WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 11060 DPD 02/71
Combined Treatment of Municipal
Kraft Linerboard and
Fiberboard Manufacturing Wastes
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCE SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research. Series describes the.
results and progress in the control and abatement of pollu-
tion of our Nation's waters. They provide a central source
of information on the research, development, and demon-
stration activities of the Environmental Protection Agency
through inhouse research and grants and contracts with
Federal, State, and local agencies, research institutions,
and industrial organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to the Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Head, Publications Branch,
Research Information Division, R&M, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
COMBINED-TEEATMMT OF MUNICIPAL
KEAFT LINERBOARD, AND
FIBERBOARD MANUFACTURING WASTES
Macon, Georgia^ Board of Water Commissioners
Georgia Kraft Company
Armstrong Cork Company
for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Program Number 11060 DPD
February, 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The successful treatment of domestic waste from one drainage
basin of the City of Macon, Georgia, along with wastewater from an 850
ton-per-day kraft linerboard mill and a 600 ton-per-day groundwood-cold
caustic structural insulation board mill was obtained in a 120 gallon-
per-minute capacity plant. A pro-rated quantity of the total flow of
each waste was treated.
The pilot plant consisted of combined and/or separate primary
sedimentation units, followed by two parallel secondary treatment sys-
tems. Each secondary system received half of the plant influent. One
secondary system consisted of twenty-four to thirty hours of extended
aeration, while the other consisted of a high rate plastic media bio-
filter followed by twelve to fifteen hours of aeration. Both systems
had secondary sedimentation and sludge return.
The secondary systems averaged approximately ninety-two per-
cent (92%) BOD removal with an effluent concentration in the range of
50 mg/1 BOD. Auxiliary studies indicated that supplemental nutrients
are not required.
Chlorine proved to be the best disinfecting agent, but- large
amounts were required. An organism in the groundwood-cold caustic
operation interfered with the fecal coliform test, making disinfection
studies inconclusive.
Settled secondary sludge was bulky, containing one to three
percent (l-37o) solids, and was difficult to dewater.
Estimated construction and operating costs for combined and
separate treatment plants were prepared„ The combined plant utilizing
plastic media bio-filters along with fifteen-hour aeration is the most
economical. In comparison, the combined system is more economical than
separate facilities.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project 11060DPD
under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS . . 3
III INTRODUCTION. . , 5
IV BACKGROUND 9
City of Maeon 9
Armstrong Cork Company 10
Georgia Kraft Company. ... 11
Stream Flow 12
V DESCRIPTION OF PILOT PLANT AND STUDIES 15
General Process 15
Specific Units -15
Sampling and Analysis 21
Schedule of Operations 22
VI OBJECTIVES 25
VII PRIMARY TREATMENT 27
VIII SECONDARY TREATMENT 31
Plant #1 Performance 31
Plant #2 Performance 34
Comparison of Two Units 35
Nutrients 36
Shock Loading Studies 36
IX SLUDGE DISPOSAL 41
Centrifuge «... 41
Filter Press 41
X DISINFECTION 43
Indicator Organisms Present 43
Chlorine Demand , . . . 43
Chlorine Requirements 44
Other Disinfecting Studies 44
XI SUPPORTING STUDIES 47
Effect of pH 47
Instrumentation 47
Sludge Concentration 47
v
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Ejection Page
XII CONCEPTION OF FULL-SCALE DESIGN 49
Regulatory Requirements 49
Comparisons of Combined Alternatives 50
Participants' Plans for Separate Treatment Facilities ... 53
Armstrong Cork Company 53
Georgia Kraft Company 53
City of Macon • • 56
Comparison of Combined and Separate Treatment Facilities . . 56
XIII CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING COSTS 59
Combined Treatment Facility 59
Construction Costs 59
Operating Costs . ..... 60
Participants' Separate Treatment Facilities 61
Armstrong Cork Company. .... ...» 61
Georgia Kraft Company 65
City of Macon 66
XIV ALLOCATION OF COMBINED TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATING COSTS . . . . „ „ . . 69
Allocation of Construction Costs 69
Allocation of Operating Costs 73
XV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS „ 75
XVI REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS 0 77
XVII GLOSSARY,, 79
XVIII APPENDICES. . . „ 81
VI
-------
FIGURES
1 POTENTIAL AREA OF SERVICE - ROCKY CREEK WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PLANT 7
2 FLOW DIAGRAM - PILOT PLANT 17
3 PLANT INFLUENT - WEIR BOX 18
4 TYPICAL SECTION AERATION BASIN 19
5 PLANT #2 20
6 BOD CONCENTRATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT . . 32
7 PERIOD AVERAGE BOD CONCENTRATIONS 33
8 BOD REMOVAL VS. BOD LOADING 37
9 SLUDGE PRODUCTION VS. BOD LOADING 38
10 EFFECT OF NUTRIENTS 39
11 EFFECT OF SHOCK LOADS 40
12 ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY - SEPARATE TREATMENT PLANT 54
13 GEORGIA KRAFT COMPANY - SEPARATE TREATMENT PLANT 55
14 CITY OF MACON - SEPARATE TREATMENT FACILITY 57
Vll
-------
TABLES
No.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
Characteristics of City of Macon Wastewater Discharge
for Rocky Creek Drainage Basin
Characteristics of Armstrong Cork Company's Wastewater. . .
Characteristics of Georgia Kraft Company, Mead Division,
Wastewater
Tobesofkee Creek Flows
Total Flow - Ocmulgee River and Tobesofkee Creek
Schedule of Pilot Plant Operations
Primary Clarification of Combined Wastes
Separate Primary Clarification of Industrial Wastes ....
Chlorine Requirement Studies . „ ,
Estimated Construction Cost - 15-Hour Plant
Detailed Breakdown of Yearly Operating Cost - 15-Hour
Plant
Armstrong Cork Company - Estimated Construction Costs
for Separate Treatment . . . <. . . .
Armstrong Cork Company - Estimated Annual Operating Cost. .
Georgia Kraft Company - Estimated Construction Cost for
Separate Treatment
Georgia Kraft Company - Estimated Annual Operating Costs . .
City of Macon - Estimated Construction Cost for Separate
Treatment
Pag£
10
11
12
13
13
14
23
28
28
29
45
46
62
63
65
65
66
66
67
IX
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
No. Page
XX City of Macon - Estimated Annual Operating Costs 67
XXI Basis for Cost Distribution 70
XXII Summary of Cost Distribution - 15-Hour Plant 70
XXIII Detailed Breakdown of Construction Cost Proration 71
x
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Municipal sewage, wastewater from an unbleached kraft linerboard
operation, and wastewater from a groundwood-cold caustic insulation
board mill can be treated in a combined plant.
2. The lack of primary sedimentation for the municipal and kraft mill
wastes did not adversely affect the operation of the secondary treat-
ment systems.
3. A combined treatment plant can provide in excess of ninety percent
(90%) BOD reduction. This could be obtained by primary sedimentation
of only the groundwood-cold caustic insulation board mill waste in com-
bination with either of the two secondary treatment systems studied.
4. The addition of supplemental nutrients did not improve overall treat-
ment plant efficiency.
5. Chlorine was determined to be as effective as any disinfecting agent
studied. The chlorine demand for the combined effluent varied from 20
to 100 mg/1, with an average of approximately 60 mg/1. Chlorine dosage
required to produce ninety-five percent (957o) kill of indicator organisms
averaged 35 mg/1.
6. Disinfection studies were inconclusive due to the presence of the
Klebsiella organism in the groundwood-cold caustic effluent which inter-
fered with the fecal coliform test.
7. Settled secondary sludge was bulky, one to three percent (1-370)
solids, and was difficult to dewater.
8. Variations in the strength of the industrial waste flows did not
upset the pilot plant operation,,
9. Of three separate plants proposed for the individual participants,
only the City's plant is comparable in BOD removal to that expected by
the combined treatment facility.
10. The total estimated capital and operating costs for the combined
treatment facility are less than the total estimated costs for the three
separate treatment plants.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the pilot plant data and financial studies, it has
been determined that the most economical secondary treatment system is
the plastic media bio-filter with fifteen-hour detention in the aeration
basin. A full-scale combined treatment plant should be of this design.
Methods of dewatering bulky activated sludge in a more economi-
cal way should be investigated.
Due to the quantity of chlorine required for disinfection of
the full-scale plant effluent, a detailed study of the effluent quality
should be conducted before the need and/or method of disinfection is
decided upon.
Investigations on the full-scale plant should be carried out
to confirm the conclusions of the pilot studies. Investigations of
plastic media bio-filter performance, aeration requirements, nutrient
needs, shock loadings, etc. should be performed.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
It is well known by both the lay and scientific communities
that water pollution control is one of the more urgent and sophisticated
problems confronting our nation today. With this awareness, the press
for prevention and/or control of pollution has intensified. This inten-
sification has compounded the need for better solutions, both from the
economic and the technical viewpoints, to the problems of water pollution
control.
The primary causes of the pollution problems of the Ocmulgee
River for the first several river miles downstream from Macon are a
result of domestic wastes from the City of Macon and industrial wastes
from Armstrong Cork Company and Georgia Kraft Company. This problem is
well known, and a solution has been required by the State Water Quality
Control Board,, The waste outfalls for the City and the two industries
are located in close proximity in a single drainage bksin called Rocky
Creek, shown in Figure 1. Therefore, in late 1966 the possibility of a
joint solution to this problem was conceived. Arrangements were made
with Dr. Robert S. Ingols, Research Professor at the Georgia Institute
of Technology in Atlanta, who conducted bench scale treatability studies
in late 1967 and reported on them in early 1968. Results of the bench
scale studies are shown in Appendix I. The bench scale studies provided
encouraging results. It was concluded that extended aeration type treat-
ment with thirty hours detention of the waste would produce eighty-five
to ninety percent (85-90%) reduction in biochemical oxygen demand. The
bench scale studies did indicate, however, that large quantities of
sludge would be produced and that further studies to define both the
actual quantities and the means of sludge disposal were necessary. The
high concentration of the waste also suggested that a plastic media bio-
filter would achieve a significant reduction in power costs for aeration.
To answer questions raised in the bench scale studies, a pilot
plant study was planned by the three parties in mid 1968. It was felt
that this study was of such significance, in several respects, that the
City of Macon made application in May 1968 for a Federal Water Quality
Administration Research and Development Grant. Such grants are provided
for under the "Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966." On February 19,
1969, the City of Macon accepted an FWQA Research and Development Grant
(11060DPD) in the amount of either $128,883.75, or seventy-five percent
(75%) of the eligible project costs, whichever was less. Costs were
retroactive to August 21, 1968.
At the request of the State Water Quality Control Board staff,
construction on the pilot plant was initiated in August 1968, prior to
the federal grant offer, so that a solution to the overall problem would
be achieved as early as possible.
-------
The pilot plant was constructed by the City of Macon, under
the direction of Mr0 Randolph Goulding of the engineering firm Jordan,
Jones and Goulding, Inc. Pilot plant operation was begun in January
1969; however, due to difficulties with the secondary clarifiers, modi-
fications were required. The units were modified and were placed in
operation in mid April 1969 and remained under continuous study until
December 5, 1969., This is approximately one and one-half months longer
than was anticipated for pilot studies. This extra period is approxi-
mately the length of time lost in the studies due to aerator failures
and Armstrong Cork Company pump outages.
The pilot plant provided facilities for studies of primary
sedimentation and parallel secondary treatment systems consisting of
(a) plastic media bio-filter in series with extended aeration, and (b)
conventional extended aeration. Facilities for secondary clarification
of the mixed liquor were also provided. Sludge dewatering studies were
conducted on site by equipment manufacturers. Disinfection studies and
all auxiliary analytical studies were conducted by either the Macon
Board of Water Commissioners or the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The engineering firm, Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc. of
Atlanta, Georgia, served as consultant on all engineering design and
mechanical phases of the pilot project. Dr. Robert S. Ingols directed
the pilot plant operation and served as consultant on the analytical
phases of the project,,
All engineering and economic data for the full-scale combined
treatment plant were prepared by Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc. Simi-
lar data for the separate projects were prepared by the individual com-
panies through their engineering staffs or arrangements with consultants.
This report has been prepared to make the findings of the pilot
plant studies and the full-scale plant design data available as defined
under the requirements for the EPA Research and Development Grant.
-------
SECTION IV
BACKGROUND
The southern area of Macon, Georgia, has several large water-
using industries and is experiencing rapid population growth. The
industries do not provide adequate treatment for their wastewaters, and
the population area served by a large trunk sewer is not provided with
treatment facilities. The combined effects of these waste discharges
on Rocky Creek, Tobesofkee Creek and the Ocmulgee River is an excessive
pollutional load during low flow periods. The condition of the river
is indicated in a 1967 report by EPA and State Water Quality Control
experts (1_) . Therefore, the City of Macon and the two major water-using
industries in the area, Georgia Kraft Company and Armstrong Cork Company,
are confronted with the necessity of developing facilities to treat their
respective wastes.
In discussions concerning methods for the treatment of these
wastes, Mr. R. So Howard, Jr., Executive Secretary, and Mr. Charles
Starling, Chief of the Industrial Waste Service of the State Water Quality
Control Board, have indicated that combined treatment would be a good
solution to this water quality problem.
The treatment of wastes in combined facilities is, of course,
not new. Information on other similar studies (,2j_3,4,j>,j),^7) were re-
viewed prior to undertaking this project., Several combined waste treat-
ment investigations (^,2jJL2»ii>12.) were only slightly ahead or proceeding
simultaneously with this project. While review of these and other (13)
studies provides some insight into the combined treatment of municipal
and industrial wastes, no situation studied to date is comparable in
ratio and types of wastes to the one considered here. In order to demon-
strate the feasibility of the design concept and provide design informa-
tion for a successful full-scale unit, the pilot plant study described
here was essential.
City of Macon:
The Macon Board of Water Commissioners currently operates a
secondary treatment facility which serves about sixty-five percent (657o)
of the populated area inside the City Limits. This plant was placed in
operation in 1959 and discharges a treated effluent into the Ocmulgee
River upstream from the area identified in this report as the Rocky
Creek Drainage Basin.
The area lying within the basin outlined in Figure 1 includes
portions of both the Rocky Creek and the Tobesofkee Creek drainage areas.
Of the outlined area, approximately thirty-one square miles lie within
the Rocky Creek Drainage Basin, and the remainder lies within the
Tobesofkee Creek Drainage Basin, Of this total area, approximately 13,440
acres lie within the City Limits of Macon.
-------
The City of Macon has an existing sewage collection system in
the Rocky Creek and Tobesofkee Creek Drainage Basins (called the Rocky
Creek Basin) which discharges untreated waste into the Ocmulgee River.
The present average flow in the Rocky Creek Outfall is three million
gallons per day, which is the City's domestic waste in the Rocky Creek
Basin, plus any small industrial waste discharges connected to the sys-
tem. This average flow is based on data obtained by the City's recording
flow meter at an existing pumping station near the point of discharge
into the Ocmulgee River. This is a population equivalent of 30,000
people. The estimated 1970 population of Macon is approximately 138,000
people. The projected population of Macon in the year 1985 is 148,500
people, which is an increase of seven percent (7%). Applying this aver-
age City-wide increase to the present flow in the Rocky Creek Basin, the
anticipated Rocky Creek flow in 1985 would be 3.21 MGD; however, since
the Rocky Creek Basin has a large, undeveloped area in Bibb County, which
has a program of extending water and sewer facilities, a higher rate of
growth has been applied to the Rocky Creek Basin. A fifty percent (50%)
increase in the present flow has been provided for the City's domestic
waste in these studies. The City of Macon's capacity requirements in
the pilot plant studies to serve the Rocky Creek Basin until 1985 were
planned on the basis of 4.5 MGD.
TABLE I
Characteristics of City of Macon Discharge
for Rocky Creek Drainage Basin
Design Conditions for Waste Treatment
Flow 4,5 MGD
BOD 7,515 Ibs/day
pH 7,3
Total Suspended Solids 7,515 Ibs/day
Volatile Suspended Solids 5,336 Ibs/day
Armstrong Cork Company:
The Armstrong Cork Company's principal product at the Macon
Division Mill is structural insulation board. This is converted into
a wide range of decorative ceiling tiles, plank and boards, both of the
acoustical and non-acoustical types. The principal raw material used
in the manufacture of these products is pine fiber prepared by mechani-
cal grinding of pine wood in the presence of process water. These
products utilize approximately seventy-five percent (7570) of all the
pulpwood used at the plant. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of
purchased pulpwood is used in the production of insulating sheathing
roofing, certain board items and medium-density hardboard line including
exterior siding and interior wall panels. In this smaller part of the
10
-------
production at the Macon plant, a cold caustic process is used in producing
chemical pulp. The wood species used include all hardwoods found in the
southeastern United States. Total production is in excess of six hundred
tons per day.
The plant is located on the west side of the Central of Georgia
Railroad south of Guy Paine Road as shown in Figure 1. The Company pur-
chases some of its water from the City, but also has a private supply
which consists of wells located on their property. Sanitary sewers are
connected to the Rocky Creek outfall, and all industrial waste is pre-
sently discharged into Rocky Creek.
Based on separate studies by the Company and data from the
operation of the primary sedimentation unit of the pilot plant, a deci-
sion was made to provide separate primary treatment of the wastes. Pri-
mary treatment facilities are presently under construction at the
Armstrong plant. Their management estimates that the volume of their
waste is 3.5 MGD, which is approximately the capacity assumed in con-
ducting the pilot plant studies.
TABLE II
Characteristics of Armstrong Cork Company Wastewater
Design Conditions for Waste Treatment
Flow 3.5 MGD
BOD 46,760 Ibs/day
pH 6.6
Total Suspended Solids 5,845 Ibs/day
Volatile Suspended Solids 3,098 Ibs/day
Georgia Kraft Company:
Georgia Kraft Company, jointly owned by Inland Container Cor-
poration of Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Mead Corporation of Dayton,
Ohio, began operation at its first mill in Macon, Georgia, in April
1948. Since that time, Georgia Kraft Company has added divisions at
Rome, Georgia, and at Mahrt, Alabama. The Company's employees have
tripled in number and production is more than 3,200 tons of container-
board per day.
The Mead Division of Georgia Kraft Company, located within the
southeastern perimeter of the City Limits of Macon, at the end of Mead
Road, produces about 880 tons of unbleached containerboard per day. Wood,
consisting of southern pine and mixed hardwoods, is subjected to a "kraft"
pulping process and utilized to produce this product. The finished pro-
duct is then shipped to container manufacturers throughout the United
States and to foreign countries to be converted into a wide array of
packages.
11
-------
Process water for mill use is obtained from the Ocmulgee River.
Two deep wells located on mill property provide water for domestic use.
Sanitary sewage from the plant is discharged into the Rocky Creek outfall.
The mill's effluent is discharged back into the Ocmulgee, approximately
one hundred yards downstream of the intake.
A separate FWQA-sponsored Research and Development Grant inves-
tigation at the Mead Division ran simultaneously with the combined waste
treatment pilot plant study. This separate investigation involved the
use of a full-scale cooling tower to reduce the volume and BOD concentra-
tion of selected internal waste streams. The effectiveness of this unit
at the Mead Division was indicated early in the pilot study, and appro-
priate adjustments were made in the waste flow to the pilot plant. The
tower reduced the average BOD discharged from the mill by about 10,000
pounds per day, or approximately one-third of the normal waste load.
Holding ponds at Mead Division are utilized to collect and
regulate the release of strong wastes into the normal waste flow from
the plant. Continuous measurement of receiving stream flow and dissolved
oxygen concentration are also utilized in regulating mill discharges.
TABLE III
Characteristicsof Georgia Kraft Co,, Mead Division Wastewater
Design Conditions for Waste Treatment
Flow 9.0 MGD
BOD 30,060 Ibs/day
PH 9.8
Total Suspended Solids 20,000 Ibs/day
Volatile Suspended Solids 9,600 Ibs/day
Stream Flow:
The U.So Geological Survey has data available on the minimum
flows of the Ocmulgee River at the Fifth Street Bridge in Macon and
Tobesofkee Creek at U.S. Highway 80. The recorded flows at these two
stations have been adjusted to predict the minimum flow in the Ocmulgee
River at the confluence with the Tobesofkee Creek. The adjustments were
made by determining the minimum flows in MGD per square mile of drainage
area, and applying this factor to the additional drainage area between
the gauging station and the intersection of the Ocmulgee River and the
Tobesofkee Creek. The Ocmulgee River has 2,240 square miles of drain-
age area above the Fifth Street Bridge and an additional 119 square
miles between Fifth Street Bridge and Tobesofkee Creek. Tobesofkee
Creek has 182 square miles of drainage area above U.S0 Highway 80 and
an additional 44 square miles between U.S. Highway 80 and the Ocmulgee
River, plus 48 square miles in the Rocky Creek drainage area. This
stream flow information is summarized in Tables IV, V and VI.
