United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industral Environmental Research EPA-600 2-78 105
Laboratory May 19 78
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
&EPA
Biological Treatment
of Wastes From the
Corn Wet Milling
Industry
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-105
May 1978
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF WASTES FROM
THE CORN WET MILLING INDUSTRY
by
Donald R. Brown
Gretchen L. Van Meer
Argo, Illinois 60501
Grant No. 12060 DPE
Project Officer
Max W. Cochrane
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati (lERL-Ci), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the ^opftents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial product^ consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and econo-
mically.
"Biological Treatment of Wastes from the Corn Wet Milling Industry" was
a part of the Industrial Pollution Control Division's program to develop and
demonstrate new technology for the treatment of industrial wastes. A full-
scale completely mixed activated sludge system was constructed to process
0.9 MGD of corn wet milling process wastewater. In order to assure a func-
tional biological system modifications to both the equalization basin and
sludge thickening were required. Although the waste is amenable to
aerobic biological degradation, problems were encountered in consistently
maintaining an effluent BOD and suspended solids that met design effluent
standards.
For further information contact the Food and Wood Products Branch of
the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
m
-------
ABSTRACT
The Pekin, Illinois plant of CPC International Inc, is treating 0.9
mgd of corn wet milling process wastes with a completely mixed activated
sludge system. Laboratory studies had shown that this treatment method
would produce a satisfactory effluent; in addition? a simultaneous pilot
plant study had shown that an aerated lagoon would also provide satis-
factory treatment for either the process wastes alone or combined with
the plant's 18 mgd of cooling water. Economic factors dictated the
selection of the activated sludge plant.
Problems encountered during initial stages of operation of the waste
treatment facility included the splitting of the rubber liners in the
equalization and aeration tanks, and odor problems that developed in the
thickener and the equalization tank, The rubber liners were replaced
with concrete. The thickener was converted to an aerated biomass storage tank.
The equalization tank design was modified and aeration w,as increased.
The major problem with the Pekin activated sludge waste treatment plant
has been its failure to consistently meet effluent suspended solids
criteria, Efforts to reduce effluent suspended solids levels have
included nutrient analyses, examination of the effects of the food-to-
microorganism ratio (F/M), pH, and hydraulic loading; and the use of a
cationic polymer as a flocculating agent in the clarifier overflow.
Although these efforts have resulted in considerable improvement in per-
formance compared with initial operation, the effluent still does not
consistently meet the design effluent standards.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number 12060DPE under
the partial sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword , "•
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgments xii
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
Purpose of Project 5
Biological Treatment: Completely Mixed Activated Sludge 8
Background 9
IV Laboratory and Pilot Plant Development Stuides 11
Pilot Plant: Aeration Pond-Settling Pond System 12
Laboratory Studies 21
Completely Mixed Activated Sludge 21
Batch Tests 30
V Design Basis 39
Equalization 39
Cooling 39
Aerati on 43
Clarification 47
Dissolved Air Flotation 48
Solids Thickening ,,.. 49
Final Effluent Reaeration 4 50
VI Plant Startup and Operation: November 1970-September 1971 51
Rubber Liner Problems 53
Equalization Tank and Thickener Odor Problems 62
VII Plant Operation: October 1971-January 1973 65
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 66
Suspended Sol ids 77
Nutrient Addition 77
Hydraulic Loading 81
Food-to-Microorganism Ratio (F/M) 81
Chemical Flocculants [ 85
Effect of pH 87
Biomass Yield , 89
Effect of Di ssolved Oxygen 89
Costs 90
Summary , 90
VIII References 93
IX List of Publications 95
X Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 97
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
XI Appendices
A. Laboratory and Pilot Plant Analytical Methods 99
B. Original Data from the Pekin Waste Treatment Plant 105
of CPC International, Inc., November 1970-August 1971
C. Original Data from the Pekin Waste Treatment Plant 112
of CPC International, Inc., October 1971-January 1973
D. Treatment Plant performance, January 1973-September 1975 , 143
E. Metric conversion factors T,. 147
F. Additional project cost data 148
G. Additional statistical studies r. 149
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1. The Corn Refining Process 6
2. Aeration Pond Pilot Plant Flow Diagram 13
3. Pilot Plant Aeration Pond 16
4. Foaming Problem in Pilot Plant Aeration Pond 17
5. Pilot Plant Settling Pond and Aeration Pond 18
6. Frozen Pilot Plant Aeration Pond 19
7. Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus on Effluent Soluble COD 20
8. Early Aeration Pond Cultures 22
9. Later Aeration Pond Cultures 23
10. Schematic Drawing of Laboratory Activated Sludge Reactor 24
11. Effect of F/M on Growth Rate of MLSS 29
12. Effect of F/M on Conversion Yield of MLSS 31
13. Effect of F/M on Oxygen Uptake Rate 33
14. Unit Rate of Removal in Laboratory Reactors 34
15; Reactor Cultures: Undesirable Growth 36
16. Reactor Cultures: Improved Growth 37
17. Pekin Waste Treatment Plant Flow Diagram 40
18. Pekin Waste Treatment Facility 41
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
No. Page
19. Pekin Waste Treatment Facility 42
20. COD Concentration: Semi-monthly Averages 52
21 Influent Total COD Concentration: Probability of 54
Occurrence
22. Effluent Total COD Concentration: Probability of 55
Occurrence
23. Effluent Suspended Solids: Semi-monthly Averages 56
24. Effluent Suspended Solids; Probability of Occurrence 57
25. Equalization Basin Liner Problems 58
26. Aeration Tank Problems 60
27. Repair Work in Aeration Tank and Equalization Basin 61
28. Concentrated Waste Flow, October 1971-January 1973 67
29. BOD as a Function of Effluent COD, Plant Operation 69
30. Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Influent and Effluent 71
31. Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Percent Removed 72
32. Effluent BOD: Probability of Occurrence 73
33. BOD Removal as a Function of Recycle Rate 75
34. BOD Removal as a Function of F/M 76
vm
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
No. Page
35. Effluent Suspended Solids as a Function of Hydraulic 82
Loading
36. Effluent Suspended Solids as a Function of F/M 83
37. Effluent Suspended Solids: Probability of Occurrence 88
38. Effluent BOD as a Function of Effluent Suspended Solids 92
39. Sample Data from Batch Test 101
40. Effect of TbOD on Unit Rate of Removal 103
41. Probability Graph: Flow, January-December 1972 150
42. Probability Graph: Effluent BOD mg/1, Jan-Dec 1972 151
43. Probability Graph: Effluent SS mg/1, Jan-Dec 1972 152
44. Probability Graph: Effluent BOD Ib/day, Jan-Dec 1972 153
45. Probability Graph: Effluent SS Ib/day, Jan-Dec 1972 154
46. Probability Graph: Effluent BOD lb/1000 BU, Jan-Dec 1972 155
47. Probability Graph: Effluent SS lb/1000 Bu, Jan-Dec 1972 156
48. Probability Graph: Flow, July-Dec 1972 157
49. Probability Graph: Effluent BOD mg/1, July-Dec 1972 158
50. Probability Graph: Effluent SS mg/1, July-Dec 1972 159
51. Probability Graph: Effluent BOD Ib/day, July-Dec 1972 160
-------
LIST OF FIGURE?
(continued)
No. Page
52. Probability Graph: Effluent SS lb/day, July-Dec 1972 161
53. Probability Graph: Effluent BOD Ib/lQQO Bu, July-Dec 1972 162
54. Probability Graph: Effluent SS lb/1000 Bu, July-Dec 1972 163
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1. Laboratory Reactor Studies 27
2. Continuous Laboratory Reactor Oxygen Uptake Analyses 32
Summa ry
3. Correlation Coefficients, BOD as a Function of COD 68
4= Rotifer Growth in Activated Sludge Systems 79
5. Analysis of Pekin Final Effluent During C-300 Test 86
6. Sample Data for Batch Test 102
7. Metric Conversion Factors 147
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special acknowledgment is due to Mr. H. 0. Sensing, Chief Chemist
(retired) of the Pekin Plant of CPC International, Inc., who super-
vised the pilot plant and laboratory treatability studies. All
analytical services were provided by personnnel of the laboratory
at the Pekin Plant.
The pilot plant and laboratory studies, and the full scale plant
design, were done under the direction of Dr. W. B. Davis, who at
that time was associated with Texas A & M University.
The guidance of Clifford Risley, Jr., EPA Office of Research
and Monitoring, Region V, and Prpject Officer Max Cochrane, are
acknowledged with sincere thanks.
XII
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Corn wet milling wastes are readily biodegradable in a completely
mixed activated sludge process. However, incomplete suspended
biological solids removal has resulted in failure to meet the
expected effluent quality at the Pekin, Illinois plant of CPC
International Inc.
2. Aerated lagoon treatment was studied in a pilot plant and a laboratory
study was made of completely mixed activated sludge treatment. The
aerated lagoon study of corn wet milling wastes indicated good
soluble chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal when treating either
a dilute mixture of combined process waste and cooling water or the
concentrated stream of process wastes alone. The activated sludge
study resulted in data for rate of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
removal, oxygen uptake, and biomass yield for design of a full-scale
treatment plant for treating the concentrated process wastes. Economic
factors dictated the selection of the activated sludge system. The
total waste flow of 13-25 million gallons per day (mgd) from the
plant included process wastes, cooling water, and sanitary wastes.
The sanitary wastes were isolated and sent to the Pekin municipal
treatment plant, and the cooling water did not require treatment.
The activated sludge plant was therefore designed to treat the
0.9 mgd of process wastes.
3. The waste treatment plant as designed and modified often removes
90% or more of incoming BOD. Removal of organic solubles is usually
satisfactory. However, to meet the design effluent criteria of
40 milligrams per liter (mg/1) BOD, BOD removal must be on the order
of 97 to 99%. High effluent suspended biological solids concentrations
prevent meeting both the suspended solids and BOD criteria for more
than a few days at a time. The influent BOD fluctuations are
-------
considerable, largely due to the variability in both the raw material
and the factory production schedule. Deterioration of effluent
quality can nearly always be traced to a shock load of 2 to 5 times
the normal load of BOD, which results in poor separation of biomass
in the clarifier and flotation cell. The result is failure to meet
both the effluent suspended solids and effluent BOD criteria. The
suspended solids are unflocculated bacteria, formed during the
biological reaction. The BOD in the effluent is almost entirely
due to these suspended bacteria.
4. Increase in biomass recycle rates, from 25-35% to 75-100% of the
supply, and reaeration of the recycled biomass resulted in $ome
improvement in solids separation. Also, under some conditions,
addition of 10 mg/1 of a cationic polymer to the clarifier overr
flow, followed by the dissolved air flotation, resulted in a satis-
factory effluent quality of less than 25 mg/1 suspended solids.
Addition of nutrients to produce a BOD:N:P ratio near the recommended
minimum ratio of 100:5:1 resulted in an improved population of
suitable microorganisms, thereby improving the quality of treatment,
As of this writing, an effluent suspended solids level of 35 mg/1
or less is being achieved about 25 per cent of the time.
5. It appears that the major problems encountered in the treatment of
corn wet milling wastes are: (a) dealing with the variations in
waste that are the inevitable result of using a natural product
subject to variations in composition and quality, and (b) reduction
of suspended solids in the final effluent. As of this writing, no
method of adequately reducing the effluent suspended solids to meet
water quality standards has been found with any treatment method or
combination of treatment methods tried with the existing treatment
plant.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the treatment of corn wet milling wastes by a completely mixed
activated sludge system it is recommended that:
1. process wastes be isolated from cooling water and sanitary
wastes for the most economical and efficient treatment.
2. equalization be used to reduce shock loads to aeration
tanks, and to minimize the variability that results from
using a natural product such as corn? and having a vari-
able production schedule,
3, odor prevention methods be used, including aerating
equalization tanks and avoiding the use of large thick-
eners or other equipment where biomass is held without
oxygen for long periods,
4, nutrient analyses be made to determine any need for addi-
tions of nitrogen, phosphorus, and trace elements to
provide a complete growth medium for appropriate micro-
organisms.
5, the use of flocculating chemicals, together with solids
removal equipment such as flotation cells, or other
effluent polishing devices be included in waste treatment
plant design for corn wet milling wastes, to help reduce
effluent suspended solids,
-------
6. additional studies be made to determine the best method of
obtaining lower effluent suspended solids concentrations.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The corn wet milling industry, also called the corn refining industry,
gets its name because large quantities of water are used to separate
and refine the constituent parts of the corn kernel, For every bushel
of corn processed, 12 to 15 gallons of water are used in direct contact
with the corn or its components. A simplified flow chart of the pro-
cess is shown in Figure 1.
The industry is comprised of 12 companies with 17 domestic plants. The
converted products in the industry are worth over $700 million annually,
The 500 different products include adhesives, food ingredients, animal
feed., and consumer products, serving 60 industries in the food, chemical
and heavy industry areas.
The over-all efficiency of the corn wet milling process is high, uti-
lizing close to 100% of the input material. However, trace amounts of
end products such as syrups, sugar, and starch are found in the waste
process water, Up until the present study was done, no information was
available on specific guidelines and operating parameters for the treat-
ment of wet milling wastes. For this reason, a Federal EPA research
and demonstration grant was awarded to CPC International Inc. with the
objective of utilizing laboratory reactor data to design a full-scale
treatment facility at the Pekin, Illinois plant, A one-year demonstra-
tion period was included to determine if the laboratory data resulted
in an adequate design, It was believed that this information, while
directly applicable only to the special circumstances of the Pekin plant
-------
FIGURE 1
THE CORN REFINING PROCESS
SHELLED CORN
STEEPW ATER
STEEPWATER
EVAPORATORS
1
SJEEPWATER
C'O N C E N T R A IE S
t
^TftpWlTFP . HUU
CONCENTRATES
FOR SHIPMENT
. GEUTEN
FEED D R E R 5
I
FEEDS
1
f STARCH DRIERS 1
f 1
W MARCHES 0/o*m,liK
A
D E X TR 1 NS
III CORN CLEANERS
STORAGE
-
2id CORN CLEANERS
STEEP TANKS
DEGERMINATORS
GERM SEPARATORS
CERM
IY«IHI« t 0«t IHC L
of u(«s n
| . i_
(RINDING MILLS
WASHINC
SCREENS
CRUDE
1 OIL
1 1 1 i R 5
1
1 CENTRIFUGAL
1 ...--' "1 {FPARATOX
C E N T R
F U Q A L
A T 0 R S
I
WINTERIZING
STARCH
WAtHIHS FIlTtrS
•
T
|
1
FILTERS
1
REFINED OIL
*
SYRUP i SUGAR
coHvmois
1
R I r 1 N 1 N C
I
CORN SYRUP
OIL EXTRACTORS _
"* S I 0 C KJ
CO R N 0 IL J
MEAL r
1
. DRUM or SPRAY
* DRIERS
SUGAR
ctTsumim
1 I
CORN SYRUP SOLIDS
CENTRIFUCALS
JL
DEXTROSE
-------
of CPC International Inc., would prove useful in the selection and
design of waste treatment systems for other corn wet milling plants,
and possibly for the cane and beet sugar, and the potato, wheat and
rice starch industries.
The scope of the grant included biological treatment and biomass separa-
tion, but did not include methods for excess biomass disposal, which are
not discussed in this report.
The only water-borne waste from the actual milling of corn and separa-
tion into its components is the condensate resulting from the evapora-
tion of steepwater. The condensate contains volatile substances which
are formed during the steeping process and vaporized during evaporation,
and some entrained steepwater solids.
In-plant sources of other liquid wastes vary, depending on the products
made and the processes used. Possible sources include filtrates from
the preparation of modified starches, with associated dissolved chem-
icals used for modification if any, and some soluble carbohydrate formed
during the process. Other possible sources result from the refining of
corn syrups and dextrose,
CPC International Inc, operates four wet milling plants in the United
States, Two of these pay for treatment of their wastes in municipal
treatment plants. In the past, the other two discharged waste directly
to the waterways. As awareness of the environmental effects of this
discharge increased, it became evident that this practice could not
continue, Hence, a program was undertaken at the Pekin plant of CPC
International Inc, to determine the most economical waste treatment
method to meet the effluent standards then in existence,
-------
Since the waste products from the wet milling process are primarily
biodegradable carbohydrates, biological treatment was the method of
choice for the treatment of the concentrated waste stream,
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT: COMPLETELY MIXED ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Biological wastewater treatment consists of a combination of inter-
related operations, beginning with the transfer of impurities from the
wastewater to film, floe, or other forms of biomass by interfacial
contact and associated absorptions and adsorptions. This process is
fast and effective if the interface between the liquid and the biomass
is large, if the concentration gradient of the substances to be removed
from one phase to the other is steep, and if obstructive liquid films
and concentrations of interfering substances do not build up on the
interface. Quality, therefore, as well as extent of contact is
important.
Second and equally important is the preservation of this quality of
contact, accomplished primarily by the biological oxidation of organic
matter and synthesis of new cells, Contact quality is maintained
because of the tendency of dissolved matter to change in concentration
so as to decrease surface tension in the biotic film or floe. Sub-
stances concentrating at surfaces are adsorbed, then decomposed by the
accumulating enzymes of living cells. New cells are then synthesized,
and the end products of decomposition are washed into the waters or
escape to the atmosphere. Finally, conversion of the biomass into
settleable or otherwise removable solids proceeds as a function of the
quality of contact, and determines the over-all effectiveness of the
process ,
In the activated sludge system, air is provided continuously to keep
the units aerobic, in spite of heavy concentrations of living organisms.
-------
In order to operate the process on a continuous basis, the solids gener-
ated must be separated for recycle to the aeration tank, with the excess
o
sludge from the system being withdrawn for disposal ,
In the completely mixed activated sludge system, influent waste and the
recycled sludge are immediately and uniformly mixed in the aeration
tank. This allows for uniform oxygen demand throughout the aeration
tank, and adds some operational stability when treating shock loads of
industrial waste. However, when there are unusually large variations
in waste, equalization must be used to smooth out some of the variation
prior to aeration.
BACKGROUND
Because of both the nature of the raw product and the nature of the
production schedule of most plants, wastes in the corn wet milling
industry are subject to unusually large variations, The raw products
corn, is a natural product, subject to significant variations as a
result of weather and other factors. The production schedule is unique
in that it is more economical to run the various portions of the plant
at full production capacity for a number of days each week, shutting
down and starting up a major portion of the plant each weekend, Some
products have seasonal cycles, while others have relatively stable
demands. In addition, finished product inventories are kept to a mini-
mum because natural products have a limited storage life.
Waste sources in the Pekin plant consist of process water, cooling
water, and sanitary wastes, with a total flow of 13-25 mgd. The pollu-
tion abatement program began with several major in-plant changes for
the purpose of reducing the waste load to be treated.
-------
BOD was reduced by about half by isolating sanitary wastes and diverting
them to the Pekin municipal treatment plant; by installation of new
process control instruments in critical areas; by operator and super-
visor training regarding process losses, supported by an extensive
waste stream monitoring system; and by discontinuing an intermittently
operated process which generated a large, difficult to treat waste load.
When these changes were made, process wastes and cooling water were com-
bined in a single effluent, During the treatability studies described
later in this report, economic studies showed that it was more econom-
ical to isolate the process wastes for treatment, as the cooling water
discharge met the effluent water quality standards in effect at the
time. Separating the cooling water flow of 18 mgd left the process
water, which averaged 0.9 mgd, to be treated. This process water is
referred to as the concentrated waste stream,
It was estimated that prior to the waste reduction program, process and
sanitary waste flows totalled 1,6 mgd, so the program resulted in reduc-
ing the flow to be treated by about 45%. Much of the flow reduction was
due to the abandoned process (0.29 mgd) and the sanitary wastes (0.1
mgd}. Cooling water flow rates were not affected by the waste reduction
program.
At the Pekin plant, the major waste sources are from production to dex-
trose, corn syrup, steepwater, and starch, The contribution of each of
the waste sources varies considerably on a time basis, but the general
composition indicates that the concentrated raw waste stream is made up
of about 35% from the corn syrup channel, 25% from volatiles in the
steepwater channel, 20% from the dry starch channel, 15% from the steep-
water entrainment, and 5% from the dextrose channel. Treatment of the
concentrated process waste stream is the subject of this report.
10
-------
SECTION IV
LABORATORY AND PILOT PLANT DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Two methods of waste treatment were considered for the Pekin plant: a
completely mixed, activated sludge process operating on a concentrated
waste stream, and a simple aeration lagoon and quiescent pond process
which could operate on the dilute plant waste stream, consisting of a
combination of process wastes and cooling water. Two parallel process
investigations were undertaken to determine the feasibility and econom-
ics of each method, The dilute waste lagooning process was studied in
a pilot plant, to determine the effects of summer and winter operation,
and to obtain effluent quality data on the system for year-around
operation. Simultaneously, a laboratory investigation of a completely
mixed activated sludge process was implemented using concentrated waste.
The studies showed both methods to be suitable for obtaining satisfac-
tory effluent quality. However, the completely mixed activated sludge
process was more economical than the aerated lagoon settling pond
process.
Results from the laboratory tests provided information on rate of COD
removal, rate of oxygen utilization, biomass growth rate, and character-
istics of microbial cultures grown in corn wet milling wastes,
Parameters measured included BOD, total COD, soluble COD, total biolog-
ical oxygen demand (T^OD), dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrogen, phosphorus,
and mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), The use of soluble COD, MLSS,
and T,OD to calculate the unit rate of removal (Ib soluble COD/1b MLSS-
b
day) ts detailed in Appendix A,
11
-------
PILOT PLANT: AERATION POND-SETTLING POND SYSTEM
The aeration pond-settling pond system is suitable where large areas of
low cost land are available. It is a simple, relatively inexpensive
procedure, requiring a minimum of operator attention, but using many
acres of land. Oxygen and nutrients are added in the aeration pond so
that the waste undergoes bioconversion to suspended solids, This mix-
ture then passes into the settling pond where the solids are allowed to
settle to the bottom and the effluent flows into the receiving stream.
The settled solids continue to biodegrade anaerobically, but with
adequate surface area the upper part of the settling pond remains aero-
bic so that odors should not be a problem. Periodically the accumu-
lated solids must be removed, with intervals varying from several months
to years, depending on the concentration of the waste,
A schematic diagram of the pilot plant is shown in Figure 2, Flow was
taken from the 30-inch and 48^inch sewers in proportion to the flow
rates in the respective sewers. The waste flowed into the aeration
chamber, and overflowed into the settling chamber where the solids
settled to the bottom. The aeration pond was operated over the range of
10 to 96 hours retention time, Combined holding time with the settling
chamber ranged from 1 to 10 days. No nutrients were added to the system
when it was operating with dilute waste.
Evaluation of dilute effluent treatment was not pursued in depth,
because economic studies soon showed that treatment of concentrated
waste would be less costly, However, the results while operating with
the dilute waste indicated that an average effluent soluble COD concen-
tration of 40 mg/1 was obtained in both cold and warm seasons (February
through April 1967). Soluble COD in the raw waste ranged from 75 to
175 mg/1, averaging about 100 mg/1, While this is only about 60% re-
moval of soluble COD, batch tests showed the waste contained about
12
-------
FRC
Figure 2
AERATION POND PHOT PLANT
r^_ AS
r°i 9
£J PAS
•g-T VJ 1 ,/-\—
30-inch Sewer
48-Inch Sewer
OTR
1,
Combined Plant
Waste
10-feet
1
5-hp Lightnin Aerator
OTR
f
35,600 gal
Approx.
50,000 gal
Quiescent Pond
Aeration Pond
FRC - Flow Recorder and Proportional Flow Control
AS - Automatic Sampler
TR — Temperature Recorder
-------
25 mg/1 of non-biodegradable COD, so 40 mg/1 COD in the effluent was
considered satisfactory for a continuous reactor,
Floating solids in the settling chamber often led to high total COD in
the effluent. When settling was good, effluent total COD was in the
range of 50 to 75 mg/1. When floating solids were present, the value
was usually 125 to 175 mg/1, Optimization of the settling chamber
design, and provisions for skimming floating solids from the surface,
would probably result in a satisfactory effluent.
A major change in pilot plant procedure came as a result of a decision,
based on economic factors, to split the concentrated plate waste streams
out of the 30-inch and 48-inch sewers for separate treatment. This
would reduce the flow of waste to be treated from about 20 mgd to about
1 mgd, When this decision was reached, pilot plant operation on a syn-
thetic waste concentrate, with characteristics which would be typical of
the new concentrated waste stream, was begun, This procedure was used
from approximately spring of 1967 through October 1967. As soon as the
concentrated plant wastes were separated from the cooling water stream,
the pilot plant was operated on the actual concentrated plant waste
stream.
The pilot plant was operated as a washout reactor, since no equipment
for biomass recycle had been installed. It was found that with a reten-
tion time of 4 days in the aeration tank, effluent soluble COD of 60 to
100 mg/1 was obtained, with a supply concentration of about 1000 mg/1.
The non-biodegradable COB in the concentrated waste was usually about
40 mg/1, as determined by batch tests. This procedure is described in
Appendix A,
No evaluation of solids separation was made while operating with concen-
trated waste, because by this time it had become apparent that an acti-
14
-------
vated sludge system with recycle would be selected for final design
for economic reasons.
Figure 3 shows the aeration pond in normal operation. A foaming condi-
tion which occasionally occurred is shown in Figure 4a, This illustra-
tion shows a particularly severe case, probably caused by a COD shock
load. The foam was several feet high and interfered with the oxygen
transfer capabilities of the aeration equipment. The problem was solved
by the use of an anti-foam agent (Nalco G613), the results of which can
be seen in Figure 4b.
