EPA600/2-77-156
n-156
September 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
. ^
{
'*-,''. ''.'
.it '
U.S. Environmental Agency
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9 Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-156
September 1977
APPRAISAL OF POWDERED ACTIVATED
CARBON PROCESSES FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
by
A. J. Shuckrow
Battelle-Northwest
Richland, Washington 99352
and
G. L. Gulp
Clean Water Consultants
El Dorado Hills, California 95630
Contract No. 68-03-2211
Project Officer
James J. Westrick
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pol-
lution to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious
air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the
deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity of that
environment and the interplay between its components require a
concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring
its impact, and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology
and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management of waste-
water and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from
municipal and community sources, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.
This publication is one of the products of that research; a most
vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.
The information herein deals with an evaluation of the use
of powdered activated carbon as a means of treating municipal
wastewater. It serves to explore the strengths and weaknesses of
this new technology and identify those areas where improvements
would be of greatest value. As such, it fulfills the need for
continuing technology assessment in emerging areas.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Powdered activated carbon has been the subject of several
developmental efforts directed towards producing improved methods
for treating municipal wastewaters. Granular activated carbon
has proven itself as an effective means of reducing dissolved
organic contaminant levels, but is plagued with specific oper-
ational problems which can be avoided with powdered carbon. The
work reported herein was aimed at putting powdered activated carbon
(PAC) treatment in proper perspective relative to competing tech-
nology. All work with PAC and PAC regeneration was reviewed and
representative process approaches selected for comparison with
activated sludge, activated sludge with nitrification, and
granular activated carbon. While no one PAC approach is clearly
superior from a performance standpoint, biophysical processes are
attractive because they can be incorporated into existing biolog-
ical plants. Comparison of capital and operating costs were made
for plants with throughput rates of 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 MGD.
Cost relations were generated in curvilinear relations to allow
interpolation. Based on these estimates, it was determined that
independent physical-chemical PAC systems are not economically
competitive with other modes of treatment. PAC may offer advan-
tages for specific cases where highly variant flows are experienced
such as plant receiving flows of a seasonal nature or areas with
combined storm sewer systems. A sensitivity analysis was also
conducted to determine where improvements could be made to make
PAC competitive. Lower carbon doses and/or inexpensive throwaway
carbon would be needed to successfully challenge the other systems
evaluated.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.
68-03-2211 by Battelle-Northwest under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work was subcontracted to
Clean Water Consultants. This report covers a period from June
1975 to July 1976.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables vi
Acknowledgements xiii
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 4
Performance 4
Economics 5
3. Recommendations 8
4. Powdered Carbon Treatment Systems 10
Independent Physical-Chemical (IPC) Systems. ... 10
Battelle-Northwest Study 10
Eimco Study 16
Infilco Studies 19
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Study 21
Combined Biological-Carbon (CBC) Systems 26
DuPont Pact Process 29
ICI United States Studies 32
Polyols and Derivatives Waste Treatment
Facility 32
Combined Waste Treatment Facility 32
Solids Settling-Extended Aeration 32
Norfolk, Nebraska, Water Pollution
Control Plant 34
Zimpro Studies 34
Contact Stabilization - Carbon Systems 37
5. Powdered Carbon Regeneration 40
Atomized Suspended Technique (AST) 40
Biological Regeneration 42
Fluid Bed Furnace 42
JPL Pyrolysis 46
Multiple Hearth Furnace 52
Transport System 52
Wet Air Oxidation 57
6. Base Case Selection 61
IPC Systems 62
CBC Systems 63
Regeneration Systems 63
7. Processes Evaluated 65
8. Process Economics 68
Basis for Cost Estimates 68
Activated Sludge, Conventional 69
Design Basis 69
v
-------
CONTENTS(CONTINUED)
Costs 73
Capital Costs 73
Operation and Maintenance Costs 76
Activated Sludge, Single Stage for
Nitrification 91
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration 91
Granular Carbon Treatment of Chemically
Coagulated, Settled, and Filtered Raw
Wastewater 91
Powdered Carbon, Eimco ... 129
Powdered Carbon Feed 129
Flocculator-Clarifier 147
Reactor-Clarifier 147
Fluidized Bed Regeneration Furnace 147
Powdered Carbon, Battelle 148
Powdered Carbon, Bio-Physical 148
9. Evaluation of Relative Economics 194
Activated Sludge and Granular Carbon Systems . . 194
Biological Nitrification, Two Stage 195
Eimco System 195
Battelle Process 200
Bio-Physical Process 204
Cost Sensitivity to Carbon Losses 204
Composition of Process Costs 207
Carbon Regeneration Costs 207
Sensitivity to Sludge Disposal Method 207
Comparison of Total Annual Cost Components
for 10 MGD IPC Systems 211
Eimco vs Granular Carbon 211
Battelle vs Granular Carbon 211
Sensitivity of Granular Carbon Costs to
Carbon Dosage 213
Multiple-Hearth Regeneration of Powdered
Carbon 213
Eimco 216
Battelle 216
Bio-Physical 216
References 231
Appendix 235
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Process Flow Sheet, Battelle-Northwest
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment System. ... 11
2 Schematic Flowsheet of Mobile Pilot Plant,
Battelle-Northwest Powdered Activated Carbon
Treatment System 13
3 Fluidized Bed Regeneration Unit for Powdered
Activated Carbon 14
4 Regeneration System Schematic Flowsheet,
Battelle-Northwest Powdered Activated Carbon
Pilot Plant 15
5 Process Flow Diagram for Eimco Pilot Plant. ... 17
6 JPL-ACTS Process for OCSD 22
7 Pilot Plant Schematic 30
8 Effect of Powdered Carbon on BOD Removals .... 33
9 Effect of Powdered Carbon on COD Removals .... 33
10 Effect of Powdered Carbon on BOD Removals .... 35
11 Activated Sludge Process 35
12 Full-Scale Powdered Carbon Treatment at
Rothschild, Wisconsin S.T.P 38
13 AST Regeneration System 41
14 Fluidized-Bed Regeneration Furnace, Eimco
Pilot Study 45
15 Modified Eimco Fluidized-Bed 47
16 Cross-Sectional View of Multiple Hearth
Furnace 54
vn
-------
FIGURES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
17 Schematic of the Westvaco Powdered Carbon
Regeneration System 55
18 Zimpro Carbon Regeneration Flow Diagram 58
19 Activated Sludge Process Schematic 70
20 Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration Schematic 107
21 Granular Carbon System Schematic 124
22 Eimco System Process Flow Sheet 141
23 Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System (5-50 MGD). 144
24 Powdered Carbon Storage and Feeding (1 MGD) ... 145
25 Powdered Carbon Storage and Feeding (5-50 MGD). . 146
26 Battelle Process Flow Sheet 162
27 Flow Sheet for Bio-Physical Process with
Wet Air Oxidation 177
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 JPL Pilot Plant Operated at Orange County
Sanitation District Plant No. 1 23
2 JPL Pilot Plant Results 24
3 JPL Pilot Plant Results (Operation by
Sanitation District Staff) 25
4 Carbon Loading and COD Removal 27
5 Average Pilot Plant Performance 31
6 Summary of Results 36
7 Sludge Handling Summary 36
8 Full-Scale Powdered Carbon Treatment at
Rothschild, Wisconsin S.T.P 38
9 Fluidized-Bed Furnace Results Eimco
Pilot Study 48
10 Pyrolysis and Activation of Carbon-Sewage
in Pilot Test Equipment 50
11 Gas Chromatograph Analysis of Carbon-Sewage
Pyrolysis and Activation Off-Gas 53
12 Properties of Regenerated Carbon from a
Bio-Physical Process 60
13 Properties of Carbon Regenerated from a
Chemical Bio-Physical Process 60
14 Assumed Composition of Raw Wastewater 66
15 Estimated Process Effluent Quality
Characteristics 67
IX
-------
TABLES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
16 Design Conditions for Activated Sludge
Primary Sedimentation Unit 71
17 Activated Sludge System Design Parameters. ... 72
18 Unit Process Sizes, Activated Sludge 74
19 Capital Costs, Activated Sludge 78
20 Activated Sludge, 1 MGD O&M 80
21 Activated Sludge, 5 MGD O&M 81
22 Activated Sludge, 10 MGD O&M 82
23 Activated Sludge, 25 MGD O&M 83
24 Activated Sludge, 50 MGD O&M 84
25 Activated Sludge, 1 MGD 85
26 Activated Sludge, 5 MGD 86
27 Activated Sludge, 10 MGD 87
28 Activated Sludge, 25 MGD 88
29 Activated Sludge, 50 MGD 89
30 Activated Sludge Annual Cost Summary 90
31 Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification
System Design Parameters 92
32 Unit Process Sizes, Single Stage Activated
Sludge Nitrification 93
33 Capital Costs, Single Stage Activated
Sludge Nitrification 94
34 Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
1 MGD O&M 96
35 Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
5 MGD O&M 97
36 Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
10 MGD O&M 98
x
-------
TABLES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
25 MGD O&M
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
50 MGD O&M
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
1 MGD
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
5 MGD
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
10 MGD
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
25 MGD
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
50 MGD
Single Stage Activated Sludge Nitrification,
Annual Cost Summary
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, Design Parameters
Unit Process Sizes
Capital Costs, Activated Sludge with Chemical
Coagulation and Filtration
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 1 MGD
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 5 MGD
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 10 MGD
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 25 MGD
Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 50 MGD
Activated Sludge With Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 1 MGD
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
108
110
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
XI
-------
TABLES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
54 Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 5 MGD 119
55 Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 10 MGD 120
56 Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 25 MGD 121
57 Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration, 50 MGD 122
58 Activated Sludge with Chemical Coagulation
and Filtration Annual Cost Summary 123
59 Design Parameters for Granular Carbon System . . 125
60 Granular Carbon Systems Unit Process Sizes . . . 127
61 Capital Costs, Granular Carbon 128
62 Granular Carbon, 1 MGD O&M 130
63 Granular Carbon, 5 MGD O&M 131
64 Granular Carbon, 10 MGD O&M 132
65 Granular Carbon, 25 MGD O&M 133
66 Granular Carbon, 50 MGD O&M 134
67 Granular Carbon, 1 MGD 135
68 Granular Carbon, 5 MGD 136
69 Granular Carbon, 10 MGD 137
70 Granular Carbon, 25 MGD 138
71 Granular Carbon, 50 MGD 139
72 Granular Carbon Annual Cost Summary 140
73 Design Parameters for Eimco System 142
74 Unit Process Sizes, Eimco Process 149
75 Capital Costs, Eimco 150
76 Eimco, 1 MGD O&M 151
xii
-------
TABLES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
77 Eimco, 5 MGD O&M 152
78 Eimco, 10 MGD O&M 153
79 Eimco, 25 MGD O&M 154
80 Eimco, 50 MGD O&M 155
81 Eimco, 1 MGD 156
82 Eimco, 5 MGD 157
83 Eimco, 10 MGD 158
84 Eimco, 25 MGD 159
85 Eimco, 50 MGD 160
86 Eimco Annual Cost Summary 161
87 Battelle Process System Design Parameters . . . 163
88 Unit Process Sizes, Battelle Process 164
89 Capital Costs, Battelle-Northwest Process . . . 165
90 Battelle-Northwest, 1 MGD O&M 166
91 Battelle-Northwest, 5 MGD O&M 167
92 Battelle-Northwest, 10 MGD O&M 168
93 Battelle-Northwest, 25 MGD O&M 169
94 Battelle-Northwest, 50 MGD O&M 170
95 Battelle Process, 1 MGD .- 171
96 Battelle Process, 5 MGD 172
97 Battelle Process, 10 MGD 173
98 Battelle Process, 25 MGD 174
99 Battelle Process, 50 MGD 175
100 Battelle Process, Annual Cost Sumary 176
101 Design Parameters for Bio-Physical Process
with Wet Air Oxidation 178
xiii
-------
TABLES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
102 Unit Process Sizes, Bio-Physical 181
103 Capital Costs, Bio-Physical Process 182
104 Bio-Physical, 1 MGD O&M 183
105 Bio-Physical, 5 MGD O&M 184
106 Bio-Physical, 10 MGD O&M 185
107 Bio-Physical, 25 MGD O&M 186
108 Bio-Physical, 50 MGD O&M 187
109 Bio-Physical Process, Annual Cost
Summary, 1 MGD 188
110 Bio-Physical Process, Annual Cost
Summary, 5 MGD 189
111. Bio-Physical Process, Annual Cost
Summary, 10 MGD 190
112 Bio-Physical Process, Annual Cost
Summary, 25 MGD 191
113 Bio-Physical Process, Annual Cost
Summary, 50 MGD 192
114 Bio-Physical Process, Annual Cost Summary . . . 193
115 Annual Cost Summary Two-Stage
Nitrification 196
116 Annual Cost Summary Eimco - Single Stage. ... 197
117 Annual Cost Summary Eimco System at 100
MG/L Carbon " 198
118 Annual Cost Summary Eimco System with
Throwaway (SC/lb) Carbon (300 mg/1) 199
119 Annual Cost Summary Eimco Systems with
FBF Loading = 3 PSF/HR 201
120 Annual Cost Summary Eimco, 50% Reduction
in Labor, Power, Fuel 202
121 Battelle Process with 200 mg/1 Carbon and
125 mg/1 Alum . . 203
xiv
-------
TABLES(CONTINUED)
Number Page
122 Annual Cost Summary Bio-Physical Process,
Carbonaceous Criteria 205
123 Process Costs Sensitivity to Carbon Loss. . . . 206
124 Composition of Process Costs, 10 MGD 208
125 Carbon Regeneration Costs 209
126 Comparison of Total Annual Cost Components,
10 MGD IPC Systems 212
127 Granular Carbon Process at 750 Ib Carbon
per MG 214
128 Granular Carbon Process at 200 Ib Carbon
per MG 215
129 Eimco Annual Process with Multiple Hearth
Regeneration 217
130 Battelle Process with Multiple Hearth
Regeneration 218
131 Bio-Physical Process with Multiple Hearth
Regeneration 219
132 Conversion Factors for the Units Employed ... 340
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to extend their gratitude to Daniel J. Hinrics
of Culp/Wesner/Culp and Gaynor W. Dawson of Battelle-Northwest
for their contributions to this work.
Special thanks go to James J. Westrick of the EPA Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory for his able advice and assis-
tance during the course of this work.
The secretarial and typing efforts of Nancy Painter are grate-
fully acknowledged.
xvi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 15 years, a great deal of effort and resources have
been invested in wastewater treatment process research and develop-
ment. This has been the result of recognition of the need for
more highly polished effluents from wastewater treatment facilities
in order to meet higher receiving water quality requirements and
in some instances for reuse purposes. Treatment process research
and development has focused both on improvement of the effective-
ness and reliability of existing wastewater treatment schemes and
on development of entirely new treatment processes.
Sorption on activated carbon has emerged as an integral part of
many of the new process developments. In fact, activated carbon
sorption is the most efficient process yet known for the reduction
of dissolved organic substances in wastewater to very low levels.
Activated carbon can be employed either in a granular or powdered
state to effect complete or tertiary treatment of wastewaters.
Granular carbon applications are by far the more common and, of
the two, are the only systems presently utilized in any full-scale
municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Development of powdered
carbon technology has lagged behind largely as a result of a lack of
efficient regeneration systems. Interest in powdered carbon has
remained high, however, because of potential advantages over
granular carbon systems including:
• the cost of powdered carbon on a per pound basis is substan-
tially less than that gf granular carbon;
• powdered carbon will equilibrate with soluble wastewater
organics in a fraction of the time required by granular car-
bon;
• powdered carbon is easily slurried and transported, and can
be supplied on demand by metering pumps;
• powdered carbon dosage can be rapidly changed to meet varying
feed organic strength;
• a powdered carbon system requires a fraction of the carbon
inventory required by granulaj. carbon systems;
1
-------
• a powdered carbon adsorption system has considerably less
headloss than a granular carbon system; and
• hydrogen sulfide formation problems associated with many
granular carbon systems can be easily avoided in powdered
carbon systems.
With continued interest in upgrading wastewater treatment systems
through conversion to or addition of physical chemical modules,
these potential advantages over granular carbon have led to
several process development and modification activities focused
on powdered activated carbon. These efforts have been further
encouraged by the successful pilot-scale demonstration of regen-
eration and reuse of powdered carbon employed to treat municipal
wastewater and the full-scale regeneration of spent industrial
powdered carbon routinely carried out by two commercial concerns.
In order to assess the technical and economic viability of powdered
activated carbon technology in the municipal treatment field, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned Battelle-
Northwest (BNW) and Clean Water Consultants (CWC) to undertake
the current study. The objective of the program was to perform a
detailed evaluation of the body of data generated in the afore-
mentioned process development activities. The literature was
reviewed and a series of personal interviews with workers in the
field was conducted. Information thus collected was evaluated
and three base case treatment processes were selected for further
study. Each of these selected processes was subject to a detailed
economic analysis for treatment plant sizes of 1, 5, 10, 25, and
50 MGD. Economic comparisons were developed for several activated
sludge alternatives and for a granular activated carbon system in
the same size range of plants. In each of the base case systems,
the sludge handling and regeneration processes examined were those
utilized in the original development work for the particular pro-
cess. One additional regeneration scheme (multiple hearth furnace)
was subsequently selected and examined for all of the powdered
carbon treatment processes in all size ranges.
Due to the fact that the various powdered carbon treatment pro-
cesses are still in the developmental stage, a number of assump-
tions were inherent in the analysis. Thus, a sensitivity analysis
was performed for certain of the key assumptions to evaluate
their potential impact on the relative economics. Although this
analysis is based upon limited data in some cases and assumptions
have been necessary, it is believed that a valid picture of the
relative feasibility of powdered activated carbon treatment pro-
cess technology in the municipal area has emerged.
It should be noted that, although laboratory and bench scale
studies were included in the literature review, only processes
which had been developed on the pilot plant scale were considered
for inclusion in the economic analysis.
-------
In the following sections of this report, powdered activated car-
bon process development activities in the area of municipal waste
treatment are described, selection of the base case systems is
discussed, and the technical and economic analysis is presented.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
PERFORMANCE
• Independent physical chemical systems utilizing powdered
activated carbon are unaffected by toxic substances in the
influent stream.
• Powdered activated carbon in bio-physical processes reduces
the sensitivity of the system to toxic substances and seems
to stimulate quicker recovery of some systems after a toxic
material has passed through the system.
• In general, powdered activated carbon systems can be uti-
lized over a broader range of influent BOD conditions, while
producing high quality effluents than more conventional
systems.
• Powdered activated carbon systems are less subject to upset
from changes in influent composition than are more conven-
tional systems.
• From a process performance point of view, none of the develop-
mental powdered activated carbon municipal treatment systems
was found to be clearly superior to the others.
• Developmental work on the various powdered activated carbon
treatment processes has been carried out under widely dif-
ferent conditions which makes direct comparison difficult.
• All of the pilot studies reported in the literature indicate
that each of the processes is capable of producing a high
quality effluent.
• Bio-physical processes are attractive in that they offer the
possibility of implementation at existing activated sludge
plants with no modification of existing facilities other than
the addition of powdered carbon handling and feeding systems
and a regeneration system.
• Laboratory scale studies of a combined contact stabilization-
powdered activated carbon process indicate good potential
for this approach.
-------
• A full scale plant employing the duPont PACT process for
treatment of industrial waste is currently under construction.
Another full-scale bio-physical plant utilizing the Zimpro
approach is planned for a municipal system in Medina, Ohio.
These projects should commercialize the approach and should
provide valuable full-scale operational experience.
• Publicly available data did not lead to a clear choice of a
powdered carbon regeneration system based upon technical con-
siderations.
• Two regeneration systems, the AST system and the transport
system, have been operated routinely in regeneration of
powdered activated carbon used in corn syrup refining. No
such experience exists for carbon used in municipal waste
treatment.
• Wet oxidation appears attractive since this approach does
not require dewatering prior to regeneration or collection
of dry powdered activated carbon after regeneration.
• Two powdered activated carbon regeneration approaches, the
multiple hearth furnace and wet oxidation, will be imple-
mented in the full-scale applications in the foreseeable
future. Both will regenerate powdered carbon used in bio-
physical waste treatment processes.
ECONOMICS
The following summary table presents the costs for the several
alternative processes evaluated in this study. The conclusions
of the economic study are:
• Independent physical-chemical (IPC) systems (using either
granular or powdered carbon) are not cost competitive with
conventional activated sludge for removal of BOD in normal
municipal applications.
• The granular carbon IPC system is comparable in costs to
conventional activated sludge followed by coagulation and
filtration at a carbon dosage of 1,500 Ib/MG. At a carbon
dosage of 750 Ib/MG, the granular carbon system would be
slightly lower in cost than activated sludge followed by
coagulation and filtration.
• The IPC powdered carbon systems with the specified design
criteria are not competitive in cost with the granular car-
bon system.
-------
The Battelle process approach (single clarifier - combined
sludge handling) would offer savings in costs over the
granular carbon system if a carbon dosage of 200 mg/1 and an
alum dosage of 125 mg/1 provides a satisfactory degree of
treatment.
The two-stage Eimco process cost is comparable to the granu-
lar carbon system (1,500 Ib/MG) cost at a powdered carbon
dosage of 100 mg/1. The cost would also be comparable at
the specific dosage of 300 mg/1 if a cheap, throwaway carbon
were available at a cost of IC/lb, an unlikely circum-
stance. A single-stage Eimco system with 100 mg/1 powdered
carbon would be comparable in cost to a granular carbon
system operating at a dosage of 750 Ib/MG.
A reduction in powdered carbon price from that used in this
report (32.5£/lb) to IGC/lb would have an insignificant
effect on the competitive position of the IPC powdered car-
bon systems.
The cost of the bio-physical approach where powdered carbon
is added to the aeration basin of the activated sludge pro-
cess is intermediate in cost between single-stage nitrifi-
cation and two-stage nitrification. If the approach pro-
vides a comparable degree of reliability of nitrification,
it would offer an economic advantage over two-stage acti-
vated sludge. A proposed version of the bio-physical pro-
cess where the design criteria are modified so as to provide
only BOD removal appears comparable in cost to conventional
activated sludge.
The IPC powdered carbon system regeneration costs are based
on fluidized bed furnace loading rates recommended indepen-
dently by two manufacturers. These rates (5-7 Ib/ft2/hr)
are higher than those originally determined (3 Ib/ft2/hr)
by Battelle-Northwest. Should the lower loading rate be
necessary, a significantly adverse cost impact would result.
Multiple hearth regeneration of powdered carbon resulted in
slightly higher capital costs (including costs of pressure
filtration for carbon dewatering), substantially higher fuel
requirements in the larger capacity plants, and substantially
lower power requirements for all capacity plants. Effects
of labor and maintenance materials were not significant.
The net cost effect of using multiple hearth regeneration in
conjunction with pressure filtration was not significant
(i.e., within the probable limits of accuracy of these pre-
liminary estimates) for the Eimco and Battelle processes
but the addition of a carbon dewatering process in the bio-
physical process resulted in a cost increase.
-------
The areas offering the potential for the most favorable eco-
nomic results are: 1) determining the minimum carbon dosages
compatible with satisfactory performance of the Battelle pro-
cess for a variety of wastewater characteristics, 2) maxi-
mizing the loading rates on the FBF regeneration process.
Power, fuel, and labor costs compose such a small portion of
the overall IPC process costs that there is little potential
gain from reductions in the assumptions used for these
variables.
SUMMARY TABLE
Costs/1,000 gallons (Dollars)
02
10
Activated Sludge —
Conventional 1,
Single Stage Nitrification 1.
Two Stage Nitrification 1.21
Conventional With Coagula-
tion & Filtration* 1.49
0.49
0.51
0.59
0.71
0.38
0.41
0.46
0.55
0.29
0.31
0.35
0.44
0.24
0.26
0.29
0.37
Granular Carbon System*
1,500 Ibs carbon/mg 1.84
750 Ibs carbon/mg 1.75
200 Ibs carbon/mg 1.72
Powdered Carbon Systems
Eimco*
Basic Process 2.08
Single Stage 1.96
Two Stage With 100
mg/1 Carbon 1.89
Two Stage With 300
mg/1 Throwaway
(5«/lb) Carbon 1.68
Battelle*
Basic Process
200 mg/1 Carbon,
125 mg/1 alum
200 mg/1 Carbon
Without Filtration 0.96
Bio-Physical
Basic Process
Carbonaceous Criteria
0.73 0.58
0.66 0.52
0.64 0.48
0.94
0.89
0.72
0.81
0.77
0.73
0.57
0.68
0.46
0.40
0.36
0.62
0.60
0.42
0.53
0.40
0.35
0.31
0.56
0.54
0.37
0.48
1
1
0
1
1
.70
.18
.96
.46
.43
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97
.55
,48
55
.52
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
87
46
41
43
39
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
78
39
36
33
30
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
71
35
33
29
26
Effect of 50% Reduction in
Carbon Price on Basic Process
Eimco
Battelle
Bio-Physical
Effect of Multiple Hearth
Regeneration on Basic Process
Eimco
Battelle
Bio-Physical
2.
1.
1.
2,
1.
1.
.02
.58
.44
.21
.66
.66
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
88
85
53
00
91
63
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.71
75
41
,81
,78
.50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
56
66
31
65
72
38
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
50
59
27
60
67
33
Filtration
0.22
0.07
0.05
0.034
0.024
*These processes include effluent filtration
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
It appears that processes involving powdered activated carbon
addition to the activated sludge process are being commercialized
by the private sector. Two firms are independently engaged in
projects which will lead to full-scale plants using this basic
approach but with different regeneration techniques.
An IPC system, that being developed by JPL, will be operated on
the 1 mgd scale in the near future. This project should provide
the basis for commercialization or abandonment of the approach
dependent upon the results of the demonstration program.
The economic analysis conducted in this study indicate that the
Eimco approach is not cost competitive with granular carbon
systems unless a very cheap throwaway carbon becomes available
or unless the carbon dosage requirements were much lower than the
300 mg/1 assumed here. The Battelle-Northwest process also
requires a drastic reduction in carbon dosage below the assumed
value of 600 mg/1 for economic viability. However, the required
reduction would result in a carbon dosage comparable to that
assumed in the Eimco process.
Laboratory studies of contact stabilization-powdered activated
carbon systems indicate good potential for development of a high
performance, low residence time process. Such a process would
offer the potential of significant cost savings.
None of the classic tests such as iodine, methylene blue, phenol,
erythrosin, molasses, or BET can be used to accurately predict
the performance of activated carbon in any of the wastewater
treatment processes studied. This makes comparison of different
regeneration systems operated at different locations extremely
difficult.
In view of the above considerations, the following recommendations
are made:
1. The Battelle-Northwest process should be reexamined to
determine if the carbon and alum dosage can be reduced to
make the process economically competitive while maintaining
good process performance. In addition, consideration should
-------
be given to substitution of a cheaper coagulant such as lime
with no coagulant recovery or abandonment of alum recovery
in the basic process. Stukenoerg1*3 reported that such modi-
fications in the basic Battelle process appeared feasible.
2. Developmental efforts on the contact stabilization-powdered
activated carbon process should be undertaken on the pilot
scale.
3. A standard test by which to measure the activity of virgin
and regenerated powdered activated carbon should be developed,
if possible.
4. Consideration should be given to parallel operation of several
pilot powdered activated carbon regeneration systems oper-
ating in concert with one or more treatment systems in order
to obtain comparable regeneration data.
-------
SECTION 4
POWDERED CARBON TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Process development activities for application of powdered acti-
vated carbon to municipal waste treatment have been directed
toward both independent physical-chemical (IPC) systems and com-
bined biological-carbon (CBC) systems. In addition, some work
has been conducted on the use of powdered activated carbon in a
tertiary treatment mode.
Much of the developmental work with powdered activated carbon
systems has been with industrial wastes. Although this work can-
not be directly translated to municipal use, the body of data
generated for industrial applications has been drawn upon to
assist in the current evaluation.
INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL (IPC) SYSTEMS
There have been four recent major investigations of the use of
powdered activated carbon for the treatment of raw municipal
wastewaters and one major study on the treatment of secondary
effluent. The various developmental programs are described
below.
Battelle-Northwest Study1>2
The Battelle-Northwest study developed the process shown sche-
matically in Figure 1. The process involves contacting raw
sewage with powdered activated carbon to effect removal of dis-
solved organic matter. An inorganic coagulant, alum, is then
used to aid in subsequent clarification. Addition of polyelec-
trolyte is followed by a short flocculation period. Solids are
separated from the liquid stream by gravity settling, and the
effluent is then disinfected and discharged or can be filtered
prior to disinfection. Carbon sludge from the treatment process
is thermally regenerated by a fluidized bed process. Alum is
recovered by acidifying the regenerated carbon-aluminum oxide
mixture to pH 2 with sulfuric acid. This reclaimed alum is then
reused in the treatment process. A pH adjustment, accomplished
with a lime slurry, is required to raise the pH to 6.5-7.0 for
aluminum hydroxide precipitation when reclaimed alum is recycled.
10
-------
t
o
1 — 1
I—
— i
0 H-
cx. _j ct
uj u i
*- >4
o '
Q- Q
•— i X
Q- i— i
z &.
^ uj 4
0-LTl l-l ... |
=> -1 1-
•"3 ' UJ O
o (— «a:
< ZDh-
Q ^^^
Q UJ "-1 °
o_ oa uj H- -z. 2: o
ZD Di
^ Q UJ Z
CX i_- 1 rr\ ry
o 32
I- u.
£
CM
rn
f"^> /*"*» ^ — '
_i a: o l~o
o s uj OQ . ce re a
3 3
<; uj
C£ 00
FIGURE 1. PROCESS FLOW SHEET, 3 ATTELLE -NORTHWEST POWDERED
ACTIVATED CARBON TREATMENT SYSTEM
11
-------
The process was first evaluated in a nine-month laboratory study.
Aqua Nuchar A (product of Westvaco) was selected for use after
screening 15 different commercial carbons.
Based upon the favorable results of the laboratory study, a
100,000 gpd mobile treatment plant was constructed (see Figure 2).
This pilot plant was operated in Albany, New York, from June to
October, 1971, and April to June, 1972. The pilot plant was com-
posed of two major systems: a liquid treatment system was con-
tained, almost entirely, in a forty-foot mobile trailer van. It
was designed for a nominal capacity of 100,000 gpd. Carbon, alum,
and polyelectrolyte were added in a pipe reactor, providing rapid
mixing of the chemicals, preceding flocculation and separation
in a tube settler. Clarified effluent was chlorinated and
released with the option of routing through a gravity filter
prior to chlorination. Sludge was dewatered in a centrifuge.
Carbon was regenerated in a fluidized inert sand bed unit (the
development of which is discussed later in this report) which was
36 inch ID, refractory lined, and self supported. As illustrated
in Figure 3, this unit consisted of three main sections: a fire-
box housing the burner, 30 inches ID by 20 inches high; a bed
section containing inert sand, 27 inches ID bottom, 36 inches ID
top by 60 inches high; and a freeboard 36 inches ID by 72 inches
high. A schematic diagram of the carbon regeneration system is
shown in Figure 4. The pilot furnace used in the Battelle study
was built by Nichols Research and Engineering Corporation.
The pilot study confirmed that proper control of pH within the
system was critical. A pH of 4 or less in the first few minutes
of carbon contact was found necessary to prevent excessive carry-
over of carbon particles from the downstream clarifier. The pH
was adjusted to near neutral with lime prior to flocculation.
The tube clarifier was found to perform well (effluent turbidity
<2 JTU) at overflow rates as high as 2880 gpd/ft2. Filter runs
averaged 10 hours at a loading rate of 4.4 gpm/f t.2. NO polymer
filter aid was normally used.
Three different high molecular weight anionic polyelectrolytes
were used in the pilot study: Atlasep 2A2 (product of ICI
America, Inc.), Decolyte 930 (product of Diamond Shamrock Chemi-
cal Company), and Purifloc A-23 (product of Dow Chemical Company).
All of these polymers were observed to produce large, rapidly
settling floe particles. Each of these polyelectrolytes performed
satisfactorily at a dosage of 2 mg/1.
The carbon sludge was found to readily dewater in a six inch
solid bowl centrifuge. The dewatered sludge ranged from 20-35
percent solids at 70 percent recovery with no conditioning
polymer. Use of polymers increased the solids recovery to 95
percent.
12
-------
EH
CO
B
«
O
s
I
w s
^ W
J EH
W CO
" W
EH 2
rtj <
J W
PM tf
EH
EH
O 2
J O
H CQ
P^ «
W U
i-q
H Q
CQ W
O EH
s
-------
WATER OR
RECYCLE GAS
OBSERVATION PORT
AND SAND FEED BIN
SAND LEVEI
FLUIDIZED
X
SLURRY
INJECTION
PORT
DOORS
SAND CLEANOUT
RECYCLE GAS INLET
FIGURE 3. FLUIDIZED BED REGENERATION UNIT
FOR POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
14
-------
EH
CO
a
i
W
EH
EH ft
<
CQ EH
O
•> J
EH H
W ft
H
ffi 3
CO O
£ CQ
O &
^ flj
Cn O
U Q
H W
•
W H
K EH
uu
U3 <
S Q
$%
en w
>H p
co s
O
2 ft
O
W
O
M
15
-------
The pilot system was operated on both storm flows from a combined
sewer and on dry weather, municipal wastewater flows. Excellent
degrees of wastewater purification were achieved in both cases.
During the dry weather conditions, average plant effluent BOD,
COD, and suspended solids concentrations for the 1971 studies
were 17.8, 35, and 7.7 mg/1, respectively. This represents
removals of 82.3 percent BOD, 87.3 percent COD, and 94 percent
suspended solids.
Plant operational data for the 1972 studies were comparable to
those observed in the 1971 portion of the program. During the
1972 operations, the average effluent turbidity, suspended solids,
COD, and BOD concentrations were 0.67 JTU, 3.1 mg/1, 39 mg/1, and
17 mg/1, respectively. This represents average removals of 98.1
percent suspended solids, 82.6 percent COD and 81.3 percent BOD.
The results described above were achieved at total plant deten-
tion times which averaged slightly less than 90 minutes. Recovery
of 91 percent of the powdered carbon was achieved. The operation
of the carbon regeneration facility is described in a subsequent
section.
Eimco Study
3-6
Eimco Corporation constructed a 100 gpm pilot plant in Salt Lake
City, Utah, for evaluation of powdered activated carbon treatment
of raw sewage. The pilot plant is shown schematically in Figure
5. It was operated for 16 months to evaluate lime, alum, and
ferric iron coagulation and single and two-stage counter-current
carbon treatment. Aqua Nuchar A was the carbon selected for use
in this work. A second follow-on study of 15 months duration was
subsequently conducted.
Screened and comminuted raw wastewater was obtained from the main
Salt Lake City pump station discharge line. The desired flow
was pumped to the chemical treatment unit, a 12 ft diameter
solids-contact clarifier provided with a surface skimmer. Chem-
icals were added to achieve coagulation-precipitation and aid
flocculation and clarification. The settled solids were removed
and collected for gravity thickening and vacuum dewatering tests.
The chemically treated effluent then flowed by gravity to the
carbon contactors which could be operated either single-stage
(parallel) or two-stage counter-current (series). The carbon con-
tactors were 10 ft diameter solids-contact units. Powdered acti-
vated carbon was fed and maintained as a concentrated slurry.
Spent carbon was periodically withdrawn to control slurry concen-
tration. The spent carbon removed was gravity thickened in a
5 ft diameter unit and then dewatered on a 3 ft by 3 ft vacuum
filter.
16
-------
ft
EH
s
H
ft
O
H
w
§
Q
O
C/3
U)
W
U
ft
•
LT>
w
H
En
17
-------
The effluent from carbon treatment was filtered through a 3.5 ft
diameter granular media filter. The filter bed consisted of 1.5
ft of 1 to 1.5 mm coal over 1.0 ft of 0.6 to 0.8 mm sand. The
backwash water, containing spent carbon, was collected and
recycled back to the carbon contactors. The final effluent was
collected in a clear well and used for backwashing the filter and
as plant water.
It was found that single stage carbon contact in a slurry con-
tactor actually provided the equivalent of 2-4 contacts due to
the biological action occurring in the slurry contactor. Hydrogen
sulfide problems developed but could be controlled by maintaining
the solids detention time in the clarifier to three days or less.
However, the process developers concluded that two-stage counter-
current carbon contacting required less carbon than single-stage
carbon contacting to produce a given effluent quality in terms
of soluble COD and thus recommended the latter approach. Although
this appeared to be the case, the pilot plant results were not
precise enough to define the difference between the two types of
contacting modes with a significant level of statistical con-
fidence .
A clear choice of chemical for the chemical pretreatment step did
not emerge from the study. Lime was identified as the chemical
of choice for wastewaters low in alkalinity and high in phosphorus,
For a high alkalinity-low phosphorus wastewater either alum or
ferric chloride were deemed acceptable. It was noted that lime
had no consistent effect on soluble COD removal while both alum
and ferric chloride reduced the soluble COD by 40 to 50 percent.
Although the lime sludge produced in the primary was found to
thicken and dewater more easily than the other chemical-primary
sludges, five to six times as much sludge was produced by lime
treatment than by alum or ferric chloride treatment. For the
Salt Lake City case, alum appeared to be the chemical of choice.
Effluent phosphorous concentrations of as low as 0.4 mg/1 were
achieved at an Al+3 dosage of 13 mg/1.
A carbon dosage of 75-300 mg/1 was employed throughout this work
and was found to produce an effluent soluble COD of 15-30 mg/1.
During the period June to September 1973, the pilot plant oper-
ating on a weak influent at a carbon dosage of approximately
100 mg/1 was able to produce an effluent which averaged 3 mg/1
soluble COD.
Anaerobic biological action in the carbon contactors was believed
to contribute significantly to the removal of soluble COD in the
treatment system.
Thickening and dewatering of spent carbon were effectively
accomplished. The spent carbon concentration of 25 to 50 g/1 in
the carbon contactor blowdown was increased to 70 to 100 g/1 in
a gravity thickener with a solids loading averaging 10/lb/f t-Vday.
18
-------
The thickened material then was readily dewatered to 78 per-
cent moisture in a vacuum filter at rates of 6 to 9 Ib/ft2/hr.
About 0.2 percent cationic polyelectrolyte by weight was required
for conditioning to obtain about 90 percent solids recovery across
the vacuum filter and produce a readily dischargeable filter cake.
The Eimco pilot plant carbon furnace was of the same basic design
as used in the Battelle pilot plant, but was constructed by BSP
Division of Envirotech.
Infilco Studies7/ 8/^
The Infilco Company conducted evaluations of the powdered carbon
treatment of secondary effluents and raw sewage. The first in-
vestigation, high rate solids-contact treatment units embodying
internal slurry recirculation were operated singly and in series
as powdered activated carbon sorption systems. Secondary (acti-
vated sludge) sewage treatment plant effluent was treated in a
30,000 gpd pilot plant using a slurry of activated carbon and a
cationic polyelectrolyte flocculation agent.
A two-stage counter-current system was used. Application of the
process involved series operation of two solid-contact clarifiers
of a type used widely for water treatment. Carbon was fed to
the second unit and a first-stage slurry was developed from car-
bon advanced from the second contact-clarif ier . Spent carbon was
withdrawn from the system by blowdown from the first unit. To
protect the receiving stream from carbon lost during process
disruption, post filtration was provided.
Preliminary laboratory study of three powdered activated carbons
resulted in selection of Atlas Chemical Industries' Darco S-51
for the pilot plant program and it was found that polyelectrolyte
flocculation was required to produce floe which settled well. A
study of 26 compounds disclosed that Dow Chemical Company's Puri-
floc C-32 was the most effective and it was used throughout the
pilot plant work. A polyelectrolyte dosage of 6-7 mg/1 was
required for effective flocculation at carbon feed rates up to
140 mg/1 while a dosage of 10 mg/1 of C-32 was required at carbon
feed rates of 266 mg/1.
Slurry settling rates far exceeded requirements at the pilot
plant which was operated at hydraulic loads from 0.4 to 1.6
gpm/ft2 of clarification area. In spite of this, it was nec-
essary to reduce the pilot plant throughput when influent sus-
pended solids were high because of an inability to remove solids
as rapidly as they were accumulated within the system during
these periods.
The volume of system blowdown ranged from 0.05-0.1 percent of
the throughput. Its solids content of 13-22 percent by weight
should enable economical recovery of carbon for reuse by
reactivation without further concentration.
19
-------
Pilot plant influent filtered COD averaged 27.2 mg/1 and ranged
from 23-34 mg/1 during the study. Two-stage counter-current
treatment with 67, 146, and 266 mg/1 of carbon achieved respec-
tive reductions of 60, 72, and 84 percent, and residual COD con-
centrations were 10.8, 7.4, and 4.4 mg/1.
A COD reduction of 65 percent and an effluent COD of 9.7 mg/1
was obtained in a one unit contactor system with a carbon dosage
of 140 mg/1.
Carbon loadings for the two-stage systems ranged from 9-24 mg of
BOD per 100 mg of carbon and a loading of 13.1 percent by weight
was obtained during single unit treatment.
In later work with screened and degritted raw sewage, Infilco
again utilized a two stage counter-current system composed of
solids contact clarifier units. This was essentially the same
30,000 gpd system utilized in the prior work with secondary
effluents.
Laboratory studies preceeded the pilot plant investigation in
order to facilitate selection of a powdered activated carbon and
a coagulant for use in the pilot studies. As a result of the
laboratory studies, Aqua Nuchar A was selected for use in the
major portion of the study, primarily on the basis of the price
differential between Aqua Nuchar A and Darco S-51.
None of the polymers studied in the laboratory were found to be
consistent in reducing supernatant turbidity to 10 JTU except at
very high dosages. Four polyelectrolytes were judged to be
superior to the others tested: Purifloc C-31, Purifloc C-32,
Primafloc C-7, and CAT-FLOC. Based upon price and handling con-
siderations, C-31 was selected as the primary flocculating agent.
Later pilot plant operations incorporated alum as an auxiliary
flocculant in some instances.
During the pilot plant operations, each of the contactors was
operated at throughput rates of 0.5-1.5 gpm/ft^ which corresponded
to carbon contact times of 35-12 minutes. Carbon (Aqua Nuchar A)
dosage was varied from 100-250 mg/1, polymer dosage was varied
from 2 mg/1-20 mg/1, and alum dosage was varied from 0-50 mg/1,
with high alum dosage corresponding to low polymer dosage.
Mean values of the influent COD to the pilot plant for the various
operating periods ranged from 82.4 percent at a carbon dosage of
100 mg/1 to a high of 92.2 percent at a carbon dosage of 200 mg/1.
It was noted that the final effluent had a perceptible and dis-
tinctive sour odor (not hydrogen sulfide) which was quite dis-
agreeable. In one comparative run using Darco S-51 carbon, no
substantial difference in effluent quality was evident.
20
-------
No attempt to regenerate spent carbon was made in the course of
this investigation.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Study9
1 0
The JPL process is a two-stage counter-current adsorption system
using powdered activated carbon. A block flow diagram is shown
in Figure 6. Fresh activated carbon is mixed with wastewater in
the second mixing basin, settled and the entire mixture of
settled sewage solids and activated carbon is transferred to the
primary mixing basin. Settled solids and carbon are removed from
the primary settling basin, dewatered and transferred to a
pyrolysis reactor. The reactor produces activated carbon and a
burnable gas. The activated carbon is then recycled to the
secondary mixing basin.
Activated carbon is intended to serve two functions: 1) adsorp-
tion of organics and other pollutants, and 2) settling aid in
both the primary and secondary sedimentation basins. It is also
believed that the carbon acts as a filtration aid and prevents
compression of sewage solids during dewatering.
A trailer mounted pilot plant was constructed by JPL in Pasadena
and operated at Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 1 in
Fountain Valley, California beginning February 1974. Typical
operating conditions for the pilot study are shown in Table 1.
Results reported in the paper by Humphrey et al.,9 are summarized
in Table 2. These results were achieved with carbon from the
pyrolysis reactor at dosages from 300 to 600 mg/1.
The staff of the Orange County Sanitation District analyzed seven
runs in July-August 1974 . The results of the test data are sum-
marized in Table 3. The secondary effluent shown in the table is
unfiltered and it is believed by the Sanitation District staff
that secondary effluent standards (BOD =30 mg/1, suspended
solids = 30 mg/1) could be achieved by chemical treatment with
ferric chloride and polymers or filtration; or by removal of fine
carbon in the feed.
A sample of activated carbon was dry screened into the following
size fractions:
Above 100 mesh
100 - 200 mesh
200 - 300 mesh
Below 325 mesh
Samples of degritted raw wastewater were treated with 600 mg/1
of carbon from these four size fractions and analyzed for COD at
various times from 0 to 30 minutes after addition of the carbon.
The results of this test showed that, in the size ranges studied,
21
-------
/
4-1
II |
*-rH
W
k
QJ ^
4-> Hi
rH -H
•H Ti
fe QJ
^
•H QJ
> X
(Tj *H
0 —
i
c
O 4-1
_Q __ ^ 1 1 |
H >i W
H
CJ H
QJ cn
4J
fO o\°
> 0
—
•H rH ^"
4-1 —
O
QJ
Q
•*•
^
^
t
c
o
•H
>i 4J
M ixi
(0 4-1
e c
•H QJ
SH g
p j -H
T3
Q)
cn
i ,
QJ T3
c c
•rH fd
u —
rH CO C
03 -H O
U « -H
n' o >
05 M -H
4-J ^i 4-1
Q p^ (_J
a; ^- <£
J L
CO
T3
o\° -H ^^ •
O rH
Ch O
CO
T3
•H
rH
0
cn
/ii
UJ
X! V-l
CO QJ
rg j^
rH r4
[*T| Q
Cn ^
OJ — o\° W
IS CO O T3
QJ T3 '* -H
cn -H 1 rH
rH LO O
4- O
. cn
c
O o\o
X) O
S-l LO
0! 4 -H
CLl >-l
QJ
r4 4->
QJ 05
4J S
rH QJ
•H Q
EM — '
QJ
CO r-l
< 3
cu
rfl
O + _
U & C
3 >, O
QJ QJ tnX!
