OXYGEN TRANSFER STUDIES AT THE
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT FACILITIES
by
William C. Boyle, Andrew Craven,
William Danley, and Michael Rieth
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Cooperative Agreement No. CR812167
Project Officer
Richard C. Brenner
Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
Development of the information in this report has been funded in part by the U S
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. CR812167 by the
American Society of Civil Engineers. The report has been subjected to Agency peer and
administrative review and approved for publication as an EPA document Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use
11
-------
FOREWORD
£S ^^ developinS and changing technologies and industrial products and
frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, tf improperly
deaU with, can threaten both public health and the environment The U.S EnvlZenS
w^r0utgryuf/A) " Chf gCd,by C°ngreSS ^ protectinS «* Nation'sTanrS and
Sni , ^, V a mandate °f national cnviromnentol laws, the Agency strives o
"abm^TnS ^ ^^ * & C°mpatible b&lance »«~ taiKSr Ses
and the abilit of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct EPA to
t0 defme
. rec to
t0 defme ^ ™onmental P-Wems, measure the impacts, and seh for
i
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning implementing
and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to movKSS
community.
,
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
-------
PREFACE
In 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded Cooperative Research
Agreement CR812167 with the American Society of Civil Engineers to evaluate the existing
data base on fine pore diffused aeration systems in both clean and process waters, conduct
field studies at a number of municipal wastewater treatment facilities employing fine pore
diffused aeration, and prepare a comprehensive design manual on the subject. This manual,
entitled "Design Manual - Fine Pore Aeration Systems," was published in September 1989
(EPA Report No. EPA/725/1-89/023) and is available from the EPA Center for Environmental
Research Information, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
As part of this project, contracts were awarded under the cooperative research agreement
to conduct 16 field studies to provide technical input to the Design Manual. Each of these
field studies resulted in a contractor report In addition to quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) data that may be included in these reports, comprehensive QA/QC information is
contained in the Design Manual. A listing of these reports is presented below.. All of the
reports are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161 (Telephone: 703-487-4650). ;
1. "Fine Pore Diffuser System Evaluation for the Green Bay Metropolitan'Sewerage
District" (EPA/600/R-94/093) by JJ. Marx j .
!
2. "Oxygen Transfer Efficiency Surveys at the Jones Island Treatment Plants, 1985-1988"
(EPA/600/R-94/094) by R. Warriner |
3. "Fine Pore Diffuser Fouling: The Los Angeles Studies" (EPA/600/R-94/095) by M.K.
Stenstrom and G. Masutani !
4. "Oxygen Transfer Studies at the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Facilities"
(EPA/600/R-94/096) by W.C. Boyle, A. Craven, W. Danley, and M. Rieth
5. "Long Term Performance Characteristics of Fine Pore Ceramic Diffusers at Monroe,
Wisconsin" (EPA/600/R-94/097) by D.T. Redmon, L. Ewing, H. Melcer, and G.V.
Ellefson [
6. "Case History of Fine Pore Diffuser Retrofit at Ridgewood, New Jersey"
(EPA/600/R-94/098) by J.A. Mueller and P.O. Saurer j
r.- ' ...._'. j
7. "Oxygen Transfer Efficiency Surveys at the South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant,
1985-1987" (EPA/600/R-94/099) by R. Warriner '
iv
-------
8. "Fine Pore Diffuser Case History for Frankenmuth, Michigan" (EPA/600/R-94/100) by
T.A. AUbaugh and SJ. Kang j
9. "Off-gas Analysis Results and Fine Pore Retrofit Information for Glastpnbury,
Connecticut" (EPA/600/R-94/101) by R.G. Gilbert and R.C. Sullivan j
10. "Off-Gas Analysis Results and Fine Pore Retrofit Case History for Hartford,
Connecticut" (EPA/600/R-94/105) by R.G. Gilbert and R.C. Sullivan |
11. "The Measurement and Control of Fouling in Fine Pore Diffuser Systems"
(EPA/600/R-94/102) by EX. Barnhart and M. Collins •
12. "Fouling of Fine Pore Diffused Aerators: An Interplant Comparison"
(EPA/600/R-94/103) by C.R. Bafflod and K. Hopkins ;
13. "Case History Report on Milwaukee Ceramic Plate Aeration Facilities"
(EPA/600/R-94/106) by L.A. Ernest !
14. "Survey and Evaluation of Porous Polyethylene Media Fine Bubble Tube and Disk
Aerators" (EPA/600/R.-94/1Q4) by D.H. Houck ;
i
15. "Investigations into Biofouling Phenomena in Fine Pore Aeration Devices"
(EPA/600/R-94/107) by W. Jansen, J.W. Costerton, and H. Melcer
16. "Characterization of Clean and Fouled Perforated Membrane Diffusers"i
(EPA/600/R-94/108) by Ewing Engineering Co. . • j
v
-------
ABSTRACT
^ Field studies at the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District facilities were conducted
over a 3-year period to obtain long-term data on the performance of fine pore aeration
equipment in municipal wastewater. The studies were conducted on several basins in the East
P 1 v^h f '^j10™8 i***0* * 1977 and two sets of first-pass basins in the West
Plant with newly installed ceramic discs. i
The performance of the domes was excellent even after 10 years of service ^This
conclusion was based on measured oxygen transfer efficiencies by off-gas analysis alpha
calculations, and diffuser characterization. Reasons for excellent performance included
routine maintenance of the diffusers and the use of high quality ceramic diffusers and
™TfH- ^Cre J? 6Vi?nCe Presented k ** Plant that operation at high SRTs (low
F/M loadings), which produced complete nitrification, resulted in higher aSOTE Values than
« WeSt Plant Were monitor«i ^ 800 days. In this period of time
perceptible decrease in diffuser performance was observed based on aSOTE
measurements. The mean first-pass oSOTE values over 800 days was about 11 5% The
mean-weighted aSOTE for all three passes ranged from 12.1 to 15.3%. The We^Plant
aeration system was operated at high SRT. values in order to achieve complete nitrification
^SO^r >H ' Pl™\±e™ was some evidence of improved aeration Performance
£f £SS ^ fmTSCd SRT' Brfef evaluations °f diffusers in these lowToaded ! basins
suggested that fouling was not a problem in this plant :
hv tiJ^v rePOrt T s^bmi?d * P^31 ftlffllment of Cooperative Agreement No. CR812167
by the Amencan Society of Civil Engineers under subcontract to the University of WisconsL
re± ?HPar?al Sp°nS0^shiP of ** U'S- Environmental Protection Agency. Tne work
reported herein was conducted over the period of 1985-1987.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword !
Preface ' ^
Abstract. lv.
Figures ;' V1
Tables ZIZZZZZZZZZZZ ""' VUi
Acknowledgements * *
• i xi
Introduction
Facilities '
i 2
Experimental Methods
Experimental Design '
Off-Gas Testing !..'"ZZZZZZZZZZZ < 4
Laboratory Diffuser Characterization 7
Other Methods ZZZZZ." " 7
Results and Discussion - East Plant i
Facilities _ j' **
Plant Operation and Diffuser Maintenance Z!" ' s
Oxygen Transfer Studies .Z.".."ZZ.' ' 17
Diffuser Characterizations ...ZZZZ. '
Summary '
r JO
Results & Discussion - West Plant ! '
Facilities ;
•••••«•••••••••*••" **"**"••*•••«•««•••"••».•».....«•,,.«,......».. ' 'IQ
Plant Operation and Diffuser Maintenance ' on
Oxygen Transfer Studies ZZ 44
Indirect Study of Transfer Efficiency (MMSD)ZZ.ZZ. " 70
Diffuser Characterizations '"""" " '*
Summary
r 77
References ;
• f , 78
Appendix A '.
Appendix B ;
vii ]
-------
FIGURES
i
Number
. , ]
1 Plan View, Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Plant '• *
2 Computer Printout - Off-gas Data '•
3a Off-gas Hood - Fiberglass ' 'i'" 5
3b Off-gass Hood - Plywood ZZZ....".l. 6
4 Aeration Tank Layout - Plants 1 and 2'""'."."" ' o
5 Aeration Tanks 1-6-Typical '." ' "
6 Norton Dome Assembly ' '' 10
7 crSOTE vs. Time - Tanks 1-3..... ; 12
8a aSOTE vs. Time - Exploded 0 to 500 days" ' ??
8b aSOTE vs. Time - Exploded 1080 to 1160 days ' ~,
9 F/M vs. Time -Tanks 1-3 ': 21
10a F/M vs. Time - Exploded 0 to 500 iys'.. • %
10b F/M vs. Time Exploded 1080 to 1160 days ; f,
11 BOD Load vs. Time - Tanks 1-3 '
12a BOD Load vs. Time - Exploded 0 to 500 days.' i ~
12b BOD Load vs. Time - Exploded 1080 to 1160 days ; £
13 Apparent Alpha vs. Time-Tanks 1-3 i IT
14 Apparent Alpha vs. Time - Exploded o'to"l25 Days I on
15 aSOTE for Plug Flow and Step Aeration ...."Z ' „
16 Effect of Endogenous Cleaning '
17 Aeration Tank Layout - Plants 3 and 4 ^ ^
18 Aeration Tanks 19-30 - Typical ". \ °
19 Effect of Coarse Bubble Diffuser ; 41
20 Effect of Coarse Bubble Diffuser ......1...... : '
21 Computer Printout - Off-gas Data 1Z1.I '
22 Twenty-four Hour Survey -Alpha ' ^8
23 Twenty-four Hour Survey - «SOTE, Airflow'...... f J,
24 Twenty-four Hour Survey-Flow, TOC
25 aSOTE (Tank 21) vs. Time ' 53
26 aSOTE (Tank 24) vs. Time ' ' 58
27 BOD Load vs. Tune - Plant 3 ; 59
28 SRT vs. Time - Plant 3 Z.~Z ' 6°
* • 61
vui
-------
FIGURES (continued)
29 aSOTE(Tank25)vs.Time ;
30 aSOTE (Tank 28) vs. Time ; Jr
31 BOD Load vs. Time-Plant 4 i ™
32 SRT vs. Time - Plant 4 " ""'-. ?3
33 aSOTE vs. Effluent NH4 ZZZZZZ.'Z ;' g9
34 Photographs of Fouled and Clean Diffusers - 600"0)a.ys of"swte""^"""'"'"''. 70
IX
-------
2 Selected Plant Operation Data - Plant 1 (Aeration Tanks 1-9).'!."."" !13
3 Raw Wastewater Characteristics - MMSD (mg/L) H '
TABLES
Numfcer !
; Page.
1 Aeration Tanks 1-6 - Norton Domes .,
13
•* £f
4 East Plant Oxygen Transfer Test Data - TanWl-3 .lllllllllllllll'j 19
5 Additional Oxygen Transfer Test Data - Plant 1 26
6 East Plant Alpha Values for each Aeration Tank "Taknks i-3 1.11. : "" 28
7 Comparisons of aSOTE Performance - Tanks 1-3 and 4-6 .....11 ' 35
8 Diffuser Characteristics - Plant 1 ; ^
9 Inorganic Composition of Foulant Materials* - Plant 1 Domes (7/24/84) 37
10 Aeration Tanks 19-30 - Sanitaire Discs ' 42
11 Average Monthly Operating Data - West Plant 111111111111!1 43
14 orSOTE Plant Data - Plant 4 111.11.11111111111 i S
15 Mean a-SOTE Values - West Plant - March 1986-December 1987 ' ^
1* ~C^TO For Plant 3 and 4 During Different SRTs* ! £o
» /~\££ fWf —^ - *•••»•• ••••i"« •••••«••,.•»., t)O
17 pree_Basin Off-gas Test Results - West Plant - Plant 3 71
74
20 Results of Diffuser Characterization - West Plant ' """ *
- -
18 Plant Data for Two Different Loading Periods ** ..74
"
19 Interplam Fouling Study Results - West Plant - Tank 2i7GridTZ.'"""Z"Z"
S- 76
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
of Steve
Reusser
support of
David
ofSanitaire
XI
-------
INTRODUCTION
the annlicarinn of fin, n^T*f^ has resulted in
. stems in new and upgraded treatment facilities. Asa
„ a better understanding of the long-term performahce of these
maintenance requirements needed to attain these high efficiencies must be
In the spring 1985, the U.S. EPA funded a cooperative research agreement with the
African Society of Civil Engineers in order to develop an in-<££h dXSSon fc* pore
aeration .One> of the plants selected for this study was the Madison, Wisconsin
Mefropohtan Sewerage District (MMSD) facility: Madison installed one ofSirst
contemporary ceramic fine pore aeration systems in the U.S. in 1977.
