WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 12020 DJI 06/71
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR A POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
PRODUCTION  PLANT
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
          WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes the
results and progress in the control and abatement of pollution
in our Nation's waters.  They provide a central source of
information on the research, development, and demonstration
activities in the water research program of the Environmental
Protection Agency, through inhouse research and grants and
contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies, research
institutions, and industrial organizations.

Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Chief, Publications Branch
(Water), Research Information Division, R&M, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC  20460.

-------
 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
             FOR A
       POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
        PRODUCTION PLANT
               by
  B.E. GOODRICH CHEMICAL COMPANY
 nvronma   oo
       3135 Euclid Avenue
      Cleveland, Ohio  44115
            for the

OFFICR OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      Project No. 12020 DJI
           June, 1971

-------
                  EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute an endorsement
or recommendation for use.
                          ii

-------
                            ABSTRACT
B.F.Goodrich Chemical Company has completed construction and has begun
operation of a new polyvinyl chloride (PVO production plant that includes
emulsion, suspension, and bulk polymerization processes.  The wastewater
treatment system for this plant was designed to meet the stringent dis-
charge requirements of both the State of New Jersey and the Delaware River
Basin Commission.

The wastewater treatment system consists of a primary-secondary completely
mixed activated sludge process including equalization, flocculation,
clarification, mechanical aeration, nutrient addition, sludge thickening
and centrifugation, and automatic process monitoring.

Although the Company operates several PVC production plants in the United
States, none of these plants could be considered to be a duplicate of the
proposed production plant.  Therefore, it was necessary to simulate the
anticipated production plant wastes by selective sampling and to conduct
pilot plant treatment studies.

This report presents summarized results of the laboratory and pilot plant
studies and a complete and detailed description of the full-scale waste-
water treatment system as constructed.

Actual operating data of the system is included and supplemented by dis-
cussion of individual unit operations and unit process performance.  Ev-
aluation of a full-scale wastewater recycle and reuse system is included.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 12020DJI under
the (partial)sponsorship of the Office of  Kesearcti and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
                               iii

-------
                            CONTENTS
Section

  I       Conclusions

  II      Introduction

  III     Design Requirements
             State of New Jersey Dept.  of Health
             Delaware River Basin Commission

  IV      Design Basis
             Water Usage
             Waste Load

  V       Primary Treatment Methods
             Chemical Coagulation
             Dissolved-Air Flotation
             Steeling

  VI      Toxicity Studies

  VII     Secondary Treatment Methods
             Activated Carbon Adsorption
             Contact Stabilization
             Completely Mixed Activated Sludge
Page

  1

  3

  5
 11
 17

 19
  VIII    Oxygen Transfer Studies

  IX      Sludge Removal and Thickening

  X       Process Design Summary

  XI      Operation

  XII     Wastewater Recycle and Reuse

  XIII    Abbreviations

  XIV     References
 29

 37

 41

 51

 67

 71

 73

-------
                             FIGURES







Number                                                Page







  1       Settling Column Sketch                       15




  2       Toxicity Curves                              18




  3       Biological Reactor                           21




  4       BOD Removal Rate vs. Load Ratio              24




  5       Oxygen Transfer Apparatus                    30




  6       Non-Steady State Oxygen Transfer             36




  7       Sludge Thickening Curve                      37




  8       Sludge Clarification and Thickening          39




  9       Waste Treatment System Diagram               42
                            vi

-------
                             TABLES


Number                                                  Page


  1         Raw Process Waste Characteristics             8

  2         Chemical Clarified Process Waste              9

  3         Coagulation Data                             12

  4         Settling Test Data                           16

  5         Pilot Plant Data                             22

  6         Sludge Volume Index Data                     23

  7         Activa-ed Sludge System Design Data          26

  8,9,10    Oxygen Transfer Test Data                    33,34,35

  11,12,    Flocculator Clarifier Performance Data       53,54,
  13,14                                                  55,56

  15,16,    Aeration Tank Performance Data               59,60
  17,18                                                  61,62

  19,20,    Secondary Trearment Performance Data         63,64
  21,22                                                  65,66

  23,24     Recycle Water Quality                        68,69
                           vii

-------
                            SECTION I

                           CONCLUSIONS
1.   Waste equalization facilities were found to be a prerequisite to the
treatment of this type waste.  Variations in organic loading, hydraulic
loading, and problems encountered with shock loadings in the pilot plant
studies substantiated this need.

2.   Latex solids definitely have an adverse effect on a completely mix-
ed activated sludge system.  The solids tend to cling to the biological
•floe causing stickiness and extreme reduction in organic removals.  In
addition, these solids should be removed in order to minimize the diffi-
culty in keeping the aeration tank contents in suspension; in order yto
maximize oxygen transfer; and to reduce the quantity of biological inert
solids in the aeration tank.

These conclusions were supported by the initial difficulty encountered
in obtaining reproducible data from toxicity studies and by the diffi-
culties encountered in the biological treatment studies.

3.   The method most suitable for removal of this type of solids and for
accomplishing primary treatment was determined to be chemical coagula-
tion-flocculation and clarification.  The use of coagulants and coagulant
aids is recommended.  The salt of ferric iron was found to be more eff-
ective as a coagulant as compared to alum.  Calgon 227 and Nalco 670 were
found to be effective coagulant aids.  The dosage requirement for coagu-
lants and coagulant aids was found to be approximately 150 milligrams per
liter, and 1 milligram per liter, respectively.

Dissolved air flotation was investigated and found to be ineffective
for this type of waste.  The floe formed was extremely fragile.

4.   The wastes from this type of production plant were found to be non-
toxic to a biological treatment system.  It was, however, determined nec-
essary to provide waste equalization and primary solids removal prior to
such a system.

5.   Of the secondary treatment methods investigated, a completely mixed
activated sludge system was found to be most applicable for this type of
waste.

Organic loading rates achievable with this system for this  particu-
lar waste were found to be in a range between those for a conventional
activated sludge system and a high rate system treating domestic wastes.
A loading rate of 0.70 pounds of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand removed
per day per pound of volatile suspended solids under aeration was estab-
lished.  This compares with ranges for conventional and high rate systems
of 0.1 to 0.5 and 1.25 to 4.5, respectively  (11).

-------
 Energy oxygen requirements were determined to be 0.90 pounds of oxygen
 per pound of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand removed.  This compares
 with 0.50 for conventional systems treating domestic wastes (12).

 Alpha and Beta factors were established at 0.5 and 0.96,  respectively.
 The Alpha factor established for this waste was lower than that commonly
 found for other types of wastes.  This was attributed in  part to the
 large amount of soaps and emulsifiers in the wastes.  These values  com-
 pare with Alpha and Beta factors of 0.8 and 0.9, respectively,  for  dom-
 estic wastes.

 Sludge production was determined to be 0.68 pounds of volatile  suspended
 solids per pound of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand removed. This  com-
 pares favorably with values of 0.5 to 0.7 for conventional systems  treat-
 ing domestic wastes (11).

 The aeration basin detention time was established at 6 hours.   A mixed
 liquor volatile suspended solids level of 2500 milligrams per liter was
 determined optimum for practical design.

 Aeration  basin  pH adjustment was provided in order to prevent the growth
 of large  numbers of filamentous organisms and bulking sludge.

 This  type of waste was found deficient in nitrogen and phosphorous  levels
 necessary to support biological life.   Supplemental nutrients are essen-
 tial.

 6.   Activated  carbon treatment was  determined to be impractical for
 this waste.   Poor adsorption capacities were attributed to the  presence
 of  water  soluble  long-chain organic  soaps contained in the wastes.

 7.   Laboratory data indicated  the contact stabilization  process was not
 practical  for treatment of  this waste.  The time  requirements for adsorp-
 tion of the  soluble  organics  was found  to be approximately equal to  the
 time required for  complete  degradation.

 8.   Suspended solids  removal efficiency  has averaged  greater than 95
percent through the  flocculator-clarifier system  (primary treatment);
 99  percent through the secondary system;  and 98 percent through the  com-
plete treatment system.

9.   During  initial operations  of the plant  biochemical oxygen demand
 average removal efficiency has  been  in excess  of  98  percent  resulting
in  an average effluent concentration of 2.4  milligrams per  liter.

10.  Wastewater recycle has been investigated  and  appears  feasible.
Plans are underway for installation of a  permanent wastewater recycle
and reuse system.

-------
                           SECTION II

                          INTRODUCTION
In 1966,  B.F.Goodrich Chemical Company initiated plans to construct a
polyvinyl  chloride  (PVC) manufacturing facility on the Delaware River
in Salem County, New Jersey.  This facility would employ emulsion, sus-
pension, and bulk polymerization processes (1,2,3,4) and would generate
waste waters containing monomers, polymers, organic and inorganic salts,
organic acids, resin and rubber fine solids, dispersants, wetting agents,
and catalyst.

The wastewater discharges from this manufacturing facility were subject
to the requirements  of the State of New Jersey Department of Health and
the Delaware River Basin Commission.  A minimum of secondary treatment
and a  90  percent   removal of biochemical oxygen demand was required.

In order to competently design an industrial wastewater treatment system
to meet these established requirements, extensive laboratory and pilot
plant investigations were performed at the Company's environmental con-
trol laboratory.  These investigations were performed under the direction
of graduate sanitary engineers from the Company and from Roy F. Weston &
Associates.

Both primary and secondary treatment methods were investigated.  Waste
equalization; solids removal by chemical coagulation, dissolved air flo-
tation, and clarification; activated carbon adsorption; contact stabili-
zation; completely mixed activated sludge; and various other methods
were considered and  studied.

This report discusses the studies performed with a major emphasis placed
on those processes found most applicable to the treatment of PVC wastes.
A description of laboratory methods and pilot; plant equipment is included.
Typical data is presented and interpreted in terms of process design.
Significant observations, specifically pertaining to the treatment of PVC
wastes, are included along with a detailed and comprehensive process de-
sign summary.  In addition, full-scale plant operation is discussed in
relation to invidivual unit operations and unit processes.  Problems en-
countered during initial start-up operations are presented including re-
commendations for system improvements.  Actual operating data is included.

Lastly, wastewater recycle and reuse is included.  The project was support-
ed in part by the Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental
Projection Agency. Since completion of the wastewater  treatment system,
over 250 persons from 25 states and 3 foreign countries have toured the
facilities.

-------
                          SECTION III
                        DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The waste water effluent from B.F.Goodrich Chemical Plant in Oldmans
Township, New Jersey is subject to the Effluent Quality Requirements and
Water Quality Objectives as established by the New Jersey State Depart-
ment of Health and the Delaware River Basin Commission.

The New  Jersey State Department of Health requires treatment  "to
a degree providing, as a minimum, ninety percent of reduction of bio-
chemical oxygen demand at all times and such further reduction of
biochemical oxygen demand as may be necessary to maintain the receiving
waters, after reasonable effluent dispersion, as specified in the
regulations entitled, "Regulations Concerning Classification of the
Surface Wasters of the Delaware River Basin, Being Waters of the State
of New Jersey, effective July 28, 1967".  (5)

The Delaware River Basin Commission on  April 26, 1967,  adopted
Section X of the Comprehensive Plan entitled "Water Quality Standards
for the Delaware River Basin".  Section 2-1.3, Effluent Quality Re-
quirements, and Section 3-3.6, BOD Reduction of these requirements,
are quoted below.

     Section 2-1.3 Effluent Quality Requirements;

     (1) Minimum Treatment.  All wastes shall receive a minimum of
         secondary treatment, regardless of the stated stream quality
         objective.

     (2) Disinfection.  Wastes (exclusive of stormwater bypass) con-
         taining human excreta or disease producing organisms shall
         be effectively disinfected before being discharged into
         surface bodies of water.

     (3) Public Safety.  Effluents shall not create a menace to
         public health or safety at the point of discharge.

     (4) Limits.  Discharges shall not contain more than negligible
         amounts of debris, oil, scum or other floating materials,
         suspended matter which will settle to form sludge, toxic
         substances, or substances or organisms that produce color
         taste, odor of the water, or taint fish or shellfish flesh.

-------
      Section  2-1.3  Effluent Quality Requirements;  (continued)

      (5) Allocation of Capacity.  Where necessary  to meet the stream
         quality objectives,  the waste assimilative capacity of the
         receiving  waters  shall be allocated in accordance with the
         doctrine of equitable apportionment.
     Section 3-3.6 BOD Reduction

         The 85 percent minimum BOD reduction for secondary treat-
         ment will be determined by an average of samples taken over
         each period of thirty consecutive days of the year.  From
         December 1 through March 31 a lesser percent reduction may
         be permitted by the Commission when it results from reduced
         plant efficiency caused by low atmospheric temperature, pro-
         vided that the BOD reduction shall not be less than an
         average of 75 percent over any consecutive ten days.
B.F.Go9<3rich Chemical Company, therefore, established design objectives
to meet or exceed these requirements.  The waste treatment system was
designed for 90 percent removal of ultimate biochemical oxygen demand at
winter conditions, 13°C.

-------
                            SECTION IV
                            DESIGN BASIS
B.F.Goodrich Chemical Cpmpany has several plants engaged in the pro-
duction of polyvinyl chloride resins,  similar to those to be produced at
the Pedricktown, New Jersey plant.  To estimate the design flows and
effluent waste  concentrations to be expected, data from these exist-
ing plants were  inspected.  Obviously,  corrections were necessary to
compensate for  advanced process technology, improved housekeeping and
water  conservation practices, and differing production capacities.

In addition,  complete theoretical process material balances were
utilized for establishment of water usage and waste concentrations.
                             WATER USAGE

The waste water volume for the new plant was  established  at
800,000 gallons per day.  This figure includes all process wastes,
utility water, storm drainage from areas subject  to accidental spills,
storm drainage from critical tank farm diked areas, and a nominal
expansion capacity.  The new plant water usage per pound of product
was established at approximately 20 percent less  than  the lowest
usage figures for similar processes in existing plants.
                             WASTE LOAD

In many cases when a new production facility is being designed,
synthetic wastes or process pilot plant wastes must be utilized  for
study.  Fortunately in this particular case, many of the processes
scheduled for the new plant were in production at an existing Goodrich
plant.  Thus for design purposes, waste water samples were taken from
these existing processes and composited in proper proportion for the
new plant production capacities.

The analyses of all samples were in  accordance with  "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water & Waste Water", 12th Edition,
published by the American Public Health Association.  Dissolved
oxygen determinations were made with a YSI dissolved oxygen analyzer.
Total carbon and total organic carbon determinations were made with
a Beckman carbonaceous analyzer.

