## Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRS) For Nutrient Sensitive Environments Darnann L. 

### Anderson* Mark B. 

### Tyl Richard J . Otis Timothy G . Mayer Kevin M . Sherman



### ABSTRACT Negative impacts to the Florida Keys coral reef ecology ha ve been documented in recent years, and water quality degradation from nutrient overloading is a suspected cause . To protec t the waters of the Florida Keys from further degradation , the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) was established by the federal government in 1990. In 

### 1993 the U . S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified domestic wastewater as a major source of nutrient loading to FKNMS waters. Many dwellings and commercial establishments in the Keys use onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), so the Florida Keys Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRS) Demonstration Project was initiated in l 995 to demonstrate the use of OWTS which could significantly i mprove treatment and reduce the concentrations ofnutrients discharged 

### to the near-shore environment of the Keys. To meet this objective, a unique test facility was designed and constructed to evaluate various OWNRS processes simultaneously, under controlled conditions , using a common wastewater source . Five principle wastewater treatment process streams were operated concurrently at the test facility , with several unit processes in each stream. Unit processes evaluated included attached growth and suspended growth biological processes (both aerobic and anaerobic) , physical/chemical processes (adsorption , precipitation, ion exchange) and natural systems utilizing drip irrigation for plant uptake and evapotranspiration . Influent and effluent quality were monitored monthly with 24-hour flow-composite samples. Results after the first year of operation indicate that OWNRS effluent concentrations of 5 mg/L CBOD 5 , 

### 5 mg/L TSS , 10 mg!L total nitrogen, and 1 mg/L total phosphorus are achievable without chemical addition using combinations ofthe processes tested. Although excellent treatment was achieved with OWNRS, significant additional construction , operation , and maintenance was required for these systems in comparison with conventional OWTS . Keywords: Onsite wastewater treatment, Nutrient removal, Nitrogen removal, Phosphorus removal , Advanced wastewater treatment 

### INTRODUCTION The Florida Keys are an environmentally sensitive chain of islands extending from the southern tip ofFlorida southwestward to Key West and the Dry Tortugas . The clear waters surrounding this area contain the only living coral reefs in the continental United States . Over 80 , 000 people make their homes in the Florida Keys and more than 3 million tourists visit the Keys annually . *Damann L. 

### Anderson , Mark B. Tyl, Ayres Associates , 3901 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, FL, 33619; Richard 

### J. Otis , Ayres Associates, 2445 Darwin Rd. , Madison , W1 , 53704 ; Timothy G . Mayer, Kevin M . Sherman, Florida Dept. of Health , Onsite Sewage Program, 1317 Winewood Blvd., Tallahassee , FL , 32399.-- -------------- -----------------------



### Background 

### In 1990, the United States Congress recognized the national and international significance of resources in the Florida Keys with the passage of The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (Public Law 101-605). The sanctuary established by this legislation consists of approximately 9 , 500 

### km 2 

### of coastal and oceanic waters and the submerged land beneath them . The shoreward boundary of the sanctuary is the mean high-water mark. Under the sanctuary designation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is charged with developing a comprehensive management plan and implementation regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , in conjunction with the State of Florida and NOAA , must develop and implement a water quality protection program . The water quality protection program has identified nutrient loading from wastewater sources as one ofthe major water quality concerns in the Keys . Onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) have been targeted as one of the primary wastewater sources of nitrogen and phosphorus. The Water Quality Protection Program Report (Continental Shelf Associates , 1993) to the EPA documented the need for a demonstration of nutrient-reducing OWTS in the Florida Keys. The Florida Department of Health initiated the Florida Keys Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction System (OWNRS) Demonstration Project in response to this need . Project Objectives 

### The Florida Keys OWNRS Demonstration Project was designed to demonstrate the capability and use of alternative OWTS technologies for the Florida Keys. Wastewater treatment processes which provide a level of treatment superior to conventional OWTS were tested to evaluate their potential to reduce organic, solids , and nutrient loading to near-shore waters ofthe Keys . An 

### additional goal ofthe project was to determine ifFlorida advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) standards of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand (CBOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 3 mg/L for Total Nitrogen, and 1 mg/L for Total Phosphorus , are feasible for OWTS . MATERIALS AND METHODS Central Test Facility 