4-J ^ V-1 &4
•H 05 QJ 05
G S C U
Cn — w
-H
Q
cn
u
o
cn
cn
W
u
Oi
cn
EH
U
W
rt
o
a
H
22
-------
TABLE 1
JPL PILOT PLANT OPERATED AT ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PLANT NO. 1
Capacity:
Primary mixing:
Primary settling:
Secondary mixing:
Secondary settling:
Solids handling system:
Dewatering:
Pyrolysis reactor:
7 gpm
0.25 hp mixer @ 1725 rpm
detention time = 28 minutes
2
overflow rate = 335 gpd/ft
detention time = 86 minutes
0.33 hp mixer @ 1725 rpm
detention time - 28 minutes
equipped with 1 Microfloc
settling tube module, 8 ft~long
overflow rate = 385 gpd/ft
detention time = 86 minutes
No equipment for continuous
sludge removal; therefore,
system shut down for batch
removal of sludge from
primary and secondary
settling basins
(1) Rotary vacuum filter, or
(2) Netzsh plate filter:
11 plates, 14 x 14 in. _
total filter area =32.7 ft
8 in. ID stainless steel tube
equipped with an external gas
fired jacket
bed temperature = 1800°F
23
-------
(0
>
o
g
CU
CTi
O
O
in
en
ro
ro
CTi
CO
CO
0)
U
M
CD
-l
rH -P
<3 C
t) CU
C 3
O H
o m
CU 4H
CO W
vo
CM
0
o
>£>
ro
o
r-~
H
O
O
LO
o
o
n
H
0
(N
O
O
o
r-
0
o
O
H
oo
^
CN
O
m
rH
(N
CM
ro
CM
CO
VD
,—1
O
•
O
CO
^
CU
-p
CU
e
(tJ
M
(d
PM
T3
CU
T3
c
(1)
ft
CO
H)
CO
rH
td
-p
0
EH
CO
T)
•H
rH
0
CO
c
(U
ft
CO
d
CO
CU
rH
•H CO
•P T3
(d -H
rH rH
0 0
> co
CU
CO
(fl
CU
^
u
T3
c
i — i fd
m e
o cu
•H Q
e
CU G
£ CU
U tn
O >i
•H X
CO O
g
|3
•H
e
td
u
•rH
e
o
rH
rC
U
!H
CU
ft
ft
o
u
rH
CU
(« O
0) -H
r-5 S3
J_l
CU
rH
•H
CO
O
c
•H
N
24
-------
W
CQ
^^
1 1 1
(1)
to
CO
4-'
U
CO -H
EH &H
1-3 4-)
D m
CO -H
W P
OH
C
EH O
IS -H
r-3 rd
P-i 4J
•H
EH C
O rd
J CO
H
ft r^l
rQ
J_^
ft C
h) O
•H
4J
fd
M
CD
&,
O
P
0
oa
p
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
p
0
u
p
0
u
>1
r-l
rd
-3
a
o
u
CD
CO
>i
j_i
rd
g
-H
$-1
ft
1
CD
4->
W
(0
[2
O UH \
0) m Cn
CO W g
iH
, 1 ll 1 "S.
in 4H tn
ft W g
rH
P UH \
O C Cn
CQ H g
0
r-
H
O
rH
CO
o
CN
H
o m \
0) 4-1 CP
CO W g
CO
cn
rH
i U_J 'N.
r-i m CP
ft H g
^o
vc
rH
rH 1
m \ CN
co c Cn o
co H gl rr
"-•I
O MH \ cn
CD IH cn o
CO W gl rH
r-l
•(—1 M H ^\_
r-i m en
ft W g
r~~
^D
H
Hl
P MH \ cn
O G Cn cn
U H g| cn
d
O (P rH
Q CQ \
M O Cn
tO P g
O
5-1
rd
r|
U m
3 m
%* -*f
p;
O Q) H
rQ CQ \
M O cn
(0 P g
O
*
H
CO
U CN
CD H
co m
M 5
r~
tO cy\
P rH
00
£>i
rH
3
^
CN
^j
rH
cn
o
CN
r-
^0
CN
CN
•^
rH
i^O
CN
iH
\£>
O
^3*
^T
CN
rH
0
^j<
iH
in
r-
•^
(-1
O
4J
U
rd in
CD <3<
PH ^
rH
CO
u m
0) ro
CO rH
m
^>
r-
CN
CN
rH
CO
rH
^D
^|
rd
r|
U in
3 o
ZZ VD
rH
CO
O rH
cD o
to r^
r~
VD
H
^i
rH
3
h)
00
rH
^j<
CN
^O
rH
O
00
rH
00
ro
CN
«3<
CN
^f
cn
o
iH
cn
0
rH
00
iH
CN
!q
O
4->
CJ
CD
rH
CO
o
CD
CO
r--
ro
CN
^1
rH
3
I'D
I>1
J_l
rd
T3
c
o
u
CD
CO
c
ro
{£> 'ci
CD
. 1
l~— I
iH
id
4J
CQ
CN C
Cn -H
in
CD
rH
4->
4-1
CD
CQ
Q)
^
EH
t~-
m
r-
o\
^
CN
CN
O
m
o
rH
rH
V£3
cn
ro
cn
ro
rH
ro
O
ro
"=T
r~
m
>•£
}-|
O rd
CJ r)
H U «^
rd 3 cn
P & ro
O
U
M c^
rd CN
P VD
P"-^
^^
•
Cn
d
i
in M
ro
rfj
£|
^ O
CO O
CD
CQ
g
CN O
ro
rH
0
r^
\D
r~-
^0
j_i
O rd
o x;
>H O in
rd P rH
P 13 ^
O
U
M CN
rd cn
P -3*
o
rH
^0
CN
t
Cn
d
*£
j_i
MH
C
0
r-l
(0
U
rfj
G
(0
CQ
T3
•H
rH
o
CQ
CD
Cn
rd
^
Q)
CQ
CD
rH
4J
CD
CO
1
rH
CO
U
CD
CO
*
25
-------
COD removal was not related to particle size. It was concluded
that carbon sizes which are difficult to settle are not neces-
sary for adsorption in the treatment process.
Metals removals recorded in the pilot work by JPL were clouded
by the fact that the sedimentation tanks had been previously used
for a plating solution. The following test data are results
which were achieved by the Sanitation District when leaching
from the settling tanks had been eliminated:
Influent Range Effluent Range
mg/1 mg/1
Cadmium 0.12-0.25 0.02 -0.04
Chromium 0.36-1.48 0.10 -0.22
Copper 0.78 - 1.80 0.05 - 0.3
Lead 0.20 - 0.46 0.02 - 0.16
Nickel 0.11 - 0.52 0.08 - 0.11
Silver 0.02 - 0.04 0.002 - 0.008
Zinc 0.33 - 1.36 0.12 - 0.36
A material balance on solids in the liquid treatment system was
difficult to perform because of the method of withdrawing sludges
and good results were not obtained. Material balances on the
pyrolysis reactor were not attempted because of its small size
and intermittent mode of operation.
A summary of carbon loading rates and COD removal in the second-
ary sedimentation basin is shown in Table 4. These data indicate
very low COD removal efficiency for carbon produced in the
reactor. Subsequent tests have shown that carbon can be pro-
duced which is equal to commercial carbon.
About 1.25 pounds of carbon can be produced per pound of carbon
added to the secondary mixing basin. However, at this yield
(1.25:1) a poor carbon is produced. It is necessary to reduce
this ratio to 1:1 or less to produce a suitably active carbon.
A 1.0 MGD treatment plant utilizing the JPL process has been
designed by Carollo Engineers for the Sanitation District. Con-
struction of this plant is taking place with funds from an
Environmental Protection Agency Step I Grant.
COMBINED BIOLOGICAL-CARBON (CBC) SYSTEMS
Another method of gaining benefits from the use of powdered acti-
vated carbon is the addition of carbon directly to the mixed
liquor in an activated sludge plant aeration basin. Three com-
panies, DuPont, ICI United States, and Zimpro, have performed
26
-------
w
1-1
i_3
M
Si
O
s
W
PM
P
O
u
p
<
o
H
p
o
"
£,
o
jH
<
u
13
0
^
O
g
OJ
PS
p
0
u
X!
rH
G
•rH ^*
^|
G td
O T3
X! G
to O
id o
u CD
CO
X!
rH
i — in vo o VD r~ iH
CN CN r- iH VD rH
rH O O TT iH tH
. . • . . .
000 00 0
•
C
•H
CO
id
X!
tn
£X|
M G
0) id O
>i G M
EH O id
U U
CU
CO
C
M -P to -P <* -H
to O U SH O U to rH
(d -ppi C
CU to O
QJ id X!
>i g to
EH -H id
M U
CU
L3 4J
VH to to to C, to
Hcto id id id Mid^td
1 — | fj i — 1X3 t — 1 XH 1 — 1 XH t — 1 Id 1 — 1 t — 1 Xn
cou coo cou coo o coxicu ocoo
PPPPO OOP
O2 OS O2 O12 rH OPSH SHO13
Q) (L) CD CD Id Q)!2O1 t>1 t*1 t*1 • • •
tH H tH rH iji Cn tn
p p p p p p p
^ t^ ID IT) ri3 <]
tO
^
Q)
CO
rQ
(U
rH
4J
-P
Q)
CO
1
rH
CO
o
0)
co
*
-------
major studies in the area. In addition, some laboratory bench
scale work on powdered carbon-contact stabilization systems have
been carried out by Battelle-Northwest and by the University of
Washington. The benefits which are attributed to this approach
are:
• Improved BOD and COD removal by sorption and improved
settling even at lower than optimum temperatures, lower
MLVSS (mixed liquor volatile suspended solids) and/or
at higher than design flow rates.
• Sorption of color and toxic agents that cannot be
removed by merely expanding a plant.
• Reduction of aerator and effluent foam by sorption of
detergents.
• More uniform plant operation and plant effluent quality
during periods of widely varying organic and hydraulic
loads.
• Improved solids settling (lower sludge-volume index,
increased sludge solids, and lower effluent solids).
• Increased aerobic digester capacity through foam
reduction.
The mechanisms which account for these benefits are postulated
to be as follows:
• Sorption on the extensive surface area of the carbon.
• Biological sorption and degradation. The carbon settles
in the sludge with pollutants sorbed, and the pollutants
thus remain in the system rather than escaping in the
effluent. The longer the sludge ages, the greater the
chance for bio-oxidation of slowly oxidized organics.
• Continuous regeneration of the carbon by biological
action. While the carbon and bio-organisms are sorbing
organic pollutants, the bio-organisms continuously
degrade the pollutants, thereby freeing carbon surface
areas again for sorption of more pollutants.
• Improved solids settling. Improved settling in the
secondary clarifier leads to lower suspended solids and
BOD in the effluent. The settling rate of some powdered
carbons plus biosolids is greater than that for biosolids
alone.
28
-------
DuPont PACT Process11 1**
DuPont conducted several bench scale studies in the middle 60's
to study the biological treatability of the waste stream at their
Chambers Works in Deepwater, New Jersey. The treatability was
questionable, the sludge settled poorly, and toxic substances
inhibited the treatment process. In 1967, DuPont began adding
powdered activated carbon to their bench scale activated sludge
units. The BOD removal dramatically improved, the Sludge Volume
Index (SVI) dropped substantially, and the toxicity of the treated
effluent was lower. These bench scale tests were expanded to
include municipal and other industrial wastewaters to determine
the effect of such things as metals, sludge age, and temperature
on the system.
Pilot plant studies were run between October 1971 and December
1972 comparing the PACT Process with 1) completely mixed acti-
vated sludge; 2) adsorption in granular carbon columns; 3) /gran-
ular columns followed by activated sludge; and 4) activated
sludge followed by granular carbon columns. The flow rate of
the system was 50 gpm. A schematic of the pilot plant is shown
in Figure 7.
The wastewater used in the study was from the DuPont Chambers
Works Plant. The plant manufactures fluorinated hydrocarbons,
petroleum additives, dyes, and various aromatic intermediates.
Its waste is extremely complex and variable and the organic con-
stituents range from highly biodegradable methanol to stable com-
pounds and polymer by-products. Most of the 4,150 processes are
batch operations. Pretreatment consisted of equalization,
neutralization by lime addition, and clarification.
Twenty-four hour composite samples were withdrawn daily from
critical locations within the system and analyzed for BOD, COD,
TOC, SS, VSS, and nutrients. In addition, samples were obtained
and used in tests for sludge settleability, sludge dewatering and
handling, and carbon regeneration.
The PACT system, the carbon + bio system, and the bio + carbon
system were run concurrently between October 1971 and December
1972. Table 5 compares the average performance of three systems,
including data from the biological stage of the bio + carbon
system and the carbon stage of the carbon + bio. The biological
stage of the systems were operated so that nutrients were not
limiting.
The main variables affecting effluent quality of the PAC system
were found to be powdered carbon dosage, aeration basin tempera-
ture, and sludge age (or F/M). Traditional kinetic theory was
postulated to explain the siudge growth and substrate removal
kinetics.
29
-------
O
0
•H
4-1
0)
e
•H
T3
QJ
CO
4-1
C
0)
e
•H
13
(d
J-l
(U
<
-K)
+-1 I
(0 x"^x
^Xl
ST J
j v_y
c
o
X!
M
(0
U
T3
0)
^4
QJ
T3
O
»
CO
M
•H
O
c
o
-H
4->
fl3
M
O
J
H
CM
W
«
D
O
H
03
g
•H
s-i
w
30
-------
in
W
CQ
EH
rd
Ti -H
H + -rl rH
td CQ
U
C
O
O X! 0
•H + SH rH
PQ cd
U
*
*
EH m
O rH
H O
CN
00 rH
CO CTi
rH
O
CO CN
rH
co m
>£>
O CTi
rH CO
•sf CTi
m oo
rH ro
rH
\
Cn
g -H
>• Cn
in g
Q
O
CQ Q
O
0) U
rH
X3 rH
3 Hi
i— i -P
Q 0
C/J t-
o in
O 'S' 1
CM
U3 ro o
H "SJ1 H
rH CTi
o m o
CTI in ro
r-H rH
r-- in o
in CN i-o
H
CTI *sj* r^
-31 CM CTi
rH
\
g
•ST O 0 O
r- ro CTI CN
ro ro
0
-P
o
vo
«* oo o
CN CTI r-- -P g
ro en C o
CD SH
£ 4-1
-P
CD (D
SH Cn
rH CO -P G
\ rH -P Cd
Cn \^ -H >i SH
g Cn c M
g ID cd
-------
ICI United States Studies15"19
ICI United States has conducted a series of studies in which
powdered activated carbon has been added to the mixed liquor of
activated sludge systems treating a variety of industrial wastes.
These studies are summarized below.
Polyols and Derivatives Waste Treatment Facility
The waste from this facility is equalized prior to the activated
sludge process. The design flow is 150,000 gpd but the plant
operates at about two-thirds capacity. The waste is character-
ized by a high average BOD and COD of 1700 mg/1 and 3200 mg/1,
respectively. Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)
average 2500 mg/1. Powdered carbon (Hydrodarco C) was added at
a rate sufficient to maintain a level of 1000 mg/1 in the system.
Figures 8 and 9 present the frequency distribution of percent BOD
and COD removals for the month before carbon was added and for
the two-month test period. Average BOD and COD removals improved
20 percent and 25 percent, respectively, with powdered carbon
present. In addition, the test period occured during the cold
weather months of December and January.
Combined Waste Treatment Facility
In this case a municipal plant received 70 percent of its flow
from a textile dyeing and finishing mill. Subsequent to primary
clarification and roughing filter treatment, the flow passes to
a contact stabilization process designed for 1 MGD flow. During
the previous two years, the daily average flows have ranged
between 0.75 and 1.8 MGD, at times peaking over 2 MGD. Influent
BOD changes between 90 and 350 mg/1, averaging 150 mg/1.
Powdered activated carbon was added to the contact zone at a
rate of 20-25 mg/1 based on influent flow. An equilibrium
aerator level of 900 mg/1 was achieved. Figure 10 shows that
the BOD removal increased from 70 to 90 percent and the varia-
bility in effluent quality was decreased. As soon as carbon
addition was discountinued, BOD removal dropped dramatically.
Solids Settling - Extended Aeration
Following neutralization, an acid dye and fine chemical waste is
lime neutralized and treated in a conventional extended aeration
process. Flow is about one-half of the 0.22 MGD design.
Influent BOD averages 600 mg/1 and COD 1200 mg/1. Prior to car-
bon addition, the average effluent suspended solids was 78 mg/1.
After carbon addition, effluent suspended solids was reduced to
25 mg/1. F/M ratios varied from as low as 0.09 to as high as
1.43 through the test period -- conditions that would be expected
to cause effluent solids problems.
32
-------
90
70
0)
cc
§50
CO
a?
30
__—.-. Hydfodorco C
•"• Contiol
J L_JL_I J I L
30 50 70
% of V.-.lues Less Than
90 95
9a
FIGURE 8. EFFECT OF POWDERED CARBON ON BOD REMOVALS
90
o
V
cc
Q 50
O
O
30
„. •• " Hydrodsrco C
Control
-1 L I L I_J J L
5 10 30 50 70 90 95 99
%of Values Less Than
FIGURE 9. EFFECT OF POWDERED CARBON ON COD REMOVALS
33
-------
Norfoik, Nebraska, Water Pollution Control Plant
This test involved a completely mixed activated sludge plant
designed to treat 3.7 MGD with a BOD load of 13,700 Ib/day.
During the carbon test, flow averaged 2.1 MGD (57 percent of
design) and the BOD averaged 7759 Ib/day (also 57 percent of
design). Industrial waste constitutes greater than 50 percent
of the load. These industrial wastes are from two packing houses,
two milk processors, one food processing plant and the surrepti-
tious dumping of heavy metals by an electronics firm. A sche-
matic of the plant is shown in Figure 11.
Powdered activated carbon addition began on April 5, 1973, and
continued until May 4. The recommended carbon evaluation program
was to add carbon at successively higher influent dosages of
9, 18, and 30 mg/1, each for a period of 10 days. The equilibrium
aerator levels for these influent dosages were calculated to be
95, 245, and 470 mg/1, respectively. All other operating param-
eters were maintained at pre-carbon conditions.
All analyses were run by plant personnel for process control.
Data averages for the pretest and test period are shown in Tables
6 and 7. All pre-carbon data were taken during the month imme-
diately preceeding the test period.
The average effluent suspended solids dropped from 58 to 19 mg/1,
and the Sludge Volume Index (SVI) dropped from 145 to 97. The
range of F/M increased and the average F/M increased from 0.21
to 0.31. Influent BOD loading increased 12 percent. However,
effluent BOD's were maintained at slightly below the pre-test
level. The amount of thickened sludge increased 62 percent from
a weekly average of 5.29 tons/day to 8.55 tons/day.
Zimpro Studies
20-22
Zimpro, Inc., currently markets a proprietary wet air oxidation
system which has been applied to the regeneration of powdered
activated carbon used in wastewater treatment. In early work,
Zimpro studied a two-stage counter-current sorption system.
Primary effluent from the Rothschild, Wisconsin, sewage treatment
plant was influent to the system. The spent carbon accumulated
every 24 hours was removed, regenerated by partial wet air
oxidation, and reused in the treatment process.
The liquid treating phase reduced the COD from an average of
233 mg/1 to 34 mg/1 with an average carbon loading of 0.394 g
COD/g carbon. The carbon was used through 23 cycles.
Following their initial work, Zimpro abandoned the IPC system
and adopted a CBC approach. The system shown in Figure 12 was
employed to treat the entire 0.8 mgd flow at the Rothschild,
Wisconsin, sewage treatment plant. This demonstration involved
34
-------
100
JFMAMJ JAS ONDJFMAMJJASONDJ
FIGURE 10. EFFECT OF POWDERED CARBON ON BOD REMOVAL
POWDERED
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FIGURE 11. ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
35
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Control
Carbon
% Change
Flow, MGD
(cu m/day)
Influent BOD, ppm
Organic Load/lb/day
(kg/day)
MLSS, ppm
biosolids, ppm
carbon, ppm
SVI
Effluent solids, ppm
Effluent BOD, ppm
2.08
(7873)
165
2862
(6296)
2689
2689
0
145
58
4.6
2.03
(7684)
190
3217
(7077)
2211
2000
200
97
19
4.0
- 2.4
+ 15
+ 12
-18
-25
-
-33
-67
-13
TABLE 7
SLUDGE HANDLING SUMMARY
Sludge Waste Rate, gpd
(cu m/day)
Wet tons filtered/day
(kg/day)
Pounds filtered/day (d.b.)
(kg/day)
Filter yield Ib/ft2/hr
(kg/m2/hr)
Pounds polymer/ton (d.b.)
(g/kg)
Cake Solids, %
Control
24,386
(92)
5.29
(23,276)
11,178
(24,592)
4.2
(99.5)
5.02
(0.52)
18
Carbon
23,750
(90)
8.55
(37.620)
17,038
(37,484)
7.0
(165.8)
3.82
(0.39)
16
% Change
- 3
+ 62
_52
+ 67
-24
36
-------
treating sewage using the existing Activated_sludge system with
a few modifications. Liquid alum was added in the 5,000 gallon
aerateS grit chamber ahead of the sewage lift pumps and powdered
activate! carbon was added to the 156,000 gallon aeration contact
tank in the secondary system. Spent carbon was co^inuously
regenerated using the Zimpro wet air oxidation system. The two
cSrifiers were each 35 ft in diameter by 10 ft deep. A side
stream from the clarifier went to a 2 ft* dual media gravity
filter.
Spent carbon was withdrawn from the recycle sludge line, thickened,
and was then recovered in the WAO unit.
The results of 51 days of steady state operation are summarized
in Table 8.
Zimpro observed that it was possible to maintain a mixed liquor
suspended solids concentration much higher than that of conven-
tional activated sludge systems. In addition, the solids loadings
on the clarifier was substantially higher than for a conventional
activated sludge system. Both of these observations are attrib-
uted to the presence of a high concentration of powdered acti-
vated carbon.
Typical operating parameters include a MLSS concentration of
13,000 mg/1, MLVSS of 4000 mg/1, ML carbon concentration of 8000
mg/1, sludge residence time of 10-15 days, and a carbon dose of
120 mg/1.
A high degree of nitrification was observed as well as partial
denitrification in the sedimentation basins.
The Zimpro system has been selected for installation on a full-
scale basis at the Liverpool regional treatment plant in Ohio's
Medina County near Cleveland.
Contact Stabilization-Carbon Systems23>2^
In a study carried out at Battelle-Northwest, Olesen23 studied a
form of contact stabilization integrated with powdered carbon
addition and chemical coagulation with alum. His system con-
sisted of a 1 gpm bench scale unit which was operated to study
system response to diurnal variations in the influent wastewater
composition. The results of this study are summarized below.
Carbon Influent TOG Effluent TOC
Dosage mg/1 mg/1
mg/1 Average Range Average Range
600 57 26-164 1.5 0 -20
400 50 34-105 4.5 2.5-9
200 50 34-92 3 1 -6.5
100 53 30-80 9.5 3 -20
0 50 15-88 9.5 2 -28
37
-------
Influent
•Make up Carbon
• Soda Ash
Polyelectrolyle
Effluent
FIGURE 12.
FULL-SCALE POWDERED CARBON TREATMENT
AT ROTHSCHILD, WISCONSIN S.T.P.
TABLE 8
FULL-SCALE POWDERED CARBON TREATMENT
AT ROTHSCHILD, WISCONSIN S.T.P.
Average Values - mg/1
BOD
COD
SS
TKN
NH3-N
Raw
Sewage
159
319
277
24.9
17.6
8.8
-
Primary
Effluent
98
208
130
22.1
17.9
7.4
—
Clarif ier
Effluent
5
55
31
3
1
2
_
.8
.8
.2
.5
.7
.2
Filter
Effluent
1.7
17.5
3.6
2.9
1.7
1.7
12.6
38
-------
It was reported that the process was capable of producing an
effluent with a COD of approximately 10 mg/1 and a turbidity of
less than 2 JTU with a very short system detention time.
More recent studies on powdered carbon addition contact stabili-
zation systems have been carried out at the University of Wash-
ington on the laboratory scale.24 It was concluded that the com-
bined carbon contact stabilization system is capable of producing
secondary effluent quality in a short detention time configuration,
Hydrodarco H was the powdered activated carbon utilized in this
study. It was estimated that at a Hydrodarco H dose of 150 mg/1
and a contact time of 30 minutes the following effluent quality
could be achieved:
Soluble COD 30 mg/1
Soluble BODs 10 mg/1
Suspended Solids 30 mg/1
Total COD 80 mg/1
Total BOD 26 mg/1
Larger scale studies of this process are planned in conjunction
with a pilot study being carried on at Seattle METRO'S West Point
Plant.
39
-------
SECTION 5
POWDERED CARBON REGENERATION
Several types of regeneration systems have been proposed for the
regeneration of powdered activated carbon. Two methods, those
employing the atomized suspension technique and the transport
reactor, have been utilized on a full scale basis but not for
regeneration of carbon used in wastewater treatment. These
various regeneration schemes are discussed below.
ATOMIZED SUSPENDED TECHNIQUE (AST)
25-27
The AST system has been commercialized by CPC International. A
4000 pound per day unit has been in operation at a CPC Inter-
national corn syrup refining plant in Corpus Christi, Texas for
several years. That firm now plans to install two 10,000 pound
per day units in its plant in Argo, Illinois and is now licensing
the technology for manufacture.
Very little publicly available information exists on the appli-
cation of the AST system to regeneration of powdered activated
carbon. A forerunner of the CPC system is described in a recent
article by Prohacs and Barclay25 and the CPC system itself in
two U. S. patents.26/27 Some of the information in this study
was provided by CPC International representatives.
The AST system is shown schematically in Figure 13. Spent carbon
is pumped in slurry form to a spray nozzle positioned at one end
of a radiantly heated reaction vessel 1 to 3 feet in diameter and
10 to 50 feet high. The aqueous carbon suspension is atomized
with steam provided from a steam supply line in the spray nozzle.
The carbon is quickly heated to 1200°F in an oxygen free atmos-
phere of superheated steam. As the carbon particles drop in the
chamber they are further heated, to as high as 1900°F, which
destroys the organic contaminants on the carbon and causes them
to volatilize. A convection tube is provided within the upper
one tenth to one third of the reactor vessel to provide a more
efficient heat exchange between the reactor vessel walls and
the carbon slurry. The convection tube is open at both ends and
is a shell of similar cross sectional geometry as the reactor
vessel but provides a space between the reactor vessel wall and
itself.
40
-------
Spent
Carbon
Slurry
Refractory-
Shell
c
c
c
c
4
J
Steam
Convection Tube
=—— Burners
Off-Gas
.Reactor
Vessel
7
•Scrubber
TT Heat Exchanger
•Regenerated
Carbon
Water
FIGURE 13. AST REGENERATION SYSTEM
41
-------
As the stream of carbon particles suspended in superheated steam
exit the convection tube, a major portion of the stream is recycled
upward between the convection tube wall and the reactor vessel
wall. Thus, by passing in close proximity to the reactor vessel
wall, the temperature of this recycle stream approaches the
reactor vessel wall temperature. Upon reaching the upper portion
of the reactor, this stream is mixed with the incoming carbon
suspension providing additional heating efficiency.
The residence time in the reactor is less than 30 seconds. It is
suggested that pyrolysis gases from the process can be recovered
and reused as fuel gas. Carbon losses of less than ten percent
are reported.
BIOLOGICAL REGENERATION28"31
Fram Corporation of Providence, Rhode Island, has reported the
development of a biological regeneration process for activated
carbon. Although most of the effort in this area has been with
granular activated carbon, some work with powdered activated car-
bon was performed. Subsequent to the original work, a completely
separate company, Facet Enterprises of Warwick, Rhode Island, was
established to market the patented biological carbon regeneration
process. Representatives of Facet Enterprises indicated that work
has been accomplished with powdered activated carbon but were
unwilling to release any data for this study. Thus, this alter-
native could not be examined in any detail.
FLUID BED FURNACE1^5/6,32,33
The Fluidized Bed Furnace (FBF) is the regeneration system used
by both Battelle-Northwest and Eimco in the powdered carbon
systems previously described (see Figure 3). Early developmental
work on this concept was carried out at the Columbus, Ohio labor-
atory of Battelle Memorial Institute.
The results obtained during the Battelle development study showed
that efficient regeneration and recovery of spent powdered carbon
could be achieved in a fluidized-bed system. Under proper oper-
ating conditions, the spent carbon could be regenerated to an
active form as effective as virgin activated carbon in its
ability to sorb organic components from a typical secondary
sewage effluent. Recovery of the regenerated carbon was about
85 percent per regeneration cycle.
The following major conclusions were drawn from the development
studies:
• A system utilizing an inert bed of fluidized solids
through which the fine carbon is passed or a system
employing pulsation of the fine carbon solids are
equally effective from a technical standpoint.
42
-------
• A temperature between 1000°F and 1500°F and a gas atmos-
phere containing nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and
water vapor are most effective for efficient regener-
ation of the spent carbon.
• Temperature is a primary variable; raising the temper-
ature increases both the sorptive capacity and the
weight losses of carbon during processing.
• Oxygen content is also a primary variable and should
be held to a minimum to reduce carbon losses through
combustion.
• From a practical standpoint, the fluidized inert bed
system is the most feasible because of higher unit
capacity when processing a relatively wet spent carbon
feed.
• After 3.6 cycles of sorption and regeneration, the
regenerated carbon is almost as effective as virgin
carbon in removing total organic materials from secon-
dary sewage effluent.
• Average carbon losses per regeneration cycle can be
expected to be less than 15 percent in a continuously
operated system.
• The overall physical performance of the fluidized-bed
regeneration unit was excellent.
The Battelle-Northwest pilot plant in Albany, New York, provided
a field evaluation of the FBF regeneration technique. The con-
clusion from several months of operation of the regeneration
facility (see Figures 3 and 4) were:
• Powdered activated carbon can be successfully regen-
erated in a fluidized-bed furnace.
• Satisfactory regeneration can be achieved at a temper-
ature of 1250°F with a stack gas oxygen concentration
of less than 0.5 percent.
• After 6.7 regenerations, the regenerated carbon was
as effective as virgin carbon in removing organic
matter from raw sewage.
• Average carbon losses per regeneration cycle were
9.7 percent.
• Hearth plugging problems during pilot plant operations
resulted from corrosion of the recycle gas system.
Such corrosion problems can be precluded easily in
design of a full scale system.
43
-------
• Inert material buildup averaged 2.9 percent per cycle
during the pilot plant operations. Sand carryover
from the fluidized-bed furnace was believed to repre-
sent the most significant fraction of this buildup.
• Stack gases from the regeneration furnace should not
present significant air pollution problems.
A FBF was extensively evaluated on a pilot scale by researchers
at the Eimco Corporation.5'6 A sketch of the pilot furnace is
shown in Figure 14. The carbon cake was pumped directly into
the fluidized sand bed which was maintained at an operating
temperature of 1500 to 1700°F. The sand bed was maintained in
a fluidized condition by the flow of hot gases from the firebox.
To prevent structural failure, the temperature in the firebox
was maintained at less than 2100°F by using 150 percent excess
air. The excess oxygen was then scavenged by combustion of fuel
gas injected directly into the bed. A seven foot freeboard pro-
vided about seven seconds carbon detention time.
The hot gases and regenerated carbon were cooled from about 1600°F
to 200°F by the addition of water (about 25 gpm) sprayed directly
into the exit duct. After cooling, the gases and regenerated
carbon were passed through two venturi scrubbers. Scrubber water
flow was about 30 and 15 gpm, respectively. Although no data was
collected on particulate emissions from the furnace stack, no
visual evidence of carbon or particulate losses were observed.
The scrubber water was collected in a carbon recovery and scrubber
water recycle tank. The recycled scrubber water was passed
through a heat exchanger, to prevent temperature buildup.
After regeneration, settled carbon was pumped to the inventory
tank for volume and concentration data collection. It was then
pumped to the carbon makeup tank for reuse.
Burner air and injection and burner gas flows were manually
adjusted to provide the desired fluidization velocity and exit
oxygen concentration. Carbon cake was automatically fed to the
furnace at a rate necessary to maintain a preset bed temperature.
Performance of the furnace was judged on the basis of carbon
losses (total suspended solids) and regenerated carbon character-
istics.
High carbon losses were experienced in the first series of runs
and were attributed largely to various operational difficulties.
However, it was concluded that certain furnace modifications
would improve performance. Several modifications were made but
high carbon losses persisted. Subsequently, it was concluded
that the bed injection (BIG) principle was not workable. There-
fore, the Eimco FBF was modified to incorporate the off gas
44
-------
THERMOCOUp
ACCESS
OPENING
THERMOCOUPLES
CLEAN OUT
OPENING
THERMOCOUPLE
FIGURE 14.
FREEBOARD
5' SAND BED
15 x 30
U.S. MESH
QUENCH WATER
TO VENTURI
WET SCRUBBERS
P/l
DEWATERED CARBON
ONE OF SIX NATURAL GAS
INJECTION NOZZLES
NATURAL
- G/
AIR
FLUIDIZED-BED REGENERATION FURNACE,
EIMCO PILOT STUDY
45
-------
recycle (OCR) principle utilized in the Battelle-Northwest study.
The modified Eimco furnace is depicted in Figure 15. Table 9
shows furnace operating conditions and resulting losses for
several runs with the modified furnace.
Upon completion of the runs with the modified furnace, it was
concluded that the FBF regeneration system using the OGR princi-
pal of operation efficiently regenerated carbon. As indicated in
Table 9, fixed carbon recoveries of 76 to 100 percent were
experienced with an overall average in excess of 90 percent.
Some loss of carbon adsorptive properties was experienced. The
limited time during which efficient recoveries were experienced
precluded being able to identify operating conditions which
would maximize recovery of adsorptive properties for the system
studied.
JPL PYROLYSIS9-1°
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's work on pyrolysis has been pre-
viously touched upon. As shown in Figure 6, settled carbon-sewage
sludge from the primary clarifier is dewatered through a filter
press to 35-40 percent solids and flash dried to 90 percent
solids before entering an indirect-fired rotary calciner for
pyrolysis and activation of the carbon-sewage solids to activated
carbon and ash. Activated carbon is fed back to the secondary
clarifier to complete the carbon recycle. A portion of the
carbon-ash is purged from the carbon recycle to accommodate
removal of the sand, clay, metals and other inorganic compounds
present in the incoming sewage. The accompanying loss of acti-
vated carbon with the purge ash depends on the ash concentration
established in the carbon recycle stream as well as on the level
of ash (inorganic materials) in the incoming sewage. The energy
value of the purged carbon can be recovered in a separate fur-
nace by steam injection to make producer gas or by other means.
Separation of ash and carbon derived from sewage processing by
air or hydraulic classification including chemical assisted
flotation has been unsuccessful to date. Acid washing at best
removes 20 percent of the ash at considerable expense. Carbon
losses with the ash purge constitute the largest single loss.
Additional losses of carbon are found in the pyrolysis and
activation of carbon. Conversion of sewage to activated carbon
compensates to some extent for the losses, but it appears that
activated carbon makeup is necessary from commercial sources, or
by conversion of fuel or waste additions to activated carbon.
Commercial activated carbon is expensive and cannot be justified
as makeup in significant amounts (>5-10 percent). Refuse when
pyrolyzed and activated results in significant ash concentrations
in the product carbon (>70 percent). Lignite coal was selected
for use in the process since it represents a source of low ash
carbon with activation comparable to commercial activated carbons
and also provides at low cost the necessary makeup energy to the
system for operation of the calciner and flash dryer.
46
-------
Sight Glass
Freeboard
Thermocouple
Dewatered
Carbon Cake
Injection
P/I (Pressure
Indicator
Burner Chamber
Fire Box
Natural Gas
Air
Off-Gas
Recycle
FIGURE 15. MODIFIED EIHCC FLUIDIZED-BED
47
-------
TABLE 9
FLUIDIZED-BED FURNACE RESULTS
EIMCO PILOT STUDY
Run Number
Run Date, (1973)
Pretreatment Chemical
Operation Principal
Feed Point (from Bed
Floor) , inc.
Sand Bed Depth, in:
Static
Fluidized
Sand Size, US Mesh
Gas Flow, SCFM:
Burner Air
Burner Gas
Off Gas Recycle
Gas Velocity, ft/sec:
Bottom of Bed
Freeboard*3
Run Length, hr
Feed Rate, dry Ib/hr
Moisture in Feed, %
by weight
Average Temperature ,
Freeboard
Sand Bed
Firebox
Average Pressure, in.
of H2O:
Freeboard
Firebox
Average C>2 Content of
Stack Gas, % by
Volume
Fixed Carbon Recovery,
%
6
June
17-18,
Alum
OGRa
18
32
-
16x30
80
8
70
2.0
0.8
30.7
21
76
1130
1250
1900
-4
57
0.3
100
7
July
18-20,
FeCls
OGR
18
32
44+
16x30
90
9
60
2.2
1.0
28.3
27
76
1330
1400
1970
-3
64
0.3
78
8
Sept
11-13,
FeCl3
OGR
18
36
48+
16x30
85
9.2
75
2.2
1.0C
21.5
37
76a
1170
1250
1960
-3
72
0.3
93
9
Oct
8-10,
FeCl3
OGR
18
-
-
16x30
90
10
80
2.7
1.1
51.7
16
73
1470
1550
2000
-1
70
0.0
100
11
Nov
2-3,
Alum
OGR
18
-
-
16x30
93
10
90
2.9
1.1
46.0
13
72
1470
1550
2000
0
68
0.1
76
a - off gas recycle
b - includes water vapor
c - estimated
48
-------
The inclusion of a flash dryer is considered extremely important
for achieving high thermal efficiencies (^70 percent) for carbon-
se ige sludge drying, pyrolysis and activation with an indirect-
fired rotary calciner. JPL concluded that although direct-fired
furnaces such as rotary kilns and multiple-hearths provide high
thermal efficiencies independent of a flash dryer, they are sub-
ject to high powdered carbon losses in the stack gases as well as
high carbon oxidation losses from air leaks and/or oxidation
flames. In addition, they felt that the multiple-hearth units are
expensive relative to rotary calciners. Preliminary cost evalu-
ations suggested a factor of 2 to 3 difference in installed
equipment costs. Other cost factors such as equipment life and
maintenance charges alter the impact of initial equipment cost
differences on the overall process economics.
Pyrolysis and activation tests were conducted in pilot test equip-
ment including direct fired rotary kiln, indirect-fired rotary
calciners and multiple-hearth reactor, Table 10. Initial testing
was conducted at Versa-Tech, Louisville, Kentucky, in a 6 1/2 inch
I.D. by 7-foot long by 3-foot electrically heated rotary calciner.
Feed rates were at 5.7 to 9.7 Ib/hr of wet (31-48 percent mois-
ture) carbon-sewage with a retention time of 9 to 14 minutes at
wall temperatures of 650-760°C. Steam activation was low because
of operational problems with the amount and temperature of steam
injected. However, despite the mechanical problems of operation,
carbon-sewage sludge was pyrolyzed and activated. Activation was
low. Iodine absorption was measured at 288 to 367 mg/gram carbon.
The low activation was accompanied by a corresponding high yield
of carbon, 98 to 127 percent based on the activated carbon feed.
Later tests were conducted at the Combustion Engineering test
facility at Springfield, Ohio. An uninterrupted 50 hour test was
conducted on a 6 1/2 inch I.D. by 11-foot long, 6-foot natural
gas fired rotary calciner. Feed rates were 8 to 10 Ib/hr with
a very wet. (73 percent moisture) carbon-sewage. Temperatures
were varied from 600 to 900°C, solids retention time from 10 to
20 minutes and steam rates from 0 to 1.3 Ib/hr. The resulting
carbon activation had an iodine adsorption of 330-590 mg/gram
carbon. Yields were from 65 to 125 percent based on activated
carbon feed. Hourly samples were taken of product carbon and
analyzed for iodine adsorption and ash content. Product dis-
charge was segregated and weighed on an hourly basis. Very close
monitoring of the operation was achieved. Initial operation was
at 600°C and then increased by 100°C increments. It was readily
evident that temperatures below 80Q°C were inadequate for
pyrolysis and activation. The product carbon especially at the
lower temperatures of 600 and 700°C retained some of the sewage
odor and showed very low activation. Test results in the region
of 800 to 900°C were very promising for obtaining good pyrolysis
and activation. At 15-minutes retention time and 830-850°C,
there appeared to be a threshold Condition for carbon activation.
49
-------
w
J
CQ
EH
12.
W
S
04
a
w
to
w
EH
EH
O
i^l
H
CM
H
H
O
w
en
i
CJ
Pn
O
O
H
EH
$
H
EH
CJ
en
H
cn
§
r*
CM
Activity
Iodine Yield
itions (mg/g) %
T3
5
0
o
01 -a
CT> 01
id o)
3 b
0)
Ul rl
1 O
C JJ
O U
J3 M
id en
g ,
en
X 0)
rH rl
C 3
O JJ
XI 01
rl -H
id o
U S
jj
c
a
•H
3
O
ta
en
c
0
rH
JJ
IJH
r^
X
d
H
.
c
•H
CM
X
rH
10
o
0
o
*o
CO
o
0
CO
1
ft
e
01
EH
rH
rH
id
S
rl
J3
X
XI
rH
[^
en
1
r~
in
73
01
jj
id
01
I
>i
rH
rH
id
o
•H
H
JJ
O
01
rH
U
JJ
IJH
cn
U
o
0 rl
U3 X.
r- n X
x:ci
- X JJ
o xi *J
in rH
1C *3"
T 1
1 • rH
O
• 1
ft 0 C
E CJ
EH EO
id fcj
01 0) JJ
id jj -H
o 4
01 ^
>
* 01
rl rH
S3
•H >
O 01
rH -H
id 3
°3
>,
rl *
id a
JJ 0
O 01
at EH
in
CM
rH
1
in
10
o
en
m
i
0
rn
m
c
o
-rl
JJ
id
rl
01
ft
O
rl
JS
O
in
CO
rH
1
vO
O
•01
en
id
3
01
m
X
rH
C
O
a
>H
a
o
en
c
o
rH
JJ
IJH
rH
rH
X
Q
M
p
C
•H
CN
X
rH
&
C
•rl
00°
CM O
1 O
O 01
rH 1
0 rl
- 0 J3
C VC X
0 XI
•H 1 rH
JJ
C • m
01 ft •
JJ g rH
01 01 1
at EH o
01 01 *
"3 "3 S
•H -H Id
rH rH 01
O O JJ
to w
c*i
r~
1 rl
ox
^ rQ
3 3
4-J
U5 O
•H i— t
O I
S CO
G
0
•i-i
•U
TJ in
rl
•u id
IM jJ
o
1C -C
Sj
m
jj
tin
O
rH
1
i-H
C
0)
81
rl
JJ
•H
z
•o
rH
01
•rl
^H
en
c
•H
IH
ft
cn
en
C
•H
-1
•H
JJ
id
en
1)
Z
c
o
•rl
JJ
id
,H
01
S,
O
rl
x;
CM
O
rH
f
01
Cn
id
3
01
^
rH
C
5
J^j,
ro
r-
I
dJ
M
3
.p
Ul
•iH
1
C and Large Vent
Losses
o
in
CO
I
ft
S
01
EH
U
JC
X
J3
rH
O
m
Cn
c
•H
>! 01
M 0)
VH » C
3 G -H
AJ iH M
nj -H a*
Z « W
vO
CN
rH
I
O
r-
o
o
vD
I
0
LT)
n
C
o
•1-*
-p
(0
M
tfl
g
u)
X
rH
C
o
A
VJ
id
O
j-;
jj
rl
id
01
3!
ifi
X
(
a
H
G
•H
v0
rn
c
-H
00°
m o
c5 in
ON
G 1
O 0
-H T
4-1 CO
G
0) 1
JJ
(U •
& a<
e
« 0)
t3 EH
-H
•H U]
O 13
ca o
rH
CN
r- o
1 O
CO O
m in
0) iH
rj -C
3 \
t.3
•H
O LO
S r-
-j}
jj
Vj
n3
0)
rE
CN
\
iH
CN
rC
4J
•H
3
S
id
C
M
3
b
rl
x:
X
XI
rH
o
!
ro
01
4J
in
rH i.
id
rl O
3 0
JJ
id
Z 01
01
JJ as
o
oi ui M
rl Z
•H
Q tr *
• C -0
- 13 a id
CU 01 11
U rl 01 E
Id -rl rH
rH Cti O 01
0. r3 H
01 U rH
C rt -H 0)
•H o z a
II
ui x
-H JJ
< 3
0
01
C C
•fH O O
T3 XI O
O IH rH
H Id
~1B*
O id "-
1C rl II C
I en -H
U X TJ
en H c
o M oi o
O -HA
rl ^f X rl
Sio id
•^i df> U
i i
rH CN
50
-------
A temperature of 850°C indicated significantly higher activation
and lower yields than operation at 830°C. Increased
retention time (20 minutes) at 830°C was found to increase the
extent of activation but not as greatly as a temperature increase
from 830 to 850°C.
A short duration test was attempted in a 15-inch diameter by 12-
foot long natural gas, direct-fired rotary kiln. Feed was 30 lb/
hr for a 10 minute retention time at 850°C. This test was unsuc-
cessful but it did emphasize some negative aspects of the direct-
fired rotary kiln for carbon-sewage pyrolysis and activation.
Approximately 5000 pounds of wet carbon-sewage sludge (58-72 per-
cent moisture) was used for 66 hours of operation of a multiple-
hearth reactor at Nichols Engineering and Research Company,
Belle Mead, New Jersey. Tests were conducted in a 36-inch I.D.
by 6 hearth reactor with the top 3 1/2 hearths removed. This
change allowed operation at a feed rate of 75 Ib/hr. A dry
cyclone on the exhaust gases provided for capture of powdered
carbon leaving the multiple hearth with the exhaust gases.
This was followed by a water scrubber and afterburner. Operation
of the multiple hearth was carried out with the after-burner both
"on" and "off." Approximately 5 to 20 percent of the product
carbon was recovered in the dry cyclone and wet scrubber as carry-
over from the multiple hearth by the exhaust gases.
Initial operation of the multiple-hearth was conducted at a com-
bustion gas temperature of 950°C with the bed temperature 100°C
lower. Under these conditions, activation of the carbon was high,
iodine adsorption was greater than 1000 mg/gram carbon, but yields
were low (70 percent or less, yield based on activated carbon
feed). To improve carbon yield, gas temperatures were reduced to
840°C. Carbon activation was accordingly reduced, iodine adsorp-
tion was reduced to 350 mg/gram carbon, and yields increased up to
126 percent (activated carbon feed). The combination of feed
rate and rabble arm rotation at 1 RPM provided approximately 30
minutes solids retention in the multiple hearth. Care was exer-
cised to maintain the multiple hearth at a slightly positive
pressure to eliminate air leaks. Burners were kept slightly
fuel rich (up to 10 percent excess fuel) to maintain a reducing
flame. With these provisions, the test results of carbon acti-
vation and yield from the multiple-hearth reactor corresponded to
that obtained in the rotary calciner. Since the combustion gases
firing the multiple hearth contained approximately 20 percent
moisture, no need was found for separate steam injection.
Achieving carbon activation was not a problem with proper acti-
vation temperatures.
Gas samples of off-gas were obtained from the gas holder at Versa-
Tech in the operation of the electrically heated rotary calciner
and also from the off-gas line of the gas-fired rotary calciner
51
-------
at Combustion Engineer's test facility. The gas analyses are
presented on a dry and nitrogen free basis in Table 11. The
energy value of this gas was approximately 300 Btu/ft3.
MULTIPLE-HEARTH FURNACE
Multiple-hearth furnaces of the type illustrated in Figure 16
have been used extensively for the regeneration of granular acti-
vated carbon. Although it is known that Nichols Engineering and
Research have carried out some studies on regeneration of spent
powdered activated carbon used in municipal wastewater treatment,
no published information could be discovered on the use of this
system to regenerate powdered activated carbon. However, a
multiple-hearth furnace is under construction at DuPont's Chambers
Works Plant for regeneration of spent carbon from the PACT pro-
cess. DuPont selected this method after detailed study of several
alternative regeneration techniques.
TRANSPORT SYSTEM3^"36
Westvaco Corporation has developed and commercialized a patented
method for powdered carbon regeneration (U. S. Patent 3,647,716).
A 20,000 Ib per day unit was placed in operation at Covington,
Virginia, in early 1971 to regenerate spent carbon from corn
syrup refineries. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure
17.
Spent carbon feed at Covington is a sticky solid of approximately
50 percent moisture exhibiting extremely poor flow properties.
To assure reliable feeding, a bin activator is utilized to with-
draw spent carbon from a 24 hour storage tank. The bin activator
serves a weigh belt feeder which in turn discharges the metered
feed through a rotary air lock and into a pneumatic mixing tube.
The carbon is dispersed and suspended by a metered oxidizing air
stream and pneumaticaly conveyed to the top of a vertical venturi-
type section inside the furnace. Steam may also be utilized as
the oxidizing stream on carbons with low organic loading. High
velocity, high-temperature flue gas enters just below the venturi
section and intensively mixes with the carbon-water-air stream
above the venturi, resulting in instantaneous heat transfer and
optimum gas/solid contacting.
The reactor process steps are drying, volatilization of organics,
burning of volatiles, and steam activation of residual carbon.
These steps occur almost simultaneously in the reactor above the
venturi section in the space of a few seconds. The steam
selectively activates any carbon residue left in the carbon micro-
pore structure. Overall reactor temperature for these steps is
1,750 to 1,850°F, depending on spent carbon loading.