Figure 5a shows bubbles and foam on the surface of the settling pond
which resulted from the anaerobic decomposition of solids on the bottom
of the pond. The resultant gases percolate up through the solids and
liquid to the surface of the pond, occasionally carrying large clumps of
floating material with them, and causing a mildly offensive odor.
Furthermore, the floating solids caused unacceptably high suspended
solids levels in the effluent. This problem occurred most often in
summer, when increased temperatures accelerate the rate of anaerobic
decomposition and simultaneously reduce the capacity of water to hold
dissolved oxygen. The solution in a full-scale plant is to provide a
settling pond of adequate size for the expected waste load, Figures 5b
and 6 also show the aeration pond in winter. In spite of the ice
accumulation the aerator continued to provide adequate dissolved oxygen.
When the aeration pond operated on the dilute waste stream, no nutrients
were added. With the change to concentrated supply, there was a notice-
able increase in effluent soluble COD in the effluent ranging from 250
to 500 mg/1, The addition of nitrogen and phosphorus in the ratio
COD;N:P = 100:5:1 produced the results shown in Figure 7, with effluent
soluble COD dropping to an acceptable 100 mg/1, These results showed
clearly that nutrient addition should be incorporated into the full-
scale plant.
15
-------
FIGURE 3
PILOT PLANT AERATION POND
3a. Aeration pond (background) and settling pond (foreground)
3b. Aeration pond with aerator in operation.
-------
FIGURE 4
FOAMING PROBLEM IN PILOT PLANT
* • >•» • • • s» • - - • *•"
$.'..• • t • •'" ..'J-. -, .f- "<•
->.•••'- ' •- *•' '' i~ "» ''. • • ,' **•
.--••-. AS •::*!' ' '- t- /- -
Sp^-^flc! /f r> ^^ .••• ';* - "; ^
4a. Foam coming over baffle in the aeration pond.
^ ^-
4b. After using an antifoam agent, 45 minutes elapsed
t i me.
17
-------
FIGURE 5
PILOT PLANT SETTLING POND AND AERATION POND
5a. Overflow system at the end of the settling pond (summer),
showing bubbles and foam on the surface of the pond.
5b. Aerator (winter), which continued to provide adequate
dissolved oxygen in spite of ice accumulation.
L8
-------
FIGURE 6
FROZEN PILOT PLANT AERATION POND
6a. Aeration pond (winter), showing that only a small portion of
the aeration zone was free water during the coldest part of
the winter.
6b. Frozen foam accumulation
19
-------
FIGURE 7
EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS
NUTRIENTS ON EFFLUENT SOLUBLE COD
ro
o
Q
O
O
o
OO
600
Pilot Plant Aeration Pond
Synthetic Waste Supply - 1000 mg/1 COD
4-Day Retention Time
Nutrient
Addition
Started
o
Q.
o
HH
<
o:
1_LJ
<
400
200
16 24
OCTOBER 1967
10 18
NOVEMBER 1967
26 4
I December 1967
-------
Because biological waste treatment consists essentially of the care and
feeding of microorganisms, the process of the growth of microbial cul-
tures is shown in Figures § and 9, The biomass showed good growth
characteristics with appropriate settling tendencies. The conclusion
of the pilot plant study was that the method was feasible for adequate
waste treatment. However, economics dictated the construction of an
activated sludge waste treatment facility.
LABORATORY STUDIES
Completely Mixed Activated Sludge
The activated sludgy process is a compact, versatile and efficient
method, widely used in waste treatment. The effluent from the aeration
tank is continuously separated into settleable solids and liquid efflu-
ent in a clarifier, with most of the fyiomass being recycled to the
\
aeration tank. Because of the continuous nature of the activated sludge
process, it is important in a laboratory situation to develop the bio-
3
logical culture in a continuous mode of operation , so as to simulate
the actual environment encountered in the treatment plant as closely as
possible.
The activated sludge prppess was studied on a laboratory scale, using
continuous flow reactors of about 5 liters capacity, A schematic of the
apparatus is shown in Figure 10, Supply to the reactors was taken from
a cooled storage vessel, containing 2 days supply. The effluent was
drawn off through a SiRhpn arrangement intfq a bottle calibrated to show
the quantity of substrate used per day,
Raw waste supply was collected periodically from the plant concentrated
waste discharge. The waste was diluted to 1000 mg/1 COD concentration.
The pH was usually in the range of 5.5 tp 7.0, but if the pH was below 5.5, it
21
-------
FIGURE 8
EARLY AERATION POND CULTURES
8a. Initial operation, dispersed growth with numerous small
clumps.
*>•&.
v
8b. After two weeks of operation, with some increase in size
of clumps.
-
-------
:
:,
FIGURE 9
LATER AERATION POND CULTURES
,
«. *• £
i W!:: Pfc
9a. After one month of operation, some filamentours organisms
present.
m
' ' "
-X / :•..<.•$•{':•
-
9b. After two months of operation, showing some higher life forms.
23
-------
FIGURE 10
SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF LABORATORY
ACTIVATED SLUDGE REACTOR
To
Aspirator
6 LHer
Percolator
24
-------
was adjusted to 6.0, Nitrogen and phosphorus were added in the ratio of
COD;N:P = 100:5:1 . The laboratory reactor studies were conducted at
ambient temperatures (73°-77°F),
In retrospect, this method of supply preparation contributed to the
failure of the laboratory reactors to simulate performance of the full-
scale plant. Since the laboratory reactor raw waste supply was nearly
constant in concentration and pH, none of the problems later encountered
with varying supply conditions in the full-scale plant were recognized
in the laboratory.
The laboratory reactor operation was begun in June 1967 to develop
bacterial cultures acclimated to the concentrated Pekin waste stream,
The development of acclimated biological cultures with good settling
characteristics was the primary objective for the first few months of
continuous laboratory reactor operation. For this period, the reactors
were operated on a flow-through basis without use of the settling cham-
ber for the reactor effluent and without any recycle of biological
solids from the effluent stream. In this way, an acclimated culture was
developed.
The next phase was simulation of normal operation with the separation of
solids from the effluent, and the recycle of a portion of the settled
biomass, Four reactors were run at different supply rates and HISS con-
qentrations to investigate a broad range of F/M ratios. The food rate
for a given reactor was controlled by varying the supply volumetric
rate, since the supply COD concentration was kept constant at about
1000 mg/1, The concentration of MLSS in a given reactor was controlled
by adjusting the amount of settled biomass recycled back to the reactor
and the biomass waste rate.
25
-------
Material balance data and analytical data were obtained for each of the
continuous reactors throughout the experimental investigation. Periodic
tests were run for BOD, COD, MLSS, phosphorus, nitrogen, and dissolved
oxygen, using standard laboratory techniques . The steady-state mate-
rial balance data for the continuous laboratory reactors at various
operating conditions are summarized in Table 1, The data were analyzed
with the computer program which performed a material balance for COD
and suspended solids over a period of days. Usually the period chosen
was 10 days. The major operating parameters were then calculated and
reported.
All four reactors were operated on a flow-through basis without recycle
for the first 4 months in order to develop suitable cultures. During
this period, the MLSS concentration in the reactors was low, mostly in
the range of 200 to 400 mg/1.
The results in Table 1 show that soluble COD removal was 90% or more at
nearly all conditions. Generally, the effluent suspended solids concen-
tration from the settling chamber was high, although at times low con-
centrations were obtained. It was the opinion of our consultant that
the hydraulics of the laboratory scale settling chambers did not reflect
conditions that would exist in a full-scale plant, Since good solids
separation was obtained at times in the laboratory reactors, he felt
that by designing the full-scale plant on the basis of soluble COD
removal as determined by batch tests, satisfactory solids separation
would be obtained. It will be seen that this conclusion was not borne
out in the results of the full-scale plant,
The biomass growth rate expressed as pounds of MLSS produced per pound
of MLSS under aeration per day as a function of the F/M ratio is showr
in Figure 11, These data were obtained from 10-day material balance
26
-------
TABLE 1
LABORATORY REACTOR STUDIES
Steady State Material Balance Summaries
Reten-
tion Recycle,
Dates
1/3-1/12, 1968
1/3-1/12, 1968
1/3-1/12, 1968
1/3-1/12, 1968
2/19-2/28, 1968
2/19-2/28, 1968
2/19-2/28, 1968
2/19-2/28, 1968
3/28-4/6, 1968
3/28-4/6, 1968
3/28-4/6, 1968
3/28-4/6, 1968
5/14-5/23, 1968
5/14-5/23, 1968
5/14-5/23, 1968
5/14-5/23, 1968
6/18-6/27, 1968
6/18-6/27, 1968
6/18-6/27, 1968
6/18-6/27, 1968
7/30-8/8, 1968
Reactor
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
]
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
Time ,
davs
2
?
1
j
2
2
3
0.5
1
1
1
0.25
0.5
1
.1
0.?5
0,5
J
J
0.5
0,5
% of
Feed
100
50
100
0
100
100
90
10 U
50
75
90
100
50
75
90
90
50
75
90
75
100
Wastage,
% of
Feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
ao
0
50
25
10
0
50
25
10
10
50
25
10
25
0
F/M,a)
Ib COD/
Ib
MLSS-day
0.455
0.901
0.291
2.641
0.204
0.222
0.461
0.821
0.668
0.915
0.633
0.806
2.662
1.735
0.500
2.142
2.818
0.806
0.788
3.933
1.155
Reactor
MLSS,
mg/liter
+0.45 u
1031
521
2573
387
2454
1907
1872
2252
1854
1202
1739
5133
749
619
2028
1887
692
977
1345
476
1621
o
Reactor '
COD,
mg/liter
- 0.45 v
59.7
56,9
44.4
52.2
36.8
42.8
43.0
59.4
66.7
70.5
71.5
58.3
43.5
46.3
48.4
69.0
103.8
61.8
79.4
104.5
42.1
' Effluent
MLSS,
mg/liter
+ 0.45 v
257
246
70
391
99
133
139
129
46
36
127
270
148
327
57
302
153
188
68
285
284
Growth
Rate
Produced ,
Ib MLSS/
Ib
Aeration
MLSS-dav
0.081
0.214
0.035
1.012
0.036
0.076
0.131
0.189
0.208
0.311
0.208
0.227
1.335
1.735
0.159
0.863
0-.999
0.337
0.196
1.247
0.364
Yield,
Ib MLSS
Produced/
Ib Soluble
COD
Removed
0.190
0.251
0.127
0.404
0.186
0.358
0.297
0.244
0.333
0.364
0.353
0.298
0.523
0.459
0.335
0.432
0,395
0.446
0.270
0.354
0.329
Soluble
COD Renoval
Efficiency,
%
94.1
94.3
95.6
94.8
96.3
95.7
95.7
94.1
93.6
93.2
93.1
94.4
95.7
95.4
95.2
93.2
89.6
93.7
92.1
89.6
95.7
a) COD values are soluble.
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
LABORATORY REACTOR STUDIES
Steady State Material Balance Summaries
Daces
6/4-6/13, 1967
6/4-6/13, 1967
6/4-6/13, 1967
6/4-6/13, 1967
7/1-7/9, 1967
7/1-7/9, 1967
7/1-7/9, 1967
7/1-7/9, 1967 •
K> 8/11-8/20, 1967
00 8/11-8/20, 1967
8/11-8/20, 1967
8/11-8/20, 1967
9/21-9/30, 1967
9/17-9/26, 1967
9/21-9/30, 1967
9/19-9/28, 1967
10/9-10/18, 1967
10/9-10/18, 1967
10/9-10/18, 1967
10/9-10/18, 1967
10/23-11/1, 1967
10/23-11/1, 1967
10/23-11/1, 1967
10/23-11/1, 1967
12/6-12/15, 1967
12/6-12/15, 1967
12/6-12/15, 1967
12/6-12/15, 1967
Reactor
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Reten-
tion
Time,
_da£s_
4
6
8
10
k
G
8
10
/;
3
7
]
4
3
2
1
it
3
2
1
4
2
2
3
2
2
1
]
Recycle,
2 of
Feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
50
100
0
Wastage,
% of
Feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a)
F/M,
Ib COD/
Ib
MLSS-dav
0.830
0.513
0.370
0.429
0.623
0.652
0.519
0.374
1.609
0.590
0.719
1.017
0.984
1.313
1.927
2.659
0.692
1.094
1.222
2.207
0.680
0.820
1.154
2.040
1.297
1.358
0.702
3.144
Reactor
MLSS,
mg/liter
+ 0.45 u
291
289
296
199
277
211
197
196
142
513
644
750
227
233
256
308
318
305
423
427
366
366
431
482
358
341
1475
329
a)
Reactor
COD,
rag/liter
- 0.45 M
53.3
46.9
44.4
61.0
64.2
72.5
77,3
89.9
68.8
69.2
63.4
44.6
77.4
69.8
64.1
76.4
55.8
121.9
109.1
107.3
47.8
41.1
34.9
32.4
33.0
46.2
41.6
60.8
Effluent
MLSS,
mg/liter
-t- 0.45 u
289
289
295
198
278
213
201
193
142
512
638
725
227
233
257
308
335
310
416
422
366
362
433
483
263
330
148
330
Growth
Rate
Produced,
Ib MLSS/
Ib
Aeration
HLSS-day
0.238
0.118
0.075
0.046
0.177
0.174
0.132
0.037
0.163
0.333
0.415
0.763
0.244
0.303
0.466
0.787
0.238
0.362
0.529
0.942
0.262
0.282
0.511
1.011
0.344
0.445
0.093
0.977
Yield,
Ib MLSS
Produced/
Ib Soluble
COD
Removed
0.304
0.243
0.214
0.116
0.303
0.288
0.275
0.110
0.109
0.608
0.619
0.787
0.269
0.248
0.258
0.320
0.365
0.377
0.487
0.478
0.404
0.359
0.459
0.512
0.274
0.343
0.139
0.330
Soluble
COD Removal
Efficiency ,
2
94.2
94.9
95.2
93.4
93.7
92.9
92.4
91.1
92.7
92.7
93.3
95.2
92.4
93.2
93.7
92.4
94.2
87.7
89.0
89.2
95.1
95.8
96.4
96.7
96.8
95.5
95.9
94.1
a) COD values are soluble.
-------
FIGURE 11
PO
1.0 -
EFFECT OF F/M ON GROHTH RATE
OF BIOLOGICAL MASS (MLSS)
0.4
0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
F/M, Ib Soluble COD/1b MLSS/Day
2.4
2.8
o
3.2
-------
calculations, and may be used to estimate the quantity of sludge that
will be produced in a treatment process. The same data, expressed as
yield of MLSS per unit of soluble COD removal, are shown in Figure 12.
Table 2 summarizes oxygen uptake rate data from the continuous labora-
tory reactors. At steady-state this rate should be a constant . The
unit oxygen uptake rate is plotted in Figure 13.
Batch Tests
The purpose of a batch test is to obtain the unit rate of reaction (re-
moval of soluble COD) for a given culture as a function of the concen-
tration of substrate available for reaction tBOD), The BOD was esti-
mated by calculating the difference between total COD and non-r-biodegrad-
5 5
able COD . The batch test procedure was to mix measured amounts of
culture from the continuous reactor and substrate to be tested in the
prescribed proportion. The mixed liquor was then placed into the batch
test vessel under adequate aeration, Samples were withdrawn at half-
hour intervals for the first 4 or 6 hours with a final sample taken
after 8 or 12 hours.
The soluble COD data for a given batch test were plotted as a function
of time, and the rate of removal was determined at various values of the
soluble COD remaining in the mixed liquor solution. The results are
shown in Figure 14.
Effluent standards issued by regulatory agencies usually specify accept-
able levels of BOD, The use of BOD analysis is not practical for lab-
oratory studies, where great numbers of analyses are required; therefore
the COD analysis was used for all of the experiments, Correlations were
developed between BOD and COD, so that test results could be related
30
-------
FIGURE 12
1.0
•o
OJ
o
o
o
(L>
S 0.6
3
"o
XI
5 0.4
0.2
oo
EFFECT OF F/M ON CONVERSION
YIELD OF BIOLOGICAL MASS (MLSS)
o
o
o
O
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
F/Ms Tb SOLUBLE COD/1b MLSS/DAY
2.8
3.2
-------
Table 2
-CONTINUOUS LABORATORY REACTOR OXYGEN UPTAKE ANALYSES SU7-[MARY
CO
PO
Date
3/15/68
3/15/68
3/15/68
3/15/68
3/19/68
3/19/68
3/19/68
3/19/68
3/27/68
4/4/68
4/4/68
4/4/68
4/4/68
7/9/68
7/17/68
5/1/68
5/1/68
5/1/68
5/1/68
Reactor
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
4
Reactor
MLSS ,
mg / li te r
1820
1970
1470
2160
2830
2350
2000
1910
3210
1916
1032
1840
5110
336
688
1840
720
1930
3290
1396
F/M,
Ib Soluble
COD/
Ib MLSS-dav
0.24
0.25
0.62
0.89
0.18
0.24
0.47
1,01
1.56
0.45
1.12
0.48
0.71
6.65
3.39
0.48
1.37
0.50
1.21
1.30
Oxygen
Uptake ,
ing /lite r-
m"f nute
0.215
0.205
0.325
0.65
0.23
0.22
0.33
0.59
2.00
0.41
0.59
0.75
1.75
0.80
0.40
0.41
0.32
0.42
1.43
0.845
Unit Oxygen
Uptake ,
Ib 02 /
Ib MLSS-hr
0.0071
0.0063
0.0133
0.0180
0.0049
0.0056
0.0099
0.0185
0.0374
0.0128
0.0229
0.0150
0..0205
0.1429
0.0349
0.0134
0.0267
0.0131
0.0261
0.0363
-------
CO
CO
FIGURE 13
EFFECT OF F/M ON OXYGEN UPTAKE RATE
0.4
0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
F/M, Ib Soluble COD/1 b MLSS/Day
3.2
-------
FIGURE 14
UNIT RATE OF REMOVAL FOR
CULTURES DEVELOPED IN CORN
WET MILLING WASTE WATER
LABORATORY BIOLOGICAL REACTORS
fO
-Q
"O
O)
o
-------
to effluent standards for BOD, The data indicate that the BOD is 25%
to 30% of the COD for treated wastes. Calculations are shown in Appen-
dix A.
Because of the importance of microorganisms in waste treatment , several
photomicrographs are shown in Figures 15 and 16 to illustrate the bio-
logical cultures in the laboratory reactors. Figure 15a is taken from
a reactor which was operating as a wash-out process. Because the bio-
mass was not recycled, bacterial clumps failed to develop,
1 4
Filamentous organisms * sometimes appeared in the reactors, resulting
in a culture with poor settling characteristics. An example of this is
given in Figure 15b.
Cultures developed in reactors operating with recycle showed the best
settling characteristics. Rotifers in particular are shown in Figure
16a, while Figure 16b shows a large variety of biological forms, Both
pictures show excellent clumping.
35
-------
FIGURE 15
REACTOR CULTURES: UNDESIRABLE GROWTH
.
x
V.
i
*
'
15a. Culture from a reactor which was operating as a wash-out
process.
15b. Filamentous organisms, which sometimes appeared in the
reactors.
36
-------
FIGURE 16
REACTOR CULTURES: IMPROVED GROWTH
*JBS -«"'>•' *
W" ' '
-•*
*
*
£
16a. Culture from a reactor operating at 100% recycle.
16b. Culture from a reactor operating at 90% recycle.
-------
SECTION V
DESIGN BASIS
As a result of the laboratory work and some additional solids separation
studies, the following process steps were decided upon for treating the
waste.
1. Equalization 5. Dissolved Air Flotation
2. Cooling 6. Solids Thickening
3. Aeration 7. Final Effluent Reaeration
4. Clarification
A schematic of this system is shown in Figure 17. Some of the equipment
is shown in Figures 18 and 19. The following description is of the
equipment as originally installed. Many modifications, described later,
have since been made.
EQUALIZATION
As is the case with many industrial wastes, the raw waste suspended
solids concentrations are not great enough to require initial
clarification. The first phase of the completely mixed activated
sludge process is usually aeration. However, in this study all waste
load data were based on 24-hour composite samples. It was known that
product changes and batch operations in the manufacturing area could
cause wide variations in BOD concentration and pH within a 24-hour
period. Therefore, it was decided to install an equalization tank
with 24 hours retention at normal flow, or 900,000 gallons. It was
also necessary to provide some volume for accumulation of waste so
that the treatment plant could be shut down for maintenance without
shutting down the manufacturing plant. Essentially all maintenance
requirements could be accomplished within 8 hours. Allowing for
39
-------
Figure 17
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
FLOW DIAGRAM
Raw Waste
0.9 mgd
-pa
O
Cool1ng
Tower
Equalization
hp Basin 25 hp
1,200,000 gal
Recycle
•45
fier
1
Biomass
i
T
^-
ll
S
hi
—
NH3
I 75 hp 75 hp
325,000 gal
Solids
45'
To Disposal
30 hp
Dissolved Air Flotation
400 sg ft
_Coo11ng Water 48" Sewer
Cooling Mater 30" Sewer
Final
Effluent
Reaeratlon
Final Effluent
To River
20 mgd
-------
FIGURE 18
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
18a. Equalization basin, foreground, with adjacent aeration tanks
on left.
18b. Cooling tower, with clarifier in background.
-------
FIGURE 19
PEKIN WASTE TREAIMENT FACILITIES
19a. Clarifier (right) and thickener (left).
19b. Floating aerator being lowered into reaeration basin,
with Illinois River in background.
1
-------
a normal equalization basin operating volume of 900,000 gallons and an
8-hour accumulation of an additional 300,000 gallons in case of repair
and maintenance, the total design volume was 1.2 million gallons. An
additional benefit of this design was to provide an adequate supply to
the aeration tanks on weekends, when the waste flow from the manu-
facturing plant was greatly reduced.
Because of the shape and size of the available land area, the equaliza-
tion basin is of irregular shape, and was constructed with an interior
1/16-inch thick rubber lining over sloping compacted earth and gravel
walls. As will be seen, this was not a satisfactory design. Two tur-
bine agitators mix the contents. The unit in the larger end was 25 hp
and the one in the smaller end was 20 hp. These agitators were sized by
the manufacturer to meet the specifications of maintaining a suspension
of up to 1700 mg/1 of starch granules, and of blending the basin con-
tents uniformly within 30 minutes. The 25-hp agitator had a 102-inch
impeller operating at 37 rpm, and the 20-hp unit had an 84-inch impeller
operating at 45 rpm. As will be seen later, these turned out to be
inadequate for the job.
Waste is pumped from the equalization basin, with a level recorder pro-
vided to aid in adjustment of the flow rate. Alarms indicate pump or
agitator motor failure.
COOLING
The waste stream temperature averages 120°F, occasionally reaching
150°F. In order to maintain a temperature range of 75°-90°F in the
aeration basin in summer, some of the waste stream must be cooled.
A spray-type cooling tower is provided for this purpose.
43
-------
The tower was sized to cool the concentrated waste stream to an average
of not more than 90°F over a 24-hour period at the most severe condi-
tions of temperature and relative humidity, Meterological data from
the u,S, Weather Bureau for the Peoria, Illinois area during several
recent years were used to determine these conditions.
The temperature in one aeration tank is recorded. The temperature con-
trol element is located in the combined supply and recycle line to the
aeration basin. Temperature control is obtained by automatically pass-
ing a suitable volume of the supply stream through the cooling tower,
AERATION
The purpose of the aeration tank is to provide an environment suitable
for the growth of the appropriate microorganisms. An extensive labora-
tory program was conducted at the Pekin plant to determine the rate of
COD removal, oxygen requirements, and biomass growth rate for the com-
pletely mixed activated sludge process, using cultures developed in the
environment of corn wet milling wastes, As a result of these tests,
unit rate of removal curves were determined for a wide range of labora-
tory operating conditions, described in Appendix A, Most of the data
fell within the range of the dotted lines shown in Figure 14. The solid
curve represents the approximate average. These curves show the quan-
tity of COD that can be removed per day per pound of MLSS under aeration,
at different BOD values.
The effluent BOD standard for discharge into the Illinois River when the
treatment process was designed was 40 mg/1, Another constraint on the
operation of the aeration process, determined during the development
work, is that the system should be maintained at less than 100 mg/1
soluble COD, to minimize the chance of growth of filamentous bacteria.
In the laboratory studies, the COD:BOD relationship for the treated
44
-------
effluent had been found to be approximately 100:30 (.COD:BOD correla-
tions are given in Appendix A), Therefore, 100 mg/1 COD was used for
design. An MLSS concentration of 3000 mg/1 was selected, based on lab-
oratory tests which showed that operation at this level generally re-
sulted in a culture with good settling characteristics, The concentra-
tion can be increased if necessary for treating unusually high waste
loads or if lower rates of removal are experienced during winter opera-
tion. This level is controlled by varying the biomass recycle and
wastage rates,
The raw waste flow is approximately 900,000 gallons per day Cgpd) with
a COD concentration of 2,500 mg/1. The calculations for sizing the
aeration basins are summarized below,
(1) Raw Waste Volume, gal/day 900,000
(2) COD Concentration, mg/1 2,500
(3) COD in Waste, Ib/day 18,800
(4) Effluent COD? mg/1 100
(5) Effluent COD, Ib/day 750
(6) COD Removed, Ib/day (3) - (5) 18,050
(7) Effluent BOD, mg/1 30-40
C8) Unit Rate of Removal at 40 mg/1 BOD (from
Figure 14), Ib COD/lb MLSS/day (using low
range of data) 1-1
(.9) MLSS Required, Ib (6} * (8) 16,200
00) MLSS Concentration, mg/1 3,000
01) Aeration Tank Volume Required, gallons 650,000
Oxygen requirements for the completely mixed activated sludge process
were determined by laboratory tests and are summarized in Table 2. The
maximum load expected was 30,000 Ib COD per day. The unit oxygen uptake
45
-------
rate is a function of the F/M ratio, as sKown in Figure 13, The oxygen
requirement calculations are as follows.
