EPA-600/2-76-123
November 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF
COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-123
November 1976
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF
COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL WASTES
by
C. Schimmel and D. B. Griffin
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
Project No. 12020 EGC
Project Officer
E. P, Lomasney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted,
processed, and used, these operations usually pollute our
environment. The resultant air, land, solid waste and other
pollutants may adversely impact our aesthetic and physical
well-being. Protection of our environment requires that we
recognize and understand the complex environmental impacts
of these operations and that corrective approaches be
applied.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati assesses the environmental, social and economic
impacts of industrial and energy-related activities and
identifies, evaluates, develops and demonstrates alterna-
tives for the protection of the environment.
This report presents an investigation of alternate
treatment systems for a complex organic industrial waste
containing phenols. It describes the selection of carbon
adsorption as the most dependable process for secondary
treatment of this waste and details the evaluation of a
full-scale installation treating some 500,000 gal/day of
wastewater.
This project is one of several undertaken by lERL-Ci
to establish that viable, economically acceptable technology
does ex;ist to treat industrial wastewater and protect our
nation's waterways. This report will be of special value to
the board segment of industry involved in designing treatment
facilities for complex and, often, toxic industrial wastes
as well as to the state and EPA officials responsible for
establishing achievable standards for industrial discharges.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The waste effluent resulting from operation of the Tusca-
loosa, Alabama, plant of Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. may be
considered typical of that from multiproduct chemical
plants. The aqueous waste results from both batch and con-
tinuous operations, contain both organic and inorganic
wastes and varies both in composition and concentration.
This report describes development of a biological oxida-
tion process which, when applied to the RCI waste, resulted
in a significant reduction in BODs loading, substantially
complete removal of phenols and adequate reduction in COD
loading. Lack of reliability ascribed to the biological
process led to development of an activated carbon adsorp-
tion process that, when placed in commercial operation,
resulted in the average removal of 90% of the COD load,
75% of the BOD 5 load and over 99% of the phenol load in
the RCI process waste. Biological oxidation should not
be overlooked for treating industrial wastes although its
usefulness is limited with respect to bacterial poisons
such as phenol and by ambient temperature changes that
result in variable biological activity.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Section
I Conclusions and Recommendations 1
II Introduction 3
III Waste Sources and Characterization 5
IV Biooxidation Process Development 9
Discussion 9
Pilot Plant Layout 10
Operating Principles 17
Developmental Operations 22
Primary Treatment Coagulation Experiments 33
Tertiary Treatment Experiments 39
V Carbon Adsorption Process 61
Discussion 61
Laboratory Investigations 61
Pilot Plant Investigations 66
Proposed Process Description 80
Engineering Considerations 85
Equipment Description 96
Cost Estimates 100
VI Waste Treating Plant Operations and
Performance 104
Design Modifications 104
Operations Description 105
Waste Pretreatment 107
Carbon Adsorbers 108
Furnace Feed System 109
Reactivation Furnace 109
Carbon Quenching and Transfer 110
Make-up Carbon 111
Performance 111
Problems 112
Operating Costs 113
VII Analytical Methods and Glossary or Terms 115
Analytical Methods 115
Terms 115
VIII Acknowledgments 117
APPENDIX A - Raw Data - Bio Plant 118
APPENDIX B - Six Months Operational Data 170
v
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
III-l Source and Discharge of RCI Wastes 6
III-2 RCI Waste Collecting System 8
IV-1 Pilot Plant Waste Treating Facility 12
IV-2 Performance vs Temperature 21
IV-3 Settling Time, Lime Plus Dow C-31 Floe 38
IV-4 Settling Time, Alum Floe 41
IV-5 Settling Time, Dow C-31 Floe 43
IV-6 Neutralization Curve, Equalized Raw Feed 44
IV-7 Settling Time, Neutralized Raw Feed 45
IV-8 Freundlich Isotherm, COD Removal 49
IV-9 Freundlich Isotherm, COD Removal 50
IV-10 Activated Carbon Test 51
IV-11 Activated Carbon Test 52
IV-12 Carbon Adsorption 54
IV-13 Settling Curve, Oxidation Tank Effluent 58
IV-14 Acidification Curve, Pilot Plant Effluent 59
IV-15 Neutralization Curve, Acidified Effluent 60
V-l Freundlich Isotherm, COD Adsorption 64
V-2 Freundlich Isotherm, TOG Adsorption 72
V-3 TOC Breakthrough, Pilot Run No. 1 78
V-4 COD Breakthrough, Pilot Run No. 1 79
V-5 Block Flow Diagram, Parshall Flume Waste
Treatment 8 2
V-6 Laboratory Reactivation 87
V-7 Finalized Waste Treating Process 92
VI
-------
TABLES
NO.
III-l RCI Waste Composition 7
IV-1 RCI Waste Characterization, by Source 11
IV-2 Developmental Period I Summary 23
IV-3 Developmental Period II Summary 25
IV-4 Developmental Period III Summary 28
IV-5 Developmental Period IV Summary 29
IV-6 Developmental Period V Summary 31
IV-7 Developmental Period VI Summary 32
IV-8 Coagulation Results Summary 35
IV-9 Lime Coagulation Effective pH Range 37
IV-10 Lime = Dow C-31 Coagulation, Effective
pH Range 37
IV-11 Alum Coagulation Effective pH Range 40
IV-12 Dow C-31 and A-21 Coagulation Effective
pH Range 42
IV-13 Summary - Coagulation Results 46
IV-14 Chlorination Data 55
IV-15 Sand Filtration Experimental Data 57
IV-16 Effluent Acidification Data 57
V-l Waste Characteristics Before Carbon Treatment 63
V-2 Waste Characteristics After Carbon Treatment 65
V-3 Waste Characteristics, Pilot Plant Feed 67
V-4a Clarification Results 1 68
V-4b Clarification Results 2 69
V-5 Waste Treatment, Freundlich Data 71
V-6 TOC Breakthrough Data, Pilot Run 1 74
V-7 COD Breakthrough Data, Pilot Run 1 75
V-8 Treated Waste Characteristics, Pilot Run 1 76
V-9 TOC Breakthrough Data, Pilot Run 2 81
V-10 Apparent Density of Reactivated Carbon 86
VII
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Both biological oxidation and carbon adsorption processes
have been shown to be effective in reducing the pollution
load in aqueous wastes generated by multi-product chemical
plants as exemplified by the Tuscaloosa, Alabama, plant of
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Biological oxidation is more effective than adsorption in
reducing the BOD5 loading but is potentially less reliable.
The biota upon which the bio process depends have been
shown to be less effective as the ambient process tempera-
ture decreases in winter. Too, they have been shown to be
sensitive to changes in the phenol concentration once they
have been acclimated to a certain waste concentration level,
A bio-oxidation process cannot be recommended for COD re-
moval from industrial wastes if a significant part of the
total COD load is due to sulfites or formates. It should
also be noted that a bio process would be more easily
adapted to the waste from "continuous" as opposed to
batch-wise" processes.
A carbon adsorption-type process should be considered if
the waste to be treated is variable in composition or con-
centration. An adsorption process will handle many re-
fractory organic compounds that contribute to the COD load
but are not susceptible to bio-oxidation. Indeed, carbon
adsorption will handle wastes so refractory that they
appear primarily in the TOG load. Carbon adsorption should
not be considered if a substantial portion of the pollutant
load consists of low-molecular weight organics. Organic
compounds having a molecular weight below about 50 are
poorly or not at all adsorbed by activated carbon.
It should be self-evident, but experience has shown that
the results of laboratory investigations alone cannot
safely be used as the basis for the design of an industrial
waste-treating facility. Such a design should be based on
parameters developed via sustained operation of a pilot or
prototype treating plant being fed with a portion of the
actual waste stream to ultimately be treated.
-------
The data presented in Section VI and Appendix 2 clearly
show that an Activated Carbon Adsorption Process is cap-
able of significantly up grading the quality of industrial
liquid wastes. As applied to the 0.5 MM gpd of RCI wastes
the activated carbon process up grades them to meet the
following EPA and AWIC discharge requirements.
Item
BOD5
COD
Phenol
SS
pH
30-Day
Daily Average
1644 Ibs
2672 Ibs
27 Ibs
200 Ibs
Daily
Maximum
2300 Ibs
3900 Ibs
27 Ibs
200 Ibs
RCI
Control*
390 ppm
650 ppm
6 ppm
45 ppm
Minimum - 6.0; Maximum - 9.0
*value of item that is approximately equal
to discharge limits for anticipated maximum
waste flow.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
Liquid effluents from multiproduct chemical plants are fre-
quently very complex mixtures. Treatment problems are
accentuated if the waste results from batchwise as opposed
to continuous types of chemical processes. The Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, plant of Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. is a multi-
product operation employing many batchwise operations. The
wastes from this plant are both complex in composition and
variable in concentration.
While the work herein reported was performed, the RCI-
Tuscaloosa plant was producing phenol (by the sulfonation
process), sulfuric acid, pentaerythritol, ortho-phenylphenol,
formaldehyde, a variety of urea- and phenol-formaldehyde
resins, and alkyd resins. Operations at Tuscaloosa are
largely batchwise.
The liquid waste or effluent from this plant consists of
process spills, wash water resulting from cleanup of the
plant and process vessels as well as certain aqueous waste
process streams. From the data presented in Section III,
entitled "Waste Sources and Characterization," it is ob-
vious that this effluent would have to be treated in some
manner if the discharge requirements of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Alabama Water Improvement
Commission were to be met and a discharge permit obtained.
In September 1969, the Environmental Protection Agency in
a joint effort with Geological Survey of Alabama and Reich-
hold Chemicals, Inc. granted funds to support in part
Project Number 12020EGC entitled, "Treatment and Disposal
of Complex Chemical Wastes." The scope of work of this
project was subdivided into five general phases. Phase
III and IV included but were not limited to the develop-
ment and design of a suitable waste pre-treatment method
for support of, or as an alternate to, a subsurface dis-
posal well. '
From early 1970 until early 1971, work on the problem of
developing a waste-treating process was largely directed
toward bio-oxidation as a method of reducing the B0£>5,
COD and phenol loading in the waste to be finally
-------
discharged. Concurrently with the later stages of the bio-
oxidation investigations, activated carbon adsorption was
briefly investigated as tertiary waste treatment or polish-
ing operation for the bio-treated waste if such were shown
to be necessary.
Although the results of the biological oxidation of RCI
wastes as presented in Section IV were satisfactory, a
careful review of possible changes in RCI waste charac-
teristics and possible ambient weather variations raised
serious questions concerning the day-to-day reliability
of the proposed bio-process. Accidental interruption to
the steam (heat) supply to the bio-process during winter
months (unlikely but not impossible) would result in par-
tial to complete cessation of the biological processes
with up to two weeks being required to regain the neces-
sary level of biological activity. Too, it was shown
that accidental or uncontrollable phenol spillage of as
little as 1,000 pounds (improbable but not impossible)
would cause complete loss of viable microorganisms and thus
of biological activity. Thus, when, in early 1971, it was
decided that bio-oxidation could not guarantee the neces-
sary day-to-day reliability, work on carbon adsorption was
resumed, this time as the basis for a total treating system.
Additional results of Phases III and IV are presented in
this report in Section V entitled, "Carbon Adsorption
Process." Section V presents the results of the labora-
tory and pilot plant work and the preliminary engineering
work leading to the design of an activated carbon adsorp-
tion system for treating the RCI liquid waste.
Based on the data reported in Section V, a plant for
treating RCI Tuscaloosa wastes was constructed and has
been in essentially continuous operation since September
1973.
Section VI includes a description of the plant operation
and a summary of plant performance.
-------
SECTION III
WASTE SOURCES AND CHARACTERIZATION
For a better understanding of the direction of the re-
ported work, a clear understanding of the makeup and com-
position of the RCI plant waste stream is desirable. An
idea of the source and disposition of the various plant
water streams may also be desirable.
Water from three sources is used in the RCI plant. See
Figure III-l. Approximate consumption rates are:
River Water 8500 gpm
Lake Water 1740 gpm
Treated City Water 350 gpm
Discharge from the RCI plant is also shown schematically
in Figure III-l. Cooling water from various types surface
and shell and tube coolers and condensers constitutes the
major volume of the discharge. Makeup boiler water and
water discharged from direct and indirect heat dryers are
not considered. The balance of the water discharge re-
sults from process waste and equipment cleanup and amounts
to approximately 350 gpra. This last discharge stream con-
stitutes the plant waste to be treated. All of the work
reported herein was done on spot or 24-hour composite
samples from this stream.
The discharge stream, identified in Figure III-l as "Par-
shall Flume Waste," had the following average composition
for a period of typical RCI plant operations (see Table
III-l). These data represent the average of 24-hour com-
posite samples taken during the period January 29, 1971,
to March 31, 1971.
The plant collecting system for this 350 gpm of waste is
shown in Figure III-2.
-------
Treated City Water
(350
River Water
(8500 gpm)
Process Cooling,
Vessel Washing
gpm)
Boiler
House
I
Sanitary |
Cooling
Air Conditioning
Vessel Washing
30
Steam
Dryer Vapors
350 gpm
Clean Water Drains Parshall Flume Waste
Lake Water
(1740 gpm)
Process, Air
Conditioning,
Vessel Cooling,
Pump Packing
Note; Volumes given are those estimated for period
February 25, 1971 - March 31, 1971.
Figure III-l. Source and discharge of RCI waste
-------
Table III-l. RCI WASTE COMPOSITION
AVERAGE OF 24-HR COMPOSITE SAMPLES 1-29-71 TO 3-31-71
Flow
DO
pH
PH
BOD 5
DS
COD
Sulfite
Sulfate
Chloride
Iron
Phenol
0.53 mgd
5.0 mg/1
10.8
5.5 - 12.3
1643 mg/1
4600 mg/1
3773 mg/1
235 ppm
405 ppm
109 ppm
0.5 - 2.0 ppm
420 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Range
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Range
Average
-------
16
1 Parshall Flume 12
2 Technical Service 13
3 Technical Service 14
4 Shower Room 15
5 o-PP Plant 16
6 Maintenance Building 17
7 Resin Plant 18
8 Production, S & R Office, 19
T/T Loading Area 20
9 PE Plant
10 Resin Storage Area 21
11 Formaldehyde Plant 22
23
Resin Storage Area
Alkyd Kettle
Solvent Tank Area
Drum Storage Area
Boiler Room
T/C Washing
West Tank Storage Area
Phenol Process Area
50% Caustic Concentra-
tion Area
Acid Plant
Phenol North Tank Area
Sulfonation Storage Area
Figure III-2. RCI waste collecting system
-------
SECTION IV
BIOOXIDATION PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
DISCUSSION
A pilot or prototype biological oxidation waste treating
plant operated at RCI, Tuscaloosa, for approximately eight
months. This pilot plant has demonstrated that a biolo-
gical oxidation process can effect a significant reduction
in phenol, BOD5, and COD content of the wastes emanating
from the RCI operations.
Design and operating parameters for the biological oxida-
tion process are presented that achieve a 99+% phenol re-
moval, 97% BOD5 removal, and 80% COD removal from the com-
plex wastes from the RCI operations.
Although not necessarily applicable to every complex
effluent, the data presented can certainly provide guide-
lines for application of the biological oxidation process
to similar wastes from other multiproduct chemical opera-
tions .
Preliminary laboratory work indicated that a biological
oxidation process should be capable of effecting a signi-
ficant reduction in the phenol, BODs, and COD loading of
the plant waste. A prototype or pilot treatment plant was
assembled and operated in different modes and under varying
conditions substantially continuously from July 30, 1970,
to March 31, 1971.
Major design and process factors to be considered during
pilot plant operations were limited to
(A) Need for primary clarification.
(B) Extent of waste equalization needed.
(C) Need for and extent of waste dilution.
(D) Need for and extent of waste neutralization.
(E) Need for and extent of waste nutrification.
-------
(F) Type of biological oxidation, i.e., trickling
filter or complete mix.
(G) Oxidation time, i.e., retention time in either
or both types oxidation unit.
During the period February 25 to March 31, 1971, apparently
satisfactory design and operating parameters were confirmed
via thirty-five (35) days of sustained pilot plant operation.
During this period, phenol removal averaged 99+%, BODs re-
moval 97%, and COD removal 82%.
PILOT PLANT LAYOUT
The pilot treating plant used to obtain the results reported
in this section is shown schematically in Figure IV-1. The
pilot plant was designed and built by Monsanto Biodize Sys-
tems of Great Neck, New York. The plant design was based on
the available waste characterization given in Table IV-1, on
a report entitled "Biological Waste Treatment" prepared for
RCI in 1968 by the Center for Research in Water Resources of
the University of Texas at Austin, Texas, and on the results
of a preliminary survey by Monsanto Biodize personnel.
Primary System
Referring to Figure IV-1, the Parshall feed for the pilot
plant was introduced by the feed pump P-l. The pump suc-
tion was located in the basin before the Parshall Flume
about 8" - 12" below the surface. A mesh screen on the
suction line was cleaned as needed. Severe operational
difficulties were encountered with this pump. Because of
the nature of the waste, it and the screen required fre-
quent cleaning and maintenance.
The waste stream was pumped to a weir box on top of the
equalization tank T-l. The flow could then proportioned
according to the desired residence time in T-l. The ex-
cess flow was recycled to the area of this basin before
the Parshall Flume.
The equalization tank T-l had a capacity of 9600 gallons.
The contents of T-l were mixed using centrifugal pump P-2
which had a suction line at the bottom of the tank and
discharge at the water surface.
After equalization, the feed flowed to T-2, the agitated
neutralization tank, which had a capacity of approximately
300 gallons.
10
-------
Table IV-1. RCI WASTE WATER CHARACTERIZATION, BY SOURCE
:
Plant and effluent
ortho-Phenylphenol Plant
*TP-51
TP-81
Acid Wash Water
Caustic Wash Water
First Water Wash
Second Water Wash
Phenol Plant
Sulfonation Scrubber
Fusion Drains
W. Tank Farm Drains
Pentaerythritol Plant
#821 Barometric Cond.
#822 Barometric Cond.
*S2F-12 Waste
*SF6 Waste
Formaldehyde Plant
Air Caustic Scrubber
Resin Plant
Phenolic B.O. Tank
#705 Boil Out
Urea Blower
Alkyd Boil Out
St-82 Wash Out
Shipping and Receiving
Truck Washing
Filter Washing
# per
batch
44500
22000
32000
31200
30000
30000
74000
8320
500
4470
55000
170000
1000
60000
80000
# per
day GPD
44500
5130
8530
8320 —
8000 —
8000
44400
1440
4320
288000
217000
9430
540
2240
16500
34800
140
4000
48000
9820
17870
BOD5
PPM
66000
82500
3810
14800
8370
4640
48000
166
1300
103
206
72700
70700
79
10500
315
1030
20
330
3337
3600
COD
PPM
287880
83664
10900
21115
11450
5593
86172
182
2505
225
300
646000
516000
366
33066
1952
2505
5952
4980
30156
42660
TS
PPM
333430
98650
107285
31064
85510
1522
107260
1184
656
440
584
906220
863110
18906
37744
1646
41588
45650
1350
15990
27970
%
VTS
42
28
32
4
72
23
21
23
20
9
31
52
54
5
8
92
99
8.8
81
39
47
SS
PPM
3340
95
100
70
290
50
200
135
25
37
145
103260
74420
375
115
55
65
590
30
65
%
vss
60
0
50
29
100
90
0
0
60
100
14
85
100
31
78
64
100
65
100
- —
100
pH
3.
0.
0.
7.
7.
7.
10.
7.
6.
5.
6.
5.
5.
12.
13.
7.
8.
13.
7.
9.
9.
4
9
5
1
5
5
3
4
9
7
9
9
9
9
2
2
7
2
5
7
5
*Indicates streams segregated 1/29/71.
-------
HZSO4 ~^>—fO
Pft R SHALL
FEED PUMP
P-l
The reader is urged to remove pages 13,
14 and J5 and tape them to 12 in
sequence to form a "fold-out" diagram.
Figure IV-1.
Pilot waste treating facility
12
-------
SLUDGE
PUMP P-9
13
-------
PU/YlP
p-e
t
T4.
PCC
-£?
P-7
-£X}-
X
Figure IV-] Contd.
14
-------
15
-------
Metering pumps were available to feed H2SO4 or NaOH as
needed. The pumps were controlled on an on-off basis with
a continuous recording pH meter and controller which was
connected to on-off starter switches. The sensing elec-
trodes were located in T-2 and the recorder-controller was
located in the Control Laboratory. It soon became apparent
that continuous pH adjustment would not be necessary be-
cause of a change in the waste stream from the Resin Plant.
The pH recorder-controller unit was removed and small opera-
tional adjustments in pH were accomplished batchwise by
addition of the agent directly to the reactor.
From the neutralization tank the waste was pumped to the
primary clarifier T-3. This was a cone-bottomed tank 8'
in diameter with a capacity of 2280 gallons. This tank
was removed from the system when it became apparent that
the basin before the Parshall Flume area, in conjunction
with the placement of the suction line of P-l and the mesh
screen around it, was acting as the primary clarification
step. Before removal of the tank T-3, the flow was propor-
tioned by valves to T-4, the preconditioning tank, and T-6,
the transfer sump, by gravity. After removal of T-3, T-2
was bypassed and the waste flowed from T-l by gravity to
T-6.
During the first and last portions of the study, nutrients
in the form of 75% phosphoric acid and aqua ammonia were
added to T-6 on a daily basis.
Activated Sludge System
From the transfer sump T-6 (760 gallons), the waste was
pumped to the flow control weir on top of the aeration
tank T-7. This oxidation tank reactor was a 4700-gallon,
8'-diameter vertical steel tank. The vessel was equipped
with a diffused air aeration system. Air was supplied by
an industrial blower. The air flow was measured with a
rotameter.
An 8'-diameter, 2000-gallon clarifier, T-8, was used for
separation of the biomass from the product water. The
center well was 2' in diameter and extended approximately
5' below the water surface. The clarifier walls were
scraped twice daily by a hand-operated scraping pole.
Sludge return was accomplished initially by a variable
speed Moyno pump. When this failed, a gear pump was sub-
stituted.
16
-------
Clarifier T-8 was entirely adequate for clarification of
the oxidation tank effluent through Development Period IV.
It did not, however, provide a desirably clear effluent
during Periods V and VI when the balance of the pilot plant
was producing effluent that met the project's stated objec-
tives. Correction of this deficiency in T-8 would have
necessitated its removal and design and installation of a
completely new clarifier. Adequate data (settling test;
SVI; oxidation tank feed rates; SS, final effluent; SS,
mixed liquor) are included in the raw data tabulation to
permit design of an adequate clarifier based on T-8. For
these reasons no consideration was given to replacing T-8
as part of this project.
Oxidation Column System
Six 3'-deep plastic packed sections for biological growth
were a part of the column. The sections were 2' x 2' x 31
and were spaced vertically one foot apart. Air injection
ports were located between each two packed sections and a
forced draft was supplied by a blower. The amount of air
could be varied to each port. Glass observation ports were
located above each packed section for observation of slime
build-up and sampling.
A 750-gallon capacity collection tank T-4, with an aspira-
tor, was used as a preconditioning tank before feed was
sent to the tower. During periods with recycle, the tank
allowed mixing of the raw feed with the tower effluent.
A two-way clarifier, T-5, was directly under the oxidation
column. Solids were removed from the clarifier by use of
sludge pump P-9. During tower start-up, solids from T-5
were recirculated back to T-4.
OPERATING PRINCIPLES
Primary System Equalization
Although most operational periods of this work were con-
ducted with twenty-four (24) hours' equalization time,
three (3) days' equalization time would be recommended
for any similar work because of the extremely wide varia-
tions in the characteristics of the waste. The one-day
equalization time was a result of the hydraulic limita-
tions of the pilot plant equipment. A three-day retention
time on a commercial plant scale will prevent extreme varia-
tions in organic loadings, as well as provide better equa-
lization of the slug discharges of various organic and
17
-------
inorganic materials that should be anticipated in the
waste from batch-type operations similar to those compri-
sing the RCI-Tuscaloosa operations.
Primary System, pH Control
The biological process operates most effectively over the
range pH 6-8. This refers to the pH of the mixed liquor
in contact with the biological growths and not the pH of
the waste entering the system. The Parshall waste is di-
luted by the aeration tank contents and is neutralized by
reaction with the CO2 produced by microbial respiration.
Oxidation of organic acids also results in the production
of C02 adding to the buffering capacity of the system. It
was established early in the course of this work that no
pH control would be needed and practically no pH adjustment
The period of most favorable operation of the unit required
no pH control of any kind.
Primary System, Nutrification
On-site operations during start-up were begun with the
addition of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in the form of
aqua ammonia and 75% phosphoric acid, to the oxidation tank
feed or the oxidation column feed. This practice was a
result of the preliminary waste characterizations which in-
dicated that the waste contained little, if any, phosphorus
or nitrogen. Nutrients were added in the ratio of BODsrN:
P/100:5:l. After several weeks of operation, severe prob-
lems with secondary clarification arose. A green slime
growth in the clarifier, floating sludge and high solids in
the effluent called for a reevaluation of the nutrient re-
quirements . Reexamination of the waste seemed to indicate
sufficient nutrients in the waste and the addition of sup-
plemental nutrients to the pilot plant feed was stopped.
During the latter part of this work, a check of analyses
and a reevaluation of some aspects of the waste charac-
terization by consultants disclosed a severe nutrient
deficiency. Additions of P and N in the aforementioned
proportions were reinstated for the final operational
periods of this work.
Secondary System, Biological Concepts
For stabilization of organic matter in an aerobic environ-
ment, the basic reaction is Organic matter + 02 + NEh
new cells + C02 + H2O. Auto oxidation follows cellular
synthesis and may be expressed by the following reaction:
18
-------
Cells + 02—»C02 + H20 + NH
+ inorganic cellular particles
In the first equation, soluble organic matter is converted
into insoluble cells. These cells have a higher specific
gravity than the carrier liquid and therefore can be
separated by gravity sedimentation.
In a completely mixed activated sludge system, the effluent
concentration is equal to the level of soluble substrate
remaining in the bio-reactor. With longer retention times
(lower loadings F/M), the declining growth phase is entered
in which the reaction represented by the second equation is
occurring to a greater extent. Some cellular material is
metabolized because of increased energy requirements and
this leads to a lower solids production.
Secondary System, Activated Sludge
The complete mix activated sludge process, in which all
organisms returned to the bio-reactor from the clarifer
are fully acclimated, has found extensive use in industrial
waste treatment applications because of the mixing and
buffering effect of the aeration tank which tends to level
out variations in the waste loadings. The effluent can be
kept at a very high quality and solids production held to
a minimum.
Secondary System, Trickling Filter
Trickling filters consist of beds of crushed stone, aggre-
gate or plastic packing over which the waste water flows.
A microbial film (slime layer) which develops on the sur-
face of the packing is responsible for removal of organic
matter from solution, along with the stripping effect of
surrounding air. As the waste water trickles over the bed,
both dissolved and suspended organic matter are removed by
adsorption. A portion of the adsorbed materials is absorbed
into the slime layer and oxidized by the organisms and a
certain amount is carried off as part of the solid mass
scoured off as the slime layer grows. Solids are separated
from the effluent by gravity sedimentation.
Secondary System, Staged Oxidation
This treatment scheme is exemplified by the combination of
two or more distinct processes in series, i.e., a trickling
19
-------
filter before an activated sludge system. A review of the
literature concerning high phenolic CPI wastes (especially
that concerning the Dow Chemical Company waste treatment
plant at Midland, Michigan) indicated that the prototype
waste treatment facility should be flexible enough for
this type of investigation. The use of trickling filters
by many municipal waste treating systems led us to believe
that the action of a trickling filter ahead of the complete
mix oxidation tank might have a beneficial effect. This
did not prove to be the case during this work and the trick-
ling filter did not prove an adequate substitute for equali-
zation or to reduce retention time in the activated sludge
unit.
Secondary System, Air Requirements
Although of ultimate importance, data on the precise air
requirement for the process development was not one of the
stated objectives of this work. Regardless of the basis
employed (cubic feet of air per gallon of waste treated or
cubic feet of air per gallon of vessel capacity), the
actual air flow required to maintain any desired level of
DO will be a function of the type of air distribution used
for a full-size treating plant and the geometry of the
treating vessels. Lacking this information, no attempt was
made to accurately record plant air flows. (Adjustments in
air flow, either direct or indirect, to the oxidation units
were made to keep the DO content of the mixed liquor or the
final plant effluent as close as possible to the optimum
value of 5 ppm.)
Temperature Control
Temperature variations can affect all biological processes.
Biological reaction rates usually increase to a maximum at
some optimum temperature. Initially no provision was in-
cluded in the pilot plant set-up for adjustment or control
of the temperature of the mixed liquor in the oxidation
tank. As can be seen from selected data plotted in Figure
IV-2, we experienced a distinct downward trend in both
BOD5 and COD removals achieved in the oxidation tank until
a small heat exchanger was installed for the third develop-
mental period.
The optimum temperature for biological processes will
probably vary with the nature of the overall process; for
the specific process being developed at RCI a temperature
of 75 - 85° F seems optimum.
20
-------
w
rt
D
EH
a
w
EH
O
EH
s
w
u
«
w
CM
Figure IV-2.
Performance vs temperature
rEMPERATURE
BOD5
COD
PM
o
EH
04
s
W
EH
-------
DEVELOPMENTAL OPERATIONS
Start-up Period, July 30, 1970 - August 31, 1970
During this period the system was filled with Parshall feed
and checked out mechanically. All instruments were cali-
brated or their calibration rechecked. Sludge formation in
the biological oxidation tank seemed to proceed normally.
Bacteria acclimatization as evidenced by phenol removal
proceeded to the point that a reasonably complete sampling
and analysis program was started July 30, 1970, and con-
tinued until August 31, 1970. The first developmental
operation period started September 1, 1970.
Details of the mechanical and operational adjustments made
during the start-up period are not believed germane to this
report since different pilot plants and each type of waste
feed would be expected to pose a different set of problems
to be worked out.
During this period it was established that the combination
of waste equalization in T-l (see Fig. IV-1) plus the buf-
fering capacity of the oxidation tank T-7 rendered conti-
nuous pH control unnecessary. It was also established that
the position of the Parshall feed inlet and the protective
screen over the inlet rendered the primary settler T-3 un-
necessary.
Analytical and performance data are not summarized but are
given in the tables of raw data in the Appendix.