### A central test facility was constructed at a minimum security correctional institution in the Florida Keys to test various processes for onsite wastewater treatment removal. The central test facility was designed to allow comparative testing of numerous onsite wastewater treatment processes simultaneously, under controlled conditions, with a common wastewater source. Use of a common source eliminated the difficulty ofmaking valid comparisons of technology performance based on a limited number of installations with widely varying wastewater characteristics. The test facility allows accurate monitoring of influent wastewater quality and flow , and the capability for flow-composited effluent sampling to determine treatment performance. The test facility was initially set up to evaluate five principle wastewater treatment process streams . Electronically activated dose systems provide each of the process streams with influent wastewater, diverted from the correctional institution ' s wastewater collection systems . The dosing schedule is shown in Figure 1 and**rniq:~ics** 

### the typical wastewater flow from a home , with peaks in the morning and early evening. Under normal operating conditions, each of the treatment streams receives 200 gallons per day . The facility is designed so this volume can be adjusted for stress testing and other special purpose research . The central test facility was activated in October of 1996.

2 

# •**~** 15 11.**~** 31': 0 ii: 10

5

0 E 

## "'**~** 0 E 

## "'**~** E E 

## "' "' N <") 0 0 E E 

## "' "'**~** N E E E E 

## "' "' "' "' ..,. II) <0 ..... 0 0 0 0 E E E**~** 

## "' "' 

## "' ..,. <0 

## "" II) E**~** E E E 

## &. [ E E 

## "' "' "' a. a. a. co a> 0**~** N ..... N (") 

### ..,. 0 0**~ ~** **~** 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 

### [ E E 

## K E E E E 

## "' "' a. a. co 

## "' 

# "' "' N**~** N (") ..... a> 0**~ ~** **~ ~**  Tim e 

### Figure 1 : Daily Dose Schedule to Treatment Systems (5 gallons per dose) 

### Treatment 

### Processes E a. E a. E a. E a. E a. 

### [ [ E 

## "' II) <0 ..... co a> 0**~** N 0 0 0 0**~ ~** **~** 

## K E E E 

## K 0 0 0 

## K K E a. a. a. 

### ..,. II) <0 ..... co a. a> 0**~** .....**~**



### The principle treatment technologies currently under evaluation are physical, chemical , and aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment processes. One "passive" technology stream and four "active" technology process streams are currently under evaluation. A description of the five principle process streams follows . Figure 2 provides a schematic ofthe test facility and process streams currently in operation . 

### Process Stream 1 consists of a septic tank (ST-1) followed by a recirculating sand filter (RSF) and an anoxic bio-filter (ABF). Effluent from the system is discharged to an un.lined drip irrigation bed . Treatment occurs through digestion and settling in the septic tank and physical, chemical, and attached growth aerobic biological processes in the RSF. Adsorption by the RSF media removes limited quantities ofphosphorus . The nitrified RSF effluent is mixed with anoxic septic tank effluent in the recirculation chamber (RC) to encourage denitrification. The effluent also undergoes further nutrient reduction in an anoxic bio-fi lter and by plant uptake in the drip bed as well as adsorption on the drip fie ld media . 

### Proces s Stream 2 is a relatively passive technology consisting of a septic tank (ST-2) with effluent discharged to a lined drip irrigation field. A commercially availa b le subsurface drip irrigat i on (SDI) system by AztexTM Products is used for effluent distribution to the root zone . This process stream represents the most "low tech" of the systems . Reduction of nutrients and other parameters is accomplished by preliminary digestion and settling in the septic tank with additional

-3 -8IUQ( E CHIP 

## .s Cll >- (I) c 0 

## "" 

# .. f U!CA**~** 0 

### i c 

### '2 :::> lAND 

# AYRES ASSOC IA TES FLORIDA KEYS ONSITE WASTEWATER NUTRIENT REDUCTION SYSTEM (OWNRS) DE M ONSTRATION PROJECT CENTRAL TEST FACILITY SCHEMATIC Retum to Pri1on WNTP ---- ---- --- --- 

# ! l I l 

# r-:l 

# r-:-1**1~** 

# n**~ ~** **~ ~** 

ABF - Anoxic bio-filter 1\C • Adaofplion Cel 1\C

- 1 • 8nck Chips AC -2- AILminum Silic.IM .AC-3-LECA**~** CFCR • ConlinuoUs Feed Cycle ReiiCIOr PC P • Procea C-ol P..ts CPU · Chemicel Precipitation Unft RBC • Rotating Biological Contad or OP • Drip Irrigation Pump Sys1em RC - Recirculll lion Ct.nbe r FAS • Fbc-.1 - F I Im AdivcMcl Sludge RSF • RecWc::ulatng S.nd F ilter 1MT - lrAient t.fox T an k ST - Septic T ri Salle: NTS



