Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater on the White River near Indianapolis, Indiana: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

United States Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper 2393

Prepared in cooperationwith the City Indianapolis,of Public Works

of Department

AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the ! current-year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Survey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List." Publications j that may be listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" may be no longer available.

Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated monthly, which is for sale in microfiche from U.S. Geological Survey ESIC Open-File Report Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Reports released through the NTIS may be obtained by writing to the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161; please include NTIS report number with inquiry.

Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below.

BY MAIL

Books

Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications of general interest (such as leaflets, pamphlets, booklets), single copies of Earthquakes & Volcanoes, Preliminary Determination of Epicenters, and some miscellaneous reports, including some of the foregoing series that have gone out of print at the Superintendent of Documents, are obtainable by mail from

U.S. Geological Survey, Map DistributionBox 25286, Bldg. 810, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Subscriptions to periodicals (Earthquakes & Volcanoes and Preliminary Determination of Epicenters) can be obtained ONLY from the

Superintendent of DocumentsGovernment Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

(Check or money order must be payable to Superintendent of Documents.)

OVER THE COUNTER

Books and Maps

Books and maps of the U.S. Geological Survey are available over the counter at the following U.S. Geological Survey offices, all of which are authorized agents of the Superintendent of Documents:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska-Rm. 101, 4230 University Dr.

LAKEWOOD, Colorado-Federal Center, Bldg. 810

MENLO PARK, California-Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128, 345 Middle- field Rd.

RESIGN, Virginia-USGS National Center, Rm. 1C402, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr.

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah-Federal Bldg., Rm. 8105, 125 South State St.

SPOKANE, Washington U.S. Post Office Bldg., Rm. 135, West 904 Riverside Ave.

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Main Interior Bldg., Rm. 2650, 18th andCSts.,NW. j

Maps

For maps, address mail orders to

U.S. Geological Survey, Map DistributionBox 25286, Bldg. 810, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Residents of Alaska may order maps from

U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science Information Center101 Twelfth Ave. - Box 12

Fairbanks, AK 99701

Maps Only

Maps may be purchased over the counter at the following U.S. Geological Survey offices:

FAIRBANKS, Alaska-New Federal Bldg., 101 Twelfth Ave.

ROLLA, Missouri 1400 Independence Rd.

STENNIS SPACE CENTER, Mississippi -Bldg. 31011

Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater on the White River near Indianapolis, Indiana: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

By CHARLES G. CRAWFORD and DAVID J. WANGSNESS

Prepared in cooperation with theCity of Indianapolis, Department of Public Works

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2393

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm namesin this publication is for descriptive purposes onlyand does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993

For sale byU.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution Box 25286, Bldg. 810, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225

For additional information write to:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 5957 Lakeside Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46278

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Crawford, Charles G.Effects of advanced treatment of municipal wastewater on the White River

near Indianapolis, Indiana : trends in water quality, 1978-1986 / by Charles G. Crawford and David J. Wangsness.

p. cm. (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper ; 2393)Prepared in cooperation with the city of Indianapolis Dept. of Public Works.Includes bibliographical references.1. Water quality Indiana White River. 2. Water quality Indiana-

Indianapolis Region. 3. Sewage disposal plants Environmental aspects Indiana White River. 4. Sewage disposal plants Environ­ mental aspects Indiana Indianapolis Region. I. Wangsness, David J. II. Indianapolis (Ind.). Dept. of Public Works. III. Title. IV. Series.

TD225.W559C73 1993363.78'946'09772-dc20 92-1671

CIP

CONTENTS

Abstract 1 Introduction 1

Background of Study 1Purpose and Scope 2

Description of Study Area 3 Data Collection 3 Data Summary 5

Flow Data 5Daily Effluent-Quality Data 6Monthly River-Water-Quality Data 7

Trends in Water Quality 14Trend-Analysis Techniques 14Trend-Analysis Results 16

River Quality Upstream from Treatment Plants 16 Effluent Quality 18River Quality Downstream from Treatment Plants 18

Summary and Conclusions 22 References Cited 23

FIGURES

1,2. Maps showing:1. Upper White River basin and study area 22. Location of sampling sites on the White River 4

3-5. Graphs showing:3. Comparison of flow in the White River at 82nd Street, at Morris

Street, at Waverly, and near Centerton before and after construction, 1978-86 6

4. Comparison of flow at the Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater- treatment plants before and after construction, 1978-86 7

5. Flow-duration curves of daily mean flows for the White River at 82ndStreet and at Morris Street, 1931-84 8

6, 7. Graphs showing ammonia, 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand, fecal-coliform bacteria, nitrate, phosphate, and total-solids concentrations in:

6. Belmont municipal wastewater-treatment-plant effluent, 1978-86 107. Southport municipal wastewater-treatment-plant effluent, 1978-86 11

8-11. Graphs showing ammonia, 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand, dissolved- oxygen, and nitrate concentrations in the White River, 1978-86:

8. At 82nd Street 159. At Morris Street 16

10. At Waverly 1711. Near Centerton 18

TABLES

1. Location of and period of record for municipal wastewater effluent discharge and sampling sites on the White River 3

Contents III

2. Summary of instantaneous flow data for municipal wastewater effluent discharge and sampling sites on the White River 5

3. Summary of daily effluent-quality data for Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1978-86 9

4. Summary of monthly river-water-quality data for the White River upstream and downstream from the municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1978-86 12

5. Summary of long-term water-quality data for the White River at 82nd Street upstream from the municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1958-86 14

6. Seasonal Kendall test results of long-term water-quality trends in the White River at 82nd Street, 1958-86 19

7. Seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test results of water-quality trends in the White River upstream from both municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1978-86 20

8. Seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test results of water-quality trends in Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater-treatment-plant effluents, 1978-86 20

9. Seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test results of water-quality trends in the White River downstream from both municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1978-86 21

10. River-quality standards and number of times the observed data exceeded the standards in the White River, 1978-86 21

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

For readers who wish to convert measurements from the inch-pound system of units to the metric system of units, the conversion factors are listed below:

Multiply

mile (mi) square mile (mi2)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

pound per day (Ib/d)

By

1.609 2.590 0.0283 0.04381 0.4536

To obtain

kilometer (km) square kilometer (km2) cubic meter per second (m3/s) cubic meter per second (m3/s) kilogram per day (kg/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8x°Q + 32

IV Contents

Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater on the White River near Indianapolis, Indiana: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86By Charles G. Crawford and David J. Wangsness

Abstract

The City of Indianapolis has constructed state-of-the- art advanced municipal wastewater-treatment systems to enlarge and upgrade the existing secondary-treatment processes at its Belmont and Southport treatment plants. These new advanced-wastewater-treatment plants became operational in 1983.

A nonparametric statistical procedure a modified form of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test was used to test for trends in time-series water-quality data from four sites on the White River and from the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants. Time-series data representative of preadvanced- (1978-1980) and postadvanced- (1983-86) wastewater-treatment conditions were tested for trends, and the results indicate substantial changes in water quality of treated effluent and of the White River downstream from Indianapolis after imple­ mentation of advanced wastewater treatment. Water qual­ ity from 1981 through 1982 was highly variable due to plant construction. Therefore, this time period was excluded from the analysis. Water quality at sample sites located upstream from the wastewater-treatment plants was rela­ tively constant during the period of study (1978-86).

Analysis of data from the two plants and downstream from the plants indicates statistically significant decreasing trends in effluent concentrations of total ammonia, 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand, fecal-col if orm bacteria, total phosphate, and total solids at all sites where suffi­ cient data were available for testing. Because of in-plant nitrification, increases in nitrate concentration were sta­ tistically significant in the two plants and in the White River. The decrease in ammonia concentrations and 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand in the White River resulted in a statistically significant increasing trend in dissolved- oxygen concentration in the river because of reduced oxygen demand for nitrification and biochemical oxida­ tion processes. Following implementation of advanced wastewater treatment, the number of river-quality sam­ ples that failed to meet the water-quality standards for ammonia and dissolved oxygen that apply to the White River decreased substantially.

INTRODUCTION

Background of Study

The Clean Water Act of 1972 established rigorous effluent-quality standards for industrial and municipal wastewater. In response to the Act, and to subsequent Federal and State regulations, the City of Indianapolis constructed state-of-the-art advanced-wastewater-treatment (AWT) systems to enlarge and upgrade the two existing secondary wastewater-treatment plants. The new AWT plants began operation in January 1983. The plants have ozonation of the final effluent, rather than chlorination, and an oxygen-nitrification system. The ozone-production sys­ tem and oxygen-nitrification system are among the largest systems in the world of this type used for wastewater treatment. The new AWT plants are designed to process up to 245 million gallons of effluent per day (368 ft3/s (cubic feet per second)) at a quality that approaches drinking-water standards.

The study area is in the middle of the White River drainage basin. The basin drains a 2,655-mi2 (square mile) area in central Indiana (fig. 1). The river flows generally west and southwest to its confluence with the Wabash River. Land use in the drainage basin is about 68 percent agriculture, 19 percent urban, 7 percent forest, and 6 percent other land uses (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1968). Several major population centers, including Muncie, Anderson, Noblesville, Indianapolis, and Martinsville, dis­ charge effluents into the White River. According to studies by Shampine (1975) and the Indiana Heartland Coordinat­ ing Commission (1976), the water quality of the river was affected most by the Indianapolis area. Most water-quality problems in the White River downstream from the India­ napolis area were attributed to stormwater runoff from combined sanitary and storm sewers and from separate storm sewers and to effluent from the city's wastewater- treatment plants.

Introduction

Andersor

Noblesville

Nora

FtiESEW

INDIANAPOLIS '20 30 MILESJ_____I

Waverly

Centerton

Martinsville

I I 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

41°-

White basin

39

030 MILES

0 30 KILOMETERS

Figure 1. Upper White River basin and study area.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the City of Indianapolis, Department of Public Works, began studying the effects of municipal wastewater on the water quality of the White River downstream from India­ napolis in October 1981. Since that time, the study has included (1) collection of data used to calibrate and verify two dissolved oxygen (DO) models, (2) collection of biological samples to determine changes in aquatic flora and fauna, (3) collection of water-quality data at a fixed-station monitoring network, and (4) collection of continuous DO monitoring data to evaluate the effects of combined storm and sanitary sewer flows and of separate storm sewer flows on the DO dynamics of the White River during various flow conditions. This report describes trend analyses of water-

quality data from the fixed-station monitoring network. For this report, the period of study before January 1981 is defined as pre-AWT, and the period of study after January 1983 is defined as post-AWT. Data collected from January 1981 to January 1983 were not used in the analyses, as water-quality conditions were variable because of plant construction.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes changes in the water quality of the White River that occurred after the implementation of AWT. The report includes analyses of data collected from

2 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

Table 1. Location of and period of record for municipal wastewater effluent discharge and sampling sites on the WhiteRiver[DPW, Department of Public Works; ISBH, Indiana State Board of Health; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; n.d., no data]

Sampling site name

White River at 82nd Street1White River at Morris Street1Belmont plant effluentSouthport plant effluentWhite River at WaverlyWhite River near Centerton 1

Samplingsite number

(fig- 2)

123456

Location(river mile)

247.87230.30

2227.003221.90212.20199.31

DPWperiod of record

n.d.01/78 to 12/8601/78 to 12/8601/78 to 12/8601/78 to 07/8201/78 to 07/82

ISBHperiod of record

01/58 to 12/86n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.

