600880042C
TREATABILITY MANUAL
VOLUME III. Technologies
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, B.C.
January 1980
.IH
-------
PREFACE
In January, 1979, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Office of
Water and Waste Management requested help from the Office of
Research and Development in compiling wastwater treatment per-
formance data into a "Treatability Manual". This Manual was to
be used in developing NPDES permit limitations for facilities
which, at the time of permit issuance, were not fully covered
by promulgated, industry-specific effluent guidelines authorized
under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the CWA.
A planning group was set up to manage the treatability program
under the chairmanship of William Cawley, Deputy Director,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati. The
group includes participants from: 1) the Industrial Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory - Cincinnati, 2) Effluent Guidelines
Division, Office of Water and Waste Management; 3) Permits
Division, Office of Enforcement; 4) Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory - Cincinnati; 5) R. S. Kerr, Environmental
Research Laboratory - Ada; 6) Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Research Triangle Park; 7) Monsanto Research Corpo-
ration; and 8) Aerospace Corporation.
The objectives of the treatability program are:
• To provide readily accessible data and information on
treatability of industrial and municipal waste streams
for use by NPDES permit writers, enforcement personnel,
and by industrial or municipal permit holders;
• To provide a basis for research planning by identifying
gaps in knowledge of the treatability of certain pollut-
ants and wastestreams;
• To set up a system allowing rapid response to program
office requirements for generation of treatability data.
The primary output from this program is a five-volume Treat-
ability Manual. The individual volumes are named as follows:
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
Treatability Data
Industrial Descriptions
Technologies
Cost Estimating
Summary
-------
• To provide readily accessible data and information on
treatability of industrial and municipal waste streams for
use by NPDES permit writers, enforcement personnel, and
laboratory researchers; and
• To provide a basis for research planning by identifying gaps
in treatability knowledge and state-of-the-art.
A primary output from the treatability program is a five volume
treatability manual. The treatability manual comprises five
volumes, as follows:
VOLUME I
VOLUME II
VOLUME III
VOLUME IV
VOLUME V
Treatability Data
Industrial Descriptions
Technologies
Cost Estimating
Summary
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The sheer size and comprehensiveness of this document should make
it obvious that this had to be the effort of a large number of people.
It is the collection of contributions from throughout the Environmental
Protection Agency, particularly from the Office of Enforcement, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials and the Office of Research and Develop-
ment. Equally important to its success were the efforts of the employees
of the Aerospace Corporation and the Monsanto Research Corporation who
participated in this operation.
No list of the names of everyone who took part in the effort would
in any way adequately acknowledge the effort which those involved in
preparing this Manual made toward its development. Equally difficult
would be an attempt to name the people who have made the most significant
contributions both because there have been too many and because it would
be impossible to adequately define the term "significant." This document
exists because of major contributions by the contractor's staff and by
members of the following:
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
Permits Division
Office of Water Enforcement
National Enforcement Investigation Center
Office of Enforcement
Center for Environmental Research Information
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Office of Research and Development
The purpose of this acknowledgement is to express my thanks as
Committee Chairman and the thanks of the Agency to the Committee Members
and others who contributed to the success of this effort.
William A. Cawley, Deputy Director, IIRL-Ci
Chairman, Treatability Coordination Committee
-------
VOLUME III
TABLE OP CONTENTS
XII.1; Introduction
III.2 Technology Overview
III.3 Wastewater Conditioning (Preliminary Treatment)
III.3.1 Screening
III.3.2 Grit Removal
III.3.3 Flow Equalization
III.3.4 Neutralization
III.4 Primary Wastewater Treatment
III.,4.1 Gravity Oil Separation
III.4.2 Sedimentation
III.4.3 Sedimentation with Chemical Addition
±11.4.4 Gas Flotation
III.4.5 Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
111,4.6 Filtration
III.4.7 ultrafiltration
III.5 Secondary Wastewater Treatment
III.5.1 Activated Sludge
Iir.5.2 Trickling Filters
III.5.3 Lagoons
III.5.4 Rotating Biological Contactors
III.5.5 Steam Stripping
III.5.6 Solvent Extraction
III.6 Tertiary Wastewater Treatment
III.6.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
III.6.2 Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
III.6.3 Chemical Oxidation
"III.6.4 Air Stripping
III.6.5 Nitrification
III.6.6 Denitrification
III.6.7 Ion Exchange
III.6.8 Polymeric Adsorption
III.6.9 Reverse Osmosis
III.6.10 Electrodialysis
III.6.11 Distillation
III. 6.. 12 .Disinfection
III.6.13 Dechlorination (Chemical Reduction)
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (continued)
III.7 Sludge Treatment
III.7.1 Gravity Thickening
III.7.2 Flotation Thickening
III.7.3 Centrifugal Thickening
III.7.4 Aerobic Digestion
III.7.5 Anaerobic Digestion
III.7.6 Chemical Conditioning
III.7.7 Thermal Conditioning (Heat Treatment)
III.7.8 Disinfection (Heat)
III.7.9 Vacuum Filtration
III.7.10 Filter Press Dewatering
III.7.11 Belt Filter Dewatering
III.7.12 Centrifugal Dewatering
III.7.13 Thermal Drying (Hot Air)
III.7.14 Drying Beds
III.7.15 Lagoons
III.7.16 By-Product Recovery
III.8 Disposal
III.8.1 Evaporation Lagoons
III.8.2 Incineration
III.8.3 Starved Air Combustion
III.8.4 Landfilling
III.8.5 Land Application
III.8.6 Composting
III.8.7 Deep Well Injection
-------
GLOSSARY
AAP: Army Ammunitions Plant.
AN: Ammonium Nitrate.
ANFO: Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil.
BATEA: Best Available Technology Economically Achievable.
BAT: Best Applicable Technology.
BEJ: Best Engineering Judgement.
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
clarification: Process by which a suspension is clarified to
give a "clear" supernatant.
cryolite: A mineral consisting of sodium-aluminum fluoride.
CWA: Clean Water Act.
cyanidation process: Gold and/or silver are extracted from
finely crushed ores, concentrates, tailings, and low-grade
mine-run rock in dilute, weakly alkaline solutions of
potassium or sodium cyanide.
comminutor: Mechanical devices that cut up material normally
removed in the screening process.
effluent: A waste product discharged from a process.
EGD: Effluent Guidelines Division.
elutriation: The process of washing and separating suspended
particles by decantation.
extraction: The process of separating the active constituents of
drugs by suitable methods.
fermentation: A chemical change of organic matter brought about
by the action of an enzyme or ferment.
-------
flocculation: The coagulation or coalescence of a finely-divided
precipitate.
fumigant: A gaseous or readily volatilizable chemical used as a
disinfectant or pesticide.
GAC: Granular Activated Carbon.
gravity concentration: A process which uses the differences in
density to separate valuable ore minerals from gangue.
gravity separation/settling: A process which removes suspended
solids by natural gravitational forces.
grit removal: Preliminary treatment that removes large objects,
in order to prevent damage to subsequent treatment and
process equipment.
influent: A process stream entering the treatment system.
intake: Water, such as tap or well water, that is used as
makeup water in the process.
lagoon: A shallow artifical pond for the natural oxidation of
sewage and ultimate drying of the sludge.
LAP: Loading Assembly and Packing operations.
MHF: Multiple Hearth Furnace.
neutralization: The process of adjusting either an acidic or a
basic wastestream to a pH in the range of seven.
NPNES. 'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council.
NSPS: New Source Performance Standards.
photolysis: Chemical decomposition or dissociation by the action
of radient energy.
PCB: PolyChlorinated Biphenyl.
POTW: Public Owned Treatment Works.
PSES: Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources.
purged: Removed by a process of cleaning; take off or out.
-------
screening process: A process used to remove coarse and/or gross
solids from untreated wastewater before subsequent treatment.
SIC: Standard Industrial Classification.
SS: Suspended Solids.
SRT: Solids Retention Time.
starved air combustion: Used for the volumetric and organic
reduction of sludge solids.
terpene: Any of a class of isomeric hydrocarbons.
thermal drying: Process in which the moisture in sludge is
reduced by evaporation using hot air, without the solids
being combusted.
TKN: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
TOC: Total Organic Carbon.
trickling filter: Process in which wastes are sprayed through
the air to absorb oxygen and allowed to trickle through a
bed of rock or synthetic media coated with a slime of micro-
bial growth to remove dissolved and collodial biodegradable
organics.
TSS: Total Suspended Solids.
vacuum filtration: Process employed to dewater sludges so that
a coke is produced having the physical handling character-
istics and contents required for processing.
VSS: Volatile Suspended Solids.
WQC: Water Quality Criterion.
-------
III.I INTRODUCTION
This volume presents performance data and related technical in-
formation for 56 unit operations used in industrial water pol-
lution control. These 56 unit operations include 24 sludge
treatment and disposal technologies and 32 generic wastewater
treatment technologies classified as preliminary, primary,
secondary, or tertiary treatment. Section 2 discusses the
rationale used to segregate the 32 wastewater treatment tech-
nologies into four classifications.
In Sections 3 through 8, each wastewater or sludge treatment/
disposal technology is briefly described and generalized perform-
ance characteristics are given for the preliminary wastewater
treatment (conditioning) and sludge processing technologies.
However, emphasis is placed on the pollutant removal capabilities
of the 28 primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment
technologies. Both concentration and removal efficiency data
are given for the following group of pollutants:
(1) Conventional pollutants such as biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5)/ 'chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon
(TOC), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, total
phenol, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),
and total organic chlorine (TOC1),
(2) 129 toxic pollutants derived by EPA from the 65 "priority
pollutants" listed in a Consent Agreement, Natural Resources
Defense Council vs Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
(3) Compounds selected from the list of substances designated
by EPA as hazardous under authority of Section 311 of the
CWA, based on the availability of either a consensus ana-
lytical methods or one promulgated under authority of
Section 204(h) of the CWA, and
(4) Other nonconventional pollutants of concern in specific
industrial wastewaters.
The technology descriptions presented in Sections 3 through 8
discuss the primary functions and basic operating principles
of each treatment process. They also discuss major design
criteria, common modifications and applications, reliability
and inherent technical limitations, technological status and
extent of industry utilization, chemical requirements, and en-
vironmental impacts of each treatment process. However, the
Date: 2/7/80 III.1-1
-------
technology descriptions do not provide detailed information on
process design or operation. They are intended for overview
purposes only. Similarly, the performance characteristics given
for the prreliminary wastewater treatment and sludge treatment/
disposal technologies are intended only as general guidelines.
Pollutant removal data for the primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment technologies are presented in two forms: plant speci-
fic data sheets and statistical summary tables. Each plant-
specific data sheet lists the concentrations of various pollut-
ants in the influent and effluent to the treatment operation and
the corresponding removal efficiencies for these pollutants.
When available, the following types of information are also
provided.
• Point source category, subcategory and identification
code of the plant discharging the waste
• Scale of the treatment operation (e.g., full scale, pilot
scale, bench scale)
• Location of the treatment operation in the overall waste
treatment system for the plant (e.g., primary, secondary,
tertiary treatment)
• Design and operating parameters
• Reference from which the information was taken
References for the plant-specific data include Effluent Guide-
lines development documents and contractor reports, other EPA
reports, journal articles, and conference papers. The data are
reported as they appear in the original references, except that
certain concentration and removal efficiency values are rounded
to fewer significant figures. Conventional pollutant concentra-
tions are reported to a maximum of three significant figures,
while removal efficiencies and concentration data for the other
groups of pollutants are limited to two significant figures.
This convention has been adopted for formating purposes only and
does not necessarily reflect the accuracy and reproducibility of
the data. The confidence limits associated with individual con-
centration values and removal efficiencies are unknown unless
otherwise noted on the data sheets.
In many cases, the concentrations of toxic organic pollutants
in treatment system effluents are reported as "not detected" or
"below detectable limits" in the original references and no
detection limits are specified. These concentrations are also
reported as "not detected" or "below detectable limits" on the
plant specific data sheets.
For removal efficiency calculations, however, "nondetectable"
organic pollutant concentrations are assumed to be either
(a) <10 yg/L if the influent concentration exceeds 10 yg/L, or
Date: 2/7/80 III.1-2
-------
(b) less than the corresponding influent concentration if a finite
influent concentration <10 pg/L is reported. These assumptions
reflect EPA's experience with a draft analytical screening proto-
col (Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants, U.S.E.P.A., Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268,
March 1977, Revised April 1977) over the last 18 months.
In other cases, treatment system effluents have been reported to
contain higher concentrations of certain pollutants than the
untreated wastewaters. However, "negative removals" are not
reported on the plant-specific data sheets. Where the effluent
concentration for a given pollutant exceeds the corresponding
influent concentration, the removal efficiency is reported as
zero and treated as such in the data summarization.
The statistical summary table for each primary, secondary, and
tertiary wastewater treatment technology incorporates all efflu-
ent concentration and removal efficiency data contained in the
plant-specific data base for that technology. Minimum, maximum,
median, and mean effluent concentrations and removal efficiencies
are given for each pollutant listed on one or more of the data
sheets. These statistics are intended only as general perform-
ance indicators for the treatment technologies since they do not
account for differences in system design and operation, influent
pollutant loadings, or the types of industrial wastewaters being
treated. Median/mean effluent concentrations and removal effi-
ciencies reported for a given treatment technology are not
necessarily indicative of the technology's pollutant removal
capabilities when applied to a specific industrial wastewater.
Date: 2/7/80 III.1-3
-------
III.2 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
The 56 wastewater and sludge treatment/disposal technologies
addressed in this volume are divided into six groups, based on
their primary functions. These are (1) wastewater conditioning,
or preliminary treatment, (2) primary wastewater treatment,
(3) secondary wastewater treatment, (4) tertiary wastewater
treatment, (5) sludge treatment, and (6) sludge disposal. Fig-
ure 1 identifies the technologies included in each of these
groups.
The four wastewater conditioning technologies are designed to
prepare wastewater streams for further treatment. Screening and
grit removal separate coarse materials from the waste stream to
prevent damage to downstream pumps, sedimentation tank sludge
collectors, and other process equipment. Equalization damps out
fluctuations in hydraulic flow and pollutant loading from the
plant production process, and neutralization renders acidic or
basic waste streams suitable for pH sensitive treatment process-
es (e.g., biological treatment). Neutralization may also be
used as the final step in a treatment process to meet pH stand-
ards. None of these wastewater conditioning technologies are
designed to remove specific pollutants from wastewater, however.
The remaining 28 wastewater treatment technologies are arbitrar-
ily classified as primary, secondary, or tertiary treatment
based on the types of pollutants they are designed to remove.
This classification procedure is adapted only for organizational
purposes in this volume; it is not meant to imply that technolo-
gies classed as primary, secondary, or tertiary are always used
in these treatment applications. The seven generic technologies
classified as primary treatment are designed to remove suspended
or colloidal materials from wastewater. Gravity oil separation,
sedimentation, and gas flotation (e.g., dissolved air flotation)
remove free oil and grease and suspended solids, as well as spe-
cific compounds locked in these matrices. When chemical addi-
tion (coagulants or settling aids) is used in conjunction with
sedimentation or gas flotation, dispersed oil and grease and
colloidal solids can also be removed. Ultrafiltration performs
a similar function. Filtration is primarily used for effluent
polishing, in terms of suspended solids, or as a pretreatment
step for other processes that are adversely affected by suspend-
ed solids. Although these technologies are classified as pri-
mary treatment, they are not always used as the initial treatment
step. For example, filtration is frequently used as a tertiary
Date: 12/10/79 III.2-1
-------
operation following secondary clarification. Ultrafiltration
and sedimentation or gas flotation with chemical addition are
often used as "secondary" treatment processes, following gravity
oil separation for free oil removal. In some cases, these
processes may also be applied for tertiary treatment. Lime
treatment of secondary effluents for phosphorus removal is an
example of this type of application.
The technologies classified as secondary treatment include two
physical/chemical processes and four generic biological processes,
For performance data summary purposes, lagooning is subdivided
according to the types of biological activity involved and other
basic operating principles (e.g., mechanical vs. natural aera-
tion) .a These technologies are classified as secondary treat-
ment because their primary function is to remove dissolved
organic materials from wastewater. These processes are normally
preceded by primary treatment for suspended solids removal,
particularly steam stripping and solvent extraction where con-
tactor fouling can be a major problem.
Steam stripping and solvent extration are frequently used in the
chemical industry, but usually in the production process itself
rather than for wastewater treatment. These processes are most
applicable for treatment of concentrated waste streams contain-
ing organic materials that are refractory to biological oxida-
tion. Steam stripping may also be used as a pretreatment step
for activated sludge or other biological treatment processes to
remove volatile organics that evaporate before biological oxida-
tion occurs.
Activated sludge processes, trickling filters, and lagoons are
by far the most common treatment processes for dissolved organic
materials, primarily because they are less expensive and easier
to operate than physical/chemical treatment alternatives. Ro-
tating bilogical contactors, relatively new innovations in the
wastewater treatment field, are also being used in some appli-
cations.
The 15 technologies classifed as tertiary wastewater treatment
processes are primarily designed to remove dissolved organics or
inorganics that are refractory to primary and secondary treat-
ment. Processes such as activated carbon adsorption, chemical
oxidation, and ozonation may be used in secondary treatment
applications, but they tend to be more expensive than biological
treatment. However, the use of powdered activated carbon in
conjunction with the activated sludge process is gaining favor
Sedimentation with chemical addition and gas flotation with
chemical addition are also subdivided for data summarization
according to the type(s) of coagulants or settling aids used,
Date: 12/10/79 III.2-2
-------
as a method to improve refractory organic removal and secondary
settling.
For wastewaters containing little or no suspended or biodegrad-
able organic material, tertiary technologies may be used to
remove selected materials from the raw wate stream without re-
course to standard primary or secondary treatment processes.
Examples of this include chromate removal from cooling tower
blowdown via ion exchange or reverse osmosis. In most waste-
water treatment applications, however, primary and secondary
treatment processes are used upstream from the tertiary technol-
ogies listed in Figure 1. Most of these tertiary technologies
are rendered uneffective or more expensive to operate by high
suspended solids or organic loadings.
The 16 sludge treatment technologies include various thickening,
digestion, dewatering, disinfection, and other conditioning
alternatives. Many of these processes are used consecutively in
wasewater treatment plants; thickening, digestion, and dewater-
ing for example. In general, they are designed to render sludge
suitable for a particular disposal alternative and/or to facili-
tate handling and transportation. An exception is byproduct
recovery, discussed in Section 7.16.
Date: 12/10/79 III.2-3
-------
WASTEWATER CONDITIONING! PRIMARY TREATMENT 1
(PRELIMINARY TREATMENT! 1 ' 1 '
1 SCRE
[GRIT R
1 ROW EQU
NING 1 IGRAVITY OIL
SEPARATION]
MOVAL 1 SEDIMENTATION 1
M.IZATION 1 SEDIMENTATION WITH
CHEMICAL ADDITION AFPATFH
INEUTRA.i£*uum LAGOONS ~
ICAS FLOTATION! ~J
GAS FLOTA
CHEMICAL
TION WITH
ADDITION
1 FILTRITION 1
SECONDARY TREATMENT ]
[ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1 TRICKLI
[LAGC
AEROBIC
LAGOONS
ROTATING B
CONTA
ISTEAM S
[SOLVENT F
YG FILTER
ONSI
IOLOGICAL
CTORS
RIPPINGI
[TRArrrinml
FACULTATIVE! IANAEROBIC IEFFLUENT POLISHING
LAGOONS 1 1 LAGOONS | LAGOONS
lULTRAFILTRATIONl
TERTIARY TREATMENT |
| SLUDGE TREATMENT |
|
GRANULAR ACTIVATED!
CARBON ADSORPTION!
POWDERED ACTIVATED
CARBON ADSORPTION
1 CHEMICAL OXIDATION!
IAIR STRIPPING!
{NITRIFICATION!
IDENTIFICATION!
IJOU p_j-
I LAND APPLlCAHONl
ipgp WELL INJECTION!
BY-PROOUa RECOVERY
SUBOASSIFICATIONS FOR PERFORMANCE DATA SUMMARY PURPOSES
ARE BASED ON THE TYPES OF COAGULANTS OR SETTLING AIDS USED.
Figure 1. Treatment technology overview.
Date: 12/10/79
III.2-4
-------
III.3.1 SCREENING [I]
III.3.1.1 Function
Screening is used to remove coarse and/or gross solids from
untreated wastewater before subsequent treatment.
III.3.1.2 Description
There are two major types of screening processes. These are
termed wedge wire screening and rotating horizontal shaft
screening.
_ —rWedge Wire Screen. A wedge wire screen is a device onto
which wastewater is directed across an inclined stationary
screen or a drum screen of uniform sized openings. Solids are
trapped on the screen surface while the wastwater flows through
the openings. The solids are moved either by gravity (stationary)
or by mechanical means (rotating drum) to a collecting area for
discharge. Stationary screens introduce the wastewater as a thin
film flowing downward with a minimum of turbulence across the
wedge wire screens, which is generally in three sections of
progressively flatter slope. The drum screen employs the same
type of wedge wire wound around its periphery. Wastewater is
introduced as a thin film near the top of the drum and flows
through the hollow drum and out the bottom. The solids retained
by the peripheral screen follow the drum rotation until removed by
a doctor blade located at about 120° from the introduction point.
Wedge wire spacing can be varied to best suit the application.
For municipal wastewater applications spacings are generally
between 0.01 and 0.06 inches (0.25 to 1.5 mm). Inclined screens
can be housed in stainless steel or fiberglass; wedge wires may be
curved or straight; the screen face may be a single multi-angle
unit, three separate multi-angle pieces, or a single curved unit.
Rotary screens can have a single rotation speed drive or a vari-
able speed drive.
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. A rotating horizontal
shaft screen is an intermittently or continously rotating drum
covered with a plastic or stainless steel screen of uniform sized
openings, installed and partially submerged in a chamber. The
chamber is designed to permit the entry of wastewater to the
interior of the drum and collection of filtered (or screened)
wastewater from the exterior side of the drum. With each revolu-
tion, the solids are flushed by sprays from the exposed screen
surface into a collecting trough. Coarse screens have openings of
less than 1/4 inch. Screen with openings of 20 to 70 microns are
called microscreens or microstrainers. Drum diameters are 3 to 5
feet with 4- to 12-foot lengths.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.1-1
-------
III. 3. 1.3 Technology Status
__ Wedge Wire Screen. Wedge wire screens have been used in
industry since 1965 and in municipal wastewater treatment since
1967. There are over 100 installations to date.
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. Rotating horizontal shaft
screens are in widespread use for roughing pretreatment and for
secondary biological plant effluent polishing.
III. 3. 1.4 Applications
Wedge Wire Screen. Stationary and rotary drum screens are
ideally suited and usually employed after bar screens and prior to
grit chambers. They have also been employed for primary treat-
ment, scum dewatering, sludge screening, digester cleaning, and
storm water overflow treatment.
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. Used for removal of
coarse wastewater solids from the wastewater treatment plant
influent after bar screen treatment with screen openings 150
microns to 0.4 inches; also used for polishing activated sludge
effluent with screen openings 20 to 70 microns.
III. 3. 1.5 Limitations
— =5g"Wedge Wire Screen. Require regular cleaning and prompt
residuals disposal.
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. Dependence on pretreatment
and inability to handle solids fluctuations in tertiary applica-
tions; reducing speed of rotation of drum and less frequent
flushing of screen has resulted in increased removal efficiencies,
but reduced capacities.
III. 3. 1.6 Residuals Generated
Wire Screen. Solids trapped on the screen surface
(1 to 2 yd3/Mgal) .
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. Sidestream of solids
accumulations backwashed from screen (2 to 5 percent of influent
with suspended solids concentration of 200 to 500 mg/L) .
III. 3. 1.7 Reliability
j^*»^Wedge Wire Screen. Very high reliability for process and
mechanical areas when maintained.
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. High degree of reliability
for both the process and mechanical areas; process is simple to
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.1-2
-------
operate; mechanical equipment is generally simple and straight-
forward; occasional problems may arise because of incomplete
solids removal by flushing (hand cleaning may be required with
acid solution for stainless steel cloths); blinding by grease can
be a problem in pretreatment applications.
III.3.1.8 Environmental Impact
_,ee Wedge Wire Screen. Can create odors if screenings are not
disposed of properly; impact on land is practically nil; screening
are generally disposed of in a landfill or by incineration, no
impact on water.
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. Odor problems around
equipment may be created if solids are not flushed frequently
enough from the screen (pretreatment); disposal of solid by
incineration can affect air quality; disposal of solids in land-
fill has neglible impact; no impact on water.
III.3.1.9 Design Criteria
^nar—.Wedge Wire Screen. In screening of raw wastewater (0.05 to
36 Mgal/d):
•> ' ' . ^^-««—•-" ' ;.,,.....,
Stationary Parameter Rotary Drum
0.01 to 0.06 in. Screen opening ; 0.01 to 0.06 in.
4 to 7 ft Head required / 2.5 to 4.5 ft
10 to 750 ft Space required I 10 to 100 ft2
.Motor size 0.5 to 3 hp
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen.
Screen submergence: 70 to 80 percent.
Loading rate: 2 to 10 gal/min/ft2 of submerged area, depending on
pretreatment and mesh size.
Screen openings: 150 microns to 0.4 inches for pretreatment; 20
to 70 microns for tertiary treatment.
Drum rotation: 0 to 7 revolutions/min
Screen materials: Stainless steel or plastic cloth
Washwater = 2 to 5 percent of flow being treated.
Performance of fine screen device varies considerably on influent
solids type, concentration and loading patterns; mesh size;
hydraulic head; and degree of biological conditioning of solids.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.1-3
-------
III.3.1.10 Flow Diagrams
Wedge Wire Screen.
FEED
WATER LEVEL
INFLUENT —
EFFLUENT
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen.
*»SM (MIDI
MM mar
WASH WATER
DISCHARGE
INFLUENT CHAMBER
EFFLUENT WEIR
mUCNTCWMKIt
Date: 8.13/79
III.3.1-4
-------
III.3.1.11 Performance
Wedge Wire Screen.
Pollutant Typical percent removal
BOD 5 to 20
SS 5 to 25
Rotating Horizontal Shaft Screen. (Tertiary applications)
Pollutant Typical percent removals
BODs 40 to 60
SS 50 tO 70
III.3.1.12 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.1-5
-------
III.3.2 GRIT REMOVAL (PRELIMINARY TREATMENT) [1]
III.3.2.1 Function
The purpose of preliminary treatment is to remove large objects,
such as rocks, logs, and cans, as well as grit, in order to pre-
vent damage to subsequent treatment and process equipment.
Objects normally removed by preliminary treatment steps can be
extremely harmful to pumps, and can increase downtime due to
pipe clogging and clarifier scraper mechanism failures.
III.3.2.2 Description
Preliminary treatment usually consists of two separate and dis-
tinct unit operations: bar screening and grit removal. There
are two types of bar screens (or racks). The most commonly
used, and oldest technology, consists of hand-cleaned bar racks,
which are generally used in smaller treatment plants. The
second type of bar screen is the type that is mechanically
cleaned, which is commonly used in larger facilities.
Grit is most commonly removed in chambers that are capable of
settling out high density solid materials, such as sand, gravel,
and cinders. There are two types of grit chambers: horizontal
flow, and aerated; in both types the settleables collect at the
bottom of the unit. Horizontal units are designed to maintain a
relatively constant velocity by use of proportional weirs or
flumes in order to prevent settling of organic solids, while
simultaneously obtaining relatively complete removal of inor-
ganic particles (grit). Aerated grit chambers produces spiral
action whereby the heavier particles remain at the bottom of the
tank to be removed, while organic particles are maintained in
suspension by rising air bubbles. One main advantage of aerated
units is that the amount of air can be regulated to control the
grit/organic solids separation, and less offensive odors are
generated. The aeration process also facilitates cleaning of
the grit. Grit removed from horizontal flow units usually needs
additional cleaning steps prior to disposal.
III.3.2.3 Common Modifications
Many plants also use comminutors, which are mechanical devices
that cut up the material normally removed in the screening
process. Therefore, these solids remain in the wastewater to be
removed in downstream unit operations, rather than being removed
immediately from the wastewater. In recent years, the use of
static or rotating wedge-wire screens has increased to remove
large organic particulates just prior to degritting. These
units have been found to be superior to comminutors in that they
remove the material immediately from the waste instead of
creating additional loads downstream. Other grit chamber designs
are available including swirl concentrators and square tanks.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.2-1
-------
III.3.2.4 Technology Status
Preliminary treatment has been widely used since the early days
of wastewater treatment. Wedge-wire screens are newer tech-
nology (approximately 13 years old).
III.3.2.5 Applications
Should be used at all municpal wastewater treatment plants; also
normally used prior to wastewater pumping stations.
III.3.2.6 Limitations
None.
III.3.2.7 Performance
Bar screens are designed to remove all large debris, such as
stones, wood, cans, etc., grit chambers are designed to remove
virtually all inorganic particles, such as sand and gravel;
wedge-wire screens remove up to 25 percent suspended solids and
associated BOD5 and possibly reduce digester scum.
III.3.2.8 Chemicals Required
None.
III.3.2.9 Residuals Generated
All unit operations, except comminutors, will generate solids
that need disposal; wedge-wire screens remove up to 1 yd3 of 12
to 15 percent solids/Mgal; grit and other solids are often
landfilled.
III.3.2.10 Design Criteria
.— ^ ' "" ""~™~i
In bar screens, bar size is 1/4 to 5/8 in. width by 1 to 3 in.
depth; spacing is 0.75 to 3 in.; slope from vertical is 0 to ;
45°; velocity is 1.5 to 3 ft/s; criteria for wedge-wire screens,/
"Ts~~shown in Sec€iBn~""TTT73T1; lir^rtrt"" <^amtoer^';"'tier±2tmtai'
velocities are 0.5 to 1.25 ft/s; units are sufficiently long to
settle lightest and smallest (usually 0.2 mm) grit particles
with an additional factor of safety (up to 50 percent); weir
crests are generally set 4 to 12 in. above the bottom.
III.3.2.11 Reliability
Preliminary treatment systems are extremely reliable and, in
fact, are designed to improve the reliability of downstream
treatment systems.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.2-2
-------
III.3.2.12 Environmental Impact
Requires relatively little use of land; requires minimal amounts
of energy; solids will be generated, requiring disposal; odors are.
common when removed grit contains excess organic solids and is not
disposed of within a short time after removal.
III.3.2.13 Flow Diagram
METERING
INFLUENT
TO TREATMENT
GRIT
III.3.2.14 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79
III.3.2-3
-------
III.3.3 FLOW EQUALIZATION [1]
III.3.3.1 Function
Flow equalization is used to balance the quantity and quality of
wastewater before subsequent downstream treatment.
III.3.3.2 Description
Wastewater flows into treatment facilities are subjected to diur-
nal and seasonal fluctuation in quality and in quantity. Most
waste treatment processes are sensitive to such changes. An
equalization basin serves to balance the extreme quality and
quantity of these fluctuations to allow normal contact time in
the treatment facility. This section of the manual addresses
only equalization basins that are used to equalize flow; however,
it should be noted that equalization of the quality of wastewater
will also equalize to a degree.
Equalization basins may be designed as either in-line or side-
line units. In the in-line design, the basin receives the waste-
water directly from the collection system, and the discharge from
the basin through the treatment plant is kept essentially at con-
stant rate. In the side-line design, flows in excess of the
average are diverted to the equalization basin and, when the plant
flow falls below the average, wastewater from the basin is dis-
charged to the plant to bring the flow to the average level. The
basins are sufficiently sized to hold the peak flows and discharge
at constant rate.
Pump stations may or may not be required to discharge into or out
of the equalization basin, depending upon the available head.
Where pumping is found necessary, the energy requirements will be
based on total flow for in-line basins and one excess flow for
side-line basins.
Aeration of the wastewater in the equalization basin is normally
required for mixing and maintaining aerobic conditions.
III.3.3.3 Common Modifications
There are various methods of aeration, pumping and flow control.
Tanks or basins can be manufactured from steel or concrete, or
excavated and of the lined or unlined earthen variety.
III.3.3.4 Technology Status
Flow equalization has been used in the municipal and industrial
sectors for many years. There are more than 200 municipal
installations in the United States.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.3-1
-------
III.3.3.5. Applications
Can be used to equalize the extremes of diurnal and wet weather
flow fluctuations; secondary benefits are equalization of
quality and the potential for protection from toxic upsets.
III.3.3.6. Limitations
Application to equalize diurnal fluctuation is rather limited be-
cause the cost is unjustifiable when compared to the benefits;
may require substantial land area.
III.3.3.7 Residuals Generated
Due to the settling characteristics of influent wastewater solids,
some materials will collect at bottom of basin, and will need to
be periodically discarded; provisions must be made to accommodate
this need.
III.3.3.8 Reliability
Units are reliable from both a unit and process standpoint and
used to increase the reliability of the flow-sensitive treatment
processes that follow.
III.3.3.9 Environmental Impact
Can consume large land areas; impact upon air quality and noise
levels are minimal; some sludge may be generated that will
require disposal.
III.3.3.10 Design Criteria
Design of an equalization basin is highly site-specific and
dependent upon the type and magnitude of the input flow variations
and facility configuration; pumping/flow control mode, aeration,
mixing and flushing methods are dependent upon the size and site
conditions; grit removal should be provided upstream of the basin;
mechanical mixing at 20 to 40 hp/Mgal of storage; aeration at
1.25 to 2 ft3/min/l,000 gal of storage.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.3-2
-------
III.3.3.11 Flow Diagram
IN-LINE
INFLUENT
GRIT
REMOVAL
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
H
— H
CONTROLLED
FLOW PUMPING
STATION
FLOW METER AND
CONTROL DEVICE
-*- TO TREATMENT
SLUDGE-PROCESSING
' RECYCLE FLOWS
SIDE-LINE
INFLUENT -«
FLOW METER AND
CONTROL DEVICE
-TO TREATMENT
SLUDGE-PROCESSING
RECYCLE FLOWS
CONTROLLED
FLOW PUMPING
STATION
III.3.3.12 Performance
Flow equalization basins are easily designed to achieve the objec-
tive; use of aeration, in combination with the relatively long
detention times afforded can produce BOD5 reductions of 10 to 20
percent.
III.3.3.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79
III.3.3-3
-------
-------
III.3.4 NEUTRALIZATION [1]
III.3.4.1 Function
Neutralization is the process of adjusting either an acidic or a
basic wastestream to a pH in the range of seven.
III.3.4.2 Description
Many manufacturing and processing operations produce effluents
that are acidic or alkaline in nature. Neutralization of an ex-
cessively acidic or basic waste stream is necessary in a variety
of situations, for example: (1) to prevent metal corrosion and/or
damage to other construction materials; (2) to protect aquatic
life and human welfare; (3) as a preliminary treatment, allowing
effective operation of biological treatment processes, and (4) to
provide neutral pH water for recycle, either as process water or
as boiler feed. Treatment to adjust pH may also be desirable to
break emulsions, to insolubilize certain chemical species, or to
control chemical reaction rates, e.g., chlorination. Although
natural waters may differ widely in pH, changes in a particular
pH level could produce detrimental effects on the environment. To
minimize any undesirable consequences, the effluent limitations
guidelines for industrial sources set the pH limits for most in-
dustries between 6.0 and 9.0 for 1977 and 1983.
Simply, the process of neutralization is the interaction of an
acid with a base. The typical properties exhibited by acids in
solution are due to the hydrogen ion, (H+). Similarly, alkaline
(or basic) properties are a result of the hydroxyl ion, (OH~). In
aqueous solutions, acidity and alkalinity are defined with respect
to pH, where pH = - log (H+) and, at room temperature, pH = 14 +
log (OH~). In the strict sense, neutralization is the adjustment
of pH to 7, at which level the concentrations of hydrogen and
hydroxyl ions are equal. Solutions with excess hydroxyl ion con-
centration (pH >7) are said to be basic; solutions with excess
hydrogen ions (pH <7) are acidic. Since adjustment of the pH to
7 is not often practical or even desirable in waste treatment, the
term "neutralization" is sometimes used to describe adjustment of
pH to values other than 7.
The actual process of neutralization is accomplished by the addi-
tion of an alkaline to an acidic material or by adding an acidic
to an alkaline material, as determined by the required final pH.
The primary products of the reaction are a salt and water. A
simple example of acid-base neutralization is the reaction between
hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide:
HC1 + NaOH - H20 + NaCl
The product, sodium chloride in aqueous solution, is neutral with
pH = 7.0.
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.4-1
-------
III.3.4.3 Technology Status
Neutralization is considered to be demonstrated technology and is
widely used in industrial waste treatment.
III.3.4.4 Applications
Finds widest application in the treatment of aqueous wastes con-
taining strong acids such as sulfuric and hydrochloric, or bases
such as caustic soda and ammonium hydroxide; however, process can
be used with nonaqueous materials (for example, acidic phenols,
which are insoluble in water); although neutralization is a liquid
phase phenomenon, it can also treat both gaseous and solid waste
streams; gases can be handled by absorption in a suitable liquid
phase, as in the alkali scrubbing of acid vapors; slurries can be
neutralized, with due consideration for the nature of the suspended
solid and its dissolution properties; sludges are also amenable to
pH adjustment, but the viscosity of the material complicates the
process of physical mixing and contact between acid and alkali
that is essential to the treatment; in principle, even tars can be
neutralized, although the problems of reagent mixing and contact
are usually severe, making the process impractical in most in-
stances; solids and powders that are acidic or basic salts could
also be neutralized if dissolved; can be used to treat both in-
organic and organic waste streams that are either excessively
acidic or alkaline; often used to precipitate heavy metal ions,
e.g., Zn++, Pb++, Hg++, or Cu++ by the addition of an alkali
(usually lime) to a waste stream; organic compounds that can be
treated include carboxylic acids, sulfonic acids, phenols, and
many other materials.
INDUSTRIES USING NEUTRALIZATION
Wastewater
Industry pH range
Pulp and paper • Acidic and basic
Dairy products Acidic and basic
Textiles Basic
Pharmaceuticals Acidic and basic
Leather tanning and finishing Acidic and basic
Petroleum refining Acidic and basic
Grain milling Acidic and basic
Fruits and vegetables Acidic and basic
Beverages Acidic and basic
Plastic and synthetic materials Acidic and basic
Steel pickling Acidic
By-product coke Basic
Metal finishing Acidic
Organic chemicals Acidic and basic
Inorganic chemicals Acidic and basic
Fertilizer Acidic and basic
Industrial gas products Acidic and basic
Cement, lime, and concrete products Basic
Electric and steam generation Acidic and basic
Nonferrous metals - aluminum Acidic
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.4-2
-------
III.3.4.5 Limitations
Subject to influence of temperature and resulting heat effects
common to most chemical reactions; generally, in water-based reac-
tions, increasing the temperature of reactants increases the rate
of reaction; in neutralization, the interaction of acid and alkali
is frequently exothermic (evolves heat), with an accompanying
rise in temperature; an average value for the heat released during
the neutralization of dilute solutions of strong acids and bases
is 13,360 cal/g mole of water formed; by controlling the rate of
addition of neutralizing reagent, the heat produced may be dis-
sipated and temperature increase minimized. For each reaction,
the final temperature depends on initial reactant temperatures,
chemical species participating in the reaction (and their heats
of solution and reaction), concentrations of the reactants, and
relative quantities of the reactants; in general, concentrated
solutions can produce large temperature increases as relative
quantities of reactants approach stoichiometric proportions; this
can result in boiling and splashing of the solution, and acceler-
ated chemical attack on materials; in most cases, proper planning
of the neutralization scheme with respect to concentration of
neutralizing agent, rate of addition, reaction time, and equip-
ment design can alleviate the heating problem.
III.3.4.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
After neutralization a waste stream will usually show an increased
total dissolved solids content due to addition of chemical agent,
but there may also be an accompanying reduction in the concentra-
tion of heavy metals if the treatment proceeds to alkaline pH's;
conversely, in neutralizations involving the addition of acid to
alkali, there is the possibility of solids dissolution, which may,
on occasion, be disadvantageous, particularly if the suspended
matter is slated for removal, e.g., by filtration; anions result-
ing from neutralization of sulfuric and hydrochloric acids are
sulfate and chloride, respectively, which are not considered
hazardous, but recommended limits exist for discharge, based pri-
marily on problems in drinking water; common cations present after
neutralization involving caustic soda and lime (or limestone) are
sodium and calcium (possibly magnesium), respectively, which are
not toxic and have no recommended limits; however, calcium and
magnesium are responsible for water hardness and accompanying
scaling problem; carbonate produced during limestone neutraliza-
tion is also harmless both in solution and as carbon dioxide gas.
With regard to atmospheric emissions, one must be cautious not to
indiscriminately neutralize wastewater streams; acidification of
streams containing certain salts, such as sulfide, will produce
toxic gases; if there is no satisfactory alternative, the gas must
be removed through scrubbing or some other treatment; where solid
products are formed (as in precipitation of calcium sulfate, or
heavy metal hydroxides), clarifier/thickeners and filters must be
Date: 8/13/79 III.3.4-3
-------
provided; if precipitate is of sufficient purity, it would be a
salable product; otherwise, a disposal scheme must be devised.
III.3.4.7 Reliability
Process is highly reliable if properly monitored.
III.3.4.8 Flow Diagram
NEUTRALIZING CHEMI
FEED SYSTEM
•
CAL |_
PI pH METER CONTROLLER
I "*-- •—
]
=>
^
^^
SAMPLE PUMPS
>
I
c
J^
3
f
=>
^
I
X
"N
^i
C
>^
•v.
3
^
)o[
rNEUTR
A.
T
>
NEUTRALIZED WATER
NEUTRALIZING CHEMICAL
FED SYSTEM
III.3.4.9 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., November 1976. pp. 33-1 to 33-18.
Date: 8/13/79
III.3.4-4
-------
III.4.1 GRAVITY OIL SEPARATION [1]
III.4.1.1 Function
Gravity oil separation is used for the removal of floatable oil
and grease.
III.4.1.2 Description
A gravity oil separator (skimming tank) is a chamber so arranged
that floating matter rises and remains on the surface of the
wastewater until removed, while the liquid flows out continuously
through deep outlets or under partitions, curtain walls, or deep
scum boards. This may be accomplished in a separate tank or
combined with primary sedimentation, depending on the process
and nature of the wastewater.
The objective of skimming tanks is the separation from the waste-
water of the lighter floating substances. The material collected
on the surface of skimming tanks, whence it can be removed,
includes oil, grease, soap, pieces of cork and wood, and vegetable
debris and fruit skins originating in households and in industry.
The outlet, which is submerged, is opposite the inlet and at a
lower elevation to assist in flotation and to remove any solids
that may settle.
Gravity-type separators are the most common devices employed in
oily waste treatment. The effectiveness of a gravity separator
depends upon proper hydraulic design, and the design period of
wastewater retention. Longer retention times allow better separ-
ation of the floatable oils from the water. Short detention times
of less than 20 minutes result in less than 50% oil-water separa-
tion, while more extended holding periods improve oil separation
from the waste stream.
Gravity separators are equally effective in removing both greases
and nonemulsified oils. The standard unit in refinery waste
treatment is the API separator, based upon design standards
published by the American Petroleum Institute. Separators used
for metal and food processing oily wastes operate upon the same
principle of floating the oil, and many are designed in a similar
fashion to the API process insofar as skimming, retention time,
etc. Separators may be operated as batch vats, or as continuous
flow-through basins, depending upon the volume of waste to be
treated.
III.4.1.3 Technology Status
Gravity oil separation is well-developed for many industrial waste
treatment applications, especially refinery wastes.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.1-1
-------
III.4.1.4 Applications
Used in refinery, steel rolling, metal processing, food process-
ing, meat packing, and most other industrial waste treatment
where oil is present; in addition, recovery of skimmed oil or
grease from all major types of oily waste is increasingly common,
as the value of the recoverable oil is realized; frequently a
substantial savings is possible through recovery or recycle of
oily material.
III.4.1.5 Limitations
To meet increasingly more stringent regulations, gravity oil
separation will usually require subsequent coagulant addition
or other treatment in order to increase oil removal efficiencies
to required levels.
III.4.1.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
If skimmings cannot be reused, they are typically disposed of by
burial, lagooning, or incineration; odor and nuisance-free oil
sludge incineration has been reported.
III.4.1.7 Reliability
Highly dependable, if regularly maintained.
III.4.1.8 Flow Diagram
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.1-2
-------
III.4.1.9 Performance
Subsequent data sheet provide performance data from studies on the
following industries and/or wastestrearns:
Iron and steel industry
Cold rolling
Petroleum refining
Cracking
Timber products processing
Wood preserving/steaming
III.4.1.10 References
1. Patterson, J. W. Wastewater Treatment Technology. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Mighigan, 1975.
pp. 179-185.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.1-3
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GRAVITY OIL SEPARATION
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenols
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Acrylonitrile
2-Chlorophenol
2-4 -Dimethy Iphenol
2 -Ni trophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Number of
data points
17
27
25
16
22
28
5
11
1
3
24
15
15
13
11
11
11
2
4
17
8
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
13
1
4
1
2
5
4
4
1
8
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
9
1
3
3
1
3
3
Effluent concentration
Minimum
24
83
25
17
9
0.063
1
3
2
1
1
6
10
4
0.5
4
1
1
1
56
9.5
1.3
12
30
33
71
150
16
13
120
1
3,
<2b
3
37
4
3
4.6
55
15
2
37
1.7
34
40
50
3
7
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.5
Maximum
1,650
6,450
915
380
170
189
840
440
2
200
25,000
450
1,300
920
3
500
110
250
3
870
700
1.3
12
30
33
650
150
850
16,000
120
»100
3
>100
»100
3,000
87
3
-V230
55
16
^1,100
270
20
300
40
1,100
3
" 99
1.9
0.1
0.9
5.2
Median
190
420
81
52.5
54.5
5.75
290
6
2
6
420
44
40
36
1.3
26
12
120
2
360
290
1.3
12
30
33
>100
150
120
160
120
>100
3
>50
>100
300
35
3
95
55
15. 5
550
150
11
80
40
280
3
4
1.8
0.1
0.5
5
Mean
376
847
151
84.5
63.4
23.7
290
46
2
69
1,700
100
170
150
1.4
69
20
120
2
390
270
1.3
12
30
33
210
150
330
2,200
120
>75
3
>50
>65
910
40
3
110
55
15 . 5
550
150
11
140
40
410
3
37
1 3
-L. • J
0 . 1
0. 63
3.6
(continued)
Date: 12/13/79
III.4.1-4
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GRAVITY OIL SEPARATION (cont'd)
Pollutant
Number of
data points
Effluent concentration
Minimum MaximumMedian
Mean
Toxic pollutants, yg/L (cont'd)
Carbon tetrachloride 1
Chloroform 5
1,1-Dichloroethane 1
l,2-Ti»ans-dichloroethylene 1
Methylene chloride 6
Tetrachloroethylene 2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1
Trichloroethylene 2
Aldrin/Dieldrin 1
Chlordane 1
Isophorone 1
Toxaphene 1
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 15
1
^20
^30
50
42
3
3
6
3
5.7
1
230
1
^20
>90
>50
50
»100
3
3
6
3
600
1
M.5
1
^20
>39
>40
50
1
58
1
^20
>42
>40
50
3
3
6
3
38
3
3
'6
3
150
Date: 12/3/79
III.4.1-5
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: A
References: A3, p. IV-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Aroclor 1232
1, 2-rrans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Effluent
concentration
24
107
29
380
0.1
12
270
26
130
23
260
^b
12
13
»100
>100
37b
"b c
4-V
68
0.9
"•2°d
»SO
>50
»100
Concentrations from several days averaged.
This extract was diluted 1:10 before analysis.
Concentrations represent sums for these two
compounds which elute simultaneously and have
the same ma^or ions for GC/MS.
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.4.1-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cracking Bench scale
Plant: 17 Pilot scale ~
References: A9, p. 30 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 1,620
COD 2,890
TOC 31.6
Oil and grease 16.2
Total phenol 17.5
Other pollutants,mg/L:
NH3 17
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79 III.4.1-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cracking Bench scale
Plant: 19 Pilot scale
References: A9, p. 30 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 425
TOC 286
Oil and grease 170
Total phenol 25.9
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium 140
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 91
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79 III.4.1-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Cold rolling
Plant: 105 (also coded W-2)
References: A36, pp. Vll-22-23
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two skimmers in parallel
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, rag/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1( 1-Dichloroetnane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Aldrin/dicldrin
Chlordane
PCB's
Isophorone
Toxaphene
Influent
43
468
*D
ND
ND
0.4
ND
ND
ND
73
ND
ND
ND
440
ND
ND
2
380
ND
17
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
48
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Effluent
36
9
290
200
240
450
13
600
500
110
250
680
33
130
150
16
4,800
120
1
3
ND
3
4
3
1
3
4
1
230
1
29
50
42
3
3
3
6
3
Percent
removal
16
93
a
0
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
70
oa
oa
oa
68
oa
82
>0
Oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
40
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Not detected; assumed to be less than corresponding influent
or effluent concentration.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.4.1-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
processing
Subcategory: Wood preserving/steaming, no
discharger
Plant: 495
References: Al, p. 7-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants,
COD
Oil and grease
Total phenol
mg/L:
374"
7°8a
0.154
Toxic pollutants. ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Acrylonitrile
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benz ( a ) anthracene
Benzo (a)pyrene
Benzo ( gh i ) perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(2, 2, 3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
la
isa
1
4a
37a
4
1.3a
S.5a
1
1
2
110*
9.5a
30
1203
15
23
78a
67
45a
55
15
2
37
170a
34"
40.
86a
99a
23
660
Average of two studies conducted one year apart.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III. 4. 1-10
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: C Pilot scale
References: A2, p. rv-36 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 320
TOC 71
TSS 28
Oil and grease 93
Total phenol 5.6
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Arsenic 8
Chromium 850
Copper 190
Cyanide 430
Lead 12
Mercury 3
Selenium 15
Zinc 640
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 290
Phenol 2,200
Naphthalene 950
Anthracene/phenanthrene ^190
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 38
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-11
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: H Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; ^^^
Effluent
Pol lutant/par ame ter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 42
COD 190
TOC 54
TSS 102
Oil and grease 52
Total phenol 2.1
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium 10
Copper 2 3
Cyanide 100
Zinc 56
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-12
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: I Pilot scale
References: A3, p. VI-36 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs 49
COD 260
TOC 81
TSS 39
Oil and grease 32
Total phenol 5.1
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic 5
Chromium 3
Copper 6
Cyanide 10
Mercury 0.6
Nickel 4
Selenium 4
Zinc 100
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 300
Phenol 390
Naphthalene 290
a
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-13
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: J Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pol lutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 180
TOC 51
TSS 53
Oil and grease 77
Total phenol 0.7
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic 3
Chromium 150
Copper 290
Cyanide 10
Lead 32
Mercury 1.4
Nickel 26
Selenium 8
Zinc 300
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 180
Phenol 420
Anthracene/phenanthrene 30
Chrysene/benz (a) anthracene 30.
Fluoranthene/pyrene 30
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
b
Approximately.
Assume 50% mixture.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-14
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: J Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 190
TOC 53
TSS 45
Oil and grease 34
Total phenol 0.75
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic 3
Chromium 720
Copper 15
Cyanide 10
Lead 36
Mercury 0.6
Nickel 32
Selenium 17
Zinc 230
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 50
Chrysene/benz(a)anthraceneb 50C
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
b
Assume 50% mixture.
Approximately.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-15
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: J Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pol lutant/parame ter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 83
TOC 25
TSS 30
Oil and grease 14
Total phenol 0.251
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic 9
Beryllium 2
Cadmium 6
Chromium 2,500
Copper 75
Cyanide 20
Lead 52
Mercury 0.8
Nickel 40
Selenium 20
Thallium 3
Zinc 580
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-16
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: J
References: A3, p. IV-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 340
TOC 74
TSS 52
Oil and grease 83
Total phenol 4. 3
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony 1
Arsenic 3
Chromium 1,500
Copper 38
Cyanide 60
Lead 4 0
Mercury 2
Selenium 16
Zinc 420
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 600
2,4-Dimethylphenol 650
Pentachlorophenol 850
Phenol 16,000
Anthracene/phenanthrene ^230
Chrysene/benz(a)anthracene ^40
Fluoranthene/pyreneb ^20
Fluorene 80
Naphthalene 50
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
b
Assume 50% mixture.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-17
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: J
References: A3, p. IV-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent a
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Chrysene/benz(a)anthracene
Naphthalene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
550
160
120
160
1.8
5
650
60
10
920
2
31
12
2
870
300
160.
9°b
30b
350
0.2
0.5
0.5
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Approximately.
CAssume 50% mixture.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-18
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: L Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs 37
COD 190
TOC 50
TSS 42
Total phenol 11.8
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony 840
Copper 44
Cyanide 150
Lead 17
Mercury 0.5
Nickel 16
Zinc 320
2,4-Diniethylphenol >100
Phenol >100
Benzene »100
Toluene »100
Acenaphthene 3,000
Chrysene 1-7b
Fluoranthene 8'5b
Flourene 300b
Naphthalene 280
Pyrene 7
Chloroform <10
Methylene chloride ^10
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NHs 11
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
This extract was diluted 1:10 before analysis.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-19
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: L
References: A3, p. 1V-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration"
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
2 , 4-Dunethylphenol
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrcne
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Aroclor 1242
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
130
420
120
120
54.7
400
120
380
45
1.3
70
360
>100
>100
>100
>100.
*»<£'c
270°
2°b
500°
5.2
•v.10
•v.30
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
b
This extract was diluted 1:10 before analysis.
Concentrations represent suns for these two
compounds which elute simultaneously and have the
same major ions for GC/MS.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.4.1-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: N
References: A3, p. 1V-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Effluent
concentration
410
100
85
5.9
1,300
38
40
18
16
600
71
>100
>100
52°b
87bc
140b
5.5
7.5
%300
16
1.9
0.1
0.5
%15d
^90
Concentration from several days were averaged.
b
This extract was limited 1:10 before analysis.
Concentration represent sums for those two com-
pounds which elute simltaneously and have the
same ions for GC/MS.
d
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-21
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: 6
References: A3, p. IV-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration6
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 260
COD 840
TOC 230
TSS 140
Oil and grease 93
Total phenol 24
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide 1,300
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 700
Phenol 4,900
Benzo(ghi)perylene ^1,100
Naphthalene 1,100
Aroclor 1016 1.8
Aroclor 1242 5
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 9
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-22
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Cracking
Plant: 4
References: A9» P- 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
354
1,220
158
48.8
92.6
280
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
82
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-23
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Cracking
Plant: 3
References: A9, p. 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
641
1,500
352
96.1
31.7
450
320
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-24
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Cracking
Plant: 2
References: A9, p. 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
31.0
30
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-25
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Q Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pol lutant/parameter concentration3
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 320
TOC 80
TSS 17
Oil and grease 38
Total phenol 0.112
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic 440
Chromium 1
Copper 160
Cyanide 20
Lead 10
Mercury 2
Selenium 8
Zinc . 430
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 320
Phenol 60
a
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-26
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: P Pilot scale
References: A3, p. IV-36 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 190
COD 540
TOC 150
TSS 63
Total phenol 68
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony 300
Arsenic 6
Chromium 500
Cyanide 60
Selenium 8
Thallium 1
Zinc 61
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-27
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cracking Bench scale
Plant: 7 Pilot scale
References: A9, p. 30 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; ^^
Effluent
_ Pollutant/parameter _ concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs 1,650
COD 6,450
TOC 401
Oil and grease 915
Total phenol 2.70
Toxic pollutants,
Chromium 2,000
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 470
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-28
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cracking Bench scale
Plant: 10 Pilot scale
References: A9, p. 30 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 720
COD 2,260
TOC 229
Oil and grease 147
Total phenol 189
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 600
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79 III.4.1-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Cracking
Plant: 15
References: A9, p. 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
Concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
37.5
309
71.2
66.1
6.40
2,100
15
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-30
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Petro chemical
Plant: 16
References: A9, p. 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
202
1,100
11.9
29.1
280
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
350
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-31
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Cracking
Plant: 18
References: A9, p. 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
156
546
171
17.3
2.42
180
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
5.7
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-32
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cracking Bench scale
Plant: 25 Pilot scale
References: A9, p. 30 Full scale
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs 190
COD 432
TOC 66.4
Oil and grease 9.22
Total phenol 50.8
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium 25,000
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3 160
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-33
Date: 10/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gravity Oil Separation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: 26
References: A9, p. 30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: API design
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sludge overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
S amp1ing period:
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3
94.4
442
167
57.0
0.063
1,200
15
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.1-34
Date: 10/15/79
-------
III.4.2 CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION [1]
III.4.2.1 Function
Clarification/sedimentation is used to remove suspended solids by
settling.
III.4.2.2 Description
Primary Rectangular Clarification. Primary rectangular
clarification involves a relatively long period of quiescence in
a basin (depths of 10 to 15 feet) where most of the settleable
solids in a pretreated wastewater fall out of suspension by
gravity. The solids are mechanically transported along the bot-
tom of the tank by a scraper mechanism and pumped as a sludge
underflow.
The maximum length of rectangular tanks has been approximately
300 feet. Where widths greater than 20 feet are required, mul-
tiple bays with individual cleaning equipment may be employed,
thus permitting tank widths up to 80 feet or more. Influent
channels and effluent channels should be located at opposite ends
of the tank.
Sludge removal equipment usually consists of a pair of endless
conveyor chains. Attached to the chains at about 10 foot inter-
vals are wooden crosspieces or flights, extending the full width
of the tank or bay. Linear conveyor speeds of 2 to 4 ft/min are
common. The settled solids are scraped to sludge hoppers in
small tanks and to transverse troughs in large tanks. The
troughs, in turn, are equipped with cross collectors, usually of
the same type as the longitudinal collectors, which convey solids
to one or more sludge hoppers. Screw conveyors have been used
for the cross collectors.
Scum is usually collected at the effluent end of rectangular
tanks by the flights returning at the liquid surface. The scum
is moved by the flights to a point where it is trapped by baffles
before removal, or it can be moved along the surface by water
sprays. The scum is then scraped manually up an inclined apron,
or it can be removed bydraulically or mechanically, and for this
process a number of means have been developed (rotating alloted
pipe, transverse rotating helical wiper, chain and flight col-
lectors, scum rakes).
Primary Circular Clarification. Primary circular clarifica-
tion involves a relatively long period of quiescence in a basin
(depths of 10 to 15 feet) where most of the settleable solids
fall out of suspension by gravity; a chemical coagulant may be
added. The solids are mechanically collected on the bottom and
pumped as a sludge underflow.
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-1
-------
The conical bottom (one inch per foot of slope) is equipped with
a rotating mechanical scraper that plows sludge to a center hop-
per. An influent feed well located in the center distributes the
influent radially, and a peripheral weir overflow system carries
the effluent. Floating scrum is trapped inside a peripheral scum
baffle and squeegeed into a scum discharge box. The unit con-
tains a center motor-driven turntable drive supported by a bridge
spanning the top of the tank, or supported by a vertical steel
center pier. The turntable gear rotates a vertical cage or
torque tube, which in turn rotates the truss arms (preferably two
long arms). The truss arms carry multiple flights (plows) on the
bottom chord that are set at a 30° angle of attack and literally
"plow" heavy fractions of sludge and grit along the bottom slope
toward the center blowdown hopper. An inner diffusion chamber
receives influent flow and distributes it (by means of about a
four-inch water head loss) inside of the large diameter feedwell
skirt. Approximately three percent of the clarifer surface area
is used for the feed-well. The depth of the feed-wells are
generally about one-half of the tank depth. The center sludge
hopper should be less than two feet deep and less than four
square feel in cross section.
Secondary Rectangular Clarification. The design of second-
ary rectangular clarifiers is similar to that of primary rec-
tangular clarifiers except that the large volume of flocculent
solids in the mixed liquor must be considered during the design
of activated sludge clarifiers and in sizing the sludge pumps.
Further, the mixed liquor, on entering the tank, has a tendency
to flow as a density current interfering with the separation of
the solids and the thickening of the sludge. To cope success-
fully with these characteristics, the following factors must be
considered in the design of these tanks: (1) type of tank to be
used, (2) surface loading rate, (3) solids loading rate, (4)
flowthrough velocities, (5) weir placement and loading rates, and
(6) scum removal.
In rectangular tanks, the flow enters at one end, passes a baffle
arrangement, and traverses the length of the tank to the effluent
weirs. The maximum length of rectangular tanks has been approxi-
mately 300 feet with depths of 12 to 15 feet. Where widths
greater than 20 feet are required, multiple bays with individual
cleaning equipment may be employed, thus permitting tank widths
up to 80 feet or more.
Sludge removal equipment usually consists of a pair of endless
conveyor chains. Attached to the chains at 10 foot intervals are
2 inch thick wooden crosspieces or flights, 6 to 8 inches deep,
extending the full width of the tank or bay. Linear conveyor
speeds of 2 to 4 ft/min are common. The settled solids are
scraped to sludge hoppers in small tanks and to transverse
troughs in large tanks. The troughs, in turn, are equipped with
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-2
-------
cross collectors, usually of the same type as the longitudinal
collectors, which convey solids to one or more sludge hoppers.
conveyors also have been used for the cross collection.
Tanks also may be cleaned by a bridge-type mechanisms that
travels up arid down the tank on rails supported on the sidewalls.
Scraper blades are suspended from the bridge and are lifted clear
of the sludge on the return travel. For very long tanks, it is
desirable to use two sets of chains and flights in tandem with a
central hopper to receive the sludge. Tanks in which mechanisms
that move the sludge toward the effluent end in the same direc-
tion as the density current have shown superior performance in
some instances.
Scum is usually collected at the effluent end of rectangular
tanks by the flights returning at the liquid surface. The scum
is moved by the flights to a point where it is trapped by baffles
before removal, or it can be moved along the surface by water
sprays. The scum is then scraped manually up an inclined apron,
or it can be removed hydraulically or mechanically, and for this
process a number of means have been developed (rotating slotted
pipe, transverse rotating helical wiper, chain and flight collec-
tors, scum rakes).
Secondary Circular Clarification. Secondary circular clari-
fiers have been constructed with diameters ranging from 12 to 200
feet with depths of 12 to 15 feet. There are two basic types:
the center-feed and the rim-feed. Both utilize a revolving
mechanism to transport and remove the sludge from the bottom of
the clarifier. Mechanisms are of two types: those that scrape
or plow the sludge to a center hopper similar to the types used
in primary sedimentation tanks, and those that remove the sludge
directly from the tank bottom through suction orifices that serve
the entire bottom of the tank in each revolution. In one of the
latter, the suction is maintained by reduced static head on the
individual drawoff pipes. In another patented suction system,
sludge is removed through a manifold either hydrostatically or by
pumping.
Secondary circular clarifiers are made with effluent overflow
weirs located near the center or near the perimeter of the tank.
Skimming facilities are required on all federally funded projects.
While the design is similar to primary clarifiers, the large
volume of flocculent solids in the mixed liquor of the secondary
circular clarifier requires that special consideration be given
to the design of activated sludge clarifiers. The sludge pump
capacity and the size of the settling tank are larger. Further,
the mixed liquor, on entering the tank, has a tendency to flow as
a density current interfering with the separation of the solids
and the thickening of the sludge. To cope successfully with
these characteristics, the following factors must be considered
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-3
-------
in the design of these tanks: type of tank to be used, surface
loading rate, solids loading rate, flow-through velocities, weir
placement and loading rates, and scum removal.
III.4.2.3 Common Modifications in Rectangular and Circular
Clarification
Secondary Clarification, High Rate Trickling Filter. The
design of clarifiers that follow high rate trickling filters is
similar to that of primary clarifiers, except that the surface
loading rate is based on the plant flow plus the effluent recycle
flow minus the underflow (often neglected). These clarifiers
differ from secondary clarifiers following activated sludge
processes in that the sludge recirculation is not used. Also,
solids loading limits are not involved in the sizing. Recircula-
tion of the supernatant from the clarifier to the trickling
filter can range from one to four times the plant influent flow
rate. Under suitable trickling filter operating conditions, it
is more economical to recirculate the clarifier influent to re-
duce the flow sizing requirements in the clarifier.
Primary Rectangular Clarification. Tanks may be cleaned by
a bridge-type mechanism which travels up and down the tank on
rails supported on the sidewalls. Scraper blades are suspended
from the bridge and are lifted clear of the sludge on the return
travel. Chemical coagulants may be added to improve BODs and
suspended solid removals and to remove phosphorus ion.
Primary Circular Clarification. Two short auxiliary scraper
arms are added perpendicular to the two long arms on medium-to-
large tanks. This makes practicable the use of deep spiral
flights, which aid in center region plowing where ordinary shal-
low straight plows (30° angle of attack) are nearly useless.
Peripheral feed systems are sometimes used in lieu of central
feed. Also, central effluent weirs are sometimes used. Floccu-
lating feed wells also may be provided is coagulants are to be
added to assist sedimentation.
Secondary Circular Clarification. Multiple inlets are used
with balanced flow at various spacings with target baffles to
reduce velocity of streams. Hydraulic balancing is used between
parallel clarifier units. Wind effects on water surface are con-
trolled. Sludge hopper collection systems and flocculation inlet
structures are used. Traveling bridge sludge collectors and
skimmers are used as an alternate to chain and flight systems.
Steeply inclined tube settlers are used to enhance suspended
solids removal in either new or rehabilitated clarifiers. Wedge
wire settler panels are used at peak hydraulic loading of less
than 800 gpd/ft2 for improved suspended solids removal.
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-4
-------
III.4.2.4 Technology Status
Rectangular Clarification. Rectangular clarification is in
widespread use.
Circular Clarification. Circular clarification is in wide-
spread use.
III.4.2.5 Applications
Primary Rectangular Clarification. Used for removal of
readily settleable solids and floating material to reduce total
suspended solids and BODs; can accept high solids loading; pri-
mary clarifiers are generally employed as preliminary step in
further processing; rectangular tanks also lend themselves to
nesting with preaeration tanks and aeration tanks in activated
sludge plants.
Primary Circular Clarification. Used for removal of readily
settleable solids and floating material to reduce suspended
solids content and BODs can accept high solids loading; primary
clarifiers are generally employed as a preliminary step in fur-
ther processing.
Secondary Rectangular Clarification. Used for solids sepa-
ration and for production of a concentrated return sludge flow to
sustain biological treatment; multiple rectangular tanks require
less area than multiple circular tanks and are used where ground
area is at premium; rectangular tanks lend themselves more
readily to nesting with primary tanks and aeration tanks in
activated sludge plants, and are also used generally where tank
roofs or covers are required.
Secondary Circular Clarification. Used to separate the
activated sludge solids from the mixed liquor, to produce the
concentrated solids for the return flow required to sustain
biological treatment, and to permit settling of solids resulting
from low-rate trickling filter treatment.
III.4.2.6 Limitations
Primary Rectangular Clarification. Maximum length of tank
is about 300 feet; horizontal velocities in clarifier must be
limited to prevent "scouring" of settled solids from the sludge
bed and their eventual escape in the effluent.
Primary Circular Clarification. Maximum diameter is 200
feet; larger tanks are subject to unbalanced radial diffusion and
wind action, both of which can reduce efficiency; horizontal ve-
locities in the clarifier must be limited to prevent "scouring"
of settled solids from the sludge bed and their eventual escape
in the effluent.
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-5
-------
Secondary Rectangular Clarification. Must operate at rela-
tively low hydraulic loadings (large space requirements); maximum
length of tank has been about 300 feet; horizontal velocities in
clarifier must be limited to prevent "scouring" of settled solids
from the sludge bed and their eventual escape to the effluent.
Secondary Circular Clarification. Must operate at relative-
ly low hydraulic loadings(large space requirements); maximum
diameter is 200 feet; larger tanks are subject to unbalanced
radial diffusion and wind action, both of which can reduce effi-
ciency; horizontal velocities in clarifier must be limited to
prevent "scouring" of settled solids from the sludge bed and
eventual escape to the effluent.
III.4.2.7 Chemicals Required
Use of chemical addition to rectangular and circular clarifiers
is discussed in another section of this manual entitled "Clari-
fication/Sedimentation with Chemical Addition," Section III.4.3.
III.4.2.8 Reliability
Primary Rectangular Clarification. In general, reliability
is very high; however, broken links in collector drive chain can
cause outages; pluggage of sludge hoppers also has been a problem
when cross collectors are not provided.
Primary Circular Clarification. In general, reliability is
high; however, clarification of solids into a packed central mass
may cause collector arm stoppages; attention to design of center
area bottom slope, number of arms, and center area scraper blade
design is required to prevent such problems.
Secondary Rectangular Clarification. Mechanical reliability
can be considered high provided suitable preventive maintenance
and inspection procedures are observed; pluggage of sludge hop-
pers has been a problem when cross collectors are not provided;
process reliability is highly dependent upon the upstream per-
formance of the aerator for the production of good settling
sludge with acceptable compactability; rising sludge caused by
denitrification of the sludge is a problem in certain cases.
Secondary Circular Clarification. In general, reliability
is very high; however, rising sludge due to denitrification and
sludge bulking may cause problems, which may be overcome by pro-
per operational techniques.
III.4.2.9 Environmental Impact
Primary Rectangular Clarification. Multiple rectangular
tanks require less than multiple circular tanks and are used
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-6
-------
III.4.2.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Adhesives and sealants production
Coal mining
Alkaline mines
Coal preparation plants and associated areas
Coil coating
Electroplating
Foundry industry
Copper and copper alloy foundries, mold cooling and
casting quench
Ferrous foundry dust collection
Ferrous foundry melting furnace scrubber
Ferrous foundry sand washing
Steel foundry mold cooling and casting quench
Steel foundry sand washing and reclaiming
Ink manufacturing
Water and/or caustic wash
Inorganic chemicals production
Hydrofluoric acid
Titanium dioxide
Iron and steel industry
Bee-hive coke manufacturing
Cold rolling
Combination acid pickling - continuous
Continuous casting
Electric arc furnace
Hot forming - primary
Hot forming - section
Scale removal - hydride
Sintering
Wet open combustion, basic oxygen furnace
Wet suppressed basic oxygen furnace
Leather tanning and finishing
Mineral mining and processing
Construction sand and gravel
Crushed stone
Dimension stone
Industrial sand
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-9
-------
Ore mining and dressing
Asbestos - cement processing
Asbestos mining
Bauxite mining
Copper mining/milling/smelting/refining
Ferroalloy mining/milling
Iron ore mining/milling
Lead/zinc mining/milling/smelting/refining
Mercury mining/milling
Placer mining
Silver mining/milling
Titanium mining/milling
Uranium mining/milling
Paint manufacturing
Porcelain enameling
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Sulfite-papergrade
Steam electric power generation
Ash sluicing
Textile milling
Wool scouring
III.4.2.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009, (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.2-9.1
-------
a
o>
rt
(D
CO
\
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
H
H
H
NJ
I
Number o
Pollutant data poin
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic .
Asbestos
Asbestos (chrysotile)
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium* 6
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
4 , 6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Benzene
7
26
23
93
25
23
1
18
27
26
16
8
18
30
1
44
15
35
22
30
19
15
3
45
14
4
7
3
4
2
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
5
2
2
7
f
ts Minimum
980
<2
1
<1
1.1
0.006
13.9
1
<2
4.6 x 10«
3.3 x 10s
<1
2
6
5
<4
2
<5
<0.2
<5
<2
3
<5
10
0.02
4
<10C
1
<10d
16
Oa
Oa
>o.
°a
°a
oa
>0
>na
°a
oa
>Q,
oa
>47
>0
55
Oa
°a
Oa
oa
Maximum
69
>99
>99
>99
99
96
3
98
>99
>99
>99
>9S
>99
>99
0
>99
>9Q
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>B3
>99
>99
>99
99
>99
>99
>99
>n
>BB
98
>0
>55
>41
>0
55
>99
oa
>95
63
Median
25
93
32
97
27
20
3
50
>93
>99
>99
>B4
78
>94
0
86
25
89
>5Q
>11
80
>90
>66
86
16
>4B
>o.
oa
>49
>49
>n
44
Oa
>0
>0
>47
>0
55
>Q
Oa
48
>9
Mean
29
72
42
81
42
38
3
44
68
80
85
>87
72
79
0
66
31
69
50
59
60
78
>55
71
33
>48
40
33
49
>49
>77
44
33
>0
18
>47
>0
55
40 =
Oa
48
23
icontinued)
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: 23061
References: A14, p. 149
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent remova.1
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 67
Total phosphorus 14.3
Actual data indicate negative removal.
4
13.9
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
94
3
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium (+6)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Cyanide (total)
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
5
5
10
170
5
7
320
2
40
2
5
6
34
5
14
310
3
34
60
0
40
73
0
oa
17
oa
15
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Leather tanning and Engineering estimate
finishing
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 10 Pilot scale
References: A15, p. 67 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two circular clarifiers
Wastewater flow: 3,030 m3/d
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; .^______^
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 2,110 1,150 45
TSS 3,170 945 70
Oil and grease 490 57 88
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium 51,000 24,000 53
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government
report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool scouring
Plant: A, W (different references)
References: A6, p. VII-46; B3, pp. 50-54
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Grit removal, activated sludge (oxidation ditch
plus clarifier)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 6.25 m3 (1,650 gal) clarifier
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr, toxic pollutants were composite
samples, volatile organics were grab samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol
Toxic -pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexy 1 ) phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene.
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methylene chloride
Influent
0.016
540
38
130
320
200
3,500
2,000
500
1,500
42
<0.2
1.4
1.5
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.8
<0.4
Effluent
0.049
<200
39
<40
110
240
<400
<700
<100
190
23
3.0
9.5
0.4
<0.02
<0.02
0.4
0.2
2.2
Percent
removal
oa
>63
oa
>69
66
oa
>89
>65
>80
87
45
oa
oa
73
>98
>97
64
75
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-12
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Coal preparation plants and
associated areas
Plant: NC-8
References: All, pp. IV-43, 47
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Slurry pond
Wastewater flow: 47,100 m3/d (12,400,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of three 24-hr composite samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, ug/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
b
Benzene
Influent
36,000
1,490
34,400
2
250
60
530
1,300
970
1,200
<5
6
5,300
15
Effluent
19
96.8
8.9
6
6
<1
13
6
<20
<5
6
<5
<60
c
ND
Percent
removal
>99
94
>99
a
oa
98
>98
98
>99
>97
>99
oa
>16
>98
VLOO
Actual data indicate negative removal.
'Not detected.
Only one sample.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Alkaline mines
Plant: V-8
References: All, p. IV-34
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond #4
Wastewater flow: 200 m3/d (53,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of three 24-hr composite samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Influent
91
57
103
6
4
Effluent
76
48
29
11
2
Percent
removal
16
16
72
oa
50
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Coal preparation plants and
associated areas
Plant: NC-22
References: All, pp. IV-44, 47-48a
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Slurry pond
Wastewater flow: 1,040 m3/<3 (274,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
sampling period; 24-hr
concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC*
TSS*
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Mercury*
Nickel*
Selenium*
Thallium*
N-nitrosodiphenylanine
2-chlorophenol*
2 . 4-Dimethylphenol*
2-Nitrophenol*
4 , 6-Dinitro-o-creaol*
Nitrobenzene0
Toluene1"
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benzo(a)pyrene*
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
benzotklf luoranthene*
Benzo (ghi)perylene*
Fluoranthene*
Fluorene*
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Hethylene chloride*
1,1, l-Trichloroethanec
Isophorone
Average of 3 samples.
Average of 2 samples.
Inf luem
48,800
8,450
13,900
180
<20
230
230
470
2.5
300
34
15
44
86
22
19
190
21
12
12
23
15
12
12
16
47
410
26
62
23
310
t Effluent
20.3
13.5
18.7
<5
3
40
8
50
<1
10
3
<5
NDC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19
ND
ND
Percent
removal
>99
>99
>99
>97
>65
B3
97
89
>60
97
91
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
17
MOO
>56
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
77
MOO
MOO
cNot detected.
"only 1
sample.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: ' Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale
References: BIO, p. 66 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Four section settling/flotation tank, the first and
third sections are settling areas and the second and
fourth sections act as flotation tanks
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide
Zinc
Influent
8,740
27,100
10,600
2,220
154
1,900
99,000
Effluent
6,670
25,300
2,260
522
84
4,500
49,000
Percent
removal
24
7
79
76
45
b
0
51
a
Interference in assay suspected.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 76-J
References: A4, p. V-25
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 3,500 1,100 69
COD 27,900 3,300 88
TSS . 15,600 1,400 91
Oil and grease 2,400 160 93
Total phenol 1.1 0.1 91
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
500
860
140
300
420
1.2
100
740
70
200
10
100
60
0.7
100
' 100
86
77
93
67
86
42
0
86
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 76-A
References: A4, p. V-25
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
1,300
3,000
1,600
300
2.5
1,000
10
13,000
150
14,000
0.9
250
18,000
Effluent
980
3,500
550
220
3.5
1,000
10
10,000
70
6,800
0.5
400
6,000
Percent
removal
25
oa
66
27
a.
0
0
0
23
53
51
44
a
oa
67
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Paint manufacturing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 3 Pilot scale
References: A4, Appendix G Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Grab sample
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Tfans- dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
6,000
43,000
10,000
10,000
1,300
0.05
60
230
300
7
<50
<15
2,200
4,000
NDC
1,200
7,800
3,400
200
33
ND
ND
790
46
42
Effluent
6,200
25,000
5,400
11,000
600
0.04
170
12
<200
<5
70
<10
<600
160
24
430
1,700
800
<38
<10
13
34
300
12
12
Percent
removal
h
0
42
46.
Ob
54
20
K
0
48
33
29b
ob
V33
>73
96
-
63
78
76
>81
>70
-
-
62
74
71
Average of several samples. CNot detected.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ink manufacturing
Subcategory: Water and/or caustic wash
Plant: 22
References: AlO, p. VII-2 and Appendix H
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Uses oil skimming
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pol lutant /parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Pentachlorophenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Chlorodibromomethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Isophorone
Influent
2,100
32,000
4,000
1,600
2,400
90
10,000
10,000
90,000
1,000
<10
220
6,700
3,600
17
43
45
22
ND
Effluent
2,600
4,800
940
110
260
20
<50
<60
<200
<600
ND
96
2,400
1,100
<10
ND
29
ND
46
Percent
removal
a.
0
85
76
93
89
78
>99
>99
>99
>40
VLOO
56
64
69
>41
VLOO
36
M.OO
—
Actual data indicate negative removal. Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Aluminum ore (bauxite) mine Bench scale
Plant: 5102 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. V-51, 52 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Lime neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalateb
Diethyl phthalateb
Dimethyl phthalate
Phenol
Influent
2
2.8
30
60
37
c
c
c
c
Effluent
4
6
25
50
84
50
66
140
1.9
3.1
210
Percent
removal
oa
oa
17
17
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Possibly due to tubes used in sampling apparatus.
£
Information was not given.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Placer mine
Plant: 4132
References: A2, p. VI-142
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 6.6
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 1,540 1,040 32
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic 50 50 0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Placer mine Bench scale
Plant: 4133 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-142 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multiple settling pond system
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 7.9
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 2,260 170 92
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic 1,500 60 96
Mercury 0.2 0.2 0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Placer mine Bench scale
Plant: 4127 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-142 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 6.7
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 39,900 5,700 86
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic 5,000 1,200 76
Mercury 14 0.5 96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Placer mine Bench scale
Plant: 4126 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-142 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 6.5
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 14,800 76 99
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Arsenic 1,300 250 81
Mercury 2 0.2 90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Placer mine Bench scale
Plant: 4135 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-142 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 2,890 474 84
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic 40 22 45
Mercury 20 <0.2 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Placer mine
Plant: 4136
References: A2, p. VI-142
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multiple settling ponds
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 64,100
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Mercury
3,900
10
150
<2
<0.2
>99
>99
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Placer mine Bench scale
Plant: 4139 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-142 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multiple settling ponds
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 7.4
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 9,000 230 97
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic 1,200 12 99
Mercury 4 <0.2 >95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mill Bench scale
Plant: 2122 Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. VI-84-87 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 10.4 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 7.7
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent5 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 2,550 18 99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
190
2,000
160
190
100
35
45
80
40
50
82
98
50
79
50
Average values: TSS (27 observations)
Metals (23 observations)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Iron ore mine
Plant: 1105
References: A2, pp. V-3, 4
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Po 1 lut ant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
Influent
10
25
5
<2
90
20
Effluent
6
19
4
5
120
30
Percent
removal
40
24
20
oa
oa
a
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill
Plant: 3121
References: A2, pp. VI-77-79
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Effluent pH: 8.2-8.5
Influent pH: 7.8
Sampling period;
11 to 22 hr (theoretical)
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent9Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
4.5
33
Copper
Lead
Zinc
100
210
740
110
100
240
0
52
68
Average of 13 observations.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mill
Plant: 2122
References: A2, pp. VI-84-87
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 7.9
2.6 hr
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Percent
Influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
2,550
Average values:
TSS (27 observations)
Metals (23 observations).
50
98
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
190
2,000
160
190
100
35
50
90
70
30
82
98
44
63
70
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill/smelter/
refinery
Plant: 3107
References: A2, pp. VI-80-83
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond, lime precipitation, aeration,
flocculation and clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 7.8
11 hr
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS .
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
16
Not analyzed.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
81
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
120
31
130
6
2,900
65
20
80
NAa
790
46
35
38
73
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Coal preparation plants and
associated areas
Plant: NC-22
References: All, p. IV-41
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Slurry pond
Wastewater flow: 1,040 m3/d (274,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutant, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Methylene chloride
Influent
4,860
1,130
7,800
21
65
440
210
<600
59
310
930
Effluent
20.6
3.2
7.4
1
7
36
30
67
12
39
1,800
Percent
removal
>99
>99
>99
95
89
92
86
>89
80
95
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-34
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Alkaline mines
Plant: V-8
References: All, p. IV-35
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond #6
Wastewater flow: 10.9 m3/<3 (2,880 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Selenium
Influent
80.0
54.3
44.8
6
NDC
2
Effluent9
38.7
21.7
28.9
15
5
<2
Percent
removal
52
60
35
b
0
-
>0
Average of 3 samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
'Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Alkaline mines
Plant: PN-11
References: All, p. IV-283
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow: 15.2 m3/d (4,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Influent
Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
9.7
16.4
2
3
2.2
4
160
<2.0
4.4
2
3
5.6
3
140
>79
73
0
0
oa
25
8
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-36
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Placer mine Bench scale
Plant: 4114 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-142 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multiple pond system
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 24,000 <100 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Alkaline mines
Plant: V-9
References: All, p. IV-35a
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond (dugout)
Wastewater flow: 152 m3/d (40,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
COD
TOC
TSS
Influent
14
7
111
Effluent
18
14.6
46
Percent
removal
°x
ob
59
Average of three samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Alkaline mines
Plant: V-9
References: All, p. IV-36a
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Also, see (Treated Wastewater Analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond (pollack)
Wastewater flow: 2,690 m3/d (710,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
COD
TOC
TSS
Influent
16.3
10.8,
59. 6b
Effluent
13.7
9.6
78. 6a
Percent
removal
16
11
oc
Average of 3 samples.
Average of 2 samples.
"Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified,
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mill Bench scale
Plant: 2122 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-33 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/paremeter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 260 250 4
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mill Bench scale
Plant: 2117 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-33 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 5,100 250 95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-41
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mine Bench scale
Plant: 2120 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-33 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 31 21 32
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory: Coal preparation plants and
associated areas
Plant: NC-3
References: All, p. IV-41
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Also, see (Treated Wastewater analyses)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Slurry pond
Wastewater flow: 9,470 m3/d (2.5 Mgal/d)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Chromium <240
Copper 270
Selenium 50
Zinc 1,000
IOC
<4
<5
49
<57
>98
>90
95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-43
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill/smelter/refinery
Plant: 2122
References: A2, pp. V-7-10
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average of two 24-hr composite samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic, yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium, yg/L
Chromium, yg/L
Copper , yg/L
Cyanide, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,a yg/L
Di-n-butyl phthalate, yg/L
Methylene chloride , yg/L
Influent
530
9.5
313,000
0.23
1,400
8.7 x 1012
30
9,800
100,000
200
1,800
3,800
220
100
3,400
14
24
300
Effluent
5
7
14
0.017
4
2.2 x 109
9
20
95
<20
30
<20
12
20
35
12
36
1.5
Percent
removal
99
26
>99
93
>99
>99
70
>99
>99
90
98
>99
94
81
99
14
oc
>99
Possibly due to plastic tubing used during sampling.
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
-i
"Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3121 Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. V-41, 42 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony, yg/L
Arsenic, vg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Cadmium, vg/L
Chromium, vg/L
Copper, vg/L
Lead, vg/L
Mercury, vg/L
Nickel, vg/L
Silver, vg/L
Zinc, vg/L
Di-n-butyl phthalate,° vg/L
Toluene, ug/L
Chloroform, vg/L
Methylene chloride
Influent3
970
17
12,200
0.02
100
30,000
1.8 x 1011
670
550
2,500
150,000
19
360
200
240, 000^,
d
d
Effluent
50
15
14
0.03
<50
<2
1.6 X 109
<5
<10
380
20
<0.5
30
<10
440
13
1.4
2.6
62
Percent
removal
95
12
>99,_
ob
>50
>99
99
>99
>98
85
>99
>97
92
>95
>99
Influent represents combined mine/mill water wastes to tailing
pond.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
c
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
No information was given.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Iron ore mine/mill
Plant: 1108
References: A2, p. V-5, 6
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Se!iyl-'ng period: 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOO
TSS
Tota] phenol
Toxic- pol 1 utants :
Asbrstos, fibers/L
Ch.t c ium, yg/L
Cop . ?r, yg/L
Lead, yc/L
Nir'.el , yg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, V3/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, yg/L
Influent
96
22
110,000
<0.004
2.2 x 1011
500
130
80
2,700
20
20
500
c
Effluent
4
11
<1
0.006
4.3 x 107
10
100
<20
<20
<5
<10
30
4.2
Percent
removal
96
50
>99
oa
>99
98
23
>75
>99
>75
>50
94
Actual data indicate negative removal
b
Possibly due to tubing used in sampling apparatus.
c
No information was given.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mine and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill
Plant: 3110
References: A2, pp. V-36, 37
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic, pg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Cadmium, pg/L
Chromium, pg/L
Copper , pg/L
Lead, pg/L
Mercury, pg/L
Nickel, pg/L
Selenium, pg/L
Silver, pg/L
Zinc, pg/L fa
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, ug/L
Chlorobenzene, pg/L
Toluene, pg/L ,
Methylene chloride, pg/L
Influent
200
3
229,000
0.004
1,100
8.9 x 1011
190
200
25,000
20,000
0.5
270
20
250
310,000
4.8
Q
-
45
Effluent
6
7
3
0.006
<2
3.4 x 10B
<5
<10
100
<20
<0.5
<20
<5
<10
280
4
0.005
0.21
5.6
Percent
removal
97
oa
>99
a.
0
>99
>99
>97
>95
>99
>99
>0
>93
>75
>96
>99
17
88
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Possibly due to tubing used in sampling apparatus.
No data were given.
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-47
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Silver mine/mill
Plant: 4401
References: A2, pp. V-46, 47
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multiple pond settling
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
TOJ i ; pollutants:
7>- si. nic, yg/L
A;,Lestos, fibers/L
Copper, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
ZJnc, yg/L
ais (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, yg/L
Toluene, yg/L
Influent
19
16
23
20
3.8 x 107
160
40
20
50
0.1
~
Effluent
4
1
3
10
5.7 x 107
100
40
30
30
0.02
0.64
Percent
removal
80
94
87
50
oa
38
0
oa
40
80
~
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Possibly from tubing for sampling apparatus.
'No information given.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-48
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Ferroalloy (molybdenum) mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 6101 Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. V-53, 54 Full scale _x_
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite sample
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 1,180 20 98
TOC 19 7 63
TSS 476,000 68 >99
Total phenol 0.02 0.01 50
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony , yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium, yg/L
Cadmium, yg/L
Chromium , yg/L
Copper, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Di-n-butyl phthalate,a yg/L
10
3.8 x 1011
130
13
8,300
10,000
11,000
3,500
40
50
13,000
15
5
3.3 x 1010
<20
<5
20
<20
<20
<20
<5
<10
<20
15
50
91
>85
62
>99
>99
>99
>99
>87
>80
>99
0
Possibly due to tubing used in sampling apparatus.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-49
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Titanium mine/mill
Plant: 9905
References: A2, pp. V-70, 71
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony , yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Chromium, yg/L
Copper , yg/L
Lead , yg/L
Nickel, pg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, yg/L
Toluene, yg/L
Chloroform, pg/L d
Methylene chloride, pg/L
Concentration
Influent Effluent
47
3
57,900
0.01
200
7.1 x 109 1.5 x
740
880
50
630
15
3,500
£
c
Q
c
4
5
<1
0.01
100
10s
<10
100
40
40
<5
20
7.4
0.44
1.1
8
Percent
removal
91
oa
>99
0
50
98
>99
89
20
94
>67
99
-
-
-
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Possibly due to tubing for sampling apparatus.
Q
Blanks indicate no information given.
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-50
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 2120 Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. V-75, 76 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 3,210 10 >99
TOC 12 10 17
TSS 164,000 13 >99
Total phenol 0.014 0.024 Qa
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic, yg/L
Asbestos, fiber s/L
Beryllium, yg/L
Cadmium, yg/L
Chromium, yg/L
Copper, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Mercury, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
3,600
1.3 x 1013
30
120
800
370,000
18,000
22
1,500
1,000
1,700
27,000
<2
7.8 x 107
<5
<5
<20
<20
<20
<1
<20
<5
<10
<20
>99
>99
>83
>96
>97
>99
>99
>95
>98
>99
>99
>99
a
Data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-51
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 310ia Pilot scale
References: A2, p. V-102 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Now closed.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Sampling period: 24-hr
REMOVAL DATA
composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants,
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic, yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium, yg/L
Cadmium, yg/L
Chromium, yg/L
Copper, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Influent
mg/L:
1,240
46
152,000
0.072
77
2.4 x 1010
190
2,800
800
63,000
97,000
540
140
230
560,000
Effluent
44
19
5
0.027
<5
NAa
<10
<10
25
<10
140
<50
<10
<10
70
Percent
removal
96
59
>99
62
>93
-
>95
>99
97
>99
>99
>91
>93
>96
>99
Not analyzed.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-52
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3103 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. V-108 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 18-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic, yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium, yg/L
Cadmium, yg/L
Chromium, yg/L
Copper, yg/L
Cyanide, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Influent
2,100
22
124,000
<0.004
500
2.1 x 1011
70
350
200
21,000
40
120,000
4,400
150
58,000
Effluent
14
15
3
0.0123
<5
NA°
<10
<10
<10
10
303
240
160
<10
940
Percent
removal
99
32
>99
ob
99
>86
>97
>95
>99
25
>99
96
>93
98
Final cyanide and total phenolics are apparently reduced by
natural aeration and oxidation to relatively low levels.
b
Actual data indicate negative removal.
c
Not analyzed.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
•F"
Date: 8/13/79 *^ III.4.2-53
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill
Plant: 2120
References: A2, pp. V-23, 24
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony, ug/L
Arsenic, yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Cadmium, yg/L
Chromium, pg/L
Copper , yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Mercury, yg/L
Nickel, yg/L
Selenium, pg/L
Silver, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, yg/L
Di-n-butyl phthalate, b yg/L
Methyl chloride, yg/L
Tetrachloroethy lene, yg/L
Influent
3,880
8
311,000
<0.01
300
4,000
1.2 x I01a
530
670
330,000
21,000
1.0
910
200
540
280,000
4
17
19
4.5
Effluent
12
9
5
0.01
<50
<2
1.2 x 10B
<5
<10
110
<20
<0.5
<20
<5
20
50
2.6
30
3
1.1
Percent
removal
>99
oa
>99
<0
>83
>99
>99
>99
>98
>99
>99
>50
>98
>97
96
>99
35
oa
84
76
Data indicate negative removal.
Possibly due to tubing used in sampling apparatus.
Possibly due to laboratory contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-54
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Silver mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 4401 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-45 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 1.1 x 1011 1.8 x 108 99
Asbestos (total fibers) 7,1 x 1011 2.1 x 109 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-55
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 2122 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-45 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration,a
fibers/L Percent
Pol lutant/par amet er Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 5.3 x 1011 3.3 x 108 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 4.3 x 1012 2.2 x 109 >99
Average of 2 samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-56
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 2120 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-45 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration , a
f ibers/L
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 1.0 x 1012 1.6 x 108 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 7.1 x 1012 6.4 x 108 >99
a
Average of two samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-57
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Silver mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 4401 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-45 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Mine-water settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 1.1 x 107 1.1 x 106 90
Asbestos (total fibers) 5.7 x 107 3.8 x 107 50
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-58
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 2117 Pilot scale ~
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 5.5 x 101° 4.4 x 105 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 1.9 x 1011 9.2 x 106 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-59
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Mercury mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 9202 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 1.5 x 1011 5.7 x 107 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 1.2 x 1012 7.7 x 108 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-60
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3103 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing-settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 8.2 x 101° 1.1 x 10s >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 2.1 x 1011 9.9 x 10s >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-61
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3101 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing-settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 3.2 x 109 2.7 x 106 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 2.4 x 101° 1.9 x 107 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Iron mine/mill
Plant: 1105
References: A2, p. VI-46
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Mine-water settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,
fibers/L
Influent
Effluent
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 3.8 x 106 3.8 x 106
Asbestos (total fibers) 1.6 x 107 4.2 x 107
Actual data indicate negative removals.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-63
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3110 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydr au1ic 1oad ing:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent rmoval
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 2.6 x 1011 2.4 x 107 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 9.0 x 1011 3.4 x 108 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-64
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guideliens Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3121 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 2.2 x 101° <3.3 x 105 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 1.8 x 1011 1.6 x 109 99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-65
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Uranium mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 9405 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-47 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Mill settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration,a
fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 2.25 x 106 7.5 x 107 0^
Asbestos (total fibers) 2 x 10s 6.3 x 108 0
Average of two samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-66
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guideliens Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Titanium mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 9905 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; grab or 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration ,
fibers/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 1.1 x 109 1.3 x 106 >99
Asbestos (total fibers) 7.1 x 109 1.5 x 108 98
Note-. Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-67
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Ferroalloy mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 6101 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-46 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; grab or 24-hr composite
Concentration,a
fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 1.4 x 1011 1.0 x 109 99
Asbestos (total fibers) 4.8 x 1011 1.6 x 101° 97
Average of two samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-68
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: (in Baie Verte, Newfoundland) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,a
f ibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 101° 5 x 109 50
Average of two samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-69
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Asbestos-cement processing plant
Plant:
References: A2, p. VI-39
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 24 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,
fibers/L
Percent
Pollutant/paremeter Influent Effluent removal
5 x 109 9.3 x 109
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.2-70
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-39 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,
fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) 4 x 1012 I x 1011^ 88 - 98
5 x I01lb
24 hr of sedimentation.
