EPA-600/2-77-043
February 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER RECIRCULATION
SYSTEM: Preliminary Engineering
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-043
February 1977
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
RECIRCULATION SYSTEM:
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
by
A.W. Loven and J. L. Pintenich (Engineering Science, Inc.)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
Fiberglas Tower
Toledo, Ohio 43659
Grant No. S801173-01-02
ROAP No. A6-7144
Program Element No. 1BB036
EPA Project Officer: Max Samfield
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Engineering-Science, Inc. is deeply indebted to the OCF personnel
who assisted in the conduct of the various phases of this project. Over-
all guidance provided by Mr. Sam Thomas, the Grant Project Director, is
greatly appreciated. Mr. Garry Griffith, the Grant Project Manager, is
thanked for his day-to-day attention and especially for supplying
Chapters II and VI of this report. Mr. Mike Parker of the Anderson
Plant provided much of the needed information concerning the facility.
Mr. Bill Candy assisted throughout the duration of the project. Dr.
Donald Angelbeck provided insight into many facets of the investigations.
Other OCF personnel, too numerous to mention here, are also thanked
for their various contributions.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledge ments
Figures
Tables
VI
ix
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-1
Conclusions " 1-1
Recommendations 1-3
INTRODUCTION II-l
PLANT WATER AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION III-l
Wastewate.r Survey - 1969 III-l
Wastewater Survey and Mass Balance-1973-74 III-l
Wastewater Flows and Mass Balance III-9
Heating and Cooling Systems III-9
Wastewater Survey - 1976 III-ll
Projected Cooling System Water Balance III-ll
Reuse Scheme III-l3
Water Balance 111-13
Drift Losses 111-15
Projected Wastewater Flows and Reuse 111-21
Projected Equilibrium Concentrations for
Inorganic Contaminants 111-24
OPTIMIZATION OF EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES OPERATIONS IV-1
Description of Existing Facilities IV-1
EPA Investigations of Biological
Treatment Operations IV-4
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities IV-7
Equalization Basins IV-12
Primary Clarifiers No. 8, 9, and 10 IV-12
Final Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 IV-21
Modified Final Clarifier - No. 3 IV-21
Raw Waste Load Reductions IV-22
Treatment Facility Improvements IV-22
Historical Performance Record IV-23
Design Loadings for Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Processes IV-36
WASTEWATER TREATABILITY STUDIES V-l
Coagulation V-2
Procedure V-2
Jar Test Data Analysis v-3
Trial of Coagulation Scheme v-5
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page.
Trial Data Analysis V-5
Dissolved Air Flotation V-9
Procedure V-9
Data Analysis - Mat Line Wastewater V-9
Data Analysis - Raw Wastewater V-14
Summary V-14
Sand Filtration V-17
Procedures V-17
Data Analysis V-19
Activated Carbon Adsorption V-19
Physical-Chemical Treatment V-19
Adsorption Isotherms V-22
Carbon Column Studies V-25
Tertiary Carbon Treatment V-33
Adsorption Isotherms (1973-1974) V-33
Carbon Column Studies (1973-1974) V-33
Tertiary Pilot Plant (1975-1976) V-46
Adsorption Isotherms (1976) V-48
Carbon Regeneration V-48
Ozonation V-51
Procedure V-51
Data Analysis V-52
Chlorination V-53
Ion Exchange V-53
Procedure V-53
Data Analysis V-56
CHAPTER VI PILOT PROCESS COOLING LOOP OPERATION AND
PERFORMANCE VI-1
System Description VI-1
Wastewater Tertiary Treatment System VI-1
Cooling Loop VI-4
Manufacturing Process Heat Exchangers VI-4
Pilot System Monitoring VI-6
System Performance VI-6
CHAPTER VII CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROCESSES AND INTEGRATED
RECIRCULATION PLAN VII-1
Conceptual Design of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Processes ' VII-1
Sand Filtration VII-1
Filters VII-1
Backwash VII-3
Pumps VII-3
Filter Feed and Backwash Sump VII-3
Activated Carbon Adsorption VII-3
Adsorbers VII-3
Backwash VII-5
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pumps VI1-5
Carbon Storage and Transport VII-5
Adsorber Feed Sump VII-5
Adsorber Backwash and Effluent Sump VII-6
Disinfection VII-6
Flash Mix Chamber VII-6
Chlorine Dosage VII-6
Distribution Tank VII-7
Reclaimed Wastewater Storage Basin VII-7
Off-Specification Basin VII-7
Summary VI1-8
Inorganic Contaminant Removal VII-9
Removal Requirements VII-9
Removal Alternatives VII-15
Direct Discharge VII-15
Combined Discharge VII-18
Ion Exchange VII-18
Reverse Osmosis VII-18
Lime-Soda Softening and Anion
Exchange VII-19
Summary VII-20
Integrated Recirculation Plan VII-20
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
III-l Cooling System Water Balance III-18-19
III-2 Cooling System Water Balance III-
III-3 Overall Water Balance for Recirculation 111-26
IV-1 Site Plan - Existing Wastewater Treatment
Facilities IV~2
IV-2 Process Flow Diagram - Existing Wastewater
Treatment Facilities IV-3
IV-3 Theoretical Dye Recovery Curves for a Completely
Mixed System with Varying Amounts of Dead
Space IV-8
IV-4 Theoretical Dye Recovery Curves for a Completely
Mixed System with Varying Amounts of Plug
Flow IV-9
IV-5 Theoretical Dye Recovery Curves for a Completely
Mixed System with Varying Amounts of Dead
Space and Plug Flow IV-10
IV-6 Dye Study for Equalization Basins IV-14
IV-7 Dye Study for Primary Clarifier #8 IV-15
IV-8 Dye Study for Primary Clarifier #9 IV-16
IV-9 Dye Study for Primary Clarifier #10 IV-17
IV-10 Dye Study for Final Clarifier #1 IV-18
IV-11 Dye Study for Final Clarifier #2 IV-19
IV-12 Dye Study for Final Clarifier #3
Following Intake Modification IV-20
IV-13 BOD. Performance - Monthly Averages IV-26
IV-14 COD Performance - Monthly Averages IV-27
IV-15 Total Suspended Solids - Monthly Averages IV-28
IV-16A Primary Clarifier TSS Removal - Monthly Averages IV-29
IV-16B Wastewater Flow Rate - Monthly Averages IV-30
IV-17A Overall BOD5 Removal - Monthly Averages IV-31
IV-17B Overall COD Removal - Monthly Averages IV-32
IV-18A Overall TSS Removal - Monthly Averages IV-33
IV-18B Overall TOC Removal - Monthly Averages IV-34
IV-19 BOD5/COD Correlation IV-35
V-l Effect of pH on Colloidal Stability V-4
V-2 Coagulation Study Results Using Optimum
Coagulant Dosages V-6-7
V-3 Mat Line DAF - Interface Height vs. Rise Time V-l2
V-4 Mat Line DAF - Percent Float Solids vs.
Air/Solids Ratio V-l3
V-5 DAF vs. Sedimentation - TSS Removal Efficiency
for Combined Anderson Wastewater V-15
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page
V-6 JJAF vs. Sedimentation - COD Removal Efficiency
for Combined Anderson Wastewater V-16
V-7 Schematic of Upflow Sand Filter V-18
V-8 Upflow Sand Filter Operating Characteristics V-21
V-9 Carbon Isotherms on Anderson Plant Coagulated
Raw Wastewater V-23
V-10 Carbon Isotherms on Jackson Plant Effluent V-24
V-ll COD vs. Volume Throughput - Physical -
Chemical Treatment (Columns 1,2,&3) V-26
V-12 COD vs. Volume Throughput - Physical -
Chemical Treatment (Columns 4,5,&6) V-27
V-13 % COD Removal vs. Volume Throughput - Physical -
Chemical Treatment (Columns. 1,2,&3) V-28
V-14 COD Loading vs. Volume Throughput - Physical -
Chemical Treatment (Columns 1,2,&3) V-29
V-15 TOC vs. Volume Throughput - Physical - Chemical
Treatment (Columns 1,2,&3) V-30
V-16 TOC vs. Volume Throughput - Physical - Chemical
Treatment (Columns 4,5,&6) V-31
V-17 % TOC Removal vs. Volume Throughput - Physical -
Chemical Treatment (Columns 1,2,&3) V-32
V-18 Carbon Isotherms on Filtered Biological Effluent -
Anderson Plant V- 34
V-19 Carbon Isotherm on Coagulated, Filtered Biological
Effluent - Anderson Plant V-35
V-20 COD vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-Effluent
(Columns 1,2,&3)
(December, 1973) V-36
V-21 COD vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-Effluent
(Columns 4,5,&6)
(December, 1973) V-37
V-22 % COD Removal vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-
Effluent (Columns 1,2,&3)
(December, 1973) V-38
V-23 COD Loading vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-
Effluent (Columns 1,2,&3)
(December, 1973) v~39
V-24 TOC vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-Effluent
(Columns 1,2,&3) (December, 1973) V-40
V-25 TOC vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-Effluent
(Columns 4,5,&6) (December, 1973) V-41
V-26 % TOC Removal vs. Volume Throughput -
Bio-Effluent (Columns 1,2,&3)
(December, 1973) V-42
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title
V-27 COD vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-Effluent
(January, 1974) V-43
V-28 Percent COD Removal vs. Volume Treated -
Filtered Biological Effluent
(January, 1974) V-44
V-29 COD Loading vs. Volume Throughput - Bio-
Effluent (January, 1974) V-45
V-30 Carbon Isotherms - COD (April, 1976) V-49
V-31 Carbon Isotherms - TOG (April, 1976) V-50
V-32 Chlorine Demands V-55
V-33 Ion Exchange Breakthrough Curves
(Virgin MB-1 Resin) V-57
V-34 Ion Exchange Breakthrough Curves
(Regenerated MB-1 Resin) V-58
VI-1 Schematic Flow Diagram - Initial Pilot Cooling
System VI-2
VI-2 Schematic Flow Diagram - Final Pilot Cooling
System VI-3
VII-1 Process Flow Diagram - Advanced Wastewater VII-10-11
Treatment Facilities
VII-2 Alternatives for Removal of Inorganic
Dissolved Solids VII-17,
VII-3 Anderson Plant Water Distribution and Usage VII-22-23
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
H-1 Research and Development Phase Task Outline II-2
III-l Wastewater Survey - 1969 III-2
IH-2 1973-1974 Wastewater Survey Sample Point
Description III-4
IH-3 1973-1974 Wastewater Survey - Mass Balance 111-10
III-4 Wastewater Survey - 1976 III-12
III-5 Major Cooling Systems 111-14
III-6 Cooling Systems Summary III-16
III-7 Projected Cycles of Concentration for the
Cooling Systems III-17
III-8 Projected Drift Losses for the Cooling Systems 111-22
III-9 Projected Wastewater Flows and Reuse for
Recirculation 111-23
111-10 Quality of Reclaimed Wastewater and City Water 111-25
III-ll Projected Inputs and Equilibrium Concentra-
tions for Inorganic Contaminants 111-28
IV-1 Existing Treatment Process Units IV-5
IV-2 Summary of Dye Study Results and Flow
Characteristics IV-13
IV-3 Performance Summary IV-25
IV-4 Design Loadings for Advanced Wastewater
Treatment IV-3 7
V-l Chemical Feed Trial Results V-8
V-2 Effluent Quality for Mat Line DAF Studies V-ll
V-3 Comparison of DAF and Sedimentation V-14
V-4 Summary of Sand Filtration Pilot Unit Tests V-20
V-5 Pilot Plant Performance Summary V-47
V-6 , Carbon Regeneration Results V-51
V-7 Ozonation Results V-52
V-8 Carbon Effluent Chlorination Results V-54
V-9 Dual Bed Ion Exchange Removals V-58
VI-1 Description of Experiments VI-5
VI-2 Cooling Water Chemical Treatment Descriptions VI-7
VI-3 Water Quality During 90-Day Trial VI-9
VI-4 Cooling System Water Quality Criteria VI-9
VII-1 Maximum Allowable Concentrations in the
Cooling Systems VII-12
VII-2 Factors Used in Calculation of Allowable
Reclaimed Wastewater Concentrations VII-13
VII-3 Maximum Allowable Reclaimed Wastewater
Concentrations VII-14
VII-4 Inorganic Removals VII-16
IX
-------
CHAPTER I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Analyses of accumulated data and the results of analytical and pro-
cess investigations resulted in the following conclusions:
1. Reuse of treated industrial wastewaters in the process areas
and cooling systems at the Anderson Plant is technologically
feasible as proven in pilot cooling studies.
2. Reclamation of the effluent from the existing wastewater treat-
ment facilities by sand filtration, carbon adsorption, and
disinfection will result in a product water suitable for reuse.
3. Projected industrial wastewater flows and reuse requirements for
a recirculation system at the Anderson Plant indicate that during
i
the summer season reuse will exceed wastewater production by 54.3
gpm; conversely, during the winter months, production will exceed
reuse by approximately 6.4 gpm.
4. Based upon current drift loss estimates, equilibrium concentra-
tions of total hardness, calcium hardness, silica, sulfate, and
zinc in the cooling systems may exceed the water quality criteria
for these uses if drift loss is the sole mechanism by which in-
organic dissolved solids are removed from the reclaimed waste-
water.
5. If removal of inorganic dissolved solids is required, it will
be accomplished through treatment by reverse osmosis or lime-
soda softening/anion exchange.
6. Performance data for the existing wastewater treatment facility
exhibit exceptional BOD5> COD, TOC, and TSS removal efficiencies..
7. Coagulation of equalized raw wastewater with combinations of
ferric chloride, clay, and cationic polymer results in improved
TSS removal efficiencies as observed during bench scale lab-
„ oratory tests and full scale operations.
1-1
-------
8. Dissolved air flotation without chemical addition is an
effective pretreatment process for removal of fibrous materials
from Mat Line wastewater. However, laboratory tests performed
with combined raw wastewaters obtained equivalent treatment
performances for both dissolved air flotation and sedimentation.
9. Complete physical-chemical treatment of Anderson Plant raw waste-
water is not feasible due to extreme residual concentrations of
non-adsorbable organic compounds.
10. Carbon adsorption of Anderson biologically-treated effluent will
produce a reclaimed wastewater which is suitable for plant reuse
in terms of dissolved organic constituents.
11. Carbon exhausted through treatment of biological effluent is
quite amenable to regeneration.
12. Both ozonation and chlorination will eliminate virtually all
fecal collform organisms from combined industrial-sanitary
biologically-treated effluent.
13. The capacity of mixed bed ion exchange resin with respect to
inorganic dissolved solids removal is quite low due to rapid
breakthrough of silica.
14. Projected design loadings for advanced wastewater treatment
processes are as follows:
Flow » 285 gpm
TSS Loading - 31 Ib/day
TOC Loading - 116 Ib/day
RECOMMENDATIONS
Evaluation of all preliminary engineering efforts and the preceeding
conclusions lead to the following recommendations:
1. Implement an industrial wastewater recirculation system at
the Anderson Plant which includes the elements listed below.
. Tertiary treatment of the effluent from the existing
wastewater treatment facilities through sand filtration,
activated carbon adsorption, and disinfection
1-2
-------
Segregation and separate treatment of all sanitary wastewaters
Use of reclaimed wastewater in the process areas and cooling
systems
2. Tertiary treatment facilities should conform to the design
criteria summarized below:
Filter Feed and Backwash Sump
Volume = 43,120 gal
Dimensions: 21' x 25' x 12'
Filter Pumps
Feed Pumps (2): vertical, radial flow, 400 gpm
Backwash Pumps (2): vertical, radial flow, 800 gpm
Filters
Type (2): Downflow, pressure
Size: 7' diameter, 36" bed depth
Carbon Adsorber Feed Sump
Volume = 35,640 gal
Dimensions: 18* x 25' x 12'
Carbon Adsorber Pumps
Feed Pumps (2): vertical, radial flow, 400 gpm
Backwash Pumps (2): vertical, radial flow, 1200 gpm
Carbon Adsorbers
Adsorbers (3): 10' diameter, 20' high
Adsorber Carbon Inventory = 53,694 Ib
Carbon Exhaustion Rate = 725 Ib/day
.3
3
Virgin Carbon Storage = 640 ft (19,200 Ib)
Spent Carbon Storage = 640 ft"
Regenerated Carbon Storage: in third adsorber
Adsorber Backwash and Effluent Sump
Volume = 47J.20 gal
Dimensions: 23' x 25' x 12'
1-3
-------
A carbon adsorption system may possibly be leased on a contract
basis.
Flash Mix Chamber (Disinfection)
Volume =285 gal
Dimensions: 3.5' x 3.5' x 4'
Mixer: 2 BHP
Chlorine Dosage = 1-5 mg/1 Cl~
3.4-17 Ib Cl2/day
Distribution Tank
Volume = 297,000 gal
Renovate old aerobic digester.
Reclaimed Wastewater Storage Basin
Volume - 1.5 MG
Off-Specification Basin
Volume = 1.5 MG
These design criteria are derived in Chapter VII of this report.
3. Develop a contingency plan for removal of inorganic dissolved
solids during initial operations of the recirculation scheme.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
The Owens-Corning Flberglas Corporation (OCF) in 1968 established
an objective of total water recycle for all its manufacturing facilities.
The technology of total recycle was successfully developed and demonstrat-
ed for fibrous glass insulation facilities in 1968 at the Corporations's
Harrington, New Jersey plant. Following the success in that area, the
Corporation set out to develop the technology of total recycle for
textile fibrous glass facilities. After conducting the necessary back-
ground research, OCF submitted an application for federal funding.
The Corporation was awarded an Environmental Protection Agency
Demonstration Grant (S801173) in March, 1973. Research and development
work (Phase I) for the grant was conducted at the Owens-Corning Fiber-
glas Corporation manufacturing facility at Anderson, South Carolina.
This work along with construction work under Phase II of the grant were
originally to be completed over a three-year period. Research and
development work delays, brought about by interruptions in manufacturing
operations at the Anderson facility, required that the grant period be
extended through December 31, 1977.
A detailed work plan for Phase I research and development was
defined during the initial months of the grant period. The Corporation
at that time retained the firm of Engineering-Science, Inc. to perform
the required field studies and preliminary engineering work.
The research and development phase was divided into a series of
distinct tasks, which are listed in Table II-l.
II-l
-------
TABLE II-l
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE TASK OUTLINE
Task A Project Planning
Task B Project Administration and Reporting
Task C Establish Current Plant Water Balances, Water Quality,
and Material Balances
Task D Investigate Water Reduction and/or Recycle Alternatives
Task E Evaluate Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
Task F Establish Water Reuse Criteria and Demand
Task G Evaluate Candidate Water Renovation Processes
Task H Evaluate Sludge Handling Systems
Task I Establish Design Criteria and Economics
Task J Establish Optimum Water Recirculation System
Phase I field studies began in August, 1973, and continued through
January, 1974 when grant studies were temporarily suspended due to re-
construction of plant manufacturing facilities. The project field work,
including confirmatory survey work, treatkbility studies, and pilot
process recirculation cooling trials, recommenced in June, 1974 and
continued through December, 1974 when grant studies were again temporarily
suspended due to a significant decrease in plant production rates.
Decreased production rates continued through July, 1975. During
this period primary chemical addition systems and;. Chemical Factory waste-
water surge handling facilities were added to the existing wastewater
treatment facility, both of which greatly improved removal efficiencies
and stabilized performance. Beginning in July, 1975 and continuing
through May, 1976, the pilot process recirculation cooling trials were
completed.
Research and development data were evaluated during May, 1976. Total
recirculation of industrial wastewater at the Anderson facility was
determined to be technically and economically feasible.
II-2
-------
Following this decision, work began towards design of the re-
circulation system. A schedule for completion of this work and operation
of the facility is as follows:
July 1, 1976
July 1, 1977
Submit preliminary engineering report
to South Carolina and EPA Industrial
Environmental Research Lab
Advanced wastewater treatment facilities
in operation
December 31, 1977 Wastewater recirculation system in operation
January 1, 1978- Evaluation of full-scale total recycle system
September 30, 1978
II-3
-------
CHAPTER III
PLANT WATER AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Establishment of an overall water and wastewater balance for the
Anderson Plant is of paramount importance in devising plans for water
recirculation and designs for advanced wastewater treatment processes.
This chapter begins with descriptions of the wastewater surveys that
have been conducted at the plant and concludes with projected flows for
the recirculation system. A revised sewer plan for the Anderson Plant
was established and sample points for the 1973-1974 wastewater survey
and characterization study were selected. These will be discussed later
in the chapter.
WASTEWATER SURVEY - 1969
During a two-week period in August and September, 1969, T.V. Powers,
Jr., a project engineer at the Anderson Plant, conducted a survey of the
industrial and sanitary wastewaters in the plant. Flow measurements were
taken with triangular weirs and by timed volume; flow readings were taken
throughout each day of the survey at two hour intervals. Even though no
wastewater characterization analyses were performed, each source was
identified with respect to location and visual characteristics of the
wastewater. Results from the survey are presented in Table III-l. The
closure between the sum of the measured individual flow (310 gpm) and
the flow through the treatment plant (466 gpm) is relatively poor,
amounting to a difference of 156 gpm. During the survey approximately
84 gpm of wastewater were being bypassed around the treatment plant.