12
-------
TABLE IV
Ocmulgee River Flows
Recurrence
Interval
(Minimum)
1-Day
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
At Fifth Street Bridge
Flow
(MGD/Sq. Mi.) (MGD)
0.037
0.095
0.176
83
213
394
At Tobesofkee Creek
Calculated Flow
(MGD)
87
224
415
7-Day
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
Month
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
0.040
0.127
0.189
0.048
0.142
0.239
90
284
423
107
317
535
94
300
446
113
335
564
* * * it it A *
TABLE V
Tobesofkee Creek Flows
Recurrence
Interval
(Minimum)
1-Day
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
At U.S. Highway 80
(MGD/Sq. Mi.) Flow (MGD)
0.008
0.018
0.088
#1 #2
1.4 0.0
3.3 0.0
16.0 11.0
At Ocmulgee Creek
(Includes Rocky Creek)
Flow (MGD)
0.7
1.7
19.0
7-Day
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
Month
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
0.010
0.020
0.093
0.020
0.043
0.120
1.8 0.0
3.7 0.0
17.0 12.0
3.6 0.0
7.8 2.8
22.0 17.0
2.7
5.5
25.5
5.5
11.8
33.0
0.9
1.8
20.0
1.8
6.8
28.0
NOTE: Column #1 does not include any change which may occur through
Tobesofkee Reservoir; Column #2 assumes a loss of 5.0 MGD due
to evaporation from Tobesofkee Reservoir.
13
-------
TABLE VI
Total Flow - Ocmulgee River and Tobesofkee Creek
Recurrence
Interval
(Minimum)
Month
20 Year
10 Year
2 Year
At the Junction of
Tobesofkee Creek and Ocmulgee River
Flow (MGD) Dilution (17 MGD)
96.7
305.5
471.5
118.5
346.8
597.0
87.8
225.7
434.0
94.9
301.8
466.5
114.8
341.8
592.0
5:1
13:1
25:1
6:1
18:
27:
7:1
20:1
35:1
14
-------
SECTION V
DESCRIPTION OF PILOT PLANT AND STUDIES
General Process:
The pilot plant was designed with two parallel treatment sys-
tems (as shown in Figure 2) based on the extended aeration biological
process. The total design flow of 120 gallons per minute was obtained
from three sources in the following amounts: Armstrong Cork Company,
24 gallons per minute; City of Macon, 24 gallons per minute; and Georgia
Kraft Company, 72 gallons per minute.
The wastes from the three sources entered a control weir box,
as shown in Figure 3, where each was individually regulated and measured.
From the control weir box, the wastes could be totally mixed and settled,
mixed and settled in various combinations, settled individually or pri-
mary treatment could be bypassed. The steel settling tanks were provided
with continuous sludge removal equipment. Each had a capacity to provide
two hours detention of the total design flow. The effluent from the
settling tanks and any flow bypassing the primary clarifiers were mixed
and then split, with equal parts flowing to the two parallel treatment
systems.
The No. 1 secondary system consisted of a sealed, excavated
pond with a variable detention time of twenty-four to thirty hours, shown
in Figure 2, and schematically in Figure 4. Aeration was provided by two
five horsepower floating surface aerators. Sedimentation was accomplished
in a settling area built into the effluent end of the pond, shown schemati-
cally in Figure 4. Pumps were provided for continuous sludge recirculation.
The No. 2 secondary system consisted of a plastic media bio-
filter followed by a sealed, excavated pond with twelve to fifteen hours
detention time, shown in Figures 2 and 5. The effluent from the filter
entered the pond which used one five horsepower floating surface aerator.
Sludge from the settling area could be recirculated to the pond influent
and provisions were made to recirculate mixed liquor to the bio-filter
influent.
Sludge drawn from either of the secondary clarifiers emptied
into a 1500 gallon storage tank* Sludge from this tank could be recir-
culated or used for sludge disposal studies. Facilities for studying
sludge disposal were provided by various equipment manufacturers.
Specific Units:
Control Weir Box and Mixing Chamber: The control weir box and
mixing chamber was a common facility, constructed of steel plate with a
bitumastic coating. Each of the individual wastes was discharged into
15
-------
separate weir chambers with the flow measured by means of "V"-notched
weirs. Bleed valves ahead of the weir chambers provided the means of
regulating the quantity of flow.
Flow from the weir chamber for each waste was sent either into
the mixing chamber or bypassed for individual settling study. The mixing
chamber provided two minutes mixing at a rate of flow of 120 gallons per
minute. The overall dimension of this structure was nine feet wide, five
feet long and two and one-half feet deep.
Primary Settling Tank: The primary settling tank provided two
hours detention at the design flow of 120 gallons per minute. At other
rates of flow, the side water depths could be varied to provide other
detention times. The tank was designed of steel with a bitumastic coating
and was eighteen feet (18') in diameter with a side water depth of eight
feet (81) at 120 gallons per minute. Discharge was over a weir.
Auxiliary Settling Tank: The auxiliary settling tank provided
two hours detention for the various flows of the individual wastes. De-
tention could be controlled by adjusting the water depth. The tank was
steel, five feet (5') in diameter with a water depth of six feet (61) for
a flow of 72 gallons per minute.
Mixing Chamber and Splitter Box: The mixing chamber and
splitter box was of steel construction with a bitumastic coating. The
mixing chamber provided two-minute mixing at a flow of 120 gallons per
minute. The mixing chamber was eight feet by four feet by two feet deep.
Plastic Media Bio-Filter: The size was six feet by six feet
by eight feet high. The structural frame was of wood. The plastic media
was polyvinyl chloride, as manufactured by B. F. Goodrich Company. The
means of distributing the flow at the top of the tower was through an
open pan, fabricated from plywood with holes to provide reasonably uni-
form application of flow over the entire media area.
Aeration Basins: Aeration basins were earth dyke construction,
sealed with soil cement on the bottom and asphalt on the sides. A con-
crete apron was provided at the water surface to prevent erosion. The
detention time was controlled by varying the depth. The capability for
continuous return of sludge was provided in each basin.
Aeration Pond #1 Without Bio-Filter - Excavated and Sealed
Twenty-four hour detention dimensions:
Surface 42 feet by 70 feet, Bottom 18 feet by 46 feet, Depth 6 feet.
Thirty hour detention dimensions:
Surface 42 feet by 74 feet, Bottom 18 feet by 46 feet, Depth 7 feet.
Aeration Pond #2 With Plastic Media Bio-Filter - Excavated and Sealed
Twelve hour detention dimensions:
Surface 42 feet by 47 feet, Bottom 18 feet by 23 feet, Depth 6 feet.
Fifteen hour detention dimensions:
Surface 46 feet by 51 feet, Bottom 18 feet by 23 feet, Depth 7 feet.
16
-------
> -4
(/> -<
m o
-n
ro
is
z
•33
(V)0 ^ o
**• > m
<•> 05 O
"U O (1\ G)
20 -
33 ^1 >
X M
«. X
CONTROL
WEIR BOX
_
1
M
HI
M
c^
w
w
fe
w
w
p
'
/
MIXING
CHAMBER
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANK
AUXILIARY SETTLING TANK FOR
STUDY OF INDIVIDUAL WASTES 2 HR.
DETENTION TIME AT 72 GPM
SLUDGE
DRYING TEST
FIGURE 2
FLOW DIAGRAM
PILOT PLANT
ROCKY CREEK WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
SAMPLING POINTS
-------
00
I
FIGURE 3
PLANT INFLUENT-WEIR BOX
-------
I
I—
CONCRETE APRON
12" X 18" OPENING
FLOATING
AERATOR
I" T a 6 TIMBER DECKING
BAFFLE
2" X 3" RIBS
4"X 6" TIMBER COLUMN
ASPHALT LINER
FIGURE 4
TYPICAL SECTION AERATION BASIN
PILOT PLANT
ROCKY CREEK WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
-------
FIGURE 5
PLANT NO. 2
-------
Secondary Clarifiers: This clarlfier unit was constructed at
the effluent end of the aeration basin as shown schematically in Figure
4. Flow from the aeration basin entered through a baffle arrangement
designed to reduce the turbulence. The chamber had a triangular cross-
section with a maximum depth of seven feet, five inches, with surface
dimensions of fourteen feet by thirty-three feet. The side wall slope
was 1 to 1. Sludge was removed by air-lift pumps from the bottom of
each clarifier.
Secondary Tank: The secondary tank had a 1500 gallon capacity
and was constructed of steel with a bitumastic coating. The tank was
approximately eight feet in diameter and six feet high.
Sampling and Analysis:
Except for mechanical interruptions, the pilot plant was
operated twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, from April 15
to December 5, 1969.
Tests were run on twenty-four-hour composite samples through-
out the project, except for a period from April 28 through May 26, when
tests were run on eight-hour composites. During the period from April
15 through May 26, sampling was automatic, once per hour, using electri-
cally operated solinoid valves. During this period, samples were not
refrigerated,, Starting on May 26, and continuing for the duration of
the project, samples were collected manually at one-hour intervals, and
refrigerated. Samples were not collected every day, but a representative
number of samples were taken during each new study phase. Composite
samples as shown in Figure 2 were collected at the following points:
1. Raw waste from each party.
2. Primary sedimentation effluent (including non-settled raw
wastes, when scheduled).
3. Mixed Liquor, Plant #1.
4. Mixed Liquor, Plant #2.
5. Final settling tank effluent, Plant #1.
6. Final settling tank effluent, Plant #2.
7. Secondary sludge, tank effluent, Plant #1.
8. Secondary sludge, tank effluent, Plant #2.
The pilot plant operators made dissolved oxygen and settleability
determinations on the mijced liquor each hour. Other duties included
pumping out primary sludge, skimming off floating surface solids, adding
21
-------
defoamer, and a number of mechanical tasks necessary for the maintenance
and operation of the plant.
A daily log of pilot plant operations was maintained. The
daily analyses made on the composite samples and other pertinent infor-
mation have been summarized and included in Appendix II. All of the
analyses were made in accordance with the thirteenth edition of "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater."
Schedule of Operations:
A schedule of operation was set forth at the beginning of the
pilot plant study to investigate the various objectives defined. Certain
modifications to the original schedule were made based on the findings
as the project moved forward, and to accommodate certain malfunctions in
equipment.
The schedule of operations followed in the pilot plant studies
from the beginning of stable operations on April 15 is shown in Table
VII.
22
-------
TABLE VII
Schedule of Ope rat ions
Period
1969
April 15 - May 5
May 6 - May 12
May 13 - May 18
Mar. 19 - June 15
June 16 - June 26
Flow
Armstrong
50
50
24
24
Rates - GPM
Ga. Kraft
72
72
72
72
City
24
24
24
24
Primary
Armstrong
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sedimentation
Ga. Kraft
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
City
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes
Detention
Plant #1
24
—
24
30
30
Time - Mrs.
Plant n
12
—
12
15
15
Nutrients
Added
No
—
No
No
Yes
Remarks
Data not used due to
several operational
sampling changes.
and
Supplemental Nutrients
June 27 - July 7 — — —
July 8 - July 25 24 72 24
July 26 - July 30 — — —
July 31 - Aug. 7 — — —
Aug. 8 - Aug. 18 — — —
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28 NONE 72 24
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12 NONE 72 24
Sept. 13 - Oct. 16 — — —
Yes
Yes
Yes
24
Yes
Ies
Yes
Nn
M0
No
lvo
30
Ju
12
IS s
18.8
No
w
No
N
No
Oct. 17
Nov. 1
Nov. 6
Nov. 22
- Oct.
- Nov.
- Nov.
- Dec,
. 31
5
21
, 5
54
30
30
24
72
72
72
NONE
24
NONE
24
24
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
—
No
—
No
No
19.2
30
24
—
12
18.8
15
18.8
No
No
No
No
added.
Data not used due to
industrial flow inter-
ruption
Detention time change,
restabilization period
No flow from city
No. 1 plant aerators
down for repairs and no
flow from Armstrong
„,-,-,
No. 1 plant aerates
inoperative, no flow
from Armstrong
w ti t
No flow from Armstrong
Numerous interruptions
from plant #1 aerators
and Armstrong Cork flow
No flow from city
No flow from Ga. Kraft,
insufficient flow for
#1 plant operation
-------
SECTION VI
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this project was to compare and
evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of selected conventional
primary, and biological secondary systems in the treatment of waste
waters of certain manufacturing processes in combination with municipal
wastes.
Specific objectives were:
1. To determine the efficiencies of selected conventional pri-
mary and biological secondary waste treatment systems, and
devices in the treatment of combined industrial and munici-
pal waste waters.
2. To determine if preconditioning of industrial wastes will
be required prior to combined treatment.
3. To determine the need for and/or the technical problems,
and economic aspects of disinfecting the wastes handled
in this combined waste treatment process.
4. To determine how sensitive the selected systems will be
to shock loadings, and other upsets of the contributing
industries.
5. To determine the overall reliability of the selected sys-
tems.
6» To determine what operational problems are involved in
continuous operation of the selected systems.
7. To collect engineering data which can be used for design
purposes for Macon and other projects.
8. To compare the economics of construction of various sys-
tems for combined treatment„
9. To compare the operational economics of various systems
for treating the combined wastes.
10. To determine how the economic construction of the systems
selected for combined treatment compare with the construction
of facilities to treat the separate wastes individually.
11. To determine how the economics of operating the selected
systems of combined treatment compare with the costs of
operating separate facilities for treating the individual
wastes.
25
-------
12. To determine a means of equitably allocating the costs of
construction and operation to the individual waste discharges,
13. To determine parameters of treatment on which to base the
development of equitable rate structures for municipal waste
treatment.
14. To observe the reliability of various instruments for pro-
viding the necessary data outputs for input to computer
controls for the pilot plant, and the full-scale facilities.
The investigation of these objectives necessitated the design,
construction, and operation of a pilot plant to treat the waste in various
combinations. Analysis of the waste before and after treatment in the
various units of the pilot plant provide the basis for conclusions reached
concerning combined treatment. Data provided by the individual parties
establishes the basis for conclusions covering the economics of joint vs.
separate treatment.
26
-------
SECTION VII
PRIMARY TREATMENT
The bench scale biological treatment experiments were all carried
out on settled waste mixtures. It was assumed that primary treatment would
be necessary in the pilot plant, and provisions were made for settling in-
dividually or combined the influent from the three contributors.
The main primary clarifier was in operation throughout the period
of pilot studies. Initially all three contributors' wastes were settled
prior to secondary treatment„ During various phases of the project, the
overall system was operated with and without primary clarification of
several combinations of the three flows. The schedule followed is shown
below.
Period Mode of Operation
April 15 - May 5 All waste receiving primary clarification
May 13 - May 18 All waste receiving primary clarification
June 1 - June 29 All waste receiving primary clarification
July 8 - July 25 All waste receiving primary clarification
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28 Only Ga. Kraft receiving primary clarification*
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12 Only Ga. Kraft receiving primary clarification*
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31 Only Armstrong receiving primary clarification
Nov. 1 - Nov. 21 Only Armstrong receiving primary clarification
Nov. 23 - Dec. 5 Only Armstrong receiving primary clarification**
*No flow from Armstrong Cork Company
**No flow from Georgia Kraft Company
A study of the effect of primary clarification on BOD removed
when all wastes were settled with two hours detention indicates the
following:
27
-------
TABLE VIII
5
5
26
5
-Average
In f 1 uent (mg/1)
612
650
625
635
508
BOD-
_Ef fluent (mg/11
540
600
550
648
480
BOD Removal (%)
12
8
12
-2
5
Period
April 15 - May 5
May 13 - May 18
May 19 - June 15
June 16 - June 26
July 8 - July 25
A study of the effect of primary clarification on BOD removal
from the industrial wastes in the pilot plant indicated the following:
TABLE IX
Separate Primary Clarification of Industrial Wastes
Par tie's Waste
Clarified
Ga. Kraft
Ga. Kraft
Armstrong
Armstrong
-Average BOD- BOD
Period Influent (mg/1) Ef f luent(mg/l) Removal (%)
Aug. 19
Aug. 29
Nov. 6 -
Nov. 23
- Aug. 28
- Sept. 12
Nov. 21
- Dec. 5
450
416
1180
1280
353
360
1070
1170
22
13
9.3
8.6
No specific studies were made to determine BOD removal by separate
primary clarification of the municipal wastes; however, it has been estab-
lished that the removal of BOD from domestic wastes by sedimentation is
usually twenty-five to thirty-five percent (25-35%). (14)
From these and other studies, it was concluded that the provision
of primary sedimentation ahead of the secondary treatment systems showed no
significant advantage from a BOD removal standpoint.
A review of the suspended solids data in the raw wastes indicated
th e fo11owing:
28
-------
TABLE X
Average Suspended Solids in Raw Wastes
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
City of Macon
(mg/1)
193
290
120
Ga. Kraft
(mg/1)
130
265
85
Armstrong Cork
(mg/1)
2602
3620
1350
The above figures are for the raw wastes entering the pilot
plant during the pilot study. These figures have not been used in the
design of the full-scale plant since they do not indicate maximum
loadings from Georgia Kraft, or subsequent primary settling by Armstrong
Corko See Tables I, II, and III for design conditions.
The above data shows that the Armstrong Cork raw waste con-
tains a very high concentration of suspended solids which was as expected.
Based on data from the pilot plant and on separate studies con-
ducted by the Company, a decision was made by Armstrong Cork to provide
primary treatment and sludge dewatering on its own property. This facil-
ity consists of two 60-foot diameter clarifiers, a 60-foot diameter
sludge thickener and a coil filterc
Based on studies to be presented in the following section, the
biological treatment system functions equally well without primary treat-
ment of the wastes from Georgia Kraft and Macon. Therefore, plans for
the full-scale plant call for secondary treatment without primary clari-
fication of these wastes.
29
-------
SECTION VIII
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Two systems of aerobic secondary biological treatment have
been studied in the pilot plant for the treatment of the mixed industrial-
domestic wastewater. The first system (Plant #1) used a completely mixed,
extended aeration system with a final settling tank, and return sludge to
the aeration basin inlet. In Plant #1 two aeration periods were studied;
the bench scale tests had indicated that thirty hours detention was re-
quired, but provisions were included to study twenty-four hours detention
in the hope that this would prove adequate. The second system (Plant #2)
included a plastic media bio-filter and a shorter detention time extended
aeration system with direct flow from the filter to the aeration basin.
Recirculation of the aeration tank mixed liquor to the top of the filter
(six volumes of raw to one volume of aeration tank mixed liquor) was in-
cluded in the design. Plant #2 also had a final settling tank and return
sludge, and arrangements for studying different detention times. Both
aeration tanks had float-mounted aerators. These were three identical
five-horsepower aerator units; two were bolted together in Plant #1 aera-
tion system. Each secondary system received sixty gallons of mixed waste-
water per minute continuously.
Air lift pumps were used to recirculate large volumes of sludge
(thirty to forty gallons per minute) from each final settling tank to the
head end of each aeration basin. Plant #2 was expected to need only half
of the aerator capacity of Plant #1 because of the anticipated BOD reduc-
tion through the bio-filter. Thus, the original detention in the small
aerator was fifteen hours with only one aerator instead of two identical
aerators in the large thirty-hour detention unit.
About two weeks, from April 15 through May 1, were required for
the development of an operating level of suspended solids in each unit.
The suspended solids had developed to 3000 to 4000 mg/1 when appreciable
quantities of sludge appeared in the effluent.
Figure 6 shows individual day BOD's before and after biological
treatment in Plants #1 and #2.
Figure 7 shows period average raw influent and effluent BOD's
from Plants #1 and #2.
Plant #1 Performance: With thirty hours detention in the
aeration basin, the system was operating very stably by mid May. Several
parameters were monitored in order to define operating controls. Dissolved
oxygen concentration measured hourly remained at 3o5 mg/1 or above. There-
fore, DO was not the limiting factor in this system. It was decided for
Plant #1 that the volume of sludge in the effluent, as measured in an
Imhoff cone after sixty minutes settling, would determine when it was
necessary to waste sludge. When the volume of sludge in the effluent
31
-------
FIGURE 6
BOD CONCENTRATION BEFORE AND AFTER BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
i
CO
80O
700.
