LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF FINE
PORE CERAMIC DIFFUSERS AT MONROE, WISCONSIN
by
David T. Redmon and Lloyd Ewing
Ewing Engineering Co.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209
and
Henryk Melcer
Wastewater Technology Centre
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4AD
and
Gerald V. Ellefson
City of Monroe
Monroe, Wisconsin 53566
Cooperative Agreement No. CR812167
Project Officer
Richard C. Brenner
Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 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.
-------
FOREWORD
i
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices
frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with,
can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a
mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct EPA to perform
research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for | solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of EPA with
respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes,
and Superfund-related activities. This publication is one of the products of that research and
provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user community.
As part of these activities, an EPA cooperative agreement was awarded to the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1985 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 aeration, and prepare a comprehensive design
manual on the subject. This manual, entitled "Design Manual - Pine Pore Aeration Systems," was
completed in September 1989 and is available through EPA's Center for Environmental Research
Information, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (EPA Report No. EPA/625-1-89/023). The field studies,
carried out as contracts under the ASCE cooperative agreement, were designed to produce reliable
information on the performance and operational requirements of fine pore devices under process
conditions. These studies resulted in 16 separate contractor reports and provided critical input to
the design manual. This report summarizes the results of one of the 16 field studies,
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in
-------
PREFACE
^ i •
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 nmnicipal wastewater treatment facilities employing fine pore diffused aeration; and prepare a
comprehensive design manual on the subject. This manual, entitled "Design Manual - Fine Pore
Aerafsion 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). I
1. "Fine Pore Diffuser System Evaluation for the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage
District" (EPA/600/R-94/093) by J. J.Marx !
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 !
: " • . . I . . •
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 ',
7. "Oxygen Transfer Efficiency Surveys at the South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant,
1985-1987" (EPA/600/R-94/099) by R. Warriner I
8. "Fine Pore Diffuser Case History for Frankenmuth, Michigan" (EPA/600/R-94/100) by
T.A. Allbaugh and S.J. Kang :
9. "Off-gas Analysis Results and Fine Pore Retrofit Information for Glastonbury,
- Connecticut" (EPA/600/R-94/101) by R.G. Gilbert and R.C. Sullivan ;
IV
-------
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 E.L. Barnhart and M. Collins j
12. "Fouling of Fine Pore Diffused Aerators: An Interplant Comparison" :
(EPA/600/R-94/103) by C.R. Baillod and K. Hopkins i
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-94/104) by D.H. Houck ] .
15. "Investigations into Biofouling Phenomena in Fine Pore Aeration Devices" :
(EPA/600/R-94/107) by W. Jansen, J.W. Costerton, and H. Melcer \
i '
16. "Characterization of Clean and Fouled Perforated Membrane Diffusers"
(EPA/600/R-94/108) by Ewing Engineering Co.
-------
ABSTRACT
A study of the fine pore aeration system at the Monroe, Wisconsin wastewater treatment plant
was conducted to monitor, over a 2-year period, the oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) and fouling
tendencies of four different effective pore size ceramic discs. The plant treats a mixture of
municipal and industrial wastes. Major industrial contributions stem from breweries, dairies, and
cheese plants that account for approximately half the organic load to the plant. The .average plant
flow during the study was 2.2. mgd, and the average influent BOD was 400 mg/L. '
The plant has three, two-pass aeration tanks, each with two independent aeration grids per
pass. The diffusers for all but two of the 12 grids had a specific permeability of 26 (BKV0 of 6).
The remaining two grids contained diffusers with specific permeabilities of 38 and 50 (BRV0s of 4
and 3, respectively). Four pilot test headers were installed in the aeration cells. Each header had
four diffusers with different effective pore sizes equivalent to the three types in the plant grid
assemblies. ;
Frequent off-gas surveys using floating hoods and Ewing off-gas analyzers were conducted
during the first weeks of operation of newly cleaned and installed diffusers to observe OTE
changes and fouling tendencies. Subsequently, OTE/fouling surveys were conducted at 4-month
intervals. Each survey also included the removal of diffusers from the four test headers for
analysis of BRV, DWP, OTE, effective flux rate, nature of foulant, and cleanability. These
analyses were used along with the full-scale off-gas evaluations to identify when diffuser cleaning
should be conducted. ,
The range of optimum effective pore size as measured by BRV ranged from 4 to 7; in. w.g. This
encompasses most of the common commercial ceramic diffuser products sold in the United States.
Operating parameters and wastewater characteristics such as organic loading appeared to
influence oSOTE more than did diffuser pore size. Only minor changes in DWP, BRV, and OTE
were observed, indicating fouling at Monroe was not progressive. ocSOTE appeared to be
insensitive to fouling. The adverse effects of fouling with respect to backpressure, OTE, and
maintenance costs were found to be less than might have been predicted from the literature.
The inexpensive cleaning procedures used in the study, involving a combination of high
pressure water spraying with or without liquid acid treatment and/or brushing, followed by
additional spraying, resulted in nearly complete restoration of the diffusers' original >
characteristics.
The permeability test was not as effective in characterizing diffusers as anticipated. Other,
more specific tests such as BRV0 and its coefficient of variation should be evaluated and
considered.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement No. CR812167 by
the American Society of Civil Engineers under subcontract to the Ewing Engineering: Co. under the
partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The work reported herein was
conducted over the period of 1985-1988. !
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword .......................... .............. :
Prefa.ce ....................................... ] ................ * ....... ' ' .
Abstract ..... ....... . ...... .......................... ............ .......
Figures ............... ...... .................... .........
.
Acknowledgements ........................................... '.'.'.''• .......... xi
Introduction ..................................... .,
Objectives ............................... \ ........ " .......... «
Description of Facilities ........................... ...............]... ....... 4
Experimental Methods .............. ............ .................... ......... 6
Experimental Design ................. ...................... ........ g
Offgas Testing ............. , .................................. ........ g
Diffuser Evaluations ................................. .......... g
Results and Discussion .......... ...................... ....... : .......... -^
Performance of New Diffusers ............ . ........... ..... 12
Plant Facilities, Operation and Maintenance . . ..... . .................. 21
Diffuser Fouling - Theoretical Discussion .............. ............. ......... 30
Pilot Diffuser Study ............. _____ . . ......... .............. ......... 37
Pilot Study - Figure 15 ......... ................ ............... Y. .. ...... 41
Pilot Study - General ...... ..................... ........................ 49
Foulant Analysis ................................... ....... KA
Pilot Diffuser Cleanability ........................ .............:... ...... 56
Full-Scale Performance Tests - Sept., 1985, to June, 1986 .............:......... 56
Tank Draindowns - May, 1986 ......... ........................ ......... gg
Full-Scale Performance Tests - June, 1986, to Nov., 1987 ......... 75
OTE Versus Flux Rate ......................... ....... !!!!!.'.'.'!'!!!.".!.'.'! 84
Tank Draindown and Diffuser Cleanability - June, 1988 ............ ..Y. ........ 88
Cleaning Costs .................. . ........... '. ...... 94
Economic Considerations ................................. * '• ......... 95
Conclusions ..................... . .................... : nn
References ............... ...... ......... Q0
................... •• ................ ' ......... yy
Appendices
101
113
vu
-------
FIGURES
Number " !
1 Schematic of Treatment Process i
2 Offgas SampHng Plan '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'"l in
3 Clean Water Shop Test Layout . .^......... \ 15
4 Clean Water Test Data - Volumetric Transfer Rate '
Versus Volumetric Airrate ; 16
5 Clean Water Test Data - •' ' ';
SOTE Versus Air Flow Rate for Various Perms iq
6 Clean Water Test Data - ' i
SOTE Versus BRV I • 22
7 Clean Water Test Data - •
SOTE Versus DWP • . ' i • 99
8 Clean Water Test Data - " " ' '
SOTE Versus Specific Permeability/BRVn 23
9 Clean Water Tests Data - ' : •"
Specific Permeability/BRVD Versus BRV . i 23
1° Cross Section of Sanitaire Difiuser Assembly and ;
Typical Grid Layout 25
11 Plan View of Aeration Tank 26
12 Monroe Aeration Tanks ' ' ' '07
13 •' ' Monroe Pilot DiSusers ' os
14 Pilot Unit - 4 Lunger " " | ^
15 14 Perm (9 BRVJ OTE, DWP, BRV - " ' r
Cumulative and Quarterly .. ^
16 26 Perm (6 BRVJ OTE, DWP, BRV - •••••••••• , *s
Cumulative and Quarterly . e-i
17 38 Perm (4 BRVJ OTE, DWP, BRV - " '""
Cumulative and Quarterly ... '' co
18 50 Perm (3 BRVJ OTE, DWP, BRV - ' " '
Cumulative and Quarterly 53
19 Offgas SampHng Plan - Tank 3 - Sep., 1985 " ", ' 63
20 Alpha and Alpha-SOTE Versus Tank Position - I
September 11, 1985 ; 65
21 Alpha and Alpha-SOTE Versus Tank Position -
September 19-21, 1985 . . 66
22 Alpha Versus Time '
23 Alpha and Alpha SOTE Versus Tank Position - ! '
Tanks 2 and 3 - December, 1985 ; 71
24 Alpha and Alpha SOTE Versus Tank Position - i '
Tanks 2 and 3 - April, 1986 ... i 72
25 Alpha SOTE Versus Time - Grids 1, Tanks 1-3 '| 73
vui
-------
26 Alpha SOTE Versus Time - Grids 2, Tanks 1-3 . 80
27 Alpha SOTE Versus Time - Grids 3, Tanks 1-3 '.'.'.'.'."'• 80
28 Alpha SOTE Versus Time - Grids 4, Tanks 1-3 ..... ^......... 81
29 Alpha Versus Time - Grids 1, Tanks 1-3 '.'.'.'.'.'. '.......... 82
30 Alpha Versus Time - Grids 2, Tanks 1-3 '.''. ....... 82
31 Alpha Versus Time - Grids 3, Tanks 1-3 .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'','.'.'.'.'. 83
32 Alpha Versus Time - Grids 4, Tanks 1-3 '.'.',[ ! 83
33 Alpha SOTE Versus Flux Rate - July, 1986 ............ ..J.. 85
34 Alpha SOTE Versus Flux Rate - May, 1987 ..........} 86
35 Alpha SOTE Versus Flux Rate - November, 1987 . 87
36 OTE, BRV, DWP, Versus Time - 26 Perm (BRVD 6) '. 91
37 OTE, BRV, DWP, Versus Time - 38 Perm (BRVn 4) . ; 92
38 OTE, BRV, DWP, Versus Time - 50 Perm (BRV0 3) ... 93
IX
-------
TABLES
Number \
1 Summary of New Diffuser Characterization Data . j 14
2 Clean Water SOTE Performance . . 16
3 Idealized Clean Water SOTE Performance .17
4 Clean Water Test Data - . i'
SOTE Ratio of BRV0 Tested/SOTE of BRVa 6 20
5 Raw Wastewater Characterization 28
6 Plant Operating Data L .......... 29
7 Chronology of Events by Category . .. . . . 31-32
8 Sequential Chronology of Important Events .' 33-36
9 Summary of Diffuser Characterization - 4.5 mos 42
10 Summary of Diffuser Characterization - 8 mos 43
11 Summary of Diffuser Characterization - 12 mos |. .......... 44
12 Summary of Diffuser Characterization - 16 mos 45
13 Estimated Average OTE Based on Cumulative 46
14 Estimated Average OTE Based on 4 mos. Average '. . . 1 47
15 Pilot Diffuser Foulant Analysis 55
16 Full-Scale OTE Data - Tank 3 - Sep. 11, 1985 57
17 Full-Scale OTE Data - Tank 3 - Sep. 19-21, 1985 :. 58-59
18 Sampling Plan Evaluation - Tank 3, Pass 1 ......;... 60
19 Sampling Plan Evaluation - Tank 3, Pass 2 61
20 Plant Data - ;
Offgas Testing Days - Sep. 1985 - Apr. 1986 . 62
21 Full-Scale OTE Data - Tanks 2 and 3 - Dec., 1985 69
22 Full-Scale OTE Data - Tanks 2 and 3 - Apr., 1986 70
23 Summary of Diffuser Characterization - Tank 3 i
After 168 Days of Operation . ; 73
24 Summary of Diffuser Characterization - Tank 3 ;
After 260 Days of Operation i. 74
25 Foulant Analysis - Tanks 2 and 3 76
26 EDS Results - Non-Volatile Residue . [ [ ....... 77
27 Plant Data -
OfFgas Testing Days - Jun. '86 - Nov. '87 78-79
28 Summary of Diffuser Characterization -
Tank 1, 24 mos .... I 89
29 Summary of Diffuser Characterization-
Tank 2 & 3, 24 mos ... ......: 90
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the advice, counsel,
•financial support and direction of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Committee on Oxygen Transfer, New York, New
York, under Cooperative Agreement No. 812167 between U.S. EPA
and ASCE, under the chairmanship of William C. Boyle and it's
steering subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Hugh J.
Campbell, Jr. of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. The valuable and
indispensable cooperation, assistance and advice provided by the
competent staff of the City of Monroe, Wisconsin, Wastewater
Treatment Plant is gratefully acknowledged.
The advice and financial support provided fay Environment
Canada in the later phases of the study added measurably to the
significance of the results obtained and are gratefully
acknowledged, as are the efforts and support of Jerome Wren of
Water Pollution Control Corporation in form of advice, counsel
and equipment provided by them.
I
Lastly, the energetic and essential participation in the
project of Joseph Kitzinger and Kathleen Busack of Ewing
Engineering Company, which contributed significantly to findings
and results obtained are sincerely appreciated. |
XI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Ceramic grid systems are being applied to aeration basins
in activated sludge treatment plants at an increasing rate due to
their high energy efficiency. At the present time, however,
relatively little is known about the effect of pore size, as
measured by bubble release vacuum and permeability, on the
overall costs associated with the aeration function, as related
to oxygen transfer and maintenance considerations. Earlier work
initiated and undertaken by Ewing Engineering Company at the
Milwaukee, Jones Island Plant (1) suggested that the optimum pore
size, as measured by specific permeability, may be different from
the value most typically applied (approximately 2O-3O specific
permeability). Savings in power and/or maintenance may result if
the optimum values can be defined.
Ceramic diffusers are presently applied in a wide range of
pore sizes. The optimum choice is believed to be influenced by a
number of factors including original transfer efficiency, effect
of fouling on back pressure and transfer efficiency, and the
amenability to various maintenance procedures. Conflicting data
and opinion exists as to the optimum value.
Work reported by Anderson (2) in 195O, indicates no
appreciable difference in efficiency after a year or more of
service, even with diffusers up to 12O permeability. The coarser
diffusers showed a slower clogging rate.
Earlier studies of this subject by various investigators
including Roe <3>, King (4), and Beck <5), were inconclusive and
were hampered by the masking effect of significant airside
fouling, which has been almost totally eliminated today. Some
encouragement in potential improvement in selection of
permeabilities was provided by the work of Anderson <2> which
indicated that the fouling tendency might be reduced with little,
if any, loss in original oxygen transfer efficiency, by using
media of greater permeability (up to 12O scfm/fta at 2 inches
water gauge) than is in present use today. ;
More recent studies (14)(15)(16) have yielded the impression
that diffuser fouling is an almost inevitable land costly
consequence of the use of porous fine pore diffusers.
-------
,,„,-• Rflajively recent improvements in oxygen transfer testing
under field conditions and the development of more descriptive
and meaningful tests to appraise the degree and consequences of
fouling <6><7>, suggested that reinvestigation of the effect of
permeability may provide a fruitful and rewarding area for
investigation. . -
In the spring of 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection
flgency in conjunction with the American Society of Civil
ler'i??™5 in|;tiated a *°ur-year study of fine pore diffused
aeration systems at a number of sites throughout the U.S. in
order to develop an in-depth database on their ^performance
characteristics. One of these sites, Monroe, Wisconsin, was
chosen to examine the effect of pore size as measured by
permeability, or bubble release vacuum, on oxygen transfer-
capabilities, diffuser fouling tendencies and consequences
thereof, and amenability to cleaning. The basis for the
selection of the Monroe plant for this study was partially upon
the belief that the strength of the waste and loading would
represent an aggressive fouling environment, suitable for a studv
of this type. i 7
-------
OBJECTIVES
The objectives o-f this study are listed below:
!
i. Monitor OTE and -fouling tendencies of; four
different permeability range ceramic discs to
be installed at Monroe, Wisconsin, over about
a two—year period. \
2. Identify maintenance requirements of , each
permeability type diffuser in terms of
relative cleaning frequencies and ; the
effectiveness of a combination of in | situ
high pressure water spraying and chemical
treatment on diffusers in drained aeration
tanks. !
3. Jo identify within practical limits the
optimum range of ceramic diffuser pore size
at this plant based upon efficiency, back
pressure, and maintenance facility and cost.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
Monroe, Wisconsin, is a community of about 1O,OOO people
located in south-central Wisconsin. The Monroe activated sludge
wastewater treatment plant, located in the heart of Wisconsin 's
dairyland, treats a mixture of municipal and industrial wastes.
Major industry includes Huber Brewery and Bottling; Frito-Lay
corn chip production? Roy's Dairies, primarily related to butter
production; Oairyland Specialty Incorporated, dealing with whey
processing; approximately ten cheese plants; and a linen and
laundry service. Tnese industries account for roughly half the
organic load to the plant. j ' -
During the study, the flow to the treatment plant averaged
about 2.2 mgd with a minimum of about 1.5 mgd and a maximum of
about 4.0 mgd. Influent BOD's varied from about 16O mg/1 to 80O
mg/1., with an average of about 40O mg/1. Influent; suspended
solids ran about 230 mg/1. Soluble BOD's at Monroe are higher
than typically encountered in most municipal plants due to the
nature of the industrial contribution to the system. Influent
pH's can and do vary, from as low as 2.O to as high as 12. This
is purportedly due to industrial wash down procedures which
utilize acidic and caustic reagents. The equalization pond aids
in reducing the variation of wastewater pH and organic>loading to
the secondary process. ;
From the on-set of the study in September, 1985, until June,
1986, construction was underway to expand and up4grade the
wastewater treatment plant. As part of this expansion, one new
two-pass aeration tank was being added to the two existing tanks
of the same configuation. The aeration tanks include three
two-pass tanks, and each pass is 25 ft. wide by 1O2 ft. long, by
15 ft. side water depth. The opening between passes jis about 3
feet square. All three tanks are suited with the Sanitaire
fine-pore ceramic grid system. Each pass contains 45O
substantially planer ceramic disc diffusers each having a
projected area of about O.41 sq. ft. On this basis, there are
approximately 13.8 sq. ft. of tank bottom per each square foot
of diffuser area. ;
Figure 1 represents a schematic of the treatment process
which includes coarse screening and comminution, grijd removal,
primary clarification, equalization (in-line or side1 stream),
aeration, secondary clarification, sand filtration, chlorination
and post aeration by cascade aeration.
-------
FIGURE 1
MONROE, WISCONSIN
SCHEMATIC OF TREATMENT FROCKS
RAW WASTE
I
BAR SCREEN & COMMINUTOR
AERATED GRID REMOVAL
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION
(2-60 FT" DIAM CURIFIERS)
EQUALIZATION
POND
(IN-LINE OR SIDE)
SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
(4QFT,53FT470FT
DIAW CURIFIERS)
(3-2 PASS TANKS;
EACH PASS 25'x 1Q2'x 15'SWD;
TWO GRIDS PER PASS:
450 SANITAIRE DISCS PER
SAND
FILTRATION
CHLORINATION
POST AERATION
*
DISCHARGE
-------
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Experimental Design
Except as otherwise noted, all tests in this
were conducted in accordance with the ASCE—FBDA Qual
Program Plan (QUAPP).
investigation
ity Assurance
The primary dependent variable selected for this study was
the effective pore size of the ceramic diffusers used. Pore size
has historically been specified indirectly on the basis of
permeability, which is determined by sealing the ceramic unit in
a test fixture substantially as it is in an actual aeration tank,
and then passing sufficient air through the dry unit;to produce a
pressure differential of 2.O inches water gauge. The
permeability is reported as the air rate, in standard cubic feet
per minute, to produce this differential.
Originally, the test was applied to diffuser plates 12" x
12" x 1", and where so applied, it provided a rough indirect
measure of apparent pore size. With the advent of porous
diffusers having different dimensions and shapes, -the test lost
its significance as a meaningful measure of pore size. Attempts
to restore this capability led to the development of a related
characteristic which is called specific permeability. It is a
value calculated from the results of a similar permeability test
performed upon the diffuser of interest. Through[ the use of
various assumptions regarding dimensions, shape, and flow
resistance, calculations are performed to estimate the
permeability that would be obtained in a diffuser!of the same
material and uniformity in a square plate configuration, 12" x
12" x 1" thick. Assumptions applied in this study !are that air
flux is directly proportional to area normal to flow!and pressure
gradient in the direction of flow in consistent units.
Permeability was initially selected as the descriptive
parameter for this study because in the past it had been employed
as the usual method of differentiation with respect to pore size.
It is considered appropriate to delineate some of the
shortcomings of this parameter in the characterization of
diffuser media.
1.) The method of its measurement is not specifically
defined in any generally accepted reference.
2. ) There is no known method of accounting fpr dimensions
or shape to establish equivalence to—+the article
implicit in its definition which is 12 x 12 x 1
inches. i
-------
3. ) There are no known procedures to account -for
variations in temperature, pressure or humidity.
4.) There is no known procedure to account for variations
in uniformity that may exist. Thus, differentiation
is not possible between a nan—uniform unit, which may
pass most of the air through a limited area with large
pores, and a unit with uniform though smaller
effective pore size. |
i
However, in reasonably uniform diffuserslof a given
geometric shape, a reasonably good correlation does
exist between the new or original bubble release
vacuum and the specific permeability
-------
The approach used in the work was to initially conduct
frequent offgas surveys to observe OTE changes within the first
few weeks of operation and intensive monitoring of fouling of
each permeability type using removable pilot equipment, each with
four diffusers suspended over the full-scale test gfids. After
the initial intensive work, the combination OTE/fouling surveys
were reduced to approximately 4 month intervals.
i
Individual diffusers were periodically removed from the four
pilot headers, each having a different permeability grouping of
diff users for analysis of BRV, DWP versus air flow rate, OTE,
effective flux ratio, <7> nature of foulant and cleanability.
The information from these analyses was used in combination with
the full-scale offgas evaluations to identify when diffuser
cleaning should be conducted. !
!
In addition to full-scale process water testing, a series of
clean water shop tests (ASCE Standard - Measurement of Oxygen
Transfer in Clean Water) on each permeability type diffuser was
conducted at the aeration supplier's facility for the same
placement and water depth of the full-scale tanks, j Except for
the 26 specific permeability
-------
To increase the productivity, multiple off gas j collection
hoods Mere built and used. Eight collection hoods, 4:-ft. wide by
8 ft. long, were constructed using half-inch plywood, 2 x 2's
and I x lO's. The plywood was used for the top and the 1 x lO's
formed the vertical sides. Styrofoam, 2 in. thick, iJjas attached
to the inside surfaces to provide stability, buoyaricy, and to
reduce the volume of gas within the hood, decreasing its
residence time. !
The offgas was drawn by vacuum through a 1.5 inch diameter
flexible crushproof hose. A pressure tap was located! on the 1.5
inch diameter discharge fitting from the hood. A 1/4 inch I.D.
by 3/8 inch O.D. polyethylene tube was used to transmit the hood
pressure to the offgas analyser, where the operator could observe
the pressure or vacuum inside tha hood, and thereby1 adjust the
rate of offgas withdrawn to match the flux rate at that position.
Typically vf?r y stable flux rate measurements were obtained with
hood pressures of about +. O.2 inch water gauge. ',
i
The sampling positions used during the study are shown in
Figure 2. Early in the offgas testing program :a rigorous
sampling of one of the aeration tanks was conducted. A
mathematical analysis of the data indicated a less extensive
sampling plan could be employed. This plan, which jsampled two
locations (the A and C positions) on eight cross-sections of a
basin, was typically used throughout the study. j
!
