PB81-172 645
LIMESTONE - LIME TREATMENT OF ACID MINE
DRAINAGE - FULL SCALE
D. G. McDonald, et al
Peabody Coal Company
St. Louis, Missouri
March 1981
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
NITS
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
-------
EPA 600/7-81-033
March 1981
P'Bl-17? 645
LIMESTONE-LIME TREATMENT
OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE - FULL SCALE
by
David G. McDonald and Alten F. Grandt
Peabody Coal Company
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Project No. 14010 DAX
Project Officers
Max T. Orem and John F. Martin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-81-033
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION" NO.
PB31 17 26 A
ป. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
LIMESTONE - LIME TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
FULL SCALE
5 RFPORT HATE
March 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
David G. McDonald
Alten F. Grandt
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT MO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Peabody Coal Company
301 North Memorial Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
N141E
11. CONTRACT/GSANT NO.
14010 DAX
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 10/68 - 10/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE -
EPA600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The nation-wide problems related to acidic discharges from coal mining
operations are well documented in both popular and technical literature. Neutral-
ization is and will continue to be a necessary short-term measure in numerous
instances, while long-range programs are being developed to prevent and/or arrest
acid production at the source.
Considerable effort has been expended in investigating the neutralization
of acid mine drainage with limestone, lime, and soda ash. A combination limestone-
lime process has been shown to have cost advantages with improved effluent quality
and sludge settling characteristics. Peabody Coal Company, in cooperation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, designed, constructed, and operated
a full scale treatment plant to study the process.
This document is the final and summary report on the neutralization studies.
Work on the project was conducted according to a joint Peabody Coal Company/Stanley
Consultants proposal to the Environmental Protection Agency. Experimental work
was conducted during the period March 1973 to February 1974.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Acid Mine Drainage
Coal Mining
Surface Coal Mining
Acid Neutralization
Treatment Plants
Water Treatment
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
31. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, and approved for publication. Approval does not sig-
nify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement of recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWOED
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economi-
cally.
This report contains a study of combination limestone - lime treatment
of acid mine drainage from coal mine areas. This report is intended for both
government and industry use, and attempts to relate the effectiveness of lime-
stone and lime, used separately and in combination, to treat acid mine drain-
age. Further information on this subject may be obtained from the Oil Shale
and Energy Mining Branch, Energy Pollution Control Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Utilizing a full scale neutralization plant, the effect of detention
time, sludge recirculation, flow pattern, and treatment pHhave been observed
using limestone and lime separately and in combination. Data have been accu-
mulated on highly acidic ferric iron acid mine drainage to determine the most
economical method of treatment.
Plant operation indicates that combination limestone-lime treatment with
sludge recirculation on both treatment lines is the most economical scheme of
treatment.
Lime treatment in series flow eliminated up to 85% of the metal cations
in the plant influent, however, addition of less desirable species, i.e.
chromium, lead, etc., is well documented.
Sludge studies indicate limestone treatment to high pH levels yielded
sludges with the highest solids content. Sludges of slightly lower solids
content were acquired during series flow treatment of similar AMD with lime
and sludge recirculation.
This report is submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 14010 DAX under
the partial sponsorship of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Peabody Coal Company.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures ......... vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgments viii
1. Introduction 1
General background of Project 1
Objectives 1
Nature and scope of the problem 2
Approach to the problem 5
2. Conclusions 13
3. Recommendations. 15
4. Plant Facilities 16
Plant layout 16
Description of equipment 16
Operational features and procedures 19
Evaluation of plant operation ... 19
5. Procedures 22
Physical measurements ........ 22
Chemical measurements 22
Computer and data processing 24
6. Results 26
Limestone treatment 26
Lime treatment 29
Limestone vs. lime 31
Lime stone-lime combination treatment 36
References 40
Appendices 41
A. Research operations reports 41
Effects of effluent pH on percent - removal/addition 178
C. Results of plant operation at elevated effluent levels .... 190
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 General Vicinity Map - Project Area ......... 3
2 General Vicinity Map - Drainage Pattern 4
3 Flow Diagram of Will Scarlet Treatment Plant 8
4 Reactivity Curves of Limestone and Lime 27
5 Sludge Settling Behavior (Settling Time vs Percent of
Initial Volume) . . 34
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Water Quality of Impounded Acid Mine Drainage 6
2 Range of Water Quality of Plant Influent 7
3 Will Scarlet Water Treatment Plant Research Schedule 10
4 Manufacturer's Analysis of Limestone Dust ....11
5 Manufacturer's Analysis of Hydrated Lime 12
6 Daily Grab Sampling Schedule of Plant Influent and Treated
Effluent 23
7 Effect of pH on Effluent Quality and Limestone Treatment
Requirements 28
8 Unit Efficiency of Limestone Treatment at Various pH Levels 28
9 Theoretical Detention Time (Minutes) 28
10 Characteristics of Limestone Sludges ..... . 30
11 Effect of pH on Effluent Quality and Lime Requirements . 31
12 Treatment Efficiency Using Lime 32
13 Characteristics of Hydrated Lime Sludges ..... 33
14 Comparison of Limestone and Lime Treatment 35
15 Plant Operational Variables for Combination Limestone-Lime
Treatment 36
16 Combination Limestone-Lime Treatment Cost and Efficiency 37
17 Sludge Characteristics Combination (Limestone-Lime) Treated
Effluents 39
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Work on this project was supervised by Mr. Alten F. Grandt, Director
of Reclamation, who functioned as Project Director, and Mr. Harry Yocum,
Reclamation Department Supervisor for Peabody Coal Company's Southern
Illinois area, who served as Field Director for the project.
Research chemists who performed laboratory analyses and directed plant
operations during research were David G. McDonald, Sr., Environmental Quality
Department, Peabody Coal Company, and Frances Harding, chemist, Peabody
Coal Company.
Peabody's Central Laboratory personnel involved in spectrophotometric
work were James Addington, laboratory manager; Steven Burns and Richard
Wilburn, chemists; and Cora Merrill and Ron Cross, technicians. The helpful
suggestions and comments of Max Orem, Project Officer through 1971; John
Martin, Project Officer from 1972 to completion of the project; and Ronald
Hill, Director of the Resource Extraction and Handling Division, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, were sincerely appreciated.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL BACKGROUND OF PROJECT
The nation-wide problems related to acidic discharges from coal mining
operations are well documented in both popular and technical literature.
Neutralization is and will continue to be a necessary short-term measure in
numerous instances, while long-range programs are being developed to prevent
and/or arrest acid production at the source.
Considerable effort has recently been expended in investigating the neu-
tralization of acid mine drainage with limestone, lime, and soda ash. Studies
have pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each neutralizing process
in relation to cost of treatment, nature of sludges produced, quality of ef-
fluent, etc. A combination limestone-lime process has been shown to have
cost advantages with improved effluent quality and sludge settling character-
istics. However, no work has been performed on the combination process on a
full plant scale basis. Peabody Coal Company, in cooperation with a grant
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, designed, constructed, and
operated a full scale treatment plant to study the process.
This document is the final and summary report on the neutralization
studies. Work on the project was conducted according to a joint Peabody Coal
Company/Stanley Consultants proposal to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Experimental work contained in this paper was conducted during the period
March 1973 to February 1974.
OBJECTIVES
Long-range objectives of the project included the following:
1. To add to current technology regarding techniques of neutralization of
large volumes of acid mine drainage, utilizing limestone alone and in
combination with lime.
2. To operate a full scale neutralization plant to treat acidic discharges
from the Will Scarlet Mine in an attempt to develop techniques of treat-
ment to optimize neutralization efficiency and minimize operating costs.
-------
3. To publish background studies, operational information, and final results
in a form usable to all parties confronted with an acid mine drainage
problem. It is not an objective of this study to develop water quality
standards relating to effluent discharging from the neutralization plant
or to imply that such a facility should become a standard part of coal
mining operations.
Objectives of the study covered by this report were:
1. To determine the most economical method of treatment of highly acidic
mine drainage in large volumes.
2. To observe and report effectiveness of acid mine drainage treatment, with
special emphasis on metal ion removal.
3. To characterize sludges from treatment processes as to settling behavior
and solids contents.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
The Will Scarlet Mine is an active coal-producing mine located approximately
3 miles southwest of Carrier Mills, Illinois, in Saline and Williamson Coun-
ties (Figure 1). Mining operations were started at Will Scarlet by the Stone-
fort Coal Company in 1953. Peabody Coal Company purchased the mine in 1967
and is presently operating at a current production of 2,268 metric tons
(2,500 tons) of coal per day.
Before construction and operation of the full scale treatment plant, acid
mine runoff from old surface works was diverted into inactive surface mine
pits. Even with construction of extensive dike systems and relocation of the
South Fork of the Saline River, the major waterway, incidental pollution
occurred during periods of river overflow, as well as seepage and surface run-
off, and thus allowed some acidic water to enter the river. Within Peabody
property, the problem was generally concentrated in an area of slightly more
than 809 hectares (2,000 acres) south and southwest of the active coal field,
with an estimated backlog of 1.8 X 109 gallons (6.8 X 109 liters) of acid mine
water in pits (Figure 2).
The source of the acid drainage was surface spoil materials that resulted
from mining of partings and overburden associated with the Davis and DeKoven
coal seams. As mining operations moved to the west, the interval between
coal seams was smaller, thus reducing the volume of acid-producing spoil,
which contained large amounts of readily oxidizable pyritic materials.
Even with a vigorous acid mine drainage abatement program, which included
minor grading and channeling improvements, it was necessary to channel all
acid-contaminated water to a central location near Pit #10 for neutralization
treatment before discharge to the South Fork of the Saline River. This in-
terim solution would provide relief from the problem of acid mine drainage
-------
General Vicinity Map-Project Area
01 234567
I ! UMM=JMMC=3i
Scale in Miles
-------
Figure 2 General vicinty map-drainage pattern
-------
while permanent reclamation measures were being continued to provide at-
source inhibition of acid production. The site also lent itself to the devel-
opment of a full scale neutralization plant for evaluating various schemes of
treatment.
Acidity, iron concentrations, and pH of water in each of the major pits
is indicated in Table 1. These pits were the source of feed water during the
research period. Extremely high acidities illustrated the magnitude of the
problem facing Peabody Coal. These samples were taken from the surface of
respective pits. Samples collected at depths of 15 and 30 feet (4.6 m and
9.1 m) in several strip-pit lakes, yielded acidity values several times as
great as at the surface and in one instance valuas as high as 32,000 mg/1
acidity as CaC03 were observed, (Koehrsen and Grandt, 1970).
Water quality of the plant influent varied with the amount of rainfall.
With increasing amounts of precipitation, dilution of the plant influent was
observed but was preceded by a flushing of more acidic influent water. The
range of water quality observed in the plant influent is shown in Table 2.
Small concentrations of ferrous iron were observed during the research period,
usually associated with periods of heavy rainfall and seepage from the slurry
lagoon next to the plant influent channel.
APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM
A neutralization process for coal mine drainage entails a series of indi-
vidual units of operation. This design, however, is limited to one straight-
line treatment system. Thus, to incorporate series treatment (with the poten-
tial for increased detention time) and combination treatment, the design of
the Will Scarlet Water Treatment Plant consists of two identical systems of
individual units with recirculation capabilities (Figure 3).
For influent water containing ferric sulfate (Fe2(80^)3) and sulfuric acid
(H2S04), overall neutralization reactions for the respective chemical agents
are as follows:
Lime, Ca(OH)9:
Ca(OH)2 + Fe2(S04)3 + H2S04 -* CaS04 + Fe(OH)3 + H20
Limestone, CaCOj: _
CaC03 + Fe2 (S04)3 + H2S04 CaS04 + Fe(OH)3 + H20 -I- C02
Limestone and Lime Combination; _
CaC03 + Ca(OH)2 + Fe2(S02)3 + H2S04 -* CaS04 + Fe(OH)3 + H20 + C02
Products of reactions were gypsum (CaS04-2H20) , ferric hydroxide
(Fe(OH)3) and carbon dioxide (when limestone was used).
To determine the most economical method of treatment, observe chemistry
of treatment and sludge characteristics and thereby achieve stated objectives
-------
TABLE I, WATER.QUALITY OF IMPOUNDED ACID MINE
DRAINAGE (Koahrsen and Grandt, 1970)
Total acidity
Mine pit no.* pH Range (mg/l as CaCOj)
1 2.5-2.7 1 ,380 - 8,490
2 2.7 2,330 - 2,760
3 2.4-2.6 12,380 - 1 3,360
4 2.5-2.6 1 I ,950 - 14,740
9 2.7 1 ,470 - 1 ,620
10 2.9-3.0 620-660
Total iron Estimated*
(mg/l as Fe) vojume (gal)
1-75 6.4
1 1 .04
315-1 ,200 1 .08
1 ,000 - 2,400 3.05
1 30 - 150 5.8
8-35 1 .76
X
X
X
X
X
X
10?
I08
I08
iO8
I08
IO8
* See Figure 2 for location of pits. To convert from gallon to liters,
multip ly by 3.785.
+ Stanley Consultants, 1968.
-------
TABLE 2 RANGE OF WATER QUALITY OF PLANT INFLUENT
Parameter
Range
PH
ฃ
Acidity, b.p. to pH 8.3
*
Acidity, cold with H202
to pH 7.3
Alkal inity* to pH 4.5
Specific conductivity"1"
Iron, totaI, ppm
Iron, ferrous, ppm
Iron, ferric, ppm
Sulfate, ppm
2.4 - 3. I
1700 - 9200
1500 - 8500
0
2800
145
0
145
2200
93
7900
I 130
65
1070
6600
* ppm as CaCO-j
+ /jmhos/cm at 25C
-------
RAPID MIX AERATION
SLUDGE
SEPARATION
RECIRCULATION
PUMP
NAGE
-ECTIC
MNEL
PUMP
TATIO
)N
N
RAPID
MIX
\_
f
V
CHEMICA
& F
i
ฃ
1
L STORAGE
EEDER
/
/ AERATION SE
1
SLU
:PAP
DGE
ATION
.J^ปJw ' ~"'i&
Figure 3 Flow diagram of Will Scarlet treatment plant
-------
of this research program, work was conducted according to the research sched-
ule (Table 3) . The following factors of treatment were considered in the de-
sign of the schedule.
In an attempt to determine effects of neutralization of acid mine drain-
age, Research Stages 1 thru 11 were designed to observe the effects of treat-
ment at various pH levels with lime and limestone without sludge recirculation
in parallel and series flow patterns. Further, stages 2-5 also afforded op-
portunity to observe the effects of lime and limestone (and the differences
thereof) on the same plant influent during parallel flow, thus making a num-
ber of comparisons possible.
DETENTION TIME
Though Research Stages 2,8,14,15,21 and 22 were specifically designed to
observe the effects of detention time on a specific neutralization scheme,
this facet of treatment was generalized over a number of research stages,
especially in relation to flow pattern.
SLUDGE RECIRCULATION
Research Stages 10 thru 24 were designed to observe the effects of sludge
recirculation, as well as other facets of treatment. Variation of this oper-
ational factor included no sludge recirculation, sludge recirculation on line
No. 1 only, and sludge recirculation on both treatment lines.
AERATION
The effects of aeration on the neutralization process were observed in
Research Stages 8 and 9.
LIMESTONE
The limestone used in this study was obtained from the Fredonia Limestone
Quarry, Fredonia, Kentucky. In order to obtain the smallest particle size
commercially available, only the rock-dust form of limestone was used.
Table 4 presents the manufacturer's chemical analysis of the limestone
dust costing $9.00 per ton delivered ($8.16 per metric ton) or 0.46c per Ib
(1.01C per Kg.).
-------
WILL SC-'.ULL-T V'ATfR TRL'A'IVDJT PLANT RESEARCH
H'.-C'J.'. rch
ro::-ป-| no.
1
2
3
4
5
C
7
o
Li A
9
10
1 1
U>
I .;.
i 'i
15
1 2
17
i "
19
20
21
?'
23
Mo'U'''
P
P
P
P
P
V
P
<~,
S
s
C,
s
s
ji
p
s
s
s
s
p
p
s
s
Li no
? F 1 cw
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
ICO
100
ICO
100
100
1 wO
5 0
7 5
75
50
100
i 00
100
50
75
ICO
50
fio. 1
Choral cr.: 1
L
L
LS
L'.
LS
LS
LS
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
i x
LS
pli*
f. . 0
5. J
5.0
6.0**
5.0
4.0
'! . J
5.0
'-, . Q
4 . 0
4.0
4.0
4 . 0
C . 0
6.0
(. . 0
3.0-3.5
3.0-3.5
3.0-3.5
3.0-3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0-3.5
3.5-4.0
S lii d ':>:+
N
N
N
N
N
fj
11
N
;-i
M
N
R
R
Pi
R
fl
R
R
R
N
R
R
R
P.
% Flo*;:
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
ICO
1 CO
1 00
100
i CO
1 00
50
2 5
25
50
1 CO
ICO
ICO
50
25
1 CO
50
Lice No.
Ciic-icd
L
L
L
L
LS
LS
IS
L
L
L
L
L
!
L
L
L
L
, L
L
L
LS
. LS
LS
L3
2
P
7.
7.
5.
C.
d .
r
c.
7.
7 _
7.
6 .
7 .
u ,
7.
7.
7 .
7.
7.
7
7.
4.
4 .
6 .
u .
i* !-: ;u':=;
0 i.
0 ;:
0 N
0"* M
0 i:
0 i!
C' ' ,
0 !i
0 i: ;:
o i:
0 i,-
0 i!