1 hr of sedimentation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.2-71
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Copper and copper alloys
foundaries, mold cooling and
casting quench
Plant: 6809
References: A27, pp. V-14, VI-73-80, VII-29
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 1.08 m3/kkg (259.3 gpt) discharge to a lagoon
Wastewater flow: 7.51 x 10~4 m3/kg (180 gal)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Dimethyl phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1, -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Influent
52
30
100
350
3
0
2,000
15
80
37
50
Effluent
20
6.2
40
110
9
60
1,400
93
93
44
56
Percent
removal
70
76
60
69
a
0
oa
30
oa
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-72
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Ferrous foundry dust collecting
Plant: 7927
References: A27, pp. V-23, VI-89-95, 97,
VII-21, 32
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling basin
Wastewater flow: 2.38 x 10~3 m3/kg (570 gal/ton)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Anthracene
Benzo (a)pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Influent
880
3
9.1
3
47
37
10
0
100
200
9
2,200
2,200
53
20,000
<410
<30
<36
20
<410
98
Effluent
600
15
0.76
14
14
200
40
81
4
34
22
55
48
24
33
<32
<6
<6
33
<32
21
Percent
removal
32
oa
92
oa
70
oa
oa
oa
96
83
oa
98
98
55
VLOO
^92
^80
-^83
oa
^92
79
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-73
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Hydrofluoric acid Bench scale
Plant: 251 Pilot scale ~
References: A29, pp. 210-211 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Gypsum pond
Wastewater flow: 82.3 m3/kkg
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Three 24 hr composite samples
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 18,600 9.72 VLOO
Other pollutants, pg/L
Fluoride 660 320 51
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.2-74
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Foundry industry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Ferrous foundry dust collection Bench scale
Plant: HHH-2B Pilot scale
References: A27, pp. VI-96, VII-20, 31, 67 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 5.01 x 1CT3 m3/kg (1,200 gal/ton)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Treated effluent 100% recycled.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 1,500 64 96
Oil and grease 14 2.7 81
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper 130 21 84
Zinc 1,900 1,800 5
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.2-75
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Ferrous foundry sand washing
Plant: AAA-2A
References: A27, pp. VI-130, VII-17, 37, 57
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 2.67 x 10~2 m3/kg (6,400 gal/ton)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cyanide
Mercury
Influent
5,900
8
0.59
26
0.01
Effluent
6.6
7.8
0.021
14
0.3
Percent
removal
M.OO
3
96
46
a
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-76
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Ferrous foundry dust collection
Plant: AAA-2A
References: A27, pp. VI-96, VII-17, 31, 57
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 5.59 x 10~4 m3/kg (110 gal/ton)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 4,200
Oil and grease 15
Total phenol 1.1
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide 37
4.6
12
0.04
19
^100
20
96
49
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-77
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry melting furnace
scrubber
Plant: HHH-2B
References: A27, pp. VI-105, VII-20, 33, 67
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 1.04 x 1CT2 m3/kg (2,500 gal/ton)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Treated effluent 100% recycled.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Influent
4,200
4,400
29,000
6
87,000
Effluent
40
90
1,400
3
4,400
Percent
removal
99
98
95
50
95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-78
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Foundry industry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Ferrous foundry dust collection Bench scale
Plant: 291C Pilot scale
References: A27, pp. V-22, VI-89-96, Full scale
VII-32, 70
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling tank
Wastewater flow: 4.01 x I0~t* m3/kg (96 gal/ton)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
a
Treated effluent 100% recycled.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide
Lead
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Influent
410
3
7
30
9
<3
<3
Effluent
41
2.7
74
10
2
<15
<15
Percent
removal
90
10
oa
67
78
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.2-79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Steel foundries - casting quench
and mold cooling operations
Plant: 417A
References: A27, pp. V-41, VI-115-122, VII-36
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Cooling tower
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
S cum over flow:
Raw waste flow rate: 21.3 m3Akg (5,100 gal/ton)
Effluent flow rate: 20.9 m3/kkg (5,000 gal/ton)
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Influent3
90
0
20
3
0
0
0
0
Effluent
62
9
50
2
60
0.8
140
27
Percent
removal
35b
0
b
0
33b
°b
°b
°b
0
Influent concentration is the raw waste concentration.
DActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-80
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals
Subcategory: Titanium dioxide (chloride
process) manufacture
Plant: 172
References: A29, pp. 270-271
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two retention basins in series, pH adjustment to
basin effluent
Wastewater flow: 35.8 m3/kkg
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
pH: 7.9-7.6
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; composite sample
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 223
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium 620
Nickel <22
Zinc 270
6.65
17
10
84
97
97
55
69
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.2-81
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Steel foundrys, sand washing,
and reclaiming
Plant: 694K
References: A27, pp. V-43, VI-123-130
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
2,4-Dinitrotoluene/2,6-Dinitrotoluene 50
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 30
10
53
80
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.2-82
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 5143 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 171 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Combined ash pond
Wastewater flow: 25,000 m3/d (6.5 x 106 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 63,900 13 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-83
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill/smelter Bench scale
Plant: 2117 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. V-25 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Tailing pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
V
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24 hour
composite (2 sets)
Concentration
Pol lut ant/parame ter
Conventional pollutants,
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants :
Arsenic, pg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Beryllium, pg/L
Cadmium, pg/L
Chromium , v*g-/L
Copper, pg/L
Cyanide, pg/L
Lead, pg/L
Nickel, pg/L
Selenium, pg/L
Silver, pg/L
Zinc, pg/L
Influent
mg/L:
4,850
29.5
207,000
5.1
75
1.9 x 1011
25
120
1,900
59,000
200
2,000
2,000
320
200
140,000
Effluent
15
5
2
0.255
2
4.6 x 106
5
5
45
20
<20
40
20
7
^20
40
Percent
removal
>99
83
>99
95
97
>99
PO
96
98
>99
>90
98
99
98
>90
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-84
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry
Subcategory: Industrial sand
Plant: N01
References: A18, p. 236
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
427
56
87
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-85
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and pro- Engineering estimate
cessing industry
Subcategory: Construction, sand, and gravel Bench scale
Plant: 1044 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Convent iona1 po1lutant s:
TSS 5,110 154 97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-86
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 7298 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 171 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Combined ash pond
Wastewater flow: 72,000 m3/d (19 x 106 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 6,690 19 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-87
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 0431 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 171 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Combine ash pond
Wastewater flow: 98,000 m3/d (26 x 106 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; ___^
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 13,400 22 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-88
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 4504 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 171 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Combined ash pond
Wastewater flow: 68,000 m3/d (18 x 106 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 15,300 7 VLOO
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-89
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 7018 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 171 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Combined ash pond
Wastewater flow: 55,000 m3/d (14.5 x 106 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 20,700 18 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-90
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 3228
References: A31, p. 171
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Combined ash pond
Wastewater flow: 6,800 m3/d (8 x 106 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Cone entrat ion, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
26,800
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.2-91
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 4222 pilot scale
References: T2, pp. 238-241 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Ash pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Concentration ,
yg/L
Influent Effluent
48
123
100
10
196
300
240
0.62 0
250
<5
29
400
29
160
20
<5
11
6
<5
.21
8
32
<5
10
Percent
removal
40
oa
80
>50
94
98
>98
66
97
oa
>83
98
a
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-92
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paper- Engineering estimate
board
Subcategory: Sulfite-papergrade Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A26, pp. A-34-41 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration8
Pol lutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Benzene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Influent
10
20
10
17
58
3C
NDC
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
53
56
5
3
ND
Effluent
7
29
10
6
120
21
1
9
27
<1
41
39
12
47
430
270
2
^
Percent
removal
30.
f\
0D
0
6ob
0
°b
°b
0°
o
b
ob
ub
0°
K
0°
33b
0
Average values.
b
Actual data indicate negative removal.
°Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.2-93
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Industrial sand Bench scale
Plant: 1019 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 2,010 56 97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 :
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing
Subcategory: Dimension stone
Plant: 3007
References: A18, p. 236
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 2,180
80
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-95
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry
Subcategory: Crushed stone
Plant: 1001
References: A18, p. 236
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Po1lutant/parame ter
Concentration, mg/'L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
1,050
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-96
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and pro- Engineering estimate
cessing industry
Subcategory: Crushed stone Bench scale
Plant: 1003 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 7,680 8 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-97
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and Engineering estimate
processing industry
Subcategory: Crushed stone Bench scale
Plant: 1004 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 5,710 12 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.4.2-98
Date: 11/9/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and pro- Engineering estimate
cessing industry
Subcategory: Crushed stone Bench scale
Plant: 1021 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 7,210 28 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 HI.4.2-99
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and pro- Engineering estimate
cessing industry
Subcategory: Crushed stone Bench scale
Plant: 1039 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 10,000 14 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-100
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Crushed stone Bench scale
Plant: 1053 Pilot scale '
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 21,800 56 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-101
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Mineral mining and pro- Engineering estimate
cessing industry
Subcategory: Construction sand and gravel Bench scale
Plant: 1083 Pilot scale
References: A18, p. 236 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,a mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 29,500 79 >99
Average of two sets of data.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-102
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry
Subcategory: Construction sand and gravel
Plant: 1129
References: A18, p. 236
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 4,660
44
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-103
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry
Construction sand and gravel
Subcategory:
Plant: 1391
References:
A18, p. 236
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 12,700
18
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-104
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry
Subcategory: Dimension stone
Plant: 3001
References: A18, p. 236
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
1,810
37
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-105
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Wet open combustion basic
oxygen furnace
Plant: Furnace 033
References: A34, pp. 83-90, 126
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Clarifier
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Bi-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Influent
7,660
10
70
430
8,000
360
50
25,000
30
10
10
10
BDL
30
30
Effluent
10
10
20
60
920
2,000
30
320
120^
BDL
BDL
BDL
10
40
40
Percent
removal
99
0
71
86
89
oa
40
99
oa
VLOO
VLOO
VLOO
a
0
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Below detection limits.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-106
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Wet suppressed, basic oxygen
furnace
Plant: 034
References: A34, pp. 91-98, 127
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Eaualization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Clarifier
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L
Pol lutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Toluene
Fluoranthene
Chloroform
Influent
20
710
10
580,.,
BDL
10
BDL
BDL
Effluent
80
800
10
260
10
<10
10
20
Percent
removal
oa
oa
0
55
oa
>0
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal,
Below detection limit.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-107
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming-section
Plant: 088
References: A41, pp. VII-3, VII-13-27, VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 55 L/s (874 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
80
68
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Not detected.
87
14
0
79
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
Benzene
Fluoranthene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,000
10
11
10
10
b
ND
ND
ND
ND
<10
vLOO
VlOO
VLOO
VlOO
>0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-108
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming
Plant: 1-2
References: A39, pp. VI-27, VII-28
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 46,200 m3 (12.2 Mgal) settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 350 L/s (5,560 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutant:
TSS
Oil and grease
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
96 39 59
2.4 14 Oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-109
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming-section
Plant: 1-2
References: A41, pp.VII-4, VII-25
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 46,200 m3 (12.2 Mgal) Terminal settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 350 L/s (5,560 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
Oil and grease
125
1.4
39
14
69
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-110
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming-section
Plant: O
References: A41, pp. VII-5, VII-35
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Clarifier
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
Oil and grease
11
4.5
57
12.3
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-111
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming-section
Plant: R
References: A41, pp. VII-5, VII-37
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Scale pit
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 990 L/s (15,700 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
Oil and grease
26.5
0.6
20.5
1.1
23
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-112
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming-primary
Plant: R
References: A42, pp. VII-4, VII-31
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Settling lagoon
Wastewater flow: 59.5 m3/min (15,700 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutant:
TSS
Oil and grease
81
2.9
45
5.3
44
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-113
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Electric arc furnace
Plant: 051
References: A40, pp. VII-3, VII-9, VII-23-31
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Clarifier
Wastewater flow: 92.2 L/s (1,525 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pol lutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Chrysene
Chloroform
1 , 2-3>ans-dichloroethylene
Concentration, uq/L
Influent
650
1,200
1,800
3,700
1,300.
NDb
22,000
40
ND
60
160,000
ND
10
10
10
10
10
ND
ND
10
ND
10
Effluent
10
30
3,300
400
90
10
2,300
ND
180
ND
31,000
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
30
10
ND
10
ND
Percent
removal
98
98
oa
89
93
oa
90
1,100
oa
1,100
81
oa
1.100
1.100
1-100
1,100
1,100
oa
oa
1-100
oa
1-100
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-114
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Electric arc furnace
Plant: 059 B
References: A40, pp. VI-14-22, VII-2, VII-6
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Clarifier
Wastewater flow: 12.3 L/s (196 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
plir
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Influent Effluent"
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
50,000
119
Not detected.
bActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
>99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Ti'ane-dichloroethylene
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
•art
ju
220,000
18,000
28,000
1,600
45,000
770
24,000
ND
<10
10
10
ND
ND
ND
a
14,000
30
20
10
50
ND
60
ND
10
10
70
ND
<10
10
10
10
•\-100
94
>99
>99
99
>99
>99
Ob
nb
s»
A-100
>0b
0
>99
-D
0
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-115
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Electric arc furnace
Plant: AA
References: A40,pp. VII-3, VII-7
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two clarifiers in parallel
Wastewater flow: 10.7 L/s (170 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 2,160 23 99
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Fluoride 15,000 12,000 20
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-116
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Electric arc furnace
Plant: AB
References: A40, pp.VII-3, VII-8
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two 2,180 m3 lagoons in parallel
Wastewater flow: 9.5-12.5 L/s (150-200 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time: 2 d
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 42,800 23
Other pollutants, pg/L:
Fluoride 11,000 12,000
>99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-117
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Continuous casting
Plant: B
References: A38, pp. VII-18, VII-6
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two lagoons in parallel
Wastewater flow: 3.8 L/s
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
Oil and grease
2,440
44.8
113
16.2
95
64
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-118
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Combination acid pickling-
continous
Plant: I
References: A37, pp. VII-22, VII-27
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two settling lagoons
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium (Dissolved)
Nickel
Other pollutants, ug/L:
Fluoride
Influent
8,500
11
260
91
500
Effluent
2,000
23
27
79
140
Percent
removal
76
oa
90
13
72
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-119
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Cold rolling
Plant: XX-2
References: A36, pp. VII-7, VII-19
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: 72,800 m (18 acre) lagoon divided into two segments,
oil is skimmed from the top of the lagoon
Wastewater flow: 3,680 L/s (58,300 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
Oil and grease
260
619
30
7
88
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-120
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Bee-hive coke manufacturing
Plant: E
References: A35, pp. VII-24, VII-28-29
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Two settling ponds in parallel
Wastewater flow: 0.022 m3/s (340 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Total phenol
Influent
165
00.011
Effluent
36
0.014
Percent
removal
78
oa
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-121
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Scale removal-hydride
Plant: 139
References: A45, pp. VII-22, VII-27
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Alkaline chlorination, acid neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 37.8 m3 (10,000 gal) settling tank
Wastewater flow: 8.14 m3/d (2,150 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
388
2.0
>99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Copper
Cyanide
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
4, 6-Dinitro-o-cresol
700
520
BDLa
<10
ND
<10
760
300
27
11
11
910
h
0
4ob
0
0,
0
Below detection limits, detected but not quantified with
sufficient accuracy.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
'Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-122
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Sintering
Plant: J
References: A46, pp. VII-10
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 50.5 L/s (800 gpm)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 26 L/m2/min (0.64 gpm/ft2)
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/1:
TSS 19,500
9.0
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-123
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, p. 206 Full scale
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic 3,000 50 98
Cadmium 440,000 8 >99
Chromium 650,000 300 >99
Copper 200,000 500 >99
Lead 5,000 200 96
Mercury 130,000 20 >99
Nickel 39,000 170 >99
Silver 91,000 400 >99
Zinc 50,000 200 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79 III.4.2-124
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Porcelain enameling
Subcategory:
Plant: 47033
References: A51, p. 154
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
192
90
53
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
31,000
350
28
150
1,000
1,400
3,300
120
19
31
770
230
89
66
32
79
23
84
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-125
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
Subcategory:
Plant: Tannery No. 237
References: A50, p. 162
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two circular clarifiers in series
Wastewater flow: 3,030 m3/day 0.8 mgd
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow: 18.8 m3/day m2(460 gpd ft2)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 2,100 1,150 45
TSS 3,120 945 70
Oil and grease 490 57 90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-126
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A50, p. 164
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Carbonation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
4 hr
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pol lutant/par ame ter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 2,170 1,240 43
TSS 1,770 731 59
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-127
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coil coating
Subcategory:
Plant: 01057
References: A49, p. 196
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 7.13 2.65 63
Oil and grease 3.81 3.63 5
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Zinc 210 34 84
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-128
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coil coating
Subcategory:
Plant: 11055
References: A49, p. 196
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
1,100
207
6
1,500
140
340,000
Effluent
31
6.4
15
110
120
500
Percent
removal
97
97
a
0
93
20
>99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-129
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coil coating
Subcategory:
Plant: 15436
References: A49, p. 196
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 712 52 93
Oil and grease 172 2 99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper 14 17 Q£
Lead 150 40 73.
Zinc 120 210 0*
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-130
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coil Coating
Subcategory:
Plant: 36058
References: A49, p. 196
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 253
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper 105
Zinc 7,600
124
15
720
51
86
91
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/9/79
III.4.2-131
-------
III.4.3 CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTION USING CHEMICAL ADDITION [1]
III4.3.1 Function
Clarification/sedimentation using chemical addition is utilized
to remove collodial solids, phosphate removal coagulant, filter
aid, and sludge conditioning aid.
III.4.3.2 Descriptions and Common Modifications
Lime Addition (Primary). Lime clarification of raw waste-
water removes suspended solids as well as phosphates. There are
two basic processes: the low-lime system and the high-lime
system. The low-lime process consists of the addition of lime
to obtain a pH of approximately 9 to 10. Generally, a subsequent
biological treatment system is capable of readjusting the pH
through natural recarbonation. The high-lime process consists
of the addition of lime to obtain a pH of approximately 11 or
more. In this case, the pH generally requires readjusting with
carbon dioxide or acid to be acceptable to the secondary treatment
system.
Lime can be purchased in many forms; quicklime (CaO) and hydrated
lime [Ca(OH)2] are the most prevalent forms. In either case,
lime is usually purchased in the dry state, in bags, or in bulk.
Bulk lime can be (1) shipped by trucks that are generally equipped
with pneumatic unloading equipment; or (2) shipped by rail cars
that consist of covered hoppers. The rail cars are emptied by
opening a discharge gate, which discharges to a screw conveyor.
The bulk lime is then transferred by the screw conveyor to a
bucket elevator, which empties into the elevated storage tank.
Bulk storage usually consists of steel or concrete bins. Storage
vessels should be water- and air-tight to prevent the lime from
"slaking".
Lime is generally made into a wet suspension or slurry before
introduced into the treatment system. The precise steps involved
in converting from the dry to the wet stage will vary according
to the size of operation and type and form of limes used. In
the smallest plants, bagged hydrated lime is often charged manual-
ly into a batch mixing tank with the resulting "milk-of-lime" (or
slurry) being fed by means of a so-called solution feeder to the
process. Where bulk hydrate is used, some type of dry feeder
charges the lime continuously to either a batch or continuous
mixer, then, by means of solution feeder, to the point of applica-
tion. With bulk quicklime, a dry feeder is also used to feed a
slaking device, where the oxides are converted to hydroxides,
producing a paste or slurry. The slurry is then further diluted
to milk-of-lime before being piped by gravity or pumped to the
process. Dry feeders can be of the volumetric or gravimetric
type.
Date: 6/26/79 III. 4.3-1
-------
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). Lime treatment of
secondary effluent for the removal of phosphorus and suspended
solids is essentially the same process as high-lime clarification
of raw wastewater. Calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide
precipitate at high pH along with phosphorus hydroxyapatite and
other suspended solids. In the two-stage system, the first-stage
precipitation generally is controlled around a pH of 11, which
is approximately one pH unit higher than that used in the single-
stage process. After precipitation and clarification in the
first stage, the wastewater is recarbonated with carbon dioxide,
forming a calcium carbonate precipitate, which is removed in the
second clarification stage.
Lime is generally added to a separate rapid-mixing tank or to the
mixing zone of a solids-contact or sludge-blanket clarifier.
After mixing, the wastewater is flocculated to allow for the
particles to increase in size to aid in clarification. The
clarified wastewater is recarbonated in a separate tank following
the first clarifier, after which it is re-clarified in a second
clarifier. Final pH adjustment may be required to meet allowable
discharge limits.
Treatment systems consist of (1) separate units for flashing mix-
ing, flocculation, and clarification; or (2) specially designed
solids contact or sludge-blanket units, which contain flash mix,
flocculation, and clarification zones in one unit. The calcium
carbonate sludge formed in the second stage can be recalcined.
Final effluent can be neutralized with sulfuric acid, as well as
other acids.
Alum Addition. Alum or filter alum [A12(SO**)3*14H20] is a
coagulant which, when added to wastewater, reacts with available
alkalinity (carbonate, bicarbonate and hydroxide) and phosphate
to form insoluble aluminum salts. The combination of alum with
alkalinity or phosphate are competing reactions that are pH
dependent. Alum is an off-white crystal which when dissolved in
water produces acidic conditions. As a solid, alum may be supplied
in lumps, or in ground, rice, or powdered form. Shipments may be
in small bags (100 Ib), in drums or in bulk quantities (over
40,000 Ib). In liquid form, alum is commonly supplied as a 50
percent solution delivered in minimum loads of 4,000 gallons. The
choice between liquid or dry alum use is dependent on factors
such as availability of storage space, method of feeding, and
economics. In general, purchase of liquid alum is justified only
when the supplier is close enough to make differences in transport-
ation costs negligible. Dry alum is stored in mild steel or
concrete bins with appropriate dust collection equipment. Because
dry alum is slightly hydroscopic, provisions are made to avoid
moisture, which could cause caking and corrosive conditions.
Before addition to wastewater, dry alum must be dissolved, forming
a concentrated solution. Bulk-stored or hopper-filled alum is
transported to a feeder mechanism by bucket elevator, screw
Date: 6/26/79 III. 4. 3-2
-------
conveyor or a pneumatic device. Three basic types of feeders are
in common use: volumetric, belt gravimetric, and loss-in-weight
gravimetric. The feeder supplies a controlled quantity of dry
alum (accuracy ranges from about 1% to 7%) to a mixed dissolver
vessel. Because alum solubility is temperature dependent, the
quantity supplied depends on the concentrate strength desired
and the temperature. Because alum solution is corrosive, the
dissolving chamber as well as the fallowing storage tanks, pumps,
piping and surfaces that may come in contact with the solution or
generated fumes must be constructed of resistant materials such
as type 316 stainless steel, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP),
or plastics. Rubber or saran-lined pipes are commonly used.
Liquid alum, which crystallizes at about 30°F and freezes at about
18°F, is stored and shipped in insulated type 316 stainless steel
or rubber-lined vessels. Feeding of liquid alum (purchased or
made up on site) to wastewater treatment unit processes may be
accomplished by gravity, pumping, or using a Rotodip feeder.
Diaphragm pumps and valves are common.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Ferric chloride (FeCla) is a
chemical coagulant which, when added to wastewater, reacts with
alkalinity and phosphates, forming insoluble iron salts. The
colloidal particle size of insoluble ferric phosphate is small,
requiring excess dosages of ferric chloride to produce a well
flocculated iron hydroxide precipitate, which carries the phosphate
precipitate. Large excesses of ferric chloride, and corresponding
quantities of alkalinity, are required to assure phosphate removal.
Exact ferric chloride dosages are usually best determined using
jar tests and full-scale evaluations. Ferric chloride is available
in either dry (hydrated or anhydrous) or liquid form. Liquid
ferric chloride is a dark brown oil-appearing solution supplied
in concentrations ranging between 35 and 45 percent ferric
chloride. Because higher concentrations of ferric chloride have
higher freezing points, lower concentrations are supplied during
winter. Liquid ferric chloride is shipped in 3,000- to 4,000-
gallon bulk truckload lots, in 4,000- to 10,000-gallon carloads,
and in 5- to 13-gallon carboys. Ferric chloride solution stains
surfaces which it contacts and is highly corrosive (a one percent
solution has a pH of 2.0); consequently, it must be stored and
handled with care. Storage tanks are equipped with vents and
vacuum relief valves. Tanks are constructed of fiberglass rein-
forced plastic, rubber-lined steel and plastic-lined steel.
Because of freezing potential, ferric chloride solutions are
either stored in heated areas or in heated and insulated vessels
in northern climates. Ferric chloride solution should not be
diluted because of possible unwanted hydrolysis. Consequently,
feeding at the concentration of the delivered product is common.
The stored solution is transferred to a day tank using graphite
or rubber-lined self-priming centrifugal pumps with corrosion
resistant Teflon seals. From the day tank, controlled quantities
are fed to the unit process using Rotodip feeders or diaphragm
metering pumps. Rotometers are not used for ferric chloride flow
Date: 6/26/79 111. 4. 3-3
-------
measurement because the material tends to deposit on and stain
the glass tubes. All pipes, valves, or surfaces that come in
contact with ferric chloride must be made of corrosion resistant
materials such as rubber or Saran lining, Teflon, or vinyl.
Similar treatment results are obtainable by substituting ferrous
chloride, ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate, or spent pickle liquor
for ferric chloride. Details of storage feeding and control for
these materials are similar to those for ferric chloride. Dry
ferric chloride may also be dissolved on site before use in
treatment.
Polymer Addition. Polymers or polyelectrolytes are high-
molecular-weight compounds (usually synthetic) which, when added
to wastewater, can be used as coagulants, coagulant aids, filter
aids, or sludge conditioners. In solution, polymers may carry
either a positive, negative, or neutral charge and, as such, they
are characterized as cationic, anionic, or nonionic. As a
coagulant or coagulant aid, polymers act as bridges, reducing
charge repulsion between colloidal and dispersed floe particles,
and increasing settling velocities. As a filter aid, polymers
strengthen fragile floe particles, controlling filter penetration
and reducing particle breakthrough. Filterability and dewatering
characteristics of sludges may similarly be improved through the
use of polyelectrolytes. Polymers are available in predissolved
liquid or dry form. Dry polymers are supplied in relatively small
quantities (up to about 100-lb bags or barrels) and must be
dissolved on site prior to use. A stock solutions, usually about
0.2 to 2.0 percent concentration, is made up for subsequent feed-
ing to the treatment process. Preparation involves automatic or
batch wetting, mixing, and aging. Stock polymer solutions may
be very viscous. Surfaces coming in contact with the polymer
stock solution should be constructed of resistant materials such
as type 316 stainless steel, fiberglass reinforced plastic, or
other plastic lining materials. Polymers may be supplied as a
prepared stock solution ready for feeding to the treatment pro-
cess. Many competing polymer formulations with differing charac-
teristics are available, requiring somewhat differing handling
procedures. Manufacturers should be consulted for optimum
practices. Polymer stock solutions are generally fed to unit
processes using equipment similar to that commonly in service for
dissolved coagulant addition. Because of the high viscosity of
stock solutions, special attention should be paid to the diameter
and slopes of pipes, as well as the size of orifices used in the
feed systems.
III.4.3.3 Technology Status
Lime Addition (Primary). Lime addition is an established
practice.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). These systems have been
used for water softening for many decades; however, their use for
Date: 6/26/79 m. 4. 3-4
-------
phosphorus removal has been prominant only since the mid-1960's.
There are presently many large-scale systems in operation.
Alum Addition. Alum addition has been used for decades for
coagulation and turbidity reduction in water treatment. Its
application to wastewater treatment is more recent, and the
technology is well demonstrated.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Ferric chloride is commonly used
in water treatment as a coagulant for turbidity reduction. Its
use in wastewater treatment is more recent and well demonstrated.
Polymer Addition. Polymer or polyelectrolyte usage in waste-
water and water treatment has gained widespread acceptance. The
technology for its use is well demonstreated and common throughout
the wastewater and water treatment fields.
III.4.3.4 Applications
Lime Addition (Primary). When added to a primary clarifier,
used for improved removal of suspended solids and the removal
of phosphates (this process is primarily used to remove phos-
phates) ; will also remove toxic metals.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). Used for the removal of
phosphorus from wastewater; will also remove some BOD5 and suspend-
ed solids as well as hardness present in wastewater; will also
remove metals.
Alum Addition. Used in wastewater treatment (sometimes in
conjunction with polymers) for suspended solids and/or phosphorus
removal; alum coagulation may be incorporated into independent
physical-chemical treatment, tertiary treatment schemes, or as
an add-on to existing treatment processes; in independent
physical-chemical treatment (or tertiary treatment), alum is
added directly to wastewater, which is intensely mixed, flocculated
and settled; solids contact clarifiers may be used; in existing
wastewater treatment process, alum may be added directly to
primary clarifiers, secondary clarifiers, or aeration vessels to
improve performance; should not be dosed directly to trickling
filters because of possible deposition of chemical precipitates
on filter media; has also been used as a filter aid in tertiary
filtration processes and has been used to upgrade stabilization
pond effluent quality.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Used (sometimes with polymer
addition) in wastewater treatment for suspended solids removal
and/or phosphate removal; FeCla coagulation may be incorporated
into independent physical-chemical treatment and tertiary treat-
ment schemes; in these applications, solids contact clarifiers
or separate flocculation vessels are used for treatment of either
raw wastewater or secondary effluent; coagulation may also be
Date: 6/26/79 III. 4. 3-5
-------
applied to existing treatment systems; addition of ferric chloride
before primary and secondary clarifiers has been practice in both
activated sludge and trickling filter plants.
Polymer Addition. Utilized in various applications in waste-
water treatment ranging from flocculation of suspended or colloidal
materials either alone or in conjunction with other coagulants
such as lime, alum, or ferric chloride, to use as filter aid
or sludge conditioner; polyelectrolytes may be added alone or with
other coagulants to raw wastewater prior to primary treatment to
effect or aid in suspended solids and BODs removal; similarly,
polymers may be used to aid coagulation or as primary coagulant
in treatment of secondary effluent; as filter aid, polyelectrolytes
effectively strengthen fragile chemical floes, facilitating more
efficient filter operations.
III.4.3.5 Limitations
Lime Addition (Primary). Will generate additional amounts
of sludge, over and above that generated by normal primary
clarification process (approximately twice the volume for low-lime
system and five to six times for high-lime system); lime feed
systems can require intensive operator attention; even low-lime
system could present biological problems to fixed-growth systems
with no pH adjustment; increases operator safety needs.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). Will generate relatively
large amounts of chemical sludge; high operator skill required;
in some cases, polymer or coagulant is required to assist second-
stage clarification.
Alum Addition. Alum solution is corrosive; appropriate
dosages are not stoichoimetric and must be frequently reconfirmed;
alkalinity required for proper coagulation, and, where inadequate,
supplemental alkalinity must be provided (usually by lime addi-
tion) ; alum sludge is voluminous and difficult to dewater.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Ferric chloride is extremely
corrosive material and must be stored and transported in special
corrosion resistant equipment; dosages are not stoichiometric
and must be frequently rechecked using jar tests; ferric chloride
coagulation requires a source of alkalinity, and, in soft waste-
waters, the pH of clarified effluent might be decreased to a
point requiring pH adjustment by addition of supplemental base
such as lime or caustic soda; iron concentrations in plant
effluents may become unacceptably high.
Polymer Addition. Frequent jar tests are necessary to assure
proper dosages; overdosages (1.0 to 2.0 mg/L) can sometimes work
against the treatment process.
6/26/79 III. 4. 3-6
-------
III.4.3.6 Chemicals Required
Lime Addition (Primary) . Lime [CaO or Ca(OH)2]; CO2 or H2SO<4.
for high-lime.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). Lime (CaO), CO2 or H2S04,
sometimes polymer or coagulant.
Alum Addition. Amount of alum required depends on multiple
factors such as alkalinity and pH of wastewater, phosphate level,
and point of injection; accurate dosages should be determined
using jar tests and confirmed by field trials.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Amount of ferric chloride required
depends on variable factors including pH and alkalinity of the
wastewater, phosphate level, point of injection, and mixing modes;
accurate doses should be determined using jar tests and confirmed
by field evaluations; base addition may be required when treating
soft wastewaters.
Polymer Addition. Accurate dosages should be determined
by bench-scale evaluation.
III.4.3.7 Residuals Generated
Lime Addition (Primary). Sludge (containing 1 to 1.5 pounds
of dry solids per pound of lime added) plus the usual amount of
solids produced in the primary settling process.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). In first stage: sludge
containing hydroxyapatite, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide,
and organic solids (1 to 1.5 pounds of dry solids per pound of
lime added); in second stage: sludge may contain calcium car-
bonate, aluminum, or ferric hydroxide, depending upon the coagul-
ant used; quantities generated are 2.27 pounds CaCO3 per pound
of CO2, 4 pounds per pound of Al in alum or 2.5 pounds per pound
of Fe in ferric chloride.
Alum Addition. Alum sludges are substantially different in
character from biological sludges (volumes are greater and de-
watering is more difficult); alum sludge also has tendency to
induce undesirable stratification in anaerobic digesters.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Used in standard biological
processes, ferric chloride addition will increase volume of sludge
generated; iron coagulants produce sludges that are significantly
different from biological sludges, especially in terms of dewater-
ing characteristics.
Polymer Addition. Sludges generated in conjunction with
polymer addition will be somewhat different from, but not
Date: 6/26/79 III. 4. 3-7
-------
necessarily more difficult to handle than biological sludges or
chemical sludges generated without polymers.
III.4.3.8 Reliability
Lime Addition (Primary). Process highly reliable from
process standpoint, however, increased operator attention and
cleaning requirements are necessary to maintain mechanical reli-
ability of lime feed system.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). Systems are reliable
from unit and process standpoint with skilled operator attention.
Alum Addition. Reduces phosphate and suspended solids to
low levels, although effluent quality may vary unless filtration
follows clarification step.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Reduces phosphate and suspended
solids to low levels, although effluent quality may vary unless
filtration follows clarification step.
Polymer Addition. With proper control, capable of producing
consistently high quality effluents.
III.4.3.9 Environmental Impact
Lime Addition (Primary). Will generate relatively large
amounts of inorganic sludge that will need disposal.
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary). Will generate relatively
large amounts of inorganic sludge that will need disposal.
Alum Addition. Will generate relatively large amounts of
inorganic sludge that will need disposal.
Ferric Chloride Addition. Will generate relatively large
amounts of inorganic sludge that will need disposal.
Polymer Addition. May improve sludge dewaterability; operator
safety should be carefully considered.
III.4.3.10 Design Criteria
Lime Addition (Primary)
Feed water alkalinity, Approximate lime dose,
mg/L (as CaC03) Clarifier pH mg/L (as CaO)
300 9.5 185
300 10.5 270
400 9.5 230
400 10.5 380
Date: 6/26/79
III.4.3-8
-------
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary).
1,200 to 1,400 gpd/ft2
Secondary effluent
alkalinity,
mg/L (as CaC03)
300
400
Carbon dioxide
Clarifier pH
11.0
11.0
Clarifier settling rate:
Approximate lime
dose,
mg/L (as CaO)
400 - 450
450 - 500
Feed tank - 5 to 15 minutes
Feed rate - 1.2 mg/L per mg/L of Ca to be precipitated.
Alum Addition. Dosage determined by jar testing, generally
in the range of 5-20 mg/L as Al; in mixing, G = (approximately)
300/s, t is less than or equal to 30 s; in flocculation; GT =
(approximately) 100; in sedimentation; overflow rate = 500 to 600
gpd/ft2 (average), 800 to 900 gpd/ft2 (peak).
Ferric Chloride Addition. Dosage determined by jar testing;
dosages of 20 to 100 mg FeCla/L are common; in mixing, G =
(approximately 300/s; t is less than or equal to 30 s.
Polymer Addition. Dosage determined by jar testing; materials
contacting polymer solutions should be Type 316 stainless steel,
FRP, or plastic; storage place must be cool and dry; storage
periods should be minimized; viscosity considerations must be made
in feeding system design.
III.4.3.11 Flow Diagrams
Lime Addition (Primary Treatment).
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
TO SECONDARY
TREATMENT
MIXER
LIME
FEED
LIME
STORAGE
Date: 6/26/79
III.4.3-9
-------
Lime Addition (Two-Stage Tertiary).
WASTEWATER
FEED
RAPID MIX
1
SLAKER
-~
FLOCCULATOR
c
SETTLER
nmr.r
RECARBONATOR
CARBON
JIOXIDE
SETTLER
TREATED WATER
SLUDGE
LIME
SLUDGE TO RECALCINATOR
OR DISPOSAL
Alum Addition.
Ferric Chloride Addition.
RUBBER-LINED, SELF-PRIMING
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP
WITH TEFLON SEALS
FERRIC
CHLORIDE
SOLUTION
STORAGE .
^~
CP^
DAY TANK
DIAPHRAGM
METERING PUMP
POINT OF
APPLICATION
Date: 6/26/79
III.4.3-10
-------
Polymer Addition.
III.4.3.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Auto and other laundries industry
Power laundries
Canned food processing
Soup and juices
Coil coating
Foundry industry
Aluminum foundries - die casting
Inorganic chemicals production
Hydrofluoric acid
Iron and steel industry
Alkaline cleaning
Combination acid pickling - batch
Hot forming - galvanizing
Pipe and tube - welded
Leather tanning and finishing
Chrome tanning
Mineral mining and processing
Dimension stone
Nonferrous metals industry
Columbium/tantalum raw waste stream
Tungsten raw waste stream
III.4.3-11
-------
Ore mining and dressing
Base metal mining
Copper mining/milling/smelting
Lead/zinc mining/milling/smelting/refining
Uranium mining/milling
Paint manufacturing
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Groundwood chemical/mechanical processing
Steam electric power generation
Ash sluicing
Textile milling
Knit fabric finishing
Wool finishing
Woven fabric finishing
Timber product processing
Plywood, hardwood, and wood processing
Wine making
References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
III.4.3-11.1
-------
D
0)
rt
CD
OJ
\
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (LIME)
H
H
H
•
J*
•
I
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants,
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Toluene
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium (dissolved)
Nickel (dissolved)
Fluoride
Chloride
Aluminum
Iron
Calcium
Manganese
Number of
data points
mg/L:
3
6
3
12
2
2
7
11
1
2
9
10
16
1
13
9
13
5
6
3
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
476
8
9
4
1
0.012
1.9
<1
6.1 x 10°
0.8
0.2
<2
7
45
<3
<0.2
2.2
2.3
0.4
<1
h
<10b
10.
<10b
67
67
51
40
20
250
19 x 106
20
30
230,000
20
Maximum
823
5,230
<20
497
4
0.33
180
110
6.1 x 10«
0.9
30
3,000
120
45
190
8
6,000
87
<10
8
8,200b
<10
10.
<10b
67
67
51
40
20
12,000
19 x 10s
50
200
230,000
20
Median
619
45
12
23 .
2.5
0.17
4
3
6.1 x 106
0.85
3
21
54
45
37
0.7
10
8
2.6
1.1
60
<10D
10h
<10b
67
67
51
40
20
6,100
19 x 10«
35
115
230,000
20
Mean
640
900
14
120
2.5
0.17
30
<16
6.1 x 10s
0.85
<9
340
52
45
51
1.4
540
38
<4
3.4
640
<10
10.
<10b
67
67
51
40
20
6,100
19 x 10«
35
115
230,000
20
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
50
oa
>5a
oa
66
11
°a
Oa
95
°a
0
Oa
29
a
Oa
0
°a
0
11
0
>79
0
0
>92a
°
>99
>99
45
26
83
96
57
99
Max imum
57
84
37
99
82
33
83
>99
95
76
99
97
>99
0
99
>96
"a
0
>80
>88
>99
>79
0
>9oa
0
>9oa
0
>99
>99
98
26
97
>99
57
99
Median
52
32
18
71
74
22
40
>70
95
38
>38
62
87
0
"a
0
43
0
10
58
85
^"a
0
>9oa
0
>92a
°
>99
>99
72
26
90
>98
57
99
Mean
53
34
>20
57
74
22
38
60
95
38
» 66
49
75
0
60
35
40
0
24
>52
77
>7'a
0
>9oa
u
oa
0
>99
>99
72
26
90
>98
57
99
aActual data indicate negative removal.
bReported as not detected; assumed to be <10 ug/L.
-------
rt-
(D
u>
\
VO
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION
(LIME, POLYMER)
H
Number ol
Pollutants data point
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic .
Asbestos
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium*6
Chromium (dissolved)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel (dissolved)
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
4 , 6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Benzene
Toluene
Acenaphthylene
Antracene/phenanthrene
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1
1
9
6
2
1
4
5
2
1
10
3
8
1
4
1
3
1
11
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
:s Minimum
2
7
4
0.3
10
8.2 x 10«
10
30
5
1,300
15
2
<20
0.1
45
2,500
10
90
25
12
<10C
1_
<10d
<5c
<10C
99
22
Oa
Oa
oa
>99
Oa
65
Oa
99
48
54
24
oa
76
"»
oa
oa
oa
Oa
>99
99
>99
>0
>76
>9
Oa
44
Oa
oa
oa
Oa
>0
>81a
oa
Maximum
>99
22
99
94
75
>99
93
99
82
99
>99
89
98
oa
96
"»
Oa
Oa
>99
99
>99
99
>99
>0
>76
>9
>37
44
oa
Oa
oa
Oa
>0
>81a
oa
Median
>99
22
96
84
37
>99
8
89
41
99
95
65
>73
oa
86
99,
oa
Oa
99
49
>99
99
>99
>0
>76
>9
18
44
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
>0
>81a
oa
Mean
>99
22
72
67
37
>99
27
86
41
99
87
69
>72
oa
86
99,
Oa
Oa
84
49
>99
99
>99
>0
>76
>9
18
44
Oa
oa
oa
oa
>0
>81
Oa
(continued)
-------
a
»>
rt
n>
U)
\
V£>
H
H
U)
I
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION
(LIME, POLYMER) (cont'd)
Pollutants
Toxic pollutants (continued)
Chrysens
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Other pollutants, pg/L:
Fluoride
Number of
data points
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
10
<10C
5
3.
<10C
5
7
13
<10C
51
130,000
Maximum
10
<10C
<10C
ioc
<10C
5
10
39c
<10C
51
130,000
Median
10
<10C
<7.5
6'5c
<10C
5
10
26c
<10C
51
130,000
Mean
10
<10C
<7.5
6'5c
<10C
5
<9
26c
<10C
51
130,000
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
99
>97
Oa
Oa
>52a
°a
oa
Oa
>0a
oa
92
Maximum
99
>97
>99
98
>87a
oa
>78
0
>0a
Oa
92
Median
99
>97
50
49
>70
Oa
0
0
>0a
Oa
92
Mean
99
>97
50
49
>70
oa
26
0
>0a
Oa
92
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Units given in fibexs/L.
GReported as not detected; assumed to be <10 ug/L.
dReported as not detected; assumed to be less than the corresponding influent concentration.
-------
ti-
ro
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM)
U)
H
I
I-1
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Number of
data points
5
5
4
6
1
4
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
3.6
212
72
28
11
0.016
2.3
23
<1
2.2
2.9
17.
<10b
23
1.7
10
7
110
33
0.6
<0.07,
<10b
1.3
35
1
150
0.1
<0.3
22
17h
<10b
45
190
Maximum
2,900
25,000
1,500
122
11
225
43
120
62
2.2
<15
280
<110
66
<150
57
170
9,000
44
<10b
<10b
13
4,600
35
2,500
150
0.1
<0.3
22
17
70
45
190
Median
33
416
89
51
11
0.06
23
72
<32
2.2
<9
41
14
30
<76
<40
120
2,950
39
<5
<5
<12
2,300
35
14
150
0.1
<0.3
22
17
<40
45
190
Mean
1,040
5,900
440
58
11
56
23
72
<32
2.2
<9
95
<37
120
<76
<36
120
3,800
39
<5
<5
<12
2,300
35
1,260
150
0.1
<0.3
22
17
<40
45
190
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
4
5a
Oa
99
Oa
12
°a
oa
°a
oa
oa
30a
Oa
6
oa
Oa
51
°a
Oa
>82
03
Oa
68
Oa
90a
Oa
>50a
°a
Oa
56a
0
10
Maximum
82
78
80
99
99
31
15
Oa
>37
Oa
88
98
81
18
>62
>56
10
85*
°a
oa
>90
>50
Oa
68
93
90a
oa
>50
0^
oa
>99
0
10
Median
61
10
63
84
99
19
14
Oa
19=
Oa
44
45
>73
0
>34
25
5
70
°a
Oa
>86
25
Oa
68
55
90a
0
>50a
°a
0
>78a
0
10
Mean
47
31
53
72
99
17
14
oa
19=
Oa
44
70
>64
6
>34
>27
5
70
°a
Oa
>86
25
Oa
68
49
90a
0
>50a
°a
Oa
>7n*
0
10
Actual data indicates negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10
-------
ft
(D
to
U)
\
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, LIME)
OJ
I
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Benzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
4,4' -DDT
Heptachlor
Number of
data points
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
32
212
72
28
0.047
<0.070
62
31
13
<4
<200
2
1,100
44,
<10b
3
46
<0.05
<0.2
14
150
16,
<10b
74
400
2,000
35
13
Maximum
3,900
7,970
2,300
480
1.3
<0.070
62
31
60
30
<200
2
5,700
44,
<10b
47
46
<0.05
22
72
150
16.
<10b
74
400
2,000
35
13
i"
Median
1,970
4,090
1,190
254
0.67
<0.070
62
31
36
<200
2
3,400
44
<10b
25
46
<0.05
11
43
150
16.
<10b
74
400
2,000
35
13
Mean
1,970
4,090
1,190
254
0.67
<0.070
62
31
36
<200
2
3,400
44
98
Oa
>75
oa
72
35
>60
50
71
>83
11
0
>99
Oa
50
>99
>96
55
91
70
59
13
30
95
>52
>29
Maximum
82
9r
82
97
>98
22
>75
oa
72
88
80
50
71
>83
Aa
0
>99
96
50
>99
98
96
91
70
59
13
30
95
>52
>29
Median
41
86
80
93
>98
11
>75
Oa
72
62
>70
50
71
>83
55
0
>99
48
50
>99
>97
76
91
70
59
13
30
95
>52
>29
Mean
41
86
80
93
>98
11
>75
oa
72
62
>70
50
71
>83
55a
>99
48
50
>99
>97
76
91
70
59
13
30
95
>52
>29
- — —
aActual data indicate negative removal.
bReported as not detected; assumed to be ^10 yg/L.
-------
D
0)
ft
n>
N)
Ul
\
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, POLYMER)
H
CJ
I
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethy Ihexyl ) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Number of
data points
.
10
6
5
9
4
5
1
1
1
2
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
5
2
1
1
5
3
2
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
4.4
125
21.5
11.2
4
0.028
1.6
29
12
30
30
16
74
73
30
<50
11
220
67
36
7
5
<0.4
2,
96
0
Oa
70
Oa
94
0
oa
>98
28a
°a
°a
Oa
Oa
0
Max imum
79
80
71
99
99
60
77
Oa
29
61
95
oa
>96
88
>97
21
83
78
54
>99
92
>96
0
>97
>94
73
94
>94
>60
>98
28
98
>44
93
Oa
0
Median
37
59
47
66
80
26
77
Oa
29
42
90
oa
56
74
9
21
70
78
54
>78
92
>96
0
49
75
0
94
oa
30
>98
28
90a
Oa
46
Oa
0
Mean
37
67
50
58
77
30
77
Oa
29
42
69
Oa
>74
71
35
21
69
78
54
>78
92
>96
0
49
>80
18
94
27
30
>98
28
56
15
46
Oa
0
aActual data indicates negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10 Mg/L.
CReported as below detectable limits; assumed to be <10 ug/L.
-------
D
0)
rt
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (FeCl3)
VD
M
U)
I
00
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants
BOD 5
TSS
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Number of
data points
1
2
Effluent concentration, mg/L
Minimum
325
34
Maximum
325
58
SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION
Number of
data points
4
4
2
4
4
6
3
2
5
2
6
2
6
Effluent
Minimum
3.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<2
4
<3
<0.2
<0.5
7
0.4
<1
<2
Median
325
46
WITH
Mean
325
46
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
85
99
Maximum
85
99
CHEMICAL ADDITION (Fe
concentration, ug/L
Maximum
30
3
<0.5
3.2
4
48
<3
0.2
6
32
10
7
36
Median
9
<2
<0.5
1
2.5
20
<3
<0.2
3
20
1
<4
4
Mean
13
<2
<0.5
6
<3.3
21
<3
<0.2
3
20
3
<4
12
Median
85
99
Mean
85
99
2+, LIME)
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
25
80
Oa
33
31
>0
0
0
12
oa
22
14
Maximum
30
>99
>85
>50
>95
92
>96
>60
>95
24
93
>88
>97
Median
oa
>77
>82
24
45
83
>25
>30
20
18
4
>55
92
Mean
8
>69
>82
25
>55
72
>40
>30
>35
18
24
>55
>79
Actual data indicates negative removal.
-------
rt
(D
to
\
Ul
-J
vo
H
u>
I
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (BaCl2)
Number of
Pollutant data points
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants', ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos, fiber s/L
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Other pollutants, pico Ci/L:
Radium (total)
Radium (dissolved)
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
4
Effluent concentration
Minimum
4
7
<1
0.01
<50
<2
5.7 x 10«
25
<20
30
0.5
10
20
30
2.4
1.1
<0.75
Maximum
17
16
26
0.01
<50
15
2.3 x 109
30
30
50
0.5
10
20
30
15
11
<2
Median
10.5
6.5
<13.5
0.01
<50
<8.5
1.4 x 10»
28
<25
40
0.5
10
20
30
9
<2.5
<1.3
Mean
10.5
6.5
<13.5
0 01
<50
<8.5
1.4 x 109
28
<25
40
0.5
10
20
30
9
<4
<1.3
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
54
Oa
>88
0
>°A
Oa
oa
50
>5°a
oa
87»
oa
oa
50
oa
77
66
Maximum
67
98
10
0
>0
>33
75
93
73
83
87»
oa
oa
80
95
99
>99
Median
60
49
>89
0
>0
17
38
72
>62
42
87*
oa
oa
65
48
>94
>88
Mean
60
49
>89
0
>0
17
38
72
>62
42
87
Oa
Oa
65
48
>91
>85
Actual data indicates negative removal.
-------
ft
(D
NJ
\
U)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (SULFIDE)
H
H
H
f"
U)
1
H1
(-•
o
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Number of
data points
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Effluent concentration, yg/L
Minimum
5
8
30
10
<10a
20
<10a
<10a
90
Maximum
5
<10a
50
500
200
20
1,700
40
200
Median
5
<9
40
260
100
20
860
<25
140
Mean
5
<9
40
260
100
20
860
<25
140
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
>99
>0
95
98
>90
>99
>80
>80
97
Maximum
>99
>99
>99
>99
96
>99
96
>99
>99
Median
>99
>50
>97
>98
>93
>99
>88
>90
>98
Mean
>99
>50
>97
>98
>93
>99
>88
>90
>98
Reported as not detected, assumed to be <10 mg/L.
-------
o
(U
ft
(D
ro
ui
\
vo
U)
I
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (POLYMER)
Number of
Pollutant data point
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ^ig/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) pthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Chloroform
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
Effluent concentration
s Minimum
39.6
8,000
1,600
6
22
0.082
43
60
<4
<4
<22
<0.3
43
160
<10
2.8
<0.03
0.5
0.4
130
0.4
0.9
11
21
2.5
0.8
Max imum
4,700
8,000
1,600
39
22
0.30
4J
100
25
400
140
140
43
6,000
10
<10
<0.03
74
0.4
130
1,900
0.9
11
21
130
14
Median
2,370
8,000
1,600
15.2
22
0.19
43
80
<14
15
70
70
43
1,000
<10
<6.4
<0.03
37
0.4
130
950
0.9
11
21
66
7.4
Mean
2,370
8,000
1,600
20
22
0.19
43
80
<14
140
77
70
43
2,400
<10
<6.4
<0.03
37
0.4
130
950
0.9
11
21
66
7.4
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
2
71
82
62
98
Oa
44
Oa
>96
27
>12
>25
35
66
0
Oa
>98
oa
Oa
81
0
oa
oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Maximum
98
71
82
>99
98
58
44
50
97
>89
97
99
35
97
>97
>99
>98
29
Oa
81
39
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Median
50
71
82
>99
98
29
44
25
>96
52
46
>62
35
89
>48
50
>98
14
Oa
81
20
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Mean
50
71
82
87
98
29
44
25
>96
56
>52
>62
35
84
>48
50
>98
14
Oa
81
20
oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Actual data indicates negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source status:
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-38
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization, aerated lagoon plus clarifier
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Kastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensify (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
122
1,056
200
368
0.030
360
30
28
1.8
10
220
Effluent
33
416
105
122
0.040
280
ND
23
1.7
10
110
Percent
removal
73
61
47
67
(33)
22
'-100
18
6
0
50
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/26/79
III.4.3-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Wool finishing Bench scale
Plant: B Pilot scale
References: 1, pp. VII-39 to 41 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 27-35 mg/L alum (as A1+3)
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 400-520 gpd/ft2
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BODs
COD
TSS
TOC
Toxic pollutants, pg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Influent
175
962
244
321
22
60
116
23
30
76
140
6,400
32
20
31
1,580
Effluent
32
212
28
72
23
62
41
16
30
57
172
5,730
44
ND
14
154
Percent
removal
82
78
89
78
(5)
(3)
65
30
0
25
(23)
10
(38)
VLOO
55
90
Note:
Date:
Blanks indicate information was not specified.
6/26/79
III.4.3-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned foods
Subcategory: Canned soup, juices
Plant: B-10
References: A26, p. VII-14
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: 2-stage trickling filter, aerated lagoon
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 16,300 m3/d (4.3 mgd)
Chemical dosage(s): Alum - 25 mg/L;
Polymer - 0.5 mg/L
Mix detention timej_ 3 . 5 hr
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
22.8 m3/d/m2
(558 gal/d/ft2)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 20
TSS 65
11
22
45
66
Annual average values.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Anionic
Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: Q Pilot scale jj
References: A6, pp. VII-41 to 43 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 1,650 gal. reactor/clarifill
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 20-30 mg/L alum (as A143) 0.75-1.0 mg/L anionic polymer
Mix detention time^
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 320-400 gpd/ft2
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 8.1 4.4 46
COD 270 185 31
TOC 30.3 21.5 29
TSS 45 66 (47)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/26/79
III.4.3-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 2
References: A4, appendix G
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
a
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
• Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
2,800
26,000
7,500
9,500
1,810
0.076
130
1,700
470
400
90
60,000
160
96
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
85,000
ND
210
Effluent
2,900
25,000
1,500
50
11
0.070
<15
40
<110
<150
<40
9,000
ND
ND
4,600
35
2,500
22
17
ND
45
190
Percent
removal
(4)
4
80
99
99
8
>88
98
>78
>62
>56
85
%100
%100
-
68
-
-
-
MOO
-
10
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/8/79
III.4.3-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 1
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
a
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, Pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1 ,1-Trichloroethano
Influent
3,000
51,000
10,000
11,000
1,200
0.055
1,200
400
5,000
60
2,000
1,700
300
1,300
2,700
160
25
4,800
18
250
Effluent
2,800
10,000
3,200
2,600
153
0.08
130
80
<200
30
<50
600
ND
390
720
ND
ND
110
ND
17
Percent
removal
7
80
68
76
87
(45)
89
80
>96
50
>97
65
MOO
70
73
MOO
MOO
98
MOO
93
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/14/79
III.4.3-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 24
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Both primary and secondary settling
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention time_:_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Grab sample
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
a
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg
Cyanide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Methylejie chloride
1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane
Influent
16,000
36,000
0.20
1,850
2,900
43
133,000
ND
Effluent
1,100
11,000
0.15
100
460
2,900
26
13,000
11
Percent
removal
25
69
25
75
0
40
90
^
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/8/79
III. 4. 3-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Lime,
Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 6
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, V9/I-:
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Influent
7,100
32,000
9,800
23,900
980
0.27
400
800
20
300,000
30
2,020
80
8,700
30
93
125
28
275
Effluent
9,000
12,000
2,500
100
22
0.14
97
1200
0.6
17,000
'10
195
<10
1,400
<10
ND
7
ND
90
Percent
removal
(27)
62
74
>99
98
48
76
>75
97
94
>67
90
>87
84
>G7
VIOO
94
^100
67
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/14/79
III.4.3-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 8
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Hydraulic loading:
We i r loadi ng:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, Ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
'zinc
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Concentration
a
,
Influent Effluent
3,900 3,
41,000 9,
8 , 500 2 ,
16,000
642
0.25 0
300
3,700 27,
400
13,000 1,
14,000 51,
3,200
290
180
73
ND
ND
ND 3,
400
ND
000
500
500
140
8
.10
30
000
200
500
000
800
310
ND
350
36
90
100
700
119
Percent
removal
23
77
71
99
99
60
90
(630)
50
88
(264)
75
(7)
M.OO
(379)
-
-
-
(75)
~
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/14/79
III.4.3-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 4
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration,
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Cyanide
Load
Mercury
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1,1 , 2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Totrachloroethylene
Influent
3,300
147,000
13,000
14,000
830
1.1
500
150
370
7
170,000
6,500
1,300
92
1,230
1,900
54
12
16
968
2,300
50
270
Effluent
3,900
7,970
2,300
480
<16
1.3
60
30
<200
2
1,100
ND
47
46
22
72
16
ND
74
400
2,000
35
13
Percent
removal
(18)
95
82
97
>98
(18)
88
80
50
71
>99
•>.ioo
96
50
98
96
70
MOO
(363)
S9
13
30
95
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information not specified.
Date: 6/8/79
III.4.3-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 15
References: A4, Appendix G
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time:
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Di -n-butyl phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Influent
8,400
48,000
9,000
14,200
1,700
0.23
76
1,600
800
37
6,000
55,000
6,000
40,000
30,000
ND
620
260
156,000
Effluent
3,800
30,000
4,800
6,000
880
0.14
30
83
500
74
800
14,500
1,000
ND
1,800
550
ND
188
11,900
Percent
removal
55
38
47
58
48
39
61
95
38
(100)
87
74
83
MOO
94
-
MOO
28
92
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/7/79
III.4.3-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: 1, p. VII-48 Full scale
Use in system: Sample taken from aeration basin at plant
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time^_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration , yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
.Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
10
930
500
100
50
50
3,200
Effluent
-
80
30
-
-
-
110
Percent
removal
M.OO
91
94
'vlOO
•vlOO
VLOO
97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/26/79
III.4.3-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Paint manufacturing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 26 Pilot scale
References: A4, Appendix G Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Both primary and secondary settling
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention time^_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Grab sample
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Po 1 lutant/parame ter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
1,040
40
240
250
700
5.8
210
270,000
Effluent
180
30
30
80
190
8
310
8,200
removal
83
25
88
68
73
(38)
(48)
97
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/14/79
III.4.3-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 14
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
a
Concentration,
Po 1 lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, Ug/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
' Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylenc chloride
Trlchloroethylcne
Influent
4,800
28,000
9,000
12,400
1,100
0.705
45
950
550
5,000
9,400
55,000
390
4,000
ND
690
3,100
ND
ND
ND
ND
Effluent
4,700
8,000
1,600
39
22
0.3
100
25
400
140
140
6,000
<10
<10
74
130
1,900
11
21
130
14
Percent
removal
2
71
82
>99
98
58
(122)
97
27
97
99
89
>97
>99
-
81
39
-
-
-
Average of several samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/14/79
x
III.4.3-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Sulfide)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. 111-48
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Sample taken from aeration basin at plant
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage (s):
Mix detention time^_
Mixing intensity (G) :
Flocculation (GCt) :
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, yg/L
Pol lutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
10
930
500
100
50
50
3,200
Effluent
-
50
10
-
-
-
90
Percent
removal
'vlOO
95
98
'v/LOO
VLOO
VLOO
97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.3-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and Engineering estimate
paperboard
Subcategory: Groundwood chemi-mech Bench scale
Plant: B-12 Pilot scale
References: A26, p. VII-14 Full scale x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Aerated stabilization basin
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 7,200 m3/d (1.9 mgd)
Chemical dosage(s): Alum - 150 mg/L; Hydraulic loading: 17.6 m3/d/m2
Polymer - 0.5 mg/L (432 gal/d/ft2)
Mix detention time_:_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period; Average of 10 months of daily data
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 19.9 12.5 29
TSS 46.5 11.2 76
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Silica)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper and
paperboard
Subcategory: Groundwood chemi-mech
Plant: B-12
References: A26, p. VII-1A
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aerated stabilization basin
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 6,060 m3/d (1.6 mgd)
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading-. 15.1 m3/d/m2
(369 gal/d/ft2)
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of 12 months of daily data
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants: ,
BOD5
TSS
ND
96.9
10.5
12.9
0
87
Not detected.
^Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Sulfide Complex)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Coil coating Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A49, p. 162 Full scale x
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow;
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic 3,000 5 >99
Cadmium 440,000 8 >99
Chromium 650,000 30 >99
Copper 200,000 500 >99
Lead 5,000 200 96
Mercury 130,000 20 >99
Nickel 39,000 1,700 96
Silver 91,000 40 >99
Zinc 50,000 200 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (lime, polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill
Plant: 3121
References: A2, pp. VI-76-79
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond, flocculation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 9.2
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
2.6 hr
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
4.5
17
Copper
Lead
Zinc
100
210
740
50
80
380
50
62
49
Average of 13 observations.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (lime, polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Base-metal mine
Plant: Mine 1 of Canadian pilot plant study
References: A2, pp. VI-63-66
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Influent pH 2.6
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two-stage lime addition
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Influent3
10,000
3,900
1,200,000
Effluent*3
40
180
330
Percent
removal
>99
95
>99
Average values for raw minewater influent to
pilot plant.
f\
Effluent qualities during periods of optimized
steady operation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill/smelter/refinery Bench scale
Plant: 3107 Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. VI-80-83 Full scale
x
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Tailing pond, lime precipitation, aeration,
flocculation and clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G) :
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 8.1-8.7
Clarifier detention time: 11 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
16
62
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
120
31
130
2,900
60
15
70
1,000
50
52
46
66
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (BaCl2)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Uranium mine Bench scale
Plant: 9412 Pilot scale
References: Al, p. VI-49 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 10.4 mg/L BaCla Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, picoCi/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Radium (total) 49(±0.2) 11 (±0.2) 77
Radium (dissolved) 4.7(±0.1) 1.6 (±0.1) 66
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 in.4.3-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Chrome tanning process
Plant: Cattle hide tannery
References: A15, p. 69
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Primary settling, pH adjusted to 9.0 with sulfuric
acid
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 1,550
68
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-34
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Chrome tanning process
Plant: Cattle hide tannery
References: A15, p. 69
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: pH adjusted
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time^_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 25.9 m3/d/m2
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,440 619 57
TSS 3,140 110 96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Leather tanning and Engineering estimate
finishing
Subcategory: Chrome tanning process Bench scale
Plant: Cattle hide tannery Pilot scale
References: A15, p. 69 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Continuous flow
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 1,490 mg/L
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt): Weir loading:
pH in clarifier: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier detention time: Percent solids in sludge:
Hydraulic loading: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 1,000 476 52
TSS 918 469 49
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 III.4.3-36
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Chrome tanning process
Plant: Cattle hide tannery
References: A15, p. 69
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 1,700 mg/L
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,630 823 50
TSS 1,980 497 75
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Base-metal mine Bench scale
Plant: Plant 3 of Canadian pilot plant study Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. VI-63-66 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Influent pH 3.0
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two-stage lime addition
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt): Weir loading:
pH in clarifier: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier detention time: Percent solids in sludge:
Hydraulic loading: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent3 Effluent13 removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper 19,000 60 >99
Lead 1,300 150 88
Zinc 110,000 350 >99
Average value for raw minewater influent to pilot
plant.
Dffluen-
steady operation.
Effluent qualities during periods of optimized
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 III.4.3-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Base-metal mine Bench scale
Plant: Mine 2 of Canadian pilot plant study Pilot scale _x_
References: A2, pp. VI-63-66 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Influent pH 2.7
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two-stage lime addition
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt): Weir loading:
pH in clarifier: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier detention time: Percent solids in sludge:
Hydraulic loading: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent5 Effluent*3 removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Lead
Zinc
47,000
1,200
540,000
50
440
450
>99
63
>99
Average value for raw minewater influent to pilot
plant.
Effluent qualities during periods of optimized
steady operation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 III.4.3-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Sodium Aluminate)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 5
References: A4, Appendix G
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej^
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Grab sample
Concentration"
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichlorethylene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Isophorone
Influent
48,000
79,600
12,900
1,260
0.102
55
8
40
27,000
900
120
14 , 000
540
<40
110,000
410
36,000
2,700
NDC
ND
7,800
1,200
ND
9,000
ND
420
12
450
40,000
ND
Effluent
20,400
31,000
5,980
21
22
0.077
<25
<4
30
17,000
450
<20
14,000
170
•v-220
35,000
80
550
200
140
240
38,000
ND
7,200
1,300
65
ND
22
320
110
200
Percent
removal
57
61
25
M.OO
98
24
>55
>50
25
35
50
>83
4
69b
0
68
81
98
93
-
_
ob
•v.100
-
85
-
•v.100
0
28
•vlOO
Average of several samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
cNot detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Lime,
Ferric Chloride)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 20
References: A4, Appendix G
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Actual data indicate negative
Not detected.
Influent
4,670
19,700
4,730
13,800
393
0.115
30
•V150
300
•^300
4,900
100
16
870
360
ND
110
3,800
19
55
1
540
ND
2,800
250
removal .
Effluent
1,110
6,930
1,590
1,370
91
0.046
<20
•x.170
170
•\-250
990
<50
<10
•vl,400
<10
3,800
ND
4,200
ND
4,700
9,800
ND
120
ND
300
Percent
removal
76
65
66
90
77
60
>33
oa
44
17
80
>50
>37a
oa
>97
-
-x.100
oa
VIOO
oa
oa
•v-100
-
-vlOO
oa
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-41
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mill
Plant: 2122
References: A2, pp. 84-87
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 9.3
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
2.6 hr
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration3
Percent
Po1lutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
2,550
Average values:
TSS (27 observations)
Metals (23 observations).
21
99
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
190
2,000
160
190
100
30
40
90
50
30
84
98
44
74
70
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Wine making
Subcategory: Wine
Plant: B-ll
References: A26, p. VII-14
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 644 m3/d (0.17 mgd)
Chemical dosage(s): 10-15 mg/L
Mix detention timej_ 11.5 hr
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
InfluentEffluent0 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
2,370
4,070
39.6
15.2
98
>99
Average of 10 month period.
Data after post aeration and chlorination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-43
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine
Plant: 3113
References: A2, pp. VI-89-92
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 8.8-9.8
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent3Effluentb removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 112
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium 230
Copper 1,500
Lead 88
Zinc 71,000
10
15
50
<20
1,400
91
93
97
>77
98
Average of seven values.
Average values.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill
Plant: 2120
References: A2, pp. V-78, 79
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
pH adjusted
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 10 18
TOC 19 12
TSS 14 4
Total phenol 0.018 0.012
0
37
71
33
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
4
500
40
<1
<20
3
80
40
1
30
25
84
0
oa
a
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
An ethoxylated phenol (Nalco 8800) is used as a wetting agent
for dust suppression during secondary ore crushing.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine
Plant: 3113
References: A2, pp. VI-89-92
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time^_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 9.1-9.7
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sampling period
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent3Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
112
33
71
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
230
1,500
88
71,000
25
100
100
<20
89
93
0
>99
Average of seven observations.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.4.3-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government Data source status:
report
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Wool finishing Bench scale
Plant: B, A (different references) Pilot scale
References: A6, pp. VII-39-41; B3, pp. 39-44 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 6.25 m3 (1,650 gal) reactor/clarifier
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 27-35 mg/L alum (as Al+3)
100 mg/L lime (as Ca(OH)2)
Mix detention time^_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt): Weir loading:
pH in clarifier: 6.1 Sludge underflow:
Clarifier detention time: Percent solids in sludge:
Hydraulic loading: 16-21 m3/d/m2 Scum overflow:
(400-520 gpd/ft2)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite for toxic pollutants, volatile
organic! were grab-singled
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutant*, mg/L:
BODs
COO
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
4,4'-DDT
Heptachlor
Influent
175
962
321
244
0.060
0.28
60
110
20
10
5.8
6,400
32
<0.07
20
5
31
1,600
2.1
1.4
Effluent
32
212
72
28
0.047
<0.070
62
31
13
<4
<1.0
5,700
44
3
<0.05
<0.2
14
150
<1.0
<1.0
Percent
removal
82
78
78
89
22
>75
m
0
72
35
>60
>83
11,
oa
oa
•vlOO
>96
55
91
>52
>29
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 III.4.3-47
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum,
Polyelectrolyte
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A50, p. 146
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (Get):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pol lu l.r nt /oarar.eter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 445
TSS 516
92
220
79
57
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-48
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (FeCl3)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
Subcategory: Chrome tanning
Plant:
References: A50, p. 164
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Carbonation, coagulation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 300-500 mg/L
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 6
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading;
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 2,180 325 85
TSS 6,190 58 99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-49
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (BaCl2)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Uranium mill Bench scale
Plant: 9405 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-49 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 9.5 mg/L BaCl2 Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average of two grab samples represent-
ing different influent points
Concentration, picoCi/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Radium (total) 27.5 <3.0 >91
Radium (dissolve) 33.3 <2 >94
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-50
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (BaCla)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory.- Uranium mine Bench scale
Plant: 9408 Pilot scale
References: Al, p. VI-49 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 55 mg/L BaClj Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention time_^ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,9 picoCi/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Radium (total)
.Radium (dissolved)
130
79
1.6
<0.75
88
82
Average of two samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-51
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill/smelter
Plant: 2117
References: A2, pp. 29-22
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Aerator also used for chemical oxidation
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of two 24 hour composites
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos, fibers/L
Copper, yg/L
Cyanide, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Influent
34.5
11
24
0.37
1.3 x 10s
190
<20
760
Effluent
29.5
9
4.5
0.33
6.1 x 106
120
45
120
Percent
removal
14
18
81
11
95
34
oa
85
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-52
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Polymer, Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry industry
Subcategory: Aluminum foundries - die casting
Plant: 574C
References: A27, pp. V-13, VI-49-56
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Emulsion break
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej^
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1.1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Concentration, pg/L
Influent
<100
50
200
<90
<40
1,300
5,500
690
74
730
41
16
110
10
53
780
370
800
160
80
4
2
0
Effluent
<150
23
150
<40.
BDLb
40
32
BDL
1
BDL
BDL
BDL
62
BDL
BDL
10
BDL
BDL
3
BDL
7
39
51
Percent
removal
oa
54
24
56
VI 00
97
99
'olOO
99
•\-100
MOO
VLOO
44
•\-100
VLOO
99
•WOO
^100
98
VI 00
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Below detection limits; was detected but not in sufficient
amounts to be quantified.
Note: blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-53
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other laundries
Subcategory: Power laundries
Plant: N
References: A28, Appendix C
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale ~x~
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Circular clarifier 4,
Wastewater flow: 15.2 m3/d (4,000 gpd)
Chemical dosage(s): Alum - 2,800 mg/L
Polymer - 200 mg/L
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time: 0.33 day
92 m3 (1,300 gal) with mix tank
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 3 days total
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODB
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethy Ihexyl ) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pentach lorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
163
240
63
40
15
0.038
7.0
20
17
46
24
69
190
55
14
450
300
78
16
64
9
2
3
13
<0.4
28
12
Effluent
57
125
40
46
4
0.028
1.6
29
12
36
37
16
73
50
11
220
67
36
7
5
<0.4
2
3
70
38
100
12
Percent
removal
65
48
37
Oa
73
26
77
oa
29
22
oa
77
62
9
21
51
78
54
56
92
>96
0
0
oa
oa
oa
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-54
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (alum)
Data source: Government report
Point source category:a
Subcategory:
Plant: Reidnold Chemical, Inc.
References: B4, p. 46
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Organic and inorganic wastes.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 650 mg/L
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sampling period;
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 2,400 2,220 17
COD 3,610 3,470 4
TSS 136 28 79
Total phenol 325 225 31
Phosphorous 49 43 12
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-55
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (FeCla, sodium
bicarbonate)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Mineral mining and
processing industry
Subcategory: Dimension stone
Plant: 3003
References: A18, p. 236
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 3,410
34
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-56
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Sodium Hypochlo-
rite, Caustic, Chlorine)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Hydrogen cyanide Bench scale
Plant: 765 Pilot scale
References: A29, pp. 427-428 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: pH adjustment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two ponds in parallel where sodium hypochlorite is
added, then caustic and chlorine are added in another
treatment pond
Wastewater flow: 51 m3/kkg of HCN
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej^ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 72-hr composite
Concentration3 Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 979 33.3 97
NH3-N 194 124 36
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide 6,800 <2 -x/lOO
Concentration is calculated from the wastewater flow in m3/kkg
of HCN and the pollutant load in kg/kkg. Pollutant load was
calculated by approtioning the mass emitted between the two
waste streams on the basis of measured flows. This is a very
approximate process.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.3-57
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Hydrofluoric acid Bench scale
Plant: 705 Pilot scale
References: A29, p. 227 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 30-35% of effluent recycled, remaining effluent
pH adjusted
Wastewater flow: 62.1 m3/kkg
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention time^ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
value is for total raw waste from HF only.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite samples
Concentration,3 ug/L
Pol lutant/par ame ter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Influent
10
40
9.7
390
290
50
5.8
560
2.6
240
Effluent
1.9
<9.7
1.6
47
19
23
0.48
<9.7
4.8
1.1
53
Percent
removal
81
>76
84
88
93
54
92
>98
58
78
Values are for combined wastes from HF and
concentrations are calculated from pollutant flow
in m3/kkg and pollutant loading in kg/kkg.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.3-58
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals
Subcategory: Hydrofluoric acid
Plant: 167
References: A29, p. 227
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 47% of effluent is recycled
Wastewater flow: 127 m3/kkg
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej^ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
x
is for total raw waste from HF only.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Three 24-hr composite samples
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Concentration
,a yg/L
Influent Effluent
46
150
-
470
120
87
27
1,100
63
-
240
<200
<24
<2.4
250
79
37
<1.2
610
87
7.9
180
Percent
removal
b
0
>84
-
47
34
57
>96
45b
0
-
25
Values are combined for wastes from HF and
Concentration data is calculated from pollutant flow
in m3/kkg and pollutant loading in kg/kkg.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-59
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (BaCl2)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Uranium mine
Plant: 9408
References: A2, pp. V-60-61
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Other pollutants: pCi/L:
Radium (total)
Radium226 (dissolved)
226
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic, pg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Chromium, yg/L
Copper, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Silver, pg/L
Zinc, pg/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, pg/L
Influent
12
9
270
0.01
142
120
8
1.6 x 10B
450
110
180
<10
150
11
Effluent
4
16
26
0.01
1.12
<0.9
15
2.3 x 109
30
30
30
20
30
15
Percent
removal
67
oa
90
0
99
>99
oa
oa
93
73
83
oa
80
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Possibly due to tubing used in sampling apparatus.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-60
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (lime, polyelec-
trolyte)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Copper mine/mill/smelter/refinery
Plant: 2121
References: A2, pp. V-18-19
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants :
Asbestos, fibers/L
Copper, ug/L
Zinc, yg/L
Bis (2 ethylhexyl) phthalate,3
Influent
960
9
211,000
3.0 x 1011
190,000
28,000
yg/L 0 . 1
Effluent
2
7
5
8.2 x 106
90
40
12
Percent
removal
>99
22
>99
>99
>99
>99,_
0
Possibly from the tubing in sampling apparatus.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-61
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government
report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: E, P (different references)
References: A6, p. VII-45; B3, pp. 60-64
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time^
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 6.9
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sampling period:
6.25 m3 (1,650 gal) reactor/clarifier
20 mg/L 572 C polymer (American Cyanimid-Cationic)
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
24-hr composite samples, volatile organics
were composites of 3 grab samples
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol
T6xic pollutants, wg/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Methylene chloride13
Trichloroethylene
0.072
77
98
36
25
0.4
66
5,200
10
2.1
1.3
0.7
<0.2
0.4
0.8
0.4
<0.5
0.082
43
<4
<4
<22
<0.3
43
160
10
2.8
<0.03
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
2.5
0.8
oa
44
>96
>89
>12
>25
35
97
0
oa
>98
29
oa
0
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Timber products processing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Plywood, hardwood, and wood
processing
Plant:
References: A24, p. 184
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Varies
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Sampling period;
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
COD
Lime
dosage
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
Influent
12,600
11,600
11,900
11,700
11,800
11,800
mg/L
Effluent
9,700
7,060
5,230
5,270
5,210
5,210
Percent
removal
23
39
56
55
56
56
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-63
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source status:
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government
report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: V, C (different references)
References: A6, pp. VII-43-44; B3, pp. 45-49
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, neutralization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 6.25 m3 (1,650 gal) reactor/clarifier
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 40 mg/L alum (Al+3)
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt): Weir loading:
pH in clarifier: 6.9 Sludge underflow:
Clarifier detention time: Percent solids in sludge:
Hydraulic loading: 16 m3/d/m2 (400 gpd/ft2) Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24 hr tor toxic pollutants
Concentration
Pol lu tant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
CftCllBlum
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Chlorodibromome thane
Methylene chloride13
Influent
9.3
393
76
47
0.023
2.7
90
1.6
1.5
<2
5.5
57
27
80
160
7.6
0.6
0.4
<0.05
<0.2
15
0.05
0.6
160
Effluent
3.6
352
72
51
0.016
2.3
120
<1
2.2
2.9
17
11
66
72
190
33
0.6
<0.07
13
1.3
1.0
0.1
<0.3
70
Percent
removal
61
10
5
Oa
30
15
0°
>37
oa
oa
oa
81
oa
10
oa
oa
0
>82
oa
oa
93
oa
>50
56
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-64
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (BaCl2)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Uranium mine/mill
Plant: 9411
References: A2, pp. V-62-63
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Other pollutants, pCi/L:
Radium (total)
Radium226 (dissolved)
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony, yg/L
Arsenic, yg/L
Asbestos, fibers/L
Chromiud / y g/E
Copper, yg/L
Lead, yg/L
Mercury, yg/L
Selenium, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, U9/L
Influent
37
230
8
56. 9a
60. 2a
50
3
2.3 x 10»
50
40
40
3.8
5
60
47
Effluent
17
7
88
>96
>0
>33
75
50
>^°p
0
87
c
0
50
95
Within sensitivity limits most Ra is dissolved.
h ""
Analysis proved to be unreliable.
CActual data indicate negative removal.
Possibly due to tubing in sampling apparatus.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.3-65
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Alkaline cleaning
Plant: 157
References: A33, p. Vll-10, Vll-11
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Two settling lagoons
Wastewater flow: 0.142 m3/s (2,250 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 24.5
Oil and grease 21.3
91.7
4.0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Not detected assumed to be < 10 pg/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
0s
82
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Nickel
Zinc
Phenol
2, 6-Dinitrotoluene
Toluene
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
ND
ND
ND
24
47
ND
130
10
130
32
ND
3,000
6,000
290
ND
ND
10
ND
67
<10
67
51
oa
oa
oa
>58
>79
oa
>92
oa
>92
oa
oa
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-66
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory. Combination acid pickling-batch
Plant: U
References: A37, pp. VII-11, VII-5
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatnient of influent:
Neutralization
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Three tanks in series
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium (Dissolved)
Copper
Nickel (Dissolved)
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Fluoride
Influent
4
3
150,000
1,400
70,000
500,000
Effluent
12
1
40
30
20
12,000
Percent
removal
oa
66
>99
98
>99
98
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-67
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Combination acid pickling-batch
Plant: 123
References: A37, pp. VII-10
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Oil and grease
0.5
75
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
4-Nitrophenol
Chloroform
b
ND
ND
3,300
260
110
7,700
ND
90
11
46
10
10
360
40
39
330
10
120
<10
<10
a
0
oa
89
85
65
96
oa
oa
>9
>78
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Not detected; assumed to be less than the corresponding
effluent concentration.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-68
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Coagulant
Aids)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Combination acid pickling-batch
Plant: C
References: A37, pp. VII-12, VII-5
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 0.378 L/s (6 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 106 31 71
Oil and grease 5 0.3 94
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium (Dissolved) 140,000 1,300 99
Nickel (Dissolved) 240,000 2,500 99
Other pollutants, pg/L:
Fluoride 1,700,000 130,000 92
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-69
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hydrochloric acid pickling
Plant: 093
References: A93, pp. VII-39, VI-17, VI-51, VI-52
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 17.4 L/s (276 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
206
147
7.9
8.8
96
94
Toxic pollutants, jjg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
24
1,300
380
9,500
5,000
260,000
20
40
30
190
300
130
15
97
92
98
94
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-70
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Iron and steel Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Pipe and tube-welded Bench scale
Plant: 087 Pilot scale
References: A44, pp. VI-13-19, VI-19, VII-4, Full scale _x_
VII-17
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 1,750 L/s (27,700 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt): Weir loading:
pH in clarifier: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier detention time: Percent solids in sludge:
Hydraulic loading: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutan t/pa r ame t e r
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Mercury
Selenium
Influent
27
2.3
29
ND
2
Effluent
36
3.8
15
0.1
11
Percent
removal
a
0
oa
48
a
0
a
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-71
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot coating-galvanizing
Plant: NN-2
References: A39, pp. VI-27, VII-31
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 94
Chemical dosage (s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Sampling period;
1,135 m3 (300,000 gal) clarifier
7 L/s (1,500 gpm)
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
98
19
4
10
96
47
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Zinc
1,800
9
140,000
30
12
1,500
98
oa
99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-72
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot coating galvanizing
Plant: 112
References: A39, pp. VI-22, VI-23, VI-28
VII-36
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 17.4 L/s (276 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): Slaked lime-0.41 L/s (6.5 gpm)
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (-*-6)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
2-Chlorophenol
Phenol
4 , 6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Benzene
Toluene
Acenaphthylene
Benzol'alpyrene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Influent
292
8
40
20
230
50
2,500
18
25,000
1,300
60
50,000
5
NDb
NDb
b
ND
NDb
NDb
ND°
NDb
21b
ND
10
13
10
Effluent removal
11
0.47
10
<20
150
5
170
2
580
270
10
90
250
NDb
10
20
5
5
10
5
5
10
NDC
5
10
13b c
ND '
96
94
75
>0
65
82
93
89
96
79
oa
oa
>99
>0
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
>52
oa
0
0
>0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Not detected; assumed to be less than corresponding influent
or effluent concentration.
CNot detected; assumed to be <10 ug/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-73
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Nonferrous metals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Columbium/Tantalum raw waste stream Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A52, p. 337 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge :
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
16
900
8
10
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
50
99
Cadmium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Other pollutants, ug/L:
Fluoride
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Manganese
2.5
110,000
60,000
27,000
450
900
550,000
120,000
17,000
0.2
70
50
20
250
20
230,000
30
20
99
99
99
99
45
97
57
>99
99
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-74
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Nonferrous metals
Subcategory: Tungsten raw waste stream
Plant:
References: A52, p. 337
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
300
300
53
150
84
28
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Other pollutants, pg/L:
Chloride
Aluminum
Iron
700
20
200
500
20,000
100
200
25 x 106
300
5,000
8
8
5
7
20
10
60
19 x 106
50
200
99
60
97
99
99
90
70
26
83
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-75
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Fe*2, lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 1226
References: A31, p. 22
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, pg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
7
4
1.8
5
47
3
0.2
6
0.7
26
Effluent
9
3
1.6
3
4
<3
0.2
6
0.4
2
Percent
removal
a
0
25
11
40
91
>0
0
0
43
92
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-76
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Fe2+, lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 1226 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 22 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Ash pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, pg/L
Po 1 lutant/parame ter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Influent
7
9
2.0
6
14
4
8
0.5
7
Effluent
9
3
3.2
4
7
<3
7
0.6
6
Percent
removal
0
67 '
oa
33
50
>25
12
a
0
14
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-77
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Fe+2, lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 5604
References: A31, p. 22
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage (s):
Mix detention time_^
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants :
Arsenic
Copper
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
7
180
6
3
780
86
86
50
a
0
95
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-78
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Fe2*, lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 5604
References: A31, p.22
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Ash pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention time_:_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants :
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
6
2.5
1
4
80
9.5
5.5
300
30
0.5
<0.5
2
23
<0.5
5
25
a
0
80
>50
50
80
>95
9
92
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Ferrous sulfate,
lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 5409 Pilot scale _x_
References: A2, p. 24 (Appendix) Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: 11.5 in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration , yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Influent
3.4
0.8
37
620
70
0.5
4.0
14
8.0
61
Effluent
<0.5
0.5
<2.0
48
<3.0
<0.2
3.6
1.0
<1.0
<2
Percent
removal
>85
37
>95
92
>96
>60
10
93
>88
>97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-80
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Ferrous sulfate,
lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 5409
References: A2, p. 24 (Appendix)
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Ash pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 11.5
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Hydraulic loading;
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L
Po 1 lutant/parame ter
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Influent
5.0
74
26
2.5
42
1.0
9.0
11
Effluent
3.5
<1
18
2.0
32
1.1
7.0
<2.0
Percent
removal
30
>99
31
20
24
oa
22
>82
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-81
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 5409
References: A31, p. 22
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 11.5
Clarifier detention time:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Hydraulic loading
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TOC
21
<20
>5
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
<1
<1
3.4
0.8
37
620
70
0.5
4
<2
14
8
61
4
2.5
0.8
<0.5
8.8
70
<3
<0.2
2.3
2.3
7.8
<1
<2
a
0
a
0
76
>38
76
89
>96
>60
43
a
0
44
>88
>97
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-82
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 5409
References: A31, p. 22 (Appendix)
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Ash pond
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (Get):
pH in clarifier: 11.5
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, pg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Influent
5
74
26
2.5
42
1
9
11
Effluent
4
<1
12
2.2
52
1.1
8
<2
Percent
removal
20
>99
54
12
oa
oa
11
>32
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-83
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 5604 Pilot scale x
References: A31, p. 20 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: 11.5 in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration , yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
5
7
2
180
6
3
780
Effluent
3
<1
<2
48
12
4
140
Percent
removal
40
>86
>0
73
oa
oa
82
a
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified,
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-84
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: 1226
References: A31, p. 20
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Ash pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier: 11.5
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading;
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Influent
7
9
2.0
6
14
4
<0.2
5.5
8
0.5
7
Effluent
10
1
2.0
11
10
<3
0.3
6.0
8
0.4
2
Percent
removal
a.
0
89
0
oa
29
>25
a
0
a.
0
0
20
57
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-85
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 1226 Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 20 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention time_^ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: 11.5 in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
7
4
<0.5
1.8
4
47
3
0.2
6.0
0.7
26
Effluent
4
3
0.9
3.0
9
18
5
0.7
2.9
0.9
2
Percent
removal
43
25
oa
a
0
a
0
62
a
0
oa
52
a
0
92
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-86
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: Shawnee power plant, pond A
References: A31, p. 219
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Ash pond
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration^
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
20
16
Average of five values.
b
Actual data indicate negative removal.
37
12.5
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
0
22
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
20
170
0.76
3
7.5
46
0.23
3.2
63
73
70^
ob
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-87
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam electric power Engineering estimate
generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Shawnee power plant, pond B Pilot scale
References: A31, p. 220 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Ash pond
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): Hydraulic loading:
Mix detention timej_ Weir loading:
Mixing intensity (G): Sludge underflow:
Flocculation (GCt): Percent solids
pH in clarifier: in sludge:
Clarifier detention time: Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration5 Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 160 6 96
Influent average of two values, effluent average of four
values.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.3-88
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (Lime)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Steam electric power
generating
Subcategory:
Plant: Shawnee power plant pond D
References: A31, p. 222
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Ash pond
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading;
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration^ Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
240
260
0.1
110
39
0.3
54
Average values.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-89
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sedimentation with Chemical Addition (BaCl2)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Uranium mill
Plant: 9403
References: Al, p. VI-49
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 7.4 mg/L BaCla
Mix detention timej_
Mixing intensity (G):
Flocculation (GCt):
pH in clarifier:
Clarifier detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Scum overflow:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, picoCi/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Radium (total)
110(±1.1)
4.0(±0.41)
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.3-90
-------
III.4.4 DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (Gas Flotation) [1]
III.4.4.1 Function
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is used to remove suspended solids
by flotation.
III.4.4.2 Description
DAF is used to remove suspended solids by using flotation (rising)
to decrease their apparent density. DAF consists of saturating
a portion or all of the wastewater feed, or a portion of recycled
effluent, with air at a pressure of 25 to 70 lb/in2 (gage). The
pressurized wastewater is held at this pressure for 0.5 to 3.0
minutes in a retention tank and then released to atmospheric
pressure in the flotation chamber. The sudden reduction in
pressure results in the release of microscopic air bubbles, which
attach themselves to oil and suspended particles in the waste-
water in the flotation chamber. This results in agglomeration
which, due to the entrained air, results in greatly increased
vertical rise rates of about 0.5 to 2.0 ft/min. The floated
materials rise to the surface to form a froth layer. Specially
designed flight scrapers or other skimming devices continuously
remove the froth. The retention time in the flotation chambers
is usually about 20 to 60 minutes. The effectiveness of dissolved
air flotation depends on the attachment of bubbles to the
suspended oil and other particles that are to be removed from the
waste stream. The attraction between the air bubble and particle
is primarily a result of the particle surface charges and bubble-
size distribution.
The more uniform the distribution of water and microbubbles, the
shallower the flotation unit can be. Generally, the depth
of effective flotation units is between 4 and 9 feet.
In certain cases, the surface sludge layer can attain a thickness
of many inches and can be relatively stable for a short period.
The layer thickens with time, but undue delays in removal will
cause a release of particulates back to the liquid.
III.4.4.3 Common Modifications
DAF units can be round, square, or rectangular. In addition,
gases other than air can be used. The petroleum industry has used
nitrogen, with closed vessels, to reduce the possibilities of
fire.
III.4.4.4 Technology Status
DAF has been used for many years to treat industrial wastewaters.
It has been commonly used to treat sludges generated by municipal
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.4-1
-------
wastewaters; however, it is not widely used to treat municipal
wastewaters.
III.4.4.5 Applications
Used to remove lighter suspended materials whose specific gravity
is only slightly in excess of 1.0; usually used to remove oil and
grease materials; sometimes used when existing clarifiers are
overloaded hydraulically because converting to DAF requires less
surface area.
III.4.4.6 Limitations
Will only be effective on particles with densities near or
smaller than water.
III.4.4.7 Chemicals Required
The use of chemical addition is covered in the section entitled
"DAF with Chemical Addition", Section 4.5 of this manual.
III.4.4.8 Residuals Generated
A froth layer is generated, which is skimmed off the top of the
unit and is generally denser than clarifier sludge.
III.4.4.9 Reliability
DAF systems have been found to be reliable; however, chemical
pretreatment is essential; without pretreatment, DAF units are
subject to variable influent conditions, resulting in widely
varying performance.
III.4.4.10 Environmental Impact
Requires very little use of land; air released in unit is unlikely
to strip volatile organic material into air; air compressors will
need silencers to control the noise generated; sludge generated
will need methods for disposal; sludge will contain high levels
of chemical coagulants used.
III.4.4.11 Design Criteria
Criteria Units Range/value
Pressure lb/in.2 (gauge) 25 - 70
Air-to-solids ratio Ib/lb 0.01 - 0.1
Float detention min 20 - 60
Surface hydraulic loading gpd/ft2 500 - 8,000
Recycle (where employed) percent 5 - 120
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.4-2
-------
III.4.4.12 Flow Diagram
SLUDCE REMOVAL MECHANISM
T
EFFLUENT -* t T^^.^^SS ^T SLUDGE D.SCHARGE
RECIRCULATION Q RECYCLE ROW
PUMP
AIR FEED • •
-------
rt
n>
CO
\
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GAS FLOTATION (MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIES)
Number of
Pollutant data points
Conventional pollutants: mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1242
Chloroform
1
2
1
3
5
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
250
18
280
131
35
23
19
5
2,300
2
0.6
52
8.5
83
30.
<10K
<10b
5b
<10b
99
>17
Oa
>99
>92
45a
Oa
Oa
0
>0
Maximum Median
4
95
Oa
78
96
4
58
69
Oa
82
Oa
Oa
Oa
22
Oa
>99
>17
51
>99
>92
45
%36
oa
0
>0
4
48
Oa
77
74
4
40
69
Oa
49
Oa
Oa
Oa
11
Oa
>99
>17
26
>99
>92
45
%18
Oa
0
>0
Mean
4
48
Oa
54
67
4
40
69
oa
49
oa
Oa
Oa
11
Oa
>99
>17
26
>99
>92
45
%18
Oa
0
>0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10 yg/L.