52
-------
rH
rH
W
i_3
PQ
rij
EH
W
CO H
Jx EH
i-3 U
i^C ^
2
H
EH ^
rH
O
J>
^
03
(D
03
i*d
o
1
III
1 1 j
o
rHcNrHc^o^ ror~-H
iH^Tr— IOI^- COOOO
CN ^T r-H r-\ O\
(N t^ ^ O iH Csl ^£)
oo oo o i— i r*- o m
tH CO H iH 00
O VD fN *^ f^* CN ^ LD
I^rHOrHCTlOOO n
i — 1 ^J* i — 1 i — I CTv
rH VC CN CN CN CO
&\ ^f <^ ro ex* ^o
rH rO rH H 00
in CTI CN r~ i^~ CN o
r^ o o {Q o o r^
rH CO rH CN 00
in
CTi CN O 00 ro
U CN
(U 1
JH o
>H CN
o \
U rH
* -K
*
53
-------
CARBON
IN
GAS
OUT
HEARTH
1
uu u
uu u
u u u
LTD U
LJUU
uuu
UTTU u
uuu
u u u u
LTUU
UIJU! !U U U U
t r
I <
I I
\
RABBLE ARM
RABBLE TEETH
\
\
PV
CARBON
OUT
FIGURE 16. CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW OF MULTIPLE HEARTH FURNACE
54
-------
Q <
UJ I—
U. GO
s
w
EH
CO
>H
CO
o
H
Pi
W
2
W
O
W
Pi
O
ffl
Pi
-------
In the 10-ton per day unit at Covington, no more than 1 Ib of
carbon is suspended in the furnace at any instant, allowing almost
immediate response to control changes.
Good control of the sorptive activity of the regenerated carbon
is maintained by careful attention to temperature, feed rate,
and the air-to-feed ratio in the reactor. Once the proper con-
ditions of feed rate, temperature and firing rate have been set,
the process is reported to be extremely steady, and only minute
trimming adjustments are necessary to hold the activity and yields
in the desired range. Loadings of organic impurities in the range
of 10-50 percent of the weight of the original carbon can be
burned off with very little loss. It is generally possible to
keep yields in the range of 75-95 percent, with lower loadings
favoring higher carbon yields. For corn syrup spent-carbon, a
yield relative to the amount of original carbon used in the pro-
cess is about 80-90 percent.
Suspended particles at 1,800°F exit the reactor via a horizontal
refractory-lined duct to a downflow evaporative cooler in which
the gas stream is cooled to 450°F with a three-compartment glass-
cloth bag filter. The carbon is continuously discharged by air
locks, conveyed by a water-cooled screw conveyor, and screened
for any foreign material. A pneumatic conveyor then delivers the
regenerated carbon to bulk storage tanks.
Due to the high steam volume, all interior surfaces in the bag
filter must be kept above the gas dewpoint. Dry collection was
selected at Covington because the product is shipped to users by
rail. Wet scrubber collection is considered practical and
should result in capital savings if carbon is used onsite and
stored in slurry form.
By July 1973, the Covington operation was treating 12.5 tons per
day of carbon from two corn syrup refineries with plans to serve
as many as seven refineries in the near future. The operation
of the regeneration furnace is now considered routine and is con-
sidered to be a part of the production capacity at Covington.
The major problem, now overcome, arose during the initial oper-
ation and was related to slagging. Some of the slag was
resulting from silica filter aids used in the corn industry.
This problem was resolved by shutting down the furnace once per
week and removing the slag (about 100 Ib per week) from the
bottom of the furnace as a routine function. The other initial
source of slag was found to be caused by leaching of nickel
from the stainless-steel shell. This has been solved by instal-
ling refractories within the shell.
The Westvaco transport system for powdered carbon regeneration
was piloted in conjunction with a pilot study of the DuPont
PACT process. In this application, a mixture (approximately
56
-------
50-50) of waste activated sludge and powdered carbon were supplied
to the furnace. No data on the pilot study were made available
for use in this study.
WET AIR OXIDATION20"22'57
Zimpro, Inc., has investigated the feasibility of applying their
Wet Air Oxidation process to regeneration of powdered activated
carbon used in wastewater treatment. The regeneration process
developed by Zimpro is shown in Figure 18.
The flow scheme for carbon regeneration is similar to that used
by Zimpro in the wet air oxidation of sewage sludge and industrial
wastes. Spent carbon is withdrawn from the wastewater contact
system and concentrated by gravity thickening.
Thickened spent carbon slurry at approximately 6-8 percent solids
is pressurized to system pressure, mixed with compressed air and
heated to a reaction temperature in the heat exchangers. Heated
air and spent carbon slurry are conveyed to a reactor where
selective oxidation and a consequent temperature rise occurs.
Hot spent gases and regenerated slurry continuously pass out of
the reactor through the heat exchangers where they are cooled
while heating the incoming slurry and air. Cooled gases and
regenerated carbon slurry are released directly back into the
wastewater flow stream via a pressure control valve. The regen-
eration system is designed to be thermally self sustaining so
steam injection from an auxiliary boiler is required only during
start-up.
The system temperature is maintained in the 390-470°F range at
a pressure of 700-750 psi. Temperature can be controlled by
bypassing the heat exchanger or by multiple point air addition.
Turbulence created by air addition is thought to prevent and
breakdown scale in the system, thus providing a self cleaning
feature. It also improves the heat transfer.
Zimpro has reported on several pilot and full scale projects
which have involved the use of wet air oxidation for carbon
regeneration. In one of these the wastewater treatment involved
a CBC process that utilized powdered activated carbon and
bacteria indigenous to sewage in a conventional activated sludge
type flow scheme. The raw waste was a domestic sewage with a
variety of industrial contributions. Spent carbon, consisting
of about three parts of activated carbon solids to one part bio-
mass was regenerated in a continuous wet air oxidation unit.
During an in-process study, several regeneration conditions were
applied, the one of maximum severity resulting in a fixed carbon
loss of less than nine percent. Solids were isolated from the
regenerated carbon slurries, dried and examined for response to
four selected chemical tests. Table 12 shows the results.
57
-------
s
o
H
Q
O
IS
o
w
1Z
H
O
m
U
O
H
IS]
•
CO
iH
w
o
58
-------
The progressive increases in all relative efficiencies shows that
the activated carbon, although loaded with impurities and mixed
with biomass, can be processed by a continuous wet air oxidation
reactor to give regenerated solids responding well to classical
activated carbon tests. Relative efficiencies for methylene blue,
erythrosin, and molasses color are restored to a greater extent
than that of iodine.
The ash content change was from 6.0 percent to about 11.0 percent
in each case.
In the second study, a full-scale chemical-CBC treatment was con-
ducted by slightly modifying the conventional primary-activated
sludge plant. The wastewater was a domestic sewage heavily
loaded with a paper mill waste containing clays, titanium
dioxide, and polymer latex. Treatment with alum and soda ash to
neutralize the alum was accomplished prior to the CBC process.
The spent carbon slurry was regenerated by a continuous, full-
scale wet air oxidation unit under three conditions with fixed
carbon recoveries of 97, 97, and 91 percent. Table 13 shows the
results of the four chemical adsorptions and BET total specific
surface determination.
59
-------
TABLE 12
PROPERTIES OF REGENERATED CARBON
FROM A BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS
Condition A B C D
Adsorbate Relative
Efficiencies, %
Iodine
Methylene Blue
Erythrosin
Molasses Color
Percent Ash in*
100% Dry Solid
24
24
38
65
11
.0
.2
.8
.7
.1
29.
24.
35.
74.
11.
2
2
6
2
1
30.
31.
50.
83.
10.
4
2
6
5
8
52
63
82
94
11
.9
.3
.0
.7
.0
56
65
129
95
11
.3
.3
.0
.7
.4
*Parent Carbon percent ash, 100 percent dry solid basis =
6.0%
TABLE 13
PROPERTIES OF CARBON REGENERATED FROM A
CHEMICAL BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS
Condition A B C
Adsorbate Relative Efficiencies, %
Iodine 32.8 48.9 57.6
Methylene Blue 68.5 95.7 119.6
Erythrosin 46.5 91.0 95.4
Molasses Color 85.6 90.8 93.9
Recovery of BET Surface, % 58.6 52.8 74.8
% Ash, 100% Dry Solid Basis 68.0 68.2 75.3
60
-------
SECTION 6
BASE CASE SELECTION
At the beginning of the program, available published literature
on powdered activated carbon wastewater treatment and regeneration
technology was reviewed and pertinent data extracted. Following
review of the data, personal contacts were made with firms and
researchers responsible for original development studies on
powdered activated carbon treatment and regeneration systems.
These personal contacts involved both telephone interviews and
site visits. Organizations contacted during the course of the
program are as follows:
CPC International
El DuPont de Nemours & Company
Envirotech Corporation
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
ICI United States
Infilco
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Neptune Microfloc
Nichols Research and Engineering
Orange County Sanitation District
University of Washington
Westvaco Corporation
Zimpro Incorporated
The activities of these organizations as related to powdered
activated carbon technology have been previously discussed.
Interviews with individuals active in the field provided addi-
tional insight into the intricacies of the various technologies.
61
-------
Prior to commencing the study, it had been hoped that a single
base case could be selected for the economic analysis. This
selection was to be based on technical evaluations of the merits
of the various technologies. It soon became obvious, however,
that selection of a single base case, while possible, would not
provide the comprehensive analysis desired. No one process
scheme clearly exceeded all others in performance. In fact, most
of the processes reportedly were capable of producing high
quality effluents. Moreover, the characteristics of the various
processes are vastly different and the development efforts have
proceeded along distinctly different lines at different locations.
Therefore, it was decided to perform the economic analysis for at
least one IPC system and one CBC system. After more detailed
evaluation, two IPC systems and one CBC system were finally
selected as discussed below.
A similar problem exists with regard to evaluating the quality of
carbons regenerated by different techniques. Although data exist
on losses and recoveries of quantities of carbon in different
regeneration systems and under different operating conditions, no
standard test exists by which the effectiveness of regenerated
carbons in wastewater treatment can be measured. None of the
cla'ssic tests such as iodine, phenol, methylene blue, erythrosin,
molassess color, or BET can be used to accurately predict the
performance of activated carbon in any of the wastewater treatment
processes studied. Therefore, the evaluation of various carbon
regeneration studies carried out at different locations under
different circumstances is extremely difficult.
IPC SYSTEMS
Two stage countercurrent contacting theoretically provides for
the most efficient use of powdered activated carbon. Both Infilco,
in their work and Eimco, in their work on chemically clarified
raw sewage, employed this approach as did studies on secondary
effluent treatment conducted by the EPA at Lebanon, Ohio.38 Thus,
it was considered important to include a two stage countercurrent
system in the economic analysis. Of the development efforts
incorporating this approach, the Eimco study represented the
largest scale pilot operation, generated the largest body of data,
operated for the longest period of time, and was the only program
in which carbon regeneration was carried out on a large scale.
It also represented a system in which phosphorous removal was
accomplished. Therefore, one of the base case systems was
patterned after the Eimco flowsheet.
The Battelle-Northwest process was also selected as a base case
system because it represented a widely different approach which
had been successfully piloted on a large scale. This process
being a single stage, short detention time type system represented
a low capital cost approach. In addition, a large body of data
existed for use in this study.
62
-------
The JPL system was not chosen as one of the base cases for several
reasons. Only a limited quantity of data was available to this
study. In addition, a larger scale demonstration program will be
underway in the near future. This program should generate much
better information on design and operating parameters, and process
performance than is presently available. Thus, it was concluded
that detailed analysis of the JPL system should be delayed until
completion of the demonstration program.
CBC SYSTEMS
Only a limited quantity of data, much of it unpublished and most
of it on the bench scale, is available at this time on the contact
stabilization-powdered activated carbon system. Based on work to
date, this approach appears to be very promising but was not
considered to be at a stage of development for consideration in
this analysis.
DuPon't PACT process, Zimpro's bio-physical process, and Id's
several studies have many similarities. The liquid treatment
scheme is the same basic concept in all cases. However, most of
duPont's work has been with industrial wastes. Zimpro, on the
other hand, has generated much data on municipal waste. Therefore,
the base case selected for the economic analysis was patterened
most closely after Zimpro's bio-physical system. It should be
recognized, however, that the main difference is in the regeneration
systems and thus the economic analysis of the liquid treatment
system should provide insight into the PACT process economics and
activated sludge-powdered carbon systems in general.
REGENERATION SYSTEMS
For each of the base systems, the regeneration system utilized in
the original developmental work was maintained for the economic
analysis. This provided a system for which actual field data
existed for a regeneration system working in concert with a
treatment system. Thus, a FBF was selected for the Battelle and
Eimco systems, and a wet oxidation system in the case of the CBC
system.
Although pilot data was generated for the transport system, work-
ing in conjunction with the DuPont PACT process, it was not made
available for use in this study.
Nichols Research and Engineering provided information which enabled
an economic analysis to be performed for the multiple hearth
furnace for all of the base case processes. CPC International
did the same for the AST system. It should be noted, however,
that actual pilot plant experience for tnese two systems working
in conjunction with the various waate»,i-4>--r treatment systems
does not exist and that then- i:: 3 ar-.vi,.. i j^qree of uncertainty
63
-------
in the economic analyses in these latter cases. For the multiple
hearth furnace full scale operational experience will soon be
forthcoming at duPont's Chambers Works.
In summary, three thermal regeneration processes and the wet
oxidation process are included in the analysis.
64
-------
SECTION 7
PROCESSES EVALUATED
In order to determine the economic competitiveness of powdered
activated carbon processes in the municipal wastewater treatment
field, the costs of the following processes were evaluated for
plant capacities of 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 MGD.
• Activated sludge, conventional.
• Activated sludge, single stage for nitrification.
• Activated sludge, conventional followed by chemical
coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration.
• Granular carbon treatment of chemically coagulated,
settled, and filtered raw wastewater.
• Powdered carbon treatment of raw wastewater in a two-
stage system as developed by Eimco.
• Powdered carbon treatment of raw wastewater in a
single-stage system as developed by Battelle-Northwest.
• Powdered carbon addition to the aeration basin of the
activated sludge process in a bio-physical process.
The assumed raw wastewater composition is shown in Table 14.
Table 15 presents estimated effluent quality parameters for pri-
mary treatment and for the other processes evaluated. This table
should be used with caution since the values given are only esti-
mates. A higher degree of uncertainty exists in the case of the
powdered carbon systems since the estimates were derived on the
basis of extrapolations of data generated in developmental studies,
Process flowsheets and design parameters are given in the next
section with the corresponding economic data.
65
-------
TABLE 14
ASSUMED COMPOSITION OF RAW WASTEWATER
(VALUES IN mg/1 UNLESS INDICATED)
Raw
Sewage
Solids, Total 700
Dissolved Solids, Total 500
Fixed 300
Volatile 200
Suspended Solids, Total 200
Fixed 50
Volatile 150
Settleable Solids ml/1 10
BOD5-20°C 200
TOC 200
COD 500
Total N 40
Organic N 15
Free Ammonia 25
Nitrites 0
Nitrates 0
Total P 10
Organic P 3
Inorganic P 7
66
-------
u
•H tn
If) 0)
>i 0)
rC U
ft 0
I r4
0 ft
•H
m
o
CM
CO
CN
CO
cu
H W
rH (0
0) 0)
4J U
4-> 0
rC H
03 ft
O
CM
kD
m
CM
tn
O tn
o 0)
g u
•H o
H M
ft
o
CM
o
H
ro
o
in
CM
ro
CM
1
r4 U CO
m
CM
ro
CM
IT)
W
J
PQ
X
EH
H
i
a
EH
S3
w
D
J
En
P4
W
co
CO
w
u
§
P4
Q
W
EH
rfl
*g
EH
CO
M
C
O
•O 'O C -H
0) C O 4->
4J rrj -rH rO
n3 4-> M
> 0) ra 4->
•H CTl H rH
4-1 T3 3 -rH
U 3 Cn Cu
rt! H IS
CO O T3
u a
(T<
nj
G
O
T3 -H
0) 0) 4-1
4-1 CT> n3
(C T) U
> 3 -H
• H rH IH
4-1 W -H
U M
< 4J
•rH
S
TJ
Q) CU
-P fji
05 T)
> P
•H rH
4-1 CO
Q
o
4J
>i C
VJ 0)
nj S
S -P
•H (S
EH
in
CM
in
CM
ro
CM
in
CN
ro
CM
co
en
CM
ro
m
CM
T)
Q
o
PQ
0)
Oi
tn
3
co
w ^
'O rH
•H \
rH Dl
O g
co ^
67
ft
is \
4-) tn
O 6.
-P CTi
0 6
rot
rotji
O g
-------
SECTION 8
PROCESS ECONOMICS
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
The Appendix contains the cost curves used as the basis for cost
estimates in this report. Some of these curves were developed
for EPA by CWC under Task Order 3 of EPA Contract 68-03-2186.
Many other curves were developed specifically for this evaluation.
The cost curves are based on fourth quarter 1975 cost levels.
The capital cost curves for each unit process do include an
allowance (25 percent) for contractors overhead and profit and a
15 percent contingency allowance. In addition, each includes an
allowance for a proportional share of overall plant electrical
system costs. Experience indicates that a 15 percent allowance
for electrical system costs is reasonable. Blanket application
of this allowance to each unit process may result in some
inequities in electrical system cost allocation among the unit
processes but when the treatment system cost components are
added together, any such inequities will be balanced. Also, each
unit process includes a 15 percent allowance for miscellaneous
items to account for items associated with a unit process that
would be defined in a unit takeoff from construction drawings for
the entire plant but which cannot otherwise be accurately defined.
Construction labor was estimated from the Richardson Estimating
and Engineering Standards. In some cases, the labor required to
install manufactured equipment was estimated by the manufacturer.
Where such estimates were not available, the cost of labor for
equipment installation was estimated as 35 percent of the equip-
ment costs. The capital cost curves presented do not include an
allowance for costs of engineering, legal, fiscal, administrative,
financing during construction, or yardwork related to inter-
connecting the various unit processes. These factors are added
to the subtotals determined from the curves.
The following sections present the detailed cost estimates for
each of the processes evaluated. The report then concludes with
a section which analyzes the relative economics of the various
processes. Because the powdered carbon processes have not been
widely applied and experience is largely on the pilot scale, the
potential effects of changes in the assumed critical design or
operating parameters and costs are also discussed.
68
-------
Some assumptions are common to all of the processes. It was
assumed for the comparative, base cases that all sludges would
be incinerated for all alternative processes. The potential
impact of other methods of waste sludge disposal on the relative
economics is discussed in the last section of the report. Gen-
eral administrative O&M costs (management, clerical, laboratory
analysis, yardwork, etc.) were not included in any of the alter-
natives. The differences in these costs between alternatives
would be small (or non-existant in many cases) and would have no
significant effect on the relative economics of the processes.
Land costs are not included in the base cases but the last section
discusses the impact that relative space requirements of the
various alternatives could have on the relative economics based
on varying land values.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, CONVENTIONAL
Design Basis
The activated sludge system schematic is shown in Figure 19. The
major unit processes are primary sedimentation, activated sludge
aeration and secondary sedimentation, chlorination, gravity
thickening of primary sludge, dissolved air flotation thickening
of waste activated sludge, vacuum filtration of the two thickened
sludges, and incineration of the dewatered sludges. Effluent
filtration and ultimate sludge ash disposal were not included in
this analysis. Provisions for standby units were not included.
The design conditions for raw wastewater characteristics and the
primary sedimentation tank design with expected primary effluent
quality are shown in Table 16.
Using these primary effluent data and McKinney's model,39 the
activated sludge system design criteria were developed. The
aeration system design was limited to a maximum oxygen uptake
rate of 70 mg/l/hr. A mean cell residence time of five days was
used. The return activated sludge pumps were sized for a one
percent sludge concentration and completing a system solids
balance. The secondary sedimentation basins were sized based on
hydraulic overflow rate of 600 gal/ft2/day at average flow.
The resultant design parameters are shown in Table 17. The
chlorine contact basins are sized for a 30 minute detention time
at peak dry weather flow (PDWF, 1.5 times design flow). A
dosage rate of 10 mg/1 was applied to the PDWF for sizing feed
equipment.
The gravity thickener sizing is based on a solids loading of
20 lb/ft^/day. Solids concentrations of five percent (influent)
and ten percent (underflow) were assumed.
69
-------
I
a.
(A
• a
W
K
D
70
-------
TABLE 16
DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION UNIT
Raw Wastewater:
Suspended Solids
Volatile Content
BOD5
Temperature
Peaking Factor (Dry Weather)
Primary Sedimentation Design Parameters
Surface Loading @ Average Flow
Suspended Solids Removal
Sludge Concentration
BOD5 Removal
Effluent BOD5
200 mg/1
75 percent
200 mg/1
20°C
1.5
800 gpd/ft2
65 percent
5 percent
30 percent
140 mg/1
71
-------
TABLE 17
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameters
Activated Sludge
Aeration Basins
F/M, Ib BOD /lb MLVSS
MLVSS, mg/1
Hydraulic detention time, hr
Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT)
days
Sedimentation Basins „
Surface loading, gpd/ft @ ADWF
Solids loading, Ib/ft /day @ PDWF
Return activated sludge, percent of
influent flow
Return activated sludge concentration,
percent
0.355
3,150
4
5
600
<35
46
1
Chlorination
Detention time @ PDWF, minutes
Dosage, mg/1
Gravity Thickener (Primary Sludge)
Solids load, Ib/ft /day
Solids concentration in, percent
Solids concentration out, percent
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener
(Waste Activated Sludge)„
Solids loading, Ib/ft /day
Solids concentration in, percent
Solids concentration out, percent
Vacuum Filtration 2
Solids loading Ib/ft /hr hr
Polymer dosage Ib/ton
Solids concentration out, percent
Run time, hr/day
Multiple Hearth Incineration
Loading, Ib/ft /hr
Downtime, percent
30
10
20
5.0
10.0
20
1
3
3
18
16
20
6
30
72
-------
The dissolved air flotation thickener sizing is also based on a
20 Ib/ft2/day solids loading. This solids loading was chosen
so as to avoid the need for chemical thickening aids. Solids
concentration of one percent (influent) and three percent (float)
are assumed.
The vacuum filter sizing is based on a 3 Ib/ft2/day solids
loading and a 20 hr/day runtime. The polymer feed systems for
the vacuum filters were sized based on 18 Ib of polymer/ton of
dry solids.
Using a dewatered sludge concentration of 16 percent, the multiple
hearth incinerators were sized for a 6 Ib/ft2/hr loading (wet)
solids basis) and a 70 percent operation runtime.
Unit process component sizes are summarized in Table 18. The
only exceptions to the above criteria are the solids thickening
and dewatering equipment for the 1 MGD design. The thickeners
sized for the 1 MGD plant were smaller than available equipment
so both primary and waste activated sludges are combined and
thickened by gravity.
Costs
The capital and operation costs for the unit processes shown are
developed through a review of the costs of actual plant construc-
tion and operation, equipment cost data from manufacturers, and
published cost data. These generalized cost curves should not
be used for estimating a given plant cost but are readily usable
for comparing alternative processes as in this report. Individ-
ual plant costs must be developed based on the specific waste-
water treatment plant design, local labor and material costs,
and local climatic and site conditions.
Some of the limitations, in addition to the general local con-
ditions discussed above, include no standby provisions, no
specific modular sizing other than minimum available sizes, and
no adjustments for local regulatory agency design restrictions.
Capital Costs
Sedimentation. The source of the construction cost
curve for sedimentation was the report to EPA, "Costs
of Chemical Clarification of Wastewater," January 1976.4°
These cost data were developed from quantity takeoffs
and equipment manufacturer's estimates. The cost curve
in the Appendix shows construction cost as a function
of clarifier surface area.
73
-------
O
ir»
TABLE 18
UNIT PROCESS SIZES, ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Capacity, MGD
ocess
™o^ 1 5 10 25 !
O
o
in
o
o
0
Sedimentation Tanks
ce area, ft2 1,250 6,250 12,500 31,250 62,
n Tanks, volume, ft3 23,300 111,500 223,000 557,500 1,115
SH a >i rd
ft E SH MH
O ro SH
4J U E 3
•H -H CO
C SH SH
D O ft
0
•H
-p
rd
^
CD
0 O
o m
o ro
in
r*\
s, hp 40 200 400 1,000 2,
ry Sedimentation Tanks
ce area, ft2 1,667 8,335 16,670 41,675 83,
ps, MGD .46/.69(1) 2.30/3.45 4.60/6.90 11.5/17.8 23. O/:
SH rd rd
0 T3 >w
4-^ C SH
rd 0 3
SH U en
CD CD
<< CO
p
3
Qj
(n
2
o o
in m
CN r~
CN
m m
CN r»
rH ro
rH
O 0
in in
*vj* l~t
in m
CN r~
CN
m in
^j1 i — i
ro
4-1
0)
E rH
a o
Cn >
a - -
Cn w C
a o
en 3 4-i
a ft
O 0) rd
CD
fc.
O
rH
thickener
ce area, ft2 98<2) 271 542 1,355 2,
ed Air Flotation
£>i CO >
4J MH iH
•H SH O
> 3 CO
ro en w
SH -H
e> Q
O O «3"
CT* ro ^*
rH VD
o
o
CN rH ;£>
in in CN o
CTl rH CN CN
O 00 O
ro ro
ro in H
rH m CN
1 rH • rH
ft
mance
(0
0) ri
^C 1
, — .
rH
-> CF 4-i rrj -H
0 0) O E -rl
a SH PQ CO S
^-^ , ^
CN rO
74
-------
Aeration Basins. Historical aeration basin cost data
has been updated with results of other detailed cost
studies by CWC and recent costs obtained by Black &
Veatch and CH2M-Hill. All data have been adjusted to
the last quarter of 1975, Bureau of Labor Standards
(BLS) wholesale price index for concrete products.
Construction cost as a function of aeration basin
volume is shown in the Appendix.
Mechanical Aeration Equipment. Cost data for instal-
led mechanical equipment have been derived from experi-
enced cost data and equipment costs supplied by manufac-
turers.
Return Activated Sludge Pumping Station. The cost
relationships for recycle pumping developed by Black
& Veatch40 were adjusted and used as a basis for esti-
mating the cost of the return activated sludge pumping
stations in this study. The costs shown by Black &
Veatch have approximately doubled due to inflation,
stricter OSHA requirements, and regulatory agency
reliability standards.
The pumping stations are assumed to employ vertical
diffusion vane pumping units with attendent valves,
piping, and control facilities. The pump is suspended
in the wet well and motors and motor control centers
are housed in a superstructure.
Waste Sludge Pumping Stations. Waste sludge pumping
equipment costs are based on the use of intermittent
sludge pumping with positive displacement pumps. The
cost data presented in the Black & Veatch cost curves
were updated for this study.
Included in the pump station cost is an underground
structure which houses the pumps and piping and is
constructed adjacent to and in conjunction with the
sedimentation basin. Also included is a superstructure
which houses electrical control equipment. This curve
is applicable to both primary and waste activated sludge
pumping.
Chlorination. The chlorine contact basin cost curve is
based on the same construction used for the aeration
basin cost curve. The chlorine feed equipment cost
curve is based on chlorine gas feed and is taken from
the draft report by CWC for the EPA "Estimating Initial
Investment Costs and Operating and Maintenance Require-
ments of Stormwater Treatment Processes."
75
-------
Gravity Thickening. These costs were developed using
the same approach used in the earlier CWC work.40
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening. The flotation
thickener cost curve was taken from the CWC report.40
Steel fabricated units are available with surface areas
up to 450 square feet. The concrete basin costs include
the tank, flotation cell equipment, air compressor, and
controls.
Vacuum Filtration Costs. Vacuum filtration costs were
obtained from equipment manufacturers and include the
basic filter, associated vacuum and filtrate pumps,
internal piping, and other appurtenant equipment and
controls. The costs for polymer feed and storage equip-
ment associated with the vacuum filter were taken from
the CWC report.4°
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance costs consist of labor, power and
maintenance materials. The individual cost curves were developed
through a variety of resources including recent CWC work for the
EPA and the Black & Veatch study.41 In some instances, oper-
ating plants were consulted for information on labor requirements
Sedimentation Basins. O&M requirements are based on
the Black & Veatch report.41
Mechanical Aeration. Operation and maintenance require-
ments of the aeration system are expressed in terms of
the installed aerator horsepower. Labor requirements
are based on the Black & Veatch report.41 The power
requirements were calculated on the basis of an assumed
oxygen transfer of 2 Ib O2/hp-hr or 3.0 Ib 02/kWh.
Maintenance material costs are based on the Black &
Veatch report.41
Return Activated Sludge Pumping Station. The return
activated sludge pumping station labor requirements
are based on the Black & Veatch report.41 The power
requirements were developed using a head of ten feet
and the pumping efficiencies shown in the Appendix.
The maintenance material cost curve is an update of
the Black & Veatch curve.41
Waste Sludge Pumping Station. Labor requirements for
the waste sludge pumping stations are based on the
Black & Veatch report. The power requirements were
based on a pumping head of 25 feet and a pumping
efficiency of 40 percent (progressing cavity pumps).
Maintenance material costs were updated from the
Black & Veatch report.41
76
-------
Chlorination. Labor requirements and maintenance mate-
rial costs for chlorination are based on the Black &
Veatch report. The chlorine costs are based on recent
suppliers quotes for one ton cylinders and tank car lots.
Gravity Thickening. Gravity thickener labor require-
ments are based on data presented in the EPA Technology
Transfer manual on sludge treatment and disposal,42
assuming a loading of 20 Ib/ft2/day. The maintenance mate-
rial costs were based on the sedimentation basin data.
Flotation Thickening. O&M cost curves for flotation
do not include chemical feed. The thickeners for this
project were sized so as to require no chemical addi-
tives .
All three cost curves (labor, power, and maintenance
materials) were taken from recent CWC work.40
Vacuum Filtration. The O&M cost curves were based on
recent CWC work4" but adjusted for 20 hr/day operation.
These curves were developed with information obtained
from Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District
experience, manufacturer's data, and the Black &
Veatch report.41
Polymer Feeding. The O&M cost curves for polymer
feeding and mixing were based on recent CWC work.40
Labor requirements were based on actual plant experi-
ence at Metro Denver. Power requirements were based
on the use of plunger metering pumps and 6.4 hp-hr for
mixing 100 pounds of polymer. Annual maintenance mate-
rial costs were assumed to be three percent of the
equipment cost.
Multiple-Hearth Incineration. Labor requirements for
multiple-hearth incineration were taken from recent
CWC work40 and adjusted for 70 percent operation run-
time (6,132 hr/year). The fuel requirements were pro-
vided by equipment manufacturers for combined raw pri-
mary and waste activated sludges, vacuum filtered to
16 percent solids. Power requirements were developed
in the same manner.
The Black & Veatch incineration maintenance material
cost curve41 was converted to a square foot of hearth
basis by assuming a loading rate of 6 Ib/ft2/hr (wet),
updated, adjusted to 70 percent operation runtime.
Tables 19-29 present the cost estimates which are then summarized
in Table 30.
77
-------
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
o o
o o
H rH
o
o
o
o
o
CN
o
o
o
o
in
o
CN
O
O
o
««.
o
"*
in
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CTi
CN
o
o
o
^
o
oo
in
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
in
CM
o
o
o
*h
o
o
01
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
Mb
o
o
CN
o
o
o
*h
o
CTi
oo
o
o
o
•fc.
o
^D
oo
o
o
o
k*
o
o
CN
o
o
o
o
•"*
oo
o
o
o
H
o
Q
co
Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
h.
o
oo
m
o
o
o
^
o
CTi
ro
o
o
o
«w
o
CTi
o
o
o
*k
o
oo
CN
o
o
o
*»
o
CN
CN
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CN
o
o
o
o
'£>
CTi
w
l-q
CQ
o
CO
EH
CO
o
u
o o
o o
o o
CN
o
vo
oo
o
o
o
<
o
oo
CN
O
O
O
fc.
O
OO
OO
o
o
o
o
o
o
s.
o
o
o
o
<
OO
o
o
o
o
o
o
OO
EH
H
ft
<
u
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CTl
o
o
o
o
r--
o
o
o
"*.
IT)
o
o
o
o
o
o
m
o
o
o
CN
d
o
•H
-P
03
-P
£*i G
M (U
03 g to
g -H X
H T3 G
M (I) (0
ft CO EH
CO
G
•H
U)
o3
CQ
£
O
•H
-P
03
0)
-P
G G
O (U
•H g
-P Pi
03 -H
j_l |3
cu tr1
i
M
03
T3
Jj
O
U
CO
78
G
O
•H
-P
03
-P
£
(U
g to
T) G
(U 03
CO EH
13
CU
-P tji
03 G
> -H
-H Pi
-u g
U P
< ft
G (U
s-i cji
3 t3
-P 3
QJ rH
rt co
G
O
•H
-P
03
JJ
CO
Q)
-P
03
j>
•H
-P
0
-H
T3 -P
d 03
rH -P
CO CO
>i CT1
M G
03 -H
g 0.
•H g
ft ft
CO
c
•H
CO
03
PQ
tu
G -P
-H U
!-( 03
0 -P
H G
X! 0
CJ U
G
O
•H
-P -P
03 G
G tU
-H g
J_| Pt
O -H
•H 3
X! O1
U W
-------
o
o
o
o
m
0
o
o
o
1£>
oo
0
o
o
0
o
o
rH
0
o
o
0
en
00
0
o
o
0
0
0
UD
o
o
o
o
en
rH
<£>
H
0
o
o
r~-
<0
CN
*.
CN
o
o
0
r^-
IT)
•sT
00
H
O
o
o
m
rH
CN
CN
O
0
0
U)
-3<
CO
rH
O
o
0
00
rH
m
CN
CN
in
(N
o
o
o
o
ro
0
o
0
o
00
CN
o
o
o
o
T
U3
o
0
0
0
o
CN
0
0
o
o
o
H
•^
o
0
0
0
Cn
m
0
-H
0
o
o
CM
00
^
H
o
0
o
CN
[-»
0
CN
rH
0
o
o
Cn
^
•vf
r-\
o
0
0
r~-
o
CM
rH
0
o
o
oo
CN
r^-
^f
rH
o
o
o
o
CTi
•o
4J
c
O
O
W
i-q
03
<
EH
o
o
o
^
CN
O
O
0
O
en
rH
o
o
o
o
r-
oo
o
0
o
o
en
o
0
o
o
0
!£>
CN
O
0
0
o
^r
rH
\Q
o
0
0
o
<0
CO
o
o
o
o
o
0
r^
o
o
o
o
**
00
o
0
0
0
o
r^
o
0
0
^
o
•>*
in
00
0
0
0
0
CO
r-\
o
o
o
*.
o
m
CN
0
o
0
*.
0
m
o
o
o
o
o
en
*t
iH
o
o
o
CN
00
CN
^
^r
o
o
o
CN
en
m
o
o
o
«*
CN
CO
V
^r
0
0
0
en
r-
m
o
o
o
CN
CO
*#
o
0
o
in
CO
CO
rh.
in
0 i<
0 \
0 Z
<^D
V£>
H
•H
<
M ^ fi M
CD CD O 0)
>i £ > -H ff
-P Q) rH -P CD
•H X. O ft X
> U tn -P U
03 -H CO O -H
rH X! "H" rH ,£
O EH Q CM EH
0
o
o
m
o
CN
M
0)
-P
rH
•H
CM
g
3
3
U
0!
>
T3
CD
CD
CM
M
0)
g
>i
rH
O
eu
o
0
0
r~-
oo
(D
Cn
03
M
O
-P
C/j
•d
c
03
o
0
0
o
o
rH
rH
c
o
•H
-p
03
M
0)
e!
•H
o
c
H
0
0
o
r~-
fN
o
CN
rH
ft
-P
O
4J
,Q
3
CO
0
0
0
CO
^f
CN
X
M
0
•g
T3
^
03
>H
o
o
o
rH
rH
00
CN
EH
CO
0
U
&
0
H
EH
U
D
«
^ EH
< CO
EH 2
O O
EH U
0
O
O
r-»
r-
CN
rH
«. 03
tn Cn
t, (D
•H i-q
in
(B «•
(D rH
C 03
-H O
tn en
C -H
W CM
0
0
0
rH
oo
CN
tn
C
-H
rH G
3 O
Q -H
-p
-P 0
en D
CD M
M -P
CD W
-P C
C! 0
H CJ
o
o
o
en
rH
CO
CN
(^
<
EH
H
Oj
<
U
J CO
rfj EH
EH CO
O O
EH U
79
-------
01
M
id
0) rH
4-> O rH
01 G O
O HJ Q
U C
01 -
rH -P 01
,
rJ
g
•H
iH
ft
01
C
.rH
01
al
PQ
G
0
•H
4J
n)
^
0)
<
-P
a
OJ
s
a
•H
3
w
c
o
p
18
iH
0)
imentation
<7j
0)
CO
h>1
rJ
fd
-a
0
o
•rH
4J
O
<1J
4J
01
S
e Pumping
£jl
-a
3
CO
£*i
id
g
H
^
ft
act Basins
p
G
O
U
0)
G
H
0
rH
.C
U
Equipment
G
o
•H
4J
rrj
G
•H
0
r;
U
ener
rs^
U
•H
r;
EH
^
-P
•H
|>
(C^
)H
O
Flotation Thickener
^
•H
f£
r£j
(11
rH
0
01
01
•H
Q
^J
-------
0)
4J O
01 q
o *d
u c
0)
4J
. C
3 -H
CH *d
G S
ft
H)
O
O
<
m
n
CM
pa
O
Q
i
in
W
O
Q
Vl
0) G
3 O
O -rH
id 3 '
13 Ul *
Is
OrfOOOGOf3: CN O^
VD
o
t-H
X
CN
CO
vO
Q
W
I
H
3
rH 0
id X
3
C O
Hi
l-q
o
Oi
in
entation
e
•H
•o
01
in
^1
^
g
-H
^
A.
u]
-H
Ul
id
CQ
C
O
•P
id
M
01
ff.
4-1
C
01
g
•H
3
CT1
W
C
O
-rH
-P
id
^j
0)
*£
imentation
T)
01
>,
^4
id
•a
c
o
o
01
en
ted Sludge Pumping
id
-iH
4J
U
ffi
C
3
-P
01
B;
ed Sludge Pumping
4J
fl
H
.p
0
*^
0)
-P
Ul
(Tj
S
e Pumping
act Basins
Cf -P
13 a
3 O
rH U
01
>i G
r-l H
£3 O
-r-l rH
rH Xj
cu u
Equipment
G
O
-H
.p
id
C
•H
rH
O
rH
rC
o
ener
A;
o
•H
r^
EH
^1
-P
•H
id
^4
O
Flotation Thickener
M
H
^
•a
01
£>
rH
O
01
U)
.r-{
Q
^
01
-P
rH
-H
t=4
g
O
id
>
and Storaga
T3
01
0)
fa
^
01
1,
rH
o
0.
C
o
4J
fl
^
01
G
-rH
O
G
H
,1
^
EH
o
EH
81
-------
o
4-> O
in c
0 rt
CJ C
CJ
-H 4->
IB C
O H
C n)
c a
ft
•H
4-1
CJ
f£
fi
IH
rj
4-1
(!)
ted Sludge Pumping
fB
>
•H
4J
O
^jj
01
4J
in
OJ
!S
ge Pumping
•d
3
rH
CO
1^1
J^
Tj
6
•H
ft
tact Basins
£
o
o
0)
c
•H
^1
0
r}
rH
O
M
M
-rH
Q
CJ
4-1
rH
•rH
[n
e
d
3
O
n)
and Storage
•d
0)
0)
rH
(U
E
~vj
rH
O
ft
C
O
•rH
4J
(Tj
^
0)
C
•rH
O
a
M
82
-------
0) rH
4* O rH
U] C O
O rd Q
U C
CU -
3 -H
^s
c a >H
a! a)
frj
M
0)
pment
•H
3
U
c
o
•rH
-p
rd
0)
imentation
•d
CJ
**!
M
(T-J
C
0
o
a)
ted Sludge Pumping
id
•rH
1 1
u
c
rH
3
P
K
H1
|
0)
7
rH
'O
(!)
P
[>
•rH
O
Q)
4J
Ul
s
e Pumping
cr>
•a
3
rH
en
^
^
nj
£
•rH
)H
ft
act Basins
.p
c
o
u
0)
c
•rH
k
o
rH
r.
u
Equipment
c
o
.p
rd
C
rH
M
O
rH
(^
O
ener
X
o
•rH
c*t
tH
JN
jj
•rH
>
rd
Vl
O
Flotation Thickener
M
•H
rt
T)
0)
>
rH
0
Ul
Ul
•H
a
M
0)
4J
rH
•rH
p4
c»
3
3
o
>
and Storage
•a
o
4)
Cu
rH
0)
^
H
O
ft
C
O
•H
4J
rd
rH
0)
e
•rH
O
C
M
83
-------
4J O rH
w a o
O id Q
u a
0) -
rH 4-1 M
Id C rH
3 -H id
C Id -rt
c a ^
«; ai
MH 4-1
O n)
conincncri
o
oo
o
00
en
en
co
in
a)
H C O
HI O
3 -H rH
fn 4J 10
a H
rH 8 3
« 3 4J
3 in «
5§2
r3 U -
u
«)
o
o
n
Q
O
SI
o
in
CM
ai
B
n.
Annual I
o
•H
r 1
Consumpi
kWh
o «:
o \
0 J3
o
CN
O
o
o
o
o
0)
o
rH
O
O
o
o
CN
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
m
o
o
0
in
•-H
<
2
O
o
o
CN
rH
o
O
O
O
O
M1
rH
O
0
o
O
O
0
rH
o
O
CO
CN
O
o
o
o
o
CO
rH
o
o
CO
in
co
CQ
<
EH
Ul
Q
W
EH
EH
U
o
o
o o
o o
O en
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
rH
in
o
entation
6
•H
•o
00
jx,
O
f£
a
M
jj
0)
ed Sludge Pumping
4J
m
•H
4J
U
<*£
a>
4J
ia
id
3=
e Pumping
en
rft
3
rH
05
^
Vj
id
B
•H
^
ft
act Basins
4J
a
o
u
0)
c
•H
Vj
o
rH
fi
U
Equipment
c
o
-rH
4J
id
C
•H
^
O
rH
Si
U
ener
y
O
•H
c~;
EH
^
^j
-ri
>
id
)-i
Flotation Thickener
M
•H
rtj
•o
a)
rH
O
ra
w
•H
Q
H
0)
4J
rH
• rH
CM
£~
3
•J
o
id
and Storage
T)
a>
CM
j^
a>
^,
H
O
ft
fl
O
•H
4J
flj
!H
c!
•iH
O
C
H
84
-------
TABLE 25
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, 1 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
2,819,000 x 0.09439 $266,000
Labor
6,970 Hours @ $9/Hour 62,730
Power
310,092 kWh @ $0.02/kWh 6,200
Fuel f.
3.8 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF 5,700
Maintenance Materials 16,500
Chemicals
Chlorine
15.2 Tons @ $220/Ton 3,340
Polymer
6430 Ib @ $2/lb 12,860
TOTAL $373,330
Cost/MG @ Capacity = ^Z?'33? = $1,023/MG
X J_
85
-------
TABLE 26
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
5,885,000 x 0.09439 $555,000
Labor
16,590 Hours @ $9/Hour 149,310
Power
1,658,150 kWh @ $0.02/kWh 33,160
Fuel ,
24 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF 36,000
Maintenance Materials 43,340
Chemicals
Chlorine
76 Tons @ $220/Ton 16,720
Polymer
32,193 Ib @ $2/lb 64,380
TOTAL $897,910
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $^97,910 = $492/MG
86
-------
TABLE 27
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
8,540,040 x 0.09439 $806,000
Labor
24,170 Hours @ $9/Hour 217,530
Power
3,128,200 kWh @ $0.02/kWh 62,565
Fuel ,
50 x 10 SCF y $1.50/TCF 75,000
Maintenance Materials 57,070
Chemicals
Chlorine
152 Tons @ $220/Ton 33,440
Polymer
64,386 lb @ $2/lb 50 128,770
TOTAL $1,380,375
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $^^8^f^5 = $378/MG
87
-------
TABLE 28
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
14,728,000 x 0.09439 $1,390,000
Labor
43,960 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 395,640
Power
7,598,200 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 151,965
Fuel ,
140 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 210,000
Maintenance Materials $ 120,710
Chemicals
Chlorine
380 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 38,000
Polymer
160,600 Ib @ $2/lb $ 321,200
TOTAL $2,627,515
Costs/MG @ Capacity = l'^2 oc- = $288/MG
88
-------
TABLE 29
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Anortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
22,518,000 x 0.09439 $2,125,000
Labor
70,510 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 634,590
Power
14,854,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 297,090
Fuel ,
300 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 450,000
Maintenance Materials $ 189,980
Chemicals
Chlorine
760 Tons @ $100/Ton /Ton $ 76,000
Polymer
321,200 Ib @ $2/lb 2/lb $ 642,400
TOTAL $4,415,060
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $^1^/^° = $242/MG
89
-------
TABLE 30
ACTIVATED SLUDGE ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
Annual Cost ($1,000)
MGD
1
266
63
6
6
16
3
13
373
5
555
149
33
36
43
17
64
898
10
806
218
62
75
57
33
129
1,380
25
1, 390
396
152
210
121
38
321
2,628
50
2,125
635
297
450
190
76
642
4,415
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Chlorine
Polymer
TOTAL
Costs/1,000 Gals
(Operating @
Capacity) $1.02 $0.49 $0.38 $0.29 $0.24
90
-------
ACTIVATED SLUDGE, SINGLE STAGE FOR NITRIFICATION
The design of this system is based on a mean cell residence time
of ten days to achieve nitrification in a single stage activated
sludge system. Table 31 presents the design parameters for the
nitrification system. Table 32 presents the resulting unit pro-
cess sizes. Capital and O&M costs are based on the same sources
described in the preceding section for the conventional acti-
vated sludge system. Tables 33-44 present the results of the
cost calculations.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION
This system consists of the activated sludge design previously
described with downstream chemical coagulation and filtration.
The chemical coagulation and filtration designs are the same as
used for the granular carbon system described in detail later in
this report. The process schematic is shown in Figure 20 and
the design criteria are summarized in Table 45.
Unit process sizes are shown in Table 46. Table 47 presents the
capital costs. Costs for the chemical clarification, sludge
handling, chlorination, and filtration portions of the system
were obtained from work conducted by CWC under EPA Contract
68-03-2186. Appropriate cost curves are presented in the Appen-
dix.
O&M costs are summarized in Tables 48-52. These costs were taken
from component costs determined previously in the study. Tables
53-57 summarize total annual costs for each capacity and Table 58
is an overall summary.
GRANULAR CARBON TREATMENT OF CHEMICALLY
COAGULATED, SETTLED, AND FILTERED RAW WASTEWATER
The process schematic is shown in Figure 21. The design criteria
are shown in Table 59. Gravity filters were used at all capac-
ities. Pressure filters may be more economical in capacities of
five mgd or less, but for comparative purposes, gravity filters
were used in all cases. Filter costs were obtained from the
earlier CWC report.40 A minimum of four filters were provided
to insure reliability. The other criteria are self-explanatory.