Diffuser Evaluations . '
The diffusers employed in the study were provided by Water
Pollution Control Corporation (BanitaireR). They were disc
diffusers, approximatley 9 in. diameter by 3/4 in. thick,
mounted in a PVC holder with two*O.17O in. diameter control
orifices as shown in Figure 1O. The diffuser seals are 3/8 in.
cord diameter O-rings of polyisoprene with hardness of 4O
durometer Shore A. The compound conformed to the requirements of
ASTM D—1869. The pipe and holders are extended land molded
respectively from PVC stress rated compound meeting the
requirements of cell classification 124524 of ASTM |D-3915. In
addition, the pipe itself conforms to the requirements of ASTM
D—3O34 and has the additional requirement of 2.7. TiO-z for
improvement of its resistance to ultraviolet radiation.
i
The diffusers themselves were composed of alumina grit
graded in standard foundry grade sizes and molded at
approximately 1,5OO psi. Separate standard grit sizes were
selected for each of the different BRV0 classifications
furnished. Blending of the grades to obtain the desired BRV
classifications was not practiced. The diffuser banding
material, a high alumina glass composed largely of clay, flint
-------
FIGURE 2
mm, WISCONSIN
OFFGAS SAMPLING PUN
TANK 3
TANK 2
TANK1
4'x8'
OFFGAS
HOODS
J4
CIBIA
4
GRID 3.2
3.3
CIBIJ
3.2
CIBN
GRID 3.1
4
3.1
CIBN
t
1
RAS
•
15
AIBIC
GRID 3.3
3.6
AIBIC
3.7
AIBIC
GRID 3.4
3.8
AIBIC
i '
/5
CIBIA
GRID 2.3
16
CIBIA
2.7
CIBIA
GRID 14
18
CIBIA
«i —
1
AlfilC
4,
GRID 2.;
13
AIBIC
12
AIBIC
GRID 2.1
4
11
AIBIC
t
1
RAS
^
C 1 1 1 A
;RID 1.2
1.3
1IBIA
1.2
:IBIA
;RID LI
1.1
:IBIA
t
1
RAS
j
1
^
kit 1C
GRID 1.3
1.6
AIBIC
1.7
AIBIC
GRID 1.4
1.8
AIBIC
1 '
«r1
4'x 8'
OFFGAS HOODS
TO
CURIFIER
INFLUENT
10
-------
and -feldspar, was added in a ratio of approximately 1:5 to the
grit and -fired at approximately 2,4OOC>F. '
The ceramic diffuser characterization tests were conducted a
number of-times during the investigation to: i
— Define the initial characteristics of the diffusers
used in the study ,
- Quantify changes in the diffuser characteristics
caused by fouling and
- Evaluate the effectiveness of a restorative cleaning
procedure
The diffusers were characterized by dynamic wet pressure
(DWP), bubble release vacuum (BRV), flow profile measured by
effective flux ratio (EFR) and foulant analysis. Full-scale
clean water oxygen transfer tests were conducted according to the
ASCE Oxygen Transfer Standard (9) , for each of the four
permeability types included in the study, at the manufacturer's
shop test facility. Original characteristics are reported as
Tables 1 and 3.
In addition, clean water steady-state oxygen transfer
efficiency (OTE) tests were conducted on new and fouled diffusers
to evaluate quantitatively changes in OTE due to diffuser fouling
and subsequent changes resulting from diffuser cleaning. The
steady-state tests were run in the laboratory in ! a 30 inch
diameter column with 10 feet of diffuser submergence. Steady
state conditions were established by continuously pumping a
concentrated sodium sulfite solution into the tank tq maintain a
dissolved oxygen concentration of 1.0 to 3.O mg/1. The oxygen
transfer efficiency was measured by offgas analysis once
equilibrium conditions were established (6)(11). ' The test
utilizes two diffusers with independent air feed lines, and
typically compares the OTE of a fouled diffuser against a new
diffuser element of the same manufacture, in the same geometry
and air flow rate. By switching the air flow from one diffuser
to the other, an accurate appraisal of the difference in DTE
between the two units can be quickly obtained (6)(10)(11).
11
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Performance of Max Pi-ffusers ;
Prior to installation of the ceramic di-ffusers onto pilot
headers or full-scale grids, several diffusers of each type were
sampled and tested to establish the initial properties. The
DWP's, BRV's, air flow profiles and permeabilities are summarized
in Table 1. It is apparent that an ample range of BRV, DWP and
permeability of the four types of ceramic diffusers were
obtained. The discs were carefully measured so that reliable
estimates of specific permeability and BRV0 could be!made. The
group incl-uded diff users of nominal BRV0 9 inches, 6 inches, 4
inches and 3 inches water gauge. :
Thirty—six diffusers from each permeability group;were clean
water tested at the design water depth of 14.3 ft. and
submergence of 13.5 ft. The 26 specific permeability diffusers
were shop tested at 1.2 scfm per diffuser, while the others were
tested at 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 scfm per diffuser. As previously
indicated, three replicate tests were run at each air Irate. The
tests were run in accordance with the ASCE Standard (9). Except
for the 26 specific permeability diffusers, the test sequence was
randomized with respect to air flow rate, such that no two
consecutive tests were conducted at the same air flow. In
addition, water samples were taken after each test for;subsequent
tot ail dissolved solids (TDS) determination.
i
Figure 3 is a plan view of the Sanitaire shopi test tank
which was used, including the diffuser layout employed. The
results of the clean water tests are presented in Tables 2, 3 and
4 and Figures 4 and 5. :
Table 2 is a summary of the actual clean water test results,
corrected to a 10OO rag/I TDS concentration, using an empirical
correction procedure similar to that described by Benedek (12),
for each set of replicate tests conducted. Figure 4 is a plot of
standard volumetric transfer rate versus volumetric air rate and
air flow per diffuser developed from Table 2 data. : Each line
represents the average transfer rate characteristics for each
permeability tested. Table 3 idealized SOTE data;were back
calculated from Figure 4 for O.5, l.O and 2.O scfm per diffuser.
12
-------
Figure 5 shows the relationship o-f SOTE versus air flow rate
per diffuser. The smoothed curves were generated by computf™
SOTE from the transfer rate data in Figure 4. These data sugges?
inaLuS7 littlS di«erence *" SOTE or SOTR exists over Tranje
in BRV from approximately 4-9 in. wg., however, at a BRV of 2?7
ctarlinl",?«;!?- 3> *hBre iS aPParer*ly a significant incremental
decline in clean water performance, relative to the other types.
Table 4 presents the SOTE of each permeability tested as a
1^10 ~ diffusers having a specific permeability of 26 (BRV0
6 ). Ceramic dome and disc systems supplied in the U.S. are
rountinely supplied having equivalent specific permeabilities in
the range of 2O to 3O; this is the basis for comparing the SOTE
of the various permeabilities to those having a' specific
permeability of 26. *»H*«-*TIC
13
-------
TABLE 1
MONROE, WISCONSIN
!
SUMMARY
SERIES
CONDITION
1
OF NEW DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
1
i
K35-65
NEW
AVB. ERV0 (in. wg. > 8.77
BRVo NOMINAL
s/x
AIRRATE
@ O.5O cfm
@ 0.75 cfm
© 2.OO cfm
@ 3.10 cfm
DWP
@ O.75 cfm/BRV
AIR: FLOW PROFILE
FLUX RATE CENTER
FLUX RATE MIDDLE
FLUX RATE OUTER
PERMEABILITY
SPECIFIC
PERMEABILITY* *»
9
0.032
7.O1
7.49
8.98
10.44
O.S54
{scfm/sq. ft.)
O.67
1.51
2. 19
8.4
14.3
K35-66
NEW
5.77
6
O.O36
DWP assumes flow resistance proportional to flow path
length, resistance per unit length is proportional
to flux rate, flow area is 144 in= in reference
diffuser and 59 in3 in diffusers employed.
14
-------
AREA TANK
m DIFFUSERS
= 13.9
34M"
FIGURE 3
CLEAN fAe SHOP JEST 1AM
FOR
HE, WISCONSIN
II
_s
1
• <«
OO0O
OOOO
oooo
®ooo
OO0O
oooo
• O0O-
oooo
0000
• ooo
oooo
OOOO"
0000
•ooo
0000
oooo
O9O9
•00 o
oooo
0000
-1
-4
6'-0"
SHOP JEST
IANK
15
-------
TABLE
MONROE, WISCONSIN
CLEAN HATER OXYGEN TRANSFER RESULTS
DIFFUSER
BRV0 = 9
SP. PERM 14
BRVo = 6
SP. PERM 26
BRVo = 4
SP. PERM 38
BRV0 = 3
SP. PERM 50
AIRRATE
(ccf*>
17.81
17.91
18.14
35.83
35.94
36.18
43.06
71.80
71.84
72.38
44.00
43.60
43.50
18.00
18.02
18.04
36.00
36.08
36.18
71.94
71.95
72.02
17.93
18.00
18.01
35.97
36.12
36.23
71.68
71.82
72.13
t
36
VOLUMETRIC
AIRRATE
(scfs/1000 ft3)
6.046
6.080
6.159
12.164
12.202
12.283
14.619
24.376
24.390
24.573
14.938
14.802
14.768
6.111
6.118
6.125
12.222
12.249
12.283
24.424
24.427
24.451
6.087
6.111
6.114
12.212
12.263
12.300
24.335
24.383
24.488
AREA TANK
IREA DIFFUSER
OIFFUSERS TESTED
SOTE
31.49
31.42
32.66
28.11
27.01
29.08
28.75
25.69
26.19
25.37
27.94
27.63
27.58
29.78
29.92
33,23
29.60
27.87
27.27
25.71
24.84
24.19
30.98
30.08
27.01
27.60
25.93
26.54
24.47
24.19
23.53
VOLUMETRIC
TRANSFER
(lbs/day/1000 ft3)
47.58
47.74
50.26
85.45
82.36
89.26
105.03
156.49
159.63
155.79
104.30
102.21
101.7.9
45.48
45.74
50.86
90.41
85.31
83.71
156.92
151.63
147.81
47.13
45.94
41.27
84.23
79.46
81.58
148.81
147.40
143.99
C0NCENTRTnMnftn« T° A TOTftL '"SOLVED SOU 108 MEASURED SOTE x t
Where:
LOS i = (1000 - TDSM.l x 10~s
16
-------
TABLE 3
MONROE, WISCONSIN
IDEALIZED CLEAN WATER SOTE PERFORMANCE
BRVo
.
,
AIRRATE
PER UNIT
(scfm)
0.5
1.0
2.O
9"
.
14
SP. PERM
31.6
28.1
25.7
'
6"
"
26
SP. PERM
31.3
27.7
25.2
s
> 4"
3S
SP. PERM
3O.9
27.4
24.9
.
'
3"
5O
SP. PERM
29.6
26.4
24. 0
•
THESE VALUES WERE OBTAINED FROM FIGURE 5 SMOOTH;CURVES
17
-------
FIGURE 4
MONROE, WISCONSIN CLEAN WATER TEST DATA
VOLUMETRIC TRANSFER RATE VS VOLUMETRIC AIRRATE
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
fc
o
«
|
C3
J
\^f
g
(X
E
re
z
C4
o
K
E-i
£
1
x
/
SIDE WATER DEPTH - 14.3 FT. '
VV 13-9 ;
—
SPEC I FT
^
s
5
3RVQ = 6
C PERM 2
s.
^
V-
10
VOLUMETRIC
i • 1
BP.VO
SPECIPI
l -^
^3S
S
• ' '
15
IIRRATE C SCI
1 — — 1
-
- 9
: PERM. 14
^
^50
BRVo =
SPECIFIC
20
T4/1000 CU.P]
1 i
S
a
^
^
V
BRY =* 3
PECIFIC PE
PERM.
5 3(
)
\s6
Of
/-
\
\
FM. i
!•
i
I
!
:
i 35 :
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
AIRRATE (SCFM PER DIFFUSER)
2.5
18
-------
19'
-------
TABLE 4 ;
- I
MONROE, WISCONSIN !
I
RELATIVE CLEAN WATER SOTE PERFORMANCE
RATIO SOTE OF BRV0 IN QUESTION/SOTE of BRV0 6
BRV0
AIRRATE
PER UNIT
(sc-f m)
O.5
l.O
2.O
X
9"
f
14
SP. PERM
1.O1O
1.014
1.O2O
1.O15
6"
26
SP. PERM
l.OOO
1.000
1 . OOO
1 . 000
'
4"
38
SP. PERM
O.987
O.989
O.9S8
.
O.9SS
13"
! 5O
SP. PERM
I
1
0.946
i
0.953
O.952
1
0. 950
THE ABOVE RATIOS WERE OBTAINED FROM TABLE 3 IDEALIZED OTE VALUES
20
-------
The relationships between BRV, DWP, and specific
permeability versus, the relative ratio of clean water SOTE are
presented in Figures 6, 7 and 8. Figure 9 indicates the
relationship between BRVQ and specific permeability. '' Since BRV
and DWP at about 2 scfm/sq.ft. are similar in magnitude for clean
diffusers and are an indirect measure of effective pore size, it
is not surprising that a similar trend between DWP and BRV and
relative DTE exists. In both cases, as the effective pore size
increases with increasing permeability, the OTE and the pressure
to produce bubbles (as measured by DWP and BRV) decrease.
The relationship between permeability and BRV is of interest
both from a specification and quality control viewpoint. Many
specifications require permeability tests to be conducted in an
effort to control uniformity, effective pore size and back
pressure of the diffuser elements to be installed in the aeration
system. Although there is no recognized standard procedure for
measuring permeability, the test specified usually involve the
measurement of air flow through the dry diffuser at an operating
pressure of 2 in. w.g. The air flow rates involved in the
permeability test are many times that of an operating diffuser,
as is the differential pressure across the diffuser.| The reason
for this discrepancy is that the permeability test does not
include the important effect of surface tension which'constitutes
a large fraction of the back pressure of an operating diffuser.
This deficiency is further complicated by a recent advent of
diffusers of a variety of geometric shapes, which preclude the
comparison of the desired characteristics through the:application
of this test. Procedures for relating the results of this test
on diffusers of differing geometric shape are not reliably known.
Furthermore, since the test measures only an overall resistance
to Flow it gives no indication of uniformity within arj individual
dif-Fuser under test.
On the other hand, the BRV test which is conducted at flux
rates and pressure differences comparable to service and does
include the effect of surface tension, is not subject to the
deficiencies of the permeability test outlined above.
Additionally, the coefficient of variation of multiple BRV
determinations on a single diffuser does provide a useful measure
of uniformity of individual diffusers. It is for these reasons
that the BRV , test is considered to be a far more applicable and
meaningful test than the permeability test and is therefore
employed in this work as the principal gauge of effective pore
size.
Plant Facilities. Operation and Maintenance
As indicated earlier, the Monroe plant was in the midst of a
plant expansion at the time the aeration study began in
21
-------
5
"o
o
I
FIGURE
MONROE. WISCONSIN
1.04
1.03 -
1.02 -
1.01 -
1.00 -
0.99 -
0.88 -
O.S7 -
0.88 -
0.95 -
0,94 -
0.93 -
0.92 -
0.91 -
0.90 -
0.89 -
0.88 -
0
2
a
/
/
^x-
4
••**"*
^- — '
*~~~
J3
« 8
BRV (|n. wg.)
10
12
14
•5
o
I
FIGURE 7
MONROE, WISCONSIN
1.04
1.03 -
1.O2 -
1.01 -
1.00 -
0.99 -
0.98 -
0.97 -
0.96 -
0.95 -
0.94 -
0.93 -
0.92 -
0.91 -
0.90 -
0.89 -
0.88 -
a
i/wr ^v./3«cinv »tK5U5 RELATIVE SOTE
f
1
^
-. —
,J3
•
4 S 8 10
OWP AT 0.75 tefm (tn. »g.)
12
14
22
-------
X
1
I
^
a
o
~
5
Id
§
I
u
a
t.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.00
O.M
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.93
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.89 •
0.88 -
FIGURE 8
MONROE, WISCONSIN
SP. PERM/BRV(0) VERSUS RELATIVE SOTE
10
5
SPECIFJC PERMEABIUTYXBRV(0)2'7
60 SPECIFIC PERKABILITY
BRV(O) .
*"•»
MONROE, WISCONSIN
JUV VERSUS SPECIFIC PERMEABILITY
14
23
-------
September, 1985. At that time a new third aeration tank similar
to the two existing tanks was brought on line. The new two—pass
tank was the first ceramic grid system in operation at the plant.
Subsequent construction involved draining the existing tanks,
removing the old Chicago Pump coarse bubble Disc-fuser diffusers
and retrofitting the basins with fine pore ceramics! Figure 1O
shows both a cross-sectional view of the Sanitaire diffuser
assembly and a perspective drawing illustrating a typical disc
grid layout. ;•
The retrofit of Tank 2 was completed in mid-November, 1985.
DUE? to construction delays, Tank 1 was not completed until May,
19S6. As a result, from September, 1985, to June, 1986, only two
of the three aeration basins were in operation; however, from
that time on all three basins were in service. :
Figure 11 is a plan view of a typical aeration tank
indicating the basin geometry and the disposition of the aeration
equipment. Figure 12 indicates the grid nomenclature and
specific permeability of the diffusers installed therein, the
location of the five pilot diffuser headers and the flow scheme
employed during the study. Return sludge was introduced to the
inlet of the first pass, while wastewater from the primary
clarifiers or the equalization basin was fed from three locations
within the first pass. Typically, the return sludge flow was
held at 7O-8O% of the waste flow which was split between the
three addition points at roughly 4O-4O-2OX respectively,
proceeding in the direction of flow. :
Table 5 presents the monthly wastewater characteristics from
start up in September, 1985, through June, 1988. Table 6
presents information on a selected number of ioperational
parameters over the same period. :
During this period of time, the aeration tanks were operated
as three parallel two-pass basins. On several occasions the
equalization pond, which was used in-line, was brought on line or
removed from service as noted in Table 6. In addition, Tables 7
and 8 provide chronologies of important events by catagory and as
they occurred in sequence, respectively. :
Due to the staggered start up of the aeration basins, the
fine pore diffusers in Tanks 2 and 3 which had operated for 168
days and 26O days respectively, were field cleaned in situ in
mid-May, 1986. The cleaning procedure involved hosing the
diffusers off with effluent, applying diluted muriati£ acid with
a commercial weed sprayer, hand brushing with a stiff brush and
rehosing. A couple of diffusers that were removed from each grid
prior to cleaning, were quickly conveyed to Ewing Engineering
Company in Milwaukee for careful evaluation.
24
-------
FIGURE 1O
RETAINER
DIFFUSER HOLDER
AIR DISTRIBUTOR PIPE
CURRENT
CONFIGURATION
Aluminum Omdi Diie
O-Rmg \ Comour«d Surfaci
_f \ \
ComprtiMd ESjt
Control OrKict
<-in,PVCPip«
SANITAIRE
1985 CONFIGURATION
Tjplcoa Ceramic Disc Grid Layout
25
-------
UJ
QC
g
u.
1
(I
1
II
1!
«
I
i
i
n
i!
n
i
i
i
i
!
S
li
i
I
I
j
1
1
ii
i!
iii
i
1
l!i
1
i
li
ii
1
i!
i
i
i
i
S
!!
1
i
1
Iii
;
h
8
I
li
It
I
2
u
l/l
s
g
26
-------
FIGURE 12
MONROE, WISCONSIN
AERATION TANKS
TANK 3
TANK 2
TANK1
1
r~
26
SPERM
<
i
GRID 3.2
^
26
SPERM
GRID 3.1
t
1
RAS
i
I
26
SPERM
GRID 3.3
26
SPERM
GRID 3.4
^
26
S PERM
GRID 2.3
26
SPERM
GRID 2.4
. — _
i
T 26
SPERM
I 1
GRID 2.2
*
PILOT
UNITS
i 38
TS PERM
1
GRID 2.1
t
-------
MONTH/YEAR
= ====s: ==r==s=s=2
Sapte«bar, 1985
October, 1985
Noveaber, 1985
December, 1985
January, 1986
February, 1986
March, 1986
April, 1986
May, 1986
June, 1986
July, 1986.
August j 1986
September, 1986
October, 1986
November, 1986
DacBDbar, 1986
January, 1987
February, 1987
March, 1987
April, 1987
May, 1987
June, 1987
July, 1987
August, 1987
September, .1987
October, 1987
Novsiber, 1987
Decaabar, 1987
January, 1988
February, 1988
March, 1988
April, 1988
May, 1988
June, 1988
INFLUENT
FLOW
(M.S.D.)
==========
1.80
1.93
2.29
2.04
1.84
1.95
2.38
2.05
2.23
2.17
2.14
2.15
2.59
2.52
2.11
2.03
1.98
1.85
1.95
2.11
2.28
2.35
2.18
2.44
2.23
2.23
2.03
2.03
2.06
2.04
1.94
1.99
1.93
1.99
TABLE 5
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - MONROE, WISCONSIN
Septetbar, 1985 - June, 1988
RAN RAH
BOD3 SUSP. SOLIDS
CONCEN. CONCEN.
(M6/L)
369
347
336
463
494
484
397
401
415
' 434
483
392
397
360
370
386
386
415
399
351
410
434
412
477
410
461
418
431
389
419
375
369
449
551
198
176
197
240
237
218
201
211
202
231
239
217
286
237
253
227
216
288
227
204
220
252
245
246
230
257
243
277
234
225
215
201
203
241
FLOW TO
AERATION
(M.6.D.)
BOD=
CONCEN.
TO AERATION
(MS/L)
=======================
1.80
1.93
2.29
2.04
1.83
1.56
2.48
2.16
2.32
3.04
2.46
2.37
2.86
2.81
2.35
2.27
2.19
2.12
2.17
2.36
2.52
2.61
2.61
2.76
2.60
2.50
2.39
2.35
2.40
2.35
2.23
2.28
2.17
2.30
207
223
259
349
355
339
251
257
232
300
350
289
276
245
260 *
270 *
310
250
272
223
267
306
203
281
246
302
266
294
403
430
346
289
372
400
AMMONIA
NITROGEN
CONCEN.
TO AERATION
(MS/L)
============:
! 10.1
7.2
7.1
: 11.4
15.7
9.1
6.4
8.4
: 10.1
10.6
15.7
13.6
13.5
IS. 9
119.2
: 12.4
17.7
18.3
21.9
17.8
16.6
15.4
17.0
14.0
12.8
28.8
i30.5
25.9
21.6
24.4
27.3
18.1
19.1
» ESTIMATED VALUE, NO DATA AVAILABLE
NOTE: FLOW TO AERATION INCLUDES PLANT RECYCLE FLOWS
28
-------
TABLE 6
SELECTED PLANT OPERATION DATA
v
(Aeration Tankg 1-3)
MONTHLY AVERAGES
DATE
BOD LOAD
SRT*
Ub/1000 cf,d) (day)
SepteBber, 1985
October, 1985
Noveaber, 1983
December, 1985
January, 1986
February, 1986
March, 1986
flpril, 1986
May, 1986
Jurre, 1986
JuKy, 1986
August, 1986
September, 1986
October, 1986
Noveaber, 1986
December, 1986
January, 1987
February, 1987
March, 1987
April, 1987 '
May, 1987
June, 1987
July, 1987
August, 1987
Septeaber, 1987
October, 1987
Noveaber, 1987
December, 1987
January, 1988
February, 1988
March, 1988
April, 1988
May, 1988
June, 1988
22.5
26.1
35.9
43.0
39.2
31.9
37.6
33.6
32.6
37.1
35.1
27.8
32.1
28.0
24.9
24.9
27.7
21.5
24.0
21.4
27.4
32.5
21.6
31.6
26.0
30.7
25.9
28.1
39.3
41.1
31.4
36.8
32.8
37.3
*
*
«
14.2
25.2
4.6
2.5
5.0
5.3
6.2
8.2
.5.9
4.8
5.4
8.1
7.9
11.8
9.4
9.2
8.0
8.4
5.7
4.6
6.9
7.1
7.6
6.7
5.4
6.5
10.5
10.2
7.0
9.3
7.2
F/M
(day-1)
s=— ==3= ====s:
0.35 1
0.28
0.27
0.38 1
0.40 fl
0.40
0.59 •
0.63
0.49 B
0.39
0.39
0.40-
0.57
0.38
0.26
0.27 Dl
Tl
1 1
0.33
0.27
0.26
0.22
0.31
0.35
0.27 31
0.40
0.38
0.29 OC
0.23
0.27 DE
0.37
0.32
0.22
0.19
0.26
0.28
NOTES
BLENDED PE + POND EFFLUENT
ALL FLOW TO EQUALIZATION'POND
i
ALL FLOW TO EQUALIZATION !POND
BESIN BYPASSINS EQUALIZATION POND
JUNE 8th
DECEMBER 10th ALL FLOW
THROUSH EQUALIZATION POND
JULY 31th THROUSH SEPTEMBER 24th
SEEDINS POND WITH R.A.iS.