600
500.
BOO t
( MG/U
D
400-
15-30 ||l-5|| 13-31
APRIL MAY
I - 26
JUNE
8- 25
JULY
II I9~3' II
II AU6 I)
1-12
SEPT
17- 31
OGT
2 - 21 ||23-3I| 1-4
NOVEMBER DEC
INFLUENT TO SECONDARY TREATMENT D
.EFFLUENT PLANT NO. I »
EFFLUENT PLANT NO.2 •
-------
FIGURE 7
PERIOD AVERAGE BOD CONCENTRATIONS
OJ
6
o
1900 -
1700
1500
1300-
1100
300-
400
300-
200-
100 -
-ALL RAW WASTES SETTLED-
15-30 I|l-Sll 13-
APRIL II MAY
- 3
INDUSTRIES
SETTLED
ARMSTRONS SETTLED
-^ . ^
1-26
JUNE
8-25
JULY
19-31
AUG
1-12
SEPT
17-31
OCT
n 1 1 i
2*21 Il23-3l| ||-4|
NOVEMBER | bECl
RAW INF.L.U.E.NI.
I. ARMSTRONG 2. 6EOR6IA KRAFT 3. MACON
TREATED EFFLUENT
4.PLANT NO. I 5. PLANT NO.2
-------
sample (taken hourly) exceeded 1.0 ml/l/hr, then some sludge was wasted.
This limiting operating factor proved to be a reasonable criterion as a
good quality effluent could be maintained.
Except for the startup period, the system was maintained at
thirty hours detention until the end of June. Detention time was then
changed to twenty-four hours. Comparison of data in Figures 6 and 7 from
the period May 22 through June 15 with the period of July 8 through July
25 shows no significant change in performance. BOD removal for each^
period exceeded ninety percent (90%) , and sludge appearance and condition
remained good. The normal operation of the system was therefore defined
at twenty-four hours detention.
Plant #1 was operated without Armstrong's waste during the
period from August 19 to September 12. This was during a period of me-
chanical operating problems with this unit and a high level of mixed
liquor suspended solids was not maintained. Even so, efficiencies in
excess of eighty percent (80%) were consistently maintained.
Plant #1 was not operated without Georgia Kraft's waste.
During a four-day period from November 2 through November 5,
shown in Figure 7, waste flow from the City was interrupted. The BOD
removal efficiency of this unit dropped rapidly.
Plant if/2 Performance: Attempts were made to determine the
amount of BOD reduction through the bio-filter. Composite samples became
septic too quickly when taken with sampling pumps. Manual sampling for
preparing composites did little better. Since only the total performance
of the system would determine the choice for the full-scale plant, the
direct determination of the filter performance was discontinued.
As in the case of Plant #1, various parameters were monitored
to determine routine operating controls. As the mixed liquor suspended
solids climbed to the 3000-4000 mg/1 range in this plant, the DO dropped
below 1.0 mg/1. Because it was considered important to maintain 1.0 mg/1
DO, it was decided that sludge should be wasted at a rate required to
maintain this level of dissolved oxygen in the unit.
Plant #2 was operated with fifteen hours detention in the
aeration basin upon startup and continued in this mode until the first of
July. The detention time was then changed to twelve hours. Comparison
of data for the periods May 19 to June 15 and July 8-25 shows only a
small reduction in BOD removal; however, the sludge condition rapidly
deteriorated, which indicated the system could not operate in this mode.
The detention period was increased back to its original value
of fifteen hours, and the system performance improved greatly. The shorter
detention period in the aeration basin did not decrease the mechanical
effectiveness of the aerator for the blade had the same depth at either
34
-------
detention period; the aerator was suspended from floats. The shorter
detention period did place a greater demand on the oxygen capacity of
the aerator which was apparently already at its limit (sludge was wasted
to maintain a 1.0 mg/1 dissolved oxygen). Had more oxygen capacity been
available, one would expect that a lower BOD might have developed in the
effluent, but the complete breakdown in the sludge indicated that the
shorter period could not be studied with present equipment and still
produce an acceptable effluent. The normal system operation was therefore
defined as fifteen hours detention.
Plant #2 was operated without Armstrong's waste during the
periods of August 19-28 and August 29-September 12. Plant operation and
efficiency was good during both periods, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.
The plant was also operated without Georgia Kraft's waste
during November 23-December 5 and operated satisfactorily, as shown in
Figure 6.
Comparison of Two Units: With the systems under normal operat-
ing modes (fifteen hours detention in Plant #1 and twenty-four hours
detention in Plant #2) the performance of the two systems was substantially
the same, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. During the colder months of
October and November the dissolved oxygen concentrations in each unit
increased, and with the higher DO values in Plant #2, the units were fully
comparable in performance.
The changes which occured in influent waste strength, primary
sedimentation and detention times during the pilot plant study resulted
in many different BOD loadings on the aeration basins. Figure 8 shows the
relationship between the rate of BOD removal per pound of mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids and the BOD loadings on the aerated basins.
The BOD removal includes that removed in secondary sedimentation. The
BOD loading is from influent BOD to each basin and does not consider the
BOD in the recirculated sludge. Figure 9 shows the amount of sludge wasted
per day compared to the BOD loading on the aeration basins.
Figure 8 indicates that the rate of BOD removal was more effi-
cient at the higher BOD loadings; that is, doubling the BOD loading more
than doubled the removal rate. Figure 9 shows that at the higher BOD
loadings, the volume of sludge wasted increased rapidly. This is probably
the primary source of the greater BOD removal rate.
In Figures 8 and 9, it has been assumed that BOD removal by the
bio-filter is 37.5 percent of the total BOD removal in Plant #2. This
assumption is based on the fact that the two plants produced essentially
the same quality effluents and Plant #2 had only 15/24 (fifteen hours
compared to twenty-four hours) of the aeration basin detention time.
Therefore, the bio-filter must have produced the other 9/24 of the BOD
removal.
35
-------
In designing a system using this data, the BOD removal
rate must be balanced against sludge production and aeration costs.
Nutrients: Early in the pilot plant operation it was found
that a satisfactory effluent could be produced without the use of supple-
mental nutrients; however, to determine if supplemental nutrients would
improve BOD removal, mineral nutrients (ammonium sulfate and sodium
phosphate) were added to the influent of each plant during the period of
June 16-26. Review of Figure 10 shows no improvement in BOD removal
during this period as compared to a similar period from June 2 through
June 15, when no nutrients were added. Nutrients were added to provide
a BOD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1.
Qualitative checks of the systems' effluent for ammonia were
made, and all samples were positive without adding nutrients. The tests
for phosphates in the effluent were positive, but were not carried out
quantitatively. These results led to the conclusion that the domestic
wastewater provided an adequate amount of nutrients, and no further
nutrient studies were made.
Shock Loading Studies; Studies of shock loads from Georgia
Kraft Company were made. The waste strength was approximately doubled
for twenty-four hours on October 22 without causing any significant
change in the effluent character, as indicated in Figure 11. Armstrong
Cork Company's wastewater varied so greatly from day to day due to mill
production changes that no special studies were conducted. There was no
obvious correlation between Armstrong Cork Company's wastewater character-
istics and pilot plant effluent quality. Sudden changes in strength of
domestic wastewater are not anticipated.
The effluent quality of each biological treatment system was
consistently good. No evidence of biological failure developed from
biochemical causes with all three wastewater streams.
36
-------
FIGURE 8
BOD REMOVAL-VS-BOD LOADING
O3
o
-i «>
!>
2?
0.2
0.1
O PLANT NO. I
D PLANT NO. 2
D
D
D
O
O
D
D
D
!O
PLANT NO 2 DATA ASSUMES 37.5% BOD
REMOVAL BY THE BIO-FILTER.
10
20 30
BOD LOAOIN6
Ib/iooo cu.ft./day
50
60
-37-
-------
600
FIGURE 9
SLUDGE PRODUCTION-VS-BOD LOADING
Q2350
NOTE: PLANT N0.2 DATA ASSUMES 37.5%
BOO REMOVAL AT THE BIO-FILTER
D
DI090
500
Q
UJ
t—
400
O CD
a -J
300
O
D
200
100
O
O PLANT MO.
D PLANT NO.
40
50
60
BOD LOADING
LB/IOOO CUFT/DAY
-38-
-------
FIGURE 10
EFFECT OF NUTRIENTS
TOO
INFLUENT TO BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
600
5OO
o
O
ID
400
3OO
-WITHOUT NUTRIENTS
•« WITH NUTRIENTS
20O
O PLANT NO I
D PLANT NO. 2
EFFLUENT FROM BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
100
10
15
20
25
JUNE
-39-
-------
FIGURE M
EFFECT OF SHOCK LOADINGS
800
CALCULATED COMPOSIT OF RAW WASTE
INFLUENT TO BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
700
600
500
400
300
-SHOCK LOAD FROM GEORGIA KRAFT
200
O PLANT NO.i
D PLANT N0.2
EFFLUENT FROM BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
100
16
20
25
30
OCTOBER
-40-
-------
SECTION IX
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
No specific facilities were provided in the pilot plant for
sludge dewatering. Equipment manufacturers were requested to provide
pilot facilities, and two types of pilot-scale sludge dewatering facilities
were actually operated with sludge from the secondary clarifiers of the
pilot plant. The following is a summary of the results of these two
studies:
Centrifuge: A study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness
of a Sharpies-Stokes Super-D-Canter Centrifuge. The sludge from the
pilot plant had a consistency of approximately one percent (1%) W/W
solids. A slury of this sludge and a polyelectrolyte was applied to the
centrifuge. Various concentrations of polyelectrolyte ranging from
below five pounds/ton up to twenty to twenty-five pounds/ton were tried
to improve the recovery level. These tests indicated that the amount
of polymer required would have unacceptable cost. The supplier has
proposed a different centrifuge system that could produce acceptable
results at a lower polyelectrolyte loading.
Filter Process: The Beloit-Passavant Corporation conducted
tests at the pilot plant to determine the required capacity of a full-
scale plant using the Beloit-Passavant Sludge-All System. This system,
which consists of a hydraulic filter press with auxiliary equipment,
was able to deliver filter cakes with solids ranging from 40 to 50
percent solids when using a waste ash for conditioning of the incoming
waste activated sludge. The sludge was conditioned at approximately
1.7 to 2 percent solids and admixed in ratios ranging from 2% parts of
ash per part of dry sludge solids down to approximately one part of ash
per part of dry sludge solids. The filtrate from the system contained
less than twenty ppm suspended solids.
Included in this system would be a multiple hearth incinerator
to burn the filter cake.
Operating costs would include labor, electrical power and
some fuel for incineration and maintenance.
Information from the pilot studies provides the following
information:
1. The sludge is bulky and can only be concentrated by
gravity settling to the one to three percent (1-3%)
range.
2. Destruction of sludge in the mixed liquor via
endogenous respiration is at a rate of 3.9 percent of
the volatile suspended solids present. The basis for
this conclusion is discussed under Section X.
41
-------
SECTION X
DISINFECTION
Indicator Organisms Present: The State Water Quality Control
Board requires that a maximum fecal coliform concentration of 5000
per 100ml not be exceeded in rivers classified for use as fishing
streams. The lack of use of the Ocmulgee River for a public water
supply below Macon and its limited use for contact sports would justify
this assignment.
Of the three wastes entering the plant, only that from the
City of Macon contains sanitary wastes and true fecal coliform
organisms. An organism of the Klebsiella genus is found in the waste
from the Armstrong Cork Company (see Appendix III for separate study on
this subject). _ These organisms will indicate a false positive fecal
coliform count using the test procedure from Standard Methods. The
presence of these organisms in the plant effluent made the evaluation of
the actual concentration of fecal coliform organisms present and their
removal in the plant impossible.
The waste from the City of Macon entering the plant contained
an average MPN (Most Probable Number) of 7.6 x 10° fecal coliform
per 100 ml. At the design flow of 4.5 MGD from the City and 17 MGD
total flow, a dilution of 3.8:1 will result in a concentration of fecal
coliform in the combined plant effluent of 2 x 10 per 100 ml. Other
studies have shown (15) that sedimentation and die-off will result in
ninety-five percent (95%) removal of the organisms through the plant,
then 0.1 x 10^ per ml should be the approximate effluent concentration.
The minimum day, twenty-year recurrence, low flow for the
Ocmulgee River just below the junction with the Tobesofkee Creek is an
estimated 88 MGD. The addition of the effluent of the proposed treat-
ment plant, without chlorination, would increase the fecal coliform
count at this low flow by 16,300 per 100 ml. The minimum day, two-year
recurrence, low flow of 434 MGD would result in an increase of 3800 per
100 ml. Additional die-off of organisms as the waste flows through the
swamp adjacent to Tobesofkee Creek prior to entering the River should
result in these counts being lower.
As shown later, the chlorine required to produce a ninety-five
percent (95%) kill of apparent fecal E_. coli averaged 35 mg/1, which
would be approximately two and one-half tons per day. The addition of
this amount of chlorine could, in itself, be harmful to the river.
Based on the above information, it was recommended and con-
curred in by the State Water Quality Control Board that chlorination
of the plant's effluent not be required.
Chlorine Demand: Chlorine demand studies were carried out
separately from the chlorine requirement studies. The chlorine demand
43
-------
studies were carried out at the pilot plant on freshly collected samples.
The chlorine was added to ten aliquots. The lowest dose of 10 mg/1 was
increased in increments of 10 mg/1 to 100 mg/1. After fifteen minutes
contact, an excess of thiosulfate was added to each flask. The excess
of reducing agent was titrated with a standard iodine solution according
to the procedure in "Standard Methods for the Examinations of Water &
Wastewater". The chlorine demand varied from 20 mg/1 to more than
100 mg/1 when the chlorine demand is defined as the amount needed to
provide a residual beyond which an increment in dose produced a similar
increment in the residual. Thus, a 20 mg/1 demand was recorded when a
dose of 30 mg/1 showed a residual of 10 mg/1. A summary of the chlorine
demand studies is given in Table XI. There is very little correlation
between the chlorine demand the BOD or COD values recorded for the
composite samples on those days. The chlorine demand analyses were run
on grab samples, however, rather than on composite samples.
Chlorine Requirements: Chlorine requirement studies were
performed on samples less than two hours after sampling. Chlorine
requirement is defined here as the dosage needed to produce ninety-five
percent (95%) kill of indicator organisms. The number of analyses run
was less than the chlorine demand tests because of the time, space and
equipment required for the bacterial counts. The chlorine requirement for
most samples is much less than the complete chlorine demand. The results
of several runs are shown in Table XII.
Other Disinfecting Studies: A study of several disinfecting
agents as suggested by the literature and various individuals was
conducted to determine the best method of further reducing the organism
count in the effluent.
No reduction in chlorine requirements was observed by performing
disinfection through chemical addition of mono-chloramine (NH Cl) or chloro
sulfamic acid (NSO NHC1).
Free ammonia is present in the effluent from the aeration basin
and must, therefore, enter into the chlorination mechanism.
Tests were also run with acrolein. Long contact times and a
much higher chemical cost would be required to gain comparable reduction in
bacterial numbers.
Other disinfectants such as ozone would produce no toxic by-
products such as chlorinated organics, but no observations have been made.
If disinfection should be required at some time in the future, ozone should
be considered.
44
-------
TABLE XI
Chlorine Demand
mg/1 Cl Daily Requirement
11 Nov- 23 1.5 Tons
11 Nov- 43 2.8 Tons
12 Nov- 62 4.0 Tons
13 Nov- 41 2.7 Tons
14 Nov. 65 4.2 Tons
19 Nov. 43 2.8 Tons
20 Nov. 100 6.5 Tons
20 Nov. 100 6.5 Tons
25 Nov. 70 4.6 Tons
25 Nov. 70 4.6 Tons
The demand Is defined as the maximum difference between dose
and residual at two successive doses with 10 mg/1 increment.
45
-------
TABLE XII
Chlorine Requirement Studies
Bacterial Numbers MPN per 100 ml
(All counts as faecal Eschericia coli by _SM Boric acid media)
Kraft
: 2xl03
Coi
Domestic
2.2xl06
1.3xl07
nbined - 4
1
Armstrong : Effluent
i
1
i
!
:
3o,_i n^
. Jxlu
17, 000 j
540 |
120
230
>
30
i
15 i
330
800
1500
mg/1
60 i
170
>
40
120
15
>
<20
5400
35
mg/1
60 120
i
>1.6xl04
Chloramine and chlorosulfamic acid showed no improvement over chlorine in reducing bacterial numbers.
Ammonia is present in the effluent and therefore, monchloramine is probably formed even though the
chlorine is added as hypochlorous acid.
-------
SECTION XI
SUPPORTING STUDIES
Effect of pg; It was originally thought that fluctuation
of pH might upset the biological conditions in the waste treatment
system. While there was some variations in pH of the Armstrong and
Georgia Kraft wastes, no related effects could be defined on the treat-
ment plant. At no time did the mixed liquor pH vary outside the range
of 6.0 - 8.5.
Instrumentation; The proposal to FWPCA included a notation
of intent to instrument the pilot plant for automatic control. Local
representatives of two major companies had indicated their desire to
aid in loaning instruments for the pilot plant. The national head-
quarters felt t;hat there would be too many pilot plants where they would
be obligated to loan instruments if a loan was made to the pilot study
at Macon. Therefore, no instrument control studies were done.
Because the character of the industrial wastewater from
Armstrong varies widely on an hourly basis (each day that hourly samples
were taken and preserved individually) an on-line analysis of the food
or organic matter load would be a valuable addition to the data included
in this report.
For purposes of efficient operations, a variable speed
aerator in the aeration tanks would be highly desirable, especially if
it is controlled by the output of a dissolved oxygen sensor with
automatic controls. While this full-scale plant must produce a high
quality effluent, it is necessary to control the activated sludge con-
centration in the aerators. On-line sensors are needed to provide
information that will allow an analysis of the cost comparative of
aerobic digestion in the aeration basins against the cost of .disposing
of a larger amount of excess sludge.
Because the Ocmulgee River has a very limited quantity of
water at times which carries a moderate waste load from up river,
monitoring of the effluent of this plant for oxygen uptake (short term
BOD) and/or organic carbon would be highly desirable. The river is
currently monitored at a point approximately six miles below the
entrance of Tobesofkee Creek, which would carry the wastes from the
full-scale plant. This information from the river monitoring station
would be telemetered back to the full-scale treatment plant site for
possible correlations with plant data.
Sludge Concentration: Each of the aeration basins was
studied hourly for the volume of sludge after sixty minutes settling.
The commonly used shorter period of thirty minutes was not used because
very little settling took place in that period. Even after sixty minutes,
the sludge layer occupied eighty to ninety percent (80-90%) of the
47
-------
original volume. With this very poorly settling sludge, the final settling
tanks were much more successful than expected. There was generally an
increase of three to five times the suspended solids concentration in the
return sludge flow over the mixed liquor values.
Attempts to have the operators waste sludge on the basis of
the sludge volume in the aeration basins developed some very unexpected
information. The sludge volume during the day with the cylinders on the
apron of the aeration tanks was approximately one-half the values from the
sludge settling tests run at night on most days. When the cylinders for
the sludge settling tests were placed inside of the control room, the day
and night differences in settled sludge volume disappeared. The reduction
in volume occurred in plastic or glass cylinders and even on cloudy days,
but not on rainy days. Studies in the laboratory indicated that UV and
fluorescent light were ineffective in changing the sludge floe. Infra-red
radiation made rapid changes in the appearance of the sludge floe.
When domestic wastewater sludge from one of Atlanta's activated
sludge plants was irradiated with infra-red, no changes were observed in
the appearance of the floe and no ultimate change in the settled sludge
volume occurred. A sludge sample from the pilot plant was aerated and fed
in the laboratory with glucose and peptone. After several aeration periods,
the sentitivity to infra-red radiation disappeared. Conversely, the sample
of Atlanta sludge developed sensitivity to the infra-red radiation after
feeding with Kraft mill effluent.
Because of the press of other problems, no further observations
on this phenomenon were made. Due to the high cost of sludge handling by
filter press, vacuum filter or centrifuge, some quantitative studies of the
requirements of equipment for effecting reductions in sludge volume should
be undertaken.