USGSperiod of record

n.d.08/82 to 12/86

n.d.n.d.

08/82 to 12/8608/82 to 12/86

'USGS continuous-record gaging station.2Present location of effluent discharge; prior to 1983 located at river mile 227.50.3Present location of effluent discharge; prior to 1983 located at river mile 222.11.

three locations on the White River between 1978 and 1986 by the City of Indianapolis, Department of Public Works, and by the USGS and data from one location on the White River collected by the Indiana State Board of Health between 1958 and 1986. This report also includes analyses of daily effluent data from the Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater-treatment plants from 1978 through 1986.

Constituents analyzed include ammonia, biochemical-oxygen demand, fecal-coliform bacteria, nitrate, phosphate, and total solids for the effluent data and ammonia, biochemical-oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and nitrate for the river data. The data were statistically analyzed for significant changes in water quality and trends. The water-quality analyses reflect water-quality conditions over a wide range of streamflow conditions and seasonal differences. Periods of record at the sampling sites on the White River are variable, but adequate data are available to compare water quality upstream and downstream from the two Indianapolis municipal wastewater-treatment plants and to compare water quality before and after implementation of AWT by using statistical techniques. Sampling sites having data that were analyzed in this report are listed in table 1; their locations are shown on figure 2.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The study area for this report is a 48-mi (mile) reach of the White River, extending from 82nd Street on the north side of Indianapolis to near Centerton (fig. 2). The major influences on water quality in the study area are the Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater-treatment plants. Four tributaries, Fall Creek, Pogues Run, Pleasant Run, and Eagle Creek, also influence the White River because of the combined sewer overflows (CSO's) that enter them and ultimately flow to the White River. Three USGS continuous-record gaging stations are located on the White River within the study area: one at 82nd Street, one at Morris Street, and one near Centerton.

DATA COLLECTION

Water was collected by the USGS from at least five points on the cross section by the equal-width-increment technique. The water was composited in a churn and thoroughly mixed, and a sample drawn off and analyzed for total concentrations of ammonia, 5-day biochemical- oxygen demand (BOD5), nitrate, organic nitrogen, and orthophosphate. A sample to be analyzed for fecal-coliform bacteria was collected from the center of flow in a sterilized biochemical-oxygen demand (BOD) bottle. BOD5 was analyzed according to techniques described by the Ameri­ can Public Health Association and others (1976). Nutrient analyses were done according to techniques described by Skougstad and others (1979). Techniques for analysis of fecal-coliform bacteria are described by Greeson and others (1977). The dissolved-oxygen concentration was measured at each point on the cross section, and the measurements were averaged for each site. Field instruments were cali­ brated each day according to the manufacturer's specifica­ tions. Water samples were collected by other agencies from the center of flow and analyzed by using standard methods described by the American Public Health Association and others (1976). Nitrogen species are reported in concentra­ tions and loads as nitrogen. Phosphorus species are reported in concentrations and loads as phosphorus.

For the sampling sites on the White River at 82nd Street, Morris Street, and near Centerton, flow was obtained directly from the USGS gage. River stage was measured at the time of sampling, and a corresponding flow was selected from the rating table for that site. For the sampling site on the White River at Waverly, where no gaging stations existed, several flow measurements were made over a wide range in stage, and a correlation was developed between the flow at this site and the flow at the USGS gage near Centerton. Flow was then estimated for the ungaged site for the date of sample collection on the basis of discharge near the Centerton gage for that date. Flow from the Belmont and Southport treatment plants was measured

Data Collection

86° 15 86°00'

39°45

39°30

Eagle Cqeek

Reservoir

Dam yo Belmont wa^tey^ater-treatmenf plant "^ i\.

HENDRJ^S __ COUNTY //

MORGAN // COUNTY/ Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:250,000

Indianapolis, Indiana: Illinois 1953 (revised 1974)

EXPLANATION

6 SITE NUMBER

SAMPLING SITE

WASTEWATER-TREATMENT PLANT

STUDY AREA

Figure 2. Location of sampling sites on the White River.

4 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

Table 2. Summary of instantaneous flow data for municipal wastewater effluent discharge and sampling sites on the White River[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; Post-AWT, period of study after implementation of advanced wastewater treatment; Pre-AWT, period of study before implementation of advanced wastewater treatment]

Sampling site

number RiverSampling site name

White River at 82nd Street

(fig- 2)

1

mile

247,.87

Number Period of of record1 observa-

(month/year)

01/58 to 12/86

tions

497

Mean flow(ft3/s)

1,140

Median flow(ft3/s)

502

Inter­ quartile range2(ft3/s)

786

Maximum flow(ft3/s)

23,100

Minimum flow(tf/s)

104

Pre-AWTWhite River at 82nd StreetWhite River at Morris StreetBelmont plant effluentSouthport plant effluentWhite River at WaverlyWhite River near Centerton

123456

247,230,227,222,212,199,

.87

.30

.50

.11

.20

.31

01/78 to01/78 to01/78 to01/78 to01/78 to01/78 to

12/8012/8012/8012/8012/8012/80

35143

3 1,0333 1,061

145142

1,3901,810

14379

2,5502,860

64095614079

1,4001,650

1,4201,300

3920

1,7802,070

9,98020,000

226124

18,60021,100

2371806824

371446

Post-AWTWhite River at 82nd StreetWhite River at Morris StreetBelmont plant effluentSouthport plant effluentWhite River at WaverlyWhite River near Centerton

123456

247,230,

4227,4221,212,199,

.87

.30

.00,90,20,31

01/83 to01/83 to01/83 to01/83 to01/83 to01/83 to

12/8612/8612/8612/8612/8612/86

3847

3 1,4583 1,459

4848

2,0101,570

145117

1,9702,290

714757140113

1,3201,540

9751,540

3824

1,9702,260

23,10016,700

255299

9,63011,200

1761037142

190236

'Period of record includes the time period for which flow data correspond to the collection of a water-quality sample. Period of record does not include, in the case of a continuous-record gaging station, the complete record of daily mean flows.

Interquartile range is the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. 3Flow data provided by Department of Public Works. 4Effluent outfalls for both the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants were relocated during the construction.

by continuous-recording flow meters operated by plant personnel.

DATA SUMMARY

Flow Data

A summary of the flow data that are discussed in this report is listed in table 2. The data represent long-term water quality and sampling conditions prior to and follow­ ing implementation of advanced wastewater treatment.

Figure 3 shows the relation of flow to time at four river sites: on the White River at 82nd Street and at Morris Street (upstream from both plants) and on the White River at Waverly and near Centerton (downstream from both plants). The relation of flow to time at the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants is shown in figure 4. The data for 1981 through 1982 are not shown because of the effects that plant construction had on the quality of the effluents.

Flow from the Southport plant increased because of increased design capacity and installation of a connector system that allows the Belmont plant to transfer sewage to Southport. Previously, wastewater that had been routed to the Belmont plant that was in excess of that plant's capacity had to be stored or diverted to the White River. The

expansion of the Southport plant and construction of the new connector system allow excess wastewater to bypass the Belmont plant and go to the Southport plant for treatment. Thus, there has been (1) an increase in flow from the Southport plant; (2) no change in treated flow from the Belmont plant; (3) elimination of the bypass flow; but (4) no detectable change in flow in the river downstream from the plants.

Flow-duration tables of daily mean flow were calcu­ lated for the White River at 82nd Street and at Morris Street, by using daily values for the period of record from 1931 through 1984. Duration curves were drawn by using the information from the tables; these curves are shown in figure 5. The maximum, minimum, and median flows at which water-quality samples were collected and analyzed also are shown in figure 5. The maximum flows at which water-quality samples were collected are near the maximum flows recorded for the gages. The minimum flows sampled are near the minimum recorded flows and are only about twice the calculated 7-day, 10-year low flow for both gages. Median flows at which water-quality samples were col­ lected and analyzed were equaled or exceeded during the period of record 35 to 50 percent of the time. The data discussed in this report are representative of nearly the entire range of flow at the gaging stations at 82nd Street and Morris Street.

Data Summary

WHITE RIVER AT 82ND STREET WHITE RIVER AT MORRIS STREET19

z 20O

0 Ul</) 15DC Ul

°- 10i Ul

Ul

"*" 5 0

CD

MEDIAN = 640 O MEDIAN = 714

O3 DC

Z Oou. 0O 0DCUlO.

... r. ': ! '-...I i i-^ - i-' ..-"I ''-...I ' ".

19

S 20OoUl</> 15DCUl

°- 10i-UlUl

" 5o

CO3

z0J-

3oe.i zo0

MEDIAN = 956 u. MEDIAN = 757Oo

. f O

' Ul .. Q. ' '<

v ; ' V' .' .,'..*, ' ' . '

>_ »/A,;V' . V*f* 'Vc* i i'' ' ....!" '.: '{' '.....» _ O °

WHITE RIVER AT WAVERLY WHITE RIVER NEAR CENTERTONO '*>

O

< 20(/)3o 15Z1

z10

$0

J 5 u.

0 v,

11111111

MEDIAN = 1,400 z MEDIAN = 1,320 O

031

zo0u.0O0

.. OC. . Ul f Q.

-.*. . ... ' *'.. . .' '.'.. '"

' f '-'^ \'^\ : 'ti^f, , i ''....;' ' : i- ...,' 'H'

0 ^°

o< 20(/)3o 15X1

z10

s0J 5 u.

n

lilt

Z2o3DC

ZMEDIAN = 1,650 Oo

u.0o

.. o oe. f Ul

O.

';. 'f ~.:'f :V.\.> ' '-=! ',- ' ^' '«XMI ,

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982

Figure 3. Comparison of flow in the White River at 82nd Street, at Morris Street, at Waverly, andand after construction, 1978-86.

i i i i

-

MEDIAN = 1,540

'

.

. . ^ . .

1 ' '.-.-I ' ' l' '-..! -

1983 1984 1985 1986

near Centerton before

The two duration curves cross at the lower end of the curves. The more typical curve is that shown for the 82nd Street gage. Between the two gages, river water is diverted for use as a municipal-water supply. The diverted water enters the White River again as treated effluent from the Belmont wastewater-treatment plant downstream from the Morris Street gage and, therefore, is never measured at the Morris Street gage.

Effluent discharge from both treatment plants repre­ sent a large percentage of the total flow in the White River downstream from the plants. For example, if median flows at the Belmont and Southport plants are compared with the change in median flows between Morris Street and Waverly, about 42 percent of the flow entering the White River is treated effluent. When the same comparison is made by using minimum values of flow, 100 percent of the increase in flow between Morris Street and Waverly is treated effluent. These numbers are based on monthly medians, rather than on an analysis of daily mean flow values, but the comparison does show that treated effluent is a significant percentage of flow in the White River down­ stream from Indianapolis.