### Figure 2 : Central Test Fac ility Schematic physical , chemical, and biologica l treatment proces s es occurring in the lined b ed underlying the drip field and by p lant uptake. The lined bed contains a one foot thickness of saturated media under 1 . 5 feet of unsaturated medi a. The effluent undergoes nitrification in the upper uns aturated ( aerobic) portion of the drip bed and li mited de nitrification in the saturated (anaerobic) lower portion of the drip bed . Three treatment media (crushed red brick , silica sand, and an expanded clay ag gregate from Norway, commerc ially known as LECA 

### TM) underl ie dis tinct zones of the drip fie ld. Two of these , the bricks and LECA, were selected for their phosphorus adsorption potential. Because these media beds have been b ui lt over an impermeable liner, the program inc l udes an assessment of the effectiveness of ev a po transpiration 

### in reducing effl u en t vo lumes . The principle treatment unit in pr oce ss s tream 

### 3 is a proprietary unit known as the Bio-Microb ics FAS'fTM aerobic unit. This unit use s fixed-film activated sludge (FAS) treatment . The treatment is a combination suspended growth and attached growth ae robic biolog i cal p rocess . This system provides nitrification of the effluent befo r e discharge, and also provides denitrification by mixing anaerobic conditions th at f avor the growth of denitrifying microorganisms and conversion of nitrate to 

### nitrous oxide or nitrog en g as . Additional processes would be required for phosph orus removal followin g thi s system .

- 4- 

## •

### Process stream 4 consists of proprietary treatment unit known as the AES BESTEP- IDEA T M 

### system . This system is a suspended growth biological treatment process that operates as a continuous feed cyclic reactor (CFCR). The process is simi lar to a sequencing batch reactor (SBR), but is unique in that it allows continuous flow whi le using only one process tank. Aeration to the tank is cyclical, which causes alternating aerobic and anaerobic conditions . This fluctuating environment results in nitrification followed by denitrification and also luxury 

### uptake ofphosphorus by the activated sludge biomass. 

### Process stream 5 consists of a proprietary treatment unit known as the .Klargester BiodiscTM. It is a rotating biological contactor (RBC) , followed by an anoxic bio-fllter (ABF). The RBC i s an attached growth, aerobic biological treatment process that provides internal recycle for nitrification and d enitrification. It produces a nitrified effluent that then undergoes further denitrification in the ABF . Additional processes would be required for phosphorus removal following this system . Additional unit processes are available for testing at the facility . These include chemical precipitation, supplemental carbon addition for denitrification, and additional phosphorus adsorption media. The test facility was designed so that the effluent from the principle treatment process streams described above can be routed to any of these additional processes for further treatment and evaluation. These additional processes are currently under evaluation and are not included in this paper. Effluents from the various process streams are discharged to a sump tank after water quality sampling and returned to the correctional institution ' s wastewater treatment plant. 

### Treatment Performance Monitoring Twenty-four hour flow composited samples were collected from the influent mix tank and from each ofthe five treatment process effluents from November 1996 through August 1997. Samples were analyzed according to Standard Methods (APHA , 1992) for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) , 

### carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5 ) , 

### total suspended solids (TSS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate +nitrite-nitrogen (N0 2

### N0 3 

### -N) , and total phosphorus (TP). Total nitrogen (TN) was obtained by summation.



### RESULTS Results of the water quality analyses for the influent and five process stream effluents are provided 

### in Table 

### I. For the lined bed drip irrigation system (Process Stream 2), only the results ofthe crushed brick media (LBRICK) are reported here . Influent wastewater quality was typical ofthat reported in the literature for domestic wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991) with mean CBOD 5 , 

### TSS , TN, and TP values of 137 . 8, 117 . 5, 38.4, and 8.4 mg/L, respectively . Significant variations about these mean values were measured over the 12 sampling events, also typical of domestic wastewater from individual homes . Effluent quality for 

### all treatment processes was excellent 

### in terms of traditional wastewater treatment parameters , CBOD5 , 

### and TSS. 

### CBOD5 : 

### All five process streams met the AWT CBOD 5 

### effluent standard of 5 mg/L. Figure 3 shows the 95% confidence intervals about the mean for the five processes . These data illustrate the stability of fixed-film attached growth biological processes such as the RSF and RBC . 

### TSS: Only the CFR and the RBC systems did not meet the A WT effluent TSS standard of 5 mg/L, but they were within 2 mg/L of the standard . Figure 4 shows the 95% confidence intervals for TSS . These data indicate the stability of biological filter type processes such as the RSF for TSS removal. The crushed brick media also indicated stable TSS removals later in the study period , once the fine media particles stab ili zed and grass growth took hold . Effluent quality for the nutrients , nitrogen and phosphorus , showed significantly more variation between processes , and typically did not meet A WT effluent standards .