The initial objectives of the study at Madison were to obtain long-term data on the
K!;0^3!06 P01* zt™*on j" domestic wastewater to evaluate the rate of fouling if
m&S ^ consequences thereof as well as the effectiveness of several diffuser cleaning
methods with respect to oxygen transfer efficiency and pressure loss. An additional
objective was to collect laboratory data on the fouling characteristics of ceramfc fine pore
SmrS^rT IT?« °f I?uni?iPal wastewater treatment facilities and to evaluate the
impact of selected diffuser cleaning methods on these characteristics.
Madison treatment facility consists of a number of activated sludge process
; since its initial construction in 1934. The field aeration studies were conducted in
older aeration tanks, equipped with Norton fine pore domes in 1977 (the East
IQSK fthlw*n£? axerac?on t^' equipped with Sanitaire fine pore discs and started up in
-1 -7 ,nant^ Delected parallel aeration tanks in the West Plant were eauipoed
SS^8** v^ng «¥*W™ *>that comparisons could be made between Sm
wastewater did not generate a serious diffuser fouling problem
inveStifraffi thp. pffi»r«tc r\f /-JtffiK-ar-,-.1 a«.,:__ _» »u:_ j.!,,,?* ,
.-
This report presents the results of this study in two parts. Part I evaluates the Ion*
erm performance of the fine pore domes in theEast PlaSTSutH preS?£ resuSof
two years of performance of fine pore discs in the West Plant prescms me iresults ot
-------
FACILITIES
The MMSD wastewater treatment facility, located on the south side
the cities of Madison, Monona, Middleton, and Fitchburg, six villages and portions
several townships within Dane County. The present average flow is approxim "
MOD; the design flow is 50 MOD.
of Madison, serves
- Figure 1 presents a plan view of the facility. Raw wastewater is brought t«
tinent plant through 113 miles of intercepto?sewers and force inausWOht*
loins stations. Depnttp/i u/ach»u/a*-Ar »«• o,.u^»^...A_»i..—i:..t_-^ _
treatment
«. .. v»w~~ ; "w vi "t""»~f w* ovYTvia cuiu lui^c mains witn I
pumping stations. Degntted wastewater is subsequently split between an East
Plant where it is settled prior to activated sludge treatment The plant is currently op<
to imnfy ammonia as a single-stage process. Secondary effluent receivesSvk,?S
irradiation pnor to being pumped back into the Yahara River wasSeT -UitraVK>Iet
chain of lakes in the Madison area.
othis
the help of 84
t and a West
is currently operated
5 ultraviolet
downstream of the
This study was conducted in the aeration tanks in both the East and West
AA^°^S^^ 1 ^Cftnks 1-18). the West Plant was m
3 and 4 (Tanks 19-30) Oxygen transfer tests were performed in Aeration
(domes) and 19 through 30 (discs). Details related to the aeration tSSthe
equipment, and test points are found in the appropriate chapters to follow.
of
lately 38
Plant. The
up of Plants
Tanks 1-6
aeration
-------
I
VI
a
to
2
CO
I
o
>
c
I
, 0-01 0-01
a- o o
o-o'o-o
f
a
e juey
^1
II
D
= 5
a-
s i
T
-------
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Experimental D?^
Off-Gas Testing
-------
Figure 2. Computer Printout - Off-gas Data.
'••« lit.i IVMMV
N1n« lev
*4V4tion
»««> 4/20/n
fITJI-.. . . '.17 tot., 0 _
jiiriEi1 •'"• !':S •£'« ssiSJi"*
«^*4-»'^.*<«l,lt?^T*nk " **"* »444>1 0.47
tore
••c
0.05«»
0.0*70
•00,
,i«.l< Ho. ».t. Ouflivj T.,t,
.o»2
0.07*1
4.70
1.47
0.17
Clock
«««••, ^i — j^,^ — ^;;
'r"jiS? °"i« •£'£' ""i"
1420
1431
1303
1340
1*00
141S
1743
Ctli,
1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-3
2-4
' 3-41
3-10
3-1 1
3-12
0«i3j
or DO
P. .Q./1
e c
73 0.20
O.M
0.40
0.30
o.n
t.O9
1.30
I.4O
S.20
2.20
3.10
3.30
mi -ft*
•0 Flu. «".
3 .3441
3 .3147
3 . 347 1
' .274J
4 .241*
• .2333
7 .2130
4 .2334
3 .14.0
3 .l»73
» . 1824
10.l« o."
O.
0.
024
124
0*1
•
o. 4n
0.114J
.
1053. 14 .0.
to
If
14
S ,4
s «
SOTE vs Distance
T«nM 1-3 - «/20/t.3
toe
OI«t«AC« (rt)
D.O. vs Distance
1-3 -
0.3-
0.1 -
Flux vs Distance
*«*fc« 1-3 - 4/2O/H1
-------
V,
C/l
S3
"8
a
I
Cu
I
•g
o
ffi
c/5
a
is
o
JD
£
,
c
c
3
?
9
ll
j
>
»
^
i'
fl'
V
8
*^ '
i
A
i N
. ^
j
i
o—i
-------
Laboratory Diffusp.r rhflracterizari
Diffuser
(BRV), flow
Appendix B.
were
fcuoSs
aten S6arate ^ °n by
tS °f the °ff'gls measurements were reported as oSOTE The value1 of aSOTR
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - EAST PLANT j
Facilities i
;, and integrally
-------
tf>
z o
I fc
o
Ul
CQ
C
I
I
§
— CO
i I1
tu ff o
.
CD
©
^
_ "X
J
c
rO
"X
eg
/*^" ©
'
su
sa
-------
Figure 5. Aeration Tanks 1-6 - Typical.
P6 Possible Mixed Liquor
P6 RAS
Denotes Off-Gas Test Position
10
PE Possible
-------
TABLE 1
AERATION TANKS 1-6 - NORTON DOMES
Tank Dimensions:
Liquid Surface:
Grid Surface:
Max Y-wall Width:
Tank Volume:
Diffuser Grids:
Diffuser Submergence:
31' (center/center) x 135' x 15.5' (WxLxD)
-23' x 135'
24' x 67;5' (2 grids per tank)
29.5'
460,000 gallons
Norton domes in full floor coverage
15'
Note: The above data is for individual tanks, while the data
below is for the entire three-pass system
Diffuser Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
of DJffyjexs Djffusej DsnsJiy. Tank No.
834
709
505
410
392
332
11%
9%
7%
5%
5%
4%
1,4:
1,4;
2, 5:
2,5!
3,6:
3,6
Diffuser Density = total projected diffuser surface area/grid surface
area
11
-------
01 iWOV HMH
JOVWM3S Nvir,odoa'3w N
12
-------
TABLE 2
SELECTED PLANT OPERATION DATA
PLANT 1
(AERATION TANKS 1-9)
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Date
10/77
11/77
12/77
1/78
2/78
3/78
4/78
5/78
6/78
7/78
8/78
9/78
10/78
11/78
12/78
1/79
2/79
3/79
4/79
5/79
6/79
7/179
8/79
9/79
10/79
11/79
12/79
1/80
2/80
3/80
4/80
5/80
6/80
BOD Load
(lb/1000cf,d)
19.9
23.5
25.0
15.7
32.0
25.5
27.8
28.2
25.9
22.5
24.7
24.5
29.0
30.1
28.8
. 31.5
30.3
30.9
30.5
30.5
30.4
27.7
30.4
29.1
36.2
35.7
32.8
34.0
37.5
38.2
38.5
36.8
37.4
SRT*
(day)
4.3
2.9
2.6
2.9
•«••
2.9
3.4
2.7
3.3
3.5
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.0
3.1
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.1
2.9
3.2
2.6
1.6
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.8
3.5
F/M
(day*)
—
0.20
0.31
0.30
0.26
0.31
0.24
0.23
0,30
0.29
0.22
0.25
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.42
0.49
0.38
0.34
0.36
0.33
0.36
0.36
0.31 .
0.27
NOTES
Contact stabilization to 9/13/79
i
Partial nitrification began
!
Tanks dewatered; diffusers looked okay
All nitrification ceased i
Step feed initiated 9/13/79 '
High influent BOD concentrations noted;
heavy whey discharges \
Loss in OTE noted
Tanks 4-6 dewatered; hose & steam cleaned
Tanks 1-3 dewatered; hose & steam cleaned
13
-------
1
TABLE 2 (Continued) '
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Date
7/80
8/80
9/80
10/80
1 1/80
12/80
1/81
2/81
3/81
4/81
5/81
6/81
7/81
8/81
9/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
1/82
2/82
3/82
4/82
5/82
6/82
7/82
8/82
9/82
10/82
11/82
12/82
1/83
2/83
3/83
4/83
5/83
6/83
7/83
8/83
BOD Load
(lb/1000cf,d)
36.8
33.4
33.6
27.8
26.3
28.4
30.0
34.0
37.6
32.3
30.9
31.1
29.5
31.2
29.4
30.2
29.1
28.9
26.5
25.9
27.9
28.3
29.3
26.2
23.2
22.9
22.3
23.2
23.8
24.1
23.7
24.8
27.4
26.0
27.0
31.9
32.0
26.9
SRT*
(day)
3.9
2.8
2.4
2.9
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.1
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.5
3.8
4.2
3.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.2
3.5
3.6
F/M
(dayl)
0.30
0.33
0.36
0.31
0.31
0.36
0.33
0.34
0.29
0.31
0.34
0.37
0.37
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.33
0.36
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.45
0.50
0.56
0.76
0.57
0.39
14
NOTES
b
i
i
Tanks 1-3 dewatered; hose cleaned
;
'• ;
!
'
S
!
!
Partial nitrification began ;
Nitrification ceased
Dewater Tanks 1-3;
Partial nitrification
Dewater Tanks 4-6;
Nitrification ceased
Dewater Tanks 1-3;
Dewater Tanks 4-6;
!
; >
!
|
;
I
1
!
