EPA-R2-73-017
FEBRUARY 1973 Environmental Protection Technology Series
Cannery Waste Treatment
by Anaerobic Lagoons
and Oxidation Ditch
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
-------
EPA-R2-73-017
February 1973
CANNERY WASTE TREATMENT BY
ANAEROBIC LAGOONS AND OXIDATION DITCH
By
C. D. Parker
G. P. Skerry
Grant No. WPD 211-02-68
Project 12060 EHS
Project Officer
Kenneth Dostal
Envirpnnjental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
,UtS. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
" ' 'WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $2.10 domestic postpaid or $1.75 QPO Bookstore
-------
to sgnrbsor J:00r
:'m asp [5 zgnrbeof
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection •
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not si.gr--
nify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and poli-
cies of the Environmental. Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement ,,
or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
A mixture of fruit and vegetable cannery wastes and domestic sewage has
been treated by a combination anaerobic lagoon-oxidation ditch process
for two years.
This study has shown that the anaerobic lagoon has consistently achieved
a reduction of BOD of 75-85% at loadings up to 400 Ibs BOD/acre/day
provided an adequate BOD/nutrient ratio is available. .Where the BOD/
nutrient ratio exceeds a value which appears to be of the order of 50:1,
performance is adversely affected. At a value of the order of 50:1 to
100:1, loadings of 600 Ibs/acre/day would appear feasible. At these
loadings algae are consistently present in the lagoon contents.
The oxidation ditch has been able to treat the effluent from the
anaerobic lagoon and maintain adequate solids in the mixed liquor. This
process has been shown to be very stable against overload and the power
requirement has been shown to be less than 0.50 Kwh/lb BOD removed. The
oxygenation capacity of the rotor has been shown to be of the order of
30 Ibs BOD/foot of length.
Based on Australian construction costs it should be possible to treat a
mixed waste load of 70,000 Ibs BOD for a capital cost of $213,000.
Operation cost would be $2600 per month of operation.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 12060 EHS,
Grant WPD 211-02-68, under the partial sponsorship of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
m
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
IV Background 7
V Facilities, Observations, and Sampling 13
VI Description of Various Operational Phases 23
VII Evaluation Phase Anaerobic Lagoons 27
VIII Oxidation Ditch Evaluation Phase 39
IX Bacteriological and Algal Aspects 49
X Discussion 51
XI Cost Projections 53
XII Acknowledgements 55
XIII References 57
XIV Appendix 59
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENTAL PLANT 15
2 AERIAL VIEW OF PLANT 16
3 CHAMBER FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FLOWS 17
4 ANAEROBIC LAGOON INLETS 17
5 OUTLET CHANNELS FROM LAGOONS 18
6 OXIDATION DITCHES 18
7 OXIDATION DITCH ROTOR TYPES 19
8 OXIDATION DITCH ROTOR TYPES 19
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Sewage Composition 8
2 Sewage Plant Loadings 8
3 Campbell's Soup Wastes 9
4 Overall Peak Pollution Load 10
5 On Site Weekly Observations at Shepparton 20
6 Weekly Laboratory Examination on Shepparton Samples 21
7 Quarterly Observations & Analyses 22
8 Description of Operational Phases 24
9 Performance of Anaerobic Lagoons 28
10 Summary of Lagoon Performance 29
11 Summary of Lagoon Performance 30
12 Sludge Characteristics Anaerobic Lagoons 34
13 Influence of Nutrients on Lagoon Performance 37
14 Effect of BOD:Nutrient Ratio on Lagoon Performance 37
15 Oxidation Ditch Operational Details 40
16 Ditch Performance 41
17 Ditch Performance 43
18 Summary of Ditch Performance & Power Consumption 44
19 Bacteriological Examination 47
20 Average Algal Counts 50
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSION
Overall, the process of treating cannery wastes by anaerobic lagoon and
oxidation ditch has demonstrated its reliability and freedom from upset
over a two year period of operation. Only one hour per day of mainte-
nance has been necessary.
Cost projections indicate that under Australian conditions an overall
BOD load of 70,000 Ibs BOD/day could be purified for a capital cost of
$213,000 with an annual operating cost of $17,600.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Over a period of two years, wastes from a variety of canning processes;
i.e., fruit and vegetable and soup making, have been satisfactorily
purified when mixed with town sewage by the combination of anaerobic
lagoon and aerobic oxidation ditch treatment.
This combination lends itself to the situation where a seasonal peak
load of high BOD is superimposed on a moderate year round base BOD load.
Under the moderate base load, complete purification of the waste can be
achieved in the lagoon system alone. When the seasonal peak load does
occur, the anaerobic lagoons can efficiently remove the major portion
(75-85%) of the applied BOD load. The reserve treatment capacity of the
oxidation ditch is rapidly available to complete the purification of the
waste to a low residual BOD level. Land requirements are thus held to
a minimum and power and maintenance costs on the ditch are also
restricted to the particular period of the year when maximum BOD load
occurs.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
In the past, many difficulties have arisen from treatment of wastes
from food processing plants. These difficulties arise in the main from
the often seasonal nature of the wastes with the need for a plant to
operate for only a few months of the year. A common problem has been
that the plant is not adequate to treat peak loads, with consequent
development of operational difficulties, odors, and the discharge of only
partly purified waste to nearby streams. Provided the waste is neutral-
ized effectively, and a balanced content of carbon, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus is achieved in the waste, it can be treated by established
biological methods such as activated sludge or trickling filters. The
costs are high and there are operational difficulties. Often wastes have
been disposed of by flood or spray irrigation, or by aerobic lagoons
heavily dosed with sodium nitrate for odor control. Gilde (1) has described
a method of disposal by spray irrigation with continuous surface runoff.
Work described previously (2) has shown that these wastes can also be
treated by anaerobic lagoons and oxidation ditches with marked advantages
over conventional methods in terms of costs of capital equipment and
ease of maintenance and supervision.
The objective of this project was to demonstrate by continuous operation
over two years the practicability of the methods of treatment of fruit
and vegetable cannery wastes by anaerobic lagoons and oxidation ditch
indicated by the results of experimental operation previously described
(2).
Specifically, these objectives were carried out by:
1. The operation for two years of two anaerobic lagoons of 10 acres
each and two oxidation ditches (each 120 ft x 24 ft) treating
50-100,000 gallons per day of peach, pear, citrus, tomato, and
general soup making wastes.
2. The practical feasibility of the processes and the design parameters
required were determined with regard to:
(a) short and long term changes in performance of anaerobic lagoon
with changes in nature of waste treated and seasonal conditions
(b) optimum conditions for oxidation ditch treatment of raw waste
and anaerobic lagoon effluent with regard to solids content in
mixed liquor, detention time, design, and operation of rotor
for aeration.
-------
SECTION IV
BACKGROUND
The field work for this project has been carried out at Shepparton in the
State of Victoria, Australia, located 113 miles from Melbourne, with a
population of 19,000. Shepparton is the regional urban center of the
highly productive 1 million acre Central Goulburn irrigation system. The
area produces fat sheep, dairy products, stone fruit, and vegetables.
The town is sewered and the domestic sewage together with wastes from a
bacon factory, two milk processing plants, a butter factory, abattoirs
(slaughter house), textile mill, and laundry is treated by primary
sedimentation, separate heated sludge digestion, and a 120 ft diameter
12 ft deep trickling filter. The filter effluent, prior to the develop-
ment of the facilities described in this paper, was irrigated over 76
acres of pasture and 75 acres of unprepared land, on which sheep were
grazed. The disposal area consisted of 183 acres of which 76 acres could
be commanded by irrigation.
The Shepparton Preserving Company has been located in Shepparton since
1920. Over the years it has increased the magnitude of its operations
and is now the largest cannery in the Southern Hemisphere. It processes
apricots, peaches, and pears. From 1938 the cannery waste was pumped
through its own 15 inch pipeline, 11,000 ft to the sewage disposal area
where the flow during the canning season (January-April) was conveyed by
separate channel and flood irrigated over part of the 76 acres of unpre-
pared land. With ever increasing flow, odor problems developed and the
extension of housing areas near the disposal site made it essential for
the Shepparton Sewerage Authority to provide improved methods of treat-
ment and disposal. The senior author was retained by the Authority in
1962 to carry out investigations which have continued until the present
and have led to the construction of the facilities described.
In 1960 Campbells Soup (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. erected a large cannery at Lemnos,
a small township 8 miles from Shepparton, and requested the Shepparton
Sewerage Authority to construct a pipeline to, and treatment facilities
at the disposal area.
This factory was originally intended to manufacture soup and regular
products but before the building was complete, facilities were also
provided to process citrus and tomatoes. Wastes from all these operations
are pumped through a 15 inch concrete pipeline 30,000 ft to the disposal
area.
The problem faced by the Sewerage Authority has been how to efficiently
purify without nuisance the large seasonal flows of highly polluted food
-------
wastes from the two canneries, on areas closely adjacent to a prosperous
and rapidly developing urban center.
CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTES
Sewage:
The city sewage containing a variety of industrial wastes, including a
large butter factory waste, is high in BOD. The composition of the raw
sewage, settled sewage and filter effluent are as shown in Table 1, and
the plant performance in Table 2.
Table 1. Sewage Composition
Raw sewage
Settled sewage
Filter effluent
BOD SS Am-N
ppm ppm ppm
556 486 37
375 174 36
110 110 32
pH
6.1
6.0
6.5
Table 2. Sewage Plant
Loadings
Sedimentation Tanks
Capacity 112,000 gals. (U.S.)
Flow 24 hours 1.5 mgd
Maximum 6 hours 95,000 gals./hour
Detention 1.2 hours
BOD reduction 33%
SS reduction 64%
Filter
Flow 1.5 mgd
Load gpd/cu..yd. 250
Load Ibs BOD/cu. yd./day 1.10
Sewage/media ratio 1.3
8
-------
The filter is loaded at a high rate and the filter effluent is consequently
only partially purified. It is high in ammonia and phosphate. The two
digesters are adequate in capacity and the sludge is well digested.
Campbells Soup (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.:
The wastes from Campbells Soup (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. come from processing and
canning of tomato products over the period January-April, citrus from June-
November, and soup and regular products continuously. The cannery operates
throughout the year except for about two weeks at Christmas. The composition
and flow at peak processing period for 1965 are as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Campbells Soup Wastes*
Products
Tomato &
regular
products
Meat &
regular
products
Peak
Period
Feb. 25-
Mar. 29
May-Sept.
Citrus &
regular
products Nov.
* After screening.
Flow
gpd
Composition
BOD
1,075,000 728
800,000 464
1,075,000 400
BOD
Ibs/day
6,280
2,920
3,360
SS
ppm
438
350
315
7\m-N
0.5
2.0
0.8
The wastes from tomato and citrus processing are acidic and rapidly develop
further acidity in the pipeline. To correct this acidity for the protection
of the concrete pipes and to facilitate biological treatment, these wastes
are dosed with lime continuously before reaching the pipeline. The dosage
is adjusted to ensure that the waste reaching the disposal area has a pH
not less than 7.0.
The soup making and regular products' waste is pumped through a rotary
basket screen, flows to the main grease trap, and thence to the main
pump well.
-------
The tomato and citrus are processed in adjacent parts of the factory away
from regular products and the flows go to a separate well where they are
pumped over a Link Belt vibratory screen and the finely screened (1 mm)
waste gravitates to the main pump well.
The combined waste is pumped continuously by a constant speed variable
discharge pump 30,000 ft to the treatment area.
Shepparton Preserving Company:
The canning season runs from the beginning of January to the middle of
April but may be shorter or longer by a few weeks depending on seasonal
conditions. For the first three weeks the pack is almost';enti,re-ly apjiteots,
the remainder of the season both peaches and pears are processed, one..or:n.;
the other predominating as the various varieties ripen.
The apricots are a dry pack and the waste flow and strength in BOD is
relatively small. Peaches are lye peeled yielding a strong highly colored
alkaline waste. Pears are mechanically peeled and give rise to a high
BOD acidic waste. The solid waste from pear preparation was originally
taken by conveyor to a hopper and transported for land disposal. Recently,
alterations to the drainage system were made and all solids are flumed with
the liquid waste to a common well where they are first dosed with lime to
neutralize acidity, pumped over Link Belt vibratory screens and then pumped
through a 15 inch concrete pipeline 11,000 ft to the treatment area. It
is found that there is a very considerable drop in pH through the line and
to deliver the waste to the treatment area at a pH of 7.0 it is necessary
to dose with lime to a pH of 10-11. This requires for each long ton of
fruit processed, 10 Ibs of hydrated lime for apricots, 15 Ibs for peaches,
and 45 Ibs for pears.
Overall Waste Load for Treatment:
The average BOD arising from the sewage treatment plant effluent, from
S.P.C., Campbells Soup, and other trade wastes, requiring treatment, is
shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Overall Peak Pollutional Load
Source
Domestic sewage
S.P.C. Ltd.
Campbells Soup Co.
Butter factory
Abattoirs
Total
Peak
Load
Continuous
Feb. -April
Feb. -March
Oct. -Dec.
Continuous
(Feb. -Mar.)
Flow
mgd
1.5
2.0
1.07
0.20
0.4
BOD
PPm
250
3,000
728
6,000
1,600
BOD
Ibs/day
3,000
55,000
6,280
9,000 (4500
off peak)
5,000
74,000
10
-------
It will be seen that for peak conditions in March it is necessary to treat
a daily load of 70 to 80,000 Ibs BOD/day or population equivalent of 500
to 600,000 persons whereas the City population of Shepparton is 19,000.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
As reported previously (2) the investigation of methods of purification
of cannery waste by lagoons and ditches for the Shepparton Sewerage
Authority has been in progress for several years.
Bench-scale experiments had shown that while fruit cannery waste alone or
in a mixture with sewage plant effluent could not be purified satisfactorily
in'small tanks simulating anaerobic type lagoons, this could be achieved if
the'tanks were seeded daily with a charge of digested sludge or digester
supernatant. Similar scale experiments using a model activated sludge
process with mechanical aeration demonstrated that the waste, if mixed
with sewage plant effluent, could readily be purified from an original BOD
of 1500 ppm to produce a final effluent with a BOD of 20 ppm.
By the use of experimental scale field units it was shown that anaerobic
lagoon treatment of the waste could be achieved with lagoon loading of
700 to 1000 Ibs BOD/acre/day to produce a 75% reduction in BOD and with
negligible odor development. With other experimental units it was shown
that the waste mixed with sewage plant effluent could also be purified by
step feed and recirculation in an aerobic type lagoon. The permissible
load was found to be 50 Ibs BOD/acre/day. An experimental oxidation ditch
40 ft x 12 ft with a 6 ft rotor also demonstrated that the waste mixed
with sewage plant effluent could be completly purified by this process
and power requirements and BOD load were determined. Spray irrigation
was also evaluated.
Consideration of the results obtained from these experimental facilities
pointed to the conclusion that provided the anaerobic lagoon could be
operated without odor; this process followed either by an aerobic lagoon
or oxidation ditch would be more economic than the adoption of either
aerobic process alone.
Consideration of performance and cost data in relation to the short season
for fruit canning, suggested an advantage for the ditch in conjunction
with the anaerobic lagoon.
The next step was the construction of a three acre anaerobic lagoon which
would conclusively demonstrate whether the process was acceptable with
regard to BOD removal and odor level, and a pilot plant oxidation ditch
to determine whether this process could treat the effluent from the an-
aerobic lagoon. This conjuction of processes proved successful. It
reduced BOD by 75-80% through the lagoon and the ditch was capable of
further reducing BOD to 15-20 ppm and maintained adequate solids in the
mixed liquor. The BOD of the raw cannery waste during this period was 2500
ppm. There was no odor from the lagoon and power consumption data
obtained from the ditch indicated a value of 0.40 kwh/lb BOD destroyed.
This information provided the basis for the design of full size units.
11
-------
A pilot plant installation of two 10 acre anaerobic lagoons and two large
oxidation ditches (each 120 ft long by 24 ft wide with 12 ft long by 27
inch diameter rotors) was constructed and operated with fruit cannery wastes
for the seasons 1965-66. These facilities were used for the demonstration
grant study.
The development of facilities for the treatment of Campbells Soup waste
followed a somewhat different course. Originally this factory proposed
to manufacture soups and regular products only and a number of aerobic
type lagoons (28 acres) in parallel and series were constructed to treat
the waste. It was anticipated that nitrate or nutrient addition might be
necessary and provision was made for recirculation. " t'"•-'';M! -OJ
- ••- ? •.."-'o.-i^fi^
However, before the lagoons were operative the company announced that 'it;'-'ri?
would also process tomatoes and citrus at the same factory and it was ':
necessary to devise additional facilities within a period of six months.
There was no time for experimentation and as the initial experiments with '
an anaerobic lagoon to treat fruit wastes with sewage pi ant effluent had
been successful, it was decided to add two anaerobic type lagoons in
parallel (total 10 acres) to the existing 28 acres of aerobic type lagoons
and hope that this would be adequate. The sewage plant effluent was also '
brought to the area and mixed with the waste before discharging to the
lagoons. Detailed examination of performance showed this to be successful
and with increasing factory production it has been possible to determine
the maximum capacity of the installation from which additional facilities
could be designed.
12
-------
SECTION V
FACILITIES, OBSERVATIONS AND SAMPLING
FACILITIES
The layout of the experimental facilities is shown in Figure 1 and an
aerial view in Figure 2. These consisted of two 10-acre anaerobic lagoons,
known as $2 and $3. The two ponds were operated in parallel, one or both
being operated at any one time. The flow to the lagoons could consist of
wastes from Campbells Soup Co. (soup, citrus, tomato), Shepparton Preserving
Co. (peach, pear), or mixed city sewage (including abattoirs and butter
factory), or admixtures of two or more depending on the availability of
each at any particular time of the year and the program being undertaken.
The City sewage was supplied untreated or after primary or secondary
treatment according to the operation of the sewage treatment plant.
The flow of each was regulated by penstocks at the distribution structure
(Figure 3) and checked by measurement over V-notch weirs in the channel
feeding the lagoons (Figure 4).