OCTOBER 20th BESIN BYPASSINS
EQUALIZATION POND '
DECEMBER 1st ALL FLOW TO ''
EQUALIZATION POND
* Insufficient waste record
29
-------
a
The restoration of diffusers in Tanks 2 and 3 coincided with
completion o-f the Tank 1 retrofit, so all three tanks were in a
like new" condition at the end o-f May, 1986. In eafly July, as
indicated in Tables 7 and 8, parallel off gas testing of all three
basins was initiated and the pilot diffusers were installed in
the inlet pass of Tank 2. The aeration tanks were operated
continuously from late May, 1986, until June, 1988. At that time
each tank was drained and field cleaned, in situ, consistent with
the cleaning procedure used in 1986. Diffusers were once again
returned to Ewing Engineering Company in an "as found" condition
for evaluation. j
i
Piffuser Fouling - Theoretical Discussion \
Before presenting the results relating to diffuser fouling
at Monroe, it is considered fitting to discuss the general nature
of diffuser fouling as it is measured by BRV and DWP. i
Dynamic wet pressure (DWP) is a measurement of the
differential pressure across the porous media at , a defined
airflow rate when the diffuser is operating in a liquid medium
(e.g. tap water or mixed liquor). Due to the fact that the
surface pores of a ceramic diffuser formed by the irregularly
shaped particles making up the ceramic element constitute a range
of sizes and larger pores produce bubbles at a lower pressure
than smaller pores of the same shape, only the largest pores
function. As a result, only a relatively small percentage of the
surface pores actually emit bubbles. The DWP, which ! is the sum
of the frictional resistance to flow through the media and the
force to make bubbles at the diffuser surface, represents the
lowest possible pressure at which the diffuser can operate at the
airflow in question. ;
The bubble release vacuum (BRV) is a measure of the pressure
to produce bubbles at specific localized areas ;across the
dif-Fuser surface. The BRV probe's 25 mm diameter tubje, which is
pressed firmly against the surface of a wetted dilffuser and
sealed by a rubber gasket, is evacuated with a vacuum pump. The
BRV is the stable vacuum at the diffuser surface required to draw
air bubbles from the diffuser through a column of liquid in the
probe at a flux rate of 2 scfm/ft=. Typically, the average of 9
such readings are reported as the mean BRV and standard deviation
over the mean is reported, as is the coefficient of variation.
i
The DWP of a new diffuser at an airflow setting equivalent
to 2 scfm/sq. ft. of exposed diffuser surface (about O.75 cfm
for the Monroe diffusers) is nearly equal to the mean! BRV value.
The ratio of DWP to BRV is typically slightly less thah unity for
a new diffuser. In the case where fouling results in the
preferential plugging of some pores relative to others1, BRV will
30
-------
TABLE 7
MONROE, WISCONSIN
CHRQNOL08Y OF EVENTS BY CATEGORY
EQUALIZATION
USA6£
JSepteaber 1, 1985 through Deceibar 1, 1985:
Oeceaber 1, 1985 through June 7, 1986:
June 8, 1986 through Oeceaber 9, 1986:
Deceeber 10, 1986 through October 19, 1987:
Octobtr 20, 1987 through Novesber 30, 1987:
Deceaber 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988:
Partial flo« to Pond
(Blended Priaary Clarifier
and Pond Effluent)
All floM to Pond
Bypassing Pond ;
(Priaary Effluent to
Aeration)
i
All flow to Pond
Bypassing Pond
(Prieary Effluenjt to
Aeration) '
All flow to Pond
POHD StEDlHS (K.A.S. TO EQUALIZATION POHD)
July 31, 1987 through September 24, 1987
Decaaber 30, 1987 through Hay 30, 1988
June 24, 1988 through June 26, 1988
AHKQHIA ADD IT I OX
July 31, 1986 through Decenber 21, 1986
February 29, 1987 through January 12, 1988
Harch 10, 1988 through June 30, 1988
31
-------
TABLE 7 - Continued
MONROE, WISCONSIN
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS BY CATEGORY
OFFGAS TES71HB DATES
September 11, ,1985 Tanks 1 and 3
September 19-21, 1985 Tank 3
December 10-11, 1985 Tanks 2 and 3
April 9, 1986 Tanks 2 and 3
July 8-9, 1986 Tanks 1, 2 and 3
November 20-21, 1986 Tanks 1, 2 and 3
March 5, 1987 Tanks 1, 2 and 3
August 17-19, 1987 Tanks 1, 2 and 3
November 3-4, 1987 Tanks 1, 2 and 3
P1LQ7 HEADER TEST1HB '
i
July 9, 1986s Install all 5 pilot headers
November 25 and December 4, 1986: Remove first set of differs from
pilot headers (0-4.5 month batch).
March 3 and 9, 1987: Remove second set of diffusers from
pilot headers (0-8 month and 4.5-8
month diffusers).
i
July 30 and August 4, 1987: Remove third set of diffusers from
pilot headers (0-12 monthiand 8-12
month diffusers). '.
\
Nuvmeber 6 and 14, 1987: Remove final set of diffusers from
pilot headers (0-16 month ,and 12-16
month diffusers). i
32
-------
TABLE 8
MONROE, WISCONSIN
SEQUENTIAL CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT EVENTS
September 1, 1985: !
Begin partial flow from equalization pond. ,
Aeration influent blend primary e-f-fluent and pond effluent.
September 4, 1985:
Aeration Tank 3 brought on-line with ceramics. ;
September 11, 1985: i
First offgas analysis of Tank 3.
Tank 2 down for retrofit, !
Tank 1 on-line with coarse bubble. !
September 19-21, 1985:
Comprehensive offgas evaluation of Tank 3. ;
Single offgas survey of Tank 1 coarse bubble. :
Tank 2 down for retrofit. i
Aeration influent from primaries and pond. :
November 25, 1985: I
Tank 2 started up with ceramic grid system.
December 1, 1985: '
All flow now through primaries to equalization pond to
aeration tanks. j
December 10-11, 1985: i
Offgas analysis of Tanks 2 and 3. <
Tank 1 down for retrofit. i
Aeration tank influent from primaries through pond.
April 9, 1986: :
Offgas analysis of Tanks 2 and 3.
Tank 1 down for retrofit. !
All flow through equalization pond. '
May 12, 1986: \
Aeration Tank 2 drained after 168 days of operation.
Sample diffusers taken to Ewing Engineering Company for
analysis. ,
Tank hosed, acid sprayed, hand brushed and re-hosed prior to
bringing on—line. !
33
-------
TABLE 8 - Continued i
Monroe, Wisconsin Sequential Chronology i
May 22, 1986: ;
Aeration Tank 3 drained after 26O days of operation.
Sample diffusers taken to Ewing Engineering Company for
analysis. j
Tank hosed, acid sprayed, hand brushed and re-hosed prior to
bringing on-line. |
June 6, 19S6:
All three aeration tanks on-line with cleaned or new ceramic
discs. :
June 8, 1986:
Equalization tank out of service to install coarse| bubble
•' diffused aeration. i
All pond to aeration from primary clarifiers. '
July 8-9, 1986: !
Offgas analysis of aeration Tanks 1-3. i
Influent is from primary clarifiers. Pond out of 'service.
July 9, 1986: |
5 sets of pilot diffuser headers installed in Pass 1 of Tank
2. ;
i
July 31, 1986:
Begin supplemental ammonia addition on an intermittent basis,
to aeration influent
-------
TABLE 8 -Continued \
Monroe, Wisconsin Sequential Chronology i
Mari:h 5, 1987:
Offgas analysis of Tanks 1-3.
Influent to aeration is from the equalization pond.
July 31, 1987s j
Begin seeding equalization pond with return activated sludge.
July 30 & August 4, 1987: !
Remove the third set of diffusers from pilot headers (O-12
month and 8-12 month diffusers). i
August 17-19, 1987: !
Offgas analysis of Tanks 1-3. I
Influent to aeration from the equalization pond with R.A.S.
addition to pond.
October 20, 1987: :
Cease use of equalization pond.
Primary effluent to aeration tanks. ;
November 3-4, 1987: \
Final offgas analysis of Tanks i-3. ;
Influent from primary clarifisrs. !
November 6 & 14, 1987:
Remove final set of diffusers from pilot headers Cb-16 month
and 12-16 month diffusers}.
December 1, 1987: ;
All flow through equalization pond to aeration. !
January 12, 1988:
Cease supplemental ammonia addition. ;
March 10, 1988: !
Initiate supplemental ammonia addition. i
June 13 1988: I
Aeration Tank 1 drained after 24 months of continuous
operation.
Sample diffusers sent to Ewing Engineering Company Ifor
analysis. I
1 ' i'
June 20, 1988: i
Aeration Tank 2 drained after 24 months of continuous
operation.
Sample diffusers sent to Ewing Engineering Company for
analysis..
35
-------
TABLE 8 - Continued \
i
Monroe, Wisconsin Sequential Chronology '
June 29, 1988: \
Aeration Tank 3 drained after 24 months of continuous
operation. |
Sample diffuser sent to Ewing Engineering Company
analysis.
END OF INVESTIGATION
36
-------
increase much more rapidly than DWP, causing the DWP/BRV ratio to
decline. In this case, the mean BRV is significantly|higher than
the DWP because pores inside the BRV probe, which may be largely
plugged, are forced to operate whether or not they emit bubbles
when the di-f-fuser is operated as a whole. '
In the unique case of fouling caused only I by calcium
carbonate precipitation, where all the pores foul more or less
uniformly, the BRV and DWP tend to increase similarly and the
DWP/BRV ratio remains relatively constant.
i
The ratio of DWP to BRV, both measured at the same air flux,
may be a more meaningful indicator of diffuser fouling than
either parameter alone. Upon closer examination, DWP measures
the overall pressure that is available to form bubbles at a
specific air flux over the entire diffuser surface. iBRV, on the
other hand, measures the average pressure that is irequired to
form bubbles at a specific air flux over a limited region of the
diffuser surface. Consequently, bubbles will form at a reduced
flux, if at all, at any point where the BRV exceeds the DWP.
The DWP to BRV ratio is closely related to thejfraction of
the diffuser area that is actually emitting bubbles. As this
ratio decreases, less effective area is available for the same
diffuser airflow. This results in higher localized air flux
rates on the diffuser surface, potentially causing the formation
of coarser bubbles with a corresponding reduction in OTE. Thus,
a decrease in the DWP/BRV ratio due to diffuser fouling may be
more indicative of fouling induced OTE losses than i changes in
either parameter alone. i
i
Pilot Diffuser Study j .
In order to meet the primary objective of this study, to
evaluate the OTE and fouling characteristics of ceramic diffusers
over a wide range of effective pore sizes, the investigation was
divided into two main areas. One was the long-term monitoring of
full-scale OTE and evaluation of diffusers upon tank draindown,
and the other was the evaluation of performance of tl^e diffusers
of the various effective pore sizes which were monitored on
removable pilot headers. Changes in OTE, DWP, BRV, and air flow
Profile were monitored, and the resulting foulant analysed on
intervals of approximately 4 months, up to a cumulative period of
16 months. :
i
A total of five independent pilot headers, each containing
four ceramic discs, were installed in the inlet pass of Tank 2,
as shown in Figure 13. Four of the pilot units were used for the
four different diffuser permeabilities investigated. The fifth
37
-------
FIGURE S3
MONROE, WISCONSIN \
MONROE PILOT DIFFUSERS j
ALL FIVE PILOT HEADERS WERE INSTALLED ON JULY 9,1986 AT ABOUT 3iPM
TANK 2 !
WASTE
FEED
WASTE
FEED
PILOT
UNIT
WASTE
FEED
i SERIES INTER-PUNT
9 FOULING UNIT
T 26 SP PERM, BRV06
-** PRW. EFF
i SERIES
4 K35-67
T 38 SP PERM, BRV04
i
4
'
SERIES
K35-68
50 SP PERM, BRV03
SERIES
K35-65
14 SP PERM, BRV09
PRIM. EFF
SERIES
K35-66
26 SP PERM, 6RV06
PRIM. EFF
MIXED UQUOR
R.A.S.
38
-------
pilot was part of an interplant -fouling study which included
similar pilot headers at several test sites to ascertain the
relative -fouling tendencies of the various plants studied. The
results of the interplant study is being presented in a separate
report. ; K
!
A drawing of a typical pilot unit provided by Sanitains
commonly referred to as a 4-lunger, is presented in; Figure 14.
Each pilot header is supported from the handrail system by a
rigid frame made of unistrut, such that the di>fusers are
submerged about 6 ft. Air for the diffusers was tapped off the
air main. Plant staff monitored pilot headers, control ing the
air flow to each diffuser at about l.O cfm. Periodic in situ DWP
measurements were made on approximately a weekly basi4.
As in the interplant fouling study, one of the diffuser
holders was isolated from the other three and had a Separate air
feed line. The modification permitted a new diffuser, possibly
having a DWP substantially lower than the other diffusers, to be
installed on the 4-lunger without affecting the air ^flow to the
other three diffusers being fed from a common air source.
The duration of the test from the first tank drfaindown was
scheduled to be 16 months. Sampling of diffusers were planned on
four month or quarterly (based on the duration of ! the study)
intervals according to the following schedule: [
After 4 months of operation, one diffuser frfom each
pilot unit was removed and a new diffuser element was
added; after an additional 4 month period, a diffuser
that had operated 8 months was removed, as well' as the
diffuser added to the header 4 months earlier !and one
new diffuser was added to the header. This sequence was
repeated after 12 months and finally after 16 imonths,
when a 4 month and 16 month diffuser were removed.
Using the above technique, four diffusers! providing
information on the cumulative effect of fouling after 4, 8, 12
and 16 months of service were obtained, as well as four diffusers
indicating the fouling tendencies of the system for 4 ^independent
4 month intervals. The later 4 units were used to appraise the
relative variability of the fouling experience at the plant in
question. !
The testing sequence used in evaluating all diffusers
removed from Monroe follows. In order to test diffusers from all
five 4-1angers, two trips were made one week apart. Oh one week,
diffusers from two pilot headers were removed and thte following
week samples were taken from the remaining pilots. Ini all cases
removed diffusers were labeled, carefully slipped into zip-lock
bags and returned to Ewing Engineering Company in: Milwaukee
39
-------
40
-------
within three hours. Steady-state clean water OTE 'tests were
conducted the same day immediately after photographing? The
and ?oul? ^ °WP? BRV' a0d "^ fl°W Pr°file t«st«9«4e conducted
and foulant scrapings were taken. In some cases, the diffusers
were subsequently cleaned and retested. j Q1Trusers
i
The initial diffuser characteristics of the pilot diffusers
Jr^: ?*W were, Previously presented in Table i. Summarized datl
JA i V llpt dlffuser evaluations are presented in JTables 9 to
14 and Figures 15 to 18. The figures, which present quarterly
and cumulative plots of DWP, BRV and clean water lOTE of the
Pilot Study - Figure 15
Figure 15 indicates the results of the group o^f diffusers
having a specific permeability of about 14 and BRV0 tof about 9
liL™ TH ^^ Partravs the DWP> BRV and OTE as a function oi
time. The squares represent the quarterly data, iwhile the
InJfSlH represent cumulative changes ^n th4 \ plrLeter
indicated.
i- + IhS/irSL 9r°UP °* pilot di** users were removed from the
test header after about 4.5 months of continuous service. Suring
this period, the BRV rose by a factor of greater than two, frCm
8.8 in wg to 23.2 in. wg. The DWP at O.75 scfm per diffuser
(approximately 2 scfm/sq. ft.) rose to only about l.i times Ki
initial value, while the clean water OTE of the fouiJd defuse?
dropped from 19.0% to 12.4% at l.O scfm per diffused Thusfat
O ?5 iTif« ' f- rfmral ' thiS di^ussr •«* performing at about
hid h ^i trans'fer efficiency. Since only ohe diffuser
had been removed from each pilot at the 4.5 month point these
data represent both quarterly and cumulative effects and a?e
therefore plotted as the same point. j
At the 8 month point, one diffuser operating froJ. zero to 8
-
The BRV, DWP and OTE data all indicate that iihe fouling
°
hanh ' was ss=
than the O to 4.5 month interval. During the second quarter BRV
increased from about 8.8 in. wg. new to 13.9 in. w5 fouled
compared to 23,2 in. wg. after the first quarter? The
cnb
new to about 17% m^" x^ thS °TE dscrsas^ *"» |2O.5% when
of service °* 3 """ diffuser> following 3.5 months
41
-------
TABLE 9
MONROE PILOT OIFFUSERS AFTER APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MONTHS AERATION
• SUMMARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
DIFFUSER
NO.
K35-65-1
K35-6S-1
K35-66-3
K35-66-3
K35-67-1
K35-67-1
K35-68-1
K35-6B-1
TYPE DIFFUSER j TJN£ IN
SP. PERM
14
14
26
26
38
38
50-
50
CONDITION ! SERVICE
BRV0 j'
' 1
9 ! NEU !
9 ! AS RCVD ! 4.5 MOS
J 1
J 1
6 i NEK !
6 i AS RCVD i 4.5 MDS
} . j
I ,
4 i NEK !
4 i AS RCVD ! 4.5 MOS
j 1
1 '
31 NEK !
3 i AS RCVD ! 4.5 MOS
J '
BRV
(in. »g.)
8.76
23.24
5.70
12.97
4.06
2.70
10,91
C.O.V.
0.032
0.218
0.033
0.151
0.025
0.049
0.165
DKP (in. »g.)
0.50
cfi
7.10
7.20
4.80
6.70
3.50
5.10
2.70
3.70
0.75
cfi
7.65
9.95
5.05
6.95
3.70
6.10
2.85
4.20
2.00
CfB
9.00
17.80
5.90
10.60
4.20
9.25
3.15
6.05
3:.10
cfi
10.55
35.00
6.30
16.10
4.80
16.00
3.60
10.75
•, • rf
RATIO
DKP/8RV
0.873
0.428
0.386
0.536
0.911
1.056
0.385
42
-------
TABLE 10
HONROE PILOT DIFFUSERS AFTER APPROXIMATELY 8.0 MONTHS AERATION
SUMMARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
DIFFUSER
un
NU.
K35-65-6
K35-65-6
K35-65-3
05-65-3
K35-67-6
K35-67-6
K35-67-3
K35-67-3
K43-67-2
K35-66-4
K35-66-4
K43-57-1
K3S-68-3
K35-68-3
TYPE DIFFUSER i
SP. PER
14
14
14
14
38
38
38
38
26
26
26
50
50
50
, CONDITION
BRVo !
1
9 ! NEK
9 i AS RCVD
1
9 i NEK
9 i AS RCVD
1
4 ! NEK
4 ! AS RCVD
!
1
4 i NEK
4 ! AS RCVD
,
6 ! AS RCVD
I
1
i ! NEK
S ! AS RCVD
3 ! AS SCVD
3 i NEK
3 i AS RCVD
I
,
,
,
',
1
TIME IN
SERVICE
3.5 HOS
8 HOS
3.5 MOS
8 MOS
3.5 HOS
8 MOS
3.5 MOS
8 HOS
BRV
(in. Kg
13.9
8.7
15.9
5.4
3.93
8.98
7.93
5.76
12.48
5.07
2.78
5.44
C.O.V.
0,21
0.03
0.15
0.056
0.028
0.182
0.061
0.039
0.105
0.236
0.043
0.145
DKP (in. ag.i '
' 0.50 i 0.75 i 2.00 i 3.10
eft
6.3
7.1
7.3
3.55
3.40
5.05
5.10
4.75
5.60
3.15
2.60
2.70
cti ! cfi j cfs
1 i
' I
I i
7.80 ! - !
. 7.45 ! 9.35 j
1 i,
7.65 ! 9.25 I, 10.7
9.10 ! 13.55 ',',
i !;
t i!
3.85 ! 4.60 !|
{ '
; i i
3.60 ! 4.05 ! ; 4.55
6.05 ! 10.30 i ,
J . 1 !
5.60 ! 7.10 i! -
! j :
r j [
5.00 1 5.85 ! ! 6.70
7.10 i il.70 ! , --
1 i
•3.45 ! 4.40 ! j -
2.75 ! 2.95 ! ; 3.35
3.15 ! 4.55 ! ! --
1 1 !
! i i
1 ' '
i { 1
j i '
i [ '
RATIO !
DKP/8RV !
t
-:
0.536 !
, 1
0.873 !
0.570 !
1
j
0.704 !
1
i
0.916 i
0.674 !
,
0.706 !
t
0.868 !
0.569 !
0.680 i
0.989 !
0.579 i
•
',
1
• i
!
i
43
-------
TABLE 11
PILOT OIFFUSERS AFTER APPROXIHATELY 12.0 HONTHS AERATION
SUMMARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
DIFFUSES
NO.
K35-66-3
K35-66-3
K35-66-3
K35-66-5
K35-66-5
K35-66-5
K35-68-1
K35-68-1
K35-68-1
K35-68-4
K35-68-4 '
(C35-68-4
K35-65-1
K35-65-1
K35-65-1
K35-65-4
K35-45-4
K35-65-4
TYPE DIFFUSER
SP. PER
26
26
26
26
26
50
50
50
50
•50
50
14
14
14
14
14
14
35-67-1 38
35-67-1 38
35-67-1 38
31J-67-5 38
3K-67-5 38
35-67-5 38
BRVo
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
4
4
CONDITION
NEK
AS RCVD
AFTER H-A-H
NEK
AS RCVD
AFTER H-A-H
NEH
AS RCVD
AFTER H-A-H
NEK
AS RCVD
AFTES H-A-H
NEK
AS 8CVD
AFTER H-A-H
NEK
AS RCVD
AFTER H-A-H
NEK
AS RCVD
iFTER H-A-H
NEK
AS RCVD
FTER H-A-H
TIHE IN
SERVICE
NEK
4 HOS.
NEK
12 HOS.
NEK
4 HOS.
.SEK
12 HOS.
NEK
4 HOS.
1
NEK
12 HOS.
NEK
4 HOS.
NEK
12 HOS.
BIS : • ; MP (i"-~«s-> rW
fin. »g.) ! C.O.V. ! 0.50
! ! cfi
5.70 ! 0.033 ! 4.80
8.08 i 0.079 ! 5.85
5.56 ! 0.053 ! 4.75
J 1
5.69 ! 0.011 ! 4.75
12.39 ! 0.075 ! 6.40
5.63 ! 0.032 ! 5.15
J 1
j 1
J 1
1 ' 1
t ,
2.70 ! 0.049 ! 2.70
7-17 ! 0.137 ! 3.85
2.71 ! 0.085 ! 2.95
t j
2.68 ! 0.052 ! 2.65
9.21 ! 0.108 ! 4.05 !
2.78 ! 0.047 ! 3.05 !
0.75 ! 2.00 ! 3.10 ! DKP/BRV
cfi ! cf« eft !