Unit process sizes are shown in Table 60. Table 61 presents the
capital costs. Costs for the chemical clarification, sludge
handling, chlorination, and filtration portions of the system
were obtained from work conducted by CWC under EPA Contract 68-
03-2186.40 Capital costs for the carbon influent pumping and
the carbon contacting system were obtained by updating the curves
from the EPA Technology Transfer Manual, "Process Design Manual
91
-------
TABLE 31
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NITRIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameters
Activated Sludge
Aeration Basins
P/M, Ib BOD5/lb MLVSS 0.20
MLSS, mg/1 3,270
Hydraulic Detention Time, hr 7
Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT), Days 10
Sedimentation Basins
Surface Loading, gpd/ft2 @ ADWF 600
Solids Loading, Ib/ft2/day @ PDWF 35
Return Activated Sludge, Percent
of Influent Flow 69
Return Activated Sludge Concentration,
Percent 0.8
Chlorination
Detention Time @ PDWF, Minutes 30
Dosage, mg/1 10
Gravity Thickener (Primary Sludge)
Solids Load, Ib/ft2/day 20
Solids Concentration in, Percent 5.0
Solids Concentration out, Percent 10.0
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener (Waste Activated Sludge)
Solids Loading, Ib/ft2/day 20
Solids Concentration in, Percent 1
Solids Concentration out, Percent 3
Vacuum Filtration
Solids Loading Ib/ft2/hr 3
Polymer Dosage Ib/ton 18
Solids Concentration out, Percent 16
Run Time, hr/day 20
Multiple Hearth Incineration
Loading, Ib/ft2/hr (Wet Solids) 6
Downtime, Percent 30
92
-------
CM
CQ
o
H
FH
~~j
U 0
H S
H
o
o
in
CN
PH
EH
H
£5
m
f i
H
U
w
o *
PI
O
in
IN
10
01
PL)
|_^
O
Lr-*j
H "<
r/i
en
O
in
„
rH
[SI
H
C/]
rrt
W 01 -P
M » c
^ o 01
O ° c
Jrf O3
PH V4 u
4J U
EH ^ r,
H =0
£5
01
C
10
E-,
C
o
•HCN
4-> 4-1
10 "U
4J
C ~
01 <0
g i (0
n] U
45
H
O O O CO O O
O O u"> • O i-fi
o in m r-t CD r^
O f*i ft \ <-H
in co in
crv
Cft
o o in • o in
o u"> P- in o r*
OP** ^o CN CT^ fi
in rH rH CN
OT r*
rH
m
o o • o o
o o r1* o ^o iJ"*
O vO O
O rH Q^
10
o o un co o m
O in ro I-H QO r*
- * in
ov m
rH ^f
n
rH
O o P"- *~ ' ' \o in
O ^0 o
* •* .
O> rH r-t
m *s.
0>
en
f*i C
-P (d
«M E-<
C
OJ O
I -SCN
o *J -u
> G U-i S
C O( CU M S Oi W
nj jc en *< QI
>i d) co to 3
O rH (d (d S £
•H O T3 ^W 3 3
td (0 O 3 T3
M ri o en CQ en 3
0) 0) 0) < < H
< < tn ix a w
O O O O CO O O
o r-H p* r*- rH m
rH (N rH m
0 X
CN O
S
o tn m CN o o
o o m r- ^r CN m
m r* ro oo P^ r-
* in
^P \ rH CN
o o
rH CO
n
m
0
O CN O r- CO rH
o oo ^ m cjv o
co CN m m CN «-H
rH *S,
Gfd aji x ^ SH
•H -P W M 4J<4H rH O S (U 1)
r*G 0>-Hr(O-'-t.3gC
iHrj o)< men ngH u I-H o
5V rt -H (d O C
b O Q > CU H
X,
01 r5
rH
rd rH
H
tu *r
rtj 1)
S ^
0) rH
CJ rH
C -H
s . s
01 01 0)
4-1 -P '6
C C Q -3
•H 01 O 4-1
g 01 s
r4 rH O
T3 -H -H
C 3 C P
(0 cr -H io
01 rl M 0>
4J 01 ft
C rj C O
oi o 01
L4 rH -H 04 51
3 T3 4J UH -ri
Ot rtJ >i en (^
M 4-1 rH O
4-1 -H rH O
K 01 > O
o> o to 14 10
S O r( O
O en t3
O >i <» 4J
S, 4J ^ At 3
4-» O Tl -n
3 01 0) "O
a) u c; o 18
C 4J 0) id
-H S9 X **-* tQ
S C O -J -H
rl O -H 3
0> U A 0) g
4-> 4-1 01
0) 01 tO 4J
T3 G 01 01
•n o) 01 >i
O g Cf* <0 01
4-1 S TJ ^4
•O -P rH £ 'S
0) 01 01 O 0)
01 13 -H 1H
3 T3 X
O <0 3 rj
01 4-1 4J 0)
•rH (0 ^O g
T3 > >t
gO) -H X rH
01 4J O
rH 3 O VD CU
01 (0
O) -H OS
Ol 4J 0) rj
(0 >i 01 -H 10
2) -H S T3 >"i
< At T3 S ".4"
ft C 3 X!
1 rO <0
o 4J in
V. O, -H 4J
0) 14 01 M
10 • rH
r< 4J £ rH J«!
0) 01 4J Al Ol
> O O g 0)
rt o m en *
rH
-------
ro
fQ
O
H
EH
U
H
fc,
H
EH
H
2
pa
a
D
ui
P
pa
I
CJ
<
EH
C73
W
"
CO
C71
EH
tQ
O
U
EH
H
P4
<
u
o
m
m
. G
rd g W)
•H 'T} G
M O rd
ft CO EH
O
o
o
o
o
rH
(N
O
O
O
O
O
^f
i-H
O
O
o
o
in
CO
o
0
o
0
p*.
in
o
o
o
o
CM
to
G
•r-l
01
rd
m
d
o
.p
rd
0)
o
o
0
o
0
fM
CN
O
O
O
O
O
in
rH
o
o
o
o
CO
o
0
o
o
in
T
o
0
o
o
H
-p
G G
O O
-H g
•p a
rd -H
SH 3
Q) D1
O
O
o
o
in
o
-H
•H a
-P S
o 3
G
G 0) O
M Cn-H
3 T3 -P
-P 3 rd
0) H -P
OS CO CO
O
O
0
0
o
u>
o
o
o
o
CO
•q-
o
o
o
o
[•^
M
o
o
o
o
G\
rH
O
o
0
o
<*
TJ
0) CT>
•P G
fTj *H
> Pw
•H g
-P 3
O ft
tN
0
0
o
o
o
(N
o
o
o
0
rj"
rH
0
O
O
ro
cr\
o
o
o
•*"
"
G
0) 0
tn-H
T) -P
3 rd
rH -P
co co
»>1 tjl
Vl G
rd PH
g a
•H E
W 3
o
o
o
o
m
in
0
o
o
o
*3*
n
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
r-
n
o
o
o
tN
rH
G
0
•H
-P -P
rd G
G u
rd -H
M ,G
O EH
94
-------
C
O
u
m
m
W
J
CQ
<
EH
1-1
•H
ft,
nd
0)
>
rH
o
ID
U)
•rH
Q
o
o
o
o
CO
co
o
o
o
o
in
CM
0
o
o
o
CO
<-\
o
o
o
*.
o
U3
rH
\
2
C ±1
O £>
0
o
o
o
^r
co
0
0
0
..
0
CO
CN
0
0
O
in
o
CN
M
13
4)
0)
fa
M
0)
1,
rH
O
Cn
o
o
o
o
0
in
o
o
o
o
m
CN
O
O
O
O
O
rH
0
0
o
^
CN
in
0
0
o
r-
CO
0)
CP
ccj
M
O
-P
CO
•a
a
cd
o
o
o
o
o
00
in
o
o
o
0
o
CO
0
0
O
O
O
^
CN
O
O
O
*.
O
o
r^
rH
O
O
O
O
o
rH
rH
a
o
•H
4J
rrj
M
<1)
G
•H
U
C
H
O
0
0
O
^f
cr,
t^~
H
o
o
o
o
o
r-
rH
rH
o
o
o
o
U3
r-
^0
o
o
o
s.
^r
oo
M-
M-
o
o
o
o
o
CN
CN
rH
(d
4-1
O
-p
X!
3
co
0
o
o
CN
rH
m
CN
o
o
o
CO
CO
VD
rH
O
O
0
VD
M-
G\
O
O
o
K
CO
CN
VD
O
O
O
CO
o
CO
^
M
O
S
T)
^
(3
>H
O
o
o
CN
in
**
o
CN
0
o
o
CO
CO
CO
co
rH
o
o
o
U3
O
r^
r--
o
o
o
>fc
CN
rH
rH
in
o
o
o
CO
o
in
CN
r^r
f*
O
EH
CJ
D
«
EH
CO
•&
O
CJ
A
< EH
EH CO
O O
H CJ
o
o
0
<*
in
<*
rj
o
o
o
o
o
l£>
rH
O
o
o
in
CN
en
o
o
o
*.
CO
rH
VO
O
o
o
rH
o
CO
rH
~ crj
en en
fi
C
•H r^
H C rtj
30 EH
Q -H H
-P Cn
•P O <
u) 3 CJ
0) M
M -P hJ CO
at w <; EH
-P rt EH CO
c; o oo
HO EH CJ
95
-------
g
cS
O
Q
O
g
4-1
W
0
U
rH
rd
3
G
C
,£*
f3i
0)
O
c
rd
C
0)
4->
G
•H
rd
a
H-4
O
W
rl
nS
rH
rH
0
Q
^
W
rH
rd
•rH
rl
(1)
UJ
4J
rd
a
o o
< O CO
\ o m
2
O
O
m
o
o
CN
>£>
O
o
m
o
ro
O
r-
o
^
CO
kO
I I
o
rH
X
EH
U
W
EH
CO
W
I-H1
o
2
H
CO
rl
0) C
S O
O -rt O
ft -P 0
Oi,c m
rd 3 v ro
3 cn*
G C
C O
< U
rH
rd M W O
3 O H r-
C X) 3 m
G rd 0
i
rl
rd
•H
rl
ft
<
\
2
<
\
2
cn
G
•H
cn
rd
PQ
G
O
•H
•P
rd
rl
0)
<
O O
o o
O ro
«n Ik.
O ro
r~-
ro
O O
O CN
r- \s)
rH
C
O
•H
•P
rd
4-> -P
C G
Q) 0)
g g
a -9
•H T3
3 (U
CJ1 Cfl
H
>i
G rl
O rd
•H -O
4J G
rd O
rl U
0) 0)
rtj CO
O
0
o
^
tH
O
&
r~
cu
Cn
-0
3
rH
co
T3
0)
-P
rd
>
•rl
•P
U
CTi
cn
CD
Cn
T3
3
iH
CO
T)
Q)
4->
rd
•rl
•p
u
CP
G
•H
ft
ft
0)
Cn
T3
3
H
CO
>i
M
•H
rl
ft
<
\
s
o
o
m
cn
C -P
•H C
CO 0)
rd g
ffl Oi
•H
•P 3
U tJ1
rd W
-P
G G
O O
U -H
•P
tt) rd
G G
•H -H
rl rl
O O
rH rH
rG X!
U U
O
0
O
rH
O
O
'S1
rl
Q)
G
(1)
,X
U
•rt
X!
EH
>i
-P
•H
>
rd
rl
O
<
\
Z
<
2
G
0
•H
•P
rd
4J
0
H
fa
rl
•rH
<
T3 SH
a) cu
> G
rH 0)
0 X
cn o
cn -H
•H fi
Q H
o
o
in
^
rH
ro
O
ro
>i)
lq
1)
4J
rH
•H
fa
€
3
u
rd
>
-*
VS
00
0
r-
CN
0)
Cn
rd
rl
O
4->
W
T3
C
rd
T3
Q)
Q)
fa
»H
0)
!,
rH
O
ft
O ^
o \o
O CJl
m CTI
ro in
^
O CN
O rH
U5 CN
rH [-•
J
2
H
g
G
O
4-1
rd
rl
(!)
G
•H
U
G
H
96
-------
in
n
W
r^
PQ
LO
O
H
EH
<
O
H
EH
H
2
W
U
Q
D
r^
CO
Q
W
EH
H
EH
U
W
O
W
H
CO
tn
id
CO rH
•P O rH
U) G O
0 id Q
U G
0) *
rH -P W
Id C rH
3 -H id
C id -H
C a rH
o o o o
O O en ro id T3 G
CO -H > 3 O
-P -H rH CJ
>i O -P W
M < O CO
id ej* (^ tp £>i G
T3 G G G rH -H
C rH -H 0) -H id >H
O 3 O< -P U, g O
O -P g CO g -H rH
CD Cl) 3 Id 3 rH rG
t/J Cd ft IS ft ft O
0
o
in
^
IN
|
O
in
rH
rH
-P
G
co
•H
3
O"1
H
G
0
•H
-P
id
G
•H
0
rH
r\
U
0
ro
rH
1
0
O
in
H
O
O
^j
CO
G
CO
0
•H
rG
£H
^i
-P
•H
id
O
o
CM
rH
|
O
0
0
o
U)
rH
O
v£)
G
0
•H
-P
m
-p
o
rH
fa
rH
•H
T3 rH
CO CO
> G
rH 0)
0 ,X
tn o
CO -H
'H rG
Q EH
0
0
O
1^5
rH
1
0
O
o
o
rH
rH
0
o
CN
SH
CO
-p
rH
•H
fa
g
3
o
id
>
o
VD
ro
|
0
O
o
-------
W
EH
O
H
EH
•<
CJ
H
En
H
«
E-i
H
w
o
Q
Q
W
I
H
EH
U
w
o
w
i-q
O
2
H
CO
Q)
-P O
CO C
O
00
o
0
in
-P
GJ
a
-M
^j
U"1
w
G
0
•P
IS
0)
<
O O 00
o o o o <
VO l^ ^3* O N\
- 2
OO rH in OO
1 1 III
O O O 0
o o o o <;
^o o o o \
vo o r^- oo
C\)
rH
o o o o
o o m f» <
rH 00 CN) rH \
2
CN rH
CO) tn
O D1 0 Cn c!
•rH 'tj CT1 G '"H
•P 3 TJ -H CO
iS rH 3 ft IS
•P CO rH S ffl
C CO 3
0) T3 ft -P
g 0) T3 U
•H -P (i; (U IS
f^ f^ ^J ^i 4-^
CU > IS T3 G
CO -H > 3 O
-P -H H CJ
>i O -P CO
SH >i C
T3 C C C SH -H
fi SH -H o -H is SH
O 3 ft -P ft 6 O
U -P S CO S -H H
0) 0) 3 iS 3 SH X!
CO M ft S ft ft CJ
o o
O oo
O CN)
^
00
1 ,
0
o
00
1^
^
CN
o o
O rH
00 •*
rH
4->
c
<1)
-I
3 0)
D1 C
W Q)
c u
O -H
-P EH
(S
•H -P
SH -H
O >
rH IS
r~J ^4
U O
o
rH
1
o
0
0
0
o
00
0
o
rH
rH
G
0
•H
-P
iS
-p
o
rH
fa
SH
•H
ff
T) SH
(U 0)
> C
rH CD
O ^
CO U
CO -H
•H £
Q EH
O
0
O
^
VD
IN
1
0
O
O
o
CN
IN
O
0
00
oo
^_l
CU
4J
rH
•H
fa
€
9
3
U
IS
O
in
i
0
o
CN
U3
0
CN
00
0)
tn
IS
in
0
co
c
•s
M
(U
-p
rH
•H
fa
^
Q)
p*i
rH
O
ft
O
O
0
cn
•0
0
rH
X
^o
^3*
0
o
o
o
^
00
0
0
o
[C
c
0
•H
4J
(S
SH
0)
G
•rH
U
G
H
O
00
00
^
vo
vD
1^
0
rH
X
^D
<3>
0
O
CN
CN
rH
^
^
O
in
VD
in
CN
iH
IS
•P
O
E-i
98
-------
M
a
a
t-9
o
Q
U
a
in
CN
2~
o
H
EH
f^J
O
H
W
H
(X
EH
H
53
W
0
Q
D
I—)
CO
Q
W
C"H
f3<
W
m"
0) rH
4-1 O rH
(0 G O
O ifl Q
U C
rH XJ "
3 -H rd
G rd -H
C g M
o O O} O
O k£>
>£> CN
^
co
O O 0 O 0 O
o o £> m
o o
o o
0 0
H V£
rH
O
CN
U3
O
(N
rH
-H rd
4-1 -P 4-)
(d d fi
C m 6 S
Q) G Pi -rH
g -H -H ^3
-H 01 3 (d
o
oa \
2
Cn C
G -H
•H 01
Pi ($
e ra
o
G
0)
§.
D1 G
W (U
G U
O
0
»
CN
0
•H
4-1
«j
4-1
O
fa
^
•H
O O O
0 O 0
°i "*
ID ro
rH
(1)
td
o
4-1
CO
C
m
(U Ti G
O
cn
^
VD
T
rH
id
4-1
P
H
10
01 -rt
99
-------
00
W
g
o3
o
Q
0
a
o
IT)
2
o
EH
<[J
u
-
r^
H
05
EH
H
W
O
Q
D
Q
W
EH
<£
w
rd
(1) rH
•P O rH
tn e O
O id Q
U C
Q) •«
i — | .Jj (/)
Id C rH
3 -rH Id
c (d -H
C S M
KS (U
II 1 1 1
2
01
H C O
0) O
3 -H H
fri 4J Id
ft M
1 — 1 £ *3
id 3 -P
3 en (d
C C Z
C O
%%••*• *• ^^^4^ ^^ CN
^D
o
rH
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X
o
co
CN
O OO O OO O OOOO
OiO
$
W
0)
-p
-------
TABLE 39
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE NITRIFICATION, 1 MGD
TATAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
3,060,000 x 0.09439 $288,833
Labor
7,212 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 64,908
Power
459,964 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 9,199
Fuel r
3.7 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 5,550
Maintenance Materials $ 16,840
Chemicals
Chlorine
15.2 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 3,340
Polymer
5,851 Ib @ $2/lb $ 11,702
TOTAL $400,272
$40,272
365 x 1
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $40'272 = $1,097/MG
101
-------
TABLE 40
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE NITRIFICATION, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Ammortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
6,236,000 x 0.09439 $588,616
Labor
17,010 Hours @ $9/Hour $153,090
Power
2,317,100 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 46,340
Fuel
22 x 10b SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 33,000
Maintenance Materials $ 43,510
Chemicals
Chlorine
76 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 16,720
Polymer
29,298 Ib @ $2/lb $ 58,592
TOTAL $939,868
Cost/MG @ Capacity = 988 = $515/MG
102
-------
TABLE 41
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE NITRIFICATION, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
9,402,000 x .09439 $ 887,455
Labor
25,650 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 230,850
Power
4,612,200 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 92,244
Fuel ,
46 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 69,000
Maintenance Materials $ 66,330
Chemicals
Chlorine
152 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 33,440
Polymer
58,59,. Ib @ $2/lb $ 117,182
TOTAL $1,496,501
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $91 = $410/MG
103
-------
TABLE 42
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE NITRIFICATION, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
16,272,000 x .09439 $1,535,914
Labor
46,890 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 422,010
Power
10,913,800 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 218,275
Fuel
130 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 195,000
Maintenance Materials $ 120,620
Chemicals
Chlorine
380 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 38,000
Polymer
146,146 Ib @ $2/lb $ 242,292
TOTAL $2,822,111
Costs/MG @ Capacity = $2f1 = $309/MG
104
-------
TABLE 43
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE NITRIFICATION, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
24,951,000 x .09439 $2,355,125
Labor
77,490 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 697,410
Power
21,293,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 425,860
Fuel ,
280 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 420,000
Maintenance Materials $ 180,460
Chemicals
Chlorine
760 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 76,000
Polymer
292,292 Ib @ $2/lb $ 584,584
TOTAL $4,739,439
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $39 = ^260/MG
105
-------
TABLE 44
SINGLE STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE NITRIFICATION,
ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
Annual Cost ($1,000)
1
289
65
6
6
17
3
12
400
5
589
153
46
33
44
17
59
940
MGD
10
887
231
92
69
66
33
117
1,497
25
1,536
422
218
195
121
38
292
2,822
50
2,355
697
425
420
180
76
584
4,739
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Chlorine
Polymer
TOTAL
Costs/1,000 gals.
(Operating at Capacity) $1.10 $0.51 $0.41 $0.31 $0.26
106
-------
u
H
EH
dimentation
0)
to
>1
>H
10
E
•H
M
ft
C
O
•H
4->
(0
H
0)
<
Sedimentation
>i
M
IT)
T3
C
O
U
0)
CO
X
•H
S
T)
•H
ft
(t)
tf
C
0
•H
4J
<0
•H
3
U
U
0
f-H
fa
C
0
•H
4J
to
o
•H
iw
•H
M
<0
i-H
U
te Pumping Station
m
•H
T3
(1)
e
w
0)
4J
q
H
C
0
•H
4-1
.
4J
•-H
>
tO
M
O
Thickening
c
o
•H
4J
(0
4->
O
rH
fa
tration
earth Furnace
•H K
-rH
fa 0)
rH
e a
P -p
U r-H
(0 P
> a
W
ffi
U
cn
o
H
EH
EH
J
H
a
s
o
H
EH
a
U
u
H
U
ffi
&H
H
£
W
O
Q
D
rH1
Ul
Q
W
EH
H
EH
o
CN
H
PS
H
107
-------
in
W
ETERS
CO
CO
X!
-media
PARAM:
2
O
H
co
W
Q
v
2
O
H
EH
*
-P
MH
CN .p 4J
-P G G
IH Q) CD
\ 0 U
rrX t i Lj
ft CD CD
tn ft ft
o m in
O VD
00
-P
G
OJ
U
j_i
CO
ft
o
flT)
m
Q
O
CQ
X!
rH (0
H SH to
in \, d ^i
m tn 0 rd
n g xl 'd
•
o o ^ m
in
H
n
CN
£! >
rd (N G
-d -P CD
\ MH u
•H \ rH
rd X! CD
tr< H ft
o in ^o
o c^ *3*
^o v
-p
CD
U
j_i
CD
ft
rH
g rH
H tn
rd g
in
<\j
rH
•H
\ CD
tn-P
g d
G
in -H
CN g
•
0 H
CN
-P
CO MH
CD \.
1 1 g
d ft
G tn
•H
goo
in o
rH
rH
-P
>1CN
-P -P
•H
!>
rd
M
Cr
MH
x^
g
ft
tn
m -q
-P
C
CD
U
CD
ft
p n
EMICAL COAGULATION AND FILTR
M
U
ffi
EH
H
[2
W
0
Q
13
l-H
CO
Q
H
EH
ion
ng @ average flow
tration
-P -H G
rd -d CD
-P rd O
GOG
CD rH O
g 0
•H CD
'd O CD
CD rd tn
co m T)
SH d
>1 drH
M CO CO
rd
g
•H
M
ft
ids removal
rH
0 rH
CO rd
$>
*d O
CD g
TJ CD
JH M
CD
ft m
CO Q
d O
W CQ
CO
c
••H
CO
rd
CQ
C
O
•rH
4J
fd
^_i
CD
<
ention time
idence time
4J CO
CD CD
T3 M
D rH
•H rH
rH CD
d u
rd
CO iH G
^ co 'd rd
\ j >i CD
fa SX! g
ation
ng @ average flow
-P-H
G 'd
OJ rd
g 0
•iH rH
rrj
CD CD
CO O
rd
>iMH
rd d
>d to
£j
o
O
CO
g @ peak flow
ted sludge, percent of inflo'
ted sludge concentration
G rd rd
•H > >
O CD CD
CO H rH
-P CQ
G 0
CD T3
g
-P -P -P
rd G G
CD fd rd
rH rH rH
EH d d
tn tn
I~H fd n3
rd O O
U O U
•H
g
CD
X!
U
CD
CU -H
CO 4J
O
•d x
•H
tj C2
CD
gX!
>i CO
O rH
time (G=70, verticle turbine
draulic loading @ peak
£>i
G X!
0
•H •>
[ i ^
rd CD
rH -H
d MH
O -H
D SH
0 fd
rH H
MH O
tration
rH
•H
CM
rd
•H
'd
C1J
s
M
rd
rH
d
G
rd
O
ulic loading rate
ters , minimum
ash recycle, % of filtrate
rd -H ^
rH -H ^
>d MH u
**( rd
X! MH XI
O
CD CD
tn H tn
rd CD rd
CD rH X! rH
ft CD g CD
>i > d >
-P rd G rd
EH
CJ
108
-------
•n
•P
c
o
u
in
W
to
CD
-p
G ^^*\
•H tyi fj>
e e e
o in n
CO
jj
O
rH
4-1
,>4
fd
0)
CD
(N
-P
M-l
"X
A
rH
O
rH
^-,
to
1
rl
id
e
•rl
rl
&
•P -P
G G
0) Q)
0 U
rl rl
0) 0)
04 a
n oo
-P
G d
•H O
G C
O O
•H -H
•P 4J
id id
M rl
-P -P
g
O
•H
-p
id
G
•H
M
0
rH
<-;
o
id
0),* SH
g id CD
-H Q) >
-P ft id
.p «. ..
U 0) (1)
fQ 0^ &^
-P id id
G to to
000
O T3 t)
G
rl -H
CD -d
G fd
CO O
-X H
u
•H 10
rG *d
EH -H
H
>i 0
-P CO
-H
[>
id
S-i
O
c c
(U QJ
0 U
G C
O 0
o u
to to
"d 'd
•H -H
•H rH
O 0
to to
>1
td
n3
\-P
CN C
'aT
-P (U
M-l U
Cn\ rl
TJ
d
, — (
to
•d
Q)
4J
fd
>
•H
4J
o
fd
0)
4J
w
id
^
— •
>H
(U
d
cu
^
0
•H
X!
EH
fi
O
•r|
4->
fd
•P
0
rH
CM
SH
•H
<
"d
0)
>
rH
O
CO
to
•r|
Q
X! 0)
rH £i
0 rH
CN
G
•H
G
o
•H
•P
fd
rl
tJl-P
G G
•H Q)
T3 U
id G
0 0
rH O
to to
"d *d
•H -H
rH H
0 0
to to
-p
G
CD
O
rl
8,
rn
4J
d
0
G
0
•rH
•P
id
rl
•P
C
0)
O
G
o
o
to
"d
•H
rH
0
CO
rt
XJ
CNJ G
pj
o
•H
•p
fd
rl
-p
rH
•H
CM
e
d
u
fd
-P 0
M-l -P
\\
£1X!
rHH
ro 00
H
tr>0>
G Cn
•H id
T) to
rd o
rH
rl
to 0)
'd g
•H P~i
rHrH
0 O
to Oi
>1
id
-P -d
G\
o
m
^~.
CO
•rl
to
id
ft
•p
Q)
— •
CD
&l s
G-H
'd G
fd >
0 0
109
-------
CQ
w
N
H
w
§
ft
&H
H
o
in
m
CN
o
t~H
m
i
r~n
0
o
m
*.
CN
O
in
CN
^
rH
ro
O
O
m
CN
rH
o
in
CN
o
in
CN
H
O
0
o
^
m
rH
H
rH
o
o
m
^
r-
m
m
o
o
o
ro
CN
(N
0
0
in
i-H
H
rH
0
o
ro
ro
(N
O
O
o
^
CN
o
o
0
^
H
O
o
"tf
o
o
CN
0
^
0
in
ro
*.
ro
CO
m
f-^
VD
^
i-H
•vf
O
r^*
VD
v^O
rH
in
ro
ro
00
VO
^o
H
in
ro
O
ro
CN
CO
O
in
o
in
CTl
o
ro
en
o
m
en
in
o
ro
m
ro
en
m
en
ro
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
o
CN
oo
CN
CN
o
CN
o
o
H
m
U3
CN
o
ro
o
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
CN
o
00
vD
[--
m
CO
CN
CN
in
O
m
CN
o
in
o
m
m
CN
ro
».
CN
in
p^
CO
^
^•3*
ro
O
in
in
^
CN
ro
O
O
in
^
ro
O
O
m
•»
^
o
in
CO
CN
\
^J*
H
m
CN
rH
W
H
m
CN
•
CN
m
ro
o
m
o
en
CO
o
m
in
CN
CN
m
m
en
o
m
in
m
rH
05 -P
W G
a) a)
u G
O 0
Oj £
O
•P O
•rl
Cj S i
D O
r\j
'-P
•.
a
o
•H
•P
fd
C
0)
e
•H
T5
0)
rl
fd
•H
^j
04
ro
-P
4-1
^
V)
C
•H
0)
fd
PQ
C
0
•H
•P
fd
in
cu
<
(N
-P
4-1
C
O
•H
.p
fd
•P
c
cu
6
•H
•a
ft CO
^ s^
C/l M
!H id
O T3
•P fl
id o
^1 O
cu cu
<; 10
ft
rj
O4
eo
Cn
•a
, — I
U)
13
-p
J>
•H
4J
o
c
rl Q
3 O
1 \ '*>*
(U
ro
-P
4-J
k.
Cn
a
•rl
X
•H
a
T)
•H
ft
K
CN
4J
IP
k.
C
0
•rl
•P
rd
rH
u
U
0
rH
fa
CN
-p
4-1
^
^-1
CU
•H
UH
•H
^
id
rH
O
CN
-P
4-1
*•
G
O
•rl
4J
rd
^
-P
rH
•rl
CLI
ro
4J
4-1
tn
C
•r|
to
fC
m
•P
u
rd
c
o
u
0)
c
•H
J^
o
i-H
r^
O
en
G
0
•P
V
-p
C
0
e,
ft
•H
rj
CJ*
to
G
0
•H
-P
rd
G
•H
Vl
0
rH
t~{
U
*•
Cn
G
•H
13
Q) rl
0) £
P-4 ^V
Q
l-H rH
rd \
o e
•rl 3
6 rH
eu <
&
u
r)
_c~]
X^
( — |
•i
^_j
0)
•p
td
^
cu
4J
to
fd
&
*.
^|
cu
rH
O
04
^
^x^
Q
, — 1
K
0)
^
^
H
U)
«t
J_l
eu
1,
rH
0
04
I
G
•rl
I
O4
CU
s
3
rH
e/3
i-l
rfl
•H
>H
04
110
-------
o
m
CN)
in
CN
o
in
4-1
C
O
U
vo
•^
w
i-q
CQ
m
CN
CM
in
Cn
0
in
CN
in
CM
o
in
in
CN
in
o
m
CM
CJO
in
CN
o
in
in
CM
co
ro
in
CM
0
CTi
m
en
o
co
ro
01
rH
CM
O
O
CN
o
m
o
o
CM
CN
CN
o
in
co
CM
cn
o
r-
in
in
co
r~
in
O
m
m
CN
in
Pumping
(U
tfi
13
3
rH
cn
*O
0)
4->
TJ
£>
-H
4-)
O
rtj
Q)
-P
in
rd
2£
e
Oi
w
PI
c
ft
3
P-I
0)
D^
13
rH
CO
rH
rd
0
•r-t
r]
U
CN
-P
IH
*»
o>
c
•rH
C
(U
o
•H
c\
EH
^
-P
•H
^
{^J
M
o
CM
4-1
MH
^
tn
S
•H
C
(U
rX
0
•d
f~l
f-l
c
o
•H
4-1
rt)
4-1
0
fa
CM
-P
k»
C
0
•H
•P
rd
Jj
H
-H
cj
3
j3
U
(0
CM
4-)
m
«.
0)
o
rd
C
3
fa
.•C
JJ
^
ra
o
K
0)
H
ft
•H
4-1
rH
3
S
O
O
S
«.
tJl
c
ft
3
ft
a;
4-1
id
•H
TJ
0)
fi
0)
•P
c
H
&
C (U
0) M
B
(U SH
rH O
13
a)
c
M rd
0)
& -P
o in
ft 0
o
0)
& c
-P O
•H
<1J 4-1
fi U
•H 3
rj +J
a) in
•P C
0) O
T3 U
O 0)
•p a
•H
T3 S
OJ P
10 0)
3 -P
a)
CO 13
•H
0
15 -P
O
i — I Tj
m a;
CO
0) 3
tji
0
f? O
H
1
><
rH
tJ1
C
•H
13
^j
O
U
U
03
10
0)
0)
0)
S
r>1
|— |
O
ft
4-1
W
rj
-| — !
^0
^
•
CM
4-1
MH
ro
rH
rH
tn
•rH
n •
0) rH
•p x;
H \
•H ,Q
It 1 J -lj
B m
3 in
3 •
U CN
rd
> II
H -~.
rd CO
O <*
•H
-P •
O O
rd —
M
ft X
4J ^
CO CN
(U <3<
rH \
rH ro
rd H
B H
r\T
•
Q
S
rH
rH
O
14H
'O
cu
c
0)
rX
CJ
•H
r"^
-P
^1
4-1
•H
^
m
^|
tn
13
fi
(TJ
T!
0)
C
•rH
"I
0
U
OJ
^1
)t(
(n
0)
CP
^
3
rH
CO
rH
rH
-------
H
rH
CQ
o
H
EH
EH
J
H
EL,
Q
O
H
EH
o
0
o
H
a
w
K
U
ffi
EH
W
O
Q
ID
i-J
en
Q
«
O
in
m
rH i-H i-H CN CN CM rH t~^
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOvflOOOOCTi OCNOOOOOOOOO
•^ooocTit^ooo-^1^ orooovDr~cocooom
CTi CTi CO CN ro rH i-l CTi ro rH rOCNrOrHi-lrNCOrTl^r
H H i-l ^
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOr>inOOOCO OCOOOOOOOOOO
CTit~~r~OCOCOOO
CN ro CN ro rH CN ID rH rH 1-1 I-H CN H CN
CM
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOO
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOO
OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOO
oor>oooromor-ir-~ oo^^irioo'xoo'i)
[•^•tfiocTir^i-irHcocTiin rorHro<3lr>-3lr~;zooco
H ro CN r-i
iH
O O
O O
O o
CN rH
CTi O
CM ^t1
•^ ro
CM
0 0
§ §
r- o
i— 1
LO ™
rH
0 0
o o
o o
CD CN
CO O
in CM
00 i-l
0 0
0 0
0 0
•^ rH
CTl rH
r-~ co
in
o o
o o
0 0
<3 ^>
CD t-»
i£> n
CN
o o o
0 00
o o o
n ro en
On CN VO
v£> ro r--
r~ ro CM
CN
0 00
o o o
0 O 0
r- o •*
ro -41 CO
co rH r-
f- CN rH
r-l
o o o
0 0 O
0 O 0
o m cri
co !-- r-
r^ c-i CT>
(Tl rH H
o o o
o o o
o o o
in ro i— 1
O CTl ID
VD r^ 1.0
1£>
o o o
o o o
0 CO
O I~- ^D
U) i£i O
O ro ro
ro
o
0
o
in
CO
r^
ro
ro
o
0
0
rH
ID
r-
rH
CM
o
o
0
<*
^
en
rH
1-1
o
o
0
m
in
0
co
0
0
0
ro
ro
r^
ro
I
H
EH
O
EH
to
O
O
EH
H
-P
G
CD
G
O
g
0
U
en
CO
CD
U
0
ft
CO
.y
G
(0
EH
G
0
•rH
4J
rO
-P
G
CO
g
•H
rrj
0)
co
^1
M
rd
g
^l
ft
CO
G
•H
CO
rO
m
G
0
•H
-P
rd
VH
CD
TJ
3
H
co
r^
CD
Jj
rd
> cn
•H G
-P -H
O X
< -H
CJJ
M T3
3 -H
•P ft
CD rd
Di PH
G
0
•H
-P
rd
H
^
U
O
0
rH
fa
G
M O
CD -rH
•H -P
4H rO
•H ^H
M -P
rd H
rH -H
U fa
CO
G
•rH
CO
S H
112
-------
00
Q
O
S
rH
•s
O
H
EH
c§
EH
h-^
H
CM
Q
£H
rf]
2
O
H
EH
jrf
"n
JD
O
O
jd
u
H
s
P4
W
u
w
H
s
w
vj)
Q
D
rr\
*Jj
Q
W
«rT*
15*
H
EH
U
"M
•P
in
o
u
rH
3
C
<
i~H
O
h
,— I
ni
£j
G
<
SH
0)
J5
0
ft
1 — 1
£j
C
£[
<
rH
(S
3
<
0>
U
c
G
0)
C
•r-l
03
a
<4H
0
o
•rH
4-1
P.
g
P
M
0
U
d
0
•rH
4->
f=4
§
W
G
0
U
H
O
J
in
m
rH
rH
o
Q
^
in
rH
(0
•H
0)
4-1
S
in
rH
!H
P
oj
3
•*
PM
O
0)
4d
Is
1^4
in
^
3
W
-P
G
G
O
0,
|
U
in
0)
o
SH
ft
O O O
•^ o co
^ i — i in
i «.
ro
1 1 1 1
0 00
o o o
M O ro
ro O ro
CN
CN
O O O
P~ O (N
in ^J* yD
i
in
W G
,M ns
C H
n)
E^ CH
O
G -H
O -P
•rl rt)
4-1 -P -P
(fl G C
4-1 Q) 0)
G in g g
0) G Q4 -H
-ri in 3 0)
0) PQ W
W >i
c c n
>1 O O TJ
0 0 O O O
kO co o m o
^* 0s) ^j* "si1 in
h.
,_!
1 1 1 1 1
O O O O O
o o o o o
O O CO ro O
O P-- rH ro CO
i-H CM CO
O O O O O
(N CO O CO O
t^ ^3* < — i in (Tt
*
G
•rl
Q4
P
p(
(D
Cn
T3
3
rH
CQ
rQ
0)
P
rtJ
> tn G
4-1 -rl -rl G
0 X -P JH O
<; -H nj 0) -H
S rH -H -P
O OOOOOOO OOO
o oooHOO'y oor~-
ro CNrHrH^DrovDH Ol~~m
1 ^ 1 *• *•
rH in ro
&
0
rH
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1
rH
m
OOOOOOO OOO
OOOOOOO OOO
^J* rH CNJ ro c^ ro in C^ f~^ ro
IMCMiH i-HrH r^OO
ro LO CN
o oooromoo ooo
CTi O O ' — 1 ^ O ^O O ^sl4 O ^
ro CNrOfN rH ^ r^Or*"-
1 1 ^^J-
Cn
c
•H G
C4 0
6 •*
3 -p
ft en (0
in en cu 4J
G -P tr> a) G u co
••H G SH G tn -H nj
§G !H G
tp -H Hi -H
•rl •• ^CUI^c/lftGGGfciQ-
4J3rji oitJift -HO)O g
OtT'G -P13 rdO)C^!-HX!3
rBW-H inDO)o)Cr'0)O4-i-Pft
•P *0 fd < — 1 tT1 4J 'O rX 'H H3 Vj
OOO) 3>rH-rlEH4-)O14-l
O 'H pn •*• *• rH *H c/} c] ( — I |T] frj
4-1 M SH CO 4-1 IT"* G *rl -rl
OJrtlrH 0)0) UrH OCuOlT)
GGdJ gS^r^dJ^-H^rHCU
o
ro
co
"*
o^
rH
VO
o
rH
X
i-H
in
o
0
ro
I
^y
CO
r^-
in
ro
rH
g
8
113
-------
Q
U
S
in
^
53
O
EH
%
EH
in
H
PM
Q
^~J
rtj
n
4-1
01
O
U
H
rd
3
G
C
<
rH
CU
rH
rd
3
C
^
01
CU rd
U H
C rH
rd 0
G Q
cu
•p -
C 01
•H rH
rd rd
S -H
rl
l*H CU
0 4->
rd
a
O
o
o
H
w
rd
C 0
O
•H rH
4J rd
H 4J
01 rrj
G IZ
0
U ^
fa
O
1
OOOOOOO O
OO^fNOOO O
<3" o oo in co co CN oo
U5 CN rH •ST rH
ooooooooooo
OOOOOOOrncNOOO
CM
I I I
O
rH
X I
ro
m
O
rH
X
o\
rH
«
EH
1
O
O
O
U
H
s
w
33
U
W
EH
H
15
W
Q
CO
Q
W
I
H
EH
(1) G
S O
O -H
fXj ^J
rH i*
3 01 !
C C
C O
<; u
rd to 01
M 9
G (3 O
<; i-^ cc
O OOOOOOO
O OOOOOOO
m O m O O CN ro O
^ I * ^ .. * ^ V ..
n o r"") CN o CO ro in
O *tf CN rH
rH rH rH
O OOOOOOO
o o o m co ID o o
CN r>^
C
CU
-O
CU
W
^1
}u|
rd
g
•rl
^|
ft
01
C
•H
01
rd
CO
C
0
•H
4J
rd
M
CU
4-1
C
CU
a
•H
&
w
C
0
•H
4-1
rd
M
CU
01
G
rd
EH
G
O
•H
4-1
rd
4-1
C
0)
g
•H
$
^
^
rd
G
O
U
0)
g
•rl
ft
P
ft
0)
cn
•a
3
rH
CO
T!
CU
rd
•H
^j
O
*-c
£J
^
3
4J
CU
rf
en c
G O
•H -H
X 4J
•H rd
S rH
3
T3 U
•rl U
ft 0
rd i — 1
P* fa
C
SH O
0) -rl
•H 4-1
MH rd
•H ^
M 4-1
rtf rH
rH -H
U fa
01
G
•H
tfl
rd
PQ
4-1
O
rd
4-1
O
O
0)
G
•H
^l
O
rH
(-]
U
4-1
G
CU
e
ft
•H
rj
w
G
0
•H
4-1
rd
G
•rl
rl
0
rH
C"j
O
• •
tJ1
G
•H
rrj
CU
cu
rH
rd
U
•H
g
CD
f]
U
J_|
CD
4->
rd
[5
0)
4-1
01
rd
12
n.
»H
CU
6 K*1
3 rH
rH 0
rtl ft
O
cn
T3
H
w
*.
M
cu
*>-1
rH
0
ft
en
G
-H
ft
3
ft
en
Cn cu G
G Cn -H
•H T) ft Cn
ft 3 & C
g H 3 cn -H
p CO ft G G
ft --H CU
cu cu cn cu u
Cn -P T3 X -H
3 > rH -H EH
r-H "i-\ CO .<~{
03 -P EH G
U rH 0
>i < rd >i -H
rl O -P 4-1
rrj CU -rl -H rd
g -P g > 4-1
•H Ul CU rrj O
rl rrj xl SH rH
ft S U O fa
G
0
4-1
rd
4-1
, — 1
•H
fa
g
3
3
0
rd
>
G
O
-rl
4J
01 rd
CU 4-1
u co
rd
G Cn
rl G
3 -H
prj P^
6
•P ft
rd CU
CU 4J
JT] (^
•H
CU TJ
rH 0)
ft g
•H S4
4-1 CU
r i lj
3 G
S H
o
o
CN
O
CN
o
ro
m
CN
114
-------
Q
o
H
EH
EH
rH1
H
H
a
o D
in o
U
H
S
W
a
u
w
EH
H
-p
to
o
u
1 — (
rd
3
G
<
rH
OJ
3
fe
, 1
rd
G
G
<
SH
0)
0
ft
rH
rd
3
C
G
<
rH
rd
3
g
D 00 O C~- P> O
in r- in rH ^f
O CN rH
h.
CN
O OOOOOOO
O OOOOCTiOO
CO CO H iH iD rH 00 O
^ | ^ ^ ^ » v
rH P5 CN rH rH ^
O
o
CN
CN
ooooooooooo
r^mcNooocNvoooo
PI \£> H
m
PI
i i i
1 1 1
I I I I X I
CO
fd G C
-P 0) Q) 13
G W g g 0)
0) G a -H -P
g -H -H >O rd
•H to 3 0) > CT> G
T3 r8 tj1 CO -iH G O
Q) pq El -P -H -H
CO >i U X -P M
C G r< < -H (8 0)
>i 0 0 r8 S rH -rl
SH -H -H T) C 3 MH
rd-P-PGSHTJO-rl
grdr803-HOiH
•rHSHSHU-PaOnJ
SHdJ
o co
rd
G cn
SH C
3 -H
CTJ p[
•P -P ft
r8 SH
H -H EH 4J 0)
0) 0)
U
O
EH G
0
-H
U U U
•H rd CD -H -H rd
O g -P g > -P
SH rd fl VH rH
ft !3 U O ti
•P
<8
•H
0) t1
H (1)
3 -H M
3 -P 0)
O H -P
cd 3 G
> S H
115
-------
a
m
CN
S
O
H
Pn
O
H
EH
CO ro in O CO
OOOOOOOOOOO
omooooooooo
rHCNCNU3Or^CNrOOOin
«3rH
Illllll
ll
1 1
U)
o
I X I
o
o
m
00
10
o
rH
>
-------
Q
O
S
o
m
4J
en
0
U
r-H
fd
3
C
G
*^4
O
o
G
m
G
cu
•P
G
•rH
rd
g
MH
0
en
rd
rH
rH
0
Q
».
en
rH
rd
•H
^
0)
4-1
rd
S
o
o
in
^
Cf\
ooooooo o
ooooooo o
ooooocnoo m
ooooooooooo
oooooooooooo
ocoooooocoinooo
CO ro
CO O O
rH CN
(N
CTl
m o
O CO
o
00
CN
CN
CN
in
W
i_H
CQ
r*
EH
o
H
EH
s
^
1 — I
H
PH
Q
^~j
o
r-H
^
0
o
^*
o
o
o
rH
en
en
r-
rH
W
u
re
EH
&
W
^
co
W
EH
Kj
J"*^
M
EH
U
rH
rd Vi en
3 0 M
C rd O
sC J K
4-1
G
CU
G
O
£
O
o
en
en
cu
u
o
J_j
ft
0
o
en
•^ '
to
1
H
G
0
•rH
4J
rd
•P
G en
eu G
g -H
•H en
T) rd
cu m
W
>i O
rd 4-i
g rd
•rH W
r4 CU
ft <
O
0
o
ro
r-H
4->
G
CU
g
•H
M
D1
W
G
0
•rH
4-1
rd
i~i
CU
C
en -H
•^ ft
G g
rd 3
EH ft
G CO
O D>
•H T)
4-1 3
rd rH
4J CO
G
eu T}
g cu
•H 4->
T) id
eu >
CO -rH
4-1
>i U
!H r<
•O G
C S I
0 3
0 4->
cu eu
en «
O 0
o in
oo n
CP G
C 0
•rH -H
X -P
•H rd
g ''H
rj
T3 U
•H U
ft O
rd i — 1
PS fa
0
o
o
in
SH
cu
•H
MH
•rH
iH
rd
rH
U
O
O
O
00
en
C
-H
en
rd
CQ
•P
o
(0
4-1
C
0
c o
o
•H CU
•P G
rd -H
M M
4-1 O
rH I-H
'*H .i"!
fa U
O
O
CN
4-1
G
§
a
•H ••
3 D*
cr c
H -H
'O
G CU
O CU
•H fa
4J
rd rH
G rd
•rH O
rH *H
0 g
rH (U
rG rC
U U
0 O
O -3"
CN
^
d)
4-1
(0
eu
en
rd
•h
>H
eu
§^i
rH
H 0
O O
O '•i1
•H n
tN
tn
G
•H
g
o) 3
01 fX,
T3
3 !
rH 10
0 g
^J
0.
o o
^ CN
l_O CN
tj^
G
•rH
ft
ft
D>
eu G
CJ* -H
'•O Pj
•P -d
> H
4J
U rH
< rd
U
eu -H
4-1 g
W CU
rd .C
S U
o
Q
^
rH
DI
•rH
(^
CU
^;
•H
(~*
EH
>1
•P
•H
>
ti
^Ij
O
0 O
o o
in o
\Q ^r
r-H
G
-rH
cu o
0 -P
•H rd
EH 4J
G -rH
O fa
•rH
4-> g
rd 3
-P 3
rH (d
fa ^*
0 0
0 0
O CO
in CN
CN
G
o
•rH
-P
en id
eu 4J
o en
id
G D^
M C
0 -H
CM P|
£3
_rj 3
4-1 ft
iH
rd CU
CU 4-1
K rd
•H
0) T3
rH CU
ft g
•H >-l
-P eu
rH 4J
3 C
g H
0
CN
<*
r-T
en
j *i
2
EH
O
EH
117
-------
TABLE 53
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION, 1 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
3,733,000 x 0.09439 $352,357
Labor
13,578 Hours @ $9/Hour $122,202
Power
473,400 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 9,470
Fuel ,
5.1 x 10b CFS @ $1.50/TCF $ 7,650
Maintenance Materials $ 19,830
Chemicals
Alum
190 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 13,300
Polymer
8,329 Ib @ $2/lb $ 16,600
761 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 230
Chlorine
4.6 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 1,012
TOTAL $544,067
Cost/MG @ Capacity = 47 = $1,490/MG
118
-------
TABLE 54
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
8,059,000 x 0.09439 $ 760,689
Labor
25,130 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 226,170
Power
2,102,100 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 42,040
Fuel ,
33 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 49,500
Maintenance Materials $ 57,990
Chemicals
Alum
950 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 66,500
Polymer
41,65<» lb @ $2/lb $ 83,300
3,805 lb @ $0.30/lb $ 1,140
Chlorine
23 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 5,060
TOTAL $1,292,389
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $^^92/^89 = $708/MG
119
-------
TABLE 55
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
12,419,000 x 0.09439 $1,127,394
Labor
35,000 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 315,000
Power
3,851,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 77,020
Fuel
66 x 10b SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 99,000
Maintenance Materials $ 90,520
Chemicals
Alum
1,900 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 133,000
Polymer
83,317 Ib @ $2/lb $ 166,600
7,610 Ib @ $0.03/lb $ 2,300
Chlorine
46 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 10,120
TOTAL $2,020,954
Cost/MG @ Capacity = ?2"'4 = $554/MG
120
-------
TABLE 56
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
21,761,000 x 0.09439 $2,054,020
Labor
60,850 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 547,650
Power
9,315,800 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 186,315
Fuel
190 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 285,000
Maintenance Materials $ 168,450
Chemicals
Alum
4,750 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 332,500
Polymer
208,294 Ib @ $2/lb $ 416,600
19,025 Ib * $0.30/lb $ 5,700
Chlorine
115 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 11,500
TOTAL $4,007,735
Cost/Mg @ Capacity = $°'5 = $439/MG
121
-------
TABLE 57
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH CHEMICAL
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
33,785,000 x 0.09439 $3,188,966
Labor
97,420 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 876,780
Power
17,991,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 359,820
Fuel
400 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TC $ 600,000
Maintenance Materials $ 272,180
Chemicals
Alum
9,500 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 665,000
Polymer
416,589 Ib @ $2/lb $ 833,200
38,050 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 11,415
Chlorine
230 Tonss @ $100/Ton $ 23,000
TOTAL $6,830,361
Cost/MG @ Capacity = '1 = $374/MG
122
-------
CO
in
W
U
o
o
o
o
u
Q
O
a
>i
-P
•H
O
(0
a,
u
o
in
m
CN
1^3
O
en
co
00
rH
00
m
oo
f^
r-T
o
o
•*"
o
rH
m
i-H
^
en
oo
>.
r-~
CN
H
•-
rH
en
CO
^0
o
^O
fXfc
m
oo
CN
in
oo
o
00
r~
vo
r-
00
o
in
VD
fC
*3<
m
o
o
o
«.
m
rH
oo
0
r~
r-H
U3
CN
CN
CN
O
CN
CN
CM
rH
O
CN
00
cn"
in
00
m
rH
oo
U3
CO
rH
0
CN
O
«.