[
|
steam cleaned
i
steam cleaned
i
i
i
i
i
i
steam cleaned
steam cleaned
i
i
i
i
•
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Date
BOD Load SRT* R/M
(Ib/lOOOcf.d) (day) (dayl)
NOTES
9/83
10/83
11/83
12/83
1/84
2/84
3/84
4/84
5/84
6/84
7/84
8/84
9/84
10/84
11/84
12/84
1/85
2/85
3/85
4/85
5/85
6/85
7/85
8/85
12/86
1/87
2/87
3/87
4/87
5/87
6/87
7/87
8/87
9/87
10/87
11/87
12/87
32.9
32.5
34.8
40.5
39.0
33.2
32.9
29.5
29.7
30.5
23.4
17.1
23.5
28.0
26.5
20.3
24.2
25.4
20.9
20.7
22.6
21.3
20.2
19.9
22.2
11.5
9.6
7.9
9.2
8.0
11.4
13.0
14.8
15.8
8.2
9.3
8.2
3.1
3.6
3.5
3.8
2.6
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.7
1.9
2.1
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.7
4.4
5.1
3.8
11.4
12.2
15.0
15.3
16.2
15.6
14.8
9.8
9.5
10.3
11.1
8.8
10.1
0.63
0.57
0.61
0.75
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.75
0.82
0.85
0.69
0.66
0.51
0.57
0.51
0.55
0.58
0.52
0.41
0.37
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.40
0.16
0.16
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.12
0.19
0.13
Plug flow initiated
Dewater Tanks 1-6; steam cleaned
Partial nitrification
Dewater Tanks 4-6; Milwaukee
Method cleaned :
Dewater Tanks 1-3; steam cleaned
Out of service to 12/86 !
Back in service, Tanks 1-6.
Full nitrification
*Based on aeration tanks solids
15
-------
TABLES
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - MMSD
(mg/L)
Year BOD co KT. :
t^£*e- , jiji Nitrdgerj
1977 191 158 '• i
1Q7C , n . J.JO „:
*"/o 184 1ffi
!?Z? 2?3 154
245
217 167
1983 HI 15S
1984 173
1986 1?6
167 26.8
Other analyses performed periodically: !
Alkalinity 300-400 mg/L CaCOs ;
. PH 7.2 to 8.0 |
Hardness 350-400 mg/L CaCOs ;
Iron 0.6-1,0 mg/L Fe :
16
-------
in
2."*'*ff--'^.*«3£Z£ZZXZEttfeS'.^lf?uH« ,
second
were
tanks' werf dl^^^ a P"« *>w mode. Tne aeration
began on the new aeration £ng £ ffi SlS JS£?2 We* T™ clean«l- Work
period between June 1983 SSjime iSs n« (West Plant) w June of 1983; During the
2) were enatic. BeS^ J^SdA^^ « IteWeS S* ^ Plant^lan« 1 ^
Tanks 1-6 were taken out of service for reniv-fS ??<• St ?I^?t went on ^e, Aeration
cleaned, and those in Tanfo : 4?2S i toShSJ? ^ SerS ? Tanks !-3 wer^ steam
and rehosed (Milwauke?MeAodT Afte^ ^cWdnf t^ m™C ^ for about ?0 ^""^
December 1986. In that interval th^^S^ £*"* "f^"641 out of s^ce until
which became stagnant ^l^hS^S " 3b°Ut 12 °f Water
-o,. ™ a result, Aeration TaSs^re^ut^k££ ~°- °f WasTaSr "** about
a very light loading. SRTs ranged from aK to 16 davs rS^ APlUg l°WSem at
January 1988. Complete nitrification was?btaked after Sn,n^neCei^ber 1986and
mr oo uuuuiica aner start-up in December. :
Oxygen Transfer.
were selected to cover the inlet and1 outlet are^ f nO1"tS •? °ff'gas analysis (Fare's)
represent an equal tank surface area OTF vaii^f S1X ^S and to have each h^)od
were calculated for each sample point and for aU thS^n w ? ^^ condirions. «SOTE,
point values. A typical printout of Hafa finrTrn\ «P ^^ y gas flux weighting of the
that dissolved oxygen conSn pLn^ ^ °f^gas test is Presented in Figur? 2 Note
non-nitrifirari^n ™^^ xTT.i pomi u-y- (usually approximately 2.0 m g^tCStS WCre condu««i at the same time of the day and
«owit measurements to cle'an water test da't/^iii"6 Tre obtain^ by comparing
and Yum (5) for ceramic dom^s weS StS fo a vSn??^/0™^-^00 (4>
densities. Extrapolation of this clean water d? t A • g s and diffuser
J values for each end at a nm«» «f «« nlll^f311011 Tanks ^ Provided clean water
17
-------
d? sa2£lSf £j£ rf f S™1^ °?casional oxyg*> transfer tests were conducted using
nh^ %7^ h«is (6). Typically these tests were conducted in only one pass.
LTsLs^t^n steady-state oxygen transfer measurements were comparable to
ott-gas tests in the MMSD aeration tanks provided DO concentrations were above 2.0
«?nducted in Aeration Tanks 1-3 alonglwith
7 ui vD* Icf *g f?f "* test day ««*" » Table 4
condions m CSC tebles ^ figures ^ forplug;now
Additional oxygen transfer data are also presented in Table 5 These studies were
conducted on occasion by MMSD personnel Ld UW students using SStySS or olf-gas
procedures. In most instances, only a single tank was sampled < 8
were "**" on
e Ttagm
A review of the data in these tables and figures reveals several important observations.
*" ^^ MEy 1984 tO My 1987 ^^ 7> wa^ significantly
A two hour air flow shut off when the diffuser piping filled with
£££ SSffu^ Tn SUbs^"^ P^ged eMerirough b-off
tegs or tne diffusers following air restoration (Day 10).
Cleaning periods when the aeration tanks were dewatered and the
diffusers steam cleaned. One of these cleanings occuSed l?mom
(Day 61) after the last cleaning event in April 1983
14 months (Day 482) after cleaning in July 1984
18
-------
TABLE4
EAST PLANT OXYGEN TRANSFER TEST DATA
TANKS 1-3
Date
Day
oSOTE
Weekly
F/M
Weekly
SRT
(%) (days'1) (days)
05/21/84
05/23/84
05/30/84
06/08/84
06/12/84
06/21/84
06/26/84
07/06/84
07/12/84
07/18/84
07/27/84
08/01/84
08/07/84
08/13/84
08/20/84
. 08/29/84
09/07/84
09/18/84
12/20/84
03/15/85
04/26/85
0/20/85
06/26/85
07/03/85
07/17/85
08/14/85
05/08/87
05/27/87
05/29/87
06/09/87
06/17/87
06/25/87
06/29/87
07/15/87
1
3
10
19
23
32
37
47
53
59
68
73
81
87
94
103
112
123
216
301
343
398
404
411
425
453
1086
1105
1107
1118
1125
1133
1137
1154
9.44
8.13
8.56
15.53
13.00
10.07
9.99
11.15
9.61
10.23
13.96
14.87
13.00
12.94
12.98
11.81
9.68
9.80
9.52
8.16
12.58
10.19
11.33
9.74
15.67
16.72
-
15.30
16.40
14.60
15.30
18.08
19.60
20.40
17.30
.82
.82
.82
.85
.85
.85
.85
.69
.69
.69
.69
.66
.66
.66
.66
66
» \J\J
.51
.51
.55
.41
.37
.29
.29
32
• *J £*
.32
.40
.13
.11
.08
.12
.10
.10
.10
.21
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1 9
1*7
1 9
J. • s
. 1.7
1.7 '
1 7
I . /
2.3
2.3
1.9
.3.5
3.5
4.4
4.4
<: 1
J. i
5.1
3.8
16.2
16.5
16.4
16.6
16.6
10.0
10.0
10.0
Daily
BOD Load NOTES
(lb/1000 ft^d) :
34
39
55
37
30
46
54
32
34
16
34
41
tl
37
53
A 1
41
26
49
23
32
27
29
28
^^
52.
29
26
12
10
7
14
11
11
10
20
Power out 6/7/84
Steam clean 7/20/84
Heavy Nocardia foam
Heavy Nocardia foam
Steam clean 9/1 3/85
Out of service from
9/13/85 to 11/18/86;
units submerged in
t 12 in. stagnant water
during this period.
19
-------
to
I
CO
^e
c.
flj
H-
"8
I
tn
ro
ra
Q
20
-------
Figure 8a. aSOTE vs. Time - Exploded 0 to 500 days.
Day vs « 50TE * - Tanks I -3
ui
O
400
Day
Figure 8b. aSOTE vs. Time - Exploded 1080 to 1160 days.
Day vs « SOTE X - Tanks 1-3
500
22
O
8
20
18
16
t4-
12-
10-
11080
1100
1120
Day
21
1140
1160
-------
Figure 9. F/M vs. Time - Tanks 1-3.
c
OB
CO
HI
CO
22
-------
-o
T-
s
s
uT
Figure lOa. F/M vs. Time - Exploded 0 to 500 days.
Day vs F/M East Plant
500
Figure lOb. F/M vs. Time - Exploded 1080 to 1160 days.
Day vs F/M East Plant
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10-
0.08-
0.06-
1080
1100
1120
Day
1140
23
-------
O
O
CM
O
O
O
C
•o
Q
O
CQ
5JD
0.
03
III
i
CO
Q
O
CD
V)
CO
Q
O
O
00
O
O
(O
CO
Q
O
O
O
O
CM
(P/« no oo
-------
Figure 12a. BOD Load vs. Time - Exploded 0 to 500 days
Day vs BOD Load - East Plant
•w
o
X)
3
Cl
o
SI
400
500
Day
Figure 12b. BOD Load vs. Time - Exploded 1080 to 1160 days.
Day vs BOD Load - East Plant
a
o
T»
a
O
O
o
CD
1100
1120
Day
25
1140
1160
-------
TABLES
ADDITIONAL OXYGEN TRANSFER TEST DATA - PLANT
Date
Niarch 1978
September 1978
June 1980
August 1980
August 1982
March 1984
March 1984
Tank
Number
4
4
1
1
1-3
1
1-3
Operation
Mode
Contact Stabilization
Contact Stabilization
Step Aeration
Step Aeration
Step Aeration
Step Aeration
Step Aeration
ccSOTE
14%
18%
8%
9%
16%
7%
7%
Test
Method
Steady
Steady
Steady
Steady-
Off-g;
Off-gas
Off-gas
•state
•state
state
state
;as/Steady-state
26
-------
incomplete scouring of the diffusers (see Table 4 and Figure 7) Steam cleaning however
^**^^
'
" '•«"•«-»-
• • • ' - • .
to order to look at this in more detail, the data in Table 4 were broken down on a ner
VU " ated ™S informaaon a^TTaW Knd
" Days 425 ^ 453 were
a^^
appjjren, alpha values did appear to remain a, ahigher leveUs^cMy ta Tanl °Ier this
tank hUfmitf tag °" Dai " (7/20/84) aSato devaled W^M alpha values in all three
recoveries
-------
TABLE 6
EASTPLANT ALPHA VALUES FOR EACH AERATION TANK
TANKS 1-3 i.
T4HKI TANK2
Date Day
• ,. .
05/21/84 1
05/23/84 3
05/30/84 10
06/07/84
06/08/84 19
06/12/84 23
06/21/84 32
06/26/84 37
07/06/84 47
07/12/84 53
07/18/84 59
07/20/84
07/27/84 68
08/01/84 73
08/07/84 81
08/13/84 87
08/20/84 94
08/219/84 103
09/07/84 112
09/18/84 123
06/20/85 398
06/26/85 404
07/03/85 411
07/17/85 425
08/14/85 453
09/13/85
09/13/85
11/18/86
05/08/87 1086
05/11/87 1089
05/27/87 1105
05/29/87 1107
06/021/87 1111
06/051/87 1118
06/17/87 1125
06/25/87 1133
06/29/87 1137
07/15/87 1154
Gs
(scfm/d)
~ ' —
0.50
0.77
0.95
0.52
0.49
0.76
0.83
0.78
0.90
0.43
1.05
0.65
0.93
0.62
0.42
0.63
1.10
0.80
0.93
0.95
0.97
0.52
0.48
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.59
0.62
0.62
0.59
0.61
0.62
0.61
Apparent Apparent
Alpha Gs Alpha
(scfnVd)
— —
.26 0.96 .35
.25 1.04 .29
•24 1.30 .36
POWER OUT
•f4 0.56 .60
.38 0.61 .49
•33 1.03 .38
•34 1.09 .40*
•33 1.04 .44
•31 0.69 .33
•32 0.69 .37
STEAM CLEANED
•43 1.08 .56
•38 0.61 .61
•30 0.60 .62
.30 .40 .49
.33 0.40 .44
•34 0.82 .43
•31 1.40 .36
•29 1.04 .38
•28 1.15 .39
•31 1.15 .48
.24 1.28 .38
•47 0.63 .57
•44 0.62 .65
OUT OF SERVICE
STEAM CLEANED
IN SERVICE
•33 0.90 .64
•34 0.86 .63
•40 0.86 .65
•36 0.51 .54
.38 0.41 .54
•38 0.81 .55
•42 0.68 .67
•44 0.84 .78
.47 0.80 .74
•43 0.85 .68
TANK 3
28
Gs
(scfm/d)
• — .