-------
rt
(D
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GAS FLOTATION (PETROLEUM INDUSTRY)
to
\
Ul
-J
VO
H
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
^ Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Chyrsene
Fluor anthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Aroclor 1242
Methyl chloride
Number of
data points
5
7
6
5
2
5
1
7
4
4
3
2
7
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
39
160
43
11
4.4
0.7
2
45
8
20
21
16
30
0.1
0.3
2.5
110
190
0.2
5.1
1.1
10
Maximum
160
690
240
280
21
39
2
1,300
20
170
150
28
1,700
49
0.3
2.5
110
190
0.2
11
1.1
10
Median
82
420
125
42
12.7
9.4
2
250
8.5
45
100
22
130
25
0.3
2.5
110
190
0.2
11
1.1
10
Mean
96
369
130
125
12.7
13.1
2
400
11
70
90
22
340
25
0.3
2.5
110
190
0.2
11
1.1
10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation (Air)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper and
paperboard
Subcategory: Nonintegrated tissue
Plant:
References: A26, pp. A-104-107
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration"
Influent Effluent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
395
18
CNot detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
removal
95
Toxic pollutants, vig/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Napthalene
Xylenes
15
45
11
1
92
8
800
<1
12
1
13,000
130
3
46
14,000
2
19
2
2
53,000
30
ND°
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
60
ND
87
58
82b
°b
°b
0
-100
-100
-100
0
-100
-100
-100
b
0
-100
Average concentration.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.4-3
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: G
References: A3, pp. IV-36-63
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: API design gravity oil separator
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average of three days and
a composite
sample
Concentration
Pollutants/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Phenol
Anthracene/^henanthrene
Naphthalene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1242
a-Endosulfan
Influent
260
840
230
140
93
24
720
_b
16
1,300
250
0.2
47
7.8
110
700
4,900
^1,100
•^1,100
1.8
°'5b
Effluent
250
1,000
280
131
220
23
570
20
5
2,300
210
0.6
52
8.5
83
1,100
2,400
•V600
•WOO
7.9
0.5
0.1
Percent
removal
4
oa
oa
6
oa
4
21
-
69
a
0
16
oa
oa
oa
22a
0
51
•v.45
-x-36
oa
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Data not available.
Concentrations represent sums for these two compounds which
elute simultaneously and have the same major ions for GC/MS.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.4-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Tomatoes Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 268 Pull scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Recycle pressurization, dissolved air flotation system
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.041-0.12 m3/min/m2 (1.0-2.9 gpm/ft2)
Percent recycle: 33-50%
Solids loading: 1.35-2.71 kg/hr/m2 (9.7-19.5 lb/hr/ft2)
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 900 200 78
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.4-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Peaches Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 267 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Recycle pressurization, dissolved air flotation system
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.041-0.13 m3/min/m2 (1.0-2.9 gpm/ft2)
Percent recycle: 25-50%
Solids loading: 0.042-0.31 kg/hr/m2 (0.3-2.2 lb/hr/ft2)
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration/5 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 1,070 241 77
Average of seven samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.4-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: B Pilot scale
References: A4, pp. 11-56 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids
Gas requirement: in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 160
COD 450
TOC 110
TSS 42
Oil and grease 21
Total phenol 39
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium 45
Copper 8
Cyanide 40
Zinc 30
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.4-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: D
References: A4, p. IV-46
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotatation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
a
concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Aroclor 1242
630
180
43
5.6
730
8
50
280
140
0.1
2.5
190
11
1.1
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Concentration represent sums of these two com-
pounds which elute simultaneously and have the
same major ions for GC/MS.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.4-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory: Petroleum refining
Plant: E
References: A4, p. IV-46
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Nickel
Zinc
Lead
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Methylene chloride
Effluent
concentration
47
160
43
15
9.4
89
28
57.
K
150°
n
49b
°-3b
110
°"ib '
iob
Concentration from several days were averaged.
This extract was diluted 1:10 before analysis.
Cpossibly due to laboratory contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.4-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, pp. 198-199 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease 4,360 170 96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.4-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: K
References: A4, p. iv-56
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration'
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 150
COD 690
TOC 240
TSS 280
Total phenol 0.7
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium 1,300
Copper 280
Lead 100
Nickel 16
Zinc 1,700
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.4-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: M Pilot scale
References: A4, pp. 10-56 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids
Gas requirement: in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Effluent
Pollutant/parameter concentration
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 39
COD 230
TOC 67
TSS 11
Oil and grease 17
Total phenol 4.4
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Beryllium 2
Chromium 110
Copper 9
Cyanide 20
Zinc 130
Concentration from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.4-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: O
References: A4, p. IV-57
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration0
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
82
420
140
32
11
250
20
170
21
70
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.4-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, pp. 198-199 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Ga s requi rement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease 125 35 72
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.4-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, pp. 198-199 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease 154 40 74
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.4-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, pp. 198-199 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease 3,830 270 93
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.4-18
-------
III.4.5 GAS FLOTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION [1]
III.4.5.1 Function
Gas flotation with chemical addition is utilized to remove collo-
dial and suspended solids.
III.4.5.2 Description
The use of chemical addition in conjuction with gas flotation is
the same treatment technology as described for sedimentation with
chemical addition, except that gas flotation is utilized instead
of sedimentation. The reader is refferred to Section III.4.3
for a thorough discussion of chemical addition; the description
is not duplicated here.
III.4.5.3 Technology Status
Gas flotation with chemical addition is a well-developed technol-
ogy; installed equipment is currently operating in many industrial
applications.
III.4.5.4 Applications
Any industrial wastestream where land/space availability is lim-
ited and/or sedimentation is not practical.
III.4.5.5 Limitations
Gas flotation with chemical addition may require additional solids
removal (e.g., multimedia filtration).
III.4.5.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
Solids must be disposed of properly; odor may be a problem with
certain wastestreams.
III.4.5.7 Design Criteria
Design criteria for gas flotation with chemical addition are the
same as those described in Section III.4.3.10.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.5-1
-------
III.4.5.8 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Auto and other laundries industry
Industrial laundries
Linen supplies
Power laundries
Canned and preserved fish and seafood processing
Shrimp
Tuna
Porcelain enameling
Textile milling
Woven fabric finishing
III.4.5.9 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79 III.4.5-2
-------
D
0)
rt
(D
NJ
\
U>
\
«J
VO
I
N)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GAS FLOTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM)
M Number of Effluent concentration, mg/L~Removal efficiency',' % '_
H Pollutant data points Minimum Maximum Median Mean Minimum Maximum Mediem" Mean
*. Conventional pollutant
•
Oil and grease 4 <10a 142 12.5 44 89 >99 92 93
Not detected, assumed to be <10 mg/L.
-------
o
OJ
rt
fl)
to
\
OJ
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GAS FLOTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (ALUM, POLYMER)
H
H
H
171
I
to
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/I. •
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dichlorobromome thane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Trichlorof luoromethane
Acrolein
Number of
data points
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
178
1,220
544
95
76
0.094
12.2
2,200
3.5
40
360
660
<10
1,000
1
270
<1
66
2,300
90
81
300
21
28
3
4.5
10
11
16
410
19
<0.9
8
<0. 9
860
<2
720
Maximum
428
2,110
544
742
128
0.094
12.2
2,200
3.5
40
360
660
<10
1,000
1
270
<1
66
2,300
90
81
300
21
28
3
4.5
10
11
16
410
19
<0.9
8
<0.9
860
<2
720
Median
303
1,670
544
141
102
0.094
12.2
2,200
3.5
40
360
660
<10
1,000
1
270
<1
66
2,300
90
81
300
21
28
3
4.5
10
11
16
410
19
<0.9
8
<0.9
860
<2
720
Mean
303
1,670
544
326
102
0.094
12.2
2,200
3.5
40
360
660
<10
1,000
1
270
£1
66
2,300
90
81
300
21
28
3
4.5
10
11
16
410
19
<0.9
8
<0.9
860
<2
720
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
49
17
25
Oa
63
13
49
6
56
0
19
19
>61
0
33
41
0
44
10
25a
oa
oa
°a
°a
oa
10a
Oa
52
3
76
Oa
>85
84
>10
74
>50
Oa
Maximum
70
64
25
83
85
13
49
6
56
0
19
19
>61
0
33
41
0
44
10
25a
Oa
°a
°a
°a
Oa
10
a
0
52
3
76
oa
>85
84
>10
74
>5°a
oa
Median
bU
51
25
68
74
13
49
6
56
0
19
19
>61
0
33
41
0
44
10
25a
0
°a
Sa
°a
0
10a
0
52
3
76a
Oa
>85
84
>10
74
>50
Oa
Mean
60
44
25
50
74
13
49
6
56
0
19
19
261
0
33
41
0
44
10
25a
0
°a
£
°a
Oa
10a
0
52
3
76a
Oa
>85
84
>10
74
>50
a
Oa
aActual data indicates negative removal.
-------
fi-
ll)
to
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GAS FLOTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION
(CALCIUM CHLORIDE, POLYMER)
tn
I
Number of
Pollutant data point
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, M9/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Isophorone
3
5
4
6
6
4
2
5
4
6
6
5
3
6
3
5
1
2
1
6
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
4
4
1
3
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
Effluent concentration
s Mm iraum
318
1,100
155
18
51
<0.001
1 7
<10
2
<2
100
150
54
67
<0.2
<5
2
<15
50.
10b
220
<0.03
19
33
620
<0.1
27
42
3
5
260.
<10b
380
66
480
1
0.8
2
5
14
6,
99
Oa
78
66
>99
Oa
0
oa
oa
76
04
oa
83a
Oa
50a
°a
°a
Oa
22
Oa
>95
Maximum Median
68
78
72
98
90
>94
96
>89
80
>98
67
91
5
98
>90
>94
oa
>48
ft
Oa
>99
82
>99
79
78
66
>99
Oa
80
Oa
Oa
76
>99
65
83
82
50
74
7
94
22
86
>95
64
66
50
88
79
1
48
>51
>13
>96
>50
79
Oa
98
>80
>67
oa
24
Oa
96
72
>99
39
78
66
>99
oa
57
Oa
Oa
76
30
6
83
80
50
20
0
Oa
22
43
>95
Mean
63
66
43
88
76
24
48
47
>28
79
SI
78
2
97
>68
>65
oa
24
oa
>95
72
>99
39
78
66
>99
Oa
46
oa
Oa
76
40
19
83
54
50
31
23
23
22
43
>95
Actual datd indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10 iag/L.
-------
D
f»
ft
K)
\
U)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR GAS FLOTATION WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION (POLYMER)
H
U1
I
NJ
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Cadimum
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Number of
data points
4
2
1
4
3
2
1
I
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2 .
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Effluent concentration
Minimum
112
459
87
32
16
0.026
1.0
64
5
28
50
25b
<10D
32
29
14
<10
45
<0.03
<0.02
11
2
6
28
8
9
12
160
130
2
0.5
0.6
0.3
24
30
22
2
<2
Maximum
2,330
725
87
617
87
0.385
1.0
64
5
28
81
25
70
63
29
14
240
74
<0.03
<10b
11
2
6
28
30
26
12
160
130
2
°-5h
<10b
0.3
24
30
22
2
<10
Median
<171
592
87
102
27
0.205
1.0
64
5
28
66
25
<40
48
29
14
120
60
<0.03 .
<5
11
2
6
28
19
18
12
160
130
2
0.5
<5
0.3
24
30
22
2
<6
Mean
<69fe
592
87
213
43
0.205
1.0
64
5
28
66
25
<40
48
29
14
120
60
<0.03
<5
11
2
6
28
19
18
12
160
130
2
0.5
<5
0.3
24
30
22
2
<6
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
8
36
30
50
11
oa
oa
Oa
Oa
9
14a
oa
Oa
0"
oa
17
10
>99
>23
61a
°a
°a
°a
°a
Oa
33
65
59
°a
oa
33
0
41
Oa
61
0
>0
Maximum
>50
31
36
84
68
72
Oa
°a
oa
oa
75
14
.-29
oa
oa
oa
>60
92
>99
>99
61a
°a
°a
Oa
19
72
33
65
59
°a
oa
>96
0
41
oa
61
0
>9
Median
47
20
36
33
59
42
0
oa
Oa
Oa
42
14
15
oa
oa
oa
>38
51
>99
>61
61a
°a
°a
Oa
9
36
33
65
59
°a
oa
>65
0
41
oa
61
0
>4
Mean
36
20
36
45
59
42
Oa
0^
Oa
Oa
42
14
15
oa
oa
oa
>38
51
>99
>61
61a
°a
°a
Oa
9
36
33
65
59
°a
oa
>65
0
41
oa
61
0
>4
Actual data indicates negative removal.
Reported as not detected, assumed to be <10 mg/L.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition (Cationic polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-80
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Equalization, grit removal, coarse screening, chem-
ical addition (alum and caustic), and fine screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 1.2 m3/min (300 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Oi-n-butyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Methyl chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Influent
400
1,050
195
0.092
320
14
28
<10
25
570
13
37
94
IB
460
320
250
26
11
Effluent
<200
725
32
0.026
81
ND*
32
14
<10
45
ND
30
26
12
160
130
ND
30
<10
Percent
removal
>50
31
84
72
75
VLOO
' °b
0
>60
92
•v-100
19
72
33
65
59
•MOO
cr
>9
*Not detected.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.4.5-3
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Porcelain enameling
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A51, pp. 198-199
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease
100
10
90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.5-4
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Porcelain enameling
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A51, pp. 198-199
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease
133
15
89
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.5-5
-------
o
(o
rt
I-1
to
\
U)
\
^J
VO
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ULTRAFILTRATION
.£>.
•
cn
Ui
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants,
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, \iq/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Number of
data points
mg/L:
12
12
18
13
11
4
3
1
3
1
3
2
1
6
Minimum
12
148
66
2.4
5
44.6
<5
2,900
<500
5,000
<1,000
0.4
<500
180
Effluent concentration
Maximum
8,890
36,600
939
539
195
131
<10
2,900
1,100
5,000
<1,000
0.8
<500
40,000
Median
457
813
224
<27
55
79.1
<10
2,900
<500
5,000
<1,000
0.6
<500
<1,000
Mean
2,850
8,380
347
<97.7
80
83.4
<8.3
2,900
<700
5,000
<1,000
0.6
<500
8,600
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
9
15
60
23»
oa
>67
67
>58a
oa
>52
11
>32
22
Maximum
88
99
97
>99
>99
82
>93
67
90a
Oa
>95
20
>32
98
Median
64
53
76
99
85
32
>90
67
>71a
oa
>74
15
>32
94
Mean
53
54
60
•>92
>96
36
>83
67
>73a
Oa
>74
15
>32
>78
aActual data indicate negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: K
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Circular clarifier; no recycle
Wastewater flow: 45 m3/d (12,000 gpd) 159 m3/d (42,000 gpd design)
Alum - 1,200 mg/L Polymer - 80 mg/L
5-6 Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure: 552 kPa (80 psi)
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling, Periodt Average of two, one-day co»posites.
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle: 0
Solids loading:
Concentration
Pol lutant/paraswter
Conventional pollutant*, mq/Li
•00s
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Ant loony
Arsenic
Cadmiun
Chroeuvun
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene /Phenanthrene
Haphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
ChloroforB
Dichlorobronome thane
Hethylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Tnchlorofluorcwe thane
Acrolein
Influent
346
2.550
728
496
205
0.106
24.0
2,400
6.0
40
450
610
26
1,000
1.5
460
SI
120
2,600
120
<0.03
300
<0.9
20
1.5
5.0
7.5
23
17
1,700
6.0
6.0
48
1.0
3,300
4.0
<100
Effluent
178
2,110
544
742
76
0.094
12.2
2,200
3.5
40
360
660
SlO
1,000
1.0
270
Si
66
2,300
90
ei
300
21
28
3.0
4.5
10
11
16
410
19
<0.9
8.0
<0.9
860
<2.0
720
Percent
renoval
49
17
25
0*
63
13
49
6
56
0
19
19
561
0
33
41
-0
44
10
«
0*
o.
0*
o'
0*
10
0*
52
3
76
o"
>85
84
>10
74
>50
0*
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Power laundries
Plant: J
References: A28, Appendix C
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow: 341 m3/d (90,000 gpd)
379 m3/d design (100,000 gpd design)
Chemical dosage(s): 60 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: 10.3 - 10.6
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.11 m3/min/m2
(2.6 gpm/ft2)
Percent recycle: 50
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio: 0.5
Pressure: 517 kPa (5.1 atm)
Sludge overflow: 0.11 m3/d (30 gpd)
Percent solids in sludge: 7.5
REMOVAL DATA
S amp 1ing Per i od i 2 d*y»_
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants , ag/L:
BOD.
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalete
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dljnethy Iphenol
Pentachlorophcnol
Phenol
Anthracene /Phena/itnrene
Fluor anthene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Chlorofom
Hethylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1,1-Tnchloroe thane
Influent
113
497
135
50
39
0.432
0.8
<10
<1
26
55
29
<23
<36
<5
290
81
17
2
28
0.3
1
2
3
2
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
41
57
3
2
Effluent
142
459
87
32
16
0.385
1.0
64
5
28
50
25
70
63
29
240
74
<0.03
<0.02
11
2
6
28
8
9
2
0.5
0.6
0.3
24
22
2
<2
Percent
removal
oa
8
36
36
59
11
0*
o"
0*
0*
9
14
0*
0*
0*
17
10
-100
>99
61
0*
o«
0*
0*
0*
0*
o4
33
0
41
61
0
>0
Actual data indicate negative resttval.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Sodium aluminate, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fish and seafood proc- Bench scale
essing Pilot scale
Subcategory: Tuna Full scale
Plant:
References: A13, p. 353
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved in air flotation
Unit configuration: EIMCO
Wastewater flow: 1.71 m3/min (450 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): 120 mg/L (sodium aluminate)
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent" removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 2,850 1,800 37
TSS 1,170 515 56
Based on two runs.
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.5-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Calcium Chloride, Polymer)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: E
References: A28, Appendix C
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period; 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
1,700
4,900
460
900
230
0.10
13
120
11
60
300
1,000
240
3,000
-3
80
8
2,000
Effluent
540
1,100
270
18
84
0.32
23
29
ND
<2
100
200
530
70
2
<5
19
60
Percent
removal
68
78
41
98
63
oa
oa
76
-100
>97
67
80
oa
98
33
>94
oa
97
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Ferrous Sulfate, Lime, Polymer)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Data source: Effluent Guidelines document
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: L
References: A28, Appendix C
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier? recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow: 83 m3/d (22,000 gpd)(design)
Chemical dosage (s): Fe SO** - 300 mg/L Cationic polymer - 2 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sanplii.9 Period: Toxic organic* - 3 day» other pollutant* -
8 day* ,
Poliutant/parajpeter
Concentration
influent Effluent
Conventional pollutant*, Bq/L:
•00.
coo
TOC
T5S
Oil and greaee
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L.
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadniun
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Hexcury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
N-ni trosodiphenylaaine
Pentach lorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlocobentene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Fluor anthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrenv
Carbon tetrachloride
Dich 1 or obroncete thane
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
i , 2-Dichloropropane
1,310
4,770
771
711
915
0.367
21.7
95
32
97
410
3.600
46
7,200
2.7
130
-4
2,500
5.100
1,500
600
410
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
470
ND
ND
410
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
209
600
177
86
26
1.09
0.14
ie
11
£15
S27
73
£32
SUO
SO. 97
e
264
>96
>75
95
98
97
97
-100
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
298
0*
0*
77
°°.
0
o"
o'
0*
Actual data indicate negative
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Ferric Sulfate, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Linen supply
Plant: M
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; full flow
pressurization
Wastewater flow: 170 m3/d (45,000 gpd) (design)
Chemical dosage (s): Fe2(SO<+)3 - 1,200 mg/L
Anionic polymer - 25 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: 6 Gas requirement:
Float detention time: 29 min Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: 0 Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period:
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS 1,420 486 66
COD 3,600 410 89
TOC 599 160 73
TSS 536 61 89
Oil and grease 341 101 70
Total phenol 0.065 0.034 48
Total phosphous 19 0.3 98
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
8
3
140
230
330
2
670
3
9
58
400
<87
1.2
910
62
a
0
59
oa
74
40
a
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Calcium Chloride, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: F
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow: 0.38 m3/min (101 gpm) 0.78 m3/min (design) (200 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): Calcium chloride
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.0027 m3/min/m2
(0.66 gpm/ft2)
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
1,600 mg/L Polymer - 2 mg/L
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge: 3-5
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period; 5 days
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
877
139
792
513
318
155
142
53
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
64
o£
82
90
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
48
650
5,400
2,900
72
290
300
310
0°
56
94
89
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Acid, Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fish and seafood proc- Bench scale
essing Pilot scale
Subcategory: Shrimp Full scale
Plant:
References: A13, p. 355
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Carborundum pilot unit
Wastewater flow: 0.19 m3/min (50 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): 0.5-5 mg/L (polymer)
75 mg/L (alum)
pH in flotation chamber: 5 Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure: 27.6 kPa (40 psig)
Percent recycle: 50 Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,5 mg/L Percent
Po 1 lu t an t/par ame ter Influent Effluent13 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TSS
1,930
3,400
559
428
1,220
95
70
64
83
a
Average of five runs, one each with 5, 4, 2, 1, and 0.5
mg/L polymer.
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.5-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Acid, Alum, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fish and seafood proc- Bench scale
essing Pilot scale X
Subcategory: Shrimp Full scale
Plant:
References: A13, p. 355
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Carborundum pilot plant
Wastewater flow: 0.19 m3/min (50 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): 75 mg/L (alum)
pH in flotation chamber: 5.0 Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure: 27.6 kPa (40 psig)
Percent recycle: 50 Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent*3 removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 3,400 1,670 51
TSS 440 141 68
Oil and grease 852 128 85
a
Average of two runs with 2 mg/L polymer.
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.5-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Treto lite)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fish and seafood proc- Bench scale
essing Pilot scale X
Subcategory: Tuna Full scale
Plant:
References: A13, p. 348
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dispersed in air flotation
Unit configuration: Wemco hydrocleaner
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 7-16 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: 5-10 min Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Composite of 12 samples taken in 1 hr.
Concentration,a mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent*3 removal
Conventional pollutants :
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
4,400
882
273
2,330
617
87
47
30
68
a
Average of eight runs.
Calculated from influent and percent removal data.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.5-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Lime, Polymers)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fish and seafood proc- Bench scale
essing Pilot scale
Subcategory: Tuna Full scale
Plant:
References: A13, p. 353
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: EIMCO
Wastewater flow: 0.03-0.06 m3/min (7.5-15 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): Cationic 0.05 mg/L
Anionic 0.10 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: 10.0-10.5 Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: 0-50 Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent5 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 3,530 1,240 65
TSS 1,090 369 66
Oil and grease 558 190 66
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.5-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Drew 410)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fish and seafood proc- Bench scale
essing Pilot scale X
Subcategory: Tuna Full scale
Plant:
References: A13, p. 348
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dispersed air flotation
Unit configuration: Wemco hydrocleaner
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s): 3-14 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: 5-10 min Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Composite of 12 samples taken in 1 hr.
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent13 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 211 112 47
TSS 245 172 30
Oil and grease 54 27 50
Average of eight runs.
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.5-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Calcium Chloride, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: D
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Po llutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Influent
2,400
7,100
1,800
940
1,600
160
70
980
1,700
280
5,400
80
2,700
2,600
130
18,000
2,600
30
Effluent
1,000
2,000
500
100
230
310
3
570
150
290
110
<10
ND
1,000
200
ND
900
980
Percent
removal
58
72
72
89
86
a
0
96
42
91
a
0
98
>87
-100
62
a
oa
-100
65
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Calcium Chloride, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: B
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL
Sampling Period: 1 day
DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, ng/L:
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Isophorone
Influent
3,800
700
440
0.016
41
12
170
270
1,600
9,400
2
150
4,500
ND
1,800
600
260
750
4,000
10
540
860
210
190
Effluent
1,300
48
190
<0.001
<20
<10
23
S130
330
230
<0.2
<50
200
290
620
120
110
790
790
8
500
1,000
30
ND
Percent
removal
66
93
57
>94
>51
>17
86
£52
79
98
>90
>67
96
oa
66
80
58a
0
80
20
7
a
0
86
-100
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Calcium Chloride, Polymer)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: C
References: A28, Appendix C
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber: Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio:
Hydraulic loading: Pressure:
Percent recycle: Sludge overflow:
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL
Sampling Period: 1 day
DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, wg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Influent
3,200
520
760
0.028
-25
13
54
1,200
1,200
4,400
1
50
-29
2,600
100
1,000
2,400
ND
35
110
84
Effluent
1,200
64
170
0.56
<20
12
<2
620
340
67
<0.2
<50
<15
<68
100
970
2,100
480
9
6,000
5
Percent
removal
62
88
78
oa
>20
8
>96
48
72
98
>80
>0
>48
£97
0
3
12
oa
74
»
oa
94
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition
(Calcium Chloride, Polymer)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: A
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization, gravity oil separation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process type: Dissolved air flotation
Unit configuration: Rectangular clarifier; recycle pressurization
Wastewater flow: 0.27 m3/min (70 gpm) 0.57 m3/min (design) (150 gpm)
Chemical dosage(s): CaCl2 - 1,800 mg/L Polymers - 2 mg/L
pH in flotation chamber: 11.6 Gas requirement:
Float detention time: Gas-to-solids ratio: 0.0097
Hydraulic loading: 0.038 m3/min/m2 Pressure: 476 kPa (4.7 atm)
(0.93 gpm/ft2) Sludge overflow: 0.082 ir.3/min
Percent recycle: 50 (2 gpm)
Solids loading: Percent solids in sludge: 5
REMOVAL DATA
Smoling Periodi 2 days
Pollutant/parajMter
Conventional pollutants , *9/L :
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and qrease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, uq/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
CadmiuB
Chrcaiusi
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
ThaLliun
Zinc
Bis(2-ethyUi«xyl) phthalate
Butyl beniyl phthalat*
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
2 , 4-ouethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1 . 4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
Benzene
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylfcenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hethylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Trichloroethylene
Concentration
Influent
6,400
1,700
390
703
.0.78
41.6
94
10
110
480
1,500
57
4,800
350
1
<40
3,700
1,200
310
92
150
460
<0.4
98
'0.1
3
1,100
25
360
180
4,800
2
0.7
2
320
IB
4
Effluent
3,200
690
98
143
0.76
1.7
<10
2
<2
270
500
54
130
250
2
50
230
220
<0.03
19
33
«0.1
27
42
3
5
260
44
380
66
840
1
0.8
2
330
14
6
Percent
removal
50
59
75
80
3
96
>89
80
>98
44
67
5
97
29
0^
0*
94
82
-100
79
78
-100
0*
57
0*
0*
76
o.
0*
83
82
50
0*
o.
0*
22
0*
Actual data indicate neoativ*
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.5-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Porcelain enameling
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A51, pp. 198-199
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease
1,900
ND
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.5-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Gas Flotation with Chemical Addition (Alum)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Porcelain enameling
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A51, pp. 198-199
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process type:
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage(s):
pH in flotation chamber:
Float detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Percent recycle:
Solids loading:
Sampling period;
Gas requirement:
Gas-to-solids ratio:
Pressure:
Sludge overflow:
Percent solids in sludge
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease
1,940
142
93
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.4.5-23
-------
III.4.6 GRANULAR MEDIA FILTRATION [1, 2]
III.4.6.1 Function
Granular media filtration is used to remove suspended solids from
a liquid wastestream.
III.4.6.2 Description
Granular media filtration, one of the oldest and most widely
applied types of filtration for the removal of suspended solids
from aqueous liquid streams, utilizes a bed of granular particles
(typically sand or sand with coal) as the filter medium. The bed
is typically contained within a basin or tank and is supported by
an underdrain system which allows the filtered liquid to be
drawn off while retaining the filter medium in place. The under-
drain system typically consists of metal or plastic strainers
located at intervals on the bottom of the filter. As suspended
particle-laden water passes through the bed of the filter medium,
particles are trapped on top of and within the bed, thus reducing
its porous nature and either reducing the filtration rate at con-
stant pressure or increasing the amount of pressure needed to
force the water through the filter. If left to continue in this
manner, the filter would eventually plug up with solids; the
solids, therefore, must be removed. This is done by forcing a
wash water stream through the bed of granular particles in the
reverse direction of the original fluid flow. The wash water is
sent through the bed at a velocity sufficiently high so that the
filter bed becomes fluidized and turbulent. In this turbulent
condition, the solids are dislodged from the granular particles
and are discharged in the spent wash water. This whole process
is referred to as "back-washing." When the backwashing cycle is
completed, the filter is returned to service.
The spent backwash water contains the suspended solids removed
from the liquid, and, therefore, presents a liquid disposal prob-
lem in itself. The volume of the backwash water stream, however,
is normally only a small fraction (1% to 4%) of the volume of the
liquid being filtered. Consequently, the suspended solids concen-
tration of the backwash water is far greater than that of the
liquid filtered. Granular media filtration essentially removes
suspended solids from one liquid stream and concentrates them in
another, but much smaller, liquid stream. Depending on the spe-
cific process configuration, backwash water itself can be treated
to remove suspended solids by flocculation and/or sedimentation
or by returning it to the portion of the process from whence the
liquid stream subjected to filtration originated; e.g., a settling
pond.
Date: 6/27/79 m.4.6-1
-------
III.4.6.3 Common Modifications
Dual-media filtration involves the use of both sand and anthracite
as filter media, with anthracite being placed on top of the sand.
Gravity filters operate by either using the available head from
the previous treatment unit, or by pumping to a flow-split box
after which the wastewater flows by gravity to the filter cells.
Pressure filters utilize pumping to increase the available head.
Filters may also be precoated (e.g., using diatomaceous earth,
other powdered material).
Filtration systems can be constructed of concrete or steel, with
single or multiple compartment units. Steel units can be either
horizontal or vertical and are generally used for pressure fil-
ters. Systems can be manually or automatically operated.
Backwash sequences can include air scour or surface wash steps.
Backwash water can be stored separately or in chambers that are
integral parts of the filter unit. Backwash water can be pumped
through the unit or can be supplied through gravity head tanks.
III.4.6.4 Technology Status
Granular media filtration has been used for many years in the
potable water industry and for 10 to 15 years in the wastewater
treatment field.
III.4.6.5 Applications
Removal of residual biological floe in settled effluents from
secondary treatment, and removal of residual chemical-biological
floe after alum, iron, or lime precipitation in tertiary or
independent physical-chemical waste treatment; in these applica-
tions, filtration may serve both as an intermediate process to
prepare wastewater for further treatment (such as carbon adsorp-
tion, clinoptilolite ammonia exchange columns, or reverse osmosis)
or as a final polishing step following other processes.
III.4.6.6 Limitations
Economics are highly dependent on consistent pretreatment quality
and flow modulations; increasing suspended solids loading will
reduce run lengths, and large flow variations will deleteriously
affect effluent quality in chemical treatment sequences; depend-
ing on suspended solids concentration of wastewater streams, it
may be necessary to install other liquid/solid separation proc-
esses such as flocculation and/or sedimentation ahead of granular
media filtration to take the bulk of the suspended solids load
off the filters.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-2
-------
III.4.6.7 Chemicals Required
Alum salts, iron salts, and polymers can be added as coagulant
aids directly ahead of filtration units; however, this will gen-
erally reduce run lengths.
III.4.6.8 Residuals Generated
Backwash water, which generally approximates two to ten percent of
the throughput; backwash water can be returned to the head of
the plant.
III.4.6.9 Reliability
Granular filtration systems are very reliable from both a process
and unit standpoint.
III.4.6.10 Environmental Impact
Requires relatively little use of land; backwash water will need
further treatment, with an ultimate production of solids that will
need disposal; air scour blowers usually need silencers to control
noise; no air pollution generated.
III.4.6.11 Design Criteria (for Dual-Media Filtration)
Criteria Units Range/value
Filtration rate gpm/ft2 2 to 8
Bed depth in. 24 to 48
Depth ratio 1:1 to 1:4
cV'^ (sand to anthracite)
Backwash rate V1 gpm/ft2 15 to 25
Air scour rate standard ft3/min/ft2 3 to 5
Filter run length hr 8 to 48
Terminal head loss ft 6 to 15
Note: Precoat and multi-media filtration utilize similar cri-
teria; however, the depth ratios will differ.
Date: 6/27/79 in. 4.6-3
-------
III.4.6.12 Flow Diagram
FILTRATION CYCLE
BED OF FILTER MEDIA
\
UNDERDRAIN PLATE
WITH STRAINERS \
BACKWASH WASTEWATER
WASHWATER SUPPLY
OPEN FILTERED EFFLUENT
BACKWASH CYCLE
FILTER MEDIA BED BECOMES
FLUID! ZED AND TURBULENT
DURING THE BACKWASH CYCLE
SPENT
BACKWASH WATER
WASHWATER
XCZ3
CLOSED
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-4
-------
III.4.6.13 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or waste streams:
Auto and other laundries industry
Industrial laundries
Power laundries
Electroplating
Foundry industry
Aluminum foundry - die tube operation
Inorganic chemicals production
Chlorine - diaphragm cell plant operations
Chrome pigment production
Copper sulfate production
Iron and steel industry
Continuous casting
Hot forming - primary
Vacuum degassing
Nonferrous metals industry
Ore mining and dressing
Asbestos - cement processing
Asbestos mining
Base metal mining
Copper milling
Lead/zinc mining/milling/smelting/refining
Molybdenum mining/milling
Paint manufacturing
Petroleum refining
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Man-made fiber processing
Pulp milling
Textile milling
Knit fabric finishing
Stock and yarn finishing
Wool finishing
Wool scouring
Woven fabric finishing
III.4.6-5
-------
III.4.6.14 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
2. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1976. pp. 22-1 - 22-25.
III.4.6-6
-------
o
DJ
rt
0>
to
\
U)
H
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR FILTRATION
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, wg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic .
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Number of
data points
16
25
20
44
15
21
7
16
8
8
4
22
21
36
12
32
9
17
6
12
1
42
15
3
13
Effluent concentration
Minimum
2.4
29
10
<1
<0.5
0.0011
0.23
<10
<1
8x10"
1.2
<1
<4
2.5
10
5
0.3
<5
<1
5
<10
16
3.3
<0.03
<0.02
Maximum
23,400
260,000
25,000
7,330
9,940
64.4
13
1,800
100
3.2x10"
2
110
320
4,500
260
2,100
2,900
240
100
77
<10
18,000
16,000
4
9,300
Median
19
184
42
13
11
0.048
2
53
7
2.5xl06
1.6-
5
34
30
23
62
0.5
50
41
<9
<10
150
19
3.2
3
Mean
1,860
1,180
1,710
226
781
3.1
3
300
28
4.7x10"
1.6
19
67
190
47
140
340
62
48
20
<10
920
110
3.6
840
Removal efficiency, % ^.
Minimum
-*
°a
0*
Oa
03
0*
oa
7
a
°a
0
36
<>a
°a
Oa
Oa
o|
°a
°a
Oa
°a
Oa
>55
0^
Oa
52a
0
Maximum
51
75
49
>99
>98
65
83
89
>99
>99
71
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
86
>99
10
>83
>55
>99
98
>99
>99
Median
24
24
13
67
20
8
30
21
0
>99
22
57
19
3«a
0
36
37
7a
Oa
0
>55
36
36
64
0
(tjeaj/
21
26
15
65
32
16
39
29
31
90
29
43
36
39
13
37
45
31
2
17
>55
40
42
57
15
(continued)
-------
o
JD
ft
0>
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR FILTRATION (cont'd)
vo
^
•
I
o^
t
to
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants, pg/L: (cont
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Benzo(a) pyrene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Aroclor 1232/Aroclor 1242/
Aroclor 1248/Aroclor 1260
Aroclor 1254
Number of
data points
•d)
5
1
3
1
1
2
3
4
11
1
2
6
2
3
6
16
1
1
9
2
1
4
1
3
3
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
<0.03
<0.03
0.9
0.4
2
0.2
0.4
<0.4
<0.07
69
0.3
0.5
4.8
<0.05
<0.2
<0.1
94
0.6
0.03
0.2
0.1
0.05
10,000
0.9
0.1
480
650
Maximum
10,000
<0.03
4
0.4
2
2
29
12
34,000
69
0.6
200
460
5.8
<10C
200
94
0.6
<3,200
0.8
0.1
0.4
10,000
<10C
0.3
480
650
Median
0.8
<0.03
<2
0.4
2
1.1
0.9
10
2.2
69
0.45
<8.4
232.4
5.4
<0.2
2.0
94
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.14
10,000
<1.5
0.3
480
650
Mean
2,000
<0.03
<2.3
0.4
2
1.1
10
8.1
3,400
69
0.45
45
322.4
3.8
<2.1
26
94
0.6
360
0.5
0.1
0.18
10,000
<4.1
0.23
480
650
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
oa
>98
50
oa
oa
°a
°a
°a
oa
80
°a
°=
Oa
Oa
' 33
Oa
37
73a
oa
Oa
03
Oa
Oa
°a
Oa
16
20
Maximum
>99
>98
>96a
oa
0
67
oa
>87
>93
80
Oa
>99
Oa
>94
>99
>99
37
73
70
oa
Oa
50
Oa
86
0
16
20
Median
38
>98
>64
Oa
0
34
°S
Oa
17
80
oa
14a
Oa
55
>82
21
37
73
44
°a
oa
29
Oa
>70
0
16
20
Mean
37
>98
>70a
oa
0
34
Oa
22
25
80
Oa
28
oa
50
>75
37
37
73
35
°a
oa
27
oa
>52
0
16
20
(continued)
-------
ti-
ro
to
u>
\
-J
CTi
I
U)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR FILTRATION (cont'd)
Number of
Pollutant data point
Toxic pollutants, ug/L: (cont'd)
2-Chloronaphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1 , 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorof luoromethane
Acrolein
a-BHC
6-BHC
Chlordane
Other pollutants:
Asbestos (chrysotile) ,
fiber s/L
Chromium (+ 3) , yg/L
Chromium (+6) , pg/L
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
16
2
7
4
1
5
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
rffluent concentration
s Minimum
17
<10C
7
170
<2
47
1
<0.4
0.7
!„
<10C
2,100
<0.5
5
<100
1.9
55
24
IxlO5
610
20
Maximum
17
55
300
170
<2
47
1
31,000
0.9
210
2,200
2,100
140
12
<100
6
55
24
IxlO9
610
20
Median
17
30
22
170
<2
47
1
16
0.8
17
310
2,100
3
8.5
<100
4
55
24
3xlO«
610
20
f'ean
17
<32
76
170
<2
47
1
2,100
0.8
42
>10
2,100
31
8:5
<100
4
55
24
3.3xl08
610
20
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
>37
Oa
Oa
>52
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
>86
oa
21
37
>99
95=
Oa
Maximum
Oa
93
50
Oa
>52
Oa
oa
>87
oa
>99
94
Oa
>90
Oa
>86
77
21
37
>99
95
0
Median
Oa
89
Oa
Oa
>52
Oa
Oa
oa
oa
0
>88
Oa
40
oa
>86
38
21
37
>99
95
0
Mean
Oa
>73
8.3
Oa
>52
Oa
Oa
18
oa
25
67
Oa
43
Oa
>86
38
21
37
>99
95
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Measured in fibers/L.
"Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10 yg/L.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: D
References: i, p. VII-62
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, neutralization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 4.4 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 24
COD 814
TOC 179
TSS 294
19
630
157
85
21
23
12
71
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Woven fabric/stock & yarn finishing Bench scale
Plant: DD Pilot scale x
References: 1, p. VII-63 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, neutralization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter with alum precoagulation (20 mg/L as A1+3)
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 1-4 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants :
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
58
59
37
72
25
190
110
28
31
67
28
280
(90)
53
16
7
(12)
(47)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool finishing
Plant: B
References: 1, pp. VII-64 - 65
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 5.4-7.0 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pol lutan t/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Influent
32
212
72
28
23
62
Trace
41
16
30
57
172
5,730
44
ND
154
Effluent
25
184
60
12
12
103
105
41
118
116
73
158
5,800
14
10
94
Percent
removal
22
13
17
57
48
(66)
-
0
(638)
(287)
(28)
8
(1)
68
-
39
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: P Pilot scale
References: 1, pp. VII-66 - 68 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, neutralization, equalization,
activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter with alum precoagulation
(1.5-2.7 mg/L as Al+3)
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 3-7 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 12 12 0
COD 107 106 1
TOC 27 25 7
TSS 63 18 71
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: Q Pilot scale
References: 1, pp. VII-68 - 69 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia pressure filter with alum precoagulation
(1 mg/L as Al+3)
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 2.5 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 10 7 30
COD 338 258 24
TOC 18 18 0
TSS 77 28 64
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: Q Pilot scale
References: 1, pp. VII-68 - 69 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 2.0 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 8.2 4 51
COD 272 206 24
TOC 27 22 19
TSS 46 4 91
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: V
References: 1, pp. VII-70 - 71
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, neutralization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 3.0 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Toxic pollutants, pg/L
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Influent
3.6
352
72
51
123
17
11
66
72
195
34
ND
13
Effluent
2.5
331
62
20
136
14
25
64
77
234
Trace
12
Trace
Percent
removal
31
6
14
61
(11)
18
(127)
3
(7)
(20)
-
-
~
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: W, S (different references)
References: A6, p. VII-71; B3, pp. 55-59
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Primary sedimentation equalization,
activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, sand, gravel
Bed depth - total: 1,000 mm (40 in.)
anthracite: 300 mm (12 in.)
sand: 300 mm (12 in.)
gravel: 400 mm (16 in.)
Effective size of media:
anthracite: 0.9-1.5 mm
sand: 0.4-0.8 mm
gravel: 6-16 mm
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow: 0.03m3/min (7 gpm)
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
0.3 m3/min/m2 (7 gpm/ft2)
REMOVAL DATA
ipling p«riod: 24-hr covposit*, velatil* organic*
innr* grab ««apl«d
Pol lutant/parameter
Convention*! pollutants, ng/L:
BOD.
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutant*, U9/L:
Antimony
CadmiuB
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
2inc
«i«l!-ethylhe«yl> phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Toluene
Acenaphthena
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Concentration
Influent
4.6
73
14
26
0.011
610
i
26
75
1.1
63
41
25
2.8
0.6
1.6
2.2
<5.0
12
Effluent
3.4
55
11
9.5
0.009
620
5
21
Bl
0 4
Bl
75
42
6.0
0.4
0 4
0.6
7.0
4.6
Percent
removal
26
25
21
63
IS
0*
o.
0
0*
76
2
o;
0*
0*
33
76
".
0
62
Actual data indicate negative reaioval.
bPreaence aay be due to sanple contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: W Pilot scale x
References: 1, p. VII-72 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter with polymer precoagulation
(3 mg/L of 572C polymer)
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 5 gpm/ft2
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 4.6 2.4 48
COD 73 48 34
TOC 14 10 29
TSS 26 13 50
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool scouring
Plant: A
References: 1, p. VII-75
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Grit removal, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration Percent
Po11utant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants> mg/L
Total phenol
0.017
0.017
Toxic pollutants/ pg/L
Arsenic
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
39
110
240
190
23
83
120
260
400
14
(113)
(9)
(8)
(111)
39
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: B
References: 2, pp. VI-36 - 42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Dissolved air flotation plus unspecified secondary
treatment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Selenium
Zinc
110
43
29
8
0.024
2
3
37
50
62
25
101
40
21
8
0.022
2
<1
30
50
56
65
8
7
28
0
8
0
>67
19
0
10
(160)
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/18/79
III.4.6-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: H Pilot scale
References: 2, pp. VI-36 - 42 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreattnent of influent: API-design oil separator plus unspecified secondary
treatment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
a
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
COD 34 29 15
TOC 22 19 14
TSS 7 4 43
Oil and grease 10 8 20
Toxic pollutants, ug/L
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
5
7
21
17
15
<1
7
12
23
20
>80
0
43
(35)
(33)
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/18/79
III.4.6-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: K Pilot scale
References: 2, pp. VI-36 - 42 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
COD 135 56 59
TOC 43 22 49
TSS 50 4 92
Oil and grease 35 6 83
Total phenol 0.024 0.023 4
Toxic pollutants, pg/L
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
198
28
0.8
205
34
7
<0.5
92
83
75
>37
55
a
Concentrations from several days were averaged.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/18/79
III.4.6-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: M
References: 2, pp. VI-36 - 42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Dissolved air flotation plus unspecified secondary
treatment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
a
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants,
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Influent
mg/L
107
18
9
12
4
62
12
40
37
0.8
8
25
5
92
Effluent
55
17
3
12
<1
48
7
42
22
<0.5
9
26
5
205
Percent
removal
49
6
67
0
>75
23
42
(5)
41
>37
(13)
(4)
0
(123)
Concentrations from several days were analyzed.
Note-. Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/18/79
III.4.6-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: O Pilot scale
References: A3, pp. VI-36 - 42 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Dissolved air flotation plus unspecified secondary
treatment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average of three days and a
composite sampling
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD5
COD
TOG
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L
Chromium
A6(+6)
Cooper
11
125
38
32
18
0.028
70
20
9
19
120
44
18
11
0.032
60
<30
7
(73)
4
(16)
44
39
(14)
14
>50
22
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/18/79
III.4.6-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: P Pilot scale
References: A3, pp. VI-36 - 42 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: API-design gravity oil separator plus unspecified
secondary treatment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling Period: Average of three days and a
composit sampling
Concentration
Po 1 lutant/parame ter
Conventional pollutants ,
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
mg/L
12
100
38
17
27
0.047
470
1
32
9
45
10
17
Effluent
13
130
45
14
17
0.051
430
1
27
8
42
10
30
Percent
removal
(8)
(30)
(18)
18
37
(9)
9
0
16
11
7
0
(76)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/18/79
III.4.6-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Foundry Industry
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry - Die Lube
Operation
Plant: 715C
References: A27, p. VII-1-13, VI-57-62,
p. VII-27
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Skimmer on holding tank, cyclone separator
100% recycle, none of waste is discharged.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Paper filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/par aMters
Convention*! pollutant*, mf/Lt
TSS
Oil and areeie
Total phenol
Toxic pollutant*, ug/Lf
cyanide
Lead
Zinc
BUI2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalet*
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophonol
Benzene
chlorobenzene
Toluene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenathrene
Aroclor 1232-Uoclor 1242-
Uoclor 12<8-Moclor 1260
Axoclor 1254
Carbon tctraehlorid*
Chlorofom
Hethyl*n« chloride
Tctrachlorocthylane
1,1, l-Triehloro«thana
Trichloroathylvn*
a-BHC
«-«HC
Chlordan*
Influent*
1,140
8,500
U.I
e
2,000
1,600
620.000
5,400
COO
26,000
350
84
250
540
£470
32
£470
510
aio
480
450
2,400
160
16,000
2<0
26
70
la
Effluent
1,560
9,940
64.4
10
2,100
1,500
16,000
9,300
1O.OOO
34,000
69
50
460
180
£3,200
10,000
£3,200
480
650
55
500
2,500
210
2,200
140
6
55
24
Percent
removal
8b
ob
3
b
°£
0°
6
98b
<£
°£
Ob
80
40
ob
'4.
o£
"J
0D
16
20
8'..
oj
oj
0°
86
50
77
21
37
Influent concentration il the concentration in the raw wvete.
actual data indicate negative renoval.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other laundries
Subcategory: Industrial laundries
Plant: K
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening equalization, dissolved air flotation
(alum, polymer)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom): Plastic chips, anthracite, sand, garnet, gravel
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow: 45 m3/d (12,000 gpd); 159 m3/d design (42,000 gpd)
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL
Sarolina period: Tw day.
Pol lutant/parawter
Conventional pollutant!, mg/Lt
100,
COD
IOC
TSS
Oil and greaea
Total phenol
Total phosphonia
Toxic pollutants, u9/Li
Antloony
Areenic
Cad»iu»
Chroauu*
Coppar
Cyanide
La ad
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniuft
Silver
Zinc
•ie<2-ethylhe«yl> phthelate
Butyl bancyl phthalatt
Di-n-butyl phthalata
Di-n-octyl phthalata
Phenol
Ethylbenaane
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthxene
Naphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorofom
Nethylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethene
TrlchloroiluorOMthane
Acroleln
DATA
Concentration
Influent
178
2,110
544
742
76
0.094
12.2
2,100
3.5
40
360
660
1.10
1,000
1.0
270
£1.0
66
2,300
90
81
300
21
21
3.0
4.5
10
11
16
410
•H2
e.o
0
286
20
21
50
o'
>99
12
>96
33
33
o'
65
86
0*
93
0«
o'
o1
94
o'
>86
Actual data indicate* negative
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other
laundries
Subcategory: Power laundries
Plant: J
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, dissolved air flotation
with polymer addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow, multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow: 341 m3/d (90,000 gpd) 379 m3/d design (100,000 gpd)
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Saeplinq period: Two days
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, BQ/LI
•OD,
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total ph«iol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants. ug/L:
JlnUxony
Cadjuua
ChroBiua
Copper
Cyanidt
Li ad
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis<2-ethylheiyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
2.4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Ci»ethylph«nol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Jknthracene/Phenanthrene
Pluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
chlorofon
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroeth*ne
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichlorofluoroaje thane
Concentration
Influent
142
459
87
32
16
0.365
1.0
64
5
28
SO
25
70
63
29
240
74
<0.03
<0.02
11
2
6
28
e
9
2
0.5
0.6
0.3
24
22
<0.6
2
<2
Effluent
lie
378
94
40
33
0.264
0.7
<10
<2
16
52
11
<22
<36
<5
100
54
8
0.9
4
2
2
29
10
7
2
0.4
0.9
0.)
•12
520
0.9
2
S
Percent
removal
17
18
o'
oj
0*
31
30
>84
>60
43
o'
56
69
>43
>B3
56
".
°i
0*
64
0
67
°;
0*
22
0
20
o'
0
"a
°;
0*
o.
0*
Actual dfttet indicate t.«9«tiv« ttmovml.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Nonferrous metals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A52, p. 340
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent3 removal
Toxic pollutants:
Fluoranthene 0.08 0.05
Methylene chloride 46 37
38
20
Calculate from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified
!pe,cifii
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Nonferrous metals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A52, p. 340
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, Mg/L
InfluentEffluent3
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants:
Fluoranthene
Methylene chloride
0.08
46
0.05
37
38
20
Calculate from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Chlorine-Diaphragm Cell plant Bench scale
Plant: 261 Pilot scale
References: A29, pp. 158-162 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Three 24 hr composite samples
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent0 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 476 9 98
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Asbestos 180,000 140 ^100
Lead 260,000 75 V100
Influent concentration is calculated from flow in m3/kkgCl2
and pollutant load in kg/kkgda•
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.6-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3
Subcategory:
Plant: Reichhold Chemical Inc.
References: B4, p. 57
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Organic and inorganic waste
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Diameter - 50.8mm (2 in.)
Media (top to bottom): Sand
Bed depth - total: Sand: 0.61m (2 ft.)
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 0.008 m3/min/m2 (0.2 gpm/ft2)
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24 hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration5 Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutant, mg/L:
COD
853
703
18
Average of seven samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.6-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and Engineering estimate
paperboard
Subcategory: Oil refinery Bench scale
Plant: A-l Pilot scale
References: A26, p. VII-18 Full scale x
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 3 filters
Media (top to bottom): Coal and sand
Bed depth - total: 686 mm (27 in.), coal: 457 mm (18 in.), sand: 228.m (9 in.)
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading): 0.13/m3/mm/m2 (3.2 gpm/ft2)
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 1 month
Concentration,a mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 10.8 5.9 45
Average of one months samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.6-30
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and
paperboard
Subcategory: Man-made fiber processing
Plant: A-4
References: A26, p. VII-18
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 3 filters
Media (top to bottom): 4 media - 2 coal, sand, garnet
Bed depth - total: 914 mm (36 in.) coal: 305 mm (12 in.), coal: 305 mm
(12 in.), sand: 229 mm (9 in.), garnet: 76.2 mm (3 in.)
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): .0877 m3/min/m2 (2.15 gpm/ft2)
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two months
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
49.5
16.2
67
Average of two monthly averages.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.6-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and
paperboard
Subcategory: Pulp mill
Plant: New Brunswick Research and
Productivity Council pilot plant
References: A26, p. VII-18
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Aerated lagoon
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): 3 media: coarse coal, medium sand, coarse sand
Bed depth - total: 381 mm (15 in.) coal: 178 m (7 in.), sand: 76.2 mm (3 in.),
sand: 127 mm (5 in.)
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading): 0.10-0.147 m3/min/m2 (2.4-3.6 gpm/ft2)
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Grab samples
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
40
21
48
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.6-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper sulfate Bench scale
Plant: 034 Pilot scale
References: A29, pp. 501-502, 508 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Neutralization with lime
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Filter press
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Flow: 2.23 m3/kkg
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 72 hr composite sample and three 24 hr
composite samples
ConcentrationPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent" Effluent removal
Conventional mg/L:
TSS 38.6a 34.53 11
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Phenol
330
3,500
870
140
l,800,000a
180
110,000*
<11
11,000
18
36
<20
1
5
4,500a
5
240a
100
16
12
89
>99
^100
96
-x-100
97
•x/100
oc
M.OO
33
Concentration is calculated from pollutant flow in m3/kkg and
pollutant loading in kg/kkg.
Infiltration of gound water into the collection sump was sus-
pected at the time of sampling.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.4.6-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals
Subcategory: Chrome pigment
Plant: 894
References: A29, pp. 395-396
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Equalization, neutralization, sedimentation with
chemical addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 2 sand filters
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Flow rate: 100 m3/kkg
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Three 24 hr composite samples
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
780
3.9
-vl 00
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
740
900
78,000
<10
3,600
5,100
15,000
17
4,200
300
8.4
320
<30
40
<66
110
<24
58
59
99
>99
oa
99
>99
99
oa
99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.6-34
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Auto and other laundries
Subcategory: Power laundries
Plant: N
References: A28, Appendix C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization, sedimentation with alum
and polymer addition, carbon adsorption
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow: 15.2 m3/d (4,000 gpd)
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD,
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sliver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
35.5
136
38
78
8
0.029
2.0
44
15
36
42
65
06
7
210
23
17
5
3
4
3
1
4
18
3
<0.6
32
5
Effluent
23
59
21
37
1
0.013
0.9
<10
14
25
32
31
37
7
240
16
4
3
<0.03
2
<0.4
<0.07
6
95
<0.4
0.7
31
3
Percent
removal
36
57
45
53
87
55
55
>77
7
31
24
52
a
0
0
o"
30
76
40
>99
SO
>87
>93a
°"
0
>87a
0
3
40
"Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.4.6-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: Q
References: A6, p. VII-58
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Down flow multimedia pressure filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow: 2.5 mgd
Filtration rate (hydraulic loading): 3.5 gpm 1ft2 (design)
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Conventional pollutant influent is a48-ie
composite sample, toxic pollutant influent is an average of
two 24-hr grab samples, effluents are the average of 2,24-hr
composite samples
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants , mg/L
COD,
TSS,
Oil and grease,
Total phenol,
Toxic pollutants : yg/L
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethy Ihexyl ) phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
312
28
303
0.059
670
32
104
ND
48
41
13
48
15
17
233
6
476
0.048
700
32
79
10
33
102
8
84
12
17
25
79
(57)
19
(4)
0
24
-
31
(149)
38
(75)
20
0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/27/79
III.4.6-36
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: E, P (different references)
References: A6, pp. VII-74-75; B3, pp. 60-64
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Screening, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, sand, gravel
Bed depth - total: 1,000 mm (40 in.)
anthracite: 300 mm (12 in.)
sand: 300 mm (12 in.)
gravel: 400 mm (16 in.)
Effective size of media:
anthracite: 0.9-1.5 mm
sand: 0.4-0.8 mm
gravel: 6-16 mm
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period- 24-hour composite, volatile organic*
wert grat sampled
Pollutant/parsneter
Conventional pollutants, vg/L:
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L
Antunony
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bi»(2-ethylh«»yl> phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Hethylene chloride
Actual data indicate negative
Preaenee Bay be due to aanple
Influent
0.072
77
98
36
25
0 4
66
<5
5,200
10
2.1
1.3
0.7
<0.2
0.4
0.6
0 4
resKival
contanlnatio
Effluent
0.06B
46
<4
<4
<22
0.3
58
150
3.9
1 6
0 8
1.8
1 0
2.7
0.5
4.1
n.
removal
6
36
>96
>B9
>12
25
12
0«
97
61
24
38
0*
c*
0*
3c'-
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: T
References: B3, pp. 76-82
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, sand, gravel
Bed depth - total: 1,000 mm (40 in.)
anthracite: 300 mm (12 in.)
sand: 300 mm (12 in.)
gravel: 400 mm (16 in.)
Effective size of media:
anthracite: 0.9-1.5 mm
sand: 0.4-0.8 mm
gravel: 6-16 mm
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period. 24-hr composite tuples, volatile org«nics
wii rg grab i«inp 1 «d
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutant*, •?/!.:
COD
T5S
Total phenol
Total phoaphorus
Toxic pollutanta, U9/L:
Antinony
Arzenie
Cadnlun
Chroouuv
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
nickel
Seleniue.
Silver
Zinc
Bia(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
p-Chloro-w-creaol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
Hethylene chloride*
Influent Effluer.t
630 160
20 14
0.026 0 16
14 13
M 58
3 3
2 <2
9
11
1
2
9
2
15
2
5.
4.
0.
<0.
4
0.
1 .
4.
95
100
20
26
100
2
32
97
19
2.5
7.0
1 1
0.6
6.9
4 8
0.2
0.8
<2.0
20 19
removal
75
30
C*
7
C*
0
>0
2
9.
°. '
o'
0*
o.
0*
35
21
",
°.
0
0*
0*
o'
60
20
>52
5
Actual data indicate ne9ative removal.
bPreaence »ay be due to eaa«>le contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: V
References: B3, pp. 70-75
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow multimedia filter with FeCla
precoagulatlon (16 mg/L)
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, sand, gravel
Bed depth - total:
anthracite:
sand:
gravel:
1,000 mm (40 in.
300 mm (12 in.)
300 mm (12 in.)
400 mm (16 in.)
Effective size of media:
anthracite: 0.9-1.5 mm
sand: 0.4-0.8 mm
gravel: 6-16 mm
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading)
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Stapling period:
REMOVAL DATA
24-hr composite, volatile organic•
were grab sampled
Pollutant/parameter
Concent r ation
Influent Effluent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Presence nay be due to sample contamination.
Percent
removal
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L.
Antimon)
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Sliver
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) ph thai ate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Methylene chloride
0.029
1.2
<10
4
4.3
as
23
<22
<36
<5
240
9 5
5.7
1.1
0 2
24
0 7
O.OZ2
0.23
24
<1
6.7
100
27
37
73
12
330
46
5 4
1.1
0.1
14
74
61
0*
>75
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
5
0
5C
£*
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source:
Effluent Guidelines
Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool finishing
Plant: O, N (different references)
References: A6, p. VII-76; B3, pp. 65-69
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dovmflow multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, sand, gravel
Bed depth - total: 1,000 mm (40 in.)
anthracite: 300 mm (12 in.)
sand: 300 mm (12 in.)
gravel: 400 mm (16 in.)
Effective size of media:
anthracite: 0.9-1.5 mm
sand: 0.4-0.8 mm
gravel: 6-16 mm
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Saapling period. 72-hr for conventional pollutants, 24-hr
composite ta&plef for the toxic t/ollutants,
grab »*arl»t for volatile organic*
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/Mrtawter
Conventional pollutant*. ng/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phoaphoru*
Toxic pollutant*, ug/L
Jtntinony
Arvenic
ChroaUuB
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Bi»(2-tthylht)tyl) phthaltt*
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1 , 2-Dichlorob«nzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
1 , 2-Dichloroprop*n*
Mcthylene chloride
128 210
75 cl
0.031 0.017
2.5 2.3
ie 99
45
8
>44
0
44
0*
>9
55
8?
c*
5C
>98
>94
>7P
c*
c'
o'
0
o'
Actual date, indicate negative x*mov«l.
Pr«»*nc« way b« du* to tuiplii contuunation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Government report
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: E, P (different references) Pilot scale
References: A6, pp. VII-74-75; B3, pp. 60-64 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, activated sludge, sedimentation with
chemical addition (polymer)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow multimedia filter
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, sand, gravel
Bed depth - total: 1,000 mm (40 in.)
anthracite: 300 mm (12 in.)
sand: 300 mm (12 in.)
gravel: 400 mm (16 in.)
Effective size of media: anthracite: 0.9-1.5 mm
sand: 0.4-0.8 mm
gravel: 6-16 mm
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater flow:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite samples, volatile or games
were grab sampled
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol 0.082 0.13 Oa
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Methylene chloride
Tnchloroethylene
43
<0.3
43
160
10
2.8
0.03
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
2.5
0.8
34
0.4
36
160
3.3
2.5
1.0
2.6
0.5
2.6
0.5
4.7
<0.5
21
oa
16
0
67
11
oa
oa
oa
oa
44
oa
>37
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III. 4. 6-41
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos-cement processing plant Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-39 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation (for 24 hr)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): Sand
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 5 x 109 3.2 x 109 36
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: (In Baie Verte, Newfoundland) Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Alum coated diatomaceous earth filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 109 <1 x 10s >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-43
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: (in Baie Verte, Newfoundland) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual media filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,5 fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 101° 5 x 10B 95
Average of two samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: {in Asbestos, Quebec) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Mixed media filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; ___^__
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 109 3 x 107 97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: (in Asbestos, Quebec) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Coated diatomaceous earth
Media (top to bottom): Diatomaceous earth
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 109 8 x 10" >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Vacuum degassing
Plant: AD
References: A48, pp. VII-12, VII-5
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Scale pit
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: High flow rate pressure filters
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Flow rate: 114 L/sec (1,800 gpm)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 70.7 37 48
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Lead 1,400 <100 >93
Zinc 7,800 916 88
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-47
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Vacuum degassing and
continuous casting
Plant: AD and AF
References: A38, pp. VII-13, VII-5
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Scale pit
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: High flow rate pressure filters
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Wastewater Filter Flow Rate: 113.6 L/s (1,800 gpm)
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate: 176.7 L/s (2,800 gpm)
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 74
Oil and grease 22
37
<0.5
50
>98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-48
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: Hot forming - primary
Plant: C-2
References: A42, pp. VII-19, VII-7
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Deep bed filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Filter effluent flow rate: 145 L/s (2,300 gpm)
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 21
Oil and grease 2
76
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-49
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A14, p. 187
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): Diatomaceous earth
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
Toxic pollutants,
Chromium (+3)
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
yg/L:
524
12,000
7,500
2,600
13,000
10
610
440
44
140
98
95
94
98
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-50
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-39 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Uncoated diatomaceous earth filter
Media (top to bottom): Diatomaceous earth
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (Chrysotile) 4 x 1012 3 x 106 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-51
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: (in Baie Verte, Newfoundland) Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Uncoated diatomaceous earth filter
Media (top to bottom): Diatomaceous earth
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 109 2 x 106 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-52
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-39 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Alum coated diatomaceous earth filter
Media (top to bottom): Diatomaceous earth alum
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (Chrysotile) 4 x 1012 1 x 105 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-53
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-39 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual-media filtration
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, graded sand
Bed depth - total: 34.3 cm (13.5 in)
Anthracite: 2.54 cm (1 in)
Sand: 31,8 cm (12.5 in)
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos (Chrysotile) 4 x 1012 1 x 109 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-54
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Asbestos mine Bench scale
Plant: (in Asbestos, Quebec) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-41 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Uncoated diatomaceous earth filter
Media (top to bottom): Diatomaceous earth
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos 1 x 109 3 x 106 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-55
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Chlorine/caustic facility Bench scale
Plant: (in Michigan) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-43 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Pressure leaf filter used with flocculants
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Flow: 0.095 m3/min (25 gal/min)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, fibers/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Asbestos >5 x 109 V3 x 10s >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-56
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Base-metal mine Bench scale
Plant: Mine 1 of Canadian pilot plant study Pilot scale x
References: A2, pp. VI-63-66 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation with lime and polymer addition,
secondary settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): Sand
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Lead
Zinc
40
210
290
30
150
390
25
29,
ob
a
During period of optimized steady operation.
b
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-57
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Base-metal mine Bench scale
Plant: Mine 2 of Canadian pilot plant study Pilot scale x
References: A2, pp. VI-63-66 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation with lime and polymer addition,
secondary settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): Sand
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
DATA REMOVAL
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper 30 30 0
Lead 290 290 0
Zinc 220 150 32
i
During period of optimized steady operation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-58
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Base-metal mine Bench scale
Plant: Mine 3 of Canadian pilot plant study Pilot scale
References: A2, pp. VI-63-66 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation with lime and polymer addition,
secondary settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): Sand
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
DATA REMOVAL
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Lead
Zinc
70
110
220
30
80
120
57
27
45
During period of optimized steady operation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-59
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Copper mill Bench scale
Plant: 2122 Pilot scale x
References: A2, pp. VI-83-87 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Three dual media, downflow pressure filters
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
pH: 7.9-8.2
REMOVAL DATA
\
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influents Effluents removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 2,550 7.1 >99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
190
2,000
160
190
100
30
32
75 '
50
60
84
98
53
74
40
Average concentration TSS (27 values), metals (23 values).
b
Average concentration.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-60
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill/
smelter/refinery
Plant: 3107
References: A2, p. VI-63
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
The numbers given are predicted values based on a pilot plant study and
historical monitoring.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Pressure filtration unit
Media (top to bottom): Granulated slag
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 15 <_5 >66
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium 160 110 31
Lead 150 58 61
Zinc 4,400 1,500 66
Calculated from effluent concentration and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-61
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine/mill/
smelter/refinery
Plant: 3107
References: A2,
pp. VI-80-83
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Tailing pond, lime addition, aeration,
flocculation and clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual media granular pressure filtration
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
pH: 3.1-3.7
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Percent
Influent Effluent^ removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 16
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadmium 120
Copper 31
Lead 130
Zinc 2,900
<1
35
16
61
42
>93
71
48
53
99
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine
Plant: 3113
References: A2, pp. VI-89-92
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Lime addition, aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual media filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 35
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium 20
Copper 110
Lead 20
Zinc 4,100
5
20
<20
150
97
75
82
>0
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III. 4.6-63
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine Bench scale
Plant: 3113 Pilot scale x
References: A2, pp. VI-89-92 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation with lime and polymer
(aeration and flocculation)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual media filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent5 removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 15 <1 >93
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium 5 <5 >0
Copper 20 13 35
Zinc 670 27 96
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-64
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine
Plant: 3113
References: A2, pp. VI-89-92
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Sedimentation with lime and polymer,
aeration, flocculation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual media filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent3 removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 6
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium 20
Copper 20
Lead 80
Zinc 1,900
<1
12
<20
150
>83
40
>50
>75
92
Average values.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-65
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mine Bench scale
Plant: 3113 Pilot scale ~jT
References: A2, pp. VI-89-92 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Lime addition, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Dual media filter
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,a Percent
Pol lutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 33 <2 >93
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium 25 16 36
Copper 100 20 80
Zinc 4,300 170 96
a
Average concentration attained.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-66
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc, mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3121 Pilot scale x
References: A2, pp. VI-76-79 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond lime addition to pH 11.3,
polymer addition, flocculation, secondary setting
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Influent
30
50
130
Effluent
20
60
80
Percent
removal
33
oa
38
a
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-67
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory. Lead/zinc, mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 3121 Pilot scale _x_
References: A2, pp. VI-76-79 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Tailing pond, lime addition to pH 9.2, polymer
addition, flocculation, secondary settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 17 1 94
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper 50 20 60
Lead 80 40 50
Zinc 380 160 58
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-68
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Molybdenum mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 6102 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-17 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, ion exchange, lime precipitation,
electrocoagulation, alkaline chlorination
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Four individual filters
Media (top to bottom): Anthracite, garnet, pea gravel
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
Flow rate: 3.79 m3/d (1,000 gpm) (operating)
7.58 m3/d (2,000 gpm) (optimum)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 62 <5 >92
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc 80 60 25
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-69
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: (in Canada) Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-17 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Lime precipitation, flocculation, clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Media (top to bottom): Sand
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air sc rate:
Filtei .1 length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Effluent Influent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper 50 40 20
Lead 250 120 52
Zinc 370 190 49
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79 III.4.6-70
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 17
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Lime precoagulation
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling pariod Composite
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, Bg/L:
BOD,
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phtnol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
cadmium
Chromium
Copper
L«ad
Mercury
Kicktl
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Benzen
Tolu.Il
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachlondc
Chloro orm
1,1-Di hloroethane
1,2-Di hloroethane
1 , 2-rVona-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroe thane
Trichloroethylene
Average of several sauries.
b
CMot detected.
Influent
6.370
28,700
7,100
14,500
1,000
0.347
40
•^25
130
530
100
20,000
•v*7
20
22
•V9.200
NDC
1,300
1,700
33
16
200
ND
ND
NO
15
730
90
ND
100
Effluent
5, 670
29,300
a. ijo
7,330
1,140
0.267
<30
•V30
130
370
300
2,900
80
<10
<10
16,000
1,3=0
NO
ND
ND
ND
300
160
170
47
ND
ND
SD
2,100
ND
removal
>„
<
0°
49b
0
23
>25b
0
0
3lb
0
"b
0
>50
>S5t
a
ofc
>99
>99
>70
'3\
"b
°t
"b
0
>33
>99
,(,,
0
>»o
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-71
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Filtration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant: 27
References: A4, Appendix G
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Polymer precoagulation
Media (top to bottom):
Bed depth - total:
Effective size of media:
Uniformity coefficient of media:
Filtration rate (Hydraulic loading):
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Filter run length:
Terminal head loss:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Grab sample
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Coppe r
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Hethylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Actual data indicate negative
bNot detected.
Influent
25,000
70,000
7,500
46 , 000
0.0012
7
130
1,400
260
12,000
1,000
450
60,000
280
730
290
ND
6,300
110
120
removal .
Effluent
23,400
260,000
25,000
400
0.0011
2
58
100
120
98
140
<5
4,200
200
ND
200
23
31,000
25
560
Percent
removal
6
A
0
Oa
99
e
71
55
93
56
99
86
>99
93
29
>99
31a
oa
oa
77
oa
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/1/79
III.4.6-72
-------
III.4.7 ULTRAFILTRATION [1]
III.4.7.1 Function
Ultrafiltration is used to segregate dissolved or suspended
solids from a liquid stream on the basis of molecular size.
III.4.7.2 Description
Ultrafiltration is a membrane filtration process that separates
high-molecular-weight solutes or colloids from a solution or
suspension. The process has been successfully applied to both
homogeneous solutions and colloidal suspensions, which are
difficult to separate practically by other techniques. To date,
commercial applications have been entirely focused on aqueous
media.
The basic principle of operation of ultrafiltration can be
explained as follows. Flowing by a porous membrane is a solution
containing two solutes: one of a molecular size too small to
be retained by the membrane, and the other of a larger size
allowing 100% retention. A hydrostatic pressure, typically 10
to 100 psig, is applied to the upstream side of the supported
membrane, and the large-molecule solute or colloid is retained
(rejected) by the membrane. A fluid concentrated in the retained
solute is collected as a product from the upstream side, and a
solution of small-molecule solute and solvent is collected from
the downstream side of the membrane. Of course, where only a
single solute is present and is rejected by the membrane, the
liquid collected downstream is (ideally) pure solvent.
Retained solute (or particle) size is one characteristic distin-
guishing ultrafiltration from other filtration processes. Viewed
on a spectrum of membrane separation processes, ultrafiltration
is only one of a series of membrane methods that can be used.
For example, reverse osmosis, a membrane process capable of
separating dissolved ionic species from water, falls further
down the same scale of separated partical size.
Ultrafiltration membranes are asymmetric structures, possessing
an extremely thin selective layer (0.1 to l.Oum thick) supported
on a thicker spongy substructure. Controlled variation of fabri-
cation methods can produce membranes with desirable rentitive
characteristics for a number of separation applications. It has
become possible to tailor membranes with a wide range of selec-
tive properties. For example, tight membranes can retain organic
solutes of 500 to 1,000 molecular weight while allowing passage
of most inorganic salts; conversely, loose membranes can discrim-
inate between solutes of 1,000,000 vs. 250,000 molecular weight.
Ultrafiltration membranes are different from so-called "solution-
diffusion" membranes, which have been studied for a wide variety
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.7-1
-------
of gas and liquid-phase separations. The latter group possesses
a permselective structure that is nonporous, and separation is
effected on the basis of differences in solubility and molecular
diffusivity within the actual polymer matrix. Reverse osmosis
membranes generally fall into this category.
Membranes can be made from various synthetic or natural polymeric
materials. These range from hydrophilic polymers such as cellu-
lose, to very hydrophobic materials such as fluorinated polymers.
Polyarysulfones and inorganic materials have been introduced to
deal with high temperatures and pH values.
Membranes of this type are in many respects similar to reverse
osmosis membranes except for the openness of their pores. Other
forms and materials are available as well, including porous
zirconia, deposited on a porous carbon substrate and on a porous
ceramic tube. The latter two systems, while more expensive than
the former, are capable of use to very high pH values and temper-
atures .
III.4.7.3 Technology Status
Ultrafiltration has demonstrated unique capabilities in oil/water
separation, electropaint recovery, and the dairy processing
industry. It is certain that new applications will continue to
be developed.
III.4.7.4 Applications
Can be used for 1) concentration, where the desired component is
rejected by the membrane and taken off as a fluid concentrate;
2) fractionation, for systems where more than one solute are to
be recovered, and products are taken from both the rejected
concentrate and permeate; and 3) purification, where the desired
product is purified solvent. Major existing ultrafiltration
applications (commercial and developmental) are summarized
below; the function of ultrafiltration processing for each
specific application is also provided; developmental applications
listed are likely to be commercial within the next 5 years.
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF ULTRAFILTRATIONS
Application Function
Electrocoat Fractionation
Paint rejuvenation and rinse water recovery
Protein recovery from cheese whey Concentration and fractionation
Metal machining, rolling, and drawing - oil
emulsion treatment Purification
Textile sizing (PVA) waste treatment Fractionation
Electronics component
Manufacturing wash water treatment Purification
Pharmaceuticals manufacturing sterile water
production Purification
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.7-2
-------
DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF ULTRAFILTRATION
Application
Function
Dye waste treatment
Pulp-mill waste treatment
Industrial laundry waste treatment
Protein recovery from soy whey
Hot alkaline cleaner treatment
Power-plant boiler feedwater treatment
Sugar recovery from orange-juice pulp
Product recovery in pharmaceutical and
fermentation industries
Colloid-free water pollution for beverages
Concentration and purification
Concentration and purification
Purification and fractionation
Concentration
Fractionation and purification
Purification
Fractionation
Concentration
Purification
III.4.7.5 Limitations
Uniquely capable of making certain separations especially from
concentrated streams; however, each installation must be care-
fully piloted as the system design and determination of operating
parameters is critical.
III.4.7.6 Reliability
Process continually being refined; individual process reliability
will depend on the specific application and past performance of
process in that application.
III.4.7.7 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
Because ultrafiltration involves no chemical conversion, residues
from process are typically a concentrate of the undesirable or
hazardous components; process generally serves to provide a
greatly reduced volume of hazardous waste, but does not inher-
ently provide any elimination of waste; noteworthy exceptions
are those cases where a pollutant can be recovered as a valuable
by-product, such as soluble whey proteins of PVA sizing for
recycle; otherwise, organic concentrates require further process-
ing for ultimate disposal, such as additional concentration and
incineration; in some fractionation applications, the concentrate
and ultrafiltrate require further processing before end disposal
occurs; for example, in cheese whey treatment, the lactose con-
tent of the ultrafiltrate is far too high to permit sewering, and
additional processing steps must be taken before the stream is
ready for disposal.
Date: 8/16/79
III.4.7-3
-------
III.4.7.8 Design Criteria
III.4.7.9 Flow Diagram
I
PRESSURIZED SOLUTION OF (A),(BI
CONCENTRATED (A)
I • • • •
• • • •
• *• •• *.'. •••.•.*
• •
• •
• • • •
I •
MEMBRANE
J
SOLUTION OF IB)
Date: 8/16/79
III.4.7-4
-------
III.4.7.10 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Adhesives and sealants production
Auto and other laundries industry
Industrial laundries
Porcelain enameling
Synthetic rubber manufacturing
Emulsion crumb process
Solution crumb process
Styrene-butadiene latex production
Timber products processing
Pentachlorophenol wastewater
III.4.7.11 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C. November 1976. pp. 43-1 - 43-12.
Date: 8/16/79 III.4.7-5
-------
rt
n>
NJ
\
U)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ULTRAFILTRATION
H
H
H
I
Ul
Number of
Pollutant data points
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
12
12
18
13
11
4
3
1
3
1
3
2
1
6
Effluent concentration
Minimum
12
148
66
2.4
5
44.6
<5
2,900
<500
5,000
<1,000
0.4
<500
180
Maximum
8,890
36,600
939
539
195
131
<10
2,900
1,100
5,000
<1,000
0.8
<500
40,000
Median
457
813
2?4
<27
55
79.1
<10
2,900
<500
5,000
<1,000
0.6
<500
<1,000
Mean
2,850
8,380
347
<97.7
80
83.4
<8.3
2,900
<700
5,000
<1,000
0.6
<500
8,600
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
9
15
60
23
Oa
>61
67
>SS
oa
>S2
11
>32
22
Maximum
88
99
97
>99
>99
82
>93
67
90
oa
>95
20
>32
98
Median
64
53
76
99
85
32
>90
67
>71
oa
>74
15
>32
94
Mean
53
54
60
>92
>96
36
>83
67
>73
od
>74
15
>32
>78
Actual data indicate negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Timber products
(pentachlorophenol
wastewater)
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, p. E-3
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Wastewater flow: 0.095 m3/min (25 gpm)
Pressure: 331 kPa (48 psi)
Flux: 4,030 m3/hr/m2 (35 gpd/ft2)
Water recovery: 96.2%
REMOVAL DATA
Sample period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Fffluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease 2,160
55
97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesive and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale X
References: BIO, pp. 112-113 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS3
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: 21 tubular assemblies, 3 parallel banks of seven
tubes in series
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFD
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 32.2°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 280-340 kPa (40-50 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 164 m3/d (30 gpm)
Tube diameter: 0.025m (1 in)
Tube length: 1.52 m (5 ft)
a.
Standard operating parameters for the study.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volume grab samples collected
throughout an 8-hr day and weekly
composite samples
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 2,470 10 >99
a
Average of 2 grab and 3 weekly composite samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesive and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale
References: BIO, pp. 108-113 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS3
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: 21 tubular assemblies, 3 parallel banks of seven
tubes in series
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. Type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 280-340 kPa (40-50 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 164 m3/d (30 gpm)
Tube diameter: 0.025 m (1 in.)
Tube length: 1.52 m (5 ft)
a
Standard operating parameters for the study.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volume grab samples collected
throughout an 8-hr day and weekly
composite samples
Concentration,9 mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 2,060 18 99
Average of 2 grab and 10 weekly composite samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants
Subcategory:
Plant: San Leandro
References: BIO, pp. 62, 64
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Settling, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: 21 tubular assemblies, 3 parallel banks of seven
tubes in series
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 32.2°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 280-340 kPa (40-50 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 164 m3/d (30 gpm)
Tube diameter: 0.025 m (1 in.)
Tube length: 1.52 m (5 ft)
Standard operating parameters for the study.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volume grab samples collected throughout
an 8-hr day and weekly composite samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenolb
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Arsenic
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Influent
6,670
25,300
2,260
522
84
4,500
49,000
Effluent
7,070
22,200
539
162
56.1
<200
5,000
<1,000
1.7
40,000
Percent
removal
oa
12
76
69
33
oa
22
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Interference in assays suspected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale
References: BIO, p. 115 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, equalization
With surfactant addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: 21 tubular assemblies, 3 parallel banks of 7 tubes
in series
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM or HFD
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 32.2°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 280-340 kPa (40-50 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 164 m3/d (30 gpm)
Tube diameter: 0.025 m (1 in)
Tube length: 1.52 m (5 ft)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal grab samples collected throughout
an 8-hr day and weekly composite samples
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Concentration , a
mg/L
Influent Effluent
8,820 7,
21,200 18,
1,590
252
113
180
200
66
195
131
Percent
removal
19
14
96
23b
0
Average of 4 grab and 2 weekly composite samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltrationa
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale
References: BIO, p. 69 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, equalization
With surfactant addition.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: 21 tubular assemblies, 3 parallel banks of 7 tubes
in series.
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM or HFD
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 32.2°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 280-340 kPa (40-50 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 164 m3/d (30 gpm)
Tube diameter: 0.025 m (1 in)
Tube length: 1.52 m (5 ft)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volume grab samples collected through-
out an 8-hr day.
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenolb
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Zinc
Influent
8,700
23,000
4,230
478
148
120,000
Effluent
8,570
16,900
61.3
184
102
9,300°
Percent
removal
1
27
99
62
31
92
a
Accuracy suspect.
Interference in assay suspected.
£«
Excludes one reading of 1,100 mg/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III. 4. 7-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Synthetic rubber Engineering estimate
manufacturing
Subcategory: Latex Bench scale
Plant:3 Styrene-butadiene latex manufacturing Pilot scale
References: Bl, p. 68 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
The end-of-pipe wastewater was chemically unstable.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Eight porous fiberglass support tubes 0.025 m in
diameter by 3.0m long with membrane cast on the
inside surface connected in series
Membrane type: Abocr, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 50°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane surface area: 0.20 m2
Feed circulation rate: 7.9-8.4 m3/hr
Membrane inlet pressure: 345 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluenta removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 100 47 53
TOC 320 66 79
Calculated from influent and removal percent.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Synthetic rubber Engineering estimate
manufacturing
Subcategory: Latex Bench scale
Plant:a Styrene-butadiene latex manufacturing Pilot scale
plant
References: Bl, p. 68 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
The end-of-pipe wastewater was chemically unstable.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Eight porous fiberglass support tubes 0.025 m in
diameter by 3.0 m long with membrane cast on the
inside surface connected in series
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFD
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 50°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane surface area: 0.20 m2
Feed circulation rate: 7.9-8.4 m3/hr
Membrane inlet pressure: 345 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOG 320 70 78
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufacturing
Subcategory: Emulsion crumb
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 79
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
wastewater was adjusted with sulfuric acid to a pH of 4.0 before shipment in
order to maintain sample integrity.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: Tubular module: 4.8 m3/m2-d
Spiral module: 3.6 m3/m2-d
Membrane configuration: Two types of membrane modules were operated in
parellel and the permeate composited.
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 38°C
Rated production capacity:
Circulation flow rate: Tubular module: 6.8 m3/hr
Spiral module: 22.7 m3/hr
Membranes inlet pressure: 310-345 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration , mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS3
Oil and grease
Influent
98
917
334
191
12
Effluent
12
830
246
48
5
Percent
removal
88
9 9
26
75
58
Pinhole leak suspected in spiral-wound membrane.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
processing
Subcategory: Solution crumb
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 122
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
aWastewater is from production of solution crumb rubbers, adhesives, and anti-
oxidants. Approximately 70% of wastewater is attributed to solution crumb
rubber manufacture. Of this volume, two-thirds comes from the production of
polyisoprene rubber.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: 1.77 m3/m2-d
Membrane configuration: Tubular
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 38°C
Rated production capacity:
Circulation rate: 6.9 m3/hr
Membrane inlet pressure: 345 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L; Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
a
Oil and grease
86
625
144
28
30
444
122
11
65
29
15
61
Since the majority of production at the time of sampling
was geared to "nonextended" rubbers, the relatively low
oil and grease content in the sampled wastewater would
be expected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale
References: BIO, p. 67 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: 21 tubular assemblies, 3 parallel banks of 7 tubes
in series.
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 32.2°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 280-340 kPa (40-50 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 164 m3/d (30 gpm)
Tube diameter: 0.025 m (1 in)
Tube length: 1.52 m (5 ft)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volumes grab samples collected through-
Concentration3
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanided
Zinc
Influent
11,300
56,100
13,400
3,250
244
<2,600
100,000
Effluent
8,890
36,600
<27.0°
100
44.6
430
1,5006
Percent
removal
21
35
>99
97
82
83
98
Average concentration.
Most readings were <5 mg/L.
CInterference in analysis suspected.
Samples diluted 1:10 to minimize interference.
Q
Excludes the one reading out of eleven which was >5.4 mg/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 266
169
36
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Chemicals added: 1% Triton x-100 (a nonionic surfactant)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
649
408
37
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
266
186
31
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Chemicals added: 1% Triton x-100 a nonionic surfactant
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
649
521
20
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufac turi ng
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFA
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
266
198
26
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Synthetic rubber Engineering estimate
manufacturing
Subcategory: Latex Bench scale
Plant: Styrene-butadiene latex manufacturing Pilot scale
plant
References: Bl, p. 63 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
Wastewater is 3.6% latex wash water, in full-scale operation this would
represent 70% to 90% of plant effluent
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Tubular
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 50°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 345 kPa
Feed circulation rate: 7.9-8.4 m3/hr
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,400 230 84
COD 99,200 775 99
TSS 23,800 222 99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9/ p. 41
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: ^0.69 m3/min/m2(^17 gfd)
Membrane configuration: Spiral wound, corrugated
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. Type HFD
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity: 2.3 m3/d per module (608 gpd)
Average feed flow rate: 0.17 m3/min (45 gpm)
Average pressure drop: 103 kPa (15 psi)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Sampled after 53 and 239 hr
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 2,510 409
TSS 4,460 1,930
80
57
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9, p. 41
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Spiral wound open mesh
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. Type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Average feed flow rate:
Average pressure drop:
2.4 m3/d per module (630 gpd)
0.23 m3/min (60 gpm)
41.4 kPa(6 psi)
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampled after 53 and 239 hr
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 2,510 371 85
TSS 4,460 1,810 60
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9, p. 41
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: 1.6 m3/min/m2 (40 gfd)
Membrane configuration: Spiral wound open spacer
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. Type HFD
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity: 2.73 m3/d per module (720 gpd)
Average feed flow rate: 0.23 m3/min (90 gpm)
Average pressure drop: 83 kPa (12 psi)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Sampled after 19.4 and 242 hr
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 34,500 939 97
TSS 39,000 3,050 92
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Industrial laundry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: B9, p. 41 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: 1.84m3/day/m2 (45 gfd)
Membrane configuration: Special wound
Membrane type: Corrugated spacer Abcor Inc., type A HFM)
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity: 5.8m3/d per module (1/530 gpd)
Average feed flow rate: 0.26m3/min (95 gpm)
Average pressure drop: 89 kPa(13 psi)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Sampled after 19.4 and 242 hr
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 34,500 918 97
TSS 39,000 3,130 92
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Industrial laundry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Standard uniform rental service Pilot scale x
(Dorchester, Mass.)
References: B9, pp. 50-15, 61-64 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Depth filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: 0.9m3/d/m2(22 gfd)
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 57°C, 135°F
Rated production capacity:
Feed flow rate: 18.9m3/d (5,000 gpd)
Inlet pressure: 310-414 kPa(45-60 psig)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Influent
1,010
2,430
784
642
600
Effluent
342
677
197
255
90
Percent
removal
66
72
75
60
85
Average of concentrations for six different conversion
periods.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.4.7-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9, p. 89
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Spiral wound
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Influent
2,800
3,780
1,100
700
749
50
1,700
3,900
3,900
Effluent
360
672
202
<4
27.7
<5
<500
<1,000
200
Percent
removal
87
82
82
>99
96
>90
>71
>74
95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9, p. 90
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
TOC
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants/ yg/L:
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Influent
1,650
1,240
5,480
675
795
30
1,200
2,100
0.5
1,400
Effluent
553
196
796
2.4
10
<10
<500
<1,000
0.4
<500
Percent
removal
66
84
86
>99
99
>67
>58
>52
20
>64
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9, p. 91
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
7,850
27,400
6,750
4,500
7,890
150
8,800
11,000
22,000
0.9
740
9,000
Effluent
930
2,370
642
<5
38
<10
2,900
1,100
<100
0.8
<500
180
Percent
removal
88
91
90
>99
>99
93
67
90
>99
11
>32
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Bl, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: Abcor, Inc. type HFM
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
Chemicals added: 1% triton x-100 (a nonionic surfactant)
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
649
385
41
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.4.7-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ultrafiltration
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, p. 191 Full scale
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 8,920 148 98
TSS 1,380 13 99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.4.7-32
-------
III. 5 SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
III.5.1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE [1]
III.5.1.1 Function
Activated sludge treatment is used to remove dissolved and
collodial biodegradable organics.
III.5.1.2 Description
Activated sludge is a continuous flow, biological treatment pro-
cess characterized by a suspension of aerobic microorganisms,
maintained in a relatively homogeneous state by the mixing and
turbulence induced by aeration. The microorganisms are used to
oxidize soluble and colloidal organics to COa and H20 in the
presence of molecular oxygen. The process is generally, but not
always, preceded by primary sedimentation. The mixture of micro-
organisms and wastewater (called mixed liquor) formed in the aera-
tion basins is transferred to gravity clarifiers following
treatment for liquid-solids separation. The major portion of the
microorganisms settling out in the clarifiers is recycled to the
aeration basins to be mixed with incoming wastewater, while the
excess, which constitutes the waste sludge, is sent to the sludge
handling facilities. The rate and concentration of activated
sludge returned to the aeration basins determines the mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS) level developed and maintained in
the basins. During the oxidation process, a certain amount of
the organic material is synthesized into new cells, some of
which then undergoes auto-oxidation (self-oxidation, or endo-
genous respiration) in the aeration basins, the remainder forming
net growth or excess sludge. Oxygen is required in the process
to support the oxidation and synthesis reactions. Volatile
compounds are driven off to a certain extent in the aeration
process. Metals will also be partially removed, with accumula-
tion in the sludge.
Diffused Aeration. In the conventional activated sludge
plant, the wastewater is commonly aerated for a period of four to
eight hours (based on average daily flow) in a plug-flow hydraulic
mode. Diffusers are employed to transfer oxygen from air to
wastewater. Compressors are used to supply air to the submerged
systems, normally through a network of diffusers, although newer
submerged devices which do not come under the general category of
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-1
-------
diffusers (e.g., static aerators and jet aerators) are being
developed and applied. Diffused air systems may be classified
fine bubble or coarse bubble. Diffusers commonly used in acti-
vated sludge service include porous ceramic plates laid in the
basin bottom (fine bubble), porous ceramic domes or ceramic or
plastic tubes connected to a pipe header and lateral system (fine
bubble), tubes covered with synthetic fabric or wound filaments
(fine or coarse bubble), and specially designed spargers with
multiple openings (coarse bubble).
In addition to the diffused aeration system, various common modi-
fications to the activated sludge process are used, and these are
described below.
Mechanical Aeration. Mechanical aeration methods include the
submerged turbine with compressed air spargers (agitator/sparger
system) and the surface-type mechanical entrainment aerators.
The surface-type aerators entrain atmospheric air by producing a
region of intense turbulence at the surface around their
periphery. They are designed to pump large quantities of liquid,
thus dispersing the entrained air and agitating and mixing the
basin contents. The agitator/sparger system consists of a
radial-flow turbine located below the mid-depth of the basin
with compressed air supplied to the turbine through a sparger.
Volatile compounds are driven off to a certain extent in the
aeration process. Metals will also be partially removed, with
accumulation in the sludge.
The submerged turbine aeration system affords a convenient and
relatively economical method for upgrading overloaded activated
sludge plants. To attain optimum flexibility of oxygen input,
the surface aerator can be combined with the submerged turbine
aerator. Several manufacturers supply such equipment, with both
aerators mounted on the same vertical shaft. Such an arrangement
might be advantageous if space limitations require the use of
deep aeration basins. In addition, mechanical aerators may be
either the floating or fixed installation type.
Modified and High Rate Aeration. The term modified aera-
tion has been adopted to apply to those high-rate air-activated
sludge systems with design F/M loadings in the range of 0.75 to
1.5 Ib BOD5/d/lb MLVSS (mixed liquor volatile suspended solids).
Modified aeration systems are characterized by low MLSS concen-
trations, short aeration detention times, high volumetric
loadings, low air usage rates, and intermediate levels of BOD5
and suspended solids removal efficiencies. Prior to enactment
of nationwide secondary treatment regulations, modified aeration
was utilized as an independent treatment system for plants where
BOD5 removals of 50 to 70 percent would suffice. With present-
day treatment requirements, modified aeration no longer qualifies
as a "stand-alone" activated sludge option.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-2
-------
Modified aeration basins are normally designed to operate in
either complete-mix or plug-flow hydraulic configurations.
Either surface or submerged aeration systems can be employed to
transfer oxygen from air to wastewater, although submerged equip-
ment is specified more frequently for this process. Compressors
are used to supply air to submerged aeration systems. Volatile
compounds are driven off to a certain extent in the aeration
process. Metals will also be partially removed, with accumula-
tion in the sludge.
Due primarily to rapidly escalating power costs, interest has
been recently expressed in the development of high-rate, diffused
aeration systems that would produce a high quality secondary
effluent. As with modified aeration, aeration detention times
would remain low and volumetric loadings high. In contrast to
modified aeration systems, high MLSS concentrations would have
to be utilized to permit F/M loadings to be maintained at rea-
sonable levels. The key to development of efficient high-rate
air systems is the availability of submerged aeration equipment
that could satisfy the high oxygen demand rates that accompany
high MLSS levels and short aeration times. New innovations in
fine bubble diffuser and jet aeration technology offer potential
for uniting high-efficiency oxygen transfer with high-rate, air-
activated sludge-flow regimes to achieve acceptable secondary
treatment as independent "stand-alone" processes. Research
evaluations and field studies currently underway should provide
performance and cost data on this subject in the next several
years.