0 i;
c f;
0 ;:
0 u
0 R
0 R
0 t;
o ;!
o >''
0 P
nx 7<
0* R
' Mo Jo-; P:-pi;ra I I e I ; S = sorios; iC Flcw= percent of designed flow;
t Slu-.igu Roc i rcu lat ion; R- sludge rec i rcu i a lion ; H= no s!ir,l;;e recirculat ion
-i' Cpt'irnur.'i pi! v-nluo // no aeration * x" possible ulrernate - ? tiniO'o Ir.norotic
l LS
-------
Table 4. MANUFACTURER'S ANALYSIS OF LIMESTONE DUST
Parameter Percent mln. comp.
CaO equiv. 52
MgO equiv. 2.4
CaCOs 92. 7
MgC03 5.9
c-i _._ป_.ซ_-.ซ___.ป-.__ป-.__ป_____-._._. i n
ox ป- ซป-. i ปvj
Al & Fe oxides 0.4
Screen size (mesh) Limestone, % passing
_ 70 ----------------------------------- 98
_ 200 ----------------------------------- 75
_ 325 ----------------------------------- 65
LIME
The hydrated lime (R300) used in this study was obtained from Mississippi
Lime Company, Alton, Illinois in order to obtain the smallest particle size
commercially available.
Table 5 presents the manufacturer's representative analysis of rotary
hydrated lime (R300) at a cost of $25.20 per ton ($22.86 per metric ton) or
1.26C per Ib (2.77C per Kg).
11
-------
Table 5. MANUFACTURER'S ANALYSIS OF HYDRATED LIME
Parameter Percent min. comp.
Ca(OH)2 ------------------------ 95.6
CaO equivalent ------------------ 73.6
CaO total ----------------------- 74.2
CaC03 --------------------------- 0.7
Si02 ---------------------------- 0.6
A1302 -------------------------- 0.3
Fe203 --------------------------- 0.1
MgO ---------------------------- 0.5
LiSolyA - - ซซซ ซ ป. .ป__ ___ U -L
S_l __ __ _______ __ __ __ ^ _ _ A O
--- ป"" ซ \J ป 6,
Free H20 ------------------------ 0.5
Screen size Hydrated lime, % passing
_9nn _________ ____ _ ____QQ
ฃ.\J\J ปJ .^ ^. _^ ซr , .._H___-._^ . *J ~y
-325 ------- - ------------------- 95.8
Element Concentration (ppm by weight)
P_ __ _ __ _____ ____ _ ______ _19fi
' ' ' ' l - LL, \J
Mn ---------- - --- ' ------------ 20
F ----------------------------- 100
A a ___ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____ __ 1
flo .^ >^_^ ! ^
p., __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ i n
V_IU "-^^_^^^^^^_ -ปป-^^^^^ __________ J_\J
Pb ----------------------------- 1
Ni ---------------------------- 5
Cd ----------------------------- 0.6
Hg ----------------------------- 0.05
12
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Studies involving limestone and lime treatment of large volumes of acid
mine drainage at high volume delivery have led to the following conclusions:
ECONOMICS
Acid mine drainage from the Will Scarlet Mine area can be neutralized
to pH 7.0 with ,a combination of limestone and hydrated lime, or with hydrated
lime alone.
Variations in treatment schemes indicated that the most economical mode
of treatment in terms of operating cost (c/1000 gals/1000 ppra acidity as CaC03
was achieved through combination treatment by utilizing limestone on line
No. 1 with effluent pH 3.7 and lime on line No. 2 with final effluent pH 7.0.
Sludge was recirculated on both treatment lines at an approximate rate of
200 GPM (757 1/min.) to each respective rapid mix vessel, representing 12-18%
of the volume of plant influent.
Sludge recirculation had the overall effect of reducing cost of treatment
when limestone was used as the neutralizing agent. In combination treatment,
sludge recirculation was effective due to the recirculation of limestone, ra-
ther than lime sludge.
Detention time of treatment processes in excess of the theoretical min-
imum required contributed little in reducing the cost of treatment regardless
of the treatment agent used.
CHEMISTRY OF TREATMENT
The removal of most metal cationic species was pH dependent. Thus, with
increasing pH treatment levels, 85% or more removal of the following metals
was observed at pH levels indicated:
Al (pH 5.0); Cr (pH 6.0); Cu (pH 6.5); Fe (pH 3.5); Mn (pH greater than
7.4); Ni (pH 7.6); Zn (pH 6.3). (Refer to Appendices - Part 11).
Increasing pH treatment levels further indicated the addition of certain
cationic species. These cations included calcium, magnesium, lead and nickel
in some cases with all treated effluents exhibiting near complete saturation
levels of Calcium Sulfate (CaSO^* 2H90, gypsum).
13
-------
SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Favorable settling behavior was exhibited by limestone-lime and lime
treatment processes with the majority of resultant sludges settling in one
hour. Higher solids content and more dense sludges resulted from limestone
treatment of acid mine drainage at pH levels in excess of pH 4.5, than with
lime treatment.
14
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Further studies should be conducted to determine adequate mixing of lime-
stone in high volume delivery treatment of acid mine drainage. A tremen-
dous solids buildup occurred in the aeration tanks at the Will Scarlet
Water Treatment Plant when limestone was used as the neutralizing agent.
2. Highly alkaline industrial wastes should be considered as potential treat-
ment agents in a search for more economical treatment costs.
3. Detailed study should be conducted to determine the effects of settling
basin (Pit #10) effluent on the South Fork of the Saline River.
4. The settling basin (Pit #10) should be studied for possible industrial
and recreational uses.
5. A detailed study should be conducted to determine the feasibility and
economics of removal of purported trace toxic pollutants (i.e., Cd and
Hg) in acid mine drainage.
6. A separate report should be prepared on operational aspects of treatment
of high volume delivery of acid mine drainage.
15
-------
SECTION 4
TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES
PLANT LAYOUT
The Will Scarlet Water Treatment Plant is essentially a two-stage facil-
ity with both stages sized exactly the same. Basic units in the plant are
illustrated schematically in Figure 3. The design hydraulic rate for the
facility is 12,112 1/min (3,000 gpm). This flow rate will treat the antici-
pated runoff from the tributary drainage area in a maximum of 16 hours per
day, 6 days per week. By initially operating the facility continuously and
backfilling some of the pits with waste materials (gob) from the coal prepar-
ation operations, it was possible to work on some of the backlog of water
accumulated throughout the area and thus lower the water table to a point
where overflow water to the South Fork of the Saline River was no longer a
threat.
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT
Raw Water Pumping Station
Two (2) 30.4 metric HP (30 HP), 6065 1/min (1600 gpm) Peerless Vertical
Industrial pumps, each at 15.2 m (50 ft) of total dynamic head, are used for
supplying raw water to the plant. The pump shaft, impeller, bowl, and suction
bell are stainless steel. A 25.4-cm (10-in) length of schedule 40 pipe,
coated with Macor 547 M is used as a discharge column.
12" Raw Water Line
The raw water line is Fibercast, BL 2025, corrosion resistant fiber
glass, 9.14 kg/cm (130 psi) at 93ฐC (200ฐF).
Mixing Equipment (Rapid-Mix)
Mixing equipment consists of two (2) Chemineer Incorporated, Moduflex
Turbine Agitators, Model MDJ 250-514. The shaft blades and stabilizer are
stainless steel. Shaft speed is 125 rpm with a 253 metric HP (25 HP) turbine.
Use of this equipment can result in a three minuta detention time at 6056
1/min (1600 gpm) on each side of the facility.
Chemical Storage Bins
Chemicals are stored in bins purchased from the Butler Manufacturing
16
-------
Company. The bins are constructed of 14-gauge galvanized steel with a diam-
eter of 4.66 EI (15 ft, 4-5/8 in) and a height of 15.5 m (51 ft) with a result-
ing total volume of 264.2 cu m (9,476 cu ft). Lime capacity of the bins is
50.8 metric tons (54 tons) while limestone capacity is 109 metric tons (120
tons). The chemical feed pipe is a 10.1-cm (4-in) diameter length of schedule
40 pipe.
Dust Collectors
Dust was collected using a Flex-Kleen Model 84BV16 dust collector with
(16) 312-g (11-oz) Dacron felt bags. The Flex-Kleen collector has a capacity
of 22.7 cu m/min (800 cu ft/min) air flow with a maximum air to cloth ratio
of 0.03 cu m/min/sq m (6 cu ft/min/sq ft) with an exhaust fan rating of 229
cu m/min (810 cu ft/min) using a 20.3-cm (8-in) water gauge.
Vibrating Hopper
The Vibrating hopper is a product of Carmen Industries. It is a 2.4-m
(8-ft) gyrated type, 2.03 metric HP (2 HP), 900 rpm, direct coupled eccentric
weight unit. Its capacity is 1.87 cu m (66 cu ft) on a 60ฐ slope, stroke
adjustable, set on 0.064 cm (1/4 in). The hopper is mounted on 8 isolators
(liquid-filled).
Chemical Feeder
The chemical feed equipment is a Belt Gravimeter Feeder, Model 37004
(rack and pinion gate hopper and feeder) manufactured by General Signal Cor-
poration. The maximum belt speed of the feeder is 3.66 m/min (720 ft/hr) at
a maximum feed rate of 6364 kg/hr (14,000 Ibs/hr) at 29 kg/belt-m (19.4 Ibs/
belt-ft) delivery to the rapid mix vessel.
Screw Conveyor
A link belt, type C, shaft mounted conveyor with 30.48-cm (12-in) helical
screw carries the combined flow to the aeration chamber. The screw conveyor
is 3.66 m (12 ft) long and is turned by a motor rated at 5.05 metric HP (5 HP),
1800 rpm, reduced to 50 rpm.
Aeration Equipment
A Mining Equipment Company (Mixco) lightmix aerator, 10.1 metric HP
(10 HP) is used to aerate the flow. The shaft and impeller are stainless
steel. The upper blades are 152 cm (60 in) in diameter and the lower blades
are 76.2 cm (30 in) in diameter. The blades turn at 56 rpm with a length of
304.8 cm (120 in) from the mounting base. Detention time in the aeration
chamber is 27 minutes at a flow rate of 6056 1/min (1600 gpm).
Sludge Collection Equipment
Sludge is collected using American Positive Flight Conveyors by Keene
Corporation with a dual drive, 0.51 metric HP (1/2 HP), 1800 rpm motor. The
conveyors measure 10 a (32 ft, 10 1/2 in) center to center and 3.6 m (11 ft,
17
-------
10 in) wide with a speed of .61 m/min (2 ft/min). The 8 flights on the con-
veyor are 5.1-cm x 15.2-cm (2-in x 6-in) redwood, 2 pivoted. Detention time
is 20 minutes at a flow rate of 6056 1/min (1600 gpm).
Sludge Pumps
The sludge is pumped on each side by ITT Marlow, 5.05 metric HP (5 HP)
varidrive motor, plunger pumps with positive displacement. The pumps have a
5 digit revolution counter and a maximum delivery of 1893 1/min (500 gpm) on
each side.
Recirculation Pump
Water recirculation ia by a Peerless Vertical Turbine with a 40.4 metric
HP (40 HP), GE, variable speed control, electric motor. The turbine will
pump 12,112 1/min (3200 gpm) at a head of 10.7 m (35 ft). The suction bell is
stainless steel; the line shaft is carbon steel; and the bowl and impeller are
cast iron with a 30.48cm (12-in) discharge column of schedule 40 pipe. This
equipment will allow recycling of the entire plant flow-through for certain
operational sequences.
Construction Materials
Construction materials included 611.7 cu m (800 cu yd) of class A, 2.46 x
10-kg/sq m (3500-psi), 12.7-cm (5-in) slump concrete. Other construction
materials were 72,574 kg (160,000 Ib) of reinforcing steel and 1067 m (3500 ft)
of 30.48-cm (12-in) concrete-filled shell piling.
Controls (Chemical)
Chemical control is accomplished by "SECO" SCR controller model 2159
potentiometers with a start-stop push button station in NEMA Izen oil dust-
tight closures. The devices are LO-turn, 120-V, 60-cy, 1-pit, AC operation
with tachometer feedback.
Controls (Flow)
Flow control is accomplished by a Fisher and Porter Magnetic Flowmeter,
Model 10D1416A, size 20.3-cm (8-in) fiberglass-lined magmeter with 31655
electrodes and a 24-hour recorder.
Bristol Split-Flow Meter, Bubbler Type
The split-flow meter has a Model No. OG685M-15-R260X transmitter, Model
No. 2MiM500-R9A-Z38B 2-pen Metemeter Receiver, and Model No. 2MC500-238B
electronic recorder.
Gates
Drain Gatea are Warminster Fiberglass Company, Armco cast iron, fiber-
glass gates, guides, and troughs.
18
-------
Portable Pump
The portable pump is a Gorman-Rupp, 5.1-cm (2-in) pump with a capacity
of 378.5 1/min (100 gpm) at a head of 19.8 m (65 ft). This pump is to provide
for washing and cleaning operations at the plant.
Air Compressor
The air compressor is an Ingersol-Rand, Modal 253D5.
OPERATIONAL FEATURES AND PROCEDURES
Layout of the treatment plant and piping arrangements were devised for
maximum flexibility of operational methods and techniques. The entire facility
was designed to function as an effective research unit in which a number of
variables were to be evaluated. The design was also undertaken so that fur-
ther research programs, utilizing other treatment chemicals which showed pro-
mise, could be tested at high volume treatment levels. During research and
nonresearch phases, Peabody Coal Company was able to utilize the plant on a
production basis, thus reducing the volume of AMD backlog accumulated in the
drainage basins.
Plant operational control was manual. Though equipped with an automatic
pH monitoring system, its use was found to be impractical due to the rapid
fouling of the pH probes. In-reactor pH was the single controlling factor
in all treatment processes. Grab Samples were taken directly from treatment
line effluents and analyzed in the plant laboratory. Values were then record-
ed, and adjustments made accordingly with belt-speeds of the chemical feeders
for each treatment line. During each research stage, pH of the line efflu-
ent (s) was monitored on an hourly basis. Once the plant system had reached
equilibrium, the desired pH level was maintained within 0.2 pH units.
EVALUATION OF PLANT OPERATION
Tremendous effort was made by all personnel concerned with the project to
note and point out areas of operational difficulties. Due mainly to the
large volume of AMD treated, the problems encountered were rarely of a small
nature. Daily notes on plant operation were maintained by the researcher
and field director while daily operating logs were recorded by union plant
operators on each shift. Comments from these sources of information were
then reflected in the Research Reports to the Field Director and further
incorporated in the Monthly Progress Reports to the US Environmental Protection
Agency.
Investigations were performed during non-research periods into such
phenomena as chemical agent purity, "flushing" of raw water during plant
operation, bench-scale studies of chemical reactivity, settle-ability of
lime, limestone, and other potential treatment chemicals, and chemical treat-
ment and removal of toxic substances to determine economic feasibility.
Many operational problems were encountered during the course of these
studies and would best be addressed- as a separate paper. Nonetheless, certain
19
-------
major problem areas are described in relation to specific structural plant
components (Figure 3). A description of the major areas follows:
Component
Influent Channel
Raw Water Pumps
Rapid Mix Vessel
Chemical Storage
Chemical Feeder
System
Flow Measurement
Aeration Vessel
Description of Operational Problem
Inundation by siltation and coal fines
from an adjacent slurry area.
Malfunction of brass/copper pump
impellers; replacement with number
316SS bowl and impeller.
Pump malfunction as a result of ex-
treme corrosive effects of silts and
coal fines.
Excessive gypsum buildup of 20-25 cm
(8-10 in) thick on vessel walls and im-
pellor shaft, resulting in damage to
shaft from dislodged gypsum.
Initial plant start-up resulted in total
failure of 4 liquid-filled isolators;
8 isolators were added.
Frequent failure of "boot" for storage
bin-feeder connector, resulting in
total bin spillage.
Intermittent materials testing of the
gravimetric feeders indicated a fail-
ure to meet an arbitrary 10 percent
weight variance over several replicates.
Though initially thought to be a pro-
blem with "dusting" when using hydrated
lime, chemical testing of bulk lime
loads indicated a chemical product far
below manufacturer's specifications
(94 percent as opposed to an actual
66 percent by weight as CaO).
Initial flow-measuring system failed
due to clogging of air holes and
electrical component failure. Solution
was the purchase and installation of a
magnetic flowmeter.
Tremendous buildup of limestone fines
during utilization. Required approxi-
mately 30-40 percent shutdown time for
cleaning when using limestone.
20
-------
Component
Aeration Vessel
cont.
Sludge Separation
and Recirculation
System
Recirculation Pump
Station
Recirculation
Description of Operational Problem
Severe gypsum buildup on all vessel com-
ponents (i.e. gates, walls and impellor).
Use of grease was required.
Severe gypsum scaling on all components
(i.e. glides, walls, troughs and gates),
to include intermittent plugging of
recirculation system piping.
Corrosive/abrasive effects of limestone
fines on sludge pump graphite packing,
when in operation, requiring continuous
attention.
Leakage of raw water from the flow-
splitter into the recirculation pump
station completely destroying pump.
Moderate buildup of gypsum in pump
station during series flow treatment.
pH Monitoring Stations
(Influent and
Effluent)
Settling Basin
Will Scarlet Mine
Pit #10
Influent pH probes were rendered in-
operable by moderate iron-fouling and
total electrical failure of system
due to caustic chemical dusts.
Effluent probe was subject to extreme
gypsum fouling requiring constant
attention. Maximum operating time,
prior to electrical system failure,
was 3 hours.
Required effluent pH levels as desig-
nated in the research schedule resulted
in poor impoundment water quality.
Acid mine drainage runoff from Pit #10
spoil directly impacted impoundment
water quality. Area has been totally
reclaimed and has a good stand of
vegetation.