First Developmental Period, September 1, 1970 - September 10,
1970
Towards the end of the Start-up Period, the operation of the
entire pilot plant had stabilized to the degree that a com-
plete sampling and analysis program was instituted to acquire
performance data for a particular set of operating parameters,
A summary of operating parameters and performance results are
given in Table IV-2.
During this period, the primary clarifier T-3 was by-passed,
automatic pH control was not needed, and the oxidation tower
was by-passed.
Examination of the tabulated data for this period indicates
that the oxidation tank loading (F/M ratio) was high,
22
-------
Table IV-2. DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD I SUMMARY
Average Flow, Parshall Flume
Equalization Time T-l
Retention Time T-7
Dilution Ratio
Sludge Recycle
Organic Loading, F/M Ratio
pH, Equalized Feed
pH, Effluent
DO Uptake, T-7
MLSS
BODs, Equalized Feed
BOD5, Effluent
6005, Reduction
COD, Equalized Feed
COD, Effluent
COD, Reduction
Phenol Reduction
TS, Equalized Feed
VTS, Equalized Feed
SS, Equalized Feed
VSS, Equalized Feed
DS, Equalized Feed
TS, Effluent
VTS, Effluent
SS, Effluent
VSS, Effluent
DS, Effluent
0.4 MGD
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
2:1
46%
0.43
8.5
7.7
14 Mg/l/hr.
Average, PPM
2216
2013
357
82%
5120
1118
78%
98 - 99%
6100
1340
119
79
5960
2240
470
84
50
2140
Range ,
1360 -
1400 -
308 -
12 -
3540 -
694 -
—
__
4102 -
—
15 -
—
3990 -
2128 -
—
16 -
—
—
PPM
2860
3100
435
49
6760
1285
-
-
9336
-
350
-
9276
2400
-
280
-
-
23
-------
average 0.43; the solids in the oxidation tank remained
low; the DO uptake was erratic and performance of the
oxidation tank was poor. Phenol removal was in the 98 -
99% range.
First Interim Period, September 11, 1970 - September 23,
1970
Because of the poor performance of the oxidation tank by
itself during the First Developmental Period, it was con-
sidered desirable to investigate the effect of the oxida-
tion tower operated in series with the oxidation tank.
The oxidation tower was filled September 10, 1970, and
operations started at a low rate using a 1:1 feed dilution.
Slime development on the packing appeared normal and some
reduction in BOD 5 and COD occurred. The tower unit opera-
tion appeared to have leveled out; consequently the Second
Developmental Period for the entire pilot plant was started
September 24, 1970.
The analytical and performance data for this interim period
are not summarized but are given in the table of raw data
in the Appendix.
Second Developmental Period, September 24, 1970 - September
30, 1970
During this period the oxidation tower was operated in
series with and feeding the oxidation tank. A summary of
the operating parameters and performance results is tabu-
lated in Table IV-3. Performance of the oxidation tower
did not improve as expected. Oxidation tank loading de-
creased; an average F/M value of 0.22 was maintained.
Overall system improvement in both BODs and COD removal
versus the first period was achieved. Phenol removal effi-
ciencies of 99+% were obtained. Lack of sufficient improve-
ment in performance coupled with believed somewhat erratic
performance led to termination of this second period of pro-
cess development operations.
Second Interim Period, October 1, 1970 - November 19, 1970
Pilot plant operating performance continued to be erratic
and generally poor during this period.
It was considered that the Parshall feed to the equaliza-
tion tank might contain bacteriologically toxic materials
24
-------
Table IV-3. DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD II SUMMARY
Average Flow, Parshall Flume
Equalization Time, T-l
Retention Time, T-7
Dilution Ratio
Sludge Recycle
Organic Loading, F/M Ratio
pH, Equalized Feed
pH, Effluent
DO Uptake, T-7
MLSS
BOD5, Equalized Feed
BODs, Effluent
BODs, Reduction
COD, Equalized Feed
COD, Effluent
COD, Reduction
Phenol Reduction
TS, Equalized Feed
VTS, Equalized Feed
SS, Equalized Feed
VSS, Equalized Feed
DS, Equalized Feed
TS, Effluent
VTS, Effluent
SS, Effluent
VSS, Effluent
DS, Effluent
100%
0.55 MGD
24 Hrs.
48 Hrs.
2:1
0.22
11.0
7.9
21 Mg/l/hr.
Average , PPM
3015
3443
137
84%
7177
657
71%
99+%
9620
2040
131
66
9520
2185
350
85
36
2130
Range ,
2200 -
2020 -
100 -
4340 -
430 -
7260 -
32 -
7235 -
1996 -
20 -
PPM
3920
4935
198
8850
832
11737
225
11584
2380
205
25
-------
other than phenol whose effect had not shown up during the
preliminary laboratory studies or that had not been present
in the waste used for the preliminary studies. Evaluation
of samples from the process via Warburg respirometry did
not indicate that bacterial poisoning was a factor. The
very poor and erratic performance of the oxidation tower
during the Second Developmental Period led to careful
physical examination of the tower and microscopic examina-
tion of the biota. The tower was mechanically in good
operating condition. Although the gross slime growth on
the packing appeared to be satisfactory, the anaerobic
layer seemed to be thicker than normal for the usual
trickling filter-type operations. Microscopic examination
of the biota showed a preponderance of wormlike forms;
more importantly, resinous-appearing material seemed to
coat the slime layer almost completely. This observation
is probably the cause of the poor tower performance. The
coating on the slime results in poor contact between the
slime and the liquid waste. The coating could be expected
to have such a low diffusion rate that the complex sub-
strate requires a much longer contact time with the active
(slime) layer than a trickling filter-type of process can
provide. For this reason the oxidation tower was cut out
of the system November 11, 1970.
Third Developmental Period, November 20, 1970 - December 8,
1970
For operations during Developmental Period III, the oxida-
tion tower had been by-passed during the Second Interim
Period. Because of a change in the Parshall feed concen-
tration - addition of cooling water from a barometric-type
condenser - no artificial dilution was needed. Sludge
recycle was set at 100% to raise the F/M (loading) factor
to 0.5. There was still no positive indication of the
need for supplemental nutrients, hence none were added.
Sludge content of the oxidation tank increased as the
period progressed. Ambient and oxidation tank tempera-
tures, which had started to drop during the Second Interim
Period, continued to do so. Supplemental heating was
resorted to (small heat exchanger on the oxidation tank
recycle line) in order to maintain the oxidation tank
temperature in the favorable range of 75 - 85°F.
Performance of the pilot plant was somewhat more consistent
than during previous periods but, because of increased
oxidation tank loading, the percentage reduction in BOD$
26
-------
and COD actually dropped versus Developmental Period II.
Phenol removal remained at 99+%. Data for this period
are summarized in Table IV-4.
Fourth Developmental Period, December 10, 1970 - December
20, 1970
This Developmental Period IV followed Period III with the
only change being an increase in oxidation tank retention
time from twenty-four to thirty-six hours. Data for this
period are presented in Table IV-5. Despite the increased
retention time, there was no increase in BOD5 reduction
while the COD reduction actually dropped marginally.
Third InterimPeriod, December 21, 1970 -January 1, 1971
The pilot plant was, in a practical manner, shut down but
not unloaded for this period since Reichhold operations
were drastically curtailed over the period of the Christmas
holidays. Parshall feed for the pilot plant was either non-
existent or not typical.
Fourth Interim Period, January 8, 1971 - January 29, 1971
This period of operation was divided into a series of short
runs wherein the retention time in the oxidation tank was
varied from 72, 192, 120, and back to 192 hours. Each
individual "run" was prolonged to give at least one "turn-
over" of the tank contents. Performance was mediocre.
Data from these periods are available in the tables of raw
data in the Appendix.
During the Fourth Interim Period, the RCI waste was re-
examined and reanalyzed and was found to be seriously defi-
cient in available N and P nutrients. Further, careful
examination of all operating data suggested that perfor-
mance of the oxidation tank improved somewhat when the flow
of certain specific waste streams from the RCI plant was
low or non-existent for short periods of time.
Fifth Developmental Period, January 30, 1971 - February
24, 1971
On January 29, feed of three specific waste streams (see
Table IV-1) was diverted from the main RCI waste stream
that provided the Parshall feed to the pilot plant.
27
-------
Table IV-4. DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD III SUMMARY
Average Flow, Parshall Flume
Equalization Time, T-l
Retention Time, T-7
Dilution Ratio
Sludge Recycle
Organic Loading, F/M Ratio
pH, Equalized Feed
pH, Effluent
DO Uptake, T-7
MLSS
BOD5, Equalized Feed
BOD5, Effluent
BOD5, Reduction
COD, Equalized Feed
COD, Effluent
COD, Reduction
Phenol Reduction
TS, Equalized Feed
VTS, Equalized Feed
SS, Equalized Feed
VSS, Equalized Feed
DS, Equalized Feed
TS, Effluent
VTS, Effluent
SS, Effluent
VSS, Effluent
DO, Effluent
Average, PPM
3915
1341
345
74%
3217
1220
61%
99+%
3410
89
134
86
3290
2540
559
87
53
2460
1.76 MGD
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
None
100%
0.5
9.8
7.8
23 Mg/l/hr.
Range, PPM
1500 - 6400
855 - 2410
150 - 535
— ,_
2130 - 5060
670 - 1750
2540 - 5312
25 - 285
2425 - 5266
2234 - 3414
10 - 265
2062 - 3364
-------
Table IV-5. DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD IV SUMMARY
Average Flow, Parshall Flume
Equalization Time, T-l
Retention Time, T-7
Dilution Ratio
Sludge Recycle
Organic Loading, F/M Ratio
pH, Equalized Feed
pH, Effluent
DO Uptake, T-7
MLSS
BOD5, Equalized Feed
BOD5, Effluent
BOD5, Reduction
COD, Equalized Feed
COD, Effluent
COD, Reduction
Phenol Reduction
TS, Equalized Feed
VTS, Equalized Feed
SS, Equalized Feed
VSS, Equalized Feed
DS, Equalized Feed
TS, Effluent
VTS, Effluent
SS, Effluent
VSS, Effluent
DS, Effluent
1.33 MGD
24 Hrs.
36 Hrs.
None
100%
0.24
7.9
6.6
34 Mg/l/hr.
Average, PPM
5639
1458
403
74%
3080
1276
59%
99+%
3480
908
102
83
3740
3250
684
97
86
3220
Range
5000
925
280
-
1750
625
-
-
2398
-
45
-
2298
2990
45
2949
, PPM
- 6900
- 1995
- 589
—
- 5745
- 1850
—
—
- 4500
—
- 210
—
- 4440
- 3656
—
- 240
- 3591
29
-------
Simultaneously the batchwise daily addition of nutrients
(aqua ammonia and phosphoric acid) to the system was re-
sumed using a feed ratio (weight basis) of 100:5:1/6005:
N:P. Rates were adjusted to provide a retention time of
six days in the oxidation tank. Within three days the
system performance improved significantly. BODs reduc-
tion rose to and stayed at 90+%, COD reduction increased
to the 70 - 80% range; phenol reduction remained at 99+%.
As this period continued, the MLSS decreased, even with
100% sludge recycle; loading was low as the F/M ratio
averaged only 0.08. After twelve days' operation, the
feed rate to oxidation tank was increased to provide only
four days' retention time. MLSS increased and remained
in the 5000+ ppm range, loading remained about the same
as previously, BOD5 removal increased to about 95%, COD
removal increased to about 80%, and phenol removal remained
at 99+%.
Performance data and operating parameters for the period
are summarized in Table IV-6.
Sixth Developmental Period, February 25, 1971 - March 31,
1971
In order to move the system into the accepted activated
sludge mode of operation, the feed to the oxidation tank
was increased on February 25 to provide forty-eight hours'
retention time. This step increased the loading to give an
average F/M ratio for the period of 0.23. Concurrently, a
sludge removal or wasting program was initiated in a batch-
wise mode to maintain a MLSS level between 4500 and 5000
ppm. This step gave theprocess a more favorable sludge
age and moved the process from the endogenous phase into
the conventional range. Examination of the pertinent
performance and operating data summarized in Table IV-7
indicates that the pilot biological oxidation treatment
plant operated continuously for a period of over thirty-
one days while meeting the three stated project objectives.
BODs removals of 98% or better were maintained, COD removals
of 80% or better were maintained, and phenol removals
approached 99.9%. Since the stated project objectives had
been achieved, operations were terminated, the pilot plant
was run empty and cleaned.
30
-------
Table IV-6. DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD V SUMMARY
Average Flow, Parshall Flume
Equalization Time, T-l
Retention Time, T-7
Dilution Ratio
Sludge Recycle
Organic Loading, F/M Ratio
pH, Equalized Feed
pH, Effluent
DO Uptake, T-7
MLSS
3005, Equalized Feed
BOD5, Effluent
BOD5, Reduction
COD, Equalized Feed
COD, Effluent
COD, Reduction
Phenol Reduction
TS, Equalized Feed
VTS, Equalized Feed
SS, Equalized Feed
VSS, Equalized Feed
DS, Equalized Feed
TS, Effluent
VTS, Effluent
SS, Effluent
VSS, Effluent
DS, Effluent
8.3
0.55 MOD
24 Hrs.
144 - 96 Hrs,
None
100%
0.08
11.4
189 Mg/l/hr.
Average , PPM
4130
1271
47
96%
3427
796
77%
99+%
4443
1658
158
95
4351
4969
743
127
95
4165
Range ,
2020 -
380 -
7 -
—
1723 -
341 -
—
—
1108 -
—
15 -
—
1063 -
3396 -
—
5 -
—
3236 -
PPM
5820
2400
173
-
6020
1169
-
-
8700
-
765
-
9157
6778
-
325
—
• 6448
31
-------
Table IV-7. DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD VI SUMMARY
Average Flow, Parshall Flume
Equalization Time, T-l
Retention Time, T-7
Dilution Ratio
Sludge Recycle
Organic Loading, F/M Ratio
pH, Equalized Feed
pH, Effluent
DO Uptake, T-7
MLSS
BOD5, Equalized Feed
BOD5, Effluent
BOD5, Reduction
COD, Equalized Feed
COD, Effluent
COD, Reduction
Phenol Reduction
TS, Equalized Feed
VTS, Equalized Feed
SS, Equalized Feed
VSS, Equalized Feed
DS, Equalized Feed
TS, Effluent
VTS, Effluent
SS, Effluent
VSS, Effluent
DS, Effluent
0.52 MGD
24 Mrs.
48 Hrs.
None
To maintain
MLSS 4500 - 5000 PPM
0.23
10.3
7.8
24.1 Mg/l/hr.
Average, PPM
4896
1974
43
98%
4022
676
82%
99+%
4979
1238
158
101
4945
3475
615
204
153
3125
Range ,
4020 -
471 -
8 -
1538 -
337 -
— ._
___
2196 -
10 -
2096 -
2228 -
___
60 -
1924 -
PPM
9500
5040
159
8758
1020
10234
800
10194
4812
430
4^9^
32
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT COAGULATION EXPERIMENTS
Discussion
A primary treating system comprises units designed to
reduce the physical and/or biological load imposed by the
feed waste on the biological oxidation or secondary unit.
As a minimum, a primary treating system should produce a
feed for the biological oxidation unit that is free of
floating and settleable solids. These objectives are
relatively easy to achieve. Desirably, a primary treating
system should also remove colloidal or difficultly settle-
able solids. Since this latter type solids can be coagu-
lated and easily settled under proper conditions, a coagu-
lation investigation was undertaken concurrently with the
pilot plant start-up period.
Attempts to coagulate the equalized waste from equalization
tank T-l using several coagulants and two polyelectrolytes
were carried out to determine:
1. Extent of BOD and COD reductions.
2. Whether total solids can be reduced.
3. Extent of removal of turbidity and color bodies.
Also, removal of colloidal particles, if present, by coagu-
lation will increase the rate of metabolism of organics by
microorganism and thus help decrease the retention time in
the activated sludge unit. Organic matter that exists in
true solution is readily available, but that part Which
occurs in colloidal and coarse suspension must await hydro-*
lytic action before it can diffuse into the bacterial cells
where auto-oxidation can occur.
Theory
Chemical coagulation is the process of destabilizing and
agglomerating discreet charged particles that constantly
remain dispersed in a media due to the repelling force
of their like charge. These discreet particles or col-
loidal dispersions range in size from about 1 to 1000
millimicrons (my) and are not visible even with the aid of
the ordinary high-powered microscopes. Since all colloidal
particles are electrically charged, the charge varies in
magnitude with the nature of the colloidal matter and may
be positive or negative. Colloidal dispersion of solids
in water is of two types: water-hating (hydrophobic) and
33
-------
water-loving (hydrophilic) . Hydrophilic substances are
products of plant and animal life such as starches and gum
arable. Colloidal particles in Reichhold's case are hydro-
phobic. The stability of hydrophobic colloids depends
upon the magnitude of the charge, called the zeta poten-
tial, "Z." The zeta potential is defined:
Z = 411
Where "q" is the charge of the particles, "d" is the thick-
ness of the charge, and "D" is the dielectric constant of
the liquid.
Chemical coagulation is, therefore, a process to reduce
the zeta potential below the intermolecular attractive
force between particles, called the Van der Waals force,
thus allowing particles to coalesce into a settleable
coagulated floe.
Results
The data presented in the following pages indicate that
use of any of the usual coagulants achieves, at best, only
marginal results in terms of BOD5 or COD reduction when
used with the particular effluent stream employed for this
work. See Table IV- 8.
Lime, alum, ferric chloride, and Dow C-31 and Dow A-21
polyelectrolytes were used to effect coagulation of the
equalized raw waste. Sulfuric acid invariably precipi-
tated a usually red-brown colored material from the equal-
ized raw waste whenever the pH dropped to pH 5+0.5 and
below. The settled precipitate left behind a fairly color-
less supernatant. This acid-produced supernatant could not
be further coagulated and only after addition of exces-
sive coagulation dosages, e.g., 2000 ppm alum, did very
light floe appear. Due to this phenomenon, the evaluation
of the effectiveness of the above mentioned coagulants
could only be determined at a pH range above pH 5 + 0.5
before precipitation could occur. ~~
Alum and Dow C-31 coagulated best at a pH range of pH
8 - to - pH 9. Lime, when applied alone, did not preci-
pitate, but lime followed by Dow C-31 coagulated. This
combination produced similar results when applied at pH
34
-------
Table IV-8. COAGULATION RESULTS SUMMARY
Ul
Coagulant
Alum
Dow C-31
Lime
Plus Dow C-31
Sulfuric Acid
Dosage
(PPM)
650
75
3000
65
Varies
Optimum
pH
8.0 -
8.0 -
8 -
Below
9.0
9.0
12
5.0
BOD
Reduction
x = 13.3%
x = 16.8%
x = 31.7%
10.9%
COD
Reduction
x =
x =
x =
__
10
13
18
8.
.7%
.4%
.6%
5%
Solids
Reduction^
No change
No change
x = 5.9%
5.2%2
Settling Rate*
341
341
405
389
gpd/Sq .
gpd/Sq.
gpd/Sq.
gpd/Sq.
Ft
Ft
Ft,
Ft,
In supernatant.
2
Increase.
*Expressed as permissible settler overflow rate.
-------
ranges between pH 8 and pH 12. FeCl^eH^O did not effect
any coagulation at any pH range. Dow A-21 also did not
effect any coagulation.
The combined lime + Dow C-31 produced an average BOD and
COD reduction of 31.7% and 18.6%, respectively. An effec-
tive dosage to ensure coagulation of day to day variations
of equalized raw characteristics would be 3000 ppm lime
followed by 65 ppm C-31. All coagulant dosages mentioned
below are concentrations that can effect coagulations of
everyday variations of equalized raw feed (T-l) charac-
teristics. Since the daily pH of the equalized raw is be-
tween pH 8 and pH 11, no change of pH was carried out be-
fore the addition of the lime and C-31. Total solids in
the treated supernatant was reduced by an average value of
5.9%.
Alum, 650 ppm, produced average BOD and COD reductions of
13.3% and 10.7% respectively. There was no change in
total solids of the treated supernatant.
Dow C-31, 75 ppm produced average BOD and COD reductions of
16.8% and 13.14%, respectively. No change in total solids.
The supernatant of the I^SO^treated equalized raw exhi-
bited average BOD and COD reductions of 10.9% and 8.4%,
respectively. Total solids in this acid-treated super-
natant increased by an average percentage of 5.2%, mainly
due to an increase in sulfates.
Experimental
Lime—Lime by itself did not result in any coagulation as
shown by Table IV-9.
Lime + Dow C-31—Lime followed by polyelectrolytic Dow
C-31 caused coagulation of the equalized raw waste. Table
IV-10 shows optimum pH range, which is anywhere between
pH 8 and pH 12.
Figure IV-3 shows the settling test curve for lime + Dow
C-31. From this curve it may be calculated that the per-
missible clarifier overflow rate is 405 gpd/sq. ft.
FeCl3»6H20—No coagulation was formed at any pH ranges
using up to 1000 ppm dosages.
36
-------
Table IV-9.
LIME COAGULATION EFFECTIVE
pH RANGE
pH
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table
IV- 10.
Dosage Result
6000 PPM No coagulation
ii „
it ii
" ii
H ii
ii ii
" H
ii n
ii n
LIME = DOW C-31 COAGULATION
EFFECTIVE pH RANGE
pH
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
Dosage
Lime
4000
4000
4000
3000
3000
3000
2700
3000
3000
3000
(PPM)
C-31
100
100
100
60
75
50
60
60
60
60
Result % COD Reduction
No coagulation
No coagulation
Floe formed 8.
Floe formed 12.
Floe formed 18.
No coagulation -
No coagulation -
No coagulation 12.
No coagulation 12.
No coagulation 12.
4
8
0
9
0
2
37
-------
1000
900
800
700
en
4J
•H
•_H 600
H
I
4j 500
-H
g 400
m
0)
c
H
300
Figure IV-3.
Settling time
lime plus Dow C-31 floe
(one liter graduate)
200
100
1
±
10 20 30
Settling Time - minutes
40
38
-------
Alum—Table IV-11 gives optimum pH range for alum and %
COD reduction.
From Table IV-11 it can be seen that pH 8.5 + 0.5 is the
optimum pH range. Figure IV-4 shows the settling curve
for alum. It may be calculated that the permissible
clarifier overflow rate is 341 gpd/sq. ft.
Dow C-31 and Dow A-21—Table IV-12 shows the optimum pH
range for coagulation - pH 8.5 + 0.5 for C-31 - and indi-
cates ineffectiveness of Dow A-21 as a coagulant.
Figure IV-5 shows the settling curve for Dow C-31. The
permissible clarifier overflow rate for the Dow C-31 floe
is calculated to be 341 gpd/sq. ft.
Sulfuric Acid—As mentioned, H2SC>4 invariable precipitated
the equalized raw at pH 5+0.5 and below.
Figure IV-6 shows the neutralization curve of equalized raw
using concentrated H2SO4.
Figure IV-7 shows settling curve for acid-formed precipi-
tate. The corresponding calculated clarifier overflow
rate is 389 gpd/sq. ft.
Table IV-13 gives results for alum and H2S04~treated
equalized raw, and lists among other things changes in
phenol, nitrogen and phosphorus contents in supernatant.
TERTIARY TREATMENT EXPERIMENTS
Introduction
Concurrently with the less satisfactory periods of pilot
plant operation, a number of experiments were made to
determine the possible effectiveness of some type of ter-
tiary waste treatment for COD reduction. The results of
these experiments are summarized herein.
Treatment of the pilot plant final effluent in the con-
tinuous mode using activated carbon appears to be surpri-
singly effective for COD removal. Additional laboratory
investigations followed by operation of a pilot or proto-
type plant unit might, and ultimately did, indicate carbon
adsorption to be a viable primary treatment method.
Chlorination of the final effluent exhibited_lower COD
removal than did carbon adsorption. A more important
39
-------
Table IV-11. ALUM COAGULATION EFFECTIVE
pH RANGE
pH
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dosage (PPM)
2000
2000
800
650
650
800
1200
Result
No coagulation
No coagulation
Floe formed
Floe formed
Floe formed
Floe formed
Floe formed
% COD Reduction
-
-
10.8
13.3
13.4
13.0
12.8
40
-------
1000
900
800
0)
-P
•H
H
H
700
600
O
H
H
W
s
EM
500
400
300
Figure IV-4.
Settling time
Alum Floe
(one liter graduate)
200
100
I
10 20 30
SETTLING TIME - minutes
-------
Table IV-12. DOW C-31 AND A-21 COAGULATION
EFFECTIVE pH RANGE
pH
4
5
6
7
8
9
LO
Poly electrolyte
C-31
A-21
C-31
A-21
C-31
A-21
C-31
A-21
C-31
A-21
C-31
A-21
C-31
A-21
Dosage
(PPM)
200
200
200
200
100
200
100
200
75
200
75
200
120
200
Result COD % Red.
No coagulation -
No coagulation -
No coagulation -
No coagulation -
Floe formed 13.7
No coagulation -
Floe formed 13.5
No coagulation -
Floe formed 12.3
No coagulation -
Floe formed 12.3
No coagulation -
Floe formed 14.5
No coagulation -
42
-------
1000
900
800
700
600
w
M
0)
-P
-H
•H
g
I
g 500
o
H
M
W
9 400
EH
S
H
300
Figure IV-5.
Settling time
Dow C31 Floe
(one liter graduate)
200
100
10 20 30
SETTLING TIME - Minutes
40
43
-------
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1 —
0
Figure IV-6.
Neutralization curve
equalized raw feed
(one liter sample)
0
CONCENTRATED H SO.
- milliliters
44
-------
1000
900
800
m
M
CD
-M
-H
700
-H
g
600
EH
S3
0
H
w
a
a
w
EH
a
H
500
400
300
Figure IV-7.
Settling time
neutralized raw feed
(one liter graduate)
200
100
10 20
SETTLING TIME
30
40
- minutes
45
-------
Table IV-13.
SUMMARY - COAGULATION RESULTS
ALUM AND ACID TREATMENTS
Sample
COD , ppm
Reduction
BOD , ppiti
Reduction
SS, ppm
TS , ppm
DS, ppm
Sulfate, ppm
Sulfite, ppm
Fe , ppm
Phenol, ppm
N, ppm
P, ppm
Color
Equalized
Raw Feed
3610
2400
136
4580
4444
750
40
40
325
321
49
Red-brown
Alum Treated
3470
3.9
2225
7.3
28
4346
4314
825
10
0
225
313
43
Faint yellow
Acid Treated
3355
7.1
2100
12.6
20
4338
4318
900
10
2
137
42
48
Colorless
46
-------
disadvantage versus carbon would lie in the formation of
chlorophenols from even the very low residual phenol con-
tent of the pilot plant final effluent.
Sand filtration of the final effluent reduced its COD
content by only 18%
Coagulation exhibited poor COD removal.
Acidification of the final effluent effected substantial
COD removal. The amount of acid required, the type of
acid-resistant equipment needed, and the alkali required
for final waste neutralization would not make this a
viable tertiary treating step.
Carbon Treating, Theory
Adsorption of COD-contributing molecules occurs due to their
selective adsorption by surface carbon molecules suffering
an uneven balance of force in contrast to inner surface
molecules that are subjected to equal forces in all direc-
tions. This adsorption is known as "physical" or "Van der
Waals adsorption." Adsorption can also be due to a chemical
interaction between the solid and the solute molecules.
Chemical adsorption subsides after the formation of a mono-
molecular layer and physical adsorption subsides after
several superimposed layers are formed. Chemical adsorp-
tion has stronger sorption powers and is seldom reversible
as physical sorption is. It is hard, however, to assign
the adsorption definitely to one of these types. Freund-
lich showed that adsorption of solutes from solutions could
be expressed as:
x/m = kC1/n
or
log x/m = log k + 1/nlogC
where C = concentration of solute after adsorption,
x/m = amount of material adsorbed per unit wt. of
adsorbent,
k and n are constants.
If removal of contaminants is due to adsorption,
plotting of log x/m vs. log C will produce a straight
line.
47
-------
Carbon Treating, Batch Adsorption
Batch adsorption of the Bio-treated effluent was carried
out using 325-mesh Darco.* The effluent was stirred with
the powdered carbon for thirty minutes using various
quantities of carbon. After settling of the spent carbon,
the supernatant was filtered and its residual COD content
was determined.
Figures IV-8 and IV-9 are Fruendlich Isotherm plots showing
straight lines attained when log x/m was plotted vs. log C.
Figures IV-10 and IV-11 show pounds carbon/1,000 gallons
bio-treated effluent used versus COD remaining. Percent
of COD removal is also plotted on the same graphs.
Carbon Treating, Continuous Adsorption
Although batch adsorption provides useful information on
the effectiveness and application of adsorption to the
removal of the COD, continuous carbon filters provide the
most practical application of this process in waste treat-
ment. The reasons for this are that a subsequent Carbon
separation step is not required; that higher removals in
equilibrium with the influent concentration rather than the
effluent concentration can be approached; and a greater
flexibility of operation can be attained.
Since batch adsorption proved effective in removing COD-
contributing molecules, a 2" ID glass column was set up
containing a 2' Darco 12 x 20 mesh carbon bed, having 10"
of freeboard and supported on 2" of glass wool. Before
operation, the bed was backwashed to release entrapped
air and prevent channeling. Darco 12 x 20 mesh was se-
lected as pressure drop for that particular size is 2.0
to 3.4 times less than that for 12 x 40 mesh carbon.
Bio-treated effluent was continuously metered into the top
of the carbon column at a feed rate of 1 gpm/ft . Before
its introduction into the glass column, the effluent was
passed through a funnel containing glass wool to filter
suspended solids. During the period of operation, the
biological oxidation tank was experiencing unusually high
shock loads and this resulted in dispersed growth in the
effluent and consequently a high suspended solid content.
*Atlas Chemical Industries, (now I.C.I. America, Inc.)
Wilmington, Del.
48
-------
O
Q
0.30
O 0.20
o
CM
\ 0.10
M 0.09
g 0.08
g 0.07
< 0.06
Q
8 0.05
CO
a
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01!
20
T I i r
Figure IV-8.
Freundlich Isotherm
COD removal
Darco Carbon
I I I I
I I I I
30
40 50 60
80 100 200
COD REMAINING - ppm
300 400
49
-------
O
Q
a
D
O
0.40
0.30
2 0.20
Q 0.10
w
ffl
O
to
0.08
0.06
O
o
O 0.05
CO
S 0.04
D
O
0.03
0.02
i—r
Figure IV-9.
