EPA R2-73-222
APRIL 1471 Environmental Protection Technology Series
Ultra High Rate Filtration
of Activated Sludge Plant Effluent
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-R2-73-222
April 1973
ULTRA HIGH RATE FILTRATION OF
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT EFFLUENT
by
Ross Nebolslne
Ivan Pouschine, Jr.
Chi-Yuan Fan
Project No. 17030 HMM
Project Officer
James F. Kreissl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
'i.75 GPO Bookstore
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommenda^
tion for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Pilot plant studies were conducted at the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Cleveland to evaluate the capabilities of the deep
bed, dual media, ultra high rate filtration process for treating an
activated sludge plant secondary effluent.
The various operating variables that were tested and evaluated
included different media sizes, various bed depths, filtration rates
from 8 to 32 gpm/sq ft, different types of polymers, and different
combinations of coagulants and polymers.
The principal parameter for evaluating process efficiency was
suspended solids. High removals were obtained with respect to
suspended solids and to pollutants associated with suspended solids.
The removal of these pollutants reduced biochemical oxygen demand,
chemical oxygen demand and total phosphate values.
Capital costs for a filtration process of this type are estimated
to range from $1,200,000 for a 25 MGD plant to $5,400,000 for a
200 MGD plant. Total treatment costs, including capital and operating
charges, are estimated to be 4.32 - 2.97 <71000 gallons for the 25
and 200 MGD plants, respectively.
This report was submitted by Hydrotechnic Corporation in fulfill-
ment of Project #17030 HMM under the partial sponsorship of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XTTT
Conclusions
Recommendations
Introduction
Characterization of Sewage and Secondary Effluent
Testing Program and Procedure
Pilot Plant Facilities
Ultra High Rate Filtration Results
Description of Ultra High Rate Filtration Installations
Cost Data
Acknowledgements
References
Publication
ADDendices
Page
1
3
5
9
15
23
29
41
49
71
73
75
77
V
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 10
LOCATION PLAN
2 SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 14
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY PROFILE
3 THREE INCH DIAMETER FILTER 18
APPARATUS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
4 HIGH RATE FILTRATION 20
PILOT PLANT SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
5 FILTRATION PILOT PLANT - 24
LOCATION PLAN
6 PILOT PLANT FACILITIES 25
7 FILTER INFLUENT VERSUS EFFLUENT 35
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
8 FILTER PERFORMANCE 36
TOTAL PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL PHOSPHATE 37
AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
10 HIGH RATE FILTRATION 42
INSTALLATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
11 HIGH RATE FILTRATION 44
INSTALLATION PLANT (100 MGD)
12 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION - 45
LONGITUDINAL SECTION (100 MGD)
13 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION - 46
CROSS SECTION (100 MGD)
14 CAPITAL COST VERSUS 50
DESIGN CAPACITY (ENR = 1682)
15 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VERSUS 62
DESIGN CAPACITY
vi
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Characteristics of Raw Sewage 13
2 Characteristics of Secondary Effluent 13
3 Water Quality Analyses 16
4 List of Polymers 21
5 Evaluation of Filter Bed Depth 31
6 The Effect of Activated Sludge Plant Operation 33
to UHR Filtration Efficiency
7 The Effect of Alum and Polymer Additions on UHR 33
Filtration Efficiency during Plant Abnormal Operations
8 Production Volume of Water at Various
Operating Conditions 39
9 Summary of Capital Construction Cost 51
10 Summary of Estimated Project Cost for a 52,53
25 MGD Treatment Plant
11 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for a
50 MGD Treatment Plant 54,55
12 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for a
100 MGD Treatment Plant 56,57
13 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for a 58,59
200 MGD Treatment Plant
14 Summary of Total Annual Cost 61
15 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for a
25 MGD Treatment Plant 63
16 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for a
50 MGD Treatment Plant 64
Vll
-------
TABLES
No. Page
17 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for a 65
100 MGD Treatment Plant
18 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for a 66
200 MGD Treatment Plant
19 Estimated Power Costs for UHR and Conventional 68
Filtration Systems
20 Estimated Treatment System Area Requirements 69
viix
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Pilot plant testing results based on deep bed, dual media,
ultra high rate filtration of secondary effluent at the Southerly Waste-
water Treatment Plant in Cleveland support the following conclusions:
1. Conclusions are based on: two hundred and five pilot
filtration test runs conducted in 1971 and 1972 on an activated sludge
plant secondary effluent utilizing the aforementioned system. One
hundred and forty three testing runs were conducted in eight three-
inch diameter filtration columns, and sixty two filtration runs were
performed in three six-inch diameter filtration pilot units. Thirty
polymers were evaluated in combination with coagulants (alum,
ferric chloride or lime) or polymer alone to determine their effect on
the ultra high rate filtration process.
2. Based on limited pilot test results, a filter media comprised
of No. 2 anthracite (effective size 1.78 mm) over No. 1220 sand
(effective size 0.95 mm) was shown superior to coarser or finer media
tested and this media was selected as the filtration component of the
treatment system.
3. When the suspended solids concentrations in an activated
sludge plant secondary effluent (filter influent) were below 30 mg/1,
the filter effluent suspended solids concentrations generally remained
in a range of 1.0 to 12 mg/1 for filtration rates of up to 32 gpm/sf
with or without polymer or coagulant and polymer.
4. Filtration with coagulant and polymer addition produced
better effluent quality or higher removal efficiency of suspended solids
than plain filtration, when the secondary effluent (filter influent)
suspended solids concentrations exceeded 60 mg/1.
5. For filtration with coagulant (alum) and polymer addition,
total phosphate reduction was related to the effectiveness of
suspended solids removal in the filter media.
6. It was determined that no significant relationship exists
between filtration rates and effluent BOD, COD and suspended
solids concentrations in the range of rates studied.
-------
7. During filtration runs, head loss developed more slowly
under declining rate conditions than under constant rate control,
and it developed more rapidly at higher filtration rates and higher
influent suspended solids concentrations.
8. Area requirements for full size ultra high rate filtration
plants, including deep bed filtration units, a filter gallery, a control
and chemical building, backwashing facilities, and a low lift pumping
stations, but not including backwash sludge handling facilities, are
estimated as follows:
Plant Capacity Design @ 24 gpm/sq ft
25 MGD ' 3,000 sq ft
50 MGD 4,600 sq ft
100 MGD 9,300 sq ft
200 MGD 16,500 sq ft
9. Capital costs for ultra high rate filtration plants, including
a low lift pumping station, chemical feed, the filtration plant and
engineering, but not including the cost of land, backwash sludge
handling and interest during construction, are estimated as follows
(design at filtration rate of 24 gpm/sq ft).
Capital Cost
Plant Capacity (ENR = 1682)
25 MGD 1, 184,810
50 MGD 1,725,370
100 MGD 3, 121,500
200 MGD 5,329, 150
10. Annual costs and treatment costs per 1000 gallons, including
amortization, operation and maintenance, for ultra high rate filtration
plants, are estimated as follows (designed after a filtration rate of
24 gpm/sq ft, plant operated 365 days per year, and including low lift
pumping station and chemicals):
Treatment Costs
Plant Capacity Annual Costs per 1000 gallons
25 MGD $ 394, 110 4.32$
50 MGD $ 627,790 3.44$
100 MGD $ 1, 161,735 3. 18$
200 MGD $ 2, 164,610 2.97$
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional pilot plant studies with larger UHR^filters should be
undertaken to further evaluate some of the design variables studied
in this project and to study and quantify some of the following:
1. The addition of powdered activated carbon as well as
coagulant ahead of the UHR filter in a physical-chemical treatment
sequence.
2. The application of UHR filtration with coagulant addition for
the removal of suspended solids, suspended and colloidal organic
matter and phosphorus from raw wastewater.
3. The necessary backwashing requirements to properly cleanse
the UHR filter media.
4. The applicability of the UHR filter to the treatment of raw
wastewaters mixed with chemical sludges from water treatment plants.
5. The feasibility of accomplishing denitrification within the
UHR filter when used for polishing of a nitrified effluent (1).
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
General
In recent years considerable emphasis has been placed upon the
need to improve the quality of water at a cost that would not be
ruinous to the economy.
Attention, in the United States, has been centered on the
Great Lakes Drainage Basin and more specifically on Lake Erie. A
great deal has been written about the advanced state of eutrophication
or aging, of Lake Erie and numerous theories have been advanced to
explain the causes of this condition. It is generally accepted that
phosphorus, acting as a prime nutrient, has greatly accelerated the
natural aging process.
Currently, water pollution control is desired to improve water
quality with respect, mainly, to suspended solids, biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and phosphates. This high level of treatment
seems necessary so as not to cause further eutrophication of the
Great Lakes.
Based upon the encouraging results from Hydrotechnic's previous
work (2), the current project was undertaken at the City of Cleveland's
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant in an effort to investigate high
rate filtration methods of upgrading effluent quality. This study
evaluated the applicability and effectiveness of the ultra high rate
filtration process in removing residual suspended solids and other
contaminants from the effluent of a conventional activated sludge
secondary treatment plant.
Scope of Project
The research and development project at Cleveland's Southerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant involved deep bed, dual media, ultra
high rate filtration for treating the effluent of a conventional activated
sludge sewage treatment plant. The project entailed filter media
selection, evaluation and selection of polymer - coagulant
combinations, testing the efficiency and effectiveness of the
high rate filtration process in removing residual contaminants and
data evaluation and design of representative treatment units with
associated cost estimates.
-------
The field testing, sampling and evaluation program was
conducted from August, 1971 through February, 1972. The field test
work consisted of optimizing the performance of the proposed system.
Essentials of High Rate Filtration
The history of water filtration began with the use of slow sand
filters to clarify drinking water. These were beds of granular material,
arranged in various acreages, which were doused with the water to be
filtered. The water was collected after percolating through several
feet of the filter bed. Usual rates of filtration were in the order of
0.02 to 0.2 gpm/sq ft. At the end of the 19th Century, the development
of the rapid sand filtration process occurred. This process required
the prior application of chemicals to effect coagulation. The water was
then passed through clarification tanks where most of the floe formed
was settled out prior to filtration. These improved filters provided good
water at filtering rates of 2 gpm/sq ft. However, of even greater signifi-
cance was the fact that they could be cleaned mechanically without
removing the media from the bed. Much recent attention and test work
in potable water filtration has been given to the feasibility of filtering
at higher rates, up to 10 gallons a minute per square foot (3).
The general practice of industrial wastewater filtration first
emerged in Europe where the supply of water for industrial purposes
became limited. The industrial wastewater filters in Europe were
designed to operate in the general range of 6 to 10 gallons per minute
per square foot. These units were designed to provide reliable treatment
for many years without any great maintenance effort.
Ultra high rate filtration, under study for the treatment of an
activated sludge treatment plant effluent, is similar to the industrial
type filtration in Europe except that two layers of media of different
composition are used (4). Together, they form a filter bed that is
much deeper than used previously (7 feet or more). By using more
than one medium, high capacity filter bottoms and special backwashing
facilities, the rate of wastewater filtration has been increased greatly.
One of the essential differences between a deep bed, dual media,
ultra high rate filter and its counterpart for potable water treatment
is that the deep bed filter is designed to accept appreciable solids
loadings, on the order of many hundreds of milligrams per liter. To
be most effective, filtration through media that are graded from coarse
to fine in the direction of filtration is desirable. A single medium
filter cannot conform to this principle since backwashing of the bed
-------
automatically grades the bed from coarse to fine in the direction of
washing; however, the concept can be approached by using a two
layer bed. A typical case is the use of coarse anthracite particles
on top of less coarse sand. Since the coarse anthracite is less dense
than sand, the larger anthracite particles can remain on top of the bed
after the backwash operation. Another alternate to achieve filtration
through coarse to fine media would be an upflow filter, but these units
have limitations in that they cannot accept high filtration rates.
Over the past few decades, many theories have been advanced
to describe the manner and mechanism by which suspended matter is
entrapped within a filter. Tchobanoglous (5) has categorized filter
removal mechanisms into nine areas, which include straining,
sedimentation, inertial impaction, interception, chemical adsorption,
physical adsorption, adhesion and adhesion forces, coagulation-
flocculation, and biological growth.
Just how suspended matter is intercepted in depth rather than
at the surface of a high rate filter, and which mechanisms are
principally involved, is not yet fully understood (6).
The principal parameters to be evaluated in selecting a high rate
filtration system are media size, media depth and filtration rate. Since
much of the removal of solids from the water takes place within the
filter media, their structure and composition is of major importance.
Too fine a media may produce a high quality effluent but also may
cause excessive head losses and extremely short filter runs. On
the other hand media that is too coarse may fail to produce the
desired effluent quality. The selection of media for ultra high rate
filtration must be determined by pilot testing using various materials
in different proportions, different flow rates and under various
operational modes. Depth of media is limited by head loss and back-
wash considerations. The deeper the bed, the greater the head loss
and the harder it is to clean. On the other hand, the media should
be of sufficient depth so as to be able to retain the removed solids
within the depth of the media for the duration of filter run at the
design rate without permitting a breakthrough. A deeper bed also
affords greater opportunity for interplay of the various forces which are
generated within the filter bed.
The design filtration rate (7, 8) must be such that the effluent
will be of a desired quality without causing excessive head loss
through the filter, which in turn requires frequent backwashing. At
high filtration rates, shear forces appear to have a significant effect
on solids retention and removal in a high rate filter. Recent experience
-------
at a high rate filtration facility treating industrial wastewater seems
to reinforce this theory, as winter performance of the filtration
facility (without chemicals) was poorer than summer performance,
when water viscosities are lower due to higher water temperatures.
Polymer addition was required during cold water operating conditions
(winter) to maintain required effluent quality. The addition of polymer,
and/or coagulant prior to filtration has a very significant effect on
process efficiency.
-------
SECTION IV
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION
General
The deep bed, dual media, ultra high rate filtration test facilities,
were located at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, in
Cleveland (see Figure 1). This plant services roughly half of
Metropolitan Cleveland which consists of residential, commercial and
industrial areas encompassing approximately 81,500 acres. The
residential population is estimated to be 600,000 persons or about
46 percent of the people residing in the Greater Cleveland area. This
treatment facility has tributary to it between 50 and 60 percent of the
industrial community of the region. This community consists of plating
shops, major steel mills, chemical manufacturing plants and other
industries. As with standard treatment facilities, the treatment plant
is susceptible to shock loadings due to accidental spills.
Treatment_Plant Operation
Raw sewage containing industrial wastes with a normal flow of
105-110 MGD and up to 4 MGD of mixed primary and secondary sludge
from the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant are conveyed to the
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Screen Building where the flow
passes through bar racks to two detritus tanks to remove grit and other
debris. The flow is then ground in six comminutors, each with a
capacity of 20 MGD.
The addition of new primary and secondary treatment facilities
(completed in 1969) increased the plant capacity to 170 MGD However,
recent process modifications, which are discussed in greater detail
later in the text, have limited present capacity to 96 MGD in the
primary settling tanks with a 34 MGD by-pass directly to the aeration
units which provide 130 MGD capacity in the secondary treatment
units of the activated sludge plant.
The aeration tanks are split into two separate units, aeration
unit #1 and #2. The design capacities of these units are 55 MGD with
37 percent return sludge and 68 MGD with 27 percent return sludge,
respectively. The aeration time varies between 4 and 8 hours. The
clarified secondary effluent is disinfected with chlorine and discharged
to the Cuyahoga River.
-------
IXI
WESTERLY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATE
TREATMENT PLANT
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - LOCATION PLAN
-------
The waste sludge from the final settling tanks is directed to a
thickener. The thickened sludge is combined with primary sludge in a
digester and followed by an elutriation tank. Elutriated sludge is
treated with ferric chloride and lime prior to vacuum filtration and
incineration in a multi-hearth furance. The design capacity of the four
multiple hearth incinerators is 800 tons per day. Previously, this plant
produced 200 to 300 tons per day. but recently this production rate has
been increased by a factor between 2 and 3.
Process Modification and Improvement
During the early part of 1970, plant operating personnel made
process modifications and improvements to decrease the pollutional
loads being discharged to the Cuyahoga River. These modifications
included recycling the waste sludge from the final settling tanks
serving aeration unit #1 to the primary settling tank influent channel
and limiting the raw sewage flow to the primary settling tanks to
96 MGD. The final settling tank sludge improves the settling
characteristics of the primary solids and the limitation of flow ensures
a reasonable overflow rate.
The effluent from the primary settling tanks is split with 51 percent
of the flow to aeration unit #1 and 49 percent to aeration unit #2. Flows
in excess of 96 MGD, but less than 130 MGD, bypass the primary
settling tanks and are conveyed to aeration unit #1 which can provide
step aeration to effectively treat the increased loading.
The dissolved oxygen profile is held reasonably constant in each
of the four aeration chambers by controlling the flow rate and maintaining
a constant aeration rate of 1.2 cubic feet of air per gallon of mixed liquid.
The first pass of the aeration tank is used to aerate the return sludge
from the final settling tanks.
Due to the steel plants and other metal producing or processing
industries which are tributary to the Southerly Wastewater Treatment
Plant, the plant influent normally contains high iron concentrations,
between 20-30 mg/1 as Fe. This fact, coupled with the previously
described plant modifications have enabled the plant to produce
a good quality effluent with average characteristics as follows:
BOD 10-20 ppm
COD 50-90 ppm
TSS 10-20 ppm
TPO4 5-10 ppm
11
-------
With each successive process modification the treatment plant
engineers made an in depth study to determine the effects and to
define the controllable variables. It was finally determined that the
controlling variable to produce high quality effluent was the rate of
production of the total biological sludge within the system, which
was optimal at a food-to-microorganism ratio of 0.2 to 0.5 (9).
Starting in late spring through November 1971 the plant encountered
various operating and maintenance difficulties due primarily to a loss
in solids handling capacity. With reference to the previously described
method of control, this facility then began to store solids within
the system by recycling the waste sludge to the head of the plant.
Throughout November and December of 1971 the plant was
adjusting the total mass of sludge in the system to achieve a food-to-
microorganism ratio of between 0.2 and 0.5. This was accomplished
by juggling the incineration capacity of the plant. By mid-December
the plant was again able to produce a satisfactory effluent which was
maintained through the completion of the testing period.
Plant Influent and Effluent Water Quality
Tables 1 and 2 show the water quality of the influent raw
sewage containing sludge from Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant
and the secondary effluent during the months of October, November
and part of December 1971. A continuous 33 hour plant water quality
survey on January 11 and 12, 1972 was undertaken and the results
are presented on Figure 2.
12
-------
TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF RAW SEWAGE
(OCTOBER THRU DECEMBER 1971)
SOUTHERLY WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEVELAND, OHIO
PH
Month Min. Avg. Max.
Oct. 7.2 7.4 7.G
TSS (mg/1) BOD (mg/1)
Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max.
COD (mg/1)
Min. Avg. Max.
T P04
Min. Avg. Max,
270 410 696 255 301 355 411 665 11G9 13 32 44
Nov.
7.0 7.3 7.5 276 440 812 235 302 350 432 800 1204 25 36 60
7.1 7.3 7.4
280 388
240 300 350 260 665 1260 12 19 33
TABLE 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
(OCTOBER THRU DECEMBER 1971)
SOUTHERLY WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEVELAND, OHIO
pH TSS (mg/1) BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) T" PO4 (mg/1)
Month Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max.
Oct.
7.7 7.9 8.1
22 57 18 25 31
28
58 129 3.1 16
20
Nov,
7.6 7.8 8.0 12 50 138 10 26 50 73 132 405 5.1 11
21
Dec
7.5 7.7 7.9 15 20 30 15 19 45
56
85 2.5
5.5
-------
1000
500
^ 100
-§ 50
V>
g
tn i o
S 5
a
TREATMEN
14
-------
SECTION V
TESTING PROGRAM AND PROCEDURE
Parameters
Two distinct types of test parameters were utilized and eval-
uated during this study. The first type of parameter can be called or
described as design parameters, as they relate to the major features
of the ultra high rate filtration system. The second type can be
described as water quality parameters, which are essentially
contaminant levels in and out of the filtration process.
The filtration system can be characterized and described by
the following parameters:
Media Composition Length of filter run
Media depth Head loss
Filtration rate Backwash procedure
Coagulant and flocculant addition Backwash water volume
A definition of these elements allows the design and construction
of a full scale facility.
Water quality parameters or analyses utilized are those normally
associated with water quality criteria. Principal emphasis was given
to the following analyses:
Total Suspended Solids
Total Phosphate
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Other water quality analyses were also performed to provide
information as to process performance on a wide range of wastewater
contaminants. Table 3 is a complete listing of all water quality
analyses utilized.