0.84
0.95
0.87
0.49
0.61
0.92
1.15
1.12
0.86
0.64
0.84
0.46
0.70
0.67
0.54
0.62
0.81
1.00
1.13
0.92
1.16
0.72
0.70
0.79
0.61
0.61
0.63
0.73
0.76
0.14
0.74
.1—
Appiarem
Alpha
r ~ —
:43
.38
.42
i
J56
.51
.40
.36
.51
.40
•41
.64
.71
.76
.68
.56
.54
.50
.45 .
.57
.61
.60
Notes
-r- ,
• 63 Nocardia Scum
.71 Nocardia Scum
.sj.
.91
.77
.85
.97
1.01;
1.15
.85;
T — " • —
i
-
-------
I
I
«J
Q,
<
4*4
C
ro
«6
CM
c
ro
f-
OJD
fc
O.
o.
c
ro
(1.
en
ro
tu
ra
Q
29
-------
«
Q
-------
depressed local oSOTC Si hnhinP ^ly tC^gh surfactant concentrations,
'
oca o hnhn
immediately^ cleaning TSShSSS? Z? ', T ¥**** at ^ falet 2Ones> i
inlet zones [see Mf£S%^S* f°* ******* at the
o
alpha to some degree at the £^bm^?h«anS^Tg ^usere did restore apparent
the downstream ^ K^S ^ es we^ seen
wastewater after a cleaning wenLbut^SSn?^ i ^^ ^^ mfluenced !by the
tanks may have bc^S^^^^^0^ ** apparent alpha in those
"S-Sss-^
bubbling will also depre* TvSof SonB^fS ^^ " *e ^ P0^8' "r^8 coarse
bubbling will also depre* Tvof SonB^fS ^^ " *e ^ P0^8' "r^8 coars
also be Ixtended furthS down Ae%Sm X ^ SpCCUlate ^ foulin? would
31
-------
,o
"
I
E
3
E
I
00
a
§
ex
ro
i
HI
ex
o
to
1
c
I-
o
o
co
JO
<
to
Z3
03
LU
H-
O
to
-------
(endogenous cleaning) of diffusers. Influent to the tanks was discontinued for one week
and the mixed liquor was continuously aerated during this time. Results of this experiment
appear in Figure 16. It appeared that two days after resumption of influent flowiat a
comparable load, oSOTE was significantly elevated in this plug flow system. Twelve days
later, values began to move downward. The effectiveness of this process of cleaning has
not been pursued further, but this work suggests that dynamic swings in aSOTE with
loading changes are important in evaluating oSOTE data.
There was also interest in determining the relative effectiveness of "Milwaukee
Method" cleaning versus steam cleaning of the MMSD diffusers. During shutdown of
Aeration Tanks 1-6, Tanks 4-6 were Milwaukee cleaned and Tanks 1-3 were steam
cleaned Unfortunately, due to equipment and construction problems, these aeration tanks
were held out of service for 14 months. During that time, the diffusers were submerged
under about 6 inches of water, which became heavily infested with algae. The tanks were
put back into service without checking diffuser cleanliness. No off-gas tests were
performed until May of 1987 (6 months after being put back into service). Nonetheless
results of these off-gas tests are presented in Table 7. It does not appear that one method
produced a superior level of cleansing over the other based on this test. :
Diffuser Characterizations I
On several occasions, diffusers were removed from the aeration tanks and :
characterized. Bubble release vacuum (or pressure), dynamic wet pressure and!
occasionally residue analyses were performed. Results of this cursory work appear in
lable 8. ' i
The data for July 7, 1980, were obtained from a diffuser in Aeration Tanks 1-3
(uncertain as to which tank) after those tanks had been aerated for eight days without
influent flow (return sludge only). Unfortunately, no data were obtained on diffusers prior
to this biological cleaning procedure. ;
-2 5uJuly }984'four diffusers we.re collected from each of the 6 grids in Aeration Tanks
1-3. These diffusers had not experienced a cleaning event for 14 months (Table 2) It is
interesting to note that fouling was fairly uniform as measured by DWP/BRV ratios
whereas foulant quantities decreased and percent volatile content increased downstream
(Table 8). It is presumed that higher foulant quantities and lower volatile solids on the
diffusers at the influent end may be representative of inorganic sedimentation. Table 9
presents the results of inorganic analyses of foulants obtained from diffusers in each grid
Foulant samples were fired at 550'C prior to analysis so that percent by weight figure! are
based on inert (fixed) solid fraction. A separate set of parallel foulant samples were
acidified with 14% HC1 after firing to solubilize acid-soluble precipitates like CaCCh Note
the decreases in Si downstream. Increased precipitation of P, Mg, Ca, and Fe were noted
in the downstream grids, likely due to pH changes. ;
The sample reported for My 1985, one year after steam cleaning, indicates
substantially less fouling than the previous year. (Note that Tank 5 is parallel to Tank 2-
both Systems 1-3 and 4-6 were operated at same load conditions.) This may have been due
to a somewhat lower BOD loading in the later period (Tables 2 and 3). Furthermore there
is some indication in the oSQTE and alpha determinations made in June/July 1985 that
these values were somewhat higher than June/July values in 1984 (Tables 4 and 6)
33
-------
o>
Wl
c
U
VI
O
o
o
o
fe ^
34
-------
TABLE?
COMPARISONS OF oSOTE PERFORMANCE
TANKS 1-3 AND 4-6
r^ot*
4^aiy T'onUc* 1 O '
J-anKs '-3 Tanks 4-«j
'-'••• _ j
5/08/87 is^
5/11/87 DI;)
5/27/87 ]64 18.3
5/28/87 10<4 - . I '
5/29/87 14o 18.4
6/09/87 }?, •
6/17/87 to | . T6.0
6/25/87 }$> 1J8.2
6^9/87 20 4 20-4
7/15/87 77, 20.3
1/'3 17.5
Tajaks 1-3: Steam cleaned !
i
Tajiks4-6: Milwaukee Method cleaned !
35
-------
TABLE 8
DDFFUSER CHARACTERISTICS - PLANT 1
(Mean values for 4 samples)
Date
Clean Dome
Location
07/07/80+
07/24/84
07/24/84
07/24/84
07/24/84
07/24/84
07/24/84
07/17/85
09/02/85
09/02/85+
09/02/85
Tanks 1-3
Tank 1, Grid 1
Tank 1, Grid 2
Tank 2, Grid 3
Tank 2, Grid 4
Tank 3, Grid 5
Tank 3, Grid 6
Tank 5, Grid 3
Tank 4, Grid 1
Tank 4, Grid 2
Tank 6, Grid 6
*Bubble release pressurg
+One sample only
BRV
(in Wg)
s/x
DWP
@ .75 scfm
(inWg)
DWP
BRV
BE3IPJJE
Volatile Mass
(mg/cm2)
u .uo 6.2
18* .10 12.5
48 .32 17.7
52 .22 18.8
45 .27 17.3
70 .41 21.5
46 .34 20.3
41 .23 15.3
18 .35 12.1
6 .10 6.7
6 .12 7.4
6 .07 6.0
- — — .
36
1.03 - j
•69 high low
.37 26 ' 26
•36 47 i i6
-38 52 19
•31 55; 14
•44 65 ! 12
.37 72 ; 9
,-6y - i .low
l.H bleaned
1-23 cleaned
1-00 cleaned
i
i
i
i
i
i :
1
• ,
-------
*
CO
_)
*
S!
s
J
2
^ CO
o S
a S 8 I
a»_ — . ^
^\ ^^i
^ E < ^
§
s
8
0
2
O
jt>
OS
O
2
O
K
^
— •
Q"
^
O
{^
Q
0!
W
E
o
2
2
E
u
b
ftj
S
3
i
j:
tf
•o
s
•0
•c
O
•t
O
CO
•a
S
CN
•o
•c
O
•a
'C
O
1'
S
i
o
•o
S
en
1
73
s
_«
r°
o
r^
b w>
2 •-•
5^
0 ^ vo d - ^ « d ~ • d en d • d
Oowo o. CN CN
OCNOO . . ^«d^d . endd •
^^^OeneNvOr^soio io>-irvi
d ~ o d d « d d o • . •— >dd ' ICN "d '
^- «0 en t- en ~ oo ~ wn ^.
° •"" £j d o' r-' d CN d ' • en • d '
enoorftv;vnr-;C5r-;r-^-icNoor-so'5t
'-<— 'OsvoooeNoddden'd— «'d
o >n cs o\ «o en o o vo CN o\ cs so
*-« —• oo -«t d d <-«* o\ d . d es d d «
*~: "R "*. f": c^ Tt en ^- oo enr-r-Oen
^"^ T"H ^^
es O o\ oo vo CN en en so CN so o\
MfS2rt'o'°''^0^0' 'den id «
O\ en vr> o\ en oo •— i o\ t^ «-i ^
d — d Tf d d -i oo d • • en • o" •
f- »
f
iu
!
I
&
a
-------
BRV ahd DWP,
tend to confirm
by the -^ThS:^^^ «*»« •"<
38
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - WEST PLANT
Facilities
^^^^^^^^^•S^mii^^
two
sfcsSEH^^-^s*?:?
Han]:
:our-
39
-------
z
o
•a
co
c
§
§
I
I
to
o
i-
<
Q
s
.
©
£•
ro
CJ
©
(NJ
a
u
o
u
_r
UJ •*• o
§33
-> UJ
5J ^
ac
S 1
u
03
O
tr
a
RE
a: <-!
a. a
2<
H-J
< a.
o:
UJ
a.
in
(O
».^_.
i
!
i
0 ,
c
f \
I ,
WEST BLOWERS
fO
-------
Figure 18. Aeration Tanks 19-30 - Typical.
PG Posslbl*
Uqu0f
PS RAS
PE Possible
— Denotee Off-Qat leaf Position
41
-------
TABLE 10
AERATION TANKS 19-30 - SANITAKE DISCS
S
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Note - The above data is for individual tanks, while the
data below is for the entire three pass system.