Freundlich Isotherm
COD removal
Darco Carbon
I
I I I
I 1 I
0>0120 30 40 50 60 80 100 200
COD REMAINING - ppm
I
I I I I
300 400
50
-------
Figure IV-10.
Activated carbon test
COD removal vs carbon usage
100
200
COD REMAINING - ppm
51
-------
EH
3
W
D
W
CO
§
o
Q
D
O
3
O
«
Pi
3
CO
Q
a
D
O
CM
Figure IV-11.
Activated carbon test
COD removal vs carbon usage
4 -
200
400
COD REMAINING - ppm
600
52
-------
The glass wool-filtered effluent during that period aver-
aged a suspended solid content of 130 mg/1. The bed was
backwashed three times during the eleven-day experiment
period to eliminate pressure drops across the bed and main-
tain the flow rate of 1 gpm/ft2.
Results of the continuous carbon test are shown in Figure
IV-12.
Feasibility of thermal regeneration, steam regeneration,
and solvent regeneration followed by steam regeneration
of the spent granular carbon were not investigated.
Chlorination
Chlorination is a potent oxidation process in which certain
oxygen-demanding molecules are oxidized, thus eliminating
their BOD and COD. Chlorination often dissipates itself
in side reactions so rapidly that little oxidation or dis-
infection is accomplished until amounts of chlorine in
excess of the breakpoint have been added. Unsaturated
organics are saturated and phenols will produce mono-,
di-, and trichlorophenols which can impart taste and odor
to waters.
Chlorine in the form of a 5.25% aqueous solution of sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) was employed for the experiments
tabulated in Table IV-14. The indicated amounts of hypo-
chlorite solution, ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 weight percent,
were added to liter portions of the effluent from the
pilot treating plant. The treated samples were agitated
at ambient temperature for fifteen (15) minutes in the
dark; thereafter portions of the treated samples were
analyzed for COD.
Based on a flow of 0.5 MGD of waste from the RCI plant,
between 6000 and 7000 pounds of sodium hypochlorite would
be required per day to effect a 30% reduction in the plant
effluent COD.
Sand Filtration
A 2-foot deep sand bed contained in a 2-inch diameter glass
column was used for this experiment. Effluent from the
pilot treating plant was fed through this sand bed con-
tinuously for a ten-day period at a rate of 0.2 gpm/ft^.
Total effluent from the sand filter was collected and
analyzed on a twenty-four-hour basis. As in the conti-
nuous carbon adsorption test, the sand bed was backwashed
53
-------
*>.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure IV-12.
Carbon adsorption
Darco 12 X 20 Carbon
JL
_L
40 80 120 160 200 240 280
COLUMN THROUGH-PUT, in gallons
320
360
-------
Table IV-14. CHLORINATION DATA, MARCH '71
(all figures in ppm)
en
Date
Effluent, COD
Treated Effluent
0.5% NaOCl
COD Reduction, %
1.0% NaOCl
COD Reduction, %
2% NaOCl
COD Reduction, %
3% NaOCl
COD Reduction, %
4% NaOCl
COD Reduction, %
5% NaOCl
COD Reduction, %
18
111
717
7
706
9
628
19
557
28
-
-
-
-
19
724
-
-
-
-
574
20
512
29
465
36
441
39
21
754
-
-
-
-
548
27
485
36
447
41
-
—
24
989
-
-
-
-
728
23
676
32
619
38
-
—
26 27 28 29 30
637 884 755 681 584
- - - - -
_____
_____
_ _
500 747 393 529 441
21 15 35 22 24
444 653 356 478 387
30 26 39 30 34
_____
_ _
_____
_____
-------
three times during the ten-day operating period. Data
are summarized in Table IV-15. Average COD reduction
amounted to 18% for this period.
Coagulation
Results obtained were so poor using conventional labora-
tory techniques that the experimental work will not be
described.
Alum, Dow C-31 polyelectrolyte, and alum + Dow C-31 proved
to have little effect in reducing COD of the effluent.
Dow A-21 polyelectrolyte exhibited no coagulation effect
whatsoever. Alum (200 ppm) effected 3% COD reduction,
Dow C-31 (80 ppm) effected 16% COD reduction, alum (200
ppm) + Dow C-31 (25 ppm) effected 5% COD reduction.
Lime (1800 ppm) effected a COD reduction of 18%.
Acidification
Addition of sulfuric acid to the effluent from the pilot
treating plant resulted in the formation of a precipitate
or floe when the pH of the effluent had been reduced to
the range of 2.0 - 3.0. After sedimentation of the flox,
the COD of the clear supernatant was reduced by an average
of 28% (Table IV-16). Settling tests, see Figure IV-13,
indicate that a clarifier having an overflow rate of 2298
gallons per day per square foot would be required. In
addition to floe formation, the sulfuric acid probably con-
verts at least part of the sodium sulfite and sodium for-
mate to sodium sulfate, thus reducing the COD contributed
by these two oxidizable chemicals known to be present in
the RCI waste. For acidifying 0.5 mgd of pilot plant
effluent, Figure IV-14 shows that 500 gallons of 66° Be
sulfuric acid would be required. From Figure IV-15 one may
calculate that 830 gallons of commercial 50% caustic liquor
would be required daily to neutralize the acidified liquor.
56
-------
Table IV-15. SAND FILTRATION EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Date
3-14-71
3-16-71
3-17-71
3-18-71
3-19-71
3-20-71
3-24-71
Pilot Plant Effluent
COD
1020 PPM
950
782
777
724
728
989
Filter Effluent
COD
889 PPM
762
664
637
569
590
810
COD Removal
13%
20
15
18
21
19
19
Table IV-16. EFFLUENT ACIDIFICATION DATA - pH - 2.0
COD - PPM
Date
2-10-71
2-20-71
2-23-71
3-1-71
3-5-71
3-6-71
3-8-71
Before
Acidification
809
612
341
632
689
485
552
After
Acidification
508
444
256
470
414
424
381
Reduction
37%
27%
25%
26%
40%
12%
30%
57
-------
1000
\
900
800
_ o
in
M
-------
ffi
Figure IV-14.
Acidification curve
pilot plant effluent
(one liter sample)
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CONCENTRATED H_SO
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
- milliliters
59
-------
i i i r
8.0
7.0
6.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Figure IV-15.
Neutralization curve
acidified effluent
Cone liter sample)
I I I
I I I
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
VOLUME 10% SODIUM HYDROXIDE - milliliters
60
10.0
-------
SECTION V
CARBON ADSORPTION PROCESS
DISCUSSION
As mentioned earlier, biological oxidation of the RCI
waste, as a treating method, appeared to lack reliability.
Activated carbon adsorption as a candidate process for
waste purification was selected for a number of reasons:
1. The brief investigations of adsorption possibi-
lities mentioned earlier and described in Section
IV indicated that carbon adsorption offered pro-
mise as a waste treating process.
2. RCI already had limited experience with carbon
adsorption as a decolorizing operation in its
pentaerythritol production process.
3. As a process, activated carbon adsorption appeared
to offer the best possibility for designing and
building a waste treating unit that would meet the
chronological deadline proposed by the AWIC for
treatment of RCI's liquid waste.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
As mentioned above, activated carbon adsorption was briefly
examined as a tertiary treatment or polishing operation
for RCI liquid wastes that had already been subjected to
primary and secondary biological treatment. Results ob-
tained appeared promising. See Figures IV-10, IV-11.
From the plotted data, it is evident that the two waste
samples were markedly different in composition. One sam-
ple required a 5X increase in carbon to achieve the same
reduction in COD content. Nevertheless, significant
reductions in COD and, by implication, BOD5 content were
achieved.
In order to confirm the apparent suitability of activated
carbon adsorption as a treating process, Freundlich iso-
therms were determined (duplicate determinations) on a
sample of filtered but otherwise untreated Parshall flume
waste. See Figures IV-8 and IV-9. The Freundlich isotherms,
61
-------
although preliminary, indicate that carbon adsorption
would be a suitable treating method. Furthermore, the
theoretical carbon efficiency (pounds of COD adsorbed per
pound carbon) was of a magnitude that appeared to make
adsorption economical if the spent carbon could be reac-
tivated.
Based on these very preliminary results, additional labo-
ratory work was undertaken.
Samples of the RCI waste were submitted to a commercial
manufacturer of activated carbon* for a brief adsorption
feasibility study. The pertinent characteristics of these
samples are given in Table V-l. The sample identified as
"Untreated" represents the material identified as "Parshall
Flume Waste" in Figure III-l. The samples identified as
"Treated" represent the Parshall flume waste that had
undergone preliminary clarification, partial biological
oxidation but not final clarification.
Following the analytical waste characterization reported
in Table V-l, Freundlich adsorption isotherms were deter-
mined for each sample using Calgon Filtrasorb 300 activated
carbon. The Freundlich isotherm (Figure V-l) confirmed
the initial work that indicated activated carbon should
be satisfactory. Pertinent data that result from the
isotherm work - C(i), C(f) and removal - for the three
samples are given in Table V-2.
Of especial significance are the "C(f)" and "removal"
values for both SOC and COD in the untreated sample as
given in Table V-2. As inferred in Appendix B-2, absolute
numerical values for this type work in the laboratory may
not correlate well with similar plant values. Even if the
"C(f)" and "removal" values could not be exactly duplicated
on a plant scale, they are nonetheless high enough to in-
dicate that carbon adsorption might well be a satisfactory
waste treating process.
Based on the very satisfactory laboratory results, further
work on a larger, pilot scale was undertaken.
*Calgon Corp., Pittsburg, PA
62
-------
Table V-l. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS BEFORE CARBON TREATMENT
Sample
D-6035
Untreated
D-5673
Treated
D-5952
Treated
Sample Date
pHf As Taken
pHf Adjusted
TOC, As Taken
COD, As Taken
SS, As Taken
BODs, As Taken
TOC, pH Adjusted
COD, pH Adjusted
SS, pH Adjusted
3-9-71
10.8
7.0
2100 mg/1
5950 mg/1
75 mg/1
1170 mg/1
2100 mg/1
5950 mg/1
165 mg/1
2-18-71
8.8
7.0
175 mg/1
416 mg/1
175 mg/1
37 mg/1
175 mg/1
436 mg/1
200 mg/1
3-9-71
7.6
7.6
238 mg/1
770 mg/1
210 mg/1
33 mg/1
63
-------
2
O
O
&4
O
Q
!3
D
O
CM
05
W
CM
Q
W
m
05
o
w
Q
Q
O
U
03
Q
O
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
I I I I1 I
200
Figure V-l*
Freundlich Isotherm
COD adsorption
Filtrasorb 300 carbon
400 600 800 1000 2000
COD REMAINING - ppm
64
-------
Table V-2. faASTE CHARACTERISTICS ABATER CARBON TREATMENT
, — , 7; -•;, .... , ..,. . — — — -----|- |---- — ; ' ' — ' ' — — ;
Sample
cU)
C(f)
mg/1
mg/1 *
Removal **
D-6035
Untrfeated
SOC
2100
173
92%
COD
5950
47S
92%
D-5673
Tteat^jd
SOC COD
. i i .,]..,
175 3l2
3 6
98% 98%
D-5952
Treated
SOC
170
6
96%
COD
520
16
97%
*Residual a^ter treatment with highest carbon dosage.
^The isotherms indicate^ that additional removal cduld be
expected usin^ still higher carbon dosage.
65
-------
PILOT PLANT INVESTIGATIONS
Sample Collection and Preparation
Because of the variable characteristics of the Parshall
flume wastewater both with respect to flow and composi-
tion, collection and preparation of representative samples
for use in these pilot studies was very carefully handled.
For use in these studies, 24-hour composite samples of waste
were obtained on each of five consecutive operating days.
A total of 250 gallons of waste was thus obtained. Automa-
tic sampling devices were used to ensure collection of re-
presentative samples. These composite samples were the pH
adjusted to approximately 2.0 in order to stabilize them
biologically.
The five 55-gallon drum samples of waste were made avail-
able to the Water Management Division of the Calgon Corpora-
tion where these pilot plant studies were made. When the
samples were received by the Calgon laboratory, shaken
aliquots in proportion to the reported daily flow were
taken from each drum, pH adjusted with 50% caustic solution
back to the original pH and then composited. This final
composite sample was used in making these studies. Analysis
of the five drum samples and the final composite sample
is shown in Table V-3. The final composite sample con-
stitutes the material used in developing the information
and data obtained in these studies.
Clarification Investigations
The suspended solids content of the final composite sample
is much too high to handle in either a fixed or moving bed
carbon unit. For this reason a clarification study was
run on the final composite sample utilizing the following
time and agitation sequences:
5 minutes at 100 rpm
5 minutes at 50 rpm
10 minutes at 20 rpm
30 minutes at 0 rpm
Tables V-4a and 4b show typical data obtained from these
laboratory clarification studies. As can be noted, the
66
-------
Table V-3. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS, PILOT PLANT FEED
Item
Original pH
Adjusted pH
BOD 5, mg/1
COD, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
SS, mg/1
Flow, gpd
TOC, mg/1
5-11-71
7.9
2.0
2925
8700
435
420
557,000
-
5-13-71
10.5
2.2
1320
6000
588
-
505,000
-
Date
5-14-71
4.1
1.4
1650
10,000
1260
220
523,000
-
5-15-71
7.4
1.9
1710
5000
535
-
440,000
-
5-16-71
5.4
2.1
3000
10,000
745
130
430,000
-
Composite
-
8.0
1425
6745
650
330
_
2880
-------
Table V-4a. CLARIFICATION RESULTS 1
Calgon Coagulant Floe Supernatant
Jar WT-2660 WT-2870 WT-2630 WT-2690 WT-2700 WT-3000 Formation Size Settle Clarity
ov l 10 ppra ? Poor Poor Poor
CO
10 ppm ? Poor Poor Poor
2.5 ppm 3 min Fair Fair Good
2.0 ppm 1 min Good Good Fairly good
5 2.0 ppm 3 min Fair Poor Poor
6 2.0 ppm ? Poor Poor Poor
2
3
4
-------
Table V-4b. CLARIFICATION RESULTS 2
CTl
Jar
•1
2
3
4
Calgon Coagulant
WT-269Q WT-2630
0.5 ppm
1.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
5.0 ppm
Floe Characteristics
Formation
1 min
1 min
1 min
1 min
Size
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Settle
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Supernatant
Clarity
Fair
Fair
Good
¥ery good
-------
best results were achieved with the use of a nonionic
polymer (Calgon WP-2690) at a concentration of 2 mg/1.
Having established the optimum in chemical clarification,
the remainder of the composite sample was batch clarified
with 2 mg/1 of Calgon WP-2690. After settling, the sus-
pended solids content of the supernatant liquor was 10
mg/1. The floe which was produced settled rapidly and
appeared that it would present no unusual sludge handling
problems.
Sludge Settling
As part of the clarifying operation, portions of the treated
composite sample were used for settling rate studies. Por-
tions of the treated (pH, polymer) composite waste were
promptly transferred to each of three calibrated 20-liter
Pyrex jars. The already formed floe was thus allowed to
settle and the sludge settling rate was thus determined in
triplicate. Settling rates of 0.65, 0.60 and 0.70 inch/
minute were observed.
Adsorption Isotherm Study
Isotherms had previously been determined for RCI's Parshall
flume waste. This type data, however, is sensitive to
changes in sample characteristics. For this reason an addi-
tional isotherm was run on the final composite sample using
Calgon's Filtrasorb 300 activated carbon.
In order to obtain isotherm data, a fixed volume of waste
is contacted with a varying amount of pulverized carbon
for a fixed time at a constant temperature. The weight
of the organic contaminant removed per unit weight of
carbon is plotted as a function of the concentration. This
is known as the Freundlich isotherm.
The isotherm data in this case are expressed in terms of
TOC removal. These data are presented in Table V-5. The
isotherm plot is shown in Figure V-2.
Pilot Plant, General
The design of a full-scale plant utilizing granular carbon
adsorption must be based on the results of a pilot plant
test conducted on samples of the waste stream to be treated.
In addition to establishing whether or not the treatment
objective can be met by granular carbon adsorption, pilot
plant data required to determine such critical design para-
meters as operational adsorption capacity, rate of carbon
70
-------
Table V-5. WASTE TREATMENT, FREUNDLICH DATA
Type Carbon - PS-300
Temperature - Ambient
Sample Volume - 100 ml
Agitation - 1 Hour
Weight Carbon
(m)
Remaining TOC
mg (c)
TOC adsorbed
mg (x)
x/m
(Calculated)
0 - Control
0.05 gms
0.1 gms
0.5 gms
1.0 gms
2.0 gms
5.0 gms
10.0 gms
288 mg
264 mg
219 mg
170 mg
153 mg
110 mg
74 mg
41 mg
24 mg
69 mg
118 mg
135 mg
178 mg
214 mg
247 mg
(554)
480 (473)
690
236
135
89 ( 97)
43
25
71
-------
0.60
0.50
0.40
g °-30
CQ
0.20
u
Q
I
O
w
CM
H 0.10
S O.Q9
O 0,08
§ 0.07
U 0.06
0.05
en
Q
a
0.04
0.03
0.02
r
Figure V-2.
Fjreundlich Isotherm
TOC Adsorption
Filtrasorb 300 carbon
I I I I I I
TOC REMAINING - ppm
72
-------
exhaustion, optimum contact time and critical bed depth -
the depth of the adsorption zone.
Pilot Plant, Description and Operation
Supernatant from the batch clarified final composite sam-
ple was pumped through six 1-inch diameter glass columns
connected in series. The columns were filled with the
following amounts of Calgon Filtrasorb 300 granular acti-
vated carbon:
Column #1 66 grams
Column #2 66 grams
Column #3 131 grams
Column #4 200 grams
Column #5 200 grams
Column #6 200 grams
The respective bed depths were as follows:
Column #1 1 ft
Column #2 1 ft
Column #3 2 ft
Column #4, #5, #6 3 ft each
The clarified supernatant was pumped through the columns
at a flow rate of 20 ml/minute, giving 7.7 minutes of con-
tact time for each foot of bed depth. Thus the total
superficial contact time employed in the study was 100
minutes.
The effluent from each column was monitored for break-
through of TOC and the pH was checked intermittently. The
effluent from Columns #2 and #4 was also monitored for
breakthrough of COD. The final effluent from_Column #6
(at 100 minutes contact time) was also composited for
analysis.
The TOC breakthrough data are presented in Table V-6.
The COD data on the effluent from Columns #2 and #4 are
shown in Table V-7. The analytical data on selected final
effluent composite samples are given in Table V-8.
73
-------
Table V-6. TOC BREAKTHROUGH DATA, PILOT RUN 1
Column 1
66 gms
Mis Throughput
Initial
1000
2000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
38000
71000
73000
77000
79000
80000
99000
117000
118000
127000
128000
144000
145000
TOC
185
660
1260
1685
1735
2010
2055
2130
2130
2290
2305
2345
2310
2370
2445
2475
2245
pH
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
Column 2
66 gms
TOC
90
340
465
1470
1585
1680
1785
1830
1860
2160
2235
2260
2200
2250
2310
2310
2295
2310
2310
2400
2355
2400
2415
pH
10.2
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
Column 3
131 gms
TOC
75
285
310
500
875
1350
1605
1680
1755
1755
1805
1815
1800
2265
2265
2295
2250
2265
2265
2265
2340
pH
8.8
10.3
9.4
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
Column 4
200 gms
TOC
60
270
275
330
370
420
560
900
1655
1640
1755
1695
1770
1830
1830
1875
1920
2130
2235
2190
2250
pH
8.8
9.7
10.7
10.7
10.4
9.7
8.4
8.3
8.3
9.2
8.2
Column 5
200 gms
TOC
45
210
270
300
315
360
370
390
1595
1610
1610
1665
1750
1750
1740
1875
1920
1950
2145
pH
8.8
8.6
8.3
10.7
10.8
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
Column 6
200 gms
TOC
30
155
245
300
320
325
330
350
1040
1270
1455
1560
1605
1725
1800
1800
1750
1815
1860
1845
pH
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.3
8.3
10.1
9.5
9.2
8.8
8.7
8.6
-------
Table V-7. COD BREAKTHROUGH DATA, PILOT RUN 1
Throughput
(Milliliters)
1000
2000
4000
8000
12000
14000
30000
34000
38000
71000
77000
79000
80000
99000
118000
128000
145000
Column
COD
ppm
1000
3000
4650
4750
5100
6300
6150
6350
6350
6600
6650
6800
6800
6800
6800
2
TOC
ppm
465
1140
1585
1785
1830
2160
2260
2250
2310
2295
2310
2400
2355
2400
2415
Column
COD
ppm
440
600
. 750
1300
2140
4850
4900
5800
5250
5350
5400
6050
6550
6550
6550
4
TOC
ppm
270
295
370
560
900
1655
1755
1770
1830
1875
1920
2130
2235
2190
2250
75
-------
Table V-8. TREATED WASTE CHARACTERISTICS, PILOT RUN 1
(all data in rag/1)
Column 6
Sample
Throughput
Final Composite
Clarified
Composite
1
3
4
5
6
10
0 -
10 -
14 -
28 -
34 -
70 -
-
6
14
28
34
41
73
liters
liters
liters
liters
liters
TOG
2880
2490
235
320
500
1280
1440
1800
BOD 5
1425
-
195
450
550
600
535
550
COD
6745
-
365
600
1230
3500
4550
4900
Phenol
650
640
0.2
0.2
0.4
-
-
1.5
-------
Pilot Plant Breakthrough Results
The pattern of removal of organic impurities by granular
carbon adsorption can be illustrated by plotting the con-
centration of contaminant in the effluent from the pilot
plant columns versus the cumulative volume passed through
each column. These plots are commonly known as break-
through curves and are normally defined as the curve con-
necting the breakpoint with the point of total exhaustion.
The TOG and COD breakthrough curves developed in this
study are shown in Figures V-3 and V-4 respectively. As
can be noted, there was a rapid breakthrough of TOG from
all columns initially to approximately 300 mg/1. The
TOG in the effluent from Column #6, however, plateaued
off at this point up through approximately 14 liters
throughput. This indicates that an adsorption system can
be designed to produce acceptable quality effluent.
An inspection of the breakthrough curves shows that a
minimum of 100 minutes contact time is required to develop
a plateau at an effluent of 300 mg/1 TOG. For ease of
operation, a longer contact time is recommended.
An analysis of the breakthrough curves shown in Figure
V-3 reveals that the carbon exhaustion rate required to
achieve the desired effluent quality is approximately
430 lbs/1,000 gallons. This figure is based on a cal-
culation of the volume of waste treated by the columns
and the quantity of carbon contained in the columns.
The calculated exhaustion rate of 430 lbs/1,000 gallons
was considered impractical from an economic standpoint.
For this reason, an in-depth survey was made of the va-
rious RCI production processes and the waste streams
generated from them. This review indicated that several
in-plant modifications could be made which would greatly
reduce the organic strength of the total waste stream.
This reduction would of course manifest itself in a more
practical carbon exhaustion rate. To investigate this
alternative, the required modifications were made on a
temporary basis and samples of the resultant waste stream
collected for testing.
A twenty-four-hour composite sample of the modified waste
was clarified and the supernatant analyzed. Results of
these analyses are listed below:
77
-------
2800
I
J
7.7 MINUTES
« COLUMN 2 -
COLUMN 3 -
COLUMN 4 -
COLUMN 5 -
15.4 MINUTES
30.8 MINUTES
52.9 MINUTES
70.0 MINUTES
COLUMN 6 - 100 MINUTES
Figure V-3.
TOC breakthrough
pilot run no. 1
I
60
80 100 120 140
THROUGH-PUT - liters
-------
7000
1 1 r
COLUMN 2 - 15.4 MINUTES
o COLUMN 4 - 52.9 MINUTES
Figure V-4.
COD breakthrough
pilot run no. 1
1
-L
1
40
60
80 100
THROUGH-PUT
120 140
liters
-------
TOC 575 mg/1
COD 1575 mg/1
Phenol 110 mg/1
SS 5 mg/1
The clarified waste sample was used as the feed stream for
another pilot column study. This study was set up to
provide a total superficial contact time of 150 minutes.
The columns were filled with the following quantities of
Filtrasorb 300 granular activated carbon:
Column #1 60 grams
Column #2 90 grams
The effluent from each column was monitored for break-
through to TOC with periodic COD's performed on the
effluent from the second column. These data are pre-
sented in Table V-9.
Analysis of this data by Calgon personnel reveals that
the carbon exhaustion rate required to meet the treat- .
ment objectives for the modified waste stream is 36 Ibs/
1,000 gallons of waste.
A history of data on the modified waste indicates that
the average COD concentration would be close to 2,850
mg/1, whereas the test COD was 1,575 mg/1. Using the
ratio of these numbers as a correction factor, the design
exhaustion rate is calculated to be 65 lbs/1,000 gallons
of waste. It is important to note that although the in-
plant modifications resulted in a roughly 50% reduction in
the COD content of the waste, the selective elimination
of poorly adsorbed compounds resulted in an 80% reduction
in the carbon exhaustion rate.
PROPOSED PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Adsorption
A simplified flow diagram showing the proposed functional
design of the physical chemical treating system for1 Par-
shall flume waste is shown in Figure V-5. As can be seen,
the wastewater is to be clarified and then passed to
granular carbon adsorption vessels for removal of dissolved
80
-------
Table V-9. TOG BREAKTHROUGH DATA, PILOT RUN 2
Column 1
Throughput (Liters)
0.36
0,72
1.08
1.80
2.16
2.52
2.88
3.96
6.48
12.24
12.60
13.32
13.68
14.04
14.40
14.76
15.12
15.48
15.84
16.56
17.64
19.80
21.60
23.76
24.84
25.56
25.92
32.64
35.16
37.50
TOG
110
130
140
145
150
155
165
170
175
175
180
195
205
225
230
240
245
250
255
265
275
285
290
300
305
310
315
315
340
375
Column 2
Throughput (Liters)
0.50
2.24
2.55
3.02
4.84
17.58
25.32
27.8
28.88
29.96
30.68
31.04
31.40
31.76
32.12
32.84
33.20
33.74
34.10
34.82
37.10
TOC
65
140
140
145
150
150
150
150
165
170
170
175
180
200
205
210
205
215
250
275
275
COD
— m
-
-
-
230
275
-
260
—
—
—
—
—
505
—
—
—
—
655
—
™
81
-------
Skimmings
To Disposal
Equalized
.Par shall
Flume
Waste
Adsorption on
Granular Activater
Carbon
Disposal as Land Fill
00
to
Exhausted
Carbon
Holding Pond
(5 Day Retention)
Discharge
to
River
Reactivated
Carbon
Exhausted
Carbon
Storage
Dewatering
and
Reactivation
Reactivated
Carbon
Storage
Figure V-5.
Simplified flow diagram
Parshall flume waste treatment
-------
organic impurities. The effluent from the carbon adsorp-
tion vessels then goes to a 5-day emergency holding pond
before being ultimately discharged.
Adsorption will take place in two moving bed adsorbers
which are operated in parallel. Each vessel will be de-
signed on the basis of providing 100 minutes or more
superficial contact time. Thus, sufficient contact time
will be built into the system to ensure acceptable effluent
quality.
The clarified wastewater enters the moving bed adsorbers
near the bottom and flows upward, discharging at the top.
The moving beds will be completely filled with granular
carbon at all times. Organic impurities are adsorbed
during this passage through the columns. Periodically
spent carbon is discharged (slugged) from the bottom of
each vessel and virgin or reactivated carbon is added at
the top to replace it. The movement of the carbon is
essentially countercurrent to the flow of wastewater
through the adsorber. This places the most active carbon
in contact with the more purified water and achieves
maximum utilization of the carbon and maximum adsorption
performance.
In this particular case, moving bed adsorbers with 100
minutes or more contact time will produce an effluent
which meets the quality requirements tabulated in Sec-
tion I. When the concentration of BODs, COD or phenol
in the effluent approaches the concentration correspond-
ing to the discharge unit the vessel will be slugged and
virgin or reactivated carbon added at the top. In this
way acceptable quality effluent will be obtained at all
times.
Carbon Reactivation
Spent or exhausted activated carbon may be reactivated
by either physical or chemical means depending on the
nature of the adsorbed material and on whether the ad-
sorbed material is or is not to be recovered.
Substantially completely exhausted carbon was available
from the pilot column runs described previously in this
section. Reactivation experiments were made using suit-
able portions of the well-mixed spent carbon.
33
-------
Chemical reactivation by leaching or washing the spent
carbon with practical concentrations of mineral acids
(sulfuric and muriatic) was totally ineffective in res-
toring the carbon activity as measured by iodine adsorp-
tion.
Chemical reactivation by leaching or washing the spent
carbon with dilute (5 or 10%) aqueous caustic soda (NaOH)
solution was partially effective. The caustic solution
removed the adsorbed phenol as sodium phenate but did
not displace other adsorbed organic materials or_ so
changed the carbon characteristics as to reduce its capa-
city to less than 50% of that of virgin carbon.
Since chemical reactivation appeared to be economically
impracticable, the conditions for physical (thermal)
reactivation were investigated.
Granular carbon is usually wet when fed to a reactivation
furnace. The water concentration is a function of carbon
size, temperature of water during the dewatering step,
and amount of adsorbate on the carbon. In general, the
concentration varies between 40 and 50 weight percent on
a wet spent basis.
Since the carbon is wet, drying is the first step in the
thermal reactivation process. During this step, it is
also possible for volatile organics to be steam-distilled.
The second step has been termed "baking or pyrolysis" of
the adsorbate and occurs in the temperature range from
212° P to 1500° F.
The third step is the activating process where the adsor-
bate and some of the carbon structure react with CO2 and
H20. The reactions are:
2CO (1)
During activation, the temperature can be as high as
1900° F. The hot carbon leaving the furnace is quenched
in water to 100° F and reused in the adsorption cycle.
84
-------
Thus two reactivation variables need be determined -
reactivation time and reactivation (furnace) temperature.
Other pertinent data include (a) water content of the
spent carbon, (b) amount of adsorbate in the spent car-
bon, (c) amount of fraction of the adsorbate which vola-
tilizes, and (d) amount of steam required for equation
(2) above.