-------
 The analyses of these composited waste   samples are shown in
 Table 1.         With the exception of COD, these data were averaged
 and utilized for design.  Necessary corrections were applied to com-
 pensate for factors previously discussed.  A  significant variation in
 organic and solids  loading is  apparent,  thus indicating a need for.
 waste equalization  prior  to  any  treatment  process.
                               TABLE 1
                  RAW PROCESS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS*

Date
3/29/68
3/30/68
3/31/68
4/10/68
4/11/68
4/16/68
4/17/68
4/18/68
4/19/68
4/22/68
4/23/68
4/24/68
4/25/68
4/26/68
4/30/68
5/01/68
5/02/68
5/03/68
5/06/68
5/07/68
COD
mg/1
1600
1372
2660
7440
1068
1960
3064
3885
1546
6547
4464
4464
2381
2142
1904
5356
4256
4365
6994
1760
TC
mg/1
460
545
590
2600
380
800
848
860
460
710
1410
1310
705
1000
390
1840
1520
1280
790
270
TS
mg/1
980
1728
1267
4420
1068


2363
1683

1347
2098
1359
2486
1936
4060

3290
2884
2808
VTS
mg/1
666
1040
880
3816
483


447
1148

1079
1468
1032
1712
1249
3395

3044
1314
1431
SS
mg/1
436
992

2888
528


456
678

348
1902
560
1628
1180
2688

1392
976
808
VSS
mg/1
376
974

2856
516


412
632

340
1866
536
1584
1112
2620

1344
952
784
                                                                Turbidity
                                                                   JTU

                                                                   245
                                                                  1760

                                                                  8500
                                                                   350
                                                                   168
                                                                  1070
                                                                  1680
                                                                   190
                                                                  3200
                                                                  2500
                                                                  3800
                                                                  2140
                                                                  2400
Average             938       2230      1514      1164      1125

*Necessary corrections have not been  applied  to this  data.

           COD  =  Chemical Oxygen Demand
           TC   =  Total Carbon
           TS   =  Total Solids
           VTS  =  Volatile Total Solids
           SS   =  Suspended  Solids
           VSS  =  Volatile Suspended  Solids
2160

-------
 Design parameters for organic loading were handled in a different
 manner.   It was found that consistent and reproducible BOD5  (5  day
 biochemical oxygen demand) results  could not be  achieved until  the  raw
 process  wastes had been chemically  clarified.  Table  2  shows
 BODc  and COD data on chemically clarified process  wastes.  These data
were ranked arithmetically and statistically analyzed.   Design values
 for 8005 and COD were then selected,  such that the probability  of
 exceeding these values was less than  10 percent.
                               TABLE 2

                  CHEMICALLY CLARIFIED  PROCESS WASTE
                            ORGANIC LOADING
                              RANKED JDATA	

                                        100
       BOD            N           n + 1                COD
       356            1              3.3              820
       410            2              6.7              832
       427            3              10.0              843
       482            4              13.3              920
       490            5              16.7              940
       493            6              20.0              964
       543            7              23.4              976
       548            8              26.7             1009
       567            9              30.0             1016
       583           10              33.4             1091
       615           11              36.7             1115
       629           12              40.0             1136
       647           13              43.4             1178
       658           14              46.7             1190
       666           15              50.0             1192
       690           16              53.4             1220
       714           17              56.6             1270
       744           18              60.0             1280
       746           19              63.4             1309
       752           20              66.6             1320
       753           21              70.0             1360
       767           22              73.5             1440
       802           23              76.7             1449
       808           24              80.0             1449
       873           25              83.4             1473
       901           26              86.7             1557
      1036           27              90.0             1599
      1254           28              93.4             1768
      1470           29              96.7             3030

-------
In summary, the  following data were developed characteristic of the
raw process wastes.  The BODg and COD results represent chemically
clarified process wastes.

          Waste  Volume                       =   800,000 GPD

          BOD5                               =       720 mg/1

          COD                                =     1,285 mg/1

          TS (Total Solids)                  =     2,000 mg/1

          SS (Suspended Solids)              =     1,000 mg/1

          VSS (Volatile Suspended Solids)    =       950 mg/1

In addition,  variations in both hydraulic and  organic loading
were observed.  Moreover, it was found that  chemical clarification of
the wastes was necessary in order to achieve reproducible BOD5 data.
This also further substantiates the need for waste equalization.
                                 10

-------
                            SECTION V
                   PRE1ARY TREATMENT METHODS
The waste   streams  to be  treated originate  predominantly from
emulsion, suspension, and bulk polymerization processes.  In general
the waste can be characterized as milky white in color and containing
various amounts of monomers, polymers, organic and inorganic salts,
organic acids, resin and rubber fine solids, dispersants, wetting
agents, catalysts, and trace amounts of heavy metals.  In addition, the
waste may be further characterized by the data in Table 1, Section IV.

This section discusses the laboratory  investigations performed in
order to develop a primary treatment method applicable to this
waste.  The methods investigated consisted of chemical coagulation,
dissolved air flotation, and settling.  The procedures and apparatus
used will be discussed; data will be presented; and conclusions will
be drawn.
                        CHEMICAL COAGULATION

In general, the solids in the wastewater can be described as 80 percent
settleable, 15 percent colloidal, and 5 percent floating.  To remove col-
loidal solids, to settle floating solids, or to raise settleable solids,
a coagulant is needed.  A coagulant will stabilize the colloidal mater-
ials and form floe materials, thus enhancing sedimentation or flotation,
depending on the particular application.

A coagulant aid may also be used with a coagulant in order to pro-
mote the formation of larger floe particles, thus enhancing solids
removal.

Several  coagulants and coagulant aids were used  to determine the
right combination for this particular waste effluent.  The coagulants
tested were alum, fsrri-floc, and ferric chloride.  The coagulant aids
used were anionic, cationic, and non-ionic.

The Phipps-Bird jar test apparatus  was used when performing  these
studies.  The equipment consists of six mixers with variable speeds
(0 to 100 rpm) and six one-liter beakers.  Each waste sample tested
was one liter in size.
                                  11

-------
 In all cases, each sample  was mixed at 100 rpm  and the chemicals
 were added.   After two minutes of the flash mix,  the mixer was adjusted
 to 50 rpm for five minutes.   The final 10  minutes were conducted at
 10 rpm in order to promote floe growth.  It was important to mix the
 coagulant first at 100 rpm and then add the coagulant aid.   Reversing
 the order would not produce  a satisfactory floe particle.

 When testing for the type of coagulant,  each coagulant was tested
 alone;  coagulant aids were not used at this point.   The results of the
 coagulation  tests indicated  the salt of the ferric ion worked best.   The
 alum worked  fairly well.   Good results with alum were achieved only in  a
 narrow pH range close  to 8.   The Fe'''  worked well over a wide pH range
 (4.0 to 10.0)  and because of this was  considered  best for the results
 needed for this system.   The optimum dosage for the Fe'''  was 150 mg/1
 as  FeClo-
                                              |i I
 The coagulants  aids w.ero tested using the Fe' ' '  at an optimum dos-
 age,  as  indicated by the  results of previous tests.   The results indi-
 cated that a slightly cationic to non-ionic polyelectrolyte was the  best
 for the  purposes  of the study.   The chemicals  that worked well were  Calgon
 227"and  Nalco  670.   The optimum dosage  of polyelectrolyte  was 1 mg/1.

 The data in  Table 3 shows typical results obtained using a composite waste
 sample  similar to that which was expected to exist at the Pedricktown plant.
Note  that  the  coagulant dosage was 150mg/l, and the  coagulant aid dos-
age was  lmg/1.  Turbidity was  used as  a parameter for solids removal
efficiency.  In all  cases, a  significant amount of turbidity was re-
moved.   COD was also  used as  a measure  of efficiency;  however,  the COD
is only  a  function  of the removal  of solids which have soluble  organics
attached to  them.
                              TABLE 3
                          COAGULATION DATA
         Before Coagulation
    After Coagulation
Sample
1.
2.
3.
4.
Turbidity
1800 JTU
860 JTU
400 JTU
950 JTU
COD
778 mg/1
1532 mg/1
1863 mg/1
2621 mg/1
_pJH_
9.5
11.0
11.0
12.4
5.7
9.8
6.7
5.8
COD
778 mg/1
1109 mg/1
1552 mg/1
1935 mg/1
Turbidity
(Clarified)
10 JTU
44 JTU
55 JTU
24 JTU
* Suspended
Solids
1114 mg/1
779 mg/1
671 mg/1
427 mg/1
NOTE: 1. 150 mg/1 FeClo coagulant dosage and 1 mg/1 coagulant aid dosage
was used for all samples.
           The final suspended solids data
           before settling.   These figures
           treatment design purposes.
is that of the total sludge
were obtained for sludge
                                  12

-------
 In conclusion,   it was determined  that  coagulation  is  an  effective
 method of  solids agglomeration  from  the waste under  investigation.  The  salt
 of ferric  ion was found to work best at dosages ot approximately 150
 mg/1.   In  addition,  Calgon 227  and Nalco  670 coagulant  aids were found
 to enhance solids removal.   The order of  addition  of the coagulant and
 coagulant  aid was found to be of importance.  The  coagulant must be
 mixed  first.

 Once a suitable  dosage of coagulant and  coagulant aid  was deter-
 mined, the next  step was to  determine the best method of solids removal.
 The methods of dissolved-air flotation and  settling  were investigated.
 These  methods were evaluated by the  volume  rate of which suspended
 solids were removed.
                      DISSOLVED-AIR FLOTATION

To remove waste materials,  using  the principle  of  dissolved-air
flotation,  air is  dissolved in water under  pressure,  injected  into  the
waste  sample, and  released.  The result  is  thousands  of micro-bubbles
rising to the surface.  These small bubbles cling to  the  floe  particles
and  suspended matter  carrying them to the surface.

The  equipment  used consisted of a one-gallon pressurizing  cylinder,
a one-liter graduated cylinder, and the  Phipps-Bird mixing apparatus
described previously.   The procedure followed  for  coagulating the  waste
was  the same as that  described in  the previous section.   After a  sample
had  been coagulated,  a  portion was put into the  graduated cylinder.
Before the  floe could settle, air-saturated water under approximately
40 PSIG pressure was  injected into the base of the  cylinder.   The micro-
bubbles released carried  the materials to the surface.

Dissolved-air flotation  proved very ineffective  for this particular
waste.   The floe formed was extremely fragile and acceptable solids re-
moval  could not be accomplished.
                              SETTLING

The  equipment used for the   settling consisted of an eight foot
plexiglass  column with  sample ports  at  each foot  of  depth as  shown in
Figure  1.   The coagulant  and  coagulant  aid  dosage was known from previous
jar  tests.  The dosage  for  the column was based on a five-gallon sample
volume.

The procedure  consisted of thoroughly  mixing the coagulant and co-
agulant aid into the  five-gallon  sample.  This sample was then pumped
into the plexiglass column.   A multi-blade,  6 RPM agitator inside  the
column was  used to flocculate the waste for a period of  15 to  20 minutes.
Following flocculation, samples were taken  from the  one  and six foot
depth sample ports and  were considered  zero time  samples. The average
                                 13

-------
of the  two zero time  samples was used as  the initial  suspended solids
for the waste.  At  set  time intervals,  additional  samples were taken
from one, two, four,  and  six foot  sample  ports.  All  samples were
analyzed  for  suspended  solids.

The data  shown in Table 4 indicates the suspended  solids at various time
intervals and depths  in the column for both coagulated and uncoagulated
wastes.  The depths indicated are  measured from the top of the column
down.  The results clearly indicate the need for chemical coagulation.
As shown, the maximum suspended solids removed at  a point of one foot
depth in the column was 48 percent of the total for uncoagulated wastes.
For coagulated wastes, approximately 95 percent of the suspended solids
were removed after 30 to 60 minutes of settling.

All data completed on settling tests gave results of  95 percent suspended
solids removal.  From this data a  primary clarifier overflow rate was
established at 1000 GPD/ft2, and the detention time at 2.8 hours.  App-
ropriate scale-up factors were used to compensate  for the ideal settl-
ing conditions of the study.
                                14

-------
   FIGURE 1
SETTLING COLUMN

               Stirring Mechanism

                    Sample Ports
                 81 x 6" Plexiglass Column
                 1'
                   12"
               6"
               I
        15

-------
                              TABLE 4
                SETTLING TEST ON UNCOAGUIATED EFFLUENT
  Time             Suspended Solids            % Suspended Solids Removed
 Minutes       at Indicated Depths mg/1           at Indicated Depths
               1'     2'      4'       61        I1       2f       4'     61
0
10
20
30
60
496
390
260
270
480

476
320
330
390

320
320
376
440
496
220
270
380
360

21
48
45
3

4
35
33
21

35
35
25
11

66
45
23
27
    120       260     390     360     410       48      21       27     17
    180       280     340     480     380       43      31        3     23
  1,080       280     290     500     320       43      41       xx     35
                SETTLING TEST ON COAGULATED EFFLUENT

                     Coagulant Dosage = 150 mg/1
 Time             Suspended Solids           % Suspended Solids Removed
Minutes       at Indicated Depths mg/1          at Indicated Depths
              1'     2'     4'      6'       1'      2'       4f     6'
0
1
5
10
20
30
60
90
130

330
199
78
46
35
26


494
402
209
102
55
41
34
14
8

537
256
111
62
51
34
39
21
799
624
461
163
57
36
39
37
31

49
69
88
93
95
96



38
68
84
91.5
94
95
98
99

17
60
83
90.5
92
95
94
97

3
29
75
91
96
94
94
95
                                  16

-------
                            SECTION VI
                         TOXICITY STUDIES
During the preliminary waste characterization studies, extreme difficulty
was encountered in developing consistent and reproducible BOD data.   This
factor indicated the possibility of elements in the wastes which were
toxic to microorganisms commonly utilized in wastewater treatment opera-
tions.  Therefore, before detailed biological treatment studies were be-
gun, toxicity studies were conducted.  Waste streams were investigated on
both an individual and composite basis.

These studies consisted of batch tests  using  standard BOD deter-
minations.  A series of BOD's were prepared with waste concentrations
ranging from 0 to 98 percent.  Prior to setting up the BOD determina-
tions the wastes were chemically clarified.  To insure that biode-
gradable materials were present, 0.12 milligrams of glucose was added
to each BOD bottle.  Acclimated seed, nutrients, and dilution water
were added before incubation.  Dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements were
taken before and after incubation.  A YSI DO analyzer was used for
oxygen determinations.