- 5-

### Table 1 : Summary of Influent and Effluent Water Quality Data P a ra m ete r Sta ti s t ic In fl u en t System 1 Syst em 2 System 3 S ystem 4 Syst em 5 ( I MT ) (R S F-AB F) (L B RI C K) (FAS ) (C FCR) (R B C-ABF) mean 170 .90 2 .27 4.17 5 . 58 4 . 1 6 2 . 42 Std . Dev . 73 . 85 2 . 51 6.29 3.90 5 . 45 1 .38 BOD s min 62 .00 1 .00 1 . 00 1 . 0 0 1 . 00 1 .00 max 299 .00 9 .7 0 21.3 0 14 .0 0 17 .20 5 .00 n 1 0 12 1 1 11 8 11 mean 137 . 80 1 . 50 2 . 81 2 .70 3 . 1 9 1 . 68 Std . Dev . 60.13 0 .90 4 .04 3.11 5 . 1 8 1 . 24 CB O Ds min 59. 00 1 .00 1 . 00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 max 220 .00 4 .00 14.40 9 .01 15.90 5.00 n 1 0 12 11 1 1 8 11 mea n 117 .5 0 2.25 4 . 09 4 .63 6 . 85 5 .75 S td . Dev . 92 .09 1 .76 3 . 83 3.93 6 . 62 4.47 TSS min 17.00 1 .00 1 . 00 1. 00 2.00 1 .00 max 345 .00 6 .00 11 . 0 0 14 .00 20 . 00 1 6 .00 n 12 12 11 12 10 12 mean 38 .58 1 .01 1.75 1 . 55 1 . 16 2 .75 St d . Dev . 10 . 67 1 .44 2 . 10 0 . 82 0 . 52 2 . 62 TKN min 19 .20 0 .26 0 . 34 0.49 0 . 56 0.42 max 62 . 50 5 . 3 0 8 . 19 3.40 , 2 . 20 7 .40 n 12 11 12 12 9 11 mean 0 . 03 21 .09 18 . 3 . 6 9 .42 14 . 30 9 . 77 Std . D ev. 0 . 02 6 .76 1 0 . 56 4 .06 6 .49 3 . 69 N 02N03-N min 0 . 01 14 .00 1.60 " 3 .90 2 . 54 3 . 60 max 0 . 05 35 . 20 36 . 60 19 . 70 23 . 00 17 .00 n 10 11 11 12 9 1 1 mean 38 . 61 20 .76 20 . 24 10 .97 15 .46 12 .52 Std. Dev . 10 . 67 5 .61 11 . 64 4 .05 6 . 60 5 .98 TN min 19 . 25 14 .46 3 . 00 4 . 55 3 . 53 4 .05 max 62 . 55 30 .23 44.79 20 . 19 24 .20 23.00 n 12 10 11 12 9 11 mean 8 . 39 1 .76 0 . 60 5 . 38 6 .24 4 . 67 Std . Dev . 5 . 79 0.48 0 .23 1 .44 1 .59 1.05 TP min 4 . 32 0 . 92 0.34 3 .22 4 . 80 2 . 50 m ax 26 . 00 2.40 1 .20 8 .70 9 .90 5.90 n 12 10 11 12 10 12



### Ni trogen: 

### None of the five process streams m e t the AWT nitrogen standard of3 mg/L. The FAS and RBC

- ABF systems performed best for nitrogen removal, with mean effluent TN value s of 11.0 and 12.5 mg/L, re spectively . Figure 

### 5 shows the 95% confidence interv als for TN . Thes e results are excellent considering they were obtained without s upplemental carbon addition to enhance denitrific ation. In fact, the RBC-ABF efflue nt was not significantly different from the RBC effluent a l one, indicating insufficient residual carbon for denitrific ation in the AB F tank following th e RBC.