48
-------
SECTION XII
CONCEPTION OF FULL-SCALE DESIGN
Regulatory Requirements: The Ocmulgee River has not been
specifically assigned a Water Use Classification by the State of
Georgia. Below the City of Macon, the river is not used as a public
water supply, and its limited accessibility results in its primary use
being a fishing stream. Based on this information, the Ocmulgee River
will be assumed to have a Water Use Classification of Fishing,
Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Game and other Aquatic Life, as defined
by the State Water Quality Control Board.
Based on this classification and specific guidelines for the
treatment facility established by the State Water Quality Control Board,
the following criteria are established:
1. BOD Removal - Maximum 50 mg/1 in the effluent for the
combined plant or a high degree of secondary treatment
for separate plants.
2. Dissolved Oxygen - Minimum 4.0 mg/1.
3. pH - 6.0 to 8.5.
4. Temperature - Not to exceed 93.2 F at any time and not
to be increased more than 10° F above intake tempera-
ture.
5. Bacteria - Fecal coliform, maximum average MPN 5000
per 100 ml over a thirty-day period; not to exceed
20,000 per 100 ml in more than five percent (5%) of
the samples in any ninety-day period.
6. Toxic Wastes - None in concentrations that would harm
man, fish and game, or other beneficial aquatic
life.
The design of the combined treatment facility is based on
compliance with these criteria. The pilot plant data indicates that
sufficient BOD removal can be accomplished in either of the systems
used.
The pH of the pilot plant effluent ranged between a low of
LI A * hi ah nf 8 2 These figures are within the limitations
^tablished S T^mp r^ure data on the mixed liquor of the pilot plant
established. i P November and December and a high of 87 F in
W*en the full-scale plant is in operation, it is anticipated that
the fin!^ effluent will approach ambient temperatures Therefore, no
problem is expected in meeting the stated stream requirements.
49
-------
The difficulty of properly measuring the fecal coliform content
of the pilot plant effluent due to the interfering Klebsiella organisms in
the Armstrong Cork waste does not allow proper evaluation of bacterial
pollution. This has been discussed in some detail under the section on
disinfection. For various reasons, some of which are also discussed
under the section on disinfection, chlorination has not been required by
the State Water Quality Control Board.
Probability of toxic wastes in a concentration which would be
harmful to man, game and fish, or other beneficial aquatic life in the
plant effluent is quite remote.
Comparison of Combined Alternatives: The two types of treatment
systems which were studied in the pilot plant for expansion to full-
scale design were extended aeration plant with 24 to 30 hours contact
time, and a combined high rate plastic media bio-filter followed with a
shorter term extended aeration plant using twelve to fifteen hours con-
tact time.
The full-scale plant using the twenty-four hour extended
aeration system would use three parallel aeration basins, each having
a volume of 5.7 million gallons and a surface area of approximately
76,000 square feet. Pilot plant data indicated a BOD reduction averaging
1.26 pounds BOD per hour per horsepower; therefore, a BOD removal require-
ment of 77,335 pounds in the full-scale plant necessitates a horsepower
requirement of 2,556 (for design purposes - 2,600). This could be
obtained by using five 175-horsepower aera.tors in each basin.
The plant using the plastic media bio-filter and fifteen hours
detention time would also be designed using three parallel systems.
Pilot plant data showed that a total BOD removal averaging 343 pounds
per day occurred using this combination. Loading to the plant averaged
373 pounds BOD per day. With the 288 cubic feet of plastic media in the
tower, this provides a loading rate of 1.3 pounds BOD per cubic foot.
Since the distribution system for the filter was somewhat inefficient,
the more conventional loading rate of 1.58 pounds BOD per cubic foot,
or approximately twenty percent (20%) in excess of that used in the pilot
unit, was used for the full-scale design.
As discussed under the biological treatment section, Plant #2
was somewhat under aerated in that sludge had to be wasted so that
dissolved oxygen could be maintained. Therefore the five horsepower for
Plant #2 was increased by twenty percent (207=,). This gives a gross
plant loading rate of 4.1 pounds BOD per horsepower per hour. In the
full-scale plant 53,800 cubic feet of plastic media and 1,420-horsepower
is needed based on the pilot plant studies. For design purposes, 1500-
horsepower was used with four 125-horsepower aerators in each of three
basins. The basins would have a volume of 3.55 million gallons and a
surface area of approximately 48,000 square feet.
Clarifiers for both systems will be based on a net surface
50
-------
settling rate of 600 gallons per square foot per day with a detention
time of three hours. With a flow rate of 17 MGD, three clarifiers
having a surface area of 950 square feet each would be required. Simi-
lar type units would be used for both type plants.
Waste sludge production by both treatment systems was similar.
Use was made of the following data, for BOD and solids in the calculation
of actual sludge production in the full-scale plant:
Influent Effluent Removed
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Armstrong Cork Company 46,760 3,878 42,882
City of Macon 7,515 623 6,892
Georgia Kraft Company 30.060 2,499 27,561
Total 84,335 7,000 77,335
Total Suspended Solids:
Armstrong Cork Company 5,845 1,253 4,592
City of Macon 7,515 1,540 5,975
Georgia Kraft Company 20,000 4 , 207 15,793
Total 33,360 7,000 26,360
Volatile Suspended Solids:
Armstrong Cork Company 3,098 518 2,580
City of Macon 5,336 891 4,445
Georgia Kraft Company 9,600 1,601 7,999
Total 18,034 3,010 15,024
Non-Volatile Suspended
Solids (Total Suspended
less Volatile Suspended)
Armstrong Cork Company 2,747 735 2,012
City of Macon 2,179 649 1,530
Georgia Kraft Company 10.400 2,606 7,794
Total 15,326 3,990 11,336
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids will be maintained at
3,800 mg/1 in the basins.
51
-------
Data from the pilot plant study was used to determine the con-
stant b_ in the following solids balance equation:
IbVSS(produced) + IbVSS(removed) =
0.55(lbs BOD removed) + b(lbs MLVSS)
The value of b_ for Plant #2 was determined to range between
-0.034 and -0.044, with an average of -0.039. Using this constant and
the above equation, the quantity of waste sludge was determined to be
41,106 pounds per day from the combined plant. The amount produced by
each participant is as follows:
Armstrong Cork Company 23,098 pounds per day
City of Macon 1,875 pounds per day
Georgia Kraft Company 16,133 pounds per day
Total 41,106 pounds per day
The capacity of the sludge drying and incineration facility
will be designed to handle 20.5 tons of waste sludge in a sixteen-hour
period, seven days per week.
Chlorination: Based on information provided under the disin-
fection section, an average demand of 35 mg/1 will be required with a
two-hour detention period, if chlorination is deemed necessary. To
meet this demand, facilities to handle 5,000 pounds per day will be
necessary for either plant.
Recycling Pumping Equipment: Pumping equipment for either
plant will be provided with a capacity to return sludge at a rate of up
to one hundred per cent (1007o) of the design flow to the head of the
plant. In addition to the above, a plant utilizing plastic media bio-
filters will have pumping equipment with a capacity of returning mixed
liquor at a rate of up to one hundred percent (1007») of the design flow
to the top of the filter.
Miscellaneous Facilities: An administration building will be
provided at either plant, containing a plant superintendent's office,
an adequate laboratory and employees' locker and shower facilities.
Also provided will be a maintenance facility for plant equipment.
In addition to the waste treatment plant, the following will
have to be provided at either plant by the participants:
Armstrong Cork Company: A twenty-four inch outfall sewer from
their primary treatment facility to the existing Rocky Creek
Outfall Sewer; also share with the City in providing both addi-
tional pumping capacity at the City's existing Rocky Creek Pumping
52
-------
Station and a force main from the pumping station to the pro-
posed treatment plant.
City of Macon: Provide screening, metering and grit removal at
the existing Rocky Creek Pumping Station; also share with
Armstrong Cork Company in providing additional pumping capacity
at the existing Rocky Creek Pumping Station and a force main to
the proposed waste treatment plant.
Georgia Kraft Company: Provide a pumping station and a twenty-
four inch force main to the proposed waste treatment plant.
Plant Layout: In order to provide flexibility of operation,
especially during shutdown of one of the industries, the plant will be
constructed in three equal parallel treatment units, with the exception
of sludge disposal and drying, pumping and chlorination.
Flow Diagram and Site Plan: A flow diagram and site plan are
made a part of this report as Appendix IV.
Participants' Plans for Separate Waste Treatment;
Armstrong Cork Company - Macon Division: The proposed separate
treatment facility for Armstrong Cork Company is shown
schematically in Figure 12. As indicated earlier, a primary
treatment system is already under construction and will include
vacuum filters for sludge dewatering.
The secondary plant will be of the extended aeration type with
thirty-six hours detention. Facilities would be provided to
operate the system as either a contact stabilization or conventional
activated sludge unit. Ten 100-horsepower aerators will provide
oxygen and mixing for the mixed liquor. A secondary clarifier
with rapid sludge return to the aeration basin would be provided.
Waste sludge will be returned to the thickener in the primary
system for dewatering on the vacuum filter. Final disposal of
sludge will be in a land fill initially.
Georgia Kraft Company - Mead Division: The proposed separate
waste treatment facility for Mead Division, Georgia Kraft Company,
is shown schematically in Figure 13. As previously described,
preliminary treatment for selected pulp mill streams is provided
by the cooling tower. Strong wastes are impounded in a heavy
liquor pond and metered into a collection tank.
In the proposed treatment plant the mill effluent would be
collected in the existing one million gallon tank and discharged
by gravity to a 180-foot diameter primary clarifier.
53
-------
I
SCREEN AND
GRIT REMOVAL
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
FILTER CAKE
AERATION
BASIN
AERATION
BASIN
t_t
FINAL
CLARIFIER
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
WASTE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
RETURN ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
SLUDGE PUMPS
FINAL EFFLUENT
FIGURE 12
FLOW DIAGRAM
SEPARATE TREATMENT FACILITY
ARMSTRONG CORK CO, MACON, GA.
-54-
-------
TO
LANDFILL
COLLECTION
TANK
COOLING
TOWER
EFFLUENTf
STABILIZATION
POND
'AERATION
POND
FIGURE 13
FLOW DIAGRAM
SEPARATE TREATMENT FACILITY
GEORGIA KRAFT CO., MEAD DIVISION
-55-
-------
Overflow from the primary cLarifier would undergo secondary
treatment in a fifty-five-acre aeration pond and a fifteen-acre
stabilization pond. The nominal depth of both ponds would be
ten feet. These ponding volumes result in a detention time of
twenty days aeration and five days stabilization at a. design flow
rate of 9 MGD. Freeboard on the dykes above the nominal depth
could be used for regulation of discharge at times of low river
flow.
Clarifier underflow is pumped to a belt or coil type filter and
then to a V-press for final dewatering. The dewatered sludge is
then burned in the existing bark boiler; filtrate from dewatering
of the sludge is returned to the collection tank. A ten-acre
sludge pond is provided in the event of an outage of any part of
the sludge disposal system.
City of Macon: The recommended separate treatment facility for
the City of Macon, Rocky Creek Water Pollution Control Plant,
is shown schematically in Figure 14. The contact stabilization
process is applicable to the treatment of wastes containing a
high proportion of the BOD in suspended or colloidal form. The
waste entering the contact tank has its BOD rapidly removed by
biosorption and agglomeration of suspended solids. After the
contact period, the activated sludge is separated from the liquid
by sedimentation.
This sludge is pumped to a reaeration tank where the BOD and
solids removed in the contact tank are stabilized. The detention
time in the reaeration tank is sufficiently long to assimilate
the waste removed without losing the activated sludge to
endogenous respiration. This conditioned sludge is then returned
to the contact tank to repeat the process.
The recommended 4.5 MGD plant will contain one contact tank and
two reaeration tanks, and will be provided with one hundred
percent (1007°) return sludge capability. Clarifiers will follow
the contact tank and sludge pumped from them will enter the
reaeration tanks or digesters.
Waste sludge will be disposed of through an aerobic digester and
sludge drying equipment. Underflow from sludge dewatering will
be returned to the reaeration basin. Additional facilities will
include screening and grit removal of the raw waste, chlorination
of the effluent, recirculation pumps and administration and
maintenance buildings.
Comparison of Combined and Separate Treatment Facilities: It
should be noted that even though all the separate treatment plants would
provide a high degree of secondary treatment, they will not produce the
overall reduction in BOD expected of the combined plant, based on the
pilot study.
56
-------
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
RETURN
ACTIVATED
CONTACT
BASIN
WASTE SLUDGE
REAER
BASIN
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
DRYING
PLANT EFFLUENT
FIGURE 14
FLOW DIAGRAM
SEPARATE TREATMENT FACILITY
CITY OF MACON
-57-
-------
Combined Treatment:
Armstrong Cork Company
City of Macon
Georgia Kraft Company
Influent
Ibs.
46,760
7,515
30,060
84,335
7
/o
Remova1
91.7
91.7
91.7
Effluent
Separate Treatment:
Armstrong Cork Company
City of Macon
Georgia Kraft Company
""Estimated
46,760
7,515
30,060
90.0*
90.0
85.0
9,937
58
-------
SECTION XIII
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING COSTS
Combined Treatment Facility;
Construction Costs - Estimated construction costs were compared
between a facility with twenty-four-hour detention aeration basins and a
facility with plastic media bio-filters and fifteen-hour detention aera-
tion basins. These estimated project costs, including chlorination
facilities, are as follows:
Plant with 24-Hour Detention;
Waste Treatment Plant $4,561,900
Outfall Sewer - Armstrong Cork Company 65,000
Modifications to Existing Pumping Station
and Force Main 156,800
Pumping Station and Force Main - Georgia
Kraft Company 175,000
Contingency @ 15% 743,800
Total Construction $5,702,500
Engineering 293,600
Resident Inspection and Soil
Investigations 27,000
Legal and Administrative 15,000
Project Contingency @ 3% 181,100
Total Project Cost $6,219,200
Federal Grant @ 33% _2,052,300
Participants' Cost $4,166,900
Estimated Participants' Cost with
Elimination of Chlorination $4,038,600
59
-------
Plant with Plastic Media Bio-Filter and 15-Hour Detention:
Waste Treatment Plant $4,265,900
Outfall Sewer - Armstrong Cork Company 65,000
Modifications to Existing Pumping Station
and Force Main 156,800
Pumping Station and Force Main - Georgia
Kraft Company 175,000
Contingency @ 15% 699,400
Total Construction Cost $5,362,100
Engineering 2 76,600
Resident Inspection and Soil Investigation 27,000
Legal and Administrative 15,000
Project Contingency @ 3% 170,100
Total Project Cost $5,850,800
Federal Grant @ 33% 1,930,800
Participants' Cost $3,920,000
Estimated Participants * Cost with
Elimination of Chlorination $3,791,900
A detailed breakdown of the estimated construction cost of the less expen-
sive bio-filter plus aeration plant is shown in Table XIII.
Operating Costs - The estimated operating costs are based on
requirements of personnel as recommended by the Board of Water Commis-
sioners; the current power rates of the Georgia Power Company; and
maintenance expense, general expense and administrative overhead from the
Board's current audit. These estimated operating costs are as follows:
Plant with 24-Hour Detention Basins:
Labor $ 94,260
Power 119,700
Vehicle Expense ]_2 739
Maintenance and Upkeep 20 000
Supplies and General Expense 15 000
Chlorination 73 QOO
Administrative Overhead @ 24% 80 310
60
-------
Total Estimated Yearly Operating Cost $415,000
Without Chlorination, reduce by 73,000 x 1.24 90,520
Estimated Yearly Operating Cost
Without Chlorination $324,480
Plant with 15-Eour Detention Basins;
Labor $ 94,260
Power 82,600
Vehicle Expense 12,730
Maintenance and Upkeep 20,000
Supplies and General Expense 15,000
Chlorination 73,000
Administrative Overhead @ 24% 71,410
Total Estimated Yearly Operating Cost $369,000
Without Chlorination, reduce by 73,000 x 1.24 90,520
Total Estimated Yearly Operating Cost
Without Chlorination $278,480
A detailed breakdown of the less expensive 15-hour plant operating costs
are shown in Table XIV.
Participants' Separate Treatment Facilities: Cost data for
the separate treatment facilities as shown in the following tables were
provided by the participants through their engineers or engineering
staffs.
Armstrong Cork Company, Macon Division - The capital and annual
operating costs for the Armstrong Cork Company's separate waste treatment
system, as shown in Figure 12, are provided in Tables XV and XVI.
61
-------
TABLE XIII
Estimated Construction Cost
15-Hour Plant
A. CONSTRUCTION COST
1. Excavation and Grading $ 225,000
2. Slope Treatment and Outlet Structures 180,000
3. Clarifiers 415,800
4. Plant Pumping 105,000
5. Electrical and Controls 450,000
6. Plant Piping 139,600
7. Chlorination 154,000
8. Paving 17,500
9. Grassing 30,000
10. Fencing 9,400
11. Plastic Media Bio-Filter 242,100
12. Aerators 480,000
13. Sludge Drying and Disposal 1,697,500
14. Administration Building 75,000
15. Maintenance Building 45,000
16. Modifications to Existing Pump Station 71,800
17. Outfall Sewer - Armstrong Cork Company 65,000
18. Screening, Grit Removal and Flow Measuring -
City of Macon 85,000
19. Pumping and Force Main - Georgia Kraft 175,000
20. Construction Contingency @ 15% 699,400
Total Estimated Construction Cost $5,362,100
B. ENGINEERING, ADMINISTRATION, LEGAL, ETC.
1. Engineering 5.158% $276,000
2. Resident Inspection & Soil Investigation 27,000
3. Legal and Administrative 15,000
Total Estimated Engineering Cost $318,000
C. PROJECT CONTINGENCY @ 3% $170,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,850,800
Federal Grant (660 Program) 1,930 800
Participants' Cost $3,920,000
62
-------
TABLE XIV
Detailed Breakdown of Yearly Operating Cost
15-Hour Plant
LABOR
Superintendent
Chemist
Operators (10 required)
4 @ $5,640 $22,560
6 @ $5,100 30,600
Total Operators
Office Clerk
Maintenance
Foreman $ 7,200
Assistant Foreman 5,400
Helpers - 2 @ $4,200 8,400
Total Maintenance
Total Labor
$ 8,700
6,000
53,160
5,400
21,000
$94,260
POWER
Motor Horsepower
Aerators
Recirculation Pumps
Miscellaneous Pumps
Total Horsepower
Sludge Drying
Miscellaneous Power
Total Power Load
Demand
Motor Horsepower
Sludge Drying
Miscellaneous
Total Demand
1500 HP
300 HP
200 HP
2000 HP x
746 = 1,492 KW
200 KW
150 KW
1,842 KW
1,492 x .70 = 1,044.4 KW
200 x .67 = 134.0 KW
150 x .50 = 75.0 KW
1,253.4 KW
Monthly Use - Based on 720 Hours per Month
1,255 x 720 = 903,600 KWH
Monthly Cost - Based on Rate Outlined in Georgia Power Company
Schedule C-7
$ 30.00
80.00
300.00
1,206.00
1,000 KWH @ 3.00C/KWH
4,000 KWH @ 2.00C/KWH
20,000 KWH @ 1.50
-------
TABLE XIV (Continued)
VEHICLE EXPENSE: 5 Vehicles Required
Operating Cost $7,730.00
Depreciation $15,000 over 3 yrs. 5.000.00
Total Vehicle Expense $ 12,730
MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP
Based on Current Cost of City's Existing Plants $ 20,000
SUPPLIES AND GENERAL EXPENSES
Based on Current Cost of City's Existing Plants $ 15,000
CHLORINATION
Average Chlorine Demand 35 mg/1
35 mg/1 @ 17 MGD Discharge = 5000 Ibs. Chlorine per Day
5000 Ibs. Chlorine per Day @ $0.04/lb. = $200.00 per Day
Total Chlorination $ 73,000
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OVERHEAD
Based on Current Audit of City of Macon - 24% $ 71,410
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST $369,000
64
-------
TABLE XV
Armstrong Cork Company
Estimated Construction Cost for
Separate Treatment Facility
1. Aeration Basin $ 749 QOO
2. Clarifiers 95 ggo
3. Activated Sludge Pumping Station 29 700
4. Piping and Valves 21 450
5. Electrical 192^500
6. Site Work and Miscellaneous 59 550
$1,148*000
Construction Contingency @ 5% 57,400
$1,205,400
Engineering & Administrative @ 12% 144,600
TOTAL PROJECT $1,350,000
Mote: The above table does not include cost of permanent sludge disposal
facilities.