0) Maximum Waste Load, Ib COD/day 30,000
(2) Normal MLSS in Aeration Tanks, Ib 16,200
(3) Maximum F/M (1) * (2) 1.85
(4) Unit Oxygen Rate, Ib 02/hr/lb MLSS 0,041
(Figure 13)
(5) Oxygen Required, Ib/hr (4) x (2) 665
The calculations showed that 665 Ib/hr of oxygen transfer was required.
Surface aeration was selected for the Pekin process due to its rela-
tively high oxygen transfer efficiency, and good liquid mixing charac-
teristics for the completely mixed process, The a and 6 values, factors
relating oxygen transfer rate and oxygen saturation in the mixed liquor,
respectively, to the values for water, were determined to be 0,85 and
0.95, The oxygen requirements and other data were sent to several aer-
ator suppliers for bids. The selected supplier (as well as others)
found that four 75 hp surface aerators were required.
The aeration station was designed to consist of two excavated, rubber-
lined basins, each with a capacity of 325,000 gallons. Oxygen is pro-
vided by two 75 hp surface aerators in each tank. Fixed-mount aerators
were selected because of lower cost in comparison with floating mount
for this size unit, Depth of submersion is critical for proper opera-
tion of surface aerators. Level control is obtained by overflowing a
weir at one end of each tank. The weir was designed to hold the level
within one inch of nominal over the expected range of flows, so that
optimum aerator submergence could be obtained.
Waste is pumped from the equalization basin to the aeration tanks
through a flow recorder-controller. The flow rate is set according to
-------
the level in the equalization tank. The supply stream is automatically
sampled, and split equally between the two aeration tanks. This is
accomplished by using symmetrical piping, and flow distribution nozzles
on the outlet to each tank, In addition to the waste, the supply stream
contained added nutrients, recycled biomass from the clarifier, and
thickener overflow.
Nutrient addition is necessary to maintain the ratio COD:N:P = 100:5:1.
Nitrogen is added in the form of ammonia, with a flow control station
for controlling the rate of addition. Phosphorus is added in the form
of phosphoric acid, which is stored in a 3000-gallon tank, The concen-
tration of acid in the tank is maintained at 65% to 70% to prevent
freezing, as the freezing point is below 0°F at these concentrations,
CLARIFICATION
The mixed liquor from the aeration tank is pumped to a clarifier for
the purpose of separating the suspended solids from water by gravity
settling, The clarifier supply rate, supply solids concentration, over-
flow rate, and desired overflow concentration were given to four clar-
ifier manufacturers. Each recommended a 45-foot diameter unit, corre-
sponding to an overflow rate of about 550 to 650 gallons per day per
square foot over the expected range of flows,
A suction-type clarifier was selected, which uses a rotating, perforated
tube for collecting solids across the entire bottom, to a collecting
well, The construction of the unit is concrete, with the interior
coated. The suction arm is galvanized steel, and the remaining steel is
painted,
Clarifier overflow goes to the dissolved air flotation tank. The set-
tled biomass collected from the clarifier was expected to have a concen-
47
-------
tration of 8,000 to 10,000 mg/1 solids. Most of this stream is recycled
to the aeration tank.
Settled biomass which is not needed to maintain the culture in the aer-
ation tank must be removed. This excess biomass went to the thickener.
Flow controls were provided for the biomass recycle stream and for the
excess biomass stream.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
Since laboratory studies had indicated that the waste was susceptible
to the growth of filamentous organisms, resulting in an effluent with
poor settling characteristics, and since filamentous organisms can be
removed from suspension by dissolved air flotation, a dissolved afr
flotation station was included in the process design.
Overflow from the clarifier flows by gravity to the flotation cell.
Some of the effluent from the flotation cell is recycled through a pump
to a pressure tank, where it is contacted with air at 60 to 70 psi.
The air-saturated water then returns to the flotation cell. When the
pressure is released from the recycle stream., the air that had been dis-
solved at the higher pressure comes out of solution as very small bub-
bles, The air bubbles rise to the surface, carrying suspended particles
with them. These floated solids are removed by paddles suspended from
a moving chain, The solids are raked onto a beach plate, and then
dropped into the foam collecting tank where it mixes with the settled
solids from the thickener. The clarified water from the flotation cell
flows by gravity to the reaeration tank.
The supplier selected a 400-square foot unit, based on specifications of
an average supply stream of 625 gallons per minute containing 500 mg/1
48
-------
suspended solids, to produce an effluent of less than 45 mg/1 suspended
solids,
SOLIDS THICKENING
The purpose of the thickener was to increase the concentration of the
clarifier underflow in order to reduce the volume of excess biomass to
be processed. In order to determine the necessary thickener size, data
from the continuous laboratory reactors was used to estimate the quan-
tity of excess biomass production in the aeration tanks, Figure 11
shows the biomass growth rate as a function of F/M, The excess biomass
handling system was sized for average F/M as follows,
0) COD in Waste, Ib/day 18?800
(2) MLSS in Aeration Tanks, Ib 16,200
C3) F/M, Ib COD/lb MLSS/day (1) i [2) 1.1
(4) Growth Rate, Ib MLSS/day/lb MLSS in
Aeration Tanks (from Figure 11) 0,41
(5) Excess Solids Produced, Ib/day (4) x [2] 6,700
The anticipated flow rate and concentration of the biomass stream were
given to several thickener manufacturers who were asked to give their
recommendations for the diameter of the unit, Recommendations varied
from 30 to 45 feet in diameter,
It was decided to use a 45-foot diameter unit, the same as the clari-
fier, since this simplified the design and construction of the concrete
tanks somewhat. In addition, the larger unit provided adequate volume
for biomass accumulation during times when the excess biomass disposal
process is not operating. The thickener was similar to the clarifier
in design and construction, except that the settled solids were
discharged by a rotating rake mechanism, rather than by a suction tube.
49
-------
According to the manufacturer, a thickener of this capacity should
increase the concentration of the biomass to about 3% solids, The
thickener underflow was removed for disposal , a process not covered by
this report. The thickener overflow was returned to the aeration tanks.
FINAL EFFLUENT REAERATION
The treated effluent is combined in the reaeration tank with, the cooling
water from the 30-inch and 48-inch sewers, creating a single outfall for
sampling and measuring. The 25 hp floating aerator is sized to increase
the dissolved oxygen content of the effluent to 4 mg/1, at an average
flow of 20 mgd.
50
-------
SECTION VI
PLANT STARTUP AND OPERATION: NOVEMBER 1970-SEPTEMBER 1971
Plant operation began in November 1970, utilizing the equalization
basin and aeration tanks. Development of the biological culture was
started by using clarifier underflow from another corn wet milling acti-
vated sludge plant as seed, Initially, 5,000 gallons of seed, 100,000
gallons of concentrated waste and 200,000 gallons of city water were
placed in each tank, A fill-and-draw procedure was used for the first
6 days of operation, until the MLSS concentration was built up to about
1500 mg/1, For the next two weeks, the aeration tanks were operated on
a washout basis, treating about 25% of the plant waste. Because no
recycled biomass was available, the MLSS dropped to 900 mg/1 in the
aeration tanks.
The clarifier was put into operation December 1970. Initial operation
on the total plant waste flow produced an effluent with a soluble COD
concentration of less than 100 mg/1, with a suspended solids concentra-
tion in the aeration tanks of 2000 to 3000 mg/1, Clarifier underflow
had a suspended solids concentration of 10,000 to 20,000 mg/1; overflow,
100 to 150 mg/1.
The remaining equipment for the waste treatment plant was placed in
service by the end of January 1971, However, the smooth operation
observed during this period was to be the last that would be seen for
nearly a year, A combination of mechanical failures and unforeseen
operational problems demanded a great deal of time, attention, and
money.
Figure 20 gives the semimonthly average total COD concentration for
influent and effluent, calculated by computer. Monthly averages were
51
-------
F.IGURE 20
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
NOV 1970-AUG 1971
SEMI-MONTHLY AVERAGES
6000
5000
^ 4000
E
Q
O
O
3000
2000
1000
INFLUENT
NOV
1970
JAN
1971
MAY
EFFLUENT
SEP
52
-------
not used because of the relatively short time period involved. Semi-
monthly averages were chosen rather than biweekly averages in order to
facilitate computer programming. The original data are given in
Appendix C*
Figures 21 and 22 give the probability of occurrence of influent and
effluent COD concentrations, respectively. These figures are based on
computer-generated distributions of the daily data, given in Appendix C
along with computer-generated histograms of these distributions,
Figure 23 shows the semimonthly averages for effluent suspended solids,
calculated by computer in the same manner as the COD data, Figure 24
gives the probability of occurrence for effluent suspended solids con-
centrations, developed from a computer-generated distribution. The
original data, the distribution, and a computer-generated histogram of
this distribution are also given in Appendix B,
Of the problems encountered during this period, the most serious were
the splitting of the rubber liners in the equalization and aeration
tanks, and odor problems that developed in the equalization tank and
thickener,
RUBBER LINER PROBLEMS
On December 14, 1970, it was noticed that a seam in the equalization
basin was open for a distance of about 30 feet, as shown in Figure 25a.
As recommended by consultants, based on soil boring tests, the equaliza-
tion and aeration tanks were constructed with sloping sides, with the
slope ratio 1,5:1, This turned out to be sufficiently close to the
angle of repose of the soil that the wave action due to the agitators
and aerators caused the soil to come loose under the liner and fall to
53
-------
FIGURE 21
INFLUENT TOTAL CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
NOVEMBER 1970-AUGUST 1971
10000
8000
6000
4000
g 2000
1000
800
400
300
o
10
20
40
60
80
90 95
99
99.9
PROBABILITY OF OCCURENCE:
PERCENT OF DAYS COD WAS LESS
THAN OR EQUAL TO INDICATED CONCENTRATION
54
-------
FIGURE 22
EFFLUENT TOTAL CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
NOVEMBER 1970-AUGUST 1971
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
O
O
O
< 1000
o
"~ 800
600
400
200
100
o
_L
_L
10 20
40 60
80 90 95
99
99.9
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
55
-------
FIGURE 23
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
NOVEMBER 1970-AUGUST 1971
SEMIMONTHLY AVERAGES
E
r.
co
on
n_
oo
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Nov.
1970
Jan.
1971
May
Sept.
-------
FIGURE 24
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NOVEMBER 1970-AUGUST 1971
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
CD
S
CO
Q
o
CO
O
LU
Q
Q.
OO
1000
800
600
400
200
100
j t i
10 20
40 60
80 90 95
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
57
o
99
99.9
-------
FIGURE 25
EQUALIZATION BASIN LINER PROBLEMS
25a. Split seam in the rubber lining of the equalization basin.
25b. Repair work on the lining of the equalization basin.
58
-------
the bottom. The resultant tension applied to the rubber lining caused
the seam to split.
Repair work involved draining and cleaning the tank, cutting away the
lining, replacing the fallen material, and adding cement to create a
soil cement with, a 1 to 6 mixture. Figure 25b shows the repair work in
progress.
During this time, piping was installed to allow pumping the waste
dtrectly to the aeration tanks. The lining was repaired, but the re-
paired areas failed again immediately upon being put back in service.
Supplying raw waste directly to the aeration tanks resulted in severe
foaming problems, illustrated in Figure 26a, This problem disappeared
when the equalization basin was returned to service after being repaired
the second time.
In February 1971 the south aeration tank developed the same problem as
had occurred in the equalization tank, shown in Figure 26b. It was
decided to remove the rubber liner, pour a 4-inch concrete pad on the
sides of the tank, and cover the concrete with rubber liner, shown in
Figure 27a, This was completed in April 1971, However, the rubber did
not adhere to the concrete, and so was removed completely. The concrete
surface was covered with 3 coats of epoxy tar coating,
Plant performance during this time was not improved by the failure of
two more seams in the equalization basin. For two weeks in April, while
the equalization basin was being repaired, the plant was operating on
one aeration basin only, As can be seen from Figures 20 and 23, efflu-
ent COD and suspended solids reached their highest concentrations during
this time,
59
-------
FIGURE 26
AERATION TANK PROBLEMS
26a. Foaming in the aeration tank during shutdown of the
equalization basin.
26b. Tension and breakage of the rubber lining in the south
aeration basin due to soil accumulation.
-------
FIGURE 27
REPAIR WORK IN AERATION TANK AND EQUALIZATION BASIN
27a. Concreted and relined aeration basin.
275. New baffles in equalization basin
61
-------
Because of the time required to cure the concrete and the coating, the
south aeration basin was not ready for service until the end of April
1971. The north aeration basin was then renovated by installing con-
crete slabs over the reconditioned soil sides, with the rubber lining
under the concrete. This was completed by June 1971, and similar work
on the equalization basin was completed by August 1971, All concrete
surfaces were coated with epoxy tar, No further problems have been
encountered with the tank linings.
EQUALIZATION TANK AND THICKENER ODOR PROBLEMS
In April 1971, complaints of odors were received from a nearby indus-
try. The equalization tank and thickener were identified as contribu-
tors to the odors,
Odors in waste treatment facilities are generally caused by a depletion
in the oxygen supply. This results in anaerobic activity on the part of
2
faculative and anaerobic bacteria , which use oxygen contained in chem-
ical compounds, creating odorous gases as a byproduct of their decompo-
sition activity.
Odors were not the only concern centering on the thickener at this time.
Additional storage was needed for the biomass. Both problems were
solved simultaneously by converting the thickener to an aerated storage
tank. The inside sweep mechanism was removed, and 600 cubic feet per
minute (cfm) of air dispersed by a 15 hp agitator maintained the biomass
in an aerobic condition.
The odor problem in the equalization basin appeared to be caused by
solid materials settling out and undergoing anaerobic decomposition,
Part of the problem was due to the concrete agitator supports being
higher than the basin bottom, creating dead spaces unaffected by the
62
-------
agitation. This problem was attacked by installing a smooth concrete
bottom in the equalization basin, and adding baffles for both agitators,
shown in Figure 27b. This was done when the rubber liner was being
replaced with concrete, and the tank was returned to service in August
1971,
The odor problem, it turned out, was not yet solved. It was decided to
increase agitation, and add aeration, A second impeller was added to
each agitator. The 25 hp north agitator was replaced with a 50 hp one,
and the 20 hp south agitator was replaced by a 30 hp one with the agi-
tator shaft speed increased from 45 to 68 rpm. A 1000 cfm air blower
was installed, with the air being dispersed by the agitators.
This equipment was put into operation September 1971, and there has
been no recurrence of the odor problem since.
63
-------
SECTION VII
PLANT OPERATION: OCTOBER 1971-JANUARY 1973
After the initial equipment and operation problems of the plant were
solved, efforts were concentrated on optimization of the waste treatment
process. Of primary concern was meeting the Illinois EPA effluent qual-
ity standards for BOD and for suspended solids. At the time the Pekin
facility was designed, the criteria in effect for allowable effluent
concentrations were 40 mg/1 BOD and 45 mg/1 suspended solids. These
criteria have since been reduced to 30 and 35 mg/1, and beginning in
1975 will be 20 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids.
It was found that the treatment plant effluent seldom met the effluent
criteria. The problem was nearly always due to poor separation of bio-
mass in the clarifier and flotation cell. High suspended solids in the
effluent resulted in failure to meet both the suspended solids and BOD
criteria.
Several process modifications were made which improved treatment plant
performance. The most significant changes, described in detail later
in this section, were:
1, Ammonia nitrogen concentration of the waste stream was
reduced.
2. The biomass recycle rate was increased from the conven-
tional rate of 25% to 35% of the supply to 75% to 100%
of the supply,
3, Recycled biomass was aerated before being returned to
the aeration tank,
65
-------
4. The use of chemical flocculating agents was tested.
These modifications were made over a short time period, and the indi-
vidual effects could not be determined. The over-all effect can be seen
by comparing operating results during the period July 1972 to January
1973, after the changes had been made, with those discussed in earlier
sections. Some dramatic improvements in treatment plant performance can
be seen, although the anticipated effluent quality was still not con-
sistently attained. For example, during the time period October 1971
through June 1972, 90% of the effluent BOD values were below 540 mg/1;
during the time period July 1972 through January 1973 the 90% occurrence
had been reduced to 205 mg/1 (see Figure 32). Also, during the earlier
period, effluent suspended solids concentrations were below 795 mg/1
90% of the time; during the later period this was reduced to 330 mg/1
(see Figure 37). Detailed descriptions of the changes that brought
about these improvements are given below.
Throughout the reporting period, waste flow fell within or below the.
maximum design flow of 1,2 mgd maximum, The average flow was 0,763 mgd.
Flow data are given in Appendix C. Computer-generated distributions
were made for each of the time periods under consideration, and are also
shown in Appendix C. However, the difference in flow for these two
periods is insignificant, and the data were combined to give the distri-
bution shown in Figure 28,
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)
The BOD constitutes an empirical test in which standard laboratory pro-
cedures are used to determine the relative oxygen requirements of waste
waters and effluents for the stabilization of oxidizable organic matter
4
present, The procedure is described in Standard Methods , The test
has its widest application in measuring the waste loadings to treatment
66
-------
-a
01
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
FIGURE 28
CONCENTRATED WASTE FLOW
OCTOBER 1971-JANUARY 1973
0.21
O.I1
10 20 40 60 80 90 95
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.9
-------
plants and in evaluating the efficiency (BOD removal) of such treatment
systems. Furthermore, effluent water quality standards frequently
include BOD levels. Since complete stabilization of a waste may require
an incubation period too long for practical purposes, the 5-day period
at 20°C has been accepted as standard, The Pekin waste treatment facil-
ity was originally designed to meet the then existing effluent 5-day BOD
criterion of 40 mg/1.
Because of the length of time required for the BOD test, it is often
easier to use the COD test, which measures the oxygen equivalent of
matter in a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical
oxidant, whether or not it it biodegradable, For a given waste, there
is usually a relatively constant relationship between BOD and the COD .
The correlation coefficients were calculated by computer for BOD as a
function of COD for both influent and effluent. Separate calculations
were done for each of the two time periods under consideration.
Although there is considerable scatter in the data, good correlation
coefficients were obtained for both time periods, and are given in
Table 3.
TABLE 3
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS, BOD AS A FUNCTION OF COD
October 1971-June 1973 July 1972-January 1973
Influent 0.89 Influent 0,82
Effluent 0,98 Effluent 0,81
The data for these calculations are given in Appendix C, The relation-
ship for the second time period only are shown graphically in Figure 29.
The COD test was used for determining the daily operating conditions in
the treatment plant. However, treatment plant performance described in
this section was calculated from 5-day BOD tests.
68
-------
CTl
C7I
CD
CQ
Lu!
500
400
300
200
100
80
60
50
40-
30
20. *
©
FIGURE 29
BOD AS A FUNCTION OF COD
300
200
100
70
g 50:
30
O 2°
100 200 300 500
INFLUENT COD, mg/1
10
60
100 200 300 500
EFFLUENT COD, mg/1
-------
Throughout this report, BOD and COD removals and loadings, and influent
BOD and COD values, are based on samples of the stream from the equali-
zation tank to the aeration tanks, Effluent samples were taken from
the discharge of the flotation cell. Both samples were collected in
continuous, refrigerated samplers. It has been observed that signif-
icant soluble COD reduction occurs in the equalization tank; about 1/3
at times. Thus the influent BOD and COD values in this report reflect
the loading to the aeration tanks, but do not represent the total raw
waste load from the manufacturing process,
The semimonthly average influent and effluent BOD concentrations are
shown in Figure 30 for October 1971 through January 1973, The data,
shown in Appendix C were averaged by computer. As can be seen, the
fluctuations are considerable. This is due largely to the variability
in both the raw material and the production schedule, discussed previ-
ously. The lower effluent BOD levels in the second half of the time
sequence are due partly to the lower influent BOD levels and partly to
improvements in managing the waste treatment plant, As can be seen from
Figure 31, the per cent reduction of BOD was improved significantly
during this period. During the period September 1971 through June 1972
the per cent BOD reduction was below 90% forty-five per cent of the
time, but from July 1972 through January 1973 it was below 90% only ten
per cent of the time, These calculations are based on computer-gener-
ated distributions, given in Appendix C,
In spite of this relatively high level of efficiency, effluent criteria
were difficult to meet. As can be seen in Figure 32, based on computer-
generated distributions also given in Appendix C, during the period
October 1971 through June 1972 the design BOD standard of 40 mg/1 was
rarely met. During the period July 1972 through January 1973 this
standard was met nearly 60% of the time. While still not completely
satisfactory, this represents a substantial improvement.
70
-------
FIGURE 30
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
SEMI-MONTHLY AVERAGES
OCTOBER 1971 - JANUARY 1973
Q
O
CQ
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
^X/ V-o
SEPT.
1971
JAN.
1972
MAY
SEPT.
JAN.
1973
-------
FIGURE 31
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, PERCENT REMOVED
OCTOBER 1971 - JANUARY 1973
100
80
60
rv>
o
co 40
20
10
10
20
O OCTOBER 1971 - JUNE 1972
O JULY 1972 - JANUARY 1973
40
60
80
90
99
99.9
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
-------
1000
800
600
400
200
O
CO
100
80
60
40
FIGURE 32
EFFLUENT BOD
O
OCTOBER 1971 - JUNE 1972
JULY 1972 - JANUARY 1973
20
JL
I
40 60 80 90 95 99
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99.9
73
-------
One of the changes in operating procedure during this period was to
increase the biomass recycle rate from the clarifier to the aeration
tanks from 25% to 35% of the supply rate to 75% to 100%, The reason
for this change was to decrease the time that the biomass was held in
the clarifier without oxygen. At times, gas bubbles had been observed
rising to the clarifier surface, resulting in carryover of floe to the
effluent. The effect on BOD removal is shown in Figure 33, using com-
puter calculated semimonthly averages. The original data are given in
Appendix C. As can be seen, at the lower recycle rates results were
sometimes adequate; at the higher recycle rates BOD removal was nearly
always 90% or better. Figure 33 can be compared with Figure 31, which
is based on a distribution of daily data, to give a better idea of the
results.
In addition to the higher recycle rates, at this time it was also
decided to aerate the biomass prior to recycling it to the aeration
tanks. The thickener, which had been modified due to odor problems
(described in Section II), was utilized for this purpose. Pilot scale
tests had indicated some improvement in flocculation with additional
time under aeration. At normal recycle flow rates, the biomass under-
went about 5 hours retention time in the thickener.
The F/M ratio is described in a later section; however, the relationship
between BOD removal and F/M is shown in Figure 34. Computer calculated
semimonthly averages are used, based on the original data given in
Appendix C, The curve represents best results. The scatter indicates
other factors besides F/M affecting the BOD removal,
The clarifier was designed to operate at an overflow rate of 550 to 650
gallons per day per square foot over the expected range of flow. The
characteristics of the biomass are such that this overflow rate usually
results in a high sludge blanket level in the clarifier. At times, even
74
-------
FIGURE 33
100 L
90
BOD REMOVAL AS A FUNCTION OF RECYCLE RATE, SEMIMONTHLY AVERAGES
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
80
LU
O
D£.
LU
CL
a
o
CQ
70
O
O
O
O
o
O OCTOBER 1971-JUNE 1972
O JULY 1972-JANUARY 1973
60
O
50
J_
20
40 60 80
RECYCLE, percent of supply
100
120
140
-------
FIGURE 34
BOD REMOVED AS A FUNCTION OF F/M SEMIMONTHLY AVERAGES
TOO
0
90
CTl
1)
>
O
Ol
O
OCTOBER 1971-JUNE 1972
O JULY 1972-JANUARY 1973
60
50
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 1.0
F/M
2.0
-------
when laboratory settling tests show that settling should occur, floe is
carried over the top of the clarifier, A lower overflow rate should
result in a lower sludge blanket, and less frequent floe carryover.
It should be noted., however, that while carryover of floe has occurred
often, the primary cause of failure to meet suspended solids criteria
is the presence of unflocculated bacteria which do not settle even in a
static settling test. Lower clarifier loading alone will not overcome
this problem,
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
One of the factors essential to the performance of the activated sludge
process is effective flocculation of the sludge, with subsequent rapid
settling and compaction of the floe , Inadequate flocculation and
settling will result in an unacceptably high level of suspendes solids
in the effluent,
Several factors were examined for their effect on the suspended solids
level in the effluent, These include nutrient levels, hydraulic load-
ing, food-to-microorganism ratios, and the use of chemical flocculating
agents,
Nutrient Addition
In the highly complex microorganism population of an activated sludge
system, good settling characteristics are associated with the presence
of protozoa, stalked ciliates, rotifers and other higher microbial life
forms, Developing a suitable microorganism population depends largely
on nutrient balance, With the exception of nitrogen and phosphorus,
most of the minerals entering into the growth of these populations are
normally available from water supplies used for the transport of waste
77
-------
substances , Minimum requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus are
placed at ratios of BOD:N:P = 150:5:1 and requirements for maximum
Q
N and P content of sludge at 90:5:1 .
