Text description of "Update on Spent Lime to Control Sediment Phosphorus Release" poster

Greg Wilson, PE

Senior Water Resources Engineer | Barr Engineering Co.

Problem Statements

Aging stormwater ponds are not functioning as intended.

  • Phosphorus is being released from bottom sediments, similar to eutrophic lakes.
  • There are approximately 17,000 stormwater ponds in Minnesota

Lime water softening results in spent lime byproduct

  • Currently being trucked to agricultural fields at high expense

Photo of dirty stormwater pond

Overall Goals and Objectives

  • Evaluate whether beneficial re-use of spent lie can reduce sediment phosphorus release from ponds
  • Conduct lab dosing experiments
  • Apply spent lime to three ponds
  • Conduct post-treatment monitoring to assess whether phosphorus release has been controlled
  • Proof of concept - assess feasible application methods, costs and permit considerations

Background

  • Phosphorus is stored in lake/pond bottom sediments and released under low oxygen.
  • Decay of organic phosphorus also occurs.
  • Alum treatments are normally done to bind phosphorus.
  • Calcium from spent lime could substitute for aluminum.

Graphic of phosphorus released from sediment

Graphic of phosphorus binding to alum

Graphic of phosphorus binding to calcium

Spent Lime

Filter cake currently trucked to agricultural farms - used as soil amendment.

  • $350 per truckload
  • $1,000,000 total cost per year to SPRWS

Several other water utilities around the State use lime softening and generate spent lime.

Image of spent lime

Image of spent lime slurry (City of White Bear Lake)

Image of person spraying spent lime into pond

Application of Spent Lime Slurry to Stormwater Ponds

Typically dropped total phosphorus in half, with no sign of internal phosphorus release. Transparency readings typically doubled.

Image of pond during and immediately after application

Image of pond 6 hours after application, appearing clearer

Image of pond ~30 hours after application, even clearer than previous

Results, Considerations, and Comparisons

Graphs of Monitoring results - Wakefield Pond

Proof of Concept - Permit Considerations

  • Trace chemicals in spent lime do not exceed MPCA's Tier 2 Soil Reference Values (SRVs) or Soil Leaching Values (SLVs). Spent lime does not represent a concern for release of contaminants.
  • Barr (2014) compared aquatic toxicity of spent lime treated stormwater to untreated stormwater using sensitive test species (Ceriodaphnia dubia, a zooplankton). Spent lime did not result in unwanted toxic conditions.
  • MPCA granted our permit on an experimental basis - continuous pH monitoring to confirm compliance with standard.

Photo of splash in pond

Proof of Concept - Costs/Feasibility

Pond (area)Spent lime Volume Applied 
(gallons)
LimitationsContractor Cost (applied)
Wakefield Pond (0.4 acres)3,250Upper pH permit limit$0.38 per gallon
Ash Street Pond (0.55 acres)6,150Schedule$0.38 per gallon
Oak Knoll Pond (4.5 acres)88,000Center area applied w/ boat$0.69 per gallon

Photo of sediment core samples taken on three ponds

Comparison of Treatment Options for Sediment Phosphorus Release Control

Treatment OptionBenefitsDrawbacks
DredgingRestores treatment capacityUpper pH permit limit
AlumNot sensitive to anoxia; proven

pH considerations

Sulfate

Iron FilingsCheaper than alumRedox sensitive; Raw material costs; Longevity unknown
Spent limeCost effective; Beneficial reuse; Insensitive to redoxpH considerations

Summary

Lab tests demonstrated that Ca-P may be formed in sediments

  • Insensitive to redox conditions; pH will increase, but effects can be mitigated
  • Ca-P formation is likely slower than other metal-phosphate reactions (Al-P)

 

Spent lime applied to three ponds, to date

  • Provided uniform sediment coverage, improved transparency

 

Post-treatment monitoring - results confirmed expectations

  • Typically dropped pond TP concentrations in half
  • Sediment core sampling also documented sediment-water interface changes (lower sediment oxygen demand)

 

Proof of concept

  • Compared application methods - cost-benefit and permit considerations
  • Alum applications typically cost five to twenty times higher

 

Logo for Barr Engineering

Acknowledgments

  • Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
  • Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization
  • City of White Bear Lake
  • City of Maplewood
  • City of Lino Lakes
  • St. Paul Regional Water Services
  • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
  • Minnesota Stormwater Research Council (Clean Water Fund)