Extreme gypsum buildup on the Pit #10
outfall structure required explosives
for clearing on several occasions.
21
-------
SECTION 5
PROCEDURES
PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
Water flow rates were determined by continuously recording 24-hour
split-flow weir chart recorders for each treatment line while total influent
was measured by a Fisher-Porter Magnetic Flowmeter and continuous recorder.
Chemical delivery was automatically recorded on a 5-digit counter for each
chemical feeder and registered as the number of belt-feet of chemical added.
Materials-testing of the chemical feeders was performed periodically to deter-
mine the percent efficiency of chemical feed at a pre-set counterpoise weight
for each chemical agent [lime - 8.9 kg/belt-m (6 Ib/belt-ft); limestone -
14.9 kg/belt-m (10 Ib/belt-ft)]. Results of testing the chemical feeder de-
livery systems indicated that the delivery rate stayed within 5 percent of
counterpoise weight settlings when feeding a chemical product of greater than
9 percent calcium oxide by weight.
CHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS
Plant influent and treated effluent(s) were sampled according to the
schedule outlined in Table 6. Samples were taken manually at the plant out-
fall, and allowed to sit undisturbed until such time as a clear supernatant
was prominent (approximately 1 hour). The supernatant was then drawn off for
immediate analysis or sample-compositing and acid-preservation. At no time
was a sample allowed to sit for more than twelve hours without analysis. The
analyses are divided into two types: (1) Treatment Plant Laboratory Analyses,
and (2) Central Laboratory Analyses for total metal concentrations.
Sulfate
Turbidimetric determination of sulfate concentration was performed on a
1:200 dilution of the sample after conditioning and addition of barium chlor-
ide ^Standard Methods_, 13th ed., pp. 334-335). Results were reported in ppm
of sulfate.
Sludge Settling Behavior
A well-mixed 1,000-ml sample of treated effluent waa placed in a 1,000-tnl
graduated cylinder. Sludge volume was recorded at 0-, 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 30-
22
-------
45- and 60-minute intervals from initiation followed by records on 2-, 3-,
4-, 5-, 10-, and 24-hour intervals. Each reading was recorded as a percent
of the initial sludge volume (100 percent). (Standard Methods, 13th ed.,
pp. 560).
TABLE 6. DAILY GRAB SAMPLING SCHEDULE
OF PLANT INFLUENT AND TREATED EFFLUENTS .
Type of Number of Sampling Disposition of
Sampling site sample(s) samples frequency sample(s)
Plant influent Composite One Four times Collect & acidify
daily 500 ml for metal
analysis (Central
Laboratory)
Plant influent Grab One Four times Immediate analysis
daily
Line #1 Same Same Same Same
effluent
Line #2 Same Same Same Same
effluent
Solids Content
At the initiation of the sludge settling test, sludge samples were col-
lected from the sludge pumps on both lines when operating under research
conditions. Samples for solids content analysis were performed after 24 hours
of settling time. The percent solids content was determined gravimetrically
on a 5-ml aliquot of sludge, dried to constant weight at 103ฐC.
Temperature
Direct reading Fisher, mercury- filled, total immersion thermometers were
used to report sample temperature in degress centigrade.
Potentiometric measurement of pH was performed using a Fisher Accumet
pH meter, model 210, with standard glass pH electrodes.
23
-------
Acidity
Potentiometric titration was accomplished to determine acidity, expressed
as ppm of CaCoj. A Fisher Accumet pH meter and Machlett Autoburet were util-
ized in the titration with 0.05 N NaOH and 3 percent hydrogen peroxide to
endpoint pH 7.3 (Salotto, et.al., 1967). Results are reported in ppm of
acidity expressed as CaCO-j equivalent.
Alkalinity
Cold potentiometric titration, using a Fisher Accumet pH meter and
Machlett Autoburet, was performed to an endpoint pH of 4.5 with 0.02 N HCL
(Standard Methods, 12th ed., pp. 43-52). Results were reported in ppm of
alkalinity expressed as CaCO-j equivalent.
Specific Conductivity
A YSI Conductivity Meter, model 31, with a one centimeter probe was used
to measure sample resistivity for comparison with a standard KCI solution for
that instrument (Standard Methods, 13th ed., pp. 323-327). Results were re-
ported in umhos/cm at 25ฐC.
Iron, Total
This parameter was determined directly by use of a Bausch & Lomb Spect-
ronic model 20 and Hach Chemical Company reagents. Test results were com-
pared to a standard curve for iron and reported in ppm total iron.
Iron, Ferrous
This test was performed as above and reported in ppm ferrous iron.
Metal Cations
Central Laboratory analyses were performed on composited, acid-preserved
samples in the course of performing each research stage. Analytical work on
the sample was performed on a Perkin-Elmer Model 403 Atomic Absorption Spec-
trophotometer after acid-digestion and preparation. Metal cations observed
for the research period included copper, chromium, lead, zinc, iron, aluminum,
manganese, nickel, calcium, and magnesium.
COMPUTER AND DATA PROCESSING
Computer and data processing services were utilized to determine and
verify the rather large bulk of operational, cost, and analytical data gen-
erated during the research period. Operational data included sludge volumes,
influent and treated effluent water volumes, recirculated sludge and plant
influent ratios, and chemical agent weights added for each treatment unit.
With the introduction of chemical cost factors (c/lb), treatment cost
estimates were calculated in terms of c/1000 gal and C/1000 gal/1000 ppm
24
-------
acidity as CaCO,. Detailed information for each research stage is contained
in part A of the Appendix.
Data processing was primarily used in the manipulation of analytical
data. This involved the calculation of percent removal (or percent addition)
of specific parameters throughout a particular research scheme. Thus, through
comparison of influent and effluent concentrations for each parameter, it was
possible to graphically illustrate tendancies of specific metal concentra-
tions throughout the research period. This information is incorporated as
part B of the Appendix.
25
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS
Pursuant to the primary objectives performed according to the research
schedule (Table 3), economics of treatment, chemistry of treatment, and
sludge characteristics were observed during various research stages performed
at the Will Scarlet Water Treatment Plant from March 1973 to February 1974.
Each of the variables outlined in Table 11 was investigated and observed
during limestone, lime, and limestone-lime (combination) treatment of acid
mine drainage.
All studies on the variables were performed under continuous-flow con-
ditions. Variation in influent water quality and raw water pump delivery
throughout various research schemes accounted for specific differences in
values.
LIMESTONE TREATMENT
Effect of pH
Titration curves were performed for limestone and lime on the Will
Scarlet Plant influent on a number of occasions. Figure 4 represents typical
reactivity curves for limestone and lime. Limestone's titration curve indi-
cated that approximately 2.2 times as much limestone was required for treat-
ment to pH level 6.0 than to pH 5.0. At no time during full scale plant
operation or bench scale plant operation did the effluent pH achieve neu-
tralization to pH 7.0 or higher with limestone.
Several continuous-flow tests were made at various pH levels. The flow
rate approximated 30 minutes theoretical detention time with no sludge recir-
culation. Results of these tests (Table 7) indicate the effects of limestone
treatment on effluent water quality.
Limestone treatment to pH 6.0 rather than pH 5.0 in continuous flow
studies required 1.5 times as much limestone as compared to a factor of 2.2
from the titration curves. Further, only 1.9 times as much chemical was
needed to achieve a treatment pH level of 5.0 rather than pH 4.5 (compared
to 1.1 times in the titration curves).
Table 8 illustrates that optimum usage of limestone occurred in the pH
range of 3.5 to 4.0; at higher pH levels, the usage was markedly increased.
26
-------
10.0H
0 .2 ,4 .0 .8 1.0
3.0
Figure 4
Gram of Rซปgซnt Chemical
Reactivity curves of
limestone and lime.
4.0
27
-------
TABLE 7. EFFECTS OF pH ON EFFLUENT QUALITY AND LIMESTONE
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Quality
Report
No.
3
4
5
5
6
Effluent
pH
3.4
4.1
4.5
4.7
5.2
Limestone Usage
(lb/1000 gal)*
9.0
19.7
29.0
28.4
51.9
Total Iron
(mg/1)
57
3.3
1.7
3.9
1.8
Acidity
(mg/1
1700
844
3.
259
Alkalinity
as CACO-)
0
0
4 1.3
1.0
20 28
*To convert lb/1000 gal to kg/cu m, multiply by 0.120.
TABLE 8. UNIT EFFICIENCY OF LIMESTONE TREATMENT AT VARIOUS
PH LEVELS
Report no.
3
4
5
6
Effluent pH
3.4
4.1
4.5
5.2
Efficiency (%)*
73
84
47
55
*Percent Efficiency
acidity removed + alkalinity added
X 100
(wt. of neutralizing chemical as mg/1 CaCO.,) X purity
Effects of Detention Time
The effects of detention time were evaluated by plant operation in par-
allel flow (50 percent of influent to each treatment line), non-parallel
flow (75 percent influent to line No. 1 and 25 percent to line No. 2) and
series or two-stage treatment at 50 percent or 100 percent of design capacity
(Table 9). As noted by Wilmoth (1974), detention times of 20 to 30 minutes
appeared to be adequate for limestone reactivity.
TABLE 9. THEORETICAL DETENTION TIME (MINUTES)
Flow(gpm)* Reactor Aerator Sludge System Total
800
1600
2400
3200
6
3
2
1.5
54
27
18
13.5
40
20
14
10
100
50
34
25
* multiply gallons per minute by 0.0631 to obtain liters/sec
utilized only during sludge recirculation periods
28
-------
Reduction in limestone usage was less than 3 percent with increasing
detention time from 25 to 75 minutes. However, plant treatment efficiency
was highest with plant operation in a theoretical detention time range of
12.5 to 37.5 minutes.
Effects of Sludge Recirculation
The effects of recirculation of limestone sludges were evaluated rela-
tive to a number of factors including treatment efficiency, solids content
and economics of treatment. Table 8 indicates that optimum treatment effi-
ciency occurred between pH levels 3.4 and 4.1. To further optimize the effi-
ciency and observe the effects of sludge recirculation, operational data were
evaluated (Table 10). Lowest unit cost and highest treatment efficiency was
again observed between treatment pH levels 3.3 and 4.1 with sludge recir-
culation. Further, Table 10 illustrates the combined effect of detention time
and sludge recirculation (primarily the latter) with respect to economics of
treatment at various pH levels.
Two-stage treatment with limestone exhibited little or no advantage in
increasing the efficiency of treatment as compared to single stage treatment.
However, unit treatment costs were lower with sludge recirculation (as op-
posed to no sludge recirculation).
As to the characteristics of resultant sludges, limestone treatment to
progressively higher pH levels exhibited correspondingly higher final
(24-hour) sludge volumes and solids content without sludge recirculation.
However, as noted in Table 11, the generation of minimum sludge volumes at
lowest unit costs with a maximumization of sludge solids content and treat-
ment efficiency was exhibited at treatment levels pH 3.3 to 4.0. Again,
initial limestone treatment of the plant" influent appeared to be most bene-
ficial to the overall treatment process.-
LIME TREATMENT
Effect of pH
As shown on Figure 4 (titration curves for limestone and lime), 1.5
times as much lime was required for treatment to pH level 6.0 than to pH 5.0,
while only 1.8 times as much lime was required to achieve neutralization at
pH 7.0 than to effect a treatment pH level of pH 5.0. During single-stage
(parallel flow) and two-stage (series flow and combination) treatment, the
effluent was treated to pH 7.0 or higher.
Continuous-flow testing utilizing hydrated lime was performed at a
number of pH levels. Extreme fluctuations in lime requirements were observed
and specifically reflected changes in plant influent water quality. Table 11
illustrates the water quality of selected intermediate and final lime-treated
effluents.
29
-------
TABLE 10. CHARACTERISTICS OF LIMESTONE SLUDGES
Test
No.
Effluent
PH
Ratio
Sludge*
Influents
(%)
Sludge
Volume*
(%)
Solids
Content-H-
%
Costง Efficiency
Parallel
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
Parallel
20A
20B
21A
21B
flow, no
4.7
5.8
4.1
5.2
4.5
5.2
sludge recirculation:
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
2.5
5
4
5
6.4
6.7
5.6
6.2
5.9
6.5
15.6 47.1
11.7 54.7
11.9 46.1
flow, with sludge recirculation:
3.3
3.9
3: 3
4.0
Series flow, with
22A
22B
23A
23B
4.0
6.1
3.3
6.3
0.10
0.13
0.09
0.18
1
3
1
2
6.5
6.8
6.4
7.1
3.7 72.1
3.7 74.0
sludge recirculation:
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.10
2
3
1
4
13.2
27.3
4.7
8.3
6.9 54.4
7.2 50.6
* Ratio of total sludge recirculated to total plant influent.
+ Resultant sludge volume after 24-hr settling time.
-H- Solids content as a percent, determined gravimetrically.
ง Cost as c/1000 gal/1000 ppm acidity as CaC03.
30
-------
TABLE 11. EFFECT OF pH ON EFFLUENT QUALITY AND LIME REQUIREMENTS
Test
no.
9
11
2
14
13
Effluent
pH
(3.8)*
(4.0)
4.9
6.0
7.1
Line require-
ment (lb/
1000 gal)
(10.9)
(13.0)
11.4
21.6
29.8
Effluent quality
Total Fe
(mg/1)
(18)
(10)
4.9
2.3
2.0
Acidity
(mg/1
(1300)
(1200)
120
37
17
Alkalinity
as CaC03)
(0)
(0)
1.6
5.0
8.2
^Parentheses denote effluents from treatment line No. 1.
'Multiply lb/1000 gal by 0.120 to obtain kg/cu m.
It is of particular interest to note that lime treatment in either
single-stage or two-stage treatment flow did not produce an effluent with
net alkalinity.
Table 12 indicates that a maximization of treatment efficiency with a
minimization of resultant cost was exhibited by series (two-stage) treatment
to a pH range of pH 6.0 to 7.0, with or without sludge recirculation. Single
stage treatment exhibited the highest costs.
Effects of Detention Time and Sludge Recirculation
Increasing the theoretical detention time did effect an increase in
treatment efficiency, but with no significant change in cost of treatment
for single-stage schemes. Increased efficiency and minimal costs were pri-
marily observed during series (two-stage) treatment, with sludge recirculation,
to pH treatment levels 6.0 to 7.0.
Resultant sludges exhibited generally higher solids content and final
volumes with increased detention time and sludge recirculation (Table 13).
Maximum treatment efficiency at lowest unit cost produced sludges with the
highest solids content and lowest sludge volumes after the 24-hr test period
(Figure 5). This was the result of series (two-stage) treatment to treat-
ment pH level 6.0 to 7.0, regardless of sludge recirculation.
LIMESTONE VS. LIME
Two parallel continuous-flow studies were made using limestone on Line
No. 1 and lime on Line No. 2 to treatment levels of pH 5.0 and 6.0, respec-
tively. Parallel flow treatment with no sludge recirculation allowed for
simultaneous treatment of the same plant influent in order to observe differ-
ences in operational data and effluent water quality.
Tabla 14 is a summarization of data generated during the aforementioned
treatment schemes. Limestone treatment exhibits several advantages over lime
treatment: (1) lower sludge volumes; 4 vs 13 percent and 3.5 vs 19 percent;
31
-------
TABLE 12. TREATMENT EFFICIENCY USING LIME
Test No.
Parallel flow,
1A
IB
2A
2B
ISA
15B
Parallel flow,
13A
13B
14A
14B
Effluent
PH
no sludge
5.8
6.8
4.9
7.1
6.1
7.1
Treatment
efficiency (%)* Cost*
recirculation:
73 8.4
77 8.8
79 11.5
Theoretical
detention
time (min. )
30
30
30
30
15
45
with sludge recirculation:
6.1
7.1
6.0
6.9
80 5.6
86 6.4
30
30
15
45
Series flow, no sludge recirculation:
10
9
5.8
6.6
Series flow, with sludge
11
12
7.0
6.2
86 6.1
88 6.1
recirculation:
75 7.8
93 6.7
50
50
50
50
* Refer to Page 28 for definition.
+ Cost as c/1000 gal/1000 ppm acidity as CaC03<
32
-------
TABLE 13. CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDRATED LIME SLUDGES
Test No. Effluent Ratio*
pH sludge/influent
Without sludge
2A
1A
10
15A
9
IB
15B
2B
recirculation:
4.9
5.8
5.8
6.1
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sludge+
Volume (%)
14
13
18
25
13
13
20
14
Solids
Content (%)
1.9
1.7
4.8
4.8
5.0
1.9
6.7
1.7
With sludge recirculation:
14A
ISA
12
14B
11
13B
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.9
7.0
7.1
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.16
0.11
0.13
21
25
15
18
13
25
5.3
4.4
5.9
6.0
4.2
4.8
* Ratio of sludge recirculated to plant influent volume.
+ Sludge parameters determined after 24-hr, settling time.
33
-------
( Lime and limestone-lime tests to pH7.0;
limestone to pH6.3 )
JLJME!
UJMESTPNE-'LIME!
Lime
O Limestone
ฉ Limestone - Lime
10
70 BO 90 10O 110 120 130 140 ISO 160 170 18O
SETTLING TIME, MINUTES
Figure 5 Sludge settling behavior
(settling time vs percent of initial Volume)
-------
TABLE 14. COMPARISON OF LIMESTONE AND LIME TREATMENT
Influent
Item 3
Chemical
pli 2.8
Treatment requirement
(Ibs./lOOO gal)
Chemical cost
(C/1000 gal/1000 ppm acidity)
Treatment efficiency (%)
Total iron (mg/1) 300
Acidity (mg/1) 2000
Alkalinity (mg/1) 0
Effluents
3A 3B
limestone
5.0
23.5
5.4
65
3.0
220
23
lime
5.1
15.8
9.5
82
1.1
74
2.9
Influent Effluents
4 4A 4B
- limestone
2.7 5.6
23.7
5.0
77
309 2.0
2200 93
0 48
lime
6.0
16.1
9.2
92
2.2
19
7.5
Sludge volume (%)
(after 24-hr)
Sludge solids content (%)
(after 24-hr)
5.6
13
1.8
3.5
6.5
19
1.9
-------
(2) higher solids content in the sludges; 5.6 vs 1.8 percent and 6.5 vs 1.9
percent; (3) lower chemical treatment costs and (4) greater ease of materials
handling. However, limestone's inefficient reactivity results in inability
to attain pH levels greater than 6.5 and in the deposition of large quantities
of limestone "fines" in aeration tanks and effluent structures and channels.