The major water quality parameter for determining the effective-
ness of the treatment process, since the proposed filtration process is
essentially a solids removal process, is suspended solids. Insoluble
BOD, simultaneously removed along with suspended solids, and soluble
(ionizable) phosphates, rendered insoluble by the addition of coagu-
lants, are also significant water quality parameters.
15
-------
TABLE 3
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES
PH
Temperature
Turbidity
Total Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Phosphate
Soluble Phosphate
Note: Analysis performed in accordance
with "EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes", 1971.
Scope of Testing Program
The purpose of the testing program was to investigate operational
and design parameters of the ultra high rate filtration process for the
treatment of secondary effluent. The program could be viewed as three
separate procedures, including: (a) bench scale testing of the effects
of coagulants and flocculants, (b) preliminary coagulation-filtration
testing with three-inch diameter filter columns, (c) collection of
operational data from the principal experiments with six-inch diameter
filter columns.
The bench scale tests consisted of a series of jar tests to
evaluate a variety of coagulants and flocculants. The determination
of the type and dosage of coagulants was based on floe formation,
floe density and characteristics of agglutination.
The preliminary coagulation-filtration tests were conducted in a
set of eight three-inch diameter filter columns. The tests evaluated four
principal design variables: size of filter media, depth of filter bed,
filtration rate and selection of coagulant and flocculant. These tests
were performed under declining-flow conditions and were terminated
when either the flow declined to fifty percent of initial rate or at the
end of three hours, whichever was reached first. The testing programs
are shown in Tables A-l through A-4 in Appendix A.
16
-------
The principal filtration experiments were performed in a set
of three six-inch diameter filter columns with previously selected
filter media, coagulant and flocculant. Filtration performance was
evaluated in terms of the effluent water quality, the amount of water
produced, length of filtration run, and total terminal head losses.
Two methods of flux control, constant rate and declining rate, were
also evaluated. The experimental program for the six-inch diameter
filter columns is presented in Table A-5, in Appendix A.
Filtration Test Procedure
The testing apparatus and experience acquired in the research
project for the treatment of combined sewer overflow (2) was used to
establish the procedure for studying the treatment of the effluent from
the Southerly Plant's secondary settling tanks. The testing procedure
used to evaluate the filtration components was conducted primarily in
two phases. First, evaluation and selection of system media and flux
rates, and secondly, optimization of the process through the use of
coagulant and flocculant additions prior to filtration.
The filtration media evaluated included four to five feet of
anthracite over two to three feet of sand. The characteristics of the
media are indicated as follows:
Media Effective Size Uniformity Coefficient
(mm)
No. 3 Anthracite 4.0 1.5
No. 2 Anthracite 1.78 1.63
No. l| Anthracite 0.98 1.73
No. 1 Anthracite 0.66 1.62
No. 612 Sand 2.0 1.32
No. 1220 Sand 0.95 1.41
No. 2050 Sand 0.45 1.33
Both media selection and coagulation-filtration testing were
accomplished in the three-inch diameter filtration test apparatus, as
shown in Figure 3. Referring to this figure, the two key points in the
filtration system were sampling point #1 and sampling point #2. Sampling
point #1 was at the head tank overflow, represented as filter influent, and
sampling point #2 was at the filter column effluent. Grab samples were
taken at thirty minute intervals for turbidity, pH, and temperature
analyses. A composite sample was also collected at the influent and
effluent. These samples were composited over a ten minute period at
sixty minute intervals for a three hour duration. This composite sample
was then analyzed for suspended solids concentration.
17
-------
00
CHEMICAL
FEED PUMPS
(2)-4 CHANNELS
(I)- I CHANNEL
CHEMICAL
SOLUTION
(9)-2000ml
BEAKERS
Q
C
33
m
OJ
J
^f
K}*~
KK
1
\CK-
^SH
IAIN
1
-
!
^^
-i
c
FROM FINAL r^
SETTLING TANK ! iS*
yTUBE CONNECTION
/ AND CHECK VALVE
/ FOR CHEMICAL FEED (TYR)
V
HEAD TANK
-------
A typical test run applied seven different polymers at the
same dosage to each of the various filter columns operated at the
same filtration rate (one column was used as a reference). Based on
effluent quality data, the efficiency of one polyelectrolyte versus
another could be determined by suspended solids reduction. The
various types of coagulants and flocculants evaluated in the preliminary
tests were then used in the principal filtration test. A total of 30
polymers were evaluated for enhancing suspended solids removals,
including 5 which are normally used to treat potable water. A list
of polymers evaluated in this program is contained in Table 4.
The evaluation of ultra high rate filtration performance was
conducted in six-inch diameter filter columns, as shown in Figure 4.
Filter influent and effluent samples were taken every thirty minutes for
turbidity, pH and temperature measurements; every hour for suspended
solids determination; and every two hours for total phosphate, BOD and
COD analyses.
The filtration columns were generally run for approximately 5
to 8 hours. The length of run was controlled by the extent of head
loss (less than 20 ft proposed) and by effluent quality (turbidity less
than 20 JTU). Head loss measurements were taken for each filter column
by reading the various pressure gauges located along the side of the
filter at one-half hour intervals, or more frequently, as required. These
readings serve to identify and define the energy expended by the flow
in overcoming friction during the filtration run.
The six-inch diameter filter columns were backwashed by
using low pressure air followed by water. Initially, after the
filtration run had terminated, the columns were scoured with low
pressure air at a rate of approximately 15 scfm per sq ft for about
2 minutes. The air was then turned off, and water introduced at a
rate of 25 to 75 gpm/sq ft for 5 to 15 minutes. Samples of the backwash
effluent were collected during the filter backwash period. The samples
provided information as to the nature of the backwash flow, both on an
instantaneous and composite basis. Backwash effluent samples, when
viewed in conjunction with a particular backwash procedure, could be
used as a guide to the relative effectiveness of filter cleaning.
19
-------
CHEMICAL
FEED POINT
(TYR)
30 FILTER
TESTING
APPARATUS
(FIGURE 4)
BACKWASH DRAIN-
PRESSURE
GAUGES
INFLUENT
SETTLING
FLOW METER
(TYP.)
HOSE
CONNECTION
(TYR)
CHEMICAL FEED
BACKWASH
(CITY WATER)
CD
FILTRATE TO SCREEN CHANNEL
AIR COMPRESSOR
m
^
HIGH RATE FILTRATION PILOT PLANT SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
-------
TABLE 4
LIST OF POLYMERS
Type of Polyelectrolyte
Chemical Industries
Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(Atlas ep)
American Cyanamid Company
Wayne, N.J. 07470 (Magnifloc)
Calgon Corp. (Coagulant Aid)
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Mich. 48640 (Purifloc)
Garnlen Chemical Co. (Gamafla)
East Paterson, N.J. 07407
Hercules, Inc. (Hercofloc)
Hopewell, Virginia 23860
Nalco Chemical Co. (Nalcolyte)
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Tuscaloosa, Ala. 35401
(Aqua-Rid)
Stein-Hall Chem. (Polyhall)
New York, New York 10016
Swift and Company
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Cationic
105C
Nonionic Anionic
570C*
560C
226, 228
C-31*
NC772
810, 828. 1
49-702
49-710
985N'
671
49-704
*
**
= Approved by EPA for Water Treatment (April 1971)
= Polymer with Bentonite Clay.
1A1, 2A2,
3A3, 4A4,
5A5
865A, 836A,
860A*
25**, 240
A-23*
NA710
816
672
295A
X-400
21
-------
SECTION VI
PILOT PLANT FACILITIES
Test Site
The pilot plant for testing the applicability of ultra high rate
filtration for the treatment of secondary effluent was located at the
Screen Building of the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. This
plant utilizes the activated sludge process for the treatment of
combined domestic and industrial waste flows from the Cleveland area.
The pilot plant influent pump and backwash wastewater storage
tanks were located outdoors. The filtration test columns, associated
backwashing, chemical feed equipment, coagulation-filtration testing
apparatus, laboratory and storage room, were located inside the Screen
Building. Figure 5 shows the location of the pilot plant inside the
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Figure 6 shows the pilot plant
facilities. Only six of the eight three-inch columns are shown in the
lower view of Figure 6.
Process Units
The secondary effluent was lifted from a final settling tank and
pumped to the pilot plant site located in the Screen Building of the
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Then, the flow was distributed
into three six-inch diameter filter columns through a common manifold
as shown in Figure 4. The flow also could be diverted to the three-
inch diameter filtration apparatus, as shown in Figure 3, for
preliminary, coagulation-filtration tests.
A total of eleven pilot filter columns were located in the test
set-up. Three of the filter columns were six-inches in diameter and
eight of the columns were three inches in diameter. All of the pilot
columns were of sufficient size to provide reliable removal data in
regard to the filtration process. The larger units gave a better
indication of the effect of backwashing on the media. Three chemical
feeding systems were provided for the six-inch diameter filter columns.
A preliminary coagulation-filtration apparatus was incorporated
into the pilot plant equipment. This apparatus, as shown in Figure 3,
permitted comparison of the effect and efficiency of various dosages
of coagulants, and polyelectrolytes to improve process performance.
23
-------
HIGH-RATE
FILTRATION
EQUIPMENT
DETfHTQR 8.
COMMINUTOR
BLBG.
i ':<
lxV'
;::{PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
li
GRIT CHAMBERS
E
AERATION TANKS
i '
i i
i \
'(. ""
\-..
\
j *
FINAL SETTLING TANK
TO CUYAHOGA
RIVER
FILTRATION PILOT PLANT - LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 5
24
-------
6" LUCITE FILTER COLUMNS
PILOT PLANT FACILITIES FIGURES
25
-------
Selected coagulants, polymers, and dosages were then utilized in
the six-inch diameter pilot columns, from which operational data was
obtained (length of run, head loss, etc.).
The flow volumes through each filtration column could be
controlled by observing a flow meter and regulating a valve on the
effluent from the filter. Pressure gauges were located along the sides
of the pilot filtration columns to profile head losses throughout the filter
depth. An air compressor was included at the test installation to
provide a source of air for backwashing the filter columns. Backwash
water was obtained from the existing service water system at the
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Major equipment at the pilot plant included the following:
1. Pilot Plant Influent Pump - A positive displacement self-
priming pump was used for delivering secondary effluent to filtration
testing site. The pump was manufactured by Moyno Pump Division,
Robbins and Myers, Inc. , Frame SWG 8 - Type CDQ. The unit was
mounted on structural steel "L" type base plate and driven by "V"
belts and pulleys covered by suitable belt guard (450 rpm). The pump
was driven by a 3 HP TEFC motor, operating on 3 phase, 60 cycles,
230/460 volt current.
2 . Three Six-Inch Diameter Pilot Filter Columns - The filter
columns were made of transparent plexiglass tubing having an outside
diameter of seven inches with a 3/8 inch wall thickness. Each filter
was seventeen feet high and consisted of four sections. The four
sections were connected by flanges using 1/4 inch bolts. Nine
pressure taps, eighteen inches apart were provided along the column
for measuring head loss development during filtration. Filter media was
supported by a plexiglass plate with a plexiglass nozzle. Above the
plate, an eighteen inch gravel layer was provided to support the
filter media. A rotameter and valve were installed at the filter
discharge end for measuring and controlling the rate of flow.
3. Backwash Air Compressor - The air compressor was a
Model A490K8 - 103-80, oil free type, as manufactured by the
Corken Pump Company. The compressor was mounted on an 80 gallon
receiver, ASME Code 200 psig working pressure. The unit was
complete with pressure gage, intake filter, hydrostatic relief valve
and constant-speed unloaders. The compressor was driven by a 2 HP,
drip proof, 1750 rpm motor operating at 230/460 volts.
26
-------
4. Three Chemical Feed Systems - Each system consisted
of a metering pump, a mechanical mixer and a chemical solution
tank. The metering pumps were positive displacement, diaphragm
type, with plastic ends, driven by 1/4 HP, single phase capacitor-
start motors. The chemical solution tanks were polyethylene chemically
resistant, each having a capacity of 50 gallons and equipped with covers
The mixers were driven by 1/4 HP totally enclosed motors and had stain-
less steel shafts and impellers. The pumps, chemical solution tanks
and mixers were supplied by Wallace and Tiernan, Inc.
5. Backwash Effluent Storage Tank - A 1,000 gallon steel
tank was used as the filter backwash effluent storage tank. The tank
was made of carbon steel plate and equipped with outlet and drain
connections.
6. Coagulation-Filtration Testing Apparatus -
a. Head Tank
To distribute flow to the eight filter columns - an
eighteen inches in diameter, three-foot long, transparent
plexiglass tube was used as a filter influent head tank.
Overflow nozzles were installed to provide a constant
head for the filter influent flow.
b. Filter Columns
Eight filter columns, made of three inch diameter
transparent plexiglass tubing, were installed at the pilot
plant site. Each filter column was eighteen feet high and
consisted of three sections. The three sections were
connected by two Victaulic couplings.
c . Chemical Feed System
Three peristalic pumps, with two rollers squeezing a
flexible tubing, were installed. Two of the units were
equipped with four channels each and one unit had a single
channel. The pumps were capable of feeding nine different
chemical solutions simultaneously to various inlets.
27
-------
SECTION VII
ULTRA HIGH RATE FILTRATION7 RESULTS
Two groups of tests were programmed with the ultra hinh rate
filtration pilot plant at the Southerly Wastewator Treatment Plant in
Cleveland. The first group were preliminary tests to evaluate.' ultra
high rate filtration operating and design variables for the treatment of
secondary effluent. The preliminary test included the evaluation ot
various filter media as well as coagulants and flocculants. Various
coagulants and flocculants were first tried in jar tests and these results
were later used in determining the best coagulants and polymers for
use in the three-inch diameter filters.
The second group of tests were principal tests, to determine tho
optimum parameters for operation of the ultra high rate filtration process.
The principal filtration experiments were conducted in a six-inch
diameter filter set. Rate of filtration, head loss, influent and effluent
water quality, and backwash procedure were major investigative
factors.
Preliminary Test
Four types of filter media were evaluated. The combinations of
anthracite and sand in these media were as follows:
Type 1. Sixty inches of No. 3 Anthracite over thirty-six inches
of No. 612 Sand.
Type 2. Sixty inches of No. 2 Anthracite over thirty-six inches
of No. 1220 Sand.
Type 3. Sixty inches of No. 1 1/2 Anthracite over thirty six
inches of No. 1220 Sand.
Type 4. Sixty inches of No. 1 Anthracite over thirty-six inches
of No. 2050 Sand.
Based on the same operating condition, suspended solids
concentration in the filter effluent, using these media, were similar.
For instance, at a flux rate of 16 gpm/sq ft, with polymer addition,
the effluent suspended solids were 3.0 mg/1, 2.0 mg/1, 1.85 mg/1
and 2.2 mg/1 for media type 1,2,3 and 4, respectively. Results on
plain filtration test runs at 16 gpm/sq ft indicated that type 3 and 4
29
-------
media were too fine, as the flux rate was reduced to fifty percent of the
original flow within 180 minutes while the rate dropped only twenty
percent in types 1 and 2. Table A-l, in Appendix A, illustrates these
results. Based on the length of filter run, volume of water produced
and filter effluent quality for the three testing modes, filter media type 2
was selected for further study.
For further evaluation of No. 2 Anthracite and No. 1220 Sand,
four different combinations of filter bed depth were studied. These
combinations of filter media were as follows:
Type 2. Sixty inches of No. 2 Anthracite over thirty-six inches
of No. 1220 Sand.
Type 5. Sixty inches of No. 2 Anthracite over twenty-four
inches of No. 1220 Sand.
Type 6. Forty-eight inches of No. 2 Anthracite over twenty-four
inches of No. 1220 Sand.
Type 7. Seventy-two inches of No. 2 Anthracite over twenty-
four inches of No. 1220 Sand.
The tests were conducted during two different periods. Filter
media types 2 and 5 were evaluated in 1971 (early test period) with the
3-inch diameter filter columns, and under declining rate control for
both plain filtration and for filtration with 1.0 mg/1 of Calgon No. 25.
Composite samples of the filter influent and effluent were collected at
30-minute intervals and were analyzed for suspended solids. Comparing
these two types of media indicated in Table A-2, in Appendix A, type 5
showed lower suspended solids concentrations in the filter effluent,
therefore this media (60" No. 2 Anthracite over 24" No. 1220 Sand)
was mostly utilized throughout the test period.
After a long period of evaluating media type 5 with various chemi-
cal (alum and polymers) addition and filtration rates, it was discovered
that variations in anthracite depth could improve the anthracite/sand
combination. Therefore, filter media types 5, 6 and 7 were compared in
early 1972. The results are summarized in Table 5. Grab samples for
filter influent and effluent suspended solids determinations were
collected every 30 minutes. Among the three media, type 7 produced
the lowest suspended solids concentrations in the filtrate but was
higher in head loss.
30
-------
TABLE 5
EVALUATION OF FILTER BED DEPTH
Suspended Solids
Flux * Average Average
Type of Rate Influent Effluent
Media (gpm/sq ft) (mg/1) (mg/1)
1971
Test
Length
Removal Head Loss of Run
(%) (ft) (min.)
Plain Filtration
2
5
With
2
5
1972
With
5
6
7
5
6
7
24
24
1 . 0 mg/1 of
24
24
Test
8
8
.5
.5
Calgon No.
8
8
.5
.5
15.0 mg/1 of Alum and 1
24
24
24
8
8
8
10
10
10
17
17
17
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
4.
3.
5
5
47
59
.0
.0
240
240
25 Addition
3.
3.
7
1
. 0 mg/1 of
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
9
6
9
3
0
5
56
63
Calgon
71
74
81
86
88
91
.5
.5
No. 226 Addition
.8 13.8
.8 14.5
.5 12.5
.7 5.1
.4 5.3
.3 7.3
240
240
300
300
240
360
360
360
* Initial setting rate.
31
-------
On October 18, 1971, the Southerly plant began operating in an
abnormal condition due to mechanical failures in the sludge incineration
building. The digested sludge was recycled to the primary tanks
causing suspended solids and COD levels to increase in the secondary
effluent. The suspended solids removal efficiency was sharply reduced
during the abnormal period.
Table 6 shows the effect of the activated sludge plant operation on
UHR filtration performance. It indicates the decrease in the filter
efficiency from the initial normal activated sludge plant operation to the
abnormal condition. Filtration runs 1SE-III and 2SE-III were conducted
during the plant initial normal operation period. At the time the plant
started to recycle digested sludge to the primary tanks, filtration runs
4SE-V and 4SE-VIII were in progress. Filtration runs 6ASE were
conducted while the plant was operating under a completely abnormal
condition in late October 1971.
In order to improve process efficiency under these abnormal plant
conditions, a series of filter runs were performed with various types
of polymers and with or without alum coagulants. The results show that
alum with cationic polymer (Calgon No. 226) improved floe formation
and, in turn, reduced suspended solids levels in the filter effluent as
indicated in Table 7.
Thirty polymers were utilized in the preliminary testing work to
evaluate the coagulation filtration performance. Nineteen polymers
with alum, seven polymers with lime, and four polymers with alum or
lime addition were compared for enhancing filtration efficiency. Results
of the polymer comparison tests are presented in Tables A-3 and
A-4, in Appendix A. These results show that certain polymers slightly
improved the suspended solids removals, some seemed to have a
negligible effect, and others seemed to cause a deteriorated performance,
Neither polymer, nor alum plus polymer gave results significantly
better than plain filtration based on tests in the eight parallel columns.
Among the thirty polymers, ten types were further evaluated with
two levels of polymer dosage either with alum or lime addition. The
test results are presented in Table A-4 in Appendix A.
Principal Test
Two basic modes of process operation were evaluated for removing
suspended solids and other contaminants in suspended form: plain filtra-
tion and coagulation followed immediately by filtration. Coagulation-
32
-------
TABLE 6
THE EFFECT OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
OPERATION TO UHR FILTRATION EFFICIENCY
UHR Filtration Performance*
Suspended Solids
Run No.