Pure Oxygen (covered and uncovered). The use of pure oxygen
for activated sludge treatment has become competitive with the
use of air due to the development of efficient oxygen dissolution
systems. The covered oxygen system is a high-rate activated
sludge system. The main benefits cited for the process include
reduced power requirements for dissolving oxygen in the waste-
water, reduced aeration tank volume requirements, and improved
biokinetics of the activated sludge system. In the covered
system, oxygenation is performed in a staged, covered reactor in
which oxygen gas is recirculated within the system until it
reaches a reduced level of purity and a deceased undissolved
mass at which it can no longer be used and is vented to the
atmosphere. High-purity oxygen gas (90 to 100 percent volume)
either from direct on-site generation, off-site generation com-
bined with pipeline delivery, or trucked-in and on-site stored
liquid oxygen followed by vaporization enters the first stage of
the system and flows concurrently with the wasterwater being
treated through the oxygenation basin. Pressure under the tank
covers is essentially atmospheric, being held at 2 to 4 inches
water column, sufficient to maintain oxygen gas feed control
and prevent backmixing from stage to stage. Effluent mixed
Date: 6/22/79 m.5.1-3
-------
liquor is separated in conventional gravity clarifiers, and the
thickened sludge is recycled to the first stage for contact with
influent wastewater.
Mass transfer and mixing within each stage are accomplished
either with surface aerators or with a submerged-turbine
rotating-sparge system. In the first case, mass transfer occurs
in the gas phase; in the latter, oxygen is sparged into the mixed
liquor where mass transfer occurs from the oxygen bubbles to the
bulk liquid. In both cases, the mass-transfer process is
enhanced by the high oxygen partial pressure maintained under
the tank covers in each stage.
Volatile compounds are driven off to a certain extent in the
oxygenation process and removed in the vent gas. Metals may
also be expected to be partially removed, with accumulation in
the sludge. The UNOX and OASES processes are examples of
patented and licensed systems, respectively, for pure oxygen
activated sludge based on the description presented here.
Although flexibility is claimed to permit operation in any of the
normally used flow regimes, i.e., plug flow, complete mix, step
aeration, and contact stabilization, the method of oxygen con-
tact employed favors the plug-flow mode.
In the uncovered system, oxygenation is performed in an open
reactor in which extremely fine porous diffusers are utilized
to develop small oxygen gass bubbles that are completely dis-
solved before breaking surface in normal-depth tanks. The
principles that apply in the transfer of oxygen in conventional
diffused air systems also apply to the open-tank, pure-oxygen
system.
The pure-oxygen, open-tank system currently available is the FMC
system (formerly referred to as the "Marox" system) in which
ultrafine bubbles are produced, with a correspondingly high gas-
surface area. These ultrafine bubbles are of micron size, basic
whereas "fine bubbles" normally produced in diffused air systems
are in millimeter sizes. The complete oxygenation system is
composed of an oxygen dissolution system comprised of rotating
diffusers; a source of high-purity oxygen gas (normally, an on-
site oxygen generator); and an oxygen control system, which
balances oxygen supply with oxygen demand through use of basin-
located dissolved-oxygen probes and control valves.
The influent to the system enters the oxygenation tank and is
mixed with return activated sludge. The mixed liquor is con-
tinuously and thoroughly mixed using low-energy mechanical
agitation deep in the mixed liquor. Mixing is produced by
radial turbine impellers located on both surfaces (top and
bottom) of the rotating diffusion discs. Pure oxygen gas in the
Date: 6/22/79 Hi. 5.1-4
-------
form of micron-size bubbles is simultaneously introduced into the
tank to accomplish mass oxygen transfer. The rotating diffuser
is a gear-driven disc-shaped device equipped with a porous
medium to assist in the diffusion process. As the diffuser
rotates at constant speed in the mixed liquor, hydraulic shear
wipes bubbles from the medium before they have an opportunity
to coalesce and enlarge.
Contact Stabilization. In this modification, the adsorptive
capacity of the floe is utilized in the contact tank to adsorb
suspended, colloidal, and some dissolved organics. The hydraulic
detention time in the contact tank is only 30 to 60 minutes
(based on average daily flow). After the biological sludge is
separated from the wastewater in the secondary clarifier, the
concentrated sludge is separately aerated in the stabilization
tank with a detention time of 2 to 6 hours (based on sludge
recycle flow). The adsorbed organics undergo oxidation in
the stabilization tank and are synthesized into microbial
cells. If the detention time is long enough in the
stabilization tank, endogenous respiration will occur, along
with a concomitant decrease in excess biological sludge pro-
duction. Following stabilization, the reaerated sludge is
mixed with incoming wastewater in the contact tank, and the cycle
starts anew. Volatile compounds are driven off to a certain
extent by aeration in the contact and stabilization tanks.
Metals will also be partially removed, with accumulation in the
sludge.
This process requires smaller total aeration volume than the
conventional activated sludge process. It also can handle
greater organic shock and toxic loadings because of the bio-
logical buffering capacity of the stabilization tank and the
fact that at any given time the majority of the activated sludge
is isolated from the main stream of the plant flow. Generally,
the total aeration basin volume (contact plus stabilization
basins) is only 50% to 75% of that required in the conventional
activated sludge system. A description of diffused aeration
techniques is presented in the Flow Diagram section.
Extended Aeration. Extended aeration is the "low-rate"
modification of the activated sludge process. The F/M loading
is in the range of 0.05 to 0.15 Ib BOD5/d/lb MLVSS, and the
detention time is about 24 hours. Primary clarification is
rarely used. The extended aeration system operates in the
endogenous respiration phase of the bacterial growth cycle,
because of the low BOD5 loading. The organisms are starved and
forced to undergo partial auto-oxidation. Volatile compounds
are driven off to a certain extent in the aeration process.
Metals will also be partially removed, with accumulation in the
sludge.
In the complete mix version of the extended aeration process, all
portions of the aeration basin are essentially homogeneous,
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5.1-5
-------
resulting in a uniform oxygen demand throughout the aeration tank.
This condition can be accomplished fairly simply in a symmetrical
(square or circular) basin with a single mechanical aerator or
by diffused aeration. The raw wastewater and return sludge
enter at a point (e.g., under a mechanical aerator) where they
are quickly dispersed through the basin. In rectangular basins
with mechanical aerators or diffused air, the incoming waste
and return sludge are distributed along one side of the basin,
and the mixed liquor is withdrawn from the opposite side.
Oxidation Ditch. An oxidation ditch is an activated sludge
biological treatment process, which is commonly operated in the
extended aeration mode, although conventional activated sludge
treatment is also possible. Typical oxidation ditch treatment
systems consist of a single or closed loop channel, 4 to 6 feet
deep, with 45° sloping sidewalls.
Some form of preliminary treatment such as screening, comminution
or grit removal normally precedes the process. After pretreat-
ment (primary clarification is usually not practiced) the waste-
water is aerated in the ditch using mechanical aerators that
are mounted across the channel. Horizontal brush, cage or disc-
type aerators, specially designed for oxidation ditch applica-
tions, are normally used. The aerators provide mixing and
circulation in the ditch, as well as sufficient oxygen transfer.
Mixing in the channels is uniform, but zones of low dissolved
oxygen concentration can develop. Aerators operate in the 60
to 110 RPM range and provide sufficient velocity to maintain
solids in suspension. A high degree of nitrification occurs in
the process without special modification because of the long
detention times and high solid retention times (10 to 50 days)
utilized. Secondary settling of the aeration ditch effluent is
provided in a separate clarifier.
Ditches may be constructed of various materials, including con-
crete, gunite, asphalt, or impervious membranes; concrete is the
most common. Ditch loops may be oval or circular in shape. "Ell"
and "horseshoe" configurations have been constructed to maximize
land usage. Conventional activated sludge treatment, in contrast
to extended aeration, may be practiced. Oxidation ditch systems
with depths of 10 feet or more with vertical sidewalls and
vertical shaft aerators may also be used.
III.5.1.3 Technology Status
Diffused Aeration. Activated sludge with diffused aeration
is the most versatile and widely used biological process in use.
Mechanical Aeration. Mechanical aeration is highly developed
and widely used, particularly in the industrial wastewater treat-
ment field. Since 1950, the submerged turbine (widely used in
the chemical industry) has come into use for activated sludge.
Date= 6/22/79 III.5.1-6
-------
Modified and High Rate Aeration. Modified and high rate
aeration was more widely used in the 1950's and 1960's than it is
today, because of the less stringent effluent standards in effect
during these periods.
Pure Oxygen, Covered. Pilot and full-scale plant studies
covered pure-oxygen systems have been made since 1969 and the
system is presently used in over 100 municipal and industrial
plants.
Pure Oxygen, Uncovered. Uncovered pure oxygen systems have
been recently developed and are supplied under proprietary status
by FMC.
Contact Stabilization. Contact stabilization has evolved
as an outgrowth of activated sludge technology since 1950. The
technology has seen common usage in package plants and some
usage for on-site constructed plants.
Extended Aeration. Extended aeration plants have evolved
since the latter part of the 1940's. Pre-engineered, package
plants have been widely utilized for this process.
Oxidation Ditch. There are nearly 650 shallow oxidation
ditch installations in the United States and Canada. Numerous
shallow and deep oxidation ditch systems are in operation in
Europe. The overall process is fully demonstrated for carbon
removal, as a secondary treatment process.
III.5.1.4 Applications
Diffused Aeration. Domestic wastewater and biodegradable
industrial wastewater; main advantage is the lower initial cost
of the system, particularly where a high quality effluent is
required; industrial wastewater (including some "priority
pollutants") which is amenable to biological treatment and
degradation may be jointly treated with domestic wastewater.
Mechanical Aeration. Has been used primarily in industrial
waste activated sludge treatment plants and is considered an
attractive aeration system for very deep basins (with bottom
mixers or spargers plus surface aerators), for activated sludges
having high oxygen-uptake rates, and for high concentrations of
MLSS as in aerobic digesters.
Modified and High Rate Aeration. Since the early 1970's,
employed generally as a pretreatment or roughing process in a
two-stage activated sludge system, where the second stage is used
for biological nitrification; alum or one of the iron salts is
sometimes added to modified aeration basins preceding second-
stage nitrification units for phosphorus removal.
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5.1-7
-------
Pure Oxygen (covered and uncovered). Domestic and biologi-
cally degradable industrial wastewaters; upgrading existing air
activated sludge plants; new facilities - to reduce construction
cost where effective odor control is required, where high effl-
uent dissolved oxygen is required, where reduced quantity and
higher concentration of waste sludge is required, and where re-
duced aeration detention time is required.
Contact Stabilization. Wastewaters that have an appreciable
amount of BOD5 in the form of suspended and colloidal solids;
upgrading of an existing, hydraulically overloaded, conventional
activated sludge plant; new installations, to take advantage of
low aeration volume requirements; where the plant might be sub-
ject to shock organic or toxic loadings; where larger, more
uniform flow conditions are anticipated (or if the flows to the
plant have been equalized).
Extended Aeration. Commonly flows of less than 50,000
gal/d; emergency or temporary treatment needs; and biodegradable
wastewater.
Oxidation Ditch. Applicable in any situation where acti-
vated sludge treatment (Diffused or extended aeration) is appro-
priate; process cost of treatment is competitive with other
biological processes in the range of wastewater flows between
0.1 and 10 Mgal/d.
III.5.1.5 Limitations
Diffused Aeration. Limited BOD5 loading capacity; poor
organic load distribution; required aeration time of four to
eight hours; plant upset with extreme variations in hydraulic,
organic, and toxic loadings; operational complexity; operating
costs; energy consuming mechanical compressors; and diffuser
maintenance.
Mechanical Aeration. Limited BOD5 loading Capacity; poor
organic load distribution; required aeration time of four to
eight hours; plant upset with extreme variations in hydraulic
and organic loadings; operational complexity and the resulting
operating costs; energy consuming mechanical aerators; aerator
maintenance; and potential for ice formation around surface
aerators.
Modified and High Rate Aeration. High-rate activated
sludge alone does not produce an effluent with BOD5 and suspended
solids concentrations suitable for discharge into most surface
waters in the United States.
Pure Oxygen (covered and uncovered). Complexity of opera-
tion; high cost of oxygen generation.
Date: 6/22/79 Hi. 5.1-8
-------
Contact Stabilization. Unlikely that effluent standards can
be met in plants smaller than 50,000 gal/d without some prior
flow equalization; operational, complexity; high operating costs;
high energy consumption, high diffuser maintenance; fraction of
soluble BOD5 the influent wastewater increases, the required
total aeration volume of contact stabilization process approaches
that of the conventional process.
Extended Aeration. High power costs, operation costs, and
capital costs(for large permanent installations where pre-
engineered plants would not be appropriate).
Oxidation Ditch. Offers an added measure of reliability
over other biological processes but is subject to some of the
same limitations than other activated sludge treatment processes
face.
III.5.1.6 Residuals Generated
Diffused Aeration. Anticipated increase in excess sludge,
volatile suspended solids (VSS) production from the conventional
activated sludge process as settled wastewater food-to-micro-
organism (F/M) loadings increase is shown below:
F/M Excess.VSS
0.3 0.5 Ib/lb BOD5 removed
0.5 0.7 ""
Mechanical Aeration. Same as reported for diffused aeration.
Modified and High Rate Aeration. Same as reported for
diffused aeration.
Pure Oxygen (covered and uncovered). 0.42 to 0.72 Ib VSS
per Ib BOD5 removed at F/M ratio of 0.7.
Contact Stabilization. Same as reported for diffused
aeration.
Extended Aeration. Because of low F/M loadings and long
hydraulic detention times employed, excess sludge production for
the extended aeration process (and the closely related oxidation
ditch process) is the lowest of any of the activated sludge
process alternatives, generally in the range of 0.15 to 0.3 Ib
excess sludge suspended solids/lb BOD5 removed at F/M of 0.1.
Oxidation Ditch. No primary sludge is generated; sludge
produced is less volatile due to higher oxidation efficiency and
increased solids retention times.
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5.1-9
-------
III.5.1.7 Reliability
Diffused Aeration. Good.
Mechanical Aeration. Reliability of the mechanical aeration
equipment is dependent on the quality of manufacture and a
planned maintenance program.
Modified and High Rate Aeration. Requires close operator
attention.
Pure Oxygen (covered). Complex operation; high level of
operator/maintenance attention required.
Pure Oxygen (uncovered). Not yet fully established.
Contact Stabilization. Requires close operator attention.
Extended Aeration. Good.
Oxidation Ditch. Average reliability of 12 shallow oxida-
tion ditch plants is summarized below:
Percent of time effluent concentration mg/L less than
10 mg/L 20 mg/L 30 mg/L
TSS BOD TSS BOD TSS BOD
Average of all plants 65 65 85 90 94 96
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-10
-------
III.5.1.8 Environmental Impact
Diffused Aeration. Sludge disposal; odor potential; and
energy consumption.
Mechanical Aeration. Same as diffused aeration.
Modified and High Rate Aeration. Same as diffused aeration,
Pure Oxygen (covered, uncovered). Sludge disposal; energy
consumption.
Contact Stabilization. Same as diffused aeration.
Oxidation Ditch. Solid waste, odor and air pollution
impacts are similar to those encountered with standard activated
sludge processes.
III.5.1.9 Design Criteria
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5.1-11
-------
III.5.l.io Flow Diagram
Diffused Aeration.
PR I MARY EFFLUENT
AERATION TANK
TO FINAL CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUGDE
SLUDGE FROM FINAL CLARIFIER
EXCESS SLUDGE
Mechanical Aeration. See Diffused Aeration for typical
flow diagram.
DRIVE
DRIVE
i
;: "^
I
' TURBINE „-_«
: SPARGER teS 1
•_."••.'.:_ 'i^.1 ._ ..'Z •.-•.••••..'.*-.. ,-••> '. •'
;•
V
IAIR :
• •. ...^
MECHANICAL SURFACE AERATOR
SUBMERGED TURBINE AERATOR
Modified and High Rate Aeration.
SCREENED AND DEGRITTED
RAW WASTEWATER OR PRIMARY
EFFLUENT FEED
t
'
t 1
COMPLETE MIX
* » » t « »
1 1 1 < I 1
AERATION TANK
,
,
TO FINAL CLARIFtER
FROM FINAL CLARIFIER
f _uitcirciiinr.c
RETURN SLUDGE
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-12
-------
Pure Oxygen (covered).
AERATION
TANK
SURFACE AERATOR
DRIVE
OXYGEN FEED GAS
SCREENED AND DEGRITTED
RAW WASTEWATER OR PRIMARY
EFFLUENT FEED
RETURN SLUDGE •
ERATION i- MJKI-Att AtKAlUK
NK COVER ~\ / r MIXER DR
Jj^n/ *~
'i
!!
EXHAUST GAS
v ;;
\ ,r5w
-^V STAGE
BAFFLE
MIXED LIQUOR
TOCLARIFIER
-SUBMERGED PROPELLER (OPTIONAL!
Pure Oxygen (uncovered).
INR.UENT RAW
WASTEWATER
OR PRIMARY
EFRUENT
MOTOR/GEAR
^REDUCER ASSEMBLY
D.O. ANALYZER
TYPICAL OPEN BASIN
OXYGEN GENERATOR
LOX
STORAGE
MIXED LIQUOR TO CLAIRIFIER
(STAND-BY)
•VAPORIZER
Contact Stabilization.
SCREENED AND DEGRITTED
RAW WASTEWATER OR » * >
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
ALTERNATE EXCESS
SLUDGE DRAW-OFF
POINT
*— CONTACT TANK
TO FINAL CLARIFIER
FROM FINAL CLARIFIER
STABILIZATION
TANK
RETURN SLUDGE
III.5.1-13
-------
Extended Aeration.
SCREENED AND
DEGRITTED RAW
WASTEWATER
COMPLETE MIX
AERATION TANK
FRO
, 1
TO FINAL CLARIFIER
M FINAL CLARIFIER
EXCESS SLUDGE
Oxidation Ditch.
SCREENED AND
DEGRITTED RAW
WASTEWATER
FINAL YEFFLUENT
CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE
EXCESS SLUDGE
III.5.1.11 Performance
Performance data presented on the following data sheets include
information from studies on the listed industries or
wastestreams:
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Coal gas washing
Coal-tar distillation
Coke gasification
Dairy products processing
Milk, cottage cheese, and ice cream
Hospital wastewater
Iron and steel industry
By-product coke manufacturing
III.5.1-14
-------
Leather tanning and finishing
Cattle, hair save/ chrome tanning
Cattle, hair pulp, chrome tanning
Cattle, hair pulp, combination tanning
Hair save, chrome tanning, retanning - wet finishing
Hair save, nonchrome (primarily vegetable) tanning,
retanning - wet finishing
Shearing
Municipal wastewater
Mixed industrial and domestic wastewaters
Organic chemicals production
Aqueous liquid-phase reaction systems
Batch and semicontinuous process
Processes with process water contact as steam diluent
or absorbent
Organosilicones production
Pharmaceuticals production
Biological and natural products
Chemical synthesis products
Fermentation products
Formulation products
Miscellaneous Pharmaceuticals and fine organic
chemicals
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Sulfite - papergrade
Wastepaper - board
Rubber processing
Synthetic resin production
Cellophane
Cellulosics
Textile milling
Carpet finishing
Knit fabric finishing
Stock and yarn finishing
Woven fabric finishing
Timber products processing
Hardboard processing
Plywood processing
Wood preserving
III.5.1-15
-------
III.5.1.12 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009, (Draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
III.5.1-15.1
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
rt
n>
to
vo
H
H
Ul
•
H
I
!-•
Ul
Number of
Pollutant data points
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
TKN
Toxic pollutants, Mg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzidine
1, 2-Diphenylhydrazine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
87
64
13
77
7
31
28
8
18
8
17
34
37
24
26
9
32
1
17
1
36
1
1
1
38
1
9
17
9
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
15
Effluent concentration
Minimum
<5
45
35
5
<5
0.007
0.15
27
0.3
<5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.2
<4
0.6
<0.5
4
41
<5
29
48b
<10c
<10C
18
<0.04
11
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
5,000
4
340
<0.07
2
0.9
<4a
8
<0.4
<0.9
<0.4
Maximum
4,640
7,420
1,700
4,050
303
<500
46.8
593
670
160
13
20,000
130
38,000
160
1.6
400
41
95
29
150,000,
0
O3
°3
03
°a
03
°a
Oa
oa
Oa
38 =
oa
>83
>47
95a
°a
°a
°l
°a
°a
Oa
oa
oa
69a
°a
Oa
>0a
Oa
>99
>99a
0
Maximum
^gq
97
97
99
98
>99
97
69
90
>96
>99
99
>99
>90
99
87
92
oa
>96
38
92
>83
>47
95
>99
Oa
>99
>99
>99
oa
Oa
Oa
>99
Oa
92
>50
>95
>99
>99
>99
Median
q^i
bl
69
44
86
65
31
44
>14
>39
0
48
57a
oa
44
>29
>38
Oa
20
38
30
>83
>47
95
24a
oa
84
>85
>99
Oa
oa
Oa
>84
0
46
>25a
Oa
>99
>99
89
Mean
88
63
f.r>
44
^74
62
34
43
30
>43
31
45
53
18
49
30
29
Oa
31
38
35
>83
>47
95
37
Oa
60
60
60a
Oa
oa
Oa
>84a
oa
46
>25
32
>99
>99
70
(continued)
-------
a
&
rt
n>
u>
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE (cont'd)
I
M
cn
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants (continued)
Phenol
2,4 , 6-Tnchlorophenol
; -Chloro-- -cresol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloroben^ene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1 , 2,3-cd) pyrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-Chloronapthalene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dlchlorobromome thane
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1 , 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trlchlorofluorome thane
Heptachlor
Isophorone
Other pollutants, ,,g/L:
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Number of
data points
30
10
4
9
6
12
8
1
24
4
31
11
10
1
8
1
2
1
26
5
1
1
2
17
2
2
2
5
2
11
6
1
13
5
1
2
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
<0.07
<0.2
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.05
<0.04
390
<0.2
<0.05
<0.1
<0.09
<0.04
1
<0.01
2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.007
0.1
1
3
0.1.
47
oa
°a
oa
Oa
oa
03
oa
oa
0
>99
>99
03
oa
5°a
oa
98
Oa
oa
>0
>53
Oa
>03
°a
Oa
>9
0*
oa
76
>0
3
oa
>0
Maximum
>99
98
>98
>99
>99
>99
>99
oa
>99
>97
>99
>99
>99
oa
>98
0
>99
>99
>99
78
5°a
oa
>99
>99
>0
>18
>82
99
>44
>99
>99
>9
>99
96
76
>0
3
Oa
>0
Median
98
>18
>80
>81
84
>85
>93
Oa
>98
>45
62
95
>99
Oa
68
0
>99
>99
>95a
oa
5°a
oa
>98
>78
0
>9
>67
Oa
>22
>93
>85
>9
>96
Oa
76
>0
a
0
>0
Mean
82
36
65
60
71
73
>82
Oa
83
47
52
67
79a
oa
57
0
>99
>99
64
16
so.
Oa
>98
61
0
>9
>67
34
>22
75
74
>9
63
19
76
>0
A
0
>0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10
CReported as below detection limit; assumed to be 10 \iq/L.
Reported as below detection limit; assumed to be less than the corresponding influent concentration.
SReported as not detected; assumed to be less than the corresponding influent concentration.
Trace of element; assumed to be •'I
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool scouring
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 99 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 32 W/m3
(160 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full base volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TSS
1,560
16,200
3,970
125
2,600
1,230
92
84
69
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-16
Date: 6/22/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
106 hr
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 24 W/m3
(120 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutant:
BOD5
TSS
475
19
91
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 24 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 12 W/m3
(60 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convent ional po1lutant s:
BOD5 133
COD 472
TSS 34
22
307
38
83
35
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
75 hr
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 8.1 W/m3
(41 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Cone entrat ion, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TSS
267
840
24
336
27
91
60
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 131
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 11 W/m3
(58 hp/Mgal)
hr
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 400
COD
TSS 80
8
252
8
98
90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 97 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 49 W/m3
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
(250 hp/Mgal)
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 329
COD 2,970
TSS
23
594
44
93
80
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-21
-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000002YS\tiff\20008DTK.tif): Unspecified error
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
120 hr
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
a
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 12 w/m3
(60 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 180
COD 468
TSS 26
9
159
18
95
66
31
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-23
-------
TREATMENT TE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 80 hr
Volumetrie loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 18 W/m3
(90 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pol lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 250
TSS 218
5
48
98
78
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 48 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 12 W/m3
(60 hp/Mgal)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
aBased on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 272
COD 694
TSS 28
45
354
55
83
49
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 82 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 15 W/m3
(74 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 190
COD 342
TSS 97
19
164
63
90
52
35
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
417 hr
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 8 W/m3
(40 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 198
COD 745
TSS 49
13
226
62
93
70
o5
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 15 W/m3
(75 hp/Mgal)
Extended aeration, surface aeration
110 hr
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 181
COD
TSS 18
5
124
18
97
0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, P. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 76 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 32 W/m3
(160 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,100 11 99
COD 262
TSS 281 45 84
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Carpet finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 9 W/m3
(44 hp/Mgal)
Extended aeration, surface aeration
130 hr
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 207
COD 614
TSS 93
29
227
50
86
63
46
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.1-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:3 33 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 16 W/m3
(80 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 150
COD 496
TSS 36
6
124
27
96
75
25
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-31
Date: 6/22/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory; Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 44 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 98 W/m3
(500 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 1,630 233 86
COD 4,760 1,840 6
TSS 136 195 0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-25
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Extended aeration, surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 50 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 16 W/m3
(80 hp/Mgal)
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Based on average flow and full basin volume.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 125
COD
TSS 46
5
158
21
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
96
54
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B20, pp. 24, 27, 38, 44-47
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants :
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
6
290
310
7
330
360,000
5,000
35,000
170,000
1
60
80
<1
270
150,000
1,300
300
37,000
83
88
74
>86
18
57
74
99
90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-34
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: NRDC Summary
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Shearing
Plant: A. C. Lawrence, NH
References: El, p. 10
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
TKN
Toxic pollutants, wg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
1.1.2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Influent
i','020
768
413
49
5,300
120
80
27
500
93
400
91
5
20
9
36
35
12
18
Effluent
27
108
25
27
2,200
7
30
19
68
34
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
10
ND
Percent
removal
97
86
94
45
96
94
63
30
86
63
68
"\-100
•uoo
MOO
VI 00
83
-v-100
16
M.OO
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Unspecified industrial/ Engineering estimate
domestic wastewater (70:30)
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: B16, p. 260, 262 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Union Carbide Corp. UNOX pure oxygen activated sludge system
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS: 9,250 mg/L
Volatile fraction of MLSS: 75%
F/M: 0.14 kg BODsAg MLVSS
Mean cell residence time: Average 9.6 d
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge: 2.2
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
BODs, mg/L
Solids retention
time (sludge age)
5.9
7.8
8.0
8.1
10.0
12.7
17.3
17.3
17.3
23.9
49.7
Influent
929
569
1,250
653
620
660
420
517
854
633
362
Effluent
158
91
212
124
62
99
42
62
111
57
47
Percent
removal
83
84
83
81
90
85
90
88
87
91
87
COD , mg/L
Influent
2,030
885
2,250
902
922
897
681
756
1,420
1,000
559
Effluent
1,080
425
1,190
550
249
296
286
257
397
200
229
Percent
removal
47
52
47
39
73
67
58
66
72
80
59
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-36
-------
1REATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: NRDC Summary
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Hair save, nonchrome (primarily
vegetable) tan, retan-wet finish
Plant: Caldwell Lace
References: El, p. 10
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time;
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
TSS
Oil and grease
TKN
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2.4, 6-Tr ichlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Influent
1,530
6,380
247
750
6,400
200
100
100
60
460
ND
2,900
645
1,700
49
19
7.6
19
Effluent
49
227
35
277
170
25
400
50
30
59
26
200
ND
38
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
removal
97
96
86
63
97
88
oa
50
50
87
oa
93
•v.100
98
•v.100
•MOO
•xdOO
•v-100
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Mixed industrial/domestic Engineering estimate
wastes
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Deep shaft treatment plant (Paris, Ontario) Pilot scale
References: B16, pp. 297-301 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Bar screening, comminutor, acid neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Deep shaft biooxidator, air flotation
Wastewater flow: 4.5 x 102 m3/day
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time: 30 min.
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD,
COD
TSS
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
1 , 2 , 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
1, 1, 2-Trichloroe thane
Isophorone
Influent
130
469
217
70
1,000
18
340
30
5
180
2,200
22,000
8
5
11
7
Effluent
21
76
26
200
5,000
BDL
BDL=
BDL
BDL
BDLC
BDL=
BDL,
BDL°
BDL
BDLd
BDL
percent
removal
84
B4
88
b
°;
0
>44
>97
>67
>0
>94
>99
>99
>0
>0
>9
>0
'Average of 90-130 data points over 4-1/2 month period.
bActual data indicate negative removal.
cBelow detectable limits; assumed to be < 10 ug/L.
Below detectable limits; assumed to be less than corresponding
influent concentration.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: NRDC Summary
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Hair save, chrome tan, retan-wet
finish
Plant: Moench, NY
References: El, p. 10
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
TKN
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Influent
12,400
6,960
553
287
170,000
220
50
3,100
75
2,100
32
5,500
2.9
Effluent
297
139
17
163
1,700
8
40
60
30
170
5.6
1,400
1.4
2.3
Percent
removal
98
98
97
43
99
96
20
98
60
92
82
75
52
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Rubber processing
Subcategory:
Plant: 000012
References: A30, p. 121
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24 hr.
Concentration,3 yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Cadmium
Mercury
Nickel
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenol
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Influent
1
2.5
610
260
5.2
41
250
4.7
27
<0.1
1.4
1.0
Effluent
<1
1.6
400
220
1.6
19
<0.1
0.1
4.1
0.9
<0.1
3.3
Percent
removal
>0
36
34
15
69
54
>99
98
85,
ob
>93
ob
Values presented are averages three of composite samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: NRDC Summary
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Hair save, chrome tan, retan-wet
finish
Plant: Granite State
References: El, p. 10
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge!
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
TSS
Oil and grease
TKN
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
CChromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Influent
1,240
1,100
171
252
31,000
57
20
100
5
230
9,500
480
10,500
215
99
49
Effluent
917
557
91
186
20,000
37
40
30
34
140
3,100
440
8,300
69
21
15
Percent
removal
26
49
47
26
65
35a
0*
70
oa
39
67
9
21
63
79
69
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-41
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Iron and steel
Subcategory: By-product coke manufacturing
Plant: B
References: A35, pp. VII-15, VII-8, VII-12
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 0.021
m3/s {333 gpm)
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
12-15 hr
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludgei
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Po1lu tant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS 36 163 0£
Oil and grease 240 <5 >98
Total phenol 350 0.064 >99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide 110,000 38,000 72
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
processing
Subcategory: Hardboard
Plant: 24
References: Al, p. 7-103
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, primary clarification, flow
equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Two contact stabilization activated sludge systems
operating in parallel
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants,
BOD5 1,980 436 78
TSS 523 157 70
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-43
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
(Organosilicones)
Subcategory:
Plant: Union Carbide (in Sistersirele, W.V.)
References: B16, p. 70
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Union Carbide Corp. UNOX pure oxygen activated sludge
system
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M: 0.5-1.5
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
450
36
92
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: KK
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants , pg/L:
Arsenic
Cadniuro
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl } phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
2 , 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Pyrene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
1,950
0.150
6.3
120
2
16
86
49
77
22
1,100
9.3
2.5
120
130
20
20
<0.2
42
26
28
0.9
52
Effluent
447
0.052
6.4
<5
4
13
37
44
110
44
390
4.1
<0.03
<0.03
10
<0.4
21
64
26
<0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.5
Percent
removal
77
65a
0
>96
0*
19
57
10
oa
oa
64
56
>99
%10C
92
>98
°"
0
38
>99
•v.100
78
>99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: LL
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-etnylhexyl) phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
1,2, 4-Tnchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
727
0.001
18. 6
100
4
11
38
8
60
130
58
67
<0.04
<0.03
16
0.6
480
320
51
500
1,100
120
Effluent
155
0.094
28.8
70
2
20
92
6
48
150
56
68
5.2
0.2
<0.07
<0.05
<0.2
<0.09
<0.007
<5
<0.9
<0.5
Percent
removal
79
oa
oa
30
50
oa
oa
25
20
oa
3
oa
oa
oa
•V100
>92
•vlOO
-\,100
•v.100
>99
1-100
•vlOO
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: NN
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Influent
938
0.043
48.8
2
23
47
40
33
98
42
84
23
10
Effluent
236
0.014
46.8
4
170
46
<4
25
79
33
130
27
<0.07
Percent
removal
75
67
4
a
0
oa
2
>90
24
19
21
oa
oa
>99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-47
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: Q
References: A6, p. VII-58
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow: 9,500 m3/d (2.5 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 15 hr
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 29.2 W/m3
(148 hp/Mgal)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Effluent concentration is an average of two
24-hr composite samples, conventional pollutant influent
concentration is a 48-hr composite sample, toxic pollutant
influent concentration is an average of two 24-hr grab
samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
782
17
324
95
14
44
10
36
36
15
12
56
41
55
100
2,700
45
ND
840
Effluent
312
28
303
670
32
100
ND
48
ND
41
13
48
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
17
ND
Percent
removal
60
oa
6
oa
a
0
oa
M.OO
oa
VLOO
oa
oa
14
63
1-100
•x-100
MOO
VLOO
-
VLOO
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate that information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-48
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: A6, p. VII-61
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: One 19,900 m3 (5.25 Mgal) basin, surface aeration
(8 aerators)
Wastewater flow: 3,500 m3/d (925,000 gpd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 120 hr
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: 22.5 W/m3
(114 hp/Mgal) Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 72-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Arsenic
Bis ( chloromethyl ) ether
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 2-Dichloropropane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
19
59
25
18
20
190
16
29
56
56
310
10
<10
ND3
ND
ND
ND
ND
<10
ND
ND
ND
<10
ND
>47
MOO
^100
MOO
M.OO
VLOO
>37
M.OO
VLOO
VLOO
>96
MOO
Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate that information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.1-49
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pharmeceutical
manufacturing
Subcategory: Fermentation products and
synthesis products
Plant: 25
References: A12, p. 123
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification: Four aeration tanks
Wastewater flow: 1,000 m3/<3
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 3.5d
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
3,830
7,740
1,900
858
280
4,070
1,260
1,340
93
47
34b
0
Average of two samples.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-50
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pharmeceutical
manufacturing
Subcategory: Fermentation products
Plant: 20
References: A12, pp. 113, 114
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 950 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 4.8 d
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: Three 34
floating (50-hp) kw
aerators utilized
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier circular,
configuration: 10-m diameter
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L
Influent
Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 1,380 110 92
COD 4,380 1,300 70
TOC 1,520 218 86
Average of four samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-51
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pharmaceutical
manufacturing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Fermentation products, chemical Bench scale
synthesis products, and mixing/ Pilot scale
compounding and formulation Full scale
Plant: 19
References: A12, p. 113
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 2,850 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 24 hr
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phosphorus
TKN
3,110
6,800
2,220
1,700
32
196
134
680
292
210
3.5
60
96
90
87
88
89
69
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-52
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cattle, pulp, combination tanning Bench scale
Plant: Caldwell Lace Leather (in Auburn, Pilot scale
Kentucky) Full scale _x_
References: A15, p. 88
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, primary sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 61 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 1.6 d
Volumetric loading: 908 kg BOD5/d/l,000 m3 Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Grab
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,440 96 93
COD 4,020 481 88
TSS 3,140 223 93
TKN 490 322 34
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.5.1-53
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Cattle, pulp, chrome
Plant: S. B. Foot Tanning Co. (in Red Wing,
Minnesota)
References: A15, p. 88
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, primary sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 3,780 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,360
TSS 2,970
325
325
76
89
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-54
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Cattle, save chrome
Plant: Moench Tanning Co. (in Gowanda, New York)
References: A15, p. 88
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 1,510 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 12 hr
Volumetric loading: 3,710 kg BOD5/d/l,000 m3
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
REMOVAL DATA
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,700
TSS 2,400
343
190
80
92
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-55
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: JJ
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL
Sampling period: 1 day
DATA
Concentration
Po 1 lu tant/par ame ter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
1,540
0.144
3.5
200
5
160
32
5
84
100
47
130
41
11
14
440
1,100
190
Effluent
510
0.055
2.3
160
5
80
31
28
65
120
49
320
<0.07
<0.05
<0.2
32
<0.9
84
Percent
removal
67
62
34
20
0
50
3
a
0
23
oa
a
0
a
0
•MOO
M.OO
>99
93
-MOO
55
^Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-56
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: Z
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL
Sampling period: 1 day
DATA
Concentration
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichlorofluorome thane
Influent
351
812
20
0.56
1.1
11
97
11
110
220
34
<0.2
0.7
5.5
45
310
12.0
<2.0
Effluent
<5
105
13
0.023
0.5
12
50
<10
370
2
<0.07
3.5
3,000
110
<0.09
<0.007
<0.9
89
Percent
removal
>99
87
35
96
55
a
0
48
>9
oa
99
VLOO
oa
oa
oa
MOO
-vlOO
>92
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
x
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-57
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: X
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen-.
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Coppe r
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichlorof luorome thane
Influent
237
786
24
0.940
4.6
0.3
5
24
84
<4
32
<0.5
110
17
34
1
<0.03
3.3
37
<0.05
64
53
1
410
8.2
<2.0
Effluent
15
258
18
0.035
5.4
0.9
7
39
110
100
26
0.9
72
33
78
2.3
3.2
<0.07
<0.2
0.5
40
<0.04
<0.007
40
<2.0
35
Percent
removal
94
67
25
96a
0
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
19
oa
35
oa
oa
oa
oa
>98
-.100
oa
38
noo
>99
90
>76
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-58
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: W
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Oxidation ditch
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants/ mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sliver
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Toluene
Trlchloroethylene
Influent
1,920
6,120
2,300
0.670
5.1
9
12
23
15
18
<0.5
54
65
190
18
100
19
1.1
0.5
62
13
Effluent
84
837
300
0.232
0.15
13
3
2
20
57
0.5
60
95
90
19
<0.07
<0.2
<0.2
<0.05
1.7
<0.5
Percent
removal
96
86
87
65
97
a
0
75
91
a
0
oa
°:
0
oa
53
oa
MOO
>99
>82
>90
97
>96
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-59
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: V
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Toluene
1 , 2 ,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Influent
53
54
0.018
0.75
<0.5
5
4
230
6
460
5.3
13
4.9
2.0
8.4
28
8.7
Effluent
<5
128
26
0.016
0.78
4
<0.5
3
170
18
340
9.5
<0.03
<0.2
<0.05
1,400
<0.09
<0.04
Percent
removal
91
52
"a
0
a
0
>90
25
26
a
0
26
oa
100
>96
>97a
oa
-MOO
^100
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-60
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: U
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Dichlorobromome thane
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Influent
400
1,460
111
0.057
3.5
7
27
40
<4
260
14
6.1
1.6
0.7
2.0
<0.1
1.5
<5.0
<0.9
3.7
<0.5
310
Effluent
24
748
92
0.007
3.7
1
14
23
210
190
140
<0.03
<0.4
<0.07
<0.05
13
22
18
1.5
<3.0
0.69
<2.0
Percent
removal
94
49
17
88
a
0
86
48
42
a
0
27a
0
M.OO
>75
>90
>97
oa
oa
a
0
oa
>18
oa
>99
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-61
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: T
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Influent
501
500
28
0.073
12
120
25
0.7
50
290
140
11
18
300
6.4
Effluent
32
414
35
0.041
17
60
<1
<0.5
4
80
23
<0.07
<0.2
33
2.9
Percent
removal
94
17
oa
44
a
0
50
>96
>29
92
72
83
>99
>99
89
55
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: S
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, gg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Influent
219
559
25
0.107
1.6
57
5
0.7
40
7
120
140
14
850
61
190
140
71
39
Effluent
59
1,040
581
0.029
5.0
74
<5
<0.2
60
<4
84
41
<0.2
110
21
920
260
<5
0.4
Percent
removal
73
oa
Oa
73
oa
a
oa
>0
>71
a
0
>43
30
70
>99
87
65a
oa
oa
>93
99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-63
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: P
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Sliver
Zinc
BisU-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di ethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Phenol
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Influent
680
172
6
0.228
5.7
3
190
13
100
30
200
30
9.8
1.7
12
<0.2
6.6
25
1,200
36
1.9
17
Effluent
28
45
45
0.032
2.2
<0.2
140
<1
40
8
140
72
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
19
<0.07
<0.2
280
22
<0.007
6.9
Percent
removal
96
74
oa
86
61
>93
26
>92
60
73
30
oa
MOO
>98
'-100
oa
>99
>99
77
38
M.OO
60
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79.
III.5.1-64
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: N
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Pull scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludges
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pol lu tart/parameter
Conventional pollutants/ mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethyahexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
334
1,140
68
0.156
0.43
0.2
46
880
20
<10
7,500
10
5.9
<0.1
11
290
220
1,800
44
17
21
Effluent
36
286
77
0.068
5.2
2
<0.5
1,800
8
30
38,000
17
9.4
8
<0.07
6.0
1.5
75
17
<0.007
<0.5
Percent
removal
89
75
oa
56a
oa
oa
>99
oa
60
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
>99
98
99
96
62
<\100
>98
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79.
III.5.1-65
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: M
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling pe.riod: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODS
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Copper
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Pen tachloropheno 1
Phenol
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Influent
830
2,260
210
0.037
3.99
0.8
9
1,200
300
<0.02
6.9
12
<0.1
160
93
Effluent
<5
255
21
0.025
3.46
4
5
410
<0.04
58
<0.4
<0.07
0.4
1.8
<0.007
Percent
removal
>99
89
90
32
13
a.
0
44
66
100
a
0
>94
>99
oa
99
^100
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-66
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: L
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 1 day
Concentration
Pol lutant/par ameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Influent
379
1,120
19
0.038
2.2
5
3
300
<4
36
54
1,000
3
110
<0.2
1
2.0
5.2
30
Effluent
13
234
78
0.026
1.6
3
30
96
170
<1
35
720
2
<0.03
0.5
<0.04
<0.2
<0.1
<0.04
Percent
removal
97
79
oa
32
27
40
oa
68
oa
>97
35
28
33
VLOO
oa
>96
>90
>98
MOO
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-67
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: K
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Influent
564
1,720
69
0.067
1.9
3
6
4
19
26
30
100
130
150
<0.04
0.2
3.9
0.7
64
29
0.03
4.8
<0.5
Effluent
<5
131
21
0.018
0.93
0.8
<5
<0.5
4
15
<1
<10
<5
110
8
<0.03
<0.4
<0.2
0.7
24
0.5
58
4.6
Percent
removal
>99
92
70
73
51
73
>17
>87
79
42
>97
>90
>96
27
oa
>85'
>90
>71
99
18
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79-
III.5.1-68
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: J
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Influent
210
810
0.063
3.3
0.7
48
2,400
29
97
60
2,100
160
23
6.5
<0.2
36
80
<0.01
Effluent
25
376
0.024
0.6
<0.5
25
100
<1
90
<5
800
35
3.6
<0.03
51
8.0
<0.007
0.1
Percent
removal
88
54
62
82
>29
48
96
>97
7
>92
62
78
84
VI 00
oa
78
MOO
a
oa
3Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.1-69
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Batch and semicontinuous process
Plant: 3
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 274 74 73
COD 979 284 71
TOC 455 132 71
TSS <62 62 0
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-70
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Process with process water contact
as steam diluent or absorbent
Plant: 4
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sample period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influenta Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
72
498
123
23
13
214
80
14
82
57
35
40
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-71
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Aqueous liquid-phase reaction system Bench scale
Plant: 9 Pilot scale
References: A25, p. 322 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time;
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent^ Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 938
COD 2,380
TOC 781
TSS <50
75
595
242
50
92
75
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
3
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-72
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Process with process water contact
Plant: as steam diluent or absorbent and
aqueous liquid phase section systems
Plant: 13
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L
a
Influent
Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
1,770
2,690
1,310
154
177
940
470
338
90
65
64,
ob
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
3
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-73
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Batch and semicontinuous processes
Plant: 16
References: A24, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite
Cone entrat ion, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
1,670
3,670
1,470
986
300
1,650
280
552
82
55
81
44
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-74
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic Chemicals
Subcategory: Batch and semicontinuous processes
Plant: 17
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L
Influent3 Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
1,260
3,500
1,110
<1,300
240
1,400
410
1,300
81
60
63b
0
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.5.1-75
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Batch and semicontinuous
processes
Plant: 18
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time;
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
783
3,230
2,050
650
2,680
1,020
1,170
17
22
43
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-76
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Batch and semicontinuous processes
Plant: 19
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
6,000
12,800
3,860
<2,500
1,800
5,100
1,700
2,500
70
60
56b
0
Calculated from effluent percent removal.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-77
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Aqueous liquid-phase reaction
systems
Plant: 20
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time;
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
<1,900
7,920
3,800
<100
19
317
114
100
>99
96
97b
0
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-78
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Process with process water as
steam diluent or absorbent
Plant: 22
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent3 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 404
COD 1,630
TOC 598
TSS 174
210
1,370
550
82
48
16
8
53
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Process with process water
contact as steam diluent
or absorbent
Plant: 23
References: A25, p. 322
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent3Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 586
COD 2,940
TOC 700
TSS <37
41
147
35
37
93
95
95,
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Actual data indicates negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.5.1-80
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category:3 Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Reichhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale
References: B4, pp. 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 1500-6600 m3/cl(0.4-1.75 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 24-144 hr
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: 2200-4900 mg/L configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: 0.02-0.5 Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: (recycled:wasted) Solids loading:
100:0-46:54
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: 14-190 mg/L/hr Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
Organic and inorganic wastes.
REMOVAL DATA
Sample period;
Coneentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent** Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,920 222 88
COD 4,340 957 78
TSS 134 114 15
Average of six samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 . III. 5.1-81
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 93
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Cone entrat ion, mg/L Percent
Influenta Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5a
335
16
95
Average of three samples.
o
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-82
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory. Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Plant: SD03
References: A21, p. 296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 5,700 450
TSS 1,200 190
92
84
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-83
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Subcategory:
Plant: C54
References:
A21, p. 297
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
260
140
12
20
95
87
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-84
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialities
Plant: CS08
References: A21, p. 297
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
3,500
4,500
15
35
99
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 .
III.5.1-85
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: BD34
References: A21, p
Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
600
450
43
45
93
90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III. 5.1-86
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables and specialties Bench scale
Plant: BN26 Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 297 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5 580 15 97
TSS 230 20 92
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date= 8/30/79 . III.5.1-87
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 102
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5a
206
16
92
Average of three samples.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 •
III.5.1-88
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Plant: ST01
References: A21, p. 296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
3,900
1,440
165
140
96
90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-89
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialties Bench scale
Plant: SL01 Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 296 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5 520 25 95
TSS 360 15 92
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III. 5.1-90
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Plant: TO51
References: A21, p. 296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
x
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
1,900
320
15
15
99
95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-91
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: TO50
References: A21, p
Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
500
20
11
10
94
50
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III. 5.1-92
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Subcategory:
Plant: BN47
References:
A21, p. 296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Cone entrat ion, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
320
170
20
19
94
89
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-93
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Plant: BN43
References: A21, p. 296
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD 5
TSS
370
220
11
10
97
95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.5.1-94
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: GR32
References: A21, p
Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
296
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids load ing:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
4,000
170
10
5
99
97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.5.1-95
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Plant: PN25
References: A21, p. 297
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Aeration, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Complete mix
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
210
160
7
36
97
78
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-96
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: A
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1 , 2 , -Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Heptachlor
Influent
459
1,740
165
0.092
1.2
<0.5
190
21
<4
4
9
1,300
0.5
1
3
71
1.2
<0.05
11
<0.1
90
0.1
6.4
Effluent
168
1,650
228
0.065
0.50
30
180
27
15
87
oa
oa
Oa
>97
>99
>99
>94
0*
•vlOO
oa
49
>93
76
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-97
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: C
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
P/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, vg/Lt
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
445
802
49
0.074
4.0
7
5
35
8
7
120
99
>86
73
98
"a
°*
0
oa
>97
>97
SActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-98
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: D
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
BisU-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Influent
71
224
16
0.024
1.6
3
17
31
210
30
11
210
6.9
16
<0.03
22
57
2.3
0.3
Effluent
6.6
64
154
0.018
1.0
2
6
<0.2
210
<10
<5
210
5
<0.02
1
<0.4
<0.2
1.3
<0.007
Percent
removal
91
71
oa
25
37
33
65
>99
0
>67
>55
0
44
T/100
0*
>98
•\,100
27
>98
8Actual data indicates negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-99
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: B
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 1 day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Trichlorofluorome thane
Influent
1,050
1,260
32
0.042
12
0.7
12
74
17
0.9
300
5.7
3.3
<0.2
3.7
0.1
41
<0.01
<2.0
Effluent
<5
99
8
0.015
6.5
<0.5
4
30
<4
0.6
170
3
<0.03
2
<0.1
<0.01
<0.007
0.3
2.6
Percent
removal
M.OO
92
75
64
46
>29
67
59
>76
33
43
47
>99
oa
>97
>90
'olOO
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-100
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: H
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants , mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phorphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Influent
288
320
39
0.047
0.99
4
4
22
14
41
3,900
14
2
60
65
63
4.5
0.5
5.7
26
27
3
<2.0
Effluent
14
300
43
0.019
0.20
6
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<5
960
230
<0.02
<0.4
<0.9
<0.07
<0.1
95
>99
>29
>88
75.
0
>99
>99
>99
•x-100
>98
>90
>96
54
•vlOO
MOO
oa
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-101
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: G
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, (ig/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Influent
203
1,340
37
0.028
6.4
52
4
63
<4
6
28
8.5
450
19
<0.03
0.8
<0.05
<0.1
270
5
95
5.2
Effluent
42
502
6
0.054
6.1
11
3
28
6
<1
13
<5
260
10
11
2
0.8
0.8
2.0
<0.02
<0.007
<5
Percent
removal
79
63
84a
Oa
5
79
25
56
a
0
>83
54
>41
42
46a
0
0*
oa
oa
99
-v.100
•\-100
>4
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-102
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: OO
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pol lutant/par ame te r
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Toluene
Chloroform
Trichloroe thy lene
Influent
1,890
0.082
4.6
4
11
39
43
110
46
120
26
61
23
<0.1
48
42
Effluent
635
0.026
0.66
5
12
37
84
120
50
2,300
3.2
<0.02
<0.07
3
10
<0.5
Percent
removal
66
68
86
a
0
oa
a
°a
°a
°a
0
88
•\-100
MOO
oa
79
>99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-103
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: Y-001
References: B5, pp. 32-53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 1 day
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Influent Effluent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phosphorus
11.7
6.8
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
removal
42
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chlorobenz one
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
6
650
41
<4
160
200
68
130
3
15
19
<0.1
1.6
1.9
12
13
2
4
14
7
290
<0.2
29
160
160
57
100
13
12
2.9
1.6
<0.2
<0.2
15
<0.04
<0.02
4.5
<5
a
oa
55
^100
oa
0
20
16
23
oa
22
85
oa
>87
>89
oa
^100
>99
oa
>65
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1.104
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: F
References: B5, pp. 32 - 53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludgei
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period! 1 day
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, ng/Ls
BODs
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, Pg/L:
Antinony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Diaethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Oichlorobencene
Ethylbenxene
Toluene
1 , 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
1* 2-Dichloropropane
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Trichlorofluoroae thane
Concentration
Influent
194
583
23
0.74
24
1
10
6
590
80
<0.5
100
100
260
<0.04
34
<0.1
2.4
8.2
35
6.5
<0.2
12
120
12
15
1.5
11
45
Effluent
69
276
44
0.028
9.5
0.3
10
4
130
0.6
0.9
60
80
570
23
<0.03
9
<0.4
<0.07
<0.05
<0.04
2.7
0.85
6.3
<0.04
<0.02
<0.7
<2.0
1.7
Percent
removal
64
53
96
60
70
0
33
78
99
0*
40
20
0«
M.OO
>83
>99
•V100
>994
93
95
•v.100
tlOO
>53
>82
96
*Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-105
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory:
Plant: E
References: B5, pp. 32 - 53
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Surface aeration
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling periodi I day
Pollutant/paraMter
conventional pollutants, vg/Lt
BOD.
COD
TSS
Total ph«nol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutant* , jjg/Li
AntiBony
CBdnira
chromiw
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhe«yl) phthalete
Diethyl phthalate
Dinethyl phtnalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
chlorobencene
1 , 2-Dichloroben>«ne
1 , 4-Dichlorobeniene
Ethylhenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Pvrene
chlorofora
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Concentration
Influent
16
2,660
52
0.069
1.9
B
6
11
840
e
40
7
7,900
5
<0.03
<0.03
30
5.7
5.4
1.0
<0.05
2
21
61
1
<0.01
22
17
2.0
Effluent
<5
78
19
0.014
1.4
0.8
1
4
30
<1
40
<5
5,100
IB
0.5
1
<0.4
<0.07
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
0.2
<0.2
5.5
<0.007
0.1
<5
0.0
72
97
63
80
26
90
63
64
96
>87
0
>29
35
99
>99
>96
>80
0*
90
>»9
91
>99
0*
>77
>B6
>75
Vctual data indicate negative :
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.1-106
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Dairy products
Subcategory: Milk, cottage cheese and ice cream
Plant:
References: A17, p. 112
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,a mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 2,330
62
97
Average of three sets of data.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-107
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Plywood, hardwood, and wood
preserving
Plant: 5
References: A24, p. 169
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary settling pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD 5
TSS
3,500
151
175
388
95
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-108
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Plywood, hardwood, and wood
preserving
Plant: 4
References: A24, p. 169
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Primary settling pond
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5 2,400
TSS 60
552
360
77
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-109
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Plywood, hardwood, and wood
. preserving
Plant: 3
References: A24, p. 169
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary clarifier
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BODS
TSS
1,800
114
54
295
96
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-110
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Synthetic resins
Subcategory: Cellulosic
Plant:
References: A23, p. 105
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 12,900 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 64
Volumetric loading: 0.48 kg Bod/d/m3
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 18
hr
(0,
4 W/m3
025 hp/m3)
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BODs
COD
1,320
37
196
97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-111
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Synthetic resins
Subcategory: Cellophane
Plant:
References: A23, p. 105
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 26,000 m3/d
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 1.5 hr
Volumetric loading: 1.0 kg BOD/d/m3 Secondary clarifier
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement: 130 W/m3
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
(0.177 hp/m3)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Convention pollutants:
BOD5
COD
90
228
20
197
78
14
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.1-112
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals manu- Engineering estimate
facturing Bench scale
Subcategory: Pilot scale
Plant: B Full scale x
References: A32, Supplement 2
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 1,890 m3/d (0.50 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration: Multiple settling tanks
5,200 m2 (56,000 ft2)
surface area
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: 200 to 500% Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: 7.5-37.3 kW Percent solids in sludge:
(10-50 hp)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
TSS
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
3,000
950
70
680
180
580
15
630
47
540
24
120
500
20
190
31
7,700
24
190
29
160
33
96
47
71
72
83,
oa
oa
70
38
70
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79 III.5.1-113
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals
Subcategory: Biological and natural extraction
products, formulation products
Plant: H
References: A32, Supplement 2
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 644 m3/d (0.17 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 2.
Volumetric loading:
MLSS: 3,500 mg/L
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M: 0.30
Mean cell residence time: 6.85 days
Sludge recycle ratio:
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
56
days
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Solids loading:
Sludge recycle flow rate:
344.7 kW
(60 hp)
992 m3/d
(262,000 gpd)
: 21.4 m3/d/m2
(525 gal/d/ft2)
107 kg TSS/d/m2
(22 Ib TSS/d/ft2)
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Influent
Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 7,520 4,640 38
COD 12,000 7,420 38
TSS 4,920 4,050 18
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Benzene
Methylene chloride
40
130
10
210
75
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-114
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals
Subcategory: Formulation products
Plant: S
References: A32, Supplement 2
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Four 1,290 m3 (340,000 gal) aeration tanks
Wastewater flow: 606 m3/d (0.16 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Chromium 30
Copper 80
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 50
Methylene chloride 800
10
20
10
250
66
75
80
69
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-115
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Journal article
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals
Subcategory: Pharmaceuticals and fine organic
chemicals
Plant: (in Texas)
References: C3, pp. 854-855
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification: Two-stage activated sludge system
Wastewater flow: 946 m3/d (0.25 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L
Influent Effluent3
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODB 7,470 75 99
COD 14,800 592 96
TKN 690 593 14
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-116
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Combined waste from Engineering estimate
petrochemical plants
and paper mills
Subcategory. Bench scale
Plant: Washburn tunnel facility Pilot scale
References: B16, pp. 288-289 Full scale x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Bar screening, grit removal, primary clarification,
nutrient addition, pH control
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: High rate
Wastewater flow: M.7 x 10s m3/d (45.0 mgd)
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading: Secondary clarifier
MLSS: configuration:
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Stapling period i Pour daye
Concentration, liq/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutant* i
Bia(2-chloroethyl) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bi»(J-ethylh«xyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diathyl phthalate
Benzidine
1 , 2-Diphenylhydrazine
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophcnol
p-Chloro-m-cr*»ol
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylane
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Xaophorone
Influent
19
358
1
2
0.6
4
250
0.1
4
43
4
68
0.9
1
0.4
2
1.2
0.9
3
2
0.2
Effluent
BDL*
18
Je
BDLC
6
4
340
0.9
BDLC
8
BDLC
4
390
1
1
2
4.0
1
9
lc
BDLC
Percent
removal
>47
95b
0
>0b
0°
°b
°l
0°
>0
81
>0
94b
0
°b
0
°b
"b
"b
0
50
>0
eeuMd to be < 10 ug/L.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
cBelow detectable limita; a*au»ed to be !••« than
correaponding influent concentration.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79 III.5.1-117
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal-tar distillation
plant
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, Appendix D-l
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol
500
<5
>99
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-118
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, Appendix D-l
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading: 144-1,600 kg
phenol/100 m3/d
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
8-50 hr
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent3 removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol 281
62
78
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-119
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Coke gasification plant Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: Al, Appendix D-l Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time: 2 d
Volumetric loading: 1,600-2,400 Kg Secondary clarifier
phenol/1,000 m3/d configuration:
MLSS: 2,000 mg/L
Volatile fraction of MLSS: Depth:
F/M: Hydraulic loading
Mean cell residence time: (overflow rate):
Sludge recycle ratio: Solids loading:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen: Weir loading:
Oxygen consumption: Sludge underflow:
Aerator power requirement: Percent solids in sludge:
Unit configuration: Continous flow through, bench-scale system
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol 5,000 <500 >90
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-120
Date: 11/15/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper and
paperboard
Subcategory: Wastepaper-board
Plant:
References: A26, pp. A-78-85
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Lagooning, trickling filter
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge:
REMOVAL DATA
stapling periods
Pollutant/pari
Concentration.
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutant«, mg/li
COO
622
ob
Toxic pollutants,
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
uq/Ls
(ie(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Toluene
Napthalane
Bromoform
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Methylene .chloride
Tnchloro«thyl«nc
Other pollutant!, U9/L:
Xylann
17
42
16
4*
6
6
139
3
37
2
13
SS
«DC
MD
19
1
1
33
37
14
31
73
11
7
69
200
72
72
2
54
3
2
9
MO
ob
12
13
"b
<£
$
50
0.
0.
0
65
2K
$
*
•v.100
•v.100
Average values.
Actual data Indicate negative removal.
CNot detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-121
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper and
paperboard
Subcategory: Sulfite-papergrade
Plant:
References: A26, pp. A-34-41
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge;
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutant!, n?/L:
COO 4,790
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chroauuin 13
Copper Bl
Lead 13
Nickel 16
Zinc 91
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 38
Di-n-butyl phthalate <1
.Diethyl phthalate <1
2,4-Dichlorophenol <1
Pentachlorophenol 4
Phenol S3
2, 4,6-Tnchlore-phenol 4
Bencene 53
Toluene IS
Naphthalene 72
Chlorofom 3.200
Dlchlorobromomethane 9
1,1-Dichloroethane 4
Hethylene chloride 460
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane 410
Tnchloroethylene 5
Other pollutants* V9/L:
xylenes <1
Average values.
K
Actual data indicate negative rm
CNot detected.
2.890
10
20
10
17
58
3
NDC
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
53
56
ND
ND
5
3
ND
23
75
23.
ob
36
92
MOO
MOO
MOO
96
MOO
MOO
MOO
26
98
MOO
MOO
99
99
MOO
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.1-122
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Coal gas washing process
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, Appendix D-l
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M ratio: 0.116 kg phenol/kg MLSS/d
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol 1,200
>99
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-123
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Berwick POTW
References: A50, p. 208
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic aeration detention time:
Volumetric loading:
MLSS:
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
F/M:
Mean cell residence time:
Sludge recycle ratio:
Mixed liquor dissolved oxygen:
Oxygen consumption:
Aerator power requirement:
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Secondary clarifier
configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic loading
(overflow rate):
Solids loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids in sludge
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/1:
BOD»
COD
TSS
Oil end great*
TKN
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
chromiun
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bif(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Concentration
Influent
933
2,600
1,150
263
130
50,000
350
30
1,500
e
1,700
29
200
8,500
330
>100
>100
6.6
29
11
Effluent
77
430
114
20
70
3,900
28
tr*
90
5
280
4
".,
NDb
5_
trc
trc
0.7.
NDd
10
Percent
removal
92
84
90
92
46
92
92
>67
94
38
84
86
89
>99
98
>99
>99
89
>99
9
Trace; < 10 ug/L based on reported influent concentration
and percent renoval.
K
Not detected; assuned to be < 10 ug/L.
cTrace; < 1 uq/L based on reported influent concentration and
percent removal.
Not detected; < 0.3 ug/L based on reported influent concen-
tration and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.1-124
-------
III.5.2 TRICKLING FILTRATION [1, 2]
III.5.2.1 Function
Trickling filtration is used to remove dissolved and collodial
biodegradable organics.
III.5.2.2 Description
The most common type of trickling filtration is classified as low
rate, using rock media; other types include high rate, using rock
media, and plastic media.
Low Rate/Rock Media. The process consists of a fixed bed of
rock media over which wastewater is applied for aerobic biological
treatment. Zoogleal slimes form on the media which assimilate
and oxidize substances in the wastewater. The bed is dosed by a
distributor system, and the treated wastewater is collected by an
underdrain system. Recirculation is usually not used. Primary
treatment is normally required to optimize trickling filter
performance.
The rotary distributor has become the standard because of its
reliability and ease of maintenance. In contrast to the high
rate trickling filter which uses continuous recirculation of fil-
ter effluent to maintain a constant hydraulic loading to the dis-
tributor arms, either a suction-level controlled pump or a dosing
siphon is employed for that purpose with a low rate filter.
Nevertheless, programmed rest periods may be necessary at times
because of inadequate influent flow.
Underdrains are manufactured from specially designed vitrified-
clay blocks that support the filter media and pass the treated
sewage to a collection sump for transfer to the final clarifier.
The filter media consists of 1- to 5-inch stone. Containment
structures are normally made of reinforced concrete and installed
in the ground to support the weight of the media.
The low rate trickling filter media bed generally is circular in
plan, with a depth of 5 to 10 feet. Although filter effluent
recirculation is generally not utilized, it can be provided as a
standby tool to keep filter media wet during low flow periods.
The organic material present in the wastewater is degraded by a
population of microorganisms attached to the filter media. As the
microorganisms grow, the thickness of the slime layer increases.
Periodically, wastewater washes the slime off the media, and a
new slime layer will start to grow. This phenomenon of losing the
slime layer is called sloughing and is primarily a function of the
organic and hydraulic loadings on the filter.
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.2-1
-------
Rock Media/High Rate. This process also consists of a fixed
bed of rock media over which wastewater is applied for aerobic
biological treatment. Zoogleal slimes form on the media which
assimilate and oxidize substances in the wastewater. The bed is
dosed by a distributor system, and the treated wastewater is col-
lected by an underdrain system. Primary treatment is normally
required to optimize trickling filter performance, and post-
treatment is often necessary to meet secondary standards or water
quality limitations.
The rotary distributor has become the standard because of its
reliability and ease of maintenance. It consists of two or more
arms that are mounted on a pivot in the center of the filter.
Nozzles distribute the wastewater as the arms rotate due to the
dyanmic action of the incoming primary effluent. Continuous
recirculation of filter effluent is used to maintain a constant
hydraulic loading to the distributor arms.
Underdrains are manufactured from specially designed vitrified-
caly blocks that support the filter media and pass the treated
sewage to a collection sump for transfer to the final clarifier.
The filter media consists of 1- to 5-inch stone. The high rate
trickling filter media bed generally is circular in plan, with a
depth of 3 to 6 feet. Containment structures are normally made
of reinforced concrete and installed in the ground to support the
weight of the media.
The organic material present in the wastewater is degraded by a
population of microorganisms attached to the filter media. As
the microorganisms grow, the thickness of the slime layer in-
creases. As the slime layer increases in thickness, the absorbed
organic matter is metabolized before it can reach the microorgan-
isms near the media face. As a result, the microorganisms near
the media face enter into an endogenous phase of growth. In this
phase, the microorganisms lose their ability to cling to the media
surface. The liquid then washes the slime off the media, and a
new slime layer will start to grow. This phenomenon of losing
the slime layer is called sloughing and is primarily a function
of the organic and hydraulic loadings on the filter. Filter
effluent recirculation is vital with high rate trickling filters
to promote the flushing action necessary for effective sloughing
control, without which media clogging and anaerobic conditions
could develop due to the high organic loading rates employed.
Plastic Media. The process consists of a fixed bed of
plastic media over which wastewater is applied for aerobic bio-
logical treatment. Zoogleal slimes form on the media which
assimilate and oxidize substances in the wastewater. The bed is
dosed by a distributor system, and the treated wastewater is col-
lected by an underdrain system. Primary treatment is normally
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.2 2
-------
required to optimize trickling filter performance, whereas post-
treatment is generally not required to meet secondary standards.
The rotary distributor has become the standard because of its
reliability and ease of maintenance, however, fixed nozzles are
often used in roughing filters. Plastic media is comparatively
light with a specific weight 10 to 30 times less than rock media.
Its high void space (approximately 95 percent) promotes better
oxygen transfer during passage through the filter than rock media
with its approximate 50 percent void space. Because of its light
weight, plastic media containment structures are normally con-
structed as elevated towers 20 to 30 feet high. Excavated con-
tainment structures for rock media can sometimes serve as a
foundation for elevated towers for converting an existing facility
to plastic media.
Plastic media trickling filters can be employed to provide inde-
pendent secondary treatment or roughing ahead of a second-stage
biological process. When used for secondary treatment, the media
bed is generally circular in plan and dosed by a rotary distribu-
tor. Roughing applications often utilize rectangular media beds
with fixed nozzles for distribution.
The organic material present in the wastewater is degraded by a
population of microorganisms attached to the filter media. As the
microorganisms grow, the thickness of the slime layer increases.
Periodically, the liquid will wash some slime off the media, and
a new slime layer will start to grow. This phenomenon of losing
the slime layer is called sloughing and is primarily a function
of the organic and hydraulic loadings on the filter. Filter ef-
fluent recirculation is vital with plastic media trickling filters
to ensure proper wetting of the media and to promote effective
sloughing control compatible with the high organic loadings
employed.
Modifications common to all types of trickling filtration include
addition of recirculation, multistaging, electrically powered
distributors, forced ventilation, filter convers, and use of
various methods of pretreatment and post-treatment of wastewater.
III.5.2.3 Technology Status
Low Rate/Rock Media. The low rate/rock media process is in
widespread use. The process is highly dependable in moderate
climates. Use of aftertreatment or multistaging has frequently
been found necessary to insure uniform compliance with effluent
limitations in colder regions. The process is being superseded
by changes to plastic media systems.
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.2-3
-------
High Rate/Rock Media. The high rate/rock media process has
been in widespread use since 1936. The process is a modification
of the low-rate trickling filter process.
Plastic Media. The plastic media process has been used as a
modification of rock media filters for the past 10 to 20 years.
III.5.2.4 Applications
Low Rate/Rock Media. Treatment of domestic and compatible
industrial wastewaters amenable to aerobic biological treatment
in conjunction with suitable pretreatment; process is good for
removal of suspended or colloidal materials and is somewhat less
effective for removal of soluble organics; can be used for nitri-
fication following prior (first-stage) biological treatment or as
stand-alone process in warm climates if organic loading is low
enough.
High Rate/Rock Media. Treatment of domestic and compatible
industrial wastewaters amenable to aerobic biological treatment
in conjunction with suitable pre- and post-treatment; industrial
and joint wastewater treatment facilities may use process as
roughing filter prior to activated sludge or other unit processes;
process is effective for removal of suspended or colloidal mate-
rials and is less effective for removal of soluble organics.
Plastic Media. Treatment of domestic and compatible indus-
trial wastewaters amenable to aerobic biological treatment; in-
dustrial and joint wastewater treatment facilities may use process
as roughing filter prior to activated sludge or other unit proc-
esses; existing rock filter facilities can be upgraded via ele-
vation of containment structure and conversion to plastic media;
can be used for nitrification following prior (first-stage)
biological treatment.
III.5.2.5 Limitations
Low Rate/Rock Media. Vulnerable to below freezing weather;
recirculation may be restricted during cold weather due to cooling
effects; marginal treatment capability in single-stage operation;
less effective in treatment of wastewater containing high concen-
trations of soluble organics; has limited flexibility and control
in comparison with competing processes, and has potential for
vector and odor problems, although they are not as prevalent as
with low-rate trickling filters; long recovery times with upsets;
limited to 60-80% BOD5 removal.
High Rate/Rock Media. Vulnerable to climate changes and low
temperatures; filter flies and odors are common, periods of inade-
quate moisture for slimes can be common; less effective in treat-
ment of wastewater containing high concentrations of soluble
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.2-4
-------
organics; limited flexibility and process control in comparison
with competing processes; high land and capital cost requirements;
recovery times of several weeks with upsets.
Plastic Media. Vulnerable to below freezing weather; recir-
culation may be restricted during cold weather due to cooling
effects; marginal treatment capability in single-stage operation;
less effective in treatment of wastewater containing high concen-
trations of soluble organics; has limited flexibility and control
in comparison with competing processes; has potential for vector
and odor problems, although they are not as prevalent as with low
rate/rock media trickling filters; long recovery times with upsets,
III.5.2.6 Typical Equipment
Underdrains, distributors, filter covers, plastic media.
III.5.2.7 Chemicals Required
None.
III.5.2.8 Residuals Generated
Low Rate/Rock Media. Sludge is withdrawn from the secondary
clarifier at a rate of 3,000 to 4,000 gal/Mgal of wastewater,
containing 500 to 700 Ib dry solids.
High Rate/Rock Media. Sludge is withdrawn from the secondary
clarifier at a rate of 2,500 to 3,000 gal/Mgal wastewater, con-
taining 400 to 500 Ib dry solids.
Plastic Media. Sludge is withdrawn from the secondary
clarifier at a rate of 3,000 to 4,000 gal/Mgal of wastewater, con-
taining 500 to 700 Ib dry solids.
III.5.2.9 Reliability
Low Rate/Rock Media. Highly reliable under conditions of
moderate climate; mechanical reliability high; process operation
requires little skill.
High Rate/Rock Media. Process can be expected to have a
high degree of reliability of operating conditions minimize varia-
bility, and installation is in a climate where wastewater tempera-
tures do not fall below 13°C for prolonged periods; mechanical
reliability is high; process is simple to operate.
Plastic Media. Process can be expected to have a high degree
of reliability if operating conditions minimize variability, and
installation is in a climate where wastewater temperatures do not
fall below 13°C for prolonged periods; mechanical reliability is
high; process is simple to operate.
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.2-5
-------
III.5.2.10. Environmental Impact
Rock Media. Odor problems; high land requirement relative
to many alternative processes; filter flies.
Plastic Media. Odor problems if improperly operated.
III.5.2.11 Design Criteria
III.5.2.12 Flow Diagrams
Low Rate/Rock Media.
RAW ,
WASTEWATER
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
TRICKLING
FILTER
FINAL
CLARIFIER
EFFLUENT (
RAW SLUDGE
WASTE SLUDGE
Date: 8/16/79
III.5.2-6
-------
High Rate/Rock Media.
RECIRCULATION
RAW WASTEWATER
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
HIGH RATE,
ROCK MEDIA
TRICKLING
FILTER
-c
^
/-PUMK MAI
FINAL
CLARIFIER
WASTE
;LUDGE
UN
EFFLUENT
RAW SLUDGE
RECIRCULATION
Plastic Media.
PUMP STATION
RAW WASTEWATER
RAW SLUDGE
III.5.2.13 Performance
RECIRCULATION
T_
r
PLASTIC
MEDIA
TRICKLING
FILTER
FINAL
CLARIFIER
1
WASTE SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
RECIRCULATION
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Dairy products manufacturing
Ice cream
Hospital wastewaters
Leather tanning and finishing
Chrome tanning
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Wastepaper board
Rubber processing
Styrene-butadiene rubber
Timber products processing
Wood preserving (creosote wastewater)
Date: 8/16/79
III.5.2-7
-------
References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
2. Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treat-
ment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1972.
pp. 433-435.
Date: «/16/79 III.5.2-8
-------
o
tu
ft
(D
M
CJ
\
-J
H
I
00
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR TRICKLING FILTER
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, wg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Naphthalene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Xylenes
Number of
data points
14
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
4
290
45
<1
17
42
16
49
6
6
140
3
37
2
55
19
1
1
2
Maximum
137
709
45
308
17
42
16
49
6
6
140
3
37
2
55
19
1
1
2
Median
29
623
45
<2.8
17
42
16
49
6
6
140
3
37
2
55
19
1
1
2
Mean
38-41
541
45
72-79
17
42
16
49
6
6
140
3
37
2
55
19
1
1
2
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
76
Oa
59
23
oa
oa
79
Oa
83
25
°a
°a
oa
°a
°a
°=
0*
oa
a
0
Maximum
98
77
59
>99
Oa
Oa
79
Oa
83
25
°a
°a
oa
°a
°a
°=
°a
oa
a
0
Median
93
23
59
>96
Oa
Oa
79.
Oa
83
25
°a
°a
Oa
oa
oj
°»
°a
oa
a
0
Mean
90
33
59
79-81
Oa
Oa
79
Oa
83
25
°a
0^
oa
°a
°a
°t
oa
oa
a
0
aActual data indicate negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
and finishing
Subcategory: Chrome process
Plant: (in India)
References: A15, p. 80
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Dilution, primary sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
821
48
94
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 .
III.5.2-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
and fininshing
Subcategory:
Plant: (in India)
References: A15, p. 80
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Dilution, primary sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
900
56
94
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 .
III.5.2-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
and finishing
Subcategory:
Plant: 3
References: A15, p. 79
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow: 3,780 m3/d
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio: 50%
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 270
COD
TSS 110
TKN
62
240
45
210
77
59
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.5.2-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning
and finishing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A15, p. 80
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary coagulation, sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent
Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
150-400
30-80
80
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79.
III.5.2-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Wood preserving
(creosote wastewater)
Plant:
References: Al, p. D-8
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Equalization, coagulation/sedimentation, dilution,
nitrogen/phosphorus addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: Plastic media
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading: 0.044 m3/min/m2 (1.07 gpm/ft2)
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
14.1 (recycle-to-raw wastewater)
1,060 kg BOD/1,000 m3/d (66.3 Ib BOD/1,000 ft3/d)
1,940 kg COD/1,000 m3/d (121.0 Ib COD/1,000 ft3d)
19.4 kg phenol/1,000 m3/d (1.2 Ib phenol/1,000 ft3/d)
Bed depth: 6.4 m (21 ft)
Power requirements:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,970 137 93
COD 3,110 709 77
Total phenol 31 <1.0 >97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79.
III.5.2-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, p. D-8
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification: "Dowjsac" filter media
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol
25
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79.
III.5.2-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 101
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5a
233
56
76
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.2-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 100
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs3
250
10
96
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79.
III.5.2-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 99
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5a
275
.b
11
96
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.2-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 97
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg.; Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5a
240
24
90
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.2-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 98
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD53
200
98
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79-
III.5.2-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 96
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
183
11
94
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 .
III.5.2-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 95
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5a
400
32
92
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79-
III.5.2-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Hospital
Subcategory:
Plant: 94
References: A22, p. 52
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
225
27
88
Values based on annual average removal efficiencies.
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.2-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, Appendix D-7
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol 450
<4.5
>99
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.2-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Dairy products
Subcategory: Ice cream
Plant:
References: A17, p. 112
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
1,100
22
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.2-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Rubber manufacturing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Butadiene-styrene synthetic rubber Bench scale
Plant: General Tire & Rubber Co., (Odessa, Texas) Pilot scale
References: B14, p. 45 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,a mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
COD 379 290 23
aAverage of six samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.5.2-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category:3
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: Al, Appendix D-7
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Synthesized wastewater
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth: 30 cm (11.8 in)
Power requirements:
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Total phenol
400
288-308
23-28
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.5.2-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Trickling Filter
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper
and paperboard
Subcategory: Wastepaper board
Plant:
References: A26, pp. A-78-85
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Lagooning
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Process modification:
Wastewater flow:
Total hydraulic loading:
Recirculation ratio:
Dosing interval:
Sloughing:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Power requirements:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration'
Influent Effluent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
563
623
Average values.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
CNot detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Fentachlorophenol
Phenol
2 , 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Other pollutants, ug/L:
Napthalene
Xylenes
ND°
ND
76
ND
35
ND
8
ND
ND
22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
34
ND
17
42
16
49
6
<1
6
139
3
37
2
19
1
<1
1
55
2
b
ob
79b
0
83b
0°
2ob
0,
of
or'
or
0
ob
k
ob
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.2-27
-------
III.5.3 LAGOONING (STABILIZATION PONDING) [1, 2, 3]
III.5.3.1 Function
Lagooning (stabilization ponding) is used to remove dissolved and
collodial biodegradable organics, and suspended solids.
III.5.3.2 Description
A stabilization pond is a relatively shallow body of water con-
tained in an earthen basin of controlled shape, which is designed
for the purpose of treating wastewater. The term "oxidation
pond," often used, is synonymous. Ponds have become very popular
with small communities because their low construction and operat-
ing costs offer a significant financial advantage over other
recognized treatment methods. Ponds are also used extensively
for the treatment of industrial wastes and mixtures of industrial
wastes and domestic sewage that are amenable to biological treat-
ment. Installations are now serving such industries as oil re-
fineries, slaughterhouses, dairies, poultry-processing plants,
and rendering plants. The aerated, anaerobic, facultative,
aerobic, and tertiary lagoons represent the common types.
Aerated Lagoons. Aerated lagoons are medium-depth basins
designed for the biological treatment of wastewater on a continu-
ous basis. In contrast to stabilization ponds, which obtain
oxygen from photosynthesis and surface reaeration, aerated lagoons
employ aeration devices that supply supplemental oxygen to the
system. The aeration devices may be a mechanical (i.e., surface
aerator) or diffused air system. Surface aerators are divided
into two types: cage aerators, and the more common turbine and
vertical shaft aerators. The many diffused air systems utilized
in lagoons consist of plastic pipes supported near the bottom of
the cells with regularly spaced sparger holes drilled in the tops
of the pipes. Because aerated lagoons are normally designed to
achieve partial mixing only, aerobic-anaerobic stratification will
occur, and a large fraction of the incoming solids and a large
fraction of the biological solids produced from waste conversion
settle to the bottom of the lagoon cells. As the solids begin to
build up, a portion will undergo anaerobic decomposition. Vola-
tile toxics can potentially be removed by the aeration process,
and incidental removal of other toxics can be expected to be
similar to an activated sludge system. Several smaller aerated
lagoon cells in series are more effective than one large cell.
Tapering aeration intensity downward in the direction of flow pro-
motes settling out of solids in the last cell. A nonaerated
polishing cell following the last aerated cell is an optional, but
recommended, design technique to enhance suspended solids removal
prior to discharge.
Lagoons may be lined with concrete or an impervious flexible
lining, depending on soil conditions and environmental regulations,
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5. 3-1
-------
When high-intensity aeration produces completely mixed (all
aerobic) conditions, a final settling tank is required. Solids
are recycled to maintain about 800 mg/L MLVSS in this mode.
Anaerobic Lagoons. Anaerobic lagoons are relatively deep
(up to 20 ft) ponds with steep sidewalls in which anaerobic con-
ditions are maintained by keeping loading so high that complete
deoxygenation is prevalent. Although some oxygenation is possible
in a shallow surface zone, once greases form an impervious surface
layer, complete anaerobic conditions develop. Treatment or sta-
bilization results from thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
organic wastes. The treatment process is analogous to that
occurring in the single-stage untreated anaerobic digestion of
sludge in which acid-forming bacteria break down organics. The
resultant acids are then converted to carbon dioxide, methane,
cells, and other end products.
In the typical anaerobic lagoon, raw wastewater enters near the
bottom of the pond (often at the center) and mixes with the active
microbial mass in the sludge blanket, which is usually about
6 feet deep. The discharge is located near one of the sides of
the pond, submerged below the liquid surface. Excess undigested
grease floats to the top, forming a heat-retaining and relatively
air-tight cover. Wastewater flow equalization and heating are
generally not practiced. Excess sludge is washed out with the
effluent. Recirculation of waste sludge is not required.
Anaerobic lagoons are capable of providing treatment of high
strength wastewaters and are resistant to shock loads.
Anaerobic lagoons are customarily contained within earthen dikes.
Depending on soil characteristics, lining with various impervious
materials such as rubber, plastic or clay may be necessary. Pond
geometry may vary, but surface-area-to-volume ratios are minimized
to enhance heat retention.
Facultative Lagoons. Facultative lagoons are intermediate
depth (3 to 8 feet) ponds in which the wastewater is stratified
into three zones. These zones consist of an anaerobic bottom
layer, an aerobic surface layer, and an intermediate zone. Strati-
fication is a result of solids settling and temperature-water
density variations. Oxygen in the surface stabilization zone is
provided by reaeration and photosynthesis. This in contrast to
aerated lagoons in which mechanical aeration is used to create
aerobic surface conditions. In general, the aerobic surface
layer serves to reduce odors while providing treatment of soluble
organic by-products of the anaerobic processes operating at the
bottom.
Sludge at the bottom of facultative lagoons will undergo anaerobic
digestion producing carbon dioxide, methane, and cells. The
photosynthetic activity at the lagoon surface produces oxygen
Date: 6/22/79 111. 5. 3-2
-------
diurnally, increasing the dissolved oxygen during daylight hours,
while surface oxygen is depleted at night.
Facultative lagoons are often and for optimum performance should
be operated in series. When three or more cells are linked, the
effluent from either the second or third cell may be recirculated
to the first. Recirculation rates of 0.5 to 2.0 times the plant
flow have been used to improve overall performance.
Facultative lagoons are customarily contained within earthen
dikes. Depending on soil characteristics, lining with various
impervious materials such as rubber, plastic or clay may be nec-_
essary. Use of supplemental top-layer aeration can improve
overall treatment capacity, particularly in northern climates
where icing over of facultative lagoons is common in the winter.
Aerobic Lagoons. Aerobic lagoons contain bacteria and algae
in suspension, and aerobic conditions prevail throughout the
depth. Waste is stabilized as a result of the symbiotic relation-
ship between aerobic bacteria and algae. Bacteria break down
waste and generate.carbon dioxide and nutrients (primarily nitro-
gen and phosphorus). Algae, in the presence of sunlight, utilize
the nutrients and inorganic carbon; they, in turn, supply oxygen
that is utilized by aerobic bacteria. Aerobic lagoons are usually
less than 18 inches deep (the depth of light penetration) and must
be periodically mixed to maintain aerobic conditions throughout.
In order to achieve effective removals with aerobic lagoons, some
means of removing algae (coagulation, filtration, multiple cell
design) is necessary. Algae have a high degree of mobility and
do not settle well using conventional clarification.
Tertiary Lagoons/Polishing Ponds. Tertiary lagoons serve as
a polishing step following other biological treatment processes.
They are often called maturation or polishing ponds and primarily
serve the purpose of reducing suspended solids. Water depth is
generally limited to 2 or 3 feet, and mixing is usually provided
by surface aeration at a low power-to-volume ratio. Tertiary
lagoons are quite popular as a final treatment step for textile
wastewater treated with the extended-aeration activated sludge
process.
III. 5. 3. 3 Technology Status
Aerated Lagoons. While not as widely used when compared
with the large number of facultative lagoons in common use
throughout the United States, aerated lagoons have been fully
demonstrated, and used for years.
Anaerobic Lagoons. Although anaerobic processes are common
for sludge digestion, anaerobic lagoons for wastewater treatment
Date: 6/22/79 II I. 5. 3-3
-------
have found only limited application. The process is well demon-
strated for the stabilization of highly concentrated organic
wastes.
Facultative Lagoons. Facultative lagoons have been fully
demonstrated and are in moderate use especially for treatment of
relatively weak municipal wastewater in areas where real estate
costs are not a restricting factor.
III.5.3.4 Applications
Aerated Lagoons. Used for domestic and industrial waste-
water of low and medium strength; commonly used where land is
inexpensive, and costs and operational control are to be mini-
mized; existing oxidation ponds, lagoons, and natural bodies of
water can be upgraded in a relatively simple manner to this type
of treatment; aeration increases the oxidation capacity of the
pond and is useful in overloaded ponds that generate odors; useful
when supplemental oxygen requirements are high or when the re-
quirements are either seasonal or intermittent.
Anaerobic Lagoons. Typically used in series with aerobic or
facultative lagoons; effective as roughing units prior to aerobic
treatment of high strength wastes.
Facultative Lagoons. Used for treating raw, screened, or
primary settled domestic wastewaters and weak biodegradable indus-
trial wastewaters; most applicable when land costs are low, and
operation and maintenance costs are to be minimized.
III.5.3.5 Limitations
Aerated Lagoons. May experience reduced biological activity
and treatment efficiency, and the formation of ice in very cold
climates.
Anaerobic Lagoons. May generate odors; require relatively
large land area; water temperatures should be maintained above
75°F for efficient operation.
Facultative Lagoons. May experience reduced biological
activity and treatment efficiency in very cold climates; ice for-
mation can also hamper operations; odors can be a problem in
overloading situations.
III.5.3.6 Chemicals Required
Aerated Lagoons. None.
Anaerobic Lagoons. Nutrients as needed to make up deficien-
cies in raw wastewater; no other chemicals required.
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5.3-4
-------
Facultative Lagoons. If wastewater is nutrient deficient,
a source of supplemental nitrogen or phosphorus may be needed;
no other chemicals required.
III.5.3.7 Residuals Generated
Aerated Lagoons. Settled solids on pond bottom may require
clean-out every 10 to 20 years, or possibly more often if a
polishing pond is used behind the aerated pond.
Anaerobic Lagoons. Excess sludge is usually washing out in
the effluent; since anaerobic lagoons are often used for pre-
liminary treatment, recirculation or removal of sludge not gen-
erally required.
Facultative Lagoons. Settled solids may require clean out
and removal once every 10 to 20 years.
III.5.3.8 Reliability
Aerated Lagoons. Service life estimated at 30 years or more;
reliability of equipment and process is high; little operator
expertise required.
Anaerobic Lagoons. Generally resistant to upsets; highly
reliable if pH in the relatively narrow optimum range is main-
tained.
Facultative Lagoons. Service life estimated to be 50 years;
little operator expertise required; overall, the system is highly
reliable.
III.5.3.9 Environmental Impact
Aerated Lagoons. Opportunity exists for volatile organic
material and pathogens in aerated lagoons to enter the air (as
with any aerated wastewater treatment process); opportunity de-
pends on air/water contact afforded by aeration system; poten-
tial exists for seepage of wastewater into groundwater unless
lagoon is lined; aerated lagoons generate less solid residue,
compared to other secondary treatment processes.
Anaerobic Lagoons. May create odors; relatively high land
requirement; potential exists for seepage of wastewater into
groundwater unless lagoon is lined.
Facultative Lagoons. Potential exists for seepage of waste-
water into groundwater unless lagoon is lined; relatively small
quantities of sludge are produced compared to other secondary
processes.
Date: 6/22/79 III. 5. 3-5
-------
III.5.3.10 Design Criteria
Criteria/factor
Detention time
Depth
PH
Water temperature
Unit
d
ft
-
°C
Aerated lagoon
3-10
6-20
6.5 - 8
0-40
Anaerobic
lagoon
1-50
8-20
6.8 - 7.2
6-49
Facultative
lagoon
20
6.5
- 180
3-8
- 9.0
2-32
Optimum water
temperature
Oxygen required
Organic loading
Operation
Ib BOD5/
acre/d
20 30
0.7 - 1.4 times
BODs removed
10 - 300 220 - 2,200
20
10 - 100
One or more cells
Parallel At least 3 cells
in series
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-6
-------
III.5.3.11 Flow Diagrams
Aerated Lagoons.
Anaerobic Lagoons.
Facultative Lagoons.
III.5.3-7
-------
III.5.3.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Aerated Lagoons
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing
Leather tanning and finishing
Hair pulping, chrome tanning, retanning - wet finishing
Vegetable tanning
Organic chemicals production
Aqueous liquid-phase reaction systems
Processes with process water contact as steam diluent
or absorbent
Paint manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals production
Biological and natural extraction products
Chemical synthesis products, and formulation products
Textile milling
Knit fabric finishing
Stock and yarn finishing
Woven fabric finishing
Timber products processing
Hardwood
Aerobic Lagoons
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing
Corn
Fruits, vegetables, and specialties
Peas
Potatoes
Soup, tomatoes, and poultry
Facultative Lagoons
Leather tanning and finishing
Cattle - sheep save, chrome tanning
Vegetable tanning
Organic chemicals production
Petrochemicals
III.5.3-8
-------
Textile milling
Knit fabric finishing
Nonwoven fabric production
Stock and yarn finishing
Woven fabric finishing
Timber products processing
Hardboard
Anaerobic Lagoons
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing
Citrus fruits
Pea blanch
Tomatoes
Tertiary Effluent Polishing Lagoons
Textile milling
Felted fabric processing
Stock and yarn finishing
III.5.3.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
2. Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Collecting, Treat-
ment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1972.
pp. 551-552.
3. Technical Study Report, BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS, Textile Mills
Point Source Category (contractor's draft report). Contracts
68-01-3289 and 68-01-3884, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1978.
III.5.3-8.1
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR AERATED LAGOONS
rt
0>
to
\
CO
ui
I
00
N)
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenols
TKN
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzidine
1 , 2-Diphenylhydrazine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Benzene
Number of
data points
24
11
4
20
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
5
2
2
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
Effluent concentration
Minimum
6
92
47
3
17
0.003
22
30
<1
<2
9
5
52
<20
0.1
30
<200
13
99.
•<10c
<2C
1
6
1
4
6
7
14
1
I")
50
>97
0.
°a
0
>80
>99
Oa
>50
7
oa
>60
>0
26
0
°a
0
25
41a
oa
67
>23
>71
>0
>99
0
Maximum
>99
>99
99
99
98
>99
79
82
>50
>97
99
94
91
93
>99
50
>50
>80
>99
>60
>0
96
0
0
0
25
41a
oa
67
>23
>71
>99
>99
>95
Median
86
62
46
45
98
65
77
82
>50
>97
91
36
45
>86
>99
0
>50
>44
61
>60
>0
>78
0
0
0
25
41a
0
67
>23
>71
>61
>99
>65
Mean
78
48
50
47
98
65
77
82
>50
>97
63
49
45
>86
>99
17
>50
>44
55
>60
>0
70
0
0
0
25
41a
0
67
>23
>71
>55
>99
56
(continued)
-------
o
0>
rt
fD
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR AERATED LAGOONS (cont'd)
VD
u>
I
00
•
OJ
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
Methylchloride
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Isophorone
Number of
data points
(continued)
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
w
<10h
<10b
3
2b
<10o
<4^
<3K
<10b
4
5
2
0.4
<2C
0.2,,
<1C
3
lb
<10b
.
<10?
<10b
3
2b
96
>81=,
oa
83
>5
>0
>0
>33
oa
Oa
33
97
>0
99
>0
oa
67
>47
oa
>91-
oa
>60
96
33
Maximum
>96
>81
Oa
83
>94
>0
>0
>95
oa
Oa
33
97
>0
99
>58
Oa
67
>47
>57
>91
97
>60
96
33
Median
>96
>81=
Oa
83
>89
>0
>0
>90
oa
Oa
33
97
>0
99
>28
Oa
67
>47
>50
>91
97
>60
96
33
Mean
>96
>81a
Oa
83
>78
>0
>0
>72
oa
Oa
33
97
>0
99
>28
Oa
67
>47
36
>91
65
>60
96
33
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10 yg/L.
"Reported as not detected; assumed to be less than the corresponding influent concentration.
-------
o
0)
ft-
KJ
\
U)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR AEROBIC LAGOONS
~ Number of Effluent concentration, mg/L Removal efficiency, %
Pollutant data points Minimum Maximum Median Mean Minimum Maximum Median Mean
Conventional pollutant
BOD a.
7.8
1,210
17-58 267-290
59
99
91-98 84-89
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR FACULTATIVE LAGOONS (MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIES)
H
H
•
Ul
U>
I
00
•
£>.