A  plot  of DO concentration  versus waste concentration will indi-
cate if toxicity is present.  If no toxicity is present, the DO
concentration will decrease as the waste concentration increases.
This will continue until all DO is depleted.  If toxicity is present
the DO will deplete to a point where the waste concentration becomes
toxic.  Beyond this point the DO depletion will decrease with increas-
ing waste concentration.  Figure 2 shows the results of toxicity
studies on composite wastes.  Curve B illustrates a toxic waste.  It
was later found that this toxicity was due to an excess of hexavalent
chromium from a process spill.

It was concluded that the combined wastes under investigation would
not be toxic to a biological system.  In addition, these studies
further substantiated the need for providing equalization and spillage
isolation facilities prior to a biological system.
                                17

-------
                                     Curve A  -  No Toxicity
                            X
                             \
                               \
                                  \
S
o
01
I—I
a




c  4


00
•X3


-------
                           SECTION VII
                   SECONDARY TREATMENT METHODS
In order to achieve the treatment levels as outlined in Section III,
it was necessary to provide secondary treatment.  The methods of second-
ary treatment considered consisted of activated carbon and various
biological systems.

Activated carbon adsorption isotherm tests were conducted on the chem-
ically clarified wastes.  These tests indicated that the adsorption
capacity of activated carbon was relatively poor for these particular
wastes.  This poor adsorption capacity was attributed to water soluble
long-chain organic soaps contained in the wastes.  It was thus concluded
that activated carbon treatment would not be a practical or economical
method of achieving secondary treatment.  Therefore, no further carbon
studies were conducted.

The biological systems considered consisted of an aerated lagoon, a
completely mixed activated sludge system, and contact stabilization.

The aerated lagoon was eliminated due to excessive area requirements
and the degree of treatment attainable from this type process.

Laboratory data indicated that the contact stabilization process was
not practical.  The time requirements for adsorption of the soluble
organics was found to be approximately equal to the time required for
complete degradation.
                                                     4
Past experience in the waste treatment field has shown the completely
mixed activated sludge process to be highly efficient and more cap-
able of withstanding shock loading.  For this reason it was decided to
further investigate the feasibility of utilizing this  system.

At this point a completely mixed activated sludge pilot plant process
was designed and operated in order to develop design parameters for a
treatment system.
                                 19

-------
 The  consulting firm of  Roy F. Weston & Associates was contracted
 to provide assistance in these studies.  Design data was developed from
 both the continuous pilot process and from batch tube run studies which
 utilized the sludge produced in the continuous pilot process.   The tube
 runs were conducted in accordance with procedures developed by the con-
 sultant (8,  9,  10)  as  described in the referenced report.   No  further des-
 cription is  included  in this report.

 The data  developed from  the  continuous and  batch studies compared
 closely with the exception of  oxygen requirements.  With this  exception,
 the data developed  from the continuous pilot plant was used for design
 purposes since  the  continuous  system represented the waste stream over
 a  longer period of  time.

 The  following  paragraphs  describe the equipment and the methods of
 operation used  in the continuous pilot plant studies.  Data on the final
 pilot plant  study will be presented and discussed.  Calculations leading
 to the selection of process design conditions will be presented and im-
 portant observations  will be discussed.
                        CONTINUOUS  PILOT PLANT

In these  studies a completely  mixed  activated   sludge  system was
simulated by providing  sludge recycle  and mixing  of  the  aeration  tank
contents.  The equipment used is shown in Figure  3   and  consisted of
a 55-gallon equalization and feed  tank,  a 6-gallon aeration  tank, a
5-gallon conical clarifier, aeration diffuser, and appropriate pumps.

The biological  system was started by  placing a mixture  of activated
sludge from a nearby  sewage treatment  plant  in the aeration  tank.  Chemi-
cally clarified process waste was  placed in  the feed tank.   Essential
nutrients were added.  The waste feed  pumps  were  started at  a low initial
feed rate in order to allow acclimatization  of the organisms.  The process
was operated under various conditions  of feed rate,  detention time,
sludge recycle rate, and at various mixed liquid  volatile suspended
solids levels (MLVSS).  Some of the data developed is shown  in Table 5
The symbols and terms used are discribed below.

          Ql  =  Feed rate of the chemically clarified process
                 wastes, ml/min.

          Q«  =  Sludge recycle rate, ml/min.

          T   =  System operating temperature, °C.

          L   =  BODc of the chemically  clarified process
                 wastes, ng/1.
                                  20

-------
Feed Pump
^






i

Chemically
Clarified
Waste Feed
and
Nutrients
              55-Gal.
              Feed Tank
                                      Air Supply
                                             6-Gal. Aeration Basin
                             5-Gal. Clarifier


                                 Settled Sludge


                                     *<
                           Sludge Recycle Pump
                                                                  Clarified
                                                                       Effluent
                                                                                  w
                                                                                  H
                                                                                  1
                                                                                        1

-------
                               TABLE 5
 Date

 4/5
 4/6
 4/10
 4/11
 4/15
 4/16
 4/19
 4/20
 4/21
 4/22
 4/23
 4/24
 4/25
 4/27
 4/28
4/29
 5/1
 5/2
 5/3
5/4
5/5
5/6
Ql

10
17
24
24
30
30
47
50
50
58
50
48
48
66
48
55
48
64
66
66
66
65
ANALYTICAL DATA
CONTINUOUS PILOT PLANT STUDIES
02
10
17
24
24
30
30
47
50
50
58
50
36
36
67
50
59
51
70
72
72
72
68
T
16
23
21
20
20
19
22
22
25
23
20
20
17
20
22
24
20
17
22
21
20
18
L0
802
873
901
752
636
629
1470
753
2120
1328
1236
2100
2000
1096
1019
1515
1065
1113
1348
1158
1244
928
if
26
26
24
24
14
18
15
13
25
57
25
16
30
40
25
50
36
44.3
55.0
50.0
44.0
23.0
Si
1780
1220
2160
1980
2130
1900
3020
2950
4600
3290
3190
3700
4670
4030
3180
3500
3860
4190
2940
4290
4630
3820
1133
 670
 473
 473
 378
 378
 242
 227
 227
 186
 227
 270
 270
 186
 220
 204
 238
 179
 173
 173
 173
 175
                                 22

-------
         Le  =  Equilibrium BODg which is equivalent to the
                effluent BODc, considering the system is
                operating continuously at equilibrium.

         S^  =  MLVSS in the aeration tank, mg/1.

         t£  =  Detention time in the aeration tank, min.

From the data in  Table 5 and  the system geometry,  the relation-
ship of the BODc removal rate coefficient (r) to the load rate Li/Si
can be developed as shown in Figure 4.  The BODg removal rate co-
efficient is a measure of the rate of BODc removal from the aeration
tank under equilibrium conditions; that is,

         r  =  Li - Le      min. ~1
         where L. = BODe of the aeration tank influent, mg/1

                + Q2 Le
              Ql +Q2

The  load ratio  =  L./Sj[, mg/1  BOD5/mg/l  MLVSS, and may be defined
as a measure of the food to microorganism ratio in the aeration tank.

Once this relation  was established,  then various process design and
operating conditions were investigated in order to define optimum de-
sign parameters in terms of physical equipment capacities and operation-
al flexibility.  Calculations were made at MLVSS levels of 1500, 2000,
3000, 3500, and 5000 mg/1 and at three sludge volume index (SVI) levels;
100, 150 and 200 representing conditions of good settling, average
settling, and poor settling  respectively.  These values were estab-
lished based on the laboratory data shown in Table 6.

                              Table 6.
                      SLUDGE VOLUME INDEX DATA

         DATE                MLSS (mg/1)               SVI
         4/7                    1890                   97.8
         4/9                    2090                   83.7
         4/17                   2900                   62.1
         4/18                   3060                   68.6
         4/23                   3490                   68.8
         4/24                   3980                   61.6
         4/25                   4670                   63.2
         4/26                   5320                   59.2
         4/27                   4380                   57.1
         4/28                   3570                   58.8
         4/29                   3920                   63.8
         4/30                   5440                   53.3
         5/1                    4640                   62.5
                                  23

-------
                              FIGURE 4


                   BOD REMOVAL RATE VS LOAD RATIO
H
S3
W
            0.1
O
§
CQ
     Q)
     II

     M
        d)
       4-J
            .02
           .01
          .005
                                      _L
0.05     0.1


    LOAD RATIO
                                                        0.2
0.5
                                    24

-------
Note that the  SVI shown in the  Sludge Volume Index Data on the
preceding page, was less than 100 for all MLVSS levels, indicating
good sludge settling characteristics.

For the calculations, a design flow of  0.8 MGD  was used at a BODc
concentration of 720 mg/1.  All calculations were based on a 90 percent
BOD removal at winter conditions (13° C.).

The following equations were used for  calculating the  data  shown
in Table 7.

    (1)  MLVSS (mg/1) = 907, MLSS       MLSS =


    (2)  Recycle SS (mg/1) =  1 x 106
                                SVI

    (3)  Percent Recycle =    _ MLSS _
         of Forward Flow      Recycle SS - MLSS
     (4)  Basin Volume = (Design Flow Rate) (1 + Percent Recycle) t
                                                                 e
                  where te = detention time

                           = Li - Le
                             r -^goQ Le

                  where r is determined from Figure 4 and
                  corrected to 13°C.

Analysis of the  calculated data  in Table 7  show  a considerable
variation in recycle rates, aeration basin volumes, and detention time
for the MLVSS levels investigated.  Variation at the individual MLVSS
levels for the selected SVl's were less extreme.  It was desired to
select a MLVSS concentration sufficiently high in order to minimize basin
volume while at the same time holding the sludge recycle rates within
reasonable operational ranges.  For these reasons, a MLVSS level of 2500
mg/1 and an SVI of 150 was selected for design parameters.  Up to this
2500 mg/1 level, the aeration basin volume requirements remained essen-
tially constant for all SVI levels up to 200.  In addition, the corres-
ponding sludge recycle rate requirements are manageable for the SVI
levels up to 200.

As previously indicated, the  oxygen requirements  were developed
from the tube run studies.  It was found that 0.9 pounds of energy
oxygen were required per pound of BOD^ removed (equivalent to 4100
pounds oxygen per day).  In addition, the endogenous oxygen requirement
for the design VSS level was found to be 875 pounds per day.  In com-
bination, the total oxygen requirement amounted to 207 pounds per day
(equivalent to 70 mg/l/hr.).
                                 25

-------
                                                              TABLE  7
NO
Activated
MLVSS (mg/1)
SVI
Recycle (%)
Recycle (GPM)
Process Eff. (%)
Li, (fflg/1)
Basin Volume ,
Gallons X 10
Detention Time
Min. at "r" 13°C.

100
20
112
88.1
611
42.8
640
1500
150
33.
186
87
556
43.
590
Sludge System Design Data

200
4 50
278
85.9
505
9 43.2
500
100
38.5
214
86.6
540
34.8
450
2500
150 200
71.5 125
398 696
84 80
450 360
35.4 32.0
370 255

100
63.6
354
84.6
468
30.1
330
3500
150 200
141 350
785 1950
78.9 66.7
341 216
23.5 18.0
175 72

-------
Excess sludge  production values  also were determined from the
tube run studies.  It was found that 0.68 pounds VSS were produced
per pound of BOD^ removed; 51 pounds of VSS were destroyed per 1000
pounds VSS under aeration; and that 50 mg/1 SS would be lost in the
secondary clarifier effluent.

In summary, the  design parameters  developed from the biological
studies, which were later used for design purposes, consisted of:

          MLVSS Concentration    =  2500 mg/1

          SVI                    =  150

          Sludge Recycle Rates   =  0-125%, normal = 71.5%
          Aeration Basin Volume  =  354,000 gallons

          Detention Time         =  370 minutes

          Oxygen Requirements    =  70 mg/l/hr.
          Sludge Production      =  0.68# VSS/#BOD5 removed

In addition to these  specific parameters,  several important obser-
vations were made relative to the biological treatment of PVC wastes.
The significance of these observations was incorporated into the system
design.  Such observations are discussed below.

     1.   Solids removal prior to biological treatment -

          It was found that latex solids definitely have an adverse
          effect on a completely mixed activated sludge system.  These
          solids tend to cling to the biological floe causing sticki-
          ness and extreme reductions in organic removal.  In*addition,
          these solids should be removed in order to minimize the
          difficulty in keeping the aeration tank contents in suspension;
          in order to maximize oxygen transfer; and in order to reduce
          the quantity of biologically inert solids in the aeration
          tank.

     2.   pH adjustment -

          Provisions should be made for caustic addition in order to
          prevent the pH from dropping significantly below 7.0.  On
          two separate occasions the pH in the aeration tank dropped
          to approximately 5.0 for short periods of time.  This resulted
          in the presence of large numbers of filamentous organisms
          and a bulking sludge.

     3.   Supplemental nutrients -

          This type oZ waste was found to be deficient in nitrogen
          and phosphorous levels necessary to support biological
          life.  Supplemental nutrients are essential.
                                   27

-------
Equalization -

The waste from this type of production process was found to
be variable in hydraulic and organic loading.  A one day
waste equalization time is recommended in order to prevent
"shocking" of the biological treatment process.
                       28

-------
                          SECTION VIII
                     OXYGEN TRANSFER STUDIES
Oxygen transfer studies were conducted to determine the transfer charac-
teristics of the waste.  In order to size aeration equipment it was nec-
essary to know alpha (a) and beta (p).  Alpha is the ratio of the trans-
fer coefficient in waste water to the transfer coefficient in tapwater.
Beta is the ratio of oxygen saturation values.

The equipment used is shown in Figure 5.  Mixed liquor was placed in
the basin and the surface aerator started.  Once the test had started
none of the equipment could be moved.  Changing the position of the
aerator or basin would change the overall oxygen transfer coefficient
(K^a) that was obtained, and therefore give an invalid value for a,

Waste water was fed into the basin for the purpose of determining an
equilibrium dissolved oxygen value.  When the feed is started the dis-
solved oxygen will begin to drop.  When the dissolved oxygen stabilizes,
this value is recorded and the oxygen uptake rate is measured by record-
ing DO versus time.

The basin was then emptied, cleaned, and refilled with tapwater without
moving the basin.  The dissolved oxygen was then removed using sodium
sulfite.  Cobaltous chloride was used as the catalyst.  The surface
aerator was then started at the  same speed as was used on the mixed
liquor.  The values of DO versus time were recorded as oxygen was trans-
ferred to the water.

The saturation values (Cg) were  obtained by aerating supernate and tap-
water until saturation was obtained.