Plain Filtration
1SE-III
4SE-IV
6ASE-VIII
Flux Rate
(gpm/sq ft)
Influent
(mq/1)
16
16
16
20.7
8.5
22.0
With 1.0 mg/1 of Calgon No. 25 Addition
2SE-III
4SE-VIII
6ASE-III
16
16
16
8.1
8.5
22.0
Effluent
(mg/1)
2.5
3.4
9.6
2.0
2.2
10.2
Removal
88.0
60.0
56.0
75.5
72.2
54.0
* Filter Media = 60" No. 2 Anth./24" No. 1220 Sand
TABLE 7
THE EFFECT OF ALUM AND POLYMER ADDITIONS ON UHR
FILTRATION EFFICIENCY DURING ABNORMAL PLANT OPERATIONS
Flux Rate
(gpm/sq ft)
24
8
24
8
Alum Polymer
Feed Feed
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
0
0
15
15
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Influent
(mg/1)
66.25
66.25
63.0
63.0
Effluent
(mg/1)
30.0
16.5
6.7
5. 1
Removal
55
75
90
93
33
-------
filtration was evaluated with alum and or cationic polymers, while
plain filtration utilized no chemicals or other additions. Complete
test results for all the filtration runs are presented in Table A-5 in the
Appendix A. A total of sixty two filter runs were performed, including
eleven plain filtration runs, ten with polymers and forty one with alum
and polymers. Forty nine filter runs were conducted with the
recommended filter media (60-inches of No. 2 Anthracite over
24-inches of No. 1220 Sand). Sets of filter performance curves for each
run are presented in Figures Bl through B124, in Appendix B.
Figure 7 shows filter influent versus effluent suspended solids
concentration at a filtration rate of 8, 16, 24 and 32 gpm/sq ft
under constant rate control. This plot indicates that for filter influent
suspended solids concentrations below 30 mg/1, the addition of
chemicals (polymer or alum plus polymer) cannot be justified. On
the other hand, the addition of alum and polymer enhances significantly,
the filtration efficiency at influent suspended solids levels higher than
60 mg/1. Figure 7 also shows that filtration rate has little effect on the
effluent suspended solids, which ranged between 1.0 mg/1 and
12 mg/1.
Phosphate removals were calculated both as to percent removal
and with respect to alum usage efficiencies. Although the molar ratio
of aluminum to phosphorus is 1:1 to convert dissolved phosphate to
aluminum phosphate (AlPCh), the weight ratio is actually 0.87:1. The
weight ratio of alum (Al2 (804)3- 14H2O) to phosphorus is 9.67:1
and the weight ratio of alum to phosphate (PO,^ is 3.22:1. Plant
results (10) indicate that an aluminum to phosphorus ratio up to 2:1 may
be required for high (95 percent) phosphorus removal.
The range of total phosphate removals was 61.0 to 85.5% with
filter flux rates between 24 and 16 gpm/sq ft. Figure 8 shows the
average percent removals of total phosphate. The function of total
phosphate removal by filtration is related to the effectiveness of re-
duction of suspended solids through the filter media. Figure 9 indicates
the relationship between total phosphate and suspended solids removal.
BOD removals cover a variable range, both with and without
alum and polymer addition to the filtration process. BOD levels in the
filter effluent range between 3.8 and 14.4 mg/1 with plain filtration
at influent concentrations of 10. 1 and 18.5 mg/1, respectively, between
1.8 and 13.4 mg/1 with polymer addition at influent concentrations of 6.23
and 18.5 mg/1, respectively, and between 0.45 and 18.0 mg/1 with alum
and polymer at influent concentrations of 7. 13 and 41.8 mg/1, respec-
tively.
34
-------
_ 140
120
o
in
a
u
a
z
HI
a.
en
100
80
40
20
CONSTANT RATE
FLUX i Sgpm/sqfl
PL
_ A W
X W
|
AIN FIL
ITH PC
ITH ALL
.*
w
TRATIO
LYMER
M AND
*.*.
^T*
N
POLYME
.-*
I *'
R
. » __
1
160
2 4 6 8 10 12
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/l
CONSTANT RATE
FLUX: 24gpm/sqft
CONSTANT RATE
FLUX! ISgpm/sqft
024 6 8 10 12
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS m1/\
2466 10 12
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/l
CONSTANT RATE
FLUX: 32gpm/»qft
2 4 8 a 10 12
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/l
FILTER INFLUENT Vs
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE 7
35
-------
o
100
90
80
70
UJ
cr
LJ
i-
X
0_
CO
O
X
CL
_|
H
O
H
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
^Ml
.
^x
^-^
"\
^-WITH ALUM
/ AND
^C_ POLYMER
^
FILTER MEDIA: ^- PLAIN
60" No. 2 ANTH./24"No.l220 SAND FILTRATION
CHEMICAL DOSAGE:
ALUM I5mg/l AND CALGON No. 226, Img/l
10
20
30
40
50
FLUX RATE (gpm/ff2)
FILTER PERFORMANCE
TOTAL PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
FIGURE 8
3b
-------
0 20 40 60 80 100
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL (%)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL PHOSPHATE
_ . j_. ._ i ^ j
AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
FIGURE 9
37
-------
Most of the BOD in the activated sludge plant secondary effluent was
attributed to microbiological growth in suspended or colloidal form.
The degree of BOD removal depended on the efficiency of coagulation
and flocculation prior to filtration. In essence, the results, as shown
in Table A-5, in Appendix A, indicate that there is no significant
relationship between filtration rates and effluent BOD concentrations.
COD removal data, as shown in Table A-5 in Appendix A, indi-
cates that better removals are experienced with alum and polymer addition.
The ranges of COD removal were 16.3 to 56.7% with plain filtration,
and 34.0 to 88.0% with alum and polymer addition. However, the
COD concentrations in the filter effluent fell in a narrower range,
32.6 to 43.9 mg/1 with plain filtration and 21.1 to 44.9 mg/1 with
alum and polymer addition.
The head loss in the filter media during each filtration test run
is indicated on individual data curves in Appendix B. This head loss
does not include pressure losses across the filter bottom. Generally,
three curves are presented for each filter run: the top curve indicating
the head loss that is experienced essentially through the whole filter
media, and the curves indicating the head loss in a certain depth of
the media, with the media depth measured from the top of the" bed.
Two major factors caused an increase of head loss during
filtration: one was surface cake formation and the second was filter
bed clogging. Both deposition of floe on top of the filter bed and
penetration of suspended solids into the lower filter media were
observed. The depth of suspended solids penetration may be seen from
the above mentioned head loss curves. The rate of head loss was
dependent on filter influent suspended solids concentration, floe size
related to coagulation and flocculation efficiency, filter media depth
and size, rate of filtration and method of rate control. Head loss
curves in Figure B-l through B-124 in Appendix B indicate that head
loss developed more slowly in the declining rate condition than with
constant rate control, and more rapidly at a higher filtration rate and at
higher influent suspended solids concentrations. The length of run and
total head loss data are indicated on Table A-5 in Appendix A.
Table 8 illustrates the production volume of water at various
filter operating conditions. The filter influent suspended solids of all
runs shown was below 30 mg/1. For constant flux runs flux rates of 8,
16, 24 and 32 gpm/sq ft produced 14,400; 11,500; 10,370 and 9,600
gallons/sq ft, respectively. For coagulant and polymer addition
runs, a flux of 16 gpm/sq ft yielded a higher production volume for
38
-------
TABLE 8
PRODUCTION VOLUME OF WATER AT VARIOUS OPERATING CONDITIONS
Volume
of Water
Length of Produced
Initial Average Length Total Run at 15' Thru 15'
Flux Flux Rate of Run Head Loss Head Loss Head Loss
(gpm/sq ft) (gpm/sq ft) Control (hours) (ft) (hours) _ (gal/sq ft)
Plain Filtration
8
16
24
32
With 15
8
16
24
8
16
24
32
mg/1 of Alum and
8
16
24
C
C
C
C
1.0
C
C
C
8
8
8
8
mg/1 of
13
5
3
1.9
6.4
19.6
28.7
Calqon No. 226
37.5
15.2
17.0
30*
12*
7.2
5.0
7.0
4.9
2.8
14,400
11,500
10,370
9,600
3,360
4,740
4,030
Plain Filtration
8
16
24
32
With 15
8
16
24
32
-
16
22.2
27.6
mg/1 of Alum and
7.5
13.3
16.2
18.0
* Estimated value
D
D
D
D
1.0
D
D
D
D
-
6
6
6
mg/1 of
6
6
5
4
-
4.8
7.5
11.0
Calgon No. 226
5.1
13.4
14.3
17.6
-
15*
12*
8*
10*
7.5*
5.5*
3.5
-
14,400
15,980
13,260
4,500
5,980
5,340
3,780
from head loss curve projection.
39
-------
constant rate control. Production levels are estimated for
Declining Rate Control in the table, but were not actually deter-
mined during experimental period.
Backwash Considerations
Backwash water volume ranged between 1. 12 to 9.27 percent of
the total water filtered with the median at approximately 5 percent.
A backwash rate in a range of 35 to 65 gpm/sq ft of water was needed.
Air was introduced at a rate of 10 to 15 scfm prior to water flushing.
Suspended solids analyses on backwash effluents indicated the
filters were relatively clean after 5 to 10 minutes of water flush.
Suspended solids levels in the filter backwash water ranged from 4 to
4,000 mg/1. After backwash, the entire filter bed was carefully
examined to insure that the bed was clean.
At the end of each run, with alum and polymer addition, an
accumulation of a few inches of material was noted on the surface of
the filter media, although visual observation indicated that solids
had also penetrated throughout the depth of the media. No problems
were experienced in backwashing this accumulation from the top of
the media. In a filtration facility, utilizing the deep bed, high rate
filtration process with the addition of appropriate alum and polymer,
the backwash water requirements should be minimized by utilizing air
agitation to dislodge the floe, then backwashing with water at a
sufficient rate to allow these particulates to escape the granular bed.
40
-------
SECTION VIII
DESCRIPTION OF ULTRA-HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION
Process Sequence
Based on the results of the testing program, a conceptual
schematic of a high rate filtration system for the treatment of
activated sludge plant secondary effluent is presented on Figure 10.
Secondary effluent from an activated sludge plant could flow
by gravity to a low lift pumping station. From there, the flow would
be lifted into the influent channel to the filters. At first, alum
solution would be introduced into the pump discharge pipe, then a
selected polymer solution would be fed into filter influent to create
desirable floe size and concentration.
As indicated previously, a gravity type design, that is, open
filtration units, are proposed. The water would be introduced at
the top of the filter and would flow downward through the filter bed.
The filtration building would be provided with low pressure air
blowers as a source of backwash air. Backwash pumps would be
located in the filtration facilities to deliver water to the filters for
backwashing. Generally, filter effluent could serve as a source of
water for backwashing filters, but for reducing the operating cost,
filter influent could be utilized.
The treatment building would also include a control area,
office space, alum feeding equipment, and a system for adding polymer
,to the filter influent. The high rate filtration facility could be designed
for automatic operation, and the operator would be needed only for
routine maintenance and periodic delivery of chemicals. In full size
treatment systems, chlorine feed for disinfection could be incorporated
into the filtration facilities, or tied into an existing chlorination tank
in the activated sludge plant.
Backwash Solids Handling
Dirty backwash effluent from the filtration facilities would flow
by gravity to a backwash effluent holding tank and then be bled at a
controlled rate to the sewage treatment plant influent. The solids
would settle in the primary tank and would be handled along with
41
-------
FEED SV STEMS
POLVMETt PEED
CO
MIXINO <
STORAai
TANK
SECONDARY EFFLUENT ^^j
r«OU FIUAL SCTTT.IMG TAVIK ^^
ATMOSPMtBL
BLOWELRS
BACKWASH PUMPS
OR, tM OTHCtt. FA.Cll.irY
c
3)
m
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
the primary sludge. The recycling of the backwash effluent,
which contains alum sludge, could possibly improve the removal of
suspended solids. Facilities for bleeding the backwash effluent
into the plant influent should be considered.
Another possibility of handling the backwash solids would be
to provide a complete sludge disposal system. The system would in-
clude a sludge thickener followed by a sludge dewatering process.
The method of dewatering could be filter pressing, vacuum
filtration or centrifuging. Under this alternate, the filter
backwash effluent would be collected in a sludge thickening tank,
the overflow would flow back to the primary settling tank at a controlled
rate and the underflow would be pumped to a sludge dewatering facility.
Many variables affect the selection of a sludge dewatering system.
Some of these variables include concentration of aluminum hydroxide,
solids concentration, temperature, pH, and sludge dewatering efficiency.
For example, increasing alum feed in the system may cause the sludge
to become more gelatinous. Dewatering of alum backwashing sludges
can be efficiently accomplished in a filter press if a separate backwash
disposal system is required (11).
Conceptual Design
For conceptual design purposes, the low lift pumping facility
and the treatment plant have been incorporated into one site.
Centralization and integration of pumping and treatment facilities is
generally desirable. The 100 MGD system shown in Figures 11 and
12 is based on a filtration flux rate of 24 gpm/sq ft. The hydraulic
capacity could be set at 20 percent greater than the design rate of the
plant.
Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the general plan and a longitudinal
section of a typical filter installation. The first level in the control
building portion of the treatment facility includes the variable speed
low lift pumping facilities, the chemical storage area, the alum and
polymer feed equipment and the backwash pumps. The upper
level of the plant includes electrical and control areas, and space
allocations for office, service areas, etc.
Figure 13 shows a typical cross section of the filtration portion
of the treatment plant with the filtration units arranged symetrically
about the center line of the filter bay. Water is fed through the
43
-------
PUMP
STATION
31
CD
-------
cn
PUMP ~
STATION P J
CONTROL
a
CHEMICAL
BUILDING
FILTERS
BACKWASH PUMPS
31
0
c
;0
m
Fo
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION (100 MGD)
-------
31
CD
c
;o
m
GJ
GULLET
OPERATING
LEVEL
GROUND
LEVEL
WALKWAY
ROOF HATCH
FILTER INFLUENT
FLUME
FILTER MEDIA
CROSS SECTION
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION (100 MGD)
-------
filter influent flume then into each individual filter gullet and
subsequently into the filter media bed. The filtered water flows
downward through the media and filter bottom and out the filter
effluent pipe, dropping into the plant effluent flume. The filter
arrangement, as shown, is similar to a gravity filtration arrangement
common to many potable water treatment plants, except that the depth
of the media is much deeper.
47
-------
SECTION IX
COST DATA
General
In developing unit cost estimates for a particular wastewater
treatment process, a number of assumptions must be made to define a
treatment plant which would be typical for many conditions. This
has been accomplished in the preceding section. Depending on
location, cost data developed for a particular treatment plant could
be either high or low. This approach provides general order of
magnitude information which can be utilized to determine what systems
deserve consideration as potential treatment processes for suspended
solids removal and other improvements in the quality of the secondary
effluent from sewage treatment plants.
As noted in the preceding section, general designs were
developed for a treatment facility to accommodate activated sludge
effluent, including the integration of a low lift pump station with the
treatment essentials. The cost of the influent pumping station has
been included in the total cost of the facility, so that the costs will
represent costs of the total project.
The treatment plant costs estimates presented in the summary
curves contained in this section can be compared with alternate
processes or engineering schemes, with associated cost-benefit rela-
tionships, for the required removals of pollutant loads necessary
to achieve the degree of quality.
Capital Construction Costs
Cost estimates for filtration facilities for treating secondary
effluent are presented for 25 to 200 mgd capacity plants. This range
covers most areas of potential application. Estimated capital cost for
different plant capacities are shown on Table 9 and Figure 14. Tables
10 through 13 contain detailed data on the capital cost estimates. These
detailed breakdown costs were estimated for the ultra high rate filtration
plant naving design fluxes of 24 gpm/sq ft and 16 gpm/sq ft including
alum and flocculant addition.
Capital cost estimates for the filtration plant include: the cost
of equipment, installation and construction costs, and a 12 percent
allowance for contingencies, plus a 10 percent allowance for engineering
49
-------
en
o
C
ID
m
5.0
4.0
3.0
CO
o
0 2.0
c
o
£
Q_
O
1.0
0
0
NOTE
INCLUDING LOW LIFT PUMP STATION, CHEMICAL FEED,
-FILTRATION PLANT AND ENGINEERING, BUT NOT COST
OF LAND, BACKWASH SLUDGE HANDLING AND INTEREST
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
FILTRATION RATE = 24 gpm/ft2
50 100 150
DESIGN CAPACITY (MGD)
200
CAPITAL COST Vs. DESIGN CAPACITY (ENR=I682)
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST*
* Plant Capacity Capital Cost
(MGD) (ENR = 1,682)
25 $ 1,184,810
50 1,725,370
100 3,121,500
200 5,329,150
* Design Rate of 24 gpm/sq ft
51
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
FOR 25 MGD TREATMENT PLANT*
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
24
I.
LOW LIFT PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Pump
Piping
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Plumbing .Lighting, Interior & etc.
Sub-total
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Cost
Engineering and Administration (10%)
24 gpm/sq ft
$ 4,350
44,100
57,200
90,000
5,3.00
10,600
42,500
21,200
$ 275,250
33,000
$ 308,250
31,000
15 gprr./ sq ft
$ 4,350
44,100
57,200
90,000
5,300
10,600
42,500
21,200
$ 275,250
33,000
$ 308,250
31,000
Project Sub-total,
Conveyance Portion $ 339,250 $ 339,250
52
-------
TABLE 10
( Continued)
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
II. FILTRATION PLANT
Excavation and Backfill
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Coagulant Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior and etc.
Sub-total
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Costs
Engineering and Administration (10?,-)
Project Sui^-total
Treatment Portion
III. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
24 gpm/ sq ft
$ 9,160
163,000
92,300
21,200
21,200
21,200
117,000
21,200
21,200
31,800
15,900
53,000
55,100
42,400
$ 686,160
82,400
$ 768,560
77,000
$ 845,560
$1,184,810
16 gpm/sq it
$ 12,600
232,000
105,200
31,800
21,200
21,200
170,000
21,200
21,200
31,800
15,900
53,000
74,200
47,700
$ 859,000
103,000
$ 962,000
96,000
$1,058,000
$1,397,250
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1682
53
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS'
FOR 50 MGD TREATMENT PLANT*
Peak Filtration Rate Desianed
I. LOW LIFT PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Pump
Piping -
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Plumbing .Lighting, Interior and etc.
Sub-total
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Cost
Engineering and Administration (10%)
24 gom/'-sq ft
$ 4,350
44,000
57,200
148,500
10,600
12,720
63,600
26,500
$ 367,470
44,000
$ 411,470
41,000
16 gpm/ sq ft
$ 4,350
44,000
57,200
148,500
10,600
12,720
63,600
26,500
$ 367,470
44,000
$ 411,470
41,000
Project Sab-total,
Conveyance Portion $ 452,470 $ 452,470
54
-------
TABLE 11
( Continued)
24
II. FILTRATION PLANT
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Coagulant Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior & etc.
Sub-total $ 1,
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Costs $ 1,
Engineering and Administration (10%)
Peak Filtration
gpm/sq ft
12,600
288,000
117,000
42,500
21,200
21,200
225,000
21,200
21,200
31,800
19,100
63,600
95,500
53,000
032,900
124,000
156,900
116,000
Rate Designed
16 gpm/sq ft
$ 16,100
420,000
140,000
63,600
21,200
21,200
333,000
21,200
21,200
31,800
19,100
63,600
127,200
58,400
$ 1,357,600
163,000
$ 1,520,600
152,000
Project Sub-total,
Treatment Portion $ 1,272,900 $ 1,672,600
III. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 1,725,370 $ 2,125,000
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1682
55
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
FOR 100 MGD TREATMENT PLANT*
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
24 gpm/ft216 gpm/ft"2"
I. LOW LIFT PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill $ 6,100 $ 6,100
Reinforced Concrete 86,000 86,000
Building 128,200 128,200
Pump 270,000 270,000
Piping 15,900 15,900
Heating and Ventilating 21,200 21,200
Electrical 159,000 159,000
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior and etc. 31,800 31,800
Sub-total $ 718,200 $ 718,200
Construction Contingency (12%) 85,100 86,100
Sub-total Construction Cost $ 804,300 $804,300
Engineering and Administration (10%) 80,400 80,400
Project Sub-total,
Conveyance Portion $ 884,700 $ 884,700
56
-------
TABLE 12
( Continued)
Peak Filtration
24 qpm/sq ft
$ 22,900
539,000
240,000
84,900
38,200
38,200
441,000
31,800
31,800
47, .600
31,800
95,400
100,700
etc. 74,200
$ 1,815,500
>) 218,000
$ 2,033,500
(10%) 203,300
Rate Designed
16 gpm/sq ft
$ 23,600
820,000
286,000
127,200
38,200
38,200
657,000
31,800
31,800
47,600
31,800
95,400
138,000
84,800
$ 2,451,400
294,000
$ 2,745,400
274,600
II. FILTRATION PLANT
Excavation and Backfill
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Coagulant Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior and etc.