WASTEWATER SURVEY AND MASS BALANCE - 1973 and 1974
A comprehensive water and wastewater survey and characterization
study was conducted by ES during the fall of 1973 and again in October,
1974 (following Factory "D" rebuild). Each process and sanitary waste-
water source was identified prior to the survey and labeled, as
described in Table III-2. Additionally, the waters in the various
cooling systems were characterized in order to assess requirements
for the use of reclaimed water. Several methods of flow measurement
m-i
-------
TABLE III-l
WASTEWATER SURVEY - 1969
DESCRIPTION
"A" Factory
Sanitary Wastewater
Air Conditioning
Binder Washdown
Forming Washdown and Air Wash
Air Wash
Ceramic Saw
Sanitary Wastewater
TOTAL "A" FACTORY - A
Beta Factory
Sanitary Wastewater
Air Wash
Forming Washdown
Binder Washdown
TOTAL BETA FACTORY = B
TOTAL GRAVITY LINE TO TREATMENT
"D" Factory
Forming Wash
Binder Wash
TOTAL "D" FACTORY - D
Chemical Factory
All
TOTAL CHEMICAL FACTORY = E
TOTAL "D" FACTORY FORCE MAIN = F
Mat Line
All
TOTAL MAT LINE = G
1969 1973-1974
SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE NO.
6 03
7\^^
8 — ^^^
11--"^^ '01
yf*"^^
9 None
15 02
4 12
5 10
10 ~~-~- —
PLANT = C = A + B
t
17 50
= D + E
3 61
MEAN
FLOW, gpm
.20
5
3
34
2
0
5
69
4
15
35
18
72
47
16
63
39
39
67
67
TOTAL WASTEWATER TO TREATMENT PLANT = C + F + G
TOTAL WASTEWATER THROUGH TREATMENT PLANT (as measured)
141
102
310
466
III-2
-------
TABLE III-l (Continued)
WASTEWATER SURVEY - 1969
1969 1973-1974 MEM
DESCRIPTION SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE NO. FLOW, gpm
Bypass
Alloy 1 06 19
No. 1 Spray Pond 2 62 0
Surface 16 22 4
Surface - Chemical Factory 22 43 45
"D" Factory Surface 23 36,37,38 16
TOTAL WASTEWATER BYPASSING TREATMENT 84
TOTAL WATER PURCHASED 766
III-3
-------
TABLE III-2
1973-1974 WASTEWATER SURVEY SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
M
M
SAMPLE POINT
NUMBER(s)
01
02
03
05, 82
06
10
11
12
13
20
DESCRIPTION
"A" Factory and Office Building
Combined Wastewater Flow from Basement
Floor Trench of "A" Factory (Process)
Waste Flow from First Floor East Side
of "A" Factory (Sanitary)
Waste Flow from "A" Factory Kitchen,
etc. West Side (Sanitary)
AC System Slowdown "A" Factory Basement
(Chill Water to #1 Spray Pond)
Storm Water Collection Outfall West of
"A" Factory (includes Alloy Wastes)
Beta Factory
Beta Factory Air Scrubber Slowdown
(Basement)
Beta Factory Basement Floor Trench
Less No. 10 (Process)
Sanitary Wastewater Sewer North of
Beta Building
Makeup Chilled Water System Beta Factory
Spray Pond Ko. 1 and 2
No. 1 Spray Pond Water (For Slowdown
See No. 62)
TYPE OF FLOW
MEASUREMENT
4" Cippoletti Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
Timed Volume
Timed Volume
Water Meter
90° "V" Notch Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
90° "V" Notch Weir
No Recorder
90° "V" Notch Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
Estimate
Timed Volume
None
WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
-------
TABLE III-2 (Continued)
1973-1974 WASTEWATER SURVEY SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE POINT
NUMBER(s)
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
33, 84
34
35, 85
36
37
38
DESCRIPTION
No. 2 Spray Pond Water
No. 2 Spray Pond Slowdown
No. 2 Spray Pond Filter Backwash
Combination of No. 22 and No. 23
"D"Factory and Tire Cord Building
Combined Wastewater Flow from "Dri
Factory, Includes Process and Scrubber
Slowdown
"D" Factory Air Scrubber Slowdown
(Basement)
"D" Factory Condenser Cooling Tower
Water
"D" Factory Condenser Cooling Tower
Slowdown
"D" Factory Process Cooling Tower
Water
"D" Factory Process Cooling Tower
Slowdown
"D" Factory Process Cooling Tower
Filter Backwash (12" Clay Pipe)
24" RCP Storm Water North of 7ID"
Factory Cooling Towers
18" Steel Pipe North of "D" Factory
Cooling Towers
TYPE OF FLOW
MEASUREMENT
None
See No. 24
See No. 24
90° "V" Notch Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
45° "V" Notch Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
Estimate
None
Water Meter
Water Meter
None
Water Meter
Estimate
Timed Volume
Timed Volume
WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
-------
TABLE III-2 (Continued)
1973-1974 WASTEWATER SURVEY SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
M
M
SAMPLE POINT
NUMBER(s)
39
40
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
60
DESCRIPTION
Surface Outfall of Caustic Wash Building
East of "D" Factory
Sanitary Waste from "D" Factory Whse.
Sanitary Waste from Tire Cord Lift
Station
Latex Pit Overflow
Surface Runoff Basin Sluice Gate East
of Tire Cord Area
Chemical Factory
Total Waste from Chemical Factory
Chemical Factory Process Cooling Tower
Water
Chemical Factory Process Cooling Tower
Slowdown
Inert Gas Cooling Tower Water
Inert Gas Cooling Tower Slowdown
Surface Runoff East of Plant
Inert Gas Scrubber Effluent
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Treatment Plant Influent Exclusive of
Mat Line
TYPE OF FLOW
MEASUREMENT
Es timate
Estimate
6" Cippoletti Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
Timed Volume
Weir
Timed Volume
None
Timed Volume
None
Timed Volume
Weir
Timed Volume
12" Cippoletti Weir
w/ Stevens Recorder
WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
-------
TABLE III-2 (Continued)
1973-1974 WASTEWATER SURVEY SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
M
-vl
SAMPLE POINT
NUMBER(s)
61
62
63
64
80
81
83
86
87
88
89
90
91
DESCRIPTION
Mat Line to Treatment Plant
Sewer West of Treatment Plant Including
No. 1 Spray Pond Slowdown and Wastes from
Garage and Caustic Wash Facility
Waste Treatment Plant Effluent
Waste Treatment Plant Influent
Cooling Systems
No. 1 Spray Pond Makeup Water
"A" Factory Chill Water Makeup
No. 2 Spray Pond Makeup Water
"D" Factory Chill Water Makeup
"D" Factory Chill Water Slowdown to "D"
Factory Condenser Water Cooling Tower
"D" Factory Condenser Water Cooling
Tower Makeup
"D" Factory Process Water Cooling Tower
Makeup
"D" Factory Air Scrubber Makeup
Chemical Factory Cooling Tower Makeup
- Cell #1 (East)
TYPE OF FLOW
MEASUREMENT
90° "V" Notch Weir
w/ Sjrevens Recorder
90° "V" Notch Weir
WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS
yes
w/ Stevens Recorder
Parshall Flume
None
Water Meter
Water Meter
Water Meter
Water Meter
Water Meter
Water Meter
Water Meter
Water Meter
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Water Meter
no
-------
TABLE III-2 - (Continued)
1973-1974 T>IASTEWATER SURVEY SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE POINT TYPE OF FLOW WATER QUALITY
NUMBER(s) DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS
92 Chemical Factory Cooling Tower Makeup
- Cell #2 (West) Water Meter no
93 Chemical Factory Inert Gas Scrubber Cooling
Tower Makeup Water Meter no
94 City Water Meter Supplying OCF Plant Water Meter yes
95 Chemical Factory Carrier System Makeup Water Meter no
96 Boiler Water Makeup Water Meter n°
i
oo
-------
were utilized; as listed in Table III-2, these included weirs with
recorders, water meters and timed volumes.
Wastewater Flows and Mass Balance
Flow and mass balances for the process and sanitary wastewaters are
listed in Table III-3. Comparison of the sum of the tributary flows to
the measured treatment plant influent flow indicates that the flow
closure is excellent. The major contributors to wastewater flow are "A"
Factory, Chemical Factory, and the Mat Line. Approximately 44 gpm of
the measured flow was sanitary wastewater from the plant restrooms and
cafeteria. It should be noted that the tributaries which were bypassing
the wastewater treatment facility during the 1969 survey had been
routed to treatment prior to the 1973-1974 survey. Therefore, all flows
except some uncontaminated storm water runoff now receive treatment prior
to discharge.
Major contributors to wastewater COD, TSS, and TDS were the fibrous
glass manufacturing process sources in "A" Factory, Beta Factory, and "D"
Factory. Contamination is a result primarily of spills and leakages of
binder used in the fiberglass manufacturing processes. The discrepancy
between the COD mass in the summation of the tributaries and that in the
treatment plant influent is a result of aperiodic binder spills not repre-
sented in the composited grab samples at each source but included in the
equalized treatment plant influent. While the mass closures for TSS and
TDS were not as good as those for COD, the total solids closure (total
solids = TSS + TDS) is reasonable, since the various binders used at
Anderson tend to precipitate from solution when mixed.
Heating and Cooling Systems
Water flows and characterization analyses for the heating and cooling
systems at the Anderson Plant were determined during the 1973-1974 survey in
order to enumerate water reuse requirements. Makeup, blowdown, drift,
and evaporation flows for both fall and winter operations were measured
and/or calculated through the use of water meters on makeup piping and
water quality analyses (TDS, SiO-, Total Hardness) on waters in the
systems. While the results are not presented here, since future conditions
will be much different than those in 1973 and 1974 as a result of planned
III-9
-------
TABLE III-3
M
M
t-j
B
PROCESS AREA
"A" Factory Process
"A" Factory Sanitary
East End
"A" Factory Sanitary
West End
Beta Factory Scrubber
Beta Factory Process
Beta Factory Sanitary
Chemical Factory Process
Chemical Factory Inert Gas
Scrubber
"D" Factory Scrubber
"D" Factory Process
"D" Factory and Tire
Cord Sanitary
Alloy Process
Power House
No. 2 Spray Pond Filter
Backwash
Miscellaneous
"D" Factory Filter
Backwash
Estimated Content of
Unsampled Flows
Subtotal
Mat Line
Total Tributaries
Measured Treatment Plant
Influent
ES
SAMPLE
NO.
01
02
03
10*
11
12*
50
56
31*
30
40, 41
06
62
24
37,38 &
39
36*
*
61
63,64
MEAN
FLOW
(gpm)
60
6
28
12
15
4
33
26
2
23
6
31
6
4
10
4
-
270
35
305
303
PERCENT
QF
TOTAL
20
2
9
4
5
1
11
8
1
8
2
10
2
1
3
1
-
88
12
100
-
1973-1974 WASTEWATER SURVEY -
PERCENT
COD
(mg/1)
2565
630
359
—
3443
_
684
15
_
8279
290
65
957
37
62
-
71
_
834
-
2001
COD
(Ib/d)
1848
45
121
_
620
_
271
5
_
2287
21
24
69
2
7
-
19
5339
351
5690
7281
OF
TOTAL
32.5
0.8
2.1
10.9
4.8
0.1
_
40.2
0.4
0.4
J.2
. 0
0.1
-
0.3
94
6
100
—
- MASS BALANCE
TDS
1079
842
192
1806
189
66
_
1596
192
189
6044
279
131
-
129
-
470
-
336
TDS
(Ib/d)
778
61
65
325
75
21
_
441
14
70
436
13
16
-
34
2349
198
25.47
1223
PERCENT
OF
VA
TOTAL
31
2
3
13
_
3
1
_
17
0
3
17
0
1
-
1
92
8
100
—
TSS
(mg/1)
568
184
58
—
556
_
197
6
-
1093
61
51
294
43
68
-
66
-
463
-
572
TSS
(Ib/d)
409
13
20
_
100
_
78
2
-
302
4
19
21
2
8
—
17
995
195
1190...
2081
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
34.4
1
2
_
8
-
7
0.2
-
25
0.3
2
2
0.2
0.7
—
1
84
16
100
* Waste streams not sampled for water quality
-------
manufacturing changes in "A" Factory and Beta Factory and the addition
of "E" Factory, they do form the basis for the summer and winter cooling
system flow projections given later in this chapter.
WASTEWATER SURVEY - 1976
Confirmatory survey work was conducted by OCF environmental person-
nel during a one week period in April, 1976. This survey served two
purposes; first to determine if changes in wastewater flow rates had
occurred since the survey in 1973 and 1974, and second, to aid in the
projection of future wastewater flows. Flow rates were measured at 17
points in the sewer system through the use of weirs with recorders, timed
volumes, tracer-dilution methods, and a Parshall flume.
Survey results are presented in Table III-4. The flow closure is
quite reasonable for a survey of this nature. The measured treatment
plant influent flow rate indicates a 38 gpm reduction from that recorded
during the 1973-1974 survey. This reduction is due to reduced levels
of manufacturing operations in "A" Factory and Beta Factory during the
1976 survey. The flow measurements are not, however, representative
of future flows because of the additional changes to occur in "A" Factory
and the additional manufacturing area which is to be constructed
("E" Factory).
PROJECTED COOLING SYSTEM WATER BALANCE
Water balances for the several cooling systems in the plant are a
prerequisite for establishing water reuse patterns. Projected cooling
water flows for summer and winter operations are presented in this section.
These projections are based upon:
Measured and calculated cooling flows for fall and winter
operations as determined during the survey in 1973-1974.
Planned heat load reductions in "A" Factory and Beta Factory;
future heat load additions from "E" Factory.
Plant operating records.
III-ll
-------
TABLE III-4
WASTEWATER SURVEY - 1976
PROCESS AREA
1973-1974 SAMPLE NO.
"A" Factory Process
"A" Factory Sanitary
Beta Factory Process, Binder,
& Sanitary
Chemical Factory Process
"D" Factory Process & Scrubber
Chemical Factory I.G. Scrubber
"D" Factory Sanitary
Alloy
Powerhouse
Filter Backwash
Mat Line
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Measured Flow Through Treatment Plant
MEAN FLOW
01
02, 03
10, 11, 12
50
30, 31
56
40, 41
06
62
24, 36
61
37, 38, 39
63, 64
(gpm)
25
16
15
29
29
41
6
16
2
1
29
46
255 gpm
265 gpm
111-12
-------
Reuse Scheme
Basically, the plan for wastewater reclrculation/reuse in the cool-
ing sys terns is as follows:
Upgrade existing wastewater treatment facilities to enable
production of an effluent of such quality as may be used in
the plant cooling systems.
Utilize this reclaimed water as makeup to the cooling systems.
Cascade blowdowns from one cooling system to another; thus,
in effect, the blowdowns will be part of the makeup to the
systems receiving them.
Final blowdowns from the cooling systems are to be routed to
the "D" and "E" scrubbers.
Water Balance
There are nine major cooling systems in the Anderson Plant which
use water; these are described in Table III-5. The process cooling sys-
tems require the highest degree of water quality due to extreme heat
loads and small diameter distribution piping. The chillers possess
somewhat liberal physical and chemical water quality requirements, but
the water used must be free of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, because
the chill water is used to cool the atmosphere inside each factory.
Cooling of heated circulating water in evaporative cooling systems
employed at the Anderson Plant is accomplished primarily through evapora-
tion in the spray ponds and cooling towers. Some water is also lost
through entrainment of water droplets in air draft; thig loss is known
as "drift". While both evaporation and drift constitute water vapor
losses, of the two mechanisms only the drift process is responsible for
dissolved solids removal. The overall effect is that dissolved solids
concentrate in the remaining liquid. To prevent a buildup of dissolved
solids (and associated scaling and heat transfer problems) in the cooling
system, a small portion of the circulating water is continuously dis-
charged to the treatment system; this loss is termed "blowdown". The end
result is that water is continuously added to each system (makeup) in
amounts equal to the total water lost (blowdown + evaporation + drift).
111-13
-------
TABLE III-5
MAJOR COOLING SYSTEMS
SYSTEM
"A" Chillers
"E" Chillers (Future)
"D" Chillers
#1 Pond ("A" & "E" Condenser Cooling)
#2 Pond ("A" & "E" Process Cooling)
"D" Condenser Cooling
"D" Process Cooling
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 2
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 1
PURPOSE
Cools water for "A" Factory and Beta Factory
air washers
Cools water for "E" Factory air washers
Cools water for "D" Factory air washers
Cools refrigeration units in "A" Factory, Beta
Factory, and "E" Factory
Cools bushings, fin shields, and furnace coils
in "A" Factory, Beta Factory, and "E" Factory
Cools refrigeration units in "D" Factory
Cools bushings, fin shields, and furnace coils
in "D" Factory
Cools Chemical Factory process units: #2 Thin-
ning Tank, 7*2, #3, and #4 Reactors, and Carrier
chill water condensers
Cools burner in the Chemical Factory Inert Gas
manufacturing operation, #1 Reactor, and Trane
chill water condensers
TOTAL
VOLUME
(gal)
20,000
38,000*
38,000
755,000
505,000
38,000
135,000
6,000
2,500_
1,537,500
* Estimated volume
-------
Makeup, blowdown, evaporation, and drift flows for both summer
and winter operating conditions for all nine major cooling systems are
illustrated in Figures III-l and III-2. These figures also depict the
reclaimed water requirements and cascade pattern. The totals for opera-
tions during both seasons are listed in Table III-6.
Drift Losses
Mass balances have been performed on each of the cooling systems in
accordance with the flows shown in Figures III-l and III-2. These
balances may serve several functions:
calculation of equilibrium levels of any reclaimed water
constituents in each of the cooling systems.
quantification of drift losses for any constituent.
determination of requirements for treatment of blowdown.
The first step in this evaluation was the determination of the number of
cycles of concentration (C) that will occur in each cooling system. The
"C" value is a dimensionless number which expresses the number of times
the concentration of any constituent is multiplied from its original
value in the makeup water, and is calculated as follows:
B + D + E
U B + D
where:
C = cycles of concentration
B = blowdown rate
D = drift loss rate
E = evaporation rate
For example, if the TDS concentration in the makeup water to a particular
cooling system is 50 mg/1, and the "C" value for that system is 5.00, the
TDS concentration in the system (and in the blowdown and drift) will be
5.00 x 50 mg/1, or 250 mg/1. Cycles of concentration for each of the
major cooling systems are listed in Table III-7; these values are based
on the projected flows shown in Figures III-l and III-2..
Ill- 15
-------
TABLE III-6
COOLING SYSTEMS SUMMARY
SUMMER WINTER
(gpm)
Reclaimed Water Makeup 174.3 89.6
Slowdown to Treatment 1 1
Slowdown to Scrubbers
(to Treatment) 27 3
Drift 14.8 8.8
Evaporation 131.5 76.8
III- 16
-------
TABLE III-7
PROJECTED
CYCLES OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE COOLING SYSTEMS
CYCLES OF CONCENTRATION
SYSTEM
"A" Chillers
"E" Chillers
"D" Chillers
#1 Pond ("A" & "E" Condenser Cooling)
#2 Pond ("A" & "E" Process Cooling)
"D" Condenser Cooling
"D" Process Cooling
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 2
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 1
SUMMER
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.71
4.70
5.00
4.57
5.83
2.33
WINTER
3.50
5.50
7.00
2.00
5.25
1.00
8.42
4.83
1.83
III- 17
-------
FIGURE III-l
COOLING SYSTEM
s=o
W = ^ ^
"" W.w
W=22
S W S
-10 2.5 0
"A11 CHILLERS
f
s w s
-9.6 18 0
|| «• || ^\ » lii • ^* f^f\
E CHILLERS
w
0
w
0
S= in
1 w
Ul— 1
S- Q C
- S. O
W=4
s=o
W=I4
-6.4
W
12
W
'D CHILLERS
= 6.4
Note: Negative Evaporation Values Indicate
Condensation Of Humidity In Air
111-18
-------
FIGURE III-l
WATER BALANCE
4
s
63
W
S
4.5
W=|
W
0
* I POND
Va"E" CONDENSER
COOLING
TO"E" SCRUBBER
m
S : w
37 * 25.9
S*37.4
W=28
S
6.1
W
6.1
* 2 POND
"A"a"E" PROCESS
COOLING
S=3.
