## Onsite Wastew ater Nutrient Re duction Systems (OWNRS) For

Nutrient Sensitive Environments

Damann L. Anderson*

Mark B. Tyl

Richard J. Otis

T i m o t h y G

. M a ye r

Kevin M. Sh erm a n



### ABST RACT

Negative i m p acts to the Florida Key s coral reef e c ology have been docum ented i n recent y ears,

and water quality degradation from nutrient overloadi ng is a suspected cause. To protect the waters of the

Florida Key s from further degradation, t h e Flor ida Key s National Marine Sanct u ary (FKNMS) was

established by the federal governm e nt in 19 90. I n 1 993 t h e U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency

(EPA) identified dom esti c waste w ate r as a m a jor source of nutrient loading to FK NMS water s . Many

dwellings and commercial establish m ents in the Key s use onsite wa stewat er treat ment sy ste m s (OWTS),

so the Florida Key s Onsite Wastew ater Nutrient Reduction Sy ste m s (OW N RS ) De m onstrati on Project

was initiated in 1995 to de m onstrate the use of OW TS which coul d significantl y im prove treat m ent and

reduce the concentrations of nutrients discharge d to the near-shore environm ent of the Key s

. To m e et this objective, a unique test facilit y was designed and constructed to evaluate various

OWNRS processes si multaneously, under controlled c onditions, us ing a comm o n wastewater source.

Five principle waste w ater t r eat ment process str e a m s w e re operated concurrently at the test faci lity

, with

several unit process es in ea ch strea m . U n it processes evaluated included attached growth and s u spended

growth biological process es (both aerobic and anaerobic), phy s ic al/che m i cal process es (ads orption,

precipitation, ion exchange ) and natural sy stems u tilizing dri p irriga tion for plant uptake and evapotranspiration. Influent and effluent quali ty we re m onitored m onthly with 24-h our flow-co m posite

sam p les. Results after the first y ear of operation i ndicate that OWNRS effluent concentrations of 5 m g /L

CBOD 5 , 5 mg/L TSS, 10 m g /L total nitrogen, and 1 m g /L total phosphorus are achievable without

chem ical addition using com b inations of the processes tested. Although excellent treat m e nt was achieved

with OWNR S, significant additional construction, operation, and maintenance was required for these

sy stems in com p arison with conventi o n a l OWTS.

Key w ords: Onsite wastewater treatment, Nutrient removal, Nitroge n rem ova l, Ph osphorus removal,

Advanced wa stewat er treat ment



### INTRODUCTION

The Florida Key s are an environm ental l y sensitive chain of islands extending fr om the

southern tip o f Florida sout hwestward to Key West and the Dry Tortugas. The clear wat e rs

surroundi ng t h is area contain the on l y li ving coral reefs in the conti n ental United States. Over

80,000 peopl e m a ke their hom es in the Florida Key s and m o re than 3 m illion tourists visit the Key s

annuall y

.

*Dam ann L. Anderson, M a rk B. T y l, A y res A ssociates, 3901 Coc onut Palm Drive, Tam p a, FL,

3361 9; Richard J. Otis, Ayres Associates, 2445 Darwin Rd., Madis on, WI, 537 0 4 ; Tim o thy G

. May e r,

Kevin M. Sh erm a n, Florida Dept. of Health , Onsite Sewage Program , 1317 Win e wood Blvd.,

Tallahassee, FL, 323 99

1Background

In 1990, t h e United States Congress recognized the national and international significance of

resources in the Florida Key s with the pa ssage of The Florida Key s National Mar i ne Sanctuary and

Protection Act (Public Law 101-6 05). T h e sanctuary established by this legislation consists o f

approxim a tely 9,5 00 km 2 of coastal and oceanic wate rs and the submerged land beneath them. The

shoreward boundar y of the sanctuary is t h e mean high-water mark.

Under the sanctuary designation, the National Oceanic and Atm o sp heric Ad m i nistration (NO AA)

is charged with developi ng a co m p rehensive m a nageme nt plan and im plementation regulatio ns. The U.S.

Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA ), in conj unction with the State of Florida and NOAA, m u st

develop and i m pl ement a water quality protection pr ogram

. The water quality protection program has identifie d nutrient loading from wastewater sources as

one of the m a jor water quality concerns in the Key s

. Onsite wastewater treat m ent s y stem s (OWTS) have

been targeted as one of the primary wastewater s ources of nitrogen and phosp hor us. The Water Quality

Protection Pr ogram Report (Continental Shelf Associates, 1993) t o t h e EPA docu m ented the need for a

dem onstration of n u trient- r educing OWTS in the Fl o r ida Key s . T h e Florida Departm e nt of Health

initiated the F l orida Key s Onsite Wast ewater Nu trien t Reduction S y stem (OW N RS) Dem onst r ation

Project in response to this need.

Project Obj e ctives

The Florida Key s OWNRS Dem onstrat ion Project was designed to dem onstrat e the capability and use of

alternative OWTS technol ogies for the Florida Key s

. Wastewat er treat ment processes which provide a

level of treatment superior to conventi o nal OWTS we re tested to evaluate their potential to re duce

organic, solid s, and nutrien t loading to n ear-shore wate rs of the Key s . An additi onal goal of t h e project

was to determine if Florida advanced wastewater treat m e nt (AWT) standards of 5 m illigrams per liter

(m g/L) for Carbonaceous Biological Oxy g en Dema nd (CBOD) an d Total Suspe nded Soli ds (TSS), 3

m g /L for Total Nitrogen, and 1 m g /L for Total Phosphorus, are feasi ble for OWTS.

MATER IAL S AND MET H ODS

Central Test Facility

A central test facility was constructed at a m i ni m u m security correctional institut i on in the Florida

Key s to test various processes for onsite wastewater treat ment rem o val. The central test facilit y was

designed to allow com p a r at ive testing of num erous onsite wa stew at er treat ment process es si m u ltaneously,

under control l ed conditions, with a co mm on wastewater source. Use of a co mmon source eliminated the

difficult y of making valid co m p arisons of tec hnology performance based on a li mited num ber of

installations with widely vary ing wastewater char act er istics. The test facility allows accurat e m onitoring

of influent w astewater qualit y and fl ow, and the capabilit y for flow-co m posited effluent sam pling to

deter m ine tre a t m ent perfor m ance.

The test facili ty was initially set up to evalua te five principle wastewater treat m ent process

strea m s. Elec tronically activated dose syste m s pr ovide each of the process str e a m s with influent

wastewater, diverted from t h e correctional institution’s wast ewat er collection sy s t em s. The dosing

schedule is shown in Figure 1 and m i m i cs the ty pical waste w ate r flow from a ho me, with pea k s in the

m o rning and early evening. Under normal operating conditions, each of the treat m e nt streams receives

200 gallons per day

. The f acility is desi gned so this volum e can be adjusted for stress testing and ot her

special purpose research. The central test facility was activated in October of 1996.

20 5 10 15 20 2512am-1am1am-2am2 am-3 am3 am-4 am4am-5am5 am-6 am6am-7am7 am-8 am8am-9am9 am-10am10am-11am11am-12pm12pm-1pm1pm-2pm2pm-3pm3pm-4pm4pm-5pm5pm-6pm6pm-7pm7pm-8pm8pm-9pm9 pm-10pm10pm-11pm11pm-12am

Ti m eFlow(GPH)

Figure 1: Daily Dose Schedule to Treatment Sy stems (5 gallons p e r dose)

Treatment P r ocess es

The principle treatm e nt technolo g ies currently un der evaluation are ph y s ical, chemical, and

aerobic and anaerobic biol ogical treat ment processes. One “passiv e” technology stream and four “active”

technology pr ocess str e ams are currently under evaluati on. A description of the fi ve principle process

streams follows. Figure 2 provides a schem atic of the test facility and process streams curren tly in

operation.

Process Str e am 1 consists of a septic tank (ST-1) foll owed by a recirculating sand filter (RSF)

and an anoxic bio-filter (ABF). Effluent from the sy stem is discharged to an unli n ed drip irri gation bed.