Sub-total
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Costs
Engineering and Administration (10%)
Project Sub-total $2,236,800 $ 3,020,000
Treatment Portion
III. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $3,121,500 $ 3,904,700
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1682
57
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
FOR 200 MGD TREATMENT PLANT*
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
I. LOW LIFT PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Pump
Piping
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior and etc.
Sub-total
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Cost
Engineering and Administration (10%)
24 gpm/sq ft
$ 12,250
171,800
254,000
509,000
26,500
31,800
350,000
63,600
$1,418,950
170,000
$ 1,588,950
159,000
16 qpm/.'sq ft
$ 12,250
171,800
254,000
509,000
26,500
31,800
350,000
63,600
$1,418,950
170,000
$ 1,588,950
159,000
Project Sub-total
Conveyance Portion $ 1,747,950 $1,747,950
58
-------
TABLE 13
(Continued)
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
FILTRATION PLANT
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Poly electrolyte Feed
Coagulant Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior and etc.
24 gpm/'sq ft
45,800
915,000
458,000
169,500
38,200
38,200
580,000
53,000
53,000
68,900
44,500
138,000
180,000
95,400
16 gpm/sq ft
$ 59,500
1,282,000
538,000
254,000
38,200
38,200
864,000
53,000
53,000
68,900
44,500
138,000
254,000
106,000
Sub-total $2,906,600 $ 3,791,300
Construction Contingency (12%) 349,000 455,000
Sub-total Construction Costs $3,255,600 $4,246,300
Engineering and Administration (10%) 325,600 424,600
Project sub-total,
Treatment Portion $3,581,200 $ 4,670,900
III. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 5,329,150 $ 6,418,850
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1682
59
-------
and administration of the proposed construction, but does not include the
cost of land, backwash sludge handling and interest during construction.
Construction cost estimates for a filtration plant for treating activated
sludge secondary effluent range from $1,200,000 for 25 mgd capacity to
$5,400,000 for 200 mgd capacity.
Total Annual Costs
Table 14 and Figure 15 present total annual costs for a high rate
filtration plant. The estimated annual costs are based on plant operations
for 365 days per year and include amortization, ope-ation and maintenance
Tables 15 through 18 present breakdowns of these cost data.
These costs are based upon the following assumptions:
a. Interest at six percent for 25 years.
b. Maintenance at three percent of mechanical equipment
cost and at two percent of electrical and instrumentation cost.
c. Labor at $15,000 per man year, including overhead and
benefits.
d. Chemical application of polymer to filter influent at
1.0 mg/1 and coagulant at 15 mg/1 before filtration.
e. After filtration chlorination to provide disinfection before
discharge to the receiving body of water at 5 mg/1 of chlorine.
f. Unit costs of chemicals are:
Polymer = $1.50/lb Alum = 2.5$/lb
Chlorine = 5$/lb
g. Unit cost of electricity supplied through Consolidated
Edison of New York, March 1972 as follows:
0-3000 Kw-hr 2.25$
3000 - 150,000 Kw-hr 1.7 $
150,000 - 450,000 Kw-hr 1.55$
450,000 - 1,450,000 Kw-hr 1.4 $
1,450,000 - 2,950,000 Kw-hr 1.25$
2,950,000 - inclusive Kw-hr 1.15$
60
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUAL COST*
Plant Capacity
(MGD) Annual Costs
25 $ 394,110
50 627,790
100 1,161,735
200 2,164,610
* Design Rate of 24 gpm/sq ft
61
-------
2.5
cr>
CO
2.0
CO
CO I c
O LD
O
1.0
o:
LJ
Q_
O
0.5
0
NOTES '
I. FILTRATION RATE = 24gpm/ft2
2. PLANT OPERATED AT 365 DAYS PER YEAR.
3.COSTS INCLUDE AMORTIZATION, OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE.
0
50
DESIGN
100 150
CAPACITY (MOD)
200
T]
O
c
20
m
TOTAL ANNUAL COST Vs. DESIGN CAPACITY
-------
TABLE IS
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
FOR 25 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
Peak Fjltration Rate Designed
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/sq ft
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years $ 92,600 $ 109,200
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor (Includes Overhead
& Benefits) $ 80,000 $ 80,000
Maintenance
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Cost) $ 7,630 $ 7,945
Electrical and
Instrum entation
(2% of Equipment Cost) $ 3,010 $ 3,395
Piping (1% of Piping Cost) $ 1,220 $ 1,750
Utilities
Electrical (see schedule) $ 37,800 $ 37,800
Chemicals
Chlorine (5 mg/1) 18,750 18,750
Coagulant (15 mg/1) 28,100 28,100
Polymer (1.0 mg/1) 125,000 125,000
Operating Costs Sub-total $ 301,510 $ 302,740
Total Annual Costs $ 394,110 $ 411,940
63
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
FOR 50 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/ sq ft
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years $ 135,000 $ 166,500
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor ( Includes Overhead
& Benefits) $ 80,000 $ 80,000
Maintenance
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Cost) $ 10,180 $ 10,815
Electrical and
Instrumentation
(2% of Equipment Cost) $ 4,455 $ 5,090
Piping(l% of Piping Cost) $ 2,355 $ 3,435
Utilities
Electrical (see schedule) $ 72,800 $ 72,800
Chemicals
Chlorine (5 mg/1) 38,000 38,000
Coagulant (15 mg/1) 57,000 57,000
Polymer (1.0 mg/1) 228,000 228,000
Operating Costs Sub-total $ 492,790 $ 495,140
Total Annual Costs $ 627,790 $ 661,640
64
-------
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
FOR 100 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/'. sq ft
1. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years $ 244,000 $ 306,000
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor (Includes Overhead
& Benefits) $ 140,000 $ 140,000
Maintenance
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Cost) $ 17,865 $ 19,135
Electrical and
Instrumentation
(2% of Equipment Cost) $ 7,100 $ 7,850
Piping(1% of Piping Cost) $ 4,570 $ 6,910
Utilities
Electrical (see schedule) $ 112,200 $ 112,200
Chemicals
Chlorine (5 mg/1) $ 76,000 $ 76,000
Coagulant (15 mg/1) 104,000 104,000
Polvmer (1.0 mg/1) 456,000 456,000
Operating Costs Sub-total $ 917,735 $ 922,095
Total Annual Costs $1,161,735 $ 1,228,095
.65
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
FOR 200 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
Peak Filtration Rate Designed
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/ sq ft
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years $ 416,000 $ 502,000
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor (Includes Overhead
& Benefits) $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Maintenance
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Costs $ 30,180 $ 32,720
Electrical and
Instrumentation
(2% of Equipment Cost) $ 13,360 $ 14,840
Piping(1% of Piping Cost) $ 6,070 $ 8,900
Utilities
Electrical (see schedule) $ 227,000 $ 227,000
Chemicals
Chlorine (5 mg/1) $ 152,000 $ 152,000
Coagulant (15 mg/1) 208,000 208,000
Polymer (1.0 mg/1) 912,000 912,000
Operating Costs Sub-total $1,748,610 $2,035,460
Total Annual Costs $2,164,610 $2,537,460
66
-------
Annual operating cost estimates range from $394, 110 per year
for a 25 MGD capacity plant to $2, 164, 610 per year for a 200 MGD
capacity plant. The largest contributions to annual treatment costs for
the high rate filtration process are interest and amortization charges and
chemical treatment requirements. Some savings may be realized through
the purchase of bulk shipments of polymer which could represent a
significant reduction in total costs.
As evidenced in the previous section, the filtration plant design
and the associated housing for process units, would be suitable for
a cold climate. In warmer areas, and in locations where local engi-
neering practices permit a more compressed equipment arrangement, the
enclosure could be removed from the filter portion and from some of
the related process equipment. It may also be possible to compress
the site requirements, especially in the building, resulting in a
reduction of both capital and operating costs on the order of 10 to 20
percent.
Treatment System Comparison
A cost comparison between an ultra high rate and a conventional
filtration system was estimated on the basis of similar process units
but different design criteria. The cost comparison was based on
data from listed references (12, 13) and from experience in the
design of such treatment units. In all cases, capital costs were
adjusted to reflect an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction
Cost Index of 1,682 for March 1972. Costs of land acquisition were
not included. The rate of filtration was assumed to be 4 gpm/sq ft for
conventional filters and 24 gpm/sq ft for UHR filters with equal effluent
quality.
The comparison of annual cost estimates for a 25 mgd plant,
including amortization, operation and maintenance, indicated an
approximate savings of as much as 40% for the UHR filtration system.
This was primarily due to reduced construction area and fewer filtration
units required for UHR filtration. Operation and maintenance costs
for both UHR and conventional filters were comparable even though
UHR filtration requires more power than conventional filters. Estimated
power costs for both a conventional and an ultra high rate filtration
system are presented in Table 19.
Estimated power costs for both a conventional and an ultra high
rate filtration system are presented in Table 19.
67
-------
TABLE 19
ESTIMATED POWER COSTS FOR UHR AND CONVENTIONAL
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
Design Annual Cost Cost/MG Cost of Power/1000 gal
cr>
CO
Capacity UHRF
25
50
100
200
$37,
72,
112,
227,
800
800
200
000
Conventional
$21,
40,
94,
194,
400
200
000
000
UHRF
$4.
3.
3.
3.
14
99
08
10
Conventional UHR
$2.
2.
2.
2.
35
53
57
65
$0.414
0.399
0.308
0.31
Conventional
$0.
0.
0.
0.
235
25?
257
265
-------
The estimated power costs for UHR and conventional filtration
systems as shown in Table 19 are based on the power consumed
by influent pumps, backwashing, and instrumentation and control units.
The charges for power utilization are based on Consolidated Edison of
New York's schedule of rates. The annual power costs range from
$37,800 to $227,000 for UHR filtration capacities of 25 and 200 MGD,
respectively. For a conventional filtration system, these costs are
$21,400 and $194,000 per year for 25 and 200 MGD facilities, respectively.
Area requirements for both processes are estimated and
compared in Table 20. Area requirements for conventional and UHR
filtration systems include filters, filter gallery, control and chemical
building, backwashing facilities, and a low lift pumping station, but
not including backwash wastewater handling facilities.
TABLE 20
ESTIMATED TREATMENT SYSTEM AREA REQUIREMENTS
Area Required
Design Capacity UHR* Conventional**
(MGD) (Sq ft) (Sq ft)
25 3,000 7,600
50 4,600 13,000
100 9,300 27,000
200 16,500 50,000
*Design Rate of 24 gpm/sq ft
**Design Rate of 4 gpm/sq ft
69
-------
SECTION X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was undertaken and implemented through a
joint effort of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Hydro-
technic Corporation of New York with the cooperation of the City of
Cleveland, Ohio. The USEPA offices involved in this project are:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Technology Branch
1901 N. Ft. Meyer Drive
Rosslyn, Virginia
Telephone: 703-522-0811
Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
Telephone: 513-871-1820
Acknowledgement is made to Mr. W.A. Rosenkranz, Chief,
Municipal Technology Branch and Mr. Francis Condon, Municipal
Pollution Technology Section. Special acknowledgement is due to
Dr. S.A. Hannah and Mr. J.F. Kreissl, Project Officer, of the Advanced
Waste Treatment Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio for the invaluable
advice which was given on many aspects of this project. We wish
to express our gratitude to Mr. Richard Field, Chief, Storm and
Combined Sewer Technology Branch for permission to use the pilot plant.
The city departments in Cleveland involved in this project are:
City of Cleveland, Ohio
Department of Public Utilities
Division of Water Pollution Control
1825 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Telephone: 216-694-2750
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant
6000 Canal Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44125
Telephone: 216-641-3200
71
-------
Acknowledgement is made to Mr. W.S. Gaskill, past
Director of Public Utilities and Mr. R.A. Kadukis, Director of
Public Utilities and to Mr. C.A. Crown, Commissioner of Water
Pollution Control. Thanks are also due to Messrs. R.A. Roth,
Assistant Commissioner of Water Pollution Control, Nabil Ghoubrial,
Sewage Treatment Plant Superintendent and J.N. Donahue, who together
with other members of the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant staff
enabled this program to be a success. The project was conducted by a
consulting engineering firm:
Hydrotechnic Corporation
64 1 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: 212-752-4646
The project was conceived by Mr. Ross Nebolsine, President,
who provided general guidance and high level review throughout its
duration.
The project was managed, for most of its duration, by
Mr. Ivan Pouschine, Jr. , Vice President. In the initial stages the
project was managed by Mr. P. J. Harvey, Division Engineer.
General consultation and review were provided by Dr. J.C. Eck,
Consultant, and Mr. H.J. Kohlmann, Manager of Engineering. Dr. Eck
contributed many valuable engineering suggestions throughout the
duration of this project. Mr. Chi-Yuan Fan, Principal Engineer, was in
charge of the daily technical aspects of the project, supervising a field
team and an office staff.
The on-site field testing program was directed by Mr. R. Morales
and later by Mr. E.F. Neubauer.
72
-------
SECTION XI
REFERENCES
1. Middleton, P.M. and Stenburg, R.L., "Research and
Development Needs for Advanced Waste Treatment Processes
to Serve Future Needs. " Proceedings of the Conference on
Clean Water for Our Future Environment; March 21-27, 1971,
Los Angeles, California, sponsored by the Sanitary
Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
2. "Study of High Rate Filtration for Treating Combined Sewage
Storm Overflows", Hydrotechnic Corporation, Consulting
Engineers, New York, New York, Federal Water Quality
Administration, Contract No. 14-12-858, December 1971.
3. Harris, W. L. , "High Rate Filter Efficiency", Journal of the
American Water Works Association, 62:515 (August 1970).
4. Nebolsine, R. and Sanday, R.J., "Ultra High Rate Filtration,
a New Technique for Purification and Reuse of Water",
^'Iron and Steel Engineer", (December 1970
5. Tchobanoglous, G., "Filtration Techniques in Tertiary Treatment",
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42:603
(April 1970)
6. "Ultra-High Rate Filtration - A New Technique for Purification
and Reuse of Water", Hydrotechnic Corporation, Consulting
Engineers, New York, New York, (March 1967)
7. Kreissl, J.F., Robeck, G.G., and Sommerville, G.A. "Use of
Pilot Filters to Predict Optimum Chemical Feeds", Journal of the
American Water Works Association 60 (3) 299 (1968)
8. Hannah, S.A., Cohen, J.M. and Robeck, G.G., "Control
Techniques for Coagulation-Filtration", Journal of the American
Water Works Association, 59 (9) 1149 (1967)
9. Walker, L.F., "Hydraulically Controlling Solids Retention Time in
the Activated Sludge Process", Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation Volume 43, No. 1, (January 1971).
73
-------
10. "The Use of Aluminum Sulfate for Phosphorus Reduction in
Waste Waters" Allied Chemical Corporation, Morristown,
New Jersey.
11. "Disposal of Wastes from Water Treatment Plants"
American Water Works Association, New York, N.Y. (1969)
12. Smith, R. , "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment
of Waste Water" Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation Vol. 40, No. 9 (September 1968)
13. Smith, R. , and Me Michael, W.F., "Cost and Performance
Estimates for Tertiary Wastewater Treating Processes"
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Advanced
Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
June, 1969.
74
-------
SECTION XII
PUBLICATION
R. Nebolsine and J.C. Eck, "Tertiary Treatment of Sewage
by the Ultra High Rate Filtration Process, " Paper presented at
44th Annual Meeting of the New York Water Pollution Control
Association, New York, January, 1972.
75
-------
SECTION XITI
APPENDICES
Appendix
A.
Page
Ultra High Rate Filtration of Secondary
Effluent Test Results
Table A-l:
Table A-2:
Table A-3:
Table A-4:
Table A-5:
Experimental Program for 78
Comparison of Filter Media Size
Experimental Program for 79
Comparison of Filter Bed Depth
Experimental Program for 80
Comparison of Polymers
Experimental Program for 81
Comparison of Polymers at Two Levels
Concentration
High Rate Deep Bed Filtration of 82
Activated Sludge Plant Effluent
B.
Ultra High Rate Filtration of Secondary Effluent
Filter Performance Curves
Figure B-l through b-124
84
77
-------
Table A-l
Experimental Program {or Comparison of Filter Media Size
Run
1SE -
1SE -
1SE -
1SE -
1SE -
1SE -
ISE -
1SE -
2SE -
2SE-
2SE -
2SE -
2SE -
2SE -
2SE.-
2SE -
00 3SE -
3SE -
3SE -
3SE -
3SE -
3SE -
3SE -
3SE-
<1> Flux W
No. Type of Media (qpm/sq ft)
I
11
III
IV
V
VI
VII
via
i
ii
in
IV
V
VT
VII
VIII
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
vni
i
l
2
2
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
16
8
Coagulant FeeJ Polymer Feed
(mq/1) (mg/1)
.
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
mr
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
filter
Inlluont S.S.
20.7
20.5
20.7
20.7
16.0
16.0
16.0
20.5
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8. 1
8.1
8.1
3.0
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.0
1.6
3. 1
Performa nee
Effluent S.S.
(rnq.,/1)
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.7
1.85
2.05
2.20
1.85
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.0
2.0
0.7
0.5
2.2
Removal
CO
94.
95.
88.
94.
93.
91.
93.
95.
61.
68.
75.
79.
80.
75.
74.
8U.
35.
60.
62.
69.
35.
76.
69.
40.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
Volume (5)
Water
Produced
.__(Q*'A-; ft)
2351
825
2506
1005
1946
880*
1958
970
2144
1155
2402
1224
2099
lies
2342
1374
1967
1095
2232
1122
873*
702*
1446*
948
Total (6)
Length o' Run
(rm. )
240
18C*
240
240
160*
120*
180*
210*
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
180*
240
240
240
120*
120*
90*
180*
NOTES:
( 1 ) Type of Modia = Type 1: 60" No. 3 Anth./36" No. 612 Sand, Type 2: 50" No. 2 Anth./36" No. 1220 Sand
Type 3: 60" No. 1 1/2 Anth./36" No. 1220 Sand, Type 4: 60" No. 1 Anth./36" No. 2050 Sand
( 2 ) Declining rate oixjration. Indicated as Initial rate of filtration.
( 3 ) Coagulant - Fe C\3
( 4 ) Polymer = Calgon No. 25
( 5 ) Volume of water produced Is the weighted average through 180 minutes of filtration time.
Where marked with asterisk the filtration time Is as indicated In the right hand column.
( 6 ) Length Of Run Eased On 240 Minutes Of Filtration Time Or 50 Percent Of
Flow Declined Marked With Asterisk (*).
-------
Table A-2
Experimental Program for Comparison of Filter Bed Depth
Volume (5)
Run No.
4SE - I
4SE - II
4SE - III
4SE - IV
1SE - V
4SE - VI
4SE - VII
4SE - VIII
6FSE - I
6FSE - II
6FSE - III
6FSE - IV
6FSE - V
6FSE - VI
6FSE - VII
6FSE - VIII
6GSE - I
6GSE - 11
6GSE - III
6GSE - IV
6GSE - V
6GSE - VI
6GSE - VII
6GSE - VIII
(1)
Type of Media
2
2
5
5
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
Flux <2)
(qpm''sq ft)
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
8
24
8
20
8
20
8
24
8
24
8
24
8
24
8
Coagulant Feed
(mg/1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
(4)
Polymer Feed
(mq/1)
_
-
-
-
A-1.0
A-l .0
A-1.0
A-1.0
A-1.0
A-1.0
B-1.0
B-1.0
A-1.0
A-1.0
B-1.0
B-1.0
A-1.0
A-1.0
B-1.0
B-1.0
A-1.0
A-1.0
B-1.0
B-1.0
Filter Performance
Influent S.S.
(m-7/1)
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
39.25
66.25
66.25
66.25
66.25
66.25
66.25
66.25
51.5
63.0
63.0
63.0
47.0
63.0
47.0
51.5
Effluent S.S.