W=0
TO"E"SCRUBBER
s jw
28 0
S-28.6
W«0
S
1.4
W
0
"D"CONDENSER
COOLING
TO "D" SCRUBBER
w=2
KEY
Reclaimed Water Makeup
Slowdown
Evaporation
S» Summer Conditions Flow,GPM
W* Winter Conditions Flow, GPM
Drift
111-19
-------
FIGURE III-2
COOLING SYSTEM WATER BALANCE
1
s w
25 14.1
S = 32
W=I6
•
s
2.0;
i
i
w
1.9
"D" PROCESS
COOLING
S=5
W=0
SCRUBBER
S = 3.5
W*2.9
S W S
2.9 2.3 0.6
w
0.6
CHEMICAL
COOLING TOWER
NO- 2
S=0
W = 0
3 = 2.8
W*2.2
S W S
1.6 1.0 0.2
w
0.2
CHEMICAL
COOLING TOWER
NO. 1
S=l
W=l
T
NOTE: FOR KEY SEE FIGURE HT-1
111-20
». TO
TREATMENT
-------
The next step was to calculate mass balances around each of the
cooling systems in terms of the concentration (W) of any constituent in
the reclaimed makeup water, incorporating the "C" values calculated
earlier. Drift losses are summarized in Table III-8. An application of
these results is presented in the last section of this chapter.
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND REUSE
Projected wastewater flows and reuse requirements have been
developed from cooling system balances given earlier in the chapter,
process reuse flows developed in 1974, planned manufacturing reductions
in "A" Factory and Beta Factory, and future manufacturing additions
("E" Factory). Sanitary wastewaters from the entire Anderson Plant,
amounting to 40-60 gpm, will be segregated from the process wastewater
conveyance system, treated separately in a "package" plant, and dis-
charged to Betsy Creek. These wastewaters originate from potable city
water uses in the plant. Usages requiring high quality water, such as
boiler makeup, binder makeup, and deionized water sprays will not utilize
reclaimed wastewater. Finally, reclaimed wastewater will be used in the
cooling systems, the air scrubbers, Mat Line, Alloy, and for floor wash-
downs in "A", "D", and "E" Factories. Although current plans rely upon
using city water as input to the IG Scrubber and then using Scrubber
effluent in the Mat Line ("piggyback" system), the possibility of
developing an internal recycle system (with city water) for the IG
Scrubber is being investigated. In that case, reclaimed water would
be used for the Mat Line. The most sensitive of these uses, which is
also the largest use, is the cooling systems. Accordingly, a pilot
cooling loop has been tested using reclaimed wastewater, as will be
discussed in Chapter VI.
Both cooling and process reuse flows, together with wastewater
discharges, are listed in Table III-9. Since cooling system evaporative
losses will be much greater during the summer than during the winter,
summer reuse requirements will exceed the amount of reclaimed waste-
water available; conversely, during the winter, reclaimed wastewater
flows will exceed reuse requirements. The obvious conservation solution
would be to store the excess reclaimed water during the winter for later
111-21
-------
TABLE III-8
PROJECTED
DRIFT LOSSES FOR THE COOLING SYSTEMS
SYSTEM
DRIFT LOSSES*
SUMMER
(Ib/day)
WINTER
(Ib/day)
"A" Chillers
"E" Chillers
"D" Chillers
#1 Pond ("A" & "E" Condenser Cooling)
#2 Pond ("A" & "E" Process Cooling)
"D" Condenser Cooling
"D" Process Cooling
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 2
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 1
TOTALS
0.254W
0.344W
0.084W
0. HOW
0.042W
0.006W
0.840W
0
0.600W
0
0.192W
0.035W
0.004W
0.831W
* Expressed in terms of W, the concentration of the constituent in the
reclaimed water.
111-22
-------
TABLE III-9
SOURCE
"A" Factory Process
"D" Factory Process
"D" Scrubbers1
"E" Factory Process
"E" Scrubbers1
Alloy
IG Scrubber - Mat Line
Boilerhouse
Filter Backwash (3)
Mi s ce1laneous
Cooling Systems
TOTALS
PROJECTED WASTEWATER
FLOWS AND REUSE
FOR RECIRCULATION
FLOW
(gpm)
s 15
ider Room 2
'rocess 35
is 25
11
is 25
20
20
Line2 26
5
0 *
19
1
205
SUMMER REUSE
(gpm)
10
0
0
20
0.4
20
3.6
20
0
0
1
10
174.3
259.3
WINTER REUSE
10
0
0
20
9
20
19
20
0
0
1
10
89.6
198.6
NOTE: 1. Both scrubbers receive cooling system blowdown in addition
to flows listed in reuse columns.
2. "Piggyback" system.
3. Wastewater flow is Chemical Cooling Tower No. 1 system blowdown;
reuse flows are totals for all cooling systems.
111-23
-------
use in the summer. However, at this time it is not possible to determine
the balance between those days with excess wastewater and those with
deficit. The "safest" path, therefore, is to make provisions for controlled
addition of city water makeup to the reclaimed wastewater distribution tank,
and to ensure that the reclaimed water storage basin is of sufficient volume
to hold excess flows for at least 100 days (the entire winter season) . An
overall recirculation water balance for the Anderson Plant is shown as
Figure III- 3.
PROJECTED EQUILIBRIUM CONCENTRATIONS FOR INORGAHIC CONTAMINANTS
Drift loss values presented in Table III-8 along with recent water
and wastewater characterization data have been used to project equilibrium
concentrations of hardness (total and calcium), silica, sulfate, and
zinc in the reclaimed wastewater. These parameters were chosen for
analysis because their concentrations in the cooling systems have been
limited, as will be described in Chapter VI. Projections were calculated
utilizing data contained in Table 111-10. The methodology used in this
analysis is illustrated (for total hardness) in the following paragraphs.
As a first step, calculate the daily input of total hardness to the
plant waters (assume negligible cooling input) . Process input is due to
hardness in the city water and hardness added through process uses. Quality
data in Table 111-10 show that total hardness increases by 25 mg/1 in each
pass through the manufacturing facilities; city water contains approximately
16 mg/1 total hardness. Based upon the flow rates in Figure III-3, the
daily total hardness input is equal to the sum of the city water input
[92 gpm @ (16 mg/1 + 25 mg/1)] and the reclaimed wastewater input [113 gpm
<§ 25 mg/1]
City Water Input =
. 45.3
Reclaimed Wastewater Input =
fl!3 gal.,1440 min MG , >,8.34 lb/MG. „_ Q
( tninM day } (106 gal} (25 mg/1) ( - ^Jl - > = 33'9
Total Input =45.3 lb/day +33.9 lb/day = 79 lb/day
This input is a net value which includes any removal through treatment
processes.
If drift loss is the only mechanism of hardness removal, the
concentration of hardness in the reclaimed wastewater will continuously
111-24
-------
TABLE III-10
QUALITY OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER AND CITY WATER
Reclaimed Wastewater City Water Increase
Parameter (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness (as CaCO )
•3
Calcium Hardness (as CaCO_)
Silica (as SiOj
Sulfate
Zinc
280
41
35
19
74
2,0
52
16
10
9
19
0.1
228
25
25
10
55
1.9
*Mean values during 90-day pilot cooling loop trial: February, 1976
April, 1976.
111-25
-------
FIGURE III-3
CITY 8=92
i
IX)
W-109
PROCESS USES
s
27
S= 174.3
W=89.6
W
3
COOLING USES
s
1463
W
85.6
OVERALL WATER BALANCE
FOR RECIRCULATION
S=204,
W*204
/STORAGB_
V BASIN J
S=205
W=205
«"W«0
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
s=o
If
W=l
S= Summer Flow.GPM
W=Wlnter Flow.GPM
LOSSES TO ATMOSPHERE
RECLAIMED WATER TO DISTRIBUTION
W=I98.6
S= 2593
-------
increase until the mass of hardness lost through drift is equivalent
to the net daily input. Using the drift loss totals from Table III-8,
the equilibrium hardness levels may be calculated as follows:
Hardness Input = Drift Losses, and for summer conditions
79 Ib.day = 0.840 W Ib/day
W = 0^0 mg/1
W = 94 mg/1
Similarly, for winter conditions
79 Ib/day = 0.831 W Ib/day
mg/1
W = 95 mg/1
Projected inputs and reclaimed wastewater equilibrium concentrations for
total dissolved solids, calcium hardness, silica, sulfate, and zinc were
calculated using the format shown above. Results are summarized in Table
III-ll.
Though the equilibrium concentrations themselves do not appear to be
excessive, when the contaminants are concentrated in the cooling systems,
the resultant system concentrations may be great enough to cause scal-
ing, plugging, and associated heat transfer problems. Zinc concentrations
may be at levels which are biocidal to the activated sludge system. To
avert these problems, it will be necessary to remove the majority of the
contaminants from the water system. Realizing the potential of the cool-
ing cascade pattern, the logical candidate streams for treatment or
discharge are the ones in which dissolved contaminants will be concen-
trated to the greatest degree. This topic will receive further attention
in Chapters VI and VII.
111-27
-------
TABLE III-ll
PROJECTED INPUTS AND EQUILIBRIUM CONCENTRATIONS
FOR INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
Equilibrium Concentrations in Wastewater*
Daily Input Summer Winter
Parameter (Ib/day) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Total Dissolved Solids 618 736 744
Total Hardness 79 94 95
Calcium Hardness 73 87 88
Silica 35 42 42
Sulfate 156 186 188
Zinc 4.8 6 6
*Assuming drift loss is the sole removal mechanism.
HI-28
-------
CHAPTER IV
OPTIMIZATION OF EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES OPERATIONS
Existing wastewater treatment facilities are described in the first
sections of this chapter, including summaries of EPA evaluations of the
facilities. Recent facility improvements are discussed in the next sec-
tion, followed by the historical record of plant performance and the de-
velopment of design loadings for advanced wastewater treatment processes.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Portions of the existing treatment facilities first became oper-
ational in 1951; however, the treatment plant was expanded somewhat in
1967. A site plan is shown as Figure IV-1, and the process flow diagram
is depicted in Figure IV-2. Following paragraphs provide a narrative
description of treatment operations.
Mat Line wastewater flows through a basket (manually cleaned) which
strains some of the fibrous glass strands from the liquid, and then into the
small air-agitated equalization basin. Wastewater from "A" Factory, Beta
Factory,and "D" Factory flows through a manually cleaned bar screen into
the large equalization basin. Chemical Factory wastewater enters the
three surge tanks and is bled through the bar screen at a controlled
rate. Wastewater is pumped continuously from the large equalization ba-
sin (also air-agitated) to the small equalization basin, which overflows
into a distribution box. From the distribution box the major portion of
the wastewater flows to the flash mix chamber and the remainder flows
back into the large equalization basin.
Sulfuric acid, caustic, clay, ferric chloride and polymers are added
in the flash mix chamber; flash mix effluent then enters the flocculation
tank. A pH probe in the flocculation tank provides feedback control of
neutralization. The coagulation-flocculation process enhances removal
of colloidal and suspended solids in the subsequent primary sedimentation
process. Flocculation tank effluent enters the five circular primary
clarifiers for solids removal; clarifier effluent is then combined with
return activated sludge for distribution to the three diffused air
IV-1
-------
FIGURE IV-1
SITE PLAN
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
LJ
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
AERATION
BASINS
000
LJ ono
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
o
O
SLUDGE
LAGOON
OLD
DRYING
SLUDGE
BEDS
D
/
EFFLUENT
RETENTIO
POND
•AEROBIC DIGESTER
//
-OLD DIGESTER
EQUALIZATION BASINS
ooo
CHEMICAL WASTEWATER
SURGE TANKS
IV-2
-------
FIGURE IV-2
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM-EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
CHEMICAL ,
FACTORY
SURGE
TANKS
,
'A"."B" a"D" FACTORIES .
MAT LINES
r
— i
CfM 1 A 1 IT ATIrtW
t.UUALf^AI lUN
m ACID
n CAUSTIC
Ul
> •?!?
< 0 -J
_j « O
O U. Q.
i i 1 '
Ipl ft«7|l _
I MIX I
FLOCCULATION
8 NEUTRALIZATION
BASKET
PRIMARY
e*^r\ i&Af fciTTA^i/NM
[SEDIMENTATION
ACTIVATED
e»t i • r\f* c
SLUDGE.
v
U
£
UJ
J
o
a.
i '
SECONDARY
— '
BETSY
CREEK
EFFLUENT
RETENTION
POND
-------
aeration basins. Mixed liquor from the aeration basins flows to the
three rectangular secondary clarifiers. Ferric chloride and polymers are
added prior to the clarifiers to enhance sedimentation efficiency. Clari-
fied effluent flows through a Parshall flume and then is pumped to the
Effluent Retention Pond. The pond discharge enters Betsy Creek. Sludge
from the primary clarifiers is pumped into an aerobic digester from which
it is periodically pumped to the sludge lagoon. Waste activated sludge
is pumped to the flocculation tank and settles in the primary clarifiers.
The treatment process unit volumes are given in Table IV-1.
EPA INVESTIGATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OPERATIONS
In response to requests from OCF corporate environmental personnel,
staff members of EPAV National Field Investigations Center worked in
Anderson during March, April, and May, 1973, to develop operational con-
trol techniques to improve the performance of the wastewater treatment
facility. The study concentrated on delineating process parameter re-
sponses and sludge wastage quantities. Recommendations made by EPA at
the conclusion of the project are listed below:
Use process demands to determine return sludge and waste
sludge requirements.
Install a recording-totalizing waste sludge flow meter.
Provide improved screening and grit removal equipment.
Improve the pH adjustment system, particularly the caus-
tic feeding part of the system.
Resolve the problem of handling highly concentrated or-
ganic batch dumps.
Problem wastes should be categorized. These should in-
clude the highly concentrated organic wastes and those
with extremely high or low pH values.
Modify the blower system so that it can provide suffi-
cient air under changing conditions.
Consider using a recording D. 0. analyzer in the aera-
tion tanks.
IV-4
-------
TABLE IV-1
EXISTING TREATMENT PROCESS UNITS
VOLUME
PROCESS UNIT DIMENSIONS (gal)
Chemical Wastewater Surge Tanks (3) - 2 @ 22,500
1 @ 10,000
Large Equalization Basin 50' $ x 17' 249,679*
Small Equalization Basin 34' x 15' 101,869
Flash Mix Chamber - 1,900
Flocculation Tank - 11,000
Primary Clarifier No. 6 14' x 9' 10,363
Primary Clarifier No. 7 14' x 9' 10,363
Primary Clarifier No. 8 14' x 9' 10,363
Primary Clarifier No. 9 14' <|> x 9' 10,363
Primary Clarifier No. 10 14' x 9' 10,363
Aeration Basin No. 1 50' x 25' x 15' 140,250
Aeration Basin No. 2 50' x 25' x 15' 140,250
Aeration Basin No, 3 50' x 25' x 15' 140,250
Secondary Clarifier No. 1 50' x 10' x 8.5' 31,790
Secondary Clarifier No. 2 50' x 10' x 8.5' 31,790
Secondary Clarifier No. 3 50' x 10' x 8.5' 31,790
Aerobic Digester 45' 4> x 25' 297,411
*Maximum volume - water level varies considerably.
IV-5
-------
Improve the distribution box between the aeration
tanks and the clarifiers so that mixed liquor can
be distributed to the clarifiers without pulsing and
air entrainment.
Use secondary clarifiers as required by plant flow rates.
Reevaluate the secondary clarifier inlet piping.
Consider an improved ferric chloride feed system.
Consider installing additional polymer feed facilities.
Improve the nutrient addition system to give the oper-
ator the ability to adjust and maintain required feed
rates.
These recommendations either have been or will be implemented, as
is discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter.
IV-6
-------
EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Dye studies of the major wastewater treatment units were performed
to evaluate the existing hydraulic characteristics and to quantify
undesirable hydraulic problems. Studies were performed on the equaliza-
tion basins, the primary clarifiers, and the secondary clarifiers.
The basic procedure consisted of adding a measured amount of floures-
cent dye to the influent of the particular unit being evaluated and
measuring the concentration of dye in the effluent as a function of time.
In all cases, Rhodamine B-WT Dye was used as a tracer substance. The
flow characteristics in the unit can be ascertained from the shape of the
dye recovery curve.
The effluent concentration of dye was measured with a Turner Fluoro-
meter Model No. Ill equipped with a 546 primary filter and a 590 secondary
filter. The fluorometer was calibrated using serial dilutions of the
respective dyes at 25°C. All samples were brought to the calibration
temperature before measurement.
The basic purpose of the studies was to determine the relative amounts
of mixing, plug flow, and dead space occurring in each unit process and
to compare the actual results with the desirable characteristics.
Complex mathematical models have been derived for describing the
various combinations of flow characteristics that occur in a theoretical
hydraulic system. Applications of the theoretical models to real systems
have, in some cases, been quite satisfactory. The disadvantage of using
complex models, however, is that the original purpose of the flow study
can be lost in the complexity of the analysis.
The method utilized in this study is based on flow models that can
be presented graphically as shown in Figures IV-3 through IV-5. Figure
IV-3 depicts the effect of dead space on a completely mixed flow system.
It can be shown theoretically that approximately 63% of the dye added to
a completely mixed system will be recovered after one detention time:
«-/T -1 0
Percent Recovery = 100 (1 - e C/ x) = 100 (1 - e """) = 63 (IV-1)
where:
T = detention time
t = actual measured time interval
IV-7
-------
FIGURE IV-3
THEORETICAL DYE RECOVERY CURVES FOR
A COMPLETELY MIXED SYSTEM WITH VARYING
AMOUNTS OF DEAD SPACE
100
D = % Dead Space
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
t/T
1.2
1.4
.6
E.8
2.0
-------
FIGURE IV-4
THEORETICAL DYE RECOVERY CURVES FOR
A COMPLETELY MIXED SYSTEM WITH VARYING
AMOUNTS OF PLUG FLOW
100
80
K
HI
>
o
uj60
oc
Ul
£40
UJ
a.
P = % Plug Flow
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
t/T
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
-------
FIGURE - IV-5
THEORETICAL DYE RECOVERY CURVES FOR
A COMPLETELY MIXED SYSTEM WITH VARYING
AMOUNTS OF DEAD SPACE AND PLUG FLOW
100
M = % Mixed Flow
D =% Dead Space
P = % Plug Flow
2.0
-------
To determine the amount of dead space in a completely mixed system,
it is necessary only to determine at what fraction of a detention time
63% of the dye is recovered. The remaining fraction is then equal to the
dead space in the vessel. As shown in Figure IV-3, if 63% of the dye is
recovered at t/T = 0.75, the amount of dead space is 0.25 or 25%.
Figure IV-4 shows the effect of plug flow on a completely mixed
system. In this case, all of the curves pass through 63% dye recovery
at t/T = 1.0, but the curves originate at various points on the abscissa.
The fraction of plug flow is equal to the starting point on the abscissa.
For example, a completely mixed system having 50% plug flow would have a
recovery curve originating at t/T = 0.50 as shown in Figure IV-4.
Figure IV-5 shows various combinations of plug flow and dead space
in a completely mixed system. The determination of the relative amounts
of the three characteristics proceeds exactly as for the individual cases.
For example, a system having 25% dead space would show 63% dye recovery
at t/T = 0.75. If in the same system the remaining volume - i.e., the
effective volume - were divided evenly between completely mixed and plug
flow, the curve would originate at t/T = 0.375 '- i.e., one half of
(1.0 - 0.25).
The concentration of dye in the effluent from a particular unit was
measured versus time. This was then plotted with concentration as the
ordinate and time as the abscissa. For ease of analysis, both parameters
are "normalized" by dividing the concentration C by C and the time t by
T.
where:
C and t = actual concentration of dye after a particular time
interval t
weight of dye added
o ~ theoretical volume of tank
volume
T = detention time =
flow
The actual percent recovery of dye is then equal to the area under
the curve of C/C versus t/T. A percent recovery versus time curve can
be established by integrating the curve for various time intervals. The
latter curve is constructed by assuming that the area under the
IV-11
-------
concentration versus time curve is equal to 100% dye recovery rather than
the actual dye recovery.
Dye recovery curves for each of the unit processes investigated are
presented in Figures IV-6 through IV-12. Two different curves are pre-
sented in each figure: the left ordinate refers to the normalized con-
centration C/C and the right ordinate refers to the percent recovery
o
assuming 100% dye recovery at t/T =°°. For both curves, the abscissa is
the normalized time interval as t/T. The hydraulic characteristics of
the units in terms of the relative percent of dead space, plug flow, and
completely mixed flow are stated on each figure and summarized in Table
IV-2.
Equalization Basins
The hydraulic studies performed on the equalization basins entailed
the injection of dye at both of the wastewater entrance points, namely
the Mat Line effluent and the bar screen effluent. Amounts of dye propor-
tional to the flow at each point were released simultaneously. The
combined effluent of the equalization basins was then monitored such that
the total equalization facilities were treated as one system. The re-
sults of the hydraulic study on the equalization system indicate that
approximately78 % of the system is completely mixed, 4% is plug flow, and
18% is dead space (Figure IV-6). On the basis of these results, the
equalization capacity of the total system is approximately equal to the
operating volume of the system since the flow regime is primarily complet-
ely mixed. It is suspected that some, if not all, of the dead space
reflected in the dye study is due to solids deposition in the bottom of
each of the equalization basins.
