particles rising to the top of the bed and the
coarser particles near the bottom.
Development of dual and multi-media filters have minimized the
inherent sensitivity of rapid sand filters to high suspended
solids concentrations. Dual and multi-media filters increase
the effective filter depth to extend the work area and thereby
increase the length of filter runs.
Dual media filters use a discrete layer of coarse coal above a
layer of fine sand. The work area is extended, although it still
does not include the full depth of bed. There is hydraulic
A-44
-------
grading within each layer of the filter, with fine particles of
coal on top of the coal layer and the finest sand particles on
top of the sand layer.
Mixed-media filters were developed in an attempt to approach
ideal filtration. Three to four types of media are layered into
the filter graded as to size and density, with coarse low
density coal (sp. gr. about 1.0) on top, smaller regular density
coal (sp. gr. about 1.6) and silica sand (sp. gr. about 2.6) in
the middle two layers, and garnet sand or ilmenite (sp. gr. of
4.2 and 4.5, respectively) on the bottom layer.’ 83 These different
media provide decreasing, coarse to fine, void gradation down
through the filter. Large suspended particles in the wastewater
are stopped near the surface with finer suspended solids being
entrapped in bottom layers, thus providing full bed depth filtra-
tion.
Conley and Hsiung’ presented techniques for determining depths
of media for various applications. Table A-6 illustrates
varying media designs for various types of application.
TABLE A-6
VARIATION IN MEDIA DESIGN
FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS’’’
Depth of Media (inches)
Type of Application Garnet Sand Coal
Very Heavy Loading
of Fragile Floc 8 12 22
Moderate Loading of
Very Strong Floc 3 12 15
Moderate Loading of
Fragile Floc 3 9 8
Generally, there is no one mixed-media filter depth which will
be optimum for all wastewater filtration situations, typically
most mixed-media filters are 24-30 inches deep.
Although a mixed-media filter can tolerate higher suspended
solids loadings than can single media filters, it still has an
upper limit of applied suspended solids at which economically
long runs can be maintained. With activated sludge effluent,
filter runs of 15-24 hours at 5 gpm/sq ft have been maintained
when operating to a terminal head loss of 15 feet of water.
A-45
-------
Suspended solids concentrations of 200 mg/i or more will lead
to uneconomically short filter runs. Figure A—17 illustrates
the effects of influent solids on rate of headloss buildup.
Estimating the filtration efficiency of effluents from biologi-
cal secondary treatment processes is difficult due to varia-
tions in effluent quality from those processes. However, the
following prediction of filter effluent qualities are 1 resented
as a general guide to suspended solids concentrations which
might be expected from various secondary processes: high
rate trickling filter, 10-20 mg/i; two—stage trickling filter,
6—15 mg/i; contact stabilization, 6-15 mg/i; conventional
activated sludge, 3-10 mg/i; and extended aeration - complete
mix activated sludge, 1-5 mg/l.’ The addition of chemical
filter aids will substantially increase the efficiency of sus-
pended solids removal.
As previously mentioned, high filter influent suspended solids
concentrations affect filtration performance, with concentrations
in excess of 200 mg/i causing uneconomically short filter runs.
High ph (greater than 9), as from an upstream chemical treat-
ment step, will cause deposition of carbonates on the filter
media and mechanical appurtenances. Certain portions of the
filter such as piping and valves should be protected from
extreme cold temperatures.
The backwash operation is also sensitive to certain parameters,
with water temperature and air in backwash water being the most
significant. The backwash rate required to achieve a given
expansion depends upon the water temperature. A rise in water
temperature from 10°-20°C will require an increase in backwash
rate of about 30 percent to maintain the same expansion. A
backwash flow indicator is necessary to insure that desired
backwash rate is constantly maintained. Air, introduced with
the backwash water which may cause blowing out and overturning
of filter media, can be eliminated with proper design and opera-
tion.
Filtration, like all processes which require pumping or electri-
cal power equipment, requires a constant source of power supply
for continuous operation. An auxiliary power supply will insure
continuous operation. The EPA now requires emergency standby
power generation units for newly constructed treatment facilities;
thus, continuous operation will be assured.
Design Assumptions
Performance data from the South Lake Tahoe treatment plant was
utilized to establish the sizing and cost parameters for this
report. Based on that experience, a design filter rate of
5 gpm/sq ft and backwash rate of 15 qpm/sq ft were assumed. It
was assumed that mixed-media filtration operated in a downf low
A-46
-------
9
8
7
LU 6
LU
F-
LU 5
C)
F-
LU
4
3
2
0 50
200 250 300
FILTER INFLUETJT SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L)
FIGURE A-17.
EFFECT OF FILTER INFLUENT (ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EFFLUENT) SUSPENDED SOLIDS ON HEADLOSS
BUILDUP FOR MIXED-MEDIA FILTER
c 3
-J
=
C’)
C’)
C)
-J
C)
LU
1
1
100 150
A-47
-------
mode would be incorporated into all treatment strategies where
filtration is specified. Reliable operation of upstream treat-
ment units was also assumed. Provisions for surge control via
equalization or ballast ponds just prior to filtration were
assumed in order to provide constant head and flow to the filters.
Backwash is initiated by high headloss, high turbidity, or
manually. The land requirement for this process was assumed
to include area for the ballast ponds.
COAGULATI ON- FLOCCULATION
Process Description
The removal of suspended matter from wastewater is normally
accomplished by sedimentation and/or filtration processes.
In order for these processes to function in a practical manner
it is necessary that the particles of suspended matter be of
sufficient size to either settle in a relatively short period
of time or be removed by entrapment in the void spaces of a
filter bed. However, because a significant fraction of the
suspended matter in wastewater often consists of particles
too small for effective settling or filtration, the aggregation
or precipitation by coagulation and flocculation of these par-
ticles into larger more readily settleable or filterable aggre-
gates is common practice.
The function of chemical coagulation-flocculation of wastewater
is the removal of suspended solids by distabilization of
colloids and removal of soluble inorganic compounds, such as
phosphorus, by chemical precipitation or adsorption on chemical
floc. 4 Coagulation involves the reduction of surface charges
of colloidal particles and the formation of complex hydrous
oxides or precipitates. Coagulation is essentially instan-
taneous in that the only time required is that necessary for
dispersing the chemical coagulants throughout the liquid.
Flocculation involves the bonding together of the coagulated
particles to form settleable or filterable solids by agglomera-
tion. This agglomeration is hastened by stirring the water to
increase the collision of coagulated particles. Unlike coagu-
lation, flocculation requires definite time intervals to be
accomplished.
Coagulation in wastewater serves a dual purpose. Not only can
removal of suspended solids (and BaD) be enhanced as was the
original intention in early wastewater treatment, but also
effective phosphorus removal can be obtained. Presently, many
treatment facilities use coagulation processes primarily for
phosphorus removal with effective suspended solids removal an
added bonus.
A-48
-------
Chemicals commonly used in wastewater coagulation are aluminum
sulfate (alum), lime, or iron salts such as ferric chloride.
Alum and lime both offer the potential of coagulant recovery
while no practical means of recovery of iron salts has yet been
demonstrated.
The colloidal suspensions found in wastewater consist of very
fine particles which carry an electric charge on their surface.
The particles are repelled from one another by this charge
which causes them to remain in suspension. The stability of
colloidal suspensions in water is based on the ability of the
particles to retain their surface charge. This charge can be
overcome by addition of the coagulants mentioned above to
destabilize the suspension allowing particles to aggregate
(flocculate) and form larger particles (floc) that settle
easily. Addition of long-chained high molecular weight organic
molecules (polymers) can aid in flocculation by a “bridging”
mechanism between floc particles.
When lime is added to wastewater, it reacts with the bicar-
bonate alkalinity of wastewater to form calcium carbonate and
also reacts with orthophosphates present in wastewater to pre-
cipitate hydroxyapatite as shown in the following equations:
Ca(OH) 2 + Ca(HCO 3 ) 2 ÷ 2CaCO 3 + 2H 2 0
5Ca + 40H + 3HP0 4 - Ca 5 OH(P0 4 ) 3 + 3H 2 )
Lime treatment normally includes flocculation to aid in removal
of phosphorus, suspended solids, and BOD present in wastewater.
The floc is settled and removed as a sludge. If lime clarif i—
cation is accomplished in the primary settler, the high pH of
the resultant effluent can be reduced by addition of C02 in an
aeration basin to form CaCO 3 . The CaCO 3 also aids in floc
settling.
The removal of phosphates by aluminum salts such as aluminum
sulfate (alum) is accomplished by a precipitation-coagulation-
flocculation sequence much the same as with lime treatment.
Removal of the resulting suspended particles is accomplished
by either conventional sedimentation or some form of filtra-
tion. When alum is added to w’astewater in the presence of
alkalinity, the following hydrolyzing reaction occurs:
Al 2 (S0 4 ) 3 + 6HC0 3 ÷2A1(OH) 3 + + 3S0 4 2 + 6C0 2
(alum)
A-49
-------
The resulting aluminum hydroxide complex is a gelatinous, bulky
floc which catches and adsorbs colloidal particles on the growing
floc providing clarification.
If the water to be treated is of low alkalinity, a poor floc
will be formed due to solubilizing of the aluminum hydroxide.
It may be necessary to add hydroxide in the form of lime or
some other base to raise the pH above about 6 to assure that
the floc remains insoluble.
In the presence of phosphates, the following reaction also
occurs:
Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 + 2P0 4 - 2A1P0 4 + 35042
The two alum reactions compete for the aluminum ions. At pH
values above 6 to 63, the removal mechanism of phosphate is
either by incorporation in a complex with aluminum or by adsorp-
tion on aluminum hydroxide floc. To obtain removal of phos-
phates by coagulation and precipitation, to the limit of the
solubility of aluminum phosphate, it is required that an amount
of aluminum ion be added in excess of the stoichiometric amount.
Hence, in practice, aluminum to phosphate molar ratios of 1.2
to 2.0 must be added depending on the final phosphorus concen-
tration desired and the chemical characteristics of the particu
lar wastewater involved.’ 96
In general, coagulation reactions vary significantly with
changes in pH, so pH adjustment of the influent may be required
to achieve optimum conditions. Also chemically treated waste—
water may require pH adjustment with additional chemical before
effluent discharge, to meet water quality standards.
Anions present in wastewater extend the optimum pH range f or
coagulation to the acid side to an extent dependent upon their
valency. Thus monovalent anions such as chloride and nitrate
have relatively little effect while sulfate and hosphate (from
detergents) cause marked shifts in optimum pH.’ 9
Coagulation processes to be followed by filtration differ in
that it is desirable to form smaller particles that interact
with the filter media to reduce the pore space through which
the filtrate must pass. This is as opposed to coagulation for
sedimentation where it is desirable to form large particles fc
faster sett1ing.
Selection of coagulants, coagulant aids and chemical dose are
based on experience and bench scale jar tests using samples o
A—50
-------
the wastewater and various chemicals and doses to determine
that combination giving the best results. Understanding of
coagulation theory does provide a basis for limiting the number
of trials required to find a workable combination.
Coagulating chemicals must be added to the wastewater, mixed,
then gently stirred for flocculation. Detention times, amount
of chemical, and the type and amount of mixing vary with the
chemical used and the character of the wastewater. Difficul-
ties are encountered i.n coagulation and flocculation when waste-
water temperature approaches 0°C. The settling characteristics
of the floc become poor, and there is an increased tendency of
floc to penetrate any filtering media, suggesting that floc
strength has decreased.’ 95 It has been observed that the opti-
mum p 1-I value is decreased by decreases in temperature and that
this shift becomes more important with smaller coagulant doses.
Mixing of the chemicals upon addition to the wastewater may be
accomplished hydraulically through a pump or a pipeline or may
involve a tank equipped with a mechanical stirring device.
Stirrers consisting of a propeller agitator on an electric
motor driven shaft are common.
Chemicals may be added to the wastewater manually or mechani-
cally. Chemical feeding equipment is available that feeds dry
chemicals on a volumetric basis. Dry feeders use variable
speed drives to achieve different feed rates.
Proportioning pumps are used to feed chemicals from pre—mixed
stock solutions. This method is most common when organic
polymers, alum or iron coagulants are used. The pumps feature
variable speed drives and non—corrosive parts.
Chemical feeding and rapid mixing is followed by a period of
gentle stirring to promote flocculation lasting from 15 to
60 minutes depending on the characteristics of the chemical
added and the wastewater. In flocculation, vertical or hori-
zontal paddle stirring devices generally provide gentle mixing
to maximize contact between the coagulated chemicals and sus-
pended particles in the wastewater. Peripheral velocities of
the stirrers are low (30-60 cm/sec) to avoid agitation suffi-
cient to break up the flocculated particles. Air diffusion
may also be used for stirring. 3 ’
Chemicals are usually added in proportion to flow requiring
flow metering and indicating equipment that may be arranged to
automatically regulate chemical dose according to preset levels.
Automatic control and mechanical mixing causes the process to
be vulnerable to power failure.
A-51
-------
Flocculated wastewater flows to a sedimentation basin where the
particles are allowed to settle out and are removed as sludge.
Alternatively, the wastewater may flow directly to a filter
system. Sufficient care must be taken to assure velocity gra-
dients during transport are low enough to prevent shearing of
the fragile floc.
Clarifiers (sedimentation units) are available that combine
the mixing and flocculating processes in a partitioned section
in the center of the tank thus providing for recirculation of
the flocculated suspension for variable detention and mixing
time and to realize savings in tank cost. These are often
called “reactor clarifiers,” “sludge blanket clarifiers;” or
“solids contact clarifiers.”
The resulting sludge produced in the total treatment process
includes the precipitated fraction from the wastewater plus
that from the chemical added. Chemical recovery from the
sludge is often possible but involves additional space, equip-
ment and operation.
Skilled operation of both package and full scale plants is
essential to obtain satisfactory treatment results at minimum
cost. Operator time is consumed in conducting tests to deter-
mine optimum chemical types and doses required to achieve the
desired treatment results. Careless operation may not result
in total treatment failure but easily to chemical wasteage,
thereby adding to treatment costs.
Chemical coagulation-flocculation and sedimentation can remove
80-90 percent of the total suspended matter, 50—55 percent of
the total organic matter and 80-90 percent of the bacteria
from raw wastewater as compared to plain sedimentation which
removes 50-70 percent of the total suspended matter and 30-40
percent of the organic matter. 3 ’
Design Assumptions
A two stage lime treatment with a total dose of 250 mg/i, was
chosen for use in the coagulation—flocculation-precipitation
process. Lime will form an insoluble precipitate with phosphorus
and the resulting sludge is easy to dewater when compared to
other chemical sludges. Also, in a large treatment plant
economical recovery of the lime is possible.
The amount of chemical sludge produced daily is a function of
several variables including flow; lime dose; calcium, magnesj
and phosphorus content of the wastewater; and the amount of
nonvolatile suspended solids present in the influent to the
chemical clarifiers. The amount of chemical sludge s hich must
A-52
-------
be handled in the system is, in turn, a function of daily sludge
production and degree of removal of inert materials by classi-
fication and blowdown. Sludge quantities are given in each
sludge option presented.
CARBON SORPTION
Process Description
Activated carbon has been utilized in numerous industrial pro-
ducts and processes for many years, and much of the present
application technology has developed therefrom. In the last
ten years, granular activated carbon treatment of wastewater
has been demonstrated for both municipal and industrial appli-
cations. The process has become much more attractive for
widespread use due to the development of economical regenera-
tion methods and equipment for granular activated carbon.
There are currently two approaches for the use of granular
activated carbon in wastewater treatment. The first approach
is to use activated carbon in a “tertiary” treatment sequence
following conventional primary and biological secondary treat-
ment. The second approach utilizes activated carbon in a
“physical—chemical” treatment (PCT) process in which raw sewage
is treated with chemicals prior to carbon sorption.
The use of activated carbon in tertiary treatment systems makes
maximum use of its capability to sorb certain refractory
dissolved organics from wastewater by limiting its use to this
function alone.
Conventional biological processes remove nearly all of those
organics measured by the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) test,
or soluble BOD. However, these processes are ineffective in
removing the so—called refractory organic materials as measured
by the chemical oxygen demand (COD) test. Activated carbon is
extremely effective at removing these refractory organics from
was tewater.
Sorption is usually explained in terms of surface tension or
surface energy per unit area. This tension or energy is caused
by an unbalance of forces on the molecules in the surface layer
of the carbon. According to the most generally accepted con-
cepts of sorption, this surface phenomenon may be predominantly
one of electrical attraction of the solute to the carbon,
van der Waals attraction, or of a chemical (ionic) nature. 206
Sorption of dissolved substances from wastewater is probably
primarily a result of physical attraction or van der Waals
forces.
A-53
-------
Because sorption is a surface phenomenon, the ability of acti—
vateci carbon to sorb large quantities of orcjanic molecules from
solution stems from its highly porous structure, which provides
a large surf ace area. Carbon has been activated with reported
yields of some 2500 sq meters per gram of carbon, but average
surface areas of granular activated carbon are around 1000 sq
meters per gram of carbon. 207
Generally, molecules of higher molecular weights are attracted
more strongly by activated carbon than lower weight molecules. 2 0 8
Furthermore, activated carbon will prefe entia1ly adsorb non-
polar organic molecules from polar solvents, such as water.
The forces of attraction between the carbon and the molecules
to be adsorbed are greatest when the molecules are just large
enough to be admitted into the pore openings.
Several inorganic, physical and environmental parameters affect
sorptive characteristics of activated carbon. Decreasing pH
increases the sorptive characteristics. Sorption is very poor
at pH values above 9, in fact desorption may occur at high pH.
Temperature has a significant effect on sorption characteris-
tics. Increasing temperature increases the rate of sorption
but not the ultimate capacity of the activated carbon.
The effect of suspended solids in wastewater applied to granu—
lar carbon has not been determined precisely. However, it is
evident that any restriction of pore openings or buildup of
materials within the pores might decrease the sorptive capacity
and/or service life of the carbon. This effect can be mini-
mized by applying water which has been pretreated by filtration.
Particle size is generally considered to have no effect on
adsorptive capacity. The external surface constitutes a small
percent of the total surface area of an activated carbon par-
ticle. Reducing the particle size of a given weight of acti-
vated carbon from 1 millimeter to 10 microns (0.01 millimeter)
only slightly increases the total sorptive capacity.
Headloss in the carbon contactor is an important design consid-
eration and is influenced by the carbon particle size and the
flow rate. The suspended solids concentration in the waste—
water to be treated by the carbon will also affect the headloss
and will thereby be a factor in selection of carbon particle
size.
The flow rate and bed depth necessary for optimum performance
will depend upon the rate of sorption of impurities from waste—
water by the carbon. Increasing flow rates through the carbon
will cause increasing headlosses.
A-54
-------
The general range of flow rates (or hydraulic loading) is
2—10 gpm/square foot of cross sectional area. Bed depths are
usually 10-30 feet.
Hydraulic headloss is then related directly to flow rate and
inversely related to particle size. Figure A-18 illustrates
the increasing pressure drop with increasing hydraulic loading
for different sized carbons from different manufacturers, oper-
ated in a downflow mode. Because of the more favorable headloss
characteristics, 8 x 30 mesh carbon is often preferred for down-
f low beds while 12 x 40 mesh carbon may be preferrable for
upf low beds because a lower upflow velocity is required for
expansion.
The headloss for a given hydraulic loading with wastewater feed
must be determined by pilot testing. Since headloss development
is such an important consideration in the design of a carbon bed,
hydraulic loading cannot be discussed in isolation from several
other design factors. If an excessive rate of headloss develop-
ment (due to a high hydraulic loading) is anticipated, an upflow
bed should be given consideration. The choice of gravity versus
pressurized flow may also be influenced by the anticipated rate
of headloss development. Very high hydraulic loadings are prac-
tical only in pressurized systems. Gravity flow in downflow
beds is considered practical only at hydraulic loadings less
than about 4 gpm/ft 2 .
Upf low expanded beds should be considered when high headloss
is expected. At low flow rates, the particles are undisturbed
and the bed remains fixed. As the flow rate is increased,
however, a point is reached where all particles no longer remain
in contact with one another, and the carbon bed is expanded in
depth. The flow rate required for initial expansion of the bed
is accompanied by a sizable increase in headloss. As the flow
rate is increased, there is further expansion of the bed. Flow
rates required for further expansion of the bed are accompanied
by lesser increases in headlosses. Figure A-19 illustrates the
sharp increas in AP for initial bed expansion anu the lower rate
of increase for further expansion. Figure A—20 shows expansion
of 8 x 30 and 12 x 40 mesh carbon beds at various flow rates.
It has been found that at about a 10 percent expansion of an
upflow bed, suspended solids will pass through the bed. In
Figure A—20 a 10 percent expansion occurs at approximately
6 gpm/ft 2 for 12 x 40 mesh carbon and at about 10 gpm/ft 2 for
8 x 30 mesh carbon.
The purpose of backwashing is to reduce the resistance to flow
caused by solids that have been trapped in the bed. The rate
and frequency of backwash is dependent upon the hydraulic
A-55
-------
2
HYDRAULrC ‘LOADING
4 6
(GPM/sQ.
FIGURE A-18.
PRESSURE DROP VERSUS HYDRAULIC LOADING IN
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CAREON BEDS 2 6
A-56
10
8
6
4
2
=
I—
Lu
Lu
cD
I—
L
C
c\j
L I)
Lu
C-)
Lu
LI,
(I. )
Lu
0,8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
1
8
FT.)
10
-------
FLOW RATE
FIGURE A-19.
HEADLOSS ON BED EXPANSION 206
CL
-J
LiJ
A-57
-------
I I I I
70 —
60 —
c 50—
LU
L i-
CARBON: 12x40, 8x30
LIQUID: WATER AT 22°C
10 15 20
FLOW RATE, GPM/SQ. FT.
FIGURE A-20.
EXPANSION OF CARBON BED AT
VARIOUS FLOW RATES
80
1 2x40
8x30
a
(1 )
0
><
LU
40 —
30 —
20 —
10 —
5
I I
25
A-58
-------
loading, the nature and concentration of the suspended solids in
the wastewater, the carbon particle size, and the method of
contacting (upf low, downflow). A contactor operating at a
hydraulic loading of 7 gpm/ft 2 may be backwashed daily to count-
teract excessive pressure drop. The same contractor operated
at 3.5 gpm/ft 2 , with the same suspended solids loading may
require backwashing only every 2-1/2 days.
Backwash frequency may be determined by either buildup of head-
loss or deterioration of effluent turbidity, or initiated at
regular predetermined intervals of time. It may be convenient
for operational reasons to arbitrarily backwash beds at one-day
intervals, for example, without regard for headloss or turbidity.
The other criteria may only be of interest during periods of
shock solids loading when backwash frequency exceeds once per
day.
The removal of solids trapped in a packed upf low bed may require
two steps: first, the bottom surface plugging may have to be
relieved by temporarily operating the filter in a downf low mode,
and second, the suspended solids entrapped in the middle of the
bed may have to be flushed out by bed expansion.
Backwashing of packed upf low carbon contactors which are pre-
ceded by filtration merely consists of increasing upf low from
the normal rate of 5 to 6 gpm/ft 2 (for 8 x 30 mesh carbon) to
10 to 12 gprn/ft 2 for 10 to 15 minutes. This can be done without
taking the column out of service. A 10 percent void space in
the top of contactor above the carbon is sufficient for this
purpose. If the top (effluent) screens are partially plugged,
the flow may be reversed (downf low) for a few minutes to clear
the screen openings.
Backwashing normally requires a bed expansion of 10-50 percent.
It is recommended that a backwash flow rate of 12-15 gpm/ft 2
be used with the granular carbons of either 8 x 30 mesh or
12 x 40 mesh.
Effective removal of the solids accumulated on the carbon sur—
f ace in downf low contactors requires: (1) surface wash equip-
ment utilizing rotating or stationary nozzles for directing
high pressure streams of water at the surface of the bed, or
(2) an air wash. A surface wash or air wash system is normally
operated only during the first few minutes of a 10-15 minute
backwash. When backwashing is supplemented by this scouring
type of wash, the total amount of water to achieve a given
degree of bed cleaning may be reduced. Also, surface wash or
air wash overcomes bed plugging that may not be alleviated by
normal backwash velocities. As a general rule, the total
amount of backwash water required should not exceed 5 percent
of the average plant flow.
A—59
-------
Backwash water may be effectively disposed of by recirculating
it into the primary sedimentation basin or elsewhere near the
inlet of the wastewater treatment plant. A return flow equaliza—
tion tank may be advisable in order to reduce shock hydraulic
loads on the plant from waste washwater.
Washing an expanded upflow bed is a simple operation. It
requires stopping the influent, lowering the liquid level in the
contactor to within one foot above the top of the carbon, and
directing a stream of air into the carbon bed for 5 minutes to
dislodge accumulated solids. After the air scouring, the column
is backwashed with water for 30 minutes and then returned to
service.
Figure A-21 is a cross-section view of a typical carbon column,
which may be operated in either an upflow or downflow mode.
Upflow beds have an advantage over downflow beds in the effi-
ciency of carbon use because they utilize the countercurrent
mode of operation. Countercurrent operation results in near
optimum utilization of carbon, or the lowest carbon dose rate.
Upflow beds may be designed to allow addition of fresh carbon
and withdrawal of spent carbon while the column remains in opera-
tion. Upflow packed bed columns are suitable only for low tur-
bidity water (<2.5 JTU), and should be loaded with carbons no
finer than 8 x 30 mesh because of plugging and high head loss
problems. Upflow expanded beds have the advantages of being
able to treat wastewater relatively high in suspended solids,
and of being able to use finer carbon (which reduces the required
contact time) without excessive head loss.
Downflow carbon contactors operate as a filter—contactor, accom-
plishing both sorption and filtration of wastewater. The dual
use of carbon may result in some reduction of capital costs by
eliminating filtration equipment. However, this economic gain
may be offset by a loss of efficiency in both filtration and
sorption. Further, it does not seem reasonable to use a high
cost media (carbon) for the removal of suspended solids when a
lower cost media (sand) is so successful.
In summary, activated carbon has proven itself in the removal
of a wide variety of organic and inorganic materials. Commer-
cially available granular carbons vary in sorptive character-
istics and may be evaluated and compared via laboratory and
pilot column tests. However, long—term plant scale demonstra-
tion is the only way to determine the full merit of a granular
A—60
-------
CARBON
IN
WATER TO
TRANSFER
HEADER
- BOTTOM WAFER VALVE
CARBON OUT
FIGURE A-21.
CROSS SECTION OF A TYPICAL CARBON COLUMN 206
SURFACE OF
CARBON
PRESSURE VESSEL
OUTLET SCREENS
FLOW
OUT (8)
INLET SCREENS
(8)
A-61
-------
carbon. Unfortunately, only plant scale experience of long
duration can be used to predict the durability of a carbon with
respect to mechanical attrition losses. The use of granular
acti iated carbon for wastewater treatment and its regeneration
are proven reliable and successful processes.
Design Assumptions
Carbon requirements differ based on whether used as tertiary
treatment or in physical—chemical treatment. Carbon require—
rnents including regeneration for tertiary treatment were assumed
at 250 lbs per million gallons and for PCT were assumed at 500
per million gallons. Carbon columns were upf low packed bed
pressure units filled with 8 x 30 mesh carbon. Hydraulic
loading rate was assumed at 5 gpm/ft 2 and a contact time of 30
minutes. Backwash rate was assumed at 15 gpm,/ft 2 , and backwash
was on a daily basis to minimize biological growths with
resultant H2S odor problems.
NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION
Process Description
Nitrogenous compounds in raw sewage may be oxidized to nitrates
by maintaining a suitable aerobic environment in a biological
treatment system. The nitrates thus formed may then be reduced
to nitrogen gas in a separate biological treatment system oper—
ated under anaerobic conditions. The oxidation step is referred
to as nitrifjcatjon and the reduction step as denitrification.
The apparent 5implicity of the structures needed for the biolog-
ical nitrification—denitrification process and the fact that the
discharge of the waste nitrogen gas presents no environmental
problems has led to many studies of this proceSs. 16 ’ 51151
The biological nitrification-denitrification process is currently
one of the leading candidates for nitrogen removal from munici-
pal wastes.
In settled domestic sewage, nitrogen may be approximately divjde
into the following categories: 55-60 percent NH 1 nitrogen, 40—45
percent organic nitrogen, and 0—5 percent NO and NO nitrogen.
In the course of biological treatment the organic nitrogen com-
pounds are degraded and the proportion in the final effluent is
generally less than 20 percent. Conventional activated sludge
plants in the United States are designed to avoid nitrificatio ;
therefore, most of the nitrogen in the effluent from these plants
appears as ammonia.
The complete oxidation of nitrogenous compounds to nitrate in
the nitrification step is a prerequisite for efficient nitrogen
removal in the denitrification step.
A-62
-------
Nitrification is performed by chemoautotrophic bacteria which
use CO 2 as a source of carbon for cell material and obtain energy
for the process by oxidizing inorganic substrates. Two groups of
the chemoautotrophs are distinguished, each responsible for a
specifi phase of the nitrification process. The first group
generally represented by Nitrosomonas can oxidize ammonia to
nitrite:
NH 4 + 1.502 ±N0 + 2 H+ + H 2 0
The second group generally represented by Nitrobacter is capable
of oxidizing nitrite to nitrate:
NO 2 + 0.5 °2 NO 3
These organisms are characterized by rather low multiplication
rates in comparison to the heterotrophic bacterial flora which
make up the bulk of an activated sludge. In addition, these
chemoautotrophic bacteria ar significantly affected by tempera-
ture in their growth ratel 5 b as illustrated in Figure A—22.
Certain toxic substances (e.g., heavy metals) also have an inhi-
biting effect on growth rate.
The limiting factor for sustaining a sufficiently high popula-
tion of nitrifying organisms in an activated sludge plant is
the detention time which can be provided for the cells in the
system. Since the nitrifiers are intimately mixed with all
other organisms and the solids ir the activated sludge, deten-
tion time of the sludge in the plant will be decisive. When the
detention time is svfficient to allow buildup of a sizable popu-
lation of nitr fying bacteria, nitrification will occur. Nitri-
fication can be maintained only when the rate of growth of the
nitrifying bacteria is rapid enough to replace organisms lost
through sludge wasting. When they can no longer keep pace, the
ability to nitrify decreases and may disappear.
It has been well established that no treatment plant, including
the extended aeration type, can accomplish both BOD reduction
and nitrification on a year—round basis in areas where cold
winters prevail. If nitrogen removal is required, and the ni—
trification—dentrification process is preferred, it will be
mandatory to accomplish nitrification in a process separate
from that of BOD reduction. A large portion of the BOD will
have to be removed before the wastewater is processed in the
nitrification unit.
The effect of pH on nitrification kinetics has been investigated
in the pH range of 6.0 to 10.015 8 and the optimum pH was deter-
mined to be 8.6. Figure A-23 indicates that 90 percent of the max-
imum nitrification rate occurs in the range of pH 7.8 to 8.9.
A-63
-------
40
20
FIGURE A—22.
RATE OF NITRIFICATION AT ALL TEMPERATURES
COMPARED TO THE RATE OF 30°C 22
100
90
80
(-)
0
çv )
50
U-
F-
UJ
L)
U-
30
10
0
TEMPERATURE, °C
A-64
-------
100
LU
I—
80
=
60
Lj
c 40
0 1
uJ
L)
LU
0 ________________________________________
6.0 7.0 8.0 10.0
pH
FIGURE A-23. PERCENT OF MAXIMUM RATE OF NITRIFICATION
AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE VERSUS pH 22
AT 20°C
I I I I
I I I I
I I _ I I I i i i __i_
9.0
-------
Outside of the pH range 7.0 to 9.8 less than 50 percent of the
optimum rate occurs. The control of pH in the nitrification
process through alkali addition may be necessary since the hydro-
gen ion formed in the conversion of ammonia to nitrite tends to
depress the pH.
Biological denitrification, which reduces nitrates to nitrogen
gas, is performed by heterotrophic organisms utilizing organic
sources of carbon for energy and growth in an anaerobic environ-
ment. Denitrifiers require organic carbon for their metabolic
activities. Since the organic carbon content of nitrified efflu—
ent is insufficient for optimum growth of denitrifying organisms,
an external source of carbon is usually added to the denitrifi—
cation reactor. Several early investigators added raw sewage to
the denitrificatjori. reactor, but this has the limitation of
adding unoxidized nitrogen compounds and additional BOD to the
final effluent. Most recent investigators have used methanol
as the supplementary source of carbon because of its low cost
and the ease of oxidation.
The overall denitrification step involves the following reaction:
6 NO 3 + 5 CH OH = 3 N 2 ÷ S CO 2 + 7 1120 +6 OH
A suggested ratio of four parts of methanol to one part of
nitrate—nitrogen has been recommended as a design guideline.SOi159
The major difficulty expected in the operation of a biological
nitrification-dentrification plant is the ammonia oxidation step.