The outflow from the lagoons (Figure 5) was collected in a concrete
channel and the portion of the flow as required taken off from a V-notch
weir through a flume to the two oxidation ditches.
The two oxidation ditches were each 120 ft long, and 24 ft wide (each leg
12 ft wide) as shown in Figure 6.
The operating water depth was 39 inches but this could be varied over a
range of 6 inches by alteration of the level of the outlet weir. By
alteration of the water depth, effective variation in the depth of immer-
sion of the teeth of the rotor could be achieved.
There was one rotor installed in ditch No. 1 and two rotors in ditch No.
2. The rotors were similar to those known as Pasveer cage type. Those
used incorporated a number of novel modifications of the original Pasveer
design. They were driven by a 12% hp electric motor and reduction gears
to achieve an operational speed of 72 rpm.
Each rotor was 12 ft in length 27 inches in diameter with 12 lines of
angle iron with teeth, placed peripherally around the disc. The various
rotors used are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Depth of immersion of the
rotor teeth was 5 inches for all operations. Power consumption was
recorded through a watt hour meter and read weekly.
The outflow from the ditches was over end weirs and the mixed liquor
flumed to a 20 ft diameter secondary sedimentation tank of 60,000 gallons
capacity. The sludge was returned by an electrical sludge pump operated
continuously. The return sludge flow was split between the two ditches
as required.
13
-------
1
S2
10 Acres
1
1
JL
Supplementary Ditch Influent •
Lagoon Effluent
Return Sludgt
0.0. Mind
Liquor
i Raw Sewage or
Campbell* Vegetable Cannery Wast*
10 Acre*
\ \
1111
i
•"fy •«» M
9 1 9
t
i
Oit
m*am
I
\
Chll
t
Ofh
•^^
3
:h2l
Oiidation Ditches
t20tti 24ft Each
=3td—^ tr
Figure 1. Layout of Experimental Plant
-------
'
Figure 2. AERIAL VIEW OF PLANT
-------
Figure 3. CHAMBER FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FLOWS
Figure 4. ANAEROBIC LAGOONS INLETS
1 fi
-------
Figure 5. OUTLET CHANNELS FROM LAGOONS
Figure 6. OXIDATION DITCHES
17
-------
»
Figure 7. OXIDATION DITCH ORIGINAL ROTOR TYPE
Figure 8. OXIDATION DITCH IMPROVED ROTOR TYPE
-------
These facilities already existed at the Shepparton Sewerage Authority
Plant and were made available by that Authority as a contribution to the
Demonstration Grant Project. The day-to-day maintenance of the operation
was looked after with the attendance of one man for one hour each day.
His time and the cost of power for the operation of the rotors and pumps
were a charge against the project.
OBSERVATIONS, SAMPLING & ANALYSIS
A weekly visit was made by staff of Melbourne Water Science Institute to
check flows,, make on-site chemical tests, and collect composite samples
at appropriate points.
The detailed program of sampling,observation, and testing was as shown in
Tables 5 and 6.
In addition to the analyses made on samples taken through the.process,
sludge sampling in the anaerobic lagoons was carried out at quarterly
intervals to determine the depth and characteristics of the sludge present
(Table 7).
19
-------
Table 5. On Site Weekly Observations at Shepparton
Sampl Cond. Depth of
Sul- Settl. Flow Power of Teeth
Sample pti_ DO phide Solids gpd consump. Rotor Immersed
Vegetable & soup process +
(comp.)
Fruit cannery (comp.) +
Filter effluent (comp.) or +
Raw sewage (comp.) +
Lagoon influent (comp.) + +
$2 & $3 lagoon influent +
$2 lagoon effluent + + +
$,3 ,1 agoon eff 1 uent + + +
Combined lagoon effluent
to ditch + + + +
Ditch Influent + + + +
Ditch effluent +.+ •+'
Ditch M.L, + +
Ditch return solids + + +
Meter Board +.........
Ditch rotor + +
-------
Table 6. Weekly Laboratory Examination on Shepparton Samples*
ro
Sample
£H
BOD
Am
-N
NO,
-r
NO?
-N
Org.
-N
P04
SS
TDS
TS
VS
SVI
Algal
Count
Vegetable & Soup
Process (comp.)
Fruit cannery
(comp.)
Seeded sewage
(comp.) or
Raw sewage (comp.)
$2 & $3 lagoon
infl. (comp.)
**Ditch influent
(comp.)
$2 lagoon eff.
$3 lagoon eff.
Lagoon effluent
to ditch
**Ditch effluent
Ditch mixed liquor
Ditch return
solids
*A11 methods used according to procedure APHA Standard Methods
**Two ditches sampled separately October 1969 - April 1970.
-------
Table 7. Quarterly Observations & Analyses
ro
ro
Sample
S2 Sludge Inlet
Middle
Outlet
$3 Sludge Inlet
Outlet
S2 & S3 Lagoon Inf1.
S2 & S3 Lagoon Effl.
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
fiH TS VS_
Purif.
Index*
Gas*
Yield
Bact.
Count
Sludge
Depth
DO
Sulphide Tem
*Concept and measurement procedure as per reference (3).
-------
SECTION VI
DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS OPERATIONAL PHASES
The manner in which the facilities were operated from April 1, 1968, to
May 7, 1970, is tabulated in Table 8.
April 1 - June 1. 1968
Lagoons were treating a mixture of trickling filter effluent and vege-
table cannery waste. The ditch also treated filter effluent plus vege-
table cannery waste.
June 1-18, 1968
Lagoons were treating raw sewage plus vegetable cannery plus citrus waste.
The ditch treated raw sewage plus cannery waste.
June 18 - August 5. 1968
Lagoons were treating raw sewage plus vegetable cannery plus citrus waste.
The ditch treated lagoon effluent plus vegetable cannery waste.
August 5 - November 11, 1968
Lagoons continued to treat raw sewage plus vegetable cannery plus citrus
waste. A mechanical failure of the ditch rotor occurred on August 5, 1968.
Funds for repair of the rotor did not become available until November 1968
and the rotor was repaired and put back into operation in January 1969.
November 11, 1968 - January 4. 1969
The lagoons treated filter effluent plus vegetable cannery plus citrus
waste.
January 4 - February 7, 1969
Lagoons treated filter effluent plus vegetable cannery waste plus fruit
cannery waste.
Mixed liquor solids were built up in the ditch by the addition of filter
effluent.
February 7 - May 15. 1969
Lagoons treated filter effluent plus vegetable plus fruit cannery waste.
The ditch treated lagoon effluent.
23
-------
Table 8. Description of Operational Phases
Period
ro
4/1 - 6/1/68
6/1 - 6/18/68
6/18 - 8/5/68
8/5 - 11/11/68
11/11/68 - 1/4/69
1/4 - 2/7/69
2/7 - 5/15/69
5/15 - 6/20/69
6/20 - 12/19/69
1/8 - 2/11/70
2/11 - 5/7/70
Lagoon Influent
Ditch Influent
Trickling filter effluent + vegetable
cannery waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable cannery + citrus
waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable cannery + citrus
waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable cannery + citrus
waste.
Domestic trickling filter effluent +
vegetable cannery + citrus waste.
Domestic trickling filter effluent +
vegetable cannery = fruit cannery waste.
Domestic trickling filter effluent +
vegetable cannery + fruit cannery waste.
Filter effluent + vegetable + fruit
cannery waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable cannery + citrus
waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable + fruit cannery
waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable + fruit cannery
waste.
Domestic trickling filter eff.
+ vegetable cannery waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable cannery
waste.
Lagoon effluent + vegetable
cannery waste.
Ditch rotor failure.
Ditch rotor failure.
Domestic trickling filter
effluent to establish solids.
Lagoon effluent.
Lagoon effluent + vegetable
cannery waste.
Lagoon effluent + raw sewage.
2 ditches: re.w sewage + lagoon
effluent.
2 ditches: lagoon effluent.
-------
May 15 - June 20. 1969
Lagoons treated filter effluent plus vegetable and fruit cannery waste.
The ditch treated lagoon effluent plus vegetable cannery waste.
June 20 - December 19, 1969
The lagoon treated a mixture of raw sewage plus vegetable cannery plus
citrus waste. The ditch treated lagoon effluent plus raw sewage.
January 8 - February 11, 1970
Lagoons treated raw sewage plus vegetable and fruit cannery waste. Two
ditches were in operation treating raw sewage plus lagoon effluent at
3860 ppm and 2050 ppm suspended solids concentration in the mixed liquor.
February 11 - May 7, 1970
Lagoons treated raw sewage plus vegetable and fruit cannery waste. Two
ditches were in operation treating lagoon effluent. Suspended solids
concentration in the mixed liquor of the two ditches averaged 3230 ppm
and 2080 ppm, respectively.
25
-------
SECTION VII
OPERATION & EVALUATION PHASE -- ANAEROBIC LAGOONS
During the period of the Grant the lagoons treated mixtures of raw sewage
or filter effluent together with fruit canning waste or vegetable canning
wastes. A summary of the various operations carried out from April 1,
1968, to May 7, 1970, is presented in Table 8. The performance of the
lagoons over the various periods is summarized in Tables 9, 10, and 11.
Detailed analyses of lagoon influent, lagoon effluent analyses, and field
observations are presented in the Appendix.
April 1 - June 1. 1968
During this period filter effluent from the Shepparton Treatment Plant was
combined with vegetable cannery waste and fed to the lagoons at 190 Ibs/
acre/day. Influent BOD was 123 ppm and effluent 11 ppm, a removal of over
90%. The influent contained 25 ppm total nitrogen and 1.4 ppm phosphate
which provided adequate nutrients for the organic carbon present. The
lagoon functioned satisfactorily at a moderate loading under autumn
temperatures (12°C). The green algae Chlorella was present at a level of
400,000 orgs/ml and dissolved oxygen was present (5 ppm) in the effluent.
June 1 - November 11, 1968
The Shepparton Sewerage Authority sludge digesters and trickling filters
were not operated over this period and the lagoons treated a mixture of
raw sewage combined with vegetable and citrus waste. The organic loading
on the lagoons averaged 360 Ibs BOD/acre/day with an influent BOD of 420
ppm. Over the whole period, 80% of the applied BOD load was removed.
Hater temperature varied from 11°C in the winter months to over 20°C in
the late spring in October and November. An adequate balance of nutrients
was always present with a total nitrogen content of 60 ppm and phosphorus
11 ppm. The lagoons performed satisfactorily with regard to BOD removal
although the algal population dropped to only 40,000 orgs/ml during July,
August, and early September, the winter months. It had recovered to
300,000 orgs/ml by October, with Chlorella being the predominant organism.
Dissolved oxygen also disappeared over this period and some sulphide odors
developed. In September dissolved oxygen was present in the supernatant
but then disappeared until early November.
November 11, 1968 - January 4, 1969
The conventional treatment plant provided primary and secondary treatment
of the town sewage, so that secondary effluent was combined with vegetable
plus citrus waste and treated in the anaerobic lagoons. The strength of
the combined wastes was similar to that of the previous period, but the
flows available were split between two lagoons giving a much lower individual
loading of 140 Ibs/acre/day with an average influent BOD of 480 ppm. The
total nitrogen was 44 ppm with 27 ppm of phosphate. Purification of 85%
27
-------
Table 9. Performance of Anaerobic Lagoons
ro
CD
Date
4/1 - 6/1/68
6/1 - 11/11/68
11/11/68 - 1/4/69
1/4 - 2/7/69
2/7 - 6/20/69
6/20 - 12/19/69
1/8 - 5/7/70
Nature of Waste
Treated
Filter effluent +
vegetable cannery
waste.
Raw sewage +
vegetable cannery
+ citrus waste.
Filter effluent +
vegetable cannery
+ citrus waste.
Filter effluent +
vegetable + fruit
cannery.
Filter effluent +
vegetable + fruit
cannery.
Raw sewage +
vegetable cannery
+ citrus waste.
Raw sewage +
vegetable + fruit
cannery waste.
Load
Ibs/acre/day
190
360
140
227
250
105
600
BOD Removal
Ibs/acre/day
171
290
120
195
190
84
90
80
85
86
75
'- 80
Lagoon 1 ;
330 ,-55'
Lagoon' 2 /
240 40-
Influent Comp. (ppm)
BOD N POa
123 25
520 50
2,100 36
1.4
420 60 11
480 44 27
630 37 20
580 30
25
-------
Table 10. Summary of Lagoon Performance*
6/1 - 11/11/68
Influent
S2 Effluent
' Sa Effluent
11/11/68 - 1/4/69
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
1/4 - 2/7/69
Influent
$2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
2/7 - 5/15/69
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
5/22 - 6/20/69
Influent
s2
S3
Effluent
Effluent
6/20 - 12/19/69
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
1/8 - 2/12/70
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
2/12 - 5/7/70
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
BOD
(ppm) PH
416
127
103
630
94
65
650
190
170
315
61
52
530
92
113
1580
300
290
2080
1330
1734
6.0
7.0
7.2
477 5.2
67 7.1
62 7.2
5.9
7.2
7.2
4.9
6.7
6.9
6.3
6.5
6.6
5.8
6.6
6.8
4.3
6.2
6.2
4.6
4.8
4.7
Total N
(ppm)
60.4
46.6
58.7
43.9
38.8
35.0
37.0
34.4
29.1
32.2
31.5
29.3
23.5
19.8
19.8
52.2
37.1
33.2
36.0
24.7
26.1
35.7
26.1
36.8
P04
(ppm)
10.8
7.9
17.1
11.8
19.0
20.0
20.4
9.6
20.6
7.1
7.8
6.0
9.3
3.2
1.8
23.0
16.7
20.0
5.9
19.3
18.0
4.0
23.9
21.4
SS DO
(PPm) (ppm)
340
130 0.5
180 1.3
260
230 5.0
240 5.6
190
420
150
250
290
310
140
150
200
265
110
145
330
235
280
617
181
133
3.0
6.6
0.6
3.0
2.9
0.7
4.0
4.8
4.4
6.1
0
0
Flow
gal/day
800,000
350,000
409,000
325,000
445,000
445,000
520,000
385,000
510,000
330,000
170,000
213,000
262,000
282,000
328,000
248,000
*Average values
29
-------
to
o
Table 11 . Summary
6/1 - 11/11/68
Influent
$2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
11/11/68 - 1/4/69
Influent
S2 Effluent
. S3 Effluent
1/4 - 2/7/69
Influent
$2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
2/27 - 5/15/69
Influent
$2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
of Lagoon Performance*
BOD
(ppm)
212- 736
24- 300
17- 170
196- 870
30- 151 '
30- 119
158- 785
82- 104
51- 79
130-2500
42- 415
37- 320
PH
4.8-7.5
6.6-7.9
6.8-8.1
4.8-5.9
6.7-7.3
6.8-7.6
4.8-6.8
6.9-7.3
6.5-7.7
4.2-7.3
4.7-7.4
5.6-8.9
Total N
(ppm)
28.6-87.3
22.2-84.4
42.1-75.8
28.0-58.7
25.1-54.1
26.4-43.2
31.9-44.0
31.9-36.4
25.6-30.5
14.1-43.2
19.9-46.4
14.6-62.8
P04
(ppm)
0.6-34.8
0.4-23.1
0.6-25.2
3.5-20.5
2.3-24.0
3.6-27.0
20.0-20.7
8.2-11.0
15.3-26.0
3.0-11.2
2.0-20.5
0.6-26.8
SS
(ppm)
170-830
20-380
10-370
130-430
50-380
30-440
90-270
270-770
100-200
20-790
T50-370~
110-490
DO
(ppm)
0- 4.4
0- 3.3
Nil-10.5
Nil-13.6
1.4- 4.4
2.7-10.5
Nil- 5.2
Nil-11.3
Flow
Thousand
gal /day
145-1200
145- 752
260- 640
160- 585
392- 480
392- 480
259- 820
259- 496
*Range of values.
-------
Table 11. Summary of Lagoon Performance*
5/22 - 6/20/69
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
6/20 - 12/19/69
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
1/8 - 2/12/70
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
2/19 - 5/7/70
Influent
S2 Effluent
S3 Effluent
BOD
(ppm)
182- 426
46- 70
24- 82
127- 755
38- 193
20- 204
1109-2575
78- 795
50- 795
425-3485
322-1835
325-3416
PH
6.1-6.6
6.5-6.6
6.5-6.7
4.7-7.2
6.2-7.1
6.2-7.2
3.8-4.9
5.0-7.6
5.0-7.4
3.8-5.4
4.3-5.6
4.3-5.4
(Cont'd)
Total N
(ppm)
8.5-28.4
15.3-20.5
18.7-21.4
34.6-68.5
22.0-74.8
20.1-54.4
29.4-43.3
21.6-34.3
23.5-29.5
9.2-58.4
"14.4-44.3
27.9-48.5
P04
(ppm)
7.6-11.0
2.8- 3.6
1.7- 2.0
6.3-37.5
1.5-30.1
3.1-26.1
3.7- 7.6
18.4-20.2
11.5-22.6
2.1- 6.6
11. 9-29.1
10.6-31.6
SS
(ppm)
50-300
100-220
140-260
110-440
40-410
40-660
150-590
20-720
60-900
50^510
20-400 *
10-450
DO
(ppm)
Nil- 6.8
Nil- 1.5
Nil-19.5
Nil-20.0
Nil-11.6
Nil-15.0
Nil- 0 "
Nil- 0
Flow
Thousand
gal /day
410- 576
320- 368
68- 309
56- 448
131- 336
226- 346
242- 400
166- 288
*Range of values.
-------
was achieved at this loading with an algal population of 350,000 orgs/ml
(Chlorella). Dissolved oxygen was present in the lagoon throughout this
period, and there were no odor problems.
January 4 - February 7, 1969
The composition of the waste over this period was secondary effluent together
with vegetable, citrus, and fruit cannery waste. The BOD loading on the
lagoons was 227 Ibs/acre/day with an average removal of 86% of the applied
BOD. Influent BOD averaged 630 ppm. Total nitrogen averaged 37 ppm with
20 ppm phosphate, which gave a waste well balanced with regard to nutrient
content. The algal population in the supernatant during this midsummer
period increased to several million orgs/ml (Chlorella).
