United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA 600 2-80-041
January 1980
Research and Development
Technical and Economic
Evaluation of BATEA
Textile Guidelines
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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-600/2-80-041
January 1980
Technical and Economic
Evaluation of BATEA
Textile Guidelines
by
R.E. MayfJeld, T.N. Sargent,
and E.J. Schroeder (Engineering Science, Inc.)
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW (Suite 300)
Washington, DC 20036
Grant No. R804329
Program Element No. 1BB610
EPA Project Officer: Max Samfield
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
Regulations for controlling the discharge of pollutants in textile
wastewaters were issued in July 1974 following more than 2 years of effort
between the industry and the Environmental Protection Agency, The regula-
tions established two levels of control to be met by 1977 and 1983. The
1977 limitations were to be achieved through the application of the Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) while the stricter
1983 limitations were to be met through the use of the Best Available Tech-
nology Economically Achievable (BATEA).
The industry generally accepted the 1977 BPT limits, but had serious
reservations with its ability to meet the 1983 levels. The industry's
reservations were based on the possible high capital expenditure require-
ments, associated operation and maintenance costs and on the knowledge that
many of the technologies proposed by EPA had not been adequately evaluated
in the textile industry.
In October 1974, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI)
petitioned the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the 1983
regulations and was joined in this action by the Northern Textile Associa-
tion (NTA) and the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI). The industry groups and
EPA subsequently filed a joint motion requesting an indefinite stay of the
petition to allow for further evaluation of the regulations. During this
time, ATMI proposed a joint effort with EPA in a long-range study to deter-
mine the technical and economic achievability of the BATEA limitations.
In January 1976, EPA awarded a grant to the industry for a 30-month
two-phase engineering and economic study. The first phase was to cover
engineering studies including the design, construction and field operation
of two mobile wastewater treatment units at 19 textile plants representing
6 of 7 industry subcategories established by the Agency. The second phase
was to provide for a broad economic study of the costs and impact of apply-
ing the technologies of the field study to the overall industry.
At EPA's subsequent request, the scope of the investigations under the
grant were generally limited to the field engineering studies. Evaluation
of the economic impact of applying the BATEA guidelines was conducted as a
companion study by the industry. A report on this study will be issued by
the joint industry groups through the American Textile Manufacturers
Institute.
O'Jay Miles
Director of Government Regulations/Regulatory
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ..,...„..,.,.... ,...,....,..,.,,.., ii
Figures ±v
Tables vii
Acknowledgment x
Chapter I Introduction 1
Chapter II Conclusions from the Technical Study 9
Chapter III Pilot Treatment Unit Description 19
Chapter IV Pilot Study Experimental Program 28
Chapter V Test Plant Results 35
Chapter VI Recommended Process Design 91
Chapter VII Cost Estimating 109
Chapter VIII Analytical Quality Assurance Program 118
Appendices
Appendix A Statistical Validity and Application of the Data 131
Appendix B Pilot Study Experimental Program 136
Appendix C Sections from Individual Plant Reports 144
Appendix D Activated Carbon Regeneration Experiments 316
Appendix E Bench Scale Activated Sludge with Activated Carbon
Treatment - Conclusions and Recommendations 324
Appendix F Cost Estimating Procedure Forms 327
Appendix G Glossary of Terms 419
Appendix H Common Unit/Si Unit Conversion Table 425
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Project Organization Chart 8
2 Pilot Unit Flow Diagram 22
3 Mobile Pilot Plant Plan View 22
4 Sketch of Reactor/Clarifier 23
5 Sketch of Multi-Media Filter Unit 24
6 Sketch of Carbon Column Unit , 25
7 Sketch of Ozone Contactors 26
8 DAF Unit 27
9 Experimental Program Time-Phase Diagram 33
10 Sample Locations 34
11 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant A 66
12 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant 0 67
13 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant B 68
14 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant D 68
15 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant P 69
16 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant V 70
17 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant Y 71
18 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant Z 72
19 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant AA 73
20 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant BB 74
-------
Number Page
21 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant DD 75
22 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant T 75
23 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant K 76
24 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant W 77
25 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant Q 78
26 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant E 79
27 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant F 80
28 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant S 81
29 Reduction of Pollutants with AWT Technologies tested at Plant EE 82
30 BOD Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for Recommended
AWT Processes 83
31 COD Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for Recommended
AWT Processes 84
32 TSS Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for Recommended
AWT Processes 85
33 Phenol Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for Recommended
AWT Processes 86
34 Chromium Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for
Recommended AWT Processes 87
35 Sulfide Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for
Recommended AWT Processes 88
36 Color Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for Recommended
AWT Processes 89
37 Oil and Grease Removal Efficiencies and Performance Ratios for
Recommended AWT Processes 90
38 Example of Logic Schematic for Recommended Process Selection 103
39 Conceptual Process Flow Diagram Reactor/Clarifier 104
40 Conceptual Process Flow Diagram Multi-Media Filter 105
-------
Number Page
41 Conceptual Process Flow Diagram Multi -Media Filter with
Precoagulation ............................................... 106
42 Conceptual Process Flow Diagram Carbon Columns ................. 107
43 Conceptual Process Flow Diagram Ozone Generator and Contactor .. 108
44 Reactor/Clarifier Cost Curves .................................. H2
45 Mixed Media Filtration Cost Curves ..................... . ....... 113
46 Carbon Adsorption Cost Curves .................................. H*
47 Carbon Regeneration Cost Curves ................................ 1 1 5
48 Ozone System Cost Curves Ozone Contactor ....................... 116
49 Ozone System Cost Curves Ozone Generation ...................... 117
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available - 1974 ... 2
2 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Discharge Limitations - 1974 3
3 Subcategories within the Textile Industry 5
4 Summary of Pilot Plant Test Results 11
5 Summary of Design Parameters for Candidate AWT Processes 13
6 Analytical Schedule 29
7 Summary of Pilot Plant Test Results 36
8 Summary of Plant Production Characteristics during Testing Period 38
9 Summary of BPT Wastewater Treatment Plant Characteristics during
Testing Period 39
10 BPT Performance Ratios and Removal Efficiencies for BOD, COD
and TSS 40
11 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant A 41
12 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant 0 42
13 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant B 43
14 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant D 44
15 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant P 45
16 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant V 46
vii
-------
Number Page
17 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant Y 47
18 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant Z 48
19 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant AA 49
20 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant BB 50
21 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant DD ' 51
22 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant T 52
23 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant K 53
24 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant W 54
25 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant Q 55
26 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant E , 56
27 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant F 57
28 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant S 58
29 Comparison of Treatment Effectiveness of AWT Technologies tested
at Plant EE 59
30 BATEA Performance Ratios for Recommended AWT Processes by
Parameter 60
31 Compari son of BPT and BATEA Performance 62
32 Reactor/Clarifier Performance and Operating Conditions 93
33 Multi-Media Filter Performance and Operating Conditions 94
viii
-------
Number Page
34 Multi-Media Filtration (following Reactor/Clarifier) Performance
and Operating Conditions 95
35 Multi-Media Filter with Precoagulation Performance and Operating
Conditions 96
36 Granular Carbon Adsorption (following MMF) Performance and
Operating Conditions 97
37 Ozone (following MMF) Performance and Operating Conditions 98
38 Ozone (following Granular Carbon Adsorption) Performance and
Operating Conditions 99
39 AWT Process Effective Operating Condition Summary 100-101
40 Legend for Conceptual Process Flow Diagram 102
41 Summary of Reference Samp! e QA Data 120
42 Summary of Blind Sample QA Data 121
43 Summary of Duplicate Samp!e QA Data 122
44 Summary of Dupl icate Samp! e QA Data - Laboratory C 123
45 Summary of Duplicate Sample QA Data - Laboratory D 124
46 Summary of Dupl icate Sample QA Data - Laboratory E 125
47 Summary of Duplicate Sample QA Data - Laboratory B 126
48 Summary of Duplicate Sample QA Data - Laboratory A 1?7
49 Summary of Support Laboratory QA Performance 128
50 Average Percent Deviation for QA Analyses by Laboratory 130
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Engineering-Science, Inc. (ES) gratefully acknowledges the assistance,
guidance and technical input provided by the many individuals and organiza-
tions which contributed to the ultimate success of this project. In a project
such as this which involves three major textile trade associations, nineteen
textile plant locations and two separate EPA Offices, coordination and manage-
ment is a definite challenge. The staff of all these exhibited a positive
approach and had as their objective only those actions that were in the best_
interests of the overall project. The following individuals and their organi-
zations are those to whom ES particularly wishes to express their sincere
appreciation:
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI)
ATMI Staff
Mr. W. Ray Shockley, Executive Vice-President
Mr. F. Sadler Love, Secretary-Treasurer
Mr. O'Jay Niles, Project Manager and Director-Government Affairs/
Regulatory
ATMI Environmental Preservation Steering Committee
Mr. W. A. Storey, Chairman (Milliken Service Corp.)
Mr. W. A. L. Sibley, Vice-Chairman (J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.)
Mr. F. T. Eslick (American Thread Corp.)
Mr. L. H. Hance (Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.)
Mr. T. A. Alspaugh (Cone Mills Corp.)
Mr. S. H. Griggs (J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.)
Mr. P. H. Klein (Burlington Industries, Inc.)
Mr. F. E. Williams (Springs Mills, Inc.)
Mr. W. L. Roark (Greenwood Mills)
Mr. W. I. (Ike) English (Burlington Industries, Inc.), Retired
Mr. J. D. Lesslie (Springs Mills, Inc.), Retired
-------
ATMI Task Group Members
Mr. T. A. Alspaugh (Cone Mills Corp.)
Mr. R. M. Allen (Milliken Service Corp.)
Mr. S. H. Griggs (J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.)
Mr. M. Bahorsky (Institute of Textile Technology)
Mr. F. T. Eslick (American Thread Corp.)
Mr. R. A. Harden, Jr. (Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.)
Mr. R. Thornberry (American Thread Corp.)
Mr. J. S. Ameen (Burlington Industries, Inc.), Deceased
The Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI)
Mr. C. B. Torrence, Director of Technical Services
Northern Textile Association (NTA)
Mr. W. F. Sullivan, President, Deceased
Mr. K. Spilhaus
Mr. W. B. Ball, Chairman-NTA Environmental Advisory Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Dr. D. A. Denny
Dr. M. Samfield (Project Officer)
Mr. J. Kernan
Mr. J. Fincke
EPA Office for Water and Waste Management
Effluent Guidelines Division
Mr. R. B. Schaffer
Mr. J. Riley
Dr. J. D. Gallup
Mr. J. R. Berlow
The writers also wish to acknowledge the Engineering-Science Principals,
Task Managers, Field Engineers, Field Technicians and Support Services per-
sonnel for their diligent efforts in the conduct of the project.
This activity was supported in part by Grant Number R-804329 from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and by the textile plants which parti-
cipated in the study.
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PROJECT BACKGROUND
On February 5, 1974 notice was given in the FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR
4628) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would propose
point source pollutant discharge guidelines limitations for the textile indus-
try. These limitations would define discharge limits for existing textile
plants and establish standards of performance for new sources involved in
wool scouring, wool finishing, dry processing, woven fabric finishing, knit
fabric finishing, carpet manufacture and stock and yarn dyeing and finishing
activities. On July 5, 1974 EPA published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (Vol. 39 -
No. 130) Effluent Guidelines and Standards for textile industry point source
dischargers. These guidelines required Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT) to be met by July 1, 1977 and Best Available Tech-
nology Economically Achievable (BATEA) to be achieved by July 1, 1983.
Further definitions of and modifications to the guidelines were published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER of August 26, 1974. The BPT and BATEA effluent guide-
line limitations for existing sources are summarized in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively.
On October 1, 1974 the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI)
filed a petition for review of the textile industry BATEA guidelines with
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. ATMI was joined in this action
by the Northern Textile Association (NTA) and the Carpet and Rug Institute
(CRI). The parties involved subsequently filed a joint motion to delay the
petition pending the review of the results of a cooperative study undertaken
to evaluate the technical and economic achievability and impact on the tex-
tile industry of the promulgated BATEA discharge limitations.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the cooperative study was to evaluate the treatment
efficiency of processes identified as Best Available Technology Economic-
ally Achievable by EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division on textile industry
wastewaters. Engineering-Science, Inc. (ES) was selected as the technical
contractor to accomplish this objective. The technical study has now been
completed and the results are presented in this report.
-------
TABLE 1
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE - 1974
(1)
30-Day Average - Ib pollutant/1 OOP lb production^2'
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
SUBCATEGORY
Wool Scouring '^)
Wool Finishing
Dry Processing
Woven Fabric Finishing^48'
Knit Fabric Finishing'*1*'
Carpet Mills(4c'
Stock 4 Yarn Dyeing and
BOD5
5.3
11.2
0.7
3.3
2.5
3.9
3.4
COD
69.0
81.5
1.4
30.0
30.0
35.1
42.3
TSS
16.1
17.6
0.7
8.9
10.9
5.5
8.7
TOTAL CHROM
.05
.07
-_.
.05
.05
.02
.06
Finishing
PHENOLS
.05
.07
.05
.05
.02
.06
SULFIDES
.10
.14
.10
.10
.04
.12
RANGE OF pH FOR ALL SUBCATEGORIES - 6.0 to 9.0
(1) The BPT guidelines were promulgated by EPA on July 5, 1974 and became effective July 1, 1977. Best
practicable treatment implies a level of treatment equivalent to biolcrical activated sludge
(2) Dally maximum not to exceed twice the 30-day average.
(3) Oil and grease limitation for Wool Scouring subcategory 1s 3.6 Ib./lOO lb. production
(4) Additional COD limitation allowed for:
a. Woven Fabric Finishing through --
(1) Simple process with synthetic fiber or
complex process with natural fiber
(2) Simple process with natural/synthetic blend or
Complex process with synthetic fiber
(3) Complex process with natural/synthetic blend
b. Knit Fabric Finishing through --
(1) Simple process with natural/synthetic blend or
Complex process with systhetic fiber
S2) Complex process n't1- natural/synthetic blend
c. Carpet Hills through --
(1) Complex manu*actj'in^ process
10 Ib/lOOC lb
20 Ib/lOOC lb
30 Ib/lOOC lb
10 lb/1000 lb
20 lb/1000 lb
10 lb/1000 lb
-------
TABLE 2
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS ~ 1974^ ^
SUBCATEGORY
BOD5
2.4
4.6
0.2
2.2
1.7
2.0
2.3
COD
18.0
27.1
0.4
10.0
10.0
11.7
14.1
30-Day
TSS
2.0
2.5
0.2
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.9
Average - Ib pollutant/1000 Ib production*2'
TOTAL CHROME
.05
.07
...
.05
.05
.02
.06
PHENOLS
.05
.07
—
.05
.05
.02
.06
SULFIDES
.10
.14
...
.10
.10
.04
.12
f 1\
COLOR* 3|
600
600
...
300
300
225
300
A. Wool Scouring(l)
B Wool Finishing
C. Dry Processing
D. Woven Fabric Finishing*53'
E. Knit Fabric Finishing *5b)
F. Carpet Mills'5c)
G. Stock & Yarn Dyeing & Finishing
RANGE OF pH FOR ALL SUBCATEGORIES - 6.0 to 9.0 FECAL COLIFORM FOR ALL StlBCATEIORIES - MPN NOT TO EXCEED 400 COUNTS PER 100 ml
(1) The BATEA guidelines were promoulgated by EPA on July 5, 1974 and are scheduled to become effective on July 1, 1983. Best available
technology economically achievable implies a level of treatment equivalent to biological activated sludge followed by advanced waste treatment.
(2) Daily maximum not to exceed twice the 30-day average.
(3) Maximum color limitation as measured by ADMI method.
(4) For Wool Scouring - Oil and grease limitation « 1 lb/1000 Ib production.
(5) Additional COD limitations allowed for:
*•Woven Fabric Finishing through —
(1) Simple process with synthetic fiber or
Complex process with natural fiber 3.3 lb/1000 Ib
(2) Simple process with natural/synthetic blend or
Complex process with synthetic fiber 5 7 lb/1000 Ib
(3) Complex process with natural/synthetic blend lo.O lb/1000 Ib
b. Knit Fabric Finishing through —
(1) Simple process with natural/synthetic blend or
Complex process with synthetic fiber 3.3 lb/1000'lb
(2) Complex process with natural/synthetic blend 5.7 lb/1000 Ib
c. Carpet Mills through —
(1) Complex manufacturing process 3.3 lb/1000 Ib
-------
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Project organization was structured such that ATMI, NTA and CRI were
represented by the ATMI Environmental Preservation Committee.
Dr. Max Samfield was assigned to represent the EPA as Project Officer.
Mr. O'Jay Niles, Project Manager, was responsible for the conduct of the
study and reported to the Environmental Preservation Committee and the EPA
Project Officer. The technical consultant was responsible for experimental
operations and reporting and reported to the Project Manager. Several task
groups were formed to provide technical guidance for the consultant. A
project organization chart is presented in Figure 1.
TECHNICAL STUDY
The technical phase of this study consisted of defining the Advanced
Waste Treatment (AWT) processes to be tested, designing and constructing
pilot units, surveying and selecting textile plants for pilot plant study,
performing pilot plant studies, evaluating pilot plant data and preparing
conceptual BATEA olant designs, develop!ng key aspects of the cost func-
tions for estimating BATEA costs and preparing project reports.
Selection of Representative Textile Plants
To insure the success of the study and validity of results, it was
necessary to select a group of plants that would be representative of the
textile dyeing and finishing industry. The EPA groups textile plants into
subcategories according to types of production activity. Table 3 shows the
EPA's subcategory designations as well as the type of production associated
with each. Also given are the number of plants where AWT experimentation
was done. The following criteria were used to select the participating
plants:
a. The textile mills must have operating secondary wastewater
treatment facilities.
b. The effluent from the existing wastewater treatment faci-
lities must be generally within NPDES permit levels.
c. The wastewater treatment effluent must normally be dis-
charged directly to a natural water course.
d. The textile manufacturing company must be willing to
participate i;n the study (financially and otherwise).
e. The textile mill must be located such that it was compat-
ible with location and other constraints of the study
activities.
The selections were made from a group of candidate plants identified by ATMI,
These plants were coded to maintain confidentiality of production data and
other site specific information.
-------
TABLE 3
SUBCATE60RIES WITHIN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY
v(D
EPA DESIGNATION
SUBCATEGORY I (A)
SUBCATEGORY II (B)
PRODUCTION ACTIVITY
Wool Scouring
Wool Finishing
SUBCATEGORY III (C) Dry Processing
SUBCATEGORY IV (D) Woven Fabric Finishing
SUBCATEGORY V (E)
SUBCATEGORY VI (F)
Knit Fabric Finishing
Carpet Mills
NUMBER OF PLANTS
IN SUBCATEGORY
INCLUDED IN
PILOT PLANT STUDY
1
2
0
10
3
1
2
NUMBER OF PLANTS
IN SUBCATEGORY
(EPA MASTER LIST)
17
37
612
336
282
58
217
(2)
SUBCATEGORY VII (G) Stock and Yarn Dyeing and
Finishing
(1) Subcategories as defined by EPA on July 5, 1974.
(2) Derived from information contained in "Technical Study Report, BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS; Textile
Mills, Point Source Category", prepared for the U.S. EPA, Contract Nos. 68-01-3289 and
68-01-3884, November, 1978.
-------
AWT Pilot Survey of Selected Textile Mills
Engineering-Science designed and constructed two mobile pilot units.
The experimental equipment was built into 40-ft. trailers to facilitate
relocation from one textile plant to another. The trailers contained all
equipment necessary to test the following AWT processes on a pilot scale.
Chemical Coagulation/Clarification
Multi-Media Filtration (with and without pre-fliter
coagulant addition)
Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Ozonation
These AWT processes could be tested individually or in combination with each
other. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) was also tested with bench-scale
equipment. More specific information on the pilot plant units and the exper-
imental testing are contained in Chapters IV and V of this report.
The pilot plants visited a total of 19 textile mills between May, 1977
and September, 1978. Experimentation was done to first screen potential
treatment processes, and then to collect sufficient continuous operation
data on candidate processes for the development of preliminary design cri-
teria. A report presenting experimental results was written and issued for
each of the 19 textile plants visited. Key portions of these plant reports
are presented in Appendix C of this report. The experimental results of the
study are summarized in Chapters V and VI.
Analytical Quality Assurance Program
The pilot units were equipped with apparatus to perform certain analyses
basic to operational control. The bulk of the analyses, however, was con-
ducted at five independent laboratories under contract to ATMI.
To assure the quality of the analytical data generated from this study,
a Quality Assurance (QA) program was organized and administered by ES during
the course of this study. Methods employed to determine accuracy of labor-
atory results include duplicate samples, split samples, spiked samples and
reference samples. The five support laboratories as well as the ES Atlanta
laboratory were involved in the QA program. QA results were presented in
quarterly reports during the course of the study and corrective measures
were taken when required.
Carbon Regeneration Experiments
Bench-scale regeneration experiments were conducted on samples of
exhausted granular activated carbon from carbon contact experimentation at
12 of the textile plants visited. These tests were performed by Westvaco
Corporation Chemical Division of Covington, Virginia. The results of these
-------
experiments are given in Appendix D of this report.
Powdered Activated Carbon in Activated Sludge Experiments
The powdered activated carbon in activated sludge (PAC) process was tes-
ted with ten textile plant wastewaters during the course of this study.
Bench-scale bioreactors were operated in the ES Atlanta laboratory utilizing
raw influent provided by the textile mills. The objective of this portion
of the study was to evaluate the potential of meeting BATEA effluent limi-
tations by converting existing secondary biological processes into PAC pro-
cesses. The results of this phase of study were presented in a report
issued in May, 1978. Conclusions and observations from the bench-scale PAC
experiments are included as Appendix E of this report.
The initial bench-scale PAC studies indicated that this technology
appeared to be a feasible AWT process alternative for achieving the BATEA
guideline limitations. Therefore, additional pilot plant testing was recom-
mended at Subcategory IV and V plants.
-------
FIGURE 1. PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART
N.T.A.
A.T.M.I.
C.R.I
A.T.M.I.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
A.T.M.I.
TASK
GROUPS
TRANSPORTATION
PLANT SELECTION
LABORATORY
SELECTION
OPERATIONS
PRODUCTION
CORRELATION
E.P.A. PROJECT OFFICER
A.T.M.I.
PROJECT MANAGER
TECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
(ENGINEERING-
SCIENCE, INC.)
PROJECT ENGINEERS
FIELD ENGINEERS
AND TECHNICIANS
-------
CHAPTER II
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TECHNICAL STUDY
The objective of this study was to conduct pilot-scale testing of the
selected AWT technologies (coagulation/clarification, multi-media filtration,
granular carbon adsorption and ozonation) to treat BPT effluents at textile
plants selected from the various manufacturing subcategories within the
industry. Based on data obtained from field experimentation, the treatment
effectiveness of the yajnous_AWT technologies was determined for achieving
the July 5, 1974 BATEA guideline values. (All references in this report to
BPT and BATEA guideline values are those published in 1974.)
The pilot plant tests have been completed at the 19 textile plants
selected to participate in the study. The data has been summarized and
evaluated in this report. It is noteworthy that this is the most extensive
study conducted to date on advanced waste treatment of textile mill waste-
waters. It was not possible, however, to thoroughly evaluate all factors
that influence textile wastewater treatment; especially basic changes in pro-
duction techniques, fibers processed, and severe wintertime conditions. The
following conclusions and observations were developed based on the results
of this study.
1. Of the 19 plants tested, ten (53 percent) could meet the BATEA
guideline values with one or more of the AWT process technologies.
Nine of the plants (47 percent) failed to meet the BATEA guideline
values with any combination of AWT process technologies evaluated.
The ability of the AWT processes to achieve the BATEA guidelines
was judged based on statistically predicted 30-day average and
maximum day effluent concentrations. The predicted 30-day average
values ranged from 1.0 to 2.3 times the average measured AWT efflu-
ent concentration with the mean being 1.2. The predicted maximum
day values ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 times the average measured AWT
effluent concentration withjthe.mean being 1.3.
2. Of the test plants selected as having typical secondary treatment
facilities generally achieving their NPDES permit values, eight
(42 percent) failed at the time of pilot plant operations to
achieve the BPT guideline values when related to actual short-term
production figures. The secondary treatment facilities at the
plant sites selected generally appeared to be designed and operated
at a performance level consistent with BPT technology. Relation-
ships between achievement of BPT and BATEA guideline values during
pilot experimentation among the 19 plants visited were distributed
in the following way:
-------
Of the 19 plants visited, 11 were able to achieve the BPT efflu-
ent guidelines with the existing secondary facilities. Of these
plants, seven were able to meet BATEA limits with AWT, and four
were not able to meet BATEA limits with AWT.
Of the 19 plants visited, eight were not able to achieve the BPT
effluent guidelines with the existing secondary facilities. Of
these plants, three were able to meet BATEA limits with AWT and
five were not able to meet BATEA limits with AWT.
3. The treatment effectiveness of the AWT process technologies applied
to secondary effluents of the 19 selected textile plants partici-
pating in the pilot plant study is summarized in Table 4 and dis-
cussed by subcategory below.
Subcategory I (Wool Scouring) - Of the four candidate AWT pro-
cess systems tested at the one selected site, additional clari-
fication followed by multi-media filtration followed by granular
carbon adsorption was the recommended AWT treatment system that
successfully achieved the currently promulgated BATEA guideline
values.
Subcategory II (Wool Finishing) - Of the six candidate
AWT process systems tested at the two selected sites, both
coagulation/clarification followed by multi-media filtration
(where BPT TSS values were high) and multi-media filtration
followed by granular carbon adsorption (where BPT TSS values
were low) were selected as the recommended AWT treatment sys-
tems. At the site where coagulation/clarification followed by
filtration was the recommended process, all BATEA limits were
achieved. At the site where filtration followed by activated
carbon was selected, all BATEA limits except sulfide were
achieved.
Subcategory III (Dry Processing) - No sites were tested in this
subcategory because of the low level of pollutants discharged
from dry processing.
Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) - Of the candidate AWT
process systems tested at the ten selected sites, multi-media
filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption or a process
system including multi-media filtration and granular carbon
adsorption was the recommended AWT treatment system for a maj-
ority of the plants tested (seven out of ten). The BPT guide-
lines were being achieved at six of the ten Subcategory IV plants,
The 1974 BATEA guidelines were achieved with these AWT technolo-
gies at three of the plants tested. Seven of the plants could
not meet the guidelines using these technologies.
Subcategory V (Knit Fabric Finishing) - Of the six candidate
AWT process systems tested at the three selected plants, multi-
media filtration or multi-media filtration followed by granular
10
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF PILOT PLANT TEST RESULTS
SUB-
CATE-
60RY
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
PUNT
A
0
B
0
P
V
Y
Z
M
BB
DO
T
K
tf
0
E
F
S
EE
BPT"
GUIDELINES
MET
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
*ES
If)
YES
NOT MET
SUL
TSS
COD
600
AWT PROCESSES
1
we
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
MMF
•
•
®
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
®
3
MMF
W/PRECOAG.
•
•
®
®
•
•
4
R/C
KMF
e
SB
a
a
9
U
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
8
11
6*
S
m
s
MMF
+
°3
•
N 0
•
•
•
5A
KMF
VPRECOAS.
*
°3
SITE
•
•
!*: i
R/C :
*'••-.•":
7
R/C
KMF
°3
•
T E S
8
KMF
CC
®
TED
•
•
(•>
®
®
•
®
•
•
®
®
•
•
•
8A
MMF
W/PRECOAG.
CC
•
®
9
R/C
KMF
CC
®
•
®
•
10
MMF
CC
°3
®
£!
S&
rWT
1
BATEA*
TREATMENT
OBJECTIVES
1
5
2
3
4
S
2
6
6
3
1
1
8
7
5
5
3
5
8
ABILITY TO
ACHIEVE
BATEAU/
RECOMMENDED
PROCESS .
(EXCEPTIONS) f
YES
NO (SUL)
YES (BOD/1)
NO (BOO, COD. COLOR)
YES (TSS/3)
NO (COO. TSS)
YES
NO (COD)
MO fcnn)
NO (TSS, COO)
NO (TSS)
NO (COD, TSS)
YES
YES (TSS/1)
YES
YES
YES
NO (COO. TSS)
YES
LEGEND:
» AWT PROCESS TESTED
O RECOHMENDED PROCESS FROM ATMI STUDY
O RECOMMENDED PROCESS FROM EPA GUIDELINES ISSUED IN 1974
R'C - REACTOR/CLARIFIER
MMF - MULTI-MEDIA FILTER
MMF H/PRECOAG - MULTI-MEDIA FILTER WITH PRECOAGULATION
03 - OZONE
CC - CARBON
'• TSS, COD 5. BOD. COO, TSS
2. BOO, COD, TSS, CHR. & COLOR 6. BOO, COO, TSS, COLOR
3. COD, TSS, COLOR 7. BOD, TSS
4- TSS 8. ALL PARAMETERS MET
t (EXCEPTION PARAMETER/mg/1 OVER BATEA VALUE)
+t BASED ON DURATION OF PILOT PLANT OPERATIONS. BOTH
TEXTILE DATA AND SUPPORT LAB DATA CONSIDERED.
-------
carbon adsorption was the recommended AWT treatment system that
successfully achieved the BATEA guideline values.
Subcategory VI (Carpet Mills) - Of the three candidate AWT pro-
cess systems tested at the one selected plant, coagulation/
clarification followed by multi-media filtration was the recom-
mended AWT treatment system that successfully achieved the BATEA
guideline values.
Subcategory VII (Stock and Yarn Dyeing) - Of the five candidate
AWT process systems tested at the two selected plants, multi-
media filtration (where the BPT TSS and COD were low) or coagu-
lation/clarification followed by multi-media filtration was the
recommended AWT treatment system. However, the BATEA guideline
values could not be achieved with these AWT technologies at one
of the two plants tested.
4. The treatment effectiveness of the individual AWT processes is dis-
cussed in the following subsections. The process design parameters
for the candidate AWT processes tested are summarized in Table 5.
Coagulation/clarification was a candidate process in Subcategor-
ies II, V, VI and VII plants and demonstrated reasonable treat-
ment effectiveness for reduction of most of the parameters
measured. However, coagulation/clarification was not a feasible
process in Subcategories I and IV plants due to the inability
to identify an effective coagulant or very high coagulant
dosage requirements.
Multi-media filtration performed well in most cases for TSS
removal. If the TSS value of the BPT effluent was approxi-
mately 100 mg/1 or less, then multi-media filtration was effect-
ive as an initial process for TSS reduction. Multi-media
filtration was also an effective process for reducing TSS after
coagulation/clarification.
Granular carbon adsorption performed well when compared to
other AWT processes for organic and color removal in Sub-
categories I, II, IV, V and VI. However, granular carbon
adsorption was not effective in achieving the BATEA guideline
values at one of the two Subcategory VII plants, nor at six of
the ten Subcategory IV plants. In some cases, it was observed
that a portion of the organic removal occurred from physical
filtering rather than an adsorption mechanism. In certain
instances, soluble organics were re-introduced into the waste
stream as a result of desorption.
Ozonation did achieve color reduction below the BATEA guideline
values at selected sites, but did not reduce COD below the
BATEA limits.
12
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
CANDIDATE AWT PROCESSES ^
)
SUBCATEGORT
AWT PROCESS
Coagulation/
Clarification
Multi-Media
Filtration (BPT)
Hultl -Media
Filtration (after
coagulation/
clarification
Malti -Media
Filtration with
Precoagulation
•
Granular Carbon
Adsorption
Ozonation
PARAMETER
Overflow Rate, gpd/ft2
Coagulant(-)
Coagulant Dosage, iug/1
Underflow Rate, 3!
Sites tested in Subcategory
Surface Loading, gpm/ft
Sites tested in Subcategory
Surface Loading, gpm/ft
Sites tested in Subcategory
Surface loading, gpm/ft
Coagulant'''
Coagulant Dosage, ing/1
Sites tested in Subcategory
Carbon Capacity,
Ib COD-/lb Carbon
Contact Time, min.
Sites tested in Subcategory
Contact Time, min.
Ib COD, removed per Ib 0,
utilized J
Sites tested in Subcategory
I
400
-
10
1 of 1
(3)
0 of 1
2
1 of 1
(3)
0 of 1
0.155
45
1 of 1
45
0.304
1 of 1
ii
400
Alum
21
10
Z of 2
3
1 of 2
4.2
Z of 2
(3)
0 of 2
0.230
45
2 of 2
33
0.327
1 of 2
IV
(3)
(3)
(3)
24
2 Of 10
4
7 of 10
2.3
2 of 10
2.5
Alum
8
4 of 10
0.110
45
10 of 10
25
0.500
4 of 10
V
4DO
Alum
20
3
2 of 3
4
3 of 3
4
2 of 3
2.5
Alum
1
2-of 3
0.250
45
3 of 3
45
0.142
1 of 3
VI
400
C.P.
35
8
1 of 1
(3)
0 of 1
5
1 of 1
(3)
0 of 1
0.300
45
1 of 1
(3)
0 of 1.
VII
400
Alum
25
3
2 of 2
6
2 of 2
4
2 of 2
(3)
0 of 2
0.160
45
2 of 2
45
0.367
-
1 of 2
(1) The operating oarameters presented here were derived from Subcategory averages used during continuous candidate
experimentation. All technologies were screened at each nlant but ineffective ones v rt not tested on a continuous
basis. +3
(21 C.P - Cationir Pi 'ymer; Alun- expressed as mg Al /I
!3> Process did not dr-""r.trate a>\v reasonable treatmpnt.
-------
The feasibility of the powdered activated carbon in activated sludge
process (PAC) was evaluated on wastewaters from each of the sub-
categories on laboratory scale. Based on favorable results of the
laboratory scale testing, pilot testing was recommended for Sub-
categories IV and V plants.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) was not found to be as effective a
method for TSS reduction as the coagulation/clarification process.
Only at two sites did the coagulation/DAF batch experiments indi-
cate results comparable to those from continuous operation of pilot-
scale coagulation/clarification.
In general, phenol, chromium and sulfide were not a treatment pro-
blem because secondary effluent levels were low. Only one plant
could not meet the BATEA limitation for sulfide; all plants met the
limits for phenol and chromium with the application of AWT. For 18
of the 19 plants visited, secondary effluents were below the BATEA
limits (unchanged from the BPT guideline limitations) for these
parameters. The currently promulgated BATEA guideline values for
BOD5 and color can be achieved in the majority of cases with the
addition of AWT technology (17 out of the 19 sites in the study
achieved the guidelines for these parameters with the application
of AWT).
The BATEA guideline values for COD can be achieved with AWT tech-
nology in most Subcategory I (Wool Scouring), II (Wool Finishing),
V (Knit Finishing) and VI (Carpet Mills) plants. Of the ten plants
visited in Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing), four met the
BATEA COD limitation with the application of AWT. If the COD guide-
line value in Subcategory IV were increased by 38 percent then all
but two of the ten study plants could have achieved the COD guide-
line value. Of the two plants visited in Subcategory VII (Stock
and Yarn Dyeing), one met the BATEA COD limitation with the appli-
cation of AWT. If the COD guideline value in Subcategory VII were
increased by 25 percent then both study plants could have met the
COD guideline value.
The currently promulgated BATEA guideline values for TSS can be
achieved with AWT technology in most Subcategory I (Wool Scouring),
II (Wool Finishing), V (Knit Finishing) and VI (Carpet Mills) plants.
Of the ten plants visited in Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finish-
ing), five met the BATEA TSS limitation with the application of AWT.
If the TSS guideline value in Subcategory IV were increased 37 per-
cent then all but two of the ten study plants could have achieved
the TSS guidelines value. Of the two plants visited in Subcategory
VII (Stock and Yarn Dyeing), one met the BATEA TSS limitation with
the application of AWT. If the TSS guideline value for Subcategory
VII were increased 78 percent then both plants could achieve the
BATEA guideline value.
14
-------
Nineteen textile plants were selected for this study. Ten plants
were selected from Subcategory IV, three from Subcategory V, two
each from Subcategories II and VII, and one each from Subcategories
I and VI. No plants were selected from Subcategory III (Dry Pro-
cessing). The proportions were based on the number of mills in the
industry within each Subcategory and the process complexity of the
Subcategory. More plants were selected from Subcategory IV because
this subcategory exhibits the highest degree of variability from
plant to plant in production processes, dyes, finishes and fibers,
and represents the largest single segment of the industry.
Two textile mills visited during the study (Plant K; Subcategory IV
and Plant EE; Subcategory VII) were found, after pilot plant arri-
val, to be engaged in production practices that were atypical of
their respective Subcategories. It is believed that these pro-
duction practices affected the raw wastewater stream and thus
wastewater treatment at these plants.
The following observations concern the individual plants visited
during the course of the study:
SUBCATEGORY I (Wool Scouring)
Plant A - No effective coagulant was found for use with the
reactor/clarifier or as a prefilter aid. The clarifier was
operated without coagulant and provided some TSS removal. The
recommended AWT process was additional clarification followed
by filtration followed by granular activated carbon.
SUBCATEGORY II (Wool Finishing)
Plant 0 - The selected AWT process train was multi-media fil-
tration followed by granular activated carbon. This was the
only textile mill visited where AWT processes were unable to
reduce sulfide below BPT and BATEA limits.
Plant B - A large percentage of the wool used for production
at Plant B comes from recycled woollen goods. Coagulation/
clarification followed by multi-media filtration was the recom-
mended AWT process. Even though lime was added along with alum
to help reduce sludge volume, an underflow rate of 25 percent
of the treated flow was required to control the sludge blanket.
SUBCATEGORY IV (Woven Fabric Finishing)
Plant D - Multi-media filtration followed by granular activated
carbon followed by ozonation was the recommended AWT process.
This was one of the few plants where the BATEA color guideline
values could not be achieved. Ozonation was used to reduce
color to a level that was close to the limit. This process had
the negative effect of increasing the secondary effluent
15
-------
(below the BATEA limit before AWT) to a concentration above
the guideline value.
Plant P - The secondary treatment facility at Plant P was
achieving all BATEA guideline limits except TSS. Multi-media
filtration alone was selected as the AWT treatment process.
The projected 30-day average effluent (90th percentile value)
exceeded the BATEA TSS limit by 3 mg/1 or 0.3 kg/kkg.
Plant V - The secondary effluent at Plant V,during pilot plant
operations was highly variable. High effluetit TSS concentra-
tions made operation of the reactor/clarifier and multi-media
filter very difficult. The recommendation was made to take
steps to improve secondary plant operations. Coagulation/
clarification followed by multi-media filtration followed by
granular activated carbon is projected as the AWT technology
once the secondary TSS fluctuations can be controlled.
Plant Y - The BATEA effluent guideline limitations were
achieved with application of multi-media filtration followed
by granular activated carbon.
Plant Z - The recommended AWT process was multi-media filtra-
tion followed by granular activated carbon, even though granu-
lar carbon adsorption was not a very effective technology at
this plant. The phenomena of organic desorption/displacement
was observed. The selected AWT process was unable to achieve
the BATEA COD limitation.
Plant AA - During pilot operations at Plant AA there was a
rather drastic change in secondary plant effluent. The occur-
rence was marked by a change in wastewater color and an
immediate color and COD breakthrough across the pilot plant
carbon columns. It was determined that this occurrence was a
result of the processing of overdyed and reworked fabrics
within the textile mill. This is a regular occurrence and must
be accounted for in wastewater treatment operations. The
recommended AWT process was multi-media filtration with pre-
fliter coagulation followed by granular activated carbon ad-
sorption.
Plant BB - Plant BB production is classified at 100 percent
"commission finishing". This was the only textile mill visited
during this study with this status. The coagulant demand for
coagulation/clarification was excessively high and a 40 percent
underflow (based on the treated flow rate) was required to
operate the reactor clarifier. The selected AWT process was
multi-media filtration followed by granular activated carbon.
Plant DD - The two candidate processes at Plant DD were multi-
media filtration with pre-coagulation and multi-media filtra-
16
-------
tion followed by granular activated carbon. Multi-media filtra-
tion with pre-coagulation was selected as the AWT process based
on an economic comparison.
Plant T - Multi-media filtration followed by granular acti-
vated carbon adsorption was the recommended AWT treatment
process. The BATEA limitations for COD and TSS were not
achieved but the selected technology was superior to the others
tested from a treatment effectiveness point of view.
Plant K - The secondary effluent was exceptionally low in the
measured pollutants. Only minimal reduction in color was
required to achieve BATEA effluent limits. It is believed that
the main reason for this is that no desizing waste was being
treated. Also, a major portion of the yarn used was dyed else-
where. These factors tend to make Plant K production atypical
of Subcategory IV. Multi-media filtration with pre-coagulation
was the recommended AWT process.
SUBCATEGORY V (Knit Fabric Finishing)
Plant W - Plant W was notable in that the secondary wastewater
treatment plant effluent was below the BATEA guideline limi-
tation for COD but not for BOD5 and TSS. Multi-media filtra-
tion was the recommended AWT process. The projected 30-day
average effluent achieved all BATEA limits except TSS (by
1 mg/1 or 0.15 kg/kkg).
Plant Q - Multi-media filtration followed by granular activated
carbon was the recommended AWT process for Plant Q. This tech-
nology achieved all BATEA limits.
Plant E - The secondary treatment plant effluent was success-
fully treated to within BATEA limitations with multi-media
filtration followed by granular activated carbon adsorption.
SUBCATEGORY VI (Carpet Mills)
Plant F - The AWT technology recommended for Plant F was
coagulation/clarification followed by multi-media filtration.
This process was successful in achieving all BATEA limits. The
coagulant combination found to be most effective was 35 mg/1
cationic polymer and 1 mg/1 anionic polymer.
SUBCATEGORY VII (Stock & Yarn Dyeing and Finishing)
Plant S - Coagulation/clarification followed by multi-media
filtration was the recommended AWT process at Plant S. Based
on candidate period data it was noted that the recommended pro-
cess provided equivalent treatment to multi-media filtration
followed by granular activated carbon except for TSS removal.
17
-------
It was observed that the granular activated carbon beds were
acting as a secondary filter and not effectively adsorbing
soluble organics. The recommendation was made (based on isola-
ted portions of the screening data) that operating conditions
other than those used during candidate experimentation should
provide more effective treatment with the coagulation/clarifi-
cation/filtration process. These recommendations involve a
lower clarifier overflow rate and increased coagulant dosage.
Plant EE - The secondary wastewater treatment facility effluent
was within all BATEA limits during the period of pilot plant
operations. It should be noted that the production processes
employed produced a significantly less contaminated waste
stream than many other Subcategory VII plants. The mill was
involved in bleaching operations and no dyeing was being done
at the time of pilot experimentation. A multi-media filter was
recommended as an AWT process to account for certain seasonal
increases in effluent TSS and COD. ;
7. Based on the results of the Analytical Quality Assurance Program
(QA) it was observed that relative percent errors in the range of
31 percent for BODs (+ 6 mg/1 at 20 mg/1), 20 percent for COD
(1 40 mg/1 at 200 mg/1), 32 percent for TSS (± 6 mg/1 at 20 mg/1),
27 percent for chromium (t 0.14 mg/1 at 0.5 mg/1), 43 percent for
phenol (± 0.22 mg/1 at 0.5 mg/1), and 68 percent for sulfide
(+ 0.68 mg/1 at 1 mg/1) should be expected when measuring pol-
lutants and pollutant properties at the low levels required by the
BATEA guidelines.
The results of the QA program indicated sufficient analytical qual-
ity to insure general validity of the data generated during this
study.
The procedures used during the QA program were reviewed and
approved by the Process Measurement Branches of IERL - Research
Triangle Park,NC and IERL - Cincinnati, OH prior to initiation
of program activities.
18
-------
CHAPTER III
PILOT TREATMENT UNIT DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Two identical mobile treatment units were constructed in order to evalu-
ate selected advanced wastewater techniques as applied to textile waste-
waters. The treatment techniques selected for evaluation included those
technologies identified in the EPA textile guidelines proposed in July 1974,
and others jointly selected by representatives of the textile industry and
EPA. Those technologies include chemical coagulation/clarification, multi-
media filtration, carbon adsorption, ozonation and dissolved air flotation
(DAF). The piping was arranged to allow a high degree of flexibility in
selecting the sequence of unit operations. The specific sequences of unit
operations are discussed in Chapter IV.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The mobile pilot plant equipment was housed in an 8-ft. X 40-ft. alu-
minium-walled trailer. The rear section of the trailer contained the major
portion of the treatment equipment, with the front section housing the ana-
lytical equipment, the ozonation reactors and the ozone generator. For
details of piping and equipment layout see Figures 2 and 3. The equipment
used in support of the unit operations is described in the following sub-
sections.
Reactor/Clarifier
The clarifier was a steel-walled circular vessel with a conical-shaped
bottom. The clarifier was seven feet in diameter and had a side wall depth
of 6.5 feet. The effective volume of the tank was 1,650 gallons with a sur-
face area of 38.5 square feet. In addition to the clarifier unit, there were
four polyethylene tanks used for storage and/or mixing of chemical agents
employed in the coagulation/clarification process and other ancillary equip-
ment including pumps and agitators. Sludge accumulated in the conical bot-
tom of the clarifier was withdrawn through a timer-hydraulic arrangement.
The frequency and duration of withdrawal was adjusted to take into account
varying sludge densities and accumulation rates. The wasted sludge was
collected in a sludge holding tank outside the trailer for observation and
sampling prior to disposal. A sketch of the reactor/clarifier unit is shown
in Figure 4.
19
-------
Multi-Media Filters
There were two identical multi-media filters in each trailer. The fil-
ters were 63 inches in height with a diameter of 14 inches and one square
foot of surface area. The filters contained 3 media: anthracite coal, sand
and gravel. There were 12 inches of anthracite, 12 inches of sand and 16
inches of gravel in each filter. A sketch of the filter unit is presented
in Figure 5. The filters were operated in a downflow mode. The filters
were backwashed with water from a tank which was also used to backwash the
carbon columns. This backwash tank had an effective working storage of.
350 gallons. Each filter was also equipped for surface washing.
Carbon Columns
There were three identical carbon columns in each trailer. The carbon
columns had an overall height of 7.75 feet and an inside diameter of 7.5
inches. The carbon columns and flanges were constructed of Schedule 80 PVC.
Each carbon column contained 40 pounds of either Westvaco or ICI carbon
depending on the results of isotherm testing. Sufficient volume was allowed
for expansion of the carbon bed during backwash!ng. The carbon columns were
operated in a series, downflow mode. There were provisions for sampling
between the carbon columns. The carbon columns were also equipped for back-
washing. A sketch of a carbon column unit is presented in Figure 6.
Ozonation
The ozonation unit consisted of three pieces of equipment, the ozone
generator and two ozone contactors. The ozone generator was manufactured
by PCI Ozone Corporation (Model C2P-30). The capacity of the ozone gener-
ator was 6 grams per hour from oxygen. Each trailer had one large and one
small ozone contactor. The large ozone contactor was a Schedule 80 PVC
column 77 inches high and 11.625 inches inside diameter. The fluid dimen-
sions of the small column at overflow were 67 inches high and 3 inches dia-
meter with a capacity of 2.05 gallons (9.0 liters). The diffusers in the
bottom of the ozone contactors were 70 mesh stainless steel screens. The
contactors were operated in either a batch or a continuous (flow-through)
mode. ' The off-gases were sampled to determine concentration of ozone and
therefore, permit calculations of ozone utilization. A sketch of the ozone
contactor units is presented in Figure 7.
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) was only screened in the trailers, as it
could only be operated in a very limited scale, batch mode. A sketch of the
DAF unit is presented in Figure 8.
Analytical Equipment
Analytical equipment in each trailer included a Photovolt Model 185 pH
meter, a Coleman Model 295 spectrophotometer and an Ionics Model 1254 Total
Carbon (TC) analyzer. Each of these instruments was used daily to provide
20
-------
information to make operational decisions and adjustments.
Ancillary Equipment
In addition to all other such equipment used directly with the pilot
equipment, there was also complete jar testing equipment including a Phipps
and Bird gang stirrer, glassware, reagents, flocculants, refrigerator, auto-
matic composite samplers, wet sink, etc. The jar testing equipment was used
in developing precise dosages of coagulants used in selected operational
modes.
21
-------
FIGURE 2
PILOT UNIT FLOW DIAGRAM
Rapid Mix Tank
•PT
OFF-AM
OZONE
Legend: M.H. - Multi-Media
C.C. Carbon Column
FIGURE 3
MOBILE PILOT PLANT PLAN VIEW
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
Rapid Mix Tank —'
Holding Tank & Pump
Coagulant Tanks
Transformer
TOC Analyzer
Ozone Generator
Lime Slurry Tank
Holding Tank &
"\
Heater t AC
Not to Scale
22
-------
FIGURE 4
SKETCH OF REACTOR/CLARIFIER
6.5'
J EFFLUENT
23
-------
FIGURE 5
SKETCH OF MULTI-MEDIA FILTER UNIT
INFLUENT
SURFACE WASH
SIGHT GLASS
""it
PRESSURE
INDICATOR
t
12"
en
10
12"
16"
1
( PORT J
ANTHRACITE COAL
0.9 - 1.5 ran
SAND • '
0.4 - 0.8 HIT
©•.
•""'.
'•:. ",S
fe'»i •'/•.',•.•' >:^5'-.'.''i{V-. : - V'-^i
•
/.• V GRAVEL
.V/4" x 5/8" .
I BACKWASH DRAIN
Y
,STEEL COLUMN
BACKWASH
j—IXh
T
HX] - CFaUENT
AIR SCOUR
DRAIN
24
-------
FIGURE 6
SKETCH OF CARBON COLUMN UNIT
INFLUENT
-CXh
GRAB SAMPLE
PORT
CARBON DRAINB— ^::-'
AIR SCOUR[
BACKWASH
CARBON:
81.5"'
HXI—-i
DRAIN
,SCHEDULE 80 PVC
EFFLUENT
25
-------
FIGURE 7
SKETCH OF OZONE CONTACTORS
TO KI SOLUTION
TO ROOF
9 L
TOTAL
—-3"
S.S.
SCREENS
i
INS
OZONE
HEDUl
C
ce
UJ
I
i\
-ACCI
E 40 0
f
110 L
LIQUID
63
—11.625" -
S.S.
SCREEN _
SPARGER/
•
mmmma^
5"
if I
ESS PORT
•TO KI SOLUTION
r,
INFLUENT
SIPHON BREAKER
SCHEDULE
80 PVC
^
i—- EFFLUEMT
frvv-I _ rtnjttu
Y
26
-------
FIGURE 8
DAF UNIT
10" x 10" SQ.
PRESSURE
RELIEF
VALVE (N.I.S.)
WING
NUTS (4)
COPPER
TUBING
-5/8" O.D.
PLAN
IV
.- PRESSURE GAUGE
\ (0-100 psi)
SECTION "A-A"
4" 1.0.
k" WALL THK.
"=11
rr^
COLUMN
ALL FUTIIIGS SHOULD
BE SUITABLE TO
RECEIVE STANDARD
TYGON TUBING (V I.D.)
SCALE: 3" = l'-0"
27
-------
CHAPTER IV
PILOT STUDY EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the experimental program was to evaluate five potential
BATEA process technologies (reactor clarifier, multi-media filtration, granu-
lar carbon adsorption, ozonation and dissolved air flotation) in order to
determine which process techno!ogy(ies) or combinations of technologies will
provide effective treatment of the existing wastewater treatment plant efflu-
ent. The experimental program was divided into two sections; screening of
the process technologies and operation of the selected candidate process(es).
A general discussion of the experimental program is presented in this
chapter. A detailed outline of the experimental program is included in
Appendix B. A time-phase diagram of the experimental program is presented
in Figure 9.
The pilot plant trailer was equipped with a pH meter, total carbon ana-
lyzer and spectrophotometer to assist the trailer engineer in making rapid
evaluations of unit process performance. Samples were also sent to one or
more of the six participating laboratories for more complete analyses. The
sample locations are indicated in Figure 10 and the corresponding analytical
schedule is presented in Table 6.
SCREENING
Prior to initiating the pilot plant study, it was necessary to select
operating conditions and combinations of process technologies that had the
greatest potential of success based on engineering judgment. With the
schedule limitations of the project, it was not feasible to test all possible
process trains or modifications of the BATEA technologies. The modes sel-
ected by ATMI, EPA and ES for experimental testing were as follows:
Mode A - Reactor/clarifier followed by multi-media filtration
Mode B - Multi-media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption
Mode C - Multi-media filtration followed by ozonation
Mode D - Ozonation
Mode E - Reactor/clarifier followed by multi-media filtration followed
by granular carbon adsorption followed by ozonation
Mode F - Multi-media filtration with precoagulation
28
-------
MODE A
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
MODE B
Location 1*
Location 2
Location 5
MODE C
Location 1*
Location 2
Location 3
MODE D
Location 1*
Location 2
MODE E
Location 1*
Location 2
Location 3
Location 6
Location 7
MODE F
Location 1*
Location 2
MODE G
TABLE 6
ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE
COD, BOD5, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
COD, BODs, TSS, Cry
COD, BODc, TSS, Cry
TS, TSS
COD, BOD5, TSS, CrT, Phenol, Sulfide, COD,
COD, BODs, TSS, CrT, CODS, Phenol, Sulfidl
COD, BOD5, TSS, CrT, CODS, Phenol, Sulfide
COD, BOD5, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
Same as MB2, this is a split stream from
the second filter
COD, BOD5, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide, TSS
COD, BOD5, TSS, CrT, Phenol, Sulfide
COD, BODs, CrT, Phenol, Sulfide, TSS
COD, BODs, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide, CODS
COD, BOD5, TSS, CrT
COD, BOD5, TSS, Cry, CODS
COD, BOD5, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide, CODS
COD, BOD5, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
COD, BOD5, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
COD, BOD5, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
Location 1* - COD, BOD5, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
Location 2 - COD, 6005, TSS, Cry, Phenol, Sulfide
* Location 1 Common to all trains, CODs (Soluble COD)
run only when carbon columns are in the process sequence.
Color, TOC and transmittance analyses are performed by
ES at sample locations noted in Figure 10.
29
-------
Mode G - Dissolved air flotation (bench-scale only)
The objective of the screening phase of the experimental program was to
test Modes A, B, C, D, E, F and G in order to establish which technologies
will operate effectively on the BPT effluent and to determine optimum oper-
ating conditions for the process(es). The screening phase of the program
provided the information used to select the candidate mode(s) for performing
additional testing during the final phase of the site visit.
Coagulant and Carbon Screening and Selection
Jar testing was conducted to identify the type of coagulant(s) and dos-
age(s) most effective for removal of suspended solids and organic material
from the BPT discharge. This work was performed in the ES Atlanta Laboratory
on waste shipped from the site prior to arrival of the trailer.
Coagulants evaluated included alum, ferric chloride, alum plus anionic
polymers, ferric chloride plus anionic polymers, cationic polymers, cationic
plus anionic polymers, lime, alum plus lime and ferric chloride plus lime.
The test results were evaluated based on transmittance versus dosage plots,
visual observation and sludge mass determination. A coagulant and optimum
dosage was recommended to the trailer engineer for confirmation testing.
Carbon isotherm tests were performed on the BPT effluent using Westvaco
and 1C I carbon. The isotherm results were compared to select the carbon to
be used in the carbon column tests.
Mode A - Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate removal of organic
material and suspended solids by chemical coagulation, gravity settling and
filtration. Tests were conducted using the reactor clarifier and one of the
filter units.
The recommended coagulant(s) and dosage(s) were rechecked in the field
to confirm the previous results and modifications were made as required.
The reactor clarifier was initially operated at 400 gpd/ft2 with BPT efflu-
ent and allowed to reach steady state. The influent, effluent and sludge
were sampled to evaluate the performance. The loading was increased or
decreased in increments of 200 gpd/ft2 to establish the optimum loading.
The multi-media filter operated on the effluent of the reactor clari-
fier. The filter was initially loaded at 3 gpm/ft2 for three backwash cycles
to reach steady state. The filter was backwashed based on transmittance or
solids breakthrough (^50% of influent transmittance in the effluent) or a
maximum of 12 hours. Influent and effluent samples were collected for ana-
lyses and pressure differential, run time, backwash rate and backwash dura-
tion were recorded. The filter loading was increased to 5 gpm/ft2 and then
7 gpm/ft2 to evaluate performance at these higher loadings.
30
-------
Mode B - Multi-Media Filter and Carbon Columns
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate removal of suspended
solids by filtration followed by removal of organic material by carbon
adsorption. The multi-media filter was operated in the same manner as des-
cribed in Mode A except the influent was BPT effluent. Once the highest
acceptable loading was established, then the filter was operated at that
loading for the remainder of the carbon run.
The effluent of the filter was further treated in the carbon columns.
The columns operated on the filter effluent at a total empty-bed hydraulic
retention time of 45 minutes. The first carbon column was backwashed daily
and the other two columns were backwashed at least twice per week. Grab
samples were collected from each column and composite samples of the influ-
ent and effluent were collected to evaluate the unit performance. The car-
bon columns were usually operated until the carbon in the first column
had been exhausted.
Mode C - Multi-Media Filter and Ozonation
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate removal of suspended
solids by filtration and oxidation of organic material with ozone. Ozona-
tion testing for screening was performed in batch tests on a split stream
of the filter effluent from Mode B.
The ozone contactor was charged with wastewater and an ozone appli-
cation rate was selected such that the total mass of ozone applied during
the test was equal to 12 mg of ozone per mg of COD originally present in the
column. Periodic samples of the off-gas were collected in gas wash bottles
containing KI solution in order to determine ozone utilization by mass bal-
ance. Grab samples of the wastewater were removed from the contactor at
20-minute intervals for TOC and color analyses. The initial influent and
final effluent were analyzed for all test parameters. The effectiveness and
optimum ozone dosages were evaluated based on ozone utilized versus TOC and
color removal.
Mode D - Ozonation
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate direct oxidation of
organic materials in the waste with ozone without pretreatment of the waste.
Ozonation testing was performed with the same procedure as in Mode C except
it was performed directly on the BPT effluent.