Diffuser Density
6?0
350
350
290^
290
*
21,24,
21,241
21, 241
20,23:
20, 23;
20' 23'
19, 22,'
19,22,
19, 22,:
25,28*
25,28
25. 28
25,28
25, 28
25, 28
27, 30
27,30
27, 30
Diffuser Density = total projected diffuser surface area^rid surface area. I
42
-------
TABLE 11
AVERAGE MONTHLY OPERATING DATA - WEST PLANT
Month
Oct. 85
Nov. 85
Dec. 85
Jan. 86
Feb. 86
Mar. 86
Apr. 86
May 86
June 86
July 86
Aug. 86
Sept. 86
Oct. 86
Nov. 86
Dec. 86
Jan. 87
Feb. 87
Maj-. 87
Apr. 87
May 87
June 87
July 87
Aug. 87
Sept. 87
Oct. 87
Nov., 87
Dec. 87
PLANTS
BOD Load SRT
(lb/1000 ft3d) (days)
• —
16.2
14.7
16.5
16.0
13.2
21.9
12.4
10.6
11.2
10.4
10.2
8.0
9.8
12.3
11.9
12.5
13.6
13.1
-13.9
12.8
13.8
13.3
13.3
13.2
13.1
14.8
12.6
6.4
6.1
5.8
6.4
7.8
7.1
8.2
8.0
5.7
7.0
11.0
11.1
10.6
11.5
11.2
11.2
11.5
10.6
9.7
9.1
9.6
9.7
9.3
9.7
9.6
9.6
F/M
(days*1)
-16
.19
.20
.16
.16
.09
.12
.09
.10
.15
.08
.09
.12
.12
.10
.11
.12
.11
.11
.12
.16
.14
.13
.12
.12
.14
.11
43
PLANT 4 ;
BOD Load SRT F/M ! Notes
Ob/1000 ft3d) (days) (days'l)
14.9
17.3
16.2
13.6
22.8
11.7
10.6
11.2
10.4
10.2
8.0
9.8
12.3
11.9
12.5
13.6
13.1
13.9
12.8
13.8
13.3
13.3
13.2
13.1
14.8
12,6
— • • - —
9.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
7.4
8.0
8.0
6.7
8.0
5.2
8.1
6.0
8.9
11.3
11.3
11.5
11.6
10.6
9.7
9.5
9.8
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.6
9.6
— •
! ~ ' . —
•21 Plant 3 stan up
• 17 : Plant 4 stan up
.23 '
.22 •
.22 !
• 14 i Stable operation
.14
• 11 : Shut off coarse
i bubble aeration
1 (5/14/86)
.10 :
.15
• 1 1 ;Plant 3, high SRT
Plant 4, low SRT
.15
• 12 Plants 3 &4
resume parallel
operation
.11
.13
.09
.11
.12
.14 (
.16
.13 E
V
.13 "
.12
.14
.13
• —
-lean tanks 19-21
Experiments
/ith D.O. set
oints
— —
-------
vne d to PlantS 3 ** 4
of operation, ftaewas TO fadication Sn, ™'°S Kc*0>,ol?&- However, after one
fadication n, c0>,o?&- owever, after one
ed
a^^'sS^-5^1'"1
range that would still
in Pl^rs'^So^rSlys2^!*3" °?™al SRT (1 1 days) and the SRT
1986. ys' This was Performed in September an4 October
off-gas te ™ rucan?u£0" WaS l*1*"™^ ^f0" «"d
Oxygen Transfer
SS? l^ffsm^ T ^^ in SePtem^ 1985 and continued through
sTn^lams ^and 4mS£ 2? '24 2? ^^ ^^ l° the ^ P^Sdon
44
-------
il 1P2 l- aeraj?°n tanks were determined by analyzing gas flux data from
to^SFTS* 3 *!**"*? OVeraU ^ gas flow ra'e to *e actual gas fl°w rate
Seen^e tS^nS CO?dltlonfs> ^ ns£ b? the operator prior to testing. An error limit
between the two observations of ± 10% was set for an acceptable test The first set of test
fTat^^\ 12?> 195, and 230 feet from Setflult end
r ?° A °f hood locations ^ not sense the effect of the coarse
bv o A ' gn. 147
tocttSh^SfSifT mfluSnLu,^ L(see Flgure 18)- ^ hood location at 15 feet wa
mh Datte^^S±T° cfl°arseKbubble h?ade^. When those diffusers were in operation,
this pattern estimated air flow that was within about 9% of that set bv the onerarnr anH
S? fD\yv73m1hUt0ff' ™^h^ Withln -boutS^Ste^HS^
( e ^*16 dlffusers w (
Dv3mh
also he( not^fi ?e ^X*^16 dl,ffusers were not used in the West Plant. ( It should
12 S6 ^ s.amphng locations did not each sense an equal: tank ^
^ W61ghUng was Performed to estimate overall mea!n weighted
A. TITS^
s Sfl^ssisr ( duriwghthe if,st ™s ^^is^&'Sffi&'SaiE
wofasse, wer? SHS^Ji ^ ^ &" three paSS6S Were tested' air flow rates :in the last
A f?.?af r ° ed t0 fluctuate ™ accordance with D.O. and gas flow set points
After the first pass was tested, airflow rates to each successive pass were heldcEant at
the gas flow rates that the system had equilibrated to during first pass testing
u 5 ?» same week ^ ^d ^thin the hours of
effort to ^"^ the effect df waste-
vaues k a i o kqP' Where 1 is gas flow rate fo cfnVdiffuser,
comnLe^hf^T J Calculated Table 12 presents the results of these calculations and
compares the calculated values of k and p with those values in clean water for the disc
45
-------
Figure 19. Effect of Coarse Bubble Diffuser.
§
in
- Coarse Bubble Diffuser
40
'20
Dl»tone« (ft)
200
240
Figure IV-B.22
O.3
0..3
0.2
O.I
40
^stance
~ Exttind^d Anolv.f.
flO
'20 N IfiO
Of«tonc« (ft)
2OO
240
46
-------
Figure 20. Effect of Coarse Bubble Diffuser.
D.O. vs Distance
Tonk 25 - 3/26/86 - gxt«nd.d
4 -
I -
Figure IV-B.24
- Coarse Bubble Diffuser
—r—
16O
120
Otolonce (ft)
2OO
c
240
Flux vs Distance
Tank 25 - 3/26/86 - E»t.nd.d
- Coarse Bubble Diffuser
47
-------
Figure 21. Computer Printout - Off-gas Data.
22
it/«?
*u***ry 0«t«
T«l titel «.,».« T-ftt B
»U*# •crirw}* 0*1 «i
*W«tlO« |v*tM| !*«(,!,.
££:»=• ill Sis ess.
'«•» volu« II*/T4/* €3 tin, »4««)> , „
ssxw:4"- »•• sssxjr-—•
''iwr i«u«.i HOI TMI^/U,
-------
TABLE 12
SOTE VS. AIR FLOW TEST RESULTS
WEST PLANT (TANK 28) - OCTOBER 1986
Gridl
Total Air Flow
(cfm)
1300
1700
2100
2700
AirFlow/Diffuser
(cfnVdiffuser)
.66
.86
1.06
1.37
ocSOTE
i
7.87 ;
7.21 |
7.62 :
7.06 :
Calculated values of k and p in SOTE = k(Flow)P
Tank 28 Test: k = 7.39 p = -.1170
Clean Water, 1st Pass: k = 34.51 p = -. 1319
Clean Water, 2nd/3rd Pass: k = 30^85 p = -. 1591
49
-------
t^t^^SSSSSX^g** f°Und '" ?e.fet «* "coMAhbd pass
was conducted almost 400 days after in^latio^/enmaten ^"s^y
K«*'«?-~.»s-
-*• <"=
from the « Jta, a n gh taosA r
poorer than for F/M ranebefrom n?^n 5 I llie Delation coefficients were
-aia^-js2SsSS^&%^gsr
oerated tO ! 1 days' Note that ^^ ^n
operated at the same BOD loading
50
-------
Figure 22. Twenty-four Hour Survey - Alpha.
Alpha vs Time
rank 28 - 9/25 & 9/26
Ttm« (Hour* — O '«•
51
-------
Figure 23. Twenty-four Hour Survey - aSOTE, Airflow.
o,
g
SOTE
Tim. (Hours)
0.3
Air Row(Actual) vs Time
Tank 28 - 9/23 it 9/28
« 12 18
TTm* (Hour* — 0 «« 14OO)
52
2O
-------
••«,
Figure 24. Twenty-four Hour Survey - Flow, TOC.
§
Primary Effluent Flow vs Time
Tonk 28 - 0/23 * 9/28 T
Primary Effluent TOC vs Time
- a/as & o/se
12 16
TTm« (Hours)
53
2O
24
-------
TABLE 13
oSOTE PLANT DATA - PLANT 3
T"^»-» ***
uate
—
09/27/85
10/04/85
10/11/85
10/18/85
10/25/85
10/30/85
11/08/85
01/22/86
02/05/86
02/19/86
03/12/86
03/19/86
03/26/86
04/02/86
04/30/86
05/14/86
05/22/86
05/28/86
06/134/86
06/18/86
06/19/86
06/24/86
07/17/86
07/22/86
09/11/86
09/18/86
10/07/86
10/09/86
10/14/86
10/16/86
10/21/86
10/23/86
10/28/86
10/30/86
11/04/86
11/06/86
11/11/86
11/25/86
12/08/86
01/07787
01/08/87
Day
— — ••
1
8
15
22
29
34
43
118
132
146
167
174
181
188
216
230
238
244
251
265
266
271
294
299
350
357
376
378
383
385
390
392
397
399
404
406
411
425
438
468
467
a
21
12 18
1**. 1 O
12 OS
l^.V/O
12.02
7.83
f, 01
u.y i
^ Si
J.O i
1 1 01
i i.y L
10.32
1L80
12 10
i. **• ± y
1 1 4?
A 1 .*T^
12 10
X Z.. 1 U
14.16
1013
1U. i 3
10.07
9.62
9.71
9.96
9.74
10.75
11.77
SOTE
24
(%)
— ' i — . _
U«7fN
.79
10.76
10.49
8.21
6-5 ^
.36
12.55
11 *7l"\
1. 70
11. 19
12.32
12.48
11 C. 1
1.61
11 TO
1.78 .
11 f\*T
1.97
14.39
10.99
9O r\
.89
10.51
9.85
9.52
10.64
12.13
WE
SRT
(days)
" — •
7.0
5.5
5.6
6.8
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.1
6.9
6.5
8.0
7.6
7.7
8.3
8.3
7.9
8.0
8.1
11.2
11.5
11.4
11.4
11.1
11.1
11.0
11.0.
11.0
11.0
10.3
10.3
10.2
11.2
11.6
11.3
11.3
.
EKLY
F/M
(days'1)
— . —
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.19
0.14
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.13
DAILY
BOD
(1^/1000 ft3d)
'• .
•• 13.0
! 26.4
27.3
15.5
i 12.9
! 18.2
! 18.0
i 18.6
1 11.9
11.7
, 11.3
11.9
!12.0
'15.1
9.4
10.9
-8.7
ilO.9
;13.9
112.4
11.7
15.5
8.8
I 9.2
I 9.6
11. '6
19.2
io.o
i8.6
10.6
10.8
11.1
15.1
14.6
14.6
15.4
7.0
15.7
13.7
54
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
Date
01/14/87
01/30/87
0:2/13/87
02/20/87
02/27/87
03/06/87
03/2787
04/03/87
04/17/87
04/24/87
06/01/87
06/02/87
06/10/87
06/11/87
06/16/87
06/23/87
Day
475
491
505
512
519
526
547
554
568
575
613
614
622
623
628
07/09/87
07/10/87
07/16/87
07/20/87
07/30/87
08/05/87
08/11/87
09/04/87
09/18/87
09/25/87
10/30/87
11/06/87
11/13/87
12/04/87
651
652
658
662
672
678
684
708
722
729
764
771
778
799
oS(
21
(%)
12.66
12.31
11.80
11.10
11.97
12.03
11.31
11.51
11.57
11.63
HOSE
13.33
10.05
10.19
9.34
13.56
9.89
14.09
10.36
11.34
11.79
DTE
24
(%)
••
10.48
10.89
11.68
10.18
10.59
11.54
11.24
10.27
10.13
11.29
CLEAN
8.55
10.64
11.12
11.54
13.74
10.22
14.21
11.66
10.08
11.08
10.64
WE:
SRT
(days)
••
11.3
10.5
11.4
11.1
10.6
11.2
11.7
11.5
10.7
9.3
9.7
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.4
#21
9.6
9.6
9.8
9.6
15.7
9.7
9.7
9:4
9.1
9.3
9.7
9.7
9.6
10.0
—
EKLY
F/M
(days*1)
—————— — __
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.15
0.12
DAILY
i BOD
(Ib/lOOOft^d)
15.6 ,
10.4
14.3
i 18.3
15.1
i 10.7
i 12.1
; 15.1
1 14.6
96
; 14.8
13.5
119.3
'17.4
18.5
!18.2
13.4
15 1
* *x • *
16.6
i£ i
Jf.3
11.8
22.4
19 8
iA S * \J
19 0
•*• s • \j
17.6
14.0
55
-------
TABLE 14
oSOTE PLANT DATA - PLANT 4
T"\ *.