February 7 - June 20, 1969
During the main fruit canning season, which extends over the first four
months of the year with lesser activity for another 2 months, secondary
effluent was combined with fruit and vegetable cannery wastes and fed to
the lagoons. The strength of the waste was variable with a peak BOD of
2500 ppm in March, falling to a few hundred ppm in the latter part of the
season. The average loading was 250 Ibs BOD/acre/day. Influent BOD
averaged 580 ppm with 75% removal by the anaerobic lagoon. The overall
nitrogen content was 30 ppm with 7 ppm phosphorus. Algae were at all
times present in the supernatant of the lagoons with an average population
of 4 million orgs/ml (Chlorella).
June 20 - December 19, 1969
The fruit canning season had finished and the Sewerage Authority conventional
plant had been shut down so that the anaerobic lagoons received a mixture
of raw sewage, vegetable cannery and citrus wastes. With only the vege-
table cannery operating, the flows over the second half of 1969 were not
high and the lagoon BOD loading was 105 Ibs/acre/day. The influent BOD
was 520 ppm with over 80% removal of applied BOD. Total nitrogen content
was 50 ppm with 23 ppm of phosphorus. The algal population of 3 million
orgs/ml (Chlorella) was maintained throughout this period indicating that
the lagoon was coping easily with the applied loading.
January 8 - May 7, 1970
The usual practice of the Sewage Authority with the onset of the peak fruit
canning season in the early months of the year had been to operate the
conventional treatment plant treating the town sewage. Secondary effluent
from the plant would then be combined with the cannery wastes and the
mixture purified in anaerobic lagoons. In this season it was decided not
to operate the treatment plant because of the possibility of odors occurring,
causing complaints from nearby residents. The Authority was also commis-
sioning a much larger lagoon area consisting of 108 acres of anaerobic
ponds followed by 140 acres of aerobic ponds at a new site. Most of the
flow was being diverted to the new lagoon area as the new ponds were being
brought into operation.
32
-------
For this period the composition of the waste treated was a mixture of fruit
cannery and vegetable cannery waste together with raw sewage. The loading
over the whole period was 600"Ibs BOD/acre/day. The removal of BOD was
only 55% for lagoon S2 and 40% for $3. As discussed later, the BOD:nitrogen:
phosphate ratio has a considerable influence on performance. As shown in
Table 9, the BOD:nitrogen ratio was 60:1 for this period compared with a
value of 20:1 for the 1969 fruit cannery operating period.
This reduction in nutrient content would appear to be responsible for
relatively poor lagoon performance.
LAGOON SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
The lagoons had been operated three years prior to the present project.
Sludge samples were collected near the inlet of the lagoons9 30 ft from
the influent pipe5 at the center of the lagoon9 and 30 ft from the outlet
weir. Sludge depths were measured at three points at inlet center,, and
outlet and the averaged results are presented in summary in Table 12.
The table also includes results of laboratory analysis for total and volatile
solids, laboratory purification index, and gas yield. Detailed results
of purification index and gas yield tests are presented in the Appendix.
The total solids content of the sludge depended on the depth of sludge
at the collection point. A hand sludge pump was used to collect samples
and it drew sludge from 1-3 inches above the mud bottom of the lagoon.
The amount of volatile solids in the sludge collected varied considerably.
In lagoon S2 the volatile solids were higher at the inlet than the outlet
which would be expected but accumulation of the sludge is influenced by
the wind direction and at times the effluent sludge had a high volatile
solids9 indicating movement of sludge from the inlet. The least sludge
was always at the center of the lagoons.
Lagoon $3 sludges do not show the same pattern. The volatile solids are
low during the low loading period of June 1969 and show a higher volatile
solids content for the inlet in September 1969, but during the high
loading period of 1970 there were in fact higher volatile solids in the
outlet sludges, probably again due to wind movement of incompletely digested
sludge from the inlets.
Purification Index:
The capacity of sludges to contribute to BOD removal in the supernatant
water is an important function of their behavior.
To evaluate the activity of different sludges in this regard a detailed
study was made to standardize conditions for a laboratory test procedure.
As a result of these studies the following method was developed. It has
already been described (3).
The test is carried out in a bank of 6 cells each 18 by 8 inches (46 by
20 cm) with a 6 inch (15 cm) depth of water.
33
-------
CO
-fi
Table 12. Sludge Character!
Anaerobic
Lagoon
(S2)
June 1968
Nov. 1968
Jan. 1969
June 1969
Sept. 1969
Jan. ' 1970
May 1970
(S3)
June 1969
Sept. 1969
Jan. 1970
May 1 970
(S2)
June 1968
Nov. 1968
Jan. 1969
June 1969
Sept. 1969
Jan. 1970
May 1970
(S2)
June 1968
Nov. 1968
Jan. 1969
June 1969
Sept. 1969
Jan. 1970
May 1970
(S3)
June 1969
Sept. 1969
Jan. 1970
May 1970
Total
Solids
(ppm)
38,200
57,940
130,880
88,150
59,860
41,960
59,610
89,350
45,320
113,250
84,940
13,730
17,430
9,320
24,100
26,490
21 ,880
1,480
22,130
25,000
65,760
35,120
52,520
62,320
60,390
65,910
51 ,340
80,000
sties -- Anaerobic Lagoons
Volatile
Solids
(ppm)
18,900
30,270
30,590
26,380
36,780
25,690
33,060
23,520
25,780
53,270
39,120
6,850
9,220
4,960
14,150
16,400
10,280
7,430
13,900
12,010
16,880
17,110
22,520
29,620
18,790
20,040
30,640
45,000
Volatile
Solids
%
50
52
23
30
62
61
55
26
57
47
46
50
53
53
59
62
47
50
63
48
25
49
43
47
31
30
60
56
Purif .
Index
Inlet
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.2
1.4
3.5
4.8
2.9
2.2
1.7
4.3
Center
11.4
12.5
24
4.1
6.0
16.8
Outlet
12.4
7.6
10.2
3.8
2.1
4.0
5.5
4.0
2.7
3.0
3.9
Sludge
Depth
(in.)
8
8
9
12
9
5
8
9
9
4
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
8
7
5
7
6
6
10
6
8
N.D.
6
Gas Yield
ml gas/day/gm
of Vol .Solids
5.3
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.6
1.3
2.2
0.9
0.2
0.9
2.0
2.2
3.9
1.5
5.3
2.2
5.0
3.8
2.2
3.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
2.4
1.2
0.3
-------
The 0.72 gal (U.S.) (2.7 liters) sludge sample is added to each of the
cells and the cells are filled to overflow level, at total capacity 3.7
gal (14 liters), with standard synthetic sewage being treated by the
sludge.
The synthetic sewage is pumped through the cell by a small pulsating-type
pump at the rate of 0.96 gpd (3.6 liters/day) for 14 days, giving a 4-day
detention period. The cells are operated at room temperature. Analyses
are made on the sludge for total and volatile solids and on the influent
and effluent from the cells for BOD and pH.
The index is calculated as pounds BOD removed per acre per day per pound
of volatile solids in the sludge, from the formula:
(B, - BJ x F x 36.3
Purification Index (P.I.) = —• V~x~V
where: B] = BOD of influent, mg/1
B£ = BOD of effluent, mg/1
F = rate of flow, gpd
W = dry weight of sludge added Ib
V = percentage of volatile solids in dry weight, percent
i.e., Purification Index is a measure of the BOD removal capacity of
sludge in the laboratory lagoon cell related to the surface area (1 sq
ft) of the cell.
The figures for lagoon $2 inlet sludge are fairly constant at between 3.5
and 5.0 for most of the sampling apart from a low figure in September 1969.
Outlet sludge shows considerably higher purification capacity than inlet,
with sludges collected from the center of the lagoon having the highest
purification capacity as measured by the laboratory test. The purification
index figures are generally lower in $3 lagoon, but the same pattern is
maintained in that effluent sludges show the most activity.
Gas Production:
The ability of sludges to produce gas is indicative of the degree of
digestion already achieved and the residual of unfermented organic matter.
This is determined as described by (3).
The test is carried out as follows:
To a 220 ml sample of sludge, 380 ml of synthetic sewage substrate is
added to fill a 20 oz (0.6 liter) bottle. The contents are incubated at
the stated temperature and the gas collected by the downward displacement
of a confining solution of saturated sodium sulphate plus 15% sulphuric
acid in an inverted 100 ml measuring cylinder. The gas yield is measured
daily.
35
-------
The gas yield in lagoon So was high at the inlet in the first sampling but
then declined to relatively low figures. Several samples of the effluent
sludge exhibited greater activity than the inlet.
Gas yields in lagoon $3 were lower and did not vary from inlet to outlet.
The highest activity was in the spring sampling in September 1969. There
was no definite evidence of seasonal variations in activity.
Sludge solids accumulated to some extent during the peak fruit canning
season and were not usually digested until the following spring, but by
late in the year there was not more than 6 to 8 inches of solids accumulated
at the lagoon inlet or outlet. These lagoons have been in operation for j,
up to 5 seasons treating, in the main, fruit cannery waste so that sludge'
accumulation is not a problem with this type of waste.
INFLUENCE OF BOD.'NUTRIENT RATIO ON ANAEROBIC LAGOON PERFORMANCE
Efficiency of purification by oxidative processes such as activated sludge
has been shown by many authors to be dependent on the ratio of BOD:nitrogen:
phosphate. Very little information has been published with regard to anaerobic
processes particularly anaerobic type lagoons.
Complementary to the nutrient studies on the two anaerobic lagoons feeding
the oxidation ditch, further investigations were carried out during the
1969 fruit cannery season with two other lagoons known as T£ and S-j which
were dosed with S.P.C. waste with two different proportions of sewage to
achieve two different ratios of BOD to nutrients.
The results of operation of these two lagoons for this season are shown
in Table 13.
It will be seen that lagoon S] loaded at 520 Ibs BOD/acre/day achieved the
same percentage BOD removal and a removal of 430 Ibs/acre/day compared with
lagoon ~[^ loaded at only 294 Ibs/acre/day which only removed 240 Ibs/acre/
day.
The BOD:nitrogen ratio for lagoon S~\ was 87:1 or BOD:N of 100:1.1 compared
with a value of 134:1 or 100:0.75.
The performance of the test lagoons So and $3 as shown for the fruit
cannery treatment periods 1/4/69 - 6/20/69 and 1/8/70 - 5/7/70, together
with the results shown in Table 13 are summarized in Table 14.
They show the significant influence of BOD:nitrogen value on performance.
The ranges studied are well below those considered optimum for oxidative
processes (BOD:N = 20) but so far no attempt has been made to determine
whether further improvement in performance can be achieved with nutrient
contents of this order.
36
-------
Table 13. Influence
Area (acres)
Flow (GPD)
S.P.C.
Sewage
Influent load
BOD Cppm)
BOD (Ib/day)
BOD (lb/acre/day)
Nitrogen (Ib/day)
BOD:N ratio
Effluent
BOD (ppm)
Performance
Removal
BOD (lb/acre/day)
BOD (%)
of Nutrients on Lagoon Performance
Lagoon T2
15
209,000
57,000
1,658
4,420
294
36
134
310
240
81
Lagoon S-j
6
106,000
66,000
1,810
3,120
520
33
87
304
430
82
Table 14. Effect of
Period
S2 & S3
1/4/69 - 6/20/69
S2
1/8/70 - 5/ 7/70
S3
1/8/70 - 5/ 7/70
T2
1/4/69 - 6/20/69
Si
1/4/69 - 6/20/69
BOD Nutrient Ratio on Lagoon Performance
BOD Load BOD Removal
lb/acre/day lb/acre/day %
240 1 90 80
600 330 55
600 240 40
294 240 81
520 430 82
BOD:N
Ratio
17:1
60:1
60:1
134:1
87:1
37
-------
SECTION VIII
OXIDATION DITCH EVALUATION PHASE
During the experimental period an oxidation ditch was run continuously
from June 1968 to August 1968, when rotor failure occurred due to faults
which had developed in the overall balance of the rotor. Funds were not
available for its repair until November 1968 when the damaged section was
replaced, stress points eliminated from the whole rotor, and the balance
of the rotor carefully checked. After being palced back in operation in
January 1969, the rotor then ran continuously until May 1970 apart from
a three week shutdown in March 1969 when worn water jacketed bearings
were replaced with grease packed roller bearings. Using the experience
accumulated from the operation of three earlier rotors over fruit canning
seasons of four to five months each, and of the single rotor continuously
after six months of continuous running a new improved rotor was designed,
built, and put into operation in January 1970. This ran continuously for
four months without any operational problems or evidence of significant
wear.
A summary of the operation of the oxidation ditches is presented in Table
15 and performance in Tables 16 and 17. The detailed analytical results
appear in the Appendix. The various periods of ditch operation and
performance are as follows: field observations and power consumption;
dissolved oxygen and flow are also shown in the Appendix. Performance
and power usage data are summarized in Table 18.
April 1 - June 1, 1968
The ditch treated a mixture of filter effluent plus vegetable cannery
waste at a BOD loading of 45 Ib/day. Influent BOD was 280 ppm and effluent
9 ppm, a removal of more than 95% over the short period of testing. The
flow was 120,000 gpd giving a retention time in the ditch of 12 hours.
The mixed liquor suspended solids was 1840 ppm which settled readily. The
effluent contained 6 ppm nitrogen and 1.5 ppm phosphate. Power consumption
averaged 100 Kwh/day giving a power to BOD ratio of 2.0 Kwh/lb of BOD
removed.
June 1-18. 1968
During this short period the ditch was loaded with raw sewage, to build up
mix liquor suspended solids, and cannery waste. The load applied was 325
Ib/day at an average flow of 109,000 gpd giving approximately 12 hr
detention in the ditch. BOD removal was over 95% with an effluent BOD of
5 ppm. Suspended solids in the mixed liquor were built up to 3,200 ppm
which settled readily.
The effluent contained 7 ppm total nitrogen and 1.7 ppm phosphate. Power
consumption averaged 110 Kwh/day giving a power:BOD ratio of 0.3 Kwh/lb
of BOD removed.
39
-------
Table 15. Oxidation Ditch Operational Details
Period
Ditch Influent
4/ 1/68 - 6/ 1/68
6/ 1/68 - 6/18/68
6/18/68 - 5/ 8/68
8/ 5/68 - 11/11/68
11/11/68 - I/ 4/69
I/ 4/69 - 2/ 7/69
2/ 7/69 - 5/15/69
5/15/69 - 6/20/69
6/20/69 - 12/19/69
I/ 8/70 - 2/11/70
2/11/70 - 5/ 7/70
Domestic trickling filter
effluent + vegetable cannery
waste.
Raw sewage + vegetable cannery
waste.
Lagoon effluent + vegetable
cannery waste.
Ditch rotor failure.
Ditch rotor failure.
Domestic trickling filter
effluent to establish solids.
Lagoon effluent.
Lagoon effluent + vegetable
cannery waste.
Lagoon effluent + raw sewage.
2 ditches: Raw sewage +
lagoon effluent.
2 ditches: lagoon effluent.
40
-------
Table 16. Ditch Performance*
5/30/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
6/1/68 - 6/18/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
6/18/68 - 8/5/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
2/7/69 - 5/15/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
BOD
(ppm)
280
9
200
14
130
27
155
66
£H_
6.7
7.1
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.2
7.2
7.6
Total -N
(ppm)
27.1
6.3
38.4
11.9
34.8
27.1
29.9
22.1
P04
(PPM)
2.3
1.5
2.3
1.8
2.2
1.4
5.3
3.8
Sett! .
SS Solids
(ppm) %
160
1 ,840 30
390
40
2,870 58
125
210
1,570 82
280
140
3,010 45
DO Fl ow Power
(ppm) (gpd) Kwh/day
125,600
4.0
137,000
3.1
no
153,000
2.8
130
93,200
3.8
105
-------
-ti-
ro
Table 16. Ditch Performance*
5/15/69 - 6/20/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
6/20/69 - 12/19/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
1/8/70 - 2/11/70
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent Dj
Ditch Effluent D2
Mixed Liquor D]
Mixed Liquor 03
2/11/70 - 5/7/70
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent DI
Ditch Effluent D2
Mixed Liquor D]
Mixed Liquor D2
BOD
(PPm)
112
37
258
114**
350
154
207
1,478
425
436
(Cont'd)
_Pl
6.6
6.9
6.4
7.1
6.1
6.9
6.9
4.9
6.3
6.3
Total -N
(ppm)
21.3
20.6
47.5
35.9
31.8
20.0
22.1
31.7
20.8
19.7
P04
(ppm)
4.3
4.0
24.5
17.3
25.3
15.0
17.5
27.9
24.7
22.0
Settl .
SS Solids
(ppm) %
120
95
2,750 31
275
250
2,720
130
170
182
3,860 35
2,050 15
194
260
108
3,230 50
2,080 38
DO
(ppm)
1.3
1.2
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.5
Flow
(gpd)
186,000
92,000
38,600
49,000
17,800
15,500
Power
Kwh/day
102
97
94
92
*Average values.
**45 after filtration to remove algae.
-------
Table 17. Ditch Performance*
6/1/68 - 6/18/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
6/18/68 - 8/5/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
2/7/69 - 5/15/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
5/15/69 - 6/20/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
6/20/69 - 12/19/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
Mixed Liquor
1/8/70 - 2/11/70
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent D]
Ditch Effluent D£
Mixed Liquor DI
Mixed Liquor D£
2/11/70 - 5/7/70
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent Di
Ditch Effluent D2
Mixed Liquor Q-\
Mixed Liquor ^
BOD
(ppm)
DH
58- 317 6.7-6.9
3.5- 34 6.7-7.2
62- 246 6.4-7.1
1- 119 6.9-7.3
45- 252 6.6-8.9
16- 145 6.7-8.9
47- 174 6.6-6.7
8- 66 6.8-6.9
79- 493 5.4-7.2
5- 168 6.2-7.2
173- 795 5.1-7.0
44- 267 6.4-7.4
101- 362 6.5-7.3
332-2360 4.3-6.7
8-1212 4.8-7.1
20-1208 4.8-7.2
*Range of values.