Primary Clarifiers No. 8, 9, and 10
Hydraulic studies were completed on the three most western primary
clarifiers (Nos. 8, 9, and 10). The results of these dye studies
as shown in Figures IV-7 through IV-9 indicate that each clari-
fier has basically the same hydraulic characteristics, although
Clarifier No. 8 has 13% dead space while the others had none. This may
have been due to the quantity of settled sludge present in the clarifier
at the time of the test. Stored sludge would represent dead space and
IV-12
-------
TABLE IV-2
SUMMARY OF DYE
H
f
l->
W
Process Unit
Equalization Basins
Primary Clarifier No. 8
Primary Clarifier No. 9
Primary Clarifier No. 10
Final Clarifier No. 1
Final Clarifier No. 2
Final Clarifier No. 3*
Figure
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
IV-11
IV-12
STUDY RESULTS AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Mean Flow Rate
(gpm)
350
60
84
75
113
150
101
Flow Characteristics
Completely Mixed
(percent)
78
79
92
90
90
79
64
Plug Flow
(percent)
4
8
8
10
10
7
7
Dead Space
(percent)
18
13
0
0
0
14
29
*After target plate system re-installed .
-------
FIGURE IV-6
DYE STUDY FOR EQUALIZATION BASINS
Completely Mixed 78%
Plug Flow 4%
Dead Space 18%
100
ac.
UJ
o
u
UJ
UJ
50 Q
UJ
u
tr
UJ
a.
t/T
-------
FIGURE IV-7
DYE STUDY FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #8
too
Completely Mixed
Plug Flow
Dead Space
0.
2.0
-------
FIGURE VI-8
DYE STUDY FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #9
—, 100
o
o
Completely Mixed
Plug Flow
Dead Space
O.I
2.0
-------
FIGURE IV-9
DYE STUDY FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #10
-i too
o
o
v,
O
Completely Mixed
Plug Flow
Dead Space
1.5
2.0
t/T
-------
FIGURE IV-10
DYE STUDY FOR FINAL CLARIFIER
—i 100
Completely Mixed 90%
Plug Flow 10%
Dead Space 0%
O.I
- 10
2.0
-------
1.5 r-
FIGURE IV-11
DYE STUDY FOR FINAL CLARIFIER #2
too
Completely Mixed 79%
Plug Flow 7 %
Dead Space 14 %
0.
2.0
-------
FIGURE IV-12
DYE STUDY FOR FINAL CLARIFIER#3
FOLLOWING INTAKE MODIFICATION
1.5 i-
Completely Mixed 64%
Plug Flow 7%
Dead Space 29%
100
90
80 >>
«
o
702
605,
o
50 g
o
40 S.
30
20
10
O.I
2.0
-------
as sludge is not withdrawn continuously, this could account for the dif-
ference. In general, while it appears that the hydraulic characteristics
of the primary clarifiers are not within the acceptable operating range
( 20% plug flow), their performance is excellent.
Final Clarifiers No. 1 and 2
The hydraulic studies of the two final clarifiers (No. 1 and 2)
entailed the measurement of the effluent concentrations as shown in
Figures IV-10 and IV-11. With respect to the effluent measurements, each
clarifier has relatively high completely mixed characteristics (90% and
79%) and relatively low plug flow characteristics (10% and 7%), which are
not favorable for clarification systems. Visual observations made during
the studies indicate that turbulence patterns caused by the downward
entrance of the influent liquid into the clarifiers are largely respon-
sible for an observed boiling effect at approximately one-third of the
length of the clarifier. This situation is not conducive to proper
clarification or thickening of the activated sludge.
Modified Final Clarifier - No. 3
Based on these studies the secondary clarifier influent distribu-
tion system was modified to eliminate the vertical velocities intro-
duced by the surface release of the mixed liquor. In an attempt to ac-
complish this, the inlet configuration for Final Clarifier No. 3 was re-
turned to the inlet pipe and target plate system originally designed.
The dye study conducted after the modification gave results as shown in
Figure IV-12.
The results indicate that no additional percentage of plug flow
resulted from this modification. However, considerably more dead space
was recorded (29%). This probably would not help nor hinder the clarif-
ication or thickening capability of the clarifier, but does reduce the
volume and surface area utilized. The loss is not critical, however, as
the surface overflow rates on these clarifiers are already fairly conser-
vative. Visually, the boiling effect one-third down the length of the
clarifier disappeared. However, in order to improve the hydraulic charac-
teristics of all 3 clarifiers (i.e., increase plug flow) a new influent
distribution system should be designed. Flow should be introduced into the
clarifier over the entire width of the tank. Baffles may be used to
IV-21
-------
dissipate inlet energy and thus provide a greater area for quiescent
settling. Improvement measures of this nature will increase sedimenta-
tion efficiency.
RAW WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS
Results of the 1973-1974 wastewater survey and characterization
study indicated that the majority of the wastewater flow and contamina-
tion originated in the fibrous glass production areas of "A" Factory and
"D" Factory. In order to improve efficiencies of the treatment units,
recommendations were made as to possible reductions in the raw waste
load entering the treatment plant. Reductions in both binder loss and
wastewater flow were suggested.
Wastewater contaminants consist almost entirely of either direct or
indirect binder losses. Water usage and wastewater treatment costs,
especially for a recirculation system, can be reduced considerably
through diminution of process wastewater flows. Candidate streams for
flow reduction include:
Scrubber blowdown - by metering or locking makeup valves so as
to allow the minimum required water use; and
Washdowns - through installation of self-closing valves on
washdown hoses.
Flow reduction efforts will be discussed more completely in another
section.
TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Wastewater treatment facilities at the Anderson Plant have been
modified considerably during the last several years, not only in terms
of physical changes but also operational changes. Furthermore, numerous
improvements will be made in 1976 and 1977. Recent treatment facility
improvements are discussed in this section.
The operational control procedures demonstrated by EPA during their
technical support project in 1973 are still being used at the plant to
determine return sludge and waste sludge quantities. A recording-
totalizing flow meter has been installed on the waste sludge line to
IV-22
-------
quantify wasteage volumes. The blower system capacity has been increased
to three times its original value in order to constantly maintain aerobic
conditions in the aeration basins. This was supplemented by installation
of a recording dissolved oxygen (D.O.) analyzer to monitor changes in D.O.
concentration. The flow-splitting system between the aeration basins
and the final clarifiers has been improved to eliminate pulsation and air
entrainment. Nutrient storage tanks have been raised above the gound
surface to enhance preventive maintenance procedures.
Based upon treatability studies conducted in 1974, temporary facil-
ities for coagulant addition (to the primary clarifier influent waste-
water) were constructed and became operational in May, 1975. Types and
quantities of coagulant addition are as follows:
Clay (Nalco 8151) 166 mg/1
Ferric Chloride (40% FeCl ) 45 mg/1
Anionic Polymer (American Cyanamid 837A) 0.3 mg/1
Cationic Polymer (Hercules 834.1) 12 mg/1
Sedimentation efficiency has been increased considerably, as will be
discussed in the next section of this chapter. The three surge tanks
(total volume = 55,000 gal) which receive Chemical Plant process waste-
water became operational in September, 1975. The surge capability
allows this particular wastewater stream to "bleed" into the equalization
basins at a controlled rate, thereby eliminating shock organic loads.
HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE RECORD
Treatment performance data from January, 1972 to May, 1976 are used
in this section to describe the historical record of treatment operations
for the existing facilities. Monthly average values for BOD5 COD, and
TSS concentrations in the primary clarifier influent, primary clarifier
effluent, and secondary clarifier effluent are depicted in Figures IV-13
IV-23
-------
to IV-15. During the past year (June3 1975 to May, 1976) the raw waste
load from the manufacturing facility has decreased from the high levels
occurring in 1973 and 1974 to those observed during 1972. At the same
time, secondary clarifier effluent concentrations have decreased, as has
wastewater flow rate (Figure IV-16B). Wastewater treatment facility
performance is summarized in Table IV-3.
Monthly average removal efficiencies are shown in temporal plots as
Figures IV-16A, 17A, 17B, 18A, and 18B. Coagulant addition practices
have improved and stablized TSS removal efficiencies, as shown in Figures
IV-16A and ISA. Overall facility performance during 1975 and 1976 is
illustrated by the removal efficiencies listed below:
BOD5 94% - 98%
COD 85% - 93%
TSS 95% - 99%
TOC 85% - 95%
Obviously, the treatment facility exhibits exceptional performance in
comparison to similar industrial installations.
Correlations between wastewater BOD_ and COD concentrations are
depicted in Figure IV-19. The "r" values on the graph are correlation
coefficients obtained from least-squares linear regression analyses,
which resulted in development of the following relationships:
Primary Influent : COD = 2.0 (BODJ + 740
Primary Effluent : COD =2.4 (BOD ) + 10
Secondary Effluent : COD =2.7 (BOD ) + 140
A similar analysis of BOD and TOC concentrations resulted in the relation-
ships listed below:
Primary Influent : TOC = 0.53 (BOD-) + 260
r = 0.48
Secondary Effluent : TOC =2.1 (BOD ) + 11
r - 0.98
Prior to coagulant addition, secondary effluent BOD and TSS concentrations
were related in the following manner:
TSS =0.30 (BOD ) + 14
r = 0.31
IV-24
-------
TABLE IV-3
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
MEAN VALUES
YEAR FLOW BOD/ COD1
(gpm) -
PI PE SE PI PE SE
1972 335 369 - 14 1352 614 141
1973 374 450 348 18 1712 847 220
M
f
£» 1974 333 528 - 19 1975 764 226
1975 296 313 - 11 1233 477 124
19 76 5 303 255-10 -
TOG1 TSS1
PI PE SE PI PE SE
- 440 94 23
553 143 35
617 114 18
376 150 32 396 56 8
452 139 36 604 59 13
1. Concentration in terms of mg/1.
2. PI = primary clarifier influent.
3. PE = primary clarifier effluent.
4. SE = secondary clarifier effluent.
5. Values are for five months operation.
-------
800
FIGURE IV-13
BOD5 PERFORMANCE- MONTHLY AVERAGES
700
600
500
400
200
100
1972
PRIMARY INFLUENT
PRIMARY
EFFLUENT
SECONDARY EFFLUENT
1976
-------
2200r-
2000-
1800-
1600 -
1400-
E _
o
O
u
1000
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
I I i I I I i
1 1 U 1
1972
1973
1974
IV-27
FIGURE IV-14
COD PERFORMANCE
MONTHLY AVERAGES
PRIMARY INFLUENT
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
SECONDARY EFFLUENT
1975
-------
800
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
o>
E
CO
CO
K-
300 -
200 -
FIGURE IV-15
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
MONTHLY AVERAGES
PRIMARY INFLUENT
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
SECONDARY EFFLUENT
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
IV-28
-------
FIGURE IV-16A
100
90
80
70
oc 60
ui 50
u
cc
Ui
a. 40
30
20
10
0
PRIMARY CLARIFIER TSS REMOVAL
MONTHLY AVERAGES
O
<
o
o
UI
H
o:
<
CO
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
IV-29
-------
FIGURE IV-16B
WASTEWATER FLOW RATE
MONTHLY AVERAGES
500
400
E
o.
* 300
fc
D
J
*- 200
100
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
IV-30
-------
FIGURE IV-17A
100
UJ
a:
o
oc
UJ
a.
90
80
OVERALL BOD5 REMOVAL
MONTHLY AVERAGES
70
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
IV-31
-------
FIGURE IV-17B
OVERALL COD REMOVAL
MONTHLY AVERAGES
100 r
5
o
5
UJ
cr
H
2
UJ
O
-------
FIGURE IV-18A
OVERALL TSS REMOVAL
MONTHLY AVERAGES
100
90
UJ
tr
h-
z
LU
O
CC
LU
Q.
80
70
1972
1973
1974
1 1
1975 1976
IV-33
-------
FIGURE IV-18B
100
90
UJ
ac
h-
z
UJ
o
cr
u
o.
80
OVERALL TOC REMOVAL
MONTHLY AVERAGES
70
1972
1973
1974
1975 1976
IV-34
-------
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
66 6 6
o
100
200
300
BODRlmg/l
O
IV-35
400
500
O
BOD./COD CORRELATION
600
-------
It appears that there were significant amounts of inorganic solids in
the plant effluent. However, for the period during coagulant addition,
the relationship was:
TSS = 0.93 (BOD5) + 0.5
r = 0.83
Therefore, coagulant addition practices have significantly improved in-
organic suspended solids removal capabilities.
DESIGN LOADINGS FOR ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
The design loadings developed in this section will be used in Chap-
ter VII to define conceptual designs for advanced wastewater treatment
processes. Projected wastewater flow rates outlined in Chapter III re-
vealed that the future discharge to the wastewater treatment plant will
be approximately 205 gpm. Since the flow values used to generate that
number are accurate to + 10%, advanced wastewater treatment units should
be designed to receive a minimum of 205 gpm (110%), or 226 gpm. As has
been mentioned previously, it is anticipated that during winter opera-
tions, wastewater discharge will exceed reuse requirements, and it may
be necessary to store reclaimed wastewater for use during the summer.
It is desirable to include in the recirculation scheme provisions for
treating the stored wastewater prior to reuse. The projected difference
between wastewater discharge and reuse requirements is 54.3 gpm, thus,
the design flow would be (205 gpm +54.3 gpm) 110% or 285 gpm. The 12
month period from June, 1975, to May, 1976, is chosen as the period of
record for determining organic and solids loads, since most of the
existing facility improvements (operational and physical) had been im-
plemented by May, 1975. The design loadings are summarized in Table
IV-4.
IV-36
-------
TABLE IV-4
DESIGN LOADINGS FOR ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Design Flow = 285 gpm
= 410,400 gal/day
TOG Concentration = 34 mg/1
(Range: 22 mg/1 - 75 mg/1)
TOG Loading = 116 Ib/day
TSS Concentration = 9 mg/1
(Range: 5 mg/1 - 60 mg/1)
TSS Loading = 31 Ib/day
IV-37
-------
CHAPTER V
WASTEWATER TREATABILITY STUDIES
Bench and pilot scale treatability studies afford an economical
means of evaluating the performance of wastewater treatment processes
by observing system responses under various environmental and physical
conditions. The necessity for such studies is underscored when dealing
with industrial wastewaters, where "handbook" design inevitably results
in additional costs either through overdesign or failure of the facility
to perform as required.
Several approaches may be employed in evaluation of the individual
processes which comprise a total waste treatment system. It should be
recognized, however, that regardless of the approach taken, the ultimate
accuracy of the information desired depends on several conditions. They
include:
1. The characteristics of the wastewater used in the treatability
tests are representative of those anticipated in the full
scale operation;
2. the physical nature of the bench or pilot scale process is
similar to that of the full scale units;
3. independent and dependent variables are considered; and,
4. environmental parameters affecting process efficiency are
defined.
Observing these and other guidelines, bench and pilot scale simula-
tion techniques can provide process information with respect to process
applicability, establishment of predictor relationships, and approxima-
tion of process capacity. Although the information gained during these
studies must be applied in a judicious manner, a treatability study
which is properly programmed and carefully implemented does provide
the basis of the logical development of unit process selection, design,
and predictive performance.
The scope of the treatability studies included an evaluation of
primary treatment processes (coagulation and dissolved air flotation)
V-l
-------
as well as tertiary treatment processes (sand filtration, activated
carbon adsorption, ozonation, chlorination and ion exchange. The equip-
ment utilized, the operational and analytical procedures followed, and the
results obtained are presented in the following sections of this chapter.
COAGULATION
The purpose of primary treatment at the Anderson Plant is the
removal of suspended material from the wastewater. The success of
suspended solids removal in the primary treatment process determines,
to a large degree, the effluent quality of the secondary biological
system and in addition will effect the effluent quality of any tertiary
system. At the time of the treatability studies, the primary suspended
solids removal was somewhat marginal due to uncoagulated binder; ac-
cordingly, the effluent from the biological system contained varying
amounts of colloidal, non-settleable solids. Therefore, a comprehensive
coagulation study was undertaken to determine which chemical coagulants
were most effective in removing the suspended, colloidal material.
Particular attention was given to those chemicals which, when added to
the wastewater, would not significantly increase the total dissolved
solids level. This was important for wastewater recirculation con-
siderations. For example, the primary treatment scheme at the Owens-
Corning Fiberglas Jackson Plant includes ferric chloride and lime for
coagulation and reportedly this system has performed well. However,
substantial smounts (200 mg/1 +) of dissolved solids are added to the
water in the form of calcium chloride. If significant quantities of
dissolved solids were added to the wastewater at Anderson during primary
treatment, TDS removal would be required for total water recirculation.
Procedure
The test procedure for the coagulation studies consisted of first
placing 500 ml of neutralized wastewater into each of six beakers. The
coagulant being tested was then added to five of the beakers in varying
amounts. The wastewater was then flash mixed with a jar stirrer
apparatus for three minutes at 120 rpm, slowly mixed for five minutes at
20 rpm and allowed to settle for 30 minutes. The supernatant was then
analyzed for COD and turbidity.
V-2
-------
Jar Test Data Analysis
The coagulation mechanism is heavily pH dependent as indicated in
Figure V-l, which shows the effect of pH on colloidal stability, as
measured by supernatant turbidity. No chemicals other than acid or
base were added to these samples prior to coagulation. Coagulation
efficiency, as measured by turbidity, is greatly impaired if the pH is
less than 5.5 or greater than 7.0. For this reason all jar contents
were adjusted to pH 6.7 in this study.
Preliminary jar tests indicated that alum was ineffective as a
coagulant. Therefore, attention was directed toward ferric chloride using
lime or caustic for neutralization, and synthetic polymers and clays.
Tests were run using each coagulant alone and in various combinations
to determine the optimum dosage of the chemicals singly or in combination.
A summary of the results of these tests is presented in Figure V-2.
The graph shows the COD and turbidity of the unfiltered supernatant for
the optimum dose of each coagulant or combination of coagulants. Each
test was performed with portions of a single wastewater sample which
makes comparison of jar test results more meaningful. The results
indicate that the following three coagulation schemes will produce
approximately the same quality supernatant in terms of COD and turbidity.
1. 100 to 200 mg/1 FeCl3 alone.
2. 5 to 10 mg/1 cationic polymer with 50 to 100 mg/1 clay.
3. 30 to 50 mg/1 FeCl™ plus 5 mg/1 cationic polymer and 50 mg/1 clay.
However, the second coagulation scheme will minimize the addition of
total dissolved solids (TDS) to the wastewater. Coagulation with ferric
chloride (and caustic to neutralize to pH 6.7) substantially increases
the TDS in the wastewater. For example, a sample of waste was coagulated
with 250 mg/1 FeCl3> and the TDS approximately doubled, from 336 mg/1 to
612 mg/1. The same sample was then coagulated with 10 mg/1 cationic
polymer and 100 mg/1 clay, and the TDS actually decreased to 280 mg/1.
As mentioned above, from a wastewater renovation standpoint, the polymer
and clay coagulation scheme is the one of choice. However, facilities
for adding ferric chloride should be installed because during upset
V-3
-------
1200r-
1000
800
CO
OC
ID
600
a:
UJ
I
400
200
FIGURE V-l
FFFFP.T nF PH ON COLLQIML STAEILITY*
COAGULATION pH
8
*Simple pH adjustment through addition of acid or caustic
V-4
-------
conditions, ferric chloride may be necessary to completely coagulate
batch dumps of binder.
Trial of Coagulation Scheme
In October, 1974, a full scale trial of the recommended clay poly-
mer coagulation scheme was conducted at the Anderson Plant. The purpose
of this trial was two-fold. First, it was necessary to produce a sludge
typical of a clay-addition system in order to gather data for a sludge
handling study reported under a separate contract. Second, it was desi-
rable to demonstrate the effectiveness of coagulation on Anderson's vari-
able waste. From October 10th to 28th, Nalco 8151 clay was fed at a rate
of 350 Ib/day and Nalco 600 polymer at 33 Ib/day, which corresponded to
dosages of 96 mg/1 and 9.1 mg/1, respectively. Mean values for treat-
ment plant influent, primary clarifier effluent and secondary clarifies
effluent COD and suspended solids from the treatment plant log for this
period are recorded in Table V-l along with the averages of these param-
eters for the two weeks prior to the trial.
Trial Data Analysis
Removal efficiences for normal and trial conditions are shown in
Table V-l, along with the percent improvements in the effluents due to
the coagulation treatment. The clay and polymer additions effected a
64% reduction of primary effluent TSS from that during normal operations,
resulting in a 30% improvement in the final effluent COD. Treatment
plant COD loadings were exceptionally high during both the trial period
and proceeding normal period. It should be noted that as the temporary
clay feed system was subject to operational difficulties which led to
uneven dosage and frequent breakdowns, better results would be expected
with an adequately designed feed system. Jar tests run during the 1974
trial period with samples of one polymer produced better visual results
at lower dosages than the Nalco 600, which did not perform as well as it
had in 1973. It is thus advisable to stock several cationic polymers
and to maintain a program of continuous jar testing to handle changes in
the waste streams and new types of polymers.