In the Pekin plant, phosphorus levels in the waste were below minimum
levels, and provision for the addition of phosphoric acid was included
in the plant design, The ammonia nitrogen level in the waste, however,
was unusually high because of its use in one of the manufacturing pro-
cesses, BOD:N ratios, prior to January 1972., averaged around 65:5,
significantly outside the normal range for optimum operation. Since
the microorganism population was low in protozoa, stalked ciliates,
rotifers, and other higher life forms, and since the plant effluent had
poor settling characteristics, an effort was made to reduce the level
of ammonia nitrogen to the waste, and studies were undertaken to try to
improve the types of microorganisms in the activated sludge,
A study on the growth of rotifers in activated sludge systems, undertaken
by the Technical Service Department of CPC International Inc., indicated
that ammonium toxicity was the only factor to have an appreciable effect
on the establishment of higher life forms in the Pekin waste. The study
examined the effects of mineral addition,, pH and shear, as well as
ammonium nitrogen toxicity. The results of this study are summarized in
Table 4,
For the mineral study, rotifer growth in Pekin's clarifier overflow
water was compared with growth in a control medium known to support
rotifers. It was found that mineral additions to the overflow water
appeared to stimulate the rotifer growth rate and support a higher
density of rotifers than the control system. The source of water in
the concentrated waste stream at the Pekin plant is primarily condensed
water vapor from evaporators. It was suspected that some trace elements
required for optimum microbial growth might be lacking. Analyses of
78
-------
TABLE 4
ROTIFER GROWTH IN ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEMS
Per cent increase in numbers of rotifers in Pekin clarifier overflow
(C.O,) and in a control broth at pH 7,0
C.O.
Control Broth
C.O. plus 5 mg/1 Mg
C.O. plus 15 mg/1 Fe
C.O. plus 5 mg/1 Mg and 15 mg/1 Fe
Ammonium nitrogen toxicity on rotifers
% Increase in 24 hr
Control Broth
+ 100 mg/1 NH4
+ 200 mg/1 NH4
+ 300 mg/1 NH4
% Increase
in 24 hr
28
31
25,3
39
57.5
Doubling Time of
Population, hr
85.6
77.2
95.7
67.7
41.8
+ 31
+ 26
- 32
- 61
Effect of pH on rotifers
EH % Increase in 24 hr
4 - 2.0
5 + 3.76
6 + 2.44
7 + 9,5
8 + 3,75
9 - 5,37
Effect of shear on rotifers
Blade Tip.Speed, fpm
0
550
1775
2290
Waring Blender, rpm
0
840
2700
3500
4200
2750
Rotifer Density
21,1
19.2
16,8
19,8
19,2
The tip speed of the agitators in the Pekin Aeration Pond is 1100 fpm.
79
-------
the waste stream showed that concentrations of iron, nitrate, potassium,
zinc and cobalt might be below required levels. Based on the results
of this study, ions were added to the Pekin system as follows.
_ +-H-
Fe
M W *^
o
K+
Zn++
Co+++
5 ppm
5 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
Shortly after this mineral addition, higher forms of microorganisms
such as stalked ciliates and rotifers appeared in the system. However,
the mineral addition was discontinued after a period of two months, and
the life forms remained, It was concluded that mineral deficiency was
not a significant factor in propogation of higher forms.
The pH studies indicated that the rotifers were able to tolerate a rela-
tively wide range with little effect on growth, from approximately pH
4,0 to pH 9,0, Also, shear does not appear to be particularly damaging
to rotifers. Laboratory tests with rotifers in a Waring Blender for
five minutes with a blade tip speed of 2750 feet per minute (fpm) showed
no adverse effects. The tip speed of the aerators in the Pekin waste
treatment system is 1100 fpm,
Tests on ammonium toxicity indicated that this was the major problem,
The study showed that the growth of rotifers began to be inhibited at
100 ppm ammonium concentration and continued to be further depressed as
the concentration Increased, Ammonium concentrations in the Pekin waste
had ranged from 150 to 200 ppm.
In February 1972, the use of ammonia in manufacturing was stopped com-
pletely, and nitrogen in the form of ammonia was added to the waste in
80
-------
appropriate quantities along with the phosphoric acid, Suspended
solids in the effluent dropped to significantly lower levels following
this change,
Hydraulic Loading
Although the wastewater flow rate to the waste treatment plant was
reasonably consistent, the relationship between the hydraulic loading
and effluent suspended solids was examined. For the first time period,
October 1971 through June 1972, the correlation coefficient was found
to be - 0.0002, showing no relationship between the two parameters,
The correlation coefficient for the second time period, July 1972
through January 1973, was somewhat higher at 0,13, but still not high
enough to indicate a significant relationship. The graph in Figure 35
of a representative sample of data points shows the randomness of the
relationship. Therefore, other factors were examined for their effect
on effluent suspended solids. Original data used to calculate the
correlation coefficients are given in Appendix C.
Food-to-Microorganism Ratio Cf/M)
The most difficult parameter to control has been the F/M ratio.
Figure 36 shows that there is a limited, but significant correlation
between effluent suspended solids and average F/M, The correlation
coefficient for both the time period October 1971 through June 1972 and
for July 1972 through January 1973 is 0.3, showing a low, but definite
relationship9, However, the nearly identical slopes of the two regres-
sion lines indicate that other factors may be of greater significance
in reducing the effluent suspended solids levels.
One of the most significant factors affecting effluent quality has been
81
-------
FIGURE 35
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS AS A
FUNCTION OF HYDRAULIC LOADING
400
300
I/O
0
O
o
UJ
o
UJ
a.
oo
u_
u_
200
100
O
o
o
o
O
°o<>
o o
O
o
°0
o.o
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
HYDRAULIC LOADING mgd
82
-------
500
FIGURE 36
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS AS A FUNCTION OF F/M
00
CO
to
t—H
_l
O
o
OO
400
300
200
100
O
OCTOBER 1971-JUNE 1972
O
O
JULY 1972-JANUARY 1973
O
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
F/M
1.4
-------
observed to be shock changes in the raw waste load. Even with the 24-
hour retention time equalization tank, changes in COD concentration to
the aeration tanks of as much as 5:1 have been observed, and changes
of 2:1 are common.
Depending on the severity of the shock, the effect can vary from the
growth of individual bacteria or tiny floes which do not settle, to
formation of a bulking sludge which does not settle at all. The flota-
tion cell generally does not have the capacity to remove the large
amounts of suspended solids resulting from these upsets, Recovery from
an upset requires from several days, to as much as 3 or 4 weeks for a
very large shock,
Examples of the effect of a moderate and a severe shock COD load are
shown below:
Nov. 13, 19.72 Dec, 4-5, 1972
Moderate Shock Severe Shock
Aeration Tank Supply COD
Day before shock, mg/1 865 ®™> 12> 1451 &*• 3>
Aeration Tank Supply COD
Day of shock, mg/1 1497 &""• 13) 5588 (Dec. 5)
Average Effluent BOD for
3 days before shock, mg/1 36 ^' 1(M2> 8 24° (Dec'
84
-------
Nov. 13, 1972 Dec. 4-5, 1972
Moderate Shock Severe Shock
Average Effluent Suspended
Solids for 3 days before 68 (Nov. 10-12) 19 (Dec, 2-4)
shock, rng/1
Average Effluent Suspended
Solids for 3 days after 184 (Nov. 13-15) 577 (Dec, 6-8)
shock, mg/1
These changes in waste load, and the resulting changes in F/M, are con-
sidered to be the most significant factor in failure to consistently
meet the effluent standards.
Chemical Flocculants
The suspended solids in the clarifier overflow generally consisted of
individual bacteria or very small clumps. The particle size of the
solids was too small for removal in the dissolved air flotation cell.
Successful flotation requires particle sizes large enough for air bub-
bles coming out to solution to become attached and float them to the
surface,
In order to overcome this problem, an attempt was made to treat the
clarifier overflow with a flocculating agent, increasing the particle
size of the solids, and improving solids removal in the flotation unit.
Several chemical suppliers tested numerous flocculating agents in the
laboratory. Four products showed some promise in laboratory tests and
were further tested full scale in the treatment plant, The products and
manufacturers were;
85
-------
Calgon Corp.
American Chemicals Co.
Nalco Chemical Co.
CPC International
Alum + WT3000 polymer
CN51 polymer
634 polymer + 650 clay
C-300 polymer
Using the available mixing, dosing, and blending equipment in the treat-
ment process, only C-300 showed full scale results that confirmed lab-
oratory tests. C-300 polymer is an experimental product made by CPC
International, and is not commercially available.
Results of some of the early full scale tests with C-300 are shown in
Table 5. The polymer dose was 10 mg/1. The results indicate that when
the clarifier overflow suspended solids concentration was about 100
mg/1, flotation effluent was in the range of the design basis of 45
mg/1, Lower values of solids in the clarifier overflow resulted in even
better effluent quality,
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF PEKIN FINAL EFFLUENT DURING C-300 TEST
Date
July 28, 1972
July 29
July 30, 31
August 1
August 2
August 3
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
of Final Effluent
24-hr Composite Samples
6
26
40a
14
24
18
Suspended Solids of
Air Flotation Influent
Grab Sample Taken
at 7:30 A,M,
33
59
101
34
46
22
a] 48-hour composite sample.
86
-------
However, with continued operation, it was found that the polymer was not
always effective. When suspended solids in the clarifier overflow was
above about 150 mg/1, flocculation was not complete. Even at lower con-
centrations, there were periods when effective flocculation was not
obtained. The reason is not fully understood. Tests are still in
progress to find a commercially available flocculant that is effective
at all conditions.
Figure 37 shows the range of suspended solids levels in the treatment
plant effluent for the period October 1971 through June 1972, and for
•July 1972 through January 1973. The computer-generated distribution is
given in Appendix C. Substantial improvement can be seen as a result
of the combined factors of higher biomass recycle rates, aeration of
recycled biomass, control of nutrients, and intermittent use of the
cationic polymer. During the earlier period, the effluent suspended
solids concentration was rarely below 100 mg/1; during the later period
it was below this level 67% of the time. However, this is still above
water quality standards, and continuing efforts are being made to
correct this deficiency.
EFFECT OF pH
Corn wet milling wastes tend to be low in pH. Both high and low pH
streams are discharged, but when combined and equalized, the pH is
usually about 6.0. Certain production schedules and product mixes
result in pH values below 5.5. When this occurs, pH is adjusted by
adding sodium hydroxide to the stream entering the equalization tank.
87
-------
FIGURE 37
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS
OCTOBER 1971-JANUARY 1973
2000
O
c/o
1000
800
600
400
200
100
O OCTOBER 1971-JUNE 1972
O JULY 1972-JANUARY 1973
20 40
60
80 90 95
99
99.9
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
88
-------
The aeration tanks are highly buffered. If the equalization tank pH is
above 5,5, the aeration tank pH nearly always falls between 7,0 and 7,5,
There have been occasional process upsets caused by extreme pH due to
accidental discharge of materials, or failure of the pH control on the
stream supplying the equalization tank. Aeration pH control has not
been a major problem in operation of the process as long as the equal-
ized waste pH is between 5,5 and 8.5.
BIOMASS YIELD
The excess biomass wasted averaged 0,41 Ib per Ib total COD removed
during the period of October 1971 to July 1972. This figure was deter-
mined by calculating the total biomass wasted and total COD removed
over 6-day intervals throughout the period. The range of values was
0.16 to 0,64 Ib excess biomass per Ib total COD removed? but most of
the values fell between 0,3 and 0,5, Because of the extreme variations
of F/M ratio within the 6-day intervals used to calculate the yield, no
correlation could be found between F/M and biomass yield,
The average yield of 0,41 is higher than predicted from the laboratory
data (0,3 to 0,35], However, the actual yield includes some insoluble
material in the raw waste (such as powdered carbon), which was not
present in the laboratory tests.
EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The aerators have maintained a positive dissolved oxygen under all con-
ditions. Although it is possible that extreme shock loads might have
caused oxygen deficiencies for short periods, whenever oxygen concentra-
tion was measured, a positive value was obtained, Oxygen supply was not
considered to be a cause of any of the problems encountered with the
89
-------
treatment process.
COSTS
The Total cost of the project discussed in this report was approximately
$2,000,000. This cost is described in more detail in Appendix F. An
additional $1,000,000 was spent for excess biomass disposal facilities.
Average treatment plant operating costs for the period July 1972-January
1973 are listed below.
$/mo $/100Q gal treated
Operator and supervisor salaries 4,522 0,19
Laboratory salaries 2,040 0.09
Maintenance 6,334 0,27
Chemicals and other supplies 3,378 0,14
Electric power 6,543 0,28
Overhead 1,574 0.07
Total 24,391 1,04
The cost per 1000 gallons is based on tKe actual flow treated during the
period. The BOD removal averaged 9571 Ib/day (based on the average of
monthly averages) for the period, and the operating cost, was $0,085/lb
BOD removed on this basis, excluding biomass disposal costs.
SUMMARY
Although the waste treatment plant as designed and modified often re-
moves 90% or more of the incoming BOD, and under normal circumstances
reaches a soluble BOD that would meet present and future criteria, the
90
-------
nature of the waste is such that suspended solids, and therefore total
BOD criteria are seldom met for more than a few days at a time, Dete-
rioration of effluent quality can nearly always be traced to a shock
load of COD, which causes an increase in effluent suspended solids, and
a corresponding increase in BOD, The BOD in the effluent is primarily
due to the suspended solids. Figure 38 shows the relationship between
effluent BOD and suspended solids, based on computer calculated monthly
averages for 1972. Original data are given in Appendix C.
Further improvement in effluent quality will require stabilization of
the waste load, and improved suspended solids removal,
91
-------
500
FIGURE 38
EFFLUENT BOD AS A FUNCTION OF
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS
MONTHLY AVERAGES 1972
400
300
O
en
^
Q
O
CO
200
O
O
O
100
O
TOO
200
300 400
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, mg/1
500
600
-------
SECTION VIII
REFERENCES
1. Fair, Gordon M., Geyer, John C., and Okun, Daniel A., Mater and
Wastewater Engineering, Volume II, John Wiley & Sons, 1968.
2- Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plants, Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer,
Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, October 1971.
3. Busch, A. W., "Biochemical Oxidation of Process Wastewater",
Chemical Engineering, 72, 71-76, 83-86, 1965.
4. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Associ-
ation, Water Pollution Control Federation, Thirteenth Edition,
1971.
5. Hiser, L. L. and Busch, A. W., "An 8-Hour Biological Oxygen Demand
Test Using Mass Culture Aeration and C.O.D.", Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, pp 505-516, April, 1964.
6. Pelczar, M. J., Jr., and Reid, R. D., Microbiology. Third Edition,
McGraw-Hill, 1972.
7. Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Jr., Industrial Water Pollution Control.
McGraw-Hill, 1966.
93
-------
REFERENCES
8. Sawyer, C. N., Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial
Hastes, Volume I, J. McCabe and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., Editors,
Reinhold, New York, 1956.
9. Sentor, R. J., Analysis of Data, Scott, Foresman & Co., 1960.
94
-------
SECTION IX
PUBLICATIONS
Sensing, H, 0. and Brown, D, R,, Process Design for Treatment of Corn
Viet Milling Wastes, Proceedings of Third National Symposium of Food
Processing Wastes, March 28-30, 1972, New Orleans, La,, Pacific North-
west Water Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bensing, H. 0,, Brown, D. R,, and Watson, S, A., Waste Utilization
and Pollution Control in Wet Milling, Cereal Science Today, Vol. 17,
No, 10, October, 1972,
95
-------
SECTION X
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Activated Sludge - Biological waste treatment process which uses micro-
organisms in suspension to oxidize soluble and colloidal organics to
C02 and H20 in the presence of molecular oxygen,
Aerobic - Pertaining to an oxygen-dependent form of respiration.
Anaerobic - Pertaining to an oxygen-independent form of respiration,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - An empirical test to determine the
relative oxygen requirements of wastewaters„ effluents and polluted
waters. Water quality standards are based on the 5-day 2Q0C BOD,
cfm - Cubic feet per minute.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - A measure of the oxygen equivalent of
that portion of the organic matter in a sample that is susceptible to
oxidation by a strogn chemical oxidant.
Correlation Coefficient - Statistic ranging from -1 to +1. The abso-r
lute value gives the magnitude of the correlation; the sign tells
whether the relationship is direct or inverse.
D0_ - Dissolved oxygen.
Filamentous Organisms - Microorganisms such as the bacteria
Sphaerotilus and Beggiatoa which may cause bulking in activated
sludge.
97
-------
Floe - Aggregation of suspended particles in water or wastewater.
Food-to-Microorgam'sm Ratio (F/M) - Lbs. COD per Ibs, MLSS per day,
fpm - Feet per minute.
gpd - Gallons per day.
h£ - Horsepower.
mgd - Million gallons per day,
Milligrams per Liter (mg/1) - In water and wastewater, approximately
equivalent to parts per million,
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids CMLSS) - Solids in suspension in a waste
treatment liquor.
ppm - Parts per million.
psi - Pounds per square inch,
rpm - Revolutions per minute.
Suspended Solids - Insoluble substances in water or wastewater,
Total Biological Oxygen Demand (TbOP) - A relatively quick method of
measuring the oxygen demand of the biodegradable fraction of a sample,
described by Hiser and Busch ,
98
-------
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY AND PILOT PLANT ANALYTICAL METHODS
Tests for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
dissolved oxygen [DO), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) used the pro-
cedure described in Standard Methods . The total biological oxygen
demand (TbOD) test and the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) test
are described in an article by Hiser and Busch .
The T^OD test is a relatively quick method of measuring the oxygen
demand of the biodegradable fraction of a sample. The procedure is to
measure the COD on a filtered portion of the original sample. Then
another portion of the sample is mixed with a biological culture and
aerated. Samples are taken periodically over a period of 8 hours, and
the COD of each sample measured after filtering through a membrane
filter. A graph of the COD plotted against time will show a plateau
COD, indicating that all the biodegradable material has been removed.
The T^OD is the difference between the original COD and the plateau COD.
The plateau COD is a measure of the nonbiodegradable fraction of the
waste,
TfaOD was used for preparation of unit rate of removal curves. The most
important part of these curves, when used for design, is at low values
of residual COD, Here, even small variations in plateau. COD are impor-
tant, so T,OD is used as the parameter for unit rate of removal curves.
Batch. Test
The batch test is an important analytical method for determining the
unit rate of removal characteristic of a biological culture , The
batch test procedure is similar to the procedure for the TfaOD test. A
99
-------
sample of the culture to be characterized is mixed with a sample of the
raw waste to be treated. The mixture is aerated for 8 hours. Samples
are withdrawn at 30 to 60-minute intervals, and each sample is analyzed
for MLSS and soluble COD,
Soluble COD and MLSS values are plotted against time, as shown in Fig-
ure 39. The slope of the COD curve is calculated at several points.
The slope is divided by the corresponding MLSS value from the MLSS
curve, and multiplied by 24 to obtain a basis of 1 day. The resulting
curve shows the unit rate of removal, with the units of pounds of COD
removed per day per pound MLSS under aeration,
Unit rate of removal is calculated for a number of values of COD over
the range of the batch test. The unit rate of removal is then plotted
against the corresponding TfaOD values (soluble COD minus plateau COD)
as shown in Figure 40. Sample data are shown in Table 6. Sample calcu-
lations are shown below.
In order to determine the effect of T^OD on the unit rate of COD remov-
al , the rate of change of soluble COD must be calculated. For example,
at 0.5 hour, dc/dt = 176 mg/1 COD removal/hr. The unit rate of COD
removal is the Ib COD removed/lb MLSS-day. The MLSS at 0,5 hour is
859 mg/1. Therefore:
dc 24_ 176 mg/1 COD removed 1 24 hours
dt * M ~ ~hourx 859 mg/1 x day
dc 24 _ 4.92 Ib COD removed T nn _ ,n, lnn _ -_,. ,,
BT x -J\ ~ Ib MLSS-day Tb°D - 305 - 100 - 205 mg/1
This unit rate of removal occurs at a TrOD of 205 mg/1, The remaining
data in Table 6 were calculated in like manner and are shown in Figure
40,
100
-------
E?1400
O
O
1200
1000
CO
CO
800
400
200
O
C_3
O)
O
CO
FIGURE 39
SAMPLE BATCH TEST DATA
BATCH TEST NO. 336
Nonbiodegradable
COD Plateau
1 2
TIME HOURS
101
-------
TABLE 6
SAMPLE DATA. BATCH TEST NO. 336
dc/dt,
Rate of dc/Mdt,
C Soluble Change of Unit Rate
Time
1005
1015
1030
1045
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
Total
COD,
mg/1
1389
1368
1347
1285
1244
1265
1233
1213
M MLSS,
mg/1
(+ 0.45 y)
856
858
905
1000
1032
992
936
918
COD,
mg/1
(- 0.45 y)
419
319
228
112
141
116
104
104
Soluble
COD,
mg/1 -hr
24.4
17.6
12.2
8,5
4,7
3.3
15
0
of Removal ,
Ib COD/
Ib MLSS-day
6,84
4,92
3.24
2,03
1.10
0.80
0.38
0
TbOD,
mg/1
398-
203
124
62
36
13
2
0
Starting Time = 1000
Initial COD = 402
Initial MLSS = 856
Initial F/M = 0,47
Batch Test Temperature = 90°F
102
-------
FIGURE 40
UNIT RATE OF REMOVAL
BATCH TEST NO. 336
(O
"O
in
_i
_Q
•u
V
>
o
o>
Q
O
O
I/)
4 L
LU
Qi
100
200
300
400
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION TbOD, mg/1
103
-------
The unit rate of removal curve characterizes the ability of a culture
to remove soluble COD from the waste at various effluent T^OD concen-
trations. Figure 40 shows that this particular culture could remove
2.75 pounds of COD per day per pound of MLSS, at an effluent T"bOD
concentration of 100 mg/1,
104
-------
APPENDIX B
ORIGINAL DATA FROM THE PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OF CPC INTERNATIONAL INC.,
NOVEMBER 1970-AUGUST 1971
These data were taken during the startup period described in Section VI,
and include the influent total COD (column 2), influent suspended solids
(column 3), effluent total COD (column 4, and effluent suspended solids
(column 5). The data are given in chronological order for each day that
data were available from November 18, 1970 through August 26, 1971.
105
-------
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DATE
11/18/70
11/19/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/23/70
11/24/70
11/25/70
11/26/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
11/30/70
12/01/70
12/02/70
12/03/70
12/04/70
12/05/70
12/07/70
12/08/70
12/09/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/14/70
12/21/70
12/22/70
12/28/70
12/29/70
12/30/70
12/31/70
1/12/71
1/13/71
1/14/71
1/15/71
1/03/71
1/04/71
1/05/71
1/06/71
1/07/71
1/11/71
TOTAL COD
INF MG/L
1340.
1436.
1662.
1650.
1681.
2000.
1866.
1456.
1650.
1827.
1674.
1856.
1500.
1735.
1523.
1579.
1617.
2020.
1446.
1907.
1617.
1897.
1897.
6887.
2456.
1026.
2548.
1990.
5073.
3681.
TSS
INF MG/L
460.
30.
40*
1*
30.
490.
290.
153.
250.
390.
110.
230.
220*
420.
220*
250.
360.
720.
190.
230.
290.
420.
320.
370.
1140.
2820*
330.
1050.
300*
1460.
TOTAL COD
EFF MG/L
82.
164.
133.
103.
93.
226.
632.
708.
629.
82.
112.
103.
92.
102.
77.
86.
124.
115.
250.
82.
75.
135.
70.
313.
1096.
902*
435.
1493.
1057.
300.
1804.
7650.
2470.
1430.
1482.
871.
891.
1025.
TSS
EFF MG/L
4110.
910.
660.
1130.
700.
770.
730.
580*
690.
800*
680.
740.
1110.
180.
230.
160.
96*
140.
246.
300.
124.
200*
164,
172.
360.
1760.
820.
240*
940.
1165.
920*
2040*
2170.
1080*
2140*
470.
330.
850.
370.
106
-------
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DATE
1/08/71
1/16/71
1/18/71
1/19/71
1/20/71
1/22/71
1/24/71
1/26/71
1/27/71
1/28/71
1/29/71
1/30/71
1/25/71
1/21/71
1/31/71
2/01/71
2/02/71
2/03/71
2/04/71
2/05/71
2/06/71
2/08/71
2/09/71
2/10/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/13/71
2/15/71
2/16/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
2/24/71
2/25/71
2/26/71
2/27/71
3/01/71
3/02/71
TOTAL COD
INF MG/L
3670.
2340.
2492.
2342.
1928.
2083.
1815.
1577.
1918.
2072.
2612.
2083*
4660.
1835.
2591.
3410.
3400.
2177.
1631.
1596.
1794*
1619.
1306.
1721.
2021.
1897.
1361.
1702.
705.
1596.
1762.
1354.
1928.
1938.
1309.
1261.
1213.
1513.
2061.
4664.
TSS
INF MG/L
480*
400.
170.
130*
790.
1430.
908.
208.
220.
212.
484.
752.
352.
376.
992.
772.
400.
268*
810.
556.
590.
328.
130.
1184.
290.
400.
520*
350.
260.
1280.
800.
510.
620.
1670.
540.
350.
430.
650.
380.
TOTAL COD
EFF MG/L
526.
687.
1068.
1371.
757.
320.
326.
186.
175.
302.
549.
300.
1361.
3027.
1223.
379.
280.
320.
454.
580.
342.
570.
453.
320.
1984.
2830.