******
TABLE XVI
Armstrong Cork Company
Estimated Annual Operating Cost
Separate Secondary Treatment Facility
1. Power $40,140
2. Repair Materials 7,500
3. Chemicals 10,000
4. Labor 6,000
5. Supplies 1,360
Total Annual Operating Costs $65,000
Manpower services for operation of the secondary plant are provided for
in a primary facility presently under construction and are not included
above.
Georgia Kraft Company, Mead Division - The construction and
annual operating costs for the Mead Division's separate waste treatment
system as shown in Figure 13 are provided in Tables XVII and XVIII.
65
-------
TABLE XVII
Georgia Kraft Company
Estimated Construction Cost
Separate Treatment Facility
1. Clarifier, 180-foot diameter
2. Sludge Disposal System /nsn
3. Alterations to One Million Gallon Tank 14,060
4. Instrumentation 3^'fi n
5. Electrical Wiring and Lighting 153,650
6. Control Room Building 15,278
7. Aerators 201,013
8. Ponding 895,000
9. Painting 10>0°°
10. Pump 4,100
Construction Subtotal $1,894,345
Miscellaneous and Contingencies 160 ,640
Total Construction $2,054,985
Contractor's Overhead and Profit 332,388
Engineering Fees and Services _ 41,346
Project Subtotal $2,428,719
Purchase of Land 102,400
TOTAL PROJECT $2,531,119
TABLE XVIII
Georgia Kraft Company
Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Separate Treatment Facility
1. Electricity $ 53,640
2. Repair Materials 26,860
3. Repair Labor 17,000
4. Operating and Testing Labor 20,000
5. Supplies 3,600
6- Foam Control 60,000
Total Annual Operating Costs $181,100
City of Macon, Rocky Creek Plant - The construction and annual
operating costs for the Rocky Creek separate treatment system, as shown
in Figure 14, are provided in Tables XIX and XX.
66
-------
TABLE XIX
City of Macon
Estimated Construction Costs
Separate Treatment Facility
1. Waste Treatment Facilities
Screening, Metering and Grit Removal
at Existing Pumping Station
Contingencies
Total Construction Cost
$2,022,200
130,000
322,800
$2,475,200
Engineering
Resident Inspection and Soil Investigations
Legal and Administrative
Project Contingency
Total Project Cost
Federal Grant @ 33%
City's Cost
132,500
27,000
10,000
79,100
$2,723,600
898,800
$1,824,800
* A
* ft *
TABLE XX
City of Macon
Estimated Annual Operating Costs
Labor
Power
Vehicle Expense
Maintenance
Supplies
Chlorination
Administrative Overhead @ 24%
Total Estimated Annual Operating
Cost
$ 88,860
42,500
12,730
12,000
8,000
25,000
45,380
$234,470
67
-------
SECTION XIV
ALLOCATION OF COSTS OF COMBINED PLANT AMONG PARTICIPANTS
Allocation of Construction Costs;
The recommended method of prorating the capital cost among
the participants is to prorate those facilities related primarily
to flow on a percentage-of-flow basis; those facilities related
primarily to BOD on a percentage-of-BOD basis; those facilities re-
lated primarily to sludge drying and disposal on a percentage-of-
sludge basis; share equally the cost of miscellaneous facilities;
and one hundred percent (100%) those facilities required by individual
participants.
The distribution of the participants' cost of the plant
utilizing plastic media bio-filters and fifteen hours detention is
as follows:
Armstrong Cork Company $1,546,000
City of Macon 652,400
Georgia Kraft Company 1,721,600
TOTAL $3,920,000
Table XXI shows the design flow, BOD, and sludge data used
as a basis for distributing costs in this project.
Table XXII summarizes the distributed cost of the fifteen-
hour plant for each party based on the distribution discussed above.
Table XXIII shows how the individual items were prorated to flow, BOD,
sludge, etc.
69
-------
Flow
Armstrong Cork Company
City of Macon
Georgia Kraft Company
Total
TABLE XXI
Basis for Cost Distribution
3.5 MGD
4.5 MGD
9.0 MGD
17.0 MGD
20.6%
26.5%
52.97°
100.0%
BOD
Armstrong Cork Company
City of Macon
Georgia Kraft Company
Total
46,760 Ibs.
7,515 Ibs.
30,060 Ibs.
84,335 Ibs.
55.4%
8.9%
35.7%
100.0%
Sludge
Armstrong Cork Company
City of Macon
Georgia Kraft Company
Total
23,098 Ibs.
1,875 Ibs.
16,133 Ibs.
41,106 Ibs.
56.2%
4.6%
39.2%
100.0%
Modifications to Existing Pumping Station
Armstrong Cork Company
Average Flow - 3.5 MGD x 1.5 = 5.25 MGD
City of Macon
Average Flow - 4.5 MGD x 2.0 = 9.00 MGD
Total 14.25 MGD
36.8%
63.2%
100.0%
* * * * *
TABLE XXII
Summary of Construction Cost Distribution - 15 Hour Plant
Armstrong City
Distribution of Cost Cork of Macon
Based on Flow $ 355,620 $457,470
Based on BOD 400,045 64,265
Based on Sludge 953,995 78,085
Shared Equally 40,000 40,000
Prorated Between Armstrong
Cork and City of Macon 26,420 45,380
100% by Each Participant 65,000 85,000
Const. Contingency @ 15% 276,160 115,530
Total Construction Cost $2,117,240 $885,730
Engineering @ 5.158% 109,215 45,690
Technical & Administrative
Cost 14,000 14,000
Project Contingency @ 3% 67,085 28,310
Total Project Cost $2,307,540 $973,730
Federal Grant 33% 761,540 321,330
Estimated Participants' Cost $1,546,000 $652,400
Georgia Kraft
Company
$
913,210
257,790
665,420
40,000
175,000
307,710
$2,359,130
121,695
14,000
74,705
$2,569,530
847,930
$1,721,600
70
-------
TABLE XXIII
Detailed Breakdown of Construction Costs Proration
A. CONSTRUCTION COST
1. Cost to be Pro-Rated Based on Flow
a. Excavation and Grading $225,000
b. Slope Treatment and Outlet
Structures 180,000
c. Clarifiers 415,800
d. Plant Pumping 105,000
e. Electrical and Controls 450,000
f. Plant Piping 139,600
g. Chlorination 154,000
h. Paving 17,500
i. Grassing 30,000
j. Fencing 9,400
Total to be pro-rated based on flow $1,726,300
2, Cost to be Pro-Rated Based on BOD
a. Plastic Media Filter $242,100
b. Aerators 480,000
Total to be pro-rated based on BOD 722,100
3. Cost to be Pro-Rated Based on Sludge
a. Sludge Drying and Disposal 1,697,500
4. Cost to be Pro-Rated Equally
a. Administration Building $75,000
b. Maintenance Building 45,000
Total to be pro-rated equally 120,000
5. Cost to be Pro-Rated Between Armstrong
Cork Company and City of Macon
Modifications to Existing Pump Station
a. Increase Capacity Existing Pumps $ 8,000
b. Two Variable Speed Drives with Motors 33,800
c. Two Fixed Speed Motors 12,000
d. Force Main 18,000
Total cost to be pro-rated between
Armstrong Cork Company and City of 71,800
Macon
71
-------
6. Cost to be Borne 100 Percent by Participant
a. Armstrong Cork Company - Outfall Sewer
b. City of Macon - Screening, Grit Removal
and Flow Measuring
c. Georgia Kraft - Pumping and Force Main
7. Cost to be Pro-Rated Based on Participants
Construction Cost - Project Contingency 15%
8. Total Estimated Construction Cost
$ 65,000
85,000
175,000
699,400
$5,362,100
B. ENGINEERING, ADMINISTRATION, LEGAL, ETC.
1. Cost to be Pro-Rated Based on Participants
Construction. Cost - Engineering 5.158%
2. Cost to be Pro-Rated Equally
a. Resident Inspection and Soil
Investigation
b. Legal and Administrative
Total to be Pro-Rated Equally
3. Cost to be Pro-Rated Based on
Participants Project Cost - Project
Contingency 3%
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Federal Grant (660 Program)
Participants' Cost
$27,000
15,000
$ 276,600
42,000
170,100
$5,850,800
1.930,800
$3,920,000
72
-------
Allocation of Operating Costs;
The distribution of the operating expense among the partici-
pants is based on the average of the percentage of influent flow, influent
BOD and sludge produced.
The distribution of the operating cost of the plant utilizing
bio-filters and fifteen hours detention is as follows:
Armstrong Cork City of Macon Georgia Kraft
Flow
BOD
Sludge
Total
Average
Operating Cost with
Chlorination
Operating Cost without
Chlorination
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COST - Individual Pump Station Power
$1,400 $1,800 $8,400
TOTAL WITH CHLORINATION
$164,100 $50,900 $165,600
TOTAL WITHOUT CHLORINATION
$124,200 $38,800 $127,100
20.6%
55.4%
56.2%
132.3
44.1%
:162,700
i!22,800
26.5%
8.9%
4.6%
40.0
13.3%
$49,100
$37,000
52.9%
35.7%
39.2%
127.8
42.6%
$157,200
$118,700
73
-------
SECTION XV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish, to acknowledge the support of the Honorable Ronnie
Thompson, Mayor of the City of Macon, Georgia, and the Macon Board of
Water Commissioners, Mr. Gordon Busk, Chairman, and Mr. M. L. Leggett
and Dr. J. Robert Young, Sr., Commissioners.
All of the project activities were coordinated and administered
by Mr. Emory C. Matthews, Secretary-Treasurer of the Board of Water
Commissioners, Project Director.
The design and general supervision of the pilot plant was
performed by Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., Consulting Engineers,
Atlanta, Georgia. The supervision of construction was performed by Mr.
James R. Atwater, Engineer, Board of Water Commissioners.
Operation, analytical work and monthly reports were performed
by Mr. Marion H. Poythress, Chemist, Board of Water Commissioners, under
the supervision of Dr. Robert S. Ingols, Research Professor of the
Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Ingols performed the bench tests
from which data was obtained to encourage the pilot plant study.
Preparation of this report was performed by personnel of Jordan,
Jones and Goulding, Inc. and Georgia Kraft Company. The contributions
and review of Dr. Robert S. Ingols, John D. Fulmer, Jr., of Armstrong
Cork Company and Vergil A. Minch of Mead Corporation are acknowledged.
We acknowledge the support of the State Water Quality Control
Board, their Director Mr. R. S. Howard, and Mr. Charles H. Starlings,
Director of Industrial Waste Services.
The support of the project by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the aid provided by Mr. William J. Lacy, Mr. George R.
Webster, Project Manager, and Mr. Edmond P. Lomasney, Project Officer,
were greatly appreciated.
75
-------
SECTION XVI
REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
1. "A Biological Survey of the Ocmulgee River Sub-Basin," Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Southeast Region Atlanta
Georgia, 1967.
2. Byrd, J. Floyd, "Combined Treatment - A Coast-to-Coast Coverage,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 1967.
3. Powell, S. T., and Lamb, J. C., Ill, "Industrial and Municipal
Cooperation for Joint Treatment of Wastes. I. Industry Approach
and Position," R. H. Ritter, "II, Municipality Approach and Posi-
tion, " Sewa^e__and_Jndustrlal_l?aste£ 31 (9) 1044, 1053, (1959).
4. National Council for Stream Improvement Technical Bulletin 91,
"Technical and Economic Considerations Involved in Discharge of
Paper Mill Effluents to Municipal Sewerage Systems," 1957.
5. Eazen, R. , "Community Treatment Plant for Upper Potomac River,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 32 (6) 594 (1960).
6. "Industrial Wastes in Municipal Systems," National Council for
Stream Improvement Bulletin, Number 156, 1962.
7. "Pollution Control Facilities," Municipal Bulletin Kalamazoo,
Michigan, 1967.
8. Byrd, J. F. and Faulkender, C. R. , "Industrial Concept and Approach
to Joint Treatment of Pulp Mill and Municipal Wastes," Paper Pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
1968. (Recently published in JWPCF, 42(3) 361,1970)
9. "Joint Municipal and Semichemical Pulping Waste Treatment," Water
Pollution Control Research Series, ORD-1, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, 1969.
10. "Effluent from Three Mills and City Treated Successfully," Canadian
Pulp and Paper Industry, August, 1968.
11. "Boise, St. Helens, Oregon Agree on Plan for Waste," Paper Trade
Journal, p. 33, November 24, 1969.
12. "Joint Municipal - Industrial Wastewater Treatment Systems at
Northeast Tech Session," National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, Monthly Bulletin, December, 1969.
13. Gellman, V., "Treatment of Pulp and Papermill Wastes in Publicly
Owned Facilities," National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement, Technical Bulletin No. 222, December, 1968.
77
-------
14. "Sewage Treatment Plant Design," Water Pollution Control Federation
Manual of Practice No. 8, 1967.
15. McGauhey, P. H., "Engineering Management of Water Quality," McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1968.
78
-------
SECTION XVII
GLOSSARY
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
MGD - Million Gallons per Day
gpm - Gallons per Minute
Ibs/day - Pounds per Day
MGD/Sq.Ml. - Million Gallons per Day per Square Mile
MPN - Most Probable Number
mg/1 - Milligrams per Liter
lbs/1000 Cu. Ft./Day - Pounds per Thousand Cubic Feet per Day
79
-------
SECTION XVIII
APPENDICES
Page No.
I Summary of Bench Scale Data 83
II Pilot Plan Data 89
III Summary of Bacteriological Study of Waste Water and Wood
Pulp Samples 119
IV Flow Diagram - Joint Treatment Facility 131
V Site Plan - Rocky Creek Water Pollution Control Plant 132
81
-------
APPENDIX I
ox- -
EXPERIMENT STATION US North Aoenue, Northwest • Atlanta, Georgia 30332
February 17, 1968
Summary of Bench Scale Data
In order to determine the feasibility of combined waste treat-
ment of the City sewage in the Rocky Creek drainage area, Armstrong Cork
effluent and Georgia Kraft effluent a bench study on the waste involved
was instituted at the waste treatment facility of the City of Macon.
Daily samples from these three sources were collected. Each
was mixed in proportion to the anticipated flow to the proposed treatment
facility. The total volume anticipated is 15 MGD, (3 MGD City, 3 MGD
Armstrong, 8-9 MGD from Georgia Kraft). The daily composites were mixed
in these ratios.
The composite sample was fed slowly into the bench scale acti-
vated sludge devices. One was operated at 24 hours retention during the
entire period. Another was operated with shorter and longer periods in
the retention tank. Analyses were made daily for suspended solids, total
solids, and settleable solids, B.O.D., and C.O.D., and pH.
Each individual waste was observed for the volume of settleable
solids, B.O.D., and C.O.D., and pH.
The bench units received only domestic sewage on Saturday and
Sunday in the same volume of the mixed composite they received the other
five days.
When the activated sludge solids developed in sufficient quan-
tity, orders were given to maintain sludge volume between 200-250 ml/1
with 30 minutes settling. When the volume of sludge exceeded 250, an
amount of the aeration tank liquor was wasted before adding additional
composite in order to obtain the desired volume of sludge.
Results:
The B.O.D. data indicates that the average of the composite
approached 700 mg/1. With 24 hours retention the B.O.D. averaged 150
mg/1 on those days following the addition of composite samples. With
30 hours detention, the B.O.D. averaged 85-90 mg/1. The other data was
taken to provide information to the agencies involved in studies but are
not germane to the treatability of the waste. It is concluded that 30
hours detention will give a satisfactory B.O.D. for the effluent of a
83
-------
combined waste treatment facility containing City, Armstrong Cork, and
Georgia Kraft wastes.
Because of the magnitude of the sludge volume produced and
the difficulty in handling sludges containing high sulfur content, it is
recommended:
1. That a pilot plant be designed and built to study the actual
dosing cycles that might be anticipated in a final design of an actual
plant. (Waste would be added on a 24 hour/day, 7 day/week schedule.)
2. That studies be conducted on techniques for treatment and dis-
posal of the sludges obtained as a by-product of the pilot plant units.
3. That the feasibility of reducing power costs for aeration be
studied with plastic film filter as a primary treatment step. (The
B.O.D. of 700 justifies consideration of the high cost of the plastic
film filter.)
84
-------
CO
BENCH SCALE DATA
ARMSTRONG CORK CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
GA. KRAFT CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
PIO NONO OUTFALL
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
COMPOSITE : pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
Tot. Sol.
Tot. Vol. Sol.
Sus. Sol.
AERATION CELLS
pH: No. 1
No. 2
Diss. Oxy: No. 1
No. 2
Eff, B.O.D. : No. 1
No. 2
Eff. C.O.D.: No. 1
No. 2
Eff. Sos. Solids: No. 1
No. 2
Set. Sol. in Tks: No. 1
No. 2
GENERAL
% of Comp . From:
Armstrong
Pio Nono
Ga. Kraft
Liters to Cell:
No. 1
No. 2
Sludge Drawn From
No. 1
No. 2
% B.O. D. Removed
No. 1
No. 2
8/29 8/30
7.1 6.3
-
-
14.5
9.8 8.3
-
_
-
6.8 7.5
-
-
7.6 7.9
490 521
-
66.0
1287 1739
788 1239
298 586
7.7 7.3
7.2 7.3
6.0
6.0
103
134
-
-
170
210
170.0
120.0
20% 20%
20% 20%
60% 60%
12 12
8 8
-
-
-
-
8/31
6.7
1500
-
75.0
10.0
280
_
5.5
6 .9
143
-
5.0
8.7
620
_
16.5
2058
1446
530
7.9
7.2
6.0
6.0
141
110
_
~
100
100
180,0
110.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
~
-
-
-
9/1
6.6
1733
-
90.0
8.7
240
^
3.5
7 . 1
130
-
6.5
7.8
535
-
24.0
1612
1082
140
8.1
8.1
6.0
6.0
105
150
-
~
80
15
160.0
110.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
-
-
-
-
9/2
§
S
r"
^
i
o
1
fl
Pi
!p
1
n
pa
w
•xj
@
5
^
tn
3
£
pi
CJ
£3
o
£
T3
£
H
•O
pa
g
"S
2
3
S
2
H
9/3
g
i
r-
w
V)
a!
E
0
CJ
K
w
jgj
1
m
Cft
8
aS
!-*
El
w
a
m
o
T)
o
r1
*T}
£
H
•O
g
K
PI
•3
S
1
9/4
0
S
r*
55
E
o
o
«
M
™
1
p
O
r*
01
3
o
S
a
i
s
PS
D
"
O
j£
*v
p
3
•fl
H
i
3;
m
^
S
g
H
9/5 9/6
o 6'8
2100
§
£H 20.0
5
i 10.7
m 27°
n
i 4-5
Hi
1
i 9.8
660
E
^ 10.0
_
-
-
7.3
8.0
6.7
6.4
-
_
_
_
-
-
290.0
20.0
-
-
-
12
8
-
^
-
-
9/11
9.4
430
7.5
195
9.0
780
20.0
1886
1326
510
8.5
8.6
6.8
6.3
190
83
40
220
160.0
190.0
20%
207,
60%
20%
20%
60%
9/16 9/17 9/18
7.0 7.3
1633 1266
4416 4160
20.0 170.0
9.0
190
880
6.5
7.7
135
240
7.5
7.8
440
1340
12.0
2000
1284
730
8.7
8.7
6.8
6.8
63
50
480
460
115
40
230.0
230.0
20%
20%
60%
10.9
7.6
155
260
11.0
500
1800
40.0
1986
1040
1320
8.3
8.4
6.3
6.4
70
53
480
460
105
65
220.0
210.0
20%
20%
60%
10.1
190
1060
11.0
8.8
150
320
7.0
9.4
250
760
9.0
1068
732
380
8.0
8.4
6.8
6.0
33
23
420
380
25
90
190.0
200.0
20%
20%
60%
-------
9/20
9/21 9/22
CO
ARMSTRONG CORK CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
GA. KSAFT CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
PIO NONO OUTFALL
PH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
COMPOSITE
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
Tot. Sol.
Tot. Vol. Sol.
Sue. Sol.