V-5
-------
CQD(mg/l)
O
O
OJ
o
o
tn
8
Ol
8
o
o
Blank (Flocculate & Settle
= 50 mg/1; Nonionic Poly (18172) =0.2 mg/1
FeCl3 = 50 mg/1; Anionic Poly (#837) = 0.2 mg/1
Anionic Poly (#837) =0.1 mg/1
FeCIs = 50 mg/1; Cationic Poly (#600) = 5 mg/1;
Clay (#8151) = 50'mg/l-
FeClo =50 mg/1; Cationic Poly (#600) = 5 mg/1;
Clay (#8151) = 50 mg/1
FeC^ = 30 mg/1; Cationic Poly (#600) = 5 mg/1;
°* Clay (#650) = 50 mg/1
Test Run Twice
3 3 Hrs. Apart
on Same Waste
Fed3 = 30 mg/1; Cationic Poly (#600) = 5 mg/1;
Clay (#8151) = 50 mg/1
Test Run Twice
§ 3 Hrs. Apart
on Same Waste
en
Is
30
m
to
CO
cr
CO
cr>
m
no
-------
Test Run Twice
§ 3 Hrs. Apart
on Same Waste
Fed 3 = 30 mg/1: Catlonic Po-ly (#600) = 5 mg/1;
ClayJ(#8151)= §0 mg/1
Catlonic Poly (#600) = 10 mg/1; Clay (1650) = 100 mg/1
Ply (#600) = 10 rag/1; Clay (#8151) = 100 mg/1
Cattonlc Fo
g day (#8151)
nfj
FeCl3 - 100 mg/1
s*
in
FeCl3 = 50 mg/1
o
8
FeCl3 = 30 mg/1
ro
in o in O in O in
TURBIDITY(JTU)
cn
81
r— m
£ r
i
S
CO
-------
TABLE V-l
CHEMICAL FEED TRIAL RESULTS
Sample Point
Plant Influent
COD
TSS
. Turbidity
f
oo BOD
Primary Effluent
COD
TSS
Secondary Effluent
COD
TSS
Turbidity
BOD
Normal
(9/16/74
Concentration
(mg/1)
2064
624
1000*
400*
853
126
254
14.9
38.4
14.4
Conditions
- 10/10/74)
Removal
(%)
59
80
88
98
96
96
Trial Conditions
X10/11/74 - 10/28/74)
Concentration Removal
(mg/1) (%)
2001
638
1000*
400*
621
45
177
18.5
14.4
7.5
69
93
91
97
99
98
Improvement
(%)
27
64
30
-24
62
48
*Estimates based on 1973 data.
-------
several cationlc polymers and to maintain a program of continuous jar test-
ing to handle changes in the waste streams and new types of polymers.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is a process employed for the separa-
tion of low density suspended matter, including fibers, from a waste
stream. Flotation is accomplished by pressurizing the wastewater or a
recycle to 40 - 60 psig in the presence of excess air. The air, dis-
solved in the liquid at these increased pressures, is released from
solution in the flotation unit at atmospheric pressure as minute bubbles
which become attached to the particulate matter causing it to rise to the
surface where it is skimmed off.
There are two potential uses for DAF at the Anderson Plant. First,
as a pretreatment step for Mat Line wastewaters to remove glass fibers
and binder, both of which are particularly difficult to separate by
screening. Second, as an alternative to primary sedimentation for the
entire waste stream. Both possibilities were investigated during these
tests.
Procedure
A quantity of clarified wastewater was placed into a pressure
chamber and pressurized to 60 psig. The air-liquid mixture was shaken
for approximately one minute and allowed to stand for several minutes
to achieve saturation. This mixture was then released into the bottom
of a 1000 ml graduated cylinder partially filled with non-clarified
wastewater. The effect of several coagulants was investigated by
chemical addition prior to the release of pressurized water. The solids
rise rate was measured and effluent quality analyses were performed on
the clarified liquid. Coagulants were added to the cylinder prior to
the release of pressurized water on several occasions, to investigate
the effects of chemical addition.
Data Analysis - Mat Line Wastewater
The Mat Line sample was collected at a point in front of the
shaker screens and contained substantial amounts of fibrous material.
DAF tests were conducted using 50 percent, 100 percent, and 200 percent
V-9
-------
recycle without chemical addition, and at 100 percent recycle with the
addition of several coagulants. The effluent qualities observed during
these tests are shown in Table V-2. Two conclusions are immediately
apparent:
1. DAF is a very effective means for treating the Mat Line
wastewaters.
2. Coagulant addition is not necessary for effective removal
of fibrous material.
Flotation curves for the DAF studies without coagulant addition
are shown in Figure V-3. The solids rise velocity was quite high in
all cases, and it was difficult to observe a distinct solid-liquid
interface. Consequently, the rise velocity was conservatively estimated
as shown by the slope of the broken lines.
The solids concentration in the float is a function of the air-
solids ratio as shown in Figure V-4. The recycle flow can be calculated
from Equation 1.
A _ 1.3s,R(fP-l)
? aqT
where:
A/S - air/solids ratio, g air released/g solids applied
3
s = air saturation, cm /liter, (at 1 atm.)
a
R = pressurized recycle, liters/day
P = absolute pressure, atm.
Q = waste flow, liters/day
S = influent TSS, mg/1
3
f = fraction of saturation of air in the waste
For these tests:
i
s =18.7 cm3/!
a
P =5.1 atm.
S = 4764 mg/1
a
f =1.0 (assumed)
The float solids were quite concentrated (almost 8 percent) at air/solids
ratios above .02 g air/g solids. Below this ratio the solids concentration
decreased rapidly.
V-10
-------
TABLE V-2
EFFLUENT QUALITY
FOR MAT
LINE
DAF STUDIES
EFFLUENT
TEST NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
SAMPLE
Raw Waste (Control)
No Coagulants
No Coagulants
No Coagulants
No Coagulants
1 mg/1 Polymer #607
RECYCLE
50%
100%
100%
200%
100%
COD
1315 mg/1
60
40
99
50
70
TSS
4764 mg/1
328
49
104
102
69
10 mg/1 Clay #650
7 5 mg/1 Polymer #607 100% 129 146
50 mg/1 Clay #650
8 10 mg/1 Polymer #607 100% 80 99
100 mg/1 Clay #650
9 50 mg/1 FeCl 100% 179 158
NaOH to pH 7
10 100 mg/1 FeCl 100% 139 168
NaOH to pH 7
11 200 mg/1 FeCl3 100% 259 188
NaOH to pH 7
V-ll
-------
FIGURE V-3
HATLINE DAF
i.o
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0L
r- m1 INTERFACE HEIGHT VS, RISE TIME
- 1000
_ 900
- 800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
O Q
/ / /
' / ^
1 //
1 //
/ //
- //
-
o—o 200% Recycle
333 ml Waste
667 ml Recycle
D— o 100% Recycle
500 ml Waste
500 ml Recycle
a— a 50% Recycle
667 ml Waste
333 ml Recycle
Initial TSS = 4764 mg/1
i i i i t
2 3
RISE TIME (minutes)
V-12
-------
o
CO
LU
O
o:
UJ
o.
FIGURE V-4
MAT LINE DAF
PERCENT FLOAT SOLIDS VS, AIR/SOLIDS RATIO
10
8
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
AIR/SOLIDS RATIO
V-13
-------
On the basis of these test results, DAF pretreatment of the mat line
wastewater will remove both glass fiber and excess binder. Design over-
2
flow rates of approximately 2-3 gpm/ft at a recycle ratio of 100
percent at 60 psig should reduce the suspended solids and COD of the
mat line wastewaters by more than 90 percent.
Data Analysis - Raw Wastewater
Dissolved air flotation was also investigated as an alternative to
primary sedimentation for the entire Anderson waste stream. Two portions
of a sample were treated with identical amounts of coagulants; one was
settled and the other was floated with dissolved air at 100 percent
recycle. The procedure was repeated for six different chemical addition
schemes. Comparisons of the effluent qualities are shown in Figures V-5
and V-6. In general, DAF was more efficient than was sedimentation with
respect to COD removal, while sedimentation was slightly more efficient
than DAF with respect to suspended solids removal, as summarized in
Table V-3.
TABLE V-3
COMPARISON OF DAF AND SEDIMENTATION
TSS COD
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
DAF 77 - 95% 69 - 80%
Sedimentation 82 - 96% 59 - 71%
Summary
Dissolved air flotation is a very effective means for removing the
troublesome glass fibers from the Mat Line waste stream, and the present
shaker screens should be replaced with a DAF unit. However, the differ-
ences in performance between DAF and gravity sedimentation for the entire
wastewater flow are not large enough to justify replacement of the
primary clarifiers with a DAF unit.
V-14
-------
EFFLUENT TSS, mg/1
i
i—>
cn
ro
o
en
co
o
8
10 mg/1 Polymer #607
100 mg/1 Clay #650
20 mg/1 Polymer #607
200 mg/1 Clay #650
150 mg/1 Fed
NaOH to pH 7
250 mg/1 Fed
NaOH to PH 7
30 mg/1 Fed,
NaOH to pH 7J
5 mg/1 Poly #607
50 mg/1 Clay #650
50 mg/1 Fed,
NaOH to pH r
5 mg/1 Poly #607
50 mg/1 day #650
I f
~ 83% Removal
J 82% Removal
J94%
00
m
m
95%
J 85%
J93%
CO
s
CU
m
CD
CO
GO
70
cn
88%
CO
n m
o
CO I-H
cn 3
^j m
3 ^
IQ ::
rn
50
96%
-------
500 i-
o
01
FIGURE V-6
DAF VS. SEDIMENTATION COD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FOR COMBINED ANDERSON WASTEWATER
450 -
400 -
o
o
350 -
300
250 -
200
!£
in
«o
>
o
0)
— a:
s*
CM
r^.
^
i
i
*«
j^
_
CO
i
i
»^ r^
0 0
\o o \o o
=tt in =*= in
to UD
J- =*= $- =»fc
Ol Ol
p >» I >,
>> « >> «o
*oo "oo
0. 0.
r™ «
r— >x. r— ^
~>. W *X. O>
0>E g>E
0
oo
4
*• •»!•
•
1
CO
1O
•••^
-^ -' — '
•
CT>
i
m
>^«i
PO
o r^ <
01
U. 3C I
CL
r
••••
-^ O
!>*,
r
COAGULATION/DAF
| COAGULATION/ SEDIMENTATION
INFLUENT COD =1167 mg/1
in
S
«3
•••••i
S^
CT>
l£>
-^»~ '- ••
^
^
*wy
^
^
1
m
™"~
f-v.
iO
&5
O
•^
^
wfo
^
^
^
li
^M«B
p^ f*^
o o
VO O U3 C
=*= in =1te IT
VO *£
«*> t. =tte J. =«
— CO 01 CO 0)
«L: G^I,^ G^U
X.3C 01 Z r— i— OJOC r— r-
Q- U- CX O t_> U_Q.Ot.
— CL CL.
g>** ^.4^,-^ C^+j,-.^
E — 2»_ "^ o» o> >>. e
O
o o
o
o o
.CM CM
oo
U> iQ
in in
O
in
in
O
in
V-16
-------
SAND FILTRATION
Sand filtration treatability studies were performed to evaluate
tertiary filtration for removal of suspended material from the biological
system effluent. Filtration will be required prior to reuse of bio-
logically treated wastewater since most effluents of this type contain
residual suspended solids.
The sand filtration pilot unit utilized for this test series was
an upflow type filter as shown in Figure V-7. The filter media, graded
3
from bottom to top, consisted of 2.5 ft of 1.25 to 1.50 inches gravel,
3 ^
6 ft of 3/8th to 5/8ths inch gravel, 7 ft of 2.0 to 3.0 mm sand, and
3
40 ft of 0.5 to 1.0 mm sand. The filter was piped to receive biological-
ly treated effluent from the final clarifiers. Wastewater was pumped
through the filter on an upflow basis with the variable speed pump
(0 - 100 gpm) supplied with the unit. This feed pump also acted as the
backwash pump and was utilized in conjunction with an air blower during
the backwash cycle. Samples of the filter influent and effluent were
collected on a grab basis throughout each filter run.
Procedures
The operational procedures used for each filter run are listed
below:
1. The filter was backwashed prior to each test run. The back-
wash cycle included bumping the filter with 30 cfm of air
for three to four minutes. The 100 gpm backwash rate was then
continued for an additional 6 to 10 minutes until a clear
effluent was produced.
2. The filter bed was "tightened" by draining the filter through the
bottom drain valve to a water level just above the sand level.
3. The filtration cycle was initiated controlling the hydraulic
flow rate manually with a valve.
4. Turbidity tests were performed on grab samples of the effluent
throughout the filter run. The breakpoint was established
when the turbidity reached a pre-defined level.
V-17
-------
FIGURE V-7
SCHEMATIC OF UPFLOW SAND FILTER
FILTER DRAIN VALVE
VOLTAGE—
CONNECTION
PUMP
WASTE WASH WATER VALVE
~!! AIR COMPRESSOR
WASTEWATER INLET
EFFLUENT WEIR
WASH OUTLET
EFFLUENT VALVE
ECONOMIZER DRAIN VALVE
WATER INLET VALVE
AIR DRAIN VALVE
AIR INLET VALVE
L J
-------
Pilot sand filtration tests were performed at surface loadings
2
ranging from 3.4 to 6.5 gpm/ft .
Data Analysis
A summary of the results from the pilot filtration tests is present-
ed in Table V-4. The data from a typical filter run are presented in
Figure V-8. In general, the effluent turbidity and suspended solids
remained reasonably constant throughout the filter run until the actual
breakthrough occurred as indicated in Figure V-8. As expected, the
pressure differential across the bed gradually increased during the test
run until breakthrough.
Removal efficiency through the sand filter as shown in Table V-4 is
somewhat disappointing in that relatively high concentrations (above
20 mg/1) of suspended solids were present in the effluent. Sand
filtration in similar applications is capable of producing effluent
TSS well below 10 mg/1 irrespective of the influent TSS concentration.
However, considerable amounts of colloidal material were present in the
final clarifier effluent and this material was not removed to any large
degree by sand filtration. This underscores the necessity of adequate
primary treatment for the removal of colloidal binder material present
in the wastewater. Problems with the operation of the sand filter were
encountered during Test No. 2 resulting from air being injected into the
bottom of the filter bed. TMs problem was corrected during later filter
runs.
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
The feasibility of activated carbon treatment of the Anderson Plant
wastewaters was evaluated from the standpoint not only of complete
physical-chemical treatment but also tertiary treatment (following the
activated sludge process). This section will discuss the procedures and
results of bench scale adsorption isotherms and adsorption column studies.
Physical-Chemical Treatment
In the physical-chemical approach as applied to the Anderson Plant,
the envisioned treatment train would consist of neutralization, coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, and granular activated carbon adsorption,
V-19
-------
TABLE V-4
SUMMARY OF SAND FILTRATION PILOT UNIT TESTS
TEST
NO.
DATE
FEED RATE
(gpm/ft2)
TOTAL
SUSPENDED SOLIDS*
INF. EFF.
(mg/1) (mg/1)
TURBIDITY* SOLIDS STORAGE TOTAL
EFF. AT BREAKTHROUGH VOLUME
(JTU) . lb TSS „ FILTERED
INF.
(JTU)
e
ft media
NOTES
(gal)
f
12/17/73 4.0
2 1/11/74
3 1/18/74
4 1/29/74
5 1/30/74
3.4
5.1
6.6
3.6
57
12
37
68
22
21
25
85
16
37
69
12
26
43
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.11
0.13
21,000 Initial high turbidity
in influent due to in-
terruption in polymer
feed to secondary
clarifiers
17,700 Test terminated due to
air in filter
73,000 Clarifier effluent
relatively free of
colloidal suspensions
until upset at termi-
nation of filter test
46,000 Algae in clarifier
effluent due to sludge
lagoon recycle through
treatment plant
20,400 Colloidal suspended
material in clarifier
effluent
*Gomposited grab samples
-------
FIGURE V-8
UPFLOW SAND FILTER OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
1 GPM/FT2 - 12/17/73
160
140
120
100
§40
S20
i—i
00
High Turbidity Due to
Upset in Final Clarifier
O Influent
• Effluent
10
^
ac.
t/> 7
in I
§
O
<
0.
8 12 16 20 24
VOLUME THROUGHPUT(Thousands of Gallons)
28
32
UJ
DC
«/»
CO
UJ
£5
8 12 16 20 24
VOLUME THROUGHPUT(Thousands of Gallons)
28
32
V-21
-------
thus eliminating the biological process. In cases where this scheme is
effective, a number of advantages are realized. To investigate physical-
chemical treatment, composited raw wastewater samples were neutralized,
coagulated, and clarified. Both carbon isotherms and carbon column studies
were performed on the pretreated wastewater.
Adsorption Isotherms
Adsorption isotherms were completed on samples of the pretreated
Anderson Plant raw wastewater collected October 16 and 30, 1973 and on
November 8, 1973. Additionally, adsorption isotherms were completed
on the OCF Jackson Plant effluent as discussed below. Commercial
activated carbon selected for these tests included Westvaco Aqua Nuchar
A, Calgon Filtrasorb 400, and Westvaco WVL. The first two carbons are
powdered material and the latter is granular. The granular carbon was
crushed to a fine powder before the isotherm studies so as to increase
the rate of adsorption. This was permissible because the final
equilibrium adsorption values were the values of interest.
In the isotherm procedure, various weights of activated carbon
were added to 500 ml quantities of filtered wastewater and the samples
were mixed for 1 1/2 hours, allowing adsorption to occur. The samples
were then filtered with Whatman No. 42 filter paper and the resulting
COD was measured. For each sample the loading on the carbon was
calculated from the formula:
C
M M
where X/M is the loading per unit weight of carbon, Co the initial con-
centration, C the final concentration, V the sample volume and M the
carbon weight. By preparing samples with different carbon dosages, the
relationship between X/M and C was developed.
Figures V-9 and V-10 present the isotherms completed on the
Anderson Plant and Jackson Plant wastewaters, respectively. In both cases,
the COD isotherms appear normal in that a nearly logarithmic relationship
was measured between equilibrium COD and carbon loading. In fact, the
Jackson isotherms are almost exact duplicates of the Anderson isotherms
which indicates similar adsorption characteristics. Very high apparent
V-22
-------
c
o
jQ
$-
to
O)
Ol
u
O)
FIGURE V-9
CARBON ISOTHERMS ON ANDERSON PLANT COAGULATED
RAW WASTEWATER
i.o
0.5
0.4
— 0.3
0.2
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
D
Calgon Filtrasorb
Calgon 400 10/30/73i
Calgon Filtrasorb
400 10/16/74
• o
Westvaco
Nuchar Aqua A
10/30/73
Westvaco WVL
Powdered 11/8/74
i tiii
50
100
200
300 400 500
1000
EQUILIBRIUM COD (mg/1)
V-23
-------
l.OOr-
FIGURE V-10
CARBON ISOTHERMS ON JACKSON PLANT
EFFLUENT NOV. 16, 1973
c
o
a
i-
(O
a>
o
a>
QL
a
o
<_)
en
o
O)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
Westvaco
WVL (Powdered)
Westvaco
Nuchar Aqua A
50
TOO
200
300 400 500
1000
EQUILIBRIUM COD (mg/1)
V-24
-------
COD loadings were obtained for all three carbons. Residual (non-
adsorbable) COD was not apparent at these dosages although at the lower
COD loadings, equilibrium COD values range between 130 and 250 mg/1.
Such a range compares favorably with the column studies discussed below.
Carbon Column Studies
Since the isotherms showed encouraging results, column studies
were conducted to better define the effectiveness of physical-chemical
treatment. Six 2.9 inch I.D. fiberglass columns each six feet in
length (in series) and associated stainless steel tubing and valves were
the major elements of testing equipment. Prior to beginning an
experiment, each column was loaded with 5.5 pounds of activated carbon.
A small variable speed pump fed the columns and a rotameter was used
for flow measurement. The hydraulic loading for these tests was
2
4 gpm/ft . Columns could be backwashed at essentially any desired flow
rate using the variable speed pump. Effluent from the final column was
collected and stored for backwashing.
The results of the carbon column experiment in terms of COD and TOG
removal are presented graphically in Figures V-ll through V-17. Figures
V-ll and V-12 reflect the effluent COD levels from each of the six
columns which were operated in series. As shown in Figure V-12, effluent
COD levels of approximately 200 mg/1 are obtainable by the physical-
chemical process. Similarly, minimum effluent TOC levels are approximately
75 mg/1 as shown in Figures V-15 and V-16. This relatively high discharge
of organic material indicates that sizeable fractions of COD and TOC are
poorly adsorbed resulting in rapid columnar breakthrough. While no analyses
were performed to identify the poorly adsorbed materials, materials which
generally exhibit this behavior are low molecular weight, highly oxygen-
ated or ionized organics; however, these materials are very often highly
biodegradable. For example, the raw wastewater BOD on one set of column
samples was 162 mg/1 while the effluent BOD of the last carbon column was
82 mg/1, respectively. In this case, the BOD removal was only 50%.