The rate of diffusion of oxygen  from the gas to the liquid depends on
the temperature, the driving force (concentration gradient), the area
across which diffusion takes place, and the characteristics of the waste.
The process is defined by Fick's law:
                N = (DLA)  d£                                 (i)
                           dy
   where:
       N      =  mas transfer per unit time
       A      =  cross sectional area
       dc/dy  =  concentration gradient perpendicular to cross-
                 sectional area
       DT      =  diffusion coefficient
                                  29

-------
                             Aerator Mechanism
u>
o
                                                    0 u u u trtru

                                                      Basin
                                                                                      Clamp
             Feed Pump
•n
H
o

@
M

Ul
                                                                                   Overflow

-------
Assuming that  equilibrium exists  at the interface,  Lewis and
Whitman developed the two film concept.  This concept considers in-
finitely small stagnant films at the gas and liquid interface through
which the gas is transferred.  Pick's law can be rewritten as:

                 N = KLA (CS-C) = KgA (pg-p)              (2)
     where :
         KL  =  liquid film coefficient

         Kg  =  gas film coefficient

         C   =  dissolved oxygen concentration

         p   =  partial pressure of oxygen

For oxygen and  other slightly soluble gases, the  liquid film will
control.  Since N = (dc/dt)V equation (1) can be re-expressed as:

                 dc/dt = KL(A/V) (CS-C)                   (3)

For  convenience,    KT (A/V) is usually expressed K^a which is  the  over-
all transfer coefficient.

                 dc/dt = KLa (CS-C)                       (3-A)

In an activated  sludge system there is  a  simultaneous  oxygen up-
take while the oxygen is being transferred.  Equation (3) becomes:

                 dc/dt = Kja (Cs-C) - r                   (4)

     where:
         r   =  biological oxygen uptake rate

     If, as in the laboratory test, the system is in steady state:

                 dc/dt = 0

             and KLa   = r/C -C                           (5)

To find  K-^a on tap water, a non-steady method  must be used.  Re-
arranging equation (3-A) and integrating both sides gives:

                  _3£_   - (KLa) dt                       (6)



                Icl  o^c - / I2,  (W dt               (7)

                 Aln (CS-C) = (KLa) At                    (8)
                 KLa = Aln (Cfi-C)                          (9)
                           At
                                 31

-------
 From equation  (9)  it can be seen that  BL a would  be  the  slope  of  a plot
 of In (C -C)  versus time.

 Knowing the two KLa's, the value of
         a  =  Kj a Waste  Water

               KLa Tap  Water
can be determined.
P   is  equal  to  the saturation concentration in wastewater divided by
saturation concentration in tap water.

The value  of a  obtained  was considerably lower than  that normally found
in  domestic  waste.  This was due to waste characteristics.  The presence
of  surface active  agents and other organics will have  a profound effect
on  KT a.  Molecules of  surface active materials will  orient  themselves on
the interfacial  surface  and create a barrier to diffusion.  The excess
surface  concentration  is related to the  change in  surface tension, as
defined  by the Gibbs equation,  such that small concentrations of surface
active material  will depress K^a, while  large concentrations will exert
no  further effect.   The  absolute effect  of surfactants on KLa will also
depend on  the nature of  the aeration surface.  Less  effect  would be
exerted  at a highly turbulent liquid surface, since  the short life of
any interface would restrict the formation of an adsorbed film.  Con-
versely, a greater effect would  be exerted at a bubble surface because
of  the relatively  long life of  the bubble as  it rises  through an aeration
tank.  In  some cases, the reverse effect may be noticed.  The decrease in
surface  tension  will decrease the size of bubbles  and  this  will increase
the  area volume  ratio  (A/V).   If the increase in A/V exceeds the decrease
in  K. , then  the  KTa will  increase over that in water.  These cases, how-
ever, are  unusual.

The  actual data  and  calculations of the three tests   are shown in
Tables 8,  9, and 10, and Figure  6.  The  average a  value of  the three runs
is  0.434.  The average of 0  is 0.963.  Since the consultant indicated
that a higher a  value was usually observed  in the  field than in labora-
tory studies, a  value of a  = .5  was used for design.  With  values of
a and |3 and  the  oxygen requirement developed in Section VII, and aerator
manufacturer can size necessary  equipment.
                                 32

-------
.28
3.10
5.38
6.82
7.70
8.32
8.69
8.90
8.92
6.10
3.82
2.38
1.50
.88
.51
.30
                              TABLE 8
                       OXYGEN TRANSFER STUDIES
                               TEST #1
A.   Determination of K^a of tap water
     Temperature 18.2° C.        02 Saturation 9.20

          Time  (min.)          P.O. (mg/1)          CP-C
              0
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

          KLa  =  2.303 X .203  =   .474 min."1


B.   Determination of K^a of waste water

          Temperature - 18.2° C.

          Dissolved Solids 1,067 mg/1

          Saturated Oxygen concentration  (corrected for dissolved
                                          solid)

                       Supernate 8.74 mg/1

          Oxygen transfer

          a.  Equilibrium oxygen concentration   2.90 mg/1
          b.  Biological uptake rate            67.9  mg/l/hr.

          Transfer coefficient

          Kja  =  r/Cs-C e

          KLa  =  67.9	 = 11.82 hr."1  =  .197 min."1
                  8.74 - 2.90

C.   Comparisons

          1.  a   =  KLa waste water    =  .197   = .417
NT a waste water
KLS tap water
C0 waste water
Cs tap water
= .197
.474
= 8.74
9.20
          2.  «   =  U0 waste water     =  e./f   =  .950
                                  33

-------
B.
C.
                               TABLE 9
                        OXYGEN TRANSFER STUDIES
                        	TEST #2
      Determination of Kj-a of tap water
      Temperature 18.3° C.        02 Saturation 9.30 mg/1
Time (min.)
0
0.5
0.75
1.00
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
D.O. (mg/1)
.50
2.45
3.32
4.12
5.38
6.38
7.15
7.65
8.05
Cg-C
8.80
6.85
5.98
5.18
3.92
2.92
2.15
1.65
1.25
     KLa  =  2.303 X  .242  =   .565 min.'1

Determination of K^a  of waste water

     Temperature - 18.3° C.

     Dissolved Solids 932 mg/1

     02 saturation (corrected for D.S.)  9.08 mg/1

     Oxygen transfer

     a.  Equilibrium  oxygen concentration   6.10 mg/1
     b.  Biological uptake rate            47.3  mg/l/hr.

     Transfer coefficient

     KTa  =  r/C -Ca
     KLa  =  47.3/9.08 - 6.10

Comparisons
                                       15.9 hr.
                                               -1
.265 min.
                                                          -1
1

9

a

ft

_ K^a waste water
Kj^a tap water
_ Cs waste water
Cg tap water
.267
.565
9.08
9.30
= .473

= .976

                                 34

-------
                         TABLE 10
                  OXYGEN TRANSFER STUDIES
                  	TEST #3	
Determination of K^a of tap water
Temperature 18.0° C.        Oo Saturation
                                           9.42
Time (min . )
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.0
3.5
4.0
D.O. (mg/1)
1
2.05
3.00
3.90
4.68
5.90
6.80
7.40
7.95
8.30

Cg-C
8.42
7.37
6.42
5.52
4.74
3.52
2.62
2.02
1.47
1.12
.82
     KLa
          =  2.303 X .254  =  .592 min.
                                       -1
Determination of
                     of waste water
Temperature - 18.0° C.

Dissolved Solids  .220 mg/1
02 Saturation (corrected for D.S.)

Oxygen transfer

    Equilibrium oxygen concentration
     a.
     b.
         Biological uptake rate
                                         9.05
 5.58 mg/1
50.4  mg/l/hr.
     Transfer coefficient

     Kra  =  r/Cq-C
      TJ         s  e

     KLa  =  50.4/9.05 - 5.58  =  14.6 hrT1 = .243 min.'1
Comparisions

     1. a  =


     2. 0  =
K^a waste water
KLa tap water
Co waste water
C0 tap water
= .243
.592
= 9.05
9.42
                                             .412
                                             .962
                             35

-------
                             FIGURE  6


              iNON-STEADY STATE OXYGEN TRANSFER STUDIES
o
i
 ID
o
                             J_
                             z
                           Time  (rain)
                                   36

-------
                           SECTION IX
                    SLUDGE REMOVAL AND THICKENING
At this point it was apparent that a completely mixed activated sludge
process would be utilized for achieving secondary treatment, thus, it
was necessary to develop design parameters in order to size the nec-
essary final clarification facilities and to size both chemical and bio-
logical sludge thickening tanks.

Laboratory settling studies were performed, similar to those described
in Section V.  A homogenous sample of the aeration basin effluent was
placed in an 8 foot by 6 inch diameter settling column.  Data was taken
relating sludge interface level with settling time.  A typical curve,
as shown in Figure 7, can be developed from such data.
                            Figure 7
                     Sludge Thickening Curve
        
        01
        0)
        o
        cd
s   !
H
Q)  *+•
GO  V
        •o
        CO
                                 Free Settling Range
                                  Range of Intermediate
                                     Sludge Compaction
                                                   Maximum  Sludge
                                                      Compaction
                            Settling Time
  It is apparent from this curve that various degrees of sludge compaction
  can be achieved depending upon the settling time allowed.  Design over-
  flow rates can be calculated from various degrees of sludge compaction
  from the data developed in the settling  studies.
                                  37

-------
Figure   8   shews  a     summary of the  results  of  several  individual
settling studies  performed  on wastes  of varied solids  concentrations.
From this  figure  a  clarifier  overflow rate can be  determined  for  a
specified  MLSS  level.   Since  these data were  developed under  ideal
settling conditions, correction factors must  be  applied  in order  to
compensate for  the  effects  of turbulence,  short  circuiting, and inlet
and  outlet losses.

The  secondary clarifier was designed  such  that the  sludge  would
settle to  an approximate 1 percent consistency.  This resulted in a
design overflow rate of 565 GPD/ft.2  and a design  detention time  of
approximately 3 hours.

Design  parameters  for both  the  chemical  and biological thicken-
ing  tanks  were  developed in a similar manner.  Chemical  and biological
sludge compaction levels were established  at  8 percent and 2  percent
consistency, respectively.  The resultant  design parameters were:

           Chemical  Sludge Thickener
                 Overflow Rate    =    160  GPD/ft.2
                 Detention Time   =   11.3  Hours

           Biological Sludge Thickener
                 Overflow Rate    =    174  GPD/ft.2
                 Detention Time   =   10.8  Hours

In addition  to these studies,  preliminary laboratory studies
were performed  in order to determine  the feasibility of  further sludge
dewatering by centrifugation.  The results from these preliminary
studies were quite  favorable.  Equipment manufacturers were consulted
for further details.  Recommendations were made to  install a  centrifuge
for sludge dewatering.
                                  38

-------
01
CO
fXi

03
,—I
U
                             FIGURE 8


                SLUDGE CLARIFICATION AND THICKENING
        100
        800
        400
                                       Free Settling
                                               Thickening to  1%
Thickening to

 Maximum
                      20003000        4000


                              Inlet MLSS (mg/1)
§
0)

-------
                           SECTION X
                         PROCESS DESIGN
The laboratory studies, as discussed in the previous sections of this
report, provided basic design parameters for the Pedricktown Plant Waste
Treatment System.  Engineers of Roy Weston & Associates and the B.F.
Goodrich Chemical Company developed the detail process design for such
a system.

This section includes a summary of the resultant treatment system process
design including a process flowsheet to facilitate understanding of the
system.  No attempt was made to include design calculations.
                               41

-------
                                                          Igyasr  /yag
                                                          KQTTTFnT
.
 L- "- --
          FIGURE 9


Waste Treatment System Diagram!
                                                                                 I*— ™
                                                                          •nmr    *zr A!ZT
                                                                          fftT ^MVMT4P!Mf ^VfliB NlM

-------
 Equalization Tank  (TK-8Z)

 This tank is  sized at  950,000 gallons   total  to  provide  an  equali-
 zation for both  organic and hydraulic loads.   The need for this facility
 was  determined in part by the  pilot plant studies and individual analy-
 sis  of samples taken  from an existing plant.   The change  in  organic
 loading over a period of a day was great enough to justify this tank to
 prevent "shocking" a  biological process  following in the  system.  The
 following is a summary of the  design of  this tank:

           Design Flow   -  0.8 MGD
           Detention Time -  1  day
           Agitator      -  25 HP, 30 RPM, 95" in dia. turbine
           Dimensions     -  90 ft. dia. by 20  ft. straight side
           Construction   -  steel, above ground, baffled, pumped
                            influent, pump?d effluent.
Chemical Flash Mixing Tank   (TK-30Z)

The  purpose  of  this tank is to  give   approximately two minutes  re-
tention in each  of two compartments, so that the coagulant and coagulant
aid  can be put into solution.  Two tanks were provided in order  to add
coagulant and coagulant aids  in  the proper order.   The agitation is
quite vigorous to give good  shear, as well as good  blending.  The
following is a summary of the design of this tank:

          Design Flow    -   0.8 MGD
          Detention Time -   4 minutes  (total)
          Agitator       -   2000 GPM pumping capacity
          Dimensions     -   7 ft. by 14 ft. rectangular by 7 ft.
                             straight side, 4 ft. SWD (Side Water
                             Depth)
          Construction   -   steel

Waste Water Transfer Pumps   (PU-30 & 31Z)

These two pumps  are  sized to handle   the design flow of 0.8 MGD
individually.  One pump will be used as a spare.  Flow from these
pumps is adjusted by a manual regulator.  A magnetic flow meter  ad-
justs a control valve to allow through the set flow desired.

          Design Flow    -   600 GPM at 31' TDK
          Construction   -   cast iron

Coagulant Aid Handling System  (TK-3 & 4Z) - (PU-5  & 6Z)

The  system consists of  two 250 gallon tanks, each with agitators,
to put the powdered coagulant aid into solution.  The coagulant  aid in
the powder form  is mixed with water through the use of an "Asperator"
                                 43

-------
 Coagulant Aid Handling System  (continued)

 feeder.  This feed mechanism wets the particle before it enters the
 250-gallon tank.  The coagulant aid solution is pumped by one of
 two (one is a spare) manually adjusted proportioning pumps to the
 flash mix tank.
           Tank Construction -  carbon steel
           Tank Size         -  250 gallon
           Pump Construction -  steel
           Pump Capacity     -  12.4 GPH

 Ferric  Chloride Handling System  (TK-6Z) - (PU-9 & 10Z)

 The  ferric chloride tank  is sized at approximately  15,000 gallon
 capacity.   The tank was set at this capacity to insure enough space
 should  railway tank cars be used to transport ferric chloride to the
 plant site  in  the  future.   The pumps to transfer the ferric chloride
 to  the  flash mix tank are proportioning pumps and are manually adjust-
 able.   One  pump is a spare.