The extent or degree of reaction of spent carbon is deter-
mined in one or both of two ways. The iodine adsorption
value is an easily determined parameter that, when com-
pared to the same value for the same virgin carbon, in-
dicates the degree of reactivation although the numerical
values obtained have no exact relation to the actual
capacity of the carbon. The change in apparent density
of the carbon, in consistent units, may also be used to
monitor the regeneration of spent carbon. Since the adsor-
bate increases the weight of the carbon particles without
increasing their volume, it is obvious that destroying
or displacing the adsorbate effects a decrease in the
weight of the carbon and consequently in the apparent
density of the carbon.
Laboratory work included reactivation experiments invol-
ving different reactivation temperatures (see Table V-10
for typical results) and reactivation time. A typical
laboratory experiment involved exposing seven (7) pairs
of samples of spent carbon to reactivating temperature
(1750° F) in a furnace for seven (7) increasing time
intervals ranging from ten (10) to forty (40) minutes.
The apparent density of these carbon samples is shown in
Figure V-6 plotted against time. These data indicate
that reactivation is complete in between thirty (30)
and thirty-five (35) minutes in a furnace maintained at
1750° F. Evaluation of all laboratory reactivation data
indicates that a minimum of thirty-two (32) minutes to
a final temperature of 1750° F results in reactivation^at
the lowest temperature in the shortest time while holding
carbon loss to a minimum. Note that the matter of carbon
loss is covered in Section VI.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
This part presents the results of a preliminary engineer-
ing study of the waste treating process described in this
section. The proposed process described herein includes
steps of waste equalization, pH adjustment, coagulation,
85
-------
Table V-10. APPARENT DENSITY OF REACTIVATED CARBON
(all data in gms/cc)
Reactivation Temperature 1600° F 1750° F 1900° F
Reactivation Time
20 0.56 0.51 0.50
40 0.51 0.48 0.48
60 0.49 0.48 0.48
86
-------
0.70 —
o
o
0.65 ~
i
B
0.60
W
Q
0.55
Si
0.50
Figure V-6.
Laboratory reactivation
time vs apparent density
0.45
0.40
1
10 15 20 25 30
TIME - minutes
35
40
45
-------
desimentation, adsorption of solutes on activated carbon,
carbon separation and carbon reactivation.
The purpose of this preliminary engineering study was to
develop estimates of capital and operating costs for a
physical-chemical treatment system for treating 500,000
gallons per day of wastewater. Treatment objectives and
wastewater quality criteria used in this study have al-
ready been presented. The capital costs presented here
are estimates based on information readily available
within the time allotted and are correct within + 20 per-
cent. Operating costs are based on the data developed
in the Pilot work. Additional data will be collected
before completing the final design to verify these results
and to guide in optimizing the designing and operating
parameters to reduce costs to a minimum.
Final disposal of sludge and skimmings and a five-day
holding pond are required but are not included in this
section since they have no direct bearing on the treating
process per se.
Design Parameters
The Parshall flume wastewater treatment system developed
is sized to treat 500,000 gallons per day of waste having
characteristics as shown in Table III-l of this report.
Individual unit operations and systems are designed as
follows:
Equalization—Because of the wide day-to-day variation in
waste composition (see Table V-3), it was obvious that
some degree of waste equalization would be desirable if
not necessary. For example, if the high pH flow of May
13, 1971, could be mixed with the low pH flow of May 14,
1971, the corresponding neutralizing chemicals would not
be required, since the two days' waste would substan-
tially neutralize each other. Similarly if the high COD
load of May 16, 1971, could be mixed with the lower COD
load shown for May 15, 1971, the adsorber operation would
certainly be vastly improved.
Examination of pH data for the Parshall flume waste stream
indicated that about ninety (90) percent of the major
fluctuations in waste composition could be equalized in a
pond or vessel having a capacity equivalent to a minimum
of two and one-half (2 1/2) days' waste flow. Obviously
equalization means having greater capacity would be
88
-------
desirable. Actually the size of the equalization pond
in excess of two and one-half (2 1/2) days' waste flow
would be governed by ground space available and the
economics of achieving a reasonable degree of mechanical
mixing of the contents of the equalization pond. A pond
having a holding capacity of two and one-half (2 1/2)
days (1,250,000 gallons) at minimum operating level
(agitation), three (3) days (1,500,000 gallons) at normal
level, and four plus (4+) days (2,100,000 gallons) at
overflow level should be specified.
Neutralization — A neutralization system for adjusting pH
is required based on data presented in Table IV- 1. Clari
fication and adsorption were found to be effective on a
five-day composite sample at pH 8.0.
There are no firm criteria for establishing the holding
or retention time for the waste liquor neutralization.
The chemical reactions typically involved are very rapid
H2S04 - * 2H + S04+
ONa — — *2O~ + Na+
practically instantaneous. The retention time required,
and consequently the size of the vessel required, is that
needed to assure mixing of the chemical reagents with the
liquid waste.
Since this vessel should be adjacent to or even a part
of the clarifier, we specify a vessel providing a mini-
mum of fifteen (15) minutes' retention time (5,200 gal-
lons) and up to thirty (30) minutes' retention time con-
sistent with the size and layout developed for the clari-
fier.
Provision is made to feed 3 pounds per minute of concen-
trated sulf uric acid and 0.5 gallon per minute of 50%
sodium hydrozide. These figures are based on estimates
and are subject to revision upon obtaining additional pH
and neutralization data. Data from additional spot sam-
ples of waste indicate that the waste may actually be
self -neutralizing.
89
-------
A polyelectrolyte coagulant will be added in a second
basin to provide for optimum suspended solids removal.
The non-ionic, water-soluble coagulant (Calgon WT-2960)
specified should be prepared as a 0.2% aqueous solution.
Since only eight (8) pounds of coagulant is required per
day, the use of more concentrated solutions is neither
required nor practical from a measuring standpoint since
approximately 20 g/hr of the solution needs be metered
into the neutralized waste in the second basin.
Clarification—A clarifier is provided for removal of
essentially all suspended solids and floating materials*
It is equipped with sludge collection and skimming de-
vices. It is designed for a nominal overflow rate of
500 gallons per day per square foot (500)gpd/ft2).
From the sludge settling rate of 6 inches per 10 minutes
reported previously, it follows that the clarifier over-
flow rate needs be slightly less than the sludge settling
rate in order that the sludge will actually settle. Thus
6 inches/10 minutes X 60/12 X 7.5/24 = 540 gals./ft2/day.
Thus a nominal overflow rate of 500 gals./ft2/day should
be safe. Since the treating plant must handle 500,000
gallons of waste per day, the clarifier must be designed
to provide 1,000 ft^ of clarifying or settling area.
A flocculation zone is incorporated in the clarifier to
improve sedimentation. The sludge handling system is de-
signed to handle 5,000 gallons per day at 5 weight per-
cent solids. Note that this concentration, while high
for sanitary sludge, is not abnormal for industrial
sludge. Sludge disposal will be by landfill and is not
included in the scope of this project.
Adsorption—Although the Freundlich isotherm is a valu-
able tool for evaluating adsorption as a unit process,
for comparing various adsorptive materials and for estab-
lishing process limits, it cannot, by itself, be used to
define a workable process. For complex industrial wastes
which exhibit multi-phase isotherms, a column study is
required to define a carbon exhaustion rate. Evaluation
of the TOG breakthrough curve shown as Figure V-3 indi-
cates a practical figure to be 65 pounds per 1,000 gal-
lons at a feed COD of 2,850 mg/1. Thus number is based
on a COD limit of 640 mg/1 and a TOC to COD ratio of
2.60. The process design is based on the following:
90
-------
Flow Rate (Total) 350 gpm nominal
ISfumber of Adsorbers 2
Flow Rate (Each Adsorber) 175 gpm nominal
Surface Loading 1>55 gpni/ft2
Retention Time (Superficial 175 minutes
Reactivation—At a carbon exhaustion rate of 65 pounds/
1,000 gallons, the calculated rate at which carbon must
be reactivated is 32,500 pounds per day (1,350 pounds/
hour). The reactivation furnace will have a capacity
slightly in excess of that rate to provide for peak days
Process Description
The Parshall flume wastewater treating system is shown
in Figure V-7.
Neutralization—Wastewater is conveyed to the battery
limits where it enters the first of two basins. A pH
recorder/controller measures the pH and starts an acid
or caustic pump to maintain a pre-set pH. A retention
time of thirty (30) minutes is provided with mechanical
mixing. Polyelectrolyte is added in the second basin
for optimum removal of suspended solids.
Clarification—After pH adjustment and polymer addition,
the wastewater flows to a 40-foot diameter clarifier
where the suspended solids settle to the bottom. A
scraper moves the solids to the sludge discharge for
pumping to a holding tank at the battery limits. Solids
removal from the clarifier is intermittent and is con-
trolled by a timer. In this manner the solids concen-
tration of the sludge can be optimized.
Floating materials will be removed by a skimmer to the
scum sump for disposal outside the battery limits.
Activated Carbon Adsorption—After clarification, the
wastewater flows to a sump for pumping to the adsorp-
tion system. The water enters two adsorbers through a
circular pipe header at the bottom. Each adsorber con-
sists of a circular steel-lined vessel with a cone bot-
tom and top. It is completely filled with granular
activated carbon (Filtrasorb 300 - 8 X 30 mesh).
91
-------
G
do
G
do
H
do
v/-5
p
SI
C
j/n<=
wp
x c
The reader is urged to remove
pages 93 and 9^ and tape
them to 32 to form a continuous
"fold-out" diagram.
Figure V-7.
Final waste treating system
92
-------
93
-------
FLUF-
COOUUG
ur/ur-r1
V-/8
Figure V-7 Contd,
94
-------
The two adsorbers are operated in parallel. The waste-
water flows upward through the carbon beds and dissolved
organic materials are physically adsorbed onto the sur-
face of the carbon granules. With time the carbon be-
comes "spent" with respect to the effluent specifications.
The carbon at the bottom of the bed is most heavily
loaded with organics because the concentration of waste
organics at that level is greatest. That portion of the
carbon which is spent is removed periodically and fresh
carbon added at the top.
This addition and removal will be accomplished by "slug-
ging" (removing and adding increments of carbon) each
adsorber approximately once each shift. One slug volume
is approximately 200 cubic feet.
During the slugging operation, a valve at the bottom of
the adsorber is opened allowing a slurry of carbon to flow
to the slug measuring tank. Simultaneously, a valve at
the top is opened allowing fresh carbon to flow from the
charge tank to the adsorber. When the slug measuring
tank is full, both valves are again closed and the slug-
ging operation is complete. The contents of the slug
measuring tank are then transferred by gravity to the
furnace feed tank.
Carbon Transfer and Reactivation—Spent carbon is trans-
ferred by an education system from the furnace feed tank
to a dewatering screw conveyor. Rate of carbon flow is
regulated by a timer-operated ball valve.
In the dewatering screw conveyor, carbon is moved upward
by an inclined screw conveyor and the water overflows to
a drain. The upper end of the dewatering screw dis-
charges into a reactivation furnace.
The reactivation furnace is a multiple-hearth type, 13
ft, 6 in. OD y with 5 hearths. A central rotating shaft
with rabble arms at each hearth moves the carbon across
the hearths and through drop holes causing it to pass
through the furnace. As it passes through the furnace,
the carbon is dried, organics are burned, and the pore
structures are reestablished as it is reactivated. Nor-
mal operating temperature on the fired hearths normally
range from 1650 - 1800° F.
95
-------
Reactivated carbon is discharged to a water-filled tank
where it is quenched. From there it drops into a blow-
case for transfer to the adsorber charge tanks. Trans-
fer is accomplished by closing the inlet ball valve and
opening the transfer water valve and discharge valve.
The blow case empties rapidly and transfer is complete.
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
The following constitutes a listing and description of
the major items of equipment needed to treat the Parshall
flume waste according to the treating process outlined
previously under "Proposed Process Description."
CD Polymer Dissolving Tank (PF-1)
Function: To dissolve dry polymer
in water and feed the
resulting solution at a
controlled rate.
Number Required: One
Solution Capacity: 400 gallons
(2) Clarifier (CF-1)
Function: To provide solids removal
by gravity sedimentation.
Number Required: One
Overflow Rate: 500 gallons/day/ft2
Basin Material: Reinforced concrete
(3) pH Adjusting Basin (V-l)
Function: To mix acid or caustic
with the water to main-
tain constant pH.
Number Required: One
Capacity: 5,250
Size: 11 ft X 11 ft X 8 ft deep
Material: Reinforced concrete
96
-------
(4) A.cid Storage Tank (V-*3)
Function: TO provide storage of
sulfuric acid for pH
adjustment.
Number Required: One
Capacity: 6,000 gallons
Material: FR£ or equal
(5) Caustic Storage Tank (V^f)
Function: fo stbre caustic soda
(50% NaOH) for pH ad-
justment.
Nurtibet Required: One
Capacity: 12,000 gallons
Material: FRP or equal
(6) Sludge Holding Tank (V-5 )
Function: To receive Sludge and
store it fot disposal
Required : One
Capacity: 5^006 gallons
Material: Lined carbon steel
(7) Pump Sump (y-6)
Function: *o receive clarified
wastewater from (2).
Number Required: One
Capacity: 21 f 000 gallons
Si2e: 12 ft X 24 ft X 12 ft deep
Material: Reinforced concrete
97
-------
(8) Moving Bed Adsorber (V-7 and V-8)
Function: To adsorb organic ma-
terials from the waste-
water stream.
Number Required: Two in parallel
Size: 12 ft diameter X 36 ft
straightside with 67°
cone bottom and 45°
cone top
Capacity: 250,000 gallons per day
at 1.6 gpm/ft2; carbon
holding capacity of
4,360 cubic feet of
Filtrasorb 300 (145,000
pounds) each ,
Material: Epoxy-phenolic lined
carbon steel
(9) Slug Measuring Tank (V-_9)
Function: To receive and measure
one slug volume of spent
carbon.
Number Required: One
Capacity: 200 cubic feet
Size: 6 ft 0 in. ID X 7 ft 0
in. straightside with
45° cone bottom
Material: Epoxy-phenolic lined
carbon steel
(10) Furnace Feed Tank (V-10)
Function: To receive and hold
spent carbon from the
slug measuring tank for
feed to the furnace.
Number Required: One
98
-------
Capacity:
Size:
Material:
(11) Quench Tank (V-ll)
Function:
Number Required:
Capacity:
Size:
Material:
(.12) Blowcase (V-12)
Function:
Number:
Size:
Material:
(13) Charge Tanks (V-13
Function:
Number:
Capacity:
Size:
1,200 cubic feet
12 ft diameter X 12 ft
straightside, slant
bottom
FRP or equal
To receive and cool hot
reactivated carbon.
One
200 cubic feet
6 ft 0 in. ID X 7 ft 0
in. Straightside with
45° cone bottom
304-L stainless steel
To transfer quenched
carbon to the charge
tanks.
One
3 ft 6 in. ID X 3 ft 6
in. straightside with
dished top and bottom
304-L stainless steel
and V-14)
To hold reactivated
carbon for charging in-
to the carbon columns.
Two
400 cubic feet each
8 ft 0 in. ID X 8 ft 0
in. straightside with
45° cone bottom
99
-------
Material: Epoxy-lined carbon steel
(14) Makeup Carbon Storage (V-15)
Function:
Number:
Capacity:
Size:
Material:
(15) Reactivation Furnace F-l
Function:
Size:
Capacity:
To receive and store fresh
carbon for makeup.
One
50,000 pounds of Filtra-
sorb 300
12 ft 0 in. ID X 16 ft 0
in. straightside with
slant bottom
FRP or equal
Description;
To reactivate spent car-
bon.
13 ft 6 in. ID X 5 hearth
with integral afterburner
32,500 pounds/day of spent
carbon
Unit is a refractory-lined
steel shell with 5 hearths
of refractory tiles. Ah
air-cooled rotating shaft
extends vertically through
the center of the furnace.
Rabble arms and teeth are
connected to the shaft at
each hearth level.
COST ESTIMATES
Capital
The estimated cost,as of 1971, to install the facilities
described here and shown on the flow sheets is indicated
below. This is a preliminary estimate based on preli-
minary material take-off plus vendor pricing of the fur-
nace. The estimated cost shown here includes:
100
-------
A. Direct cost for all facilities including foun-
dations, electrical, painting, and all other
material and labor required to erect the faci-
lities.
B. Indirect costs for field supervision, craft
fringe benefits, engineering, and all other
contractor overhead.
C. Fee and profit for contractors.
The accuracy of the cost figures presented is estimated
at +20%.
Capital Cost
Pretreatment $220,000
Adsorption
Initial Carbon Fill 75,000
Adsorbers and Carbon Handling 225,000
Reactivation Package 320,000
Subtotal $810,000
Engineering and Procurement 90,000
Total $900,000
Operating
The operating costs, as of 1971, for this system are
primarily controlled by the rate of carbon reactivation.
The bases used in calculating operating costs are as
follows:
pH Adjustment Chemicals—The need for both acid and
caustic addition was discussed earlier. The required
amount of each as shown is based on estimates. It is
likely that sufficient equalization would substan-
tially reduce the amount of neutralization chemicals
needed.
Sulfuric Acid:
Requirement (average) 8.7 lbs/1000 gallons
(4350 Ibs/day)
101
-------
Cost at $0.02/lb $87/day
Sodium Hydroxide:
Requirement (average) 17 lbs/1000 gallons
Cost at $0.035/lb
(50% solution) $295/day
Since neutralization will require each chemical
approximately 50% of the time, the estimated cost is:
($87 + $295) X 1/2 = $19I/day
Polymer—Using 2 mg/1 of Calgon polymer WT-2690, the
cost for polymer is $17.54/day.
Makeup Carbon—The following estimated cost of makeup
carbon is based on a loss of 5% on reactivation. In
a well operated system, the losses may be held to
about 3.5%.
Carbon Reactivated 32,500 Ibs/day at 65
lbs/1000 gallons
Makeup Carbon at 5% 1625 Ibs/day
Cost at $0.30/lb $488/day
With losses at 3.5%, the above cost is $342.
Maintenance—Maintenance requirements on this system
should be very minimal. An average cost of $38/day
is suggested for maintenance.
Utilities—
Power:
Reactivation System 900 kwh/day
Clarification and Sludge
Pumping 700 kwh/day
Total 1600 kwh/day
At $0.01/kwh, the cost for power is $16/day.
102
-------
Fuel Gas:
For the reactivation and furnace and afterburner,
approximately 6,000 Btu per pound of carbon reac-
tivated are required. Reactivating 32,500 ibs/
day with gas at 1000 Btu/ft3, 195,000 ft3/day
of gas is required. Cost for gas at $0.50 per
cubic foot is $97.50/day.
Operating Cost Summary—
Pretreatment:
Acid and Caustic
Polymer
Power
Maintenance
Total
$19I/day
18/day
7/day
11/day
$227/day
Carbon Reactivation and Makeup:
Makeup Carbon $488/day ($342)*
Gas 97/day
Power 9/day
Maintenance 27/day
Total
$621/day ($475)
*3 1/2% reactivation losses.
Note that the foregoing capital and operating costs do not
include the cost of facilities or personnel required to
perform the water testing needed to optimize the treating
plant operations. It is recommended that all water testing,
whether or not directly related to operation of the facility,
be consolidated at one location. . Such consolidation is cer-
tain to achieve both capital and operating economics. A
study leading to such a consolidation is not within the
scope of the work reported herein, hence no attempt has been
made to include laboratory and testing costs in the above
estimates.
103
-------
SECTION VI
WASTE TREATING PLANT OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE
DESIGN MODIFICATIONS
A wastewater treating plant (see Figure V-7) has been
built and is in operation at the Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
plant of Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. This treating plant
employs an adsorption process substantially identical to
that illustrated in Figure V-5.
Operations are briefly described and performance of the
plant is summarized in this section, Complete, day-by^
day performance data for a typical, six-rnonth period of
operations are provided in Appendix B.
Certain minor differences exist between, the treating pro-
cess now in operation and the original process proposed
in Section V and shown in Figure V-7. These differences
are as follows:
Referring to Figure V-7, piping that would permit feed
of wastewater directly to pH adjustment vessel, thus by-
passing the equalization basis, dpes not now exist- Fur-
ther, and still referring to Figure V-7, it has been
found that caustic for pH adjustment was not normally
required. For this reason Caustic Tank "v-4" was not
installed. In the event of an emergency requiring the
addition of caustic to the wastewater, this coyld and
would be accomplished by deliberately introducing com-
mercial 50% caustic solution to the system via one of
several of the waste streams shown in Figure III-2.
Facilities now permit use of the reactivation furnace
cooling ^ir as preheated combustion air for the after-
burner section of the reactivation furnace. Too, it has
been found necessary to return the water overflowing from
the seal pot (V-J.9) to the clarifier rather than dis-
charging it to the sewer as indicated since this water
occasionally contains more absorbed phenol than can
safely be discharged.
104
-------
OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION
Since no two wastewater treating plants will ever be
exactly identical, it is felt that inclusion of detailed
operating instructions and procedures in this report
would not only be unnecessary but actually confusing. The
following brief description will, however, serve to broadly
acquaint production and engineering personnel with the
operations and problems inherent in a carbon adsorption
waste treating facility.
Waste water from various plant drains enters the equali-
zation basin through the Parshall flume. Complete mixing
of these streams is accomplished during the residence
time in the basin by means of four turbine type agitators.
The waste water is transferred to an acid mixing chamber
by means of waste water feed pumps. Sulfuric acid is
added to the waste water in this chamber which is mixed
by means of a turbine type agitator. A non-ionic polymer
is added to the neutralized waste water as it leaves the
acid mixing chamber. The waste water then flows by
gravity to a flocculation chamber where a flocculator
mechanism promotes the floe formation. The waste water
then flows by gravity to the clarifier where the solids
settle out of the waste stream. The clarified stream
leaves the clarifier through a launder encircling the
clarifier tank and flows to the adsorber feed pump sump.
A clarifier mechanism is employed to collect the settled
solids. This solids laden stream is withdrawn from the
clarifier bottom sump by a pump which discharges the
stream into the thickener. Further separation of solids
from the waste stream is accomplished in the thickener by
means of a thickener mechanism. The supernatant flows by
gravity from the thickener collection launder back to the
equalization basin where it is mixed with the incoming
waste streams. The thickened solids are withdrawn from
the solids sump by a pump and is trucked to a land-fill
pit.
The sulfuric acid system, consisting of a horizontal
storage tank (V-3), an acid unloading station, an acid
overflow neutralization sump, and a metering pump, is
provided for the purpose of transferring the desired
amount of acid from storage to the waste water in the
mixing chamber.
The BPF-400 polymer feed system (PF-1), consisting of a
feed hopper, vibrator type feeder, polymer mixing (dis-
solving) tank complete with agitator, polymer solution
105
-------
pump for transferring the solution to the storage tank
and a variable capacity pump for feeding the solution to
a mixing type eductor, is provided for feeding the desired
polymer solution to the waste water at the outlet of the
acid mixing chamber.
Clarified waste water is transferred from the feed pump
sump in the pre-treatment area to the moving bed adsorbers
(V-7 and V-8) by feed pumps. The organic impurities pre-
sent in the waste water are adsorbed on the activated car-
bon as the water is passed through the columns.
The treated water leaves the adsorbers and flows by
gravity to a treated water tank not shown in Figure V-7.
The overflow from the tank flows to the Warrior River, to
the holding basin, or to the equalization basin for re-
processing if necessary. Treated water pumps take suction
from this tank and provide a source of water for eductors,
scrubber and hose stations.
Spent carbon is removed (slugged) approximately once
every 8 hours from each adsorber by gravity. This carbon,
in slurry form, flows to the slug measuring tank (V-9)
from which it is drained into the furnace feed tank (V-10).
The spent carbon is transferred from this tank as a slurry
by an eductor which discharges it into a 12" diameter
dewatering screw (DS-1). The carbon transfer rate is con-
trolled by intermittently opening and closing a timer-
operated ball valve on the bottom of the furnace feed
tank. The timer controls the frequency of the valve
operation. In the dewatering screw, excess water drains
from the carbon and overflows back to the furnace feed
tank. The drained carbon containing approximately 50%
water on a wet basis flows by gravity from the elevated
end of the dewatering screw through a chute onto the No.
1 hearth of the reactivation furnace.
In the furnace, the carbon is first dried and then stripped
of its adsorbed impurities by a countercurrent flow of
gases and returned to near virgin activity. The carbon is
moved from hearth to hearth by the action of the rabble
arms which "plow" the carbon across the hearths. The
reactivated carbon discharges from the bottom of the
furnace into the quench tank (V-ll) where it is quenched
and cooled with water. The reactivation furnace is
equipped with an afterburner and scrubbing system to
eliminate any odor-causing impurities and particulates
in the off-gas stream.
106
-------
Fuel for the burners in the furnace is natural gas with
diluted LPG used on a stand-by basis.
The cooled reactivated carbon is intermittently discharged
by gravity from the quench tank to the blowcase (V-12) .
It is then transferred as a slurry to the adsorber charge
tanks (V-13 and V-14) by pressurizing the blowcase with
plant air.
During reactivation and handling of the carbon, small
losses occur. These are replaced by virgin carbon which
is held in reserve in the make-up carbon storage tank
(V-17) . The carbon is transferred as a slurry from this
tank to the quench tank as required.
WASTE PRETREATMENT
The waste water from the chemical plant is collected in
the plant and run through a 36" diameter main to the
equalization basin in the pretreatment area. This basin
is an open reservoir having a normal capacity of 1,250,000
gallons at a depth of 6' and a capacity of approximately
3,000,000 gallons at its maximum depth of 12'. It contains
four vertical turbine type agitators and two vertical tur-
bine type centrifugal pumps. The basin is provided for
the purpose of furnishing waste water holdup capacity and
for the'purpose of obtaining complete mixing of the va-
rious waste streams which have been gathered together in
the chemical plant and sent to the adsorption plant for
treatment.
Waste water is pumped from the basin into the acid mixing
chamber. The plant flow rate is controlled at this point
by a magnetic type flow meter. The acid mixing chamber
is provided to reduce pH by the addition of sulfuric
acid before the addition of the polymer solution. The
waste stream pH is controlled by the pH controller which
regulates the flow from the acid system metering pump.
The polymer solution flow rate is set at a predetermined
rate and remains constant. The polymer solution is added
at the outlet of the acid mixing chamber.
The sulfuric acid system will receive acid by tank truck.
The polymer system will receive polymer in bags which will
be emptied into the feed hopper as required for solution
make-up. The properly prepared solution is fed from the
storage tank to the acid mixing chamber for blending into
the waste water by the proportioning pump and dilution
eductor.
107
-------
Waste water flows into the flocculation chamber by gravity
from the acid mixing chamber. The flocculator gently
agitates the waste water to enhance the formation of
large floe particles.
Waste water enters the clarifier through the rotating
center feedwell and then flows outward through the area
being swept by the slowly rotating mechanism as the solids
are settled out of the waste. The clarified liquid flows
out through an effluent launder encircling the tank and
is discharged into the adsorber feed sump (V-6). The
solids which have settled out are squeegeed off the tank
bottom by the mechanism and collected in a solids sump at
the center of the tank. These solids are then trucked as
slurry to a land-fill pit.
The clarified waste water which has entered the adsorber
feed sump is then fed to the moving bed adsorbers by feed
pumps for final treatment.
CARBON ADSORBERS
The two adsorbers (V-7 and V-8) are mild steel vessels
with conical top and bottom heads and are lined with
Ceilcote Flakeline 103, a polyester resin based material.
Each vessel will be completely filled with approximately
124,000 Ibs. of Filtrasorb 300 granular activated carbon.
The waste water enters the adsorbers near the bottom and
flows upward through the carbon to the top cone where it
discharges.
Once each shift spent carbon is discharged (slugged)
from the bottom of each adsorber column and reactivated
carbon is added at the top of the column to replace it.
The slugging operation consists in opening the remotely
operated slug value at the bottom of one or the other
adsorber, thus allowing a slurry of spent carbon to fill
the slug measuring tank (V-9). Simultaneously the valve
between the adsorber being slugged and its charge tank
(V-13 or V-14) is opened thus allowing an equal volume of
a slurry of reactivated carbon to replace the spent
material. During slugging the feed to the columns is re-
duced or shut off completely to insure that the adsorbers
can be filled with fresh carbon from the charge tanks.
By using this slugging operation the movement of carborj.
is essentially countercurrent to the flow of waste water
through the adsorbers since this places the most active
carbon in contact with the most purified water thereby
108
-------
achieving maximum utilization of the carbon and optimum
adsorber performance.
FURNACE FEED SYSTEM
When the slug measuring tank is full, it is then dis-
charged into the furnace feed tank (V-10) by opening a
remotely controlled drain valve in the bottom outlet
line. A 2 1/2" eductor is used to transfer the carbon
slurry from the furnace feed tank to the 304 stainless
steel dewatering screw (DS-1). Motive water flowing
through a venturi nozzle in the eductor pulls the carbon
slurry into the eductor.
The carbon is metered from the tank to the dewatering
screw by intermittently opening and closing the air-
operated valve on the bottom of the tank. A timer con-
trols the frequency of opening and closing.
The carbon in the slurry settles out in the pool in the
feed end of the motor-driven dewatering screw located on
top of the furnace. The dewatering screw is set at an
angle so that the water drains countercurrent to the flow
of carbon. The drained carbon discharging into the fur-
nace will contain approximately 50 wt% water (wet basis).
The excess water overflows from the dewatering screw to
the furnace feed tank. The dewatered carbon flows by
gravity from the elevated end of the dewatering screw
through a chute onto the No. 1 hearth of the reactivation
furnace.
REACTIVATION FURNACE
In the reactivation furnace, damp carbon is fed at a con-
trolled rate onto the No. 1 hearth. It by-passes the top
"zero" hearth, which serves as an internal afterburner.
It is then moved downward over five additional hearths
by rotating arms having rabble teeth that "plow" the bed
of carbon. As the carbon moves downward it is first
dried, then reactivated to near virgin activity. The
reactivated carbon, at red heat, drops from the bottom of
the furnace into the quench tank (V-ll) which is full of
water.
The furnace is fired with natural gas and the atmosphere
is further controlled by the supplemental addition of steam.
The gases generated at the hearths move upward through the
furnace countercurrent to the carbon.
109
-------
The carbon is reactivated by controlled oxidation of the
impurities from the pores of the granules. Correctly re-
activated carbon has nearly the same pore structure and
physical and chemical properties as virgin activated car-
bon.