On the basis of these results, physical-chemical treatment does not
appear to be attractive because of the relatively high leakage of bio-
degradable organic material present in the wastewater. From a carbon
v-25
-------
800i
700
600
500
r-E 400|
O" C3
O
o
FIGURE V-ll
COD VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT (COLUMNS 1, 2 & 3)
300
200
100
O Influent Wastewater
O Column 1 Effluent
D Column 2 Effluent
a Column 3 Effluent
400
800
1200 1600 2000 2400
VOLUME (Gallons)
2800
3200
3600
4000
-------
i O
IV) O
-J O
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
COD MS, VOLUME THROUGHPUT -
FIGURE V-12
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT (COLUMNS 4, 5 & 6)
O Influent Wastewater
O Column 4 Effluent
G Column 5 Effluent
A Column 6 Effluent
• i i
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
VOLUME (Gallons)
-------
FIGURE V-13
COD REMOVAL VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
(COLUMNS 1. 2 & 5)
ro
CO
o
o
o
o
Or-
20
40
60
80
O Column 1
D Column 2
A Column 3
100
I I 1 L
I I I I
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
VOLUME (Gallons)
-------
FIGURE V-14
COD LOADING VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
(COLUMN 1, 2 & 3)
O
tn
TJ
o
o
to
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
~ 0.2
o
-------
FIGURE V-15
TOC VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
(COLUMNS 1, 2 & 3)
CO
o
O Influent Wastewater
O Column 1 Effluent
D Column 2 Effluent
A Column 3 Effluent
400
800
1200
1600 2000 2400
VOLUME (Gallons)
2800
3200
3600
4000
-------
FIGURE V-16
TOG VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
(COLUMNS i\f 5 & 6)
300i-
250
200
150
100
50
O Influent Wastewater
O Column 4 Effluent
D Column 5 Effluent
A Column 6 Effluent
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
VOLUME (Gallons)
2800
3200
3600
4000
-------
FIGURE V-17
TOC REMOVAL VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
(COLUMNS 1, 2 & 3)
CO
ro
o
o
o
20
40
60
80
O Column 1
D Column 2
A Column 3
100
I I
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
VOLUME (Gallons)
2800
3200
3600
4000
-------
loading standpoint, adsorption is attractive in that at exhaustion a
COD loading of approximately 0.8 Ibs COD/lb carbon can be achieved, as
seen in Figure V-14. This not withstanding, effluent quality in this
case would limit the usage of the physical-chemical treatment for waste-
water recirculation because of the presence of non-adsorbable materials.
Tertiary Carbon Treatment
In the tertiary carbon treatment approach as applied to the Anderson
Plant, the envisioned process would consist of the existing biological
treatment system followed by filtration and granular activated carbon
adsorption. This treatment train would remove both the adsorbable,
non-biodegradable organics (with carbon) and the less adsorbable, highly
biodegradable organics (with activated sludge).
Adsorption Isotherms (1973-1974)
Adsorption isotherms were completed on the filtered and coagulated,
filtered biological effluent in a manner similiar to that described
previously. Figure V-18 shows the isotherms for the filtered effluent
while Figure V-19 shows the isotherms for the coagulated, filtered
effluent. In both cases, the carbon isotherms are relatively logarithmic
and show acceptable COD removals at moderate carbon loadings. At low
carbon loadings, equilibrium COD levels appear to be 30-50 mg/1, which
compare favorably with the column study results discussed below.
Carbon Column Studies (1973-19741
Two distinct carbon column studies were run at the Anderson Plant,
the first in December, 1973 and the second in January, 1974. The results
of the December test are shown in Figures V-20 through V-26 while the
January test results are shown in Figures V-27 through V-29.
During the December column tests, effluent COD levels of 20-50
mg/1 were observed at removal efficiencies of approximately 80-85%.
Correspondingly, COD loadings as high as 0.30 Ib COD/lb carbon were
observed, although the column test was terminated before exhaustion
because of plugging problems. Column influent was settled biological
effluent and thus suspended and colloidal material eventually plugged
the columns.
V-33
-------
FIGURE V-18
1.0
CARBON ISOTHERMS ON FILTERED BIOLOGICAL
EFFLUENT - ANDERSON PLANT
-a
a>
a>
a:
o
o
o
ol
c
o
_a
v_
o
T3
-------
£JGURE V-19 _- -
CARBON ISOTHERM ON COAGULATED. FILTERED BIOLOGICAL
EFFLUENT - ANDERSON PLANT
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
o
V.
•o
-------
400
300
CO
en
C7)
— 200
o
o
TOO
FIGURE V-20
COD VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT (COLUMNS 1,2 & 3)
O Influent
O Column 1
D Column 2
A Column 3
DECE-1BER 1973
_L
JL
"200 400 600 800 1000 1200
VOLUME (Gallons)
1400
1600
1800
2000
-------
400 r
300
I
co
en
a
o
o
200
FIGURE V-21
COD VS, VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT (COLUMNS 4,5 & 6)
O Influent
O Column 4
D Column 5
& Column 6
431
DECEMBER 1973
100
200
400
600
800 1000 1200
VOLUME (Gallons)
1400 1600 1800 2000
-------
FIGURE V-22
I COD REMOVAL VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT
(COLUMNS 1,2 S3)
DECEMBER 1973
20
"
CO
40
oc.
o
o
80
100
O Column 1
O Column 2
A Column 3
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
VOLUME (Gallons)
-------
0.35i—
0.3
o-
JQ
-o
CO
o
o
0.15
o
s o.
0.05
FIGURE V-23
COD LOADING VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT
O Column 1
D Column 2
& Column 3
(COLUMNS 1, 2 & 3)
DECEMBER 1973
I
200
400
600
800 1000 1200
VOLUME (Gallons)
1400
1600
1800
-------
FIGURE V-24
TOC VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT
(COLUMNS 1, 2 & 3)
DECEMBER 1973
2001—
200
1400
1600
VOLUME (Gallons)
-------
FIGURE V-25
TOG VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT
(COLUMNS 4, 5 & 6)
DECEMBER 1973
200r—
150
~ 100
o
o
O Influent
O Column 4
D Column 5
A Column 6
50
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
VOLUME (Gallons)
-------
O
FIGURE V-26
% TOC REMOVAL VS. VOLUME THROUGHPUT - BIO-EFFLUENT
(COLUMNS 1, 2 & 3)
DECEMBER 1973
200
400
600 800 1000
VOLUME (Gallons)
1200
1400
1600
-------
FIGURE V-27
COD VS, VOLUME THROUGHOUT - BIO-EFFLUENT JANUARY 1974
•*=> 01
o
o
o
0
400 800 1200 1600 2000
2400 2800 3200
VOLUME (Gallons)
3600 4000 4400 4800 5200
-------
FIGURE V-28
10
20
30
PERCENT COD REMOVAL VS. VOLUME TREATED
FILTERED BIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT
JANUARY 1974
Col. 1
400
800 1200 1600
2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800
• VOLUME (Gallons)
5200
-------
FIGURE V-29
COD LOADING VS, VOLUME THROUGHPUT BIO-EFFLUENT JANUARY 1974
<
01
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5000
VOLUME (Gallons)
-------
The test completed in January was conducted utilizing filtered
biological effluent in order to improve the column performance. The
results of this test, shown in Figures V-27 through V-29, are comparable
to the December test in terms of COD removal efficiency although
significantly higher carbon loadings were observed because the columns
were carried to exhaustion. On the basis of this test, the carbon load-
ing at exhaustion approaches 0.40 Ibs COD/lb carbon, which is within an
acceptable range for design.
Tertiary Pilot Plant (1975-1976)
A tertiary pilot plant was operated at the Anderson Plant by OCF
environmental personnel in conjunction with the pilot cooling loop
experiments. Pilot units were not operated for treatability purposes,
but rather to supply the cooling loops with high quality reclaimed
makeup wastewater. The treatment scheme consisted of upflow sand
filtration, activated carbon adsorption, and disinfection.
Several operational difficulties were observed during the experiment;
the most serious problem was plugging of the carbon column with suspended
and colloidal solids. This was most likely a result of the absence of
any backwash or air scour capabilities. The plugging phenomenon under-
scores the need for sand filtration prior to adsorption and for close
control of coagulant addition practices. Several disinfection agents
were tested: ozone, sodium hypochlorite, and gaseous chlorine. Both
ozone and sodium hypochlorite caused oxidation of dissolved iron (residual
from FeCl,. addition in the treatment plant) and the resultant precipitation
of Fe(OH)_; the sludge settled in the cooling system storage reservoir.
While this oxidation - precipitation process was not observed when
chlorine was used as the disinfection agent, the same process should
have occurred. Successful operation of the reclaimed wastewater recycle
scheme will require close control of ferric chloride addition so as to
prevent this oxidation - precipitation.
Pilot plant performance is summarized in Table V-5. It is obvious
that the three tertiary treatment processes will provide an effluent
which is relatively free of suspended solids and organic contaminants.
Equivalent or even better performances may ba expected with a full scale
system.
V-46
-------
TABLE V-5
Parameter
f
TOC (mg/1)
BOD5 (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
m -N (mg/1)
Cr (mg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
Phenol (yg/1)
PILOT PLANT PERFORMANCE SUMMARY*
Secondary Clarifier
Effluent
28
10
3
2.2
0.10
2.6
2.9
Sand Filter
Effluent
29
9
4
-
-
2.9
_
Carbon Column
Effluent
18
7
2
1.9
0.05
2.0
0.7
Disinfected
Effluent
18
5
3
1.8
0.04
1.8
1.1
*Mean values - 9/7/75 to 3/10/76.
-------
Adsorption Isotherms (1976)
Adsorption isotherm tests were conducted on filtered secondary
clarifier effluent and filtered pilot cooling loop blowdown in April,
1976. These studies were performed for three reasons:
to determine if the adsorption characteristics of the
Anderson wastewater had changed from that exhibited in
1973-1974
to investigate the adsorbability of contaminants in the
pilot cooling loop blowdown
to correlate carbon loadings based on COD with those
based upon TOC
The tests were conducted in a manner similar to that described previously.
Results are presented in the adsorption isotherms, Figures V-30 and V-31.
As shown in Figure V-30, the adsorption characteristics of the
treatment plant effluent have not changed to any great degree since 1973-
1974. Both sets of isotherms indicate that ridiculously low carbon
loadings would be required to reduce pilot cooling loop waters to
equilibrium levels attained through adsorption of secondary effluent,
beeause the cooling loop waters had already been subjected to adsorp-
tion prior to use as makeup in the loop.
According to Figure V-30, at a carbon loading of 0.40 Ib COD/lb
carbon, secondary effluent COD would be reduced to approximately
90-100 mg/1. In order to interpret this loading in terms of TOC,
least-squares linear regression analyses were performed on the con-
centrations measured during the isotherm tests. Secondary effluent COD
was found to be related to TOC as follows:
COD = 4.2 (TOC) + 39
Correlation Coefficient = r = 0.95
Applying the equation to the COD values results in TOC concentrations of
12-15 mg/1 and carbon loadings of 0.03 - 0.05 Ib TOC/lb carbon.
CARBON REGENERATION
One advantage gained through the use of granular carbon for adsorp-
tion rather than powdered carbon is that granular carbon can be recovered
and regenerated by heating. A percentage'of carbon is lost due to
V-48
-------
FIGURE V-30
CARBON ISOTHERMS-COD
April, 1976
10
o
u
1.0
0.10
10
O Filtered Secondary Effluent
O Filtered Pilot Cooling
Loop Slowdown
a
i i i c
i i i i i i i
100
EQUILIBRIUM COD (mg/l)
V-49
JOOO
-------
FIGURE V-30
CARBON ISOTHERMS-TOC
April, 1976
D Filtered Secondary Effluent
O Filtered Pilot Cooling
Loop Slowdown
1.0
a:
£
o
2
ui
u
fe
o
x|:
.100
.010
» ' I I I I I
J 1—I—I I I I II
10
100
EQUILIBRIUM TOG (mg/l )
V-50
1000
-------
physical breakdown during transport and combustion during regeneration.
Also, a certain percentage of the adsorption capacity of carbon cannot
be regained through regeneration. While physical carbon losses cannot
be estimated on the basis of test results, the decrease in capacity
following regeneration can be determined through laboratory regenera-
tion studies.
Two samples of carbon, one virgin and one exhausted (from the pilot
carbon adsorption column) were delivered to the Westvaco Co. laboratory
in Covington, Virginia. The apparent density and capacity (as expressed
by the iodine number) were measured for virgin, spent, and regenerated
carbon. Regeneration was conducted for 30 minutes at 1000° C. As shown
in Table V-6, density recovery was 98% and iodine number recovery was
98.4%, resulting in a net carbon capacity regeneration recovery of 96.4%.
TABLE-V-6
CARBON REGENERATION RESULTS
Carbon Apparent Density Iodine Number
3
(gm/cm )
Virgin 0.490 1033
Spent 0.565 686
Regenerated 0.480 1017
OZONATION
Bench scale ozonation tests were run on samples of effluent from
the pilot carbon columns (which provided makeup to the pilot recirculat-
ion process cooling loop) to determine the effectiveness of this method
of disinfection. Disinfection will be necessary for reuse of any re-
claimed wastewater to limit microbial growth in the cooling systems
and for the obvious public health reasons. Ozonation will not increase
the dissolved solids concentration of the wastewater.
Procedure
A laboratory scale ozone generator operating on pure oxygen was
connected through a rotameter to diffusers in two glass contact chambers
V-51
-------
(each 3 £ capacity) in series. The system was calibrated before and
after the sample runs by filling both contact chambers with KI solutions
and running the generator for three minutes at a specific power output
and gas flow. Duplicate sample runs were made at identical settings with
3 liters of KI solution in the second contact chamber. The KI solutions
were then titrated with PAO to determine the amount of 0_ absorbed.
Data Analysis
One of the samples was analyzed before and after ozone contact for
COD, TOG, and fecal coliform concentrations. The results shown in Table
V-7 indicate that a relatively low dosage of ozone had little effect
on COD and TOC but was effective in eliminating fecal coliforms.
While this test is not rigorous enough to provide design data, it de-
monstrates that there is no serious interference (by COD or TOC) with the
disinfecting action of ozone.
TABLE V-7
OZONATION RESULTS
0- dose measured in calibration solution of KI 9.45 mg/1
0- dose measured in KI solution downstream of sample 8.85 mg/1
0- dose for sample (calculated) 0.60 mg/1
COD before contact 61 mg/1
COD after contact 55 mg/1
COD reduction 6 mg/1
Percent COD reduction 10%
TOC before contact 41 mg/1
TOC after contact 41 mg/1
TOC reduction 0%
Fecal Coliforms* before contact 63/100 ml
Fecal Coliforms* after contact 0/100 ml
Fecal Coliform Kill 100%
*Average value of three determinations on sample
with membrane filter technique.
V-52
-------
CHLORINATION
Chlorination is another alternative process for disinfection. Bench
scale chlorination studies were performed on effluents from both the sand
filter and the carbon columns used in the treatability studies. Test
procedures consisted of adding a measured dosage of liquid bleach (known
chlorine content) to a 500 ml sample, mixing the solution gently for 30
minutes, and analyzing the liquid for residual chlorine and fecal coliform
concentrations. Chlorine dosages and chlorine residuals were found to
be related as depicted in Figure V-32. Sand filter effluent exhibited
a significant chlorine demand. Results listed in Table V-8 show that a
chlorine dosage of 1 - 2 mg/1 C12 will result in a residual of 1 mg/1 Cl
and virtually eliminate all fecal coliform organisms from an activated
carbon adsorption effluent.
ION EXCHANGE
Ion Exchange may be required for removal of total dissolved solids
or constituents such as hardness, sulfate, silica, and zinc from
the reclaimed wastewater. Ion exchange units could be operated on a side
stream around recirculating cooling systems or at the treatment facility.
Laboratory scale ion exchange columns were operated at the Anderson Plant
to determine which, if any, of the pilot carbon column effluent inorganic
TDS constituents would be difficult to remove.
Procedure
A set of four 1 inch I.D. 5 foot long plexiglass columns were charged
with samples of three Rohm & Haas resins, and fed with positive displace-
ment variable speed pumps from the steel tank containing carbon column
effluent, in use as a reservoir for makeup water to the pilot process cool-
ing system. The piping system was 1/4 inch plastic or rubber tubing and
was arranged so as to allow series or parallel operation of backwash
capability. Column 1 was charged with 308 ml of MB-1 resin (a mixed-bed
combination of IRA-120 and IRA-400), Column 2 was left empty to receive
the anionic component of the MB-1 (IRA-400) during the regeneration
process, and Columns 3 and 4 were charged with 308 ml of IRA-93 (strong
anionic) and 334 ml of Amberlite 200 (strong cationic) resins respectively,
and run in series. All resins used were in either the hydrogen or the
hydroxide form.
V-53
-------
TABLE V-8
Sample
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CARBON
Chlorine
Dosage
(mg/1 CIO
z
0
1.4
4.5
13
28
57
1.4
4.5
7.5
10.5
13
16.3
EFFLUENT CHLORINATION RESULTS
Chlorine
Residual after 30 min.
(mg/1 CIO
0
0.4
2.4
11.3
28.2
62
0.2
3.3
6.9
7.9
11.0
16.0
Coliform
Concentration
(organisms/100 ml)
TNTC
0
108
144
4
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
*Tests performed 1/23/74.
V-54
-------
FIGURE V-32
CHLORINE DEMANDS
tn
o
g
o»
E
LJ
CO
O
Q
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
RESIDUAL (mq/t asCI2)
70
80
-------
The columns were exhausted by feeding at an average rate of 42
ml/min, or 0.13 bed volumes per minute (0.13 B.V./min). Before a run,
each column was backwashed at a rate sufficient to provide 50% expansion
of the bed, and then allowed to settle. After the MB-1 resin was
exhausted, it was backwashed at a rate high enough to wash all of the
IRA-400 resin out and into the receiving Column 2, where it was re-
generated. The sample of Amberlite 200 was received in the sodium form
and was regenerated before it was tested. Regeneration of anionic
resins was accomplished by feeding 2 liters of 4% NaOH solution per
300 ml resin at a rate of 30 ml/min, or 0.1 BV/min. Regeneration of
cationic resins was done by feeding 4 liters of 5% H?SO. solution per
300 ml of resin at 30 ml/min. During each resin exhaustion run the
column effluent was sampled hourly and analyzed for conductivity,
silica, pH, sulfate, total carbon, total dissolved solids, alkalinity,
calcium hardness, and total hardness.
Data Analysis
The MB-1 resin was exhausted once, regenerated, and then exhausted
again. The effluent analysis data plotted against test duration resulted
in the breakthrough curves shown in Figure V-33 and V-34. This resin
removed all ionic constituents of the wastewater down to concentrations
that were beyond the limits of detection 'for the analysis procedures
used. Only 80% removal of total carbon was achieved at the beginning of
the runs (to 10 mg/1), and the effluent carbon content began to rise
immediately. This is to be expected as non-ionic organics would be
removed only by secondary adsorption or filtration mechanisms in the
column. Total dissolved solids decreased from 340 to 80 mg/1 on passage
through the column, indicating that approximately 80 mg/1 of organics
and non-ionic species are present in the carbon column effluent.
Breakthrough, as indicated by conductivity and TDS, occurred at
19 hours for the virgin MG-1 resin and at 10 hours for the regenerated
resin, indicating that regeneration was not complete. The pH data
(not presented here) showed that while the effluent normally possessed
a neutral pH, the effluent from the regenerated resin was very low,
indicating that some anionic resin had been lost or was not regenerated
during the separation, regeneration, and remixing steps, resulting in
V-56
-------
FIGURE V-33
ION EXCHANGE BREAKTHROUGH CURVES
VIRGIN MB - 1 RESIN 10/22/71
15 20
TIME (hours)
V-57
25
30
in
Average Flow Rate : 44.2 ml/min
Bed Volume : 308 ,
-------
FIGURE V-34
ION EXCHANGE BREAKTHROUGH CURVES
REGENERATED MB - 1 RFSIN 10/27/71
Averaae Flow Rate : 43.1 ml/min
Bed Volume :
Bed Area :
15 20
TIME (hours)
V-58
-------
a predominantly cation! c bed. The performance of the virgin resin is
probably closer to that to be expected from a full scale installation.
Silica was the first species to exhibit breakthrough, with sulfate
following several hours later. Calcium and total hardness never ap-
peared in any of the resin effluents.
Considering the various ionic species present it is estimated
that the average equivalent weight of the ionic constituents is 55
mg/meq, so that there are (340-80) /55 meq/llter, or 4.7 meq/liter.