          Tank Construction -  fiberglass
          Tank Size         -  12 ft.  I.D.,  18 ft.  straight side
          Pump Construction -  PVC plastic
          Pump Size         -  0 to 15 GPH

Flocculator -  Clarifier  (TK-12Z)

 From the  laboratory studies  it was determined that part, or all,
of  the biologically inert  solids were  detrimental to the  optimum per-
 formance of a  biological system.  In addition, it was also necessary  to
remove  the  inert solids for the following reasons:

          (a) Minimize  the  difficulty  in keeping the aeration tank
               contents  in  suspension.

          (b) Maximize  oxygen transfer.
          (c) Reduce  the quantity of biologically inert solids  in the
              aeration  tank  and  in the sludge aerobic digester  which
              is planned for  the future.
          (d) Reduce  the suspended solids  and turbidity in  the
              effluent.

Provisions  are made at the  flocculator-clarified to add caustic
to insure pH control  in the biological  system.   This  provision  was made
                                 44

-------
 Flocculator - Clarifier  (continued)

 because of a "bulking" problem noted  in the laboratory studies.   The
 following is a summary of the flocculator-elarifier design basis:

           Design Flow        -  0.8 MGD
           Overflow Rate      -  1000  GPD/ft.2
           Flocculation Time  -  approximately 20 minutes
           Construction       -  steel,  above ground, pumped influent,
                                 gravity effluent
           Accessories        -  mechanical skimmer and sludge collector,
                                 pH control

 Phosphoric Acid Addition System  (TK-6Z)

 The phosphoric  acid is provided  to  be added prior to the biologi-
 cal process.  The phosphoric acid is  needed as a nutrient in the
 biological system.  The overall phosphorous requirement is 1 mg/1 per
 every 100 mg/1 BOD5 entering the aeration basin.   The amount of actual
 phosphorous added will depend on the  amount already in the waste stream
 at that point.

 A summary of the equipment and size of the tank is as follows:

           Tank Construction           -  fiberglass
           Tank Size                   -  8 ft. I.D., 14 ft. straight  side
           Diaphragm Pump Construction -  316 SS with Teflon diaphragm
           Pump Capacity               -  1.8 GPH

 Ammonia Addition System  (TK-28Z)

 Ammonia is  supplied to the system  prior to the aeration basin as
 a nutrient  for biological growth.  The  ammonia supplies necessary nitro-
 gen.   The overall nitrogen needed in  the system is 5mg/l per every 100
mg/lBOD5 entering the aeration basin.  The actual amount  of nitrogen
 needed to be added depends on the amount already in the waste stream.

 The ammonia  is supplied to the  system from a large  storage tank
 through an  Ammoniator.   The ammonia leaves the storage tank as a gas  and
 mixes with  water in the Ammoniator, which forms ammonium hydroxide.
 This  is fed to the waste stream prior to an in line mixer before enter-
 ing the aeration basin.

 Biological  Aeration System  (TK-14Z & 15Z)

 After leaving  the primary  clarifier and blending  with the nutri-
 ents, the waste flow passes through a flow splitter box that will
 insure an equal distribution of flow  between the two aeration tanks.
 In the aeration basin the wastes will be mixed with an activated sludge
 for approximately 370 minutes.  The activated sludge consists of bacteria
                                  45

-------
 Biological Aeration System  (continued)

 and other micro-organisms  within a biological  floe.   These organisms
 utilize the organic content  of the waste water as  food  and decompose
 the organics to carbon  dioxide and water.  The oxygen needed is
 supplied by a fixed surface  aerator.   The aerator  in  each tank was
 sized  based on the  oxygen  needed and  the oxygen transfer characteris-
 tics of the waste water.

 A provision has been made  in both aeration   basins  to monitor
 dissolved oxygen and pH.   These are both important since oxygen will
 be  needed at all times  to  accomplish  the organic decomposition, and
 a stable pH will be needed to  prevent bulking.

 Both   aeration basins   are equipped with spray nozzles  to be used
 to  break foam that  may  be  caused by aeration.   The treatment system
 effluent will  be used for  this service.

 After   leaving the  aeration  basin the waste water passes into a
 secondary clarifier.  Here the biological solids are  settled out,
 leaving a clear, low 6005  effluent.   The settled solids are recircula-
 ted back to the  aeration tank,  or  are  wasted,  depending on the require-
 ments  of the  system.  The  design of the system from the laboratory work
 indicates  that an MLSS  level of 2500 mg/1 was  optimum for that parti-
 cular waste effluent at Pedricktown.   To maintain the 2500 mg/1,
 recycle  sludge at the concentration of approximately  6700 mg/1 will be
 recirculated at  rates between  38.5  percent and  125 percent of the design
 flow.   This capacity was provided  in  order to  have the capability of
 handling larger  MLSS levels  in the  aeration basin if  it is desired in the
 future.
The aeration tanks  are  sized to handle 10-20 percent  above the design
 flow without losing  the efficiency  as  defined by the design.   The
 following  is a summary of  the  design  figures:

     Basin
          Design Flow          -  0.8 MGD
          Detention Time       -  370 minutes with 71.5% recycle
                                 10.6 hrs.  for  the forward flow only
          Volume               -  approximately  178,000 gals,  each
          MLSS                 -  approximately 2800 mg/1 (90% VSS)
          Est. Oxygen Uptake   -  70 mg/l/hr.
          Design Temperature   -  13° C.
          BOD5 Removal Rate    -  0.035 min.    at 27° C.
            Coefficient        -  0.015 min.'1 at 13° C.
          Dimensions          -  approximately 55 ft.  diameter by
                                 10 ft. SWD  each
          Construction        -  steel, above ground,  baffled
          Accessories         -  dissolved  oxygen analyzers and re-
                                 corders,  froth sprays for foam
                                 control, pH control,  nutrient
                                 addition
                                 46

-------
Biological Aeration System  (continued)
     Mechanical Aerators
       Energy Oxygen
          BOD5 Removal

          Oxygen Demand
          Total Required

       Endogenous Oxygen
          Oxygen Demand
                              -  approximately 4560 Ib./day at 27° C.,
                                 907» load
                              -  0.916 02/lb. BODc removed
                              -  4,100 Ib./day
                              -  1.42 Ib. 02/lb. VSS destroyed
          Sludge Destruction  -  51 Ib./VSS destroyed/100 Ib. VSS  ,
                                 under aeration at 20° C.
          Total Required      -  875 Ib./day at 27° C., 90% load

       Oxygen Transfer Conditions
          a                   -  0.5
          0                   -  0.96
          Design Temperature  -  13° C.
          Motor HP Required   -  150 HP  (at 85% overall energy
                                 transfer efficiency)
          Aerators per Basin  -  75 HP - 2 speed

Secondary Biological Clarifiers  (TK-16Z & 17Z)

The two secondary clarifiers are designed to operate  at 53,000 gallon
capacity with an overflow rate of 565 GPD/ft2.  The system was designed
to have an overflow rate such that the sludge would settle to approximately
a 1 percent consistency.  The sludge recycle pumps are sized to return up
to 230 percent of the design flow.  The  pumps are variable speed so that
the full range, 0 to 230 percent, can be utilized without problems.

The whole  biological system was of a flexible  design so that the
effluent from either aeration basin could be directed to either second-
ary clarifier.

Each secondary  clarifier is equipped with a skimmer  to remove any
floating material that may accumulate on the surface of the clarifier.
The following is a summary of the design:
                 Flow
                 Overflow Rate-
          Design
          Design
          Volume
          Detention Time
          Dimensions

          Construction
          Accessories
0.8 MGD
565 GPD/ft2
53,000 gallons each
190 minutes
approximately 30 ft. diameter by
10 ft. SWD
steel, above ground, gravity inflow
at periphery, gravity takeoff at
periphery
mechanical skimmers and tow-brow
sludge collectors
                                 47

-------
 Biological Sludge Freshening Tank  (TK-13Z)

 The purpose of this  tank is to  reoxygenate the  activated sludge
 wasted from the secondary clarifier.  If the sludge was not reoxygenated
 an anaerobic condition might exist causing the release of methane gas,
 thus tending to float the sludge and making thickening difficult.  The
 air to be supplied will come from the packaged air compressor provided
 with the sanitary waste treatment system.

 The following is a summary of the design of this system:

           Flow                 -  43,800 GPD sludge
           Detention Time       -  1 hour
           Volume               -  2,000 gallons
           Dimensions           -  7 ft. diameter by 6.5 ft. SWD
           Air Required         -  80 SCFM
           Construction         -  steel, above ground, pumped inflow
                                   from return sludge wastage,  gravity
                                   overflow to sludge thickener

 Biological Sludge  Thickener   (TK-27Z)

 It is anticipated that the normal biological clarified sludge from the
 secondary clarifier will have a solids concentration between 0.5 and 1 per-
 cent.  The thickener should concentrate the sludge to 2 percent.  The thick-
 ening  is  accomplished by slowly agitating the sludge in the thickening
 tank causing  it  to  settle into  a more compact mass.   The discharge  from
 the  underflow of  the  thickener  can go directly to a centrifuge or a
 sludge  blending  tank  to  be centrifuged with chemical sludge from the
 primary clarifier.  The  supernatant liquid from the thickener  passes
 back to the equalization tank.

 The  following  is a  summary of the  biological  thickener design:

           Flow                 -  43,800 GPD  at 90% load
           Overflow              -  29,200 GPD
           Design Overflow Rate  -  174 GPD/ftz
           Detention Time        -  10.8 hours  (liquid)
           Volume                -  18,900 gallons (liquid)
           Dimensions            -  20  ft.  diameter by 14  ft.  SWD
           Underflow             -  14,600 GPD  (2,420  Ib.  at  2%  solids)
           Construction          -  steel

Chemical Sludge Thickener  (TK-18Z)

The  purpose of this  system is  to  thicken  chemical  sludge  from the
primary clarifier prior to centrifuging.  The underflow  from the  prim-
ary clarifier will be approximately 2.5 percent solids  concentration.   It  is
expected that this will thicken  to 8 percent solids.   The  thickening  process
                                  48

-------
Chemical Sludge Thickener  (continued)

is accomplished by slowly agitating the waste solids.  The underflow
from the chemical thickener is discharged to a sludge blending tank
prior to centrifuging.  The system is flexible so that the chemical
sludge can be centrifuged separately, if necessary.  The filtrate
from the thickener is returned to the equalization tank.

The following is  a summary of the chemical thickener design:

          Flow                 -  40,000 GPD
          Overflow             -  28,500 GPD
          Design Overflow Rate -  160 GPD/ft2
          Detention Time       -  11.3 hours (liquid)
          Volume               -  18,800 gallons (liquid)
          Dimensions           -  20 ft. diameter by 14 ft. SWD
          Underflow            -  12,500 GPD (9,280 Ib. at 8% solids)
          Construction         -  steel, above ground

Centrifuge   (CE-lZ)

It  is  intended   to use  a  solid bowl  centrifuge  for dewatering  the
waste sludge.  The centrifuge is designed on a hydraulic basis  to
handle approximately 40,000 GPD of sludge.

Provision  is made for   adding a  polyelectrolyte to  the  centrifuge
to aid in the dewatering of the sludge.

The centrifuge   filtrate  will be  returned to  the  equalization  tank
for further  treatment.

The sludge  cake  (probably 15-25 percent solids)  will be  transported  from
the production plant property and disposed of at a suitable sanitary
landfill site operated  in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the New Jersey State Department of Health.  It is estimated that approxi-
mately 23 tons of solids per day will be disposed of in this manner.

Lagoon

The  treatment plant effluent will  flow through  a "polishing"
lagoon prior to discharge into the receiving stream.   Some additional
BOD and solids removal  should be obtained.

This lagoon will also  normally receive the  storm water  run-off
from the operating area of the production plant.   It is also anticipated
that  spills  may occur in the plant despite the most  careful precau-
tions to prevent such incidents.  This  lagoon will be  used to hold such
spills, if  the treatment  system cannot  handle  them.  It  should  be em-
phasized that such a provision is a safety factor  and  that spills are
not anticipated to be a normal occurrence.
                                  49

-------
 Lagoon  (continued)

 The  lagoon will provide  detention of the design industrial  waste
 flow and a three-hour storm of one inch per hour that would have a
 frequency of greater than once in 10 years, according to the records
 of the U.  S. Weather Bureau in Philadelphia.

 The nominal dimensions  of the lagoon  are 200 feet by 250  feet
 with a dry weather operating depth of 2 feet and a storm operating
 depth of 4.25 feet.

 Water Reuse

 It is  planned to reuse  part of the water that will  pass through
 the treatment system.   Investigations are now underway to determine what
 additional treatment will be necessary to make the water acceptable for
 reuse.

 Metering,  Sampling and Monitoring

 A  total carbon analyzer  will be used on-stream  to analyze the in-
 fluent  to  the treatment system,  the  effluent from the primary clarifier,
 and the effluent from the secondary  clarifier.   In addition,  the waste
 water treatment operators will routinely sample and analyze  the  waste
 and solids at various  locations  throughout the  system.   The  laboratory
 facilities provided in the treatment area will  provide  for a  routine
 analysis of BOD,  COD,  TS,  SS,  VTS, VSS,  pH,  and SVI.  Also, routine
 microscopic observations  of the  aeration tank mixed liquor will  be
 made.

 The  treatment system has the  facilities to meter  the raw waste
 flow  sludge returned to the aeration basin and  sludge wasted  to  the
 thickening process.  Other monitoring instruments  are:

           (1)   pH control  at  the  primary clarifier

           (2)   pH control  at  the  aeration basins

           (3)   DO monitoring at  the  aeration basins

 Continuous  samplers have been  provided on the raw  waste stream
and effluent  to get  a good  composite  each day,  so  that  the laboratory
tests mentioned above can be run.
                                 50

-------
                            SECTION XI

                            OPERATION
Overall performance of  the wastewater treatment system has been superior,
and  to date,  far exceeds   design requirements.  Hydraulic, organic, and
solids loadings in the  raw, untreated wastewater have not reached those
design levels  as given  in Section  4.  BOD5 and solids removals have con-
sistently  averaged greater than 95 percent, with 95 to 99 percent removals
not  uncommon.

This section discusses  the performance of the system and the design and
mechanical problems encountered during system start-up and operation.
Actual operating data of individual unit operations and unit processes is
included.

For  clarity of discussion, the system is divided into the following three
phases of  treatment.

        Primary Treatment,
        Secondary Treatment,
        Solids Handling

                        Primary Treatment

Primary Treatment comprises wastewater equalization, chemical coagulation,
solid flocculation and  separation, pH control, and nutrient addition.