Mode F - Precoagulation and Multi-Media Filtration
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate removal of suspended
solids and organic materials from the waste by filtration after prefilter
coagulation. The coagulant combination and dosage were established from the
earlier jar tests. Additional jar testing was conducted to establish the
dosaqe for pin floe formation. The coagulant was mixed with the BPT efflu-
ent and fed to the filter at a loading rate of 3 gpm/ft*. The filter oper-
ation was performed the same as described in Mode B. An optimum loading
31
-------
was determined based on organic and suspended solids removal.
Mode G - Dissolved Air Flotation
The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effectiveness of dis-
solved air flotation (DAF) for removal of suspended solids with gravity
settling. This experiment was performed with a batch DAF unit on the BPT
effluent. The same coagulants and dosages used in Mode F were utilized for
this experiment. The unit was operated at recycle rates of 100 percent,
50 percent and 33 percent. The influent and effluent were analyzed as indi-
cated in Table 6 to evaluate the unit performance.
CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF SELECTED CANDIDATE PROCESS(ES)
At the completion of the screening period a joint decision was made by
ES, EPA and ATMI as to which are the most effective processes for treating
the BPT waste. The unit process operating conditions were also established
at this point. The selected candidate process(es) were operated during the
remainder of the site visit to encompass a variety of influent (BPT efflu-
ent) conditions so that the treatment efficiency could be monitored as a
function of BPT effluent quality. The duration of these experiments depend-
ed on the unit processes involved and was calculated according to the
statistical program presented in Appendix A.
If one of the candidate modes tested during the continuous phase of
operations included granular carbon adsorption then the columns were re-
charged with virgin carbon at the start of the experiment. In some cases,
the flow rate was increased to assure exhaustion of the first column at the
end of the continuous mode test period.
When ozonation was tested as a candidate mode, then the experiment was
conducted through continuous operation, when possible, instead of batch
testing.
The results from the continuous operation of the candidate processes
were evaluated to determine the effectiveness for treating the BPT effluent
and to establish a recommended BATEA process specific to the individual
plant site.
32
-------
FIGURE 9
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TIME-PHASE DIAGRAM
WEE
TASKS
|. COAGULANT
SCREENING / SELECTION
JAR TESTINO
11 UOOE A
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
III. MODE B
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
IV UOOE C
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
V. MODE 0
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
VI. MODE E (OPTIONAL)
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
VII. MODE F
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
V« MODE 0
EXPERIMENT
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED
IX. MODE H
EXPERIMENT
METHOD EMPLOYED
Q
ES LAB
'/////////.
£?JT ™"
START-UP
1
'//////////%>.
REACTOR CLARI
(FILTER)
WT///////X
2
'//%////////.
rl£f) B FILTER!
ICARBONI
YT//////////.
'////////A
OZONE
3
1
'//////////A
'/////////,
FILTEH'Z a
OZONE
'///////////.
COAGULATION
a FILTER1
'////J
OAF
4
DECISION POINT
5
(OPTIONAL)
REACTOR CLARIF
CARBON COLUMN
CANDIDATE BATEA
y^y/r//y/^/'//^/7/^^/^.
PROCESS
6
IER, FILTER ,
a OZONE
DEMOBILIZE
a TRANSPORT
'///////,
33
-------
FIGURE 10
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
MODE
A A A A
O
M/M FILTER (MHF)
CARBON COLUMN
O
OZOHATION
COMPOSITE, ATMI
GRAB, ES (COLOR
TRANSMIT!ANCE, TOC)
34
-------
CHAPTER V
TEST PLANT RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
The results from the experimental pilot program are presented and dis-
cussed in the following sections of this chapter. A summary is presented
first, followed by a discussion of existing treatment facility performances
and finally a presentation of the results of testing candidate processes at
all 19 plants. More complete information on the individual plant studies
can be found in the plant reports or in selected sections of the plant re-
ports presented in Appendix C.
At each plant site screening tests were performed to determine the
effectivemess of various modes of advanced waste treatment (AWT). As des-
cribed in Chapter IV, AWT processes which indicated some effectiveness in
the screening tests were selected as candidate modes of operation. These
candidate modes were then operated on a continuous basis for a minimum of
two weeks to obtain a data base assumed to be representative of actual can-
didate AWT operation. Candidate AWT performance, relative cost effective-
ness and ability to meet the 1974 BATEA guidelines were taken into considera-
tion; and a candidate mode was selected as the recommended AWT process. The
selection procedure is described in more detail in Chapter VI, "Recommended
Process Design".
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Shown in Table 7 is a matrix representation of the processes tested at
each of the 19 plants. The recommended process as determined by this study
is circled for each plant. The EPA recommended process as specified in the
Development Document (EPA-4401-74-022a) is shown with a box. Also presented
in the table is a qualitative comparison of the plant performance during the
testing period with the BPT guideline requirements. The individual BPT
guideline parameters not met are listed. In addition to this, BATEA treat-
ment objectives (those parameters requiring reduction to achieve guidelines)
are listed by plant site. Application of the recommended AWT process allowed
10 of the 19 plants tested to achieve the 1974 BATEA effluent guidelines
limitations. The last column reports the plant's ability to achieve the
guidelines using the recommended AWT processes. The parameters not meeting
the 1974 BATEA limits are reported for those plants not achieving the limi-
tations.
35
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF PILOT PLANT TEST RESULTS
SUB-
CATE-
GORY
I
II
III
' IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
P
V
y
z
AA
BB
DO
T
U
0
E
F
S
EC
BPT"
6UIDELIMES
MET
YES
HO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
tES
YFC
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NOT MET
SUL
^ COO
WQ,~f
'TSS
COD. BOD
TSS, COD
BOD.TSS
COD
BOD
AWT PROCESSES
1
we
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
MMF
•
®
•
•
•
•
•
®
•
•
•
®
3
MMF
W/PRECOAG.
•
•
®
• .
•
4
R/C
MMF
m
m
@g
a
ii
D
O
D
ffi
D
O
D
ffl
m
gj
®
a
5
MMF
»
°3
•
N 0
•
•
SA
MMF
VPRECOAG.
+•
°3
SITE
•
•
S ':
%
^ :
;;;;;;;•
7
R/C
»ff
°3
•
TES
S
MMF
CC
®
T E 0
•
®
®
®
•
®
•
®
®
•
•
•
8A
HMF
H/PRECOAG.
CC
•
®
f
9
R/C
MMF
CC
®
•
®
•
10
MMF
CC
°3
si;
S
S
:•:::!••
BATEA*
TREATMENT
OBJECTIVES
1
5
2
4
5
2
6
6
3
1
1
7
5
S
3
S
a
ABILITY TO
ACHIEVE
BATEA W/
RECOMMENDED
PROCESS .
(EXCEPTIONS) f
YES
NO (SUL)
YES (BOD/1)
mfRfn rm rninp)
YES (TSS/3)
NO (COO. TSS)
YES
NO (COO)
MO (CO")
NO (TSS. COO)
NO (TSS)
NO (COO. TSS)
yre
YES (TSS/1)
YES
YES
YES
NO (COO, TSS)
YES
LEGEND:
, AtfT PROCESS TESTED
O RECOMMENDED PROCESS FROM ATMI STUDY
O RECOMMENDED PROCESS FROM EPA GUIDELINES ISSUED IN 1974
R/C - REACTOR/CLARIFIER
MMF - MULTI-MEDIA FILTER
MMF W/PRECOAG - MULTI-MEDIA FILTER WITH PRECOAGULATION
03 - OZONE
CC - CARBON
1. TSS, COD
2. BOD, COD, TSS, CHR. & COLOR
3. COD, TSS, COLOR
4. TSS
PARAMETER CODES
5. BOO, COO, TSS
6. BOD, COO, TSS, COLOR
7. BOD, TSS
8. ALL PARAMETERS MET
t (EXCEPTION PARAMETER/mg/1 OVER BATEA VALUE)
++ BASED ON DURATION OF PILOT PLANT OPERATIONS. BOTH
TEXTILE DATA AND SUPPORT LAB DATA CONSIDERED.
-------
EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES PERFORMANCE
Textile mill production and existing BPT plant characteristics varied
with each mill, as illustrated by the information presented in Tables 8
and 9.
Influent and effluent BOD, COD and TSS values for the existing BPT
facility, monitored during the testing period, are presented in Table 10.
BPT guideline values based on plant production during the same period were
calculated and are shown on the same figure. BPT removal efficiencies were
developed and are also listed. The ratio of the average BPT effluent values
to the BPT guideline values is defined as the BPT performance ratio. This
ratio is shown in the table for each plant. When the performance ratio is
greater than one (1) for a particular parameter, the process performance did
not achieve the guideline values for that parameter. Conversely when this
ratio is less than one (1) the guideline values were achieved. The perform-
ance ratios and removal efficiencies for BOD, COD and TSS from this table
are graphically illustrated on the bar charts in Figures 30, 31 and 32,
respectively.
INDIVIDUAL PLANT TEST RESULTS
Test results from the continuous operation of candidate AWT processes
are presented in the remainder of this chapter. A tabular comparison of
treatment effectiveness for the candidate processes tested at each plant is
presented in Tables 11 through 29. The reduction of pollutants with the AWT
technologies tested is illustrated graphically in Figures 11 through 29.
These tables and figures present the data categorized according to the can-
didate processes tested. For each candidate process the data includes the
average, 90th percentile and 99th percentile confidence level effluent con-
centrations, and percent removal for BOD, COD, TSS, TOC, Phenol, Sulfide,
Chromium, Color and Oil and Grease (statistical methods are described in
Appendix A). The bar graph provided in each of these figures illustrates
average percentage removal versus parameter and process for the candidate
processes tested at each plant.
BATEA guideline values were calculated using production and flow data
recorded during the testing period. BATEA performance ratios were develop-
ed using the 90th percentile confidence level effluent concentrations for
the recommended AWT processes and the BATEA guideline values. These ratios
are presented in the data matrix in Table 30. Similar to the BPT perform-
ance ratios, if the recommended process(es) did not achieve the BATEA guide-
line values, the BATEA performance ratios are greater than one and again,
conversely, if the guideline values were achieved then the performance ratio
is less than one.
The next series of figures (30 through 37) are graphical representa-
tions by parameter of removal efficiencies and performance ratios. The
first in this series, Figure 30, shows the BOD removal efficiencies and per-
37
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF PLANT PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS DURING TESTING PERIOD
SUBCATEGORYJ
I
II
IV
V
VI
VII
UJ
O
8
t—
3C
«
1
Q.
A
0
B
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DO
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
TYPE
PROCESSING
UJ
f!
t/i
X
X
COMMI
X
X
UJ
_J
X
X
X
X
X
X
SSICH
X
X
X
X
X
X
'
DESIZING
5
C£.
on
X
X
(n
X
X
DES
•S.
:>
Q.
X
X
V
X
S)
X
X
X
IZI
o
t5
A
X
X
G
1
X
SCOURING
X
X
(MAN
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WEAVING
X
BLEACHING
(CARD
MERCERIZING
MG AND COf
.
i
t-4
UJ
&
BING)
X
C.T
t-
SL
C£
o_
Cl
31
x
I/)
•SL
fc-4
Li,
X
JFACTURIBG AND FINISHING WOOL AND
BLENDED COTTON-VINYL-WOOL)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PRODUCTION
LBS/DAY
68,975
28,127
67,262
70,335
168,095
209,593
72,846
389,425
180,458
41,665
179,898
651,738
34,363
51,818
157,340
56,874
329,903
50,809
94,933
PERCENT
OF PRODUCTION
CAPACITY
92%
CO*
?0?,
56f,
r«
B9%
5M
102S
975;
69%
79T
873!
80?
BRS;
75S
65S
in,
62S
81%
UJ
c/1
Z3 m
« =i
UJ 1/7
is
3.3
34.6
14.6
5.8
11.7
14.6
29.1
8,73
12.8
12.9
3
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF BPT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CHARACTERISTICS DURING TESTING PERIOD(1)
ce
o
SUBCATEG
-I
11
rtj
V
VI
\n i
X
ti
o.
A
0
B
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DO
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
LRIMAR1
EQUALIZATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i IRE;
| NEUTRALI-
ZATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TMENT
SCREENING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A"
JC
160
42
29
140
16S
78
119
141
72
228
53
41
847
69
32
101
169
75
84
IWToTT
< i/i
U^ ^C
ts 3
200
116
65
61
1430
50
N.M.
236
131
N.M.
H.M.
17
N.M.
66
29
246
52
147
224
iisTr
*
160
80
133
125
57
41
57
45
66.7
15.8
87.5
120
37.5
37
148
80
37.5
46
107
\rt uj r~
1/1 "* "m
27,000
5,100
6,800
3,700
3,300
1,500
N.M.
1,900
3,900
N.M.
N.M.
4,800
H.M.
2,000
5,900
2,600
400
350
2,600
=—
JC UJ **-
u_
0.26
0.72
0.98
0.41
2.0
3.06
2.12
3.
-------
TABLE 10
BPT PERFORMANCE RATIOS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR BOD, COD AND TSS
\,
SUB CATEGORY
PARAME TERS ^^^N-ANT
BOD
COO
TSS
INFLUENT mg/1
EFFLUENT mg/1
BPT GUIDELINE VALUE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY *
BPT PERFORMANCE RATIO
INFLUENT mg/1
EFFLUENT rag/1
BPT GUIDELINE VALUE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY *
BPT PERFORMANCE RATIO
INFLUENT mg/1
EFFLUENT mg/1
BPT GUIDELINE VALUE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY *
BPT PERFORMANCE RATIO
I
A
'1249
72
194
94
.37
8480
1079
2534
87
.43
3129
268
592
s;
.68
II
0
340
8
30
98
.27
692
180
236
74
.76
68
39
50
33
.78
B
317
212
92
33
2.3
N/A
1147
671
-
1.71
Ibb
302
145
NEG
2.08
IV
D
269
18
68
93
.26
1514
686
670
55
1.02
82
215
183
NEG
1.17
P
331
13
33
96
.39
N/A
93
518
-
.18
/y.j
29
90
63
V*
301
21
28
97
.75
1143
529
493
62
1.07
N/A
.89
73
.
.32 [2.59
Y
N/A
10
13
-
.77
N/A
123
229
-
.54
N/A
38
36
_
1.06
Z
531
23
46
96
.50
1691
487
800
71
.61
221
55
122
75
.45
AA
438
42
29
90
1.4E
1132
352
504
69
.70
80.3
99
88
NEG
1.13
BB
361
16
62
96
.26
N/A
382
557
-
.69
6/.b
49
165
27
.30
DO
238
10
13.4
96
.75
N/A
79
208
-
.38
bj
16
36
70
.44
T
1158
19
29.6
98
.64
2Q5(
534
535
74
1.00
I2U
22
79.8
8?
.28
K
8
15
79.7
NEG
.19
111
70
1198
37
.06
21
10
216
5?
.05
V
W
175
4
16.8
98
.24
386
73
231
81
.32
N/A
28
72
_
.39
Q
225
8
18.7
96
.42
939
286
231
70
1.2
40
65
84
NEG
.78
E
546
19
23.8
97
.80
906
251
283
72
.89
N/A
61
103
_
.59
VI
F
N/A
43
217
-
.20
N/A
454
1956
.23
N/A
93
306
.30
VII
S
110
30
17
73
1.76
392
103
208
74
.50
39. t
41
43
NE§
.95
EE
316
5
45
98
.11
761
131
582
73
.23
26.2
11
117
58
.09
N/A * Not Available W Indicates Values From Monthly Averages
t Influent average is Based on Data Supplied by the Textile Mills, Effluent Average is Based on Study
Support Laboratory Data
* Pilot Plant not Run Continuously During Visit. Information Presented Here Is Based
on Data Reported by Textile Plants.
40
-------
TABLE 11
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT A
100% Subcategory I
"-^TTKHUOLOCTl
"•v.jrESnc
PARAKETElT^^^
BOO
COO
TSS '
TOC
PHENOL
5 U. FIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
Oil & G?rASE
""^-xTECHNO.OGY
^^v^TESTED
P.'^inER"^^^
EFFLI-.NT t
CONFIOFNCE LlMITi
BOO
COO
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SUUFIOE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
R/
KM
CC
EFF
«g/l
13
432
31
190
272
4
«/
My
CC
90
15
472
40
200
319
5.6
C»
F
1
RED
81
59
91
46
61
78
C«
F
99
16
S97
46
207
352
7.3
R/C
vtv
EFF
-9/1
29
so;
102
271
626
9
»/
ff
90
73
b24
116
279
637
15
I
RED
57
23
69
24
9
50
C
F
99
36
«35
1C4
284
644
21
R/
KM
01
EFF
ng/1
'46
790
103
300
362
R/
KM
_°3
90
51
831
129
335
429
C
F
X
RED
44
28
72
17
54
C
F
99
58
892
167
388
528
R/C
EFF
ng/1
45
936
185
314
683
18
Rj
90
50
934
^Q4
329
727
23
»
t
RED
34
13
43
12
1
0
'C
09
53
953
217
338
757
28
EFF
"9/1
90
I
RED
99
EFF
tng/1
90
III 1 h(
s
RED
— -
'i9
* RECOmENOED PROCESS
41
-------
TABLE 12
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT 0
66% Subcategory II
34% Subcategory VII
<^r TETHBOTOGY
^-^TESTEt
PARAIETER^-^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULF1DE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF*
CC
EFF
mg/1
2
18
3
7
0.02
.04
<.03
30
tf
RED
71
90
93
79
67
43
79
83
NMF
EFF
mg/1
3
112
7
33
0.04
0.5
0.1
97
I
RED
57
35
84
3
33
29
0
44
R/C
EFF
ng/1
o
111
31
30
0.04
0.4
).10
108
I
RED
67
35
30
9
33
43
0
38
R/C
HMF
EFF
ng/1
2
84
7
27
0.03
0.3
BDL
65
X
RED
67
51
88
18
50
57
-
62
MMF
°3
EFF
mg/1
13
35
1
25
:.02
.85
.13
-
i
RED
0
72
97
17
67
23
13
-
EFF
mg/1
i
RED
">^ TECHNOLOGY
^X^TESTED
W«AMETER
-------
TABLE 13
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT B
70% Subcategory II
•^^ TCCHNOL06T
>->^TESTn
PARAMETER^-^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL 4 GREASE
vc t
NMF *
Iff
•ig/1
31
174
2
6;
BDL
D.04!
-
%
RED
85
85
99
ai
-
_
80
-
R/C
EFF
ng/1
39
190
6
6?
BDL
_
1.053
X
RED
81
83
98
83
78
-
"K7TS — 1
HMF t
CC
EFF
mg/1
16
26
1
15
BDL
1.11
1.086
-
S
RED
92
98
99
96
52
67
EFF
ng/1
I
RED
EFF
"9/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
t
RED
""XjECHHOLOeY
^"•SsTESTEB
PARAMETER^V^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMIT!
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
R/C t
KMF
90
32
219
3.9
.062
83
99
33
255
5.4
.074
97
R/C
90
47
236
9.7
.066
86
99
53
270
12.7
.076
100
R/C S
HHF &
CC
90
23
39
1.6
11
20
99
29
51
2.1
IS
24
90
99
•
90
99
90
99
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
43
-------
TABLE 14
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT D
100% Subcategory IV
^v.TECHNOLOGY
^"-^JTtSTEt
PARAMETER^-^^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR '
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
CC
Q,
Iff
ng/1
47
349
16
106
t.22
149
X
RED
NEG
57
95
41
21
85
MMF
EFF
ng/1
19
630
85
157
<.l
1070
X
RED
21
23
71
4
64
NEG
MMF
CC
EFF
ng/1
13
422
23
101
<.22
825
X
RED
46
48
92
44
21
18
EFF
ng/1
I
RED
EFF
"9/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
'X>TECH«OL06Y
^X,JESTE)
PARAHETER'S
-------
TABLE 15
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AMI TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT P
94% Subcategory IV
6% Subcategory VII
•~<~TrEHIKHOGV
^^^TESTEI
PARAMETER^<^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
HMF *
EFF
•9/1
11
64
16
32
122
Z
RED
20
23
31
0
4
MMF
W/PRECOAG
EFF
ig/1
9
98
21
23
.010
141
I
RED
18
20
NEG
NEG
29
NEG
MHF
W/PRECOAG
It rr
EFF
i»9/l
8
93
_
12
.006
56
I
RED
27
24
-
40
57
59
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
EFF
"9/1
I
RED
EFF
«9/1
X
RED
~^w TECHNOLOGY
^s^TESTED
PARAMETER|S«SV^
EFFLUENT t
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF*
90
15
75
18
130
99
17
84
20
135
MMF
W/PRECOAG
90
16
112
35
188
99
27
129
52
301
MMF
W/PRECOAG
& CC*
90
10
41
16
62
99
n
46
20
69
90
99
90
99
90
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
45
-------
TABLE 16
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT V
100% Subcategory IV
r- — tKHHOLoev
^"-~wTKTEl
PAWWCTER**--^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL t GREASE
R/C t, *
MMF K
rr
EFF
ing/V
1.2
176
20
36
85
%
RED
87
55
57
53
66
R/C &
MMF
EFF
ng/1
2.5
331
20
62
283
X
RED
73
16
57
18
NEG
R/C
EFF
ng/l
3.6
352
51
72
274
%
RED
61
10
NEG
5
NEG
MMF
&
rr
EFF
mg/1
1.6
186
3.2
35
X
RED
77
53
94
47
EFF
ng/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
^>^^ TECHNOLOGY
^S^TESTED*
PARAMETEfN'^^
EFaUENT J
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL I GREASE
R/C * *
HMF I
CC
90
1.3
204
24
41
95
99
1.4
223
27
44
102
R/C &
HMF
90
3.1
346
24
66
310
99
3.5
356
26
68
330
R/C
90
4.5
369
59
76
302
99
5.2
380
65
79
322
WF
&
CC
90
2.0
231
4.2
45
<.030
99
2.4
283
5.S
58
c.030
90
99
90
99
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
46
-------
TABLE 17
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
ANT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT Y
93% Subcategory IV
7% Subcategory VII
~"">^,^ TECHNOLOGY
^--vjrESTEl
PARAHETER*^^
BOD
COO
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL t GREASE
WF*
s cc
EFF
ng/1
6
33
2
4
=.016
5Z
X
RED
90
76
96
76
11
70
MMF
EFF
ng/1
8
90
10
14
'.016
171
X
RED
20
35
80
18
11
1
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
EFF
"9/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
^"X^JECHNOLOGY
^*VIEST£D
PARAMETER**-.^
EFFLUENT *
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF*
s cc
90
7
38
3
4.8
64
99
7
41
3
5.3
72
MMF
90
8.8
96
14,
14
195
99
9.3
100
17
14
211
90
99
90
99
90
99
90
IM1II«
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
47
-------
TABLE 18
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT Z
100% Subcategory IV
Iv^n'eHHUUMV
-^.TESTEt
PARAMETER"'*'*^
BOD
COD
^iiiii*miimititiitimmiii**^^^iiiiii*iiiimifmiiiiiiiititH
TSS
••^^^•^•^•••^••P^^HHWMHftM^h
TOC
PHENOL
sutFioe
CHROHIUH
COLOR
OIL I GREASE
WF I *
cc
EFF
mg/1
12
346
11
.019
155
X
RED
45
30
mmmfumn
68
17
38
«WF (
H/PRECOA.
ft.
EFF
»g/l
18
414
HHMtfNwlVH
M^»*^HM
.026
119
X
RED
18
16
— .
53
MNF
H/PRECOA.
EFF
»19/1
17
438
35
.023
289
X
RED
23
11
0
0
0
EFF
mg/l
17
461
••••^^•B
20
V^MHW
.019
236
RED
23
7
VH^^^H
41
4*MV^H
17
6
EFF
"9/1
•MH^HH
X
RED
EFF
•9/1
^^•t^^
•••••••^^•i
s
RED
•Mm^
^X^TECHNOLOGV
^*«^^TESTED
PARAMETEfX^^
EFFLUENT J
:QNFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
OIL & GREASE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
MMF» *
CC
90
14
367
13.1
24
175
99
15
380
14.4
26
188
MHF &
W/PRECOAS
°3
90
20
441
33
138
99
21
456
37
150
MMF
W/PRECOAG
90
20
462
42
29
309
99
21
477
46
32
322
MMF
90
19
484
24
23
259
99
19
498
26
25
273
90
99
90
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
48
-------
TABLE 19
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
ANT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT AA
74% Subcategory IV
26% Subcategory V
^^v^ TECHNOLOGY
^^.JESTEI
PARAMETER^-^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
W/PRECOAf
* CC
EFF
mg/1
9
169
13
171
'%
RED
79
55
84
53
MMF
W/PRECOAC
& 0-t
EFF
ng/1
13
222
12
129
%
RED
?n
40
86
64
EFF
ng/i
*
RED
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
EFF
mg/1
%
RED
^^X^ TECHNOLOGY
^XTESTED
P/>RAMETEffv'x^
EFFLUENT %
;ONFIDEMCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL 4 GREASE
MMF *
W/PRECOAG
>. CC
90
10
190
15
200
99
11
203
17
218
MMF
H/PRECOAR
& 03
90
14
241
14
141
99
15
253
15
148
90
99
•
90
99
90
99
90
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
49
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT BB
100% Subcategory IV
"*• — TECHNOLOGY
^--^TESTEC
PARAMETER^-^
BOO
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF i *
CC
EFF
ng/>
19
210
?8
).05:
1.113
214
%
RED
27
44
44
56
33
47
R/C *
MMF
EFF
ng/i
9
147
38
).054
0.05<
191
1
RED
65
61
24
55
65
53
MMF
EFF
ng/1
23
353
40
O.OH
0.15?
364
t
RED
12
7
20
33
5
10
R/C
EFF
ng/1
12
162
60
3.065
J.OSf
190
X
RED
54
57
0
46
65
53
EFF
ng/1
t
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
"s>«wTECHNOLOGY
^"VJESTED
PARAMETERS>XSi^
EFFLUENT t.
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COO
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL t GREASE
MMF & *
CC
90
21
224
31
48
.058
.126
257
99
22
233
34
51
.062
.135
286
R/C &
MMF
90
10
164
53
46
.058
.071
224
99
11
175
63
50
.060
.080
248
MMF
90
25
361
46
96
.09
.17
416
99
26
366
50
98
.09
.17
453
R/C
90
14
185
97
48
.070
.072
219
99
16
200
121
52
.073
.081
240
90
99
90
99
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
50
-------
TABLE 21
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT DP
77% Subcategory IV
23% Subcategory II
^•»^^ TECHNOLOGY
^\TESfH
PARAMETER""--^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULF1DE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MHF *
W/
PRECOAfi
EFF
mg/l
6
39
6
15
BDl
BDL
Q.04
126
%
RED
54
45
45
21
73
36
MMF
I,
CC
EFF
mg/l
6
31
6
13
BDL
BDL
0.05
-
I
RED
25
53
35
35
.
50
-
MMF
EFF
mg/1
5
56
7
20
BDL
BDL
.no
-
-
X
RED
38
13
29
0
0
-
-
EFF
rag/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
EFF
rag/1
X
RED
"""•s^ TECHNOLOGY
^•"L TESTED
PARAMETEff^x^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
800
COO
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL i GREASE
MMF ••
.'/PRECOAG
90
8
46
14
.052
99
9
48
18
.056
MMF &
CC
90
11
54
16
.120
99
13
64
20
.148
MMF
90
99
90
99
90
99
90
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
51
-------
TABLE 22
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED. AT PLANT T
100% Subcategory IV
^ — TEtHwHtaY
^•^^JESTEt
PARAMETEfr^--^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
8
rr
EFF
mg/1
6
410
16
98
.024
0.7
BDL
56
-
I
RED
70
17
24
3fi
40
36
-
73
-
MMF
EFF
ng/l
9
178
17
1443
.053
1.1
BDL
206
-
%
RED
55
3
19
5
.7
0
0
-
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
EFF
mg/l
I
RED
EFF
ng/1
%
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
"^Nw TECHNOLOGY
^•wTESTED
PARAMETERSVV^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
* RECOMMENDED
MMF *
&
CC
90
7.3
474
19
.029
.90
66
^^^•M^M
PROC
99
8.1
515
22
.033
1.03
73
•••^^^
ESS
MMF
90
10
537
20
159
.065
1.43
249
99
11
576
22
170
.073
1.63
278
90
99
90
99
••••••••••••i
90
99
90
99
52
-------
TABLE 23
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT K
100% Subcategory IV
•\TCCfflro5T
^ TESTEI
PARAMETElT---^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
W/PRECOAf
EFF
ng/1
6
41
9
.015
136
*
RED
b8
16
16
21
65
MMF
& CC
EFF
ng/1
9
21
3
.014
55
%
RED
37
73
76
26
86
MMF
EFF
mg/1
14
65
5
.015
384
%
RED
7
14
57
21
3
MMF
& o3
EFF
rag/1
14
52
3
.012
154
I
RED
6
35
72
14
59
EFF
mg/1
%
RED
EFF
mg/1
%
RED
"*s>sjECHNOLOGY
^•XjESTED
PARAMETER***1^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOO
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
W/PRECOAfi
90
8
45
12
.018
181
99
9
48
15
.020
215
MMF &
CC
90
10
24
3.7
.016
65
99
11
25
4.2
.018
72
MMF
90
15
67
6.2
.019
399
99
16
69
7.0
.022
410
MMF &
03
90
17
56
4.4
.014
209
99
19
60
3.4
.016
250
90
99
90
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
53
-------
TABLE 24
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT W
100% Subcategory V
"••«x^ TtCroioLWil
^^•"-^TESTEC
PARAMETER"^*^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL * GREASE
MMF*
EFF
mg/1
3.4
55
9.5
11
118
%
RED
26
25
63
21
16
MMF
& CC
EFF
ng/1
1.5
19
2
2.9
29
%
RED
67
74
92
79
79
MMF
W/PRECOA(
EFF
mg/1
2.6
48
13
10
83
t
RED
43
34
50
29
41
EFF
mg/1
%
RED
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
EFF
mg/1
I
RED
TECHNOLOGY
TESTED
PARAMETER"
••••••••••••i
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
MMF *
90
99
MHF
8 CC
90
99
MMF
W/PRECOAG
90
99
90
99
90
99
90
99
BOD
COD
58
60
21
22
51
53
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
12
13
16
17
12
13
12
13
CHROMIUM
COLOR
136
149
35
39
97
106
OIL 4 GREASE
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
54
-------
TABLE 25
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT Q
100% Subcategory V
•^^•TmWtlJCT
^<^TESTE!
PARANETEI^x^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOO
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MHF *
& CC
EFF
mg/1
2
58
2.5
.032
120
%
RED
74
79
96
35
50
MMf
EFF
Mg/1
4.4
208
4
22
.051
250
I
RED
46
24
91
19
14
1
R/C &
MMF
EFF
mg/1
3.4
179
24
.037
224
I
RED
54
30
52
8
1
MMF
M/PRECOAfi
EFF
mg/1
7.1
258
28
18.3
.070
-
I
RED
31
24
64
0
7
R/C
EFF
mg/1
5.4
195
73
.094
202
X
RED
27
23
0
0
11
MMF &
°3
EFF
mg/1
4.9
17.8
3
.048
51
X
RED
30
93
93
0
77
"""X^ TECHNOLOGY
^V^JESTED
PARAMETER*^^^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOO
COD
1SS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
I CC
90
2.2
64
2.7
.060
133
99
2.4
68
2.8
.078
151
MMF
90
4.9
217
6.7
28
.059
363
99
5.4
226
8.6
85
.071
804
R/C &
MMF
90
4.2
186
38
.069
260
99
7.6
266
54
.090
305
MMF
^/PRECOAG
90
8
280
48
.080
-
99
8
285
48
.098
-
R/C
90
6.1
252
83
.115
21
99
6.8
304
93
.133
233
MMF &
°3
90
8.1
25
6
.080
-
99
9.8
30
9
.116
-
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
55
-------
TABLE 26
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT E
100% Subcategory V
^»_ ftCHNOLOGT
^-^ESTEl
PARAMETER^^^
BOO
COO
TSS
TOO
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
& cc
EFF
mg/1
3.8
31.7
2.3
5.3
59.2
%
RED
80
88
96
81
69
MMF
EFF
ng/1
10.8
157
4.3
29
144
%
RED
44
40
92
0
25
R/C &
MMF
EFF
mg/1
9.3
104
3.7
22.4
55
%
RED
52
60
93
18
72
R/C
EFF
mg/1
10.1
122
13.1
24
53
t
RED
48
53
76
12
73
•
EFF
mg/1
*
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
""Xw TECHNOLOGY
^"•s. TESTED
PARAMETEFrV^^^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
tS!F *
a cc
90
4
36
3
6
69
99
5
39
4
7
75
MMF
90
13
172
6
32
159
99
14
182
7
34
168
R/C &
MMF
90
12
114
5
25
66
99
14
120
6
27
69
R/C
90
14
132
18
27
85
99
16
138
21
29
92
90
99
90
99
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
56
-------
TABLE 27
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT F
100% Subcategory VI
*
-------
TABLE 28
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT S
100% Subcategory VII
~^_ TECHNOLOGY
^\TESTEI
PARAMETER^~^^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
R/C *
& MMF
EFF
mg/1
6
67
12
6
106
%
RED
81
20
74
50
58
R/C
EFF
ng/1
6
83
19
7
104
%
RED
81
1
60
42
59
MMF
& CC
EFF
ng/1
6
72
6
5
112
X
RED
82
23
87
50
54
MMF
EFF
nig/1
7
106
12
8
235
I
RED
79
0
74
20
2
EFF
•9/1
X
RED
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
^V^TECHNOLOGY
^•CTESTEO
PARAMETClfXVs.
EFFLUENT ?
CONFIDENCE LIMIT!
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL » GREASE
R/C *
!, MMF
90
7
86
16
7
119
99
8
99
19
7
30
R/C
90
7
103
24
8
117
99
8
118
27
8
128
MMF
& CC
90
7
88
8
5
124
99
8
99
9
6
132
MMF
90
8
120
15
9
268
99
8
128
17
10
291
90
99
90
99
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
58
-------
TABLE 29
COMPARISON'OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF
AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT EE
40% Subcategory IV
60% Subcategory VII
^TTraroinJGY
^^TESTEC
PARAMETER^-^
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MMF *
EFF
mg/1
3
104
15
43
BDL
.1
BDL
170
%
RED
28
34
78
0
50
11
R/C
& MMF
EFF
ng/1
2
67
7.6
33
BDL
.1
BDL
72
%
RED
45
44
51
25
50
62
MMF
& CC
EFF
ng/1
•2
29
4
10
BDL
BDL
BDL
25
9!
RED
45
76
72
76
_
87
MMF
& 0-,
EFF
mg/1
6
149
7
40
BDL
.1
DDL
49
X
RED
0
1
74
3
50
-
72
R/C
EFF
mg/1
•-2
93
26
36
.13
120
% "
RED
44
22
0
18
32
37
EFF
mg/1
X
RED
"""X^ TECHNOLOGY
^"•^TESTED
PARAMETER**-^
EFFLUENT %
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
MM
90
3.1
141
18
.178
182
F *
99
3.6
178
21
.215
192
R/C
& M
90
-
83
11
.119
84
IF
99
-
92
14
.126
91
MMF
& C
90
<2
40
6
.115
28
99
<2
46
6
.119
30
MMF
& 0
90
6.6
179
11
.170
58
3
99
7.2
204
14
.199
65
R/
90
<2
109
33
37
.151
140
C
99
<2
118
37
38
.164
153
90
99
* RECOMMENDED PROCESS
59
-------
TABLE 30
BATEA PERFORMANCE RATIOS FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES BY PARAMETER
^^^
PARAMETERS
BOD
COD
TSS
PHENOL
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
COLOR
OIL
AND
GREASE
SUBCATEGORT
PLANT
RECOMMENDED
AWT
— ^WJCESSES
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
90th PERCENTILE AWT VALUE
BATEA VALUE
PERFORMANCE
RATIO *
1
A
R/C
MMF
CC
15
88
.17
471
661
.71
40
74
.54
319
600
.53
6
37
.16
II
0
MMF
CC
2
13
.lb
23
79
.29
4
8
.50
025
0.13
.19
,415
0.26
1.60
,03
0.13
0.23
V,
<500
JLJJZ,
B
R/C
MMF
39
38
1.03
210
223
.94
20
21
.95
0.21
0.41
0.076
0.21
.36
205
<600
.34
III
O
UJ
1-
«/»
1—
O
ar
n
D
MMF
CC
°3
51.4
45
1.14
397
223
1.78
21
31
.68
0.10
<.29
2.05
1.14
0.10
351
<300
1.17
P
MMF
15
22
.68
75
173
.43
18
15
1.2
0.5
1.0
0.5
130
<300
.43
V
R/C
MMF
CC
1.3
IB
.07
204
161
1.27
24
12
2.0
-
0.4
0.8
0.4
95
<300
.32
Y
MMF
CC
7
9
.78
38
76
.50
3
6
.50
BDL
.21
BDL
0.42
<.015
0.21
.07
64
<300
.21
Z
MMF
CC
14
30
.47
366
266
1.38
14
21
.67
BDL
.69
BDL
1.37
.024
0.69
.03
175
<300
.58
AA
MMF
W/P.C.
S CC
14
19
.74
190
168
1.13
15
15
1.00
0.36
0.72
0.36
199
<300
0.66
BB
MMF
CC
21
41
.51
224
186
1.20
31
28
1.11
.058
0.93
.06
1.86
0.126
0.93
.14
257
<300
.86
DO
MMF
H/PRE-
COAG.
8
8
1.0
46
62
.74
14
6
2.33
.052
.188
.28
<300
1.42
T
MMF
CC
7.3
20
.37
474
170
1.64
19.3
14
.37
1.029
.45
.06
.4*
66.2
<300
.22
K
MMF
-------
fortnance ratios. Figure 31 shows COD; Figure 32 shows TSS, etc. Both the
BATEA recommended AWT values and the BPT values are shown on the BOD, COD
and TSS figures (30, 31 and 32). Because the remaining parameters were
generally not a problem with BPT facility performance, only the BATEA values
are shown for Phenol, Chromium, Sulfide, Color and Oil and Grease (Figures
33, 34, 35, 36 and 37).
Table 31 contains a comparison of the BPT and BATEA performance ratios
for the plants tested. The BPT and corresponding BATEA performance ratios
are listed for all parameters that did not achieve the guideline values. Of
the 19 plants visited, 11 were able to achieve the BPT effluent guidelines
with the existing secondary facilities. Of these plants, seven were able to
meet BATEA limits with AWT, and four were not able to meet BATEA limits with
AWT. Of the 19 plants visited, eight were not able to achieve the BPT
effluent guidelines with the existing secondary facilities. Of these
plants, three were able to meet BATEA limits with AWT and five were not able
to meet BATEA limits with AWT. No definite trends were observed relating
the ability of a secondary system to achieve or not achieve the BPT limits
corresponding with AWT process ability to achieve or not achieve BATEA lim-
its. However, more plants with secondary systems achieving the BPT limits
were able to achieve the BATEA limits with the AWT technology than the num-
ber of plants with secondary systems that were not meeting BPT limitations.
Data presented in this final report has been condensed from the indi-
vidual plant reports which were provided for use by the participating
plants. The "Conclusions and Recommendations" and the "Introduction to
Textile Mill Facilities" chapters from all 19 plant reports are included
in Appendix C of this report.
AWT EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY
Coagulation/clarification was a selected candidate process in Sub-
categories II, V, VI and VII. This technology was successful in reducing
BOD by 27 to 85 percent (with an average of 58 percent), COD by 13 to 78
percent (with an average of 42 percent), TSS by 0 to 86 percent (with an
average of 45 percent), and color by 11 to 68 percent (with an average of
46%). Coagulation/clarification was also able to reduce concentration of
phenol and sulfide in certain instances when present in the waste stream.
In Subcategories I and IV, coagulation/clarification was not found to be a
viable treatment alternative. This was due primarily to the fact that
effective coagulants were not found for use with the process at the plants
in these subcategories.
Pilot experimentation showed that, in most cases, multi-media filtra-
tion was an effective process for TSS reduction. Removals of 19 to 92 per-
61
-------
TABLE 31
COMPARISON OF BPT AND BATEA PERFORMANCE
Subcategory
I
II
IV
V
VI
VII
Plant
A
0
B
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
OD
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
Parameter
All
All
BOD
COD
TSS
BOD
COD
TSS
Color
TSS
COD
TSS
TSS
COD
BOD
COD
TSS
COD
TSS
TSS
COD
TSS
All
TSS
COD
All
All
BOD
COD
TSS
All
Performance Ratio
BPT
<1
<1
2.3
1.71
2.08
0.26
1.02
1.17
0.32
1.07
2.59
1.06
0.61
1.45
0.70
1.13
0.69
0.30
0.44
1.00
0.28
<1
0.39
1.20
<1
<1
1.76
0.50
0.95
<1
BATEA
<1
<•)
1.03
0.94
0.95
1.14
1.78
0.68
1.17
1.2
1.27
2.00
0.50
1.38
0.74
1!13
1.00
1.20
1.11
2.33
2.64
1.37
<1
1.09
0.68
<1
<1
0.66
1.25
1.78
<1
If a parameter was not listed for an individual plant,
this indicates that both the BPT and BATEA performance
ratios were less than one.
Performance ratio • effluent value/guideline value
62
-------
cent were noted (with an average of 59 percent). The relative success of
the multi-media filtration process appears to be a function of TSS concen-
tration and colloidal particle size distribution. It was noted that this
process was generally more successful when influent TSS were less than 100
mg/1. It is believed that in some cases the colloidal particles in the fil-
ter influent were too small to be retained within the filter media. Multi-
media filtration, through the removal of suspended material, was able to
reduce significant amounts of BOD, total COD, and apparent (unfiltered)
color. In the cases where coagulation/clarification was a viable treatment
alternative, multi-media filtration was used successfully for the control
of floe carryover.
Granular activated carbon adsorption was effective for soluble pollut-
ant removal, usually following multi-media filtration. In general, COD
reductions of 41 to 84 percent were realized but in certain instances where
the organic compounds in the waste stream were relatively non-adsorbable,
removals as low as 5 percent were noted. Granular carbon was usually effect-
ive in reducing BOD and quite successful in color reduction.
Ozone treatment of the textile waste stream usually followed multi-media
filtration but was also applied directly to secondary effluent or following
granular activated carbon in a few cases. In almost all cases, ozonation
was ineffective in removing organic pollutants, and most COD removals
measured were less than 20 percent. In only one case a high COD removal was
noted (91 percent) and this required excessive dosages (1100-1500 mg 03
utilized per liter). A BOD increase was often detected after ozonation of
the waste stream. Ozone was, however, usually quite successful at reducing
color in the waste stream. Color removals of 44 percent to 71 percent were
measured after application of ozone.
SUBCATEGORY PERFORMANCE REVIEW
There was one (1) textile plant visited that was classified in Sub-
category I (Wool Scouring). The candidate processes tested were additional
clarification followed by multi-media filtration and additional clarification
followed by multi-media filtration followed by either granular activated car-
bon adsorption or ozonation. The clarifier and filter removed BODs, TSS, and
Oil and Grease well and COD to a lesser extent. Addition of ozonation to the
treatment train significantly enhanced color removal but had the negative
effect of increasing BOD concentration (over filter effluent). When carbon
columns were used following the clarifier and filter, significant improvement
was observed in the reduction of all measured pollutants. Additional clari-
fication followed by multi-media filtration followed by granular activated
carbon adsorption was the recommended process that successfully achieved the
BATEA limits. The treatment effectiveness of the AWT technologies for this
subcategory is summarized in Table 11.
There were two plants tested that were classified under Subcategory II
(Wool Finishing). The six candidate processes at these two sites consisted
of combinations of coagulation/clarification, multi-media filtration, granu-
lar activated carbon adsorption and ozonation. The two recommended processes
63
-------
were multi-media filtration followed by granular activated carbon adsorption
(in the case where secondary effluent TSS were low) and coagulation/clari-
fication followed by multi-media filtration (in the case where secondary
effluent TSS were high). Both of the recommended processes were effective in
removing significant amounts of all measured pollutants and all BATEA guide-
lines were achieved with the exception of sulfide at one of the two plants.
AWT performance for Subcategory II can be examined in Tables 12 and 13.
More textile mills were selected from Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric
Finishing) for experimentation during this study than any other single sub-
category within the industry. This was done because there are more operating
mills of this type than any other within the industry and the process varia-
bility within this subcategory generally tends to make wastewater treatment
more difficult. A wide variety of AWT processes were tested at the Sub-
category IV plants. The ones recommended in the majority of the cases (seven
out of ten) were multi-media filtration followed by granular activated carbon
adsorption (in some cases either preceded by coagulation/clarification or
followed by ozonation). At seven of the ten plants tested in this sub-
category, the selected AWT processes were unable to treat the waste stream
to within the BATEA limits for COD and/or TSS. AWT treatment effectiveness
can be reviewed in Tables 14 through 23.
Three textile mills from Subcategory V (Knit Fabric Finishing) were sel-
ected for AWT evaluation. The AWT technologies were tested in various com-
binations at these plants. In two cases, the recommended process was
multi-media filtration followed by granular activated carbon adsorption and
in the third case, the recommended process was multi-media filtration alone.
These processes were successful in reducing waste stream pollutant levels to
within the BATEA limits in all three, cases. AWT treatment effectiveness for
Subcategory V can be reviewed in Tables 24 through 26.
One Subcategory VI (Carpet Mills) plant was visited during this study.
The candidate AWT systems evaluated at this plant were coagulation/clarifi-
cation and coagulation/clarification followed by either multi-media filtra-
tion and granular activated carbon or multi-media filtration alone. The
reactor/clarifier alone was able to remove 50 percent or more of all the
measured pollutants except sulfide. The addition of multi-media filter to
the process train significantly enhanced only TSS removal (increased by
about 20 percent). The addition of granular activated carbon to the other
processes increased removal of all measured pollutants, except for color by
approximately 15 percent. Color reduction was enhanced by the addition of
activated carbon by 20 to 25 percent. The recommended process for this plant
was coagulation/clarification followed by multi-media filtration. Addition
of granular activated carbon adsorption to the process train was not required
to achieve the BATEA guideline limits. AWT effectiveness for Subcategory VI
can be reviewed in Table 27.
Two Subcategory VII (Stock and Yarn Dyeing) plants were included in the
study. At one site, the existing secondary treatment system was producing
an effluent with pollutant levels within the BATEA limits. A multi-media
64
-------
filter alone was recommended to control wintertime increases in TSS dis-
charge that had been experienced in the past. At the other site coagula-
tion/clarification followed by multi-media filtration was recommended.
This process performed comparably to multi-media filtration. The selected
process was unable to produce an effluent within BATEA pollutant levels.
AWT treatment effectiveness is given in Tables 28 and 29.
65
-------
FIGURE 11
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT A
100% Subcategory 1
go-
on ,
70
50
PERCENT
REMOVAL SO
40
30
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BOI
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
S
o
s
-
CO
CO
Rfl
—
o
o
* A
s
-J
o
%
m
X
S
u.
_J
" -f
s
»— t
£
c
—
o
d
UJ
CO
UJ
QC
O
•a
-
— i
§
a
0
CO
vi
o
RfC
\
•2*
\
UJ
a
ii.
MMF
\
I
"
—
oc
d
LU
CO
•a
d
—
§
o
o
—
CO
R/
CJ
o
: +
s
o
UJ
X
MHI
s
s
—I
F +
s
i
i
°?
l
O£
O
o
s
UJ
CO
•0
O
90
80
70-
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40
30
20
10
W VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
a
s
§
CO
CO
t-
(J
\
i
UJ
X
a.
\
LU
O
U.
CO
\
i
1
5
o:
o
o
UJ
CO
2
Of
o
•a
-j
o
R/C
§
oo
§
CO
CO
t—
LJ
d
UJ
a.
UJ
a
u.
CO
E
i
5
ce
o
d
O
UJ
S
O
•a
_ i
O
UJ
CO
§UJ
O£
d 2 £ o: 2
§§KSldld=J
CO O (— (— Q. t/) UUO
BOL - BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
66
-------
FIGURE 12
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT 0
66% Subcategory II
34% Subcategory VII
90.
80-
70-
60-
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 .
40.
30.
20.
10.
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
—
o
§
^_~~~.
O
1 — 1
in
r
8
MMf
g
LU
3C
* t
UJ
SULFID
CC
\
§
CC.
X
_
Of
o
o
S,
UJ
t/1
UJ
et
C5
oO
1
O
~
0
o
1 —
l/l
CO
_
O
—
o
ss
UJ
X
MMF
UJ
Q
t— t
U.
^
1
DC
O
d
\
UJ
in
UJ
*e
o
— i
§
™— "
o
o
tJ
, .
VI
fcO
I—
—
o
h-
—
i
UJ
X
O-
R/(
V 1
O
u_
_J
^
1
g
o
\
UJ
s
o
PERCENT
REMOVAL
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
MO VALUE OR VALUE BDL
\
\ \
PARAMETER
5
S
R/C + MMF
BOL - BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
67
-------
FIGURE 13
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT B
70% Subcategory II
90-
80-
70
60-
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40-
30
20-
10.
10 VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
i
o
0
—
y,
f
0
\
PHENOL
t |»
\
SULFIDE
IIP
| — i
CHROMIUM
\
o
iii
VI
OIL & GREA
—
1
g
u
1 — 1
1-
~~
°
s
z
\
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
\
§
s
UJ
l/l
CO
•c
0
1
g
u.
PA
o
o
, +
\^
ar
UJ
X
0.
tlf
SULFIDE
CHROMIUM
CC
SS
V)
ID
g -
55
FIGURE 14
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT D
100% Subcategory IV
PERCENT
REMOVAL
90
80
70
60
SO
40.
30
20
10
/IO VALUE OR VALUE BDL
\
PARAMETER
PROCESS
3
MMF
MMF + CC
BDL - BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
68
-------
FIGURE 15
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT P
94% Subcategory IV
61 Subcategory VII
90-
80 -
70 -
60-
PERCENT
RE!*VAL 50 -
40 -
30 •
20 -
10 •
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
§
g
—
V)
p.
8
\
i
N,
SULFIDE
\^
CHROMIUM
— 1
at
o
\,
UJ
Ul
«J
WIF
a
o
1 — I
a
o
i_j
£
(_j
N^
Ul
a.
X^
ISULFIDE
— i
CHROMIUM
Of.
3
O
\^
Ul
to
UJ
OL
O
Wff W/PRECOAGULATION
o
o
ca
a
s
\
to
— 1
o
t—
\
UJ
Q_
\
ISULFIDE
1
[CHROMIUM
-------
FIGURE 16
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT V
100% Subcategory IV
90.
80-
70-
60.
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40
30
20
10
10 VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
o
co
o
S
—
to
1 —
O
\
_J
0.
\,
S
§1
\
T
31
O
g
s
\
UJ
CO
UJ
oC
_J
O
R/C + MWF + CC
—
O
S
§
—
co
1—
°
\
_J
o
UJ
oc
0.
S,
°
^i
_*
=3
\^
5-
I
§
DC
O
s
s^
UJ
UJ
*B
_J
t— i
O
R/C + MMF
1
§
CD
i — i
^^^s ^
UJ
(0
ar* ^i
UJ » DC
_J O N« CJ5
i^ll^iis
R/C
90
80
70
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40 •
30 •
20
10
10 VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
8
CO
0
o
o
1 — 1
1—
0
h-
\
1
O.
N
UJ
o
u.
_J
Z3
10
\
| CHROMIUM
N
ae,
o
N
LU
<•
IOIL&GRE
_, S
o >-•
z u_
O CD CO CJ UJ _J
SO tO O Z 3
U t— H- Q_ CO
CHROMIUM
0£
O
d
O
UJ
y
UJ
QC
CD
*e
_j
to*4
0
UJ
t/1
_, g s g
o •-• 3E oe —
§o to tj yj _j o; _i _i
o coorcrEazo**
030 t— 1— O- <_> CJ O
BDL - BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
70
-------
FIGURE 17
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT Y
93% Subcategory IV
7% Subcategory VII
90.
80-
70-
60-
PERCENT
REMOVAL SO •
40-
30-
20-
10-
to VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
o
CD
0
»•••«
£
g
^
i
MMF &
\
SULFIDE
—
CHROMIUM
1 — |
cc
S
S
\
OIL & GREASE
CC
—
o
§
o
S
— 1
t/1
1-
^_^
1
s^
LU
CL.
\
ISULFIDE
—
(CHROMIUM
CC
o
o
o
\
UJ
UJ
—I
t— <
o
MMF
1
§ i
=; Q § „ o
OQWUI5 1 S ""
Sot/iozs x o M
O t~ h— Q.
-------
FIGURE 18
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT Z
100% Subcategory IV
90 •
80 •
70
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 •
40
30
20
10
W VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
§
OQ
—
§
t/1
\
O
MMF
\
1
a.
•+
s^
u!
U-l
§
»*•*
O
ce
o
8
\
OILS GREASE
cc
g
CD
o
8
\^
c/l
1—
N^
u
S^
LU
£
\
SULFIDE
1 IL TT,
CHROMIUM
CC
0
\
OIL 4 GREASE
HMF W/PRECOAGULATION + 03
1
—
§
^\,\j S^
s § «
z it S o «a
l— i— a. vi «j o £j£
MMF W/PRECOAGULATION
90
80
70
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL SO .
' 40 •
30 .
20 .
10 -
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
~™
o
o
CD
8
1 — i
V
\
¥
\
— 1
i
MMf
S,
u,
1^-4
U.
V)
§
1— «
«*p^
nr
o
\,
t/}
-------
FIGURE 19
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT AA
74% Subcategory IV
26% Subcategory V
90
83
70
6C
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40
30
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
—
o
o
t/>
c
PHENOL
£
v>
CHROMl I
O
o
UJ
UJ
or
_j
o
MMF W/PRECOAGULATION + CC
o
CQ
—
8
K
8
t—
UJ
z
a.
o
u.
x
QC
5
a:
O
o
UJ
UJ
t5
BE
1
o
^WF W/PRECOAGULATION + 03
-------
FIGURE 20
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT BB
100% Subcategory IV
90
80
70
60
PERCENT
P.EVOVAL 50
40
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BD1
PARAMETER
PROCESS
§
§
(/I
to
U
o
W!F
i
o
UJ
X
•f
LJJ
_J
CC
—
CHROMIC
|
LJ
•aO
0
o
o
a
o
to
to
o
o
R/C
1=
t-J
+
UJ
•MF
CHROMIC
o
UJ
to
<3
—
o
o
o
1/1
o
— \
_J
o
UJ
£
MMF
SULFIDE
or
5
O
2
(J
aO
O
30
SO
70
60
PERCENT
RETOVAL 50
40
30
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
O
o
—
0
o
to
O
o
UJ
2:
R/C
UJ
o
u»
_J
^)
£
3
1
X
ae:
o
o
UJ
<>a
^J
o
o
o
^
LO
l—
LJ
*~
UJ
a.
s
u.
_J
ZJ
to
§
§
Q£
X
(_>
a:
O
—I
o
t_J
UJ
to
UJ
oO
-J
C3
••*••
l/i
«£ U. O O »3
OC3i/iOXZ>ZO — '
CQ ^J V— ^BW f^L IS) ^J < ^ *""*
•••••••••(•••^••••••^^••LiBllJllMMIIIII^BMjHBBM*
BDL BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
74
-------
FIGURE 21
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH ANT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT DP
77% Subcategory IV
23% Subcategory II
90 -
SO .
70 .
60 -
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 .
•10
30
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDI
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
i
o
o
00
— 1
u
o
\
1
o
2=
UJ
\
SULFIDE
—
o
3=
£X
O
o
\
UJ
UJ
CJ
— 1
f-'MF W/PRECOAGL1ATION
o
o
l"
o
MMh
X,
o
IE
\
UJ
a
u.
a
— I
E
IT
\
CC
0
3
\
UJ
LJ
O
+ cc
3
O
^S SS
UJ
§UJ
ae
_i a — m
o — x a: .-
2: u. o o ™
0 3C = = O ^
^— O- V> U tJ O
KM
FIGURE 22
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT T
100% Subcategory IV
90 -
RO -
70 •
60 -
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 -
40 •
30 -
20 •
10 -
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDI
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
o
R
H-
o
W
—
o
a
UJ
a.
*
SULFIDE
CC
\
T;
CHROMIU
—
o
\
UJ
^
UJ
oO
o
1
C3
S
™-
O
0
—
l/l
l/l
—
n
1
z
UJ
MMF
Q
UL.
_J
\
^.
X
0
d
\
1*0
O — ^D X O*-1
BDL - BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
75
-------
FIGURE 23
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT K
100% Subcategory IV
90
cC
7)
6J
PERCENT
REMOVAL r :
21
:c
10
<0 VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
ca
—
a
O
LJ
t/1
to
O
1—
g
LU
3;
CL.
UJ
Q
U.
_J
01
—
CHROMIC
|
UJ
•a:
1
o
MMF W/PRECOAG
o
en
o
o
••"
o
MMF
o
z
£
UJ
u.
=D
O
X
oc
o
o
UJ
t/)
a£
"
8 CC
—
0
o
on
o
o
z:
:r
SULFIDE
CHROMM
—
CC.
o
s
UJ
(X
ta
00
_J
o
MMF
90
80
70
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40
30
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
o
o
1
to
p
s
1
s
UJ
g
u.
_J
=)
i
K-i
|
o:
0
C^
UJ
QC
CD
_J
f— i
MMF S 0,
0
a
o
on
t/i
o
CD
1
UJ
UJ
(— 1
u.
^
E:
12
^~
o
CC
z:
o
o
UJ
l/l
UJ
CC
1
UJ
LU 5 °j
§8g gl 1 II d
BDL BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
76
-------
FIGURE 24
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT W
100% Subcategory V
90 .
SO .
70 -
60 .
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 .
40.
30.
20 .
10.
NO VALUE OR VALUE B01
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
o
CO
a
8
1 — 1
CO
— 1
CJ
£
^
1
\
UJ
u.
— 1
CO
\
s:
1
x:
CJE:
o
\
^
OIL&GRE/
KMF
o
S
—
o
s
— .
t/1
1—
g
'x
PHENOL
\^
SULFIDE
\
CHROMIUM
ae
o
8
\
UJ
CO
CJ
oO
o
MMF & CC
O
g
—
o
S
1 — .
H-
,
O
\
o
UJ
T:
o.