**Power consumption was not
Total -N
(ppm)
P04
(ppm)
28.9-58.2 1.4- 3.2
4.7-24.2 1.2- 2.3
32.1-37.1 2.2
23.5-33.1 1.2- 1.6
22.3-47.9 1.2-13.5
19.1-40.0 1.5- 9.0
18.1-23.0 2.0- 6.6
18.9-22.6 3.1- 5.0
23.9-75.3 13.2-39.0
22.1-49.7 10.4-30.0
27.9-37.9 22.9-28.9
18.6-20.9 15.5-19.9
16.0-20.0 10.5-24.6
18.3-44.0 12.0-53.4
5.8-32.1 10.1-45.0
6.0-34.0 21.9-22.0
measured separately for each
SS
(ppm)
160- 660
10- 90
1960-3450
60- 210
8- 270
1040-6405
40- 480
20- 420
1710-4580
20- 300
40- 164
2560-2940
70- 780
20- 430
520-5540
80- 190
30- 240
40- 360
2420-5380
760-2560
10- 600
10- 920
10- 190
660-5640
820-3120
ditch. Ditch 1
Settl. Flow
Solids DO Thousand
% (ppm) (gpd)
2.3- 4.2 67-192
30-86
0.5- 4.6 67-240
43-98
Nil -15. 5 41.6-135
20-90
Nil- 2.1 125-269
22-46
Nil- 5.1 57.7-195
5-46
Nil- 0.5 9.2- 55
Nil- 1 .0 182-583
20-46
7-20
Nil- 4.5 8- 48
Nil- 4.0 8- 31
21-97
22-97
amp were 11.5; Ditch 2 12.5 amp.
Power
Kwh/day
89-126
125-135
92-125
99-104
85-114
91-102**
86-108
-------
Table 18.
Summary of Ditch Performance and Power Consumption
' LOAD
Period
Ib BOD/day
4/ 1/68 -
6/ 1/68 -
6/18/68 -
8/ 5/68 -
2/ 7/69 -
5/15/69 -
6/20/69 -
I/ 8/70 -
2/11/70 -
6/ 1/68
6/18/68
8/ 5/68
2/ 7/69
5/15/69
6/20/69
12/19/69
2/11/70 Di
D2
5/ 7/70 Di
02
45
325
180
140
190
250
150
150
250
230
PERFORMANCE
Ib BOD
Ib BOD/day/ Ib BOD Removed/day/
ft of Rotor Removed/day ft of Rotor
3.8
27
15
12
16
21
12.5
12.5
21
19
43
310
145
Ditch Rotor Out
75
130
210
90
78
175
161
3.6
26
12
of Order
6.2
11
18.1
7.5
6.5
14.6
13.4
01
h
Removal
95
95
80
55
65
83
62
52
70
70
POWER CONSUMPTION
Kwh/lb of BOD
Removed/day
2.0
0.3
0.9
1.4
0.8
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.48
0.52
-------
June 18 - August 5. 1968
As the lagoon effluent had declined in BOD value the ditch was operated
with a mixture of vegetable cannery waste and lagoon effluent at an average
loading of 180 Ib BOD/day over the whole period with an average removal of
80%. Early in July heavy rain occurred at Shepparton causing a sudden
hydraulic overload of the mixed liquor settling tank. A significant proportion
of the solids was lost before the excess flow was cut off and mixed liquor
suspended solids dropped to 640 ppm with little purification of the waste
load. The ditch recovered rapidly after flows had returned to normal
and within two weeks the mixed liquor suspended solids was 1360 ppm and
the ditch was treating a load of 217 Ib/day achieving a BOD removal of
more than 95%.
August 5, 1968 - February 7, 1969
On August 5, 1968, an outer section of the cage rotor fractured and jammed
the rotor. The rotor was repaired by late December, mixed liquor solids
were built up in January and the ditch was replaced back into full operation
by February 7, 1969.
February 7 - May 15. 1969
The anaerobic lagoons treated a mixture of filter effluent and vegetable
and fruit cannery waste. The ditch purified lagoon effluent at a loading
of 140 Ib of BOD daily. The flow averaged 93,200 gpd giving approximately
16 hours detention in the ditch. The mixed liquor suspended solids content
ranged from 1710 ppm to 4580 ppm during this period (averaged 3010 ppm) and
settled readily. During this period ditch influent BOD averaged 155 ppm
which was comparatively low due to the effectiveness of the anaerobic
lagoon treatment. Effluent BOD, however, was 66 ppm only slightly better
than 55% removal. Influent nitrogen averaged 29.9 ppm with 5.3 ppm
phosphate and the mixed liquor temperature was 20°C, so that the unexpect-
edly poor performance of the ditch could not be due to lack of nutrients
or low temperature. It was noted, however, that the algal population in
the ditch was 2 million organisms/ml Chlorella and it was decided to
perform BOD tests after this period on the effluent plus a sample that
had been filtered to exclude BOD due to algal decomposition. (From July
1969 until December 1969 ditch influent BOD averaged 258 ppm while the
BOD of ditch effluent which had been filtered to remove algae averaged
45 ppm compared with unfiltered effluent BOD of 114 ppm.) Effluent
nitrogen was .22.1 ppm with 3.8 ppm phosphate. Average power consumption
was 102 Kwh/day giving a power: BOD ratio of 1.4 Kwh/lb of BOD removed
which is not consistent with previous experience. The value based on an
algal free effluent would have been 0.48 Kwh/lb BOD.
Hay 15 - June 20. 1969
The anaerobic lagoon was still treating filter effluent plus vegetable
and fruit cannery waste. Because of the decreasing BOD of the anaerobic
lagoon effluent (69 ppm on May 15, 1969) vegetable cannery waste was added
to the ditch to increase the BOD load without hydraulic overload. One
45
-------
hundred ninety Ib/day of BOD was added to the ditch with 65% removal
(influent BOD was 112 ppm and effluent BOD averaged 37 ppm). The average
flow was 186,000 gpd giving a retention time of 8 hr in the ditch. In
spite of heavy rain on May 29, 1969, mixed liquor suspended solids were
maintained at an average of 2750 ppm during this period. Total nitrogen
content of the effluent averaged 20.6 ppm with 4 ppm phosphate. The average
power consumption was 102 Kwh/day giving a high ratio of 0.8 Kwh of power
used/ Ib of BOD removed.
June 20 - December 19, 1969
The anaerobic lagoons treated raw sewage plus vegetable cannery waste.
The oxidation ditch treated a mixture of raw sewage and lagoon effluent
at a loading of 250 Ib of BOD daily at a flow rate of 92,000 gpd (14 h'r .
detention in the ditch). Mixed liquor suspended solids averaged 2720 '.•••]
ppm over this period. The effluent nitrogen content averaged 35.9 ppm
with 17.3 ppm of phosphate. The BOD removal averaged 83% after algae
had been filtered from the effluent. Power usage averaged 87 Kwh/day,
a much lower figure than for most previous periods equivalent to 0.4 Kwh/lb
of BOD removed.
January 8 - February 11, 1970
The new rotor had been installed for this period in ditch 1 and both rotors
were operated for the remainder of the grant period (the original rotor
was in ditch 2).
The anaerobic lagoons were treating a mixture of raw sewage, vegetable
cannery and fruit cannery wastes. The ditches treated a mixture of raw
sewage and lagoon effluent. The load on each ditch was 150 Ib BOD/day.
The flow averaged 38,600 and 49,000 gpd to ditches 1 and 2, respectively,
giving a detention time of about 32 hours in each ditch.
Ditch 1 with the new rotor was operated with a higher suspended solids
content of the mixed liquor (3860 ppm average) and effluent BOD averaged
154 ppm, a removal of 62%. Effluent nitrogen content averaged 20 .ppm
with 15 ppm phosphate. Because of the low BOD load, power consumed/lb
of BOD removed was 1.1 Kwh.
Ditch 2 operated at a mixed liquor suspended solids content of 2050 ppm
and BOD removal averaged 52% with an effluent BOD of 207 ppm. Effluent
nitrogen content averaged 22 ppm with 17 ppm phosphate. Again because
of the low BOD load, the power/BOD ratio was 1.2 Kwh/lb of BOD removed.
Over the last week of this period the strength of the lagoon effluent
increased sharply as the effect of the high strength fruit cannery waste
appeared in the anaerobic lagoon effluent.
February 11 - July 5. 1970
Both ditches treated anaerobic lagoon effluent from treatment of raw
sewage, vegetable cannery and fruit cannery wastes. The load on ditch 1
46
-------
with the new rotor was 250 Ib of BOD/day with a removal of 70%. Because
of the extremely high strength of the anaerobic lagoon effluent (1480 ppm)
only 17,800 gpd was treated giving greater than three days detention time
in the ditch. The suspended solids content of ditch 1 averaged 3230 ppm
with the solids settling readily. Effluent BOD averaged 425 ppm. The
nitrogen content of the effluent was 21 ppm with 25 ppm phosphate. Power/
BOD removed ratio was 0.48 Kwh/lb of BOD removed.
The load on ditch 2 with the original rotor was 230 Ib of BOD/day with a
removal of 70%. The flow was 15S500 gpd giving greater than three days
retention capacity in the ditch. Suspended solids content averaged 2080
ppm in the mixed liquor and settled readily.
Effluent BOD averaged 436 ppm with a nitrogen content of 20 ppm and 22
ppm phosphate. Power used was 0.52 Kwh/lb of BOD removed.
47
-------
SECTION IX
BACTERIOLOGICAL AND ALGAL ASPECTS
BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
Periodic examinations of the lagoon influent and effluent and the ditch
influent and effluent were made to determine the efficiency of bacterial
removal by the two processes. The results are shown in the Appendix.
Average results are shown in Table 19.
Table 19. Bacteriological Examination*
Sample
Anaerobic lagoon influent
Anaerobic lagoon effluent
% Removal
Oxidation ditch influent
Oxidation ditch effluent
% Removal
E. Coli I
18,000,000
400,000
98%
14,000,000
300,000**
97%
Confi rmed
Coliform Count
105,000,000
2,500,000
97%
166,000,000
7,600,000
96%
*Averages for April 19, ^968, to May 7, 1970, in organisms/100 ml.
**Atypical result of May 7, 1970, not included in average.
On September 5, 1968, under winter low flow conditions, after approximately
150 days detention in lagoons, the lagoon effluent had an E. Coli count
of 5 organisms/100 ml with a coliform count of 70 organisms/100 ml. The
anaerobic lagoon influent over the two year period averaged 18,000,000
E. Coli/100 ml and 105,000,000 coliform/100 ml.
Effluent counts over the same period averaged 400,000 E. Coli and 2,500,000
coliforms, i.e., over 95% removal of organisms. Percentage removals on
individual dates varied from 45% on June 5, 1959, to over 99% on September 4,
1969. The lower removal figure could have been caused by some short
circuiting of the pond contents. Remvoals of over 95% of the bacterial
count by anaerobic lagoon treatment are in line with previous experience.
The ditch influent and effluent were examined on eight occasions over the
period June 4, 1968, through May 7, 1970. Average bacterial removals were
over 95% but the effluent nevertheless had a high bacterial count and
49
-------
would require chlorination to reduce the count to low levels (100 organ-
isms/100 ml or less).
ALGAL COUNTS
Weekly algal counts were made on the anaerobic lagoon effluents and on the
ditch influent and effluent. Average results are shown in Table 20 and
the weekly counts are shown in the Appendix. Algae were present in the
lagoon effluent at all times. On most occasions the predominant organism
was Chlorella which was usually present at a concentration of greater than
1,000,000 organisms/ml. An algal population can be maintained in an
anaerobic lagoon above an actively digesting anaerobic sludge, with
conditions of complete anaerobiosis and methane fermentation of the waste
on the bottom of the lagoon.
Oxidation ditch treatment of the lagoon effluent did not substantially
reduce the algal population in the effluent and high algal counts were
usually obtained in the ditch effluent.
Table 20. Average Algal Counts*
Period
2/11/70 - 5/ 7/70
Effluent
4/ 1/68 -
6/ 1/68 -
6/18/68 -
8/ 5/68 -
11/11/68 -
I/ 4/69 -
21 7/69 -
5/15/69 -
6/20/69 -
I/ 8/70 -
6/ 1/68
6/18/68
8/ 5/68
11/11/68
I/ 4/69
2/7/69
5/15/69
6/20/69
12/19/69
2/11/70
400,000
800,000
700,000
150,000
300,000
1,700,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
1,300,000
S3
Effluent
4,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
6,000,000
600,000 2,500,000
*0rganisms/ml.
Ditch
Influent
4,000,000
Ditch
Effluent
3,000,000
6,000,000
1,800,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
2,800,000
900,000
1,400,000
2,600,000
3,000,000
3,000,000 (D2)
2,100,000 " *
2,700,000
Di)
50
-------
SECTION X
DISCUSSION
PERFORMANCE OF ANAEROBIC LAGOON PROCESS
The operation of the anaerobic lagoons for two years has shown that a BOD
reduction of 75 to 85% can be achieved with loading up to 400 Ib/acre/day.
The period of loading at 600 Ib/acre/day was associated with a very high
BOD/nutrient ratio and in view of five years experience with other lagoons
it is considered that provided the BOD:nitrogen ratio is held below 50:1
a load of 600 Ib/acre/day with 80% removal (480 Ib BOD/acre/day removed)
can be achieved.
SLUDGE
The capacity of lagoon sludges to remove BOD as measured by the laboratory
purification index was reasonably constant for inlet sludges and did not
change appreciably with the nature of the waste load or the season of the
year. Outlet sludges generally possessed greater BOD purification
capacity than those taken near the lagoon inlet. This is in line with
previously reported work.
The gas activity of inlet sludges was highest at the beginning of the
project and gradually stabilized under the relatively constant BOD loading
conditions existing. There was some initial stimulation of gas yield in
outlet sludges but this again stabilized to lower figures over the latter
portion of the grant period.
NUTRIENTS
While the main objective of the project was to establish the reliability
of the two stage process, some study was made of the influence of nutrients
on BOD removal. Operation of lagoons with a range of BOD:nitrogen ratio
achieved by varying the cannery waste:sewage flow ratio gave definite
evidence of increased performance as the BOD:nitrogen ratio was reduced
below 134:1.
It would appear, although very low ratios were not examined, that the
optimum ratio is of the order of 50:1.
OXIDATION DITCH
The oxidation ditch stage of the process was marred initially by mechanical
problems with bearing failure and metal fatigue cracking of the rotor bars.
The newly designed rotor used at the latter stage of the project gave trouble
free operation over the five month period of use.
The process showed no difficulty in maintaining sufficient solids content
in the mixed liquor. It was found that the algal population of the lagoon
effluent was carried through to the final effluent.
51
-------
Considerable difficulty was experienced in maintaining the required load
on the ditches owing to fluctuating BOD of the raw waste and consequent
variations in the BOD of the lagoon effluent used as influent to the
ditches. The BOD removal was consistent with earlier observations and
under full load was of the order of 25 Ib BOD/day/ft length of rotor.
The power requirement was 0.4 to 0.5 Kwh/lb BOD removed.
The effect of overload on performance was demonstrated during the second
fruit cannery season (1970). Despite an increase in the final effluent
BOD to over 400 ppm a satisfactory fast, settling sludge was maintained
throughout.
The only operational factor which caused upset to the process was very
heavy rain. This raised the level of water over the lagoon effluent weirs
inducing a very considerable increase in flow into and out of the ditch.
This increased flow through the final sedimentation tank caused sludge to
rise .over the weir and be lost. However, sludge solids were rebuilt within
a matter of two weeks.
52
-------
SECTION XI
COST PROJECTIONS
The Shepparton Sewerage Authority was obliged to make a decision concerning
the design of new full-scale facilities to treat all of both raw cannery
wastes and all the city sewage including abattoirs and butter factory after
primary sedimentation and sludge digestion at the existing sewage treat-
ment plant, while the Demonstration Project was in progress. Based on
all the earlier experience and the early results of the demonstration
project, a decision was made to treat initially by means of the anaerobic-
aerobic lagoon system, in preference to anaerobic lagoon-oxidation ditch
system. With regard to capital cost there was a slight advantage to the
anaerobic lagoon-oxidation ditch but when power costs were considered the
annual charge based on local rates, interest, and amortization and running
costs, the anaerobic-aerobic lagoon system was preferred.
The installation has now been constructed and actual costs are available
for the construction of the anaerobic units to treat this combined cannery-
sewage effluent flow of 4 mgd with a BOD load of 70,000 Ib/day.
They are as follows:
Land (@ $300/acre) $35,000
Earth work (@ 35 cents/cu yd) $40,000
Distribution pipes (inlets $24,000
and outlets)
$99,000
With regard to oxidation ditch costs, data can be established from those
used in the demonstration project. Based on a performance of 25 to 30
Ib BOD/day/ft length of rotor and other established design parameters,
there would be required in conjunction with the 110 acres of anaerobic
lagoons, seven oxidation ditch units of similar dimensions to those
observed in the demonstration project.
Concrete work (including channels) $ 65,000
Rotors, motors, and gears (14) $ 25,000
Electrical $ 2,000
Sedimentation tank $ 25,000
Miscellaneous $ 7.000
Total $114,000
53
-------
Running Cost
Power for peak fruit cannery season
only (3 months at 2 cents/Kwh) $ 12,600
Maintenance $ 5,000 p.a,
Summary of Costs for Load of
70,000 1b BOD/day Capital
lagoons $ 99,000
ditches (7) $114,000
$213,000
Monthly Operating Cost
Power $ 1,800
Maintenance $ 400
Labor $ 400
$ 2,600
54
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of the Chariman (Councillor V. E. Vibert) and members of the
Shepparton Sewerage Authority is gratefully acknowledged. In making
available existing anaerobic lagoons and oxidation ditches previously
constructed by the Authority, for the Demonstration Project a substantial
constribution was made towards the progress of the project. Their interest
in the progress of the study is sincerely appreciated.