Due to rounding off of the granules, the particle diameter
of reactivated "service" carbon is generally slightly less
than that of virgin carbon. The apparent density usually
is increased slightly. The molasses number is increased
somewhat and the iodine number decreased. The ash content
is gradually increased with extended use.
In the hot reactivation portion of the furnace, the water
vapor and carbon dioxide in the furnace atmosphere selec-
tively oxidize the impurities in the carbon pores. These
oxidizing gases are reduced, by the impurities, to hydro-
gen and carbon monoxide which are themselves re-oxidized
by air in the gas space above the carbon. Thus, the con-
trolled mild oxidation of the impurities requires control
of the furnace temperature and of the atmosphere in contact
with the carbon. This, in turn, requires the addition of
excess air and additional water vapor to maintain the cor-
rect conditions.
CARBON QUENCHING AND TRANSFER
In this system the hot reactivated carbon from the furnace
is quenched in water to reduce the temperature and to wet
the granules. The carbon-water slurry thus produced then
flows through the reactivated carbon system to the ad-
sorber charge tanks where it is used for slugging the ad-
sorbers as required.
The hot reactivated carbon discharges down a chute from
the furnace in small slugs as the rabble arms pass the
drop hole on the bottom hearth. Flow is into the quench
tank (V-ll) where the chute extends into the water to form
a gas seal to prevent air from being drawn into the fur-
nace. A sampling nozzle in the chute permits taking hot,
dry carbon samples.
The carbon slurry flows by gravity from the bottom of the
quench tank to the blowcase (V-12). The slurry of reac-
tivated carbon received from the quench tank is inter-
mittently blown (once every 30 minutes, or otherwise,
depending upon the cycle being used) to alternate carbon
charge tanks (V-12 and V-14).
110
-------
MAKE-UP CARBON
Virgin carbon must be added to the system periodically to
replace losses. The need for make-up is indicated by ob-
serving the level of carbon stored in the furnace feed
tank (V-10), the charge tanks (V-13 and V-14) , and the
quench tank (V-ll).
The make-up carbon is delivered by truck and is trans-
ferred as a carbon-water slurry to the carbon make-up
storage tank (V-17). The carbon is stored as a slurry
in this tank and is transferred by gravity to the quench
tank as needed.
PERFORMANCE
The efficiency of the wastewater treating plant can be
expressed by either or both of two sets of data. Con-
ventionally, the percentage reduction in the concentra-
tion of contaminants would be presented. From a practical
standpoint, the performance of the plant is best expressed
by the quantity of contaminants not adsorbed, i.e., that
are discharged, per day. Regardless of the percentage
reduction of contaminant concentration achieved, it is of
utmost importance that the treating plant be operated in
such a manner as to discharge the least quantity (pounds)
of contaminants practically possible.
The monitoring schedule for the waste treating plant re-
gularly includes BODs, COD, phenol, suspended solids and
pH determinations on 24-hour composites of the Parshall
flume waste to be treated and of the treated waste to be
discharged. In addition, COD concentration is monitored
on spot samples of the treated waste at 12-, 8- or 4-hour
intervals as needed to assure that discharge limits are
not or will not be exceeded.
Our data show that normally the composition of the waste
from the equalizing pond to the treating plant changes
only at a rate of, e.g., 100 to 200 pounds BOD5 or COD
per day. Process changes in the plant manufacturing area
chat would markedly affect the waste composition are
generally known although accidents can occur. The waste
treating plant personnel are thus able to adjust their
monitoring frequency and to make appropriate changes in
waste feed rate or "slug" frequency as necessary.
The process was designed to operate with a slug frequency
of 3 slugs per adsorber per day equivalent to a carbon
111
-------
reactivation rate of 1360 ppm. With the slug frequency
set the clarified waste feed rate is set to discharge
no more than 75% of the allowable COD discharge limit
based on the COD concentration of the spot samples.
When and if this control results in an increase in the
level of the equalizing basin the slug frequency is in-
creased. This permits processing the waste at a higher
rate.
Detailed data indicate that treating efficiency ranges
from 60-80 percent removal for 3005, 65-85 percent
removal for COD, and 99.3 - 99.9 percent removal for
phenol. The high efficiency figures are generally,
though not invariably, associated with those periods
exhibiting an abnormally high treating load. The carbon
"slugging" frequency needed to achieve these higher effi-
ciency levels could not be maintained indefinitely. They
are not, however, required in order to meet the average
or to stay under the maximum AWIC and EPA limits which
form the basis for the RCI discharge permit. These
limits and summary results for a six months operating
period (see Appendix B) are tabulated below.
Period
BOD, Ibs
AVG. MAX.
COD, Ibs Phenol, Ibs SS, Ibs
AVG. MAX. AVG. MAX. AVG. MAX,
EPA
1644 2300 2672 3900
27
27
200 200
Sept
Oct '
Nov '
Dec '
Jan '
Feb '
'73
73
73
73
74
74
1173
744
1258
1167
950
1035
1865
1331
2233
1700
1607
1454
2067
1372
2295
1917
1456
1577
2693
2427
3315
2602
2459
2572
3.
1.
0.
1.
3.
2.
46
86
87
40
06
00
32
7
2
6
11
5
.0
.5
.2
.9
.2
.7
205
87
109
108
87
79
.2 592
.2 296
.6 221
.0 365
.5 213
.7 159
PROBLEMS
In addition to the expected problems associated with
equipment start-up and personnel training, a number of
situations have developed that were unexpected. Some of
these might have been avoided, at least one could not.
Note 1. The equalization basin serves also as an inef-
ficient settler-clarifier. Settled solids will have to
112
-------
be removed (dredging) at approximately yearly intervals
to maintain the basic capacity. To the degree that this
situation is caused by the location and geometry of the
basin the problem is unavoidable.
Note 2. On occasion, anaerobic sulfur-active bacteria
have been present in the adsorbers. Source of these bac-
teria is not known, although corner areas of the equali-
zation basin are virtually stagnant and DO levels in these
areas are low to nonexistent. Bacteria growth has beeri
sufficient to coat (and thus to inactivate) carbon par-
ticles and to significantly reduce the bed void volume.
Carbon capacity has been thus reduced and the hydraulic
pressure drop across the bed has been noticeably in-
creased. This situation has from time to time, been
temporarily corrected by isolating one adsorber and
injecting sufficient caustic soda solution to kill the
in situ bacteria. Introduction of sodium nitrate into
the adsorber as suggested by the carbon supplier provided
little, if any, relief.
Increasing the "slug" frequency serves to reduce the
bacteria level to a tolerable value but is expensive in
terms of makeup carbon.
A more satisfactory solution to the problem of bacterial
growth within the adsorbers must ultimately be found.
Note 3. Wear of the rakes that move carbon particles from
one hearth to another in the reactivation furnace appears
to be excessive. Useful life of, for example, the teeth
has been six months so far. Since furnace temperatures
are not excessive, there is no immediate, obvious reason
for this short life. The matter is to be investigated by
the supplier.
Note 4. For reasons not immediately apparent the life of
the bottom, conical, section of the absorbers has been
impossibly short. Erosion, not corrosion, seems to be
responsible but the localized nature of the failures
requires explanation. As this is written the bottom
section of one absorber has already been replaced and
plans are complete for replacement of the other bottom
section.
OPERATING COSTS
Under the present inflationary pressures it is difficult
to present any meaningful numerical data for operating
costs for the carbon adsorption waste treating plant.
113
-------
Fixed expenses, including depreciation, insurance, taxes,
etc., will certainly vary, depending on plant location,
size and waste character. Under local (Tuscaloosa, Ala-
bama) conditions, plant fixed expenses are currently (1974)
between $11,000 and $12,000 per month. This equates to
about $800 per MM gallons of waste treated.
The material costs are steadily increasing. The major
material is, of course, activated carbon. For the six-
month period previously mentioned, a carbon balance indi-
cates the following:
Carbon Consumption - 3,445 Ibs/MM gallons waste
Carbon Transferred - 69,749 Ibs/MM. gallons waste
Carbon Lost - 4.94 percent of transfer
The carbon cost, per MM gallons, amounted to almost
exactly $1120.00 for the first quarter of 1974. Based
on electricity at $0.0138/KWH and natural gas at $0.5872/
MCF, the utility cost for the treating plant is between
$5,500 and $6,500 per month or about $400.00 per MM gal-
lons.
Personnel requirements for the plant are one operator per
eight-hour shift (four men, total) plus an average of one
hour per shift of supervision. Direct labor alone amounts
to almost $300.00 per MM gallons of waste.
To the foregoing cost figures must be added budgeted
amounts for maintenance (approximately $400.00 per MM
gallons), general services, administration and overhead.
Like fixed expenses, these costs will certainly differ
from plant to plant.
114
-------
SECTION VII
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND GLOSSARY OR TERMS
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Except for DO (dissolved oxygen) which was determined
using a Smith and Weston DO Probe all analyses were made
employing the appropriate methods outlined in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
thirteenth edition (1).
TERMS
Alkalinity - Expressed as equivalent calcium car-
bonate .
3005 - Five-day biological oxygen demand.
C(i) - Concentration, initial
C(f) - Concentration, final
Cl~ - Chlorine, expressed as chloride ion,
COD - Chemical Oxygen demand.
DO - Dissolved oxygen.
DS - Dissolved solids.
Equalization Time - Tank volume, in gallons/flow, in
gallons per day (or hour)
Fe - Iron
F/M - Oxidation tank loading, pounds BOD5
per day/pounds MLSS.
GPD - Gallons per day.
(1) Published 1971; American Public Health Association,
Inc., 1790 Broadway N.Y., N.Y. 10019
115
-------
MGD - Million gallons per day.
mg/1 - Milligrams/liter.
MLSS - Suspended solids in oxidation tank,
MM - Million.
N - Nitrogen.
P - Phosphorus.
ppm - Parts per million (by weight).
t/D - Pounds per day.
SS - Suspended solids.
SVI - Sludge volume index.
Oxytank - Biological oxidation tank T-7.
TOG - Total organic Carbon.
TS - Total solids
VSS % - Percent, by weight, SS volatile at
600° C.
VTS % - Percent, by weight, TS volatile at
600° C.
116
-------
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was initiated by Mr. T. p. Shumaker, Vice-
president, Sputhern Division, Reichhold Chemical, Inc.,
in cooperation with the Alabama Geological Survey, Mr.
P. E. LaMoreaux, State Geologist and Oil and Gas Super-
visor.
The support of the research and development work asso-
ciated with the project by the Environmental Protection
Agency is acknowledged. The assistance and encourage-
ment provided by Mr. E. P. Lomasney as Project officer
for the EPA has been extremely helpful and is gratefully
acknowledged.
The carbon adsorption process was developed under con-
tract by Calgon, Incorporated, and the actual treating
plant was designed by and built under the supervision
of that company.
Mr, C. Schimmel, Vice-president, Manufacturing, Southern
Division, RCI, acted as project director for RCI with the
assistance of Messrs. A. W. West and W. R. Goode.
117
-------
APPENDIX A
RAW DATA - BIO PLANT
Tables Al
Tables Bl
Tables Cl
Tables Dl
A8:
B8:
C8:
D8:
Tables El - E8;
Tables Fl - F8;
Tables Gl - G3:
Oxidation Tank Feed
Plant Final Effluent
Oxidation Tank Mixed Liquor
Oxidation Tank Performance and
Waste Sludge
Equalized Raw Feed, Part I
Equalized Raw Feed, Part II
Oxidation Tower Data
118
-------
TABLE A-l RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
Date
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/1/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/4/70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/8/70
8/9/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/14/70
8/15/70
8/16/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
8/20/70
8/21/70
8/22/70
8/23/70
8/2 V 70
8/25/70
8/26/70
8/27/70
8/28/70
8/29/70
8/30/70
8/31/70
DO
PPM
4.1
6.6
7.1
6.3
7.1
5.8
5.0
4.4
5.1
6.2
6.5
--
--
__
__
—
—
--
5.1
4.2
3.3
--
1.1
5.4
—
—
—
—
4.3
4.7
4.5
3.5
4.3
Temp.
°F
88
85
88
90
86
86
84
84
84
81
84
80
--
--
__
--
--
__
82
89
80
—
82
78
__
--
__
—
82
80
82
86
84
__J>L__
8.2
7.5
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.65
7.6
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.3
8.0
--
--
--
—
9.8
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
—
7.5
7.8
--
__
--
--
9.3
9.7
9.4
9.0
8.7
BOD_
PPM-
350
359
480
283
234
267
276
182
148
186
__
141
__
._
__
_-
__
--
__
—
—
--
__
150
—
—
—
--
--
496
766
698
498
SS
PPM
12
184
4
64
8
36
24
36
8
__
--
4
_-
--
_-
__
--
--
_-
--
44
36
--
—
--
—
—
--
30
50
75
45
95
%
vss
0
5
0
32
0
34
0
22
100
--
--
100
--
__
_-
--
--
--
--
__
73
0
--
__
--
--
—
—
67
50
53
88
84
TS % OS COD Phenol
PPM VTS PPM PPM PPM
860 —
720 —
743 -
__
__
610
609
590 --
395 -
__
__
375 -
528 10.44
— __ — — —
4.0
__ — -_ — —
_-
__
__
- 606 --
620 44
300
—
__
-_
—
__
—
__
1255 --
—
__ 1590 —
—
Dilution Flow
Factor GPM
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
2- 1.09
2- 0.82
2- 0.82
Batch Batch
Batch Batch
Batch Batch
2-1 0.82
2-1 0.82
Batch Batch
Batch Batch
Batch Batch
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
f\
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
0.82
.09
.09
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
3.26
3.26
1.63
1.63
3.26
-------
TABLE A-2 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
to
o
Date
9/1/70
9/2/70
9/3/70
9/4/70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/7/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
9/10/70
9/11/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/14/70
9/15/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/24/70
9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
DO
PPM
3.5
1.8
1.7
3.1
4.0
3.4
1.5
1.0
3.0
1.2
0.46
0.00
0.9
1.0
1.0
2.7
1.7
2.6
1.4
2.3
2.6
4.3
6.2
2.1
6.2
7.0
7.1
7.5
7.6
7.0
Temp.
°F
86
85
83
81
82
82
84
81
84
83
78
77
77
78
78
80
78
78
84
85
87
80
84
82
79
80
78
77
72
75
pH
8.8
8.6
8.2
7.8
8.3
7.7
4.6
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.0
7.0
8.7
8.8
9.3
8.9
8.6
9.1
10.0
10.2
9.4
8.1
10.5
9.6
10.8
11.1
11.2
10.6
11.1
10.8
BOD_
PPM*
622
742
421
735
525
606
831
517
523
—
832
810
810
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
823
975
1021
719
860
607
1426
SS
PPM
120
12
80
5
0
50
5
88
50
—
85
—
4
60
108
112
72
—
—
—
—
—
—
76
135
10
—
4
__
430
%
vss
100
100
100
100
--
33
0
40
40
—
71
--
100
100
67
84
89
—
—
—
—
—
—
90
26
100
—
0
__
16
TS % DS COD
PPM VTS PPM PPM
1710
—
- 1670
1880
1630
1980
2120
1500
1605
__
2560
I960
—
1580
2097
1678
1640
—
—
—
—
—
—
2500
2360
2690
2040
2110
1940
2360
Phenol
PPM
88.2
--
43.8
--
--
—
—
--
«
--
--
--
--
—
37.5
—
—
—
--
--
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
Dilution Flow
Factor GPM
2-1 3-26
2-1 3.26
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
2-
2-
2-
o«.
*y^
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
.53
2.00
3.26
-------
TABLE A-3 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
Date
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/4/70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/14/70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/24/70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
DO
PPM
8.0
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.8
7.5
7.4
6.1
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.6
8.6
--
—
7.1
9.2
7.8
7.7
8.1
8.0
7.4
8.8
11.6
11.2
--
__
6.4
Temp.
°F
73
74
79
78
74
77
74
75
70
75
75
74
76
72
68
--
--
67
66
69
66
68
70
69
72
69
61
—
66
64
pH
10.5
10.4
10.8
10.2
10.3
10.0
10.1
9.7
8.6
8.9
9.5
9.4
9.9
10.2
10.8
__
--
11.0
11.2
10.2
11.2
8.9
10.4
9.2
7.6
7.7
6.6
--
7.8
8.8
BOD_
PPM1'
1107
861
782
__
1750
2040
1080
888
__
878
596
840
495
—
__
--
880
--
--
--
--
__
810
1200
1620
1020
__
720
--
ss
PPM
0
55
95
35
60
20
60
60
20
—
60
30
15
35
__
__
--
175
10
--
80
70
85
--
20
80
100
--
—
--
yss
100
27
84
100
55
50
0
57
75
--
75
50
15
14
—
__
__
57
__
—
100
72
88
--
75
100
60
__
__
--
TS
PPM
~ —
__
4462
5444
3142
2668
—
2284
2054
__
—
—
--
--
__
__
—
--
2520
--
1804
2248
--
2554
—
—
--
vis
"*""
--
20
41
21
25
--
24
22
--
--
—
—
--
—
__
--
—
21
19
32
—
33
__
—
—
DS
PPM
—
—
4442
5384
3082
2648
—
2214
2024
--
__
--
—
__
—
--
--
—
2450
__
__
2228
__
2454
--
—
__
COD Phenol
PPM PPM
2440
1780
3909
3290
3909
—
2740
2200
—
2060
1882
1600 101.0
1460
__
1248
__
—
__
658
1238
2500
1668
1820
1998
1795
2340
__
—
—
Dilution Flow
Factor GPM
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
f\
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
2-
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3-26
3.26
-------
TABLE A-4 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
NJ
Date
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11 A/70
H/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11/13/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
1 1/22/70
11/23/70
11/24/70
11/25/70
H/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
DO
PPM
7. A
9.0
10.0
10.1
9.8
9.0
6.4
8.8
__
9.8
8.4
--
__
—
--
10.2
8.4
__
7.8
7.5
6.0
4.4
5.6
--
--
--
__
—
1.4
Temp.
°F
69
66
59
60
59
__
75
77
79
--
75
73
__
__
__
--
63
63
--
62
69
71
68
52
--
—
--
—
--
80
J-H
8.2
8.4
8.4
10.0
7.3
10.4
9.7
10.8
--
7.8
11.8
--
—
--
--
10.7
7.2
--
7.4
9.5
7.8
7.9
8.7
--
--
__
__
--
8.2
BOD
PPMb
1620
816
388
427
__
--
570
385
720
__
--
883
--
--
—
455
488
945
--
3000
1170
--
2220
910
--
--
--
--
._
1065
SS
PPM
105
84
--
35
45
--
__
105
—
100
50
—
—
--
15
165
35
--
80
90
--
45
--
--
--
--
—
—
130
%
vss
0
76
--
86
--
--
--
--
47
--
60
50
--
--
--
100
100
100
--
63
67
--
100
--
--
__
—
—
—
85
TS
PPM
1470
1726
1614
2002
--
—
—
1630
--
3664
3396
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
__
--
—
__
—
--
--
__
%
VTS
._
40
41
44
--
--
--
__
30
—
27
33
--
__
--
--
—
—
--
__
--
--
—
--
—
—
--
__
—
--
DS
PPM
.„
1386
--
1579
1957
__
--
--
1525
--
3564
3346
--
--
--
--
—
—
--
--
--
--
—
--
—
--
—
—
—
--
COD
PPM
._
1260
1500
1545
1788
--
1390
960
1538
—
2860
2120
--
--
—
1482
1500
2260
--
6130
3850
__
4180
--
—
—
--
__
--
2500
Phenol
PPM
— —
--
__
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
__
--
23.5
--
--
230.0
--
--
--
73.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
Di lution
Factor
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
NONE
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
—
--
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Flow
GPM
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
-------
TABLE A-5 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
Date
12/1/70
12/2/70
12/3/70
12/4/70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/7/70
12/8/70
12/9/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/14/70
12/15/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/18/70
12/19/70
12/20/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/24/70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/27/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
DO
PPM
2.9
5.0
3.0
8.4
2.3
3J
2.9
7.4
8.2
8.1
8.4
8.0
9.2
9.1
9.0
6.4
8.3
7.8
7.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
Temp.
°F
72
74
80
79
73
72
66
65
76
76
78
78
67
67
68
68
72
73
70
70
—
--
--
—
—
--
—
—
—
__
--
^pH
8.2
9.7
8.6
7.3
9.5
8.5
8.2
10.1
11.2
11.4
10.6
10.2
10.9
10.9
11.2
11.2
11.0
11.3
10.9
11.0
__
__
—
--
__
--
—
—
--
--
--
BOD
PPM1*
1225
947
1070
1610
230
1218
1325
1342
690
1230
1485
1455
887
1398
1304
1745
1530
945
4380
3000
—
—
—
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
ss
PPM
80
55
195
300
135
165
80
--
85
70
135
0
100
130
130
70
50
--
—
--
__
__
__
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
%
vss
56
100
72
67
74
30
100
--
100
86
52
--
90
46
69
50
100
--
--
—
__
__
__
—
—
—
—
—
--
__
TS % DS COD
PPM VTS PPM PPM
3260
2180
-- -- 3070
3210
3660
2490
— " 2990
2850
-- -- 3500
3110
- - 3090
3100
-- -- 3550
2240
2800
3220
2200
/t950
8150
3600
—
__
__
—
—
__
__
—
__
--
--
Phenol Dilution
PPM Factor
268.8
__
258.0
__
__
__
__
108.7
__
__
__
__
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Flow
GPM
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
-------
TABLE A-6 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
t-o
Date
1/1/71
1/2/71
1/3/71
1/4/71
1/5/71
1/6/71
1/7/71
1/8/71
1/9/71
1/10/71
1/11/71
1/12/71
1/13/71
1/14/71
1/15/71
1/16/71
1/17/71
1/18/71
1/19/71
1/20/71
1/21/71
1/22/71
1/23/71
1/24/71
1/25/71
1/26/71
1/27/71
1/28/71
1/29/71
1/30/71
1/31/71
DO
PPM
_ w
—
—
--
--
—
8.3
8.7
—
5.5
4.8
1.0
8.2
8.5
8.2
7.0
6.0
6.6
9.4
7.4
8.4
3.2
3.5
2.4
8.8
7-3
7.3
10.9
__
7.2
10.2
Temp.
°F
..
--
--
--
—
--
63
57
—
62
65
64
63
72
72
72
61
62
54
58
50
70
66
76
68
66
56
50
--
70
59
pH
__
--
--
__
—
__
11.2
10.8
—
11.0
10.9
4.5
6.4
6.5
10.0
10.2
4.9
10.0
11.8
11.1
11.1
9.5
9.7
8.3
11.3
11.7
9.1
8.8
--
9.0
9.2
BOD
PPM15
__
__
--
--
--
950
405
__
1290
1220
--
4740
3570
2000
1110
1800
2520
1815
1305
1620
5082
2910
3795
1740
2835
2535
4800
--
822
945
ss
PPM
VSS
TS
PPM
VTS
DS
PPM
COD
PPM
75
120
130
165
185
120
200
130
135
80
245
100
70
140
75
85
105
60
105
165
185
5
53
100
100
76
68
27
25
65
44
69
30
40
100
82
60
19
19
0
62
45
81
100
1903
1260
2800
2520
6950
7700
5569
3248
5999
5097
5452
3049
3206
15360
7101
5350
4930
7370
9979
10943
3650
3250
Phenol
PPM
*» _
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
--
—
--
--
37-5
—
--
--
--
--
__
Di 1 ut i on
Factor
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
__
--
__
Flow
GPM
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
,08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.54
-------
TABLE A-7 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
Date
2/1/71
2/2/71
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/71
2/6/71
2/7/71
2/8/71
2/9/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/14/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/21/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/71
2/26/71
2/27/71
2/28/71
DO
PPM
7.9
10.5
1.9
9.1
5.0
9.2
9.2
9.6
9.0
10.8
8.8
10.0
10.4
10.7
9.9
8.3
7.3
7.4
9.1
8.6
8.1
8.9
9.8
10.1
8.0
7.5
8.4
8.1
Temp.
°F
55 1
47 1
58
65 1
62 1
66 1
56 1
47
42
48 1
58 1
57 1
50
52
55
64
66
66
64
66
67
67
59
56
64
68
66
67
pH
1.5
1.8
7.4
1.1
0.5
2.0
2.1
9.4
9.4
2.5
2.2
2.4
1.7
1.8
2.5
1.4
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.7
1.2
0.6
BOD
780
380
3780
636
1335
2330
__
1282
1055
916
1890
748
3000
1072
1302
1980
1830
1614
1800
1515
760
663
587
605
3270
2110
1475
1225
SS
PPM
15
25
110
50
195
160
205
50
95
215
70
120
--
190
315
240
110
85
50
75
165
105
145
35
115
75
70
80
VSS
100
60
68
100
0
100
--
100
100
58
71
71
--
79
44
44
32
59
60
60
33
100
100
86
91
47
63
13
TS % DS COD
PPM VTS PPM PPM
2427
1778
8674
2133
3508
5450
3149
3120
3189
3835
4454
2672
13964
3030
3166
3638
3556
3470
3720
3612
1552
1322
1303
1194
5050 17 4935 7862
4032
4203
3107
Phenol Dilution Flow
PPM Factor GPM
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.815
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
-------
TABLE A-8 RAW DATA - FEED TO OXIDATION TANK
Date
3/1/71
3/2/71
3/3/71
3/4/71
3/5/71
3/6/71
3/7/71
3/8/71
3/9/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/12/71
3/13/71
3/14/71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/7 '1
3/21/71
3/22/7 1
3/23/71
3/24/71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/27/71
3/28/71
3/29/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
DO
PPM
7.8
7.6
9.0
10.9
9.2
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.7
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.3
8.2
7.1
8.8
9.3
9.2
10.0
9.9
9.0
9.2
9.3
10.2
10.4
10.3
10.2
9.2
8.8
8.9
6.2
Temp.
°F
71
72
62
49
56
66
58
57
57
61
63
62
67
72
70
67
62
76
61
67
78
66
65
60
58
64
64
66
71
66
68
pH
10.0
10.3
11.1
11.0
9.7
9.2
9.9
9.8
10.6
11.3
10.1
11.2
10.4
10.2
8.9
9.3
9.8
11.3
11.2
7.8
7.5
12.0
11.7
11.8
11.2
10.6
11.0
10.2
10.2
9.9
9.6
BOD
PPM"*
1575
1560
1223
1320
1130
2437
2175
2325
1942
2340
2580
2460
3525
1475
3675
2490
1980
856
796
802
1625
967
1470
1635
975
--
—
—
—
—
—
ss
PPM
80
80
90
100
65
275
100
95
145
135
75
70
95
--
75
100
155
55
I4o
95
90
50
105
95
75
--
145
--
160
90
80
VSS
87
87
83
15
85
96
90
90
79
74
67
86
53
—
67
75
74
82
61
88
83
70
67
68
66
--
69
—
59
55
56
TS
PPM
2186
3420
3818
3804
3018
4562
4168
—
__
—
__
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
—
—
VTS
45
31
20
25
29
17
22
—
—
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
__
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
DS
PPM
2106
3340
3728
3704
2953
4287
4068
—
__
--
--
--
—
--
--
__
--
--
--
—
--
—
—
—
--
—
—
--
—
__
—
COD
PPM
4541
3528
3146
3283
2225
5232
4598
6844
4560
4254
5188
4958
6763
3790
5589
4944
4570
2543
2180
2475
2925
2012
3938
4061
2920
2777
3607
3779
3389
256!
2651
Phenol Dilution F
PPM Factor G
_ _ — —
__
__
__
__
__
—
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
low
PM
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
-------
TABLE B-J RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
Date
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/1/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/4/70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/8/70
8/9/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/14/70
8/15/70
8/16/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
8/20/70
8/21/70
8/22/70
8/23/70
8/24/70
8/25/70
8/26/70
8/27/70
8/28/70
8/29/70
8/30/70
8/31/70
DO
PPM
4.1
6".4
4.9
5.0
5.5
5.9
3.9
4.3
6.1
6.8
7.1
—
—
--
—
—
__
—
—
5.0
—
5.2
5.1
5.0
__
--
—
—
4.5
3.8
3.2
3.6
2.1
Temp.
°F
88
83
88
90
88
88
86
84
85
83
84
__
—
__
--
—
--
--
—
80
--
78
82
79
—
—
--
—
80
80
84
84
85
pH
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.0
7.1
6.9
7.2
7.6
7.7
7.6
—
--
—
—
—
__
--
—
7.1
__
6.9
7.3
7.3
__
__
--
--
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.25
BOD
PPM*
30
26
55
19
20
7
10
20
15
10
—
40
__
--
—
--
—
—
__
__
--
—
--
10
—
--
—
—
--
18
240
570
267
SS
PPM
28
208
—
104
8
52
8
4
12
--
—
8
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
32
48
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
10
5
45
70
%
vss
57
57
—
17
100
31
0
0
67
—
--
100
--
_.
—
—
--
—
__
__
0
33
—
__
--
--
--
—
—
100
100
100
100
TS %
PPM VTS
502
614 —
496 —
824 --
708 —
760 —
780 —
882 —
798 --
—
—
—
__
__
__
—
—
-_
—
680 24
680 —
582
—
__
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
DS
PPM
474
406
—
720
700
708
772
818
786
—
—
__
--
--
—
--
--
__
__
--
684
534
—
—
—
--
--
—
—
—
--
--
--
COD
PPM
254
140
133
--
113
76
95
192
95
--
--
106
178
--
--
57
98
--
97
81
94
—
__
__
--
—
--
--
--
58
—
984
--
Phenol
PPM
«~
--
--
--
__
--
—
0.5
—
__
__
__
1.36
__
1.8
—
__
--
—
1.14
—
0.44
—
—
--
--
—
—
--
--
--
—
--
-------
TABLE B-2 RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
tSJ
oo
Date
9/1/70
9/2/70
9/3/70
9/4/70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/7/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
9/10/70
9/11/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/14/70
9/15/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/24/70
9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
DO
PPM
1.3
3.9
3.7
1.0
4.4
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.8
3.0
1.6
2.0
3.8
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.7
3.4
2.3
3.6
2.9
3.4
4.7
--
4.8
4.8
5.1
—
5.5
Temp.