Date
— .
111/15/85
01/22/86
02/05/86
02/19/86
031/12/86
03/26/86
04/02/86
04/30/86
05/14/86
05/22/86
05/28/86
06/04/86
06/18/86
06/19/86
06/24/86
07/15/86
07/17/86
07/22/86
09/11/86
09/16/86
10/02/86
10/09/86
10/14/86
10/16/86
10/21/86
10/23/86
10/28/86
10/30/86
11/04/86
11/06/86
11/11/86
11/2:5/86
12/04/86
12/08/86
01/07/87
01/08/87
01/14/87
01/30/87
02/13/87
02/20/87
Day
— __.
50
118
132
146
167
181
188
216
230
238
244
251
265
266
271
292
294
299
350
355
371
378
383
385
390
392
397
399
404
406
411
425
434
438
468
469
475
491
505
512
oSOTE
25
._
9.87
ft 88
v. OO
11.07
10.99
12.06
12.92
12.32
10.86
12.30
11.98
12.42
13.06
10.52
7 99
/ »sy
9 74
~. / *T
8 91
0.7 1
8.20
11.14
11.36
10.22
15.42
14.53
28
8.00
70 1
.31
8.85
8*7i"i
.79
10.99
12.85
11.48
12.48
11.69
11.43
9*3*7
.37
9f\f\
.29
9.20
9.40
8.02
8.00
11.99
11.02
12.33
11.59
13.51
WEEKLY DAILY
SRT
(days)
5.4
5f\
.9
6.1
6.0
7.3
7.6
8.0
9.1
10.0
9.8
8.1
7.8
6.4
6.4
6.2
5.6
5.6
5.7
9.2
7.3
5.9
5.9
64
.1
6.1
6^
.1
6.1
5f\
.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
8.3
11-.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.3
11.0
11.6
11.3
F/M ! BOD
(days'1) flh,
0.16
0.24
0.18
0.26
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.14
0.09
0.11
0.14
0.31
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.09 ]
]
r!000 ft3d)
16.0
18.2
11.5
12.7
11.3
13.0
15.2
9.4
10.9
8.7
10.9
13.9
12.4
11.7
12.0
15.5
8.8
9.2
13.1
7.3
11.6
9.2
10.0
8.6
10.6
10.8
11.1
15.1
14.6
14.6
15.4
11.6
7.0
15.7
13.7
15.6
10.4
4.3
56
-------
TABLE 14 (Continued)
0:2/27/87
03/06/87
03/27/87
04/03/87
04/17/87
04/24/87
06/16/87
07/16/87
07/20/87
07/30/87
08/05/87
08/11/87
09/04/87
09/18/87
09/25/87
10/30/87
11/06/87
11/13/87
12/04/87
519
526
547
554
568
575
628
658
662
672
678
684
708
722
729
764
771
778
799
13.13
11.76
12.14
12.54
12.32
10.39
11.14
12.85
13.30
13.50
14.36
13.63
11.81
12.26
10.35
15.13
12.79
12.54
12.32
11.31
14.34
9.62
8.91
12.94
12.41
12.18
12.83
9.51
12.48
11.75
11.4
11.5
11.8
11.5
10.7
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.7
9.4
9.0
9.3
9.7
9.7.
9.6
9.7
0.10
0.08
0.09
0 11
V* A *.
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.15
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.16
0.15
0.15
18.3
15.1
10.7
12.1
15.1
14.6
17.4
13.4
15.1
16.6
14.9
16.1
13.3
11.8
22.4
19.8
19.0
17.6
14.0
57
-------
e
C/5
I
00
v
«s
I
en
£
(12)
58
-------
i
V)
(N
^
I
I
00
a
CO
Q
59
-------
(0
Q
oooi/qi) aoa
60
-------
CO
F
•
Of
eo
DO
c*
CO
s
5
a
i
**
c
51
«
5
1US
61
-------
p
-------
t>
V
oo
CN
^
I
UJ
O
CO
c
(0
c
CO
Q
Crt
>v
Q
63
-------
« «J
£ *-
I •••
iu 3
E Q.
P J.
> «J
Q
O
ca
0>
i
co
Q
64
-------
I =
£< js
i' *
s ^,
V3
E-
ft!
CO
I
(p/jooooi/qi)aog
65
-------
TABLE 15
MEAN a-SOTE VALUES - WEST PLANT
MARCH 1986 - DECEMBER 1987
Tank No.
.MeanaSOTE
Standard Deviation
ccSOTE
21
24
25
28
11.35
11.22
11.81
11.43
1.25
1.23
1.67
1.77
36
37
35
32
66
-------
£* !« ^Wed in Table I6J " ««*
^
-
sensitive to variations fa oreradon
produced comp
assume that th£
basins may have bn e iaTed
for *
"* Blst f33 was
, S-fT exccPdo»s, *e West Plan.
2 pen°d' 11"B- " is ^sortable to
F^rmance for these West Piant first pass
oxygen transfer is &
), it is 'possSe , ba
may be
nitrification. If
wastew^er (waste
™ these
in Plant 3 were 1.5, 2.(Und2 0 S Tn^fic ? ? SePteP^ 4, 1987, D.O. set points
4 were 0.7, 1.5, and 2.0 m&L f B«S^S ?sSS,ii '/eS^tlVdyl ^ Set P°ints in Plant
were, fli-floe so that Ptem 4 ha^thp hiah • a"d ?ecember 4> ^ese set points
same conditions. Review of tW ^ 3 * ""^ *"
n.y have
67
-------
TABLE 16
OSOTE FOR PLANT 3 AND 4 DURING DIFFERENT SRTs'
Date
1986.
09-11
10-9
10-14
10-16
10-21
10-23
10-28
10-30
Plant3
aSOTE
14.39
10.13
9.89
10.07
10.51
9.62
9.85
9.71
Plant 4
oSOTE
13.06
9.37
7.99
9.29
9.74
9.20
8.91
9.40
*Extracted from Tables 13 and 14.
68
-------
13-
12-
IH
ID-
S'
8-
7-
6-
Figure 33, ccSOTE vs. Effluent NH4.
FIRST PASS SOTE VS. EFFLUENT NH4
F'M -0.13 TO 0.16
AY09.2
S5
-i r
12
10
LU
^
CO
8-
7-
6-
4 5 6 7 8,9 10
EFFLUENT NH4 (HG/L) •
FIRST PASS SOTE VS. EFFLUENT
F'M-0.17 TO 0.20
(FROM Uf/ASCE/EPA DATA)
AVfc-8.6
3 45 6 7
EFFLUENT NH4(H6/L)
10
69
-------
Figure 34. Photographs of Fouled and Clean Diffusers - 600 Days of Service
FOULED CLEAN
GRID 1-TANK 21
FOULED CLEAN
GRID 5-TANK 20
FOULED CLEAN
GRID 9 - TANK 19
70
-------
3
.£
b
CO
Ul
FHREE BASIN OFF-GAS TEST
WEST PLANT -PLANT
k •
-
Q
x£ P U
§ s ^? —
w o
c
r
0
o
T"
£*
•?
£-—
<
h
8
W
Si"
i~
^ _•
•i— i
«-§
s
en
CN
Oi
O
z
ib
;«
^•S
CN
a;
is
g
<
r^
8
W
§g
•§^
x-S
'•S
** *^
°i
1
00 O
»""< f—«
CN" ON"
CN -H
•-— ' >— X
en o\
vo in
en o\
O\ T}-
oo r-I
»— * ?— <
""! ^1
en" o"
Ci ci
r- ••*
•n in
*— < i— *
OO i— i
>o vd
i™^ i™1^
CN 0\
en rs
»•-< r— <
*
^ «— 1
CN, CN,
en en
— <
,
CN
•a £?• s~^ '~^
e O en o
J3 CN_ es cs
,-c in en o^
^ in in vo
oC
% s? 2. «?
ci *o \o r^
00 ^ — «
<
OQ
&
W S 2 ^
D ~ " ^'
x^N x^. /•— • s
^ CS CS
o' in" e?r
•^ CN en
»-i in \o
en oo rl
T- 1 r-l
^O /Vl *^.l
CN ts o
"-H «— 1 T-I
9° 90 g£ ^
QJ O r-i o
% S g ^
!
J— K
2
M>
K
"S
>
"-T3
«j
a,
.5
c
o
•s
i
1
•£
15
T3
03
•o
|
|;
•O;
ON
•a
Si
5^
•a i
i;
j i-
§ i ;
1 1
^^ o
*^ ^ !
i
;
-------
JuIy-9"^^^ffl^tE1SS^2^ "^(and a) val'ui te'fikrinSTon •
improvement was seeTK•£jSSS^aiaCtenStlCS **' ^ N° si^nificant
' ZS^f ?^rf?g ^ ^P11^ P^ was about 14%
.--
basins « c^sted to the
critical factor in dscng^1^ Plant !f f ^ ^ or F/M) as a
East Plant in 1987 (Table 6? S S^ffS^S^^ °f ^ rCC°rded for ^
lower loadings encountered in the EaSplan? iJ Tl987 } may associated with *e
Indirect sSnidv of Tran^r Pffl^jencv r\fMQp ;
superviswy computer. AvemTes wSe^mo^ H ^"^y-niinute basis by the
C*-C
Adjusted Air Flow = -^ x Actual air How
C«-CSP
where C^ = steady state D.O. saturation concentration, mg/L
C = average D.O. concentration measured, mg/L
CSP = set point D.O. concentration, mg/L
72
-------
SOUR = oSOTE (gun y VmUe °f-*e general relationship SOTR =
Djffuser Ch
schedule5 as'fpS SSteASolu S ^PA inT^ 21 f ^^^ "« ^oved on a set
n
can be found inrepod v E ( T^7^ mg *?**' Resu!ts of ^at work
study for comparison ^Si^leTd S/dL ° 9 P^"* a tabulati°n °f data frPm
tacrcase ta *
^ri d reust0re ** diffilsers but not to "new" conditions !
.11^8^10 abo« 0.7 to 0.8 in Grid 1 and to about gsSSridb All
other gnds demonstrated ratios of about 1.0, even though both BRV ' «5 II? Ratios were
73
-------
*
*
1
oc
a
03
^
OS
w
CL,
o
*^r
f—*
Q
O
J
t~^
1
1
3
o
OS
S
S
<
Q
H
2
j=
c
o
^
•£!
o
«
W
V-.