As noted previously the nitrification process is sensitive to
temperature and inhibiting substances. Experiences at the Blue
Plains pilot plant in Washington, D. C., illustrate some of the
problems.’ 7 In summer and fall, nitrification continuously
oxidized the ammonia nitrogen to less than one mg/i. However,
in the fall, upsets in the biological processes seriously reduced
nitrification. Recovery of nitrification after the upset was
retarded by lower winter temperatures and a wastewater pH of 7
which is below the optimum value of 8.5 for nitrification. Al-
though there were intermittent periods where the nitrification—
denitrification units did reduce both ammonia and nitrate con-
centrations to less than one mg/i in cold weather, this result
was not obtained consistently and reliably.
Temperature is also a controlling parameter in the denitrifjca—
tion phase. Increased temperature improves the rate of conversj 0
of nitrate to nitrogen gas in the presence of methanol. Figure
A—24 reflects this rate increase with increasing temperature.
Furthermore, extremely low temperatures will upset the denitrjfj.....
cation process.
A-66
-------
0 5 10 15 20
TEMPERATURE, 0 C
25
FIGURE A—24.
DENITRIFICATION R2\TE VERSUS TEMPERATURE 7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
>-
LU
LU
LU
LU
I—
-l
LU
I-
><
(j1
L’ )
-J
-J
0
A-67
-------
Problems with inhibiting substances have also been reported. 7 ’’ 57
It has been suggested that means to isolate some of the nitrify-
ing sludge be included in the process facilities so that toxic
slugs do not destroy all of the nitrifying flora.
The control of methanol addition to the denitrification reactor
is not a precise science. If too little methanol is added, the
process will suffer a loss in efficiency. If too much methanol
is added, it will escape in the plant effluent and create an
oxygen demand in the receiving water.
Land area requirements for biological nitrification—denitrifica—
tion are much greater than for conventional secondary treatment
which is a serious disadvantage in many areas where building
space at established treatment plants is limited.
Power failures can cause severe disruption to the nitrification—
denitrification system’s efficiency due to the numerous pumps and
blowers involved. Present EPA standards require emergency standby
power supplies for all new wastewater treatment facilities. This
requirement should assist in preventing treatment plant upsets.
Nitrogen Removal by Suspended Growth Reactors
Denitrification can be accomplished in an activated sludge
system operated under anaerobic conditions. The denitrification
basin is commonly referred to as a suspended growth reactor.
The contents of the reactor are mixed with underwater mixers
comparable to those used in flocculation tanks in water treat—
ment plants. The energy must be sufficient to keep the sludge
in suspension but controlled to prevent pickup of atmospheric
oxygen as much as possible.
Several types of nitrification-denitrification systems have been
proposed. One such system is the three sludge system for BOD
removal, nitrification and denitrification which employs suspended
growth reactors for denitrification. 16,1 .7,155,156 This system
allows management of the separate biological transformations
which are necessary for successful denitrification. A high rate
activated sludge system removes the bulk of the carbonaceous
material in the first stage as shown in Figure A-25. The first
stage permits a high rate of sludge wasting and protects the
subsequent nitrification stage from toxic chemicals. Heavy metals,
cyanides, thiocyanates, and toxic organic chemicals will be either
sorbed or biologically degraded before they reach the nitrifica—
tion stage. Since this is a taged system there can be no direct
short circuiting of materials from the influent to the effluent.
Temperature effects on the enriched culture of the nitrification
stage are not as extreme as with a single sludge system which
contains only a marginal population of nitrifying organisms.
A—68
-------
ORGPiNIC CARBON
OX I DAT 10 ‘
DEN I TRill Ci TI ON
103 - r N 2
rEITIIYL f\LCOIIOL
THREE SLUDGE SYSTEM FOR NITROGEN RENOVAL” 5
Nil RE F IC R I un
NH 3 . J3
RETURI SLUDGE
R E T U R N
SLUDGE
FIGURE A-25.
-------
Once controlled nitrification has been established, the biologi-
cal denitrification process can be optimized. The nitrified
effluent flows to a mixed anaerobic reactor where methanol is
added in proportion to the nitrate—nitrogen concentration. The
organisms in this stage use the oxygen component of the nitrate
radical to oxidize the organic carbon of the methyl alcohol.
The end products of this metabolism are elemental inert nitrogen
gas and carbon dioxide which are liberated to the atmosphere.
Nitrogen release tanks are provided to remove supersaturated
nitrogen gas to avoid rising sludge problems in the sedimentation
basins and to provide an additional aeration period for removal
of excess methanol. The tanks will also provide for mixing of
alum or ferric chloride added for removal of remaining phosphate.
The effluent from the denitrification system will be filtered
through multimedia filters and chlorinated prior to discharge.
Another wastewater treatment plant design, (ATTF). which differs
from the three sludge system in that the first stage biological
oxidation process is eliminated, is shown in Figure A—26. 16 °
Raw sewage is treated with lime and polymer or ferric chloride
for clarification and BOD removal. Lime treatment of the raw
sewage has been reported to increase the BOD removal from 37—46
percent to 67—74 percent. Lime clarification in the primary
treatment stage removes sufficient BOD to permit both oxidation
of residual carbonaceous matter and ammonia in the secondary stage.
In this way, the longer sludge ages required for year around
nitrification can be attained without separating the carbonaceous
oxidation and nitrification stages as in the three sludge system.
In addition to phosphate removal, lime clarification also pro-
vides for heavy metal removal to protect the- nitrifying organisms.
After primary clarification, the liquid is passed to the oxidation-
nitrification tanks directly without an intervening recarbonation
stage. External CO 2 is added by vaporization from liquid storage,
when needed, to the first bay of the oxidation-nitrification tanks.
However, the main source of CO 2 is not the external supply but
rather the CO 2 generated in the process.
Nitrogen Removal by Column Reactors
Columnar nitrate reduction represents an alternative denitrifica—
tion system to the suspended growth reactors. In a packed column
the cell residence time of the surface bound slime is much greater
than the hydraulic detention time. This combined with a large
contact surface and short diffusion distances afforded by small
media such as sand, provides an efficient system for rapid de—
nitrification of an applied feed. Column denitrification reactors
have been investigated for use on municipal wastewaterlkS ,lSk and
on irrigation return flows. 16 1
A-70
-------
RAW SEWAGE
J E
LIME REACTOR POLYrIER OR
(PREAERATION) FERRIC CHLORIDE
1111111
SLUDGE TO
PRIMA”Y _____
SOLIDS
SEDIMENTATiON TANK] PROCESSING
PRIMARY 02
C ALC
EFFLUENT
4 AIR
OXIDATION- I
______________________ RETURN
SLUDGE
NITRIFICATIOM TANK
SECONDARY ________
WASTE SLUDGE
SEDIMENTATION TANK TO
MIXING
ITRIFIcATION RAW SEWAGE
TANK - RETURN
SLUDGE
AERATED
STABILIZArION TANK
WASTE SLUDGE
FINAL ____
____ TO
ENTATION TANK RAW
SEWAGE
CHLORINE CONTACT
I
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT
FOR INDUSTRY
FIGURE A-26. ATTF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM’ 6 °
A-71
-------
Pilot plant studies at Pomona, California disclosed that denitri—
fication was occurring on activated carbon columns receiving
nitrified effluent’ 5 The denitrification on the carbon columns
was enhanced by the addition of methanol to the feed. Backwash-
ing of the carbon columns to remove filtered solids and denitri—
fying organisms was accomplished without interfering with the
denitrification capacity of the columns.
Haug and McCarty’ 62 have conducted laboratory studies using
column reactors (submerged filters) for nitrifying synthetic
secondary effluent. The submerged filter consists of a bed of
porous media through which the wastewater passes in an upward
direction. Nitrifying bacteria grow on the surfaces of the
porous media and long detention times are possible. Long deten-
tion times are sometimes difficult to achieve in an activated
sludge process or trickling filter, a problem that becomes in-
creasingly difficult as the temperature decreases. The sub-
merged filter captures almost all of the produced biological
solids so that long detention times can be maintained. It also
provides strict control of the hydraulic detention time. These
characteristics are reported to permit nitrification at very low
temperatures and under conditions of variable loading.
The submerged filter requires oxygenation of the waste with pure
oxygen due to the high oxygen requirement for nitrification.
Nitrification was found to be stable at temperatures as low as
1°C. With an influent concentration of 20 mg/l ammonia nitrogen,
oxidation was 90 percent complete with detention times of 30
minutes at 5°C.. Equivalent performance was observed with recycle
using preoxygenation of waste and with bubble oxygenation in the
filter.
The submerged filter is in the early stages of development and
insufficient data are available for design purposes.
General Assumptions
The present study was based upon the use of the three sludge
system composed of a high rate activated sludge unit (approx—
mate detention time of 2 hours), an aerated nitrification chamber
(detention time on the order of 3 hours) and a suspended growth
reactor for denitrification (detention time ranging between
50-100 minutes) with simultaneous addition of methanol. Methanol
addition was based upon a rate of 4.0 mg methanol per mg of
nitrate nitrogen.
The flow rates involved in the design of the system were based
upon average daily flow. A volumetric loadit g to the high rate
activated sludge stage of 100 lb BOD/l000 ft’ was assumed to
apply. Finally, diffused air aeration was assumed.
A-72
-------
SELECTIVE ION EXCHANGE REMOVAL OF AMMONIA-NITROGEN
Process Description
The removal of ammonia—nitrogen from wastewater is required in
some areas to protect aquatic life from the toxic effects of
ammonia and/or to prevent excessive algal growths resulting
from fertilization of the receiving water by the ammonia or
nutrient nitrogen. Ammonia is the predominant nitrogen species
in raw sewage or non—nitrified secondary effluents. The
ammonia exists in these wastewaters essentially as ammonium
cation (NH ) and is therefore amenable to removal by ation
exchange. This process functions by replacing the NH 4 ion in
the wastewater with a more environmentally acceptable ion such
as Na+ or Ca . Columns of granular ammonium selective zeolite
are normally employed to remove the N4 ions from the waste-
water by percolating the wastewater through the granules of
zeolite. Sodium and calcium ions are held by electrostatic
charges within the porous structure of the zeolite granules.
The Na4 and Ca++ ions are released by the zeolite in exchange
for NH 4 ions which are preferred by the zeolite. The amnmonium
selective zeolite (e.g., clinoptilolite) employed in this pro-
cess is therefore capable of concentrating the amnmoniuin ions in
the relatively small volume of the zeolite column by contacting
large volumes of wastewater.
Use of the selective ion exchange process for ammonia removal
avoids the problems normally associated with the disposal of
spent regenerant brine solutions. The zeolite can be effec-
tively regenerated with lime solutions or slurries or with
brine (NaC1) solutions. These spent regenerant solutions,
which have a high pollution potential, are not discharged to
receiving streams but are instead renovated for reuse by one
of two methods: (1) air stripping to remove the ammonia, or
(2) electrolytic breakpoint chlorination to convert the
ammonia to environmentally acceptable nitrogen gas.
Natural zeolite, clinoptilolite, was selected for process use
on the basis of its good ammonium ion selectivity and its
potential low cost. Clinoptilolite is available in several
large natural deposits in the Western United States. A com-
parison of Hector Clinoptilolite and a strong acid ion exchange
resin, Amberlite IR l2OR, shows that the resin prefers calcium
ions to ammonium ions whereas the opposite is true for clinop-
tilolite. The clinoptilolite can, therefore, be effectively
regenerated with lime solutions containing calcium ions.
The clinoptilolite in the calcium form is capable of exchanging
a significant portion of its Ca+ 2 ions for ainmonium ions whereas
a conventional ion exchange resin cannot. In the regeneration
A-73
-------
cycle, lime (calcium hydroxide) provides the basicity to convert
the NH ions to NH3 which is non—ionic and is therefore removed
from the zeolite. The exchange reactions involved in loading
and regeneration are as follows:
Loadings
- Ca+ 2 + 2NH = 2Z - (NH 4 )+ + Ca+ 2
Regeneration
2Z — (NH 4 YF + Ca(OU) 2 = - Ca 2 ÷ 2NH 3 + 2H 2 0
(Z is a negatively charged ion exchange site)
Regeneration with lime alone was found to be a rather slow pro-
cess; therefore the ionic strength of the regenerant solution
was increased by the addition of salt (NaC1). The increased
ionic strength of the regenerant plus the presence of sodium
ion accelerates the removal of ammonia from the zeolite.
Although most of the sodium chloride added to the regenerant
is converted to calcium chloride by continuous recycle of the
regenerant, sufficient sodium ion remains under steady state
conditions to promote the elution of the ammonium ions. The
sodium ion has a higher diffusion coefficient than calcium ion
which is believed responsible for increasing the ammonia elu-
tion rate. 20 k
Investigations have been conducted on selective ion exchange
removal of-. ammonia—nitrogen from clarified and carbon treated
secondary effluents and from clarified raw sewage. Ammonia
removals ranging from 93 to 97 percent were demonstrated in
these investigations. 20 1 ” 205 The flow sheet for the ammonia
removal process is illustrated in Figure A-27. Clarified
wastewater is pumped to the ion exchange beds either singly or
in series. When exhausted, the clinoptilolite beds are removed
from service, drained, and regenerated with a lime—salt solu-
tion pumped upf low through the beds. The spent regenerant is
then air-stripped to remove the ammonia and returned to the
chemical make—up tank where lime and salt are added to prepare
the regenerant for reuse. Makeup salt is added to replace that
lost during the regeneration cycle. Approximately 5 percent of
the bed volume of regenerant remains in the zeolite bed after
draining and is lost in the bed rinse that follows the regen-
eration step. The selective ion exchange process concentrates
the ammonia to a small volume (about 2.5 percent of the original
waste volume) which can be air—stripped at a low cost even in
cold weather when heated air may be required.
A-74
-------
FILTRATION AND ION EXCHANGE
Wastewater
FIGURE A-27. FLOWSHEET FOR AMMONIA SELECTIVE ION
EXCHANGE PROCESS 2 0 5
A—75
Main Ion
Exchange Pump
ZEOLITE REGENERATION PROCESS
Regeneration
P iimp
-------
A typical operational sequence can be ascertained from the plant
designed (but not installed) for the South Tahoe water reclama-
tion plant. The design included a total of 12 ion exchange
beds, 9 of which would be in service and 3 in regeneration at
all times. At design flow, the service cycle for a set of three
beds would have to be regenerated about every eight hours.
Regeneration would take place in two phases. In the first phase,
regenerant from the previous regeneration with an ammonia con-
tent of 100 xng/l would be recirculated through the beds until
the ammonia concentration reached a level of about 600 mg/l.
Throughout the regeneration, makeup lime would be added to main-
tain a pH of 11. Upon completion of the phase—one regeneration,
the spent regenerant would be transferred to a holding tank and
thence to an air stripper for removal of the ammonia. In the
second phase, freshly stripped regenerant would be circulated
through the bed until the ammonia concentration reached about
100 mg/l. This regenerant would then be drained from the bed
and transferred to a holding tank to be used for the first phase
regeneration of the next set of beds removed from service for
regeneration.
It is necessary to regenerate the beds upf low at a sufficient
rate to fluidize the zeolite particles thereby removing preci-
pitated solids [ e.g., Mg(OH) 2 ) from the beds. The zeolite
attrition loss per regeneration cycle has been indicated to be
approximately 0.17 percent.
The problems associated with high pH regeneration [ e.g., pre-
cipitation of Mg(OH) 2 1 of clinoptilolite can be avoided by using
electrolytic destruction of the ammonia in place of air or stream
stripping. Electrolytic treatment of the regenerants also avoids
the problems of disposal of ammonia to the atmosphere or disposal
of aqueous ammonia concentrates. The spent regenerant containing
ammonia and chloride salts is recirculated through electrolysis
cells which produce hypochiorite for breakpoint chlorination.
Preliminary studies by Battelle-Northwest on electrolysis of
recycled regenerant solutions containing calcium chloride and
sodium chloride indicate that destruction of the ammonia can be
accomplished with a vower consumption of 50 watt hours per gram
of ammonia-nitrogen. ° High flow velocities through the elec-
trolysis cells are required in addition to a low concentration
of MgCl to minimize scaling of the cathode by calcium hydroxide
and calcium carbonate. Frequent acid flushing of the cells
would be necessary to remove this scale when the cell resistance
becomes too high for economical operation.
Cathodic scaling can be avoided by treating the spent regenerant
with soda ash to precipitate the calcium as CaCO 3 prior to elec-
trolytic treatment to remove ammonia. This regeneration mode
utilizes a precipitation tank and a clarifer to separate the
A-76
-------
precipitated CaCO 3 . This additional treatment of the regenerant
increases the cost of the process by 1—2 cents per thousand
gallons but provides the benefit of softening the wastewater to
render it more acceptable for reuse in domestic water supplies
and probably reduces the power requirements to about 40 watt
hours/grain of ammonia—nitrogen destroyed.
The selective ion exchange process is Subject to loss of ammonia
removal efficiency by: (1) high pH levels (above pH 8) in the
wastewater feed, (2) plugging of the zeolite bed with particu-
late matter in the feed, (3) bed fouling by biological growths,
and (4) bed fouling by precipitated Mg(OH) when high pH regen-
eration (lime solutions or slurries) is used. Control of the
pH of wastewater is readily accomplished in most tertiary treat-
ment plants by recarbonation to about pH 7 and therefore does
not normally represent a problem to the selective ion exchange
process. High pH conditions during the initial part of the
service cycle are possible if residual lime or caustics used
in the alkaline regeneration mode are not thoroughly flushed
from the zeolite bed prior to introducing the feed stream.
Since the selective ion exchange process would normally be
employed in an advanced waste treatment plant or a tertiary
treatment plant, zeolite bed plugging by particulate matter in
the feed is not a problem as this material is removed by f ii-
tration prior to either carbon sorption or ion exchange treat-
ment. Bed fouling by biological growths would occur only in
the treatment of effluent from an advanced waste treatment,
physical—chemical clarification process which does not remove
soluble organic matter from raw wastewater. Pilot plant results
indicate that biological fouling under these circumstances is
not severe since the zeolite beds are usually regenerated before
much biological growth can take place. Backflushing and regen-
eration effectively removes the biological growths.
The presence of high magnesium concentrations in the feed water
to the selective ion exchange process represents a significant
problem with respect to the alkaline regeneration process.
Fluidization of the bed by upflow regeneration and thorough
backwashing is required to alleviate the Mg(OH) 3 fouling prob-
lem. High magnesium waters should preferentially be treated by
selective ion exchange employing the neutral brine regenerant
solutions of the electrolytic renovation process.
Selective ion exchange with electrolytic renovation of the
regenerant will provide a very positive means of ammonia removal
from wastewater. High ammonia removal efficiencies can be main-
tained in spite of variable feed composition and the presence
of toxic substances which seriously affect biological nitrogen
removal processes. If loss of control occurs in the ion exchange
A-77
-------
process, this can generally be quickly corrected and the pro-
cess returned to normal operation within a few hours. Loss of
control or upsets in the alternative biological nitrification-
denitrification process can seriously reduce the efficiency of
this process for several weeks until the proper biological
flora can be reestablished. The selective ion exchange process
is expected to be readily adapted to areas where cool weather
in winter adversely affects ammonia stripping and biological
nitrification—denitrification processes. It should also find
application in areas where breakpoint chlorination cannot be
used for total removal of ammonia due to the large amount of
chloride salts which breakpoint chlorination introduces into
the effluent discharge.
Design Assumptions
The regeneration process consists of elution of the ammonium
ions (NH ) by the addition of sodium in the form of NaC1. The
regenerant is then clarified by the addition of soda ash to
precipitate calcium as CaCO 3 to protect the cathode in the
electrolysis cell from becoming fouled. The electrolysis
process produces sodium hypochiorite (NaOC1) which reacts with
the arr nonia molecule, freeing nitrogen and forming NaC1. Addi-
tional salt (NaC1) must be added to make up the amount lost in
the rinsing of the bed and the amount exchanged to the zeolite.
The power requirements for the zeloite process were assumed to
average 40 watt hours/gram of ammonia-nitrogen destroyed. The
average length of the service cycle was assumed to be 200 by
(gross bed volumes).
LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENTS
Process Description
The terms “land disposal” or “land treatment” are used synony-
mously to mean the application of wastewater onto the land.
Historically, land disposal involved application of raw sewage
onto the land. Several major cities including Berlin, Mel-
bourne, and Paris have used so—called “sewage farms” for the
treatment and disposal of raw sewage. 203 However, little
knowledge and understanding of the principles of geology,
hydrology, climatology, or biology were utilized in these early
attempts at land disposal. The only concern of the early users
was to dispose of unwanted sewage. Early application methods
were by flooding or ridge and furrow irrigation.
A-78
-------
Beginning in the early 1950’s, land treatment facilities were
designed with awareness and consideration of the natural
science disciplines mentioned above. Generally, raw sewage is
no longer applied to the land without prior treatment. The
trend is to apply treated effluent onto the land via one of
the many conventional irrigation procedures. The type of
irrigation system to be used depends on the amount and type of
wastewater, the type of land, legal requirements, regulatory
agencies, the public, and many other factors.
The application of treated wastewater effluents onto the land
embodies the concept that wastewater contains nutrients which
are resources that should be recycled back to the land.
The primary nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium)
found in wastewater are only slightly reduced in conventional
primary and secondary treatment systems; hence these nutrients
are normally released to surface water. Excess quantities of
nutrients will act to stimulate the growth of algae in surface
waters causing overgrowths or “blooms” which may be detrimental
to fish and other aquatic inhabitants. Such excessive and
undesirable growth of algae can create nuisances (e.g., odors),
reduce the recreational value of the water, and increase the
cost of water treatment.
Land disposal systems may be classified as either low rate or
high rate systems. Low rate systems utilize wastewater appli-
cation rates of approximately 2 to 10 ft/yr, while high rate
systems achieve wastewater application rates of 150 to 350
ft/yr. 2 13
Low rate systems are segmented into two types of application
systems. Spray irrigation is defined 1 as the controlled
spraying of liquid onto the land at a rate measured in inches
per week, with the flow path of the liquid being infiltration
and percolation through the soil. Overland runoff 1 is defined
as the controlled discharge (by spraying or other means) of
liquid onto the land at a rate measured in inches per week,
with the flow path of the liquid being downslope across the
land.
The Muskegon County (Michigan) Wastewater Management System
(presently under construction) will be the first large scale
low rate (sprinkler) effluent land disposal system in the U.S.
Many consider it the prototype for increased utilization of
land treatment technology. The system is designed to process
43.4 MGD of wastewater, about 24 MGD of which is from indus-
trial sources (mainly pulp and paper mills). The system will
include secondary treatment in a series of aerated lagoons,
application of the effluent onto the land (6300 acres of flat,
sandy soil) with long rotating spray booms, storage lagoons to
accommodate 5 months flow (winter), a subsurface drainage
system, and control and monitoring of all surface runoff and
subsurface drainage. The loading rate will be 2.5 million gall
A-79
-------
acre/year or 7.7 ft/year over the total area. Extensive clear-
ing of trees was required to adequately prepare the area for
the irrigation system. The estimated cost of the complete
system is reported to be $42 million. This project will provide
the opportunity to research many aspects of land treatment tech-
nology that have been overlooked or inadequately studied in the
past.
High rate systems consist of rapid infiltration which is defined
as the controlled discharge of liquid onto the land at a rate
measured in feet per week with the flow path being high rate
infiltration and percolation through the soil.’
Most high rate systems are in the Southwest. The basic purpose
for most high rate systems is groundwater recharge. Generally,
high rate systems utilize recharge basins where large volumes
of water are pumped and held to allow for infiltration into the
ground below. Major examples of this disposal technique are
the Whittier Narrows plant near Los Angeles (15 MGD) and the
Flushing Meadows project near Phoenix (1 MGD).
The land area required for sewage effluent disposal depends on
the loading rate used. The loading rate in turn depends on
many factors including:
• The soil capacity for infiltration and percolation;
• Hydra ulic conductivity (percolation capacity) of
the root zone of cover vegetation;
• Evapotranspiration capacity of site vegetation; and
• Assimilation by soil and vegetation of nitrogen,
phosphorus, suspended solids, BOD, heavy metals,
and pathogenic organisms.
The infiltration capacity of the soil will limit the rate at
which water can be applied to the area without runoff. Steeper
slopes, previous erosion, and lack of dense vegetative cover
will also reduce the infiltration capacity and necessitate a
corresponding reduction in application rates.
The hydraulic conductivity of the soil in a vertical direction
will determine the total precipitation and effluent application
that can be transmitted to the groundwater. Increased precipi-
tation in a wet year will reduce the amount of effluent which
can be applied. Table A—7 shows the amount of water which can
be applied to various soil textures under ideal conditions.
A-80
-------
TABLE A-7
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC LOADING
OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FOR VARIOUS
SOIL TEXTURES (IDEAL CONDITIONS)
Movement Through the Soil Root Zone*
Inches/Day Inth i7Year
Fine sandy 15.0 300
Sandy loam 7.5 180
Silt loam 3.5 90
Clay loam 1.5 40
Clay 0.5 10
*precjpjtatjon plus effluent less evapotranspiration
In order to provide sufficient soil material for renovation of
the applied effluent, at least 4 feet of aerated soil is nor-
mally required in the root zone.
The hydraulic conductivities and drainage capacity of the soil
and geologic materials are of importance in determining the
allowable loading rate. The drainage capacity of the soul
geologic material is important in determining the need of a
drainage system to control the water table. If the capacity
of the natural system is great enough to maintain the ground-
water table at an acceptably low level (4 to 5 feet of aerated
soil), then a subsurface drainage system is unnecessary. If
the natural drainage is not great enough to provide this depth
of aerated soil, an artificial subsurface tile drainage system
will be required. A water table at or above the drain tile
depth is required for a tile drainage system to remove any
water. When the water table is below the drain tile depth, the
only means to provide artificial drainage is by drainage wells.
In order to meet discharge limits to receiving waters, most
of the nitrogen found in secondary effluent may have to be
removed. Recent technical papers indicate many complex pro-
cesses potentially available for removal of the various nitro-
gen forms in a soil system. However, only two basic processes
are consistent for long time periods. Nitrogen can be removed
by growing and removing from the area a crop which takes up
the nitrogen, or by denitrification.
A-81
-------
Effluent resulting from aerobic biological processes contains
nitrogen principally in the forms of ammonia and nitrate.
Nitrogen in the nitrate form is subject to movement with the
water through the root zone and is not retained by the soil
as the ammonia form can be.
Denitrification, which will provide added nitrogen removal,
occurs naturally in soil systems. However, elaborate construc-
tion and control is required to accomplish predictable deni-
trification in soil systems. Even where control is maintained,
the process will not operate at peak efficiency for 100 percent
of the time. High rate land disposal systems can result in
recharge of large volumes of treated wastewater to the ground-
water, but appear capable of removing only about 30 percent
of the influent nitrogen.
Phosphorus is removed by adsorption on the cation exchange
complex, by precipitation and by sorption with iron and alumi-
num oxides. - The removal of phosphorus is therefore dependent
on the soil texture, the cation exchange capacity, the amount
of iron and aluminum oxides and the uptake of phosphorous by
the crop. Because of these removal mechanisms, little movement
of phosphorous through the soil system with the drainage water
is anticipated. Phosphorous concentrations in groundwater
from subsurface drainage systems are seldom over 0.2 mg/i and
seldom as low as .01 mg/i. Common concentrations of phos-
phorus in the water which has moved through the soil are
expected to be in the range of .01 to .1 mg/i with midpoints
of this rang most common. SucI concentrations will meet
standards for receiving waters.
The removal of pathogenic organisms from effluent, before dis-
charge to the receiving water, is required for obvious reasons.
In land disposal by sprinkler irrigation these organisms are
subject to movement through the air as aerosols. The movement
is aided because the water is sprayed upward into the air.
The potential travel distance is dependent on wind velocity,
sprinkler pressure, nozzle size, height of nozzle, and rough—
ness of the vegetation or ground surface. Trees in the buffer
strip, for instance, will substantially reduce the potential
travel distance.
Under normal circumstances, pathogenic organism contamination
by air transport is not expected to be a problem if an ade-
quate buffer strip is provided around the irrigated area. To
prevent possible contamination of flowing streams or adjacent
private and public property, a buffer strip or “green belt t ’
is provided for protection. The width of this buffer strip
is dependent on vegetation conditions. Trees are about 4 times
better than short vegetation in preventing wind movement of
particles across an area. The buffer should be at least 200
feet with 100 feet of trees. If trees cannot be provided, a
buffer width of 400 feet is a minimum.
A-82
-------
The effectiveness of the soil in removing pathogens has been
demonstrated. A removal of 95 percent of these organisms in
the surface layer of 0.5 inches of soil would be expected,
and 3 to 5 feet of vertical movement above the water table
has been shown to be sufficient for nearly 100 percent removal.
Although one study indicates that organisms have travelled to
depths of 3 to 5 feet.
Since a very high concentration of the pathogenic organisms
are retained in the surface layer, a possible contamination
of surface water exists when natural precipitation causes
runoff.
In addition to pathogenic organisms, another public health
hazard that must be considered when wastewater is applied to
the land is heavy metals concentration. The variable and not
insignificant concentrations of heavy metals in sewage effluent
are shown in Table A-8.
Little is known of the fate of heavy metals in soil. Jenne 90
proposed that the principal factor in retention of the heavy
metals is sorption on hydrous oxides of manganese and iron.
it is expected, therefore, that there will be little migration
in the soil. Nevertheless, the capacity of the soil to retain
these elements must be limited and eventual heavy metal break-
through to the groundwater must be considered when using
sewage effluent as a source of nutrients. The possibility of
surface water pollution by soil erosion or flooding of crop-
land must also be considered.
Heavy metal buildup in soils can be detrimental in two ways.
Continued buildup in heavy concentration in the soil over long
A-83
-------
TABLE A-8
TYPICAL VALUES OF HEAVY METALS
AND BORON FROM SEVERAL SOURCES
AND LIMIT FOR IRRIGATION WATER 5
Irrigation
Element* Tahoe Coker CRREL Limit
Boron (Bo) .7 .75
Cadmium (Cd) .1 .005
Chromium (Cr) .0005 .16 .2 5.0
Copper (Cu) .019 .25 .1 .2
Iron (Fe) .030 .1
Mercury (Hg) .001 .005
Manganese (Mn) .034 .2 2.0
Nickel (Ni) .026 .31 .2 .5
Zinc (Zn) .026 .32 .2 5.0
* All values in mg/i
NOTE: No value shown = no data given
time periods can eventually sterilize soils and, thus, cancel
the original intent of the effluent disposal operation.
other detrimental effect involves potential concentration of
heavy metals in the tissue of plants grown on land which has
been subjected to waste spreading. Public health hazards
could result directly from ingestion of vegetables, fruits,
or grains grown on this land or indirectly from ingestion of
meat from animals which have grazed on the land. Further
research is needed concerning the toxicity of heavy metals to
plants and on the human and livestock intake through the food
chain resulting from concentration of heavy metals in plant
tissues. 92 Methods of treatment for heavy metals removal may
need to be considered.
Of the syst ns outlined above, spray irrigation was selected
as the alternative for investigation since it appears to be
the most versatile method of land disposal or treatment and
incorporates significant removal of nutrients.
A-84
-------
Spray irrigation relies on liquid infiltrating the soil surface
and percolating through the soil, together with evapotranspira—
tion from the surfaces of vegetation and evaporation from the
soil surface. The major limiting factor in spray irrigation
is infiltration capacity. Maintenance of infiltration capa-
city involves intermittent application of wastewater with
intervening rest periods. A typical application schedule,
and one that has been thoroughly studied and found satisfac-
tory, is the one in use at Penn State University. Weekly
applications of 2 inches of wastewater at a rate of 1/4 inch
per hour for eight hours followed by 160 hours of rest. This
application schedule requires 129 acres for the treatment of
one million gallons of wastewater and was the schedule utilized
for this study. It should be noted that this schedule is
extremely conservative and will result in a substantial acreage
requirement.
Factors which must be considered for the design of an irriga-
tion disposal system for municipal wastewaters include:
• Land availability, location and topography
• Soil type, depth, and chemistry
• Cover crop
• Weather
• Pretreatment of was tewater
• Irrigation equipment.
There should be adequate a-mounts of land available within a
relatively short distance from the municipality and it must be
of proper topography to minimize problems of runoff.
The soil should be capable of absorbing large quantities of
water and be capable of supporting the growth of a cover crop
that has broad tolerance limits for water.
A good cover crop is often considered the most important part
of the irrigation system. The cover crop protects the soil
from compaction by the water droplets striking the soil.
Without a cover crop, the droplets strike the soil and break
it into fine particles which seal the surface. The cover crop
also increases the surface area available for evaporation and
transpiration of the wastewater and provides additional storage
capacity for the water. Water is introduced into the soil
through the root zone of the cover crop, and the root system
controls erosion of the soil. It has been found in the past
A-85
-------
that the most desirable cover crop is dense grass or a com-
bination of grasses such as reed canary, timothy and orchard
grass. The cover crop must be harvested from the field
periodically during the growing season. 21 1 ’
Water containing dissolved solids (salts), especially sodium,
in high concentrations may alter the chemistry of the soil
to an extent that it affects soil structure. Changes in soil
structure affect permeability which may change the amount of
water that can be applied to the land. Wastewaters applied
to the land with high sodium content will cause binding of
the soil.