Pilot plant and laboratory studies indicated a need for good waste equal-
ization prior  to primary and secondary treatment.  The equalization sys-
tem  provided (described previously) has performed satisfactorily in dam-
pening fluctuations in pH, solids loading, organic loading, and hydraulic
loading.  The  950,000 gallon capacity system is operated at a two-thirds
full level and is allowed to fluctuate about this level for hydraulic
equalization.  As a check on the blending and solids suspension effec-
tiveness of the 25 HP  30 RPM agitator associated with this system, pro-
bing  (or sounding) studies were conducted to determine if build-up of
solid deposits were occurring.  Investigation of the 90 foot diameter
tank bottom particularly in those areas most remote from the agitation
resulted in no solids build-up.

From the equalization tank, the wastewater is pumped on a controlled basis
to a two-compartment rapid mix tank where ferric chloride, caustic, and
coagulant aid  are added.  The wastewater flow is measured by a magnetic
flow meter and controlled as a function of the liquid level in the equal-
ization tank.

The  flow measurement and control system have performed satisfactorily.
Considerable problems have been experienced with the rapid mix tank sys-
                                51

-------
 Primary Treatment (continued)
 tern.  Initially, the ferric chloride was added at the bottom of the rapid
 mix tank below the 1.5 HP rapid mixer.  Overall agitation and blending of
 the ferric chloride into the waste was adequate when related to detention
 time; however, localized areas of concentrated ferric chloride occurred
 in the rapid mix tank resulting in corrosion and failure of the tank
 bottom.  This problem was corrected by relocating the ferric chloride
 addition to the top (water surface) of the rapid mix tank and by relocat-
 ing a caustic neutralization addition to this same point.  This method of
 caustic addition, although manual, has been adequate to maintain a
 satisfactory pH range.

 Ferric chloride addition requirements have varied somewhat depending on
 solids loadings.  Optimum dosage conditions are determined by periodic
 laboratory jar test procedures.

 From the rapid mix tank, the wastewater gravity flows to the flocculator-
 clarifier.   Tables 11  through 14 show actual operating data for a four-
 month period.   Loadii gs and removals of suspended solids, COD,  and BODc
 are given for the primary treatment phase.

 The suspended  solids removal efficiency for the period was greater than
 95  percent, resulting in a primary treatment effluent average concentra-
 tion of 36  mg/1.   Total solids removal for the period averaged  47 percent.
 COD and BOD,,  removals  achieved in the primary system have been greater
 than anticipated  from  the laboratory and pilot plant studies.   COD and
 BODc removals  of 64 and 85 percent, respectively, were observed  for the
 reporting period.

 These  operating results were not  achieved without problems.   The floccu-
 lator-clarifier was designed  so  that the wastewater entered  from above
 the  tank rather than through the tank sidewall or bottom.   The  inlet pip-
 ing  terminated  18 inches directly above the flocculator compartment, allow-
 ing  the  wastewater  to  gravity drop to the compartment.   This resulted  in
 considerable  turbulance and detriment to flocculation.   To correct this
 problem, a cone  was  installed to deflect the influent water and  reduce
 turbulance.

 Problems  were  also experienced in removing floating solids.   These pro-
 blems were  associated with the structural and  mechanical  design of the
 skimming  mechanism  and  with the erection of the flocculator-clarifier
 tank  shell.

The  tank  shell was erected  without  perfect  alignment,  thus resulting in
 a slightly out-of-round  tank.   Subsequently, the out-of-round  tank re-
 sulted in scum  flowing  around  the end  of the  skimmer arm  at certain
 areas of  the tank.  The  problem has  been partially solved  by adjustments
to the wiper blades.

The skimming mechanism  construction  was  of  lightweight  materials  result-
ing in continuing maintenance  attention  for  system operation.
                                 52

-------
               Table  11
Flocculator-Clarifier Performance Data
                Month  1
Influent

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SS
mg/1
196
140
732
1,140
548
604
868
370
310
320
780
542
506
944
420
314
488
744
814
512
748
244
328
272
756
1,688
1,412
1,412
1,112
1,664
VSS
TOg/1
196
132
444
920
420
528
624
280
270
250
590
508
460
706
360
268
386
562
676
438
688
208
252
240
604
1,376
1,204
1,180
632
1,372
TS
mg/1
1,503
1,144
1,263
1,471
1,222
1,473
1,580
940
758
1,160
1,718
1,344
1,422
1,725
1,137
1,053
1,340
1,684
1,944
1,518
1,582
1,050
929
1,054
1,627
2,520
2,152
1,853
1,892
2,010
BOD
mg/1
162
67
35
75
134
114
140
115
44
164
228
173
193
220
148
51
273
140
183
272
255
157
108
147
94
107
114
99
29
16
COD
TOg/1
765
800
804
720
931
856
823
621
307
564
706
771
624
940
660
454
818
778
1,160
784
1,063
348
328
519
838
1,147
965
1,370
532
1,192
SS
mg/1
31
22
25
33
41
40
20
15
13
18
16
20
-
29
8
3
11
-
11
38
48
33
22
39
3
15
18
18
20
75
Effluent
VSS
mg/1
20
17
14
26
19
35
10
7
11
10
8
13
-
5
2
0
2
150
6
12
40
20
7
23
3
13
10
18
20
44
TS
mg/1
1,125
1,068
965
989
979
921
951
1,031
1,048
1,079
989
927
1,817
880
786
967
866
915
939
1,023
908
1,010
945
931
1,074
1,134
1,029
1,100
1,064
1,163
BOD
mg/1
128
93
14
20
71
34
63
66
12
66
124
127
112
140
104
65
99
39
104
130
91
61
77
77
33
51
23
10
16
-
COD
mg/1
109
171
113
68
156
262
269
145
121
124
392
210
382
268
143
100
138
215
180
108
291
202
105
115
62
76
74
82
83
67

-------
               Table 12
Flocculator-Clarifier Performance Data
                Month  2
Influent

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SS
mg/1
1,530
870
908
800
732
450
750
920
928
1,400
998
240
1,126
808
1,002
2,444
1,556
840
1,212
1,220
988
510
2,180
1,990
1,530
1,296
1,220
1,088
860
1,556
3,270
VSS
mg/1
1,130
830
816
672
664
380
660
800
832
1,360
836
190
1,000
694
600
2,212
1,372
720
1,136
1,112
964
470
2,080
1,950
1,480
1,228
1,064
1,088
796
1,444
3,050
TS
TBg/1
1,894
2,005
1,724
1,572
1,493
1,241
1,323
2,141
2,136
2,430
2,124
2,022
1,824
1,537
5,333
3,308
2,756
2,187
1,859
1,788
1,601
1,520
3,048
2,791
2,044
2,008
1,788
1,733
1,723
2,145
4,368
BOD
mg/1
119
49
295
131
173
111
60
170
141
82
254
282
224
90
199
283
264
232
134
90
154
176
205
174
129
72
34
83
108
213
293
COD
mg/1
1,247
1,408
1,237
930
827
568
704
1,874
1,108
1,284
1,157
1,802
1,705
827
1,685
2,399
2,570
1,990
1,411
1,243
1,126
-
2,427
1,754
1,483
1,631
1,601
922
1,106
1,200
1,191
SS
mg/1
26
45
36
45
16
9
19
15
39
31
33
49
26
34
20
12
31
40
46
33
27
25
59
30
72
52
162
320
18
24
73
Effluent
VSS
mg/1
19
34
25
25
11
7
15
10
37
20
27
40
18
26
4
6
51
96
13
25
26
23
56
27
46
44
147
220
13
13
70
TS
ing /I
1,032
1,029
891
945
900
829
888
907
921
850
891
979
866
823
931
881
887
815
826
750
836
814
787
900
804
763
839
921
989
973
927
BOD
mg/1
22
17
52
38
49
17
11
17
42
55
110
184
99
24
31
70
68
70
65
50
17
12
5
13
7
4
2
13
13
39
99
COD
tng/1
69
115
171
140
154
107
15
77
93
126
234
336
222
91
97
81
224
170
181
126
87
-
92
83
71
114
122
109
168
282
490

-------
                                                         Table 13
                                          Flocculator-Clarifier Performance Data
                                                          Month 3
Ln
Influent

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SS
mg/1
2,520
1,490
1,440
1,280
1,000
1,730
1,970
-
1,600
1,930
1,600
1,310
1,070
1,090
990
1,020
850
180
136
376
248
768
2L6
472
260
332
700
2,012
1,665
1,000
600
VSS
mg/1
2,410
1,370
1,220
980
610
1,370
1,830
-
1,330
1,550
1,590
1,290
810
950
1,010
1,000
840
180
88
280
192
532
444
208
220
272
616
1,936
1,605
960
540
TS
mg/1
3,307
2,539
2,646
2,366
2,122
2,637
2,995
2,860
2,770
2,373
2,488
2,551
1,982
2,236
1,946
2,150
1,859
1,011
916
1,215
1,040
1,587
1,684
1,600
1,011
1,425
1,539
2,905
2,722
2,286
1,526
BOD
me/1
388
142
217
168
205
329
319
268
368
286
267
200
137
345
283
131
-
260
390
275
293
322
211
113
75
79
304
134
184
346
198
COD
mg/1
2,047
460
955
620
1,115
1,842
3,312
1,772
1,492
1,069
1,614
1,709
947
2,039
1,980
1,768
1,161
673
1,019
699
1,650
3,102
1,670
1,258
762
767
1,541
1..134
3,363
1,383
1,080
SS
mg/1
58
2
20
35
20
112
123
-
33
77
25
22
29
44
93
32
14
80
21
21
55
36
34
21
28
20
20
38
18
35
37
Effluent
VSS
mg/1
57
1
9
33
13
76
91
-
6
47
25
19
8
53
87
29
13
54
12
8
47
20
23
12
14
10
14
38
18
22
27
TS
mg/1
1,032
1,021
990
1,127
995
830
1,087
1,105
1,089
938
896
887
809
916
899
897
941
920
744
830
846
958
950
871
803
934
949
971
917
988
929
BOD
mg/1
56
41
74
31
59
67
109
98
137
109
105
93
56
80
81
90
87
60
65
50
69
127
86
23
15
7
80
87
81
204
158
COD
mg/1
428
460
193
225
295
480
261
288
271
237
226
191
135
142
193
187
100
82
136
92
194
176
153
93
48
141
95
163
140
339
305

-------
                                                          Table 14
                                           Flocculator-Clarifier Performance Data
                                                           Month 4
Ui
Influent

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SS
mg/1
524
418
1,090
930
1,460
2,440
2,370
1,760
2,110
2,490
440
260
1,420
1,320
1,120
788
1,180
510
520
300
380
270
630
700
872
1,068
1,960
720
vss
mfiA
456
390
1,060
860
1,390
2,330
2,230
1,430
1,870
2,410
400
200
1,400
1,300
1,065
760
1,080
420
520
-
330
260
500
620
800
1,000
1,520
680
TS
tng/1
1,545
1,534
2,361
2,649
2,648
3,620
3,412
2,702
2,550
2,275
2,015
1,995
2,679
2,379
1,922
1,698
2,246
1,813
1,553
1,452
1,465
1,073
1,213
1,876
1,797
2,025
3,719
1,687
BOD
me 11
140
178
202
284
277
257
178
135
193
191
334
279
321
252
155
310
220
188
228
213
154
63
102
82
393
236
237
167
COD
mg/1
1,140
1,131
1,380
1,645
1,308
1,740
2,048
976
972
987
967
2,000
1,785
1,521
1,574
1,532
1,765
1,372
1,600
1,042
990
510
980
1,130
1,300
1,257
1,390
1,410
SS
mg/1
18
13
20
20
37
23
20
73
32
63
31
31
22
65
4
52
49
12
22
22
25
18
23
35
26
48
65
10
Effluent
VSS
mg/1
6
12
19
17
33
20
20
54
15
55
25
29
22
56
3
46
37
12
20
21
14
15
12
32
25
39
33
7
TS
mg/1
1,010
926
974
1,007
1,072
969
992
930
907
929
961
1,028
993
918
851
839
951
901
945
930
887
-
774
850
910
924
884
801
BOD
mg/1
89
59
145
246
227
155
125
84
86
95
219
208
158
138
67
73
106
53
92
111
92
53
28
103
282
254
191
106
COD
mg/1
212
139
200
365
381
255
228
208
154
217
348
402
323
310
181
160
207
122
184
221
186
91
147
163
500
416
363
240

-------
                       Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment comprises biological oxidation via a completely mixed
activated sludge process followed by clarification and sludge recycle.

Initial start-up of the biological system was quite smooth.  When plant
production operations started, the wastewaters were stored in the equal-
ization tank until sufficient volumes were available to fill and supply
feed to the biological aeration system.  The aeration tank was filled with
wastewater and aerators started.  Activated sludge from two nearby muni-
cipal sewage treatment plants was introduced to the system as seed.  App-
roximately 60,000 gallons ware used.  The activated sludge was added dir-
ectly to the secondary clarifiers and fed immediately to the aeration
system for oxygen via the sludge recycle sy-stem.  The sludge added re-
sulted in an aeration tank mixed liquor volatile solids concentration of
600 mg/1.

During initial start-up of production operations the wastewaters were
extremely variable in volume and composition.  Supplementary feed  (corn
sugar) was added to the biological system during this period.

To date, the organic loading to the wastewater treatment system has not
reached design levels.  This has resulted in the biological system being
operated in the extended aeration range as can be seen from the data in
Tables 15 through 18.  These tables show calculated levels of the  feed to
microorganism ratio "and the BOD removal rate as discussed in section VII.
No meaningful correlations of this data with pilot plant conditions can
be made while the system is operated in the extended aeration range.

The two-speed 75 HP aerators have been more than adequate to meet oxygen
requirements.  Only one train of the dual train secondary system was op-
erated through the reporting period.  One aerator on low speed has been
used.  Actual oxygen usage has been approximately 1.2 pound/pound of BOD
removed.  The average usage for Month 1 and Month 2 were 1.01 and  1.3
pound/pound of BOD removed, respectively.  This compares favorably with
conventional extended aeration systems.

The sludge return system and magnetic flow meters have performed quite
satisfactorily but hydraulic problems on the discharge piping of the
system have developed.  The return sludge from both clarifiers is mixed
in a common header and then the flow is split between the two aeration
tanks.  A side stream from this header allows sludge to be wasted  to  the
sludge freshening tank.  The return piping to the aeration tanks was
sized large enough to allow maximum sludge flow back to one aeration
tank in case one aerator was out of service.  However, the large piping
did not exert enough back pressure to allow sludge to be wasted under
normal conditions unless the control valves were almost closed.  This
problem was corrected by inserting restricting orifices in the lines  to
the aeration tanks.
                               57

-------
 Secondary Treatment (continued)
 Tables 19 through 22 show recycle sludge solids levels,  secondary clari-
 fier influent and effluent conditions, and effluent BOD,, levels.