[-~
r^
0
•"S*
o
CN
^3"
O
r-
^
en
0
o
o
o
o
^5
o
0
o
in
CO
CN
o
o
o
V
en
en
o
o
in
en
•=3"
0
in
VD
r-T
o
00
H
CN
r-
CN
o
m
•**•
00
vo
rH
0
CN
m
*.
o
en
o
en
en
r-T
in
o
oo
00
en
rH
0
o
o
m
VX>
<£>
o
o
in
CN
00
oo
o
o
o
«.
oo
oo
H
O
O
in
VD
VD
O
O
00
oo
rH
in
rH
u>
^
^J*
CO
o
o
oo
CN
CN
rr
o
o
en
«.
00
<£>
rH
o
^3*
%r
^
CO
o
oo
CO
vo
rH
o
o
o
00
CN
o
o
m
rH
H
rH
^D
oo
o
OO
CO
^o
"C/J*
m
00
[--
[C
0
o
^r"
o
CN
rH
«*.
o
rH
0
VD
o
m
CN
rH
o
H
in
^
en
>.
o
CN
0
•.
CN
•W-
cn
CO
oo
CN
en
CN
r-
U3
O
•^
^*
m
to-
rn
•
o
5-
•
o
{/>
m
in
•
o
•w-
|~H
•
O
en
.
rH
-M
••H
0.
U
rrj
OJ
N
•H
-P H
M O
O A
J ^
U
0)
O
04
0) CO
O rH
£ rd
nj ->H
(H M
CJ> OJ
•P -P
rH G (0
o> -H a
rj {ft
fa a
••
CO
rH
rt
u
-rl
r)
U
CO
SH
OJ
g
>i
rH
O
di
OJ J
c <
•H EH
M O
O EH
rH
r]
U
(0 cgj
O
0 fl -x
O -H >i
0 4-1 4->
^ frj -H
rH M U
"\ (U fO
to QJ £X
4-> O fd
0) — ' U
0
U
123
-------
IB
C
•r-l
1-1
o
r-H
u
C
0
XI
v<
IB
O
a,
D
0)
,y
IB
•p ja
u
a,
M
0)
X
C <0
O M
ja CD
J-l C
m a)
O Cn
O
Pi
>-l
0)
C
0)
u
H
.c
H
KI
§0)
*j
U -H
IB h
-------
TABLE 59
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR GRANULAR CARBON SYSTEM
Chemical Treatment
Coagulant
Coagulant Dose, mg/1
Polyelectrolyte Dose, mg/1
Flash Mix Time, Min
Flocculation Time
Clarifier
Hydraulic Loading, gpm/ft (peak)
2
Gravity Thickener
Solids Loading, lb/ft"/day
Underflow Solids, %
Vacuum Filter (20 hr/day operation)
Feed Solids, %
Yield, Ib/ft /hr
Cake Moisture Content, %
Lime Dose, % by Weight
Multiple Hearth Incinerator
Loading Rate
Downtime, %
Granular Media Filter
Type
2
Average Hydraulic Loading gpm/ft
Number of Filters, Minimum
Average Backwash Recycle, % of Filtrate
Carbon Treatment
Carbon Contactor
Average Contact Time
Carbon Dose, Ib/mg
Alum
125
0.25
1
15 (G = 70, Vertical Turbine)
0.8
10
5
5
2.8
75
40
7 Ib (wet)/hr/ft
30
Gravity, Tri Media
5
4
3
Upflow, Countercurrent, Expanded
30 Min
1,500
125
-------
TABLE 59 (Cont'd.)
Chlorination
Contact Time @ PDWF, Min
Dosage, mg/1
Carbon Regeneration
Furnace Type
Downtime, %
Loading Rate
Carbon loss
30
5 (max) (3 ave)
Multiple Hearth
30
2
40 Ib carbon/ft /day
8%/cycle
126
-------
ca
Q
O
g
O
m
un
CN
0
rH
in
o o
in in
vo r1-
^ ».
^J* Cn
o
in in
CN r-
ro oo
t. «.
CN "d1
ro
0 0
ro in
en en
•«.
ro
rH
LO in
**o r*
"3? en
^
v^
i-t
ro in
Cn Cn
oo
ih
rH
ro
^j
ro IH
4J
*4H *•
M
- 0
X 4J
*r-{ f(J
S rH
T3 O
•rl U
a. o
rd i — !
& !M
O O
O O
H 0
^ •*
m r-
vo
O 0
in o
in m
>. •.
CN 00
ro
o o
CN O
o *r
•» *>
OO rH
H
o o
r-i O
LO r-~
*.
vo
CN O
O "3"
ro H
».
r-H
CN
4J
MH
CN
*• 4-1
M 4-1
0)
•H
4H M
•H in
o ro in <3> • oo
o
CN
in m o m m m
ro co in CN ^ r-
O rH IN CN • rH
- o
rH
r— r^ o in en in
o ro in «* o ro
CN
o
CM
4-1
4J
CN * 4H
4^ M MM
OJ 4-1 a) - i x! I1
tj\ 4J M T^ X vx CT1 M
*& -rHO (DM^Xi rOXJ
3SH-H4-) QJCDrHrH 3 \
rH{ULl^n3fa4J rH^
COC )H rd~-COrH
(J 6 V rH S g >1
>i^i dC rdfUrj,_| >, K
SHO3-H O4-)rHO SHOJ
rd-riUU -rlWraCft rdg
gXlrdCgrd g-rl
•H H > H (US -rt i-l
M Xi !H
0^ fj f\f
O
o
o
^
i-H
O
O
in
o
o
CN
O
O
rH
O
CN
g
d
tr>
»
tp
g
•r4.
s
ft
a)
CT*
T)
rH
CO
^1
J_j
rd
g
•H
^
ft
in
r^
in
•
(^
ro
in
H
in
•
t^»
in
•
H
Q
^
rji
a
•H
a
ft
4-1
c
Q)
3
U-i
fj
H
G
O
M
rd
CJ
o
in
^
x
00
in
rH
in
CN
r-
^
kD
^
O
CTv
IO
^
O
00
in
KJ<
oo
^
m
rH
CTl
U>
O
^
ro
M
0
O
rd
4->
£*
0
0
c
o
A
M
rd
O oo
4-1
(U IH
£>
•H *
4J •
U rH
0) O
<4H >
>4H
W
0
O
r^
»»
CN
O
in
ro
V
H
O
^31
in
o
r^
CN
•H
m
r^
CM
4-1
IM
^
01
0
rd
^
3
6
•H
4J
rd
M
CD
G
tn
(1)
o^
£l
o
^
rd
O
o
0
0
^
(Tl
0
CN
O
O
in
v
^3*
o
rH
O
O
00
Ib
rH
**
O
o
en
^
o
CN
O
CO
rH
^
^3*
ro
4-1
».
4J
U
rd
4J
r-<
5
o
01
•rl
SH
O
rH
_f~J
O
oo o
CN f~-
CN in
•"J1 in
rH CO
rH (N
*
U3 rH
• rH
m
*3*
00 O
• i
CN r^
CN in
IQ
m ^
• •
•* rH
rH
J_j
rH
"x^
w
G
O
EH
*.
T3
C ftf
•H M ^4
M (U rd
O > (U
rH <; ft
Xi
o
•
V
g
•y
o
•P
c
-------
VD
W
r-1
O
pq
u
5
1
O
CO
CO
o
u
a
EH
H
U
0 0
0 0
o o
in o o
oo ID
rH H
0 0
0 0
o o
CN ID O
r- o
H
o o
o o
0 0
rH r- in
oo in
0 O
o o
o o
m oo co
CM OO
0 0
o o
o o
rH O 00
H rH
^.4
O
X 4J
S i — 1
3
73 U
•H U
a o
rd i — 1
PC* CM
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
CN CTi
CM CN
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
H O\
rH rH
O O
O 0
0 0
0 0
•xt* in
x^* o
rH
O O
0 0
0 0
o m
00 CO
CN O
0 0
o o
0 O
m o
CO CTl
OO
Q)
Cn
•O
rj
H
iH Ol
0)
•rH ^1
MH M M
•H 0) rd
M -P g
rd rH -H
rH -rl rH
U CM ft
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
•xT CM
rH
O 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
CN r>
O 0
0 0
o o
0 0
vD O
rH ^
O O
0 0
0 O
o o
rH (~-
rH CN
0 O
0 0
0 O
0 0
r-» en
H
rH
4-1
H
iH -rH
fjj EL,
G
j
000
0 0 O
o o o
o o o
r-- o o
•=* o in
iH O
H
o o o
o o o
000
0 O 0
CN ID O
oo in ^
m
0 O O
o o o
o o o
o o o
o co o
CM CM 00
CN
o o o
000
O 0 O
o o o
in u) o
iH rH CN
rH
o o o
000
o o o
m m o
VD ^ in
CN
Cn g
G T3 C -P
G 3 OJ u
•H i-H 3 rd
Oi O) i-H 4-1
1 >i*C 0
ft M H U
rd
(1) g C G
Cn -H 0 0
T3 M X! A
3 ft M rH
rH rd rd
W O U
0 O 0
O O 0
O O O
O 0* 0
O 00 rH
(Tl in rH
OO
O 0 0
o o o
000
O O CT*
O ^ *D
ID m
CM"
o o o
o o o
0 O 0
o o co
O O oo
CO CN
rH
o o o
000
o o o
O O CN
O 'S1 CM
^3* r—\
rH
o o o
000
0 O 0
O rH [^
m m
H
rH
4-1
w
J>^
O)
C
0
•H
4J 4-1
rd O
rH (0
0) 4-> T3
G C OJ
0) O 0)
Cn U Cn
0)
DC! co a)
G G
G -H -rl
0 iH rH
A O O
iH rH rH
rd ,G XI
U U U
o
o
o
CM
•D
CTv
r-T
CN
o
0
0
r^
oo
^r
ID"
rH
0
o
o
CO
0
rH
CTl
0
0
o
ID"
CO
CTl
tn
o
o
o
vO
0
"^
OO
l_3
r-5
£H
Q
f-f
ffl
0)
0 0
0 0
0 0
m r>
rH P~-
cn co
OO 'S1
00
0 0
0 0
0 0
rH CO
O oo
oo r»
CN" co
H
0 0
0 0
0 0
m oo
r~ co
CM 00
H" 0
rH
0 0
0 0
0 0
co D
o o
0 0
0 0
VO CO
iD CO
^J" OO
rH
rd
u
w
•H (J>
EH G G
•rl O
H -H
Cn 3 -P
G rH Q O
•H rd 3
rH Cn -P SH
CD 0) tn 4-1
0) 1-5 0) W
C iH C
•H 0) O
tn 4-> O
G G
W H
o
o
o
o
cr>
CO
CO
00
o
o
0
rH
00
CN
CN
o
o
0
1C
*D
*D
CN
rH
0
o
o
m
CN
oo
oo
o
o
0
[C
oo
r--
^
EH
cn
o
u
[ 1
jS
EH
H
3
^J
( 1
3
EH
o
EH
128
-------
for Carbon Adsorption." Analysis of the regeneration costs in
the TT Manual indicated that they were low when updated by the
EPA STP index. Recent bids indicate that the EPA index does not
adequately reflect the inflation of mechanically complex systems
such as regeneration furnaces. Thus, data developed by CWC for
multiple-hearth furnace systems under EPA Contract 68-03-2186
were used as the basis for capital costs of the carbon regener-
ation systems.
Tables 62-66 summarize O&M costs. Activated carbon costs were
obtained from manufacturers. Labor and maintenance materials for
carbon adsorption were obtained from the TT Manual curves. Power
requirements for pumping through the carbon system were calculated
based on a total head of 50 feet. The TT Manual curves for car-
bon regeneration labor are in error (i.e., 24,000 manhours/year
for 6,000 pounds a day for carbon is obviously far too high).
Discussions were held with the authors of that portion of the TT
Manual. Based on this, it was decided to use the CWC labor curve
for multiple-hearth furnaces. The TT Manual curves were used
for regeneration power and maintenance materials. Regeneration
fuel requirements are based on the following data furnished by a
carbon manufacturer during a recent design project to estimate
on-site regeneration energy requirements:
Btu Per Ib
Carbon Reactivated
Furnace Gas 3,000
Steam 1,250
Afterburner 2,400
TOTAL 6,650
Tables 67-71 summarize total annual costs for each capacity and
Table 72 is an overall summary. It was found cheaper to regen-
erate carbon even at the one MGD scale rather than use the car-
bon on a one time basis.
POWDERED CARBON, EIMCO
The process schematic for this process is shown in Figure 22.
The design criteria are shown in Table 73. Incineration was
assumed as the means of ultimate sludge disposal for the primary
sludge in this base case. Most sources of unit process costs
have already been described. Unit process costs not previously
discussed are covered below.
Powdered Carbon Feed
Costs for powdered carbon feed were developed specifically for
this project. Figures 23-25 describe the powdered carbon feed
system design. The carbon is stored and fed in a slurry
129
-------
08
O
Q
O
CN
w o
J PQ
CQ C<
EH U
O
-p
in
0
U
rH
rd
3
C
C
<
H
0)
;3
h
rH
rd
^
G
§
0)
0
G
rd
G
0)
-P
C
-H
rd
g
O
G
0
•H
-P
ft
|3
in
G
0
U
in
rd
H
H
O
Q
fc
in
rH
rd
•H
!H
•P
rd
S
in
rd
U
1 — |
rd
in
3
-P
rd
^
U
O O O O O O O
co o m o o o o
CN *d* *3* in rH o o
^ fc •.
rH f*^ *3*
l^Q
O
1 1 1 1 1 1 X
m
•
rH
CN
0)
^
0
.__[
r~~t
rd
3
G
<
rH
rd
3
G
G
c
O
•H
-P
a
P
w
(^
0
o
iM
O
3
3
iM
in
^_j
§
a
o
0
o
r-
CN
o
CO
^
o
o
00
rH
O
o
f — 1
rH
O
o
ro
ro
O
CO
in
0
O
o
CO
CO
o
o
CTl
CM
o
0
0
rH
0
ro
ro
0
O
o
m
m
o
o
CN
rH
0
0
o
0
CO
0
o
m
rH
O O O O O O O
00 0 0000
CN rH CN 00 ro in O
rH CN
o
ro
oo
co
rH
II
Ifl
o
rH
X
o
in
rH
ro
O
o
^
CN
o
o
CN
0
o
H
CN
O
O
ro
O
O
0
ro
O
O
CN
rH
O
O
m
m
in
r--
O
o
0
o
r^s
0 0
cy> in
ro CO
0
0
o
m
^
0
m
en
o
o
rH
^JT
CO
ro
in
in
o
CN
rH
O
X -P
•H rd
•& <-*
y
T3 O
•rH 0
ft O
rd r-H
« CM
0)
M-i
-H
^
rd
H
U
Jkj
O
.p
rH
•H
fe
Sludge
ener
^ v>
rH U
rd -rH
S .rj
•H EH
CM
m Filter
erator
3 G
3 -H
U O
rd G
> H
0) rH
0) 0)
fcj -p
rd
H S |
U -P rH
•H in ft,
g rd
0) 3
O
>!
rH
O
OH
Sludge
Feed
>i
M 0)
rd g
g -rH
SH
ft
Pumping
ry Sludge
ftj
CD g
G^ -H
'O ^-1
3 ft
H
at ion
G
•rH
!H
0
rH
^
Adsorption
G
O
M
rd
U
Regeneration
c
o
X!
rH
rd
U
130
-------
CO
V£>
W
S
13
O
Q
O
S
m
2
O
U
«
5
-P
en
O
U
i — |
id
3
G
G
rH
CU
3
fa
1 — 1
id
G
C
ft,
iH
(U
o
pt
(3
^
G
C
<
rH
1 X
rl U
(ij -H
s J*"l
.,_! ^-4
^|
a.
Filter
rator
g cu
3 G
3 -H
U O
id G
> H
T)
CU M
CU CU
fa -P
id
id 1
0
fU
0)
&>
3 T3
H (U
CO CU
fa
Vl CU
id e
B -H
•H M
^1
&j
lamping
y Sludge
P. ^j
cu S
tji -H
^J M
3 PH
H
co
O
•r)
-P
id
•rl
^_j
O
rH
r]
U
dsorption
rfj
c
o
X!
id
U
egeneration
TOTAL
K
G
O
}_(
id
U
131
-------
W
rH"
a
O
Q
O
S
o
H
2
O
U
O
>H
0> rd
U rH
•P G rH
en rd O
0 C Q
U 0
•P »
rH G en
rd -H rH
3 rd rd
G S -H
C rH
— 1 £ ^
rd 3 -P
3 W rd
G G 23
G 0
<: u *
fa
0
W
rH
1) G
5 O
0 -H
Oi 4->
rH s'rC
rd 3 i£
3 en ^
G G
C O
< U
rH
Id rH tO
3 O rH
G O 3
G rd 0
< rH M
O O O O
O O O O
CTi m o co
k. kk k.
rH ro vo
l 1 1 1
O O O O
o o o o
O O ro O
kk ^ * k.
O f- ro O
in H ^J1
CN rH
O O 0 O
o en o o
IX) rH CO O
k. h.
rH ^3"
rH
O
X -P rH
•H rd 0)
S rH -H
3 >*H rH
T3 U -H CD
•H U rH -P
a O rd rH
rd -H H -H
« fa U fa
0 O 0
moo
O O O
«. •.
m o
ro rH
vO
o
rH
1 1 X
CN
ro
000
0 O 0
O 0 0
•». *. *.
CT> 4-> in
T( HO
3 rH -H HJ
rH 0) fa rd
W G rH
at g oj
rH U 3 -H
rd -H U CJ
S ,G rd G
•H E-i > H
04
00 O 0 O 0
r» in o o o o
•3" rH tjl r-- CNJ CN
kk k. kk
ro CN ro
II 1 III
O O O O O
o o o o o
o en o o o
.. .. .. i
m CN in o o
rH in o
r~~
o o o o o o
in o o o cr> o
^D *& O CN CO *kO
kk k.
CN CN
G
0) 0
en -H
dj en T^ -P
13 en C 3 a
0) H T) -rH rH C rH
0)0) 3TiawOO
fa HJ -H oj g -H en
rd to t -P T3
rHSE>i fa&irH rdsC
rd 0) 3 rH >, rd G
O-PrHQ MO) Olg-rH G
•HW
-------
S
c3
O
Q
m
(N
IT)
w o
i_q pq
m 04
st; rH O
m rH co
o o o o o o
O ro O O O O
!>• CN rO CN VD in
ro m
rd rH H -H M
K PM CJ PM fXi
o o o
o o in
O rH CN
^ «.
00 rH
, — 1
a>
o
rH
X 1 1
ro
[ —
o o o
o o o
o o m
O •<* ro
o
o o o
o o o
O CN ^
O H
H
M -a
O V ^
4J (!) 0)
(d Pn 4-1
n (d
G rd 0) 3 rH
•H U 4-1 rH O
O -H W sC ft
c e
CN rH
CD
tr*
CD tji "d
Cn G 3
'O -iH rH C
3 TJ &4 W O
rH CD S -rH
co CD 3 >-i -P
PLJ P-( -M fO
>i (d c
SH OJ CD g -H
a 6 CP -H !H
g -H T) M O
•H (J 3 ft rH
M rH <-]
fit to CJ
o
o
*3*
^
^)
1
0
o
0
o
in
r-
^
rH
o
0
CN
h.
G
0
•H
4J
a
o
W
•o
G
o
XI
m
U
o
o
o
^
CN
rH
V£)
o
H
X
H
en
o
o
o
o
o
co
o
o
o
CN
H
o
m
o
^
CO
^J1
rH
vO
o
rH
x
"31
^D
rH
0
0
^
CO
rH
CN
K
in
o
ro
ro
rH
in
G
0
•H
•P
rd h4
M
-------
w
J
a
EH
S
oS
O
Q
O
2
o
in
O
CQ
U
CtJ
a
o
-P
CO
0
CJ
rH
id
3
C
C
f^
rH
CU
3
1 — |
ft
0
o
0
o^
ro
.D
O
i-H
^
0
ro
rH
0
O
O
k.
0
m
r-
k.
rH
O
O
O
03
rH
^J
O
-p
(d
(U
c
u
c
H
00 0 0 O
O CO 0 O O
o ro co o m
k, k. k, k.
CN CN O ro
H
II 1 II
o o o o o
o o o o o
O O 0 0 O
k. k. k, k, k.
ID m CN o m
in ro I-H
CN
O O O O O
O CN O O O
O •=* r~ '«JI ro
CN CN CN
0)
o>
T3 en C 3
0) M T3 -rl rH C
CU 0) 3 T3 a CO O
fa -P H (!) 6 -H
(d CO 0) 3 >i -P
HSE>i fafliiH (d
id CU 3 rH >i (d C
O-PrHQ >H<1J CUg-H
•rienfiCCLi idB cf-ri M
6 id B •'-' T3 M O
CU 3 -H J 3 Oj rH
X! r) rH .C
o en co u
o
CN
in
k.
rH
rH
1
o
o
0
k.
o
o
in
k.
ro
o
0
o
vO
c
o
•H
•p
a
M
o
en
T3
c
o
X!
id
o
o
o
o
V£)
rH
^D
0
rH
X
rH
CO
rH
o
0
o
k.
o
o
{D
k.
rH
o
o
0
CT>
rH
o
o
o
in
rH
CN
*•£)
o
rH
X
rH
rH
ro
o
o
CN
k.
^
o
0
k.
o
rH
o
[ —
o
CN
co
c
o
•rl
+J
-------
TABLE 67
GRANULAR CARBON, 1 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
4,737,000 x 0.09439 $447,125
Labor
12,055 Hours @ $9/Hour $108,495
Power
384,100 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 7,680
Fuel
31.5 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 47,250
Maintenance Materials $ 18,830
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
22 Tons @ $l,000/Ton $ 22,000
Alum
190 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 13,300
Polymer - Wastewater
761 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 230
Lime - Primary Sludge
153 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 5,660
Chlorine
4.6 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 1,012
TOTAL $671,582
Cost @ Capacity = $' = $1,839/MG
135
-------
TABLE 68
GRANULAR CARBON, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
«V
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
8,325,000 x 0.09439 $ 785,797
Labor
22,310 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 200,790
Power
1,272,600 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 25,450
Fuel
39.6 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 59,400
Maintenance Materials $ 47,500
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
109 Tons @ $l,000/Ton $ 109,000
Alum
950 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 66,500
Polymer - Wastewater
3,805 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 1,140
Lime - Primary Sludge
766 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 28,340
Chlorine
23 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 5,060
TOTAL $1,328,977
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $1897 = $728/MG
136
-------
TABLE 69
GRANULAR CARBON, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
12,667,000 x 0.09439 $1,195,638
Labor
31,550 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 283,950
Power
2,275,200 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 45,500
Fuel
68.4 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 102,600
Maintenance Materials $ 76,570
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
219 Tons @ $l,000/Ton $ 219,000
Alum
1,900 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 133,000
Polymer - Wastewater
7,610 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 2,300
Lime - Primary Sludge
1,532 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 56,700
Chlorine
46 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 10,120
TOTAL $2,125,378
57 TTC "57P
Cost/MG @ Capacity = 355 x 10 = $582/MG
137
-------
TABLE 70
GRANULAR CARBON, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
22,861,000 x 0.09439 $2,157,850
Labor
51,330 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 461,970
Power
5,219,600 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 104,372
Fuel
164 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 246,000
Maintenance Materials $ 148,050
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
547 Tons @ $l,000/Ton $ 547,000
Alum
4,750 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 332,500
Polymer - Wastewater
19,025 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 5,700
Lime - Primary Sludge
3,830 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 141,700
Chlorine
115 Tons 0 $100/Ton $ 11,500
TOTAL $4,156,642
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $52 = $456/MG
138
-------
TABLE 71
GRANULAR CARBON, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
38,840,000 x 0.09439 $3,670,827
Labor
84,070 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 738,630
Power
10,004,200 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 200,100
Fuel
311 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 466,500
Maintenance Materials $ 215,000
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
1,096 Tons @ $l,000/Ton $1,096,000
Alum
9,500 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 665,000
Polymer - Wastewater
38,050 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 11,415
Lime - Primary Sludge
7,660 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 283,420
Chlorine
230 Tons Q $100/Ton $ 23,000
TOTAL $7,369,892
Cost/MG @ Capacity = '2 = $404/MG
139
-------
CN
D
2
S
<;
a
o
m
ej
<
u
PS
3
D
O
. — ,
o
0
o
V
H
~
CO
o
CJ
<
D
<
Q
O
g
«*.
>H
H
O
ft
u
o
in
in
CN
O
rH
in
rH
CO VO rH
0 CO O
r^ oo o
vo r^ CN
co
^
co o ro
r- CN •=}•
m vo o
rH ^T rH
v
CN
vo o m
m ^f in
CTi CO •*}*
rH CN
rH
in
VO CO ^J1
in o in
00 O CN
r- CN
m r--
J*>, QQ ["*•«,
•^ o
^J* i~H
in o
vo m
& rH
"tf CN
in
o o
VO 00
•f ^*
CN rH
VO VO
CN VD
o r-
rH
•^ in
CM [^
in ^
m oo
CN 00
r^ co
^* i — i
-P
•H
a
u
rd
o;
N
•H
-P
M
0
XI
Q)
O
ft
o
m
rH
CN
in
o
00
^3*
VO
VO
r-
m
r^
^j<
oo
00
CO
rH
CO
rH
-
vo
i ~]
tn
rH -P
(d rd
a
o d — «
0 -H >i
0 4J -P
•> rd -H
rH M O
\ (!) rd
fQ p| p|
•P O rd
co ^-- U
O
U
140
-------
U^M JE-ifOK
W
W
W
K
C/i
I
en
en
w
u
CM
S
W
EH
CO
>H
CO
o
u
s
H
w
-------
TABLE 73
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EIMCO SYSTEM
Chemical Treatment
Coagulant
Coagulant Dose, mg/1
Polyelectrolyte Dose, mg/1
Flash Mix Time, Minute
Clarifier
Type
Hydraulic Loading, gpm/ft^
(Peak)
Gravity Thickener
Solids Loading, lb/day/fu
Underflow Solids, %
Vacuum Filter
Feed Solids, %
Yield, lb/hr/ft2
Cake Moisture Content, %
Lime Dose, % by Weight
Carbon Treatment
Carbon Contactor
Peak Hydraulic Loading,
gpm/ft^
Carbon Dose, mg/1
Carbon Slurry Concentration,
9/1
Underflow Concentration, %
Gravity Thickener
Solids Loading, lb/day/ft^
Underflow Solids, %
Vacuum Filter
Feed Solids, %
Polyelectrolyte Dose, Ib/Ton
Dry Solids
Yield, lb/hr/ft^
Cake Solids, %
Granular Media Filter
Type
Average Hydraulic Loading gpm/ft'
Average Backwash Recycle, % of
Filtrate
Alum
125
0.25
1
Flocculator-Clarifier
0.8
10
5
5
2.8
75
40
Internal Solids Recycle
0.8
300
10
3
20
12
12
10
8
27
Tri Media
5
142
-------
TABLE 73 (Cont'd.)
Fluidized Bed Furnace
Solids Loading, lb/hr/ft2
Freeboard Velocity, ft/sec
Firebox Temperature, °F
Operating Temperature, °F
Carbon Recovery, %
Slowdown, %
Primary Sludge Incineration
Multiple Hearth, Loading Rate
Chlorination
Contact Time @ PDWF, Minutes
Dosage, mg/1
3
1.2
2000
1250
90
5
7 Ib/ft2/hr
(Wet Basis)
30
5 (Max), 3 (Ave)
143
-------
UJCC
o.
5
J3
O.
lie
>
2 °
9 tr
o -J
c fi
co
K Z
IU O
%l
o
in
I
in
S
w
Q
W
W
O
ff)
K
<;
u
Q
W
EH
U
Q
W
05
W
O
CM
•o
o
4)
c
0)
(X
c
o
-Q
b
u
CN
D
O
H
144
-------
•o
tn
e
Q
ta
w
Q
S
W
o
s
o
EH
03
u
Q
w
Q
g
CM
w
«
D
o
H
145
-------
tn
g
o
IT)
I
ID
H
Q
W
W
W
o
EH
CA
O
m
u
Q
w
«
w
Q
g
in
CN
W
146
-------
consisting of one pound of carbon per gallon of water. The major
elements of the 5 to 50 MGD systems include:
1. Carbon slurry pumping from regeneration furnace to
underground storage basin.
2. Underground slurry storage and mixers with bulk
unloading facilities.
3. Carbon slurry pumping from underground storage to
elevated feeders.
4. Slurry feeders in elevated structure.
The one MGD system includes only carbon slurry storage with
mixers and a slurry metering feed pump.
The underground storage volume was varied with plant size with
the following minimum storage provided: 1 MGD - 20 days; 5 MGD -
5 days; 10 MGD - 3.5 days; 25 MGD - 3 days; and 50 MGD - 2.5 days.
The previously developed CWC curves1*0 for rapid mixing basins
(G = 600) were used to estimate the costs of the underground
storage basins. Pump and feeder costs were obtained from manu-
facturers.
Flocculator-Clarifier
Manufacturer supplied equipment cost information coupled with CWC
estimates of basin costs provided the basis for the flocculator-
clarifier construction cost curve. O&M requirements were based
on the previously developed1*0 CWC information on flocculation
and sedimentation.
Reactor-Clarifiers
These curves were obtained from the earlier CWC report. tt°
Fluidized Bed Regeneration Furnace
Fluidized bed furnace (FBF) regeneration of powdered carbon has
been demonstrated only on a pilot scale. Thus, there is a degree
of uncertainty about the design criteria and any estimates of
costs for full scale systems. Because of this uncertainty, the
FBF costs receive added attention in the later analysis of
economic sensitivity. Independent estimates of capital and O&M
costs for full scale systems were obtained from two manufacturers
(Envirotech and Copeland Systems). Both manufacturers rated
their FBF systems at higher capacities (from 5 Ib/ft2/hr in
the smaller furnaces to 7 Ib/ft2/hr in the larger furnaces)
than shown in Table 73. With the exception of power requirements,
the data from the two manufacturers were in close agreement. The
147
-------
cost curves in the Appendix are based upon the capacities of the
FBF systems as rated by the manufacturers rather than the 3 lb/
hr/sq ft. shown in Table 73. Fuel requirements vary with the
size of the FBF system and range from 9,000 Btu/pound of carbon
at 100 Ib/hr to 5,500 Btu/pound at 10,000 Ib/hr. The manu-
facturers agreed closely on fuel requirements. Power requirements
as estimated by Envirotech, ranged from 0.82 kWh/pound of carbon
at 100 Ib/hr to 0.6 kWh/pound of carbon at 3,400 Ib/hr. Cope-
land's estimates were 0.2 kWh/pound of carbon. The power curve
is based on Envirotech's estimates with the potential impact of
lower power requirements discussed later. Labor and maintenance
material requirements were extrapolated from CWC's earlier work
on multiple hearth furnaces. The FBF sizing for the plant
examples was based on 30 percent downtime. It was found cheaper
to regenerate carbon at the one MGD size rather than use the
carbon on a one-time basis.
Tables 74-86 present the results.
POWDERED CARBON, BATTELLE
Figure 26 represents a schematic of this process. Table 87 pre-
sents the design criteria. The basis of most unit costs has been
discussed in previous sections. Costs for centrifuging, sulfuric
acid feeding, and tube settling were obtained from the earlier
CWC report.^0 The carbon contactor costs were determined using
the flocculator cost curve (G = 70). Rapid mixing costs are
based on G = 300. It was found to be lower in cost to regen-
erate carbon in the one MGD plant than to use the carbon on a
one-time basis. Thus, regeneration facilities are included for
all capacities. Alum feed costs represent only the makeup alum
since the recovered alum is recycled with the powdered carbon.
Credit of 9,500 Btu/lb of raw sewage solids was taken into con-
sideration in determining the supplemental fuel requirements of
the FBF furnace. This heat value essentially balances the heat
required to vaporize the added water found in the Battelle pro-
cess sludge relative to the Eimco process sludge (6.5 lb water/
lb carbon vs 2.7 lb water/lb carbon). The heat required to
bring the added water vapor up to 1500°F is equivalent to an
added 2690 Btu/lb of carbon for the Battelle process sludge
relative to the Eimco process sludges. Curve 101 reflects these
differences in heat requirements.
POWDERED CARBON, BIO-PHYSICAL
Figure 27 presents a schematic of this process. Table 101 pre-
sents the design criteria. Air quantities (mechanical aeration
used as basis for cost estimates) are adequate for nitrification.
Costs for the wet oxidation system for carbon regeneration were
obtained from Zimpro. The regeneration system was sized based
upon 30 percent downtime — consistent with the assumption made
for other regeneration techniques. The basic costs provided by
148
-------
W
s
co
CO Q
w a
CJ S
o
o
o
s
M
w
co
w
NJ
H
CO
CO
CO
H
O
U")
LO
CN
O
rH
m
0 0
in o
\D r-H
•^ m
in o
CN in
ro m
CN CN
ro
O O
ro CN
O> O
CO
rH
in o
^O rH
fa
•>.
fa
fa
al Feed
ewater
O 4^
•H W
g rd
0) S
U
o
m
in
r-
co
o
CN
O
in
ro
CO
m
ro
o o
O '•J1
o m
o o
O r-
m CM
o oo
O o
CM rH
O
O
o r-
CN
fi X!
tn
T!
>1
CD rl
tn fi
W
id
U
•d
3
I*
tTi Pi
Cn
tyi Q>
"^ D^
3 -O
rH 3
(d o
rl
rd
O
149
-------
IT)
H
w
W
o
u
Pk
<
u
o
in
in
CM
o
Q rH
U
in
rH
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
n o O O
rH CO CM CO
CM in CN
oooo
oooo
oooo
to o o o
r- o o o
•3" CO en
•. * •.
rH CN rH
oooo
oooo
oooo
r- o o o
co o o in
r- co o
H rH
oooo
oooo
oooo
m o o in
•H c;
>! VJ O
H ra U
a rH
O Ifl SH
Tj 1 TJ H M
CO 01 (U
cjn 4-B M QJ 4J 'd
'O rH O Cn rH O
3 M -rl 4J TJ M -H 0)
rH cu CM flj 3 clJ P-i CM
CJ IE; GJ CO (1) 5 rH
>, x 3 c x 3 n)
H o 9 -rl G O 3 O
rd -H U O O -H O Cn -H
E^.ac!43^ni«e
•HEH>HMEH>hO
>H cd A
a, u u
ooo
ooo
ooo
O (N O
O tD ^3*
ro co
ooo
000
000
O CN O
to ro o
rH m
ooo
ooo
ooo
O CO O
1^ rH CO
CN
ooo
ooo
ooo
in co o
*3* r-H O*>
rH
ooo
ooo
ooo
000
rH
0)
4J C
rrj O
§^"i .Q
rH SH
M < Cn CJ
£
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
co
CN
o
o
o
o
1-1
o
o
o
o
o
rH
o
o
o
0
0)
en
3
rH
U)
>1
•o
3
rH
to
G r^l
O rH
M Pi
o
oooo
oooo
oooo
o in o o
in rH
oooo
oooo
oooo
in in o en
f^ to <3* tO
CO
oooo
oooo
oooo
O CM O CO
to m o ro
CN
oooo
oooo
oooo
CM O O CN
m in <3* CM
rH
oooo
oooo
oooo
in o rH r-*
co CN m
O JJ
Cn a) O
0^ TJ Cn fd
C 3 T3 4J T)
•rl rH 3 G (1)
Qj CO rH O tt)
§ Ul U CK
3 >i
Pu Vl fl Q) (U
n) O C £
0
o
o
CO
r^
ro
w
C3
a
o
to
ro
in
£
(J
<
EH
o
En
1
o
o
o
to
rH
rH
,5,
o
o
0
CO
en
ro
fc.
CN
o
o
0
o
r-
co
rH
o
o
o
CN
CO
o
o
o
in
en
*Jf
0
s
•d
5
o
o
o
ro
, — 1
m
ro
ro
o
o
o
ro
CN
in
•.
en
rH
o
o
o
in
m
rH
rH
rH
o
o
0
in
tO
CN
r-
o
o
o
r-|
n
o
£
4J
«1
o
u
d
•H
4-)
o
3
V4
4J
en
c
o
u
r-H
4J
o
E-i
o
0
o
CN
CN
o
'T
«-
o
0
o
ro
^*
ro
V
CN
o
o
o
en
ro
ro
H
(/>
o
o
0
CN
( —
co
*>
o
o
0
T
CO
^
rH
ro
en
•0)
» 1
W M
o o
o o
0 O
rH VO
in co
ro CO
CO O
M- s
o
o o
o o
- o
in co
en rH
- co
rH
ro
CN
o o
o o
0 0
to O
rH /H
rH tO
rH ro
rH
•
0 O
0 O
0 0
t£> ro
CN tO
r- co
CO
0 0
0 O
o o
ro co
O rH
^r OT
M-
EH
01
0
o
%
EH
H
§
a
O J
•H 3
O O
}^
4->
150
-------
m
0) nj
O H
4J C H
01 rd O
O C Q
U cj)
-P -
rH Ci 0]
3-ri rH
rd rd
§ S >H
O 4-1
rd
oo oo ooo ooo ooo o o oo
oo oo ooo ooo ooo o o oo
CNCO "d-in rHOO rHoco iNr-icn CN rH com
» V •. fc «. * •.
(N rH r- ^ in rH rH
'9
o
in
r-
*.
CN
W
s
o3
O
Q
O
y
H
in
rH G O
CD O
3 -rl rH
rn v n
o
U -
ID
o
I I X
o
CN
o
i-H
I I X
r-
0)
S
0
ft,
I"H
3
c
rH
rd
3
£
O
•ri
4J
ft
|
C
o
o
M
O
3
_£
g
01
M
O
K
o
o
o
CN
O
CO
*3*
o
o
in
r~
o
o
r-
o
o
0
CN
o
o
*3*
r7
0
0
o
CO
co
o
o
en
CN
o
o
0
rH
O
r^o
f*>
O
o
o
in
in
o
o
CN
rH
o
o
o
o
co
0
o
m
H
O
O
o
rH
O
ro
m
0 0
0 0
o o
o o
^ o
r^
0 0
o •?
en co
II
vo
O
en
rH
o
o
<3"
CN
O
O
CN
O
o
rH
CN
O
0
M
O
o
o
ro
en
o
o
^
rH
O
o
O
CO
O
O
CN
rH
O O O
O O O
10 mo
CN in m
o in o
O l~~ ID
<*
O
0
rH
ro
CO
H
rH
ul
rH
in
in
rH
•rH
M
X rd
a u
1
'O U
•ri 0
a o
rd, rH
K m
Contact
ers
•rH
01 l»H
13 -H
•ri ^i
rH rd
O rH
CO CJ
Vi
o
4-1
rH
•H
h
o a
U"1 4-J ^
Tj -HO
^1 ^) H -U
i — 1 Q [14 <1]
en c ri
o e H
CA,
Sludge
ener
^
c o
0 -rl
XI 43
!H EH
rd
CJ
m Filter
3
3
O ft.
rd tQ
r> t^i
•O
(U M
rH
•r( W <
e rd
0) S
.3
CJ
o
>< XI
rH rl
O rd
ft O
tn
tj
3 -0
rH d)
uj e)
>1
M i
O rH
XI O
ri ft
rd
o
tn CD
fjl rf^ fjj
c; 3 *d
•H rH 3
Qj W rH
1 C7«
cd O
0) B XI
T) M rd
3 Ot CJ
rH
CO
3
o
EH
151
-------
to
O rH
4J C "H
W Ifl O
O G Cl
CJ 0)
4-) -
rH G W
3 n) to
C S -ri
< t-l (1)
O 4J
ifl
a
O O O O OOO
01 O O O OOO
m CD o 01 «* o o
«. % * *. X
ol C7* *3* O f^~
Ol
OOO OOO O O OO
ooo cooo o in oo
•* o in 01 I-H I-H 01 n oim
*. *. •. •. «.
10 n M1 01 rH
rH
O
m
Ol
r-
W
S
o3
O
a
a
O
O
S
U3
O
I I X
m
vo
o
X
in
VD
a> G
s o
0 -H
Ol 4->
&•£
'nil 3 13
3 01 ^
G C
a o
<< o
rH
its M ra
3 O M
C .5 3
C ni O
< t-1 X
O
o
o
o
01
rH
0
CO
m
X
•H
a
'd
•H
a
&
o
o
o
.H
ro
o
ro
V
M
^4
QJ
•H
l*-l
o
o
o
o
in
Ol
o
o
^
n
^
O
2
0)
•H
O
r^
H
OOO
OOO
CO O O
•q- O o
01 r~
rH CO
h
01
000
OOO
H «.
(N M
^1
Q)
d) Jj
CH rH
1 S ^
n o D
O -H U Hi
flj
CJ
OOO O
OOO O
ID r- o o
01 01 o en
r^
Tj»
ooo o
ooo o
^f ^f co cr*
^ *.
rH i-H
0)
dj SH 'd
i
O -P H O ^J & 0)
•H u) rfl ru O flJ 6
£
C71 T3
CJ d P
01 -t-t iH
•-» o 3 >i
CO £4 P) ^
0)
C >( 0) Ei
O rH 01 -H
J3 O T? ^4
>H PJ 3 ft
U CO
0 0
0 0
o en
T m
rH in
^3*
^
^*
0 O
01 rn
rH *3<
^
vo
01
(U
*d
3
™ ^
G EH
O O
.Q EH
M
CJ
152
-------
00
s
o
Q
a
o
rH
•k.