The lower efficiency of limestone treatment can only indicate that much of
this chemical is unreacted at the plant outfall and, in essence, wasted into
the sludge settling basin.
COMBINATION LIMESTONE-LIME TREATMENT
In an effort to combine the advantages of limestone and lime treatment,
a series of combination (two-stage) limestone-lime treatment processes were
performed. Limestone's high reactivity and efficiency with low treatment
costs at lower pH ranges (pH 3.4 to 4.1) were utilized in the first stage of
treatment with recirculation of resultant sludges. Lime, though more expen-
sive, proved to be highly reactive, efficient, and capable of effecting
desirable results in the pH range 6.0 to 7.0. Second stage lime treatment
was utilized to achieve neutralization of the final treated effluent at pH
7.0, "polishing" the intermediate limestone effluent.
Investigations of combination limestone-lime treatment involved opera-
tion of the treatment plant in series (two-stage) flow as follows:
TABLE 15. PLANT OPERATIONAL VARIABLES FOR
COMBINATION LIMESTONE-LIME TREATMENT
Item
Treatment pH
Chemical
% Flow
Sludge
recirculation
Line 1
3.5 - 4.0
limestone
50 or 100
yes or no
Line 2
7.0
lime
50 or 100
yes or no
Variables for investigation included detention time (50 percent flow -
one raw water pump or 100 percent flow - both raw water pumps) and sludge
recirculation. In all combination tests (Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19) limestone
was utilized for first stage treatment to a pH range of 3.5 to 4.0, and lime
treatment of the intermediate limestone effluent was accomplished to approx-
imately pH 7.0. With the exception of Research Stage No. 16 at 50 percent
influent capacity, 5.49 cu m/min (1450 gpm), all other research stages in-
volved a 100 percent influent delivery at approximately 10.97 cu m/min
(2900 gpm) with a theoretical detention time of approximately 50 minutes.
Results of the tests are shown in Table 16.
36
-------
TABLE 16. COMBINATION LIMESTONE-LIME TREATMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY
Intermediate Final Lime
Report pH Limestone requirement pH requirement
no (limestone) (lb/1000 gal) (lime) (lb/1000 gal)
16 3.7 4.5 7.8 6.3
17 3.7 4.5 7.1 5.0
18 3.5 4.2 7.2 8.3
19 3.4 9.0 7.3 12.4
Operating cost* Efficiency"1"
13.1 89
8.9 94
8.5 87
8.6 84
* c/1000/ppm acidity
+ See page 28 for definition.
-------
Chemical costs were an important aspect for consideration. Research
Stage No. 18 exhibited the most economical scheme of treatment with a unit
chemical cost of 1.8 cents/1000 1/1000 ppm acidity (6/9 cents/1000 gal/1000
ppm acidity) and a total unit operating cost of 2.2 cents/1000 1/1000 ppm
acidity (8.5 cents/1000 gal/1000 ppm acidity). However, maximum efficiency
of treatment for the entire project was exhibited by Research Stage No. 17
at an operating cost of 2.4 cents/1000 1/1000 ppm acidity (8.9 cents/1000
gal/1000 ppm acidity) as CaCOซ. Small variations in the unit costs of these
two treatment modes are due in part to differences in the quality of influent
water and the total volume of water treated.
EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME AND SLUDGE RECIRCULATION
Results of plant operation indicated that increasing sludge recirculation
and theoretical detention time had little to no effect in reducing the overall
cost of treatment. However, the recirculation of limestone and limestone-
lime sludges did increase the efficiency of treatment. As noted in Table 17,
more dense sludges with lower final sludge volumes were observed during
Research Stage No. 17.
Sludge settling rates were difficult to determine for limestone sludges
at treatment pH levels less than pH 5.0. However, a distinct interface
between settling sludge and supernatant was present for lime and limestone-
lime effluents and limestone effluents of pH 5.0 or greater. It would have
been beneficial to note sludge buildup, supernatant turbidity and sludge
settling behavior, however, only sludge settling behavior was considered
throughout this research project. Water treated with lime clarified most
rapidly, followed closely by limestone-lime treatment (Figure 5). All three
supernatants obtained similar clarity at the end of one hour with further
sludge compaction completed by the end of 3 hours settling time.
Sludge produced by lime was the least dense of the three and compacted
gradually. Limestone and limestone-lime treatment produced significantly
smaller volumes of sludge than did lime treatment. After 2 hours of settling
time, lime sludge occupied approximately 18 percent of its original volume
while limestone sludge settled to less than 5 percent of its original volume.
38
-------
TABLE 17. SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS COMBINATION
(LIMESTONE-LIME) TREATED EFFLUENTS
Report
no
16
17
18
19
Effluent
pH
7.8
7.1
7.2
7.3
Ratio
sludge/
influent*
.21
.13
.06
0
Sludge"1"
volume
8.0
8.0
14.0
15.0
Sludge content?
2.7
5.2
1.6
2.6
Efficiency9
89
94
87
84
* (a) Ratio of sludge recirculated to plant influent.
(b) Percent of initial sludge volume after 24 hr settling time.
+ (c) Percent solids content after 24 hr settling time.
s (d) See page 34 for definition.
r (e) Sludge recirculated on Treatment Line No. 1 only.
39
-------
REFERENCES
1. Koehrsen, L. G., and A. F. Grandt. Mine Drainage Control - Design for
Reclamation and Neutralization. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual
Purdue Industrial Wastes Conference, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1970.
pp. 465-471.
2. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Report on Acid-Mine Drainage Neutralization
for Will Scarlet Mine. Project No. 4335-20. Muscatine, Iowa, 1968.
43 pp.
3. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Wastewater. 13th ed. Washington, D.C., 1975. 874 pp.
4. Salotto, B. V., E. F. Barth, M. B. Ettinger, and W. E. Tolliver. Deter-
mination of Mine Waste Acidity. U.S. Department of the Interior, FWPCA,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967. 26 pp.
5. Wilinoth, R. C., and R. B. Scott. Limestone and Limestone-Lime Neutral-
ization of Acid Mine Drainage. EPA-670/2-74-051, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974. 92 pp.
40
-------
APPENDIX '
A ... PAST A, .-, -.--
RESEARCH REPORTS: WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO.
DATE April 18, 1975
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE '
A. According to the research schedule, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds of lime per belt-foot. There was no sludge recirculation
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was made to
maintain line #1 at pH 6.0 and line #2 at pH 7.0.
B. For the research period, March 26-30, 1973 (120 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
Inf ! uent
16,200,000
61,362,360
Line 1
Water
1 n f I uent
9,720,000
36,817,416
Line 2
Water
Influent
6,480,000
24,544,944
*pH desired: Line I, 6.0; line 2, 7.0; Actual pH: Line I, 5.3;
Line 2, 6.8;
influent, 2.7
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
_ Item _ Line- I _ Line 2
A I kal inity added
(ng/l as CaCOs) 5.00 8.00
SI udgs volume
(% of Initial volume
after 24 hours) I3-0ฐ '3.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/ 1000
gal influent) 9.64 18.49
41
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
1
2
Total Water
Cost Unit* Weight+ lnfluent# 3 (b.p. to
pH 8.3)
2- RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSIS
Refer "to Table 4
3. RESULTS OF METAL ANALYSIS FROM THE CENTRAL LABORATORY
Refer to Table 5
4. PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Refer to Table 6
5. PROPERTIES OF PLANT SLUDGE
A. Sludge settling behavior
Refer to Figure I
B. Solids content (%) of sludges
Line I I .72
Line 2 1.91
42 '
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Ac i d i ty , co 1 d
to 7.3, H202*
A 1 ka 1 i n i ty*
Gpeci fie
conductance*
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
1 1.8
2.77
2800
2500
0
3300
0
145
3900
Max.
17.5
2.81
2900
2600
0
5100
O.I
195
4100
Mean
13.3
2.71
2800
2500
0
4600
O.I
167
4000
Min.
1 1 .8
5.1
17
12
2
3600
O.I
0
3500
Line 1
Max.
16.2
6.8
140
47
10
5200
O.I
0.)
3700
Mean
13.6
5.8
56
II
5
4600
O.I
O.I
3600
Min.
1 1.5
6.3
13
0
6
4000
0
0
3500
Line 2
Max.
17.2
7.3
38
20
13
5400
O.I
1 .10
3600
Mean
13.8
6.8
24
10
8
4800
0. 1
0.59
3600
ppm as
umhos/crn at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Col lection
site
.-.Plant
I 1 inf I uent
.Aeration
Lltank //I
Aeration
Lltank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.75 0.20 0.09 0.12 63.0 380.0 7.00 230.0 2.99 556 241
6.0 0.05 0.05 0.26 47.0 2.32 3.85 3.60 2.13 295 1,188
7.0 0.03 0.04 0.30 32.0 3.27 0.22 2.30 0.91 286 1,196
*Results in mg/l; pH In standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/add it ion
PARAMETER Line I Line 2
Treatment pH 4.8 6.8
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Al uminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
99.60-
.00-
10.00
75.00
44.50
1 16.60+
25.40-
99.40-
45.00
98.50-
28.80-
47.00-
392.90+
99.70-
4.30+
10.00
85.00
55.60
150.00+
49.30-
99.20-
96.90-
99.00-
69.60-
48.60-
396.20+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
45
-------
80
70
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 GMD
Line 2
w v o
10 20 30 40 50 60 120
.5 2
180 240 300
345
A
(minutes)
SETTLING TIME
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 2
DATE May 7, 1975
I . DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds of lime per belt-foot. There was no sludge recircularion
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was nade to
maintain line #1 at pH5.0 and line ฃ2 at pH 7.0.
B. For the research period, April 9-13, 1973 (120 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Ga 1 Ions
Liters
Tota 1
Water
1 nf 1 uent
16,200,000
61,362,360
Line 1
Water
1 nf 1 uent
9,720,000
36,817,416
Line 2
Water
1 nf 1 ue~ *
6,480,000
24,544,944
*pH desired: Line I, 5.0; line 2, 7.0; Actual pH: Line I, 4.9;
Line 2, 7.1;
. influent pH, 2.8
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item Ling I Line 2
AlkaIinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 2.00 10.00
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 14.00 14.00
Treatment required
( Ib chemical/1000
aal influent) 11.36 20.16
47
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 1 .26
2 1.26
Subtota 1 :
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) :
Total
Weight*
1 10,502
130,680
241,182
Water
lnfluent# .
9,720,000
6,480,000
16,200,000
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, II202*
Alkal inity*
Spec! f ic
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
9.2
2.7
2700
2500
0
4900
0
169
3300
Max.
12.2
2.91
3100
2700
0
5300
0.60
390
4500
Mean
10.5
2.8
2900
2600
0
5100
O.I
312
4000
Min.
9.2
4.6
91
34
-5.0
4900
0
1.2
2900
Line 1
Max.
13.4
5.1
450
280
6.3
5300
0.59
5.3
3500
Mean
10.8
4.6
230
120
1 .6
5100
0.16
2.8
3100
Line 2
Min. Max.
9.0 13.8
6.8, 7.1
20 45
5.6 1 1
8.0 14
4800 5700
0 0.52
0.2 3.3
2900 4200
Mean
10.8
7. 1
31
7.6
10
5200
O.I 1
2.4
3500
* ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
site
.-.Plant
LJ inf I uent
Aeration
LJtank #1
_.Aeration
Utank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.80 0.11 0.12 0.17 66.0 400 10.4 205 2.44 75.0 195
4.88 0.05 0.07 0.16 56.5 4.94 10.0 35.0 2.36 125 1,050
7.13 0.03 0.07 0.13 33.0 1.94 0.03 1.80 0.59 135 900
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/addition
PARAMETER Line I Line 2
Treatment pH 4.9 7.1
Acidity 95.40 99.70
Conductivity .00- 1.90+
Sulfate 21.00- 12.20-
Copper . 54.60- 72.80-
Chromium 41.70- 41.70-
Lead 5.90- 23.60-
Manganese 14.40- r- 50.00-
Iron ABS 98.80- 99.60-
Zinc 3.90- 99.80-
Aluminum . 83.00- 99.20-
Nickel 3.30- 75.90-
Magnesium 66.60+ 80.00+
Calcium 438.40+ 361.50+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
51
-------
90
80
70
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Ul
ro
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
^^- o
10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180
.5 23
\J
240 300
4 5
)
(minutes)
SETTLING TIME
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 3
DATE May 29, 1975
I - DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds of lime per belt-foot. There was no sludge rscircu1 ation
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was made to
maintain line #1 at pH 5.0 and line #2 at pH 5.0.
B. For the research period, April 30, 1973 to May 4, 1973, (119.5 hours
of operation) the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
1 nf 1 uent
14,985,300
56,761 ,319
Line 1
Water
1 nf 1 uent
8,962,500
33,948,157
Line 2
Water
1 nf 1 uent
6,022,
22,813,
800
161
*pH desired: Line I, 5.0; line 2, 5.0; Desired pH: Line I, 5.0;
Line 2, 5.1;
influent, 2.8
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item Line I Lfne 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 23.00 3.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 4.00 13.00
Treatment requ i red
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 23.54 15.82
53
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Tota 1 Water
Line Cost Unit* Weight+ lnfluent#
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Ul
Ul
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Ac I d I ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkalinity*
Spec! f ic
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Min.
16.4
2.8
2300
1900
0
3000
1.4
270
3600
Max.
18.7
2.8
2500
2100
0
4400
26
290
3600
Mean
17.4
2.7
2400
2000
0
4000
14
280
3500
Min.
17.3
4.4
150
69
II
3000
0.3
0.4
3000
Line 1
Max.
18.9
5.5
640
420
93
4300
1.5
1.8
3100
Mean
17.9
4.0
350
220
23
3900
0,9
1.2
3100
Min.
17.1
4.6
56.8
13
-2.9
2600
^0.10
^ O.I
3100
Line 2
Max.
19.0
5.9
417.4
190
6.9
4300
0.7
1 .7
3200
Mean
18.1
5.1
189.5
74
2.9
3900
0.4
1 .0
3100
* ppm as CaC03
+ umbos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPIIOTOMETRY TROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
site
.-.Plant
1 1 inf 1 uont
.Aeration
Utank //I
.Aeration
Utank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg
2.78 0.16 0.06 0.04 . 56.0 300 5.31 100 2.28 222
4.98 0.11 0.03 0.10 50.0 3.00 3.81 29.3 2.26 221
5.11 0.06 0.03 0.09 46.0 1.10 4.64 4.20 1.99 225
Ca
200
679
803
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Treatment pH
Ac i d i ty
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromi urn
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Percent
Line 1
5.0
89.00
2.50-
1 1 .50-
31 .30-
50.00-
150.00+
10.80-
99.00-
28.30-
81.70-
.90-
.50-
239.50+
remova I/add ition
Line 2
5. 1
96.30
2.50-
1 1 .50-
- 62.50-
50.00-
125.00+
17.90-
99.70-
12.70-
97.40-
1 2 . 80-
1 .30+
301.50+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
57
-------
100
Ui
00
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
40
30
20
10
10
Line 1 G>-O
Line 2 AA
50 60
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 4
DATE May 29, 1975
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds of lime per belt-foot. There was no sludge recirculatfon
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was made to
maintain both lines on pH 6.0.
B. For the research period, May 8-9, 1973, (48.0 hours of operation) the
following summary of treatment was submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
Inf 1 uent
6,050,880
22,919,523
Line 1
Water
1 nf luent
3,631 ,680
13,756,077
Line 2
Water
1 n f 1 uent
2,419,200
9,163,445
*pH desired: Line I, 6.0; line 2, 6.0; Actual pH: Line I, 5.6;
Line 2, 6.0;
influent, 2.7
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item Line I Line 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CsCOj,} 48.00 8.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 3.50 18.60
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/I 000
gal influent) 23.74 16.13
59
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT .COST SUMMARY
Line
1
2
Cost Unit*
0.46
1.26
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) ;
Total
Weight*
86,200
39,042
125,242
Water
Inf luent#
3,631,680
2,419,200
6,050,880
ฃ/volง
10.9
20.3
14.7
21 .9
t/vo./ppmt*
4.5
8.5
-
6.1
9.1
* ) of sludges
Line I 6.51
Line 2 1-92
60
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
A 1 ka 1 i n i ty*
Spec! f ic
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Min.
18.0
2.7
2300
2000
0
3300
0.1
284.0
3400
Max.
19.0
2.8
2800
2700
0
4500
O.I
340.0
3600
Mean
18.6
2.7
2400
2200
0
4100
O.I
309.0
3500
Min.
17.8
4.6
50
22
1 .6
3400
O.I
0.46
2800
Line 1
Max.
20.1
6.2
560
320
72
4400
O.I
2.50
3400
Mean
8.8
5.6
180
93
48
3800
O.I
1.52
3000
Min.
17.8
5.1
44
12
3.1
3100
O.I
1 .40
3100
Line 2
Max.