 Sludge recycle concentration for the period averaged 5,160 mg/1  suspended
 solids of approximately 82 percent volatile content.  Secondary  clarifier
 suspended solids removal averaged 99 percent resulting in an average  eff-
 luent concentration of 20 mg/1 and an overall suspended  solids removal
 efficiency of 98 percent for the complete treatment system.  The BOD  re-
 moval for the complete treatment system exceeded 98 percent resulting in
 an average effluent concentration of 2.4 mg/1.  Ammonia nitrogen  and phos-
 phate residuals average 0.65mg/l and 0.29 mg/1  respectively.
                          Solids  Handling

 The solids handling system was designed to handle two types of sludge; bio-
 logical sludge and inert or chemical sludge.  The chemical sludge is  from
 two sources,  the primary clarifier and the preclarifier  in the process
 area.  This sludge is  composed primarily of PVC solids but also  contains
 iron floe from the water treatment plant.  The  biological sludge  is waste
 activated sludge from  the secondary system.

 The chemical  sludge thickener has performed satifactorily.  This  tank was
 designed  for  both thickening and sludge storage.   The only problems ex-
 perienced with the thickener occurred when the  sludge became so  concentra-
 ted that  the  unit over-torqued.   This usually happened when production was
 shut down and there was little flow through the  system.   The thickener can
 thicken up to 13 percent solids  before problems occur.

 The sludge concentration from the primary clarifier runs about 2  percent
 solids  which  compares  with the 2.5 percent used for design.  The  sludge
 from the  preclarifier  is quite variable and may range from almost water
 up  to about 25 percent solids.   Normal operation is to thicken to approxi-
 mately  8  percent solids.   From the thickeners, the sludge is pumped to
 the sludge blend tank  in order to insure a uniform feed  to the centrifuge.

 Throughout the brief period during which the biological  sludge thickener
 was in  service,  performance was  excellent.   The sludge could  be  thickened
 to  about  7 percent solids,  which was greater than expected.

No  problems were experienced  with the centrifuge  on initial start-up.
Later a problem did develop with iron fines which were not being  removed
by  the  centrifuge.  The  centrate from the centrifuge was recycled to  the
 head  of the treatment  system  thereby allowing this iron  floe  to be re-
moved again in the flocculator-clarifier.   Subsequently,  the  fines continu-
 ed  to build up in the  system.  This necessitated  the addition of  a coagu-
 lant  aid  addition system which is  shown on the  flow sheet  in  Section  X.

Typical operation of the centrifuge with a feed  sludge of  8 percent solids
resulted  in a 25  to 30 percent solids cake  and  a  centrate  of  .1 percent or
less.   Average daily wet  sludge  production was  16,716 pounds  and  25,267
pounds  for Month  1  and 3 respectively.
                                 58

-------
                                                         Table 15
                                              Aeration Tank Performance Data
                                                          Month 1
VO

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Temp.
°C
19
19
19
17
16
16
17
16
16
18
19
20
18
18
18
14
14
15
17
17
18
16
14
11
13
13
13
14
16
Load
LiZSt
"•™^^™"— ^
.058
.047
.006
.003
.030
.014
.024
.020
.005
.029
.044
.037
.030
.033
.021
.016
.024
.010
.026
.033
.020
.012
.015
.015
.005
.009
.006
.002
.004
Det.Time
Min.
1281
1364
1203
1195
1267
1050
1413
2000
1568
1167
1152
1116
1123
1290
1568
1369
1089
997
1267
1066
1323
2132
1435
2011
2599
2373
2373
2760
2561
Rate
Mln-1
.0617
.0265
.0224
.0326
.1113
.0314
.0439
.0655
.0045
.0180
.2144
.2267
.1986
.1078
.1320
.0467
.0445
.0381
.0813
.0600
.0680
.0091
.0529
.0378
.0123
.0103
.0190
.0069
.0038
Loading
#BOD/#VSS/Day
.1331
.1040
.0143
.0064
.0708
.0361
.0533
.0388
.0095
.0684
.1088
.0926
.0754
.0768
.0452
.0351
.0609
.0253
.0614
.0828
.0450
.0207
.0337
.0278
.0080
.0115
.0075
.0026
.0045
% Removed
    99
    97
    96
    97
    99
    97
    98
    99
    87
    95
   100
   100
   100
    99
   100
    98
    98
    97
    99
    98
    99
    95
    99
    99
    97
    96
    98
    95
    91
Rate 20°C
  Min-1
  .0655
  .0281
  .0238
  .0391
  .1415
  .0399
  .0526
  .0833
  .0057
  .0203
  .2277
  .2267
  .224
  .1216
  .1783
  .067
  .0638
  .0515
  .0974
  .0719
  .0767
  .0116
  .0759
  .0649
  .01873
  .0157
  .0289
  .0099
  .0048

-------
           Table 16
Aeration Tank Performance Data
            Month  2
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Temp.
-°C
15
16
16
15
13
10
8
9
12
13
13
12
11
12
12
15
15
15
16
Load
Li/S1
.004
.004
.012
.009
.004
.003
.002
.005
.012
.016
.030
.048
.024
.005
.009
.022
.030
.022
.018
Det.Time
Min.
1119
1106
1156
1348
1641
2094
2094
1745
1477
1343
1561
1762
1762
1864
1703
1219
904
920
1391
Rate Loading
Min-1 #BOD/#VSS/Dav
.0384
.0145
.0216
.0556
.0201
.0158
.0100
.0189
.0278
.0811
.4103
.2082
.1118
.0123
.0085
.0183
.0139
.0370
.0227
.0102
.0091
.0286
.0187
.0067
.0058
.0040
.0102
.0246
.0366
.0634
.0970
.0486
.0101
.0174
.0495
.0785
.0604
.0381
% Removed
98
94
96
99
97
97
95
97
98
99
100
100
99
96
94
96
93
97
97
Rate 20 °C
Min-1
.0519
.0184
.0275
.0751
.0306
.0288
.0206
.0366
.0449
.1236
.2137
.3369
.1690
.0200
.0138
.0247
.0188
.0499
.0288

-------
           Table 17
Aeration Tank Performance Data
            Month 3

Date
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
Temp.
°C
12
14
18
20
16
16
16
17
18
21
18
12
15
17
13
15
15
14
15
17
19
21
18
19
18
12
16
18
13
Load
Li/S-i
.018
.017
.013
.035
.031
.042
.040
.058
.031
.037
.044
.029
.049
.038
.038
.037
.034
.048
.071
.065
.088
.068
.026
.009
.007
.054
.046
.098
.053
Det.Time
Min.
1411
1081
663
513
653
763
757
756
779
736
744
744
650
672
699
694
695
672
695
707
769
836
842
817
654
636
542
665
1085
Rate
Min-1
.0191
.0180
.0141
.0236
.1011
.0940
.0310
.1195
.0687
.0343
.0195
.0094
.0121
.0136
.0115
.0111
.0093
.0093
.0066
.0181
.0813
.0502
.0097
.0110
.0038
.0613
.0624
.1007
.0476
Loading
#BOD/#VSS/Dav
.0257
.0299
.0381
.1358
.0918
.1119
.1065
.1553
.0806
.1003
.1200
.0808
.1502
.1213
.1237
.1212
.1090
.1394
.1699
.1561
.1998
.1438
.0624
.0232
.0175
.1549
.5102
.2709
.1018
                                       Removed
                                         96
                                         95
                                         90
                                         92
                                         99
                                         99
                                         96
                                         99
                                         98
                                         96
                                         94
                                         87
                                         89
                                         90
                                         89
                                         89
                                         87
                                         86
                                         82
                                         93
                                         98
                                         98
                                         89
                                         90
                                         71
                                         97
                                         97
                                         99
                                         98
Rate 20°C
  Min-1
  .0276
  .0259
  .0159
  .0236
  .1286
  .1195
  .0395
  .1431
  .0775
  .0323
  .0220
  .0152
  .0164
  .0163
  .0174
  .0150
  .0126
  .0133
  .0089
  .0217
  .0863
  .0473
  .0110
  .0117
  .0042
  .0993
  .0794
  .1136
  .0726

-------
                                                         Table 18
                                              Aeration Tank Performance Data
                                                          Month 4
NJ

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Temp.
°C
12
8
13
15
17
18
17
18
15
14
16
18
21
17
17
18
19
23
23
24
19
19
19
15
Load
LI/S!
.020
.013
.031
.075
.046
.031
.018
.026
.017
.018
.100
.077
.043
.028
.015
.020
.030
.019
.030
.035
.039
.024
.015
.040
Det.Time
Min.
1037
827
698
806
1095
1135
1091
1105
1064
1049
1059
1044
666
875
871
893
876
855
863
1345
1238
1179
709
613
Rate
Min-1
.0308
.0218
.0851
.2022
.1286
.0674
.0247
.0557
.0260
.0292
.0508
.0488
.1170
.0778
.0373
.0806
.0594
.0608
.1511
.1172
.0363
.0741
.0150
.0783
Loading
#BOD/#VSS/Day
.0710
.0501
.1366
.2325
.1208
.0784
.0451
.0682
.0451
.0485
.2174
.1359
.1232
.0740
.0397
.0526
.0778
.0507
.0839
.0777
.0870
.0558
.0459
.1703
% Removed
    97
    95
    98
    99
    99
    99
    96
    98
    97
    97
    98
    98
    99
    99
    97
    99
    98
    98
    99
    99
    98
    99
    91
    98
Rate 20°C
  Min-1
  .0499
  .0449
  .1297
  .2732
  .1541
  .0760
  .0296
  .0628
  .0351
  .0420
  .0646
  .0551
  .1102
  .0931
  .0447
  .0884
  .0630
  .0507
  .1317
  .0921
  .0386
  .0787
  .0160
  .1058

-------
                                                           Table   19
                                             Secondary Treatment  Performance Data
                                                           Month
OJ
Date
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
                          Recycle
                          Sludge
                       SS       TS
                      mg/1	me/1
1216
2216
2356
2630
3180
2410
3560
2430
2700
2870
3810
4490
4960
5500
4770
3980
4890
4640
5050
5240
5620
5160
3940

3840
3040
1410
1660

1940
2642
2828
3254
3300
3509
3239
3912
3333
3035
3719
4506
4608
5055
5296
4566
4483
4451
5032
5423
5356
6045
5764
4546

4707
3912
2077
2338
7100
2181
Secondary Clarifier

SS
tne/1
908
1132
1612
1670
1520
1310
1740
1480
1890
1610
2050
2090
2110
2440
2650
2400
2610
3050
2610
2950
2920
2680
2850
2540
2890
3350
3180
3470
3500
4010
Influent
VSS
me/1
756
832
1284
1360
1130
1060
1210
1200
1700
1200
1710
1750
1670
1840
2110
2000
2120
2350
1920
2180
2080
1770
2270
1920
2310
3744
2510
2840
2810
3230
Secondary Clarifier
Effluent
TS
ma/1
2091
2077
2126
2087
2140
2143
2307
2380
2347
2517
2924
2544
2708
2856
2912
3039
2682
2680
3112
3274
3428
3511
3575
3468
3749
4128
3992
3801
3813
4071
SS
me/1
14
15
6
14
18
5
15
9
12
15
8
9
7
27
11
7
8
13
16
16
27
13
20
23
10
16
16
10
-
34
VSS
me/1
6
12
6
14
18
5
5
5
8
2
4
5
4
8
7
2
3
9
1
4
22
12
7
15
5
6
14
10
-
23
TS
me/1
997
1010
976
945
945
928
882
954
969
1003
966
885
891
798
810
851
802
800
816
877
892
885
898
881
924
.982
1021
1010
-
1051
Effluent
  BOD
  me/1
   1.3
   2.4
    .35
    .33
    .4
   1.2
   1.2
   0.5
   1.5
   2.8
   0.6
   0.6
   0.7
    .8
   0.7
   1.0
   2.0
   1.0
   0.7
   2.0
   1.0
   3.0
   1.0
   1.0
   1.0
   2.0
    .35
    .18
   1.3

-------
                                                             Table 20
                                               Secondary Treatment Performance Data
                                                             Jlonth 2
ON
Date
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
                            Recycle
                            Sludge
                         SS       TS
                        mg/1	tng/1
4570
6420
5560
5870
5730
4200
5000

4240
3600
3540
3460
3540
3360
3280
3520
4800
3980
 980
 468
 704
5250
4870
5310
3960
.3510
3140
2840
3810
4680
7770
4820
6378
6630
6566
5932
5275.
5335

4732
4269
4273
3929
4039
3706
3854
4120
4164
4284
2596
1133
1369
5977
5596
6372
4798
4213
3765
4176
4560
5515
8591
Secondary Clarifier

SS
mg/1
3640
2700
2680
2510
2390
2010
1920
1820
1920
1940
1590
1900
2300
2100
1980
1840
1180
1960
2850
3310
2890
3000
2810
2580
2230
2660
2710
2530
2300
1390
2580
Influent
VSS
mg/1
3080
2190
2190
2010
2170
1840
1750
1330
1650
1620
1440
1690
1790
1850
1470
1690
1140
1790
2250
2760
2530
2630
2390
2240
1840
2240
2290
2180
1950
1160
2310

TS
mg/1
3871
3475
3206
3123
2993
2762
2635
2500
2574
2652
2703
2734
3779
2362
2763
2685
2220
2649
3273
3835
3546
3597
3424
3176
3047
3301
3167
3040
3203
3252
3326
Secondary Clarifier

SS
mg/1
12
27
23
109
16
5
16
9
10
18
8
14
15
13
19
11
20
11
42
-
10
11
5
9
7
21
0
48
22
37
7
Effluent
VSS
mg/1
9
8
23
10
6
4
7
6
4
13
6
9
9
8
4
9
11
5
19
_
8
10
5
8
1
12
0
36
17
26
12

TS
mg/1
1086
986
919
881
904
828
830
869
842
843
837
825
851
823
827
835
826
750
745

694
797
780
766
775
774
746
733
770
767
820
Effluent
  BOD
  mg/1
   0.3
   1.0
   1.8
   0.6
   0.2
                                                                                                           0,
                                                                                                           0,
   0.2
   1.0
   0.4
   0.5
   0.4
   0.8
                                                                                                            ,0
                                                                                                            .0
                                                                                                            .0
                                                                                                            .0
                                                                                                            ,0
                                                                                                            ,0
                                                                                                            ,0
                                                                                                            .0
                                                                                                           1.0
                                                                                                           2.0
                                                                                                           1.0
                                                                                                           0.2
                                                                                                           0.9