### - 6- 

## •I



# - .**~** .§. c 0 

# =**~** c 

# ., u c 0 u 

### Q 

### Effluent CBOD5 

### Concentrations (mean± 95% C . l.)**·~----------------------------------------------** 7 Influent CBOD 1 

# = 137 . 8 

### :t 42.4 mg/L 8 5 ------ - ----------- -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - AWTLimlt4 3 0 2 m 

# I u 1**0+---------~----~---;----------~--~----~----** 

# ------- 

# I

RSF-ABF LBRICK FAS CFCR RBC-ABF . Treatment Unit 

### Fi gur e 3: Effluent CB OD s Concentra ti on s (mean ± 95 % C .I. )

c 0 

# I u c 0 u Cl) 

## !!? Effluent TSS Concentrations (mean 

### ± 95% C . l . )**14~ ------** **-- --** **-- ------** **-------------- --** **-- ----------**  Influent TSS 

### = 117 . 5 

### :t 57.9 mgiL 12 10 

# •

--- -- · AWTLimlt - -- 4



# . I**0+- ----** **----1---------~--------~--------~----** 

# -----

RSF-ABF LBRICK FAS CFCR RBC -ABF Treabnent Unit 

### Figure 4 : E ffl uent TSS Concentrations (mean ± 95 % C .I. )

- 7

-

.....

### Effluent TN Concentrations (mean 

### ± 95% C. I.)**30~---------------------------------------------------------~** 

### Influent TN 

# = 38.4 

### :t 6. 7 mg/L 26

# ~ E 20· 

# - c 

# j c CD 

### u 

# 8**~** 15**~** 10. 

# I

__ .:. _ ----------- AWT Umlt

- ---------------------------------------**0+----------+----------~--------~--------~--------~** 

### RSF·ABF LBRICK FAS 

### Treatment Unit CFCR RBC-ABF 

### Figure 5 : Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentrations (mean ± 95 % C.I . ) Supplemental carbon addition is currently being evaluated at the Keys test facility , and preliminary results indicate that an effluent TN value of 5 mg/L may be achievable by adding carbon to an ABF unit following the F AS or RBC . Phosphorus: Only the lined drip irrigation sy stem with crushed brick (LBRICK) media met the AWT effluent standard for phosphorus . The LBRICK and RSF-ABF systems both provided excellent TP removals with mean effluent TP values of0 . 60 and 1. 8 mg!L , respectively. figure 6 shows the 95 % confidence intervals for TP . These data suggest that adsorption ofphosphorus on the RSF sand and drip field crushed brick media are also the most stable phosphorus removal mechanisms tested . It remains to be seen , however, how long these removal efficiencie s will Last. Once the media adsorption sites reach capacity, breakthrough ofphosphorus at higher concentrations may occur.



### SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A field evaluation of several onsite wa s tewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS) was conducted to evaluate the potential for improved treatment effectiveness of onsite wastewater treatment sy s tems (OWTS) in the Florida Keys . Results indicated that the systems tested provided excellent treatment performance (CBOD 5 

### and TSS < 5 mg/L), but no individual system was capable ofmeeting the Florida advanced waste treatment (A WT) effluent standards of 5 mg!L CBOD 5 , 

### 5 mg/L TSS , 3 mg/L TN , and I 

### mg/L ofTP .

- 8- 

# ..

### Effluent TP Concentrations (mean 

## ± 95°k C.l.) 8 Influent TP 

# = 8.39 

### :1: 3.64 mg/L 7 

### ::; 6 

### Q 

# .5. 5 c 0**~** 

# i 4 

# I 

# I

• u 

### c 0 3 u

## ~ 2 

# I 1

- -- --- ---- -- ----------- · AWT Umlt 

# I 0 RSF·ABF LBRICK FAS CFCR RBC-ABF Treatment Unit 

### Figure 6: Effluent Total Phosphorus- Concentrations (mean± 95% C.I.) It appeared that a combination ofprocesses, such as an aerobic biological treatment unit followed b y an anoxic bio-filter (ABF) with supplemental carbon addition , discharging to an engineered media drip irrigation bed could meet the AWT standards for CBOD 5 , 

### TSS, and TP and come very close to the standard for TN. The duration of the TP removals by the drip irrigation bed is unknown; however, continued monitoring of these systems is recommended to address longevity issues and solids handling requirements . Based on the evaluation conducted to date, following conclusions are drawn:

• A WT effluent standards for CBOD 5 , 

### TSS, and TP can be consistently met with combinations of the technologies tested ;

• TN reductions of > 70% are achievable without supplemental carbon addition and 90% with carbon addition;

• Continued monitoring of the OWNRS are required to quantify phosphorus removal duration and treatment performance longevity , solids handling requirements, and maintenance requirements ;

• Constr uction of the OWNRS and operation fo r one year bas indicated that OWNRS will require considerably greater capital, operation and maintenance expenditures in comparison to conventional OWTS . -9-

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

### This project was funded by the Florida Department ofHealth (Contract # LP988) under a grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency (Cooperative Agreement #X994394-93-0), and this financial support is acknowledged . The Florida Department of Corrections , and specifically the staff of the Big Pine Key Road Prison, are gratefully acknowledged for the cooperation and assistance on the OWNRS Demonstration Project. Finally , the time and material provided by the numerous equipment manufacturers made this study possible , and their support is acknow ledged.