\
u.
CO
\
CHROMIUM
]
cc
0
«J
o
\
UJ
UJ
tX
o
0
MMF W/PRECOAGULATIQN
3DL BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
77
-------
FIGURE 25
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT Q
100% Subcategory V
90 -
80 -
70 -
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 •
40
30 •
20 .
10 •
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
1
O
VI
\^
o
CD
M«F
\^
_J
UJ
3:
+
N!
2
cc
CHROMIUM
1 —
o:
\
in
OIl&GRE?
O
o
ui
c
f
s
1
o
Lu
IMF
X^
UJ
u_
1
;5
>—i
en
0
1
8
\!
LU
UJ
CL."
c;
oC
i
_
o
o
Q
O
V)
I/)
F
i — i
N^XjXj ^
UJ
to
Z-~. UJ
UJ ^ CC"
i f~\ t^tt t ^
O — £ o: ..
z- u. c.* o **
CJ LU ^1 CC _I .^
c z ±) re c —
>/c + fir
BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
78
-------
FIGURE 26
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH ANT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT E
100% Subcategory V
90 .
80 .
70 .
60 .
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50
40 .
30 .
20 .
10 .
<0 VALUE OR VALUE BDL
PARAMETER
PROCESS
0
O
CO
o
MMF
\
*
X
\
LU
o
=3
CC
\
z:
i— t
o
n:
C£
O
0
\^
LU
l/l
LU
Ct
*-
O
_
o
on
CD
\
I
O
ZT
~
IMF
\
UJ
O
Lu.
ID
\^
3E
E:
c
a:
ce
o
o
N^
LJ
LU
cr
aC
0
O
CD
O
— 1
1—
p
o
I—
/c
s
SI
X
Q.
+ f
\
LU
O
u_
C/l
MF
\
E
1
O
— .
CC
0
o
o
\
LU
LU
c:
c
90 -
80 -
70 •
60 -
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 -
40 -
30 .
• 20 .
10.
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
o
CD
~~
0
O
c/1
"""""
O
1—
N^
d
^^
LU
0.
\
LJ
u.
1
(/)
\
§
.g.
o
a:
a;
o
\,
LU
to
UJ
CC
&c
_J
o
R/C
o
o
en
o
o
I/)
GO
t—
o
H-
d
JT^
LU
o:
O-
LU
O
U-
ID
I/)
|
O
cr
3:
or
s
LU
to
9^
LU
a:
O
oC
o
to
•5.
r~ u-i
_j Q ^ c:
O *— El G- __
s: u. o o
S°0 i/lOZ^ ZO ^
O f — ^— c*.io C->o o
BDL - BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
79
-------
FIGURE 27
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT F
100% Subcategory VI
90 •
60 •
70
60
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 •
40 •
30
20
10
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
1
o
o
o
— 1
1
h
V>
t—
o
o
UJ
a.
ISULFIDE
\
ICHROMIUM
— .
C£.
o
o
\
UJ
CO
IOIL&GREA
R/C + MKF
o
g
o
o
H-
0
i
1
—
SULFIDE
\,
CHROMIUM
cc
o
o
\^
UJ
CO
UJ
a:
•c
— i
O
R/C
0
o
CO
a
3
CO
CO
I—
!•! •
e
i
UJ
Q.
UJ
O
u.
CO
\
CHROMIUM
0^^
QC
O
o
V
UJ
to
«c
•8
O
R/C + KMF + CC
BDL BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
80
-------
FIGURE 28
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT S
100% Subcategory VII
90 .
on
C>U •
70 .
60 .
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 .
40 .
30 .
20
10 .
NO VALUE OR VALUE BDl
PARAMETER
PROCESS
o
CO
—
o
—
f
R
1
o
/C
\^
c!
?
MMF
N^
UJ
O
lo-
rn
\!
i— <
§
re
o:
O
o
\^
UJ
I/I
UJ
ce
oO
o
§
0
o
i/l
1—
1
g
^
O
z:
£
R/C
\^
£
u.
3
\
i
g
ce
o
s
\^
UJ
iS)
UJ
cc
o
o
CO
—
u
to
— 1
o
I—
HMF
\
_ i
o
X
i—
— |
g
\
_J
O
s:
ID
3:
Q-
MMF
\
£
u_
1
a
\
s:
LJ
o:
°,
o
o
\
\' h
i/j
UJ
DC
O
oO
_J
O
o
o
0
JU
o
£
_J
o
UJ
i
UJ
o
u.
w
ROMIUH
o
cc
o
y
t/J
UJ
of
*8
_J
O
l/>
§s
See
d— O
BDL BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS
81
-------
FIGURE 29
REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS WITH AWT TECHNOLOGIES TESTED AT PLANT EE
40% Subcategory IV
60% Subcategory VII
90 •
SO •
70 •
60 •
PERCENT
REMOVAL 50 •
40
30
20
10 •
NO VALUE OR VALUE BD1
PARAMETER
PROCESS
CO
"""— '
o
o
1/1
H-
o
\
i
aE
MMF
—
UJ
U_
Z5
\
i
re
~
a:
o
_J
o
\
UJ
UJ
ex
0
g
n
s
•
(/I
1—
f
o
O
vc
x,
g
UJ
0.
+ f
ft
—
2
u.
1
1FF
\
i
Of
U
O
O
X
UJ
-------
FIGURE 30
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
o
»m
<
3
UJ
O
g
UJ
, O.
PERCENT REMOVAL
^
§*»J tn ro
in o in
1 1 I
PLANT
SUBCATEGORK
RECOMMENDED
AWT
PROCESS
^
»
1
1
A
I
o
•*•
t
S
+
^
MOT*
VMf
^
I
0
If
1
1
B
11
o
+
iHBM
j£
£
+
o
«M
WS
I
«
%V
Ss
^
D
••«••
1
1
'
i
1
V
I
Y
|
1
z
1
i
!
1
AA
1
1
1
BB
—
I
1
DO
!
i
1
T
!]
—
K
IV
rr
4-
<„,.»
O
+
u.
i
HMW
(J
o
*
r
£
+
o
HBS!
o
u
+
5VOK
(„>
0
+
1
•MM
o
•*•
£
m^m*
_J
— ^
CD
CJ
oe
ex.
3K
i
AHVM
0
CJ
•«•
i
^•••i
•HVH
^^IH
i
I
w
1
1
Q
1
1
E
V
i
•••*•
O
u
4-
•mufti
0
o
+
I
i
^•^
F
VI
r
£
»
CJ
i
i
s
SI
1
EE
VII
F
£
+
oe
^•M
U-
JHMB^
* Performance Ratio
Treatment Performance
guideline Values
The Performance Ratio for BPT and AWT sys-
tems with effluents that equal BPT & BATEA
guidelines, respectively, Is equal to 1.
BPT Treatment Performance
BATEA (AWT)
Treatment Performance
83
-------
FIGURE 31
COD REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
*
o
1— t
r-
§
UJ
u_
oe
UJ
a.
UJ
Ul
£75
a.
inn in
PLANT
SUBCATEGORY
RECOMMENDED
AWT
PROCESS
|
|
•\
N^i
fcV
S;
^
j
i
1
1
A
I
U
o
4-
1
2.
4
tJ
Sr
0
^
1
I
2 64 —
' V
—
mnam
^^^"
\
\
1
-
1
1
I
1
^J
5s
—
^
5s
—
ff
jS
^
I
1
I
I
1
i
1
1
1
^M^M
§
^t
I
1
i
I
B
II
0
*-*
+
LI.
i£
^
4-
O
^
D
P
V
Y
z
AA
BB
DD
T
K
IV
n
o
o
o
4-
It.
i
o
4
T
£
4-
^
o
CJ
4-
i
+
i
o
u
+
i
o
3
O
§
c >
IX
i
tj
u
•*•
i
W
Q
E
V
i
O
U
4-
1
(>
CJ
4-
t
F
VI
U.
4-
O
DC
S
EE
VII
u.
£
+
O
5:
u.
* Performance Ratio
Treatment Performance
Guideline Values
The Performance Ratio for BPT and AWT sys-
tems with effluents that equal BPT i BATEA
guidelines, respectively, is equal to 1.
BPT Treatment Performance
BATEA (AWT)
Treatment Performance
84
-------
FIGURE 32
TS.S REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
| PERFORMANCE RATIO*
0 b
1 1
g Z5
fso —
UJ
2 75
of
. inn
PLANT
SUBCATEGORY
RECOWENDED
AWT
PROCESS
S
is
«
«
1
s
A
I
0
*
a.
+
2?
1
1
0
I
1 — 1
B
II
B
+
I
f
+
Sr
1
D
1
1
i
—
p
V
*'33~n
•\
• —
Y
§
si
is
s
1
1
1 — 1
i
F
i
i
>
i
!
i
z
AA
BB
DD
T
K
IV
i*
o
a
4-
i
U.
o
+
u.
+
0
a
4-
i
CJ
(J
•f
i
a
+
i
o
Jt
d
o
£
»
u_
£>
•*-
U-
w
i
q
1
l— J
i
V
1
B
+
i
a
4-
i
E
. T ^,
—
\
F
VI
i
+
o
S
V
i
+
ee.
EE
II
u.
* Performance Ratio *
Treatment Performance
Guideline Values
The Performance Ratio for BPT and AWT sys-
tems with effluents that equal BPT & BATEA
guidelines, respectively, Is equal to 1.
BPT Treatment Performance
BATEA (AWT)
Treatment Performance
85
-------
FIGURE 33
PHENOL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
— z.u
o
1
UJ
I
CC
CL
-------
FIGURE 34
CHROMIUM REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
2 0
*
o
S
¥ 1 0
O
o.
< 25 —
•* 50
H-
Ul
£5 75
PLANT
SUBCATEGORY
RECOMMENDED
AWT
PROCESS
A
I
u
o
i
+•
o
OC
0
B
II
CJ
•f
u.
,
+
o
—
U
D
p
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DD
T
K
IV
(V
o
CJ
•*-
u.
i
o
o
u_
4-
0
o
+•
u.
o
-f
i
u
'PRECOAG & C
i
S
4-
1
2
o
t—t
t~m
'PRECOAGULA'
•x
i
o
4.
1
§
'PRECOAGULA1
3
U_
w
q
V
u.
CJ
CJ
4-
U.
E F S EE
VI VII
i i
+ + +
E o? c? S
* Performance Ratio =
Treatment Performance
Guideline Values
The Performance Ratio for BPT and AWT sys-
tems with effluents that equal BPT & BATEA
guidelines, respectively, is equal to 1.
87
-------
FIGURE 35
SULFIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
*
o
s
LU
O
5 i n _
< 1.0
g
u_
CtL
CL.
3 25
850 —
UJ
CJ
OC yc
CL
PLANT
SUBCATEGORY
RECOMMENDED
AWT
PROCESS
A
I
s
u_
3ja
•t-
s?
0
i
CJ
I
B
I
Lu
^
+
£
D
o
(j
•f
UL.
P V Y I AA BB
IV
o
CJ
o *B
O C3
u. S
£ CJ CJ CC O
+ + + 3- +
i S i i li
DD T K W Q E F
V VI
§ §
1— I—
-------
FIGURE 36
v ^—^—i "" ~'
COLOR REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
*
o
i
e
n
3 25
UJ
« 50
z
UJ
§ 75
PUNT
SUBCATEGORY
RECOMMENDED
AWT
PROCESS
—
A
I
O
i
+
K
0
I
O
+
E
B
I
fc
•4-
C£
1 — 1
—
D
C"-
O
CJ
+
I
— 1
p
i
—
V
o
CJ
+
u.
-»-
*
1
Y
B
+
i
z
i
8
+
fe
AA
V
PRECOAG & C(
»
i
!
SB
o
u
4-
t
— .
DO
I—I
'PRECOAGULAT
3
*
—
T
o
+
£
| —
K
o
PRECOAGULAT]
3
i
| —
w
*
—
—
q
V
o
*
£
— i
E
CJ
ti
i
—
F
VI
,
•4-
o:
S
VI
u.
-f
cc
I—
—
EE
I
* Performance Ratio
Treatment Performance
Guideline Values
The Performance Ratio for BPT and AWT sys-
tems with effluents that equal BPT & BATEA
guidelines, respectively, Is equal to 1.
89
-------
FIGURE 37
OIL AND GREASE REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATIOS
FOR RECOMMENDED AWT PROCESSES
o
i
UJ
z 1 .£)—
o
u_
LU
a.
< 25
UJ
CC 5Q
UJ
o
£ 75
CL
PLANT
SUBCATEGORYl
RECOMMENDED
AWT
PROCESS
.,
A
I
0
i
+
(_j
cc
OB DPVYZAABBDDTK WQE F SEE
II IV V VI VII
§ g
o *-« •-•
o t— t-
- d §
f <_) O O U!
O «C *C «C
•f O O o
+ O <-> U
" i o iysl"£og oo i i
+ + + +4-+5+i+3 4-+ + +
Vil (__* ^' ''" ^i^ '" I' iAii^in 'l l" L& tJL '1*1 'i^- ^^ t_7 ^k
IS? IiS>IEIIiII III S? S?i
* Performance Ratio =
Treatment Performance
Guideline Values
The Performance Ratio for BPT and AWT sys-
tems with effluents that equal BPT & BATEA
guidelines, respectively, is equal to 1.
90
-------
CHAPTER VI
RECOMMENDED PROCESS DESIGN
PROCESS SELECTION
The selection of the recommended AWT process was made for each of the
19 textile plants based on the criteria listed below:
Comparison of the treatment effectiveness of the candidate AWT
processes tested at the site.
Comparison of the effluent quality of the candidate AWT processes
tested with the BATEA guideline values calculated for the plant.
Comparative evaluation of the capital and operational costs of the
candidate AWT processes tested that can technically achieve the
BATEA effluent guideline values or if no AWT process is capable of
achieving the guideline values then comparative costs of the AWT
technologies providing similar effluent quality.
If only one of the AWT processes tested achieved the BATEA guideline
values then it was the recommended AWT process for that plant. However, if
all or none of the AWT processes could achieve the BATEA guideline values
then a comparison of relative treatment effectiveness of the processes
and/or capital and operational costs was made in order to select the recom-
mended AWT process. The comparative cost estimates are discussed in greater
detail in Chapter VII. Figure 38 illustrates the logic procedure used to
arrive at a recommended process selection.
The recommended AWT process was jointly selected by representatives of
AMTI, EPA, the host plant and Engineering-Science, Inc., after careful
review and evaluation of the pilot plant data.
COMPARISON OF PILOT PLANT DATA TO BATEA GUIDELINE VALUES
The BATEA effluent limitations are given as maximum 30-day average
values and maximum daily values. The pilot plant experimental results
represent average values over a rather short testing period (approximately
15 days in most cases). Therefore, for comparative purposes a mean efflu-
ent from the pilot plant experiment is projected as the long term average,
the 90th percent!le value is projected as the maximum 30-day average and the
99th percentile value is projected as the daily maximum value. Normal and
log-normal distributions were tested for each process parameter and the dis-
91
-------
tribution with the best fit to the data was selected. These projections
assume that influent conditions remain the same as those experienced during
the pilot plant experiment.
PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA
The optimum operating conditions of the AWT processes were established
during the screening phase of the pilot plant experimental program and con-
firmed during the continuous operating period at each plant site. Tables 32
through 38 show the optimum operating conditions and removal efficiencies
for the technologies evaluated as candidate AWT processes for each of the 19
plants. Table 39 is a summary, by subcategory, of anticipated average
efficiencies of the AWT systems developed from the continuous operating
data. The operating conditions most likely to achieve the anticipated
efficiencies are also listed. Figures 39 through 43 are conceptual process
flow diagrams for the individual technologies used to form the AWT treat-
ment trains. The legend for symbols used in the conceptual flow diagrams is
presented in Table 40.
Based on the selection of recommended AWT processes and the performance
of other candidate advanced waste treatment systems tested at the 19 plants,
a process selection and design procedure was developed for textile plants
that did not participate in the study. This procedure is detailed in the
"Advanced Waste Treatment Process Selection and Process Design" programs
previously presented to the ATMI. These packages were developed by sub-
category. The objective of these programs was to allow textile plants which
did not participate in the study to select a hypothetical AWT system which
would be required as a result of implementation of the BATEA guidelines. In
addition to this, the programs provided a method establishing AWT unit sizes
for each required process. This information was utilized for developing
cost estimates for applying the BATEA guidelines and is discussed further in
Chapter VII. An example of the AWT Process Selection and Process Design
Package is presented in Appendix F.
92
-------
TABLE 32
REACTOR/CLARIFIER PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SUBCAT
EGORY
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
OPTIMUM
OVERFLOW
RATE
GPD/ SF
400
400
400
COAGULANT
SELECTED
NONE
Al+3
Al+J/Liiw
COAGULAN1
DOSAGE
MG/L
-
7
35/100
UNDERFLOW
RATE
% OF FLOW
10
1
19
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY %
BOD
34
67
80
COD
13
35
78
TSS
43
30
86
PHE
-
33
-
SUL
.
43
-
CHR
.
0
-
COLOR
1
38
-
OIL &
GREASE
0
-
-
NO SITES TESTED
D
.. P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
OD
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
©
(D
400
Q
CD
O
(D
-------
TABLE 33
MULTI-MEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SUBCATE-
SQRY
I
II
'Hi
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
SURFACE
LOADING
RATE
GPM/ SF
0)
3
©
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY *
BOD
•
57
COD
35
TSS
84
PHE
33
SUL
29
CHR
0
COLOR
44
OIL &
GREASE
-
NO SITES TESTED
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
8B
DD
T
K
W
Q
E
f
S
EE
4.4
3.0
0
5
3
0
3
3
5
5
7
2
3
0
5
7
21
17
20
23
12
38
55
7
26
46
44
79
28
23
35
35
7
7
13
3
14
25
24
40
0
34
71
24
80
41
20
29
19
57
63
91
92
74
78
-
-
_
33
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
64
-
.
.
-
-
0
-
-
- •
-
-
28
-
.
17
5
0
-
21
-
14
-
-.
-
0
4
1
6
10
_
0
3
16
1
25
2
11
-
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CD Process Not Effective
94
-------
TABLE 34
MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION (FOLLOWING REACTOR/CLARIFIER)
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SOBCATE-
GORY
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
HSuRFACE
LOADING
RATE
GPM/ SF
2.9
3.0
5.4
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY *
BOD
36
17
26
COD-
11
24
11
TSS
45
77
55
PHE
-
20
-
SUL
-
33
-
CHR
29
20
COLOR
8
40
-
OIL &
GREASE
50
_
-
NO SITES TESTED
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DD
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
G)
0
3
CD
CD
CD
1.5
0
0
(T)
CO
3.0
5
5.0
5.0
3.0
31
25
37
8
0
0
0
6
9
8
15
15
19
23
61
37
67
72
68
37
71
-
17
-
-
33
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
16
-
0
61
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
26
17
0
39
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CD Process Not Effective
95
-------
TABLE 35
MULTI-MEDIA FILTER WITH PRECOAGULATIQN
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SUBCATEGORY
t
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DD
T
K
M
Q
E
F
S
EE
SURFACE
LOADING
RATE
GPM/SF
0)
(D
0
COAGULANT
SELECTED
COAGULANT
DOSAGE
MG/L
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY %
BOD
COD
TSS
PHE
SUL
CHR
COLOR
OIL 4
GREASE
NO SITES TESTED
CD
3.0
CD
CD
3.0
3.0
CD
2.0
CD
2.0
5.0
2.5
(!)
3.0
Q)
Al+3
Al+3
C.P.
Al+3
FeCl3
C.P.
Al+3
C.P.
1.5
10
0.5
12
16 as Fe
3
1
13
18
23
75
54
58
43
31
77
20
11
22
45
46
34
24
51
NEG
NEG
83
16
50
64
36
NEG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29
72
21
-
7
-
NEG
NEG
NEG
65
41
-
52
-
-
-
-
(T)Process Not Effective; C.P. = Cationic polymer; FeCIs = Ferric Chloride; A1+3 = Alum
96
-------
TABLE 36
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION (FOLLOWING MMF)
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SUBCATEGORY
I
II
HI
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
CONTACT
TIME
WINS.
45
45
25
CARBON
CAPACITY
LB SOO/
LB CARBON
0.155
0.230
0.230*
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY %
BOD
55
19
60
COD
46
84
80
TSS
70
58
87
PHE
38
SUL
32
CHR
76
34
COLOR
37
69
OIL &
GREASE
56
-
NO SITES TESTED
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DD
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
45
15
45
45
49
45
45
45
60
35
45
35
45
45
35
45
0.110*
0.110*
0.110*
0.104
0.120
0.103
0.110*
0.110*
0.112
0.110
0.250*
0.150
0.350
0.300
0.180*
0.180
32
11
52
25
29
17
17
0
29
32
56
57
65
14
14
20
33
5
47
63
25
42
41
45
14
69
65
72
80
63
32
77
73
0
80
45
8
30
14
10
46
79
85
47
44
50
49
34
55
-
-
-
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
-
90
40
29
52
-
7
-
27
-
-
-
21
60
70
70
34
53
41
73
86
75
62
59
77
52
86
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
> Process Not Effective
average for
egory.
Value given Is
97
-------
TABLE 37
OZONE (FOLLOWING MMF)
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SUBCATEGORY
I
II
in .
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
CONTACT
TIME
MINS.
45
0)
33
DOSAGE
mg/1
250
8
LB COD
REMOVED PEf
LB OZONE
UTIL
0.304
0.327
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY %
»
BOD
0
19
COD
5
3
TSS
18
0
PHE
0
SUL
0
CHR
0
COLOR
44
OIL &
GREASE
NO SITES TESTED
0
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
DO
T
K
M
Q
E
f
S
EE
CD
0)
m
03
136
CD
CD
• CD
25
0)
.
CD
CO
25-75
164
8
1130-1500
60
31-277
0.454
0.404
1.178
0.142
0.369
0.366
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
24
20
91
7
3
18
33
33
0
19
0
.
.
_
-
.
_
20
0
-
0
_
_
59
65
59
72
64
71
-
.
(D Process Not Effective
98
-------
TABLE 38
OZONE (FOLLOWING GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION)
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SUBCATESORY
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
PLANT
A
0
B
CONTACT
TIME
MINS.
0)
CD
CD
DOSAGE
mg/1
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY %
BOO
COD
TSS
PHE
SUL
CHR
COLOR
OIL &
GREASE
NO SITES TESTED
D
P
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
OD
T
K
W
Q
E
F
S
EE
CD
CD
CD
®
CD
®
CO
o>
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
©
©
427
-262
17
30
0
68
••H^MB^^BM-
W*«*M*«BI«III*BVB
fh Process Not Effective
99
-------
o
o
TABLE 39
AWT PROCESS EFFECTIVE OPERATING CONDITION SUMMARY
MMF (FOLLOWING REAC. CLAR)
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
o
r~
tn
t/»
m
o
o
r~
O
30
30
S
30
c:
i—
0
"O
3T
m
— 1
eo
s
S
0
3
CD
O
0
=
OPT.
OPER.
COND.
S
1
e
e
e
PO
9
9
CONTRACT TIME mins.
MMF W/PRECOAGULATION
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
0
r~
BO
eo
m
O
eo
CO
X
en
-C*
o
a:
70
O
o
o
eo
o
0
re
m
o
0
— 1
o
%
is
3
30
O
en
12
eo
CO
en
CD
O
o
0
o
kO
0
OPT.
OPER.
CONO.
1
m
3
id
ro
Ul
en
K
CO
ro
en
o
-H
3-
3
9
~J\
S
LJI
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION
(FOLLOWING MMF)
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
o
r—
o
-n
eo
m
s
8
o
Oi
^J
a
3
en
3
o
y
S
en
en
s
VD
o
S
8
•n
en
o
s
J\
H
-H
Ln
S
**
O
y
eo
•sj
o
-»
3
en
en
en
eo
00
s
s
71
O
^
*
en
ro
en
o
en
en
OPT.
OPER.
COND.
S
•ya
o
§
g
i
q
— 1
m
1
VI
4S.
en
en
en
en
en
en
SUBCATEGORV
i— i
•— t
-
. i
-
-
(S Process Not Effective
(continued)
-------
CTl
CO
00
<
T3
01
3
C
o
o
SUBCATEGORY
REACTOR CLARIFIER
CC
UJ
1—
_J
u!
<
a
UJ
as:
f—
_J
t—
§1
g§
e
1 OZONE
[ (FOLLOWING mf)
H- UJ
a. a.
oo
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
¥
• K C
t— UJ Z
%O- O
00
REMOVAL'
EFFICIENCIES
•8
• C£. C.
1— UJ Z
a. a- o
o o o
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
%
• a: o
1— LU Z
a. a. C
OO 0
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES
%
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/sf
COAGULANT SELECTED
COAGULANT DOSAGE mg/1
BOD
COD
TSS
PHE
SUL
CHR
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
SURFACE LOADING RATE gpm/sf
BOO
COD
TSS
PHE
SUL
CHR
COLOR
OIL 4 GREASE
SURFACE LOADING RATE gpm/sf
BOD
COD
TSS
PHE
SUL
CHR
COLOR
OIL S GREASE
SURFACE LOADING RATE gpm/sf
COAGULANT SELECTED
COAGULANT DOSAGE mg/1
BOD
COD
TSS
PHE
SUL
CHR
COLOR
OIL & GREASE
VII
400
Alum
25
63
12
30
16
48
6
54
17
76
14
7
4
0
21
54
15
20
3
C.P.
13
77
51
36
52
VI
400
C.P.
35
85
69
67
54
12
68
a>
5
0
15
68
33
0
17
-------
TABLE 40
LEGEND FOR CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FUNCTION SYMBOL SCHEDULE
MEANING OF
LETTER FIRST LETTER
MEANING OF
SECOND LETTER
LETTER
MEANING OF
FIRST LETTER
MEANING OF
SECOND LETTER
A
C
D
E
f
H
I
K
L
M
Differential
Flow Rate
Hand
Time
Level
Motor
Alarm
Control
Primary Element
High
Indicate
Low
Mid
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
w
Y
Z
Pressure
Quality Totalize
Reducing Record
Speed or Safety Switch
Temperature Transmit
Multi-variable
Vacuum Valve
Torque Well
Relay
Position
Line Code
Electrical
Process or Mechanical
Pneumatic
No Connection
Connect!on
jj^ Diaphragm Operated Valve
—Cl3— Meter
—£-•© \ Centri fugal Pump
X—X
Positive Displacement Pump
102
-------
FIGURE 38
EXAMPLE OF LOGIC SCHEMATIC FOR RECOMMENDED PROCESS SELECTION
CANDIDATE PROCESSES
Process A
Process B
Do candidate
processes meet
BATEA limitations?
Process A
yes; Process
B no.
-Both—I
no
Both
yes
No
Both processes
exhibit similar
treatment
effectiveness
Is there a major
difference in treat-
ment effectiveness.
s
ar
Yes
A far
superior
to B
Process A
Clearly superior
Processes
economically
comparable
Other considerations
I
Process A deemed
better choice
Process A is recommended
Note: This diagram represents the case where Process A is recommended.
At any decision level Process B could be determined to be the
more attractive and ultimately be chosen through a similar
logic sequence.
103
-------
FIGURE 39
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
REACTOR/CLARIFIER
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
TO SOLIDS
HANDLING
FROM FILTER BACKWASH
COAGULANT FEED SYSTEM
REACTOR/CLARIFIER
-------
FIGURE 40
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
MULTI-MEDIA FILTER
BACKWASH RETURN
TREATMENT
PLANT
INFLUENT
BACKWASH SUMP
H U
LT I - H F D 1 A F I L T R AJJLO
F I LTER BACKWASH SYSTEM
-------
FIGURE 41
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
MULTI-MEDIA FILTER WITH PRECOAGULATION
BACKWASH RETURN
O
CTv
TREATMENT PLANT 1NFLUEMT
STORAGE
TANK
FFLUENT
EXISTING
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
COAGULANT
FEED SYSTEM
MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION
FILTER BACKWASH SYSTEM
-------
FIGURE 42
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - CARBON COLUMNS
MOTlYt WAftK FOR CARBON TRANSPORT
txl KOT1VE AIR
100 PSi
YDRAIN TO
PLANT
INFLUENT
CARBON
DISCHARGE
BACKWASH SUI1P
-------
FIGURE 43
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - OZONE GENERATOR AND CONTACTOR
OZONATION
N2,C0
O
00
PURGE TO
ATMOSPHERE
-------
CHAPTER VII
COST ESTIMATING
INTRODUCTION
Uniform cost estimating procedures were developed to provide consist-
ency of estimating effort throughout the project. Two different levels of
cost estimates were developed. The first level provided an estimation of
comparative costs. At some of the sites more than one candidate AWT process
provided treatment sufficient to meet the BATEA guidelines or more than one
AWT process provided a similar degree of treatment but none could achieve
the BATEA guideline values. The first level of cost estimating provided an
economic means of selecting a recommended AWT process from otherwise equiva-
lent candidate processes and was intended to be only an approximation of the
relative costs of equipment installed at idealized sites.
The second level of cost estimating was developed as an "estimating"
program which was completed by a group of individual textile mills to esti-
mate the costs of installing and operating AWT technology at specific sites.
This second level of estimating was a much more detailed approach and in-
cluded the application of site specific factors such as topography, unit
configurations, materials of construction, power costs, etc. These cost
estimates are for AWT technology and do not consider other alternatives such
as optimizing or upgrading biological treatment, improving management of
manufacturing operations, or in-plant control such as PVA recovery or chemi-
cal substitution.
COMPARATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Curves were developed for the purpose of comparing alternative AWT pro-
cesses and evaluating the cost effectiveness of processes with equivalent
treatment effectiveness (Figures 44 through 49). Cost data previously com-
piled in the EPA study "Appraisal of Powdered Activated Carbon Processes for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment" (EPA 600/Z-77-156) as well as additional
vendor cost data acquired by Engineering-Science, Inc., formed the basis of
the comparative cost curves. The curves included normal costs that would be
anticipated at average or idealized sites. Not represented by the curves
are costs associated with engineering, legal, administrative, fiscal, other
capital items, or the costs associated with site specific factors such as
topography and existing site configuration. These items may have a signifi-
cant influence on the actual estimate of capital and 0 & M costs for a
particular site. For this reason the more accurate procedure for the
second level of estimating was developed.
109
-------
COST ESTIMATING PROGRAM FOR ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT OF TEXTILE WASTEWATER
This second level of estimating or site specific cost estimating was
designed as the second phase of a two-phase "AWT Process Selection and Pro-
cess Design" program and a "Cost Estimating Program for Advanced Waste
Treatment of Textile Wastewater". The first phase, or the process selection
program, enabled a textile plant that did not participate in the study to
estimate which AWT technologies would be required in order to meet, or come
closest to meeting, the presently promulgated BATEA guidelines. The infor-
mation from the pilot plant study summarized in Chapters V and VI was uti-
lized for developing the "AWT Process Selection and Process Design" program
which aided the plants in defining their site specific AWT system. All pro-
cess selections were reviewed by Engineering-Science, Inc. Plants partici-
pating in the pilot plant study estimated costs based on the process(es)
defined from the pilot plant site visit.
The second phase of the site specific cost estimating program included
estimating the capital and operation and maintenance cost associated with
the selected AWT process(es). The cost estimating program was divided into
three parts. The first was the "Equipment Selection and Sizing", the second
was the "Capital Cost Estimate" and the third was for determining "Operation
and Maintenance Costs".
The following is a list of the 11 possible AWT systems that could be
selected from the Process Selection Program.
AWT SYSTEM
1 Reactor Clarifier
2 Multi-Media Filter
3 Multi-Media Filter w/Precoagulation
4 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter
5 Multi-Media Filter and Ozone
6 Reactor Clarifier and Ozone
7 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter and Ozone
8 Multi-Media Filter and Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
9 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter and Granular Activated
Carbon Adsorption
10 Multi-Media Filter and Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption and
Ozone
11 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter and Granular Activated
Carbon Adsorption and Ozone
110
-------
Each of these systems is comprised of one or more of four AWT unit pro-
cesses; reactor clarifiers, multi-media filters, carbon adsorption and
ozone. The first part of the estimating package allowed for selection of
equipment configurations and sizes. The second part of the estimating pack-
age was designed so that the installed costs of the major equipment involved
in each system could be determined. Based on the major equipment configura-
tion and sizing from Part One, a site plan and equipment layout could be
developed. The costs of minor equipment, site specific factors including
topography, local building codes, site geometry, soils and foundation prob-
lems and existing facilities, as well as capital cost items including
engineering costs, legal costs and contractor overhead and profit were then
added to the major equipment installed cost to provide a total capital cost.
Curves were developed and were included in Part Three of the estimating
package which allowed the plants to estimate the annual operation and main-
tenance costs. Included in the Operation and Maintenance curves were the
costs for additional manpower, electricity, maintenance materials and chemi-
cal costs.
Appendix F contains the Cost Estimating Program for Advanced Waste Treat-
ment of Textile Wastewater and an example AWT Process Selection and Process
Design Program for Subcategory IV.
Ill
-------
FIGURE 44
REACTOR CLARIFIER COST CURVES
CO
o
Q
CO
O
C_5
1,000,000
150,000-
120,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
••
M»
-
-
•
^
,.^
X
-•*-
/
*•
/
x-
/
/
, •*
X
s
-
.. CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
0 & M*
300 1,000 10,000 100,000
EFFECTIVE SURFACE AREA Ft2 (Single Unit)
*Does not include
chemical or sludge disposal
112
-------
FIGURE 45
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION COST CURVES
10,000,000
CO
oc.
•ef.
O
Q
CO
O
O
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
0 & M
100 1,000 10,000
MEDIA SURFACE AREA, SQUARE FEET
113
-------
FIGURE 46
CARBON ADSORPTION COST CURVES
10,000,000
1,000,000
CO
a:
-------
FIGURE 47
IQO',000
10,000
"o
0
0
«\
V)
3 1,000
100
10
-
-
-
-
CARBON REGENERATION COST CURVES
_, . — ... '"—
_^**f~^
_^-
^^
—— •
.^^
•"TT"
-^
/
^--
X
*^
-
•n*
X
*•
'
*•
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
O&M COST
1000
10,000 100,000
FURNACE LOADING RATE (Ibs/day)
115
-------
FIGURE 48
OZONE SYSTEM COST CURVES
OZONE CONTACTOR
10,000,000
oo
OL
o
Q
1,000,000
100,000
o
a:
o
o
10,000
1,000 10,000
CONTACTOR VOLUME (cu. ft.)
100,000
116
-------
FIGURE 49
OZONE SYSTEM COST CURVES
UZONE GENERATION
10,000,000
1,000,000
in
o
Q
CO
o
o
100,000
10,000
/
100
1,000
10,000
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
0 & M*
100,000
OZONE OUTPUT (Ibs/day)
117
-------
CHAPTER VIII
ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The validity of any study depends on the collection of accurate data;
therefore, an analytical quality assurance program was established for the
BATEA study to guarantee the proper collection, analysis and record-keeping
of the samples. The Quality Assurance (QA) Program required that approxi-
mately ten percent of all the samples were to be used to establish the
reliability of all the data. The following methods were used to monitor the
reliability of the data.
1. Duplicate Samples (approximately five percent of all the samples) -
These samples were labeled in such a manner that the identity of
the sample was not known by the laboratory. This method was used
because it gave quality assurance without overburdening the labor-
atories.
2. Reference Samples (approximately three percent of all the sam-
ples) - Replicate standards were analyzed by each laboratory in
order to compare results to a known value and the mean of all
laboratories.
3. Round Robin Blind Samples (approximately one percent of all sam-
ples) - Blind split samples from each plant participating in the
study were sent to all participating laboratories. This method
was used to evaluate a laboratory's capability for analyzing an
unknown sample.
4. Spiked Samples (approximately one percent of all samples) - Spiked
samples ranging from 150 percent to 300 percent of the expected
value were analyzed by each laboratory. This method of QA was dis-
continued during the study.
The procedures used during the QA Program were reviewed and approved by
the Process Measurement Branches of IERL/EPA (Research Triangle Park, N.C.
and Cincinnati, Ohio) prior to the initiation of program activities.
There were five support laboratories that participated in the pilot
plant phase of the study. In addition, the Engineering-Science, Atlanta,
Georgia Laboratory performed testing for the PAC studies and color and TOC
analyses for the pilot plant studies. All six laboratories were involved
118
-------
in the QA Program. The laboratories are coded A through F for identifi-
cation in this report.
The results of the QA Program for the entire study period from April,
1977 to September, 1978 are summarized in this chapter. The QA data was
entered into a computer system which provided the calculations of percent
deviation, average percent deviation and QA charts for the laboratories.
The average percent deviation values are reported in absolute numbers.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONFIDENCE LEVELS
In order to establish the capabilities of all the laboratories which
performed the analyses, it was necessary to compare the percent deviation
of a laboratory's results to the desired percent deviations.
The desired percent deviations were established from the reference sam-
ple data and blind sample data of the first two quarterly reports. The
percent deviations listed below represent those values associated with a 95
percent level of confidence.
BODi
COD
- 137 percent deviation
58 percent deviation
TSS - 92 percent deviation
Phenol - 122 percent deviation
Chromium - 63 percent deviation
Sulfide - 134 percent deviation
These values are somewhat higher than normally expected because the
absolute concentration values of the above parameters were quite low.
PRESENTATION OF QA DATA
The QA reference sample data, blind sample data and duplicate sample
data are summarized in Tables 41, 42 and 43, respectively. Tables 44
through 48 present duplicate sample QA results for each participating labor-
atory on a plant by plant basis. Table 49 summarizes the program results by
presenting the total number of QA samples analyzed by each laboratory and
the portion of which were outside of acceptable limits.
The QA data has been computerized in order to calculate the percent
deviations and average percent deviations for each laboratory by parameter
analysis and the type of QA sample. The data is presented graphically for
each laboratory in the QA charts contained in quarterly QA reports presen-
ted to ATMI and EPA.
119
-------
TABLE 41
SUMMARY OF REFERENCE SAMPLE QA DATA
Parameter
BOD5
COD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
582
92%
63%
122*
134%
No. Sa
Total!
4
4
10
6
22
22
LAB C
mples
>95*
1
1
0
0
1
1
Parameter
BOD5
COD
TSS
Chromi urn
Phenol
Sulfide
Avg.
Dev.
82%
39%
31%
17%
72%
75%
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
No. Sa
Total
4
4
10
6
22
22
LAB D
imples
>95%
0
0
1
0
5
3
LAB A
No. Samples
Total >95%
4
4
11
4
23
21
0
0
0
0
3
3
Avg,
Dev.
19%
8%
53%
6%
153%
173%
Avg.
Dev.
24%
2%
19%
2%
65%
60%
I
No. Sa
Total 1
4
4
3
6
6
6
M E
mples
>95%
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAB F
No. Samples
Total >95%
4
4
7
-
12
20
0
0
0
-
1
3
Avg.
Dev.
16%
11%
12%
12%
59%
29%
Avg.
Dev.
8%
2%
10%
-
85%
78%
LAB B
No. Samples
Total >95%
4 0
4 0
11 1
6 0
15 2
20 1
Avg.
Dev.
35%
2*
43%
19%
156%
60%
120
-------
TABLE 42
SUMMARY OF BLIND SAMPLE QA DATA
Parameter
80D5
COD
TSS
Chronvi urn
Phenol
Sulflde
952
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
92%
63%
122*
134%
No. Sa
Total
39
10
38
29
28
26
LAB C
mples
>95%
5
4
1
3
0
1
Avg.
Dev.
67%
25%
49%
30%
45?
58%
I
No. Sa
Total
28
35
38
34
28
26
.AB D
mples
>95%
1
12
7
3
3
7
Avg.
Dev.
545!
49%
58%
31%
71%
91%
No. Sa
Total
7
11
10
10
8
9
LAB E
mples
>95X
0
1
2
1
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
46%
19%
72%
44%
34%
48%
I
No. Sa
Total
39
40
39
39
34
31
.AB B
mples
>95%
0
4
3
6
3
0
Avg.
Dev.
36%
31%
40%
44%
58%
68%
Parameter
fiOD5
COD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
92%
63%
122S
134%
L
No. Sa
Total
30
38
39
36
31
31
AB A
mples
>95%
0
5
0
0
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
43%
24%
35%
21%
53%
67%
L;
No. Sa
Total
32
34
31
-
13
20
\B f
mples
>95%
0
6
3
-
1
10
Avg.
Dev.
42%
29%
43%
-
48%
164%
121
-------
TABLE 43
SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE QA DATA
Parameter
BOOg
COD
SOD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
95Z
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
LAB
No. Sa
Total
51
50
18
51
1
23
19
C
mples
>95%
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
21%
16%
17%
22%
11%
14%
29%
LAB
No. Sa
Total
48
68
39
65
34
31
25
D
mples
>95%
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
8%
13%
14%
21%
63!
14%
13%
LAB E
No. Sa
Total
12
•14
-
13
12
-
-
mples
>95%
0
0
-
0
0
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
13%
12%
-
24%
20%
-
-
LAB 1
No. Sa
Total
32
37
7
33
-
3
-
5
mples
>95%
0
0
0
0
BDL*
0
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
12%
7%
7%
18%
-
15%
-
Parameter
eoos
COD
SOD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
LAB
No. Sa
Total
28
23
-
30
-
-
-
A
mples
>95%
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
9%
3%
-
9%
-
-
-
*BDL - Below Detectable Limits
122
-------
TABLE 44
SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE QA DATA
LABORATORY C
Parameter
BOD5
COD
SOD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
952
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
PLAN!
No. Sa
Total
4
3
-
4
-
.
-
• P
mples
>95%
0
0
-
0
*
BDL
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
38%
9%
-
35%
-
-
-
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
12
12
-
12
-
-
-
S
tnples
>95%
0
1
-
0
•£
BDL
BOL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
14%
18%
-
31%
-
-
-
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
10
TO
-
10
-
-
-
AA
mples
>95«
0
0
-
0
*
BDL
BDL*
*
BDL
Avg.
Dev.
10%
9%
-
8%
-
-
"
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
13
13
6
13
-
11
9
F
mples
>95%
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
20%
26%
35%
21%
11%
111
35%
Parameter
BOD5
COD
SOD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58S
58%
92%
63%
122*
134%
PLAN
No. Sa
Total
12
12
12
12
-
12
10
r T
mples
>95%
0
0
0
1
BDL*
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
35%
9%
8%
20%
-
18%
32%
*BDL - Below Detectable Limits
123
-------
TABLE 45
SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE QA DATA
Parameter
«)D5
COO
SOD
TSS
Chromi urn
Phenol
Sulfide
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134S
PLANT D
No. Samples
Total >95%
7
9
-
8
-
2
2
0
1
-
0
BDL*
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
5%
19%
-
42%
-
49%
2%
Parameter
BOD5
COD
SOD
TSS
•Chromi urn
Thenol
Sulflde
LABORATORY D
PLANT EE
No. Samples
Total >95%
2
15
4
14
2
_
7
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
0
3
2
0
0
BDL"
0
Avg.
Dev.
1%
28%
41%
27%
n
_
14%
PLANT A
No. Samples
Total >952
11
11
9
11
2
-
-
PLANT BB
No. Samples
Total >95S
16
16
14
16
15
16
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
9%
3%
7%
14%
6%
15%
22%
0
0
0
0
0
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
9%
7%
5%
20%
5%
-
~
PLANT 0
No. Samples
Total >95%
11
17
12
16
15
13
13
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Avg.
Dev.
10%
12%
19%
12%
6%
7%
13%
*BDL - Below Detectable Limits
124
-------
TABLE 46
SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE QA DATA
LABORATORY E
Parameter
80D5
COD
SOD
TSS
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
*BDL - Belo
95S
Conf.
Level
137?
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
Detectabl
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
12
14
-
13
12
-
i Limits
B
mples
>95J
0
0
-
0
0
BDL*
*
BDL
Avg.
Oev.
13*
12*
-
24%
20%
-
125
-------
TABLE 47
SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE QA DATA
LABORATORY B
Parameter
•BOD5
COD
SOD
TSS
'Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
*BDL - Belo
95Z
Conf.
Level
1375!
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
1345!
i Detectabl
PLAN!
No. Sa
Total
4
4
-
4
-
-
-
> Limits
' DD
mples
>95X
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
22%
8%
-
25%
_
-
-
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
6
7
-
5
-
-
-
*
Y
mples
>9SX
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
10%
5%
-
16%
-
.
-
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
10
"14
7
14
-
-
-
I
mples
>95%
0
0
0
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
12%
7%
7%
11%
-.
-
-
PLANT
No. Sa
Total
12
12
-
TO
-
3
_
E
mples
>95%
0
0
-
0
BDL'
0
BDL'
Avg.
Dev.
10%
6%
-
26%
-
15%
~
126
-------
TABLE 48
SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE QA DATA
LABORATORY A
PLANT V
PLANT A
PLANT W
Parameter
BOD5
COO
SOD
TSS
thronri urn
Phenol
Sulflde
*BDL - Bel 01
95%
Conf.
Level
137%
58%
58%
92%
63%
122%
134%
Detectabl
No. Sa
Total
6
6
-
6
-
_
-
( Limits
•<
mples
>95X
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
7%
2%
-
4%
_
_
-
No. Sa
Total
13
14
-
14
_
_
-
mples
>95X
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
9%
0%
-
9%
_
_
•
No. Sa
Total
4
" 5
-
2
.
-
~
mples
>95%
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
BDL*
Avg.
Dev.
6%
2%
-
2%
-
-
"
No. Sa
Total
5
8
-
8
-
-
mples
>95X
0
0
-
0
BDL*
BDL*
*
BDL
Avg.
Dev.
12%
8%
-
15*
- .
- ,
127
-------
TABLE 49
SUMMARY OF SUPPORT LABORATORY QA PERFORMANCE
ro
CO
Ub
C
0
E
g
A
f
Reference Samples
BOD COD TSS Chr Fhe Sul
25 25
(4) (4)
0 0
(4) (4)
0 0
(4) (4)
0 0
(4) (4)
0 0
(4) (4)
0 0
(4) (4)
0 0
(10) (6)
10 0
(10) (6)
0 0
(3) (6)
9 0
(11) (6)
0 0
(11) (4)
0
(7)
5 5
(22) (22)
23 14
(22) (22)
0 0
(6) (6)
13 5
(15) (20)
13 14
(23) (21)
a 15
(12) (20)
BOD
13
(39)
4
(28)
0
(7)
0
(39)
0
(30)
0
(32)
Blind
COD . TSS
10 3
(40) (38)
34 18
(35) (38)
9 20
(11) (10)
10 8
(40) (39)
13 0
(38) (39)
18 10
(34) (31)
Samples
Chr
10
129)
9
(34)
10
(10)
15
(39)
0
(36)
-
Phe Sul
0 4
(28) (26)
11 27
(28) (26)
0 0
(8) (9)
9 0
(34) (31)
0 0
(31) (31)
8 50
(13) (20)
BOD COD
0 6
(51) (50)
0 6
(48) (68)
0 0
(12) (14)
0 0
(32) (37)
0 0
(28) (23)
-
Duplicate Samples
SOD TSS Chr
6
(18)
8
(39)
-
0
(7)
-
-
4 0
(51) (1)
0 0
(65) (34)
0 0
(13) (12)
0
(33)
0
(30)
-
Phe Sul
0 0
(23) (19)
0 0
(31) (25)
_
0
(3)
-
-
Legend: Top Number » % of results reported where the deviation was greater than the maximum allowable
for 95% confidence level
(Bottom Number) ™ Total number of samples analyzed
Chr - Total Chromium
Phe - Phenol
Sul - Sulfide
-------
OBSERVATIONS
The following laboratories reported at least 20 percent of the QA sam-
ples outside of the accepted range (confidence level) for the parameters
listed below.
a. BODg - Reference Samples: Lab C
Blind Samples: none
Duplicate Samples: none
b. COD - Reference Samples: Lab C
Blind Samples: Lab D
Duplicate Samples: none
c. TSS - Reference Samples: none
Blind Samples: none
Duplicate Samples: none
d. Chromium - Reference Samples: none
Blind Samples: none
Duplicate Samples: none
e. Phenol - Reference Samples: Lab D
Blind Samples: none
Duplicate Samples: none
f. Sulfide - Reference Samples: none
Blind Samples: Lab D and Lab F
Duplicate Samples: none
The average percent deviation (absolute numbers) for each QA sample
analysis is listed by participating laboratory in Table 50.
129
-------
TABLE 50
AVERAGE PERCENT DEVIATION FOR QA ANALYSES BY LABORATORY
REFERENCE SAMPLES
AVERAGE PERCENT DEVIATION
Laboratory A
B
C
D
E
F
II
II
II
II
It
Laboratory A
B
C
D
E
F
II
II
II
II
II
Laboratory A
B
C
D
E
BOD5
24
35
82
19
16
8
COD
2
2
39
8
11
2
TSS Phenol
19 65
43 156
31 72
53 153
12 59
10 85
Chromi urn
2
19
17
6
12
—
Sulfide
60
60
75
173
29
78
BLIND SAMPLES
BOD5
43
36
67
54
46
42
COD
24
31
25
49
19
29
AVERAGE PERCENT
TSS Phenol
35 53
40 58
40 45
58 71
72 34
43 48
DEVIATION
Ch romi urn
21
44
30
31
44
-
Sulfide
67
68
58
91
48
164
DUPLICATE SAMPLES
BOD5
9
12
21
8
13
COD SOD
3
7 7
16 17
13 14
12
AVERAGE PERCENT
* TSS Phenol
9
18 15
22 14
21 14
24
DEVIATION
Chromium
»
_
11
6
20
Sulfide
m r
_
29
13
_
* SOD = Soluble COD Fraction
130
-------
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL VALIDITY AND APPLICATION OF THE DATA
One of the objectives of the study is to collect sufficient
pilot scale treatability data at each site to allow projection of
treatment process performance for a full scale system at that site. In
order to make such a projection, a sufficient number of samples must be
taken to allow a valid statistical evaluation of the data.
The values of interest in terms of these projections are the daily
average and daily maximum values. These values can be projected based
on the means and standard deviations for various parameters observed
during the test period. However, a check on the number of samples re-
quired to assure that these are valid numbers within a given confidence
limit is necessary. In order to determine this, the following method
will be used.
General Principles and Definitions
This technique is based on the "t" test or distribution commonly
used in engineering statistical analyses, as well as probability, means, and
standard deviations. In addition to these typical statistical tools,
the following parameters will also be used:
1) D = magnitude of the change in a given parameter (i.e. COD)
it is important to detect
2) a = The acceptable risk (% basis) of concluding that a
change greater than or equal to D has occurred when it
has not.
3) B = the acceptable risk (% basis) of concluding that a change
less than D has occured, when in fact a change greater than
or equal to D has occurred.
Subjective Inputs and Assumptions
Certain subjective decisions and assumptions must be made to utilize
any statistical technique. In this technique the major assumption is
that the treatment process behavior during the sampling period is
representative of the long term behavior of the process. Thus any long
131
-------
term variations in the conditions are not reflected in the data analysis.
Recommended subjective inputs are as follows:
1) D - the magnitude of change it is important to detect will
vary from parameter to parameter and must be selected
specifically for each site. Examples for Plant P will be
given.
2) Probability level of "t" test - 90% probability less than or
equal to
3) a = 5% risk
4) B - 5% risk
Estimating Required Number of Samples
Using the subjective input information and knowing the expected
standard deviation for various parameters based on the historical BPT
effluent data, the required numbers of samples can be determined as
follows:
D X. - X0
or
Where U = factor calculated from which number of sampj.es required
is determined
X — X
1 2 = magnitude of difference between the means
(influent and effluent) one wants to detect
cf = historic standard deviation for given parameters
Once U is calculated, Table 6.11 on page 130 and 131 of Vollk, Applied
Statistics for Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 1958, can be used to determine
the required number of samples for a "t" test level of 90%, o = 5%, and
0=5% (See Table A-l) .
An example using Plant P (1st 6 trailer site) would be as follows:
COD Basis - BPT Effluent - X = 100 mg/1
a = 30 mg/1
mm Effluent - X
100-50
Carbon Column Effluent - X = 50 mg/1
30
From Table 6.11, required number of samples is 10.
132
-------
TABLE A-l
REQUIRED NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS,
CONTRIBUTING TO THE MEAN. FOR
90% CONFIDENCE LEVEL
Level of t test =0.10
Unsymmetrical test
Acceptable Risk - a = 0.05
Acceptable Risk - g = 0.05
(X1-X2)/o
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Number of Observations
108
88
73
61
52
45
40
35
31
28
25
23
19
16
14
12
11
10
9
8
1
1
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
NOTE:
Based on information in article by G. P. Sillitto in J. Roy Statis.
Soc., Research 1 (1948).
133
-------
Another example using suspended solids as a parameter would he
as follows:
TSS - BPT Effluent - X = 20 mg/1
a = 15 mg/1
Multimedia Filter Effluent - X2 = 5 mg/1
u- 2°-5 = i.o
15
From Table 6.11, required number of samples = 23
Based on these examples and review of other data, ES believes that
14 samples during the last two weeks operation will be adequate most of
the time. However, due to the inherent differences between wastewaters
and specific parameter concentrations such as COD and TSS, ES recommends
that during the last two weeks of testing, 12 hour composites be
collected, thus providing up to 28 samples for analysis. This should
insure that adequate samples wil] have been collected in each case.
Daily Average and Maximum Values
The mean or average value expected for a given parameter will
actually be the mean determined for the test period and will have
associated with it a given confidence limit. The daily maximum will be
estimated using a probablistic approach as follows:
Eaily Max. = X + Z (a)
where : X = mean effluent for a given parameter
0 = effluent std. deviation for a given parameter
Z = a enhancement factor from Table I of
Eavies, 1972, p. 460
A typical probability for the extreme maximum value occurring within
a given month might be 5% for example. The confidence limits for this
value can be determined from the variance observed during the test period,
just as with the mean value.
134
-------
This technique of data collection and handling can be used to make
statistically valid projections of daily average and daily maximum values
from the possible BATEA processes. However, these projections are valid
only when the BPT effluent quality is within the range of conditions
that were actually tested during the final two weeks of the site visit.
Projections where the BPT effluent quality lies outside this range
cannot be made using statistically valid techniques.
135
-------
APPENDIX B
PILOT STUDY EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Coagulant Screening/Selection
A. Purpose/Concept - Preliminary screening to identify the type of
coagulant (s) and dosage most effective for removing suspended
solids and organic material from the BPT discharge. Investigations
are generally performed in the ES Atlanta Lab on wastewater
shipped from the site, prior to arrival of the trailer.
B. Jar Testing
1. Alum
a. Perform total and phenolphthalein alkalinity analyses
and determine dominant wavelength of BPT effluent.
b. Add 0, 1, 5, 10, 20, 35, and 50 mg/1 Alum as Al
c. Adjust pH to 6.5
d. Rapid mix @ 100 rpm, 1 min.
e. Slow mix @ 20 rpm, 5 min.
f. Settle 30 min.
g. Note lowest dosage where floe forms
h. Note lowest dosage where floe settles within 30 min.
i. Measure transmittance of supernatant and observe color re-
duction in each jar
j. Allow jars to sit for 1 hour and note floating sludge, if any
k. Plot transmittance vs Al dosage
1. Repeat steps a. ->• k. at pH = 7.0 and 7.5
2. Ferric Chloride (Same as B.I.a -*- 1., except only at pH = 5.5, 6.0,
and 6.5)
3. Alum + Anionic Polymer
a. Add 0 -> Dosage from B.l.g mg/1 as Al
b. pH = Optimum from B.I.
c. Rapid mix @ 100 rpm, 1 min.
d. Slow mix @ 20 rpm, 5 min.
e. Add 1 mg/1 anionic polymer
f. Rapid mix @ 100 rpm, 1 min.
g. Slow mix @ 20 rpm, 5 min.
h. Settle 30 min.
i. Note lowest dosage where floe forms
j. Note lowest dosage where floe settles in 30 min.
k. Measure supernatant transmittance and observe color
reduction
136
-------
1. Plot transmittance vs dosage Al
4. Ferric Chloride + Anionic Polymer (Same as B.3.a. -*• 1.)
5. Cationic Polyelectrolytes
a. Add 10, 25, and 50 mg/1 Cyanamid cationic polymers
(509C, 515C, 581C, etc.)
b. Add 10, 25, and 50 mg/1 Hercules cationic polymers
(various products)
c. Rapid mix @ 100 rpm, 1 min.
d. Slow mix @ 20 rpm, 5 min.
e. Note floe formation, if any
f. Note dosage that floe settles, if any
g. Measure supernatant transmittance and observe color reduction
6. Cationic + Anionic Polyelectrolytes (Same as 7.a. -> g., except
to dosage and product from 7.e. add 1 mg/1 anionic polymer
after step d., followed by rapid mix and slow mix)
7. Lime, Alum + Lime, or Ferric Chloride + Line
Lime can be used as a coagulant itself or in combination with
Alum or Ferric Chloride. Add lime to reach pH = 11.0, record lime
quanity and let settle for 30 min. Measure transmittance of
supernatant. If Alum or Ferric Chloride gave poor results, use Lime
with them as a weighing agent at pH &7.0
8. Recommend the optimum coagulant combination for clarification
and for filtration based on transmittance vs dosage plots and
visual observations.
9. Sludge Mass Determination
a. Perform jar test using recommended coagulant combination
and dosage for clarification in triplicate
b. Let settle, note volume of sludge and decant liquid from each jar
c. Determine mass of sludge produced through total suspended
solids or total solids analysis
10. Perform comparative carbon isotherms on BPT effluent using Westvaco
and ICI carbons available for use in trailer.
a. Wash approximately 10 grams of each powdered activated carbon to
be evaluated with distilled water to remove fine dust and dry at
103°C for 24 hours. If only granular carbon is available, pul-
verize it as uniformly as possible prior to washing and drying.
b. To each of six beakers add 500 ml of wastewater to be tested.
137
-------
c. Add various weights of dried carbon to five of the beakers
and use the sixth as a control with no carbon added. (Range
of carbon concentrations to be tested is somewhat a function
of the organic concentration of the wastewater, but a
typical range is 500 to 10,000 mg/1.)
d. Stir each beaker at 70 - 90 rpm for two hours.
e. Allow the carbon suspensions to settle and filter sufficient
supernatant using an 0.45 micron glass fiber filter for the
analyses required.
f. Perform required analyses on filtered initial wastewater
(blank) and each filtered supernatant. (Typical analyses
include TOC and percent transmittance.
g. Results should be presented graphically using one of several
isotherm plots. The most common is the Freundlich Isotherm
plot where X/M and C are the Y and X axes, respectively,
plotted on log-log paper.