During severe cold, water applied to the irrigation field
does not enter the ground or evaporate, but instead becomes
stored in “ice beds.” The thickness of these beds varies with
temperature and the length of time subfreezing weather is
experienced. Ice beds of several feet thickness have been
experienced in the Midwest. The presence of these ice beds
is in itself no severe problem to operation of a properly
designed system. Major difficulties appear when a spring
thaw occurs. A fast thaw can create great difficulty in
containing the ice melt.
Level or near level land is required in addition to a dike or
system of dikes to contain the spring runoff. If permitted
to enter the receiving water, the runoff would carry with it
large quantities of organics and dissolved and suspended
waste solids. The retained wastewater and solids deposited
during the winter could become septic during the spring and
cause odors; however, year around operation has not caused
objectionable odors.
If the system is required to operate during cold winter
months, an automated solid set irrigation system is recom-
mended. Hand—moved systems are not practical with icing con—
ditions that occur, and self—propelled pivot systems require
constant maintenance during cold weather. Conventional impact
rotating sprinkler heads tend to freeze up in cold weather,
as do the large volume rainguns. Piping mains, laterals and
risers that are susceptible to freezing need to have fast,
positive drainage when not in use.
Design Assumptions
Based on the success of the Penn State University studies, an
average application rate of 1/4 inch/hour with a maximum
weekly application of 12 inches was assumed. Acreage require-
ment was assumed at 129 acres per million gallons, which
includes a 200 ft protective buffer strip around the spray
A-86
-------
site. Slope of spray site was assumed at less than 15 percent,
with no runoff. Minimum depth of aerobic soil zone was 4 feet
of well drained soil, with no drain field required.
A perennial grass crop will be grown and harvested to remove
nutrients. Costs reflect harvesting and profit from sale of
crop.
An automated solid set irrigation system was assumed and dis-
tance from treatment plant to spray field was assumed at
1/2 mile.
DIS INFECT ION
Process Descri2tion
Public health laws require disinfection of treated sewage efflu-
ent before discharge to surface waters, land surface, or to
certain types of underground disposal. Adequate wastewater
disinfection is important in light of the large nwt be:c of poten-
tial waterborne microbial diseases. Over 100 different viral
types found in wastewater have been identified as potential
carriers of these diseases. Microorganisms of interest include
the bacteria: V. cholera, salmonella, and shigella; the viruses:
infectious hepatitis, coxsackie A and B (32 types), reoviruses
(3 types), ECHO viruses (34 types), adenoviruses (32 types),
viral gastroenteritis, and viral diarrhea; and the parasite
E. histolytica.
Disinfection of wastewater treatment plant effluents is most
commonly achieved by addition of chlorine or chlorine compounds
in sufficient quantity to result in a free chlorine residual of
0.5 mg/i after one hour of contact time.
Disinfection by addition of chlorine compounds such as calcium
hypochiorite or sodium hypochiorite is accomplished by feeding
from a stock solution of chemical through a proportioning pump.
The pump may be either automatic or manually adjusted to the
flow. Use of chlorine compounds involves troublesome chemical
storage and handling, adds unwanted solids to the water and is
relatively expensive. Application of this disinfection strategy
is limited to very small flows and swimming pools.
By far the most common disinfection technique is use of chlorine
gas either by direct feed or solution feed. Chlorine gas is a
dangerous, toxic chemical that must be handled in accordance
with procedures established by the Chlorine Institute. Copies
of these procedures are available from the Chlorine Institute
or the chlorine supplier. Chlorine accidents in wastewater
treatment are rare.
A-87
-------
Chlorine gas is available in steel pressure cylinders with
sizes ranging from 100 lbs to 2000 lbs capacity. Single unit
railroad tank cars are available in three sizes: 16, 30, 55
and 90 tons net. Multi-unit tank cars holding 15 detachable,
one—ton cylinders are also available.
Direct feed chlorinators receive chlorine gas from the supply,
reduce the pressure to less than atmospheric through a regu-
lating pressure reducing valve and inject the gas directly
into the waste stream through a venturi injector. The feed
rate is either manually adjusted or proportioned automatically
to the wastewater flow, and is controlled by a fixed or variable
orifice through which the chlorine gas passes.
Solution feed chiorinators receive the chlorine gas from the
supply, reduce the pressure to less than atmospheric and mix the
chlorine into a water solution. The solution is then pumped
or flows by gravity to the wastewater to be disinfected. Chlor-
ine is soluble in water up to 10 percent by weight depending on
the temperature. The rate of feed of the chlorine solution is
either manually regulated or automatically proportioned to the
wastewater flow. Chlorine gas is metered to the solution feed
chlorinator through a fixed or variable orifice.
The amount of chlorine required to achieve the required free
chlorine residual depends on the oxidizable organic or inorganic
content of the wastewater, pH, and temperature. Treated mimi—
cipal wastewáter free of unusual or industrial wastes would be
expected to require approximately 0.0042 pounds of chlorine gas
per person or population equivalent per day.
Some contact period is required after the addition of the chlor-
ine to allow time for disinfection and chemical reactions to
take place. This time will vary with the dose of chlorine
applied, chlorine contact basins are normally designed to pro-
vide adequate mixing through baffling or stirring, and to re-
tain the average flow for one hour. The rema ining amount of
free chlorine is measured by an electronic chlorine residual
indicator or a simple color comparator test using orthotolidine
as a color producing agent.
Chlorine disinfection does not destroy all disease producing
organisms. Amoebic cysts and certain viruses survive chlorina-
tion at typical application rates. However, chlorination is
one of the few available disiiifection techniques that is economi-
cally feasible, relatively safe and can be designed to maintain
a residual disinfecting capability. This residual activity per-
sists as long as there is uncombined chlorine in the water.
A-88
-------
Disinfection by chlorine can be carried out by relatively low
skilled pe.rsonnel following simple, printed instructions.
One of the major drawbacks with chlorination of wastewater
results from the potential.toxic effects subsequent discharges
can have on aquatic life. Chlorine itself, hypochiorite, and
various forms of chlorinated hydrocarbons and amines can be
extremely toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Receiving
waters may suffer extensive damage in the vicinity of treatment
plant outfalls.
Disinfection with chlorine will vary in effectiveness with the
pH and temperature of the treated water because of the partition
between the more effective HOC1 species and OC1 . The relation
between these chemical species is given in Figure A-28. Hydrau-
lic considerations determine the mixing time allowed before
chlorinated effluents are discharged. Degree of disinfection
is related to detention time as can be seen in Figure A-29.
Disinfection efficiency i also tied to the concentration of
ammonia, ammonia compounds, and suspended solids in effluent
wastewaters. Increases in these constituents will cause
commensurate increases in chlorine dose requirements to attain
a given level of disinfection. This increase is related to
the formation of chioramines when ammonia is present and the
reduction of hypochiorite by organic suspended solids due to
oxidation of the cell matter.
Design Assumptions
For the purposes of completing the profile sheets presented
in this report, direct chlorination with chlorine gas was
assumed. Doses were set from empirical data to maintain a
final residual concentration of 0.5 mg/i chlorine. 19 Detention
basins were sized for a 30-45 minute contact period. All out-
falls were assumed to fun ction under gravity flow unless
effluent was to be pumped into a spray irrigation system.
A-89
-------
-
luti
4 5 6 7 8 9
FIGURE A-28.
pH
10 11
RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF HOC1 AND OC1
FORMED AT VARIOUS pH LEVELS
60
70
80
90
1 00
90
80
70
0
10
20
30
40
60
I —
50
40
30
EZrl
.Ju C)
20
10
0
A-90
-------
1
0.1
0.010
0.001
1000
FIGURE A-29. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONCENTRATION AND TIME
FOR 99 PERCENT DESTRUCTION OF E. COLI
BY 3 FORMS OF CHLORINE AT 2-6°C 2 15
10
‘4
MONOCHLORANI NE
(NH 2 CI
/\
HYPOCHLORITE ION
(0C 1)
w
-4
-J
0
w
-4
c
0
-J
U3
C
1—
- 4
I -
HVPOCHLOROUS ACID
(H 0C 1 )
1 10 TIME, MINUTES 100
A-91
-------
APPENDIX B
SLUDGE TREATMENT UNIT OPERATIONS
-------
GENERAL . . .
SLUDGE THICKENING
GRAVITY THICKENING
Operation Description
General Assumptions
FLOTATION THICKENING
Operation Description
General Assumptions
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION .
Operation Description
General Assumptions
SLUDGE CONDITIONING .
CHEMICAL CONDITIONING
Operation Description
General Assumptions
PORTEOUS PROCESS .
Operation Description
General Assumptions
CENTRIFUGATION
Operation Description
General Assumptions
SAND DRYING BEDS
Operation Description
General Assumptions
VACUUM FILTRATION
Operation Description
General Assumptions
INCINERATION .
Operation Description
General Assumptions
• B—2
• B—2
B—S
• . . . • • • B—S
B—S
• . . • . . . B—9
3—9
• . S • • • • B—9
B—16
• S S S S S S B—17
B—20
B—20
B—22
B—22
B—22
. B—24
B—25
3—25
B—28
• . B—28
3—28
• S S S S S S B—33
3—36
B—36
3—40
B—40
B—40
. 3—50
APPENDIX B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
B—i
• . • . . . B—i
• • • • .
• S S • S
• S S S S
• S S S S
• S S S S
• . S S S
• . S • S
S S S S S
• S S S
S S S •
S • S • S
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont ‘ d.)
REcA.I.CINATION
Operation Description
GeneralAssuniptions .
LAND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGES . . . . .
Operation Description . . . . . . . .
General Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . .
OCEA.N DISPOS.AI . . . . . . .
Operation Description . . .
General Assumptions . . . . . . . . . .
SANITARYLANDFILL. . . . . .
Operation Description . . . .
Leachate Production . . . . . . . . .
General Assumptions . . . . . . . . . .
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR INDIVIDUAL SLUDGE OPTIONS
MAJOR DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS .
B—52
• . . B—52
• . • B—52
• . . B—54
• . . B—54
• . • B—57
• . . B—58
• . . B—58
• . . B—64
• . . B—64
• . • B—64
• . • B—70
• . . B—72
• • . B—74
B-96
B—u
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
B-i TYPICAL GRAVITY THICKENER . . . . . . . . . B-3
B-2 SCHEMATIC OF A DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION THICKENER . . . . . . . B-7
B-3 pH AND BICARBONATE CONCENTRATION RELATIONSHIP B-12
B—4 DIGESTION TIME-TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP . . B-13
B-S SLUDGE DIGESTION DIGESTERS AND
CONTROL BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS . . . B-18
B-6 SLUDGE DIGESTION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS . . B-19
B-7 PORTEOUS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM B-23
B-8 SOLID BOWL CENTRIFUGE . B-26
B-9 CENTRIFUGATION, CONSTRUCTION COSTS . . . B-29
B-lO CENTRIFUGATION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS . . . B-30
B-il SLUDGE DRYING BEDS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS . . B-34
B-12 SLUDGE DRYING BEDS, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS . B- 5
B-13 VACUUM FILTER FLOW DIAGRAM . . . 3-37
B-14 VACUUM FILTRATION, CONSTRUCTION COSTS . . . B-41
B-15 VACUUM FILTRATION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS . B-42
B-16 MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR B-44
B-17 ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR B-45
B-l8 EFFECT OF VOLATILES IN SLUDGE ON
QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS REQUIRED . . . . . 3-47
8-19 EFFECT OF COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE VS
THE PERCENT OF TOTAL SOLIDS B-48
B-20 PERCENT TOTAL SOLIDS VS AUXILIARY FUEL . . 3-49
B-21 MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS . B-51
8-22 INCINERATION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS . . . . 3-53
B—ill
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d.)
B-23 TRANSPORTATION COST, 1 NGD PLANT B-59
B-24 TRANSPORTATION COST, 10 MGD PLANT . . . . B-60
B-25 CAPITAL COSTS (EXCLUDING INSTALLATION) VS
DISTANCE FOR VARIOUS DIGESTED
SLUDGE THROUGHPUT LEVELS B-61
B-26 PIPELINE INSTALLATION COSTS VS
CAPACITY FOR THREE CONSTRUCTION ZONES . B-62
B-27 DIRECT OPERATING COSTS VS DISTANCE FOR
VARIOUS DIGESTED SLUDGE THROUGHPUT LEVELS B-63
3-28 SCHEMATIC OF SANITARY LANDFILL PROFILE
USING THE RAMP METHOD OF WASTE COVERAGE • B-73
B-29 SANITARY LANDFILL CAPITAL COSTS B-75
B-30 SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATING COSTS • • • 3-76
B-31 SANITARY LANDFILL MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS . B-77
B-iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
B-i
8-2
B- 3
8-4
B- 5
B- 6
B-i
B-S
B- 9
B- 10
B-il
B— 12
B-13
B-14
B— 15
B- 16
B-li
B- 18
B- 19
B- 20
B- 21
.
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
B- 15
B- 16
B-21
B-25
B- 27
B- 33
B- 36
B- 38
B- 39
B- 56
B- 69
B-71
• . . . . B—79
• • . • . 8—81
B—82
B—85
B—86
B—87
• . . S • B—88
• . . . . B—89
• . . . B—92
Page
CONCENTRATIONS WHICH WILL CAUSE A TOXIC
SITUATION IN WASTEWATER SLUDGE DIGESTION
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ANAEROBIC
DIGESTER SUPERNATANT
VACUUM FILTRATION RESULTS COMPARING
INORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH PURIFLOC C-31
ONMIJNICIPALSLUDGE .
SENSITIVITY OF VARIOUS CENTRIFUGATION
VARIABLES ON SOLIDS CAPTURE AND DEWATERING
RESULTS OF CENTRIFUGATION OF SLUDGES .
AREA REQUIRED FOR SLUDGE DRYIN( BEDS .
TYPICAL POLYMERIC FLOCCULENT DOSE LEVELS
TYPICAL VACUUM FILTER PERFORMANCE . . .
TYPICAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
FROM VACUUMFILTRATION . . . • . . . .
HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
AVERAGE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
LEACHATE COMPOSITION
SLUDGE OPTION 1 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 2 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 3 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 4 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 5 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 6 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 7 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 8 DESIGN
SLUDGE OPTION 9 DESIGN PARAMETERS
B—v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont’d.)
3-22 SLUDGE OPTION 10 DESIGN PARANETi RS . . . . . B-93
B-23 SLUDGE OPTION 11 DESIGN PARAMETERS B-94
B—24 SLUDGE OPTION 12 DESIGN PARAMETERS B-95
B-vi
-------
APPENDIX B
SLUDGE ‘REATMENT UNIT OPERATIONS
GENERAL
The various sections of this appendix are designed to provide a
description of each unit operation and its application, to pre-
sent the major parameters involved in the design and/or instal-
lation of the unit, to discuss the important parameters (both
physical and environmrital) which affect the performance and
operation of the unit, and to outline the general assumptions
which were utilized in the development of the data presented in
the profile sheets of this report.
The following unit operation general assumption sections, com-
bined with the specific design parameters previously presented
in the sludge option aescriptors, are intended to provide suff i-
cient information on the land and labor requirements and oper-
ating and capital costs of the sludge options to enable develop-
ment of data for treatment plant sizes not evaluated in this
report.
The unit operations discussions are presented in the order in
which they are normally encountered on the sludge handling flow
sheets. Sludge handling is initiated in the thickening opera-
tions and ultimate disposal methods terminate the process.
SLUDGE THICKENING
Sludge thickening is an operation whose primary purpose is to
reduce the total volume of sludge by removing water. It is
usually the most economical way to reduce total sludge volume
and concentrate sludge solids. Advantages of sludge thickening
are that it:
• reduces total sludge flow to subsequent sludge
handling processes;
• allows equalization and blending of sludges
thereby improving the 1.miformity of feed solids
to subsequent treatment processes;
• improves primary clarifier performance by pro-
viding continuous withdrawal of sludge, thus
insuring maximum removal of solids; and
B-i
-------
• improves digester operation and cost because
space is conserved, heating requirements de-
creased, detention period of existing units is
increased, less supernatant liquor is produced,
a higher solids loading per unit of digester
volume is possible, and the microorganisms active
in the digestion process are more efficient.
The two thickening techniques generally used are gravity or
mechanical thickening and dissolved air flotation thickening.
Gravity Thickening
Operation Description
Thickening by gravity is the most common sludge concentration
technique used in wastewater processing. It is a simple and
inexpensive operation which can significantly reduce the volume
of sludge requiring subsequent handling.
Gravity thickeners are similar to circular sedimentation basins
in basic construction and in installed equipment such as bottom
scrapers and surface skimmers. In general, gravity thickeners
are deeper and have more steeply sloping bottoms than sedimenta-
tion basins. The unit is operated by continuously introducing
the sludge to be thickened into a center feedwell. The sludge
tends to settle to the bottom in a manner similar to that in a
sedimentation basin. Attached to the rotating rake arms in
most gravity thickeners are a series of vertical pickets as
illustrated in Figure B—i. These pickets stir the sludge slowly
and promote contact between the sludge particles causing an in-
crease in particle size and improved settling characteristics.
The steeply sloping floor and large sludge hopper promote ac-
cumulation of a concentrated sludge layer on the bottom of the
thickener. Most gravity type thickeners, when operating on a
waste amenable to this type of thickening, are able to produce
maximum sludge solids concentrations of 8 to 10 percent.
The degree of concentration expected from a gravity thickening
operation depends on several factors including type of sludge,
use of chemicals, initial solids concentration, settling time,
sludge temperature, sludge age, and operating conditions.
The difference between biological flocs and raw primary sewage
provides a good example of the variations that can result from
different treatment methods. Biological flocs (activated sludge)
are bulky and concentrate to a lesser degree (2.5-3.0% solids)
than raw primary sludge (8-10% solids). Moreover, it appears
that mixtures of raw sludge and raw activated sludge do not
gravity thicken well, but mixtures of raw sludge and secondary
B-2
-------
RAKE ARM
NFLUENT BAFFLE
SCHEMATIC PLAN OF THICKENER MECHANISM AND SECTION OF TANK
I NFLL ENT
WATER LEVEL
(A)
PICKETS
EFFLU
LINE
TO
SLUDGE DISCHARGE
INFLUENT LI
SCRAPERS
FIGURE B-i. TYPICAL GRAVITY THICKENER 53
-------
sludge from biological filters do tend to thicken well (7-9%
solids) in this process. In some cases chemicals’ such as metal
salts of the hydrous oxides or organic compounds known collec-
tively as poiyelectrolytes or polymers, are added to sludge to
enhance thickening. Chemical addition does not always improve
the thickening characteristics of sludge arid, therefore, cannot
be considered a panacea for sludge thickening problems. The
effects of chemical addition on sludges should be determined
in laboratory investigations and then confirmed in plant scale
tests before implementation as a part of routine plant operation.
Investigations in the laboratory and in pilot and full scale
operations indicate that optimum gravity thickener performance
is achieved when feed solid concentration is in the 0.5 to 1.0
percent range. 10 Improved thickener performance also occurs
as sludge temperature increases to 37°C. 10 At higher tempera-
tures performance decreases.
Settling time and sludge age can be interrelated and have a
definite effect on thickener performance. Up to a point, in-
creasing settling time in a thickener results in increased
underfiow solids concentration. However, as sludge accumulates
in deep deposits over long time periods, it tends to become
septic, producing entrained gas and a bulky sludge which doesn’t
compact well. If the thickener feed sludge has been stored in
the clarifier for a long period of time, the problem of poten-
tial septicity is aggravated. Malodor production is usually
not a problem but can occur when septic conditions exist in
the thickener.
The supernatant from gravity thickeners is usually mixed with
raw wastewater as it enters the treatment system and, therefore,
recycles through the entire treatment process. Since the volume
of sludge is reduced to about 20 percent of its original volume,
approximately 800 gallons of supernatant is returned for each
1000 gallons of sludge that eaters the thickener. Gravity
thickener supernatant generally has a suspended solids content
of about 150 to 300 mg/i and a BOD of about 200 mg/i. 79 This
added flow increases both the hydraulic and waste loadings on
the treatment system.
Gravity thickener design is usually based on hydraulic surface
loading rates and solids loading rates. Experience indicates
that solids or mass loading generally governs the design. Typi-
cal solids loadings for gravity thickeners in lb/day/ft 2 are
about 5 for activated sludge, 10 for waste activated-primary
sludge mixtures, 10 for trickling filter sludge, 10 for trickling
filter-primary sludge mixtures, and 20 for raw primary sludge.
B-4
-------
The dry solids ratio of waste activated to primary sludge governs
the acceptable solids loading to be used in thickener design.
As this ratio increases, the acceptable solids loading decreases.
I4ost thickeners are operated at hydraulic loadings of 600 to
800 gpd/ft 2 of surface area. 78 Thickeners with hydraulic load-
ings less than 400 gpd/ft 2 have been found to produce odors.
General Assumptions
The mass loading rate was utilized as the major design parameter.
Surface loading rates were incorporated as limiting criteria
with overflow rates of 400 to 800 gal/sq ft/day and a detention
time of six hours utilized.
The mass loading rate for a particular sludge depends upon the
sludge’s characteristics and, therefore, a general, all inclu-
sive value does not exist. Values for the sludge types analyzed
are presented in the sludge option descriptions.
Acreage requirements for installation of sludge thickeners were
assumed to be twice their surface area. Operation and mainte-
nance costs were assumed to be $2.60 per ton of dry solids to
the thickener. 10 Capital cost figures are installed equipment
costs provided by Eimco Division of Envirotech Corporation.
Flotation Thickening
Operation Description
The second major type of sludge thickening in current use is
dissolved air flotation thickening. Flotation thickening is
not normally used for primary sludges since this type of sludge
can usually be concentrated more economically in gravity thick-
eners. Flotation thickening has, however, become quite popular
for use in thickening secondary sludge such as waste activated
sludge, secondary sludge from biological filtration and mixtures
of activated and primary sludges.
Basically the process consists of introducing the sludge flow
into a chamber wherein it is intimately mixed with a source of
water in which large amounts of air have been dissolved. Under
the high pressures involved, a considerable amount of air
actually goes into solution. When the pressurized water and
the sludge are mixed in the thickening tank, the pressure on
the water instantly drops to approximately atmospheric pressure.
This decrease in pressure creates a new equilibrium solubility
for air in water which is lower than that which prevailed when
the water and air were under high pressure. As a result, all
dissolved air in excess of the new equilibrium value is released
B-5
-------
from solution in the form of millions of very tiny bubbles.
These air bubbles tend to attach themselves to particles of
sludge thus causing the sludge particles to be buoyed to the
surface of the thickening unit. The sludge is then scraped by
skimmers from the surface of the thickening unit into a chamber
from which it can be pumped or otherwise removed for further
treatment.
Most flotation thickeners are also equipped with a mechanism
for collecting sludge which settles in the bottom of the thick-
ening unit. Normally, very little organic matter settles to
the bottom of flotation thickeners. In some cases, however, a
considerable amount of grit and large solid particles may be
collected on the bottom of the thickening unit. These materials
are usually scraped to one end of the thickening unit from which
they may be periodically pumped together with the thickened
“float” (solids) for further treatment. A schematic of a
typical flotation thickener is shown in Figure B-2.
The primary variables for flotation thickening are (1) pressure,
(2) recycle ratio, (3) feed solids concentration, (4) detention
period, (5) air—to—solids ratio, (6) type and quality of sludge,
(7) solids and hydraulic loading rates, and (8) use of chemical
aids.
Air pressure used in flotation is important because it deter-
mines air saturation and the size of air bubbles formed, and
it influences the degree of solids concentration and the sub-
natant (separated water) quality. In general, increased pres-
sure, or air, produces greater concentrations and lower effluent
suspended solids concentration. There is an upper limit, how-
ever, since too much air breaks up fragile flocs.
The recycle ratio and feed solids concentration are interrelated.
Additional recycle of clarified effluent does two things.
First, it allows a larger quantity of air to be dissolved be-
cause there is more liquid, and second, it dilutes the feed
sludge. Dilution reduces the effect of particle interference
on the rate of separation, thus increasing the concentration
of floated solids.
The concentration of sludge increases and the effluent suspended
solids decrease as the sludge blanket detention period increases.
Experience has shown that there is a rapid increase in solids
concentration with detention €imes up to 3 hours. 10 Beyond
3 hours little additional thickening is experienced.
Increasing air/solids ratios lead to increases in floated solids
production. Eventually, with unlimited use of air, a ratio can
be reached where no further increase in concentration would be
possible.
B-6
-------
I IN N ER AND SCRAPER DRIVE
TANK VALVE
PRESSURE RELEASE
FIGURE B-2. SCHEMATIC OF A DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENER 77
-------
As in gravity thickening, the type and quality of sludge to be
floated affects process performance. Flotation thickening is
most applicable to activated sludges but higher float concen-
trations can be achieved by combining primary with activated
sludge.
Unit loading rates naturally affect the performance of flotation
thickening units. In general, higher loadings impair the per-
formance of thickening units.
As with gravity thickening units, it is sometimes necessary to
add chemical thickening aids in order to achieve satisfactory
operation of flotation units. In the wastewater treatment field,
flocculating chemicals have agglomerated solids into stable
flocs that promote increases in the terminal velocity and facili-
tate capture of gas bubbles. The overall effect is to increase
the allowable solids loadings, increase the percentage of floated
solids, and increase the clarity of the effluent. Cationic
polyelectrolytes (polymers) have been the most successful chemi-
cals used in sewage sludge thickening.
As the supernatant from gravity thickeners is recycled through
the treatment process so is the subnatant from flotation thick-
eners recycled. The operation of several laboratory dissolved
air flotation units resulted in floated sludge and subnatant
suspended solids concentrations of 25,900 to 44,600 mg/l and
800 to 1100, respectively, at influent suspended solids of 7900
to 10,000 mg/l. 7 ’ This solids loading and attendant BOD and
hydraulic loadings add to overall treatment process loading.
Solids loading is the design parameter governing the surface
area of the flotation unit. Design loadings for flotation units
are about 2.0 lbs dry solids/ft 2 /hr and 0.8 gpm/ft 2 hydraulic
loading.
Other parameters utilized in design of units for flotation
thickening of domestic sewage sludges are listed below. 6
1) Influent Solids Concentration (weight percent)
= 1.0—2.0
2) Effluent (Float) Solids Concentration (weight
percent) = 4.0
3) Air to Solids Ratio (lbs air/lb solids) = 0.02
4) Air Flow Rate (ft 3 air/lb dry solids/hr) = 0.3
5) Total Hydraulic Loading (sludge gpm/ft 2 ÷ recycle
gpm/ft 2 ) = 2.0
6) Recycle Ratio = 2.5
B-8
-------
General Assumptions
The flotation thickening parameters are for the dissolved
air pressure flotation method. Flotation thickening was con-
sidered only for those cases comprising a mixture of activated
and primary sludges.
Assumed design parameters were:
1) Air to Solids Ratio — 0.02—0.04 lbs air/lbs solids
2) Loading Factor - 2 lbs/sq ft/hr
3) Sludge Hydraulic Loading - 0.8 gpin/sq ft
4) Total Hydraulic Loading - 2.0 gpm/sq ft
Operating and maintenance costs for flotation units were based
upon a range of $ll. 7 O—14.30/ton of dry solids. 10 These costs
include costs for chemical coagulants to promote increased
solids capture. Capital cost figures represent installed
equipment costs provided by the Eimco Division of Envirotech
Corporation.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Operation Description
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process used for the con-
trolled destruction of biodegradable organic materials in sewage
sludges. The process requires an oxygen free atmosphere for
development of the proper microbiological population, which is
responsible for the actual digestion of the organic solids.
The primary objective and advantage of anaerobic digestion is
production of an inoffensive, biologically stable sludge suit-
able for subsequent disposal. Other advantages of the process
are sludge volume reduction and production of a combustible gas
mixture (methane and carbon dioxide) which can be used as an
energy source to offset the cost of plant operations.
As mentioned above, anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge must
be carried out in the absence of free oxygen since the micro-
organisms responsible for the actual stabilization of the wastes
are very sensitive to oxygen and are inactivated by its pre-
Sence. In the process, living organisms break down the complex
nolecular structure of the solid material in the sludge. This
biodegradation process causes release of much of the water con-
tent of the solids and provides nutritional and energy require-
ments for the organisms’ life processes. As a result, the
putrescible solids are converted into more stable organic and
inorganic solids.
B-9
-------
In theory, the process of anaerobic digestion may be thought of
as occurring in two different phases. The first phase which
occurs rather rapidly is called acid fermentation. In this
phase the microorganisms attack complex organic materials in
the sludge converting these materials to simpler organic acids
(volatile acids), hence the name acid fermentation. Since the
end products of this first stage of digestion are acid in nature,
the pH of the sludge mass in the digester tends to be lowered.
If other phases of digestion did not occur simultaneously, the
entire process would be stopped by the production of organic
acids and the attendant lowering of pH to the point where con-
ditions would be too severe for continued microbial activity.
The second phase of digestion is called the methane production
phase and should occur simultaneously with the first phase.
Methane bacteria attack organic acids and other degradation
products from the first phase to produce the mixture of methane
and carbon dioxide gases. The methane gas is highly flammable
and has considerable fuel value which can be utilized as a
source of power or heat.
The necessity that the two phases of digestion occur simultan-
eously can be likened to a factory production line where one
group of workers condition and stockpile material for use ! y
a second group who turn out the finished product.
The most important advantages of anaerobic was.te treatment are
the high degree of waste stabilization obtained and the low
degree of conversion of organic matter to biological cells.
The small mass of microorganisms produced in the process mini-
mizes the problems of biological sludge disposal, as well as
the requirements for inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus.
In an anaerobic’ digester, the quantity of waste converted to
microorganisms decreases with increasing sludge detention time.
When cells are maintained for long periods of time, they consume
themselves for energy, with the result that net growth is less.
Thus, greater waste stabilization and lower biological cell
production is obtained at long sludge retention times. Long
retention times also result in higher efficiencies of treatment.
The anaerobic digestion process is sensitive to the following
parameters:
•pH
• Sludge temperature within the digester
• Volatile solids concentration in the feed sludge
• Digester detention time
B-i 0
-------
• Adequacy of sludge mixing within the digester
• Presence of inhibitory or toxic substances in
the system.
The methane forming bacteria are extremely pH sensitive and
optimum digestion cannot occur outside a range of pH 6.8 to
7.4 (refer to Figure B—3). In addition to being pH sensitive
the methane bacteria are temperature sensiti’re and, under nor-
mal circumstances, function best in a narrow temperature range
of 90 to 98°F. They are extremely sensitive to sudden changes
in temperature and temperature fluctuations of as little as
3°F over a short period of time can upset the process.
In general, the higher the sludge volatile solids content, the
irore efficient digestion becomes. Therefore, attempts are made
to digest as thick a raw sludge as possible. A maxinmm feed
concentration is considered desirable because:
• It conserves heat by minimizing waiter content,
• It prevents dilution of the sludge buffering
capacity,
• It concentrates the microorganisms t food supply
thereby increasing their efficiency,
• It increases digester detention time, and
• It minimizes the supernatant volume returned to
other treatment plant processes.
The reaction time required to anaerobically stabilize sewage
sludqe is quite long and varies with temperature (refer to
Figure B-4). A properly designed and operated anaerobic digester
can accomplish this stabilization in 20 to 30 days; therefore,
anaerobic digestion systems are usually designed with a deten-
tion time of approximately 25 days. Since system detention
time is the design method of providing the microorganisms
enough time to properly do their jobs, it is imperative that
sludge flows through anaerobic digesters not be allowed to
increase to the point where the system is hydraulically over-
loaded. Hydraulic overloading results in lower detention times
and, therefore, lower process efficiencies.
Digester contents should be well mixed. Adequate mixing keeps
microorganisms functioning at peak efficiency because they are
in continuous contact with their food supply. In addition,
mixing keeps the concentration of biological end products uni-
form, prevents scum accumulation, improves temperature uniform-
ity throughout the sludge mass and distributes any toxic sub-
stances throughout the tank volume thereby reducing their
concentration. Mixing can be accomplished either mechanically
or by gas recirculation.
B-il
-------
50
500 1000 2500 5000
HCO CONCENTRATION, FIG/L AS CaCO 3
I-
LU
LU
0
U,
30
I-
U,
LU
-l
2O
0
L)
t j
I- ’
10
0
250
10,000
25,000
FIGURE B—3.
pH and BICARBONATE CONCENTRATION RELATIONSHIP 21 ’
-------
I I I I I
1 76
1 58
140 —
122 —
104 —
86...
68...
50 —
— 10 20 30 40
DIGESTION TIME, DAYS
FIGURE B-4. DIGESTION TIME-TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP’°
1 I I I
—
—
—
a
—
50 60 70
0
a
w
I —
uJ
LU
I —
0
I
I
B-13
-------
There are many materials, both organic and inorganic, which may
be toxic or inhibitory to anaerobic digestion. The degree of
inhibition or toxicity is strongly dependent on the concentra-
tion of the substance with the effect usually increasing as
concentration increases.