5.05 i 5.90 6.80 ! 0.886
4.55 ! 7.70 10.05 ! 0.811
4.95 ! 5.60 6.40 ! 0.890
5.05 ! 5.90 6.85 ! 0.818
7.35 ! 9.55 14.25 ! 0.593
. 5.30 ! 6.35 7.70 > 0.941
! I
I ' ' i
1 i ' '
2.85 ! 3.15J! 3.60 ! 1.056
4.30 ! 5.40 ! 8.15 ! 0.600
3.00 ! 3.-80 ! 4.00 ! 1.107
2.8.0 ! -2.95 ! . 3.35 ! 1,045
4.85 ! 6.75 J! 10.85 ! 0.527
3.20 ! 3.40 ! 3.95 ! 1.151
1 ! j ! • | i
!'.';. I ; j j
1 !!!;,'
8.76 ! 0.032 ! 7.10 ! 7.65 ! 9.00 ! 10 55 ' 0 87'
14.22 ! 0.095 ! 8.90 ! 9.85 ! 11 45 j ' '90 •' I'w
9-01! 0.032! 7.35! 7.80! 9.10!; 10~90 i 0.866
24*08 ! 0*150 ' 7'°° • M° '' 8'85 10'25 ' °'829
8,69! 0.035.! 7.65! 3.10 9.'65 \ H.'S ! I'.m
\ ' .;..._, '<
» * *
i , , '
I'll- I'^i hsr 3-7° 4-2° ; 4-80 «•»»
4 o" : D m i'SJ ; i<55 7-95 i n-20 °-745
4.0. , 0.037 ! 3.95 ! 4.15 5.05 | 5.60 1.032
3-91 ! 0.055 ! 3.55 ! 3.80 4.30 ' 4 80 0 972
13.^8 ! 0.175 ! 7.20 ! 8.15 10.40 ! 16*85 o'(i(19
4 tl t ft nt, . _ ._ . *V«TV 1O.OW V.DUJ
•"" , v.uis i j.65! 3.75 4.55 ; 5_35 0 B99
44
-------
TABLE 12
«ONROE PILOT DIFFUSERS AFJER APPRO!IHATELV 16.0 HONTHS AERATION
SliNKARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
~ — — — _ __„__. ..___ ___ j
DIFFUSER
NO
K35-65-5
K35-65-5
K35-65-5
K35-65-6
((35-65-6
K35-65-6
K35-67-4
K35-67-4
K35-67-4
K35-67-6
K35-67-6
K35-66-8
K35-66-8
.K35-66-B
K35-66-6
K35-64-6
(C35-66-6
K35-68-6
K35-6B-6
K35-68-5
K35-68-5
K35-68-5
TYPE DIFFUSER !
SP. PE
14
14
14
14
14
14
38
38
38
38
•*n
26
26
26
26
26
26
50
50
50
50
50
. mflfljjjj]
i
BRV0 !
9 ' NFy
9 ! AS RCVD
9 ! AFTER H-fl-
I
9 ! NEK
9 ! AS RCVD
9 ! AFTER H-A-
1
i
4 ! NEK
4 ! AS RCVD
4 i AFTER H-A-H
4 i AS RCVD
4 ! AFTER H-A-H
j
4 ! NEK
4 i AS RCVD
4 ! AFTER H-A-H
r
4 ! NEK
4 ! AS RCVD
4 ! AFTER H-A-H
1
3 ! AS RCVD
3 ! AFTER H-A-H
I
3 ! NEH
3 ! AS RCVD
3 i AFTER H-A-H
TINE IN
SERVICE
16 HOS
4 HOS
16 HOS
4 HOS
4 HOS
16 HOS
4 HOS
16 HOS
BRV i ! m? (in' "9-) ' '' MTI0
«n. *g.l ! C.O.V. ! 0.50 ! 0.75 ! 2.00 ! 3.10 i DUP/M
1 ; ci J rf. ! eft ,! Ef. :
1 t | ' ' I
8.69 ! 0.032 i 7.25 ! 7.90 ! 9 45
27.86 ! 0.158 ! 10.10 i 13.10 ! 1B.'?5
9.60 ! 0.070 ! 7.25 ! 8.00 i 9.20
i 'it
* • I
1 * ' *
17.43 ! 0.195 ! 7.10 ! 8.10 ! 9.40
9.24 ! 0.067 i 6.65 i 7.30 ! 8.70
4-33 ! 0.033 ! 3.65 ! 3.85 ! 4.40
2.81 ! 0.131 ! 4.50 ! 4.95 ! 5.60
4.47 ! 0.036 ! 4.05 ! 4.45 ! 5.05
• '' ' > I •
B.28 ! 0.106 ! 3.95 ! 4.40 i 5.20
4.23 ! 0.077 f 3.35 i 3.75 ! 4.20
1 ' 1
5.64 ! 0.024 ! 4.75 i 5.05 i 5 75 \
9.37 ! 0.105 ! 5.30 ! 5.80 ! 6.10 i
5.98! 0.032! 4.80! 5.20'l 6.00!
10.65 ! 0.909
35.50 ! 0.470
i 10.95 1 0.833
1
1
12.50 ! 0.465
10.75 ! 0.790
j
5.05 i 0.889
7.60 ! 0.562
4.45 ! 0,996
7.20 i 0.531
5..15 ! 0.886
1
4.90 ! 0.895
8.90 ! 0.619
7.15 ! 0.870
1 ! ! ! !
5.60 ! 0.051 ! 4.85 i 5.20 ! 6.05 6.70 ! 0 929
I- 0.142! 6.65! 7.60! 9.30 ,4.60 0.
4.20 0.071 ! 5.25 ! 5.75 ! 6.65 8.40 ! 0.927
4.71 ! 0.120! 3.00 ! 3.451 4.30 ! 6.50 ! 0514
2.80 I- 0.074 ! 2.45 ! 2.75 1 2.95 \ 3.55 ! 0.982
1 ' ' 1 '
2.71 ! 0.103 ! 2.50 1 2.70 ! 2.95 3.30 ! 0 996
, «M!! 2>85! 3-15! 3-50 «•»>•
2.97! 0.071! 2.60! 2.90! 3.15! 3.80! 0976
45
-------
T A B L E 13 ,
ESTIMATED AfciRASE OTE FOR RUN
BASED ON CUMULATIVE i
! BRVo
i
i TIME IN
! SERVICE
NEN
4.5 MO.
NEW
8.0 MO.
NEW
12.0 MO.
NEW
16.0 MO.
!
9
14
SPECIFIC PERM
SOTE
0.190
0.124
0.205
0.168
0.200
0.197
0.205
0.125
.161
ESTIMATED !
AVERAGE !
LEAN WATER! 0.200
! OTE !
RATIO
0.65
0.82
0.99
0.61
0.80
:
6 ; 4 ! 3
26 1 38
SPECIFIC PERM ! SPECIFIC PERM
SOTE ! RATIO
0.185
0.98
0.182
0.200
0.82
0.165
0.195 !
! 0..92
0.179 !
1
1
1
1
0.195
0.71
0.138
.170 0.88
0.194 !
! !
SOTE ! RATIO
0.175 !
! 0.97
0.170
0.190
0.162
0.185
0.199
0.190
0.132
.167
0.185
. ! I 1 I. !
0.85
1.07
0.69
0.90
I
50
SPECIFIC PERM
SOTE !| RATIO
i,
0. 163 !
: 1.01
0.165 ;
0.180 j
. 0.82
0.147 ;
0.175 i
: i.oo
0.175 ! ;
1 '
. 1 i
1 ' " •
o.iso :
! ' 0.64
O.U6 i ;
i
! i
•153 i i 0.87
! i
> i '
i '
t i
! '
0.175 ! '
i ;
NOTES: SOTE - STANDARD OXYBEN TRANSFER EFFICIENCY IN
CLEANWATER AT 1.0 CFM PER DIFFUSER
RATIO - CLEAN WATER SOTE AFTER SERVICE TO SOTE
WHEN NEW
46
-------
TABLE 14
ESTIMATED AVERAGE OTE BASED ON
4.0 MONTH AVERA6ES AND 4.0 MONTH HOSE-ACID-HOSE
WITH FUU RESTORATION
> SKVo
TIME IN
SERVICE
NEW
0-4.5 MO.
1
1
f
1
! NEW
14.5 - 8.0 MO.
!
I NEW
!S.O - 12.0 MO
!
NEH
12.0 - 16.0 MO
OTE
!* AV8.
i 16 MO. OTE
1
• OTE
I
I
! ESTIMATED
' ! ' i « !
14 j ., ' j
SPECIFIC PERM ' ^PPrrcTp 38 j 50 |
!—--.-._„_. ! SPECIFIC PER" ! SPECIFIC PERM !
SOTE ! RATIO ! 80TE""rRATro"i""sOTr"rRATIo"i~80TE""""RATIo""
O-l'O i i 0.185 !
1 0.65 ! i 0 98
0.124 ! j 0.182 !
1 ' i
' i !
0-205 ! ! 0.200 !
1 0.85 i [. 0.88
0-175 ! ! 0.175 !
'• : i
I ' '
0.200 ! i 0.195 !
1 0.98 i !
0.197 ! ! — .
! . !
! • j
1 | j
0.205 ! i 0.195 !
! 0.80 ! ! 0.66
0.165 ! ! 0.128 !
• 1 I -
0.183 1 0.92 . 0.180 ! 0.93
j 1
1
r ,
0.161 ! 0.80 0.170 i . 0.88
f f
0.172 ! 0.86 0.175 i 0.90
1 1
i ,
1
! AVERA6E ! |
i CLEAN WATER ! 0.200 ! 0.194 !
-j ,
1 0.175 ! • 0.163 i
! 0.97 i ' ! 1 01
0-170 ! ! 0.165 I
1 | '
i ! >
' 1 !
! ! :
0.190 ! j 0.180 !
! 0.83 ! i o 79
0.158 ! ! o.U2 !
1 1 !
i !
i
0.185 1
! 0.95
0.176 i
!
!
0.190
0.130
0.172
0.167
0.169
0.68
0.93
0.90
0.91
!
0.185 i
1 ; i
1 0.175 1
i 0.91 i
0.159 ! i
'• !
1
0.180
0.128
0.161
!
0.153
0.157:
0.175
! I
!
! 0.71 !
1
,
0.92 !
j
i
0.87
0.90
OTE ' ! : : s | j
NOTES: SOTE - STANDARD OXVSEN TRANSFER EFFICIENCY IN
CLEANWATER AT 1.0 CFM PER DIFFUSE?
SERVICE T0
- DATA FROM TABLE 13 ON CUMULATIVE OTE
47
-------
FIGURE IS
MONROE, WISCONSIN
,BRV
(in.wg.)
V
m
50
25
20
15
10
\
0
7
6
5
4
OTE
(DECIMAL)
0.200
0.175
0.150
0.125
0.100
- 14
UNITS
A CUMUUT1VE
D QUARTERLY
•mr
s,
t-
45 8.0 12.0
THE (MONTHS)
48
DWP
16,0
-------
The diffuser that had been in operation for a -full 8 months
was only slightly more -fouled than the unit which had only been
in service -for the second quarter (3.5 months).
i • ,
At the 12 month point, the cumulative diffuser was only
slightly more fouled based on BRV and DWP than wab the first
diffuser, removed at the 4.5 month mark. The quarterly diffuser,
operated from the 8th to the 12th month, was fouled to about the
same extent as the diffuser from the second quarter. The QTE of
the 12 month diffuser was essentially equivalent to that of a new
diffuser. As will be discussed in another part of this report,
the foulant was observed to be thinner at this point in time than
at any other removal period, and may partially explain the
relatively high OTE values relative to new. BOD loadings, SRT
and F/M ratios summarized in Table 6 suggest similar operating
conditions existed during this operating period as 'compared to
the others. ;
At the end of 16 months, the BRV was 27.9 in. wg. compared
to 24.1 in. wg. after 12 months, and 8.7 in. wg. when new. The
DWP at 0.75 scfm was 13.1 in. wg. at the 16 month mark, compared
to 10.2 in. wg. at 12.O months, and 7.4 in. wg; when new.
However, the OTE of the 16 month cumulative diffuser dropped off
significantly from that of the 12 month unit.
During the fourth quarter (from month 12 to 16),!the fouling
tendency was generally equivalent to that observed for the second
and third quarters. |
The limited amount of diversion between the cumulative and
quarterly results gives indication that the effects of fouling
upon DWP and BRV approach a substantially stable condition of
equilibrium within about four months.
Pilot Study - General !
The above discussion of Figure 15 indicates how this series
of -(Figures is to be interpreted, and in addition, demonstrates
the dynamics of the fouling phenomenon. During the course of the
pilot work, the character of the foulant changed significantly.
After the first quarter, the diffusers and associated piping were
covered with a frothy slime about 1/4 inch thick, whereas at the
8, 12, and 16 month points, the foulants were somewhat thinner
and of an apparently tougher consistency. It wa4 initially
thought that since the plant is generally deficient in nitrogen,
and supplemental ammonia addition was not applied in a continuous
and reliable fashion during the first quarter, that nutrient
limiting conditions may have contributed to the greater apparent
fouling during the first 4.5 months of the pilot work.: A careful
49
-------
review o-f Tables 5 and 6 suggest, however, that adequate
nitrogen, in the form of ammonia, did exist in the waste stream
entering the activated sludge process. It may bejsignificant
that during this period the equalization pond was out of service
due to the installation of diffused aeration in the pond.
Although the BOD loadings, as indicated in Table 6, do not
appear to differ in a significant way from the loadings when flow
equalisation was being practiced, the variability of conditions
encountered when not employing flow equalization may have
contributed to the greater apparent fouling during the first 4.5
months of the pilot diffuser study. • !
Figures 16, 17 and IS show the same general trends described
in detail -far the 14 permeability
-------
BRV
o
DWP
FIGURE 16
MONROE, WISCONSIN
- 26 SP
, OTE ,
(DECIMAL)
A CUMULATIVE
D QUARTERLY
4.5 8.0 / 110
THE (MONTHS)
16J)
51
-------
FIGURE 17
mm, WISCONSIN
30
20
15
BRV
(in.wg.) JM
V 10
DWP 9
8
7
6
5
4 1
3
0.200
0.175 1
(DECiAL) °-150
0.125
0.100
* OM\VJ ~
i/m
Lr
jo or rcj
^
\
"~ " — ~~c:
1 Wil3 A CIWULAM
Q QUARTERLY
X
I/
^
^
sf J
K /
/
JJ^
^^y
RRY^s
X
k N|WP
Nl*K
S
k.
^xX.
X,
4.5 8.0 / 12.0
M (MONTHS)
16.0
52
-------
FIGURE 18
MO/VfiOf, WISCONSIN
3 BRVfO) - 50 SP PERM UNITS
25
20
BRV
(tup.)
DWP
8
7
6
5
OTE
0.175
0.100
A CUMULATIVE
D QUARTERLY
BRV
\
BRV
-m-
\
45
8.0 t 12.0
TiE (MONTHS)
16.0
53
-------
- Diffusers of all four BRV0's tested follow similar
patterns with time.
i
On the basis of operating pressure
-------
TABLE 15
FOULANT ANALYSIS - MONROE PILOT DIFFUSERS
TIME IN SERVICE
(Months)
0.0-4.5
4.5-8.0
0.0-8,0
8.0-12.0
0.0-12.0
12.0-16.0
0.0-16.0 i
i
I SOLIDS DEPOSITION
<8)g/cffl2)
13
9
55
8
10
26
22
VOLATILE FRACTION
33
'
41
36
52
46
36.
41 !
ACID SOLUBLE
i FRACTION
' 18
i 22
1 24
"' 25 '
! 24
1 18
! 18
55
-------
Pilot Diff user Cleanabilitv
Following diff user testing to evaluate the degree and effect
of -fouling on the pilot diffusers removed after 12 and 16 months
of continuous service, each di-ffuser was cleaned by the
hose-acid-hose
-------
ll-S«p-85 1200 3.1 3.1
ll-Sep-85 1305 3.2 3.1
ll-Ssp-85 1313 3.3 3.2
H-Sgp-BS 1344 3.4 3.2
ll-Sep-85 1354 3.5 3.3
ll-Sip-85 1327 3.6 3.3
Il-Sep-85 1319 3.7 3.4
ll-S«p-85 1221 3.8 3.4
TABLE lt>
HONROE FULL-SCALE DTE DATA
GRID VERSUS CALENDAR TIME
0.391 20.0
0.506 20.0
0.403 20.0
0.425 20.0
0.384 20.0
0.415 20.0
0.455 20.0
0.393 20.0
3.7
3.7
4.2
5.3
7.7
8.4
8.7
8.8
1.96
2.02
2.13
1.92
2.08
2.28
1.97
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
6 .
6
6
6
6
6
6
0.0479 0.0766
0.0648 0.1036
0.0559 0.0961
0.0519 0.1101
0.0292 0,1214
0.0305 0.1762
0.0280
0.0288
0.1942
0.2069
™ ••—••"- «_oa 3
0.30
0.42
0.38
0.44
0.47
0.70
0.78
0.81
57
-------
TABLE 17
I BURSE FULL-SCALE DIE DATA
6R1D VERSUS CALENDAR THE
WE TIKE STATION 6RID
19-Sip-85 1317-1350 3.1 3.1
19-Sip-85 1107-1138 3.2 3.1
19-Stp-B5 1423-1449 3.3 3.2
19-S«p-8S 1500-1522 3.4 3.2
19-S«p-8S 1534-1557 3.5 3.3
19-SBP-85 1622-1641 3.6 3.3
19-Stp-85 1154-1218 3.7 3.4
19-Sip-85 1230-1301 3.8 3.4
M-Stp-85 0829 '3.2 3.1
M-Ssp-85 0817 3.4 3.2
JO-Stp-85 0809 3.4 3.3
20-Sjp-BS 0937 3.8 3.4
2»-S»p-85 1014 3.2 3.1
20-Sgp-BS 1023 3.4 3.2
2»3*I3W.unuuu,,n
0.2 1.90
0.2 2.18
0.2 1.4?
0-2 1.54
1.4 1.47
2.0 2.02
3.3 1.72
3.3 1.74
0.4 2.25
tO i gn
*«7 1.38
5.1 1.78
5.5 1.94
0.4 2.25
1.4 1.54
4.7 1.94
5.3 1.78
0.2 2.25
1-1 1.87
4.1 1.94
4.9 2.04
AVERA6E •
aMMwlMM^^, °IE'fJ
24 4 0,0588
26 6 0.0444
24 4 0.0422
26 4 0,0584
26 4 0.0408
26 4 0.0671
24 4 0.04J20
26 4 0.0441
26 4" 0.0570
26 6 0.0417
26 4 0.0498
24 4 0.0557
26 4 0.0711
24 4 0.0594
24 6 0.0504
26 6 0.0582
24 6 0.0490
24 4 0.0554
24 4 0.0447
24 4 0.0540
ALPHA
SOTE
mutnunn,
0.0601
0.0682
0.0434
0.0403
0.0728
0.0833
0.0944
0.0970
0.0598
0.0744
0.1040
0,1270
0.0742
0.0494
0.0949
0.1268
0.0504
0.0424
0.0804
0.1082
AVERASE
APPARENT
ALPHA
lunnuui
0.23
0.27
0.24
0.23
0.28 :
0.33
0.34
0.37 '
0.24
0.29
0.40
0.50 .
0.30
0.24
O.J8 ;
0.49
0.20
0.24
0.32
0.43
58
-------
TABLE 17-continued
lOKRflE FUU-8CHII (JTE BATH
MID VERSUS CftUXItt T«
*T
-»*'"»"~~-~~~~^ flT£(fi «; ^
20-S.P-83 1533 3.2 3.1 0.450 21.4 0.4 2 » ™--"-<™»»«-~»»»»,
20-S.P-83 1549 3 4 T j ' ' ''*' '^ " ' M492, «-.«« 0.23
"»> J» J 0.3oO 91 L M m
vi«v 8f ., .
«•« 0825 3.8 3.4 0.339 20 0 7 3 , „ ^ ' M9" ^
' 1<7° 24 4 0-0317 0.11,4 0.43
Ifl °'434 ' "•' 0.8 2.17 24 A ..... :
21-S.,85 1132 ,4 ,2 0.372 1,4 ,2 1.84 2i ; ^ ^
21-Si|i-85 ,201 3.4 3 3 0.0430 . 0.0350 0.21
21-3tf,-85 1219 3.8 34 . w ,. ' *'" " ' * °l0352 °'0754 0.29
' ^»«>Ti ly,j jB7 i 07 _ ;
24 4 0-0402 ; 0.1017 0.40
59
-------
TABLE 18
"ONROE, WISCONSIN - SAHPLWB PLAN EVALUATE
PASS 1
ALL SRIOS BRV0 =6-
,
1
i "B' |. .A.
OFFSAS 1 ! POSITION !| Pos
STATION ! FLUX RA>E' a SOTE 1 (AVEURNALSY£S) | ,' •
======== jr
!
3.1A
Z.IC
3.2A
3.28
3.2C
3. 3A ,'
3.38 !
3.3C i
3.4A
3.48
3.4C
1 ' i MEAN WT ! !
| JSL ;,„?:;„ j;,:^,
0.412 ! 0.0678 !! j '',']
!:S;!'°o:!SM!0-334! ••«« j« o.-^'
! ii ,' (' •
0-453 ! 0.0540 i! I ',',
J:SI iSS!!0--"7.! o-«»3 ;; o.«7
;; ' i ;,'
0-334 0.0688 !i ! "I
SiSrj.J:!!;;!!0^8! ••»>*» ••*»
• '• i • i ,'
0.310 ! 0.0615 " '. !!
0-312 ! O.OS65 "' 0 TO .' « ~* '' '
0.300 ! 0.0628 •' '• °'0565 !! °'3<>5
si1 i ::
OVERALL AVERA6E FLUX [,' 0 350 • "
PASS 1 j. 0.358 , J; 0-364
OVERALL MEAN
PASS
II , ' '
"EISHTE00TE !,' f 0.05SO f}
;; ! -ii
" !
ii ' ' i
it j i ,
ii
' '
* "C1 ,'! «j(j«t .g.
nut v i '
UNL* ! ! POSITIONS
_;___OTE i! FLUX ! QTE
! ll \l
II • ! !
i 0.0622 I! 0.379! ! 0.0604
1 !! ! j
! !l '': '
' II '
! i !
0.0699 !,' 0.424'! 0.0662
11 * I
II 'i
0.0654 !! 0.339 'I 0.0634
! ! j
0.0621 :: 0.307 ! 0.0602
: U f
U !
!! 0.362 !
ii (
i ! I
IJ ij
°'0651 || l! 0.0628
I 1 J
'* ' i
!! •
60
-------
TABLE 19
MONROE, WISCONSIN - SAMPLtNB PLAN EVALUATION
PASS 2
ALL GRIDS BRVo * 6*
STATION
3.5A
3. SB
3.5C
3.6A
3.6B
3.6C
3. 7 A
3.7B
3.7C
3.8A
3.86
3.8C
•
OFF6AS
FLUX RATE
=========
0.326
0.336
0.339
0.415
0.412
0.395
0.372
0.334
0.328
0.362
0.328
0.356
! ' "BM II "A" t 'C' II »fl« •»•
!l POSITION II POSITIONS || V-c"
'I ONLY 1! ONLY || POSITIONS
1! ! MEAN NT 1! j HEAN NT !!
—„...„;; FLUX ; OTE !l FLUX ! °TE n FLUX
'""""" ~ "* ' "•"• — — — — — a* i j3SS2 — XS,333333SS3 [ ' SSSSSS
!i i Hi - j. ;
11 1 ii I I!
0.0662 II ! M . . ,
0.0667 !! 0.336
0.0856 II
1 1
0.0852 1!
0.0785 II 0.412
0.0883 II
1!
0.0921 II
0.0943 II 0.334
0.0974 II
1 1
t 1
0.0995 1!
0.0970 I 1 0.328
0.0944 1!
i i
1!
OVERALL AVERASE FLUX i i 0.352
PASS 1 . | j
1 |
OVERALL MEAN NEISHTE0 OTE II
PASS 1 j .
11
II
1 1
TANK 3 OVERALL AVERASE FLUX !! 0.355
1!
TANK 3 OVERALL MEAN NT. OTE 1 1
1 1
! : i
0.0667 I! 0.333
1 i
1 1
1 1
i i
0.0785 i 1 0.405
1 1
I 1
1 i
0.0943 1 1 0.350
I 1
1 t
!!
1 1
II
0.0970 1! 0.359
1!
1 I
II
II 0.362
II
,0.0837 II
1!
I 1
I!
II
II 0.363
0.0707 I!
!! 1
1 is,
0.0761 i I 0.334
1 t
1 i
i 1
0.0867 II 0.407
I I
1 1
0.0946 II 0.345
1 I '
11 :
0.0970 II 0.349
II :
II
i :
i :
!! 0.359
:s ;
1 1
t i '
0.0866 II
:: i
ii , i
i MEAN NT
OTE
•XZC53X3Z
0.0729
0.0839
0.0945
0.0970
0.0871
t i |
II 0.360 1
:: i
1! 1
0.0768 I! | 0.0749
II !