X - grams TOC removed (C - C) X Volume
M - grams carbon in the sample
C - equilibrium concentration of TOC
h. Recommend carbon for use in the carbon adsorption experiment,
Mode B.
II. Mode A
A. Purpose/Concept - Separation of suspended solids by chemical
coagulation, gravity settling, and filtration
B. Experiment 1 - Clarifier
1. Utilize recommended coagulant combination for clarification
from jar tests conducted
2. Operate system at 10 gpm (400 gpd/ft2)
3. Allow 8 hours to reach steady state
4. Check pH each hour to stabilize pH adjust system
5. Begin 24 hour experiment and collect composite sample
from influent, effluent, and sludge to be sent to ATMI lab
6. Set sludge blowdown, record volume of sludge collected
during 24 hours
7. Perform transmittance at dominant wavelength on effluent grab
samples taken every 2 hours
138
-------
8. Perform TOG, pH transmittance, and color analysis on composite
9. Record operating conditions and data on IBM data sheet
C. Experiment 1 - Filter
1. Operate filter on clarifier effluent at 3 gpm (3 gpm/ft2)
2. Allow 3 backwash cycles to reach steady state during
clarifier experiment 1 only
3. Check influent and effluent transmittance and pressure every
two hours on grab sample
4. Backwash when transmittance or solids breakthrough occurs
(>_ 50% influent transmittance in effluent) or every 12 hours.
Note pressure at breakthrough
5. Begin collection of influent and effluent samples every
24 hours until 5 clarifier loading experiments are com-
pleted, send to ATMI lab
6. Check influent and effluent transmittance every two hours on
a grab sample
7. Backwash when required per step C.4.
8. Record time and duration of each backwash
9. Perform TOG and color analyses on composite sample
10. Record operating conditions and data on IBM data sheet
D. Experiment 2 - Clarifier
(Same as Experiment 1 - B.I -> a., except at 15 gpm)
E. Experiment 2 - Filter
(Same as Experiment 1, except backwash and begin at step C.5,
and proceed to C.10.)
F. Experiment 3 - Clarifier
(Same as Experiment 1 - B.I -> 9, except at 20 gpm)
G. Experiment 3 - Filter
(Same as Experiment 2 - E.)
H. Experiment 4 - Clarifier
(Same as Experiment 1 - B.I -*• 9, except at 25 gpm)
I. Experiment 4 - Filter
(Same as Experiment 2 - E.)
J. Experiment 5 - Clarifier
r\
(Same as Experiment 1 - B.I. ->• 9., except at 30 gpm, 1200 gpd/ftz)
139
-------
K. Experiment 5 - Filter (Same as Experiment 2 - E.)
L. Experiment 6 - Clarifier
1. Operate clarifier at optimum coagulant dosage and less
than the maximum flow found to be acceptable in Experiments
1 -»• 5 based on suspended solids removal
2. Continue operation following steps B.3. •*• 9.
M. Experiment 6 - Filter
1. Operate filter as per Experiment 2 - E., except at 5 gpm
(5 gpm/ft2)
2. Collect influent and effluent samples for 3 backwash cycles
N. Experiment 7 - Clarifier
(Same as Experiment 6 - L.I. ->- 2.)
0. Experiment 7 - Filter
o
(Same as Experiment 6 - M.I. -> 2., except at 7 gpm, 7 gpm/ft )
III. Mode B
A. Purpose/Concept - Removal of suspended solids by straight
filtration and removal of dissolved organics by carbon ad-
sorption
B. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 - Filter
(Same as Mode A - Experiments 1, 6, and 7 -3,5, and 7 gpm/ft^,
finish carbon run at highest acceptable loading)
C. Experiment 1 - Carbon Columns
1. Operate columns on filter effluent at 45 min. empty bed
HRT or 0.75 gpm
2. Backwash column #1 every day to prevent solids buildup due
to biological growth. Backwash columns 2 and 3 at least
twice per week
3. Collect grab samples every 4 hours after columns 1, 2, and
3 and perform TOC analyses
4. Collect composite influent and effluent samples every 24
hours and perform TOC and color analyses. Also send to
ATMI Lab
D. Carbon column run can be terminated when column #1 has been
exhausted, but run could be continued until end of the study
at the site if desired.
140
-------
IV. Mode C
A. Purpose/Concept - Removal of suspended solids by direct filtration
of BPT effluent and removal of organics by oxidation with ozone.
B. Experiment 1 - Filter
(Same as Mode A - Experiment 1 - II.C.I. -> 10.)
c. Experiment 1 - Ozone
1. Charge column with batch of wastewater to be ozonated.
2. Withdraw initial and final samples for analysis.
3. Calculate total mass of COD in reaction column in mg.
4. Select ozonation application rate such that total mass of
ozone applied during a four-hour period is equal to 12 mg
of ozone per mg of COD originally present in the column.
5. Begin ozonating at rate selected in 4 above. Collect samples
of the off-gas in gas-wash bottles at 30 minute intervals,
containing a KI solution. Titrate to determine 0
6. Collect samples of the water in the contactor at 20 minute
intervals. Analyze for TOG and transmittance.
7. Calculate 0^ utilized by performing a mass balance on 0,..
(0^ utilized = 0~ applied - 0_ in off-gas)
8. Plot TOC and Color vs 0_:COD (or 03:TOC or Time).
9. Plot 03 utilized, TOC consumed and 0 utilized/TOC consumed
vs 0.,:COD (or 0 :TOC or Time).
IV. Mode D
A. Purpose/Concept - Removal of organics from the wastewater by
direct oxidation with ozone.
B. Experiment 1 - Ozone
(Same as Mode C)
V. Mode E
A. Purpose/Concept - This mode is an optional operating scheme
which may be tested if it is desired to evaluate the ultimate
treatment (full process train) of a particular waste. It can
be performed during the last week or two weeks of the study at
a given site. The optimum conditions for each unit process will
141
-------
be operated and the carbon columns will likely have to be
re-charged.
Performance data in terms of ultimate effluent quality can be
collected in this way.
VI. Mode F
A. Purpose/Concept - Removal of suspended solids from the waste by
filtration , with pre-filter coagulation.
B. Experiment 1 - Filter
1. Utilize coagulant combination and dosage recommended for pre-
filter use based on jar tests conducted in Atlanta Lab
(I.B.l.g.)
2
2. Operate filter at 3 gpm (3gpm/ft )
3. Perform all operational and analytical steps listed in
Mode A, Experiment 1 - C.I + 10.
C. Experiment 2 - Filter
(Same as Mode F, Experiment 1 - B.I ->• 3, except at 5 gpm,
5 gpm/ft2)
D. Experiment 3 - Filter
(Same as Mode F, Experiment 1 - B.I •* 3, except at 7 gpm,
7 gpm/ft2)
VII. Mode G
A. Purpose/Concept - Compare the effectiveness of dissolved air flo-
tation (DAF) for removal of suspended solids with gravity settling.
B. Experiment 1 - DAF
1. Utilize coagulant combination and dosage recommended for
pre-filter use based on the jar tests
2. Operate unit at 100% recycle using previous subnatant
(effluent) as recycle
3. Pressurize to 40-50 psig for 10 minutes
4. Slowly and evenly allow pressurized recycle to enter flota-
tion column
5. Record rise time for interface or slowest solids to float to
the surface
142
-------
6. Record volume of float at completion of test
7. Collect grab samples of Influent and effluent to send to
ATMI lab as well as for TOC and color analyses
8. Record operating conditions, TOC, and color analyses on
IBM data sheet.
C. Experiment 2 - DAF
(Same as Mode G, Experiment 1 - B.I -»• 8., except at 50% recycle)
D. Experiment 3 - DAF
(Same as Mode G, Experiment 1 - B.I •+ 8, except at 33% recycle)
VIII. Mode H - Candidate Process Evaluation
A. Purpose/Concept - To evaluate the selected process trains
which are most effective for treating the waste. Unit process
operating conditions will be established based on screening
experiments conducted at the site. The decision as to the
unit processes making up these treatment trains will be made
jointly by ES, EPA, and ATMI after approximately three weeks
operation at a given site.
143
-------
APPENDIX C
SECTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL PLANT REPORTS
Page
PLANT A 144
PLANT 0 153
PLANT B 162
PLANT D 172
PLANT P 180
PLANT V 188
PLANT Y 196
PLANT Z 205
PLANT AA 215
PLANT BB 223
PLANT DD 231
PLANT T 240
PLANT K 249
PLANT W 258
PLANT Q 267
PLANT E 277
PLANT F 286
PLANT S 295
PLANT EE 306
144
-------
APPENDIX C
SECTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL PLANT REPORTS
PLANT A
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant A, a Sub-
category I, Wool Scouring plant. The objectives of this pilot plant study
are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for treating the
BPT effluent from Plant A, determine the effectiveness of the technologies
for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define the mutually
(ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most cost-effective
treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant A include a grit
chamber, aeration basin, secondary clarifier, chlorination and sludge dry-
ing beds. Additionally, pretreatment for grease removal includes a lanolin
process. The experimental testing was performed on the secondary clarifier
effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant A were achieving the
Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limitations
for all parameters during the period the pilot plant study was
conducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce TSS, COD and color.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant A.
a. A wide variety of coagulants were evaluated through jar test-
ing. A suitable coagulant or coagulant combination was not
identified for use in reaction/clarification treatment of
the BPT effluent. During jar testing none of the coagulants
tested exhibited positive results for use as a pre-filter
145
-------
coagulant. Based on the jar test results, reaction/clarifi-
cation and multi-media filtration with pre-filter coagulation
were not used during pilot plant experimentation.
b. Clarifier Followed by Multi-Media Filtration (Mode A) - The
clarifier was operated at Plant A without coagulant addition
due to the inability to identify a suitable coagulant. The
clarifier was successful at removing 39% of the BPT TSS at
2
the most effective loading (400 gpd/ft ). The multi-media
filter provided optimum removal of BOD, COD and TSS at a load-
2
ing rate of 2 gpm/ft .
c. Clarifier Followed by Multi-Media Filtration Followed by
Activated Carbon Adsorption (Mode H) - The multi-media filter
was preceded by the clarifier due to the high BPT effluent
2
TSS levels. At the optimum loading of 2 gpm/ft the multi-
media filter achieved 48% TSS and 12% COD removals, but was
ineffective at reducing BOD_ concentration in the clarifier
effluent. The activated carbon columns successfully removed
78% BOD5, 54% COD and 86% TSS from the multi-media filter
effluent (averages for all filter loadings). Average effluent
quality for Mode H at optimum operating conditions was
8 mg/1 BOD5, 365 rog/1 COD and 11 mg/1 TSS.
d. Clarifier Followed by Multi-Media Filtration Followed by
Ozonation (Mode J) - Mode J batch experiments were done while
2
the multi-media filter was being loaded at 3.0 - 3.7 gpm/ft .
Ozone contactor influent TSS averaged 151 mg/1. Ozone dosages
ranged from 32 to 709 mg/1 utilized. Maximum COD reduction
observed was 18%. Little or no BOD,- removal was observed,
but color reduction was indicated by an improvement in trans-
mittance by 47%.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - One dissolved air flotation
experiment was run at 100% recycle with no coagulant addition.
The DAF was not effective in BOD,- removal and only minimally
effective in removal of COD (12%), TSS (44%) and TOC (4%).
146
-------
4. The three candidate BATEA process technologies for Plant A (those
showing the greatest potential for favorable treatment effective-
ness) are clarification followed by multi-media filtration
(Mode A), clarification followed by multi-media filtration follow-
ed by carbon columns (Mode H) and clarification followed by
multi-media filtration followed by ozonation (Mode J).
5. Of the three candidate process technologies tested, only Mode H
was able to achieve all the BATEA guideline parameters. The pro-
jected effluent quality for Mode J exceeds the 30-day average
BATEA guideline values for COD by 129 mg/1 and TSS by 29 mg/1.
It should be noted that due to equipment problems, Mode J process
evaluation was based on 4 data points. The projected effluent
quality for Mode A exceeds the 30-day average BATEA guideline
values for COD by 146 mg/1, TSS by 28 mg/1 and color by 26 ADMI
units.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Clarification followed by multi-media filtration followed by
granular carbon adsorption is the recommended BATEA process for
Plant A. The projected effluent quality for this process will
achieve all BATEA guideline values.
2
The recommended clarifier overflow rate is 400 gpd/ft . The
2
multi-media filter surface loading rate should be 2 gpm/ft
followed by a carbon column hydraulic residence time of 45 minutes.
The carbon loading capacity is 0.24 Ib soluble COD/lb carbon.
Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
Additional efforts should be directed towards improving the quality
of the secondary effluent before proceeding with development of
the BATEA technology for "end-of-pipe treatment". Although
effluent quality met BPT guideline values, more effective opera-
tion of BATEA candidate technologies could be achieved through
optimization of BPT plant performance, particularly for TSS removal.
147
-------
PLANT A
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant A manufacturing facility, a Subcategory I
Plant (Wool Scouring). The facility consists of scouring, carding and
combing operations. The end product (wool top) is then used by wool
finishing plants.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated at this site for a 43-day period
(Feb. 1, 1978 through March 15, 1978) during which the pilot plant was
shut down on weekends. The production during this same 43-day period
totaled 2,067,840 pounds of wool. During the days the plant was operating
production averaged 68,928 pounds/day. The manufacturing plant has a
maximum processing capacity of approximately 75,000 Ibs/day (see
Appendix E).
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant A is presented in Figure C-1(A). More specific process infor-
mation is summarized in Table C-l(A).
The raw wastewater from the wool scouring facility is first pre-
treated by a process which includes lanolin grease removal and then passed
through a grit chamber for removal of grit. It then enters the oxidation
ditch. The volume of the oxidation ditch is 1.5 million gallons which
provides a detention time of 76 hours. Aeration is provided by 4, 60 HP
fixed mechanical surface aerators which provide a power to volume ratio of
160 HP/MG. Following aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the
water in a 40 ft. diameter final clarifier. Sludge is returned to the
aeration basin or may be wasted to sludge drying beds as required to main-
tain the desired concentration of suspended solids in the oxidation ditch.
The clarified effluent is chlorinated prior to discharge into the receiving
stream.
148
-------
TABLE C-l(A)
PLANT A
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - .47 MGD (approximately 5% sanitary waste)
Actual Flow During Study - 0.225 MGD
Equalization
None
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
None
Grit Chamber
Oxidation Ditch
Basin Size - 1.5 MG
Aeration (Total) - 240 HP Total, 160 HP/MG
t
Detention Time - 76 hours at design flow, 160 hr. during study period
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifeirs - 1
Size:
Diameter - 40 ft.
SWD - 16 ft.
Recycle Rate - .30 MGD (total)
Other. Operations
Lanolin Grease Removal
Chlorination
Sludge Drying Beds
149
-------
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the BPT guideline values in Table C-2(A).
The effluent values reported in this table are final effluent numbers.
The pilot plant trailer operated on the secondary clarifier effluent prior
to chlorination.
During the initial 15 days on-site the biological treatment plant was
operating under upset conditions. Some unusual production and waste treat-
ment plant operations that influenced the pilot plant operation are noted below:
February 2-10: (1) Excessive aeration basin foaming contributed to
solids carry-over in secondary clarifier. (TSS >1000 mg/1)
(2) Low flows through treatment plant resulted in pilot plant shut-
down. Grease and foam layer on surface of clarifier was removed
manually each morning.
. February 9^10: Scouring line in production down.
February 23: Clarifier upset.
February 24-March 6: 50% of aerators down. Plant unable to waste
sludge causing high inventory of solids in clarifier with resultant
sludge blanket overflow.
Based on the monthly averages over a 12 month period (1977-1978) the
plant is achieving 96% BOD5 removal and 90% COD removal. During the same
period, based on data presented in Table C-2(A) and Appendix E the plant
was within all BPT guideline values except for two excursions on the 30-day
average for TSS. The mean cell residence time ranges from approximately 4
to 30 days at this site.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.225 MGD during the on-site
study, 3.3 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished mater-
ial produced.
150
-------
TABLE C-2(A)
PLANT A
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT GUIDELINE
VALUES
Actual Operation
BPT Guideline Values
Parameter
BOD5
COD
TSS
Oil & Grease
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow, (MGD)
PH
Ibs/day
30-Day Avg.
365
4756
1110
248
3.45
3.45
6.90
n.a.
(6.0 -
(1)
Daily Max.
731
9512
2219
496
6.90
6.90
13.79
n.a.
9.0)
mg/1 at 0.26
30-Day Avg.
168
2193
512
114
1.59
1.59
3.18
n.a.
(6.0 - 9.
MGD(2)
Daily Max.
337
4387
1023
229
3.18
3.18
6.36
n.a.
0)
Feb. '77 -
mg/1
(3)
30-Day Avg. '
12-84(0)
465-1443(0)
90-520(2)
n.m.
0.003-0.024(0)
<0. 030(0)
<0.1-<0.2(0)
.130-. 428
7.7-8.1(0)
Jan. -78
*
Max
16-260(0)
550-1900(0)
150-970(0)
n .m.
0.005-0.038(0)
<0. 030(0)
<0.1-<0.2(0)
.257-. 726
7.9-8.3(0)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
(2) Average flow for the period of February '77 through January '78 as reported by the plant.
(3) The figures in parentheses represent the number of months in the 12 month period in which
the plant monthly averages or maximums exceed the BPT guidelines.
* These figures represent the range of the monthly average values as reported by the plant.
n.a. not applicable
n.m. not measured
-------
RAW WASTE
GRIT CHAMBER
i
r
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
OXIDATION DITCH
I/
WASTE SLUDGE
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
PILOT PLANT INFLUENT
CHLORINATION
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
FINAL EFFLUENT
FiGURE C-1(A)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM-EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT A
152
-------
PLANT 0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant 0, a Sub-
category II, Wool Finishing and Subcategory VII, Stock and Yarn plant.
The objectives of this pilot plant study are to evaluate the potential
BATEA process technologies for treating the BPT effluent from Plant 0,
determine the effectiveness of the technologies for achieving the BATEA
guideline limitations and define the mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed
upon recommendations for the most cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant 0 include neutral-
ization, vibrating screens, an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier and
a sludge drying bed.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report * forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater treatment facility at Plant 0 was not
achieving the Best Practicable Technology (BPT) guideline efflu-
ent limitation for sulfide discharge during pilot plant opera-
tions .
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce COD, TSS, sulfide and chromium.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant 0.
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed by Multi-Media Filtra-
tion (Mode A) - Jar tests indicated that 7 mg/1 alum (as
+3
Al ) at a pH of 6.5 was the optimum coagulant dosage.
2
Overflow rates from 300 to 1000 gpd/ft were tested with
various results due to significant variation in the BPT
153
-------
effluent data during the experiments. From the results of
duplicate samples sent to the supporting laboratory it is
known that at least part of the variability was due to poor
analysis. Because of this it was difficult to select the
optimum overflow rate. The multi-media filter operated best
o
at 3.0 gpm/ft . Typical Mode A effluent quality at 400
2 2
gpd/ft clarifier overflow rate followed by 3 gpm/ft filter
loading rate was 2 mg/1 BOD5> 72 mg/1 COD and 9 mg/1 TSS.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Carbon Adsorption (Mode B)
2
The optimum filter loading rate was found to be 3 gpm/ft .
At this loading the filter provided a TSS level of 8 mg/1
and COD concentration of 123 mg/1. Carbon columns following
the filter were operated at 45 minutes hydraulic retention
time utilizing virgin Westvaco WV-L granular carbon. COD
reduction through the carbon columns averaged 77%. Typical
Mode B effluent quality is 3 mg/1 BOD , 45 mg/1 COD and
6 mg/1 TSS.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) -
Initially two Mode C batch experiments were performed.
Analytical results from the two tests were highly conflicting.
The first experiment indicated a 16% COD reduction at 397
mg/1 0,, utilized while the second experiment indicated 95%
COD reduction at 482 mg/1 0 utilized. Additional batch
experiments were done. Analytical results showed an average
maximum COD reduction of 35% at 381 mg/1 0 utilized. Ozon-
ation increased average multi-media filter effluent BOD from 4 to
12 mg/1. 52% average color removal was obtained through
ozone contact.
d. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - Jar
+3
tests indicated that 2 mg/1 alum (as Al ) with unadjusted
pH was the lowest dosage to provide visual threshhold floe
formation. The optimum loading rate for the filter was 3
2
gpm/ft which provided an effluent TSS of 10 mg/1 and COD of 185
mg/1. Filter performance was not enhanced by use of a pre-
filter aid.
154
-------
e- Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Four batch tests were
performed at 100, 50 and 33 percent recycle using 7 mg/1
alum (as Al ) at pH 6.5 as a coagulant. Extremely variable
COD results were obtained showing 0 to 74 percent COD re-
moval. During the screening period DAF performance was some-
what comparable to coagulation/clarification.
4. The two candidate BATEA process technologies for Plant 0 showing
the greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness are
Mode A, coagulation/clarification followed by multi-media filtra-
tion and Mode B, multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsorp-
tion.
5. Both candidate process technologies tested met the BATEA BODS,
color and phenol guidelines. The average experimental values
of Modes A and B met the TSS and COD limitations, however, the
projected 90th percentile values of Mode A for both TSS and COD
were outside the BATEA guideline values. Neither of the candi-
date processes met the BATEA guideline for sulfides.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsorption is the
f
recommended BATEA process for Plant 0. The projected effluent
quality for this process will achieve all BATEA guideline values
except the guideline for sulfides.
2
2. The recommended filter loading is 3 gpm/ft . Carbon column
hydraulic residence time should be 45 minutes. The carbon
capacity is 0.23 pounds soluble COD per pound carbon. Process
design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
155
-------
PLANT 0
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the effluent from the
wastewater treatment facility at Plant 0. Production at Plant 0 is classi-
fied as both Subcategory II (Wool Finishing) and Subcategory VII (Stock
and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing). During pilot plant operations wool finish-
ing accounted for 65.7% of plant production while stock and yarn dyeing
and finishing accounted for the remaining 34.3%. Plant 0 produces both
100% woolen and wool/nylon blends. Production processes include stock and
piece dyeing, carbonizing and scouring.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated at Plant 0 for a period of 39 days
(July 10, 1978 through August 17, 1978). During this time Plant 0 operated
for 31 days, averaging a production of 20,940 Ib/day. Of the total pro-
duction wool finishing accounted for an average 13,753 Ib/day while stock
and yarn dyeing and finishing accounted for 7,187 Ib/day. (See Appendix
E). Total production during pilot plant operations was 649,140 Ibs of
finished material. Fiber usage during this period was 74.5% wool and
25.5% wool/nylon blend. Predicted daily capacity for Plant 0 is 18,000
Ib/day Stock and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing and 17,000 Ib/day Wool Finishing.
Existing Waste Treatment Plant Description
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facility
at Plant 0 is given in Figure C-2(0). Specific process information is
summarized in Table C-<3(0) .
Treatment plant influent is pumped from the textile mill elevation
to the screening room elevation with a lift station located near the mill.
Twenty-five percent caustic is introduced at the lift station for pH
neutralization. Fibers are screened from the wastewater flow by two
vibrating screens. Flow from the screening facility goes directly into
the aeration basin. The basin has a volume of 1.25 MG and a design
hydraulic detention time of 30 hours. Aeration is provided by 4 surface
156
-------
TABLE C-3(0)
PLANT 0
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow = 1 MGD
Normal Flow = 0. 794 MGD
Flow During Pilot Plant Experimentation = 0.724 MGD
Equalization
None
Neutralization
Caustic Addition
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
2-5' x 7', 60 mesh vibrating screens
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 1.25 MG
Aeration - 100 HP (Surface aerators); 80 HP/MG
Detention Time- 30 hours (at Design Flow)
38 hours (at Normal Flow)
41 hours (during Pilot Plant Experiemntation)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 1
Size: Diameter - 55'
Side Water Depth - 13'
Recycle Rate - 50%
Other Operations
30' x 30' Sludge Drying Bed
(not used on a regular basis)
157
-------
aerators at a power/volume ratio of 80 HP/MG. From the aeration basin the
stream flows to the secondary clarifier. Design clarifier surface loading
2
is 421 gpd/ft . Underflow from the secondary clarifier is returned to the
aeration basin at a rate that corresponds to 50% of the treated flow.
There is a sludge drying bed at the Plant 0 wastewater treatment facility,
but it is not used on a regular basis due to the extensive time required
to dry sludge.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
Appendix A shows the monthly operating data for the Plant 0 waste-
water treatment facility as reported by plant personnel. This data covers
a one year period immediately prior to and including the period of pilot
unit operations. The discharge values reported for the last year are
compared to the Best Practical Treatment (BPT) Guideline values in Table C-4(0).
The effluent values reported in this table are final effluent numbers.
Based on the monthly averages over a twelve month period (July 1977
to June 1978) the plant was achieving approximately 90% BOD_ removal from
an average influent of 333 mg/1 to 31 mg/1 and 61% COD removal from
an average influent of 529 mg/1 to an effluent of 209 mg/1. During the
same twelve month period, based on the data presented in Table C-4(0)
Appendix E, the plant exceeded the, BPT 30-day average guideline for BOD,.
six times, for COD three times, for TSS nine times and four times for
chromium.
Operational problems and changes that affected pilot plant opera-
tions while on-site at Plant 0 included the following.
(1) 400 gallons of 0.1% medium cationic polymer was added to the
aeration basin on July 13 and 15, 1978 (800 gallons total).
(2) From the time that pilot operations began through July 17,
1978 only 3 of 4 aerators in the aeration basin were in
operation. On the morning of July 18, 1978 the 4th was put
back into service.
158
-------
TABLE C-4(0)
IO
PLANT 0
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day1)
PARAMETER
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow,
(MGD)
pH (units)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
*
30-DAY AVG.
178
1425
305
1.39
1.39
2.79
n.a.
6.0 - 9.0
me/1 at 0
DAILY MAX. 30-DAY AVG.
357
2850
609
2.79
2.79
5.58
n.a.
6.0 - 9.0 6
See Appendix E for the calculations
Average
flow for the
period of July
The figures in parentheses represent
averages or maximums exceed the BPT
Based on
These fis
27
215
46
0.21
0.21
0.42
n.a.
.0 - 9.0
.794 MGD2'
DAILY MAX.
54
430
92
0.42
0.42
0.84
n.a.
6.0 - 9.0
Actual Operation ^
July '77 -
June '
78
mg/1
30-DAY AVG.(3>>
4
54 -
32 -
0.02 - 0
.165 -
n.m.
.63 ~ 1
6.0 -
172
423
197
.031
.982
.089
7.4
(6)
(3)
(9)
: co)
(3)
(0)
DAILY MAX.* (3)
8
54
41
0.02
.165
.71
6.6
- 172
- 510
~ 898
- 0.031
- 1.19
n.m.
- 1.252
~ 11.3
(6)
(1)
(9)
(0)
(2)
(1)
of the BPT Guideline Values.
'77 through
the number
Guidelines .
0 to 6 samples per month except TSS (4
cures represei
at the range of
June ' 78 as
of months in
reported by
the
plant.
the 12-month period in
which
the plant
monthly
to 15 samples /month) .
monthly maximum values as reported 1
by the plant.
n.a.- not applicable.
n.m.- not measured because this is not a permitted parameter. Data collected during pilot plant
operation indicated an average sulfide value greater than the BPT guideline limitation.
-------
(3) On July 28, 1978 a flow equalization valve was installed
between the aeration unit and the secondary clarifier. This
occurrence affected pilot plant operations in two ways:
a) Plant discharge flow was retained in the aeration basin
for 16 hours; thus stopping pilot plant operation.
b) Clarifier loading was equalized after valve installa-
tion. The result should have been overall better clarifier
performance.
(4) Heavy rains during the night of July 7, 1978 caused the
storm sewer at Plant 0 to be overloaded. The hydraulic
shock caused the aeration basin to overflow. Operators
applied full hydraulic loading to the secondary clarifier
in an attempt to stop the flooding.
(5) Plant 0 was shut down for a period of ten days just prior
to the beginning of trailer operations. Treatment plant
effluent could have been affected during the first several
days of experimentation.
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT VARIABILITY
During pilot plant operations the textile manufacturing plant
generally operated 5 to 6 days per week. Weekend shut down caused periods
of no discharge. The plant was shut down from July 1 through July 9 for
the holidays. The trailer started operation on July 10 so the first several
days waste stream may not have been representative.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.724 MGD during pilot plant
operations, 34.6 gallons of water were used per pound of finished material.
160
-------
FIGURE C-2(0)
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM - EXISTING HASTEMATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT 0
LIFT
STATION
SCREENING
BUILDING
AERATION BASIN
•NEUTRALIZATION
SLUDGE DRYING BED
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
PILOT PLANT
INFLUENT
FINAL EFFLUENT
161
-------
PLANT B
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant B, a sub-
category II, wool finishing, plant. The objectives of this pilot plant
study were to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for treat-
ing the BPT effluent from Plant B, determining the effectiveness of the
technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations, and the mutual-
ly (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed recommendations for the most cost-effective
treatment process.
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant B include screens,
equalization, aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination and dissolved
air flotation and vacuum filtration for sludge dewatering. The experimental
testing was performed on the secondary clarifier effluent prior to chlorina-
tion.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant B were not achieving
the Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limita-
tions for BOD5, COD or TSS during the period the pilot plant
study was C9nducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce BOD-, COD, TSS, chromium and color.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant B.
a. Coagulation/Clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - The reactor/clarifier effectively reduced BOD,., COD
TSS, color, chromium, phenol and sulfides from the BPT
effluent. The TSS reduction ranged between 94 and 99 percent
and the BOD and COD reduction ranged between 75 and 89 percent
durinp favorable operating conditions. The optimum coagulant
162
-------
dosage was alum at 35 mg/1 as Al+ with lime as a weighing agent
and for pH control at about 100 rag/1 Ca(OH) . The optimum pH
was determined to be between 6.5 and 7.0 and the most effective
performance was observed at an overflow rate of 400 gpd/ft2.
Because of the quantity and the thickening characteristics of
the lime/alum sludge, an underflow of 25 percent of the influent
was required to maintain a constant sludge blanket in the
clarifier. The multi-media filter provided additional removal
of BOD5, COD and TSS and operated effectively at a surface load-
ing rate of 7 gpm/ft.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorption
(Mode B) - The TSS concentration of the BPT effluent was too high
to allow effective operation of multi-media filter. At loadings
2
as low as 0.5 gpm/ft effluent solids reached 112 mg/1. Acti-
vated carbon achieved 59 and 72 percent removal of applied BOD
and COD. The carbon columns also reduced TSS, TOC, color, phenol,
sulfide and chromium.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
multi-media filter was not effective because of high TSS values
as discussed in Conclusion 2b. Ozone reduced COD and color by a
small amount, but was not effective for reduction of other
parameters.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - As in. Mode C experiment ozone demonstrated
the ability to reduce small amounts of COD and color.
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The multi-
media filter operated with alum at 30 mg/1 (Al ) as a precoagulant
was not an effective process. The filter provided reduction of
BODS, COD and TSS, but filter run times were extremely short and
effluent TSS values ranged from 39 to 252 mg/1.
f. Dissolved Mr Flotation (Mode G) - The bench-scale dissolved air
flotation (DAF) experiment demonstrated effective removals of all
+ 3
parameters using 20 mg/1 alum (Al ) as a coagulant. The DAF
process may be considered an alternative to the coagulation
clarification process and warrents further experimental
evaluation.
163
-------
4. The three candidate BATEA process technologies (those showing
the greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness)
for Plant B are reactor/clarifier followed by multi-media filter
(Mode A), Mode A followed by carbon columns (Mode H) and Mode A
followed by ozonation (Mode I).
5. Mode H was the only candidate process technology tested that
clearly achieved a projected effluent quality that would meet
all the BATEA effluent guideline values at Plant B. Mode A
achieved all the BATEA guideline values except for BOD^. The
BATEA guideline value-for BOD5 was 38 mg/1 and the projected
BOD(. value for Mode A was 39 mg/1. Mode I did not achieve the
BATEA guideline values for BOD,- or COD.
6. Comparative capital cost and operating and maintenance cost in-
dicate that Mode A is significantly less expensive than Mode H.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Coagulation clarification followed by multi-media filtration is
the recommended BATEA process for Plant B. The projected effluent
quality for this process will achieve the BATEA guideJ.ine values
except for the BOD,- concentration which exceeds the BATEA guide-
line value of 38 mg/1 by 1 mg/1.
2. The recommended overflow rate for the reactor clarifier is 400
2
gpd/ft and the recommended chemicals are alum for coagulant
+3
at 35 mg/1 as Al and lime at 100 mg/1 as Ca(OH) to act as a
weighting agent and to adjust the pH between 6.5 and 7.0. The
recommended surface loading for the multi-media filter is 7
2
gpm/ft . Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
3. An engineering and operational evaluation of the existing waste-
water treatment system at Plant B is recommended before proceeding
with the development of BATEA technology for end-of-pipe treatment.
The present effluent did not meet the BPT guideline limitations
for BOD5, COD and TSS during the pilot plant study.
164
-------
PLANT B
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant B manufacturing facility, a Subcategory II
(Wool Finishing) Plant. This plant is involved in manufacturing and finish-
ing wool and blended wool fabrics. The primary fibers used are wool and
cotton. An important feature of this plant is that a large percentage of
the wool is recycled from recycled woolen goods.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 51-day period (August 2, 1977
thru September 21, 1977) at this site. The production during this same 51-
day period totaled 2,959,526 pounds of material. The production during the
days the manufacturing plant was in operation (44 days) averaged 67,262
pounds/day (see letter in Appendix E). Production averaged 70% wool fabrics
and 30% cotton/synthetic blends. The manufacturing plant has a capacity of
approximately 75,000 pounds per day of all fabrics and fabric blends.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
The schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facil-
ities at Plant B is presented in Figure C-3(B). The raw wastewater includes
sanitary waste from the mill, which is less than 1% by volume of the total
flow. The raw wastewater is first treated by vibratory fine screens
(0.007 inch) that remove solid materials. The screenings are trucked to a
land fill each day. The waste flows into an aerated equalization basin
(250,000 gallon capacity), then, in a step-feed arrangement into parallel
aeration basins (600,000 gallon capacity each). The total detention time
in the aeration basins at the design flow of 1.2 MGD is 24 hours. Aeration
is provided by floating aerators at a power to volume ratio of 133 HP/MG.
Following aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the water by two par-
allel final clarifiers. The waste sludge is thickened by dissolved air
flotation (DAF) dewatered by vacuum filtration and then landfilled. The
average sludge age is approximately 65 days. The supernatant from the
165
-------
secondary clarifiers is chlorinated and discharged. The waste treatment
plant process design criteria are summarized in Table C-r5(B) .
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the twelve-month period immedi-
ately prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operat-
ing data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for
the period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values re-
ported for this period are compared to the BPT guideline values in
Table C-6(B). The effluent values reported in this table are final (after
chlorination) effluent numbers. The pilot plant trailer operated on the
secondary clarifier effluent immediately prior to chlorination.
Based on the plant reported data presented in Appendix A and in
Table C-6(B), the waste treatment plant is within BPT guideline values for
30-day averages and daily maximums for COD and TSS. The plant meets the
daily maximum BOD,, guideline and is within 13% of the 30-day average
guideline for BOD,.. Historical data on phenols, total chromium, sulfides
and color were not monitored by the waste treatment laboratory.
During the on-site experimental study, there were several pilot plant
operational problems associated with the BPT plant operation.
Both the COD and TSS influent to the pilot plant varied signifi-
cantly. This created high solids loadings on the multi-media
filter and hindered its operation. Also massive sludge volumes
were produced in the reactor/clarifier resulting in sludge thicken-
ing problems. Figure C-4(B) shows the variation of both TSS and COD
with time during the screening experiments. The TSS and COD values
reported in Figure C-4(B) are for the pilot plant influent composite
samples. These values are greater than the BPT effluent values
reported by the plant.
The mill was in production Monday thru Friday and shut down on the
weekends. The waste treatment plant had no flow during the shut
down periods.
166
-------
TABLE C-^
PLANT B
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
DesignFlow - 1.2 MGD
Equalization
No. of Basins -
Basin Size
Detention Time -
Aerated
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
Phosphorous (Intermittently added)
1
0.25 MG
5 hours
15 HP; 60 HP/MG
Screening
Fine Screens -
Aeration Basin
0.007 inch
No. of Basins - 6
Volume (Total) - 1.2 MG
Aeration (Total) - 160 HP; 133 HP/MG
Detention Time - 24 hours
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers -
Size: Diameter
Side Water Depth
Recycled Rate -
Pi s inf e c ti on
Chlorination - 1
Sludge Disposal
40 ft (inside diameter)
12 ft
1.0 MGD (total)
Thickening
Dewatering
Ultimate
- dissolved air flotation
- vacuum filtration
- landfill
167
-------
TABLE C-6(B)
CD
PLANT B
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Parameter
BOD
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Color
Flow
PH
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day 1)
30-Day Avg.
753
5482
1184
4.71
4.71
9.42
n. a.
n. a.
Daily Max.
1507
10,964
2368
9.42
9.42
18.83
n. a.
n. a.
(Within the range
mg/1 at 0
30-Day Avg.
97
707
153
0.61
0.61
1.21
n. a.
n. a.
of 6.0 to 9.0)
.93 MGD2)
Daily Max.
194
1414
305
1.21
1.21
2.43
n.a.
n.a.
4)
Actual Effluent
Oct 76 thru Sept 77
mg/1
Avg.
Monthly
110
605 3)
96
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
0.93
7.1
Max.
122
6883)
130
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
3.3
-
1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
2) The average flow for the period of October 1976 to September 1977 was
reported by the plant as 0.93 MGD.
3) Data from last three months only.
4) Plant reported data from Appendix A.
n.m.-Parameters not monitored by mill laboratory.
n.a..—not applicable. *~
-------
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.98 MGD during the on-site
study, 14.6 gallons of wastewater was generated per pound of finished
material produced.
169
-------
FIGURE C~3(B):'
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT PLANT B
RAW WASTE
FINE SCREENS
EQUALIZATION BASIN
AERATION BASINS
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
(0
I
SLUDGE
TO
LANDFILL
DAF & VACUUM FILTRATION
INFLUENT TO
~| PILOT PLANT
~T"~ TRAILER
I FLUME
' CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
170
FINAL EFFLUENT
-------
2500*
2000-
1500-
UJ
ex.
CQ
1000-
500-
.00
FIflURE C-4C6)
PLflNT B
VARIATION OF BPT EFFLUENT
5.00
8.00
11.00 1U.OO 17.00
20.00
23.00
2 .00
DRIES IN RUGUST - 1977
-------
PLANT D
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant D, a Sub-
category D (IV) Woven Fabric Finishing Plant. The objectives of this
pilot plant study were to evaluate the potential BATEA technologies for
treating the BPT effluent of Plant D, determine the effectiveness of the
technologies for meeting the BATEA effluent limitations, and define the
mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendation for the most cost-
effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant D include screening,
neutralization, aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination and sludge
storage. The experimental testing was performed on the secondary clarifier
effluent prior to chlorination.
The information generated during the study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant D were not
achieving the Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline limita-
tions for COD or TSS during the period the pilot plant study was
conducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations, additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce the COD, TSS and color.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant D:
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed By Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - Extensive jar tests were conducted in which alum
+3
at 150 mg/1 as Al with lime at 200 mg/1 were the only co-
agulants identified that could partially be effecting the TSS
reduction. However, it was not possible to operate the co-
agulant feed system and the reactor/clarifier in the pilot
172
-------
unit at these high dosages. Therefore, no Mode A experi-
ments were conducted at this site.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorp-
tion (Mode B) - The multi-media filter removed 90 to 95 per-
cent of the TSS at loadings of 2.0 to 2.5 gpm/ft . At
greater loadings the TSS removal efficiency generally de-
creased. The filter also removed some BOD , COD, and TOC.
The carbon columns were marginally effective for organic
reduction (COD reduced 13 to 59 percent and TOC reduced 30
to 38 percent) but did not reduce much of the color.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
multi-media filter did not perform as well in Mode C as in
Mode B. The percent removal of TSS was lower than observed
in Mode B and the reduction of BOD , COD, and TOC was neg-
ligible. Ozonation provided organic reduction based on COD
of 50 to 62 percent and also provided color reduction. How-
ever, ozone dosages of 225 to 1183 mg/1 utilized were re-
quired .
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - Direct ozonation of the BPT effluent
was not an effective treatment process because of the high
TSS concentration. At dosages above 400 mg/1 ozone utilized,
80 percent of the color was removed. Approximately 50 per-
cent reduction of COD could be achieved at impractical ozone
dosages above 1200 mg/1 utilized.
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The
+3
multi-media filter operated with 10 mg/1 alum (as Al ) pro-
vided TSS removals of less than 42 percent and COD removals
of less than 13 percent.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - The dissolved air flota-
tion experiment demonstrated some reduction of COD, TSS,
color and sulfide and practically no reduction of BOD5> TOC,
and phenol. The DAF process may be considered an alternative
process to coagulation clarification.
173
-------
4. The two candidate BATEA process technologies (those showing the
greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness) for
Plant D are multi-media filtration followed by carbon columns
(Mode B) and Mode B followed by ozonation (Mode H).
5. Neither candidate process technology tested could achieve all BATEA
guideline parameters. The projected effluent quality from Mode B
exceeds the 30-day average BATEA guideline values for COD by 251
mg/1 and color by 638 ADMI units. The projected effluent quality
from Mode H exceeds the 30-day average BATEA guideline values for
BOD by 6 mg/1, COD by 174 mg/1 and color by 51 ADMI units. The
overall effluent quality of Mode H was better than Mode B.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by carbon columns, followed by
*
ozonation is the recommended BATEA process for Plant D. The pro-
jected effluent does not achieve the BATEA guideline values for
BOD , COD or color. Due to operational problems with the waste
treatment plant BPT effluent quality was not achieved with the
existing waste treatment plant. If BPT quality were achieved a
different BATEA process train may be appropriate.
2. The recommended surface loading rate for the multi-media filter
2
is 2 gpm/ft . The recommended empty bed hydraulic retention time
for the carbon columns is 45 minutes and the range of ozone dosage
should be 350 to 400 mg/1 utilized. The carbon capacity is 0.042
gm TOC/gm carbon. Process design criteria are presented in
Chapter VI.
3. Additional efforts should be directed towards improving the quality
of the secondary effluent before proceeding with development of
the BATEA technology for "end of pipe treatment". The present
effluent does not meet the BPT guideline limitations.
174
-------
PLANT D
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent of the Plant D textile manufacturing facility, a Subcate-
gory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) Plant. This plant is involved in simple
and complex manufacturing operations of natural, synthetic and blends of
natural and synthetic fibers. The division between simple and complex
operations is approximately 85% and 15%, respectively. The primary fibers
used are cotton, polyester and rayon. The production processing operations
include PVA desizing, bleaching, dyeing (continuous) and special finishes
(mildew and water repellents).
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 43-day period (September
26, 1977 through November 7, 1977) at this site. The production during
this same 43-day period totaled 2,110,050 pounds of material. The pro-
duction during the days the plant was operating averaged 70,335 pounds/day
(see letter in Appendix E). Materials included 100% cotton, cotton/
polyester blends, cotton/rayon blends and 100% polyester. The manufacturing
plant has a capacity of approximately 125,000 pounds per day.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant D is presented in Figure C-5(D). More specific process info-
%
mation is summarized in Table C-7(D). The treated wastewater included the
industrial waste plus sanitary waste from one shift of plant employees.
The raw wastewater passes through a bar screen, then acid is added into the
waste stream for neutralization prior to entering the neutralization basin.
Following neutralization two aeration basins are operated in series with
a total volume of 2.4 million gallons at a detention time of 38 hours.
Aeration is provided by surface aerators at a power to volume ratio of
125 HP/MG. Following aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the
water by two final clarifiers in series. The sludge from the clarifiers
175
-------
TABLE C-7(D)
PLANT D
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 1.5 MGD
Equalization
None
Neutralization
Acid feed prior to Neutralization Basin
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 18,510 gallons
Detention Time - 18 mins. (at design flow)
Mixing - 5 HP
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 1 in.
Fine Screens - 0.030 in.
Aeration Basin'-
No. of Basins - 2 (in series)
Volume (Total) - 2.4 MG
Aeration (Total) - 300 HP; 125 HP/MG
Detention Time - 38 hrs (at design flow)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2 (in series)
Size: Diameter - 60 ft (inside diameter)
Side Water
Depth - 11 ft
Recycle Rate - 3.3 MGD (total)
Other Facilities
Chlorination
Aerated sludge holding tank
176
-------
is either returned to the aeration basins or held in an aerated holding
tank. The supernatant from the secondary clarifiers is chlorinated and
discharged.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data, of the waste treatment plant as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the BPT guideline values in Table C-8(D) .
The effluent values reported in this table are final effluent numbers.
The pilot plant trailer was operated with the secondary clarifier effluent
prior to chlorination.
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-8(D), the waste
treatment plant was within BPT guideline values for 30-day averages and
daily maximums for BOD,., phenol and chromium. For TSS the waste treatment
met the 30-day average but exceeded the daily maximum limitation. The COD
from the waste treatment exceeded both the 30-day average and the daily
maximum limitation. Sulfide values were not reported by the plant.
During the on-site experimental study there were several major effluent
quality upsets created by production changes or biological treatment
operations. A three day period (November 3 through 5, 1977) of clarifier
upset during the candidate mode operation required the use of the clarifier
ahead of the filters. The TSS concentration of the BPT effluent was high
during another three day period (October 3 through 5, 1977) when one of
the two secondary clarifiers was taken out of service for mechanical re-
pairs. Plant production facilities were shutdown each weekend although
the waste treatment plant continued to operate.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.41 MGD during the on-site
study, 5.8 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
177
-------
TABLE C-8(P)
PLANT D
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Parameter
BOD
COD
_, TSS'
00 Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow
PH
BPT Guideline
Ibs/day
30-Day Avg. Daily Max.
233 464
2290 4579
626 1252
3.5 7.0
3.5 7.0
7.0 14.1
n.a. n.a.
Within The Range 6.0 to 9.0
Values
mg/1 at 0.33 MGD^ '
30-Day Avg. Daily Max.
85 169
832 1664
227 455
1.27 2.54
1.27 2.54
2.54 5.09
n.a. n.a.
Actual Operation
Nov. '76 - Oct. '77
mg/1
Avg. Max.
38 98
899 1943
177 749
.02 0.09
< .02 0.02
n.m. n.m.
(.33 MGD) (.74 MGD)
(5.8 to 8.6)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline values.
(2) The average flow for the period November 1976 through October 1977 was reported by the plant as 0.33 MGD.
n.m.-not monitored by plant laboratory
n.a.-not applicable
-------
FIGURE C-5(D)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT D
BAR SCREENS
PLANT SANITARY WASTE
SLUDGE RECYCLE
r—i
SLUDGE HOLDING
(AERATED)
CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
PROCESS WASTE
NEUTRALIZATION BASIN
FINE SCREENS
AERATION BASINS
(SERIES)
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
INFLUENT TO PILOT
PLANT TRAILER
FINAL EFFLUENT
179
-------
PLANT f
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant P, a Sub-
category IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) and Subcategory VII (Stock and Yarn
Dyeing) plant. The objectives of this pilot plant study were to evaluate
the potential BATEA process technologies for treating the BPT effluent from
Plant P, determine the effectiveness of the technologies for meeting the
BATEA guideline limitations, and define the mutually (ATMI, EPA, and ES)
agreed upon recommendations for the most cost effective treatment process.
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant P include screen-
ing, equalization, aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination, and
sludge drying beds. The experimental testing was performed on the second-
ary clarifier effluent prior to chlorination.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant P are
effectively treating the textile plant wastewater and achieving
the BPT guideline limitation values for all parameters.
2. To achieve the BATEA effluent limitations additional treatment
beyond the BPT plant are required to remove TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot scale screening experiments at Plant P.
a. Coagulation/Clarification and Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - The reactor/clarifier was operated with alum
and then ferric chloride as coagulants at the optimum
dosages determined by jar tests. The reactor/clarifier
was ineffective for TSS, BOD,., COD and TOG removal. TSS
values increased across the clarifier because the solids
coagulated but did not settle. The pollutant reduction
that did occur took place in the multi-media filter.
The multi-media filter removed some BOD_, COD and TSS:
however, these removals were not consistent.
180
-------
b. Multi-Media Filter Followed by Carbon Columns (Mode B) -
The multi-media filter reduced the effluent BOD_, COD, TSS
and color but did not provide a consistently low effluent
TSS concentration. Apparently the secondary effluent con-
tained a fine solids constituent that was difficult to
remove by filtration. The carbon columns further reduced
BOD-, COD and color as well as removed chromium and phenol.
The fine solids constituent was not removed by the carbon
columns.
c. Multi-Media Filter Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
multi-media filter was operated with ferric chloride as a
precoagulant in three of the six experiments. The filter's
TSS removal performance was not consistent as discussed in
Conclusion 2b. Ozone screening experiments were conducted
in continuous operation at dosages of 16 to 69 mg/1 ozone
utilized. Ozone demonstrated the ability to reduce color
but was not consistently effective for BOD-, COD, TSS, TOC,
chromium and phenol removal.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) ~ The ozonation experiments were con-
ducted in both continuous and batch operation at dosages
of 16 to 120 mg/1 of ozone utilized. Ozonation appeared to
be effective for color, COD and TOC removal at the high dosage
rate.
e. Multi-Media Filter with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The
multi-media filter was operated using ferric chloride,
alum and a cationic polymer (American Cyanamid 515C) as
precoagulants. The filter performance was not consistent
and TSS removals varied from an increase in TSS to an
2
83 percent removal at the lowest loading rate of 3.1 gpm/ft .
None of the precoagulants tested appeared to offer consistent-
ly good TSS removal.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - The dissolved air flotation
experiments were conducted bv batch testing the BPT effluent.
181
-------
Two tests were conducted using Fed, at 10 tng/1 (as Fe)
as a coagulant. No float was developed in either test.
The three candidate BATEA process technologies (those showing
the greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness)
for Plant P are multi-media filter with precoagulation followed
by carbon columns (Mode H), multi-media filter with precoagula-
tion (Mode F), and multi-media filter (Mode I).
None of the candidate process technologies tested achieved a
projected effluent quality that would meet the BATEA effluent
limitations for TSS at Plant P. Mode H provided the best over-
all effluent quality although the difference in the projected
30-day average effluent TSS concentrations for Modes H and I
is 16 mg/1 versus 18 mg/1. The BATEA guideline limitation for
TSS at Plant P is 15 mg/1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration is the recommended BATEA process for
Plant P. The projected effluent TSS concentration does not
meet the BATEA guideline value although all other BATEA guide-
line parameters will be achieved.
2. The recommended surface loading rate for the multi-media filter
2
is 3 gpm/ft . Process design criteria are presented in Chapter
VI.
3. Prior to installing multi-media filtration and/or other BATEA
processes to achieve all parameter limitations, it is recommend-
ed that further testing of multi-media filtration be done in
order to optimize the choice of media and the operating condi-
tions. With this optimization the incremental removal may be
sufficient to achieve the BATEA limits.
182
-------
PLANT P
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the two manufacturing plants that comprise the Plant
P manufacturing facility, a Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) Plant
and a Subcategory VII (Stock and Yarn Dyeing) Plant, The first plant is
involved in a complex manufacturing operation of natural, synthetic and
blends of natural and synthetic fibers. The second plant is involved in
stock and yarn dyeing. The primary fibers used are cotton and polyester.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 76-day period (June 1, 1977
through August 15, 1977) at this site. The production during this same
76-day period totaled 9,245,225 pounds of material. The production dur-
ing the days the plant was operating averaged 168,095 pounds/day (see
letter in Appendix E). Materials included 100% cotton, 65% cotton/35%
polyester, 85% cotton/15% polyester, 50% cotton/50% polyester, 75% poly-
ester/25% cotton and 100% polyester. The two manufacturing plants have a
capacity of approximately 200,000 pounds per day.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant P is presented in Figure C-6(P). More specific process infor-
mation is summarized in Table C-9(P). The treated wastewater included the
industrial waste plus 7.5 percent (by volume) sanitary waste. The raw waste-
water passes through a bar screen, then acid is added into the waste stream
for neutralization prior to entering the equalization basin. Two parallel
aeration basins with a total volume of 14 million gallons follows equaliza-
tion. The detention time in the aeration basins is 78 hours. Aeration is
provided by surface aerators at a power to volume ratio of 57 HP/MG. Fol-
lowing aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the water in two parallel
final clarifiers. The sludge from the clarifiers is either returned to the
aeration basins or pumped to sand drying beds. The supernatant from the
secondary clarifiers is chlorinated and discharged.
183
-------
TABLE C-9(P)
PLANT P
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 4.3 MGD
Equalization
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 8 MG
Detention Time - 45 hrs
Unaerated
Neutralization
Acid feed prior to Equalization Basin
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 1-3/8" O.C.
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 2 in Parallel
Volume (Total) - 14 MG
Aeration (Total) - 800 HP; 57 HP/MG
Detention Time - 78 hrs
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
Size: Diameter - 65 ft (inside diameter)
Side Water Depth - 10 ft
Recycle Rate - 2 MGD (total)
Other Facilities
Chlorination
Sand Drying Beds
184
-------
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data, of the waste treatment plant as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the BPT guideline values in Table C-10(P)
The effluent values reported in this table are final effluent numbers.
The pilot plant trailer operated on the secondary clarifier effluent prior
to chlorination.
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-10(P) , the
waste treatment plant is within BPT guideline values for 30-day averages
and daily maximums for all the parameters, with the exception of sulfide
and phenol. The data on these two parameters were not available.
During the on-site experimental study there were no major effluent
quality upsets created by production changes or biological treatment
operations. Some unusual production occurrences that influenced the
pilot plant operation are noted below:
. July 1 through July 10, 1977 - plant production facilities were
shut down for a holiday-
. June 5, 12, 19 and 26, July 17, 24 and 31, August 6, 7, 14 and
15, plant production facilities were shut down for the weekend.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 2.0 MGD during the on-site
study, 11.9 gallons of wastewater was generated per pound of finished
material produced.
185
-------
TABLE
PLANT P
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Actual Operation
Parameter
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
BPT Guideline Values
30-Day
556
8,647
1,495
8
8
17
Ibs/day^
Avg. Daily Max.
1,111
17,295
2,989
.5 17.0
.5 17.0
.0 34.0
mg/1 at
30-Day Avg.
33
518
90-
0.51
0.51
1.02
2.02)
Daily Max.
67
1037
179
1.02
1.02
2.04
Tnlv '76-Aue '77
mg/1
Avg.
7
181
8
n.m.
<.Q3
n.m.
Max.
17
630
20
n.m.
<.04
n.m.
Flow
PH
n.a.
n.a.
(6.0 - 9.0)
n.a. n.a.
(6.0 - 9.0)
2.0 MGD 3.4 MGD
(8.3 - 8.8)
(1) - See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
(2) - Average Flow during the period July 1976 through Auguct 1977 wac 2.0 MGD.
n.m. — not measured.
n.a. — not applicable.
-------
FIGURE C-6(P)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM-EXISTING WASTEHATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AT PLANT P
ACID
ADDITION
RETURN
SLUDGE
SAND DRYING
BEDS
BAR SCREENS
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
AERATION
BASINS
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
CHLORINE
CONTACT TANK
FINAL EFFLUENT
187
-------
PLANT V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant V, a Sub-
category IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) Plant. The objectives of this pilot
plant study were to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for
treating the BPT effluent from Plant V, determining the effectiveness of
the technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations, and the
mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed recommendations for the most cost-
effective treatment process.
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant V include screens,
pH adjustment, two stage aeration, and secondary clarification. Sanitary
waste may be chlorinated prior to being discharged into the waste treat-
ment plant influent. The experimental testing was performed, on the
secondary clarifier effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant V were not achieving
the Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limita-
tions for COD or TSS during the period the pilot plant study was
conducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations, additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce BOD , COD, and TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant V.
a. Coagulation/Clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - The reactor/clarifier did not operate effectly
during the screening experiments because of the extreme
variability of the TSS concentration in the secondary
effluent. The reactor/clarifier did dampen out the TSS
peaks before treatment by the multi-media filter. Alum at
188
-------
+3
40 mg/1 as Al was used as a coagulant. The filter
removed BOD5, COD, TOG, and TSS although the performance
was effected by the influent TSS concentration.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorption
(Mode B) - The variability of the TSS concentration of the
secondary effluent severely effected the performance of the
multi-media filter. When the filter could be operated it
removed BOD5> COD, TSS, and color. Filter run times varied
from less than 15 minutes to 12 hours. The activated carbon
columns further reduced BOD^, COD, TSS, TOG, and color.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) -
The multi-media filter was effective in removing BOD,., COD,
TSS, and TOC during this screening experiment. Ozone re-
duced COD and color but TOC and BOD,, increased during
ozonation.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - As in Mode C experiment ozone demonstrat-
ed the ability to reduce COD and color but was ineffective
in reducing BOD,, and TOC.
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The
+3
multi-media filter operated with alum at 1 mg/1 (Al ) as a
precoagulant was not an effective process. The filter pro-
vided reduction of BOD-, COD, TOC, AND TSS, however, filter
run times were short because of the high TSS concentration.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - The bench-scale dissolved
air flotation (DAF) experiment demonstrated moderate re-
+3
duction of BOD-, COD, AND TSS using 40 mg/1 alum (Al ) as
a coagulant.
4. The candidate BATEA process technologies (those showing the
greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness) for
Plant V are the combination of reactor/clarifier followed by
multi-media filter followed by carbon columns (Mode H).