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants
BOD 5
COD
TSS
TKN
Number of
data points
4
2
3
2
Effluent concentration, mg/L
Minimum
53
717
48
35
Maximum
274
2,110
234
100
Median
138
1,410
105
67.5
Mean
149
1,410
129
67.5
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
77
55
57
33
Maximum
96
68
86
67
Median
90
62
74
50
Mean
88
62
72
50
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR FACULTATIVE LAGOONS (TEXTILES INDUSTRY)
Pollutant
Number of
data points
Efficiency concentration, mq/L
Minimum
Maximum
Median Mean
Conventional pollutants
BOD5
COD
TSS
11
8
8
17
115
14
482
2,190
945
141 166
711 765
38 165
-------
ft
ft)
to
\
(jj
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOONS
H
Ul
U>
I
00
•
U1
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 5
COD
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Benzene
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Butyric acid
Propionic acid
Number of
Effluent concentration
data points Minimum
8
4
1
3
3
2
2
80
348
5,000
10
220
300
470
Maximum
<3,000
5,910
5,000
40
2,600
330
500
Median
548"
2,300
5,000
35
2,300
315
485
Removal efficiency, %
Mean Minimum
<1,010
2,710
5,000
28
1,700
315
485
43
30
50
50
Oa
°a
oa
Maximum
>90
47
50
67
Oa
°a
Oa
Median
78
39
50
56
oa
Oa
Mean
73
39
50
58
Oa
Oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
-------
rt
0>
to
VO
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR TERTIARY POLISHING LAGOONS
H
H
H
Ul
•
W
O3
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Number of
data points
2
2
2
Effluent concentration
Minimum
142
22
0.028
Max imum
263
28
0.051
Median
202
25
0.04
Mean
202
25
0.04
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
oa
24
Oa
Maximum
52
76
46
Median
26
50
23
Mean
26
50
23
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Naphthalene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
W
<10b
18b
<10b
18
100
<10b
<10b
<10b
V.
<10b
18b
<10b
18
120
11
<10?
<10b
<10b
18b
<10b
18
110
<11
<10b
<10b
u
<10b
18b
<10b
18
110
71
oa
>72
44
Oa
>44
>82
>79
>71
Oa
>72
44
86
72
>82
>79
>71
Oa
>72
44
43
>58
>82
>79
>71
Oa
>72
44
43
>58
>82
>79
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p VII-22
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 60 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 45 hp/Mgal
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TSS
366
835
94
814
89
74
3
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-22
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 86 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 780 hp/Mgal
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 1,742 157 91
TSS 556 599 (8)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
development
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-22
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
18 hr
150 hp/Mgal
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 388
COD 1,762
189
1,215
51
31
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-22
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 75 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 25 hp/Mgal
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 108
TSS 21
14
12
87
43
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-22
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 24 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 400 hp/Mgal
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODg 69
COD 644
TSS 54
69
581
68
0
10
(26)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
development
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-22
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 0.5 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 1,000 hp/Mgal
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TSS
252
556
249
429
110
1
23
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Hair pulp, chrome tan,
retan-wet finish
Plant: Armiral, TN
References: 2, p. 10
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Concentration
Pol lutant/paraneter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
TSS
Oil and grease
TKN
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
2 , 4 , 6-Tr ichlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Influent
1,867
2,907
720
500
160,000
50
60
1,100
60
500
51
4,400
880
250
54
88
24
Effluent
21
155
17
105
1,100
5
150
80
30
49
2
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
removal
99
95
98
79
99
90
(150)
93
50
90
96
-V100
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/13/79
III.5.3-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant: (in Texas City)
References: B16, p.79
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 0.11 kg COD/m2/day
Depth:
Volumetric loading: 139 kg COD/1,000 m3/day
Volume: 0.189 m3
Temperature: 27°C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,a mg/LPercent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 1,340
348
47
Average of 13 values.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.5.3-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: (in Texas City) Pilot scale
References: B16, p. 79 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 0.02 kg BOD/m2/day; 0.03 kg COD/m2/day
Depth:
Volumetric loading: 15.2 kg BOD/1,000 n3/6ay 29.9 kg COD/1,000 m3/6ay
Volume: 420,000 m3
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent0 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 2,650 928 65
COD 5,440 3,320 39
a
Average of three values.
b
Effluent calculated from percent removal and influent
data.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.5.3-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: paint manufacturing
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: 4, p. VII-18
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Physical/chemical primary treatment
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TSS
TOC
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, wg/L:
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Benzene
Toluene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1,1, -Tr ichloroethane
Influent
23,400
260,000
400
25,000
1.1
170
2
13
105
115
98
142
400
100
4,200
200
200
25
23
31
560
Effluent
17
675
42
200
0.003
30
<1
56
9
7
<20
0.1
<200
<20
<60
<10
NO
ND
ND
1
22
Percent
removal
>99
>99
90
99
>99
82
>50
55
91
>94
>80
>99
>50
>80
>99
>95
•\,ioo
•v-100
•v-100
97
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/13/79
III.5.3-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:3
References: B16, p.61
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Petrochemical diluent
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Several lagoons in series
Wastewater flow: 1.9 x 103 m3/d
Hydraulic detention time: 20 days (entire system)
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluenta removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
800
80
90
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.5.3-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
53
175
14
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
35
115
35
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
482
2,186
18
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration/ mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TSS
325
810
40
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
145
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines 4evel°Praervt
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration/ mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
141
862
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BODS
COD
211
548
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
233
634
59
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory. Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
111
789
945
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source.category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Nonwoven manufacturing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
TSS
17
29
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Nonwoven manufacturing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-30
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: None reported
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Effluent
concentration, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
79
179
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Timber products Engineering estimate
processing
Subcategory: Hardboard Bench scale
Plant: 248 Pilot scale
References: 2, p. 7-108 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary aerated pond (kinecs air pond), two-stage
biological treatment (2 Infilco aero accelerators),
and two aerated lagoons in series
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Two facultative lagoons used alternately
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
Capacity: 6 Mgal (each lagoon)
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 2,950a 118 96&
TSS 544a 234 5?a
Removal efficiency is for the entire system.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/13/79
III.5.3-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Tertiary Effluent Polishing
Data source status:
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development
document
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant:
References: 1, p. VII-31
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Parallel primary and secondary oxidation ponds
Wastewater flow: 0.75 mgd
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth -.
Total volume: 15 Mgal
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Po 1 lutant/par ame ter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenols
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Lead
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Trichlorof luoromethane
Influent
78
37
0.036
36
865
40
48
Effluent
142
28
0.051
ND
123
11
ND
Percent
removal
(82)
24
(42)
M.OO
86
72
^100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Tertiary Effluent Polishing
Data source: Effluent Guidelines development Data source status:
document
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Felted fabric processing Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: 1, p. VII-32 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization, activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: One basin
Wastewater flow: 0.1 mgd
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
Total volume: 2.5 Mgal
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/paremeter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenols
552
91
0.052
263
22
0.028
52
76
46
Toxic pollutants, pg/L
Chromium
Copper
Selenium
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Naphthalene
35
ND
32
45
18
56
ND
18
18
101
ND
ND
^100
-
44
(124)
•v-100
-v.100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/22/79
III.5.3-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Soup, tomatoes, poultry
Plant:
References: A21, p. 286
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Two ponds in series
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
InfluentaEffluent removal
Conventional pollutants;
BOD5
780-3,500 7.8b-35 95-99b
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Centrifuged effluent.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.3-34
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Petrochemical wastes
Plant:
References: B16, pp. 75-78
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 770 kg COD/1,000 m3/day
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Concentration,3 pg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Other pollutants :
Acetadehyde
Acetic acid
Butyric acid
Propionic acid
Influent
80
2,100
c
ND
ND
Effluent
40
2,600
300
470
Percent
removal
5°b
0°
b
°b
0
Data are averaged from 5 to 12 occurences.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
"Not detected, reported as zero.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.5.3-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Petrochemical wastes
Plant:
References: B16, pp. 75-78
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 209 kg/day/1,000 m3
Organic loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,5 yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Benzene 10,000
5,000
50
Other pollutants:
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
30
215
10
220
67b
0
Data are averaged from 5 to 12 occurences.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.5.3-36
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Petrochemical wastes
Plant:
References: B16, pp. 75-78
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 353 kg COD/1,000 m3/day
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Other pollutants:
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Butyric acid
Propionic acid
Concentration ,
* yg/L
Influent Effluent
80
2,100 2,
NDC
ND
35
300
330
500
Percent
removal
56b
of
°*
ob
Data are averaged from 5 to 12 occurences.
Actual data indicate negative, removal.
"Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.5.3-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: (in Texas City) Pilot scale
References: B16, p. 79 Full scale
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Lagoon of irregular prismoid shape
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 0.104 kg BOD/m2/day; 0.227 kg COD/m2/day
Depth:
Volumetric loading: 110 kg BOD/1,000 m3/day; 248 kg COD/1,000 m3/day
Volume: 55 m3
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parame ter Influent Effluent3 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5b 1,060 488 52
CODC 2,090 1,280 39
aEffluent calculated from influent and percent removal,
Average of 20 samples.
CAverage of 21 samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.5.3-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Hardboard
Plant: 24
References: Al, P- 7-10
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, primary clarifier, flow equalization,
two contact stabilization activated sludge systems
operating in parallel
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 6 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 436
TSS 157
102
120
77
24
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.3-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Hardboard
Plant: 444
References: Al, p. 7-105
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary settling (2 ponds)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Aerated lagoon plus secondary settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 686 192 72.
TSS 148 365 0°
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 •
III.5.3-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Hardboard
Plant: 262
References: Al, p. 7-105
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, primary settling, nutrient addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Aerated lagoon plus secondary settling pond
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 2 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD5 1,700
Toxic pollutants, yg/L
Benzene NDC
Ethylbenzene 20
Toluene 15
273
10
ND
ND
84
M.OO
VLOO
Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 III.5.3-41
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Timber products
Subcategory: Hardboard
Plant: 428
References: A13, p. 7-109
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Primary clarification, settling
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Two lagoons in series
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 34 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants , mg/L :
BOD5
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Influent
4,470
3,720
300
90
60
20
Effluent
905
1,700
b
ND
40
30
ND
Percent
removal
82
54
-VLOO
56
50
-vlOO
Includes removal due to primary clarification.
DNot detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.5.3-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Vegetable tanning process
Plant: 13
References: A15, p. 82
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Volume - 2,980 m3
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 16-35 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 16.2-130 kg BOD5/d/l,000 m3
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 7.5 kw (10 hp)
Depth:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TSS
TKN
Concentration ,
mg/L
Influent Effluent
1,040
4,470 1
539
88
86
,610
571
22
Percent
removal
92
64
oa
75
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 .
III.5.3-43
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant:
References: A6, pp. VII-59,60
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Equalization, grit removal, screening, dissolved
air flotation with chemical addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Two lagoons in series, surface aeration
Wastewater flow: 570 m3/d (150,000 gpd)
Hydraulic detention time: 170 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement: 3.5 watt/m3 (18 hp/Mgal)
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 48 hr
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants , mg/L :
BOD5
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper
Nickel
Thallium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Methyl chloride
Influent
200
725
32
0.026
81
32
14
45
13
34
32
19
160
200
56
Effluent
67
577
17
0.018
52
32
13
ND3
<10
ND
24
<5
ND
ND
<5
Percent
removal
66
20
47
31
36
0
7
'VLOO
>23
M.OO
25
>74
'VlOO
'VLOO
>91
Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 .
III.5.3-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Vegetable tanning process
Plant:
References: A15, p. 86
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 32.4-325 kg BOD5/d/l,000 m3
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 . 1,150 152 87
COD 2,220 717 68
TSS 408 105 74
TKN 150 100 33
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.5.3-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing
Subcategory: Vegetable tanning process
Plant:
References: A15, p. 85
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 4-8 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 142 kg BOD5/d/l,000 m3
Depth:
Aerator power requirement: 7.5 kw (10 hp)
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,170 274 77
COD 4,730 2,110 55
TSS - 503
TKN 107 35 67
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.5.3-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Facultative
Data source status:
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Leather tanning and
finishing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Cattle-sheep save, chrome Bench scale
Plant: Pownal Tanning Co., North Pownal, Vermont Pilot scale
References: A15, p. 84 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow: 2,271 m3/d
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
TSS
673
339
53
48
92
86
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date; 8/16/79
III.5.3-47
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory:
Plant: PK60
References: A21, p. 292
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 3,280
TSS 401
26
136
99
66
Average concentration?,.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.3-48
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: TO52 Bench scale
Plant: A21, p. 292 Pilot scale
References: Secondary Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,5 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,100 13 99
TSS 530 44 92
a
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.5.3-49
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory:
Plant: ST40
References: A21, p. 292
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants :
BODs 4,090
TSS 270
94
41
98
85
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.3-50
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: PN26 Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 292 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Po1lutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 616 53 91
TSS 130 92 29
a
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 ' III.5.3-51
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: TO51 Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 292 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,a mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,000 13 99
TSS 690 44 94
a
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 . III.5.3-52
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: GR33 Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 292 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,300 26 98
TSS 400 25 94
a
Average concentrations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.5.3-53
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Potatoes
Plant:
References: A21, p. 286
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Six ponds in series
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 116 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
InfluentEffluenta removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
1,000
90
91
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 .
III.5.3-54
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerobic
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Fruits, vegetables, and specialties Bench scale
cannery
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 286 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 9.6 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluenta removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
2,940
1,210
59
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79-
III.5.3-55
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Tomatoes Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 289 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 7.4 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 120 kg BOD5 /m3/d (7.5 Ib BOD5/ft3/d)
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluenta removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 . 550 110 80
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.5.3-56
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Pea blanch
Plant:
References: A21, p. 289
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
10 days
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent3 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
30,000
<3,000
>90
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 '
III.5.3-57
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Canned and preserved Engineering estimate
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Citrus Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A21, p. 289 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 1.3 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 3,430 kg BOD5/1,000 m3/d (214 Ib BOD5/1,000 ft3/d)
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent3 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 4,600 598 87
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.5.3-58
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Process with process water contact Bench scale
as steam diluent or absorbent Pilot scale
and aqueous liquid phase reaction Full scale
system
Plant: 6
References: A25, p. 300
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influenta Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
870
2,380
644
<362
235
980
573
362
73
66
11
Ob
a
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 ' III.5.3-59
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Process with process water contact Bench scale
as steam diluent or absorbent Pilot scale
Plant: 8 Full scale
References: A25, p. 300
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent* Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
37.5
297
70
300
6
92
52
3
84
69
26
99
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79' III.5.3-60
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Aqueous liquid phase reaction Bench scale
systems Pilot scale
Plant: 21 Full scale
References: A25, p. 300
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hr composite
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent5 Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 123 27 78
COD 1,579 600 62
TOC 138 47 66
TSS 273 30 89
Calculated from effluent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.5.3-61
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: (in Texas City) Pilot scale
References: B16, p. 79 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 0.07 kg BOD/m2/d» 0.13 kg COD/m2/ci
Depth:
Volumetric loading: 134 kg BOD/1,000 m3/day; 279 kg COD/1,000 m3/day
Volume: 98,400 m3
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 mg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent13 removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 4,820 2,750 43
COD 8,440 5,910 30
BOD data average of three values; COD data average of two
values.
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.5.3-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Anaerobic
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant: Seadrift plant
References: B16, p. 79
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic lording:
Organic loading: 0.02 kg BOD/m2/d
Depth:
Volumetric loading: 17.5 kg BOD/1,000 m3/day
Volume: 680,000 m3
Temperature: 24°C
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,3 mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
570
137
76
Average of five values.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.5.3-63
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Biological and natural extrac- Bench scale
tion products, chemical syntheses
products, formulation products
Plant: E Pilot scale
References: A32, Supplement 2 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization, neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Aeration tank with turbine aerators
Wastewater flow: 1,330 m3/d (0.35 Mgal/d)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of 3 samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
TSS
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Influent
7,100
369
16
35
590
20
146
38
860
1,100
Effluent
869
1,790
16
26
52
40
99
28
1,000
32
Percent
removal
88
oa
0
26
91
oa
32
26
a
0
97
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.5.3-64
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source : Effluent Guidelines Data source status :
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Biological and natural extrac- Bench scale
tion products/ chemical synthesis
products/ formulation products
Plant: F Pilot scale
References: A32/ Supplement 2 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration:
Wastewater flow: 37.9 m3/<3 (0.01 Mgal/d)
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading :
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth :
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; _ ______ _
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter _ Influent _ Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper 60 106 Oa
Zinc 140 507 Oa
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 160 15 57
Methylene chloride 63 130 Oa
1
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.5.3-65
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerated
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant: 40-acre facility
References: B16, pp. 274
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization, limited aeration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Equalization basin, limited aeration basin, 2
parallel aeration basins, facultative lagoon
Wastewater flow: 49-57 x 103 m3/day
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Oxygen requirement:
Aerator power requirement:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, uq/L
Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants i
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)nethane
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzidine
1 , 2-Dipheny Ihydraz ine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenol
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Hexachlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Isophorone
25
2
21
6
1
2
8
12
5
3
1
2
12
4
3
4
2
3
12
2
16
1
1
3
19
3
BDL
BDL
1
6
1
4
6
7
14
1
BDL
3
2
BDL
BDL
4
5
2
0.4
BDL
0.2
BDL
3
1
BDL
2
•v-100
•v-100
95
0
°,
oa
25
41
Oa
67
-V100
oa
83
•\,100
•v-100
oa
oa
33
97
•\-100
99
-vlOO
•v-100
67
•v-100
33
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.3-66
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Corn
Plant:
References: A21, p. 286
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Six ponds in series
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time: 84 days
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
774-3,700
11-56
93->99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.5.3-67
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lagoon, Aerobic
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Subcategory: Peas
Plant:
References: A21, p. 286
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Six ponds in series
Wastewater flow:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Depth:
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 337-1,050
17-58
83-98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.5.3-68
-------
III.5.4 ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS [1]
III.5.4.1. Function
Rotating biological contactors (RBC) are used to remove dissolved
and collodial biodegradable organics.
III.5.4.2 Description
The process utilizes a fixed-film biological reactor consisting
of plastic media mounted on a horizontal shaft and placed in
a tank. Common media forms are a disc-type made of styrofoam and
a denser lattice-type made of polyethylene. While wastewater
flows through the tank, the media are slowly rotated, about 40%
immersed, for contact with the wastewater to remove organic
matter by the biological film that develops on the media.
Rotation results in exposure of the film to the atmosphere as a
means of aeration. Excess biomass on the media is stripped off
by rotational shear forces, and the stripped solids are main-
tained in suspension by the mixing action of the rotating media.
Multiple staging of RBC's increases treatment efficiency and could
aid in achieving nitrification year round. A complete system
could consist of two or more parallel trains, each consisting
of multiple stages in series.
III.5.4.3. Common Modifications
Common modifications of RBC's include the following: multiple
staging; use of dense media for latter stages in train; use of
molded covers or housing of units; various methods of pretreatment
and after treatment of wastewater; use in combination with trick-
ling filter or activated sludge processes; use of air driven
system in lieu of mechanically driven system; addition of air to
the tanks; addition of chemicals for pH control; and sludge recy-
cle to enhance nitrification.
III.5.4.4 Technology Status
The process has been in used in the United States only since 1969
and is not yet in widespread use. Use of the process is growing,
however, because of its characteristic modular construction, low
hydraulic head loss, and shallow excavation, which make it adapt-
able to new or existing treatment facilities.
III.5.4.5 Applications
Treatment of domestic and compatible industrial wastewater amen-
able to aerobic biological treatment in conjunction with suitable
pretreatment and post-treatment; can be used for nitrification,
roughing secondary treatment, and polishing.
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.4-1
-------
III.5.4.6. Limitations
Can be vulnerable to climatic changes and low temperatures if not
housed or covered; performance may diminish significantly at tem-
perature below 55°F; enclosed units can result in considerable
wintertime condensation if the heat is not added to enclosure;
high organic loadings can result in first-stage septicity and
supplemental aeration may be required; use of dense media for
early stages can result in media clogging; alkalinity deficit
can result from nitrification; supplemental alkalinity source
may be required.
III.5.4.7 Residuals Generated
Sludge in secondary clarifier; 3,000 to 4,000 gal sludge/Mgal
wastewater; 500 to 700 Ib dry solids/Mgal wastewater.
III.5.4.8 Reliability
Moderately reliable in the absence of high organic loading and
temperatures below 55°F; mechanical reliability is generally
high, provided first stage of system is designed to hold large
biomass; dense media in first stage can result in clogging and
structural failure.
III.5.4.9 Environmental Impact
Negative impacts have not been documented; presumably, odor can
be a problem if septic conditions develop in first stage.
III.5.4.10 Design Criteria
Criteria
Units
Range/value
Organic loading
Hydraulic loading
Stages/train
Parallel trains
Rotational velocity
Media surface area
Media submerged
Tank volume
Detention time
Secondary
Clarifier overflow
Power
Ib BOD5 1,000 ft3 of media
gpd/fta of media
ft/min (peripheral)
ft2/ft3
percent
gal/ft3 of disc area
min (based on 0.12 gal/ft2)
gpd/ft2
horse-power/25 ft shaft
Without nitrification: 30 - 60
With nitrification: 15 - 20
Without nitrification: 0.75 - 1.5
With nitrification: 0.3 - 0.6
At least 4
At lease 2
60
Disc type: 20 - 25
Lattice type: 30 - 35
40
0.12
Without nitrification: 40 - 90
With nitrification: 90 - 230
500 - 700
7.5
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.4-2
-------
III.5.4.11 Flow Diagram
TYPICAL STAGED RBC CONFIGURATION
.SHAFT DRIVE
RAW WASTEWATER
PRIMARY SLUDGE
V
^-,
_l
SHAFT
ORIE
OTATK
)N*
J
H
WASTE SLUDGE
•ALTERNATE SHAFT ORIENTATION IS PARALLEL TO
DIRECTION OF ROW WITH A COMMON DRIVE FOR ALL
THE STAGES IN A SINGLE TRAIN
III.5.4.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Coal mining
Soap and detergent production
Liquid detergentf?
III.5.4.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.4-3
-------
a
o>
rt
to
\
U)
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
M
H
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
BOD s
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
TKN
Number of
data points
4
4
8
5
5
5
Effluent concentration
Minimum
18
340
23
13
3.0
6
Maximum
71
1,000
68
47
5-0
38
Median
18
750
62
29
3.4
15
Mean
31
710
54
28
3.6
17
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
69
28
0
°a
Oa
5
Maximum
82
54
35
21
21
57
Median
72
40a
Oa
6
11
33
Mean
74
41
8
9
11
36
Actual data indicates negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Liquid detergent Bench scale
Plant: Texize Chemicals Co. (Greenville, SC) Pilot scale x
References: B21, pp. 9, 11, 41-42, 50-51 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 0.95 L/min (0.25 gal/min)
Organic loading: 0.0146 to 0.0175 Kg BOD5/m2/d
Hydraulic loading:
Rotational velocity: 10 rev/min
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains: 4
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Temperature: 9°C to 2.5°C
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: One-day composites
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorous
TKN
24b
3.6C
29C
fi_a
19b
3.2C
13C
18
21
11
55
Average of 11 one-day composites.
Average of 10 one-day composites.
Average of 9 one-day composites.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79 III.5.4-5
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report
Point source category:
Subcategory: Liquid detergent
Plant: Texize Chemicals Co. (Greenville, SC)
References: B21, pp. 9, 11, 35-38, 49-51
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min)
Organic loading: 0.0146 to 0.0175 Kg BOD5/m2/d
Hydraulic loading:
Rotational velocity: 10 rev/min
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains: 4
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Temperature: 7°C to 28°C
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: One-day composites
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorous
TKN
Influent
228*
1,400
75H
26d
3.6e
35*
Effluent
71?
1,000
68=
29d
3.46
15*
Percent
removal
69
29
9
og
6
57
Average of 19 one-day composites.
Average of 35 one-day composites.
"Average of 26 one-day composites.
Average of 17 one-day composites.
a
"Average of 20 one-day composites.
Average of 15 one-day composites.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.4-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report
Point source category:
Subcategory: Liquid detergent
Plant: Texize Chemical Co. (Greenville, SC)
References: B21, pp. 9, 11, 39, 49
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equilization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 2.85 L/min (0.75 gal/min)
Organic loading: 0.0146 to 0.0175 Kg BOD5/m2/d
Hydraulic loading:
Rotational velocity: 10 rev/min
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains: 4
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Temperature: 16°C to 22°C
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: One-day composites
Data source status :
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorous
TKN
Concentration
, mg/L
Influent Effluent
100*
l,240b
54
22 d
6.3G
40
18K
570b
56
47d
5°
38
Percent
removal
82
54
oc
oc
21
5
Average of 3 one-day composites.
Average of 5 one-day composites.
"Actual data indicate negative removal.
3
Average of 2 one-day composites.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.4-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report
Point source category:
Subcategory: Liquid detergent
Plant: Texize Chemical Co. (Greenville, SC)
References: B21, pp. 9, 11, 39, 49
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 3.8 L/min (1.0 gal/min)
Organic loading: 0.0146 to 0.0175 Kg BOD5/m2/d
Hydraulic loading:
Rotational velocity: 10 rev/min
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains: 4
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Temperature: 7°C to 23°C
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: One-day composites
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Concentration , mg/L Percent
Pol lutan t/parame te r
Conventional pollutants :
BOD 5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorous
TKN
Influent
a
710b
97°
16<3b
3.6D
9d
Effluent removal
18 72
340 52
63d 35
13 . 19
3.0 17
6d 33
Average of 6 one-day composites.
Average of 5 one-day composites.
"Average of 8 one-day composites.
Average of 4 one-day composites.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.4-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Liquid detergent Bench scale
Plant: Texize Chemical Co. (Greenville, SC) Pilot scale x
References: B21, pp. 9, 11, 40, 50 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 7.6 L/min (2 gal/min)
Organic loading: 0.0146 to 0.0175 Kg BOD5/m2/d
Hydraulic loading:
Rotational velocity: 10 rev/min
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains: 4
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Temperature3: 9°C to 14°C
a
Because of low temperatures, data will not indicate normal operating
conditions.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: One-day
composites
Concentration , mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorous
TKN
Influent
65a
l,290a
60a
33
3.25
22
Effluent
18a
930a
6la
31
3.50
15
Percent
removal
72
28.
ob
6b
0
32
Average of 3 one-day composites.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79 III.5.4-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B22, pp. 42, 33, 20
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 6.8 m3/d (1,800 gpd)
Organic loading:
Hydraulic loading: 0.31 m3/
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B22, pp. 20, 33, 43
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 9.8 m3/d (2,600 gpd)
Organic loading:
Hydraulic loading: 0.44 m3/d/m2 (10.8 gpd/ft2)
Rotational velocity: 19 m/min (63 fpm)
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains:
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Theoretical retention time: 20 min
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Grab samples taken over 10 week period
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
26
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.4-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Rotating Biological Contactors
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Coal mining
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B22, pp. 44, 33, 20
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow: 4.92 m3/d (1,300 gpd)
Organic loading:
Hydraulic loading: 0.22 m3/d/m2 (5.4 gpd/ft2)
Rotational velocity: 19 m/min (63 fpm)
Percent media submerged:
Number of trains:
Secondary clarifier overflow rate:
Theoretical retention time: 40 min
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Grab samples taken over 8 week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS
20
68
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note.- Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.4-12
-------
III.5.5 STEAM STRIPPING [1]
III.5.5.1 Function
Steam stripping is used to remove gases or volatile organics from
dilute wastewater streams.
III.5.5.2 Description
Steam stripping is essentially a fractional distillation of vola-
tile compounds from a wastewater stream. The volatile component
may be a gas or volatile organic compound with solubility in the
wastewater stream. In most instances, the volatile component,
such as methanol or ammonia, is quite water soluble.
Steam stripping is usually conducted as a continuous operation in
a packed tower or conventional fractionating distillation column
(bubble cap or sieve tray) with more than one stage of vapor/
liquid contact. The preheated wastewater from the heat exchanger
enters near the top of the distillation column and then flows by
gravity countercurrent to the steam and organic vapors (or gas)
rising up from the bottom of the column. As the wastewater passes
down through the column, it contacts the vapors rising from the
bottom of the column that contain progressively less volatile
organic compound or gas until it reaches the bottom of the column
where the wastewater is finally heated by the incoming steam to
reduce the concentration of volatile component(s) to their final
concentration. Much of the heat in the wastewater discharged
from the bottom of the column is recovered in preheating the feed
to the column.
Reflux (condensing a portion of the vapors from the top of the
column and returning it to the column) may or may not be practiced
depending on the composition of the vapor stream that is desired.
Although many of the steam strippers in industrial use introduce
the wastewater at the top of the stripper, there are advantages to
introducing the feed to a tray below the top tray when reflux is
used.
Introducing the feed at a lower tray (while still using the same
number of trays in the stripper) will have the effect of either
reducing steam requirements (due to the need for less reflux) or
yielding a vapor stream richer in volatile component). The com-
bination of using reflux and introducing the feed at a lower tray
will increase the concentration of the volatile organic component
beyond that obtainable by reflux alone.
Date: 6/29/79 III. 5.5-1
-------
III.5.5.3 Technology Status
Steam stripping has been used for many years for the recovery of
ammonia from coke oven gas. Recently, as water effluent regula-
tions have become more stringent, other aqueous waste streams are
being treated by this unit operation for removal of volatile
organic components (i.e., methanol from pulp mill condensate).
III.5.5.4 Applications
Used in both industrial chemical production (for recovery and/or
recycle of product) and in industrial waste treatment; three
common examples of product recovery by steam stripping are
ammonia recover for sale as ammonia or ammonium sulfate from coke
oven gas scrubber water, sulfur from refinery sour water, and
phenol from water solution in the production of phenol; has been
recently applied to wastewater treatment; newer applications
include removal of phenols, mercaptans, and chlorinated hydro-
carbons from wastewater.
III.5.5.5 Limitations
May be designed for pure nonreactive volatile components in the
wastewater by using tray-by-tray calculations and vapor/liquid
equilibrium data reported in the literature although a "waste-
water stream" rarely contains only nonreactive components; if
volatile components react with each other, as in refinery sour
water containing H2S and ammonia, the vapor pressure exerted by
each component in water solution no longer follows Raoult's Law;
thus, where vapor/liquid equilibrium data do not exist for a
specific combination of water soluble components, these data
must be experimentally developed.
III.5.5.6 Typical Equipment
Equipment is nearly the same as that required for conventional
fractional distillation (i.e., packed column or tray tower, re-
boiler, reflux condenser and feed tanks, and pumps); however,
heat exchanger is used for heating feed entering column and cool-
ing stripped wastewater leaving column; reboiler is often an
integral part of tower body rather than a separate vessel; mate-
rials of construction depend on operating pH and presence (or
absence) of corrosive ions (i.e., sulfides, chlorides); in a
single-column sour-water steam stripper, the high pH (from the
presence of ammonia) allows use of mild steel; if sour water is
stripped in two columns (H2S removed in one and NH3 removed in
other) alloy steel or alloy clad steel should be used in unit in
which H2S is removed.
Date: 6/29/79 III. 5. 5-2
-------
III.5.5.7 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impacts
Steam stripped volatiles are usually processed further for
recovery or incinerated; if stripped volatiles contain sulfur
and are incinerated, the impact of S02 emissions must be con-
sidered; impact of the stripped wastewater depends on the quan-
tity and type of residual volatile organics remaining in the
stripped wastewater; land requirements are small; there are gen-
erally no discharges except for the treated wastewater.
III.5.5.8 Reliability
Dependent on specific wastewater application; in refinery opera-
tions, steam stripping has proven to be highly dependable.
III.5.5.9 Design Criteria
Date: 6/29/79 III. 5. 5-3
-------
III.5.5.10 Flow Diagram
CONDENSER
TREATED WASTEWATER
**
x^
••^
I vy
r • \S* 1 1 tUNUNIKAItU
XV»X VAPORS
^N
i
e
a
«f
c
g
§
>•
<.
v^-_
n
(C°NSATE)— "is
1
WATER
r*rrABi
III.5.5.11 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-4
-------
References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1976. pp. 42-2 - 42-16.
III.5.5-5
-------
D
0>
rt
to
\
U)
H
H
H
•
cn
•
cn
I
CTi
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR STEAM STRIPPING
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroe thane
Trichloroethylene
Number of
data points
6
40
5
45
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
Effluent concentration
Minimum
118
14
w
<10b
300
<10b
90,000,
<10b
<10b
42,000.
<10b
<10b
Maximum
233
593
65,000
440,000
1,300,000
300,000
78,000
6,800
42,000
200
34,000
Median
173
110
w
<10b
7,000
16,000
130,000
33,000.
<10D
42,000.
<10b
23,000
Mean
170
118
13,000
33,000
340,000
160,000
32,000
2,300
42,000
<48
16,000
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
44
Oa
49
70
9
54a
Oa
37
9
98
24
Maximum
72
94
>99
>99
>99
87
>99
>99
9
>99
>99
Median
62
72
>99
>99
99
81
Oa
>99
9
>99
54
Mean
59
56
89
97
76
75
40
78
9
>99
61
3Actual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be < 10 ug/L.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: 2
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR, OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min:
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 9.4
Bottoms: 272
Temperature, °C:
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Column pressure, BTM/TOP:
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column, mL/min: 243
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Feed Overhead Bottoms removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
99
132
76
5.2
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source:
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: 3
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Run number
Steam feed rate, mL/min
Volumetric flow rate,
mL/min:
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Temperature, °C
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Column pressure, BTM/TOP:
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column, mL/min:
54.7 63.9 59.7 53.1 36.7
10 13.8 3.0 11.5 13.4 6.5 8.2 7.5
207 290 317 312 344 338 342 452
14.0
380
250 250 250
REMOVAL DATA
258
255 252 250 255
261
Concentration ,
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
TOC Run number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Feed
315
2,416
20
67
26
90
80
58
155
Overhead
65
98
193
83
94
147
280
209
737
mg/L
Bottoms
24
118
15
45
21
40
46
37
14
Percent
removal
92.4
-
23.8
32.9
21.5
55.5
79.4
36.2
98.1
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III. 5. 5-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Halogenated hydrocarbon waste
References: 2
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min: 54
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 7.8
Bottoms: 388
Temperature, °C:
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Column pressure, BTM/TOP:
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column rate, mL/min: 276
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Feed Overhead Bottom removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 150 64
142
1.2
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory: Halogenated hydrocarbon waste
Plant: 2
References:
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min: 50
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 13.5
Bottoms: 321
Temperature, °C:
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Column pressure, BTM/TOP:
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column, mL/min: 255
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Feed Overhead Bottom removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
158
115
139
3.9
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Halogenated hydrocarbon waste
References:
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min: 51
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 5.3
Bottoms: 290
Temperature, °C:
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Column pressure, BTM/TOP:
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column, mL/min: 245
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Feed Overhead Bottom removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOG
16
84
15
11.4
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Halogenated hydrocarbon waste
References: 2
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min: 65
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 11.4
Bottoms: 340
Temperature, °C:
Overhead:
Bottoms:
Column pressure, BTM/TOP:
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column, mL/min: 235
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Feed Overhead Bottoms removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 24
88
16
17.8
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Halogenated hydrocarbon waste
References: 2
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min: 53.1
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 7.1
Bottoms: 281
Temperature, °C:
Overhead: 102
Bottoms: 103
Column pressure, BTM/TOP: 1.0/1.0
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column rate, mL/min: 250
Distillate, percent of feed: 2.8
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L
Feed
Overhead Bottoms
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
668
10,462
292
55.8
Toxic pollutants:
Chloroform
1 , 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
141
1,583
14.9
14.9
14.1
~
882
351
121.7
50.2
34
567
0
374
49.5
0
0
0
100
76.4
0
100
100
100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: EPA report
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Halogenated hydrocarbon waste
References: 2
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Steam feed rate, mL/min: 45
Volumetric flow rate, mL/min:
Overhead: 5.8
Bottoms: 350
Temperature, °C:
Overhead: 103
Bottoms: 104
Column pressure, BTM/TOP: 1.0/1.0
Reflux ratio:
Feed to column rate, mL/min: 250
Distillate, percent of feed: 2.3
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Peed
Overhead Bottoms
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
645
10,446
256
37.3
Toxic pollutants:
Chloroform
1 , 2-2Irans-dichloroethylene
1 ,1 ,2 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
140.3
1,583.3
14.9
14.9
50.9
14.1
—
1,185.1
350.8
14.9
-
-
24.6
640.8
0
373.7
32.7
6.8
-
0.2
34.2
100
76.4
0
54.3
98.6
"•
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 6/29/79
III.5.5-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 127, 129
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Halogenated hydrocarbons wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
250 mL/min,
39.7 mL/min
13.5 mL/min
275 mL/min
Unit configuration:
Flow—wastewater feed
steam feed
overhead
bottoms
Temperature—feed:
overhead:
bottoms:
Steam pressure:
Pressure drop:
Reflux ratio (if applicable):
Cooling water requirement:
Column height: 3.67 m
Column diameter: 508 mm
Plate/packing characteristics:
Plate/packing spacing:
Number of plates (if applicable):
Distillate, percent of feed: 2.5
3.8 L/min (design)
0.9:1 (reflux: overhead)
Pall rings made from polypropylene
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Feed
Overhead
Bottoms
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutanti, mg/L:
TOC
636
9,810
243
'Percent removal calculated on a volume ba«i«.
Not detected; aaiumed to be <10 ug/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
58
Toxic pollutant* , vg/L:
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroe thane
1 ,2-fran«-dichloroethylene
Hethylene chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetr achloroe thane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
140,000
1,600,000
1,600,000
800,000
15,000
15,000
51,000
14,000_
c
1,100,000
5,500,000
1,300,000
5,200,000
24,000
9,600
170,000
66,000
640,000
65,000
440,000
NDb
130,000
100
ND
42,000
ND
ND
49
70
>99
82
99
>99
9
>99
>99
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.5-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: Government report
Point source category:*1 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 127, 129
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Halogenated hydrocarbons wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
250 mL/min, 3,
59.7 mL/min
4.3 mL/min
305 mL/min
8 L/min (design
Unit configuration:
Flow—wastewater feed:
steam feed:
overhead:
bottoms:
Temperature—feed:
overhead: 104°C
bottoms: 104°C
Steam pressure:
Pressure drop:
Reflux ratio (if applicable): 1.4:1 (reflux: overhead)
Cooling water requirement:
Column height: 3.67 m
Column diameter: 5.08 cm
Plate/packing characteristics: Pall rings made from polypropylene
Plate/packing spacing:
Number of plates (if applicable):
Distillate, percent of feed: 2.3
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Feed
Overhead
Bottoms
Percent
removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TOC
785
4,520
241
63
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloro« thane
1 ,2-TlMn»-dichloro«thylene
Hethylane chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethan*
1,1, 2-Trichloroa thane
Trichloroe thy lane
140,000
1,600,000
1,600,000
800,000
14,000
14,000
39 ,000
400,000
3,700,000
1,300,000
1,000,000
8,000
42,000
640,000
b
ND
39,000
16,000
300,000
ND
NO
23,000
>99
97
99
54
>99
>99
28C
'percent removal calculated on a volume trie basis.
Not detected; assumed to be < 10 ug/L-
cBased on mass balance.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.5-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: Government report
Point source category:^ Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 127, 129
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Halogenated hydrocarbons wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Flow—wastewater feed:
steam feed:
overhead:
bottoms:
Temperature—feed:
overhead: 104°C
bottoms: 104°C
Steam pressure:
Pressure drop:
Reflux ratio (if applicable):
Cooling water requirement:
Column height: 3.67 m
Column diameter: 5.08 cm
Plate/packing characteristics
Plate/packing spacing:
Number of plates (if applicable):
Distillate, percent of feed: 5.1
250 mL/min, 3.8 L/min (design)
50.8 mL/min
12.75 mL/min
302.5 mL/min
5.1:94.9
Pall rings made from polypropylene
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/par an* ter
Conventional pollutant*, mg/L:
toe
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroe thane
1 , 2-7y>an«-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
1,1,2 , 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroe thane
Trichloroethylene
Concentration
Feed
645
140,000
1,600,000
1,600,000
800,000
14,000
14,000
60 ,000
Overhead
4,770
840,000
4,800,000
480,000
2,800,000
440,000
76,000
630,000
Bottoms
593
NDC
43,000
15,000
180,000
78,000
ND
23.000
Percent
ob
>99
97
99
73.
ob
>99,
54d
"percent removal calculated on a volume trie basis.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
CNot detected; assumed to be < 10 ug/L.
Based on mass balance calculation.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.5-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Steam Stripping
Data source: Government report
Point source category:a Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 130
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Halogenated hydrocarbons wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Flow—wastewater feed:
steam feed:
overhead:
bottoms:
Temperature—feed:
overhead:
bottoms:
Steam pressure:
Pressure drop:
Reflux ratio (if applicable) :
Cooling water requirement:
Column height: 3.67 m
Column diameter: 5.08 cm
Plate/packing characteristics: Pall rings made from polypropylene
Plate/packing spacing:
Number of plates (if applicable):
Distillate, percent of feed:
PEMOVAL DATA
(see page III.5.5-19)
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/15/79
III.5.5-18
-------
IS
1!
If
o
B8
1000 O O
*4 »4 r4 *4 »4 (*•*»•«*
oooopoQooeeoot
QOOOOQOOOOOQQC
^t0^4>OOiNr>«rtfH(N^OC-»CU'»^O*OUir-*^fl'-U"»
-------
III.5.6 SOLVENT EXTRACTION [1]
III.5.6.1 Function
Liquid-liguid solvent extraction, hereinafter referred to as
solvent extractions, is the separation of the constituents of a
liquid solution by contact with another immiscible liquid. If
the substances comprising the original solution distribute them-
selves differently between the two liquid phases, a certain
degree of separation will result, and this may be enhanced by
use of multiple contacts.
III.5.6.2 Description
The solvent extration process is shown schematically in the
Flow Diagram section. The diagram shows a single solvent extrac-
tion unit operating on an aqueous stream; in practice this unit
might consist of (1) a single-stage mixing and settling unity,
(2) several mixers and settlers (single-stage unit) in series,
or (3) a multi-stage unit operating by countercurrent flows in
one device (e.g., a column or differential centrifuge).
As the Flow Diagram indicates, reuse of the extracting solvent
(following solute removal) and recovery of that portion of the
extracting solvent that dissolves in the extracted phase are
usually necessary aspects of the solvent extraction process.
Solvent reuse is necessary for economic reasons; the cost of
the solvent is generally too high to consider disposal after use.
Only in a very few cases may solvent reuse be eliminated; these
cases arise where an industrial chemical feed stream can be
used as the solvent and then sent on for normal processing,
or where water is the solvent. Solvent recovery from extracted
water may be eliminated in cases where the concentration in
the water to be discharged is not harmful, and where the solvent
loss does not incur a high cost.
The end result of solvent extraction is to separate the original
solution into two streams: a treated stream (the raffinate),
and a recovered solute stream (which may contain small amounts of
water and solvent). Solvent extraction may thus be considered a
recovery process since the solute chemicals are generally re-
covered for reuse, resale, or further treatment and disposal.
A process for solvent extracting a solution will typically in-
clude three basic steps: the actual extraction, solute removal
from the extracting solvent, and solvent recovery from the raffi-
nate (treated stream). The process may be operated continuously.
The first step, extraction, brings the two liquid phases (feed
and solvent) into intimate contact to allow solute transfer either
by forced mixing or by countercurrent flow caused by density
differences. The extractor will also have provisions to allow
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.6-1
-------
separation of the two phases after mixing. One output stream from
the extractor is the solute-laden solvent; some water may also be
present. Solute removal may be via a second solvent extraction
step, distillation, or some other process. For example, a second
extraction, with caustic, is sometimes used to extract phenol
from light oil, which is used as the primary solvent in depheno-
lizing coke plant wastewaters. Distillation will usually be more
common, except where problems with azeotropes are present. In
certain cases, it may be possible to use the solute-laden sol-
vent as a feed stream in some industrial process, thus eliminating
solute recovery. This is apparently the case at some refineries
where crude or light oil can be used as a solvent (for phenol
removal from water) and later processed with the solute in it.
Other similar applications probably exist and are particularly
attractive since they eliminate one costly step. Solvent recovery
from the treated stream may be required if solvent losses would
otherwise add significantly to the cost of the process, or cause
a problem with the discharge of the raffinate. Solvent recovery
may be accomplished by stripping, distillation, adsorption, or
other suitable process.
III.5.6.3 Technology Status
Solvent extraction should be regarded as a process for treating
concentrated, selected, and segregated waste water streams
primarily where material recovery is possibe to offset process
costs. Solvent extraction, when carried out on the more concen-
trated waste streams, will seldom produce a treated effluent (the
raffinate) that can be directly discharged to surface waters;
some form of final polishing will usually be needed. Solvent
extraction cannot compete economically with biological oxidation
or adsorption in the treatment of large quantities of very dilute
wastes, and it will have trouble competing with stream stripping
in the recovery of volatile solutes present in moderate to low
concentrations. Nevertheless, solvent extraction is a proven
methos for the recovery of organics from liquid solutions and
will be the process of choice in some cases.
III.5.6.4 Applications
Removal of phenol and related compounds from wastewaters is the
principal application; applications are to petroleum refinery
wastes, coke-oven liquors and phenol resin plant effluents.
Extraction reduces phenol concentrations from levels of several
percent down to levels of a few parts per million. Removal
efficiencies of 90 to 98% are possible in most applications, and
with special equipment (e.g., centrifugal and rotating disc
contactors) removal efficiencies around 99% have been achieved.
Commonly used solvents are crude oil, light oil, benzene, toluene,
and "benzol;" less common, but more selective solvents are
isopropyl ether, tricresyl phosphate, methyl isobutyl ketone,
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.6-2
-------
methylene chloride, and butyl acetate. When crude or light oil
is used, the phenol is not always covered (i.e., the solvent is
not recycled); the phenol is destroyed in downstream operations.
Alternatively, extraction with light oil may be followed by phenol
recovery via extraction of the oil with caustic; in this case,
the phenol is recovered as sodium phenolate.
Solvent recovery via solvent extraction is carried out in at
least one hazardous waste management facility (Silresin Chemical
Corporation, Lowell, Massachusetts). In one case, waste solvent
containing typically 85% methylene chloride (MC) and 15% isopropyl
alcohol (IPA) is extracted with water to remove the IPA. Extrac-
tion has been carried out in a counter-current column (1 ft
diameter, 40 ft high, packed with Berl saddles), which accepts a
feed of 1 gpm and produces a purified MC product at around 0.7 to
0.8 gpm. The water/feed ratio used in this device was about 3:1.
More recently, a single tank has been used as a combination mixer-
settler to handle larger flows. The partially purified MC is then
further processed through a flash evaporator and calcium chloride
absorption bed (for drying) to obtain salable quality MC (98% to
99%) pure. A second example involves the reclamation of Freon
solvents. The waste material arrives as a mixture of oil, Freon,
and other solvents (e.g., acetone or alcohol); distillation
separates out the oil (for use as a fuel), but leaves a Freon/
acetone (or alcohol) mixture which is then extracted with water
to recover Freon. The material is sold for about half the price
(per gallon) for new Freon solvent. A third example involves the
removal of water-soluble solvents (e.g., alcohols) from a waste
of mixed chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents via extraction with
Water. Simple mixer-settlers are commonly used, and the process
yields a salable quality (mixed) chlorinated hydrocarbon solvent.
Other applications of solvent extraction are briefly described
below:
• Extraction of thiazole-based chemicals from rubber processing
effluent with benzene.
• Extraction of salicylic and other hydroxy-aromatic acids from
wastewaters using methyl isobutyl ketone as solvent.
• Deoiling of quench waters from petroleum operations via sol-
vent extraction has been developed by Gulf Oil Corporation.
Quench water containing about 6,000 ppm of dissolved and
emulsified oil is extracted with a light aromatic oil sol-
vent and the extract recycled for refinery processing. Addi-
tional treatment of the water (e.g., via coalescence) is
necessary for water reuse. It is not known if this process
is in current use.
• Recovery of acetic acid from industrial wastewater is being
studied by Hydroxcience. A novel extraction is proposed
to handle wastewaters that may contain acetic acid levels
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.6-3
-------
of 0.5% to over 5%. The extractant is a solution of trio-
ctylphosphine oxide in a carrier solvent. This process is
currently in the developmental stage, but has been demon-
strated to be practical.
• A novel process employing solvent extraction is currently
being developed by Resources Conservation Co. (Renton,
Wash.) to remove essentially all of the water and oils from
inorganic and organic sludges. The process, called Basic
Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.), converts sludges
with 0.05% to 60% solids to output streams of (1) very dry
solids (4.5% moisture), (2) a clear water effluent, and
(3) recovered oils, if present in the original sludge. The
process train includes: (1) extraction of water (and oils)
from the sludge with an aliphatic amine at low temperatures
(^50°F), (2) removal of solids with a centrifuge followed
by solids drying (and solvent recovery), (3) heating the
solvent/water/ oil mixture (to ^120°F) to force phase
separation, (4) steam stripping of the water phase for sol-
vent recovery, and (5) distillation of the solvent phase
for oil recovery. The company claims the process is
economical; it requires, for example, only 6,400 Btu's per
pound to reduce a 7 percent sludge to dry solids versus
15,000 Btu's per pound for conventional high-temperature
"brute force" drying methods. A mobile test and demonstra-
tion facility has been constructed which can treat 1,500
gpd. Several different types of sludges have been success-
fully processed.
III.5.6.5 Limitations
There are relatively few insurmountable technical problems with
solvent extraction. The most difficult problem is usually finding
a solvent that best meets a long list of desired qualities
including low cost, high extraction efficiency, low solubility in
the raffinate, easy separation from the solute, adequate density
difference with raffinate, no tendency for emulsion formation,
nonreactive, and nonhazardous. No one solvent will meet all the
desired criteria and, thus, compromise is necessary. There is a
wide range of extraction equipment available today, and space
requirements are not a problem.
Process costs are always a determining factor with solvent extrac-
tions, and they have thus far limited actual applications to sit-
uations where a valuable product is recovered in sufficient
quantity to offset extraction costs. These costs will be rela-
tively small when a single-stage extraction unit can be used
(e.g., simple mixer-settler) and where solvent and solute recovery
can be carried out efficiently. In certain cases, the process
may yield a profit when credit for recovered material is taken.
Any extraction requiring more than the equivalent of about ten
theoretical stages may require custom-designed equipment and will,
thus, be quite expensive.
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.6-4
-------
III.5.6.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
There are no major environmental impacts associated with the prop-
er use of solvent extraction. Solvent extraction will almost
always be used for material recovery (for resale or reuse) and,
thus, will be of some benefit.
When one or more solutes are recovered from aqueous wastes, minor
impacts will result from small losses of the solvent (to the air
and/or water), and head (e.g., from stripping or distillation).
In addition, solvent extraction systems seldom produce a raffinate
that is suitable for direct discharge to surface waters and thus,
a polishing treatment is generally required; biological treatment
may suffice in many cases.
When mixed organic liquids are treated principally for the re-
covery of just one component (e.g., the more valuable halogenated
hydrocarbons), current economic forces may make the purification
of the other components (as required for resale or reuse)
impractical and, thus, results in a waste for disposal.
III.5.6.7 Reliability
Process is highly reliable for proven applications, if properly
operated.
III.5.6.8 Typical Equipment
There are two major categories of equipment for liquid extraction:
simple-stage and multi-stage equipment.
In single-stage equipment, the fluids are mixed, extraction
occurs, and the insoluble liquids are settled and separated.
A cascade of such stages may then be arranged. A single-stage
must provide facilities for mixing the insoluble liquids and for
settling and decanting the emulsion or dispersion which results.
In batch operation, mixing together with settling and decanting
may take place in the same or in separate vessels. In continuous
operation, different vessels are required.
In multi-stage equipment, the equivalent of many stages may be
incorporated into a single device or apparatus. Countercurrent
flow is produced by virute of the difference in densities of the
liquids, and with few exceptions the equipment takes the form of
a vertical tower which may or may not contain internal devices
to influence the flow pattern. Other forms include centrifuges,
rotating discs, and rotating buckets. Depending upon the nature
of the internal structure, the equipment may be of the stagewise
or continuous-contact type.
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.6-5
-------
III.5.6.9 Flow Diagram
UNTREATED
WASTE WATER
SOLVENT
EXTRACTION
TREATED
•WATER
RAFFINATE
WATER *
SOLVENT
SOLVENT + SOLUTE
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
RECOVERY
SOLUTE
REMOVAL
f
soum
•SOLVENT
MAKE-UP
III.5.6.10 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Organic chemicals production
Cresylic acid recovery
Ethylene oxychlorination
Ethylene quenching
Styrene production
Petroleum refining
Lube oil refining
Phenolic resin production
Date: 8/13/79
III.5.6-6
-------
III.5.6.11 Reference
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. November 1976. pp. 32-1 through
32-25.
Date: 8/13/79 III.5.6-7
-------
o
0*
ft
n>
to
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Ul
•
a\
I
oo
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroe thane
1,1, 2-Trichloroe thane
Other pollutants:
Total chlorine, mg/L
Acetone , yg/L
o-Cresol, yg/L
m,p-Cresol, yg/L
Methyl ethyl ketone, yg/L
Styrene, yg/L
Xylenes , yg/L
Number of
data points
4
6
6
15
6
1
2
6
5
5
11
3
9
1
7
1
3
Effluent concentration
Minimum
699
37
0.2
<1,000
2,400
4,000
1,600
<20,000
1,000
5,400
1.8
12,000
2,300
25,000
12,000
<1,000
<1,000
Maximum
18,600
86.5
300
10,000,000
35,000
4,000
2,300
350,000
11,000
30,000
514
22,000
400,000
25,000
5,900,000
<1,000
10,000
Median
1,140
43.5
34.5
190,000
8,100
4,000
1,950
31,500
2,000
16,000
81
16,000
31,000
25,000
1,900,000
<1,000
<1,000
Mean
5,390
54
52-77
2,200,0.00
11,000
4,000
1,950
84,000
4,200
16,000
98
17,000
110,000
25,000
2,000,000
<1,000
<4,000
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
oa
oa
90
J
7b
97
94
62
73
85
68
41
67
91
32
>93
96
Maximum
74
49
>99
>ya
97
97
96
>99
99
95
99
57
>99
91
95
>93
>98
Median
50
35
99
80
96
97
95
89
98
92
94
52
90
91
51
>93
>97
Mean
43
31
97-98
65
90
97
95
87
91
90
90
50
89
91
60
>93
>97
Actual data indicate negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Petrochemicals
Plant:
References: A25, p. 292
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None given.
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration of
phenol, pg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Solvent used:
Aromatics, 75%
Paraffins, 25%
Aliphatic esters
Benzene
Light cycle oil
Light oil
Tri-cresyl phosphates
Influent
200
4,000
750
7,300
3,000
3,000
Effluent
0.2
60
34
30
35
300-150
Percent
removal
>99
99
96
90
99
90-95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.5.6-9
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category. Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Ethylene oxychlorination process
Plant:
References: B2, pp. 102-117, Appendix
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Column specifications: Extractor: 0.10 diameter, 3.0 m tall
Stripper: 0.05 m diameter, 2.25 m tall
Solvent used: Kerosene-diesel oil mix
Solvent flow rate: 0.205 L/min
Wastewater flow rate: 0.76 to 3.76 L/min
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
1, 2, -Dichloroethana
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Other pollutants, rog/L:
Total chlorine
Influent
920,000
190,000
210,000
460,000^
1,100,000
22,000
200,000
85,000
51,000
91 , 000a
110,000
360,000
150,000*
110,000°
no,oooa
1,590
907
553"
1,810*
K
1,830
Effluent
350,000
20,000
36,000*
51,000°
27,000
6,000
2,000
11,000^
1,000
1,000
16,000
30,000
22,000*
5'400a
8,700
514
81
85*
H°K
K
84°
Percent
removal
62
89
83
89
98
73
99
87
98
99
85
92
85
95
92
66
91
85
94
95
HaO to
solvent ratio
18.3:1
13.7:1
9.1:1
5.5:1
3.7:1
18.3:1
13.7:1
9.1:1
5.5:1
3.7:1
18.3:1
13.7:1
9.1:1
5.5:1
3.7:1
18.3:1
13.7:1
9.1:1
5.5:1
3.7:1
Average of three one-day composites. Average of six one-day composites.
Average of two one-day composites.
Average of four one-day composites.
Average of five one-day composites.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79
III.5.6-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcateqory: Ethylene oxychlorination process
Plant:
References: B2, pp. 102-117
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Solvent used: Cio-C-i2 paraffin
Solvent flow rate: 0.27 L/min
Wastewater flow rate: 1.23 to 5.32 L/min
Column specifications: Extractor
Stripper:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
0.10 m diameter x 3.0 m
0.05 m diameter x 2.25 m
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; One-day composites
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent HaO to
Influent Effluent removal solvent ratio
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
58
73
59
76
54h
124*
37
48
38
39
75 1
86.5
36
34
36
49
3$
5:1
6.5:1
8:1
10:1
16.5:1
20:1
Other pollutants:
Total chlorine 148
185
165
297
267.
693b
3.2
3.0
1.8
6.6
16.5
178b
98
98
99
98
94
74
5:1
6.5:1
8:1
10:1
16.5:1
20:1
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Average of 2 1-day composites.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Dater 10/4/79
III.5.6-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Styrene production process Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 241-243, 501 Full scale ~^^
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.451 m/hr (1.48 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.49 m/hr (8.17 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Benzene 290,000 10,000 97
Ethylbenzene 120,000 4,000 97
Other pollutants:
Styrene 15,000 <1,000 >93
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Ethylene quench process
Plant:
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 223-227, 496
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutane
Solvent flow rate: 0.668 m/hr (2.19 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 3.81 m/hr (12.5 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 1,880 699 63
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Phenol 68,000 66,000 3
Benzene 81,000 2,400 97
Toluene 44,000 1,600 96
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Xylenes 34,000 <1,000 >97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified,
Date: 10/4/79
III.5.6-13
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Ethylene quench process
Plant:
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 223-227, 495
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.652 m/hr (2.14 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 3.84 m/hr (12.6 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Toxic pollutants/ yg/L:
1,880
1,210
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
36
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Xylenes
67,000
71,000
41,000
41,000
63,000
2,900
2,300
<1,000
6
96
94
>98
Date: 10/4/79
III.5.6-14
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Cresylic acid recovery process
Plant:
References: B18, pp. 98-102, 159-165, 465
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Spray column contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0254 m (1 in.) diameter x
0.914 m (36 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 18.5 m/hr (60.6 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 6.14 m/hr (20.1 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Po1lutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Phenol
Other pollutants, pg/L:
o-Cresol
m, p-Cresol
Xylenes
4,050 1,070
580,000 160,000
310,000
290,000
230,000
31,000
25,000
10,000
74
72
90
91
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79
III.5.6-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Hydrofiner Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 238-241, 500 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Methyl isobutyl ketone
Solvent flow rate: 0.512 m/hr (1.68 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 3.26 m/hr (10.7 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 400,000 <1,000 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Hydrofiner Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 238-241, 501 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: 49.5 wt % methyl isobutyl ketone, 50.5 wt % isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.625 m/hr (2.05 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.08 m/hr (6.81 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 17,500 18,600 O3
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Phenol 400,000 <1,000 >99
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Oxychlorination Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 227-232, 497 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Neutralization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: 2-ethyl hexanol
Solvent flow rate: 0.457 m/hr (1.50 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 3.60 m/hr (11.8 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 1,500,000 <20,000 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lube oil refining Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 204-212, 493 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: N-butyl acetate extraction - run RS6B
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.459 m/hr (1.51 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.67 m/hr (8.74 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 230,000 190,000 17
Other pollutants:
MEK 2,800,000 1,900,000 32
0-Cresol 18,000 2,800 84
Note: Blanks indicate information not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lube oil refining Bench scale
plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 204-212, 492 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: N-butyl acetate extraction - run RS6A
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.459 m/hr (1.51 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.67 m/hr (8.74 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 310,000 230,000 26
Other pollutants:
MEK 5,600,000 3,600,000 36
0-Cresol 24,000 2,300 90
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction '
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lube oil refining Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 198-204, 491 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: n-Butyl acetate
Solvent flow rate: 0.306 m/hr (1.005 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.67 m/hr (8.74 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 8,800,000 100,000 99
Other pollutants:
MEK 12,000,000 5,900,000 51
0-Cresol 890,000 6,500 99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lube oil refining Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 198-204, 491 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: n-Butyl acetate
Solvent flow rate: 0.921 m/hr (3.02 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.67 m/hr (8.74 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 8,800,000 77,000 99
Other pollutants:
MEK 12,000,000 2,500,000 79
0-Cresol 890,000 4,300 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lube oil refining Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 212-216, 494 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: 48.7 wt % n-butyl acetate, 51.3 wt % isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.936 m/hr (3.07 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 3.35 m/hr (11.0 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 17,000,000 1,900,000 89
Benzene 37,000 9,200 75
Other pollutants:
Acetone 25,000 12,000 52
MEK 110,000 55,000 50
0-Cresol 2,700,000 120,000 96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lube oil refining Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: B18, pp. 98-102, 159-165, 453 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Spray column contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.254 m (1 in.) diameter x
0.914 m (36 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 21.8 m/hr (71.6 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 6.77 m/hr (22.2 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; __^_^__
Concentration, wg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 17,000,000 10,000,000 41
Other pollutants:
0-Cresol 1,200,000 400,000 67
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-24
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Lube oil refining
Plant:
References: B18, pp. 98-102, 159-165, 456
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Spray column contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0254 m (1 in.) diameter x
0.914 m (36 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 15.9 m/hr (52.00 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 6.57 m/hr (21.6 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol
Benzene
23,000,000
170,000
9,600,000
35,000
58
79
Other pollutants:
o-Cresol
Acetone
MEK
2,000,000
37,000
230,000
330,000
22,000
55,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
83
41
76
Date: 10/4/79
III.5.6-25
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory: Lube oil refining
Plant:
References: B18, pp. 98-102, 159-165, 455
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Spray column contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0254 m (1 in.) diameter x
0.914 m (36 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: Isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 28.1 m/hr (92.2 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 6.57 m/hr (21.6 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol
Benzene
Other pollutants:
o-Cresol
Acetone
MEK
23,000,000
170,000
2,000,000
37,000
230,000
4,600,000
7,000
50,000
16,000
12,000
80
96
97
57
95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79
III.5.6-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Phenolic resin plant Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 233-234, 499 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: 48.2 % n-butyl acetate, 51.8 % isobutylene
Solvent flow rate: 0.561 m/hr (1.84 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 2.01 m/hr (6.58 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 48,000,000 480,000 99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Solvent Extraction
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Phenolic resin plant Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B18, pp. 102-109, 233-237, 500 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Rotating disc contactor and stripping column
Column specifications: 0.0762 m (3 in.) diameter x 1.22 m (48 in.) glass pipe
Solvent used: N-butyl acetate
Solvent flow rate: 0.245 m/hr (0.804 ft/hr)
Wastewater flow rate: 1.81 m/hr (5.94 ft/hr)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Phenol 48,000,000 6,100,000 87
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/4/79 III.5.6-28
-------
III.6.1 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
Function. Activated carbon adsorption is used for the re-
moval of dissolved organics and control of such wastewater
parameters as COD, TOC, BOD, TOD, and specific soluble organic
materials.
Treatability Factor. Adsorbability, kg removed/kg of carbon.
Description. The activated carbon process is used to remove
dissolved organic material. Pollution parameters affected are
COD, TOC, BOD, TOD, and specific soluble organic material adsorb-
able by carbon. In most cases, activated carbon is used as an
individual-stream pretreatment process; however, in other cases
activated carbon treatment is used as a final treatment process
following biological treatment.
Granular carbon systems generally consist of vessels in which the
carbon is placed, forming a "filter" bed. These systems can also
include carbon storage vessels and thermal regeneration facili-
ties. Vessels are usually circular for pressure systems or rec-
tangular for gravity flow systems. Once the carbon adsorptive
capacity has been fully utilized, the carbon must be disposed of
or regenerated. Usually multiple carbon vessels are used to
allow continuous operation. Columns can be operated in a series
or parallel modes. All vessels must be equipped with carbon
removal and loading mechanisms to allow for the removal of spent
carbon and the addition of new material. Flow can be either up-
ward or downward through the carbon bed. Vessels are backwashed
periodically. Surface wash and air scour systems can also be
used as part of the backwash cycle.
Small systems usually dispose of spent carbon or regenerate it
offsite. Systems above about 3 to 5 Mgal/d usually provide on-
site regeneration of carbon for economic reasons, as do systems
where carbon usage exceeds 1,000 Ib/d. Activated carbon regenera-
tion is described separately in the table on the following page.
Technology Status. Granular activated carbon has been widely
used in water treatment systems for many years. Carbon has been
used in waste treatment for 10 to 20 years.
Applications. Used directly following secondary clarifier,
primarily when nitrification obtained in secondary treatment.
Often preceded by chemical clarification of secondary effluent.
In either case, a high quality effluent is sought.
Limitations. Wastewater should be filtered prior to treat-
ment to remove suspended solids. Requires more sophisticated
operation than standard secondary treatment systems. Under
certain conditions, granular carbon beds provide favorable condi-
tions for the production of hydrogen sulfide, creating odors and
5/25/79 III. 6.1-1
-------
ACTIVATED CARBON REGENERATION
Function:
Remove and thermally oxidize adsorbed organics from spent acti-
vated carbon, for reuse of the carbon
Parameters affected:
Carbon adsorption capacity
Effectiveness:
Complete combustion of offgases
Application limits:
None
Design basis:
Multiple-hearth furnace with afterburner on top hearth; carbon
loading: 40 to 120 Ib/d per ft2 of hearth surface area; tem-
perature: 1,700°F to 1,800°F; surface area required: design
plus 20% for downtime; regeneration fuel: 8,000 Btu/lb of
carbon; carbon loss: 10% per cycle
Residues:
Clean offgas and ash, representing the carbon losses
Major equipment:
Regeneration furnace (multiple hearth) with stacks and after-
burner; quench chamber; venturi scrubber; separator; venturi
recirculation tank and pumps; caustic storage and feed system;
combustion and shaft cooling air blowers; fuel oil storage and
feed system; carbon transfer pumps; feed slurry tank; dewater-
ing screw conveyor
corrosion problems. More mechanical operations, difficult corro-
sion control and materials handling. Most applicable to low
strength or toxic wastewaters. Influent limits: <25 mg/L on
suspended solids, <10 mg/L on free oil.
Typical Equipment. Adsorbers [fixed-bed, pressurized, down-
flow contactors(minimum of two in series, plus a spare), minimum
depth:diameter ratio = 1:1]; regenerated-carbon storage tank;
spent-carbon holding tank; effluent holding tank; backwash pumps.
Design Criteria. Size: vessels 2 to 12 ft diameter common-
ly used;area loading: 2 to 10 gal/min/ft2; organic loading:
Date: 5/25/79 III. 6.1-2
-------
0.1 to 0.3 Ib BOD5 or COD/lb carbon; backwash: 12 to 20 gal/min/
ft2; air scour: 3 to 5 ft3/min/fta; bed depth: 5 to 30 ft;
contact time: 10 to 50 min; land area: minimal; side stream:
spent carbon, 3 to 10 Ib/lb of COD removed for tertiary treatment;
backwash water, 1% to 5% of wastewater throughput, TSS 100 to
250 mg/L.
Chemicals Required. NaN03 for H2S control.
chlorite for biological growth control.
or hypo-
Rellability. Moderately reliable both mechanically and
operationally depending on design construction and manufactured
equipment quality.
Toxics Management. Removes many, but not all, nondegradable
organic compounds. Most effective for nonpolar, high molecular
weight, slightly soluble compounds.
EPA has developed activated carbon adsorption isotherms for 60
toxic organic materials. The isotherms demonstrate removal of
51 of these organic compounds by activated carbon technology.
Another study demonstrated that PCB levels can be reduced from
50 yg/L to less than 1 vg/L, and other work showed that aldrin,
dieldrin, endrin, DDE, DDT, DDD, Toxaphene, and Aroclors 1242 and
1254 can be removed to values less than 1 yg/L.
Environmental Impact. Very little use of land. There is air
pollution generated as a result of regeneration. Sulfide odors
sometimes occur from contractors. Spent carbon may be a land
disposal problem, unless regenerated.
Improved Joint Treatment Potential. Will remove pollutants
discharged by industrial sources that are generally not treated
by normal secondary systems such as refractory organic materials
and some metals.
Flow Diagram
SPENT BACKWASH
TO HEADWORKS
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
ACTIVATED
CARBON
A
BACK-
WASH
TANK
1
EFFLUENT
BACKWASH PUMP
III.6.1-3
-------
Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Auto and other laundries industry
Industrial laundries
Power laundries
Gum and wood chemicals production
Ore mining and dressing
Base and precious metals
Organic chemicals production
Fumaric acid
Plasticizers
Vinyl chloride
Halogenated hydrocarbon wastewaters
Pesticides chemicals production
Halogenated organic pesticides
Metallo-organic pesticides
Noncategorized pesticides
Organo-nitrogen pesticides
Petroleum refining
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Unbleached kraft mill wastewaters
Textile milling
Knit fabric finishing
Stock and yarn finishing
Wool finishing
Wool scouring
Woven fabric finishing
III.6.1-4
-------
0
fu
rt
NJ
U>
\
-J
CONTROL SUMMARY TECHNOLOGY FOR GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
H
H
I
Ul
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD 3
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium*6
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Number of
data points
21
41
47
28
11
19
5
8
7
3
5
11
1
12
7
7
3
7
4
6
18
9
3
7
3
5
1
1
4
5
1
3
1
2
1
8
1
1
5
2
1
2
Effluent concentration
Minimum
1.2
11
2.9
1.8
<0.002
1
24
<1
2
5.2
5.2
<20
<4
<2
<22
0.4
<36
<1
<5
<1
3.9
<0.03
<0.02
1.2
4
<0.07
<0.4
<0.07
<0.2
<0.2
<0.05
<0.02
<0.09
<0.04
<0.01
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Maximum
37,400
109,000
66,700
2,600
14
12
14
590
42
5.4
22
260
<20
360
52
79
4.1
330
50
91
6,000
410
17
5
3
340
<0.07
49
1.5
210
<0.2
<0.05
<0.02
630
<0.09
<0.04
0.4
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Median
13
176
86
12.5
8
0.017
1.9
42
5
2.7
9.8
32
<20
42
<18
35
0.4
81
13
22
76
17
<0.03
0.4
1.4
55
•C0.07
0.9
9!s
<0.2
<0.05
<0.02
1.3
<0.09
<0.04
0.1
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Mean
1,920
3,200
1,730
167
8.1
1.06
4
160
11
3.4
12
60
<20
<66
<20
46
1.6
110
19
21
440
65
5.7
1.3
1.9
110
<0.07
13
0.7
73
<0.2
<0.05
<0.02
80
<0.09
<0.04
0.12
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
Oa
°a
0*
°a
°a
°a
0
°a
0
s*
°a
0
>33
°a
°a
o*
°a
°a
°a
°a
°a
Oa
0
0
20
>82
>89
Oa
18
>8oa
>96
>99
>oa
>99
>93
20
>90
>80
>75
Maximum
95
99
99
99
92
99
57
33
>99
0
95
95
>33
>85
>90
>72
>99
68
'50
36
>99
66
>99
>99
0
96
>82
>89
>97
>96
>83
>80
>96
>99
>0
>99
>99
>93
>97
>97
>80
>90
Median
52
50
55
38
24
69
0
10
-a
0
34
>33
>53
>63
2
0
10
9
0
52a
0
>97
76
0
91
>82
>89
>76
50
>83
64
>96
>99
>0
24
>99
>93
67
>93
>80
>82
Mean
50
51
54
39
34
58
12
12
a
0
"3 A
34
34
>33
47
57
14
33
17
17
7
40
18
>83
0
76
>82
>89
63
>60
>83
48
>96
>99
>0
38
>99
>93
>63
>93
>80
>82
(continued
-------
0 CONTROL SUMMARY TECHNOLOGY FOR GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION (cont'd)
fa
rt
(D
to
\
u>
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants (continued)
Pyrene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroe thane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
a-BHC
Number of
data points
2
9
3
7
15
2
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
<0.01
<10b
<5.
90
Oa
>29
42
21
>30a
Oa
68
>99
>99 =
°a
°a
Oa
>47
Maximum
>97
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
92
68
>99
>99
58a
°a
0
>47
Median
>93
>99
74
>99
98
>64
22
68
>99
>99
2».
°a
Oa
>47
Mean
>93
58
>67
>89
>86
>64
31
68
>99
>99
2?a
°a
0
>47
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as not detected; assumed to be <10 yg/L.
I
a\
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Vinyl chloride plant Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A25, pp. 75-76 Full scale _x_
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation with chemical addition, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 2 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; __
~~~~~~ConcentrationPercent
Pol lutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 1,840 1,310 29
TOC 448 33 93
TSS 1,120 24 98
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Mercury 2,600 4.1 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paper-
board
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A26, p. VII-27
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.06 m3/min/m2
(1.42 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate: 2.46 kg C/m3
(20.5 Ib C/1,000 gal)
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
220
83
62
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.6.1-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Unbleached kraft mill Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A26, pp. VII-26-27 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Biological oxidation and clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 140 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.87 m3/min/m2
(2.13 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate: 0.96 kg C/m3
(8 Ib C/1,000 gal)
Carbon type/
characteristics:
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
148
57
61
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 HI. 6.1-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A26, p. VII-27 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.0029 m3/min/m2
(0.71 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate: 3.36 kg C/m3
(28 Ib C/1,000 gal)
Carbon type/
characteristics:
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 1,160
202
83
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.6.1-10
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A26, p. VII-27 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Lime treatment and clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 108 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.06 m3/min/m2
(1.42 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate: 0.03 kg C/m3
(2.5 Ib C/1,000 gal)
Carbon type/
characteristics:
pH: 11.3
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
TOC
177
100
26
44
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.6.1-11
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Unbleached kraft mill waste Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A26, VII-23 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Lime precipitation and biological oxidation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: 1.5-1.6 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(3.6-4.0 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 48 23 52
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.6.1-12
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Unbleached kraft mill waste Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A26, pp. VII-22-23 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Lime precipitation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: 1.5-1.6 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(3.6-4.0 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 92 22 76
COD 302 209 35
TSS 1,280 1,200 6
Note: Blanks indicate information was not speicifed.
III.6.1-13
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category:a Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, Appendix
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
a.
Halogenated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS (Also see removal data)
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass window screen,
10-15 cm of pea gravel at the bottom
Wastewater flow: 3.79 L/min
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: 41.6 L/min-m2 Carbon makeup rate: Westvaco WVG
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics: Westvaco WVG
Total carbon inventory: 28.3 L (volume)
11.3 kg (weight)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >1.3 atm
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Running
Time, hr
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
35
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
Concentration , pg/L
Influent
2,400
730
1,100
880
560
600
1,600
1,800
230
2,000
1,300
2,000
2,100
2,600
50
450
860
1,100
520
250
Effluent
720
20
180
230
550
560
1,800
2,300
4,200
8,400
4,200
4,200
2,400
4,500
50
110
3,200
3,100
6,800
12,000
Percent
removal
71
97
84
74
2
7
Oa
0*
0*
0«
o«
o*
0*
0*
0
76a
0*
o'
o;
0*
1 , 2-7nm*-dichloroethylene
Concentration, ug/T. Percent
Influent Effluent removal
8,800
6,500
15, 000
3,500
2,800
2,500
3,900
3,900
2,000
1,400
1,500
3,000
7,500
12,000
230
15,000
1,300
1,400
3,200
2,600
250
230
90
140
200
20
170
90
140
210
240
220
410
240
240
180
90
90
390
140
97
96
99
96
93
99
96
98
93
85
93
93
95
98
0*
99
93
93
88
95
Methylane chloride
Concentration, uq/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
27,000
13,000
19,000
3,200
1,300
1,400
3,800
2,200
1,100
230
2,100
2,100
11,000
20,000
22,000
22,000
260
3,900
1,500
2,100
650
190
150
330
180
60
230
240
390
310
3SO
ISO
390
280
23,000
25,000
240
240
300
280
98
98
99
90
87
96
93
89
70
0*
82
82
97
99
0*
0*
8
94
80
87
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Influent
4,600
2,300
_
140
40
350
_
_
_
.
2,100
2,400
2,800
2,000
150
920
2,200
230
Effluent
2,100
20
2,800
'
_
-
.
-
_
50
_
_
-
_
11.000
7,900
130
20
20
"
removal
>99
oa
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
_
-
_
o1
o"
13
98
99
"
Actual data indicate negative
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.6.1-14
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government Report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, Appendix
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
&
Halogenated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS (also see removal data)
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass window screen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at the bottom
Wastewater flow: 3.97 L/min
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading.- 41.6 L/min-m2 Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: ' Carbon typ'e/
Bed depth: characteristics: Westvaco WV6
Total carbon inventory: 28.3 L, 11.3 kg
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa (1.3 atm)
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Running
Time , hr
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Influent
80, 000
46,000
150,000
76,000
250,000
11,000
170,000
170,000
S,000
400
190,000
160,000
42,000
42,000
24 , 000
6,200
5,400
57,000
6,500
2,100
Effluent ri
120
2,600
90
25.000
42,000
480
160,000
260,000
140.000
160,000
140,000
94,000
130,000
34,000
63.000
85.000
37,000
33,000
50,000
60
moval
>99
94
>99
67
83
>99
6,
oa
0*
0*
24
42
0*
19.
0*
of
oa
"a
oa
97
1,2-Tptnu-dichloroethylene
Concentration, ug/L
Influent
140,000
3,700
7,800
940
2,400
7,000
12,000
4,400
320
60
7,800
11,000
1,800
750
20
30
220
18,000
110
170
Effluent
20
100
-
500
750
1,100
2,600
8,200
620
8,600
12,000
17,000
19,000
30,000
30
30
5,400
7,200
6,800
1,220
Percent
reaoval
>99
97
-
47
69
84
79
oa
0*
0*
o'
oa
Oa
0*
o"
0
o'
59
oa
o"
Methylene chloride
Concentration, uq/L
Influent Effluent
150
130
180
340
1,300
320
200
360
70
540
320
130
240
130
70
620
400
120
120
320
20
50
40
60
170
70
110
70
60
10
840
90
100
_
220
340
230
„
420
56,000
Percent
removal
87
62
78
82
87
78
45
81
14
98
0»
31
58
_
o"
45
42
*
o"
oa
1,1,2, 2-Tetrecnloroethane
Concentration, tjg/L
Influent
320,000
330,000
190,000
11,000
110,000
140,000
18,000
18,000
50,000
30,000
9,500
10.000
60,000
36,000
3,800
43,000
50,000
50,000
20,000
Effluent
64,000
6,300
7,000
24,000
25,000
680
36,000
2,700
10,000
B,500
20,000
3,200
4,000
3,000
4,000
2,600
3,800
1,600
Percent
renoval
80
98
96
oa
77
>99
oa
85
80
71
oa
69
93
92
91
95
92
92
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.6.1-15
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Gold mill
Plant: 4105
References: A2, p. VI-60
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Sedimentation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration/ yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Zinc
140
40
>50
10
>64
75
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
III.6.1-16
Date: 9/27/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Class B refinery Bench scale
Plant: Marcus Hook Refinery Pilot scale
References: 3 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: API separator, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Upflow; 4 columns in series
Total flow: 0.5 gpm
Hydraulic loading: 3.6 gpm/ft2
Contact time: 36 min
Total carbon inventory: 2.5 ft3
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.86 lb/1,000 gal
Carbon type: Filtrasorb 300, 8 x 30 mesh
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 57 9.0 83
TSS 8.0 3.0 62
Oil and grease 12.3 1.8 85
Total phenol 2.7 0.02 99
TOC 37 13 65
Date: 5/25/79
III.6.1-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government Report Data source status:
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: B2, p. 43 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: First column
a
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in bottom. Second of 2 columns
in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 562 512 9
TOC 437 347 21
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 . III.6.1-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: Q
References: A6, p. VI1-89
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization, activated sludge, sedi-
mentation with chemical addition, multimedia
filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow: 0.00084-0.0012 m3/min (0.22-0.31 gpm)
Contact time (empty bed): 22-30 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.03-0.041 m3/niin/m2 (0.73-1.0 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco WV-L
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 4
COD 206
TOC 22
TSS 4
2
71
14
2
50
66
36
50
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 •
III.6.1-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: P
References: A6, p. VII-88
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, neutralization, equalization, activated
sludge, multimedia filtration with precoagulation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow: 0.00092-0.0018 m3/min (0.24-0.46 gpm)
Contact time (empty bed): 23-45 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.032-0.062 m3/min/m2 (0.77-1.5 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco WV-L
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 14
COD 107
TOC 24
TSS 19
8
81
11
19
43
24
54
0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: D
References: A6, p. VII-84
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Screening, neutralization, activated sludge,
multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow: 0.0018 m3/min (0.46 gpm)
Contact time (empty bed): 45 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.062 m3/min/m2 (1.5 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco WV-L
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 19
COD 630
TOC 157
TSS 85
13
422
101
23
32
33
36
73
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 .
III.6.1-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 51
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at bottom
Wastewater flow: 0.84 L/min
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth: 1.40 m
Total carbon inventory: 10.2 kg
0.025 m3 Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: 85.8 kg EDCa/m3C
0.20 kg EDC/kg C Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Total run time: 19.5 hr
Air scour rate:
characteristics: Monochem/
activated soot
carbon
1,2-Dichloroethane.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, lig/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 3,100,000 970,000 69
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 •
III.6.1-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government Report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 51
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at bottom
Wastewater flow: 0.8 L/min
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 1.63 m characteristics: Filtrasorb 400
Total carbon inventory: 11.9 kg Total run time: 19 hr
0.03 m3
Carbon exhaustion rate: 53.4 kg EDCa/m3C
0.13 kg EDC/kgC
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
1,2-Dichloroethane.
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 1,800,000
37,000
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 .
III.6.1-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 51
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale ~x"
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at the bottom
Wastewater flow: 0.84 L/min
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 1.40 m characteristics: Monochem/acti-
Total carbon inventory: 10.2 kg vated soot carbon
0.025 m3 a Total run time: 23.5 hr
Carbon exhaustion rate: 65.4 kg EDC /m3C
0.16 kg EDC/kgC pH: 12
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
1,2-Dichloroethane
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 2,500,000 1,100,000
55
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 45
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Five columns in parallel
Wastewater flow: 0.95 L/min
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth: 6.87 m
Total carbon inventory: 61.4 kg
125 L
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.35 kg EDC /kgC
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Witco 718
Total run time: 100 hr
1,2-Dichloroethane.
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 3,500,000 <14,000 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 .
III.6.1-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B2, p. 45 Full scale
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: One to five columns in parallel
Wastewater flow: 0.76-0.95 L/min
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.14-5.56 m characteristics: WVG
Total carbon inventory: 9.71-44.4 kg Total run time: 17.5-120 hr
22-104 L
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.25-0.29 kg EDCa/kgC
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
1,2-oichloroethane.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Two composite samples, three unspecified
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 1,700,000 100,000 94
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 . III.6.1-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 45
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Three columns in parallel
Wastewater flow: 0.76 L/min
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth: 3.95 m
Total carbon inventory: 16.6 kg
39.1 L a
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.33 kg EDC /kgC
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Filtrasorb 400
Total run time: 3 hr
1,2-Dichloroethane.
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
1,2-Dichloroethane 3,700,000
100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 .
III.6.1-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: B2, Appendix Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Halogenated hydrocarbons wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at bottom
Wastewater flow: 1.1 L/min
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading: 0.74 L/cm2 min
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: 64.8 L
28.6 L/g Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics: Westvaco
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average
of samples
from three
days
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Chloroethane
c
Chloroform
1 , 1-Di chloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane ,
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Influent
45,000
34,000
59,000
1,000,000
16,000
8,400
19,000
3,300
Effluent
63,000
0
4,000
190,000
0
0
0
6,700
Percent
removal
b
0
100
93
81
100
100
100.
ob
Average of 15 samples. Average of 13 samples.
b e
Actual data indicate nega- Average of 10 samples.
tive removal. f _ „
Average of 8 samples.
Average of 14 samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.6.1-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric/stock and yarn
finishing
Plant: DD
References: A6, p. VII-85
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, neutralization, activated sludge,
multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow: 0.0018 m3/min (0.46 gpm)
Contact time (empty bed): 45 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.062 m3/min/m2 (1.5 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 8
hr
Pollutant /parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Concentration
, ug/L
Influent Effluent
58
59
37
72
25
190
130
42
35
81
32
370
Percent
removal
a
0
29
5
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 •
III.6.1-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 43
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Columns have a double layer of fiberglass window screen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at the bottom. Two columns
in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 1,190 446 63
TOC 724 76 90
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chloroethane 390,000 0 100
1,1-Dichloroethane 40,000 0 100
1,2-Dichloroethane 950,000 0 100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 .
III.6.1-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 43
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at the bottom. First of two
columns in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/paremeter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 995 562 44
TOC 627 437 30
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chloroethane 110,000 0 100
1,1-Dichloroethane 79,000 0 100
1,2-Dichloroethane 920,000 0 100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 .
III.6.1-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 43
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in bottom. First of 2 columns
in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroehtane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Influent
1,550
567
59,000
78,000
960,000
Effluent
1,390
614
150,000
45,000
750,000
Percent
removal
10
oa
oa
42
21
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 43
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
First column
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in bottom. Second of two
columns in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Influent
1390
614
150,000
45,000
760,000
Effluent
1,120
962
190,000
8,000
130,000
Percent
removal
16
oa
oa
82
78
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 43
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in bottom. First of two
columns in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Influent
1,110
663
330,000
310,000
3,000,000
Effluent
1,140
297
0
0
0
Percent
removal
oa
55
100
100
100
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-34
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale _x_
References: B2, p. 43 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: First column
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in the bottom. Second of two
columns in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
Total carbon inventory: pH: 1
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chloroethane
1, 2-Dichloroethane
Influent
1,140
297
0
0
Effluent
1,550
588
240,000
180,000
Percent
removal
oa
oa
oa
oa
a
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 . III.6.1-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B2, p. 43 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: First column
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in the bottom. Second of two
columns in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
Total carbon inventory: pH: 1
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentra tion
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Influent
1,230
394
0
0
Effluent
898
271
63
78
Percent
removal
27
31
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 • III.6.1-36
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 43
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel in bottom. First of two
columns in series.
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique: Thermal
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
pH: 1
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOG
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Chloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Influent
1,570
640
170,000
190,000
1,300,000
Effluent
1,230
394
0
0
0
Percent
removal
19
38
100
100
100
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: B2, p. 43 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: First column
Chlorinated hydrocarbons contaminated wastewater.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Columns have a double layer of fiberglass windowscreen
and 10-15 cm of pea gravel at the bottom. Two columns
in series.
Wa stewater f low.
Contact time: Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics: Westvaco-WVG
Total carbon inventory: pH: 1
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate: >132 kPa
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 446 225 50
TOC 76 40 47
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 • III.6.1-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: V
References: B3, pp. 70-75
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, activated sludge, multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite sample, volatile organics
were grab sampled
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Methylene chlorideb
Trichloroethylene
Influent
72
4
0.013
1.1
<10
4
75
3
31
<36
<1
<5
190
16
0.9
12
1.3
' 0.3
13
<0.5
Effluent
22
6
0.008
1.1
24
5
16
<2
26
67
2
15
69
17
<0.03
<0.02
1.0
<0.01
17
0.6
Percent
removal
69
Oa
38
0
A
0
a
oa
79
>33
16
oa
oa
oa
64
oa
>97
•v-lOO
23
>97
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government
Report
Point source category. Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabrif finishing
Plant: V, C (different references)
References: A6, p. VII-91; B3, pp. 45-49
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, neutralization, activated sludge,
sedimentation with chemical addition (alum),
multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow: 0.002 m3/min (0.46 gpm)
Contact time (empty bed): 45 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.061 m3/min /m2 (1.5 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco WV-L
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite samples for toxic pollutants,
grab samples for volatile organics
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Methylene chloride
Influent
2.5
331
62
20
0.019
2.0
140
1.2
2.7
14
25
64
77
230
5.3
0.6
12
' 5.8
0.03
210
Effluent
1.2
176
36
20
<0.002
1.9
120
2.7
9.8
15
35
64
91
83
11
0.4
<0.4
<0.05
0.01
110
Percent
removal
52
47
42
0
>89
5
14
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
0
oa
64
oa
33
>97
>99
67
48
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contaminations.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/7J-
III.6.1-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: T
References: B3, pp. 76-82
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Equalization, aeration, multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Downflow; 3 columns in series
2 ft)
(120 Ib)
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite,
grab sampled
volatile
organics
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter Influent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
160
14
0.16
13
58
3
95
100
20
26
100
2
32
97
19
2.5
7.0
1.1
0.6
6.9
4.8
0.2
0.8
19
Effluent
340
12
0.12
14
39
3
84
87
<2
29
90
<1
28
110
14
<0.03
1.7
0.9
<0.1
9.8
<0.2
<0.2
0.6
19
were
Percent
removal
a
0
14
25
oa
33
0
12
13
>90
oa
10
>50
12
oa
26
>99
76
18
>83a
oa
>96
>0
25
0
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.1-41
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government Data source status:
report
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Wool scouring Bench scale
Plant: A, W (different references) Pilot scale
References: A6, p. VI1-94; B3, pp. 50-54 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Grit removal, activated sludge, tertiary sedimen-
tation, multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib) Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite, volatile organics were
grab sampled
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene ,
Methylene chloride
Influent
0.017
83
120
260
400
14
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
4.8
Effluent
0.017
42
<80
40
120
26
0.1
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.01
1.8
Percent
removal
0
49
>33
85
70
oa
50
>90
>80
>90
>97
62
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 III.6.1-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government Data source status:
report
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Wool finishing Bench scale
Plant: O, N (different references) Pilot scale
References: A6, pp. VII-94, 95; B3, pp. 65-69 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Neutralization, activated sludge, multimedia
filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib) Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 72-hr for conventional pollutants, 24-hr
composite samples for toxic pollutants,
and grab gamples for volatile organics
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride"
Influent
210
<1
0.017
2.3
3
95
130
590
29
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.08
0.1
1.0
47
Effluent
44
12
0.011
1.0
3
5.2
24
430
78
1.8
1.2
<0.1
0.4
<0.02
<0.01
<0.7
27
Percent
removal
79
oa
35
57
0
95
82
27
<>:
o*
oa
>83
20
>75
>90
>30
43
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Dare: 8/13/79- III.6.1-43
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government Data source status:
report
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing Bench scale
Plant: E, P (different references) Pilot scale
References: A6, p. VII-93; B3, pp. 60-64 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, activated sludge, multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib) Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol 0.068 0.018 74
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Methyl chlorideb
48
<2
0.3
58
5
150
3.9
1.6
0.8
1.8
1.0
' 2.7
0.5
4.1
36
12
0.4
50
<5
<1
3.9
<0.02
1.4
<0.07
<0.2
3.6
0.1
7.3
25
oa
oa
14
>0
>99
0
>99
oa
>96
>80
oa
80
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
b
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79- III.6.1-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government
report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: W, S (different references)
References: A6, pp. VII-91, 92; B3, pp. 55-59
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Screening, primary sedimentation, equalization,
nitrogen addition, activated sludge, multimedia
filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns in series
Wastewater flow: 0.0018 m3/min
Contact time (empty bed): 45 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.062 m3/min/m2 (1.5 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: Westvaco WV-L
REMOVAL DATA
24-hr
Concentration
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Toluene
Acenaphthene
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Influent
3.4
55
11
9.5
0.009
620
<10
5
27
81
0.4
81
75
42
6.0
0.4
0.4
0.6
' 7.0
4.6
<2.0
Effluent
1.5
19
2.9
2.0
<0.0075
590
11
6
<4
79
0.4
96
31
410
<0.02
<0.07
1.6
<0.04
<5.0
940
69
Percent
removal
56
65
74
79
>17
5
Oa
oa
>85
2
0
oa
59
oa
•vlOO
>82
oa
>93
>29
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79.
III.6.1-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines, Government
report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool finishing
Plant: B, A (different references)
References: A6, pp. VII-85-87; B3, pp. 39-44
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, activated sludge, sedi-
mentation with chemical addition (alum, lime),
multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
in series
.26-0.31 gpm)
Unit configuration: Downflow; 3 columns
Wastewater flow: 0.001-0.0012 m3/min (0
Contact time (empty bed): 25-30 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.0032-0.0038 m3/min (0.83-1.0 gpm)
Organic loading:
Bed depth (total): 7.09 m (23.2 ft)
Total carbon inventory: 54 kg (120 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics: ICI
Hydrodorco
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr for priority pollutants
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Benzo (a ) pyrene
d-BHC
Influent
25
184
60
12
0.055
<10
100
1.2
97
34
110
10
79
5,900
14
0.4
0.9
10
3.0
5.4
12
94
0.8
1.9
Effluent
12
31
16
2
0.017
24
<1
5.4
5.2
19
47
<4
<22
6,000
4.7
<0.07
<0.1
<0.4
1.5
<0.05
<0.1
<0.09
<0.02
<1.0
Percent
removal
52
83
73
83
69
oa
>99
oa
95
44
57
>60
>72
oa
66
>82
>89
>96
50
>99
>99
^100
>97
>47
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 •
III.6.1-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Gum and wood chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 102 Pilot scale
References: A7, p. 7-10 Full scale x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Oil-water separator, neutralization, dissolved air
flotation, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 1.23 x 10* m3/d (3.24 mgd) (design)
9,820 m3/d (2.59 mgd) (actual)
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading: 1.2 kg COD/kg carbon; 0.44 kg TOC/kg carbon
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Pen ta ch lorophenol
Benzene
Toluene
300
752
203
81
28.1
4.66
91
1,100
1,300
1,000
1,100
120
590
2,500
82
160
42
13
2.2
0.58
22
260
360
330
290
330
49
210
630
73
79
79
84
92
88
76
77
72
68
74
59
64
75
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79. III.6.1-47
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: K
References: A3, pp. VI-36-42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Dissolved air flotation, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Concentration
Pollutant/paremeter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Influent
56
25
4
6
0.024
34
7
92
Effluent
9
8
2
7
0.0115
10
<5
30
Percent
removal
80
68
50
oa
52
71
>28
67
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79.