715.
663.
523.
456.
268.
165.
152.
152.
170.
207.
335.
983.
TSS
EFF MG/L
530.
1560.
230.
488.
700.
200.
152.
230.
360.
44.
140.
140.
540.
1292.
164.
140.
120.
80.
230.
292.
140.
288.
290.
136.
1490*
1840.
350.
90.
330.
280*
108*
220.
88.
88.
112.
168*
200.
228.
107
-------
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DATE
3/03/71
3/04/71
3/05/71
3/06/71
3/07/71
3/08/71
3/09/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/12/71
3/14/71
3/15/71
3/16/71
3/17/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/21/71
3/24/71
3/30/71
3/31/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/25/71
3/26/71
3/28/71
3/29/71
4/01/71
4/02/71
4/04/71
4/05/71
4/14/71
4/15/71
4/06/71
4/07/71
4/08/71
4/09/71
4/13/71
4/25/71
4/16/71
4/18/71
4/19/71
TOTAL COD
INF MG/L
2975.
1793.
1202.
1072.
1620.
1565.
1244.
1340*
2464.
2423.
2093.
2633.
2767.
1610.
1441.
1052.
1210*
2712.
2280.
2536.
2820.
4297.
2804.
6837.
4519.
5093.
7382.
5485.
1042.
TSS
INF MG/L
170.
390.
240.
230.
320.
380*
210.
110.
560.
1000.
490*
580.
440.
340.
40*
180.
2780.
3520.
420.
660.
770.
240.
390*
720.
770.
1110.
570.
1140.
420.
TOTAL COD
EFF MG/L
3638.
1938.
1244.
866.
995.
1379.
249.
196*
217.
309.
247.
404.
614.
640.
518.
1217.
328.
1062.
299.
338.
2425.
2196.
1037.
533.
398.
280.
498.
532.
1194.
1347.
784.
3939.
1171.
2639.
3928.
757.
622.
972.
20620.
747.
620.
TSS
EFF MG/L
2710.
1640.
910.
850.
730.
1270.
310.
160.
230.
420.
250.
260.
392.
364.
500*
720*
180.
700.
60.
228.
1630.
476.
740.
500.
180.
80.
516.
284.
460*
510.
450.
2500.
480.
2140.
5280*
150.
400.
430.
10330.
500.
410.
108
-------
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DATE
4/22/71
4/23/71
4/24/71
4/26/71
4/27/71
4/28/71
4/29/71
4/30/71
4/20/71
4/21/71
5/02/71
5/03/71
5/04/71
5/05/71
5/06/71
5/07/71
5/11/71
5/12/71
5/13/71
5/14/71
5/09/71
5/10/71
5/16/71
5/17/71
5/20/71
5/21/71
5/22/71
5/24/71
5/25/71
5/26/71
5/27/71
5/28/71
5/29/71
5/19/71
6/02/71
6/03/71
6/04/71
6/05/71
6/07/71
6/08/71
6/09/71
TOTAL COD
INF MG/L
2578.
2967.
5488.
5515.
7018,
6343*
5730.
3545.
1413.
1944.
2726.
2342.
1968.
2177.
2854.
2900.
4241.
6695.
3394.
4154.
3957.
4478.
3055.
2590.
2136.
2610.
2674.
1687.
1696.
6270.
3172.
5348.
2894.
3192.
3118.
3769.
1957.
2489.
TSS
INF MG/L
230.
820.
550.
670.
320.
390.
530.
720.
310.
260.
450.
480.
430.
410.
440.
360.
870.
490.
630.
650.
3380.
1720.
410*
260.
1212.
310.
360.
530.
730.
230.
220.
990.
310*
1210.
430.
100.
1100.
720.
1060*
160.
380.
TOTAL COD
EFF MG/L
522.
473.
944.
1177.
1441.
1090.
705.
384.
281.
249.
177.
276.
389.
610.
519.
703*
705.
639.
1290.
726.
431.
544.
289.
1370.
265.
462.
448.
1029.
952.
2460.
706.
2460.
455.
421.
1328.
1811.
1109.
622.
TSS
EFF MG/L
350.
370.
400.
610.
330.
170.
320.
290.
200.
170.
90.
180*
130.
790.
240.
70.
480.
210*
430.
1040.
490.
530.
340.
240.
192.
76.
272.
268.
288.
1220.
170.
1220.
204.
120.
404.
700.
260.
370.
109
-------
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DATE
6/10/71
6/11/71
6/12/71
6/14/71
6/15/71
6/16/71
6/17/71
6/18/71
6/19/71
6/21/71
6/22/71
6/23/71
6/24/71
6/25/71
6/26/71
6/28/71
6/29/71
6/30/71
7/02/71
7/05/71
7/06/71
7/07/71
7/08/71
7/09/71
7/11/71
7/12/71
7/13/71
7/14/71
7/15/71
7/16/71
7/18/71
7/19/71
7/20/71
7/21/71
7/22/71
7/25/71
7/26/71
7/27/71
7/28/71
7/29/71
7/30/71
TOTAL COD
INF MG/L
2260.
2197.
1967.
1540.
2709.
3538.
2462.
2236.
2152.
1804.
1476.
1696*
1674.
1871.
2718.
1418.
2125.
1914*
5081.
2789.
1032.
1262.
1849.
3401.
4188*
2532.
1412.
1155.
3264.
1979.
2298.
6796.
4359*
12555.
11097.
TSS
INF MG/L
500.
500.
760*
410.
370.
370.
240.
210.
60*
150.
330.
440.
440.
700.
1420.
760.
1010*
1100*
16440.
5420.
350.
560*
970*
1100*
2050.
590*
120*
230*
1580.
660*
8030*
5490.
1620*
6670.
9050.
1850*
1970.
4370.
1000.
2040.
16310*
TOTAL COD
EFF MG/L
385.
295.
303.
321.
452.
324.
466*
490.
478.
439.
475.
557.
617.
318.
313.
301.
400.
864.
724.
1003.
249.
180*
232.
294.
318.
2064.
505,
471.
383.
323.
153.
1130.
1352.
1926.
303.
1245.
975.
462.
345.
105.
72.
TSS
EFF MG/L
130*
140.
100.
160.
188.
184.
200*
280.
210*
208.
292.
364*
396.
140*
420*
156*
256.
520.
280.
736.
116.
68*
104.
700.
120.
1540.
172.
164.
152.
164.
88.
680*
548.
1360*
208*
460.
550.
196*
160*
36.
20*
110
-------
PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DATE
8/01/71
8/02/71
8/03/71
8/04/71
8/05/71
8/06/71
8/08/71
8/09/71
8/10/71
8/11/71
8/12/71
8/13/71
8/15/71
8/16/71
8/17/71
8/18/71
8/19/71
8/20/71
8/22/71
8/23/71
8/24/71
8/25/71
8/26/71
TOTAL COD
INF MG/L
3215.
1222.
1717.
1935.
1275.
1873.
2386.
4110.
2696.
3629.
2520.
1577.
1939.
1472.
1277.
1524.
1665*
1233.
1812.
1320.
1389.
1437.
1156.
TSS
INF MG/L
2100.
830.
890.
580.
160.
610.
440.
1990.
1530.
2170.
490.
320*
340*
450.
70.
570.
610.
360*
790.
490.
410.
580.
240.
TOTAL COD
EFF MG/L
120.
200.
196.
513.
1363.
532.
206.
233.
739.
1278.
1104.
309.
546.
514.
339.
377.
293.
294.
237.
266.
124.
121.
121.
TSS
EFF MG/L
12*
140*
96.
260.
608.
240.
60.
263.
144*
856.
512*
132*
590*
300.
244.
244*
320*
164.
148*
188.
44.
28.
16.
Ill
-------
APPENDIX C
ORIGINAL DATA FROM THE PEKIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OF CPC INTERNATIONAL INC.,
OCTOBER 1971-JANUARY 1973
Columns headed "influent" represent the stream from the equalization
tank to the aeration tanks, and not the raw waste from the manufacturing
plant. Effluent samples were taken from the effluent of the dissolved
air flotation tank. Both of these samples were 24-hour composites. All
others were grab samples. The composite samples were time proportioned.
However, because of the equalization tank it was seldom necessary to
change the flow rate through the treatment plant more than once each
day, so the samples in effect are also flow proportioned.
The first section of this appendix lists all of the treatment plant data
during the operating period discussed in Section VII (October 1971-
January 1973). Semimonthly averages of these data were used to prepare
Figures 30, 33 and 34. Monthly averages were used for Figure 38.
Representative data points were used for Figures 29, 35 and 37.
The probability curves in Figures 28, 31, 32 and 37 were developed from
computer generated distributions.
112
-------
DATE
OCT 1 1971
OCT 3 1971
OCT 4 1971
OCT 5 1971
OCT 6 1971
OCT 7 1971
OCT 8 1971
OCT 10 1971
OCT 11 1971
OCT 12 1971
OCT 13 1971
OCT 14 1971
OCT 15 1971
OCT 17 1971
OCT 18 1971
OCT 19 1971
OCT 20 1971
OCT 21 1971
OCT 22 1971
OCT 24 1971
OCT 25 1971
OCT 26 1971
OCT 27 1971
OCT 28 1971
OCT 29 1971
OCT 31 1971
NOV 1 1971
NOV 2 1971
NOV 3 1971
NOV 4 1971
NOV 5 1971
NOV 7 1971
NOV 8 1971
NOV 9 1971
NOV 10 1971
NOV 11 1971
NOV 12 1971
NOV 14 1971
NOV 15 1971
NOV 16 1971
NOV 17 1971
NOV 18 1971
NOV 19 1971
NOV 21 1971
NOV 22 1971
FLOW
MOD
0.8140
0.6180
0.7460
0.8430
0.7440
0.6950
0.7060
0.5S20
0.6780
0.7300
0.6670
0.6460
0.7010
0.9420
0.7260
0.7220
0.7510
0.7990
0.7550
0.8310
0.6090
0.7790
0.6260
0.8490
0*8020
0.7170
0.2630
0.5770
0.6450
0.8760
0.8300
0.3840
0.4320
0.4152
0.5532
0.8761
0.8690
0.4572
0.5000
0.7665
0.8300
0.8368
0.8346
0.6808
0.8720
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1821.
1476.
1708.
1423.
3258.
2588.
3700.
2526.
1897.
3011.
4916.
3155.
3711.
3701.
3650.
3722.
1866.
2030.
3068.
1760.
2114.
3701.
3696.
2739.
1467.
1784.
10103.
2322.
2114.
2578.
2208.
5311.
3671.
6784.
3980.
3567.
6758.
7774. "
3692-.
2742.
3569.
4081.
2887.
2807.
2330.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
1281.
1016.
1125.
1000.
1485.
1876.
3555.
2041.
1067.
1897.
4312.
2516.
1316.
1897.
2258.
1536.
1037.
1015.
2405.
1239.
1237.
2742.
1853.
1500.
928.
1619.
8042.
1814.
1866.
2052.
1731.
2312.
2625.
3753.
3361.
2928.
2529.
2309.
2543.
1897.
2851.
3487.
1959.
1837.
1382.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
1310.
1610.
2570.
2370.
1400.
4400.
6800.
2150.
3635.
3 5.8 5 .
3145.
1895.
1650.
3050.
2650.
2025.
6140.
347O.
1820.
1970.
3000.
6800.
4330.
4230.
3510.
2155.
2930.
4330.
1535.
INFLUENT
PH
6.9
6.4
5.4
5.1
5.0
4.8
5.3
6.2
5.3
4.7
6.3
6.4
5.7
5.3
5.9
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.4
4.0
5.8
6.1
4.1
5.5
5.2
4.5
4.2
6.6
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.5
5.7
4.9
5.2
8.5
6.9
6.5
7.1
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
291.0
272.0
260.0
213.0
232.0
260.0
235.0
249.0
263.0
174.0
185.0
221.0
218.0
272.0
283.0
252.0
238.0
202.0
263.0
263.0
207.0
230.0
ise.o
174.0
216.0
294.0
238.0
370.0
297.0
204.0
241.0
311.0
507.0
101.0
305.0
263.0
291.0
11.0
140.0
106.0
381.0
666.0
104.0
336.0
302.0
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
123.0
105.0
33.0
75.0
87.0
97.0
48.0
39.0
43.0
32.0
43.0
70.0
61.0
67.0
56.0
0.1
18.0
19.0
15.0
ii.o-
39.0
12.7
42.0
31 .0
17.0
11^0
10.0
9.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
18.0.
27.0
10 .'0
10.0
23.0
83.0
15.0
12.0
11.0
83 .0
37.0
36.0
-------
DATE
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
AERATION
PH
6.7
6.6
6.9
6.3
6.6
6.8
6.1
5.6
6.5
5.7
4.7
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.2
6.8
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.4
5.3
6.6
6.4
6.6
8.9
3.8
3.9
5.2
6.3
6.6
6.5
6.9
6.7
7.2
6.7
6.3
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.9
7.9
7,5
7.5
AERATION
TEMP
DEG F
80.
72.
72.
70.
70.
72.
66.
60.
60.
65.
60.
61.
64.
72.
64.
71.
71.
71.
72.
68.
62.
66.
65.
70.
72.
60.
62.
62.
68.
70.
69.
48.
51.
60.
64.
72.
72.
68.
72.
72.
70.
70.
60.
64.
AERATION
D.O. MG/L
1.6
4.1
4.9
6.1
5.7
5.5
4.3
5.2
4.7
1.8
3.6
3.1
5.5
2.7
5.V
4.1
3.2
1.5
3.6
2.8
4.2
5.3
4.0
2.2
1.2
1.7
6.1
SETTLING
ML/L
130.
210.
210.
140.
230.
640.
450.
280.
320.
290.
280.
220.
280.
230.
210.
250.
300.
280.
190.
350.
350.
270.
360.
510.
530.
620.
710.
500.
540.
220.
230.
320.
250.
220.
310.
340.
490.
290.
310.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1211.
247.
262.
351.
907.
627.
489.
285.
213.
276.
1083.
561.
390.
243.
301.
268.
182.
135.
124.
121.
113.
146.
193.
175.
172.
10413.
7152.
1465.
503.
381.
329.
357.
344.
384.
313.
232.
239.
332.
359.
254.
332.
269.
202.
227.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
144.
159.
146.
128.
173.
194.
315.
132.
123.
153.
754.
231.
174.
136.
148.
190.
116.
94.
79.
79.
87,
76.
126.
121.
82.
9073.
5867.
730.
285.
207.
137.
127.
132.
132.
136.
104.
111.
187.
190.
119.
74.
190.
161.
123.
EFFLUENT
S3 MG/L
856.
112.
112.
248.
848.
1140.
208.
24.
144.
176.
224.
348.
264.
152.
88.
124.
104.
56.
48.
60.
50.
82.
102.
122.
116.
488.
1200.
720.
196.
136.
208.
228.
256.
228.
268.
120.
108.
100.
152.
180.
180.
124.
92.
120.
EFFLUENT
• BOD MG/L
142.
105.
408.
408.
65.
90.
400.
50.
167.
147.
110.
63.
24.
26.
43.
38.
7340.
6140.
788.
174.
125.
150.
163.
123.
76.
66.
103.
163.
52.
-------
DATE
OCT 1 1971
OCT 3 1971
OCT 4 1971
OCT 5 1971
OCT 6 1971
OCT 7 1971
OCT 8 1971
OCT 10 1971
OCT 11 1971
OCT 1Z 1971
OCT 13 1971
OCT 14 1971
OCT 15 1971
OCT 17 1971
OCT 18 1971
OCT 19 1971
OCT 20 1971
OCT 21 1971
OCT 22 1971
OCT 24 1971
OCT 25 1971
OCT 26 1971
OCT 27 1971
OCT ,28 1971
OCT 29 1971
OCT 31 1971
NOV 1 1971
NOV 2 1971
NOV 3 1971
NOV 4 1971
NOV 5 1971
NOV 7 1971
NOV 8 1971
NOV 9 1971
NOV 10 1971
NOV 11 1971
NOV 12 1971
NOV 14 1971
NOV 15 1971
NOV 16 1971
NOV 17 1971
NOV 18 1971
NOV 19 1971
NOV 21 1971
NOV 22 1971
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
154.0
176.0
196.0
232.0
216.0
202.0
190.0
185.0
196.0
185.0
148.0
118.0
126.0
182.0
213.0
210.0
190.0
154.0
165.0
151.0
179.0
146.0
151.0
115.0
137.0
342.0
319.0
260.0
174.0
185.0
176.0
193.0
266.0
230.0
213.0
193.0
45.0
193.0
302.0
302.0
353.0
140.0
325.0
283.0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
120.0
86.0
40.0
67.0
72.0
88.0
92.0
52.0
22.0
3.0
53.0
55.0
41.0
47.0
13.0
0.1
11.0
14.0
11.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
1.8
10.0
16.0
21.0
7.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
32.0
35.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
30U.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
240.
200.
100.
100.
75.
100.
45.
40.
80.
200.
230.
300.
200.
200.
RECYCLE
S3 MG/L
10370.
9160.
5800.
7270.
6800.
9480.
10020.
13650.
12480.
9350«
7620.
10790.
11210.
16830.
17390.
17220.
12650.
25990.
11520.
10720.
8840.
28170.
12540.
17090.
8950.
14780.
15440.
8650.
10450.
10460.
7920.
10790.
16970.
13190.
16620.
19100.
19460.
23260.
11030.
9800.
10770.
10820.
8980.
10620.
12730.
EXCESS
BIOMASS
WASTE LB/OAY
7439.
6570.
3485.
3515.
3289.
4588.
4843.
6600.
6038.
6708.
5438.
7826.
8041.
8143.
8410.
12350.
11394.
6919.
7688.
6388.
6067.
14160.
7419.
6229.
7534.
7534.
7603.
3388.
3665.
4752.
13970.
16057.
16360.
8381.
3974.
8824.
9052.
9092.
8628.
7017.
8411.
AERATION
MUSS
MG/L
3150.
3590.
3710.
2710.
3320.
3440.
2740.
5110.
3310.
3660.
5010.
5070.
4380.
6390.
7850.
6930.
7030.
5220.
5800.
4360.
4250.
5750.
7040.
5790.
4430.
6720.
3765.
4875.
4535.
3625.
6230.
6060.
5830.
4880.
4790.
4365.
4240.
3495.
3430.
4290.
5015.
4705.
4390.
4310.
F/M LB SOL
COD/LB MLSS
DAY
0.43
0.34
0.32
0.37
0.51
0.67
0.96
0.54
0.28
0.55
0.93
0.51
0.36
0.40
0.31
0.26
0.20
0.24
0.53
0.38
0.28
0.59
0.29
0.36
0.27
0.27
-------
DATE
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC.
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
1
2
3
5
6
7
S
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
FLOW
MOD
0.9482
0.6290
0.2600
0.2980
0.2220
0.2540
0.6790
0.8500
0.8830
0.9340
0.4430
0.4850
0.7550
0.9500
0.9590
1.0320
0.5150
0.7730
0.7430
0.7610
0.6520
0.8550
0.7210
0.7140
0.7080
0.8640
0.3040
0.2390
0.2930
0.4990
0.7440
0.7940
0.8410
0.4310
0.5456
0.6485
0.9368
0.9294
0.8821
0.2854
0.5270
0.8030
0.9950
1.0030
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1876.
3999.
7609.
4969.
4697,
3856.
1920.
2913.
3569.
6537.
4743.
3429.
2928.
3134.
3835.
7815.
4266.
2666.
1835.
1856.
2091.
1897.
1320.
1340.
1938.
2543.
2449.
1939.
2010.
3414.
11998.
7526.
3364.
4040.
3021.
2276.
2206.
1743.
1856.
1897.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
1196
2953
4081
3918
2953
2195
1410
1361
2789
4846
3361
2021
2062
2351
2451
1845
1784
1538
1175
1258
1360
1360
1010
887
969
1113
1989
1990
1704
1723
2475
7753
7485
2912
2051
1674
2031
1598
1261
1436
1713
•
•
*
*
»
•
»
»
*
•
•
»
•
•
*
«
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
*
*
*
*
*
•
•
•
ft
•
•
•
•
•
*
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
1586.
4100.
1620.
4060.
5960.
2680.
2880.
4330.
2365.
1800.
1700.
1325.
1090.
2380.
2130.
1835.
2085.
10100.
6500.
3145.
3995.
2325.
2025.
1725.
2425.
INFLUENT
PH
7
4
6
7
5
6
7
5
6
4
5
5
4
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
7
6
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
5
6
6
5
4
.0
.5
.2
.6
.0
.8
.1
.9
.6
.8
.9
.2
.8
.1
.3
.5
.2
.4
.7
.9
.5
.0
.2
.5
.9
.1
.6
.8
.3
.5
.6
.0
.7
.5
.7
.3
.5
.6
INFLUENT
AMMON I A
N MG/L
274.0
232.0
246.0
255.0
84.0
272.0
260.0
297.0
308.0
325.0
308.0
249.0
171.0
316.0
328.0
286.0
266.0
258.0
213.0
269.0
260.0
249.0
216.0
358.0
274.0
232.0
314.0
235.0
210.0
244.0
230.0
235.0
92.0
252.0
216.0
162.0
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
18.0
18.0
36.0
21 .0
19.0
11 .0
9.0
19.0
8.0
22.0
15.0
9.0
8.0
11 .0
9.0
39.0
24.0
12.0
6.0
11.0
12.0
15 .0
15.0
7 .0
13.0
33.0
18 .0
10.0
10.0
9.0
16.0
3.0
24.0
18 .0
11.0
11 .0
12.0
11.0
18.0
-------
AERATION
DATE
NOV 23 1971
NOV 24 1971
NOV 25 1971
NOV 26 1971
NOV 28 1971
NOV 29 1971
NOV 30 1971
DEC 1 1971
DEC 2 1971
DEC 3 1971
DEC 5 1971
DEC 6 1971
DEC 7 1971
DEC 8 1971
DEC 9 1971
DEC 10 1971
DEC 12 1971
DEC 13 1971
DEC 14 1971
DEC 15 1971
DEC 16 1971
DEC 17 1971
DEC 19 1971
DEC 20 1971
DEC 21 1971
DEC 22 1971
DEC 23 1971
DEC 24 1971
DEC 26 1971
DEC 27 1971
DEC 28 1971
DEC 29 1971
DEC 30 1971
DEC 31 1971
JAN 2 1972
JAN 3 1972
JAN 4 1972
JAN 5 1972
JAN 6 1972
JAN 7 1972
JAN 9 1972
JAN 10 1972
JAN 11 1972
JAN 12 1972
JAN 13 1972
PH
7.6
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.3
6.9
6.7
6.3
6.5
6.8
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.0
AERATION
TEMP
DEC F
69.
52.
49.
56.
66.
66.
67.
67.
67.
62.
66.
72.
74.
74.
56.
62.
68.
64.
61.
62.
61.
65.
59.
58.
67.
70.
61.
60.
62.
70.
73.
68.
56.
62.
63.
64.
AERATION
D.O. MG/L
4.7
6.2
8.7
6.6
4.4
5.9
6.0
7.0
5.0
3.4
l.S
1.9
9.0
5.8
5.3
5.6
6.0
6.9
7.1
7.7
8.8
6.8
6.0
4.7
6.9
3.9
2.3
3.8
4.2
8.0
7.6
5.3
4.6
SETTLING
ML/L
250.
200.
280.
260.
730.
650.
590.
410.
300.
500.
910.
860.
390.
460.
250.
190.
200.
270.
220.
190.
120.
160.
160.
170.
380.
300.
250.
350.
430.
910.
890.
440.
340.
290.
340.
290.
200.
260.
290.
330.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
285.
624.
495.
377.
279.
124.
197.
484.
499.
404.
261.
264.
107.
281.
427.
525.
254.
202.
285.
235.
282.
194.
190.
279.
359.
257.
197.
206.
529,
1563.
738.
505.
502.
404.
532.
476.
373.
443.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
169.
139.
148.
239.
197.
164.
58.
101.
336.
239.
173.
131.
140.
49.
57.
187.
148.
144.
111.
120.
110.
103.
99.
107.
152.
176.
131.
115.
97.
406.
1555.
525.
250.
216.
143.
177.
172.
135.
164.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
148.
432.
280.
312.
196.
128.
136.
72.
172.
288.
260.
140.
168.
132.
152.
288.
44.
310.
550.
76.
176.
148.
200.
96.
172.
224.
268.
270.
64.
112.
204.
164.
248.
284.
320.
344.
296.
168.
88.
EFFLUENT
BOD KG/L
46.
210.
63.
372.
183.
106.
123.
217.
243.
95.
90.
63.
7U.
57.
280.
86.
167.
87.
253.
1675.
498.
240.
205.
305.
158.
165.
-------
CO
DATE
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
26
29
30
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
269.0
140.0
112.0
143.0
168.0
232.0
227.0
218.0
165.0
151.0
218.0
227.0
81. 0
224.0
230.0
266.0
251.0
249.0
204.0
224.0
221.0
218.0
199.0
165.0
199.0
196.0
146.0
140.0
109.0
129.0
171.0
190.0
202.0
235.0
216.0
165.0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
27.0
26.0
16.0
14.0
9.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
13.0
12.0
10.0
16.0
17.0
13.0
5.0
2.0
7.0
3.0
6.0
4.0
18.0
27.0
19.0
15.0
13.0
RECYCLt
RATE
GPM
200.
425.
80.
30.
60.
30.
42.
160.
240.
220.
130.
40.
80.
260.
240.
140.
40.
20.
70.
30.
50.
50.
75.