In addition, the chemical form in which the substance exists can
be of importance as illustrated by the inhibition of the methane
bacteria by the unionized fraction of volatile acids. Some of
the more common inhibitory substances present in the anaerobic
digestion process are:
• Soluble sulfides - These can result from (1) intro-
duction of sulfides with the raw waste or (2) forma—
tion in the digester from reduction of sulfates.
The latter method is especially important in those
coastal arcas where there is a substantial infiltra-
tion of sea water into the sewer system. The approx-
imate limit at which inhibition begins to occur is
about 100 mg/i of soluble sulfide.
• Salt toxicity - Most of the common cations can be
inhibitory if present in high enough concentrations.
This is rarely observed in domestic sewage sludge
digestion except in those cases where too high a
concentration of base containing sodium, potassium,
calcium, or magnesium is used for pH adjustment.
• Ammonia toxicity - Ammonia is formed in anaerobic
digestion from the breakdown of proteins and, at
the pH usually found in digestion, is present almost
entirely as the ation, NH . High concentrations of
either NH3 or NH 4 can be inhibitory to the process;
however, these concentrations are rarely attained
in the digestion of domestic sewage sludge.
• Heavy metals — Low concentrations of the heavy
metals, such as copper, zinc, and nickel, can
cause digester failure; however, only the soluble
form of the heavy metal is toxic and the concen-
tration of soluble sulfides in the digester is
frequently high enough to convert the heavy metals
to their insoluble form which is non—toxic.
Concentrations oi some substances which will cause toxic con-
ditions during sewage sludge digestion are shown in Table B—i.
During the first ten days of digestion, the rate of destruction
of volatile matter is extremely fast when compared with the
subsequent rate. This early period is characterized by high
volatile solids reduction and the release of large volumes
of methane and other gases. The activity within the digester
B-14
-------
TABLE B—i
CONCENTRATIONS WHICH WILL CAUSE A TOXIC
SITUATION IN WASTEWATER SLUDGE DIGESTION 20
Substance Concentration, mg/i
Sulfides 200
Heavy Metals* >1
Sodium 5,000— 8,000
Potassium 4,000—10,000
Calcium 2,000— 6,000
Magnesium 1,200-- 3,000
Ammonium 1,700— 4,000
Free Ammonia 150
* Soluble
is so violent during this period that separation of liquid from
the digesting solids is extremely difficult. After approximately
ten days the rate of gas production and biological activity
slows down considerably and, under these conditions, it is much
easier to separate liquid from the solids and to compact the
solids. For this reason, digestion is quite often carried out
in two separate tanks. The first tank is usually called the
primary digester and is the reaction vessel for the most active
biological degradation. In order to optimize reaction condi-
tions within the digester, it is normal to install mixers and
a means for heating the sludge. After the prescribed reaction
time, the sludge overflow from the primary digester is pumped
into another digester which is normally referred to as a secon-
dary digester. There the biological activity and gas production
proceed at a much slower rate and favorable conditions are es-
tablished in order to promote separation of liquid from the
digester solids and to allow concentration of the digester
solids in the bottom portions of the tank.
Supernatant from the secondary digester is normally recycled
through the plant’s liquid treatment processes. Such super-
natants contain a significant quantity of volatile solids,
organic matter, and high concentrations of nutrients (particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus). Chemical analysis of a typical digester
supernatant is shown in Table B-2.
The organic and solids loading on the liquid treatment process
will be increased considerably by recycle of such supernatants.
The anaerobic digestion process has had the reputation, in
municipal waste treatment, of being somewhat more unstable and
more difficult to operate than other biological processes.
B-l5
-------
However, the process does have many advantages and, when properly
operated, is stable as evidenced by its successful use in larger
municipalities such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Smaller communities have experienced more difficulty with the
process. Possible reasons for these problems are: (1) lower
dilution of toxic materials because of less and more variable
wastewater flows; (2) lack of qualified operators; and (3) in-
adequate process control.
TABLE B-2
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STJPERNATANT 20
Parameter Concentration, mg/i
pH 7.1
Total Solids 4,985
Total Volatile Solids 3,300
Suspended Solids 2,905
Volatile Suspended Solids 2,530
COD 5,407
Total Carbon 3,075
Total Organic Carbon 1,624
Ortho - P0 4 (as 1’) 91
Total Phosphate (as P) 141
NH3-Nitrogen (as N) 818
Organic Nitrogen (as N) 282
The process would be adversely affected by loss of electrical
power for a long period of time. Complete loss of electricity
would inactivate the equipment used to pump sludge to the heat-
ers. Hot water recirculation pumps in the heat exchanger and
sludge mixing equipment would also be inactivated. The total
loss of electricity for long periods of time is unlikely since
most sewage treatment plants are equipped with a source of
emergency electrical power. Also, public utilities have an
excellent record of locating and correcting problems in their
distribution systems.
General Assui tions
Anaerobic digestion of raw sludge was assumed to be a pre-
requisite for any ultimate disposal scheme which did not include
incineration. Anaerobic digestion rather than aerobic digestion
of sludge was selected for evaluation since it is presently the
most common method utilized and achieves a high degree of waste
stabilization. Furthermore, anaerobic digestion provides signi-
ficant destruction of pathogenic bacteria and adequate odor
B-16
-------
control. For these reasons it is thought that anaerobic
digestion will be the most frequently used means of digestion
for the next decade. However, other methods of sludge treat-
ment are presently under investigation and may prove to be more
beneficial and less costly.
Two stage anaerobic digestion was assumed with a design deten-
tion time of twenty-five days at 900F. 63 Operating and main-
tenance costs were based on a range of $2.4-$4.4 per ton of
dry solids. 10 Capital costs were based on installed equipment
costs. Figure B-S graphically presents construction costs
based on digester volume. 5
Construction costs per unit of digester volume were assumed to
decrease as total volume increases up to a maximum volume of
400,000 cubic feet. Four hundred thousand cubic feet is thought
to be the practical construction limit for two digesters with
associated control building.
Manpower requirements were taken from Figure B—6. 5
SLUDGE CONDITIONING
Sludge conditioning is a chemical or physical means of changing
the characteristics of a sludge in order to improve its dewater—
ing capabilities. Normally, the intended transformation is
from an amorphous gel—like sludge mass into a porous material
which will quite freely give up its entrained water. 53
Numerous sludge conditioning methods exist, some of which are:
• chemical addition - polymer and/or inorganic
• physic .l—heat treatment
• freezing of sludge
• admixtures (addition of fly ash, etc.)
• elutriation
Present trends indicate that chemical addition and physical
heat treatment (by the Porteous or low pressure Zimpro methods)
hold the potential of being the most popular means of condition-
ing sludge during the next decade. Hence, these two methods
were chosen for detailed study within this report. However,
this is not intended to imply that other methods, possibly not
even previously mentioned, will not gain wider acceptance and
utilization in the future.
B-l7
-------
10 100 1,000
SLUDGE VOLUME, 1,000 CUBIC FEET
9,
10,000
FIGURE B-5. SLUDGE DIGESTION DIGESTERS AND CONTROL BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS 51 ’
-------
SLUDGE VOLUME - 1,000 CUBIC FEET
FIGURE B-6.
SLUDGE DIGESTION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS 51
B-19
2:
-J
-J
0
>-
0
-J
100,000
10,000
1 ,000
100
10
100 1,000
10,000
-------
The objective of sludge conditioning varies with the dewatering
process. For example, vacuum filtration functions most effi-
ciently with an open structured sludge with high permeability.
Furthermore, the sludge must demonstrate a distinct resistance
to compression in order to retain its permeability when a
pressure differential is applied to the sludge cake by the
vacuum filtration equipment. 53
Chemical Conditioning
Operation Description
Present sludge conditioning technology has not reached a high
level of exactness and, therefore, the selection of the correct
chemical conditioner is still a trial and error process.
Furthermore, daily fluctuations in sludge characteristics can
significantly alter the effectiveness of the chemical condi-
tioner being utilized. Chemical treatment usually involves
coagulation-flocculation of sludge solids with polymerized
hydrolysis products of multivalent metal ions (such as FeC1 3
or FeSO 4 ) and/or natural or synthetic organic polymeric
materials to form an agglomerated, expanded structure. 53
The efficiency of chemical conditioning is greatly affected by
pH and it may be necessary, with highly buffered sludges, to
utilize lime as the conditioning agent or to employ elutriation
(washing and diluting methods) to the sludge before the addition
of a chemical coagulant. 53 The latter method involves the addi-
tion of low alkalinity water which is mixed with the sludge and
decanted in order to lower the level of alkalinity.
The use of synthetic organic polyelectrolytes (polymers) for
sludge conditioning is gaining wide acceptance. Synthetic
organic polymers are high molecular weight, long chained, water
soluble substances and may be cationic, anionic or ampholytic.
Organic polymers are thought to agglomerate sludge solids by
adsorption. ’ 3 Generally, cationic polymers are used for sludge
conditioning.
A comparison of different sludge conditioning agents for vacuum
filtration has been tabulated by Weston 2 ° for various types of
sludges and is shown in Table 13—3. The data includes dose rates,
initial and final solids concentrations and filter yields. From
this data there appears to be a significant difference between
the amount of polymer required versus the amount of inorganic
chemical necessary for adequate conditioning. Although inor-
ganic chemical doses can range up to 20 percent by weight of dry
3-20
-------
TADI.E D—3
VACUUM FILTRATION RESULTS COMPARING INORGANIC CHEMICALS
WITH PURIFLOC C-fl ON MUNICIPAL SLUDGE 2 °
Don ace ________ ________
lbs/ton diy solids
162.4
166.5
14.0
60
106
5.4
80.0
280.0
18.0
78.0
390.0
20.0
($6.06/I)
($6. 58/ I)
66.0
206.0
17.0
56.8
10.2
100.0
6.0
100 -0
9.0
($8 .9 1 /fl
(08. 7 9/ 1)
600.0 tot,..
or ($lO.5’’..c,n(
18.0 ((t.iA/Lori(
361.0
120.0
22.0
location
t’.,n,a r,f c1 ,.a
‘pe of Filter Filter Media —
t.J
H
Solids Concentration
Initia l rinas
percent percent
7.07 20.1
7.0 20.0
1. Municipal SIP
Municipal Of?
2. Municipel SIP
Municipal SIP
3. Municipal SIP
Municipal SIP
4. Municipal SIP
Municipal SIP
5. Atlanta, Clayton
Atlanta, Clayton
6. Municipal SIP
Municipal SIP
7. Municipal SIP
Municipal SIP
8. Municipal SIP
Municipal SIP
9. MunIcipal SIP
Municipal SIP
10. Atlanta—south River
11. Municipal SIP
Municipal SIP
12. Municipul SIP
Municipal IT?
Increase in Yield Due to
Filter Yield Use of Polyelectrclyten
lbs/ag ft /hr percent
6.91
7.53 9
Raw primary
Raw primary
Raw primary
Raw primary
Paw primary
Raw primary
Raw primary
Raw primary
Digested primary
Digested prinary
Digested primary
Digested primary
elutriuted/digeated/primary
clutriated/digeeted/primary
ilutriated/digeeted/primary
tlutriated/digeeted/prieary
tiutriated/digeeted/prinary
Slutriated/digeated/prinary
Olutriated/digeetmd/primary
and secondary
Digested primary and eeccndary
nigeated primary and secondary
Clutriated/digeeted/primery
and secondary
ilutriated/digeeted/pr ilnary
and secondary
K-s
K—S
K-S
K-S
Eimco drum
Kieco drain
Kinco drum
Since drum
D—D drum
D-D drum
drum
drum
0-0 drum
D-0 drun
0-0 drun
0-0 drum
Sinco drum
cimco drun
0-0 drum
Since
Cinco
0-0 drun
0-0 drum
coil
coil
ccii
coil
open synthetic
open synthetic
open eynthettc
open syntlet tc
long nappeo —acron
long napped dacro.
44 a 44 saran
44 a 44 saran
napped polyester
napped polyester
napped polyester
napped polyester
napped polyester
napped polyester
long napped dacr
synthetic
synthetic
napped dacron
napped dacron
Chemical
Conditioning
FeCl 3
lime
C-3l
Fe 5 (50 4 ) 3
lime
C-3l
PeCl 3
Lime
C- 30
FeCi 3
List
C- 31
Fe3 (SO 4 )
C- 31
FeCl 3
lime
C- 31
PeCl 3
C— 31
FeC 13
C- 31
Fe 3 (504)3
C—3 1
lime
Fe2 (004)3
C- 31
reCl 3
Line
C—3l
Fe 3 (504(3
Line
C— 31
9.1
9.6
24.0
20.0
8.6
11.5
34
15
12
40.0
30.0
5.0
7.0
40
11.2
10.1
39.0
34.5
3.1
3. 5
13
7.2
7.2
26.0
33.5
3.9
11.0
152
15.9
43.0
9.2
15.0
32.0
25.0
172
6.1
7.7
36.0
32.9
5.74
12.66
121
10.4
10.1
32.7
38.6
3.55
5.94
53
10.9
11.1
34.0
35.0
2.8
5.5
96
9.1
9.1
25.0
24.0
4.7
7.4
57
4.4
4.3
36.2
23.7
5.2
1.6
8
3.0
9.0
28.0
25.0
5.1
7.25
42
Yield intentionally kept down to avoid overloading incinerator
-------
sludge solids as compared to 1 percent for polymers, the cost
per ton of inorganic chemicals can be appreciably lower. 53
With the advent of new polymers and improved production methods,
the cost of polymers may decline in the future. The costs for
chemical conditioning reported herein reflect average prices,
and it should be noted that these figures may differ signifi-
cantly from region to region.
General Assumptions
All chemical costs and quantities listed on the profile sheets
for sludge conditioning are based on the utilization of organic
polymers rather than inorganic chemicals such as feiric chloride
or lime.
In general, polymers have produced acceptable results when
utilized as conditioning aids. However, the type of polymer
or inorganic chemical to be used for successful conditioning
varies from location to location and must be evaluated for each
specific situation.
Porteous Process
peration Description
Heat treatment i a conditioning process that involves heating
the sludge for short periods of time under pressure. The
Porteous process is one of several heat treatment methods
employed for sludge conditioning. Heat treatment coagulates
the solids, breaks down the sludge’s gel structure and reduces
the hydrophilic (water affinity) nature of the solids. 55 This
permits rapid dewatering without the need for chemical additives.
The process begins by pumping the sludge through a grinder which
breaks up large solid particles (see Figure B—7). The sludge is
then passed through a heat exchanger to a reaction vessel where
steam is directly injected into the sludge. The sludge is re-
tained in the reaction vessel for a period of approximately 30
minutes at temperatures ranging between 350—390°F and pressure
between 180—210 psi. 55 The hot conditioned sludge is then passed
back through the heat exchanger, giving up its heat to the incom-
ing sludge. Finally, it is decanted and settled for removal of
the conditioned solids. The “cake” is removed for further de—
watering stages, and the supernatant is recycled back into the
headworks of the treatment plant.
Reports indicate this process is capable of reducing moisture
content to 35-70 percent (after dewatering) while producing a
compact, sterile sludge. 7 Furthermore, the weight of influent
solids is reduced by approximately 30 percent (dry weight basis)
via the destruction of biological solids.
B- 22
-------
S LU bG E
w
I
AUTOMATIC DISCHARGE VALVE
— —
THICKENED
SLUDGE
FIGURE B-7.
PORTEOUS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 57
-------
The destruction of biological solids or organisms releases
cellular contents back into solution in the liquor from the
process, resulting in high suspended solids concentrations
(2200—4000 mg/i) and BOD (3000—4000 mg/i). Also, the liquor
contains significant concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen
from the cellular contents. Recycling of this high strength
waste liquor back to the treatment plant represents a
significant increase in the load reaching the treatment
system. Furthermore, the portrate liquor is highly colored
and odiferous. The dark color of the portrate will cause
coloring of effluent which may be difficult to remove. The
Santee Project in California experienced coloring of their
effluent due to recycled portrate and had to discontinue
this procedure. 18 The additional nutrient load from the
recycled portrate liquor may significantly increase the cheini-
cal dosage requirements for phosphorus removal.
The system is sensitive to the percent volatile content of the
sludge, the percent inert material, the moisture level and
several physical parameters (i.e., clogging, electrical failures).
The higher the volatile content, the better the treatment results.
The cell structure will be disrupted and improved dewatering
characteristics will be achieved. If large amounts of inert
material exist in the influent, the heat treatment process will
be relatively ineffective. Also, a low percent solids value in
the inflow will result in poor effluent characteristics.
General Assumptions
Although there are several types of sludge heat treatment schemes
which are commercially available, the Porteous process was selec-
ted as being representative, and evaluation of heat treatment was
based on this process.
In general, a thirty percent decrease in total dry solids can
be expected from the process due to biological cell destruction
and liquification. A conservative vacuum filter yield of 8 lbs/
sq ft/hr was assumed for all sludges conditioned by the Porteous
process. Higher filter yields have been reported, but a compre-
hensive evaluation of process performance involving various types
of sludges was lacking; therefore, the preceding value was utilized
for this report.
Operating and maintenance costs teflect a range of $1 - $2 per
ton of dry Solids processed. 59,62 Capital costs that are shown
herein are based on installed values.
B-24
-------
CENTRIFUGAT ION
Operation Description
Centrifuges provide a means of dewatering waste sludges. Of
the numerous existing designs, the solid bowl centrifuge is
the most popular since it is considered to have the best com-
bination of clarification and dewatering properties.
The solid bowl centrifuge, schematically illustrated in Fig-
ure B-B, consists of a cylindrical conical shell with a con-
toured scroll conveyor rotating at a slightly faster speed than
the bowl. The infeed enters the hollow shaft of the helical
conveyor and is distributed by ports into the bowl. The solid
particles are centrifugally settled against the internal bowl
wall and the liquid is transported to the centrate discharge
located at the large diameter end of the bowl. The rotating
scroll will convey the settled solids along the interior wall
of the centrifuge to the solids discharge port. The conical
portion of the centrifuge acts as a drainage deck causing
further dewatering of the sludge. 53 ’ 61
The performance of a centrifuge is normally reflected in the
percent moisture of the sludge cake formed and the total per-
cent solids recovered. Numerous parameters affect the overall
degree of dewatering and some of these parameters and their
affects are summarized in Table B—4.
TABLE B-4
SENSITIVITY OF VARIOUS CENTRIFUGATION VARIABLES
ON SOLIDS CAPTURE AND DEWATERING 53
Effect of Increase in Variable on
% Solids Cake Solids
Variable Recovery Concentration
Machine Variables
Bowl speed Increase Increase
Pool depth Increase Decrease
Scrolling speed Decrease Decrease
Process Variables
Feed rate Decrease Increase
Feed concentration Decrease Increase
Temperature Increase Increase
B-25
-------
GEAR BOX
DRIVE SHEAVE
FIGURE B-8. SOLID BOWL CENTRIFUGE 20
FEED
LIQUID SOLID
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
( CE NT RATE )
B-26
-------
Dewatering performance of a centrifuge varies with the type of
sludge being handled. Typical cake concentrations and solids
recovery levels with and without chemical addition are illus-
trated in Table B-5.
TABLE B-5
RESULTS OF CENTRIFUGATION OF SLUDGES 53
Cake Solids Recovery (%)
Concentration Without With
Type of Sludge ( % solids) Chemicals Chemicals
Raw primary 28—35 85—90 >95
Digested primary 25—35 80—90 >95
Activated 6-10
Raw primary and activated 18-24 50-80 >95
Digested raw and activated 18—24 50-70 >95
Centrate disposal represents the major difficulty encountered
with the use of centrifuges. Normally the centrate is rela-
tively high in suspended, nonsettleable solids. The recircula-
tion of centrate to the treatment system will add significant
quantities of fine suspended solids to the process stream,
resulting in a corresponding reduction in effluent quality.
Several methods exist for controlling the quantities of fine
solids recirculated. Longer residence time within the centri-
fuge results in increased solids capture. This is accomplished
by either reducing the feed rate or increasing the bowl diameter
of the centrifuge. Chemical coagulation of the sludge prior to
centrifugation will increase particle diameter aiding in settling
and increased solids capture. 31
Centrifuges present several advantages to the plant operation,
some of which are: 61
• small area requirements;
• rapid startup and shutdown capabilities;
• easy adaption to changing feed conditions;
• potential low maintenance costs when proper
grit protection is provided;
• independence from climatic conditions; and
• potential utilization for classification.
B- 27
-------
In general, centrifuges have been found to dewater fibrous and
chemical sludges easily, but have had difficulty dewatering
biological sludges. 61 As in the case of vacuum filtration,
pilot tests are recommended as the most appropriate means of
assessing the applicability of centrifugation for dewatering
a particular sludge.
General Assumptions
In all cases, chemical conditioning prior to solid bowl centri—
fugation was assumed necessary. However, in actual practice
the requirements for chemical additives before centrifugation
will vary and may be nonexistent. Chemical conditioning require-
ments are dependent upon the characteristics of the sludge
being processed and thus must be determined for each particular
municipal wastewater sludge on a case—by—case basis.
The area requirement to provide adequate space for auxiliary
equipment arid normal maintenance and operation was assumed to
be three hundred percent of the overall physical size of the
centrifuge.
Operation and maintenance costs are based on a range of $3.9—
$10.4 per ton of dry solids. 10 Capital costs reflect installed
centrifuge values and associated auxiliary equipment. Figure
B—9 illustrates construction costs of centrifuges based on
hydraulic capacity.
Manpower requirements are shown in Figure B-10.
SAND DRYING BEDS
Operation Description
Sand drying beds are used to dewater digested sludge. Normally,
sludge is placed on the beds in an 8 to 12 inch layer and allowed
to dry. After drying, the sludge is removed for ultimate dis-
posal, usually in a sanitary landfill. The economical use of
sand drying beds is generally limited to small or medium sized
communities. For populations over 20,000, consideration should
be given to alternative means of sludge dewatering. Land costs,
the cost of removing the sludge and replacing sand, and the
large area requirements preclude the use of drying beds in large
31
Open beds are used where adequate area is available sufficiently
isolated to avoid complaints caused by occasional odors. Covered
beds with greenhouse types of enclosures are used where it is
necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout the year
regardless of the weather, and where sufficient isolation does
B-28
-------
10 100 1,000
FIRM CAPACITY, GPM
cD
cD
I ,-
Li
0
Li
0
Li
10 ,000
1 1000
100
10,000
FIGURE B-9.
CENTRIFUGATION, CONSTRUCTION COSTS
-------
100,000
(I . )
10,000
-J
—4
>-
-J
1,000
1 00
100 100,000
DRY SOLIDS APPLIED, TONS PER YEAR
FIGURE B-10. CENTRIFUGATION, MP N-HOUR REQUIREMENTS 5
1,000 10,000
B-30
-------
not exist for the installation of open beds. well-digested
sludge discharged to drying beds should present no odor prob-
lem, but to avoid nuisance from poorly digested sludge, sludge
beds should be located at least 200 feet from dwellings. 31
Sand bed loadings are computed on a per capita basis or on a
‘unit loading of pounds of dry solids per square foot per year.
Typical solids loading rates vary from 10 to 25 lb/ft 2 /year
for open beds to 12 to 40 lb/ft 2 /year for covered drying beds. 31
With covered drying beds, higher sludge loadings can be accom-
modated because of the protection from rain and snow.
Sludge dewaters by drainage through the sludge mass and support-
ing sand and by evaporation from the surface exposed to the air.
Most of the water leaves the sludge by drainage, so an adequate
underdrainage system must be provided. Drying beds are equipped
with lateral drainage tiles (vitrified—clay pipe laid with open
joints) spaced 8 to 20 feet apart. 3 ’ The tiles should be ade-
quately supported and covered with coarse gravel or crushed
stone. The sand layer should be from 9 to 12 inches deep with
an allowance for some loss during sludge removal operations. 31
Sludge can be removed from the drying bed after it has drained
and dried sufficiently to be shoveled. Dried sludge has a
coarse cracked surface and is black or dark brown. The moisture
content is approximately 60 percent after 10 to 15 days under
favorable conditions. 3 ’ Sludge removal is accomplished by manual
shoveling into wheelbarrows or trucks or by mechanized collectors
such as scrapers and front—end loaders.
The use of drying beds are affected by numerous parameters such
as:
• weather conditions,
• sludge characteristics,
• land values and proximity of residences, and
• use of sludge conditioning aids.
Climatic conditions are very important. Factors such as amount
and rate of precipitation, percentage of sunshine, air tempera-
ture, relative humidity, and wind velocity determine the effec-
tiveness of sludge drying on sand beds. The latter four combine
to dictate the rate of evaporation. Weather, being uncontrollable,
prevents the establishment of a reproducible scientific de-
watering procedure.
When exposed to air, sludge will dry to an equilibrium moisture
Content. This equilibrium or final moisture content depends upon
B-3l
-------
the temperature and relative humidity of the air in contact
with the sludge and the nature of the water content. A high
bound water (water retained in capillaries and in cell or fiber
walls) will result in a high equilibrium moisture content. 8 °
Evaporation of water occurs primarily by convection or air dry-
ing. This drying occurs in three stages: a constant rate stage,
a falling rate stage, and a subsurface drying stage. During
the constant rate period, the sludge surface is completely
wetted and the rate of evaporation is independent of the nature
of the sludge. This rate will be approximately the same as
evaporation from a free liquid surface and will depend pri-
marily on the air temperature, air velocity, and the relative
humidity.
When a critical moisture content is reached, water no longer
reaches .the surface of the sludge as rapidly as it evaporates
and a falling rate will occur. The rate of drying during the
falling rate period will be a function of the thickness of the
sludge layer, the physical and chemical properties of the sludge
and the atmospheric conditions. This period is followed by sub-
surface drying until the equilibrium moisture content is reached.
Evaporation is particularly important one to two days after
sludge is applied to beds because most of the drainage is com-
pleted by that time. After a few days the sludge cake shrinks
horizbntally producing cracks at the surface which accelerate
evaporation by exposing additional sludge surface areas. Crack-
ing also enhances drainage. While rain lengthens the drying
time, its effect is less important if the sludge has dried to
the point of cracking.
In locales which experience extremely cold winters where sludge
would remain frozen for long periods of time, other means of
sludge dewatering must be employed or sludge must be stored
until climatic conditions are favorable for air drying. How-
ever, alternate freezing and thawing of sludge encourages
dewatering, so treatment plants in areas which experience these
climatic conditions could operate drying beds throughout the
year.
The nature and moisture content of the sludge discharged to
drying beds affects the drying process. It is important that
sewage sludge be well digested for optimum drying. In well
digested material, entrained gases tend to float the sludge
solids while leaving a layer of relatively clear liquid that
readily drains through the sand. The more water removed by
drainage, the less is required to be removed by evaporation
and the overall effect is reduced drying time.
B-32
-------
The large land areas required and the odor production potential
of sand drying beds preclude their use in locales where land
costs and population densities are high.
Frequently, sludges applied to drying beds are conditioned with
chemicals or other materials. 10 An increased rate of drying is
the major advantage sought in the use of conditioning aids.
This advantage is very important when an inadequate drying area
is available, when the sludge has poor drying characteristics,
or when unfavorable weather threatens to delay the drying pro-
cess. In addition to increasing dewatering rates, conditioning
aids reduce sand bed maintenance requirements because uniform
sludge drying throughout its depth permits more complete removal
of cake from the sand. Materials used to condition sludges have
included inorganic flocculents, polymeric flocculents, sawdust,
sulfuric acid, anthracite, and activated carbon. 10
Sand drying beds are extremely easy to operate. Basically, the
beds are filled with sludge and left unattended until the sludge
is dry. This is a major factor in the acceptance of drying beds
by smaller communities where operating budget and operator exper-
tise may be low.
General Assumptions
The technique of dewatering by using sand drying beds is basic-
ally limited to small communities where access to relatively
inexpensive land areas exist. Open drying beds, unprotected
from precipitation, were assumed as the design basis. Typical
solids loading rates for open sand drying beds of 10 to 25 lb/
sq ft/year were assumed. 3 ’ The acreage requirements on a
square foot per capita basis is illustrated in Table B-6.
TABLE B-6
AREA REQUIRED FOR SLUDGE DRYING BEDS 31
(Square feet per capita)
Type of Sludge Open Beds
Primary digested 1.0-1.5
Primary and humus digested 1.25-1.75
Primary and activated digested l.75 2.5
Primary and chemically
precipitated digested 2.0-2.5
Capital costs and manpower requirements were obtained from
Figures B—li and B—12, respectively.
B- 33
-------
10,000
0
0
1,000
I-
0
0
-4
I —
I-
V)
0
100
10
, I I IuII
1
I I I I 11111
10
I I u I III! I
I I I J I I lI_
I I I I II IL
1 ,000 10,000
SURFACE AREA, 1 ,000 SQUARE FEET
FIGURE B-il. SLUDGE DRYING BEDS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5
(i .)
TOTAL COST
I I I I 11111 I I I I 11111
100
-------
I I • •r I I I
1 00
1,000 10,000
DRY SOLIDS APPLIED, TONS PER YEAR
FIGURE B-12.
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS 5 k
B-35
I I I I I I IT
C,
-J
>-
-J
100,000
10,000
1 ,000
100
OPERATION LABOR
\
MAINTENANCE LABOR
I I I I 11111
10
I I I I I
.1
‘I
-------
VACUUM FILTRATION
Operation Description
Dewatering is a physical unit operation used to reduce the
moisture content of sludge so that it can be handled and pro-
cessed as a semisolid instead of a liquid.
Vacuum filtration is one of several means of mechanical dewater-.
ing preconditioned sludge and presently is the most widely
utilized means of automated dewatering. Conditioning, as pre-
viously described, is a prerequisite for achieving acceptable
and economical vacuum filtration dewatering. Conditioning
coagulates the sludge allowing the water to drain out and,
therefore, a thicker filter cake is produced which provides
higher drum filter yields. Typical polymeric flocculant
dosa9e levels for several sludge types are illustrated in Table
B—7. 10
The typical vacuum filtration mechanism involved consists of a
sludge reservoir to act as a holding tank for the incoming sludge,
a filter media (cloth or metallic) for sludge attachment, a
revolving drum over which the media is stretched, a sludge cake
scraper which removes the dewatered sludge from the media, a
water spray for cleansing the media prior to sludge forming,
various auxiliary equipment for delivery of the sludge to the
filter, and piping to remove the filtrate. Figure B-13 depicts
a typical vacuum filter flow diagram.
TABLE B-7
TYPICAL POLYMERIC FLOCCULENT DOSE LEVELS 1 U
Polymer Dose Rate
Type of Sludge ( % Dry Weight )
Raw primary or
raw primary and 0.2-1.2
filter humus
Digested primary 0.2-1.5
Digested primary 0 5-2 0
and activated
The process involves submerging 20—40 percent of the drum sur-
face in the sludge reservoir while a vacuum ranging from 10 to
26 inches of mercury is maintained inside the submerged portion
of the drum. The vacuum drains the liquid into the drum, leav-
ing the solids as a residue upon the filter media. As the drum
B-36
-------
FLOW CONTROL
WASHINGS
RETURN
TO PLANT
SLUDGE
CAKE
CONVEYOR
COAGULANT
POLYMER
SLUDGE
FILTRATE
SLUDGE CONDITiONING TANKS
DRUM
TA N K
FIGURE B-13. VACUUM FILTER FLOW DIAGRAM 2 °
-------
rotates, the cake grows in thickness and is lifted from the
sludge reservoir. The continued maintenance of a partial vacuum
upon the exposed filter media area allows for further drying by
moisture removal and, possibly, by moisture transmission (mass
transfer) to the air passing through the filter cake. Finally,
the cake is removed from the filter before the media returns to
the sludge reservoir by a stationary knife—blade scraper or by
gravitational discharge. 53
Most vacuum filter systems are designed based on data obtained
from laboratory or pilot plant filter tests. Parameters of
concern include sludge characteristics, filtration rates, cake
moisture and number of filter operation cycles necessary.’ 0
An average conservative filter yield (defined as the number
of pounds of sludge removed per square foot of filter media
area per hour) of 4.0 lb/sq ft/hr can normally be assumed as
an initial design parameter. 10 Typical yields obtained from
raw and digested sludges are presented in Table B-8.
TABLE B-8
TYPICAL VACUUM FILTER PERFORMANCE 31
Type of Sludge Yield, lb/sq ft/hr
Fresh solids
Primary 4-12
Primary + trickling filter 4-8
Primary + activated 4-5
Activated (alone) 2.5—3.5
Digested solids (with or without elutriation)
Primary 4-8
Primary + trickling filter 4-5
Primary + activated 4-5
The number and size of filters necessary for a particular
plant is based on the type of sludge to be filtered and the
number of hours of operation. At small plants, 30 hours per
week may be assumed, whereas at large plants, 20 hours per
day may be necessary. The additional hours in the day are
used for conditioning, clean—up, and possible operational
delays. A plant may be designed for one shift operation
initially, and for two to three shift operation of the same
filters when the plant is expanded to provide for future or
ultimate conditions. 31
The quality of the filter cake is measured by its moisture
content on a wet weight basis expressed as a percent. Filters
are operated to obtain the maximum production consistent with
B-38
-------
the desired cake quality. Where the cake is to be heat dried
or incinerated, the moisture content is a critical item, since
all the water remaining in the cake must be evaporated to steam.