                                                                                                           0.9
                                                                                                           1.1
                                                                                                           0.5
                                                                                                           2.2

-------
                                                            Table 21
                                              Secondary Treatment Performance Data
                                                             Month 3
01
Date
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
                           Recycle
                           Sludge
                         SS      TS
                       tng/1      me/1
  9780
11,880
  8430
11,280
  9330
  5650
  5720

  8110
  7380
  6150
  7600
  4600
  2740
  4180
  4450
  3280
  3370
  2930
  7640
  9020
  8280
  6500
  4430
  5300
  5600
  4840
  6560
10,010
10,760
  7450
10,284
12,290
  8812
11,517
  9122
  5040
  6715
  7200
  8930
  6320
  6742
  7862
  5107
  3800
  5348
  5055
  3989
  4097
  3580
  8056
10,323
  8613
  8160
  5350
  6118
  6590
  6271
  7250
10,657
11,985
  8075
Secondary Clarifier

SS
me/1
2470
2060
2260
1970
1470
2090
2180
-
2380
2250
2170
1660
1670
1250
1530
1750
1520
1450
1480
1500
1420
1810
1440
1610
1490
1620
1630
1710
1910
1880
2390
Influent
VSS
me/1
2220
1830
1860
1770
1220
1610
1840
-
1680
2500
2050
1500
1340
1180
1430
1500
1490
1140
1000
610
900
1190
1030
630
1140
880
1170
1540
1720
1630
2060
Secondary Clarifier
Effluent
TS
ma/1
3206
3088
3099
2831
2613
2680
2707
2853
3024
3377
2920
2662
2601
2206
2261
2342
2311
2221
2136
2122
1880
2274
2384
2436
2294
2308
2433
2601
2772
2801
3111
SS
mK/1
20
5
20
28
18
32
29
-
3
56
13
24
41
60
20
44
54
41
64
26
8
35
23
11
20
15
20
20
5
17
19
VSS
me/1
23
3
11
27
14
4
23
-
0
28
13
18
14
30
2
40
42
40
40
16
6
28
15
8
10
9
14
20
5
11
10
TS
me/1
865
392
1011
1012
997
601
938
1034
971
930
904
942
869
898
839
894
892
866
824
778
783
800
906
924
765
883
891
941
870
^902
826
Effluent
  BOD
  mg/1
   1.8
   1.9
   2.6
   3.1
   4.5
   1.2
   1.3
   4.0
   1.6
   2.0
   4.0
   6.0
   7.0
   9.0
   8
 .10
  10
   8
   9
   9
   5
   2
   2.1
   2.7
   1.6
   2.2
   1.9
   2.4
   3.0
   3.2
   3.2

-------
                                                           Table  22
                                             Secondary Treatment  Performance Data
                                                            Month 4
ON
ON
Date
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
   20
   21
   22
   23
   24
   25
   26
   27
   28
                           Recycle
                           Sludge
                        SS       TS
                       mg/1	me/1
  7010
  3810
  4400
  6100
  6790
  6590
  6690
  7320
  7270
  7070
  8040
14,890
10,240
11,730
  9880
10,570
  9040
  8230
  6040
  5710
  3070
  3030
  5670
  9090
  7710
  8630
  8770
  8850
  7745
  3280
  5015
  7177
  7593
  7340
  7633
  8034
  1111
  8006
  8788
16,076
11,304
12,298
11,969
Secondary Clarifier

SS
mg/1
2060
2320
2480
2300
2770
2810
2620
2480
3020
2760
1660
2180
3100
3390
3140
2550
2590
1980
2030
1630
1460
1340
1440
1690
2300
2580
3000
2760
Influent
VSS
ma/1
1740
2050
2190
1890
2470
2510
2390
2460
2580
2690
1370
2110
2770
3070
2790
2240
2240
1760
1830
1530
1230
1160
1240
1420
2070
2290
2460
2590

TS
ma/1
3215
3182
3208
3465
3720
3741
3846
3670
3531
3767
2821
3563
4151
4090
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2566
-
-
-
-
-
-
Secondary Clarifier

SS
me/1
14
22
40
16
12
5
5
23
20
16
13
20
5
27
17
41
39
19
15
16
12
13
10
20
30
26
56
3
Effluent
VSS
TDK/1
4
19
39
15
10
2
0
5
9
11
2
12
5
26
17
39
30
18
14
16
3
12
4
18
14
20
26
2

TS
tng/l
873
937
934
911
921
956
973
890
825
816
851
919
896
887
862
960
857
908
839
880
871
875
825
751
854
819
826
763
Effluent
  BOD
  mg/1
   2.7
   3.1
   2.4
                                                                                                           ,5
                                                                                                           ,6
   1,
   1,
   2
   2
   3
   3
   3
   4
   4
   2
   2
   2
   1
   2
   1
   0.7
   0.7
   2
   0.6
   2.4
   7.1
   9.0
   9.2
   4.2
   4.9

-------
                           SECTION XII

                   WASTEWATER RECYCLE AND REUSE
The preservation of our natural resources through recycle and reuse pro-
cesses  is becoming evermore common throughout industry today.  Although
recycle and multiple reuse of cooling waters has long been practiced,
only during the past few years has such attention been given to the re-
cycle and reuse of wastewater streams.

Recycle and reuse of the secondary treated PVC production plant wastewaters
from the Pedricktown plant has been evaluated.  The planned recycle system
including actual pilot operation data is presented and discussed in this
section.
The raw water supply for the plant is from underground wells.  Water is
pumped  from two separate underground aquifiers and treated according to
its ultimate use.  Two separate but identical raw water treatment systems
were installed with the original plant.  One of these systems has been
utilized for evaluation of wastewater recycle.

The quality of the secondary treated wastewater has been high, as can be
seen from Tables 19 through 22 of Section XI.  For the past several months
a recycle evaluation program has been underway in which 100 gallons per
minute  of secondary treated effluent has been recycled to the raw well
water treatment system for further treatment.  Tables 23 and 24 show
typical  water quality after treatment in the well water system.  This water
is of acceptable quality for reuse as service and cooling water.

To date  recycle has been accomplished through a temporary system of pumps
and firehoses.  Plans are now underway to install a permanent recycle
system  for further evaluation of wastewater recycle and reuse.

The secondary treated effluent will gravity flow to a 1,500 gallon surge
tank in  which chlorine is added for bacteria control.  From the surge
tank the chlorinated wastewater will be pumped to the existing water
treatment system.  The existing water treatment system, supplied by Los
Angeles  Water Treatment Company, consists of an aeration tower, followed
by a reaction-precipitation-sedimentation tank, followed by an anthracite
coal filter.  From the  water treatment system, the treated waters will
gravity  flow to the treated water reservoir.  These waters will then be
used for cooling purposes, service water, and fire water.
                                67

-------
                            Table 23
                      Recycle Water Quality
                            Residual                      Dissolved
                  Iron      Chlorine      Turbidity         Solids
          £H      mg/1       mg/1           JTU              mg/1

 79       8.0      .25         .01            4             1,050
 89       8.15     .55         .01           11
 98       7.8      .35         .03           10             1,200
 98       8.25     .28         Nil            8             1,200
 54       8.5      .42         .01           25             1,350
121       7.8      .63         Nil           20             1,300
 90       7.65     .35         Nil           25             1,350
 60       7.45     .1          .05           10             1,300
203       8.0      .9          .03           25             1,150
106       8.25     .23         .03           48             1,100
 70       8.3      .45         .15           30             1,200
145       8.0      .14         .04           40               950
157       7.8      .1          .05           10
104       8.15    0.4          .06           21             1,120
 70       8.05     .47         .01           35             1,125
 79       7.35    0.48         .02           25               990
100       7.95    0.95         .07           43               970
110       7.95    1.2         0.10           43             1,030
114       8.1     0.06        0.12           38             1,100
 74       7.55    0.76        0.11           26             1,090
101       8.2     0.94        0.08           26             1,120
 93       7.25    0.60        1.1            36             1,110
 85       7.5      .04        1.38           37             1,290
 99       7.6      .15         .14           24             1,370
 80       8.1      .20         .08           13             1,400
 44       7.8     0.45        0.01            0               880
 37       7.15    0.32        0.01            1               860
 22       7.8      .02        <.01            4               850
 33       7.81     .04        <.01           11               820
 27       7.7      .05        <.01           16               800
                               68

-------
      Table 24
Recycle Water Quality

COD
mg/1
125
83
55
74
57
75
79
129
106
225
119
-
104
19
35
-
38
43
37
24
34
19
21
25
34
-
26
-
25
42


2H
7.5
8.0
8.02
7.6
8.1
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.2
8.4
7.2
8.15
7.4
8.1
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.5
8.1
8.25
8.15
8.1
8.25
8.1
8.05
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.7

Iron
mg/1
.05
.05
.031
.02
.70
.05
.4
.02
.8
.3
.023
.05
.4
.03
.04
.03
.05
.01
.03
.01
.05
.05
.03
.05
.05
.32
.03
.10
.18
.34
Residual
Chlorine
mg/1
.05
<.01
.02
.01
-
.07
.05
<.o
.03
<.01
<.01
.09
.06
.15
.04
.01
.25
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.05
-
.01
.01
.01
.02
.01

Turbidity
JTU
28
12
21
20
19
18
25
20
25
25
10
11
21
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
5
3
11
10
12
0
0
                                    Dissolved
                                     Solids
                                        910
                                      1,000
                                        990
                                        930
                                        910
                                        990
                                        900
                                        950
                                        900
                                      1,000
                                      1,200
                                        850
                                      1,120
                                        900
                                        900
                                      1,000
                                        950
                                      1,000
                                        900
                                      1,000
                                      1,050
                                      1,000
                                      1,000
                                      1,025
                                      1,000
                                        880
                                        970
                                        900
                                        905
                                        875
         69

-------
                          SECTION XIII

                          ABBREVIATIONS
PVC       Poly vinyl chloride
BOD       Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BODg      Five-day biochemical oxygen demand
C         Temperature - degrees centigrade
COD       Chemical Oxygen Demand
TC        Total Carbon
TS        Total Solids
VTS       Volatile Total Solids
SS        Suspended Solids
VSS       Volatile Suspended Solids
JTU       Jackson Turbidity Units
RPM       Revolutions Per Minute
mg/1      milligrams per liter
PSIG      Pressure - pounds per square in guage
GPD/ft    Gallons per day per square foot
DO        Dissolved oxygen
ml        milliliters
MLSS      Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MLVSS     Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids
SVI       Sludge Volume Index
MGD       million gallons per day
GPM       gallons per minute
hr        hour
SWD       side water depth
TDH       total dynamic head
dia       diameter
HP        horsepower
I.D.      Inside Diameter
SCFM      Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
Ib s       pound s
%         percent
                              71

-------
                           SECTION XIV
                           REFERENCES
 1.  Albright, L.F., "Vinyl Chloride Polymerization by Emulsion,
     Bulk, and Solution Processes".  Chemical Engineering, 74, 7,  85
     (1967)

 2.  Barr, J.T., "Vinyl and Vinyladiene Chlorine Polymers on
     Copolymers", in "Manufacture of Plastics: Vol. 7", Reinhold
     Publishing Corp., New York (1964)

 3.  Shreve, N., "Chemical Process Industries"  McGraw-Hill, New
     York  (1967)

 4.  "Polyvinyl Chloride".  Private report by Stanford Research
     Institute, (June, 1966)

 5.  New Jersey State Department of Health Regulations Concerning
     Treatment of Waste Water, Domestic and Industrial, Separately
     or in Combination, Discharged into the Waters of the Delaware
     River Basin, filed with the Secretary of State, October 17, 1967.

 6.  Product of Calgon Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 7.  Product of Nalco Chemical Co., Chicago, Illinois

 8.  Weston, R.F., "Design of Sludge Reaeration Activated Sludge
     Systems", Journ. W.P.C.F. 33, 7, 748 (1961)

 9.  Weston, R.F. and Stack, V.T., "Prediction of the Performance
     of Completely Mixed Biological Systems from Batch Data".
     Presented at Manhatten College Biological Waste Treatment
     Conference (April, 1960)

10.  Bhatla, M.N., Stack, V.T., and Weston, R.F., Journ. W.P.C.F.
     4, (1966)

11.  Eckenfelder, W.W., and O'Conner, D.J., "Biological Waste
     Treatment".  Pargaman Press, New York  (1961)

12.  Eckenfelder, W.W., "Industrial Water Pollution Control,"
     McGraw Hill, Inc., New York (1966)
                                73

-------
1

5
Accession Number
2

Subject Field Si Croup
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company
                Environmental Control Engineering
     Title
         Wastewater Treatment Facilities for a Polyvinyl Chloride Production Plant
 10
Authors)

B. F. Goodrich Chemical Co.

Environmental Control Dept.
16
    Project Designation
                                        EPA, ORM, Grant f 12020 DJI 6/71
                                    2]  Note
 22
     Citation
     Descriptors (Starred First)
 25
     Identifiers (Starred First)
      Industrial wastes, polyvinyl chloride, activated sludge, process  monitoring
 271 Abstract  B>  F> Goodrich Chemical Company has completed construction  and  has  begun
 operation of a new polyvinyl chloride (PVC) production plant  that  includes emulsion,
 suspension, and bulk polymerization processes.  The wastewater  treatment system for
 this plant was designed to meet the stringent discharge requirements of both the
 State of New Jersey and the Delaware River Basin Commission.  The  wastewater treatment
 system  consists of a primary-secondary completely mixed activated  sludge process including
 equalization,  flocculation, clarification, mechanical aeration, nutrient addition,
 sludge  thickening and centrifugation, and automatic process monitoring.  Although the
 Company operates several PVC production plants in the United  States, none  of these
 plants  could be considered to be a duplicate of the proposed  production plant.  Therefore,
 it was  necessary to simulate the anticipated production plant wastes by selective sampling
 and  to  conduct pilot plant treatment studies.  This report presents summarized results
 of  the  laboratory and pilot plant studies and a complete and  detailed  description of the
 full-scale wastewater treatment system as constructed.  Actual  operating data  of the
 system  is included and supplemented by discussion of individual unit operations and unit
 process performance.  Evaluation of a full-scale wastewater recycle and reuse  system is
 included.  This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project  Number  12020 DJI under
 the  sponsorship of the Office of Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental
 Protection Agency.
Abstractor
                              Institution
 WR:102  (REV. JULY 19691
 WRsrc
                                          SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                 WASHINGTON. D  C. 20240
                                                                               * SPO: 1989-359-339

-------