°F
86
85
83
81
84
82
84
83
83
86
82
80
80
82
79
82
80
80
86
85
86
82
83
79
--
82
78
76
--
74
PH
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
—
7.8
7.9
8.1
--
8.1
BOD
PPM"*
339
435
367
401
318
308
427
314
312
--
337
585
366
232
253
177
195
--
--
--
__
__
__
124
122
131
110
180
100
198
SS
PPM
125
45
70
75
30
16
75
280
40
__
10
94
32
44
40
47
72
—
--
—
—
—
—
60
205
20
—
40
--
100
%
vss
80
67
71
100
100
98
27
0
0
--
100
--
100
82
70
78
94
--
--
—
—
—
—
87
44
75
—
0
—
5
TS
PPM
__
—
—
2400
2180
--
—
2270
2128
—
5140
3108
3192
3094
2582
2400
2480
—
—
--
__
—
—
1996
2046
2188
—
2318
—
2380
*
VTS
M —
__
19
34
--
—
18
14
__
18
15
18
47
--
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
17
16
18
—
15
—
15
DS
PPM
«. —
--
--
2325
2150
—
--
1990
2088
__
5130
3014
3160
3050
2542
2353
--
--
__
--
--
--
--
1936
2002
2168
—
2278
—
2280
COD
PPM
999
__
694
1260
1140
1230
1285
1195
1145
__
1315
1670
--
1150
1110
1119
1140
--
—
__
__
--
--
695
561
602
430
716
832
765
Phenol
PPM
0.85
--
1.0
__
--
--
--
0.28
--
—
--
--
--
--
0.0
__
--
__
--
__
--
--
--
--
0.0
--
--
--
0.2
--
-------
TABLE B-3 RAW DATA - PLANT EFFLUENT
Date
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/4/70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/14/70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/24/70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
DO
PPM
5.0
5.*
5.8
6.7
5.6
5.1
6.8
2.0
2.4
2.0
5.6
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.3
6.2
—
--
6.4
8.0
6.4
6.2
5.7
6.5
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.8
—
—
3.4
Temp.
°F
73
75
76
78
75
73
75
70
75
70
77
76
75
75
72
67
—
__
66
65
68
65
68
69
69
72
68
68
—
—
63
PH
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.8
—
--
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.4
—
--
7.7
BODC
PP^r
244
174
288
--
--
--
847
474
1010
680
--
337
298
230
335
—
—
—
221
—
—
__
—
—
205
367
540
285
--
180
—
ss
PPM
145
95
105
20
__
75
140
110
120
--
75
130
90
20
__
__
—
65
70
—
85
95
35
__
25
10
110
—
—
--
%
vss
90
16
57
100
—
62
54
91
100
--
74
42
90
0
--
--
--
69
21
--
100
53
28
—
40
0
64
—
--
--
TS
PPM
2726
2772
2622
__
2522
__
—
3900
3794
3130
2252
--
--
—
__
__
—
—
—
__
—
1496
__
1852
1852
—
1742
—
—
--
%
VTS
13
18
16
__
15
-_
21
18
19
21
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
18
—
15
33
—
33
—
--
—
DS
PPM
2581
2677
2517
2502
._
—
2760
3684
3010
__
2177
--
--
--
--
—
—
—
--
—
1401
—
—
1827
—
1632
—
—
--
COD
PPM
806
923
816
__
__
—
2145
--
2680
1640
—
1445
1300
__
874
--
643
__
--
580
690
816
1127
1000
1095
960
978
__
--
--
Phenol
PPM
1.85
__
—
—
—
--
--
--
--
—
—
0.34
0.30
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
__
--
--
--
—
—
__
-------
TABLE B-4 RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
u>
o
Date
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11 A/70
11/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11/13/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/23/70
11/24/70
11/25/70
11/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
DO
PPM
A. 7
5.6
6.2
7.1
7.2
__
5.5
6.4
7.1
--
6.3
5.4
—
--
—
6.7
6.0
—
3.8
5.5
5.1
4.2
5.4
—
—
—
—
—
2.1
Temp.
°F
68
66
57
59
56
—
66
69
72
--
64
64
—
—
--
91
74
__
66
83
78
67
62
—
—
—
—
—
84
pH
7.3
7.9
7.8
6.1
7.7
—
7.7
7.9
7.8
--
7.8
7.9
--
—
—
—
8.0
8.1
—
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
—
--
-_
—
—
7.8
BOD
pphr
870
458
180
126
--
--
705
330
420
--
__
187
--
--
—
64
42
84
—
150
360
90
525
430
--
—
--
--
—
264
SS
PPM
105
240
45
60
35
—
—
__
175
--
75
140
—
—
—
56
260
85
—
140
—
—
50
__
--
--
--
--
—
20
%
vss
0
79
100
67
—
--
—
—
66
—
20
100
—
—
—
100
100
100
—
57
__
__
100
--
—
--
—
--
--
75
TS
PPM
• _
3234
2420
1984
1902
—
—
--
2126
--
2112
2446
—
—
—
1446
1896
1966
—
2472
—
—
3414
—
--
--
--
--
--
2082
%
VTS
— _
21
39
33
__
__
--
--
25
—
28
25
__
—
—
34
26
31
—
24
--
—
14
--
—
--
--
--
--
34
DS
PPM
«. —
2994
2375
1824
1867
--
--
--
1951
--
2037
2306
—
—
--
1390
1636
1881
—
2332
--
--
3664
--
—
—
--
--
—
2062
COD
PPM
«. —
__
1350
989
970
__
2140
1055
860
__
680
887
__
--
--
430
630
650
774
772
1740
--
1750
--
--
--
--
—
--
670
Phenol
PPM
--
__
2.5
--
--
__
--
--
--
__
__
__
--
--
—
0.13
—
—
0.13
—
--
--
0.2
--
—
--
--
--
—
-------
TABLE B-5 RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
u>
H"
Date
12/1/70
12/2/70
12/3/70
12/V70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/7/70
12/8/70
12/9/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/14/70
12/15/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/18/70
12/19/70
12/20/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/2V70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/27/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
DO
PPM
4.2
4.9
—
6.4
7.5
9.6
5.5
5.6
5.6
6.4
6.5
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.6
6.9
6.8
7.5
6.8
2.5
__
—
—
—
__
--
—
—
—
—
—
Temp.
°F
82
81
--
82
72
67
74
80
80
81
83
78
78
74
73
77
74
75
72
73
—
—
--
—
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
pH
7-9
7.9
__
7.6
8.4
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.0
8.0
7.7
8.0
8.1
7.8
8.3
8.0
8.2
8.0
—
__
__
__
__
—
__
—
—
__
—
BOD_
PPM1*
263
350
201
297
486
310
460
535
310
288
648
422
330
358
415
408
315
280
385
589
__
--
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
__
__
SS
PPM
100
60
70
70
90
80
265
10
215
240
65
130
45
75
115
125
35
115
50
70
--
__
__
--
--
--
—
--
—
—
—
%
vss
35
0
100
100
67
100
41
0
70
100
100
100
100
40
92
48
100
100
100
100
—
--
__
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
TS
PPM
2456
2500
2234
2386
2388
2290
2780
3002
3234
3476
3656
3652
--
3152
3380
3074
2990
3364
--
—
—
—
-_
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
%
VTS
32
23
24
24
15
18
20
26
26
25
28
20
—
20
25
21
28
JO
._
„_
—
-
__
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
DS
PPM
2356
2440
2264
2316
2298
2210
2515
2992
3019
3236
3591
3522
--
3077
3265
2949
2955
3249
__
--
—
--
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
COD
PPM
1260
1210
895
1270
597
1005
1365
1500
1330
1420
1595
1550
1390
1300
1278
975
1000
1000
625
1850
--
--
_-
--
__
--
__
—
._
—
--
Phenol
PPM
31.0
—
0.92
—
—
—
—
0.5
—
__
__
__
__
—
__
—
--
__
--
--
--
--
-_
--
--
--
--
—
--
—
--
-------
TABLE B-6 RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
Date
1/1/71
1/2/71
1/3/71
1/4/71
1/5/71
1/6/71
1/7/71
1/8/71
1/9/71
1/10/71
1/11/71
1/12/71
1/13/71
1/14/71
1/15/71
1/16/71
1/17/71
1/18/71
1/19/71
1/20/71
1/21/71
1/22/71
1/23/71
1/24/71
1/25/71
1/26/71
1/27/71
1/28/71
1/29/71
1/30/71
1/31/71
DO
PPM
«• —
—
--
—
__
__
—
—
4.9
4.5
6.0
1.2
3.8
4.0
3.3
5.0
5.0
5.2
6.7
5.2
5.4
1.0
6.1
7.4
5.8
5.6
7.2
8.2
--
3.2
4.0
Temp.
°F
• _
—
__
—
—
—
—
--
85
60
68
69
70
70
70
72
74
66
59
60
58
74
74
68
82
76
65
64
__
72
67
pH
--
__
__
--
__
__
__
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.4
8.3
8.2
11.7
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.6
__
8.0
7-9
BOD
PPM'
..
--
--
—
--
—
180
20
—
36
0
--
1130
780
606
540
567
573
500
471
503
899
685
1083
790
656
466
735
--
620
403
SS
PPM
„
--
--
—
—
--
—
—
—
30
165
65
15
55
150
75
35
90
175
30
35
150
150
100
75
190
60
140
--
105
5
vss
„
--
--
—
--
—
__
—
—
100
92
100
100
91
100
80
43
68
63
100
85
16
50
85
40
68
100
54
--
100
100
TS
PPM
..
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
--
6872
—
9334
6204
6184
6230
6162
6608
—
__
7964
—
—
—
8142
--
—
3434
% DS COD Phenol
VTS PPM PPM PPM
631
51,7
760
292
2150
17 6817 2410
oj i/ic/Ti 11 in i c £n£ ien inn __ _- — 2284
54 9259 2041
10 6169 1923
10 6094 1888
8 6055 1887
22 6132 1709
20 6573 1727
1690
2255
8 7864 2125
1992 0.12
1045
1884
10 8002 2183
1900
19 3429 1500
-------
TABLE B-7 RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
U)
u>
Date
2/1/71
2/2/71
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/71
2/6/71
2/7/71
2/8/71
2/9/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/14/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/21/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/7 '1
2/26/71
2/27/71
2/28/71
DO
PPM
5.3
7.8
6.4
5.8
6.0
5.8
4.0
6.1
--
6.5
5.6
7.7
7.1
7.7
5.8
2.0
4.1
4.8
5.4
5.8
6.5
6.7
7.2
7.3
5.6
4.9
5.6
5.2
Temp.
°F
58
67
69
73
64
74
72
53
__
57
72
75
65
74
67
76
78
74
78
78
74
75
70
76
75
81
76
79
pH
7-9
8.2
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.6
8.4
8.4
__
8.4
8.3
8.6
8.2
8.2
8.6
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.6
8.7
8.6
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.1
BOD
PPMb
103
60
65
60
48
102
149
173
67
113
20
20
62
15
19
30
20
10
7
7
9
12
14
8
12
14
13
17
SS
PPM
130
7
125
135
135
60
__
105
__
250
75
210
__
325
290
__
140
70
45
100
100
125
160
105
60
85
85
110
%
VSS
15
86
24
93
44
100
__
48
--
76
60
95
__
85
98
--
50
86
56
75
75
100
91
86
83
71
94
86
TS
PPM
6778
5922
5570
5266
4984
5006
5152
5126
5252
5126
4868
4588
5990
4996
5470
4896
5084
4688
4426
4606
4186
3848
3396
5568
3462
3432
3088
—
°/
'0
VTS
14
15
13
13
15
12
14
13
20
17
11
18
32
20
18
18
14
13
9
15
13
14
11
15
11
14
13
--
DS
PPM
6448
5852
5445
5131
4849
4946
--
5021
__
4876
4793
4378
—
4671
5180
__
4944
4618
4381
4506
4086
3723
3236
3463
3402
3347
3003
--
COD
PPM
947
959
735
877
593
924
1104
1104
975
809
661
865
1169
1115
1020
970
815
548
538
612
532
518
341
379
411
528
609
545
Phenol
PPM
« —
--
—
—
--
__
--
--
--
—
__
—
--
--
0.1
--
--
0.15
--
--
--
--
—
0.14
0.1
—
--
-------
TABLE B-8 RAW DATA - PLANT FINAL EFFLUENT
Date
3/1/71
3/2/71
3/3/71
3/V71
3/5/71
3/6/7 '1
3/7/7 '1
3/8/71
3/9/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/12/71
3/13/71
3/14/71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/7 'I
3/21/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/24/71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/27/71
3/28/7 J
3/29/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
DO
PPM
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.3
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.0
4.8
4.6
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.1
3.8
4.9
3.6
5.9
5.1
5.8
5.8
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.3
6.3
4.9
8.8
7.5
Temp.
°F
78
78
72
74
79
81
70
67
71
70
75
72
75
78
77
70
70
77
70
67
72
74
70
78
66
70
74
87
70
68
75
pH
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
7-9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
7-9
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
BOD-
PPM*
17
41
31
30
24
14
10
8
26
19
153
96
62
147
141
70
18
11
20
20
26
13
27
127
55
—
--
—
—
—
--
ss
PPM
100
220
305
190
275
155
80
380
170
295
100
195
195
—
365
340
230
185
190
165
160
285
320
430
905
—
230
190
170
145
115
%
vss
95
96
93
76
49
94
81
87
88
92
90
92
77
—
93
71
28
73
74
74
81
77
39
42
86
--
55
58
68
55
61
TS
PPM
2998
2970
2936
2876
2860
2874
2976
3208
3426
3692
4212
4544
4788
--
4812
4478
4154
3704
3314
3018
3014
3090
3244
4226
4316
—
3320
—
2228
3004
--
%
VTS
23
25
21
20
21
16
30
18
12
13
7
12
12
—
16
14
15
15
14
24
18
19
21
32
32
--
12
—
21
11
--
DS
PPM
2898
2750
2631
2686
2585
2719
2896
__
3256
3397
4112
4349
4593
—
4447
4138
1924
3519
3124
2853
2851
2015
2924
3796
3411
--
3090
—
2058
2859
--
COD
PPM
632
813
727
735
689
485
443
337
586
568
814
650
804
1020
923
950
782
698
60?
623
645
644
606
800
739
636
763
545
554
441
439
Phenol
PPM
0.0
—
--
__
0.23
__
—
—
__
—
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
—
--
0.1
0.38
--
--
__
--
--
--
0.03
__
-------
TABLE C-l RAW DATA - MIXED LIODOR IN OXIDATION TANK
Date
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/1/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/4/70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/8/70
8/9/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/14/70
8/15/70
8/16/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
8/20/70
8/21/70
8/22/70
8/23/70
8/24/70
8/25/70
8/26/70
8/27/70
8/28/70
8/29/70
8/30/70
8/31/70
DO
PPM
6.2
6.8
7.0
7.3
6.8
7.8
6.0
6.1
6.5
6.2
7.7
—
7.2
7.2
7.8
7.2
6.8
6.9
7.4
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.6
—
--
--
—
7.1
6.5
7.2
6.5
5.0
Temp.
°F
84
86
88
87
86
86
84
87
84
84
85
86
80
78
78
83
82
87
84
80
82
80
82
82
—
__
—
—
80
80
82
84
85
pH
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.0
--
—
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.3
7-5
--
--
--
__
7.4
7.7
7.8
7.4
7.2
SS
PPM
3980
2730
1660
3480
3480
3460
3320
3140
2780
—
--
1300
1660
—
1600
1420
2680
1620
2380
--
--
1460
__
—
—
--
—
--
1660
1100
1200
1000
1100
VSS
47
40
49
38
38
41
43
44
51
—
57
43
--
36
37
38
54
09
--
--
14
—
--
--
—
--
--
45
73
64
80
55
Settlinq
Test SVI
125
120
115
105
no
110
125
125
110
70
70
70
__
56
55
50
50
55
50
40
55
50
50
50
__
—
—
__
—
30
30
25
25
Retention
Time - Hours
96
96
--
96
96
96
96
96
72
72
72
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
96
Batch
Batch
Batch
96
96
96
36
48
48
48
48
48
24
24
48
48
48
DO
Uptake
37
—
23
25
45
27
21
24
22
—
__
__
--
6.6
6.0
13
13
8
13
12
13
2.2
2.5
__
--
—
__
--
—
5
9
11
8.5
Sludge
Recycle
* *.
—
--
--
--
—
--
__
--
—
__
--
--
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
--
__
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
46%
Batch
46%
46%
46%
-------
TABLE C-2 RAW DATA - MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION TANK
Date
9/1/70
9/2/70
9/3/70
9/4/70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/7/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
9/10/70
9/11/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/14/70
9/15/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/24/70
9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
DO
PPM
4.8
6.2
5.0
4 1
5.4
5.5
5.8
6.2
6.0
6.2
4.8
2.8
5.4
5.7
5.1
5-7
5.8
6.2
4.2
4.0
4.4
3.7
5.8
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.5
7.0
8.4
7.1
Temp.
°F
86
85
86
83
82
83
85
82
83
84
82
80
80
80
80
80
82
81
85
85
88
84
87
80
81
83
80
77
70
72
pH
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
8.0
8.1
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.7
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.9
8.4
8.1
ss
PPM
1360
2780
2860
2680
2400
2280
2140
1440
2010
__
2320
2540
2140
2180
2280
2080
2180
--
--
--
--
2430
3000
2360
3930
3210
2960
2780
2220
3650
*a
vss
87
65
61
75
94
70
57
__
51
--
75
52
58
59
60
50
66
__
--
—
__
73
65
72
49
67
51
__
75
55
Settling
Test
100
110
no
110
95
95
90
95
85
85
110
no
90
120
140
140
150
140
155
155
145
159
145
150
160
175
170
185
180
190
SVI
._
--
—
__
—
—
—
__
—
—
--
—
__
__
--
--
__
—
—
—
--
62
47
64
41
55
57
67
81
52
Retention
Time - Hours
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
24
F/M
«. —
--
0.42
0.36
0.23
0.38
0.69
__
0.51
__
0.48
0.61
0.65
--
--
--
—
--
—
--
—
--
—
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.22
--
0.18
0.71
DO
Uptake
20
17
20
22
21
20
4.3
4
5.4
6.4
15
22
12
10
18
10
8.9
7.0
6.0
__
3.0
5.1
11.0
15.0
11.0
16.0
12.0
21.0
6.0
14.0
Sludge
Recycle
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
46%
-------
TABLE C-3 RAW DATA - MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION TANK
u>
-j
Date
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/4/70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/14/70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
JO/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/24/70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
DO
PPM
5.8
6.8
6.4
6.8
6.2
7.0
7.0
7.0
4. 2
5.4
6.4
6.7
7.2
6.4
7.7
8.4
—
—
7.6
9.4
8.9
7.6
5.8
6.7
9.7
10.0
11.6
12.0
--
--
5.6
Temp.
°F
75
76
78
79
76
74
75
76
78
72
78
76
75
76
75
68
--
--
66
66
68
66
67
70
69
71
69
70
68
68
63
_PH
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.6
7-5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.8
--
--
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.4
--
7.8
7.7
SS
PPM
3820
2760
3560
--
3560
3480
3260
3030
3020
2460
__
3040
3340
2980
3200
--
--
--
2600
2270
2300
1680
1430
1600
1200
860
1460
720
3080
3100
--
% Sett 11 no
VSS Test
65
61
68
--
66
61
66
70
70
72
65
76
76
72
--
__
73
63
70
89
70
75
67
81
33
83
56
78
--
220
210
235
235
225
230
215
210
225
230
250
270
270
330
320
--
--
300
285
250
200
150
140
110
100
85
85
295
300
320
SVI
57
56
66
--
66
65
70
71
70
92
82
81
92
101
—
--
—
115
126
108
119
105
88
72
116
58
118
96
97
—
Retention
Time - Hours F/M
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
24
24
0.44
0.37
0.33
-_
__
—
0.81
0.97
0.54
0.50
--
0.45
0.24
0.38
0.22
--
--
--
0.4?
—
--
--
--
--
1.02
1.73
3.36
1.71
--
0.42
--
DO
Uptake
24.0
14.0
23.0
--
39.0
26.0
24.0
32.0
30.0
30.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
__
__
6.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
21.0
28.0
28.0
36.0
25.0
25.0
18.0
17.0
22.0
Sludge
Recycle
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
Batch
100
100
100
100
-------
TABLE C-4 RAW DATA - MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION TANK
Ul
CO
Date
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11/4/70
11/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11/13/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
H/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/23/70
11/24/70
11/25/70
H/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
DO
PPM
6.3
7.2
9.1
9.0
8.6
4.0
4. 1
7.6
7.2
9.6
7.9
5.8
9.2
7.2
—
6.2
7.8
7.2
7.0
3.2
5.5
6.1
4.8
5.8
--
—
—
--
--
3.6
Temp.
°F
70
67
59
58
57
67
67
70
72
66
63
66
68
66
—
58
106
68
75
84
83
85
66
76
--
—
—
—
--
90
pH
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
—
7.9
7.6
7.4
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.5
--
—
—
—
--
7.8
ss
PPM
3740
3560
3340
3400
9520
3450
3220
2820
3260
4360
3960
3760
—
—
--
4000
5760
5560
5400
4000
2000
1500
4620
5180
—
—
—
—
__
2900
% Settling
vss
59
72
97
49
63
81
81
81
80
74
67
64
--
--
—
83
66
76
75
82
59
88
83
70
--
—
—
—
—
72
Test
450
330
710
610
780
630
650
630
350
650
410
725
400
785
—
770
640
880
898
350
150
140
950
815
--
--
--
—
—
185
SVI
120
93
212
179
172
182
202
224
187
149
104
193
—
__
—
192
111
158
166
88
75
93
206
157
—
—
__
—
—
64
Retention
Time - Hours
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
F/M
0.74
0.32
0.12
0.26
—
—
0.22
—
0.17
—
—
0.37
--
—
—
0.14
0.13
0.22
--
0.92
0.99
—
0.58
0.25
--
—
—
—
__
0.51
DO
Uptake
20
37
13
18
14
48
30
16
17
12
19
19
11
16
--
11
23
17
6
32
26
20
16
28
--
—
--
—
--
22
% Sludge
Recycle
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-------
TABLE C-5 RAW DATA - MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION TANK
u>
Date
12/1/70
12/2/70
12/3/70
12/4/70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/7/70
12/8/70
12/9/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/1V70
12/15/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/18/70
12/19/70
12/20/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/2*1/70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/27/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
DO
PPM
5.5
4.4
3. A
3.5
7.0
6.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
4.8
4.8
5.8
5.2
5.7
4.6
4.7
5.2
1.0
5-7
2.2
3.8
4.9
7.4
5.3
7.6
9.0
8.2
6.8
3.8
2.9
3.1
Temp.
°F
89
85
89
85
72
68
85
92
85
81
86
82
83
84
80
84
82
83
83
86
84
87
91
83
83
72
84
84
84
83
84
J.H
7.8
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
8.0
8.0
7.6
7.7
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.8
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.3
7.8
7.8
7.9
SS
PPM
1760
3870
5540
6120
6400
4300
4580
4540
4500
5280
5240
5440
5220
5000
5600
5340
5420
6960
6340
6200
6380
6100
6440
6380
6340
6000
5800
6540
6660
6340
6424
% Settling
VSS Test
92
75
76
71
78
86
78
89
81
84
80
85
74
87
84
76
83
89
87
86
84
72
79
80
90
97
81
85
86
86
80
175
650
950
965
965
950
920
905
950
940
940
945
950
960
960
950
970
950
960
970
960
975
980
960
970
990
960
980
970
965
970
SVI
100
168
172
158
151
220
201
200
200
178
180
174
180
192
172
177
179
137
150
156
150
160
152
151
153
165
165
150
146
152
150
Retention
Tfme - Hours F/M
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
0.76
0.33
0.25
0.37
0.05
0.33
0.37
0.33
0.13
0.19
0.24
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.18
0.29
0.23
0.10
0.53
0.35
--
__
--
—
--
--
--
--
—
--
--
DO
Uptake
9
25
17
23
22
18
29
22
43
38
36
26
28
27
28
38
37
--
50
38
34
39
36
78
32
29
26
22
19
27
25
% Sludge
Recycle
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
__
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-------
TABLE C-6 RAW DATA - MIXED LI ODOR IN OXIDATION TANK
Date
1/1/71
1/2/71
1/3/71
1/4/71
1/5/71
1/6/71
1/7/71
1/8/71
1/9/71
1/10/71
1/11/71
1/12/71
1/13/71
1/14/71
1/15/71
1/16/71
1/17/71
1/18/71
1/19/71
1/20/71
1/21/71
1/22/71
1/23/71
1/24/71
1/25/71
1/26/71
1/27/71
1/28/71
1/29/71
1/30/71
1/31/71
DO
PPM
6.2
5.8
5.2
6.1
6.8
7.8
7.0
7.5
4.9
7-8
7.0
1.8
4.4
5.1
5.6
5.8
5.4
5.0
5.6
6.0
6.8
2.4
5.8
6.4
2.4
3.4
4.8
5.2
4.5
2.2
7.8
Temp.
°F
85
86
87
85
80
82
83
65
83
85
86
86
79
90
84
80
84
87
85
80
87
90
87
90
90
89
87
88
88
88
86
pH
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.9
8.1
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
8.2
8.0
8.4
8.3
7.5
8.1
8.3
7.8
8.0
8.1
7.8
7.9
7.6
8.1
ss
PPM
6500
6640
6340
--
6860
6000
4640
6000
--
4000
3360
3480
4840
3000
3220
2860
3000
2700
3080
2620
2860
3680
3740
3580
3400
3360
3600
3320
4040
4420
3800
% Settlinq
VSS
88
85
86
—
77
84
84
78
__
74
84
80
76
88
93
100
83
75
68
87
90
64
77
74
79
75
76
81
91
30
82
Test
960
970
970
—
970
950
900
950
—
330
300
310
255
330
370
360
370
350
335
370
430
400
395
400
500
450
565
430
650
630
700
Retention
SVI Time - Hours F/M
147
147
152
--
141
158
193
158
--
82
87
89
52
109
114
125
123
129
108
141
150
108
106
111
147
134
157
129
160
142
184
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
120
120
120
120
120
192
192
192
192
192
144
144
— —
--
--
--
--
—
0.08
0.03
--
0.14
0.14
--
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.05
0.09
0.15
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.43
0.20
0.29
0.08
0.14
0.11
0.22
--
0.04
0.05
DO
Uptake
34
29
30
29
12
13
12
12
--
23
48
--
42
30
15
15
18
10
12
6
10
66
14
16
22
14
17
28
36
40
20
% Sludge
Recycle
--
--
--
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
-------
TABLE C-7 RAW DATA - MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION TANK
Date
2/1/71
2/2/71
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/7 1
2/6/71
2/7/71
2/8/71
2/9/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/14/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/21/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/71
2/26/71
2/27/71
2/28/71
DO
PPM
6.1
6.5
2.0
1.6
5.5
2.6
1.2
6.2
7.1
7.9
4.6
7.3
1.8
5.2
3.3
0.4
3.0
5.7
5.2
5.4
6.4
6.5
7.2
7.3
5.3
4.6
5.4
4.5
Temp.
°F
88
87
85
86
83
83
82
81
86
88
86
85
84
86
70
88
83
83
86
84
82
84
82
82
85
86
78
90
pH
7.9
8.2
7.5
7.6
7.8
8.6
8.2
8.2
8.5
8.9
8.0
8.6
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
SS
PPM
3369
2020
3320
3720
3440
3220
3320
2440
2575
2970
3133
4500
5160
5000
5200
5060
4950
5500
4390
5260
4820
4820
5820
4640
4800
5430
5580
5260
% Settlinq
VSS Test
83
83
66
82
76
100
100
92
85
81
70
88
80
78
77
76
76
81
88
78
81
83
88
88
87
81
83
84
480
455
515
465
480
445
375
430
350
380
345
695
790
745
830
760
780
770
795
805
855
850
820
845
840
890
910
850
Retention
SVI Time - Hours F/M
121
225
155
125
139
138
113
176
136
128
110
154
153
149
160
150
157
171
181
153
177
176
140
182
175
163
163
161
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
48
48
48
48
0.04
0.04
0.29
0.03
0.08
0.12
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.18
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.23
0.3!
0.19
0.15
DO
Uptake
7
7
34
36
8
28
33
9
8
28
10
12
36
38
11
--
16
15
13
12
—
7
5
5
10
13
11
20
% Sludge
Recycle
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-------
TABLE C-8 RAW DATA - MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION TANK
Date
3/1/71
3/2/71
3/3/71
3/4/71
3/5/71
3/6/71
3/7/71
3/8/71
3/9/71
3/10/71
3/H/71
3/12/71
3/13/71
3/14/71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/71
3/21/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/24/71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/27/71
3/28/71
3/29/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
DO
PPM
2.8
4.3
4.3
3.9
3.9
2.6
3.8
2.8
4.4
3.0
0.5
1.3
6.5
1.4
0.5
3.8
5.3
5.6
5.1
5.8
5.4
5.8
1.5
2.8
3.3
3.9
0.4
5.5
3.0
5.4
4.3
Temp.
°F
85
85
82
90
92
90
81
80
87
78
90
80
88
80
85
80
68
83
78
77
78
82
80
76
76
70
84
87
82
73
88
_J>H
7.8
7.8
7.9
7-9
7.9
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.1
SS
PPM
4770
5170
4750
4930
4850
4740
4820
4420
4780
5060
4580
5320
4020
4140
4220
4240
4550
4560
4650
9500
4730
4840
4850
5130
4510
4680
4250
4470
4800
4880
5120
%
vss
83
81
86
79
84
83
85
88
85
87
87
85
81
79
74
86
85
85
85
85
84
86
82
83
91
82
85
80
80
80
84
Sett Una
Test
640
820
865
845
730
730
860
815
820
890
730
865
510
410
520
570
700
660
650
590
670
570
570
580
440
520
330
380
365
410
455
SVI
134
159
182
171
150
154
178
184
171
175
159
162
126
99
123
134
154
145
140
131
142 .