If the cake is conveyed into a truck and hauled to a disposal
site, moisture content is not as important, although it does
affect the tonnage that must be hauled. In such cases, the
drum can be operated at the highest speed that will produce a
cake that will separate easily from the filter. Moisture con-
tent normally varies from 70 to 80 percent, but filters may be
operated to produce a cake of 60 to 70 percent moisture when
the cake is to be heat dried or incinerated. 31 Typical solids
concentrations from vacuum filtration appear in Table B-9.
TABLE B-9
TYPICAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS FROM VACUUM FILTRATION 10
Feed Conc. Cake Conc.
Type of Sludge ( % Solids) ( % Solids )
Raw primary or
raw primary and 2.5—5.0 28—37
filter humus
Digested primary 10-15 26-34
Digested primary 4-6 24-32
and activated
Operational problems include media blinding caused by small
size particles, non-uniform filter yields resulting from viscosity
changes in the feed (possibly due to polymer application in-
consistencies), and a tight filter cake resisting liquid separa-
tion due to an increase in sludge compressibility. Compressi-
bility is normally proportional to the volatile content of the
sludge. 1 0
In addition to the preceding sludge quality parameters, vacuum
filtration is sensitive to several physical parameters. Filter
cake moisture and filter yield values are affected by drum
speed and drum submergence. A cake possessing higher moisture
Content and an increased yield rate are obtained when the
period of drum submergence is increased. On the other hand,
decreasing the drum speed results in the opposite effect.
Filter yield decreases and the moisture content of the sludge
lowers.
Recycling filtrate from the vacuum filter operation results in
an additional suspended solids load to the plant. The suspended
Solids concentration in the filtrate varies from 100 to 20,000
B-39
-------
mg/i depending upon sludge type, the degree and type of con-
ditioning, type of filter media and the vacuum applied. 79 A
buildup of fine solids may reduce overall plant efficiency when
filtrate is returned to the influent of the treatment plant. 10
Thus, the plant design must consider the recycling of such
material.
Vacuum filters provide the following advantages: (1) filters
occupy a relatively small space, (2) various types of sludges
can be dewatered, (3) the percent solids capture is high, and
(4) the adaptability of the vacuum filter to various schedules
improves the plant operational flexibility. 10
On the other hand, vacuum filters can be odiferous, require
highly trained operators, necessitate duplicate machines to
prevent plant shutdown, and have high labor cost due to filter
media blinding.
General Assumptions
Chemical conditioning was assumed to be a necessity for pro-
viding relatively high yields from vacuum filters. As was
previously mentioned, the requirement for chemical additives
and the dose level applied will be dependent on sludge char-
acteristics and may fluctuate daily.
The maximum single unit size was assumed to be 500 square feet
of filter surface area.
Six hours of productive filter operation was assumed for each
eight hour work shift, leaving two hours for start-up and
maintenance time.
Operation and maintenance costs were based on $2.7—$16 per ton
of dry solids. 10 Capital costs included the costs for the
installation of the vacuum filter, auxiliary equipment, and
piping as well as a contingency for electrical wiring and
ventilation (Figure B-14).
Manpower requirements were based on the data of Figure B-15.
INCINERATION
Operation Description
Incineration is practiced to reduce the overall weight and
volume of the sludge and to sterilize the solids, thereby
producing an odorless, inert residue that may be readily handled
for ultimate disposal.
B-40
-------
I I I J J I II I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I:
I I I I i liii
I I I I Ii
100
FILTER SURFACE AREA, SQUARE FEET
1,000 10,000
10,000
1,000
cD
H
V)
C.-,
H
I—
H
C-)
TOTAL COST
100
10
I I I I 1 i_ii
FIGURE B-14. VACUUM FILTRATION, CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5
-------
DRY SOLIDS FILTERED, TONS PER YEAR
FIGURE B-15.
VACUUM FILTRATION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS 5
0
-J
-J
0
—a
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
100
1,000 10,000
100,000
B-42
-------
Several methods of sludge incineration exist including:
• Multiple Hearth
• Cyclonic Reactor
• Rotary Kiln
• Fluid Bed
The multiple hearth furnace consists of a circular steel
shell with multiple refractory hearths as illustrated in Fig-
ure B—16. Air—cooled rabble arms are connected to a control
shaft which rotates allowing the scrapers to move the sludge
around the hearth dropping it to the next lower grate. This
action exposes new surface areas to the hot gases and moves
the sludge through the drying and burning stages. 53
Burners are attached at specific locations in the shell of the
incinerator to heat the furnace to the required temperature.
A wet scrubber is normally attached to the stack gases to re-
move fly ash from the hot gases. The sterile, insoluble ash
falls through a chute into a collection mechanism. 53
In general, multiple hearth units are not heat efficient and
are subject to high operating and maintenance costs. Rabble
arm replacement is frequent due to wear and excessive heating
of the tips. A wide range of unit sizes, from 500 to 2500
lb/hr dry solids are presently on the market. ’ 27
The cyclonic reactor is designed to provide incineration capa-
bilities for small plants (less than 500 lb/hr). A preheated
jet of air is introduced tangentially into a combustion chamber
maintaining intensely heated surfaces. The sludge is sprayed
radially toward the walls of the chamber and is essentially
incinerated before reaching the refractory walls. The ash is
transported by the exit flue gases. The total detention time
is less than ten seconds and the operating temperature is
approximately 1400°F. 27
A rotary kiln incinerator, schematically illustrated in Figure
B-17, consists of the sludge entering a rotating tumbler
slanted at a 75 degree angle to allow the ash to collect at
the far end of the furnace for disposal. The tumbler revolves
at approximately 6 inches/second to expose fresh surfaces to
the hot combustion gases. Hot combustion gases pass throu h
a wet scrubber before they are released to the atmosphere.
The rotary kiln provides a wide range of operating capacities
and has demonstrated low maintenance costs.
The fluid bed incinerator system is composed of a vertical
refractory-lined cylinder, a burner in the side, and a wet
B-43
-------
FIGURE B-16.
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR 10
‘I,
Waste cooling air
to atmosphere
Ash pump Ash - cooi,ng atr
hopper
B-44
-------
COMBUSTION
AIR
SLUDG
K U t K
T
t j
U i
FIGURE B-17. ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR 27
-------
scrubber for flyash removal. The incinerator bed consists of
gradiated silica sand which is heated by a preheat burner and
fluidized by combust ion air. The sludge is fed into the com-
bustion chamber which is maintained at 1400-1600°F. 27
The advantages of this particular system include: 27
• no moving parts in the reactor;
• no heat exchange surfaces to scale;
• ash removal is by exit gases; and
• no odor control problems.
In general, the overall capital cost of this process is higher
than the previous three processes.
The weight of the ash from the preceding processes is normally
between 30 and 40 percent of the weight of the dry solids
incinerated. Final disposal of ash is ordinarily accomplished
at a sanitary landfill site. 10
The heat value of the incoming sludge is one of the controlling
factors influencing the total requirements for auxiliary fuel
to aid in the combustion process. Typical sludge fuel values
range between 4800 and 10,000 Btu/lb dry solids depending upon
the characteristics of the sludge and the volatile content. 3
As the volatile content increases in the sludge, the amount of
auxiliary fuel necessary to support combustion at temperatures
above 1400°F decreases as illustrated in Figure B-l8. Inorganic
coagulation during the treatment processes increases the quantity
of sludge produced but decreases the total fractional volatile
content since the chemicals are inert. Furthermore, the presence
of calcium carbonate will reduce the heating value since it
decomposes endotherinically to calcium oxide. 27
The temperature necessary for complete, odorless combustion also
affects the amount of auxiliary fuel necessary. Generally the
minimum accepted temperature level for complete odorless com-
bustion is 1400°F. 27 Figure B-19 illustrates the need for
dewatering and preheating the incoming air in order to attain
odorless combustion.
The solids content of the sludg must be in the range of 25 to
35 percent to sustain combustion in a multiple hearth or fluidized
bed incinerator. 21 The amount of auxiliary fuel for sludges of
varying moisture levels is presented in Figure B—20.
B-46
-------
cn
LL
a
a
C l ,
—I
U)
>-
C
I —
Cl )
9 : ,
-j
3.75
2.5
1.25
0
-J
I—
L i..
C
Li i
-J
C
EXIT TEMP @ 1500°F
SLUDGE @ 10,POO BTU/LB V.S.
SLUDGE @ 30% TS
NATURAL GAS @ 1 ,000 BTU/CF
EXCESS AIR 20%
65
70 75 80 85
VOLATILE SOLIDS, PERCENT
FIGURE B-18.
EFFECT OF VOLATILES IN SLUDGE ON QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS REQUIRED 27
-------
40
35
30
25
20
15
800 900 1000
TEMPERATURE, °F
I—
LU
LU
0
-J
C
C /)
-J
I —
C
I -
co
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1600
FIGURE B-19.
EFFECT OF COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE VS THE PERCENT OF TOTAL SOLIDS 27
-------
10
7.5
5
2.5
SLUDGE @ 75% V.S.
SLUDGE @ 10,000 BTU/LB V.S.
NATURAL GAS @ 1000 BTU/FT 3
C”
I—
U-
0
S
‘I )
-J
0
‘I - )
>-
C
I-
V)
C!,
-J
I —
U-
C
UJ
-J
C
t j
‘ .0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
TOTAL SOLIDS IN SLUDGE, PERCENT
FIGURE 13-20. PERCENT TOTAL SOLIDS VS AUXILIARY FUEL 27
-------
Furthermore, it is normally necessary to provide excess air
over and above stoichiometric requirements for proper combustion.
General Assumptions
Sludge incinerator size is dependent upon the quantity of sludge
produced, moisture level, volatile and inert solids contents of
the sludge, heat value of the sludge, and operation schedule.
However, except for quantity and operation schedule, the preceding
parameters vary within limited ranges and can be represented by
average values. 5 1 ’ Hence, the incinerator size is in direct
p roportion to the rate (pounds of solids per hour) of incineration.
All incineration capital and operating costs, manpower and land
requirements were based upon the installation of multiple hearth
furnaces. For the middle range plants (between 10 MGD and 100
MGD), the preceding assumption is economically justified. How-
ever, for plants producing less than 500 lb/hour of sludge, the
cyclonic reactor may be operationally more justified. (Assuming
incineration of sludge for such a small operation is reasonable.)
For larger plants on the order of 1 BGD, it might be economically
more appropriate to install large rotary kiln incinerators in-
stead of numerous multiple hearth furnaces. Although the pro-
file sheets reflect capital costs for multiple hearth units, a
preliminary economic analysis indicates that substantial cost
savings could be realized by substituting rotary kiln units for
multiple hearth furnaces in installations substantially larger
than 100 MGD.
The capital cost allowances presented include costs for a
multiple hearth unit, auxiliary equipment, and an enclosing
structure. Capital cost data was derived from the information
presented in Figure B-21. Auxiliary equipment consists of a gas
scrubber and exhaust, ash handling, fuel system, instrumentation,
piping, and electrical facilities. 51’ Labor requirements include
removal of ash and proper care and repair of the incinerator
system.
Gaseous and particulate emissions discharged from the incin-
eration of wastewater sludge include nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide, water vapor, hydrogen chloride, heavy metals and other
constituents. 57 The normal air pollution equipment provided
with the incinerator is adequately efficient to meet EPA air
pollution criteria.
Most incinerator systems include air pollution control mechanisms
(e.g. wet scrubbers, cyclones,) as part of their standard design.
It has been assumed for this study that the air pollution equip-
ment supplied by the manufacturers will meet EPA standards and
hence further equipment will not be necessary. Typical heavy
B-50
-------
0
0
I—
V)
0
C..)
C
I-
C -,
01 I—
H
C
C.)
10,000
1 ,000
100
100
I I I 11111
I I I I i iiii
1 ,000
I I I J 1T T F 1
I I I • iii!
10,000
DRY SOLIDS INCINERATION CAPACITY, POUNDS PER HOUR
I I I I I I I I.
TOTAL COST
I I I I i III
100,000
FIGURE B-21. MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS 54
-------
metal particulate emissions include silver, arsenic, cadmium
copper, manganese, nickel, lead, vanadium, arid ziná. Mercury
is normally released in vapor forms, but the quantity produced.
during municipal sludge incineration is quite small. Most of
the preceding metals will appear in the scrubber effluent or in
dry form from precipitators.
Manpower requirements were based on data illustrated in
Figure B-22.
RECALCINATION
Operation Description
Recalcination is the act of recovering calcium carbonate pre-
cipitate and burning it in the presence of oxygen to form CaO
(lime) and carbon dioxide. The reclaiming of lime in large
treatment facilities can be economical and eliminate the depend-
ence of the plant upon a constant delivery of chemicals and
possible shipment interruptions.
The sludge weight reduction through the incineration process
was assumed to be only twenty percent and, in the case of recal—
cination, twenty—five percent of the recalcined lime was wasted
in order to control the amount of phosphates and ash returned
to the treatment plant system.k
For the 1BGD plant, a substantial initial capital cost savings
might be realized by the use of rotary kilns in the place of
multiple hearths. The profile sheets indicate the cost of chem-
ical sludge incineration and recalcination by multiple hearths.
Should rotary kilns be substituted, on the 1 BGD level, a capital
saving of $19—30 million for treatment strategies 8 and 9, and
$37 million for treatment strategy 10 might be realized. Further-
more, the chemical sludges which were not recycled were mixed
with the organic sludges and incinerated together in the multiple
hearth units. Thus, maximum utilization of the incinerators
was accomplished.
General Assumptions
The physical parameters and cost figures portrayed on the pro-
file sheets for chemical sludge handling are based upon multiple
hearth incinerators. Determination of the recalcination furnace
size was based upon the same assumptions as the organic sludge
incinerator. As was the case for organic sludge incinerators,
recalcination furnace size is directly proportional to the pounds
of solids applied to the incinerator per hour.
The capital costs and manpower requirements reflect the same
basis as the organic sludge incineration option. Furthermore,
B-52
-------
100,000
(I )
10,000
z
1 ,000
100
1 00
FIGURE B-22.
DRY SOLIDS INCINERATED, TONS PER YEAR
INCINERATION, MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS 51
a
_1
-j
0
>-
0
-j
c C
cC
1,000 10,000
100,000
B-53
-------
the actual capital costs and manpower figures were evaluated
from Figures B—21 and B-22, respectively. Gaseous and particulate
emissions were assumed not to exceed EPA air pollution criteria
by the proper installation of pollution control equipment.
Recalcination furnaces differ from normal sludge incinerators
only in operating temperatures and auxiliary equipment. Lime
sludge, due to its high inorganic content (CaCO3), requires
higher operating temperatures, ranging up to 1900°F, for complete
combustion.L4 Furthermore, the upper hearth on a multiple hearth
unit must be maintained at a higher than normal temperature to
prevent the formation of clinkers (the slow drying and agglom-
erating of the lime cake).
The recalcination furnace is usually followed by a lime grinder
to break up large pieces of recalcined lime. The lime is then
moved to a storage bin where 25—35 percent of the recalcined
lime is wasted in order to minimize the amount of inert ash and
phosphate being recycled to the plant.
L1 ND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGES
Operation Description
Continuing efforts to reduce environmental degradation related
to sludge disposal and increasing desire to gain more efficient
use of resources has stimulated renewed interest in land dis-
posal of sewage sludges. Advantages associated with this
disposal technique include: 90
• The process represents ultimate disposal
because sludge is normally hauled off the
treatment plant grounds by someone assuming
responsibility for the material.
• The sludge has some value as a soil con-
ditioner and fertilizer. (A discussion of
this value is presented in Appendix C.)
• Small capital investment is required,
particularly if a contract for hauling
is negotiated.
• Sludge dewatering operations can be
eliminated, thereby improving treatment
plant economics and efficiency.
The major negative aspect of land disposal for liquid sludge
is that it is not applicable to all waste treatment plants,
mainly because acceptable disposal sites are not always con—
B-54
-------
veniently available. Hauling to acceptable areas can be very
expensive because of the large quantities of water associated
with the sludge solids. Land disposal areas must be within
a short hauling distance of the treatment plant if a pipeline
is not available for sludge transportation. A discussion of
the relation between land value and transportation costs is
presented in Appendix C of this report. If the disposal site
is not owned by the sludge discharger, the success of this
technique depends on continued acceptance by the land owner
and public health officials. A single application of odoriferous
sludge could result in public opposition and potentially even
litigation which could lead to denial of the disposal area to
the discharger.
Digestion or some other form of stabilization of sewage sludge
is a prerequisite to acceptable land disposal. This means of
stabilizing sludge is costly and must be considered in an eval-
uation of alternative disposal methods. In addition to their
sludge stabilization function, anaerobic digesters also provide
storage capacity which is a provision for liquid sludge disposal
systems due to inclement weather delay in tank-truck hauling to
operations. The use of liquid sludge as a fertilizer or soil
conditioner also involves public health aspects which must be
considered when scheduling sludge applications on cropland.
These issues are discussed in Appendix C.
Sludge is distributed on the land and processed in a variety
of ways. Disposal at small plants may include simply the
digging of shallow trenches, subsequent fill with liquid raw
or digested sludge, and then covering with soil to prevent
nuisance conditions. Sludge may be pumped or gravity fed
through pipelines to agricultural fields or land to be reclaimed.
At some orchards, the liquid sludge is injected into the sub-
soil under pressure. A very common technique is disposal of
liquid digested sludge directly on the disposal site by spraying
from tank trucks. Another technique for application on land
is to spray the sludge from irrigation rain—guns.
Sewage sludge is a waste product that is well suited for land
disposal; however, there are limits to the use of this means
for ultimate disposal. 7 ’ If the purpose of sludge spreading
is disposal only, then protection of the soil is unimportant,
and high application rates may be acceptable as long as water
and air pollution, and nuisance conditions are avoided.
Reclaiming unproductive soils may also permit great leeway with
regard to application rates and accumulations of sludge.
However, when the main objective of sludge spreading is to add
fertilizer, water, and organic matter to cropland, or when
crop byproduct values are important the operating options are
more limited since the productivity of the soil and crops must
be protected.
B-55
-------
One of the greatest causes for public concern regarding sludge
disposal on land is the uncertainty of the fate of pathogenic
organisms and toxic substances, and the hazards to health
which may attend such an operation. More information is needed
about the occurrence and survival of various pathogenic organisms,
transport of these agents through soil, and their occurrence in
ground and surface waters. No incidence of disease is known to
have been traced to sludge disposal operations, but this in part
reflects a lack of any comprehensive studies in the area. 92
Management of plant nutrients (principally nitrogen and
phosphorus) added during sludge disposal on land must be
considered. If the applied nutrients are greatly in excess of
losses, concentrations reaching groundwater or surface streams
may be excessive. High nitrate concentrations in drinking
water are toxic to humans and to livestock. Nitrogen and
phosphorus, transported from sludge spreading operations by
erosion and leaching, contribute to eutrophication.
Another public health hazard that must be considered when
sludges are to be used as fertilizers is heavy metals con-
centration. The variable and not insignificant concentration
of heavy metals in sludges is shown in Table B—b.
TABLE B-lO
HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF DIGESTED SLUDGE 20 ’
Stickney, IL Calumet, IL Toledo, OH
Heavy Metal ( mg/i) ( mg/i) ( mg/i )
Aluminum 1800
Cadmium 9 1
Chromium 80 50 125
Lead 20 90 375
Manganese 5 13 300
Nickel 12 2 ——
Zinc 150 90 500
Little is known of the fate of heavy metals in soil. Jenne 9 °
proposed that the principal factor in retention of the heavy
metals is sorption on hydrous oxides of manganese and iron.
It is expected, therefore, that there will be little migration
in the soil. Nevertheless, the capacity of the soil to retain
these elements must be limited and eventual heavy metal break-
through to the groundwater must be considered when using sludge
as a fertilizer. The possibility of surface water pollution
by soil erosion or flooding of cropland must also be considered.
B-56
-------
Heavy metal buildup in soils can be detrimental in two ways.
Continued buildup in heavy concentration in the soil over
long time periods can eventually sterilize soils and, thus,
cancel the original intent of the sludge spreading operation.
The other detrimental effect involves potential concentration
f heavy metals in the tissue of plants grown on land which has
been subjected to sludge spreading. Public health hazards
could result directly from ingestion of vegetables, fruits,
or grains grown on this land or indirectly from ingestion of
meat from animals which have grazed on the land. Further
research is needed concerning the toxicity of heavy metals to
plants and on the human and livestock intake through the food
chain resulting from concentration of heavy metals in plant
tissues. 92 Methods of treatment for heavy metals removal may
need to be developed.
Great concern has been expressed by the general public for
nuisances which might arise from land disposal operations.
Odors, flies, and aesthetic degradation of the neighborhood
seem to be the most common complaints. These problems should
not arise in a well operated and managed sludge spreading
operation.
Fly breeding problems can be minimized by allowing the site
to dry well between sludge applications and by judicious use
of insecticides.
Malodors can be prevented by application of well digested
sludge at rates which allow site drying to proceed rapidly.
Concern for impairment of the aesthetic environment are probably
exagerated. Experience has shown this to be no real problem.
Care must be taken to keep the area neat, to keep weeds out,
to maintain physical improvements, fences, and buildings in
good repair, to guard against spillage of sludge by trucks
along the roadway to the site, to prevent overflow of sludge
from plots to ditches in the area, and to keep the public
fully informed of the nature of the operation. These are
simply good management practices in any waste—treatment
operation, and land—disposal operations should present no
more of a problem than waste treatment plants.
General Assumptions
Digested sludge for landspreading can be transported by truck,
rail or pipelix.a. Truck transportation has been assumed to
service plants of 10 MGD or less and pipelines assumed adequate
for plants of 100 MGD or greater. Round trip hauling distances
of 20 miles were assumed for plants of 1 MGD or less and 50
miles for plants larger than 1 MGD. Furthermore, it was assumed
B- 57
-------
that the hauling contract included the costs of operation, main-
tenance and fixed charges for storage and loading facilities
as well as the actual costs of transportation. 72 The cost
curves illustrating the truck hauling expenses for 1.0 and 10
MGD plants are shown in Figures B-23 and B-24.
The pipeline mode of transportation consisted of a total length
of 50 miles, 25 miles through a suburban area and 25 miles
through rural land. Capital costs included pipe fittings,
installed pump stations, right of way, and control instruments.
They do not include the cost of land. Figures B-25 and B-26
illustrate the cost curves utilized. The operating costs
included power, labor, supplies, and maintenance and these
costs are reflected in Figure B-27. The piped and trucked
slurry was assumed to have a 4 to 8 percent solids concentration.
The actual application of the sludge was assumed to be by
the use of a rain gun at an average cost of $10/day ton.
The loading capacity for landspreading of the liquid sludge
in order to prevent over utilization and saturation of the
soil, was assumed to range between 10 and 40 dry tons/acre/year.
OCEAN DISPOSAL
Operation Description
Ocean disposal by pipeline or barging is a popular means of
ultimate disposal of sludges for relatively large communities
located near, or having easy access to, the sea.
Disposal by barging normally requires the installation of hold-
ing tanks to store the sludge prior to pumping into the barge.
Depending upon the size of the installation, the barge will
either be leased or owned by the municipality. Dewatering is
a prerequisite in order to minimize the volume and tonnage
which must be hauled.
Pipeline disposal is relatively capital intensive and because
of the high initial cost, its use is restricted to rather large
installations (greater than 100 MGD). Furthermore, the required
length, special pipelining and ballasting, sludge pumping
characteristics (specifically solids concentration), and loca-
tion all affect the overall cost of the installation.
Recent EPA regulations require digestion of municipal waste
sludge before disposal to the ocean. The intent of these regu-
lations is to minimize bacterial contamination of the oceans.
Indications from EPA are that more stringent regulations on
ocean disposal may be forthcoming.
B— 58
-------
600
T
I I
400
200 -
100 -
60
40
20 —
FIGURE B-23.
20
40 60 100
MILES TO
200
POINT OF DISPOSAL
400 600
TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR A FACILITY
SERVING A POPULATION OF 100,00072
(FLOW EQUIVALENT, 10 NGD)
TANK TRUC
a
LU
LU
‘I ,
U,
0
I-
LU
I-
U,
0
C-)
R.R. TANK CAR
PIPELINE
I I
I I
B-59
-------
I I
I I
40 60
I I
100 200 400 600
MILES TO POINT OF DISPOSAL
FIGURE B-24.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOit A FACILITY
SERVING A POPULATION OF 10,00072
(FLOW EQUIVALENT, 1 MGD)
PIPELINE
a
C
E
w
U)
(1 )
0
w
0
I-
(I )
0
6000
4000
2000 -
1000 —
600
400
200 -
100 —
60 —
40
20
R.R. TANK CAR
TRUCK
B-60
-------
2250
-4
—J
1 / )
-4
LU
-J
LU
-4
C D
1500
1000
I—
-J
-4
LU
C,,
-J
-J
500
I—
(I )
0
I—
‘-4
L)
FIGURE B-25. CAPITAL COSTS (EXCLUDING INSTALLATION) VS
DISTANCE FOR VARIOUS DIGESTED SLUDGE
THROUGHPUT LEVELS 6
2000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE, MILES
140
13- 61
-------
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
200 1000 1200 1400
PIPELINE THROUGHPUT - TONS DRY SOLIDS PER CALENDAR DAY (365 DAYS/YEAR)
FIGURE B-26. PIPELINE INSTALLATION COSTS VS CAPACITY
FOR THREE CONSTRUCTION ZONES 68
-J
-4
C)
I—
I-
U i
C ’,
—I
-J
I—
C’,
C)
L)
C
I—
-J
—I
I—
C’)
b - I
0
400
600
800
B— 62
-------
400
300
I-IJ
-J
‘-4
0
1-
>-
-J
-l
w
(I )
-J
-J
0
(I ,
I-
(I ,
0
C)
-4
I—
L j
C’
0
-J
FIGURE B-27.
1 00
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE, MILES
DIRECT OPERATING COSTS VS DISTANCE FOR
VARIOUS DIGESTED SLUDGE
THROUGHPUT LEVELS 68
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
B- 63
-------
General Assumptions
For volume reduction purposes, all barged sludges were initially
dewatered. Sludges transported by pipeline were assumed to have
a 4 to 8 percent solids content to minimize frictional head lose.
Due to the capital intensiveness of ocean pipelines, their use
was restricted to plant sizes on the order of 100 MGD or larger.
Ocean barging of sludges was restricted to plant sizes of 1 to
10 MGD.
Barging costs were based on the need for two barges with the
community owning the barges and contracting for tug service.
The second barge acted as a substitute and both barges were
assumed to have a capacity of 1000 tons. An average hauling
distance of 50 miles at a speed of six knots with a towing cost
of $88/hour was assumed. 67 Operating costs included mainten-
ance, labor and towing costs.
The ocean pipeline was considered to pass through five. miles
of rural land and to extend eighty miles beyond the shoreline.
Capital investment included pipe fittings, installation, right
of way and instruments and control. 68 Operating costs were
comprised of power, labor, supplies, and maintenance.
SANITARY LA.NDF ILL
Operation Description
A sanitary landfill can be used for disposal of sewage sludge
and municipal refuse if a suitable site is convenient. When
operated properly, such a landfill is a well’-controlled and
truly sanitary method of disposal of solid waste and dewatered
sewage sludge. It consists of four basic operations: 7 °
• wastes are deposited in a controlled manner
in a prepared portion of the site;
• the wastes are spread and compacted in thin
layers;
• the wastes are covered daily or more frequently,
if necessary, with a layer of earth; and
• the cover material is compacted daily.
When the site is filled, the resulting land area can be developed
for some other purpose where gradual subsidence would not be
objectional such as a gold course, tennis court, playfield,
botanical garden, or municipal riding ring.
B—64
-------
i important step toward establishing an acceptable sanitary
landfill operation is site selection. Proper site selection
can eliminate many future operational problems. Well qualified
and experienced experts should be utilized during the site
selection phase of project development. Some of the major
factors which should be considered in site selection are:
• land requirements,
• waste haul distance,
• cover material,
• geology, and
• climate.
The land area, or more precisely, the volume of fill space
required, is primarily dependent upon the quality and quantity
of the solid wastes (and/or sludges), the efficiency of compaction
of the wastes, the depth of the fill and the desired life of the
landfill.
The volume requirement for a sanitary landfill should be
determined from specific data and information for each individual
project.
Haul distance is an important economic factor in selecting the
Sanitary landfill site. The most economical distance to the
site will vary from locality to locality depending upon capacity
of collection vehicles, hauling time, and size and method used
in the collection operation. The larger the quantity of refuse
hauled per trip and the shorter the hauling time due to good
roads, the greater the distance the wastes can be hauled for
the same cost.
The availability of cover material is another economic factor
to consider, for the cost of hauling cover material to the site
can be excessive. A site that has cover material close by will
keep these costs at a minimum.
Field investigations of potential sites should include soil
analyses to determine the suitability and the quantity of
soil available for cover material. Soil with good workability
and compaction characteristics is the most desirable cover
material.
The potential danger of ground and surface water pollution
cannot be overlooked. Solid wastes, especially sewage sludges,
ordinarily contain contaminents and infectious materials.
Serious public health problems can result if pollutants enter
water supplies. Site selection should include a geological
B-65
-------
investigation of the site to determine the potential for either
surface water or groundwater pollution. The groundwater situa—
tion at a possible site should be examined for groundwater table
elevation, historical high groundwater level, and the general
movement of the groundwater.
Geological investigation should also examine the topography of
the site and surrounding area to determine flooding potential
during heavy rainfalls and snow melts. Site drainage must also
be considered since surface water drainage and flooding can
quickly erode the cover material and the refuse fill.
Sites located near rivers, streams, or lakes also deserve care-
ful scrutiny. Normally, a landfill should not be located in a
flood plain because of the water pollution hazard, and because
€hese sites can become unstable both during and after floods.
In some locations, climate is important in site selection and
may even dictate the method of operation. In an extremely cold
locality, a site requiring excavation of trenches and cover
material may become a problem if the ground freezes during the
winter months. This problem can be eliminated if enough trenches
and cover material are excavated during the summer to carry the
operation through the winter period.
In areas of high rainfall, a low—lying site may be undesirable
because of flooding and muddy working conditions. In such
locales, a site elevated in relation to the surrounding area
having goad drainage features would be desirable.
Other factors which must be considered in site selection are
1) zoning restrictions, 2) accessibility, and 3) fire control
facilities.
Sanitary landfilling consists of the basic operations of spread-
ing, compacting, and covering. The three basic methods used to
achieve the desired results are the area method, the trench
method, and the ramp or slope method.
In an area sanitary landfill, the solid wastes are placed on
the land; a bulldozer or similar piece of equipment spreads and
compacts the wastes; then the wastes are covered with a layer
of earth; and finally, the earth cover is compacted. The area
method is best suited for flat areas or gently sloping land,
and is also used in quarries, ravines, valleys, or where other
suitable land depressions exist. Normally the earth cover
material is hauled in or obtained from adjacent areas.
In a trench sanitary landfill, a trench is cut in the ground
and the waste material is then spread in thin layers in the
trench and covered with earth previously excavated from the
B-66
-------
trench. The trench method is best suited for flat land where
the water table is not near the ground surface. Normally the
material excavated from the trench can be used for cover with
a minimum of hauling. A disadvantage is that more than one
piece of equipment may be necessary.
In the ramp or slope method, the solid wastes are dumped on the
side of an existing slope. After spreading the material in
thick layers on the slope, bulldozing equipment is used for
compaction of the waste. The cover material, usually obtained
just ahead of the working face, is spread on the ramp and com-
pacted. This landfill method is generally suited to the great-
est variety of site topography. The advantage of utilizing
only one piece of equipment to perform all operations makes the
ramp or slope method particularly applicable to smaller opera-
tions.
Important factors in the operation of a sanitary landfill are
waste compaction, cell depth, and the cover material.
Solid wastes should be placed at the top or base of the working
face, spread in layers about two feet thick, and compacted.
The degree of compaction is dependent on the character of the
solid wastes, the weight and type of compacting equipment, and
the number of passes the equipment makes over the material.
The actual density of the landfill can be determined from oper-
ating records and data. The degree of compaction is a useful
tool to determine the rate of space usage, expected life of the
landfill, and the overall efficiency of the operation.
Cell depth is the thickness of the solid waste layer measured
perpendicular to the working slope where the equipment travels.