O
H
w
m
M
O rH
4J a rH
w id o
o c Q o o
u
3 id id
C a --H
d J-i
< t-i o>
O -M
id
a
to
n)
rH C O
111 O
3 -H rH
In 4J a
Oi M
* § 3 ' '
g as
5 o
< o -
M
11 C
is o
O -H O O
Oj -U O O
Ql rH O O
id 9 ^ o *3*
3 to .X in in
G e CN
C O
< U
rH O O
id IH ra o o
3 O !H ID rH
C a 3
C id O CN
3 rH K
M
0)
•H
UH
-r-(
n
X t^
OO OOO OOO
oo ooo ooo
oo ooo ooo
oo moo )O3-rH CO3
rQ -H 0) rd -H O O O -iH O h
•H^< 4-> Stifle! .Q^idtt)
rHlO rH rHEH>H ^lB>&H
O rH -(H r-l fd
Ul U Cn 0< CJ
OOO O 0 OO O
r-ino o in oor~
*THrH o> in [^-CN G\
* ^ •• *•
VO CN , <
rHSS>lX) EX Ul tl 04 M G t)
id(UprH^>i ido O
UPrHQid MO) C>i(UG.Q tH
-Hui^f^u ids OrH tn-HM
B id g -rt .p o 'O M id
(US -H iJ ^1 p< 3 Pi (J
^ r^J fd 1 )
U Cl) U W
153
-------
U)
r)
oj id
O rH
4J C rH
w id O
O C Q
1~ "*
rH C W
Id -H rH
3 id id
C S -H
rrf * •. *. *
H CM (N CT>
rH rH
OO OOO OOO OOO O O OO O
OO OOO OOO OOO O O OCN IN
^Dco ^tno ^DOIN cN^r~- I-H in moi r^-
cn^r eno t^^j1 I-HCNCN r-
rH in
cu
Vj M cj> nj
4-> tuflj 4JV4O-Prd tr>d) d3T;j
nj TJ'-HOr^i-H IUM ro tj> -HiH3
4J 3r)H4J'arl-H (DO) S'O'd'OCljOl-'l
CM rHdlfc|Id3lUfel Pn4-l GrHl])30)fi CO iJ
OM wtlrii-ic; fd 0 :fl a) i-i o> g >i <
OOJ a)Bajoitus rH^e>iX) fi)tncsjfi)r(C', B
•H >,>;3E! ^J3 ld1 IdOO
u)iMi-irio3-HCO3 O4JrHOn)^0)C>ia)g^ EH
T) -iH a) id -ri u o o -H o tn -H w «; ft u ^13 O H tr> -H M
•Hri 4-1 gjlnJCXi.Cida) ET) S-HJ^O Ttrtrt
rHldlH'r)H>H r(E-<>fn OJS 'Hr5 Wft 3ftO
OrH-rl!H Id ^! i-lrflH
WUfuft U U PiUol
154
-------
4-1
M
O
O
rH
id
3
c
C
<
in
O O
rH Or-
rH
o
CO
r^
en
r-
m
o
Q
o
oo
PQ
H
ta
";
n
c
§
Vl
4)
Q
ft
,_|
id
c
rH
n>
§
ifl
O
•H rH
4J ID
Qi H
1 3
01 a
a z
o
U -
£
o
•iH
+•>
p -S
3 >S
ra AJ
O
O
Vt W
O M
"3 0
1-4" ffi
1
O
O
O
O
O
CN
,-H"
o
o
CO
X
-H
S
•T3
.r-1
a
a
i
o
o
o
o
co
CN
O
O
m
Jj
•H
^M
•rl
Vl
id
rH
U
1
O
o
o
rH
-M
O
id
-P
C
0
U
CO
•a
rH
O
co
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
CN
o
o
o
^p
rH
U)
V4
a)
M-t
•H
^|
id
rH
U
1
O
o
o
o
crv
rH
0
O
01
in"
^i
a)
4-r*
rH
•H
b
1
O
O
O
Ifl
r-i
o
0
rH
^
0)
Cn
rQ
3 M
CO C
(U
>, ^
M U
id -H
g rj
•H EH
M
ft
1
O
O
o
o
o
m
iH
o
o
0
U3
r-1
0)
•M
r— H
•H
p-l
g
^J
o
fO
>
o
rH
X
o
M
rH
O
O
o
o
m
r-
rH
0
o
o
co
rH
^i
Q
-P
v^
0)
(^
•H
o
f^
H
1
O
O
o
ID
CN
O
O
rH
,_,
(j)
O^
T3 M
^J (U
•H C
U] O
v|
C O
O -H
XI _r{
M EH
IS
O
O
•H
1 X
O
O
0 0
0 0
o o
O 0
o o
en o
rH
CN
O O
O O
0 O
rH *£>
rH
b-i
X
o
ooo
ooo
ooo
<£> m o
o
r-
o o o
o CN o
o •* r-
o
o
o
CN
in
O
o
r-
o
o
o
o
o
en
o o
o o
o o
CO CO
CN
o o
o o
*3* ro
o
o
o
CN
O
o
CN
O
a) a)
rHS
c
o
>i A
(U
T3
3 t>
rH O
cn cu
-a 'd
3 "J
rH O
a)
Cn
-------
TABLE 81
EIMCO, 1 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
4,918,000 x 0.09439
Labor
15,515 Hours @ $9/Hour
Power
1,183,100 kWh @ $0.02/kWh
Fuel
19 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Powdered Carbon
69 Tons (a $650/Ton
Alum
190 Tons @ $70/Ton
Polymer - Wastewater
761 Ib @ $0.30/lb
Polymer - Carbon Sludge
4,380 Ib @ $2.00/lb
Chlorine
4.6 Tons @ $220/Ton
Lime - Primary Sludge
153 Tons @ $37/Ton
TOTAL
Cost/MG @ Capacity =
$464,210
$139,635
$ 23,662
$ 28,500
$ 26,750
$ 44,850
$ 13,300
$ 230
$ 9,760
$ 1,012
$ 5,660
$757,569
= $2,078/MG
156
-------
TABLE 82
EIMCO, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
8,863,000 x 0.09439 $ 836,579
Labor
26,430 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 237,870
Power
4,455,900 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 89,118
Fuel
56.5 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 84,750
Maintenance Materials $ 72,550
Chemicals
Powdered Carbon - Makeup
345 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 224,250
Alum
950 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 66,500
Polymer - Wastewater
3,805 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 1,140
Polymer - Carbon Sludges
35,040 Ib @ $2.00/lb $ 70,080
Chlorine
23 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 5,060
Lime - Primary Sludges
766 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 28,340
TOTAL $1,716,237
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $1627 = $940/MG
157
-------
TABLE 83
EIMCO, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
13,610,000 x 0.09439
Labor
36,400 Hours @ $9/Hour
Power
7,805,900 kWh @ $0.02/kWh
Fuel
95 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Powdered Carbon - Makeup
690 Tons @ $650/Ton
Alum
1,900 Tons @ $70/Ton
Polymer - Wastewater
7,610 Ib @ $0.30/lb
Polymer - Carbon Sludge
70,080 Ib @ $2.00/lb
Chlorine
46 Tons @ $220/Ton
Lime - Primary Sludge
1,532 Tons @ $37/Ton
TOTAL
Cost/MG C° Capacity = '6 = $774/MG
$1,284,648
$ 327,600
$ 156,118
$ 142,500
$ 121,970
$ 448,500
$ 133,000
$ 2,300
$ 140,160
$ 10,120
$ 56,700
$2,823,616
158
-------
TABLE 84
EIMCO, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
23,818,000 x 0.09439 $2,248,181
Labor
57,720 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 519,480
Power
19,228,500 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 384,570
Fuel
227 x 106 SCF <§ $1.50/TCF $ 340,500
Maintenance Materials $ 240,850
Chemicals
Powdered Carbon
1,725 Tons @ $650/Ton $1,121,250
Alum
4,750 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 332,500
Polymer - Wastewater
19,025 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 5,700
Polymer - Carbon Sludge
175,200 Ib @ $2.00/lb $ 350,400
Chlorine
115 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 11,500
Lime - Primary Sludge
3,830 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 141,700
TOTAL $5,696,631
Costs/MG @ Capacity = 9'1 = $624/MG
159
-------
TABLE 85
EIMCO, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
40,886,000 x 0.09439
Labor
89,020 Hours @ $9/Hour
Power
34,025,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh
Fuel
430 x 10b SCF @ $1.50/TCF
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Powdered Carbon
3,450 Tons @ $650/Ton
Alum
9,500 Tons @ $70/Ton
Polymer - Wastewater
38,050 Ib @ $0.30/lb
Polymer - Carbon Sludge
351,000 Ib @ $2.00/lb
Chlorine
230 Tons @ $100/Ton
Lime - Primary Sludge
7,660 Tons @ $37/Ton
TOTAL
Cost/MG @ Capacity =
$ 3,859,230
$ 801,180
$ 680,500
$ 645,000
$ 379,780
$ 2,242,500
$ 665,000
$ 11,415
$ 702,000
$ 23,000
$ 283,420
$10,293,025
= $564/MG
160
-------
TABLE 86
EIMCO ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
Annual Cost ($1,000)
MGD
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Powdered Carbon
Alum
Polymer - Wastewater
Polymer - Carbon Sludge
Chlorine
Lime - Primary Sludge
1
464
139
24
28
27
45
13
0.2
10
1
6
5
837
238
89
85
73
224
66
1.14
70
5
28
10
1,285
328
156
142
122
448
133
2.3
140
10
57
25
2,248
520
384
340
241
1,121
332
5.7
350
11.5
142
50
3,859
801
680
645
380
2,242
665
11.4
702
23
283
TOTAL 757 1,716 2,824 5,697 10,293
Costs/1,000 Gals
(Operating @ Capacity) $2.08 $0.94 $0.77 $0.62 $0.56
161
-------
a i
D ,
Ul .
•x :
<
5
o:
LU
S
9
i
£
UJ -^
y UJ
—>
a
cc
O UJ
3 g
i/> >
Ul
Q
i
Q Ul
LU "
^ Q 7
Q UJ g
r> m ^
_l U,
u.
og
o3" a ^,
CO
s.gs
05 Jij?
S5^
2
5f
EH
W
w
W
cn
I
^
En
CO
U
§
w
w
EH
s
ffl
CM
W
cd
D
O
H
cc
o w o
162
-------
TABLE 87
BATTELLE PROCESS SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Treatment System
Carbon Contact - Minutes
Time at pH 4 10
Time at pH 7 5
Flocculation
Velocity Gradient - fps/ft 70
Time - Minutes 10
Tube Settler Loading Rate - gpd/ft2 2,880
Filter
Length of Filter Run - Hours 12
Loading Rate - gpm/ft2 5
Chlorine Contact Time, Peak Dry
Weather Flow - Minutes 30
Chlorine Dose, mg/1 5 (max),
3 (ave)
Chemical Storage Capacity 12
Sludge Storage
Carbon Dose, mg/1 600
Alum Dose, mg/1 200
Polyelectrolyte Dose, mg/1 2.0
Lime Dose, mg/1 150
Sulfuric Acid, Ib/lb Carbon 0.5
Sludge Dewatering Polyelectrolyte
Dose, Ib/Ton Dry Solids 1
Regeneration System
Combustion Chamber Temperature, °F 2,000
Bed Temperature, °F 1,500
Fluidizing Gas Velocity, ft/sec 1.3
Maximum Bed Diameter, ft 22
Carbon Recovery, % 91
Alum Recovery, % 91
Slowdown, % 5
Sludge Quantity, lb/MG 7,380
Settler Underflow Concentrations
% Solids 4.5
Sludge Carbon Content, % on Dry Basis 57.3
Sludge Inerts Content, % on Dry Basis 17.2
Dewatered Sludge Solids Content, % 22
Dewatered Sludge Flow, Ib/hr/MGD (Wet) 1,658
Carbon Feed Rate, Ib/hr/MGD
(100% Operation of FBF) 209
( 70% Operation of FBF) 298
163
-------
CO
CO
w
J
CQ
<:
EH
CO
CO
w
U
o
as
w
w
EH
EH
<
ffl
CO
W
N
H
CO
CO
CO
w
U
o
in o o LO LO o
co o o • • o
o ^ ^* vo ^ in CN
o CN in
rH
LO o o in in o
• o o CN r-« o
in CN CN ro • • kO
CM LO rH H rH CN
t~~ O O O O O
en co CN en H 'a1
o in • • o
rH CN rH
Q
0
S
in o o in in o
• *sF {Q ^ LO CN
co o CN . • in
^r - co ro
LO rH
o oo o en H T
• O • v£ [-» O
en CM CN • • rH
in o o
rH
^
r]
\^
o
rH M
A3 M
-> A3
M ^4 pQ ^v
\ | """ H
H H M -
fa 0 Q) t!
- A3 CU g -H
T3 g \ M >( U
CD 3 A3 A3 r4 rH
rH
_|_J
4j
OJ
QJ
n
13
EH
in
en
VD
CO
^
CO
en
ro
rH
in
•
en
k£)
en
ro
rH
g
en
«.
w
ft
CD
tn
3
rH
co
rH
rd
U
•H
g
CD
A3
U
O
O
O
rH
O
O
in
o
o
CN
O
o
r-t
CO
•
LO
o ^r
I-H" r-T
0 0
•^j1 co
^i1 en
CN
0 0
ro en
CN ^3*
•*
r-l
LO CO
in en
CN
CN
4-J
MH
».
0)
U
rd
G
3
TJ
0)
m
'"O
OJrH
N M
••H A3
•H A3
3 rH
rH
P-l
O
p-
LO
CO
CN
CN
in
CO
CN
^
H
i-H
^
H
rH
VD"
1
in
^
o
>
P-
in
^
co
*
CN
CN
^J
•
rH
rH
\
in
kO
•
S-l
nj
\
w
0
- 2
c ffl
0 CD
•H p^
4-1
(d CD
G tJ1
•iH rd
M ^-4
O CD
rH >
A3 <
U —
0 0
0 O
0 O
en r>
o
CN
o o
O 0
LO LO
•3" ro
o
rH
O 0
0 0
co ^r
rH rH
r^i
o o
0 0
en r»
^
0
CN
0 0
CO •sf
rH rH
>.
rj<
ro
-P
4H
*•
s
EH
4-1
U
rd
C
O CN
CJ -P
4-1
(U
G
H CD
O -P
rH rH
A3 'rH
U fri
•
^
^
\^
!H
el
CN
ro
rH
In,
VD
-.
QJ
g
-iH
-P
£
3
G
0
•r-l
4-1
rd
CD
ft
0
G
0)
U
CD
ft
O
r~
G
O
""0
0)
en
cd
m
rH
•
en
G
CD
g
0)
-H
3
O"*
CD
SH
S
0
o
MH
Ti
C
g
0)
TJ
CD
en
rd
cu
^
td
TJ
G
rd
C
0
•H
4-1
rd
G
•H
CD
4J
CD
T3
-P
tn
0
U
G
O
•H
4-1
U
3
4J
cons
^
0
4H
r^J
G
({J
g
QJ
T)
Kf*
-------
o
in
in
CN
01
w
w
o
§
EH
CO
o
s
CO
J W
CQ EH
d T3
<; rd G O G 3 i 4-4 C J3 Q) C/3 O *H -H
rHrHHO'OOS -HSH-d
O O 3 XI -H 0 -r1 Q) g 4J -H
P^ ft CO rH P) O TJ O 0) G 3
rd rd rH Q) 3 .*"] d) rH
OPcifeWEHOOfri
O
0
O
0
00
m
o
o
0
o
^J*
CN
o
o
o
0
o
CN
o
o
0
0
rH
o
o
0
rH
LO
c
EH
-P
O
rd
-P
G
O
u
0)
G
•rH
^
O
rH
f]
O
o o
0 0
0 0
0 O
rH O
rH CO
CN
0 O
O O
O O
en o
vO 0
en
i-H
0 0
0 O
0 O
CO O
ro in
0
rH
0 O
o o
0 O
CN in
CN CO
vo
0 0
o o
0 0
t-» o
ro
-P
G
CU
g
pj
.,H
3
w
G
O
•H G
-P 0
rd -H
C -P
••H (d
rH r-t
0 -P
rH rH
rC -H
U CM
0
O
O
in
en
o
vo
CN
v>
o
o
0
•*
ro
vO
<*
H
0
O
in
CN
0
CN
r-^
•ui-
o
o
in
ro
ro
**
<*"
w-
0
o
0
rH
rH
H
CN
^
g
EH
«
D
CO
O
O
0
ro
m
VO
ro
O
O
0
CTi
^
O
CN
O
m
ro
co
o
o
rH
0
0
o
rH
CN
VD
O
o
0
in
tn
rN
^
Jq
0
T3
r«
O
O
0
CO
rj*
r^-
CTv
CN
•
0
0
o
ro
CO
vO
vO
H
O
in
CO
0
rH
CN
CO
C
0
o
^J1
in
o
in
v>
o
o
0
vO
0
O
O
0
m
CO
en
w
0
0
o
[^
o
VO
w-
o
0
o
en
CO
CN
rH
Q)
^ ,
H G
rd O
U CJ
W
•H en
CM G
•H
•• SH
Cn 3
G Q
•H
rH -P
0) tQ
0) cu
c s \
-H Q)
tn -P
C G
W H
0
O
0
m
r-
en
CN
o
o
o
co
vO
VD
rH
V>
o
0
0
rH
CN
CO
V>
O
o
o
in
o
in
o
o
0
rH
^
CN
C
0
•H
-P
O
3
4->
0)
O
O
o
ro
CTi
CN
VD
ro
O
O
O
ro
in
ro
O
CN
O
in
CO
vo
rH
0
o
£
o
o
o
vo
VO
rH
vO
0
o
o
vo
ro
CTi
CN
"
EH
CO
O
U
j_q
rt*
EH
H
r^
U
jj
3
EH
Q
EH
165
-------
en
CD rd
U rH
-P C rH
tn rd o
O C Q
U OJ
-P -
H c tn
rd -H rH
3 rd rd
C g -H
C SH
<; MH CD
O -P
rd
g
oooooo o o o o o o o o o
O O <"") CN ro [^ cTi O CTt r~- o O O O O
CN ^J1 CN rH rH rH n LO PI rH \£> O ^ O in
w «. k. «. •.
CN CO M H rH
rH
o
o
•vt1
*d*
CN
o
0
O -H
fXj -P
ft
3 en .X
G G
G 0
< U
I I
I I
I I I
o
rH
X
O
rH
X
rH
CN
0) G
$ 0
O -H
fXj -V-1
ft
'cd 3 S
3 en .X
G G
G 0
< U
rH
rd ^H en
3 O M
G O ^
C id O
<: j ffi
o
o
o
CN
0
o
0 0
0 0
O H
O ro
co
rH
0 0
O 0
r^. vo
«. «.
rH rH
0 0
o o
r~ t>
CN CN
O O
CN ro
in in
O
O
in
rH
O
co
n
0
O
CN
rH
O
0
rH
0
o
o
oo
rH
o
m
m
o
o
CN
rH
O
0
rH
0 O
0 O
vD O
i ^ ^
i * ^
ro O\
n
000
CN r~- o
^J1 CO
^
CN
O
0
O
w i
*• i
O
n
n
*.
rH
0 0
0 0
CN •<*
^
H
O
0
o
co
co
0
o
o*>
*.
CN
o
o
o
ro
r-
\£)
*.
rH
o
1—
ro
«.
ro
rH
0)
CIJ
rH
CCrH
•H 3
CJ rf
u
- Wastewater3
- Sludge3
c Acid
G
OCN
XI ci)
rd -H
U hH
^H rH 'H
Q) tt) >-l
i i 3
>1 >1 'H
H rH rH
O 0 3
£L| p^ CO
ntact
o
u
G
o
X!
in
O
^
•H
g
•O
•rH
ft
&
G
0
•rH
-P
rd
r-H
3
U
U
0
rH
fa
G
O
•H
-P
cd
4J
G
<3)
e
•rH
rrj
CO
Sludge Pumps
rH
rd
O
•H
S
0)
o
0)
CJ1
rj
<4H
•H
4J
C
CU
U
Bed Furnace
Tl
(U
N
•H
•rH
3
rH
fa
§
•H
•P
rd
G
•rH
rl
O
rH
£
c
0
•H
-P
cd
r(
•P
rH
•H
fa
a;
0)
H -H S
1
H
T3 'O 0
•H Q) ft
er* rd ^
•rH rH rt
rH CO Q
H CN n
166
-------
S
^
O
Q
O
S
in
CTl
W
J
CQ
EH
«
O
z
I
w
w
EH
EH
sC
CQ
(fl
CD td
U H
•P G H
M rd 0
O C Q
U 0)
4J -
rH G tO
It) -H H
3 id id
G S '£
O 4->
rd
a
en
rH C O
CD 0
3 -H rH
CM 4-1 rt!
ft M
i — I g 3
a
m 3 s
3 w X
C G
G 0
«c o
H
id s-i tn
3 O M
S -9 3
G i >i W-l
O 0 3
P< CM CO
ontact
o
G
0
X)
ti
rd
O
X
•H
a
rfj
•H
ft
rd
OH
G
O
•H
id
H
3
O
U
O
1 — |
CM
ation
.(J
c
0)
.,_(
rrj
CD
CO
CM
0)
•d
3
CO
r_-|
rd
U
• iH
g
0)
tfj
U
CD
3
-H
^
4J
G
0)
O
d Bed Furnace
0)
N
•H
Tl
-H
3
rH
CM
G
0
-H
4->
rd
C
•H
^
0
rH
t~]
U
G
O
-H
rd
4->
rH
•H
CM
•a
0)
ft
ft
rH -H g
rd rH >(
T3 -O O
••H (U ft
3 s/*
tJ1 rd ?>s
•H H M
^ CO Q
H CN ro
167
-------
L Cost
itenance
5, Dollars
Annual
of Mail
Materials
OOOOOO O O
o o o en o CN o o
CN o ro (
r< g rH
(d -H O
U r3 Al
rl -rH
Q) M
K*I 4H
rH rH
O 3
Oi CO
ntact
o
o
G
0
^
cd
CJ
X!
•H
a
'O
•H
ft
04
G
0
•rH
-P
cd
rH
3
U
o
0
rH
En
G
O
•rH
cd
•P
G
CD
S
•H
rrj
CJ
CO
cn
ft
<
•H rH
T3 rH O
••H M ft
^ >,
•rH 3 rl
rH 0< Q
H CN ro
168
-------
. Cost
itenance
>, Dollars
Annua]
of Mair
Materials
0 O O 0 0 0
r- o o co en o
CM O CM CO CO Ol
CO CM
rH
O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o
CO 0 CO O 0 0 O
H in rH CN m co en
^y rH
0 0
0 0
oo m
CM O
rH
0
en
rO
rH
rH
S
O
Q
g
in
CN
EH
CO
W W
. "i *^
CQ K
g Q/
O
1
1
rj
i-l
rH
s
fa
rH
3
G
f^r"
>_i
01
O
cu
,-H
fd
3
G
C
<
w
rd
G ^D
•SrH
.p rd
& 3
3 P
tfl rd
G 2
O
U -
fa
u
w
G
O
•rH
•P
Q £
3 k£
W ,V
G
0
U
EH
EH
<0 iH M
3 O rH
G O 3
c 13 o
,
•rH 3 rH
J O) Q
CM CO
169
-------
L Cost
itenance
3, Dollars
Annua]
of Mair
Materials
oooooo o o o
mooooo o o o
^ o in m VD r~ m o m
OrOrHrHrH CN Ol CN
ro
oooooo
oooooo
m in o o m o
ro 00 rH r» ro ro
1^) rH rH
O
in
CN
en
m
rH
CTl
CQ
S
O
Q
C5
2
o
m
*»
EH
cn
w
!2
tc
C_|
cr1
|
W
1— 1
(-^
w
EH
EH
r^
CQ
^H
cu
3
fa
rH
rd
G
S
S_i
0)
O
flj
rH
rd
3
£
<
rH
rrj
£2
5
G
O
•H
4-1
ft
j^i
p
CQ
C
0
u
C
0
•rl
4J
§ft
CQ
G
O
CJ
J-1
0
"9
1-3
CD
rd
O
rH
rrj
Lj
3
4->
rd
£3
^
fa
O
rt
^
•*
CO
JH
0
*sO
0
rH
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IX
0
ro
VD
ooooooooo ooo
ooooooooo ooo
ooooomooo ooo
rooO^Or-HCNOCN OOO
OOCNCN m o in oomo
O rH Ol rH Ol O
Ol rH LT)
ro
oooooo o o o o o o o
OOOOOO 00 O CO O ro O O
r~-rHOOOOiOO CN CN CN O ro O 'tf
^•sPrHrHrH rH CN ^00
in
1
0
0
if)
m
rH
o
o
ro
CN
1
0
0
o
0
Ol
rH
o
o
CN
in
^p
0
rH
X
0
ro
VO
0
0
o
r--
Oi
f^
r^i
o
Ol
CN
o
Ol
0)
OJ
fa
rH
rrjrH
0 g
•H 3
g rH
CU
G
0
•H
4J
rd
^J
4-1
rH
•H
fa
a>
T!
cu
cu
4H
T)
(U
&
ft
rd g ^
•rH <~H
T3 rH O
•rl Jii Qj
&.^S
•H 3 M
^ Oi Q
H CN ro
170
-------
TABLE 95
BATTELLE PROCESS, 1 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital
2,936,000 x 0.09439
Labor
13,370 Hours @ $9/Hour
Power
1,673,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh
Fuel
21 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Makeup Alum
42 Tons @ $70/Ton
Makeup Carbon
127 Tons @ $650/Ton
Lime
228 Tons @ $37/Ton
Polymer, Wastewater
6,044 Ib @ $0.30/lb
Po lymer , S ludge
5,183 Ib @ $2/lb
Sulfuric Acid
456 Tons @ $57.30/Ton
Chlorine
4.6 Tons @ $220/Ton
TOTAL
Cost/MG @ Capacity =
$277,129
$120,330
$ 33,460
$ 31,500
$ 24,400
$ 2,940
$ 83,000
$ 8,436
$ 1,813
$ 10,366
$ 26,129
$ 1,012
$620,515
= $1,700/MG
171
-------
TABLE 96
BATTELLE PROCESS, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital
6,166,000 x 0.09439 $ 582,000
Labor
22,860 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 205,740
Power
6,262,700 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 125,254
Fuel fi
84 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 126,000
Maintenance Materials $ 49,180
Chemicals
Alum
210 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 14,700
Carbon
635 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 431,800
Lime
1,140 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 42,180
Polymer, Wastewater
30,220 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 9,066
Polymer, Sludge
25,915 Ib @ $2/lb $ 51,830
Sulfuric Acid
2,280 Tons @ $57.30/Ton $ 130,644
Chlroine
23 Tons @ $220/Tori $ 5,06Q
TOTAL $1,773,454
$] 773 454
Cost/MG @ Capacity = ^^^ ^ = $972/MG
172
-------
TABLE 97
BATTELLE PROCESS, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital
10,016,850 x 0.09439 $ 945,490
Labor
33,200 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 298,800
Power
13,123,300 kwh @ $0.02/kWh $ 262,466
Fuel
168 x 106 @ $1.50/TCF $ 252,000
Maintenance Materials $ 71,510
Chemicals
Alum
420 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 29,400
Carbon
1,270 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 825,500
Lime
2,280 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 84,360
Polymer, Wastewater
60,440 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 18,132
Polymer, Sludge
51,830 Ib <§ $2/lb $ 103,660
Sulfuric Acid
4,560 Tons @ $57.30/Ton $ 261,288
Chlorine
46 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 10,120
TOTAL $3,162,726
Cost/MG @ Capacity = '6 = $867/MG
173
-------
TABLE 98
BATTELLE PROCESS, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital
20,353,000 x 0.09439 $1,921,120
Labor
72,900 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 656,100
Power
27,281,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 545,620
Fuel
385 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 577,500
Maintenance Materials $ 113,390
Chemicals
Alum
1,050 Tons @ $70/Ton $ 73,500
Carbon
3,175 Tons @ $650/Ton $2,063,750
Lime
5,700 Tons @ $37/Ton $ 210,900
Polymer, Wastewater
151,100 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 45,330
Polymer, Sludge
129,575 Ib @ $2/lb $ 259,150
Sulfuric Acid
11,400 Tons @ $57.30/To:i $ 653,220
Chlorine
115 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 11,500
TOTAL $7,131,080
Cost/MG @ Capacity = "'0 = $781/MG
174
-------
TABLE 99
BATTELLE PROCESS, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital
36,293,000 x 0.09439
Labor
90,290 Hours @ $9/Hour
Power
47,497,000 kWh @ $0.02/kWh
Fuel
630 x 106 SCF @ $1.50/TCF
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Alum
2,100 Tons @ $70/Ton
Carbon
6,350 Tons @ $650/Ton
Lime
11,400 Tons & $37/Ton
Polymer, Wastewater
302,200 Ib @ $0.30/lb
Polymer, Sludge
259,150 Ib @ $2/lb
Sulfuric Acid
22,800 Tons @ $57.30/Ton
Chlorine
230 Tons @ $100/Ton
TOTAL
Cost/MG @ Capacity =
$ 3,425,696
$ 812,610
$ 949,940
$ 945,000
$ 159,250
$ 147,000
$ 4,127,500
$ 421,800
$ 90,660
$ 518,300
$ 1,306,440
$ 23,000
$12,925,196
= $708/MG
175
-------
o
in
CM
ro
CO
o
in
in
CPi
m
(N
CN
CN
a\
CO
in
oo
CM
m
CN
(Ti
(N
rH
O
in
CM
(N
m
vo
^o co oo
in m rH
vo
o
CN
CN
in
CTl
in
CN
oo
in
CO
r-
o
o
W
CQ
O
O
o
-p
CQ
o
U
Q
S
in
m
CN
CO
m
CN
CN CN
O
CM
CN
in
CN
in ^o
CN CN
H H
CM
cn
CN
in
CN
CO
in
00
00
CO
CN CT> CN
•"j* in
CN
IT)
00
oo
00
CO
o
(N
o
CM
00
oo
CN
oo
CN
ro
oo
CO
co
CO
CN
o
CN
rtJ
.p
•H
a
CO
CJ
QJ
N
•H
-p M
rH 0
O XI
g m
TJ
rH
CO
ta.
0)
g
o
CM
•H
0
O
•H
^1
d
rH
rj
CO
0)
c
•H
i_l
O
rH
x:
u
i_5
g
o
EH
CO
rH
(0
U
o
0
o
«.
H
CQ
-P
CQ
O
O
*ll ^"1
-p -p
id -H
rH 0
CU (0
Oj Pi
O (0
— 'O
176
-------
en
c
)
1)
tr>
3
r-l
CP
C
-H
-------
TABLE 101
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR BIO-PHYSICAL
PROCESS WITH WET AIR OXIDATION
Primary Sedimentation
•j
Surface Loading Rate, gpd/ft 800
Detention Time, Hour 2.5
Solids Removal Efficiency, % 65
Sludge Moisture, % 95
Sludge Specific Gravity 1.03
Activated Sludge
Air Rate, scfm/MGD 1,275
Recycle, % 50
Mixed Liquor Solids, mg/1
Volatile 4,000
Carbon 8,000
Total 13,000
Growth Yield Coefficient, lb vs/lb BOD 0.5
Return Sludge Solids, mg/1
VSS 12,000
Carbon 24,000
Total 39,000
Detention Time, Hour 4.5
Sludge Age, Days 12.5
Secondary Sedimentation
Overflow Rate, gpd/ft2 400
Polymer Dose, mg/1 5
Flow to Thickener, gal/MG 5,000
Gravity Thickener
Loading Rate, lb/ft2/ day 10
Thickened Sludge, % Solids 8
Wet Oxidation System
Temperature, °F 450
Pressure, psi 700
Slowdown
Volume, gal/MG 100
Solids, lb/MG 166
Ash Content of Solids, % 75
178
-------
TABLE 101 (Cont'd)
Carbon Losses mg/1
Slowdown 5
Oxidation 7
Effluent 5
Carbon Dose mg/1
Makeup Carbon 17
Regenerated Carbon 103
Primary Sludge Dewatering
2
Vacuum Filtration, Ib/ft /hr 6
Polymer, Ib/Ton 1
Primary Sludge Disposal
Multiple Hearth Incinerator, Ib/ft /hr/hr 7
179
-------
Zimpro were adjusted to reflect housing, miscellaneous, and con-
tingency costs. The costs of carbon handling and storage included
by Zimpro were deducted and the CWC costs for this item were used.
Zimpro's estimates of labor, power, and fuel were used for O&M
costs. Zimpro felt the regeneration system would be thermally
self-sustaining except for startup and shutdown periods. Thus,
fuel requirements are minimal. Table 102 presents the unit
process sizes. Table 103-114 present the cost estimates.
180
-------
CN
o
r '
W
t-1
ffl
E-"
o
m
O O O O O
o m i-H m ^
in I""- c~~ *d* co
•* ^ *.
CN CN rH
CN
o m in in o
in r*^ in CN CN
CN m ro CN CTi
rH rH
8
S
>
< fl
r i ft
^
rH
*-"
o m ^ i — i >^)
LO " — i m i — t CN
rH
H «j
H U
CO
>l -P
EC S
CL, "3
CU
O m
H
CQ
^
N—*'
O m rH 00 *&
in r^ r^- I-H co
CN CN H rH
^
*-Q
••
CO
w
M
co
co
co
— •*. .~-*
CN H CN
0 m r* n en
CN r-H
»
rH
U
o
On
Q,
&H
H
2
-P
C
0)
c
a
§
o
W
OT
Q)
u
o
SH
^
-H
c
D
CN
| i
MH
IN
-P C
g MH o
CN ft -H
-P rji - -P
fj> C CN CU
C C co -P C
O -H A! MH -H
•H QJ o cj
§-H •• C
t£J £J |~4
-P CU EH O
C -rH J3
CD CD 0) -P 4->
B cn rji rd SH
•H rO 'T? SH rrj
£> "3"
CO CO CN
o
CM
'tf CN
• 1
O ro CN
^ji ^y , — )
O
rH
CO
•^ co
• •
H rH
^F
cn in
• •
co co n
o
CSI
^f LD
vo r^ o
•H iH ro
•=#
M
3
0
35
a
^_
"SH"
jJ
rH
SH *H
M 3 fe
P 0
0 K •
CU XI t-H >
OH •— '
fn
i — ( fl d) i
-rH SH rH rH
g 10 0 O
,d ^
0
o
o
m
CN
r-H
0
m
CN
*sD
O
O
m
CN
O
O
m
«,
in
CN
r-H
0
rH
-
in
CN
n
_p
MH
^
.^
CO
CQ
pj
•rH
-P
rd
CD
O 0
0 0
m o
^ ^
ro m
CN
rH
o o
r- in
1-1 3
o o
r- o
CN
0 0
in o
ro in
IW
CM
rH
0 O
in
••
CN
CU
^
-P CNJ
C -P
CD MH
g
•H C
3 O
W -P
cd
0 CD
±> g
rd -H
CO CD
r-
n
\
CM
r^
•
CO
rH
\
in
rH
m
r-
m
•
in
•
ro
\
in
•
CN
m
r^
o
m
•
£5
•£
fi4
C X
•H CD
Pi J>
g <
ft
Q
CO O
3 •*
rH C
-H
C -P
3 -P
CO
O O
m CN
rH H
^
co
m o
r- \D
o
-V
ro CM
&
*
m CM
H H
co
ro CM
rH
1
g
4J
w
£>t
CO
c
IN O
-P -H
*- ^
M -H
C 0
CD
0 -H
g
O
0
o
k.
cn
0
CN
o
o
in
o
r— |
O
CO
\f
o
o
cn
o
CN
O
rH
-
>J'
ro
4-1
MH
C
W
n3
PQ
4J
D
rd
-P
C
C_)
cu
c
SH
0
e
0
in
\^
CO
CN
rN
m
CO
CN
X
3
H
rH
X
.
m
o
["*"•
LO
X^
CO
•
CM
CN
°z$
•
rH
U3
in
•
^
rd
0)
\^
CO
C
O
EH
C
S
•H -™*
^3 fO
tji —
w
TJ "rd
CD CO
PL, \
CO
CD CJi
C rd
SH CU
0 >
U
S-l
cu
B
>H
rH
O
CL,
*.
W
-P
q
rO
i — i
ft
H
H
fTJ
B
to
^
o
MH
W
W
H
CD
Q
rH
H
•H
5
to
cu
B
•H
-P
C
o
•H .
•P Q)
2 "^
OJ CO
O (U
a
1 B
O
CN CJ
-P
MH o
4->
ro
rH CO
cn
cfl SH
•H flj
i-H
-P -P
•H 13 -.H
C CD C
3 _N 3
rd rH
U CD £L
•H M ro
-P rd rH
U -rH
rd W rd
SH E >
ft CD cS
-P
-P cn -P
ia >, in
rH rH
i — ( ^ i — 1
rd CD rd
g CD g
rH CN
,X
rd
CD
CU
-P
W
0
U
CO
Id
•£
CD
-P
c
CD CD
U g
CO 3
5 *H
0 4-J
ft W
0) O
C 0
•iH
g CD
fi C
0) -H
-M g
CD P
•d cu
^j
O CD
Ci
181
-------
CO
CO Q
Wrl
\~J
/—v
§
^
r-q
U
H
CO
M >H
o BJ
T~H P-J
1
w o
t-3 H
CQ m
EH
CO
CO
o
u
jfj
S
o
m
LO
CN
0
rH
m
rH
OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
OOOOO rOOOOOOOOOOO
OcnvOroO cNOOOOO**vOOrOrH
vo CN rH "31 CN *tfrHrot--eNOOincNLninrH
rH rO rH rH (N CN <3*
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo oooooooooocn
^ o ro crv o rx>roinoooCT>cno''3lvo
cncNrHCNro cNinrHrHinr--rorHmro
CN i-H rH rH (N
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
OOOOO OOHOOOOOOOCO
•5J1 <3* en O O r~OvDinoororooOro
•3* H CNin r-HCN VD CO CO CN rH <3* CN
H H
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
O ro CN O O 'tfOcNOOOOOOOCN
vo en r^ o o ro < — i ^ ^r in m vo o o ^* CN
CN CNrH r-HH ^T'JrHrHOrH
•. •.
rH H
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
ooooo ooooooooooo
O ^3* O O O CJ\ t^ CN o O O O ro O rH ^
r~^ ^ vo o o ^* CN *3* r^ ro ro vo vo o m
CN O rH rH rHi O
rH H
O 0
O 0
o o
ro o
•tf CN]
rH CO
O CN
CN
0 0
o o
o o
cr> m
O vO
vo r^
CN r-H
1 — 1
o o
O 0
O 0
en r~
^P CO
O CTl
r^
O 0
O 0
O 0
ro co
r^ vo
r^ vo
^*
a o
0 0
O 0
oo •=?
O ro
^^ ^f
ro
o o o
o o o
0 O O
ro VO vO
vo LO en
en r^ CN
CN CN CN
CN
0 0 O
o o o
o o o
^* LQ r*~*
t^ CN ro
ro^ r^ ^P
•^ rH rH
f 1
O 0 O
O 0 O
O 0 O
VD ^jT ^T
ro ^o O
O
000
o o o
0 O O
rH ro -31
^ in ^
^j* vo in
-
in
co-
0 0 O
0 O O
0 O O
t~- •* ^r
ro CN in
in <^p ro
ro
{/>
o
o
o
in
rH
o
co
CN
0
o
o
VO
ro
in
H1
to-
0
o
o
^r
o
co
en
0
o
o
CO
ro
VO
VD
•w-
0
o
o
in
r-H
ro
^jT
•CO-
u
rfl !H
EH CU
CT> fi
C C
-P T) CO
CO 3 S
en en
C C
•H O
en -H
(d -P
m
-P G
C g M C
g CM C -H
4->
5 c
co g
CQ -H
q w
S CO CO 0) tj> O T)
cd CO T3 -rl -H
C CO
0 0)
-H-H-rl O O 0)UOH U+J
a> n
EH
CO
8
z
o
EH
CO
§
o
en
•H
tn
•rl rH
>M rd
a) en
a) cu
fi ,-q
•rH
ijl TJ
W rd
I
C
o
o
p
-P 0
en -rt
Q) -P
M u
cu p
| 1 r^j
G -P
H CO
co
H
CO
EH
H
S
U
182
-------
W
S
*-O
O
Q
CD
S
r-{
»•
1-1
f^
U
M
U)
^*
ffi
1
o
H
ffl
to
o> id
O rH
-P G rH
0)
O -P
«
S
in
•H C tj
§n
•rl H
t, 4-> ra
ft 14
H 8 3
g it!
S S
So.
U)
rH
0 O O
O rH O
•3* kO rH
1 1 1
Vl
0) G
3 0
O -H
ft -P
tcj
iS
3 M -X
G §
< 0
0 0
o o
ro ro
i
ro
rH
id Vj to
a o >-i
§•3 §
o ro o
r^ ^0 o
m <=r
"•
tj\
G G
O -rH
-rl Qj
-P § O*
n3 3 G
-P ft -H
G G
CD 0) 01
S CTi ^4
•H t! O
T) 3 -rl
m rH ,£•
CO co EH
& rV rV
id id id
6 fi 6
•rH -rH -rH
ft Pt ft
o o o o o
o o m rH in
(N (N n (N
i
(N ro (N
o
rH
IX 1 1 1 1
in
•
(N
O O O O O
o o o o r~
6\ o ^ co in
V » |
in vo r~^ c^
rH IN O
cr* o in o ^r
rH O (Tl 0) CTl
^o oo CTI in
I
rH
01 1-1
S 01
0) -P
+J id
G W S 01
O >H (U Dl
•rl CO -P T3 01
•P 01 3 C
Id 'O Id rH -H
^ C 0) S CO 01
4J O 0) Id
i — 1 -rH fa •. ^ fQ
•H 4^ M V^
[ii Id rH G G) 01 G
In id O S 6 O
6 01 O .Q >i >i -H
£J G '"H V( i — 1 i — 1 -P
3 -H g n) O 0 rd
f_> u CJ O 04 f^i M
HJ G fi 01
> H u rt
o o
0 0
O 00
«*
1 1
o o
0 0
O ro
*• «.
O f'O
(^
n
o o
O ro
r- r^
r-T
G
0
•rl
(J
id
^j
G
OJ
S
•rl
•d
0)
CO
^
01 !H
O "O
jj rJ
rd O
M O
jj id -P
(1> M Ol
1
1
1
1
G
•rl
m
id
W
•P
o
id
G
O
O
0)
•H
^
0
rH
6
o
o
ro
1
1 1
O 01
0) P
00 M
8
rH
rH
H)
•rl
VI
01
•p
t
^0 *N».
'N,1 W
3
O
c
0
CM
ro
1
rH ftf
o S
oa
O
CO O
•^"
•4-1
O
G In
01 O
e ja
04 id
•rl rH
3
tf E
<2 6 •
•O EH --H M
0) O G id
Ol EH -r-l 0)
frj f^ Cj ^S(
0 \
01 -H -a o
G -P O O
•rl flj E rH
M V4 d v/3-
O -P 01
rH rH M MH
Sri ft. O
fa rH
*
0)
1
0)
MH
o
<«>
O
-------
in
o
W
O
Q
i
in
U
H
w
>H
S3
04
I
O
H
CO
M
co id
O rH
4J C rH
co id o
0 G Q 0
U CO O
4-1 - VO
rH G CO
Id -H rH rH
3 id id
G a -n
G rH
tf, <4H CO
O 4-1
id
S
w
tti
rH C O
Q) O
3 -H rH
CM 4-i id
ft ri
rH g 3 I
id 3 4J
3 in n3
G G 2
G 0
rt! U -
PM
U
CO
SO 0
O -rl O
ft 4J ro
ft ^
r~i g £ ro
id 3 Is
3 co M
G G
C O
< U
rH 0
G
•H
ft
3
ft
01
$
3
rH
CO
r7
id
•H
jkj
ft
o
**p
rH
|
1
0
o
^j*
tj*
C
•rl
C
0)
u
•rl
rj
£_j
fr
0
o
o
«.
^
VD
O
H
X
VD
VD
O
0
O
*
O
o
0
ro
oq
C
O
•rl
| t
id
cu
G
•H
U
G
H
O O O
o en m
m m IN
^ i
CN
III 1
0 O 0
0 O O
o r^ o>
* * •• i
O VD CN
[•^
H
O O O
o o r-
r^ r^ *3*
i
rH
CO M
g 0)
D 4-1
4-> i 0) tT>
CO -P T3 CO
W 3 G
^ Id rH -H
a) 3 co co
a) id
rv i ^ te CQ
rH rH
-H C CD CD C
(dogs 0
U XI & >i -H
•H M rH rH -P
6 id o o m
CO U ft ft .H
X! CO
u *:
o o
o o
rH 00
«. *.
00 CN
1 1
o o
0 0
O ro
^ ^
O M
o
oo
^
rH
0 0
O 0
vD I"*1"
ro rH
G
0
•rl
4-)
id
4-1
G
CO
g
•H
rrj
co
co
^i
[0 rH
rH Id
o -a
•P C
id 0
rH U
CO CO
< CO
o
^J1
00
1
o
o
o
K
CN
^
o
ro
en
tn
G
•H
ft
P
ft
0)
•o
3
c/>
rH
3
•P
0)
04
0
rH
CN
1
1
0
o
^1
C
•H
G
0)
o
•H
f-J
EH
4^
•rl
>
id
CJ
o
o
o
h.
o
rH
VD
0
iH
X
VD
O
O
0
O
o
••
o
m
m
0
o
0
ro
G
O
•H
4-1
Id
•H
^
O
•rl
f^
4-1
0)
3
I
I
|
1
C
•rl
U]
id
m
4-1
o
id
•P
G
o
o
CO
C
•r|
^
O
rH
f-J
U
0 0
O ro
oo r-
i
rH OJ
VD
O
rH
1 1 X
VD
vO
vD
O
O
r~
I I
•^
en
vD
CN
0 0
rH ^*
VD "31
00
rH
4J
G
CO
g
ft
•H
3
Cr1
pq ,_]
rti
T3 H
Q) O
(1) EH
pt.| j^
o
CO -rl
C -P
•r-( (^J
y\ ^)
0 -P
H rH
,G -rl
U fe
184
-------
W
rH
CD Id
O r-l
4J G H
cn rd o
O fl Q
U "3* Of^roroo CN
1 1 - 1
rO rH ^P rH •*? CN
rH rH
O
O
VO
*.
r^
CO
a
ia
O
Q
U)
(d
H fl O
CD O
3 -rl
CM 4-1 rd
3 W rd
fl fl S
G O
< U
CM
O
W
in
1 1 1
VO
O\
O
vo
o
u-»
^
u
H
C/)
^1
tn
QJ
r-H
I
O
H
Q)
§
ft
H
(0
3
G
G
G
0
•rH
4-1
ft
3 [5
01 AJ
G
O
U
O
0
ro
%.
CO
o
o
o
^
ro
O
0
0
1 V
o
"-J1
rH
O
o
o
t,
o
CN
rH
o
O
O
1*
o
to
ro
O O
O 0
o in
*. «.
rH «*
r-H
O O
0 0
O C0
1
O VO
0
CO
*.
ro
O
O
O
1
CO
r^-
o
0
o
o
o
0
k
,H
1
o
o
VO
rH
ro
rH
cd SH w
3 0 rl
p; Q fi
G (d O
».
rH
O
O
1
in
o
o
v
CN
O O
O "3*
rH ^*
k.
rH
O
O
m
^
ro
O
co
i
o
yD
Q^
fc.
LO
CN
c
o
•rH
4J
(d
4J
C
tt)
g
•tH
•a
OJ
co
rl
rd
-H
!H
ft
tn
G
•H
ft
P
ft
0)
CT1
•O
3
rH
W
r7
rd
g
-H
^_j
ft
CT1
G
•rH
G
0)
U
-rH
rC
r7
rO
g
•H
r(
ft
G
O
•H
4J
rfl
M
4J
rH
•H
CM
D
3
O
rd
>
G
0
•P
rH
(U
C
•H
0
G
H
CO
g
§
4-1
01
>l
tf
CD
CD
CM
rH G
d 0
O .Q
•H in
g ro
CD O
X!
CJ
^1
0)
4-1
rd
S CD
CD CT>
4-1 Tf
03 3
rd H
[5 CO
«. V
CD CD
fU
rH rH
0 0
ft ft
Ul
G
-H
Ul
rd
ffl
G
0
-rl
4J
(d
rl
CD
G
0
•H
-P
cd
4-1
G
0)
g
•H
T)
0)
cn
01 M
in m
O T3
-P G
(d O
M O
(1) O
<; en
tn
c
•rl
ft
9
ft
CD
en
-o
3
rH
G
rH
3
4-1
CD
os
tn
CH
-H
C
0)
u
•rH
f-j
H
4->
•H
>
rd
rH
O
C
O
•H
4->
rd
T)
•H
X
O
rH
•rl
p^
•P
CD
s
G
•rH
CO
(0
ffl
4-1
O
rd
4-1
G
O
O
CD
G
-rl
rH
O
rH
X!
o
.p
C
g
ft
•H
^J
tr1
w
^3
a)
CD
CM
CD
G
•H
iH
O
r-H
fi
U
C
0
-rH
-P
rd
rH
4-1
rH
.,H
CM
EH
g
185
-------
W
rl
CQ
O
Q
in
(N
U
H
ffi
CU
I
o
H
CQ
tn
o; rd
O rH
4-1 G H
in rd 0
O G Q O O O
U 0) O O CTi
4-1 *• **D VD *3*
rH C tn
rd -H rH in in
3 rd rd
G S -H
G iH
<; MH d)
0 4->
rd
S
w
rd
rH C 0
CD O
3 -rt rH
fa 4J rd
ft !H
rH S 3 1 1 1
rd 3 P
3 tn id
C G 2
C 0
rt! O -
fe
U
co
rH O O
CD G 00
So UD m
O -H 1
ft 4-i ko r—
ft
rH § £
3 tn ^
G G
G O
rt! O
000
rH - o m co
1
O
0
O
«.
o
n
m
o
o
0
^
m
G
0
•-H
Jj
4->
rH
EM
3
3
U
rd
>
O
0
f)
».
00
k£>
0
rH
X
0
0
o
o
•h
o
o
m
o
o
ro
^
kO
0
•H
•P
fd
0)
c
•H
U
C
H
O O O
O O rH
rH ^ f~
- - 1
III 1
O O O
0 O 0
O O 1)
» - » 1
O CN CO
O CN
CTi
O O 0
o o m
o o r-
" - i
CN (N
rj) ^
6 CU
(1) 4-1
4-1 rd
CO S CU
>i 0) tn
in 4J T3 in
in 3 G
T3 rd rH -H
a) S to in
0) rd
Pn »* *. pf)
rH G cu CD c
rd 0 S E 0
O X! >< R -H
•H in iH H 4->
S rd 0 O rd
0) U ft ft iH
A OJ
O ri!
O
O
0
r>
H
I
0
O
o
o
o
oo
0
0
o
k.
rH
rH
tn
o
rd
^j
0)
0
o
in
«.
cr>
i
o
o
CN
*.
ro
rH
0
0
VD
•.
^
G
O
•rH
-P
rd
4-)
C
CU
S
•H
CD
W
iH
rd
t)
0
O
0)
CO
o
o
kD
^
CN
|
0
0
o
*.
o
p^
rH
O
O
m
^
rH
tn
G
•H
ft
£
3
ft
tn
•a
3
H
cn
c
3
4J
CD
&
0
0
1
1
0
in
tji
•H
G
0)
,X
U
•H
X!
EH
4->
•H
>
rd
J»|
O
O
0
0
m
CN
&
0
rH
^
CN
•
O
o
o
0
o
o
m
CN
0
o
o
^
m
G
O
•H
4-1
rd
•O
•H
X
O
•H
r^-C
4J
OJ
S
1
1
1
1
G
•rH
CO
rd
m
4J
o
rd
0
o
0)
c
•H
^1
0
rH
A
O
O
o
CO
•~ 1
CN
1 1
o
o
in
1
r~-
0
0
i
rH
O
O
O
CN
CN
rH
v£)
o
rH
X
CN
•
0
0
o
co
«.