REFERENCES 

### 1. APHA , 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18 1h 

### ed ., American Public Health Association, Washington DC . 2. Continental Shelf Associates , Inc. , Batelle Ocean Services , Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari 

### & Hetlstrom , Inc., Batelle Pacific Northwest Division and Batelle Seattle Research Center, 1993. Water Quality Protection Program, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary , Phase ll 

### Report . Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency , Oceans and Coastal Protection Division under Contract 68

- C2-0134 . 3 . Metcalf 

### & Eddy , Inc. Wastewater Engineering : Treatment Disposal , and Reuse. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill , New York, 1991.

- 10 -

# FLORIDA OWNRS PROJECT PHASE 1- TEST DATA PARAMETER UN ITS SAMPLE DATES 11/20196 

### 12/18/96 1/29/97 BOD (5-Da f@20°C) I NFL U E NT mg/ L 1 37 .00 14 8 . 00 299.00 FAST mg/L 3 . 26 7 . 75 8 .02 FAST-ABF mg/L NO O A T NO OA T 10.00 BOD (Ca r bonaceous) I N FL UE NT mg/L 1 76 . 00 136 .0 0 2 15 . 00 FAST mgiL 2 .4 8 8 .85 9 . 01 FAST -ABF mg/L NO OAT**NODA ~**  16 . 10 Ammonia N i trogen I NF L U E NT mg/LN 18 .90 34 .90 50 . 8 0 FAST mg/L N 0 . 3 2 1 .24 1 .73 FAST -ABF mg/L N NO OA T NO OAT 2 . 50 Nitrate - Nitrite N it rogen I NF L U ENT m g/L N 0 .05 0 . 05 0 . 05 FAST [mgtL N 9 .23 9 .39 8 .47 FA

ST -A BF mg/L N NO DA T NODAT 1 8 . 81 Tot al Kjeldahl Nitrogen INFLUENT mg / LN 19 . 20 46 .90 62 . 50 FAST mg/LN 1 .23 1 .n 1 . 82 FAST-ABF [mg/ L N N O OA T NO OAT 2 . 39 Tot al N itr ogen (lKN+H itnt.. ) I NFLU E NT mg/LN 1 9 . 25 4 6. 9 5 6 2. 55 FAST mg/LN 10 .46 11.16 10 . 29 FAST-ABF mg/L N NO**OA ~**  NO OAT 21 . 20 Total Phosphorus I N FLU ENT [mg/L p 4 . 32 7.09 1 1 . 00 FAST [mg/LP 3 .22 4.21 5 . 19 FAST- A BF mg/L p N O OAT NO OAT 4 . 52 Total Suspended Solids I N FLUENT mg/L 60 . 00 86.00 345 .00 FAST mgiL 4 . 00 14.00 10 . 00 FAST-A BF mg/L NO OAT NO DAT 4 . 00 1 - sa m p l e co ll e ct e d fo ll ow in g sim ul ate d v acatio n stre s s 2 - sam pl e co ll e cted follow i ng s imul at e d w ash d ay st res s 

### 2/26/97 4/2/97 4/23/97 1 

### 5/8/97 5121/97 2 

### 5/29/97 139 . 00 170 . 00 210 . 00 23 0 . 00 62 . 00 240 .00

6 .

00 4 . 30 9 . 00 5 . 70 2 . 60 14 .00 10 .00 2 .20 1 . 40 1 . 70 2 . 70 1 .00 1 83.00 150 . 00 200 . 00 220 . 00 5 9.00 1 30 . 00

6 .00 1 . 20 1 .40 1 . 00 1 .00 1 . 00 10 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 .00 1 . 00 1 .00 26 . 8 0 23 . 00 37 .00 29 . 00 26 .00 36 .00

0 . 5 8 0 . 75 1 . 40 0 . 10 0 .07 1 .90 0 . 3 4 0 . 61 0 . 37 0 . 29 0 . 67 0 . 63 0 . 05 0 . 04 0 .0 2 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 . 01**19.70** 9 . 20 7 .00 3 .90 'II 12 .00 11 . 00 19 . 00 8 . 60 6.40 2 . 40 7 . 40 11 . 00 37 .40 32 . 00 4 6 . 00 39 . 00 33 . 00 44 .00 0 . 49 1 . 90 2 . 50 1 . 1 0 1 .00 3 .40 0 . 64 1 . 60 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 .60 1 . 60 37 .45 3 2 . 04 46 . 02 3 9 .02 33 . 0 1 44 . 01 20. 19 1 1 . 10 9 . 5 0 5 . 00 13 . 00 14.40 19 . 64 10 .20 7 .50 3 .50 9 . 00 1 2 . 60 7 . 07 6 . 60 7 .80 7 . 10 5 . 80 26 . 00 5 . 64 5 . 80 6 . 40 6 . 10 5 . 30 8 . 70 5 . 22 5 . 60 5 .60 5 . 4 0 5 . 30 5 . 80 70 . 00 17 . 00 203 . 00 17 0 .00 1 62 . 00 80 .00