The depth of cells is determined largely by the size of the
operation, the desired surface elevation when the site is filled
to capacity, the depth of the trench or depression to be filled,
and the amount of available fill material. Eight feet is gener-
ally recommended as a maximum single cell depth because deeper
cells usually result in fills that have excessive settlement and
surface cracking due to biological degradation and shifting of
the waste material in the cell. However, cell depths of sani-
tary landfills presently in use vary from 2 to 15 feet or more. 7 °
The compacted solid waste must be covered at the conclusion of
each day, or more frequently if necessary, with a minimum of six
inches of compacted earth. 7 ° A well-graded soil having good
workability and compaction characteristics is a most desirable
cover material. If a well—graded soil is not available on the
site, it will be necessary to adjust the covering procedures to
the type of cover material available or to haul in a suitable
cover material. The cover is necessary to prevent insect and
rodent infestation, blowing papers, fires, the attraction of
wildlife, and the release of gas and odors.
B-67
-------
For daily cover, a minimum of six inches of compacted soil is
recommended. For intermediate cover on cells which will not
have additional cells placed on them within a year, a minimum
of twelve inches of compacted soil is recommended. A minimum
of two feet of compacted soil is recommended for the final
cover. The final cover should be placed over the fill as soon
as possible to help assure that wind and water erosion does not
expose the wastes.
The most common equipment used on sanitary landfills is the
crawler or rubber—tired tractor. The tractor can be used with
a dozer blade, trash blade, or front—end loader. A tractor is
versatile arid can normally perform all the operations: spread-
ing, compacting, covering, trenching, and even hauling the cover
material.
Other equipment used on sanitary landfills are scrapers, compac-
tors, draglines, and graders. These types of equipment are
usually found only at large sanitary landfills where specialized
equipment increases the overall efficiency. In Table B-li, a
general guide is given for the selection of the type, size, and
amount of equipment for various sizes of sanitary landfills.
Important public health and nuisance aspects which must be con-
sidered in landfill operation are 1) vector control, 2) water
pollution, 3) odors, and 4) gas production.
In a properly operated and maintained sanitary landfill, insects
and rodents are not a problem. Well-compacted wastes and cover
material are the most important factors in achieving vector con-
trol.
Proper planning and site selection, combined with good engineer-
ing design and operation of the landfill, can normally eliminate
the possibility of either surface or groundwater pollution. Some
common preventive measures are:
• Locating the site at a safe distance from
streams, lakes, wells, and other water
sources;
• Avoiding site location above the kind of
subsurface stratification that will lead the
leachate from the landfill to water sources;
• Providing suitable drainage trenches to carry
the surface water away from the site.
Odors are usually the result of gases from anaerobic decomposi-
tion of putrescible material such as raw sewage sludge. These
are generally considered a nuisance but can be a public hazard.
The odors are characteristic of hydrogen sulfide gas produced in
B-6 8
-------
TABLE B-il
AVERAGE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 70
Equipment
Population Daily - Tonna No. _________________ Size in lbs Accessory*
0 to 15,000 0 to 46 1 Tractor crawler or 10,000 to 30,000 Dozer blade
rubber-tired Landfill blade
Front-end loader
(1— to 2-yd)
15,000 to 50,000 46 to 155 1. Tractor crawler or 30,000 to 60,000 Dozer blade
rubber—tired Landfill blade
Front-end loader
(2— to 4-yd)
Multipurpose bucket
* Scraper
Dragline
Water truck
50,000 to 155 to 310 1 to 2 Tractor crawler or 30,000 or more Dozer blade
100,000 rubber-tired Landfill blade
Front—end loader
(2- to 5-yd)
Multipurpose bucket
* Scraper
Dragline
Water truck
100,000 or 310 or 2 or Tractor crawler or 45,000 or more Dozer blade
i re more more rubber-tired Landfill blade
Front—end loader
Multipurpose bucket
* Scraper
Dragline
Steel—wheel compactor
Road grader
Water truck
* Optional. Dependent on individual need.
-------
the landfill. Other gases typically produced are methane,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. At
landfills where methane and other gases are generated, the
gases should be dissipated into the atmosphere and prevented
from concentrating in sewers or other structures located on
or near the site.
Leachate Production
The quantities of potential leachate production are significant
if good design,is not used for the sanitary landfill. The ex-
treme case would be where 100 percent of the precipitation
falling on a refuse disposal site percolated through and became
leachate. Assuming a precipitation of 36 inches per year after
saturation, about 980,000 gallons of contaminated water would
result from the water falling on one acre of refuse (9170 cu m/
ha). Absorption may approach 100 percent where shredded refuse
is allowed to remain without compaction, grading, and cover
material.
The leachate produced from a sanitary landfill has been character-
ized from lysimeter studies and actual operating landfil1s. 21
The significant pollutants from refuse leachate are reported as
BOD, COD, iron, chloride, and nitrate. Other compounds are also
found in leachate but in low quantities. Table B-12 contains
leachate analyses from various sources.
The leachate produced after refuse has reached saturation or
field capacity has a BOD of approximately 2500 mg/l, 216 a COD
in the range of 8000 to 10,000 mg/l, an iron concentration of
approximately 600 mg/i, and a chloride concentration of approxi-
mately 250 mg/l. 2 The initial concentrations were generally
higher than the “steady state” conditions indicating a flushing
action by water moving through the fill. The concentrations
reported tend to be highly variable. This is probably caused
in part by lack of standardized refuse compositions, differing
amounts of water seeping through the fill, and perhaps sampling
and analysis errors resulting from the high concentrations in-
volved and interfering substances. It is evident from the
literature that the contaminant concentration decreases with
time and amount of water moving through the fill. Studies con-
ducted in California demonstrated that continuous water movement
through an acre—foot of refuse would leach out approximately 1.5
tons of sodium plus potassium, 1.0 tons of calcium plus magnesium,
0.91 tons of chloride, 0.23 tons of sulfate, and 3.9 tons of
bicarbonate within one year. This would continue in subsequent
years but at a reduced rate. It is unlikely that all ions ever
would be completely removed. 216
Leachate may contain biological as well as chemical pollution.
The biological pollution is, in nearly every case, filtered out
B-70
-------
TABLE 8-12
LEACHATE COMPOS ITION
Determination Sourcea - —-
( mg/i) 1 b _______ 3 b 4 c _____
5.6 5.9 8.3
Total hardness
(CaCO3) 8,120 3,260 537 8,700 500
Iron total 305 336 219 1,000
Sodium 1,805 350 600
potassium 1,860 655
Sulfate 630 1,220 99 940 24
Chloride 2,240 300 2,000 1,000 220
Nitrate 5 18
Alkalinity as CaCO3 8,100 1,710 1,290
Ammonia nitrogen 845 141
Organic nitrogen 550 152
COD 7,130 750,000
BOD 32,400 7,050 720,000
Total dissolved
solids 9,190 2,000 11,254 2,075
aNO age of fill specified for Sources 1—3; Source 4 is initial
leachate composition; Source 5 is from 3—year—old, and Source 6
is from 15-year-old fill.
bDt from Reference 215.
CDt from Reference 214.
8-71
-------
of the leachate or adsorbed on soil particles within a few or
at the most 100 feet. The travel may be much greater when the
leachate becomes part of a surface water system if it enters
fissured or channeled rock. If a sanitary landfill site is
properly selected and operated, biological pollution beyond
the immediate refuse disposal area should not be a problem.
The concentration of chemical pollutants traveling through soil
decreases rapidly with distance from the landfill. Studies
have shown that 12 feet of soil can reduce BOD by 95 percent. 214
Partial exceptions to this are chlorides, nitrates, and hard-
ness, which are reduced in concentration primarily by dilution
rather than other mechanisms such as adsorption. The travel
of carbon dioxide through permeable soils may also increase
hardness of water in the area. In some soils, ion exchange is
a major factor in soil purification of leachate.
Some authorities have recommended that sanitary landfills not
be put in soils with rapid percolation. This precaution would
prevent rapid transport of possible leachates into the ground—
water system. This is a legitimate concern because studies
have shown that pollution travels much farther and more rapidly
in permeable soils. However, in all cases, leachate production
can be minimized or nearly eliminated by preventing water con-
tact with the refuse by the use of surface and subsurface drain-
age and properly selected cover material that is graded and
seeded.
After saturation is reached, the moisture gained and moisture
lost must always be in balance. In a well—designed sanitary
landfill with surface and groundwater diverted, the water
gained is primarily a function of precipitation falling on
the site. The precipitation may infiltrate into the soil or
be lost through the processes of evaporation, transpiration,
and runoff. In a sanitary landfill, the goal is to prevent
infiltration beyond that necessary for supporting the plant
cover growth because the moisture movement through the cover
material into the refuse will be roughly proportional to the
leachate production.
General Assumptions
Ultimate disposal by sanitary landfill was incorporated for
disposing of incinerator ash and dewatered sludges. The govern-
ing assumptions involved were: 65
• Operational method utilized appears in
Figure B—28.
• Land costs were assumed to be $1,000/acre.
B-72
-------
/
FIGURE B—28.
SCHEMATIC OF SANITARY LANDFILL PROFILE USING THE
RAMP METHOD OF WASTE COVERAGE 65
/
/
Wa
SURFACE
FACE
SLOPE
1:3
//
-------
• Site preparation costs $1/yard of cover soil.
• Expected site life of 20 years.
• Final use of the site will be for recreational
purposes. No resale value was assumed.
• Cell depth was eight feet.
The round trip distances for trucking the sludge as ash were
assigned as follows:
Hauling Distance
Plant Size ( Miles )
0.1—1.0 MCD 20
10 MGD 50
100 MGD 100
1000 MCD 100
The transportation cost of hauling the sludge was based upon a
20 ton load at a charge-out rate of $0.32/ton of dry solids
for the first three miles and $0.10/ton/mile of dry solids for
each additional mile.
The capital cost, manpower requirements, and operating costs
(other than transportation) were developed from Figures B—29,
B—30, and B—3 , respectively. 6 5 Area requirements were based
on 3.75 x 10 acre/ton of dry solids/year. 65
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR INDIVIDUAL SLUDGE OPTIONS
The various design parameters utilized for the development of
the numerical figures on the profile sheets are presented in
the following tables. In most cases, the figures presented
on these tables represent the average of the reported design
parameters or performance factors.
It should be remembered that the overall performance of a
particular sludge option is dependent upon the operational
efficiency of each individual unit operation comprising the
sludge handling scheme. Should the efficiency of any one
unit drop, the characteristics of the sludge leaving that unit
will change with consequent disruption of the performance of
succeeding units. For instance, failure of the gravity or
flotation thickener to produce a thickened sludge will result
in the necessity of adding an ever increased amount of polymers
during the conditioning phase in order to realize the same cake
moisture content and solids recovery. On the other hand, if
B-74
-------
1 .000, O0
100
10,000
1000
DRY TONS OF SOLIDS/YEAR
APPLI ED
(I )
-J
-J
—.1
CAPiTAL COSTS
LAND AND EQUIPMENT
10,000 100,000
FIGURE B-29.
SANITARY LANDFILL CAPITAL COSTS 6 5
-------
100,
it.. ,o :’o
1,000
100
0
FIGURE B-30. SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATING COSTS 65
-4
0
>-
Lfl
a
in
in
a
I - .
>.
a
2
4
6
8 10 12 14
OPERATING COST $IDRY TON OF SOLIDS
B—76
-------
1,000,000
100,000
0
-J
0
U-
0
>-
10 , 0 0C
‘coo
MAN-YR tYR
FIGURE B-31. SANITARY LANDFILL MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS 65
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B-77
-------
the vacuum filter fails to perform adequately, the higher
moisture content of the sludge cake will require the incinera-
tor’s auxiliary fuel consumption to increase in order to main-
tain a minimum combustion temperature of 1400°F. A further
increase in moisture content will lower the combustion tempera-
ture below the minimum, increasing the opportunity for incomplete
combustion and the subsequent release of odors and violation
of air pollution standards.
Sanitary landfill of the residual ash from the incinerator
should be unaffected by the performance of the preceding unit
operations.
Sludge Option 1
In Sludge Option 1, sludge is removed from the clarifiers,
thickened by gravity or air flotation (depending upon sludge
type) with the thickener overflow being recycled to the head
end of the plant, conditioned by the utilization of polymers
(if such treatment is appropriate), dewatered by vacuum f i1
tration including filtrate recycle to the plant influent,
incinerated in a multiple hearth unit, and disposed of in a
sanitary landfill. System design parameters are given in
Table B-13.
Sludge Option 2
For the second sludge option, incoming sludge from the clarifiers
and treatment systems is conditioned by a polymer, dewatered by
centrifuge with the centrate being recycled to the plant’s head
end, incinerated in a multiple hearth incinerator, and disposed
of at a sanitary landfill. The process can be operated con-
tinuously or intermittently. System design parameters are
given in Table B-14.
Sludge Option 3
For Sludge Option 3, the sludge is thickened and the overflow
is returned to the plant. Then the sludge is heat treated in
the porteous unit with the portrate being recycled to the plant
influent. The sludge, with improved dewatering characteristics,
is then passed to a vacuum filter where the filtrate is also
returned to the plant influent and the cake is transported to
the incinerator where the final product is an inert ash which
is disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Table B-15 contains
the system design parameters used in this work.
Sludge Option 4
For Sludge Option 4, sludge from the treatment system is ini-
tially thickened with the thickener overflow being returned
B-78
-------
TABLE B-13
SLUDGE OPTION 1 DESIGN PARAMETERS
PLANT SIZE (MOD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT_OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS 1.0 10 100 1000
PRIMARY I) ( ravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 20 20
Influent (% solids) 2.5-5 2.5—5
Effluent 1% solids) 5—8 58
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 4 4
Operating shift (hrs) 6 6
Cake (% solids) 20—30 20—30
III) Incineration Pounds per hour 45 450
Weight reduction (%) 70 70
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0 l6 1.6
TRICKLING
- . 3 FILTER HUMUS
+ PR:MARY I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 ) 10 10 10 10
Influent (% solids) 3—6 3—6 3—6 3—6
Effluent (% solids) 7—9 7—9 7—9 7—9
LI) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (ths/sq ft/hr) 4 4 4 4
Operating shift (hrs) 6 6 12 12
Cake (% solids) 20—30 20—30 20—30 20—30
III) Incineration Pounds per hour 58 580 5800 58,000
ieight reduction (%) 68 68 68 68
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.23 2.25 22.5 225
ACTIVATED +
PRIMARY I) Flotation Thickening Loading factor (lbs/hr/ft 2 ) 2 2 2 2
Influent (% solids) 1—2 1—2 1-2 1—2
Effluent (% solids) 4—6 4—6 4—6 4—6
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 4 4 4 4
Operating shift (hrs) 6 6 12 12
Cake (% solids) 20—30 20—30 20—30 20—30
III) Incineration Pounds per hour 97 970 9700 37,000
Weight reduction (%) 70 70 70 70
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.35 3.5 35 350
-------
TABLE B-13 (Cont’d.)
PLA1 T SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS 1.0 10 100 1000
ACTIVATED +
PRIMARY +
ALUM PRECI-
PITATE I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 8 8 8
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 2—5 2—5 2—5
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/br) 2 2 2
03 Operating shift (bra) 12 18 18
0 Cake (% solids) 15—30 15—30 15—30
III) Incineration Pounds per hour 1567 15,670 156,700
Weight reduction (%) 62 62 62
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 7 70 705
-------
TABLE B—14
SLUDGE OPTION 2 DESIGN PARAMETERS
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS 1.0 10 100 1000
PRIMARY I) Centrifuge Inflow rate (gpin) 1.8 18
Influent (% solids) 2.5—5 2.5—5
Effluent (% solids) 25—35 25—35
II) Incineration Pounds per hour 45 450
Weight reduction (%) 70 70
III) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.16 1.6
TRICKLING
FILTER HUMUS
+ PRIMARY I) Centrifuge Inflow rate (gpm) 2.3 23 230 2300
Influent (% solids) 3—6 3—6 3—6 3—6
Effluent (% solids) 20—26 20—26 20—26 20—26
II) Incineration Pounds per hour 58 580 5800 58,000
Weight reduction (%) 68 68 68 68
H
III) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.23 2.3 23 230
ACTIVATED +
PRIMARY I) Centrifuge Inflow rate (gpm) 18 180 1800 18,000
Influent (% solids) 1—2 1—2 1—2 1—2
Effluent (% solids) 15—30 15—30 15—30 15—30
II) Incineration Pounds per hour 97 970 9700 97,000
Weight reduction (%) 70 70 70 70
III) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.35 3.5 35 350
ACTIVATED +
PRIMARY +
ALUM PRECI-
PITATE I) Centrifuge Inflow rate (gpm) 314 3140 31,400
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 16—20 16—20 16—20
II) Incineration Pounds per hour 1567 15,670 156,700
Weight reduction (%) 62 62 62
III) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 7 70 705
-------
TABLE B-15
SLUDGE OPTION 3 DESIGN PARAMETERS
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS 1.0 10 100 1000
PRIMARY I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 20 20
Influent (% solids) 2.5—5 2.5-5
Effl nt (% solids) 5—8 5—8
II) Porteous Inflow rate (gpm) 1.8 18
Effluent (% solids) 8—12 8—12
Weight reduction (%) 25 25
III) Vacuun Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/br) 8 8
Operating shift (hrs) 6 6
Cake (% solids) 30—50 30—50
IV) Incineration Pounds per hour 34 340
Weight reduction (%) 70 70
V) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.12 1.2
TRICKLING
FILTER +
PRIMARY I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 10 10 10 10
Influent (% solids) 3—6 3—6 3—6 3—6
Effluent (% solids) 7—9 7—9 7—9 79
II) Porteous Inflow rate (gpm) 1.6 16 160 1600
Effluent (% solids) 8—12 8—12 8—12 8—12
Weight reduction (%) 25 25 25 25
III) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 8 8 8 8
Operating shift (hrs) 6 6 12 12
Cake (% solids) 30—50 30—50 30—50 30—50
IV) Incineration Pounds per hour 44 440 4400 44,00C
Weight reduction (%) 70 70 70 70
V) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.16 1.6 16 160
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY I) Flotation Thickening Loading factor (lbs/hr/ft 2 ) 2 2 2 2
Influent (% solids) 1—2 1—2 1—2 1—2
Effluent (% solids) 4—6 4—6 4—6 4—6
II) Porteous Inflow rate (gpm) 3.8 38 388 3880
Effluent (% solids) 8—12 8—12 8—12 8—12
Weight reduction (%) 25 25 25 25
III) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 8 a 8 8
Operating shift (hrs) 6 6 12 12
Cake (% solids) 30—50 30-50 30—50 30—50
IV) Incineration Pounds per hour 73 730 7300 73,000
Weight reduction (%) 70 70 70 70
V) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 0.26 2.6 26 260
-------
TABLE B-15 I
T SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN 0 100 1000
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
+ ALUM PRE-
CIPITATE I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading 8 8
Influent (% s —l 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% s 2—5 2—5
II) Porteous Inflow rate ( 626 6260
Effluent (% a 2 8—12 8—12
Weight reduct 25 25
III) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield 8 8
Operating shi 12 12
Cake (% solid 50 30—50 30—50
IV) Incineration Pounds per ho 5 11,750 117,500
Weight reduct 70 70
V) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 42 423
-------
to the plant. The thickened sludge is anaerobically digested
and applied to a sand drying bed. After completion of the
drying process, the sludge is removed and hauled to a sanitary
landfill site. System design parameters are given in
Table B-16.
Sludge Option 5
For the fifth sludge option, sludge is collected from the waste-
water treatment system, thickened with the overflow being
recycled to the plant influent, digested anaerobically, and
transported to a designated region for land spreading. Hauling
the slurry by truck transportation was utilized for plants of
10 MCD or less and pipeline transportation was provided for
plants larger than 10 MGD. System design parameters are given
in Table B-17.
Sludge Option 6
For Sludge Option 6, sludge is collected from the various waste-
water treatment systems, thickened by gravity or air flotation
methods (depending upon the sludge characteristics), anaerobi-
cally digested for pathogen and odor control, and transported
to the ocean by pipeline. System design parameters are given
in Table B-18.
Due to the capital intensiveness of ocean pipelines, this option
was considered only for plants larger than 10 MGD.
Sludge Option 7
For the seventh option, sludge is collected and thickened by
an appropriate method, anaerobically digested, and dewatered
with a vacuum filter. Thickener overflow and filtrate are
recycled to the plant influent. The filter cake is disposed
of in a sanitary landfill after hauling by truck. System design
parameters are given in Table B-19.
Sludge Option 8
For Sludge Option 8, sludges collected from the various treat-
ment schemes considered are combined and, depending on the type
of sludge, are gravity or air flotation thickened. Thickened
sludge is then passed through an anaerobic digester for pathogen
and odor control. Sludge exiting from the preceding process iS
vacuum filtered with the filtrate being returned to the plant’s
head end. The filter cake is transported by barge to the ocean
for disposal. Design parameters for this sludge option are
given in Table B—20.
B— 84
-------
TABLE B—16
SLUDGE OPTION 4 DESIGN PARAMETERS
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Sand Drying
IV) Sanitary Landfill
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 )
1sf luent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
1sf luent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction 1%)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
9 ,
Ui
SLUDGE TYPE
UNIT OPERATION
DESIGN PARAMETER
PLANT SIZE
(MGD)
1.0
20
2.5—5
5—8
10
20
2.5—5
5—8
100 1000
PRIMARY
I)
Gravity Thickening
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Il)
Anaerobic Digestion
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
1080
30
10,800
30
III)
Sand Drying
Cake (% solids)
7.5—50
25—50
IV)
Sanitary Landfill
Tons per day
0.37
3.7
TRICKLING
FILTER +
PRIMARY
I)
Gravity Thickening
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
10
3—6
7—9
10
3—6
7—9
II)
Anaerobic Digestion
Influent solids (lbs/d.y)
Weight reduction (%)
1400
34
14,000
34
III)
Sand Drying
Cake (% solids)
25—50
25—50
IV)
Sanitary Landfill
Tons per day
0.46
4.6
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE +
PRIMARY
I)
Flotation Thickening
Loading factor (lbs/hr/f t 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
2
1—2
4—6
2
1—2
4—6
II)
Anaerobic Digestion
1sf meat solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
2330
39
23,300
39
III)
Sand Drying
Cake (% solids)
25-50
25—50
IV)
Sanitary Landfill
Tons per day
0.7
7
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
+ ALUM PRE-
CIPITATE
I)
Gravity Thickening
10
3—6
7—9
140,000
34
25—50
46
2
1—2
4—6
233,000
39
25—50
70
8
0.5—1
2—5
376,000
50
25—50
94
10
3—6
7—9
1,400,000
34
25—50
460
2
1—2
4—6
2,330,000
39
25—50
700
8
0.5—1
2—5
3,760,000
50
25—50
940
8
0.5—1
2—5
37,600
50
2 -50
9.4
-------
TABLE B-17
SLUDGE OPTION 5 DESIGN PARAMETERS
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS 1.0 10 100 1000
PRIMARY I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 20 20
Influent (% solids) 2.5—5 2.5—5
Effluent (% solids) 5—8 5—8
II) Anaerobic Digestion Influent solids (lbs/day) 1 80 10,800
Weight reduction (%) 30 30
III) Land Spreading Percent solids 68 6-8
Tons per day 0.37 3.7
TRICKLING
FILTER +
PRIMARY I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 10 10 10 10
Influent (% solids) 3—6 3—6 3—6 3—6
Effluent (% solids) 7—9 7—9 7—9 7—9
II) Anaerobic Digestion Influent solids (lbs/day) 1400 14,000 140,000 1,400,000
Weight reduction (%) 34 34 34 34
III) Land Spreading Percent solids 7-8 7-8 7—8 7-8
Tons per day 0.46 4.6 46 460
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY I) Flotation Thickening Loading factor (lbs/hr/ft 2 ) 2 2 2 2
Influent (% solids) 1—2 1—2 1—2 1—2
Effluent (% solids) 4—6 4—6 4—6 4—6
II) Anaerobic Digestion Influent solids (lbs/day) 2330 23,300 233,000 2,330,000
Weight reduction (%) 39 39 39 39
III) Land Spreading Percent solids 6-8 6—8 68 6-8
Tons per day 0.7 7 70 700
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
+ ALUM PRE-
CIPITATE I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 ) 8 8 8
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 2—5 2—5 2—5
II) Anaerobic Digestion Influent solids (lbs/day) 37,600 376,000 3,760,000
Weight reduction (%) 50 50 50
III) Land Spreading Percent solids 5 5—7 5—7
Tons per day 9.4 94 940
-------
TABLE B-18
SLUDGE OPTION 6 DESIGN PARANETERS
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Infl.uent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
Loading factor (lbs/hr/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
8 8
0.5—1 0.5—1
2—5 2—5
376,000 3,760,000
50 50
94 940
UNIT OPERATION
DESIGN_PARAMETERS
OD
—3
SLUDGE TYPE
TRICKLING
FILTER +
PRIMARY I) Gravity Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Ocean Dumping
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY I) Flotation Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Ocean Dumping
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
+ ALUM PRE-
CIPITATE I) Gravity Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Ocean Dumping
PLAMT SIZE (MGD)
— 1.0 10 100 100(J
10 10
3—6 3—6
7—9 7—9
140,000 1,400,000
34 34
46 460
2 2
1—2 1—2
4—6 4—6
233,000 2,330,000
39 39
70 700
-------
TABLE B-19
SLUDGE OPTION 7 DESIGN PARAMETERS
IV) Sanitary Landfill
TRICKLING
FILTER HUMUS
+ PRIMARY I) Gravity Thickening
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
+ ALUM PRE-
CIPITATE I) Gravity Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
IV) Sanitary Landfill
DESIGN PARAMETERS
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/br)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
Loading factor (lbs/hr/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 )
Imfluent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
1.0 10 100 l0C’
20 20
2.5—5 2.5—5
5—8 5—8
1080 10,800
30 30
4 4
6 6
20—30 20—30
0.37 3.7
SLUDGE TYPE
PRIMARY
UNIT OPERATION
I) Gravity Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
9 :’
03
03
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
IV) Sanitary Landfill
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY I) Flotation Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
IV) Sanitary Landfill
10
3—6
7—9
10
3—6
7—9
10
3—6
7—9
10
3—6
7—9
1400
34
14,000
34
140,000
34
1,400,000
34
4
6
20—30
0.46
4
6
20—30
4.6
4
6
20—30
46
4
12
20—30
460
2
1—2
4—6
2
1—2
4—6
2
1—2
4—6
2
1—2
4—6
2330
39
23,300
39
233,000
39
2,330,000
39
4
6
20—30
4
6
20—30
4
12
20—30
4
12
20—30
0.7
7
70
700
8
0.5—1
2—5
8
0 5—1
2—5
8
0.5—1
2—5
37,600
50
376,000
50
3,760,000
50
2
6
15—30
2
12
15—30
2
12
15—30
-------
TABLE B-20
SLUDGE OPTION 8 DESIGN PARANETERS
DESIGN PARAMETERS
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/br)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
Loading factor (lbs/hr/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Influent solids (lbs/day)
Weight reduction (%)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Tons per day
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
1.0 10 100 1000
20 20
2.5—5 2.5—5
5-8 5—8
1080 10,800
30 30
4 4
6 6
20—30 20—30
0.37 3.7
10 10
3—6 3—6
7—9 7—9
1400 14,000
34 34
4 4
6 6
20—30 20—30
0.46 4.6
2 2
1—2 1—2
4—6 4—6
2330 23,300
39 39
4 4
6 6
20—30 20—30
0.7 7
10
3—6
7—9
1,400,000
34
4
12
20—3 0
460
2
1—2
4—6
2,300,000
39
4
12
2 0—30
700
SLUDGE TYPE
PRIMARY
TRICKLING
FILTER HUMUS
+ PRIMARY
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
UNIT OPERATION
I) Gravity Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
IV) Ocean Dumping
I) Gravity Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
IV) Ocean Dumping
I) Flotation Thickening
II) Anaerobic Digestion
III) Vacuum Filtration
IV) Ocean Dumping
10
3—6
7—9
140 ,000
34
4
12
20—30
46
2
1—2
4—6
230 ,000
39
4
12
20—30
70
-------
TABLE B-20 (Cont’d.)
PLAX T SIZE (NGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS . 1.0 10 l0 1000 -
ACTIVATED
+ PRIMARY
+ ALUM PRE-
CIPITATE I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 ) 8 8 8
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 2—5 2—5 2—5
w
II) Anaerobic Digestion Influent solids (lbs/day) 37,600 376,000 3,760,000
‘.0 Weight reduction (%) 50 50 50
0
III) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 2 2 2
Operating shifts (hrs) 6 12 12
Cake (% solids) 15—30 15—30 15—30
IV) Ocean Dumping Tons per day 9.4 94 940
-------
Sludge Option 9
This chemical sludge option calls for gravity thickening,
vacuum filtration, incineration, and sanitary landfill. The
lime sludge is gravity thickened with the overflow being re-
cycled to the plant influent. The thickened sludge is vacuum
filtered with the filtrate also recycled to the plant influent.
The cake is then incinerated and the lime and ash are disposed
of in a sanitary landfill. Table B—21 contains the design
parameters utilized in this analysis.
Sludge Option 10
Sludge Option 10 consists of gravity thickening, vacuum filtra-
tion, recalcination, lime reuse, and landfill of recalciner
blowdown. The chemical sludge is gravity thickened (recycling
the overflow to the influent), vacuum filtered (with the filtrate
being recycled), and recalcinated in a multiple hearth incinerator.
The lime is recycled for its value as a chemical coagulant.
Approximately 25 percent (by weight) is wasted and disposed of
in a sanitary landfill. Table B-22 contains design data used
in this analysis.
Sludge Option 11
The eleventh sludge option consists of gravity thickening,
centrifugation, incineration, and sanitary landfill. Lime
sludges are collected from the wastewater treatment systems,
thickened by gravitation (recycling the overflow), dewatered
by centrifugation (recycling the centrate), incinerated in a
multiple hearth unit, and disposed of at a sanitary landfill
site. Design parameters for this system are given in
Table B—23.
Sludge Option 12
In the final sludge option, the chemical sludges are gravity
thickened and the overflow is recycled to the plant influent.
The thickened sludge is dewatered by centrifuge with the
centrate recycled to the plant. The dewatered cake is recal—
cinated in a multiple hearth unit to recover the lime for
reuse. Twenty—five peicent of the recalcined lime is wasted
to a sanitary landfill. Design parameters are given in
Table B—24.
B- 91
-------
PLANT SIZE (MCD)
10 100 1000
50 50 50
0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
8—20 8—20 8—20
4 4 4
6 18 18
35—45 35—45 35—45
1837 18,370 183,700
20 20 20
17.6 176 1760
50 50 50
0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
8—20 8—20 8—20
4 4 4
6 18 18
35—45 35—45 35—45
1891 18,910 189,100
20 20 20
18]. 181 183.5
50 50 50
0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
8—20 8—20 8—20
4 4 4
6 18 18
35—45 35—45 35—45
2862 28,625 286,250
20 20 20
27 275 2750
SLUDGE TYPE
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 8
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 9
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 10
III)
IV)
I)
Incineration
Sanitary Landfill
Gravity Thickening
TABLE B-21
SLUDGE OPTION 9 DESIGN PARAMETERS
UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETER
I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
II) Vacuum i iltration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Pounds per hour
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Pounds per hour
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr)
Operating shifts (hrs)
Cake (% solids)
Pounds per hour
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
III)
IV)
I)
Incineration
Sanitary Landfill
Gravity Thickening
II) Vacuum Filtration
III)
Iv)
Incineration
Sanitary Landfill
-------
TABLE B-22
SLUDGE OPTION 10 DESIGN PARAMETERS
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETER 10 100 1000
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 8 I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 50 50 50
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 8—20 8—20 8—20
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 4 4 4
Operating shifts (hrs) 18 18 18
Cake (% solids) 35—45 35—45 35—45
III) Recalcination Pounds per hour 3225 32,250 322,500
Weight reduction (%) 20 20 20
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 10.3 103 1030
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 9 I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 ) 50 50 50
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
W Effluent (% solids) 8—20 8—20 8—20
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 4 4 4
Operating shifts (hrs) 18 18 18
Cake (% solids) 35—45 35—45 35—45
III) Recalcination Pounds per hour 3379 33 790 337.900
Weight reduction (%) 20 20 20
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 10.8 108 1080
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 10 I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 50 50 50
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solid3) 8—20 8—20 8—20
II) Vacuum Filtration Filter yield (lbs/sq ft/hr) 4 4 4
Operating shifts (hrs) 18 18 18
Cake (% solids) 35—45 35—45 35—45
III) Recalcination Pounds per hour 6166 61,660 616,600
Weight reduction (%) 20 20 20
Iv) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 20.1 201 2015
-------
TABLE B-23
SLUDGE OPTION 11 DESIGN PARAMETERS
__________________________ DESIGN PARAIIETER
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Inflow rate (gpm)
Effluent (% solids)
Pounds per hour
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 )
Influent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
Inf low rate (gpm)
Effluent (% solids)
Pounds per hour
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 )
Inf].uent (% solids)
Effluent (% solids)
lnf low rate (gpm)
Effluent (% solids)
Pounds per hour
Weight reduction (%)
Tons per day
SLUDGE TYPE
UNIT OPERATION
I)
Gravity Thickening
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY
8
II)
Centrifugation
III)
Incineration
IV)
Sanitary Landfill
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY
9
I)
Gravity Thickening
II)
Centrifugation
III)
Incineration
IV)
Sanitary Landfill
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY
10
I)
Gravity Thickening
II)
Centrifugation
III)
Incineration
IV)
Sanitary Landfill
PLANT SIZE (MGI))
10 100 1000
50 50 50
0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
8—20 8—20 8—20
46 460 4600
35—40 35—40 35—40
1837 18,370 183,700
20 20 20
17.6 176 1760
50 50 50
0.5—1 0.5—]. 0.5—1
8—20 8—20 8—20
47 470 4700
35—40 35—40 35—40
1891 18,910 189,100
20 20 20
18.1 181 1815
50 50 50
0.5—1 0.5—i 0.5—1
8—20 8—20 8—20
71.5 715 7150
35—40 35—40 35—40
2862 28,625 286,250
20 20 20
27 273 2750
-------
TABLE B-24
SLUDGE OPTION 12 DESIGN PAP AMETERS
PLANT SIZE (MGD)
SLUDGE TYPE UNIT OPERATION DESIGN PARAMETER 10 100 1000
LIME SLUDGE FROM 2
TREATMENT STRATEGY 8 I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft ) 50 50 50
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 8—20 8—20 8—20
II) Centrifugation Inflow rate (gpm) 80 805 8058
Effluent (% solids) 35—40 35—40 35—40
III) Recalcination Pounds per hour 3225 32,250 322,500
Weight reduction (%) 20 20 20
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 10,3 ].03 1030
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 9 I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/ft 2 ) 50 50 50
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 8—20 8—20 8—20
II) Centrifugation Inflow rate (gpin) 84 844 8448
Effluent (% solids) 35—40 35—40 35—40
III) Recalcination Pounds per hour 3379 33,790 337,900
Weight reduction (%) 20 20 20
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 10.8 108 1080
LIME SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT STRATEGY 10 I) Gravity Thickening Mass loading rate (lbs/day/f t 2 ) 50 50 50
Influent (% solids) 0.5—1 0.5—1 0.5—1
Effluent (% solids) 8—20 8—20 8—20
II) Centrifugation Inf low rate (gpm) 154 1540 15,408
Effluent (% solids) 35—40 35—40 35—40
III) Recalcination Pounds per hour 6166 61,660 616,600
Weight reduction (%) 20 20 20
IV) Sanitary Landfill Tons per day 20.]. 20). 2015
-------
Ml JOR DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
All operations are assumed to be accomplished within the
existing regulatory requirements. Consequently, effluent
standards for air and water, pretreatment requirements for toxic
substances, and specific operating guidelines for such practices
as ocean dumping and incineration are anticipated in the data.