5. The candidate BATEA process evaluated (reactor/clarifier follow-
ed by multi-media filter followed by carbon columns) did not
produce a projected effluent quality that could achieve the
189
-------
BATEA guideline values for COD and TSS. The BATEA guideline values
for COD and TSS are 161 mg/1 and 12 mg/1, respectively, and the
projected values from the pilot plant operation of Mode H for COD
and TSS are 204 mg/1 and 24 mg/1, respectively. Because of the
variable effluent quality from the secondary treatment plant the
pilot plant could not be operated for the desired period sufficient
for collecting data to provide an adequate process design. A
decision was made by ATMI/EPA/ES to abandon pilot plant operation
at Plant V prior to collecting the required number of data points
due to effluent quality upsets experienced at this plant.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. An engineering and operational evaluation of the existing waste-
water treatment system at Plant V is recommended before proceeding
with the development of BATEA technology for end-of-pipe treatment.
The present effluent did not meet the BPT guideline limitations for
COD and TSS during the pilot plant study and severely hampered
operation of the BATEA pilot plant experimental equipment. Improve-
ments in BPT effluent quality are necessary to make BAT treatment
technically possible.
2. If the secondary effluent quality remains as defined in Table V-9
for Mode H operation, then coagulation clarification followed by
multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsorption is the recom-
mended BATEA process for Plant V. The projected effluent quality
for this process will not. achieve the BATEA guideline values for
COD and TSS.
3. The recommended overflow rate for the reactor/clarifier is 400
2
gpd/ft and the recommended chemicals are alum for coagulant at
-f-3
40 mg/1 as Al and acid. The recommended surface loading for the
2
multi-media filter is 3 gpm/ft . The recommended empty bed hydraulic
retention time for the carbon columns is 45 minutes. Process design
criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
190
-------
PLANT V
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the wastewater treat-
ment plant (WTP) effluent of the Plant V textile manufacturing facility,
a Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) Plant. This plant is involved
in simple and complex manufacturing operations of blends of natural and
synthetic fibers. The primary fibers used are cotton and polyester. The
production processing includes desizing (PVA/CMC/starch), scouring, bleach-
ing, mercerizing, dyeing (continuous) and special finishes (mildew, soil
and water repellent and hand improvers).
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 61-day period (November 28,
1977 through January 27, 1978) at this site. The production during this
same 61-day period totaled 9,012,499 pounds of material. The production
during the days the plant was operating averaged 209,593 pounds/day (see
letter in Appendix E). Materials produced included the following blends;
65% polyester/35% cotton (55.9% of total), 50% polyester/50% cotton (26.3%
of total), 20% polyester/80% cotton (7% of total), 18% polyester/82% cotton
(9% of total) and 15%-polyester/85% cotton (1.8% of total). The manufactur-
ing plant has a capacity of approximately 236,000 pounds per day.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant V is presented in Figure C-7(V). More specific process infor-
mation is summarized in Table C-ll(V). Approximately 15,000 gallons per day
of sanitary wastewater generated at the plant is chlorinated and then com-
bined with the industrial wastewater prior to treatment. The raw waste-
water passes through a bar screen, then acid is added into the waste stream
for neutralization prior to biological treatment. Following neutralization
the wastewater is biologically treated in an extended aeration activated
sludge system consisting of two aeration basins operated in series with a
191
-------
TABLE C-ll(V)
P.X.ANT V
EXISTING WASTEWATEE TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow
4 MGD
Equal!zation
None
Neutrallzati on
Acid feed prior to aeration basin
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens (1 5/8" spacing)
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 2 in series
Volume (total) - 10 MG
Aeration (total) - 410 HP; 41 HP/MG
Detention Time - 60 hrs.
Aerator Type - surface
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 1
Size: Diameter - 125 ft.
Side Water Depth - 8 ft.
Recycle Rate - 2.3 MGD
192
-------
total volume under aeration of 10 million gallons at a design detention
time of 60 hours. Aeration is provided by surface aerators at a power
to volume ratio of 41 HP/MG. Typical mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)
levels of approximately 1500 mg/1 are maintained in the aeration basins.
The sludge age, in the aeration basin is approximately 100 days. Following
aeration, the Suspended solids are separated from the water by gravity
sedimentation in a 125-foot diameter final clarifier. The sludge from the
clarifier is returned to the aeration basins. There is no intentional
sludge wasting at Plant V. The supernatant from the clarifier is discharged
to the receiving stream.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data for the wastewater treatment plant as re-
ported by the plant for the one-year period immediately prior to and
including the period of the pilot study are presented in Appendix A. Daily
operating data, as reported by the plant for the period the pilot studies
were in progress, are also presented in Appendix A. The discharge values
reported for the last year are compared with the BPT guideline values in
Table C"-12(V) , The WTP reported values in excess of the BPT guideline values
for both 30-day averages and daily maximums during several months in the
previous year. The major exceptions were for TSS and COD.
During the on-site experimental study the effluent quality exhibited
extreme variability. The effluent quality upsets experienced at the WTP
appear to be design and/or operation related or production related and do
not appear to be solely related to cold weather (as can be seen in Table I,
Appendix A, the performance was poor at times even in summer months).
The plant production facilities were shutdown each weekend, and the
influent flow to the WTP was essentially zero on weekends. The production
facility also shutdown on December 26 and 27 for Christmas.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 3.06 MGD during the on-site
study, 14.6 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
193
-------
TABLE (XL2(V)
PLANT V
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Actual Operation
BPT Guideline Values ^
Ibs/day mg/1 at 3.13 MGD(2)
Parameter 30-Day Avg.
Daily Max. 30- Day Avg.
Daily Max.
Feb. '77 -
• Jan. '78
ng/1
Range<3>
30-Day Avg. Daily Max.
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow
pH
692
12,576
1,865
10.5
10.5
21.0
n.a.
1,383 27
25,151 482
3,731 71
21.0 0.4
21.0 0.4
41.9 0.8
n.a. n.a.
53
963
143
0.8
0.8
1.6
n.a.
11.7-40.0(2}
318-628(2}
23.3-240(6}
.0018-. 021
<.005-<.099
.246-16.9(2}
3.13
Within Range 8
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of BPT Guideline Values.
(2) The average flow for the period February 1977 through January 1978 was reported by the
n.a. not applicable
(3) Range of 30-Day Avg. X - X (number of occurrances above BPT guideline values}.
(4) Daily Maximum (number of months with values above BPT guideline limitations}.
132 (A}
1576(5}
953(8}
.021
.11
28.8(2}
5.43
.0 - 10.3
plant as 3.13 MGD.
-------
Process & Sanitary Waste
Sanitary Waste
Chi ori nation
SIudge
Recycle
.Acid Feed
Bar Screen
Aeration
II
Aeration
Secondary Clarifier
Trailer Influent
Final Effluent
FIGURE C-7(V)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - EXISTING KASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY - PLANT V
195
-------
PLANT Y
CONCLUSIONS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant Y, a Sub-
category IV4 Woven Fabric Finishing plant. The objectives of this pilot
plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for
treating the BPT effluent from Plant Y, determine the effectiveness of
the technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define
the mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most
cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant Y include screens,
equalization, acid addition, aeration, polymer addition, secondary clari-
fication and sludge drying beds. The experimental testing was performed
on the secondary clarifier effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant Y, as presently
operated, were not consistently meeting the Best Practical
Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limitations as a monthly
average for TSS during the period the pilot plant study was
conducted. Historically (1 year period prior to pilot plant
visit) there were excursions above the BPT limits for BOD,-,
Sulfide and TSS for both the 30-day average and daily maximum
values. Daily maximum values for pH exceeded the BPT effluent
limitations in 5 out of 12 months.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce BOD5, TSS and COD based on data collected
during the pilot plant visit.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant Y.
196
-------
a. Coagulation/Clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtra-
tion (Mode A) - The reactor/clarifier effectively reduced
BOD5, COD and color from the BPT effluent. However, TSS
concentrations were not consistently reduced. The optimum
coagulant combination was alum at 45 mg/1 as Al at a pH
of 7.0. The most effective performance was achieved at an
overflow rate of 340 gpd/ft2. The multi-media filter pro-
vided the best additional removal of BOD COD and TSS at
2
the loading rate of 3 gpm/ft .
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorp-
tion (Mode B) - The multi-media filter reduced the TSS level
o
by 45 percent at the most effective loading rate of 5.0 gpm/ft .
BOD and COD were also reduced through the filter. The carbon
column reduced the BOD, COD, TSS and Chromium further. Total
Mode B reductions include 50 percent BOD^, 75 percent COD,
52 percent TSS and 28 percent Chromium at the most effective
filter loading rate.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
Mode C batch tests were conducted with effluent from the
multi-media filter while being operated at a surface loading
2
rate of 7.0 gpm/ft . This high rate was practical because
the BPT effluent TSS level was less than 1 mg/1 during the
test. Ozone dosages from 0.25 to 12.0 Ib 0-j utilized per Ib
COD with the utilization ranging from 15.5 to 765 mg/1 0^,
removed a small amount of color and COD, but TOC and BOD^
increased during ozonation. At 765 mg/1 0^ utilized, 32
percent reduction of COD was achieved.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - Ozonation of the BPT effluent was gen-
erally ineffective for removal of BOD5, TOC and Chromium.
The effect of TSS was irrelevant during the batch test since
BPT effluent TSS values were less than 1 mg/1 at the time
Mode D was operated. Ozone utilized dosages of 0 to 312 mg/1
were evaluated with 42 percent COD removal achieved at 312
mg/1 0 utilized dosage. Normal BPT effluent TSS values were
to high for this process technology to be considered a candi-
date mode.
197
-------
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The
+3
multi-media filter operated with 1 mg/1 alum as Al , as a
pre-filter aid. The filter provided some reduction of BOD,.,
COD and TSS, but no consistant major improvement in perfor-
mance over multi-media filtration without precoagulation was
evident.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - A bench-scale dissolved
air flotation (DAF) experiment at 100% recycle using 45 mg/1
+3
Al as a coagulant was not effective for either TSS, COD
nor chromium reduction. An increase in these parameters was
noticed due to addition of alum as a coagulant. A reasonable
float could not be achieved.
4. The candidate BATEA process technology showing the greatest
potential for favorable treatment effectiveness for Plant Y is
multi-media filter followed by carbon columns (Mode B).
5. Mode B achieved all the BATEA effluent guideline values at
Plant Y.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption
is the recommended BATEA process for Plant Y. The projected
effluent quality for this process will achieve all BATEA guide-
line values.
2
2. The recommended multi-media filter surface loading is 5 gpm/ft .
The carbon column hydraulic residence time should be 45 minutes.
The carbon capacity loading is 0.104 Ib Soluble COD/lb carbon.
Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
198
-------
PLANT Y
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant Y textile manufacturing facility. Plant Y
is a Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) mill which includes a yarn
dyeing operation. The woven fabric finishing which comprises 92.9% of
the total production is a complex manufacturing operation using natural,
synthetic and blends of natural and synthetic fibers. The yarn dye opera-
tion accounts for the remaining 7.1 percent of the plant production.
The primary fibers used are synthetic polyesters and blends of poly-
ester with cotton, rayon and wool. The production processing includes
desizing, scouring, dyeing, bleaching and mercerizing. The sizings used
at Plant Y are starch, PVA, CMC, acrylic binders and wax. Special finish-
es include resin, fluoro-carbon and silicone.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated at the Plant Y site for a 42-day
period (October 12, 1977 through November 22, 1977). During this time,
the woven fabric finishing plant operated for 35 days, averaging a pro-
duction of 67,693 pounds of material per day while the yarn dye production
averaged 5153 pounds per day (see Appendix E). Finishing production for
the duration of the pilot plant visit totaled 2,549,583 pounds of material,
including 100% polyester, 65% polyester/35% cotton, 50% polyester/50% cotton,
75% polyester/25% wool, 100% wool, 100% nylon, 100% acrylic; 70% polyester/
30% acrylic; 50% polyester/50% rayon, 50% rayon/50% acetate and 90%
polyester/10% nylon. The manufacturing plant has a predicted capacity of
127,000 Ibs/day Woven Fabric and 20,000 Ibs/day yarn dyeing.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment
facilities at Plant Y is presented in Figure C-8(Y). More specific process
information is summarized in Table C-13(Y).
199
-------
TABLE C-13(Y)
Y
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow = 3.5 MGD (0.5% sanitary waste)
Flow during Pilot Plant Visit - 2.12 MGD
Influent BOD,. - 350 mg/1
Equalization
Aerated: Volume - 4.6 MG
Aeration - 120 HP, 26.1 HP/MG
N eu t r a 1 iz a t i on
Acid Addition
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 3/4 inch
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 2
Basin Volume - 10.5 MG (total)
Aeration - 600 HP (surface aerators), 57.1 HP/MG
Detention Time - 72 hours at Design Flow
119 hours at Flow experienced during pilot plant visit.
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
* •
Size: Diameter - 60 ft.
Side Water Depth - 8 ft.
.Recycle rate - 1.8 MGD
Other Operations
Polymer Addition following aeration basins
Sludge Drying Beds
200
-------
The Incoming waste is primarily industrial with approximately 0.5%
being sanitary wasto. Raw waste enters an aerated equalization basin.
Acid addition is utilized for pH adjustment prior to a 3/4-inch bar screen
which removes the large* objects. After screening, two aeration basins
are operated in parallel witn a total volume of 10.5 million gallons at a
design detention time of 72 hours. Aeration is provided by surface
aerators at a power to volume ratio of 57.1 HP/MG. After the two streams
leave the aeration basins, polymer is added to faciliafate solids settling
before entering the secondary clarifiers. Sludge is returned to the
aeration basins or can be transferred to sludge drying beds for dewatering.
Sludge return capability at the plant is approximately 0-150% (three 1.8
MGD pumps).
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant as reported
by the plant are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. The discharge
values reported for the last year are compared to the Best Practical
Treatment (BPT) guideline values in Table C-14(Y) . The influent to the
pilot plant trailer was collected from the secondary clarifier effluent.
Based on the data presented in Table O14(Y) and the influent BOD5 value
from Table C-13(Y), the waste treatment plant is obtaining an overall average
BOD5 removal efficiency of 96 percent. Excersions above the BPT limita-
tions for BOD., TSS and suIfides were experienced for both 30-day average
and maximum day values during the 12-month period. The pH limitation was
exceeded 5 times based on maximum day values.
For the major portion of the on-site visit there were very few
operational/control problems with the Plant Y treatment facility. The
most significant problem occurred when the clarifier arms malfunctioned
causing high solids concentrations in the BPT effluent. This hindered
effective operation of the mobile pilot plant.
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT VARIABILITY
During the period of pilot plant study, the textile manufacturing
plant generally operated six days per week. This variability is not
201
-------
TABLE C-14(Y)
PO
o
PLANT Y
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day15
PARAMETER
30- DAY AVG.
DAILY MAX.
tng/1 at
30- DAY AVG.
2.03 MGD2)
DAILY MAX.
Actual
Dec. '76
30-DAY AVG.
Operation^ '
- Nov. '77
nig/1
DAILY MAX.
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow, (MGD)
pH, (unitless)
242
4042
648
3.7
3.7
7.4
n.a.
6.0-9.0
482
8084
1295
7.4
7.4
14.8
n.a.
6.0-9.0
14
239
38
0.22
0.22
0.44
n.a.
6.0-9.0
29
477
76
0.44
0.44
0.88
n.a.
6.0-9.0
2.3-24(2)
99-207 (0)
.'29-58(7)
.01-. 09(0)
.01-. 03(0)
<0.1-<10<3)
1.75-2.34
7.8-8.1 (0)
2.5-42 (1)
109-308 (0)
36-207 (2)
.010-. 090 (0)
.011-. 030 (0)
0.1-<10 (3)
2.48-3.03
8.4-10.0 (5)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
(2) Average flow for the period of December '76 through November '77 as reported by the plant.
(3) The figures in parentheses represent the number of months in the 12-month period in which
the plant monthly averages or maximum values exceed the BPT guidelines.
n.a.
— not applicable.
-------
reflected in the overall statistical treatment of the data in this report,
as only days when data was available were included. During periods of
low flow the aeration basin has enough retention time to maintain a
suitable biological population. The mean cell retention time cannot be
estimated based on insufficient plant data.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 2.12 MGD during the on-site
study, 29.1 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced. This is considerably higher than the industry average.
This figure includes both the woven fabric finishing and the yarn dye
production.
203
-------
Raw Waste
Acid feed for pH
adjustment
Sludge
Recycle
Aerated Equalization
is Screens
Aeration Basins
Polymer Feed
Secondary
Clarifiers (2).
r* PILOT PLANT INFLUENT
PARSHALL FLUME
Sludge Drying
Beds Final Efflueni
FIGURE C-8(Y)
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM ~ EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT Y
204
-------
PLANT Z
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant Z, a Sub-
category IV, Woven Fabric Finishing plant. The objectives of this pilot
plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for
treating the BPT effluent from Plant Z, determine the effectiveness of the
technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define the
mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most
cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant Z include screens,
comminutors, aeration, secondary clarification, sludge digestion, sludge
thickening and sludge landspreading. The experimental testing was performed
on the secondary clarifier effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant Z were achieving the
Best Practical Technology (BPT) 30-day average guideline effluent
limitations during the period the pilot plant study was conducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce TSS, BOD and COD.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant Z.
a. Coagulation/Clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - A variety of metallic coagulants and combinations
of coagulants as well as cationic polymers were jar tested
for effectiveness of transmittance improvement, turbidity
reduction and minimal sludge production. However, none were
found effective at reasonable coagulant dosages. In fact, the
optimum coagulant and dosage in terms of transmittance im-
provement was alum at a dosage of 200 mg/1 as Al with caustic
205
-------
adjustment to pH 8.0. Several reactor/clarifier experiments
o
were conducted at overflow rates of 400, 600 and 800 gpd/ft .
Although good removal of BOD and COD and transmittance im~
provement was obtained the TSS level generally increased
across the clarifier. This was caused primarily by difficulty
in maintaining steady state at pH 8.0 and a floating solids
problem which could also be duplicated and verified by jar
tests. Due to high coagulant dosage requirements and opera-
tional problems associated with the use of alum this mode of
operation is not practical at Plant Z.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorption
(Mode B) - The multi-media filter reduced the TSS level by 63%
2
and COD by 15% at the optimum loading rate of 3 gpm/ft . Carbon
columns operating following the filters removed an additional
40-45% soluble COD, 50% BOD5» 38% TSS .and 43% color using
Westvaco WV-L granular carbon and a hydraulic resistence time
of 45 minutes.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
Mode C batch tests were conducted with effluent from the multi-
2
media filter at a surface loading rate of 3 gpm/ft . Effluent
TSS ranged from 13 to 29.mg/1 and COD from 538 to 652 mg/1.
Ozone dosages of 0 to 2551 mg/1 ozone utilized or 0 to 3.91
pounds of ozone utilized per pound of COD applied were evaluated.
Excellent color removal (30%) was achieved at 25 to 75 mg/1 ozone
utilized dosage. Measurable COD and TOG reductions were not
achieved until 411 mg/1 0~ was utilized.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - Ozonation of the BPT effluent was generally
ineffective for removal of BOD5, COD and TOG. BPT effluent TSS
levels ranged from 25 to 57 mg/1 while COD ranged from 407 to
482 mg/1. Ozone utilized dosages of 0 to 4544 mg/1 0- utilized
were evaluated which corresponds to 0 to 11.2 pound 0_ utilized
per pound COD applied. Mode D results were similar to Mode C
test results since high dosages of ozone were required to achieve
measurable COD or TOC reduction. In fact, only 18% reduction
of COD was obtained at 335 mg/1 ozone dosage.
206
-------
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Pre-coagulation (Mode F) - Effec-
tive COD, TSS and BOD reduction was obtained with the multi-
f\
media filter operated at 3 and 5 gpm/ft surface loading rates
+3
with 10 mg/1 alum as Al as a coagulant aid. At the optimum
filter loading rate of 3 gpm/ft2 (in terms of effluent quality
and filter run times) 41% BOD, 48% COD and 71% TSS was removed.
Filter performance was similar to non-coagulated operation in
terms of reduction of all parameters except COD. Pre-filter
coagulation increased COD removal by 33%.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Bench-scale dissolved air
flotation (DAF) experiments were performed at 100%, 50% and
+3
33% recycle using 35 mg/1 Alum as Al as a coagulant. Only
8% COD removal was obtained at 50% recycle while the subnatant
TSS was higher than the BPT effluent.
4. The candidate BATEA process technologies showing the greatest poten-
tial for favorable treatment effectiveness for Plant Z were multi-
media filter followed by carbon columns (Mode B) and multi-media
filtration with pre-coagulation followed by ozonation (Mode K).
5. Mode B achieved all the BATEA guideline values for Plant Z except
COD which was above the limitation value by 100 mg/1. Mode K
effluent exceeded the BATEA limits for COD and TSS.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption is
the recommended BATEA process for Plant Z. The projected effluent
quality for this process will achieve all BATEA guideline values
except COD.
2
2. The recommended multi-media filter surface loading rate is 3 gpm/ft
The carbon column hydraulic residence time should be 49 minutes.
The carbon capacity loading is 0.12 gm soluble COD/gm carbon.
Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
207
-------
PLANT Z
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent that comprises the Plant Z manufacturing facility, a Sub-
category IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) Plant. Processes include printing
(natural), desizing, scouring, bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing (Roller/
Screen) arid special finishes. Primary fibers used include cotton and
blends of cotton/polyester.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was on-site for a 57-day period (December 22,
1977 to February 16, 1978) at this site. The production during the 35-
days of plant operation totaled 13,630,015 pounds of material. The pro-
duction during the days the plant operated averaged 389,425 pounds/day
(See Appendix F). Production averaged 9% cotton and 91% cotton/polyester
blends. According to the textile mill, the manufacturing plant has a
capacity of 457,000 pounds per day.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment
facilities at Plant Z is presented in Figure C-9(Z). More specific process
information is summarized in Table C-15(Z).
The incoming raw waste passes through a bar screen before the waste
enters the first aeration basin. The two aeration basins have a volume of
20 million gallons each with a combined detention time of 107 hours at
design flow. Currently one aeration basin is not in use. Aeration is
provided by surface aerators at a power to volume ratio of 45 HP/MG.
Following aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the water in two
final clairifiers. Sludge is either returned to the aeration basin
or pumped to the aerobic digester. Following the digester, sludge
is concentrated in a thickener. Waste sludge is then land-
spreaded using a spray irrigation method. The normal sludge age
208
-------
TABLE C-15(Z)
PLANT Z
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Flow - 9.0 MGD Design
3.40 MGD During Pilot Plant Visit
3.71 Average for previous 12-month period
Equalization
None
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 2-in (parallel, vertical)
Comminutor - (1) on domestic waste stream
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins 2
Volume (Total) 40 MG
Aeration 1800 HP; 45 HP/MG
Detention Time 107 HR (at Design Flow)
141 HR (during pilot plant visit)
129 HR (12-month Average flow)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
Size: Diameter - 85 ft.
Side Water Depth - 9 ft
Recycle rate - 1.15 MGD (total)
Chlorination Facilities
None
Sludge Digestion
No. of Tanks - 1
Sludge Concentrator
No. of Basins - 1
Sludge Holding - 1.3 MMG
209
-------
ranges from 48 to 376 days. The supernatant from the secondary clarifier
passes through a parshall flume and is discharged to the receiving
stream.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
preceding the period of pilot study. Daily operating data as reported by
the plant are also presented in Appendix A for the period the pilot studies
were in progress. The discharge values for the last year are compared to
the present BPT values in Table C-16(Z).
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-16(Z) the
waste treatment plant obtained an overall BOD5 removal efficiency of 96
percent and achieved all BPT guideline values except for a few daily maxi-
mum excursions on TSS and a monthly average violation for BOD during 1977.
During the on-site experimental study there were several major
effluent quality upsets created by either production changes or biological
treatment operational problems. Some of the unusual production and waste
treatment plant operational occurrences which influenced the pilot plant
operation are summarized below:
DATE
January 12, 13,
1978
January 17, 1978
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
Secondary clarifier sludge blanket
carryover resulted in abnormally
high TSS concentration to the pilot
plant. Plant Z treatment plant was
unable to waste sufficient bio-
sludge to the landspread area due
to the frozen turf and potent inL
runoff to a receiving stream.
EFFECT ON
PILOT PLAfclT
OPERATION
Decreased multi-
media filter run
time from normal
12 hours or more
to less than 2
hours.
January 20, 23,
24, 1978
High TSS carryover the secondary (1) Floating solids
clarifier weirs was most probably in reactor
due to Insufficient sludge wasting. clarifier.
Grab samples of BPT waste indicated (2) High solids and
a high CO' or N~ level as solids short filter
tended to float in beakers. run times in
multi-media
filter operation.
(3) High TSS loading
to carbon columns-
210
-------
TABLE C-16(Z)
PLANT Z
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT LIMITATIONS
Parameter
30-Day
Present
Ibs/day
Avg. Daily Max.
BPT Values
mg/1 at
30-Day Avg.
- - -— ' "• " *
Actual Operation
Jan. 1977 - Dec. 1977
3.71 MGD mg/1
Daily Max. 30-Day Avg. Max. Day
BOD5
COD
ro
=! TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Color
Flow
PH
1285
22,665
3466
19
19
39
n.a.
n.a.
6-9
2570
45,330
6932
.5 38.9
.5 38.9
.0 77.9
n.a.
n. a.
6-9
42
733
112
0.63
0.63
1.26
n.a.
n.a.
6-9
83 16 - 57 (1) 21 - 73
1465 291 -594 394 -763
224 13 - 63 25 -229 (1)
1.26 n.m. n.m.
1.26 n.m. n.m.
2.52 n.m. n.m.
n. a. n.m. n.m.
n.a. 2.74-4.64 4.54-8.51
6-9 8.0 -8.8 8.2 -9.4 (2)
Number in parenthesis indicates number of times BPT limits were exceeded.
-------
Variations in BPT effluent quality, particularly TSS (x = 99 mg/1,
a = 178 mg/1) during the three week screening period posed extreme
operational constraints on the pilot plant and subsequently affected
selection of candidate processes and associated operating conditions.
WATER USAGE
Based on toial wastewater flow during the on-site study, 11.6
gallons of wastewater was generated per pound of finished material
produced.
212
-------
FIGURE C-9(Z)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES - PLANT Z
AERATION
BASIN
AERATION
BASIN
(NOT IN USE)
(2) SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
FINAL'
EFFLUEN1
PARSHALL
FLUME
RAW WASTE
AEROBIC SLUDGE
DIGESTER
SCREENS
SLUDGE
THICKENER
1 PILOT PLANT
f INFLUENT
SLUDGE
LANDSPREAD
BY SPRAY
IRRIGATION
NETWORK
213
-------
PLANT AA
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant AA, a
Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) and Subcategory V (Knit Fabric
Finishing) plant. The objectives of this pilot plant study are to evaluate
the potential BATEA process technologies for treating the BPT effluent
from Plant AA, determine the effectiveness of the technologies for achiev-
ing the BATEA guideline limitations and define the mutually (ATMI, EPA and
ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most cost-effective treatment
process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant AA include neutral-
ization, equilization, screens, aeration basins, and secondary clarifiers.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater treatment facility at Plant AA was not
meeting Best Practicable Technology (BPT) guideline effluent
limitations for BOD5 and TSS.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations, additional treatment beyond BPT is
required for BOD5> COD, TSS,'and Color removal (based on observa-
tions made during pilot plant operations).
3. The following observations and conclusions were made based on the
pilot scale screening experiments at Plant AA.
a. Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter (Mode A) - Jar tests con-
ducted in the ES Atlanta Laboratory prior to initiation of
trailer operations indicated that either American Cyanamid
572C (cationic polymer) or lime in conjunction with the
polymer would be effective coagulants. However, on-site
verification tests revealed that waste characteristics were
214
-------
quite variable and these coagulants were not suitable.
Extensive further testing was performed on-site, but a suit-
able coagulant was not found. Therefore, Mode A experiments
were not conducted during the screening phase of on-site
work. At the outset of the candidate mode evaluations, jar
test results showed either American Cyanamid 572C or Nalco
8100 to be possibly effective coagulants, however, Mode A
was not selected for operation during the candidate mode
phase because of the variable nature of the BPT effluent
coagulant demand, the high coagulant dosages required, and
the fact that filtration was an efficient unit process
for solids removal during screening tests.
b. Multi-Media Filter and Carbon Columns (Mode B) - Multi-media
filtration provided 49% TSS removal at the optimum loading
2
rate of 3 gpm/ft . High BPT effluent TSS concentrations
resulted in high filter effluent TSS values. Little COD and
color reduction occurred as a result of filtration. The
carbon columns provided 56% soluble COD reduction and consid-
erable color reduction.
c. Multi-Media Filter and Ozonation (Mode C) - Again, the multi-
media filter provided reasonable TSS removal. Ozone was
applied in dosages ranging from 0 to 419 mg/1 0., utilized, or
0 to 1.6 Ib 0 /lb COD. Color reduction was essentially com-
plete at 150 mg/1 0 , while soluble COD reduction at this
dosage was 42%.
d. Multi-Media Filter with Precoagulation (Mode F) - These tests
were conducted with a cationic polymer, (Hercules 855) at
0.5 mg/1 dosage as a filter aid. As compared to Mode 3
filter tests (no filter aid), greater TSS and COD reductions
were obtained. Filter run times of 12 hours were obtained
with 81% TSS removal and 35% COD removal.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Two sets of batch tests
were conducted using a coagulant (Cyanamid 572C) at three
recycle rates (100%, 50%, 33%). Although significant TSS
(68%) and COD (32%) reductions were obtained during the first
215
-------
test series using a BPT effluent possessing a TSS concentra-
tion of 101 rag/1, no improvements were obtained during the
second test series when the BPT effluent TSS concentration
was 51 mg/1 (normal effluent quality).
4. The two candidate BATEA process technologies for Plant AA showing
the greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness are
Mode M (Multi-media filtration with pre-filter coagulation fol-
lowed by carbon adsorption) and Mode K (Multi-media filtration
with pre-filter coagulation followed by ozonation).
5. Mode M met all BATEA effluent guideline limitations for the pre-
dicted long term average. Based on the projected 90th percentile
effluent values, Mode M met all guideline values except COD. Mode
M effluent exceeded BATEA COD limitations by 13%. Mode K met all
BATEA limitations except COD (by 32%) for the long term average.
The BATEA COD limitation was exceeded by 43% based on the projected
90th percentile value for Mode K. Both process technologies met
all maximum day BATEA effluent limitations based on projected
99th percentile effluent values.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The recommended BATEA treatment process for Plant AA is Multi-
media filtration with pre-filter coagulation followed by carbon
adsorption (Mode M). The projected effluent quality for this pro-
cess, based on the results of this study, will achieve all BATEA
effluent guideline values except COD for the 30-day average. Mode
M was selected based on the fact that it came closer to meeting the
BATEA effluent COD limit than the other treatment process tested
during candidate operations.
2
2. The recommended filter loading is 3 gpm/ft using 0.5 mg/1
cationic polymer (Hercules 855) as a pre-filter coagulant. Car-
bon column empty bed hydraulic detention time should be 45 minutes.
The carbon capacity is 0.103 Ib soluble COD/lb carbon. Process
design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
216
-------
PLANT AA
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant AA textile manufacturing facilities. Plant
AA is a Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) and Subcategory V (Knit
Fabric Finishing) mill. The woven fabric finishing which comprises 73.5
percent of total production is a complex manufacturing operation using
synthetic and blends of natural and synthetic filters. The knit fabric
finishing operation accounts for the remaining 26.5 percent of plant pro-
duction. The primary fiber used is polyester (100% and blended with cotton
and rayon). Production processing includes desizing, scouring, bleaching,
mercerizing and dyeing (Range, Becks, Jets). The sizing used at Plant AA
is PVA. Special finishes include soil release and water repellent.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was on-site at the Plant AA site for a 42-day
period (February 17, 1978 through March 29, 1978). During this time the
mill operated 34 days. The woven fabric finishing plant averaged 138,527
pounds per day of product while the knit fabric finishing plant averaged
49,934 pounds per day of production (see Appendix E). Finishing production
totaled 6,407,572 pounds of material including 100% polyester, 65% polyester/
35% cotton, 65% polyester/35% rayon, 80% polyester/20% rayon, 80% polyester/
20% cotton and 90% polyester/10% cotton. The manufacturing plant reported
a production capacity of 148,000 pounds per day woven fabric and 60,000
pounds per day knit fabric.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant AA is presented in Figure C-1Q(AAK More specific process
information is summarized in Table C-17(AA).
The incoming industrial raw waste passes through bar screens prior
to entering a 600,000 gallon aerated, neutralization basin. Mixing is
217
-------
TABLE C-17(AA)
PLANT AA
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 3.5 MGD
Normal Flow - 2.26 MGD
Flow During Pilot Experimentation - 2.41 MGD
Equalization - jfeutrallzation
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 0.60 MG
Detention Time - 4 hrs
Aeration - 1 - 40 HP; 67 HP/MG
H-SO. Addition
2 4
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 1.25"
Hydrosieves - 0.020 in openings - (3)
Aeration
No. of Basins - 2 (one in use during pilot experimentation)
Volume (Total) - 7.2 MG
Aeration (Total) - 450 HP; 63 HP/MG
Detention Time - 49 hrs. at design flow
76 hrs. at normal flow
72 hrs. during pilot experimentation
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
Size: Diameter - 60 ft (inside diameter)
SWD - 10 ft
Recycle Rate - 3.0 MGD (total)
Other Facilities
Oxidation Pond (Domestic Waste; parallel to industrail waste treatment
facility)
218
-------
facilitated with a power to volume ratio of 67 HP/MG. Sulfuric acid is
fed to this basin for pH adjustment. Following neutralization the waste
passes through three hydrasieve screens at a screen spacing of 0.020 inches.
The waste is then split and diverted to two parallel aeration basins with
a total volume of 7.2 MG at a power to volume ratio of 63 HP/MG and a
detention time of 49 hours at design flow. Aeration is provided by float-
ing low speed mechanical surface aerators. A typical mean cell residence
time is 209 days. Aeration basin effluent is combined then diverted to
two parallel 60-foot diameter secondary clarifiers.
The sanitary waste which is less than 1 percent of the total waste
flow is treated separately by an oxidation pond. Effluent is combined
with the industrial waste effluent prior to discharge to the receiving
stream.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFOSMANCE
The monthly operating data for the waste treatment plant as reported
by the plant are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of pilot plant study. The discharge
values reported for the last year are compared to the Best Practicable
Treatment (BPT) Guideline values in Table C-18(AA). The influent to the pilot
plant trailer was collected from the manhole which included both secondary
clarifier effluent and oxidation pond effluent.
According to the data presented in Table (3-18 (AA), the waste treatment
plant is obtaining an overall BOD removal efficiency of 93 percent. Dur-
ing the one year period prior to pilot plant arrival, the secondary plant
effluent exceeded BPT guideline limitations for BOD5> COD, and TSS for
30 day averages. Maximum day limits were exceeded for BOD^ TSS and pH.
During the on-site visit by the pilot plant there were several pro-
duction changes and treatment plant operational problems which significantly
affected operation of the pilot plant process technologies. Some of the
unusual production and waste treatment plant operational occurrences which
influenced the pilot plant operation are noted below:
219
-------
TABLE C-18(AA)
ro
o
PLANT
AA
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT LIMITATIONS
Parameter
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Color
Flow
PH
30-Day
582
10139
1777
9.5
9.5
18.9
N.A.
N.A.
6-9
BPT EFFLUENT
lbs/day(1)
Avg. Daily Max.
1164
20279
3554
18,9
18.9
37.7
N.A.
N.A.
6-9
GUIDELINE LIMITATIONS
mg/1 at
30-Day Avg.
-
31
538
94
0.50
0.50
1.00
N.A.
N.A.
6-9
2.26 MGD(2)
Daily Max.
62
1076
189
1.00
1.00
2.00.
N.A.
N.A.
6-9
Actual
March '77
30-Day Averages
13-43(3)
274-549(1)
28-108(1)
.011-. 032(0)
.004-. 013(0)
.02-. 09(0)
N.A.
2.33-2.62
7.2-7.8(0)
Operation
to March '78
rag/1
3) 3)
Max . Day
28-79(3)
385-927(0)
37-239(2)
.015-. 045(0)
.011-. 023(0)
0.1-0.2(0)
N.A.
2.5-3.7
8.1-9.4(1)
(1) See Appendix E for Calculation of BPT Guidelines.
(2) Flow average as reported by the plant for the period March '77 to March '78.
(3) Number in parenthesis is the number of times BPT guideline was exceeded during the one-year period.
-------
Notes on BPT Operations
3/4 - 3/7 A manufacturing plant caustic spill caused neutralization
basin pH to reach 11.9.
3/8 Microscopic examination of mixed liquor showed a lack of normal-
ly abundant rotifiers and protozoa.
3/11 - 3/14 Noticable pin floe flowing over secondary clarifier weir.
3/16 Plant caustic spill increased raw pH to 11.5
3/17 Plant substituted acetic acid for sulfuric acid for pH control.
3/15 - 3/18 One aerator down in each basin.
3/20 Microscopic examination of mixed liquor indicated return of
protozoa and rotifiers.
3/23 - 3/28 One aerator down in aeration basin.
Notes on BPT Effluent Quality
2/23 - 3/17 Color of Plant M BPT effluent rust brown (29-35 %T @
520 nm). Visable solids in secondary clarifier effluent.
3/17 - 3/19 BPT effluent became black in color (15-20 %T @ 520 nm).
Immediate color breakthrough on pilot plant carbon columns. Increase in
ozone demand for color removal.
3/19 - 3/29 BPT effluent color still black, but not as intense
(28-32 %T @ 520 nm). BPT effluent TSS decreased.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 2.41 MGD during the. on-site
study, 12.8 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced. This figure includes both woven fabric finishing and
knit fabric finishing production.
221
-------
AERATORS
(2)
AERATION
BASINS
(2)
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
FIGURE e~10(AA)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT AA
RAW WASTE
BAR SCREENS
AERATED
NEUTRALIZATION/
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
HYDRASI EVE
SCREENS
SANITARY WASTE
OXIDATION
POND
V-NOTCH
WIER
PILOT PLANT
INFLUENT
222
FINAL EFFLUENT
-------
PLANT BB
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant BB, a
Subcategory IV, Woven Fabric Finishing plant. The objectives of this
pilot plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technolo-
gies for treating the BPT effluent from Plant BB, determine the effective-
ness of the technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations
and define the mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations
for the most cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant BB include an
aerated equalization basin followed by an aeration basin. Final polish-
ing is provided by a natural lagoon. Pilot plant experimentation was
performed on aeration basin effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities (equalization and aeration
units) at Plant BB were achieving the Best Practicable Technology
(BPT) guideline effluent limitations for all parameters during
pilot plant experimentation.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce TSS, COD and color.
3- The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant BB.
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed by Multi-Media Filtra-
tion (Mode A) - The optimum coagulant/dosage combination
+3
tested was alum at 120 mg/1 Al at a pH of 6.5. The
reactor/clarifier reduced BOD5, COD, CrT and TOC at all
loadings tested. COD reduction was maximized at a reactor/
clarifier loading at 100 gpd/ft . TSS concentrations
223
-------
were increased across the clarifier at all loadings tested
(100, 200, 300 and 400 gpd/ft2) except 100 gpd/ft2. The
average reactor/clarxfier influent and effluent TSS concen-
trations at this loading were about the same. Due to the
2
low flow rate required to maintain 100 gpd/ft on the clari-
2
fier, filter experimentation was limited to 1.5 gpm/ft .
The multi-media filter, at this loading, provided additional
8% COD, 10% TSS and 10% TOC reductions over clarifier
effluent.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Contact
(Mode B) - Multi-Media Filter experiments were dont at load-
2 2
ings of 2, 3, 5 and 7 gpm/ft . It was found that 3 gpm/ft
was the most effective loading rate. The carbon columns
were successful in removing 41% COD, 41% SOD, 17% TSS and
47% TOC from the multi-media filter effluent. Considerable
color reduction was also noted.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - Two
Mode C batch experiments were done using multi-media filter
2
effluent during operation at 3 gpm/ft (most effective load-
ing) . Utilized dosages from 28 to 729 mg O'/l were applied.
Though considerable color reduction was observed, little
organic removal was detected (11% COD reduction after 729
mg Q.,/1 utilized) .
d. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - On-
site jar tests showed visual threshold floe to be formed
+3
using alum at a dosage of 16 mg/1 Al • The addition of
filter aid coagulant improved COD removal over straight
filter operation. TSS, however, were higher in all cases
in filter effluent than filter influent due to escaping floe.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Two dissolved air flota-
tion (DAF) batch experiments were performed. Coagulant
+3
dosage used was 120 mg/1 Al at a pH of 6.5. Maximum COD
reduction was 44% at 100% recycle. TSS, however, were
increased in all cases from 50 to 670%.
224
-------
4. The two candidate BATEA process technologies for Plant BB
(those showing the greatest potential for favorable treatment
effectiveness) are coagulation/clarification followed by multi-
media filtration (Mode A) and multi-media filtration followed
by activated carbon adsorption (Mode B).
5. Neither of the two candidate processes tested met all BATEA
guideline levels. Mode A exceeded the BATEA guideline values
for TSS by 89% (25 mg/1) for the 30-day average and 13% (7 mg/1)
for the maximum day value. Mode B exceeded TSS by 11% (3 mg/1)
and COD by 20% (38 mg/1) for the 30-day averages. Mode B met
all limitations on the maximum day values.
6. Based on a relative cost comparison the economic superiority
of one candidate treatment process over the other could not be
established.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption
is the recommended BATEA process for Plant BB. The projected
effleunt quality for this process will not achieve the BATEA
guideline values for TSS or COD. Mode B was selected over Mode
A because it provided an effluent which came closer to the BATEA
guideline limitations.
2. The recommended multi-media filter surface loading rate is 3
2
gpm/ft followed by a carbon column hydraulic residence time
of 45 minutes. The carbon capacity loading is 0.14 Ib soluble
COD/lb carbon. Process design criteria are presented in
Chapter VI.
225
-------
PLANT BB
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant BB textile manufacturing facility. Plant
BB is a Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) mill. One Hundred percent
of the production at Plant BB is classified as "commission finishing".
Primary fibers used are nylon and dacron. Production processes include
scouring, bleaching and dyeing. Printing also is done on a small portion
of production (<5%). Special finishes include DWR, FR, CRF and polyure-
thane coatings.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated at the Plant BB site for a 38-day
period (August 23, 1978 through September 29, 1978). During this time,
the plant operated for 29 days, averaging a production of 44,665 pounds
of material per day (see Appendix E). Production during the pilot plant
visit totaled 1,295,285 Ibs, Production during the period was 72.5% nylon,
25.0% dacron with other materials comprising the remaining 2.5%. The
manufacturing plant has a predicted capacity of 65,000 Ibs/day.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment
facilities at Plant BB is presented in Figure C-ll(BB). More specific pro-
cess information is summarized in Table C-19(BB).
The wastewater treatment plant influent is primarily industrial
waste with the only sanitary waste being that generated in the manufacturig
facility. Raw waste passes first through an aerated equalization basin
(1.7 day H.D.T.). Oxygen transfer and mixing is provided by a 15 HP sur-
face type aerator. In the past a second aerator has been added at times
to help reduce odors from the equalization basin. The aeration basin
provides a 280 hour H.D.T. Aeration and mixing is accomplished with 5
surface type aerators (total power imput = 85 HP). The power to volume
ratio for the basin is 15.5 HP/MG. Flow from the aeration basin passes
226
-------
TABLE C-19CBB)
PLANT BB
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow =0.47 MGD
Normal Flow = 0.612
Flow During Pilot Experimentation = 0.577
Influent BOD - 390 mg/1
Equalization
Aerated: Volume - 0.8 MG
Aeration - 15 HP; 18.8 HP/MG
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
None
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Volume - 5.5 MG
Aeration - 85 HP (surface aerators); 15.5 HP/MG
Design detention time - 280 hr.
Detention time at normal flow - 216 hr.
Detention time during pilot experimentation - 229 hr.
Secondary Clarifiers
None
Other Operations
Polishing Pond: BPT effluent discharges into a 3-4 MG
natural pond before entering receiving
stream. Pilot plant operations were
done on aeration basin effluent prior
to pond.
227
-------
through a natural lagoon before entering the receiving river. Pilot
plant operations were done on the aeration basin effluent.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant as reported
by the plant are shown in Appendix A for the 13 month period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. The discharge
values reported for the last year are compared to the Best Practicable
Treatment (BPT) Guideline values in Table C-20(BB).
Based on the data presented in Table C-20(BB) and the influent BOD5 value
from Table C-19(BB), the wastewater treatment plant is obtaining BOD5 removal
efficiencies of 78-96%. Based on data reported by Plant BB the wastewater
treatment facility exceeded BPT limits for BOD5 three months during the
period Aug. '77 - Aug. '78. For all other pollutants BPT limits were not
exceeded. It should be noted, however, that the data presented in Table
C-20(BB) is based on one 8-hr, composite sample per month. The true 30-day
average could be considerably different.
There were no operational upsets at the wastewater treatment plant
that effected pilot plant operations.
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT VARIABILITY
During the period of pilot plant study, the textile manufacturing
plant generally operated 5-6 days per week. This variability is not
reflected in the overall statistical treatment of the data in this report,
since only days when data were available were included. During periods
of low flow the aeration basin has enough retention time to maintain a
suitable biological population. The mean cell retention time cannot be
estimated based on insufficient plant data.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.577 MGD during the on-site
study, 12.9 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
228
-------
TABLE C-2O(BB)
ro
PLANT BB
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day O-)
PARAMETER
30-DAY AVG.
DAILY MAX.
mg/1 at 0.
30-DAY AVG.
612 MGD^2)
DAILY MAX.
Actual Operation
Aug.
30-DAY AVG.
'77 - Aug. '78
mg/1
(5) DAILY MAX.
BOD
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow, (MGD)
pH, (unitless)
295
2680
795
4.47
4.47
8.93
n.a.
6.0 - 9.0
590
5360
1590
8.93
8.93
17.87
n.a.
6.0 - 9.0
58
525
156
0.88
0.88
1.75
n. a.
6.0 - 9.0
116
1050
312
1.75
1.75
3.50
n.a.
6.0 - 9.0
17-87
378(4)
11-87
0.005-0.21
0.15 -0.20
0.005-1.17
0.459-0.907
7.0-7.5
(3)
-
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
-
(0) 9.0
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
(2) Average flow for the period of August '77 through August '78 as reported by the plant.
(3) Based on one measurement per month except for pH.
(4) COD not measured by plant. Value reported is average of observations during pilot plant visit.
(5) Number in parenthesis indicates number of months when BPT limitations were exceeded.
n.a. Not applicable.
-------
FIGURE C-II(BB)
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM - EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATHENT FACILITIES AT PLANT BB
RAW WASTE
O= AERATOR
O
i
O
EQUALIZATION BASIN
f \
o ,,
o
o
o
-^
AERATION BASIN
INFLUENT TO
-— -»-PILOT PLANT
BPT EFFLUENT (TO POLISHING POND)
230
-------
PLANT DP
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant DD, a combina-
tion of a Subcategory D (IV) Woven Fabric Finishing Plant and a Subcategory G
(VII) Stock and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing Plant. This was the initial field
experimental study. During this site visit the shakedown of the pilot plant
equipment was conducted and the experimental program was refined and modified.
The objectives of this plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA
technologies for treating the BPT effluent of Plant DD, determine the effec-
tiveness of the technologies for meeting the proposed BATEA effluent limita-
tions, and define the mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendation
for the most cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant DD include screens,
neutralization, aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination and sludge
drying beds for sludge dewatering. The experimental testing was performed
on the secondary clarifier effluent prior to chlorination.
The information generated during this study and presented in this report
forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant DD were effec-
tively treating the textile plant wastewater and producing an
effluent quality that met the Best Practical Technology (BPT) guide-
line limitations.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce the COD and TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the pilot-
scale screening experiments at Plant DD:
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed By Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - Jar tests were conducted in which ferric chloride
with anionic polymer and alum were selected as the optimum
coagulants. In the pilot-scale tests neither coagulant used
231
-------
with the reactor/clarifier functioned well and in four experi-
ments an increase in TSS was observed. The multi-media filter
reduced the applied TSS by as much as 90 percent and was some-
what effective for organic reduction (BOD5, COD and TOG).
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed By Granular Carbon Adsorption
(Mode B) - The multi-media filter reduced TSS by 35 to 75 percent
when the applied TSS was above 10 mg/1. Organic removal was not
very significant across the filter. The optimum surface loading
2
rate for the multi-media filter was 2 gpm/ft . The carbon
columns reduced COD, TOG, TSS and chromium. The COD reduction
through the carbon columns varied between 40 and 60 percent
which indicates a relatively high non-adsorbable fraction of
COD present in the effluent.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed By Ozonation (Mode C) - During
this experiment the suspended solids concentration of the BPT
effluent was extremely low, 3 mg/1 or less. Therefore, the
function of the filter in the process train was insignificant.
Ozone was not effective in providing BOD,, and COD reduction,
but did reduce the color.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - Ozonation at the dosages- tested was not.
effective for BOD,, and COD reduction, but did reduce the color.
e. Multi-Media Filtration With Precoagulation (Mode F) - Precoagula-
tion of the multi-media filter influent with 12 mg/1 alum as
+3
Al enhanced the performance of the filter. The filter not
only provided TSS reductions of 40 to 89 percent, but also
demonstrated good performance for COD, chromium and color
2
reduction. The optimum surface loading rate was 2 gpm/ft .
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
was not effective for suspended solids removal. Because of the
low concentration of suspended solids in the BPT effluent and the
addition of coagulants, the DAF effluent suspended solids were
greater than the influent suspended solids.
232
-------
4. The two candidate BATEA processes (those showing greatest potential
for favorable cost-effectiveness) for Plant DD are multi-media fil-
tration followed by granular carbon adsorption (Mode B) and multi-
media filtration with precoagulation (Mode F).
5. The two candidate BATEA processes, Modes B and F, produced a similar
effluent quality and both processes were effective for achieving the
BATEA effluent limitations for all parameters except TSS and BOD,..
The BATEA guideline value for TSS was 6 mg/1 and the projected TSS
for Mode B was 16 mg/1 and for Mode F was 14 mg/1. Mode F achieved
the BATEA guideline value for BOD_, but Mode B exceeded the guide-
line value of 8 mg/1 by 3 mg/1.
6. Comparative capital cost and operating and maintenance cost indicate
that Mode F is significantly less expensive than Mode B.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration with precoagulation is the recommended BATEA
process for Plant DD. The projected effluent quality from this
process does not achieve the BATEA guideline value for TSS. However,
this process produced an effluent quality better than or equal to
the other technologies evaluated. Multi-media filtration is more
cost-effective than the alternate candidate process, filtration and
granular carbon adsorption.
2. The recommended design loading for the multi-media filter is
I O
2 gpa/f t2 with a coagulant dosage of 12 mg/1 alum (as Al ) .
Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
233
-------
PLANT DP
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the two manufacturing plants that comprise the Plant DD
manufacturing facility. One facility is classified as a Subcategory VII
plant (Stock and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing), the other as a Subcategory IV
plant (Woven Fabric Finishing, complex manufacturing). The primary fibers
used are cotton and blends of dacron, nylon and cotton. The production
processing includes desizing (starch), scouring, bleaching, mercerizing,
and dyeing (package and continuous).
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 61-day period (May 9, 1977
through July 8, 1977) at this site. The finishing production during this
same 61-day period totaled 8,072,019 pounds of material. The production
during the days the plant was operating averaged 179,898 pounds per day
(see letter in Appendix E). Finished materials included 100% cotton, 65%
polyester/35% cotton, and textured polyester. The manufacturing plants
have a capacity of approximately 60,000 pounds/day stock and yarn and 167,000
pounds/day woven fabric finishing.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facilities
at Plant DD is presented in Figure C-12(DD). More specific process information
is summarized in Table C^21(DD).
The raw wastewater from the two manufacturing facilities are combined
prior to treatment. The incoming waste is first screened by a 2-inch bar
screen to remove objects such as cloth, paper, plastic, wood, etc. The
influent is normally alkaline, therefore, neutralization consists of acid
addition before the waste enters the aeration basin. The aeration basin
has a volume of 12 million gallons which provides a detention time of 48
hours. Aeration is provided by fixed and floating mechanical surface aera-
tors at a power to volume ratio of 87.5 HP/MG. Following aeration, the
234
-------
TABLE C-2KDD)
PLANT DP
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 6 MGD (approximately 10% sanitary waste)
Influent BOD5 - 220 mg/1 or 11,000 Ib/day
Equalization
None
Neutralization
Acid addition
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 2 inch
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 12 MG
Aeration - 1050 HP (surface aerators); 87.5 HP/MG.
Detention Time- 48 hours
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
O-| 7O .
Diameter - 90 ft.
Side Water Depth - 12 ft.
Recycle rate - 5 MGD (total)
Other Operations
Chlorination
Sludge Drying Beds
235
-------
bio-solids are separated from the water in the two final clarifiers. Sludge
is returned to the aeration basin or may be transferred to a sludge holding
basin as required to maintain the desired concentration of suspended solids
in the aeration basin. The mean cell retention time is approximately
15C-300 days. The waste sludge is dewatered in sludge drying beds. The
clarified effluent is chlorinated prior to discharge into the receiving
s tream.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant as reported by
the plant are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately prior
to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating data as
reported by the plant are also presented in Appendix A for the period the
pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported for the last
year are compared to the Best Practical Treatment (BPT) Guideline values in
Table C-22(DD). The influent to pilot plant trailer was collected from the
secondary clarifier effluent prior to chlorination.
Based on the data presented in Table C~22(DD), and Appendix A, the waste
treatment plant is obtaining an overall BOD,, removal efficiency of 98 percent
and is achieving the BPT guideline values for all parameters.
It should be noted that during the major portion of the on-site visit
there were operational/control problems with the Plant DD treatment facility.
The two most significant problems were:
1) the failure of the sludge wasting line to the existing sludge
drying bed, and
2) the pumping schedule from the most remote manufacturing facility
to the common waste treatment plant.
These two factors combined to produce hydraulic surges and periods
when excess (waste) activated sludge could not be wasted. These periods
were typified by excessive solids loss over the weirs. During these "upset"
periods the solids concentration in the clarifier effluent was too high to
allow effective operation of the mobile pilot plant.
236
-------
TABLE C-22(DD)
PLANT DD
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT
Parameter
COD
TSS
Phenol
ro Chromium
CO
Sulfi.de
Color, (Ft- Co units)
Flow, (MGD)
pil, ( uni t] ess)
Ibs/day
30-Day Avg.
598
9237
1593
9 . 40
9.40
18.8
n.a.
n.a.
(6.0-9.0)
BPT Guideline
(1)
Daily Max.
1195
18475
3186
18.8
18.8
37.6
n.a.
n.a.
(6.0-9.0)
Values
ma /I
30- Day Avg.
12
185
32
0.188
0.188
0.376
n.a.
rwa.
GUIDELINE VALUES
at 6 MGD(2)
Daily Max.
24
369
64
0.376
0.376
0.751
n.a.
n.a.
Actual Operation
Aug. '
Avg.
4.7
129
26
0.067
0.176
n.m.
(97)
76 - July '77
mg/1
Max.
11
280
50
0.10
0.80
n.m.
(800)
6.06 MGD 7.6 M('l)
(6.3-8.9)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values
(2) The average flow for the period of August '76 thru July '77 was reported by the plant as 6.06 MGD
n.m. = not monitored by mill laboratory
n.a. = not applicable
-------
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT VARIABILITY
During the period the pilot plant studies were underway, the textile
manufacturing plants generally operated five days per week. This varia-
bility is not reflected in the overall statistical treatment of the data
in this report, as only days where data was available were included. The
treatment plant, as discussed earlier, has a hydraulic retention time in
the aeration basin of 48 hours at a flow rate of 6 MGD. This capacity
serves effectively with recycle of sludge (clarifier underflow) to maintain
the biological population during periods of low flow.
/
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 5.4 MGD during the on-site study,
30.0 gallons of wastewater was generated per pound of finished material
produced. This figure includes both the Stock and Yarn plant and the Woven
Fabric Finishing plant less the 10 percent municipal waste contribution.
238
-------
RAW WASTE
BAR SCREEN
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
STORAGE
WASTE SLUDGE
ACID ADDITION FOR
pH ADJUSTMENT
AERATION
BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS (2)
CHLORINATION
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
FINAL EFFLUENT
FIGURE C-12(DD)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM-EXISTING NASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT DD
239
-------
PLANT T
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant T, a Sub-
category IV, Woven Fabric Finishing Plant. The objectives of this pilot
plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for
treating the BPT effluent from Plant T, determine the effectiveness of
the technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define
the mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most
cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant T include equaliza-
tion, aeration, secondary clarification, a polishing pond, step reaeration,
sludge storage and aerobic sludge digestion.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant T were achieving the
Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limitations
during the period the pilot plant study was conducted. Histor-
ically (12 month period just prior to pilot plant visit) Plant T
has consistantly met all BPT effluent limitations except those
for TSS (on both 30-day averages and daily maximum basis).
f
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce COD and TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant T:
a. Reactor/Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter (Mode A) - Jar tests
indicated that none of the coagulants tested were effective
at coagulation of this wastewater. Therefore, Mode A exper-
iments were not conducted during the screening phase of on-
site work.
240
-------
b. Multi-Media Filter with Carbon Columns (Mode B) - The multi-
media filter was operated at surface loading rates of 3.0,
O
5.0 and 7.0 gpm/ft . At a filter loading rate of 5.0 gpm/ft2
the filter achieved 35% TSS removal as well as reducing BODS,
total COD and TOG. The carbon columns were operated at a
45 minute (total) hydraulic retention time. During the
screening experiments the Mode B process removed an average
(for all experiments) of 71% BOD5 (from 17 mg/1 to 5 mg/1),
38% total COD (from 622 mg/1 to 388 mg/1), 34% soluble COD
(from 548 mg/1 to 362 mg/1), 63% TSS (from 24 mg/1 to 9 mg/1),
41% sulfide (from 1.23 mg/1 to 0.73 mg/1), as well as provid-
ing good color removal (from 60% to 90% transmittance). Total
COD reduction through the carbon columns varied from 25% to
55%.
c. Multi-Media Filter and Ozonation (Mode C) - The multi-media
2
filter was operated at a surface loading rate of 3.0 gpm/ft
and achieved a TSS removal of 50%. Ozone was applied in
dosages ranging from 18 mg/1 to 72 mg/1 ozone utilized.