20.0
6.3
1 10
44
10
4500
0. 1
2.95
3500
Mean
18
6.0
57
19
7.5
4100
O.I
2.00
3200
* ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect 1 on
site
.-.Plant
U influent
.Aeration
Lltank #1
_.Aeration
LJtank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.73 0.19 0.08 0.06 62.0 320 5.75 190 2.29 250 220
5.56 0.14 0.06 0.12 57.0 1.98 2.85 4.63 2.24 240 750
6.01 0.07 0.06 0.11 45.0 2.17 2.75 2.17 2.15 245 930
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/add ItTon
PARAMETER Line I Line 2
Treatment pH . 5.6 6.0
Acidity95.80-!99.20-
Conductivity 5.00- 2.50+
Sulfate 14.30- 8.60-
Copper 45.50- " 68.20-
Chromium 33.40- 50.00-
Lead 150.00+ 200.00+
Manganese 3.20- 25.00-
Iron ABS 99.70- 99.70-
Zinc 13.10- 7.00-
Aluminum 98.00- 99.40-
Nickel 10.30- 18.80-
Magnesium .80+ 4.10+
Calcium 231.80+ 327.20+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
63
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
70
60
50
40
30
20
-O
Line 1 G>-O
Line 2 AA
-O
10
20
30
.5
40
50
60
120
2
180
3
240
4
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-o
300
5
(minutes)
24 (hours)
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5
DATE June 5, 1975
!. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds of lime per belt-foot. There was no sludge recirculation
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was made to
maintain line #1 at pH 5.0 and line #2 at pH 6.0.
B. For the research period, May 21-25, 1973, (96.0 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
1 nf luent
12,096,000
45,817,228
Line I
Water
Inf 1 uent
7,257,600
27,490,337
Line 2
Water
1 nf 1 uent
4,838,400
18,326,891
*pH desired: Line I, 5.0; line 2, 6.0; Actual pH: Line 1, 4.7
Line 2, 5.8
influent, 2.6
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item Line I Line 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) I.00 93.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 5.00 5.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 28.40 61.26
65
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 0.46
Subtotal :
Total (chemical only);
Total (operating) :
* <ฃ/lb of chemical
+ Ib of chemical
# Gal of water treated
ง Cost, 3 (b.p. to
pH 8.3)
2- RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSIS
.Refer to Table 4
3. RESULTS OF METAL ANALYSIS FROM THE CENTRAL LABORATORY
Refer to Table 5
4. PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS,
Refer to Table 6
5. PROPERTIES OF PLANT SLUDGE
A. Sludge settling behavior
Refer to Figure I
B. Solids content (J5) of sludges
Line I 6.42
Line 2 6.73
66
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pM
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Ac i d i ty , co 1 d
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Spec! fie
conductance*
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
20.0
2.6
2800
2500
0
4000
8.7
226
4500
Max.
22.3
2.6
3300
2800
0
5100
10
371
4800
Mean
21.5
2.6
3000
2600
0
4600
9.3
329
4600
Min.
19.8
4.5
330
210
-17
3700
O.I
0
3900
Line 1
Max.
22.0
4.80
540
350
8.6
5100
2.2
3.1
4500
Mean
21 .0
4.7
380
260
0.6
4500
0.9
1.6
4200
Min.
19.9
5.7
130
57
76
3700
O.I
0
3800
Line 2
Max.
22.3
6.0
210
130
1 10
5200
2.0
2.8
4500
Mean
21 .2
5.8
180
1 10
93
4600
0.8
1.3
4200
* ppm as CaC03
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPIIOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 act i on
site
,-jPlant
U influent
.Aeration
Lltank lt\
.Aeration
Utank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg
2.6 0.24 0.11 0.07 50.0 345 8.30 245 3.06 28!
5.0 0.12 0.05 0.18 45.0 3.92 5.40 24.2 3.23 284
6.0 0.04 0.09 0.21 50.0 3.40 4.70 2.65 2.02 282
Ca
239
940
965
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/addition
PARAMETER
Treatment oH
Acidity
Conductivity
Sul fate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
At uminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Line 1
4.7
90.30-
3.10-
9.30-
50.00-
54.50-
1 57 . 1 0+
10.00-
98.90-
35.00-
90.20-
5.50+
1 .00+
293.30+
' Line 2
5.8
96.00-
.90-
8.50-
83.40-
18.20-
200.00+
.00-
99 . 1 0-
43.40-
99.00-
34.00-
.30+
303.70+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
69
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 6
DATE June 29, 1975
!. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterooise weight of six
pounds of lime per belt-foot. T^ere was no sludge recirculation
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was made to
maintain line #1 at pH 4.0 and line ?2 at pH 5.0.
B. For the research period, June 11-13, 1973, (72.0 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Ga 1 Ions
Liters
Total
Water
1 nf 1 uent
8,856,000
33,544,756
Line 1
V/'atar
1 n- 1 uent
5,313,600
20,126,854
Line 2
Water
Ir. fluent
3,542,400
13,417,902
*pH desired:Line I, 4.0; line 2, 5.0; Actual pH: Line .1, 4.1
Line 2, 5.2
influent, 2.5
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item Li ~e I Line 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 0.00 28.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 2.50 5.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 19.70 51.87
71
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Tota 1 Water
Line Cost Unit* Weight+ lnfluent#
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Ac i d 1 ty , b . p .
to pll 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Speci fie
conductance*
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
28.4
2.5
3300
2600
0
3000
20
316
4000
Max.
30.9
2.6
3600
2900
0
5000
25
345
4500
Mean
29.5
2.5
3400
2800
0
4200
29
321
4800
Min.
28.3
4.1
900
590
0
2900
O.I
0.8
3700
Line 1
Max.
30.1
4.2
1400
970
0
4800
1.5
7.3
4400
Mean
29.1
4.1
1300
840
0
3800
0.7
4.4
4000
Min.
28.2
5.0
130
88
12
3000
O.I
1.5
3400
Line 2
Max.
29.8
5.9
240
140
65
4800
O.I
2.1
3700
Mean
28.9
5.2
190
120
28
3800
O.I
1 .8
3600
ppm as
umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* .(A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Col lection
site
.-.Plant
.p- LJ influent
.Aeration
LJtank ff\
.Aeration
LJtank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn . Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.51 0.26 0.09 0.58 85.0 345 13.5 260 2.79 328 210
4.11 0.20 0.05 1.58 80.0 3.32 18.1 160 3.16 336 760
5.24 0.08 0.05 1.33 64.0 1.83 10. 1 50.0 3.05 322 950
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Treatment oH
Ac i d i ty
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromi um
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al uminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Percent
Line 1
4.1
69.90-
9.60-
16.70-
23.10-
44.50-
.00-
5.90-
99.10-
34.00+
38.50-
13.20+
2.40+
261.90+
removal /addition
Line 2
5.2
95.30-
9.60-
25.00-
69.30-
44.50-
129.30+
24.80-
99.50-
25.20-
80.80-
9.30+
1 .90+
352.30+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
75
-------
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
o
-8-
10 20
30
.5
40 50
60
120
2
180
3
240
4
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
300
5
(minutes)
24 (hours)
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
DATE June 29, 1975
I . DESCRIPTION,OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research'scheduIe, hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds of line per belt-foot. There was no sludge recirculation
and the flow pattern was parallel (50/50). An effort was made to
maintain line #! at pH 4.5 arid line #2 at pHS.O.
B. For the research period, June 14-15, 1973, (48.0 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Un'ts
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
1 nf 1 uent
5,904,000
22,363,171
Line 1
Water
1 nf 1 uent
3,542,400
13,417,902
Line 2
Water
1 nf 1 uent
2,361 ,600
8,945,268
*pH desired: Line I, 4.5; line 2, 5.0; Actual pH: Line I, 4.5
Line 2, 5.2
influent, 2.5
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY _
Item Line I Line 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaCO^ 0.00 25.00
SIudge voIume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 4.00 5.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 29.01 45.78
77
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 0.46
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) ;
Total
Weight+
102,760
108,100
210,860
Water
Inf luent#
3,542,400
2,361,600
5,904,000
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pll
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkalinity*
Speci fie
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
26.8
2.5
3300
2800
0
4300
20
340
4500
Max.
29.7
2.5
3600
3100
0
5000
24
354
4800
Mean
28.2
2.5
3500
2900
0
4600
22
347
4600
Min.
25.5
4.4
470
290
-2
3900
^0.1
1.9
3800
Line 1
Max.
29.6
4.5
600
340
0
4600
^0.1
2.0
3900
Mean
27.4
4.5
520
310
-1
4300
^O.T
1 .9
3900
Min.
25.3
5.2
88
68
20
3900
-^0.1
^ O.I
3900
Line 2
Max.
29.0
5.4
190
93
33
4600
^ O.I
1.2
3900
Mean
27.4
5.2
140
85
25
4200
^ O.I
0.8
3900
* ppm as CaC03
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS3* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
site
.-.Plant
o LJ influent
_, Aeration
Ulank #1
-j Aeration
LJtank #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mcj Ca
2.51 0.24 0.08 0.50 17.0 190 15.2 2.50 3.26 71.6 105
4.45 0.16 0.03 1.67 70.0 1.65 11.2 43.8 3.66 336 890
5.22 0.07 0.04 1.50 65.0 1.53 13.5 5.25 3.34 336 940
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS .-\r ;E_E:
Percer- -=~r/=
PARAMETER Line I
Treatment pH _ 4.5 _ 5.2
Acidity. 89.70 96.60
Conductivity 6.60- 8.70-
Sulfate 62.50- 50.00
Copper 234.00+ 200.00+
Chromiun 311.70+ 282.30+
Lead 99.20- 99.20-
Manganese 26.40- 11.20-
Iron A8S 82.50- 79.00-
Zinc 12.20+ 2.40+
Aluminum 369.20+ 369.20+
Nickel 747.60+ 795.20+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
81
-------
100
do
N3
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 OO
Line 2
10 20
30
.5
40 50 60
SETTLING TIME
120
2
180
3
240
4
300
5
(minutes)
(hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 8
DATE October 23, 1975
I. In accordance with the original research schedule (Stanley Consultants,
Inc., November 1971) and the revised research schedule (Peabody Coal
Company, October 1973), an effort was made to operate the plant with
a series flow pattern, no sludge recirculation. The neutralizing agent
used on both lines was hydrated lime. The schedule called for a treat-
ment pH of 5.0 on line #1 effluent, which was recirculated back thru
line #2, with a final effluent pH of 7.0 as the projected goal.
2. After eight hours of plant operation, the results of analyses of two
sets of research samples (Enclosure I) and numberous plant operator
checks (Enclosure 2) revealed that it was operationally impossible to
reduce the final effluent pH below pH 8.0 to the desired treatment pH
7.0, as outlined in the research schedule.
In an effort to define the problem as it relates to treatment require-
ments, I performed two different titration curves (Enclosure 3). It
was discovered that in series flow treatment, as outlined in paragraph
I above, hydrated lime treatment of the raw plant influent to pH 5.0
neutralized 37-88? of the influent acidity. Thus, the chemical require-
ment placed on the #2 treatment line was so small (pH 5.0 to pH 7.0)
that the BIF feeder could not deliver the neutralizing agent in such
diminutive amounts.
4. Based on the operational information, Research Stages 8 and 8A cannot
be achieved at the Will Scarlet Water Treatment Plant with the existing
plant design and equipment.
Encl. #1 Sample Analyses
#2 Ops. Log
#3 Titration Data
83
-------
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS,
WILL SCARLIT WATLR TREATMENT' PLANT
Time of Sampl ing
Temperature (C)
PH
Acidity, b.p. to pll 8.3,
ppm as CaC03
Acidity, t\2ฎ2> 1"ฐ P^ 7.3,
ppm as CaC03
Alkalinity, ppm as CaC03
Specific Conductivity,
umhos/cm at 25C
1 ron, total , ppm
Iron, ferrous, ppm
Iron, ferric, ppm
Plant
1200
13.9
2.6
3200
3000
0
4000
550
^0.10
550
Inf luent
1500
16.4
2.6
3300
3100
0
4120
564
^0.10
564
Line
1200
14.2
5.2
183
87
23
4200
2.5
1
1500
16.3
4.9
275
129
3.5
4200
2.5
^0.10 ^0.10
2.5
2.5
Line 2
1200
14.0
10.2
0
0
120
4200
0.5
^0.10 ^
0.8
1500
16.3
8.2
60
0
18
4200
2.2
0. 10
2.2
-------
ENCLOSURE 2 OPERATOR'S LONG SHEET DATA FOR RESEARCH STAGE NO. 3
Time
8
1 1
12
1
2
3
:00
:00
:00
:00
:00
:00
a.m.
a.m.
noon
p .m.
p.m.
p.m.
Line
pH
5.2
5.3
4.9
4.8
4.8
1
Belt <5f
73
62
62
62
62
62
>eed(<0*
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
LI -5 2
-u ==9|-i- SP
60
10.3 40
9.5 30
9.1 20
8.3 16
8.1 15
eed(*)*
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
* Service engineer for BIF gravimetric feeders suggests operation betwe
40-70$ belt speed
85
-------
PH
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25 <
'.057gm
0 2 4 6 . 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 (mis NaOH)
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
2.0 (g C2(OH),
Figure 1
NEUTRALIZATION T1TRATION CURVE FOR PLANT INFLUENT, OCTOBER 29, 1973
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 8A
DATE October 28, 1973
According to the original research schedule (Stanley Consultants, Inc.,
November 1971) and the revised research schedule (Peabody Coal Company,
October 1973), an effort was made to operate the treatment plant in a
series flow pattern, no sludge recirculation, using hydrated lime as
the neutralizing agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise weight
of six pounds per belt-foot. The pH criteria was pH 5.0 on line #1
effluent and pH 7.0 on line #2 effluent, with no aeration on the
No. 2 side.
2. Originally scheduled as Research Stage No. 8, this research stage was
found to be operationally impossible. The reader is referred to
Research Report No. 8 for a determination and reasoning behind the
elimination of these research stages.
87
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 9
DATE November 10, 1973
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used as
the treatment reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds per belt-foot. There was no sludge recirculation and the
flow pattern was series (100/100). An effort was made to maintain
line #1 at pH 4.0 and line #2 at pH 7.0.
B. For the research period, October 30-31, 1973, (32.0 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Ga 1 Ions
Liters
Total
Water
1 nf 1 uent
6,144,000
23,272,243
Line 1
V/atsr
ln-ฃluerj-
6,144,000
23,272,243
Liie 2
V/2ter
f-f lue
6,144
23,272
,000
,243
*pH desi red : Line 1, 4.0; I ine 2, 7.0. ActuaI pH: Line I, 3.8
Line 2, 6.6
influent, 2.5
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item L i ~ a I Li^e 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 0.00 5.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 3.00 13.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) '0-91 7.42
83
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line Cost Unit*
1 1 .26
2 1 .26
Subtotal :
Total (chemical only);
Total (operating) :
*
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Ac i d i ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Spec! fie
conductance*
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
14.1
3500
3100
0
4600
O.I
664
5200
Max.
20.1
2.7
5300
4700
0
7000
33.0
930
5600
Mean
16.9
2.5
4700
4100
0
4500
13.1
800
5400
Min.
14.3
3.6
930
512
0
4100
O.I
2.7
5000
Line 1
Max.
20.5
4.3
2700
1900
0
7200
0. 1
6.4
5400
Mean
17.1
3.9
1900
1300
0
6200
0.1
4.4
5200
Min.
14.5
6.4
64
17
3.4
3400
O.I
O.I
5200
Line 2
Max.
20.4
7.0
92
42
6.5
6900
0. 1
0.9
5400
Mean
17.1
6.8
80
27
5.0
5300
0. 1
0.4
5300
ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLIT 5 MIITAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPRCTROPIIOTOICTRY PROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Col lection
site
.-.Plant
LJ influent
. Line
U #1
Line
D #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.5 0.23 0.05 0.08 185 784 17.2 270 3.98 nd 100
4.0 0.21 0.04 0.23 180 17.9 15.8 260 4.56 nd 148
7.0 0.03 0.02 0.19 110 0.61 0.38 1.35 2.05 nd 102
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromi urn
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Ca lei urn
Line 1
59.60-*
37.70++
3.80-
8.70-
20.00-
187.50+
2.80-
97.80-
8.20-
3.80-
14.50+
22.20+
48.00+
Percent renova
Line 2
95.80-
14.60-
1 .90+
85.80-
50.00-
17.40-
38.90-
96.60-
97.60-
99.50-
55.10-
9.00+
31 .10-
l/acdition
/
Total
98.30-
17.70+
1 .90-
87.00-
- 60.00-
137.50+
40.60-
97.80-
97.80-
99.50-
48.50-
33.30+
2.00+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
92
-------
100,
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O O
Line 2 A A
\ " A
ฐ\
O. ...
10 20 30 40 50 60 120
.5 2
SFTTI IMfi TIMF
A
Z-i
180
3
A
A
240
4
A
300
5
c
L
(
i<-
\.
)
(minutes)
(hours)
Figure I. SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 10
DATE November 19, I 97J5
I. DESCRIPTION OF.RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used as
the treatment reagent on both lines at a counterpoise weight of six
pounds per belt-foot. There was no sludge recirculat ion and the
flow pattern was series (100/100). An effort was made to maintain
line #1 effluent at pH 4.0 and line #2 effluent at pH 6.0.