' (mq/1)
4.5
2.5
3.5
3.4
3.7
2.3
3.1
2.2
18.3
6.9
30.0
16.5
8.3
6.8
20.3
13.8
5.6
4.0
6.7
5.1
6.2
3.5
7.1
5.1
Removal
( "' )
47.0
70.6
59.0
60.0
56.5
73.0
63.6
72.2
53.4
89.6
54.6
73.5
87'. 4
89.7
69.4
79.8
89. 1
93.6
89.4
91.9
86.8
94.4
84.9
90.1
Water
Produced
(qal/sq ft)
4037
2232
3335
2541
3712
2504
3285
2429
3236
907
2987
1116
2017*
1240
2457*
942
1335*
1144
2480
979
400*
860*
77*
539*
Total (6)
Length of Run
(rln.)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
180
180
180
180
120*
130
120*
180
90*
180
120*
180
60*
120*
30*
60*
NOTES:
( 1 ) Type of Media: Typo 2: 60" No. 2 Anth./36" No. 1220 Sand
Type 5: 60" No. 2 Anth./24" No. 122n Sand
Type 8: 60" No. 2Anth./24" No. 2050 Sand
( 2 ) Declining rate operation. Indicated as lnltl.il rat^ of filiation.
i 3 ) Coagulant: Alum
( 4 ) Polymer: Type A: Calyon r.'o. 25 Type B: Gallon No. 226
( 5 ) Volume of water pr.--!uced is the weighted nvoraue through 180 minutes of filtration time.
Where marked with -jstensk the- nitration (;:.. 1^ ,is indicated in the right hand column.
( 6 ) Length C f Run Baser! On 180 And 240 Minutes Of Filtration Time, Or
50 Pen-en: Of Flow Declined Marked U'i:;. AsterlJ< (*).
-------
Teblo A-3
Experimental Program for Comparison o( Polymers
CO
o
/1 1 /*}*
(U Flux °
Coagulant read
Run No. Type of Media (gpm'sq ft) (met A]
6ASE
6ASE
6ASE
6ASE
6ASE
6ASE
6ASE
6ASE
6CSE
6CSE
6CSE
6CSE
6CSE
6CSE
6CSE
6CSE
6DSE
6DSE
6DSE
6DSE
6DSE
6DSE
6DSE
6DSE
8DSE
8 BSE
8 BSE
8 BSE
8BSE
8 BSE
8BSE
8CSE
8CSE
8CSE
8CSE
8CSE
8CSE
8CSE
8CSE
- I
- 11
- Ill
- IV
- V
- VI
- VII
-VIII
- 1
- 11
- Ill
- IV
-V
-VI
-VII
- VIII
- 1
-II
- Ill
- IV
- V
- VI
- VII
- vin
- 1
- it
- in
- IV
- V
- VI
-VII
- i
- ii
- in
- IV
- V
- VI
- VII
-VIII
5
s
s
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
S
S
S
5
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 10.0
- 15.0
- 15.0
- 15.0
- 15.0
- 15.0
- 15.0
- 15.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
- 50.0
(3)
Filter Performance
Polymer Feed Influent S.S.
(mg/1 )
Magnlfloc 985A
Calgon No 226
Calgon No 25
Swift X-400
Purlfloc A23
Purlfloc C31
Atlas 3A3
Calgon No 25
Calgon No 226
Purlfloc C31
Mognlt'loc 985N
Atlas 3A3
Atlas 2A2
Swift X-400
Magnliloc 836A
Polyhall 295
Hereof loc 816
Nalco 671
Jaguar 22A
Aquarid 49-704
Aquarid 49-702
Hcrcofloc 828
Aquarid 49-710
Ma-jnlfloc 570C
Gumlennc 722
Calgon No 228
Herocloc 8 IOC
Atlas 109-C
Atlas 1,M
Marjnlflcc 860A
Gamlen NA710
Magniiloc 865A
Polyhall M-29S
Nalco 672
Calgon No. 240
Atlas 5A5
. (m.1/1)
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21.5
22.0
22.0
22.0
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
30.6
30.6
32.0
32.2
13.2
13.7
13.6
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
26.5
26.5
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
8.0
14.0
14.0
Effluent S.S.
(m.i/1)
15.2
10.9
10.2
18.5
23.0
11.5
22.2
9.6
10.8
18.0
15.6
19.6
21.3
21.6
19.7
11.4
13.2
16.2
18.2
15. '5
14.6
9.6
9.9
10.2
6.8
5.7
8.1
7.7
9.2
7.8
8.7
5.1
3.6
4.8
5.4
5.1
3.8
5.1
7.1
Removal
(*)
31
51
54
16
0
48
0
56
66
43
52
39
30
29
36
65
0
0
0
0
0
30
28
26
82
85
78
80
76
71
65
64
74
66
61
K4
52
64
50
Volume (4)
Water
Produced
(qa]/sa ft)
2184
1980
20-13
1980
1359
1974
1836
2187
2197
2094
2043
2361
1309*
951*
1601*
1959
549*
1617
1283*
1943
2189
2288
2052
1919
2CG5
2773
2405
2I'J9
2077
1324*
11C2*
2320
2294
24GO
247!
2424
2051
2596
2145
Total (5)
Length o: Run
(mln.)
180
180
180
180
120
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
90'
90*
120*
180
60*
180
120'
180
180
180
180
180
ICO
180
180
180
180
150*
120'
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
NOTES:
( 1 ) Type Of Media: Type 5: 60" No. 2 Anth./24" No. 1220 Sand
( 2 ) Declining rate operation. Indicated as Initial rate of filtration.
(3) Polymer Feed At l.Omg/1 Concentration.
( 4 ) Volume of water produced Is the weighted average through 180 minutes of filtration time.
Where marked with asterisk the filtration time Is as Indicated In the right hand column.
( S ) Length Of Run Hosed On 180 Minutes Of Filtration Time, Or 50 Percent Of Flow
Declined Marked With Asterisk ().
-------
table A-4
Experimental Program lor Comparison of Polymers
at Two Levels Concentration
(1) flux (2) coagulant Feed
.. Run No. Type of Media (cp-i/sq ft) (mg/1)
6SE - I
6SE - II
6SE - lit
6SE - IV
6SE -V
6SE - VI
6SE - VII
6SE - VIII
7SE - I
7SE - II
7SE - III
7SE - IV
BASE - I
BASE H
BASE - III
BASE - IV
BSE - I
BSE - I!
BSE - III
BSE -IV
8SE -V
8S£ -VI
BSE - VII
BSE - VIII
BDSE - I
8DSE - II
8DSE - III
BDSE - IV
BDSE -V
BDSE - VI
BDSE - VII
BDSE - VIII
9SE -I
9SE - II
9SE - III
9SE - IV
9SE -V
9SE - VI
9SE - VII
9SE - VIII
10SE - I
10SE - II
10SE - III
10SE - IV
10SE - V
10SE - VI
10SE - VII
10SE - VIII
11SE - I
USE - II
USE -III
USE -IV
USE -V
USE -VI
USE -VII
USE -VIII
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
S
5
S
5
5
S
S
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
S
5
S
S
' S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
24
24
24
16
16
16
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
24
16
-
-
-
-
-
Alum - 15.0
Ume - SO.O
Alum - 15.0
Ume - SO.O
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 30.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Alum - 15.0
Lime - SOjO
Ume - 50.0
Llrr.e - 50.0
Lime - 50.0
Lime - 50.0
Lime - 50.0
Lime - 50.0
Lime - 50.0
Ume - SO.O
Ume - 50.0
Lime - 50.0
Lime - SO.O
Lime - 50.0
Ume - SO.O
Ume - 50.0
Ume - 50.0
Fillet
Polymer Feed Influent S.S.
(mq/1)
Mag.985N' - 1.0
Mag.985N - 1.0
Cal. 226 - 1.0
Cal. 226 - 1.0
Mag.985N - 0.5
Mag.98SN - 0.5
Cal. 226 - 0.5
Cal. 226 - 0.5
Mag.98SM -1.0
Mag.985M - 0.5
Purlf.C31 - 1 .0
Purlf.C31 -2.0
Mag. 995 N' - 1.0
Mag.935N - 1.0
Purlf.C31 - 2.0
Purlf.C31 - 2.0
Cal. 25 - 2.0
Cal. 25 - 2.0
Cal. 226 - 1.0
Cal. 226 - 1.0
Cal. 25 - 1.0
Cal. 25 - 1.0
Cal. 226 - 0.5
Cal. 226 - 0.5
Mag.560C - 0.5
Mag.SSOC - 0.5
Aqu. 49-710- 1.0
Aqu. 49-710-1.0
Mag.5SOC-0.25
Mag.560C-C.25
Aqu. 49-710-1.0
Aqu. 49-710-1.0
Aqu. 49-710-1.0
Aqu. 49-710-1.0
Kercf. 828-1-1.0
Hercf. 825-1-1.0
Aqu. 49-710-0. 5
Aqu. 49-710-0. S
Kercf. 823-1-0.5
Hercf. 828-1-0.5
Cal. 25 -2.0
Cal. 25 -2.0
Mag.SSOA-l.O
N'ag . 86CA-1 .0
Cal. 25 - 1.0
Cal. 25 - 1.0
.Mag.860A-0.5
Mag.860/.-O.S
Nal. 672 - 1.0
Nal. 672 - 1.0
Nal. 672 -0.5
Nal. 672 -0.5
-
-
Cal. 240 -1.0
Cal. 240 -1.0
(ma/1)
44.5
41.3
41.3
43.0
41.7
43.0
43.0
43.0
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
46
46
46
46
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3.
12,3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
'1.0
4S.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
Effluent S.S.
(r?q/l)
35.2
13.6
30.0
27.4
29.6
27.8
30.0
36.8
23.3
20.9
22.8
23.3
20.4
12.4
9.4
11.3
5.3
5.2
5.3
6.2
4.5
5.0
6.6
6.6
4.6
4.4
7.2
4.1
4.0
5.1
6.3
4.1
4.4
3.2
4.0
3.8
4.3
2.6
3.8
3.2
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.3
2.9
1.2
5.3
4.0
24.2
14.1
20.0
6.3
19.3
13.5
9.6
4.8
Removal
(%)
21
67
27
36
19
35
30
IS
36
42
37
36
56
73
80
75
57
58
57
50
64
60
46
46
63
64
42
67
68
59
47
67
69
78
72
74
70
82
74
78
58
60
62
63
68
87
41
56
47
69
58
86
58
70
79
90
Volume (3)
Water
Produced
(qal/sq ft)
3236
907
2987
1116
2017
1240
2457
942
4450
3950
4590
42SO
2440
2450
2055
2230
3730
2210
3180
2560
3410
2520
4000
2290
3020
2150
3290
2200
2870
2000
3090
1960
3480
2410
3020
2190
3630
2350
3490
2030
4400
2720
3820
2760
4310
2380
4360
2220
3740
243C
3S40
2130
3720
3090
3110
1650
T:>:al (4)
Length of Run
I.T.iri. )
180
1-20-
120*
180
60*
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
190
100
180
180
160
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
190
ISO
180
NOTES:
( 1 ) Type of Media: Type 5: 60" No. 2 Anth./24 " No. 1220 Sand
( 2 ) Declining Rate Operation, Indicated As Initial Filtration Rate.
( 3 ) Volume of water produced :s the weighted average through 180 minutes of filtration time.
Where marked with asterisk -Jie filtration tl.r.e Is as indicated In the right hand column.'
(4)
Length Of Run Based On 180 .vir.utes Ct Filtration Time, Or 50 Percent
Of Flow Declined Nlarked With Asterisk («).
81
-------
12SE-I
I2SE-III
13SE-I
17SE-II
K-SE-1II
14SE-I
USE-i!
:4SE-I1I
: '.SE-i
1 iSE-Il
HSE-II1
1 ;3E-1
KSE-II
ItiGE-m
17SE-1
17SE-II
18SE-I
18SE-II
iesE-::i
19SE-I
19SE-1I
19SE-1II
2CSE-I
2CSE-II
2CSE-III
21SE-I
21SE-II
2 1SE-III
22SE-I
22SE-II
22SE-1II
23SE-I
23SE-I!
23SE-III
25SE-I
25SE-II
25SE-III
26SE-1
26SE-I1
26SE-1II
27SE-1
27SE-II
27SE-1II
26SE-I
285E-1I
28SE-II1
29SE-I
293E-II
293E-III
3C3E-I
30SE-1I
303E-111
31SE-I
31SE-1I
31SE-1II
343E-I
34SE-II
345E-III
353E-1
3SSE-II
35SE-111
;
Filler 1
C
<
o
(M
"~
d
2
i.
CM
u
t
C
§
re
2
(M
o*
2
o
u 0
fc: 2
, | «
S P «>
Z
< o
n 2
'6 L.
2 '
"
u ' 2
g S
H 0
2 <*
*
. d
0 2
2 '-i.
o -^
u>
( 1 )
(2)
( 3 )
(1)
(2)
(3 ) Q
£ 2
2 W
o < 5r S
tt> «M 0* ^
6 n-
2 g
\vcraue
rIUX Pd'O
32.0
16.0
24.0
32.0
16.0
24.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
24.0
15.0
IS.O
24.0
16.0
24.0
8.0
8.0
32.0
16.0
24.0
16.2
13.3
18.0
22.2
16.0
27.6
8.0
16.0
24.0
7.5
16.6
22.4
24
16
8
16.4
15.5
23.0
14.5
13.5
20.0
20.0
13.4
18.6
24.0
16.0
32.0
24.0
16.0
32.0
16.3
17.3
14.0
7.5
7.3
7.0
24
16
32
23.6
23.6
23.6
Rate *
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
Ff«d
I21 j.' '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alum 15.0
A.'u- 15.0
Alu n i S .0
Alum 15.0
Alum iS.O
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
0
0
0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
0
0
0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
0
0
0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum IS.O
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
Alum 15.0
0
0
0
Poly,
Fetd
Ca!.
Cal.
Cal.
t.'.j-,.
.V 3 r .
[.:=? .
'-! i:; .
Cal.
0
Cal.
Cal.
Cel.
*.':3 , .
N'aj.
Mag.
Mag.
Cal.
0
0
0
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
0
0
0
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
0
0
0
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
Cal.
C«l.
0
mcr
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 .0
1 .0
1.0
1 .0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
O.S
0.5
O.S
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
6. 9t
6.96
6.74
6.74
6.74
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.83
6.83
6.6S
6.95
6.82
6.62
7.06
7.06
6.80
6.80
6.80
6.71
6.71
6.71
6.96
6.96
6.96
6.93
6.93
6.93
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.15
7.15
7.15
6.84
6.91
6.91
6.99
6.99
6.99
6.95
6.95
6.95
6.85
6.85
6.65
6.62
6.62
6.61
6.77
6.77
6.77
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.84
6.84
6.84
?'- r>.
53.1
53.1
53.1
50.9
50.9
50.9
52.3
52.3
52. 3
5C.3
56.3
5t.3
57. 1
56.9
56.9
54.7
54.7
51.3
51.3
51.3
53.3
53.3
53.3
54.9
54.9
54.9
51.7
51.7
51.7
52.3
52.3
52.3
52.0
52.0
52.0
47.8
48.0
48.0
48.5
48.5
48.5
47.5
47.5
47.5
46
46
45.6
46
46
46
43.7
43.7
43.7
45.9
45.9
45.9
44.2
44.2
44.2
45.8
45.8
45.8
^ .; '
InllJ'-r.t
1 5.5
17-5
2J.7
21 . S
2! .2
22.2
21.7
20.2
16.6
28.0
2 " . 0
41.7
16.4
42.2
18.8
20.7
29.0
26.7
23.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
10.7
10.7
10.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
10.3
10.3
10.3
13.1
13.1
13.1
17.6
17.6
17.6
9.4
9.4
9.4
18.9
18.9
18.9
104.6
104.6
80.4
114.1
114.1
112.7
10.3
10.3
10.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
23.7
23.7
23.7
22
22
22
: r : ^
*-,,,,
5.7
C. 1
S.9
! 1 .5
8.6
S.8
5.0
4.C
4.7
1.4
0.2
0.2
12.0
il.l
11.6
7.8
7.9
13.9
8.0
9.3
.68
.37
.31
2.6
2.1
3.5
3.6
3.0
3.4
1.2
1.2
2.2
6.0
4.0
3.8
5.1
5.2
5.2
1.15
2.58
3.10
3.1
2.3
2.5
13.7
3.4
13.0
3.4
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.6
1.9
2.3
2.0
l.S
5.6
5.7
6.0
8.7
8.4
10.8
; ,-, ) ; :_ s
,*TV~ , ; '
C3.7 *_ 5.4
CO.t *_ 1 .'
It. 2 + 5.C.
51.5 +. 6.7
00.3 + 3.1
53.5 » 5.2
77.7 t 1.7
78.7 + 3.5
76.6 + 2.4
91.1 » 2.6
95.7 + P. 7
35.7 + 0.7
71.2 +13.5
32.4 + 9.5
72.5 +19.3
58.1 +2.2
61.8 i 5.5
52.2 t 1.6
70.1 + 2.8
59.7 ± .69
% Removal
90.4
96.0
96.6
75.6
80.8
67.3
54.4
62.0
57.0
84.4
88.4
78.6
54.2
69.5
70.9
71.0
70.4
70.4
87.7
72.6
67.0
83.6
87.8
86.8
86.8
96.7
83.9
97.0
97.7
97.8
71.8
74.8
81.5
86.7
88.4
91.3
76.4
76.0
74.6
60.4
62.0
51.0
T.Ir.l .
2C 3
2C.3
2c.3
31.1
32.3
32.3
2S.2
29.2
29.2
2?. 2
31.8
28.2
30.9
34.5
33.6
25.7
25.7
28.7
28.7
26.7
18.1
18.1
18.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
13.9
13.9
13.9
15.2
15.2
15.2
13.7
13.7
13.7
23.5
23.8
23.5
20.3
20.3
20.3
27.4
27.4
27.4
115.2
115.2
89.6
111.0
111.0
108.2
20.1
20.1
20.1
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.2
20.2
20.2
21.7
21.7
21.7
r ur c I -? : t j
OU)
10. S
10.2
12.6
17.2
19.2
16.7
11.4
11.3
14.0
9.9
8.2
S.fc
12.0
10.6
11.9
9.9
7.4
'18.5
13.4
16.6
5.1
6.0
5.2
10.0
9.4
10.2
3.7
3.7
3.9
4.1
5.0
5.6
6.2
5.7
4.5
8.6
11.0
9.0
1.83
2.33
2.6
5.1
5.0
4.8
17.4
5.4
14.0
6.0
2.9
6.6
3.9
3.9
3.7
4.9
4.1
3.6
1.4
1.4
1.5
9.5
9.7
14.3
/
>
Removal
f- 1 v« c .j
46.3+2.
46.3 + 2.
51.8-1.
41.2 + 10
45. 1 + 3.
46.3 + 1.
67.8 * 1.
62.8 + 0.
57.1 + 1.
77.8 + 3.
76.6 + 2.
65.1 + 7.
62.2 + 2.
65.1 + 1.
62.6 + 4.
62.1jf 4.
69.2 + 5.
34.7 + 1.
54.5 + 2.
45.2 + 2.
* Remova
71.8
67.0
71.2
37.8
41.6
36.7
73.4
73.4
71.8
73.0
67.2
63.2
54.7
58.4
67.2
63.4
53.8
61.7
91.0
88.5
87.2
81.4
81.7
82.4
84.9
95.3
84.4
94.6
97.4
93.2
80.3
81.1
81.6
76.3
80.4
82.7
93.1
93.1
92.6
56.2
55.4
34.0
4
4
9
.7
0
5
9
8
7
5
7
6
S
3
1
3
,2
0
1
7
1
( 1) 60" No. 2 Amhraclte/24" No. 1220 Sand ( : ) 48" No. 2 AnlMacuc/24" No. 1220 Sand
C: Constant Rato Conuol. D: Declining Rate Control
(3) 72" No. 2 Anthracite/24" No. 1220 Send
82
-------
TAHU A-S
HIGH RAIT DEEP BCD ril.TH/iTlON OP ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT CITLUCOT
Total
Avg.
Influent
(ma/11
7.8
7.7
7.8
6.9
6.5
6.5
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.2
8.7
6.9
6.3
6.3
6.3
15.4
15.0
2.3
2.8
2.S
Phosphate (PTj )
Av.;.
"
ElMuenl ^";°'^ ,
6.3
5.9
6.1
4.7
4.3
4.4
4.6
3.4
4.1
1.7
1.0
1.0
3.3
3.4
3.7
10.9
9.1
1.7
1.5
1.6
17.
23.
21.
31.
33.
31.
36.
49.
41.
71.
88.
85.
51.
46.
41.
29.
39.
26.
46.
35.
8 * 15.0
1 ~ 15.6
7 i 12.5
7 » 39.8
7 » 19.2
5 - 19.8
1 * 5.8
1 » 30.1
3 - 10.6
7 * 27.4
6 * 3.5
5 * 11.2
9 * 16.5
0 « 13.3
3 i 10.6
1 * 6.9
4 » 7.3
1 * 9.7
4 + 7.3
2 + 6.4
Avg.