AERATION CELLS
pH : NO. 1
No. 2
Dtss. Oxy: No. 1
No. 2
Eff. B.O.D. : No. 1
No. 2
Eff. C.O.D. : No. 1
No. 2
Eff. Soo. Solids: No. 1
No. 2
Set. Sol. In Iks: No. 1
No. 2
GENERAL
X of Comp. From:
Armstrong
Pio Nono
Ga. Kraft
Liters to Cell:
No. 1
No. 2
Sludge Drawn From:
No. 1
No. 2
% B.O.D. Removed:
No. 1
No. 2
6.1
1466
5840
280.0
10.2
260
1000
13.0
7.6
135
240
2.0
8.6
520
840
55.0
2040
1394
890
8.1
8.6
6.5
6.5
130
113
780
400
35
45
240.0
230.0
20%
20Z
60%
12
8
_
_
-
7.0
1700
4640
110.0
10.3
250
860
6.0
7.9
205
460
5.0
9.6
560
1560
27.0
1060
688
390
8.5
8.7
6.4
6.8
73
110
440
500
0
0
230.0
225.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
-
_
_
-
6.3
1630
4400
110.0
8.9
300
940
5.0
7.3
145
420
7.0
7.5
800
1880
23.0
1402
922
690
8.7
8.9
6.0
6.3
70
116
460
520
155
165
205.0
205.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
_
„
_
-
"' ~ •
6.3
1930
5120
160.0
10.3
560
5120
60.0
7.5
185
1500
12.0
8.8
740
1760
24.0
2186
•1476
570
8.8
9.0
6.3
6.3
140
177
680
640
110
110
200.0
190.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
-
„
_
-
-1L2-
O
w
§
r1
M
n
P
8
o
c:
P3
m
F
O
PI
P
cn
mj
W
O
S
S
rn
e
s
M
O
v>
8
£
*«
I
*T3
ya
S
p]
3
G
§
H
9/30 10/1 10/2
10/5
6.6
1500
4080
90.0
10. 5
580
1480
6. 5
7.9
150
300
8.0
9.8
660
1600
10.0
1756
1106
240
8.7
8.7
6.9
6.9
90
90
320
320
0
0
200.0
150.0
7.2
1430
4560
20.0
9.8
420
1600
29 .0
7.3
160
400
6.5
9.3
540
1880
27.0
2000
1260
840
7.8
7.9
5.8
50
50
400
400
50
310.0
250.0
6.8
1970
7690
120.0
8.8
290
1250
15.5
7.6
150
389
5,5
8.2
640
2330
35.0
2218
1202
1050
8.2
8.4
5.8
5.8
40
50
432
475
125
65
420.0
300.0
6.9
2350
30.0
9.8
360
15.0
7.7
120
0.4
8.8
720
18.0
1576
100
8.3
8.6
5.5
5.7
110
90
_
0
0
420.0
520.0
"Z-
o
t*l
Crt
8
s
s
I
w
i
1
SEWAGE DIS
o
p
*ti
i
H
13
!#
J>
S
s
s
t*i
s
y.
o
p
w
P
8
i
1
P
i
*:
a
SEWAGE DIS
o
Is
"•a
^
S
S
"<
S
S
i
t-i
'Z
a
?
w
o
i
i
1
1
i
s
SEWAGE DIS
*o
£•
m
i
H
3
g
K!
s
s
a
H
•z.
O
t3
t*l
p
r1
n
1
1
P
i
E
3
SEWAGE DIS
*3
o
P
*a
S
3
s
-<
«1
*TJ
t*J
S
•z
o
i
"0
t*5
O
f
n
o
1
P
i
E
y
SEWAGE DIS
*T3
O
>
f
•o
i
s
5
v<
!3
FLUENT
7 .0
1800
4400
60.0
10.8
600
1680
4.0
7.4
150
460
5.5
10.2
1440
2000
10.5
1240
822
670
7.7
7.8
7.0
6.8
230
250
520
660
45
80
120.0
140.0
6.7
1700 C
4740 \
100.0 J
r
t
10.8 c
610 f
3810 '
3.5 r
7.5
220 [
420 t
10.0
S
10.2 '
680 :
1700 j
12.0 >
2230 <
1610 ,
620 >
8.4 i
8.6 ;
5.5 i
6.5 •
250 ;
250+ i
840 '
930 :
140 i
90 ;
110.0 j
120.0 ;
C S£
5 O
i |
n ro
i in
2 °
- r-
1 §
3 i
n vi
I i
c c
i a
i i
s s
3 O
-1 M
n w
fl "0
= o
> >.
^ r1
3 "°
> ^
^ H
•O -13
» »
> s
-
-------
10/19 10/20
OO
ARMSTRONG CORK CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set, Sol.
GA. KRAFT CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
PIO NONO OUTFALL
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
COMPOSITE
pH
B:O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
Tot. Sol.
Tot. Vol. Sol.
Sus . Sol .
AERATION CELLS
pH : No. 1
No. 2
Diss. Oxy: No. 1
No. 2
Eff. B.O.D. : No. 1
No. 2
Eff. C.O.D. : No. 1
No. 2
Eff. Sos. Solids: No. 1
No. 2
Set. Sol. in Tks : No. 1
No. 2
GENERAL
% of Comp. From:
Armstrong
Pio Nono
Ga. Kraft
Liters to Cell:
No. 1
No. 2
Sludge Drawn From:
No. 1
No. 2
% B.O.D. Removed:
No. 1
No. 2
7.7
1670
3600
10.0
10.8
590
1680
10.0
7.5
180
560
10.5
10.2
760
1760
10.0
2756
1596
880
8.3
8.5
7.0
6.8
210
260+
660
860
90
90
165.0
205.0
20%
20 Z
60%
12
18
-
-
72
66
6.9
1100
4720
45.0
10.5
460
1320
10.5
7.4
240
460
8.0
9.6
540
1640
20.0
2064
1352
890
8.8
9.0
6.8
6.5
180
210
580
700
15
0
180.0
210.0
20%
20%
60 Z
12
18
-
-
67
62
6.8
1670
6400
60.0
10.6
400
1360
6.0
7.7
140
340
5.0
9.7
620
1920
19.0
2260
1572
650
8.7
8.7
6.7
6.4
220
230
720
820
30
0
120.0
170.0
20%
20%
60%
12
18
-
-
65
63
6.7 2
2070
S
100.0 |
w
10.0 8
360 P
S3
31.0 8
,
7.8
170 S
f
10-° £
@
9.0 S
680 3
_ C/J
25.0 |
2034 K
1352 ™
620 «
1
8.4 r*
8.5 p
6.6 |
7.0 H
180 g
H
>
K
80 M
"1
c^
170.0 =
200.0 g
207.
20%
607.
12
PI. Eff.
-
-
74
-
•z
o
i
•fl
r*
m
n
o
r1
M
i
,
o
p
C/l
@
s:
i
VI
1
1
tJ
w
I
r1
*s
j£
^
'fl
«:
w
ir1
a
7.5
1900
4640
16.0
9.9
540
1720
5.5
7.5
150
340
10.5
9.5
880
1880
7.0
2180
1562
310
7.8
7.8
5.3
5.2
150
260
500
780
0
-
250.0
350.0
202
20Z
607.
12
18
-
-
83
71
7.1
630
2800
25.0
10.0
470
1680
9.0
7,4
150
560
6.0
9.3
440
2240
10.0
2210
1358
660
8.4
8.5
5.3
5.0
110
180
480
660
60
60
310.0
690.0
20%
20%
60%
12
18
-
-
75
60
7.5
1470
5200
50.0
10.7
500
1740
9.0
7.6
130
300
7.0
10.0
520
2040
17.0
2286
1480
600
8.2
8.5
5.2
5.2
200
210
720
760
16
50
310.0
600.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
5 L.
3 L.
62
60
0
i
o
S
O
N>
n
w
a
i
,_,
00
§3
W
H
tn
Z
M
O
"Z
S
w
H
C3
g
£
'S
yl
H
•z
M
§
•*)
9
§
00
c
10.5
1330
5840
40.0
10.8
650
2000+
13.0
7.8
160
380
5.0
10.5
640
2160
17.0
2774
1814
1030
8.6
8.9
4.5
5.0
270
160
960
780
36
32
200.0
120.0
20Z
20%
60%
12
8
-
-
58
75
7.3
1800
4800
80.0
10.8
700
2480
11.0
7.7
230
420
7.0
10.1
840
2320
10.5
2556
1624
230
9.0
9.0
5.1
5.4
180
180
1120
1080
0
45
210.0
180.0
20%
20%
607.
12
8
-
~
79
79
10/23
10/26 10/27
6.9
1370
3840
18.0
10.2
690
2190
8.0
7.5
90
200
0.5
10.0
580
1910
3.5
2106
1366
350
8.3
8.4
4.8
4,8
110
110
520
500
105
105
250.0
200.0
202
202
60%
12
8
_
-
81
81
7.0
1600
5360
90.0
10.7
450
2640
14.0
7.2
180
220
5.5
10.1
500
2000
9.0
2592
1646
580
8.5
8.6
4.0
4.3
130
70
620
420
0
0
400.0
280.0
20%
20%
60%
12
a
_
-
74
86
7.3
1470
7360
50.0
10.5
420
2040
10.0
7.3
180
420
5.0
9.8
460
2280
5.0
2432
1452
970
8.7
8.9
4.5
5.0
130
90
680
580
85
95
410.0
300.0
20%
20%
607.
12
8
_
-
72
80
7.0
1530
4320
130'. 0
10.8
540
1960
8.0
7.5
170
420
3.0
10.1
680
2360
24.0
2738
1820
750
8.5
8.6
4.5
5.0
250
160
900
500
250
160
420.0
320.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
2% I.
Hi L.
63
77
7.8
530
3200
80.0
10.4
690
2960
38.0
7.5
190
440
6.0
9.8
640
2160
19.0
2356
1546
770
8.9
9.0
7.0
7.1
150
100
800
660
80
35
270.0
200.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
_
-
77
84
•z.
o
v>
£
r
S3
O
PI
0
H
g
O
w
r1
T}
e
M
S
^
i-«
O
w
PS
^
£3
1
d
m
1
1
*Q
C
H
»Q
pa
1
m
•r)
r*
c:
1
O
in
H
r"
tn
O
r1
en
o
S
o
[3
io
n]
g
3
01
s-e
O
(a
'?;
M
a-e
I
pa
S
S
S
h£
^
H
^
pa
«;
M
^
r1
i
H
7.2
1570
6000
38.0
10.7
500
1800
7.5
7.8
100
160
5.0
10.3
680
1960
. 14.0
2322
1490
270
8.5
8.5
7.0
7.1
160
110
780
740
0
0
300.0
230.0
20%
20%
60%
12
8
„
-
74
84
-------
CO
CX>
ARMSTRONG CORK CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
GA, KRAFT CO.
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
PIO NONO OUTFALL
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
COMPOSITE
pH
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
Set. Sol.
Tot. Sol.
Tot. Vol. Sol.
Sus. Sol.
AERATION CELLS
pH : No. 1
No. 2
Diss. Oxy: No. 1
No. 2
EJf. B.O.D. : So. I
No. 2
Eff. C.O.D: No. 1
So. 2
Eff. Sos. Solids: No. 1
No. 2
Set. Sol. In Iks: No. 1
No. 2
GENERAL
% of Comp. Prom:
Armstrong
Pio Nono
Ga. Kraft
Liters to Cell:
No. 1
No. 2
Sludge. Drawn From:
No. 1
No. 2
% B.O.D. Removed:
No. 1
No. 2
7.5
1330
7760
120.0
10.9
380
1760
12.0
7.6
200
420
7.0
10.1
480
2600
33.0
2284
2284
1640
8.9
9.0
7.8
7.8
80
60
580
560
0
55
300
200
20%
20%
60%
12
8
1 L.
-
83
87
7.2
1000
3680
80.0
10.7
400
1320
17.0
7.5
160
360
5.0
9.8
440
1320
8.5
1660
1030
510
8.9
9.0
7.0
7.1
80
40
500
500
42
30
300
250
20%
20%
60%
12
8
1 L.
-
82
91
6.6
1530
3820
70.0
10.3
320
1610
50.0
7.6
170
350
6.0
9.3
540
1580
26.0
1782
1216
380
8.3
8.4
6.0
6.1
100
70
480
380
40
15
340
280
20X
207.
60%
12
8
1 L.
1 L.
81
87
7.6
1600
4160
70.0
10.7
460
1420
10.5
7.6
170
460
5.0
9.8
600
1570
10.0
2082
1330
540
8.8
8.8
8.0
8.0
170
90
600
430
40
55
310
280
20%
20%
60%
12
8
1 L.
1 L.
72
85
a:
o
j>
^
8
1
H
B
0
P
w
i
E
i
o
Cfl
O
g
^
p
g
g
e
3
s
w
^
7.8
1300
3840
40,0
10.1
370
1420
9.0
8.1
170
220
3.5
9.5
560
1340
5.0
2038
1260
520
8.6
8.8
8.3
8.5
70
60
370
330
60
58
200
150
20%
20%
60%
12
8
2 I.
1 L.
87
89
7.3
770
2700
20.0
10.6
370
1430
10.0
7.8
140
0
7.0
10.3
380
1300
7.0
2130
1200
580
8.7
8.9
8.0
8.3
70
50
410
390
75
55
490
290
20%
20%
60%
12
8
_
-
82
87
11/8/67
CONTENTS OF AERATION CELLS
(a.) Total Sus. Sols, mg/1
(b.) Total Vol. Sus. Sols, mg/1
(c.) Total Fixed SUB. Sols, mg/1
Settleable Solids Ml/1/30 Mln,
CELL
No.l
2700.0
2252.0
448.0
300.0
CELL
Ho.2
2552.0
2172.0
380.0
250.0
-------
APPENDIX II
SUMMARY
PILOT PLANT SAMPLES
-A-
Plant Influent - Raw Wastes
PERIOD
pH
TOTAL
SOLIDS
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
SUSP. VOL. SUSP. SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD COD
mg/1 mg/1 ml/l/hr mg/1. mg/1
00
VO
Apr. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(12)
7.1
5.7
6.4
(12)
6482
3046
4271
(12)
5126
2298
3155
(12)
3915
1530
2115
(1)
3235
3235
3235
(12)
10.0
8.7
9.3
(12)
1078
792
889
(12)
702
364
483
(12)
285
45
154
(1)
53
53
53
(11)
7.3
7.0
7.2
(11)
540
282
435
(11)
448
156
255
(11)
310
45
177
(1)
113
113
113
(12)
140
50
95
(12)
25
1.2
4.6
(11)
10
2.5
7.4
(12)
1950
1150
1510
(12)
460
260
370
(11)
200
140
180
(12)
5380
3520
4110
(12)
1170
720
920
(11)
480
350
380
-------
PERIOD
May 13 - May 18
(6 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
pH
(4)
6.9
6.3
6.6
(4)
9.8
7.0
8.4
(4)
7.2
6.8
7.0
(17)
7.7
6.2
6.9
(17)
10.4
8.9
9.8
(17)
7.3
7.1
7.2
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(4)
3996
3694
3853
(4)
1018
680
787
(4)
676
400
540
(17)
4636
2098
3738
(17)
1346
820
1028
(17)
1020
418
632
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(4)
2716
2170
2487
(4)
488
286
361
(4)
492
164
300
(17)
2818
1180
2543
(17)
678
372
515
(17)
598
288
366
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(4)
1910
1480
1710
(4)
280
100
165
(4)
240
165
201
(17)
2480
1320
1670
(17)
270
10
130
(17)
415
175
237
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(1)
1530
1530
1530
(0)
(0)
(4)
1820
1020
1370
(3)
100
0
63
(4)
220
70
150
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(4)
100
40
80
(4)
26
2.5
9.8
(4)
16
8
12
(17)
130
20
80
(17)
2.5
0.8
2.4
(17)
17
6.5
9.5
BOD
mg/1
(4)
1700
800
1310
(4)
320
180
250
(4)
260
180
220
(15)
1850
950
1570
(15)
500
160
380
(15)
320
160
210
COD
mg/1
(4)
3960
2980
3470
(4)
920
480
710
(4)
480
340
420
(17)
3990
2450
3480
(17)
1140
340
930
(17)
1020
210
460
-------
PERIOD
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No <, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
pH
(9)
6.5
6.0
6.2
(9)
10.4
10.0
10.2
(9)
7.5
7.0
7.2
(12)
7.2
608
6.9
(12)
9.9
8.6
9.7
(12)
7.6
7.1
7.3
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
4908
3140
3983
(9)
1272
824
1058
(9)
780
478
624
(12)
4904
2420
3624
(12)
1364
702
1153
(12)
726
474
590
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(8)
3902
2010
2894
(8)
624
478
540
(8)
482
298
380
(12)
2810
1450
2315
(12)
754
378
601
(12)
380
268
325
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
2220
760
1560
(9)
140
35
91
(9)
210
100
168
(12)
2310
980
1700
(12)
155
35
83
(12)
275
55
196
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(4)
1220
920
1100
(4)
58
20
41
(3)
160
115
140
(5)
2310
1080
1610
(4)
65
15
34
(4)
230
30
140
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(9)
120
9
80
(9)
2.5
0.9
1.9
(9)
8
5
6.2
(12)
120
30
80
(12)
9
0.6
2.6
(12)
10
6.5
7.4
BOD
mg/1
(8)
2150
1450
1820
(8)
580
260
420
(8)
310
150
240
(12)
2000
1050
1450
(12)
500
220
380
(12)
290
130
190
COD
mg/1
(8)
4130
3300
3740
(8)
1200
780
980
(8)
420
290
360
(12)
6050
2420
3680
(12)
2000
560
1170
(12)
410
280
370
-------
PERIOD
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28
(10 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
pH
(7)
10.2
9.9
10.0
(5)
7«,7
7.2
7.4
(5)
10.2
9.0
9.5
(6)
7.6
7.2
7.4
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
N 0
(7)
1150
880
1040
(5)
722
155
498
N 0
(5)
1000
705
890
(6)
790
350
605
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
FLOWS
(6)
535
365
417
(4)
482
150
268
FLOWS
(5)
360
165
274
(6)
415
120
285
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(6)
150
95
121
(5)
190
105
146
(5)
135
25
74
(6)
210
100
178
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(0)
(0)
(1)
70
70
70
(1)
170
170
170
SETTLE ABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(7)
2.5
0.5
1.5
(5)
9
7
8
(5)
2.0
0.8
1.6
(6)
9
4.5
6.7
BOD
mg/1
(7)
760
380
450
(5)
200
150
180
(5)
450
380
410
(6)
220
160
190
COD
mg/1
(7)
1690
910
1110
(5)
410
300
370
(5)
1340
870
1010
(6)
420
380
400
-------
PERIOD
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
pH
(11)
7.3
5.9
6.7
(11)
10.4
9.5
10.0
(11)
7.7
7.3
7.5
(2)
7.1
6.0
6.6
(2)
9.9
9.8
9.8
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(11)
9740
3830
6038
(11)
1545
890
1124
(11)
685
480
561
(2)
4025
3750
3888
(2)
1680
1190
1440
N 0
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(11)
5855
3015
4093
(11)
690
200
404
(11)
400
205
306
(2)
2705
2600
2653
(2)
585
505
545
FLOWS
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(10)
6920
1240
3170
(10)
140
40
89
(10)
240
140
187
(2)
2040
1450
1750
(2)
165
160
163
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(10)
4740
1120
2160
(10)
78
10
34
(10)
170
90
123
(2)
1330
1090
1210
(2)
140
55
98
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(11)
180
50
120
(11)
1.5
0.1
0.7
(11)
9.5
5.5
7.8
(2)
80
50
65
(2)
14
0.7
7.4
BOD
mg/1
(11)
2100
1400
1800
(10)
580
310
410
(10)
240
160
190
(2)
1650
850
1250
(2)
360
240
300
COD
mg/1
(11)
10320
4080
6380
(11)
1380
910
1080
(10)
480
360
400
(2)
3900
3770
3840
(2)
1420
1110
1270
-------
VD
•P-
PERIOD
Nov. 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 23 - Dec. 4
(12 Days)
ARMSTRONG CORK
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GEORGIA KRAFT
CITY OF MACON
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
pH
(9)
7.0
5.7
6.3
(9)
10.4
7.8
9.5
(9)
7.7
7.5
7.6
(7)
608
6.0
6.3
(7)
7.5
7.2
7.4
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
8820
2615
4599
(9)
2130
570
1465
(9)
680
450
580
(7)
6000
2660
4310
N 0
(7)
620
490
550
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
6040
1845
3396
(9)
870
385
585
(9)
410
200
310
(7)
4970
1880
3130
FLOWS
(7)
370
220
310
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
2990
1210
2050
(9)
555
80
250
(9)
215
80
174
(7)
4490
980
2800
(7)
365
155
224
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
2440
900
1420
(9)
280
40
140
(9)
180
65
136
(7)
2930
820
1920
(7)
300
95
154
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(9)
140
50
90
(8)
10
5
8.2
(9)
10
8.5
9.5
(7)
120
50
80
(7)
10
7.5
8.8
BOD
mg/1
(9)
1400
850
1180
(9)
520
200
350
(9)
250
200
230
(7)
1650
920
1280
(7)
280
160
210
COD
mg/1
(9)
8720
2760
4640
(9)
2190
370
1380
(9)
450
320
390
(6)
6200
3000
4250
(6)
640
360
440
-------
Primary Sedimentation
Influent
PERIOD
Apr,. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13 - May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
pH
(12)
8.6
5.7
6.8
(3)
7.8
6.9
7.2
(17)
9.0
6.5
7.7
(9)
9.5
7.5
8.2
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(0)
(0)
(14)
1812
1202
1556
(9)
1694
1310
1522
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(0)
(0)
(14)
1240
928
970
(8)
1144
980
1056
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
825
240
529
(3)
800
255
592
(17)
1410
390
550
(9)
855
240
477
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(1)
253
253
253
(0)
(4)
420
245
320
(3)
440
285
346
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(12)
27
5
17
(4)
60
18
25
(17)
32
5.5
13.5
(9)
16.0
7.0
11.3
BOD
mg/1
(12)
980
360
612
(3)
900
460
650
(16)
820
460
625
(8)
720
440
635
COD
mg/1
(12)
1550
840
1330
(3)
2140
950
1660
(17)
1700
980
1425
(8)
1730
1210
1580
-------
PERIOD
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug, 19 -Aug. 28
(10 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
PH
(12)
7.6
6.9
7.3
(7)
10.2
9.8
9.9
(5)
10.2
9,0
9.5
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
2006
1244
1541
(7)
1150
880
1033
(5)
1000
705
894
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
1278
682
980
(6)
535
365
419
(5)
360
165
274