The Chief Engineer (Mr. L. Plumridge) and the Deputy Engineer (Mr. L. Purdy)
of the Shepparton Preserving Co. gave considerable assistance with informa-
tion concerning cannery operation and flows.
Similar assistance was given by Mr. J. Davenport, General Manager of
Campbells Soup (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. and this is also acknowledged with
sincere thanks.
The Chief Engineer of the Shepparton Sewerage Authority Mr. W. C. Johnson
(dec.) and later Mr. H. W. Terrill and particularly Mr. G. G. Porter,
Deputy Engineer, gave valuable support. Our thanks are particularly due
to Mr. R. Maher who was responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the
operation and to Mr. C. Katerelos of Melbourne Water Science Institute Ltd.
who was responsible for a large part of the field observations. A major
part of the laboratory work was carried out by Mr. G. P. Skerry.
The project Director was Mr. C. P. Parker of Melbourne Water Science
Institute Ltd. and the EPA Project Officer was Kenneth A. Dostal of the
National Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Oregon.
55
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
Glide, L. C., "Food Processing Waste Treatment by Surface Filtration,"
Proc. 1st National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, Portland,
Oregon, pp. 311 (April 1970).
Parker, C. D., "Food Cannery Waste Treatment by Lagoon and Ditches
at Shepparton," Proc. 21st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
Univeristy, pp. 284 (May 1966).
Parker, C. D. and Skerry, G. P., "Function of Solids in Anaerobic
Lagoon Treatment of Wastewater," WPCF Journal, pp. 192 (1968).
Norgaard, J. T., Huks, R., and Reinsch, D. A., "Treatment of Combined
Sewage and Fruit Canning Wastes," WPCF Journal, pp. 1088 (1960).
57
-------
SECTION XIV
APPENDICES
Table 1: Raw Sewage Composite
Table 2: Filter Effluent Composite
Table 3: Campbells Soup Vegetable Cannery Composite
Table 4: S.P.C. Fruit Cannery Composite
Table 5: Filter Effluent and Fruit Cannery Mixture
Table 6: Lagoon Influent Composite
Table 7: Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent $2
Table 8: Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent S3
Table 9: Ditch Influent from Lagoon
Table 10: Combined Ditch Influent
Table 11: Oxidation Ditch Effluent
Table 12: Oxidation Ditch 1 Effluent
Table 13: Oxidation Ditch 2 Effluent
Table 14: Flow and DO Observations
Table 15: Ditch Solids, Temperature, and Power Consumption
Table 16: Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Purification Index
Table 17: Gas Yields on Lagoon Sludges Using 30°C
Synthetic Sewage
Table 18: Gas Yields on Lagoon Sludges Using 30°C
Water
Table 19: Anaerobic Lagoon Bacteriological Examination
Table 20: Oxidation Ditch & Aerobic Lagoon Bacteriological
Examination
Table 21: Anaerobic Lagoon & Oxidation Ditch Algal Count
& Identification
Table 22: Anaerobic Lagoon and Oxidation Ditch Algal Count
& Identification
59
-------
Table 1. Raw Sewage Composite
Date
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
6/25/68
11 2/68
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
8/22/68
8/29/68
9/ 5/68
9/13/68
9/19/68
9/25/68
W 4/68
10/10/68
10/17/68
10/23/68
ll/ 1/68
11 / 8/68
Average
11/14/68
11/20/68
11/28/68
12/ 6/68
12/13/68
12/20/68
Average
5/22/69
6/ 6/69
BOD
PPm
220
255
270
260
217
316
305
296
271
795
858
900
820
720
680
1042
1050
1118
1048
602
1072
440
340
336
327
223
456
25
233
JJH
8.0
7.6
7.3
7.3
8.2
6.8
7.4
6.9
7.3
6.3
5.4
5.0
5.1
5.7
5.3
5.3
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.3
6.6
5.0
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.2
NH3
PPm
12.5
45.0
45
50
55
50
45
55
50
35
35
40
40
30
55
45
40
40
40
40
45
42
40
40
60
50
45
50
47
Organic-N
PPm
29.4
45.2
38.4
34.4
37.8.
43.1
49.7
42.3
51.1
83.9.
104.2
70.5
90.4
100.9
85.1
86.2
103.9
124.1
95.8
69.3
70.0
32.3
28.6
27.4
10.3
22.7
30.2
10.0
P04
PPm
5.02
4.50
3.83
2.85
2.80
. 4.10
25.65
3.2
32
45
36.3
15.0
6.3
24.0
44.5
32.3
38.5
29.1
3.3
SS
PPm
200
210
310
. 390
580
260
350
160
380
500
490
460
1140
480
510
480
500
590
450
640
450
410
550
160.
100
80
200
250
160
356
IDS
PPm
624
678
698
718
752
682
758
748
690
1370
1188
1268
1102
865
60
-------
Table 1. Raw Sewage Composite (Cont
Date
6/27/69
11 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/12/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
10/31/69
ll/ 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/12/69
12/19/69
Average
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Average
BOD
ppm
377
486
306
397
419
457
358
520
920
892
1034
1170
512
1286
1395
1086
1070
965
744
924
786
1118
1120
970
940
731
755
659
558
1010
532
770
664
430
594
472
472
620
425
540
670
510
104
350
440
_pJt
8.5
7.9
7.7
6.8
7.6
7.4
7.1
7.6
5.7
5.7
5.0
4.7
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.1
5.4
4.7
5.1
4.8
4.9
5.2
5.9
7.7
6.8
5.8
5.6
6.4
6.5
6.3
6.4
5.8
6.1
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.6
6.5
6.3
NH3
ppm
45
50
55
50
45
35
4.0
45
40
35
30.0
40
35
40
40
40.0
4.5
40.0
50.0
35.0
40
50.0
60.0
40
50.0
45.0
50.0
47
80
50
45
45
35
30
35
50
50
47
•d)
Organic-N
ppm
29.0
29.5
49.5
16.5
24.9
53.6
47.5
10.4
58.3
71
72.1
77.6
63.4
62.5
58.2
5.6
43.1
18.9
29.3
22.4
23.5
25.4
30.1
28.0
26.8
P04
PPm
36.0
35.0
28.2
31 .0
53.5
55.0
42.2
36.3
44.3
26.0
14.0
14.4
12.7
30.8
1.8
47.0
27.0
46
41
38.7
36.5
16.5
53.8
38.8
SS TDS
ppm ppm
560
JL-\J
380
\Jij\J
280
L-\J\J
250
£_ s7 \J
520
490
390
+J *s \J
660
810
520
660
640
520
480
330
400
230
510
540
600
240
610
440
270
160
230
280
440
260
180
370
320
500
520
230
360
200
100
60
284
61
-------
Table 2. Filter Effluent Composite
Date
1/10/69
1/24/69
1/30/69
21 7/69
Average
BOD
PPm
420
294
294
242
312
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.9
NH3
PPm
50
45
55
50
50
Organic-N
PPm
29.7
21.9
25.8
P04
19.5
31.3
4.6
18.5
SS
ppm
400
60
260
130
210
62
-------
Table 3. Campbells Soup Vegetable Cannery Composite
Date
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
6/25/68
11 2/68
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
8/22/68
8/29/68
9/ 5/68
9/13/68
9/19/68
9/25/68
10/ 4/68
10/10/68
10/17/68
10/23/68
ll/ 1/68
ll/ 8/68
Average
11/14/68
11/20/68
11/28/68
12/ 6/68
12/13/68
12/20/68
Average
1/24/69
1/30/69
2/ 7/69
2/14/69
Average
BOD
ppm
276
322
375
340
335
462
221
712
190
594
468
401
325
568
438
521
286
285
338
398
596
436
340
364
391
433
425
387
403
390
386
391
pH
5.2
5.6
5.8
9.7
5.1
5.9
5.3
5.8
6.0
5.6
6.6
6.5
5.8
5.8
5.1
4.4
6.5
6.1
6.3
6.5
6.0
5.5
6.3
6.1
4.7
5.6
4.2
5.9
7.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
6.3
NH3
ppm
0.1
3.4
0.8
10.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.0
1.4
1.4
2.0
2.5
1.7
2.5
2.1
1.7
1.4
4.5
1.7
1.4
2.5
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.0
1.7
3.1
Organic-N
pom
21.3
34.8
39.2
60.8
40.0
44.2
39.3
49.7
23.0
31.5
33.0
36.0
30.2
36.5
43.9
48.8
29.5
24.4
50.3
37.7
34.7
28.8
15.5
13.8
29.3
17.3
23.0
8.6
11.8
10.2
P04
ppm
2.07
1.33
2.70
1.3
0.3
1.9
2.82
0.4
2.8
5.3
10.1
2.8
2.0
6.7
6.3
6.8
9.0
6.2
8.2
11.7
10.0
SS
PPm
210
210
270
570
590
480
350
390
300
300
210
460
210
230
390
250
320
540
260
250
340
150
260
230
90
210
180
190
70
150
260
140
155
IDS
PPm
388
374
336
282
376
582
378
252
274
588
628
588
354
410
63
-------
Table 3.
Date
2/20/69
2/28/69
3/ 6/69
3/13/69
3/21/69
3/31/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
Average
5/22/69
5/30/69
6/ 6/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Average
6/27/69
11 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/12/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
10/31/69
ll/ 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/12/69
12/19/69
Average
Campbells Soup Vegetable Cannery Composite (Cont
BOD
ppm
270
365
278
71
579
275
340
419
135
278
,272
249
295
628
197
560
337
430
463
223
16
251
500
291
430
402
210
416
485
337
16
371
360
263
349
517
318
476
143
399
520
305
350
233
330
pH
6,2
4.9
5.7
8.2
5.2
4.7
5.7
4.8
5.1
6.8
5.5
6.1
5.7
6.1
5.6
5.9
5.6
5.8
6.2
6.8
5.1
6.2
5.6
9.9
6.1
5.2
5.4
8.0
5.8
5.3
7.1
6.1
7.0
5.7
5.5
4.8
8.4
8.9
6.0
5.9
6.0
NH3
ppm
3.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
2.5
2.5
1.4
2.5
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.3
4.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.7
2.5
1.4
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
6.0
10.0
2.7
Organic-N
ppm
14.9
29.9
8.7
18.6
13.1
17.0
31.2
17.1
8.5
28.8
17.0
20.5
31.4
23.4
14.7
21.5
29.7
16.9
5.6
9.7
10.7
23.9
11.3
15.7
16.8
10.5
9.4
16.7
P04
ppm
7.1
6.7
2.6
1.7
2.1
3.3
2.2
3.0
3.4
3.9
3.6
31.6
2.4
5.7
6.4
9.4
7.3
4.8
5.0
4.3
4.4
5.4
2.0
3.1
1.6
4.2
4.9
'd)
SS TDS
ppm ppm
210
630
210
80
250
80
200
420
280
320
140
180
250
650 '
30
240
240
100
250
420
130
300
320
280
140
130
360
270
140
90
280
10
140
160
140
140
230
40
260
30
350
200
160
200
210
200
64
-------
Table 3. Campbells Soup Vegetable Cannery Composite (Cont
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Average
BOD
Ppm
545
534
495
410
345
465
457
655
486
396
730
330
540
413
395
204
344
450
JDH
5.7
6.6
5.8
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.3
4.7
5.1
5.1
4.9
5.6
5.3
5.9
5.8
6.9
6.6
6.7
NH3
ppm
3.0
3.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.7
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
2.7
Organic-N
ppm
29.9
14.5
16.3
11.8
18.1
25.5
1.7
7.7
11.6
P04
Ppm
7.5
7.3
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.6
5.4
7.2
7.4
3.0
6.3
•d)
SS IDS
ppm ppm
160
90
130
180
710
255
150
240
1350
270
290
40
780
140
10
100
337
65
-------
Table 4. S
Date
1/10/69
1/24/69
1/30/69
21 7/69
2/14/69
Average
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
21 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Average
.P.C. Fruit Cannery
BOD
ppm
1490
70
115
2240
2380
1260
821
1500
1935
3030
2750
2765
2140
3245
356
3280
2660
3350
2550
3680
2865
3305
1280
530
2460
PH
11.2
5.1
5.2
6.7
4.7
6.6
3.7
4.9
4.7
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.9
4.2
4.7
4.4
5.2
4.5
5.0
4.8
4.2
4.4
5.5
4.6
Composite
NH3
ppm
2.0
3.0
0.7
0.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.0
3.5
1.4
2.1
1.7
0.7
1.0
2.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
2.5
2.0
1.6
Organic-N
ppm
46.1
33.9
27.9
36.0
51.1
40.3
25.1
38.0
43.4
32.5
18.0
Nil
23.5
P04
PPm
1.0
0.8
14.0
5.3
40.4
1.4
0.52
14
2.7
1.55
0.54
Nil
0.55
0.92
1.0
SS
ppm
540
130
30
690
880
450
370
340
170
630
510
820
470
1520
140
900
950
630
700
440
590
380
40
629
66
-------
Table 5. Filter Effluent and
Date
2/20/69
2/28/69
3/ 6/69
3/13/69
3/21/69
3/31/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
5/15/69
Average
5/22/69
5/30/69
6/ 6/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Average
BOD
ppm
1900
1250
2020
6140
1930
334
1290
2110
5550
85
95
2060
523
99
120
97
210
JDH.
3.9
4.7
5.6
5.6
4.7
5.7
4.8
4.7
7.4
8.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
5.9
7.1
7.2
7.1
Fruit Cannery Mixture
NH3
ppm
35.0
25
10.0
30
20.0
20
25
45
40
50
40
31
50
27.5
50
42.2
Organic-N
ppm
36.1
46.0
22.4
16.5
11.6
15.9
24.7
21.5
121.8
13.8
11.8
18.2
37.4
P04
PPm
5.0
21.9
22.5
6.5
10.3
7.9
7.2
11.6
26.0
12.5
13.1
25.4
11.2
18.4
SS
ppm
770
660
930
310
790
140
560
720
60
230
140
80
50
420
390
100
272
240
150
230
67
-------
Table 6. Lagoon Infl
Date
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
6/25/68
7/ 2/68
7/ 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
8/22/68
8/29/68
9/ 5/68
9/13/68
9/19/68
9/25/68
10/ 4/68
10/10/68
10/17/68
10/23/68
ll/ 1/68
ll/ 8/68
Average
11/14/68
11/20/68
11/28/68
12/ 6/68
12/13/68
12/20/68
Average
1/10/69
1/24/69
1/30/69
2/ 7/69
2/14/69
Average
BOD
ppm
212
287
300
270
293
372
342
552
244
657
515
509
490
371
302
201
670
736
586
416
870
196
540
457
436
363
477
700
158
264
785
620
630
uent Composite
ph
6.3
6.0
6.6
7.5
6.8
6.6
6.1
6.2
6.4
5.9
5.5
6.3
5.4
5.6
5.8
5.0
5.1
4.8
6.7
5.6
6.0
4.8
5.8
5.9
4.8
5.2
4.8
5.2
6.6
6.8
6.5
4.8
4.8
5.9
NH3
ppm
4.0
15
25
35
45
12.5
10
35.0
14.0
17.0
14
20
20
10
17
20
14
10
20
25
25
20
20
10.0
17
17.0
20
20
17
40
14
20.0
14
14
17
Organic-N
ppm _
24.6
34.2
39.5
32.9
42.3
42.5
31.8
51.3
40.4
40.0
61.4
17.2
55.1
51.6
57.7
50.2
58.6
16.8
19.9
40.4
55.2
26.9
27.5
11.0
21.2
19.8
26.9
12.1
30
17.9
20
P04
PPm
2.41
1.15
3.60
2.39
2.30
13.50
0.6
18
34.8
29.1
10.8
3.5
14.0
13.2
19.7
20.5
11.8
20.5
20.7
20.0
20.4
SS
PPm
220
170
380
410
630
300
290
370
310
470
350
210
210
280
330
220
250
290
300
830
340
350
330
430
170
170
130
260
250
90
110
270
220
190
68
-------
Table 6. Lagoon Influent Composite (Cont'd)
Date
2/20/69
2/28/69
3/ 6/69
3/13/69
3/21/69
3/31/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
5/15/69
Average
5/22/69
5/30/69
6/ 6/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Average
6/27/69
11 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/12/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
10/31/69
ll/ 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/12/69
12/19/69
Average
BOD
ppm
875
625
536
454
2500
514
362
130
208
258
192
650
426
182
376
271
315
287
345
144
197
511
127
447
350
540
622
755
719
385
711
807
601
655
735
530
614
673
739
730
670
650
165
530
pH
4.2
4.6
5.2
5.1
4.3
5.2
4.8
4.6
7.3
7.3
6.2
6.3
5.8
4.9
6.6
6.1
6.3
6.6
6.4
7.1
6.8
6.5
7.2
6.2
6.2
5.7
6.1
5.2
5.0
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.5
4.7
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.8
NH3
PPffl
7.0
7.0
2.0
7.0
10.0
20
1.7
17.0
14.0
20
7.0
15.0
10.0
7.0
8.5
10.0
8.5
25
20
25
40
20
30
20
20
20
25
20.0
30
25
25
25
20.0
25
25
30.0
17.0
25
40.0
30.0
25
Organic-N
ppm
32.6
27.3
31.6
12.1
13.8
19.1
19.1
22.2
18.3
8.5
11.4
17.8
18.4
15.0
14.7
25.8
30.3
11.7
25.8
25.6
33.1
25.3
25.9
34.2
29.3
41.6
33.9
30.9
40.5
28.5
4.6
27.2
P04
ppm
10.6
11.2
6.0
3.0
4.2
6.7
5.0
7.4
6.8
10.5
7.1
7.6
11.0
9.3
16.0
22.2
21.4
19.4
37.5
36.4
29.1
37.3
36.0
20.8
19.5
8.8
6.3
23.0
SS
ppm
790
300
200
180
380
130
170
380
90
360
20
200
10
250
300
50
216
60
70
140
260
250
130
370
440
180
250
110
360
180
260
260
430
320
210
260
120
370
230
270
120
250
190
390
280
400
265
69
-------
Table 6. Lagoon Infl
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
,4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
BOD
ppm
1109
1260
1620
1146
2575
1775
1580
3385
2825
2775
2480
2680
2290
3020
2255
3485
570
425
uent Composite (Cont'd)
_2H
3.8
4.9
4.8
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.8
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.9
4.0
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.6
5.4
NH3
ppm
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.0
0.7
7.0
2.0
5.0
7.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
Organic-N
ppm
41.3
32.9
28.0
34.0
56.4
39.9
25.6
5.4
P04
ppm
6.5
7.6
3.7
5.9
2.6
2.1
5.35
2.3
4.96
6.6
SS
ppm
450
210
220
360
150
590
330
1510
1140
860
50
630
680
400
260
80
Average 2080 4.6 3.8 31.9 4.0 617
70
-------
Table 7.