"i ! '. ' j o n t
; i)
12.4
12.4
12.4
17.9
17.3
17.3
18.5
19.5
18.5
30.7
27.2
27.7
36.4
41.9
29.5
30.7
27.7
9.3
9.3
9.3
8 O Ds
Avj.
£f fluent
£ i
3.3
2.6
3.7
9.0
9.0
10.7
13.4
12.6
14.4
10.4
12.4
12.2
8.8
18.0
12.4
11.1
12.4
6.7
4.9
6.1
*
Re .T ov a 1
66
77
67
47
44
48
40
46
25
63
55
55
71
5S
58
70
; 5
34
50
35
* 1'
.5~» 6
. 7~i 16
.0 - 26
.7 * 28
.5*31
.3 - 10
.2 » 42
.0*12
3 ± 7
.0 * 5
.7-7
.0 » 21
.9; ;7
.5*4
.0* 4
.2*7
. 0 ^ 10
.7+3
.1 i 7
Avg.
Influent
. (m.l.- I)
.4
.4
.0
. 5
.1
.3
.6
2
.9
. S
.6
. 0
.0
.7
.0
. 6
.6
.5
.7
. !
69.
69.
69.
73.
73,
73.
62.
62.
62.
55.
75.
62.
75,
75.
75.
61.
60.
46.
47,
47
4
4
4
,7
,2
,2
,0
,6
.6
,7
.1
.4
.6
. 6
,6
, i
.0
,9
,4
,4
C O
D
Avg.
E t '. 1 L.cnt
41 ,
)'. ,
4 ;
SO
43,
50.
42.
37,
43,
29,
25
25
44
43
44.
4 1 ,
34
3l.
12
33
.9
,0
,9
.9
.0
.7
.0
,7
.9
.0
.6
.2
.9
.0
.3
.7
6
.2
. 7
.9
Total
* Len
-------
'i 4 >
fc
?
0
'^>O
E u)C
i
o
X
o
*v
o
0 *-
o
0
0
^ ^
r
i ,
a
0
FiL'ER ME
DATF 12-2-
NOTE
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT ^/
"
^r^
O 1 2 3 1 5 6 7
TIME (HOJRSI
3iA 60 ... No 2 ANTH 24 ,n (g0 1220 SAND
71 FLUX RATE 32 ° gpm/M2 COAG ~ mg/
POLY "L 226- 1 0 mo/
b'J
i "0
E
S
V-
0
150
e IOO
0
£ 50
0
i50
? 100
E
o
0 50
o
0
10
^ 8
f 6
S
a.
0
3
FILTER MEC
n»TF 12-2-
t + .
\ , I . . . ^'
\ --f-r-r-^.r J
1 1 r 1 ;
, - t - - 1
' I ' ' '
- - . 1 -i - . .
r- \~ T T 1 r" t
i i
- | ^f-jr^- ' ^~^~:
-\ j- . -i *
D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TIME (HOURS)
)IA 60 in No 2 ANTH / 24 in No '220 SAND
71 F| ^ir HATF 16 0 gpm/fT CHAG " g/
POI Y CAL226-I.O mo/
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 12-SE-J HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 12-S!
3
:n
FIGURt B i FIGURE B 3
* g
o
2
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
800
DEPTH (IN)
FILTER
DATE J
HIGH
10
34 5678
TIME (HOURS)
MEDIA: 6O m No 2 ANTH/24 m No J22_0__SAND
2-_2^7J FLUX RATE_J2JJ_gpiti/ft2 COAG - mg/l
POLY CAL 226-1.0 .rq/l
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l2-SE-I
FIGURE B2
F O
O
-I «
O
IOO
80
60
40
20
O
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
eot>
DEPTH (INI
2345
TIME (HOURS)
7 V 8
FILTER
DATE _L
HIGH
MEDIA _ 60 m No.? ANTH/_24_in No J!2P_SANO
FLUX RATE_L6_P_gpln/«2 COAG ZZ mfl/l
POLY CAL.226- IQmg/i
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l2-SE-II
FIGURE B4
84
-------
E
I
0
_ ISO
£ IOO
0
s
0
150
» 100
o
0 50
u
0
10
- 8
t?
S. 6
5 «
H
0
FILTER MEt
nATFl2-2-
HIGH RA'
^
^-^
- ^
1 1 1
: j
-
1
/
1 1
i i
f
, !
~~^^"~~
1
i
D 1 2345
TIME (HOURS)
MA! SO , Nn 2 ANTH/24 , N
U_ FLUX RATE 2,4. P gpm
FE DEEP BED FILTR
»? r.HAS
-^
-H
£
V-'
0
ISO
£ 100
0
S 50
0
150
I 100
0
0
10
5 8
I 6
0 4
^ 2
-
^^^^^
i
1
-^^- ! --
p.
4- * - 4
t= ^ i"~ -i
1
T '
I i ' | i
578 0
J220_ SAND FILTER MEDIA:
mn/l n»TC 12-6-71 n
PHI v CAL.226- 1
ATION TEST No.l2-S£
1
I-! HIGH RATE DE
^-H -
^^L^ ! J
ifi in
JX RAT
FP P
i
34 5678
TIME (HOURS)
No 2 ANTH / 24 ,n No 122^ SAND
£ 32 0 gpm/ff* COAC; - mg/l
POl Y MA& 560C 0.5 mg/ 1
ED FILTRATION TEST No 13-SE
FIGURE B-5
FIGURE B-7
y,
o
2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA 60 ,n Ho. Z _ ANTH/_24_m No J222_SANO
DATE 12-2-71 FLUX RATE_?A2_gpm/f12 COAG mn/l
POLY CAL 226- I.
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NO.I2-SE-BI
FIGURE B6
|
100
80
60
40
20
0
eoo-
12345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA _60_ in No. _2 ANTH/_2A_m No 1224_SANO
DATE 12-6-71 FLUX RATE_32J2_gp"i/«2 COAG mq/l
POLY MAG. 56000.5^/1
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l3-SE-I
FIGURE B8
85
-------
o
o
a
o
o
40
?n
0
ISO
IOO
50
o
ISO
IOO
V
0
10
H
2
n
**
_
r-
1
*»
^
1
-
^^^
*»
V
.,
ur-
_
^_.-
1
t*
FILTER MEDIA:.
23456
TIME (HOURS)
.ANTH./-2A. in No
in No.
COAG..
SAND
.mg/l
HIGH
POLY «AJL3fiQC_£3m«/i
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l3-S£-n
FIGURE B9
o
o
o
o
0
1
5
60
20
0
150
IOO
50
0
150
IOO
50
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
r
i
2345
TIME (HOURS)
FIITFP urn.A- 60 in No._2_ANTH./_2S_ ,n No J22C_ SAND
12-6-71 FLUX RATE *i°_ gpmrtl* COAG mg/l
pniyMAaseoc-as^/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NO.I3-SE-
FIGURE B II
-i
<
z
UJ
o
s
o
345
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_lQ_in Na.2 ANTH./_2«_in No.J22Q_SAND
niTF 12-6-71 FLUX RATE_!6-0_gpm/t2 COAC ...,-^.,. <+"
POLY
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l3-SE-n
FIGURE BIO
FILTER
OATE
HIGH
MFniA- 60
2345
TIME (HOURS)
.in No. 2 ANTH/_14_n
No J220_SAND
2-6-71 FLUX RATE_24JJ_gp
-------
40
f
w 20
t-
0
_ 150
? IOO
o
o 50
0
ISO
|> IOO
o
0 50
o
0
10
5 8
I 6
s *
* 2
0
(
FILTER MEC
DATE B- 1-
HIGH RA1
""1
^
) i .
i«: 60 U,
2L FLUX RAT
TE DEEP B
s~s
!
1
i H
I
i
J^-1
4-
=1
*
1 .
".^ 1
^
!
_-_«
_^
> 3 4
TIME (HOURS)
NO.-2 ANTH./_2i
E _fl£_ gpm/tf* CO
^ ' -
*
^
i
r-:
^*
5 6 7 (
_ in No -1220. SANO
&^ - mg /
V MAG.9GO- ' LO M/
ED FILTRATION TEST No 14-SI
?
S 20
_ ISO
£ IOO
o
s
0
150
^ IOO
Q
0 50
o
0
10
5 8
9
1 6
o ^
Q.
,_ 2
0
I (
FILTER MEC
r>*TF B-l-1
lJ HIGH RA1
*-,
»^
^^
.
J
' |
k- ' 1
'
1 =
3
1!_ FLUX RAT
TE DEEP E
1
"
1 *
r.~-^zzz*'
~1 1 . - -
T | '
_x^
+ \^r*^
^~-^\
! 3 4 5 (
TIME (HOURS)
No ? ANTH / 24 ,n M
F 80 ,,»,/
11* C0»0
pru Y CAL
i 7 8
5 B20 SAND
it*g/l
226- LO mo/
ED FILTRATION TEST No 14-SJ
:-n
FIGURE B 13
FIGURE B IS
o
c
w
o.
s
o
-I
9
u
X
2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA: _iO__ In Ho._2 ANTH./_24_in No J220_SAND
PATE 12-1-71 FLUX RATEBC^gpm/fl1 CQAC »>!
POiv
B
HIGH RATF. DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l4-SE-I
FIGURE BI4
I Z 3 « 5 6 7
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_SO__in No.-2 ANTH/_24_in No _L22£_SAND
DATE 12-1-71 Flux RATE_iP_gpm/ft* COAC ~,/l
POLY CAL.226-I.Q i^y I
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.M-SE-TJ
FIGURE BK
87
-------
60
40
60
40
0
0
o
0
ISO
100
50
0
150
100
50
u
0
10
? 8
9
J 6
|
£ 2
0
01 2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA: _S2_ in No _2 ANTH./_24_ in No J22fi_ SAND
n*TC 12 - I - 71 PLUX RATE _5^_ gpm/ll* COAG..
POLY
. mg/l
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No I4-SE-1
FIGURE B 17
o
o
o
o
o
1
I
100
50
0
150
100
5O
0
10
8
6
4
2
34 5678
TIME (HOURS)
No_? ANTH./Ji. in No J&O_ SAND
F'LTER UFni*: 6O
HATF 11-23-71 FLUX BATP 23 5 gr-*l* rr»AC ALUM
\i
mg/l
HIGH
po.ygu..22«-l.0
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l5-SE-I
FIGURE B 19
9
U
z
I0
6
2345
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_fiQ_in NO.-2 _ ANTH /_24_in No J22fi_SAND
PATF 12- 1-71 FLUX RATE_8^_gpm/ft* COAO - = - mf/l
POLY -- = _ m«/l
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.M-SE-HI
FIGURE BI6
40
20
0
* """* ^' 000-*
DEPTH (IN
1234567
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEOIA:_fiO__in No._? ANTH./_24_in Ma 1220
DATF 11-23-71 FLUX RATE_235_8pn,/«l COAG ALUM B
POLY CAt.. 226-10 ^/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.lS-SE-I
FIGURE B20
88
-------
bO
1 40
I 20
0
1 100
0
0 50
0
150
» 100
o
o 50
0
0
10
9
I 6
1 *
* 2
0
FILTER MEC
ntTF 11-23
HIGH RA1
^^
^^^
1 1
J.
_ _
_=
.
^~
-^ ~
- 4 .- -
L_.
L
S*
,
^^ .
"^
3123456
TIME (HOURS)
ii A: 60 ; Hn 2 *MTu / 24 , MO 1220
ill FLUX RA1
FE DEEP E
F 15.0 ,(/«* mm ALUM. 1!
^.~'
r
SAND
i_ma/
DTM V CAL. 226- 1.0 mn/
JED FILTRATION TEST No 15-St
6O
1 40
0
_ ISO
f 100
o
S 50
150
| 100
o
0 50
0
10
^ 8
I 6
5 «
* 2
0
9 (
FILTER MEC
1 r
-------
^ 40
s
t-
0
ISO
100
o
£ so
o
ISO
o. 100
o
0 50
o
0
10
5 8
»
1 6
5 4
:
0
FILTER ME
r>ATF 11-24
0 1
3IA: 60 i
71 Fl
HIGH RATE Dl
UX RA1
EEP E
^-'
*~^-
\
i 1 1 1
^
^^
234
TIME (HOURS)
, No _2 ANTH./_2£
rE 24.6 Qpm/fl* CO
PO
JED FILTR ATIOt>
"1
~~'^1
****
-U
' r~
1
^^
»
i
567
_ in No 1220 SANC
AC ALUM. 15 mg/
JY MAG 560C 0.5 »0/
4 TEST No.16-5
bO
^ "0
0
_ 150
f 100
0
S 50
0
ISO
w IOO
a
0 50
o
0
10
5 8
9
E 6
5 ^
a
H 2
0
8
FILTER MEC
1 n*TF 11-24-
1
E-I HIGH RA"
^a
i
l
y
\
- -
)
"-^^*
-f-
^
«»
91234
TIME (HOURS)
"*: 60 in No_2 ANTH./-2f
_7_L FLUX RATE 16.0 gpm/fft CO
PO
FE DEEP BED FILTRATIOt
*"~-
4-
^*- _) »__
- - - -J- - -
4-
I
i
T-
567
_ in No I22O SAND
ir. ALUM 15 ,,/
i v MAG 560C 0.5 mq/
J TEST No.16-51
3
1
E-H
FIGURE B 25
FIGURE B 27
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA: _62__ in No._2 ANTH/_24_in No J220_SAND
PATF 11-24-71 FLUX RATF 24.6 oom/ft2 rntc ALUM 15 i»o/l
pniYMA0.560C03 t/\
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.lS-SE-I
FIGURE B 26
o
FILTER MEDIA:_60
No Ji20_SANO
ANTH / 24
DATE H-24-71 FLUX RATE_!&0_gpm/tt2 COAG _ALUM__l5_mg/l
POLY MAG. 560CQ5moyl
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NoJS-SE-H
FIGURE B 28
90
-------
i "0
I
ISO
9
6 100
o
a 50
0
150
!> ioo
o
0 50
0
0
10
^ 8
9
1 6
2
: 2
0
FILTER ME
nATF 11-2*
' ' T '
-,,... ^"'N
^^.^±=£ZZ-^ ^
T | ,
j^^"" "^
^
: £ ^-^"r
. - .I l~~~~~^^~^'
; i 1
01234567
TIME (HOURS)
-114 60 . Ma 2 ANTH / 24 ,n No I22° "^NT
-ft FKI* BATF 2*0 /»,* rn&r. ALUM 15 mo/
i "0
E
? '°
i5C
0
E .00
o
o
ID 50
5C
o iQO
o
u
20
5 16
t»
E 12
0 8
^ 4
-
- x> »-^-.^-
[- . '
1^\^--,
.
8 012345678
TIME (HOURS!
FILTER MEDIA 60 in No _2 ANTH / 2±_ in No 1220 SAND
1 n*TF 11-29-71 Fill* HATf 80 arxn/tl* f Oir, ALUM 15 ma /
POLY MA6_5fiQCJ15mg/l POI T MAG 56QC 05 mg/
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 16-SE-ffl HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST Nol7-SE-I
IOO
80
V)
<" 60
to
* o «0
o
1 "
0 0
UJ
11 100
5 80
<> JT
ir o
u " 60
o
o
o 20
0
30
H
u.
» 20
(A
O
o
UJ
X
0
C
FILTER MED
DATE H-24
FIGURE B 29 FIGURE B 31
_. BOO
\'-'^'""^y^.
-^-\7^^
100
80
in
"> 60
(C
it 0 "0
o
i " 20
0 0
V r BOO
UJ
- ^z>^-
__^ . -~~~~ . coo- .
IOO
»-
5 80
o *
er O
UJ a 60
" -
40
O
O
-------
E
o
60
2°
0
ISOf
IOO
50
0
150
IOO
50
0
20
16
12
8
FILTER
OATF H
MEDIA.
60
2345
TIME (HOURS)
... No 2
1220
-29-71 FLUX RATF 80 Bpm/M* r.OAr. ALUM 15 n.g/i
POLY CALggC- 1.0 moy|
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 17-SE-g
FIGURES 33
£
Q
o
0
60
40 1
0
150
IOO
50
0
ISO
IOO
50
0
10
e
8
01234567
TIME (HOURS!
FILTER UFnit: 6O , No _i AMTH /24 ,n No !222_ SAND
12- 8 -71 FLUX PATF 32.0 gpm/M* man mg/l
POLY
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 18-SE-I
FIGURE B 35
>
o
9
UJ
I
IOO
8O
60
40
20
0
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
SO
COO
DEPTH (IN)
10
FILTER MEDIA
DATE_lh_
12345
TIME (HOURS)
60 ,n Na.? ANTH/_25_m No JHfi-SAND
.FLUX RATE.
.gpm/fl* COA6 ALUM 15
POLY CAL 226-1.0 mo/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NO.I7-SE-II
FIGURE B34
o
z
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
30
20
10
BOO-
-P04
COO
DEPTH (IN)
34567
TIME (HOURS)
No _? _ ANTH/Ll^m No 1220
DATE 12-8-71 FLUX RATE_5i;0_gpm/fl2 COAG -
FILTER MEDIA: __60_
mo/ 1
mo,/ I
POLY _ -
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NO.I8-SE-I
FIGURE B 36
92
-------
^ «o
E
I
h-
0
I5OI
E 100
0
a 50
0
150
» 100
o
0 50
(j
0
10
^ 8
9
I &
3 «
*
0
FILTER MEC
DATE g-«-
HIGH RA"
! ' !
1_.._|.. j .. . _.__.
-^t-_U-p-^"^ + '--
I ' i ;
! ; I '
L_ jnm-^- 4- !
i ' ' ! ' :
i
i
fc i $ i 1
111 i i
! | 1
t ( ! t
. r _. ; , i : i
-^-^ «p-i i
t= F 1 i -
31234567
TIME (HOURS)
114: 60 ,n Mo 2 4HTU/24 , Hn l?gp
O
8
ui
X
0
FILTER MEC
DATE 12-6-
j-SS
>v y'
- _ - - - J .
BOO-'
^P0«
'"I ">^^ coo7 -
DEPTH (IN)
72
, | ' , j | | | ^ 1
Ol 2 3 4 5 f 7
TIME (HOURS)
>IA 60 in No 2 ANTH / 24 ln No 1220 SANC
71 FLUX RATE 16 0 pom/fl2 COAG mg/
POi^Y mfl/
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.18-9
100
80
en
"> 60
09
,» 0 1°
O
i ' -
1
Ul
" 100
»-
S 80
<-> JJ
o: O
uj 0- 60
a.
ts
40
o
c
0 20
0
30
K
u.
« 2°
(A
O
J
o 10
u
I
0
B
FILTER MEC
DATE 12:8-
E-H HIGH RA1
__^.._ ._(.--.; : ^ - -
_+-. , ^--r-:..":-
_ | | ~ ' ' ;
i
i
L _> -J
1
^ : ;
b ~t i *
1 ' '
1 - t 1 - t ,- t
111,,
It'
j ! i j 4-
F ~\ T 1 ! ^
D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f
TIME (HOURS)
)IA: 60 , Ho _2 ANTH./i4-,n No Ji20_ SAND
71 F1UX RiTF 240 gpm/tl* rnirt - mg/
pfl| Y - mg/
3
FE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST Nol8-SE-l
FIGURE 8 39
ss - ,
1
SN^ ^^
r J
_ _ . t
eoo-1
, P04
coo -
DEPTH UNI
96"-
80 S'
*^>
__ *^^
3 2345678
TIME (HOURS)
IA 60 in No i ANTH / 24 , NO i2ifl_SANO
71 FLUX RATE 240 gpm/ft2 COAG mg/l
'E DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.lS-SF-lTT
FIGURE B 38 FIGURE B 4O
93
-------
£
o
0
0
0
S.
5
40
20
0
ISO
IOO
5O
0
150
IOO
5O
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
ME!
--
» ^^
- .1 J
" ^~ *
1
|
rr rz_.
' '
i i i
i ! i
|
1- i- i i
" i -4
J. >* !
1 i
012345671
TIME (HOURS)
HA: 60 ! H« 2 AKITH/24 . U. 1220 >^^\ .X^-**
- A \/c
BOI>^ ^SS
^ P0«
^ _- f 7 .
CW3 ^^ "
1 1 i . 1 i . ....
D^PTM (IN.)
' ' ' r*
lu^^irj
=^^ ! i , 1 i
IOO
80
60
f o «0
O
f " "
0 0
V
" IOO
»-
J 80
o
5 i 60
a.
* 40
a
o
o 20
0
30
K
U.