III.6.1-48
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Conference paper
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: East coast oil refinery
References: Dl, p. 207; D2, p. 217
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sand filter, API separator
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 2 sets of 3 - 0.0338 m (1-1/2 in.) I.D. carbon columns
in parallel and in series upflow
Wastewater flow: 0.0816 m3/min/m2 (2 gpm/ft2)
Contact time: 18 min
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Carbon dosage: 0.111 kg/m3* (0.93 lb/1,000 gal)
0.157 kg/m3 (1.31 lb/1,000 gal)
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.65 kg COD removeda/kg of carbon
0.46 kg COD removedb/kg of carbon
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/characteristics: 12x40 mesh lignite , 12 x 40 mesh bituminous
First set of columns.
Second set of columns.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD
104
104
31
70
70
First set of columns (lignite carbon).
Breakthrough at 70% removal.
"Second set of columns (bituminous carbon).
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.6.1-49
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: M
References: A3, pp. VI-36-42
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Dissolved air flotation, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 55
TOC 17
TSS 3
Oil and grease 18
12
6
1
8
78
65
67
56
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
50
40
22
12
25
5
200
35
20
32
22
23
6
100
30
50
oa
oa
12
oa
50
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.1-50
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Conference paper
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: East coast oil refinery
References: Dl, p. 207; D2, p. 217
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sand filtered, API separator
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 2 sets of 4 - 0.0338 m (1-1/2 in.) carbon columns
in parallel and in series downflow
Wastewater flow: 0.0204 m3/irdn/m2 (Q.5 gpm/ft2)
Contact time: 88 min
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Carbon dosage: 0.228 kg/m3* (1.91 lb/1,000 gal)
0.297 kg/m3 (2.49 lb/1,000 gal)
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.21 kg COD removeda/kg of carbon
0.16 kg COD removed^/kg of carbon
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/characteristics: 8x30 mesh lignite ,8x30 mesh bituminous
First set of columns.
Second set of columns.
Sampling period;
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD
70
70
21
70
70
First set of columns (lignite carbon).
Breakthrough at 70% removal.
Q
Second set of columns (bituminous carbon).
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.6.1-51
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: O
References: A3, pp. VI-36-42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Dissolved air flotation, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Zinc
Influent
120
44
18
11
0.032
<1
60
20
8
<35
Effluent
64
30
20
14
0.005
4
70
20
10
36
Percent
removal
30
32
oa
oa
84
a
0
oa
oa
oa
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.1-52
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Journal article Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Stepan Chemical Co. Pilot scale
References: Cl, pp. 81-84 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Three - 1.83 m (6 ft) diameter by 3.05 m (10 ft)
carbon columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 180 min/column
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth: 3.05 m (10 ft), each column
Total carbon inventory: 2,950 kg/column (6,500 Ib/column)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/characteristics: Filtrasorb 300
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 6,310 289 95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.6.1-53
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: P
References: A3, pp. VI-36-42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: API design gravity oil separator, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Po1lutant/par ameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 130 69 47
TOC 45 31 31
TSS 14 8 43
Oil and grease 17 13 24
Total phenol 0.051 0.005 90
Toxic pollutants, wg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
430
1
32
8
40
10
30
450
3
26
13
60
24
27
a
0
a
oa
19
oa
a
0
oa
10
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Mote: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.1-54
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Data source status:
Point source category: Petroleum refining Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Class B refinery Bench scale
Plant: Marcus Hook Refinery Pilot scale
References: 3 Full scale x
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: AIP separator, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Upflow; 3 columns in parallel
Total flow: 2,000 gpm
Hydraulic loading: 8.5 gpm/ft2 (design)
Contact time (empty bed): 40 min
Total carbon inventory: 300,000 Ib
Carbon exhaustion rate: 0.86 lb/1,000 gal
Carbon type: Filtrasorb 300
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 319 189 43
TSS 41 40 2
Oil and grease 26 12 54
Total phenol 14 12 14
TOC 122 71 42
Date: 5/25/79
III.6.1-55
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: H
References: A3, pp. VI-36-42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale _x_
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: API design gravity oil separator, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Influent
29
19
4
8
7
<20
12
23
20
Effluent
13
8
4
8
<5
20
<6
<17
20
Percent
removal
55
58
0
0
>28
_
>50
>26
0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.1-56
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Halogenated organics Bench scale
Plant: 6 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Upflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 760 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.02 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(0.60 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: 6,800 kg (15,000 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Concentration
, mg/L
Influent Effluent
1,630
5,780 2
2,220
69
77.9
780
,120
534
109
2.32
Percent
removal
52
63
76
oa
97
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-57
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: B
References: A3, pp. VI-36-42
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Pull scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Dissolved air flotation, multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 101 25 75
TOC 40 14 65
TSS 21 4 81
Oil and grease 9 8 11
Total phenol 0.022 <0.01 >55
Toxic pollutants, vg/L:
Chromium
Cyanide
Selenium
Zinc
30
50
56
65
18
20
50
25
40
60
11
62
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.1-58
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Halogenated organics Bench scale
Plant: 8 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 479 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.013 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(0.32 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 5,770 320 94
TOC 698 85.7 98
TSS 1,510 255 83
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-59
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Organo nitrogen Bench scale
Plant: 46 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Two multimedia filters in parallel
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 120 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.053 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(1.3 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant./parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 29.5 8.78 70
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-60
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals
Subcategory: Organo nitrogen metallo organic
Plant: 50
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Downflow, 2 carbon columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 292 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.021 m3/min/m2
(0.51 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
Thermal
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 193 9.2 95
COD 4,880 31 99
TOC 2,170 15.4 99
TSS 674 6.6 99
Total phenol 2.8 <0.7 >75
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.1-61
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Riechhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale x
References: B4, pp. 66-85 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Fourth of six 25.4 mm (1-in.) diameter columns in series
Wastewater flow: 20 mL/min
Contact time: 25.3 min/m of bed depth Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.91 m (3 ft) characteristics: Calgon filtra-
Total carbon inventory: 200 g sorb 300 GAC
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 1,580 1,120 29
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Riechhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale x
References: B4, pp. 66-85 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Fourth of six 25.4 mm (1-in.) diameter columns in series
Wastewater flow: 20 mL/min
Contact time: 25.3 min/m of bed depth Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.91 m (3 ft) characteristics: Calgon filtra-
Total carbon inventory: 200 g sorb 300 GAC
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 1,580 1,120 29
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.6.1-62
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Organo nitrogen Bench scale
Plant: 39 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 230 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.027 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(0.66 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L
Pol lutant /parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Influent
995
8,310
926
168
<2
Effluent
1,100
6,380
1,950
165
<0.51
Percent
removal
oa
23
oa
2
>74
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.1-63
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Organo nitrogen, noncategorized
pesticides Bench scale
Plant: 45 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Neutralization, dual media filter, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 456 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.015 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(0.36 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 4,750 808 83
TOC 1,650 153 91
TSS 68.6 46.6 32
Total phenol 129 4.26 97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-64
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Riechhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale
References: B4, pp. 66-85 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Third of six 25.4 m (1-in.) diameter columns in series
Wastewater flow: 20 mL/min
Contact time: 25.3 min/m of bed depth Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.616 m (2 ft) characteristics: Calgon filtra-
Total carbon inventory: 131 g sorb 300 GAG
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOG 1,950 1,580 19
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-65
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Riechhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale x
References: B4, pp. 66-85 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Sixth of six 25.4 mm (1-in.) diameter columns in series
Wastewater flow: 20 mL/min
Contact time: 25.3 min/m of bed depth Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.924 m (3 ft) characteristics: Calgon filtra-
Total carbon inventory: 200 g sorb 300 GAC
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 989 831 16
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-66
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Riechhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale _x_
References: B4, pp. 66-85 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Fifth of six 25.4 mm (1-in.) diameter columns in series
Wastewater flow: 20 mL/min
Contact time: 25.3 min/m of bed depth Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.924 m (3 ft) characteristics: Calgon filtra-
Total carbon inventory: 200 g sorb 300 GAC
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 1,120 989 12
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.1-67
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Riechhold Chemical, Inc. Pilot scale x
References: B4, pp. 66-85 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarification
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Second of six 25.4 mm (1-in.) diameter columns in series
Wastewater flow: 20 mL/min
Contact time: 25.3 min/m of bed depth Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: 0.305 m (1 ft) characteristics: Calgon filtra-
Total carbon inventory: 66 g sorb 300 GAC
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; 24-hour composites
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOCa 2,150 1,950 9
Average concentrations listed.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.6.1-68
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Auto and other laundries Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Power laundries Bench scale
Plant: N Pilot scale
References: A28, Appendix C Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization, sedimentation with alum
and polymer addition
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 15.2 m3/d (4,000 gpd)
Contact time: Regeneration technique:
Hydraulic loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Organic loading: Carbon type/
Bed depth: characteristics:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants t mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Influent
57
125
40
46
4
0.028
1.6
55
12
34
31
66
50
11
240
67
36
7
<0.03
5
<0.4
2
3
70
38
100
12
Effluent
35.5
136
38
78
8
0.029
2.0
44
15
36
42
65
<36
7
210
23
17
5
3
4
3
1
4
18
3
32
5
Percent
removal
38
a
0
5
oa
oa
oa
oa
20
oa
0*
oa
2
>28
36
12
66
53
29a
0
20
oa
50
oa
74
92
68
58
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-69
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Organic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Fumaric acid wastewater Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: A15, pp. H-2-H-4 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Sedimentation, filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Multimedia filter, 2 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 1st column 60 min; Regeneration technique:
2nd column 120 min Carbon makeup rate:
Hydraulic loading: 0.035 m3/min/m2 Carbon type/
(0.85 gpm/ft2) characteristics:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: 4.5 kg/column (10 Ib/column)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Varies on breakthrough period on each column
Concentration, mg/L Percent Breakthrough
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal period, hr
Conventional pollutants:
TOC (1st column) 2,900 783' 97 -H
TOG (2nd column) 2,430 91°' 96 12
Average of three samples.
Samples taken at effluent of 1st column.
Q
Average of six samples.
Samples taken at effluent of 2nd column.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-70
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory: Plasticizer wastestream
Plant:
References: A15, p. 31
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: 4 columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: Varies, see removal data
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
.45 kg/column
(10 Ib/column)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Effluent
Pol lutant/par ameter
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1st column
contact
Concentration time ,
Influent 30 min
1,340 337
2nd column
contact
time,
60 min
121
3rd column
contact
time,
90 min
55
4th column
contact
time,
120 min
48
b
Percent
removal
lc 2C 3C 4C
75 91 96 96
aMean average.
Calculated from influent and respective effluent columns.
Column number.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 .
III.6.1-71
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Industrial laundry Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Standard Uniform Rental Service
(Dorchester, Mass.) Pilot scale _>
References: B9 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Depth filtration, ultrafiltration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Upflow mode, 2 in. diameter column
Wastewater flow: 0.27 m3/min/m2 (6.7 gpm/ft2)
Contact time: 11.3 min
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: 2,400 g Regeneration technique:
Carbon exhaustion rate: Carbon makeup rate:
Backwash rate: Carbon type/
Air scour rate: characteristics: Filtrasorb 400
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of two weekly composites
Concentration Percent
Pol lutant/parame ter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 330 132 60
COD 520 159 69
TOC 148 55 63
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc 130
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79. III.6.1-72
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Industrial laundry
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B9, pp. 50, 60-64
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Contact time:
Hydraulic loading:
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration,9 mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TOC
Oil and grease
Influent
305
551
189
63
Effluent
176
314
115
<9
Percent
removal
42
43
39
>86
Average of six values from tests with different conver-
sion periods.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.1-73
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Halogenated organics, organo Bench scale
nitrogen metallo organic
Plant: 20 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 35 min Regeneration technique: Isopropanol
Hydraulic loading: 0.0857 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(2.10 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L
Pol lutant /parameter
Conventional pollutants:
BODS
COD
TOC
TSS
Influent
45,200
148,000
79,800
1,460
Effluent
37,400
109,000
66,700
2,600
Percent
removal
17
27
16
oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.6.1-74
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Halogenated organics Bench scale
Plant: 6 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Upflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 760 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.02 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(0.60 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory: 6,800 kg (15,000 Ib)
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants :
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Total phenol
Influent
1,630
5,780
2,220
69
77.9
Effluent
780
2,120
534
109
2.32
Percent
removal
52
63
76 '
oa
97
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.1-75
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Halogenated organics Bench scale
Plant: 8 Pilot scale ~
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 479 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.013 m3/ndn/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(0.32 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
COD 5,770 320 94
TOC 698 85.7 98
TSS 1,510 255 83
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.1-76
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Organo nitrogen Bench scale
Plant: 46 Pilot scale
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Two multimedia filters in parallel
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Downflow
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 120 min Regeneration technique: Thermal
Hydraulic loading: 0.053 m3/min/m2 Carbon makeup rate:
(1.3 gpm/ft2) Carbon type/
Organic loading: characteristics:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TSS 29.5 8.78 70
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.6.1-77
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pesticide chemicals
Subcategory: Organo nitrogen metallo organic
Plant: 50
References: A16, pp. Ill, 113
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Unit configuration: Downflow, 2 carbon columns in series
Wastewater flow:
Contact time: 292 min
Hydraulic loading: 0.021 m3/min/m2
(0.51 gpm/ft2)
Organic loading:
Bed depth:
Total carbon inventory:
Carbon exhaustion rate:
Backwash rate:
Air scour rate:
Regeneration technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Carbon type/
characteristics:
Thermal
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 193 9.2 95
COD 4,880 31 99
TOC 2,170 15.4 99
TSS 674 6.6 99
Total phenol 2.8 <0.7 >75
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.1-78
-------
III.6.2 POWDERED CARBON ADDITION [1]
III.6.2.1 Function
Powdered activation carbon is used in wastewater facilities to
absorb soluble organic materials and to aid in the clarification
process.
III.6.2.2 Description
Powdered carbon is fed to a treatment system using chemical feed
equipment similar to that used for other chemicals that are pur-
chased in dry form. The spent carbon is removed with the sludge
and then discarded or regenerated. Regeneration can be accom-
plished in a furnace or wet air oxidation system.
Powdered carbon can be fed to primary clarifiers directly, or to
a separate sludge recirculation-type clarifier that enhances the
contact between the carbon and the wastewater. Powdered carbon
can also be fed to tertiary clarifiers to remove additional amounts
of soluble organics. Powdered carbon, when added to a sludge
recirculation-type clarifier, has been shown to be capable of
achieving secondary removal efficiencies.
Powdered carbon can be fed in the dry state using volumetric or
gravimetric feeders or it can be fed in slurry form.
III.6.2.3 Common Modifications
A new technology has been developed over the past several years
that consists of the addition of powdered activated carbon to the
aeration basins of biological systems. This application is capa-
ble of the following: high BOD5 and COD reduction, despite hydrau-
lic and organic overloading; aiding solids settling in the clari-
fiers; a high degree of nitrification due to extended sludge age;
a substantial reduction in phosphorus; adsorbing coloring materials
such as dyes and toxic compounds; and adsorbing detergents and
reducing foam.
III.6.2.4 Technology Status
Powdered carbon addition is used mostly in municipal applications
at the present time. Two new municipal plants using powdered car-
bon addition to activated sludge are currently under construction,
and several more are planned.
III.6.2.5 Applications
Has been used in clarifiers and has potential use in aeration ba-
sins to adsorb soluble organic materials, thus removing BODs and
COD, as well as some toxic materials.
Date: 8/13/79 • III.6.2-1
-------
III.6.2.6 Limitations
Will increase the amount of sludge generated; regeneration will
be necessary at higher dosages in order to maintain reasonable
costs; most powdered carbon systems will require post-filtration
to capture any residual carbon particles; some sort of floccula-
ting agent, such as an organic polyelectrolyte, is usually required
to maintain efficient solids captured in the clarifier.
III.6.2.7 Chemicals Required
Powdered activated carbon and polyelectrolytes.
III.6.2.8 Residuals Generated
One pound of dry sludge is generated per pound of carbon added; if
regeneration is practiced, carbon sludge is reactivated and reused
with only a small portion removed to prevent buildup of inerts.
III.6.2.9 Reliability
Powdered activated carbon systems are reasonably reliable from
both a unit and process standpoint; in fact, powdered carbon sys-
tems can be used to improve process reliability of existing systems,
III.6.2.10 Environmental Impact
Land use requirements vary with application; air pollution may
result from regeneration; spent carbon may be a land disposal prob-
lem unless regenerated.
III.6.2.11 Design Criteria
The amount of powdered carbon fed to a system greatly depends on
the characteristics of the wastewater and the desired effluent
quality; however, powdered carbon will generally be fed at a rate
between 50 and 300 mg/L.
III.6.2.12 Flow Diagram
POWDERED
CARBON FEED
TREATED EFFLUENT
~~— " •" 1 wwiiwi 11.1* I
MIXER
SLUDGE TO DISPOSAL
OR REGENERATION
Date: 8/13/79. III.6.2-2
-------
III.6.2.13 Performance
Subsequent data sheet provide performance data from studies on the
following industries and/or wastesteams:
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceuticals and fine organic chemicals production
Pulp, paper, and paperboard production
Textile milling
Carpet finishing
Knit fabric finishing
Stock and yarn finishing
Wool finishing
Wool scouring
Woven fabric finishing
III.6.2.14 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79 III.6.2-3
-------
o
to
rt
(D
to
\
U>
to
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
(WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE)
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L;
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenols
TKN
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Other pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium (+6)
Number of
data points
24
26
25
4
4
4
1
1
1
A
^
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
Effluent concentration
Minimum
4
33
9
17
11
<0.010
28
41
10
24
7
<20
<18
0.6
<10
<20
78
<20
Maximum
54
563
387
83
57
0.058
28
41
10
90
29
45
38
0.6
22
40
140
20
Median
13
98
38
54
13
0.013
28
41
10
53
14
20
<28
0.6
<10
<30
110
<20
Mean
17
160
67
52
23
<0.023
28
41
10
55
17
<28
<28
0.6
<14
<30
110
<20
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
<90
60
64a
Oa
8
99
96
5.
Oa
73
Oa
50
Oa
°a
O3
Oa
26
Oa
Maximum
>99
98
97
96
96
>99
96
5
Oa
97
96
69
>78
Oa
>58
>13
98
>64
Median
96
91
90a
Oa
54
>99
96
5a
Oa
88
61
>67
39 =
Oa
>0
6
50
>60
Mean
96
87
86
24
53
>99
96
5a
Oa
87
52
>62
39»
Oa
19
6
58
41
Actual data indicates negative removal.
-------
o
0)
rt
(D
I-1
M
Ul
VO
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
H
H
H
•
a\
•
NJ
I
Number of
Effluent concentration, pg/L
Pollutant data points Minimum
Toxic pollutants
Antimony
Zinc
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
1 , 2-Qichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Acrolein
Isophorone
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
190,
20,
18,
67,
190,
70,
700,
30,
150
80
44
<10
000
<10b
000
000
000.
<10
000
000
000
000
Maximum
190,
190,
20,
18,
67,
190,
70,
700,
30,
150
80
44
<10
000
000
000
000
000.
<10b
000
000
000
000
Median
150
80
44b
<10b
190,000
95,000
20,000
18,000
67,000.
<10
190,000
70,000
700,000
30,000
Mean
150
80
44b
<10D
190,000
95,000
20,000
18,000
67,000,
<10b
190,000
70,000
700,000
30,000
Removal efficiency.
Minimum
°a
Oa
53
97
81
81
95
84
79
>96
81
93
30
97
Maximum
°a
oa
53
97
81
>85
95
84
79
>96
81
93
30
97
Median
°a
Oa
53
97
81
>83
95
84
79
>96
81
93
30
97
%
Mean
0
Oa
53
97
81
>83
95
84
79
>96
81
93
30
97
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Reported as below detectable limits; assumed to be <10 pg/L.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: M
References: A3, pp. VI-43-45
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Dissolved air flotation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample.
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadnium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Influent
300
77
29
23
6.0
<1
450
18
140
<18
10
23
2
280
Effluent
106
23
52
16
0.013
10
46
7
45
38
<10
<20
<3
140
Percent
removal
65
70
cl
0
43
>99
a
0
90
61
69
a
0
>0
>13
a
0
50
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified,
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.2-4
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: P
References: A3, pp. Vl-43-45
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: API design gravity oil separator
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average of four days and a composite sample.
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 400 160 60
TOG 120 43 64
TSS 62 83 (34)
Oil and grease 62 57 8
Total phenol 55 0.058 >99
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
43
660
<20
10
40
10
100
41
90
20
29
20
22
78
5
86
_
oa
50
oa
26
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.2-5
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: K
References: A3, pp. Vl-43-45
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Dissolved air flotation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
900
250
430
270
1.4
1,800
50
380
82
<0.5
24
5,900
Effluent
53
20
17
11
0.012
60
<20
14
<18
0.6
<10
110
Percent
removal
94
92
96
96
99
97
>60
96
>78
oa
>58
98
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.2-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: B
References: A3, pp. Vl-43-45
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Dissolved air flotation
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of four days and a composite sample
Concentration Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 420 100 76
TOC 100 30 70
TSS 36 56 Oa
Oil and grease 25 9 64
Total phenol 24 <0.01 >99
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Cyanide
Selenium
90
55
60
<20
24
<20
<20
40
73
>64
>67
a
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.2-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
(With Activated Sludge)
Data source: Conference paper
Point source category: Petroleum refining
Subcategory:
Plant: First of four refinery and/or
petrochemical plants
References: D2, pp. 225-230
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Hydrodar co C
20 mg/L
cationic polymer
for secondary
solids capture
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading: 17.23 m3/m2/cl
• (432 gpd/ft2)
Weir loading:
MLSS: 3,600 mg/L
(high density, lignite based)
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
Wastewater flow: 3,790 m3/day
(2.2 mgd)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 300
COD 1,180
TOC 420
>30
350
100
<90
70
76
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: B20, pp. 24, 27, 30, 33, 41 Full scale x
Use in system:
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 5,000 mg/L Sludge underflow;
Carbon type/characteristics: Percent solids in sludge:
Flocculent dosage: Carbon regenera-
Clarifier configuration: technique:
Depth: Carbon makeup rate:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration Percent
Po 1 lutant/parameter Influent Effluent5 removal
Toxic pollutants, mg/L:
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Acrolein
Isophorone
94
1,000,000
1,000,000
416,000
115,000
317,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
44
190,000
190,000
21,000
18,000
67,000
190,000
70,000
700,000
30,000
53
81
81
95
84
79
81
93
30
97
Calculated from influent and percent removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
10/29/79 III.6.2-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Pulp, paper, and
paperboard
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A26, p. VII-24
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Carbon dosage: 160 mg/L
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time: 6.1 hr
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique: thermally regener-
ated and acid washed
Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration,a mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
300
23
92
Average values for a six month period.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79
III.6.2-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Pulp, paper, Engineering estimate
and paperboard
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A26, p. VII-25 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 182 mg/L
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: 14.6 hr Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 504 15.2 95
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 9/27/79 III.6.2-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Textile mills Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Carpet finishing Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A6, p. VII-97 Full scale
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent: Screening, equalization
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
System configuration: Mix tank and filter press for solids removal
Wastewater flow: 757 m3/day
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics :
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; _ _______ _ _
Concentration, yg/L Percent
_ Pollutant/parameter _ Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Antimony <12 150 Oa
Zinc 20 80 Oa
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 400 BDLb >97
Phenol 67 BDL >85
Naphthalene 240 BDL >96
Data indicate negative removal.
Below detectable limits; assumed to be <10 yg/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.6.2-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Carpet finishing
Plant: F
References: A6, p. VII-102
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 2,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: ICI-KB
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique:
Carbon makeup rate:
277-694 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
471
471
1,450
1,450
390
390
6
4
67
40
35
18
99
99
95
97
91
95
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool scouring
Plant: A
References: A6, p. VII-101
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 2,000-10,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SC"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
139-694 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Po1lutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Carbon
dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants;
BOD 5
COD
TOC
2,580
2,580
5,540
5,540
1,780
1,780
54
51
563
457
387
336
98
98
90
92
78
81
2,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: . .1.0/29/79
III.G.-2.-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool finishing
Plant: O
References: A6, p. VII-102
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 1,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SC"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
25-125 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Carbon
dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOG
247
247
1,100
1,100
344
344
8
6.5
63
33
23
11
97
97
94
97
93
97
1,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finising
Plant: E
References: A6, p. VII-101
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 2,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SC"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
216-540 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
505
505
1,740
1,740
446
446
21
21
103
69
52
40
96
96
94
96
88
91
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: Q
References: A6, p. VII-100
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 1,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SC"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
35-173 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
318
318
963
963
383
383
14
11
175
119
56
44
96
97
82
88
85
89
1,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: D
References: A6, p. VII-99
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 3,000-6,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SA"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: . in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
105-210 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutantsi
BOD5
COD
TOC
1,170
1,170
2,115
2,115
624
624
24
24
390
447
113
105
98
98
82
79
82
83
3,000
6,000
3,000
6,000
3,000
6,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: P
References: A6, p. VII-100
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 1,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SC"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
122-608 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Carbon
dosage, tng/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
400
400
572
572
243
243
8
8.5
96
82
42
34
98
98
83
86
83
86
1,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: Y
References: A6, p. VII-103
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 2,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: ICI-Hydrodarco
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
210-526 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOG
114
114
301
301
91
91
5
4
60
37
12
9
96
96
80
88
87
90
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6..2-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool finishing
Plant: B
References: A6, p. VII-99
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Carbon dosage: 2,000-8,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SA"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
97-388 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage, mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD 5
COD
TOC
407
407
1,920
1,920
461
461
29
18
107
73
44
38
93
96
94
96
90
92
2,000
8,000
2,000
8,000
2,000
8,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption (With Activated
Sludge)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Stock and yarn finishing
Plant: S
References: A6, p. VII-103
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Carbon dosage: 2,000-5,000 mg/L in aeration basin
Carbon type/characteristics: Westvaco "SC"
Flocculent dosage: Sludge underflow:
Clarifier configuration: Percent solids
Depth: in sludge:
Hydraulic detention time: Carbon regenera-
Hydraulic loading: tion technique:
Weir loading: Carbon makeup rate:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
122-304 mg/L/d
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Two weeks
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration/ mg/L Percent Carbon
Influent Effluent removal dosage/ mg/L
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
95
95
956
956
390
390
8.5
6
74
35
35
18
91
94
92
96
91
95
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: "10/29/79
III.6.2-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY:
Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption
(With Activated Sludge)
Data source: Journal article
Point source category: Pharmaceuticals
Subcategory: Pharmaceuticals and fine
organic chemicals
Plant: Texas plant
References: C2, pp. 854-855
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Carbon dosage:
Carbon type/characteristics:
Flocculent dosage:
Clarifier configuration:
Depth:
Hydraulic detention time:
Hydraulic loading:
Weir loading:
Wastewater flow: 946 m3/d (0.25 mgd)
Sludge underflow:
Percent solids
in sludge:
Carbon regenera-
tion technique: Wet air oxidation
Carbon makeup rate: 90% of carbon
recovered
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs
COD
TKN
7,470
14,790
690
11
280
28a
>99
98
96
Calculated from influent concentration and percent
removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.2-23
-------
III.6.3 CHEMICAL OXIDATION [1]
III.6.3.1 Function
The chemical oxidation process involves the chemical rather than
the biological oxidation of dissolved organics in wastewater.
III.6.3.2 Description
The processes discussed here are based on chemical oxidation as
differentiated from thermal, electrolytic, and biological oxida-
tion. Ozonation, a commonly used chemical method of oxidation
for waste treatment, and another oxidation process, chlorination,
are discussed elsewhere in this volume. The oxidation reactions
discussed here should be distinguished from the higher tempera-
ture, and typically pressurized, wet oxidation processes, such
as the Zimpro process, which are also discussed in a separate
section of this volume.
Oxidation-reduction or "redox" reactions are those in which the
oxidation state of at least one reactant is raised while that of
another is lowered. In reaction (1) in alkaline solution:
2MnO£ + CN~ + 20H~ «=» 2MnOiJ~ + CNO~ + H20 (1)
the oxidation state of the cyanide ion is raised from -1 to +1
(the cyanide is oxidized as it combines with an atom of oxygen
to form cyanate); the oxidation state of the permanganate de-
creases from -1 to -2 (permanganate is reduced to managanate).
This change in oxidation state implies that an electron was
transferred from the cyanide ion to the permanganate. The
increase in the positive valence (or decrease in the negative
valence) with oxidation takes place simultaneously with reduction
in chemically equivalent ratios.
There are many oxidizing agents; however, only a few are conven-
ient to use. Those more commonly used in waste treatment are
shown in the following table.
Some oxidations proceed readily to C02. In other cases, the
oxidation is not carried as far perhaps because of the dosage of
the oxidant, the pH of the reaction medium, the oxidation poten-
tial of the oxidant, or the formation of stable intermediates.
The primary function performed by oxidation in the treatment of
hazardous wastes is essentially detoxification. For instance,
oxidants are used to convert cyanide to the less toxic cyanate
or completely to carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The oxidant itself
is reduced. For example, in the potassium permanganate treatment
of phenolics, the permanganate is reduced to manganese dioxide.
A secondary function is to assure complete precipitation, as in
the oxidation of Fe++ to Fe+++ and similar reactions.
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-1
-------
WASTE TREATMENT APPLICATIONS OF
OXIDATION IDENTIFIED
Oxidant
Waste
Ozone*
Air (atmospheric oxygen)
Chlorine gas
Chlorine and gas caustic**
Chlorine dioxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Calcium hypochlorite
Potassium permanganate
Trace quantities only
Permanganate
Hydrogen peroxide
Nitrous acid
pesticides
Sulfites (S03 )
Sulfides (S~)
Ferrous iron
Sulfide
Mercaptans
Cyanide (CN~)
Cyanide
Diquat
Paraquat
Cyanide
Lead
Cyanide
Cyanide (organic odors)
Lead
Phenol
Diquat
Paraquat
Organic sulfur compounds
Rotenone
Formaldehyde
Manganese
Phenol
Cyanide
Sulfur compounds
Lead
Benzidene
(very slow)
pesticides
*Discussed in another section of this volume.
**Alkaline chlorination.
The first step of the chemical oxidation process is the adjust-
ment of the pH of the solution to be treated. In the use of
chlorine gas to treat cyanides, for instance, this adjustment is
required because acid pH has the effect of producing hydorgen
cyanide and/or cyanogen chloride, both of which are poisonous
gases. The pH adjustment is done with an appropriate Alkali
(e.g., sodium hydroxide). This is followed by the addition of
the oxidizing agent. Mixing is provided to contact the oxi-
dizing agent and the waste. Because some heat is often liber-
ated, more concentrated solutions will require cooling. The
agent can be in the form of a gas (chlorine gas), a solution
(hydrogen peroxide) or perhaps a solid if there is adequate
mixing. Reaction times vary but are in the order of seconds and
minutes for most of the commercial-scale installations. Addi-
tional time is allowed to ensure complete mixing and oxidation.
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.3-2
-------
At this point, additional oxidation may be desired and, as with
cyanide destruction, often requires the readjustment of the pH
followed by the addition of more oxidant. Once reacted, this
final oxidized solution is then generally subjected to some form
of treatment to settle or precipitate any insoluble oxidized
material, metals, and other residues. A treatment for the re-
moval of what remains of the oxidizing agent (both reacted and
unreacted) may be required. A product of potassium permanganate
oxidation is manganese dioxide (Mn02) , which is insoluble and can
be settled or filtered for removal.
The characteristics of a number of common oxidizing agents are
described in the following paragraphs.
• Potassium Permanganate
Potassium permanganate (KMnCU) has been used for destruction of
organic residues in wastewater and in potable water. Its usual
reduced form, manganese dioxide (MnOa) , can be removed by filtra-
tion. KMnOtt reacts with aldehydes, mercaptans , phenols, and un-
saturated acids. It is considered a relatively powerful oxidiz-
ing agent.
• Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide (HaOa) has been used for the separation of
metal ions by selective oxidation. In this way it helps remove
iron from combined streams by oxidizing the ferrous ion to
ferric, which is then precipitated by the addition of the appro-
priate base. In dilute solution (<30%) , the decomposition of
hydrogen peroxide is accelerated by the presence of metal ion
contaminants. At higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide,
these contaminants can catalyze its violent decomposition. Hy-
drogen peroxides should be added slowly to the solution with good
mixing. This caution relates to other oxidants as well. If the
follow-on treatment involves distillation or crystallization, the
absence of all unspent peroxides must be confirmed since these
techniques tend to concentrate the unused reagent. Hydrogen per-
oxide has also been used as an "anti-chlor" to remove residual
chlorine followign chlorination treatment.
• Chromic Acid
Chromium trioxide (CrO3) commercially called chromic acid, is
used as an oxidizing agent in the preparation of organic com-
pounds. It is often regenerated afterward by electrolytic oxida-
tion. In the oxidation of organic compounds, chromic acid in a
solution of sulfuric acid is reduced and forms chromium sulfate
[Cr2 (SO*) 3] .
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-3
-------
III.6.3.3 Technology Status
Technology for large-scale application of chemical oxidation is
well developed. Application to industrial wastes is well
developed for cyanides and for other hazardous species in dilute
waste streams (phenols, organic sulfur compounds, etc.).
III.6.3.4 Applications
The following are selected examples of the application of chem-
ical oxidation to hazardous waste management problems.
* Oxidation of Cyanide Effluents
Numerous plating and metal finishing plants use chemical oxida-
tion methods to treat their cyanide wastes. Cyanides and heavy
metals are often present together in plating industry wastes.
Their concentration and their value influence the selection of
the treatment process. If the cyanide and heavy metal are not
economically recoverable by a method such as ion exchange, the
cyanide radical is converted either to the less toxic cyanate or
to CO2 and N2 by oxidation, while the heavy metal is precipitated
and removed as a sludge.
Chemical oxidation is applicable to both concentrated and dilute
waste streams, but the competing processes are more numerous for
the concentrated streams. These methods include thermal and
catalytic decomposition of the cyanide and decomposition using
acidification.
In treating cyanide waste by oxidation, hypochlorite or caustic
plus chlorine (alkaline chlorination) may be used to oxidize the
cyanide to cyanate or to oxidize it completely to nitrogen and
carbon dioxide. It is a fast reaction that is adaptable to
either batch or continuous operation. Smaller volumes would be
treated in a batch system for simplicity and safety. The
destruction of cyanide is believed to proceed according to the
following equations:
NaCN + Cla - CNC1 + NaCl (2)
CNC1 + 2NaOH - NaCNO + NaCl + H20 (3)
2NaCNO + 4NaOH + 3C12 - 6NaCl + 2C02 + N2 + 2H20 (4)
The rate of the second reaction is dependent upon pH and proceeds
rapidly at a pH of 11 or higher. About 8 parts chlorine and 7.3
parts sodium hydroxide are required per part of cyanide. Neu-
tralization is required after treatment because the waste is
generally alkaline. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium hypochlorite
are frequently used in place of gaseous chlorine even though the
chlorine is more rapid and costs about half as much as the
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-4
-------
hypochlorites. This is because they are easier and safer to use
and do not require the addition of supplementary alkali. Calcium
hypochlorite will give more sludge than the sodium hypochlorite
if certain anions such as sulfate are present.
There are problems associated with alkaline chlorination of cya-
nide if soluble iron or certain other transition metal ions are
present. The iron forms very stable ferrocyanide complexes which
prevent the cyanide from being oxidized. Potassium permanganate
and hydrogen peroxide are also used to oxidize cyanide wastes.
Potassium permanganate (KMn04) is not used widely for the de-
struction of cyanide. One advantage of the use of permanganate
is that there is no need to monitor pH. Once the pH adjustment
has been made there is continuous formation of the hydroxide ion.
KMn04 + 3CN- + H2O - 3CNO~ + 2Mn02 + 2OH~ (5)
to constantly keep the reaction medium on the alkaline side.
This is fortunate because otherwise there is the danger that if
the pH drops to between 6 and 9, hydrogen cyanide and/or cyanogen,
both of which are poisonous gases, may be formed. With other
oxidative methods the reaction medium is kept alkaline by the
addition of alkali. The use of permanganate oxidizes the waste
cyanide only to the cyanate. Simple acid hydrolysis can be used
to further treat the cyanate, converting it to C02 and N2.
• Oxidation of Phenol
Oxidation reactions involving phenol are often complex, since the
reaction products depend upon the substituents. The reactions
are believed to involve as a first sept the removal of the hy-
droxyl hydrogen to yield a phenoxy radical. The eventual re-
action products can include quinone, which is considered more
toxic than phenol. In one commercial reaction, for instance, the
oxidation of phenol with chromic acid is designed to yield
quinone.
Chemical oxidation of phenols has found application to date only
on dilute waste streams. Potassium permanganate, one of the oxi-
dants used, is reduced to manganese dioxide (MnO2), which is a
filterable solid. In one application, the product MnO2 has been
found to act also as a coagulant aid to settle other material
from the waste stream. Because of the high potential of forma-
tion of chlorophenols, chlorine gas is not frequently used.
When phenol is present only in trace qunatities, the economics
appear favorable for chemical oxidation. It has been used in
the treatment of potable water. Removal of 1 ppm phenol in this
application can be accomplished by the addition of 6 to 7 ppm
potassium permanganate.
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-5
-------
• Oxidation of Other Organics
Chemical oxidizing agents have been used for the control of
organic residues in wastewaters and in potable water treatment.
Among the organics for which oxidative treatment has been
reported are aldehydes, mercaptans , phenols, benzidine, and un-
saturated acids. For these applications sodium hypochlorite,
calcium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate and hydrogen per-
oxide have been reported as oxidants . In one application nitrous
acid was used.
Benzidine, an organic used in the manufacture of dyes, is con-
sidered a carcinogen. Its concentration is generally reduced to
ppb in wastewaters prior to discharge for this reason. Nitrous
acid oxidation is used to achieve this effluent quality. While
biodegradation, carbon adsorption, radiation, and oxidation by
ozone and by other chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide has been
suggested, only the oxidation (commonly called diazotization)
using nitrous has been used on a full scale basis. The reaction
of benzidine with an excess amount of nitrous acid in a strong
acid reaction medium yields the quinone form, 4 , 4 ' -dihydroxy-
biphenyl and/or similar products. The reaction products cannot
revert to benzidine. The quinone product is also toxic but con-
sidered less so than the reactant, benzidine. Since the effluent
stream is very dilute, no secondary treatment is required.
* Oxidation of Sulfur Compounds
Much of the work on oxidative treatment of sulfur compounds is
centered on the problem of odor removal. Scrubbers using oxi-
dizine solutions of potassium permanganate, for example, have
been used to remove organic sulfur compounds from air. Thiophene ,
one of these compounds, in which the molecule is unsaturated, is
susceptible to complete degradation.
Chlorine and calcium hypochlorite have been used to prevent
accumulation of soluble sulfides in sewer lines. If an excess of
chlorine is added to a wastewater containing sulfide, the sulfide
will be oxidized to sulfate.
HS- + 4C12 + 4H20 •» SCU + 9H+ + 8C1~ (6)
On a pure waste stream containing only small concentrations of
sulfide, the chlorine requirement would be nearly 9 parts (by
weight) for each part of sulfide. In streams where there are
other oxidizable constituents, this requirement may actually be in
the order of 15 to 20 parts.
Hydrogen peroxide has also been used for this application of sul-
fide oxidation. In a wastewater which contained about 6 mg/L
total sulfide, the addition of 30 mg/L hydrogen peroxide (H202)
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-6
-------
reduced the concentration of sulfide to less than 1 mg/L. The
average retention time was about two hours .
Although later developed into a catalyzed, two-stage, higher tem-
perature system, the initial concept of the Sulfox® system for
control of sulfur emissions was to convert hydrogen sulfide to
elemental sulfur by oxidation with atmospheric oxygen. Knowing
that there was a strong tendency for sulfide reactions to go to
the thiosulf ate and sulf ite stages , attempts were made to find the
kind of solutions that could regulate the extent of the oxidation.
Caustic solutions were not favorable. Ammoniacal solutions gave
improved selectivity. The availability of byproduct ammonia at
refineries that had sulfur emission problems made the use of
ammoniacal solutions appear promising. Later improvements to the
system involved the use of a cobalt catalyst.
* Oxidation of Pesticides
Because of the resistance of pesticides to biodegradation, chem-
ical oxidative methods have been investigated to remove pesticide
residues from water. Work has been completed to study the use of
chemical oxidation for the removal of residual diquat and para-
quat from water.
With potassium permanganate oxidation, manganese dioxide was pre-
cipitated as expected. The application of KMnCU at a molar con-
centration 25 times that of the two pesticides causes fairly com-
plete oxidation to oxalate, ammonia, and water. The reaction is
said to go through several intermediate reactions and the re-
action rates are pH dependent, being faster above pH 8 . In an
alkaline medium
3(C12H12N2)2+ + 40MnOi; + 20H~ ^=> 40MnO2 + 18C2C>4 + 6NH3 + 10H2O (7)
(Diquat)
(C12H1itN2)2+ + 14MnO£ +± 14Mn02 + 6C2O^ + 2NH3 + 4H2O (8)
(Paraquat)
When using chlorine dioxide as the oxidizing agent on these sub-
stances in concentrations of 15 and 30 mg/L, the reactions were
complete in less than one minute. These rates were observed at
pH values above 8. At pH 9.04, for example, 15 mg/L of Diquat
treated with 6.75 mg/L of chlorine dioxide had a residual Diquat
of 0.00 and a residual chlorine dioxide of 2.61.
• Oxidation of Lead
Although for a particular application other methods were con-
sidered more practicable, the use of chemical oxidative tech-
niques for the removal of trace quantities of soluble lead from
an effluent was investigated on a laboratory scale. In this
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-7
-------
particular application, the insoluble lead was already removable
by other techniques to acceptable levels. However, in order to
meet effluent regulations, more of the soluble lead had to be
removed. Potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, and sodium
hypochlorite were tested and found to convert portions of the
soluble lead as described below:
Initial soluble Final soluble
lead lead
concentration, concentration,
Oxidizing agent ppm ppm
Potassium permanganate
Hydrogen peroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
14
14
14
4 to 7
9
9 to 10
III.6.3.5 Limitations
Oxidation has limited application to slurries, tars, and sludges.
Because other components of the sludge, as well as the material
to be oxidized, may be attacked indiscriminately by oxidizing
agents, careful control of the treatment via multistaging of the
reaction, careful control of pK, etc., are required.
III.6.3.6 Typical Equipment
Only very simple equipment is required for chemical oxidation.
This includes storage vessels for the oxidizing agents and per-
haps for the wastes, metering equipment for both streams, and
contact vessels with agitators to provide suitable contact of
oxidant and waste. Some instrumentation is required to determine
the concentration and pH of the water and the degree of comple-
tion of the oxidation reaction. The oxidation process may be
monitored by an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) electrode.
This electrode is generally a piece of noble metal (often plat-
inum) that is exposed to the reaction medium, and which produces
an EMF output that is empirically related to the reaction condi-
tion by revealing the ratio of the oxidized to the reduced
constituents.
III.6.3.7 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
One disadvantage of chemical oxidation for waste treatment is
that it introduces new metal ions into the effluent. If the
level of these new contaminants is high enough to exceed efflu-
ent regulations, additional treatment steps will be required.
Often these are steps such as filtration or sedimentation.
Potassium permanganate used to treat wastes will be reduced to
Mn02 in the process. This can be reduced by filtration to levels
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-8
-------
less than 0.05 mg/L in the final effluent. On the other hand,
oxidation with hydrogen peroxide adds no harmful species to the
final effluent (except perhaps excess peroxide) since its product
is water.
Whether the products of incomplete oxidation are an environmental
hazard depends upon the specific situation. Cyanate, the product
of potassium permanganate oxidation of cyanide, is not completely
oxidized. Treatment with another oxidant, or acid hydrolysis
after permanganate oxidation, can oxidize the cyanide completely
to C02 and N2. Cyanate, however, is at least a thousand times
less toxic than free cyanide. The conversion of benzidine to the
products of diazotization is another case in which the treated
waste is less hazardous than the first, but still is considered
a problem.
Often the extent to which excess chlorine must be added for waste
oxidation is such that the residual chlorine in the effluent
becomes a problem. Careful in-process control or recycling of
the oxidizing solution may be necessary to reduce this level to
meet regulation limits. Also, hydrogen peroxide has been used as
a reducing agent in some applications as an "anti-chlor" to
destroy the chlorine remaining in the stream after purification.
With the exception of escape of chlorine, which is a potential
hazard wherever chlorine is used, the only other air emission
problem is the possible production of HCN from the destruction of
cyanide wastes when the reaction medium is allowed to become
acidic.
From most chemical oxidations, there will be a residue for dis-
posal unless the concentration of the waste constituent is so low
that the oxidant waste products (if any) and the oxidized (and
de-toxified) waste can be carried away with the effluent. Most
of the residue develops from the use of caustic or lime slurry
with chlorine gas in alkaline chlorination. Smaller amounts of
residue result from oxidations using hypochlorites. The only
waste that appears particularly troublesome is the sludge, which
can develop in the oxidation treatment of cyanides when iron and
certain other transition metal ions are present. In this form
(ferrocyanide, for example), the cyanide cannot be easily reached
for further oxidation.
III.6.3.8 Reliability
The process has proven to be highly reliable for demonstrated
applications.
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.3-9
-------
III.6.3.9 Flow Diagram
MO GALLON
CAUSTIC STORAGE
CHLORINE
STORAGE
100 GALLON
WASTE STORAGE
I.SOO GALLON
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
JACKETED REACTOR
I
HEAVY METAL
| TREATMENT
4------
(NOT INCLUDED IN CYANIDE TREATMENT)
POLISHING FILTER
EFRUENT
TREATMENT IATCH
WASTE- CONCENTRATED CYANIDE WASTE
7 000 ppm COPPER CYANIDE
1.000 ppm SODIUM CYANIDE
WASTE PROCESSING CAPACITY: l.COO«tl/ti
OPERATING PERIOD NOd/yr
Ihr/d
UTILITIES SUMMARY:
1. MO 91UO COOLING WATER
RAW MATERIALS.
95 to/d NfOH
321 fc/d CHLORINE
Example Process Flowsheet - Oxidation
III.6.3.10 Performance
Performance data presented on the following data sheets includes
information on the listed industries and/or wastestreams.
Industries
Wastestreams
III.6.3.11 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1976. pp. 35-1 through
35-19.
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.3-10
-------
0
£li
n-
n>
• •
M
N>
\
U)
\
•J
U>
H
H
H
•
U>
1
t->
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR CHEMICAL OXIDATION (CHLORINATION)
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Other pollutants, mg/L:
NH3-N
Number of
data points
7
2
1
17
1
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
441
33.3
320
<2
2,500
124
Maximum
978
159
320
130
2,500
124
Median
565
96
320
30
2,500
124
Mean
632
96
320
38
2,500
124
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
I-
- 14
5S-
36
Maximum
39
9V
14
>99
Oa
36
Median
28
48
14
•;•
36
Mean
26
48
14
•;»
36
Actual data indicate negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Chlorination)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Ferroalloy mine/mill
Plant: 6102
References: A2, p. VI-26
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage: 10-20 mg/L NaOCl
Contact time: 30-90 min
DH: 8.8-11.0
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
Influent
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
Effluent
80
50
70
40
30
40
30
20
20
30
30
30
10
20
20
Percent
removal
58
74
63
79
84
79
84
89
89
84
84
84
95
89
89
NaOCl
dosage, mg/L
20
20
20
10
10
10
20
20
20
10
10
10
20
20
20
Contact
time, min
30
60
90
30
60
90
30
60
90
30
60
9O
30
60
90
PH
8.8
8.8
8.8
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.3-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Chlorination)
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3
Subcategory:
Plant: Reichhold Chemical, Inc.
References: B4, p. 55
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Organic and inorganic wastes.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS (Also see removal data)
Contact time: 15 min
Chemical dosage (initial): 5.25% aqueous solution of NaOCl
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
NaOCl dosage,
weight %
Conventional pollutants:
COD 777
COD 777
COD3 753
COD* 753
COD 822
COD 724
717
706
565
505
510
441
7
9
25
28
38
39
0.5
1.0
2
3
4
5
Average of 9 samples.
Average of 3 samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.3-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Dechlorination
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Steam-electric Engineering estimate
power generating
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: 2603 Pilot scale
References: A31, pp. 61-62 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow: 570 m3/nun (150,000 gpm)
Chemical feed rate:
Contact time:
Dechlorination chemical: Sodium thiosulfate
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Total residual chlorine 0.11 0.02 82
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79 III.6.3-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Chlorination)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Lead/zinc mill Bench scale
Plant: 3144 Pilot scale
References: A2, p. VI-28 Full scale x
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Three FRP reactor tanks in series plus chlorination
and lime slaker
Wastewater flow:
Chemical dosage: 1,200-1,500 Ib/d C.r2 Lime to pH of 11-12
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide 68,300 130 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79 III.6.3-15
-------
III. 6. 4 AIR STRIPPING [1,2]
III. 6. 4.1 Function
Air stripping of wastewater removes the ammonia nitrogen from the
wastewater and discharges it to the air.
III. 6. 4. 2 Description
Ammonia is quite soluble in water, but this solubility is temper-
ature dependent. The relationship between temperature and the
solubility of ammonia for dilute ammonia solution is expressed by
Henry's Law:
y = MX
where y = mole fraction NH3 in the vapor
x = mole fraction NH3 in the liquid
M = Henry's constant
Henry's constant is a function of temperature. By raising the
temperature of the wastewater the vapor pressure of the ammonia
is increased, and ammonia removal efficiency increased.
Another factor in ammonia removal efficiency is the pH of the
wastewater. A portion of the ammonia dissolved in the water re-
acts with the water to give the following equilibrium:
NH3 + H2O ^NH4+ + OH- (1)
By increasing the pH (concentration, of OH~) , the equilibrium is
shifted to the left, reducing the concentration of NH^ + and in-
creasing the concentration of free dissolved ammonia.
In air stripping of ammonia from dilute wastewater, the air tem-
perature limits the effectiveness of heating the wastewater.
Ammonia removal efficiency is enhanced instead by increasing the
pH, usually by the addition of lime. The ammonia-containing
wastewater and the lime slurry are fed to a rapid mix tank. Fol-
lowing the rapid mix tank are flocculators and a settling basin,
where calcium phosphate precipitates and recirculated calcium
carbonate settle out. The clarified, lime-treated, wastewater is
pumped to the top of two packed towers. In each tower, fans draw
air up through the tower countercurrent to the falling wastewater.
the "packing" in the tower is actually a series of bundles of
pipe with the pipe sections spaced 2 to 3 inches on center. The
pipe sections are horizontal, and the direction of each row alter
nates. After the wastewater has been air stripped of ammonia, it
flows into the recarbonation basin where compressed carbon diox-
ide rich gas from the lime reclacining furnace is bubbled through
it to precipitate calcium carbonate. Some of the calcium
Date: 8/23/79. III. 6. 4-1
-------
carbonate sludge is returned to the rapid mix tank to enhance
flocculation while the remainder of the calcium carbonate sludge
and the phosphate sludge from the settling basins are sent to
centrifuges. The sludges can be fractionally centrifuged to
yield two dewatered sludges, one rich in calcium carbonate and
one containing phosphate.
III.6.4.3 Technology Status
The future application of air stripping of volatiles from waste-
water will be limited to those volatiles that will not cause an
air emission problem. Air stripping of ammonia from treated
wastewater dilute solutions of ammonia (with no other volatiles)
is a good application. It is unlikely that many applications
other than this one will be found for air stripping of wastewater,
III.6.4.4 Applications
Several studies have been reported in which ammonia was removed
from petroleum refinery wastewater by stripping with air. The
concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen in the untreated wastewater
averaged slightly more than 100 mg/L. When 300 ft3 of air were
applied per gallon of wastewater, the ammonia removal was found
to be 85% at a pH of 10.5, and 34% at a pH of 9.4. In another
study, in which the wastewater was passed through a closely
packed aeration tower with 480 ft3 of air supplied per gallon,
ammonia-nitrogen removal by air stripping was found to be very
effective (more than 95% removal) at any pH above 9.0. When the
pK fell below 9.0, the ammonia-nitrogen removal decreased sharply,
The removal fell to 91% at a pH of 8.9, and to 58% at a pH of 8.8
At the low concentration of ammonia cited in these studies
(^100 ppm), air stripping would indeed be a practical means for
NH3 removal. For the high concentrations of ammonia typically
present in refinery "sour water" (2,000 to 10,000 ppm), air
stripping could result in serious air emission problems.
III.6.4.5 Limitations
Air stripping has one major industrial application: the strip-
ping of ammonia from wastewater. The application of air strip-
ping to the removal of other gases or volatile components from
dilute aqueous streams would depend on the environmental impact
of the air emissions that resulted. If sufficiently low concen-
trations are involved, the gaseous'compounds can be emitted
directly to the air. Otherwise, air pollution control devices
may be needed - making the economics less favorable.
\
III.6.4.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
When the concentration of ammonia in the wastewater is about
23 ppm and the air-to-water ratio is 500 ft3/gal, the
Date: 8/23/79- III.6.4-2
-------
concentration of ammonia in the saturated air leaving the tower
is about 6 mg/m3. This is well below the odor threshold concen-
tration of 35 mg/m3. There are no U.S. standards for ammonia
emissions, but Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R. have established
limitations of 100 and 200 mg/m3, respectively.
Calculations for the ammonia washout in a rainfall rate of 3 mm/hr
(0.12 in./hr) have been made. The concentrations of ammonia
in the rainfall would approach natural background levels within
16,000 feet of the tower. Of course, the ammonia discharge
during dry periods diffuses into the atmosphere quickly so that
the background concentration and resulting washout rate of am-
monia at greater distances from the tower are not affected during
a subsequent storm. The ultimate fate of the ammonia that is
washed out by rainfall within the 16,000-foot downwind distance
depends on the nature of the surface upon which it falls. Most
soils will retain the ammonia. That portion which lands on paved
areas or directly on a stream surface will appear in the runoff
from that area. Even though a protion of the ammonia washed out
by precipitation will find its way into surface runoff, the net
discharge of ammonia to the aquatic environment in the vicinity
of the plant would be very substantially reduced.
The treated wastewater should be low enough in residual ammonia
(<5 ppm) to allow safe discharge to a receiving body of water.
About 25 tons per day of dewatered calcium phosphate, magnesium
carbonate, and calcium carbonate sludge must be disposed of by
landfill for a 15 M gal/d plant. This sludge disposal will re-
quire a significant amount of land, but should not pose any en-
vironmental hazard.
III.6.4.7 Reliability
Reliability has been a problem for installations where cold weath-
er operation is required; freezing and scaling of CaCO3 have
occurred.
III.6.4.8 Chemicals Required
Lime or caustic soda is needed to raise the pH of the wastewater
to the range of 10.8 to 11.5. For wastewater with high calcium
content, an inhibiting polymer may be added to ease the scaling
problem. Effluent from the stripping may need pH readjustment to
neutral condition with an acid (H2SO/t at 1.75 parts for one part
of lime added) or recarbonation followed by clarification.
Date: 8/23/79 III.6.4-3
-------
II. 6. 4. 9 Design Criteria
Wastewater loading: 1 to 2 gpm/ft2
Stripping air flow rate: 300 to 500 ft3/gal
Packing depth: 20 to 25 ft
pH of wastewater: 10.8 to 11.5
Air pressure drop: 0.015 in. to 0.019 in. of water/ft
Packing material: Plastic or wood
Packing spacing: Approximately 2 in. horizontal and vertical
Must provide: Uniform water distribution, and scale removal and
cleanup
Land requirement: Small
III. 6. 4. 10 Flow Diagram
WATER INLET
AIR INLET
OUTLET
A AIR
| OUTLET
I DRIFT
' ELIMINATORS
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
AIR INLET
WATER COLLECTING
BASIN
COUNTERCURRENT TOWER
III.6.4.11 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries
Wastestreams
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.4-4
-------
III.6.4.12 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1976. pp. 41-1 through
41-15.
2. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.4-5
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Air Stripping
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Inorganic chemicals Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Hydrogen cyanide Bench scale
Plant: 782 Pilot scale ~
References: A29, pp. 430-431 Full scale x
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Ammonia stripper
Flow—wastewater: 1/140 m3/day
Flow—air:
Temperature—wastewater:
Temperature—air:
Pressure drop:
Power requirement:
Packing material:
Packing depth:
Packing spacing:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Three 24-hr composite samples
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TSS
NH3-N
Influent
76
410
Effluent
162
41
Percent
removal
oa
90
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide 170,000 51,000 91
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.6.4-6
-------
III.6.5 NITRIFICATION [1,2]
III.6.5.1 Function
Nitrification is used for the biological oxidation of ammonia to
nitrates and nitrites.
III.6.5.2 Description
This process is called single-stage nitrificaiton, because ammo-
nia and carbonaceous materials are oxidized in the same aeration
unit. As in any aerobic biological process, carbonaceous materi-
als are oxidized by heterotrophic aerobes. In addition, a spe-
cial group of autotrophic aerobic organisms called nitrifiers .
oxidize ammonia in two stages: Nitrosomonas bacteria convert
ammonia to nitrite, and Nitrobacter bacteria convert nitrite
to nitrate. The optimal conditions for nitrification, in gener-
al, include a temperature of about 30°C, pH of about 7.2 to 8.5,
F/M of about 0.05 to 0.15, relatively long aeration detention
time (as nitrifiers have a lower growth rate than other aerobes),
and sludge retention time of about 20 to 40 days, depending upon
temperature.
The degree of nitrification depends mainly on three factors:
sludge retention time (SRT), mixed liquor DO concentration, and
wastewater temperature; of these, SRT is of primary importance
because of the slow growth rate of nitrifiers. If the sludge is
wasted at a rate that is too high, the nitrifiers will be elimi-
nated from the system. Generally, nitrification begins at an
SRT of about five days, but it does not become appreciable until
the SRT reaches about 15 days, depending upon temperature. The
aeration system is designed to provide the additional oxygen
needed to oxidize the ammonia nitrogen.
The conventional and high-rate modifications of the activated
sludge process do not provide the necessary hydraulic and sludge
detention time; in addition, the F/M ratio is higher. As a
result, single-stage nitrification cannot be achieved in these
configurations, although they effect a small reduction (about 20
percent in ammonia).
III.6.5.3 Common Modifications
Any low-rate modification of the activated sludge process such
as extended aeration and the oxidation ditch can be used. In
addition, the use of the powdered activated carbon has the
potential to enhance ammonia removal, although its application
is in a state of infancy.
Another modification involves the use of separate stage nitrifi-
cation. In this modification, carbonaeceous oxidation and
Date: 8/13/79. III.6.5-1
-------
nitrogenous oxidation are treated in two separate aeration basin
and clarifier systems.
III.6.5.4 Technology Status
Overall, the process is fully demonstrated. There are nearly
650 shallow oxidation ditch installations in the United States
and Canada. In addition, pre-engineered extended aeration plants
are also widely used.
III.6.5.5 Applications
Applicable during warm weather if the levels of 1 to 3 mg/L of
ammonia nitrogen in effluent is permitted.
III.6.5.6 Limitations
Biological nitrification is very sensitive to temperature,
resulting in poor reduction in colder months; heavy metals such
as Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn, phenolic compounds, cyanide and
halogenated compounds can inhibit nitrification reactions.
III.6.5.7 Reliability
Process reliability is good.
111. 6 . 5. 8 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
Process produces no primary sludge; secondary sludge is lesser
in quantity and better stabilized than the high-rate and conven-
tional activated sludge process, which minimizes the magnitude
of the disposal problem considerably.
From the solid waste point of view, the impact is very minimal
compared to high-rate and conventional activated sludge processes;
however, odor and air pollution problems are very similar to
other activated sludge processes.
III.6.5.9 Design Criteria
Criteria
Type of reactor
Aeration system
Mean cell residence time
MLVSS
pH
Units
d
mg/L
Value/range
Plug-flow
Oxygen or air
10 - 20
1,000 - 2,000
7.2 - 8.5
Date: 8/13/79 III.6.5-2
-------
III.6.5.10 Flow Diagram
Single Stage System
SCREENED AND
DEC PITTED
WASTEWATER
WITH OR WITHOUT
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
AERATOR
FINAL
CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE
rvorc
EFFLUENT
c ci i ir\/*r
Separate Stage System
pH ADJUSTMENT (IF NECESSARY) WASTE SLUDGE
FROM CLARIFIER
CONVENTIONAL
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PLUG FLOW AERATION TANK
TO DISCHARGE OR
DENITRIFICATION
III.6.5.11 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams.
Industries
Wastestreams
Date: 8/13/79 •
III.6.5-3
-------
III.6.5.12 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
2. Metcalf, & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New
York, 1972. pp. 662-667.
Date: 8/13/79' III.6.5-4
-------
III.6.6 DENITRIFICATION [1]
III.6.6.1 Function
Denitrification is used for the reduction of nitrates and ni-
trites to nitrogen gas.
III.6.6.2 Description
Denitrification involves the reduction of nitrates and nitrites
to nitrogen gas through the action of facultative heterotrophic
bacteria. In suspended growth, separate stage denitrification
processes, nitrified wastewater containing primarily nitrates is
passed through a mixed anaerobic vessel containing denitrifying
bacteria. Because the nitrified feedwater contains very little
carbonaceous material, a supplemental source of carbon is re-
quired to maintain the denitrifying biomass. This supplemental
energy is provided by feeding methanol to the biological reactor
along with the nitrified wastewater. Mixing in the anaerobic
denitrification reaction vessel may be accomplished using low-
speed paddles analogous to standard flocculation equipment.
Following the reactor, the denitrified effluent is aerated for
a short period (5 to 10 min) to strip out gaseous nitrogen
formed in the previous step that might otherwise inhibit sludge
settling. Clarification follows the stripping step with the
collected sludge being either returned to the head end of the
denitrification system or wasted.
III.6.6.3 Common Modifications
Common modifications include the use of alternate energy sources
such as sugars, acetic acid, ethanol or other compounds.
Nitrogen-deficient materials such as brewery wastewater may
also be used. An intermediate aeration step for stabilization
(about 50 min) between the denitrification reactor and the
stripping step may be used to guard against carryover of
carbonaceous materials. The denitrification reactor may be
coverer but not air tight to assure anaerobic conditions by min-
izing surface reaeration.
III.6.6.4 Technology Status
Denitrification technology is well developed at full scale but
is not in widespread use.
III.6.6.5 Applications
Used almost exclusively to denitrify municipal wastewaters that
have undergone carbon oxidation and nitrification; may also be
used to reduce nitrate in industrial wastewaters.
8/13/79 • III.6.6-1
-------
III.6.6.6 Limitations
Specifically acts on nitrate and nitrite; will not affect other
forms of nitrogen.
III.6.6.7 Chemicals Required
An energy source is needed and usually supplied in the form of
methanol; methanol feed concentration may be estimated using
the following values per mg/1 of the material at the inlet to
the process:
2.47 mg/L CH3OH per mg/L of N03-N
1.53 mg/L CH3OH per mg/L of N02-N
0.87 mg/L CH3OH per mg/L of D.O.
III. 6. 6. 8 Reliability
High levels of reliability are achievable under controlled pH,
temperature, loading, and chemical feed.
III. 6. 6. 9 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
If supplemental energy feed rates are controlled, very little
excess sludge is generated; sludge production 0.6 to 0.8 Ib/lb
-N reduced; reduces the nitrogen loading on receiving streams.
III. 6. 6. 10 Design Criteria
Criteria
Flow scheme
Optimum pH
MLVSS
Mixer power requirement
Clarifier depth
Clarifier surface loading rate
Solids loading
Return sludge rate
Sludge generation
Hydraulic detention time
Mean cell residence time
Units
Value/range
mg/L
hp/1,000 ft3
ft
gpd/ft2
lb/d/ft2
percent
Ib/lb CH3OH
Ib/lb NH3-N reduced
hr
d
Plug flow (preferable)
6.5 - 7.5
1,000 - 3,000
0.25 - 0.5
12 - 15
400 - 600
20 - 30
50 - 100
0.2
0.7
0.2 - 2
1-5
Date: 8/13/79
III.6.6-2
-------
III.6.6.11 Flow Diagram
METHANOL
NITRIFIED
EFFLUENT
AERATED NITROGEN
STRIPPING CHANNEL
T=5min
WASTE
RETURN SLUDGE
III.6.6.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries
Wastestreams
III.6.6.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/13/79 .
III.6.6-3
-------
III.6.7 ION EXCHANGE [1]
III.6.7.1 Function
Ion exchange involves the removal of ionic species, principally
inorganic, from an aqueous or partially aqueous phase.
III.6.7.2 Description
In simplest terms, ion exchange may be thought of as the revers-
ible interchange of ions between an insoluble, solid salt (the
"ion exchanger") and a solution of electrolyte in contact with
that solid.
In the customary mode of usage, the ion exchanger is contacted
with the solution containing the ion to be removed until the
active sites in the exchanger are partially or completely used
up ("exhausted") by that ion. The exchanger is then contacted
with a sufficiently concentrated solution of the ion originally
associated with it to convert ("regenerate") it back to its
original form.
The ion exchange process works well with cations (including, of
course, the hydrogen ion) and anions, both inorganic and organic.
However, the organic species frequently interact with the
exchangers (particularly the organic resins) via both absorption
and ion exchange reactions, often necessitating the use of
extremely high regenerant concentrations and/or the use of
organic solvents to remove the organics. Consequently, most of
the applications of ion exchange of interest have involved inor-
ganic species.
There are a variety of different cation and anion exchangers
that form salts of more or less different stabilities with a
particular ion. Thus, knowledgeable choice of a particular ion
exchange material will often allow selective separation of one
ion in solution from another, and afford selective removal of an
undesirable ion from a number of innocuous ones. As a general
rule, ions with a higher charge will form more stable salts with
the exchanger that those with a lower charge, and hence polyva-
lent species can frequently be selectively removed from a
solution of monovalent ones.
In carrying out ion exchange reactions in a column or bed opera-
tion, (as opposed to a stirred batch operation which is occasion-
ally used in chemical processing),'there are four operations
carried out in a complete cycle: service (exhaustion), back-
wash, regeneration, and rinse. The service and regeneration
steps have been described above. The backwash step is one in
which the bed is washed (generally with water) in reverse direc-
tion to the service cycle in order to expand and resettle the
resin bed. This step eleminated channeling which might have
Date: 8/24/79 III.6.7-1
-------
occured during service and removes fines or other material that
may be clogging the bed. The rinse step removes the excess
regeneration solution prior to the next service step.
There are three principal operating modes in use today: cocur-
rent fixed-bed, countercurrent fixed-bed and continuous counter-
current. A comparison summary is presented in the following
table.
COMPARISON OF ION EXCHANGE OPERATING MODES
Capacity for high feed
flow and concentration
Effluent quality
Cocurrent
fixed bed
Least
Fluctuates with
bed exhasution
Countercurrent
fixed bed
Middle
High, minor
fluctuations
Countercurrent
continuous
Highest
High
Regenerant and rinse
requirements
Equipment complexity
Equipment for
continuous operation
Relative costs (per
unit volume)
Highest
Simplest; can use
manual operation
Multiple beds,
single regeneration
equipment
Somewhat less than
cocurrent
More complex; auto-
matic controls for
regeneration
Multiple beds,
single regeneration
equipment
Least, yields most concen-
tration regenerant waste
Most complex; com-
pletely automated
Provides continu-
ous service
Investment
Operating
Least
Highest chemicals
and labor; highest
resin inventory
Middle
Less chemicals,
water and labor
than cocurrent
Highest
Least chemical
and labor; lowest
resin inventory
Most ion exchange installations in use today are of the fixed-
bed type, with countercurrent operation coming more into favor,
especially for removal (polishing) of traces of hazardous species
from the stream prior to reuse or discharge.
In order to minimize regeneration chemical requirements (i.e.,
to make most efficient use of regenerant), many fixed-bed instal-
lations use a technique termed "staged," or "proportional,"
regeneration. The first part of the regeneration solution to
exit from the ion exchange bed is the most enriched in the
component being removed; the concentration of that component
decreases in succeeding portions of the exiting regeneration
solution. In staged regeneration, the solution is divided
(generally in separate tanks) into two or more portions. The
first portion through the bed is "discarded" (i.e., sent for
subsequent treatment), while the second and succeeding postions
(less rich in the species being removed) are retained. On the
next regeneration cycle, the second portion from the preceding
Date: 8/24/79
III.6.7-2
-------
cycle is passed through the bed first (and then "discarded"),
followed by the succeeding portions, the last of which is a
portion of fresh regenerant. In this way, regenerant utilization
can be maximized.
III.6.7.3 Technology Status
The earliest applications of ion exchange were "water soften-
ing" - the substitution of sodium for calcium and magnesium in
water, and the reverse substitution in sugar solutions to promote
better crystallization. These applications were initiated in the
late 1800's and early 1900's, using natural and synthetic zeolites
(aluminosilicate minerals). Synthetic ion exchange resins were
discovered in the late 1930's and were developed rapidly, partic-
ulary after World War II. Applications broadened rapidly into
diverse areas such as hydrometallurgy (separations of uranium
elements and the rare earth series, for example), and waste
treatment (recovery and removal of chromium species). Deioniza-
tion applications, especially for high quality process water
(nuclear power and conventional steam generators) is probably
still the most widespread application.
III.6.7.4 Applications
• Deionization. Industrial deionization, which in its
broadest meaning includes processes yielding products ranging
from potable water to boiler water for steam production, is by
far the most frequent application of ion exchange, apart from
domestic softening. (This latter area involves only exchange of
sodium for calcium and magnesium under ambient conditions and
affords little information for waste treatement application.)
Deionization applications generally operate on a relatively clean
feed, at worst brackish water, which has been pretreated where
necessary to remove most foulants. The product must often meet
stringent quality standards, particularly for newer boiler-water
applications. Information on reliability of equipment operation
can be obtained from the manufacturers of ion exchange equipment.
Since this application is generally a steady-state operation,
such information can be used to set upper limits on the reliabil-
ity of equipment, particularly for newer modes of operation such
as continuous countercurrent.
• Electroplating Wastewaters and Resins. Ion exchange is
used extensively in the electroplating industry, especially in
large installations, to remove ionic impurities from rinse water
enabling re-use of the water and for further treatment of the
impurities prior to disposal or recycle. Some new installations
are being designed to meet the "zero discharge" requirements
anticipated in the near future. In certain cases, the electro-
plating bath itself may require a cleanup treatment, but this is
not usually done directly via ion exchange.
Date: 8/24/79 • III.6.7-3
-------
Ion exchange is used most frequently in combination with other
techniques such as reverse osmosis or precipitation to yield an
optimal solution for the particular application; in general, ion
exchange is employed as the final or "polish" step, particularly
if the stream to be treated contains higher concentrations of the
species to be removed than can be easily handled by this process.
Small-scale portable (skid-mounted) units incorporating carbon
adsorption filters with series and parallel beds of appropriate
ion exchange resins (cation, anion and chelating) have been
marketed for cleaning up individual rise tanks on-site. These
units are regenerated separately off-site.
The rise solutions from electroplating operations are for the
most part fairly dilute mixtures of components that might well be
found in the effluent form a hazardous waste treatment facility -
chromium (VI and III), cyanide, nickel, etc. Thus information on
ion exchange applications in this area may well be directly
applicable to waste treatment processes involving reclamation of
hazardous components and rectification of water prior to dis-
charge. The equipment used is virtually all simple batch-type,
and operation is often intermittent. Information on equipment
and material reliability under conditions approximating batch
waste disposal should be available from the users.
• Mixed Waste Streams. In the general metals finishing
business^it is quite common to have a single solution waste
handling system that can only be described as "mixed wastes."
Obviously a variety of waste treatment schemes would be needed in
order to be able to treat mixtures with constituents including
suspended metal particulates, oil and grease, chromium (III and
VI), iron phosphate, cyanide, zinc, etc. A common thread among
most treatment schemes is the frequent use of some sort of ion
exchange step for final treatment befor re-use or discharge. The
major amounts of materials in mixed wastes are removed or destroyed
by precipitation, filtration, or a membrane separation and ion
exchange is used as the "polishing" step.
• Other Metal Finishing Streams. In addition to treating
dilute aqueous streams, ion exchange is being used to remove low
concentrations of undesirable impurities from relatively highly
concentrated aqueous streams. The object of treatment in most
cases is to recycle or reclaim the active materials while ridding
the bath of unwanted impurities. Frequently ion exchange is the
sole separation step, with other post-treatment steps being car-
ried out on the spent regenerant solution.
Minor concentrations of cations such as iron, aluminum and chro-
mium (III) are removed from chromic acid plating bath liquors via
cation exchange, after dilution of the chromic acid content of the
liquor from 250 g/L down to 100 g/L. The dilution is necessary in
order to obtain efficient exchange and to minimize oxidative dam-
age to the sulfonated styrene-divinyl benzene resins used.
Date: 8/24/79 • III.6.7-4
-------
• Applications in Hydrometallurgical Processing. Ion
exchange has been used for recovery of valuable metals such as
copper, molybdenum, cobalt and nickel, especially from dilute
leach liquors from tailings or dump piles. Liquid ion exchange
has been more widely used in general in the areas; however, the
advent of new, more-selective resins coupled with the increased
cost of solvent losses (which are at present unavoidable in
liquid ion exchange) is resulting in increased interest in the
solid exchangers.
Uranium processing and extraction is an active field for both
solid and liquid ion exchange. Solid ion exchange is being used
for recovery of carbonate leaches from in situ uranium mining in
Texas.
Information in this field may have direct application to treat-
ment of certain waste streams and should be useful for comparison
of solid and liquid ion exchange.
• Removal and Isolation of Radioactive Wastes. A great deal
of work has been reported on removal of traces of radioactive
species from solutions of various kinds. Of particular interest
to waste treatment is a summary of the performance of ion exchange
systems in operational nuclear power plants, which indicated that
the severe conditions of radiation and heat resulted in attrition
rates higher than those expected in nonnuclear service. Even
under those conditions, operating capacity varied from 50 to 75%
of theoretical.
Experience over long service lives in nuclear operations may pro-
vide some useful information on the long term behavior of ion
exchange materials. Equipment reliability is normally extremely
good in nuclear service, having been deliberately designed that
way because of the extreme necessity to avoid trace ion leakage
and equipment downtime.
III.6.7.5 Limitations
The upper concentration limit for the exchangeable ions for
efficient operation is generally 2,500 mg/L, expressed as calcium
carbonate (or 0.05 equivalents/L). This upper limit is due pri-
marily to the time requirements of the operation cycle. A high
concention of exchangeable ion results in rapid exhaustion during
the service cycle, with the result that regeneration requirements,
for both equipment and of the percentage of resin inventory
undergoing regeneration at any time, become inordinately high.
There is also an upper concentration limit (around 10,000-
20,000 mg/L), which is governed by the properties of the ion
exchangers themselves, in that the selectivity (preference for
one ion over another) begins to decrease as the total concentra-
tion of dissolved salts (ionic strength) increases.
Date: 8/24/79 III.6.7-5
-------
Synthetic resins can be damaged by oxidizing agents and heat.
In addition, the stream to be treated should contain no suspended
matter or other materials that will foul the resin and that can-
not be removed by the backwash operation. Some organic compounds,
particularly aromatics, will be irreversibly absorbed by the
resins, and this will result in a decreased capacity, as for
example in the case of electroplating bath additives.
III.6.7.6 Typical Equipment
Fixed-bed ion exchange operations are straightforward systems,
requiring a cylindrical ion exchange bed, tanks for solution
storage, and pumps. The choice of materials is governed by the
chemical environment. Continuous ion exchange systems are much
more complex, requiring solids handling equipment and more
intricate control systems. Apparently only one company (Chemical
Separations Corp.) has been truly successful in the design and
fabrication of continuous ion exchange systems, and it should be
consulted if the use of such a system is contemplated.
III.6.7.7 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
Ion exchange is a solution(aqueous) phase process. The dilute,
purified product stream can be suitable for discharge to sewers.
The concentrated regeneration stream requires further treatments
for recovery and/or safe disposal of its components. Emissions
to air will be essentially zero. Emmissions to water will be
significant only if the regenerant solution is discharged inad-
vertently to ground or surface water. In normal operation,
emissions will be within environmental discharge limits. Emis-
sions to land will be insignificant, except for spills from proc-
ess accidents, or improper disposal of solids exchangers loaded
wjth hazardous substances that would be leachable under the land-
fill conditions.
The above points address only the ion exchange process itself,
and not disposal of spent or degraded ion exchange materials.
These materials should be disposed of (after proper cleaning to
remove the hazardous substances) with other solid industrial
wastes of similar composition.
There are no special land use factors associated with ion
exchange processes. Fixed-bed operations are run with the beds
next to each other, with intermediate pumping. Continuous sys-
tems do require some overhead height for the loop, but have
greatly decreased floor space requirements.
The only safety problems that might arise involve handling and
processing the spent regenerant liquor with its potentially high
concentrations of hazardous substances.
Date: 8/24/79 III.6.7-6
-------
III.6.7.8 Reliability
Process is highly reliable in those applications where ion
exchange has been utilized extensively.
III.6.7.9 Design Criteria
III.6.7.10 Flow Diagram
COOWMW FIXED IEO MOH t
SUV1CC OUT
SERVICE STEP
\ MGtNtNANr OUT
REGENERATION STEP
oouNmcunmt FIXED «o MOM
MCEMTMNT -J
7 SBvi a OUT
SERVICE STEP
I HCfNERANT IK
REGENERATION STEP
COUNTnouMtENT COHtlNUOlK MOW
IHICCINS oowwow TYPEI
soivia IN -*-1
SRVICCOUT ^_-l
•its me sicnoN ~*j
RtCOdUHT IN -T* ^
^.^ ^* Brsmn
WASH TO REMOVI n«S
£ CCNMAT10N SECTIOK
•fGtMTRA«fT OUT
Date: 8/24/79
III.6.7-7
-------
III.6.7.11 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams.
III.6.7.12 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., November 1976. pp. 30-1 through
30-26.
Date: 8/24/79 III.6.7-8
-------
o
0)
rt
(D
ro
u>
\
vo
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR ION EXCHANGE
H
H
H
•
a\
i
Pollutant
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium*0
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Number of
data points
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
<10a
10
10
90
40
10»
<10»
<10a
400
Maximum
<10a
10
10
100
90
10
10
10
400
Median
<10a
10
10
95
65
10
<10
<10
400
Mean
<10a
10
10
95
65
10
<10
<10
400
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
>99
>99
>99
98
97
99
99
>99
97
Maximum
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
99
>99
>99
97
Median
>99
>99
>99
>98
>98
99
>99
>99
97
Mean
>99
>99
>99
>98
>98
99
>99
>99
97
Other pollutants:
Molybdenum, pg/L
Radium (total) , pico Ci/L
Radium (dissolved) , pico Ci/L
1
1
1
1,290
7.2
1
1,290
7.2
<1
1,290
7.2
<1
1,290
7.2
<1
94
99
>99
94
99
>99
94
99
>99
94
99
•>99
aReported as not detected or below detection limit; assumed to be <10 pg/L.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ion Exchange
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Ferroalloy mine/mill Bench scale
Plant: 6102 Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-59 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow. 0.121-0.125 m3/min
Solids loading rate:
Bed height:
Pressure drop:
Resin type:
Run length: 41 min
Regenerant used:
Cycle time:
Backwash rate:
Resin pulse volume: 1.73 L
Unit configuration: Pulsed bed, counter flow ion exchange unit
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; Average of six two-day samples
Concentration, pg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Molybdenum 22,000 1,290 94
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III. 6..7-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ion Exchange
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status :
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Uranium mine Bench scale
Plant: 9452 Pilot scale _
References: A2, p. VI-48 Full scale x
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Flocculation, barium chloride co-precipitation, two
settling ponds in series
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow:
Solids loading rate:
Bed height:
Pressure drop:
Resin type:
Run length:
Regenerant used:
Cycle time:
Backwash rate:
Resin pulse volume:
Unit configuration: Two upflow ion exchange columns operating in parallel
each consisting of fiber-reinforced plastic
Resin volume: 11.3 m3 (400 ft3)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, picoCi/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Other pollutants:
Radium (total) 955 7.2 99
Radium (dissolved) 93.4 <1 >99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.6.7-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ion Exchange
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Porcelain enameling Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Printed circuit plant Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale
References: A51, p. 184 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow:
Solids loading rate:
Bed height:
Pressure drop:
Resin type:
Run length:
Regenerant used:
Cycle time:
Backwash rate:
Resin pulse volume:
Unit configuration:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period :
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Influent
43,000
3,400
1,700
1,600
9,100
Effluent
100
90
10
10
10
Percent
removal
>99
97
99
99
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79 III.6.7-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ion Exchange
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: A49, p. 144
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wastewater flow:
Solids loading rate:
Bed height:
Pressure drop:
Resin type:
Run length:
Regenerant used:
Cycle time:
Backwash rate:
Resin pulse volume:
Unit configuration:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, yg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Toxic pollutants :
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Influent
5,700
3,100
7,100
4,500
9,800
6,200
1,500
15,000
Effluent
BDL3
10
10
90
40
BDL
BDL
400
Percent
removal
>99
>99
>99
98
99
>99
>99
97
Below detectable limits; assumed to be <10 yg/L.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 10/29/79
III.6.7-13
-------
III.6.8 POLYMERIC (RESIN) ADSORPTION [1]
III.6.8.1 Function
Adsorption on synthetic resins is considered here primarily as a
process for the removal of organic chemicals from liquid waste
streams; a separate selection on ion-exchange resins, which are
used for inorganic ion removal and/or recovery, appears elsewhere
in this volume.
III.6.8.2 Description
Waste treatment by resin adsorption involves two basic steps:
(1) contacting the liquid waste stream with the resins and
allowing the resins to adsorb the solutes from the solution; and,
(2) subsequently regenerating the resins by removing the adsorbed
chemicals, often effected by simply washing with the proper
solvent.
The chemical nature of the various commercially available resins
can be quite different; perhaps the most important variable in
this respect is the degree of their hydrophilicity. The adsorp-
tion of a nonpolar molecule on to a hydrophobic resin (e.g., a
styrene-divinyl benzene based resin) results primarily from the
effect of Van der Waal's forces. In other cases, other types of
interactions such as dipole-dipole interaction and hydrogen
bonding are also important. In a few cases, an ion-exchange mer-
chanism may be involved; this is thought to be true, for example,
in the adsorption of alkylbenzend sulfonates from aqueous solu-
tion on to weakly basic resins; e.g., a phenol-formaldehyde-amine
based resin.
Resin adsorbents are used in much the same way as granular carbon.
Commonly, a typical system for treating low volume waste streams
will consist of two fixed beds of resin. One bed will be on-
stream for adsorption while the second is being regenerated. In
cases where the adsorption time is very much longer than regenera-
tion time (as might be when solute concentrations are very low),
one resin bed plus a hold-up storage tank could suffice.
The adsorption bed is usually fed downflow at flow rates in the
range of 0.25 to 2 gpm per cubic foot of resin; this is equivalent
to 2 to 16 bed volumes/hr, and thus contact times are in the range
of 3 to 30 minutes. Linear flow rates are in the range of 1 to
10 gpm/ft2. Adsorption is stopped when the bed is fully loaded
and/or the concentration in the effluent rises above a certain
level.
Regeneration of the resin bed is performed in situ with basic,
acidic, and salt solutions or regenerable nonaqueous solvents
being most commonly used. Basic solutions may be used for the
removal of weakly acidic solutes and acidic solutions for the
Date: 8/16/79- III.6.8-1
-------
removal of weakly basic solutes; hot water or steam could be used
for volatile solutes; methanol and acetone are often used for the
removal of nonionic organic solutes. A prerinse and/or a post-
rinse with water will be required in some cases. As a rule,
about three bed volumes of regenerant will be required for resin
regeneration; as little as one-and-a-half bed volumes may suffice
in certain applications.
Solvent regeneration will be required unless (1) the solute-laden
solvent can be used as a feed stream in some industrial process
at the plant, or (2) the cost of the solvent is low enough so
that it may be disposed of after a single use. Solvent recovery,
usually by distillation, is thus most common when organic sol-
vents are used. Distillation will allow solute recovery for
reuse if such is desired.
Resin lifetimes may vary considerably depending on the nature of
the feed and regenerant streams. Regeneration with caustic is
estimated to cause a loss of 0.1 to 1% of the resin per cycle;
replacement of resins at such installations may be necessary
every two to five years. Regeneration with hot water, steam, or
organic solvent should not affect the resins, and, in this case,
lifetimes will be limited by slow fouling or oxidation resulting
in a loss of capacity; actual experience indicates that lifetimes
of more than five years are obtainable.
III.6.8.3 Technology Status
Relatively little information is available on the few systems
that are currently in operation. Thus there are areas of uncer-
tainty concerning practicability, start-up problems, realistic
operating costs, etc.
III.6.8.4 Applications
Little publicly available information exists on current or pro-
posed industrial applications of resin adsorption systems; several
current applications of resin adsorptions, for which some infor-
mation is available are discussed below.
* Color Removal
A dual resin adsorption system is being used to remove color
associated with metal complexes and other organics from a
300,000 gpd waste stream from a dyestuff production plant; color
is reduced from an average of 75,000 to 500 APHA units on the
Pt-Co scale, and COD is reduced from an average of 5,280,000 to
2,600 ppm. The system also removes copper and chromium present
in the influent waste stream both as salts and as organic che-
lates. While there have been some problems with this system, the
effluent does meet the NPDES requirements.
Date: 8/16/79. III.6.8-2
-------
Two large systems are also currently operating to remove colored
pollutants (derived from lignin) from paper mill bleach plant
effluents in Sweden and in Japan. The Swedish plant, which pro-
duces 300 tons of pulp/day, installed its system about three
years ago. The resin adsorption system removes 92 to 96% of the
color (initially 30 to 40,000 Pt-Co units), 80 to 90% of the COD
and 40 to 60% of the BOD from the effluent of the caustic extrac-
tion stage in the bleach plant. The system consists of three
resin columns, each containing about 20 cubic meters of resin.
The system in Japan is for a 420 metric ton/day pulp plant and
consists of four resin columns, each with about 30 cubic meters
of resin. In both cases, the resins are regenerated with a caus-
tic wash followed by a reactivation with an acid stream
(e.g. , H2SOiJ .
Some resin adsorption units in operation are used to remove color
in water supply systems; others are used to decolorize sugar,
glycerol, wines, milk whey, Pharmaceuticals, and similar prod-
ucts. One plant in Louisiana, which removes color from an organic
product stream, is said to have been in operation for eight years
now without replacement of the initial resin charge.
• Phenol Removal
One plant in Indiana currently uses a resin system to recover
phenol from a waste stream. This unit had been operating for
about nine months as of March, 1976, and is said to be performing
satisfactorily. A dual resin system is currently being installed
at a coal liquefaction plant in West Virginia to remove phenol
and high molecular-weight polycyclic hydrocarbons from a 10-gpm
waste stream; methanol will be used as the regenerant for the
primary resin adsorbent.
• Miscellaneous Applications
One resin adsorption system, in operation for five years, is re-
moving fat from the wastewaters of a meat production plant. Other
applications include the recovery of antibiotics from a fermenta-
tion broth, the removal of organics from brine, and the removal
of drugs from urine for subsequent analysis. Adsorbent resins
are also currently being used on a commercial scale for screening
out organic foulants prior to deionization in the production of
extremely high purity water.
III.6.8.5 Limitations
Feed stream into a resin adsorption system must be a single li-
quid phase; in most cases, this will be an aqueous solution, but
there is no basic reason that an organic solution could not be
treated so long as the resin is not chemically or physically
harmed by the solution; other limitations include the following:
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.8-3
-------
• Suspended solids should be no higher than 50 ppm and may
have to be kept below 10 ppm in some cases to prevent
clogging of the resin bed.
• pH may vary widely; some resins have been able to
operate as low as pH 1-2 and as high as pH 11-12,
in many cases, adsorption will be pH dependent, and
will thus require pH control.
• Temperature may also vary significantly; resins have
been used in applications where the influent tempera-
ture was as high as 80°C; adsorption will, however,
be favored by lower temperatures; conversely, regen-
eration will be aided by higher temperatures.
• High levels of total dissolved solids (particularly
inorganic salts) do not interfere with the action
of resin adsorbents on organic solutes; there are
clear indications that some organic chemicals are
more easily removed from solutions with high con-
centrations of dissolved salts than from salt-free
solutions; in some cases of high salt content, the
adsorbent may have to be prerinsed before
regeneration.
• Concentration of organic solute(s) in the feed stream
should probably be at least a factor of ten less than
the maximum amount that can be adsorbed in a resin
bed divided by three bed volumes; this will allow a
reasonably long cycle time; higher influent concen-
trations may be treated when special provisions are
made.
III.6.8.6 Typical Equipment
Equipment for resin adsorption systems is relatively simple. The
system will generally consist of two or more steel tanks (stain-
less or rubber-lined) with associated piping, pumps, and (perhaps)
influent hold-up tank. Regeneration takes place in the same
tanks, and thus the extra equipment needs for regeneration will
consist only of such items as solvent storage tanks, associated
solvent piping and pumps, and solvent (and perhaps solute) re-
covery equipment, e.g., a still. Up to three stills may be
required in some systems.
Materials needed include a regenerant solution (e.g., aqueous
caustic solution or organic solvent), and resin. In one full-
scale installation for the removal of organic dye wastes from
water, two different resins are employed. In this case, the waste
stream is first contacted with anormal polymeric adsorbent and
then with an anion exchange resin.
Date: 3/16/79. III.6.8-4
-------
Features of a few currently available resin adsorbents are given
in the following table. Surface areas of resin adsorbents are
generally in the range of 100 to 700 m2/g; this is below the
typical range for activated carbons (800 to 1,200 m2/g) and, in
general, indicates lower adsorptive capacities, although the
chemical nature and pore structure of the resin may be more im-
portant factors. This has been demonstrated in one application
relating to color removal.
Tests should be run on several resins when evaluating a new
application. Important properties are the degree of hydrophili-
city and polarity, particle shape (granular versus spherical),
size, porosity, and surface area.
It is frequently possible to "tailor" a resin for specific appli-
cations because much greater control over the chemical and sur-
face nature can be achieved in resin production than in activated
carbon manufacture. The cost of developing a totally new resin
would be prohibitive for most applications, but miner modifica-
tions of currently available resins are often feasible.
Void
a Specific volume,
Name Base gravity (wet) %
XAD-1
XAD-2
XAD-4
XAD-7
XAD-8
Dow XFS
Dow XFS
Dow XFS
Duolite
Duolite
Duolote
Duolite
Duolite
Styrene-divinylbenzene
Acrylic ester
4256 Styrene-divinylbenzene
4022
4257
S-30
S-37
ES-561 Phenol-formaldehydec
A-7D
A-7
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
_
-
-
1.
1.
1.
-
1.
02
02
02
05
09
11
12
12
12
37
42
51
55
52
40
35
40
35
35 - 40
35 - 40
.
35 - 40
Particle
size
mesh
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
Ifi
18
16
- 50
- 50
- 50
- 50
- 50
+10
- 50
- 50
- 50
- 50
- 50
-
- 50
Bulk
density,
lb/ft3
Surface
area , Average
m3/g pore size, A
100 200
40 - 44
39
41
43
27
-
-
-V30
40
40 - 45
_
•\,40
300
780
450
140
400
100
400
128
_
_
24
™*
90
50
90
235
110
200
110
.
_
_
_
~
XAD resins manufactured by Rohm and Haas Company; Dow XFS resins manufactured by Dow Chemical U.S.A.;
Duolite resins manufactured by Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company.
Resin designed for use in vapor phase adsorption applications.
Q
Functional groups such as phenolic hydroxyl groups, secondary and tertiary amines ara present on the
basic phenol-formaldehyde structure; physical form of these resins is granular as opposed to a bead form
for the other brands.
III.6.8.7 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
The only major environmental impacts resulting from the use of
resin adsorption systems are related to the disposal of the used
regenerant solution or extracted solutes when they are not re-
cycled. For example, when highly colored wastewaters are treated,
the used regenerant solution (containing 2 to 4% caustic plus the
Date: 8/16/79
I-I-I.6.8-5
-------
eluted wastes) is not recycled and must be disposed of, usually
by evaporation and incineration. A second example is the removal
of pesticides from water, with regeneration being affected by an
organic solvent. In this case, the solvent is recovered, probably
by distillation, resulting in a concentrated waste (still bottoms)
to be disposed of, probably by incineration. In both of these
examples where incineration is used for the eventual destruction
of the wastes, the environmental impacts would be on air quality
(from incinerator emissions), energy use (for the incinerator
fuel), and land use (from the disposal of unburned residues).
Only minor environmental impacts might be associated with the
rinse waters discharged. In most cases, these effluents can be
adequately treated by conventional means or safely discharged to
surface waters.
Resin adsorption systems are relatively compact and thus require
little space. The systems do not have any known health or safety
problems associated with their operation.
III.6.8.8 Reliability
Reliability is still uncertain for this technology.
III.6.8.9 Design Criteria
Criteria have not yet been developed; design is application
specific.
III.6.8.10 Flow Diagram
DIAGRAM OF A RESIN ADSOPRTION SYSTEM FOR THE REMOVAL
AND RECOVERY OF PHENOL FROM WATER
Date: 8/16/79
III.6.8-6
-------
III.6.8.11 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the listed industries and/or wastestreams.