75.
105.
198.
144.
95.
50.
46.
121.
112.
103.
112.
85.
74.
70.
72.
90.
88.
170.
145.
150.
130.
RECYCLE
SS MG/L
6430.
22670.
21460.
13410.
13980.
10800.
10890.
11400.
32820.
18390.
12810.
15330.
17420.
12190.
33600.
24200.
23860.
27680.
9720.
21520.
10390.
6320.
14920.
9110.
9740.
8460.
3690.
12080.
10440.
12140.
13820.
18900.
16200.
11720.
8940.
5660.
7640.
7480.
9340.
12580.
EXCESS
BIOMASS
WASTE LB/DAY
3859.
5446.
4869.
10028.
9343.
8108.
8492.
14588.
3973.
7690.
10224.
13397.
9377.
16140.
12794.
10398.
16617.
3378.
10339.
4988.
4174.
5374.
2515.
5846.
6100.
6384.
7012.
2044.
1993.
15665.
15564.
11118.
6445.
2039.
2752.
4131.
5048.
7857.
AERATION F/M LB SOL
MLSS COD/LB MLSS
MG/L
3685.
3525.
4780.
3915.
4215.
4800.
4070.
3680.
4490.
5680.
5560.
5400.
5060.
5970.
3700.
4490.
3040.
3820.
3050.
2320.
1740.
2470.
2380.
2500.
3170.
2940.
2840.
2990.
3190.
4000.
5060.
4710.
3950.
2820.
2380.
3290.
3010.
2530.
2640.
2820.
DAY
0.69
0.56
0.61
0.58
1.09
0.97
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.81
0.62
0.97
0.71
0.62
0.81
0.96
0.66
0.49
0.64
0.20
0.72
2.11
0.85
0.90
0.47
1.51
1.69
1.33
1.06
0.99
0.32
0.53
0.71
1.02
0.91
-------
DATE
JAN 14 1972
JAN 16 1972
JAN 17 1972
JAN 18 1972
JAN 19 1972
JAN 20 1972
JAN 21 1972
JAN 23 1972
JAN 24 1972
JAN 25 1972
JAN 26 1972
JAN 27 1972
JAN 28 1972
JAN 30 1972
JAN 31 1972
FEB 1 1972
FEB 2 1972
FEB 3 1972
FEB 4 1972
FEB 6 1972
FEB 7 1972
FEB 8 1972
FEB 9 1972
FEB 10 1972
FEB 11 1972
FEB 1'3 1972
FEB 14 1972
FEB 15 1972
FEB 16 1972
FEB 17 1972
FEB 18 1972
FEB 20 1972
FEB 21 1972
FEB 22 1972
FEB 23 1972
FEB 24 1972
FEB 25 1972
FEB 27 1972
FEB 28 1972
FEB 29 1972
MAR 1 1972
MAR 2 1972
MAR 3 1972
MAR 5 1972
MAR 6 1972
FLOW
MGD
0.8970
0.5640
0.6770
0.7170
0.7630
0.3420
0.8780
0.5000
0.7150
0.7350
0.6620
0.6700
0.8130
0.6410
0.4330
0,7190
0.9410
0.5940
0.6240
0.5940
0.7000
0.4250
0.5200
C.7380
0.9810
0.8720
0.9440
0.8530
0.8740
O.SS20
0.8420
0.5760
0.4200
0.4260
0.4710
0.5850
0.6590
0.7040
0.6620
0.5940
0.5760
0.6170
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD ,XG/L
1918.
2195.
2629.
7836.
3155.
2165.
1665.
7794.
2174.
2125.
2701,
2789.
2359.
2144.
1567.
1919.
2392.
2625.
2092.
1856.
3165.
3102.
2371.
2680.
3175.
2716.
3402.
2072.
3604.
3110.
2377.
5901.
5114.
4371.
2804.
4892.
1691.
1660.
2510.
1876.
1464.
2351.
1592.
1959.
1743.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
1340.
1692.
1691. .
2103.
1804.
1217.
995.
1825.
1836.
1786.
1907.
2051.
1620.
1309.
1443.
1459.
1928.
1887.
1374.
1423^
1835.
2643.
1608.
1845.
2598.
2032.
2258.
2072.
2562.
2684.
1639.
3887.
3196.
1887.
1815.
1347.
1258.
1474.
1194.
136C.
1227.
2124.
1470.
1041.
1231.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
2060.
4420.
2300.
1750.
1925.
1775.
1385.
1335.
1635.
2135.
2085.
1690.
2290.
4270.
3670.
2230.
3460.
1084.
1210.
INFLUENT
PH
5.9
4.7
7.4
4.3
7.1
6.7
7.1
4.9
7.0
5.4
5.6
4.6
5.6
5.8
7.5
6.5
5.2
7.0
5.3
4.4
4.8
5.5
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.0
5.7
3.8
3.5
4.5
0.2
2.3
10.0
6.4
4.2
4.7
7.5
6.0
5.2
5.8
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
17.0
109.0
311.0
179.0
196.0
196.0
224.0
101.0
56.0
17.0
232.0
196.0
230.0
193.0
238.0
193.0
185.0
84.0
196.0
168.0
87.0
204.0
216.0
196.0
160.0
92.0
0.1
11.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.0
3.0
0.1
40.1
0.1
13.0
1.0
0.1
28. 0
0.1
0.1
0.1
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
16.0
17.0
18.0
50.0
27.0
9.0
16.0
39.0
12.0
9.0
15.0
10.0
16.0
13.0
11 .0
11.0
17,0
16.0
10.0
14.0
9.0
10.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
19.0
11.0
24.0
23.0
50.0
29.0
30.0
6.0
12.0
7.0
-------
DATE
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
14
16
17
18
19
20'
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
1
2
3
5
6
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
AERATION
PH
7.2
6.5
6.5
6.9
7.4
7.3
7.5
6.8
7.3
7.3
6.9
6.7
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.3
6.9
5.9
5.8
5.9
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.3
6.6
7.1
6.5
5.3
5.7
5.0
6.1
2.1
2.4
7.2
6.8
6.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
6.9
6.8
6.4
AERATION
TEMP
DEG F
64.
49.
67.
70.
74.
72.
62.
60.
64.
63.
66.
56.
60.
72.
72.
56.
56.
56.
57.
61.
61.
76.
77.
72.
77.
77.
81.
74.
74.
76.
75.
70.
71.
78.
64.
60.
56.
AERATION
D.O. MG/L
5.6
9.3
4.5
5.7
4.2
5.1
3.2
6.2
5.6
5.7
7.9
7.6
4.0
3.6
4.4
5.5
6.5
6.4
5.1
5.0
2.3
2.3
1.2
2.0
1.7
0.8
0.6
1.2
6.5
5.8
5.1
5.0
6.4
6.7
SETTLING
ML/L
360.
400.
850.
340.
310.
340.
390.
960.
550.
410.
400.
760.
980.
970.
970.
410.
410.
600.
730.
700.
950.
530.
970.
950.
960.
920.
900.
910.
850.
830.
820.
860.
220.
670.
670.
800.
820.
880.
910.
920.
930.
850.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
280.
492.
309.
412.
318.
210.
183.
363.
295.
286.
309.
328.
357.
330.
169.
282.
330.
418.
566.
392.
507.
714.
516.
342.
470.
775.
722.
488.
454.
485.
289.
1084.
949.
663.
1571.
593.
234.
314.
124.
140.
157.
184.
746.
1091.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COO MG/L
132.
226.
132.
181.
132.
78.
142.
148.
144.
114.
107.
119.
123.
111.
91.
131.
144.
197.
238.
165.
289.
331.
227.
173.
214.
240.
313.
176.
237.
187.
140.
345.
441.
445.
652.
257.
136.
114.
S3.
58.
74.
102.
231.
328.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
212
200
184
240
192
92
112
294
104
180
200
120
192
180
160
172
196
236
152
272
328
336
276
184
216
456
344
296
204
216
84
800
443
232
928
308
228
108
8
100
112
96
404
1212
•
•
•
*
«
•
•
•
•
*
*
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
*
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
EFFLUENT
BOD MG/L
142.
152.
17o.
83.
115.
113.
129.
167.
88.
67.
154.
267.
327.
179.
149.
199.
297.
972.
396.
81.
74.
-------
ro
DATE
JAN 14 1972
JAN 16 1972
JAN 17 1972
JAN 18 1972
JAN 19 1972
JAN 20 1972
JAN 21 1972
JAN 23 1972
JAN 24 1972
JAN 25 1972
JAN 26 1972
JAN 27 1972
JAN 28 1972
JAN 30 1972
JAN 31 1972
FEB 1 1972
FEB 2 1972
FEB 3 1972
FEB 4 1972
FEB 6 1972
FEB 7 1972
FEB 8 1972
FEB 9 1972
FEB 10 1972
FEB 11 1972
FEB 13 1972
FEB 14 1972
FEB 15 1972
FEB 16 1972
FEB 17 1972
FEB 18 1972
FEB 20 1972
FEB 21 1972
FEB 22 1972
FEB 23 1972
FEB 24 1972
FEB 25 1972
FEB 27 1972
FES 28 1972
FEB 29 1972
MAR 1 1972
MAR 2 1972
MAR 3 1972
MAR 5 1972
MAR 6 1972
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
76.0
106.0
151.0
179.0
123.0
140.0
168.0
90.0
101.0
129.0
188.0
143.0
162.0
146.0
165.0
207.0
196.0
188.0
204.0
193.0
106.0
760.0
168.0
140.0
120.0
64.0
0.1
0.1
25.0
8.0
0.1
7.0
0.1
0.1
10.0
3.0
0.1
21.0
8.0
4.0
3.0
28-0
45.0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
16.0
17.0
6.0
7.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
11.0
8.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
10.0
10.0
14.0
13.0
11.0
14.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
9.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
5.0
12.0
7.0
5.0
28.0
8.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
9.0
10.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
100.
100.
60.
68.
70.
105.
130.
60.
100.
80.
70.
70.
200.
60.
60.
50.
104.
140.
125.
130.
105.
220.
110.
180.
250.
180.
180.
165.
200.
300.
128.
150.
150.
150.
150.
300.
300.
200.
210.
168.
290.
310.
290.
290.
RECYCLE
S3 MG/L
10700.
15280.
13360.
9460.
7540.
7120.
9640.
12650.
13180.
12720.
10660.
6260.
13620.
12080.
12720.
10260.
1940.
27480.
7000.
11600.
6960.
12140.
11260.
11260.
14200.
15820.
12900.
12700.
11940.
11920.
24460.
17360.
16700*
4890.
2700.
9040.
11380.
13040.
14800.
11080.
10740.
11050.
7800.
5860.
EXCESS
BIOMASS
WASTE LB/DAY
6681.
5504.
6417.
6138.
6340.
5560.
5210.
3354.
791.
6016.
6401.
3350.
7361.
3627.
2331.
4123.
3481.
4008.
7286.
2704.
3481.
4008.
7286.
2704.
5409.
5967.
3799.
7284.
12200.
8605.
10020.
11738.
8340.
18053.
5275.
1296.
867.
1917.
1882.
2838.
3405.
2793.
2098.
AERATION
F/M LB SOL
MLSS COD/LB MLSS
MG/L
2630.
3290.
3530.
2550.
2240.
2000.
2410.
3890.
3110.
2480.
2420.
3130.
3640.
3300.
2940.
2230.
2410.
2810.
3080.
2700.
3770.
3240.
3820.
3900.
3470.
4620.
5400.
4620.
5490.
5060.
4960.
8940.
3160.
5400.
1920.
3200.
3790.
5060.
7440.
4570.
4610.
5530.
5600.
5090.
3190.
DAY
0.83
0.47
0.59
0.71
0.99
0.83
0.62
0.41
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.72
0.66
0.45
0.33
0.79
1.59
0.71
0.56
0.52
0.64
0.56
0.35
0.58
1.01
0.74
0.78
0.40
0.81
0.77
0.44
1.50
0.47
0.30
0.31
0.49
0,37
0.37
0.51
0.30
0.22
0.36
-------
DATE
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
FLOW
MGD
0.6280
0.7360
0.7240
0.7470
0.8580
0.5410
0.6150
0.7840
0.9270
0.9500
0.8090
0.8650
0,7970
0.8400
0.9980
0.9220
0.7940
0.7870
0.7190
0.8430
0.8630
0.8770
0.8590
0.8610
0.9100
1.0020
1.0190
0.9420
0.8950
0.8380
0.8470
0.9160
0.8490
0.7260
0.5290
0.7780
0.9510
1.0170
1.0140
0.5620
0.8070
1.0460
1.0190
0.9540
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1732
1380
1629
1300
1388
2881
1886
1313
1026
958
1093
1897
2083
1534
1629
1072
1460
2578
1989
1429
1583
1638
2021
1546
1493
1072
1354
1701
2186
2144
1443
1866
1700
3774
3587
3031
2371
2441
1526
2021
2062
1653
1368
1265
•
•
•
«
4
*
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
*
*
•
•
*
•
*
•
*
*
4
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
INFLUENT
SOLUbLE
COD MG/L
1196.
9740.
1464.
1072.
1184.
1918.
1575.
1005.
861.
771.
845.
1608.
173?.
1285.
1443.
887.
1230.
1897.
1610.
1388.
1347.
1347.
1949.
1477.
1233.
907.
1067.
928.
1340.
1351.
1175.
1562.
1202.
3671.
3275.
1918.
1907.
1856.
1113.
1526.
2062.
1653.
1368.
1265.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
1050.
1350.
686.
806.
1180.
1300.
1158.
1195.
1244.
672.
524.
1324.
3865.
1890.
1518.
1026.
INFLUENT
PH
3.1
6.9
6.4
4.0
5.2
8.3
9.6
6.3
5.1
6.7
6.3
5.0
5.8
7.6
8.5
7.3
7.0
5.9
5.8
5.3
5.6
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.2
8.2
7.5
7.4
8.6
6.6
7.1
7.1
7.2
5.3
4.4
5.1
4.7
5.1
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.5
6.5
6.7
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
7
2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.0
.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
1.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
11 .0
1.0
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.3
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2 .0
2.0
4.0
-------
AERATION
DATE
MAR 7 1972
MAR 8 1972
MAR 9 1972
MAR 10 1972
MAR 12 1972
MAR 13 1972
MAR 14 1972
MAR 15 1972
MAR 16 1972
MAR 17 1972
MAR 19 1972
MAR 20 1972
MAR 21 1972
MAR 22 1972
MAR 23 1972
MAR 24 1972
MAR 26 1972
MAR 27 1972
MAR 28 1972
MAR 29 1972
MAR 30 1972
MAR 31 1972
APR 2 1972
APR 3 1972
APR 4 1972,
APR 5 1972'
APR 6 1972
APR 7 1972
APR 9 1972
APR 10 1972
APR 11 1972
APR 12 1972
APR 13 1972
APR 14 1972
APR 16 1972
APR 17 1972
APR 18 1972
APR 19 1972
APR 20 1972
APR 21 1972
APR 23 1972
APR 24 1972
APR 25 1972
APR 26 1972
APR 27 1972
PH
6.8
7.1
6.8
6.6
5.9
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.0
7.1
6.4
6,4
7.3
7*2
7.1
7.5
7.2
6.7
7.5
7.4
7.8
7.5
6.9
7.0
6.8
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.2
8.0
6.5
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.6
AERATION
TEMP
DEG F
65.
60.
66.
70.
68.
62.
67.
74.
74.
70.
80.
74.
70.
72.
74.
68.
72.
70.
70.
73.
73.
73.
74.
78.
74.
74.
77.
75.
80.
66.
73.
72.
71.
77.
74.
72.
70.
70.
70.
70.
70.
70.
70.
AERATION
D.O. MG/L
4.2
8.3
8.2
6.0
6.0
5.5
7.5
6.5
7.6
2.7
2.4
2.8
4.0
2.5
5.6
4.9
3.0
4.8
4.6
4.8
5.5
2.5
2.0
2.6
3.3
5.5
6.3
5.2
5.8
6.9
SETTLING
ML/L
940.
660.
600.
460.
970.
980.
980.
930.
320.
190.
860.
760.
425.
475.
480.
490.
485.
490.
485.
485.
460.
455.
495.
495.
305.
260.
300.
280.
450.
400.
425.
485.
475.
450.
500.
500.
495.
500.
500.
475.
495.
500.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1468.
1039.
685.
544.
220.
489.
941.
755.
279.
175.
91.
487.
400.
166.
132.
260.
92.
148.
742.
506.
182.
431.
363.
767.
551.
478.
254.
227.
194.
194.
239.
212.
199.
133.
775.
1089.
1225.
1563.
421.
107.
470.
547.
294.
373.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
206.
173.
124.
82.
69.
133.
112.
103.
53.
58.
58.
99.
62.
66.
54.
33.
36.
45.
53.
49.
50.
50.
115.
82.
87.
49.
62.
66.
49.
82.
67.
75.
94.
182.
95.
66.
86.
74.
45.
58.
89.
79.
33.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
1060.
980.
550.
390.
124.
224.
856.
696.
192.
60.
112.
460.
360.
160.
68.
52.
92.
964.
372.
180.
300.
92.
544.
136.
124.
216.
140.
80.
188.
68.
208.
164.
128.
1036.
1608.
1732.
1590.
308.
10.
356.
292.
252.
316.
EFFLUENT
BOD MG/L
500.
380.
366.
113.
106.
53.
219.
60.
282.
101.
116.
127.
116.
543.
478.
516.
790.
199.
32.
169.
410.
221.
153.
-------
DATE
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
MAR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
APR
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
25.0
29.0
15.0
0.1
11.0
0.1
6.0
17.0
10.0
3.0
1.0
8.0
6.0
7.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
15.0
19.0
10.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.0
0.1
8.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
8.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1 -
4.0
16.0
3.0
8.0
10.0
24.0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
1
0
0
6
9
8
4
1
4
5
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
9
5
0
0
0
0
6
4
1
1
2
5
.0
.3
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.6
.1
.5
.0
.0
.1
.1
.2
.0
.0
.1
.1
.1
.0
.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
330.
400.
200.
200.
240.
172.
200.
125.
120.
150.
170.
180.
225.
225.
230.
250.
250.
245.
200.
170.
180.
220.
220.
250.
200.
200.
200.
240,
220,
220.
210.
200.
200.
200.
200.
400.
350.
400.
200.
300.
250.
200.
200.
200.
RECYCLE
SS MG/L
4440.
8020.
8120.
8620.
9740.
11200.
9740.
10820.
10580.
10500.
20080.
10880.
9700.
10500.
11620.
10680.
11220.
12180.
11460.
12280.
11140.
8420.
14320.
8940.
11360.
10500.
12960.
12420.
14340.
13200.
11600.
10320.
10160.
12100.
9620.
7440.
7080.
4860.
7280.
8960.
7420.
7580.
7560.
10340.
EXCESS
BIOMASS
WASTE LB/DAY
518.
935.
947.
1005.
1136.
2705.
2353.
3876.
4373.
2536.
4850.
2435.
3474.
3760.
4839.
4448.
3364.
5884.
6595.
6649.
5832.
5050.
4294.
5362.
5488.
3149.
3130.
3724.
4300.
5498.
4831.
5588.
6093.
5040.
5770.
4462,
4246.
1457.
5215.
4651.
4450.
6692.
4156.
5684.
AERATION F/M LB SOL
MLSS COD/LB MLSS
MG/L
3170
2980
3120
3110
3510
4740
3940
3360
2430
3110
3350
3840
3770
3670
3690
4030
6920
5830
6760
2820
4450
3560
4850
4780
4160
3220
4290
4470
4670
4950
4330
4200
3670
5770
4670
4100
3280
2180
2270
3280
2720
2530
2700
5690
*
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
*
•
•
*
*
•
*
•
*
•
»
•
•
*
•
»
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
DAY
0.42
0.44
0.72
0.50
0.58
0.52
0.53
0.46
0.52
0.51
0.42
0.77
0.75
0.61
0.75
0.40
0.38
0.50
0.38
0.53
0.68
0.58
0.74
0.49
0.46
0.48
0.59
0.42
0.50
0.46
0.42
0.67
0.52
1.13
0.60
0.63
0.92
1.26
0.92
0.78
0.94
1.23
0.87
0.58
-------
en
DATE
APR 28 1972
APR 30 1972
MAY 1 1972
KAY 2 1972
MAY 3 1972
MAY 4 1972
MAY 5 1972
MAY 7 1972
MAY 8 1972
MAY 9 1972
MAY 10 1972
MAY 11 1972
MAY 12 1972
MAY 14 1972
MAY 15 1972
MAY 16 1972
MAY 17 1972
MAY 18 1972
MAY 19 1972
MAY 21 1972
MAY 22 1972
MAY 23 1972
MAY 24 1972
MAY 25 1972
MAY 26 1972
MAY 29 1972
MAY 30 1972
MAY 31 1972
JUN 1 1972
JUN 2 1972
JUN 4 1972
JUN 5 1972
JUN 6 1972
JUN 7 1972
JUN 8 1972
JUN 9 1972
JUN 11 1972
JUN 12 1972
JUN 13 1972
JUN 14 1972
JUN 15 1972
JUN 16 1972
JUN 18 1972
JUN 19 1972
JUN 20 1972
FLOW
MOD
0.8850
0.7310
0.8160
0.8060
0.6460
0.9920
0.8340
0.7540
1.0500
0.9480
0.9900
0.8090
0.2020
0.6370
0.7800
0.8430
0.9120
0.8640
0.9500
0.8940
1.0220
1.0270
0.5910
0.5580
0.9130
1.0280
1.0170
0.8670
0.7240
0.9740
0.8910
0.8920
0.7520
0.8580
0.8480
0.8410
0.8170
0.8110
0.7080
0.7890
0.7540
0.9390
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MC/L
1196.
3470.
1859.
1875.
1850.
1119.
953.
990.
1026.
1042.
1072.
1052.
1794.
1897.
2032.
2195.
1646.
1237.
928.
2646.
2041.
2104.
18288.
3166.
1281.
1118.
1010.
953.
989.
1323.
1332.
1646.
2041.
1479.
1093.
1037.
2062.
1265.
2197.
1794.
1313.
1233.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
1196.
3470.
1427.
1350.
1325.
964.
766.
887.
820.
802.
856.
763.
1248.
1052.
1420.
1856.
1469.
1083.
784.
2297.
1656.
1843.
17219.
1479.
1156,
860.
794.
806.
812.
1010.
1175.
1312.
1770.
1250.
711.
757.
1489.
1026.
1772.
1588.
954.
985.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
1105.
721.
824.
2150.
978.
1695.
720.
691.
1382.
885.
1310.
1096.
INFLUENT
PH
6.5
5.1
5.2
6.2
10.4
7.1
7.3
8.2
6.5
7.8
8.3
8.0
7.9
6.3
6.9
5.9
5.9
9.2
7.2
6.9
6.8
7.2
4.4
6.0
7.2
8.4
6.7
6.9
7.0
6.2
5.8
5.8
8.5
7.4
7.3
7.1
6.5
7.1
7.1
6.2
7.0
6.0
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.6
2.0
7.0
3.0
7.0
1.0
5.0
3.0
0.1
2.0
4.0
5.0
28.0
13.0
9.0
3.0
1.0
1*0
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
2 .0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
2:0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3 .0
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.0
1 .0
1 .0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1 .0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
-------
DATE
APR
APR
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
MAY
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
28
30
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
29
30
31
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
AERATION
PH
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
6.3
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
8.3
7.7
7.0
6.9
5.8
4.0
5.6
7.2
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.9
7.6
6.8
6.9
7.5
8.1
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.9
7.5
AERATION
TEMP
OEG F
70.
75.
70.
70.
69.
72.
68.
66.
66.
70.
70.
70.
66.
70.
74.
76.
77.
77.
77.
77.
78.
80.
80.
80.
80.
70.
70.
70.
70.
76.
74.
80.
80.
82.
87.
72.
75.
83.
82.
82.
82.
75.
78.
84.
82.
AERATION
D,0. MG/L
6.2
3.2
6.5
7,0
5.8
7.3
5.8
7.0
6.6
7.5
7.0
6.9
6.3
4.2
3.1
2.9
4.8
3.2
1.0
2.0
5.i>
6.7
6.0
6.0
5.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
1.9
2.9
2.9
5.6
2.9
2.8
SETTLING
ML/L
500.
500.
500.
495.
475.
425.
475.
365.
325.
275.
300.
450.
495.
495.
360.
460.
460.
500.
480.
400.
300.
500.
460.
450.
485.
175.
180.
450.
450.
370.
670.
780.
950.
720.
650.
870.
950.
980.
EFFLUtNT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
383.
990.
1635.
760.
250.
249.
332.
598.
706.
450.
635.
730.
691.
528.
301.
954.
750.
804.
722.
1132.
1066.
887.
3722.
1521.
575.
303.
202.
117.
258.
1021.
639.
579.
225.
675.
210.
91.
550.
211.
95.
107,
172.
692.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
58.
73.
31.
60.
50.
52.
41.
41.
49.
62.
50.
45.
58.
124.
21.
21.
31.
21.
52.
53.
121.
87.
3358.
146.
52.
87.
80.
58.
42.
49.
62.
58.
92.
54.
25.
71.
66.
66.
70.
70.
58.
EFFLUENT
S3 MG/L
200.
44B.
1900.
388.
240.
220.
324.
644.
636.
380.
616.
392.
492.
490.
260.
1050.
820.
780.
560.
1148.
920.
1092.
732.
360.
296.
72.
108.
100.
280.
952.
716.
523.