Excellent color removal was exhibited but little or no
organic reduction was achieved.
d. Multi-Media Filter with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The multi-
media filter was operated at surface loading rates of 3.0,
2
5.0 and 7.0 gpm/ft with alum precoagulation at a dosage of
I O
10 mg/1 as Al . The multi-media filter with precoagulation
was not as effective at TSS removal as straight filtration
(Mode B) and the filter run times (time between backwashing)
were less.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Dissolved Air Flotation
(DAF) experiments were performed at several recycle rates
(100%, 75%, 50% and 33%). BOD5 removal was noted, but
reduction in the other measured pollutants was not signifi-
cant or consistant.
241
-------
4. The candidate BATEA process technology showing the greatest
potential for favorable treatment effectiveness at Plant T is
multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsorption (Mode B).
5. Mode B achieved the BATEA BOD,-, phenol, sulfide and color guide-
line values for Plant T, but did not meet the BATEA COD and TSS
guidelines. The BATEA guideline value for TSS is 14 mg/1 and the
projected TSS for Mode B is 19 mg/1. The BATEA COD value is
179 mg/1 while Mode B has a projected COD value of 474 mg/1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Carbon Adsorption (Mode B)
is the recommended BATEA process at Plant T. The projected
effluent quality from this process does not achieve the BATEA
guidelines for COD or TSS. However, Mode B produced an effluent
quality better than the other technologies in terms of COD.
2. The recommended design surface loading rate for the multi-media
o
filter is 5 gpm/ft . Carbon column hydraulic residence time
should be 60 minutes. The carbon capacity loading is 0.112 gm
soluble COD/gm carbon. Process design criteria are presented in
Chapter VI.
242
-------
PLANT T
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were conducted on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the two manufacturing complexes that comprise the
Plant T manufacturing facility, a Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing)
Plant. One complex is composed of four greige mills, a batting mill and
a cotton warehouse. The greige mills operations involve spinning and
weaving of natural, synthetic and blends of natural/synthetic and synthet-
ic fibers. The other complex is involved in production processes includ-
ing desizing, scouring, bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing and printing of the
greige goods manufactured at the greige mills. The primary fibers used
are cotton, polyester and rayon.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was at this site for a 50-day period (June 8,
1978 through July 27, 1978) during which the pilot plant was shutdown on
weekends and for a 9-day period spanning the July 4 holiday. The produc-
tion data during this time totaled 25,785,585 pounds. During the 35 days
the plant operated, production averaged 736,731 pounds per day. The man-
ufacturing plant has a maximum processing capacity of approximately
750,000 Ibs/day. (See Appendix E) . The primary fiber used was a 65%/
35% polyester cotton blend (88.5%) with other fibers used including 100%
cotton, 100% polyester and blends of 40%/60% polyester cotton, 50%/50%
polyester cotton and 65%/35% polyester rayon. The major process involved
is scouring and bleaching (100%); others involved are mercerizing (27.9%),
dyeing (61.8%) and printing (30.8%). The greige mills also discharge to
the wastewater treatment plant. The average production for the four mills
totals approximately 85,000 pounds per day (included in the 736,731 Ib/day
production average).
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant T is presented in Figure C-13(T). More specific process
243
-------
information is summarized in Table C-23(T). The raw wastewater from the
greige mills (average flow approximately .104 MGD total) is pretreated in
stablization ponds, then combined with the raw wastewater from the finish-
ing plant prior to treatment. The incoming waste is first passed through
bar screens prior to entering the equalization basin. After equalization
the waste enters the aeration basins. The three aeration basins, with a
total volume of 15.0 million gallons, provide a total detention time of
30.0 hours at design flow. Aeration is provided by surface aerators at
a power to volume ratio of 120 HP/MG. Following aeration, the bio-solids
are separated from the water in four final clarifiers. Sludge is returned
to the aeration basins or pumped to the aerobic sludge digestor. The
waste sludge is stabilized in the 29 MG sludge basin. The sludge age
ranged between 12.4 and 27.5 days for the one year period prior to pilot
plant arrival based on information provided Plant T. Average sludge age
for the period was 18.2 days. The supernatant from the secondary clari-
fiers flow by gravity through a flow measuring devise into a 35 MG polish-
ing pond. The final effluent from the polishing pond flows through a
second Parshall Flume, down a step aeration spillway and is discharged to
the receiving stream via underwater diffusers.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data as reported by the plant are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the calculated BPT values in Table C-24(T).
The effluent values reported in this table are from the secondary clarifier.
The pilot plant trailer operated on the secondary clarifier effluent which
was upstream of the polishing pond. The clarifier effluent quality is also
presented in Appendix A.
During the on-site experimental study there were no major effluent
quality upsets created by production changes or biological treatment
operational problems. Some unusual production and waste treatment plant
244
-------
TABLE 0-23(1)
PLANT JT
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 12.0 MGD
Flow During Pilot Plant Visit - 8.72 MGD
Equalizat ion
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 10.0 MG
Detention Time - 20 hours (at design flow)
28 hours (during pilot plant visit)
Nutrient Addition
Anhydrous Ammonia
Screening
Bar Screens - 1-in (parallel, vertical)
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 3
Volume (Total) - 5.0 MG/Basin = 15. MG
Aeration - 1800 HP; 120 HP/MG
Detention Time - 30.0 hours (at design flow
41.3 (during pilot plant operations)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 4
Size: Diameter - 2-90 ft; 2-110 ft.
Side Water Depth - 10 ft.; 12 ft.
Recycle Rate - 9 to 12 MGD (total)
Sludge Handling Facilities
Aerobic Sludge Digestor - 2.5 MG
Sludge Holding Pond - 14.0 MG
Sludge Basin - 29 MG
Other Facilities
Magnetic Flow Meter (influent)
Parshall flume (effluent)
Polishing pond
Step Reaeration Spillway
245
-------
TABLE O24(T)
PLANT T
•
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
., , Actual Operation
BPT Guideline Values
PARAMETER
Ibs. day
30-DAY AVG.
DAILY MAX.
mg/1 at 8.13
30-DAY AVG.
MGD(2)
DAILY MAX.
August '77 -
Ran e(3) "^
30-DAY AVG.
July '78
DAILY MAX. '
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
pH
Color
2151 4301
38935 77869
5800 11601
32.6 65.2
32.6 65.2
65.2 130.3
Shall range between 6
Shall not exceed 300
32
574
86
0.48
0.48
0.96
.0 and 9.0
ADMI
63
1148
171
0.96
0.96
1.92
8.9 -
499 -
15 -
0.02
n
0.07
7.0 -
96 -
12 (0)
546 (0)
143 (3)
- 0.03 (0)
.m.
- 0.15 (0)
8.5 (0)
101 (0)
12 - 17 (0)
696 - 1120 (0)
32 - 396 (5)
0.04 (0)
n.m.
0.64 - 0.80 (0)
7.7 - 13 (0)
160 - 240 (0)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of BPT Guideline Values.
(2) The average flow for the period August, 1977 through July, 1978 was reported by the plant aa 8.13 MGD.
(3) Range of 30-day Avg. X - X (number of occurrances above BPT guideline values).
(4) Range of Daily Maximum (number of months with values above BPT guideline limitations).
n.a. not applicable.
n.m. not measured.
-------
operation occurrences that influenced the pilot plant operation are
noted below:
. June 15, 1978 - TSS in BPT effluent increased due to
production change.
. June 27, 1978 - Slight clarifier upset during the night.
. June 30 - July 9, 1978 - Plant production facilities
were shutdown for holiday.
July 10, 1978 - Plant resumed production, however, the
flow through the waste treatment plant was too low to
begin pilot plant operation.
During the past year, three monthly averages of clarifier effluent
data exceeded the BPT TSS limits. The plant had limited sludge wasting
capabilities for a four month period in which clarifier TSS were elevated.
Construction of a sludge holding pond was underway to alleviate these TSS
upsets. BOD,., COD, chromium, phenol, sulfide, pH and color were all
within the BPT guidelines during the 12-month historical period.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 8.72 MGD during the on-site
study, 13.4 gallons of wastewater was generated per pound of finished
material produced.
247
-------
FIGURE C-13(T)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM ~ EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT T
AERATION CLARIFIERS
INFLUENT
m m
taw m
1
BAR
SCREENS
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
10 MG
-B»
-»
D«OJ
5
100
.MO
MG
HP
5
100
MG 1
HP 1
5
100
MG
HP
ro
4S>
oo
RETURN
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE (TO
AERATION BASINS)
PUMP
STATION
POLISHING
POND
35 MG
STEP REAERATION
SPILLWAY
PARSHALL
FLUME
TO RIVER
1 .INFLUENT TO PILOT PLANT
I
•*N
i
2.5
MG
SLUDGE
TANK
SUPERNATANT RETURN
14 MG
SLUDGE HOLDING
POND
29 MG
SLUDGE BASIN
-------
PLANT K
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant K, a
Subcategory IV, Woven Fabric Finishing plant. The objectives of this
pilot plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies
for treating the BPT effluent from Plant K, determine the effectiveness of
the technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define
the mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most
cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant K include screen-
ing, aeration basin, secondary clarification, chlorination, and sludge
drying beds. The experimental testing was performed on the secondary
clarifier effluent prior to chlorination.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant K were achieving the
Best Practicable Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limitations
for all parameters during the period the pilot plant study was
conducted.
2. To achieve the BATEA effluent limitations additional treatment
beyond BPT is required to reduce color.
3. Based on the pilot experimentation period, Plant K's production
differs from most Subcategory IV plants in that only a minor
portion of the total production (32%) is dyed on-site. Also
no sizing is done at Plant K and thus no desizing waste must be
treated. These factors could account for the relatively low
level of treatment required to meet the BATEA effluent limita-
tions .
4. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot scale screening experiments at Plant K:
249
-------
-
A variety of metallic coagulants and combinations of eoagu-"
lants as well as cationic polymers were jar tested for effec-
:'i
tiveness in transmittance improvement, turbidity reduction,
+3
and minimal sludge production. Alum at 30 mg/1 (as Al ) at
a pH of 7.0 was determined to be the most overall effective
coagulant for use with Mode A. This dosage was utilized
with the reactor/clarifier at overflow rates of 400, 600 and
2 2
700 gpd/ft . The optimum loading was found to be 600 gpd/ft .
The reactor/clarifier effectively removed all measured pol-
lutants except TSS which increased due to floe carry over.
The multi-media filter was operated at loading rates of 3, 5,
7 2
and 7 gpm/ft" with 5 gpm/ft found to be the optimum. Over-
2 2
all, Mode A at 600 gpd/ft and 5 gpm/ft achieved an effluent
quality of 6 mg/1 BOD , 34 mg/1 COD, 17 mg/1 TSS, and <.01
mg/1 chromium. Color removal was indicated 'by an increase in
% transmittance from 57 to 91%.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Contact
(Mode B) - The multi-media filter was operated at loading
2 2
rates of 3, 5, and 7 gpm/ft . 5 gpm/ft was found to be the
most effective. The carbon columns were operated at 45
minutes hydraulic residence time and were not exhausted dur-
ing the screening phase of the study. Utilizing ICI Hydro-
darco granular carbon preceded by the multi-media filter
2
operated at a loading rate of 5 gpm/ft the effluent quality
achieved was 7 mg/1 BOD, 12 mg/1 COD, 2 mg/1 TSS, and <.02
mg/1 chromium. Color removal increased % transmittance from
48 to 96%.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) -
The Mode C batch tests were conducted with effluent from the
multi-media filter during operation at a surface loading
2
rate of 7 gpm/ft . Ozone dosages ranged from 8 to 104 mg/1
ozone utilized. At 8 mg/1 ozone utiled, typical Mode C
effluent quality was 21 mg/1 BOD. (an increase from filter
effluent at 15 mg/1), 47 mg/1 COD, 2 mg/1 TSS, -01 mg/1
chromium, and 97 percent transmittance.
250
-------
d- Multi-Media Filtration with
Results of jar test performed with a variety of coagulants
showed 6 to 8 mg/1 Ferric Chloride (as Fe+3) to be the visual
threshold floe formation dosage for use as a filter aid.
Optimum filter performance was achieved at a loading rate of
2 gpm/ft . Mode F operation exhibited slightly better COD
reduction than achieved with Mode B (no precoagulation) due
to Fed addition. Color removal was also enhanced. Efflu-
ent quality achieved with Mode F was 9 mg/1 BOD , 43 mg/1
COD, 6 mg/1 TSS, .016 mg/1 chromium and 70 percent transmit-
tance (an increase from 56 percent).
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Bench-scale dissolved air
flotation experiments were performed at 100%, 50% and 33%
recycle, utilizing 30 mg/1 alum at a pH of 7.0 as a coagulant.
The 50% recycle was most effective providing a typical efflu-
ent quality of 40 mg/1 COD, 10 mg/1 TSS, 0.05 mg/1 chromium
and 81 percent transmit tance. BPT effluent was treated to
BATEA guideline limits with Mode G (coagulation/dissolved air
flotation). Mode G was not evaluated as a candidate process,
however, because of limitations for collecting sufficient
comparitive data with the batch experimental DAF unit.
4. The candidate process technologies showing the greatest potential
for favorable treatment effectiveness for Plant K were multi-
media filtration followed by carbon columns (Mode B) , multi-media
filtration followed by ozonation (Mode C) , and multi-media fil-
tration with precoagulation (Mode F) .
5. The three candidate modes achieved all the BATEA effluent guide-
line values .
6. A comparison of the capital costs and the operating and mainte-
nance costs indicate that the three modes, Multi-Media Filtration
with Precoagulation was the most cost effective BATEA treatment
process.
251
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Multi-media filtration with precoagulation is the recommended
BATEA process for Plant K. The projected effluent quality for
this process will acheive all BATEA guideline values.
The recommended operating conditions for the BATEA process are
as follows:
2
Filter Loading Rate - 2 gpm/ft
+3
Coagulation - Fed- at 16 mg Fe /I
Caustic addition as needed for final pH adjustment.;
Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
252
-------
PLANT K
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the wastewater treat-
ment plant effluent from Plant K. Plant K is classified as a Subcategory
IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) plant. The plant is involved in the dyeing,
finishing and application of special finishes (approximately 60% of pro-
duced goods are latex backed). Primary materials involved are cotton and
rayon, with polyester, 50% polyester/50% cotton, and 60% rayon/40% cotton
blends also utilized.
Plant K, during pilot experimentation, was only dyeing 32% of the
total production on-site (piece dyeing). The remaining 68% was dyed
elsewhere (yarn dyeing). No sizing was being done at all,therefore the
raw wastewater contained no desizing waste. These factors make Plant K
atypical of most Subcategory IV plants.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 32-day period (August 1,
1978 through September 1, 1978) at Plant K. Total production during this
period was 1,099,616 pounds. Average daily production for Plant K was
34,363 pounds per day. The production capacity as reported by the mill
is 43,000 pounds per day (See Appendix E).
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facil-
ities at Plant K is presented in Figure C-14(K). More specific process
information is summarized in Table C-25(K).
The raw process wastewater from the woven fabric faciltiy is combined
with the sanitary wastewater from the plant, which comprises approximately
5% of total wastewater volume. The combined waste is pumped through 3/4"
bar screens prior to entering the aeration basin. The volume of the aer-
ation basin is 6 million gallons which provides a detention time of 3 days
at design flow. However, the actual flow is approximately an order of
magnitude less than design flow, hence the aeration basin provides a max-
253
-------
TABLE C-25(K)
PLANT K
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow =2.0 MGD
Normal Flow =0.33 MGD
Flow During Pilot Operations =0.17
Equalizat ion
None
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
3/4" Bar Screens
Aeration Basin
Basin Size - 6.0 MG
Aeration (Total) - 225 HP
Detention Time - 72 hours (at design flow)
436 hours (at normal flow)
847 hours (during pilot operations)
Secondary Clarifiers
Number of Clarifiers - 1
Size: Diameter - 80 feet
SWD - 9 feet
Recycle Rate -
Other Operations
Chlorination
Sludge Drying Beds
254
-------
imum detention time of about 35 days. Aeration is provided by 9-25 HP
floating surface aerators which provide a power to volume ratio of 37.5
HP/MG. Following aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the water
in an 80 foot diameter final clarifier. Sludge is returned to the aera-
tion basin or may be wasted to sludge drying beds as required to maintain
the desired concentration of suspended solids in the aeration basin.
Presently all sludge is being returned to the aeration basin. The clari-
fied effluent is chlorinated prior to discharge into the receiving stream.
Flow for pilot plant experimentation was taken prior to chlorination.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by Plant K, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A. This
data covers the period during which the pilot studies were in progress.
The discharge values reported for the last year are compared to the BPT
guideline values in Table C-26(K). The effluent values reported in this
table are final effluent numbers.
Plant K experienced no serious operational problems during the pilot
plant visit.
Based on the monthly averages over a twelve month period (July 1977
to June 1978), the plant was achieving average effluent values of 5 mg/1
BOD , 115 mg/1 COD, and 22 mg/1 TSS. No influent values were reported by
the plant. During the same twelve month period, based on the data pre-
sented in Table C-26(K) and Appendix E, the plant was within the BPT guide-
lines for all parameters. The mean cell residence time could not be
calculated due to insufficient plant data.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.17 MGD during the on-site
study, two gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced. This is minimal due to the production conditions dur-
ing the study wherein production was 32.2% piece dyed and 67.8% yarn dyed
fabric with no desizing as all fabrics are produced with plied yarn.
255
-------
TABLE C-26(K)
ro
PLANT K
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Actual Operation
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day
Parameter
BOD
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Color
Flow
pH
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
30-Day Avg.
113
1698
306
1.72
1.72
3.44
N.A.
N.A.
(6.0 - 9.0)
Daily Max.
227
3396
612
3.44
3.44
6.87
N.A.
N.A.
mg/1 at 0.
30- Day Avg.
41
617
111
.62
.62
1.25
N.A.
N.A.
(6.0 - 9.0)
(2)
33 MGDV '
July
'77 -
June '78
mg/1
Range Range
Daily Max. 30-Day Avg. Monthly Max.
82
1234
222
1.25
1.25
2.50
N.A.
N.A.
1
*
.4 -
75 -
11 -
01 -
n
310 -
.
6
15 -
.7 -
12
216
47
.09
.m.
780
.74
6.9
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(5)
(0)
See Appendix E for the calculations of BPT Guideline Values.
The average flow for the period July 1977 through June 1978 was reported by the plant
Range of 30-Day Average X - X {number of occurrances above BPT guideline values}.
Monthly Maximum Range {number of months with values above BPT daily maximum guideline
Color was reported by plant in Platinum-Cobalt units.
2 -
75 -
18 -
.01 -
n.
310 -
.44 -
7 -
17 (0)
216 (0)
59 (0)
.09 (0)
m.
780(5)
1.27
7.6 (0)
as 0.33 MGD.
limitations} .
N.A. = Not Applicable
n .m.
Not Monitored
-------
FIGURE C-14(K)
SCHEMATIC FLOU DIAGRAM
EXISTING HASTEHATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PLANT K
Raw, Waste
1
r
~ * 1
J3/4" Bar Screens
I
Sludge j
Recycle i
I
o o o o
o
o o o o
Aeration Basin
(9-25 HP Aerators)
6 MG
\
\
\
\
\
\
Secondary
Clan" tier
I — r-r~r-
1 1 1 1
t * * t
SI
udge
Be
Dry
ds
ing
lilt
^ _
i
i
\
^Pilot Plant Influent
1
Final Ef1
Chlorine
Contact Tank
f
Fluent
257
-------
PLANT W
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant W, a Sub-
category V, Knit Fabric Finishing plant. The objectives of this pilot
plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for
treating the BPT effluent from Plant W, determine the effectiveness of
the technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define
the mutually (ATME, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most
cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities operated at Plant W during
the plant visit included a gravity separation tank, an equalization basin,
an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier, chlorination and sludge holding
beds. The plant also had other treatment facilities which were not in
service. These facilities included air flotation and distillation
processes for recovery of solvents used in the printing process and
vibrating screens for solids removal in the raw waste.
The information generated during this experimental study and pre-
sented in this report forms the basis for the following conclusions and
recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant W were achieving the
Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limitations
during the period the pilot plant study was conducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce BOD,, and TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant W.
a. Coagulation/Clarification followed by Multimedia Filtration
(Mode A) - The reactor/clarifier effectively reduced TSS,
COD,and some color from the BPT effluent at the lower over-
flow rates. TSS removal was not achieved at the 600 and
258
-------
2
800 gpd/ft loadings. BOD5 removal was not significant
because the BOD5 level of the BPT effluent was less than
4 mg/1. The optimum coagulant was American Cyanamid 572C
at 10 mg/1. The most effective performance was achieved at
an overflow rate of 400 gpd/ft2. The multi-media filter
provided additional removal of COD, TSS and color and was
most effective at a surface loading rate of 3.0 gpm/ft2.
Total overall removals under the optimum conditions were
45 percent BOD5, 53 percent COD, 40 percent TOC, 94 percent
TSS and 15 percent color.
b. Multi-Media Filtration followed by Activated Carbon Adsorp-
tion (Mode B) - The multi-media filter reduced the TSS level
to less than 10 mg/1 at all surface loading rates. The
filter also reduced COD. Filter effluent quality was not
2
significantly different at the 3, 5 or 7 gpm/ft surface
loading rate. The carbon columns further reduced the levels
of COD and color. Total Mode B reductions include 74 percent
BOD5, 84 percent COD, 74 percent TOC, 97 percent TSS and
19 percent color at the most effective loading rates.
c. Multi-Media Filtration followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
Mode C batch tests were conducted with effluent from the
multi-media filter operating at a surface loading rate of
p
7.0 gpm/ft . Ozone dosages ranged from 14 to 182 mg/1 ozone
utilized. The COD level was reduced by approximately 20
percent although the reduction was not significantly affected
by the dosage in the range tested.
d. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The
multi-media filter was operated with 3 to 4 mg/1 American
Cyanamid 572C as a pre-filter aid. At a surface loading rate
of 2.7 gpm/ft2 the filter was effective in reducing COD (53
percent), TSS (94 percent) and color (23 percent), but was
not able to remove TOC. At a surface loading rate of 4.1
gpm/ft2 and 4 mg/1 coagulant the filter achieved removals of
56 percent BOD,., 42 percent COD, 67 percent TSS and 10 per-
cent color.
259
-------
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Three bench-scale dissolv-
ed air flotation (DAF) experiments were conducted at 33.3,
50 and 100 percent recycle rates. The removal results were
comparable to reactor clarification results. At 100 percent
recycle removals of 46 percent COD and 35 percent TSS were
obtained.
4. The three candidate BATEA process technologies for Plant W show-
ing the greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness
are multi-media filtration followed by activated carbon (Mode B),
multi-media filtration with precbagulation (Mode F) and multi-
media filter without precoagulation (Mode I).
5. Of the three candidate process technologies tested, Mode F was
not able to meet the BATEA TSS guideline but met those for BOD5,
COD and color. Mode I met all parameters except TSS which was
only 1 mg/1 over the limit. Mode B met all the BATEA guideline
parameters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Mutli-media filtration (without precoagulation) is the recommend-
ed BATEA process for Plant W. The projected effluent quality for
this process met all BATEA guideline values except TSS at the
2
7 gpm/ft surface loading rate. The BATEA guideline value for
TSS is 11 mg/1 and the projected TSS effluent value is 12 mg/1.
2. It is recommended that the multi-media filter be designed at a
2 ' 2
surface loading rate of 5 gpm/ft instead of 7 gpm/ft . At the
reduced surface loading rate this should enhance the possibility
of achieving the BATEA effluent value for TSS. Process design
2
criteria in Chapter VI is based on the 5 gpm/ft loading.
260
-------
PLANT W
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent of the Plant W textile manufacturing facility, a Subcate-
gory V (Knit Fabric Finishing) Plant. This plant is involved in a complex
manufacturing operation involving natural, synthetic and blends of synthe-
tic fibers. The primary fibers used are cotton, polyester, SEF, Rohjin
and nylon. SEF and Kohjin are special flame retardant fibers. Production
processes used at Plant W are bleaching, scouring, dyeing, printing and
the application of chemical finishes.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was at the Plant W site for a 42-day period
(March 16, 1978 through April 26, 1978). The production during the same
period totaled 1,243,632 pounds of material. The production during the
24 days the plant was operating averaged 51,818 pounds/day (see letter in
Appendix E). The daily plant capacity was reported as 60,000 pounds.
Materials included 100% cotton, 100% polyester, 100% Kohjin, 65% SEF/35%
polyester, and 82% Kohjin/18% nylon. No unusual manufacturing occurences
were reported by the plant during the pilot plant operations.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant W is presented in Figure C-15(W). More specific process
information is summarized in Table C-27(W). Plant W includes the treatment
of two main process effluents, bleaching and dyeing, and printing. The
stream from the print process goes first to an air flotation tank which
at present is being used for gravity separation to settle out the heavy
fluids and pastes. (An alternate route is also available for the air
flotation effluent which passes it through a distillation column for sol-
vent recovery. However, this unit is not in use at present.) The print
wastewater then leaves the separation tank, joins the bleach and dye
process stream and both streams pass through bar screens into the
261
-------
TABLE C-27(W)
PLANT W
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 0.92 MGD
Equalization
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 61,000 gals
Unaerated
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
Nitrogen
Screening
Bar Screens - 1-3/4" O.C.
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins
Volume (Total)
Aeration (Total)
Detention Time
1
2.7 MG
100 HP: 37 HP/MG
72 hrs
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers
Size: Diameter
Side Water Depth
Recycle Rate
Other Facilities
Chlorination
Sludge Holding Basins
Air Flotation
Distillation Column
Vibrating Screens
- 1
46 ft diameter
8 ft
0.3 MGD (total)
available but not in use
available but not in use
available but not in use
262
-------
equalization basin where nitrogen is added as a nutrient. Although they
are not in service, the plant has vibrating screens for use following the
equalization basin. After leaving the equalization basin the wastewater
flows into an aeration basin with a total volume of 27 million gallons
and a detention time of 72 hours. Aeration is provided by surface aerators
at a power to volume ratio of 37 HP/MG. Following aeration, the bio-
solids are separated from the water in the final clarifier. Sludge from
the clarifier is either returned to the aeration basins or pumped to
sludge holding beds. The supernatant from the secondary clarifiers is
chlorinated and discharged.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the BPT guideline values in Table C-28(W).
The effluent values reported in this table are final effluent numbers.
The pilot plant trailer operated on the secondary clarifier effluent
prior to chlorination.
Based on the data presented in Appendix A, Plant W is presently
achieving, on the average, 90% BOD,, reduction with 70% COD removal. How-
ever, the data in Table C-28(W) reveals five instances during the 12-month
period prior to and including the pilot plant study where the Plant W BPT
effluent was not meeting the BPT guidelines. The monthly BOD5 average
was above the limit twice and three TSS monthly averages fell outside the
BPT guideline. In one case, the monthly TSS average was 145 tng/1, almost
two times the BPT TSS guideline value of 73 mg/1. The daily maximum TSS
guidelines were exceeded six times and the maximum for BOD5 was exceeded
four times. The sludge age ranges from approximately 40 to 170 days.
Some production occurrences that influenced the pilot plant operation
are noted below:
. April 4, 10, 12, 17 - plant clarifier experienced upset.
263
-------
TABLE C-28(W)
PLANT W
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Actual Operation
Parameter
BOD5 (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow (MGD)
pH
BPT Guideline Values
lbs/day(1) mg/1 at 0.933(2)
30-Day Avg. Daily Max. 30-Day Avg. Daily Max.
130 259 17 33
1820 3640 234 468
565 1130 73 145
2.59 5.18 0.33 0.67
2.59 5.18 0.33 0.67
5.18 10.36 0.67 1.33
n.a. n.a. - n.a. n.a.
. . . Within range of 6.0 to 9.0
May '77-Apr
mg/1
Avg.*( )3
4-41(2)
86-227(0)
40-142(3)
n.m.
n .m.
n.m.
0.772-1.057 0
7.1-7.5
.'78
*/ >>3
Max. ( )
(4)
9-93V '
n\
148-543V '
(6)
86-364W
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
.968-2.378
7.4-8.0
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
(2) Average flow for the period of May '77 through April '78 as reported by the plant.
(3) The figures in parentheses represent the number of months in the 12 month period in which the plant
monthly average or maximum values exceed the BPT guidelines.
* These figures represent the range of the monthly average values as reported by the plant.
n.a. not applicable
n.m. not measured
-------
. April 18, 21 - high solids concentration in BPT plant effluent.
The plant production facilities were in operation Monday through
Friday and shut down on the weekends and holidays. Plant produc-
tion was down for a total of 13 days during the Beta trailer visit.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.944 MGD during the on-site
study, 18.2 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
265
-------
COOLING MATER
DISTILLATION
COLUMN
PRINT PROCESS
T
§!
i
i
L
n-
RAM
WAST€
FIGURE C-15(W)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AT PLANT W
BLEACH & DYE
FLOTATION
TO
LANDFILL
PROCESS
BAR SCREEN
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
SLUDGE
HOLDING
BASINS
WASTE
SLUDGE '
LU
=>
00
^^:
50 H.P.
o
AERATION BASIN
VIBRATING
SCREENS
(NOT IN
SERVICE)
CHLORINE
CONTACT
LEGEND:
NOT IN SERVICE
^TRAILER INFLUENT
2
266
TO CREEK
-------
PLANT Q
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant Q, a Subcate-
gory V, Knit Fabric Finishing plant. The objectives of this pilot plant
were to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for treating the
BPT effluent from Plant Q, determine the effectiveness of the technologies
for meeting the BATEA guideline limitations, and define the mutually (ATMI,
EPA and ES) agreed to recommendations for the most cost-effective treatment
process.
The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant Q consists of
secondary biological treatment followed by multi-media filtration (tertiary
treatment). The filtration system was required because the plant discharges
into a water quality limited stream. The experimental testing was performed
V
with the secondary clarifier effluent prior to chlorination instead of the
final discharge from the tertiary portion of the system.
The information generated during this study and presented in this report
provides the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing secondary biological treatment facilities at Plant Q
are effectively treating the textile plant wastewater and achieving
the Best Practical Technology (BPT) effluent guideline limitation
values for all Subcategory V parameters.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent guideline limitations additional treatment facil-
ities beyond the BPT (secondary treatment) plant are required to
remove BOD5> COD and TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the pilot
plant screening experiments at Plant Q:
a. Coagulation/Clarification and Multi-Media Filtration (Mode A) -
The optimum coagulating conditions were determined by jar tests
to be pH 6.5 to 7.0 with a coagulant dosage of 20 mg/1 alum
(as Al+3) plus 0.75 mg/1 anionic polymer (American Cyanamid
837A) . The reactor/clarifier removed BOD,., COD, TSS, color
267
-------
and chromium. The performance of the reactor/clarifier deteri-
2
orated at loadings in excess of 400 gpd/ft . The multi-media
filter further removed COD and TSS. The optimum loading for
2
the multi-media filter was 3 gpm/ft .
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Granular Carbon Adsorption
(Mode B) - The multi-media filter removed BOD , COD, TSS and
color. The optimum surface loading rate for the filter was
2
3 gpm/ft . The carbon column further reduced BOD , COD, TSS
and color in the wastewater as well as removed chromium.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - As
discussed under the Mode B experiment, the multi-media filter
removed BOD , COD and TSS and was most effective at a surface
2
loading rate of 3.0 gpm/ft . Ozone batch testing reduced COD
and color at an ozone dosage of 1260 mg/1 (utilized) basis.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - Batch ozonation tests of the BPT effluent
reduced COD and color.
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - Coagulant
+3
dosages for the screening experiment were 10 mg/1 alum (as Al )
which was greater than required. The filter removed BOD,-> COD
and TSS, but filter run times were only two to six hours because
of the excess coagulant.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - The dissolved air flotation
experiment conducted with batch tests of the BPT effluent were
not successful in removing TSS. The BOD,, and COD remained
essentially the same and the TSS increased because of the
+3
coagulant addition (20 mg/1 alum, as Al ) .
4. The four candidate BATEA processes (those showing the greatest
potential for favorable treatment effectiveness) for Plant Q are
reactor/clarifier followed by multi-media filter (Mode A), multi-
media filter followed by carbon columns (Mode B), multi-media
filter followed by ozonation (Mode C) and multi-media filtration
with precoagulation (Mode F).
5. Both Mode B (multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsorption)
and Mode C (multi-media filtration followed by ozonation) demon-
strated the ability to achieve a projected effluent quality that
268
-------
was within the BATEA guideline values for Plant Q.
6. Comparative capital cost and operating and maintenance cost indi-
cate that Mode B is significantly less expensive than Mode C.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsorption (Mode B) is
the recommended BATEA process for Plant Q. The projected effluent
quality is within the BATEA guideline values.
2. The recommended surface loading for the multi-media filter is
2
2 gpm/ft . The recommended empty bed hydraulic retention time
for the carbon columns is 45 minutes. Process design criteria are
presented in Chapter VI.
269
-------
PLANT Q
INTRODUCTION TQ TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the two manufacturing plants that comprise the Plant
Q manufacturing facility, a Subcategory V (Knit Fabric Finishing) Plant.
One plant is engaged in the manufacture of warp knitted fabrics from various
man-made fibers, which are subsequently dyed and finished. The other plant
is solely a dyeing and finishing plant for circular knitted fabrics, mostly
of 100% texturized polyester knits. The primary fibers used are polyester,
polyamide and acetate. The production processing includes scouring, dyeing
and special finishes (softeners, antistats, fluorocarbons, flame retardants,
melamine-formaldehyde, polyvinyl acetate and methacrylate resins).
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated during a 48-day period (August 22,
1977 through October 9, 1977) at Plant Q. The finished production during
this same 48-day period totaled 6,195,114 pounds of material. The produc-
tion during the days the plants were operating averaged 157,840 pounds per
day (see letter in Appendix E). The two manufacturing plants have a maximum
dyeing and finishing capacity of approximately 210,000 pounds per day.
Finished materials included 100% polyamide, 100% polyester, 100% acetate,
80% acetate/20% nylon, 95% polyester/5% nylon and 80% triacetate/20% nylon.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facilities
at Plant Q is presented in Figure C-16(Q). More specific process infor-
mation is summarized in Table C-29(Q).
The raw wastewater from the two manufacturing facilities are. combined
prior to treatment. The incoming waste is first equalized in an aerated
mixing tank before the waste enters the aeration basin. The two aeration
basins with a total volume of 3.24 million gallons provides a total deten-
tion time of 15.6 hours. Aeration is provided by surface aerators at a
power to volume ratio of 148 HP/MG. Following aeration, the bio-solids are
separated from the water in two final clarifiers. Sludge is returned to the
270
-------
TABLE C-29(Q)
PLANT Q
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT _PLANTJPRQCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 5.0MGD; normal flow - 2.5 MGD
Equalization
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 1.65 MG
No. of Aerators - 3
Aeration - 40 hp (each) ; 73 HP/MG
Detention Time - 8 hours (at design flow)
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
Screening
Bar Screens - 2-in (parallel, vertical)
Fine Screens - 1 1/4-in (diamond)
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins 2
Volume (Total) 3.24 MG
Aeration 480 HP; 148 HP/MG
Detention Time - 15.6 hrs (at design flow)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
Size: Diameter - 75 ft
Side Water Depth - 10 ft
Recycle rate - 2.4 MGD (total)
Chlorination Facilities
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - .104 MG
Detention Time - 30 min (at design flow)
(continued)
271
-------
Multi-Media Filters
TABLE C-29(Q)
(continned)
No. of Filters - 4
No. in operation at one time - 3 _
Application Rate - 3.5 gptn/ft (at design flow)
Length - 30 feet
Diameter - 10 feet
Chemical Feed to Filters Provided
Backwash Water Storage - 69,000 gallons
Sludge Digestion
Flow
No. of Tanks
Tank Volume
Detention Time
.Sludge Concen t rat or
No. of Basins
Sludge Holding
Detention Time
Sand Beds
0.130 MGD
1
0.925 MGD
7.1 days
- 1
5,160 c.f.
6 hours
No. of Beds
Total Area
Post Aeration
- 9
- 28,970 ft'
Basin Volume
No. Aerators
Aeration
Detention Time
.0875 MG
2
5 hp (each)
26 minutes
; 114 HP/MG
(at design flow)
272
-------
areation basin or pumped to the aerobic sludge digester. The sludge is then
concentrated in the sludge thickener with the supernatant returned to the
waste treatment plant influent and the waste sludge is dried in the sand beds.
The normal sludge age is approximately 15 to 20 days. The supernant from
the secondary clarifiers is chlorinated and pumped through a multi-media
filtration unit. A precoagulant and/or powdered activated carbon are injected
into the filter influent. The effluent is discharged to the receiving stream
after post aeration.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data as reported by the plant are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the present permit values in Table C-30(Q) .
The effluent values reported in this table are final effluent numbers. The
pilot plant trailer operated on the secondary clarifier effluent which was
upstream of the filtration units. The clarifier effluent quality is also
presented in Appendix A.
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-30(Q) , the waste
treatment plant is within present NPDES permit values for 30-day averages
for all parameters. The daily maximums for TSS and BOD5 were exceeded once
and twice, respectively, during the time period reported.
During the on-site experimental study there were no major effluent
quality upsets created by production changes or biological treatment opera-
tional problems. Some unusual production and waste treatment plant
operation occurrences that influenced the pilot plant operation are noted
below:
. September 3, 4 and 5, 1977 - Plant production facilities were
shut down for the Labor Day weekend.
. August 28, September, 11 & 18, October 2 & 6, 1977 - Plant
production facilities were shut down for the weekend.
October 4, 1977 - Repair and start-up of an aerator in the
aeration basin created re-suspension of some settled mixed
liquor solids, resulting in a high concentration of TSS in the
secondary clarifier discharge.
273
-------
TABLE C-30(Q)
PLANT Q
Parameter
BOD
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Color
Flow
PH
COMPARISON
OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day
30-Day Avg.
378
4740
1722
7.9
7.9
15.8
N.A.
N.A.
(6.0 - 9.0)
(1)
Daily Max.
789
9480
3444
15.8
15.8
31.6
r"
N.A.
N.A.
mg/1 at
30-Day Avg.
21
258
94
0.43
0.43
0.86
N.A.
N.A.
(6.0 - 9.0)
Actual Operation (3)
Oct. '76 - Sept. '77
2.2 MGD (2) mg/1
Daily Max. Avg. Max.
43 12 20
517 307 447
188 55 165
0.86 N.M. N.M.
0.86 N.M. N.M.
1.72 N.M. N.M.
N.A. N.M. N.M.
N.A. 2.2 2.5
(6.3 - 7.5)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline values.
(2) The average flow for the period October 1976 to September 1977 was reported by the plant as 2.2 MGD.
(3) Effluent from secondary clarifiers not final treatment plant effluent.
N.M. - Not Monitored.
N.A. - Not Applicable
-------
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 2.46 MGD during the on-site
study, 15.6 gallons of wastewater was generated per pound of finished
material produced.
275
-------
FIGURE C-16(Q)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM-EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AT PLANT Q
RAW WASTE
RETURN SLUDGE
AERATED
SLUDGE
DIGESTER
AERATED
MIXING/EQUALIZATION
TANK
SLUDGE
THICKENER
MULTI-
MEDIA
FILTER
•AERATION
BASINS
-SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
BACK
WASH
WATER
STORAGE
SAND DRYING BEDS
POST AERATION
BASIN
FINAL EFFLUENT
276
-------
PLANT E
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant E, a Sub-
category V, Knit Fabric Finishing Plant. The objectives of this pilot
plant study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for
treating the BPT effluent from Plant E, determine the effectiveness of the
technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define the
mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most
cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant E include screens,
aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination and sludge lagoons. The
experimental testing was performed on the secondary clarifier effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant E were achieving
the Best Practical Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limita-
tions for all parameters during the period the pilot plant
study was conducted.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyong BPT is
required to reduce TSS, BOD. and COD.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant E.
a. Coagulation/clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - A variety of metallic coagulants and combinations
of coagulants as well as cationic polymers were jar tested
for effectiveness of transmittance improvement, turbidity
reduction and minimal sludge production. American Cyanaiaid
572-C at 20 mg/1 dosage was determined to be the most over-
all effective coagulant. This dosage was utilized with the
reactor clarifier at various overflow rates and the optimum
277
-------
chosen as 400 gpd/ft . The clarifier removed BOD , TSS,
color and TOC. Additional removals were obtained by the
2
multi-media filter an an optimum loading rate of 5.0 gpm/ft .
Overall, Mode A achieved 77% BOD,, removal (effluent 3 mg/1),
59% COD removal (effluent 92 mg/1), and 92% TSS removal
(effluent 4 mg/1) at the optimum loading rates during
screening.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorp-
tion (Mode B) - The multi-media filter reduced the TSS level
2
by 80% and COD by 7% at the optimum loading rate of 3.0 gpm/ft .
Utilizing Westvaco WV-1 granular activated carbon at a hy-
draulic residence time of 45 minutes in the carbon columns
following filtration, 88% additional COD was removed. Over-
all BOD removed was 78%.
c. Multi-Media Filtration followed by Ozonation (Mode COD) -
Mode C batch experiments were conducted while the multi-
2
media filter was being loaded at 3 gpm/ft . Ozone dosage of
32 to 737 mg 0 utilized/1 or 0.27 to 6.25 Ib 0 utilized/
J J
Ib COD were applied to filter effluent. Maximum COD reduc-
tion was 40% (118 to 71 mg/1) at 737 mg 0_ utilized/1. Color
removal was maximized at approximately 50 mg 0, utilized/1.
BOD- was consistently increased as a result of ozonation.
Increases from 11 mg BOD-/1 (filter effluent) to as high
as 89 mg BODS/1 (after ozonation) were noted.
d. Multi-Media Filtration With Pre-Coagulation (Mode F) -
Hercofloc 855 cationic polymer was utilized as a pre-filter
aid at 0.75 mg/1 dosage. Excellent TSS removal of 88% was
2
obtained at the optimum filter loading rate of 3 gpm/ft ,
but only 29% COD reduction was achieved.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Bench-scale dissolved air
flotation experiments were performed at 100%, 50% and 33%
recycle using 20 mg/1 American Cyanamid 572-C as a coagulant.
At 100% recycle, 44% COD and 59% TSS were removed.
278
-------
4. The candidate process technologies showing the greatest potential
for favorable treatment effectiveness for Plant E were coagulation/
clarification followed by multi-media filtration (Mode A) and
multi-media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption
(Mode B).
5. Mode B achieved all BATEA guideline values for Plant E. How-
ever, Mode A also achieved all BATEA guideline values except
COD which exceeded the BATEA guideline by 18 mg/1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Multi-media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption is
the recommended BATEA process for Plant E. The projected efflu-
ent quality for this process will achieve all BATEA guideline
values.
2. The recommended multi-media filter surface loading rate is 3 gpm/
2
ft . The carbon column hydraulic residence time should be 45
minutes. The carbon capacity loading is 0.35 Ib soluble COD/lb
carbon. Process design criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
This process design criteria is based on treatment of the entire
t
BPT effluent stream with multi-media filter and carbon columns.
However, if the entire BPT effluent stream was treated by multi-
media filtration and then split such that only 50% was treated
by granular carbon adsorption, then the combined effluent
could still meet all BATEA guideline parameters. Using this
method of treatment substantial installation and operation
savings could be incurred.
279
-------
PLANT E
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant E manufacturing facility, a Subcategory V
Plant (Knit Fabric Finishing). The facility consists of conventional
scouring and dyeing only employing nylon as the primary fiber.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was at the Plant E site for a 52-day period
(March 30, 1978 through May 22, 1978). Due to the Plant E shutdown, the
pilot plant did not operate from March 31 through April 9, 1978, nor from
April 29 through May 7, 1978 and on weekends. During the days, Plant E
was operating production averaged 56,274 pounds/day. The finishing plant
has a maximum processing capacity of approximately 86,000 Ibs/day (See
Appendix E).
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties at Plant E is presented in Figure C-17(E). More specific process infor-
mation is summarized in Table C-31(E).
The incoming waste is primarily industrial combined with approximately
1% sanitary waste. Raw wastewater from the finishing plant is first
passed through two-inch bar screens and a Parshall flume into an aeration
basin with a volume of 3.0 MG and a design detention time of 84
hours. There are eight surface aerators providing a total of 240 horse-
power with a power to volume ratio of 80 HP/MG. Following aeration, the
bio-solids are separated in a 54-foot diameter clarifier with a 10-foot
side water depth. The recycle rate from the clarifier is designed for
up to one million gallons per day. Sludge can be recycled to the aeration
basin or wasted to a sludge lagoon. The clarified effluent is chlorinated
prior to discharge into the receiving stream.
280
-------
TABLE C-31(E)
PLANT E
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 1 MGD (1% sanitary waste)
Actual Flow - 0.715 MGD during Pilot Plant Operations
0.679 MGD average during previous 12 month period
Equalization
None
Neutralization
None
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 2 inch
Aeration Basin
Basin Size - 3.0 MG
Aeration (Total) = 240 HP (surface aerators) ;" 80 HP/MG
Detention Time - 72 hours at design flow
34 hours during Pilot Plant Operations
106 hours for previous 12 month period
Secondary Clarifier
Size: Diameter - 54 ft.
Side water depth - 10 ft.
Recycle rate - 1.0 MGD maximum
Other Operations/Facilities
Chlorination
Sludge Lagoon
281
-------
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The waste treatment plant reported monthly operating data for the
one-year period immediately prior to and including the period of the pilot
study. These are shown in Appendix A. Daily operating data, as reported
by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for the period the pilot
studies were in progress. Table C-32(E) is a comparison of the discharge
values reported for the last year with the BPT guideline values. The
pilot plant trailer operated with the secondary clarlfier effluent prior
to chlorination.
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-32(E), the
waste treatment plant obtained an overall BOD- removal efficiency of 97%.
However, BOD^, COD and TSS BPT guidelines were exceeded at various times
during 1977-1978. An important factor to consider is that the effluent
averages are based on a minimal number of composite samples as indicated
by Appendix A data.
During the on-site experimental study, there were several production
and waste treatment plant operational problems which caused variations in
BPT effluent quality. Some of the unusual production and waste treatment
plant operational occurrences which influenced the pilot plant operation
are summarized below:
Date
April 1-9, 1978
March 28-May 22, 1978
Description of Problem
Plant production shutdown de-
layed start-up of experimental
program. BPT waste character-
istics would not have been re-
presentative of normal BPT opera-
tion during the critical screening
phase of the pilot plant program.
4-6 inches of floating scum and
sludge covering quiescent por-
tions of the aeration basin dur-
ing the study.
Effect on Pilot
Plant Operation
Delayed pilot
plant screening
program.
Not characteristic.
of a well operating
BPT system.
282
-------
ro
00
CO
Parameter
COD
TSS
Oil & Grease
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow, (MGD)
I'll
TABLE C-32(E)
PLANT E
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
BPT Guideline Values
Ibs/day
(1)
mg/1 at 0.679 MGD
(2)
30-Day Avg.
140.7
1688.2
613.4
2.81
2.81
5.63
n.a.
Daily Max.
281.4
3376.5
1226.8
5.63
5.63
11.25
n.a.
-Within
30-Day Avg.
25
298
108
0.50
0.50
0.99
n.a.
Daily Max.
50
596
217
0.99
0.99
1.99
n.a.
(4)
Actual Operation
April '77 - March '78
mg/1 _
Jj
30-Day Avg.
7 - 81(6)
81 - 510(3)
<1 - 128(1)
,(3)
..0 - 9.0-
<.05
<.002
<0.05
0.613
7.0
0.1(0)
.02(0)
0.773
7.9(0)
Max
74 - 133'
235 - 560
7 - 130
0.1
n.m.
n.m.
0.7.10 - 0.911
8.0 - 8.2
(I) See Appendix E for the calculations of the BPT Guideline Values.
(2) Average flow for the period of April '77 through March '78 as reported by the plant.
(3) The figuroK in parentheses represent the number of months reported in the 12 month period in whirh the
plant monthly overages of maximum days exceed the BPT guidelines.
(4) These figures represent the range of daily maximum values for the 12 month period as reported by the
plant.
i). a. not applicable
n.m. not measured
-------
Date Description of Problem Effect on Pilot
Plant Operation
March 31-April 9, 1978 Plant production shutdown Delayed pilot
for dyeing and finishing. plant candidate
mode program.
May 16, 1978 and Floating sludge in final Overloaded the
May 19, 1978 clarifier caused by scum pilot plant
removal mechanism failure. equipment with
Floating scum and sludge from abnormal TSS
aeration basin covered the - concentrations.
entire clarifier surface. Data not repre-
sentative of
normal operation.
Also, during the pilot plant program the aerators were cycled on and off
such that four operated continuously, but in different sections of the
aeration basin. Effluent D.O. concentrations prior to cycling were 5 to
7.0 mg/1. By cycling power was conserved and sufficient D.O. was maintain-
ed in the effluent. However, the plant should be careful to maintain
sufficient D.O. within all sections of the basin.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.714 MGD during the on-site
study, 12.7 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
284
-------
FIGURE C-17(E)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT E
RAW WASTE
WAJ
i
BAR SCREENS
PARSHALL FLUME
AERATION BASIN
SLUDGE
LAGOON
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
PILOT PLANT
TRAILER
INFLUENT
CHLORINATION
BASIN
FINAL
EFFLUENT
285
-------
PLANT F
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant F, a Sub-
category VI (Carpet Mills) Plant. The objectives of this pilot plant
study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for treat-
ing the BPT effluent from Plant F, determine the effectiveness of the
technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define the
mutually (ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most cost-
effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant F include latex
settling ponds, manually and mechanically cleaned bar screens, an equaliza-
tion basin, an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier, chlorination, a
finishing pond and sludge drying lagoons.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant F were achieving the
Best Practicable Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limitations
during the period the pilot plant study was conducted based on
in-plant data. Based on trailer influent samples taken prior to
the existing polishing pond and analyzed by the study support
laboratory the secondary treatment facility was meeting all BPT
limitations except sulfide.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT is
required to reduce COD, TSS, sulfide and color.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant F.
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed by Multi-Media Filtra-
tion (Mode A) - The optimum coagulant combination tested for
use with the reactor/clarifier was American Cyanamid 572C at
35 mg/1 plus American Cyanamid 836A at 1 mg/1. The reactor/
clarifier effectively reduced BOD^, COD, TSS, phenol, sulfide
and color at all loading rates tested.
286
-------
The most effective performance was achieved at an overflow
rate of 400 gpd/ft2. The multi-media filter provided addi-
tional removal of COD, TSS and sulfide at a surface loading
of 5.0 gpm/ft .
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorp-
tion (Mode B) - The multi-media filter removed BOD-, COD, TOC,
TSS, phenol, chromium and color, with best results achieved
O
at a surface loading rate of 2.0 gpm/ft . The carbon columns
were operated at 45 minutes hydraulic retention time (HRT) and
further reduced the levels of COD, TOC, TSS, phenol and color.
Total Mode B reductions included 78 percent BOD., 70 percent
COD and 56 percent TSS at the most effective loading rate.
An increase in % transmittance of 36% was observed at this
loading rate.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
ozone batch tests were conducted with effluent from the multi-
media filter at a surface loading rate of 2.0 gpm/ft . Ozone
dosages were from 0 to 0.53 Ib ozone utilized per Ib COD with
the ozone utilization ranging from 6 to 206 mg/1. The COD
level was reduced by approximately 20 percent although reduc-
tion was not significantly affected by the dosage.
d. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - The
multi-media filter was operated at surface loading rates of
2
3.0 to 4.0 gpm/ft with ferric chloride addition at 15 and 35
J.O
mg/1 as Fe . Minimal COD reduction and no TSS reduction was
observed under these operating conditions. No improvement in
performance over multi-media filtration without precoagulation
was evident.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Initially three bench-scale
dissolved air flotation (DAF) experiments were conducted at
33.3, 50 and 100 percent recycle rates. The results from
these initial tests indicated that Mode G was ineffective in
treating the Plant F secondary effluent. Additional DAF batch
tests at the same recycle rates showed results comparable to
287
-------
coagulation/clarification results. At 33.3 percent recycle,
removals of 78 percent COD and 57 percent TSS were achieved.
A. The three candidate BATEA process technologies for Plant F showing
the greatest potential for favorable treatment effectiveness are
Mode L, coagulation/clarification (with polymer addition), Mode A,
coagulation/clarification (with polymer addition) followed by
multi-media filtration and Mode H, reactor/clarifier (with polymer
addition) followed by multi-media filtration followed by activated
carbon contact.
5. Of the three candidate process technologies tested, Mode L was not
able to-meet the BATEA TSS or color guidelines, but met those for
BOD-, COD and phenol. Modes H and A met BATEA limits for BOD5, COD,
TSS, Phenol and Color. None of the candidate modes tested were
able to meet the BATEA sulfide guideline based on support laboratory
analytical results. During the candidate mode there was an unusual
rise in the BPT effluent sulfides level and subsequent high values
of sulfides occurred in the candidate modes. These levels of sul-
fides had not been experienced during the screening period, nor
were they notad by the plant in the historical data. It is not
possible, at this; time, to determine if these increased sulfide
values were accurate or a result of analytical error and/or inter-
ference. Because BATEA technologies are not designed to reduce
significant levels of sulfides, the Plant F BATEA process selection
was not affected by the sulfide excursions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Coagulation/clarification followed" by multi-media filtration is
the recommended BATEA process for Plant F. The projected effluent
quality for this process will achieve all BATEA guideline values
except the guideline value for sulfide.
2
2. The recommended clarifier overflow rate is 400 gpd/ft with addi-
tion of 35 mg/1 cationic polymer (American Cyanamid 572C) and 1
mg/1 anionic polymer (American Cyanamid 836A). The multi-media
2
filter surface loading rate should be 5 gpm/ft . Process design
criteria are presented in Chapter VI.
288
-------
PLANT F
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the waste treatment
plant effluent from the Plant F manufacturing facility, a Subcategory VI
(Carpet Mills) Plant. The plant is engaged in manufacturing carpet from
various man-made fibers. The primary fibers used are polyester and nylon.
The production processing includes tufting (batch and continuous), dyeing,
printing and applying jute backing with latex adhesives to the carpet.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated during a 42-day period (April 27,
1978 through June 7, 1978) at Plant F. The finished production during
this same 42-day period totaled 11,216,702 pounds of material. The pro-
duction during the 34 days the plant was operating averaged 329,903 Ibs/
day (see letter in Appendix E) . The daily plant capacity was reported as
460,000 pounds (without secondary backing). No unusual manufacturing
occurrences were reported by the plant during the pilot plant operations.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment
facilities at Plant F is presented in Figure C-18(F). More specific pro-
cess information is summarized in Table C-33(F).
The raw wastewater from the latex process is pretreated in five
settling ponds and then combined with dyehouse wastewater prior to secon-
dary treatment. The incoming waste passes through a 1-1/2" manually
cleaned bar screen, then through a Dalton mechanical screen prior to
entering the equalization basin. The process waste is then combined
with sanitary waste, which comprises 1% of the total wastewater flow,
in the equalization basin before entering the aeration basin. The aera-
tion basin, with a total volume of 10 million gallons, provides a total
detention time of 192 hours at design flow. Aeration is provided by 8,
50 HP floating surface aerators at a power to volume ratio of 40 HP/MG.
289
-------
TABLE C-33(F)
PLANT F
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow =1.25 MGD
Normal Flow « 1.43 MGD
Flow during Pilot Plant Experiments = 1.50 MGD
Equalization
No. of Basins - 1
Neutralization
Caustic
Nutrient Addition
None
Screening
Bar Screens - 1-1/2" O.C.
Mechanical Screens
Aeration Basin
No. of Basins - 1
Volume (Total) - 10 MG
Aeration - 400 HP; 40 HP/MG
Detention Time - 192 hrs (at design flow)
168 hrs (at normal flow)
160 hrs (during pilot experimentation)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - I
Size; Diameter - 85 ft.
Side Water Depth - 10 ft.
Recycle rate - 1.25 MGD (total)
Chlorination Facilities
No. of Basins - 1
Polishing Pond
No. of Ponds - 1
Pond Size - 18 MG
290
-------
Following aeration, the bio-solids are separated from the water in an 85
ft. diameter final clarifier. Sludge is returned to the aeration basin or
pumped to sludge drying lagoons. Sludge age ranges from 31 to 45 days.
The supernatant from the secondary clarifier is chlorinated and then
flows by gravity into an 18 MG finishing pond prior to being discharged
to the receiving stream. Pilot plant experimentation was done on effluent
from the secondary clarifler prior to chlorinat.ion.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data as reported by the plant are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the BPT guideline values in Table C-34(F).
The effluent values reported in this table are final finishing pond
effluent values. The pilot plant trailer operated on the secondary clari-
fier effluent prior to chlorination and the finishing pond. The only
secondary clarifier effluent data available is the data obtained while the
pilot plant was on-site. ,
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-34(F), the
waste treatment plant including the finishing pond is within present BPT
guideline values for 30-day averages for all parameters. Maximum day values
were within BPT limits except for one pH excursion.
During the on-site experimental study there were no major effluent
quality upsets created by production changes or biological treatment op-
erational problems. Some unusual production and waste treatment plant
operation occurrences that influenced the pilot plant operation are noted
below:
. April 27 - Two aerators (25%) out of service.
. May 2, 11 - Power failure during the night resulting in aeration
basin dissolved oxygen level of <1 mg/1
. May 15 - Broken cable on floating aerator resulted in shutting
off all aerators for several hours to repair cable
291
-------
TABLE C^34(F)
ro
COMPARISON OF
PLANT F
ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH BPT
BPT Guideline Values
Parameter Ibs/day
30-Day Avg. Daily Max.
BOD5 1,287 2,573
COD 11,580 23,159
TSS 1,814 3,629
Phenol 6.60 13.20
Chromium 6.60 13.20
Sulfide 13.20 26.39
Color N.A. N.A.