Daily Effluent-Quality Data

A summary of daily effluent-quality data from the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants dis­ cussed in this report is listed in table 3. The relations of concentrations of ammonia, BOD5 , fecal-coliform bacteria, nitrate, phosphate, and total solids in the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment-plant effluents to time are shown in figures 6 and 7. The methods of Gilliom and Helsel (1986) were used to estimate summary statistics for nutrient data for which observations having concentrations less than the detection limit were found. All observations less than the highest detection limit used during the period of record for this study were considered to be nondetected concentrations. The highest detection limit used for ammo­ nia, nitrate, and phosphate was 0.1 mg/L (milligrams per liter).

In the Belmont plant effluent, BOD5 concentrations ranged from 1 to 101 mg/L with a median of 24 mg/L, and loads from 660 to 87,200 Ib/d (pounds per day), with a median of 18,600 Ib/d, prior to AWT. Concentrations ranged from 1 to 65 mg/L, with a median of 5 mg/L, and

6 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

BELMONT WASTEWATER-TREATMENT PLANTJUU

250

200

S 150

O0 uj 100 tocc ^ 50Q.

h-

uj n

*o .o :.' '.'" .-:: ;. n > :;'., : -

.» .. +'tt \ c/) ». .. *. t,- f ^.

r <.»'» '.'»..>».. LV . <-> .^. -'.-^ '."*.; *^«; '' '"'^

. :":' « "v o ', -/^ ' ' "' * . / o *

oeUl Q.

MEDIAN = 140 MEDIAN = 140

SOUTHPORT WASTEWATER-TREATMENT PLANT

0

CD

^

z

S o

u.

ouu

250

200

150

100

50

n

'

Z0

0 MEDIAN = 79 ^ ' . . -

* . ' </> : ,.

0 .'' ' ' ':'.' ,o .;. - .-, : "

. i'- »' ° Ks>:'.'^/?i^v . ^".r/ ^/-t- *Ljv . " *^« * A>"».^*«>'*» i*^v t . j * ",\ *-

V*5^tf" " V****. " ' /C " "* " ** *

m^^ s '' ':MEDIAN = 113

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Figure 4. Comparison of flow at the Belmont and South- port municipal wastewater-treatment plants before and after construction, 1978-86.

loads from 597 to 52,200 Ib/d, with a median of 3,670 Ib/d, after implementation of AWT.

A similar reduction in BOD5 occurred in the South- port effluent. Concentrations ranged from 1 to 99 mg/L, with a median of 13 mg/L, and loads from 284 to 26,400 Ib/d, with a median of 5,550 Ib/d, prior to AWT. Concen­ trations ranged from 1 to 70 mg/L, with a median of 3 mg/L, and loads from 241 to 48,000 Ib/d, with a median of 1,620 Ib/d, after implementation of AWT. The average decrease in the load of BOD5 was 70 percent in the Belmont effluent and 60 percent in the Southport effluent. The decrease was greater in the Belmont effluent than in the Southport effluent because of the wastewater that was diverted from the Belmont plant to the Southport plant for treatment.

Only limited nutrient data are available for the Bel­ mont plant; no nutrient data are available for the Southport plant prior to the implementation of AWT. Ammonia concentrations in the Belmont wastewater-treatment plant

prior to AWT ranged from 5.9 to 23.4 mg/L, with a median of 14.3 mg/L. Loads ranged from 2,600 to 14,700 Ib/d, with a median of 8,480 Ib/d. After implementation of AWT, ammonia concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 23.1 mg/L, with a median of <0.1 mg/L. Loads ranged from 23 to 15,000 Ib/d, with a median of 52 Ib/d. Phosphate concentrations in the Belmont wastewater-treatment plant prior to AWT ranged from 1.0 to 10.8 mg/L, with a median of 5.0 mg/L. Loads ranged from 593 to 5,960 Ib/d, with a median of 2,990 Ib/d. After implementation of AWT, phosphate concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 10.7 mg/L, with a median of 3.1 mg/L. Loads ranged from 114 to 6,370 Ib/d, with a median of 2,430 Ib/d.

The median effluent concentrations and loads of all constituents discussed in this report were reduced by the AWT process, except those for nitrate. Nitrate was expected to increase following implementation of AWT because the ammonia-removal process installed was designed to have nitrification occurring in the plants. Median nitrate concentrations in the Belmont wastewater- treatment-plant effluent increased from <0.1 mg/L, prior to AWT, to 11.0 mg/L, after AWT was implemented. The median load increased from 30 Ib/d to 8,620 Ib/d.

Substantial decreases were observed in total solids. In the Belmont plant effluent, total-solids concentrations ranged from 1 to 195 mg/L, with a median of 26 mg/L, prior to implementation of AWT, and ranged from <1 to 114 mg/L, with a median of 5 mg/L after implementation of AWT. Total-solids loads in the Belmont effluent ranged from 750 to 147,000 Ib/d, with a median of 20,500 Ib/d, prior to implementation of AWT, and ranged from <1 to 91,400 Ib/d, with a median of 3,730 Ib/d after implemen­ tation of AWT. Similar results were observed in the Southport plant effluent. The average decrease in the load of total solids was about 75 percent in the Belmont effluent and 50 percent in the Southport effluent. As with BOD5 , the decrease in total solids was larger at the Belmont plant than at the Southport plant, because of the wastewater that was diverted from the Belmont plant to the Southport plant.

The number of fecal-coliform colonies also decreased in the effluent from both treatment plants. The median number of colonies decreased from 50 to 32 col/100 mL (colonies per 100 milliliters) in the Belmont plant effluent and from 38 to 14 col/100 mL in the Southport plant effluent.

Monthly River-Water-Quality Data

A summary of monthly river-water-quality data from the sampling sites on the White River at 82nd Street, at Morris Street, at Waverly, and near Centerton for 1978 through 1986 is listed in table 4. Data from each site represent the periods prior to and following implementation of AWT. Long-term water-quality data for the White River

Data Summary

20

0.1 .2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 .5 .8 99.9

PERCENTAGE OF TIME DISCHARGE EQUALED OR EXCEEDED THAT SHOWN

Figure 5. Flow-duration curves of daily mean flows for the White River at 82nd Street and at Morris Street 1931^84.

8 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

Tabl

e 3.

Sum

mar

y o

f da

ily e

fflu

en

t-q

ua

lity

data

fo

r B

elm

ont

and

So

uth

po

rt m

unic

ipal

was

tew

ater

-tre

atm

ent

plan

ts,

1978

-86

[All

data

col

lect

ed a

nd a

naly

zed

by th

e D

epar

tmen

t of P

ublic

Wor

ks.

BO

D5,

5-d

ay b

ioch

emic

al-o

xyge

n de

man

d; c

ol/1

00 m

L, c

olon

ies

per

100

mill

ilite

rs; c

ol/d

, col

onie

s pe

r day

; Ib/

d, p

ound

per

day

; mg/

L,

mill

igra

m p

er li

ter;

n.d.

, no

dat

a; P

ost-

AW

T,

peri

od o

f st

udy

afte

r im

plem

enta

tion

of a

dvan

ced

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t; Pr

e-A

WT

, per

iod

of s

tudy

bef

ore

impl

emen

tatio

n of

adv

ance

d w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent;

<,

less

tha

n]

Bel

mon

t ef

flue

nt

Pro

pert

yor

cons

titu

ent

Uni

ts

Num

ber

ofob

serv

a­ti

ons

Inte

r-qu

artil

eM

ean

Med

ian

rang

e M

axim

um

Min

imum

Num

ber

ofob

serv

a­tio

nsM

ean

Sout

hpor

t eff

luen

t

Med

ian

Inte

r­qu

artil

era

nge1

Max

imum

Min

imum

Pre-

AW

T c

once

ntra

tions

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5Fe

cal-c

olifo

rmba

cter

iaN

itrat

e as

N2

Phos

phat

e as

P3

Tota

l so

lids

mg/

Lm

g/L

col/1

00 m

L

mg/

Lm

g/L

mg/

L

911,

018

386 91 91

1,03

0

14.3

288,

670

.2 5.1

33

14.3

24 50 <.l 5.0

26

4 19 192 < 2 23

.7

23.4

101

451,

000

.1 1.

25.7

10

.819

5

5.9

1 0 <.l 1.0

1.0

01,

046

448 0 0

1,05

8

n.d. 14 37

4

n.d.

n.d. 14

n.d. 13 38 n.d.

n.d. 13

n.d. 9 82 n.d.

n.d. 9

n.d. 99

17,9

00

n.d.

n.d. 15

3

n.d. 1 0

n.d.

n.d. 1

Post

-AW

T c

once

ntra

tions

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

g

Feca

l-col

iform

bact

eria

Nitr

ate

as N

2Ph

osph

ate

as P

3To

tal

solid

s

mg/

Lm

g/L

col/1

00 m

L

mg/

Lm

g/L

mg/

L

1,45

81,

459

830

1,44

81,

417

1,45

9

1.7

7.9

259 11

.3 3.4

7.6

<.l 5.0

32 11.0 3.1

5.0

1.5

6.0

124 5.

91.

86.

0

23.1

6533

,600 29

.610

.711

4

<.l

1,

457

1.0

1,45

70

812

<.l

1,

457

.1 1,

414

<1

1,45

6

1.2

3.6

349 12

.6 2.8

4.8

<.l 3.0

14 12.5 2.7

3.0

<.l 2.0

48 5.9

1.4

3.0

35.6

7096

,000 32

.4 7.3

142

<.l 1.0

0 <.l .6

<l

Pre-

AW

T l

oads

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

g

Feca

l-col

iform

bact

eria

Nitr

ate

as N

2Ph

osph

ate

as P

3To

tal

solid

s

Ib/d

Ib/d

col/d

x 1

010

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

911,

017

386 91 91

1,02

9

8,32

021

,500

31,1

00 632,

970

25,3

00

8,48

018

,600 19

5 302,

990

20,5

00

3,14

016

,100 67

6 6.4

1,84

019

,100

14,7

0087

,200

1,46

0,00

0

741

5,96

014

7,00

0

2,60

066

0 0 20 593

750

01,

045

448 0 0

1,05

7

n.d.

6,10

079

0

n.d.

n.d.

6,05

0

n.d.

5,55

0 70 n.d.

n.d.

5,46

0

n.d.

4,36

015

4

n.d.

n.d.

4,27

0

n.d.

26,4

0049

,900

n.d.

n.d.

44,3

00

n.d.

284 0

n.d.

n.d.