!! !
61
-------
TABLE 20
MONROE PLANT DATA OURIN8 OFFSAS TESTINB DAYS'- SEPTEMBER '83 - APRIL '86
..RAW ! SECONDAR
WASTE ! INFLUEN
09-10-85 = « = 333=!==3 = -33 = 3
FLOK (.gd) . g,, •
SvIi&EV. I'S 1! '«<> {
ISffiS" SOUDS "l/i 192 -'
33— fMNONIA <«9/l 22!! !
09-11-85 !
AVERA8EfDO'f (Sl/ij
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (•?/!
AMMONIA <»g/l)
09-19-85
B.O.D. 'g (.o/l )
AVERAGE 00 's (So/I
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (.f/1
AMMONIA («g/l)
=====3=33====-3=3S33333====as
09-20-85
B.O.D.'g (sa?l>
AVERflSE DO's io/1
SUSPENDED SOLIDS <.|/n
AMMONIA (•o/l)
=====333=3====3333=3==3=|==3=
09-21-85
FLOW (,gd)
. SUSPENDED SOLIDS (*g/l)
= = = = = = S?3 = = ?= = = = = = 3 = 3= = = |^L
12-10-85
FLOW t A \
IvifeSfeV. {;$!
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (,|/1)
,__ AMMONIA (§g/l)
12-11-85
B 0*0 '« <«9
AVERAGE DO's (So/I)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS <.|/l
AMMONIA (»o/l)
M-dS-i"**""""""""""""""
1.797 j 1.81
226 !
22.6 i
1
1.894 i 1.89
1
188 i
18.2 !
1
1.768 i 1.790
202 !
= __23:6 !
•
i
1-701 j 1.705
150 !
23.4 i
========{ ==3=3=3=3=3
1
1
2-096 } 2.096
1
322 !
12 !
i
2.209 i 2.209
530 !
5.9 !
286 !
13.9 !
zsssaasa | =3=33=3=333
i
BToT'D.'s (i!??! 2'9§2 | 2.134
A V ERASE DO * B {* /i i 420 t
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (Sg/t) 234 '
_s ?!:!!5_i5_ . f«g/H 10.0 !
3========S===3== 33=3=33= ! =3=======3-
04-09-86 i
B^KD.'s f.JIfi 2>i!5 I 2.248
AVERASE D0'» (•a/I) 40 •'
AMMONIA" S°LIDS {"»'" 266 •
04-10-86 !
s'oV-, ,iMf! MM! 2.130
AVERAGE 00 'g (io/1) A S /
IMMON?AED SOLIDS j«9/i) »§ i
ftnnoNlA («g/l) 9.13 !
FINAL i PQND !
EFFLUENT ! RETURN !
= 3 = 3 = 3 = 33= j 3 = 3 = 3 = = -z {
' !
.„ ! 1.296 !
.18 ! 220 !
5.4 ! 2.1 !
. ?J ! 532 !
j 1
.„ ! 1.300 !
19 220 1
7. 0 J 570 !
{ 1
., '• 0.485 1
74 ! 260 I
4A? ! 1-1 !
,120 ! 448 !
3.66 ! 7.30 !
33AERATION
ilil
=33=3=3333.
1410
:=3 = 33=aa3«
1365
=========3| 3=3=33333 ! =3=3=3=3333
• !
• 54? ! !I! !
- ========= !==*e=B=s3 j-
i |
66 ! °'52' 1
5.5 !,. 3.0" !
IAJ 1 *r * *r 1
104 1
1.65 i i
• ~" i
i J
33 ! 310 !
8.9 ! 1.2 !
13 2 ' 2°8 !
= 3 = 3 = 3533! = = = = = = = = = j'a:
! {
1225
X33=====33
- 4.7
1025
I===3=3===
4.1
. 2858
======3=3=
93I •'• i33 i
3=3=33=33 [ 3333==3=S {=33333=3333
j J
2.134 !
33 ! 220 i
7 II ' *27B I
3.0
======== j ===33=3==! 3=3333= ====
1 '
2.248 ! !
94!i e3??!
38 ! 236 !
9.37 ! 6.17 !
«......,....„..,, 3=
I J
2.129 ! i
70 i 400 !
7.0 ! 0.4 !
6.6
l!380
62
-------
FIGURE 19
MONROE, WISCONSIN
OFFGAS SAMPLING PUN - S«pf., 1985
«rr TANK 3
102
n
J
L
p-
3.4C
3.3C
3.2C
3.1C
4=
a ri
3. IB
GRID 2
3.38
*
3.28
GRID 1
3.18
3.4A
3.3*
&\
3.2A I
3.1A 1
-M
1 3.5A
1 3.6A
'.
3.7A
3.8A
cm ,
i ;p zcf
w. IV a.«/v
1
GRID 3
3.68 3.6C
3.78 3.7C
GRID 4
3.88 3.8C
-1— '
PRIMARY
RAS
TO CIARIF1ER
63
-------
h K -*'• The
alpha for these efficiencies are 0.38 and
nk-a; F12Ure. 2°'KWfich Plots alpha-SOTE and alpha
sJaLin " H on' indl"tes both parameters increase slightly up to
Station 3.5 and then rise dramatically to the end of the tank?
Three tank cross-sections were tested in Tank 1 which
employed coarse bubble spiral-roll aeration, two in Pass 1 and
™
and 5%2V Th?h °VSrali alPha-SOTE *- the first pass
4.^ and 5.24 for the second pass. During the test, Tank 1 was
receiving approximately 3,8OO scfm, while the fine pore grid
3£ data" h^ 3 WHS g^lng ab°Ut 2'10° Cfm- rt is ev*de"t from
the data obtained that the new ceramic grid system was
^01^ ^°re e"iciB"t than the coarse bubble; system be^ng
replaced. It may be noted subsequently in the1 section on
Economics Considerations that the magnitude of savings ac?ual?y
achieved are in good agreement with the above results.
' One week later the investigators returned to! the site to
Conduct three days of comprehensive testing to appraise various
Campling plans and to monitor alpha at various times during ?he
day for several days in succession. This offgas data is
summarized in Table 17. > u^i_a is
i
On September 19th, all 24 offgas hood positions shown in
Figure 19 were carefully sampled. Tables 18 and 19 present the
these sts and the '
ad -
i ' resPectlvelV- The objective of I the sampling
analysis was to determine the fewest number ! of saml
positions required per station to produce an
.
sampling plan indicated in Figure 19, using the -A" and "C"
tX?iC*Uy'"Md f°r the ™*ind«r o* the study.
to 21 and all others of the same format, the datl
i a:tlculf^ station represents the average results of
all of the positions tested at that cross-section.
Figure 21 is a plot of alpha-SOTE and apparent lalpha versus
tank location. Unlike data from September llth, both pa?am!tJrI
are only slightly affected by location within the ! basin? The
overall alpha for Pass 1 i. about O.24 and for Pass 2? abou?
I
The remainder of the data in Table 17 deals with trackinn
alpha with time of day and day of the week. Figure 22 is a plo?
' -individu.l?yf f|or
d f
f?? ^ i ?' x 1S readilV ^PParent from the| figure, the
lity of alpha for the three days in question, ending on a
64
-------
0.20
ALPHA 0.18
sore
(DECIMAL) 0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.021
FIGURE 2O
MONROE, WISCONSIN
ALPHA AND ALPHA SOTE VERSUS TANK POSITION
TANK 3-SEPTEMBER 11,1985
PASS1
PASS 2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
ALPHA
OR
APPARENT
ALPHA
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 ; 3.8
SAMPLING LOCATION \
65
-------
FIGURE 21
MONROE, WISCONSIN
ALPHA AND ALPHA SOTE VERSUS TANK POSITION
TANK 3 - SEPTEMBER 19,1985
PASS1
PASS 2
0.20
ALPHA 0.18
SOTE
(DECIMAL) 0.16
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 5.8
SAMPLING LOCATION i
66
-------
FIGURE 22
MONROE, WISCONSIN
ALPHA VERSUS THE
-
0,
6 0,
A
1
TAUtf 1
innft J,
PACf 0
"A3j /
/
/
9
\
\
\
5 0,
£
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
> 1
/
\
>
\
\
\
\
0
4 0,
APPAREN
/
/
T
I
I
\
\
\
kUV 1 M
WR J, T
A^ 1 ra
AJJ 1 w
/S
«^
V
1
1
t
1
t
I
I
1
0
3 0,
T ALPHA
67
n
CATjJ
3AIU
crpTrij
JLI III
FRI
SEPTEW
TUIID
InUn
TPTTU
JLi ILM
2 0.
nruy
KUAT
nro 91
ULK L\
)AY
8ER20
rjniY
pUAI
nrn IQ
oLK 19
1 £
I4UU
-------
Saturday, was quite minor. Overall, Pass 1 alphas varied from
O.195 to O.28O and averaged approximately O.23. In a similar
way, Pass 2 alphas ranged from 0.33 to O.45 and averaged about
O.39. \
j
The final two offgas evaluations, prior to all three tanks
coming on line in parallel, are summarized in Tables; 21 and 22
and Figures 23 and 24. Figure 23 is particularly interesting
since Tank 2 had been operational for only 15 days, while Tank 3
had been on line for 98 days, and yet their oxygen transfer
performance is for all practical purposes, identical. This data
suggest little if any OTE degradation due to diffuser fouling.
Figure 24 show a similar relationship in April, 19S6|, after an
additional 12O days of continuous operation and essentially the
same alpha-SOTE values. !
i
Tank Draindowns - May. 1986 ;
During the second week of May, Tank 2, after 168 days of
operation, was drained for cleaning. The following week Tank 3
was drained after 25O days of operation. In both cases,
diffusers were removed from each grid shortly after draining and
prior to cleaning and were returned to the laboratory within a
couple of hours. Analyses similar to those previously described
for the pilot diffusers were conducted. The results are
presented in Tables 23 to 26. Tables 23 and 24 summarize the
BRV, DWP and clean water steady-state oxygen transfer! efficiency
data for the diffusers as received after service and new.
For both tanks, the BRV's increased to a greater extent than
did the DWP. After 168 days, the 26 specific permeability
diffusers had a BRV increase of 3.14 times the initial values,
while the same permeability diffusers in Tank 3 increased by a
multiple of 3.65 after 25O days. In a similar way, the DWP's at
O.75 scfm per diffuser rose to 1.7O times their initial value in
Tank 2 and 2.14 in Tank 3. ;
The BRVo 4 diffusers removed from Tank 2 had a BRV increase
of 2.27 times and a DWP increase of 1.4O times; this compares to
increases of 3.14 and 1.7O for the BRV0 6 diffusers in Tank 2 for
BRV and DWP respectively. '
The above data suggest that the diffusers with larger pore
diameters may have fouled to a slightly less degree than the
finer diffusers, and that the diffusers which had beenjin service
longer were fouled to a somewhat greater extent. In all cases,
the ratio of DWP/BRV dropped significantly from about O.9O down
to the O.5O range. Based on an earlier discussion of diffuser
fouling, one would normally expect a reduction in the oxyqen
transfer capability of these diffusers as a result of the changes
in BRV, DWP and the ratio of the two. i
68
-------
TABLE 21
HONROE FULL-SCALE OTE OATA
6RIB VERSUS CALENDAR TIKE
DATE
10-BK-85
lO-Bie-85
10-DtC-85
lO-Btc-85
HI-Dtc-85
Ki-Dsc-85
ld-Bsc-85
1C-DK-8S
ll-Dtc-85
ll-Dtc-85
ll-Dtc-85
ll-DKr85
ll-Dtc-85
ll-Dtc-BS
ll--Dtc-85
ll-Dtc-85
ll-Dtc-B5
ll-Dtc-BS
TIHE
1345
1507
1529
1423
1612
1544
1457
1432-
0829-0818
0851-0907
1030-1050
1124-1137
1212-1225
1249-1300
1353
1407
1441
1454
STATIUN GRID
*"
3.1 3.1
3.2 3.1
3.3 3,2
3.4 3.2
3.5 3.3
3.6 3.3
3.7 3.4
3.8 3.4
3.1 3.1
3.2 3.1
2.1 2.1
2.2 2.1
2.3 2.2
2.4 2.2,
2.5 2.3
2.6 2.3
2.7 2.4
2.8 2.4
AVERA8E
FLUX RATE
3I-S,_,___,,
0.195
0.234
0.237
0.142
0.134
0.160
0.149
0.158
' 0.179
0.211
0.304
0.326
0.244
0.285
0.2B3
0.278
0.278
0.283
HLT
"C
SSS— 33-38.
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
li.5
11.5
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
AVERA6E
0.0.
-='——=--
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
3.4
3.0
0.7
0.3
4.0
4.1
5.2
S.7
AVERASE
AIRRATE
PER BIFFUSER
333333333332233!
0.98
1.17
1.19
0.71
0.67
0.80
0.75
0.79
0.90
1.06
1,52
1.63
1.32
0.00
1.42
1.39
1.39
1.42
AVERABE
SPECIFIC
PERU BRVo
i3=K35SSSaS33S=2
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6 -
26 6
38 4
38 4
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
OTE(f)
=3393=33333
0.0861
0.1148
0.0836
0.0779
0.0809
0.0988
0.0899
0.0904
0/0814
0.1062
0.0536
0.0747
0.0935
0.0747
0.0576
0.0675
0.0626
0.0513
AVERABE
ALPHA
SOTE
0.0900
0.1198
0.0866
0.0807
0.0842
0.1054
0.0951
0.096B
" 0.0839
0.1143
0.0768
0,1023
0.1034
0.0794
0.0876
0,1045
0.1108
0.0975
AVERABE
APPARENT
ALPHA
.323233333
0.32
0.43
0.31
0.26
0.27
0.35
0.31
0.32
0.30
0.40
0.30
0.40
0.38
0.30
0.33
0.39
0.41
0.37
69
-------
TABLE 22
HONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
GRID VERSUS CALENDAR TIKE
DflTE TIffi STATION BRID
OV-Apr-84 0710-0720 3.1 3.1
0?'-Apr-84 0734-0745 3.2 3.1
09-Apr-86 0803-0812 3.7 3.4
09-Apr-86 1029-1043 2.1 2.1
09-Apr-84 1131-1142 2,2 2.1
09-Apr-84 1225-1235 2.3 2.2
09-Apr-84 1308-1320 2.4 2.2
09-Apr-84 1330-1345 2.5 2.3
09-'Apr-84 1242-1248 2.4 2.3
09-Apr-84 1154-1210 2.7 2.4
09-Apr-84 1054-1112 2.8 2.4
09-Apr-84 1404-1418 3.1 3.1
09-9pr-84 1515-1528 3.2 3.1
09-*pr-84 1422-1632 3.3 3.2
09-Hpr-84 1707-1716 3.4 3,2
09-llpr-84 1724-1733 3.5 3.3
09-llpr-84 1440-1449 3.4 3.3
09-(lpr-84 1537-1548 3.7 3.4
09-{0r-84 1430-1449 3.8 3.4
FL'STE
333£:»3»3
0.200
0.251
0.201
0.232
0.225
0.219
0.171
0.130
.. 0.127.
0.124
0.142
0.188
0.195
0.180
0.172
0.213
0.203
0.200
0.193
«LT AVERA8E
=K=:===;:==^==rr===
12.0 4.8
12.0 5.0
12.0 7.2
12.0 3.4
12.0 3.0
12.0 2.5
12.0 2.5
12.0 4.6
12.0 5.2
12.0 5.7
12.0 6.2
12.0 0.7
12.0 0.7
12.0 0.8
12.0 0.7
12.0 5.4
12.0 5.6
12.0 4.4
12.0 6.4
AVERA8E
i»rai»!!![L
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.16
1.12
1.09
0.86
0.65
• 0.63
0.43
0.71
0.94
0.97
0.90
0.84
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.94
AVERAGE
SPECIFIC
_M.[^MssJ^V°
24 4
26 6
26 6
38 4
38 4
24 4
24 4
24 4
24 4 .
24 4
24 4
24 4
26 4
24 4
24 4
24 4
24 4
24 4
26 6
OTEK)
0.0540
0.0585
0.0399
0.0614
0.0680;
0,0695
0.0674
0.0584
0.0428
0.0594
0.0513
0.0813
0.0907
0.0812
0.0754
0.0489 i
0,0463
0.0469
0.0396
AVERASE
ALPHA
SOTE
0.0932
0.1029
0.1001
0.0885
0.0937
0.0917
0.0879
0.0986
• 0.1153
0.1169
0.1110
0.0897
0.1004
0.0902
0.0832
0.0941
0.0904
0.1023
0,0949
AVERAGE
APPARENT
ALPHA
0.33
0.38
0.35,
0.33
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.32
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.31
0.35
0.31
0.28
0.33
0.32
0.34
0.33
70
-------
FIGURE 23
MONME, WISCONSIN
ALPHA SOTE VERSUS TANK POSITION
TANK 2 ft 3 - DECEMBER 10 ft 11,1985
PASS1
PASS 2
.1 .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7
SAMPLING LOCATION
71
0.20
ALPHA 0,18
SOTE
(DECIMAL) 0,16
0.14
ft
0.12
A 4 A
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
A £
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
^ p*3 f,
1
ALPHA - 1
OR 0 TANK 2,
APPARENT D TANKS1
ALPHA |
ALPHA SOTE '
i
A
/ / \^ ^^^^^f] ^^A
V ^
\
\
I
1 1 1 l__l 1 1 1 1
.8
-------
FIGURE 24
MONROE, WISCONSIN
ALPHA SOTE VERSUS TANK POSITION
TANK 2 ft 3 - APRIL 9,1985
PASS 1 PASS 2
0.20
ALPHA 0.18
SOTE
(DECIMAL) 0.16
0,14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
I
ALPHA I
OR 0 TANK2.
APPARENT D TANK 3'
ALPHA ,
ALPHA SOTE '
I
^^K^ ]^^
*F-^^^^
I
I
i
— i 1 ( | I [ | | .
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
SAMPLING LOCATION
72
-------
o»
AFTER 168 DAYS OF OPERATION...
SANITAIRE CERAHIC DISC DIFFUSERS REHOVED FROH TANK 2, NOffiOE, KISCONSIN ON HAY 12, 1936
SUHKARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
TASK STARTED ON NOVEHBER 25, 19B5
f
DIFFUSER
NO.
K35-67 SERIE
K39-74-1
K39-74-2
K35-66 SERIE
K39-74-3
K39-74-4
K35-66 SERIES
K39-74-5
K39-74-6
K35-66 SERIES
K39-74-7
K39-74-8
TYPE DIFFSUER
SP. PERN
38
38
38
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
BRV0
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
CONDITION
HEW
A5 RCVD
AS RCVD
to
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
NEK
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
NEK
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
LOCATION
AVE. OF 4 UNIT
6RID 2.1
SRID 2.1
AVE. OF 4 UNIT
GRID 2.2
SRID 2.2
VE. OF 4 UNITS
SRJD 2.3
SRID 2.3
VE. OF 4 UNITS
SRID 2.4
BRIO 2.4
eiv
(in. «g.
4.08
10.61
7.99
5.77
15.90
19.14
5.77
20.32
18.09
5.77
17.36
C.O.V
0.034
0.137
0.076
0.036
0.261
0.281
0.036
0.107
0.127
0.036
0.073
DHP (in. »g.) :
0.50
Cfl
3.50
4.90
4.45
4.82
6.70
7.30
4.82
7.70
7.90
4.82
7.20
0.75
eft
3.70
5.50
4.90
5.08
7.75
S.80
5.08
9.00
9.25
5.08
.8.40
2.00
eft
4.20
7.55
6.25
5.96
12.15
14.60
5.96
14.25
14.45
5.96
12.45
! 3.10
cf»
4.79
13.60
'9.60
6.84
23.40
28.00
J6. 84
26.30
26.50
;6.34
21.85
! RATIO
DBP/8R
0.907
0.518
0.613
0.880
0.487
0.460
0.880
0.443
0.511
0.880
0.484
RATIO
OTE
RCVD/NEH
1.014
0.954
1.180
1.063
73
-------
ffl 240 DAYS OF OPERATION... TABLE 24
-MHTAIRE CERANIC DISC DIFFUSERS REMOVED FROH TANK 3, HORDE, KSCONSIN ON KAY 22,
SUHNARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
TANK STARTED OS SEPTEMBER 4, 1985
,
DIFFUSER TYPE DIFFUSER
SP. PERM
K35-66 SERIES! 26
K40-1-1 26
K40-1-2 26
K35-66 SERIES 26
K40-1-3 26
K40-1-4 26
K40-1-4 26
K35-66 SERIE
K40-1-5
K40-1-6
K35-46 SERIES
K40-.I-7
K40-1-8
26
26
26
26
26
26
BRV0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
-
CONDITION
NEM
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
NEK
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
AFTER H-ft-H
NEK
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
NEK
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
LOCATION
AVE. OF 4 UNI
SRID 3.1
BRIO 3.1
VE. OF 4 UNIT
SRID 3.2
BRIO 3.2
SRID 3.2
VE. OF 4 UNITS
BRIO 3.3
6RID 3.3
E. OF 4 UNITS
SRID 3.4
SfilB 3.4
'
BRV !
(in. »g.) i-C.O.V
5.77 ! 0.036
18.22 ! 0.16
j
5.77 ! 0.036
18.72 i 0.129
5.36 I 0.035
. 1
5.77 ! 0.036
27.16 ! 0.137
t
1
5.77 ! 0.036
20.87 ! 0.101
1
I
1
1
: i
OHP (in. »g.)
0.50
cfa
4.8
7.1
4.82
8.10
4.90
4.82
9.70
4.82
9.45
0.75 ! 2.00
cfl i eft
t
1
5. OB i 5.9
8.50 ! 13.65
i
r
5.08
9.95
5.40
5.08
13.05
5.08
12.20
5.96
16.30
6.90
5.96
23.80
5.96
22.00
1
3.10
eft
M
27.0
!""
1
6.84
30.90
9.75
6.84
52.30
6i84
48130
~
i
1-
RATIO
0KP/BR
0.880
0.46
~~
0.880
0.532
1.007
0.880
0.480
— —
0.880
0.585
~
RATIO
OTE
RCVD/NE
-
1.087
0.992
1.088
-
1.009
~
1.046
/
74
-------
The clean water steady-state OTE tests on these diffusers
versus new dif-Fusers of the same batch indicate no degradation in
oxygen transfer performance. In fact, the OTE results presented
in Tables 23 and 24 indicate the field diffusers as initially
received, generally have QTE's which are slightly better than the
new- diffusers, as indicated by the ratios of OTE as received to a
new diffuser of greater than one. Examination of the diffusers
in an aquarium showed a very uniform release of small bubbles
across the diffusers through the relatively thin foulant layer.
The data in Tables 23 and 24 indicate the fouling between
September, 1985, and May, 1986, was uniform thoughout ; the tank.
i
The foulant .tests presented in Table 25 reveal the material
to be largely non-volatile (75%) , approximately one third of
which residue was acid soluble. Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy
analysis shown in Table 26 indicate the the principal elemental
composition of the non-volatile portion to be silicon
approximately 1O7.; calcium approximately 47.; iron 27.; and
aluminum and phosphorous approximately 17. each, as the' respective
elements. j
Full -Scale Performance Tests - June. 1986. to November. 19B7
By June 6, 1986, final installation of all the diffusers in
the plant was accomplished, and all diffusers previously
installed in Tanks 2 and 3 had been cleaned, thus all diffusers
were in acceptable condition to initiate the ! full-scale
comparative performance evaluation involving the 26
-------
TABLE
25
MONROE DIFFUSER FOULANT ANALYSIS i
' i
* !