« 2°
«
0
_J
3
Ul
1 o
71 FI uy BATF 133 gp-,/«i* rnAft ALUM 15 9/
POLY CAL.226- 1.0 m j/
FE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 19-SE
FIGURE B 43
f ^^->
V_ BOO
1 /
P0<-/
/
__/
DEPTH (IN
,-99'
^^^:*
^HrtH^;^^^
-n
312345678 012345678
TIME (HOURS) TIME (HOURS)
>IA 6O iti Na_2 ANTM/_24_in No J22fi_SAND FILTER MEDIA: 60 ln No.2 ANTH/_li_m No J220_SAND
-71 FLUX HATE 16.2 gpm/ftS CQAC ALUM B «/! DATE 12-9 - 7| FI.UX MATE IS 3 «P"/»«2CO*
-------
o
o
o
o
o
20
0
150
IOO
o
150
50
10
2
0
^* *
_. . __
^,«i
i
L
_,«
- - 1
Ol 2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_£9^_ in No -2 ANTH./_24_ ,n No J22£L SAND
r»ATFl2-9-7l FLUX RATE JiP_ gpi./*)* rntc ALUM !2_m,/i
HIGH
pmv CAL226-I.O -g/l
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 19-SE-ffl
FIGURE B 45
t §
o
£
O
f
100
80
60
40
ss
6OO
s
u
X
FILTER MEDIA :_§0_
2345
TIME (HOURS)
ANTH/24 ,n
No.-
OATF 12-9-71 FLUX RA~E_J40_gpm/ftZ COAC ALUM. 15 mg/l
POLY CAL 226-I.O»g/l
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.l9-SE-m
FIGURE B 46
I 40
S *o
>-
0
_ 150
X
? IOO
o
2 50
0
150
~ IOO
o
o 50
o
0
10
5 8
o>
1 6
5 4
0.
t- 2
0
FILTER MEC
p»TF 12-10-
BS
L-i=-
!
-
t
1
i
E
-
i
1 '
i 1 i
f ~"
i '
f - :: 1- -
^ +
D 1 2345678
TIME (HOURS)
in 60 ,n Mo 2 ANTH/24 , fco 1220 SAND
71 FLJ
LJX RAT
F 22 2 0 ,/ti* r
P
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATIC
IOO
80
tn
« 60
0
# o «0
O
» -
0 0
IOO
£ 80
a: °
£ o. 60
40
0
o
0 20
0
30
t
« 20
en
0
0 10
UJ
X
0
(
FILTER MED
DATF 12-10-
OAG ~ mg/
m Y - mg/
N TEST No 20-S
FIGURE B 47
i |
V , ._ ,
^s ^^ f ~~
ss-
""""- *^ f
^
'BOO
-coo
i_i-i
L
-P04
E-I
DEPTH (IN)
^ - -
3
IA: 1
71 FL
234
TIME (HOURS)
>0 in Na 2 ANTH /2
JX RAT
HIGH RATE DEEP B
E 22.2 gom/il2 c
P
ED FILTRATIO
98"
i^b*
5678
4_m NoJ220_SAND
OAG mg/1
OLY mg/
N TEST N0.20-SE-I
FIGURE B 48
95
-------
£
o
o
o
e
*
o
40
?n
0
ISO
IOO
50
0
150
IOO
50
0
10
8
2
0
, 1
[.
r
1
\
=
,
i
'
r
_^
( |
i ' 1 1
i »J»»"
i K i , _.
r t- 1
i
-Z "A t "
-= -1 '
01 2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA: 60 in No _i ANTH./-24. ,n No J220. SAND
DATF 12- 10-71 FLUX RATE J£2_ gpm/tf* r.OAC
POLY..
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.20-SE-n
FIGURE B 49
IOO
: s
|
100
o
a.
o
o
o
in
(A
o
10
2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA- 60 ,n No..? ANTH/_24_in Ma '220 SAMP
DATF 12-10-71 FLUX RATE_!6^0_gpm/ft2 CO AC ing/1
POLY = mg/l
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.20-SE-fl
FIGURE B 50
f 40
JS
£ 20
0
_ 150
E IOO
o
o 50
0
ISO
» IOO
a
0 5O
u
0
10
^ 8
I 6
O *
£ 2
0
FILTER MEt
n»TC 12-10
^
D
>IA
-71
HIGH RATE
IOO
80
CO
» 60
B § 40
i ' 20
o 0
£
S IOO
5 80
o *
£ 2 so
a.
40
0
8 20
0
30
>-
u.
» 20
tf>
3
s
u
z
0
<
FILTER MEC
PATF 12-10-
HIGH RAT
i
FLUX RAT
DEEP E
i 3 '
TIME (HC
No. J AN
F 276 gpm
1
uZ^'T
i i
i
i
i
i
_
1567
)URS)
TU/24 ,n ig« 1220 5»nn
Iff rr>A(! - nn/
P
-------
I *°
_ 150
F loo
o
2
0
150
= 100
o
0 50
u
0
10
? 8
9
-E 6
5 *
* 2
0
FILTER ME
niTF 12-14
0
5IA:
-71 FL
1
62 ii
UX RA1
^^^^M
j.
! 1
^^^M
i 3 '
TIME (H(
i No _2 AN
F 80 gpn
T
«=
>URS)
TH./Ji
nf co
PC
-.
J
'
| '
40
£
« 2°
... 150
v
J 100
o
2 50
0
150
o
0 50
0
10
I 6
» A
0 *
t 2
5678 (
Lin No _fi2_ SAND FILTER MEC
»r. ALUM 15 ,/, n»TF I2-M-
,
-
|
,_ j. _
I
_^
r T r i "i"
3 1
111: 60 i,
71 FI
-------
o
o
FILTER MEDIA:.
345
TIME (HOURS)
-in Ma 3 ANTH / 24 Mn 612
OATF 12-14-71 FLOX RATE _21fi_ ,pm/»(* r.nic ALUM.
15
SAND
mg/l
pm Y CAL.226 1.0 «/.
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 21-SE-ffl
FIGURE B 57
o
o
m
0
0
Q
150
50
0
150
10
4
O
t
1 [
[ 4 ~'^
^
\ \ ^»^
r i r |
f * *"~""^
A !
1 ! !
FILTER MEDIA:.
60
234 5678
TIME (HOURS)
,n No _3 ANTH./-23. in No 612 SAND
COAG ALUM 15 mn/i
CAL.226-I.Q
12-17-71 FLUX RATE _7_5_
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 22-SE-I
FIGURE B 58
o
-------
V
E
(/i
f
0
o
ffi
f
o
o
u
tr
E
O
FILTER
DATE '<
HIGH
«n
at
X 0
o
_i B
>
o
z
z
o *
u *
0
u
b.
«n
in
o
-j
5
u
X
FILTER
DATE l<
HIGH
40
20
0
150
IOO
50
0
150
IOO
50
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
(
MEC
17-
! 1 1 1 ' 1 1
1
, j
i .1
4 4.
i , : t"
i i
51234567
TIME (HOURS)
11: 60 in Mn 3 1MTH / 24 , Mo 612 <;1NH
71 Fill* O1TF 166 gpm/ff* rnifi ALUM 15 mg/
Pf»l Y CAL 226-1 0 mo/
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 22-S
80
60
40
20
0
IOO
60
40
20
0
30
20
10
0
MEC
>_)7-
FIGURE B 61
. ^i i
-SS """ BOO -
P04 - ^^,
»
COO - __,
-7 r - J
DEPTH UN )
\
, , , , , ^A ;
D 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7
TIME (HOURS)
11 60 in PUn 3 ANTH / 24 , No 612 SANC
71 FLUX RATE 16 6 oD
-------
~ 4O
£
" 20
t-
0
- 15
9
E to
o
0
« M
I 10°
0 50
LJ
0
10
^ 8
I 6
0
t 2
0
FILTER ME
n*TF 12-21
| .- .y T ' 1 1 1
1 .
I T ~*'"~"
i | j 1 , , ,
_T~~I
.
- ! '^T-T^-T f
D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TIME (HOURS)
Hi 60 ,n Nn 3 &MTM / 24 ,n Nn 612 ^ANT
-71 Fin* RATF 24.0 gpm/fl rOAR - mg/
Pni Y - mn/
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 23-?
i 40
£
" 20
h-
0
13
1 10
0
o
(D 5
0
150
» IOO
o
0 50
0
10
5 8
I 6
a.
2
0
3
FILTER MEC
i n*TF 12-21
1
£-1 HIGH RA"
FIGURE B 65
IOO
80
in
*> 60
X o 4°
-^ O
; ' »
i
w
" IOO
2 , 80
s s
u « 60
a.
0
40
o
8 20
O
30
t-
u.
« 2°
V)
O
_j
o 10
UJ
z
0
FILTER MEC
DATE 12-21-
HIGH RA1
-^ss"
' -i^^' ~
P0< COO-
^--^CxCX-
DEPTH (IN)
62"
TIME (HOURS)
1IA 60 in MCL 3 ANTH / 24 m No 612 SAND
71 FLUX RATE 24 gpm/ft* COAG mq/
POi_Y mg/
IOO
80
en
> 60
a
ir o *0
i § 20
I °
IOO
2 80
£ o
u " 60
40
o
3 20
0
30
P
ii.
« 2°
M
O
3
u
I
0
»
FILTER MEC
DATE J.2-2J
1 1 1
___4 4^-4_f-
:
*
u. L_ i ...;....
f \ 1 1
----- -^r r "^^f
3 234567
TIME (HOURS)
)IA:_S2-__m Mn 3 AMTH / 24 ... No £12_ SAND
71 Fl MX BATfr 160 gpm/fl1 r.OAB - mg/
POI Y - !"»'
FE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 23-S
FIGURE B 67
~~^^~^^ -
T." \/"'8o6x^'S"
PO4-- /
.C0°~1, ./
DEPTH (IN.)
98"-
, 8O"-
J
e-n
TIME (HOURS)
)IA 60 ln N
-------
i 40
E
S 20
t-
0
- l5
1
o
S 5
0
150
» IOO
O
0 50
o
0
10
5 e
6 6
5 «
t
0
(
FILTER MEC
n*TF 12-21-
HIGH RA1
H
^ 1
"'^^
3 1 2 3 <
TIME (H(
!! 6O in Mo 3 AN
_T1 FLUX RA1
FE DEEP E
-c 80 t|»
1 1 1
U *- 4_- *
1
.^ 1
! 1
j 1
t-s^J- i
i
f i
i -
t 5 (
)URS)
TH./^5_ ... n
/ff* COM
1
^^
5 7
» 612 GH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.25-SE-I
FIGURE B 72
101
-------
o
o
0
60
40
20
0
3O
100
50
0
10
8
6
0
±
' -4---^F---
8
01234567
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MFniA: 60 .n No _2 ANTH./_2f_ m No j£2P_ SAND
riATf 1-7-72 FLUX BATF 15.5 op./n1 roAr. ALUM. 15 mg/i
POLY CAL.226- 10 mg/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 25-St
FIGURE B 73
0
0
0
60
20
0
20
10
0
150
IOO
50
i
1
8
FILTER MEDIA: _§O_
2 3 4 S 6 7
TIME (HOURS)
,n No _? ANTH./-24. . No 122.0 SAND
nATF 1-7-72 FLUX RATE -HP- gpm/fl* COAG ALUM 15. mg/l
POLY CAL.226- 1.0 mg/l
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 25-SE-JJI
FIGURE B 75
o
IOO
SO
6O
40
20
0
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA: 6O in Nc.-2 ANTH/_24_m No J22P_SANO
DATE 1-7-72 FLUX RATE_lS15_gp«"/tt1 COAG ALUM 15 -+/I
PQIY CAL.226-1.0 mf/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST N0.25-SE-B
FIGURE B 74
? §
§
IOO
80
60
40
20
0
IOO
90
60
40
20
0
30
20
10
BOO
SS
P04-\
DEPTH. (IN)
eoV-
62"
012345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA _JO ln No.-2 ANTH/_24_,n NO _l!IP_SAND
:7~72 .FLUX RATE_!iP_gpm/ft* COAG JU-UM^_ I5_ mo/1
HIGH
POLY CAL 226^1 (T
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST N0.25-SE-JL
FIGURE B76
102
-------
Jj 20
0
= ISO
f 100
o
2
0
ISO
» IOO
o
0 50
o
0
10
? 8
I 6
1 «
* 2
__^»
i
r~
"
.. ._
"=1
i
»-._
1
[
i
(- - » -
F - * -
ol 1 1 1 1 1
01234
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA! _ifi__ in M»_2 ANTH./ia
MTF 1-12-72 FLUX RATE JliS g pin /M* CO.
PO
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATIOK
BOOlmfl/l) TSS.(mf/l)
o S 8 80 S S ?
ISO
= IOO
o
o 50
u
0
10
S 8
9
1 6
^ 2
«ld
^^
-
^m^^^m
»«4
^^^^^H
'
!
K ^E.^t^K.^^EJ
^^ .
t- -f
F=
*^3
i
_
i i 1 1 o Illl 1
5678 01234
TIME (HOURS)
. m Ne i222_ SANO FILTER MEDIA: _fifl_ in No -2 ANTH./_2i
M.^LUM_LO_ mf /I n»Tr 1-12-72 FLUX RATE J13_ gpm/tf* CO
LY CAL_22f L£ m»/i PO
t t" f
5 <
L in N
Afi ALU
5 7 8
, 1220 <;iNO
M 150 ../
IYCAL226-1.0 no/
1 TEST N0.26-SE-I HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 26-SE-fl
FIGURE B 77
FIGURE B 79
IOO
80
60
I
800
2 3 4 5 6 7
TIME (HOURS)
in NO.-2 ANTH/_24_in Ho 1220 SAMP
FLUX RATE_it5_,pB,/ft1 COAC ALUM. IP ^/i
" "6- 1.0 ^/i
PMvCAL.2
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.26SE-I
FIGURE B 7»
23. 45
TIMC- (HOURS)
FI'LTER MEJIAI«_Lrflno.
ttATt 1-12-72 FLUX nwejl
Ho 1220 SAnn
__ ALUM ISO ,/,
POLY CAL226-IO ~y i
HIGH
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.26-SE-H
FIGURE B 90
103
-------
» 40
E
I 20
0
- 150
9
£ loo
o
a 50
0
150
o- IOO
0
o 50
o
0
10
=; 8
I 6
1 "
* 2
0
FILTER ME
nATF 1-12-
~~
^^^m
T 1
L_ , , ;
I ....
L. _^__i__ :
^^^^
^
' '
T
«. |
3123456
TIME (HOURS)
11 A: 60 in Ma 2 ANTH / 24 , Ma
72 FL
UK RA-
rf 20.0 op-AI* r.OAB ALUM
|
I
7
1220 SANC
IS.O mn/
DOIY CAL^26-I 0 ;/
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST
No26-S
s
i
i
E"E
FIGURE B 81
IOO
80
M
> 60
* 0 40
O
i °
* IOO
J 80
0 «
5 i 60
o
8 20
0
30
t
O
9 I0
u
X
0
FILTER NEC
DATF 1-12-
-x^r^*^r='^v
- ss
"N^^.600
.......
P04-.
- "
ax
;7--
DEPTH (IN)
r9e-
ty^^
n 1 1
0
)IA: !
72 FL
1
50 I
UH RA1
^
J J
80%
i.jij. .......
1 ill
2345678
TIME (HOURS)
i NO.-2 ANTH/_24_in No J220_SANO
Tf 2OO aom/H* COAO ALUM 19.0 _/l
POLY CAL.226 1.0 -i,i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST
N0.26-SE-M
o
o
20
150
100
50
0
150
50
0
10
?
n
.
,
i l
i-O
"'I 4
1 i
*- "»^ i
i i
; i
~-^- ; -
k*"*"
I
8
HIGH
2345
TIME (HOURS)
» MEDIA:_§2_ in No _2 ANTH./i5_ in No J22Q. SANO
1-14-72 FLUX BATF 20.0 apm/tl1 COAG.ALyjL_JiO_ mg/l
omvCAL.226-1.0 ./!
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.27-SE-I
FIGURE B 83
^ I
It! £
IOO
80
60
40
o
8 20
0
30
DEPTH (IN)
FIGURE B82
1 2345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_£S_ in NaJZ ANTH/_24_m No J22fi_SANO
PATE 1-14-72 FLUX RATE_?0.p_gpin/ft* COA6 ALUM 15.0 m~n
PQLYCAL.226 Q5 .,/!
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.27-SE-I
FIGURE B 84
104
-------
o
o
a
o
P
o
o.
I
FILTER
OATE±
HIGH
60
4O
20
0
190
100
50
0
150
100
SO
0
10
a
6
4
012345678
TIME (HOURS)
MrniA' 60 i, Ne._2 ANTH./_2S_ i« No J22SL SANO
14-72 FLUX RATE '** frmff COAO.ALUM^Jifi.m»/l
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.27-SE-n
FIGURE B 8S
o
P
OJ
o
P
o
70
(5O
o
150
30
0
!0
?
n
_
*- ^
..
,^
X
_ -H
- ~~ " " 1
r-''
'^H
i
6
FILTER
DATE±
2345
TIME (HOURS)
MEDIA:_SP_in No _2_ ANTH./-25-in No J229_ SAND
14-72 FLUX RATE ia-6 9p»/»f* COAG.AU1M. &£. mg/l
POLY.CM I?«:fl8 F
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.27-$E-M
FIOURE B 87
r^-==rgi
»-* coo-f
1234567*
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEPIA: 6O ki Mai ANTH/_24_in No.J22fi_SAND
PATF 1-14-72 FLUX RATE_!M_gpm/«* COAB AlJUtl 15.0 my\
P«Y CALMS QJ -t/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NO.27-SE-I
FIGURE B 96
w
u
I
o
8
100
so
60
40
20
/
PQ,- '
! ' ^ *oto»w
' r^ COO-
: 1 i ,....( i i
DEPTH (IN)
12345676
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_j|O_in N0..2 ANTH.ii4_|n Ne.J22fl_SAND
OATE.!-l4-72.pLUX RATeJ|i«_Wiii/flt COAO ALUM B.O myt
PQLV CAT. 226- 0.5 -t/.
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST N0.27-SE-
FIOURE B86
105
-------
ISO
i 120
E
" «o
0
1 IOO
o
2 50
0
150
120
Q
o 60
O
2O
^ 16
I 12
* -
o 8
0.
4
0
FILTER MEC
DATF 1-19-
'>
as
_
* -
pj,^**
^
_-
Jr"~
^^
=^
l^-
^
r~~H
,/
,'*\ "*" ^^
.
ij-'*'*
3 1 2 3 <
TIME (H(
11 A: 6O , km 2 AN
72 FI
HIGH RATE Dt
UX RAT
:EP E
F 24.0 ,,_
IED FILTR
f 't " -
^!--""
)UMS)
TH./_2f
fl* CO
PO
ATior
"
t=
+
1
"_ L "
"t
5671
L in No '220 SANO
A*i iM 1IH "^ Q n»g/
1Y CAL,22f-Oj r«»/
1 BO
h-'
0
_ 150
e loo
o
o 50
o
180
» I2O
0
o 6O
0
0
20
^ 16
I 12
I »
Q.
0
J (
FILTER MEC
I DATF 1-19-1
3
>IA: \
2 FI
4 TEST N0.28-SE-I HIGH RATE DE
SO a
UX MAI
:EP E
S
.*
+''
^
^"^
9
^^* '
S*"^
^*r'
^ 3 '
TIME (HC
i No._2 AN
F hS.O ...
JED FILTR
^
* "^
1
)URS)
TH./^f
11* CO
PO
ftTIOr
f -
^ '
"' '
\ '
k"
\~ -
H
"
5 6 7 (
L in No 1220 SANO
AC ALUM. 15.0 -.,/
IY CAL.226-0.5 m,/
J TEST No 28-S
)
E~H
FIGURE B
FIGURE B9I
* §
o
o
f
y,
o
-I
3
Ul
I
o
o
o
IOO
so
6O
40
20
0
IOO
BO
60
40
.BOQ-
ss
IOO
FILTER MEDIA : _«O__ in No.
OATF 1-19-72 FLUX
234 5
TIME (HOURS)
ANTH/_2«_in
cnAC _*fU«ii,IS-9 -t/i
CKLZZC 0.5.4/1
_
pmyCK
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NQ.28-SE-T
FIGURE B 90
* §
., «
I
6O
40
20
0
O
o
o
00
0
** ^^^^ "-r
^ coo-'
III!,. . , . : , 1
DEPTH (IN)
3
u
X
FILTER MEDIA:
60
234567
TIME (HOURS)
.in No..? ANTH./_!!_in No 1220
PATE 1-19-72 FLUX RATE_*^_Jom/tt2 COAC ALUM I5.O «o/l
POIYCAL.226 03 -frM
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.28-SE-fl
FIGURE B 92
106
-------
9 ftO
z «°
>-
0
_ I5O
f 100
o
S *>
0
» 120
o
0 60
o
0
20
C 16
t>
1 12
0
a.