298

Post

-AW

T l

oads

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

g

Feca

l-col

iform

bact

eria

Nitr

ate

as N

2Ph

osph

ate

as P

3To

tal

solid

s

Ib/d

Ib/d

col/d

x 1

010

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

1,45

61,

456

830

1,44

61,

415

1,45

6

1,13

06,

210

910

8,47

42,

540

6,12

0

523,

670

120

8,62

02,

430

3,73

0

1,20

05,

160 43

3,44

01,

110

5,46

0

15,0

0052

,200

71,6

00

16,9

006,

370

91,4

00

23 597 0 27 114

<1

1,45

61,

456

812

1,45

61,

413

1,45

7

687

2,31

010

,600

7,68

01,

720

3,09

0

331,

620 38

7,71

01,

680

1,99

0

161,

260

135

3,00

071

42,

010

23,2

0048

,000

287,

000

16,4

004,

760

98,7

00

11 241 0 18 327

<1

Inte

rqua

rtile

ran

ge i

s th

e di

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e 75

th a

nd 2

5th

perc

entil

es.

2Nitr

ogen

spe

cies

are

rep

orte

d in

con

cent

ratio

ns a

nd l

oads

as

nitr

ogen

. 3P

hosp

horu

s sp

ecie

s ar

e re

port

ed i

n co

ncen

trat

ions

and

loa

ds a

s ph

osph

orus

.

S

SO

S

Q 21

0

g

PS °

cw"

P

°0

0

5C5

i-»

i o

n n

;Jj

2

1^

ri

ff*

C

n sr

ft.

££

55 '

a

« s*

pf

S- >

_

<*>

3

n>

fD

n'

3

toO

O

^t

<"B

¥

3

NJ

-"

S ^ -

=

3

00"l^

kJ

h^»

i ^

£

3 P-

o1

- o

<

«

8T

"*

3

3

to3

^

5d

Cn

CO ^

u <Q

n

o

5-

ui

(n

Q

. o

S

oo

3

i

toH

E=

Q

0

Q-

2

7

ct

S-

^

«

o«

O

g.

H

rt-

*<

_.

3 2,

g J

j 3

Z

§2-

v^

§ ^

=. <

"> I

o S

' '"i

o°

?"

to^

i J^

, *»

O _z

z" ^

00»

3^

c^

2?

Q> 3

^

i. Q

% s

s i"

§' £

I

o k ^

» I

-<

^

-*<

?B

5 O

Q S

<

5* <

a

w (T>

SF

*

^^ ^

' '

^

^

S

3

>-*

<-f

C?

fD

0°

S»

5 ^

E.

fS 3

w1^1

O

*

S^

Si

W

-

M

CD

^^

tO<

P

g

. .

. 3

S

oo

<

J*

5.

y1

o> -r

- o>

Z

3F

* i-h

^^

(B

' C

C

73

^- S

;;

C

/5

^>

Q

^i

S o

E? 1

E

?

«

M

CD

fD

fD

3

|

g. g

S

3^3

S i-^

ft

t-4

-f 5

J oo

M

H*

tO

l_)

1.

K S

21

1 S

»

3-?

' ^

oo 2

do

w'

«o5T

&

a*

o

' S

^"

o-

CL

-i

2.

to"

C/3

<

^o

o>

£^

S"

;s.

a F

-

s-.

^

p

-0

-3

<T>

5

X

_-

"-i

5.

o to

S

^

</>

ooa>

o

<T

"O

is)S

f O

*-

< 3

"2

X

" Q>

-

R* c

j. «

«

^O

S

K

fD

00"S

* S

«

O

ia>

n>

,-H

ni»

- S

3

3 ^

«2

i ?S

Q

. oo

*

rf]

I-*ws

tt

r

3 O

-

ii

S

5?

*°Q

O

HH

D

°°

GO

63

g.

J>

" 0>

O

. p

O

S"

=:

to63

rv

Q

. 22

p

^

(«

0>

PH

OS

PH

AT

E C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N,

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

_.

_3

IS)

*

O>

00

O

N

1 I

I I

I

s m

g z m..

.: .-

:. . .

" ,

-

.

. b

_

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

'' "^

'" ^

tii,^-.

.

j£^' $&

'«' ' ' ''

" c

'

"'Q

'V^>

.? :'

'" "

.

' '

2

s'tf

f^i"

**

* ^

;

i

TI !

*«,

* Z

'

">

^:-.

II

- :v^

.yr*v

'. °j

-* *r

*s»%.\rj

" "

7

*P'T

'?..

*L.^

J. ".1

1 1

TO

TA

L-S

OLID

S C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

»

-^

-^

N

auiouiom

ouic

fciv

- ..' '

' ".

.'V '

v

.

s'v

*. ' ..

-

5

»' *'»

' '

'...

. .

* .

* "» '

'

'.-.

<

.' .

' "

' M

_.. .

"." ;»

.* "

"..'

'

°*

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

i ":.>

'!'

..'

'

b ' *" "

m O

^

. .

z ii

> ii m

_

^ * .

. 1"

.

' i

i i

i i

i i

)

to 00 3 to 3 § 3 00 to 00 IS) 3 00 GJ 3 00 _k to 00 3 00 o>

J 3 C

3 00 to to to 00 o _. to 00 _. to 00 IS) 3 00 GJ 3 00 * ^ to 00 ^ to 00

0>

FE

CA

L-C

OL

IFO

RM

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

.

1 N C

OLO

NIE

S P

ER

100

MIL

ULI

TE

RS

_._

__

._

.-

O

O

O

O

O

Cto

. !

« :-:'

:'-.

% s

_ *

o -

«

: ; *».'

*

'

' '..'

»

n .

Ul

" ' '.

'.

O

,:

! :v

.:-

:'V

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

~! i^

'V.:

'.'::"

'

'

..............

s! .

' M ;

'!'''

T-.-]"-

*'1

/' ..

g z' «

'.

* -,

>'. V

.,>

-

«

n IS)

~

: .-'

.^.'i,

r.T

\-v

i ii m

ill

! i

I'IM

M'I

:"*:"

.*. ..

..1

"

i ii. '.

.ill

. ii m

ill

i II m

il

NIT

RA

TE C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

rs>

is)

c 3

Ui

O

Ui

O

Ui

C11111

_ m

g z A

O_

\ "

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

rw

i " *." .%

. -

T

* *

" *"*

*

* *"

" ""/**

!*.

'*

^*»

»

**

J

**

"**

*

.

v^*'

1^.' '?

£'.:;

. .-

1

" v^

x.::r'^

»: ; ^

i^.1.

" z

-.,

' "A

^-%

V*'

"' *

II '

"* '

»:*!'

' *i -

"" '

" ' "

*' '

' '

- -

"

,

*i§"»

**."

T*

t;

Q

*

*.V

^-.

JJ ^ *

%"

r.

".'.

^-I

v-iv.'-?

' i

^ 3

Co> 3

C

AM

MO

NIA

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

-

IS)

N3

U

i O

U

i O

C

I i

I i

2 m

g z /

. '.

.:

"

it\

» {

.. '.' .

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

:r*:

;;;'::'

;v:-'-'

' '

.".'

^,'v

«....

, .

s -

f . !

-

:

«

. .

.. g

ft"*'

>

;,-" * "

z

fe:"--

:'-

....

...

° -

;;

. r

i i

i i

5-D

AY

BIO

CH

EM

ICA

L-O

XY

GE

N D

EM

AN

D

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

. IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

3O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OC

' .

.' . " ':''

' '

' '

'

.'" s

'1 ?

v '

. ,.

...'..

^

' n^

i::J!

"'

" 3

'' ."

/V-h

'V. -. .:;

|""

j.:!>;

. ;

?;;

';...

.".

...

_ ' ' :'*

'.'

i ""!"

."

'"

' '

*

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.,. V

-: !:

'' !' '

_5»

'*

"" "

"pH

* "

^"i

- .

53T

»«

"

5iS

» T

" *

'

" Z

'"S

1'1

"jS

tf*"

S*

^

w*

**

^ **

^ ta

jj'it'

l-ri.

i i

i i

i i

i i

i

o

*no

ds*

s 5

fD

(v3 ^

cs

*°

3 «j

jfl 3

oo-.

o

-3

3

«O

""

5- V

1 3

3"

Q.

0013

O)

O

3

ry

<O3

=

00d

o

§3-5

_ .

fD

52-§

1.

sOJ

O

<

T

00<

O

I*

0)

s£C/

> JS

_

.^* *u

trt

< ^D

s

a,

3fD

Q

. (O

7

fD

oo-T

3

(DO

)

CO

3

to

3 »

o>

-a

2.»

n

- i:

fD

Z»^

=& ?

«

§ 3

3 cr

*

"""

0

O"

^ 5

3

E

vj

"*

P 3

. 3

rt-

003

o-P

3 00

a

-3

" o 3

-o

S3

" O

)

fD

00 t/i

Q.

oo

O

-

ST

o?jT

w

o -

toQ

. 00

</>

O>

PH

OS

PH

AT

E C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER L

ITER

D N

J *.

0>

C

11

1

z 0 o 5 >_

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

. n

;i; 'ij

jhi'.

''.' .'

." .

' .

i '.ill

'' "

!'°

'° '

s

" * '

. ! :

.

i...

. rn

" ':

':!

lt|i;

I'ii.:

.. ;

. -

2

! !!

l'«

""'

* "

^

- i i

*}

j !

* "

""

Z

!".!

. 2i

i ...

" "

!

* '*

*.

. i' .

«-n.:

. .;!'"'

: :" *

N

_

"

'«

tf*

""

* **

s|

"l

«"l

s*»

l *

*

*

^jjj

<t,

^

...

..

j" '.

^ .

|*l,lj |_

;; i

. |

TO

TA

L-S

OLID

S C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

IV)

O1

-J

O

^3

Oi

O

O>

O

C

*" +

I

.

I I

i. -

vy*.

'"- '

1":V

,'-V

S

'fij'i'1

' ~

O

'%>!

;..

§ >

**

* t

» *

* "

"

~

* 4

i "^

!

" II

"%

" *

*** *

' -4

".'« '*

''.- .

**

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

;:,.

: -.

-«

*

*Ik

" s!. |.:.

1

_t2

- *

'' z

£, :

nC

L

. G

JV

j ..

. M

* ^.

H*"

^1 .1

i i

i

0

^ (O 00 (0 (O 3 00 o 3 00 3 00 IV) 3 00 _1

(0 00 ^ (0 00 en ^ (O 00 a>

« j n c

^ (0 00 3 (O ^ (O 00 o 3 00 _.

(0 00

IV) 3 00 C-J 3 00 * _.

(0

00 _. 5S 00 a>

FE

CA

L-C

OL

IFO

RM

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

,

1 N C

OLO

NIE

S P

ER

100 M

ILLI

LIT

ER

S^

^

^

_»

.0

C

^

C^

C^

C

' "

*.ft

' ., .

...

:

' s

'''' '

'

g

_

" "" ""* ***.."

* II

-

.:>;;

r.^;

<-

* ' .

\

°°..-

-..%

»

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

i:!'!'.

::O;

; ':

''"'

"\",

,...

.^ .

'"

5: :

: v.

:" /'!'»''

.' '

2-

^

_2

!

: "

:*

**

**"»."

**

*"" . #

I*

»*^

«w

* i

«ll

_ £

_

;»

.t

*^*f

r

*.

*".

" .