B. For the research period, November 1-2, 1973, (16.8 hours of operation)
the following summary of treatment is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE YOLLTES
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
Inf 1 uent
3,033,600
1 1,490,670
Li ne 1
Water
Influent
3,033,600
1 1,490,670
Li^e 2
V.'ater
! - f 1 uen-"
3,033,600
1 1 ,490,670
*pH desired: Line I, 4.0; line 2, 6.0; Actual pH: Line I, 3.9
Line 2, 5.3
influent, 2.5
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SU'-'MARY
I tern Line I Li^e 2
Alkalinity added
(mg/l as CaCC^) 0.00 4'.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 5.00 18.00
ป
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 12.63 6.73
94
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Li ne
1
2
Cost Unit*
1 .26
1.26
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) ;
Total
Weight*
38,322
20,430
58,752
Water
Influent/?
3,033,600
3,033,600
3,033,600
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Al kal inity*
Spec! fie
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Su 1 fate, SO/i
ppm
Min.
13.8
2.5
5800
4700
0
6100
26
810
5200
Max.
14.3
2.6
6200
4800
0
7400
32
840
5600
Mean
14.1
2.5
6000
4700
0
7000
30
830
5400
Min.
13.9
3.6
1000
850
0
5500
O.I
2.4
5000
Line 1
Max.
14.4
4.2
2700
1700
0
6800
O.I
5.6
5400
Mean
14.1
3.9
2100
1300
0
6400
O.I
3.3
5200
Min.
13.9
5.0
64
32
1 .3
4900
O.I
0.2
5000
Line 2
Max.
14.4
6.6
280
140
5.7
5800
O.I
1 .0
5400
Mean
14.2
5.7
140
65
3.6
5400
0. 1
0.6
5200
ppm as
t umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A. A. SPECTROPIIOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect 1 on
site
-.Plant
LJ inf 1 uont
Line
Q#l
Line
ID #2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni MCJ Ca
2.5 0.19 0.05 0.08 200 790 16.7 270 4.40 ndH 98
4.0 0.17 0.04 0.23 195 10.9 15.8 240 5.13 nd+ 165
6.0 0.05 0.05 0.15 150 0.43 3.62 3.80 3.38 nd+ 136
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent renova I/ addition
. PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al uminum
Nickel
Magnesium
. Calcium
Line 1
72.40-*
8.60-
3. SO-
IO. 60-
20.00-
187.50+
2.50-
98.70-
5.40-
1 1.20-
16.50+
12.00+
68.20+
Line 2
95.00-
15.70-
.00-
70.60-
25.00++
34.80-
23.10-
96.10-
77.10-
98.50-
34.20-
1 9 . 60+
17.60-
Total
98.70-
22.90-
3.80-
73.70-
.00-
87.50+
25.00-
100.00-
78.^0-
98.60-
23.20-
34.00+
38.70+
* - indicates percent renovaI
+ + indicates percent addition
98
-------
VO
vo
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 G>-O
Line 2 AA
-A-
-o
-o-
-o-
10 20
30
.5
40 50 60
120
2
180
3
240
4
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-o
300
5
(minutes)
24 (hours)
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. I I
DATE November 19, 1973
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE,
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used
on the treatment agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise
weight of six pounds per belt-foot. Sludge was recirculated to
the rapid-mixers, each to its respective side at a rate of 88.3
GPM on line #1 and 94.8 GPM on line #2. The flow pattern was
series (100/100) and the treatment line effluent pHrs that were
attempted were pH 4.0 on-line #1 and pH 7.0 on line #2.
B. For the research period, November 5-6, 1973, (28.8 hours of
operation) the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Sludge volume
Water influent Sludge/water ratio
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
217,952
1,204,338
286,848
1,086,522
604,800
2,290,861
Line 1
5,529,600
20,945,018
Line 2
5,529,600
20,945,018
Total
5,529,600
20,945,018
.057
.051
.109
*pH desired: Line I, 4.0; Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH: Line I, 4.0;
Line 2, 7.0; influent, 2.6
100
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Line I
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 0.00
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 9.00 13.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 13.01 8.15
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
1
2
Subtotal :
Cost Unit*
1.26
1.26
Total
Weight+
71,976
45,078
1 17,054
Water
Influent*
5,529,600
5,529,600
5,529,600
Total (chemical only):
Total (operating):
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Ac i d 1 ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Ac i d i ty , co 1 d
to 7.3, H202*
Alkalinity*
Specific
conductances-
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
10.5
2.6
4100
3300
0
5300
10
610
6400
Max.
13.2
2.7
5200
4600
0
8000
20
860
6500
Mean
1 1.8
2.6
4700
4000
0
6600
15
750
6500
Min.
10.3
4.0
870
510
0
5100
O.I
2.4
5200
Line 1
Max.
13.6
4.3
.2800
1700
0
7300
O.I
5.0
5300
Mean
1 1 .9
4.1
1900
1200
0
6200
0. 1
4.0
5300
Min.
10.3
6.8
45
15
7.3
4600
O.I
0.2
5200
Line 2
Max.
13.6
7.3
72
25
8.8
6400
0. 1
1 .3
5300
Mean
1 1.9
6.9
56
21
8.0
5700
O.I
0.9
5300
ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 MLTAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPLCTROPI lOTOMHTRY TROM CENTRAL LAB.)
o
CO
Col lection
si lo
-.Plant
U Influent
Line
U #1
Line
a #2
pll Cu Or Pb Mn To 7n Al
2.6 0.18 0.05 0.36 150 735 16.0 270
4.0 0.13 0.04 0.57 130 10. 1 14.0 195
7.0 0.04 0.04 0.57 90.0 1.15 2.70 1.75
N i Mn Cn
4.87 450 215
6.34 450 505
4.08 500 520
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al umi num
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Line 1
70.00-* .
6,10-
18.50-
27.80-
20.00-
58.30+
13.40-
98.70-
12.50-
27.80-
30.10+
.00-
134.80+
Percent removal/
/
Line 2
98.30-
8.10-
.00-
69.30-
.00-
.00-
30.80-
88.70-
80.80-
99.20-
35.70-
11.10+
2.90+
additio-
Tota!
99.50-
13.70-
18.50-
77.80-
20.00-
58.30+'r
40.00-
99 .9Q_
83.20-
99.40-
16.80-
11.10+
141 .80+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
104
-------
O
Ui
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 20
Line 1 OO
Line 2 AA
30
.5
40 50 60
120
2
180
3
240
4
300
5
O
SETTLING TIME
(minutes)
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 12
DATE November 19, 1975
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used
on the treatment agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise
weight of six pounds per belt-foot. Sludge was recirculated to
the rapid-mixers, each to its respective side at 3 rate o^ 33.3
GPM on line #1 and 94.8 GPM on line #2. The flow pattern was
series (100/100) and the treatment line effluent pH's that v/ere
attempted were pH 4.0 on line #1 and pH 6.0 on line #2.
B. For the research period, November 8-10, 1973, (30.8 hours of
operation), the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Sludge volume Water influent Sludge/water ratio
Line 1
340,032
1,287,973
Line 2
306,768
1,161,975
Total
646,800
2,449,949
4,500,000
17,032,500
4,500,000
17,032,500
4,500,000
17,032,500
.075
-
.075
.145
*pH desired: Line I, 4.0; Line 2, 6.0. Actual pH: Line I, 4.0, Line 2, 6.2;
influent 2.6
106
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 10.00 15.00
Treatment requ i red
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 17.17 10.36
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 1 .26
2 1.26
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical on ly) :
(operating) :
Total
Weight+
77,256
46,620
123,876
___
Water
1 nf luent#
4,500,000
4,500,000
4,500,000
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
o
cx>
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Speci fie
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, SO/j
ppm
Mln.
8.5
2.6
6000
4400
0
6100
9.4
820
6700
Max.
14.1
2.7
6900
5100
0
7800
I5
910
6900
Mean
1 I.I
2.6
6400
4800
0
7000
12
860
6800
Min.
8.5
3.9
1800
1300
0
5900
0.10
3.3
5300
Line 1
Max.
14.2
4.1
2500
1700
0
6800
O.I
3.9
5500
Mean
1 I.I
4.0
2100
1500
0
6400
O.I
3.6
5400
Min.
8.6
5.9
54
32
2.7
4600
O.I
0.2
5300
Line 2
Max.
14.1
6.4
120
74
8.3
6200
O.I
0.4
5400
Mean
11.2
6. 1
89
61
5.3
5600
O.I
0.3
5400
ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLC 5 ICTAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPIIOTOMCTRY PROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
5 i to
.-.Plant
IJ i n f ! uon 1
Line
a -
Line
a 2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni MH Ca
2.6 0.19 0.12 0.43 215 865 17.4 305 5.73 500 225
4.0 0.15 0.11 0.64 195 4.90 16.2 225 6.62 550 480
6.2 0.04 0.02 0.57 133 1.20 1.48 1.05 4.28 525 390
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al uminum
Nickel
Magnesi um
Calcium
Line 1
68.60-*
8.60-
20.60-
21 .10-
8.40-
48.80++
9.40-
99.50-
6.90-
26.30-
15.50+
10.00+
113.30+
Percent remova 1 / add
/
Line 2
96.00-
12.50-
.00-
73.40-
81 .90-
1 1 .00-
31 .80-
75.60-
90.90-
99.60-
35.40-
4.60-
18.80-
it ion
Total
98.80-
20.00-
20.60-
- 79.00-
83.40-
32.50+
38.20-
99.90-
91 .50-
99.70-
25.40-
5.00+
73.30+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
110
-------
100
80
70
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 G>-O
Line 2 AA
' "
10 20 30 40 50 60 120
.5 2
A,
180
3
O,
240
4
_o
w
300
5
2
L
)
(minutes)
SETTLING TIME
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
ILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 13
DATE November 23, 1973
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used
on the treatment agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise
weight of six pounds per belt-foot. Sludge was recirculated to
the rapid-mixers, each to its respective side at a rate of 83.3
GPM on line #1 and 94.8 GPM on line #2. The flow pattern was
series (100/100) and the treatment line effluent pH's that v;ere
attempted were pH 6.0 on line #1 and pH 7.0 on line #2.
B. For the research period, November 13-14, 1973, (39
operation) the following summary is submitted:
hours of
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal. Ions
Liters
Ga 1 Ions
Liters
Sludge volume
Line 1
436,080
1,651,783
Line 2
393,420
1,490,196
Tota 1
829,500
3,141,980
Water influent Sludge/water ratio
4,550,400 .095
17,236,005
3,033,600 ..129
11,490,670
7,584,000 .109
28,726,675
*pH desired: Line I, 6.0; Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH: Line I, 6.1, Line 2, 7.1;
influent, 2.6
112
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
A I ka I in ity added
(mg/l as
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 25.00 25.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 17.59 29.83
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 1.26
2 1.26
Subtotal :
Total
Total
(chemical on ly) :
(operating) :
Total
Weight+
80,046
90,486
170,532
__
Water
Influent^
4,550,400
3,033,600
7,584,000
ฃ/vol ง
22.7
37.6
28.3
34.2
s/vol/ppmT1?
3.7
6.2
4.6
5.5
*
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Specific
conduct ivi ty+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Min.
11.8
2.5
5400
4400
0
6400
O.I
840
6700
Max.
15.4
2.6
6900
5600
0
9100
0. 1
1030
6900
Mean
13.9
2.6
6100
5200
0
7900
O.I
950
6800
Min.
1 1.9
5.4
75
24
5.0
4700
O.I
0.6
5800
Line 1
Max.
15.5
6.6
100
57
9.3
6600
O.I
1 .6
6000
Mean
13.9
6.0
92
37
6.1
5700
O.I
1.0
5900
Min.
11.9
6.5
53
10
5.4
4900
O.I
0.3
5900
Line 2
Max.
15.5
7.1
100
30
12
6400
O.I
2.4
6100
Mean
13.9
6.9
76
17
8.2
5700
O.I
1.0
6000
*.ppm as CaCOj
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPIIOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Col lection
silo pll Cu Cr Pb Mn To Zn AI Ni Me] Co
._.P| an I
Uinfluont 2.5 0.20 0.12 0.43 220 970 19.4 355 5.88 600 225
L i ne
I.J I 6.0 0.04 0.07 0.43 150 1.90 2.46 1.55 4.90 550 410
Li ne
Q 2 7.0 0.04 0.05 0.43 105 1.95 0.30 1.25 3.56 550 390
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AMD SELECTED PARA'.'ETE=S
Percent removal/addftior
PARAMETER
Line I Line 2
Ac i d i ty
Conduct! vity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromiun
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
A 1 urn i nun
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
99.30-*
27.90-
13.30-
80.00-
41.70-
.00-
31.90-
99.90-
87.40-
99.60-
16.70-
8.40-
82.20+
99.70-
27.90-
II .80-
80.00-
58.40-
.00-
52.30-
99.80-
98.50-
99.70-
39.50-
8.40-
73.30++
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
116
-------
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 Q-O
Line 2 AA
A
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT MO. 14
DATE November 23, 1973
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE,
A.. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used
on the treatment agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise
weight of six pounds per belt-foot. Sludge was recirculated to
the rapid-mixers, each to its respective side at a rate of 33.3
GPN! on line #1 and 94.8 GPM on line #2. The flow pattern was
series (100/100) and the treatment line effluent pH's that v;ers
attempted were pH 6.0 on line #1 and pH 7.0 on line #2.
B. For the research period, November 15, 1973, (15.0 hours of operation)
the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Sludge volume
Line 1
165,600
627,259
Line 2
149,400
565,897
Total
315,000
1,193,157
Water influent Sludge/w~ter ratio
1,929,600 .085
7,308,938
950,400 .157
3,599,925
2,880,000
10,908,864
*pH desired: Line I, 6.0; Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH: Line I, 6.0; Line 2, 6.9;
influent, 2.5
118
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
AIkalin ity added
(mg/l as
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 21.00 18.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 21.62 28.56
TABLE
Line Cost Unit*
I 1 .26
2 1 .26
Subtotal :
Tc~al (chemical only):
Total (operating) :
* ฃ/lb of chemical
+ 1 b of chemical
=N= Gal of water treated
i Cost,
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkalinity*
Spec! fie
conduct! vity+
Iron, ferrous.
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfuto, S04
ppm
Min.
13.2
2.5
5300
5300
0
7100
36
940
7100
Max.
15.4
2.5
5700
5600
0
8600
43
990
7300
Mean
14.5
2.5
5600
5500
0
8100
40
970
7200
Min.
13.4
5.9
45
19
3.0
5200
O.I
0.8
6700
Line 1
Max.
15.3
6.5
110
67
6.5
6500
O.I
1 .6
6900
Mean
14.5
6.1
86
37
5.0
5900
0,1
1 .2
6800
Min.
13.4
6.7
54
1 1
6.0
5000
O.I
0.8
6700
Line 2
Max.
15.3
7.1
79
26
7.0
6200
O.I
1 .2
6900
Mean
14.5
6.9
63
18
6.5
5700
O.I
I.I
6900
* ppm as CaCOj
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPIIOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect 1 on
site
.-.Plant
U influent
L i ne
U 1
Line
Q 2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mq Ca
2.5 0.25 0.16 0.43 250 1,050 18.7 395 6.40 600 235
6.0 0.03 0.05 0.50 135 2.30 4.18 1.70 4.58 600 375
7.0 0.03 0.04 0.43 110 1.60 0.22 0.95 3.40 575 335
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED =ARAME7ERS
Percent removal/ace'?'*'ion
PARAMETER
Line I Line 2
Ac i d i ty
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
99.40-*
27.20-
5.60-
88.00-
68.80-
I6.20++
46.00-
99.80-
77.70-
99.60-
28.50-
.00-
59.50+
99.70-
29.70-
4.20-
88.00-
75.00-
.00-
56.00-
99.90-
98.90-
99.80-
46.90-
4.20-
42.50+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
122
-------
100'
ro
OJ
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
A
* i
10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180 240 300
.5 2345
(minutes)
SETTLING TIME 24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 15
DATE December 4, 1975
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used as
the neutralizing agent on both treatment lines at counterpoise weight
of six pounds per belt-foot. There was no sludge recircuIation and
the flow pattern was parallel (75/75). An effort was made to main-
tain pH 6.0 on line #1 and pH 7.0 on line #2.
B. For the research period, November 19-20, 1973, (23.1 hours of
operation) the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Total
Water
Inf 1 uent
4,435,200
16,799,650
Line 1
Water
I nf 1 uent
2,971,584
1 1,255,765
Line 2
Water
! nf 1 uent
1 ,463,616
5,543,884
*pH desired: Line I, 6.0; Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH; Line I, 6.1
Line 2, 7.1
influent, 2.5
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Item Line 1 Line 2
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaCOj,} 6.00 7.00
SIudge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 25.00 20.00
Treatment required
(I b chem i caI/1000
gal influent) 2I-40 27-98
-124
-------
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line Cost Unit*
1 1 .26
2 1 .26
Total Water
Weight-f- Influent^ ) of sludges
Line I (pH 6.0) 4.84$
Line 2 (pH 7.0) 6.71$
125
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
fo
OS
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
A 1 ka 1 I n i ty*
Specific
conductance+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sul fate, S04
ppm
Min.
20.0
2.58
2828
2533
0
4033
8.65
225.8
4500
Max.
22.3
2.64
3267
2816
0
5064
10.20
370.6
4800
Mean
21.5
2.61
3100
2648
0
4628
9.29
328.7
4630
Min.
19.8
4.48
326.9
206.3
-16.5
3669
O.I
0
3910
Line 1
Max.
22.0
4.48
541 .5
351 .2
8.6
5052
2.17
3.07
4500
Mean
21 .0
4.65
376.6
259.2
0.6
4486
0.86
1 .55
4203
Min.
19.9
5.72
126.4
56.7
75.5
3738
O.I
0
3750
Line 2
Max.