«
0
<
FILTER MEC
n»TFl-!9--
^^'-
, ' ^''
' K'l 1
_ .^- . . . _
| ^ _,__ .^4. J
1-"* i III,
[ ! t ' '
| j" | ]' I i .
3 234567
TIME (HOURS)
111- 6O ... Mo ? »MTM / 24 , Ma 12.20 ^inn
^ FII« B*TF 320 .^./tf* coif. ALUM 150 «/
POI Y CAL.Z-j- 05 -4/
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 28-<
100
80
> so
e
X o «°
O
_i 20
I 0
t
' 100
g . "
u * 60
0
0
o 20
0
30
E
9 10
hi
X
0
FILTER MEC
PATE 1-19-
HK?H RAT
FIGURE 893
_^>* ' ' ' '
^-7^^;
SS *-^ "^ x- BOO !
1 ' ii
k>4^ ' ' -,.
f^\
\-lcoo
. 1,1 , ,11
DEPTH (H).
9e"4-iyL i i ! ' ' i i i i i i
*JJL~
\ i . i , i , . i i i i
1 120
« 60
0
150
? 100
0
S
0
I8O
» I2O
o
0 60
o
0
20
5 16
9
1 12
2 8
a
,_ 4
O
S
FILTER MEC
1 DATE 1-20-
1
5E-1II HIGH RA-
100
80
* so
X g 40
1
kf
* 100
J 80
£ 2 so
* 40
o
S «,
0
30
E
1 "
I '°
0
/
- 1 < -.. . . _
XXN
i- . ,
, / ...
^^""^"^^^^^"
_^^^
"^
' i -
312345678
TIME (HOURS)
'i»- 6O ,n Mo _2 ANTH./_24_,n No i22C_ SANO
Ji r|H* »»TF M.IJ gr-^ii* <-n*r. ALUM 15.0 m,/i
POIYCAL226- 10 ma/i
FE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No29-SE-I
FISURE B 95
i 1^1 U <--<
SS- - BOO
Sj» -^
PCMj- ^- COO
DEPTH. (IN) _
"/
^J
/
3 234567* 01234567
TIME (HOURS) TIME (HOURS)
HA: 60 ^ No._2 *NTH-^2f_m No. 1220 SANO FILTER MEDIA: 60 * Ma 2 ANTM / 24 . Ma 1220 Sinn
72_FLUX IUTC_J^O_«Mi/tit COAG ALUM 15.0 m-n
POLY CAL-ZZ4 u^_n^|
OATE 1-20-
72 FLUX RATE _ 24.0 apjn/tl1 COAC ALUM fi.O ^/
POLY SAL 22 i.O ./
!
'E DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST NoJM-SM HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TFST w« ?Q-«;F-T
FIGURE B 94 FIOURE B 96
107
-------
^ I2O
E
I 60
>-
0
- ISO
^
9
E IOO
0
o SO
0
ISO
» I2O
o
0 6O
o
0
2O
5 16
9
1 12
S «
:
0
FILTER ME(
n»TF 1 - 2O
3
>IA:
72 FI
HIGH RATE Dt
t
f
f
/
*
/'
*-\
X
*
\
>~-
x
SO t
UX RA1
EEP E
L^«--
_
~ "
V»
I '
"*
2 3 4
TIME (H(
i No _2 AN
rF 16.0 gp.
JED FILTR
,
<-- 4-
1
3URS)
TH./.2J
n? co
PO
ATlGt
567
L in No J2ifi_ SAND
u: ALUM IS.Omn/
iv CAL.226- 1.0 _,/
J TEST No 29-S
60
1. 40
E
*" 20
in '"
t-
0
_ 150
£ 100
o
s
0
180
» I2O
o
0 60
0
0
10
^ 16
I 12
5 8
/
^
=91^
^^_
-.
X^
X 1
' 1
4
/
f
3 1
>IA: CO i
72 p.
1
iE-n HIGH RATE Dt
UX RA'
:EP E
^
!
i
^
h .
**»»,
2 3 '
TIME (H(
n No _2 AN
rr 32 0 ,,»,
3ED FILTR
- -
1
-
i
>URS)
TH./-2i
/t^ CO
PC
ATlOt
- .
567
L in No 1220 SANC
AC. ALUM. 15.0 mn/
N Y CAL
^226- 1
SL mo/
4 TEST No 29-S
3
1
1
£-1
FIGURE B 97
FIGURE B 99
80
> 6O
e
5 2 *°
i °
* IOO
J 80
0 »
J i 60
0
8 20
0
30
E
i 20
3
S I0
u
X
0
SsJ^x^" ' !. ^"*l
5S-
J
-BOO
' [ - i > i
. 1 i . . , . , ! ,
80
M
> 6O
* § 40
5 " 2°
2 0
TT^^ - '
SS-1 ^-BOO
i
=t=r=^P04
COO-
1
,
DEPTH (IN)
98"
«
~\
-0
/(
0- J
*
r
IUU
t-
O
o
0
PC,
^'
-COO
1 i II
* DEPTH (IN)
I i | ' II I 1
-62-
j 1
1
I
t-
u.
tn zo
to
0
-J
SIO
UJ
z
0
*^f^*f
/ "
: 1 ;
2345
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_60__in No.,2 ANTH /_24_,n No.J22°_SAND
OATF 1-20-72 FLUX RATEj6^_,pm/f1Z COAG J«lLUMliCL mg/l
FILTER MEDIA _5P_
DATE 1-20-72 FIUIT
23456
TIME (HOURS)
NO.J ANTH/_24_m NoJ220_SAND
COAG ALUM ISO ^/i
POLT CAL 226- lO^nia/i
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No29-SE-I
FIGURE B 98
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST N0.29-SE-1I
FIGURE B K30
108
-------
o 40
0
_ ISO
E IOO
o
0
ISO
» IOO
0
0 SO
u
o
20
5 16
I 12
* .
0 C
Q.
*
0
<
FILTER MEC
DATF 1-3-
««
=
_._
i
^J
swd
-
«««
U- -
, 1
_.
1
T 1 1 r
L ,
i
j ,
|
p J
3 2 3 <
TIME (H(
)IA: SO in Ma 2 AN
f2 ft
HIGH RATE Df
UX RA1
LEP E
)ED FILTR
~ *
mm^si
,'X-
1
. ^
;..._
.....
i
)URS)
TH./_2i
flf CO
PO
ATlOh
j .
5
L in N
AG AW
IVCAL
& 7
I22O <;»Mn
M ISO »,/
226-10 -I/
J TEST No 30-S
i 40
E
O
_ ISO
i" IDG
o
£ 50
0
'50
i
- IOO
0 SO
tj
0
20
" 18
E 12
0 8
a.
>- ^
0
!
FILTER ME
1 0 AT ! ' 3 ~
- ^ *
i 1
. " i
. '
.
.
_ 1
. -
' 4« H
.-.
P.>
"*"""4*'
. _ _,_ ..... .^.__ 4-- .
r_
i
~|~
* ~
01 234 5678
TIME (HOURS)
1I»- 48 in Nn 2 ANTH/24 , No 1220 SAND
72 r,,,*»»TC 173 ./,,» ,-n»a ALUM 15.0 moy,
1
E-I HIGH RATE DEEP BED F
FIGURE B KM
D«vCAL226-IO ,
'ILTRATION TEST No 30-S
i
£-n
FIGURE B 103
9
w
X
FILTER
OATEl
30
DEPTH (IN)
01 234567$
TIME (HOURS)
MEOIA-_S2__lfl N«_2 ANTH/_24_in No JI2°_SA»1D
3-72 fLUi( RATEj6J_»pl!l/f»* COAC ALUM 6.0 m+fl
HK5H
POlYCAL.226-1.0 -^1
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST N0.30-SE-I
FIGURE 8 108
48
2345
TIME (HOURS 1
4NTH/24 ,
i 1220 SAMfl
FILTER MEDIA
DATE I- 31-72 FLUX RATE_171_9pm/f12 COAC ALUM ISO ,-/i
PfMY CAL.Z2-I.O -^i
HIGH RATE DEEP BEp FILTRATION TEST N0.30-SE-I
FIGURE B KX
109
-------
o
o
o
60
40
20
0
150
100
50
0
150
100
50
0
20
^ 16
I 12
* 0
p "
^ 4
0
012345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA:_72__ in No _2 ANTH./-2S- in No J222. SAND
n«TF 1-31-72 FLUx RATE _ttiO_ apm/tl* rn*g ALUM. 15.0 ~a/i
POLY CALJ26- 1.0 mj/1
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 30-SE-fl
FIGURE B 106
5
60
40
0
150
)OO
ISO
50
0
20
16
12
0
- 4-
a
012345
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA: _§£_ in No _2 ANTH./_24_ ,n No g2O_ SANO
n*TC 2-1-72 FLUX RATE _Z_3_ gtn/lf COAG ALUM, lifimg/i
POLY CAL 228-1.0 m,/l
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No 31-SE-I
FIGURE B 107
80
* 60
_ «
is40
^«
20
i o
* 100
J 60
0
5 i 60
O
8 20
0
30
E
0
0
9
Ul
I
0
(
FILTER MEO
DATF 1-31-
PS7 fv ^ ^ '
<~i-r-S^ ..''''
"»«*"
-eoo
. . . l ... ...
P04-
^- ,,^'
- « ** ^V- COO
1 1 ; 1 ,
DEPTH. (IN)
i i.i 1 '
! , ,j
Jpfc^^^
i i ' i
rSCf
62"
1
, _L I J
80
M
> 60
0
X o 40
i8-
0 0
£
c 100
J 60
0 »
5 I 60
O
8 20
0
30
E
» 20
S
9
bj
I
0
31234567*
TIME (HOURS)
IA:_K1 in No. 2 ANTH./_24_1B No J220_SANO FILTER MEC
72 FLUX RATE 14.0 Mm/ft* COAG ALUM IS.O m*/l DATE_2^LJ
M^vCAL.226-1 0 m*j\
"" < 3^"
N^X^ * *T
BOO-
pCOO
II-* -
. , PO* - '
1 1
,
DEPTH (IM
-A
^MM*
^ i T
98"
^^f^* *^^-62"
312345676
TIME (HOURS)
IA: 6O in Ik. 2 AMTU / 24 .. M. 1220 c*»in
2 FLUX RATE_I
J qom/fl* COAC ALUM 13.0 «/
POLY CAL Z26- 1.0 M/
HKSH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No3O-SE-H HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.3l-SE-I
FIGURE BKJ6
FIGURE BIOS
110
-------
^ 40
E
I
0
150
1 100
Q
0
150
» 100
0
0 50
u
0
20
5 16
I 12
3 8
a.
t-
0
(
FILTER M£[
n»TF 2-1-
- V t - + .. -^. . j
! ' i
1 ft T * -H
£-H ^ ' -
1 1 !
51234567
TIME (HOURS)
MA 46 , M« 2 ANTH/24. ,n Un 1220 ^AWT
72 FLU* B»TF 73 gp»"l* COAG ALUM '5° »>g'
PAi Y CAL.226- 1.0 m./
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.3l-S(
100
80
> 60
X Q ^^
- 0
f 20
0 0
« ,00
J 80
U 2 60
o
S 20
0
30
E
IB 20
in
0
S '°
X
0
^ 4°
E
« 20
0
150
f 100
0
a 50
0
150
& lOO
0
0 50
u
0
20
9
1 12
o "
^ 4
0
9
FILTER M£[
l n»TF 2-1-7
\
1
^ ^
^^^
- <
=
- -± - .^at- - -
-T- *. "^
i
r
1 ! ' ' ' 1
1
-^
---i-^-, ^
3
>IA
2
1
i-D HIGH RATE
FIGURE B 109
^\^*>^~
I
BOO-
i ... .
/ P04
X
coo-
i 1 . i 1 ,
DEPTH (INI
. , , | , . .
' ' r80"
, j -« _
100
80
eft
" 60
e
o
i o
* ,00
5 80
o »
S £ 60
S 20
0
30
E
20
V)
o
9
u
X
0
FUUX RA1
DEEP E
^.
ss
J -
,
2
f
E
-^
^
1 I I '
1 -^""-4 ( r
''I
i i i i
34 3 S 7 8
TIME (HOURS)
70
QOftlltl COA^ A^UK 15. C mg/
pm Y CAL.22- 1.0 mo/
JED FILTRATION TEST No 31-S
as
-
"-a
FIGURE B III
^
*^fc
800-
... . . . . .
-.4
£ .
»
^-, __
- - 7*
coo-
i
s
==
F3
=d
'" -8C'
td£d^^*" -^'
I
1
E-I
012345678
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MFniA: 46 in No.-2__ANTH/_24_,n Ma 1220 SAMP
PATE 2-1-72 FLUX RATE_L!_gpm/»t* CQAC ALUM l?9"ff/'
POIY CiL. ZZ8-I.7J^/|
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.3l-$E-n
FIGURE B IIP
012345
TIME (HOURS!
FILTER MEDIA:__72___m Sft
DATF 2-1-72 FLUK RATE_Li
/_21_.,. N«il2C_SAI
_gpm/tf2 :jiC iL-1'- !5_'" '<
»OUr CAL
-------
o
o
0)
o
O
40
20
n
150
IOO
so
0
150
V)
10
g
6
0
-»'
- -
" 1
_
FILTER
HIGH
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8
TIME (HOURS)
8Q i" No. -2ANTH./.14. m No J22Q. SAND
FLUX RATE IIP pm/H* rnm ALUM. 18.0-,/i
POLY. Cj|L2a^_Lfl mi/I
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.34-SE-l
FIGURE B 113
o
p
o
o
o
20
0
190
100
5O
0
150
IOO
5O
Q
10
g
g
4
?
0
S
^-»<
*"**<«*-
^»^«
1
^i
_ .
FILTER
OATEil.
HIGH
I
6
i 3 4 S
TIME (HOURS)
60 in No._2 _ ANTH./j25_ in No J22C- SANO
FLUX RATE »0 tp»/tl* COAG.*"** _ !5^ m,/l
8
RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No.34-SE-H
FIGURE B 115
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MFBIA: 60 * Ho-_2 A NTH ^21. In Ito 1220 MHO
PATg 1-25-72 »m» HATE_24_0_|P«I/«I Tfft *^"" P? mVI
POLY CAL ggg-IO -^|
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST N0.34-SE-I
FIOUKE BH4
IOO
80
«
" 60
a 40
20
0
HI
I
It!
IOO
80
£ 60
* 40
O
8 «,
0
PCM-,
r-, i i ,/
, i i r-r-r"*'yt"" t , i
Vcoo i
1 i , I 1 i . ! . , I 1 i
OCPTH.IIN)
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 6
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MfniA: 60 to M»^Z ANTH/_24_ln Ne.J220_SANO
PATT I-2S-72 Fain fUTCJLflfpm/TI* COAfl_AUIM_liJ2.(l^/l
>OtY CALC.226-1 0 m#\
HIGH RATE DEEP BED FILTRATION TEST No34-SE-n
FIGURE B 116
112
-------
1 40
"i zo
u> Iu
K
0
_ 150
^
I 100
o
s
0
150
» 100
o
0 50
o
0
10
5 8
I 6
s *
t
0
(
FILTER MEC
n»TF 1-25-
^
P*MW«
L |
^
f ~
!
3 1 2 J '
TIME (HC
11: 60 in Ui. 2 AN
72 FI
HIGH RATE DE
UX RA1
:EP E
F 32.0 Qp.
JED FILTR
1
)UftS)
TH./_2<
rtl* CO
PO
MIOh
5
-in N
AfiALU
L
1
5 7
1220 U
f 4°
3 ««
h-'
0
_ 30
I 20
o
o
a 10
0
150
0
o 50
o
0
10
^ 8
I 6
« f
O *
:
*^
^H
^^^
> 0
FILTER MEDIA:
1 n*TF 1-27-72 FL
.vCALZfr- 1.6 -J/.
J TEST N0.34-SE-1H HIGH RATE DE
n-~ e
i.
^=1H
- -.
^^^^
. *
» ^^
\
/
r '
*« fl^H
. "*
1 - - -t-
234
TIME (HOURS)
52 in No._Z ANTH./_2f
UX RATE 23.6 gtlnflf C0
PO
:EP BED FILTRATIOh
\
L i
k t
1
5 s 7 e
_ in No 1220 SAND
A
-------
^ Aft
r «
I '0
*-'
0
= 30
>
o
° ,0
0
ISO
£ IOO
0
0 50
o
0
10
~ 8
I 6
5 «
:
0
FILTER ME
n»TF 1-27-
Mi 9
0
31*:
72 FI
HIGH RATE Dl
i.
k^b «4
/
/
m '
1234
TIME (HOURS)
82 M N»_Z ANTH./.U
JUX RATE 81 »"** CO
PC
EEP BED RLTRATIOI
1 40
i 20
K
0
= »
! 20
0
° .0
0
ISO
^
O
O 50
0
10
E 6
Jf 4
°- 2
t- z
n
^
M
^K
^BHB
5 6 7 0
L« No J220- SANO FILTER MEDIA:_fl
fit _f/i n»TF 1-27-72 pi
* TEST No.35-SE-H HIGH RATE CM
MBMBl
* ^
-
"
,^^-
__
>
f
_. *
B^B^B^B^
BM
234
TIME (HOURS)
0 in No. -2 ANTH. /if
i)X RATE "« tpx/M* CO
PO
EEP BED FlLTRATIOh
567
- in No J22&. SANO
A£ - .f/
IV - «f/
9
1
1
i TEST N0.35-SE-1
FIGURE B 121 FIQUR£ B 123
n^J
-8
V
* IOO
y I *°
* 0 "°
o
8 »n
o
JO
t
!
2 '°
0
FILTCH MCC
i i i i ! 4 ' , ' ;
.. ^"V, _/ i
'
1 1 !,,...
1 | i i i : '
1 1 , i , , , , , r -
k
**^"*r^c
ri i i i . : . i i I
DEPTH 1M)
' 1 1 ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' I
1 '
f*
j i M L i/ . j
D 1 I 3 V4 3 7
TIMC (HOUHS)
HA M to tte. « AHTM/24 b. « I22fi ftAttfl
O
2 a ^
I °
* ,00
S to
0 »
J 8 «,/* pf>*d «M/|
PCLV -i/i
HIGH RATE DEER BED FILTRATION TEST No.3&-SE-»
FMUMC ftJBl
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
ULTRA HIGH RATE FILTRATION OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT EFFLUENT
S, Rtf.oitDjt.-s
e.
Nebolsine, R., Pouschine, I., Fan, C.Y.
Hydrotechnic Corporation
New York, New York
2. Sponsoring Organizs^san
S, Performix? Organization
Report No.
>(.'. i'ruject No
17030 HMM
/;. Contract/Grant No.
17030 HMM
13. Type of Report .find
Peiio&.Covetttd
Environmental Protection Agency report
number, EPA-R2-73-222, April 1973.
Pilot plant studies were conducted at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Cleveland to evaluate the capabilities of the deep bed, dual media, ultra high rate
filtration process for treating an activated sludge plant secondary effluent.
The various operating variables that were tested and evaluated, included different
media sizes, sizes, various depth, bed, filtration rates from 8 to 32 gpm/sq ft,
different types of polymer, and different combinations of coagulants and polymers.
The principal parameter for evaluating process efficiency was suspended .solids. High
removals were obtained with respect to suspended solids and to pollutants associated
with suspended solids. The removal of these pollutants reduced biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand and total phosphate values.
Capital costs for a filtration process of this type as estimated to range from
$1,200,000 for a 25 MGD plant to $5,400,000 for a 200 MGD plant. Total treatment
costs, including capital and operating charges, are estimated to be 4.32-2.97C/1000
gallons for the 25 and 200 MGD plants respectively.
17a. Descriptors
*Separation techniques, *Tertiary treatment, *Filtration, *Activated sludge,
coagulation
lib. Identifiers
*Cleveland (Ohio), *Alum, *Polymer, *Dual-media, *Ultra-high rate, Variable studies
05 D
19.
20.
S<-:uritfC 'ass.
(Report)
Security Class,
(Page)
21.
22.
I'). Of
Pages
Price
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O24O
Chi-Yuan Fan
Hydrotechnic Corporation
ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:! 973 514-155/296 1-3
------- |