DIFFUSER
(1)
K39-74-1
K39-74-3
K39-74-5
K39-74-7
OVERALL
AVERAGE
K40-1-1
K40-1-3
K40-1-5
K40-1-7
OVERALL
AVERAGE
TANK
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
i
GRID
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
X
VOLATILE
18.8
19.1
39.1
26.6
25.9
22.5
22.7
20.3
16.1
20.4
NON-VOLATILE
81.2
80.9
60.9
73.4
74.1
77.5
77.3
79.7
83.9
79.6
X
NON-VOLATILE
ACID SOLUBLE
25.2
22.3
20.7
27.4
23.9
56.5
57.3
54.0
59.7
22.7
!
ii X
NON-VOLATILE,
ACID INSOLUBLE
i
i 50.6
i 58.6
40.2
i
! 46.0
1
i
48.9
I
i
i
i
i
!
i
i
l
1 56.9
i
i
i
1
-------
TABLE 26
NON-VOLATILE RESIDUES FROM MONROE DIFFUSERS
EDS RESULTS
(1)
ELEMENT
==========
Hg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Ti
Cr
Mn
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
Mb
K39-74-1
TANK 2
INLET
X
0.7
1.2
7.3
1.5
0/4
—
0.6
4.1
0.2
—
—
1.7
0.1
—
—
0.4
!
K40-1-1
! TANK 3
INLET
X
0.6
1.3
12.3
1.1
0.2
'
0.5
4.1
0.3
—
2.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
!
K40-1-7
TANK 3
OUTLET
X
0.5
1.5
8.6
0.8
0.1
—
0.6
3.0
0.3
—
_-
1.9
—
—
0.2
"
(1) This Diffuser (K39-74-1) BRV0 = 4", Specific Perm
All others BRVo = 6", Specific Pera = 26
77
= 38
-------
TABLE 27
MONROE PLANT DATA DURING OFFBAS TESTINS DAYS - JUNE '86 - NOVEMBER '-'t
07-08-86
FLOW , (agd)
B.O.D.'s (•a/1)
AVERASE DO's (ml/I)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AMMONIA (»g/l)
========3333=3333=33=3=3=3333
07-09-86
FLOW
-------
TABLE 27 - Continued \
i
HONROE PLANT DATA DURIN8 OFFSAS TESTINB DAYS - JUNE '86 - NOVEMBER -87
08-17-87
FLOW (igd)
|I||Eg°S§LIDS {jj'jjj
=====================3=*l=i-_
08-18-87
B.O.D.'s (ajfj!
@8ffi;}3iM i-J/jj
08-19-87
FLOW (agd)
AVERA8EBDO's (•a/1)
CIICDf hinpn AMI «« \t*\4/ 1 1
wU3rCNvCu SOLIDS ( (ft O / I )
AVERA6ESDO-s (S|/|j
AMMONI'A^^ SD^IDS (»g/i)
=====s==================!-==-
11-04-87
FLOW (agd)
lMMON?fiE" SOLIDS (ag/1)
============================= j .
RAW
=_WASTE
2.434
620
206
12.0
====s==s
2.938
400
316
10.9
=====3=3
2.546
360
186
10.7
2.312
450
394
___15.8
2.091
570
104
17.0
SECONDARY
INFLUENT
=====esasss
2.727
===========
3.210
S3S S33JHSSC3
2.853
2.607
300
162
30.9
.-========- ;
2.463
318
114
30.4
— ,_
FINAL
EFFLUENT
====3===s=
2.418
17
0.142
2.924
2 3
3=
-------
FIGURE 2S
MONROE FULL-5CALE OTE DATA
u
5
in
\
ft 51 OKIOS 1 VERSUS TOE
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18 -
0.17 -
0.16 -
0.15 -
O.U -
0.1S -
0.12 -
0.11 -
0.10 -
0.09 -
0.08 -
0.07 -
0.06 -
O.OS -
0.04 4
!
|
i
AUO 17-19 !
,* •
/\ ]
/ \ i
MAY 5-7 // \\ ',
JOL 8-9 NOV 20-21^--^^^- — ' §/ t^V 3
8' * i \}P
: x
07/07X86 01/23/*7 ». .' i
a GRID 1.1
tg«v. 3 - gp PERU so>
X GRID 3.1
. » - gp rcnn 26)
FIGURE 26
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
GRIDS 2 VERSUS TOE
a
80
-------
^
i
in
I
27
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
GRIDS 3 VERSUS TME
«LL UNITS MY. » - BP I-ERR
FIGURE 28
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
GRIDS * VERSUS TIME
AH. UNIT* BSV. t - V KM 34
81
-------
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60 -
0.30 -
0.40 -
0.30 -
0.20
FIGURE 29
MONROE: FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
ALPHAS OF GRIDS 1 VERSUS TIME
07/07/86
D GRID 1.1
IBKV. 3 - 8P PMH 001
01/23/87
CALENDAR TIME
* GRID 2.1
OP.V. 4 - BP PMH 30)
08/11/87
X GRID 3.1
(»«v. 6 - BP pern*
0.90
0.80
0.70 -
0.60 -
0.50 -
FIGURE 30
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
ALPHAS OF GRIDS 2 VERSUS TIME
0.40 -
0.30 -
0.20
82
-------
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.40
0.30
0.20
07X07X86
FIGURE 31
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
A">"*S OF GRIDS 3 VERSUS TIME
0 GRID 1.3
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60 -
0.90
0.40 -
0.30 -
0.20 -
FIGURE 32
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
_W£HAS Of GRIDS 4 VERSOS TIME
•LL IMtT« WV. i - n. ,.
83
-------
-.1. Oxygen transfer data -For Grids 2, 3 and 4, (Figures 26, 27
and 28) all employing BRV0 6 diffusers, show similar variations
in alpha-SOTE among Tanks 1, 2 and 3 as those shown in Figure 25,
and the order of highest to lowest alpha-SOTE is variable from
grid to grid. In light of the above observation, it;is unlikely
that there is a significant statistical difference between the
tsKVo 6, 4, and 3 diff users on May 5-7, 1987. !
In August, 1987, an offgas survey was conducted similar to
the others. The August data stands out in Figures 25-32 due to
the high alpha-SOTE and high apparent alphas when compared to the
other tests. During the August test, the plant was returning
some return activated sludge to the equalization pond^nd gettinq
a significant BOD reduction across the equalization1 pond which
was being used in-line. Table 27 indicates significantly lower
influent BOD concentrations to aeration (approximately 21O mg/1)
as compared to the other offgas evaluations (BODs 27O-56O mg/1>
Apparently, primary effluent BODs of about 4OO mg/1 were being
reduced to the low 2OO mg/1 range in the pond, thereby reducing
the loading to the aeration tanks. It is considered likely that
the reduced BOD loading to the aeration tanks may be responsible
for the relatively high OTE's during the August evaluation.
Considering the variability of all the alpha-SOTE data and
^f^rsnces In rank at the various sampling times In Figures
-c.5 ^S, it appears that the apparent differences in alpha-SOTE
indicted in Figure 25 are not statistically significant
OTE Versus Flux Rate j
On three occasions between July, 1986, to November, 1987
the applied airflow rate to one or more grids was varied to
observe the relationship of OTE versus airflow per diffuser under
process conditions. These data are plotted as Figures 33, 34 and
-5 for July 9, 1986, May, 7, 1987, and November 4, 1987,
respectively. The clean water shop test data are also plotted
over a range of air flows for comparative purposes. Although
there is some variablity in the data, in general, ! higher air
rates result in lower alpha-SOTE values similar to the results of
the new diffusers tests in clean water.
that
It is also of interest to consider the effect
has upon alpha, since it has an important influence
appropriate selection of diffuser flux at design
effect may be gauged by the difference, if any, in s
log alpha SOTE versus log flux in clean and in
The plots of Figures 33 through 35 give indication' of
any,, difference and consequently little, if any,
flux upon alpha. This finding is at variance
literature references.
84
air rate
upon the
The
ope of the
ess water.
little, if
influence of
wi th some
loading.
process
-------
33
ALPHA
SOTE
JULY 9,1986 I
i
X 3BRV0 50 SP PERM TANK 1 GRID 1.1
0 6BR\fe 26 SP PERM TANK 1 GRID 1.2
Q 4BR% 38 SP PERM TANK 2 GRID 2.1
A 6BRVb 26 SP PERM TANK 2 GRID 2.2
0.20 0.300.40 0.600.801.00 1.50
RATE (SCFM/FT2)
85
-------
FIGURE 34
MONROE, WISCONSIN
MAY 7, 1987
0.50
0.25
0.20
0.15
ALPHA 0.10
SOTE 0-09
0.08
0,07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
X
0
0
A
«
^
B-_J^
3 Bl% 50 SP PERM TANK1 GRID 1.1 1
6BR\(> 26 SP PERM TANK 1 GRID 1.2
4BR^ 38 SP PERM TANK 2 GRID 2.1;
6BR\fe 26 SP PERM TANK 2 GRID 2.2 1
^— ^
:=a-^=ft
^--^
4LE
-A
^
D^
~tr"
N WATER
\
NEW
* —
i
i
i
i
i
,
:
i
0.10
0.20 0.300.40 0.600.601.00
FLUX RATE (SCFM/FT2)
1.50
86
-------
FIGURE 35
MONROE, WISCONSIN
0.10
NOVEMBER 4,1987 j
X 3 81% 50 SP PERM TANK 1 GRID 1.1
0 6BRH, 26 SP PERM TANK 1 GRID 1.2
D 4BR\b 38 SP PERM TANK 2 GRID 2.1
A 6BR\b 26 SP PERM TANK 2 GRID 2.2
U.JU
0.25
0.20
0.15
ALPHA 0.10
SOTE M9
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
fl(K
— • — .
— -^
V
Affr-
-CL£
N WATER
~--^
r==~tf
^
NEW
—
I
i
i
!
.
i
!
0.20 0.500.40 0.600.801.00 1.50
RATE (SCFM/FT2)
87
-------
The data shown in Figures 33-35 are further evidence that
diffuser -fouling did not have a pronounced effect on the oxygen
transfer performance of the system. Allbaugh (13) has reported
in one study that the slope of the alpha-SOTE versus air rate
curve can become steeper (a greater negative slope) when the
diffusers are fouled than when they are new. This was not the
case at Monroe.
Tank Draindown and Diffuser Cleanabilitv - June. 1988:
!
Although the project plan called for the last!data to be
taken in November of 1987, Environment Canada, contemplating an
on-going fouling investigation at Monroe, offered to make
available to the study the data which was gathered at a draindown
of the three tanks during June of 1988. Time elapsed since the
prior draindown was approximately 25 months or about 76O days.
Tank.1, the first to be drained, contained BRV0 3 diffusers
in Grid 1 of the 1st Pass and all the remaining grids in Pass 1
and Pass 2. contained BRV0 6 diffusers.
Adjacent diffusers in Brid 1, Pass 1, and GridJ2, Pass 1,
were sampled for a direct comparison of the effects of fouling
upon the two permeabilities
-------
TABLE 28
TANK 1
HONROE - DIFFUSERS AFTER APPROXINATELY 24 HflNTHS KMTIflK
SUHHARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
!
DiFFliSER
NO.
PASS 1, SRID
K52-21-2
1(52-21-2
152-21 -4
K52-21-4
K52-21-5
K52-21-5
K52-21-6
PASS 1, SRID
K52-21-7
K52-21-7
K52-21-B
K52-21-8
K52-21-11
K52-21-11
K52-21-12
ASS 2, SRID
KS2-21-13
K52-21-13
K52-21-16
ASS 2. GRID
K52-21-17
K52-21-17
K52-21-20
SS 1, BRID
K52-21-21
K52-21-22
SS 1, SRID 2
K52-21-23
K52-21-24
SS 2. SRID 1
K52:21-25
K52-21-24
SS 2, BRID 2
K52-21-27
TYPE DIFFUSES !
SP. PER
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
26
24
26
26
26
26
2u
26
26
26
26
26
26
50
50
26
26
26
26
26
i LuiwinuN
i
8RV0 !
1
3 ! AS RCVD
3 ! HOSED
I
3 ! AS RCVD
3 IflFTER H-8L-
3 ! AS RCVD
3 ! AFTER H-ft-
3 ! AS RCVD
6 ! AS RCVD
6 ! HOSED
6 ! AS RCVD
6 ! AFTER H-BL-H
1
6 ! AS RCVD
6 ! AFTER H-A-H
6 ! AS RCVO
6 ! AS RCVO
6 ! HOSED
6 ! AS RCVD
6 i AS RCVD
6 i HGSED
I
6 ! AS RCVD
3 ! FIELD CLEANED
3 ! FIELD CLEANED
t
6 '.FIELD CLEANED
6 IFIELD CLEANED
6 IFIELD CLEANED
6 IFIELD CLEANED
6 i FIELD CLEANED
TINE IN
SERVICE
24 ItOS
24 DOS
24 HOS
24 HOS
24 HQS
24 HOS
24 NOS
24 .105
24 DOS
24 HOS
24 HOS
24 NOS
24 HOS
24 NOS
24 NOS
24 HOS
24 NOS
24 HOS
24 HOS
24 HDS
24 HOS
24 HOS
24 HQS
24 HOS
24 NOS
24 HOS
24 HOS
i i DSP (in. «a.) ! RATIO
BRV 1 { i
(in. sg.) i C.O.V. I 0.75 ! 2.00 I DHP/BRV
! 1 cf« 1 cfa i
1 lij
11.06 1 0.216 1 6.25 ! 11.90 I 0.565
3.15 1 0.075 i 5.20 i 7.85 ! 1.651
9.58 1 0.158 1 5.35 ! 8,35 i 0.558
2.75 1 0.074 i 4,15 i 5.80 1 1.407
1 ! 1 I
13.66 { 0.273 1 7.20 ! 14.55 ! 0.527
2.36 ! 0.072 1 3.10 1 3.85 1 1.084
" ! " ! 7.35 ! 13.30 I
1 ' ' 1
16.36 1 0.217 1 7.85 1 13.35 1 0.4BO
7.83 i 0.093 i 7.80 i 10.50 1 0.996
18.05 i 0.276 1 9.35 i 17.75 1 0.518
7.33 1 0.054 1 7.45 1 9.80 1 1.016
13.00 i . 0.111 1 7.85 1 12.05 1 0.604
6.55 1 0.077 ! 6.60 i 8.70 i 1.008
" '• ~ 1 7.95 1 11.35 !
1 ' t i
14.23 1 0.139 1 7.55 1 11.55 ! 0.531
7.00 I 0.079 1 6.90 ! 9.40 1 0.986
1 '1 1
- i - i 7.30 i 10.40 1
' * ' 1 i
17.00 1 0.100 i 7.85 1 13.35 1 0.462
4-75 I 0.102 1 7.65 ! 11.30 1 1.133
! 'it
- ! ~ ! 8.10 ! 12.70 1
4.37 1 0.118 1 4.90 ! 7.40 i 1.121
2.77 ! 0.030 1 2.60 1 3.15 1 0.939
1 ! I 1
10.12 1 . 0.094 1 7.20 i 9.60 1 0.711
10.40 1 0.111 I 7.80 i 10.90 ! 0.750
' ' 1 !
7.21 I 0.127 ! 8.10 I 12.25 I 1.123
! Ill
7.56 i 0.119 1 6.95 i 9.70 I 0.919
! ! i I
8.76 1 0.134 I 7.90 I 11.40 i 0.902
EFR ! SOTE i
! S 1 CFN !
1.245 ! 0.1710 I
1.243 1 0.1684 1
1 1
1.380 1 0.1608 !
1.374 1 0.1626 i
1.109 1 0.1553 !
i.«5 1 0.1631 {
1.072 i -- j
1.382 1 0.1782 i
1-172 1 0.1973 1
. 'Mil ! . 0.1794 i
K338 1 0.1873 1 '
] i
1.433 1 0.1883 I
1.168 1 0.2050 i
1.281 1 - !
1 | ,
1.053 1 0.1766 1
1.216 1 0.1842 1
1.072 i - !
1 ,
1.091 I 0.1506 1
1.266 I 0.2088 i
I i
1.078 i 0.1078 !
1,280.1 0.1923 1
1.049 1 - J
; |
1.259 1 0.1809 1
1.446 i ~ i
2.133 1 0.1932 1
1.582 1 - i
J 1
1.075 1 0.1989 i
89
-------
TABLE 29
TANKS 2 J 3
KONROE - DIFFUSERS AFTER APPROXIMATELY 24 MONTHS AERATION
SUMMARY OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERIZATION DATA
" ** — - — — — — „ — „
1
DIFFUSER i TYPE DIFFUSER
HO '
i
! SP. PE
PASS 1,'SRID 21
K52-51-1 i 26
1
K52-51-2 ! 26
ASS 2, GRID 1!
K52-51-3 ! 26
K52-51-4 ! 26
ASS 1, 6RID 1!
K52-51-5 ! 38
1
K52-51-6 i 38
ASS 1, SRfD 1!
K52-51-7 ! 33
K52-51-8 ! 38
I
j
NK 3 !
SS 1, BRID 1!
K52-72-2 i 26
K52-72-3 ! 26
SS 1, SRID 2!
K52-72-4 ! 26
K52-72-5 ! 26
SS 2, 6RID 21
K52-72-6 ! 26
K52-72-7 ! 26
[
.
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
!
i
•
BRV
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
i
6
6
CONDITIO
AS RCVB
AS RCVB
AS RCVB
AS RCVD
AS RCVB
AS RCVB
AS RCVB
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
AS RCVD
TIKE IN
SERVICE
24 KOS
24 KOS
24 KOS
24 KOS
24 KCS
24 KOS
24 KOS
. 24 KOS
24 KOS
24 KOS
24 KOS
24 HOS
24 KOS
24 KOS
BRV
(in. MI
-
-
-
-
-
—
--
r-
22.22
24.58
37.44
22.35
•14.12
15.05
C.D.V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
0.276
0.195
0.386
0.207
0.179
0.152
CUP (in. Kg. I ! RATI
0.75 ! 2.00 ! DIIP/I
cfi i cfi ! i
1 ,
8.90 ! 15.90 i -
11.25 ! 23.70 !
I i
12.50 ! 29.60 ! -
12.30 ! 26.80 ! .. -r
• 10.20 ! 23.40 i 4
11.50 ! 31.15 i -
5.70 ! 9.00 ! ~i
i ' '
6.55 i 10.40 ! • -i
i I i
j j
i : |
10.55 ! 19.15 ! 0.475
12.35 ! 25.20 ! 0.502
16.90 ! 48.60 ! 0.45]
12.55 i 26.10 i 0.562
j I
fl.65 ! 13.80 ! 0.613
3-80 1 13.90 ! 0.535
1 . *
i { ;
1 !
I { |
i : ;
! ! ,
i ' '
i ' '
i ! ;
i ' '
j r
: :' i
! { !
EFR ! SOTE
i « 1 CF
!
1
1.403 ! 0.1893
1.329 ! 0.1916
1.341 !
I
1.456 !
1.202 !
1.041 i 0.182
2.036 !
1.345 ! 0.169
1
1
j
1
2.283 i
1.408 ! 0.1733
t
1.105 i 0.1972
1.154 {'
1.125 !
1
1.185 i 0.1969
I
I
I
;
. [
i
i
j
t
,
i
•
t
i i ;. ,
90
-------
FIGURE 36
mm, W/SCOWS/N
6BRV(0) - 26 SP PERM UNITS
OR
DWP
i °TE v
(DECIMAL)
0.100
A CUMULATIVE
D QUARTERLY
4.5 8.6 12.0
TttiE (MONTHS)
16.0 24.0
GRID
DiPSER
91
-------
FIGURE 37
m
(DECIMAL)
0.125
0.100
, WISCONSIN
- 38 SP PERM UNITS
A CUMULATIVE
D QUARTERLY
8.0 , 110
TIME (MONTHS)
16.0 24.0
GRID
WFFUSER
92
-------
FIGURE 38
MONflOf , WISCONSIN
DWP
30
25
20
15
10
9
8
7
6
5
OTE
(DECIMAL)
0.200
0,175
0.150
0.125
0.100
3 BRV(0) - 50 SP PERM UNITS A CUMULATIVE
D QUARTERLY
/
/
BRY/
/
/
I?
I
\
\
\
\
i
h_- —
^•*»^_
"**»*,
f
/
/ ^
f
j
^
OTE
~^
\
j_\^V
\ i
\
^
K
"N^
N
/
/
/
i /
/ /
/
/
/
/
4.5 8.0 , 12.0
M (MONTHS)
16.0 24.0
GRID
DIFFUSER
93
-------
The values of DWP, BRV, and OTE of these grid diffusers are
shown on Figures 36, 37 and 38. j
The cleaning data further confirmed the earlier findings
with the pilot diffusers that the Milwaukee Cleaning Method
provided substantial restoration to near new condition of all
permeabilities under investigation. This conclusion
appeared to be applicable to grid diffusers as well; as pilots,
and the pertinent service period was extended to 2 years. It was
also evident from this later work that field cleaning and single
laboratory 6O psi hosing provided acceptable results, i
Although no effort was made to directly correlate pilot
diffusers with diffusers removed from the full-scale system
obtained during a tank draindown, diffuser data from the May,
1986, and June, 1988, draindown compare favorably with those
removed from the pilot headers. The nature of the foulant, as
well as dry weight of foulant per unit area were quite
comparable. DWP, BRV and OTE characteristics between the pilot
diffusers and those removed from the full—scale system were also
similar. As a result, the use of pilot diffusers as ^employed at
Monroe, which are readily removed without draining the tank, can
be an effective means of reliably quantifying theinature and
extent of fouling and its impact on oxygen transfer |performance
through the use of ex situ testing procedures similar to those
employed in this study. Data of this type can ,be and is
effectively used <6> to assist in identifying when diffuser
maintenance procedures should be initiated. j
i
Cleaning Costs !
I
The plant superintendent, Gerald Ellefson, did assemble data
relative to the cost of the cleaning procedure used. The
facilities of the plant were not well suited to carrying out
diffuser maintenance. Special portable pumps were 'required to
drain the tanks and their procurement, setup and operation
required labor and cost that would not be required 'in a plant
where convenient facilities were provided for tank drainage and
diffuser hosing. :
Under these extenuating circumstances, he computed the
annual cost per diffuser to be approximately *O.6O per diffuser.
However, with the proper equipment he estimated the costs per
tank of performing the Milwaukee Method to be: 1
94
-------
Function
Hose
Acid Application
Hose
Cost of Acid
2,TOO Cost Per Diffuser
Man Hrs
15
12
IS
Cost at
ISO
144
216
54O
23
Cost at
*2O/hr
300
24O
360
900
23
*O.2OS
*0.342
The additional cost to drain and refill the tanklunder these
circumstances was not estimated, but is considered to be nominal
at best. The $12 per hour figure for labor was used since it was
the prevailing cost in Monroe, Wisconsin. The *2O figure is
considered to be more realistic in urban areas. ;
Following the formal completion of the study, the Monroe
sta-i-f concluded the optimum diffuser cleaning cycle to be within
the range of 12-1S months. ! *"nin
Economic Considerations
— I
The operating costs and time to return the investment on the
capital equipment were not rigorously evaluated. However, Mr
i fT did SDmE analvsis erf the operating data, the results of
which do shed light on the economic consequences of the retrofit
If S ^Sr °f sufafnittal erf the 1986 Annual Operating Report is
attached as Appendix II. ! "^HW t is
^ xK impact °n ae^ation power costs is discussed in Paragraph
5e of that report which follows. i
"e. Our electrical power use dropped by over 216O KWH per
^-.uDr ab°Ut *10° per day sav*™3 even with all the
additional equipment on line. This is due to the
installation of fine air diff users in all three (3) of the
aeration tanks. In fact the amount of electrical power
used for BOD reduction in our aeration tanks has! dropped by
?KBr^45 Percent due to that new equipment installation.
The blowers used for BOD reduction account foj- about 7O
percent of all electrical power purchased monthly. The
additional cost spent during construction for Fine Air
Diffusion Equipment will have a very rapid pay back on our
investment. " !