4 .0 0 1.00 3 . 00 5 . 50 1.00 2 . 00 4 .00 1 . 00 1 . 00 2 . 50 1 . 00 1 . 00**~** 

### AVG % RED 6/11/97 7/ 17197 8/28/97 1 0 0 .00 1 50 .0 0 1 00 . 00 1 6 5 .42

4 . 80 1 . 00 1 . 00 5 . 62 96 . 6 1 .40 1 . 00 1 .00 3 . 24 9 8 . 0 67 . 00 130 .00 7 1 . 00 1 44 . 75

1 .00 1 .00 1 . 00 2 . 9 1 98 .0 1 .00 1 .0 0 1 . 00 3.4 1 9 7 .6 30 .00 27 .00 27 . 00 30.53

0 .3 0 0 . 15 0 . 04 0 . 72 97 . 7 ; 0 .04 NODA T NO OA T 0 . 6 8 97 . 8 0 .04 NO OAT NODAT 0 . 0 3 9 .

40 9 . 80 4 . 00 9 .4 2 NA**~** 10 . 00 1 0 . 00 2 .40 9 . 60 NA 36 . 00 33 . 00 3 2 .00 38 .4 2

1 . 30 1 . 50 0.55 1 . 55 96 . 0 0 . 83 1 . 10 0 .8 1 1 . 28 9 6 . 7 36 . 04 N O O A T NO OAT 3 9 . 63 10 . 70 11 . 30 4 .55 10 . 97 72 . 3 10 . 83 1 1 . 10 3. 2 1 1 0 . 8 8 72 . 6 5 . 80 7 . 1 0 5 . 00 8 . 39 5 . 90 3 . 70 4 . 40 5 . 3 8 35 . 9 7 . 10 4 . 50 4 .20 5 . 3 2 36 .5 123 . 00 74.00 20 .0 0 1 17 .50

4 .00 6 .00 1 .00 4 . 63 96 . 1 1 . 00 3 . 00 1.00 1 . 95 9 8 .3

# FLORIDA OWNRS PROJECT PHASE 2- TEST DATA PARAMETER UNITS SAMPLE DATES 8/19/98 9/22/98 1/18199 2/16/99 3/23/99 4122/99 

### MAY BODJS-Da r@20°C) I N FLUEN T mg/L 160 .00 120 . 00 NO OAT 120.00 140 . 00 56.00 N FA ST mg/ L NOOAl 3 .40 NO OAT 4 . 50 NO OAT 2 . 5 0 0 FAST-ABF mg/L NO OAT 13 . 00 NO OAT NODAl} NO OAT**NODAl~** BOD (Carbonaceous) 0 I N FLUENT mg/L 150 .00 91 . 00 190.00 90 .00 88.00 39.00 A FAS T mg/L 1 . 00 1 .70 1.00 2 .00 1 .00 1 . 00 T FAST-ABF mg/L NO OAT NODAl 3 .80 1.50 1 .00 1.00 A Ammonia Nitrogen INFLUENT 1mg/LN NO OAT 26 . 00 NODAl 37 . 00 NODAl 22. 00 F FAST mg/LN NO D Al 0 . 11 NODAT 0 .28 NODAl 0 .2 8 0 FAST -ABF mg/LN NODAl NODAl: NODAl NODAT NODAl NODAlP R Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen INFLUENT lmgtL N 0 . 0 2 0 . 01 0 .01 0 .26 0 . 28 0 . 01 M FAST mg/LN :· 1 5 .0 0 8 . 20 .lor 13 .00 1 2.00 12.00 9. 70 0 FAST -ABF lmg/L N .- NO OAT 7 . 20 3 .90 9.60 11 . 00 6 . 10 N Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen T INFLUENT mg/ L N 38.00 32 . 00 62. 00 44 . 00 37 . 00 29 . 00 H FAST m g/LN 1 . 20 0 . 8 9 1 .20 1 .20 0 . 99 1 .2 0 FAST -ABF mg/LN NODAl 0.96 1 . 30 0 .90 0 . 60 1 . 30 0 Total**Nltrogen TXN** **N~~n~** ... , F INFLUENT rng/LN 3 8 .0 2 32 . 01 62 .0 1 44 . 26 37 .28 29 . 01 FAST mg/LN 16 .20 9 . 09 14.20 13 . 20 12.99 10 . 9 0 M FAST-ABF mg/L N NODAl 8 . 16 5.20 10 . 50 11 .60 7 . 40 A Total Phosphorus y IN FLUENT mg/L P 6 . 50 7 . 80 8 .00 12 . 00 9 .40 5 . 80 FAST l mg/l p 6 . 40 7 . 00 6 .2 0 6 . 10 6. 00 7 . 20 FAST-ABF mg/L P NO OAT NODAl} NODA T NO OAT NODAl NODA l } Total Suspended Solids INFLUENT mg/L 68 . 00 48 . 00 68 .00 90 . 00 108. 00 66 . 00 FAST mg/L 1 . 00 3 . 00 5 . 00 3 .00 8 .00 8 .00 FAST-ABF mg/L NO OAT NODAT NODAl NODAlP NODAl NODAlP 