22.3
5.98
207.3
129.4
1 10.9
5153
2.00
2.75
4500
Mean
21.2
5.78
177.7
106.9
92.9
4588
0.82
1 .33
4238
ppm as
urnhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB,)
Co 1 1 ect 1 on
s i to
.-.Plant
Uinf luent
Q1!1"
ar
pll Cu Cr PI) Mn To 7n At Ni Mn Ca
2.5 0.35 0.12 0.36 235 985 21.6 395 6.17 600 225
6.0 0.08 0.07 0.43 155 1.45 8.60 37.9 5.48 600 330
7.0 0.03 0.05 0.50 90.0 1.25 0.18 0.75 3.34 600 320
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS KID SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percs't renovaI/accf^ion
PARAMETER
Line I Line 2
Ac i d i ty
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al umi num
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
99.40-*
28.60-
8.50-
77.20-
41.70-
19.40+
34.10-
99. go-
so. 20-
90.50-
91.20-
.00-
46.60+
99.60-
28.60-
12.70-
91.50- - -
58.40-
38.80++
61.80-
99.90-
99.20-
99.90-
94.60-
.00-
42.20+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
128
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
(minutes)
24 (hours)
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 16
DATE March 6, 1974
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE .
A. According to the research schedule, rotary hydrated lime was used on
No. 2 treatment line, while limestone was used on the No. I treat-
ment line, each neutralizing chemical at six and ten pounds per
belt-foot counterpoise weight, respectively. The flow pattern was
series at 50% of total flow and sludge was recirculated to the rapid-
mix vessels at a rate of 203 6PM on line #1 and 167 GPM on line #2.
An effort was made to maintain pH 3.0 - 3.5 on line #1 and pH 7.0 on
Iine #2 effluent.
B. For the research period January 18-19, 1974, (32.0 hours of operation)
the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Sludge volume Water influent Sludge/wstar ratio
289,760
1,097,552
320,640
1,214,520
610,400
2,312,073
Line 1
2,799,360
10,603,415
Line 2
2,799,360
10,603,415
Tota 1
2,799,360
10,603,415
.103
.1 14
.218
*pH desired: Line I, 3.5; Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH: Line I, 3.7; Line 2, 7.8;
influent, 3.0
130
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Alkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03)
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 2.00 8.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 4.51 6.26
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 1 .26
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) :
Total
Weight+
12,650
17,526
30,176
Water
Influent*
2,799,360
2,799,360
2,799,360
e/vol ง
2.1
7.9
10.0
22.3
ฃ/vcl /pprT?
1 .2
4.6
5.8
13.1
* ฃ/lb of chemical
+ Ib of chemical
N= Gal of water treated
ง Cost,
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Ac i d I ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Spec! f ic
conduct! vity+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfata, 504
ppm
Min.
8.2
2.9
1300
990
0
2400
20
120
2200
Max.
1 .24
3.0
2200
1800
0
3700
64
260
2300
Mean
10.0
3.0
1700
1300
0
3300
44
180
2300
Min.
8.4
3.6
940
640
0
2700
=0.1
44
2300
Line 1
Max.
12.1
3.9
1600
1 100
0
3700
O.I
85
2500
Mean
10.0
3.7
1200
850
0
3300
O.I
63
2400
Min.
8.4
6.8
0
0
24
2800
O.I
0.5
2500
Line 2
Max.
12.1
9.2
79
48
43
4000
0,1
1 .7
2600
Mean
10.0
7.8
19
10
34
3500
0. 1
0.9
2500
* ppm as CaCOj
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect 1 on
site
.-.Plant
U influent
oL!ne
Line
a 2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
3.0 0.15 0.06 0.14 52.5 223 5.34 90.0 2.30 89.5 70,0
3.7 0.16 0.07 0.27 45.0 87.0 6.20 87.5 2.60 90.5 110
7.7 0.03 0.06 0.27 25.0 3.75 0.47 1.80 2.50 84.0 200
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal /addition
PARAMETER
Ac i d i ty
Conductivity
Sul fate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al uminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Line 1
43.70-*
.00-
4.30+
5.60+
16.60+
92.80+
14.30-
61 .00-
16.10+
2.80-
13.00+
1.10+
57.10+
Line 2
98.90-
6.00+
4.10+
81 .30-
14.30-
.00-
44.50-
95.70-
92.50-
98.00-
3.90-
7.20-
81 .80+
Total
99.30-
6. 00++
8.60+
80.00-
.00-
92.80+
52.40-
98.40-
91 .20-
98.00-
8.60+
6.20-
185.70+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
134
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O-O
Line 2
^^U
10 20 30 40 50 60 120
.5 2
O
180
3
ฃi
O
240
4
A (
n
300
5
5
(minutes)
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
24 (hours)
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 17-
DATE MarchT, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the revised research schedule, limestone was used on
the No. I treatment line, while rotary hydrated Iime .was used as
the neutralizing agent on the No. 2 line; each set at ten pounds
and six pounds per belt-foot, respectively. The flow pattern
was series at 100$ of total flow, and sludge was recirculated to
the rapid-mi.x vessels at a rate of 175 GPM on line No. I and 156
GPM on line No. 2. An effort was made to maintain pH 3.03 - 3.5
on line No. I and pH 7.0 on line No. 2.
B- For the research period January 30-31, 1974, (38.0 hours of
operation) the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Sludge volume
Line 1
504,000.
1,909,061
Line 2
449,280
1,701,782
lotaj
953,280
3,610,833
Water influent Sludge/water ratio
6,726,000 .074
25,476,742
6,726,000 .066
25,476,742
6,726,000 .141
25,476,742
*pH desired: Line I, 3.5, Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH: Line I, 3.7; Line 2, 7.1;
influent, 3.0
136
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Line I
AIkaI In ity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 0.00
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) I-00 8.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 4.50 5.02
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 1 .26
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only):
(operati ng) :
Total
Weight+
30,280
33,810
64,090
Water
lnfluent#
6,726,000
6,726,000
6,726,000
it/vol ง ซ/vol /::-=?
2.1 i .3
6.3 3.9
8.4 5.2
14.3 8.9
*
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
to
oo
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inlty*
Specific
conduct! vity+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
II. 0
2.9
1400
1000
0
2300
O.I
150
2700
Max.
12.4
3.0
1700
1300
0
3300
O.I
190
2800
Mean
1 1.5
3.0
1600
1200
0
2900
O.I
180
2800
Min.
II. 1
3.4
890
630
0
2200
O.I
12
2800
Line 1
Max.
12.3
3.9
1300
770
0
3300
O.I
27
2900
Mean
1 1 .5
3.7
1 100
700
0
2900
0.1
14
2900
Min.
II .1
6.4
26
30
23
2400
O.I
0.6
3000
Line 2
Max.
12.3
7.2
51
36
40
3200
O.I
0.8
3000
Mean
1 1.5
6.9
37
33
35
2900
O.I
0.7
3000
ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 oc 1 i on
G i 1 1;
-jPlant
U influent
w Line
Q 1
Line
a 2
pll Cu Or Ph Mn To 7n Al Ni M
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/ addition
PARAMETER
Ac i d i tv
Conductivity
Su 1 fate
Copper
Chromi urn
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Line 1
41 .70-*
.00-
3.50+
17.70-
60.00-
.00-
5.30-
83. SO-
IO. SO-
IO. 60-
26.00+
.60+
57 . 1 0+
Line 2
95.30-
.00-
3.40+
71.50-
100.00-
51 .80+
1 1 .20-
94.30-
93.40-
98 ..90-
3.50-
1 .90-
54.50+
Total
97.30-
.00-
7.10+
76.50-
100.00-
51 .80+
15.80-
99.10-
94.10-
99.00-
21 .70+
1 .30-
142.80+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
140
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
V.'ILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REFCRT NO. 18
DATE March 7, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the revised research schedule, limestone was used on
the No. I treatment line, while rotary hydrated lime was used as
the neutralizing agent on the No. 2 line, each set at ten and six
pounds per belt-foot, respectively. The flow pattern was series
at 100$ of total flow, and sludge was recirculated to the No. I
rapid-mix vessel only, at a rate of 175 GPM. An effort was made
to maintain line No. I effluent pH at 3.0 to 3.5 and line No. 2
effluent pH at 7.0.
B. For the research period February I, 1974, (22.0 hours of plant
operation) the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLf'ES*
Units
Sludge volume
V/ater influent
Sludge/water ra-io
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Line 1
231,000
874,981
Line 2
0
0
Total
231,000
874,981-
3,894,000
14,749,693
3,894,000
14,749,693
3,894,000
14,749,693
.059
.000
.059
*oH desired: Line I, 3.5; Line 2, 7.0. Actual pH: Line I, 3.2; Line 2, 7.2;
influent, 2.9
142
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Line I
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaCC>3) 0.00
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) I-00 14.00
Treatment requ i red
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 4.20 8.31
TABLE
Line Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 .1.26
Subtotal:
Total (chemical only):
Total (operating) :
* <ฃ/lb of chemical
+ 1 b of chemical
=H= Gal of water treated
ง Cost, ซ/IOOO gal of
3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Total
Weight+
16,370
32,394
48,764
plant infl
Water
lnfluent# <ฃ/vo! ง
3,894,000 1.9
3,894,000 10.5
3,894,000
12.4
18.7
uent
-/vol/ppn**
0.9
4.8
5.7
8.5
# Cost, ฃ/IOOO gal of plant influent/1000 ppm acidity as CaC03
(b.p. tc pH 8.3)
2. RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSIS
Refer to Table 4
3. RESULTS OF METAL ANALYSIS FROM THE CENTRAL LABORATORY
Refer to Table 5
4. PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAME"=S
Refer to Table 6
5. PROPERTIES OF PLANT SLUDGE
A. Sludge settling behavior
Refer to Figure I
B. Solids content (%) of sludges
Line I (pH 3.5) 4.50$
Line 2 (pH 7.0) I.60$
143
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Ac i d i ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal inity*
Spec i f ic
conduct ivity+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
1 ron, ferric.
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Min.
11.8
2.9
1700
1600
0
2700
O.I
200
3200
Max.
12.0
2.9
2400
1900
0
3900
O.I
340
3400
Mean
12.0
2.9
2200
1800
0
3400
O.I
230
3300
Min.
11.7
3.4
1200
960
0
3100
0. 1
25
3300
Line 1
Max.
12.1
3.5
1800
1400
0
3900
O.I
140
3500
Mean
12.0
3.5
1600
1 100
0
3500
0.1
67
3400
Min.
1 1 .8
7.0
15
20
20
3100
O.I
0.5
3400
Line 2
Max.
12.0
7.2
30
30
36
3900
O.I
1.2
-3400
Mean
11.9
7.1
27
25
27
3500
O.I
0.9
3400
ppm as
-ป umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co I Iect i on
site pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
.-.Plant
Uinfluent 2.9 0.20 0.07 0.27 62.5 238 7.20 145 2.80 95.5 60.0
_. Line
IJ I 3.5 0.22 0.07 0.27 60.0 71.0 7.57 135 2.90 99.5 100
Line
U 2 7.0 0.04 0.07 0.41 35.0 1.50 0.22 1.15 2.70 93.5 200
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal /add Ft ion
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chronvi um
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Al uminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Ca 1 c i um
Line 1
38 . 90-+
2.90+
3.00+
10.00+
.00-
-.00-
4.00-
70.20-
5.10+
6.90-
3.50+
4.10+
66.60+
Line 2
97.80-
.00-
.00-
81 .90-
.00-
51 .80+
41 .70-
97.90-
97.10-
99.20-
6.90-
6.10-
100.00+
Total
98.70-
2.90+
3.00+
80.00-
.00-
51 .80+
44.00-
99.40-
97.00-
99.30-
3.60-
2.10-
233.30+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
-------
100 (
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
\
O'
10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180
.5 23
SETTLING TIME
A
240
4
A
300
5
i.
c
\
)
(minutes)
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19
DATE March 15, 1974
I. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the revised research schedule, limestone was used on
No. I treatment line, while rotary hydrated lime was used as the
neutralizing agent on the No. 2 line, each set at ten and six
pounds per belt-foot, respectively. The flow pattern was series
at 100$ of total flow with no sludge recirculation to the rapid-
mix vessels. An effort was made to maintain line-No. 1 effluent
at pH 3.0 to 3.5 and"Iine No. 2 effluent at pH 7.0.
B. For the research period, February 13-15, 1974, (42.0 hours of
plant operation), the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Sludge volume
Water influent
SIuccs/water ratio
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
0
0
0
0
0
0
Line 1
7,308,000 .
27,681 ,242
Line 2
7,308,000
27,681,242
Total
7,308,000
27,681,242
.000
.000
.000
influent, 2.8
148
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
A I kal Inity added
(mg/l as
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) I -00 15.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 8.99 12.43
Line
TABLE
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 1.26
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) :
3 TREAT1.
Total
Weight*
65,720
90,840
156,560
-SENT COST SUMM
Water
Inf luent#
7,308,000
7,308,000
7,308,000
ARY
C/vol ง
4.1
15.7
19.8
25.8
C/Vol /ocr*1"^*
1 .4
5.2
6.6
8.6
*
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Ol
o
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Ac i d i ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202X
Alkal Inity*
Spec! fie
conductance*
Iron, ferrous.
ppm
1 ron , f erri c,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Win.
10.0
2.7
2900
2600
0
2900
O.I
350
3800
Max.
13.8
2.9
3100
2800
0
4400
O.I
380
3900
Mean
11.8
2.8
3000
2700
0
3900
0. 1
' 360
3850
Min.
10.0
3.4
2300
1600
0
3600
O.I
35
4100
Line 1
Max.
13.7
3.6
2600
1800
0
4300
O.I
57
4200
Mean
1 1.7
3.5
2400
1700
0
4000
O.I
45
4200
Min.
10. 1
6.9
4. 1
0
37
3200
O.I
0.5
4200
Line 2
Max.
13.7
7.4
53
16
51
4600
O.I
1 .2
4200
Mean
1 1.7
7.2
24
7.5
46
4100
O.I
0.9
4200
* ppm as CaC03
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TAIIli: U MliTAL ANALYSIS" (A.A. SITCTROMIOTOICTUY I ROM CLNTRAI I AH.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
site
.-.Plant
U influent
QLine
ar
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.8 0.34 0.12 0.26 89.0 373 9.22 235 32.8 252 200
3.5 0.32 0.08 0.26 85.0 56.5 9.22 210 3.95 246 450
7.0 0.06 0.06 0.39 43.5 0.97 0.13 1.25 3.80 242 1030
*Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAVE7E3S
Percent removal /add? tier
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Line 1
37.10-*
2.50+
9.00+
5.90-
33.40-
.00-
4.50-
84.90-
.00-
10.70-
20.40+
2.40-
125.00+
Line 2
99.60-
2. 50++
.00-
81 .30-
25.00-
50.00+
48.90-
98.30-
98.60-
99.50-
3.80-
1.70-
128.80+
Total
99.80-
5.10-t-
9.00+
82.40-
50.00-
50.00+
51 .20-
99.80-
98.60-
99.50-
15.80+
4.00-
415.00+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
152
-------
100
Ln
U>
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
10
Line 1 OO
Line 2 A-A
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
(minutes)
24 (hours)
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 20
DATE March 15, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the revised research schedule, limestone was used as
the chemical agent on both treatment lines at ten pounds per belt-
foot counterpoise weight. The flow pattern was parallel (50/50),
and sludge was recirculated from each treatment line to its respec-
tive rapid-rmix vessel at a rate of 173 GPM on line No. I and 155
GPM on line.No. 2. An effort was made to maintain line No. I
effluent at pH 3.5 and line No. 2 effluent at pH 4.0.
B. For the research period February 19-20, 1974 (18.6 hours of plant
operation), the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Sludge volume
Water influent Sludge/water ratio
Ga 1 1 ons
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Line 1
193,068
731,302
Line 2
172,980
655,213
Total
366,048
1 ,386,516
1 ,942,956
7,359,528
1 ,294,560
4,903,534
3,237,516
12,283,083
.099
.133
.1 13
*pH desired: Line I, 3.5; Line 2, 4.0. Actual pH: Line I, 3.3, Line 2, 3.9;
influent, 2.8
154
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
AIkaI in ity added
(mg/l as
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) I .00 3.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 5.98 13.89
Line
TABLE
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 0.46
Subtotal:
Total (chemical only):
Total (operating) :
*
+
=H=
ง
#
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
I-1
Ui
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkalinity*
Spec! f Ic
conductance-t-
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Min.
10.8
2.8
2900
2300
0
3500
O.I
290
3200
Max.
11,4
2.9
3100
2700
0
4600
O.I
310
3300
Mean
1 1 .1
2.8
3000
2500
0
4000
O.I
300
3300
Min.
10.5
3.3
2300
1700
0
3700
O.I
34
3400
Line 1
Max.
1 1.7
3.6
2600
1900
0
4600
O.I
64
3500
Mean
1 I.I
3.4
2500
1800
0
4200
O.I '
51
3500
Min.
10.4
3.6
2100
1300
0
3700
O.I
13
3300
Line 2
Max.
II .5
4.3
2300
1600
0
4400
O.I
22
3500
Mean
1 1 .1
4.0
2200
1500
0
4000
O.I
15
3400
* ppm as
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect I on
site
.-.Plant
LJ influent
aL!ne
Line
a 2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.9 0.3L 0.10 0.19 86.5 343 8.86 200 3.31 250 240
3.5 0.29 0.11 0.26 86.0 74.5 9.92 190 3.95 263 490
* ,
4.0 0.28 0.06 0.26 83.0 27.5 9.92 190 4.20 259 550
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/add it ion
PARAMETER
Line I Line 2
Ac I d i ty
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1 ron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesi urn
Calcium
28.00-*
5.00+
6.00+
6.50-
10.00+
36.80+
.60-
78.30-
1 1 .90+ '
5.00-
.19.30+
5.20+
. 104.10+
40.00-
.00-
3.00++
9.70-
40.00-
36.80+ \
4.10-
92.00-
11.90+
5.00-
26.80+
3.60+
129.10+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
158
-------
100
Ui
VD
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
SETTLING TIME
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 21
DATE March 15, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the research schedule, limestone was used as the
chemical agent on both treatment lines at ten pounds per belt-
foot counterpoise weight. The flow pattern was parallel
(75/25), and sludge was recirculated from each treatment line
to its respective rapid-mix vessel at a rate of 173 GPM on line
No. I and 155 GPM on line No. 2. An effort was made to maintain
line No. I effluent at pH 3.5 and line No. 2 effluent at pH 4.0.