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
755
255
496
(6)
175
95
129
(5)
135
60
74
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(4)
345
190
260
(0)
(1)
70
70
70
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(12)
31
7
15.5
(7)
20
0.5
8.6
(5)
20
0.8
5.2
BOD
mg/1
(12)
720
300
508
(7)
680
370
430
(5)
450
390
416
COD
mg/1
(12)
2250
1110
1450
(7)
1660
910
1080
(5)
1340
870
1260
OCTOBER 17 UNTIL END OF STUDY, ONLY ARMSTRONG SETTLED
-------
Primary Sedimentation
Effluent
PERIOD
Apr. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13 - May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
pH
(12)
7.2
6.0
6.5
(4)
6.7
5.8
6.2
(17)
7.5
6,0
6.9
(9)
8.1
7.2
7.6
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(6)
1800
1288
1440
(4)
1810
772
1271
(17)
1980
822
1396
(9)
1514
1040
1264
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(6)
1204
666
885
(4)
988
384
739
(17)
1042
772
843
(8)
1080
704
903
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
580
135
304
(4)
1120
65
454
(17)
1005
135
347
(9)
330
85
182
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(1)
133
133
133
(0)
(4)
170
75
104
(4)
125
90
110
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(12)
31
2
7.1
(4)
80
1
28
(17)
28
0.5
3.5
(8)
2.5
0.8
1.4
BOD
mg/1
(12)
800
360
540
(4)
1000
320
600
(16)
960
460
550
(9)
640
480
648
COD
mg/1
(12)
1380
590
1010
(4)
2100
600
1290
(17)
1560
980
1340
(9)
1180
980
1080
-------
oo
PERIOD
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 19 - Aug 28
(10 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
PH
(12)
7.6
6.4
7.2
(7)
9.8
8.0
8.8
(6)
8,4
7.4
7.7
(11)
9,9
7.7
8.4
(2)
9.0
9.0
9.0
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
1572
780
1271
(7)
1040
688
832
(6)
815
350
643
(11)
1505
910
1225
(2)
1730
1550
1640
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
970
622
813
(6)
490
275
330
(6)
380
120
262
(11)
790
410
360
(2)
1085
825
955
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(12)
320
70
187
(6)
225
65
114
(5)
120
90
106
(10)
215
85
145
(2)
255
95
175
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(4)
225
45
108
(0)
(1)
45
45
45
(10)
125
45
80
(2)
160
65
113
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(12)
3.0
0.5
1.6
(7)
5.0
0
2.7
(6)
8.0
3.5
4.8
(11)
4.5
1.8
2.6
(2)
8.0
1.4
4.7
BOD
mg/1
(12)
600
360
480
(7)
390
220
310
(6)
390
160
310
(10)
660
400
520
(2)
740
400
570
COD
mg/1
(12)
1420
740
1120
(7)
1010
650
850
(6)
990
380
640
(11)
2000
820
1150
(2)
1480
1270
1375
-------
PERIOD
Nov. 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 23 - Dec. 4
(12 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
PH
(9)
9.3
7.0
. 8.0
(7)
7.0
6.3
6.7
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
2290
1000
1470
(7)
2160
1060
1430
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
1110
590
775
(7)
1440
700
980
SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
280
115
222
(7)
675
110
321
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
300
85
146
(7)
280
85
219
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(9)
8.0
3.0
5.6
(7)
5.0
3.0
4.6
BOD
mg/1
(9)
580
320
470
(7)
1340
460
690
COD
mg/1
(9)
7080
880
1880
(6)
1680
560
1090
VO
VO
-------
Primary Sedimentation
Sludge Draw Off
PERIOD
April 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13 - May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
July 8 - July 25
(8 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28
(10 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
GALLONS
(12)
5000
2000
4500
(4)
9200
7820
8450
(27)
8470
4610
6243
(11)
6920
4840
5908
(18)
9180
4070
5824
(10)
3800
2780
3115
SOLIDS
(0)
% VOL. SOLIDS
(0)
(1)
3
3
3
(2)
3.1
1.8
2.5
(1)
2.9
2.9
2.9
(0)
(1)
80
80
80
(2)
84
75
80
(1)
81
81
81
(0)
(0)
(0)
100
-------
PERIOD
GALLONS
7» SOLIDS
% VOL. SOLIDS
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov.6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 23 - Dec. 4
(12 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(15)
4125
0
3163
(15)
19,290
11,200
15,311
(4)
12,800
11,800
12,150
(16)
18,200
9,800
11,140
(12)
10,200
9,600
9,850
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
101
-------
-c-
Plant No. 1 - Large Unit
MIXED LIQUOR
PERIOD
Apr. 15 - May 5
(25 Days)
No,
Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
DETENTION SUSPENDED
TIME SOLIDS
HRS. mg/1
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13 - May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(21)
24
24
24
(6)
24
24
24
(12)
2680
250
1490
(4)
2220
1720
1860
(25)
30
30
30
(11)
30
30
30
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(1)
235
235
235
(0)
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(20)
990
22
406
(12)
3440
2020
2720
(9)
5400
3620
4320
(5)
2480
1560
2190
(3)
3540
2920
3290
J21L
(17)
7.7
7.0
7.3
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
mg/1
(20)
7.4
3.8
5.3
TEMP.
°F
(6)
690
550
620
(6)
7.6
7.3
7.4
(6)
6.9
5.4
5.8
72
61
70
(25)
850
400
640
(18)
7.6
7.3
7.4
(23)
4.9
1.8
3,6
78
70
(11)
880
820
860
(9)
7.5
7.4
7.5
(9)
2.0
1.4
1.7
84
76
-------
(PLANT NO. 1 - LARGE UNIT) MIXED LIQUOR
o
u>
PERIOD
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Oct. 17 -Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
DETENTION
TIME
MRS.
(18)
24
24
24
(15)
30
30
30
(15)
19.2
19,2
19.2
(4)
30
30
30
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
(10)
4480
3240
3860
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(3)
910
590
750
(2)
4910
4150
4530
(1)
5780
5780
5780
(2)
710
470
590
(2)
3610
3320
3470
(1)
4800
4800
4800
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
mg/1
(5)
3600
2660
3130
NOT IN OPERATION
(18)
710
310
490
(11)
7.5
7.5
7,5
(18)
1.2
5.1
2.7
(15)
150
11
64
(7)
8.0
7.6
7.7
(15)
8.0
4.2
5.7
84
78
82
68
(15)
860
750
830
(4)
7.5
7.5
7.5
(14)
2.4
0.8
2.3
77
62
(4)
800
700
740
(1)
7.6
7.6
7.6
(4)
6.0
0.5
3.2
74
60
-------
(PLANT NO. 1 - LARGE UNIT) MIXED LIQUOR
PERIOD
Nov. 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
DETENTION
TIME
HRS.
(16)
24
24
24
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
(3)
5260
4950
5100
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(3)
4320
3860
4010
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l./hr
(16)
880
680
795
pH
(15)
7.8
7.3
. 7.6
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
mg/1
(15)
8.7
5.3
7.2
TEMP.
° F
65
56
61
Nov. 23 - Dec. 4
NOT IN OPERATION
-------
(PLANT NO. 1 - LARGE UNIT) FINAL SETTLING TANK EFFLUENT
PERIOD
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
BOD
5 DAY, 20° C
mg/1
COD
mg/1
pH
Apr. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13 - May 18
(9)
1946
930
1351
(9)
1356
248
752
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(25 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(4)
2962
754
1338
(15)
1106
738
900
(9)
1198
790
963
(4)
1800
302
716
(15)
506
322
430
(8)
520
420
460
(12)
1980
90
587
(4)
2000
45
734
(9)
120
30
64
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points (10) (10)
Maximum 1322 684
Minimum 588 292
Average 1028 485
(1)
30
30
30
(0)
(4)
55
20
31
(12)
500
3
99
(4)
850
0
214
(12)
540
100
230
(12) (13)
1310 7.7
560 7.1
900 7.4
(4)
310
50
160
(4)
2420
360
1020
(4)
7.5
7,8
7.7
(15)
265
30
120
(5)
90
0
45
•(15)
5
0
0.6
(15)
100
20
53
(15)
550
310
430
(16)
8.1
7.6
8.0
(9)
1.6
0
0.6
(9)
50
30
40
(9)
460
350
390
(9)
8.1
8.0
8.0
(10)
515
20
171
(4)
245
190
128
(10)
45
0.9
6.4
(10)
60
10
33
(10)
670
310
440
(10)
8.2
7.9
8.1
-------
(PLANT NO. 1 - LARGE UNIT) FINAL SETTLING TANK EFFLUENT
PERIOD
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
NOT IN OPERATION
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(5)
825
300
580
(5)
350
95
255
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points (11)
Maximum 1525
Minimum 600
Average 1021
Nov. 2 - Novo 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points (2)
Maximum 1580
Minimum 1115
Average 1348
Nov. 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points (9)
Maximum 1120
Minimum 770
Average 950
Nov. 23 - Deco 4
(11)
725
275
438
(2)
795
530
663
(9)
680
200
390
(4)
160
20
70
(10)
585
50
235
(2)
560
300
430
(9)
290
80
143
NOT IN OPERATION
(1)
150
150
150
(10)
460
28
166
(2)
460
190
330
(9)
100
40
73
SETTLEABLE BOD
SOLIDS 5 DAY,
ml/l/hr mg/1
20° C
(5)
0
0
0
(11)
55
0
17
(2)
48
40
44
(9)
18
0.2
4.6
(5)
90
20
50
(10)
120
24
65
(2)
290
130
210
(9)
70
20
40
(5)
500
220
350
(11)
850
200
490
(2)
980
910
950
(9)
810
290
470
(5)
8.0
7.9
8.0
(11)
8.3
8.1
8.2
(2)
8.2
80
. /
8.2
(9)
8.3
7.9
8.1
-------
(PLANT NO. 1 - LARGE UNIT) SLUDGE
PERIOD
Apr. 15 - May 5
RETURN
SLUDGE
G.P.M.
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13 - May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(25 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(20)
64
64
64
(6)
64
64
64
(25)
64
58
63
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(11)
58
58
58
(18)
42
36
42
SETT. SOLIDS
RETURN SLUDGE
ml/l/hr
(19)
1000
80
700
(6)
980
830
930
(25)
990
970
980
(11)
1000
990
1000
(18)
990
530
960
SLUDGE
WASTED
GALLONS
(21)
29000
0
3270
(6)
14300
4500
9400
(25)
5400
0
1300
(11)
1800
0
160
(18)
5500
0
1360
SLUDGE
WASTED
% SOLIDS
(0)
(1)
3
3
3
(3)
1.5
1.0
1.2
(1)
3.0
3.0
3.0
(3)
3.6
2.1
2.7
SLUDGE
WASTED
VOL. SOL.
(0)
(1)
70
70
70
(3)
80
75
83
(1)
87
87
87
(3)
77
66
73
-------
(PLANT NO. 1 - LARGE UNIT) SLUDGE
o
00
PERIOD
Aug. 19 - Augo 28
Aug. 29 - Sept, 12
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 23- Dec. 4
RETURN
SLUDGE
G.P.M.
(15)
48
48
48
(15)
48
48
48
(4)
48
48
48
(16)
48
48
48
SETT. SOLIDS
RETURN SLUDGE
ml/l/hr
SLUDGE
WASTED
GALLONS
NOT IN OPERATION
(12) (12)
420 0
60 0
160 0
(15) (15)
990 1900
980 0
990 220
(4) (4)
990 3000
980 1000
990 1750
(16) (16)
990 2000
980 0
990 890
NOT IN OPERATION
SLUDGE
WASTED
% SOLIDS
(0)
(0)
(1)
1.9
1.9
1.9
(4)
1.8
1.2
1.5
SLUDGE
WASTED
% VOL. SOL.
(0)
(0)
(1)
80
80
80
(4)
80
78
79
-------
-D-
Plant No. 2 - Small Unit
MIXED LIQUOR AND MIXED LIQUOR RETURN TO FILTER
o
VO
PERIOD
Apr. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13-May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
DETENTION
TIME
HRS.
(21)
12
12
12
(6)
12
12
12
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
(13)
2820
730
1960
(4)
3460
1960
2570
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(1)
695
695
695
(0)
SETT. SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(19)
980
50
480
(6)
690
400
530
(28)
15
15
15
(14)
4620
2220
3780
(4)
3540
2600
3230
(27)
920
500
660
(11)
15
15
15
(9)
5240
4000
4900
(3)
4380
3960
4110
(11)
840
550
675
(17)
7.4
6.8
7.1
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
mg/1
(20)
6<,8
1.4
3.4
MIXED LIQ.
RETURN
G.P.M.
(20)
10
10
10
TEMP,
°F
(6)
7.6
6.9
7.3
(6)
3.5
2.0
2.5
(6)
10
10
10
74
63
69
(21)
7.6
7.1
7.4
(26)
2.4
0.6
1.6
(26)
10
10
10
82
70
76
(9)
7.5
7.3
7.4
(9)
1.5
0.6
1.1
(11)
10
10
10
87
76
80
-------
(PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT) MIXED LIQUOR AND MIXED LIQUOR RETURN TO FILTER
PERIOD
DETENTION
TIME
HRS.
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 19 - Aug. 28
(10 Days)
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(4)
18*8
18.8
18.8
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
SETT. SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(18)
12
12
12
(12)
3100
2000
2450
(4)
2660
1620
2130
Noo Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(10)
18.8
18.8
18.8
(15)
18.8
18.8
18.8
(3)
4600
3400
4100
(3)
5070
4360
4750
(0)
(2)
4120
3760
3940
(15)
12
12
12
(1)
5320
5320
5320
(1)
4110
4110
4110
(1)
4910
4910
4910
(1)
3990
3990
3990
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
mg/1
MIXED LIQ.
RETURN
G.P.M.
TEMP,
°F
(18)
600
220
350
(10)
7.6
7.5
7.6
(18)
3.2
0,6
1.1
(18)
10
10
10
85
78
80
(10)
910
850
885
(9)
7.5
7.3
7.4
(10)
1.8
1.6
1.7
(10)
10
10
10
83
70
77
(15)
940
910
930
(6)
7.5
7.2
7.3
(15)
6.0
1.1
2.5
(15)
10
10
10
83
68
76
(15)
960
930
950
(3)
7.6
7.5
7.5
(14)
4.1
0.8
2.5
(15)
10
10
10
78
62
68
(4)
960
940
953
(1)
7.7
7.7
7.7
(4)
3,2
0.8
2.5
(4)
10
10
10
74
60
66
-------
( PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT)
PERIOD
DETENTION
TIME
HRS.
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
SETT. SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
pH mg/1
MIXED LIQ.
RETURN
G.P.M.
TEMP.
°F
Nov., 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 23 - Dec. 4
(12 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
(16)
15
15
15
(4)
5660
4350
4932
(3)
4370
3440
3890
(12)
18.{
18.i
18. i
(2)
5670
5320
5495
(3)
4730
4550
4640
(16)
980
950
970
(5)
7.8
7.3
7.6
(15)
8.4
3.2
6.8
(16)
10
10
10
67
48
57
(12)
980
940
963
(5)
7,6
7.2
7.4
(10)
8.9
4.9
6.9
(12)
10
10
10
-------
(PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT) _ FINAL SETTLING TANK EFFLUENT
PERIOD
Apr. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13- May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
July 8 - July 25
(18 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
1278
890
1065
(4)
1030
680
804
(17)
1210
748
931
(9)
1224
840
1038
(12)
1308
708
951
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(9)
720
450
556
(4)
514
238
369
(17)
574
364
469
(8)
702
488
557
(12)
704
312
524
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
.mg/1
(12)
580
35
305
(4)
200
40
120
(17)
375
85
225
(9)
275
105
158
(12)
195
35
167
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(1)
25
25
25
(0)
(5)
160
30
76
(4)
130
55
95
(14)
95
25
51
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(12)
2.0
0.2
5.4
(4)
7.0
0.0
3.2
(17)
0.9
0.0
0.3
(9)
6.0
0.0
0.3
(12)
8.0
0.1
1.0
BOD
5 DAY, 20° C
mg/1
(12)
380
100
210
(4)
100
50
80
(15)
110
50
60
(9)
90
50
70
(12)
50
40
44
COD
mg/1
(12)
1240
380
790
(4)
950
400
620
(17)
700
320
545
(9)
760
470
539
(12)
620
350
480
pH
(13)
7.6
6.9
7.3
(4)
7.6
7.4
7.5
(18)
8.0
7.6
7.9
(9)
8.0
8.0
8.0
(12)
8.2
8.0
8.1
-------
(PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT) FINAL SETTLING TANK EFFLUENT
PERIOD
Aug. 19-Aug. 28
(10 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 6 - Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(7)
888
100
661
(6)
700
455
575
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(6)
360
20
227
(6)
700
130
297
(2)
1275
605
980
(9)
1400
755
1010
(2)
905
290
348
(9)
700
195
411
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
(6)
58
25
40
(5)
75
30
56
(2)
75
60
(9)
210
50
102
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(0)
(1)
65
65
65
(2)
55
38
47
(9)
120
25
54
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(7)
0.1
0.0
0.0
(6)
0.0
0.0
0,0
(11)
1325
500
978
(11)
615
190
402
(10)
420
22
160
(10)
300
0
100
(11)
60
0.0
18
(2)
0.0
0.0
0.0
(9)
40
0.0
11
BOD
DAY,
mg/1
20° C
COD
mg/1
(7)
45
10
24
(7)
400
280
320
(8)
8.3
8.0
8.1
(6)
40
0
24
(10)
125
15
54
(2)
25
20
23
(9)
110
15
49
(6)
280
150
200
(6)
8.1
7.8
7.1
(11) (ID
780 8.2
180 8.0
454 8.1
(2)
490
360
400
(9)
840
200
498
-------
. (PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT) FINAL SETTLING TANK EFFLUENT
PERIOD
Nov. 23 - Dec. 4
(12 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mg/1
(7)
1280
490
773
TOTAL
VOL. SOLIDS
mg/1
(7)
780
200
456
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
mg/1
(7)
260
50
116
VOL. SUSP.
SOLIDS
mg/1
(7)
99
28
51
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
ml/l/hr
(7)
2.5
0.0
0.4
BOD
DAY,
mg/1
20° C
(7)
140
30
71
(6)
780
180
220
-------
(PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT) SLUDGE
PERIOD
Nov. 2 - Nov. 5
(4 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 6 -Nov. 21
(16 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Nov. 23_- Dec. 4
(12 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Apr. 15 - May 5
(21 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
May 13-May 18
(6 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
RETURN
SLUDGE
G.P.M.
