Premium
ON THE CENTRALIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 1
Author(s) -
Adams B. J.,
Dajani J. S.,
Gemmell R. S.
Publication year - 1972
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1972.tb05208.x
Subject(s) - diseconomies of scale , sewage treatment , effluent , decentralization , wastewater , economies of scale , environmental science , environmental engineering , population , scale (ratio) , operations management , waste management , engineering , economics , geography , medicine , microeconomics , market economy , cartography , environmental health
. Two factors affecting the centralization of wastewater treatment facilities were investigated; the cost of collection and treatment systems and the performance of treatment plants. Based on computer‐generated minimum cost designs, wastewater collection networks were found to be characterized by diseconomies of scale of magnitude similar to the reported economies of scale for wastewater treatment works. The combined costs of collection and treatment are U‐shaped functions from which the least cost size of collection and treatment systems were found for particular values of population density. Examination of the day‐to‐day performance of five metropoitan‐area waste‐water treatment plants revealed that, for time series shorter than one month, the day‐to‐day variation in effluent quality was random, although the variation in quantity discharged was distinctly non‐random. The performances of all five plants on any given day showed little correlation. This suggests that the decentralization of treatment facilities can produce benefits both through the reduction in quantities of waste discharged at a given point and through in‐stream averaging of the varying performances of several treatment plants. Since the cost function of collection and treatment combined is generally flat in the region of the minimum‐cost size, little penalty is invoked to gain the potential benefits of treatment plant decentralization.