117
117
113
97
111
78
85
76
84
89
Retention DO % Sludqe
Time - Hours _ F/H Uptake ____ Recyc le _
48 0.18 26 100
48 0.19 20 100
48 0.15 12 100
48 0.1? 13 100
48 0.14 13 100
48 0.31 24 100
48 0.19 17 100
48 0.30 22 100
48 0.24 39 100
48 0.26 20 100
48 0.32 -- 100
48 0.27 36 100
48 0.54 -- 100
48 0.22 25 100
48 0.59 — 100
^iQ H "3 £l &$ Ififl
48 0.26 30 100
48 0.11 20 100
48 0.10 26 100
48 0.10 18 100
48 0.20 22 100
48 0.12 20 100
48 0.18 48 100
48 0.19 40 100
48 0.12 30 100
48 — 40 100
48 — 32 100
48 — 12 100
48 — 40 100
48 -- 8 100
48 -- 19 100
-------
TABLE D-l RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
Date
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/1/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/4/70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/8/70
8/9/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/14/70
8/15/70
8/16/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
8/20/70
8/21/70
8/-22/70
8/23/70
8/24/70
8/25/70
8/26/70
8/27/70
8/28/70
8/29/70
8/30/70
8/31/70
% BOD-
Remova 1
91
93
89
93
99
98
99
89
90
99
__
92
--
__
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
—
--
98
—
—
—
--
--
99
68
18
46
% COD
Remova 1
71
78
82
—
77
89
85
67
76
__
__
72
66
--
--
--
85
—
—
87
86
77
--
—
—
—
--
—
—
96
—
39
--
% Phenol Gallons SS % TS % # Solids Per
Removal Per Day PPM VSS PPM VTS f BOD^. Removed
«• «
—
1
— • j —
__ __ -_ -_ -- —
__
__
77
„_
__
90
•"
55
—
—
__
98
97
__
__ __ __ __ __ ._
__ __ __ — — __
-- __ — __ __ __
__ -- -_ -- __ —
—
__ — — __ — __ __
-- __ __ __ _- __ __
j
1
—
—
--
--
—
— -
__ __ — __ — __
—
-- -- -- -- -- --
-------
*»
*>
TABLE D-2 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
Date
RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
% BOD
Remova 1
% COD
Remova 1
% Phenol
Remova 1
Gal Ions
Per Day
SS
PPM
%
vss
TS
PPM
%
VTS
# Solids Per
ft BOD,. Removed
9/1/70
9/2/70
9/3/70
9/4/70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/7/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
9/10/70
9/11/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/14/70
9/15/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/24/70
9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
46
42
12
45
40
49
49
39
40
--
60
28
39
__
—
--
--
__
—
--
—
—
—
85
88
87
85
79
84
86
42
59
33
30
38
40
27
29
49
15
27
47
33
30
72.5
76
78
79
66
57
68
99
98
99
100
99
200
2120
-------
TABLE D-3 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
% BOD5
Date Remova 1
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/V70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/1V70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/2V70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
90
80
71
—
__
__
51
77
65
32
—
61.7
50
72.6
32. k
—
--
--
75
—
--
--
__
--
75
70
67
72
--
75
—
% COD % Phenol Gallons SS
Removal Removal Per Day PPM
67 99
1»8
85.8
—
~ — — «-
__
__
—
__
55
1,5
__
i
2.o
25 .. j -
kk
32
32 99-9
**0
—
1,2
—
__
--
12
U
--
—
--
--
__
—
—
__
__
—
--
67
32
1,5
1,5
kl
58
--
__
—
—
__
—
--
__
i
vss
TS
PPM
VTS
# Solids Per
# BODr Removed
1__
-------
TABLE D-4 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
0s!
Date
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11/4/70
11/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11/13/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/23/70
11/24/70
11/25/70
11/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
% BOD_
Remova 1
46
44
54
71
--
—
0
14
48
--
—
92
—
—
__
86
—
—
--
95
74
90
77
53
—
--
—
—
--
75
% COD
Remova 1
._
--
10
36
45
--
0
0
44
--
76
58
—
71
—
71
57
72
66
88
55
—
58
—
--
__
—
—
__
73
% Phenol Gallons SS % TS % # Solids Per
Removal Per Day PPM VSS PPM VTS # BODr Removed
__
__
98
--
__
__
__
__
--
—
—
--
—
--
—
99.5
—
—
99+
--
—
—
99.8
--
--
—
__
--
__
j
__ __ __ __ -- — -
— __ -_ _- -- --
._
__
__
__ — -_ __ — —
__
__
__•
__
—
150
__
—
50
200 - — 58171 81
—
50 — -- 14270 66
—
--
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
__ -_ _- __ __ __
-------
TABLE D-5 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
- WASTE SLU DGE
% BOD
Date Removal
12/1/70
12/2/70
12/3/70
12/4/70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/7/70
12/8/70
12/9/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/14/70
12/15/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/18/70
12/19/70
12/20/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/24/70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/27/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
79
62
81
82
0
67
65
60
55
77
56
71
63
75
66
76
80
82
91
81
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
% COD
Remova 1
61
44
71
81
84
60
54
46
62
54
50
50
61
42
55
70
55
80
89
48
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
% Phenol
Remova 1
88.5
—
99.5
—
--
__
99.8
—
—
—
—
—
--
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
--
--
--
--
--
Gal Ions
Per _Day
100
300
600
SS
PPM
VSS
TS
PPM
VTS
i Solids Per
# BOD- Removed
—
17318
14808
12103
73
71
67
100
-------
TABLE D-6 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
00
Date
1/1/71
1/2/71
1/3/71
1/4/71
1/5/71
1/6/71
1/7/71
1/8/71
1/9/71
1/10/71
1/11/71
1/12/71
1/13/71
1/14/71
1/15/71
1/16/71
1/17/71
1/18/71
1/19/71
1/20/71
1/21/71
1/22/71
1/23/71
1/24/71
1/25/71
1/26/71
1/27/71
1/28/71
1/29/71
1/30/7)
1/31/71
% BOD-
Remova 1
_ _
—
--
—
--
--
81
93
--
95
100
—
76
81
82
81
78
78
80
72
72
63
73
63
73
79
83
96
--
--
--
% COD
Remova 1
_ _
—
—
--
--
—
67
65
--
73
88
—
30
37
48
50
61
64
64
68
62
74
67
38
67
81
74
92
--
—
--
% Phenol Gallons SS
Removal Per Day PPM
•» M
--
--
--
--
__
--
99+
99+
__
--
—
--
99+
« « >» -.
—
—
—
—
—
__
__
__
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
--
j
i __ __
--
__
—
—
--
-- --
%
vss
TS
PPM
VTS
# Solids Per
# BODr Removed
—-—5
-------
TABLE D-7 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
VD
Date
2/1/71
2/2/71
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/71
2/6/71
2/7/71
2/8/71
2/9/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/14/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/21/7 '1
2/22/7 '1
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/71
2/26/7 1
2/27/71
2/28/71
% BOD-
Remova 1
82
92
95
95
96
93
91
91
95
91
98
98
96
99
99
98
99
99
99.6
99.5
99
99
98
99
99
99
99
99
% COD
Remova 1
70
65
81
96
84
77
93
74
71
78
82
95
81
81
82
84
76
87
85
83
83
80
82
72
86
85
86
85
% Phenol Gal Ions
Removal Per Day
._
--
--
--
—
--
—
—
—
—
__
__
--
--
--
99.9
__
--
99.9
—
—
--
—
--
99.9
99-9
__
--
•• —
--
—
—
—
70
_~
—
__
__
—
__
—
20
—
20
—
—
—
—
__
--
--
—
800
500
SS % TS % # Solids Per
PPM VSS PPM VTS # BODr Removed
•• "n —- - • - j s
—
—
—
592
12740 78 15660
__
„_
__
__
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
-_
—
—
5580 83 -- -- 1.2
5260 84 — -- 0.42
-------
TABLE D-8 RAW DATA - OX TANK PERFORMANCE
RAW DATA - WASTE SLUDGE
o
Date
3/1/71
3/2/71
3/3/71
3/4/71
3/5/71
3/6/71
3/7/71
3/8/71
3/9/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/12/71
3/13/71
3/14/71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/71
3/21/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/24/71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/27/71
3/28/71
3/29/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
% BOD5
Remova 1
99
97
98
98
98
99
99.6
99.6
99
99
94
96
98
94
9*
98
99.8
99
97
97
98
99
98
92
96
—
--
—
—
—
—
% COD
Remova 1
83
80
78
97
75
87
90
94
90
87
83
87
86
81
80
82
84
80
7^
73
76
78
82
80
79
77
76
85
84
85
83
% Phenol Gallons
Removal Per Day
100
__
— „.
500
j 500
--
99.9
--
500
200
300
700
—
|
--
—
--
—
--
99.9
99.9
—
--
—
—
99.9
—
500
—
600
--
—
—
—
--
—
__
—
—
200
—
500
—
500
—
—
—
—
—
ss
PPM
5170
4750
4930
4850
4740
4820
5060
5320
% TS
VSS PPM
81
80
79
84
83
85
87
85
% i Solids Per
VTS # BOD Removed
1.1
0.33
1.0
0.4
0.19
0.76
0.75
1.7
4840
4850
4680
86
82
82
-------
TABLE E-1 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
Date
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/1/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/4/70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/8/70
8/9/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/14/70
8/15/70
8/16/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
8/20/70
8/21/70
8/22/70
8/23/70
8/24/70
8/25/70
8/26/70
8/27/70
8/28/70
8/29/70
8/30/70
8/31/70
DO
PPM
2.8
6.2
4.3
4.2
6.4
0.4
1.6
1.8
3.7
5.6
6.2
__
0.8
3.5
4. i»
0.8
6.8
6.5
7.0
1.9
5.2
0.9
1.2
2.6
—
—
--
—
2.2
4.8
6.1
0.9
1.1
Temp.
°F
90
86
91
91
86
91
93
91
86
84
84
86
82
84
86
84
85
87
90
84
87
87
87
84
—
—
--
__
87
86
87
89
91
_ELH
7.9
7.8
8.0
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.6
8.0
9.7
7.3
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.9
11.1
10.9
9.9
8.9
8.0
8.2
7-7
7.7
--
—
--
—
10.0
9.3
9.7
9.0
9.3
BOD_
PPM*
1066
1096
1144
1598
488
776
806
640
740
664
510
—
—
485
465
670
735
—
—
—
—
—
—
504
__
—
--
—
--
2647
2160
2100
1920
SS
PPM
48
248
28
20
56
92
84
88
64
—
—
120
84
112
112
104
132
—
140
—
108
72
—
__
--
—
--
—
85
175
215
165
195
%
vss
92
—
85
17
36
57
66
77
100
—
—
80
14
64
57
50
55
—
82
—
100
83
—
—
--
—
--
—
53
74
54
--
68
TS
PPM
*• —
—
—
—
—
—
—
2492
—
—
—
—
2718
2054
2138
2752
3448
—
2604
2466
2246
2916
—
—
--
__
—
—
—
6700
6104
5640
—
%
VTS
*. _
__
—
—
—
—
—
__
__
—
—
—
22
30
—
20
26
—
25
—
24
20
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
34
33
—
—
OS
PPM
M «.
__
2404
—
—
—
—
2634
1990
2016
2702
3316
—
2664
—
2138
2844
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
6626
5889
4575
--
COD P
PPM PPM
«_ — —
—
1523
—
—
1900
1320
3064 112
1715
—
—
1375
1750
1490
1530
1980
2120
—
2140
1780
1725
-_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6520
—
5749 180
247.1
N
PPM
__
--
__
—
--
—
--
-
—
—
--
—
—
--
—
--
—
—
--
__
--
—
--
--
__
--
__
__
—
__
40
80
--
-------
TABLE E-2 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
U1
Date
9/1/70
9/2/70
9/3/70
9/4/70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/7/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
9/10/70
9/11/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/1 V70
9/J5/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/24/70
9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
DO
P£M____
0.5
0.2
0.3
3.6
3.5
3.7
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
6.0
5.9
2.7
1.2
0.9
5.2
4.o
3.4
4.4
6.0
2.1
3.3
5.6
5.5
2.6
7.0
0.74
Temp.
°F
90
87
89
86
89
86
91
88
86
90
84
84
86
88
83
83
84
83
80
88
91
88
86
82
92
89
80
82
80
85
__E_H
8.4
8.6
8.4
7.9
7.5
7.9
9.3
9.2
9.0
9.0
7.9
8.7
10.0
11.0
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.0
10.7
10.0
9.6
11.2
11.8
10.9
10.8
11.4
11.5
10.9
11.6
10.1
BOD
PPM*
1900
1560
2553
1920
3100
1400
1605
2033
2052
--
1575
3050
1530
1790
2400
1500
613
—
--
--
—
—
—
3693
3687
3513
2020
2813
—
4935
SS
PPM
185
112
155
80
60
130
15
332
350
--
280
—
156
12
136
252
136
—
—
—
—
—
—
96
225
150
--
32
--
150
%
VSS
94
36
77
63
58
60
100
82
21
—
66
—
31
100
59
72
88
—
--
—
—
—
—
92
42
93
—
0
__
22
TS
PPM
4924
4102
5816
6038
9336
--
6150
6150
6260
—
6480
7244
5724
6818
5600
4580
5460
--
--
—
—
—
—
10558
10082
8492
—
7260
—
11734
%
VTS
__
—
17
10
32
--
19
22
31
—
24
18
18
21
—
--
—
--
--
—
—
—
—
18
11
32
--
25
-_
17
OS
PPM
4830
3990
5739
5958
9276
--
6145
5818
5910
—
6200
—
5568
6806
5464
4328
—
—
--
-•-
—
—
—
10462
10040
8342
—
7235
--
11584
COD
PPM
4015
—
3540
4600
6760
6200
5070
5520
5260
—
5920
3800
4100
5800
3610
4240
4210
—
__
—
__
--
—
8460
8450
7090
7700
5300
4390
8850
P
PPM
,_
--
196
236
168.3
260.9
218.8
--
274.8
--
--
--
--
--
49.0
--
__
__
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
2.2
--
--
N
PPM
M _
--
80
--
--
--
220
--
180
--
--
960
--
--
321.2
--
—
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
—
—
329.4
--
—
-------
TABLE E-3 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
OJ
Date
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/4/70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/14/70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/24/70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
DO
PPM
3.2
3.8
4.4
5.0
2.0
2.7
1.4
1.8
1.8
7.0
6.6
1.2
4.7
6.8
7.2
7.8
—
—
8.2
9.6
8.8
7.8
7.7
8.8
3.8
9.2
9.8
11.4
—
—
0.5
Temp.
°F
84
85
83
80
82
84
80
80
77
82
86
84
82
83
77
75
—
--
71
66
70
66
78
78
78
82
76
78
--
72
73
pH
11.4
H.5
11.2
11.0
10,2
9.3
11.1
10.2
9.2
9.0
9.7
8.5
10.2
11.0
11.2
11.2
--
__
11.8
11.7
11.6
8.0
9.3
10.9
8.3
8.4
5.6
5.8
--
8.6
9.1
BOD
PPM13
2439
2526
2322
—
__
—
6375
6600
—
2362
--
3720
1946
3620
1710
--
--
—
2319
—
—
__
—
--
2075
4500
6320
4200
—
2505
--
SS
PPM
50
10
60
--
35
115
75
200
135
15
—
205
135
65
55
—
—
--
20
45
—
185
10
170
—
5
55
5
--
80
--
vss
70
50
25
--
100
56
73
100
67
100
—
68
37
77
91
—
—
—
75
44
__
81
100
80
—
10
36
0
__
100
--
TS
PPM
9236
9302
8330
__
13420
9374
14200
11226
10004
7594
--
8552
5994
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
8486
__
—
7584
—
4102
—
—
--
VTS
25
24
19
--
23
22
19
8
20
28
--
22
27
—
--
—
--
—
--
—
—
--
24
—
—
37
—
63
—
—
—
DS
PPM
9186
9292
8270
--'
13385
9259
14127
11206
9937
9579
--
8347
5859
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
8476
—
—
7574
—
4097
—
--
--
COD P N
PPM PPM PPM
6205
6220
5810
__
__
79950
14050
__
8750
6650
—
8100 43.4 210.4
5175
5210 42.4 347.8
3720
—
l»840
—
-_
—
-_
—
—
4630
5100 44 151
7200 39 137
9590
8150
—
—
—
-------
TABLE E-4 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PLART I
ui
Date
11/1/70
H/2/70
11/3/70
11/4/70
11/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11 /1 3/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/23/70
11/24/70
11/25/70
11/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
DO
PPM
4.7
6.2
8.8
9.8
8.8
__
9-0
6.5
9.4
8.6
8.8
__
__
__
—
8.4
6.2
4.9
3.3
4.8
7.7
4.2
8.8
__
__
—
__
—
6.6
7.8
Temp.
°F
68
70
65
70
70
—
77
79
82
79
98
—
--
—
--
50
58
60
62
__
--
--
--
--
—
--
—
--
—
—
pH
7-3
6.9
8.4
4.6
8.4
—
10.8
11.0
11.2
9.9
11.8
--
—
--
--
10.7
10.3
9.6
9.7
9.6
7.1
8.7
8.2
—
--
__
--
--
8.6
8.7
BOD
PPM'
1720
1164
1253
2952
_-
—
1082
415
810
—
980
--
__
—
340
675
1180
—
1260
1110
855
2410
970
--
--
__
--
--
1140
1133
SS
PPM
95
64
65
160
3^5
—
90
—
75
60
55
__
—
—
20
60
95
50
25
90
—
66
__
--
--
—
—
--
95
255
%
vss
26
0
100
0
0
—
100
—
60
0
100
—
--
—
80
92
26
40
100
78
—
46
—
--
—
—
--
—
90
37
TS
PPM
— —
3664
2964
28270
9240
—
—
—
—
3032
2986
--
--
--
1448
2384
4052
4170
3658
3684
—
5312
--
--
—
--
--
—
2798
2600
%
VTS
_ w
35
40
39
0
—
--
—
—
20
24
--
--
__
45
27
37
25
26
22
—
24
—
--
--
--
--
--
32
38
OS
PPM
M. m.
3600
2899
28110
8935
—
—
--
1760
2972
2931
--
--
—
1128
2824
3957
4120
3633
3594
—
5266
__
--
--
--
—-
--
2703
2563
COD P N
PPM PPM PPM
«.*. — — — —
3280
3340 80.7 257.6
8280
7900
—
1082
—
1760
2490
2040
— —
--
—
1265 41.2 104
1890
3800
3500
2940
3050
—
5060
—
--
-- -- --
-- — --
-- —
--
2500
2660
-------
TABLE E-5 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
Ul
ui
Date
12/1/70
12/2/70
12/3/70
12/4/70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/7/70
12/8/70
12/9/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/H/70
12/15/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/18/70
12/19/70
12/20/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/24/70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/27/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
DO
PPM
7.*
9.8
8,9
9.6
9.2
8.4
7.5
7.8
8. A
8.3
8.5
7.8
8.4
9.4
8.4
6.0
6.2
8.3
7.4
__
__
__
—
__
__
—
—
__
__
_-
--
Temp.
°F pH
10.8
8.3
68 7.1
10.5
9.3
9.2
11.5
11.7
11.2
10.4
9.6
9.8
10.9
11.1
11.6
11.7
10.2
11.1
10.9
—
__
--
__
__
__
__
__
__
— —
-- --
— - — —
BOD
PPM1'
1077
1380
1820
690
1333
1605
1525
930
1395
1995
1580
1392
1600
1310
1750
925
1180
--
—
--
—
—
__
—
--
--
--
--
— -
— -
— —
ss
PPM
115
2-35
75
160
285
25
235
0
210
45
125
80
125
115
60
100
60
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
__
--
--
— —
•*—
%
vss
87
34
0
63
70
100
60
—
100
67
72
75
100
56
100
55
100
—
__
—
--
—
—
—
--
--
__
—
— —
--
— —
TS
PPM
1540
3360
3524
2656
2710
3930
4198
4892
4030
3870
4244
—
5732
3514
4500
2398
4446
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
—
—
--
--
_ —
%
VTS
32
27
22
30
10
20
33
25
30
29
24
__
24
25
22
39
18
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
__
--
--
— -
--
__
OS
PPM
2425
3125
3449
2496
2425
3905
3963
3160
3820
3825
9119
—
3607
3399
4440
2298
4368
—
__
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
--
--
— -
— -
— —
COD
PPM
2520
3340
3760
2130
2560
3830
3170
3160
3200
3320
3440
2890
3470
2725
3625
1750
2745
2120
3500
--
__
--
—
__
__
--
__
--
__
--
--
P
PPM
1.6
70.5
70.5
70.5
70.5
70.6
1.9
__
--
__
--
--
--
__
__
--
—
--
--
__
—
--
—
__
__
--
--
'--
—
—
——
N
PPM
15.4
6.7
12.4
--
--
—
—
—
--
—
__
--
--
—
—
--
__
--
__
—
__
—
--
--
—
—
__
—
--
--
--
-------
TABLE E-6 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
DO Temp. BOD SS % TS % DS COD P N
Date PP_M_ _°F pH PPhT PPM VSS PPM VTS PPM PPM PPM PPM
1/1/71 -- -- -- -- -
1/2/71 -- -- -- -- - -
1/3/71 " " " " " "
1/4/71 -- -- --
1/5/71 -- -- — — —
1/6/71 8.9 — 9.9 1050 150 90 2208 21 2058 2210
1/7/71 8.6 -- 10.5 405 — - — 930
1/8/71 — — -- 648
1/9/71 6.9 -- 10.8 1343 110 100 — — -- 3900
1/10/71 3.4 — 8.3 3170 100 100 — — — 7350
1/11/71 1.7 — $.0 -- 180 100
1/12/71 5.6 -- 11.0 1*500 100 90 — — — 6298
1/13/71 5.6 — 8.0 3015 40 100 8820 34 8780 2500
1/14/71 2.6 — 9.4 3480 75 89 9810 46 9715 9560
1/15/71 4.4 — 9-2 360 75 33 846 41 971 923
1/16/71 5.4 -- 4.3 1450 120 100 4772 30 4652 4213
1/17/71 1.6 — 10.0 1980 90 100 4704 29 4614 4484
1/18/71 3.6 — 10.7 2235 130 33 8152 20 8033 6151
1/19/71 5.8 — 11.1 1005 ~ — 3654 43 — 3649 1.6 63.6
1/20/71 5.4 -- 10.3 1710 65 100 5598 54 5533 3453 0.6 36.1
1/21/71 4.1 — 11.2 2779 325 58 — — — 5330
1/22/71 1.1 -- H.O 1470 150 43 — — — 4313
1/23/71 1.2 — 11.1 2650 45 45 5532 20 5487 3750
1/24/71 3.8 -- 9.7 3675 195 54 7918
1/25/71 6.0 — 11.1 1545 35 0 — — — 4084
1/26/71 6.5 — 9-3 2010 205 56 -- — — 5947
1/27/71 6.1 — 10.2 1160 65 69 3694 24 3629 3514
1/28/71 — — — " — — — — — 4067
1/29/71 5.7 -- 11.0 718 45 64 — — — 2800
1/30/71 5.1 — 9.5 942 45 11 1108 65 1063 2600
1/31/71 3.8 — 11.8 700 140 46 3090 36 2950 2670
-------
TABLE E-7 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
en
Date
2/1/71
2/2/7 '1
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/71
2/6/71
2/7/71
2/8/71
2/9/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/14/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/21/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/71
2/26/7 '1
2/27/71
2/28/71
DO Temp .
PPM °F
8.3
4.8
6.3
6.0
4.7
4.8
6.0
7.2
7.4
9.7
8.8
6.0
4.9
5.7
5.4
1.9
1.2
2.7
3.1
5.0
._
Flood
Flood
Flood
4.5
8.4
8.1
4.7
__PH
11.5
9.1
11.3
10.9
12.4
12.1
12.3
12.0
12.1
1 .9
.8
.9
.7
.6
.1
1.3
10.8
11.6
11.4
11.1
--
__
—
__
11.9
11.2
10.6
10.7
BOD
PPM*
380
1580
565
1080
2140
1957
930
982
541
653
2400
2300
1207
1107
1440
1890
2154
1350
1185
1038
--
--
--
—
1105
855
1115
1490
SS
PPM
75
85
15
65
85
185
20
765
320
__
105
345
500
120
115
90
50
140
120
40
—
—
__
__
65
70
80
360
%
vss
7
6
100
0
100
100
25
71
53
—
86
93
71
50
43
56
90
100
63
80
—
—
--
—
62
63
13
37
TS
PPM
2160
3170
2566
2860
7242
7642
8700
7478
2824
2600
3736
7206
4084
3798
4028
5164
5750
3806
3834
2900
—
--
—
—
3200
2704
._
—
%
VTS
46
36
37
39
18
23
29
46
39
37
39
50
42
38
36
29
17
18
25
19
—
—
—
—
29
16
—
—
DS
PPM
2085
3085
2551
2795
9157
7457
8680
6713
2504
__
3631
6861
3584
3678
3913
5074
5700
3666
3714
2500
—
—
—
—
3135
26g4
—
—
COD P
PPM PPM
1732
3792
2180
2702
6020
5452
2736
5759
2179
1778
4742
5580
3848
3166
3169
4114
3881
2971
2799
2157
—
—
—
—
2880
1966
2581
5712
N
PPM
_-
--
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
--
--
—
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
—
-------
TABLE E-8 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART I
Ul
oo
Date
3/1/71
3/2/71
3/3/71
3/4/71
3/5/71
3/6/71
3/7/71
3/8/71
3/9/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/12/71
3/13/71
3/1V71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/71
3/21/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/2V71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/27/71
3/28/71
3/29/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
DO Temp .
PPM °F
5.7
Flood
Flood
0.1
1.8
0.8
3.2
2.6
2.2
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
6.5
8.6
9.6
9.2
9.4
8.7
9.0
5.8
4.4
7.6
7.0
5.4
0.2
5.0
5.9
2.6
__
pH
10.3
--
__
5.5
10.5
11.5
8.8
9.9
11.0
8.3
10.0
11.1
10.3
5.3
10.0
.7
.4
.1
.4
.7
.8
12.0
12.0
10.8
10.5
11.8
6.3
10.1
10.1
9.8
—
BOD
ppfr
1830
—
—
965
1985
1747
50 40
3270
2340
4245
3022
3555
1475
4732
1102
922
471
684
1248
1725
872
2640"
1950
933
..-
—
__
—
—
._
_-
ss
PPM
135
—
—
50
105
15
40
165
115
130
50
125
—
10
800
165
190
300
260
275
195
305
95
10
—
75
—
—
100
155
— —
%
vss
67
—
—
70
90
67
87
76
96
81
90
48
__
50
70
45
42
48
87
53
74
61
94
50
--
73
—
—
40
77
— —
TS
PPM
«._
—
—
—
—
—
10234
8884
3412
8448
8058
8570
—
9178
3014
3614
2776
2828
2874
3818
4340
7655
6000
2840
—
2750
—
2228
2196
"" —
%
VTS
«. —
—
—
—
--
—
28
16
27
16
16
17
—
17
26
25
39
48
36
31
34
15
18
33
—
18
—
21
22
--
-"""
OS
PPM
__
—
--
--
—
—
10194
8719
3297
8318
8008
8465
—
9163
2214
3449
2586
2528
2614
3543
4145
7261
5905
2830
—
2675
—
—
2096
--
— —
COD P
PPM PPM
4067
—
--
1538
4224
4262
7808
6827
2916
8758
5934
7647
2916
7795
3790
2986
1997
2199
3489
3342
2818
4916
4465
2368
3056
3467
4505
2656
2182
2665
— — — —
N
PPM
—
--
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
__
--
--
__
--
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
--
--
--
—
--
-------
TABLE F-1 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
un
Na.SO Na.SO, Fe Cl- Alkalinity Phenol TOC Equalization Flow
Date PPM 3 PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM Time-Hours MGD
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/1/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/V70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/8/70
8/9/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/1V70
8/15/70
8/16/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
8/20/70
8/21/70
8/22/70
8/23/70
8/2V70
8/25/70
8/26/70
8/27/70
8/28/70
8/29/70 1000 *».o
8/30/70 1200
8/31/70
__. .* — — —
—
__
—
—
—
—
31.8
—
—
—
__
2^.5
—
11.9
—
—
—
—
138. k
—
29.1 — 65
65
65
65
__ £5
65
65
65
53
53
53
2k
__
--
--
—
—
--
--
—
—
--
--
--
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
--
__
--
--
-------
TABLE F-2 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
en
o
bate
9/1/70
9/2/70
9/3/70
9/V70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/7/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
9/10/70
9/H/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/1V70
9/15/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/2V70
9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
Na SO
PPM ^
Na SO,
PPM
Fe
PPM
900
650
850
2200
600
250
1200
Cl-
PPM
Alkalini ty
PPM
Phenol
PPM
2.0
0.2
1.5
750
1600
1000
1750
119.6
238.0
2.5
325
2.3
3.0
2.5
303
303
379
689
723.75
190
TOC
PPM
._
__
1660
1627
1823
1920
]**98
1733
1022
--
__
--
—
--
--
--
—
--
—
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
--
__
__
--
Equal i zat ion
Time -Hours
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
2k
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Flow
MGD
_.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
__
-------
TABLE F-3 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART It
Date
Na,SO
PPM •
Fe
PPM
Cl-
PPM
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/4/70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/1V70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/24/70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
--
__
200
300
—
600
—
--
__
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
150
180
—
—
—
150
--
__
—
—
__
--
1850
2100
--
1100
—
--
__
__
--
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
350
660
—
—
—
1500
—
--
--
--
--
--
1.0
4.0
--
3.0
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
__
—
--
—
3.0
0.5
—
--
—
2
--
--
--
__
—
--
455
606
--
455
--
__
--
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
288
334
—
—
--
455
—
--
— —
— —
—
--
--
—
—
—
--
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
485
173
—
--
—
--
--
—
--
--
Alkalinity Phenol TOC
PPM PPM PPM
310
-- __
— -- --
__ __ __
-- -- __
— - -- --
__ — __
_- __ —
_-
— __
—
— -- __
460.0
275.0
—
__
—
--
—
—
__
485
173
—
1050
725
--
—
—
--
—
Equal ization
Time-Hours
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
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
2
2
Flow
MGD
— _
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-_
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
—
—
__
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
-_
__
--
-------
TABLE F-J» RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
en
Date
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11 A/70
11/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
M/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11/13/70
11/1V70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/23/70
11/2V70
11/25/70
11/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
Na,SO
PPM *
«• —
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
100
—
—
—
50
60
10
10
—
10
—
_-
__
—
—
--
__
—
—
10
P?M
•• _
—
—
__
__
—
—
—
—
too
—
—
—
—
90
100
285
tos
—
325
—
—
—
—
--
--
—
--
--
280
Fe C1-
PPM PPM
-» — m- —
—
—
—
-_
—
—
—
._
0.5 114
—
—
--
..