168.
652.
152.
23.
512.
128.
20.
60.
140.
680.
EFFLUtNT
BOD MG/L
116.
772.
905.
422.
101.
76.
111.
151.
204.
141.
264.
438.
319.
260.
220.
680.
509.
349.
269.
489.
718.
269.
2510.
760.
210.
125.
151.
44.
371.
371.
291.
641.
117.
335.
77.
56.
584.
81.
38.
32.
59.
300.
-------
EFFLUENT
AMMON I A
DATE N MG/L
APR 28 1972 8.0
APR 30 1972 0.1
MAY 1 1972 0.1
MAY 2 1972 0.1
MAY 3 1972 0-1
MAY 4 1972 6.0
MAY 5 1972 9.0
MAY 7 1972 12.0
MAY 8 1972 17.0
MAY 9 1972 15.0
MAY 10 1972 16.0
MAY 11 1972 10.0
MAY 12 1972 14.0
MAY 14 1972 8.0
MAY 15 1972 10.0
MAY 16 1972 9.0
MAY 17 1972 3.0
MAY 18 1972 0.1
MAY 19 1972 6.0
MAY 21 1972 13.0
MAY 22 1972 9.0
MAY 23 1972 6.0
MAY 24 1972 1.0
MAY 25 1972 6.0
MAY 26 1972 6.0
MAY 29 1972 5.0
MAY 30 1972 0.1
MAY 31 1972 13..0
JUN 1 1972 15.0
JUN 2 1972 36.0
JUN 4 1972 23.0
JUN 5 1972 16.0
JUN 6 1972 8.0
JUN 7 1972 0.1
JUN 8 1972 10. 0
JUN 9 1972 0.1
JUN 11 1972 9.0
JUN 12 1972 25.0
JUN 13 1972 24.0
JUN 14 1972 25.0
JUN 15 1972 10.0
JUN 16 1972 2.0
JUN 18 1972
JUN 19 1972
JUN 20 1972
3.0
10.0
7.0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
5.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
17.0
6.0
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.7
6.0
7.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
0.3
0.1
9.0
6.0
9.0
8.0
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
2.0
9.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
150.
200.
180.
180.
190.
110.
150.
150.
100.
150.
150.
150.
150.
150.
150.
200.
200.
150.
150.
200.
200.
150.
150.
300.
300.
150.
150.
150.
150.
150.
150.
400.
200.
200.
400.
400.
400.
400.
400.
400.
500.
520.
500.
520.
500.
RECYCLE
SS MG/L
11080.
9700.
6380.
6240.
8640.
7860.
8480.
9020.
6720.
6480.
6860.
6400.
6060.
4820.
7200.
7180.
6520.
6240.
4540.
2240.
2300.
2680.
4840.
3120.
6620.
2760.
5080.
9160.
8240.
8980.
6500.
4660.
2780.
3760.
5560.
4380.
3800.
5060.
4600.
4520.
4720.
5720.
7520.
7260.
6180.
EXCESS AERATION
BIOMASS MLSS
WASTE LB/DAY MG/L
3968. 3040.
4040. 4990.
4464. 3170.
2910. 2620.
1223. 2100.
1898. 2230.
2542. 2090.
3230. 1920.
1623. 2060.
1565. 1990.
1319. 1840.
2033. 2360.
3150. 1840.
4470. 2300.
1096. 2400.
541. 2870.
555. 2880.
647. 2840.
1830.
1350.
1040.
1770.
1880.
2270.
5300.
1390.
1980.
3830.
1990. 1900.
3216. 2630.
2003. 2250.
854. 2040.
509. 1770.
438. 1790.
1065. 2430.
1179. 2700.
918. 2130.
1222. 2500.
1762. 2750.
2183. 2510.
1965. 2680.
3430. 36flQ.
5387.
2419.
1853.
4100 .
4150.
3110.
F/M LB SOL
COD/LB MLSS
DAY
0.53
1.56
0.75
0.88
0.77
0.86
0.64
0. 83
0.75
0.82
0.58
0.46
0.45
0.73
1.14
1.16
1.06
1.09
2.49
1.72
1.66
4.76
0.95
0.74
0.58
0.62
0.58
0.54
1.06
2.46
2.25
1.02
0.81
0.49
0.45
0.87
0.60
n 7 ?
Y . / c,
Of r\
. OU
0^ Q a
. J J
0.98
-------
ro
DATE
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
FLOW
MGD
0.9520
0.9320
0.6880
0.7180
0.7210
0.7410
0.7920
0.5400
0.5540
0.7910
0.9110
0.8700
0.8640
0.9370
0.9600
0.9870
0.5910
0.6000
0.2240
0.5450
0.8950
0.9020
0.6170
0.5200
0.5840
0.3820
0.5770
0.7140
0.7320
0.4910
0.4380
0.4330
0.7450
0.7860
0.7220
0.8000
0.8000
0.6720
0.6440
0.8600
0.8730
0.8470
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1358
1784
1052
1793
1629
1330
840
2804
1113
1700
1608
2031
1783
1844
1794
2227
1723
1643
1202
1382
1078
1493
1441
1057
1155
773
1026
1037
1026
1332
881
1382
2239
1588
1384
1103
1202
1021
1507
1268
1855
861
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
*
*
•
»
•
•
•
•
*
•
ft
•
•
*
•
*
*
«
INFLUCNT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
964.
1258.
917.
1451.
1155.
1062.
1161.
2351.
5640.
1113.
1700.
1608.
2031.
1783.
1544.
1670.
1897.
1200.
1544.
881.
598.
498.
1099.
1140.
881.
804.
516.
697.
653.
518.
670.
782.
940.
1604.
1031.
861,
722.
746.
619.
1046.
1567.
1140.
677.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
1100.
1210.
1036.
1450.
1382.
1370.
660.
1730.
706.
1044.
1000.
1135.
702.
1680.
INFLUENT
PH
6.8
5.4
7.2
6.1
4.9
5.2
5.3
4.7
4.4
7.1
8.0
6.8
5.1
4.9
6.5
5.6
6.4
7.9
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.4
6.7
4.0
7.0
7.2
7.3
8.2
7.5
7.0
7.9
6.7
6.9
7.3
7.2
8.5
7.8
7.7
8.1
7.2
7.9
7.4
7.3
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
6.0
7.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
0.1
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.6
1.0
0.7
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
0.1
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.4
3.0
2.0
0.4
0.1
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
8
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
12
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
.0
.5
.1
.3
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
.4
.3
.8
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-------
AERATION
DATE
JUN 21 1972
JUN 22 1972
JUN 23 1972
JUN 25 1972
JUN 26 1972
JUN 27" 1972
JUN 28 1972
JUN .29 1972
JUN 30 1972
JUL 2 1972
JUL 3 1972
JUL 4 1972
JUL 5 1972
JUL 6 1972
JUL 7 1972
JUL 9 1972
JUL 10 1972
JUL 11 1972
JUL 12 1972
JUL 13 1972
JUL 14 1972
JUL 16 1972
JUL 17 1972
JUL 18 1972
JUL 19 1972
JUL 20 1972
JUL 21 1972
JUL 23 1972
JUL 24 1972
JUL 25 1972
JUL 26 1972
JUL 27 1972
JUL 28 1972
JUL 30 1972
JUL 31 1972
AUG 1 1972
AUG 2 1972
AUG 3 1972
AUG 4 1972
AUG 6 1972
AUG 7 1972
AUG 8 1972
AUG 9 1972
AUG 10 1972
AUG 11 1972
PH
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.4
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.1
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.8
7.5
7.0
6.9
7.4
7.1
6.7
6.3
6.4
6.7
7.0
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.5
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.4
AERATION
TEMP
DEG F
82.
77.
75.
80.
82.
80.
80.
60.
67.
74.
76.
78.
80.
78.
AERATION
0.0. MG/L
3.2
3.6
4.4
1.6
2.8
2.0
2.1
1.6
1.5
4.9
2.8
4.5
4.2
5.5
7.1
4.9
6.5
2.6
6.1
7.0
4.0
4.9
4.1
5.0
2.7
3.6
SETTLING
ML/L
980.
930.
850.
850.
480.
500.
870.
950.
850.
790.
840.
750.
720.
310.
610.
540.
650.
650.
700.
620.
550.
550.
700.
590.
410.
550.
550.
520.
550.
600.
520.
470.
590.
740.
aoo.
950.
900.
900.
980.
990.
940.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
850.
495.
192.
124.
140.
132.
174.
177.
123.
128.
130.
120.
70.
87.
86.
128.
123.
100.
112.
120.
145.
91.
41.
52.
74.
74.
49.
46.
37.
49.
23.
101.
62.
43.
31.
43.
50.
58.
72.
118.
116.
98.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
54.
66.
54.
50.
49.
41.
54.
66.
62.
54.
82.
66.
49.
53.
50.
25.
29.
53.
46.
33.
66.
62.
62.
31.
35.
23.
49.
43.
35.
33.
33.
18.
96.
60.
39.
25.
29.
29.
29.
25.
35.
50.
37.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
772.
396.
172.
120.
54.
136.
132.
132.
110.
92.
128.
48.
64.
64.
80.
116.
96.
32.
92.
80.
60.
32.
22.
36.
34.
46.
26.
22.
38.
6.
26.
40.
14.
24.
18.
26.
16.
14.
30.
52.
80.
18.
EFFLUENT
BOO MG/L
300.
160.
114.
73.
85.
87.
129.
80.
70.
63.
78.
92.
60.
52.
71.
59.
28.
43.
26.
72.
59.
26.
28.
23.
49.
30.
Zi.
22.
15.
8.
34.
17.
11.
7.
21.
17.
13.
19.
25.
33.
22.
-------
DATE
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUN
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
JUL
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
8.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.7
1.0
7.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.7
2.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2.0
11.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
2.0
2.0
6.0
0.2
3.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.8
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
0.4
1.0
6.0
12.0
7.0
3.0
2.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
500.
500.
400.
400.
500.
500.
500.
400.
300,
300.
400.
400.
450.
450.
450.
450.
400.
500.
500.
500.
400.
400.
400.
500.
500.
500.
500.
400.
400.
500.
500.
500.
400.
400.
400.
500.
500.
550.
550,
500.
450.
500.
500.
650.
690.
RECYCLE
SS MG/L
4200.
5140.
6000.
7980.
6740.
7500.
6320.
5840.
5540.
7560.
8620.
10000.
9800.
9700.
5780,
10460.
10700.
10220.
9120.
7800.
9800.
5780.
8620.
7420.
6780.
6000.
5760.
5600.
6880.
7940.
6680.
6060.
6740.
9120.
8900.
8080.
6980.
6660.
6880.
6120.
7380.
8080.
6920.
EXCESS
BIOMASS
WASTE LB/DAY
1014.
985.
1099.
1462.
3256.
2686.
1526.
3502.
3652.
5169.
4165.
4082.
4686.
AERATION F/M LB SOL
KLSS COD/LB MLSS
MG/L
2820.
2790.
3150.
4240.
4170.
3890.
3910.
4760.
5240.
4650.
4550.
4820.
5260.
5130.
2900.
4750.
5370.
5880.
4950.
2020.
4890.
3830.
4630.
4680.
5150.
3530.
3820.
3170.
3880.
4050.
4560.
3580.
3820.
4020.
4380.
3450.
3630.
3840.
3720.
4150.
4410.
4410.
4240.
DAY
1.22
0.58
0.42
0.55
0.38
0.37
0.44
0.51
0.15
0.42
0.45
0.48
0.46
0.55
0.77
0.68
0.23
0.32
0.19
0.35
0.20
0.45
0.29
0.19
0.21
0. 10
0.22
0.26
0.19
0. 14
0.17
0.21
0.53
0.32
0.29
0.27
0.28
0.21
0.32
0.48
0.47
0.27
-------
DATE
AUG 13 1972
AUG 14 1972
AUG 15 1972
AUG 16 1972-
AUG 17 1972
AUG 18 1972
AUG 20 1972
AUG 21 1972
AUG 22 1972
AUG 23 1972
AUG 24 1972
AUG 25 1972
AUG 27 1972
AUG 28 1972
AUG 29 1972
AUG 30 1972
AUG 31 1972
SEP 1 1972
SEP 3 1972
SEP 4 1972
SEP 5 1972
SEP 6 1972
SEP 7 1972
SEP 8 1972
SEP 10 1972
SEP 11 1972
SEP 12 1972
SEP 13 1972
SEP 14 1972
SEP 15 1972
SEP 17 1972
SEP 18 1972
SEP 19 1972
SEP 20 1972
SEP 21 1972
SEP 22 1972
SEP 24 1972
SEP 25 1972
SEP 26 1972
SEP 27 1972
SEP 28 1972
SEP 29 1972
OCT 1 1972
OCT 2 1972
OCT 3 1972
FLOW
MGD
0.9480
0.8900
0.8340
0.4590
0.4330
0.4880
0.3680
0.8560
0,9330
0.9360
0.8240
0.6520
0.5160
0.6340
0.7950
0.8080
0.8060
0.6100
0.9360
0.9370
0.9320
0.9650
0.4790
0.6460
0.1950
0.5760
0.8130
0.8970
0.7750
0.8070
0.7950
0.8310
0.8270
0.8680
0.9490
0.9470
0.9550
0.8250
0.8920
0.9200
1.0430
1.0360
0.9160
0.9560
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1051.
4105.
7235.
5728.
4851.
2695.
1547.
2766.
1732.
1248.
1425.
1555.
1261.
1866.
4882.
2072.
3172.
4598.
5081.
1804.
1588.
3130.
5701.
3784.
871.
1436.
1441.
1513.
1237.
1497.
2819.
1949.
1361.
1072.
1097.
954.
1814.
1381.
1208.
2135.
990.
878.
2104.
1916.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
647.
2985.
5742.
4969.
3794.
2457.
1072.
1710.
1309.
979.
1200.
1213.
892.
1138.
1566.
1742.
3172.
4330.
4552.
1368.
1289.
2446.
4913.
3516.
715.
1179.
1202.
1005.
938.
1067.
1835.
1223.
845.
701.
746.
622.
1237.
783.
812.
705.
619.
663.
1614.
1437.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
3340.
4320.
2035.
1372.
1569.
1096.
2712.
2410.
2660.
800.
1120.
1650.
358.
1485.
628.
INFLUENT
PH
-8.1
6.9
6.8
4.8
4.4
4.5
5.0
4.7
4.7
6.0
7.3
5.0
5.3
3.8
5.2
4.7
4.9
4.4
7.2
5.8
5.S
4.9
4.6
4.5
9.1
9.4
8.9
6.8
7.4
7.0
S.O
7.4
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.1
5.4
5.0
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
0.7
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
8.0
5.0
9.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.1
0.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.7
2.0
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
1.0
1.0
INFLUtNT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
1,0
2.0
3.0
0.1
1 .0
0,4
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.1
0 .6
0.1
0 .1
0.4
2.0
0.4
0.1
0.4
2.0
2.0
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
1 .0
35.0
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.7
1.0
-------
IND
AERATION
AERATION TEMP AERATION
DATE
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
AUG
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
OCT
OCT
OCT
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
23
29
30
31
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
PH DEG F D.O. MG/L
7.2
6.7
5.5
5.6
6.3
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.8
7.7
6.5
7.2
6.8
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
6.2
7.5
3.6
1.0
1.1
2.0
0.5
1.2
1.1
4.2
3.9
2.1
1.6
0.7
3.0
1.0
0.3
4.2
2.9
2.6
3.3
4.0
5.6
5.7
6.3
6.0
SETTLING
ML/L
950.
940.
910.
980.
990.
990.
990.
940.
960.
960.
975.
950.
920.
950.
990.
204.
172.
251.
266.
269.
183.
158.
131.
158.
191.
216.
240.
291.
202.
199.
231.
208.
260.
204.
120.
115.
177.
151.
124.
122.
530.
720.
510.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
67.
132.
315.
342.
309.
653.
136.
168.
738.
744.
558.
155.
250.
150.
266.
74.
62.
62.
216.
83.
62.
66.
178.
97.
220.
205.
139.
220.
151.
74.
222.
251.
231.
153.
58,
41.
70.
78.
65.
100.
72.
53.
69.
83.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
37.
46.
226.
239.
286.
104.
52.
37.
35.
45.
45.
35.
31.
31.
39.
47.
33.
37.
64.
66.
45.
46.
133.
74.
50.
78.
60.
39.
64.
66.
166.
211.
124.
66.
25.
29.
43.
58.
42.
81.
49.
41.
52.
54.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
62.
196.
142.
148.
124.
396.
SO.
112.
642.
624.
484.
60.
200.
124.
48.
32.
18.
22.
230.
70.
20.
16.
84.
26.
180.
140.
56.
144.
82.
26.
66.
70.
84.
60.
44.
20.
46.
40.
46.
33.
28.
8.
56.
32.
EFFLUENT
BOD MG/L
25.
49.
206.
196.
113.
357.
571.
745.
376.
366.
20d.
60.
47.
25.
63.
30.
25.
14.
45.
14.
24.
14.
72.
6.
133.
48.
50.
86.
20.
18.
40.
72.
136.
41.
b.
8.
29.
13.
IB.
25.
15.
13.
17.
27.
-------
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
DATE N
AUG 13 1972
AUG 14 1972
AUG 15 1972
AUG 16 1972
AUG 17 1972
AUG 18 1972
AUG 20 1972
AUG 21 1972
AUG 22 1972
AUG 23 1972
AUG 24 1972
AUG 25 1972
AUG 27 1972
AUG 28 1972
AUG 29 1972
AUG 30 1972
AUG 31 1972
SEP 1 1972
SEP 3 1972
SEP 4 1972
SEP 5 1972
SEP 6 1972
SEP 7 1972
SEP 8 1972
SEP 10 1972
SEP 11 1972
SEP 12 1972
SEP 13 1972
SEP 14 1972
SEP 15 1972
SEP 17 1972
SEP 18 1972
SEP 19 1972
SEP 20 1972
SEP 21 1972
SEP 22 1972
SEP 24 1972
SEP 25 1972
SEP 26 1972
SEP 27 1972
SEP 28 1972
SEP 29 1972
OCT 1 1972
OCT 2 1972
OCT 3 1972
MG/L
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.6
1.7
3.2
5.0
3.0
16.0
19.0
12.0
8.0
1.0
0.2
4.0
1.0
0.1
0.6
3.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.4
6.0
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.2
7.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.8
8.0
8.0
7.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
0.4
1.0
3.0
4.0
9.0
7.0
8.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
700.
650.
600.
620.
610.
610.
550.
530.
430.
510.
480.
480.
480.
500.
510.
510.
520.
500.
&00.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
490.
500.
400.
475.
500.
500.
480.
490.
490.
EXCESS
RECYCLE BIOMASS
SS MG/L WASTE LB/DAY
6200.
8560.
11620.
10160.
10700.
8920.
6680.
5160.,
11620.
3060.
4200.
4060.
3700.
6720.
5620.
6180*
8620.
9020.
6640.
7180.
6360.
9580.
8260.
10100.
6180.
11960.
7800.
6960.
5040.
7860.
8280.
7400.
6340.
13080.
6560.
5820.
9140.
6560.
5900.
6140.
5860.
8020.
9420.
11900.
AERATION
F/M LB SOL
MLSS COD/LB MLSS
MG/L
3370.
4730.
6830.
7910.
7640.
6390.
4350.
3720.
3650.
4110.
2600.
2500.
2810.
2900.
3260.
3730.
4260.
6550.
4410.
3840.
3300.
5050.
6690.
9960.
6630.
5170.
4370.
4250.
3910.
5070.
5160.
4650.
4460.
3770.
3940.
3830.
4360.
4230.
4200.
3800.
3530.
4030.
4850.
4420.
DAY
0.30
1.16
1.42
0.54
0.38
0.31
0.31
0.64
0.63
0.46
0.55
0.56
0.38
0.50
0.75
0.72
1.02
0. 86
1.12
0.57
0.61
1.02
0.72
0.56
0.03
0.21
0.38
0.39
0.33
0.37
0.53
0.39
0.30
0.28
0.36
0.32
0.62
0.31
0.33
0.31
0.35
0.35
0.65
0.58
-------
DATE
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
FLOW
MOD
0.8970
0.9080
0.9330
1.0160
0.5950
0.9360
1.0120
1.0170
1.0170
0.8800
0.6480
1.0250
1.0780
0.9870
0.8550
0.7970
0.8770
0.8870
0.9370
0.8210
0.5920
0.4900
0.3310
0.7320
0.6670
0.8640
0.8450
0,7800
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1389.
1031.
1016.
536.
191&.
1072.
1104.
1790.
906.
299.
2114.
1421.
1186.
1739.
1518.
1816.
1837.
1360.
1067.
959.
2928.
3423.
4519.
2408.
3753.
3360.
2103.
3258.
3645.
5348.
3093.
1402.
1223.
1425.
2154.
1721.
3172.
3133.
3715.
2063.
1354.
1695.
1695.
1250.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
1202
660
80S
237
670
907
708
716
583
198
1385
1011
763
1208
943
1551
1480
690
574
561
2598
2897
3762
1878
3031
2701
1804
1949
2729
3568
1918
1144
871
861
1497
1410
1503
2041
3266
1347
841
1095
1095
864
•
*
•
•
•
•
ft
•
•
ft
•
•
•
»
*
*
*
ft
ft
*
*
•
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
ft
•
ft
ft
ft
•
•
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
*
ft
ft
•
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
752.
503.
464.
1560.
1402*
1398.
698.
3340.
3900.
2410.
728.
1726.
3790.
746.
INFLUENT
PH
5.7
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.4
6.9
6.2
7.5
7.3
6.8
8.7
7.4
7.7
7.1
7.9
8.1
7.4
6.5
7.0
7.3
6.9
6.7
10.2
5.4
4.8
4.9
5.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.6
5.2
6.4
6.4
6.9
10.1
7.3
6.1
6.6
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.7
0.4
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
8
4
0
0
5
0
0
5
3
7
63
86
10
6
1
1
0
.0
.0
.1
.6
• 6
.4
.4
.6
.4
.6
.7
.4
.4
.2
.4
.6
.2
.6
.9
.2
,4
.7
.1
.7
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.7
.4
.0
.4
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.7
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
1.0
0.3
0.5
0 .9
2.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
2.0
2.0
1.0
0,2
0.3
2.0
2.0
0.3
2.0
3.0
1.0
0.7
2.0
0,1
0.3
0.1
1.0
0.4
5.0
6.0
1.0
12.0
28.0
7.0
0.8
0.1
23.0
35.0
16.0
2.0
2.0
o.a
-------
DATE
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
AERATION
PH
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.1
7,4
7.2
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7,2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.0
6.7
7.1
6.9
6.0
6.9
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
8.0
8.0
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
AERATION
TEMP
DEG F
AERATION SETTLING
D.O. MG/L ML/L
380.
3.2 350.
350.
360.
10.7 350.
350.
300.
270.
5.5 250.
290.
750.
550.
480.
5.1 710.
700.
680.
5.1 500.
5.5 550.
460.
6.2 440.
450.
580.
3.0 650.
450.
390.
1.4 400.
340.
400.
480.
550.
2.6 630.
410.
370.
380.
420.
410.
480.
710.
830.
940.
920.
820.
940.
940.
980.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
269.
177.
187.
116.
105.
115.
96.
93.
106.
78.
127.
51.
21.
15.
135.
90.
73.
61.
66.
29.
49.
120.
226.
252.
307.
386.
217.
208.
273.
371.
315.
157.
122.
121.
254.
290.
220.
433.
494.
713.
176.
103.
103.
221.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
56.
107.
146.
54.
52.
58.
60.
65.
69.
53.
37.
27.
4.
2.
49.
20.
45.
14.
43.
20.
37.
89.
158.
113.
206.
338.
128.
138.
181.
203.
195.
87.
83.
72.
117.
112.
75.
169.
204.
112.
111.
94.
51.
51.
54.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
316.
100.
80.
178.
152.
16.
22.
32.
56.
63.
370.
58.
24.
6.
64.
160.
44.
108.
84.
76.
40 .
34.
52.
50.
110.
154.
82.
120.
78.
208.
146.
52.
76.
60.
116.
248.
188.
340.
292.
630.
90.
72.
72.
224.
EFFLUENT
BOD MG/L
72.
39.
47.
27.
24.
21 .
15.
15-
x •* .
IS •
20.
29.
25.
20.
19.
30.
15.
14.
9 .
12.
15.
7
I •
19.
52.
22.
34.
35.
26.
30.
33.
66.
66.
25.
34.
38.
56.
55.
42.
190.
139.
75.
23.
g
f .
.
35.
-------
DATE
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
8.0
0.7
0.6
14.0
19.0
4.0
0.2
2.0
0.7
56.0
53.0
18.0
38.0
3.0
3.0
0.7
EFFLUENT
INOKGANIC
P MG/L
9.0
8.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
3.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
6.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
2.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
3.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
490.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
450.
350.
500.
480.
500.
500,
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
400.
200.
450.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
300.
400.
400.
500.
500.
500.
200.
500.
500.
500.
500.
EXCESS AERATION F/M L8 SOL
RECYCLE BIOMASS MLSS COO/LB MLSS
SS MG/L WASTE LB/DAY MG/L
6060.
7340.
6300.
7240.
5360.
6300.
6940.
6760.
7420.
8560.
7740.
7420.
6340.
9400.
8860.
9400.
8130.
7900.
8260.
6680.
7520.
728C.
7220.
8710.
11800.
9380.
9500.
1040U.
9660.
14060.
11760.
10640.
10700.