95
-------
It is evident that the retrofit was very successful from a
process as well as economic standpoint. It is also interestTnS
to note the agreement of these power savings with those predicted
previously in this report based on full-scale offgas tests It
is also pertinent that the operating efficiency over the two year
period has been maintained, and diffuser cleaning requirements
have been, modest, and the prospect of continued favorable
experience in these regards is very good. It is also I evident the
results would have been similarly favorable had the retrofit
employed any of the four pore size diffusers involved in the
study, although the optimum is estimated to lie within the broad
range of BRV0 from 4 to 7 inches water. j
oo ^oi5 °* interest to note» however, that the data of Tables
*K an2J? reveal the diffusers in cleanwater efficiency between
the BRV0 4 and BRV0 6 in Pass 1 locations to be about 47
favoring the BRV0 6, in both the "as received" I and "after
cleaning" conditions. This difference is estimated to be near
and perhaps beyond the capability of the test methods employed to
quantitatively differentiate. On the other hand, it may be shown
using the procedures outlined in Chapter 7, Design Manual Fine
Pore Aeration System, EPA/625/1-89/OXX, September, 1989, that the
power savings of even such a small increase in efficiency as
indicated can be significant relative to the first cost of fine
pore diffuser elements. I
96
-------
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The range of optimum effective pore size o-f rigid porous
diffusers from the standpoints of transfer efficiency
backpressure and facility of cleaning was found to be
surprisingly broad. Expressed in terms of BRV0 it
appeared to fall within the range of 4-7, which,encompasses
most, if not all, of the common commercial products sold in
the U.S.
Operating parameters and wastewater characteristics
especially loading, appeared to have a greater influence on
alpha-SOTE and apparent alpha than did diffuser pore size
before or after service exposure. i
|
The cleaning procedures used during the study, involving a
combination of high pressure water spraying with or without
liquid acid treatment and/or brushing, followed by
additional spraying, resulted in nearly complete
restoration of the diffuser's original characteristics.
Consequently, one or a combination of these procedures is
considered an effective diffuser cleaning technique at this
plant. There was no evidence of a difference in the
cleaning procedure required or its frequency over the ranae
of pore sizes explored. ;
Exposure to service conditions for an additional 20 months
resulted in but minor changes in DWP, BRV, and OTE
indicating the fouling phenomenon at Monroe was not
progressive.
Clean Water OTE and OTR of new ceramic diff users are not
nSS1^ ?ffef*ed bV P0*^ size (as measured by permeability
or BKVo) in the ranges explored in the study. That is to
say, differences in BRV0 from 3-9 resulted in differences
not more than about 77. in OTE and OTR.
In the Monroe plant, the pilot study
SOTE was relatively insensitive to
terms of BRV or it's ratio to DWP. In
of the test, the most aggressive from
an increase of 15O% in BRV and 4OX in
1OX change in SOTE.
gave indication that
fouling expressed in
the first four months
a fouling standpoint *
DWP resulted in but a
97
-------
7. Since full-scale DTE remained relatively constant at about
9O% of its original value, the opportunity to gauge the
correlatioYi between OTE, and BRV, DWP, or the :ratio of one
to the other was impaired. •
8. Dn the basis of full-scale testing, alpha appeared to be
constant over a wide range of diffuser flux rates.
9. The adverse effects of fouling with respect to
backpressure, transfer efficiency, and offsetting
maintenance costs were found to be substantially less than
might have been predicted on the basis of prior literature.
1C. The fouling tendency and its effect upon the pilot and
plant diffusers was found to be more or less equivalent.
11. A number of deficiencies are inherent in the permeability
test when employed as a means of characterizing diffusers.
Other, more specific methods should be evaluated and
considered in its place, such as BRV0 and its coefficient
of variation. i
12. Replicate clean water tests conducted in accordance with
the standard ASCE method demonstrated a; variability
apparently dependent upon total dissolved solids
concentration. Empirical modeling of the data brought the
precision of the test within the limits required to measure
the small differences in transfer efficiency essential in
this study.
13. The use of various test procedures including BRV, DWP,
full-scale offgas under process conditions, and clean water
steady—state and also removable pilot diffusers proved to
be valuable adjuncts in an investigation of this type. As
a matter of interest, many of the above conclusions would
not have been practically obtainable without these
procedures. -•-....-..... • •; •
14. This retrofit proved itself to be very successful from both
an operating and economic standpoint. |
98
-------
REFERENCES j
!
1. Ewing Report to Milwaukee MSD (1983). j
2. Anderson, N. E. , "Tests and Studies on Air D|if-fusers for
Activated Sludge," Sewage and Industrial Wastes!, 22, 4, 461
* X ^f^J\J f m
3. Roe, F. C. , "The Installation and Servicing of Air Diffuser
Mediums," Water Horks and Sewerage, 81, 115, (1934).
4. King, H. R., "Tests to Determine Oxygen Absorption Ratinq
of Porous Plate Air Diffusers," Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vol. 24, No. 8 (1952).
5. Beck, A. J., "Diffuser Plate Studies," Senage Uorks and
Journal, 8, 22 (1936). i
6. Marx, J. J., et al., "Full Scale Comparison of Ceramic Disc
and Flexible Membrane Tube Diffusers." &Oth Annual
Conference, Hater Pollution Control Federation, October
(1987).
• !
7. EPA 625/3-85-010 - "Summary Report - Fine Pore Aeration
Systems." U.S. EPA Tech. Trans. (1985).
8. Redmon, D. T., et al. , "Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
Measurements in Mixed Liquor Using Offgas Techniques." J.
Hater Pollution Control Federationf 55, 1338 (1983).
9. ASCE - "Standard for Measurement of Oxygen transfer in
Clean Water." (1984).
10. Redmon, D.T., et al., "Experiences in Field Testing a
Variety of Aeration Equipment in Sweden and in the U.S A
by Offgas Anlysis", IAHPRC International Conference.
Brighton, UK, July, (1988). !
i
11. Ewing, L., et al., "Oxygen Transfer Measurement by the
Offgas Procedure - Its Development and Apllication" HPCF
Conference, Dallas, October, (1988). !
12. Benedek, A., "Problems with the Use of Sodium i Sulfite in
Aerator Evaluation." 26th Indust. Haste Conference, Purdue
University, (1971).
13. Allbaugh, T. A., et al. , "Aeration System Design Using
Offgas Oxygen Transfer Testing." 5Sth Annual Meeting Hater
Pollution Control Federation, (1985).
99
-------
14.
Boyle, W.C. , et al., "Biological Fouling of
Diffusers: State-of-Art", Journal of the
Engineering Division, ASCE 1O9CEE5):991-1OO5
(1983).
15.
16.
Costerton, J.W., "Investigations into Biofouling Phenomena
in Fine Pore Aeration Devices", Study conducted under
— : — 7 »— *.*-•«-* jr ^.i«ri iu<
Cooperative Agreement CR812167, Risk Reduction
Laboratory, U.S. EPA,
-------
APPENDIX
MONROE, WISCONSIN
Full-Seal e Qf-Fgas Results
June, 1986 - November, 1987
101
-------
DATE
THE STATION fiRIB
AI-1
HONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
6RID VERSUS CALENDAR THE
MERASE AVERA8E
«LT AVERABE
08"Jul~B6 1107-1208 21 9 i
*•* til Q.54i 21#2 0.4 5 73
flWuI-tt 1430-1530 2.3 2.2 0.410 21.6 0.2 . 2.05
1600-1648 2.4 2.2 0.303 21.6 0.1 1.52
08-JU1-S6 1137-1154 U ,., ^ ^ ^ ^
08-Jul-8,i 1313-1327 1.2 ' 1.1 0.642 21.5 0.8 3.21
08-Jul-Sf, 1447-1508 1.3 1.2 0.364 21.6 0.1 {M
08-JU1-8M531-1613 1.4 r.2 0.265 21.6 0.1 ,.jj
.OS-Jul-86 1726 1.5 . 1.3 0.216 21.9 - 2.4. hOB
OB-Jul-86 1746 1.6 1.3 0.217 22.0 2.6 ' 1.09
08-Jul-86 1819 1.7 1,4 0 156 25 fl
OS-Jul-86 1843 1.8 ,.4 0.139 22.0 2.3 0.70
09-JU1-86 0905 2.1 2.1 0.584 21.5 0.4 2.92
09-JU1-B6 0927 2.1 2.1 O.J72 21.5 0.2 1.B6
09-Jul-86 1009 '2.1 2.1 0.155 21 3
0.78
09-JU1-B6 1049 2.4 2.2 0.479 21.3 0.1 2.40
'oWQl-86 1131 2.4 2.2 0.418 21.3 0.5 2.09
09-M-86 ,153 2.4 2.2 0.338 21.3 0.6 1.70
09-JU1-86 1511 2.1 2.1 0.370 21.6 0.1 ,.85
09-JU1-86 1440 2.2 2.1 0.354 21.5 0.1 1<77
09-JU1-86 1355 2.3 2.2 0.461 21.5 0.1 2.31
— s333-3s3*si3saaszaaa3aaaM3
38 4 0. 0665
26 6 0.0871
26 6 0.1060
50 3 0.0562
50 3 0.0503
26 6 0.1091
26 6 0.0962
26 6 .0.0796"
26 6 0.0996
26 6 0.0786
26 6 0.0863
38 4 fl.0700
38 4 0.0850
38 4 0.0812
26 6 0.0936
26 6 0.0830
26 6 0.0870
38 4 0.0802
38 4 0.0736
26 6 0.0656
f
i 0.1071
' 0.0630
i 0.0549
0.1110
0.0974
jO.tOSB
0.1360
0.1120
0.1320
6.0735
0.0872
0.0821
1
0;0954
010883
010933
i
0.0816
i
O.|0746
0.0669
0.2'
0.2(
«
0.27
0.24
0.43
0.39
0.38
0.49
0.37
0.37
0.31
0.35
0.28
0.38
0.35
0.36
0.32
0.29
0.27
102
-------
AI-1 - Continued
HOKROE FULL-SCALE OTE 0ATA
BRID VERSUS CALENDAR TIKE
DATE
53333333333
09-M-84
09-Jul-B4
09-,lul-84
09-M-84
09-Jul-84
09-Jul-84
09-Jul-84
09-J»l-84
09-Jul-84
09- Ju 1-84
09-Jul-84
09-M-84
09-JuI-84
09-M-B4
09-JuI-84
TINE STATION 8RIB
:>333S33:3*3Z3333333S333333:
1327 2.4 2.2
1410 2.4 2.3
1550 2.7 2.4
0850 1,1 l.l
0939 1.1 l.l
0958 1.1 l.l
1105 1.4 1.2
1117 1.4 1.2
1207 ' 1.4 1.2
1522 1.1 l.l
1428 1.2 1.1
1404 1.3 1.2
1314 1.4 1.2
1709 1.4 1,3
1450 1.7 1.4
FLT^E
,33333:33:33
0,402
0.295
0.243
0.544
0.371
0.232
0.480
0.388
0.325
0.384
0.441
0.441
0,373
0.295
0,201
KIT AVERA8E
=33=S33.-3=33333=;=333*
21.7 0.1
22.0 3.0
22.0 3.7
21.5 1.9
21.4 0.2
21.4 0.1
21.3 0.2
21.3 0.2
21.5 0,3
21.4 0.4
21,5 0.1
21.5 0.1
21.7 0.5
22,0 2.1
22.0 2.4
AIRRATE
»»333»ff:
2.01
1.48
1.24
2.83
1.84
1.14
2.40
1.94
1.43
1.93
2.31
2.31
1.87
1.48
1.01
SPECIFH
^33«fL
24
24
24
SO
50
50
24
24
24
SO
50
24
24
24
24
BRVa OTE(f) ;
i
4 0.0742 ;
4 0.0978 :
4 0.0851 i
3 0.0440 !
3 0.0488
3 0,0749 ;
& 0.1011
4 0.0958 ',
4 0.1082 i
3 0.0458
3 0.0394 :
4 0.0734 :
4 0.0970
4 0.1048
4 „..._ 0.0941 .!..
AVERASE
SQTE
0,0774
0.1414
0.1370
0.0573
0.0704
0.0741
0,1040
0.0988
0.1127
0.0449
0.0402
0.0748
0.1024
0.1340
0.1313
AVERASE
APPARENT
0,31
0.53
0.50
0.25
0.29
0,30
0.42
0.39
0.43
0.28
0.24
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.44
103
-------
AI-2
HONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
BRIO VERSUS CALENDAR TINE
HATE
20-Nov-84
20-NDV-84
20-Nov-84
20-Nov-84
20-»o»-84
20-UOV-84
20-ltev-84
20-llov-84
21-NOV-84
21-NDV-B4
21-NBV-84
21-NOV-B4
21-N«»-84
21-NHV-84
21-Nciv-B4
21-Nav-fl4
21-HOY-84
21-Niw-84
21-KOV-B4
21-Nmr-84
21-NOV-84
21-Nov-84
TIKE STATION 8RID
1240-1309 1.1 1.1
1330-1404 1.2 1.1
1432-1509 1.3 1.2
1531-1544 1.4 1.2
1249-1259 2.1 2.1
1342-1353 2.2 2.1
1441-1433 2.3 2,2
1523-1537 2.4 2.2
0815 3.1 3.1
0844 3.2 3.1
0909 3.3 3.2
1001 3.4 3.2 •
1009 3.5 3.3 -
0950 3.4 3.3
0854 3.7 3.4
0830 3.8 3.4
1052 1.1 1.1
1115 1.2 1.1
1137 1.3 1.2
11S4 1.4 1.2
1252 1.5 1.3
1240 1.8 1.4
AVERASE
FLUI RATE
0.354
0.419
0.354
0,380
0.347
0.294
0.327
0.345
0.319.
0.428
0.311
0.319
0.238
0.322
0.195
0.174
0.291
0.389
0.341
0.342
0.275
0.195
HLT
°C
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
HVlXWt AVERABE
AVERA8E AIRRATE SPECIFIC '
___J-0- _ PER BIFFUSER PERM BRV0 DTEHi;
2'4 I'M 50 3 0.05771
1-0 2.10 50 3 0.0540;
M 1-77 24 4 0.0441 i
°'4 LW 24 4 0.0587 i
°-8 1.74 38 4 0.0444 i
i
°'4 «.47 38 4 0.0430 j
«•» 1-43 24 4 0,0420
I'5 . 1-72 24 4 * 0.0587 '
1.2 1.40 24 4 - 0.0594 i
M 2-t4 24 4 0,0424 j
°'7 I'54 24 4 0.0444 ;
'•3 1-W 24 4 0.0522
110 '-I' 24 4 0.0448 1
5'8 1.41 24 4 0.0410 ;
*•* 0.98 24 4 0.0479
ilS O.B8 24 4 0.0381 '
3-° !•« 50 3 0,0534
I"3 1-95 50 3 0.0511
°'3 1.81 24 4 0,0448 '•
°-3 1-71 24 4 0.0530
3'3 1-38 24 4 0.0594 •
3-5 0.98 24 4 0.0507 j
AVERASE
ALPHA
SOTE
0.0755
0.0432
0.0490
0.0428
0.0714
0.0474
0.0493
0.0702
• 0.0485
0.0700
0.0732
0.0408
0.0832
0.0871
0,1145
0.0929
0.0754
0.0598
0.0487
0.0544
0.0870
0.0741 '
AVERA6E
APPARENT
ALPHA
0.31
0.27
0.27
0.25
0.28
0.24
0,27
0.27
0,24
0.28
0.28
0.23
0.30
0.33
0.40
0.32
0.30
0.25
0.27
0.22
0.32
0.27
104
-------
AI-2 - Continued
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
6R1B VERSUS CALENDAR TldE
DATE TIKE
=a==:zsa=a333zaz33asa
21-Nov-B6
21-Nov-86
21-iHov-86
21-MOV-86
21-IIOV-86
21-IIOV-86
1100
1126
1145
1201
1216
• 1227
STATION 6RID
asasaaaaaaasasasaa:
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.4
AVERASE
FLM RATE
rasaaaaasazs
0.322
0.308
0.370
0.370
0.256
0.289
HLT
"C
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
AVERASE
0.0.
1.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
5.0
6.4
AVERASE
AIRRATE
PER DIFFUSER
1.61
1.54
1.85
1.85
1.28
1.45
AVERASE
SPECIFIC
PERK
38
38
26
26
26
26
BRV0
4
4
6
6
6
6
OTEK) ;
" ""* . j-
1
0.0651 ,
0.0591 ;
0.0579 :
0.0592 '-,
0.0493 !
0.0480 |
AVERASE
ALPHA
SOTE
0.0762
0.0628
0.0622
0.0660
0.0915
0.1135
AVERASE
APPARENT
ALPHA
0.30
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.34
0.43
106
-------
MONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
6R10 VERSUS MLEMDAR TIK
twit Tine STATION BRIO
05-Hay-B7 1332 1.1 l.l
05-H»y-B7 1424 1.2 1.1
05-Hay-87 1346 2.1 2.1
05-ft«y-87 1416 2.2 2.1
05-«jy-87 1445-1510 3.1 3.1
05-Hay-87 153S-1542 3.2 3.1
05-Nay-87 1457-1518 3.8 3.4
05-«ay-87 1553 3.7 . 3.4
06-Hay-87 1047-1112 1.1 l.l
06-Hay-87 1003-1029 1.2 1.1
06-Hay-87 1221-1238 1.3 1,2
06-Hay-B7 1312-1327 1.4 1.2
06-Hay-87 1618 1.5 1.3
06-Nay-87 1632 1,6 1.3
06-N*y-87 1642 1.7 1.4
06-«ay87 1656 1.8 1.4
06-Hay-87 1056-1106 2.1 2.1
06-May-87 1011-1023 2.2 2.1
06-Hay-87 1231-1245 2.3 2.2
06-Hay-B7 1320-1334 2,4 2.2
06-May-U7 1521 2.5 2.3
06-Hay-B7 1541 2.6 2.3
AVERA8E
SVERftBE m.T AVERSfiE AIRRATE
AVE8A6E
; AVERA8E
ABBXfimv
.^JJIL. °° D-°- PER ™m3i PER" BRV° mw ; lire "air"
"S"SS""='"I3=:I!!3IsaSE:ss3s=s«««=«»»»»««=«««»««:»xs«KS3J^s
0.398 16.4 2.1 1,99
0.388 16.4 2.3 1.94
0.344 16.4 1.2 1.72
0.305 16.4 1.2 1.53
0.256 16.4 0.8 1.28
0.277 16.4 0.8 1.39
0.130 16.4 5.3 0.65
.0.134 16.4. 5.4 .0.67
0-285 16.7 1.0 o.U
0-311 16.7 1.6 o.ii
0.223 16.7 1.0 l.u
0-268 16.7 l.l 1,34
0,195 16.7 3.7 0.98
0-184 16.7 3.6 0.92
0.150 16.7 3,8 0.75
0.173 16.7 3.8 0.87
0.335 16.7 1.2 1.47
0.279 16.7 1.4 1.40
0.316 16.7 1.5 1.58
0.259 16.7 1.4 1.29
0.130 16.7 4.7 0.65
0.188 16.7 4.8 0.94
50 3 0.0601
50 3 0.0691
38 4 0.0651
38 4 0.0716
26 6 0.0838
26 6 0.0979
26 6 0.0519
26 6 .. 0.0592
SO 3 0.0706
50 3 0.0785
26 6 0.0925
26 6 0.0828
26 6 0.0683
26 6 0.0861
26 6 0.0734
24 6 0.0645
38 4 0,0625
38 4 0.0769
26 6 0.0855
26 6 0,0743
26 6 0.0660
26 6 0.0723
0.0760
!
{ 0.0893
1
1 0.0748
0.0822
i
0.0926
1 .
i 0.1092
f
' 0.1010
: 0.1178
: 0.0802
• 0.0948
I
; 0.1048
; 0.0937
! 0.1049
i 0.1312
! 0.1150
: 0.1004
0.0717
\ 0.0911
! 0.1017
0.0877
i 0.1179
0.1314
0.32
0.37
0.29
0.32
0.35
0.41
0.33
0.38
0.32
0.38
0.38
0.35
0.37
0.45
0.38
0.34
0.28
0.35
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.46
106
-------
AI-3 - Continued
NOKROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
SfilD VERSUS CALENDAR TIME
__ OWE TIKE STATION 6RID
04-lliy-87 1550 2.7 2.4
04-llsy-87 1401 2.8 2.4
'04-H»y-B7 0852-0903 3.1 3.1
04-Hay-87 0823-0839 3.2 3.1
04-ftjy-B7 1407-1422 ' 3.3 3.2
04-H,iy-87 1442-1451 3.4 3.2
04-Hiiy-87 143! 3.! 3.3
04-Hj,y-S7 141! 3.4 3.3
04-Hiy-87 0829 3.7. 3.4
04-H»y-87 0910 3.8 3.4
07-H»if-87 1009 3.2 3.1
07-H»y-87 0948 3.4 3.2
07-Hay-87 0937 3.5 3.4
07-Hay-87 1014 3.8 3.4
07-my-87 1040 1.8 1.4
07-Hay-87 1030 2.8 2.4
07-H»y-87 1131 1.2 j.j
07-Hiy-37 122! 1.2 1.1
07-Kay-H7 1321 1.2 j..j
AVERABE HLT AVERA8E
FLU! RATE °c D.O.
iwssassasaaiaasassiassaasssasasaa
0.195 14.7 4.9
0.154 14.7 4.7
0.300 14.7 2.4
0.332 14.7 2.4
0.240 14.7 1.2
0.281 U.7 1.5
0.270 14.7 5.5
0.283 14.7 4.1
0.170 14,7 4.4
0.170 14.7 4,5
0.305 17.0 1.5
0.355 17.0 3.0
0.259 17.0 6.5
0.19! 17.0 4.5
0.140 17.0 5.4
0.191 17,0 5.8
0.292 17.0 1.5
0.177 17.0 0.4
0.434 17.0 1.2
nitnnoE HYtWHJt
AI8RATE SPECIFIC
PER DIFFUSES PERM BRV0 OTE«)
SSSSSSSSSSS SS33 aa-sj-as-s-i .jjj.--^^^ ,.sgm
0(98 24 4 0.0741
°'7B 24 4 0.0440
i-50 24 4 0.0728
'•" 24 4 0.0825
'•SO 26 6 0.0892
l.« 26 4 0.0723
'•35 24 4 0.0478
l-« 26 6 0.0444
• °-B 24 4 .. 0.0449
0-85 24 4 0.0461
1
-------
07-«ay-87 1148 1.4 1.2
07-»iy-B7 1217 1.4 1.2
07-H,iy-B7 1329 1.4 1.2
07-Miiy-87 1139 2.2 2.1
07-«jy-87 1233 2.2 2.1
07-Hjy-87 1313 2.2 2.1
07-Hay-87 1157 2.4 2.2
07-Nay-B7 1210 2.4 2.2
07-Hay-87 1339 2.4- 2.2
AI-3 - Continued
HONROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
6RIO VERSUS CALENDAR TIKE
KIT AVERA6E
0,328 17.0
0.328 17.0
0.109 17.0
0.336 17.0
0.109 17.0
0.378 17.0
0.292
0.328
. 0.128
17.0
17.0
17.0
1.5
2.1
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.9
1.5
1.3
.0.5
1.64
1.64
0.55
1.68
0.55
1.89
1.46
1.64
0.64
o OTEff)
==s=r=s=sssr=s
SOTE
26 6
26 6
26 6
38
38
38
26
26
26
4
4
4
6
6
6
0.0876
0.0833
0.1115
0,0628
0.0793
0.0650
0.0803
0.0854
0.0862
AVERA6E
ALPHA
0.1040 0.40
0.1055 0.40
0.1203 0.37
0.0701 0.27
0.0836 0.26
0-0725 0.29
0.0953 0.36
0.0993 0.38
•0.0926 0.30
108
-------
AI-4
HOMROE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
6RID VERSUS CALENDAR TINE
DATE TIKE STATION 6RI0
17-Aug-87 141H432 1.1 l.l
17-Aug-87 1551-1608 1.2 1.1
17-Auij-87 1644-1654 1.3 1.2
17-Auj|-87 1400-1441 2.1 2.1
17-Aur87 1541-1414 2.2 2.1
17-Auj-B7 1636-1708 2.3 2.2
18-Aug-87 1429-1438 1.1 1.1
18-Aug-87 1247-1258 1.2 1.1
18-Aug-87 1159-1209 ' 1.3 1.2
18-Aug-B7 1535-1544 1.4 1.2
lB-Aug-87 1912 1.5 1.3
lB-Aug-87 1929 1.6 1.3
18-Aug-87 1958 1.7 1.4
18-Aug-B7 2009 1.8 1.4
lB-Aug-B7 1420-1457 2.1 2.1
18-Aug-37 1238-1307 2.2 2,1
18-Aug-87 1148-1225 2.3 2.2
18-Aug-ll7 1529-1550 2.4 2.2
lB-Aug-SI7 1417-1423 3.1 3.1
18-Aug-87 1744-1750 3.2 3.1
18-Aug-87 1802-1808 3.3 3.2
lB-Aug-87 1833-1842 3.4 3.2
,
AVERABE
AVERABE HLT AVERABE AIRRATE
FLUI RATE °C D.O. PER DIFFUSER
0.314 24.2 4.8 1,57
0.372 24.2 5.2 1.84
0.284 24.2 5.4 1.42
0.291 24.2 4.4 1.45
0.343 24.2 4.3 1.72
0.310 24.2 4.9 1.55
0.434 23.4 5.7 2.17
0.432 23.6 6.0 2.16
0.2B1 23.6 6.1 1.40
0.259 23.6 6.2 1.30
0.206 23.4 7,2 1,03
0.245 23.4 7.2 1.23
0.166 23.6 6.8 0.83
0.138 23.6 6.4 0.69
0.355 23.4 5.7 1.78
0.397 23.4 5.9 1.99
0.317 23.4 4.0 1.58
0.309 23.6 6.4 1.54
0.280 23.6 5.1 1.40
0.311 23.4 5.3 1.55
0.262 23.6 5.5 1.31
0.274 23.6 6.1 1.37
109
AVERAEE
SPECIFIC
PERK BRVo OTEK)
SO 3 0.0731
50 3 0.0589
26 6 0.0691
38 4 0.0702
38 4 0.0642
26 6 0.049B
50 3 0.0554
50 3 0.0533
26 6 0.0450
26 4 0.0434
26 4 0.0544
26 4 0.0405
26 6 0.0716
26 6 0.0578
.38 4 0.0506
38 4 0.0588
26 6 0.0677
26 6 0.0562
26 6 0.0818
26 6 0.0709
26 6 0.0728
26 6 0.0535
. AVERABE
ALPHA
SOTE
| 0.1479
0.1304
0.1438
0.1368
0.1179
0.1460
0.1359
0.1414
0.1784
: 0.1788
', 0.2298
; 0.2405
0.2442
1 0.1750
0.1255.