%.

\ "*

^Tj*.

«"»

T'«

**"

"

i i

i ii M

il**

"i

i lim

l* *

* i"

i

1*11

ml

i i

i iiin

l i

i i m

il

NIT

RA

TE C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N,

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

-.

-.

IV)

N)

OJ

CD

cnocnocnoc

i i

i i

i i

z o I.

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

'** * ..«.»

" *

r*

v ,"

*" *

ts

^**

*^*

" *f

fi

*A *

'

«* /

. V~y

^- "'.'

". " *

*' * ' *

' -

' ':'''^".^:^

;..-

..

5 ..

? J

'^jf^'' '

' ''

"'*

?" .

°-V

"»

°

* "«

Z

T*-

^*'*"

'' "

1 .

%

1 .

«."

* *

. "*

v*v

"

" ^

:.X««

iit'*i

* '*"

'

~«rt

**»i

""*«

* ^

^^ '

**V

^X /.

Jf

1 '

' *A

'''£

.

!»

!* 'V

fl

1

1

t w

C

>l n c

AM

MO

NIA

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

,

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

_.

_.

IV)

IV)

OJ

OJ

*JO

iO

OiO

OiO

OiC

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

z

o 0

-5 >

_

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

» *"

? "

. '

'

rn(... /

O1

*""

' >

-

Z A

'

O>

^

' I

I I

I I

1 1

5-D

AY

BIO

CH

EM

ICA

L-O

XY

GE

N D

EM

AN

D

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

. IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

-«iv

>cj.tkcna>

^io

otoo-

5O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OC

" 1

!

""

1

" 1

.1

1 1

1 1

1

.' tf!:'1:

:/.

y:

L':- '"

' "

s

"'£&

*''

"'

' 3

i

,; ]

*

^

"* *

rt*

*

" *"

*

~ii"

.*.

| »'

B"

||

»!*

."

^ *

"

*

* **s

** *

^*. ^.M

1''.-1

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

\ r

-<1 '

"'*%

n. Pi5-

'

a*'.

2-S«

* .

^IS

-.' '.

zt

" f

c dJ

"MM*

.^R

* "

"

9 Ki.

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

Tabl

e 4.

Sum

mar

y of

mon

thly

riv

er-w

ater

-qua

lity

data

for

the

Whi

te R

iver

ups

trea

m a

nd d

owns

trea

m f

rom

the

mun

icip

al w

aste

wat

er-t

reat

men

t pl

ants

, 19

78-8

6[B

OD

5, 5

-day

bio

chem

ical

-oxy

gen

dem

and;

Ib/

d, p

ound

per

day

; mg/

L,

mill

igra

m p

er li

ter;

Post

-AW

T, p

erio

d of

stu

dy a

fter

impl

emen

tatio

n of

adv

ance

d w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent;

Pre-

AW

T, p

erio

d of

stu

dy

befo

re i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

adv

ance

d w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent;

<,

less

tha

n]

f 3. 5- g g ir

Whi

te R

iver

at

82nd

Str

eet

Pro

pert

yor

cons

titu

ent

Uni

ts

Num

ber

ofob

serv

a­tio

ns

Inte

r-qu

artil

eM

ean

Med

ian

rang

e M

axim

um

Min

imum

Num

ber

ofob

serv

a­tio

ns

Whi

te R

iver

at

Mor

ris

Stre

et

Mea

nM

edia

n

Inte

r­qu

artil

era

nge1

Max

imum

Min

imum

Pre-

AW

T c

once

ntra

tions

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5D

isso

lved

oxy

gen

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n

Nitr

ate

as N

2

mg/

Lm

g/L

mg/

Lpe

rcen

tsa

tura

tion

mg/

L

35 35 35 35 35

0.22

3.1

10.0

92 3.1

0.1

2.7

9.8

90 2.6

0 1 4 12 1.1

1.1

0.1

.5

8.8

1.0

.0

14.0

5.

713

6 70

.9

5.5

1.5

108

136

143

143 18

<0.

14.

29.

892 2.

7

<0.

14.

09.

892 3.

1

0.1

2.0

4.4

14 1.9

1.0

12 14.8

167 5.

3

<0.

1 1.0

1.0

7.8 .8

Post

-AW

T c

once

ntra

tions

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5D

isso

lved

oxy

gen

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n

Nitr

ate

as N

2

mg/

Lm

g/L

mg/

Lpe

rcen

tsa

tura

tion

mg/

L

37 33 39 39 37

.14

4.1

11.0

106 3.

1

.1 3.2

10.5

93 3.2

0 3 2 29 3

.9

<.l

.0

12

1.0

.9

18.5

6.

621

8 64

.0

6.8

.1

48 48 48 48 48

.16

4.4

9.8

91 2.9

.12

4.6

9.8

87 3.1

.17

2.5

3.1

20 3.5

.59

8.2

15.7

149 5.

6

<.l 9 3.8

47 <.l

Pre-

AW

T l

oads

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5N

itrat

e as

N2

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

35 35 35

2,14

031

,000

27,7

00

748

11,0

0011

,000

1,60

027

,200

33,4

00

37,7

00

128

473,

000

1,28

016

7,00

0 2,

040

108

136 18

960

40,4

0027

,000

232

19,1

0019

,300

537

33,6

0044

,600

35,4

0046

6,00

010

5,00

0

491,

990

1,45

0

Post

-AW

T lo

ads

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5N

itrat

e as

N2

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

36 32 36

1,54

044

,500

45,1

00

356

12,6

0013

,400

672

15,0

0027

,700

24,9

00

9553

5,00

0 2,

800

436,

000

105

47 47 47

1,36

036

,200

31,4

00

480

16,9

0011

,000

917

26,1

0038

,500

19,8

0040

5,00

022

9,00

0

331,

780 58

3 S. 5 f IF

Whi

te R

iver

at

Wav

erly

Pro

pert

y or

co

nsti

tuen

t

Num

ber

of

obse

rva-

U

nits

tio

nsM

ean

Med

ian

Inte

r­

quar

tile

rang

e1M

axim

um

Min

imum

Num

ber

of

obse

rva­

tio

ns

Whi

te R

iver

nea

r C

ente

rton

Mea

nM

edia

n

Inte

r­

quar

tile

rang

e1M

axim

umM

inim

um

Pre-

AW

T c

once

ntra

tions

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5D

isso

lved

oxy

gen

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n

Nitr

ate

as N

2

mg/

Lm

g/L

mg/

Lpe

rcen

tsa

tura

tion

mg/

L

135

137

145

145 19

2.5

8.0

6.7

62 2.2

2.0

7.0

6.4

66 2.5

2.1

3.5

5.4

33 1.7

8.8

<0.

126

3.

013

.2

1.0

103

12

4.7

.4

135

136

141

141 19

1.7

7.1

7.1

66 2.3

1.1

7.0

6.7

65 2.6

2.2

3.0

4.6

26 1.7

7.4

19 13.9

111 4.

7

<0.

13.

01.

012

.7

Post

-AW

T c

once

ntra

tion

s

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5D

isso

lved

oxy

gen

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n

Nitr

ate

as N

2

mg/

Lm

g/L

mg/

Lpe

rcen

tsa

tura

tion

mg/

L

48 48 48 48 48

.40

5.1

10.1

97 5.1

.24

4.8

10.3

96 4.9

.36

2.3

3.8

16 1.1

1.7

<.l

10

1.9

14.6

4.

515

8 55

9.5

1.7

48 48 48 48 48

.29

4.8

10.4

100 4.

7

.15

4.6

10.6

95 4.6

.32

2.5

' 3.

720 1.

1

1.5

8.3

14 160 15

<.l 1.4

5.5

62 <.l

Pre-

AW

T l

oads

Am

mon

ia a

s lo

ads

N2

BO

D5

Nitr

ate

as N

2

Am

mon

ia a

s N

2B

OD

5N

itrat

e as

N2

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

Ib/d

135

137 19 48 48 48

17,2

0098

,500

35,6

00

3,66

053

,100

45,8

00

15,6

0065

,500

22,5

00

2,06

036

,600

33,7

00

8,10

073

,000

52,3

00

4,13

050

,400

39,6

00

80,0

00

965

765,

000

7,39

013

8,00

0 74

0

Post

-AW

T l

oads

24,6

00

170

366,

000

4,20

023

9,00

0 8,

400

135

136 19 48 48 48

13,2

0010

3,00

041

,400

3,29

058

,000

50,3

00

11,8

0066

,000

27,8

00

1,36

039

,000

33,3

00

12,8

0082

,600

57,3

00

4,22

057

,800

40,9

00

92,6

0065

5,00

015

6,00

0

20,2

0042

0,00

026

6,00

0

372

8,84

01,

730 78

5,22

025

4

'inte

rqua

rtile

ran

ge i

s th

e di

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e 75

th a

nd 2

5th

perc

entil

es.

2Nitr

ogen

spe

cies

are

rep

orte

d in

con

cent

ratio

ns a

nd l

oads

as

nitr

ogen

.

Table 5. Summary of long-term water-quality data for the White River at 82nd Street upstream from the municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1958-86[Water-quality data collected by Indiana State Board of Health; BOD5 , 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand; Ib/d, pound per day; mg/L, milligram per liter; <, less than]

Propertyor

constituent Units

Numberof

observations Mean Median

Inter­quartilerange 1 Maximum Minimum

ConcentrationAmmonia as N2BOD5Dissolved oxygenDissolved oxygen

Nitrate as N2

mg/Lmg/Lmg/L

percentsaturation

mg/L

131465485481

453

0.224.29.9

93

2.4

0.103.59.8

88

2.2

0.22.73.6

22

1.6

1.12418.5

218

8.6

<0.1.1

1.923

<.l

LoadAmmonia as N2BOD5Nitrate as N2

Ib/dIb/dIb/d

130464452

1,92027,20020,400

5609,8805,440

1,36014,70015,000

37,7001,110,000

436,000

9116543

'interquartile range is the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. 2Nitrogen species are reported in concentrations and loads as nitrogen.

The relations of concentrations of ammonia, BOD5 , dissolved oxygen, and nitrate to time in the White River at 82nd Street and at Morris Street are shown in figures 8 and 9, respectively. Data for the White River at Waverly and near Centerton are shown in figures 10 and 11, respectively. As illustrated in figures 8 and 9, there was little, if any, change in the water quality of the White River upstream from the wastewater-treatment plants following implemen­ tation of advanced waste water treatment. The apparent change in ammonia concentrations observed in the White River at Morris Street is an artifact of the laboratory change that was made in 1982 when data collection and analysis at the White River at Morris Street, at Waverly, and near Centerton were assumed by the USGS. The detection limit of the procedure used by the USGS laboratory was 0.01 mg/L, while the previous detection limit had been 0.1 mg/L.