The effect of such assukptions is largely seen in the capital
and operating costs where additional equipment and higher input
requirements are necessitated.
The operating performance data has been taken largely from
empirical data averages and thus represents what can be expected
under typical or normal range environmental conditions. An
inflation factor of 5 percent per year was utilized to update
those costs not reported in 1973 dollars.
Other major assumptions which were utilized in order to develop
the cost and quantity figures reported in the profile sheets
are:
• Daily flows were estimated to average 100 gpcd.
• Medium strength sewage was utilized as characterized in
Table III.
• A uniform land value of $1000 per acre was assumed for all
related wastewater treatment plant operations (i.e., land
for plant facilities, liquid effluent application land
requirements, sludge application land requirements, etc).
The land cost per treatment strategy appears under a
separate heading on the profile sheets and, therefore,
the land impact upon the total cost of the strategy can be
easily ascertained.
• The liquid effluent transportation distance from the treat-
ment plant to the irrigation field was assumed to be negli-
gible (1/2 mile), whereas, the sludge transport distance
depends upon the type of disposal and size of the plant.
• Truck transportation was assumed for land application of
sludges for plant capacities of equal to or less than
10 MGD and pipeline for larger plants. Round trip truck
hauling distances for plants less than or equal to 1 MGD
were assumed to be 20 miles. A round trip hauling distance
of 50 miles was assumed for plants in the size range 1 to
10 MGD. Pipeline transportation was assumed to consist of
laying pipe through 25 miles of suburban lands and 25 miles
of rural lands.
B-96
-------
• Transportation of sludges for ocean disposal was assumed
to be achieved by barging for plants with capacities of
10 MGD or less or equal to and by pipeline for larger
plants. The barge hauling distance was assumed to be 100
miles round trip. On the other hand, pipeline transport
of the sludge slurry was assumed to invoke 5 miles of rural
land and 80 miles beyond the coastline. The ocean outfall
line included a special concrete outer lining for negative
buoyancy and an inner liner for saltwater corrosion protec—
tion.
B-97
-------
APPENDIX C
THE AGRICULTURAL ASPECTS OF LAND DISPOSAL
OF SEWAGE AND SEWAGE SLUDGES
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . .
GENERAL
SEWAGESLUDGE
Nutrient Value
Sludge Organic Content .
Potential Harmful Effects
Factors Affecting General Acceptance
ofSludgeUse . . . .
ECONOMIC VALUE OF SLUDGE
POTENTIAL EFFECT OF SLUDGE USE ON COMMERCIAL
FERTILIZER
EFFLUENTWATER
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
ParTe
• . . . C—i
• . . • C—3
C—4
• • . . C-5
• • • . C—b
• . . C—12
• • . • C—19
• • . • C—20
• • • . C—25
• . . • C—25
• C—32
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
C-i CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SEWAGE SLUDGES IN
PERCENT DRY WEIGHT BASIS FOR SEVEN
LOCATIONS . . . C—6
C-2 NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF SLUDGES RESULTING
FROM VARIOUS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES . . . . C—8
C-3 TONS OF NICRONUTRIENTS SOLD FOR FERTILIZER
IN THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN JULY 1971 AND
JiJNE 19 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C —9
C-4 COMPOSITION OF SLUDGES C-li
C-S SURVIVAL TINES OF PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS
IN VARIOUS MEDIA C—14
C-6 CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN SLUDGES C—l6
C-7 HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF DIGESTED SLUDGE C-17
C-8 HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN CORN GROWN IN
SLUDGE ENRICHED SOIL C— 18
C-9 CADMIUM LEVELS IN RICE AND GRAIN RESULTING
FROM RESIDUAL LEVELS IN SOIL C-19
C-1O AVERAGE PRICE IN DOLLARS PER TON OF NUTRIENT
PAIDBYFARMERSIN1972 C—21
C-il COSTS FOR LAND SPREADING OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
IN THE U.S C—23
C-12 ESTIMATED POINT DEMAND FOR ORGANIC
FERTILIZERS BY REGION C-24
C-13 CROP YIELDS FOR THREE APPLICATION RATES OF
EFFLUENT WATER AT PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY C—27
C-14 MARGINAL VALUE PRODUCT OF AN ACRE-INCH OF
EFFLUENT WATER, BASED ON THE 196 3-64
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EXPERIMENTS AND AVERAGE
PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS FOR HAY, CORN,
WHEAT, AND OATS, APRIL 15, 1973 C—27
C-15 ESTIMATED DOLLAR VALUE OF IRRIGATION WATER
IN THE WILLAMETTE VALLEY, OREGON IN 1963 . C-29
C-16 EFFLUENT QUALITY VALUES FOR VARIOUS WATER
USE CLASSIFICATIONS C—30
C-u
-------
APPENDIX C
THE AGRICULTURAL ASPECTS OF LAND DISPOSAL
OF SEWAGE AND SEWAGE SLUDGES
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Sewage sludge does not compare favorably with commercial fertil-
izers when the comparison is based solely on nutrient content
or ease of handling. Sludges may contain pathogenic bacteria
and/or heavy metal concentrations which will potentially limit
their use on cropland. On the other hand, sewage sludge does
have exceptional soil conditioning characteristics which greatly
enhance soil physical fertility. This property may be of real
economic value when marginal lands are being reclaimed for agri-
cultural or silvicultural purposes.
To achieve widespread acceptance by farmers, it may be necessary
to enrich and further process sludge to a form which is easy to
use. This type of processing will add to the cost of the final
product so that incentives may have to be created to induce fer-
tilizer processors to incorporate sludge into their products.
Subsidies to processors may be required to make their efforts
worthwhile. In any case, municipalities should evaluate both
the potential for elimination of costly disposal aitneratives
and the potential for better resource allocations when consid-
ering ultimate disposal of sewage sludges on cropland.
Effluent water from sewage treatment facilities may be valuable
for irrigation uses. While the value of irrigation water is
typically quoted as $12-$60 per acre foot, the potential for
reducing demands on higher quality water for other uses suggests
an even greater potential value. Additionally, up to $6.88 of
nutrients may be present in an acre foot of primary clarified
effluent. At typical irrigation levels of 40—48 inches of water
per year, the nutrients present in wastewater effluents could
reduce the need for additional fertilization. Potential prob-
lems from pathogenic organisms and the concentration of heavy
metals must be determined for the irrigation use of wastewaters
just as in the case of spreading of sewage sludges.
Technological improvements for handling and spreading sewage
sludge and effluent waters will potentially increase the value
of these materials both by lowering associated application costs
and by minimizing aesthetic objections.
The following major conclusions were drawn as a result of this
study.
• Sewage sludge cannot compete with commercial
fertilizers when comparison of the two is based
on macronutrient content alone.
c-i
-------
• Use of sewage sludge on land which has been
intensively farmed would return valuable
organic material to the soil. Organic material
enhances soil physical fertility and is, there-
fore, beneficial.
• Sludges may contain pathogenic organisms and/or
concentrations of heavy metals at levels which could
have harmful effects on crops or ultimate consumers.
• Difficulties associated with the application of
sludge and the bulk quantities of sludge which
must be handled to achieve desired nitrogen load-
ings will lower the net value of sludge to the
farmer as a fertilizer.
• In some instances, there are local markets for
organic sludge produced from specific municipal
treatment facilities..
• Where a market for sludge does exist, price must
be based on the prevailing price of commercial
fertilizer and on the difference in hauling and
spreading costs.
• Added incentives may be necessary to attract
widespread acceptance and use of sludge as a
fertilizer material.
• Widespread use of sludge as a fertilizer could
potentially satisfy two percent of the current
artificial fertilizer market.
• Spray irrigation of wastewater treatment plant
effluents is a viable method for disposing of
water and/or irrigating land.
• Effluent water for irrigation may exceed its
value purely as agricultural water due to the
potential for replacing higher quality water
presently used which could then be employed
for higher use purposes. Nutrients in primary
treated effluent water may increase the value
of that water and in some cases could reduce
or eliminate the need for commercial fertil-
izers.
• Potential problems from pathogenic organisms,
heavy metals, and other toxic materials present
C-2
-------
in effluents must be considered though they are
likely to be less severe than those associated
with spreading of sewage sludge.
• The irrigation equipment industry is actively
interested in effluent irrigation applications
and has begun to offer technical improvements
in the market.
GENERAL
Continuing efforts to reduce environmental degradation related
to wastewater disposal, and an increasing desire to gain more
efficient use of resources has stimulated renewed interest in
the land application of municipal wastewater and sludges. In
particular, efforts are being directed to dispose of wastewater
through spray irrigation and waste sludges through land spread-
ing. Before one can evaluate these alternative treatment stra-
tegies and compare them to other existing courses of action,
one must gain some insight into the potential benefits which
might be gained from land application as well as the potential
stumbling blocks. The following discussion is directed to this
task. Pertinent information is divided into that dealing with
sludge and that pertaining to wastewater treatment plant efflu-
ents. These two materials represent the products, as it were,
of a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Prior to a discussion of these factors, however, it is important
to define the context within which the evaluation is to be
made. Clearly, issues of both a technical and an economic
nature must be discussed. The technical aspects relate to the
physical-chemical properties of the sludge and effluent waters
and the ease with which they can be applied to soil at the appro-
priate concentration. The economic aspects relate both to waste
treatment as a necessary service, and the waste treatment pro-
ducts as potential assets to agricultural operations. Sludge is
a byproduct produced during the performance of a service——waste—
water treatment. Hence, the economics of an alternate sludge
disposal strategy, namely land spreading as a fertilizer compound,
cannot be evaluated solely within the traditional context of a
product-generating project. Whereas product considerations often
focus on profit maximization, sludge disposal is typically viewed
as a cost minimization problem. Similarly, effluent water must
be treated prior to discharge. With this in mind, the sewage
treatment plant is not directly analogous to a profit maximizing
firm.
While a traditional profit maximizing firm will attempt to equate
marginal revenue with marginal costs to obtain maximum welfare,
additional considerations are necessary for sewage treatment
facilities. Marginal costs are positive and marginal revenues
C-3
-------
are generally negative. In a situation where a traditional firm
would cease to exist, a sewage treatment facility is kept in
business by the community that depends on its service. The
service nature of the sewage treatment plant must ultimately
be a part of a complete economic analysis of sludge and ef flu-
ent water. Both effluent water and sludge, as opposed to tra-
ditional products, may be negative priced products. The impli-
cations of replacing costly disposal processes must therefore
be analyzed and compared with potentially less costly reuse
alternatives.
The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer material is not a new
concept. Successful application of sewage to the land has been
practiced for decades throughout the rld. Digested sludge
has been applied to more than 2000 acres of land in Maple Lodge,
England since 1952. Similar operations were initiated at Miami,
Florida in 1956. In Las Vegas, Nevada, where sludge is employed
to develop park and recreational areas, demand has outstripped
supply. 8 ° However, such disposal operations are not universally
acceptable either from an economic or an environmental point of
view. Indeed, Carison and Menzies 8 ’ of the Soil and Water Con-
servation Research Division of the U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture note that:
“It has long been an article of faith among city
dwellers that almost any form of waste, with proper
composting and processing, can be made into a fer-
tilizer that farmers will gladly pay for. They
reason that even if it does not contain much of the
essential plant nutrients, surely it will improve
soil structure and produce healthy plants. This is
simply not true; at least not true enough to per-
suade the modern commercial farmer,. The present—
day farm manager is an astute businessman, and he
will first ask ‘What will it cost me to put this
on the land per pound of available N, P, and K?’,
and then ‘Does it contain substances that will
harm my soil or reduce the value of my crops?’”
SEWAGE SLUDGE
The objective of this effort is to thoroughly assess the factors
and conditions which tend to favor or limit the use of sewage
sludge as a fertilizer and to compare sewage sludge with commer-
cial fertilizers. In carrying out an analysis of the fertilizer
value of sewage sludge, several major factors must be studied
as listed below.
• Macro— and micronutrient content of sludges.
• Beneficial effects of sludge organic content.
C—4
-------
• Potential health hazards associated with use of
sludge as a fertilizer.
e General acceptability of sludge fertilizer to
the potential user.
• Economics of fertilization with sludge.
Nutrient Value
Growing plants require a great many macro— and micronutrients
to sustain normal growth over a given life cycle. Three macro—
nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium; are generally
supplied in fertilizer formulations to increase the yield of a
given area. It is a fact that sludges from domestic wastewater
treatment plants contain these macronutrients as well as many
micronutrients beneficial to plant growth.
Peterson, Lue—Hing, and Zenz have compiled a chemical analysis
of sewage sludges from various wastewater treatment plants in
the United States. 82 These data are presented in Table C-i.
The average nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) , and potassium (K) con-
tents of sludges from the seven facilities are 5.10 percent,
2.33 percent, and 2.37 percent, respectively.
The data in Table C-i encompass a wide range of sludge types:
primary in Georgia, and primary plus waste activated at the
facilities in Minnesota, Colorado, and Illinois. There was no
sludge treatment in St. Paul. The West-Southwest Illinois plant
of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC)
included FeCl 3 conditioning vacuum filtration, and heat drying
of waste activated sludge. The sludge treatment at the two other
Illinois facilities included anaerobic digestion of primary plus
waste activated sludges without supernatant drawoff. The Hanover
sewage is primarily from domestic sources, while the Calumet and
West-Southwest sewage is a 3:2 blend of domestic and industrial
material. 82
Analyses of the data in Table C-i indicate that in each type of
sludge, nitrogen is the predominant nutrient available. The
phosphorus and potassium contents in each case are low and may
be insufficient for some cropping systems. For these system3,
sludges are incomplete fertilizers. This implies that applica-
tion of sufficient sludge to completely supply the nitrogen
requirements of these cropping systems will not fulfill their
phosphorus and potassium requirements. In such cases, either
additional commercial fertilizer must be supplied in a second
application, or the phosphorus and potassium must be supplemented
prior to application. Supplementation S technically feasible
and has been carried out successfully in certain instances.
However, this may represent a major additional cost.
C—5
-------
TABLE C-i
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SEWAGE SLUDGES IN PERCENT
FOR SEVEN LOCATIONS 82
Hastings, St. Paul, Hanover, Calumet,
Minnesota Minnesota Illinois Illinois
DRY WEIGHT BASIS
0
Nutrient
N (Total)
5.57
5.20
Southwest,
Illinois
6.37
4.69
5.84
N
P
(NH 3 )
2.34
2.61
1.33
2.20
3.63
2.59
2.40
3.90
trace
2.49
K
0.27
0.24
0.68
0.55
0.41
Ca
2.97
2.52
5.05
4.20
1.4
Mg
0.26
0.40
1.64
0.60
0.75
Zn
0.075
0.14
0.069
0.35
B
0.0013
0.002
0.002—0.04
Fe
0.45
0.76
2.22
3.68
5.32
Mn
0.015
0.039
0.07
0.14
0.012
Al
0.65
0.74
1.21
Cd
0.00079
0.036
0.0089
0.0125
0.028
Cl
0.12
0.74
Cr
0.390
0.067
0.019
0.112
0.362
Cu
0.12
0.065
0.062
0.088
0.11
Ni
<0.001
0.015
0.032
0.020
0.034
Pb
0.039
0.070
0.083
0.18
0.141
Denver,
Colorado
4.57
1.75
7.38
0.45
0.172
0. 00022
1.48
0. 0253
0.0324
Athens,
Georgia
3.5
0.75
0.22
1.2].
0.09
0.252
0.00199
0.0199
0.046
0. 0026
-------
In other studies, Fair and Geyer, 217 Anderson, 103 and Davis 10
have summarized nutrient levels for sludges resulting from vari-
ous treatment strategies as presented in Table C-2. In general,
activated sludges contain more nitrogen than primary or trick-
ling filter sludges. Digestion causes solubilization of 40-50
percent of the nitrogenous materials (as ammonia) as well as
8-10 percent of the phosphorus. Wet oxidation solubilizes all
of the nitrogenous materials, but has little effect on the phos-
phorus. Imhoff digestion and sand drying are similar to conven-
tional digestion in effects on nutrient levels. Heat drying
has minimal effects on nutrient loss.
Other sludge treatment processes will affect nitrogen and phos-
phorus levels in similar ways. Anaerobic biological systems
typically convert nitrogen to soluble ammonia and hence sponsor
return of nitrogen in process supernate. Aerobic biological
systems may convert soluble ammonia to nitrates. Physical-
chemical oxidation processes can be quite complete, generating
nitrate-nitrogen in the process supernate. Phosphorus levels
will not be grossly affected, but may be :teduced somewhat
through biological solubilization. Use of conditioner chemicals
such as ferric chloride or lime will bind the phosphorus in the
sludge solids.
Hence the macronutrient levels in sludges will vary both with
the source of the wastes, and the treatment processes to which
the wastewater and sludges have been subjected. These macro—
nutrient levels, however, represent maximum potential values
and not necessarily available levels. This is an important
point in comparing sludges with commercial fertilizers. Whereas
commercial formulations have a guaranteed level of biologically
available nutrients, organic sludges may include nitrogen and
phosphorus forms which are Inaccessible to plants and bacteria.
For instance, Morris reports the availability of nitrogen, phos-
phorus, and potassium in cattle manure to be 50, 67, and 75
percent, respectively.’ This suggests that sludge fertilizer
values based on total macronutrient content may well be over-
stated.
Sludges may also have economic value based on their micronutrient
content. The use of micronutrientS is a more precise operation
in agronomy than the use of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.
Consideration of the value of micronutrientS in the estimation
of fertilizer potential by state could be spurious. However,
some appreciation for the magnitude and spatial dLmension of
this market can be seen from Table C-3. Typically, micronutri-
ent requirements are limited, and specific to particular loca-
tions. Dean notes that many soils have no need for micronutri-
ents. ‘
C-7
-------
TABLE C-2
NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF SLUDGES RESULTING
FROM VARIOUS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Raw Sludge Makeup Product Sludge Makeup
% N % P205 % N % P 0 5 Reference
0.8—5.0 1.0—3.0
Treatment Type
Primary Treatment
(national average)
Digested Primary
(Washington, DC)
2.41
1.12
3.06
1.44
103
Trickling Filter Humus
(national average)
1.5-5.0
217
Activated Sludge
(national average)
3.0-10.0
217
Activated Sludge
(average 1931—1935)
6.0
3.2
103
Digested Activated Sludge
(average 1931—1935)
2.2
2.1
103
Activated Sludge
(average 1951—1955)
5.6
5.7
103
Digested Activated Sludge
(average 1951—1955)
2.4
2.7
103
Activated Sludge
(Baltimore, MD)
2.23
1.29
2.36
11.01
103
Activated Sludge
(Jasper, IN)
2.90
1.62
3.51
2.81
103
Activated Sludge
(Richmond, IN)
3.8
5.19
3.02
3.64
102
Activated Sludge
(Chicago, IL)
2.7
2.71
4.98
5.58
103
Activated Sludge Humus
Tank Sludge
(Baltimore, MD)
2.23
1.29
5.34
3.96
103
Heat Dried Activated Sludge
(Baltimore, MD)
2.23
1.29
3.05
2.97
103
Digested Activated Sludge
(Jasper, IN)
2.90
1.62
5.89
3.49
103
Digested Activated Sludge
(Richmond, IN)
3.8
5.19
2.24
4.34
103
Heat Dried Activated Sludge
(Chicago, IL)
2.7
2.71
5.56
6.56
103
Wet Air Oxidized and
Lagooned Activated Sludge
(Chicago, IL)
3.78
0.98
0
1.72
104
Iinhoff Digested and Soil
Dried Activated Sludge
(Chicago, IL)
2.11
1.87
1.82
1.75
104
Digested and Lagooned
Activated Sludge
(Chicago., IL)
5.09
2.90
5.17
3.61
104
C-8
-------
TABLE C-3
TONS OF MICRONUTRIENTS SOLD FOR FERTILIZER IN THE
UNITED STATES BETWEEN JULY 1971 AND JUNE 197296
New England
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Copper
13.0
58.4
426.6
31.9
36.1
5.0
16 . 8
5.2
22.2
Iron
.6
50.3
308.4
202.6
188.0
24.1
215.6
143.4
200.6
Manganese
5.1
194.9
5,455.0
5,030.0
779. 8
67.5
186. 8
254.6
383.2
Zinc
119.5
574.3
2,674.3
3,590.7
3,359.0
1,100.9
1,052.4
1,402.9
1,979.4
Molybdenum
.4
24.7
32.5
8.3
12.5
20.7
.2
2.7
n
United States
615.2 1,333.7 12,356.9
15,853.4 102.0
-------
Sludge Organic Content
In addition to containing chemical elements which are necessary
for growth, sludge may enhance plant growth through amendment
of soil properties resulting from organic constituents present
in the sludge. This action may proceed via several principal
mechanisms:
• Moisture-holding capacity,
• Mulching ability which reduces or eliminates
erosion by wind or rain,
• Improvement in tilth,
• Improvement in soil structure and aeration,
and proper relationship of voids to solids,
• Reduction in leaching out of nutrients and
pesticides, and
• Good physical structure for the development
of desirable soil microorganisms and larger
organisms such as earthworms.
An important property attributable in part to the organic con-
tent of soils is the cation exchange capacity (CEC). Cation
exchange is important because it limits the leaching of plant
nutrients from the soils by sorbing these materials on the solid
phase. The organic content of a soil may account for up to one
half of the cation exchange capacity of the soil. Sludges may
enhance the CEC of a soil when added if they have that property
in excess of that residual in the soil itself.
Of primary importance in soil conditioning is organic matter
which consists mainly of humus or huinic constituents. These
substances decompose slowly and are valuable in light, sandy,
or rocky soil, and in heavy clay. Plants require both moisture
and air in the soil for best growth. Sandy soils have too low
a “field (moisture) capacity,” whereas clay soils tend to limit
water infiltration and have insufficient macro—pore space for
proper proportions of moisture and air. Sludge addition pro-
vides organic material which is degraded to humus by organisms
in the soil. Humus improves both soil aeration and moisture—
holding capacity and thus improves fertility. However, it should
be emphasized that only a small portion of U. S. prime agricul-
tural soils fall into either the sandy or clay categories, and
thus this property is somewhat limited in value when considering
U. S. agriculture as a whole.
The organic content of well digested sludge provides a substrate
for the growth of desirable soil organisms and as the organic
C-b
-------
matter decomposes, nutrients are slowly made available for
plant growth. Important nutrients in this category include
phosphorus, sulfur, and nitrogen.
Well digested sludge has a large proportion of agglomerated
particles which can benefit soil. Sludge particles also cOntain
materials with chelating properties which help catch and chemi-
cally hold fine soil particles and minerals or salts, forming
additional agglomerated particles. When tilth is improved with
sludge, the soil provides for better root penetration and is
easier to plow or till. Table C—4 summarizes the organic com-
position of sludges.
TABLE C—4
COMPOSITION OF SLUDGES* 87
Fresh Activated Digested
Constituent Solids (%) Sludges (%) Sludges (% )
Organic matter 60-80 65-75 45-60
Total ash 20—40 25—38 40—55
Insoluble ash 17—35 22—30 35—50
Pentosans 1.0 2.1 1.5
Grease and fat
(ether—soluble matter) 7-35 5-12 3.5-17
Hemicelluloses 3.2 1.6
Cellulose 3.8 7.0* 0.6
Lignin 5.8 8.4
Protein 22—28 37.5 16—21
*Includes lignin
Biological properties which are difficult to quantify in terms
of nutrient content have been attributed to sewage sludge. The
value of these can be measured in terms of crop response to known
quantities of organic solids. In 1963, Bunting concluded from
more than 100 field experiments conducted in England that
effectiveness of various composts and manures depended largely
C-il
-------
upon their content of plant nutrients. 99 Five years later,
Hortenstine and Rothwell found gross effects of nutrients in
compost to be similar to those from application of chemical
fertilizers.’ 00 The pot experiments conducted by Allen, Terman,
and Soileau with corn on a soil very low in available N showed
that the compost made from garbage and sewage sludge solids
would need to be supplemented with N fertilizer for positive
yield effects to be obtained. Corn utilized P and K in the com-
post much more effectively than the N content. 9
Duggan, Terman, and Mays evaluated heavy applications of compost
made from municipal refuse and sewage sludge for production of
forage sorghum, common bermudagrass, and corn. Positive yield
responses were observed to annual compost application at rates
up to 80 metric tons per hectare on bermudagrass, 143 metric
tons per hectare on sorghum, and 112 metric tons per hectare on
corn. However, the highest yields of bermudagrass or sorghum
attained from compost application were equaled or surpassed by
the application of commercial fertilizer at a rate of 180 kg/ha
of N and adequate P and K. Over a two year period, compost sig-
nificantly increased the soil t s moisture-holding capacity, pH,
organic matter, K, Ca, Mg, and Zn. 98
On the basis of these agronomic experiments, it is concluded
that while there may be some benefits derived from the use of
organic solids over chemical fertilizer of an identical nutri-
ent content, there are not sufficient differences to warrant
consideration in the estimation of economic value of sludges.
Potential Harmful Effects
The use of sewage sludge on soils involves potential public
health hazards which must be considered. Pathogens can poten-
tially be recycled back to man through several mechanisms:
1) direct contact in the field, 2) transmission in a food crop,
3) infiltration to ground water, or 4) runoff to surface water
supplies.
Little is known about the first two pathways. Most states pro-
hibit use of sewage plant effluents on root or ground crops and
many restrict use to crops for non—human consumption such as
feed grains. Much of the data gap results from uncertainties
as to the exposure—response relationships that exist. Whereas
a single pathogenic organism may sponsor ill effects, in many
cases, exposure to greater numbers will evoke no response.
Until definitive work is done in this area, there will always
be a degree of uncertainty as to the relative safety of land
spreading practices.
It is known that the retention and accumulation of viable patho-
genic organisms in the soil matrix will depend on moisture content,
C-l2
-------
temperature, textural and organic characteristics of soil,
aerobic or anaerobic conditions, and the activity of competi-
tive microbial communities.’ The environment appears to be
unfavorable for growth and transmission of pathogens. McGauhey
and Krone report results of studies by other investigators which
suggest a maximum longevity of one month. ’° 5 Rudolfs, on the
other hand, reports viability may persist from a few hours to
several months.’° 9 Data on survival times for pathogens in
various media are given in Table C—5.
More specific work at the National Environmental Research Center
in Cincinnati determined that Escherichi coli survived for at
least 21 weeks after a single springtime sludge application to
Pennsylvania fields. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and salmonella
species proved less hardy. All species survived longer during
the winter months.’’ 0
Infiltration should not pose a problem unless groundwater levels
are quite near the surface. Reed, et al., suggest that five
feet or more of soil column should provide adequate protection
of ground waters. Water percolating through such a column will
quickly be stripped of bacteria and virus. 1
Surface water runoff problems are not expected to be acute. The
major time for concern would be soon after application. Good
planning and field design should provide for adequate control
through entrapment of rainfall runoff prior to contact with sur-
face waters. Such measures would alleviate any problems with
pathogenic contamination.
In summary, insufficient exposure—response data has been gener-
ated to adequately describe pathogenic health hazards from land
spreading of sludges. Until such information becomes available,
a potential health hazard must be assumed. Hence sludges should
be disinfected or composted prior to use. ° Dotson has suggested
there are several methods for destroying pathogens in sludge: 7 ’
• Long term storage,
• Pasteurizing at 70°C for 30 minutes,
• Adding lime to raise the pH to 11.5 or higher and
maintaining the pH at about 11.0 for 2 hours or more,
• Using chlorine to stabilize and disinfect sludge
(the effects of the residue on soils have not been
determined) , and/or
• Adding other chemicals.
Digestion or stabilization is also an important prerequisite for
untreated raw primary sewage sludge because of the detrimental
C-13
-------
TABLE C-5
SURVIVAL TIMES OF PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS IN VARIOUS MEDIA
Organism Medium 1 pe of App 1ication Survival Time
Mcaris ova soil not stated 2.5 years
soil sewage up to 7 years
plants fruits 1 month
Cholera vibrios spinach, lettuce AC 22-29 days
cucumbers AC 7 days
non-acid vegetables AC 2 days
onions, garlic, oranges,
lemons, lentils, grapes
rice & dates infected feces hours to 3 days
Endamoeba
histolytica cysts river water AC 8—40 days
soil AC 8 days
tomatoes AC 18-42 hours
lettuce AC 18 hours
Enteroviruses roots of bean plants AC at least 4 days
soil AC 12 days
tomato & pea roots AC 4—6 days
Hookworm larvae soil infected feces 6 weeks
Leptospira river water AC 5-6 days
soil AC 15—43 days
Salmonella typhi dates AC 68 days
harvested fruits AC 3 days
apples, pears, grapes AC 24-48 hours
strawberries AC 6 hours
soil AC 74 days
soil AC 70 days
soil AC at least 5 days
pea plant stems AC 14 days
radish plant stems AC 4 days
soil AC up to 20 days
lettuce & endive AC 1—3 days
soil AC 2—110 days
soil AC several months
lettuce infected feces 18 days
radishes infected feces 53 days
soil infected feces 74 days
soil AC 5-19 days
soil. AC 70-80 days
cress, lettuce & radishes AC 3 weeks
lake water AC 3—5 days
Salmonella,
other than typhi soil AC 15-70 days
vegetables AC 2-7 weeks
tomatoes AC less than 7 days
soil g d 5 0 40 days
potatoes 40 days
carrots N 10 days
cabbage & gooseberries N 5 days
Shigella streams not stated 30 mm - 4 days
harvested fruits AC minutes - 5 days
market tomatoes AC at least 2 days
market apples AC at least 6 days
tomatoes AC 2-7 days
Tubercie bacilli soil AC 6 months
grass AC 14-49 days
sewage 3 months
soil 6 months
CAC — Artificial Contamination
C-14
-------
effects to soil and plant growth associated with sludge structure
and grease content. Unfortunately, digestion or composting re-
duces nitrogen content by as much as 40-50 percent through solubi-
zation. 88 Some of this loss can be avoided through application of
digester supernate along with the digested solids.
In addition to pathogenic organisms, sludges may contain exces-
sive concentrations of heavy metals which could threaten public
health. The variable and not insignificant concentration of
heavy metals in sludges is shown in Table C-6. Similar values
for digested sludge are given in Table C-7.
Little is known of the fate of heavy metals in soil. Jenne 9 °
proposed that the principal factor in retention of the heavy
metals is sorption on hydrous oxides of manganese and iron.