III.6.8.12 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. November 1976. pp.2-1 to 2-26.
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.8-7
-------
III. 6.9 REVERSE OSMOSIS
Function. Reverse osmosis is used for the removal of dis-
solved organic and inorganic materials and control of such waste-
water parameters as soluble metals, TDS, and TOC.
Description. Reverse Osmosis (RO) separates dissolved mate-
rials in solution by filtration through a semipermeable membrane
at a pressure greater than the osmotic pressure caused by the dis-
solved materials in the wastewater. With existing membranes and
equipment, operating pressures vary from atmospheric to 1,500 psi.
Products from the process are (1) the permeate or product stream
with dissolved material removed, and (2) concentrate stream con-
taining all removed material. Removal levels obtainable are
dependent on membrane type, operating pressure, and the specific
pollutant of concern. Removal of multicharged cations and anions
is normally very high, while most low molecular weight dissolved
organics are not removed or are only partially removed.
Technology Status. RO has been commercially available since
the mid-1960"s. Originally developed for desalination of seawater,
it is seeing broader acceptance as a wastewater treatment tool,
especially when a wastestream has pollutants with recoverable
value.
Applications. Recovery of silver, concentration of dilute
wastestreams, metals recovery, radioactive waste treatment, and
water reuse and recycle.
Limitations. Concentration polarization (decreased water
production with time per square meter of membrane); pretreatment
is necessary for removal of solids (colloidal and suspended).
Dechlorination required when using polyamide membranes. Membrane
fouling results from precipitation of insoluble salts.
Typical Equipment. Membrane modules; feed, product, concen-
trate tanks; high pressure pump; prefilter plus pump; stainless
steel piping; heat exchanger; flow and pressure instrumentation.
Design Criteria. Membrane type: cellulose acetate (also
di- and triacetate), polyamide, polysulfone; flux (product) rate
at 600 psi, 5,000 ppm NaCl solution, and 25°C: 6 to 10 gpd/ft2
membrane or 25 to 100 gpd/ft3 module; rejection at 600 psi, 5,000
ppm NaCl solution, and 25°C: 70% to 99% depending on membrane
specification; operating pressure: 250 to 1,500 psi; membrane
configuration: plate, tubular, spiral, or hollow fiber; water
recovery: 50% to 85% depending on minimum solubility.
Side Streams. Concentrate (15% to 30% of initial feed vol-
ume) ; rinse, clean (10% to 20% of final product volume or addi-
tional distilled/deionized water); rinse, chemical - dependent on
application.
Date: 5/25/79 III. 6.9-1
-------
Chemicals Required. Sodium tripolyphosphate to increase
water recovery; chlorine as biocide when using cellulose-based
membranes.
Reliability. Dependent on wastestream being treated. Foul-
ing and membrane deterioration have been common in past. Recent
applications have shown reliability to be improving with vendors
willing to issue guarantees on membrane life.
Toxics Management. Removes substantially all soluble heavy
metals and many, but not all, high molecular weight organics.
Environmental Impact. The concentrate stream must be dis-
posed of or treated further.
Flow Diagram.
OPTIONAL RECYCLE
p. — — — ___ |
- *
H MEMBRANE MODULE I - *— ^-CONCENTRATE
lii I
PRODUCT (PERMEATE)
Performance. Performance data presented on the following
data sheets include information from studies on the following
industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries Wastestreams
Brass finishing Cooling tower blowdown
Synthetic rubber Synthetic laboratory
Pulp and paper Sanitary
Textiles Acid mine drainage
Date: 5/25/79 ' III. 6.9-2
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Journal article
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Municipal sewage (pretreated)
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery: 95%
Membrane type:
Flux:
Temperature: 25°C
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Influent pressure: 600 psi
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
Total solids
Ammonia as N
Chloride
Soluble phosphate
Sulfate
Total hardness
Total dissolved carbon
TOC
Dissolved organic carbon
pH
Concentration
, mg/L
Influent Effluent
1,260
9.7
84.0
1.0
54.0
205.0
84.0
67.0
66.0
6.0
32
1.3
8.0
0.1
1.1
6.6
20.0
11.1
11.1
6.1
Percent
removal
97.6
87.2
91.0
90.5
98.1
96.6
77.4
84.0
84.0
"~
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-3
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source:
Point source category: Pulp and paper
Subcategory:
Plant:
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery:
Membrane type:
Flux:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Typical removals by paper waste type, %
Pollutant/parameter
Calcium
based
Ammonia
based
NSSC
white
water
Kraft
bleach
effluent
Chemical
mechanical
press liquor
Conventional pollutants:
Total solids
Color
BOD5
COD
96.9
99.0
91.7
97.0
97.6
96.6
92.3
97.3
99.9
99.9
99.7
99.7
98.9
99.9
96.8
99.6
99.6
99.0
99.6
99.6
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-4
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Conference paper
Point source category: Textiles
Subcategory:
Plant: Dye waste
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery:
Membrane type:
Flux:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration ,
mg/L
Influent
Pol lutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Bicarbonate
Sulvate
Chloride
Nitrate as NOa
Fluoride
Silica
Iron
Nitrate as N
Total alkalinity
Total hardness
TDS
TOC
PH
Feed
95
11
177
4.2
348
93
205
18
1.1
11
0.02
4.1
285
285
764
140
7.2
Brine
1,000
122
1,540
41
952
664
3,457
100
5.3
100
0.14
23
780
3,000
7,700
670
7.0
Effluent
3.2
0.5
28
1.3
21
17
29
5.6
0.6
0.1
ND
1.3
17
10
76
12.5
6.0
Percent
removal
99.42
99.25
96.74
94.25
96.77
95.51
98.42
90.51
81.25
99.02
_
90.41
96.81
99.39
98.2
98.5
-
Percent removal based on feed/brine average.
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-5
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Conference paper
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Acid mine water
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery: 75%
Membrane type:
Flux:
Influent pressure: 612 psi
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent,
Influent Effluent removal'
Conventional pollutants:
PH
Acidity
Calcium
Magnesium
Aluminum
Total iron
Sulfate
TDS
2.6
1,090
184
66
74
277
1,890
2,491
4.4
6
2
0.9
3.1
0
4.2
10
-
99.6
99.3
99.2
97.3
100
99.8
99.6
Percent removal based on feed/brine average.
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-6
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Reference document
Point source category: Steam-electric
Subcategory:
Plant: Cooling tower blowdown
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery: 66%
Membrane type:
Flux:
Spiral
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Calcium 885 10 98.9
Magnesium 61
Sodium 228
Carbonate 12
Sulfate 2,519 48 98.1
Chloride 210 23 89.0
Nitrate 0.8
Fluoride 5
Hardness 2,450
pH 8.8
Silica 60
TDS 4,800
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-7
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: EPA report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
Subcategory: Emulsion crumb
Plant:
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretrpatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration: Hollow fiber
Flow rate: 24-28 m3/d
Water recovery: 27-55
Membrane type: Polyamide
Flux: 6.5-15.5 m3/d
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
TDS
TSS
Oil and grease
TOC
COD
BOD5
Surfactants
Iron
PH
Influent
30,480
48
5
246
830
12
0.34
6.3
5.6
Effluent
768
<5
<4
8
20
1
<0.05
<1
6.0
Percent
removal
97.5
-
-
96.7
97.6
91.7
>85.3
>84.1
—
Influent is from ultrafiltrate of final effluent from
emulsion process.
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-8
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: EPA report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
Subcategory: Emulsion crumb
Plant:
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration: Hollow fiber
Flow rate:
Water recovery:
Membrane type: Polyamide
Flux:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Influent pressure:
x
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
TDS
TSS
Oil and grease
TOC
COD
BOD5
Surfactants
Iron
pH
Concentration
, mg/L
Influent3 Effluent
14,240
27
8
66
511
11
1.3
.2.7
7.0
226
<4
<4
8
6
4
0.2
<1
6.5
Percent
removal
98.4
>85.2
>50.0
87.9
98.8
63.6
84.2
>62.9
™
Influent is from secondary effluent that has been filtered.
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-9
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: EPA report
Point source category: Synthetic rubber
Subcategory: Solution crumb
Plant:
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration: Hollow fiber
Flow rate:
Water recovery:
Membrane type: Polyamide
Flux:
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
TDS
TSS
Oil and grease
TOC
COD
BOD5
Surfactants
Iron
PH
Concentration
, mg/L
Influent Effluent
1,050
<4
11
122
444
30
0.52
<1.0
8.3
141
-
7
10
36
4
0.4
<1.0
9.1
Percent
removal
86.6
-
36.4
91.8
91.9
86.7
23.1
-
—
Influent is from ultrafiltrate of secondary effluent.
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Conference paper
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Brass finishing
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery: 95%
Membrane type:
Flux:
Tubular
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration
Pol lutant/par ameter
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Total chromium
Chromium (+6)
Chromium (+3)
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Conventional pollutants » mg/L:
pH
Total solids
Oil
COD
Total iron
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Chloride
Sulfate
Manganese
Aluminum
Silica
Kjeldahl as N
Nitrate as N
. Influent
10
0
10
120
110
1.4
0.6
<0.1
3.6
3,828
35.6
1,046
1.0
360
160
40
30
202
1,532
0.5
1.0
50
3.2
3
Effluent
0.025
0.01
0.015
0.09
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5.05
6
-
0
<0.01
1.8
0.14
0.05
0.1
1.7
0.6
<0.01
<0.01
1
-
0.2
Percent
removal
99.6
-
99.8
99.9
99.9
-
-
-
-
99.7
-
100
-
99.3
99.9
99.8
99.5
98.7
99.9
-
-
98
-
90
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Journal article
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Synthetic waste
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration:
Flow rate:
Water recovery:
Membrane type: Cellulose acetate
Flux: See removal data
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Pollutant/parameter
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants:
Benzene
Phenol
Chlorophenol
Naphthalene
pimethyl phthalate
Other pollutants:
Xylene
Date: 5/24/79
1.5
15.6
34.3
94.9
19.7
83.2
III.6.9-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Symposium article
Point source category:
Subcategory:
Plant: Sanitary waste
References:
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration: Hollow fiber
Flow rate: 20 gpm feed, 17,5 gpm product
Water recovery: 89%
Membrane type: Cellulose triacetate
Flux:
Influent pressure:
REMOVAL DATA
Pol lutant/parameter
Concentr at ion
Influent
(average)
Effluent
(average)
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants• ug/L:
Total chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
0.2
0.1
50
Conventional pollutants , mg/L:
Aluminum
Bicarbonate
Calcium
Chloride
Fluoride
Total iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Phosphate
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Sulfate
TDS
pH
Nitrate
<0.5
33
0.4
70
0.4
0.1
0.3
<0.1
2
12
6
155
224
475
3.5 - 6.0
32
<0.5
7
0.2
3
0.2
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.6
1
8
1
24
4.5 - 5.5
5
-
78.8
50
95.7
50
-
66.7
-
96.0
95.0
83.3
94.8
99.5
94.9
-
84.4
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Technical literature Data source status:
Point source category: Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale x
Plant: Cooling tower wa^er-chromate removal Pilot scale
References: Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Membrane configuration: Influent pressure:
Flow rate:
Water recovery:
Membrane type:
Flux:
REMOVAL DATA
Concentration Percent
Pol lutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Total chromium 35.5 1.5 95.8
Zinc 10 0.3 97.0
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Calcium 1,040 21 98.0
Sulfate 2,650 20 99.2
Date: 5/24/79
III.6.9-14
-------
57
ST
••
Ul
^
<
-J
vo
H
V£>
Ul
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS
Pollutant problem
(toxic)
Total chromium
Chromium (+6)
Chromium (+3)
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Benzene
Phenol
Chlorophenol
Naphthlene
Dimethyl phthalate
Xylene
Number
of data
sources
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Attainable concentrations, mg/L
Minimum Maximum Mean Median
<0.1 1.5 0.5
0.01
0.015
6.1 0.09
0.09 0.3 0.16 0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Removal efficiencies,
Minimum Maximum Mean
95.8 100 97.7
_ _
99.8
99.9 100 99.9
50 99.9 82.3
100
100
100
1.5
15.6
34.3
94.9
19.7
83.2
%
Median
_
-
-
-
97
-
-
-
-
-
Date: 5/25/79
-------
ff
Ul
to
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS
«^\
vo
Pollutant problem
( conventional )
TDS
TSS
Total solids
Oil and grease
TOC
COD
H BOD
H Surfactants
Jy, Calcium
^ Magnesium
I Iron
^ Sodium
Carbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Fluoride
Silica
Hardness
Number
of data Attainable concentrations, mg/L Removal efficiencies, %
sources Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median
8 10 768 207 226 86.6 99.6 95.9 97.5
58 12 10 10 84 98.5 91.8 96.7
50 36 15 20 91.9 100 97.9 98.8
81 433 86.7 99.7 90.3 92.3
6 0.1 21 7.3 2 98 99.9 99.1 99.3
Date: 5/25/79
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Timber products Engineering estimate
(pentachlorophenol wastewater)
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Pilot scale x
References: Al, p. E-4 Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Ultrafiltration <
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type:
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Effluent Influent removal
Conventional pollutants:
Oil and grease 55 17 69
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 . III.6.9-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: Grace Chicago Pilot scale
References: BlO, p. 75 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Primary settling, ultrafiltration, 5vi and ly string
wound cartridge filters in series
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine-fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont B-9 polyamide
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 27-30°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,700 kPa (400 psig)
Feed circulation rate: 27.3 m3/d (5 gpm)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volume grab samples collected
throughout an 8-hr day
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 1,280 429 66
COD 7,040 736 90
a
Average of two samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/13/79 • III.6.9-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 122, 137-8
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-p and 1-p cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
COD£
Vj
TOC
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper0
Zincd
Influent
35
203
45
160
3,100
Effluent
<8
20
5
50
34
Percent
removal
77
90
89
69
99
Average of three samples.
Average of eleven samples
"Average of four samples.
Average of eight samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 123, 138
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
CODb
TOCb
125
696
204
30
77
20
76
89
90
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper0
Zincd
260
4,200
60
120
77
97
Average of three samples.
Average of twelve samples
'Average of eight samples.
Average of eleven samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 •
III.6.9-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 119
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Filtration (250-y screen)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Eight externally coated 19-tube bundles in series
Membrane type: Selas Flotronics Zr(IV)-PAA
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 20-90°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400-7,200 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken
in one-week period
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 160
TOC 30
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc 940
15
5
20
91
83
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source : Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory: Copper plating
Plant: New England Plating Co.
(Worchester, Mass.)
References: Bll, p. 65
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Product flow rate:
Flux rate: 0.008 m3/min (^2 gpm)
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type :
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 25 °C
Rated production capacity:
Feed pressure (average): 1,240 kPa (180 psi)
Percent conversion (average): 84
Total feed concentration: 1.5 yg/L
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Average 17 samples taken over a 1,108-hr
period for copper, average of 9 samples
taken in the latter part of the 1,108-hr
period for cyanide
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Copper
Cyanide
230
241
28
22
88
91
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 -
III.6.9-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory: Zinc cyanide plating bath
Plant: Superior Plating, Inc.,
(Minneapolis, Minne sota)
References: B13, pp. 31-33
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Bath diluted to one-tenth of original strength
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate (average): 0.016 m3/hr/m2
Membrane configuration: Ten, 0. m (2 ft) tubular membranes
Membrane type: NS-100 polyethylenimine tolylene dusocyanate
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 25°C
Rated production capacity:
pH: 12.8
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average values, samples taken over 1,044-hr
period
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TOC 1,250
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Cyanide
Zinc
2.8
1.7
50
0.08
0.03
96
97
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
.References: B12, p. 91
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and l-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7753N and Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TOC
45
160
36
10
25
3
78
84
92
Toxic pollutants,
Copper
Zinc
40
4,800
40
<40
0
>99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 125, 140
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-p and 1-p cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #400600
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
CODa 253
TOG13 47
32
6
87
87
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Zinc
4,100
180
96
Average of fourteen samples.
Average of twelve samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 115
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #400600
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 15 2 87
COD 110 10 91
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc 3,600 500 86
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory: Copper acid plating bath
Plant: Precious Metal Platers, Inc.,
Hopkins, Minnesoto
References: B13, pp. 25-26
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Acid bath was diluted to one-tenth of full strength
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate (average): 0.023 m3/hr/m2
Membrane configuration: Eight, 0.6 m (2 ft) tubular membranes
Membrane type: NS-101 polyethylenimine-isophthalal chloride support layer
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
pH: 1.18
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Average values, samples taken over 1,220-hr
period
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
TOC 23
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper 4.9
7.4
0.05
68
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 95
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples
taken in one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration
Influent Effluent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 35 5
COD 315 20
TOC 65 5
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Mercury 0.75 ND°
Not detected.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 125, 140
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Filtration (25-y cartridge filter)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Tubular cellulose acetate module (18 in series)
Membrane type: Westinghouse #4-291
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: <32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,100-3,100 kPa
Tube diameter: 13 mm
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration3
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 320 19 94
TOC 100 7 93
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc 14,000 230 98
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 '
III.6.9-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 125, 140
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Filtration (25-jj cartridge filter)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Tubular cellulose acetate module (18 in series)
Membrane type: Westinghouse #4-291
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: <32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,100-3,100 kPa
Tube diameter: 13 mm
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration3 Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD 891 36 96
TOC 138 9 95
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Zinc 24,000 430 98
Average of eight samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 113
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Filtration (25-y cartridge filter)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Tubular cellulose acetate module (18 in series)
Membrane type: Westinghouse #4-291
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: <32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,100-3,100 kPa
Tube diameter: 13 mm
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 15
COD 150
1.3
200
91
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc
6,000
820
86
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 126, 141
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Filtration (250-u screen)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Eight externally coated 19-tube bundles in series
Membrane type: Selas Flotronics Zr(lV)-PAA
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 20-90°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400-7,200 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
TOC
20
248
83
2
14
6
90
94
93
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zincc
1,400
30
98
b
Only one sample.
Average of five samples.
Average of six samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 100
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7753N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
Sampling period:
REMOVAL DATA
Composite of several daily samples
taken in one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5 49
COD 245
TOC 70
4
15
5
92
94
93
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79-
III.6.9-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 122, 137
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtrcition (25-p and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7753N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one wee'k period
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
CODa 565
TOCa 92.5
20
5
96
95
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Copper^
Zinca
300
2,400
<40
55
>86
98
Average of two samples.
Only one sample.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-34
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La Prance Industries
References: B12, pp. 124, 139
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: ORNL
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration3
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L
COD 164
TOC 24
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc
1,500
13
6
38
92
75
98
Average of five samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-35
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 124, 139
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: ORNL
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a 16
CODb 272
TOCb 50
4
42
8
75
85
84
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zincc
2,500
20
99
Average of two samples.
r\
Average of six samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-36
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 124, 139-40
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: ORNL
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
CODa 599
TOCb 153
37
10
94
93
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zincc
9,700
37
>99
Average of thirteen samples.
Average of eleven samples.
"'Average of nine samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-37
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. Ill
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration:
Membrane type: ORNL
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature:
Rated production capacity:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 35 2.7 92
COD 230 30 87
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc
5,200
60
99
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-38
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 104
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 15
COD 170
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Zinc 4,000
1
25
700
93
85
82
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-39
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 102
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Filtrcition (25-p and 1-y cartridge filter and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7753N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
FEMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, rng/L:
BOD5 45
COD 230
TOC 50
0.3
15
5
99
93
90
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Zinc
4,400
80
98
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-40
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 98
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filter and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 40 5 88
COD 220 20 91
TOC 70 5 93
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Mercury 1.1 0.56 48
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-41
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, p. 117
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y cartridge filters)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Spiral-wound cellulose acetate module
Membrane type: Gulf
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 15-26°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,800 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Cone entrat ion Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5 10
COD 160
TOC 35
1
25
5
90
84
86
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
300
120
960
100
40
40
67
67
96
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-42
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 123, 138
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7753N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
cook
TOCb
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Copper3
Zincb
55
532
152
400
4,300
10
21
8
80
100
82
96
95
80
98
Only one sample.
3
Average of six samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-43
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 123, 138
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period : Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration
Pollutant /parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
CODb
TOCC
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper^
Zincb
Influent
56
376
111
810
5,500
Effluent
11
27
7
53
58
Percent
removal
80
93
94
93
99
Average of two samples.
Average of nine samples.
"Average of eight samples.
Average of three samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-44
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Drying and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 123, 138
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
CODb
TOCb
40
246
62
5
34
8
88
86
87
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper0
Zincd
490
3,800
55
180
89
95
Average of two samples.
Average of nine samples.
Average of eight samples.
Average of six samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 •
III.6.9-45
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 126, 141
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent: Filtration (25-y cartridge filter and 1-y cartridge
filter when necessary)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Spiral-wound cellulose acetate module
Membrane type: Gulf
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate::
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 15-26°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,800 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Concentration
Pol lutan t/parame ter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5a
CODb
TOCC
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper*3
Zincb
Influent
104
590
109
1,000
1,200
Effluent
18
26
7
71
22
Percent
removal
83
96
94
93
98
Average of four samples.
Average of thirteen samples.
'Average of twelve samples.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79 .
III.6.9-46
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Reverse Osmosis
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Dyeing and finishing
Plant: La France Industries
References: B12, pp. 123-124, 138-139
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
x
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Filtration (25-y and 1-y cartridge filters and
diatomaceous earth filter when needed)
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Product flow rate:
Flux rate:
Membrane configuration: Hollow-fine polyamide fiber
Membrane type: Du Pont #7725N
Retentate (concentrate) flow rate:
Recycle flow rate:
Operating temperature: 11-32°C
Rated production capacity:
Membrane inlet pressure: 2,400 kPa
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Composite of several daily samples taken in
one-week period
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
CODa 246
TOCa 27
41
9
83
67
Toxic pollutants, yg/L:
Copper'3
Zinca
1,000
4,200
200
610
80
85
Average of nine samples.
Only one sample.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.9-47
-------
III.6.10 ELECTRODIALYSIS [1]
III.6.10.1 Function
The general function of electrodialysis is the separation of an
aqueous stream under the action of an electric field into two
streams: an enriched stream (more concentrated in electrolyte
than the original), and a depleted stream. Success of the process
depends on special synthetic membranes, usually based on ion ex-
change resins, which are permeable only to a single charge type of
ion. Cation exchange membranes permit passage only of positive
ions under the influence of the electric field; anion exchange
membranes permit passage only of negatively charged ions.
III.6.10.2 Description
In the electrodialysis process, feed water passes through compart-
ments formed by the spaces between alternating cation-permeable
and anion-permeable membranes held in a stack. At each end of the
stack is an electrode that has the same area as the membranes. A
dc potential applied across the stack causes the positive and neg-
ative ions to migrate in opposite directions. Because of the
semipermeability of the membranes, a given ion will either migrate
to the adjacent compartment or be confined to its original com-
partment, depending on whether or not the first membrane it en-
counters is permeable to it. As a result, salts are concentrated
or diluted in alternate compartments.
To achieve high throughput, electrodialysis cells in practice are
made very thin and assembled in stacks of cells in series. Each
stack often consists of more than 100 cells. Feed material is
first filtered to remove suspended particulate matter that could
clog the system or foul the membrane and, if required, is given a
pretreatment to remove oxidizing materials and ferrous or manga-
nous ions, which would damage the membranes. Very high organic
levels may also lead to membrane fouling. The catholyte stream
is commonly acidified to offset the increase in pH that would
normally occur within the cell, and an antiscaling additive may
be required as well. An operating plant usually contains many
recirculation, feedback, and control loops and pumps to optimize
the concentrations and pH's at different points and thus maximize
the overall efficiency. Although a certain amount of water trans-
fer (electrosmosis) does occur, the process can be categorized
ion exchange, solvent extraction, or adsorbent processes as one
in which solutes are removed from the solvent, rather than with
distillation, freezing, or reverse'osmossis in whi':h the solvent
is transported.
All ionized species are not removed
tration because of different
tions within the membrane. Therefore
mobilities
in proportion to their concen-
and equilibrium concentra-
a solution partially
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.10-1
•V
-------
deionized or concentrated by electrodialysis may contain signifi-
cantly different proportions of ionized species than the original
feed.
Many colloids and polyanions have a net negative charge. For this
reason they may collect upon or foul anion exchange membranes be-
cause of their positively charged functional groups. This problem
may be avoided to some extent using an electrodialysis cell that
consists of alternating cation and "neutral" membranes. Such
systems utilizing a porous "neutral" membrane to avoid convective
flow or mixing, frequently perform very well from a separation
standpoint although they are not common commercially because of
their higher electrical power requirements.
Generally, electrodialysis works best on acidic streams containing
a single principal metal ion (such as acid nickel baths). At
alkaline pH's membrane life may diminish, but the system has been
reported useable up to pH 14 under special circumstances. Mixed
metals may not be concentrated in the same ratio as that in the
feed, leading to problems in recycle. In addition, although a
sodium and copper cyanide stream may perform as expected under
electrodialysis, the presence of zinc (a common occurrence, espe-
cially in brass plating) can foul the anion membrane by the
(ZnCl)~ ion and partially convert that membrane to the cation
form, with significant loss in system performance. If strongly
alkaline, the feed streams are generally neutralized or rendered
slightly acidic to prevent degradation of the anion membrane,
which usually contains quaternary ammonium groups. Iron and man-
ganese in the feed water also degrade most common membranes and
must be removed if their total concenration in the feed water is
greater than about 0.3 mg/L.
Calcium sulfate scale can also accumulate if the calcium concen-
tration in the concentrated stream is allowed to exceed about
400 mg/L. Addition of a sequestering agent to the feed permits
operation to a higher calcium concentration, but generally not
above 900 mg/L. For this reason, the brine rarely constitutes
less than 10 to 15% of the feed water volume (a concentration
factor of 6 to 10).
Because the process depends on electrolytic conductance through
the various liquid streams, it is rarely practical to produce
product water of less than about 250 ppm total dissolved solids.
For the same reason, it is often desirable to operate an electro-
dialysis system at a slightly elevated temperature. As a rule of
thumb, a temperature increase of 17°C reduces the power consump-
tion by 1%.
Membrane life, although dependent upon service conditions, is
frequently five years. Other components are generally long
lived, because the system, although somewhat corrosive perhaps,
operates at a modest or ambient temperatures and pressures, and
Date: 8/23/79 III.6.10-2
-------
abrasives and particulates normally will have been removed from
the feed water.
III.6.10.3 Technology Status
Electrodialysis is a mature technology with well-known performance
characteristics and prices; it can be easily evaluated as a poten-
tial component of any multiprocess treatment being considered.
However, its success may be determined to a large extent by wheth-
er it can be made sufficiently reliable and attentionfree to be
offered as a "black box" treatment1 package.
III.6.10.4 Applications
Industrial applications are widespread but varied and include the
use of the process to remove the mineral constituents or contam-
inants from process streams that contain large amounts of organic
products, e.g., de-ashing of sugars, washing of photographic emul-
tions, and demineralization of wheKr. It frequently is used in the
production of potable water from brackish waters, for the desalt-
ing of food products such as whey, and in the chemical industry
for a variety of solution enrichment or depletion purposes.
Pilot operations have been carried out on the desalting of sewage
plant effluent, sulfite-liquor recjovery, acid mine drainage treat-
ment, the desalting of cooling towjer waters, and numerous other
industrial applications. Treatment of plating wastes and rinses
has been studied and piloted with encouraging but generally modest
results. Recent work at General Motors suggests use of the proc-
ess to salvage chromium wastes frotn chromic plating rinses.
At least two facilities have installled electrodialysis units to
treat the hydrogen fluoride and ammonium fluoride effluents from
glass and quartz etching facilities. Starting with a feed stream
that contains 400 to 500 ppm fluorides, it is possible to produce
a dischargeable dilute stream and a low-volume concentrate stream
that may be recycled or economically treated.
An interesting example exists of the use of electrodialysis in
series with reverse osmossis for the treatment of a concentrated
salt (NaCl) stream. Such a system is presently in the pilot-plant
stage. Although cost data are not yet available, this application
shows how a system utilizing more than one type of process may be
arranged. Here electrodialysis is chosen for the salt-rich end of
the system where it can operate at high current efficiency.
III.6.10.5 Limitations
Electrodialysis is not available as standard "turnkey" equipment
for pollution control, and its design and operation may require
more skill and care than that of other systems with which it may
compete. It will probably continue as a viable process in those
8/23/79 • III.6.10-3
-------
applications for which it is especially suitable, but it does not
appear to have general utility as a waste treatment tool.
III.6.10.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
An electrodialysis plant produces two product streams, one concen-
trated and one dilute in the original contaminants; these must be
either recycled, sold, or disposed of in some other manner. Elec-
trodialysis may cause some local air pollution, because both H2
and a ClaOa mix may be generated at the electrode surfaces. These
represent a hazard if permitted to collect in an enclosed space;
therefore, they generally a.re vented to the outside and allowed to
escape into the atmosphere.
III.6.10.7 Reliability
For this technology, reliability is highly dependent on operator
skill and the specific application.
III.6.10.8 Flow Diagram
90 g/L NICKEL.
AS SULFATE AND CHLORIDE
3.5 NICKEL
0.2 9/1 NICKEL
PARTS
PLATING TANK
70
5.
DRAG-OUT
400 9/hr
HI
g/L N1
2 L/hr
FIRST RINSE
3.5 g/L NICKEL
16 l/nrfn
ELECTROOIALYSIS
STACK NO. 1
DRAG-OUT
9
g/hr
N1
3.15 g/L
N1
60 g/L lit
SECOND RINSE
0.2 g/L NICKEL
DRAG-OUT
0.5 g/hr
-, N1
e L/min
ELECTRODIALYSIS
STACK NO. 2
TO FINAL CHEMICAL
TREATMENT, ppt,
SETTLING, DISCHARGE
0.18 g/L N1
8 L/inln
0.15 L/hr
III.6.10.9 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries
Wastestreams
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.10-4
-------
III.6.10.10 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., November 1976. pp. 18-1 through
18-14.
Date: 8/23/79 III.6.10-5
-------
III.6.11 DISTILLATION [1]
III.6.11.1 Function
Distillation is a unit operational process that is most often
employed in industry to segregate, separate, or purify liquid
organic product streams, some of which contain aqueous fractions.
Sometimes the operation is used to recover one product; sometimes
it is used to produce many desirable fractions from a process
stream. Distillation is usually nondestructive and can produce
products of any desired composition.
III.6.11.2 Description
Distillation is the boiling of a liquid solution and condensation
of the vapor for the purpose of separating the components. In
the distillation process there are two phases, the liquid phase
and the vapor phase. The components that are to be separated by
distillation are present in both phases but in different concen-
trations. If there are only two components in the liquid, one
concentrates in the condensed vapor (condensate) and the other in
the residual liquid. If there are more than two components, the
less volatile components concentrate in the residual liquid and
the more volatile in the vapor or vapor condensate. The ease
with which a component is vaporized is called its volatility, and
the relative volatilities (ratio of equilibrium ratios) of the
components determine their vapor-liquid equilibrium relationships.
There are five general types of distillation, and a general de-
scription of each type is provided below.
• Batch Distillation. The simplest form of distillation is
a single equilibrium stage operation. It is carried out in a
"still" in which the reboiler equivalent consists of a stream
jacket or a heating coil. The liquid is "boiled"; the vapor is
driven off, condensed, and collected in an accumulator (a con-
densed vapor collector) until the desired concentration of the
"product" has been reached. As the remaining liquid becomes
leaner in the volatile component and richer in the less volatile
component, its volume diminishes. If the residual liquid is the
product, then "bottoms" concentration will be the controlling
parameter. The batch still, as previously described, consists of
a vessel that provides one equilibrium stage. By adding a con-
denser and recycling some of the condensed vapor, a second vapor/
liquid equilibrium stage is added, and the separation is improved,
• Continuous Fractional Distillation. In continuous frac-
tional distillation, a steady stream feed enters the column,
which contains plates or packing (packing is normally used only
in small-scale equipment) that provide additional vapor/liquid
contact (equilibrium) stages. Overhead vapors and bottoms are
continuously withdrawn. Vapor from the top plate is condensed
Date: 8/16/79 . III.6.11-1
-------
and collected in a vessel known as an accumulator. Some of the
liquid in the accumulator is continuously returned to the top
plate of the column as reflux while the remainder of the liquid
is continuously withdrawn as the overhead product stream. At the
bottom of the column the liquid collects in the reboiler, where
it is heated by steam coils or a steam jacket. The function of
the reboiler is to receive the liquid overflow from the lowest
plate and return a protion of this as a vapor stream, while the
remainder is withdrawn continuously as a liquid bottom product.
• Azeotropic Distillation. An azeotrope is a liquid mixture
that maintains a constant boiling point and produces a vapor of
the same composition of the mixture when boiled. Because the
composition of the vapor produced from an azeotrope is the same
as that of the liquid, an azeotrope may be boiled away at a con-
stant pressure, without change in concentration in either liquid
or vapor. Since the temperature cannot vary under these condi-
tions, azeotropes are also called constant boiling mixtures.
An azeotrope cannot be separated by constant pressure distilla-
tion into its components. Furthermore, a mixture on one side of
the azeotrope composition cannot be transformed by distillation
to a mixture on the other side of the azeotrope. If the total
pressure is changed, the azeotropic composition is usually
shifted. Sometimes this principle can be applied to obtain
separations under pressure or vacuum that cannot be obtained
under atmospheric pressure conditions. Most often, however, a
third component - an additive, sometimes called an entrainer -
is added to the binary (two-component) mixture to form a new
boiling-point azeotrope with one of the original constituents.
The volatility of the new azeotrope is such that it may be easily
separated from the other original constituents.
• Extractive Distillation. Extractive distillation is a
multi-component rectification method of distillation. A solvent
is added to a binary mixture that is difficult or impossible to
separate by ordinary means. This solvent alters the relative
volatility of the original constituents, thus permitting separa-
tion. The added solvent is of low volatility and is not appre-
ciably vaporized in the fractionator.
• Molecular Distillation. Molecular distillation is a form
of a very low pressure distillation conducted at absolute pres-
sures of the order of 0.003 mm of mercury suitable for heat-
sensitive substances. Ordinarily,, the net rate of evaporation is
very low, at a save temperature, owing to the fact the evaporated
molecules are reflected back to the liquid after collisions
occurring in the vapor. By reducing the absolute pressure to
values used in the molecular distillation, the mean free path of
the molecules becomes very large (in the order of 1 cm). If the
condensing surface is then placed at a distance not exceeding a
few centimeters from the vaporing liquid surface, very few
Date: 8/16/79' III.6.11-2
-------
molecules will return to the liquid and the net rate of evapora-
tion is substantially improved.
III.6.11.3 Technology Status
The process is well developed for processing applications. Waste-
water applications are less numerous and less demonstrated.
III.6.11.4 Applications
Treatment of waste by distillation is not widespread, perhaps
because of the cost of the energy requirements. The only hazard-
ous waste materials that can be feasibly and practicably treated
are liquid organics, including organic solvents and halogenated
organics, which do not contain appreciable quantities of mate-
rials that would cause operational or equipment problems.
There are a number of manufacturers of chemicals and chemical
products who have always recovered solvent streams by distilla-
tion for internal reuse. There are independent operators and
companies that specialize in solvent or chemical reclamation by
distillation. Historically, distillable solvents have been re-
covered primarily as an economic consideration, but with imposi-
tion of more stringent government regulations for the disposal of
hazardous wastes and increases in the cost of petrochemicals, by-
product credits will become even more important. Thus, the re-
covery of organic solvents should become more prevalent. If by-
product credits offset the higher cost of distillation, vs the
cost of other recovery methods, distillation will become a more
competitive means of waste solvent recovery.
The solvent reclaiming industry pertains to those private contrac-
tors engaged in the reprocessing of organic solvents. In many
cases, these operations also include other means of reclamation
such as steam-stripping evaporation, filtration, etc.
Typical industrial wastes which can be handled by distillation
are listed below:
• Plating wastes containing an organic component - usually
the solvents are evaporated and the organic vapors distilled,
• Organic effluents from printed circuit boards are adsorbed
on activated carbon. Regeneration of the activated carbon
gives a liquid which is distillable for recovery of the
organic component.
• Phenol recovery from aqueous solutions is a major waste
treatment problem. The recovery process uses a polymeric
adsorber, which is regenerated using a vaporized organic
solvent. A complex distillation system is used to recover
both the regeneration solvent and the phenol.
Date: 8/16/79. III.6.11-3
-------
• Methylene chloride that contains contaminants is a disposal
problem, but it can be salvaged for industrial application
by distilling.
• Methylene chloride can be recovered from polyurethane waste.
• The separation of ethylbenzene from styrene and recovery of
both.
• Waste solvents for reuse in cleaning industrial equipment;
this is usually a mixture of acetone (ketones) (alcohols)
and some aromatics.
• Recovery of acetone from a waste stream that was created by
the regeneration of a carbon adsorption bed used to remove
acetone vapor from the offgas in plastic filter products.
,&
• The production of (penicillin) antibiotics results in the
generation of large quantities of wastes containing butyl
acetate. The waste is distilled, and a portion of the butyl
acetate can be recycled. The still bottoms, however, are
hazardous wastes, which contain 50% butyl acetate and 50%
dissolved organics (fats and protein). These are disposed
of by incineration.
• Waste motor oil from local service stations and from indus-
trial locations can be re-refined to produce regenerated
lube oil or fuel oil with the aid of distillation.
III.6.11.5 Limitations
Equipment and auxiliaries are usually comparatively large; they
can have heights up to 200 ft and cover large land areas.
The equipment is expensive, and capital recovery changes usually
constitute the major portion of solvent recovery cost.
Recovery is energy-intensive and is a close second to capital
recovery charges; energy requirements are nominally 250 to 1,200
Btu/lb of feed.
Application to feed is limited in that it will handle only liquid
solutions that are relatively "clean."
Equipment is often complex and requires operation by highly
skilled personnel.
III.6.11.6 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
Waste treatment by distillation creates no air or liquid effluent
problems that cannot be easily averted. Still bottoms may pre-
sent a waste disposal problem, because they sometimes contain
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.11-4
-------
considerable quantities of tars and sludges that are usually in-
cinerated. Vacuum distillation using steam or water eductors,
yields volatile impurities in the condensed steam or water used
to produce the vacuum. Disposal of this water is always a prob-
lem. Where disposal or treatment of this waste is a major prob-
lem, mechanical vacuum pumps might be considered as an alterna-
tive to the eductor.
III.6.11.7 Reliability
Process is highly reliable for proven applications and when prop-
erly operated and maintained.
III.6.11.8 Flow Diagram
FEED
ACCUMULATOR
PUMP
OVERHEAD PRODUCT
CONDENSATE
BOTTOMS
PRODUCT
Date: 8/16/79'
III.6.11-5
-------
III.6.11.9 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams.
Industries Wastestreams
.111.6.11.10 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1976. pp. 17-1 through
17-35.
Date: 8/16/79 III.6.11-6
-------
III.6.12 chlorination (Disinfection) [1]
III.6.12.1 Function
Chlorination is the most commonly used disinfection process; it is
especially used for the removal of pathogens and other disease
causing organisms.
III.6.12.2 Description
The chlorination process involves the addition of elemental chlo-
rine or hypochlorites to the wastewater. When chlorine is used,
it combines with water to form hypochlorous (HOCl) and hydro-
chloric (HC1) acids. Hydrolysis goes virtually to completion at
pH values and concentrations normally experienced in municipal
wastewater applications. Hypochlorous acid will ionize to
hypochlorite (OC1) ion, with the amount greatly affected by pH.
However, hypochlorous acid is the primary disinfectant in water.
In wastewater, the primary disinfectant species is monochloromine.
Therefore, the tendency of hypochlorous acid to dissociate to
hypochlorite ion should be discouraged by maintaining a pH below
7.5.
The amount of chlorine added is determined by cylinder weight loss.
Chlorine demand is determined by the difference between the chlo-
rine added and the measured residual concentration after a certain
period has passed from the time of addition; this is usually
15-30 minutes. The chlorine or hypochlorite is rapidly mixed with
the wastewater, after which it passes through a detention tank,
which normally contains baffled zones to prevent short circuiting
of wastewater.
III.6.12.3 Common Modifications
Chlorine or hypochlorite salts can be used. The two most common
hypochlorite salts are calcium and sodium hypochlorite. Dechlori-
nation may be used; this generally involves the addition of sulfur
dioxide, aeration, or even activated carbon, when chlorine resi-
dual standards are strict.
III.6.12.4 Technology Status
Chlorination of water supplies on an emergency basis has been
practiced since about 1850. Presently, chlorination of both
water supplies and wastewaters is an extremely wide-spread
practice.
III.6.12.5 Applications
Used to prevent the spread of wasteborne diseases and to control
algae growth and odors.
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.12-1
-------
III.6.12.6 Limitations
May cause the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons, some of
which are known to be carcinogenic compounds. The effectiveness
of chlorination is greatly dependent on pH and temperature of the
wastewater. Chlorine gas is a hazardous material, and requires
sophisticated handling procedures. Chlorine will react with cer-
tain chemicals in the wastewater, leaving only the residual
amounts of chlorine for disinfection. Chlorine will oxidize
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, as well as metals present in their
reduced states.
III.6.12.7 Chemicals Required
Chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, or calcium hypochlorite.
III.6.12.8 Design Criteria
Generally a contact period of 15 to 30 minutes at peak flow is
required. Detention tanks should be designed to prevent short
circuiting; this usually involves the use of baffling. Baffles
can either be the over-and-under or the end-around varieties.
Residuals of at least 0.5 mg/L are generally required. The
following table presents typical dosages for disinfection:
Dosage range,
Effluent from mg/L
Untreated wastewater (prechlorination) 6 to 25
Primary sedimentation 5 to 20
Chemical-precipitation plant 3 to 10
Trickling-filter plant 3 to 10
Activated-sludge plant 2 to 8
Multimedia filter following activated-sludge plant 1 to 5
III.6.12.9 Reliability
Process is extremely reliable.
III.6.12.10 Environmental Impact
Can cause the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons; chlorine gas
may be released to the atmosphere; relatively small land
requirements.
Date: 8/30/79 • III.6.12-2
-------
III.6.12.11 Flow Diagram
CHLORINATOR
CHLORINE GAS
SOLUTION WATER
EDUCTOR
INFLUENT
MIXING TANK
(OPTIONAL)
CHLORINE
EFFLUENT
CONTACT TANK
III.6.12.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data from studies on
the following industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries
Wastestreams
III.6.12.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.12-3
-------
III.6.13 DECHLORINATION [1]
III.6.13.1 Function
Dechlorination is used to remove free and combined chlorine.
III.6.13.2 Description
Since about 1970, much attention has been focused on the toxic
effects of chlorinated effluents. Both free chlorine and chlor-
amine residuals are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Dechlorination involves the addition of sulfur dioxide to waste-
water, whereby the following reactions occur:
S02 + HOCl + H20 = S04+2 + Cl~ + 3H+ (For free chlorine) (1)
SO2 + NH2C1 + 2H2O = SOu+2 + Cl~ + 2H+ + NHa+ (For combined chlorine) (2)
As noted, small amounts of sulfuric and hydrochloric acids are
formed; however, they are generally neutralized by the buffering
capacity of the wastewater. Dechlorination can also be used in
conjunction with superchlorination. Because superchlorination
involves the addition of excess chlorine, dechlorination is re-
quired to eliminate this residual. Sulfur dioxide, the most
common chemical used for dechlorination, is fed as a gas, using
the same equipment as chlorine systems. Because the reaction of
sulfur dioxide with free or combined chlorine is practically in-
stantaneous, the design of contact systems is less critical than
that of chlorine contact systems. Detention of less than 5
minutes is quite adequate, and in-line feed arrangements may also
be acceptable under certain conditions.
III.6.13.3 Common Modifications
Metabisulfite, bisulfite, or sulfite salts can be used, as can
automatic or manually fed systems. If chlorine is used at the
site, sulfur dioxide is preferred, because identical equipment
can be used for the addition of both chemicals. Alternative de-
chlorination systems include activated carbon, H202, and ponds
(sunlight and aeration).
III.6.13.4 Technology Status
The technology of dechlorination with sulfur dioxide is estab-
lished but is not in widespread use. A few plants in California
and at least one in New York are known to be practicing effluent
dechlorination with S02 on either a continuous or intermittant
basis.
Date: 8/23/79 . III.6.13-1
-------
III.6.13.5 Applications
Dechlorination can be used whenever a chlorine residual is unde-
sirable. This usually occurs when the receiving water contains
aquatic life sensitive to free chlorine. Dechlorination is
generally required when superchlorination is practiced or strin-
gent effluent chlorine residuals are dictated.
III.6.13.6 Limitations
The process will not destroy chlorinated hydrocarbons already
formed in the wastewater. It has been reported that about 1 per-
cent of the chlorine ends up in a variety of stable organic
compounds.
III.6.13.7 Chemicals Required
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfite salts are the most common chemi-
cals used; sodium metabisulfite (Na2S2O5) can also be used, but
is much less common; infact, any reducing agent can be considered,
depending on cost and availability.
III.6.13.8 Reliability
Sulfur dioxide addition for dechlorination purposes is reasonably
reliable from a mechanical standpoint; the greatest problems are
experienced with analytical control which may lower the process
reliability.
III.6.13.9 Environmental Impact
Requires very little use of land, and no residuals are generated;
is used to eliminate the environmental impact of chlorine resid-
uals; overdosing can result in low pH and low DO effluents,
however.
III.6.13.10 Design Criteria
Contact time:
Sulfur dioxide feed rate:
Sodium sulfite feed rate:
Sodium bisulfite feed rate:
Sodium thiosulfate feed rate:
1 to 5 min
1.1 Ib/lb residual chlorine
0.57 Ib/lb chlorine
0.68 Ib/lb chlorine
1.43 Ib/lb chlorine
Date: 8/23/79
III.6.13-2
-------
III.6.13.11 Flow Diagram
SULFONATOR
SO, GAS
MIXING CONTACT TANK
III.6.13.12 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data on the following
industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries
Wastestreams
III.6.13.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 8/23/79.
III.6.13-3
-------
III.6.14 OZONATION [1]
III.6.14.1 Function
Ozonation is the process of oxidizing organics using ozone
. III.6.14.2 Description
Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, as illuatrated by the follow-
ing redox potentials:
O3 + 2H+ + 2e~ > 02 + H2O E0 = 2.07v (1)
MnOu~ + 4H+ + 3e~ —*• Mn02 + 2H2O E0 = 1.70v (2)
1/2 C12 + e~ >• Cl~ E0 = 1.36v (3)
Ozone is sufficiently strong to break many carbon-carbon bonds and
even to cleave aromatic ring systems (e.g., conversion of phenol
to three molecules of oxalic acid). Complete oxidation of an or-
ganic species to C02, H20, etc., is not improbable if ozone dosage
is sufficiently high.
In reports of ozonation reactions on processes, ozone dosage is
commonly expressed in two ways: ppm of ozone, and pounds of ozone
per pound of stream contaminant treated. The ozone dosage in ppm
ozone is obtained by multiplying the flow rate of ozonized gas by
the concentration of ozone in the gas and dividing by the flow
rate of the waste stream. In disinfection applications, ozone
doses of <4 ppm are typical for secondary treated streams. In
industrial waste treatment applications, it is more usual to
supply ozone at 10, 20, or 40 ppm. In the second measure of ozone
dosage, the weight ratio of ozone to contaminant treated is ob-
tained from the ppm ozone applied, the residence time of the waste
stream in the ozone contact chamber, and the concentrations of
contaminant in the influent and effluent streams. The ratio can
vary from less than one (0.33 parts ozone per part of cyanide
under optimum conditions) to very large values (approximately
80 parts ozone per part of phenol for very low concentrations of
phenol). In most applications, the amount of ozone applied is
1.5 to 3 pounds of ozone per pound of contaminant removed.
The two measures of ozone dosage are clearly not entirely inde-
pendent. However, it should be noted that 4 hours of treatment
at 10 ppm ozone will not, a priori/ produce the same result as
1 hour of treatment of 40 ppm ozone. The optimum combination of
instantaneous ozone dose (ppm) and contact time must be determined
for each case.
The extent of oxidation obtained will increase as either the
weight ratio or the instantaneous dose is increased, up to certain
limits defined by the fundamental chemistry of the ozonation
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.14-1
-------
reaction(s). However, there are practical and economic con-
straints on the amount of ozone that can actually be applied.
Ozone is generally produced at a concentration of about 1% by
weight in air (2% maximum) or 2 to 3% by weight in oxygen (6%
maximum). This corresponds to 650 ft3 of air, or to 325 ft3 of
oxygen, per pound of ozone delivered. To produce an instantaneous
. dose of 40 ppm 03 in a waste stream, one would have to supply
208 ft3 of ozonized air per 1,000 gallons (133 ft3) of waste.
This would require very efficient mixing indeed to achieve effec-
tive mass transfer. With a Venturi mixer, for example, the maxi-
mum ozone dose obtainable from ozonized air is 15 ppm. These
calculations indicate why there is intense interest in design and
development of more efficient ozone delivery systems.
Ozone is more soluble and more stable in acidic than in basic
solutions. However, the rate of most ozonation reactions is rela-
tively insensitive to pH, and it is rarely worthwhile to adjust pH
prior to ozonation. The cost of the neutralization process will
frequently offset any gains in ozonation efficiency. One excep-
tion to this generalization is cyanide ozonation. The cyanate
formed initially hydrolyzes more rapidly in alkaline media. If
complete conversion of cyanide to C02 is required, acidic streams
should be adjusted to a pH of about 9 before ozonation. (Ammonia
ozonation is also more effective in alkaline solution, but ozon-
ation is unlikely to be the treatment method of choice for this
species.)
III.6.14.3 Technology Status
Technology for large-scale ozone application is well developed.
Applications to industrial wastes are not numerous, but feasi-
bility has been demonstrated for cyanides and for phenols. Labo-
ratory and pilot studies have demonstrated potential for ozone
treatment of other oxidizable hazardous species including chlo-
rinated hydrocarbons polynuclear aromatics, and pesticides.
III.6.14.4 Applications
Ozone treatment has been used in Europe and elsewhere in large-
scale installations for years, for disinfection of water supplies.
Over 500 such installations are in use worldwide. Within the past
few years, there have been a number of pilot- and full-scale ap-
plications of ozone to treatment of municipal sewage plant efflu-
ents in the United States. The following are some selected ex-
amples of application of ozone to hazardous waste problems:
Liquid Effluents: Cyanide
• At an installation in Kansas, 350 Ib/day of ozone are used to
treat effluent containing cyanides, sulfides, sulfites, and
other hazardous components; this ozonation follows biological
waste treatment.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.14-2
-------
we know of no attempts to do so. Of course, the waste would still
be subject to the restriction of low levels of oxidizable materi-
al. (It should be noted that the ozonized air produced by modern
generators is at low pressure (approximately 8 psi) and would not
suffice to fluidize the waste.)
III.6.14.6 Typical Equipment
Ozone is produced by the facile reaction of oxygen molecules with
oxygen atoms that are produced from oxygen by the action of ultra-
violet light or an electric discharge. The photochemical produc-
tion of ozone is important in stratospheric chemistry, but commer-
cial ozone generators are all of the electric-discharge type.
In an electric-discharge ozone generator, an oxygen-containing gas
is passed between two electrodes, coated with a dielectric materi-
al such as borosilicate glass. A high voltage (5 to 20 kilovolts)
ac (50 to 10,000 Hz) potential is maintained across the elec-
trodes. Generator output is varied according to signals from con-
trol instrumentation, by modulating voltage or frequency. The
dielectric material provides a uniform-glow discharge across the
electrode gap, preventing an arc discharge. The geometry of the
electrode system is variable; electrodes may be tubular or flat
and may be mounted either horizontally or vertically. Tubular
generators are used for most high capacity systems, although one
manufacturer uses a Lowther Plate type for all sizes of generator.
Materials that come in contact with ozone must be corrosion-
resistant; stainless steel, unplasticized PVC, aluminum, Teflon
and chromium-plated brass or bronze are all suitable.
Ozone production is inherently inefficient; about 10% of the ac
energy supplied is used in formation of ozone. In order to maxi-
mize effiency, the oxygen-containing gas must be free of dust and
organic matter and must be dry (dew point -50^C) because water
accelerates the decomposition of ozone. Ozone is also thermally
unstable; hence, provision must be made for air or water cooling
of the high voltage electrodes. This requires about 1/3 gpm of
cooling water at 21%C per Ib O3/d.
Most efficient ozone production is obtained when oxygen is used as
the feed gas to the ozonizer, and such feed may be required for
some hazardous waste treatment. With air as feed gas, output of
ozone is about two times lower in quantity and concentration;
maximum yields from air are about 25 g/m3 or 2% by weight. Choice
of oxygen, air, or some intermediate oxygen concentration for the
feed gas will depend on economic factors. Oxygen is a viable
choice only for fairly large-scale systems (>0.5 mgd) or those
where inexpensive oxygen is already available (steel mills, for
example, and some biological treatment plants). The availability
of pressure-swing oxygen enrichment systems may make oxygen feed
more practical in the future.
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.14-4
-------
Venturi mixers and porous diffusers are the two ozone/water mixing
systems in most widespread use. With the Venturi mixer, ozonized
gas and waste flow cocurrently, and ozonized gas flow is limited
to 30 to 60% of the liquid volume flow. In a porous diffuser
system, a countercurrent flow is usual, and gas flow may be up to
twenty times the liquid flow.
In some systems the contact column is a packed bed. This in-
creases surface area and increases the rate of mass transfer of
ozone into solution. One equipment manufacturer, Til Ecology,
has been using ultrasonics in conjunction with ozonation; this
also increases surface area. Depending on the extent of treatment
required, it may be necessary to incorporate two or more contact
stages, which may be of different types. Where oxygen is used as
a feed gas to the ozonizer, it is usual to recycle the effluent
from the contact chamber.
Modern ozone systems are completely automated. An ozone monitor
provides continuous on-line monitoring of the ozone concentration
in the gaseous effluent from the contactor. If the concentration
of ozone exceeds a preset level, usually 0.05 ppm, the voltage or
frequency of the ozone generator is reduced. Depending on the
characteristics of the waste, the system may also include on-line
monitoring for hazardous species concentration in the liquid ef-
fluent. When appropriate instruments exist, the output signals
may feed back to the ozonator to increase ozone dosage as neces-
sary. The system also includes automatic shutoff provisions in
the event of loss of ozonator coolant. Finally, an ambient air
ozone monitor is used to sound an alarm and shut off power to the
ozonator in the event of gross leaks of ozonized air.
III.6.14.7 Reliability
Reliability of this process is dependent on the application.
III.6.14.8 Residuals Generated/Environmental Impact
One advantage of ozonation is that the process leaves no inherent
harmful residue. In aqueous "ozone demand free" solution, ozone
decomposes to oxygen with a half-life of 20 to 30 minutes. For
aqueous streams, the residual oxygen produced by ozone decomposi-
tion may be considered a beneficial residue. Ozone lifetime in a
gaseous stream is somewhat longer, but in practice, stack efflu-
ents from gas ozonation processes are easily controlled to
<0.04 ppm of ozone.
Whether products of incomplete oxidation constitute an environ-
mental hazard must be assessed for each waste stream. In a number
of cases, it has been found that these products are less toxic and
more biodegradable than the original waste components.
Date: 8/30/79 ' III.6.14-5
-------
One of the advantages of ozonation systems over competitive proc-
esses is that they are relatively compact. This is partly due to
the fairly short detention time required in the ozone contact
chamber. This feature can be particularly attractive when a
treatment process is to be installed in a pre-existing facility.
Ozone is recognized to be a toxic substance. The OSHA Threshold
Limit Value (which represents an airborne concentration to which
it is believed that nearly all workers can be exposed day after
day without adverse effect) is 0.1 ppm of ozone. The odor of
ozone is distinctive and serves as an effective warning signal at
levels well below the toxic level; the threshold odor level is
0.01 to 0.02 ppm. Furthermore, all ozonation systems are equipped
with monitors to detect ozone in gaseous effluents; the monitors
reduce power to the ozone generator if effluent levels exceed
0.05 ppm of ozone. Since ozone is generated at the same rate as
it is applied to the waste and at low pressure «15 psi), the risk
of exposure to high ozone levels is extremely small.
III.6.14.9 Flow Diagram
1 AIR INLET
2 ROTARY AIR COMPRESSOR
3 AIR COOLER
4 REFRIGERATOR
5 AIR DRIER
6 AIR FLOW MEASUREMENT
7 OZONISER
8 H.T. TRANSFORMER
9 OZONISED-AIR MEASUREMENT
10 POROUS DIFFUSERS
11 INLET OZONISED-AIR-WATER
EMULSIFICATION TANK
12 OUTLET OZONIZED-AIR-WATER
EMULSIFICATION
13 AIR RETURN TO ATMOSPHERE
14 COOLING WATER SUPPLY
15 COOLING WATER DISCHARGE
Date: 8/30/79 .
III.6.14-6
-------
III.6.14.10 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data on the following
industries and/or wastestreams:
Adhesives and sealants production
Electroplating
Ore mining and dressing
Gold mining/milling
Organic chemicals production
Ethylene dichloride
Ethylene glycol
Toluene diisocyanate
Textile milling
Knit fabric finishing
Wool scouring
Woven fabric finishing
III.6.14.11 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1976. pp. 36-1 through
36-28.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.14-7
-------
o
0)
rt
ro
\
u>
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY FOR OZONATION
H
H
H
•
CT>
I
CO
Pollutant
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BODs
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Total phosphorous
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Toluene
Anthr acene/phenanthrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
1 , 2-Trane-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Number of
data points
4
4
33
4
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
18
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Effluent concentration
Minimum
4.9
17
15
3
4
0.013
1.1
25
4
250
6.3
89
<2
<22
66
16
90
90
<0.03
2.7
0.9
<0.01
<0.02
<0.02
0.1
0.1
2.1
15
0.9
Maximum
5,190
12,000
2,840
140
4
0.13
1.1
1,200
43
250
6.3
590
16,000
<22
5,000
1,300
460
110
<0.03
2.7
1.2
0.4
<0.02
<0.02
0.1
0.1
2.1
61
0.9
Median
330
212
540
14
4
0.021
1.1
610
. 23
250
6.3
340
190
<22
2,500
650
240
100
<0.03
2.7
1
0.2
<0.02
<0.02
0.1
0.1
2.1
38
0.9
Mean
1,460
3,130
680
43
4
0.055
1.1
610
23
250
6.3
340
2,100
<22
2,500
650
260
100
<0.03
2.7
1
0.2
<0.02
<0.02
0.1
0.1
2.1
38
0.9
Removal efficiency, %
Minimum
a
oa
0
oa
97a
Oa
0
a
oa
oa
°a
°a
°a
Oa
>29
°a
°a
°a
Oa
>97
77
0
oa
>90
>80
50
67
oa
Oa
Maximum
10
92
50
33
97
>99
0
a
oa
48
0
°a
Oa
99
>29
°a
oa
96a
Oa
>97
77
31
>97
>90
>80
50
67a
°a
°a
0
Median
a
oa
50
9
15
97
24
0
a
0
24a
°a
°a
oa
93
>29
°a
°a
°a
Oa
>97
77
15
48
>90
>80
50
6?a
0
0
0
Mean
2.5
48
10
16
97
41
0
Oa
24a
°a
°a
Oa
81
>29
°a
Oa
32a
Oa
>97
77
15
48
>90
>80
50
67a
0
0
0
Actual data indicate negative removal.
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: D
References: A6, p. VII-52
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, neutralization, activated sludge, multi-
media filtration, granular activated carbon
adsorption
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Contactor - 2.0 m (77 in.); 1.58 m3 (416 gal) column
Generator - PCI Ozone Corporation Model C2P-3C
(continuous operation)
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate: 6 g/hr (capacity with pure oxygen feed)
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization: 427 mg/L
Contact time:
Power consumption:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
13
422
101
23
47
349
106
16
0
17
oa
30
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.14-9
-------
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Gold mine/mill
Plant: 4105
References: A2, p. VI-29
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Clarifier
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate: 18 kg/d (40 Ib/d)
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization:
Contact time: 25 min
Power consumption:
Flow rate: 3.2 m3 (850 gpm) (design); 2.4 m3 (625 gpm) (actual)
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
900
<20
>97
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.14-10
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Gold mill
Plant: 4105
References: A2, p. VI-58
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Carbon adsorption
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Air feed to ozone generator
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate:
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization:
Contact time:
Power consumption:
Ozone feed rate: 3 g/hr
Flow rate: 4.9 or 9.5 L/min
REMOVAL DATA
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Sampling period: 10 min composite
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Flow, L/min Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide 4.9
Cyanide 9.5
160
160
40
120
75
30
Average of 2 tests.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.14-11
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines and
Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Wool scouring
Plant: A, W (different references)
References: A6, p. VII-55; B3, pp. 50-54
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Grit removal, sedimentation, multimedia filtration,
activated sludge
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Contactor - 2.0 m (77 in.); 1.58 m3 (416 gal) column
Generator - PCI Ozone Corporation Model C2P-3C
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate: 6 g/hr (capacity with pure oxygen feed)
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization:
Contact time:
Power consumption:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite, volatile organics were
qrab sampled
Concentration
Percent
Pollutant/parameter
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
Total phenol
0.017
0.013
24
Toxic pollutants, pg/L:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Toluene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methylene chloride
<200
83
<40
120
260
<700
<100
400
14
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
4.8
1,200
43
250
590
<4
5,000
1,300
460
110
1.2
0.4
<0.02
<0.02
0.1
0.1
61
a
0
48
oa
oa
>98
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
>90
>80
50
67
Oa
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.14-12
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Woven fabric finishing
Plant: V
References: B3, pp. 70-75
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, activated sludge, multimedia filtration
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Contactor - 2.0 m (77 in.); 1.58 m3 (416 gal) contactor
Generator - PCI Ozone Corporation Model C2P-3C
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate: 6 g/hr (capacity with pure oxygen feed)
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization:
Contact time:
Power consumption:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: 24-hr composite,
grab-sampled
volatile
organics
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter Influent
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
COD
TSS
Total phenol 0
Total phosphorus
Toxic pollutants, yg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Toluene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
1, 2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chlorideb
Trichloroethylene
72
4
.013
1.1
<10
4
<4
75
3
31
<36
<5
190
16
0.9
12
1.3
0.3
<2.0
13
0.4
Effluent
76
12
0.021
1.1
25
4
6.3
89
<2
<22
66
16
240
90
<0.03
2.7
0.9
<0.01
2.1
15
0.9
were
Percent
removal
a
0
°°
0
0
a
oa
0
oa
oa
>33
>29
oa
°a
0
oa
>97
77
31
>97
oa
oa
oa
aActual data indicate negative removal.
Presence may be due to sample contamination.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.14-13
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)a
Data source: Government report Data source status:
Point source category: Adhesives and sealants Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Bench scale
Plant: San Leandro Pilot scale
References: BIO, p. 81 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Settling, ultrafiltration
Using one catalyst.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate:
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization:
Contact time:
Power consumption:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Equal volume grab samples collected
throughout an 8-hr day
Concentration
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants, mg/L:
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil and grease
Total phenol
Toxic pollutants, ug/L:
Cyanide
Zinc
Influent
5,780
76,700
64
140
47
560
2,200
Effluent
5,190
12,100
140
4.0
0.13
1,500
90
Percent
removal
10
84
oa
97
>99
oa
96
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.14-14
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines Data source status:
Point source category: Ore Mining and dressing Engineering estimate
Subcategory: Gold mill Bench scale
Plant: 4105 Pilot scale x
References: A2, p. VI-58 Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Carbon adsorption
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration:
Wastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate:
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization:
Contact time:
Power consumption:
Flow rate: 9.5 L/min
Ozone feed rate: 3 g/hr
Catalyst: Copper
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period: Both 10 minutes and 20 minutes composite
58 samples were taken
Form of Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Catalyst Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide^ Ion 355 20 94
Cyanide Wire 163 18 89
Average of two tests.
Average of nine tests.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79 III.6.14-15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Chemical Oxidation (Ozone)
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Textile mills
Subcategory: Knit fabric finishing
Plant: Q
References: A6, pp. VII-53, 54
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent:
Screening, equalization, activated sludge, multi-
media filtration
DESIGN OR OPEPATING PARAMETERS
Unit configuration: Contactor - 2.0 m (77 in.); 1.58 m3 (416 gal) column
Generator - PCI Ozone Corporation Model C2P-3C
(Batch operation)
Kastewater flow:
Air/oxygen consumption:
Ozone generation rate: 6 g/hr (capacity with pure oxygen feed)
Ozone concentration (in air/oxygen):
Ozone utilization: 1,130-1,500 mg/L
Contact time:
Power consumption:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Concentration, mg/L
Pollutant/parameter
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Influent
4.2
206
22
4.5
Effluent
4.9
17
15
3
Percent
removal
a
0
92
32
33
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.14-16
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Effluent Guidelines
Point source category: Ore mining and dressing
Subcategory: Gold mill
Plant: 4105
References: A2, p. VI-58
Use in system: Tertiary
Pretreatment of influent: Carbon adsorption
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
PH:
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Flow rate: 4.9 L/min
Ozone feed rate: 6 g/hr
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration: Pure 62 feed to 03 generator
Mole ratio:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period; average of two grab samples
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
195
95
51
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-17
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category:a Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 159
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
aWastewater from a toluene diisocyanate process used in the manufacture of
polyurethane.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS (also see removal data)
pH:
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration: Tubular reactor, dispersion of the gas and liquid was
achieved with a nozzle.
Mole ratio:
Liquid flow: 1.75 L/min
The tubular reactor was eventually abandoned because of the inefficiency of
mixing the gas and liquid.
TOC REMOVAL DATA
11
11
11
11
11
11
a
a
a
8
i
i
i
i
6
6
3.54
3.54
6.04
6.04
a.o
8.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Influent TOC
Residence time, nin Mole ratio™ concentration, mq/L
1.8
3.7
1.3
2.6
1.0
2.0
1.7
3.4
1.0
2.0
1.7
3.4
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.059
0.059
0.120
0.102
0.127
0.127
0.064
0.064
0.127
0.127
0.068
0.068
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
560
560
560
560
S60
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
Effluent TOC
Percent
concentration, mg/L removal
586
561
528
549
520
512
491
544
491
4S1
538
530
527
541
663
538
°D
0D
6
2
6
9
12
3
12
14
4
5
6
2b
0
5
*Mole ratio (Ozone to IDA) is calculated on the basis of the TOC being pure IDA.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-18
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 160
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Wastewater from a toluene diisocyanate process used in the manufacture of
polyurethane.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS (also see removal data)
PH:
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration: Tubular reactor with static mixers3
Mole ratio:
Liquid flow: 1.5 L/min
Tubular reactors were eventually abandoned because of the inefficiency of
mixing the gas and liquid.
TOC REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
pH Gas flow, L/min
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
a
a
6
10
10
24
24
26
26
10
10
20
20
Residence time, mi
1.5
3.0
1.0
2.0
0.7
1.4
1.5
3.0
0.8
1.6
n Mole ratio* c
0.176
0.176
0.424
0.424
0.451
0.459
0.22
0.200
0.396
0.396
Influent TOC
:oncentration, mg/L
1.070
1,070
1,070
1,070
1,070
1,070
1,070
1,070
1,070
1,070
Effluent TOC
Percent
concentration, mg/L removal
970
938
965
933
965
965
1,120
1,050
946
1,030
9
12
10
13
10
10w
ob
2
10
4
Mole ratio (Ozone to TOA) calculated on the basis of the TOC being pure TOA.
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-19
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 163
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Polyol wastewater was taken from an ethylene glycol process plant.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: >10
Ozonation time: 180 min
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation: 7.3 mg Oa/mg TOC
Gas feed rate: 11.5 L/min
Ozone, wt. % of feed: 1.0-1.2 wt. %
Turbine speed: 700 rpm
Unit configuration: Stirred tank reactor
Mole ratio:
A guide TOC reduction is achieved until a refractory compound is produced to
slow down the reaction rate.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOCa
100
50
50
Represents an average concentration.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-20
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:3
References: B2, p. 163
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Polyol wastewater was taken from an ethylene glycol process plant.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: >10
Ozonation time: 330 min
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation: 7.3 mgOa/mg TOC
Gas feed rate: 11.5 L/min
Ozone, wt. % of feed: 1.0-1.2 wt. %
Turbine speed: 700 rpm
Unit configuration: Stirred tank reactor
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
BODs 93.1 614
TOC 830 626
0
25
Actual data indicate negative removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-21
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 166
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Air stripping
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
Wastewater from an ethylene dichloride process.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH:
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation: 5.6 mg Os/mg TOC
Gas feed rate: 11.5 L/min
Ozone, wt. % of feed: 1.0-1.2 wt. %
Turbine speed: 700 rpm
Unit configuration: Stirred tank reactor
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
409
286
30
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-22
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category:a Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 169
Use in system: Secondary
Pretreatment of influent:
Steam stripping
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
Wastewater from an ethylene dichloride process.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH:
Ozonation time: 180 min
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio:
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC
400
<100
>25
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-23
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category:3 Organic chemicals
Subcategory:
Plant:
References: B2, p. 160
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale x
Full scale
aWastewater from an toluene diisocyanate process used in the manufacture of
polyurethane.
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: <3
Ozonation time: 360 min
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation: 7.0 mg Oa/mg TOC
Gas feed rate: 11.5 L/min
Ozone, wt. % of feed: 1.0-1.2 wt. %
Turbine speed: 700 rpm
Unit configuration: Stirred tank reactor
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period:
Pollutant/parameter
Concentration, mg/L Percent
Influent Effluent removal
Conventional pollutants:
TOC 3,360
2,840
16
Calculated from influent and % removal.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-24
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 29
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: 5.4-9.6
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN): 0.58-43.0
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, ug/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
74,000
16,000
78
Average of seven samples.
Cyanide present as NaCN.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-25
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 17
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: 7.0-8.0
Ozone concentration: 29.7-35.2 mg/L
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN): 1.05-1.48
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,a yg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide13
14,000
80
99
Average of two samples.
Cyanide is present as
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III..6.14-26
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 20
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: 7.0-12.9
Ozone concentration: 23.8-254 mg/L
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN): 1.5-12.2
Operating under upset conditions.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide1?
18,000
690
96
Average of eight samples.
Cyanide is present as
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-27
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 21
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: 8.0-9.1
Ozone concentration: 46.0-50.5 mg/L
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN): 0.35
Operating at less than stochiometric ozone discharge.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,5 pg/LPercent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
75,000
10,000
86
Average of four samples.
Cyanide is present as Na3Cu(CN)<*.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-28
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 22
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: 7.0-10.0
Ozone concentration: 29.7-194.8 mg/L
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN): 1.05-3.64
Operating with small excess of ozone.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
41,000
280
99
Average of five samples.
Cyanide is present as
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-29
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 23
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
a
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
pH: 7.9-11.9
Ozone concentration: 64.4-143.3 mg/L
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (Oa/CN"): 2.0-6.6
Operating with excess ozone.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide
24,000
600
97
Average of sixteen samples.
Cyanide is present as
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
111.6.14-30
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 24
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH (feed to reactor): 7.5-12.6
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN~): 1.05-11.37
Operating at low cyanide concentrations.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
-a-
Concentration, yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanideb
9,200
63
99
Average of five samples.
DCyanide is present as Na3Cu(CN)u.
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-31
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 25
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH: 9.5-11.9
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN~): 2.01-3.64
Operating with intermediate concentrations of copper cyanide.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 yg/L
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent
Percent
removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide*5
34,000
410
99
Average of five samples.
Cyanide present as
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/^5/79
III.6.14-32
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 25
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH (feed to reactor): 9.4-11.0
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN-): 0.35-1.33
Operating with high concentrations of copper cyanide.
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,a yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide*3
69,000
6,000
91
Average of two samples.
Cyanide is present as Na3Cu(CN)u-
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: .11/15/79
III.6.14-33
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY: Ozonation
Data source: Government report
Point source category: Electroplating
Subcategory:
Plant: Sealectro Corp.
References: B8, p. 26
Use in system: Primary
Pretreatment of influent:
Data source status:
Engineering estimate
Bench scale
Pilot scale
Full scale
None
DESIGN OR OPERATING PARAMETERS
pH (feed to reactor): 7.7-11.9
Ozonation time:
Weight ratio required for complete oxidation:
Gas feed rate:
Ozone, wt. % of feed:
Turbine speed:
Unit configuration:
Mole ratio (03/CN-): 0.35-2.7
REMOVAL DATA
Sampling period;
Concentration,3 yg/L Percent
Pollutant/parameter Influent Effluent removal
Toxic pollutants:
Cyanide'3
38,000
1,900
95
Average of seven samples.
DCyanide is present as
Note: Blanks indicate information was not specified.
Date: 11/15/79
III.6.14-34
-------
III.6.15 CHEMICALS REDUCTION [1]
III.6.15.1 Function
Chemical reduction is used to reduce metals to less toxic oxida-
tion states.
III.6.15.2 Description
Reduction-oxidation, or "Redox" reactions are those in which the
oxidation state of at least one reactant is raised while that of
another is lowered. In the reaction
2H2CrO<* * 3S02 + 3H20 -Cr2 (SOa) 3 + 5H20 (1)
the oxidation state of Cr changes from 6+ to 3+ (Cr is reduced);
the oxidation state of S increased from 2+ to 3+ (S is oxidized).
This change of oxidation state implies that an electron was trans-
ferred from S to Cr(VI). The decrease in the positive valence
(or increase in the negative valence) with reduction takes place
simultaneously with oxidation in chemically equivalent ratios.
Reduction is used to treat wastes in such a way that the reducing
agent lowers the oxidation state of a substance in order to re-
duce its toxicity, reduce its solubility, or transform it into a
form that can be more easily handled.
The base metals are good reducing agents, as evidenced by the use
of iron, aluminum, zinc, and sodium compounds for reduction treat-
ments. In addition, sulfur compounds also appear among the more
common reducing agents.
Liquids are the primary waste form treatable by chemical reduc-
tion. The most powerful reductants are relatively nonselective;
therefore, any easily reducible material in the waste stream will
be treated. For example, in reducing heavy metals to remove them
from a waste oil, quantities of esters large enough to cause odor
problems may also be formed by the reduction.
Gases such as chlorine dioxide and chlorine have been treated by
reducing solutions for the small-scale disposal of gas in labora-
tories. For reduction of fluorine, instead of a solution, a
scrubber filled with solid bicarbonate, soda lime or granulated
carbon is recommended. Reduction has limited application to
slurries, tars, and sludges, because of the difficulties of
achieving intimate contact between the reducing agend and the
hazardous constituent; consequently the reduction process would
be very inefficient.
In general, hazardous materials occurring as powders or other
solids usually have to be solubilized prior to chemical reduction.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.15-1
-------
The first step of the chemical reduction process is usually the
adjustment of the pH of the solution to be treated. With sulfur
dioxide treatment of chromium (VI), for instance, the reaction
requires a pH in the range of 2 to 3. The pH adjustment is done
with the appropriate acid (e.g., sulfuric). This is followed by
addition of the reducing agent. Mixing is provided to improve
contact between the reducing agent and the waste. The agent can
be in the form of a gas (sulfur dioxide) or solution (sodium
borohydride) or perhaps finely divided power if there is adequate
mixing. Reaction times vary for different wastes, reducing
agents, temperatures, pH, and concentration. For commercial-
scale operations for treating chromium wastes, reaction times are
in the order of minutes. Additional time is usually allowed to
ensure complete mixing and reduction. Once reacted, the reduced
solution is generally subjected to some form of treatment to
settle or precipitate the reduced material. A treatment for the
removal of what remains of the reducing agent may be included.
This can be unused reducing agent or the reducing agent in its
oxidized state. Unused alkali metal hydrides are decomposed by
the addition of a small quantity of acid. The pH of the reaction
medium is typically increased so that the reduced material will
precipitate out of solution. Filters or clarifiers are often
used to improve separation.
While some stream components may be added or removed, the outputs
steam from a chemical reduction treatment is not very different
from the input stream. Reducing agents, such as sodium borohy-
ride and zinc, introduce to the reaction mixture ions that are
not easily separable from the product streams. The effluent
solution is typically acidic and must be neutralized prior to
discharge with materials such as hydrated lime, caustic soda, or
soda ash.
III.6.15.3 Technology Status
Technology for large-scale application of chemical reduction is
well developed.
III.6.15.4 Applications
The following paragraphs describe some selected examples of the
application of chemical reduction to hazardous waste management
problems.
• Reduction of Chromium (VI) to Chromium (III) in Effluents
Numerous plating and metal finishing plants treat their chromium
(VI) wastes using chemical reduction methods. Cyanides and
chromium are often present together in plating industry wastes.
The concentrations of these substances and their potential re-
covery value influence the selection of the treatment process.
If the cyanide and chromium are not economically recoverable by a
Date: 8/30/79 . III.6.15-2
-------
method such as ion exchange, the cyanide radical is first de-
stroyed or converted to the less toxic cyanate by oxidation,
and the chromium (VI) is converted, by subsequent reduction, to
chromium (III) , which precipitates and is removed as a sludge.
Hexavalent chromium can be reduced to chromium (III) by a variety
of reducing agents including sulfur dioxide, sulfite salts, and
ferrous sulfate. In industry, sulfur dioxide is the most widely
used reducing agent for this purpose. Because soluble chromium
(III) compounds are themselves toxic, chromium reduction processes
are usually followed by a precipitation operation in which the
chromium (III) is precipitated as Cr(OH)3 with either lime or
sodium carbonate. In the tanning and plating industries, sludges
containing from 10 to 80% solids obtained from prior concentra-
tion of chromates are often redissolved by acidification and then
subjected to reduction followed by precipitation to obtain the
chromium in an insoluble, concentrated form.
• Reduction Using Sulfur Dioxide
In the chromium waste treatment using sulfur dioxide, the re-
action equations are as follows:
SO2 + H2O -H2O3 (.2)
2H2CrO* + 3H2SO3 - Cr2 (SO*) 3 + 5H2O (3)
Using hydrated lime, the neutralization is:
+ 3Ca(OH)2 - 2Cr(OH)3 + 3CaSO/* (4)
Hexavalent chromium can be reduced to the range of 0.7 to 1 mg/L
in the effluent by using such a treatment including reduction,
chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
• Reduction with Sodium Metabisulf ite (and Bisulfite)
About three .pounds of sodium metabisulf ite (Na2S2O2) are required
to reduce one pound of hexavalent chromium using the following
reaction :
4HsCrO, + 3Na2S2Os + 3H20 + 6H2 s°« ~2Cr2 (S0j,;3 + 6NaHSO, + 10H20 (5)
• Reduction with Ferrous Sulfate
Because of the sludge volume produced, furrous sulfate is rarely
used in larger-scale treatment facilities according to the
following reaction:
+ 7H2O + 6H2SO* •* Cr2(SO*)3 + 3Fe2(SOi»)3 + 5OH2O (6)
• Removal of Mercury from Effluents
Date: 8/30/79 III. 6. 15-3
-------
Reduction/precipitation processes are being used increasingly to
treat wastewater containing mercury when the flowrate is rela-
tively small and intermittent. Because of its value and because
it is not amenable to disposal, the elemental mercury produced by
reduction processes is usually recovered for recycle. Depending
upon the process, a cyclone, filter or perhaps a furnace and
mercury condenser may be used.
In a recently commercialized reduction/precipitation process, a
caustic solution of sodium borohydride (NaBH^) is mixed with
mercury-containing wastewater. The ionic mercury is reduced to
metallic mercury, which precipitates out of solution, and the
following reaction occurs :
4Hg2+ + BH4- + 8 OH~ = 4Hg + B(OH)4~ + 4H20 (7)
In theory, 1.0 pound of sodium borohydride can reduce 21 pounds
of mercury; in actual operations, this is closer to 10 pounds of
mercury. If the mercury solution is in the form of an organic
complex, the driving force of the reduction reaction may not be
sufficient to break the complex. In that case, the wastewater
must be chlorinated prior to the reduction step in order to break
down the metal-organic bond.
• Removal of Lead
Removal of dissolved lead compounds, including organo-lead salts,
in wastewater from the manufacture of tetraalkyl lead compounds
is now being done on a commercial scale. The reduction process,
using an alkali metal hydride as reductant, lowers the lead con-
tent in the waste stream by altering the chemical form of the
lead so that it can be precipitated. The reaction is believed to
go partially to elemental lead and partially to an alkyl-lead
compound that is not stable over long periods of time, some of
which is eventually converted spontaneously to elemental lead.
As the element, the lead precipitates and can be removed by
techniques such as settling or by filtration.
The concentration range in the effluents to the reduction process
are 2 to 300 ppm. The lead is mostly in the form of soluble
organo-lead compounds, which will not precipitate with pH adjust-
ment alone, together with some other lead in the form of soluble
inorganic lead compounds.
After treatment with an alkali metal hydride (sodium borogydride
is preferred in this reaction) , insoluble lead products are
formed. They include hexaalkyl-dilead compounds (that may with
time decompose to elemental lead) , which are formed from the
soluble alkyl-lead compounds, and elemental lead from the soluble
inorganic lead components.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.15-4
-------
Low concentrations of the borohydride are preferred because one
of the characteristics of the material is that it hydrolyzes with
evolution of hydrogen and with an accompanying loss in its reduc-
tive properties. This is particularly true at higher temperatures,
pH below 8 or 9, and in the presence of certain catalysts. For
this reaction, a pH of 8 to 11 is preferred.
III.6.15.5 Limitations
Introduction of foreign ions into the waste is a real or potential
disadvantage with many of the reducing agents.
III.6.15.6 Typical Equipment
Very simple equipment is required for chemical reduction including
storage vessels for the reducing agents and perhaps for the wastes,
metering equipment for both streams, and contact vessels with
agitators to provide suitable contact of reducing agent and waste.
Some instrumentation is required to determine the concentration
and pH of the waste and the degree of completion of the reduction
reaction. The reduction process may be monitored by an oxida-
tion-reduction potential electrode. This electrode is generally
a piece of noble metal (often platinum) that is exposed to the
reaction medium and produces an EMF output that is empirically
relatable to the reaction condition by revealing the ratio of the
oxidized and reduced constituents. Section III.6.15.9 shows a
process flow diagram for a typical chemical system.
Numerous companies have commercial units for the treatment of
chromium (VI) in industrial effluents. All of these units offer
the user a pre-engineered system for a specific waste or range
of waste streams.
III.6.15.7 Reliability
The chemical reduction process is well developed and reliable for
chrome and mercury applications.
III.6.15.8 Environmental Impact
One disadvantage of chemical reduction for waste treatment is
that it may introduce new ions into the effluent. If the level
of these new contaminants is high enough to exceed effluent
regulations, additional treatment operations will be required.
Often these treatments such as precipitation, filtration, or
sedimentation.
• Air emissions are not expected to be significant from
these processes.
After chromium (VI) reduction, the treated solution will be acidic
and will also contain the reduced chromium and any other metals
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.15-5
-------
present in the original waste stream. Because this solution is
corrosive, it may require neutralization prior to discharge or
further treatment. Precipitation will occur because of the chem-
ical nature of the materials used and, therefore, settling basins
or clarifiers will be required to reduce the solids carry-over.
Small amounts of sulfate resulting from the use of sulfur dioxide
on dilute wastes pose no problem, but the zinc ion can be of
concern. Reduction with sodium borohydride results in the forma-
tion of greater-than-stoichiometric amounts of soluble borate in
the effluent solution; borate at sufficiently high levels could
also be of environmental concern. When the waste constituents
are present only in very small concentrations, these materials in
the effluents are of little concern; however, if the processes
are extended to more concentrated waste streams, additional
treatment steps may be needed.
Most chemical reductions will produce a residue for disposal,
unless the concentration of the waste constituent is so low that
the reducing agent and the reduced waste can be carried away
with the effluent. Residues for eventual disposal on land can
be a problem with this treatment process. The sludges formed in
follow-up treatment may cause disposal problems because the metal
hydroxides they contain may be susceptible to acid leaching.
Because the common alkalies used are sodium hydroxide and hydrated
lime, a large portion of the sludge will be excess lime and cal-
cium sulfate.
Lesser amounts of waste residues will be produced from the use of
sodium borohydride because the metal can often be precipitated in
the form of the element or another form that can be processed for
recovery.
III.6.15.9 Flow Diagram
SOO 94 1
AC10 STORAGE
5.000 g.l (~\ _
HASTE STORAGE [ V-X
SO,
STORAGE
1
LK HOPPER
1
^j-" r-l FEED COWETOR |J
1 i
2,500 gal
TREATMENT TANK
J L
1
so,
VAPORIZER
-Q-
ROTARY FILTER 1 , S~\
(50 ft') ^
1
FILTER CAKE 201 SOLIDS
1 POLISHING
H FILTER (50 ft')
1
BACK FLUSH
TREATWffl• BATCH
WASTE CONCENTRATED CHROHE WASTE .,
100,000 PPM CrOj; BS« is Cr
IN 20tM,SO*
WASTE PROCESSING CAPACITY 2.000 gd/sMft
OPERATING PERIOD 240 days/yr
B hours/day
MM MATERIALS
240 lt>/day S0a
2,065 1b/d«y lime
Date: 8/30/79
III.6.15-6
-------
III.6.15.10 Performance
Subsequent data sheets provide performance data on the following
industries and/or wastestreams:
Industries Wastestreams
III.6.15.11 References
1. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment Techniques for
Industrial Wastes, PB 275 287, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. November 1976. pp. 38-1 through
38-13.
Date: 8/30/79 III.6.15-7
-------
III.7.1 GRAVITY THICKENING [1]
III.7.1.1 Function
Thickening of sludge consists of the removal of supernatant,
thereby reducing the volume of sludge that requires disposal or
further treatment. Gravity thickening takes advantage of the
difference in specific gravity between the solids and water.
III.7.1.2 Description
A gravity thickener normally consists of two truss-type steel
scraper arms mounted on a hollow pipe shaft keyed to a motorized
hoist mechanism. A truss-type bridge is fastened to the tank
walls or to steel or concrete columns. The bridge spans the tank
and supports the entire mechanism. The thickener resembles a
conventional circular clarifier with the exception of having a
greater bottom slope. Sludge enters at the middle of the thick-
ener, and the solids settle into a sludge blanket at the bottom.
The concentrated sludge is very gently agitated by the moving
rake, which dislodges gas bubbles and prevents bridging of the
sludge solids. It also keeps the sludge moving toward the center
well from which it is removed. Supernatant liquor passes over an
effluent weir around the circumference of the thickener. In the
operation of gravity thickeners, it is desirable to keep a suffi-
ciently high flow of fresh liquid entering the concentrator to
prevent the development of septic conditions and resulting odors.
Gravity thickening is characterized by zone settling. The four
basic settling zones in a thickener are:
• The clarification zone at the top containing the relatively
clear supernatant.
• The hindered settling zone where the suspension moves down-
ward at a constant rate and a layer of settled solids begins
building from the bottom of the zone.
• The transition zone characterized by a decreasing solids
settling rate.
• The compression zone where consolidation of sludge results
solely from liquid being forced upward around the solids.
III.7.1.3 Common Modifications
Tanks can be square or round, with the round variety being much
more prevalent. Tanks can be manufactured of concrete or steel.
Chemicals can be added to aid in the sludge dewatering.
III.7.1.4 Technology Status
Gravity thickening has been in wide use for many years.
Date: 9/13/79 . III.7.1-1
-------
III. 7. 1.5 Applications
Used to thicken primary, secondary, and digested sludges.
III. 7. 1.6 Limitations
Does not perform satisfactorily on most waste activated, mixed
primary-waste activated, and alum or iron sludges; is highly
dependent on the dewaterability of the sludges being treated.
III. 7. 1.7 Chemicals Required
Lime (CaO) and/or polymers may be added to aid in the dewatering
and settling of the sludge; chlorine can be added to prevent
septicity .
III. 7. 1.8 Residuals Generated
Supernatant volume is directly related to the increase in solids
concentration in the thickener; supernatant will contain varying
amounts of solids, ranging from tens to hundreds of milligrams
per liter.
III. 7. 1.9 Design Criteria
See Section III. 7. 1.13; detentions of one to three days are
usually used; sludge blankets of at least three feet are common/-
side water depths of at least ten feet are general practice.
III. 7. 1.10 Environmental Impact
Requires relatively little use of land; supernatant will need
disposal, which can be accomplished by recycling it to the head
end of the plant for further treatment; odor problems frequently
result from septic conditions.
III. 7. 1.11 Reliability
Gravity thickeners are mechanically reliable, but are greatly
affected by the quality of sludge received; therefore, they may
be upset due to a radical change in the raw wastewater or di-
gested sludge quality.
III. 7. 1.12 Flow Diagram
WATER LEVEL
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
RAISED POSITION-
OF TRUSS ARM
HOPPER PLOW
UNDERFLOW
SCRAPER BLADES
Date: 9/13/79 .
III.7.1-2
-------
III.7.1.13 Performance
(No chemical conditioning)
Type of sludge
Solids surface
loading,
lb/d/ft2
Thickened sludge
solids
concentration, %
Primary
Waste activated
Trickling filter
Limed tertiary
Primary and activated
Primary and trickling filter
Limed primary
20
5
8
6
10
20
to
to
to
60
to
to
to
30
6
10
10
12
25
8
2.5
7
12
4
7
7
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
10
3
9
15
7
9
12
III.7.1.14 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/13/79 •
III.7.1-3
-------
III.7.2 FLOTATION THICKENING [1]
III.7.2.1 Function
Flotation (Dissolved Air Flotation) thickening utilizes air to
float sludge to the surface of the thickener, thereby reducing
the water content and volume of the sludge.
III.7.2.2 Description
In a Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) system, a recycled subnatant
flow is pressurized from 30 to 70 lb/in2 (gage) and then
saturated with air in a pressure tank. The pressurized effluent
is then mixed with the influent sludge and subsequently released
into the flotation tank. The excess dissolved air then
separates from solution, which is now under atmospheric pressure,
and the minute (average diameter 80ym) rising gas bubbles
attach themselves to particles that form the floating sludge
blanket. The thickened blanket is skimmed off and pumped to the
downstream sludge handling facilities while the subnatant is
returned to the plant. Polyelectrolytes are frequently used
as flotation aids to enhance performance and create a thicker
sludge blanket. A description of the DAF process in general is
presented in Section III.4.4.
III.7.2.3 Technology Status
DAF is the most common form of flotation thickening in use in the
United States, has been used for many years to thicken waste
activated sludges, and to a lesser degree to thicken combined
sludges. DAF has widespread industrial wastewater applications.
III.7.2.4 Applications
The use of air flotation is limited primarily to thickening of
sludges prior to dewatering or digestion. Used in this way, the
efficiency of the subsequent dewatering units can be increased,
and the volume of supernatant from the subsequent digestion units
can be decreased. Existing air flotation thickening units can
be upgraded by the optimization of process variables, and by the
utilization of polyelectrolytes. Air flotation thickening is
best applied to waste activated sludge. With this process, it is
possible to thicken the sludge to 6 percent solids, while the
maximum concentration attainable by gravity thickening without
chemical addition is 2 to 3 percent solids. The DAF process can
also be applied to mixtures of primary and waste activated
sludge. DAF also maintains the sludge in aerobic condition and
potentially has a better solids capture than gravity thickening.
There is some evidence that activated sludges from pure oxygen
systems are more amenable to flotation thickening than sludges
from conventional systems.
Date: 9/13/79 . III.7.2-1
-------
III.7.2.5 Limitations
DAF has high operating costs (primarily for power for aeration
and chemicals) and is therefore generally limited to waste
activated sludges. The variability of sludge characteristics
requires that some pilot work be done prior to design of a DAF
system.
III.7.2.6 Chemicals Required
Flotation aids (generally polyelectrolytes) are usually used to
enhance performance.
III.7.2.7 ResidualsGenerated
Supernatant (effluent) quality is approximately 150 mg/L SS,
returned to mainstream of STP.
III.7.2.8 Design Criteria
Data from various air flotation units indicate that solids
recovery ranges from 83 to 99 percent at solids loading rates of
7 to 48 Ib/ft2/d.
Operating data from 14 sewage treatment plants showed the
following: influent suspended solids, 3,000 to 20,000 mg/L
(median 7,300); supernatant suspended solids, 31 to 460 mg/L
(median 144); suspended solids removal, 94 to 99+ percent
(median 98.7); float solids, 2.8 to 12.4 percent (median 5.0);
loading, 1.3 to 7.7 lb/h/ft2 (median 3.1); flow 0.4 to
1.8 gpm/ft2 (median 1.0).
III.7.2.9 Environmental Impact
Requires less land than gravity thickeners; subnatant stream is
returned to the head of the treatment plant, although it should
be compatible with other wastewater; air released to the
atmosphere may strip volatile organic material from the sludge;
volume of sludge requiring ultimate disposal may be reduced,
although its composition will be altered if chemical flotation
aids are used; air compressors will require shielding to control
the noise generated.
III.7.2.10 Reliability
DAF systems are reliable from a mechanical standpoint; variations
in sludge characteristics can affect process (treatment)
reliability, and may require operator attention.
Date: 9/13/79 • III.7.2-2
-------
III.7.2.11 Flow Diagram
SKIMMER MEGHAN ISM
PRESSURE TANK
(
JBNATANT [~~
RECYCLED _
SUBNATANT
n
• • • -i'-_~*1 TiT.f. .-.«>-;
TO 1 QF 7flMF
' K i ->t /.unc
k, ^BonowT^
<~ rni i FPTOR
^ i « i t
^*^'
Ttfrr
THICKENED
V-SLUDGE-1
'^1
^
RECYCLED
SUBNATANT
' — INFLUENT
ci unrF
jLUUot
' RECYCLE
III.7.2.12 Performance
Pressure, 30 to 70 Ib/in2g
percent of influent flow;
solids; solids loading, 5
type and whether flotation
addition (when used), 5 to
capture, 70 to 98+ percent
0.3 to 2.0 percent; total
percent; hydraulic loading
effluent recycle ratio, 30 to 150
air-to-solids ratio, 0.02 Ib air/lb
to 55 Ib/ft2/d (depending on sludge
aids are used); polyelectrolyte
10 Ib/ton of dry solids; solids
total solids in unthickened sludge,
solids in thickened solids, 3 to 12
, 0.4 to 2.0 gpm/ft2.