B. For the research period February 21, 1974 (11.3 hours of plant
operation), the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
*pH desired:
Sludge volume
Water influent Sludge/water ratic
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Line 1
1 17,294
444,286
Line 2
105,090
398,059
Total
222,384
842,346
1,376,340
5,213,300
389,860
2,234,271
1,966,200
7,447,572
.085
.178
1
.1 13
160
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT
Line I
AIkalinity added
(mg/l as CaC03) 0.00
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) ! -00 2-ฐฐ
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 6.78 12.58
Line
TABLE
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 0.46
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only):
(operating) :
3 TREAT
Total
Weight*
9,340
7,410
16,750.
~
MENT COST SUMM
Water
lnfluent#
1,376,340
589,860
1,966,200
ARY
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkal Inity*
Spec! fie
Conduct! vity+
Iron, ferrous.
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Win.
9.4
2.8
2500
2200
0
3500
O.I
290
3100
Max.
11.3
2.9
3000
2500
0
4400
O.I
350
3200
Mean
10.4
2.9
2700
2400
0
3900
O.I
320
3200
Min.
9.7
3.4
2000
1500
0
3700
O.I
41
3300
Line 1
Max.
1 1.4
3.6
2500
1900
0
4500
O.I
91
3400
Mean
10.4
3.5
2200
1700
0
4000
O.I
65
3400
Min.
9.7
4.0
1600
1200
0
3700
O.I
14
3400
Line 2
Max.
1 1 .4
4.1
2300
1600
0
4300
0. 1
18
3400
Mean
10.4
4.1
1800
1400
0
4000
O.I
16
3400
* ppm as CaCO-j
*- umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect 1 on
site
.-jPlant
LJinf luent
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Nl Mg
2.9 0.29 0.13 0.13 80.0 322 7.80 200 3. 08 240
Ca
230
M Line
ฃ Q I 3.5 0.30 0.09 0.26 79.0 63.0 7.09 200 3.90 249 430
Line
Q 2 4.0 0.28 0.07 0.32 79.5 15.0 7.80 185 4.41 251 525
*Results in mg/l; pH In standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARA:.'E"=ฃ
Percent renovaI/add it ion
PARAMETER
Line I Line 2
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Al umi num
Nickel
Magnesium
Ca lei urn
29.20-*
2.50+
6.20+
3.40+
30.80-
100.00+
1 .30-
80.50-
9.20-
.00-
22.60+
3.70+
86.90+
41.70-
2.50++
6.20+
3.50+ -
46.20-
1 46 . 1 0+
.70-
95.40-
. .00-
7.50-
38 . 60+
4.50+
128.20+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
164
-------
100*
o
t_n
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Line 1 O-O
Line 2 AA
I. V j\ \ A A /\
f*^ r^ s*\ f^ ^~\
{J LJ W LJ LJ
10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180 240 300
.5 2345
SETTLING TIME 2
(
!<
X
)
(minutes)
(hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT NO. 22
DATE March 15, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the revised research schedule, limestone was used as
the chemical agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise
weight of ten pounds per belt-foot. The flow pattern was series
at 100$ of total flow, and sludge was recirculated from each
treatment line to its respective rapid-mix vessel at a rate of 173
6PM on line No. I and 155 GPM on line No. 2. An effort was made
to maintain line-No. I effluent at pH 3.5 - 4.0 and line No. 2
effluent at the highest.pH level attainable.
B. For the research period February 22, 1974 (8.5 hours of plant
operation), the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Sludge volume
Water influent Sludge/water ratio
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Ga 1 Ions
Liters
Line 1
88,230
334,197
Line 2
.79,050
299,425
Total
167,280
633,623
1,479,000
5,602,156
1,479,000
5,602,156
1,479,000
5,602,156
.059
.053
.1 13
*pH desired:
166
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
Line I
Alkalinity added
(mg/l as CaCC^) 0.00
Sludge volume
(% of in iffa I volume
after 24 hours) 2.00 3.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 5.26 14.34
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 0.46
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only):
(operating) :
Total
Wefght+
7,780
21,220
29,000
Water
lnfluent#
1,479,000
1 ,479,000
1 ,479,000
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Oo
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
PH
Ac i d i ty , b . p .
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
A 1 ka 1 i n i ty*
Spec! fie
conduct! vity+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, S04
ppm
Min.
8.7
2.9
1600
1200
0
3300
O.I
150
2400
Max.
10. 1
2.9
1700
1500
0
3800
O.I
160
2400
Mean
9.6
2.9
1600
1300
0
3500
O.I
150
2400
Min.
7.5
4.2
1 100
720
0
3200
O.I
32
3500
Line 1
Max.
10.0
4.3
MOO
830
0
3600
O.I
33
3500
Mean
9.1
4.3
1 100
760
0
3300
O.I
33
3500
Min.
7.4
5.9
97
64
0
3400
O.I
21
3700
Line 2
Max.
9.9
6.1
120
1 10
0
3700
O.I
28
3800
Mean
9.1
6.0
NO
92
0
3500
O.I
25
3800
ppm as
t umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
site
.-.Plant
LJ influent
Line
en
Line
D 2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Nl Mg
2.9 0.16 0.09 0.07 49.5 186 4.96 120 2.85 182
4.0 0.13 0.04 0.26 50.0 34.0 4.96 100 3.62 185
6.0 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.39 48.0 26.5 4.61 20.0 4.08
Ca
250
425
640
^Results In mg/l; pH In standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium -
Ca Icium
Line 1
41,60-*
5.80-
45.80+
18.80-
55.60-
271.40+
1.00+
81 .80-
.00-
16.70-
27.00+
1 .60+
70.00+
Percent reiova
Line 2
87.90-
6.00++
8.50+
61 .60-
25.00-
50.00+
4.00-
22.10-
7.10-
80.00-
12.70+
1 .10-
50.50+
I/addition
Tota 1
93.00-
.00-
58.30+
68.80-
66.70-
H57.IO+
3.10-
85.80-
7.10-
83.40-
43 . 1 0+
.50+
156.00+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
170
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 OO
Line 2 AA
50 60
SETTLING TIME
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESEARCH REPORT MO. 23
DATE March 15, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STAGE
A. According to the revised research schedule, limestone was used as
the chemical agent on both treatment lines at a counterpoise weight
of ten pounds per belt-foot. The flow pattern was series at 50%
of total flow, and sludge was recirculated from each treatment line
to its respective rapid-mix vessel at a rate of 173 GPM on line
No. I and 155 GPM on line No. 2. An effort was made to maintain
line No. I effluent at pH 3.5 - 4.0 and line No. 2 effluent at the
highest pH level attainable.
B. For the research period February 25-26, 1974, (23.4 hours of plant
operation!, the following summary is submitted:
TABLE I TREATMENT DISCHARGE VOLUMES*
Units
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Gal Ions
Liters
Sludge volume
Line 1
242,892
920,026
Line 2
217,620
824,301
Tgta 1
460,512
1,744,327
Water influent Sludgs/watsr ratio
2,200,068 .110
8,333,417
2,200,068 .098
8,333,417
2,200,068 .209
8,333,417
*pH desired: Line \f 4>0; Line 2, 6.0. Actual pH: Line I, 3.3; Line 2, 6.3;
influent, 2.9
172
-------
TABLE 2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
AIkalin ity added
(mg/l as CaC03)
Sludge volume
(% of initial volume
after 24 hours) 1.00 4.00
Treatment required
(Ib chemical/1000
gal influent) 3.70 22.86
TABLE 3 TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
Line
Cost Unit*
1 0.46
2 0.46
Subtotal:
Total
Total
(chemical only) :
(operating) :
Total
Weight+
8,140
50,300
58,440
Water
Influent^
2,200,068
2,200,068
2,200,068
'.'E"=S
Refer to Table 6
5. PROPERTIES OF PLANT SLUDGE
A. Sludge settling behavior
Refer to Figure I
B. Solids content (5) of sludges
Line I (pH 3.7) 4.73$
Line 2 (pH 6.0) 8.33$
173
-------
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSES
Plant Influent
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
Acidity, b.p.
to pH 8.3*
Acidity, cold
to 7.3, H202*
Alkalinity*
Spec! fie
conduct! vity+
Iron, ferrous,
ppm
Iron, ferric,
ppm
Sulfate, 504
ppm
Min.
6.7
2.9
1900
1500
0
3200
O.I
180
2800
Max.
10. 1
3.0
2700
1900
0
4000
O.I
250
3000
Mean
8.6
2.9
2300
1700
0
3600
O.I
230
3000
Min.
6,5
3.3
1500
940
0
3200
O.I
52
2800
Line 1
Max.
10.0
3.5
1900
1400
0
4100
O.I
1 10
2900
Mean
8.5
3.5
1800
1200
0
3700
O.I
8|
2900
Mtn.
6.5
5.9
35
33
57
3300
O.I
14
3200
Line 2
Max.
10. 1
6.1
270
140
96
3100
O.I
24
3500
Mean
8.5
6.0
120
87
85
3800
0. 1
19
3400
* ppm as CaC03
+ umhos/cm at 25C
-------
TABLE 5 METAL ANALYSIS* (A.A. SPECTROPHOTOMETRY FROM CENTRAL LAB.)
Co 1 1 ect i on
site
.-.Plant
LJ influent
Line
IIh
Line
a 2
pH Cu Cr Pb Mn Fe Zn Al Ni Mg Ca
2.9 0.16 0.09 0.26 60.5 241 6.03 140 2.97 196 265
3.5 0.17 0.09 0.26 59.5 88.5 5.67 140 3.49 197 395
6.0 0.05 0.05 0.39 59.5 24.5 4.61 10.0 4.69 198 725
^Results in mg/l; pH in standard units
-------
TABLE 6 PERCENT REDUCTION/ADDITION OF METALS AND SELECTED PARAMETERS
Percent removal/addition
PARAMETER
Acidity
Conductivity
Sulfate
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Iron ABS
Zinc
Aluminum
Nickel
Magnesium
Calcium
Line 1
29.50-*
2.70+
3.40-
6.20+
.00-
.00-
1.70-
63.30-
6.00-
.00-
17.50+
.50+
49.00+
Line 2
92.80-*
2.70+
17.20+
70.60-
44.50-
50.00+
.00
72.40-
18.70-
92.90-
34.30+
.50+
83.50+
Total
94.90-
5.50+
13.30+
68.80-
44.50-
50.00+
1 .70-
89.90-
23.60-
92.90-
57.90+
1 .00+
173.50+
* - indicates percent removal
+ + indicates percent addition
176
-------
100
% SLUDGE
(by volume)
Line 1 OO
Line 2 AA
SETTLING TIME
24 (hours)
Figure 1.
SLUDGE SETTLING BEHAVIOR
-------
PERCENT
REMOVAL, Al
APPENDIX
,.-,-: -_ PART B . -
EFFECTS OF EFFLUENT pH ON % REMOVAL/ADDITION
100
97
34
91
38
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
3 45 67
0123456789012345678901234567890123456739012345
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal of Aluminum Manganese for All
Research Stages
178
-------
PERCENT
ADDITION, Ca
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal/Addition of Calcium (Ca) for
Ail Research Stages
179
-------
PERCENT
REMOVAL, Cu
100
97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
EFFLUENT pH -...._..
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal of Copper for All
Research Stages
180
-------
PERCENT
REMOVAL, Cr
100
97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
EFFLUENT pH
Figure ekro~i;*~^
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal of Aluminum
-------
PERCENT
REMOVAL, Fe+2
100
97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal of Ferrous Iron fur AM
Research Stages Ior AU
182
-------
PERCENT
REMOVAL,
TOTAL Fe
100
97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
345 67
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
EFFLUENT pH _
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal of Total Iron for All
Research Stages
183
-------
Percent
Removal
Mg
Percent
Addition
Mg
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
'
9 0
ซ
^7 ป.ซ ซ
*"""**--
*
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
'
34567
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal/Addition of Magnesium (Mg)
for All Research Stages
184
-------
PERCENT
REMOVAL, Mn
100
97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
EFFLUENT pH
Figure //lanja^.re.
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal of jftluminum (Aiyfor AH
Research Stages
185
-------
Percent
Removal
Ni
Percent
Addition
Ni
100
97
94
91
83
St>
32
79
76
73
7Cf
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
'0
25
50
75
100
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal /Addition of Nickel (Hi) for All
Research Stages
186
-------
Percent
Removal
' Pb
Percent
Addition
Pb
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal /Addition of Lead (Pb) for All
Research Stages
187
-------
Percent
Removal
SO,
Percent
Addition
SO,
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0
25
50
75
100
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34567
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal /Addition of Sulfate (S04) for All
Research Stages
188
-------
Percent
Removal
Zn
Percent
Addition
Zn
100
97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
- 0
25
50
75
100
Estimated Line of
Best Fit
34 5 6 7
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
EFFLUENT pH
Figure
Effect of Effluent pH on Percent Removal/Addition of Zinc (Zn) for
All Research Stages
3S9
-------
APPENDIX
PART C " ~\
RESULTS OF WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION
at ELEVATED pH EFFLUENT LEVELS
Special operation of plant facilities was initiated to
determine the optimum pH effluent levels required to remove
certain constitutents. Based on previous experience, it was
decided that the plant would be operated in series (two
stage) flow, 100^ raw water delivery (2900 gpmi, with sludge
recircuI ation (200 gpm) to both treatment lines. Limestone
was used on the number one treatment line to an intermediate
effluent pH level of 3.9. Hydrated lime was used on line
number 2 to "polish" the final plant effluent to the desired
pH I eve I.
During each segment of the special investigation, the
amount of chemical agent (limestone and lime) and the total
raw water influent flow was closely monitored and summarized.
Plant influent and final treated effluent were sampled twice
during each segment of investigation for the immediate
determination of pH, acidity (b.p.), acidity (Hjฎ?^ ' a'^a' 'n'"
alkalinity and specific conductance. Aliquots of the same
were composited during each investigative sement and acid
preserved for further metal analysis with atomic absorption
spectrophotometry.
190
-------
Table I presents mean water quality data of the plant
influent for the period under special investigation.
Results of operational data are presented as Table 2.
Table 3 presents the results of analytical and chemical
cost data during the period of special operation.
191
-------
TABLE I WATER QUALITY OF PLANT INFLUENT DURING
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS (Mean Values)
Parameter Units Mean Value
pH
Acidity (b.p.) to pH 8.3
Acidity (cold), H202 pH 7.3
A 1 ka 1 i n i ty
Specific Conductance
Sulfate (804)
Copper (Cu)*
Chromium (Cr)*
Lead (Pb)*
Manganese (Mn)*
Iron (Fe)*
Zinc (Zn)*
Al uminum (Al )*
Nickel (Ni)*
Magnesium (Mg)*
Calcium (Ca)*
Cadmium (Cd)*
Mercury (Hg)*
S.U.
mg/l as CaC03
mg/l as CaC03
mg/l as CaC03
umhos-cm at 25ฐC
mg/l
ug/l
uq/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ua/l
ug/l
mg/l
mg/l
ug/l
ug/l
2.8
3000
2400
0
4400
4000
275
1 1 1
50.7
86,170
300,700
2484
193,300
2317
243.3
233.3
101 .7
10.16
* total constituent emcentration
192
-------
TABLE 2 OPERATIONAL RESULTS FOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
WILL SCARLET WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Fi na 1
ef f 1 uent
pH
7,4
8.1
8.9
9.3
9.6
10.9
Chemical used
(Limestone)
Line #1
3,300
860
720
890
780
760
(IbMLime)
Line #2
3,138
882
894
1,614
1 ,632
2,418
Total flow
(gal)
320,200
82,100
70,900
86,800
77,800
80,100
Line #1
10.3
10.5
10.2
1 1.3
9.9
9.7
Line #2
9.8
10.7
12.6
18.6
20.7
30.2
: Line #1
4.74
4.82
4.67
5.20
4.55
4.44
Line #2
12.3
13.5
15.8
23.4
26.1
38.0
Raw Material Costs:
Limestone =0.46 cents/Ib. @ $9.20/ton
Lime = 1.26 cents/lb. @ $25.20/ton
Note: Variation to higher pH levels was accomplished with Rotary Hydrated Lime (Ca(OH)2) on
the No. 2 treatment line.
To convert Ibs/IOOO gals, to Kg/cum, multiply by 0.120. To convert from cents/1000 gals.
to cents/cum, multiply by 0.264. To convert from gpm to liters/min., multiply by 3.785.
-------
TABLE 3 ANALYTICAL (METAL-REMOVAL) AND COST DATA
FOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Parameter
Cu
Cr
Pb
Mn
Fe
Plant influent
Units (Av pH= 2.8)
ug/l 275
% removal /addition*
ฃ/IOOO gals.
ug/l III
% removal /addition
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued) ANALYTICAL (METAL-REMOVAL) AND COST DATA FOR
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION, APRIL 9, 1974
vo
Ui
Parameter
Zn
Al
Ni
Mg
Ca
Cd
Hg
Units
ug/l
% removal /add it ion
ฃ/IOOO gals.
ug/l
% removal /add it ion
------- |