Treatment occurs through digestion and settling in t h e septic tank and phy s ical, chem ical, and attached

growth aerobic biological processes in the RSF. Ad sorption by the RSF m e dia rem oves li m ited quantities

of phosp horu s . The nitrifi e d RSF effluent is m i xed with anoxic sep tic tank effluent in t h e recirculation

cham ber (RC) to encourag e denitrification. T h e e ffluent also unde rgoes further nutrient reduc tion in an

anoxic bio-fil t er and b y p l ant uptake in t h e drip bed as well as adsorption on t h e d r ip field m e dia.

Process Str e am 2 is a relati vely passive technology c onsisting of a s e ptic tank (ST-2) with

effluent discharged to a lined drip irrigation field. A c o mmer c ially available subsurface drip irrigation

(SDI) sy stem by AztexTM Products is used for effluent distribution t o the root zone. This process stream

represents the m o st “low te ch” of the sy s t e m s. Reduct i on of nutrients and other para meters i s

acco m p lished by prelim inary digestion a nd se ttling in the septic tank with additional

- 3

-Figure 2: Central Test Facil ity Schematic

phy s ical, chemical, and biological treatment process es occurring in the lined bed underly i ng the drip field

and by plant uptake. The l i ned bed cont ains a one foot thickness of saturated m e d i a under 1.5 f eet of

unsaturated media. The effluent un dergoes nitrifica tion in the up p e r unsaturated (aerobic) portion of the

drip bed an d l i m ited denitrification in the saturated (anaerobic) lower portio n of t h e drip bed. T h ree

treat ment m e dia (crushed red brick, silica sand, and an expanded clay aggregate from Norway

,

co mmercially known as LE CATM) underl ie distinct zones of the dri p field. Two of these, the bricks and

LECA, were select ed for their phosphor us adsorption potential. B ecause these media beds have been

built over an im p e r m eable l i ner, the program incl udes an assessmen t of th e effectiveness of evapotranspiration i n reducing ef fluent vol um es.

The principle treat m e nt unit in process stream 3 is a proprietary unit known as the Bio-Microbi cs

FASTTM aerobic unit. This unit uses fixe d-film activ at ed sludge (FAS) treat men t . The treat ment is a

co m b ination suspended growth and attached growth aerobic biological process. This s y ste m provides

nitrification o f the effluent before discharge, a nd also provides deni trification b y mixing anaerobic

conditions that favor the growth of deni trify i ng m i cr oorganisms and conversion of nitrate to nitrous oxi de

or nitrogen gas. Additiona l processes would be requi red for phosphorus rem oval following this sy stem

.

- 4

-Process strea m 4 consists of proprietar y treatm e nt unit known as th e AES BESTEP- IDEATM

sy stem . This sy stem is a suspended grow th biol ogical t r eat ment process that operates as a continuous

feed cy clic reactor (CFCR) . The process is si m ilar to a sequencing batch reactor (SBR), but is unique in

that it allows continuous flow while using only one process tank. Aeration to the tank is cy clical, which

causes alternating aerobic and anaerobic conditions. T h is fluctuating environm en t results in nit r ification

followed b y d e nitrification and also luxu ry uptak e of p hosphor us b y the activated sludge biom ass.

Process strea m 5 consists of a proprieta ry treatm e nt unit known a s the Klargest er BiodiscTM. It is

a rotating biological contactor (RBC), followed by an anoxic bio-fil t er (ABF). The RBC is an attached

growth, aerobic biological treat ment process that provides internal recy cle for nitrification and

denitrification. It pr oduce s a nitrified effluent that the n un dergoes further denitrif ication in the ABF.

Additional pr ocesses would be required for phosphor us rem oval following this s y stem

. Additional unit processes are available f o r tes ting at the facility . These include chem ical

precipitation, supplemental carbon additi on for denitr i f ication, and additional phosphorus ads o rption

media. The test facility was designed so that the effluent from the principle treat m e nt process streams

described above can be routed to any of t h ese additio nal processes f o r further treat m e nt and evaluation.

These additional processes are currently under evaluation a nd are not included in this paper. E ffluents

from the vari ous process streams are discharged to a sum p tank after water quality sam p ling and returned

to the correctional instituti on’s wastewat er treat ment plant.