^
kO
<*
to"
rH
0
, — 1
kb
5
•P
C
0)
e
ft
•H
73
tr1
^4
T3 EH
0) O
0) EH
En G
O
0) -H
G -P
•H fd
.M rH
0 -P
rH rH
rG 'H
U EM
186
-------
oo
o
W
g
c3
O
Q
O
m
a
o
H
C/3
ffi
I
O
M
«
03
SH
0) rd
U rH
-P C H
tn id 0
0 C Q 0
O 0) O
4-1 - m
I-H c tn *•
(d *rl ' — 1 0^
3 rd rd
C S -H
C rl
fj; IH d o
rij 1-3 tl?
C
0
•H
4J
m
4J
C
0)
•H
•d
0)
CO
r?
(Q
S
•rl
ft
O 0
o o
O CO
CTi
1 1
O
o
o
1
in
rH
0 0
"j o
ro i£>
CT*
G
•r|
0,
3 C
fli -H
c
CD a)
C71 r^
T! O
3 -rl
' — 1 d
0) EH
Jj J,!
03 nj
G 0
•H -H
M M
ft ft
o
0
0
t-T
in
i
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
^
C
o
•p
rd
4J
r-4
•H
fa
g
p
3
U
o
0
0
ro
T-H
^O
0
H
X
oo
CO
0
o
o
o
o
VD
O
0
o
H
C
O
•H
•P
M
0)
C
-rl
U
C
H
0 0 O
O O O
O VO H
O CN rH
rH
1 1 1
O O O
o o o
o o o
^ ^ V
a *$
O ro H
CO
iH
o o o
O 0 0
in w CM
CN ro rH
03 M
g (1)
0) 4-1
4J rd
in |3 d)
>i Q) en
CO -P TJ
CO 3
13 rd i — 1
0) S CO
(U
fa - *
H C 0) < >i
•rl ^| H rH
e tf o o
0) U ft ft
O
t
1
1
1
M
C
•rl
in
rd
PQ
C
o
•H
4J
rd
rl
(U
O
0
O
ro
CM
1
O
O
0
o
o
o
r-
rH
o
o
0
.-H
CN
tn
O
4J
rl
rd
4-)
C
(U
e
•H
T)
0)
CO
£>1
rl
C
o
u
CO
0 0
o o
O CN
in rH
i i
o
o
o
o
^*
ro
O O
o 01
O CO
CM
CD
C
•rl
p( £n
6 ^
3 *rl
fU £H
0)
3) ^
cn o
""CJ *H
3 X5
rH B
CO
C -P
rl -rl
3 >
4-> rd
0) rl
P< O
0
O
0
m
^r
vD
o
rH
X
^d*
•
O
o
o
o
K
o
o
in
*>r
o
o
o
r>
C
0
•rl
4-1
rd
TJ
•H
X
Q
^
•H
^4
4J
CU
I
I
1
1
1
fi
•rl
to
rd
•P
U
flj
•P
C
o
u
0)
C
•rl
rl
O
rH
(~|
U
0 O
o o
m r-
^ i ^
^i •*
ro \£>
CTi
rH
U)
O
rH
1 1 X
r^<
«
00
00
0 O
O 0
o CM
** 1 *
m H
rH O
o
in
CN
o o
O ID
ro •*
01 rH
4-1
C
e
a
•rl
3
W J
T! H
<0 O
0) ^
fa C
0
0) -H
fi -P
•H nj
M rl
0 4->
rH rH
r] -rl
CJ fa
187
-------
TABLE 109
BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS, ANNUAL COST SUMMARY, 1 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
4,315,000 x 0.09439 $407,293
Labor
8,201 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 73,809
Power
469,570 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 9,391
Fuel
2.52 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 3,780
Maintenance Materials $ 17,900
Chemicals
Carbon
26 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 16,900
Polymer
15,200 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 4,560
Chlorine
4.6 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 1,012
TOTAL $533,745
Cost/MG @ Capacity = 375 = $1,462/MG
188
-------
TABLE 110
BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS, ANNUAL COST SUMMARY, 5 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
6,638,000 x 0.09439 $ 626,561
Labor
18,440 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 165,960
Power
2,694,700 kwh @ $0.02/kWh $ 53,894
Fuel ,.
6.66 x 10b SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 9,990
Maintenance Materials $ 42,730
Chemicals
Carbon
130 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 84,500
Polymer
76,100 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 22,830
Chlorine
23 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 5,060
TOTAL $1,011,525
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $°125 = $554/MG
189
-------
TABLE 111
BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS, ANNUAL COST SUMMARY, 10 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
9,804,000 x 0.09439 $ 925,400
Labor
25,960 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 233,640
Power
5,316,400 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 106,328
Fuel ,
15.09 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 23,635
Maintenance Materials $ 67,600
Chemicals
Carbon
260 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 169,000
Polymer
152,205 Ib @ $0.30/lb $ 45,660
Chlorine
46 Tons @ $220/Ton $ 10,120
TOTAL $1,580,383
Cost/MG @ Capacity = '3 = $433/MG
190
-------
TABLE 112
BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS, ANNUAL COST SUMMARY, 25 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital (§7%, 20 Years
17,536,000 x 0.09439 $1,655,223
Labor
44,140 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 397,260
Power
13,464,800 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 269,296
Fuel
40.2 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 60,300
Maintenance Materials $ 122,000
Chemicals
Carbon
650 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 424,500
Polymer
280,512 Ibs @ $0.30/lb $ 114,153
Chlorine
115 Tons 0 $100/Ton $ 11,500
TOTAL $3,052,232
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $5'2 = $334/MG
191
-------
TABLE 113
BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS, ANNUAL COST SUMMARY, 50 MGD
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 Years
28,015,000 x 0.09439 $2,634,335
Labor
71,460 Hours @ $9/Hour $ 643,140
Power
25,001,200 kWh @ $0.02/kWh $ 500,024
Fuel ,
88.4 x 10 SCF @ $1.50/TCF $ 132,600
Maintenance Materials $ 132,600
Maintenance Materials $ 196,700
Chemicals
Carbon
1,300 Tons @ $650/Ton $ 845,000
Polymer
761,025 Ibs @ $0.30/lb $ 228,300
Chlorine
230 Tons @ $100/Ton $ 23,000
TOTAL $5,203,099
Cost/MG @ Capacity = $°'°.9 = $286/MG
192
-------
W
hJ
a
o
o
o
•p
CO
0
u
rH
rd
Q
i
^
-P
•H
O
rd
U
o
in
m
CN
•^rooror^ inooro
ro-^orocn -* CN CN
VO ^O in rH H 00 CN
v
CM
in r~^ o> o CN ro "^ i — I
incnyD^DCN CNrHH
^D rO CN rH ^l1 rH
V
<-*
ro
o
CN
>.
in
CN
in
o
v
ro
O
rH
in ^3* vo ro oo cr* ^o o
CN ro O CN VQ VO'Sj'rH
rH
I"**1* *^* Cf^ *^1 t^** r*^" ^f r^
O t^ rH rH
•*
rH
H
O
H
ro
ro
un
CT>
CN
•
O
v>
ro
ro
•
O
•00-
ro
•^1*
•
0
m
m
*
o
so
"sf
*
*~*J
r-l
rd
-P
rd
u
(U
N
-p
o
M
O
OJ
rfl O
Q)
CO
rH
id
•H
0)
43
rd
g
Q)
O
C
rd
G
0)
4->
C
•H
rd
g
• •
en
rH
rd
O
-H
g
(U
O
i_)
c M
-P
•H
O
04
rd
O
tn
c!
•r-(
-P
rd
}_l
0)
Oi
0
193
-------
SECTION 9
EVALUATION OF RELATIVE ECONOMICS
Because of the fact that the powdered carbon processes are still
in the developmental stage, the preceding cost estimates are
based on assumptions some of which may prove to be either overly
optimistic or pessimistic. Thus, it is the purpose of this
section to evaluate the potential impact of some key assumptions
on relative costs.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE AND GRANULAR CARBON SYSTEMS
The following summarized the costs calculated previously for
activated sludge and granular carbon systems:
$/l,000 Gallons
1 MGD 5 MGD 10 MGD 25 MOD 50 MGD
Activated Sludge
Conventional 1.02 0.49 0.38 0.29 0.24
Single Stage Nitrification 1.10 0.51 0.41 0.31 0.26
Two Stage Nitrification 1.21 0.59 0.46 0.35 0.29
Conventional with Coagulation
and Filtration 1.49 0.71 0.55 0.44 0.37
Granular Carbon System 1.84 0.73 0.58 0.46 0.40
Independent physical chemical treatment utilizing the granular
carbon system is clearly not economically competitive with con-
ventional activated sludge systems. However, if effluent standards
require high degrees of removal of phosphorus and suspended solids,
then the granular carbon system is comparable in costs to activated
sludge treatment followed by coagulation and filtration for plants
of 5 mgd or greater in capacity. The potential impact of savings
in land costs should also be considered. As an example, if one
assumes a land savings of 10 acres for the 10 MGD capacity, the
cost savings which result from a land price (land amortized at
7 percent, 20 years) of $l,000/acre would be only $0.00025/1,000
gallons or at $50,000/acre, only $0.0125/1,000 gallons. Thus,
unless land costs are extremely high, the cost savings from
194
-------
reduced space requirements are not significant in the relative
economics of biological processes and purely physical chemical
processes.
BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION, TWO STAGE
Detailed estimates of conventional activated sludge and single
stage nitrification were presented earlier. In order to determine
the potential economic position of the bio-physical powdered
carbon process (which is claimed to provide stable nitrification),
it proved desirable to also estimate the cost of two-stage
biological nitrification — a commonly used approach. Table 115
summarized the results of this calculation. The costs are based
on providing aeration (three hour detention), final sedimentation
(600 gpd/ft*), and return sludge pumping (50 percent Q)
downstream of conventional activated sludge. Costs were determined
using the appropriate cost curves in the Appendix.
EIMCO SYSTEM
The basic Eimco process is based on two stages of carbon contact
preceded by chemical coagulation and sedimentation. Although
carbon requirements would increase, capital costs and O&M costs
would be decreased by eliminating the second stage contactors.
The maximum potential gain for cost savings in a single stage
system would be represented by the costs using the same carbon
dosage used in the two-stage system — realizing that some of
this potential gain would probably be offset by increased carbon
costs. Table 116 summarizes the results of the calculations.
Total annual cost savings of 4-6 percent resulted — not enough
to significantly alter the competitive position of the process
relative to granular carbon or biological processes.
Eimco's work indicated that carbon dosages as low as 100 mg/1 may
be practical (while producing an effluent quality of 5 mg/1 COD,
5 mg/1 SS, and 0.3 mg/1 phosphorus) under some conditions. Thus,
costs were also calculated for the system based on a 100 mg/1
carbon dosage. Table 117 summarizes the results. The lower
carbon dosage has a significant impact on the economics and would
place the two-stage system in a comparable but competitive
position with granular carbon systems. Should the single stage
system be successful at a 100 mg/1 carbon dosage, then the Eimco
system would be lower in cost than the granular carbon system.
Some work is being done on generating powdered activated carbon
from waste materials which might provide a carbon low enough in
cost that it could be used on a throwaway basis. Table 118 shows
the impact that use of 5C/lb and IC/lb throwaway carbon (300 mg/1
dosage) would have on the two-stage Eimco system. The cost would
have to be IC/lb for the system to be competitive with the
granular carbon system. It was assumed that the carbon sludge
would be dewatered and hauled (40 mile haul) to a disposal site.
195
-------
H
H
W
CQ
^•J
EH
S3
O
EH
U
H
H
PH Q
EH O
H -^ g
•g 0
O
W °
0 rH
EH ~
CO
1 4-)
O M
s o
B 0
£H ' — 1
Pi ^
si c
•=-" ^
P £> CM
r~ co ^r in H r^ ^
r- r^ ^r •* CN k£
r7
0
CO en
00 rg
in o
•co-
in
CM
O rH l>- O [-» CO rH
O CO CM H CO n (M
CO 'J' CN) CN rH n
H
CM m
CN 00
ro o
rr\
o
rH
o r^ ^D m in ro crt
f^o vo cTi i>* v£) ro CN
O 04 rH
H
u">
i^D
•H 0
•C/J-
m
^t CO CO ^D CO [^ ^
l-O rH
in uo
co
0 0
i.0-
rH
, — |
in co CT* v£> en co c^>
H f^ rH rH
ro
r-l
ro
^ »H
^ -w-
0
U
(0
J-l
•rH
a
fO
u
0)
N
•rH
-P
M
0
0)
3
0)
u
(S
,
•H rH H
S A 0
0) O 0*
X!
O
I
o
EH
en
0
rH
rH
(0
O
O
o
CO
O
O
196
-------
w
PQ
W
O
EH
cn
w
o
cn o
o
i o
4J
CQ
O
U
rd
C
G
Q
O
a
o
in
r^ co
rH 00
m r-
^
00
in
CM
^j* r^*
vo r^*
0 T3<
*.
CN
O
rH
i^- oo
l-D O
rH 00
V
rH
in
H H
r^ CN
r~- CM
rH
^ji CO
"sf rH
^J1 1 — 1
rH
rd
4-1
•H
0,
rd
O
tJ
0)
N
•H
^j ^_j
M O
O ,Q
i 3
o in oo
vo ^ oo
^O ^D 00
TOO
r^. ^ji (\j
oo oo CM
CM CM 00
in «* rH
rH rH H
VD m cr>
CO CO VD
OO CO ^Q
CM CN CN
CO
rH
fd
•H
JL^
Q)
fd
a
0)
o
G
rd
G
Q)
^H 4-^
OJ rH G
£ CU -H
O d rd
f-u fa a
CN
*}*
CN
k.
CM
rH
CN
rH
V
H
CO
T
T
T
CN
CM
in
"*
C
0
XI
rd
U
* 'O
CO 0)
I-H !H
rd
in
.
O rH CM
m H -^
oo i — I
[ — • CO
00 VD
^J< •
•* O
in v>
o o r^
•V rH LT>
rH
t~~ 00
vo r*^*
VD •
o
CN
o in oo
r- CM
VO CTi
CM 00
UD •
O
H -W-
O rH VO
rH
VD
CTi
T •
rH H
r^ *)
rH TJ 4->
cn 3 -H
rH O
c cn fd
O rfl p(
X5 >1 1-5 H fd
M SH < rd O
rd fd EH U
U g O H O tJi
rH G 0^ O C
(U -H •• -H
g H - -H 4-1
>, O 0) \ fd
rH rH g CO SH
O X! -H -P _|
CD
O T3
•CO- V-|
o
G
•rH
oo
o g
• {Q CU
CM
{/>
CO
rH
rd
o
o G
o o
CU O -H
C7> «• 4->
fd rH O
4J\ 3
cn co fO
4-) Q)
O CO P<
£ 0
EH U <*>
4->
CO
»>i
cn
Q)
Cn
fd
4J
cn
o
EH
g
O
MH
rrj
0)
01
G
rd
X!
0
G
*
•
4->
o
rd
•P
C
O
o
G
0
XI
H
rd
0
M-l
O
CU
Cn
rd
4J
CO
T)
G
O
O
0)
CO
Cn
C
•H
.jj
fd
G
•H
g
•H
rH
(U
g
o
q_)
CQ
01
C
•H
>
rd
CO
197
-------
w
M
2
o
CQ
ptj
fj^
U
\
g
o
o
rH
^^
EH 0
rtj O
o
g
W rH
EH -tO-
CO —
>H
CO -P
10
0 0
u u
g
HI— 1
i^n
W rd
>H G
rt G
(^ ^
g
§
Q
O
g
O
in
in
CN
O OO ^D
O O ^"
o r^ oo
V
00
r~~
i-D CN
^ ^J*
00
O
oo •(/}-
\S) o r^
^f rH m
oo r^
r~- m
o
^ o
CN
oo in oo
CN
il rH i£>
CTv
CO
rH
CTi rH
VD •(/)-
CU
Cn
'O CU ^*^
nJ &i J>i
rH "^3 -P
CO 3 -rH
rH O
G CO rrj
o w a
A >i ^5 rH rd
M M < rd U
rd (d En O
U g 0 ®
•H EH 0
•» CU ^ o Cn
M G fr o G
CU -rl »-H
I rl - -H 4J
>i o cu \ rrj
H rH g CO V-l
O £ -H -P (U
ft U i-5 CO Qj
o o
CJ ^
198
-------
oo
w
i
o
o
oo
13
O
CQ
O
D -o-
co in
CO >t
O i «
a EH
w
EH
O
O
O
CO
o
o
(0
Q
i
o
m
in
CN
0
H
in
rH
in oo o in o o r- 1 in rH CN oo oo
r~-^ruDoocNOOr-
oorHin-NprHin moo ^rHin
OO rH rH "* rH rH
rH
CNCNCNCNOCN OOU3rHOinCX)
•«rcNooror~-oo CN^D r~- CN
U3 CN CN
CN
rHrH'^OO'S'in VDOOOOrH>>D
LOrH rHCNOO 'S/rHrH
00 H
00 CO 00
OO ^J* OO
O 0
00 •{/}• i/y
CO 00 00
CN in •>*
oo
o o
00 00 00
isD vo in
O 0
CN -CO- V>
00 rH rH
r- oo r-
^ O 0
rH V>
co co
i£> in
rH rH H
s;
w
EH
CO
>H
CO
o
u
H
w
zed Capital
•H
4-)
±4
0
<3
^
0
rd
J
j_i
Q)
0
CU
rH
CD
£}
Cn
nance Materials
Q)
4-1
G
•H
rd
5J
Handling
CD
13
rH
CO
als:
ered Carbon
0 T3 5
6 O rH
0) CU <
r;
u
mer, Wastewater
mer, Carbon Sludge
rine
>t >i O
rH rH rH
0 0 X!
CM CU O
, Primary Sludge
TOTAL
1,000 Gals
Q)
E
•H
i_3
\
CO
4-J
CO
o
u
ting @ Capacity)
rd
r4
0)
a
o
CO
rH
O
O
o
o
rH
\
CQ XI
4-J rH
CO \
O 0
U rH
199
-------
As noted earlier, the FBF regeneration system costs (Appendix
curves 28, 99-102) are based on loadings recommended independently
by two manufacturers. Because the independently determined
loading rates (higher than the three Ib/hr indicated by the
Battelle-Northwest study1) were virtually identical, they were
used as the basis of the FBF costs in the basic cases of each
process. Although this assumption appears reasonable, the impact
of using a loading rate of three Ib/ft2/hr was determined as
shown in Table 119. The impact is quite significant and the
process costs would be substantially higher should the lower
FBF loading rate prove necessary.
The impact that a 50 percent reduction in labor, power, and fuel
costs would have on overall costs is shown in Table 120. Such
a large reduction is not likely but Table 120 indicates that
even such a major reduction would still not place the process in
a competitive position with the granular carbon process. Should
the cost of powdered activated carbon be reduced by 50 percent,
approaching the levels of 2-3 years ago, a savings of 6C/1,000
gallons would result for all capacities.
BATTELLE PROCESS
A dominant factor in determining the cost of the basic Battelle
process is the large carbon (600 mg/1) and alum (200 mg/1)
dosages specified. These, in turn, affect the cost of sludge
handling and regeneration facilities. The costs using the same
alum dosages (125 mg/1) used in the Eimco process and a carbon
dosage of 200 mg/1 were calculated. Table 121 presents the
results. The impact on costs is dramatic — providing about a
50 percent reduction in capacities of 5 MGD or more. The
reduction places the costs significantly (20-34 percent) below
the costs of the granular carbon system.
The potential for economic gains through use of cheap, throwaway
carbon is limited with this process because of the questionable
practicality of disposing of the sludge (a mixture of raw sewage
solids, alum sludge, and carbon) after merely dewatering. If
incineration were practiced (so as to be comparable to the other
processes), the savings resulting from elimination of the FBF
would be largely offset by the costs of incineration. If the
price of carbon were reduced 50 percent, the cost of the basic
Battelle process (600 mg/1 carbon) would be reduced 12<;/1,000
gallons. At a carbon dosage of 200 mg/1, the lower carbon price
would result in a savings of 4C/1,000 gallons.
The Battelle data indicate that the need for effluent filtration
is marginal. If effluent filtration were eliminated, the following
savings would result (cost/1,000 gallons): 1 MGD - 22*; 5 MGD -
7C; 10 MGD - 5£; 25 MGD - 3.4*; 50 MGD - 2.4*.
200
-------
CN
-P
00
K O
cn
W
o
o
o
*.
rH
H -P
OJ rH C
> Q) -H
O 3 rd
A En g
CQ
H
rd
O
•rH
a
0)
X!
U
G
O
XI
r4
rd
U
"0
0)
!H
i
3 rH
H O
^ CM
Sludge
c
o
XI
M
rd
U
>.
M
0)
1
rH
0
Oi
(1)
a
•H
M
O
rH
X!
C)
(U
tn
•O
3
rH
CO
>1
rH
rd
fs
•H
M
fc
CD
g
•rH
r^
r^
<
EH
O
EH
>n
-P
-H
o
w rd
•H CX
rd rd
O U
o GJ
o
o Cn
- C
rH -H
\/> -P
\ rd
CQ M
-P 0)
CQ a,
o o
u —
-p
CQ
o
CJ
CQ
CQ
CD
o
o
M
PM
o
u
g
•rl
o
•H
CQ
rd
PQ
Q)
CQ
rd
Q)
H
O
£
201
-------
W
D
O
CN
w
(Q
rij
EH
£3
CO
EH
W
O
O
,_}
<
§
<
rf
r4
2
H
s
o
H
EH
U
Q
W
o
m
d"
U
S3
H
w
rH
•w-
4J
W
0
U
rH
rd
C
Q
O
a
o
in
m
CM
o
rH
m
rH
<^ O O CN O CNin<— ICNrorO
m o "a* CN CO •S' V£> r-H O CN 00
oo rr ro ro ro (N^o r-~ CN
^ «w
ro CM
r~- in
00 O CN O rH rHCNinOi-HCN
^J* ^O O^ ["*"*" ^3* C^J f^O t-O r^ ^J1
(NCNrHiHCN i— I CO m H
V «.
CN H
ro
m -^ co rH CN corocNoor^-
oo ^o r^ r^ CN *^ ro ^3* I-H in
CN rH rH tj- H rH
rH
rH
r~ (Ti m CN ro -^voi-Homco
rOt-HTrPr^ CN^D r-- CN
00 rH CN
CN
^f o CN ^d* r^ in ro o o • — ( vo
^Dr^rHrHCN 'i'rH rH
r--
-l
QJ
Jj
0
ft
H
QJ
fa
ce Materials
G
m
QJ
4-1
c
-H
rd
s
w
i — i
rd
o
•H
g
QJ
X!
U
d Carbon
QJ
M
QJ
rQ g
[5 3
0 rH
ft
-------
CN
w
m
s
D
<
\
O
s
in
CN
rH
Q
<
J3
0
§
U
^
o
S
o
o
CN
BJ
EH
H
CO
co
w
u
o
Pi
— Q
o O
o S
o
,__!
•CO-
CO
4J
CO
0
U
rH
a
d
c
a
o
m
co m m en ^ cNinooi— icri^ooo
^O CTi t^ O rH <7> t-~ VO O> O rH CN
00 •** in •"* rH OOCN CNOO
*. ^
rH rH
in
CN
OO
^
^
m
CN
r^ m <^> o o (^ co rH m o co rH
CO rH 00 rH CO »* 00 CO T OO O rH
rH ^3" CN CN VDrHrH^J*
>.
rH
r~-
00
m
V
00
o
H
oo m T *3* ^i* oomcococNooo
o co m cr> in rHr^inrHinvorH
VD rH rH CN i-H
CT^
r^
U3
rH
m
CN r«- u> oo in o\'3(jDCNin
i — | 00 t T CO ^J* CN CN 00
** rH rH
CTi
0
o
».
H
rH
CO
O CN CO rH f» CNr^-inrHinvDrH
CN O CN rH H CN rH
CN rH
o
oo
^
in
co
•
o
to-
Oi
co
•
o
tO-
^>o
•^
•
o
•co-
in
m
•
o
•co-
co
rH
rH
•w-
M
EH
EH
m
rd
•H
U
-a
a;
N
•rH
4J
O (U H
(0
0)
CO
fd
rH
•H
JH
CD
4J
(0
s
Q)
U
G
G
0)
-P
G
•H
fd
S
M
0)
-P
rd
^ 0)
Q) Cn
•P T3 'O
CQ 2 -H
(0 rH O
!2 CO <
^ ^ O CU J
CQ M M -H G <
<-\ G CU 0) SH -H EH
rd O S S d SH O
U 6 ^3 0) >i >iMH O EH
•H 3 S-l grHrHrHrH
gi— lrd-HOO3.G
CDrtJOi-^ftftCOC,)
X!
U
Jx,
-p
•H
0
rd
CQ CX
rH (0
rd U
O
C2^
o
O CTi
o G
rH -P
CO M
-P 0)
CQ di
0 0
u —
203
-------
BIO-PHYSICAL PROCESS
The criteria used for the basic version of this process are
reported to reliably provide nitrification and also represent the
basis on which most of the available data on this process have
been collected. Zimpro advised CWC that the system could be
designed to provide carbonaceous oxygen demand removal without
nitrification. They suggested reducing the aeration time to
1.4 hours with an accompanying reduction in aerator size. Sludge
yields were expected to increase from 0.5 Ib VS/lb BOD removed
to 0.7 Ib VS/lb BOD removal. Makeup carbon requirements were
expected to be 12 mg/1 rather than the 17 mg/1 used in the basic
case. Table 122 summarizes the results of the cost calculations.
The following compares the bio-physical process with the activated
sludge process.
$/l,OOP Gallons
1 MGD 5 MGD 10 MGD 25 MGD 50 MGD
Activated Sludge
Conventional 1.02 0.49 0.38 0.29 0.24
Single Stage
Nitrification 1.10 0.51 0.41 0.31 0.20
Two-Stage
Nitrification 1.21 0.59 0.46 0.35 0.29
Bio-Physical
Basic Process 1.46 0.55 0.43 0.33 0.29
Carbonaceous Carbon 1.43 0.52 0.39 0.30 0.26
If the bio-physical process provides a degree of stability of
nitrification comparable to two-stage activated sludge, the
bio-physical process would offer an economic advantage for plants
of 5 MGD capacity or larger. It does not offer an economic
advantage over single-stage nitrification. With the carbonaceous
criteria, the bio-physical process is comparable in costs to
conventional activated sludge.
If powdered carbon costs were reduced by 50 percent, the costs
of the process would be reduced by 2C/1,000 gallons.
COST SENSITIVITY TO CARBON LOSSES
Table 123 illustrates the effects that substantial reductions in
carbon losses would have on process economics for the powdered
carbon processes. Reduction in losses to 5% would represent a
very significant improvement over the 14-16% values reported in
the pilot studies to dates. Even if the losses, including blow-
down, could be reduced to this low level, the powdered carbon
204
-------
CM
CM
1
l~~l
W
J
«
l^J
EH
H
W
EH
H
tf
O
CO
D
O Q
>H W O
« y a
a 2
a o
D CQ
en c<
EH U
cn
O -
u cn
cn
J W
< u
53 0
2 PM
^i
i_q
fjj
U
vo 0*1 o ro r^-
O 00 00 CF> CO rH
in in in ro rH CM
CM
r-~ o o o cr\
m oo r~ CM \o CM
CM in CO CM rH
>.
rH
00 CM CM CO 00
O ^D CN 00 CM <£>
H 00 CM
^D rH T O CO
m o vo T rH T
tD rH
CM CTi CM "* r~-
rH •(
H
O
CD
CD
C
^1
O
H
X!
U
^
rfj
EH
0
EH
CQ
rH
rd
O
O
o
o
«.
rH
\
CO
-P
CQ
O
@ Capacity
cn
e
-P
rd
n
cu
p.
O
a u
205
-------
TABLE 123
PROCESS COSTS SENSITIVITY TO CARBON LOSS
Process
Eimco
Basic
Optimistic
Battelle
Basic
Optimistic
Bio-Physical
Basic
Optimistic
% Makeup
Carbon
15
5
14
5
14.6
5
$71,000
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
MGD
.08
.99
.70
.55
.46
.43
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
MGD
.94
.85
.97
.82
.55
.52
10
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Gallons
MGD
77
68
87
72
43
40
25
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MGD
62
54
78
63
33
30
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
M(
56
48
71
55
29
26
206
-------
processes still would not be competitive with the granular carbon
process costs. A comparison of costs and characteristics for
commercially available powdered activated carbons is presented at
the end of the appendix.
COMPOSITION OF PROCESS COSTS
Table 124 shows the composition of the total annual costs for
the various basic processes evaluated in this study. The com-
position of costs for a capacity of 10 MGD is illustrative for
capacities of 5 MGD - 50 MGD. Power and fuel costs are relatively
insignificant indicating that "fine-tuning" of these parameters
would not result in a significant change in process costs. Also,
changes in labor costs by a factor as high as 2 would result in
changes of only about 5-7 percent in most processes. A change
in carbon dosage is one of the most significant variables in
the IPC powdered carbon systems because it has a major, direct
impact on chemical costs and the sludge handling and regeneration
system costs — which comprise a large portion of the capital
costs, the single largest component of costs.
CARBON REGENERATION COSTS
Table 125 summarizes the costs of carbon regeneration for each of
the basic processes. Costs of powdered carbon dewatering are not
included as part of the regeneration costs. Dewatering of the
carbon sludge would be required prior to disposal in any case.
Thus, dewatering costs are not attributable to regeneration.
The costs of granular carbon regeneration correspond closely to
those projected in the EPA Technology Transfer manual on carbon
adsorption.
SENSITIVITY TO SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHOD
As noted earlier, all cost estimations for comparative evaluation
were based on the use of incineration. Relative economics would
change with selection of alternate sludge disposal methods.
Incineration is more costly than digestion and landfill, digestion
and landspreading composting, or ocean dumping in most areas.
Consequently, if these methods were considered, overall sludge
disposal would be less costly. This reduction in cost would not
be uniform between processes, however, since sludge disposal costs
represent a different fraction of total costs for each alternative.
Specifically, sludge disposal represents 30-50 percent of capital
costs for the activated sludge, nitrification, and granular carbon
options. For PAC processes, sludge disposal accounts for 0-25
percent of capital costs. This difference is due to the lower
quantities of sludge handled in PAC processes since much of the
solids are routed through the carbon regeneration step. The
implication here is that consideration of alternate sludge disposal
options (less expensive) will tend to reduce economic incentive
207
-------
o
•rH CO
CO CO
>i CD
,C U
ft O
I M
O ft
•H
03
O
T^j ll
fd ft
PQ
o
ro
CO 00 CN ON
«ii
O
CO
O CO
U 0)
g o
-H O
W rH
ft
vo CM
in
CO
CN
CM
rH
W
EH
W
O
CO
CO
w
o
o
«
ft
U
M Pi
fd H g
rH Q)
3 G -P
G O CO
(d .Q >i
U
ro CN in
IT)
O
CN
o
o
H
CO
O
ft
g
CJ
0
QJ -H rH
> 4-> CO
G O
O <
U
CO U3
in rH
in
rH
(0
4->
•H
O*
m
u
t)
QJ
N
•H
4_) J_|
M O
0 rQ
g t)
< 1-3
CO
rH
(0
•H
rH
QJ
-p
(C
a
QJ
U
C
nj
£j
QJ
M 4-1
QJ rH C
!5 QJ -H
O 3 (0
ft CM S
en
rH
fd
o
•H
g
QJ
(""]
CJ
208
-------
TABLE 125
CARBON REGENERATION COSTS
Annual Costs ($1,000)
GRANULAR CARBON
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Carbon Loss
TOTAL
1,000 Ibs Carbon Regenerated
Per Year
Cost/lb Regenerated Carbon
POWDERED CARBON SYSTEMS
Eimco
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Carbon Loss
TOTAL
1,000 lb Carbon Regenerated
Per Year
Cost/lb Regenerated Carbon
MGD
1
151
8.5
0.9
15
2
22
199.4
547.5
36. 4C
111
8
14
10
2
45
190
913
20.8*
5
184
36
4.0
27
6
109
366
2,737
13.4
196
15
57
52
4
224
548
4,565
12. OC
10
236
61
6.5
55
8
219
585
5,474
10.7
301
22
98
95
5
448
969
9,130
10. 6
-------
TABLE 125 (Cont'd.)
Annual Cost ($1,000)
Battelle
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Carbon Loss
TOTAL
1,000 Ibs Carbon Regenerated
Per Year
Cost/lb Regenerated Carbon
Bio-Physical
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Carbon Loss
TOTAL
1,000 Ibs Carbon Regenerated
Per Year
Cost/lb Regenerated Carbon
MGD
1
144
11
27
30
4
83
299 1
1,826 9
16.4
131
5
2
0.03
2
17
157
350 1
45C
5
314
27
98
126
7
432
,004
,132
11.0
131
27
11
0.1
10
85
264
,750
150
10
537
31
210
252
9
825
1,864
18,264
10.2
183
32
20
0.13
14
169
418
3,500
11.9$
25
1,179
54
420
577
13
2,064
4,307
45,662
9.4
238
45
50
0.3
25
423
871
8,750
9.9C
50
2,227
76
700
945
17
4,127
8,092
91,323
8.9
589
63
90
0.6
45
845
1,632
17,500
9. 30
210
-------
for PAC processes even further and, therefore, more strongly
endorse the alternative processes. Among the PAC processes
themselves, lower sludge disposal costs would render the Eimco
and Bio-Physical Processes more competitive with the Battelle
Northwest process. The latter utilizes no sludge disposal since
the entire waste stream is routed through the fluidized bed
regeneration facility. Hence, while reductions in sludge disposal
costs would decrease costs for the Eimco and Bio-Physical
processes, they would have no effect on the Battelle-Northwest
process. Annual operating costs changes would have a similar
effect since they are tied directly to the volume of sludge
processed.
With respect to the size of the facility, it is clear that less
costly sludge disposal would have a greater effect on the
economics of smaller plants since sludge disposal accounts for
a large fraction of total costs in these facilities than in
larger plants. This trend holds throughout the facility sizes
evaluated. The effects would be greatly different for plants
where regeneration was not employed. Here, sludge disposal
would be a major cost factor and reduced costs would improve
relative process economics with respect to activated sludge and
nitrification.
COMPARISON OF TOTAL ANNUAL COST COMPONENTS
FOR 10 MGD IPC SYSTEMS
In order to summarize the underlying causes of the non-competive
economic position of the basic IPC powdered carbon systems,
Table 126 was prepared.
Eimco vs Granular Carbon
The three clarifier system results in slightly higher capital
costs and labor costs for the Eimco system. Power requirements
are higher primarily due to the FBF power demands. Fuel require-
ments are higher primarily because the weight of carbon involved
is significantly higher for the Eimco system. About 65 percent
of the total cost difference occurs in the area of chemical
costs — primarily related to the higher Eimco carbon dosage
(2,500 Ib/MG vs 1,500 Ib/MG and higher carbon losses (14
percent vs 8 percent). The need for polymer conditioning of
the powdered carbon sludge while granular carbon readily dewaters
without conditioning accounts for another major cost difference
($140,160/year of polymer costs).
Battelle vs Granular Carbon
The capital costs of the Battelle system are quite favorable
because there is only one step of clarification and the organic,
chemical, and carbon sludges are handled in one system —
eliminating duplication of dewatering and thermal equipment.
211
-------
TABLE 126
COMPARISON OF TOTAL ANNUAL COST COMPONENTS,
10 MGD IPC SYSTEMS
Granular
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
Alum
Polymer, Wastewater
Polymer, Sludge
Polymer, Carbon Sludge
Lime
Chlorine
Sulfuric Acid
TOTAL
Carbon
$1,
$2,
195,638
284,000
45,500
102,600
76,600
219,000
133,000
2,300
-
-
56,700
10,120
-
125,378
Eimco
$1,284,648
327,600
156,118
142,500
121,970
448,500
133,000
2,300
-
140,160
56,700
10,120
-
$2,823,616
Battelle
$ 945,490
298,800
262,466
252,000
71,510
825,500
29,400
18,132
103,660
-
84,360
10,120
261,288
$3,162,726
Cost/MG @ Capacity
582
774
867
212
-------
The limited capital facilities also result in comparable labor
costs. Power and fuel costs are higher due to the FBF demands --
which are further aggravated by the very large quantities of
carbon involved (5,000 Ib/MG vs 1,500 Ib/MG. The net
difference in costs results primarily from the higher chemical
costs. The costs of recovered alum are higher than the cost
of fresh alum. In addition, the basic case assumed a 200 mg/1
alum dosage as compared to 125 mg/1 in the granular carbon
system. The high carbon dose not only results in higher
chemical and operating costs but adversely affects the capital
cost of the dewatering and regeneration equipment. As shown
earlier, reduction of the carbon dosage to 200 mg/1 and alum
dosage to 125 mg/1 in itself would reduce the cost of the
Battelle system to a value significantly lower than the granular
carbon system.
SENSITIVITY OF GRANULAR CARBON
COSTS TO CARBON DOSAGE
The costs of the granular carbon IPC system presented throughout
the report are based on a carbon dosage of 1,500 Ib/million
gallons. At a carbon loading of 0.5 Ib COD/lb carbon, this
corresponds to a situation where a 90 mg/1 of COD is being
removed by the carbon. There are cases where the carbon loading
may be higher, the applied COD may be lower, or both of these
conditions may occur. Thus, Tables 127 and 128 were prepared
to show the impact that carbon dosages of 750 Ib/MG and 200 Ib/
MG have on costs.
MULTIPLE-HEARTH REGENERATION
OF POWDERED CARBON
Multiple-hearth regeneration of powdered carbon is planned for
duPont's large, full-scale bio-physical plant. Thus, data were
requested from Nichols Corporation, the manufacturer of the
dePont furnace. Available data on powdered carbon regeneration
in multiple-hearth furnaces are limited and, thus, a significant
degree of uncertainty is associated with the estimates made in
this report. The following summarizes the key information
supplied by Nichols for this project:
Process
Eimco Battelle Bio-Physical
Square Feet of Hearth,
Effective area/MGD 130 162 60
Fuel, 106BTU/hr/MGD 1.2 1.6 0.67
Nichols based their information on use of pressure filtration
to achieve a 50 percent solids concentration prior to regeneration,
213
-------
TABLE 127
GRANULAR CARBON PROCESS AT 750 LB CARBON PER MG
Annual Cost ($1,000)
Capacity, MGD
1 5
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
Alum
Polymer, Wastewater
Chlorine
Lime, Primary Sludge
TOTAL 639.7 1,203.7 1,900.0 3,632.3 6,425.4
Costs/1,000 Gals
(Operating @
Capacity) $1.75 $0.66 $0.52 $0.40 $0.35
1
444
103.0
4.0
40.0
17.5
11.0
13.3
0.23
1.0
5.66
5
751
182.8
23.44
46.0
44.9
54.5
66.5
1.14
5.06
28.34
10
1,141
257.0
42.2
75.0
72.7
110.0
133.0
2.3
10.12
56.7
25
2,063
399.1
96.4
177.0
141.4
274.0
322.5
5.7
11.50
141.7
50
3,534
639.2
184.0
330.0
207.4
548.0
665.0
11.4
23.0
283.42
214
-------
TABLE 128
GRANULAR CARBON PROCESS AT 200 LB CARBON PER
Annual Cost ($1,000)
Amortized Capital
Labor
Power
Fuel
Maintenance Materials
Chemicals
Makeup Carbon
Alum
Polymer, Wastewater
Chlorine
Lime, Primary Sludge
TOTAL 626.2 1,157.6 1,739.1 3,267-8 5,682.4
Costs/1,000 Gals
(Operating @
Capacity) $1.72 $0.64 $0.48 $0.36 $0.31
Capacity, MGD
1
444
101
6.
33.
17.
3.
13.
0.
1.
5.
8
75
5
0
3
23
0
66
5
751
190.
21.
35.
42.
14.
66.
1.
5.
28.
10
5
9
8
9
5
5
54
06
34
1,109
234
39
55
69
29
133
2
10
56
.5
.5
.2
.7
.1
.0
.3
.12
.7
25
1,984
373.
90.
127.
138.
72.
322.
5.
11.
141.
50
8
2
5
1
8
5
7
50
7
3,350
599.
171.
231.
202.
146.
665.
11.
23.
283.
1
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
42
215
-------
Cost, power, labor, and maintenance material curves developed by
CWC for multiple-hearth furnaces and filter presses were used
to develop the cost information present in Tables 129-131.
Eimco
The capital costs of the filter press and multiple-hearth furnace
were higher (about 30 percent) than the costs of the vacuum
filter and FBF. Labor requirements were slightly higher. The
power requirements were reduced drastically by a factor of about
10. Fuel requirements for carbon regeneration were higher with
the difference becoming greater as the plant capacity increased
(50 percent more at 5 MGD to 70 percent more at 50 MGD). This
latter trend resulted from the fact that Nichols stated the
fuel requirements per pound of carbon were fixed over the entire
range of multiple-hearth sizes with no fuel economies resulting
in the larger furnaces. The FBF fuel consumption/lb of carbon
decreased with increasing furnace size. Nichols conclusions on
makeup carbon quantities agreed with the quantities presented
earlier. Maintenance materials were not affected significantly.
The net effect was a slight (5-6 percent) increase in overall
costs as the savings in power costs were more than offset by
the increases in the other categories.
Battelle
The regeneration capital costs were 4-8 percent higher using
the filter press and multiple-hearth furnace. Labor requirements
were not affected significantly. Power consumption was again
reduced drastically. Fuel costs were comparable at 1 MGD but
increased as plant size increased (as noted above). Maintenance
materials decreased. The savings in power and maintenance
materials resulted in a new reduction in costs of up to 7.5 percent
in plants 5 MGD or larger. Nichols felt that about 50 percent
of the makeup carbon requirements previously noted would be met
by carbon manufactured from the raw sewage solids as they
passed through the multiple-hearth furnace. As noted in Table 30,
this could provide a savings of 12£/1,000 gallons (7-17 percent
of total costs) if, in fact, this level of carbon production
occurs.
Bio-Physical
Costs and labor increases result primarily from the addition of
a carbon sludge dewatering step not present in the original
flowsheet. Fuel consumption also shows a marked increase but it
should be kept in mind that the base case was based on Zimpro's
wet-oxidation process with an assumption of no significant
supplemental fuel required -- perhaps an optimistic assumption.
Power savings achieved by replacing the wet air oxidation pro-
cess with the multiple-hearth process more than offset the power
requirements of the filter press. The net result was a 11-14
216
-------
CN
w
O
H
I
W
33
&
<
m
K
w
hi
H
D
a
33
EH
H
co
CO
W
U
§
O
O
o
i/5-
w
o
u
m
d
c
c
Q
i
o
m
CN
o
rH
in
rH
•
voericor^r-^ cNinrHCNroro
CN O 00 OO m 'tfVOrHOCNCO
^3rO CNVO t^ CN
^ CN
1^ ITI
in oo vo m vo rH CN in o i— i CM
mo^ocN CNOO mrH^
•^•vorHincN i— i ro ro i— I
^ ^
CN H
ro
vo en ^ r~ o oorocNOOt^-
r^^ o^ vo c~ i f\j ^j* ro ^^* rH m
rO rO CN rH ^ rH rH
rH
rH
«sp -sp in H vo ^vorHOinoo
rooororHr-~ CNVO r~^ CN
CTi CN rH CN
CN
oo oo CN ^P r^ inroo1 ><
rH rH
O O
ft ft
CU
C3
•r-l
S-|
0
rH
_£j
U
imary Sludge
^
ft
».
cu
g
•H
i_3
i_3
id]
EH
O
EH
CO
H
(0
O
O
o
o
»
rH
\
CQ
4-1
W
O
0
@ Capacity)
tr>
G
•H
-P
(Tj
S-l
0)
a
o
earth Sizing
33
CU
rH
p,
-H
-P
rH
rj
a
to
-p
M M
CD (0
-P
-------
O
H
EH
W
W
O
ro
rH
W
)J}
PQ
EH
— •
43
in
o
CJ
rH
rd
3
G
G
idj
CQ
Q
O
a
O
m
m
CN
O
rH
in
rH
•vf ro ^D
CO ^> t~^
rH 00 CN
v
ro
^J* ro O
^J1 00 ^
00 ^D rH
rH
vo ro in
oo cn in
CO CN
vn ro o
co rH ro
in CN
ro i — I oo
O CN
ro H
rH
rd
4-)
•H
p.
rd
CJ
T3
CO
N
• rH
4-> rH rH
rH O 0)
0 XI £
g (O O
o
in
o
^
rH
in
CN
in
o
rH
CM
in
o
rH
H
CN
rH
CU
3
CM
"d1
m
rH
CO
en
in
o
'd*
cn
rH
en
rH
rd
•H
>_l
CU
^J
rd
a
CU
o
rrj
C
Q)
G
•rl
rd
a
r- r» CN
•^ CN CN
rH rH "*
•.
**
«H
1^ VD rH
O CN
CN
o
ro
v
rH
ro
m
vr>
rH
{Q
CN
r-H
ro
rH
kD
CM
rr^
•rl
O
y
•rl
^_l
3
£t >iMH
H
O
ft
rH
O
ft
rH
3
CO
ro
CN
rH
rH
O
rH
in
H
rH
I-D
rH
K
CN
rH
r*-
o
V£>
vo
cn
CN
CO
<
CN
CTl
in
rH
00
^
0
VD
0) 1-3
G rtj
•H EH
rl O
0 EH
rH
X!
U
CN
oo
cn
•
o
4-1
•H
U
rd
CQ Qj
•H rd
rd CJ
O
CS)
o
C
O
-H
rH 4-J
\ rd
cn !H
4-1 CU
CQ QJ
o o
CJ —
o
o
CN
O
•CO-
CN
CN
rH
O
•w-
CN
rH
O
CN
I
^_J J^
O rd CU
MH a H
4-1 C
•H O
cu VH
!H rd
CJ CJ
rd CU
•H
-H
CU
O
rd
rd
4J
G
CU -H
4-1 4J
O O
3
a
c
C M
•H 3
CM
CU
rH X!
3 -P
4-1 rH
U rd
rd Q)
MH JC
in
CN
I m
(Ti
in
CN
I m
CN
(Ti
in in
CN
ro
CN ro
CN
ro
- in
CT>
C
•H
N
•H
CO
rH
rd
CU
CQ
rH rH
CU rd
CU 4-> CU
rH CU 33
Qj g
•H rd •
4-1 -H O
rH Q &
218
-------
co
rH
W
m
EH
O
H
EH
W
W
O
W
K
EH
K
W
W
H
D
S
M
M
CO
CO
W
CJ
o
ft
o
o
o
O
CJ
cO
a
c
Q
s
>l
-p
•H
O
CO
CO
U
o
m
m
CM
inr-rHCMU3 moocn
\^5 CO CO 00 CO **J* CM CM
CO CO ** in rH CO CM
CM
mcMomo co •>* iH
OOCOCOOOCM CMrHrH
r~- <* CM CM rH ••* tH
rH
00
m
CTi
m
o
m
^F
CO
o
t-i
O*\ 00 rH CM CTi O> >£> O
CO CO CTi H yD kO«=rH
0 CM rH iH
».
rH
-H
-P
O
in Multiple
rrj
CU
r-l
3
4J
U
cO
4-1
urnace
pt,
A
-P
r-|
CO
CD
Hearth Sizing
er
CD
rH
Ql
•H
-p
rH
3
s
4J
-------
percent increase in overall process costs. As in the Battelle
process, Nichols felt that production of powdered carbon would
occur and Table 120 shows the potential savings.
220
-------
REFERENCES
1. Shuckrow, A. J., G. W. Dawson and W. F. Bonner. "Powdered
Activated Carbon Treatment of Combined and Municipal
Sewage," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-
R2-73-149, February 1973.