Sizeable differences in the concentrations of ammo­ nia, BOD5 , dissolved oxygen, and nitrate were observed at the two sites downstream from the wastewater-treatment plants, as illustrated in figures 10 and 11. In the White River at Waverly, the median concentration of ammonia dropped from 2.0 to 0.24 mg/L, the median BOD5 concen­ tration dropped from 7.0 to 4.8 mg/L, the median dissolved-oxygen concentration increased from 6.4 to 10.3 mg/L, and the median nitrate concentration increased from 2.5 to 4.9 mg/L, after AWT was implemented (table 4). Similar changes were observed near Centerton.

Additionally, the ranges in the concentrations of ammonia, BOD5 , and dissolved oxygen were less in the White River at the two downstream sites following imple­ mentation of AWT. The minimum dissolved-oxygen con­ centration observed in the river before the implementation

of AWT was 1.0 mg/L at Waverly and near Centerton. After implementation of AWT, the minimum dissolved- oxygen concentrations observed were 4.5 mg/L at Waverly and 5.5 mg/L near Centerton (table 4).

TRENDS IN WATER QUALITY

Trend-Analysis Techniques

A time series is a sequence of values of a particular variable collected over time, which may exhibit random variation and (or) deterministic trends. Deterministic trends may be classified as periodic, monotonic, or step, or a combination of these. Periodicities are repeating cycles in a time series, as typified by annual cycles in water- temperature data. Periodicities in hydrologic time-series data generally are the result of astronomic cycles. A monotonic trend is a systematic and continuous change in a variable over time. Monotonic trends in hydrologic time- series data are the result of natural or manmade changes in the hydrologic environment, such as ecological succession or increased urbanization. Examples of such trends are linear or exponential increases or decreases. A step trend is an abrupt and constant change. Step trends in hydrologic time-series data can be caused by catastrophic natural events (such as earthquakes or forest fires) or by manmade changes (such as construction of a dam or wastewater- treatment plant). More information about hydrologic time series can be found in Yevjevich (1972) and Salas and others (1980).

Two nonparametric procedures were used to test for trends in the time-series water-quality data from White River and the wastewater-treatment plants. The seasonal

14 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

s 5*

&> O &L -f

f |H

3 g-

£

o^^

£5*

jif ^

p

o

a ST

o>

S« c

t s

I en

v.

g

S g;

%°

<

SJ.

P?

O"

§ §

1^

3.

a

**

eI*

M'

W

C6

OW5*

o»

5? P

r*

3

/ v

C

? ed

a Q-

p»

J-"

a

ill"

.S

en

C

enT

3

en

(j£D

P

0>

H

R

S

en

sr-

a

&

en-J

"T

5S*

QQ

N-

OQ

O

>-5

a

o>

ft

5"

ff-

*rt

2 "

3

C

^"

^^

en

CT.

"^

dl

§3^8

rt

i<«>

o

ON

Q

§ C?.

!|?i

IfES

"O

s-

2

^

SC

B

3

J»

3

5-

n> P-

ct

ft

E±.

O

O3

g, S

S

3

f

og

^h

8

W

ll

fj ^ 5? I g o. 3" E S' o

^S

^sg

-"^^ 1

^1

IS

liS

lsS

^?

-

* I

o. -'

as 5 r

tre

S&

§ I

8- 5

* S

8^

S ^

»-^

ft o

g-

S

5 &

S3

o

S sr

a>

CD

&

3 -J«

v ?^

^

G3

2X

g

O

&

£3

J2

O

& S

§ !.

&" ^

?«

5

O

J ff

S

on

I &

??

B I I

ri.

O

i-i

C

*^

3

s:§

T3

S

en

5 ^

0>

a S

" 5

!T »

2

M

* '

no

en

v;j

ft

8 §

S o

t_u

en

tj

SJ??

Q

fj

3

0>

g-

0)

r*

p.

p--I"

"!

g'

P8

ni

en*

^

, Jt

t Q

O

^^

O

Q

en'

C2

i-h

3

gS

^ S

to

rj

-5

«>

II III I?

ft ^

D

ISS

OLV

ED

-OX

YG

EN

CO

NC

EN

TRA

TIO

N.

AM

MO

NIA

CO

NC

EN

TRA

TIO

N,

S 5

IN M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER L

ITER

I N

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PER

LIT

ER

o. n

P

PP

PP

"1

3 3

»l

-* i

^ 5

. ^J

500-

i

V1

O"!

O 0^

^< C7 o'

n 3" fO 3 S' 100 CD 3 Q.

0) 3 0) 3 0.

Q.

35'

O

00 to (0 to 00 0.

(0

00 ^ _.

(0

00 00

.(0 00 .fe _

.

00 en to 00

0)

'.

m

"

O

.

*

Z

' II

.. "

*D

.

''

- 00

''

.

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

* .

~f

.m

'

. O

'

^ z

"

o

'en

Q.

1 fD £U 3 Q.

3 -

Sf

fD S D n fD D I o' D C/l 5' 3^ fD ^ 3; ST ?B S' ^

NIT

RA

TE C

ON

CE

NTR

ATI

ON

.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER L

ITE

R

o

M

*

a>

oo

c

to 00 3 (0 (O 00 o ^ (O 00 ^ _.

(0 00 (0 00 to 00 A _.

(O 00 en to 00 <n

i.i

i i

.

v

' .

rn

~

. o

* '

.

Z II

. v

S

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

"*

*

"""

.

g

' '

. m O

" ^

. "

z *

.

II

.

f^

"

g 1

.

1 1

1

5-D

AY

BIO

CH

EM

ICA

L-O

XY

GE

N D

EM

AN

D

CO

NC

EN

TRA

TIO

N,

IN M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER L

ITE

R

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

1 . f.

1.0Z (EO Ulp t

Q; (v 0 . 87 UJZ n UJ " O (/)§ 30 ' 6

U K< -Z JO. 4O 2

3 Z< ~0.2

0.0

16z"

0 14

o: o:1- UJ 10 Z I- '*Ul _l

z £ 108 °-.1 V)5 i 8 £ £ >< 2 fiO -J °i =;0 2% Z 4«J ^

oV) 9V) ZO

n

11111111

zg

MEDIAN < 0.1 0 MEDIAN = 0.12(^t/izo o u.o

"' 2 ' "UJQ. ' '

M» »* VM^^^MB^BMHM . «

1 1 1 1 1 I.I 1

~. ' \

" ' . -V 2.'"' . ;. O /

. 3« a ' . ' ' -

'.. " ' z ' ' - '.'.' ' ''' o ' _ ". " u.

Q ." 2

Ul f\

MEDIAN = 9.8 MEDIAN = 9.8_

i i i i i i i i

itQ £

1 S2 K UJ UJ 0 0.Z WUJ 2O <>- 0£

? BS z2 -UJ z

5 2 o 5m a:i >- z< UJQ o

1 Zi/l O

O

2 1^ *01 uZ Q.

y ^ ilo gS iQ£ 2i _Z

l«t

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

n

i i i i

MEDIAN = 4.0

z o1

- o

. . - . (£

_ tno

_ . . . ... u.

2,.. ._ .. . __ __ .. UJ

"" " "^ "

M*

I I 1 1

MEDIAN = 4.6

-

'

.

.

1 1 1 1

MEDIAN = 3.1

z o1 o3KI V)Zo o u.

_ . °QOo;UlQ.

I 1 I I

i i i i

MEDIAN = 3.1

-

-..

". -

'

i "i i i

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Figure 9. Ammonia, 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand, dissolved-oxygen, and nitrate concentrations in the White River at Morris Street, 1978-86.

The test assumes that the two samples were randomly and independently collected, that the two samples are mutually independent, and that the random variables are continuous (some ties are allowed). This test also assumes that the probability distributions of the populations from which the samples were drawn are of the same form but not necessarily normal. If the null hypothesis is true, then no distinction can be made between the n observations in the first sample and the m observations in the second sample, all of which, in effect, were taken from a common popu­ lation. Therefore, each of the possible combinations of n + m observations taken from the common population are equally likely to become the samples actually collected. For each of these possible combinations, a value exists for the test statistic W. This statistic is the sum of the ranks of the n observations within the combined (n + m observations) sample. The smallest value in the combined sample receives a rank of 1; the next smallest value receives a rank of 2; and so on. The null hypothesis is rejected if the value of the test statistic, W, differs from the expected value of W by a preselected value, corresponding to a desired probability. Seasonality is handled in the same way as in the seasonal

Kendall procedure. An estimate of the magnitude of the step trend is taken as the median of the difference between all pairs of seasonal values, one from each period but of the same season. Instead of recording a plus or minus for each comparison, the difference between each pair is the step. The median of these differences is taken to be the change in units of measure per year as a result of the trend. A discussion of the seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank- sum procedure can be found in Crawford and others (1983).

Trend-Analysis ResultsRiver Quality Upstream from Treatment Plants

The seasonal Kendall procedure was used to test for monotonic trends in long-term data (1958-86) in the White River at 82nd street. The test was applied by assuming monthly seasonality. Test results are listed in table 6. The time-series water-quality data were considered to have a significant trend if the calculated probability level was 0.05 or less, and a highly significant trend if the probability level was 0.01 or less. Results of the trend test for each parameter

16 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

52.

£3 cr

g-

i lit s

8. 8

?°

3 ~

" c

>-h

P^

cl 3

§

I*

o

oo

^

P

O

P

Mc

H 5

^ 5

SB

, g-

CL

3

CL

«g

§ CL

o

~<2.

Un

m&

I B-

S *

« S

CL j

* o

e o

^3-3

~

S-

£

oJS

2: P

cr

o ,

£ 1

3

- C

j «

» ra

_

UQ

S

S3

Htj

00

els

SiS,

0>

oo

!-t

Sg

<«'

~o

2 >o

o B

B3

o »

Qj

O3

H-»

«

hQ

3

^

S C

f

K'tf

sl'S

a £

3

Ef*

^ cr

fl

<§ I*

5' S

oT

Hi

S-

31

f 1

^>

^^fD

-t

O

i

3

\j

3Q

O

TJ

i O

do

3P

o>

'U

l

Q.

^ cr o' n 3-

0) 3 T- 6 X era ft) D Q.

0) 3 D Q.

"- Q.

C/)

C/) O

DIS

SO

LVE

D-O

XY

GE

N C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

AM

MO

NIA

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

.

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

1 N

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

«*«

*«

*«

*

O

N)

^O

OO

ON

J^O

O *

N)

C/J

^

U*

O>

*sj

00

iO 00 (O (O _,

<0

00 0 (O 00 -^ to 00 «o 00 Crt

(O

00 to 00 o> _^ «o 00 cn

.

. f >

. ''

" '''

'

' ...

.

.. z

..

m.

o

,.;.

. ''.'-

>

" .*

"

' -

II

y'

: '.''

. o>

"'' '

'

"*

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

.z

'

m

o

z

'

II p

'

Crt

~

1 1

1 '

1 ' !

. 1

1

i ;;

'-.;

! "'.

: '"

' '

' '

'

.' ..

'' '.

"

z"

:

m

?

..

f o

- "

: ' .'. '' '

z

'. '

! .-

« "

N>

1 '

..