Date
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
6/25/68
11 2/68
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
8/22/68
8/29/68
9/ 5/68
9/13/68
9/19/68
9/25/68
10/ 4/68
10/10/68
10/17/68
10/23/68
ll/ 1/68
ll/ 8/68
Average
11 /1 4/68
11/20/68
11/28/68
12/ 6/68
12/13/68
12/20/68
Average
1/24/69
1/30/69
21 7/69
2/14/69
Average
Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent $2
BOD
ppm
24
51
300
54
81
98
60
80
277
117
106
155
180
106
209
216
144
50
112
127
151
82
30
42
57
42
67
93
104
82
98
94
_PJi
7.4
7.1
6.6
7.1
7.1
6.8
7.0
7.9
7.0
6.9
7.1
6.8
7.1
6.9
6.5
6.9
7.3
6.7
6.9
6.8
7.0
6.7
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.2
NH3
Ppm
0.7
8
25
25
22.5
20
25
25
20.0
30.0
25
25
25
20
25
25
25
14
30
35
30
23
14
20
14
14
14
17
13
14
7
10
4.0
8.8
Organic-N
ppm
21.5
23.0
39.5
14.7
15.3
42.7
20
15.4
10.8
11.2
20.7
46.1
27.3
27.2
25.9
25.4
41.7
47.1
54.4
23.6
37.2
34.1
32.1
24.7
11.1
15.9
25.8
29.4
21.9
25.6
N02
Ppm
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N03 P04
ppm ppm
1.6 2.52
1.1 3.20
3.60
1.90
1.70
2.40
12.79
0.080 0.4
16
0.163
0.287
0.463
0.438
20.3
23.1
0.6 7.9
2.3
20
24.0
23.8
24.0
19
8.2
11.0
9.6
SS
PPm
100
20
380
no
130
20
50
20
50
80
60
20
130
340
150
160
170
260
210
240
130
300
380
240
320
90
50
230
270
290
340
770
420
71
-------
Table 7.
Date
2/20/69
2/28/69
3/ 6/69
3/13/69
3/21/69
3/31/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
5/15/69
Average
5/22/69
5/30/69
6/ 6/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Average
6/27/69
7/ 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/12/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
10/31/69
ll/ 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/12/69
12/19/69
Average
Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent $2
BOD
ppm
134
127
160
140
291
415
306
289
62
153
50
106
42
190
69
46
70
60
61
80
83
58
67
69
142
81
105
60
140
114
86
38
81
178
110
131
102
60
67
68
65
83
193
90
62
92
_BH
6.7
7.2
6.0
6.6
6.2
4.7
6.5
6.8
7.1
8.9
7.4
6.6
7.0
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.6
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.9
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.2
7.1
6.7
6.6
NH3
ppm
7.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
17.0
1.4
3.5
0.8
1.4
1.4
2.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
5.0
3.3
10.0
8.5
8.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
20
17.5
17.5
15.0
20.0
17.5
15.0
12.5
15.0
14.0
8.5
10.0
7.0
17.0
25
10.0
6.0
13.5
Organic-N
ppm
33.5
39.4
28.4
32.3
20.7
20.6
17.9
27.5
17.4
17.5
18.8
18.3
10.3
16.5
13.5
12.1
12.5
15.8
8.2
13.3
14.7
57.3
23.4
23.2
30.5
35.0
38.6
28.9
29.5
20.7
23.6
N02 N03 P04
2M PPm ppm
17.0
15.8
20.5
2.0
3.8
2.4
3.5
4.0
6.0
2.7
7.8
2.8
3.6
3.2
8.8
11.0
1.5
20.0
25.0
28.9
30.1
17.5
14.7
19.2
21.2
4.9
14.8
16.7
SS
ppm
310
300
570
350
370
250
260
260
190
340
170
150
290
160
160
220
100
100
150
110
100
90
160
70
120
80
no
190
80
220
260
330
150
310
370
240
410
120
40
40
150
310
230
250
no
72
-------
Table 7.
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
21 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent $2 (Cont1
BOD
ppm
84
78
167
305
372
795
300
322
361
1720
1610
1555
973
1850
1805
1835
1270
JDH
6.5
7.6
6.9
5.9
5.2
5.0
6.2
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.3
5.0
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.7
5.6
NH3
ppm
17.5
2.8
0.8
1.4
10.0
6.5
8.0
10
12.5
22
5.0
5.0
1.4
1.4
2.0
Organic-N
ppm
15.0
24.6
10.1
17.0
25.4
5.1
30.8
13.0
d).
NO 2
ppm
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N03
ppm
Nil
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.2
0.96
P04
Ppm
20.2
18.4
28
26.4
29.1
20.8
11.9
27.2
SS
Ppm
720
20
30
360
160
120
235
190
200
310
370
180
20
400
150
20
20
Average 1330 4.8 7.5 18.6 23.9 181
73
-------
Table 8.
Date
9/ 5/68
9/13/68
9/19/68
9/25/68
10/ 4/68
10/10/68
10/17/68
10/23/68
ll/ 1/68
ll/ 8/68
Average
11/14/68
11/20/68
11/28/68
12/ 6/68
12/13/68
12/20/68
Average
1/24/69
1/30/69
21 7/69
2/14/69
Average
2/20/69
2/28/69
3/ 6/69
3/13/69
3/21/69
3/31/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
5/15/69
Averaae
Anaerobic Lagoon
BOD
ppm
135
17
89
34
106
170
164
109
103
119
83
30
71
32
38
62
79
65
51
63
65
57
42
150
140
266
320
252
241
194
141
75
99
37
170
Effl
NH3
pH ppm
6.9
8.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.2
6.8
7.1
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.3
6.5
7.2
7.1
7.2
6.1
7.0
6.7
5.6
6.5
6.8
7.3
8.9
7.2
6.6
7.0
6.9
25
20
20
20
17
17
4
20
25
20
19
10
17
17.0
10
17
10
12
7.0
10.0
2.0
7.0
7
4.0
40
2.0
7.0
2.0
14
7.0
3.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.5
7.4
uent $3
Organic-N
ppm
41.6
' 26.8
29.0
25.1
38.1
55.0
50.8
50.9
39.7
33.2
26.1
22.3
29.3
10.6
16.4
23.0
20.5
23.6
22.1
20.7
31.1
22.8
30.3
13.8
20.8
16.5
22.3
N02 N03 P04
ppm ppm ppm
Nil 0.130 0.6
24.4
Nil 0.20
Nil 0.40
Nil 0.375
0.678
18.2
25.2
0.35 17.1
Nil 3.6
Nil 27.0
Nil 25.0
Nil 25.6
Nil
Nil 23.5
20.0
15.3
26.0
20.6
7.0
6.3
26.8
3.3
5.4
0.6
0.8
4.4
1.8
6.0
SS
ppm
10
70
60
160
90
240
280
370
340
180
310
440
310
300
30
50
240
100
120
200
190
150
110
320
440
320
490
440
290
360
210
350
200
210
310
74
-------
Table 8.
Date
5/22/69
5/30/69
6/ 6/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Average
6/27/69
11 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/12/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
10/31/69
11 / 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/12/69
12/19/69
Average
Anaerobi
BOD
ppm
24
35
82
69
52
73
65
43
46
37
183
95
149
180
165
204
100
20
133
83
46
66
105
128
97
83
195
200
138
181
114
113
c Lagoon
J2H
. 6.7
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.8
6.4
6.6
7.0
7.0
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.7
6.5
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.2
6.7
6.8
6.8
Effl
NHo
\j
ppm
3.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
5.0
7.0
8.5
8.5
10.0
10.0
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
17.5
17.5
15.0
15.0
12.5
8.5
10.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
0.2
0.1
10.4
uent $3 (Cont'd)
Organic-N !% N03
ppm ppm ppm
18.8
17.9
15.4
17.8
16.7
17.3
13.1
15.9
15.7
14.1
10.6
21.9
21.5
19.4
2.7
36.9
21.4
25.7
28.1
27.8
31.4
58.5
22.8
P04
PPm
2.0
1.7
1.8
3.1
7.8
10.0
17.0
24.5
22.4
26.1
18.1
20.6
17.5
18.1
13.7
17.9
20.0
SS
Ppm
260
190
244
140
160
200
530'
170
220
220
40
130
140
230
180
110
210
220
240
no
240
240
140
250
200
100
350
100
660
430
370
145
75
-------
Table 8.
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
21 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Average
Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent $3 (Cont1
BOD
ppm
50
93
172
255
372
795
290
325
359
1620
1585
1975
1422
1765
2115
3416
1370
3125
1734
_eit
6.3
7.4
6.9
6.2
5.2
5.0
6.2
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.9
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.7
5.4
4.7
NH3
ppm
2.0
2.8
0.8
2.0
8.0
3.1
6.0
10.0
10.0
22
5.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
1.4
8.6
Organic-N
ppm
20.4
25.8
19.7
22.0
31.6
24.8
38.5
17.9
28.2
d)
NO 2
ppm
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N03
PPm
0.8
1.1
0.4
1.8
1.0
1.16
P04
PPm
21.3
11.5
22.6
18.0
21
26.4
17.4
10.6
31.6
21.4
SS
PPm
150
70
60
290
900
210
280
160
230
450
120
140
40
90
20
10
70
133
76
-------
Table 9.
Date
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
Average
2/ 7/69
2/14/69
2/20/69
2/28/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
5/15/69
Average
5/22/69
5/30/69
6/ 6/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Average
Ditch Influent
BOD
ppm
119
86
246
62.5
130
46
80
114
71
252
252
131
126
45
91
155
74
47
71
44
59
pH
6.7
6.9
6.4
7.1
6.8
7.4
6.7
6.6
7.7
6.6
6.9
7.3
8.9
7.3
6.6
7.2
7.2
6.7
6.6
6.6
from Lagoon
NH3
ppm
20
20
14.0
17.0
18
25
5.5
4.0
17
7.0
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.0
3.0
Organic-N
ppm
14.3
17.1
20.6
15.1
16.8
22.9
32.1
33.4
21.5
21.9
18.3
25.4
23.0
18.8
18.8
15.1
16.1
18.3
N02 N03 P04
ppm ppm ppm
Nil 2.2
Nil
Nil
Nil
2.2
13.5
10.2
1.2
1.6
1.7
3.9
5.3
6.6
2.0
4.3
SS
ppm
60
140
90
210
125
230
480
250
290
250
370
350
280
390
180
40
280
300
210
252
20
70
120
TDS
ppm
500
390
276
362
380
666
712
1106
698
708
646
544
549
700
574
77
-------
Table 9.
Date
6/27/69
If 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
10/31/69
ll/ 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/19/69
Average
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Average
Ditch Influent
BOD
ppm
64
74
58
44
74
292
69
123
125
135
161
23
94
183
116
84
148
125
69
79
184
175
107
113
42
60
143
315
372
795
290
332
1510
1910
1545
1690
1520
1980
2360
1365
570
1478
pH
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.6
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.2
6.8
6.9
7.5
7.0
6.1
5.2
5.0
6.1
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.3
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.9
4.7
6.7
4.9
from Lagoon (Cont'd)
NH3
PPm
5.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
15.0
15.0
17.5
22.5
15.0
12.5
15.0
10.0
8.5
10.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
10.4
2.0
1.4
1.4
7.0
3.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
22
5.0
5.0
8.0
6.0
9.4
Organic-N N02
ppm ppm
9.9
19.0
14.7
13.7
20.5
18.2
22.6
22.9
22.9
33.8
38.2
28.6
22.1
8.8 Nil
Nil
Nil
25.8 Nil
12.9 Nil
15.8
Nil
21.7 Nil
33.0 Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
12.3 Nil
22.3
N03 P04
ppm ppm
2.7
9.3
11.4
16.8
29.5
23.5
16.3
16.8
23.2
19.5
17.5
15.1
15.8
16.7
Nil
1.1
21.0
1.1
22.1
2.1 23.9
1.1 22.3
31
26.4
1.0
16.9
12.0
53.4
27.9
SS
PPm
350
120
180
130
90
150
170
240
200
90
160
300
80
240
310
160
150
310
180
80
440
520
250
210
50
20
120
210
230
130
600
270
330
210
60
10
10
60
194
TDS
PPm
590
520
538
664
492
444
458
570
538
734
484
498
566
524
532
614
594
550
536
918
706
720
78
-------
Table 10.
Date
5/30/68
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
Average
7/18/69
7/25/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/19/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/17/69
10/24/69
11 / 7/69
11/13/69
11/20/69
12/ 4/69
12/12/69
12/19/69
Average
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Combined Ditch Influent
BOD
PPm
280
223
317
58
200
79
102
361
142
140
171
323
384
358
478
493
290
199
248
158
192
375
95
190
387
258
208
211
173
372
795
_£H
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.4
6.5
6.0
5.7
5.4
5.5
6.2
6.7
6.1
6.6
6.7
6.0
6.9
6.4
6.1
7.1
7.0
5.1
5.1
NH3
Ppm
10
0.5
12.5
10
7.5
8.5
12.5
15.0
15.0
12.5
20
22.5
25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
12.5
15.0
20.0
7.0
7.0
0.2
4.0
14.5
15.0
2.8
10.0
Organic-N
ppm
17.1
28.7
45.1
18.9
30.9
15.4
21.3
18.2
19.9
21.2
22.9
30.8
55.3
44.3
47.8
33.3
41.4
56.6
33.0
22.9
25.1
19.4
N02 N03 P04
ppm ppm ppm
0.12 2.27
Nil 0.25 1.37
Nil 0.63 2.67
Nil 0.19 3.20
0.36 2.3
13.2
22.0
39.0
14.0
31.4
29.9
35.0
20.0
16.8
24.5
Nil
Nil Nil
Nil Nil 28.9
Nil Nil 22.9
Nil Nil 24.0
SS
ppm
160
660
350
160
390
150
70
130
260
160
340
160
110
380
90
400
430
160
140
120
360
400
780
440
410
275
150
100
80
120
190
IDS
ppm
390
1568
496
460
840
440
300
460
662
538
550
512
716
582
496
558
540
470
566
756
692
1232
592
894
704
Average 350
6.1
9.3
22.5
Nil
Nil 25.3 130 800
79
-------
Table 11.
Date
5/30/68
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
Average
6/25/68
11 7/68
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
Average
21 7/69
2/14/69
2/20/69
2/28/69
4/ 3/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/24/69
5/ 1/69
5/ 9/69
5/15/69
Average
Oxidation Ditch Effluent
BOD
ppm
9
3.5
6.3
34
14
16.6
12
119
0.6
3.5
10.8
27
42
16
37
33
92
145
126
54
54
66
J>H
7.1
7.2
6.7
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.2
8.4
7.3
6.7
7.8
7.5
7.4
7.6
8.9
7.7
7.1
7.2
7.6
NH3
PPm
0.2
0.7
1.4
10
4.0
12.5
15.0
15.0
17.0
22.5
20.0
17
17
27.5
4.0
17
7.0
3.5
0.8
1.4
0.8
8.8
Organic-N
ppm
6.0
4.3
2.0
12.6
6.3
11.1
8.7
8.5
7.4
9.3
6.6
8.6
14.6
13.3
7.3
13.2
17.6
13.6
13.3
N02
PPm
0.11
Nil
Nil
Nil
4.2
0.4
Nil
0.475
1.25
2.7
1.5
N03 P04
ppm ppm
1.51
2.0 1.21
1.26 2.32
1.63 2.00
1.6 1.8
1.62
1.2
1.5
1.4
9.0
8.4
0.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
3.8
SS
ppm
10
12
90
40
100
210
270
30
8
8
210
110
20
60
30
210
420
260
180
90
90
30
140
IDS
ppm
420
256
300
440
330
370
406
586
406
672
386
470
288
660
708
606
550
486
516
535
540
80
-------
Table 11
Date*
5/22
5/30
67 6
6/13
6/20
Average
6/27
77 4
7/11
7/18
7/25
87 1
87 8
8/15
8/22
8/29
97 4
9/19 1
9/24
107 3
10/10
10/17
10/24
10/31
IV 7
11/13
11/20 1
11/27
127 4
12/12
12/19
Average
. Oxidation Ditch
BOD
ppm pH
0**
20
32
27
47
20
23
25
68
92
52
26
31
17
75
77
6
16
5
23
35
33
45
26
8
66
49
37
51
36
29
39
67
117
57
168
31
181
141
212
204
133
126
135
42
89
217
86
249
108
218
40
75
114
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
7.1
6.9
6.7
7.1
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.5
6.5
7.1
7.0
7.2
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.2
7.1
6.7
7.1
Effluent (Cont'd)
NH3
ppm
3
5
8
5
1
1
3
7
10
5
12
12
10
20
22
15
15
10
8
10
.4
7
4
5
2
8
.5
.0
.5
.6
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
Organic-N N02 N03 P04
ppm ppm ppm jjpm
13
16
17
13
14
15
19
17
17
24
31
26
27
30
41
35
31
27
.9
.2
.7
.9
.1
.0
.5
.8
.1
.7
.3
.7
.6
.5
.2
.8
.6
.7
5
3
4
10
12
11
10
27
15
30
24
19
22
12
11
17
.0
.1
.8
.1
.4
.4
.5
.1
.0
.4
.3
.8
.1
.3
.3
SS
PPm
no
no
164
50
40
95
240
20
170
140
30
210
170
260
410
280
190
430
120
370
410
200
160
260
200
160
260
420
380
360
250
TDS
PPm
503
472
1168
440
448
314
652
496
474
434
650
562
548
504
542
526
574
646
612
686
594
570
*Year of sample is 1969.