Treatment P erfor mance Monitoring

Twenty -fo ur hour flow co m posited samples were collected fro m the influent m i x tank and fro m

each of the five treat m e nt process effluents from Nov e m b er 1996 t h rough Augu st 1997. Samples were

analy zed according to Sta nda rd Methods (APHA, 1992) for bioc hem i cal oxy gen demand (BOD 5 ),

carbonaceous biochem i cal ox y g en demand (CBOD 5 ), total suspended solids (TSS), total kjeldahl nitrogen

(TKN), nitrate + nitrite-nitrogen (NO 2 NO 3 -N), and to tal phosph oru s (TP). Total nitrogen (TN) was

obtained b y summation.

RESULTS

Results of the water quality analy ses for the in fluent and five process stream effluents are

provided in T a ble 1. For t h e lined bed dr ip irrigatio n sy stem (Proce ss Strea m 2), only the results of the

crushed brick media (LBRICK) are reported here.

Influent wastewater qualit y was ty pical of that report e d in the liter a ture for domestic wastewater

(Metcalf and Eddy

, 1991) with mean C B OD 5 , TSS, TN, and TP values of 137. 8, 117.5, 38. 4, and 8. 4

m g /L, respect ively. Signifi cant variations about th ese mean values were measured over t h e 12 sam p ling

events, also typical of dom estic w aste w a t er fro m individual hom es.

Effluent quality for all treatment processes wa s excell e nt in terms of traditional wastewater

treatment param e ters, CBOD 5 , and TS S.

CBOD 5 : All five process s t rea m s m e t th e AWT CBO D 5 effluent standard of 5 m g /L. Fig u re 3

shows the 95% confidence intervals about the m e an for the five pr ocesses. These data illustr a te the

stability of fixed-film att a ched growth biological proc esses such as the RSF and RBC.

TSS : Onl y the CFR and the RBC sy stems did not meet the AWT effluent TSS standard of 5

m g /L, but they were within 2 m g /L of the standa rd. Figure 4 shows the 95% confidence intervals for

TSS. These data indicate the stability of biologi cal filter type proc esses such as the RSF for TSS

rem oval. The crushed brick m e dia also indicated st able TSS rem ovals later in the study period, once the

fine media particles stabilized and grass growth took hold.

Effluent quali ty for the nutr i ents, nitroge n and p hosph orus, showed significantl y m o re variation

between processe s, and typically did not meet A W T ef fluent standards.

- 5

-Table 1: Summary of Infl uent and Effluent Water Quality Data

Parameter Statistic Influent S y stem 1 S y stem 2 S y stem 3 S y stem 4 S y stem 5

(IM T ) (RSF-ABF) (LBRICK) (FAS) (CFCR) (RBC-ABF)

mean 170.9 0 2.27 4.17 5.58 4.16 2.42

Std. Dev. 73.85 2.51 6.29 3.90 5.45 1.38

BOD 5 min 62.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

max 299.0 0 9.70 21.30 14.00 17.20 5.00

n 10 12 11 11 8 11

mean 137.8 0 1.50 2.81 2.70 3.19 1.68

Std. Dev. 60.13 0.90 4.04 3.11 5.18 1.24

CBOD 5 min 59.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

max 220.0 0 4.00 14.40 9.01 15.90 5.00

n 10 12 11 11 8 11

mean 117.5 0 2.25 4.09 4.63 6.85 5.75

Std. Dev. 92.09 1.76 3.83 3.93 6.62 4.47

TS S min 17.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

max 345.0 0 6.00 11.00 14.00 20.00 16.00

n 12 12 11 12 10 12

mean 38.58 1.01 1.75 1.55 1.16 2.75

Std. Dev. 10.67 1.44 2.10 0.82 0.52 2.62

TK N min 19.20 0.26 0.34 0.49 0.56 0.42

max 62.50 5.30 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. Dev. 0.02 6.76 10.56 4.06 6.49 3.69

NO 2 NO 3 -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 11

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

max 26.00 2.40 1.20 8.70 9.90 5.90

n 12 10 11 12 10 12

Nitrogen: None of the five process str e a m s met the AWT nitrogen standard of 3 m g /L. The FAS

and RBC-AB F sy stem s per f ormed best for nitrogen rem oval, with mean effluent TN values of 11.0 and

12.5 m g /L, respectively

. Fi gure 5 shows the 95% confidence intervals for TN.