11470.
10038.
6740.
7060.
8020.
8820.
3720.
8040.
7440.
5760.
4070.
3750.
4100.
3690.
3480.
3530.
3230.
3200.
3300.
4430.
5300.
4890.
4030.
5120.
5780.
5500.
5030.
4920.
3820.
4100.
5250.
5240.
5760.
6190.
5810.
5670.
6220.
7130.
8170.
7200.
6230.
5650.
4330.
5270.
5110.
4600.
4950.
5660.
8730.
5590.
5100.
5160.
5180.
4040.
DAY
0.49
0.31
0.41
0.13
0.24
0.48
0.41
0.42
0.33
0.09
0.36
0.40
0.37
0.51
0.29
0.42
0.44
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.93
0.73
0.43
0.45
0.90
0.68
0.48
0.56
0.64
0.72
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.32
0.27
0.30
0.35
0.64
1.01
0.26
0.21
0.38
0.38
0.29
-------
DATE
NOV 26 1972
NOV 27 1972
NOV 28 1972
NOV 29 1972
NOV
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
30
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
FLOW
MGD
0.8600
0.5380
0.7500
0.8750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
a
•
a
•
•
*
*
*
•
*
•
•
«
•
k
*
»
»
•
k
k
*
*
•
•
-.
•
•
•
*
*
•
*
•
•
•
8970
8980
7200
2900
4360
6220
6810
0500
5930
5250
7600
9020
9560
9420
8240
8890
9990
0090
3770
4320
3320
7530
9560
5770
7080
9130
9430
9400
9490
9250
8550
9250
9640
8760
4930
5630
9470
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
1641.
2490.
1513.
1182,
928.
969.
1451.
3588.
5588.
4881.
2757.
2520.
2051.
3845.
1783.
1753.
1470.
1854.
2186.
2413.
2225.
1895.
1937.
2061.
7552.
3192.
2557.
1357.
1510.
1316.
2605.
2516.
1237.
1537.
3320.
1937.
1588.
1161.
1433.
2701.
2184.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
1231.
1398.
1099.
871 «
722.
70 1 .
r W J, .
922.
2742«
4268.
3323.
1876*
1916.
1169.
2011.
1068.
969 .
990.
948 .
1732.
1670.
1653.
1485.
1625.
1521.
6395.
2342.
2186.
969.
918.
827.
1456.
1887.
876.
1010.
1639.
1323.
1043.
964.
814.
835.
1480.
INFLUENT
BOD MG/L
1490.
320.
1055.
1880.
2425.
974.
1355.
1755.
1755.
3185.
788.
774.
1282.
1223.
2385.
INFLUENT
PH
7.1
5.0
5.8
9.7
6.9
7.2
5.1
4.8
4.6
4.4
5.4
5.4
5-1
* i
7.1
6.5
6f\
• U
5.9
5-3'
. 3
5.9
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.7
c. n
J . VJ
7 fi
I . O
5.3
r. i
J 0 i.
5 « 2
f. Q
O 8 7
6.5
5.2
7.4
5.4
6.0
6.2
6.0
6.7
4.8
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
19.0
0. 1
3.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
2.0
6.0
14.0
0.1
7.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
29.0
57
. t
OT
. C.
62.0
1 ? . n
J> £ . U
01
. j.
r\ 0
V . £.
n 7
u . /
li r\
H . u
A . n
*r . U
1.0
i A n
J, . w
0.6
4.0
0.1
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
0.7
5.0
7.0
3.0
0.9
0 .4
0.5
13.0
3.0
10.0
4.0
7.0
0. 1
3.0
3.0
4.0
0.5
0.1
2.0
7.0
22.0
9.0
3.0
0 .8
2.0
2.0
19.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
6.0
7.0
17.0
1C n
1 V * 0
a/-)
* w
2/~,
* U
01
» 1
2(\
* u
13.0
-------
AERATION
AERATION TEMP AERATION SETTLING
DATE
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
DEC
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
26
27
28
29
30
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
1
2
^
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
PH DEG F D.O. MG/L ML/L
7.3
7.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.4
7,2
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.0
6.3
6.9
7.4
7.7
7.3
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.3
6.9
980.
920.
930.
950.
940.
850.
910.
8.6 970.
970.
950.
960.
930.
950.
900.
860.
890.
850.
800.
920.
690.
750.
580.
560.
380.
320.
7.4 510.
320.
340.
300.
9.4 360.
220.
410.
500.
550.
450.
500.
590.
500.
800.
840.
EFFLUENT
TuTAL
COD MG/L
779.
780.
750.
713.
101.
56.
35.
74.
101.
1036.
771.
265.
139.
104.
104.
93.
94.
142.
78.
54.
300.
164.
62.
63.
1531.
1045.
2248.
129.
73.
96.
96.
120.
101.
103.
598.
240.
227.
162.
200.
140.
66.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
51.
82.
83.
52.
37.
33.
33.
45.
52.
115.
52.
37.
41.
62.
73.
58.
49.
40.
52.
57.
51.
46.
43.
1502.
738.
340.
80.
39.
73.
51.
58.
29.
52.
78.
79.
62.
56.
54.
43.
49.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
1260.
1120.
870.
620.
60.
30.
4.
34.
68.
720.
820.
190.
92.
54.
54.
26.
44.
78.
60.
820.
220.
134.
60.
32.
108.
296.
1008.
78.
52.
20.
42.
40.
44.
68.
668.
174.
188.
104.
136.
78.
48.
EFFLUENT
BOD MG/L
44b .
378.
300.
12U.
23.
3.
7.
8.
25.
416.
208.
95.
26.
17.
27.
13.
18.
33.
39.
76.
216.
91.
85.
21.
994.
814.
908.
48.
13.
27.
25.
52.
34.
37.
242.
112.
86.
35.
51.
31.
57.
-------
CO
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
DATE N
NOV 26 1972
NOV 27 1972
NOV 28 1972
NOV 29 1972
NOV 30 1972
DEC 1 1972
DEC 3 1972
DEC 4 1972
DEC 5 1972
DEC 6 1972
DEC 7 1972
DEC 8 1972
DEC 10 1972
DEC 11 1972
DEC 12 1972
DEC 13 1972
DEC 14 1972
DEC 15 1972
DEC 17 1972
DEC 18 1972
DEC 19 1972
DEC 20 1972
DEC 21 1972
DEC 22 1972
DEC 24 1972
DEC 25 1972
DEC 26 1972
DEC 27 1972
DEC 28 1972
DEC 29 1972
DEC 31 1972
JAN 1 1973
JAN 2 1973
JAN 3 1973
JAN 4 1973
JAN 5 1973
JAN 7 1973
JAN 8 1973
JAN 9 1973
JAN 10 1973
JAN 11 1973
JAN 12 1973
JAN 14 1973
JAN 15 1973
JAN 16 1973
MG/L
0.1
1.0
5.0
9.0
2.0
0.2
4.0
1.0
1.0
22.0
0.6
0.9
2.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.1
4.0
30.0
27.0
13.0
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.9
15.0
13.0
29.0
31.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
4.0
0.1
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
6.0
5.0
7.0
5.0
2.0
0.3
1.0
4.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
8.0
9.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
2.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
0.1
4.0
6.0
3.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
8*0
8.0
3.0
.0.6
6.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GP"
SOU.
300.
400.
500.
510.
510.
425.
200.
200.
450.
500.
500.
500.
400.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
510.
510.
510.
500,
400.
300.
500.
600.
500.
350.
350.
400.
500.
500.
500.
500.
SOU.
500.
500.
500.
500.
250.
250.
500.
EXCESS
RECYCLE BIOMASS
SS M&/L WASTE LB/DAY
3520.
4440.
4260.
4860.
4920.
5540.
8540.
6760,
8120.
6920,
6800.
7700.
8720.
8940.
7980.
9220.
7480.
6300.
7200.
8320.
8360.
7380.
7140.
6640.
7180.
8640.
5160.
6160.
6630,
6830.
6360.
7600.
7420.
10160.
11340,
10840.
8900.
10060.
8860.
8940.
10280o
AERATION
MLSS
MG/L
2830.
2310.
2790.
2840.
2830.
2740.
4030.
4920.
5250.
4870.
5240.
4450.
5830.
5640.
5200.
4570.
4890.
4500.
4960.
4840.
4550.
4340.
4270.
5040.
5330.
5580.
4790.
3070.
3180.
3310.
4190.
3900.
5780.
6450.
5730.
6030.
5490.
6610.
5400.
5180.
F/M LB SOL
COD/LB MLSS
DAY
0.54
0.48
0.55
0.53
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.34
0.69
0.78
0.50
0.80
0.31
0.34
0.28
0.33
0.36
0.34
0.52
0.58
0.67
0.64
0.64
0.54
0.75
0.59
0.74
0.36
0.37
0.48
0.80
0.86
0.36
0.38
0.52
0.37
0.33
0.34
0.18
0.16
0.55
-------
DATE
JAN 17
JAN 18
JAN 19
JAN 21
JAN 22
JAN 23
JAN 24
JAN 25
JAN 26
JAN 28
JAN 29
JAN 30
JAN 31
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
FLOW
MGD
.9580
.8810
.7260
.7680
.8350
.8700
.8800
.8730
.9430
.9360
.8060
.0120
INFLUENT
TOTAL
COD MG/L
2094.
1575.
1572.
796.
808.
1118.
1650.
3791.
3156.
539.
1130.
1472.
1316.
INFLUENT
SOLUBLE INFLUENT
COD MG/L BOD MG/L
1648.
1254. 1676.
1367.
571. 693.
415.
708.
1010.
3281. 2441.
2895.
1120.
736. 567.
1005.
871.
INFLUENT
PH
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
4-
4
6
7
7
7
.2
.1
.1
.1
.5
.7
.4
.4
.8
.6
.3
.1
.2
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
N MG/L
0
4
2
25
22
29
10
0
6
11
17
17
12
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
INFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
.0
.0
.6
.1
.1
.4
.4
.6
.9
.1
.1
.0
.0
o
-------
AERATION
AERATION TEMP AERATION SETTLING
DATE
JAN 17 1973
JAN 18 1973
JAN 19 1973
JAN 21 1973
JAN 22 1973
JAN 23 1973
JAN 24 1973
JAN .25 1973
JAN 26 1973
JAN 28 1973
JAN 29 1973
JAN 30 1973
JAN 31 1973
PH DEG F D.O. MG/L ML/L
7.1
7.0
7.3
6.0
5.3
7.0
7.6
7.2
7.1
8.0
8.1
7.7
7.8
2.3 910.
870.
830.
480.
440.
7.2 650.
7.2 750.
4.3 830.
960.
7.7 260.
440.
600.
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
COO Ko/L
89.
97.
90.
80.
31.
153.
120.
231.
396.
126.
93.
286.
240.
EFFLUENT
SOLUBLE
COD MG/L
58.
41.
35.
24.
23.
57.
55.
104.
96.
63.
62.
83.
52.
EFFLUENT
SS MG/L
44.
68.
80.
48.
70.
32.
66.
180.
340.
112.
920.
810.
200.
EFFLUENT
BOD MG/L
59.
53.
31.
26.
20.
62.
23.
55.
75.
22.
49.
-------
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
DATE
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
N MG/L
C.
4.
2.
25.
22.
29.
10.
0.
6.
11.
17.
17.
12.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
EFFLUENT
INORGANIC
P MG/L
4
2
6
3
3
1
1
0
1
0
1
6
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.7
.0
. 1
.0
.0
.0
RECYCLE
RATE
GPM
500,
500.
400.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
EXCESS AERATION F/M LB SOL
RECYCLE BIOMASS MLSS COD/LB MLSS
SS MG/L WASTE LB/DAY MG/L
10140.
8540.
8560.
4400.
5520.
5580.
6140.
7880.
9700.
15404
2820.
3640.
5800.
5490.
5040.
4630.
3390.
2790.
2990.
3180.
4870.
5630.
1320.
1020.
1370.
2150.
DAY
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
2.
58
42
41
22
24
39
52
31
97
61
10
18
ro
-------
APPENDIX D
TREATMENT PLANT PERFORMANCE JANUARY 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1975
Monthly average operating results for the treatment plant for the period of
January 1973 to September 1975 are as shown on the following pages. It can be
seen that effluent suspended solids and BOD continued to be high and extremely
variable, similar to the results discussed in the body of this report. Major
equipment additions and changes in process configuration were started after
September 1975 in an effort to improve performance.
143
-------
FLOW,
DATE ,\Gn
J A \
F F R
MAN
APR
MAY
JU.M
JUL
AUG
SLP
CCT
IMOV
DEC
JA.M
FEB
MAP
APR
MAY
JAN
FEP
MAR
APR
MAY
JU.M
JUL
AUG
SEP
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
C . 8 4 4 0
0.8780
0.92 0 0
0.4500
0.6360
0.7930
0.7200
0.6550
0.7150
0.6140
0.6850
0.7090
0. 7470
0.7690
0.7590
0.8060
0.837U
0.5120
0.784G
0.7100
0.6470
0. 7480
0.6150
0.6180
0.6240
0.5830
I r\ F L U E . , T
TOTAL
COD -1G/L
1795.
1346.
1150.
1555.
1729.
1626.
2942.
1874.
1452 .
2342.
1820.
1691.
2883.
2170.
2048.
1734.
1650.
7057.
3424.
2124.
4791.
1902.
4097.
2630.
2458 .
2404.
Ir.FLUL:,T
SOLUBLE
C U 0 V G / L
1219.
963.
872.
1252.
1322.
1217.
2210.
1461.
897.
1635.
1382.
1266.
1860.
1435.
1399.
1375.
1050.
6002.
3215.
1552.
3889.
1356.
2861.
1667.
2006.
2093.
I,-.FLUt i,T
B OD iviG/ L
1314.
1064.
850.
i 0 7 4 .
1292.
1229.
2 6 7 2 .
1536.
1007.
1948.
14ol.
1530.
1567.
1284.
1502.
1318.
1152.
4887.
2447.
1517.
3166.
1546.
2326.
1613.
1799.
1581.
I, \FLUh ,T
Pri
6.0
5.1
6.2
5.0
5.8
6.0
6.3
6.6
6.5
6. 8
6.0
6.3
7.3
6.3
6.9
7.5
7.3
6.4
6.5
7.5
7.5
7.9
8.3
10.2
10.6
10.9
I. a LUL..T
A , • , I*' U i \ I A
i. [-"u/l
9.3
5.4
1 .3
1 .9
0.9
0.3
4.2
160.0
144.0
87.0
97.0
111.0
118.0
143.0
107. 0
169.0
60.0
40.0
38.0
46.0
65.0
51.0
37.0
46.0
31.0
38.0
IMK_UL.
I •; w 1 ^ o M
r-> !-o/l
3.';
^ . J
0.5
6.2
1 0 . £
6 . i
5.4
9.7
t>. /
/ . v
6 . o
12. J
0 .^
4.9
d . 2
5.4
0.2
1 1 . o
2 .4
2.1
7.8
t.l
5.3
2 .9
2. 7
3.6
-------
DATE
JAN
FER
MAR
• APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
MOV
DEC
JAI\
FLB
MAR
APR
MAY
JAN
F E r j
KAR
APR
MAY
JUM
JOL
AUo
St P
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1 9 7 3
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1 9 7 5
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
At. RAT I ON
MLSS
MG/L
4011.
3139.
2675.
1136.
2450.
426C.
5760.
4037.
2550.
6356.
5355.
3993.
5190.
5186.
5680.
5496.
4937.
2110.
2130.
3877.
4598.
4225.
5298.
4875.
4700.
5154.
F/M LB SOL
CCD/LB MLSS/
DAY
0.5R
C.55
0.64
1.60
0.94
0.40
0.53
0.46
0.81
0.30
0.32
0.48
0.41
0.39
0.38
0.36
0.3?
5.50
3.30
0.51
1. 10
0.50
0.83
0.49
0.4'4
0.29
AERATION
PH
7.3
7 • 4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.1
6.8
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.6
6.8
7.5
7.3
7.4
6*0
7.0
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.6
8. 1
8.2
8.3
ShTTLI !\0
ML/L
551.
933.
895.
940.
624.
'788«
830.
868.
394.
560.
684.
770.
7 u 7 .
615.
620.
470.
567.
196.
770.
730.
441.
297.
455.
517.
342 .
847.
EFFLUt_;^T
TOTAL
COD MG/L
137.
415.
5 02.
498.
616.
320.
2C9 .
184.
34 i *
168.
157.
4 1 0 .
54u .
631 .
378.
252.
117.
5283.
2 J66.
662.
257o.
665.
1620.
447 .
547.
529.
LFhLUtuT
SOLUDLE
COD MG/L
58.
50.
55 .
8 6 .
254.
106.
85 .
78.
187.
126.
62 .
63 .
15o.
180.
73.
9u.
67.
4570.
1J81 .
1*3.
1819.
506.
1125.
216.
38 /.
177.
-------
CT1
DAT
JAN
FE3
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
iMOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
i-l A Y
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
E
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
Eh FLUENT
SS MG/L
176.
423.
411 .
364.
295.
157.
117.
101.
178.
60.
96.
312.
339.
347.
337.
149.
70.
840.
1212.
490.
530.
192.
588.
288.
254.
114.
EFFLUENT
ROD -v,0/L
56.
136.
145.
123.
232.
181.
106.
68.
153.
93.
43.
150.
186.
203.
79.
86.
36.
4048.
1418.
221.
1518.
457.
1062.
154.
169.
417.
LPf-LUL,4T
A.XiXCNl A
N N-1G/L
8.4
3.5
5.2
8.6
8.C
7.4
3.2
44.0
48.0
33.0
11.0
56.0
82.0
95.0
47.0
69.0
14.0
15.0
24.0
36.0
52.0
37.0
16.0
17.0
24.0
38.0
t I- FLUENT
INUKGAMC
P I'-iO/L
<+.2
5.2
6.2
7.2
4.4
4.9
4.5
9.2
10.0
6.1
4.3
4.9
4.7
5.6
5.3
4.3
4.8
7.8
2.5
0.1
7.7
3.6
7.2
1.4
1.8
3.3
KtCYCLL
l< A T L
G P K
473.
480.
305.
205.
3^2.
395.
327.
316.
340.
384.
347.
416.
342.
304.
265.
302.
310.
202.
250.
200.
200.
200 .
207 .
200.
383.
432.
R L C Y C L
0 S ' '1 0 / L
7399.
5236 .
5>3f 1 .
2615.
4114.
«4cs8 .
10986.
7459.
4860 .
10931 .
933 .
b654 .
9980.
10193.
12860.
9 o 1 3 .
9500.
3936.
3915 .
10464 .
10986.
12180.
11104.
12006.
9230.
9493.
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE 7
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS FOR ENGLISH
UNITS USED IN THIS REPORT
ENGLISH UNIT
MULTIPLY BY
METRIC UNIT
Horsepower
MGD
Pound
Pounds per Sq.In.
Square inch
Square foot
U.S.Gallons
U.S.Gallons
0.74557
2.54
0.0438
0.4536
703.1
6.452
0.0929
3.785
0.003785
Kilowatt
Millimeter
Cu Meters/sec
Kilogram
Kg/Sq. meter
Square Centimeter
Square Meter
Liters
Cubic Meters
°C= 0.5555 (°F -32)
147
-------
APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL PROJECT COST DATA
The total cost of the portion of the waste treatment process discussed in this
report was $1,948,155, as detailed below:
Cooling Tower $ 24,859
Aeration Equipment 463,442
Tanks 119,657
Agitators 29,887
Blowers and Compressors 14,917
Process Equipment 124,509
Instruments 88,827
Pumps 24,843
Piping 71,172
Power Wiring 90,136
Machinery Supports 117,001
Miscellaneous Construction 104,563
Laboratory Facilities 25,869
Plant Maintenance Expense 648,473
TOTAL $1,948,155
An additional cost of $952,000 was required for biomass disposal facilities.
148
-------
APPENDIX G
ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL STUDIES
After this report had been completed, some additional statistical
studies of treatment plant performance were performed. Since the time
periods used and the method of calculation of the probabilities were
different than those in the body of the report, the results are pre-
sented as an appendix,
Non-parametric statistical methods were used; that is, it was not
assumed that the distribution of the data was "normal". Analyses were
performed for daily values, and also for 30-day averages. A moving
average was used to generate many more 30-day averages than would be
obtained by using only calendar monthly averages. However, only non-
missing data were used for the averages, For example, if a 30-day
period had 5 missing daily values, the average was calculated from the
25 non-missing values,
Probability curves are given for the year of 1972, and also for July-
December 1972 (the period of best operation). Graphs are presented
for flow, BOD, and total suspended solids for the treatment plant
effluent. The term WCPE appearing on the graphs is a designation used
internally for the treatment plant effluent, to distinguish it from the
total plant effluent, which includes cooling water. BOD and suspended
solids data are presented in terms of concentration, pounds per day,
and pounds per 1000 bushels, which relates the discharge to production
rate. A bushel of corn is defined as 56 Ib at 17% moisture.
149
-------
-o
en
e
en
O
1
.8
.6
FIGURE 41
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
FLOW WCPE, mgd
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN .78
DAILY VALUES
MEAN .78
.01
.1
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
98
99.8
-------
FIGURE 42
o
CQ
1000
800
600
400
200
100
80
60
40
20
.01
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
BOD WCPE, mg/1
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
.1
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 170
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 173
I
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.8
-------
CD
£
en
ro
LU
Q
LU
D-
CO
1000
800
600
400
200
100
80
60
40
20
FIGURE 43
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS WCPE, mg/1
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 261
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 255
10
.01
.1
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.8
-------
8000
6000
4000
2000
en
CO
re
.£2
Q
o
OQ
1000
800
600
400 I-
200
100
FIGURE 44
CPC INTERNATIONAL,
PEKIN PLANT
INC.
BOD WCPE, Ib/day
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
.01
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 1122
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 1078
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
98
99.8
-------
en
C/l
Q
o
CO
Q
UJ
Q-
t/)
to
8000
6000
4000
2000
1000
800
600
400
200
100
.01
FIGURE 45
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS WCPE, Ib/day
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 1718
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 1693
10
90
99 99.
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
-------
FIGURE 46
tn
en
.a
o
o
o
o
o
CO
200
100
80
60
40
20
10
8
6
4
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
BOD WCPE, lb/1000 bu
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
30 DAY AVERAGE,
MEAN 20.6
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 21.3
_L
I
_L
.01 .1
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
98
99.8
-------
on
01
oo
Q
O
CO
Q
LU
Q
CL
oo
oo
200
TOO
80
60
40
20
10
8
6
FIGURE 47
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS WCPE, lb/1000 bu
JANUARY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 33.5
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 34.1
J.
.01
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.8
-------
.2
FIGURE 48
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
FLOW WCPE, mgd
JULY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
-a
CD
cn
1
.8
.6
.4
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 0.772
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 0.771
.1
_L
.01
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.8
-------
800
600
400
FIGURE 49
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
BOD WCPE, mg/1
July 1972 - December 1972
A
200
»
Dl
1
§
100
80
60
40
20
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 73
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 86
10
.01 .1
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.8
-------
oo
Q
o
I/O
1000
800
600
400
200
Q
I i i
Q
"Z.
UJ
Q_
OO
— '
CO
-------
FIGURE 51
8000
6000
4000
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
BOD WCPE, Ib/day
JULY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
2000
CTl
O
ro
T3
_Q
Q
O
co
1000
800
600
400
200
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 464
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 554
100
.01
.1
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99
99.8
-------
8000
6000
4000
FIGURE 52
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC,
PEKIN PLANT
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS WCPE, Ib/day
JULY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
T3
_Q
- 2000
OO
o
CT>
LU
D_
OO
rD
oo
-------
FIGURE 53
01
ro
O
O
O
Q
O
CQ
80
60
40
20
10
8
6
4
.01
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
BOD WCPE lb/1000 bu
JULY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 7.91
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 9.66 :
J_
_L
_L
.1
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
98
99.8
-------
O
O
O
en
to
O
IS)
Q
UJ
Q
Q-
oo
GO
5:
O
100
80
60
40
20
10
8
6
4
FIGURE 54
CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PEKIN PLANT
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS WCPE, lb/1000 bu
JULY 1972 - DECEMBER 1972
A
30 DAY AVERAGE
MEAN 16.7
DAILY VALUES
MEAN 16.7
JL
.01
10 50 90
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
99 99.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-105
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION1 NO,
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
Biological Treatment of Wastes From The
Milling Industry.
Wet
May 1978 issuing date
e. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Donald R. Brown
Gretchen L. Van
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Meer
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
CPC International, Inc.
Moffett Technical Center
P.O. Box 345
Argo, Illinois 60501
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12060 DPE
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
- Cin. OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Finl
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Pilot plant aerated lagoon and laboratory completely mixed activated sludge
treatment studies of corn wet milling wastes showed that either process
could produce a satisfactory effluent.
A full scale completely mixed activated sludge treatment plant was designed
from laboratory reactor data. Soluble BOD removal performance has been
about as predicted from the laboratory data. Although total BOD removal
often exceeds 90%, the nature of the waste is such that the effluent BOD
and suspended solids concentrations usually do not meet effluent criteria.
The effluent suspended solids consist almost entirely of bacteria. The
BOD is almost entirely due to the oxygen demand of these bacteria.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Corn, Wet mills, activated sludge
process, Biochemical oxygen demand, pilo'
plants, equalizing, aeration,
clarification, settling
corn wet milling
wastes, treatment costs
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report]
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
176
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
164
4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978— 7 57 - 140 /68 50
------- |