The average resin capacity of the MB-1 can be calculated as follows:
,t r!9 hr. + 10 hr.^eO min/hr)(43.6 ml/min)(4.7 meq/1) (1/1000 ml)
Capacity = [ ] - - ~ -
= 0.58 meq/ml
This is a rather low value, as a typical resin capacity would be
1.00 to 1.25 meq/ml. The low capacity is due to the necessity of re-
moving silica, which is not easily removed by ion exchange. If effluent
hardness is considered as the criterion for breakthrough, the capacity
would be above 1.15 meq/1.
The Amberlite 200 and IRA-93 resins were employed in a dual bed
arrangement with the cationic Amberlite 200 preceeding the IRA-93. Time
constraints prevented the tests from being conducted to breakthrough,
but the data showed the removals listed in Table V-9.
TABLE V-9
DUAL BED ION EXCHANGE REMOVALS
Constituent % Removal Effluent Level
Conductivity 98% 6 millimho
Silica 50% 7 mg/1
Sulfate 10°* ° mS/;L
Total Carbon 50% 20 mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids 86% 60 mg/1
Alkalinity ^0% 0 mg/1
Total Hardness 95% 2 mg/1
The capacity of the dual bed resins was at least 0.75 meq/ml with respect
to the removals shown above.
V-59
-------
Use of either a mixed bed or dual bed ion exchange process will
produce an effluent of higher quality than that required with respect
to ionic species, but will not remove organic dissolved solids down to
the level of TDS in the city water. The capacity of the ion exchange
resins tested with respect to silica removal is rather low, requiring
frequent regeneration and excess regenerant. The capacity of ion
exchange with respect to dissolved solids removal is moderate, being at
least 1.2 meq/ml of resin as defined by hardness breakthrough for MB-1
resin.
V-60
-------
CHAPTER VI
PILOT PROCESS COOLING LOOP OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE
The process cooling water systems constitute the major use of
reclaimed industrial wastewater in this textile fibrous glass total recycle
system. Of the estimated 205' gpm of reclaimed wastewater to be
generated at the Anderson plant, approximately 44 to 85 percent
(during winter and summer loading conditions, respectively), could
be utilized in the process cooling water systems. For reclaimed
wastewater to be suitable for this use, the dissolved /and suspended
contaminants present in the wastewater must have no adverse effects
on the production processes.
Cooling water recycle trials, the final experiments of Phase I,
were designed for determination of any unfavorable effects of reuse.
These trials were conducted using an isolated manufacturing process
pilot cooling system which operated using reclaimed industrial waste-
water. The initial system was designed and constructed between
February and August, 1974 and operated from August through November,
1974. Following those trials, due to a significant decrease in
manufacturing production level, the cooling water trial was postponed.
Additional trials were begun during August, 1975 and continued through
May, 1976. This chapter summarizes the results of the pilot cooling
trials.
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
»
A schematic diagram of the initial pilot reclaimed water supply
system and the pilot cooling water system appears in Figure VI-1. The
final system as operated during the last 90 days of operation is shown
as Figure VI-2.
Wastewater Tertiary Treatment System
Activated sludge secondary effluent was polished by sand filtration
followed by activated carbon adsorption and disinfection. The sand
filter initially used for tertiary treatment was a gravity flow, rapid
sand filter; however, this sand filter was later replaced by an upflow
VI-1
-------
FIGURE VI-1
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - INITIAL PILOT COOLING SYSTEM
Existing
Treatment
Facilities
Sand Filtration
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Storage Reservoir
(4300 Gallon)
Reclaimed Water
Makeup
Pressure Gauge
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
\ Supply
Pump
Corrosion
Coupons
Sand
Filtration
mpr*-
Flow
Meter
Cooling System
Cold Well
(1200 Gallon)
Pilot
Cooling
Tower
[Disinfection]
Five Manufacturing Machines
(Approximately 12 cooling loops per machine)
VI-2
-------
FIGURE VI-2
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - FINAL PILOT COOLING SYSTEM
Existing
Treatment
Facilities
Sand Filtration
i
Activated Carbon Adsorption
i
Gas Chlorination
Storage Reservoir
(4300 Gallon)
Reclaimed Water
Makeup
I
) Pressure Gauge
Strainer
i
i
t
Corrosion
Coupons
Sand
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
12
Parallel
Fitration
Supply
Pump
Flow
Meter
Cooling System
Cold Well
(1200 Gallon)
Pilot
Cooling
Tower
Control
Slowdown
Five Manufacturing Machines
(Approximately 12 cooling loops per machine)
VI-3
-------
pressure sand filter (manufactured by Sea Blue for use in swimming pool
water treatment). The activated carbon columns used in both the initial
and continuation trials were upflow columns with backwash capabilities.
Several means of disinfection were employed during the trials. The types
used were: 1) methylene bis-thiocyanate with sodium hypochlorite (added
in the cooling loop), 2) combination of methylene bis-thiocyanate, sodium
hypochlorite, and a compound containing a quaternary amine and chlori-
nated phenol (added in the cooling loop), 3) continuous ozonation,
4) sodium hypochlorite only, and, 5) continuous gas chlorination. Gas
chlorination of the reclaimed water proved to be the most effective method
and was used during the final 90 days of operation.
Cooling Loop
The sidestream sand filter within the pilot cooling loop system was
a Sea Blue upflow pressure filter. This filter was operated at several
flow rates as shown in Table VI-1 (pg. VI-5). A y-basket strainer was
placed in the final cooling system between the supply pump and the
cooling loops. The purpose of the strainer was to remove debris from
the cooling supply water which could cause plugging in the individual
cooling loops. Corrosion coupons of copper, mild steel, aluminum,
304 stainless steel, and galvanized steel were evaluated in the cooling
system. The cooling tower used in the cooling system was a Marley
Permatower (40 ton). This unit has the capacity to cool approximately
125 gpm of water with an approximate temperature differential of 10°F.
An automatic pH controller (manufactured by Uniloc) was installed in
the cooling system in fall 1975 to provide continuous pH control in the
system. Continuous blowdown from the cooling system was also provided
in fall 1975 through installation of a positive displacement pump.
Manufacturing Process Heat Exchangers
The pilot cooling system provided all required cooling for five
full-scale glass fiber manufacturing machines. The cooling waters
flowed in parallel to the machines; each machine had approximately
twelve (12) isolated components that were cooled by twelve separate
parallel cooling streams. The pilot trials were operated on manufacturing
VI-4
-------
TABLE VI-1
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTS
Experiment Date Duration in Operational*
Number Begin End Days Description
1 8-2-74 9-8-74 20 Sidestream Filter 40-45 TPD**
Chromate Treatment A
2 9-9-74 9-25-74 16 Sidestream Filter 1 TPD
Chromate Treatment A
3 10-10-74 10-24-74 15 Sidestream Filter 1 TPD
Polyol Treatment B
4 10-25-74 10-30-74 6 Sidestream Filter 20 TPD
Polyol Treatment B
5 10-31-74 11-10-74 11 Sidestream Filter 40 TPD
Chromate Treatment C
6 11-11-74 11-22-74 12 Sidestream Filter 1 TPD
Chromate Treatment C
7 8-18-75 10-9-75 42 Sidestream Filter 5 TPD
Chromate Treatment D
8 11-12-75 1-7-76 56 Continuous blowdown at 10%
of makeup rate
Sidestream Filter 10 TPD
Chromate Treatment E
9 1-27-76 4-25-76 90 Continuous blowdown at 10%
of makeup rate
Sidestream Filter 10 TPD
Chromate Treatment F
*See Table VI-2 for chemical addition descriptions.
**TPD - turnover per day; for example, 2 TPD would indicate that all
of the water in the pilot cooling system was filtered twice a day.
VI-5
-------
positions containing heat exchangers which are subjected to some of the
highest heat loadings in the fibrous glass textile operations. Successful
operation of the pilot cooling system would therefore indicate the
ability to operate the remaining cooling systems using reclaimed
industrial wastewater.
Pilot System Monitoring
During the initial pilot trials, the total internal system flow
rate, temperature, and pressure were monitored daily. Additionally, one
manufacturing position outside of the pilot system was monitored daily
for flow rates and temperature differentials.
The reclaimed water makeup and the recirculated cooling water were
both analyzed daily throughout the entire experimental period for the
following parameters: total organic carbon, suspended solids, dissolved
solids (conductivity), total hardness, calcium hardness, silica,
alkalinity, chromate, zinc, sulfate, pH, and turbidity. The city water
(used as makeup to the other plant cooling systems) and the recirculated
cooling water in the plant cooling systems were also analyzed for the
same parameters.
("•
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The pilot cooling trials conducted under the grant can be divided
into two major periods; the initial trials, from August to November, 1974,
and the continuation trials, from August, 1975 to May, 1976. Six (6)
experiments comprise the ninety (90) days of system operation during the
initial trials, and three (3) experiments comprise the 188 days of
system operation during the continuation trials. Experimental periods
were usually terminated due to heat exchanger problems, which were
associated with system plugging or fouling. After completion of each
experiment, changes in system control and/or cooling water chemical
additions were made. A brief description of the system operational
conditions during each of the nine experiments is listed in Table VI-1.
Descriptions of the chemical additions used in the experiments are given
in Table VI-2.
VI-6
-------
TABLE VI-2
COOLING WATER CHEMICAL TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS
Chromate Treatment A
8-10 mg/1; Nalco 364, zinc chromate corrosion inhibitor
HC1 for pH Control (pH range 6.5 - 7.0)
10-20 mg/1; Nalco 207, Methylene Bis Thiocyanate
Polyol Treatment B
5-10 mg/1 free PO^; Nalco 345, polyol ester scale inhibitor
2-3 mg/1; Nalco 344, organic dispersant
HC1 for pH Control (pH range 6.5 - 7.5)
10-20 mg/1; Nalco 207, Methylene Bis Thiocyanate
Chromate Treatment C
10-12 mg/1; Nalco 37, chromate corrosion inhibitor (free of zinc)
HC1 for pH Control (pH range 6.5 - 7.5)
and intermittant use of
50 mg/1, Nalco 207, Methylene Bis Thiocyanate, and Nalco 322, a
chlorinated phenol with an amine base
Chromate Treatment D
10-12 mg/1; Nalco 37, chromate corrosion inhibitor (free of zinc)
H2SO, for pH Control (pH range 6.7 - 7.2)
Ozonation of tertiary effluent and sodium hypochlorite for
disinfection
Chromate Treatment E
10-12 mg/1; Nalco 37, chromate corrosion inhibitor (free of zinc)
HC1 for pH Control (automatic control, set point pH = 7.2)
1/2 pint/day; Nalco 7312, organic dispersant
Sodium hypochlorite only for disinfection
Chromate Treatment F
10-12 mg/1; Nalco 37, chromate corrosion inhibitor (free of zinc)
0.5-1.0 mg/1 residual chlorine by gas chlorination of tertiary effluent
HC1 for pH Control (automatic control, set point at pH of 6.7 - 6.8)
1/2 pint/day; Nalco 7312, organic dispersant (fed over 24 hours)
VI-7
-------
The initial pilot trials did little to demonstrate the economic and
technical feasibility of using reclaimed industrial wastewater as make-
up to the process cooling systems. The continual failures of heat ex-
changers during these trials demonstrated the need for greater control
of microbial growth in the cooling system and greater control of scale
deposition in the heat exchangers of the cooling system. An evaluation
of the initial trials indicated that the "best" system performance
occurred during the use of Treatment C (see Table VI-2). Although
operations using this treatment were of limited duration, significant
improvements in performance were observed.
The first two experiments of the continuation trials (No. 7 and 8)
utilized a chemical treatment scheme similar to that used in experiments
No. 5 and 6. Microbial growth in the pilot cooling loop was controlled
more adequately during these experiments, primarily through continuous
disinfection of the pilot system makeup water. Additionally, the source
of microbial food was reduced through the implementation of the improve-
ments to the existing treatment facilities stated in Chapter IV. A
reliable chemical treatment and control scheme (Treatment F, Table VI-2),
was developed during the end of experiment No. 8. This scheme was then
verified in experiment No. 9, the 90-day trial.
Plant production personnel determined that the three month period was
the minimum required period of continuous operation of the pilot cooling
system needed to evaluate the feasibility of the system.
Average and range concentrations of "key" parameters in the makeup
and pilot cooling loop water during the 90-day trial are listed in
Table VI-3.
VI-8
-------
35
19
41
74
2.0
20-46
10-49
32-54
31-159
1.1-6.1
185
70
238
316
19.5
40-264
22-104
160-280
177-414
10.8-32.5
TABLE VI-3
WATER QUALITY DURING 90-DAY TRIAL
Makeup Pilot Cooling Loop
Average Range Average Range
Parameter (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/l)
T°C 28 14-39 150 28-250
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) 280 175-390 1750 400-2150
Calcium
Hardness
Silica
Total Hardness
Sulfate
Zinc
Scale deposition in the heat exchangers of the pilot system was not
completely eliminated during the 90-day trial. However, the scale which
did form deposited almost immediately and had no effect on heat transfer
from the heat exchanger to the cooling water. Based upon these results,
the water quality criteria listed below were selected for use in full-
scale application of reclaimed industrial wastewater in the plant cool-
ing systems.
TABLE VI-4
COOLING SYSTEM WATER QUALITY CRITERIA*
Process Cooling Condenser Cooling
Parameter Systems Systems and Chillers
Total Hardness 350 mg/1 450 mg/1
Calcium Hardness 300 mg/1 400 mg/1
Silica 200 mg/1 200 mg/1
Sulfate 500 mg/1 600 mg/1
Zinc 42 mg/1 42 mg/1
pH range 6.6 - 7.2 6.6 - 7.2
Concentration limits
VI-9
-------
CHAPTER VII
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROCESSES AND INTEGRATED
RECIRCULATION PLAN
Preliminary engineering efforts have culminated in the preparation
of conceptual designs for tertiary treatment processes. This chapter
presents those designs along with an overview of the recirculation
scheme for the Anderson Plant. The recirculation plan is indeed a
demonstration project, and accordingly not all questions have been
answered. However, a rational plan of attack has been defined for
further evaluations during final design work and economic analysis.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Treatabillty studies have produced a wealth of data. Conceptual
designs developed here are based not only upon bench and pilot scale
performances, but also upon our industrial waste experiences. Sand
filtration, activated carbon adsorption, and disinfection processes will
be required to produce a reclaimed wastewater relatively free of sus-
pended solids and organic materials. It is possible that some form
of inorganic contaminant removal other than drift loss may also be
provided.
Sand Filtration '
The main function of these filters will be to protect the carbon
adsorbers from inordinate solids loadings occurring during secondary
clarifier upsets. Either dual-media or multi-media downflow pressure
filters seem to be best suited in this application.
Filters
Basic design criteria are as follows:
Filtration Rate - * gpm/ft
3
Solids Loading at Breakthrough - 0.10 Ib TSS/ft
Bed Depth - 36"
Backwash Cycle Length = 20 minutes
VII-1
-------
Influent TSS Concentration = 9 mg/1
During each filter cycle, the volume of wastewater processed will be:
(0.10 Ib/ft3)(3.0 ft)(106 gal/MG) _ 2al/ft2
(9 mg/i)(8.34 ib/MG/mg/1) ^' 8aX/rt
Therefore, the filter cycle length will be:
3?97 Sal/ft* . 999 minutes
4 gpm/ft^
Now, the complete cycle length is:
Complete Cycle Length = Filter Cycle Length + Backwash Cycle Length
= 999 min. + 20 min.
= 1019 minutes
During each day, one may expect
•L _ cycles or 1.413 cycles/day
Also, the filter time per day will be:
1.413 (999 min) = 1412 minutes
The backwash time will be:
1.413 (20 min) = 28 minutes
Thus, during a 24 hour period, the filters will operate 1412/1440 or 98%
of the time. Based upon the design flow rate of 285 gpm,
Effective Flow =7T 8Pm = 291 gpm
u. yy
Required Filter Area = f 1 SPm 2= 73 ft*
4 gpm/ ft
If 6' diameter filters are used,
73 ft
Tr(3 ^ = ^'^ W^H ^e required
If 7' diameter filters are used,
2
73 ft _ = 1.9 will be required
ir(3.5
Therefore, use 2 @ 7' diameter downflow pressure filters. The bed
expansion during backwash will be approximately 50%; the minimum filter
height, not including interior appurtenances, is 1.50 (3.0 ft) = 4.5 ft.
VI I- 2
-------
Backwash
Secondary clarifier effluent will be utilized as backwash water
in conjunction with an air scour. The major portion of the backwash
flow will be introduced into the bottom of the filter, with the re-
mainder to be used as a surface wash. Backwash criteria are listed below.
•)
Backwash Rate = 20 gpm/ft
Air Scour Rate = 5 cfm/ft
Now,
Backwash Flow * (20 gpm/ft2) (38,5 ft2) = 770 gpm
Backwash Volume - (2)(770 gpm)(28 minutes/day) = 43,120 gal/day
Blower Capacity = (5 cfm/ft2)(38.5 ft2) = 193 cfm
Backwash effluent will be routed to the Equalization Basins.
Pumps
At least two pumps will be required, one for filter feed and the
other for backwash:
Feed Pump: Vertical, radial flow, 400 gpm (VLO HP)
Backwash Pump: Vertical, radial flow, 800 gpm (VL5 HP)
It is advisable to include a spare pump for each purpose.
Filter Feed and Backwash Sump
The filter feed and backwash sump will provide a constant supply
of feed and sufficient waters for backwash:
Sump Volume = Daily Backwash Volume
= 43,120 gal or 5765 ft3
Dimensions: 21' x 25' x 12' deep
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Adsorbers
Carbon adsorption can be provided either by installation of an
OCF-owned system or on a service contract basis. The conceptual design
presented here has been developed as a general framework for this
unit process.
VII-3
-------
Downflow pressure adsorbers, in series, were tested during
treatability studies and are chosen for use. Three adsorbers will be
provided, with two to be operating at any time. When carbon in the
first adsorber is exhausted, the second adsorber will become the first
adsorber and the third will become the second. Assuming one (1) hour
per day of downtime, , ,
24
Effective Flow = 285 gpm (.-—) = 297 gpm
2
Now, using a superficial velocity of 4 gpm/ ft :
Surface Area
= 74.25 ft2
2
Therefore, use 10' diameter columns (area = 78.5 ft ).
Based upon a carbon contact time of 30 minutes, for two filters in
series the bed depth is:
. Total Bed Depth - (297 gpm)(30min 2/(7.48 gal/ft3) . 15>2 ft
/o.j it
and, Column Bed Depth = 7.6 ft.
The column bed volume is:
Bed Volume = (78.5 ft2) (7. 6 ft) - 596.6 ft3
3
For 8 x 30 mesh granular carbon, the density is approximately 30 Ib/ft .
Thus, the bed weight is:
(596.6 ft3) (30 Ib/ft3) = 17,898 Ib
It follows that:
Adsorber Carbon Inventory = (17,898 Ib) (3) = 53,694 Ib
Using a backwash bed expansion of 50%, the expanded bed height
- 7.6 ft + 0.50(7.6 ft)
- 11.4 ft.
Carbon capacity for Anderson secondary effluent is approximately 0.08
Ib TOC/lb carbon. Based upon a TOC loading of 116 Ib/day and 50% removal,
the carbon exhaustion rate is:
Carbon Exhaustion Rate = ffijj ff ™ffif7> (0-50)
0.08 Ib TOC/lb carbon
725 Ib carbon/day (or 264,625 Ib/yr)
VII-4
-------
Based upon a 10% attrition rate, the annual carbon loss is:
(725 Ib/day) (365 days/yr) (0.10) = 26,463 Ib/yr
Carbon regeneration will be provided most economically under a contract basis.
Backwash
Backwash criteria are listed below:
o
Backwash Rate = 15 gpm/ft
Backwash Time = 20 minutes
2
Air Scour Rate = 5 cfm/ft
Backwash Water = Carbon Effluent
Then,
Backwash Flow = (15 gpm/ft2)(78.5 ft2) = 1178 gpm
Backwash Volume = (1178 gpm) (2)(20 min) = 47,120 gal/day
Blower Capacity = (5 cfm/ft2)(78.5 ft2) = 393 cfm
Backwash effluent will be routed to the Equalization Basins.
Pumps
Two pumps will be required, one for adsorber feed and one for backwash:
Feed Pump: Vertical, radial flow, 400 gpm ( 10 HP)
Backwash Pump: Vertical, radial flow, 1200 gpm ( 20 HP)
It is advisable to include a spare pump for each purpose.
Carbon Storage and Transport
Storage must be provided for virgin, regenerated, and spent carbon.
3
Virgin Carbon Storage = 596.6 ft
3
Spent Carbon Storage = 596.6 ft
Use 2 @ 640 ft3 tanks with 45° hopper bottoms (10* diameter, 11.5' high)
3
Regenerated Carbon Storage = 596.6 ft
Use the spare adsorber.
During carbon transport, at least one gallon of water will be required
for each pound of carbon:
Water - (* ^al x 17,898 Ib/transport) + 25% contingency = 22,372 gal/
•"> transport
Adsorber Feed Sump
The adsorber feed sump will serve to equalize flow from the sand
filters and store feed during adsorber backwash.