2. Shuckrow, A. J., G. W. Dawson and D. E. Olesen. "Treat-
ment of Raw and Combined Sewage," Water and Sewage Works,
p. 104, April 1971.
3. Burns, D. E. and G. L. Shell. "Physical-Chemical Treatment
of a Municipal Wastewater Using Powdered Activated Carbon,"
presented at the 44th Annual Water Pollution Control
Federation Conference, San Francisco, California, October
1971.
4. Burns, D. E. and G. L. Shell. "Physical-Chemical Treat-
ment of a Municipal Wastewater Using Powdered Activated
Carbon," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-
R2-73-264, February 1973.
5. Shell, G. L., et al. "Regeneration of Activated Carbon,"
Applications of New Concepts of Physical-Chemical Waste-
water Treatment, Pergamon Press, pp. 167-198, 1972.
6. Burns, D. E., et al. "Physical-Chemical Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Using Powdered Carbon II," Environ-
mental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-76-235,
November 1976.
7. Garland, C. F. and R. L. Beebe. "Advanced Wastewater Treat-
ment Using Powdered Activated carbon in Recirculating Slurry
Contactor-Clarifiers," Federal Water Quality Administration
Water Pollution Control Research Series ORD-17020FKB 07/70,
1970.
8. Beebe, R. L. and J. I. Stevens. "Activated Carbon System
for Wastewater Renovation," Water and Waste Engineering,
p. 43, January 1967.
9. Humphrey, M. F., W. L. Dowler and G. M. Simmons. "Carbon
Wastewater Treatment Process," Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, California.
221
-------
10. Lewis, R. E., J. J. Kalvinskas and W. Howard. "JPL Acti-
vated Carbon Treatment System (ACTS) for Sewage," presented
at the California Water Pollution Control Association
Northern Regional Conference, Stockton, California,
October 10, 1975.
11. Grulich, G., et al. "Treatment of Organic Chemicals Plant
Wastewater with the DuPont PACT Process," Water-1972, AIChE
Symposium Series No. 129, Vol. 69, 1973.
12. "duPont PACT Process," Bulletin published by E.I. duPont
de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, Delaware.
13. Robertaccio, F. L. "Powdered Activated Carbon Addition
to Biological Reactors," presented at the 6th Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Treatment Conference, University of
Delaware, November 15, 1972.
14. Foertsch, G. B. and D. G. Hutton. "Scale-Up Tests of the
Combined Powdered Carbon and Activated Sludge (PACT) Process
for Wastewater Treatment," paper presented at the Virginia
Water Pollution Control Association Meeting, Natural Bridge,
Virginia, April 30, 1974.
15. Adams, A. D. "Improving Activated Sludge Treatment with
Powdered Activated Carbon," presented at the 28th Annual
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
May 1-3, 1973.
16. Adams, A. D. "Improving Activated Sludge Treatment with
Powdered Activated Carbon -- Textiles," presented at the
6th Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, University
of Delaware, November 15, 1973.
17. Adams, A. D. "Improving Activated Sludge Treatment with
Powdered Activated Carbon," presented at the Water and
Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association Industrial
Water and Pollution Conference, Detroit, Michigan, April 1,
1974.
18. Spady, B. and A. D. Adams. "Improved Municipal Activated
Sludge Treatment with Powdered Activated Carbon," presented
at the Water Pollution Control Federation, Denver, Colorado,
October 8, 1974.
19. DeJohn, P. B. and A. D. Adams. "Treatment of Oil Refinery
Wastewaters with Granular and Powdered Activated Carbon,"
presented at the 30th Annual Purdue Indutrial Waste Con-
ference, Purdue University, May 6, 1975.
20. Burant, W., Jr., and T. J. Vollstadt. "Full-Scale Waste-
water Treatment with Powdered Activated Carbon," Water &
Sewage Works, pp. 42-45, 66, November 1973.
222
-------
21. Knopp, P. V. and W. B. Gitchel. "Wastewater Treatment with
Powdered Activated Carbon Regenerated by Wet Air Oxidation,"
presented at the 25th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1970.
22. Gitchel, W. B., J. A. Meidl and W. Burant, Jr. "Powdered
Activated Carbon Regeneration by Wet Air Oxidation,"
Zimpro, Inc.
23. Olesen, D. E. "Powdered Carbon Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater," Dissertation, University of Washington, 1972.
24. Ferguson, J. F., G. F. P. Keay and E. N. D. Amoo. "Com-
bined PAC-Biological Contact Stabilization Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater," report prepared by the University
of Washington for Metropolitan Engineers, September 1975.
25. Prahacs, S. and H. G. Barclay. "Session II Discussion and
Some Studies of the Regeneration of Powdered Activated
Carbon," Water-1974, AIChE Symposium Series No. 144, Vol.
70, 1974.
26. Corson, F. L. "Process for the Reactivation of Powdered
Carbon," U. S. Patent No. 3,816,338, June 1974.
27. Corson, F. L. "Apparatus for the Reactivation of Powdered
Carbon," U. S. Patent No. 3,852,038, December 1974.
28. Poon, C. P. C. and P. P. Virgadamo. "Anaerobic-Aerobic
Treatment of Textile Wastes with Activated Carbon,"
Environmental Protection Agency Technology Series EPA-
R2-73-248, May 1973.
29. Snyder, A. J. and T. A. Alspaugh. "Catalyzed Bio-Oxidation
and Tertiary Treatment of Integrated Textile Wastewaters,"
Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-660/2-74-
039, June 1974.
30. Perrotti, A. E. and C. A. Rodman. "Factors Involved with
Biological Regeneration of Activated Carbon," Water-1974,
AIChE Symposium Series No. 144, Vol 70, 1974.
31. Rodman, C. A., et al. "Bio-Regenerated Activated Carbon
Treatment of Textile Dye Wastewater," NTIS No. PB-203 599.
32. "The Development of a Fluidized-Bed Technique for the
Regeneration of Powdered Activated Carbon," Water Pollution
Control Research Series, FWQA Report No. ORD-17020 FED
03/70, March 1970.
33. Reed, A. K., T. L. Tewksbury and C. R. Smithson, Jr.
"Development of a Fluidized-Bed Technique for the Regen-
eration of Powdered Activated Carbon," Environmental
Science and Technology, p. 432, May 1970.
223
-------
34. Smith, S. B. and C. F. Koches. "Plant Scale Thermal Regen-
eration of Powdered Activated Carbon Used in Sugar Purif-
ication, " presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Sugar
Industry Technologists, Inc., Houston, Texas, May 14-16,
1972.
35. Smith, S. B. "The Regeneration of Spent Powdered Activated
Carbon by the Thermal Transport Process," presented at the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers 78th National
Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 18-21, 1974.
36. Smith, S. B. "The Thermal Transport Process," Chemical
Engineering Progress Vol. 71, No. 5, pp. 87-89, May 1975.
37. Gitchel, W. B., J. A. Meidl and W. Burant, Jr. "Carbon
Regeneration by Wet Air Oxidation," Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 71, No. 5, pp. 90-91, May 1975.
38. Cohen, J. M. "Organic Residue Removal," presented at the
FWPCA Technical Seminar on Nutrient Removal and Advanced
Waste Treatment, Portland, Oregon, February 1969.
39. McKinney, R. E. "Mathematics of Complete Mixing Activated
Sludge," transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers,
128, Part III, Paper No. 3516, 1963.
40. Gulp, Wesner, Gulp, draft report for the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2186, "Costs
of Chemical Clarification of Wastewater," January 1976.
41. Black & Veatch. "Estimating Costs and Manpower Require-
ments for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants," EPA
Project 18090 DAN, October 1971.
42. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer,
"Sludge Treatment and Disposal," October 1974.
43. Stukenberg, J. R. "Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment
Using a Coagulation-Adsorption Process," J. Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 47, No. 2, February 1975.
44. Beebe, R. L. "Activated Carbon Treatment of Raw Sewage
in Solids-Contact Clarifiers," Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA-R2-73-183, March 1973.
224
-------
APPENDIX
COST CURVES
225
-------
U 0)
C -H
Q) V4
4J 4)
C 4->
•H Id
(N
I ro
CM in oo
vo vo vo
•*r r> iH T
r- r> co co
r> o n
co en cr>
VO CO CNl VO (T,
cr> cr> o o
i i
i i i i
i i
i i i i i
o
CO
•H in
i o o
I ro
^* 00
ro ro
O ro vO
i m in i in i
VO CTl CN
CO CO Cft
in
en
o ^r co
o o o
x
H
Q
2
O
ro
ro r» O
ro ro ^
CTi
m
m
tn
co
orovocnfMincocN
m co
CO CO
en
cr\
U
D
U
csi
ir
rHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHCNCSfM
ro «d* in
(N CN (N
10 r~ co en
CN CN CN CN
< S
226
-------
»
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
2 1,000,000
-------
Qi
-------
o
a
CO
o
o
o
o
rs
QC
H-
CO
o
o
1 ,000,000
9
8
100,000
2 3 456789
2 3456789
1.0 10
Firm Capacity - MGD
2 3456 789
INTERMEDIATE OR RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 3
229
-------
2
5
O
U
§
C/}
§
u
100,00(
9
8
7
6
10,00(
G=600
OIL
2 3456789 2 3456789 2 3456789
10,000 100,000
Rapid Mix Volume, Cubic Feet
RAPID MIXING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 4
230
-------
CO
cc
o
a
GO
o
o
a:
t—
CO
O
o
3 4 56789io,ooo2
3 45678!
?QO,0002
Flocculator Volume, Cubic'Feet
3456 789
FLOCCULATION, VERTICAL TURBINE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 5
231
-------
on
QC
<:
o
Q
O
C£.
h-
OO
z
o
<^>
1,000,000
7
6
5
100,OOC
X
2 3456789 2 3456789 2 3456769
1,000 10,000
Single Basin Area, Square Feet (Single Unit)
CLARIFIER
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 6
232
-------
8
o
H
EH
I
8
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
100,000
I
7
6
5
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56769
1,000 10,000
Area, Square Feet (Single Unit)
FLOCCULATOR - CLARIFIER
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 7
233
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8 100,000
3 •
° I
Q 6
5
H 4
O ,
U 3
Q
tQ o
5 10,000
§
7
6
3
4
3
2
/
.s
;S
S
/
X
X
>
^
^
x
x^^
>
^/
>x
r
.X
^
^
x
-
^
x
^x
y
/
'
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Quantity of Modules, Square Feet
TUBE SETTLING MODULES
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 8
234
-------
8
o
u
§
OS
F*
w
1
1,000,OOC
9
8
7
6
5
4
100,000
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Net Effective Settling Area, ft2 (Single Unit; — t)
REACTOR - CLARIFIERS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 9
235
-------
1,000, OCX
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
100,00(
3 456789
100
3456789 2
1,000
3456 789
Media Surface Area, Square Feet
GRAVITY FILTRATION
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 10
236
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
i
7
6
5
4
3
10,000
>
X
X
s^
/
/
'
X
J
/
'
s
/
s^
/
'
^
/
/
"
3 4 567891Q 2 34 36789100
Pumping Capacity, MGD
3456 789
CARBON ADSORPTION PUMP STATION
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 11
237
-------
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
10,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,000
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/'
y
_/
/
/
J
/
S
.t
/
F
J
/
/
/
/
3 4 36789^0 2 34 56789100
Average Design Flow, MGD
3456 789
GRANULAR CARBON CONTACTOR SYSTEM
(30 minutes contact at design flow)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
238
Curve 12
-------
g
U~l
o
o
o
cc
o
CJ
1,000,(
100,000
2 3456789 2 3456789 2 3456789
10,000 100,000
Volume, Cubic Feet
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 13
239
-------
to
oo
o
o:
I—
oo
z
o
9
i nnn nnn
100 000
9
x
/*
s
/
s
s
|X
X
X
X
_>
V
V
^
X
X
^
/
X
X
/
X
3 456789
100 2 3 4 56789!,000 2 3 < 56789
Chlorine Use, Tons Per Year
CHLORINE FEED EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 14
240
-------
I/O
o
o
ct:
oo
2:
o
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
100,000
2 34 56789n_. 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1j0oo
firm Pumping Capacity - GPM
WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 15
241
-------
en
tf
3
^
o
Q
W
EH
W
O
U
2
O
H
H
U
D
B!
EH
W
Z
O
U
t-> 0
o o
0 0
0 0
g N W * U ONOJCO g M W
2 3 456789
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1,000
Firm Pumping Capacity, QPM
CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 16
242
-------
CC
8
o
H-H
O
DC
00
O
o
1,000,000
9
100,000
i
7
6
5
4
2 3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Surface Area, Square Feet
GRAVITY THICKENING
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 17
243
-------
ex.
o
Q
I/)
O
O
O
C/1
z
o
1,000,000
100,00
9
8
7
6
3
4
3
2
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
o
7
6
5
4
3
2
^
^~
-
Steel
Prefab
urn ts
^
rica
—
tec
^
,
if
"i^"
**
.
**
4*
~
^
*•
"S^
^
Con
Uni
crtj
ts
Lt
3 456789
100
3456789 2
1,000
3 456789
Surface Area - Square Feet
FLOTATION THICKENING
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 18
244
-------
1 ,000,000
9
7
6
o
o
CO
o
o
100,000
3 4 56781oo
Filter Area - Square Feet
2 3456789 2 3456 789
1 ,000
VACUUM FILTRATION
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 19
245
-------
1,000,000
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
. -"
*^
,^"
^-*
I
^
X
x
*•
^X
^
^S
X*
X
X
^
x
.
_ ^
r^
2 34 56789 2 34 36789 2 34 56769
10 100
Installed Capacity, gpm
CENTRIFUGING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 20
246
-------
8
O
o
I/)
z:
o
o
a
8
7
4
i nnn nnn
Q
100 000
g
«•
.
~ — -— -*
,---''
r~ "
1—
_
-^
X"
, *
]
i
j
i
1
^
.
i ^ -J
j
x1
Xi
xl
^
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Single Furnace Hearth Area - Square Feet
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 21
247
-------
_
*^
oo 5
(/> ^i
0 4
(_)
o
o
ID
a:
t—
g 100 OOC
0 I
tf»
^"
^^
,.
X
A
f
/
1
r
jS
y
/
<
/
/
f
J
y
j
r
J
>
Z 3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
1,000
100
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
ALUM STORAGE & FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 22
248
-------
2
3
j
8
U)
O
U
O
H
H
U
co
2
8
10,000,00(
9
8
7
6
5
1,000,00(
— ^
_X,
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Powdered Carbon Capacity - Ib/hr
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 23
249
-------
IH
CO
o
o
§
§
9
7
1 000,000
100 000
2
o
*
Y
*
^
jT
x
/
S
s
s
'
'
s
/
S"
'
\s*
4
r
f
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Lime Feed, Ib/hr
LIME STORAGE & FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 24
250
-------
LLARS
§
»
0
o
(/o
o
(_>
z
o
t—!
o
s
I—
on
z:
s
o
•
0
o
3 456789
2 3456789
1 10
Polymer Feed - Pounds/Hour
3456 769
POLYMER STORAGE AND FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION COST
Curve 25
251
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
< 1,000,000
a !
LO 5
E-i
w 4
O
0 3
2
O
H o
B
§
Z 100,000
O 9
0 1
7
6
5
4
3
Z
.-— -
.*-"
.
X*
X
X
f
h^
^
^r
S^
S^
/
X
y
r
/
/
-
/
/
A
f
f
f
f
/
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Sulfuric Acid Feed, Ib/hr
SULFURIC ACID STORAGE AND FEEDING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 26
252
-------
8
a
o
H
EH
I
§
U
100,OOC
9
8
7
6
3
10,00(
VOL JMEHUC
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 78»
1,000
100
Feed Rate, Pounds/Hour
DRY CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 27
253
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000,000
9
e
7
6
% 3
3
8
w
3 2
o
u
0 1,000,000
£•< Q
B a
3 •?
W f
EH e
W 6
Z «
o 5
O A
*+
J«
^"^
>^
x^
™
x
X
x '
»
/
/
/
/
/
^/
/
/
/
/
10
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1,000
Bed Area, sq/ft
FLUIDIZED BED REGENERATION SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
254
Curve 28
-------
g
g
CO
o
o
2
O
§
U
10,000,000
1,000,000
2 34 56789
10
4 56789 100 2 S 4
CAPACITY, GPM
WET AIR REGENERATION SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 29
25!
-------
o
Q
W
O
U
2
O
H
H
U
I
J2 1,000,000
2
o
»
8
4
2
7
to
§
o
6
i
- -
, "1
•" • 1
- —
-— -
-—
••
~1
^
s*
-
^
/*"
-
^
-1
-— -
r--*-
^
•• • ~\
-
— -
-
-
—
-
-]
,-
-
~ i_.
t
_..
--
3 456789
100
3 436789
3456 789
Single Press Volume,
PRESSURE FILTRATION
("(INSTRUCTION COSTS
Curve 29A
256
-------
s:
o3
O
CC
O
oo
o;
^D
O
10,000
9
7
6
1,000
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Installed Power - Horsepower
MECHANICAL AERATION
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 30
257
-------
UJ
CD
oo
ID
O
D_
9
8
7
6
5
10
9
8
r
6
5
1.0
7
6
5
4
3
^
Peak
Use
H
),
sumed
wer Us
Average
3 456789
100
3456789 2 3456789
1 ,000
Installed Power - Horsepower
MECHANICAL AERATION
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 31
258
-------
I/O
o;
s
z:
100,000
8
7
5
4
10,000
3 456789
ioo 2 3 4 56789i,ooo 2 3 456789
Installed Power, Horsepower
MECHANICAL AERATION
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 32
259
-------
s:
OS
o
a:
o
u_
oo
o;
o
i
<
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
100
7
6
5
4
3 456739
3 456789
1.0 10
Firm Pumping Capacity - MGD
2 3456 789
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 33
260
-------
o
>—(
t—
CL.
a
7
6
5
ce
S i
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
o
o
o
7
6
5
4
2 3456789 2 3456789
1.0 10
Average Flow - MGD
2 3456 789
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
POWER REQUIREMENTS
261
Curve 34
-------
UJ
o
a:
UJ
D-
o
3
O
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
Constant Speed Pumping Unit
Variable Speed Drive
Pumping Unit (Wound Rotor)
10 15 20 25 30 35
Pumping Unit Capacity, GPM
40 45
50
PUMPING UNIT EFFICIENCY
RELATED TO CAPACITY
262
Curve 35
-------
oo
I/)
O
Average Flow - MGD
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
263
Curve 36
-------
Qi
o
00
9
a
7
6
5
9
8
7
6
5
1,000
o
i f
* I
g 4
I 3
3 4 56789i,ooo 2
3 4 5678Vooo2
3456 769
Rapid Mix Basin Volume, Cubic Feet
RAPID MIXING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 37
264
-------
o
»—*
i—
D-
s:
:r>
oo
z
o
o
a:
o
a.
1,000,000
8
7
6
5
4
3
100,000
z
2
/
)00
=6CO
G=300
34 56789 2
1,000
34 56789 2
10,000
34 56789
Rapid Mix Basin Volume, Cubic Feet
RAPID MIXING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 38
265
-------
oo
DC
00
00
o
10,000
9
•
I
5
1 ,00
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Rapid Mix Volume, Cubic Feet
RAPID MIXING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 39
266
-------
O
O
u_
00
O
I
-------
o
»-H
O.
s:
to
o:
LlJ
o
Q_
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
10,000
"Z
2Z
G=70
4 *> 6 7 8 9. _. __ A 2 3456789 2
10,000 100,000
Flocculator Volume, Cubic Feet
3456 789
FLOCCULATION
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 41
268
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,00(
2 |
3 6
8
4
*\
00 i
(- 3
oo
O
0 2
— l
<
z
< 1 ,00(
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
.^
.X-'
x*^
,x*^
[x'
>/"
^
/
x
X
X
x
x'
y
/
/
>
X"
X"
X
/
X
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
10,000 100,000
Flocculator Volume, Cubic Feet
FLOCCULATION
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 42
269
-------
oB
O
cc
o
1/1
QC
O
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
1,000
3456789 2 3456789 2 3456789
1,000 10,000
Surface Area, Square Feet
CLARIFIER
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 43
270
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
nr
9
8
7
6
3
4
3
2
7
6
3
4
3
2
Ferri
: Ch
Loi
id
a
a
V
I
? lum
1
Iii
me
X
"*
X
,,
^
3436789 2
1,000
3 4 3 6 78» 2
10,000
349
CLarifier Surface Area, ft2 (Single Unit)
CLARIFIER
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 44
271
-------
oo
o
(_>
10,000
;
6
4
1,000
X
z
X.
2. 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Surface Area, Square Feet
CLARIFIER
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 45
272
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
9
S 8
I
0 5
rt A
o *
CM
a
§
S3
j 1,000
3 9
D 8
g 7
§ 6
5
4
3
2
•••*<:
L^-^
»*••-
rf*
^
X
X
^
I/
/
X^
(
_jf
jr
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56783
1,000 10,000
Area, Square Feet
FLOCCULATOR - CLARIFIER
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 46
273
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
g 100,000
9
8
2 I
1
s <
1 '
O
Pi 0
W *
< 10,000
1 *
1 J
5
4
3
2
s
/
/
/
'
/
/
,
f
/
s
s
/
•X
/
/
/
f
3456789 2
1,000
3456789 2 3456789
10,000
Area, Square Feet
FLOCCULATOR - CLARIFIER
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 47
274
-------
(—I
8
o
u
10,000^
8
T
1,000
§
7
6
8
4
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Area, Square Feet
FLOCCULATOR - CLARIFIER
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
275
Curve 48
-------
9
8
7
6
0
10.00C
9
?
6
o s
3
2
1,OOC
1
7
6
3
4
3456 789
Separation Zone Area, ft^ (single Unit)
3 4 5 67 89 2
1,000
3456789 2
10,000
REACTOR CLARIFIER
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 49
276
-------
9
a
7
6
S
- 100,000
§ 8
M 2
H 7
ft 6
5 5
§
4
3
10,000
7
6
5
4
3
3456789 2
1,000
3 4 3 6 789 Z
10,000
3 4 3 «789
Separation Zone Area, ft2 (single Unit)
REACTOR CLARIFIER
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 50
277
-------
9
6
r
6
9
4
3
2
10,000
2
3 J
8
«
E •
8 ,
ij
s
< 1,OOC
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
_^_1HMH
-~~
^
*
J
4
f
x
X
X
/
/
^
^
>
^
3436789 2
1,000
3436789 2
10,000
3456 769
Separation Zone, ft2 (Single Unit)
REACTOR CLARIFIER
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 51
278
-------
O
X
O
10,00(
9
8
7
6
5
1,OOC
I
7
6
5
4
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456789
1,000
100
Media Surface Area, ft2
GRAVITY FILTRATION
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 52
279
-------
§
o
g
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
100,000
§
r
6
5
4
3
2
3 4 56789
2 3436789 2 3456789
100 1,000
Media Surface Area, Square Feet
GRAVITY FILTRATION
POWER REQUIREMENTS
(Backwash - 2/24 Hours)
Curve 53
280
-------
g
8
o
10,000
9
8
7
6
3
2
1,000
I
7
6
5
4
3
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Media Surface Area, Square Feet
GRAVITY FILTRATION
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 54
281
-------
O
«
O
O
I
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1,000
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
3 456789
3 4 5 6 7 89
10 100
Design Flow, MGD
3 456 769
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION AND PUMPING
(30 minutes contact)
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 55
282
-------
w
§
0
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
7rf
6
5
4
3
7L
3 456789
3 4 5 6 7 89
10 100
Design Flow, MGD
3456 789
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION AND PUMPING
(30 minutes contact)
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 56
283
-------
y
8
•
1 0 000
OC a
*~3 O
i 7
1 s
Q 5
CO
EH 3
O
O
g
"* i .noo
_^-—
^*
r^
^
^
x
X
X
,x
/
X
r
/
/
>
v
jf
f
3 456789
10
3 456789
100
3 456 769
Design Flow, MGD
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION AND PUMPING
(30 minutes contact)
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
284
Curve 57
-------
o
fM
§
I
2
S3
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
100
I
7
6
5
4
3
7
3 456789
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000
100
Chlorine Use, Tons/Year
CHLORINATION
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 58
285
-------
oo
C£.
•a:
s
oo
o
9
8
7
6
5
,oog
8
7
6
5
1,<
7
6
5
4
3
3 456789
2 3456789 2
100 1,000
Chlorine Use - Tons Per Year
3456 789
CHLORINATION
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 59
286
-------
oB
O
DC
£
z:
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
100
I
7
6
5
4
3
3 456789
100
3456789 2
1,000
3456 789
Firm Pumping Capacity - GPM
WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 60
287
-------
9
8
4
10 000
L»f 5
>- 3
r?
2: o
0 2
*— <
CL
oo 1 000
o I
0 f
^ !
Js 5
O
O- 4
/
'
y
/
/
/
/
"
^
- --
/
f
/
s
/
,
'
/
/
/
2 3 4 5678 9-] QQ
Average Flow - GPM
2 34 56789 2 3 456789
I * \J\J\J
WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
288
Curve 61
-------
t/)
ex
I/O
o
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
1,000
2 3 456789
100
2 3456789 2 3456 789
1,000
Firm Pumping Capacity - GPM
WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 62
289
-------
ANNUAL MAN-HOURS FOR O & M
M
H O
O 0
N W * 0" ff> -^OXO° (V> M A OtO)-4CDIoO |M W A C»(»~JCDW
^«
^*^
^^
rf^-
X
x
-<
**
^
^^
x^-
x^
**
f
**
s
>
«•
J
,
^^
^
^j*
2 3 456789
100
2 3436789
1,000
3456 789
Firm Pumping Capacity, gpm
CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 63
290
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
5 1
H r
f-i 6
1
in 4
o ,
U 3
«
S 2
S 10,000
1 *
< 7
6
5
4
_/
/
/
X"
/
^
f
s
/
J/
/^
/
/
x1^
/
/
/
/
y
/
/
-
>•
/^
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Volume Sludge Pumped, gpm
CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 64
291
-------
3
a
O
U
10,000
9
e
7
6
5
1,000
1
7
6
5
4
3
2 3 456789
100
2 3436789 2 3456 709
1,000
Volume Sludge Pumped, gpm
CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 65
292
-------
Qi
O
U.
oo
C£
ZD
O
100
i
7
6
5
4
3
2 34 56789 nnn 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Surface Area - Square Feet
GRAVITY THICKENING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 66
293
-------
§
W
1
Pi
9
8
7
6
&
4
3
2
100,000
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
§
7
6
3~
4
3
2
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
s
/
s
/
/
X
/
/
s
X
/
•
»
/
X
•
/
^
'•
I
/
/
/
/ /
/
' Alum
iroa<
nay
s
F
f
/
or 1
/
,*
. /
er:
•i<
2 3436789 2
1,000
34367 89 2 3436 789
10,000>
Thickener Area, SF
GRAVITY THICKENING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 67
294
-------
QC
et
8
GO
o
o
1 ,00
Surface Area - Square Feet
GRAVITY THICKENING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 68
295
-------
z:
oB
O
a:
o
o
I
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
100
1
7
6
5
4
3 456789
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1,000
Surface Area - Square Feet
FLOTATION THICKENING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 69
296
-------
Qi
-------
oo
oc.
o
o
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
z
z
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Surface Area - Square Feet
FLOTATION THICKENING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 71
298
-------
oO
O
0£.
O
oo
a:
-------
OL
LU
>-
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
00
Z
o
o
a:
LU
o
D_
100,000
X
Z 3456789 2 3456789 2 3456789
TOO 1,000
Vacuum Filter Area - Square Feet
VACUUM FILTRATION
POWER REQUIREMENTS
(20 hours/day operation)
Curve 73
300
-------
C/)
a:
o
a
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
iu,ooo
7
6
5
4
3
X
X
X-
i 4 56789.,.^ 2 34 56789 2
100 1,000
Vacuum Filter Area - Square Feet
VACUUM FILTRATION
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
(20 hours/day operation)
56789
Curve 74
301
-------
o
os
o
Cn
D
§
•m
z
100,000
8
I
5
4
3
10,00
2 3 456789
10
2 3456789
100
2 3456 789
Flow, gpm
CENTRIFUGING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
(Based on 70% Operation Run Time)
Curve 75
302
-------
to
z
o
o
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
100,000
7
6
5
4
3
z
/_
2 3 456789
10
2 3456789
100
2 3456 769
Flow, gpm
CENTRIFUGING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
(Based on 70% Operation Run Time)
Curve 76
303
-------
w
EH
100,000
9
10,000
§
7
6
5
4
3
2 3 456789
2 3456789
2 3456 789
10
100
Flow, gpm
CENTRIFUGING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 77
304
-------
00
O
o:
o
CO
o:
o
a:
i
c£
13
I
»
8
7
4
10,000
K
7
1,000
2
-3
\ A
•
> e
> 7
/*
e
,x
5S
^
X
X
2
X
1
5 4
.
•
x
6
^
7
,x
e
»;
-•
>
j^
^^
2
x
1
^
5 4
X
•
) (
> 1
'I
19
100 1,000
Hearth Area - Square Feet
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
(70% operation time, 6 pounds/square foot/hour loading-wet basis)
Curve 78
305
-------
9
y
/
/
,
/
/
/
/
f
S
f
^
'
2 3 4 56789
-] QQ 2 3 4 56789,
Hearth Area - Square Feet
2 3 456789
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION
POWER REQUIREMENTS
(70% operation time, 6 pounds/square foot/hour loading-wet basis)
Curve 79
306
-------
o
oo
oo
8
100
9
8
7
6
5
10
7
6
5
4
3
-I—
f
X —
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 36789
TOO 1,000
Hearth Area - Square Feet
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
(70% operation time, 6 pounds/square foot/hour loading-wet basis)
Curve 80
307
-------
o
o
10,000
9
e
r
6
5
1,OOC
3 456789
2 34 56789 2 34 56769
100 1,000
Hearth Area, Square Feet
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
(70% operation time, 6 pounds/square foot/hour loading-wet basis)
Curve 81
308
-------
oS
a:
o
t/>
a:
1,000
9
loo
i
7
6
5
4
3
Iry
UUTI
Ligjid
Aflim
2 3 456789.
100 2 3 4 56789i,ooo 2
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
456789
ALUM STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 82
309
-------
o
Q.
O
C_>
O
Q-
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1,000
~Z.
3 456789.
2 3456789 2
1,000
100
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
3456 789
ALUM FEEDING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 83
310
-------
o:
•=C
co
o
10,000
9
7
'
6
5
1 ,000
2 3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
ALUM STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 84
311
-------
PS
g
g
g
a
i
9
e
7
6
5
9
8
7
6
5
10,000
1
7
6
5
4
3
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Powdered Carbon Capacity - Ib/hr
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEM
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 85
312
-------
9
8
•
10,000,000
» o
z a
2 7
E-i g
M 4
2 4
8 3
rt
fr
<
g 1,000,000
(2, rt
2 |
X
/
x
^
^
<^
,/
/
/
/
/
^
^
/
/
^
j
/
f
i
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56769
1,000 10,000
Powdered Carbon Capacity - Ib/hr
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEM
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 86
313
-------
w
o
g
100,OOC
9
8
7
6
10,000
x
2 3456789 2
1,000
3436789 2 3456 789
10,000
Powdered Carbon Capacity - Ib/hr
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL
Curve 87
314
-------
g
8
2
D
<
10,000
9
8
7
6
1,000
I
7
6
3
4
Unslak
d Lime
2 3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Lime Peed, Ib/hr
LIME STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 88
315
-------
2
O
D
co
2
O
U
w
B
100,000
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
X
X
/
/*
/
s
/
/ ,>
x /
/
/
f
•y
s
V
/
/
/
/
A
/
X
/
/
/
^
^
s
^
/
/
Pximped
of Qui<
v_
\
\ s
\ X
tx
z^
X
^ Piomp(
Slak<
Fee
:kli
/
X"
,x
X
sd F
fed L
3
X
k X"
^"
ied
.me
-X
/
o
^/
x
£
X
X
^
x
^
3 456789
100
2 3456789 2 3456 789
1,000
Lime Feed, Ib/hr
LIME FEEDING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 89
316
-------
10,00(
s
3
§
(A
Crl
8
o
ij
«c
3
2
,,00(
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
z
z
^_
3 456789
100
2 3456789 2 3456 789
1,000
Lime Feed, Ib/hr
LIME STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
317
Curve 90
-------
o:
o
cc
o
n:
I
10,000
9
6
7
6
5
1,000
i
7
6
5
4
Dry.
3456789 2 345678 9.. 2
Polymer Feed, Pounds/Hour
3456 789
POLYMER FEEDING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 91
318
-------
o
HH
t—
Q.
:E
00
z
o
o
O
Q.
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
i
7
6
5
4
3
3 456789
3 4 56789
1 10
Polymer Feed, Pounds/Hour
2 3456 769
POLYMER MIXING AND FEEDING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 92
319
-------
oo
-------
o
o
O
ac
i
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
10
Deliv
Barre
TTl
Delive
in Tru
:ks
yy
3uQi
2 3 4 56789100 2 3 4 56789L,000 2 3 4 56789
Sulfuric Acid Feed, Ib/hr
SULFURIC ACID FEED
MAN-HOUR REUQIREMENTS
Curve 94
321
-------
z
o
2
8
10,000
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
1,000
7
6
5
4
3
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 36789
1,000 10,000
Sulfuric Acid Feed, Ib/hr
SULFURIC ACID FEED
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 95
322
-------
O
U
10,00(
9
8
7
6
5
1,00(
2 34 56789 nn 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000 10,000
Sulfuric Acid Feed, Ib/hr
SULFURIC ACID STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 96
323
-------
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
S
CB 1,000
!
g I
5
g 4
D
§ 3
i 2
I 100
* 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
»—
l^^
**
^
»•*
-*
^x"
^^
(sS
^
S
s
'
-
'
X
X
^
r^
x
^x
x
/
3 456789
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1,000
100
Feed Rate, Pounds/Hour
DRY CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 97
324
-------
8
O
u
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
1,000
I
7
6
5
4
METRIC
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456 769
100 1,000
Feed Rate, Pounds/Hour
DRY CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 98
325
-------
33
>4
O
D
O
I
9
8
7
6
5
9
8
7
6
5
10,OOC
7
6
5
4
1,000
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2
100 1,000 10,000
Pounds Carbon/Hour
3456 789
FLUIDIZED BED REGENERATION SYSTEM
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
(Based on Full Time Operation)
Curve 99
326
-------
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
i 10,000,000
r/ g
8
8 I
H 5
Z 3
u
o
2
J 1,000,000
I 6
5
4
3
2
/
S
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
S
,/
s
s
s
'
^
J/
/
/
j
/
m
t
100
3 45678
9 ...._. 2 3 456789
T-,000 10,000
Pounds Carbon/Hour
3456 789
FLUIDIZED BED REGENERATION SYSTEM
POWER REQUIREMENTS
(Based on Full Time Operation)
327
Curve 100
-------
K
<
W
U
CO
§
H
H
s
O
H
O
u
100
100
5 S 7 89
1,000
56789
10,000
3456 789
Pounds Carbon/Hour
FLUIDIZED BED REGENERATION SYSTEM
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
(Based on Full Time Operation)
Curve 101
328
-------
8
o
u
9
8
7
6
S
9
S
7
6
5
10,000
§
7
6
5
4
1,000
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1,000 10,000
Pounds Carbon/Hour
FLUIDIZED BED REGENERATION SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
(Based on Full Time Operation)
Curve 102
329
-------
9
7
6
5
4
3
JS
u>
O
o
fc.
8
10,000
9
e
7
6
9
3
2
1,000
7
6
9
4
2 3 496789
2 3 4 367
CAPACITY, GPM
2 3 4 9«7t»
WET AIR REGENERATION SYSTEM
MAN HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 103
330
-------
10,000,000
i
H
W
O
«
1,000,0009
1
7
6
5
4
3
100,000
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
10 100
CAPACITY, GPM
WET AIR REGENERATION SYSTEM
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 104
331
-------
H
w
8
3
X
2 3456789 2 3436789 2 3456789
10 100
CAPACITY, GPM
WET AIR REGENERATION SYSTEM
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
(Based on sludge characteristics shown in Table 101)
Curve 105
332
-------
9
8
7
6
9
g
100,000
(0
8
10,000
3 456789
II
2 3456789 2
10 100
CAPACITY, GPM
3456 re»
WET AIR REGENERATION SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 106
333
-------
s
us
O
ci
O
[*
D
o
X
9
8
7
100, 000
10,000
3
f
—
_--
^^M
r—
—
u-
r
L--
— 1
j,r
K^^
-
./
/
/
/
'
/
/
f
-
i —
3 4 56789
100
3456789 2 3436 789
1,000
Filter Press Volume, Cubic Feet
PRESSURE FILTRATION, LABOR
(BASED ON CONTINUOUS, 7 DAY/WEEK OPERATION, 2 HR CYCLE)
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 107
334
-------
2
o
z
8
u
g
1,000,OOC
9
8
7
6
5
4
100,000
Influent
Solids
-8%-
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456789
100 1,000
Filter Press Volume, Cubic Feet
PRESSURE FILTRATION, POWLIR
(BASED ON CONTINUOUS, 7 DAY/WEEK OPERATION, 2 HR CYCLE)
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 108
335
-------
o
Q
O
U
2
100,OOC
3 4 56789
100
Filter Press Volume, Cubic Feet
PRESSURE FILTRATION
(BASED ON CONTINUOUS, 7 DAY/WEEK OPERATION, 2 HR CYCLE)
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
3 4 S 6 7*9
336
Curve 109
-------
w
rJ
CQ
rH1
H
H O
J GQ
1 1 h-M
r-l Pi
H U
O
OS Q
py w
SJ EH
S ^3
0 >
U M
EH
PM U
O <
CO Q
U W
H OS
EH W
CO Q
H ^
OS O
pq p.,
EH
U
05
^•v
hT^
U
0
U
id
>
4-1
tn
0)
3
M
rd
,G
O
4-1
1 — 1
-H
fa
^ G
CM -H
i i i i i i a
CO
i — 1 CJ*i
CTi
!H
rd
rC S
U 1
3 CO
2
0 G G
•H -H
co a a
ii iii
o o in
• r^ cr\
^D rH
M
rd
L) 1
3 CO
2
0 G G
r>- • -H m -H
r- Ln a ^ a
m i ii-
H m o rH in
r^ en
n H
tn
0)
4->
rd
4-1
CO
T3
0)
4->
G
D
H
U
H
0
U
r^ OQ
rd 2
Q
o o m
O • 1 1 1 (Ti
in in H
rH
U rH
^ in
id i
Q CO
o o o co
m • i i i -en
i£> in H
o
U
rodar
C
r@
!>1
33
in
o • m
""> o en i l l i
in rH
O
O
rd
T3
O 33
•C
33
in
m • o
r~ o •* i i i i
•sf rH
o
m
G C
•H -H O
a a i
(M
r~~ o •*
en en
o
o
G G
0)
M
O
0
o
i~H
rj
^_l
rC
EH
o\°
O
» O
0) CM
N
•H 3
t_Q &H
r|
>
34-1 dP
M -H
r("J {/] ».
EH G (1)
0) SH
d\° Q o\° 3
jj
M - tn
rH ,d -H
3 tn O
m < a
XI
\^
o
^
4J
M
0
o
y
l j
r-j
CQ
337
-------
13
C
O
U
o
o
0
6
i5]
G
O
tn
rH
xi
> M
i — i nj
3 0
g
0
O
o
rH
1
O
o
ro
rH
O
O
ro
ro
1
O
o
o
0
o
ro
ro
O
o
00
CN
O
0
03
I
O
o
r-
•Q
0
(0
(d O
r< 5
•P ,
rH
•H
fa
o
0
o
rH
1
O
0
CTi
CN
CO
o
o
ro
O
O
CN
ro
I
t*~
I
ro
O
CN
I
O
O
o
o
o
o
LO
ro
I
O
o
CN
ro
O
O
ro
I
O
O
00
CN
G
•rH
g
O
O
o
o
o
o
CTI
o
I
CN
CN
00
CN
I
CTi
I
CJl
CTi
CTi
I
in
CTI
en
I
o
CN
CTI
I
co
co
in
en
i
LO
00
LO
CO
I
o
co
CO
I
co
LO
CO
I
LO
o
r-
i
LO
LO
LO
CO
I
LO
CTI
CTI
oo
CTv
O
CTi
O
I
CN
CN
CN
ro
o
CN
o
g
LO
CN
X
rfl
X
rd
g
X
s
CN
ro
I
O
ro
O
I
m
X
g
CN
I
O
o
o
W
a)
•H
•p
a>
o
r4
cu
rH
u
•rH
pj
^1
EH
&
\
Cs]
g
•fc
ra
0)
i=t!
0)
u
(0
4-1
H
r^
CO
^1
o
o
*g
3
2
ID
0)
CO
w
rcj
H
a o
04 g
in
0)
|t
2
H
O
c
fi
0<
M
0)
"g
2
0)
G
•H
•O
0
H
6
\
o
u
•h
01
rH
O
>
0)
O
;3
^1
c]
EH
<*>
^
0)
N
•H
CO
CO
rH
u
•H
4-1
!H
&J
o
o
CN
dP
LO
CN
ro
g
dP
o
0
•H
CO
G
01
Q
-P
00
•H
O
s
o
JJ
CO
O
U
m
338
-------
*— n.
•
T)
-P
0
O
— '
-P
•H
^1
O
CM
O
0
1
0
m
vD
<
01
CM
f^t
O
in
p«*
i
0
m
*.o
o
o
co
i
o
o
r-
o
o
i-H
1 1
m
•
CO
o
0
H
1 1
in
•
CO
o
•
o
iH
1 1
m
•
CO
Cn
>
<
0
0
t"*»
>"
^
1 1
0
^J
[*^
CT*
£*
*3*
1 1
O
o
00
-p
to
s
i i in
co
i
o
CO
f %
4J
M
H
1 I m
CO
i
0
co
CO
K
I I in
co
i
o
CO
0
•
0
1
CN
CN
•
0
o
^!
o
1
CN
CN
•
0
o
^
.
o
1
CN
CN
•
O
O
.H
1
in
o
H
I
m
o
i-H
1
in
X
flj
a
m
H
9
a
m
i — i
X
a
in
rH
CN
CN
^d1
CN
CO
CN
o
o
CO
0)
-H
4J
0)
Q
J_|
A4
rH
fd
u
•H
p.
^*i
£-(
1
CN
e
•»
(ti
O
M
^
CD
o
(0
^1
2
CO
lH
cu
n
S
^3
z
CO
0)
CO
U)
(t)
1-1
ffi 0
a a
^
cu
o
M
3
!3
1 — 1
O
C
cu
XI
^1
Q)
rQ
H
3
s
0)
s
-H
T3
0
H
&
\
U
u
k.
CD
C
p
H
0
0)
0
jj
^|
H
dP
O
o
0) CN
N
•H 3
W ^
CU EH
i-H
U *
^J
^_(
fd
(^
tn
CN
00
£3
(H
cj
EH
C»P
0
U
g
01
•.
£>i
4J
• i-|
CO
C
Q)
Q *
^ ^
i— 1 r{
d co
CQ
13
4J
CO
•H
0
a
XI
s\
-O
*.
4-)
CO
O
O
F^
1-1
£3
«
339
-------
TABLE 132
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR UNITS EMPLOYED
English
BTU
3
BTU/ft
BTU/hr/MGD
BTU/lb
°F+0.555 (°F-32)
ft
ft2
3
ft
ft3/hr
ft/sec
gallon
gpd
gpd/ft2
gpm
gpm/ft
hp-hr
in
Ib
Ib/day
Ib/ft2/day
Ib/ft2/hr
Ib /hp-hr
Ib/kWh
Ib/MG
MG
MGD
ppm
psi
tons/day
SI
= 1.055 kj
= 0.252 kg-cal
3
= 37,63 kj/m
= 9 kg-cal/m
3
= .278 J/hr/m /day
= 2.321 kj/kg
= 0.555 kg-cal/kg
= °C
= 0.3048 m
= 0.0929 m2
3
= .028 m
= .028 m /hr
= 0.3048 m/sec
= 3.785 1
= .005785 m3/day
= .0408 m3/day/in2
= .0631 dm /sec
= .0631 I/sec
= 40."' dm /sec/m
2
= 40.7 1/min/m
= 2.684 MJ
= 2.54 cm
= .454 kg
= .454 kg/day
= 4.830 g/day/m2
= 4.830 g/hr/m2
= 0.1692 kg/MJ
= .454 kg/kWh
=0.92 g/m3
= 3,785 m3
= 3,785 m /day
= mg/1 (approximate)
= 0.006895 N/mm2
= 907 kg/day
SI
"C-KL.8 (°C) + 32
Cm
3
dm /sec
dm /sec/m
g
2
g/day/m"
2
g/hr/m
9/1
3
g/m
J/hr/m /day
kg
kg-cal
kg-cal/Kg
kg-cal/m
kg/day
kg/kWh
kg/MJ
kJ
kJ/kg
3
kJ/m
kWh
1/min/m
I/sec
m
2
m
3
m
m /day
m /day/m
m /hr
m/sec
mg/1
mg/l/hr
MJ
2
N/mm
English
= °F
= 0.3937 in
= 15.35 gpm
= 0.0245 gpm/ft2
= .002205 Ib
= .002205 lb/ft"/day
= .002205 Ib/ft2/hr
= 1000 ppm
= 8.333 Ib/MG
= 3.5971 BTU/hr/MGD
= 2.205 Ib
= 3.968 BTU
=1.80 BTU/lb
= .111 BTU/ft3
= 2.205 Ib/day
= 2.205 Ib/kWh
= 5.91 Ib/hp-hr
= .9478 BTU
= .0004308
= .0265 BTU/ft3
= 1.341 hp-hr
= .0245 gpm/ft^
= 15.85 gpm
= 3.28 ft
= 10.76 ft2
= 35.314 ft3
= 264.2 gpd
= 24.51 gpcl/ft2
= 35.314 ft3/hr
= 3.28 ft/sec (fps)
= ppm (approximate)
= ppm/hr (approximate)
= 0.372 hp-hr
= 145.03 psi
340
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO
EPA-600/2-77-156
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
APPRAISAL OF POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON PROCESSES FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
5 REPORT DATE
September 1977(Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
7 AUTHOR(S)
A. J. Shuckrow and G. J. Gulp
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle-Northwest
Batteile Blvd.
Richland, Washington 99352
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
68-03-2211
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: James J. Westrick (513-684-7652)
16-ABSTRACTPowdered activated carbon has been the subject of several developmental
efforts directed towards producing improved methods for treating municipal wastewaters.
Granular activated carbon has proven itself as an effective means of reducing dissolvec
organic contaminant levels, but is plagued with specific operational problems which
can be avoided with powdered carbon. The work reported herein was aimed at putting
powdered activated carbon (PAC) treatment in proper perspective relative to competing
technology. All work with PAC and PAC regeneration was reviewed and representative
process approaches selected for comparison with granular activated carbon. While no
one PAC approach is clearly superior from a performance standpoint, biophysical
processes are attractive because they can be incorporated into existing biological
plants. Comparison of capital and operating costs were made for plants with through-
put rates of 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 MGD. Cost relations were generated in curvilinear
relations to allow interpolation. Based on these estimates, it was determined that
independent physical-chemical PAC systems are not economically competitive with other
modes of treatment. PAC may offer advantages for specific cases where highly variant
flows are experienced such as plant receiving flows of a seasonal nature or areas
with combined storm sewer systems A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to deter-
mine where improvements could be made to make PAC competitive. Lower carbon doses
and/or inexpensive throwaway carbon would be needed to successfully challenge the
nt-her
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Activated carbon
Activated sludge process
Cost comparison
Economic analysis
Estimates
Powder (particles)
Regeneration (engineering)
Sewage treatment
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Powdered activated car-
bon processes
Municipal wastewater
Granular activated car-
bon processes
Physcial-chemical treat-
ment
c. COSATl Field/Group
13B
13 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21 NO. OF PAGES
357
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
341
.US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977—757-056/6545
------- |