**BOD after filtration to remove algae.
81
-------
Table 12.
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Oxidation Ditch 2
BOD
PPm
44
63
157
242
267
154
601
750
1212
212
680
8
20
246
504
444
J2H
6.4
7.4
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.5
5.1
4.8
6.2
6.8
7.1
6.7
7.1
6.0
6.8
NH3
PPm
2.0
2.0
1.4
0.8
1.5
0.4
8.5
3.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
0.4
0.2
Effluent
N02 N03
ppm ppm
Nil
Nil 0.4
Nil
Nil
Nil 7.4
Nil 2.5
Nil
Nil
Nil 1.4
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Organic-N
ppm
17.8
17.2
12.7
16.0
22.1
27.2
5.6
P04
PPm
18.3
19.9
15.5
15
26
45
10.1
21.0
SS
ppm
170
30
"240
190
210
170
390
300
160
920
120
10
20
170
IDS
PPm
676
712
654
680
Average 425 6.3 2.5 Nil 18.3 24.7 260
82
-------
Table 13.
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Oxidation Ditch 2
BOD
PPm
118
101
124
362
331
207
695
1208
22
20
242
447
422
436
pH
7.3
7.1
6.9
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.0
4.8
7.2
6.8
7.1
5.9
6.1
6.7
NH3
PPm
2.0
2.0
0.8
1.4
0.8
5.4
0.8
3.5
3.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
Effluent
N02 N03 Organic-N
ppm ppm ppm
0.3
0.048 0.4 13.6
Nil
Nil 0.9
Nil 18.6
Nil 2.9 14.6
1.1 15.6
Nil
Nil 30.5
1.1
Nil
Nil
Nil 5.8
Nil
P04
PPm
17.4
24.6
10.5
17.5
22
21.9
22.0
SS
PPm
90
40
360
220
200
182
190
110
20
10
10
TDS
PPm
614
918
796
664
748
Average 436 6.3 1.5 18.2 22.0 108
83
-------
Table 14.
Date
5/30/68
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
Average
6/25/68
7/ 2/68
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
Average
8/22/68
8/29/68
9/ 4/68
9/12/68
9/18/68
9/24/68
10/ 3/68
10/ 9/68
10/16/68
10/31/68
ll/ 7/68
Average
Flow and D.O. Observations
s?
1,100,000
960,000
1,040,000
1,144,000
1,048,000
1,030,000
1,062,000
1,200,000
1,003,000
729,000
1,060,000
1,014,000
320,000
145,000
300,000
355,000
344,000
520,000
606,000
480,000
720,000
624,000
752,000
470,000
Flow - gpd
S3 Di
320,000
145,000
300,000
355,000
344,000
480,000
204,000
246,000
752,000
350,000
D?
125,600
67,200
151,000
192,000
137,000
200,000
232,000
240,000
67 ,000
88,000
90,000
153,000
Rotor
break-
down
8/6/68
to
12/19/68
S2
4.8
4.4
1.3
0
1.9
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.2
0
2.4
0.7
0
0
0
0.2
Nil
0.4
0.4
Dissolved Oxygen - ppm
53 Dl_
0.5
3.3
2.8
2.3
1.7
Nil
Nil
0.2
1.3
D2
4.0
4.2
2.3
2.7
3.1
2.5
0.6
0.5
4.2
4.5
4.6
2.8
-------
Table 14. Flow and D.O. Observations (Cont'd)
00
CJ1
Date
11/13/68
11/19/68
11/27/68
12/ 5/68
12/19/68
Average
M 9/69
1/30/69
2/ 6/69
Average
2/13/69
2/20/69
2/26/69
3/ 6/69
3/20/69
3/29/69
4/ 2/69
4/ 9/69
4/17/69
4/23/69
4/30/69
5/ 8/69
5/15/69
Average
s?
640,000
288,000
274,000
260,000
585,000
409,000
392,000
463,000
480,000
445,000
259,000
384,000
480,000
318,000
584,000
820,000
616,000
604,000
510,000
413,000
568,000
600,000
605,000
520,000
Flow - gpd
S^ Di
160,000
288,000
274,000
320,000
585,000
325,000
392,000
463,000
480,000
445,000
259,000
384,000
320,000
318,000
496,000
260,000
464,000
496,000
460,000
432,000
377,000
400,000
345,000
385,000
Dissolved Oxygen
D2
84,900
41 ,600
57,600
128,000
91 ,000
101,000
41 ,600
84,400
135,000
128,000
117,000
93,200
$?
Nil
10.5
5.2
6.5
2.8
5.0
4.4
3.2
1.4
3.0
Trace
0
1.3
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.2
5.2
0.8
Nil
0.3
0.6
S3 Dj
Nil
1.3
13.6
3.0
10.3
5.6
10.5
6.8
2.7
6.6
0.8
10.6
1.7
4.4
1.2
0
1.1
0
0
6.0
1.8
0.2
11.3
3.0
- ppm
L_ D?
0.7
3.3
15.5
3.7
1.2
0
2.7
3.2
1.0
4.3
3.1
3.8
-------
CO
cr>
Table 14. Flow and D.O. Observations (Cont'd)
Date
5/22/69
5/29/69
6/ 5/69
6/12/69
Average
6/26/69
11 3/69
7/10/69
7/17/69
7/24/69
7/31/69
8/ 7/69
8/14/69
8/21/69
8/28/69
9/ 4/69
9/11/69
9/18/69
9/23/69
10/ 2/69
10/ 9/69
10/16/69
10/23/69
ll/ 6/69
11/12/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/19/69
Average
S2
576,000
410,000
557,000
510,000
142,000
224,000
373,000
135,000
250,000
278,000
68,000
192,000
107,000
184,000
100,000
136,000
309 ,000
209,000
194,000
97,000
273,000
139,000
72,000
240,000
176,000
274,000
112,000
170,000
Flow - gpd
$3 DI
304,000
320,000
368,000
330,000
242,000
128,000
86,000
377,000
135,000
146,000
278,000
268,000
218,000
226,000
141,000
141 ,000
56,000
106,000
56,000
248,000
152.000
29o,000
306,000
448,000
304,000
336,000
194,000
213,000
D?
269,000
163,000
125,000
186,000
57,700
77,000
72,000
104,000
136,000
110,600
101,000
127,000
113,800
94,300
88,000
195,000
160,500
45,800
75,100
61 ,300
72,100
90,800
71 ,700
96,000
86,500
81 ,700
92,000
s?
2.9
0
6.8
1.9
2.9
Nil
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0.4
1.1
0
0.7
11.5
2.8
0
0.5
6.4
19.5
8.5
12.7
1.7
8.6
5.4
13.8
4.0
Dissolved Oxygen - ppm
$3 p_1_
0.8
0
1.5
0.5
0.7
5.0
1.1
7.5
13,2
9.3
8.0
0
0
0
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.1
20.0
12.0
2.3
6.5
9.8
3.0
3.4
3.0
14.0
4.8
p2
2.1
0
2.0
1.1
1.3
1.1
4.6
1.6
0.7
1.5
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
3.1
0
2.1
5.1
1.0
1.2
-------
Table 14. Flow and D.O. Observations (Cont'd)
00
-vl
Flow - gpd
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
21 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Average
s?
131,000
320,000
336,000
262,000
242,000
400,000
306,000
365,000
328,000
ST
226,000
270,000
336,000
346,000
234,000
282,000
242,000
288,000
166,000
187,000
248,000
216,000
288,000
327,000
237,000
272,000
259,000
248,000
Dl
55,000
55,000
37,600
36,200
9,200
38,600
20,000
29,000
16,500
8,000
13,300
12,000
8,000
8,000
15,000
48,000
17,800
D?
55,000
55,000
58,300
58,500
18,200
49,000
20,000
31 ,000
8,000
13,300
12,000
8,000
8,000
24,000
15,000
15,500
Dissolved Oxygen - ppm
S?
6.5
11 .6
3.6
4.9
0
0
4.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
4.5
12.2
5.2
15.0
0
0
6.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dl
0.5
Nil
Nil
0.2
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
4.5
1.2
0.5
Nil
Nil
Nil
0.7
D?
1.0
0.5
Nil
Nil
0.4
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
4.0
0.8
0.1
Nil
Nil
Nil
0.5
-------
Table 15. Ditch Solids, Temperature and Power Consumption
oo
CO
Date
5/30/68
6/ 4/68
6/12/68
6/18/68
Average
6/25/68
7/ 2/68
11 9/68
7/17/68
7/23/68
7/30/68
Average
21 6/69
MLSS
Dl D2
ppm ppm
1,840
3,450
3,200
1,960
2,870
2,520
2,660
6,405
1,200
1 ,360
1,040
1,570
1,310
Return
SS
ppm
5,893
10,300 1
6,440
7,540
Sludge D?
TS VS
ppm ppm
5,936
5,960
0,674
6,677
7,770
17,200 26,313
5,575
2,100
3,400
2,540
1,960
5,460
8,880
5,620
2,442
3,917
3,310
2,401
7,300
% Settl. Solids
DI D?
30
86
30
58
68
43
91
95
98
98
82
11
(h hr)
Return
Sludge
85
99
96
93
86
96
98
99
99
98
96
42
Temp.
°C
16
15
15
13
11
12.5
13
11
11
11
11
28
Power
Kwh/
day
116.1
89
126
no
130
133
135
129
125
125
130
-------
00
Table 15.
Date
2/13/69
2/20/69
2/26/69
3/ 6/69
3/29/69
4/ 2/69
4/ 9/69
4/17/69
4/23/69
4/30/69
5/ 8/69
5/15/69
Average
5/22/69
5/29/69
6/ 5/69
6/12/69
Average
Ditch Solids, Temperature and Power Consumption (Cont'd)
MLSS
D-] D2
ppm ppm
3,420
3,460
3,050
2,780
3,920
4,580
2,900
2,340
1,940
1,710
3,010
2,560
2,940
2,750
Return Sludge
SS
ppm
4,540
5,980
7,000
7,240
7,380
10,560
5,320
5,160
3,580
6,300
10,780
10,580
10,680
TS
ppm
7,465
7,295
7,734
10,720
5,866
3,996
7,200
10,858
14,003
12,400
D?
VS
ppm
5,564
5,810
6,214
8,907
4,818
3,242
5,900
9,105
11,952
10,500
% Settl. Solids
DT D?
43
34
90
86
55
40
36
28
20
45
22
24
46
31
(h hr)
Return
Sludge
63
66
95
97
82
99
86
78
56
80
98
98
98
98
Temp.
°C
24
22
26
23
15
16
17
20
14
15
13
13
14
Power
Kwh/
day
105
116
126
109
125
94
92
95
96
96
105
99
100
104
104
102
-------
Table 15. Ditch Solids, Temperature and Power Consumption (Cont'd)
VD
O
Date
6/26/69
11 3/69
7/10/69
7/17/69
7/24/69
7/31/69
8/ 7/69
8/14/69
8/21/69
8/28/69
9/ 4/69
9/18/69
9/23/69
10/ 2/69
10/ 9/69
10/16/69
10/23/69
10/31/69
ll/ 6/69
11 /1 2/69
11/20/69
11/27/69
12/ 4/69
12/10/69
12/10/69
12/19/69
12/19/69
MLSS
Dl D2
5,540
2,160
2,960
900
520
3,280
3,580
3,060
3,060
640
1,580
3,780
3,420
2,120
2,840
1,500
3,140
3,560
2,680
3,740
3,100
Return Sludge
SS
ppm
11,300
4,625
9,040
9,160
8,740
11,860
10,920
4,120
13,780
41 ,000
12,180
7,580
10,860
21,820
7,620
7,420
8,400
TS
ppm
11,475
19,465
9,290
9,430
9,784
11,962
11,026
4,725
13,304
45,418
7,662
12,702
8,340
11,369
22,517
10,993
8,709
9,025
7,419
D? %
VS
ppm D
9,920
16,592
7,660
7,681
7,911
9,817
9,130
3,759
9,626
38,489
6,988
10,280
6,784
9,100
17,976
8,684
6,850
7,274
6,055
Settle. Solids
1 Dj?
39
12
23
23
17
20
26
17
18
5
8
12
25
24
22
21
22
22
29
46
44
27
30 (1)
18 (2)
37 (1)
22 (2)
(h hr)
Return
Sludge
95
100
91
94
96
97
74
26
61
98
75
95
78
91
98
89
100
94
92
Terno. Kwh/
°C' day
103
100
9 106
85
94
99
100
97
101
102
84
85
93
102
16 99
101
93
99
22.5 86
99
97
114
208
25
Average
2,720 11,800 12,800 10,500
22
86
18
97
-------
Table 15.
Date
I/ 8/70
1/16/70
1/22/70
1/30/70
2/ 5/70
2/12/70
Average
2/19/70
2/27/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
3/20/70
3/26/70
4/ 6/70
4/ 9/70
4/17/70
4/23/70
5/ 7/70
Ditch Solids, Temperature and Power Consumption
MLSS
DI
PPm
2,420
3,280
4,320
3,860
5,380
3,860
4,500
5,640
3,900
3,600
2,560
660
3,660
2,260
2,260
Return Sludge
D2
2,400
2,080
760
2,480
2,560
2,050
2,320
1,640
2,240
2,700
2,360
2,660
850
3,120
820
SS
ppm
8,720
6,700
6,500
7,300
8,820
4,040
4,940
8,180
4,580
710
22,320
17,640
TS
ppm
9,791
7,222
2,154
8,011
7,722
7,000
10,565
4,266
5,573
9,160
5,023
5,895
23,884
20,239
D2
VS
ppm
7,881
4,685
1,479
6,647
6,562
5,460
9,000
3,492
4,602
7,807
4,066
4,887
20,272
17,378
(Cont'd)
% Settle
DI
20
26
45
37
46
35
42
42
86
97
35
39
49
37
21
. Solids
D?
15
15
11
7
19
20
15
22
28
97
33
27
32
25
(h hr)
Return
Sludge
56
99
99
13
71
56
66
98
99
92
99
32
50
61
99
100
Power
Temp . Kwh/
°C day
92
91
93
102
94
86
108
87
88
90
91
93
97
87
Average
3,230 2,080
8,900 10,600
8,940
50
38
81
92
-------
VO
ro
Table 16. Lagoon
June 1968
Synthetic
Sewage
S2 Inlet (1)
S2 Inlet. (2)
S2 Mid
S2 Outlet
Control (1)
Control (2)
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
Sludges
1
5.9
132
7.2
53
7.4
31
7.2
45
7.6
17
6.8
54
6.9
116
, Laboratory Purification Index
4
6.8
113
7.6
47
7.4
51
7.3
37
7.8
32
' 7.1
84
7.0
50
8
6.0
228
7.1
64
7.5
44
7.9
34
7.9
19
6.7
85
7.0
60
10
6.0
7.4
57
7.7
21
7.6
33
7.5
21
6.6
103
6.9
46
16
5.4
153
6.8
79
7.3
43
7.2
51
7.7
30
6.4
160
6.8
71
17
175
94
66
72
49
122
94
24
5.5
241
6.9
80
7.0
67
7.1
70
7.5
31
6.6
118-
6.7
60
25
6.1
280
6.6
10
6.4
82
6.6
96
6.6
54
6.6
122
6.6
82
Average
189
60
51
55
32
106
72
-------
co
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Purification Index
Nov. 1968
Synthetic
Sewage
S2 Inlet (1)
S2 Inlet (2)
S2 Mid
S2 Outlet
T2 Inlet
Control
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
1
7.1
8.5
8.1
8.2
8.4
78
8.1
89
8.4
43
3
6.5
218
7.7
26
8.0
63
7.9
7.9
26
7.9
36
8.1
36
8
7.3
316
7.8
26
8.3
28
8.2
86
8.3
34
8.5
30
8.4
100
15
7.1
345
7.6
34
7.8
26
8.0
36
7.7
60
7.9
30
8.2
32
19
5.3
112
7.8
15
7.8
8
7.9
12
7.5
13
7.6
5
(Cont1
23
7.6
176
8.0
28
7.8
18
8.4
22
7.9
50
7.8
18
10
d)
26
7.8
242
8.3
36
8.4
20
8.4
32
8.1
109
8.0
34
7.0
Average
235
27
27
37
53
34
44
-------
vo
-p.
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Purification Index
January 1969
Synthetic
Sewage
S2 Inlet (1)
S2 Inlet (2)
$2 Middle
S2 Outlet
T2 Inlet
Control
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
1 4
7.2 6.2
183
8.0 7.4
63
7.4 7.2
61
7.9 7.8
53
7.8 7.9
65
7.6 7.1
85
7.4 7.5
55
10
6.7
265
7.4
51
7.2
45
7.7
23
7.8
33
7.9
19
7.2
37
11
7.1
224
7.4
76
7.5
86
7.7
44
7.8
28
7.7
40
7.1
42
13
7.0
263
7.8
47
7.9
41
8.1
39
8.0
63
7.9
55
7.5
51
(Cont1
16
6.4
282
7.7
38
7.6
22
7.8
46
8.1
10
7.4
38
6.4
282
d)
17
7.0
234
7.8
66
7.9
70
8.0
68
7.9
68
7.8
48
7.5
80
25
7.5
288
7.8
20
7.8
72
8.0
52
7.8
28
7.9
68
7.8
52
27
7.3
272
7.8
40
7.7
7.8
52
7.7
36
7.9
60
8.0
72
Average
251
50
49
47
41
52
84
-------
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Purification Index
May 1969
Synthetic
Sewage
S1 Inlet
S-| Outlet
S2 Inlet A
S2 Inlet B
S2 Inlet C
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
1
6.2
250
7.6
153
7.3
115
7.2
81
7.0
125
7.4
11
2
6.2
250
7.9
54
7.8
116
7.2
90
7.8
50
7.4
61
7
6.4
250
7.2
29
7.0
81
7.8
150
7.6
92
7.8
88
8
6.0
288
7.4
95
7.4
170
7.5
111
7.2
170
7.1
170
11
6.5
182
7.8
61
7.3
41
7.7
57
7.2
49
7.4
83
(Cont1
12
6.2
149
7.6
61
7.3
57
7.8
55
7.4
43
7.5
43
d)
13
5.8
225
6.8
91
6.9
81
7.2
119
7.0
93
7.1
132
15
6.0
N.D.