Sump Volume - (297 gpm)(120 min)
« 35,640 gal
- 4,765 ft3
VII-5
-------
Dimensions: 18' x 25' x 12' deep (Common wall construction with
filter feed sump)
Adsorber Backwash and Effluent Sump
This sump will store carbon-treated effluent for use as backwash
water.
Sump Volume = 47,120 gal
- 6300 ft3
Dimensions: 23* x 25' x 12' deep (Again, common wall construction)
Disinfection
Several disinfecting agents were used during the pilot cooling loop
trialss and all, with the exception of chlorine gas, resulted in pre-
cipitation of Fe(OH),,. Chlorine will be used here for disinfection, but
ferric chloride addition to the primary clarifiers will have to be
closely monitored, because phenomena not observed in pilot tests may
become apparent in the full scale system. While conventional design
dictates a 30 minute chlorine contact time, intermixing of the chlorine
gas with the carbon effluent will occur in a flash mix chamber, and
the required contact period will be satisfied in the Distribution Tank
(old aerobic digester).
Flash Mix Chamber
Based upon a hydraulic retention time of one minute, the required
volume is:
Volume = 285 gpm (1 minute)
=285 gal
= 38 ft3
Dimensions: = 3.5' x 3.5' x 4'
At a power level of 3 water HP/1000 gal, the required mixer horsepower is:
,3 water HPX ,OQ[. ., N /. . 1 N
( 1000 gal > (285 8al) (0^0}
= 1.2 BHP or 2 BHP
Chlorine Dosage
Treatability studies indicated that a chlorine dosage of 2 mg/1 will
provide nearly complete elimination of fecal coliforms.
VII-6
-------
Dosage = 1-5 mg/1 Cl
Minimum Feed = (1 mg/1) (285 gal/min) (1440 min/day)
(MQ/106 gal)(8.34 lb/MG/mg/1)
= 3.4 lb Cl2/day
Maximum Feed = (3.4 lb Cl./day)(5)
17 lb Cl2/day
Distribution Tank
The old aerobic digester (volume = 297,000 gal) will receive re-
claimed wastewater from the flash mix chamber. City water will also
enter this tank; thus, the tank will serve as the distribution point
for all process and cooling water uses in the plant. Excess wastewater
flows will flow to the Storage Basin for use at a later time. Additional-
ly, flows may be returned from the basin to the tank. The tank should be
covered to prevent contamination.
Reclaimed Wastewater Storage Basin
This basin will receive excess reclaimed wastewater flows during
winter operations.
Basin Volume = (10 gpm)(1440 min/day)(100 day)
* 1.5 MG
= 200,535 ft3
Flows from the basin will be routed to the Distribution Tank, to
the Filter Feed and Backwash Sump, or to the Off-Specification Basin.
The existing effluent retention pond will be enlarged into two basins,
one for reclaimed wastewater storage and the other for off-specification
wastewater storage.
Off-Specification Basin
This basin will receive secondary clarifier effluent during plant
upsets. A five-day hydraulic retention time is provided (based upon
205 gpm).
Basin Volume = (205 gpm)(1440 min/day)(5 day)
VII-7
-------
= 1.5 MG
= 200, 535 ft3
Water in the basin will be bled into the Equalization Basins at a controlled
rate. Backwash effluents from the sand filters and carbon adsorbers (^63
gpm total) will flow to the Equalization Basins for purposes of flow
equalization.
The existing effluent retention pond possesses a volume of approxi-
3
mately 96,000 ft ; thus, it will have to be more than quadrupled in size.
Both basins (storage and off-specification) will be earthen with protected
side slopes. Soil in the area consists of relatively impervious clay.
Summary
A process flow diagram for the advanced wastewater treatment facilities
is shown as Figure VII-1. Secondary clarifier effluent will flow either
into the Off-Specification Basin (upset conditions) or the Filter Feed
and Backwash Sump. Also, return flows from the Reclaimed Wastewater
Storage Basin may be returned to the sump for treatment prior to use.
Wastewater will enter the downflow, pressure sand filters, with filter
effluent flowing into the Adsorber Feed Sump. Filter Backwash water will
be pumped from the sump up through the filters and into the Equalization
Basins. The backwash may thus be returned to the treatment system at
a reasonably constant rate, along with "off-spec" return flows.
The Adsorber Feed Sump will equalize the wastewater flow rate prior
to feed to the downflow, pressure carbon adsorbers (series configuration).
Carbon-treated effluent will flow into the Adsorber Backwash and Effluent
Sump, which will store water for use as backwash water. The backwash
effluent will be pumped to the Equalization Basins for gradual return to
the treatment system.
Chlorine gas will be added in the Flash Mix Chamber, followed by a
continued contact period as the reclaimed wastewater flows to and through
the Distribution Tank. City water will be added to the Distribution Tank
at a controlled rate. The mixture will then be distributed to the process
and cooling uses throughout the plant. Alternatively, during periods of
extreme/excess flows, the waters may flow into the Reclaimed Wastewater
Storage Basin.
VII-8
-------
This tertiary treatment system has been designed to provide
maximum flexibility during operations. The effluent quality from the
filtration, carbon adsorption, and disinfection treatment sequence is
estimated as follows:
Flow =285 gpm
TSS =0-5 mg/1
TOG =10-20 mg/1
BOD5 =0-5 mg/1
INORGANIC CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
The projected daily mass inputs and reclaimed wastewater equilibrium
concentrations for total and calcium hardness, silica, sulfate, and zinc
given in Table III-ll were calculated using drift loss as the sole removal
mechanism. Water quality criteria for the cooling systems (Table VI-4)
based upon the results of the pilot cooling loop experiments are detailed
in Table VII-1 for each cooling system. Due to the concentrating effect
in each evaporative cooling system and in the cascade pattern, the
allowable concentration of each constituent in the makeup to a particular
system will be considerably less than that in the system itself. Based
upon the cycles of concentration for each cooling system and the cascade
pattern, a factor which represents the effective concentration ratio in
each system has been developed; these are presented in Table VII-2. The
maximum allowable reclaimed wastewater concentration for a particular
component is then:
Maximum Allowable Concentration in the Cooling System
Concentration = Factor
These values have been calculated for each system and are presented in
t j
Table VII-3.
Removal Requirements
It is obvious that most of these allowable makeup concentrations
are much lower than the equilibrium concentrations projected in Chapter
III. Present data indicates that inorganic contaminants may have to be
removed from the water system by some mechanism other than drift loss.
However, this will not be adequately defined until the recycle system is
operated during the demonstration period included in the grant schedule.
Usinc the smallest values for each parameter from Table VII-3, the required
removals were estimated as follows:
VII-9
-------
FIGURE VII-1
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - ADVANCED
Secondary
Clarifier EtfluMt
Air
FILTER FEED ft BACKWASH
SUMP "
Air
DOWNFUOW FILTERS
Carbon
Effluent
ADSORBER BACKWASH
a
EFFLUENT SUMP
_c\i
o
FLASH MIX CHAMBER
VII-10
-------
.... FIGURE VII-1
WASJEWATER TREATMENT FACIUTIES
Filt«r ft Adsorber Backwash
ADSORBER FEED
SUMP
CARBON ADSORBERS
City H20
Distribution
DISTRIBUTION TANK
To Equalization Basins
OFF-
SPECIFICATION
BASIN
RECLAIMED
WASTEWATER
STORAGE
BASIN
VII-11
-------
TABLE VII-1
HA"
"•nil
"nil
#1 Pond
#2 Pond
"Tl"
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS, IN THE COOLING
System
Illers
illers
illers
d
d
ndenser Cooling
ocess Cooling
Total 1
Hardness
450
450
450
450
350
450
350
Calcium 2
Hardness
400
400
400
400
300
400
300
3
Silica
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SYSTEMS
Sulfate
600
600
600
600
500
600
500
Zinc
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Chemical Cooling
Tower No. 1 350 300 200 500 42
Chemical Cooling
Tower No. 2 350 300 200 500 42
Notes: 1. mg/1 as CaCO .
2. mg/1 as CaC03-
3. mg/1 as Si02.
VII-12
-------
TABLE VII-2
FACTORS USED IN CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE RECLAIMED
WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
System
"A" Chillers
"E" Chillers
"D" Chillers
#1 Pond
#2 Pond
"D" Condenser Cooling
"D" Process Cooling
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 1
Chemical Cooling Tower No. 2
Summer
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.71
4.70
5.00
4.57
2.33
5.83
Winter
3.50
5.50
7.00
4.50
8.20
7.00
8.42
1.83
4.83
VII-13
-------
TABLE VI1-3
H
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RECLAIMED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
Total Hardness
System
"A" Chillers
"E" Chillers
"D" Chillers
#1 Pond
#2 Pond
"D" Condenser Cooling
"D" Process Cooling
Chemical Cooling
Tower No. 1
Chemical Cooling
Tower No. 2
Equilibrium Values
S?-
450
450
450
96
74
90
77
150
60
94
W2
129
82
64
100
43
64
42
191
73
95
Calcium Hardness
S
400
400
400
85
64
90
66
129
51
87
W
114
73
57
89
37
57
36
164
62
88
Silica
S
200
200
200
43
43
40
44
86
34
42
W
57
36
29
44
24
29
24
109
41
42
Sulfate
S
600
600
600
127
106
120
109
215
86
186
W
171
109
86
133
61
86
59
273
104
188
Zinc
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
W
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
Notes: 1. S = summer conditions.
2. W = winter conditions.
-------
Input = Required Removal + Drift Loss
Summer Input = X + 0.840 (W >
min
Winter Input = X + 0.831 (W )
rain'
where:
Input = daily mass input of a particular constituent
X = required removal
Wmin = the most stringent makeup quality required
The concentrations, inputs, drift losses, and required removals are
summarized in Table VII-4.
Removal Alternatives
The logical point to remove these contaminants from the water
system is where they are highly concentrated, i.e. the cooling system
blowdowns. If the blowdowns were mixed with process wastewater, the flow
rates would be increased and the concentrations reduced so as to make removal
less economical. Based upon removing the inorganics from the system at #1
Pond, #2 Pond, "D" Condenser Cooling, and "D" Process Cooling, several
alternative removal schemes have been examined:
Direct discharge of cooling system blowdown
Combined discharge of cooling system blowdown with treated
sanitary wastewater
Inorganic salt removal through
- ion exchange
- reverse osmosis
- lime-soda softening and anion exchange
These alternatives are portrayed graphically in Figure VII-2. Each will
be discussed in turn with regard to performance and applicability. The
discharge or treatment of 30 - 50 gpm of cooling system blowdown is the
basis for each alternative mechanism.
Direct Discharge
This alternative is obviously the most straightforward and economical
choice. It does fall short of "total" recycle, and concentrations or
masses of constituents in the cooling system blowdowns may exceed those
allowed. Approximately 30 - 50 gpm of cooling system blowdowns would
have to be collected and conveyed to the point of discharge.
VII-15
-------
TABLE VII-4
INORGANIC REMOVALS
Summer
Parameter
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Silica
Sulfate
Zinc
Concentration
60 mg/1
51
34
86
5
Input
79 #/day
73
35
156
4.8
Drift Loss
50.4 #/day
42.8
28.6
72.2
4.2
Removal
Required
28.6 #/day
30.2
6.4
83.8
0.6
Parameter
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Silica
Sulfate
Zinc
Concentration
42 mg/1
36
24
59
5
Winter
Input
79 #/day
73
35
156
4.8
Drift Loss
34.9 #/day
29.9
19.9
49
4.2
Removal
Required
44.1 ///day
43.1
15.1
107
0.6
VII-16
-------
FIGURE VII-2
ALTERNATIVES FOR REMOVAL OF INORGANIC
!=! COOLING
SYSTEM
SLOWDOWNS
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TREATED SANITARY
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE
fON
EXCHANGE
REUSE
Brine Concentration, Drying, 8k Disposal
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
REUSE
I
._ Brine Concentration, Drying^ Disposal
LIME - SODA
SOFTENING
AN ION
EXCHANGE
REUSE
LSIud_ge _Degatering
8k Disposal
-•*- Brine Concentration,
Drying,a Disposal
-------
Combined Discharge
This scheme involves discharge of cooling system blowdown along with
treated sanitary wastewaters. Again, the blowdowns would have to be
collected and conveyed to the point of discharge, and problems could
arise with respect to effluent limitations. This alternative, like the
previous one, does not allow "total" recycle.
Ion Exchange
Mixed-bed ion exchange tests conducted as part of the treatability
studies provided a starting point for evaluation of ion exchange for
removal of calcium, magnesium, silica, sulfate, and zinc from cooling
system blowdowns. In order to exchange both negative and positive ions
and not add significant quantities of dissolved solids to the water, a
mixed bed of a strong acid resin and a strong base resin would be utilized.
Design calculations revealed that low mixed-bed resin exchange capacity
demonstrated during the treatability studies and high regenerant require-
ments would result in an applied water recovery of 54%. Also, the remain-
ing volume of water would contain appreciable quantities of dissolved
solids and presents a disposal problem in itself. Basically, the brine
would have to be concentrated through evaporation or freeze crystallization
and dryed; the remaining salts could be disposed of in a landfill. In
conclusion, ion exchange does not appear to be suited to this application
either from the standpoint of cost or that of water recovery.
Reverse Osmosis
Osmosis is the transport of a solvent from a dilute to a concentrated
solution across a semipermeable membrane. The transport is caused by a
chemical potential driving force manifested as the osmotic pressure. If
pressure in excess of the osmotic pressure is applied to the concentrate
side of the membrance, the direction of solvent flow is reversed so that
solvent flows across the membrance from the concentrated to the dilute
phase. This phenomenon is reverse osmosis.
In late 1974 the ROGA Division of Universal Oil Products Co. con-
ducted laboratory reverse osmosis (RO) tests on the Anderson secondary
clarifier effluent. The wastewater was neutralized to pH 5.4 and filtered
VII-18
-------
through a 25 micron filter prior to being fed to a spiral wound cellulose
acetate RO module at 400 psig. Test results were fairly encouraging, as
a water recovery of 86.8% was obtained at a flux of 12 gal/ft2-day,
along with solute rejection factors of 94-97% for conductivity.
Based upon the test results, 30 gpm would require an RO membrane
•surface area of:
(30 gpm) (144Q min/day) 2
12 gal/ft2 day °r 360° ft
A reject stream of 30 gpm (1-0.868), or 4.1 gpm, would have to be con-
centrated and dryed. The remaining salts could then be landfilled. In
summary, the RO process will probably perform quite well in this
application, but at considerable costs. Scale formation on membrane
surfaces by calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate could dictate
chemical pretreatment in additon to pH adjustment and filtration.
Lime-Soda Softening and Anion Exchange
This treatment sequence would involve lime-soda softening for re-
i t I i | |
moval of Ca , Mg , SiO?, and Zn , followed by anion exchange (weak
base resin) for SO. removal. Of course, softening will produce a sludge
(to be dewatered and disposed of) and anion exchange regenerant streams
will have to be concentrated and dryed prior to disposal. Initial
process design calculations resulted in the following design criteria:
Lime Dose = 131 mg/1 as CaO
Lime Feed = 52 Ib/day (pulverized quicklime)
Soda Ash Dose = 330 mg/1 as Na2C03
Soda Ash Feed = 120 Ib/day
Chemical Feeders:
Lime 2.0 lb/hr to 4.0 Ib/hr
Sodn Ash 5 lb/hr to 10 lb/hr
Solids Contact Clarifier:
10* diameter
7' side water depth
VII-19
-------
Recarbonation:
Volume = 250 gal
Dimensions: 3' x 3' x5'
C02 Dose = 0-100 mg/1 (pH 9.4)
CO™ Feed = 0-18 Ib/hr
Rapid Sand Filter:
Area = 20 ft
Sludge Generation: 182 Ib/day (dry weight)
Anion Exjchang_er_
Resin Capacity = 24.6 eq/ft
Exchanger = 5' diameter
10' height
3
Resin Volume = 90.8 ft
Regenerant = 43 gal/day @ 50% NaOH
Regeneration Rate = 45.5 gpm (17.3 min)
Backwash Rate =20 gpm (5 min)
Rinse Rate = 136.2 gpm (33.3 min)
Effective Feed Rate = 60 gpm
Concentrate Stream =3.8 gpm
Summary
_______j^. j
Several alternative methods for removal of inorganic contaminants
have been examined. The two involving discharge are not appropriate to
the concept of "total" recirculation and would be considered only as tem-
porary measures. Of the three treatment methods, reverse osmosis or lime-
soda softening/anion exchange are most promising. Final selection should
be based upon economic analyses. At this time, the scheme of action should
be to allow for possible discharge of cooling system blowdowns until re-
moval requirements are better defined by the full scale system, and then
to implement the most economical, reliable treatment procedures.
INTEGRATED RECIRCULATION PLAN
Recirculation plans for the Anderson Plant involve:
. Treatment of process wastewaters to a quality level that is
VI1-20
-------
suitable for recirculation (in terms of suspended solids and
organic materials)
Segregation and separate treatment of sanitary wastewaters
Reuse of reclaimed wastewater in the process areas and cooling
systems
. Removal of inorganic contaminants through drift loss or other
mechanisms as required.
Water and wastewater distribution, usage, and treatment plans are shown
in Figure VII-3. Numbers on the illustration are projected flow rates
in gallons per minute (gpm). Existing wastewater treatment facilities
are to be supplemented by sand filtration, activated carbon adsorption,
and disinfection. Reclaimed wastewater along with city water will be
distributed to the process areas and cooling systems. The cooling
systems cascade pattern will result in concentration of inorganic solids
which will be removed by drift loss, discharge, or treatment. Finally,
sanitary wastewaters will be segregated from process wastewaters and
treated in a separate package plant. In conclusion, one should realize
that this plan is a demonstration project, and as such, not all
problems have been answered or even defined. Actual operating ex-
periences will be the ultimate."test" for this recirculation system.
VII-21
-------
FIGURE VI1-3
ANDERSON PLANT WATER
1
1
1
1
1
I 1
i 5
j
j
i
i
i
j-.^o-
POTABLE /
SANITARY
CHEMICAL
FACTORY
PROCESS
SANITARY
SAW SAW '
2.9 112. 3 0.6)0.6
S 3.5^ CHEMICAL COOL ING
W 2.9 r TOWERS 2
t
1 siw s iw m
1 1.6 1| 1.0 0.2 }0.2
S 2 8 L_ CHEMICAL COOLING SJJ
W2.2- TOWER *l Wl
- 1
Z6 i/>
SCRUBBER
POTABLE /
SANITARY
"A" FACTORY
PROCESS
35 I26
1
TREATMENT
SANITARY
DISCHARGE
INDUSTRIAL
^ WASTEWATEf
TREATMENT
i
t
J20 [
_ _ t £
S 0
>^w — 4 w O
-lolU.5 I
POTABLE /
SANITARY
10 -r 50 r-
W3.5*
"A" sip
CHILLERS J7J|
4_
, 205-
i SiW SlWJ
1 -9.6|I8 0 | 0 \
"E" FACTORY
PROCESS
25 _ W 14 1
"E" _^
CHILLERS S9.6
W4
KEY: *•= CITY WATER , *• « RECLAIMED WATER /
VII-22
= WASTEWATER
-------
FIGURE VII-3
DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE
sAw s iw s4w si
28JJO 1.4 JO -6.4|I2 Of
S 5 6 "D " CONDENSER W2 ^ "&"
W 2 1*" COOLING •ni CHILLERS
II -.11 • A 1 • —
«. D *J s4w sfw «5 °
SCRUBBERS | 2.5J1I4.I 2.0 J 1.9 „ I*
' SsL. "0" PROCESS .Is 32
WO COOLING *~WO
W 9 I .
Af~f*i Aik
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2 - 77-043
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION- NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Industrial Wastewater Recirculation System:
Preliminary Engineering
5. REPORT DATE
February 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHOR(S> A.W. LovenandJ. L. Pintenich
(Engineering Science, Inc.)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
Fiberglas Tower
Toledo, Ohio 43659
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB036; ROAP A6/7144
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S801173-01-02
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 5/73-6/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES T.ERL_RTP project officer for this report is Max Samfield, Mail
Drop 62, 919/541-2547.
16. ABSTRACT
The report details the preliminary engineering work done at Owens -
Coming's (O-C's) Anderson, South Carolina, fibrous glass plant. The purpose of
the work was to test, on a pilot plant scale, various technologies to be used to clean
up industrial wastewater for a closed-loop system; i.e. , for total industrial waste-
water reuse. Conceptual design has been developed for the testing treatment pro-
cesses of sand filtration, activated carbon adsorption, and disinfection. As a result
of this work, O-C has authorized the construction of a full scale plant which will be in
operation in 1978. This report makes the developed technology available to the indus-
try prior to publication of details of final plant construction and operation.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Industrial Processes
Waste Water
Circulation
Sand Filtration
Activated Carbon
Adsorption
Disinfection
Glass Fibers
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
13H
07A
11G
06F
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
174
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
VII-2 4
------- |