Sludge
Primary + WAS
Primary + (WAS +
(Primary + Feel
WAS
WAS + Fed 3
Digested primary
Digested primary
Tertiary, alum
tvpe
FeCl3)
3) + WAS
+ WAS
+ (WAS + FeCl3)
Feed
solids
concentra-
tion, ?
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
Typical loading
rate without
polymer ,
Ib/ft2/d
20
15
15
10
10
20
15
8
Typical loading
rate with
polymer ,
Ib/ft2/d
60
45
45
30
30
60
45
24
Float
solids
concentra-
tion, %
5.5
3.5
4.0
3.0
2.5
10.0
8.0
2.0
III.7.2.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/13/79
III.7.2-3
-------
III.7.3 CENTRIFUGAL THICKENING [1]
III.7.3.1 Function
Centrifugal thickening is the thickening of sludges using disc,
basket, or solid bowl centrifuges.
III.7.3.2 Description
Centrifuges may be used to thicken sludges by the use of
centrifugal force to increase the sedimentation rate of sludge
solids. The three most common types of units are the continuous
solid bowl type, the disc type, and the basket type. Refer to
Section III.7.12 for unit descriptions.
III.7.3.3 Technology Status
Centrifuges have had limited use in thickening excess activated
sludges (EAS). Field trials have been conducted at two
facilities. Disc-type units have been selected for three
treatment plants.
III.7.3.4 Applications
Centrifuges may be used for thickening excess activated sludge
where space limitations or sludge characteristics make other
methods unsuitable. Further, if a particular sludge can be
effectively thickened by gravity or by flotation thickening
without chemicals, centrifuge thickening is not economically
feasible.
III.7.3.5 Limitations
Centrifugal thickening processes can have significant mainte-
nance and power costs; adequate chemical conditioning may be
required in order to achieve 90 percent solids capture and
4 percent solids concentration with activated sludge in a
bowl-type unit; disc-type units require prescreening to prevent
pluggage of discharge nozzles, especially if flow is interrupted
or reduced; rotating parts of disc units must be manually
cleaned every two weeks.
III.7.3.6 Design Criteria
See Section III.7.12; maximum available capacity per unit is
500 to 600 gpm for disc units and 400 gpm for solid-bowl units.
III.7.3.7 Environmental Impact
For some sludges, odor controls may be required; noise control
is always required.
Date: 9/13/79 III.7.3-1
-------
III.7.3.8 Reliability
Pluggage of discharge orifices is a problem on disc-type units if
feed to the centrifuge is stopped, interrupted, or reduced below
a minimum value.
III.7.3.9 Flow Diagram
PRIMARY
EFFLUENT
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATOR
OVERFLOW
SLUDGE
CENTRIFUGE
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
D EG R ITT ING
AND SCREENING
UNDERFLOW
REQUIRED FOR DISC
TYPE CENTRIFUGES
ONLY
TO DISPOSAL
III.7.3.10 Performance
Typical performance data are presented below for the disc,
basket, and solid bowl centrifuges when they are employed in the
thickening of EAS. Note that chemical addition is not always
required. In general, underflow solids concentration from disc
units is lower than from solid bowl units (3 to 5 percent versus
5 to 7 percent).
Type of sludye
EAS
EAS,
EA£ (after roughing
filter)
EAS (after roughing
filter)
EAE
EAS
EAS
EAS
Centrifuge
type
Disc
Disc
Disc
Disc
Basket
Solid bowl
Solid bowl
Solid bowl
Capacity,
91""
50
60
30
10
75
110
150
400
to 80
to 270
to 70
to 12
to 100
to 160
Feed solids,
t
0.75 to 1.0
-
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.5
0.44 to 0.78
0.5 to 0.7
Underflow
eolids,
t
5 to
4.
5 to
6.
9 to
9 to
5 to
5 to
5.5
0
7
1
10
13
7
B
Solids
recovery ,
90»
80
93 to 87
97 to 80
90 to 70
90
90 to 80
65
85
90
95
Polymer
requirement ,
Ib/ton
None
None
None
None
None
-
None
None
<5
5 to 10
10 to 15
III.7.3.11 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/13/79 -
III.7.3-2
-------
III.7.4 AEROBIC DIGESTION [1]
III.7.4.1 Function
Aerobic digestion is a method of sludge stabilization in an open
tank that can be regarded as a modification of the activated
sludge process.
III.7.4.2 Description
Microbiologicical activity beyond cell synthesis is stimulated by
aeration, oxidizing both the biodegradable organic matter and
some cellular material into CO2, H20, and NOa- The oxidation of
cellular matter is called endogenous respiration and is normally
the predominant reaction occurring in aerobic digestion. Stabil-
ization is not complete until there has been an extended period
of primarily endogenous respiration (typically 15 to 20 days).
Major objectives of aerobic digestion include odor reduction,
reduction of biodegradable solids, and improved sludge dewater-
ability. Aerobic bacteria stabilize the sludge more rapidly than
anaerobic bacteria, although a less complete breakdown of cells
is usually achieved. Oxygen can be supplied by surface aerators
or by diffusers. Other equipment may include sludge recircula-
tion pumps and piping, mixers, and scum collection baffles.
Aerobic digesters are designed similar to rectangular aeration
tanks and use conventional aeration systems, or employ circular
tanks and use an eductor tube for deep tank aeration.
III.7.4.3 Common Modifications
Both one- and two-tank systems are used. Small plants often use
a one-tank batch system with a complete mix cycle followed by
settling and decanting (to help thicken the sludge). Larger
plants may consider a separate sedimentation tank to allow con-
tinuous flow and facilitate decanting and thickening. Air may
be replaced with oxygen.
III.7.4.4 Technology Status
Aerobic digestion is primarily used in small plants and rural
plants, especially where extended aeration or contact stabiliza-
tion is practiced.
III.7.4.5 Applications
Suitable for waste primary sludge, waste biological sludges
(activated sludge or trickling filter sludge), or a combination
of any of these. Advantages of aerobic digestion over anaerobic
digestion include simplicity of operation, lower capital cost,
lower BOD concentrations in supernatant liquid, recovery of more
of the fertilizer value of sludge, fewer effects from interfering
substances (such as heavy metals), and no danger of methane
Date: 9/13/79 . III. 7.4-1
-------
explosions. The process also reduces grease content and the
level of pathogenic organisms, reduces the volume of the sludge,
and sometimes produces a more easily dewatered sludge (although
it may have poor characteristics for vacuum filters). Volatile
solids reduction is generally not as good as anaerobic digestion.
III.7.4.6 Limitations
High operating costs (primarily to supply oxygen) make the proc-
ess less competitive at large plants; required stabilization time
is highly temperature sensitive, and aerobic stabilization may
require excessive periods in cold areas or will require sludge
heating, further increasing its cost; no useful byproducts, such
as methane, are produced; process efficiency also varies accord-
ing to sludge age and sludge characteristics, and pilot work
should be conducted prior to design; improvement in dewaterabil-
ity frequently does not occur.
III.7.4.7 Residuals Generated
Supernatant typical quality is SS, 100 to 12,000 mg/L; BOD5,
50 to 1,700 mg/L; soluble BOD5, 4 to 200 mg/L; COD, 200 to
8,000 mg/L; Kjeldahl nitrogen, 10 to 400 mg/L; total phosphorus,
20 to 250 mg/L; soluble phosphorus, 2 to 60 mg/L, pH, 5.5 to 7.7;
digested sludge.
III.7.4.8 Design Criteria
Solids retention time (SRT) required for 40% VSS reduction is
18 to 20 days at 20°C for mixed sludges from AS to TF plant, 10
to 16 days for waste activated sludge only, 16 to 18 days average
for activated sludge from plants without primary settling; volume
allowance, 3 to 4 ft3/capita; VSS loading, 0.02 to 0.4 Ib/ft3/d;
air requirements, 20 to 60 ft3/min/l,000 ft3; minimum DO, 1 to
2 mg/L; energy for mechanical mixing, 0.75 to 1.25 hp/1,000 ft3;
oxygen requirements, 2 Ib/lb of cell tissue destroyed (includes
nitrification demand) and 1.6 to 1.9 Ib/lb of BOD removed in
primary sludge.
III.7.4.9 Environmental Impact
Supernatant stream is returned to head of plant with high organic
loadings; sludge stabilization reduces the adverse impact of land
disposal of sludge; process has high power requirements; odor
controls may be required.
III.7.4.10 Reliability
Less sensitive to environmental factors than anaerobic digestion;
requires less laboratory control and daily maintenance; relatively
resistant to variations in loading, pH, and metals interference;
lower temperatures require much longer detention times to achieve
Date: 9/13/79 m.7.4-2
-------
a fixed level of VSS reduction; however, performance loss does
not necessarily cause an odorous product; maintenance of the DO
at 1 to 2 mg/L with adequate detention results in a sludge that
is often easier to dewater (except on vacuum filters).
III.7.4.11 Flow Diagram
PRIMARY SLUDGE
EXCESS ACTIVATED OR
TRICKLING FILTER SLUDGE
CLEAR OXIDIZED
OVERFLOW TO PLANT
SETTLED SLUDGE RETURNED TO DIGESTER
III.7.4.12 Performance
Material
Influent, %
Effluent, %
Reduction, %
Total solids 2 to 7
Volatile solids 50 to 80 (of above)
Pathogens
3 to 12
30 to 70 (typical 35 to 45)
Up to 85
III.7.4.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
III.7.4-3
-------
III.7.5 ANAEROBIC (TWO-STAGE) DIGESTION [1]
III.7.5.1 Function
Anaerobic digestion is a process for breakdown of sludge into
methane, carbon dioxide, unusable intermediate organics, and a
relatively small amount of cellular protoplasm.
III.7.5.2 Description
A two-vessel system is used for sludge stabilization. The first
tank, used for digestion, is equipped with one or more of the
following: heater, sludge recirculation pumps, methane gas
recirculation, mixers, and scum breaking mechanisms. The second
tank is used to store and concentrate the digested sludge and to
form a supernatant.
The anaerobic digestion process consists of two distinct simul-
taneous stages of conversion of organic material by acid-forming
bacteria and gasification of the organic acids by methane-forming
bacteria. The methane-producing bacteria are very sensitive to
conditions of their environment and require careful control of
temperature, pH, excess concentrations of soluble salts, metal
cations, oxidizing compounds, and volatile acids. They also show
an extreme substrate specificity. The digester requires periodic
cleanout (from 1 to 2 years) due to buildup of sand and gravel on
the digester bottom.
III.7.5.3 Technology Status
Anaerobic digestion is in widespread use (60 to 70 percent) for
primary and secondary sludge in plants having a capacity of 1
Mgal/d or more.
III.7.5.4 Applications
This process is suitable for primary sludge or combinations of
primary sludge and limited amounts of secondary sludges. Diges-
ted sludge is reduced in volume and pathogenic organism content;
it is less odorous and easily de-watered, and it is suitable for
ultimate disposal. Advantages over single-stage digestion in-
clude increased gas production, a clearer supernatant liquor,
necessity for heating a smaller primary tank thus economizing in
heat, and more complete digestion. The process also lends itself
to modification changes, such as to high-rate digestion.
III.7.5.5 Limitations
Process is relatively expensive, about twice the capital cost of
single-stage digestion. It is the most sensitive operation in
the treatment plant and is subject to upsets by interfering sub-
stances, e.g., excessive quantities of heavy metals, sulfides,
Date: 9/13/79 . III.7.5-1
-------
and chlorinated hydrocarbons. The addition of activated and
advanced waste treatment sludges can cause high operating costs
and poor plant efficiencies. The additional solids do not
readily settle after digestion. The digester requires periodic
cleanout due to buildup of sand and gravel on digester bottom.
III.7.5.6 Chemicals Required
The pH must be maintained using lime, ammonia, soda ash, bicar-
bonate of soda, or lye; addition of powder activated carbon may
improve stability of over stressed digesters; heavy metals are
precipitated with ferrous or ferric sulfate; odors are controlled
with hydrogen peroxide; heat must be provided.
III.7.5.7 Residuals Generated
Supernatant contains 200 to 15,000 mg/L suspended solids; 500 to
10,000 mg/L BOD5; 1,000 to 30,000 mg/L COD; 300 to 1,000 mg/L
TKN; 50 to 1,000 mg/L total phosphorus; scum; sludge; and gas.
III.7.5.8 Environmental Impact
Return of supernatant to head of plant may cause plant upsets;
adverse environmental impact of sludge disposal on land is re-
duced as a result of the process.
Digester gas can be used for on-site generation of electricity
and/or for any in-plant purpose requiring fuel; can also be used
off-site in a natural gas supply system; off-site use usually
requires treatment to remove impurities such as hydrogen sulfide
and moisture; removal of C02 further increases the heat value of
the gas; utilization is more successful when a gas holder is
provided.
III.7.5.10 Reliability
Successful operation subject to a variety of physical, chemical,
and biological phenomena, e.g., pH, alkalinity, temperature and
concentrations of toxic substances of digester contents. Sludge
digester biomass is relatively intolerant to changing environ-
mental conditions. Under one set of conditions, particular
concentrations of a substance can cause upsets, while under
another set of conditions higher concentrations of the same
substance are harmless. Process requires careful monitoring of
pH, gas production, and volatile acids.
III.7.5.10 Design Criteria
Solids Retention Times (SRT) required at various temperatures
are shown below:
Date: 9/13/79 III.7.5-2
-------
Temperature, °F
SRT, days
Volume criteria (ft3/capita)
Mesophilie Range
50 67 75 85 95
55 40 30 25 20
primary sludge, 1.3/3; primary
and trickling filter sludges,
2.6/5; primary and waste activated
sludges, 2.6/6.
Tank size: diameter, 20 to 115 ft; depth, 25 to 45 ft; bottom
slope, 1 vertical/4 horizontal.
Solids loading, 0.04 to 0.40 Ib VSS/ft3/d; volumetric loading,
0.038 to 0.1 ft3/cap/d; wet sludge loading, 0.12 to
0.19 Ib/cap/d; pH 6.7 to 7.6.
III.7.5.11 Flow Diagram
GAS RELEASE!
GAS
GAS RELEASE I
SLUDGE 1
III. 7. 5. 12 Perfon
NLETr
ZONE OF
(MIXING
ACTIVELY
v DIGESTING^
^SLUDGEs^*
SLUDGE RETURN
nance
MIXED
LIQUOR
* *
SLUDGE -
DRAWOFF
SUPERNATANT
DIGESTED SLUDGE
sZV
SUPERNATANT
REMOVAL
Influent Effluent
Total solids
2 to 7% 2.5 to 12%
Reduction
35 to 50%
85 to <100%
Volatile solids
Pathogen
Odor reduction
Sidestream - gas production
Quantity - 8 to 12 ft3/lb volatile solids added, or 12 to
18 ft3/cap, or 11 to 12 ft3/lb total solids
digested.
Quality - 65 to 70% methane; trace N2, H2, H2S, and NH3;
25 to 30% C02; 550 to 600 Btu/ft3.
III.7.5.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/13/79 .
III.7.5-3
-------
III.7.6 CHEMICAL CONDITIONING [1]
III.7.6.1 Function
Chemical conditioning is a process for coagulating sludge
solids and releasing absorbed water.
III.7.6.2 Description
The use of chemicals to condition sludge for dewatering is
economical because of the increased yields and greater flexibil-
ity obtained.
Chemicals are most easily applied and metered in liquid form.
Dissolving tanks are needed if the chemicals are received as
dry powder. These tanks should be large enough for at least
one-day's supply of chemicals and should be furnished in
duplicate. They must be fabricated or lined with corrosion-
resistant material. Polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, and
rubber are suitable materials for tank and pipe linings for
handling acid solutions. Metering pumps, which must be cor-
rosion resistant, are generally of the positive-displacement
type with variable-speed or variable-stroke drives to control
the flowrate. Another metering system consists of a constant-
head tank supplied by a centrifugal pump. A rotameter and
throttling valve are used to meter the flow.
The chemical dosage required for any sludge is determined in the
laboratory. Filter-leaf test kits are used to determine
chemical doses, filter yields, and the suitability of various
filtering media. These kits have several advantages over the
Biichner funnel procedure. In general, it has been observed that
the type of sludge has the greatest impact on the quantity of
chemical required. Difficult-to-dewater sludges require larger
doses of chemicals and generally do not yield as dry a cake.
Sludge types, listed in the approximate order of increasing
chemical requirements for conditioning, are as follows:
Untreated (raw) primary sludge
Untreated mixed primary and trickling-filter sludge
Untreated mixed primary and waste activated sludge
Anaerobically digested primary sludge
Anaerobically digested mixed primary and waste activated
sludge
Aerobically digested sludge (normally dewatered on drying
beds without the use of chemicals for conditioning).
Intimate admixing of sludge and coagulant is essential for
proper conditioning. The mixing must not break the floe after
it has formed, and the detention is kept to a minimum so that
sludge reaches the filter as soon after conditioning as possible.
Mixing tanks are generally of the vertical type for small plants
Date: 9/13/79 ' III.7.6-1
-------
and of the horizontal type for large plants. They are ordinarily
built of welded steel and lined with rubber or other acid-proof
coating. A typical layout for a mixing or conditioning tank has
a horizontal agitator driven by a variable-speed motor to provide
a shaft speed of 4 to 10 r/min. Overflow from the tank is adjus-
table to vary the detention period. Vertical cylindrical tanks
with propeller mixers are also used.
III.7.6.3 Common Modifications
Elutriation is a unit operation in which a solid or a solid-
liquid mixture is intimately mixed with a liquid for the purpose
of transferring certain components to the liquid. A typical
example is the washing of digested wastewater sludge before
chemical conditioning to remove certain soluble organic and
inorganic components that would consume large amounts of chemi-
cals. The cost of washing the sludge is, in general, more than
compensated for by the savings that result from a lower demand
for conditioning chemicals.
The usual leaching operation consists of two steps: (1) a
thorough mixing of the solid or solid-liquid mixture with the
leaching liquid, and (2) separation of the leaching liquid. Each
combination of mixing and washing is called a stage. A stage is
said to be ideal if the concentration of the component being
leached is the same in the separating liquid as it is in the
liquid that remains with the solids. Mixing and separating can
be carried out either in the same tank or in separate tanks. In
sanitary engineering, separate tanks are usually used for each
stage.
Since alkalinity is usually present in high concentrations in
digested sludge, it is commonly used to measure leaching ef-
ficiency. A decrease in the quantity of chemicals required to
condition sludge has been correlated with the decrease in al-
kalinity that results from elutriation.
III.7.6.4 Technology Status
The technology of chemical conditioning is well-developed.
III.7.6.5 Applications
Conditioning is used in advance of vacuum filtration and centri-
fugation.
III.7.6.6 Limitations
Although elutriation was used commonly in the past, it has fallen
into disfavor because of the concern that the finely divided
solids washed out of the sludge may not be fully captured in the
main wastewater treatment facilities. In fact, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency has stated that sludge elutriation is
Date: 9/13/79 ' III.7.6-2
-------
not considered desirable and its use will not be approved without
adequate safeguards.
III.7.6.7 Chemicals Required
Chemicals used in chemical conditioning include ferric chloride,
lime, alum, and organic polymers.
III.7.6.8 Design Criteria
The dosage of chemicals for various types of sludges for vacuum
filtration is shown below (conditioners are shown in percentage
of dry sludge).
Fresh
solids
Type of sludge
Primary
Primary and
trickling filter
Primary and
activated
Activated (alone)
FeCl3
1-2
2-3
1.5-2.5
4-6
CaO
6-8
6-8
7-9
Elutriated,
Digested digested
FeCl3 CaO FeCl3 CaO
1.5-3.5 6-10 2-4
1.5-3.5 6-10 2-4
1.5-4 6-12 2-4
III. 7. 6. 9 References
1. Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering - Treatment, Dis-
posal, Reuse, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1979. pp. 634-636.
Date: 9/13/79" III.7.6-3
-------
III.7.7 THERMAL CONDITIONING (HEAT TREATMENT) [1]
III.7.7.1 Function
Heat treatment is essentially a conditioning process that pre-
pares sludge for dewatering on vacuum filters or filter presses
without the use of chemicals.
III.7.7.2 Description
The heat treatment process involves heating sludge to 144°C to
210°C for short periods of time under pressure of 150 to
400 lb/in2 gage. In addition, the sludge is sterilized and
generally stabilized and rendered inoffensive. Heat treatment
results in coagulation of solids, a breakdown in the cell struc-
ture of sludge, and a reduction of the water affinity of sludge
solids.
Several proprietary variations exist for heat treatment. In
these systems, sludge is passed through a heat exchanger into a
reactor vessel, where steam is injected directly into the sludge
to bring the temperature and pressure into the necessary ranges.
In one variation, air is also injected into the reactor vessel
with the sludge. The detention time in the reactor is approxi-
mately 30 minutes. After heat treatment, the sludge passes back
through the heat exchanger to recover heat, and then is dis-
charged to a thickener-decant tank. The thickened sludge may be
dewatered by filtration or centrifugation to a solids content of
30 to 50 percent. The sludge may be ground prior to heat treat-
ment.
III.7.7.3 Technology Status
The process of heat treating sludge, first introduced in 1935,
has become common during the last decade. About 100 units are
currently in operation in the United States.
III.7.7.4 Applications
Heat treatment is practiced as a sludge conditioning method to
reduce the costs of sludge dewatering and ultimate disposal. The
benefits of heat treatment include (1) improved dewatering
characteristics of treated sludge without chemical conditioning;
(2) generally innocuous and sterilized sludge suitable for
ultimate disposal by a variety of methods including land ap-
plication in some cases; (3) few nuisance problems; (4) a product
suitable for many types of sludge that cannot be stabilized
biologically; (5) reduction in subsequent incineration energy
requirements; and (6) reduction in size of subsequent vacuum
filters and incinerators.
Date: 9/13/79 . III.7.7-1
-------
III.7.7.5 Limitations
The thermal conditioning process has very high capital and
operating costs, and may not be economical at small treatment
plants. Specialized supervision and maintenance are required due
to the high temperatures and pressures involved. Expensive
material costs are necessary to prevent corrosion and withstand
the operating conditions. Heavy metal concentrations in sludges
are not reduced by heat treatment, and further treatment of
sludges with high metals concentrations may be required if the
sludge is to be applied to crop land. The sludge supernatant and
filtrate recycle liquor are strongly colored and contain a very
high concentration of soluble organic compounds and ammonia
nitrogen, and in some cases must be pretreated prior to return to
the head of the treatment plant.
III.7.7.6 Chemicals Required
Chemicals are not normally required for dewatering; corrosion
control aids may be required for the boiler and/or the process;
heat must be provided.
III.7.7.7 Residuals Generated
Sidestream (recycle liquor) contains 50 percent of the sludge
flow (by volume); stream quality: BOD, 5,000 to 15,000 mg/L;
COD, 10,000 to 30,000 mg/L; NH3-N, 500 to 800 mg/L; phosphorus,
140 to 250 mg/L; total suspended solids, 9,000 to 12,000 mg/L;
volatile suspended solids, 8,000 to 10,000 mg/L; pH, 4 to 6.
This stream is generally amenable to biological treatment but can
contribute up to 30 to 50 percent of the organic loading to a
treatment plant. If the plant has not been designed for this
additional load, pretreatment prior to return may be necessary.
Some noncondensable gases may be generated that will require
combustion or disposal. Boiler breakdown and/or water treatment
residuals (for boiler feedwater) may result.
III.7.7.8 Environmental Impact
Recycle liquor sent to head of plant can cause plant upsets due
to very high organic loadings. The process can result in offen-
sive odor production if proper odor control is not practiced. A
colored effluent may also result, requiring additional processing
where discharge standards prohibit this condition.
The composition of the recycle liquor can vary among the
various processes. Some liquors may contain a high proportion of
nonbiodegradable matter. This matter is largely humic acids,
which can give rise to unpleasant odors and taste if present in
water that has been chlorinated prior to use for domestic supply.
If industrial wastes of various types are included in the
Date: 9/13/79 . III.7.7-2
-------
wastewater to be treated, the actual chemical composition of the
liquor resulting from heat treatment of the sludge should be
determined by a detailed chemical activated carbon adsorption for
nonbiodegradable organics.
III.7.7.9 Reliability
Limited operating data are available; mechanical and process
reliability appear adequate after some initial operational prob-
lems; careful operator attention is required.
III.7.7.10 Design Criteria
Temperature, 140 to 210°C; pressure, 150 to 400 lb/in2 gage;
detention time, 30 to 90 min; steam consumption, 6001b/l,000 gal
of sludge.
III.7.7.11 Flow Diagram
CONDITIONED SLUDGE
III.7.7.12 Performance
Heat treatment is a conditioning process intended to enhance the
performance of subsequent operations. Within the process itself,
pathogens are destroyed and 30 to 40 percent of the volatile
suspended solids are solubilized. Dewatering efficiency can be
increased to a solids capture of over 95 percent and a solids
content of up to 50 percent.
III.7.7.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252pp.
Date: 9/13/79
III.7.7-3
-------
III.7.8 DISINFECTION (HEAT) [1]
III.7.8.1 Function
Heating to pasteurization temperatures is a well known method of
destroying pathogenic organisms that has been applied sucessfully
to disinfecting sludge.
III.7.8.2 Description
Pasteruization implies heating to a specific temperature for a
time period sufficient to destroy undesirable organisms in
sludge and to make sludge suitable for land disposal on cropland.
Usually heat is applied at 70 to 75°C for 20 to 60 minutes.
Treatment can be applied to raw liquid sludge (thickened or
unthickened), or stabilized or digested sludge.
Pasteurization is usually a batch process, consisting of a
reactor to hold sludge, a heat source, and heat exchange
equipment, pumping and piping, and instrumentation for automated
operation. Pasteurization has little effect on sludge compo-
sition or structure because the sludge is only heated to a
relatively moderate temperature.
III.7.8.3 Technology Status
Heating to pasteurization temperature is not widely used; the
process is more common in Europe than in the United States. In
West Germany and Switzerland, there are regulations (actually
seldom followed) that require pasteurization when sludge is
spread on pastures during summer growth periods. The process
may find increased application with the renewed interest of land
disposal of sludges.
III.7.8.4 Application
Disinfection can be applied to a wide variety of sludges in
various forms. Pasteurization may be redundant where sludges are
treated by other processes which destroy pathogenic matter. The
largest potential application is to otherwise untreated sludges
that are disposed of on land. Studies show that liquid sludge
need only be cooled to 60°C for application to land with no
adverse effects from temperature. Small treatment plants can
pasteurize liquid digested sludge in a tank truck with steam
injection.
III.7.8.5 Limitations
Pasteurization has little or no effect on metals or other toxic
materials. Pasteurized but undigested sludges still have
considerable risk of foul smelling fermentation after land
applications. Limited data are available on interferences and
Date: 9/13/79 III.7.8-1
-------
other process controls required for optimizing the process.
Heating unthickened sludge requires excessive amounts of heat.
Because of the low temperatures involved, heat recovery is not
cost effective unless the sludge flow is at least 50,000 gal/d.
At this level, one-stage heat recuperation may be cost effective.
Two-stage recuperation is not cost effective until a flow of over
100,000 gal/d of sludge is reached.
III.7.8.6 Chemicals Required
Typical boiler feedwater pretreatment chemicals are used to
prevent scale and/or corrosion; heat must be provided.
III.7.8.7 Residuals Generated
Boiler blowdown and air pollution from the boiler are generated.
III.7.8.8 Environmental Impact
Reduces the adverse impact of sludge disposal to cropland. If
steam injection is used to heat the sludge, chemicals used for
feedwater pretreatment must be acceptable for land spreading of
sludge.
Digested sludge heat can reduce the need for supplemental energy.
Methane from anaerobic digestion can provide the required fuel
for pasteurization.
III.7.8.9 Reliability
Mechanical and process reliability are high; pasteurization can
be fully automated and requires minimum operator attention;
there is little operating experience in the United States.
III.7.8.10 Design Criteria
Temperature, 70 to 75°C; time, 20 to 60 minutes; heat required,
4-6 x 106 Btu/ton of sludge solids. Two units or more are
usually designed in parallel so that one unit can be filling
while the other is holding sludge for the required length of
time. Units can share a common boiler.
III.7.8.11 Flow Diagram
FEED WATER
BOILER
STEAM
SLUDGE
HOLD ING TANK
PASTURIZED SLUDGE
Date: 9/13/79. III.7.8-2
-------
III.7.8.12 Performance
Seventy-five degrees Centigrade for 60 minutes will reduce
coliform indicatiors below 1,000 counts per lOOmL. Seventy
degrees Centigrade for 30 to 60 minutes is effective for
destroying pathogens in digested sludge. Seventy degrees
Centigrade for 20 minutes is effective for destroying pathogens
in raw sludge. Heat treatment also appears to destroy viruses.
The table below indicates the time required for 100 percent
elimination of various typical pathogenic organisms found in
sludge at various temperatures:
Time, rain
Organism 50°C 55°C 60°C 65°C 70°C
Time required for 100% reduction (minutes)
Cysts of entamoeba histolytica 5
Eggs of ascaris lumbricoides 60 7
Brucella abortis 60 3
Corynebacterium diptheriae 45 4
Salmonella typhosa 30 4
Escherichia coli 60 5
Micrococcus pyrogene var. aureus 20
Mycobacterium tuberculosis var. 20
Viruses 25
III.7.8.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/13/79 . III.7.8-3
-------
III.7.9 VACUUM FILTRATION [1]
III.7.9.1 Function
Vacuum filters are used to dewater sludges so as to produce a
cake having the physical handling characteristics and moisture
contents required for subsequent processing.
III.7.9.2 Description
A rotary vacuum filter consists of a cylindrical drum rotating
partially submerged in a vat or pan of conditioned sludge. The
drum is divided radially into a number of sections, which are
connected through internal piping to ports in a valve body
(plate) at the hub. This plate rotates in contact with a fixed
valve plate with similar ports, which are connected to a vacuum
supply, a compressed air supply, and an atmospheric vent. As the
drum rotates, each section is thus connected to the appropriate
service. Various operating zones are encountered during a
complete revolution of the drum. In the pickup or form section,
vacuum is applied to draw liquid through the filter covering
(media) and form a cake of partially dewatered sludge. As the
drum rotates, the cake emerges from the liquid sludge pool, while
suction is maintained to promote further dewatering. A lower
level of vacuum often exists in the cake drying zone. If the
cake tends to adhere to the media, a scraper blade may be provi-
ded to assist removal.
The three principal types of rotary vacuum filters are the drum
type, coil type, and the belt type. The filters differ primarily
in the type of covering used and the cake discharge mechanism
employed. Cloth media are used on drum and belt types; stainless
steel springs are used on the coil type. Infrequently, a metal
media is used on belt types. The drum filter also differs from
the other two in that the cloth covering does not leave the drum
but is washed in place, when necessary. The design of the drum
filter provides considerable latitude in the amount of cycle time
devoted to cake formation, washing, and dewatering; the design
also minimizes inactive time.
The top feed drum filter is a variation of the conventional
drum filter. In this case, sludge is fed to the vacuum filter
through a hopper located above the filter. The potential advan-
tages of the top feed drum filter are that gravity aids in cake
formation; capital costs may be lower since the feed hopper is
smaller and no sludge agitator and "related drive equipment are
required; and "blinding" of the media may be reduced.
The coil-type vacuum filter uses two layers of stainless steel
coils arranged in corduroy fashion around the drum. After a
dewatering cycle, the two layers of springs leave the drum and
are separated from each other so that the cake is lifted off the
Date: 9/14/79 . III.7.9-1
-------
lower layer of springs and discharged from the upper layer. Cake
release is essentially free of problems. The coils are then
washed and reapplied to the drum. The coil filter has been and
is widely used for all types of sludge. However, sludges with
particles that are both extremely fine and resistant to floccula-
tion dewater poorly on coil filters.
Media on the belt-type filter leaves the drum surface at the end
of the drying zone and passes over a small diameter discharge
roll to facilitate cake discharge. Washing of the media next
occurs before it returns to the drum and to the vat for another
cycle. This type filter normally has a small diameter curved bar
between the point where the belt leaves the drum and the dis-
charge roll that aids in maintaining belt dimensional stability.
In practice, it is frequently used to insure adequate cake
discharge.
Many types of filter media are available for belt and drum
filters. There is some question whether increases in yield due
to operating vacuums greater than 15 inches of mercury are justi-
fiable. The cost of a greater filter area must be balanced
against the higher power costs for higher vacuums. An increase
from 15 to 20 inches of vacuum is reported to have provided about
10 percent greater yield in three full-scale installations.
III.7.9.3 Common Modifications
Chemical conditioning is often employed to agglomerate a large
number of small particles. It is almost universally applied with
mixed sludges.
III.7.9.4 Technology Status
Vacuum filtration is the most common method of mechanical sludge
dewatering utilized in the United States.
III.7.9.5 Applications
Generally used in larger facilities where space is limited, or
when incineration is necessary for maximum volume reduction.
III.7.9.6 Limitations
Relatively high operating skill required; operation is sensitive
to type of sludge and conditioning procedures. As raw sludge
ages (3 to 4 hours) after thickening, vacuum filter performance
decreases. Poor release of the filter cake from the belt is
occasionally encountered. Chemical conditioning costs can some-
times be extremely large if a sludge is hard to dewater.
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.9-2
-------
III.7.9.7 Chemicals Required
FeCl3 and/or lime, or polymer dosing is a function of type of
sludge and vacuum filter characteristics.
III.7.9.8 Environmental Impact
Vacuum filtration involves relatively high chemical and energy
requirements.
III.7.9.9 Reliability
Large doses of lime may require frequent washings of drum filter
media; remedial measures are frequently required to obtain oper-
able cake releases from belt filters; high operating skill is re-
quired to maintain high level of reliability.
III.7.9.10 Design Criteria
Typical loads are shown below. The loading is a function of feed
solids concentrations, subsequent processing requirements, and
chemical preconditioning.
Sludge type
Raw primary
Digested primary
Mixed digested
III.7.9.11 Flow Diagram
Typical loading,
Ib dry solids/hr-ft2
7 to 15
4 to 7
3.5 to 5
SLUDGE
T
L.
v
1 WATER-AIR
SEPARATOR
VACUUM
PUMP
DRUM
SLUDGE CAKE FILTRATE
III.7.9.12 Performance
Solids capture ranges from 85 to 99.5 percent; cake moisture is
usually 60 to 90 percent, depending on feed type, solids concen-
tration, chemical conditioning, machine operation and management;
dewatered cake is suitable for landfill, heat drying, incinera-
tion or land spreading.
Date: 9/14/79
III.7.9-3
-------
III.7.9.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.9-4
-------
III.7.10 FILTER PRESS DEWATERING [1]
III.7.10.1 Function
Filter press dewatering is the removal of water from sludge using
conventional filter presses.
III.7.10.2 Description
The recessed plate press is the conventional filter press used
for dewatering sewage sludges. This press consists of vertical
recessed plates up to 5 ft in diameter (or 5 ft on a side, if
square) that are held rigidly in a frame and pressed together
between a fixed and moving end. A filter cloth is mounted on
the face of each individual plate. The sludge is fed into the
press at pressures up to 225 psi gage and passes through feed
holes in the trays along the length of the press. The water
passes through the cloth; the solids are retained and form a cake
on the surface of the cloth. Sludge feeding is stopped when the
cavities or chambers between the plates are completely filled.
Drainage ports are provided at the bottom of each press chamber.
The filtrate is collected in these ports, taken to the end of the
press, and discharged to a common drain. At the commencement of
a processing cycle, the drainage from a large press can be in the
order of 2,000 to 3,000 gph. This rate falls rapidly to about
500 gph as the cake begins to form, when the filtrate is near
zero. At this point, the pump feeding sludge to the press is
stopped, and any back pressure in the piping is released through
the bypass valve. The electrical closing gear is then operated
to open the press. The individual plates are then moved in turn
over the gap between the plates and the moving end; this allows
the filter cakes to fall out. The plate-moving step can be
either manual or automatic. When all of the plates have been
moved and the cakes released, the complete pack of plates is
pushed back by the moving end and closed by the electrical
closing gear. The valve to the press is then opened, the sludge
feed pump started, and the next dewatering cycle commences.
Thus, a cycle includes the time required for filling, pressing,
cake removal, media washing, and press closing.
A monofilament filter media is now used which, unlike multi-
filament filter cloth, resists blinding in service. Many systems
utilize an efficient precoat system that deposits a protective
layer of porous material (fly ash, cement kiln dust, buffing
dust) on the filter media to prevent blinding and to facilitate
cake release.
While pressure filters with a total effective filtration area of
2,5000 ft2 were once considered large, today's units with an
effective filtration area of 4,500 ft2 are not uncommon.
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.10-1
-------
Until recently, pressure filters, with few exceptions, have
operated at a maximum pressure differential of 100 lb/in2.
Extensive studies during the early 1960's showed that pressure
differentials of up to 225 psi produced filter cake solids con-
centration well in excess of 50 percent. Some commercially
available systems now operate near these pressures. As a result
of these greater pressures, filter presses offer several advanta-
ges, such as higher cake solids concentrations, improved filtrate
clarity, improved solids capture, and reduced chemical
consumption.
III.7.10.3 Common Modifications
Modifications to filter press dewatering include various weaves
adn materials for the filter media, precoating materials, and
methods, mechanical plate shifting, and washing devices.
III.7.10.4 Technology Status
Experience in United States with pressure filtration of waste-
water sludges is limited. Plate presses have been used in
European wastewater plants for many years. Industry has made use
of the process for many years.
III.7.10.5 Applications
Filter press dewatering is used for sludges prior to incineration
and for hard-to-handle sludges; the process is used where a large
filtration area is required in a minimum floor area.
III.7.10.6 Limitations
Batch discharge requires equalization of pressed cake production
prior to incineration; life of filter cloth is limited; presses
must normally be installed well above floor level so that cakes
can drop onto conveyors or trailers; cake must be delumped prior
to incineration.
III.7.10.7 Reliability
Pressure filter plate warpage has been a major problem; plate
gasket deterioration (sometimes caused by plate warpage) has also
been a problem requiring maintenance.
III.7.10.8 Design Criteria
Chamber volume 0.75 to 2.8 ft3/chamber
Filter areas 14.5 to 45 ft2/chamber
Number of chambers Up to 100
Sludge cake thickness 1 to 1 1/2 in
Sludge feed rate Approximately 2 Ib/cycle - ft2
(dry solids basis)
Date: 9/14/79 • III.7.10-2
-------
III.7.10.9 Flow Diagram
SLUDGE —-| STORAGE \
CAKE
1
FILTER PRESS
FILTRATED
DRAIN
'CONDITIONING TANK
III.7.10.10 Performance
With input sludges of varying types having a TSS of 1 to 10
percent, typical filter press production data show cake solids
concentrations of 50 percent with 100 to 250 percent (on dry
solids basis) fly ash conditioning and cycle times of 1.5 to
2.0 h. Cake solids concentrations of 45 percent have been
achieved with chemical conditioning (5 to 7.5 percent FeCl3 and
10 to 15 percent lime) and cycle times of 1.0 to 2.0 h. In
general, cakes of 25 to 50 percent solids concentrations are
achieved.
III.7.10.11 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/14/79
III.7.10-3
-------
III.7.11 BELT FILTER DEWATERING [1]
III.7.11.1 Function
Belt filter dewater is the removal of water from sludge using
filtration in the form of rolling belts.
III.7.11.2 Description
A belt filter consists of an endless filter belt that runs over a
drive and guide roller at each end like a conveyor belt. The
upper side of the filter belt is supported by several rollers.
Above the filter belt is a press belt that runs in the same di-
rection and at the same speed; its drive roller is coupled with
the drive roller of the filter belt. The press belt can be
pressed on the filter belt by means of a pressure roller system
whose rollers can be individually adjusted horizontally and
vertically. The sludge to be dewatered is fed on the upper face
of the filter belt and is continuously dewatered between the
filter and press belts. After having passed the pressure zone,
further dewatering in a reasonable time cannot be achieved by
only applying static pressures; however, a superimposition of
shear forces can effect this further dewatering. The supporting
rollers of the filter belt and the pressure rollers of the
pressure belt are adjusted in such a way that the belts and the
sludge between them describe an S-shaped curve. Thus, there is a
parallel displacement of the belts relative to each other due to
the differences in the radii. After further dewatering in the
shear zone, the sludge is removed by a scraper.
Some units consist of two stages; the initial draining zone is on
the top level, followed by an additional lower section wherein
pressing and shearing occur. A significant feature of the belt
filter press is that it employs a coarse-mesh, relatively open
weave, metal-medium fabric. This is feasible because of the
rapid and complete cake formation obtainable when proper floc-
culation is achieved. Belt filters do not need vacuum systems
and do not have the sludge pickup problem occasionally exper-
ienced with rotary vacuum filters. The belt filter press system
includes auxiliaries such as polymer solution preparation equip-
ment and automatic process controls.
III.7.11.3 Common Modifications
Some belt filters include the added feature of vacuum boxes in
the free drainage zone. To obtain higher cake solids, a vacuum
of about 6 in Hg is applied. A "second generation" of belt
filters has extended shearing or pressure stages that produce
substantial increases in cake solids but are more costly.
Date: 9/14/79 . III.7.11-1
-------
III.7.11.4 Technology Status
As of 1971, 67 units were installed in Europe. At that time,
several units were also being installed in the United States. In
1975, a belt filter press was installed in a 0.9 Mgal/d (average)
plant in Medford Township, NJ.
III.7.11.5 Applications
Hard-to-dewater sludges can be handled more readily; low cake
moisture permits incineration of primary/secondary sludge combi-
nations without auxiliary fuel; large filtration area can be
installed in a minimum floor area.
III.7.11.6 Limitations
To avoid penetration of the filter belt by sludge, it is usually
necessary to coagulate the sludge (generally with synthetic, high
polymeric flocculants).
III.7.11.7 Environmental Impact
Belt filter dewatering involves relatively high chemical and
energy requirements.
III.7.11.8 Reliability
Almost one year of trouble-free operation had been achieved on
the Medford, NJ plant as of October, 1977. The two-meter-wide
filter belt showed only slight discoloration and remained cleaned
and free from blinding or other signs of wear.
III.7.11.9 Design Criteria
The loadings shown below are based on active belt area:
Sludge loading, Dry solids loading,
Sludge type gal/ft2/h Ib/ft2/h
Raw primary 27-34 13.5-17
Digested primary 20-24 20.5-24
Digested mixed/secondary 13-17 6.7-8.4
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.11-2
-------
III.7.11.10 Flow Diagram
SLUDGE INLET PRESS BELT
PRESS ROLLS DRIVE ROLL
X
FILTER BELT
SUPPORT ROLLS
CAKE DISCHARGE
DRIVE ROLL
FILTRATE
III.7.11.11 Performance
The table below shows performance achieved in pilot studies,
Feed
solids,
%
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.8
6.5
6.1
5.5
Secondary/
primary
ratio
100% primary
1/5
1/2
1/1
2/1
3/1
100% secondary
Polymer
dosage
1.6
2.4
2.7
2.9
3.1
4.1
5.5
Pressure
psi gage
100
100
25-100
25
25
25
25
Cake
solids,
%
41
38
33-38
31
31
28
25
Solids
recovery,
%
97-99
97-99
95-97
95
95
90-95
95
Capacity
2,706
2,706
1,485
898
858
605
546
a
b
c
Ib/ton
dry solids.
PSI, gauge.
III.7.11.12 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-930/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/14/79
III.7.11-3
-------
III.7.12 CENTRIFUGAL DEWATERING [1]
III.7.12.1 Function
Centrifuges are used to dewater sludges using centrifugal force
to increase the sedimentation rate of sludge solids. The solid
bowl, the disc, and the basket are the three most common types
of units.
III.7.12.2 Description
The solid-bowl continuous centrifuge assembly consists of a bowl
and conveyor joined through a planetary gear system, designed to
rotate the bowl and the conveyor at slightly different speeds.
The solid cylindrical bowl, or shell, is supported between two
sets of bearings and includes a conical section at one end.
This section forms the dewatering beach over which the helical
conveyor screw pushes the sludge solids to outlet ports and then
to a sludge cake discharge hopper. The opposite end of the bowl
is fitted with an adjustable outlet weir plate to regulate the
level of the sludge pool in the bowl. The centrate flows through
outlet ports either by gravity or by a centrate pump attached to
the shaft at one end of the bowl. Sludge slurry enters the unit
through a stationary feed pipe extending into the hollow shaft
of the rotating bowl and passes to a baffled, abrasion-protected
chamber for acceleration before discharge through the feed ports
in the rotating conveyor hub into the sludge pool. Due to the
centrifugal forces, the sludge pool takes the form of a concen-
tric annular ring on the inside of the bowl. Solids settle
through this ring to the wall of the bowl where they are picked
up by the conveyor scroll. Separate motor sheaves or a variable
speed drive can be used to adjust the bowl speed for optimum
performance.
Bowls and conveyors can be constructed from a large variety of
metals and alloys to suit special application. For dewatering
of wastewater sludges, mild steel or stainless steel has been
used normally. Because of the abrasive nature of many sludges,
hardfacing materials are applied to the leading edges and tips
of the conveyor blades, the discharge ports, and other wearing
surfaces. Such wearing surfaces may be replaced by welding when
required.
In the continuous concurrent solid-bowl centrifuge, incoming
sludge is carried by the feed pipe to the end of the bowl op-
posite the discharge. Centrate is skimmed off and cake proceeds
up the beach for removal. As a result, settled solids are not
disturbed by incoming feed.
In the disc-type centrifuge, the incoming stream is distributed
between a multitude of narrow channels formed by stacked conical
discs. Suspended particles have only a short distance to settle,
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.12-1
-------
so that small and low density particles are readily collected
and discharged continuously through fairly small orifices in the
bowl wall. The clarification capability and throughput range
are high, but sludge concentration is limited by the necessity
of discharging through orifices 0.050 in to 0.100 in in diameter.
Therefore, it is generally considered a thickener rather than a
dewatering device.
In the basket-type centrifuge, flow enters the machine at the
bottom and is directed toward the outer wall of the basket.
Cake continually builds up within the basket until the centrate,
which overflows a weir at the top of the unit, begins to in-
crease in solids. At that point, feed to the unit is shut off,
the machine decelerates, and a skimmer enters the bowl to remove
the liquid layer remaining in the unit. A knife is then moved
into the bowl to cut out the cake, which falls out of the open
bottom of the machine. The unit is a batch device with alter-
nate charging of feed sludge and discharging of dewatered cake.
III.7.12.3 Technology Status
Solid-bowl and disc-type centrifuges are in widespread use;
basket-type centrifuges are fully demonstrated for small plants
but not widely used.
III.7.12.4 Applications
Solid-bowl and disc-type centrifuges are generally used for
dewatering sludge in larger facilities where space is limited or
where sludge incineration is required. Basket-type units are
used primarily for partial dewatering at small plants. Disc-
type centrifuges are more useful for thickening and clarification
than dewatering.
111. 7.12.5 Limitations
Centrifugation requires a sturdy foundation because of the vi-
bration and noise that result from centrifuge operation. Ade-
quate electric power must also be provided because large motors
are required. The major difficulty encountered in the operation
of centrifuges has been the sidposal of the centrate, which is
relatively high in suspended nonsettling solids. With disc-type
units, the feed must be degritted and screened to prevent plug-
gage of discharge orifices.
III.7.12.6 Environmental Impact •
Centrate is relatively high in suspended nonsettling solids
which, if returned to treatment units, could reduce effluent
quality from primary settling system; noise may require some
control measures.
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.12-2
-------
III.7.12.7 Reliability
Pluggage of discharge orifices is a problem on disc-type units
if feed to the centrifuge is stopped, interrupted, or reduced
below a minimum value; wear is a serious problem with solid-bowl
centrifuges.
III.7.12.8 Design Criteria
Each installation is site specific and dependent upon a manufac-
turers' product line. Maximum capacities of about 100 tons/h of
dry solids are available in solid-bowl units with diameters up
to 54 in and power requirements up to 175 hp. Disc-type units
are available with capacities up to 400 gpm of concentrate.
III.7.12.9 Flow Diagram
ROTATING COVER
BOWL
SPEED GEAR BOX l| 1!
~~L] "Mr-. ---AV
I npT-^t-"^-^-
H -I j •$ ^ £ v
\\ ' '' {
— ^! 1 MAIN DRIVE SHEAVE
— -ti^/M CHEMICALS FOR CONDITIONING
lOC^USJCL.. ^ .. 1 SHUTDOWN
^-2-1 •JTr"'"
I. *> *£—
1 -
1 I " ROTATING "
I CONVEYOR
CENTRATE
DISCHARGE
j
FLUSH
r >
\i * i_ «_J
I i
J
SLUDGE CAKE
^
i
DISCHARGE I
S SLUDGE
1 SLUDGE PUMP
III.7.12.10 Performance
Solids recovery in solid-bowl centrifuges is 50 to 75 percent
without chemical addition, and 80 to 95 percent with chemical
addition. Solids concentration is 15 to 40 percent depending on
type of sludge. For basket-type centrifuges, solids capture is
90 to 97 percent without chemical addition, and cake solids con-
centration is 9 to 14 percent. Disc-type centrifuges can de-
water a 1-percent sludge to 6-percent solids concentration.
III.7.12.11 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/14/79
III.7.12-3
-------
III.7.13 THERMAL DRYING [1]
III.7.13.1 Function
Thermal drying is the process of reducing the moisture in sludge
by evaporation to 8 to 10 percent using hot air, without combus-
ting the solid materials. For economic reasons, the moisture
content of the sludge must be reduced as much as possible
through mechanical means prior to heat drying. The five avail-
able heat treating techniques are flash, rotary, toroidal,
multiple hearth and atomizing spray.
III.7.13.2 Description
Flash drying is the instantaneous vaporization of moisture from
solids by introducing the sludge into a hot gas stream. The
system is based on several distinct cycles that can be adjusted
for different drying arrangements. The wet sludge cake is first
blended with some previously dried sludge in a mixer to improve
pneumatic conveyance. Blended sludge and hot gases from the
furnace at about 1200°F to 1400°F (650 to 760°C) are mixed and
fed into a cage mill in which the mixture is agitated and the
water vapor flashed. Residence time in the cage mill is only a
matter of seconds. Dry sludge with eight-to-ten percent moisture
is separated from the spent drying gases in a cyclone, with part
of it recycled with incoming wet sludge cake and another part
screened and sent to storage.
A rotary dryer consists of a cylinder that is slightly inclined
from the horizontal and revolves at about five-to-eight r/min.
The inside of the dryer is equipped usually with flights or
baffles throughout its length to break up the sludge. Wet cake
is mixed with previously heat dried sludge in a pug mill. The
system may include cyclones for sludge and gas separation, dust
collection scrubbers, and a gas incineration step.
The toroidal dryer uses the jet mill principle, which has no
moving parts, dries, and classifies sludge solids simultaneously.
Dewatered sludge is pumped into a mixer where it is blended with
previously dried sludge. Blended material is fed into a
doughnut-shaped dryer, where it comes into contact with heated
air at a temperature of 800°F to 1100°F. Particles are dried,
broken up into fine pieces, and carried out of the dryer by the
air stream. The dried, powdered sludge is supplemented with
nitrogen and phosphorus and formed into briquettes, which are
crushed and screened to produce final products.
The multiple hearth furnace is adapted for heat drying of sludge
by incorporating fuel burners at the top and bottom hearths,
plus down draft of the gases. The dewatered sludge cake is
mixed in a pug mill with previously dried sludges before entering
the furnace. At the point of exit from the furnace, the solids
Date: 9/14/79 III.7.13-1
-------
temperature is about 100°F, and the gas temperature is about
325°F.
Atomizing drying involves spraying liquid sludge in a vertical
tower through which hot gases pass downward. Dust carried with
hot gases is removed by a wet scrubber or dry dust collector.
A high-speed centrifugal bowl can also be used to atomize the
liquid sludge into fine particles and to spray them into the top
of the drying chamber where moisture is transferred to the hot
gases.
III.7.13.3 Technology Status
Heat drying of sludge was developed more than 50 years ago;
however, it is not widely used.
III.7.13.4 Applications
Thermal drying is an effective way for ultimate sludge disposal
and resource conservation when the end products are applied on
land for agricultural and horticultural uses. Although an
expensive process, it can become a viable alternative if the
product can be successfully marketed.
III.7.13.5 Limitations
Cost and high operator skill are limitations of thermal drying.
III.7.13.6 Chemicals Required
Nitrogen and phosphorus may be added to increase nutrient values
of the dried sludge; heat must be provided.
III.7.13.7 Residuals Generated
All solids captured in the wet scrubbers and dry solids collec-
tors are recycled and incorporated in the end products.
III.7.13.8 Environmental Impact
Potential exists for explosion and air pollution if the system
is not properly operated and maintained.
III.7.13.9 Design Criteria
Approximately 1,400 Btu are needed to vaporize one pound of
water, based on a thermal efficiency of 72 percent. Less fuel
would be required with additional heat recovery. Chemical
scrubbers are used, or chemicals are added prior to heat drying.
Excessive drying tends to produce a sludge that is dusty or con-
tains many fine particles; this is less acceptable for marketing
and should be avoided. Wet scrubbers and/or solids collectors
Date: 9/14/79 - III.7.13-2
-------
are needed. Standby heat-drying equipment is needed for con-
tinuous operation.
III.7.13.10 Flow Diagram
DEWATERED-
SLUDGE
t
MIXER
DRYER
COLLECTOR
SCREEN
DRIED SLUDGE
III.7.13.11 Performance
Heat drying destroys most of the bacteria in the sludge; however,
undigested heat dried sludge is susceptible to putrefaction if
allowed to get wet in thick layers on the ground. Heat drying
does not cause any significant decrease of the heavy metals con-
centration in the sludge. In general, heat-dried sludge con-
tains nutrients that are only about one-fifth of those contained
in chemical fertilizers. Heat-dried sludge is therefore useful
only as a fertilizer supplement and a soil conditioner.
III.7.13.2 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/14/79
III.7.13-3
-------
III.7.14 DRYING BEDS [1]
III.7.14.1 Function
Drying beds are used to dewater sludge both by drainage through
the sludge mass and by evaporation from the surface exposed to
the air. Collected filtrate is usually returned to the treatment
plant.
III.7.14.2 Description
Drying beds usually consist of 4 to 9 inches of sand, which is
placed over 8 to 18 inches of graded gravel or stone. The sand
typically has an effective size of 0.3 to 1.2 mm and a uniformity
coefficient of less than 5.0. Gravel is normally graded from
1/8 to 1.0 inch. Drying beds have underdrains that are spaced
from 8 to 20 feet apart. Underdrain piping is often vitrified
clay laid with open joints and having a minimum diameter of 4
inches and a minimum slope of about 1%.
Sludge is placed on the beds in an 8- to 12-inch layer. The
drying area is partitioned into individual beds, approximately
20 feet wide by 20 to 100 feet long, of a convenient size so
that one or two beds will be filled by a normal withdrawal of
sludge from the digesters. The interior partitions commonly
consist of two or three creosoted planks, one on top of the
other, to a height of 15 to 18 inches, stretching between slots
in precast concrete posts. The outer boundaries may be of simi-
lar construction or earthen embankments for open beds, but
concrete foundation walls are required if the beds are to be
covered.
Piping to the sludge beds is generally made of cast iron and
designed for a minimum velocity of 2.5 feet/second. It is
arranged to drain into the beds and provisions are made to flush
the lines and prevent freezing in cold climates. Distribution
boxes are provided to divert sludge flow to the selected bed.
Splash plates are used at the sludge inlets to distribute the
sludge over the bed and prevent erosion of the sand.
Sludge can be removed from the drying bed after it has drained
and dried sufficiently to be spadable. Sludge removal is ac-
complished by manual shoveling into wheelbarrows or trucks, or
by a scraper or front-end loader. Provisions should be made for
driving a truck onto or along the bed to facilitate loading.
Mechanical devices can remove sludges of 20% to 30% solids while
cakes of 30% to 40% are generally required for hand removal.
Paved drying beds with limited drainage systems permit the use of
mechanical equipment for cleaning. Field experience indicates
that the use of paved drying beds results in shorter drying times
as well as more economical operation when compared with
Date: 9/20/79 • III.7.14-1
-------
conventional sandbeds because, as indicated above, the use of
mechanical equipment for cleaning permits the removal of sludge
with a higher moisture content than does hand cleaning. Paved
beds have worked successfully with anaerobically digested sludges
but are less desirable than sandbeds for aerobically digested
activated sludge.
III.7.14.3 Common Modifications
Sandbeds can be enclosed by glass. Glass enclosures (1) protect
the drying sludge from rain, (2) control odors and insects,
(3) reduce the drying periods during cold weather, and (4) can
improve the appearance of a waste treatment plant.
Wedge-wire drying beds have been used successfully in England.
This approach prevents the rising of water by capillary action
through the media, and the construction lends itself well to
mechanical cleaning. The first U.S. installations have been made
at Rollinsford, New Hampshire, and in Florida. In small plants,
it is possible to place the entire dewatering bed in a tiltable
unit from which sludge may be removed merely by tilting the
entire unit mechanically.
III.7.14.4 Technology Status
Over 6,000 plants use open or covered sandbeds.
III.7.14.5 Applications
Sandbeds are generally used to dewater sludges in small plants;
they require little operator attention or skill.
III.7.14.6 Limitations
Air drying is normally restricted to well digested or stabilized
sludge, because raw sludge is odorous, attracts insects, and
does not dry satisfactorily when applied at reasonable depths.
Oil and grease clog sandbed pores and thereby seriously retard
drainage. The design and use of drying beds are affected by
weather conditions, sludge characteristics, land values, and
proximity of residences. Operation is severely restricted during
periods of prolonged freezing and rain.
III.7.14.7 Environmental Impact
Land requirements are large; odors can be a problem with poorly
digested sludges and inadequate buffer zone areas.
III.7.14.8 Design Criteria
Open bed area for various sludge types is shown below.
Date: 9/20/79 III.7.14-2
-------
Open bed area,
Sludge type ft2/capita
Primary digested sludge 1.0 - 1.5
Primary and activated sludge 1.75 - 2.5
Alum or iron precipitated sludge 2.0 - 2.5
Experience has shown that enclosed beds require 60% to 75% of the
open bed area. Solids loading rates vary from 10 to 28 Ib/ft2/yr
for open beds and 12 to 40 Ib/ft2/yr for closed beds. Sludge
beds should be located at least 200 feet from dwellings to avoid
odor complaints due to poorly digested sludges.
III.7.14.9 Flow Diagram
t-in. FINE SAND
3-ln COARSE SAND ./-PIPE COLUMN FOR
3-in. FINE GRAVEL / GLASS-OVEN
3-ln MEDIUM GRAVEL .
JIOHn. COARSE GRAVEL I
"*£ST''"" Hn'COARS£ ™D ^-UNDERORA1NIAID
tal(RVU- WITH OPEN JOINTS
III.7.14.10 Performance
A cake of 40% to 45% solids may be achieved in two to six weeks
in good weather and with a well digested waste activated, primary
or mixed sludge. With chemical conditioning, dewatering time
may be reduced by 50% or more. Solids contents of 85% to 90%
have been achieved on sand beds, but normally the times required
are impractical.
III.7.14.11 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/20/79 III.7.14-3
-------
III.7.15 LAGOONS [1]
III.7.15.1 Function
Digested sludge has often been applied to sludge lagoons adja-
cent to or in the proximity of treatment facilities. These
sludge lagoons are primarily designed to accomplish long-term
drying of the digested sludge through the physical processes of
percolation and evaporation, primarily the latter.
III.7.15.2 Description
This method of sludge processing has been extremely popular in
the U.S. due to its relatively low cost (when inexpensive land
is plentiful) and minimal operation and maintenance requirements,
especially at smaller wastewater treatment facilities. The pro-
cess is relatively simple, requiring periodic decanting of super-
natant back to the head of the plant and occasional mechanical
excavation of dewatered or dried sludge for transportation to its
ultimate disposal location. Lagoons can be a very useful process
step. Lagoon supernatant is far better (low SS) than supernatant
from a secondary digester or even a thickener. Ultimate disposal
of the product solids often is as a soil conditioner or landfill.
Sludge lagoons may also be used as contingency units at treatment
plants to store and/or process sludges when normal processing
units are either overloaded or out of service.
The drying time to 30 % solids is generally quite lengthy and
may require years. Climatic conditions and pre-lagoon sludge
processing greatly influence lagoon performance. In warmer,
drier climates well-digested sludges are economically and satis-
factorily treated by sludge-drying lagoons because of their in-
herent simplicity of operation and flexibility. Complete
freezing causes sludge to agglomerate; hence, when it thaws, the
supernatant decants or drains away easily. Well digested sludges
minimize potential odor problems that are inherent in this type
of system. Multiple-cells are required for efficient operation.
III.7.15.3 Common Modifications
Methods and patterns of loading, supernatant recycling tech-
niques, and mechanical cleaning techniques vary with location,
climate, and type of sludge to be processed.
III.7.15.4 Technology Status
Lagoon technology is widely used for industrial and municipal
sludge processing throughout the world.
Date: 9/20/79 . III.7.15-1
-------
III.7.15.5 Applications
The use of lagoons is a simple sludge drying method for digested
sludge in smaller plants because large inexpensive land areas
are required.
III.7.15.6 Limitations
There is a high potential for odors and nuisance insect breeding
if feed sludges are not well-digested. Odor and nuisance control
chemicals are not entirely satisfactory; also, definitive data
on performance and design parameters are lacking despite the
popularity of this approach.
III.7.15.7 Chemicals Required
Lime or other odor control chemicals may be required if digestion
is incomplete.
III.7.15.8 Residuals Generated
Generally, the residuals resulting from a well-operated lagoon
will be in the range of 30% solids and are suitable for use as a
soil conditioner or landfill.
III.7.15.9 Environmental Impact
Odor and vector portential are high unless unit is properly de-
signed and operated; land-use requirement is high; groundwater
pollution potential is high unless proper site characterization
is incorporated into design.
III.7.15.10 Reliability
Where properly designed, process reliability is a function of
upstream processing (digestion).
III.7.15.11 Design Criteria
Criteria
Pikes Slopot of 1.2 exterior and l;3 interior *re needed to
permit maintunance and mowing and to prevent erosion;
width must be sufficient to allow vehicle transport
during cleaning.
Depth: 1.5 to 4.0 ft of sludge depth (depending upon climate).
Bottom: Separation fro* groundwater is dependent upon application
depths and soil characteristics, but should not be l*ss
than 4 ft to prevent groundwater contamination.
Calls: A minim* of two ceils is required.
Uaading rates: 2*2 to 2.4 Ib solids/yi/ft1 of capacity; 1.1 to
3.3 16 solids/ft3 of surface/30 days of bed use; 1 to
4 ft2/capita (depending on climate).
Uecant. Single- or multiple-level decant for periodic returning
supernatant to head of plant.
Sludge removal: Approximately 1.5 to 3 yr intervals.
Date: 9/20/79 . III.7.15-2
-------
III.7.15.12 Flow Diagram
DIGESTED SLUDGE
SUPERNATANT TO WET WELL
III.7.15.13 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/20/79 •
III.7.15-3
-------
III.8.1 EVAPORATION LAGOONS [1]
III.8.1.1 Function
The evaporation lagoon is an open holding facility that depends
solely on climatic conditions such as evaporation, precipitation,
temperature, humidity, and wind velocity to effect dissipation
(evaporation) of on-site sludge.
III.8.1.2 Description
Individual lagoons may be considered as an alternate means of
sludge disposal on individual pieces of property. The basic im-
petus to consider this system is to allow building and other land
uses on properties that have soil conditions not conducive to the
workability and acceptability of the conventional on-site drain-
field or leachbed disposal systems.
If the annual evaporation rate exceeds the annual precipitation,
evaporation lagoons may at least be considered as a method of
disposal. The deciding factor then becomes the required land
area and holding volume. For on-site installations such as small
industrial applications, there may also be a certain amount of
infiltration or percolation in the initial period of operation.
However, after a time, solids deposition may be expected to even-
tually clog the surface to the point where infiltration is elim-
inated. The potential impact of wastewater infiltration to the
groundwater, and particularly on-site water supplies, should be
evaluated in any event and, if necessary, lagoon lining may be
utilized to alleviate the problem.
III.8.1.3 Technology Status
The technology of evaporation is well developed in terms of our
scientific understanding and application of climatological and
meteorological data.
III.8.1.4 Applications
The on-site utilization of evaporation lagoons for the disposal
of sludge from smaller industrial or commercial facilities may
be applicable where access to a municipal sanitary sewer is not
available, where subsurface methods are not feasible, and where
effluent polishing for surface discharge is not practical.
III.8.1.5 Limitations
Local health ordinances may limit the use of evaporation lagoons;
lagoons represent a potential health hazard when not properly
disinfected and controlled; facilities require land area and de-
pend on meteorologic and climatological conditions; may require
provision to add makeup water to maintain a minimum depth during
Date: 9/20/79 • III.8.1-1
-------
dry, hot seasons; public access restrictions are likely.
III.8.1.6 Residuals Generated
Periodic pump out of accumulated sludge is required.
III.8.1.7 Environmental Impact
Potential odors; potential health hazard; land area requirements
may be large; may adversely affect surrounding property values.
III.8.1.8 Reliability
Good reliability; however, should be closely controlled to pre-
vent health hazard.
III.8.1.9 Design Criteria
Hydraulic loading is the primary sizing criteria for an individ-
ual total retention lagoon. In order to size the system proper-
ly, the following information is needed: (1) anticipated flow of
sludge, (2) evaporation rates (10-yr minimum of monthly data),
and (3) precipitation rates (10-yr minimum of monthly data).
III.8.1.10 Flow Diagram
MAX 1 UM WATER LEVEL
"wssBs^raras^a^T^Lw
LINER
(IF REQUIRED)
III.8.1.11 Performance
The performance of evaporation lagoons is necessarily site-
specific; therefore, the following data are presented on the
basis of net annual evaporation rate that may exist in a certain
area:
Date: 9/20/79 . III.8.1-2
-------
Net annual Lagoon Performance,
evaporation5, in. gal water evaporated/ft2/yr
5
10
15
20
40
60
3.1
6.2
9.4
12.5
24.9
37.4
Net annual evaporation = true annual evaporation -
annual precipitation.
III.8.1.12 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/20/79 ' III.8.1-3
-------
III.8.2 INCINERATION [1]
III.8.2.1 Function
Sludge incineration is a two-step process involving drying and
combustion after preliminary dewatering. A typical sludge con-
tains 75% water and 75% volatiles in dry solids. Self-sustained
combustion without supplementary fuel is often possible with
dewatered raw sludges having a solids concentration greater than
30%.
III.8.2.2 Description
Two types of incinerator furnaces are descriped: the fluidized
bed furnace, and the multiple hearth furnace.
Fluidized Bed Furnace. The fluidized bed furnace (FBF) is
a vertically oriented, cylindrically shaped, refractory-
lined steel shell that contains a sand bed and fluidizing
air distributor. The FBF is normally available in diameters
of 9 to 25 feet and heights of 20 to 60 feet. There is one
industrial unit operating with a diameter of 53 feet. The
sand bed is approximately 2.5 feet thick and rests on a
refractory-lined air-distribution grid containing tuyeres
through which air is injected at a pressure of 3 to 5 psi
to fluidize the bed. Bed expansion is approximately 80% to
100%. Bed temperature is controlled between 1,400°F and
1,500°F by auxiliary burners and/or a water spray or heat
removal system above the bed. Ash is carried out the top
of the furnace and removed by air pollution control devices,
usually wet venturi scrubbers. Sand is lost by attrition
at an approximate rate of 5% of the bed volume every 300
hours of operation. Furnace feed can be introduced either
above or directly into the bed depending on the type of
feed. Generally, sewage sludge is fed directly into the
bed.
Excess air requirements for the FBF vary from 20% to 40%.
It requires less supplementary fuel than a multiple hearth
furnace. An oxygen analyzer in the stack controls the air
flow into the reactor, and the auxiliary fuel feed rate is
controlled by a bed-temperature controller.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. The multiple hearth furnace (MHF)
is a vertically oriented, cylindrically shaped, refractory-
lined steel shell having a diameter of 4 to 25 feet and
containing 4 to 13 horizontal hearths positioned one above
the other. The hearths are constructed of high heat duty
fire brick and special fire brick shapes. Sludge is raked
radially across the hearths by rabble arms that are suppor-
ted by a central rotating shaft that runs the height of the
furnace. The cast iron shaft is motor driven with provision
Date: 9/20/79 III.8.2-1
-------
for speed adjustment from 1/2 to 1-1/2 r/min. Sludge is fed
to the top hearth and proceeds downward through the furnace
from hearth to hearth. Inflow hearths have a central port
through which sludge passes to the next lower hearth. Out-
flow hearths have ports on their periphery that also tend
to regulate gas velocities. The central shaft contains in-
ternal concentric flow passages through which air is routed
to cool the shaft and rabble arms. The flow of combustion
air is countercurrent to that of the sludge. Gas or oil
burners are provided on some hearths for start-up and/or
supplemental use as required.
The rabble arms provide mixing action as well as movement
to the sludge so that a maximum sludge surface is exposed
to the hot furnace gases. Because of the irregular surface
left by the rabbling action, the surface area of sludge ex-
posed to the hot gases is as much as 130% of the hearth
area. While there is significant solids-gas contact time on
the hearths, the overall contact time is actually still
greater, due to the fall of the sludge from hearth to hearth
through the countercurrent flow of hot gases.
The various phases of the incineration process occur in
three zones of the MHF. The drying zone consists of the
upper hearths, the combustion zone consists of the central
hearths, and the lower hearths comprise the cooling zone.
Temperatures in each zone are shown below.
Temperature,
Zone
Drying
Burning
Cooling
Sludge
a-100
o.l,500
0,400
Air
0.800
o,i,500
0,350
III.8.2.3 Common Modifications
Fluidized Bed Furnace. An air preheater is used in conjunc-
tion with a fluidized bed to reduce fuel costs. Also,
cooling tubes may be submerged in the bed for energy recov-
ery.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. An afterburner fired with oil or
gasis provided where required by local air pollution regu-
lations to eliminate unburned hydrocarbons and other
combustibles.
Date: 9/20/79 III.8.2-2
-------
III.8.2.4 Technology Status
Fluidized Bed Furnace. The first fluidized bed wastewater
sludge incinerator was installed in 1962. Many units are
now operating in the U.S. with capacities of 200 to
1,000 Ib/h of dry solids.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. The MHF is the most widely used
wastewater sludge incinerator in the U.S. today. As of
1970, 120 units have been installed.
III.8.2.5 Applications
Fluidized Bed Furnace. The fluidized bed furnace is used
for reduction of sludge volume, thereby reducing land re-
quirements for disposal; unit has energy recovery potential
and is suitable for plants where hauling distances to dis-
posal sites are long, or where regulations concerning these
alternative methods are prohibitive.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. Same as for fluidized bed furnace.
III.8.2.6 Limitations
Fluidized Bed Furnace. Because a minimum amount of air is
always required for bed fluidization, fan energy savings
during load turndown (i.e., sludge feed reduction) are
minor. FBF is generally not cost effective for small
plants.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. Capacities of MHF's vary from 200
to 8,000 Ib/h of dry sludge. Maximum operating temperatures
are limited to 1,700°F. There may be operational problems
with high-energy feeds. MHF requires 24 to 30 hours for
furnace warm-up or cool-down to avoid refractory problems.
Failure of rabble arms and hearths have been encountered;
nuisance shutdowns have occurred due to ultraviolet flame
scanner malfunctions. Thickening and dewatering pretreat-
ment is required.
III.8.2.7 Environmental Impact
Fluidized Bed Furnace. Particulate collection efficiencies
of 86% to 97% are required to meet current standards. There
are very few data on the amount of toxic metals that are
volatilized and discharged. Limited test data indicate that
4% to 35% of the mercury entering an incinerator with emis-
sion controls will volatilize and be emitted to the atmos-
phere (excluding particulate forms). Gaseous emissions of
C), HC1, S02 and N02 may be appreciable; additional air
pollution control measures may be necessary. Pesticides and
PCB's are found in the sludge, but tests indicate that they
Date: 9/20/79 III.8.2-3
-------
can be destroyed during incineration and should not be prob-
lematical.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. Same as for fluidized bed furnace.
III.8.2.8 Design Criteria
Fluidized Bed Furnace. Design criteria for FBF are shown
below. Concerning actual operations, some extensive main-
tenance problems have occurred with air preheaters. Scaling
of the venturi scrubbers has also been a problem. Screw
feeds and screw pump feeds are both subject to jamming
because of either overdrying of the sludge feed at the in-
cinerator or because of silt carried into the feed system
with the sludge. Another frequent problem has been the
burnout of spray nozzles or thermocouples in the bed.
Parameter
Design criteria
Bed loading rate
Superficial bed velocity
Sand effective size
Operating temperature
Bed expansion
Sand loss
50 - 60 Ib wet solids/ft2/hr
0.4 - 0.6 ft/s
0.2 - 0.3 mm (uniformity coefficient = 1.8)
1,400 - 1,500°F (normal); 2,200°F (maximum)
80 - 100%
5% of bed volume per 300 hr of operation
Multiple Hearth Furnace.
below.
Design criteria for MHF are shown
Parameter
Design criteria
Maximum operating temperature
Hearth loading rate
Combustion air flow
Shaft cooling air flow
Excess air
1,700°F
6 - 10 Ib wet solids/ft2/hr with
a dry solids concentration of
20 - 40%
12 - 13 Ib/lb dry solids
1/3 - 1/2 of combustion air flow
75 - 100%
Date: 9/20/79
III.8.2-4
-------
III.8.2.9 Flow Diagrams
Fluidized Bed Furnace.
FURNACE EXHAUST
BED COILS FOR
HEAT RECOVERY
(NOT USED IN
THIS ANALYSIS)
RADIATION
SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL •"
SLUDGE FEED
Multiple Hearth Furnace
GAS EXHAUST
WET SCRUBBER
• SCRUBBER WATER
DRAIN
GAS EXHAUST
SHAFT COOLING AIR NOT RETURNED
SHAFT COOLING
AIR RETURN
FURNACE EXHAUST
SLUDGE FEED—H-
SUPPLEMENTALI
FUEL
WET SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
WATER
ASH
COMBUSTION I DRAIN
AIR
SHAFT COOLING AIR
III.8.2.10 Performance
Fluidized Bed Furnace. The mass of dry solids is reduced to
25% to 35% of the amount entering the unit.
Multiple Hearth Furnace. Dry solids are reduced to 20% to
25% of the mass entering the unit. The recoverable heat
ranges from 18% of the total heat input (sludge and supple-
mentary fuel) at 20% solids concentration to 45% of the
total heat input at 40% solids concentration.
Date: 9/20/79 '
III.8.2-5
-------
III.8.2.11 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/20/79 . III.8.2-6
-------
III. 8. 3 STARVED AIR COMBUSTION [1]
III.8.3.1 Function
Starved air combustion is used for the volumetric and organic re-
duction of sludge solids.
III.8.3.2 Description
The process utilizes equipment and process flows similar to in-
cineration except that less than the theoretical amount of air
for complete combustion is supplied. Autogenous starved air com-
bustion (SAC) can be achieved with a sludge solids concentration
greater than 25%. For lower concentrations, an auxiliary fuel
may be required, depending on the percent volatiles in the
solids. High temperatures decompose or vaporize the solid com-
ponents of this sludge. The gas phase reactions are pyrolytic
or oxidative, depending on the concentration of oxygen remaining
in the stream. Under proper control, the gas leaving the vessel
is a low-Btu fuel gas that can be burned in an afterburner to
produce power and/or thermal energy. Some processes utilize pure
oxygen instead of air and thus produce a higher-Btu fuel gas.
The solid residue is a char with more or less residual carbon,
depending on how much combustion air had to be supplied to reach
the proper operating temperatures. Because the process is
neither purely pyrolytic nor purely oxidative, it is called
starved-air combustion or thermal gasification, rather than py-
rolysis. Other processes still in the development stage use
indirect heating, rather than the partial combustion. These are
true pyrolysis processes. SAC reduces the sludge volumes and
sterilizes the end product. Unlike incineration, it offers the
potential advantages of producing useful by-products and of re-
ducing the volume of sludge without large amounts of supplemen-
tary fuels. The gas that is produced has a heating value up to
130 Btu/standard dry cubic foot using air for combustion and is
suitable for use in local applications, such as combustion in an
afterburner or boiler or for fuel in another furnace. SAC has a
higher thermal efficiency than incineration due to the lower
quantity of air required for the process. In addition, capital
economies can be realized due to the smaller gas handling re-
quirements .
Furnaces may be operated in one of three modes resulting in sub-
stantially different heat generation and residue characteristics.
The low temperature char (LTC) mode only pyrolyzes the volatile
material thereby producing a charcoal-like residue with a high
ash content. The high temperature char (HTC) mode produces a
charcoal-like material converted to fixed carbon and ash. The
char burned (CB) mode reacts away all carbon and produces ash
as a residue. Heat recovered is maximum for the CB mode, less
for the HTC mode, and substantially less for the LTC mode of
operation.
Date: 9/20/79 • III.8.3-1
-------
SAC operation has shown the following advantages in addition to
those discussed above: (1) it is easier to control than a stan-
dard incinerator; (2) .it is a more stable operation with little
response to changes in feed; (3) it has more feed capacity com-
pared to an equal area for incineration; (4) all equipment used
is currently being manufactured; (5) less air pollutants are gen-
erated and air pollution control is easier to manage; and (6) the
process uses lower sludge solids content for autogenous operation.
III.8.3.3 Technology Status
Autogenous SAC of sludge has been demonstrated at a full-scale
multiple hearth furnaces (MHF) project at the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District in California. One SAC unit for disposal
of sludge from a 40 Mgal/d industrial wastewater treatment plant
is reported to have gone on stream in 1978 and other units were
contemplated.
III.8.3.4 Applications
Starved air combustion is used for the reduction of sludge volume
and production of fuel gas for a nearby combustor or furnace;
most existing MHF's can easily be retrofitted to operate in the
SAC mode.
III.8.3.5 Limitations
There are significant disadvantages to starved air combusion in-
cluding: (1) the need for an afterburner may limit use in
existing installations due to space problems; (2) relatively
large amount of instrumentation is required; (3) one must be very
careful of bypass stack exhaust since furnace exhaust is high in
hydrocarbons and may be combustible in air (this may result in
bypassing only after afterburning with appropriate emergency con-
trols in some areas); (4) furnace exhaust gases are corrosive;
(5) combustibles in ash may create ultimate disposal problems;
(6) sludge volume reduction is lower than with incineration; and
(7) the process requires recovery of the energy in the product
gas to fully realize the improved efficiency.
III.8.3.6 Environmental Impact
Air pollution can be expected to be less of a problem due to the
lower air flows and the potential for particulate carryover.
Data to date indicate conventional equipment can achieve accepta-
ble controls. Depending upon the mode of operation, heavy metals
in the sludge can be retained in the residue.
III.8.3.7 Reliability
Mechanical function of MHF units under the SAC mode is expected
to be similar to the conventional operating modes. Increased
Date: 9/20/79 . III.8.3-2
-------
operating stability is expected to result in higher process re-
liability.
III.8.3.8 Design Criteria
In MHF systems, hearth loadings are 9 to 15 Ib wet (22 percent)
solids/ft2/h; for autogenous combustion, sludge solids content is
25% to 39% depending upon volatility. The off-gas heating value
is dependent upon operating mode.
III.8.3.9 Flow Diagram
GAS EXHAUST
SHAFT COOLING AIR NOT RETURNED
SHAFT COOLING AIR
RETURNED TO FURNACE
SLUDGE DEWATERING
AND FEED SYSTEM
SLUDGE
FEED
COMBUSTION
AIR
FURNACE
"XHAUSL
SHAFT COOLING AIR
RETURNED TO AFTER-
BURNER
AFTERBURNER
| AFTERBURNER
EXHAUST_>
MULTIPLE
HEARTH
PYROLYTIC
REACTOR
WET SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
WATER
ASH
COMBUSTION
AIR
PRECOOLER AND VENTURI WATER
_ CONNECTED POWER
SHAFT COOLING AIR
III.8.3.10 Performance
Unit can operate without auxiliary fuel, including afterburner,
with sludge dewatered to the range of 29% to 39% solids. Based
on a limited number of pilot-scale tests, the off-gas from an MHF
unit operating in the SAC mode, with sludge alone, ranges from
18 to 73 Btu/standard cubic foot.
III.8.3.11 References
1. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA-430/9-78-009 (draft), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 252 pp.
Date: 9/20/79
III.8.3-3
-------
III.9 REFERENCES
Al Revised Technical Review of the Best Available Technology,
Best Demonstrated Technology, and Pretreatment Technology
for the Timber Products Processing Point Source Category
(draft contractors report). Contract 68-01-4827, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
October 1978.
A2 Development Document for BAT Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for Ore Mining
and Dressing Industry. No. 6332-M.l, A Division of Calspan
Corporation, Buffalo, New York, 1979.
A3 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (BATEA), New Source Perform-
ance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category, March 1978, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
A4 Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Paint Manufacturing
Industry, January 1979, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
A5 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Tire and Synthetic
Segment of the Rubber Processing Point Source Category.
EPA-440/l-74-013a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., February 1974. 193 pp.
A6 Technical Study Report BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS: Textile Mills
Point Source Category, November 1978. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
A7 Technical Review of the Best Available Technology, Best
Demonstrated Technology, and Pretreatment Technology for
the Gum and Wood Chemicals Point Source Category. No. 77-
094, Environmental Science and Engineering Incorporation,
Gainesville, Florida, 1978.
A8 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for the Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing. EPA 440/1-76,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
April 1976.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-1
-------
A9 Interim Final Supplement for Pretreatment to the Development
Document for the Petroleum Refining Industry Existing Point
Source Category. EPA-440/1-76, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, March 1977.
A10 Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Ink Manufacturing
Industry (BATEA, NSPS, Pretreatment), January 1979, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines
Division, Washington, D.C.
All Technical Assistance in the Implementation of the BAT Review
of the Coal Mining Industry Point Source Category, March 9,
1979, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
A12 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Point Source Category.
EPA-440/1-75-060, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., December 1976. 331 pp.
A13 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Fish Meal,
Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring,
and Abalone, Segment of the Canned and Perserved Fish and
Seafood Processing Industry, Point Source Category. EPA-
440/l-75-041a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., September 1975. 485 pp.
A14 Development Document for Proposed Existing Source Pretreat-
ment Standards for the Electroplating, Point Source Category.
EPA-440/1-78-085, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., February 1978. 532 pp.
A15 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Leather Tanning
and Finishing Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-016-a,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
March 1974. 157 pp.
A16 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source
Category. EPA-440/l-78-060-e, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1978. 316 pp.
A17 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Dairy Products
Processing Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-021a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1974.
167 pp.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-2
-------
• To provide readily accessible data and information on
treatability of industrial and municipal waste streams for
use by NPDES permit writers, enforcement personnel, and
laboratory researchers; and
• To provide a basis for research planning by identifying gaps
in treatability knowledge and state-of-the-art.
A primary output from the treatability program is a five volume
treatability manual. The treatability manual comprises five
volumes, as follows:
VOLUME I
VOLUME II
Treatability Data
Industrial Descriptions
VOLUME III Technologies
VOLUME IV Cost Estimating
VOLUME V Summary
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The sheer size and comprehensiveness of this document should make
it obvious that this had to be the effort of a large number of people.
It is the collection of contributions from throughout the Environmental
Protection Agency, particularly from the Office of Enforcement, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials and the Office of Research and Develop-
ment. Equally important to its success were the efforts of the employees
of the Aerospace Corporation and the Monsanto Research Corporation who
participated in this operation.
No list of the names of everyone who took part in the effort would
in any way adequately acknowledge the effort which those involved in
preparing this Manual made toward its development. Equally difficult
would be an attempt to name the people who have made the most significant
contributions both because there have been too many and because it would
be impossible to adequately define the term "significant." This document
exists because of major contributions by the contractor's staff and by
members of the following:
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
Permits Division
Office of Water Enforcement
National Enforcement Investigation Center
Office of Enforcement
Center for Environmental Research Information
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Office of Research and Development
The purpose of this acknowledgement is to express my thanks as
Committee Chairman and the thanks of the Agency to the Committee Members
and others who contributed to the succes* of this a*fort.
William A. Cawl'Sy', Deputy Director, IlRL-Ci
Chairman, Treatability Coordination Committee
-------
A18 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines New Source Performance Standards for the Mineral
Mining and Processing Industry Point Source Category. EPA-
440/1-76-059-a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C., June 1976. 432 pp.
A19 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Primary Copper Smelting Subcategory of the Copper Segment
of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category.
EPA-440/l-75-032b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., February 1975. 213 pp.
A20 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for the Raw Cane Sugar Processing Segment of the Sugar
Processing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-75-044, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February
1975. 291 pp.
A21 Development Document for Interim Final and Proposed Efflu-
ent Limitations Guidlines and New Source Performance Stand-
ards for the Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialties Segment
of the Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Point
Source Category. EPA-440/1-75-046, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1975. 520 pp.
A22 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations,
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for the Hospital Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-76—060n,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
April 1976. 131 pp.
A23 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Resins,
Segment of the Plastics and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing
Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-010-a, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 1974. 238 pp.
A24 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Plywood, Hardboard
and Wood Preserving Segment of the Timber Products Process-
ing Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-023-a, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1974.
A25 Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Major Organic Products Segment of the Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-73-009,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
December 1973. 369 pp.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-3
-------
A26 Preliminary Data Base for Review of BATEA Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines, NSPS, and Pretratment Standards for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category, June
1979, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
A27 Foundry Industry (contractor's Draft Report). Contract No.
68-01-4379, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., May 1979.
A28 Technical Support Document for Auto and Other Laundries
Industry (draft contractor's report). Contract 68-03-2550,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
August 1979.
A29 Draft Development Document for Inorganic Chemicals Manu-
facturing Point Source Category - BATEA, NSPS, and Pretreat-
ment Standards (contractor's draft report). Contract 68-01-
4492, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guide-
lines Division, Washington, D.C., April 1979.
A30 Review of the Best Available Technology for the Rubber
Processing Point Source Category, July 1978, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
A31 Draft Technical Report for Revision of Steam Electric
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, September 1978, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
A32 Draft Contractor's Engineering Report for Development of
Effluent Limitations Guidlines for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Industry (BATEA, NSPS, BCT, BMP, Pretreatment),
July 1979, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
A33 Alkaline Cleaning (contractor's draft report). U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 1974.
A34 Basic Oxygen Furance (contractor's draft report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., January
1979.
A35 Coke Making (contractor's draft report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., January 1979.
A36 Cold Rolling Subcategory (contractor's draft report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February
1979.
A37 Combination Acid Pickling (contractor's draft report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
April 1979.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-4
-------
A38 Continuous Casting Subcategory (contractor's draft report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
February 1979.
A39 Hot Coating Subcategories (contractor's draft report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March
1979.
A40 Electric Arc Furnace (contractor's draft report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February
1979.
A41 Hot Forming Section (contractor's draft report) U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 1979.
A42 Hot Forming Primary (contractor's draft report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March
1979.
A43 Hydrochloric Acid Pickling (contractor's draft report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
April 1979.
A44 Pipe and Tube (contractor's draft report). U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 1979.
A45 Scale Removal: Kolene and Hydride (contractor's draft
report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., March 1979.
A46 Sintering (contractor's draft report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February 1979.
A47 Sulfuric Acid Pickling (contractor's draft report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April
1979.
A48 Vacuum Degassing Subcategory (contractor's draft report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
February 1979.
A49 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Coil Coating Point Source Category.
EPA-440/l-79/071-a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., August 1979. 473 pp.
A50 Devleopment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidlines
and Standards Leather Tanning and Finishing Point Source
Category. EPA-440/1-79/016. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1979. 381 pp.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-5
-------
A51 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Porcelain Enameling Point Source
Category. EPA-440-l/79/072-a, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., August 1979. 558 pp.
A52 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point
Source Category. EPA-440/l-79-019a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1979. 622 pp,
Bl Kleper, M. H., A. Z. Gollan, R. L. Goldsmith and K. J.
McNulty. Assessment of Best Available Technology Economic-
ally Achievable for Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Waste-
water. EPA-600/2-78-192, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1978. 182 pp.
B2 CoCo, J. H., E. Klein, D. Rowland, J. H. Mayes, W. A. Myers,
E. Pratz, C. J. Romero, and F. H. Yocum. Development of
Treatment and Control Technology for Refractory Petrochemi-
cal Wastes (draft report). Project No. S80073, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. 220 pp.
B3 Klieve, J. R., and G. D. Rawlings. Source Assessment:
Textile Plant Wastewater Toxics Study Phase II. Contract
No. 68-02-1874, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., April 1979. 127 pp.
B4 Schimmel, C., and D. B. Griffin. Treatment and Disposal of
Complex Industrial Wastes. EPA-600/2-76-123. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 1976,
B5 Rawlings, G. D. Source Assessment: Textile Plant Waste-
water Toxics Study Phase I. EPA-600/2-78-004h, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Triangle Park, North Carolina,
March 1979. 153 pp.
B6 Davis, H. J., F. S. Model, and J. R. Leal. FBI Reverse
Osmosis Membrane for Chromium Plating Rinse Water. EPA-
600/2-78-040. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1978. 28 pp.
B7 Chian, E. S. K., M. N. Aschauer, and H. H. P. Fang. Evalu-
ation of New Reverse Osmosis Membranes for the Separation
of Toxic Compounds from Wastewater. Contract No. DADA 17-
73-C-3025, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Com-
mand, Washington, D.C., October 1975. 309 pp.
B8 Bollyky, L. J. Ozone Treatment of Cyanide-Bearing Plating
Waste. EPA-600/2-77-104, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1977. 43 pp.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-6
-------
B9 Kleper, M. H., R. L. Goldsmith, and A. Z. Gollan. Demon-
stration of Ultrafiltration and Carbon Adsorption for
Treatment of Industrial Laundering Wastewater. EPA/2-78-
177, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
August 1978. 109 pp.
BIO Kleper, M. H., R. L. Goldsmith, T. V. Tran, D. H. Steiner,
J. Pecevich, and M. A. Sakillaris. Treatment of Wastewaters
from Adhesives and Sealants Manufacturing by Ultrafiltration
EPA-600/2-78-176, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1978.
Bll McNulty, K. J., R. L. Goldsmith, A. Gollan, S. Hossain, and
D. Grant. Reverse Osmosis Field Test: Treatment of Copper
Cyanide Rinse Waters, EPA-600/2-77-170, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1977. 89 pp.
B12 Brandon, C. A., and J. J. Porter. Hyperfiltration for
Renovation of Textile Finishing Plant Wastewater. EPA-600/
2-76-060, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Triangle
Park, North Carolina, March 1976. 147 pp.
B13 Petersen, R. J., and K. E. Cobian. New Membranes for
Treating Metal Finishing Effluents by Reverse Osmosis. EPA-
600/2-76-197, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, October 1976. 59 pp.
B14 Lang, W. C., J. H. Crozier, F. P. Drace, and K. H. Pearson.
Industrial Wastewater Reclamation with a 400,000-gallon-
per-day vertical tube evaporator. EPA-600/2-76-260, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, October
1976. 90 pp.
B15 Study of Effectiveness of Activated Carbon Technology for
the Removal of Specific Materials from Organic Chemical
Processes. EPA Contract No. 68-03-2610. Final report on
Pilot Operations at USS Chemical, Nevella.
B16 Selected Biodegradation Techniques for Treatment and/or
Ultimate Disposal of Organic Materials. EPA-600/2-79-006,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
March 1973. 377 pp.
B17 Rawlings, G. D. Evaluation of Hyperfiltration Treated
Textile Wastewaters. Contract 68-02-1874, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1978.
B18 Extraction of Chemical Pollutants from Industrial Waste-
waters with Volatile Solvents. EPA-600/2-76-220, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, December
1976. 510 pp.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-7
-------
B19 Treatment and Recovery of Fluoride Industrial Wastes. No.
PB 234 447, Grumman Aerospace Corporation. Bethpage, N.Y.,
March 1974.
B20 Priority Pollutant Treatibility Review, Industrial Sampling
and Assessment. Contract 68-03-2579, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1978. 47 pp.
B21 Effects of Liquid Detergent Plant Effluent on the Rotating
Biological Contactor. EPA-600/2-78-129, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1978. 58 pp.
B22 Olem, H. The Rotating Biological Contactor for Biochemical
Ferrous Iron Oxidation in the Treatment of Coal Mine Drain-
age. No. W77-05337, Penn State University, Pennsylvania/
November 1975.
Cl Brunotts, V. A., R. S. Lynch, G. R. Van Stone. Granular
Carbon Handles Concentrated Waste. Chemical Engineering
Progress, 6(8):81-84, 1973.
C2 Putting Powdered Carbon in Wastewater Treatment. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, Volume II, No. 9, September
1977.
Dl De, J. and B. Paschal. The Effectiveness of Granular
Activated Carbon in Treatability Municipal and Industrial
Wastewaters. In: Third National Conference on Complete
Water Reuse, AIChE and EPA Technology Transfer, June 1976.
pp. 204-211.
D2 De, J., B. Paschal, and A. D. Adams. Treatment of Oil
Refinery Wastewaters with Granular and Powdered Activated
Carbon. In: Thirtieth Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Indiana, May 1975. pp. 216-232.
D3 Argaman, Yerachmiel, and C. L. Weddle. Fate of Heavy
Metals Physical Treatment Processes. In: AIChE Symposium
Series, Volume 70, No. 136.
Date: 12/12/79 III.9-8
------- |