These results are excell e nt considering t h ey were obt ained without supplem ental carbon additi on

to enhance denitrification. In fact, the RBC-ABF e ffluent was not significantly different fro m the RBC

effluent alone, indicating i n sufficient residual carbon f o r denitrification in the ABF tank foll owing the

RBC.

- 6

-Figure 3: Effl uent CBOD 5 Concentrations (mean ± 9 5 % C.I.)

Figure 4: Effl uent TSS Concentrations (mean ± 95% C.I.)

- 7

-Figure 5: Effl uent Total Nitrogen Concentrations (m ean ± 95% C.I.)

Supplem ental carbon additi on is currentl y bei ng evaluated at the Key s test facility, and

prelim inary r esults indicate that an effluent TN va lue of 5 m g /L m a y be achievable b y addin g carbon to

an ABF unit following the FAS or RBC.

Phosphorus: Onl y the line d drip irri gation s y stem with crushed bri c k (LBRICK) media met the

AWT effluent standard for phosph orus. The LBRICK and RSF-ABF sy stem s both prov ided ex cellent TP

rem ovals with m e an effluent TP values of 0.6 0 a nd 1. 8 m g /L, respectively

. Figu re 6 shows the 95%

confidence intervals for TP. These data suggest that adsorption of phosphorus on the RSF sand and drip

field crushed brick m e dia are also the most stable pho sphorus rem o val mechanisms tested. It rem a ins to

be seen, however, how long these rem o val efficienci es will last. Once the m e d i a adsorption sites reach

capacity , breakthrou gh of p hosphor us at higher concentrations m a y occur.

SUMMAR Y AND C O N C L USI O NS

A field evaluation of several onsite wast ewater nutrie n t reduction s y stem s ( O W N RS) wa s

conducted to evaluate the potential for i m proved treat ment effectiveness of onsite wast ewat er treat ment

sy stems (OW TS) in the Florida Key s

. Results indi cated that the sy stem s te sted provided excellent

treat ment performance (C BOD 5 and TSS <5 m g /L), but no indivi dual s y stem was capable of meeting the

Florida advanced wast e tre a t m ent (AWT ) effluent standards of 5 m g /L CBOD 5 , 5 m g /L TSS, 3 m g /L TN,

and 1 m g /L of TP.

- 8

-Figure 6: Effl uent Total Ph osphorus- Co ncentrations (mean ± 95% C.I.)

It appeared that a co m b inat ion of processes, such as a n aerobic biological treat ment unit followed by an

anoxic bio-fil t er (ABF) with supplem ental carbon add ition, discharging t o an engineered m e d i a drip

irrigation bed could m eet the AWT standards for CBOD 5 , TSS, and TP and com e very close t o the

standard for TN. The duration of t h e TP rem ovals by the drip irriga tion bed is un known; however,

continued m onitoring of t h ese sy stems is reco mmend ed to address longevit y issues and solids handling

requirem e nts. Based on the evaluation conducted t o date, following conclusions are drawn:

• AWT effluent standards for CBOD 5 , TSS, and TP can be consistently m e t with com b inations of

the technolog ies tested;

• TN reductions of >70% are achievable without sup p l e m e ntal carb on additi on a nd 9 0 % with

carbon additi on;

• Continued m onitorin g of t h e OWNRS are require d to quantif y pho sphorus rem o val duration a nd

treatment performance longevit y , soli ds handlin g req u irem ents, an d m a intenance requirem e nts;

• Construction of the OWNRS and operation for one year has indicated that OWNRS will req u ire

considerably greater capita l, operation a nd m a intenan ce expenditures in co m p ari s on to

conventional OWTS.

- 9

-- 10 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by the Florida Departme nt of Health (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 a nd material provided by the numerous equipment

manufacturers made this study possible, and their support is acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. APHA, 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18 th ed.,

American Public Health Association, Washington DC.

2. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., Batelle Ocean Services, Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari &

Hellstrom, Inc., Batelle Pacific Northwest Divisi on and Batelle Seattle Research Center, 1993.

Water Quality Protection Program, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Phase II 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. 3 rd ed.,

McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.FLORIDA OWNRS PROJECT PHASE 1 - TEST DATAPARAMETERUNITS SAMPLE DATESAVG % RED11/20/9612/18/96 1/29/97 2/26/97 4/2/97 4/23/9715/8/97 5/21/9725/29/97 6/11/97 7/17/97 8/28/97BOD (5-Day@20°C)INFLUENT mg/L 137.00 148.00 299.00 139.00 170.00 210.00 230.00 62.00 240.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 165.42FAST mg/L 3.26 7.75 8.02 6.00 4.30 9.00 5.70 2.60 14.00 4.80 1.00 1.00 5.62 96.6FAST-ABF mg/LNO DATA NO DATA10.00 10.00 2.20 1.40 1.70 2.70 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 3.24 98.0BOD (Carbonaceous)INFLUENT mg/L 176.00 136.00 215.00 183.00 150.00 200.00 220.00 59.00 130.00 67.00 130.00 71.00 144.75FAST mg/L 2.48 8.85 9.01 6.00 1.20 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.91 98.0FAST-ABF mg/LNO DATA NO DATA16.10 10.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.41 97.6Ammonia NitrogenINFLUENT mg/L N 18.90 34.90 50.80 26.80 23.00 37.00 29.00 26.00 36.00 30.00 27.00 27.00 30.53FAST mg/L N 0.32 1.24 1.73 0.58 0.75 1.40 0.10 0.07 1.90 0.30 0.15 0.04 0.72 97.7FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA NO DATA2.50 0.34 0.61 0.37 0.29 0.67 0.63 0.04NO DATA NO DATA0.68 97.8Nitrate-Nitrite NitrogenINFLUENT mg/L N 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04NO DATA NO DATA0.03FAST mg/L N 9.23 9.39 8.47 19.70 9.20 7.00 3.90 12.00 11.00 9.40 9.80 4.00 9.42 NAFAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA NO DATA18.81 19.00 8.60 6.40 2.40 7.40 11.00 10.00 10.00 2.40 9.60 NATotal Kjeldahl NitrogenINFLUENT mg/L N 19.20 46.90 62.50 37.40 32.00 46.00 39.00 33.00 44.00 36.00 33.00 32.00 38.42FAST mg/L N 1.23 1.77 1.82 0.49 1.90 2.50 1.10 1.00 3.40 1.30 1.50 0.55 1.55 96.0FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA NO DATA2.39 0.64 1.60 1.10 1.10 1.60 1.60 0.83 1.10 0.81 1.28 96.7Total Nitrogen(TKN+Nitrates)INFLUENT mg/L N 19.25 46.95 62.55 37.45 32.04 46.02 39.02 33.01 44.01 36.04NO DATA NO DATA39.63FAST mg/L N 10.46 11.16 10.29 20.19 11.10 9.50 5.00 13.00 14.40 10.70 11.30 4.55 10.97 72.3FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA NO DATA21.20 19.64 10.20 7.50 3.50 9.00 12.60 10.83 11.10 3.21 10.88 72.6Total PhosphorusINFLUENT mg/L P 4.32 7.09 11.00 7.07 6.60 7.80 7.10 5.80 26.00 5.80 7.10 5.00 8.39FAST mg/L P 3.22 4.21 5.19 5.64 5.80 6.40 6.10 5.30 8.70 5.90 3.70 4.40 5.38 35.9FAST-ABF mg/L PNO DATA NO DATA4.52 5.22 5.60 5.60 5.40 5.30 5.80 7.10 4.50 4.20 5.32 36.5Total Suspended SolidsINFLUENT mg/L 60.00 86.00 345.00 70.00 17.00 203.00 170.00 162.00 80.00 123.00 74.00 20.00 117.50FAST mg/L 4.00 14.00 10.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 5.50 1.