' b

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

. '

m 0

j t

'

Z ":

o;

' ^

i i

i i

i i

i i

«o

c1

_ _ - ~

1

<

NIT

RA

TE C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

5-D

AY

BIO

CH

EM

ICA

L-O

XY

GE

N D

EM

AN

D0) Q

.

6 ^

^ era 0)

J3 (U Q.

3 1-*'

jD ?D n o 3 Q D I o c/> 5' 5- 0) T- ^. ?D 2?.

< fD t

1 N M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

C

ON

CE

NT

RA

TIO

N.

IN M

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

«*

«*

«*

Ki)

N)

C>o

N>

*

cn

oo

oocnocnocno

(O 00 <o VI

«O _, «o 00 o _^ (O 00 n <0

00 M <0

00 Jo 00 * _ft «o 00

0> (O 00 o>

11

1 1

z m 0 j. z

' .

"

" U

*

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

-

2

:'

.

m

"

>' '

. z

*

H.

'

' '

' £

-

1 L

1 1

"'"!;

'; ' '

" !

.

m: ..

o'

i '

: i

3>':': ''

z

'' '' 1

!

' "

: J

: : j

. "

_

. vi

;" .;''

b

PE

RIO

D O

F C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

.

*

z

. m

.

o

. ..

'

z '

.' ll

' .

oo

.

' i

* i

i i

i i

LITE

R o u - - _ .

z" ot

orH-

zUlOzo o

z o

2

z"O

<ori zUloz oozUl0

Xo

1oUl

^otntno

orUli

orUl Q.

tn

or o

2Z

orUl

^orUl Q.

IGRAMS

i_2Z

a

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

n

11111111

MEDIAN = 1.1 MEDIAN =0.15

z o1 o

'.ori tn zoo

~ u.

i O. . . o

or. ' '. ui Q-

. . - . - _ f'' '." ''" . .

i 'i "'"' i i i " 'i 'I V

i i i i i i i i

MEDIAN = 6.7

ZO . .

' ' ^ ' ' '"' . or '

V ".' ' ' tn ' ' ' ..".'.... . z

' . '. °' . ' .* -. i«-

" ' ' ' ': .,.-' . ' ' oo

- - . '"'. ::. K

' ' ' Q.

- " .-' MEDIAN = 10.6

i i i i i i i i

oz2Ul O

zUl0

Xo

1

o2UlI OoCD

<jO

1<n

z"oH-

ori CONCEI

Ul

^ori z

IE Ul

(3

orUl Q.

tn2

or0

_i2 Zz"O

ori zUlozoo

orUl

torUl Q.

GRAMS

i_2Z

OD

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

10

6

4

2

n

11111111

MEDIAN = 7.0 z MEDIAN = 4.6 Oi oortn zooL_ Oo2 ~L''..""' or

... . ... ..... Ul .............. Q. / '

...... _. _ . . "". .".".* .. -

............. . . .."..."''"....... >.. .^

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MEDIAN = 2.6 z MEDIAN = 4.6O

O

or H-tnz o . . . . o u. . '."''o . oo

-. oc ' UlQ-

.

1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Figure 11 . Ammonia, 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand, dissolved-oxygen, and nitrate concentrations in the White River near Centerton, 1978-86.

Effluent Quality

The seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum procedure also was used to test for step trends in the effluent data from the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants. Results of this analysis are presented in table 8. As before, monthly seasonality was assumed. Nutrient data were limited at both plants, and so the test could compare data only from October, November, and December. Results of the test indicate highly significant changes in the con­ centration and load of several parameters. More data were available for analysis from the Belmont site; however, where Southport data were available, results were similar, with the exception of flow. No significant change was indicated in flow at Belmont, but a highly significant increasing step trend was indicated at Southport. (The reason for this change is discussed on page 5.) Significant decreasing step trends in concentration data were indicated for ammonia at Belmont (14.6 mg/L), for BOD5 (19 mg/L at Belmont and 10 mg/L at Southport), for phosphate (1.8 mg/L at Belmont), and for total solids (22 mg/L at Belmont and 10 mg/L at Southport). No significant change in

fecal-coliform bacteria was observed in the Belmont efflu­ ent; a significant decrease (17 col/100 mL) was observed at Southport. Because of in-plant nitrification, a highly sig­ nificant increasing step trend in nitrate concentration (14.5 mg/L at Belmont) was detected. Analysis of load data indicated similar results.

River Quality Downstream from Treatment Plants

The seasonal rank-sum procedure also was used to test for step trends in the data from the White River at Waverly and near Centerton (downstream from the wastewater-treatment plants). Results of this analysis are presented in table 9. Results indicate highly significant decreasing step trends in the ammonia concentration data (1.8 mg/L at Waverly and 0.9 mg/L near Centerton) and the BOD5 concentration data (2.5 mg/L at Waverly and 2.3 mg/L near Centerton). The increase in nitrate concentra­ tions was also highly significant (2.4 mg/L at Waverly and 2.0 mg/L near Centerton). Test results also indicated a highly significant increasing step trend in dissolved-oxygen concentration (3.2 mg/L at Waverly and near Centerton)

18 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

Table 6. Seasonal Kendall test results of long-term water- quality trends in the White River at 82nd Street, 1958-86[Water-quality data collected by Indiana State Board of Health; BOD5 , 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; Ib/d, pound per day; mg/L, milligram per liter; n.a., not applicable; *, significant difference at 0.01 probability level; <, less than]

Propertyor

constituent

Flow

Units

ft3/s

Probabilitylevel

0.003*

Median changein trend slope

(units ofmeasureper year)

+5.3

Concentration

Ammonia as N1BOD5Dissolved oxygenDissolved oxygen

(saturation)Nitrate as N 1

mg/Lmg/Lmg/L

percentsaturation

mg/L

.001*

.102

.557

.108

.001*

<-.01-.02

.01

.15

.05

Load

Ammonia as N 1BOD5Dissolved oxygenDissolved oxygen

(saturation)Nitrate as N1

Ib/dmg/Ln.a.n.a.

mg/L

.001*

.102n.a.n.a.

.001*

-28.6-.02

n.a.n.a.

102

'Nitrogen species are reported in concentrations and loads as nitrogen.

and dissolved oxygen in percent saturation (29 percent at Waverly and near Centerton).

The increasing and decreasing step trends in constit­ uent concentrations are believed to represent real changes in water quality of the White River downstream from the plants, attributable to advanced wastewater treatment. However, the concentrations of some constituents may be affected by flow. For example, concentrations of some constituents may increase with an increase in flow because of soil erosion and transport, or they may decrease with an increase in flow because of dilution. Concentrations also may increase during a low-flow period because of concen­ tration effects. Applying a test for trend to this type of data could determine a statistically significant trend that may be all or partly the result of the flow conditions at the time of sampling. This effect, however, was not considered likely in the test results from the White River sites because the tests for trend in flow at those sites indicated no significant change over time. Also, the test results for trends in loads indicated results similar to those for the concentration data. Furthermore, the tests that were used accounted for seasonal changes in flow.

Another way to summarize the river-water-quality data is to determine the number of times sample concentra­ tions exceeded the water-quality standards that apply to the White River. Water-quality standards imposed by the Indi­ ana Stream Pollution Control Board (330 IAC 1-1) state

that fecal-coliform bacteria shall not exceed 2,000 col/100 mL in more than one sample per 4-week period to meet the partial-body-contact standard; concentrations of total ammonia shall not exceed 2.5 mg/L; and the average daily dissolved-oxygen concentration in the White River shall be at least 5.0 mg/L. The total number of observations for each parameter and the number of observations that exceeded the respective standard are shown in table 10. In the table, two standards are listed for ammonia one for total ammonia and one for un-ionized ammonia. The total ammonia standard was an attempt to protect fish populations from un-ionized-ammonia toxicity. But, because the concentra­ tion of total ammonia that is equivalent to the toxic level of un-ionized ammonia (0.05 mg/L) varies with pH and water temperature, the standard was changed to a concentration of un-ionized ammonia not to exceed 0.05 mg/L. The un-ionized ammonia can be converted to total ammonia by using equations that are dependent upon pH and water temperature. As the pH and water temperature increase, the concentration of total ammonia that is equivalent to 0.05 mg/L un-ionized ammonia decreases. Therefore, during summer low flows, when water temperatures are high (>25 °C) and pH may be high (>7.5) because of algal photosyn­ thesis, the concentration of total ammonia that is toxic to fish is less than 2.5 mg/L. Conversely, lower pH and water temperature values result in total ammonia concentrations equivalent to 0.05 mg/L un-ionized ammonia that are larger than 2.5 mg/L. Because most of the data discussed in this report were collected prior to the effective date of the new standard (March 2, 1984), the old standard of 2.5 mg/L is applied here.

The total ammonia standard of 2.5 mg/L was not exceeded in the data collected at either upstream site. Before implementation of AWT, the standard was exceeded in 38 percent of the samples from Waverly, and in 25 percent of the samples collected near Centerton. After implementation of AWT, the standard was not exceeded at either downstream site. Results are similar when the un-ionized ammonia standard is used, except that fewer samples exceeded the standard (11 percent at Waverly and 9 percent near Centerton) prior to implementation of AWT. The zero exceedance rate for both standards in the data collected since implementation of AWT indicates a substan­ tial improvement in river-water quality.

Dissolved-oxygen concentrations were never less than the standard at 82nd Street; they were less than the standard at Morris Street in two samples before implemen­ tation of AWT and in one sample after implementation. Downstream from the wastewater-treatment facilities, the DO concentrations were less than the standard in 35 percent of the samples collected at Waverly and in 24 percent of the samples collected near Centerton, before implementation of AWT. Following implementation of AWT, the standard was met in all samples collected near Centerton; it was not met in two samples (4 percent) collected at Waverly. Both

Trends in Water Quality 19

Table 7. Seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test results of water-quality trends in the White River upstream from both municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1978-86[BOD5 , 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; Ib/d, pound per day; mg/L, milligram per liter; *, significant difference at 0.05 probability level; **, significant difference at 0.01 probability level; <,less than]

Property or

constituent

Row

Units

ft3/s

White River1 at 82nd Street

Probability Median level change

0.152 -125

White River2 at Morris Street

Probability level

0.017*

Median change

-250

Concentration

Ammonia as N3 BOD5 Dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Nitrate as N3

mg/L mg/L mg/L

percent saturation

mg/L

.028* <.01

.267 .5

.712 -.1

.668 .8

.484 -.2

.001**

.320

.153

.184

.470

.06

.4 -.50

-4.9

.5

LoadAmmonia as N3 BOD5 Nitrate as N3

Ib/d Ib/d Ib/d

.002** -157

.267 .5

.222 -2,317

.327

.075 1.000

58 -4,120

352

'Water-quality data collected by the Indiana State Board of Health.2Water-quality data collected by U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Public Works.3Nitrogen species are reported in concentrations and loads as nitrogen.