.2
c
c:
C
1
^
"3
Q S
ftO H
UAL
u
|
i
c2
•mo
en \o o Tf
»n in
OS
§
- CN oo
VO •— i
O rt 00
Tt OO f-
— « CN O O
co
en ^-i TJ- vo
ior-r-— <
<-^o\-vo_r-^
oo" r-^ u-T in*
§^t CN Tf
n in en
i
i
Illl
Average
Average
74
-------
£
O OO
« c
Q
CN SO 10
co ^-< cs
O O C3
OO \£)
C5 O
O O
co n-
o\ oo
oo
«n
oo
3J
SI
e
75
-------
H
CO
O
p
g
a'p
cij U
EC s
&
00
Q
8
J
W
OS
tt,
<
f I
O t~^ CS CO CS CO VO f^ CO CN
0,
• •^
^3«^ cnco^^r-o\»-i'
< 0**" I
o «-s
2 131 ^^^
' MCNCI ^.§11
• OO SO (
> eo
OS ^
«. d
1
od oo oo* od t-^* r-^ oo" od
oo
"- CN CS tN CN CO
o
W
•o
ber
ce
1 c <*-,
^ o
"w ^5
i^l*^
§11
* +1 •&"
76
-------
somewhat below "
cleaning problem
"~n«,nruai uciuw new conditions Onpr«»a f i»- '
dewatered at the same time6 losing JSJS5 ft tiff 5?S' AU three passes ^to ^
tune cleaning was attempted £le fiSssnSnkf?ifS! Pfs,^ j9)- «> *« by the
ineffective and brushing was attempted. )f ^e foulant had ^^ ^HosinS was
^
range of day-to-day variability eSerienced taS^S W3S ""P6"*?1^ within the
have *en the
for
This variability
These correlations were wealTKeve? 2SS^ S,8™1?161! Such as SRT or ^/M-
characteristics competed S S
n
the apparent relationship between deeree of J»hniSy V- J ^ further comP1 ieated by
nitrification) and transfer efficacy ^S^onfn" (!f thlS C3Se COmPlete vs- P^
pass varied by about 32%. *' ^ °n °ne d^ s dala' ^P^nt alpha in the first
under low load conditions
measurements. The fouling did naLS?* Pfses ^ on BR V
over the 800-day period of the ^mTJS^S^^"^ '" CtS(?E> h°Wever'
the measurements, although no trend iStSo
DWP
dewatering but may also suggest ven ffiK^-E?3*!?11 constrain*
seen, some changes were oSS£t££ mSlfc?^ f^865 in-aSOTE ^ere not
changes could not be determined if STudv AoSS^T? long-te™ imPact of *ese
dictate routine cleaning (1 to 2 wan) ™? S«^ nsei^atlve. operating strategy would
would not slowly an^^haps, Seve? iSj buiS on S? to "^ ^ baC* P^SSUres
suggests that occasionalsteam cSe or acid Sin exPenence ln *e East Plant
high loads to "like new" StioST g ™ay restore diffilsers exPPsed to
passes and hosing odycatf^T!!'1^ ^n ^ fet ^ second
before this strategV is finalized Additional studies will be conducted, however,
77
-------
REFERENCES
'•
2
Bita Under *"•" Condw°°s -
7. Brochtrup, J. A. A Study of i
8. Mueller, J. A
r; EffeiB Of Biological TV».linf ~, ft. t>,vmn Tran.f., cte^:
11. Sanitaire, Water Pollution Control, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1986).
"Pes^ Protocol for Aeration Systems- l)K
: Seminar Wnrif«hop on
.1 esnng,
( :ontrol, EPA-60Q/9-85.Q05 (January 1985).
78
-------
APPENDIX A
OFF-GAS TEST METHODS
(From Quality Assessment/Quality Control Procedures for cooperative
agreement research program with U.S. EPA.)
79
-------
Section No. A8
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
P««e 1 of 11
A8.0 Off GAJ& FIELD TEST
M" rt-v o£ Do- co^ - ••<«<
The greatest dr.wb.a t the LthoV '>, V°IlU8* 'ithla '*' ""tion
in.trnaentttion. IWo pt.cticil probr-I l.- J K b"n r'1'ted to the
more acceptable. Recent advance, In t\. - •* °Tfrco"« t0 Kake i «» »»thod
liihtweisht IM collection hoods od ?n the dVveYop" nt' *V ^^ '^ °f Ur"
oxygen .ensor which c.n preci.elv detect .m.ii/ffT °f * P°rtable
P....... of ox^en have M'd. this 7
«. „
1. An Off-gas Analyzer with vicuua sonrce
2. Flexible off-ga, transmission conduit
3. Ofi-gas collection hood
4. Liquid phase dissolved oxygen measurement equipment.
The analyzer must have the capabilities to:
3. ««»s»r. tenp.Mtnr. of inlet, e,s to .ithin ± 2>F.
V
t»p».t».-.r. .itii. til. r..,. ol 0 «C ; 40 °t "" ""f U"">c
•««« '« both refer.... .„, .„...
".v''tI4 " •
off,., .„„..»,» bood ,„„„„ to
'•
within 0.5
80
-------
Section No. A8
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
P«I« 2 of 11
13.
at constant temperature
p
inche«
.ercnry
Plit
"•
««•«««.
A8.03
«iaht
A8.04
Hoodf
., ensure it reaains" stabl. It V" ,""*" *' 6qtjlPPed wi«h float.'
hood should have eye bolts OP "mil ff f * S*Bplin* location.
attachment of mooring 1 ines which wil I'h. »A/8/ ** "!h *nd to »ilow
location iln the aeration basin. The cro.. .7A'° "P0'111011 «d secure the
water surf«ce must be sufficient to allow f^" *"' °f the hood •* the
offga. flow rates in the range of l.C. to 25 cLS"5" °P««tio. of the: OAE for
81
-------
Section No. A8
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 3 of 11
A8.05 Uqgjd. Phase D.OA Hardware
.
period. On, p.obe should be suspended at about 3/4 of°Jh. JiV"-^1 "' <"*
• nd the other about 1/4 of the .ub.er.anl. n- ? **«»••? subaergence
equivalent to the Yellow Spri..* I«^/"§ M'od.Vi" !** °*rg''11 •««1P«»t
waterproof cable .hould be used. Suff^lent «!{, "V* WUh D'°' probe »ad
pUcea«nt of the probe, i^edi.tely .dj.con" to tfae h^od ? ^l^ t0 ill«
te.ted. The D.O. probe, .honld be constructed to .uto«tic!lV "^ P°iitioa
temperature and preasare. ™«ea to autoaiatacal ly compensate for
A8.06" Te«^ Procfcdnrtg
i
The Chronology of the daily test procedure i,:
2* Caibr. .,e °fbivliC'1 hos« «« ».ly.er Bodnle
3 SllISJ! S t 8*' °Xy8eQ SeDSOr f°r """
3. Calibrate the liquid phase DO Bcasurement probe.
4. Position hood and begin testing. P'ooe.
A8.061
.
the other end to the off gas analyser FiVurf I /^, h°°d "d conn«ting
•gas, analyser manufactured by iing i.* ne.ri. o *!' * di'g"" °f " °"
4. MV-4, Roto-4. MV-6. JiV-2 " i"1'
_ . C ie l 1 t
sure that the vacuum source i, not connected t« ^ , h°r Vtlve» aad
source and bring the vacuum hos^ 'int th. 1"
, no connected t« ,
source and bring the vacuum hos^ int th. v^Jf Jf1^"^ ""^ ^ VtC°M
the analyzer until Rota-1 reads 10 inche, » . Y/rf ., ** C°^*ction «>n
Rot.-4 which should read less than 3 SCTH *' "d rec°rd Mtn°-3 **d
the
ing Nitrogen gas into th. «.iti.l i,^,t '7"' ^ *' d°ne ^
pr...... .t the oxygen sensor nnti, V,"! ibriu, ootd'Ji' Sll8ht P°$ltiVfl
relative to the aillivolt output from the oVvt.n condlti°ns *r« obtained
then activated, with nitrogen /. ^ stU ^ f i ow T*"' »?* VtCnM? $°"C<) ij
analytical circuit operated at fie same ".« ? J! " ° Systea' tnd the
oxygen sensor as during noraal oijg.s testina ? A *"'* "d VtCnUa at
<
82
-------
Section No. A.8
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
P«ge 4 of 11
A«.Q62 fiiLZA»JB IgJLtgt Calibration
In equation fora: ;
. . Ab« Pl/Oatpnt 1
0.9994 -< ----------- ----- _ =< 1>ow I
Abs P2 /Output 2 |
Whore: Ab« PI. Ab« P2 - the absolute pressure of ambient ,ij It the
oxygen sensor under the operating condition,
HI or #2 (4 to 10 in w.g. or 4 in Eg)
Output 1. Output 2 = is the millivolt output from tb> oxygen
sensor under the operating condition ,
#1 or #2.
A8.062 Piisplyej Oxygen Meter Calibration I
A8.063 Ancillary flffgaf
£££11^: The local uncorrected barometric
P
'
83
-------
CO O
•
• o
• z
-
£ °
O-—
> ai T
UJ O
(X O to
I I I
«J i/} CD
3 tu ft
2 £C <
*t a «->
I i I
UJ
a:
o
u.
! :
• 1
1 i
i
!'
1;
f
: i
J
d
ll
u
^
{
-------
Section No. A8
Revision No. 0
Dtte 7/23/85
Page 6 of 11
vtloc
A3. 064 Offa
A8.0.J5
teit-
A «i.i«M of two volumes of off,... with respect to the volpae of
85 •;
-------
Section No. A8
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
P«ge 7 of 11
PU...-.U »ust be recorded 00t
be observed
- »--
position tested DQ6t recorded f 0^/1 et'" "V^8' '" e'Ch h°°d
temperature at the oxygen sensor 8" temP«r«tn;re and ga.
.. Bast bc
recorded at least once per honr * temperature shall be observed and
£nr«Uo.fl ; For each bood location t.«t.^ <»• ^
minifflum of five (5) ainntes active H.Jn , * U IS rc1n;ir«
-------
A«.071 Soaaarv Pat* Sheet
Section No. AS
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 8 of 11
fr.otio. c.rbon Jioxld. . off...
.It .i.tln tk. ...lytic.i oirc"'t
off,..
,
"" de"««.tioa. »ole
Of,off«" »'
include: offgas
the overall nean
.««,«-,.. ,.;,.,;v.^-»«ftY1^^7iV.;«««"ed by offgas rotaaeters. (scfa/tq.ft.)
OTE _ . Mean weighted OTE based on collected off,., flow rates.
87
-------
Section No. A8
Rev it ion No. 0
Date 7/23/85
A8.072 Steady State Data ^^ 9 °f 1J
> -••
A8.073 Calculation^
°Xyger"Sfer efficiency. OTE . § eermned 19
OTEsp20 = (OTE /(C*.f - O) x 1.024<20~T)
Where: • \ '. '
-,••-- p ;
T' = Mixed liquor temperature, oC.
«
C oof = Saturated D.O. value under field test condi;nr,«c ~* *
barometer and prevailing value of bet. C°°dltlons of temperature,
Remaining terms - as previously described. !
88
-------
EXHIBIT A.3: OFFGAS FIELD DATA SHELT
;Rcvision No. 0
IDate 7/23/85
Page 10 of H
Te«t Site.
Tank,
Te«t Date
Diffmor (type and no.) ;
Water Te.p.»t«. °C Local B.roaeter. nun Dg
Tett Conducted by
• Air Rate, scfa...
Tank Voluae, gtl.,
....... IDS tag/1.
Tlae
St»
Rot Rot
No. Fi.e
mm
Hood
Pres
in
Rot
T
Ro
Pr
in
Cell
Pre
in
Sensor
Out.
fflV
Cell DO
T
og/1
CO,
Coma.