# - - Fecal Coliforms INFLUENT cts/100 ml NO OAT 600 , 000 Q ,Z 600,000 v 600,000 z 600 ,000 630 ,000 FAST cts/100 m l N O DAl 460 . 00 200 .00 450 . 00 63 . 00 140 . 00 FAST-ABF cts/100 ml NODAl} NODA l} NODAl NODAl} NODAl NODA l } Q

- 

### Sample analyzed beyond the accepted holding limit. (Analyzed at client's request) V- Greater than 6 , 000 . Fecal coliforms exceeded 60 counts on lowest filtration volume (1 ml). Z- Greater than 60 , 000 . Fecal coliforms exceeded 60 counts on lowest filtration volume (0 . 1ml). 6/22/99 7/27/99 160. 00 160 . 00**NODAl~** 4.ZO**NODAl~** NO OAT 100.00 120 . 00

1 . 00 1 .0 0 1.00 1 .00 53 . 00 35 . 00 0 . 35 0 . 34 NODAlP NODAT

0.01 0 . 01 12 . 00 9 . 50 8 . 10 10 . 00 56 . 00 48 . 00 0 .77 1 .2 0 0 . 99 0 . 82 56. 0 1 48 . 01 12.n 1 0 .7 0 9 . 09 10 . 8 2 9 . 50 5 . 70 5 . 7 0 5 .70 NO DAn NO OA T 70. 00 114 . 00 18.00 1 . 00 NODAl NO OAT 600,000 21 ,000 1 500. 00 2 00 .00

NO OAT NODAT 

### AVG %RED 8/31/99 9/28/99 10/21/99

160 . 00 110 .00 150 . 00 133.60

3 . 70 1 . 60 5 .60 3 . 67 9 7 .3 

## ' NODAl NODAl NODAl 13 .00 90 . 3 120 .00 90 . 00 140 . 00 110 . 7 3 1 .10 1 .00 1 . 00 1. 16 9 8 .9 6 .70 36.00 1 . 00 5.89 94 . 7 47 . 00 30.00 40 .00 36.25

0 .34 0 . 40 0 . 08 0 . 27 99 .2 NODAT NODAl NODA l NO DAlP NOOAlA 0 .05 0 . 12 0 . 01 0 .07 5 .9 0 4 .70 2 . 40 9 .49 NA 0 .01 0 .01 2.00 5 .79 NA 65 . 00 46 . 00 46 . 00 45 . 7 3

1 .50 1 .20 0 .3 5 1 .06 97 . 7 2 .30 2 . 90 1 . 20 1 . 33 97 . 1 65 .05 46 . 12 46 . 01 45 .8 0

7 .

40 5 . 90 2 . 75 1 0 .55 77 .0 2 .31 2 . 91 3 . 20 7 . 12 84 . 5 11 .00 8 . 70 7 . 90 8.39 7 .7 0 6 . 90 6 . 00 6 .45 23 .2 NO OAT NODAl NO OAT NOOAlP NOD A l" 100 . 00 133.00 92.00 87 .00

1 . 00 1.00 3 . 00 4 . 1 8 9 5 . 2 NODAT} NODAl NO OAT NO OAT NO DAT A 600, 000 600 ,000 600 ,0 00 604 J 37 5 >600 270 .00 3600.00 784 . 78 9 9.9**NODAl~** NODAT NODAl NODAT N ODA l A