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 1.00 4.63 96.1FAST-ABF mg/LNO DATA NO DATA4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.95 98.31 - sample collected following simulated vacation stress2 - sample collected following simulated wash day stressFLORIDA OWNRS PROJECT PHASE 2 - TEST DATAPARAMETERUNITS SAMPLE DATESAVG % RED8/19/98 9/22/98 1/18/99 2/16/99 3/23/99 4/22/99 MAY 6/22/99 7/27/99 8/31/99 9/28/99 10/21/99BOD (5-Day@20°C)INFLUENT mg/L 160.00 120.00NO DATA120.00 140.00 56.00 N 160.00 160.00 160.00 110.00 150.00 133.60FAST mg/LNO DATA3.40NO DATA4.50NO DATA2.50 ONO DATA4.20 3.70 1.80 5.60 3.67 97.3FAST-ABF mg/LNO DATA13.00NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA13.00 90.3BOD (Carbonaceous)DINFLUENT mg/L 150.00 91.00 190.00 90.00 88.00 39.00 A 100.00 120.00 120.00 90.00 140.00 110.73FAST mg/L 1.00 1.70 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 T 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.16 98.9FAST-ABF mg/LNO DATA NO DATA3.80 1.50 1.00 1.00 A 1.00 1.00 6.70 36.00 1.00 5.89 94.7Ammonia NitrogenINFLUENT mg/L NNO DATA26.00NO DATA37.00NO DATA22.00 F 53.00 35.00 47.00 30.00 40.00 36.25FAST mg/L NNO DATA0.11NO DATA0.28NO DATA0.28 O 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.08 0.27 99.2FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATARNO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATANitrate-Nitrite NitrogenINFLUENT mg/L N 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.28 0.01 M 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.07FAST mg/L N 15.00 8.20 13.00 12.00 12.00 9.70 O 12.00 9.50 5.90 4.70 2.40 9.49 N.A.FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA7.20 3.90 9.60 11.00 6.10 N 8.10 10.00 0.01 0.01 2.00 5.79 N.A.Total Kjeldahl NitrogenTINFLUENT mg/L N 38.00 32.00 62.00 44.00 37.00 29.00 H 56.00 48.00 65.00 46.00 46.00 45.73FAST mg/L N 1.20 0.89 1.20 1.20 0.99 1.20 0.77 1.20 1.50 1.20 0.35 1.06 97.7FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA0.96 1.30 0.90 0.60 1.30 O 0.99 0.82 2.30 2.90 1.20 1.33 97.1Total Nitrogen(TKN+Nitrates)FINFLUENT mg/L N 38.02 32.01 62.01 44.26 37.28 29.01 56.01 48.01 65.05 46.12 46.01 45.80FAST mg/L N 16.20 9.09 14.20 13.20 12.99 10.90 M 12.77 10.70 7.40 5.90 2.75 10.55 77.0FAST-ABF mg/L NNO DATA8.16 5.20 10.50 11.60 7.40 A 9.09 10.82 2.31 2.91 3.20 7.12 84.5Total PhosphorusYINFLUENT mg/L P 6.50 7.80 8.00 12.00 9.40 5.80 9.50 5.70 11.00 8.70 7.90 8.39FAST mg/L P 6.40 7.00 6.20 6.10 6.00 7.20 5.70 5.70 7.70 6.90 6.00 6.45 23.2FAST-ABF mg/L PNO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATATotal Suspended SolidsINFLUENT mg/L 68.00 48.00 68.00 90.00 108.00 66.00 70.00 114.00 100.00 133.00 92.00 87.00FAST mg/L 1.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.18 95.2FAST-ABF mg/LNO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATAFecal ColiformsINFLUENT cts/100 mlNO DATA600,000 Q,Z 600,000 V 600,000 Z 600,000 630,000 600,000 21,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 604,375FAST cts/100 mlNO DATA460.00 200.00 450.00 63.00 140.00 1500.00 200.00 >600 270.00 3600.00 764.78 99.9FAST-ABF cts/100 mlNO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATAQ - 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 (1ml).Z - Greater than 60,000. Fecal coliforms exceeded 60 counts on lowest filtration volume (0.1ml).