0.1520
0.1801
! 0.1748
0.1728
0.1597
0.1714
0.1485
AVERAGE
APPARENT
Al PHA
0.60
0.54
0.62
0.52
0.46
0.56
0.57
0.60
0.64
0.44
0.81
O.B8
0.83
0.57
0.50 .. ...
0.60
0.68
0.66
0.65
0.60
0.43
0.55
-------
AI-4 - Continued
HO MR HE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
BRID VERSUS CALENDAR TIME
JSL^LSLSL.
lB-A«g-87 1825 3.5 3,3
18-Aug-87 1815 3.6 3.3
18-Aug-87 1734 3.7 3.4
18-Aug-B7 1431 3.8 3.4
19-Auij-87 0904-0911 3.1 3,1
19-Au(|-87 0841-0848 3.2 3.1
19-Auj|-B7 0818-0827 3.3 3.2
19-Auj-B? 0749-0803 3.4 3.2
19-Aug-B7 0808 3.5 3.3
19-Aug-B7 0854 '3.7 3.4
19-Aug-87 1246-1257 1.1 i.|
l?-Aug-B7 1216-1222 1,2 1.1
19-Aug-87 1135-1144 1,3 1,2
19-Agg-87 1050-1059 1.4 1.2
19-Aug-B7 1240-1304 2.1 2.1
19-Aug-37 1207-1228 2.2 2,1
19-Aug-l)7 1129-1151 2.3 2.2
19-Aug-fl7 1043-1103 2.4 2.2
19-Aug-ii7 0952 2.5 2.3
19-Aug-87 1004 2.4 2.3
19-Aug-87 1013 2.7 2.4
19-Aug-B7 1025 2.8 2.4
FL™EE
0.270
0.305
0.144
0.149
0.294
0.309
0.281
0.280
0.305
0.248
0.343
0.347
0.299
0.289
0.337
0.326
0.356
0.306
0.264
0.264
0.254
0.254
IH.T AVERA6E
23.4 7.3
23.4 7.3
23.4 7.0
23.4 . 6.6
23.0 5.4
23.0 5.8
23.0 6,0
23.0 6.5
23.0 7.3
23.0 6.9
23.0 5.2
23.0 5.7
23.0 6.0
23.0 4.4
23.0 5.4.
23.0 5.4
23.0 5.8
23.0 6.6
23.0 7.6
23.0 7.4
23.0 7.2
23.0 6.9
AVERASE
A1RRATE
PER DIFFUSES
1.35
1.53
0.83
0.85
1.48
1.54
1.41
1.40
1.53
1.24
1.72
1.74
1.49
1,45
1.69.
1.63
. 1.78
1.54
1.32
1.32
1.28
1.28
AVERA6E
MswanEBSMssKsMssaassss:
24 6 0.0531
24 4 0.0494
24 4 0.0718
24 6 0,0608
24 . 6 0.0774
24 6 0.0688
24 6 0.0665
24 6 0.0495
24 6 0.0392
24 6 0.0680
5(> 3 0.0555
SO 3 0.0591
24 4 0.0660
24 6 0.0544
38 4 0.0567
38 4 0.0691
24 6 0.0667
24 4 0.0584
24 4 0.0451
24 4 0,0452
24 4 0.0604
26 4 0.0550
i
• AVERASE
i ALPHA
; SOTE
tasaeccasaasxss:
1 0.2204
i 0.2051
; 0.2635
i 0.1948
, 0.1494
! 0.1470
!
: 0.1447
0.1442
i
' 0.1517
j 0.2270
i 0.1170
i 0.1394
: 0.1457
: 0.1562
1
; 0.1237
: 0.1587
i 0.1632
i
I 0.1776
i
0.1940
i 0.1862
0.2205
0.1837
AVERASE
APPAREX1
ALPHA
rx333S3X3I31
0.82
0.78
0.89
0.47
0.64
0.63
0.42
0.54
0.57
0.83
0.48
0.57
0.63
0.58
0.48
0.62
0.63
0.67
0,72
0.69
0,81
0.68
-------
AI-5
HONROE FULL-SCALE OTE D A T A
6R1D VERSUS CALENDAR TIKE
DATE TIKE STATION BRIO
03-NOV-87 1632-1455 1.1 l.l
03-Nov-B7 1547-1411 1.2 1.1
03-NOV-B7 1440-1511 1.3 1.2
03-Nov-87 1353-1403 1.4 1.2
03-Nov-87 1438-1444 2.1 2.1
03-NOV-87 1555-1404 2.2 2.1
03-Hov-87 1451-1502 2.3 2.2
03-Nov-87 1345-1410 2.4 2.2
. 03-NOV-87 1022-1032 .3,1 ' 3,1
03-Nov87 1111-1118 3.2 3.1
03-Mov-87 1131-1139 3.3 3.2
OS-Nov-87 1205-1213 3.4 3.2
03-NOV-87 1158 3.5 3.3
03-NBV-B7 1MB 3.4 3.3
03-NOV-B7 1059 3.7 3.4
03-Hav-87 1040 3.8 3.4
04-Nov-87 0854-0930 1.1 u
04-Nov-fl7 0820-0843 1.1 l.l
04-Nov-6i7 1015-1037 1.2 1.1
04-Nov-87 1053-1113 1.3 1,2
04-NOV-87 1130-1152 1.4 1.2
04-Hov-B7 1221 1.5. 1.3
AVERA8E
FUJI RATE
0.508
0.530
0.489
0.444
0.514
0.487
0.494
0.509
0.433
0.535
0.441
0.448
0.333
0.441
0.300
0.289
0.214
0.519
0.552
0.490
0.472
0.300
HLT AVERASE
°C D.O.
z— ====S===SSIK:ZI=
20.0 1.0
20.0 O.B
20.0 0.4
20.0 0.6
20.0 0.9
20.0 0.7
20.0 0.4
20.0 0.5
20.0' 1.0
20.0 0.5
20,0 0,6
20.0 0.6
20.0 4.0
20.0 5.0
20.0 5.4
20.0 5.7
20.0 0.4
20.0 1.9
20.0 0.7
20.0 0.3
20.0 0.4
20.0 3,4
HVCHHBE RVtKHS
AIRRATE SPECIFIi
PER OIFFUSER PERK
3=— IISSSSZSISMIIIZSS:
2.54 50
2.45 SO
2.44 26
2.32 26
2.57 38
2.43 38
2.48 26
2.54 26
2.16 26
2.67 24
2.20 26
2.24 24
1.67 26
2.21 26
1.50 26
1.45 26
. 1.08 50
2.59 50
2.76 50
2.45 26
2.36 26
1.50 26
BRVo OTEK 1 ;
— =3=S— =33£3S33=a333Z2:
f
3 0.0637 i
3 0.0637 ;
6 0.0648 ;
6 0.0688 '
. 4 0.0424 i
4 0.0434 |
6 0.0643 ;
6 0.0440 ;
6 •" 0.0452 :
6 0.0474 !
6 0.0596 :
4 0.0574 i
6 0.0519
6 0.0444
6 0.0493 ;
6 0.0417 '
.1
3 0.0831
i
3 0.0637
3 0.0650
6 0.0554 |
6 0.0608 ;
6 0.0757 1
AVERA6E
ALPHA
SOTE
K3ii=iz3i2=
0.0732
0.0708
0.0685
0.0745
0.0706
0.0706
0.0699
0.0712
0:0745
0.0521
0.0463
0.0650
0.0885
0.0905
0.1124
0.0975
0.0898
0.0808
0,0719
0.0588
0.0453
0.1179
AVERA5E
APPARENT
ALPHA
5=223 STSSS
0.31
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.30
0.21
0.24
0.24
0.34
0.36
0.42
0.37
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.24
0.26
0.44
111
-------
AI-5 - Continued
HONDOE FULL-SCALE OTE DATA
BRIO VERSUS CALENDAR TIKE
DA1TE TIKE
04-Xov-87 1236
fl4-Nov-87 1244
04-NOY-87 1259
04-KOV-87 0901-0924
04-NOV-87 0827-0837
04-Xav-87 1021-1031
04-Nov~87 1058-1107
04-KBV-87 1137-1145
04-Hov-87 1316
04-NOV-B7 1327
04-NOV-87 1338
04-KOV-87 1349
STATION
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
BRIO
1.3
1.4
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
AVERA8E
FLUI RATE
0.363
0.269
0.263
0.228
0.533
0.466
0.536
0.474
0.353
0.378
0.284
0.288
°C D.O,
20.0 3.8
20.0 4.4
20.0 4.5
20.0 0.4
20.0 1.4
20.0 0.5
20.0 0.3
20.0 0.4
20.0 3.1
20.0 4.4
20.0 4.8
20.0 5.0
AVERASE
PER OIFFUSER
1.82
1.35
1.32
1.14
2.67
2.33
2.68
2.37
1.77
1.89
1.42
1.44
AVERA8E
SPECIFIC
PERM BRVg
26 6
26 6
26 6
38 4
38 4
38 4
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
26 6
OTE(f)
0.0679
0.0702
0.0645
0.0778
0.0637
0.0567
0.0584
0.0651
0.073!
0.0674
0.0589
0.0513
AVERAEE
SOTE
0.1121
0.1269
0.1190
0.0836
0.0765
0.0620
0.0622
0.0698
0.1086
0.1228
0.1163
0.1050
AVERA6E
APPAREN1
ALPHA
naasxEai
0.43
0.47
0.44
0.31
0.32
0.25
0.25
0.28
0.42
0.48
0.44
0.39
-142
-------
APPENDIX II
MONROE, WISCONSIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT!
19S& ANNUAL OPERATING REPORT
By Gerald Ellofeon
Plant Superintendent
113
-------
CITY of MONROE
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
March 8, 19:B7
TREA3MENT PLANT
1986 ANNUAL OPERATIONS REPORT
1. WASTEWRTER TREATMENT PLANT WORK HJNCTICNS
d. Assist with inspection and construction of the'wro facilities.
2.- OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL " '
3. SUMMARY OF OCWSTRtJCTICN
4. S^MIARY OF OPERA1TON !
114
-------
1986 ANNUM, OPERATIONS REPORT (con't)
5. su^MAsy OF OPERATIONAL EXPENSE
5
10?1 P^61 ^ dr°fPed by over 2160 KWH per day or about
L
g? ?r as s
Respectfully Submitted
Gerald V. Ellefson
Plant Superintendent
115
-------
CITY of MONROE
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PIANT
WWTP LOADINGS 1986
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
Decerrtoer
TOTAL
AVERSGE
FLOW
(gal)
56,938,000
54,640,000
73,778,000
61,616,000
69,222,000
65,029,000
66,176,000
66,567,000
77,724,000
78,265,000
63,191,000
62,819,000
795,965,000
66,330,417
BOD
(FF)
236,506
222,227
242,101
207,364
232,767
235,858
269,148
217,519
247,061
230,558
195,376
203,945
2,740,431
228,369
TSS
(i's)
112,978
100,675
123,234
108,716
115,571
126,027
133,113
121,560
191,597
152,730
133,648
119 ', 985
1,539,834
128,320
Monthly total for BCD and TSS are estimated, because
S3 ^« -» -
Flow data results are for all days of every manth.
did
116
-------
1986 WASTEKATSR TREATMENT PLANT LOADING
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
. MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER '
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
TOTAL
AVERAGE
FLOW
MGD
1.837
1.951
2.380
2.054
2.233
2.168
2.135
2.147
2.591
2.525
2.106
2.026
26.153
2.179
a
RAW
22/1
494
484
397
401
415
434
483
392
397
360
370
386
5,013
418
Ibs.
7,629
7,937
7,810
6,912
7,729
7,862
8,682
7,019
8,579
7,560
6,513
6,578
90,810
7,568.
\JU
FINAL
52/1
99
78
26
43
22
25
17
15
12
7
6
9
359
30
Ibs.
1,699
1,269
516
737
410
452
303
269
259
147
105
152
6,318
527
22/1
237
218
- 201
211
202
231
239
217
286
237
253
227
2,758
230
TSS:
SAW ; FINAL
Ibs.
3,644
3,596
3,975
3,624
3,762
4,201
4,294
3,921
6,387 .
4,991
4,455
3,870
50,720
4,227
:22/i
168
j!08
i 21
1 38
11
I
12
9
10
1 4
; 4
i
1 6
401
!33
Ibs.
2,574
1,757
417
651
205
217
160
17Q
-i/y
216
QA
o*t
70
101
6,631
553
117
-------
GALLONS SEKAGE TREATED 1986
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
TOTAL
AVERAGE
QUARTER
1st
2nd
3rd -
4th
Total
AVG.
GALLONS
56,938,000
54,640,000
73,778,000
61,616,000
69,222,000
65,029,000
66,176,000
66,567,000
77,724,000
78,265,000
63,191,000
62,819,000
795,965,000
66,330,417
EXTRA STRENGTH
FLOW
21,231,949
22,576,716
24,649,838
24,386,270
92,844,773
23,211,193"
AVERAGE FLOW
1.837
1.951
2.380
2.054
2.233
2,168
2.135
2.147
2.591
2.525
2.106
2.026
26,153
2,179
INDUSTRY 1986
BOD
201,183
271,792
238,571
251,688
963,234
240,809
% OF CITY WATER
86
89
108
90
94
86
82
86
108
110
<
99
Qfi
70
1134'
95 :
j
1
TSS ;
i
110,442 :
113,745 I
100,024
110,737
434,948 ;
108,737 ..
4.18
-------
ELECTRICAL POWER PORCHASFJl - 1986
POWER USAGE
ON PEAK OFF PEAK
KWH
POWER
January
February
March
April
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
AVERAGE
39 61
45 55
41 59
-44 56
44 56
41 59
43 57
45 55
41 59
45 55
44 56
-JO 60
512 688
43 57
QUARTER
1st / March
2nd / June
3rd / September
4th / December
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Total cost for
fire line, $66.
144,000
129,600
148,500
151,200
158,400
162,000
152,400
179,400
210,600
203,400
203,400
266,400
-*-/Tt— xwr\
78
76
78
78
77
77
77
77
76
74
72
76
2,109,300 916
175,775 76
PLANT WATER USAGE -
CUBIC FEET
65,340
93,450
73,800
,46,640
279,230
69,808
4th Quarter includes
00 per quarter.
1986
GALLONS
488,743
699,006
552,024
348,867
2,088,640
522,160
new roeter
$0.045 $ 6,529.09
0.052 ' !6,676.32
0.049 ,7,245.77
0-048 7,266.43
0-049 17,719.98
0.048 7,822.03
0.043 6,524.01
0.043 7,785.69
0.042 8,795.18
0.045 9,203.45
0.042 8,591.53
0.040 10,699.26
$0.546 $ 94,858.74
$0.046 .$ 7,904.90
•
\
COST
$ 257.49 '
$ 355.88 \
$ 287.10 ;
$ 349.77 *
$ 1,250.24
$ 312.56 :
installed and:
TOTAL ENGINE HOURS - 1986 '
TOTAL 646.7
AVERAGE 161.7
119
-------
CHLORINE USED - 1986
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
TOTAL
AVERAGE
COST $18.50
TOTAL #'s
2,377
1,207
2,497
1,309
1,172
2,409
4,059
3,620
6,287
4,919
4,903
4,009
38,768
3,231
/ cwt
TOTAL COST
$ 439.75
223.30
461.95
242.17
216.82
445.67
750.92
669.70
1,163.10
910.02
907.06
741.67
$ 7,172.13
$ 597.68
SULPHUR DIOXIDE USED - 1986
COST: $23.00 / CWT
TOTAL POUNDS: 8,562
. MONTHLY AVERAGE: 714
TOTAL COST: $ 1,969.26
MONTHLY AVERAGE: $ 164.11
SULPHURIC ACID USED - 1986
TOTAL POUNDS:
TOTAL COST:
10,500
$ 1,139.25
120
-------
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Total Sludge
DIGESTED SLUDGE
11
141,000
189,000
423,600
643,500
64,800
0
21,000
178,200
97,200
108,000
477,900
216,000
2,560,200
232,745
REMDVED - 1986
#2
198,600
0
0
345,300
246,600
394,200
0
124,200
253,800
151,200
37,800
0
1,751,700
218,963
|3
0
0
0
0
0
140,400
287,400
108,000
129,600
189,000
16,200
0
870,600
145,100
Removed 5,182,500 Gallons
TELEPHONE EXPENSE
1986
January $
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL $
259.02
220.80
213.70
206.66
238.51
192.44
209.17
210.77
238.46
192.19
187.51
165.36
2,534.59
121
-------
NATURAL GAS
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL •
AVERAGE
IRCHASED -
BTO/CF
0.990
0.995
1.006
1.008
1.011
1.002
1.001
1.004
1.009
1.007
1.015
1.015
12.063
1.005
1986
_$/HCF
$ 0.5240
0.5352
0.5416
0.5302
0.5396
0.5229
0.5209
0.5236
0.5242
0.5183
0.5000
0.4978
$ 6.2783
$ 0.5232
1
COST
§ 4,445.65
4,6^3.11
3,380.41
2,985.86
307.59
1,279.52
1,558.59
1,023.21
1,449.44
1,316.47
1,348.68
2,699.00
$ 26,427.53
$ 2,202,29
122
-------
KIEL OIL USAGE - 1986*
DECEMBER 31, 1985 1,000 gallons on hand
TOTAL GALLONS: 11 955
MONTHLY AVERAGE:
TOTAL COST: 5 8,683.95
MONTHLY AVERAGE: $ 1,736.79
* Fuel oil boilers removed from service, & are
being fired by natural gas.
DIESEL FUEL USAGE - 1986
DECEMBER 31, 1985 400 gallons on hand
TOTAL GALLONS: 4 262
MONTHLY AVERAGE: '355
TOTAL COST: $ 2,793.22
MONTHLY AVERAGE: $ 232.77
GASOLINE USED - 1986
REGULAR GASOLINE
TOTAL GALLONS: 1,775 0
MONTHLY AVERAGE: 148 0
TOTAL COST: $ 1,467.37
MONTHLY AVERAGE: $ 122.28
UNLEADEAD GASOLINE (May-Dec)
TOTAL GALLONS:153.7
MONTHLY AVERAGE: 19 2
TOTAL COST: $ 125." 63
MONTHLY AVERAGE: $ 15.70
"123
-------
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES 1986 (. 1987 AVERAGES j
1986 i 1987
TMTH1CTDV _
J.WJUSIKI FLOU (H3D) BOD (bK/L)
BCD
.0039 2530
3. Oakland specialities i ^ "9 : ^
4. Dorman's Cheese .0103 1597 Q132 • 13?2
a. Erito-lay inc. .0347 2478 0373
:0°S «7S
-0407 2602
o. ese :0°}g
}S -S
13. Pleasant Vie,- .0236 245 . '££
14. Roy's Butter .0008 396
396 .ooo : 219
.
15. Swiss Colony - East .0048 4424 0066
16. Swiss Colony - West .0055 1233 0056
17. Wheel of Swiss* .0079 2571
.
10* Si™'8 InC'* -°105 30" -0103
19. Monroe Drum & Barrel** nnro
20. Wisconsin Biotas • ;JJJJ
*Became Zim's on 5/18/86. " "
** One quarter data in 1987. ' |
124
-------
"W
JAN
FEB
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
AVERAGE
$
i
ELECTRICAL POWER PURCHASED - 1984 i
pnij-pp
ON PEAK OFF PEAK KWH FACTOR S TOP ^
• rm.iun ? KHH . COST
37 " 2°6'700 87 0.043 ? 8,9^17
« 56 192,600 86 0.043 8,296.19
43 5? 186'600 So 0.043 7,957.48
" " 219-°°° 86 0.045 9.880.85
42 58 278'400 86 0.042 11,732.45
" 58 293'700 86 0.042 12,274.85
40 6° 316'8°° 86 0.042 13,169.49
44 56 31°'800 87 0.040 121,549.17
3 " 3°2'700 86 0.038 11,424.66
40 6° 3°5'700 86 0.041 121500.82
4 " 262'5°° 86 0.041 10,824.99
-41 5? - 258'9°° 87 0.041 10,607 87
' "^ ' "" tf^4^°-°._i°35 0.501 .. $130,137.99
42 58 1T..261'AOO 86 0.040 $10J844.83
1
i
!
i
1
i
1
j
1
1
125
-------
ELECTRICAL POMER PURCHASED - 1985
JAN
FEE
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
AVERAGE
40
43
42
43
41
39 '
42
44
38
41
41
41
495
41
60
57
58
57
59
61
58
56
62
59
59
_59_
705
59
268,500
223,500
230,400
249,600
281,100
276,300
282,600
257,700
255,000
207,000
222,300
143,700
2,897,700
^T 241,475
87
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
85
84
83
_ 80
„__ 1021
85
0.040
0.042
0.041
0.041
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.040
0.045
0.049
0.049
0.053
0.517
0.043
? : 10, 699. 23
I 9,306.69
1 9,367.46
;10,332.05
:10,953.47
10,829.25
11,146.60
10,489.09
11,553.17
10,229.06
il,000.20
'7,608.89
$ 123,515.16
-? 10,292.93
126
-------
POWER USAGE KWH
ON PEAK OFF PEAK
January
February
March
April
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
AVERAGE
39
45
41
44
44
41
43
45
41
45
44
_40
512
43
61
55
59
56
56
59
57
55
59
, 55
56
_60
688
57
144,000
129,600
148,500
151,200
158,400
162,000
152,400
179,400
210,600
203,400
203,400
266,400
2,109,300
ffFr-™~!
|[ 175,775
POWER $/KKH
FACTOR
78 $0.045
76 0.052
78 0.049
78 0.048
77
77
77
77
76
74
72
76
916
76
0.049
0.048
0.043
0.043
0.042
0.045
0.042
0.040
$0.546
$0.046
! COST
i
$' 6,529.09
! 6,676.32
} 7,245.77
7,266.43
\ 7,719.98
1 7,822.03
I 6,524.01
17,785.69
-8,795.18
. .9,203.45
8,591.53
10,699.26
$' 94/658.74
$ 7,904.90
127
------- |