7.5
69
7.4
102
7.6
127
7.0
111
7.0
87
Average
228
77
95
99
91
84
-------
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Purification Index (Cont'd)
June 1969
Synthetic
Sewage
$2 Inlet
S2 Outlet
S3 Inlet
S3 Outlet
C-| Inlet
C2 Outlet
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
1
6.6
254
7.6
129
7.2
125
7.3
110
7.5
85
8.1
71
7.6
90
2
6.7
239
7.5
141
7.6
118
8.0
126
8.0
117
7.9
103
7.7
114
3
6.3
160
7.2
68
7.1
74
7.0
74
.7.2
52
7.5
43
7.3
33
4
5.5
187
7.2
63
7.2
90
7.1
56
7.4
56
7.5
48
7.1
53
8
161
45
35
37
57
51
33
Average
200
89
88
81
73
63
65
-------
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Puri
Jun,e 1969
Synthetic
Sewage
C2 Inlet
C2 Outlet
T2 Inlet
T2 Outlet
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
1
238
76
170
102
138
2
5.9
160
7.7
72
7.9
180
7.8
56
7.8
66
3
6.5
207~
7.6
66
7.4
76
7.3
113
7.1
43
fication Index (Cont'd)
6
6.8
180"
7.5
36
7.7
24
7.8
55
7,7
92
7 8
6.9
177
7.7
52 79
7.6
20 43
7.7
20 95
7.8
51 39
Average
192
63
85
73
71.5
-------
00
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Puri
Sept. 1969
Synthetic
Sewage
S2 Inlet
S2 Middle
S2 Outlet
S3 Inlet
S3 Outlet
Control
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
3
7.0
185
7.8
98
7.7
42
7.6
66
7.7
68
8.0
62
8.5
98
4
6.1
30
76
7.2
17
7.4
25
7.5
56
7.4
30
7.3
54
5
7.2
170
7.7
60
7.9
26
8.0
48
7.7
66
8.1
46
7.9
60
fi cation Index
6
6.5
138
7.0
45
7.2
37
7.2
41
7.2
43
7.3
37
7.3
37
10
6.3
193
7.3
53
7.2
60
7.4
47
7.5
46
7.5
46
7.1
48
(Cont1
11
7.3
40
7.2
62
7.4
47
7.5
34
7.6
49
7.8
33
d)
12
6.5
120
7.2
77
7.1
65
7.2
71
7.4
53
7.4
73
7.2
53
15
6.6
205
7.3
34
7.3
54
7.5
186
7.6
28
7.5
72
7.2
45
16
7.3
83
7.8
13
7.9
18
7.8
174
8.1
10
7.8
30
7.8
19
Average
141
55
42
78
45
49
-------
10
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Purification Index
January 1970
Synthetic
Sewage
S2 Inlet
$2 Middle
S2 Outlet
$3 Inlet
$3 Outlet
Control
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
PH
BOD
3
6.7
203
6.9
73
6.4
60
7.1
86
7.2
71
7.1
80
7.2
83
5
5.7
175
7.2
84
7.0
66
7.3
72
7.5
66
7.2
64
7.4
96
6
7.0
160
7.1
24
7.2
18
7.6
21
7.6
7.5
20
7.3
22
7
7.0
204
7.4
50
7.2
55
7.5
74
7.6
39
7.5
51
7.0
37
8
6.7
287
7.4
49
7.3
53
7.3
65
7.3
32
7.3
55
7.6
29
(Cont1
9
6.7
105
6.9
21
6.9
19
7.1
16
7.2
23
7.1
9
7.2
15
d)
13
6.6
227
7.2
23
7.4
24
7.3
38
8.0
32
8.0
22
7.8
20
14
6.3
291
7.3
44
7.3
33
7.5
34
7.6
51
7.6
41
7.3
20
16
6.2
206
7.2
76
7.3
40
7.3
45
7.6
73
7.5
60
7.5
62
17
6.4
213
6.8
62
6.9
28
7.0
75
7.2
85
7.2
77
7.3
55
Average
207
51
40
52
52
48
44
-------
o
o
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Puri
May 1970
Synthetic
Sewage
S2 Inlet (1)
S2 Inlet (2)
S2 Outlet
S3 Inlet
S3 Outlet
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
3
6.1
422
6.9
79
7.1
81
7.5
49
7.4
111
7.3
75
7
5.7
395
7.3
127
7.7
85
7.6
65
7.5
75
7.7
93
8
5.9
455
6.9
161
7.1
111
7.5
165
7.3
119
7.2
141
fi cation Index
13
6.6
190
7.1
40
7.4
26
7.4
38
7.5
26
7.6
20
14
7.2
100
7.3
40
7.5
14
7.7
35
7.6
48
7.9
20
(Cont1
16
6.4
380
7.1
112
7.4
72
7.3
112
7.2
90
7.4
70
d)
17
6.4
620
6.9
76
7.3
94
7.1
158
7.1
80
7.2
74
Average
366
91
69
89
78
70
-------
Table 16. Lagoon Sludges, Laboratory Puri
June 1970
Synthetic
Sewage
T2 Inlet
T3 Inlet
13 Outlet
C2 Inlet
C2 Outlet
PH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
pH
BOD
3
5.7
480
7.3
171
7.1
62
7.8
113
7.3
147
7.5
105
4
5.9
515
7.4
171
7.6
137
7.4
133
7.2
170
7.0
144
5
6.0
335
7.0
127
7.2
73
7.3
105
7.7
127
7.8
87
fi cation Index
9
6.1
395
7.3
62
7.1
91
7.5
81
7.5
102
7.1
73
10
6.0
415
6.9
102
6.7
117
6.9
120
6.9
124
7.2
75
(Cont1
11
5.9
310
7.1
192
7.4
130
7.5
100
7.5
248
7.7
60
d)
16
6.2
200
6.9
72
7.6
32
7.8
22
7.9
18
7.9
12
Average
378
128
92
96
134
79
-------
o
rv>
Table 17.
Date
6/68 A
B
C
11/68 A
B
D
1/69 A!
A2
B2
Cl
5/69 A
BI
B2
C
6/69 Bi
B2
C
Gas Yields on Lagoon Sludges Using 30°C Synthetic Sewage*
In
3.6
5.3
14.0
1.4
2.4
3.2
0.7
0.5
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.85
1.0
2.4
0.2
s?
Mid
3.4
0.9
0.8
5.1
2.0
3.3
4.3
2.2
4.4
S? Si Ci C? 1? Ts
Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
6.3
2.2
N.D.
4.2
5.0 1.1 6.3
2.5
2.2
3.8 2.1 4.2
2.5
3.4
1.3 - 0.7
1.3 1.2 0.7 1.1 4.4 2.7 4.1 14.3
2.2 3.5 3.2
0.4
-------
o
oo
Table
17.
Date
9/69
1/70
5/70
A
B!
B?
C
A
B-]
B?
C
A
D °1
D O
C
Gas
In
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
Yields on
4
9
1
9
7
1
3
2
6
5
8
s?
Mi
0.
4.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
5.
5.
d
3
3
5
3
2
5
5
6
6
3
6
Lagoon Sludges Using 30°C Synthetic Sewage* (Cont'd)
S^ Si Ci C? T? T3
Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
0
3
4
3
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
2
.8
.2 1.0 3.0
.4 3.5 1.9
.8
.9
.1 0.9 1.2
.8
.0
.5
.8 0.2 0.3
.0
.3
6/70
B2
0.6 2.2 2.0 2.5 3.6 3.1
0.6 1.8 3.5
*M1 gas/gm of VS/day.
-------
Table 18.
Date
6/68 A
B
C
5/69 B-|
B2
6/69 B-|
B2
1/70 B
5/70 B
Gas Yi
In
1.4
0.4
12.9
1.4
1.2
1.3
0.7
0.2
elds
s?
Mid
0.4
0.8
0.5
1.3
5,3
on Lagoon Sludges
30°C Water*
S3 Si Ci C? T? Tq
Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
4.6
1.8
N.D.
1.5 0.9 0.4 0.9
2.1
0.5
0.6
-------
Table 18. Gas Yields on Lagoon Sludges (Cont'd)
37°C Synthetic Sewage*
$2 5-3 ST C^ Cg Tg T^
Date In Mid Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out
11/68 B 2.0 0.8
g 1/69 A 1.1
B 0.8 3.1 3.8
C 0.8
6/69 B 2.3 2.8 1.9 1.4 2.5 3.1 3.1 2.8 3.2 16.0
C . 0.3
9/69 B 1.7 4.4 3.9 3.5 3.0
1/70 B 2.3 3.3 1.7 0.8
5/70 B 1.3 0.2 2.0
6/70 BT 0.6 2.6 2.0 0.8 3.4 3.1
*M1 gas/gm of MS/day.
-------
Table 19.
4/19/68
Influent
Effluent
6/ 4/68
Influent
Effluent
7/17/68
Influent
Effluent
9/ 5/68
Influent
Effluent
2/11/69
Effluent
6/ 5/69
Influent
Effluent
9/ 4/69
Influent
Effluent
10/24/69
Influent
Effluent
5/ 7/70
Influent
Effluent
Anaerobic Lagoon
E. Coli I
org/100 ml
17,000,000
350,000
1,800,000
800,000
3,500,000
900,000
1,100,000
45,000
500,000
700,000
500,000
90,000,000
200,000
35,000,000
250,000
17,000,000
25,000
Bacteriological
Coli form
Count
org/100 ml
160,000,000
3,500,000
35,000,000
4,500,000
225,000,000
3,500,000
55,000,000
1,800,000
5,500,000
55,000,000
1,700,000
250,000,000
2,000,000
110,000,000
300,000
50,000,000
25,000
Examination
37° Plate
Count
org/ml
24,000,000
137,000
2,840,000
510,000
7,300,000
584,000
2,250,000
70,000
60,000
260,000
275,000
5,890,000
253,000
3,570,000
4,470,000
3,000,000
35,700,000
22° Plate
Count
org/ml
26,000,000
10,000,000
3,500,000
830,000
13,800,000
780,000
3,480,000
307,000
730,000
600,000
4,850,000
11,920,000
1,220,000
4,400,000
2,800,000
24,900,000
77,300,000
106
-------
Table 20. Oxidation Ditch and
4/19/68
Intermediate
Lagoon Effluent
Final Effluent
6/ 4/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
7/17/68
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
8/13/72
Ditch Effluent
9/ 5/68
Aerobic
Lagoon Effluent
2/11/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
6/ 5/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
9/ 4/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
10/24/69
Ditch Influent
Ditch Effluent
E. Coli I
org/100 ml
30,000
1,400
200,000
5,000
N.D.
9,000
11
5
5,000,000
25,000
350,000
500,000
17,000,000
1,300,000
50,000,000
170,000
Aerobic Lagoon
Conf i rmed
Coli form
Count
org/100 ml
350,000
35,000
4,500,000
50,000
18,000
3,500
70
170,000,000
25,000
16,000,000
2,500,000
90,000,000
35,000,000
550,000,000
16,000,000
Bacteriological
37° Plate
Count
org/ml
348,000
172,800
4,010,000
4,000
1,660
13,920,000
6,800
9,600,000
8,800
1,120,000
75S000
4,710,000
716,000
34,900,000
4,070,000
Examination
22° Plate
Count
org/ml
300,000
254,000
6,050,000
6,000
24,500
14,000,000
76,000
16,200,000
333,000
1,600,000
340,000
9,660,000
3,590,000
34,300,000
6,500,000
5/ 7/70
Ditch Effluent
35,000,000 35,000,000 3,340,000 11,900,000
107
-------
o
00
Table 21.
Date
4/24/68
5/ 1/68
5/ 7/68
5/13/68
5/20/68
5/29/68
6/17/68
6/24/68
11 8/68
7/23/68
9/ 4/68
9/18/68
9/27/68
10/18/68
11/20/68
1/31/69
2/ 6/69
2/13/69
2/27/69
3/ 6/69
4/ 4/69
4/10/69
4/18/69
4/25/69
5/ 2/69
6/ 4/69
6/10/69
6/13/69
6/20/69
Anaerobic Lagoon and Oxidation
Sp Lagoon
orgs/ml
(thousands)
400
200
1,400
1,040
330
40
40
150
110
300
350
360
3,200
2,200
2,500
2,400
2,400
7,600
5,600
8,700
7,600
1,700
1,540
1,800
3,460
Effluent
Predominant
org
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Flagellates
Palmella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Micractinium
Chlorella
Ankistrodesmus
Chlorella
Closterium
Ankistrodesmus
Ankistrodesmus
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Ditch Algal Count and Identification
Ditch
orgs/ml
(thousands)
300
7,500
4,800
6,000
3,000
3,800
5,500
11,600
6,600
6,060
6,600
N.D.
2,300
3,290
170
Influent
Predominant
org (
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Ditch
orgs/ml
thousands)
200
10
760
2,000
13
1,040
450
270
10
2,800
32
480
290
280
2,800
68
2,500
1,600
2,580
N.D.
240
Effluent
Predominant
org
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Micractinium
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
-------
Table 21.
Date
6/27/69
11 4/69
7/11/69
7/18/69
8/ 1/69
8/ 8/69
8/15/69
8/22/69
8/29/69
9/ 4/69
9/12/69
9/24/69
10/ 3/69
10/10/69
10/24/69
IV 7/69
11/13/69
11/19/69
Anaerobic Lagoon
Sp Lagoon
orgs/ml
(thousands)
3,970
3,000
1,550
2,120
880
4,300
4,120
2,200
3,050
4,170
5,100
2,612
2,400
4,910
10,240
1,070
42
5,469
and Oxidation
Effluent
Predominant
org
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Ditch Algal Count
and Identification
Ditch Influent
orgs/ml
(thousands)
4,640
1,030
1,400
970
3,090
412
3,210
2,040
4,050
1,200
1,740
760
10,500
20,000
10,200
4,200
15,200
Predominant
org
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Aphanothece
Chlorella
Chlorella
Gloeothece
Chlorella
(Cont'd.)
Ditch
orgs/ml
(thousands)
680
170
350
830
1,050
1,990
1,600
1,650
2,700
3,800
340
3,450
14,800
5,100
1,200
8,600
Effluent
Predominant
org
Chlorella
Clumps of Cells
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Aphanothece
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Gloeothece
Chlorella
11/27/69
1,200
Chlorella
-------
Table 22.
Anaerobic Lagoon and Oxidation Ditch
S0 Effluent
Date
1/16/70
1/22/70
2/ 5/70
2/11/70
2/18/70
3/ 6/70
3/13/70
4/ 6/70
5/ 1/70
orgs/mt
(thousands)
40
188
3,400
1,700
1,470
680
250
230
Dom.org
Closterium
Closterium
Closterium
Closterium
Closterium
Flagellates
Closterium
Gloeothece
Closterium
Flagellates
Closterium
Algal Count and Identification
S,, Effluent
orgs/frtl
(thousands)
107
1,620
17,750
4,280
5,610
1,130
3,370
260
Dom.org
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Merismopedia
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Euglena
Gloeothece
Ditch 1 Influent
orgs/ml
(thousands)
117
3,710
4,800
3,300
3,230
1,700
2,700
3,250
Dom.org
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Ditch 1
orgs/ml
(thousands)
300
537
6,300
4,200
4,250
880
2,600
290
Effluent
Dom.org
Chlorella
Closterium
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Micractinium
Ditch 2 Effluent
orgs/ml
(thousands)
120
3,420
5,850
6,500
6,100
1,900
290
Dom .^dpg
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Chlorella
Ulothrix
-------
1
Accession Number
w
5
2
Subject Field &. Group
05D
', ;
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Melbourne Water Science Institute Ltd. Carlton, Victoria, Australia
Title
Cannery Waste Treatment by Anaerobic Lagoons and Oxidation Ditch
10
Authors)
Parker, C. D.
Skerry, G. P.
16
Project Designation
21
EPA, WQn Grant 1?n60 FHS (UIPH ?11-n?-fi«)
Note
22
Citation
Environmental Protection Agency report
number, EPA-R2-73-017, February 1973.
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
*Industrial Wastes, *Canneries, *Waste Treatment, *Activated Sludge, *Anaerobic
Digestion, Lagoons, Aeration, Capital Costs, Operating Costs, Sewage Treatment
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Oxidation Ditch, *Anaerobic Lagoons, *Food Processing Wastes, Organic Loadings,
Efficiencies, Combined Treatment
27
Various mixtures of fruit and vegetable cannery wastes, and domestic sewage were
treated by anaerobic lagoons followed by an oxidation ditch for a two-year period.
The anerobic lagoons consistently achieved BOD reductions of 75 to 85 percent at
loadings up to 400 Ibs BOD/day/acre provided adequate inorganic nutrients were
present. The oxidation ditch reduced the BOD to low levels and was shown to be
very stable against overload. Power requirements were less than 0.5 kw.hr./lb of
BOD removed and the oxygenation capacity of the rotor was about 30 Ibs of BOD per
foot of length.
Twenty-one tables of raw data are included.
Abstractor
K.
WR:102 {REV
WRSIC
A.
JUL
Dnstal
Institution
Frt\/T V*f"m»vi_ L
Y 1969) SEND, WITH
COPY'OF txSb'TOiW'id
i protection An
Ird: WAT~ER RESOURC!*
U.S. DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON. D. C
pnry
S SC IENT
OF THE
. 20240
IFIC INFORMATION CEN'
INTER IOR
r£R
ftll.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 514-153/196 1-3
------- |