Table 8. Seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test results of water-quality trends in Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater-treatment-plant effluents, 1978-86[Water-quality data collected by Department of Public Works; BOD5 , 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; col/d, colonies per day; ft 3/s, cubic foot per second; Ib/d, pound per day; mg/L, milligram per liter; n.d., no data; *, significant difference at 0.05 probability level; **, significant difference at 0.01 probability level]

Propertyor

constituent

Row

Belmont effluent

Units

ft3/s

Probabilitylevel

0.876

Medianchange

0.2

Southport

Probabilitylevel

0.001**

effluent

Medianchange

36.6

Concentration

Ammonia as N1BOD5Fecal-coliform bacteriaNitrate as N 1Phosphate as P2Total solids

mg/Lmg/L

col/100 mLmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

.003**

.001**

.158

.014*

.014*

.001**

-14.6-19-19

14.5-1.8

-22

n.d..001**.021*n.d.n.d.

.001**

n.d.-10-17

n.d.n.d.-10

LoadAmmonia as N1BOD5Fecal-coliform bacteriaNitrate as N1Phosphate as P2Total solids

Ib/dIb/d

col/d x 10 10Ib/dIb/dIb/d

.014*

.001**

.248**

.014*

.014*

.001**

-7,950-13,900

-799,950-693

-15,800

n.d..001**.063n.d.n.d.

.001**

n.d.-3,470

-28n.d.n.d.

-3,680

'Nitrogen species are reported in concentrations and loads as nitrogen. 2Phosphorus species are reported in concentrations and loads as phosphorus.

20 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

Table 9. Seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test results of water-quality trends in the White River downstream from both municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1978-86[Water-quality data collected by U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Public Works. BOD5 , 5-day biochemical-oxygen demand; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; Ib/d, pound per day; mg/L, milligram per liter; *, significant difference at 0.05 probability level; **, highly significant difference at 0.01 probability level]

orconstituent

Flow

White River at Waverly

Units

ft3/s

Probabilitylevel

0.126

Medianchange

-281

White River near Centerton

Probabilitylevel

0.126

Medianchange

-321

ConcentrationAmmonia as N1BOD5Dissolved oxygenDissolved oxygen

Nitrate as N 1

mg/Lmg/Lmg/L

percentsaturation

mg/L

.001**

.001**

.001**

.001**

.001**

-1.8-2.5

3.229

2.4

.001**

.001**

.001**

.001**

.001**

-.9-2.3

3.229

2.0

LoadAmmonia as N 1BOD5Nitrate as N 1

Ib/dIb/dIb/d

.001**

.001**

.008**

-12,600-28,400

13,300

.001**

.001**

.013*

-8,350-28,600

12,000

Nitrogen species are reported in concentrations and loads as nitrogen.

Table 10. River-quality standards and number of times the observed data exceeded the standards in the White River, 1978-86[col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Nl, total number of observations; N2, number of observations that exceeded the standard; n.d., no data; Post-AWT, period of study after implementation of advanced wastewater treatment; Pre-AWT, period of study before implementation of advanced wastewater treatment]

82nd Street Morris Street

Pre-AWT Post-AWT

Parameter

Ammonia as N, 1 totalAmmonia as N, 1 un-ionizedDissolved oxygenFecal-coliform bacteria

Standard

2.5 mg/L0.05 mg/L5.0 mg/L

2,000 col/100 mL

Nl

35353535

N2

0009

Waverly

Nl

37373938

N2

0009

Pre-AWT

Nl

108108143

n.d.

N2

012

n.d.

Post-AWT

Nl N2

48484848

001

15

Centerton

Pre-AWT Post-AWT

Parameter

Ammonia as N, 1 totalAmmonia as N, 1 un-ionizedDissolved oxygenFecal-coliform bacteria

Standard

2.5 mg/L0.05 mg/L5.0 mg/L

2,000 col/100 mL

N1

135135145

n.d.

N2

511551

n.d.

N1

48484848

N2

002

25

Pre-AWT

N1

135135141

n.d.

N2

341234

n.d.

Post-AWT

N1 N2

48484848

000

19

Nitrogen species are reported in concentrations as nitrogen.

Trends in Water Quality 21

samples (4.5 and 4.8 mg/L) were measured during summer low flows (about 450 ft3/s). The reduction in the number of times that the dissolved-oxygen concentration failed to meet the standard indicates an improvement in river quality.

Fecal-coliform bacteria counts exceeded the standard in 26 percent of the samples at 82nd Street before imple­ mentation of AWT and in 24 percent of the samples after implementation. No data were available from Morris Street prior to implementation of AWT, but the standard was exceeded in 31 percent of the samples after implementation. Downstream from the Belmont and Southport wastewater- treatment plants, no data were available from Waverly or Centerton prior to implementation of AWT, but the stand­ ard was exceeded in 52 percent of the samples collected after implementation at Waverly and in 40 percent of the samples collected near Centerton. Where Belmont and Southport treatment-plant-effluent data were available, they were compared with the river data during the periods when the standard was exceeded in the river. In only one occurrence at Waverly and one occurrence near Centerton after implementation of AWT could the large fecal-coliform bacteria counts in the White River be attributed to the treatment plants. Several tributaries to the White River in Indianapolis have a history of combined sewer overflows; these tributaries are the likely source of the high concentra­ tions of fecal-coliform bacteria, rather than the two treat­ ment plants. This analysis was based on the monthly river-quality samples, however, and the sample size is not adequate to determine sources of the fecal-coliform bacte­ ria. Also, the data analyzed in this study do not represent the full range of concentrations during storm runoff.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Monthly monitoring data from four sites on the White River and daily samples from the Belmont and Southport municipal wastewater-treatment plants were analyzed for trends to determine if significant changes in river quality had occurred because of implementation of advanced waste- water treatment. Two nonparametric statistical procedures were used to test for trends in the time-series water-quality data. The seasonal Kendall procedure is an alternative to linear-regression methods; it was used to test for a mono- tonic trend (a systematic and continuous change). This procedure was used to test for long-term (1958-86) trends in the White River at 82nd Street, upstream from the treatment plants. The seasonal Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum procedure is an alternative to the Mest; it was used to test for a step trend (an abrupt and constant change) at all sites for 1978 through 1986.

Water quality at sample sites located upstream from the wastewater-treatment facilities was relatively constant during the period of study. Significant (probability level <0.05) increasing trends were indicated for ammonia in

data from the White River at 82nd Street and at Morris Street; however, the rate of change with time was small when compared to the change that occurred in the treatment-plant effluents and in the White River down­ stream from the treatment plants.

Changes in effluent quality at the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants resulted in statisti­ cally significant changes in water quality in the White River downstream from the plants, when pre- and post-AWT water-quality data were tested for trend. The test for step trends indicated highly significant decreases in concentra­ tions and loads of BOD5 and total solids in Belmont and Southport effluents, and in concentrations and loads of ammonia and phosphate in Belmont effluent (no data were available for Southport). Because of in-plant nitrification, a highly significant increase in nitrate concentration and load was indicated at the Belmont plant (no data were available for the Southport plant). The same trends occurred in the White River downstream from the treatment plants. Statis­ tically significant decreases in the concentrations and loads of ammonia and BOD5 were observed in the White River at Waverly and near Centerton. Increases in nitrate concentra­ tions and loads were also statistically significant at both downstream sites. The decrease in ammonia and BOD5 concentrations and loads in the White River following implementation of AWT resulted in a highly significant increase in dissolved-oxygen concentration and percent saturation because of reduced oxygen demand for nitrifica­ tion and biochemical oxidation processes at both down­ stream sites.

The number of times that river-quality samples exceeded the water-quality standards that apply to the White River decreased substantially following implementation of advanced wastewater treatment. Total ammonia concentra­ tions exceeded the standard of 2.5 mg/L in 38 percent of the samples collected at Waverly and 25 percent of the samples collected near Centerton, downstream from the wastewater- treatment plants, before implementation of advanced waste- water treatment. Concentrations at these sites have not exceeded the standard in any samples collected since implementation of advanced wastewater treatment. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations were less than the 5.0 mg/L standard in 35 percent of the samples collected at Waverly and 24 percent of the samples collected near Centerton before implementation of advanced wastewater treatment. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the White River at Waverly were observed to be less than the standard only twice since implementation of advanced waste treat­ ment. Near Centerton, dissolved-oxygen concentrations were not observed to be less than the standard since implementation of advancement.

Upstream water-quality conditions in the White River were relatively constant over time. Statistically significant changes in river quality were indicated by tests of water- quality data from the treatment plants and in the White

22 Effects of Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, White River near Indianapolis, Ind.: Trends in Water Quality, 1978-86

River downstream from the plants. The number of times a water-quality standard was exceeded has been substantially reduced since implementing AWT. The implementation of advanced-wastewater-treatment systems at the Belmont and Southport wastewater-treatment plants has resulted in sub­ stantial changes in the quality of treated effluent and, therefore, in the quality of the White River downstream from Indianapolis.

REFERENCES CITED

American Public Health Association and others, 1976, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (14th ed.): Washington, D.C., American Public Health Associa­ tion, 1,139 p.

Bradley, J.V., 1968, Distribution-free statistical tests: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Publishing Co., 388 p.

Crawford, C.G., Slack, J.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1983, Nonpara- metric tests for trends in water-quality data using the Statis­ tical Analysis System: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-550, 102 p.

Gilliom, R.J., and Helsel, D.R., 1986, Estimation of the distri­ butional parameters for censored trace level water quality data, pt. 1, Estimation techniques: Water Resources Research, v. 22, no. 2, p. 135-146.

Greeson, P.E., Ehlke, T.A., Irwin, G.A., Lium, B.W., and Slack, K.V., 1977, Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic biological and microbiological samples: U.S. Geo­ logical Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investiga­ tions, book 5, chap. A4, 332 p.

Hirsch, R.M., Slack, J.R., and Smith, R.A., 1982, Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data: Water Resour­ ces Research, v. 18, no. 1, p. 107-121.

Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission, 1976, Areawide water-quality management plan: Indianapolis, variable pagi­ nation.

Mann, H.B., and Whitney, D.R., 1947, On a test of whether one or two random variables is stochastically larger than the other: Annals of Mathematical Statistics, v. 18, p. 50-60.

Salas, J.D., Delleur, J.W., Yevjevich, V.M., and Lane, W.L., 1980, Applied modeling of hydrologic time series: Littleton, Colorado, Water Resources Publications, 484 p.

Shampine, W.J., 1975, A river-quality assessment of the upper White River, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigation Report 10-75, 68 p.

Skougstad, M.W., Fishman, M.J., Friedman, L.C., Erdman, D.E., and Duncan, S.S., 1979, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investi­ gations, book 5, chap. Al, 626 p.

Smith, R.A., Hirsch, R.M., and Slack, J.R., 1982, A study of trends in total phosphorus measurements at NASQAN stations: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2190, 34 p.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1968, Indiana soil and water conservation needs inventory: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, 224 p.

Wilcoxon, F., 1945, Individual comparisons by ranking methods: Biometrics, v. 1, p. 80-83.

Yevjevich, Vujica, 1972, Stochastic processes in hydrology: Fort Collins, Colorado, Water Resources Publications, 276 p.

References Cited 23