Flow N.A. N.A.
pH (6.0 - 9.0)
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations
(2) Average flow for the period April '
(3) The figures in parentheses represen
mg/1 at 1.42 MGD(
30-Day Avg. Daily Max.
109 217
978 1,956
153 306
0.56 1.11
0.56 1.11
1.11 2.23
N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A.
(6.0 - 9.0)
of thf BPT Guideline values
77 through March '78 was rej
t the number of months in t\
Actual Operation
April
30-Day Avg.
24-79
250-589
28-86
0.050-0.125
<0. 02-0. 05
<0. 05-0. 11
N.M.
1.21-1.57
6.6-7.4
'77-March
mg/1
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
'78
* (3)
Max.
38-105 (0)
334-785 (0)
41-203 (0)
0.050-0.125 (0)
0.02-0,05 (0)
0.05-0.30 (0)
N.M.
2.52
6.9-11.0 (1)
exceeds the BPT guidelines. Actual operation numbers are data taken following the final finishing
pond, not secondary clarifier effluent data.
N.M.- Not Monitored.
N.A.- Not Applicable
* These figures represent the range of the monthly maximum values as reported by the plant.
-------
. May 20, - Heavy lint in secondary clarifier effluent resulted
June 6 in blocked flow totalizers in pilot plant.
. The plant production facilities were generally in operation
Monday through Friday and shut down on weekends.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 1.42 MGD during the on-site
study, 4.3 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of material
produced.
293
-------
FIGURE C-18(F)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM-EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
LATEX
PROCESS
FACILITIES AT PLANT F
DYE HOUSE
LATEX SETTLING PONDS
I
I
BAR SCREEN
MECHANICAL SCREEN
O-
I RETURN
[SLUDGE
I
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
1
EQUALIZATION BASIN
SANITARY WASTE
oooo
50 HP 50 HP 50 HP 50 HP
OOOO
50 HP 50 HP 50 HP 50 HP
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
TRAILER INFLUENT
CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
FINISHING POND-18 MG
FINAL EFFLUENT
294
-------
PLANT S
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant S, a Sub-
category G (VII) Stock and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing Plant. The objec-
tives of this study are to evaluate the potential BATEA technologies
for treating the BPT effluent of Plant S, determine the effectiveness of
the technologies for meeting the proposed BATEA effluent limitations,
and define the mutually (ATM, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendation
for the most cost-effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant S include equaliza-
tion, aeration, secondary clarification, polishing pond, chlotination and
post aeration. The experimental testing was performed on the secondary
clarifier effluent prior to the final polishing pond and chlofination.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing secondary clarifier effluent quality did not achieve
the Best Practicable Technology (BPT) guideline limitations for
BOD,, during the period the pilot plant study was conducted. How-
ever, effluent from the final polishing pond did meet the BPT
guideline values.
2. To achieve the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA) effluent limitations additional treatment beyond BPT
(following secondary clarification) is required to reduce the
BOD-, COD and TSS.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant S:
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - Jar tests were conducted in which American Cyanamid
573-C and 581-C were selected as! the most effective coagu-
lants tested. Jar test results indicated 20 ppm as the
295
-------
optimum dosage. However, during screening operation cationic
polymer was added at dosages of 24 to 45 ppm. The reactor clari-
*2
fier was operated at overflow rates of 170 to 800 gpd/ft . At
2
reactor clarifier overflow rates of 400-600 gpd/ft and multi-
2
media filter surface loading rates of 3 to 5 gpm/ft removals
of 89-96 percent BOD , 54-84 percent COD and 60-73 percent TSS
2
were achieved. Typical Mode A effluent quality at 400 gpd/ft
overflow rate and 40 ppm cationic polymer dosage was 2 mg/1
BOD5, 37 mg/1 COD and 8 mg/1 TSS. Sulfides, phenol and chromium
were all below detectable limits for the BPT effluent.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Granular Carbon Adsorption
(Mode B) - At multi-media filter surface loading rates of 4 to 6
o
gpm/ft 14 to 36 percent COD, 44-55 percent TSS, and 67-83 per-
cent BOD,, were removed. Utilizing Westvaco WV-L granular car-
bon at an empty bed retention time of 45 minutes following multi-
media filtration only 5 to 33 percent COD and 27 percent BOD_
was additionally removed by the carbon columns. Typical Mode
B effluent quality was 5 mg/1 BOD5> 42 mg/1 COD, 9 mg/1 TSS,
and 3 mg/1 TOC. Breakthrough data indicates desorption of
soluble COD occurred for 20 percent of the data points.
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - During
the Mode C Batch experiment the multi-media filter was being
2
operated at a loading rate of 6 gpm/ft . Filter effluent con-
taining 6 mg/1 TSS was ozonated in a batch reactor. Ozonation
was very effective for color removal (61 percent) at the low
dosages of 30-60 mg/1 ozone utilized. Only 36 percent COD
and 22 percent BOD_ was removed at 160 mg/1 0., dosage. However,
at 245 mg/1 0~ dosage 87 percent COD removal was achieved.
d. Ozonation (Mode D) - Ozonation of the "BPT" effluent was effec-
tive for color recuction at fairly low ozone utilized dosages.
However no COD removal was observed after 245 mg/1 0« utilized.
Dosages in excess of 465 mg/1 0_ utilized were required to ob-
tain 41 percebt COD reduction. At 465 mg/1 0., dosage 78 percent
p, 24 percent TSS and 77 percent of the color was removed.
Mode D effluent quality at 465 mg/1 0_ utilized was 5 mg/1 BOD.,
65 mg/1 COD, and 54 mg/1 TSS.
296
-------
e. Multi-Media Filtration with Pre-filter Coagulation (Mode F) - Pre-
filter coagulation of the multi-media filter influent with 11-13
mg/1 cationic polymer provided no improvement in performance for
TSS, COD, BOD or color reduction compared to multi-media filter
operation without pre-coagulation. Loading rates in the
2
of 2.5 to 4.5 gpm/ft were evaluated. 36-57 percent TSS, 57-84
percent BOD and 0-51 percent COD was removed. However, filter
run times were 4 hours or less compared to Mode B (no pre-filter
coagulation) filter run times of 12 hours or more.
f. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
was not effective for suspended solids removal at 100, 50 or 33
percent recycle rates. Because of the low suspended solids in
the BPT effluent and the addition of cationic polymer as a coagu-
lant, the DAF effluent suspended solids were greater than the
influent suspended solids.
4. The three candidate BATEA processes for Plant S were coagulation/
clarification followed by multi-media filtration (Mode A), multi-
media filtration followed by granular carbon adsorption (Mode B)
and multi-media filtration followed by ozonation (Mode C).
5. Based on data taken during candidate operations Mode A effluent
achieved all BATEA guideline limitations except those for COD
(by 17 mg/1; 25%) and TSS (by 7 mg/1; 78%). Mode B was capable
of treating the BPT effluent to within BATEA limits for all para-
meters except COD (by 19 mg/1; 28%). Mode C effluent met all
BATEA limitations except COD (by 52 mg/1; 75%) and TSS (by 27 mg/1;
300%).
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Coagulation/clarification followed by multi-media filtration
(Mode A) is the recommended BATEA process for plant S. The pro-
jected effluent quality from this process did not achieve the
BATEA guidelines for COD or TSS. Mode A produced an effluent
quality better than the other technologies evaluated in terms
of COD . Based on screening data it is believed that reducing
the overflow rate of the reactor/clarifier and increasing the coagu-
297
-------
lation dosage would improve TSS and COD removal performance. If
the multi-media filter were operated at a surface loading rate
2
leas than 5 gpm/ft and with a finer media then the effluent TSS
value may be reduced to the BATEA guideline values of 9 mg/1.
2. The recommended design loading for the reactor/clarifier is
2
200 gpd/ft with a coagulant dosage of 25-45 mg/1 cationic poly-
2
mer. The filter loading rate should be 2.5 gpm/ft .
298
-------
PLANT S
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the secondary clari-
fier effluent of the Plant S textile manufacturing facility, a Subcategory
VII Plant (Stock and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing). The primary fibers used
are cotton, polyester and blends of cotton, polyester and rayon. The
production processing includes bleaching, mercerizing and dyeing (Package
and Hussong).
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 38-day period (November
14, 1977 through December 21, 1977) at Plant S. The production during
this same 38-day period totaled 1,371,852 pounds of material. The produc-
tion during the days the plant was operating averaged 50,809 pounds/day
(see letter in Appendix E). Finished materials included 100 percent
cotton, cotton/polyester blends, cotton/rayon blends and 100 percent
polyester. Production capacity for the manufacturing plant is approxi-
mately 82,000 pounds per day of stock and yarn.
EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater treatment
facilities at Plant S is presented in Figure C-19(S). More specific process
information is summarized in Table C-35(S).
The raw wastewater from the manufacturing facility enters a 1.8
million gallon equalization basin which provides a detention of 1.2 days
at design flow. Mixing to provide proper equalization in provided by one
30 horsepower floating mechanical surface aerator which corresponds to a
power to volume ration of 17 HP/MG. Following equalization the waste
enters the 3.9 million gallon aeration basin which provides a detention
time of 2.6 days at design flow. Aeration is provided by six 30 horse-
power mechanical, floating, surface aerators with a power to volume ratio
299
-------
TABLE C-35(S)
PLANT S
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow = 1.5 MGD (approximately 3% sanitary waste)
Normal Flow =1.24 MGD
Flow During Pilot Operations =1.24 MGD
EQUALIZATION
No. of Basin - 1
Basin Size - 1.8 MG
Mixing - 30 HP (Surface Aerator): 17 HP/MG
NUTRIENT ADDITION
None
ACID ADDITION
None
SCREENING
None
AERATION BASIN
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 3.9 MG
Aeration - 180 HP (Surface Aerators): 46 HP/MG
Detention Time - 62 hours at design flow
75 hours at normal and pilot operation period flow
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
No. of Clarifiers - 2
Size: Diameter - 50 ft.
Side Water Depth - 10 ft.
(continued)
300
-------
TABLE C-35(S)
(continued)
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
POLISHING POND
No. of Basins - 1
Basin Size - 3.8 MG
Detention Time - 60 hours at design flow
74 hours at normal and pilot operation period flow
OTHER OPERATIONS
Chlorination
Post Aeration Basin (94,000 gallons, 3 HP)
301
-------
of 46.0 HP/MG. Following aeration, flow is split and the bio-solids are
separated from the liquid in the two final clarifiers. Sludge is returned
to the aeration basin. The normal sludge age is approximately 80 days.
Effluent from the two clarifiers is transferred to a 3.8 million gallon
polishing pond with 2.5 days detention time. Following the polishing
pond effluent is chlorinated and passed through a 94,000 gallon holding
basin prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Pilot plant experi-
mentation was done using the secondary clarifier effluent (prior to the
polishing pond).
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data, of the waste treatment plant as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A for the
period the pilot studies were in progress. The discharge values reported
for the last year are compared to the BPT guideline values in Table C-36(S).
The effluent values reported in this table are final polishing pond effluent
numbers. The pilot plant trailer was operated with the secondary clari-
fier effluent prior to the polishing pond and chlorination. The only
secondary clarifier effluent data available is the data obtained while
the pilot plant was on-site.
Based on the data presented in Appendix A and in Table C-36(S), the exist-
ing waste treatment plant including the final polishing pond was within BPT
guideline values for 30-day averages and daily maximums for BOD,., COD, TSS
and Phenol. Chromium and sulfide values were not reported by the plant.
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT VARIABILITY
During the period the pilot plant studies were underway, the textile
manufacturing plant generally operated five days per week. This varia-
bility is not reflected in the overall statistical treatment of the data
in this report since only days when data was available were included.
With an aeration basin hydraulic retention time of 62 hours at a flow rate
of 1.24 MGD, a suitable biological population may be maintained during
the periods of low flow.
302
-------
TABLE C-36(S)
CO
PLANT S
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT LIMITATIONS
BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Parameter
BOD5
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Color
Flow, (MGD)
pH (unitless)
Ibs/day (1)
30-Day Avg.
173
2149
442
3.0
3.0
6.1
n.a .
(6.0-9.0)
Daily Max.
345.5
4298
884
6.1
6.1
12.2
n.a.
(6.0-9.0)
mg/1 at 1.24 MGD(2)
30-Day Avg.
17
208
43
0.29
0.29
0.59
n.a.
(6.0-9.0)
Daily Max.
33
416
85
0.59
0.59
1.18
n.a.
(6.0-9.0)
Actual Operation
Nov. '76 - Oct. '77
mg/1
Avg.
3-9 (0)
93-148 (0)
2-12 (0)
0.005-0.020 (0)
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
1.10-1.33
7
Max.
4-13
90-180
3-28
(0)
(0)
(0)
0.005-0.020 (0)
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
1.3-1.5
.8-9.0
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations of BPT Guideline Values.
(2) The average flow for the period of November, 1976 to October 1977 was reported by the plant as 1.24MGD.
(3) Actual operation numbers are taken following the final finishing pond, not secondary clarifier effluent
data. Numbers in parenthesis indicate number of times during the period when BPT limits were exceeded,
n.m. = not monitored by mill laboratory
n.a. = not applicable
-------
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 1.24 MGD during the on-site
study, 24.4 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
304
-------
FIGURE C-19CS)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - EXISTING WASTEHATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT S
RAW WASTE
AERATED
EQUALIZATION
AERATION
RECYCLE
SLUDGE
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
TRAILER INFLUENT
POLISHING
POND
CHLORINATION
POST AERATION
BASIN
FINAL EFFLUENT
305
-------
PLANT EE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BATEA pilot plant studies have been completed at Plant EE, a
Subcategory IV (Woven Fabric Finishing) and Subcategory VII (Stock and
Yarn Dyeing and Finishing) plant. The objectives of this pilot plant
study are to evaluate the potential BATEA process technologies for treat-
ing the BPT effluent from Plant EE, determine the effectiveness of the
technologies for achieving the BATEA guideline limitations and define the
/.
mutually {ATMI, EPA and ES) agreed upon recommendations for the most cost-
effective treatment process(es).
Existing wastewater treatment facilities at Plant EE include screens,
acid and antifoam addition, aeration, secondary clarification, dissolved
air flotation and a centrifuge. The experimental testing was performed
on the secondary clarifier effluent.
The information generated during this study and presented in this
report forms the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The existing wastewater facilities at Plant EE were achieving
the Best Practicable Technology (BPT) guideline effluent limita-
tions for all parameters based on average values during the
period the pilot plant study was conducted.
2. The BPT plant met all the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BATEA) effluent limitations based on average values
during the pilot plant sutdy.
3. The following observations and conclusions were made from the
pilot-scale screening experiments at Plant EE.
a. Coagulation/Clarification Followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Mode A) - A variety of metallic coagulants and combinations
of coagulants as well as cationic polymers were jar tested
for effectiveness of transmittance improvement, turbidity
306
-------
reduction and minimal sludge production. Alum at 30 mg/1
(as Al ) with a pH of 6.5 was determined to be the most
overall effective coagulant. This dosage was utilized with
the reactor clarifier at various overflow rates and the
2
optimum chosen as 400 gpd/ft . COD removal with the reactor
clarifier was 11 to 40% while TSS concentrations were in-
creased. However, operation of the multi-media filter at
2
3.0 to 7.0 gpm/ft removed additional TSS, COD, TOC, sulfide
and BOD5> Overall, Mode A, at 400 gpd/ft2 and 3 gpm/ft2,
achieved 30% BOD5, 21% COD, 25% TSS, 28% sulfide and 6%
color removal.
b. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Activated Carbon Adsorp-
tion (Mode B) - The multi-media filter did not reduce signifi-
cant levels of COD, TSS, TOC or sulfide at the various loading
rates tested. This was due to low TSS concentration in the
BPT effluent (<8 mg/1). Utilizing Westvaco WV-1 at a hydraulic
residence time of 45 minutes in the carbon columns following
filtration COD reduction (60 to 80%) was obtained. Overall
reductions were TSS 50%, sulfide 31%, color 14%, COD 85% and
2
BOD. 17% at a filter loading rate of 1 gpm/ft .
c. Multi-Media Filtration Followed by Ozonation (Mode C) - The
Mode C batch tests were conducted with effluent from the
2
multi-media filter at a surface loading rate of 3.0 gpm/ft .
Effluent TSS was 6 to 7 mg/1 and COD ranged from 154 to 187
mg/1. There was an increase in COD across the filter in one
of the Mode C experiments. Ozone dosages of 0 to 1005 mg/1
ozone utilized were evaluated. BOD consistently increased
with ozonation. 35% soluble COD reduction was achieved at
a dosage of 41 mg/1 0~ utilized. At this dosage, color re-
duction was essentially complete. Further significant COD
reduction was not achieved until the 03 utilized dosage was
greater than 432 mg/1. Typical Mode C effluent quality at
40 - 50 mg/1 0- utilized dosage was approximately 90 mg/1
COD.
307
-------
d. Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation (Mode F) - Jar
tests performed with a variety of coagulants determined 7
+3
to 12 mg/1 alum as Al at a pH of 6.5 to provide the visual
threshold floe formation dosage to use with the multi-media
2
filter. TSS and COD reduction at 3.0 gpm/ft with 7 mg/1
alum were slightly better than the Mode B filter at the same
rate. Essentially, the same performance level between Mode
2
B and Mode F filter was obtained at 5.0 gpm/ft . No TSS reduc-
2
tion was achieved at loading rates of 5.0 and 7.G gpm/ft ,
2
but there was 35% COD reduction at 3.0 gpm/ft . Due to the
observed fluctations in coagulant demand at this site, con-
sistent operation of Mode F is impractical.
e. Dissolved Air Flotation (Mode G) - Bench-scale dissolved air
flotation experiments were performed at 100%, 50% and 33%
recycle, utilizing 30 mg/1 alum at a pH of 6.5 as a coagulant.
Neither batch test was effective for TSS removal. Subnatant
TSS increased becasue of suspended floe particles. DAF was
not as effective as coagulation/clarification.
f. Multi-Media Filtration (Mode I) - Mode I was not screened as
a separate treatment technology during the screening period.
The data base for Mode I process evaluation was derived from
7 isolated data points during the pilot plant visit at Plant
EE when BPT effluent TSS were uncommonly high (30-115 mg/1).
The purpose of this was to model filter performance during
winter months when, historically, the secondary treatment
system at Plant EE has experienced elevated effluent TSS
and COD discharges. For the selected group of data, Mode I
reduced TSS from 67 to 15 mg/1 (78%) and COD from 168 to
104 mg/1 (34%).
The candidate process technologies showing the greatest potential
for favorable treatment effectiveness for Plant EE were coagula-
tion/clarification followed by multi-media filtration (Mode A),
multi-media filtration followed by carbon adsoprtion (Mode B),
multi-media filtration followed by ozonation (Mode C) and
multi-media filtration (Mode I).
308
-------
5. The four candidate modes achieved all the BATEA effluent guide-
line values.
6. Based on a cost comparison, multi-media filtration alone (Mode I)
is the least expensive technology. All other candidate modes
contain multi-media filtration plus another technology.
7. Based on selected data points during the pilot plant study when
BPT TSS was significantly above the projected BATEA guideline,
2
multi-media filtration at 7 gpm/ft (Mode I) was able to reduce
COD by 34% and TSS by 78% to meet the guideline values.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. During the pilot plant study period the BPT plant was meeting all
BATEA guidelines based on average values. Hence, no further
BATEA process technology can be recommended based on overall
plant data.
2. For this particular plant site, based on historical operations
data and selected pilot plant study period data, a multi-media
2
filter operating at 7 gpm/ft is required to consistently meet
projected BATEA guideline values on a year-round basis. If
occasional periods of elevated TSS discharge could be controlled
through BPT plant operations no filter would be required for
yean-round compliance with the BATEA limitations.
309
-------
PLANT EE
INTRODUCTION TO TEXTILE PLANT FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
The BATEA pilot plant studies were performed on the wastewater treat-
ment effluent from Plant EE. Plant EE is classified as both a Subcategory
VII (Stock and Yarn Dyeing and Finishing) and a Subcategory IV (Woven
Fabric Finishing) plant. The plant is involved in the bleaching of raw
cotton and gauze fabrics. The primary materials involved are 100% cotton
and a 70/30 cotton rayon blend.
PRODUCTION DATA
The BATEA pilot plant was operated for a 32 day period (May 30, 1978
through June 30, 1978) at Plant EE. Total production during this period
(based on 28 days of Stock and Yarn production and 20 days of Woven Fabric
Finishing production) was 2,353,324 Ibs. Average daily production for
Stock & Yarn Dyeing and Finishing was 56,833 Ibs/day; average daily pro-
duction of Woven Fabric Finishing was 38,100 Ibs/day. (See Appendix E.)
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
Figure C-20(EE) is a schematic flow diagram of the existing wastewater
treatment facility at Plant EE. Table C-37(EE) summarizes more specific pro-
cess information. The wastewater treatment plant treats all of the waste
from Plant EE operations which includes approximately 2% domestic waste.
The wastewater is passed through screens which remove fiber and other
solid materials. Before the flow passes into the aeration basin, acid is
added for neutralization and antifoam is added for foam control. The
aeration basin has a volume of 3 MG and is aerated by eight variable
speed surface aerators. Flow from the aeration chamber passes into two
parallel secondary clarifiers. Here biological solids are settled and a
portion are returned to the aeration basin. A fraction of the biological
solids are thickened and wasted. Further thickening of the wasted solids
is accomplished by dissolved air flotation followed by a centrifuge unit.
Thickened waste solids are then hauled away to land disposal. Supernatant
from the secondary clarifiers is treated with antifoam and discharged.
310
-------
TABLE C-37(EE)
PLANT EE
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design Flow - 1.3 MGD
Normal Flow - 0.82 MGD
Flow During Pilot Operations -0.86 MGD
Overflow Storage - 0.02 MG
Equalization
None
Neu tralization
Acid Feed
Nutrient Addition
None
S creening
No. of Screens - 3
Size: 5' x 5' with 20/1000 inch mesh
Aeration Basin
No, of Basins - 1
Volume (Total) - 3 MG
Aeration (Total) - 320 Hp, 107 Hp/MG
Detention Time - 55 hts. (at design flow)
88 hrs. ( at normal flow)
84 hrs. (during pilot plant operations)
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Clarifiers - 2
Size: Diameter - 55 ft (inside diameter)
SWD - 12 ft
Recycle Rate - 0.72 MGD (Total)
(continued)
311
-------
TABLE C-37CEE)
(continued)
Sludge Thickening Facilities
Polymer Addition
Dissolved Air Flotation
Centrifuge
Foam Control
Antifoam added: a) Prior to aeration basin
b) To secondary clarifier overflow
312
-------
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
The monthly operating data of the waste treatment plant, as reported
by the plant, are shown in Appendix A for the one-year period immediately
prior to and including the period of the pilot study. Daily operating
data, as reported by the plant, are also presented in Appendix A. This
data covers the period during which the pilot studies were in progress.
The discharge values reported for the last year are compared to the BPT
guideline values in Table C-38(EE). The effluent values reported in this
table are final effluent numbers.
Plant EE experienced no serious operational problems during the pilot
plant visit. There were a few instances of unusually high BPT effluent
TSS concentrations. Based on visual ovservation by the field engineer,
it is believed that these occurences were caused by algal build-up and
sloughing on the secondary clarifier weirs. Steam cleaning of the weirs
(a normal practice at Plant EE) was postponed so a&. not to interfere
with pilot plant operation.
Based on the monthly averages over a twelve month period (June 1977
to May 1978) the plant was achieving 95 percent BOD,- removal from an
average influent BOD,, of 404 mg/1 to 20 mg/1. COD removal approximated
80 percent with reduction of the average influent of 1009 mg/1 to 203 mg/1.
The influent TSS level at Plant EE was low, averaging 27 ing/1 with a removal
efficiency of around 11 percent so that effluent TSS levels averaged 24 mg/1.
During the same twelve month period, based on the data presented in Table
C-38(EE) and Appendix E, the plant was within the BPT guidelines for all
parameters. The mean cell residence time ranges from approximately one to
ten days.
WATER USAGE
Based on an average wastewater flow of 0.857 MGD during the on-site
study, 10.2 gallons of wastewater were generated per pound of finished
material produced.
313
-------
TABLE C-38(EE)
PLANT EE
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE TO BPT GUIDELINE VALUES
Actual Operation
CO
Parameter
BPT
Guideline Values
lbs/day(1)
30-Day Avg. Daily
BOD
COD
TSS
Phenol
Chromium
Sulfide
Flow (MGD)
PH
319
4157
833
5
5
10
n.
.31
.31
.63
a.
-6
637
314
1667
10.
10.
21.
n.a.
.0 - 9.0
Max.
63
63
26
—
(1) See Appendix E for the calculations
(2) Average flow for the period of June
(3) The figures in parentheses represent
mg/1 at
0.82 MGD^2
30-Day Avg. Daily
47
608
122
0.78
0.78
1.55
n.a.
6.0
of the BPT
'77 through
the number
93
1216
244
1.
1.
3.
n.a.
June '77
- May '78
} mg/1
Max. 30-Day Avg. (3)
55
55
11
- 9.0
12 -
178 -
11 -
n.m.
n.m.
n.m.
0.57 -
7.1 -
Guideline Values.
May '78 as reported by the
of months in the 12-month
27 (0)
235 (0)
44 (0)
0.96
7.7 (0)
plant.
period in
Daily Max. (3)
19
216
30
n.
n.
n.
1.10
7.5
- 43 (0)
- 281 (0)
- 98 (0)
m.
m.
m.
- 1.45
- 8.8 (0)
which the plant
monthly averages or maximums exceed the BPT Guidelines.
* These figures represent the range of monthly maximum values as reported by the plant.
n.a. not applicable.
n.m. not measured.
-------
FIGURE C-2Q(EE)
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT EE
PLANT EE
WASJEWATER
DOMESTIC
SEWAGE
OVERFLOW
STORAGE
LAND
DISPOSA"
DISSOLVED
AIR FLOTATION
SCREENS
ACID ADDITION
1
CENTRIFUGE
3N
*
1
•
i
i
A
AERATION
BASIN
ANTIFOAM
ADDITION
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
(2)
TRAILER
INFLUENT
FINAL EFFLUENT
315
-------
APPENDIX D
ACTIVATED CARBON
REGENERATION EXPERIMENTS
INTRODUCTION
One of the objectives of this study was to obtain information that would
be helpful in predicting the potential for regeneration of activated carbon
after being used to treat textile wastewater. When activated carbon exhaus-
tion exceeds several hundred pounds per day at a treatment installation it
is usually economically favorable to regenerate it rather than disposing of
it. The relative success or failure of carbon regeneration is highly depen-
dent on the quantity and nature of the impurities adsorbed onto the carbon
(adsorbate). Since the amount and nature of adsorbate is dependent on the
waste stream being treated, the relative ability to regenerate can differ be-
tween treatment applications.
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
Samples of activated carbon exhausted during pilot plant experimentation
at 12 of the textile mills visited during this study were sent to Westvaco
Corporation, Chemical Division in Covington, Virginia. Each sample was
treated in a bench-scale thermal regeneration unit under the following condi-
tions:
Temperature - 1650°F (900°C)
Time - 15 minutes
Stream Flow - 2 ml/minute
Air Flow - 200 ml/minute
RESULTS
The results of the regeneration experiments for the carbon used at 12
of the textile mills visited during this study are given in Tables D-l
316
-------
and D-2. The results are expressed in terms of the sample properties
defined and discussed below.
Apparent Density - Defined as the bulk unit weight of granular activated
carbon dried at 100°C. The difference between the apparent density of virgin
carbon and that of exhausted carbon gives an indication of the mass of impuri-
ties adsorbed onto the carbon during use. The difference in the apparent
densities of the virgin and regenerated carbons indicates the degree to
which the adsorbed substances were removed during regeneration. When examin-
ing apparent densities of virgin and regenerated carbon it should be noted
that some carbon is lost during regeneration. In general, the closer the
apparent density of the regenerated carbon to that of the virgin carbon, the
more successful the regeneration.
Iodine Number - Defined as the mass of iodine adsorbed per mass of
carbon from KI solution at an equilibrium filtrate concentration of 0.02N
iodine. The Iodine Number is a good indicator of total internal surface area
within the carbon grains down to pores as small as 10 Angstrom units in dia-
meter. Since adsorptive capacity of carbon is highly dependent on internal
pore area, the Iodine Number is a good indicator of restored adsorptive capacity
upon regeneration. An increase in iodine number indicates an increase in
adsorptive capacity.
Molasses Decolorizing Index - Defined as the ratio of molasses color ca-
pacity of a particular carbon to that of a standard carbon (xlO). The
Molasses Decolorizing Index affords a good measure of internal area of larger
pores (28-32 Angstroms in diameter). In general, the Molasses Decolorizing
Index of a given carbon will increase with increasing adsorptive capacity.
Ash Content - Defined as the residual material remaining after heating
in a furnace at 600°C for an extended period of time (until all visable carbon
grains have been burned away). The differences between the ash content of
virgin, regenerated and exhausted carbon gives an indication of the relative
amount of inert inorganic matter adsorbed during use and removed during re-
generation.
317
-------
TABLE D-l
CO
CD
Sample Identification
Virgin Carbon
PLANT A
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT V
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT W
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT Z
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT AA
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT E
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
GRANULAR CARBON
WESTVACO
Apparent Density
(Ib/ft3)
30.7
43.4
29.3
38.7
31.2
39.9
7.9.3
34.9
30.6
33.7
30.6
34.9
30.5
REGENERATION TEST RESULTS FOR PLANTS WHERE
NWCHAR WV-L ACTIVATED CARBON WAS USED
Iodine Number
(mg/g)
1151
742
1094
813
1124
798
1264
860
1197
905
1184
806
1151
Sample Properties
Molasses Decolorizing
Index
10.8
7.6
14.9
7.9
9.3
9.4
13.7
7.6
12.7
7.6
11.6
7.0
14.2
Ash Content
% Weight lb/ft3
7-8 (Typical)
6.2
8.5
5.2
6.2
5.4
7.5
5.9
7.3
5.9
6.8
6.8
O £
O • O
2.15-2.46
2.69
2.49
2.01
1.93
2.15
2.20
2.06
2.23
1.99
2.08
2.37
2.62
-------
TABLE D-1 (Continued)
GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION TEST
WES TV AGO
RESULTS FOR PLANTS WHERE
NUCHAR WV-L ACTIVATED CARBON WAS USED
Apparent Density Iodine Number
Sample Identification (lb/ft3) (mg/g)
Virgin Carbon
PLANT EE
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT Y
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT 0
Spend Carbon ."
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT F
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
30.7
35.6
31.2
36.3
31.8
38.2
32.8
36.7
31.2
1151
767
1094
734
1006
658
969
686
1013
Sample Properties
Molasses Decolorizing Ash; Content
Index % Weight lb/ft3
10.8
7.0
11.7
•5.4
7.4
7.4
10.2
6.1
10.2
7-3 (Typical) _
7.7 ' .'-."•
8.7 '
7.2
8.1
6.6
8.1
5.8
6.7
2.15-2.46
V"
'%"2.74
2.71
2.61
2.58
2.52
2.66
2.13
2.09
-------
TABLE D-2
GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION TEST RESULTS FOR PLANTS WHERE
ICI HYDRODARCO 3000 ACTIVATED CARBON WAS USED
Sample Identification
Virgin Carbon
(typical values)
PLANT K
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
PLANT T
Spent Carbon
Regenerated Carbon
Apparent Density
(Ib/ft3)
23-24
25.3
22.9
26.0
24.6
Iodine Number
(mg/g)
550-650
420
639
489
634
Molasses decolorizing
Index
Not Available
6.5
16.3
8.8
15.0
Ash
% Weight
10-18
10.5
12.0
11.4
12.9
Content
lb/ft3
2.3-4.3
2.66
2.75
2.96
3.17
u>
ro
o
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Relationships between virgin, regenerated, and exhausted carbon properties
for the two activated carbons used during this study are given in Table D-3.
The information presented is based on averages derived from the data in Tables
D-l and D-2.
Examination of the apparent density relationships for the two carbons
(Table D-3) shows that on the average Westvaco carbon adsorbed significantly
more matter during use than the ICI carbon. An average of 6.5 Ib/ft adsorbate
was measured on the Westvaco carbon while 2.2 Ib/ft3 was measured on the ICI
carbon. Successful single cycle regeneration of both carbons is indicated based
on the fact that the regeneration process reduced the apparent densities of
the exhausted carbons to within approximately 1% of the apparent densities of
the virgin carbons. It should be noted here that the difference in apparent
densities of the virgin and regenerated carbons cannot be taken as a strict
measurement of adsorbate remaining after regeneration due to carbon losses
during the regeneration process.
The relationships given based on Iodine Number (Table D-3) show a greater
average loss in adsorptive capacity of the Westvaco carbon during use than loss
in adsorptive capacity of the ICI carbon during use. The difference between
the iodine adsorption capacity of the regenerated and virgin carbons was less
with the ICI carbon. Based on percent reduction in iodine adsorption capacity
after use and percent returned through regeneration it can be seen that the
two carbons behaved very similarly. Good single cycle regenerabil ity of the
carbons is indicated by only a 2-4% decrease in iodine adsorption capacity as
a result of treatment use followed by regeneration.
Virgin carbon Mollasses Decolorizing Index information was available only
for the Westvaco carbon. The relationships given in Table D-3 show atf average
occupancy of 32% of the adsorptive area within the larger pores (28-32 Angstroms]
of the exhausted activated carbon. An increase of 7% in the Molasses Decolorizing
Index of the regenerated carbon over the virgin carbon shows an increase in large
pore area due to regeneration. The Molasses Decolorizing Index data indicates
a good return of adsorptive capacity as a result of single-cycle regeneration.
321
-------
TABLE D-3
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VIRGIN. REGENERATED, AND EXHAUSTED
WESTVACO NUCHAR WV-L AND ICI HYDRODARCO 3000 ACTIVATED CARBONS*
WESTVACO ICI
NUCHAR WV-L HYDRODARCO 3000
APPARENT DENSITY (lb/ft3)
Difference between
Virgin and Exhausted 6.5 2.2
Difference between
Virgin and Regenerated 0.15 0.25
Percent Increase of
Exhausted over Virgin 21 10
Percent Increase of
Regenerated over Virgin 1 1
IODINE NUMBER (mg/g)
Difference between
Virgin and Exhausted 374 196
Difference between
Virgin and Regenerated 41 14
Difference between
Regenerated and Exhausted 333 182
Exhausted Percent
of Virgin 68 70
Regenerated Percent
of Virgin 96 98
MOLASSES DECOLORIZING INDEX
Difference between
Virgin and Exhausted 3.5
Difference between
Virgin and Regenerated -0.8
Difference between
Regenerated and Exhausted 4.3 8.0
Exhausted Percent
of Virgin 68
Regenerated Percent
of Virgin 107
322
-------
The results of the single cycle regeneration experiments indicate that the
two carbons used during this study can potentially be regenerated after being
used in AWT applications on textile plant wastewaters. A test including six
to eight regeneration cycles would be required to conclusively state that re-
geheration of carbon from textile wastewater treatment was successful on a
technical and practical basis.
323
-------
APPENDIX E
BENCH SCALE ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH ACTIVATED CARBON TREATMENT
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The bench scale studies of powdered activated carbon addition to the
activated (PAC) process have been completed for 10 textile plants represent-
ing six EPA subcategories. It is important to emphasize that the purpose
of this study was to obtain an indication of the feasibility of applying
this method of treatment in order to achieve BATEA technical effluent limi-
tations and decide if full-scale evaluations should be instituted for spe-
cific subcategories.
The information generated during this study and presented in this re-
port from the basis for the following conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. PAC treatment was generally successful in improving the effluent
quality in bench scale evaluations of wastes from EPA textile
Subcategories II, IV, V, VI and VII.
2. Subcategory I (Plant A) - BOD,, and COD were not significantly
affected by the PAC treatment. PAC at the high dosage did effect
good color removal. Chrome and phenol data were either unavailable
or inconclusive. Sulfides levels were not significantly affected.
3. Subcategory II (Plants B and 0) - PAC treatment was generally ef-
fective for BOD,., COD, and color. Phenols were not affected by
PAC. Sulfides were reduced approximately half at very low concen-
trations. Some reduction, although inconsistent, was noted for
total chromium.
4. Subcategory IV (Plants D, P and Y) - Plant D is not considered to
be typical or representative of Subcategory IV plants. The con-
clusions are based therefore on Plants P and Y. COD and BOD,.
BATEA limits were achieved by the control reactors. Further re-
ductions were achieved for COD by the low level (19-39%) and high
level (31-62%) carbon reactors. No effect noted for phenols. In-
conclusive results were noted for sulfides. Color levels were
generally reduced by both low and high levels.
324
-------
5. Subcategory V (Plants E and Q) - PAC treatment was consistently
effective for COD with lesser effect on BOD . Inconclusive results
were observed for sulfide and chrome. Phenol values were all below
the detectable limit. Color removal was generally effective for
both plants.
6. Subcategory VI (Plant F) - BOD5> COD and color were effectively
treated by the PAC process. Phenols and sulfides were below the
detectable limit. Chrome results were inconclusive.
7. Subcategory VII (Plant S) - COD and color were effectively treated
by the PAC process. BOD_ was not significantly affected. Chrome
and sulfide values were reduced although reductions were not as
great as for COD and color. Phenols were below the detectable
limits.
8. A summary comparing the results with the estimated BATEA values
is presented in Table E-l.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Due to the relative percentage of textile wet processing in
Subcategories IV and V and the effectiveness of PAC on bench scale
it is recommended that full-scale PAC testing be conducted at one
plant in each subcategory.
2. If time and budget constraints permit full scale testing should
also be performed on a plant in Subcategory VI.
3. Due to the importance of the effect of any candidate BATEA process
on priority pollutants it is recommended that at least a minimal
level of analyses for these compounds be included in the full
scale PAC testing.
325
-------
TABLE E-l
OJ
ro
PAC ACHIEVEMENT OF BATEA LIMITATIONS FOR EACH SUBCATEGORY
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Carbon
Level
(10.000
' 2,000
( 8,000
( ;',ooo
( 5,000
(1,000 11
( 5,000
( 1,000
( 6,000
( 3,000
( 5,000
( 2,000
( 5,000
( 2,000
( 5,000
( 1,000
( 5,000
( 2,000
( 5,000
( 2,000
•8/D
Bg/1)
•g/1)
mg/U
mg/1)
»g/l)
•g/1)
mg/1)
mg/1)
mg/1)
mg/1)
mg/1)
mg/D
mg/1)
mg/1)
mg/1)
rng/O
mg/1)
mg/1)
«(S/1>
BODj
No
No
Yes
incon.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incon.
TSS
No
No
No
No
Yes
Lncon.
Yes
No
Incon.
No
No
No
No
No
Incon.
Yes
Incon .
No
No
No
COD
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incon.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cr
-
Incon .
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
-
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Phenol
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sulfide
No
No
Incon .
So
Incon.
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incon.
Color
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Incon.
Incon.
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Incon.
Yes
Yes
Remarks
Excess oil and grease
hindered PAC process
Pac was an effective process
Some foaming tendencies
related to carbon
additions
Effective method with
exception of Plant D
Plant D improved by use
of PAC but did not meet
BATEA Limits. Plant D
very dark waste with
high organic loading .
Pac was an effective
process
High carbon concentration
achieved BATEA limits at
Plant Q
Pac was an effective
process
Pac was an effective process
High carbon concentration
Afh{0v«r1 R&TVA 14m4*« _i.
SUBCATEGORY 1
Plant A
SUBCATECORY II
Plant B
Plant 0
SUBCATEGORY IV
Plant P
Plant D
Plant Y
SUBCATEGORY- V
Plant E
Plant Q
SUBCATEGORY VI
Plant T
SUBCATEGORY VII
Plant S
Yes - PAC x + 1C 5 BATEA limits
No - PAC x > BATEA limits
Inconclusive ("Incon") - PAC x < BATEA limits
-------
APPENDIX F
COST ESTIMATING PROCEDURE FORMS
Advanced Waste Treatment Process
Selection and Process Design
Subcategory IV Page 328
Cost Estimating Program for
Advanced Waste Treatment of
Textile Wastewater Page 339
327
-------
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
PROCESS SELECTION AND PROCESS DESIGN
TEXTILE
SUBCATEGORY IV
WOVEN FABRIC FINISHING
BATEA STUDY
Sponsored by: ATMt/NTA/CRI and EPA
Plant:
Address:
Phone No:
Prepared By:
Date:
328
-------
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this program is to allow you to determine a hypo-
thetical process selection and establish process design information for
any Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) facilities that may be anticipat-
ed for your plant to achieve the presently promulgated BATEA effluent
guideline limitations. You must complete this worksheet packet prior to
initiation of your cost estimate.
This program is set up for Subcategory IV plants with secondary bio-
logical treatment defined as Best Practicable Treatment (BPT). The AWT
processes described are for additional wastewater treatment of a BPT
effluent.
In order to complete this worksheet packet you should have the
following information:
Average*production in pounds per work day
Average*waste treatment plant effluent values for:
Flow in million gallons per work day (MGD)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD_), mg/1
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), mg/1
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Color, ADMI units
This program includes a three step procedure to define your treat-
ment objectives, select a hypothetical AWT system for your plant and size
the AWT process(es) selected. The procedure was developed from experi-
mental results of the ATMI/EPA pilot plant study and provides a method of
predicting an AWT system based on your type production and BPT effluent
quality. This does not guarantee that the AWT system is correctly defined,
Indeed an experimental study with your particular wastewater would be re-
quired to adequately define an AWT system at your plant.
*Select a time period that is representative of normal production
and waste treatment plant operation. Use the same period for
both averages. 329
-------
The steps you will follow in this program are summarized below:
1) Establish your BATEA treatment objectives,
2) Select the recommended AWT system for your plant and
3) Establish process design criteria for the selected AWT system.
After completing this worksheet packet you can initiate your cost
estimate as defined in the Cost Estimating Program for Advanced Waste
Treatment of Textile Wastewater.
330
-------
STEP 1 - ESTABLISH BATEA TREATMENT OBJECTIVES
Averagfe*production - In 1000 Ibs per work day
Average flow - in million gallons per work day (MGD)
BATEA Treatment Requirements;
TABLE 1
Parameter
BOD5
TSS
COD
Total Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
(A) (B) (C)
Ibs Pollutant(1) BATEA Guideline Values
(2~) (3)
1000 Ibs Product lbs/dayv ' m/l
2.2
1.5
10(5) (5)
0.05
0.05
0.10
(D)
BPT
Effluent^
mg/1
Color (ADMI units) - (300 ADKE units)
(1) From Federal Register, 5 July 1974, 39 #130, BATEA guideline values
for 30-day average, Subcategory D (IV) Woven Fabric Finishing.
(2) To calculate the BATEA guideline values in Ibs/day, column (B),
multiply the value in column (A) by the average production value in
1000 Ibs per work day.
(3) To calculate the BATEA guideline values in mg/1, column (C), divide
the value in column (B) by the factor (8.34 Ib/gal x average flow
in MGD).
(4) List the average*effluent values from your waste treatment plant.
(5) Additional COD limitations allowed for:
Woven Fabric Finishing through—
Simple process with synthetic fiber or ,. /inn« iu
Complex process with natural fiber 3.3 lb/1000 Ib
Simple process with natural/synthetic blend ,.,,„_ ..
or Complex process with synthetic fiber 6.7 lb/1000 Ib
Complex process with natural/synthetic ,,_,,«rtA 1V
blend 10'° lb/1000 lb
*See note on page 1 33^
-------
Treatment Objective:
To establish your treatment objectives, compare the 3ATEA values in
Table 1, column (C) with your present effluent values in Table 1, column
(B). If your effluent value for a particular parameter is less than the
BATEA value, then no additional treatment is needed. If your effluent
value is greater than the BATEA value, than additional treatment is re-
quired for reduction of that parameter. List treatment objectives below:
TABLE 2
(A) (B) (C)
BPT<2> BATEA(3) % Reduction
x,v Value Value ,,,
Parameter mg/1 mg/1 Required
(1) List only those parameters which will require additional treatment.
(2) Average effluent values for waste treatment plant as listed in
Table 1, column (D) .
(3) BATEA values as listed in Table 1, column (C) .
(4) Calcualte column (C) , % Reduction Required as follows:
Do you qualify as a commission finisher as defined by EPA?
Yes No (Circle One)
Would you qualify if it were not for the ownership restriction?
Yes No (Circle One)
332
-------
STEP 2 - SELECT THE RECOMMENDED AWT SYSTEM
There are four AWT processes that are applicable to Subcategory IV
plants; coagulation/clarification, multi-media filtration, granular carbon
adsorption and ozonation. Determine which AWT process or processes are
required at your plant according to the treatment objective established
in Step 1 and the guidelines listed below.
To Reduce Recommended AWT Process(es)
TSS
If BFT value, Table 2,
column (A) , is less than
100 mg/1; then select Either Multi-Media Filtration or
Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagu-
If BPT value, Table 2, ation
column (A) , is greater than
100 mg/1; then select Coagulation/clarification followed,
by Multi-Media Filtration
BQPe
___ ^
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C) , is less
than 15%; then select Multi-Media Filtration with Pre-
coagulation
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C), is
greater than 15%, then select Multi-Media Filtration followed
by Granular Carbon Adsorption
COD
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C), is less
than 10%; then select Multi-Media Filtration with Pre-
coagulation
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C), is less
than 50%; but greater than
10%; then select- Multi-Media Filtration followed
by Granular Carbon Adsorption
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C), is
greater than 50%; then sele&fr Multi-Media Filtration followed by
Granular Carbon Adsorption followed
by Ozone
Color
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C), is less
than 5%; then select Multi-Media Filtration with Pre-
coagulation
333
-------
If % reduction required.
Table 2, column (C), is less
than 20%, but greater than
5%; then select
-Multi-Media Filtration followed
by Granular Carbon Adsorption
If % reduction required,
Table 2, column (C) , is greater
than 20%; then select
-Multi-Media Filtration followed by
Granular Carbon Adsorption followed
by Ozonation.
Phenol. Chromium, Sulfide
then select-
-Multi-Media Filtration followed by
Granular Carbon Adsorption
Review your treatment objectives and AWT processes that are recommended,
then select one of the following AWT Process Systems for your plant.
AWT Process System A-2
Multi-Media Filtration
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagram - Figure 3)
AWT Process System A-4
Coagulation/clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams - Figures 1 'and 2)
AWT Process System A-8
Multi-Media Filtration followed by Granular Carbon Adsorption
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams - Figures 3 and 4)
AWT Process System A-9
Coagulation/clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
followed by Granular Carbon Adsorption
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams - Figures 1, 2 and 4)
AWT Process System A-3
Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagram - Figure 5)
AWT Process System A-10
Multi-Media Filtration followed by Granular Activated Carbon
Adsorption followed by Ozonation
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams - Figures 3, 4 and 6)
334
-------
AWT Process System A-ll
Coagulation/clarification followed by Multi-Media Filtration
followed by granular activated carbon adsorption followed by
ozonation.
(Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams - Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5)
The Conceptual Process Flow Diagrams are provided as supplimental infor-
mation on the AWT processes.
335
-------
STEP 3 - ESTABLISH PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SELECTED AWT SYSTEM
Process design information is required for the AWT system you have
selected in order to develop the cost estimate. The following procedure
is intended to aid you in establishing process design criteria. Complete
only the sections that apply based on your AWT process selection.
Design Flow (Applies to all Processes)
Average plant flow - ____- in MGD
Backwash flow - MGD-If" A-2, A-3 or A-4, 5% of avg. flow.
If A-8, A-9, A-10 or A-ll, 10% of avg. flow.
Design flow - MGD (sum of avg. and backwash flows)
Coagulation/clarification (Reactor/Clarifier Unit) - Applies to Processes
A-4, A-9, and A-ll
Des i gn flow: MGD
2
Design overflow rate: 300 gpd/ft
Coagulant: 20 mg/1 cationic polymer
Clarifier surface area:
Surface Area = (Desi3n Flow, MGD) x 106 x Underflow recycle factor
Overflow rate, gpd/ft
e r A MGD X 106 v I 25 ft2
Surface Area = = x •«••« it
300 gpd/ft :ZHHZZ
Sludge production:
(Inf. TSS(1) - Eff
( mg/1 - 100 mg/1) x MGD x 8.34 - Ib/day sludge
(Inf. TSS(1) - Eff TSS) x Design Flow x 8.34 Ib/gal - sludge in Ib/day
Coagulant Usage:
«
Cationic polymer = concentration, mg/1 x des. flow, MGD x 8.34 Ib/gal
20 mg/1 x MGD x 8.34 Ib/gal - Ib/day
(1) Table 1, Column (D), BPT TSS value
336
-------
Multi-Media Filtration - Applies to Processes A-2, A-4. A-8 > A-9, A-10 and A-11
Design flow: MGD
2
Surface loading rate: 2 gpm/ft
Filter area:
Area = Design Flow, MGD x 1Q6
Surface Loading Rate, gpm/ft2 x 24 hr/day x 60 min/hr
•MGD x 106 f 2
Area = """ A ^ = f t
2 gpm/ft x 24 hr/day x 60 min/hr
Granular Carbon Adsorption - Applies to Processes A-8, A-9» A-10 and A-11
Design flow: MGD
Carbon capacity: 0.75 Ib COD/lb carbon
COD removed:
(Inf COD^2) - Eff COD^3)) x Design Flow MGD x 8.34 lb/day - lb/day COD removed
( mg/1 - mg/1) x MGD x 8.34 Ib/gal - lb/day COD removed
Table 1, Column (D), BPT COD value
'3^BATEA COD value from Table 1, Column (C).
Carbon usage:
Ib/day COD removed = lb/day carbon
carbon capacity, Ib COD/lb carbon
Ib/day COD removed _ lb/day carbon
0.75 Ib COD/lb carbon
Adsorber volume required :
min . volume> ff.
Design flow, MGD x 1Q6 x 1.5 . .3
1440 min/day x 7.48 gal/ft3
6 ,,
1 MGD x 10 x 1.5 x £
-------
Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation - Applies to Process A-3
Design flow: MGD
2
5pm/ft
.+3
2
Surface Loading Rate: 2 gpm/ft
Coagulant: Alum at 15 mg/1 as Al
Filter Area:
Design Flow, MGD x 10
Area = fi
2
Surface Loading Rate, gpm/ft x 24 hr/day x 60 min/hr
x 106
Area ^^_^ , ft*
2 gpm/ft x 24 hr/day x 60 min/hr
Coagulant usage:
Alum = concentration, mg/1 x des. flow,MGD x 8.34 Ib/gal
15 mg/1 x MGD x 8.34 Ib/gal = Ib/day as Al+3
Ozonation - Applies to Processes A-10 and A-ll
Design flow: MGD
Ozone Dosage: 400-mg/1 (utilized)
Ozone Efficiency: 90%
Contact Time: 30 minutes
Contactor Volume:
. Flow, MGD x 106 x 30 min _ .3
volume = 144Q min/day x 7.48 gal/ft3 " f *
„ , MGD x 106 x 30 min
Volume = ~~~~ = e 3
1440 min/day x 7.48 gal/ft3
Ozone Required:
400 mg/1 x MGD x 8.34 Ib/day _ Ib Q
0.9 efficiency ———— day 3
338
-------
COST ESTIMATING PROGRAM
FOR ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
OF TEXTILE WASTEWATER
BATEA STUDY
Sponsored by: ATMI/NTA/CRI and EPA
Plant:
Address:
Phone No:
Prepared By:
Date:
339
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this cost estimating program is to provide a method
for estimating both the capital and the operation and maintenance costs
for the Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) you have selected for your plant.
You must complete the AWT Process Selection and Process Design Program
before initiating your cost estimate. The process design criteria from
Step 3 of the AWT Process Selection and Process Design Program will be
utilized in developing your cost estimate. You should summarize the
process design information in the Table 1 on the following page. Complete
only the information that applies to processes you have selected.
The estimating program is divided into three parts as follows:
Part I - Equipment Selection and Sizing
Part II - Capital Cost Estimate
Part III - Operation and Maintenance Costs
A list of Figures is included in Table 2 to help you locate specific
information.
340
-------
TABLE I
]!
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Selected AWT Process System A-
Design Flow _ MGD
Average Flow _ MGD
Backwash Flow _ MGD
SELECTED UNIT PROCESSES
1. Mul t i- Me d la Fi 1 t r a t i on
Surface Area
- Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation
o
Surface Area _ _ ft
Coagulant Usage
Alum __ Ib/day as Al+3
Coagulat ion/ clarification
Surface Area
Sludge Production _ Ib/day sludge
Coagulant Usage
Alum _ Ib/day as Al+3
Cationic Polymer __ Ib/day
3. Granular Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Usage _ Ib/day
3
Adsorber volurae __ ft
3
,_ Adsorber volume _ - - — ft _
(Bed volume = ---- : — r — ' ----- - - -T~v: - ~
A. Ozonation
o
Contactor Volume __ ft
Ozone Required __ Ib/day
Note: Information for completing this tnble should be obtained from
Step 3 of tho AWT Process selection and Process Design Program
341
-------
TABLE 2
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
A-l Reactor Clarifier Conceptual Layout 348
A-2 Multi-Media Filtration Conceptual Layout 349
A-3 Multi-Media Filtration with Precoagulation
Conceptual Layout 350
A-4 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filtration
Conceptual Layout 351
A-5 Multi-Media Filtration and Ozonation
Conceptual Layout 352
A-6 Reactor Clarifier and Ozone 353
A-7 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter
and Ozone Conceptual Layout 354
A-8 Multi-Media Filter and Granular Activated
Carbon Adsorption Conceptual Layout 355
A-9 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter and
Granular Carbon Adsorption Conceptual Layout 356
A-10 Multi-Media Filter and Granular Carbon
Adsorption and Ozone 357
A-ll Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter and
Granular Carbon Adsorption and Ozone 358
B-l Typical Layout Multi-Media Filters 359
B-2.1 Typical Layout Reactor Clarifier 360
B-2.2 Typical Layout Sludge Handling 361
B-3 Typical Layout Carbon Adsorption 362
B-4 Typical Layout Ozone 363
B-5 Typical Layout Chemical Handling Bldg. 364
C-0.0 Capital Cost Estimate Preparation Form 373
C-l Multi-Media Filters Major Equipment Installed Cost 374
C-2.1 Reactor Clarifier Major Equipment Installed Cost 375
C-2.2 Sludge Gravity Thickening Major Equipment
Installed Cost 376
C-2.3 Sludge Dewatering (Pressure Filter) Major
Equipment Installed Cost 377
342
-------
TABLE 2
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
FIGURE DESCRIPTION
PAGE
C-3 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption Major
Equipment Installed Cost 378
C-4.1 Ozone Major Equipment (generation) Installed Cost 379
C-4.2 Ozone Major Equipment (contactor) 380
Q-5 Chemical Storage Tanks 381
D-0.0 Annual Operating & Maintenance Estimating Form 385
D-l.1.1 Gravity Filtration (Multi-Media Filtration)
Man-Hour Requirements 386
D-l.1.2 Gravity Filtration (Multi-Media Filtration)
Power Requirements 387
D-l.1.3 Gravity Filtration (Multi-Media Filtration)
Maintenance Material Costs 388
D-2.1.1 Reactor Clarifier Man-Hour Requirements 389
D-2.1.2 Reactor Clarifier Power Requirements 390
D-2.1.3 Reactor Clarifier Maintenance Costs 391
D-2.2.1 Gravity Thickening Man-Hour Requirements 392
D-2.2.2 Gravity Thickening Power Requirements 393
D-2.2.3 Gravity Thickening Maintenance Material Costs 394
D-2.3.1 Pressure Filtration, Labor Man-Hour Requirements 395
D-2.3.2 Pressure Filtration, Power Requirements 396
D-2.3.3 Pressure Filtration Maintenance Material Costs 397
D-2.3.4 Pressure Filtration Chemical & Conditioner Costs
and Sludge Disposal Costs 398
D-3.1.1 Granular Carbon Adsorption and Pumping Man-Hour
Requirements 399
D-3.1.2 Granular Carbon Adsorption and Pumping Power
Requirements 400
D-3.1.3 Granular Carbon Adsorption and Pumping Maintenance
Materials , 4o1
D-3.1.4 Granular Carbon Adsorption and Pumping Carbon
Regeneration & Make-up Costs 402
D-4.1.1 Ozonation Man-Hour Requirments 403
343
-------
TABLE 2
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
D-4.1.2 Ozonation Power Requirements 404
D-4.1.3 Ozonation Maintenance Material Costs 405
D-4.1.4 Ozonation Oxygen Supply Costs 406
D-5.1.1 Alum Storage and Feeding Man-Hour Requirements 407
D-5.1.2 Alum Feeding Power Requirements 408
D-5.1.3 Alum Storage and Feeding Maintenance Material
Costs 409
D-5.1.4 Alum Storage and Feeding Chemical Costs 410
D-5.2.1 Polymer Feeding Man-Hour Requirements 411
D-5.2.2 Polymer Mixing and Feeding Power Requirements 412
D-5.2.3 Polymer Storage and Feeding Maintenance Material
Costs 413
D-5.2.4 Polymer Feed Chemical Costs 414
D-15 Additional BPT 0 & M Cost 415
344
-------
PART I
EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND SIZING
345
-------
PART I
EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND SIZING
Each AWT system is comprised of one or more of four unit processes.
Eleven possible AWT systems are illustrated in the A series figures, A-l
through A-ll. The AWT system which you have selected should be included
as one of the eleven possible systems. The following list indicates the
figure numbers and corresponding AWT system.
FIGURE NO. AWT SYSTEM
A-l Reactor Clarifier
A-2 Multi-Media Filter
A-3 Multi-Media Filter w/Precoagulation
A-4 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media Filter
A-5 Multi-Media Filter and Ozone
A-6 Reactor Clarifier and Ozone
A-7 Reactor -Clarifier and Multi-Media
Filter and Ozone
A-8 Multi-Media Filter and Granular
Activated Carbon Adsorption
A-9 Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media
Filter and Granular Activated
Carbon Adsorption
A-10 Multi-Media Filter and Granular
Carbon Adsorption and Ozone
A-ll Reactor Clarifier and Multi-Media
Filter and Granular Carbon
Adsorption and Ozone
These figures show "idealized" or conceptual site layouts for the major
equipment and structures necessary for each AWT system.