(4)
42
42
42
(16)
42
36
41
(12)
36
36
36
(20)
42
42
42
(6)
42
42
42
SETT. SOLIDS
RETURN SLUDGE
ml/l/hr
(4)
990
990
990
(16)
990
970
987
(12)
990
980
990
(19)
1000
175
765
(6)
980
690
930
SLUDGE
WASTED
GALLONS
(4)
1000
0
250
(16)
3200
0
950
(12)
3000
0
670
(20)
11000
0
940
(6)
11400
0
4350
SLUDGE
WASTED
% SOLIDS
(1)
1.7
1.7
1.7
(4)
1.8
1.1
1.5
(1)
1.8
1.8
1.8
(0)
SLUDGE
WASTED
VOL. SOLIDS
(1)
78
78
78
(4)
82
79
80
(1)
80
80
80
(0)
(1)
3
3
3
(1)
72
72
72
-------
PERIOD
May 19 - June 15
(28 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
June 16 - June 26
(11 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
July 8 - July 25
(11)
42
42
42
(18 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 19 - Aug_. 28
(10 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Aug. 29 - Sept. 12
(15 Days)
No, Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
RETURN
SLUDGE
G.P.M.
(28)
42
42
42
(11)
42
42
42
(18)
36
36
36
(10)
42
42
42
(15)
42
42
42
(PLANT NO.
SETT. SOLIDS
RETURN SLUDGE
ml/l/hr
(28)
1000
850
970
(11)
1000
1000
1000
(16)
990
600
880
(10)
990
980
975
(15)
990
980
990
2 - SMALL UNIT)
SLUDGE
WASTED
GALLONS
(28)
2400
0
350
(11)
3600
0
150
(18)
5400
0
2090
(10)
3000
0
300
(15)
0
0
0
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
WASTED
% SOLIDS
(2)
1
0.4
0.7
(1)
3
3
3
(2)
4.5
1.7
3.1
(1)
1
1
1
(0)
SLUDGE
WASTED
% VOL. SOLIDS
(2)
100
74
87
(1)
87
87
87
(2)
100
93
97
(1)
77
77
77
(0)
-------
(PLANT NO. 2 - SMALL UNIT) SLUDGE
PERIOD
Oct. 17 - Oct. 31
(15 Days)
No. Data Points
Maximum
Minimum
Average
RETURN
SLUDGE
G.P.M.
(15)
42
42
42
SETT. SOLIDS
RETURN SLUDGE
ml/l/hr
(15)
1000
980
990
SLUDGE
WASTED
GALLONS
(15)
4000
0
267
SLUDGE
WASTED
% SOLIDS
(0)
SLUDGE
WASTED
% VOL. SOLIDS
(0)
-------
APPENDIX III
Summary of Bacteriological Study of Waste Water and Wood Pulp Samples
One sample each of mill waste, mill effluent, and wood pulp
were obtained by Dr. R. S. tngols from the mill of Armstrong Cork
Company, Macon, Georgia. Bacteriological analysis of these samples
was initiated within 48 hours after their delivery to the laboratory.
Design of the analysis was to provide more definitive infor-
mation on the aerobic and facultative anaerobic bacteria in these
samples showing fermentation in lactose broth. The specific question
was whether another genus would give positive results with the Standard
Methods procedure for faecal Escherichia coli.
In the limited time available for the study selected differen-
tial culture methods were used to isolate E. coli and lactose-positive
bacteria. A total of twenty-five (25) bacteria from among the mill
samples submitted were isolated by the culture methods indicated in
Table 1. In addition to bacterial colonies showing lactose fermentation
on primary differential media certain colonies were selected on the
basis of appearance and subsequent Gram reaction as suspected coliform
organisms. With the exception of Isolate #1 the reaction of these
isolates in lactose fermentation broth (Durham tubes) is shown in Table
2. All isolates fermenting lactose with the formation of gas were Gram-
negative bacilli; all other bacteria among the 25 isolates were also
Gram-negative bacilli.
The influence of mixed-bacterial populations on results ob-
tained in the lactose broth test for coliforms is suggested by the re-
sults shown in Table 3. Suppression of the lactose-positive bacteria
apparently occurred in two out of the three samples tested in lactose
broth. Lactose broth, therefore, does not appear to be a reliable first
or presumptive test for the presence of coliform bacteria in these mill
samples; the number of false negative reaction could be expected to be
high.
A direct cultural examination of the mill samples for the
presence of faecal Escherichia coli was made by inoculation of the sam-
ples into E-C medium (Difco) at 45.5C. All three samples produced growth
and gas formation within 72 hours (Table 4) as a positive test.
Individual bacterial cultures isolated from the mill samples
were also tested in the E-C medium at 45.5C; also tested were mixed
cultures of selected isolates. Isolates Nos. 21, 23, 24, and 15 pro-
duced growth and gas formation in mixed as well as in pure culture,
indicating that in the limited reconstituted systems over-growth of
cultures suppressing development of gas-forming organisms did not occur.
119
-------
Other organisms included in the original twenty-five (25) isolates from
mill samples fermenting lactose with gas formation were tested in the
E-C medium at 45.5C. Only two (2) additional isolates (os. 16 and 25)
produced growth under this condition but did not produce gas (Table 7).
Since the immediate objective of this study was to examine the
mill waste samples for the identity of the lactose positive samples as
possibly E_._ coli, control cultures of a number of members of the
Enterobacteriaceae were tested in the E-C medium at 45.5C. Only one
genus -- Klebsiella-produced growth and gas; Escherichia coli,
Citrobacter sp., Proteus mirabilis, and Providencia gtuartii produced
growth but no gas; Enterobacter cloacae and E. aerogenes showed marginal
growth only (Table 6).
Similarly, parallel biochemical tests were done with control
cultures of Enterobacteriaceae and lactose-positive isolates from mill
waste to determine the degree of affinity between the two sets of
bacterial cultures. The tentative identification of the mill waste
isolates is based exclusively on a comparison of these cultures with
those in the control group. Hence, the identification is actually a
'most like1 affinity of the unknown to a particular genus in the control
group, members of this group, particularly E. coli, being the organisms
of specific interest in terms of the disposal requirements for the mill
waste.
Results of the biochemical tests for both groups are in Table
7 (mill isolates) and Table 8 (control group). A presumptive grouping
of the mill isolates according to their affinity to a particular genus
in the control group is contained in Tables 9 and 10.
One isolate - No. 15, mill effluent-appears to be Escherichia
coli; the majority showing greater similarity to the Klebsiella-
Enterobacter genera. The 'most like' affinity basis for these identifica-
tions are emphasized. Positive identification of the isolates will re-
quire more detailed studies.
Several results were obtained from this limited study that
indicate a direct relevancy to the examination of wastes from wood pro-
cessing. The IMViC (indole, methyl red, Voges-Proskauer, citrate)
reactions and reaction on cellobiose might be a presumptive test group
for lactose-positive isolates suspected as being E. coli. More exten-
sive testing of different strains of E. coli and Proteus sp. will be
necessary to prove the validity of this hypothesis.
Another result of significance is the positive test by
Klebsiella in the E-C medium at 45.5C, a source of possible confusion
with fecal E. coli. Also, Proteus mirabilis and "£_._ stuartii, like £_._
coli in the control group, produced growth but no gas. Recognizing the
strict requirement for control of temperature in the performance of
this test, further inquiry should be made into the confirmation of these
findings.
120
-------
presence of ^ f* ^^^ ScreenlnS of wood waste-water for the
bile emeln8 b3Cterla sh°uld be studied in brilliant
t0 avoid false
twe "suits, apparently due to over-growth of populations suppressing
the lactose-positive bacteria.
Submitted by
Edward L. Fincher,
Consultant
121
-------
TABLE 1
Cultural Sources of Bacterial Isolates
From Waste Water and Sewage Samples
Bacterial
Isolate
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
Primary Primary Culture Lactose
Sample Source Medium Fermentation
Mill Waste Trypticase Soy Agar
(11/15/69) " " " +
M n it n
n it ii n i
it it it ii _
" Desoxycholate Agar
it it it §
it 11 n _|_
M II It _
Municipal Sewage Eosin-Methylene Blue Agar +
(11/15/69) " " " " +
n n n it ii
Mill Waste " " " " +
(11/15/69) " " " " +
Mill Effluent Desoxycholate Agar +
(12/12/69) " " +
" Brilliant Green Bile Broth
n ii ii n n i
,,
White Water Desoxycholate Agar +
(12/12/69) " " +
n it it
it it n i
Pulp Waste " " +
(12/12/69) " "
*Durham fermentation tube.
122
-------
TABLE 2
Fermentation Tests - 35 C.
Isolate (AJ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~
Brilliant Green Bi
3) 18 Hrs.
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
+/-
4-7-
4-7-
+/-
+/-
+/-
4-73
4-7-
4-7 1
+7-
+75
+72
4-7-
4-7-
+/-
4-/10
+/-
-/-
4-7-
+/-
-7-
__— — — —
36 Hrs.
+/15
4-7-
4-7-
+/-
4-7-
4-7-
+/-
4-7-
4-7-
4-/12
4-7-
4-738
4-/6
4-/ 10
4-76
+/-
+/-
4-7-
4-7 50
+/17
-/-
4-7 14
4-/25
-7-
— _ —
le Broth
54 Hrs.
4-/25
+/-
+/8
+/-
4-7-
4-7-
4-7 10
4Y-
4-7-
4-/12
4-7-
+/38
+79
4-7 10
+/ 12
4-7-
+74
+/-
+/40
+/ 18
-7-
4-/ 14
+/25
-7-
.,
Lactose Broth
18 Hrs.
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
+7-
4-7-
4-7-
4-7-
4-77
4-7-
4-73
+/-
+/-
4-7-
4-7-
4-/4
+/-
-7-
+/-
+/-
-7-
_.
36 Hrs.
+/9
4-7-
4-73
+7-
+/-
+7-
4-/9
+/-
4-7-
4-75
4-7-
4-/ 20
4-74
+/ 13
+/-
+7-
+73
+/-
+/15
+72
+/-
+72
+/ 12
+7-
54 Hrs
4-7 15
4-7-
4-78
4-7-
4-7-
+76
4-/20
+7-
+72
+75
4-7-
4-7 20
4-7 10
+79
+73
+/-
+78
+/-
+717
+77
+/-
+78
4-/12
+7-
Growth/No Gas (-) or quantity of gas in
mm.
123
-------
TABLE 3
Direct Inoculation of Waste Water Samples
Into Fermentation Media
Primary
Sample Source
Mill Effluent
White Water
Pulp Waste
Inoc.
Size
1 ml
1 ml
Loop
Brilliant
25C
+/9
+/13
+/2
Green Bile Broth
35C
-I-/45
+/32
+/33
Lactose Broth
25C 35C
+/2 +/*
+/- +/-
+/- +/-
* * * * * *
TABLE 4
Direct Inoculation of Waste Water Samples
Into E-C Medium at 45.5C
Primary
Sample Source
Mill Effluent
ii ii
White Water
it ii
Pulp Waste
Inoculum
Size
Loop
1 ml
Loop
1 ml
Loop
Incubation Time
24 48
+/- +/-
+/25 +/25
+/1 +/4
+/- +/13
+/- +/7
- Hours
72
+/-
+/26
+/4
+/13
+/8
+/ = Growth; /No. mm = Gas
124
-------
TABLE 5
Growth and Gas Formation of Single and Recombined
Bacterial Isolates in E-C Medium at 45.5C
Incubation Time - Hours
Culture Number 24 48 72
13/14/20/21/22/23 +/- +/11 +/13
13 -/- -/- -/-
14 ./. _/. -/-
20 -/- -/- -/-
21 +/3 +/14 +/16
22 +/- +/- +/-
23 +/- +/12 +/14
24/25 +/-
24 +/-
25 +/- +/- +/-
15/16/17/18/19 +/13 +/16 +/15
16/17/18/19 +/- +/- +/"
15 +/15 +/17 +/17
16 +/- +/- +/"
17 +/- +/" +/^"
18 -/- -/- ~l~
19 -/- -/- -/-
+/ = Growth; /No. mm = quantity of gas
Inoculum Source: trypticase soy broth (5 ml), 16 hrs., 33C.
Inoculum Size: 0.1 ml into 10 ml E-C medium
125
-------
TABLE 6
Growth and Gas Formation of Selected Enterobacteriaceae
in E-C Medium at 45.5C
Incubation Time - Hours
Culture 24 48 72
Escherichia coli +/- +/- +/•
Citrobacter sp. ±/- +/- +/-
Enterobacter cloacae ±/- ±/- ±/-
Enterobacter aerogenes ±/- ±/- ±/-
Enterobacter hafniae -/- -/- -/-
Enterobacter liquefaciens -/- -/- -/-
Pectobacterium sp. -/- -/- -/-
Proteus vulgaris -/- -/- -/-
Proteus mirabilis +/- +/- +/-
Proteus morganii -/- -/- -/-
Proteus rettgeri -/- -/- -/-
Providencia alcalifaciens -/- -/- -/-
Providencia stuartii +/- +/- +/-
Klebsiella sp, +/-
+ / = Growth; /No. mm = Gas
Inoculum source: trypticase soy broth (5 ml), 16 hrs., 33C,
Inoculum size: 0.1 ml into 10 ml E-C medium
126
-------
TABLE 7
Biochemical Reactions of Lactose-Positive Bacterial Isolates from Mill Waste Water and Municipal Sewage
Biochemical Tests
Mill Waste Water Isolates Sewage
2 7 8 13 14 15 16 18 20 21 23 24 25 10 11
Indole -
Methyl Red - + +
Voges-ProSo +
Simmons Citrate + +
H2S(SIM)
Urease +
Motility ± +
Gelatin -
Lactose + + +
Sucrose H- + +
Mannitol + + -f
Inositol +
Arabinose +/NG +/NG -
Cellobiose + + +
E-C Medium-45.5C -
+/ = growth
*"* *"" "T" ™««»»|«»™M"-™™
- + + + +
+ -- + + + + + + ---
+ + . + + + + + ± + + +
- +
+ + - + + + + + + - ±±
± + ±±--±± + + ±
o o o - -
+ + + + + + + + + +/NG + +
+ + + + + +/NG + + + 0 + +
+ + + + + +/NG + + + 0 + +
+ + - + + +/NG +/NG + + 0 +/NG +/NG
+/NG - - +/NG +/NG +/NG +/NG +/NG +/NG 0 - +/NG
+ + - + + +/NG + + + 0 +
+/G +/NG - - +/G +/G +/G +/NG -
/G = gas; /NG = no gas 0 = test not done
-------
TABLE 8
Biochemical Reactions of Control Cultures of Selected Genera
from Enterobacteriaceae
CO
Cl)
co
0)
ctf
O
cfl
•rl
r— 1
o
o
Cfl
•H
43
0
•H
01
CJ
CO
w
o
« 1— 1
ft
co
j_i
01
J-J
o
cfl
O
rl
•rl
0
rl
CO
4-J
O
ctf
O
!-<
CO
S
w
B
CO
60
O
M
0)
cfl
J_l
CO
4-1
O
ctf
fi
O
M
0)
d
w
•rl
O
CO
CO
•rl
B
M-l
CO
J_j
0!
4-)
u
cfl
rQ
O
rl
CO
4-1
d
w
ctf
4-1
0)
0
tr
•rl
r-l
S-i
CO
4J
CJ
43
O
rl
CD
4J
d
w
CO
d
O
rl
PM
CO
•rl
0
d
01
"O
•rl
^
O
rM
PH
*
f*^ul
CO
cO
r-l
r-l
co
•rl
co
43
CO
r-l
M
Indole +___ + _ + -)-_-(- + _
Methyl Red + + - _ + + _ + + + + +
Voges-Pros. -- + + + ±------
Simmons Citrate _ + + + _.(- + __ _ + +
H2S(SIM) _ + ±____ + + + __
Urease _-f + __±_ + 4-4- + _
Motility + + + + + d +/- + + + + +
Gelatin _____-). + + + ___
Lactose + d + + -/+ d d
Sucrose - d + + - + + + d- ±/NG d
Mannitol + + + + + + + - - - +/NG -
Inositol + + +/NG - +/NG -
Arabinose +/NG + - 4/NG+/NG - -i/NG +/NG - - +/NG -
Cellobiose -0 + + ----00 ±/NG 0
E-C Medium-45.5C 4/NG ±/NG - ±/NG - +/NG -
-f
d +
0 +
+/NG +/G
d = different biochemical types (+, (+), -) (+) delayed positive - Ewing
0 = test not done
+/- = majority positive!
-/+ = majority negativej
128
Ewing
-------
TABLE 9
Presumptive Grouping of Lactose-Positive Isolates
Isolate
Number
15
10
11
14
2
13
16
18
20
21
23
24
7
8
25
Primary Source
of Water Sample
Mill Effluent
— — — "^ - ' ' " || """ - • 1 — . |
Sewage
Sewage
Mill Waste
Mill Waste
Mill Waste
Mill Effluent
Mill Effluent
White Water
White Water
White Water
Pulp Waste
Mill Waste
Mill Waste
Pulp Waste
Escherichia
Citrobacter
Klebsiella-
Enterobacter
(Aerobacter)
Proteus-Providence
Unknown
129
-------
TABLE 10
Isolate
Number
15
10
11
14
2
13
16
18
20
21
23
24
7
Tentative Genera and
Species Identification
Probable Possible
Escherichia coli
Citrobacter-like
Citrobacter-like
Citrobacter-like
Klebsiella Enterobacter
cloacae
Enterobacter cloacae Klebsiella
Klebsiella Enterobacter
aerogenes
Enterobacter cloacae Klebsiella
Enterobacter cloacae Klebsiella
Klebsiella
Klebsiella
Klebsiella
Providencia
alcalifaciens-
8
25
like
130
-------
SCREENED WASTE FROM:
ARMSTRONG CORK AND
CITY OF MACON
SCREENED WASTE FROM'
GEORGIA KRAFT
tr
I-
LU
tr
i
a:
o
Q
LU
X
PUMPS PH
LU
MIXING BOX
HIGH RATE BIO-FILTERS
z
QC
1-
LU
cr
in
o
a
a
1,
4
1
4 n
^l ' %
^
••
•
RAT
\
ION
f i
i
BA
«.
SI N£
^
' V
WASTE SLUDGE
SLUDGE DRYING S
INCINERATION
CHLORINE CONTACT
CHAMBER
PLANT EFFLUENT
APPENDIX IV
FLOW DIAGRAM
JOINT TREATMENT FACILITY
-ill-
-------
Accession Number
Subject Field & Group'
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Title
Board of Water Commissioners
City of Macon
Macon, Georgia
Combined Treatment of Municipal, Kraft Linerboard, and Fiberboard
Manufacturing Wastes,
10
Authors)
Clark, Edward A.
Goulding, Randolph
Ingols, Robert S.
Turner, Billy G.
16
21
Project Designation
EPA 11060DPD
Note
22
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
*Sewage Treatment, *Activated Sludge, *Pilot Plants, *Cost Sharing, *Chlorination,
Municipal Wastes, Wood Wastes, Nutrient Requirements, Sludge, Biochemical Oxygen
Demand, Cost Analysis, Aerobic Treatment, Filtration, Oxygen Requirements, Settling
Basins, Sludge Disposal, Biological Treatment, Dewatering
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
^Mechanical Aeration, *High Rate Plastic Media Bio-Filter, *Combined Treatment,
Shock Loads,
27
Abstract
The successful treatment of prorated quantities of domestic waste and
wastewater from an 850 ton-per-day kraft linerboard mill and a 600 ton-per-day
groundwood-cold caustic fiberboard mill was obtained in a 120 gallon-per-minute pilot
plant. The pilot plant consisted of combined and/or separate primary sedimentation
followed by two parallel secondary treatment systems each of which received half of the
plant influent. One secondary system consisted of twenty-four hours of aeration while
the other consisted of a high rate plastic media bio-filter followed by fifteen hours of
aeration. Both systems had secondary sedimentation .and sludge return and both averaged
approximately ninety-two percent BOD removal.
Auxilary studies indicated that supplementary nutrients were not required, that
chlorination was the best means of disinfection but required large amounts chlorine, and
that settled secondary sludge, containing one to three percent solids, was difficult to
dewater.
Estimated construction costs for combined and separate treatment plants were pre-
pared. A treatment plant utilizing plastic media bio-filters along with fifteen-hour
aeration was the most economical combined facility and was more economical than separate
facilities. (Clark, J, J, & G)
Abstractor
Clark« Edward A.
Institution
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia
WR:J02 {REV. JULY *969)
WRS1 C
SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
* GPQ: 1969-359-339
------- |