Metals are also complexed by organic matter present in the soil.
It is expected, therefore, that there will be little migration
in the soil. Nevertheless, the capacity of the soil to retain
these elements is limited and eventual heavy metal breakthrough
to the groundwater must be considered when using sludge as a
fertilizer. Work with spray irrigation of wastewater, however,
suggests that phosphate saturation may terminate activities
before heavy metal saturation. 1 Additionally, soils can be
limed to increase metal holding capacity. They may especially
be necessary in some crops such as alfalfa which have a propen-
sity to raise the acidity of soils.
Heavy metal buildup in soils can potentially be detrimental in
two ways: 1) high levels in soils can inhibit or damage plant
growth, or 2) heavy metal concentrations can be transferred into
plant tissue where they may become a threat to human or animal
consumption.
Continued buildup of heavy metals in the soil over long time
periods can eventually reduce the productivity of soils and,
thus, cancel the original intent of the sludge spreading opera-
tion. In 1959, Lunt found that the municipal sludge of West
Haven, Connecticut more than doubled spinach yields and more
than tripled table beet yields. However, industrial sludge
from Tarrington, Connecticut reduced spinach yields due to the
high copper and zinc content. The toxicity was accentuated
when extra nitrogen was used but was corrected when the soils
were limed. The total salts in sewage sludge delayed seed
germination on the high level treatments. 1
Weber 107 reports that zinc, copper, and nickel are the three
metals of principal concern. Since all three display increased
toxicity at low pH values, their concentration is expressed in
zinc equivalent. To determine this value, copper is considered
twice as toxic as zinc, and nickel eight times as toxic as zinc.
Using this scale, Weber calculates that 250 mg of zinc equivalent
C-15
-------
TABLE C-6
CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN SLUDGES’° 6
(mg/g)
Tahoe Dayton Little Miami Mill Creek Lorton Indianapolis Barstow
_______ ______ Cincinnati Cincinnati VA Plant 1 _______
7/15/71 8/25/71 8/20/71 8/20/71 8/5/71 8/23/71 7/20/71
Ag, Silver 0.27 0.36 0.03 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.05
Al, Aluminum 13.2 12.5 8.8 32.2 4.4 5.2 16.2
Ba, Barium 3.0 3.0 0.7 n.d. 0.7 1.3 1.5
Be, Beryllium n.d.Y n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Cd, Cadmium 0.18 0.8 n .d. n.d. 0.17 0.24 0.58
Co, Cobalt n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Cr, Chromium 1.0 5.9 1.7 1.8 0.4 2.6 0.5
Cu, Copper 1.3 6.0 2.3 1.6 0.9 2.0 1.7
Fe, Iron 8.7 20.4 16.0 13.2 27.4 15.3 10.6
Hg, Mercury 4•5* n.a.a/ n.a. n.a. 3.0* n.a. 5 5*
Mn, Manganese 0.6 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.18
Ni, Nickel n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Pb, Lead 2.8 6.9 2.0 2.7 1.1 2.8
Sr , Strontium 0.51 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
V, Vanadium n.d. n.d. n.d. 1.6 n.d. n.d. 2.1
Zn, Zinc 1.6 8.4 7.8 4.7 0.4 1.2 1.4
* — micrograms/g
1 — n.d.: not detected
2 — n.a.: not analyzed
C-16
-------
TABLE C-7
HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF DIGESTED SLUDGE 89
Stickney, IL Calurnet, IL Toledo, OH
Heavy Metal ( mg/i) ( mg/i) — ( mg/i )
Aluminum 1,800
Cadmium 9 1
Chromium 80 50 125
Lead 20 90 375
Manganese 5 13 300
Nickel 12 2
Zinc 150 90 500
per kg of soil could be spread over a thirty year period if
soil pH is maintained above 6.5. In looking at both rural and
industrial community sludges from England and Wales, Berrow and
Weber found concentrations of zinc up to 3000 mg/i on a dry
weight basis quite common. At an annual application of 10 tons
per acre over a seven year period, soil zinc content would rise
to a level above the maximum of the normal range in soils.’ 08
The second detrimental effect resulting from heavy metals in
sludge involves potential concentration of heavy metals in the
tissue of plants grown on land which has been subjected to
sludge spreading. Public health hazards could result directly
from ingestion of vegetables, fruits, or grains on this land
or indirectly from ingestion of meat from animals which have
grazed on the land. Further research is needed concerning the
toxicity of heavy metals to plants and on the human and live-
stock intake through the food chain resulting from concentration
of heavy metals in plant tissues. 92
Studies with cornfields in England suggest that the quality of
product feed is not impaired through use of various sludge appli-
cation rates. The leaf and grain metal concentrations are pre-
sented in Table C-8 as reported by Hinesly, et al. 111
Van Loon’’ 2 on the other hand reports that cadmium and lead have
been found in sufficient concentrations to be assimilated into
c-17
-------
TABLE C-8
HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN CORN
GROWN IN SLUDGE ENRICHED SOIL’’’
(ppm oven dry basis)
Rate of Sludge
Application
( inches per week) Zinc Copper Nickel Cadmium
LEAF:
o 58.0 8.9 2.8 3.3
1/4 85.0 9.0 1.3 3.0
1/2 137.8 10.2 2.6 5.3
1 212.0 8.7 4.3 11.6
GRAIN:
0 88.8 5.2 2.28 0.30
1/4 93.0 6 .3 3.03 0.60
1/2 127.0 5.2 2.18 0.79
1 152.3 5.6 3.08 1.03
good crops at harmful levels. Processed sewage sludge contained
up to 63 ppm cadmium and 447 ppm lead. Sludge produced during
fall and winter may contain even higher concentrations. Koba—
yashi 113 and others found that when cadmium was present in soil
at a level near 0.003 percent Cd, whole wheat grain would con-
tain more than the 13 ppm maximum cadmium level allowed by the
Food and Drug Administration. Detailed data are presented in
Table C-9.
Similarly, John, et a1., t+ found that cadmium concentrations
in crops readily exceeded allowable levels when the amount of
exchangeable cadmium in the soil was high. Organic soil con-
tent decreased the exchangeable amounts while soil acidity
increased them.
A great deal of work remains to be done to clarify these inter-
actions. The soil chemistry and associated interactions of
various metals are very complex. Hinsely, et al.,’’ 5 have con-
firmed that synergistic and antagonistic interactions between
metals affect both their uptake and translocation in plants.
Much of the work done in the past in this area has focused on
nutrient cultures or sandy soils. These represent the com-
plicated soil matrix to which most sludges will be added, and
hence do not reflect many of the interactions which will be most
important in determining phytotoxicity and bioconcentration of
heavy metals.
C-18
-------
TABLE C—9
CADMIUM LEVELS IN RICE AND GRAIN
RESULTING FROM RESIDUAL LEVELS IN SOIL 13
Concentration in Rice Concentration
Concentration of Polished Bran — in Wheat
CdO in Soil (%) ( ppm Cd) ( ppm Cd) Whole Grain (ppm Cd )
o 0.16 0.59 0.44
0.001 0.28 0.79 8.27
0.003 0.40 0.84 15.5
0.01 0.78 1.60 29.9
0.03 1.37 2.68 41.4
0.1 1.62 2.94 60.7
0.3 1.94 3.19 48.6
0.6 1.73 3.94 90.8
1.0 4.98* 139.0
* Unpolished
Factors Affecting General Acceptance of Sludge Use
Factors other than its limited fertilizer value which could
impair the use of sludge for agricultural purposes are related
to ease of use.
Farmers often employ liquid fertilizer solutions for bulk appli-
cation on crops. This form of nutrient enrichment allows rapid
distribution of concentrated macronutrients. Application of
sewage sludges is more difficult because of the high solids con-
tent of the material and the dilute nature of the nutrients.
Application of sludge has considerable drawbacks even in com-
peting with solid fertilizers. For example, to apply 100 pounds
of N a farmer would need to apply only 217 pounds of urea (46% N)
compared to nearly 40,000 pounds of liquid sludge (.25% N).
Similar considerations have long plagued the use of animal manure
as a fertility additive and soil builder. Use of the solid waste
materials requires more time and expense. Further advances in
application technology are required to reduce the economic impact
of these considerations.
c-19
-------
Municipalities committed to use of sludge for agricultural pur-
poses could potentially minimize the negative aspects of many of
these acceptance factors by extending additional services to the
farmer. These might include free delivery of sludge to the appli-
cation site and low cost leasing of specialized application equip-
ment. Whereas it may not pay for the farmer to maintain the
required equipment for his won use, the city could recover costs
with year—round leasing to the various participating land owners.
ECONOMIC VALUE OF SLUDGE
The content of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium of a fertilizer
is usually of primary concern to the farmer. If organic solids
are to compete on the basis of macronutrient content, they must
be priced competitively with commercial fertilizer. The average
price per dry ton of nutrient calculated on the basis of the most
commonly used form of each nutrient is presented in Table C—l0.
The average U.S. price was $99, $393, and $118 per ton of N, P,
and K, respectively. On the basis of these prices, the macro—
nutrient value of the organic solids is $l4—l5/dry ton.
Considerable disparity in this value will exist among regions of
the United States. The nutrient content of the organic solids
varies from one treatment facility to the next as can be seen
from Table C-i. There are also considerable differences in soil
requirements in different parts of the country.
Since organic solids are bulky, it is necessary to consider the
cost of transporting the material to the farm. The cost of
hauling a 20-ton load is $0.34/ton for the first three miles
and $0.10/ton per mile for additional distances. 93 If a farm
were located ten miles from the treatment facility, the cost of
hauling would be $1.04/ton. The cost of hauling the material
20 miles would be $2.04.
Depending upon the distance from the treatment facility to the
farm gate, the net economical value of the organic solids would
decrease if the farmer buys the solids at the treatment plant.
For example, a farmer located ten miles from the site could pay
$13.96—$14.96/dry ton for the material minus the difference in the
spreading costs between sludge and commercial fertilizer. Located
20 miles from the facility, a farmer could afford to pay a dollar
less. Whereas the added transportation costs and subsequent
spreading costs may completely negate the value of the sludge to
the farmer, it may be desirable to reduce these costs by providing
for delivery of sludge to the farmer at no cost. This would con-
stitute an easily operated form of subsidy. While it would raise
processing costs for the treatment plant, it might still represent
an overall cost saving since it would replace otherwise more
costly alternatives.
C—20
-------
TABLE C-b
AVERAGE PRICE IN DOLLARS PER TON OF NUTRIENT
PAID BY FARMERS IN 197295196
Nitrogena Phosphorusb potassiumc
Region ( N) ( P) ( K )
New England 224 653* 151
Mid—Atlantic 225 646* 163
E. N. Central 97* 390 155
W. N. Central 94* 394 115
South Atlantic 201 490* 137
E. 5. Central 189 407 13]
W. S. Central 190 393 116
Mountain 119* 427 133
Pacific 133* 628* 135
a Generally based on the price of anurLonium nitrate.
Asterisk indicates price of arihydrous ammonia used
as base.
b Generally based on the price of 20.03% P. Asterisk
indicates price of 8.7% P used as base.
C Based on price of nitrate of potash, 49.8% K.
c-21
-------
The difference in the spreading costs may exceed the economic
value of the sludge. In St. Mary’s, Pennsylvania, the cost of
hauling digested sludge 2.9 miles away and spreading it at four
percent solids averaged $19.92 per ton of sludge solids. The
operation employed a 1500 gallon tank truck to handle the wastes
of the 1.3 MGD plant. o The 1972 costs for pumping and spread-
ing 700 tons of dry solids in a six percent liquid slurry in San
Diego, California were $10.57 per ton of dry so1ids. 2 Costs
for other spreading operations are summarized in Table C—li.
The broad range in values, $5-$30 per dry ton reflects the eco-
nomics between pipeline operations to nearby fields (relatively
large plants) and trucking operations (smaller plants).
If pasteurization is r 9 uired, an additional operating cost will
be incurred. Triebellk estimates this cost will vary from $8.60
per ton of solids for 2.14 tons per day, to $1.30 per ton of
solids for 27.4 tons per day.
Organic solids are now marketed under the brand names of Milor-
ganite in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Chicago in Chicago, Illinois;
and Nitrohumus in Los Angeles, California. The Los Angeles firm
sells about 50,000 tons per year. In bulk, material that is
about 25 percent to 27 percent moisture sells for $12.50/ton or
$6.30/yd delivered. The material is wholesaled in fifty pound
bags for $0.83 and is then retailed for $l.39.’°’ It is the con-
sideration of the manager of the fertilizer company in Los Ange-
les that a fertilizer market could be developed for all of the
sewage sludge that Los Angeles could produce. A stable supply
of material is necessary however. It may be that this is a
business in which profits are accrued to market development
ability. If long term supplies are assured, it can be profit-
able to develop a market. Past experience indicates that such
market development may indeed be a formidable task. Similar
activities by commercial composting operations have met varying
degrees of success. A number of composting plants in the U. S.
have discontinued operations permanently.’° 2 Failure has largely
been attributed to the inability to develop an adequate market.
On the other hand, operations at the Milwaukee sewage treatment
plant have been quite successful. Milwaukee has marketed dried
activated sludge under the trade name “Milorganite” for several
years. The Milwaukee wastewater treatment authorities decided
to set up facilities to completely produce and market the pro-
duct and have been successful’ in their efforts. It must be
noted, however, that dried activated sludge has a higher nitro-
gen content, up to six percent by weight, than normal digested
sludge and is, therefore, more valuable as a fertilizer compound.
Milwaukee sludge is also somewhat different than typical munici-
pal sludges due to a high brewery waste content. Also, heat
drying is an expensive process and one which most wastewater
treatment plants cannot presently afford.
C-22
-------
TABLE C-li
COSTS FOR LAND SPREADING OF DIGESTED SLUDGE IN THE U.S.’ 3
Approximate Estimated Cost for Land
Plant Size Spreading of Digested Sludge
Location ( mgd) ( dollars per ton of solids )
New York, New York $11.89
Chicago, Illinois 1300 26.02*
San Diego, California 90 10.57
St. Marys, Pennsylvania 1.3 19.92
Little Miami, Ohio
(Green County) 1.5 22.00
Piqua, Ohio 3.8 17.50 to 30.00
Franklin Regional Waste— 4.5 5.00
water Treatment Plant,
Franklin, Ohio
Montgomery County (Dayton), 18.00 to 21.00
Ohio
* Expected costs after construction of pipeline. Present costs
using barge transportation are $62.32.
Dried digested sludge has also been sold or given away in many
instances. The market for sludge in this form has traditionally
been with home gardeners and, therefore, does not provide a
solution for widespread ultimate disposal of sludges.
None of the above mentioned wastewater treatment plants presently
marketing sludge are recovering their costs of production.
Clearly, incentives may be needed if the widespread use of sludge
on cropland is to be accepted. The conservation aspect will be
enticing to some people who will use the sludge for idealistic
reasons. Farmers, however, will require a product which has a
balanced nutrient content and is easy to use.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture measures the consumption of
natural organic fertilizers. 96 This classification includes
animal wastes, oilseed byproducts, compost, dried manure, and
sewage sludge. Almost 25 percent of that which is classified
as natural organic fertilizer is sewage sludge. A regional sum-
mary of the estimated point demand for natural organic fertilizers
in the U.S. is given in Table C-12.
C-23
-------
TABLE C-12
ESTIMATED POINT DEMAND FOR ORGANIC
FERTILIZERS BY REGION 96 ’ 97
Quantity
Region ( tons )
New England 56,056
Mid—Atlantic 198,715
E. N. Central 843,933
W. N. Central 2,476,113
South Atlantic 667,664
E. S. Central 553,342
W. S. Central 1,846,210
Mountain 2,361,269
Pacific 654,265
United States 9,657,587
Since sludge has a low inherent nutrient content and may require
enrichment and processing to an easily usable form, in general
it is unlikely that major fertilizer producers will be willing
to buy sludge from the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore,
profits should not be expected from the disposal of sludge in
this manner. Two possibilities appear evident: the fertilizer
producer could arrange to remove the sludge at no cost or he
could be paid to remove the sludge. In either case, the fertilizer
company receives a form of subsidy to compensate for eliminating
further sludge disposal costs on the part of the municipality.
C-24
-------
Similarly, farmers may be enticed to use larger quantities of
sludge if delivery is provided as a free service provided by
the sewage treatment authority to the farmer. This would
eliminate one major cost factor against which farmers would
weigh the relative merits of sludge fertilization to estimate
the value of the practice to their particular operation.
On the basis of chemical, agronomic, and economic data, it is
concluded that there could be a local market for organic sludge
produced from a specific municipal treatment facility. The
product must be analyzed for nutrient content. Department of
Agriculture county agents or other agricultural specialists
must be consulted to determine the relationship between the
chemical content of the organic solids and the chemical require-
ments of the soil. Price must be based on the prevailing price
of commercial fertilizer in the area and on the difference in
hauling and spreading costs. If the material is supplied to a
distributor, he must have a contract of sufficient duration to
cover costs of market development.
POTENTIAL EFFECT OF SLUDGE USE ON COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER USE
In 1968, Hudson 218 estimated that the amount of dry solids pro-
duced per year from municipal wastewater treatment plants
was eleven million tons. As a rule of thumb, digestion or
composting reduces the total mass of the sludge organic material
by thirty—five percent; therefore, based on Hudson’s sludge
production number of eleven million tons per year, 7.2 million
tons of processed sludge would then be available for use on
cropland. If the primary nutrient content of this material
averaged two percent N and 1.5 percent P 2 O 5 , the sludge pro-
duced per annum would have total nitrogen and phosphorus
contents of 144,000 and 108,000 tons, respectively.
Current annual consumption of nitrogen fertilizers in the United
States is approximately eight million tons of N. 219 Consumption
of phosphorus in commercial fertilizers is approximately five
million tons per year. 88 At these consumption rates, the amount
of N and P 2 0 5 which could be supplied by using processed sludge
would amount to only two percent of the current commercial fer-
tilizer demand.
EFFLUENT WATER
Effluent water is used, among other ways, for cooling in industry,
for groundwater recharge, for irrigation in agriculture, and for
recreation. Industrial users generally require a fairly constant
supply of water and actually consume a small portion of the water
that they use. Texas uses more effluent water for industrial
purposes than any other state.’ 18 A survey of industrial users of
effluent water showed that more than 150 industries in 38 states
reclaim industrial wastewaters and about 15 in 9 other states use
C-25
-------
municipal effluent water. 119 In 1959, it was reported by Connell
and Berg’ 2 ° that industrial use of effluent water constituted
approximately one percent of the total available and that the
potential may be as high as 25 percent. In 1964, Connell and
Forbes estimated that the total amount of effluent water
approached 20 BGD and that over 40 percent of this total may be
used by industry in the future.’ 2 ’
Literature describing the use of effluent water for groundwater
recharge, and for the irri ation of city parks, gardens, and
golf courses is available. 22 123 The estimate of the demand
for effluent water presented here is based on its use in irri-
gated agriculture since this is perhaps the most widely accepted
reuse alternative and results directly from use of spray irri-
gation as a wastewater treatment alternative.
Considerable research has been carried out at Pennsylvania State
university over the past eight years on the use of effluent
water for irrigation. However, the focus of this research has
been to use the soil as a living filter for renovation and con-
servation of effluent water. Land area is minimized and water
applied is maximized. Such practices will result in the lowest
marginal value product attributed to the effluent water and the
highest marginal value product attributed to the land. This
approach understates the value of effluent water. In the 1963—
1964 experiments, zero, one, and two inches of effluent water
were applied per week.’ 2 The results of the.experiments are
presented in Table C-l3.
Assuming an equal division of land planted to hay, corn, wheat,
and oats in a farmer’s rotation, the marginal value product of
the first acre-inch of effluent water is $52.62. The marginal
value product for the second inch is $5.94. These values are
presented in Table C-14. Based on the values presented in
Table C—14, there is considerable difference between the marginal
value product of grain and hay. A marginal value of $88.86 could
be expected from an acre-inch of effluent water to produce hay
or $119.37 for two acre—inches. If grain were produced, a mar-
ginal value of $41.87 could be expected from an acre-inch of
effluent water. However, if two acre—inches were used per acre,
effluent water would be of lower unit value. This example
clearly points out the relationship between commodities grown
and quantities applied when estimating the value of effluent
water.
From the analysis of the Pennsylvania State data, it is obvious
that effluent water could have a positive value and that the
value depends on both the amount applied to a unit of land and
the crop to which it is applied. With an absence of appropriate
data to measure the response of crops to alternative levels of
effluent water in different locations, estimates of the value of
natural water must be derived from research carried out in sev-
eral states.
C-26
-------
TABLE C-13
CROP YIELDS FOR THREE APPLICATION RATES OF
EFFLUENT WATER AT PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 121
Crop
0 Inches
Year per Week
1 Inch
per Week
2 Inches
per Week
Red Clover Honey
(tons of dry matter per
acre)
Alfalfa Hay
(tons of dry matter per
acre)
Corn Grain
(bushels per acre,
15.5% water)
Corn Stover
(tons per acre, field
moisture basis)
Wheat
(bushels per acre)
Oats
(bushels per acre)
MARGINAL VALUE PRODUCT OF AN ACRE-INCH OF EFFLUENT WATER,
BASED ON THE 196 3-64 PENNSYLVANIA STATE EXPERIMENTS AND
AVERAGE PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS FOR
HAY, CORN, WHEAT AND OATS, APRIL 15, 1973
CoinmOdi ty
Hay
Corn
Oats
Wheat
Ave rage
Grain Average
Price 9 6
$33.90/ton
$142/bu
$0. 77 4/bu
$2 15/bu
First Inch
-i-$88 .86
+$99 .68
÷$32.59
—$ 6.66
$52 . 62
$41. 87
Second Inç
+$30. 51
—$ 3.97
—$21.28
+$18.49
$ 5.94
—$ 6.76
1963
2.48
4.90
4.59
1964
1.76
5.30
5.12
1963
2.18
3.73
5.12
1963
73.00
103.00
105.00
1964
80.70
120.90
116.10
1963
4.29
6.68
6.75
1964
3.58
7.29
8.48
1963
48.00
44.90
53.50
1964
82.40
124.50
97.00
TABLE c-14
C-27
-------
Ruttan 125 has pointed out that the demand for irrigation water
can be treated either as derived from the demand for irrigated
land or as derived directly from the demand for farm output. If
irrigation water is regarded as a strict complement to irrigated
land, it is appropriate to treat the demand for water as derived
from the demand for irrigated land and specific irrigation water
requirements. If, on the other hand, an independent output
response can be obtained for irrigation water while holding the
land input constant, the demand for irrigation water should be
derived directly from the demand for farm output. 125 The problem
of estimating the demand for water is that there exists for each
location a range over which land, capital, labor, and water are
substitutable factors of production. 126
Bureau of Reclamation water charges are of little use in deter—
mining the value of irrigation water. The Bureau, under existing
laws, prices agricultural water in accordance with the water
users ability to pay, provided his ability is sufficient to pay
certain assigned costs. Thus, charges in all areas are highly
variable and are local in nature.
Nelson and Bush 127 conducted a study of the cost of procuring
groundwater for irrigation in Maricopa and Pinal Counties in
central Arizona. They estimated that the fixed, added capital,
and variable costs of pumping groundwater from an average well
depth of 949 feet was $12.26/acre—foot in 1963. It is assumed
that the marginal value product of this water would be greater
than $12. 26/acre—foot.
Miller, Boersina, and Castle 128 calculated the value of irriga-
tion water in the Willamette Valley. Bush bean and field corn
producers were surveyed in the four county area of Marion, Linn,
Polk, and Benton Counties in Oregon. In addition, two experiments
were conducted at the Hys lop Agronomy Farm in Benton County and
the Jackson Agronomy Farm in Linn County. The calculated value
of water is presented in Table C-15. Note that as the quantity
of water applied to an acre increases, the marginal value of the
water decreases.
Whittlesay and Allison 129 conducted a study to determine repre-
sentative values for water used in Washington agriculture. The
effects of crop rotation, water supply, efficiency of water use,
crop prices, returns to other fixed factors, and production costs
were examined. The marginal value of water ranged from less than
$12/acre-foot to $60/acre foot. Regardless of the assumptions
about efficiency in water application, crop prices, rotations,
crop yields, or production costs, the derived water values were
generally less than $60/acre—foot.
C-28
-------
TABLE C-15
ESTIMATED DOLLAR VALUE OF IRRIGATION WATER IN THE
WILLAMETTE VALLEY, OREGON IN 1963128
(in dollars per acre-foot)
Application Rate Field Corn Bush Beans
in Acre-Inches Experimental Farm Survey Experimental Farm Survey
per Year Data Data Data Data
2 16.23 2.28 134.88 9.70
4 13.46 1.25 73.12 5.10
6 10.72 .85 45.80 3.50
8 7.97 .64 29.47 2.68
10 5.20 .52 18.35 2.12
12 2.45 .44 — 1.84
14 —— .38 3.75 1.58
15 1.05 ——
On the basis of the values derived in these studies, it is
estimated that some quantity of effluent water would be in
demand in the market at prices ranging between $10 and $50
per acre foot, depending on local climatic conditions and
availability of natural water. To determine the quantity that
might be taken, it is necessary to consider the water balance
for specific locations.
The quantity of effluent water that could be used for irrigation
would be the greatest in the southwest corner of the United
States and decrease in each successive state to the north and
east. While this is a general guide, it is important to consider
each location specifically.
It is important to consider the value of replacing present
irrigation waters with effluent water. Water quality requirements
for irrigation waters are significantly different than those for
drinking water, recreation, and fisheries use as detailed in
Table C—16. Replacement of higher quality waters now being
used for irrigation essentially produces a new or augmented
supply of high quality water. This in turn increases the value
of the effluent water which makes the transfer possible. As
In the case with irrigation water, the value of such a substitution
will depend on the availability of waters of various qualities
at specific locations.
c-29
-------
TABLE C-16
EFFLUENT QUALITY VALUES
FOR VARIOUS WATER USE CL1 SSIF ICATIONS 1 31
Permissible Level
(Surface Water for Body Contact
Parameter Public Water Supply) ( Recreation ) Fisheries Irrigation
Turbidity (JTU) 30 25 25
Color (units) 15 —
pH (units) 6.0—8.5 6.5—8.3 6.5—9.0
Total Residue (mg/i) 1000
Filtrable Residue (mg/i) 500 —
COD (mg/i) 4.0 100
TOC (mg/I) 10.0
CCE (mg/i) 0.1 -
MBAS (mg/i) 0.5
Coliform
(counts/100 ml) 10,000 1,000 5,000 5,000
Fecal Coliform
(counts/100 ml) 2,000 200 1,000 1,000
Total Dissolved Solids
(mg/i) <500 500 240
Oil & Grease (mg/i) .05
Ammonia (mg/i N) 0.05 1.0 1.0
Hardness (mg/i CaCO3) 250
Nitrates (mg/i N) 2.0—4.0
Phosphorus (mg/i) 0.1 -*
* Nutrients may be beneficial to growth
-------
There is also some question as to the magnitude of the value of
nutrients in wastewater treatment plant effluents which can be bene-
ficial to growth. Clearly, the ammonia nitrogen and phosphates pre-
sent in such water has some fertilizer potential. Typical medium
strength domestic sewage enters the wastewater treatment plant with
40 mg/i total nitrogen and 15 mg/l total phosphate. The fraction
of these converted to available ammonia and soluble phosphates
will depend greatly on the types of pretreatment employed at an
individual plant. If primary clarification is the only treatment
available, the effluent water will contain approximately 32 mg/i
nitrogen and 14 mg/i phosphorus. Greater degrees of treatment will
result in lower levels of nutrients in the effluent water.
An acre foot of water with 32 mg/i nitrogen and 14 mg/i phosphate
contains a total of 83.4 pounds of nitrogen and 4.0 pounds of
phosphorus. At the quoted prices of $99 and $393 per ton of
nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, the nutrients in the
water would add a total of $6.88 to the value of an acre foot
of water. Cantrell, et al.,’ 39 determined fertilizer value in
Louisiana effluents to be $17.50 per acre foot.
Such a system represents long term, low level introduction of
nutrients. This is preferrable to a single bulk loading as is
typical with commercial fertilizer use. Henkelekian, 132 in
studying wastewater irrigation in Israel, found that the growth
increases due to available nutrients more than make up for growth
inhibition which might have resulted from increased salinity.
The benefits of available nutrients in effluent waters have also
been substantiated by other authors. 119 , 13 t 1 3 37
At irrigation rate of 40—48 inches per year, the nitrogen in
sewage effluents would exceed requirements for most crops, and
the phosphorus would be near optimal. If effluent is applied
at greater rates in an attempt to treat more wastes on less
land, nitrogen saturation becomes a concern with subsequent loss
of nitrate to groundwaters at unacceptable levels. This
situation can be controlled with adequate monitoring of nitrogen
levels applied and use of low nutrient dilution water when nec-
essary.
Use of effluent waters for irrigation involves some of the same
risks as land spreading of sewage sludges. Disinfection is
required to minimize the spread of pathogenic organisms.
Heavy metals may also be a problem though present in dilute
concentrations. Rohde 133 reports that after 100 years of sewage
farm operation at high application rates, some of the soil at
the Paris and Berlin farms began to show marked decreases in
productivity. Analysis of the soils revealed exceptionally
high levels of copper and zinc. 133 Boron may also damage plant
growth due to its high phytotoxicity. Most plants are sensitive
C-3i
-------
to boron in the parts per million range. The presence of this
metal from borax formulated detergents could inhibit sewage
irrigation projects. These considerations suggest both the
need for adequate characterization of effluents proposed for
spray irrigation, and the fact that spray irrigation may be
limited to finite periods of time after which use of metal free
water would be necessitated.
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
As stated earlier, changes in technology wthich result in easier
handling and more efficient utilization of the products of a
sewage treatment facility could increase their value by lowering
the costs of application and minimizing aesthetic objections.
For example, about 65 percent of the available effluent water
in Israel in 1967 was reused. This percentage is likely to
increase in the future. Yet, it is reported that farmers would
prefer not to have to irrigate with effluent water. 126 In inter-
views with scientists from the University of Illinois and the
Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District, it was stated that
considerable resistance is likely to occur in projects to irrigate
with effluent water. With the design and use of equipment which
results in less objectionable methods of handling effluent water,
the value of a given quantity should increase.
In order to determine the potential for technological change,
Battelle-Northwest surveyed fifty-three firms that manufacture
components used in irrigated agriculture. The industry is
acutely aware of a growing interest in effluent irrigation and
subsequently has begun to address itself to that market. Valmont
Industries expects to see center pivot equipment modified to
handle streams with up to six percent solids. (Such a stream
would be typical of a gravity thickened sludge.)
They state that such a design has not been tried to date, but
the concepts are proven and quite simple. It is their opinion
that the only reason for not using this equipment is the lack
of available material in a geographic area where they could
test their equipment.
McDowell Manufacturing Company has designed and developed
equipment specifically for the spraying of waste effluents.
They are attempting to market their system nationally.
Drainguard material which is manufactured by Advanced Drainage
Systems, Incorporated, is being used for drainage water systems
on the Muskegon County wastewater system. Advanced Drainage
Systems is presently experimenting with a corrugated tube design
that might be more suitable than their existing material for
underground irrigation with effluent water.
C-32
-------
The equipment of Western Oilfields Supply Company (Rain for Rent)
has been used with some success on sewage disposal jobs where
the effluent is of high quality and the solids are removed.
Examples of this use as stated by a representatatjve of the firm
are:
• Escondjdo, California — 80 acres of solid set
on pasture; 300,000 gpd of high quality effluent
from the city ’s municipal treatment plant.
• Salinas, California — Mission Hill Water Company
spread runoff from cattle feedlots.
• Woodland, California — Cannery wastewater spread
on alfalfa.
• Nampa, Idaho — Treated municipal effluent spread
on alfalfa.
• Arizona — Treated municipal effluent used for
compaction on highway construction jobs.
The Lockwood Corporation has an ongoing program for the devel-
opment of equipment designed specifically to apply effluent water
to land. They have been awarded a contract to furnish fifty—seven
center pivot machines to the Muskegon County Wastewater System.
Several modifications in the design of machines which were first
designed to apply natural water were necessary. Machines designed
solely for the application of natural water generally operate less
than 1,000 hours per year. The machines to be used in Muskegon
were designed to operate for over 4,000 hours. Effluent water
will be applied at a rate of four inches per hour. In order to
reduce t.he aerosol effect and the potential for wind drift,
pressure at the nozzle was reduced from 70 psi to 3—5 psi. The
spray bar was designed so that it could be raised and lowered.
The result of these design changes was an increase in the co-
efficient of uniformity to over 90.
From these observations of the irrigation equipment industry,
it can be concluded that there is active interest in the design,
testing, and marketing of equipment suitable for handling effluent
water and liquid sewage sludges in a way that is reducing objec-
tionable elements of handling. As the use of this equipment
becomes more common, the demand for effluent water can be
expected to increase.
c-33
------- |