89
-------
93 O
• O W "
0 Z ~ «
C " '
0 -2 r? I
~4 •
U- « t
* * 5 S
was O &
i
i
5
I
M,
-J
g
Ut
1
i
V
i
a
: :* : s |
i M ' 7—
= [ • i ! If*
> j » * : ~
' : -' I I Hi
o : «? a 1 *
j 1 j .J 1 —
ill* IB.
Mil K
: j ; * _
• 3 « : 2
• o t, : •
n *. i -fi
• • a • ^
J J < » -" ' — —
• : 1 1 §
• • 1 •» P
•' c 1 .% S^S
.: 1 " * « 5 *
|||: j.|
j i I ! i:i*s
s.l:
5 * (3 • CM
: 5 1 : s vo
i * n «s
: J 1 1 *5
j ? < e
-s i § r ss
§ , 8. • ||
I 1 5 ? . **
: 5 ? : i *«•
* J * *•* ^
: i 3 <
•: : I 8 «|"
2 • — • j» S *"
5 : - o» 5 — .
S j '. : 11 * f
: i : i J a S j
jig1 ****
: : . j -3
J i : £
:: ' •• i TT ~
: f : i — -^ — - —
s * S * - a 1
5 I > ^ S « 1
f f i J J 5j? 1
'— i ••
1
l_
: • • '- : : i i i
: : J ' • '• : : II
— __ __
J : : :
• • * •
• « • •
* • • •
• * * *
i " * •
• • » :
* • • •
* • • »
* * * *
: : : :
» * * *
* • • •
'•::'•
• * * -*
" " " *
• • • «
• • " *
* • • •
• • * •
* • « *
.
— — . — .
* • •
• • *
* • •
• * •
—
• • •
« • :
: : j
— • — .
* • •
• * *
* * *
* • «
• • *
* • «
: : :
:
. . .
: ; •
• * •
• • •
* • • •
• • •
• * •
* • •
• * *
* • • •
90
-------
APPENDIX B
DffFUSER CHARACTERIZATION TEST METHODS
(From QA/QC Procedures for cooperative agreement with U.S. EPA.)
91
-------
.Sect ion No. AH
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 1 of 11
Ali.O DI£EHSER CHARACTERIZATION
—
All. 01 Eoulanj Analvs is
...",'";'0: of
FO.I.B, .n.l.i. ° " " '
1. Specify^ certain area on tho surface of a diffuscr disc'
• ?:0ravpiau: fflstcrials off the surface- dividc - P« s. into
J: avDts ia
ij* ?ooiatH105°c for ' 1 ho" (T° «o«t«t wei|htK
6. Cool, dcssjcate and ireigh fOr total solid,.
«" ?« i I f int° fornacc- fi'lag them at 550«C for 20
. Cool, dossicatc and weigh the disLcs for fixed solid, 2°
s with those of tho non-acidifd
All. 02 BnbJOe. Relelsfi Vacnun
92
-------
Section No. AH i
Revision No. 0 | •
Date 7/23/85
Page 2 of 11
are sampled to obtain a distribution of bubble
A 5 Typical test points for a Norton' dome are shown in Figure
The test apparatus consists of a probe, manometer, vacuum source .«^
*: c-:;y'de0endhowa in Fir;A-6- The nan°Beter is ^^-^"^^11
nercury depending upon foulant buiIdun W*t/>T- i« -• *
f ^ * . . ^ ^ . *****^/« *«ai.«&XS
lean .nd 1 ghtly
DRV
•»"" "P
n .
calibration is done just once to «h"ot«:!^^^ fl°*
The recomaended practive for BRV testing is listed below:
2., Set BRV flow rate.
3., Apply probe to BRV test location. Thowtter surface will rise in
he probe whxle bubbles are released at the differ surfac I?
iit.V.l / /°DeS t0° hi8h' diSC°rd °'C"$ "ter'by a quick
lateral and upward movement of the probe. If water leyel is too
low. apply additional water onto the diffuser adjacent to! the probe!
This 1S especzally useful when testing fouled diffusers. :
I
4. Equilibruim has been reached when the rate of rise of waiter in the
probe equals the rate of rise in the manometer, (inches water gauge)!
If time to reach equilibrium is excessive, it maybe reduced by
operating the by-pass valve momentarily. The flux rate increases
dramatically when the by-pass valve Is open. The large suction
force will p.11 fODlant off . dirty d.ffnsPr< r •»ct»
tc st rosolt8' the
,^' "ld "n reC°rd the -««««*« readidng and height
the probe. BRV equals the manometer reading (corrected
to ^nc.hes water gauge if using mercury) 1CSS height of water in the
93
-------
Revision No. o
Date 7/23/85
Page 3 of n
Figure AS". BRV Test Points - Norton Dome.
94
-------
. .,
i Revision No. o
i Date 7/23/85
: Page 4 of 11
-L
BRV
PROBE
BY-PASS ^VAL VE
•s-
DIFFUSED
NANOnETER
VACUUM
SOURCE
ROTAMETER
HORIZONTAL
PROBE TIP
Figure A6, BRV Apparatus.
._ j
VERTICAL
PROBE TIP
95
-------
No. Q
n.ifco 7/23/85
I'nc 5 of 11
BEAKER
TO
•*" VACUUM
SOURCE
.Measure rise in water column (f) with tinve.
Figure A7. BRV Flow Calibration.
96
-------
Section No. All
Revision No. 0
Data 7/23/85
P«go 6 of 11
6. Repeat stop* 3 through 5 for ill test locations.
All. 03 Dynamic^ Wet ?t essuro
dyU1amiC ¥et ?"**"«. DWP, is the pressure differential across the
en op
gauge.
1 ross
sion element alone when operating in a submerged condition and i
expressed ia inches of water aue. ««n««»»«»». ..»"..ti..
tor pOKsible differences in air flow.
"J-?JV teStub°th Bcasn« Bubble release pressure. DWP measures it for
-1"l' a
« .lr ...r...
rc»ry ..no.et er. thorooaeter. diffn.et .I.,,, -i.k
r.^^^^^
enough *o the diffnser was covered with water.
LaboratPFT Measurement Q£ pyp i -
1. The aquarium should be filled with tap water so there will be
soveral inches of water over the diffuser. If this is done the day
before testing, the water will warm to room temperature.:
wcttod thc samc as for tha BRV
3,, Place diffuser securely in plenum.
4. Hold plenum over aquarium and turn air on. This allows water
entrained in the diffuser to drain into the tank and not on the
floor If the diffuser i, fouled, do not turn air flow any higher
than its operating air flow rate. • «»«»«
97
-------
Soction No.
Revision No. 0
Onto 7/23/85 ;
7 of 11
«
^o
m
8
o
u.
a
Is
» I
o £
o
-X. ??
C7
Va Ive
PLAN VIEW SCHEMATIC
DETAIL
Liquid Surface
See Detail
Air Source
Mono^mstsrs
Bubbler
•Pips ;
Top'3
o* Bubbles
Air^Flow Control
i Orifice
Air i
Header
Figure A8. Measurement of Air Line and Diffuser Pressure.
98
-------
Section No. All
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 8 of 11
'•
*«HUDI out of the aqoariua and reseat the
for
,.ter to
i
of
V"
"10WI
tr.o.l.ted to
^
co0ditio»* fl°*
"te>
A
pres-
'
AH. 04
tive techniques to evaluate the
"- of ceramic diffn;,er>, while
means. This is
....
««t« .itl . .tejw.tch.
th.
'
of
vessel oast firstbe filled with
*outh of the vessel i.
time of « few seconds taking
be
"
racterized. The
"at the
ae'6P"d OTT a
99
-------
Section No. All
Bovition No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 9 of 11
.„ ,hen
.. ., , • '•"• •»"•' <« •••
...f.l di.|0..ti, tool ia .».l«t".ti. ',.,.?? *"f'°r)r- P""<«> . T.r,
fo.U«,, b. it or8.au or inon.o" of fl M', ° "d "" '""' «'
It i. .1,0 ,H.cti»., if jndiciouuV .p/1^/ POI°," 4i"°«f°» •!«.«..
of v.rio,, cle.nin, proced.re" 'PPl"'. >" .ppr.i.i., the .f f.ctjv.n.t.
All. 05
S;.".'.r-;.r.:i;;--.;;.:;-; i '''- '"•'• ;.«'"." •;,•.'/,••
installed into . sing 1 , pleDUD witho7t individ^l f !*«/*' I*"?'1 ^"** **"
the objective of improved nnjformltv V i V, bilancing .ne.ng toward
operation. P uniformity of tlr fiow SHOng the nn;it$ ^^ ^
1
sufficient air throb the dry' element' Vo" ""tio. tank and then ,is.lnf
"f^--
pressure. In thi. „„. the pereabil i*P 7 ' * *"• Wg* di««enti.l
identical material, bot lilf 1,*^ lJ il K* ' W°UU be 25' A
K
of 50 instead of 5. »inoe the f low ' t? i, "P'^"5 tO have * P?»««bility
half a, long «d 'offering corresponding vM?* I ' '^^ *°»ld b« «bo^
element been 1.0 in thick .nV K ^ fractional resistance. Had the
in., the pa™..bility would b. 2-» " **r'Ct ^ " "'' '"" in8tetd of "« •«'
only abo't half t^.V. «*£ Vk 7 32'5* 8lnCC th"- V°Bld "
100
-------
Section No. AlI
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 10 of II
1000 ml GRADUATED
CYLINDER
WASHER
NORTON DOME
Figure A9. Flow Profile.
101
-------
f.ct.r
«>«re:
s.p.
S.P.
th.
Section All
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
Page 11 of 11
tcst
of
P x (A/t) !
specific permeability. SCFM !
permeability of the element itself. SCFM I
«et of eleaent, «q. ft., whenm.de to hypoth
conform to a flat surface /J»w«
aetn weighted thickness of the element, inches.
102
-------
Section No. A12
Revision No. 0
Date 7/23/85
P«g« 1 of 3
A12.0 DIFFUSED CLEANING METTIQjrag JJJ
A12.01 jLpjr Pretinre Uotipy
A12.02 Eigji Pressnrg
„»„„.
„ .„
A12.03 JLUwajafeta Mg^o^: (Ac id Plus Hosing)
The procedure to be followed is:
2. Apply approximately 50 ml of 14% HC1 to the
of
.p,,ic.,cr fflndson i r..r r ...'",,'''''"' ""
MrtaM. MM. ^^ ,. .''' " of 18
3. Let acid remain on the diffuser for 30 minute,. Turn air on 5 *innte..
4. Hose^the diffuser again for one Binute or so to remove all the Residual
103
-------
Section No. A12
Revision No. 0
D«t« 7/23/85
Page 2 of 3
A12.04 Steam Cleanint
1
years.
to the diffw.r surface. Equipment required for this tl.t incl "*"*
generator and nozzle. The procedure to be followed is: incl
« « «tea»
1. Turn on the steam generator and let it n,« *•„ < •
reach constant temperature (200 C). ' "Vertl alnut«« t
2. Apply the steam jet to the diffuser surface from a distance of two feet
it a minimum pressure of 150 p«i. until til tha
'
a
vi,iM7 reDoved, The differ .1 suldbe o durig
3. Let the diffnser cool to ambient tenperatnre. '.
A12.05 Firing Method (Kilning) !
2. Hold the temperature at 956-1000 «C (1742-1832oF) for 4 hours.
3. Cool down over 10 hours. ;
A12.06* Gfij Cleanin
...t.ll.ti... .fu b. .,„„!., wd.r lic.ns.fro.
"" be cirried °ut f°u°"
104
-------
Section No. A12 !
Revision No. 0 ;
Dote 7/23/85
Page 3 of 3
Gas cleaning test results to
------- |