Equipment size, quantity selection and specific equipment dimensions
for the four unit processes included within the AWT systems are presented
in the B series figures, B-l through B-5. These are also based on ideal-
ized situations. The following table indicates the figure numbers and
corresponding unit processes.
346
-------
FIGURE NO. UNIT PROCESS
B-l Multi-Media Filter
B-2.1 Reactor Clarifier
B-2.2 Reactor Clarifier Sludge Handling
Facilities
B-3 Granular Carbon Adsorption
B-4 Ozonation
B-5 Chemical Handling Facilities
The table shown on each B series illustration titled "Unit Configuration
Selection" provides a method of estimating the number of units required
and the range of sizes for each unit. After establishing the number
and size of units required additional tables are provided on the figures
illustrating some typical unit dimensions and operating weights. The
information provided is for idealized conditions and specific site appli-
cation may affect both the number and size of equipment.
As an example to demonstrate the use of the Equipment Selection
and Sizing guidelines, an AWT system employing a multi-media filter
will be examined. It will be assumed that after completing the Process
Design Program a filter of 400 square feet is required. The "Unit
Configuration Selection" table on Figure B-l recommends a 6 cell filter
with a surface area per cell of A/5, or in this case, 80 square feet
(A is the required area, 400 square feet). For 6 cells this yields a
total filter surface area of 6 x 80 or 480 square feet. The' unit dimen-
sions and weights for a 6 cell-480 square foot filter may now be identi-
fied from the "Typical Unit Dimensions" table on the same figure. Your
selection of size may not fit one of the typical unit dimensions but
this is not essential. The typical unit dimensions are provided as sup-
plimental information for developing a site specific layout.
Space has been provided on each of the B series figures for you to
include your calculations.
347
-------
REACTOR CLARIFIER
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
gravi ty
s1udge
thickiner
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
Splitter
Box
BPT
• Effluent
sludge
handling
building
(pressure
filtration)
Filtrate
Chemical
coagulant
handling
f aci 1 i ty
Sludge cake to
disposal site
348
-------
FIGURE A-2
MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
Backwash pumps
FILTER
CELL
INFLUENT
FILTER
CELL
t
MUD WELL
Backwash return pumps
EFFLUENT
•^> BACKWASH
RETURN TO
AERATION
BASIN
349
-------
FIGURE A-3
MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION WITH PRECOAGULATION
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
MUD WELL
Backwash
Return
Pumps
TO
AERATION
BASIN
FILTER CELL
FILTER CELL
CLEAR WELL
Oi
Backwash
Pumps
Effluent
CHEMICAL COAGULANT HANDLING
FACILITY
INFLUENT
350
-------
FIGURE A-4
REACTOR CLARIFIER AND MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
Effluent
^.Backwash Return
To Aeration Basin
CHEMICAL COAGULANT
HANDLING FACILITY
REACTOR/CLARIFIER
REACTOR/CLARIFIER
.SLUDGE
DEWATERING
FACILITY
GRAVITY
SLUDGE
THICKENER
UiWKhLUW
SLUDGE CAKE
TO DISPOSAL
351
-------
FIGURE A-5
MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION AND OZONATION
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
Influent
i
MUD WELL
Backwash
Return
Pumps
Multi- Media
Filters
CLEAR WELL
Backwash
Pumps
BACKWASH
RETURN TO
AERATION
BASIN
1
Ozone
Contact
Tank
' LOX
/ Storage
, Tank
Ozone
Ozone
Generator
Building
NOTE:
Effluent
Solid lines shown for typical
configuration. Additional
equipment. 1f required, shown
dashed.
LOX 1s liquid oxygen.
352
-------
REACTOR C'L'ARIFIER AND OZONE
^.EFFLUENT
OZONE
GENERATOR
BUILDING
SLUDGE CAKE
TO DISPOSAL
OZONE CONTACT
TANK
SLUDGE
DE-
WATERIN
THICKENED
SLUDGE
CHEMICAL
HANDLING
BUILDING
SLUDGE
HICKENEHS
REACTOR/CLARIFIER
JUNCTION
BOX
REACTOR/CLARIFIER
INFLUENT
353
-------
FIGURE A-7
REACTOR CLARIFIER AND MULTI-MEDIA FILTER AND OZONE
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
SLUDGE CAKE
TO DISPOSAL
OZONE
GENERATOR
BUILDING
MULTI-MEDIA
FILTERS
OZONE
CONTACT
TANK
^BACKWASH RETURN
DEWATERING
CHEMICAL
HANDLING
BUILDING
VI
SLUDGE
THICKENE
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE
PUMPS
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
*TO AERATION BASIN
354
-------
FIGURE A-8
MULTI-MEDIA FILTER AND GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
Influent
MUD WELL
Backwash
Return
Pump
1
Multi-Media
Filter
CLEAR WELL
Backwash
Pumps
Backwash return to
Aeration Basin
Carbon Columns
BACKWASH
RETURN TO
AERATION BASIN
EFFLUENT
355
-------
MUUKt A-
REACTOR CLARIFIER AND MULTI-MEDIA FILTER AND GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
ACTIVATED
ADSORPTION
5 EFFLUENT
MULTI-MEDIA
FILTERS
BACKWASH
RETURN*
SLUDGE
DEVIATERING
FACILITY
BACKWASH
RETURN*
CLEAR WELL
RAVI
SLUDGE
THICKENE
CHEMICAL
BUILDING
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE
PUMPS
REACTOR
CLARITIER
SPLITTER :^. INFLUENT
*Ti
'0 AERATION BASIN
356
-------
FIGURE A-10
MULTI-MEDIA FILTER AND GRANULAR CARSON ADSORPTION AND OZONE
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
INFLUENT
to
MUD WELL
BACKWASH
RETURN
S
BACKWASH
RETURN*
EFFLUENT
f LOX
I
I
MULTI-MEDIA
FILTERS
CLEAR WELL
Oi
BACKWASH
•^—
PUMPS
o
CARBON COLUMNS
OZONE
CONTACT
TANK
OZONE
GENERATOR
BLDG.
357
CLEAR
WELL
*TO AERATION BASIN
-------
REACTOR CLARIFIZR AND MULTI-MEDIA FILTER AND GRANULAR CAS30N ADSORPTION AMD OZONE
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
INFLUENT
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
REACTOR
CLARIFIER
o
-HO
MULTI-
MEDIA
FILTERS
ACTIVATED
CARBON
ADSORPTION
CLEAR
'.JELL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
FACILTIY
FILTRATE
BACKViASH
RETURN*
*TO AERATION BASIN
OZONE
GENERATOR
BLDG.
{ LOX
\
OZONE
CONTACT
TANK
EFFLUENT
358
-------
TYPICAL LAYOUT MULTI-MEDIA FILTERS
-~1
CO
en
CLF.ARUELL'
••"•>
o
1
)
~
_ -
1 r
—
J rrAl. —
irrt : '
"— vl 1 -
'1
l^-ii.
:.— J-'--i«fiJrT
.
.. , .
.... -
TABLE B - TmCAl.
No. of
Culls
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
10
10
Cell
Size
4X4
6X6
8 X 8
4X6
6X8
10 X 8
15 X 12
(0 X 12
15 X IS
14 X 16
Cell
Area
16
36
64
24
48
80
180
240
22S
384
TOTAL
FILTER
_AK£A._
32
72
128
144
28tt
480
1080
1440
2.J50
3840
UNIT 1)1 MKNS IONS
A
B
12
16
12
18
30
45
60
150
160
B
4
6
8
6
8
8
12
12
15
24
C
-
-
-
8
8
10
10
10
12
15
D
B
16
19
6
6
B
8
8
10
12
APPROX!
UNIT 01
WEIGHT
t
1
2
3
5
98
158
242
266
482
770
1670
2210
3425
5810
TAB1.K A - HU1.T1-MEP1A KILTER
UNIT CONFIGURATION SELECTION
REQUIRED
SURFACE AREA
SQ. FT. (A)
0 - J30
130 - 1500
ISPO - 3600
NO. OF
n LTER
CELLS
2
6
10
sim FACE
AREA
PER CELL
A/ 2
A/ 5
A/a
LE.VE.L
COMTP
IHFLUE.MT
WE 12
Surface area requlied
No. filtei i:*lle .
Surface «r
-------
TYPICAL LAYOUT REACTOR CLARIFIER
TAHl.t: A - Xt.AMtlR ClAKIHKK
UNIT OISHI.UHA1ION SUICIKIN
KtcMUHtll SUKIACt
AKtA (A) Sl|. FT.
0 - 8,000
8,000 - 30.000
30,000 - 80,000
NO. OF
IWIIS
2
)
4
TABU » - rmcAi.
KEACTQR UAKIHtH
UNIT MMKACt AKtAS
SI Hi!' ATC
AHfA
in
64S
USD
IIKXI
ZMHI
1SIIII
4SIMI
SSOO
6 ami
82011
96IMI
is. mm
2I.MMI
1OTAI
Sl'klACL
AKL'A
119
7IM.
12S6
I9b J
tall
JB4H
so/b
63«.2
2H'>4
9S03
1I3U9
17671
2S44;
Kb)IIIHIO UNIT
errurivc suRKAct DIAMETER
AHLA PtR UNIT RANCt
A/2 U - US
A/I 7S - I4S
A/4 95 - 19S
UNIT l.lMtNSUINS
UIHtHSKlKS
III A.
A
20'
30-
4U'
so-
*0'
70-
8U1
911'
Kill'
110'
1211-
ISO'
IH01
S U.U.
b
13'
14'
14'
14'
14'
IS'
»i'.
is-
is1
is-
is*
IS'
is-
DIA.
C
7'
»'
II1
14'
19-
21*
27'
31'
36'
41 '-6"
471
S8'
70'
AJ-fRllXIHAll
UI'tHATIHI,
WLICIIT (KlrS)
490
1190
2110
33IKI
«ISU
69311
90SO
1I4SO
14140
17110
2U»bO
3IHIO
4S8IO
BRIDGE
FLAM
AGITATOR DRIVE WHITS
sasa
RADUH EFFUIEHT LAUNDER _
"3
M
"a
ELEVATION
LOCATION OF PIPE TO BE
DETERMINED BY APPLICATION
1.- Required surface area ft (from Table 1, page II)
2. Required effective Bur face area per unit ft (from Table A)
3. Total surface area per unit ft (Table B)
-------
OO
SUGGESTED ARBANGEMENT FOR
SUPPORTING INFLUENT PIPE PLAN VIEV.
BAFFLE
MAX WATER SURFACE
IV BLADE CLEARANCE
SLUDGEJPlPE.'-rr
HOPPER SCRAPER
ADJUSTABLE SQUEEGEES
•••>*'.-. .io'. ;.-:-n-
^ «;-»•' •:•;•.••••
.'i!-.-^-:-: •?.-.:.
SCRAPER BLADES
SLUDGE HOPPER
ELEVATION
UNIT DIMENSIONS
FEED RATE C.OLIOS FLUX SUHFACf ARIA UNIT
IBS/OA* LBS/OAY/SQ.FT. Sg.fl.' DIAMETER
S.W.O.
Z50
100(1
S090
APPROX
HT. (KIPS)
200
1018
3646
It
24
36
70
10
10
0
10
10
55
220
497
1120
4233
:EEO RATE FlniR N0 or DIMENSIONS
S17E
DIA
PRESSURE FILTER UNIT DIMENSIONS
WT
600 52"
2900
4700
20000
52"
52"
64"
25
40
108
7' 8' 20' 18
8.5'
10'
8'
8'
20' 34
25' 54
8' 40' 158
i
Filter iize based on 8-hour
per Jdy/7 days pe' week
operation.
To calculate thickener
surface area:
Feed rate Ifa/day
5 lb/day/ft2
Ib/day
ft
(J
UNIT CONFIGURATION SEltCTIOH
THICKENER OR FlUtR
FEED RATE NUMSER OF RANGE OF Will
LBS/OAY UNITS IBS/DAY
300 - 30.000
30Q - 30.000
MI*
5LUD6E.
CONDITION IN6
7A.NK.
I
I
(
1 -
Flit) PUMPS
j RLTE
i Mill
I"" 1
1 ( A-n
v
12 CHEl.l'ff.P
n n
LJ l-l
PUMP3
N /^"^N
I P2ECOAT F»7n
1 TAKili T? . , ,?
1
i PCECOAT
] 5TOKA6E.
. -j IMM i^
1
1
._!
ACCt-56 120A.O
TYPICAL LAYOUT 5LUDGE HAMDLIN6
*n
t-i
O
c
s
CD
I
Nl
•
K>
-------
U>
ro
I \fll.t A - ACIIVAIIII I.H\NI'MN (ANHilN AUSuH' I I !>'.
p;n (II-.MI.I KAIIIIS SUM inf.
CARSOri BCD
VOlUKt (») CU. Fl.
NO. OF
UNITS
BCD VOllJHt
PCR Utdl
0 - iDUO
V/?
. itiflli
V/3
360U
«500 - 10000
V/S
V/ll
TABI.L 8 - TYI-ICAL UNIT DlfKNSItlNS
BED VOLUHE
CU. FT.
200
900
1600
2700
5.6
17
20.7
UNIT OCEKAIIVt
C WCIG1IT (KIPS)
12
12
149
12
297
12
446
"H"
JI
TV I11 I'M LAYOUT CARBON ABSORPTION
INFLUENT
ELEVATION
I. Kr<|ulrr
-------
IMIII A - (1/IIN.MIn:
\»m MINI II.UKA1IIIN SIIX (|• .an
Mill-lixiu
HUH) I5UO
|->()II-4()(MI
OZONl
b/IW)
15
42
10
70
1UO
150
2 JO
40O
711(1
120
til)
780
11140
I >'
_•
;•
7*
a*
M*
7*
7*
B'
8*
»*
»'
8*
U
8*
8*
•»•
10*
10*
8*
12*
14'
26*
lit*
12'
12'
!<•'
11'
24*
2«*
ui 11:111
224
448
1144
2240
1024
4480
OXYGEN SUW.Y
t J UIA
— t — ~ 1-
40 TUN 1 t '
U
2»*
riiLi
101 1C I Kb
OZOMt GE-MteATOR- &L06
IAIK PEEP i i Aie peep i
SIM^TJI" MUL^^LE.
•— — — — — r— — __.. — — , ^— —_—-_—..
lb/d.v JU^IT* I j 1 UNIT *^ \ ^ANt
1
» 1
1
ilr or o»y»i-n) _____
ft>
| ,— , — _-
i 4000 lb»/>n1"- , i -
i 1 s ' — i
1 1 EPPLU6WT
lNFLUtNT--CIJ_I \ " ^
.
L I L
OZOME. FACIUTY LAYOUT
^X-TO PUEOE. AND CteYCLE.
i r*T
f i oowtfjwwzo vtuocnY
'if/. "* b
1 i /!,_,.
M 'rrf
LJ / ' EFFLUEUT
4J "B
T r~~^
f^ n 1 ^
[I ill
i ••>. 1 1 \ 1 1 /
1 \
EWTtZaWCt dAtFLt ^ -EVtlT BAFFLE
COKnACTQg 6&CTION
03
-------
1*111 > A - CMtMICAl HANOI INT >ACIIITI»!>
UNIT CONFIGURATION StirCTIOII
Mtll MAIf NO. Of I.W.T SIM
Mll(!NVI>»r TANrs CM I (IMS
0 - MW 1 5000
Mm • 10'lfl 1 10(100
liiuli • J'l'iu 1 211000
JHMI • 4 1 ill 2 21)000
0 - ISO 1 1(10
ISO - MMI | 500
500 - 11X10 | 1000
1000 - JWIO | ?000
2000 - SOI 10 1 SOOO
VMM1 - 10.1100 1 10000
1. Alw f««d rat* lb/d*y
2. A lii« lank *lxr gal Ian
!l rulvBtr Iced raff* Ib/day
§
*
S
e
(fro. Table 1. page II)
i (FrROX FULL
GALLONS FftI IKI Itll.HI (KIPS)
100 2 ^ 1 ^
SOO * J S
1000 S ft 10
SOOO 10 10 SO
10000 12 12 100
20000 12 24 200
~^~\ r~^
! COM1EOL PAKitU
1 ffi) D D D D
V J V__x FEEP PUMP& . A. ..
N — ([; ALUM
TANK.
& f POLYME.BL ^ 4-
V . /
H
/ 11
I
TKUCJi ACCE&5 COAD L
V 1
*' ""- l -l" M>U" (rr°' ^ A> TYPICAL LAYOUT CMEMICALM^NDLINQ &LD6-
M
o
so
M
W
Ln
-------
PART II
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
365
-------
PART II
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
After establishing the equipment selection and size in Part I a
capital cost can be estimated. The procedure for developing the capital
cost is based on determining installed cost for major equipment from
cost curves and estimating other construction costs from the guidelines
provided to account for site specific factors. A detailed site specific
layout of the AWT system is required as part of this task. Figure
C-0.0 should be used to summarize your AWT capital cost estimate. Other
supplimental information should also be provided to support your estimate.
i
Figures C-l through C-5 are installed major equipment cost curves.
The costs represented by these curves include such items as initial
charge of carbon or media, tankage, prime movers, structural, drive
mechanism, buildings and normal foundations (assuming minimum 2500 psf
allowable bearing capacity). Form C-0.0 is organized such that the major
equipment costs obtained from Figures C-l through C-5 may be compiled on
the appropriate lines 1 through 5. These equipment costs may then be
summed to arrive at a total major equipment cost. Lines 8 through 22
are for additional cost items which are more site specific.
In order to determine a cost for major piping (line 10 of Figure
C-0.0) a detailed site specific layout should be made to scale using
the equipment you have selected in Part I. After completion of this
layout, lengths of major piping may be scaled and appropriate unit costs
from a recognized and current estimating guide such as the "1979 Dodge
Manual" should be applied. The cost for major piping should be entered
on line 10 of Figure C-0.0. The cost for special foundations or dewater-
ing (if necessary for specific site application) should be entered on
line 15A. If additional pumping is identified from the layout, this
should be included as part of items 8 through 15.
Knowledge of specific site conditions, including soils data, topo-
graphy, local economy and labor markets, availability of power and equip-
ment, area constraints as well as .engineering judgement should be used
to determine construction cost items. The following is an outline indi-
cating specific items and cost considerations which may be included as
part of the additional construction cost items as listed on lines 8
366
-------
through 15A of the estimate preparation form. Percentages are indicated on
the form as a general guide. After determing dollar values for the additional
construction cost items, calculate the percentage you have used for checking
purposes. 6
Line No. (From Figure C-0.0)
8 Minor Mechanical Equipment
8.1 Items included
8.1.1 Chemical feed pumps
8.1.2 Air compressors
8.1.3 Sump pumps
8.1.4 Sludge pumps (P.D.)
8.1.5 Vehicles (sludge, carbon, etc.)
8.1.6 Loading dock equipment (bumpers ramps, etc.)
8.1.7 Cranes
8.1.8 Slide gates and operators
8.1.9 Office and laboratory equipment and furniture
8.1.10 Mixers
8.1.11 Conveyors
8.1.12 Meters and gages
8.1.13 Plumbing (drains fixtures, hot water heaters,
eye wash, showers, etc.)
8.1.14 Fire protection (sprinklers, extinguishers,
alarms, etc.)
8.1.15 Heat generation
8.1.16 Fuel handling and storage facilities
8.1.17 Air conditioning and ventilation
8.2 Factors affecting costs
8.2.1 Corrosiveness and temperature of fluids pumped
8.2.2 Solids content and characteristics of fluids
8.2.3 Availability of existing equipment
8.2.4 Climate
8.2.5 Specific site layout
8.2.6 Local building and fire codes
8.2.7 Local availability of equipment
8.2.8 Type of existing uitilities (gas, electric, oil)
367
-------
9 Electrical
9.1 Items included
9-1.1 Standby power generation/transmission
9.1.2 Power transmission
9.1.3 Motor and unit control centers
9.1.4 Lighting
9.1.5 Controls and switches
9.1.6 Motors
9.2 Factors affecting cost
9.2.1 Availability and location of existing power
supplies
9.2.2 Proportion of power intensive equipment
9.2.3 Local electrical codes
9.2.4 Local zoning (overhead vs. underground
transmission)
10 Major Piping
10.1 Items included
10.1.1 Valves and vaults (manual)
10.1.2 Valves and vaults (automatic)
10.1.3 Steel pipe, welding, fittings, etc.
10.1.4 Ductile iron pipe, fittings, etc.
10.1.5 Fiberglas pipe
10.1.6 Drainage pipe (concrete corrugated, etc.)
10.1.7 Other pipe
10.1.8 Pipe supports, thrust flocks, etc.
10.1.9 Hydrants
10.1.10 Trenching
10.1.11 R/W or easements
10.1.12 Heat tracing
10.2 Factors affecting cost
10.2.1 Corrosive properties of fluids and soils
10.2.2 Underground vs. exposed piping
10.2.3 Climatologic conditions
10.2.4 Site drainage
10.2.5 Soils data
368
-------
10.2.6 Process layout
10.2.7 Flows, pipe sizes
10.2.8 Power costs
10.2.9 Property size, shape, etc.
10A Minor Piping
10.1 Items included
10.1.1 Valves - manual
10.1.2 Valves - automatic
10.1.3 Black and glavanized steel pipe
10.1.4 Copper tubing
10.1.5 Fittings
10.1.6 Stainless steel pipe
10.1.7 Other pipe
10.1.8 Pipe supports flashing seals, etc.
10.1.9 Heat Tracing
10.1.10 Hydrants
10.1.11 Trenching
10.2 Factors affecting cost
10.2.1 Corrosive properties of fluid
10.2.2 Underground vs. exposed piping
10.2.3 Unit configurations
10.2.4 Flows, pipe size
11 Miscellaneous Metals
11.1 Items included
11.1.1 Grating
11.1.2 Pipe racks
11.1.3 Equipment supports
11.1.4 Hand railings
11.1.5 Fencing
11.1.6 Ladders
11.1.7 Manhole and access frames and covers
11.2 Factors influencing costs
11.2.1 Local labor and steel markets
11.2.2 Equipment selection and configuration
11.2.3 Existing facilities
11.2.4 Building codes
369
-------
12 Miscellaneous Concrete
12.1 Items included
12.1.1 Concrete supports
12.1.2 Manholes and drainage inlets
12.1.3 Stairs and entrances
12.1.4 Curbs and gutters
12.1.5 Loading docks
12.2 Factors influencing costs
12.2.1 Local labor and concrete markets
12.2.2 Plant configuration
12.2.3 Existing facilities
12.2.4 Building codes
12.2.5 Aesthetic considerations
13 Instrumentation
13.1 Items included
13.1.1 Monitoring devices
— 13.1.2 Equipment controls
13.1.3 Graphic panels alarms and signal transmission
13.1.4 'Control building
13.2 Factors influencing costs
13.2.1 System complexity
13.2.2 Existing hardware
14 Painting and Protective Coatings
14.1 Items included
14.1.1 Paint
14.1.2 Epoxy
14.1.3 Creosote
14.2 Factors influencing costs
14.2.1 Aesthetics
14.2.2 Environmental corrosiveness (air, fluids and soil)
370
-------
15 Site Work and Erosion Control
15.1 Items included
15.1.1 Earthwork
15.1.2 Grading rough and final
15.1.3 Vegetative stabilitzation
15.1.4 Erosion and sedinent control
15.1.5 Paving - access road, parking, loading, etc.
15.1.6 Real estate
15.2 Items influencing costs
15.2.1 Topography
15.2.2 Local building codes and permit requirements
15.2.3 Soil conditions
15.2.4 Available land/zoning
ISA Special Foundations/Dewatering, etc.
15A«1 Items included
15A.1.1 Piling
15A.1.2 Spread foundations
15A.1.3 Dewatering (well points, etc.)
15A.1.4 Miscellaneous other design and construction
considerations
ISA.2 Factors affecting costs
ISA.2.1 Soils data
ISA.2.2 Previous experience
Additional capital cost items (lines 17 through 21) should be com-
pleted based on your company experience with similar construction pro-
jects. Again a percentage range (percent of sum of lines 7 and 16) has
been provided as a guide. The total percentage add-on is entered on line
22.
Additional capital cost associated with your secondary treatment
facility to treat backwash flow from the multi-media filter and/or
carbon adsorbers should be entered on line 23. If you did not have
either a multi-media filter or carbon adsorber in your AWT system, then
leave this space blank. If you do have backwash flow to treat then pro-
371
-------
rate the present worth capital cost of your secondary facility by the
ratio of backwash flow to average flow to obtain this estimated cost.
Calculate the total capital cost by the fonaula presented on line
24 of Figure C-0.0.
As an example in development of the capital cost estimate, the
multi-media filter sized in Part I will be examined. The total filter
area of 480 square feet is entered on the x-axis of Figure C-l. The
corresponding value of $168,000 is read from the y-axis. This represents
the major equipment installed cost for multi-media filters, and is en-
tered on line 1 of form C-0.0. Other units included in the AWT system
you have selected should be similarly estimated and entered on the
appropriate line of Figure C-0.0. A detailed site specific layout should
be developed for your AWT system. Minor equipment and construction cost
items and capital cost items should now be estimated and values entered
on the appropriate lines of Figure C-0.0. After completing all items on
the form which apply to your AWT system a capital cost may be determined
using the formula given on line 24.
372
-------
FIGURE C-0.0
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PREPARATION FORM
MAJOR EQUIPMENT COSTS (FROM FIGURES C-l - C-5)
DOLLARS
1. MULTI-MEDIA FILTER
2.
REACTOR CLARIFIER
2A. SLUDGE HANDLING Thickener (
) + Pressure Filter ( ) =
3.
CARBON ADSORPTION
4. OZONE GENERATOR (
CONTACTOR (
5. CHEMICAL HANDLING ALUM ( ) + POLYMER ( ) +
7. TOTAL MAJOR EQUIPMENT COST (SUM ITEMS 1-5)
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COST ITEMS
ITEM
PERCENTAGE (of Line 7)
% RANGE
% USED
DOLLARS
8. MINOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
5-50
9.
ELECTRICAL
10-25
10. MAJOR PIPING
10A. MINOR PIPING
20-50
11. MISCELLANEOUS METALS
5-10
12. .MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE
5-20
13. INSTRUMENTATION
5-15
14. PAINTING & PROTECTIVE COATINGS
3-10
15. SITE WORK & EROSION CONTROL
5-15
15A. SPECIAL FOUNDATIONS/DEWATERING, ETC.
16. CONSTRUCTION COST ITEMS (SUM LINES 8 THRU 15A)
16A. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (SUH LIMES 7 AND 16}
ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ITEMS
ITEM:
% RANGE
% USED
17. CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
10-25
18. ENGINEERING
10-20
19. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
2-5
21. CONTINGENCIES
15-25
22. "ADD-ON" PERCENTAGE (SUM ITEMS" 17-21)
23. COST OF TREATING ADDITIONAL FLOW IN EXISTING^ BPT_F
-------
FIGURE C-l
MULTI-MEDIA FILTERS
MAJOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLED COST
Installed cost includes normal founda-
tions - mud & clear wells - b.w. pumps
and b.w. return pumps.
Does not include pi ping-electrical-
contr. OH&P-engineer!ng-painting-
mi sc. metal & concrete-instrumentation,etc
1000
o
o
o
O
o
•o
0>
200
«? 100
40
I [_
30
100
200
1000
4000
1. Total Filter Area
2. Installed Cost $
Total Filter Area (feet2)
ft (From Figure B-l)
374
-------
FIGURE C-2.1
REACTOR CLARIFIER
MAJOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLED COST
Installed cost includes normal founda-
tions, drives, rakes, tankage, shop primer
paint and installation for above ground
steel tank application.
Not included is sludge handling, chemical
feed, piping, electrical, contr. OH&P,
engineering, painting, misc. metal and
concrete, instrumentation, etc.
600
01
0.
§
o
O
o
•o
0)
to
I/I
c
400
300-
200-
100
40-
3C-
20
J 1 L
200 300
500 700 1000
2000
10,000
Total Surface Area (feet ) Per Unit
ft2 (Fron Fig. B-2.1, line 3)
1. Total surface area per unit
2. Installed cost per unit $
3. Number of units . (from Table A, Fig. B-2.1)
4. Total installed cost j>_
. (line 2 x line 3)
375
-------
FIGURE C-2.2
SLUDGE GRAVITY THICKENING
MAJOR-EQUIPHEUT INSTALLED COST
Cost includes noraal foundations, drives,
rakes, tankage, prirner paint and
installation.
Mot included is chemical feed, piping,
electrical, contr. OH&P, engineering,
painting, etc.
30
100
200
400
100Q 2000
4000
Gravity Thickener Surface Area (feet )
1. Solids production (Ibs/day)
2. Thickener surface area
3. Installed cost $
(From Table 1, page ii)
ft2 (From Fig. B-2.2)
376
-------
FIGURE C-2.3
SLUDGE DEWATERING (Pressure Filter)
MAJOR EQUIPMEHT INSTALLED COST
o
o
o
o
o
•o
-------
FIGURE C-3
G3ANULA3. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
MAJOR EQUIPMENT
INSTALLED COST
Costs include adsorbers, building
foundation and feed pumps.
Costs do not include piping, electrical,
mechanical, painting, contr. OH&P,
Engineering, etc.
o
o
o
o
o
•o
O)
I/I
200
100-
50
40
30
20i-
O
20 40 60 100 200 300 1QOO
Carbon bed volume (cu. ft.) per unit
2000
5000
1. Carbon bed volume per unit
2. Installed cost per unit J
3. Number of units .
4. Total installed cost $
cu. ft. (From line 2, Fig. B-3)
(From line 3, Fig. B-3)
. (line 2 x line 3)
378
-------
FIGURE C-4.1
OZONE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT (generation)
INSTALLED COST
(exclusive of contactor - see C-4.2)
1000-
tn
O
o
O
t/l
o
•o
-------
FIGURE C-4.2
200
100
_M 40
o
o 30
20
XI
0)
1.0
.2
OZONE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT (CONTACTOR)
(exclusive of generation, equipment - see G-4. T)
Installed cost includes tankage and normal
foundation.
Cost does not include piping, diffusers,
contr. OH&P, engineering, etc.
.4 .7
4 5
10
20 30 40
Contactor Volume 1000's Cubic Feet
1. Contactor volume cu. ft. (From Table 1, page ii)
2. Installed cost $
380
-------
FIGURE C-5
O '
O
C_>
•o
100
70
50
30
10
8
6
CHEMICAL STORAGE TANKS
Cost of polymer tank includes fiberglas
tank - building - foundation and metering
pumps.
Cost of alum tank includes fiberglas tank,
foundation and feed pumps. Minimum tank
size of 4000 gallons, is based on minimum
size for truck load delivery of liquid
alum.
Costs do not include controls, mixers
or mix tanks, heaters, piping, electrical,
contractor OH&P, engineering, etc.
fiberglas tank,
building shell &
foundation
fiberglas tank & foundation
(liquid alum storage)
i i I i—L_l_
0.2
1. Alum tank size
0.4 0.6 1 .0 2 4 6 8 10
Tank Size (1000's gallons)
gallons (From line 2, Fig. 3-5)
20
2. Installed Alum tank cost _$_
3. Polymer tank size
gallons (From line 4, Fig. B-5)
4. Installed polymer cost
381
-------
COST OF TREATING
ADDITIONAL FLOW IN
EXISTING BPT FACILITY
1. PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST OF YOUR EXISTING
BPT FACILITY $
2. BACKWASH FLOW (MGD) MGD
3. AVERAGE FLOW (MGD) MGD
LINE 2
4. PRO-RATED BPT COST = LINE 1 X
5. PRO-RATED BPT COST = ($ )
.LINE 3
MGD
MGD
* Enter this amount on Line 23, Figure C-0.0
Page II-8.
382
-------
PART III
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
383
-------
PART III
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
Each of the selected unit processes has associated annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs which must be included in the fiscal analysis.
These costs include labor costs for operation and maintenance, power
costs, materials for operation and maintenance, and chemical costs for
unit operations including carbon costs if required. The "D" series figures
in this section were developed for identifying the various O&M cost
factors for each unit process.
For purposes of instruction, the development of O&M costs for the
multi-media filtration process will be explained. All costs are entered
from the respective O&M cost curves onto Figure D-0.0, Annual Operation
and Maintenance Estimating Form. Figure D-l.1.1 includes estimated
annual man-hours required for O&M of the multi-media filtration process.
The appropriate filter area on the x-axis is selected based upon sizing
estimates developed in Part I of this estimating guide. Reading the
intercept of this value with the curve shown on the graph, the annual
man-hours from the y-axis can then be selected. This value is then
entered in column X.X.I on the line for multi-media filtration. This
process is repeated using"Figures"D-l.l.2, D-l.1.3 and D-l.1.4, respec-
tively for determining annual power, materials and chemical costs. The
values are then entered in columns X.X.2, X.X.3 and X.X.4, respectively.
This process is repeated for each selected unit process included
within your selected AWT system until all required values have been
entered in Figure D-0.0. The columns are then totaled giving total annual
O&M labor (man-hours) in column XrX.,.1 on line 6, total annual power
(kw-hr) in column X.X.2 on line 7, total annual materials in $/yr in
column X.X.3 on line 8 and total annual chemical cost in $/yr in column
X.X.4 on line 9. The area specific labor cost ($/man-hour) applicable to
the plant area is entered on line 10. The area specific power cost
($/kw-hr) is entered on line 11. All data for completing the annual O&M
cost calculation as shown on line 12 of Figure D-0.0 are now available.
The cost estimate for total annual O&M can be completed.
384
-------
Figure D-0.0
ANNUAL OPERATING &
O&M COST ITEMS
1.1 HULTI -MEDIA FILTER
2.1 REACTOR CLARIFIER
2.2 GRAVITY SLUDGE THICKENER
2.3 PRESSURE FILTRATION
3.1 GRANULAR CARBON ABSORPTION
4.1 OZONE
5.1 ALUM
5.2 POLYMER
6. O&M LABOR M-hr/yr. total
MAINTENANCE ESTIMATING FORM
3PERATING &
MAINTENANCE
M-hr/yr.
X.X.I
7. POWER KW-hr/yr. total
POWER i
. •>""'.sj.-'"
t . '.•• "V,-- ».:.. • -.- • -
I. '"'_ -j.Vx-«-.
t . — %J?>^.». •• , -•^•-"
1
i
9. CHEMICAL COSTS $/yr. total
10. LABOR COST $/M-hr
11. POWER COST $/Kw-hr
2. DAYS PER YEAR YOUR PLANT OPERATES
L3- OPERATING ADJUSTMENT FACTOR • LINE 12*365 =
14. ANNUAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL COST $/yr
15. ADDITION/I AitlUAL BPT O&M COST
=
(From Figure D-2.3.4)
CARBON OR
CHEMICAL
COST
$/year
X.X.4
X
x
x
••j- .-Wrr»--4«r"-m. .»-
<*sj^-*-"'-'"":=^..
-•^^-.^
*- u", " '"*' "" ,*
*^*- ^ '^ ""'^^ ** "•
.> _ .':<
^Si^T
•
(From Ficure D-15)
16. ANNUAL O&M COST = [(Line 6 x Line 10) + (Line 7 x Line 11) +
Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 14 x Line 13 + Line 15 = 1( * ) + (_
i • ^
+ + + l x + =
NOTE: All Costs are Based on January 1979 dollars and do not
include depreciation.
x_)
1 —
385
-------
FIGURE D-l.1.1
O
I
<
100
Media Surface Area, ft2
GRAVI.TY FILTRATION
(MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION)
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Reprinted from the Environmental Protection Technology Series "Appraisal
of Powdered Activated Carbon Processes for Municipal Wastewater Treatment"
EPA-600/2-77-156, Sept. 1977.
. 386
Curve 52
-------
FIGURE D-l.1.2
U>
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
7
6
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456789
100 1,000
Media Surface Area, Square Feet
GRAVITY FILTRATION
(MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION)
POWER REQUIREMENTS
(Backwash - 2/24 Hours)
Curve 53
See note on Figure 0-1.1,1
387
-------
FIGURE D-l.U
2
I
10,000
9
8
7
6
S
3
2
1,000
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
3 4 56789
2 3456789 2 3456 789
100 1,000
Media Surface Area, Square Feet
GRAVITY FILTRATION
(MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION)
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 54
See note on Figure D-1.1.1
388
-------
FIGURE 0-2.1.1
x
4
O
52
D
1,000
Separation Zone Area, ft2 (Single Unit)
(Effective Surface Area)
REACTOR CLARIFIER
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: Multiply single unit requirement (from above curve) by the number
of units to obtain total man-hour requirement.
Curve 49
See note on Figure D-l.1.1
389
-------
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
FIGURE D-2.1.2
3 4 56769
1,000
3 4 3 6 7 89 2
10,000
3456 78»
Separation Zone Area, ft2 (Single Unit)
(Effective Surface Area)
REACTOR CLARIFIER
POWER REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: Multiply single unit requirement (from above curve) by the number
of units to obtain the total man-hour requirement.
Curve 50
See note on Figure D-l.1.1
390
-------
FIGURE D-2.1.3
I
S
8
9
e
7
f
5
3
2
10,000
9
0
7
6
S
4
1 00
"
6
i
4
2
IMI^^VIM^Vl^M^^HV
—MM
2
-~-
, — '
3 4
_*tlf
•"* 1
X
1
S
^ .-A^Bb^HI^^PWVBVHH^
v^ff^HMM'^-
1
'
/
/
S
J
f
— — MMMMH^^^H^
-
>
>«MM»^
•^•^•4
••ri
MM
56789 2 34 56789 2 34 5S789
1,000 10,000
Separation Zone, ft^ (Single Unit)
(Effective Surface Area)
REACTOR CLARIFIER
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
NOTE: Multiply single unit requirement (from above curve by the number
of units to obtain the total man-hour requirement.
Curve 51
See note on Figure D-1.1.1
391
-------
FIGURE D-2.2.1
•8
O
OL
O
O
I
-------
FIGURE D-2.2.2
100,000
9
8
7
6
9
4
10,000
i
6
4
•»
X
X
X
2 3436789 2 3
1,000
36789
10,000.
3 6 789
Surface Area, ft
GRAVITY THICKENING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 67
See note on Figure D-l.1.1
393
-------
FIGURE 0-2.2.3
GO
cc
8
8
10,(
i.ooc
9
8
4
,
In
3
-
r
X
X
x
X
X
X
„
>
X"
x
X
/
X
[
>*
x
/
'
x
x
X
•
x
/*
2 3456789 2 3456.7 89 2 3456789
1,000 10,000
Surface Area - Square Feet
GRAVITY THICKENING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 68
See note on Figure D-1.1.1
394
-------
FIGURE D-2.3.1
OC
0
IK
3
<
9
8
7
6
5
X
2
100, OOC
9
f
' -.; .-
10, OOC
8
«
4
<£.
.
..
|
i
\
\
i
i
T— •
-»
1
•— •
~*
i
t
i
i~-
•t
!
i
i
I
i
1
1
—
/
•^
t
t
|
I
»
i
. j
/
-.
'
,
i
I
,4
i
•
'
/
• •+•
•
t
|
,/
i
T
1
i
/
^
/
t
-=4
— i
• — *
-™i
— i
— . *
3 456789
2 3456789 2 3456789
100 l.OOO
Filter Press Volume, Cubic Feet
PRESSURE FILTRATION, LABOR
(BASED ON CONTINUOUS, 7 DAY/WEEK Ol'IiKATION, 2 HR CYCLE)
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
(1) Convert from Ibs/day of solids to Filter Press Volume for use of this
curve. ,L ,, , ...
Ibs/day of solids
Press Volume (cubic feet) = 8 hr day 35* solids cone)
100%
»75 ^tr "ke
2 hr cycles iuu* i.u.it. dens1ty
(2) Reduce annual man-hour requirements by 16 hrs/day x 365 days/year = 5840
Curve 107
395
-------
FIGURE D-2.3.2
O
CO
ae
b)
e
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,OOQ,OOC
9
6
7
6
5
•4
3
2
100 , OOC
11
7
6
5
4
3
2
,1
.
)
II
4
if
X
Li,
X
e
x
n
-------
FIGURE D-2.3.3
9
e
7
6
5
3
2
Q
T
5
3
1
5 2
j
§
• 100.00C
yj i. W f wv->
t* 1
0 7
° I
6
J <
5 I
z 4
<9
2
>,
-—
--
.
ta- -
—•
— t
!
t—
, .
,
(
i
I
MM"
1
1
1
i
'
.
.
h
!
— 1»
_ —
— •*""
.
f
~1
!
i
.
[
i
t
, Vf
— • — -
1
.
_,
— -*•
:
i
-_J
f ""
/
i
1
*--
-
^^
— •
t
-
T— •
.-- i
If
4
^
4-
3 4 56789
2 3456789 . 2 343670$
100 1,000
filter Press Volume, Cubic Feet
(1)
PRESSURE FILTRATION
(BASED ON CONTINUOUS, 1 DAY/WEEK OPERATION, 2 HR CYCLE)
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
(1) Convert from Ibs/day of solids to Filter Press Volume for use of this curve.
_ ^ _ Ibs/day of solids
Press Volume (cu. ft.) = 8 hr day .. ,35% solids cone.) 75
2 hr cycles v 1
(2) Divide annual maintenance material costs by
CU.ft.
= (3) for 8 hr/day operation
Curve 109
397
-------
FIGURE D-2.3.4
PRESSURE FILTRATION
CHEMICAL & CONDITIONER COSTS
1. LOCAL COST OF BULK LIME $/lb I
-i *™
2. LOCAL COST OF FILTER PRECOAT
(FLY ASH OR DIATOMACEOUS EARTH) $/lb |
U=
3. SLUDGE Ib/day (From Table 1, page ii)
4. ANNUAL CHEMICAL AND CONDITIONER COSTS FOR PRESSURE FILTRATION
ANNUAL COST = 365 days/yr x (LINE 3) x (LINE 1 x 0.2 + LINE 2 x 0.018)
ANNUAL COST = 365 days/yr x Ibs/day ( $/lb x 0.2+ $/lb x 0.018)
ANNUAL COST = $ per year
SLUDGE DISPOSAL COSTS
5. DISTANCE TO SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE (MILES)
6. ANNUAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL COST
- [ $1^d?h/drvday - * (*4/ton + $0.2/ton/nri x Line 5J
1 J
200° lb/ton
x 365 days/yr
a [ .3Sx2DoibdaV x(4+-2x _ mi)] x 365
* $ _ per year (enter this value on line 14 of Fig. D-Q.Ql
398 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE. INC.
-------
FIGURE D-3.1.1
£
2
1
a
4'
10,000
9
. e
"* • O
4*
1 000
....:.. |
O
•
'
.,
X"
4
5
^f
\
6'
•»"
r
x"
89
^S*
\
^
s~
\ ' .
I
s
3 '
X
\ !
^
5 (
y>
* •
r
3
9
*
-
...
-
*%s\
>
5 -
* '.
I (
»
-i
M
J9
10 100
Design Flow, MGD
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION AND PUMPING
(30 minutes contact)
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 55
See Figure D-1.1.1
399
-------
FIGURE D-3.1.2
2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9
2 3456789
Design Flow, MGD
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION AND PUMPING
(30 minutes contact)
POWER REQUIREMENTS
See Figure D-l.1.1
400
Curve 56
-------
FIGURE D-3.1.3
8'
8
10,00
1,000
34567 89
10 - 3 4 56789ioo
Design Flow, MGD
3456789
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION AND PUMPING
(30 minutes contact)
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
Curve 57
401
See Figure D-1.1.1
-------
FIGURE D-3.1.4
0,000,
5.00C-
1,000
"500
o
o
o
t/o
o
o
<
z
•z.
100
50
CURVE BASED ON 7% ATTRITION
AMD VIRGIN CARBON COST OF
56*/Ib AND REGENERATED CARBON
COST OF 40
-------
FIGURE 0-4.1.1
20000
to
clOOOO^
i
ZT
3000
2000
iood
200 300
1000 2000 3000
OZONE, IBS/DAY
'lOOOO
30000
OZONATION
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
403
-------
FIGURE D-4.T.2
vo
X
-------
FIGURE D-4.1.3
1000
OZONE, IBS/DAY
OZOMATION - MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
3% of capital
10,000
405
-------
FIGURE 0-4.1.4
400
100
s_
(0
0)
o
o
o
20
10
J L
i I i I
J—L_L
200
400
1000
2000
20,000
LBS/OAY OZONE
OZONATION
OXYGEN SUPPLY COSTS*
* These costs to be used only fo
oxygen system, & assume
.751b02/lb03 and also assume
cost of oxygen at $75/ton.
406
-------
FIGURE D-5.1.1
a:
o
CO
a:
i
z
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
1
7
6
5
4
3
*
2
'•
I
^
j
^
X"
^
^/
^
/s
/
\
i
j/
X
*
^ ?
-
-
xl
'
X1
Liq
X
jid
/
A
x'
k
i
I
X
m
i
3 456789.
2 3456789
100 1,000
*
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
ALUM STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
To obtain Ibs/hr as Alum feed, multiply feed rate in Ibs/day as Al
from Table 1 by 11.1 and divide by 24 hrs/day.
+3
Curve 82
See Figure D-l.1.1
407
-------
FIGURE D-5.1.2
1
=>
to
Z
o
oc
o
OL
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
1,000
i
7
6
5
4
3 4 56789.
2 3456789, 2 3456789
1,000
100
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
ALUM FEEDING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve 83
See Figure D-1.1.1
408
-------
FIGURE D-5.1.3
«/>
VI
o
9
a
3
10,000
1,000
2
"
^
s
X
/
/
/
A
/
/
/
1
2 3 456789
2 3 4 5 6 789
100 1,000
Alum Feed, Pounds/Hour
ALUM STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 84
See Figure D-l.1.1
409
-------
FIGURE D-5.1.4
1. LOCAL COST OF ALUM $ /LB
2. DAILY ALUM USAGE LB/DAY
(FROM TABLE I, PAGE 11)
3. ANNUAL CHEMICAL COST = LBS/DAY X 365 DAYS/YR
X LIME 1.
J.B/DAY X 365 DAYS/YR X $ /LB
$ PER YEAR
ALUM STORAGE AND FEEDING
CHEMICAL COSTS
410
-------
FIGURE D-5.2.1
•9
O
a:
o
O
I
z
<
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
10,000
9
8
T
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
7
6
•
4
i
f
z
VNIVI^^^^^^^HBIBVIMIWf
•
2
— •
•MM
••*•
•V
•••
1
mm
'
-•
_«M«MMB=
->.-
'
• . II—-
^•^^•^
*MB^V«1
_^«v
I
••••••
•^•i
•M
^«
^-1 ij
jf
/
/
MVHHHV-WW—
in'd
^
1 —
3 4 56789. 2 34 56789.- 234 56789
Polymer Feed, Pounds/Hour
POLYMER FEEDING
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
Curve 91
411
See Figure D-1.1.1
-------
FIGURE 0-5.2.2
1
O
O.
«c
z
<:
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
7
6
5
4
2 3 456789
2 3436789
1 10
Polymer Feed, Pounds/Hour
2 3456 769
POLYMER MIXING AND FEEDING
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Curve
See Figure D-1.1.1
412
-------
FIGURE D-5.2.3
QC
8
CO
o
<
z
9
7
5
1,00(
9
10
4
*
2
•MB^HM^VOMW
J
^^•••••B****
^x"
X
Z
VBM^BH
X
3 '
**••»«•••
X
4
P-^IH*
^
*> (
mum
X
5'
n^
/
r
••»•
^
89
••^^^•••^•^^•^••^B*
S
f
M^B^A^iMB^
X
»
^•m^lHfl
^
3 '
•MMMI
X
» !
x
5 (
MHHI
x
•VW
,/'
r (
i9
^*'
^~
<
X
mwll^H^^
z
5 ^
X
k !
5 (
B
r«
KM* ^
)9
1 10
Polymer Feed, Pounds/Hour
POLYMER STORAGE AND FEEDING
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COSTS
Curve 93
See Figure D-l .1.1
413
-------
FIGURE D-5.2.4
1. COST OF POLYMER (ASSUME S0.60/LB)
2. DAILY POLYMER USAGE LB/DAY (FROM TABLE I, PP 11)
3. ANNUAL CHEMICAL COST
POLYMER, LBS/DAY X 365 DAYS/YR X COST ($0.60/LB)
LB/DAY X 365 DAYS/YR X $0.60/LB =
$ PER YEAR
NOTE: 60
-------
FIGURE D-15
ADDITIONAL BPT 0 S M COST
1. ENTER THE ANNUAL 0 & M COST FOR YOUR EXISTING
BPT FACILITY $ PER YEAR
2. ADDITIONAL BPT 0 & M COST
= % ADDITIONAL BPT FLOW X LINE 1
1
* BACKWASH FLOW x
AVG BPT FLOW
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
You are requested to complete the following information to help us
evaluate your process design and cost estimate packages.
1. What was the average production value you selected for your Process
Selection and Process Design Package? Ibs/day
2. When you apply for a permit you will likely use a greater production
value than the one listed above. The EPA definition for average pro-
duction when applying for an NPDES permit is as follows:
AVERAGE QUANTITY PER DAY PRODUCED AT HEAVIEST PRODUCT MIX DURING A
MONTH OF MAXIMUM PRODUCTION WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EXPECTED
LEVEL OF ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTING TO THIS DISCHARGE. LEVELS OF PRODUC-
TION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM ACTUAL OPERATING RECORDS OR EXPECTED
PRODUCTION LEVELS BASED ON MARKET PROJECTIONS.
What would be your average production according to this permit .
definition? Ibs/day
3. Is your plant located on a water quality limited stream that has more
restrictive permit values than what is allowed by the BATEA guideline
values? Yes No (Circle One)
If so, what are the more restrictive parameters and values.
4. What percent of your present waste treatment plant design capacity
is being utilized? %
5. Is your present waste treatment plant achieving BPT guideline values?
Yes No (Circle One)
416
-------
BPT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Draw a simple flow diagram of your waste treatment system.
2. What is the average flow rate in MGD of the raw waste?
3. What is the design flow rate in MGD of the treatment system?
4. If aerated, what horsepower is used for aeration?
5. What is your best estimate of aeration time in hours?
6. What is your sludge removal rate in Ibs. per
7. What is the pH of the raw waste entering the system?
8. If known, what is the current depth of sludge in the basin?
9. If known, what is the volume of the aeration basin?
10. What is the sludge recirculation rate?
417
-------
Definition for Commission Finishing Referred to on Page 4.
"Commission Finishing shall mean the finishing of textile
materials, 50 percent or more of which are owned by others/
in mills that are 51 percent or more independent (i.e. only
minority ownership by companies with greige or integrated
operations); the mills must process 20 percent or more of
their commissioned production through batch, non-continuous
processing operations, with 50 percent or more of their
commissioned orders processed in lots of 50,000 yards or
less."
418
-------
APPENDIX G
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ADMI: American Dye Manufacturers Institute
AFLOW: actual flow
AL: alum
Al: aluminum
AP: anionic polymer
ATMI: American Textile Manufacturers Institute
Avg: arithmetic mean (average)
AWT: Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BATEA: Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
B.D.I.: below detectable limits
BOD: 5-day 20°C Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mass or concentration)
BOD,-: 5-day 20°C Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mass or concentration)
BPT: Best Practicable Treatment
B.W.: back wash
BWR: back wash rate
BWT: back wash time
C: composite sample
C: concentration
°C: temperature in degrees centigrade
C : initial concentration
Cr,.: total chromium (mass or concentration)
CAT.: cationic polymer
419
-------
CC: carbon columns
CHEM: added chemical
CHEM RT: chemical dosage
CHR: total chromium (mass or concentration)
CMC: carboxy methyl cellulose
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand (mass or concentration)
CODS: Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand (mass or concentration)
CP: cationic polymer
CRI: Carpet and Rug Institute
D: diameter
D: magnitude of change in a given parameter
d.: hydraulic detention time
DAF: dissolved air flotation
DUP: duplicate sample
EFF: effluent flow
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ES: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Exp: experiment
EXPER: experiment
FC: ferric chloride
FLOW: nominal flow
ft: length in feet
G: grab sample
G: mean velocity gradient
gal: volume in gallons
gpd: flow rate in gal Ions/day
420
-------
GPM: flow rate in gallons/minute
HL: head loss
hr: time in hours
HRT: hydraulic residence time
HgSO^: sulfuric acid
IBM: International Business Machines
ICI: ICI United States, Inc.
ID NUM: identification number
K-p propeller drag coefficient
KI: potassium iodide
LAB: laboratory code
Ib: mass in pounds
LOG: sampling location
LTGT: less than or greater than
M: mass of activated carbon
Max: Maximum
MCRT: mean cell residence time
MG: million gallons
MGD: flow rate in million gallons/day
mg/1: concentration in milligrams/liter
MILL: textile mill code
min: time in minutes
MLSS: mixed liquor suspended solids
MLVSS: mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
m/m: multi-media filter
mm: length in millimeters
421
-------
MMF: multi-media filter
MPP: mobil pilot plant
N : natural production (n is assigned number specific for production type)
n: number of data points
N/A: not available
NaOH: Sodium hydroxide
nM: wave length in nano-meters
n.m.: not measured
NTA: Northern Textile Association
CU: ozone
0 : ozone
OBS: observation number
OZ: ozone
OZUTIL: ozone utilization fraction
P: power input
PA: Polymer A
PAA: poly acrylic acid
PB: Polymer B
PCI: PCI Ozone Corporation
pH: log.|Q (H concentration, moles/1)
PHE: Phenol (mass or concentration)
ppm: parts per million
PRE-COAG: pre-filter coagulant
pri: primary
psig: gauge pressure in pounds/square inch
PVA: Poly-Vinyl Alcohol
422
-------
PVC: Poly-Vinyl Chloride
R/C: reactor/clarifier
RCUR: reactor/clarifier underflow rate
REF: reference sample
REM: removal
RPM: rotational speed in revolutions/minute
Sn: synthetic production (n is assigned number specific for production type)
VV syntnetic/natura"l blend production (n is number specific for production
type)
sec: secondary
sec: time in seconds
SF: area in square feet
SOD: Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand (mass or concentration)
SPK: spike sample
SDL: Sulfide (mass or concentration)
SQ FT: area in square feet
%T: percent transmittance
T : total production (n is assigned number specific for production type)
IMP: temperature
TOC: Total Organic Carbon (mass or concentration)
TRA: percent transmittance
TSS: Total Suspended Solids (mass or concentration)
TUR: percent transmittance
U: factor for determination of required number of observations
V: volume
WV: Westvaco
QA: quality assurance
423
-------
X: mass TOC removed
X: arithmetic mean
Z: enhancement factor
a: acceptable risk
8: acceptable risk
y: dynamic viscosity
a: standard deviation
424
-------
AREA
ENERGY
APPENDIX H
COMMON UNIT/SI UNIT CONVERSION TABLED
1 acre = 4.0469 x 103 metre2
1 foot2 = 9.2903 x 10"2 metre2
1 inch2 = 6.4516 x 10~2 metre2
1 mile2 = 2.5900 x 106 metre2
1 yard2 = 8.3613 x 10"1 metre2
1 British thermal unit (mean) = 1.0559 x 10 joule
1 foot-pound-force
1 kilowatt-hour
= 1.3558 x 10° joule
= 3.6000 x 106 joule
FLOW
FORCE
LENGTH
1 foot /minute
3
1 foot /second
1 gallon (U.S. liquid)/day
1 gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
4.7195 x 10~4 metre3/second
2.8317 x 10~2 metre3/second
4.3813 x 10"8 metre3/second
-5 3
6.3090 x 10 metre /second
1 pound-force = 4.4482 x 10 newton
1 angstrom = 1.0000 x 10" metre
1 foot = 3.0480 x 10" metre
_2
1 inch = 2.5400 x 10 metre
1 mile = 1.6093 x 103 metre
MASS
1 grain
1 pound-mass
1 slug
1 ton (2000 Ibm)
= 6.4799 x 10"5 kilogram
= 4.5359 x 10 kilogram
= 1.4594 x 10 kilogram
= 9.0718 x 10 kilogram
425
-------
POWER
1 BTU/hour
1 foot-pound-force/hour
= 2.9307 x 10"1 watt
= 3.7662 x TO"4 watt
1 horsepower (550 ft-lbf/s) * 7.4570 x l(r watt
PRESSURE
I atmosphere (normal)
1 foot of water (39.2°F)
1 inch of mercury (32°F)
2
1 pound-force/inch
= 1.0133 x 10° pascal
= 2.9890 x 103 pascal
= 3.3864 x 103 pascal
= 6.8948 x 103 pascal
VOLUME
1 foot"
= 2.8317 x 10"2 metre3
1 gallon (U.S. liquid) = 3.7854 x 10"3 metre3
1 litre
= 1.0000 x 10"3 metre3
*A11 conversion factors are rounded off to 5 significant digits,
426
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fasimctions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-041
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Technical and Economic Evaluation of BATEA
Textile Guidelines
5. REPORT DATE
January 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
R.E.Mayfield, T.N.Sargent, and
E. J. Schroeder (Engineering Science, Inc.)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW (Suite 300)
Washington, DC 20036
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R804329
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; 1/76 - 3/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Max Samfield, Mail Drop 62, 919/
541-2547. '
is. ABSTRACT
repOr^ gjves results of a project to determine if the Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) effluent guidelines promulgated by
EPA in 1974 for the textile industry can be achieved by recommended advanced
wastewater tertiary treatment technologies. Pilot scale treatment units in two iden-
tical trailers were used at 19 textile plants participating in the field evaluation phase
of the project. The unit operations were tested on biologically treated effluent from
existing facilities at each plant. The most effective treatment was identified for each
plant and operated continuously long enough to statistically determine the quality of
the treated effluent. In all cases results were compared to BATEA values calculated
from the promulgated guidelines and actual production information from the plants
during the trailer visits. The comparisons indicated that technical achievement of
the BATEA guideline limits for the various criteria pollutants was not consistent in
all categories. The cost of installing and operating the selected BATEA tertiary
operations in commercial textile plants was determined and guidelines for estima-
ting these costs were established.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Textile Industry
Textile Processes
Waste Water
Water Treatment
Evaluation
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
BATEA
COSATl Held/Group
13B
HE
13H
14B
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
438
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
427
------- |