0.5 76
61
98
129
—
106
— --
--
—
--
--
-_ --
--
--
—
99
Alkalinity Phenol
PPM PPM
_ «. «. —
—
368
—
—
—
—
—
—
173
—
--
—
__
85
260
371
208
— --
208
--
-- --
--
-- --
— — — —
-- --
— - — -
-- —
— — — —
87
TOC
PPM
__
—
—
—
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
— -
--
__
— •*
— -
— —
--
— -
— -
Equalization Flow
Time-Hours MGD
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
-------
TABLE F-5 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
u>
Date
12/1/70
12/2/70
12/3/70
12/4/70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/7/70
12/8/70
12/9/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/14/70
12/15/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/18/70
12/19/70
12/20/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/24/70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/27/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
Na,SO,
PPM *
20
7.2
10
14.4
9.2
18.7
4.0
—
__
70
—
—
—
—
—
210
150
--
—
—
—
--
__
—
--
—
--
—
--
__
__
Na.SO,
PPM *
58
690
175
300
320
475
475
475
—
400
—
—
__
—
—
325
450
—
—
—
—
__
—
__
—
—
—
--
--
._
—
Fe Cl-
PPM PPM
865
—
137
75
100
150
187
137
__
350
—
—
--
__
__
68.1
120
__
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
__
--
--
-- --
Alkalinity
PPM
290
__
235
215
83.5
835
446
804
—
270
—
—
—
--
--
601
546
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
--
—
—
__
--
--
--
Phenol
PPM
122
—
175
38
66
163
118
—
--
__
--
—
--
—
—
—
--
--
—
—
__
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
--
TOC
PPM
780
—
1361
889
1338
1377
1360
--
--
—
__
—
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
—
__
—
—
--
--
--
..
Equalization Flow
Time-Hours MGD
M* — •. «.
__
--
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
-_
__
--
-_
--
-_
--
--
--
-------
TABLE F-6 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
Date
1/1/71
1/2/71
1/3/71
1/V71
1/5/71
1/6/71
1/7/71
1/8/71
1/9/71
1/10/71
1/11/71
1/12/71
1/13/71
1/1V71
1/15/71
1/16/71
1/17/71
1/18/71
1/19/71
1/20/71
1/21/71
1/22/71
1/23/71
1/2V71
1/25/71
1/26/71
1/27/71
1/28/71
1/29/71
1/30/71
1/31/71
Na SO
PPM *
*. «.
--
--
—
--
—
--
—
--
--
—
__
50
__
-_
75
--
550
__
200
—
—
—
600
—
—
—
—
--
--
__
Na2SO, Fe C1- Alkalinity Phenol
PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM
*• «" •• — — — -»— ••> -.
__
__
__
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
__
1200 3.0 180
—
—
750 -- 200 692
—
1000 -- *»55 865 76.25
—
625 — 30 259 168.75
—
__
._
1000 5.0 k$k 430 183.7
--
—
__
—
—
__
-- -- -- — —
TOC Equalization Flow
PPM Time-Hours MGD
_« — — — —
__
—
—
—
__
__
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
O.k
0.7
0.53
0.51
0.58
0.68
0.69
0.71
0.86
0.73
0.62
0.65
0.53
0.89
0.92
0.68
0.65
0.60
0.71
-------
TABLE F-7 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
in
Date
2/1/71
2/2/71
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/71
2/6/7 1
2/7/71
2/8/71
2/9/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/14/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/7 '1
2/21/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/71
2/26/71
2/27/71
2/28/71
Na.SO
PPM •*
100
220
80
120
600
__
1700
--
30
10
—
200
120
160
--
__
630
150
150
160
—
--
__
—
200
70
—
__
N^°4
95
200
120
290
504
—
40
--
160
1400
--
180
95
140
--
—
350
215
175
350
--
—
--
--
140
220
—
—
Fe
PPM
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
--
0.5
--
0.5
--
__
0.5
—
1.0
—
—
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
—
--
--
--
0.5
0.5
--
--
Cl-
PPM
61
61
91
91
61
--
30
--
30
122
—
30
91
91
__
—
182
91
61
30
—
--
—
—
30
30
--
--
Alkalinity Phenol TOC
PPM PPM PPM
405
208
346
346
2249
__
6574
—
__
—
—
—
__
—
—
Total 380
952
865
865 392
830
—
—
—
—
1125 1312
208 190
—
--
Equalization Flow
Time-Hours MGD
0.82
0.71
0.66
0.99
0.4
0.35
0.32
0.45
0.42
0.4
0.32
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.01
0.79
Flood
__
._
-_
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
TABLE F-8 RAW DATA - EQUALIZED RAW FEED TO PLANT, PART II
Date
3/1/71
3/2/7 1
3/3/71
3/4/7 J
3/5/71
3/6/71
3/7/71
3/8/71
3/9/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/12/71
3/13/71
3/14/71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/71
3/21/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/24/71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/27/71
3/28/71
3/29/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
Na SO
PPM *
— _
--
—
--
40
150
100
380
--
220
540
150
--
—
160
50
30
100
30
30
110
100
70
80
—
130
1600
180
40
210
--
PP*M *
•H -m
__
--
-_
600
400
625
1350
—
800
1600
425
—
—
170
200
150
20
180
140
130
122
675
400
—
380
2000
130
300
400
—
Fe
PPM
«. —
—
__
--
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
--
0.5
0.5
0.5
—
—
--
—
--
—
—
—
__
—
--
—
__
—
__
—
—
—
—
Cl-
PPM
„„
--
--
—
114
151
650
242
--
242
242
303
—
—
91
61
30
30
61
61
30
122
122
61
—
61
333
61
30
91
--
Alkal ini ty
PPM
__
--
—
--
778
1125
173
952
._
1211
917
1073
__
—
346
969
657
415
606
830
986
1660
1505
536
—
1078
329
571
336
381
—
Phenol TOC
PPM PPM
372
__ —
368.7
—
—
-_
—
__
—
—
—
__
—
—
--
—
—
—
__
—
1563
492.5
__
--
—
—
—
144.7
—
--
Equal i zat ion Flow
Time-Hours MGD
0.66
__
__
0.66
0.46
0.48
0.45
0.51
0.59
0.39
0.55
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.48
0.45
0.46
0.62
0.47
0.32
0.26
0.37
0.55
0.62
0.92
0.50
0.44
0.48
0.55
0.50
--
-------
TABLE G-l OXIDATION TOWER DATA
Date
9/11/70
9/12/70
9/13/70
9/14/70
9/15/70
9/16/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/19/70
9/20/70
9/21/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
H 9/24/70
5 9/25/70
9/26/70
9/27/70
9/28/70
9/29/70
9/30/70
COD
PPM
2900
1920
--
2065
2400
1880
1888
—
—
--
--
—
—
8460
8450
7090
7700
5300
4390
8850
BOD
PPM
799
1740
622
530
810
435
440
—
__
—
—
--
—
3693
3687
3513
2020
2813
--
4935
OX 1 DAT 1 ON
Phenol
PPM
— _
__
--
__
--
—
--
--
--
--
—
—
--
__
723.75
—
--
—
190
—
TOWER FEED
Dilution
0
--
--
--
--
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recycle
._
__
--
—
—
--
__
__
--
--
--
--
__
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
TOWER EFFLUENT TOWER PERFORMANCE
Flow COD BOD Phenol PERCENT REMOVAL
GPM PPM PPM PPM COD BOD Phenol
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2560 832
I960 810
600
1585 263
2099 930
1678 300
1640 360
__
__ —
__
__
__
__
8300 2962
6910 2843
8020 2730
6800 1845
6700 2640
5410 2020
6670 2053
._
--
--
--
--
—
__
--
--
__
__
—
--
—
1165
--
—
—
375
12
0
--
23
8
11
13
--
_.
--
--
--
--
2
18
0
117
0
0
--
0
43
35
49
-%
31
18
--
--
__
--
—
--
20
21
22
—
—
—
--
* w
__
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
--
__
--
__
__
__
--
-------
TABLE G-2 OXIDATION TOWER DATA
GO
Date
10/1/70
10/2/70
10/3/70
10/4/70
10/5/70
10/6/70
10/7/70
10/8/70
10/9/70
10/10/70
10/11/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/14/70
10/15/70
10/16/70
10/17/70
10/18/70
10/19/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/22/70
10/23/70
10/24/70
10/25/70
10/26/70
10/27/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
10/31/70
COD
PPM
6205
--
__
--
--
--
3722
—
2840
2020
--
1640
1882
1510
1265
__
1100
—
—
—
--
--
1938
1948
__
--
1685
2582
—
1140
-—
BOD
PPM
2439
--
--
--
--
--
1700
2017
1185
889
--
557
652
615
570
—
--
__
517
--
--
--
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
1140
— —
OXIDATION TOWER FEED
Phenol
PPM Dilution
310 0
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
.. — *) •
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
3:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
2:
Recycle
75%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
TOWER EFFLUENT TOWER PERFORMANCE
Flow COD BOD Phenol PERCENT REMOVAL
GPM PPM PPM PPM COD BOD Phenol
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9297
__
--
--
--
--
3610
--
2850
2028
—
1445
1802
1320
1165
—
1055
—
—
—
--
__
1780
1962
—
--
1585
'770
.-_
960
-- —
3213 420
__
-_
—
—
__
1690 —
1864 --
1500 —
727 -
—
656 —
596 -
602 —
375 --
—
—
—
378 --
__
—
__
—
—
—
—
__
__
__
960
-- —
0
--
--
--
--
--
3
--
0
0
--
12
4
12
8
--
4
--
--
--
—
—
8
0
--
--
6
31
--
15
--
_ _
--
--
--
—
--
3
7.
0
18
--
0
8.
2.
34
--
--
27
--
—
--
--
--
-_
--
__
--
—
15
» —
--
--
--
--
—
--
5
--
--
--
--
5
5
--
--
--
__
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
_ _
--
-_
.«
—
-------
TABLE G-3 OXIDATION TOWER DATA
CTi
Date
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11/4/70
11/5/70
11/6/70
11/7/70
11/8/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/11/70
11/12/70
11/13/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/16/70
11/17/70
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
COD
PPM
__
1600
1860
1420
1730
--
I960
--
1500
--
2200
2540
--
—
--
--
—
--
--
—
— —
OX 1 DAT 1 ON
BOD Phenol
PPM PPM
2335 -
720
600
420
__
__
200
—
638 --
__
__
-_
__
__
__
__
__
__
—
-_
-- __
TOWER FEED
Di lution
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Recycle
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
TOWER EFFLUENT TOWER PERFORMANCE
Flow COD BOD Phenol PERCENT REMOVAL
GPM PPM PPM PPM COD BOD Phenol
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
m+ _*
1600
1490
1360
1600
--
2010
--
1290
—
2260
2560
_-
__
-_
__
__
__
__
—
—
2280
690
300
375
--
—
915
645
—
--
-_
__
-_
__
__
__
__
--
__
—
..
--
68.0
__
--
--
__
—
--
--
• mm
--
20
4.0
7.5
0
--
14
--
22
__
__
__
__
__
__
_-
—
__
—
0
__
__
__
„ _
» «
_ „
__
__
--
2
4.
50
10
—
--
0
__
0
--
__
__
M M
__
w _
__
.._
«. _
__
* —
—
— (—
o
—
--
--
__
_-
—
--
--
__
__
— —
_ -.
— —
• *-
— _
— _
«...
_ —
—
-------
APPENDIX B
SIX MONTHS OPERATIONAL DATA
FOR ACTIVATED CARBON WASTE TREATING PLANT
PARSHALL FLUME WASTE DATA FOR SEPTEMBER 1973
BOD COD Phenol SS
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Lbs/Day
3997
1401
1401
PPM
1052
1078
1078
Lbs/Day
13137
4843
4843
PPM
3457
3725
3725
Lbs/Day
759
285
285
PPM
200
219
219
Lbs/Day
763
351
351
PPM
201
270
270
No Analysis
3086
3192
4624
3379
4105
3488
4410
3935
3293
3410
3102
1216
2170
3614
3725
3035
4625
3249
2690
2536
4220
5067
5379
5757
3012
2781
1029
887
872
1024
955
811
1131
984
941
874
776
811
804
927
1552
1265
1186
792
769
725
917
1236
1280
1175
913
732
8092
8004
12866
7747
9629
12555
9547
9005
7929
8123
9546
2956
4982
9868
7050
6096
9951
8419
6755
7576
12577
13295
12317
12791
7372
3659
2693
2223
2428
2348
2239
2920
2448
2251
2265
2083
2387
1970
1845
2530
2938
2540
2552
2053
1930
2165
2734
3243
2933
2610
2234
963
660
731
1176
609
815
579
548
843
642
758
543
323
602
676
464
455
677
795
591
621
795
937
778
854
533
438
220
203
222
185
190
135
141
211
183
194
136
215
223
173
193
190
174
193
169
177
173
229
185
174
162
115
361
314
232
159
365
592
203
522
340
393
487
180
24
430
233
211
372
367
464
428
542
399
627
656
833
549
120
87
44
48
85
138
52
131
97
101
122
120
9
110
97
88
95
90
133
122
118
97
149
134
252
144
170
-------
PARSHALL FLUME WASTE DATA FOR OCTOBER 1973
BOD
COD
Phenol
SS
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
90
£.\J
21
Z. I
99
£m£-
23
fm\J
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Lbs/Day
1090
287
Down
342
Down
Down
981
1065
2090
3164
3266
3234
3454
3426
2280
1922
1947
2786
4036
2346
3796
6034
5787
3433
4053
8776
3494
3618
PPM
474
574
412
545
410
523
646
680
703
751
745
814
712
927
1266
1062
978
791
1371
1286
981
1228
1721
852
882
Lbs/Day
1971
865
1400
3284
3584
8140
9976
9132
9070
9033
6760
6592
6904
5396
6485
10974
1885
3720
3182
7718
8740
15553
16277
11231
7760
14590
14123
12541
PPM
857
173
1687
1824
1378
2035
2036
1903
1972
1964
1470
2354
2557
2570
2948
2888
2513
3444
3458
3216
1820
3535
3617
3209
2352
2860
3445
3059
Lbs/Day
274
45
138
303
433
485
703
691
568
647
478
557
358
341
217
266
60
194
348
670
1518
1212
1121
825
686
1270
709
657
PPM
119
90
166
168
167
121
143
144
123
141
104
199
133
162
99
70
80
180
378
279
316
275
249
236
208
249
173
160
Lbs/Day
269
63
108
205
237
464
589
501
446
467
806
423
358
270
211
707
156
192
170
323
573
551
543
439
502
620
472
311
PPM
117
126
130
114
91
116
120
104
97
102
175
151
133
129
96
186
208
177
184
135
119
125
121
125
152
122
115
76
171
-------
PARSHALL FLUME WASTE DATA FOR NOVEMBER 1973
BOD
COD
Phenol
SS
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Lbs/Day
4212
6820
5094
3655
1546
2432
2196
833
1049
1597
3188
3493
3239
8069
3730
3836
5393
4778
10040
4375
5633
4984
6286
4379
5359
7093
4644
3991
5037
7006
PPM
1359
1749
1544
988
336
811
784
1111
456
532
778
944
1157
1921
1166
1009
1124
853
1673
994
1174
1246
998
876
940
1163
876
868
916
1208
Lbs/Day
11552
18638
15935
14305
18987
13150
12236
2557
6388
7858
12587
9517
8289
14924
11101
11558
14220
15630
17183
13184
14580
10957
16887
13037
12772
13057
13457
10423
13395
18098
PPM
3726
4779
4829
3866
4128
438
4370
3409
2777
2619
3070
2572
2960
3553
3469
3042
2963
2791
2864
2996
3038
2739
2680
2607
2241
2140
2539
2266
2435
3120
Lbs/Day
536
934
868
746
1116
637
615
159
472
375
614
643
448
582
605
881
782
724
1340
667
660
520
749
547
536
786
775
852
1386
1115
PPM
173
239
263
202
243
212
220
212
205
125
150
174
160
139
189
232
163
129
223
152
138
130
119
109
94
129
146
185
252
192
Lbs/Day
356
539
464
819
804
403
419
134
461
633
901
1133
729
923
889
732
1089
1447
1394
1228
105
408
1193
706
706
804
721
65
821
616
PPM
115
138
141
221
175
134
150
179
200
211
220
306
260
220
278
193
227
258
232
279
22
102
189
141
124
132
136
14
149
106
172
-------
PARSHALL FLUME WASTE DATA FOR DECEMBER 1973
BOD
COD
Phenol
SS
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Lbs/Day
5648
5703
3755
4484
4979
4987
4926
3545
4343
3982
3593
2819
3318
3440
3817
3693
5300
5847
6080
7834
7611
6223
2418
2058
3730
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
PPM
1225
1462
939
1043
1158
924
896
622
736
766
719
626
583
529
516
671
1000
1218
1216
1632
1770
1447
1051
895
704
Lbs/Day
14778
9830
10945
13817
13817
14402
14146
13991
11871
9235
8676
9367
10616
9776
9800
8224
10366
10821
15422
13251
9573
11392
5477
4196
7089
PPM
3284
2521
2736
3213
3213
2667
2572
2455
2012
1776
1735
1734
1862
1504
1324
1495
1956
2254
3084
2761
2226
2649
2381
1824
1338
Lbs/Day
1202
800
861
932
997
1076
925
1418
765
869
879
1003
476
633
397
633
614
591
1249
1022
1027
1578
748
621
812
PJPM_
267
205
215
217
232
199
168
249
130
167
176
186
84
97
54
115
116
123
250
213
239
367
325
270
153
Lbs/Day
557
515
532
659
529
721
765
641
718
889
889
770
754
672
1605
672
592
558
530
580
546
775
259
208
665
PPM
124
132
133
153
123
134
139
112
122
171
178
143
132
103
217
122
112
116
106
121
127
180
113
90
125
173
-------
PARSHALL FLUME WASTE DATA FOR JANUARY 1974
BOD
COD
Phenol
SS
Day
Lbs/Day PPM
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Down
1959
3156
4950
3678
4414
4527
4496
6489
4113
3541
4263
3816
3459
2421
297
3578
1962
3336
3213
1406
3984
4129
4168
3485
2116
2216
2399
2962
2924
420
435
535
811
694
833
838
848
1224
823
600
761
720
721
673
358
663
417
629
656
270
711
724
731
658
432
481
436
581
650
117
6297
8575
8501
10716
9024
8216
5590
9900
8862
8655
7117
5971
7631
6466
1525
10182
7872
7468
4330
5389
7877
9692
9642
7943
5971
5148
6220
7445
8812
2288
1399
1453
1394
2021
1703
1521
1055
1868
1772
1467
1271
1127
1590
1796
1837
1886
1675
1409
884
1036
1407
1700
1692
1499
1219
1119
1131
1460
1958
636
474
831
943
784
1312
1247
1315
1031
886
708
816
993
780
674
152
784
871
858
495
642
666
680
770
769
520
397
800
613
567
—
105
141
154
148
248
231
248
195
177
120
146
187
163
187
183
145
185
162
101
123
119
119
135
145
106
86
145
120
126
—
551
855
913
661
698
602
515
836
666
767
698
440
428
394
90
417
508
432
406
467
416
447
468
361
570
310
507
449
412
—
122
145
150
125
132
111
97
158
133
130
124
83
89
109
108
77
108
82
83
90
74
78
82
68
116
67
92
88
92
—
174
-------
PARSHALL FLUME WASTE DATA FOR FEBRUARY 1974
BOD
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lbs/Day
Down
1049
2820
3900
1465
3116
4292
4565
3686
3561
2784
4446
4178
4812
4880
5283
4466
1844
4596
4595
4697
4138
4156
2166
3176
3307
4041
3035
PPM
699
588
886
357
611
842
830
819
712
557
1170
1161
1337
957
978
971
401
867
884
903
962
1154
677
774
827
918
723
COD
Phenol
SS
Lbs/Day PPM Lbs/Day PPM Lbs/Day PPM
3059
9013
5341
7059
8577
8032
11296
9777
9147
10377
9519
12896
8580
9678
9667
8985
9081
12838
21740
19371
16309
5407
4428
11392
10939
11124
10125
2039
1878
1214
1722
1682
1575
2054
2173
1829
2075
2505
3582
2383
1898
1790
1953
1974
2422
4181
3725
3793
1502
1384
2779
2735
2528
2411
277
737
631
539
872
775
866
366
712
829
470
475
474
754
767
898
1149
1408
1479
1222
736
680
558
768
785
681
465
185
154
143
131
170
152
157
81
142
166
124
132
132
148
142
195
250
266
284
235
171
189
174
187
196
155
111
162
295
396
320
374
429
425
338
382
366
270
322
295
608
537
548
662
710
644
577
342
552
397
556
380
554
710
108
61
90
78
73
84
77
75
76
73
71
89
82
119
99
119
144
133
124
111
79
153
124
136
95
126
169
175
-------
TREATED WASTE DATA FOR SEPTEMBER 1973
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
BOD
Lbs/Day PPM
1388
Down,
Down,
Down,
791
610
803
1269
1289
1015
1154
1043
772
1196
733
453
1399
1779
1208
1865
1299
1124
1079
1402
1233
1445
1810
1554
790
323
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
360
210
223
264
263
236
262
237
188
244
170
302
318
539
417
434
295
274
263
286
262
314
402
345
239
COD
Lbs/Day PPM
2550
Held in
Held in
Held in
890
1074
1974
2057
1907
1984
2169
2689
1352
1723
1407
728
2526
2628
2325
2971
2177
1717
2029
2183
2033
2196
2693
2533
1146
593
Retention
Retention
Retention
405
370
548
429
389
461
493
611
330
352
327
485
572
796
802
691
495
419
495
446
433
477
598
563
347
Phenol
Lbs/Day
32.0
Pond
Pond
Pond
5.4
9.3
12.9
11.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.4
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.2
0.7
1.2
0.7
0.7
2.0
1.0
PPM
7.0
2.5
3.2
3.6
2.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0..2
0.2
0.4
0.3
SS
Lbs/Day
148
43
314
232
159
365
592
203
522
115
64
159
153
145
58
53
86
502
142
285
158
160
101
113
358
106
PPM
34
20
108
64
33
74
138
46
119
28
13
37
102
33
18
18
20
114
35
70
32
34
22
25
80
32
Flow
MGPD
0.52
0.26
0.35
0.43
0.57
0.59
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.49
0.59
0.52
0.18
0.53
0.39
0.35
0.52
0.53
0.49
0.49
0.59
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.39
176
-------
TREATED WASTE DATA FOR OCTOBER 1973
BOD
Phenol
SS
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Lbs/Day PPM
116
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down ,
Down,
84
383
548
666
741
901
686
537
483
766
771
1297
400
1039
1331
1166
1022
940
698
873
884
116
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
76
79
105
131
148
180
208
185
167
255
266
288
235
236
283
324
284
313
268
218
268
Lbs/Day PPM
358
Held in
Held in
Held in
Held in
Held in
Held in
609
1043
1147
1070
1164
1406
976
482
765
1670
1193
2347
663
2427
2059
2246
2173
1523
1254
1856
1761
358
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
554
222
221
210
233
281
296
166
264
557
411
522
—
—
390
552
438
624
604
508
482
464
534
Lbs/Day
0.2
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.8
3.1
3.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.8
3.1
5.4
—
—
—
0.4
7.5
0.7
1.3
3.6
3.9
1.0
1.2
0.8
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
-
-
-
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.6
.7
.1
.1
.1
.6
.1
.2
—
—
—
.2
.7
.2
.4
.0
.3
.4
.3
.2
Lbs/Day
24
13
89
62
86
75
85
49
53
32
71
50
296
—
—
—
181
277
88
43
54
36
56
124
74
PPM
24
12
19
12
17
15
17
15
18
11
24
17
66
—
—
—
106
63
19
12
15
12
22
31
22
I 1 WW
MGPD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.12
.13
.56
.62
.61
.60
.60
.39
.35
.35
.36
.35
.54
—
-— -
---
.20
.53
.56
.43
.43
.36
.31
.48
.40
177
-------
TREATED WASTE DATA FOR NOVEMBER 1973
BOD
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Lbs/Day
1198
972
1256
1173
783
1001
277
1086
881
940
1316
1238
881
1816
1494
1082
1404
1771
1934
1655
2233
1117
1086
1377
1321
1376
2160
1366
1474
1744
PPM
399
335
380
335
230
313
231
350
267
276
286
302
267
356
393
277
305
361
411
394
519
399
329
383
400
353
514
310
335
396
COD Phenol
Lbs/Day
2756
2206
2223
2625
2519
2323
1014
2591
2169
2275
2417
1792
1686
2658
2193
1893
2115
2369
2505
2500
3315
2523
2261
2456
2046
1950
2578
1989
2384
2523
PPM
919
761
674
750
741
726
845
836
657
669
525
437
511
521
577
485
460
483
533
595
771
901
685
682
620
500
614
452
542
573
Lbs/Day
1.3
0.3
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.6
2.2
2.1
0.7
0.7
3.3
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.1
1.8
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.4
PPM
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
SS
Lbs/Day
77
98
221
99
122
88
25
87
98
92
115
176
84
164
121
95
125
74
84
129
115
195
130
152
63
150
121
75
93
21
PPM
26
34
67
28
36
28
21
28
30
27
25
43
25
32
32
24
27
15
18
31
27
70
39
42
19
38
29
17
21
5
Flow
MGPD
0.36
0.35
0.39
0.42
0.41
0.38
0.14
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.55
0.49
0.39
0.61
0.45
0.47
0.55
0.59
0.56
0.50
0.51
0.34
0.39
0.43
0.40
0.47
0.50
0.53
0.62
0.63
178
-------
TREATED WASTE DATA FOR DECEMBER 1973
BOD COD
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Lbs/Day PPM
1645
1250
1420
1223
905
1211
1297
1019
1065
927
822
761
993
1170
1250
1323
1265
1238
1294
1700
1527
1551
742
563
1019
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down,
484
357
394
314
232
242
254
192
205
193
171
152
187
229
236
259
258
263
264
362
355
369
353
268
485
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Lbs/Day PPM
2602
2213
2299
2375
1884
2312
2350
2159
1828
1548
1415
1562
1860
1671
1771
1836
1815
1703
2193
2131
1913
2304
1224
1033
1941
Held in
Held in
Held in
Held in
Held in
Held in
765
632
639
609
483
462
460
407
352
323
295
312
351
328
334
360
370
362
448
453
445
549
583
492
924
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Lbs/Day PPM
1.3
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
2.4
6.9
5.5
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.5
1.4
2.4
0.8
0.7
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.3
0.7
0.5
0.3
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
.3
.1
.1
.2
.5
.4
.0
.3
.4
.2
.2
.1
.3
.5
.2
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.5
.3
.3
.1
Lbs/Day PPM
21
60
78
82
74
95
107
115
98
95
109
105
102
142
236
87
118
111
83
51
145
124
38
59
365
6
17
22
21
19
19
21
22
19
18
23
21
19
28
45
17
24
24
17
11
38
30
18
28
174
NOW
MGPD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.41
.42
.43
.47
.47
.60
.61
.63
.62
.57
.57
.60
.63
.61
.63
.61
.59
.56
.59
.56
.51
.50
.25
.25
.62
179
-------
TREATED WASTE DATA FOR JANUARY 1974
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
BL
Lbs/Day
JD
PPM
Down, Effluent
561
753
1357
1034
824
1035
1295
1448
1023
1436
1607
1261
960
585
152
1062
899
982
842
701
835
983
1006
791
495
487
558
841
988
770
128
130
226
199
162
195
249
278
209
248
292
243
200
172
203
200
195
189
175
140
155
176
180
152
103
108
103
168
225
214
-------
TREATED WASTE DATA FOR FEBRUARY 1974
BOD
COD
Phenol
SS
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lbs/Day
Down,
194
1355
1070
668
932
1084
1454
711
1288
1060
1103
1330
1167
1336
1436
916
541
836
1197
1219
1104
1070
679
924
1117
1181
997
PPM
Held in
139
288
243
163
183
213
264
158
257
212
290
369
324
262
266
199
118
158
230
239
256
297
212
225
279
268
237
Lbs/Day
Retention
354
1946
1327
1061
1487
1773
1119
980
1940
1794
1634
2368
1667
1896
2001
1453
1814
2572
2539
1949
1592
1227
735
1349
1186
1479
1358
PPM
Pond
253
414
302
259
292
348
203
217
388
359
430
658
463
372
371
316
394
485
488
382
370
340
229
329
296
336
323
Lbs/Day
2.4
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.2
0.5
4.8
1.9
1.1
2.9
0.8
.0
.2
6.4
.8
.2
.9
4.0
5.7
2.8
1.6
4.1
0.8
0.6
1.4
0.7
0.0
PPM
1.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
Lbs/Day PPM
27
84
145
69
112
61
159
72
85
105
69
60
78
31
118
74
116
91
150
128
34
0
63
57
48
36
80
19
18
33
17
22
12
29
16
17
21
18
17
22
6
22
16
25
17
29
25
8
0
20
14
12
8
19
0-17
0.56
0.53
0.49
0.61
0.61
0.66
0.54
0.60
0.60
0.46
0.43
0.43
0.61
0.65
0.55
0.55
0.64
0.62
0.61
0.51
0.43
0.38
0.49
0.48
0.53
0.50
181
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-123
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSlOf*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COMPLEX
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
5. REPORT DATE
November 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS!
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
C. Schimmel and D. B. Griffin
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
Under Contract to
Alabama Geological Survey, State Oil & Gas Bd.
University, Alabama 35486
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB036
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12020 EGG
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (Sept. 1970 - Feb.1974)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The waste effluent from operation of the Tuscaloosa, Alabama, plant of
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., results from both batch and continuous
operations, contains both organic and inorganic wastes and varies both
in composition and concentration. This report describes development of
a bio-oxidation process which resulted in a significant reduction in
BOD5 and COD loading and almost complete removal of phenols. Lack of
reliability ascribed to the bio process led to development of an acti-
vated carbon adsorption process that has resulted in the average removal
of 90% of the COD, 75% of the BOD5 and over 99% of the phenol load in
the RCI process waste. Bio-oxidation should not be overlooked for
treating industrial wastes although its usefulness is limited with
respect to bacterial poisons, such as phenol, and by ambient temperature
changes that result in variable biological activity.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Pilot plant
Phenolic resins
Industrial wastes
Organic compounds
Industrial waste treatment
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
Carbon adsorption
Activated carbon
regeneration
Biological oxidation
BOD reduction
COD removal
Waster purification
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
190
20. SECURITY CLASS fThis page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
182
V U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: l977-757-056/5')'i5 Region No. 5-11
------- |